========================================================================
  MARTYROLOGIA; OR, RECORDS OF RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION
  by John Foxe
========================================================================

A comprehensive record of religious persecution from the apostolic age onward,
gathering the sufferings of the early Christians, the Arabian and Persian
martyrs, the Paulicians, the Waldenses and the Reformation martyrs.

  Chapters: 11

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  TABLE OF CONTENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. 01. MARTYROLOGIA;
    2. 02. BOOK IV, CHAPTER VIII
    3. 03. BOOK V, CHAPTER II
    4. 04. BOOK V, CHAPTER III
    5. 05. BOOK IV, CHAPTER VIII
    6. 06. BOOK V
    7. 07. BOOK V, CHAPTER I
    8. 08. BOOK V, CHAPTER II
    9. 09. BOOK V, CHAPTER III
    10. 10. BOOK V, CHAPTER IV
    11. 11. BOOK V, CHAPTER V

========================================================================
  CHAPTER 1: 01. MARTYROLOGIA;
========================================================================

OR,

RECORDS OF RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION:

BEING

A NEW AND COMPREHENSIVE

BOOK OF MARTYRS,

OF ANCIENT AND MODERN TIMES.

COMPILED PARTLY FROM

THE ACTS AND MONUMENTS OF JOHN FOXE,

AND PARTLY FROM OTHER

GENUINE AND AUTHENTIC DOCUMENTS,

PRINTED AND IN MANUSCRIPT.

LONDON:

PUBLISHED BY JOHN MASON, 14, CITY-ROAD;

SOLD AT 66, PATERNOSTER-ROW.

1849.

Stock

Ann

— v. 2

BOOK IV.

PERSECUTIONS WHICH TOOK PLACE FROM THE CLOSE OF THE FIRST TO THE COMMENCEMENT
OF THE FOURTH CENTURY.

========================================================================
  CHAPTER 2: 02. BOOK IV, CHAPTER VIII
========================================================================

CHAPTER VIII.

Page.

MORAL Courage in the Martyrs—Martyrdom of Cyrillus—Of Faustus—Martyrs in
Palestine—In Carthage—Martyrdom of Fructuosus—Apparent Authenticity of the
Narrative of Fructuosus—Beneficiarii—Case of Sapricius and
Nicephorus—Sapricius is tortured—And apostatizes—Nicephorus suffers—Remarks on
this Case—Milner the Historian—The Fall of Valerian—Principles of the Divine
Government—Cruel Edict of Valerian against the Church—He is taken
Prisoner—Reduced to servile Slavery—And dies a miserable
Death—Lactantius—Unifilial Conduct of Gallienus—Dreadful Condition of the
Roman Empire—Pestilence and Earthquakes—Swarm of Usurpers—Their general
Character—Testimony of Gibbon—Conduct of Gallienus—Reason of his Edict in
Favour of the Christians—Sanguinary Character of Macrianus—Persecution still
existing—Neander and Townsend on the term “Religio Licita”—Fall of
Macrianus—The Martyrdom of Marius—Remarks on the Death of the
Centurion—Tranquil State of the Church—Death of Gallienus—Zenobia—Ascension of
Claudius, and Death—Quintilius—Aurelian, Emperor—His History—His Character—The
Sibylline Books—General Tranquility of the Church—His Treatment of the
Christians—Paul of Samosata—Change of his Conduct towards the Church—Cause
thereof—History of the Mother of Aurelian—Edict against the
Christians—Quinquennalia—Martyrdom of Felix, Bishop of Rome—And of
Agapetus—Aurelian undertakes an Expedition to the East—Is
assassinated—Lactantius—Tacitus—His Character, and Death—Florianus and
Probus—Quietude of the Church—Death of Probus—Carus—Carinus—Numerianus—State
of the Christians—Arrius Aper—Death of Numerian—Its suspicious
Character—Diocletian proclaimed Emperor—He slags Aper—Anecdote of
Diocletian—Progress of Christianity—Theonas, Bishop of
Alexandria—Dorotheus—General Decline of Piety in the Church—History and
Character of Diocletian—Hercules raised to the Office of Caesar—And afterward
of Co-Emperor—Diocletian an Enemy to the Christians, and why—Martyrs of this
Period—Testimony of Mosheim—Hercules a Persecutor—Martyrdom of Primus and
Felician—Of Marcus and Marcellianus—Of Zoe, Tranquillinus, and
others—Tiburtius and Chromatius—Cams, Bishop of Rome—Christianity in the Army
of Rome—The Theban Legion—Their Martyrdom—Caraucius—Constantius Chlorus and
Galerius made Caesars—Helena, History of Division of the Government—Martyrdom
of Faith, Capricius, and Quintin—Heresy of Manicheism—And of Hicrax—Oppression
of the Christian Soldiers—Martyrdom of Maximilian—Persecuting Spirit of
Diocletian—The Case of Marcellus—Remarks of Gibbon,
examined—Cassianus—Galerius an inveterate Enemy of the Church—Character of
Constantius Chlorus—Baths of Diocletian—State of the Church—Romula, the Mother
of Galerius—Her Character—Active Measures contemplated against the
Christians—Diocletian consents to them—His first Edict defined—Martyrdom of
Sebastian—The Edict of Diocletian is executed—

2032491 vi

Page.

Nicomedia—Terminalia—Another Edict, and how executed—Arnobius—Conduct of the
Christians—Martyrdom of Maximilian—The Edict is torn down—Heroism of the
Faithful—Numerous Martyrs—Fire at the Palace—The Persecution is general—Prisca
and Valeria are persecuted—Unheard of
Tortures—Vivicomburation—Hierocles—Lactantius—Martyrdom of Vitus, Modestus,
and Crescentia—And also of Victor of Marseilles—Aurelius Clemens Prudentius,
who he was—Account of Tarachus—Romanus and Eulalia—Political Storms
prejudicial to the Church—Martyrdom of Authinus, Bishop of Nicomedia—Of
Peter—George and Erasmus—Eusebius—Martyrdom of Agnes—This Persecution
depreciated—Persecution in Rome—Marcellinus and others suffer—Persecution in
Gaul and Spain—Many suffer—The Persecution extends to Britain—Albanus and
others are martyred—Giraldus—Gildas the Historian—Case of Marcellinus, Bishop
of Rome—Diocletian in the Capital—Porphyrius—Diocletian publishes another
Edict—Persecution in Egypt, and neighbouring Districts—Cyprian, Justina, and
other Martyrs—Theonas, Bishop of Alexandria—Agricola martyred—Mensurius of
Carthage—Saturninus—Persecution in Syria and Palestine—Numerous
Victims—Illness of Diocletian—Case of Applianus—Edesius—Remarks
thereon—Diocletian abdicates—Hercules follows his Example—Constantius Chlorus
and Galerian, Emperors—General Misery of the Empire—Severus and Maximin
Cæsars—Character of the latter—Character of Constantius as an Emperor—Council
of Cirta—Commemoration of Martyrs—Case of the Lapsed revived—Council of
Illiberis—Cruelty of Maximin—Persecution in Egypt revived—It increases in
Severity—Christians multiply—Number of Martyrs—Pantaleon, Julietta, and others
noticed—Results of Christian Fortitude—The Martyrdom of Phileas—Remarks on
Gibbon—Epistle of Phileas—Cruelties in Phrygia, Antioch, Pontus,
&c.—Sufferings of Lucian, Procopius, and others—Also of Hesychius, Pachymius,
and Theodorus—Meletius—Meletian Schism—Another Edict—Intemperate Rage of
Persecutors—Paul, the Bishop of Cirta—Felix of Tibiura—Promising Character of
Constantine—Death of Constantius—Character of Maxentius—His Death—Cruelties at
Cæsarea—Agapius—Cruelty of Maximin—Death of
Severus—Licinius—Alexander—Pamphilus—Persecution again in Palestine and in
Egypt—Antony, the Monk—Marcellus, Bishop of Rome—Persecution revived in
general—Ferociy of Urbanus—His subsequent Fate—Death of
Pamphilus—Quirinus—Continued Cruelty of Maximin—Sufferings of the
Christians—Peleus and Nidus, two Egyptian Bishops—Martyrdom at Tyre—Numerous
Sufferers—Barbarous Conduct of Firmilian—Arnobius—State of the Church—Illness
of Galerius—Edict of Galerius—Jealousy of Maximin—Death of Galerius—Various
Plots against the Christians—Number of Martyrs—Maximin—Jealousy of
Licinius—Licinius hostile to Christianity—Re-organization of Paganism—The
Miletian Schism—Persecution continues in Egypt—Maximin and "Acts of
Pilate"—Persecutions perpetrated by Maximin—The Arts and Tyranny of
Maximin—Lucianus—Septuagint Version—Doctrines of Lucianus—State of the
Church—Death of Lucianus—Refined Cruelties of Maximin—Death of
Peter—Distressing State of the Empire—And of the Church—Carthage—The
Donatists—Death of Diocletian, and of his Wife—Cæcilianus—Constantine marches
to Rome—Vision of the Cross—Victory of Constantine—Edict of Constantine—His
Conversion—War between Maximin and Licinius—Licinius defeats Maximin—Maximin
retracts his persecuting Edicts—Death of Maximin—Edicts of Constantine—His
Character—Constantine supports Cæcilian—Donatists defeated—Progress of
Christianity—Persecution in Persia—Conversion of the Empire—Offensive
Movements of Licinius—Fall of the New Paganism—Rebuilding of the Church at
Tyre—Remarks vii

BOOK V.

PERSECUTIONS WHICH TOOK PLACE FROM THE ACCESSION OF CONSTANTINE THE GREAT, TO
THE DEATH OF JOHN WYCLIFFE, THE MORNING-STAR OF THE REFORMATION.

CHAPTER I.

Page.

THE general Aspect of Society—Insidious Introduction of Error and Corruption
in the Church—Constantine assumes the Title of Pontifex Maximus—Severe
Enactments against the Jews—Death by Fire—Retributive Providence exercised on
the Jewish People—Effects of a Departure from Christian Simplicity—Evils
resulting from worldly Associations—Arius, anterior to the Nican
Council—Progress of the Arian Heresy—Christian Churches in Rome—Persecution of
the Donatists—The Eastern Part of the World still Pagan—The Christian
Hierarchy and the Pagan Priesthood contrasted—Martyrdom of Blaise, Bishop of
Sebaste—Circumcelliones—Their Extravagances—Strong Passion for
Martyrdom—Constantine strives zealously to promote Peace—Fatality of false
Peace—On the Administration of the Christian Community—Effect of the imperial
Authority—Its deleterious Tendency—Objects contemplated in the early Synods of
the Church—Alleged Cause for assembling the First General Council—Ecumenical
Councils—Assembly of the Council of Nice—By whom it was composed—Where it was
convened—Is opened by Constantine—Splendour of his Appearance—Vain Attempts of
certain Gentile Philosophers—Their Conversion—The Nicene Creed—The Homoousian
Faith—Remarks on Newman's History of the Arians—Arius is deposed and
banished—Constantia is inclined to Arianism—The vacillating Temper of the
Emperor—Reports affecting his moral Character—Arius is restored—Eusebius,
Bishop of Nicomedia—Arian Bishops recalled from Exile—Who become
Oppressors—Eustathius—His Character foully calumniated—Considerable national
Commotion—Athanasius—His Rise—The Emperor commands the Reception of Arius in
the Church—It is disregarded—State of the Church—Heavy Crimes attributed by
the Arians to Athanasius—Arsenius—Synod summoned to investigate Complaints
against Athanasius—Base Conduct of the Arians—Anecdote recorded by
Theodoret—Further Persecution of Athanasius by the Arians—Proceedings at
Tyre—Banishment of Athanasius—Interview with the Emperor—Numerous Acts of
Oppression and Persecution by the Arians—Dissimulation of Arius, and Weakness
of Constantine, who insists on Arius being admitted into the Church—Pions and
exemplary Conduct of Alexander—Awful Death of Arius—Remarks on his
Character—Position of the Church at this Period—Ecclesiastical Canons made Law
of the Empire—Heresy considered a criminal Act—The Power of the Emperors
yields to the Church—All Parties indulge in gross Acts of Intolerance—The
Council of Gaupra—Its Character—Apostolical Constitutions—Their intrinsic
Value—Foundation of Constantinople—Erection of this City favourable to
Christianity—Ceremonial of the Foundation—Dimensions of the City—William of
Mahusbury quoted—Basilicas—Conduct of Constantine—Mainbourg quoted—Socrates—Su
zomen—Theodoret—Philostorgius—Epiphanius—Hilary—Ruthinus—Sulpicius
Severus—Constantine puts Crispus, his Son, to Death—His professed Repentance
for this rash Act—Tragic End of Fausta—The Illness, Death, and Funeral of
Constantine—His Character

How far was he a Christian—His Baptism, why delayed—Sanguinary Massacre of the
Princes—Prospects of the Church—Paganism how far suppressed—Person, its
Condition—Tiridates—His Death—Agitated State viii

Page.

of Affairs in Armenia—Severe Persecutions inflicted on the
Christians—Constantins makes War against Persia—Battle of Singara—And the
Siege of Nisibis

========================================================================
  CHAPTER 3: 03. BOOK V, CHAPTER II
========================================================================

CHAPTER II.

EFFECT of the Contests between Rome and Persia upon the Church—Intolerance of
the Magi—Their History and Character—Zoroaster—Zemlavista—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
Selencia—His Character—Martyrdom of Usthazares—Of Simeon—Numerous
Sufferers—Martyrdom of Pusicus—Persecution increases—Maruthas—Tarbula and
others martyred—Martyrdom of Acepsimas, Joseph, and Aithalas—Multitude of
Martyrs and Confessors—Bardemus suffers—Case of Narses—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 of Cappadocia—Philagrius—Persecuting Acts of
Gregory—Athanasius flies to Rome—Sufferings of Potamo—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—Photius 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 Vercellle—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 ix

Page.

by him—Milner quoted—Projected Union of the Orthodox and Novatian
Churches—Which proved abortive—Eusebius of Vercella—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—Meletius, Bishop of Antioch—Is
subsequently banished—Euzoius—Eustathians—Melancholy Condition of the
Church—Value of Creeds—The Athanasian 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 indomitable 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 ensuing
Artifices of Julian—Martyrdom of Juventinus and Maximinus—Degradation of
Caesarea—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—Bonosus and Maximilian—Bibians—Marcus, Bishop of
Arethusa—Many Martyrs—Caesarius—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...

========================================================================
  CHAPTER 4: 04. BOOK V, CHAPTER III
========================================================================

CHAPTER III.

ACCESSION of Jovian—General Exultation—His Character—Favours the Interests of
the Church—Paganism is at a Discount—Proceedings of the Arians, Donatists, and
Novatians—General Toleration—The Standard of the Cross is replaced—Intolerant
Proceeding of Magnus rebuked and punished—Athanasius re-appears in
Alexandria—Is addressed in an Epistle by Jovian—Who invites him to resume the
See of Alexandria—Which is offensive to the Arians—A Deputation wait upon
Jovian—

VOL. II. b

X

Page.

Who remains firm—Death of Jovian—Is succeeded by Valentinian—Who associates
Valens with him in the Empire—Character of both—Valens ranks among the
Orthodox—But is led by Eudoxius, Bishop of Constantinople, to the Side of
Arianism—Valentinian is tolerant—Ammanus Marcellinus—Paganism is
tolerated—Valens is zealous for Arianism—And persecutes the Orthodox—Prelates
are exiled—Barbarities at Antioch—Murder of eighty Ministers—Modestus a Tool
of Valens—Rev. H. H. Milman—Savage Ferocity of Valentinian—His Death—Valens
again expels the orthodox Prelates from the Churches—Athanasius again
flees—The See is filled by Lucius, a Usurper—Death of Procopius—Heroism of
numerous Martyrs—Death of Athanasius—Nominates his Successor—Prepares the Way
for further Persecution—Peter, the orthodox Successor of Athanasius, is
imprisoned—And exiled—Euzoius—Tumult in Alexandria—Lucius attacks the
Monasteries—Pantonius—Heraclides—Persecution of the Monks—Macarius—Lucius
installed by the Help of the Sword—Cruelty of Magnus—And of Palladius—Numerous
Monks sent to the Mines—The Goths—Athanaric—Fritigern—Sufferings of Sabas—His
Character—Intolerant Proceedings of Athanaric—Unflinching Integrity of
Sabas—Persecution increases—Sansala, a Fellow-Sufferer—Atharides—Sabas is
tortured—And relieved by a Pagan Woman—Martyrdom of Sabas—Idolatry and
Superstition of the Goths—Nicetas—Bitter Hatred of Athanaric—Numerous Attempts
to induce Apostacy—A “noble Army of Martyrs” among the Sufferers of this
Period—Valens approaching a Crisis in his Career—Influence of Christianity on
the Barbarism of the Age—The Gothic Invasion—Salutary Effects of the Christian
Clergy—Basil—Interview of Valens—Efforts of Modestus to shake the Fidelity of
the Prelate—Valens succumbs to the Bishop, and presents an Oblation to the
Poor—Piety of Terentius—Many Christians murdered amongst the Goths—Eusebius of
Samosata—A powerful Adversary of Arianism—His Care of the Church—Machinations
of the Arians—An Instance of his Firmness—Council at Antioch—In Disguise he
makes the Tour of Syria—Continually frustrates the Schemes of the
Arians—Eusebius is banished into Thrace—Perilous Situation of the
Messenger—Escapes privately into Exile—Uproar in Samosata—Corresponds with
Gregory Nazianzen—And with Basil—Character of Eunomius—Gregory Nyssen—Eunomius
is superseded by Lucius—His violent Temper—Evolcius and Antiochus are
banished—Paulinus—Defence of Eusebius and Meletius—Peter of Alexandria—Warlike
Movements in Thrace—Valens marches against the Goths—He restores the exiled
Bishops—Death of Eusebius—His Charity—Progress of the Goths—History of their
Movements—Theophilus at the Council of Nice—Ulphilas, Character of—The Goths
embrace Christianity—And Arianism—Death of Valens—Succeeded by
Gratian—Valentinian the Younger—Theodosius—Murder of Gratian—Ambrose—Rebellion
of Maximus—Justina—Ambrose commanded to resign the Churches of
Milan—Refuses—And is persecuted by Justina—Valentinian II. dies—Critical
Period of Church History—Canons of the Church, part of the civil
Law—Priscillian—Persecution and Death of Priscillian—The first Martyr to
sectarian Opinions—Theodosius—His Baptism—His intolerant Manifesto—Councils
and Emperors govern the Church—Ambrose—Sanguinary Conduct of Theodosius—Bold
Conduct of Ambrose—Penitence of the Emperor—Successfully pleads for the Pardon
of an Offender—Epiphanius—His Character—His supposed Miracles—Ecumenical
Council of Constantinople—Maximus—Canons of the Council—Heresies—Theodosius
makes a determined Attack on Paganism—Desecration and Destruction of Pagan
Temples—Marcellus, Bishop of Apamea—Temple of Jupiter—Martyrdom of
Marcellus—Olympus—Temple of Serapis destroyed—And the colossal Statue of
Serapis—Acacius, Bishop of Berea—Numerous Heresies—Martyrdom of
Heretics—Donatists—Theodosius, Edicts of—Veneration for Martyrs xi

Page.

—Death of Theodosius—Pelagius—Honorius—Semi-Pelagianism—Origin of
Nestorianism—Cessation of the Agape—Doctrines of the Nestorans—Repartces of
Sisinus—John Chrysostom—Christianity compromised—Corruption of
Manners—Troubles of the Empire—State of the Church—Council of
Carthage—Persecution in Persia—Several Prelates deposed—Persecution of a
Deaconess—Chrysostom condemned—Character of Innocent—Statue of the
Empress—Testimony of Prudentius—Tumult in the Church—Gladiatorial Games
prohibited—Death of Chrysostom—Worship of Martyrs—Theodosius the
Younger—Pulcheria—Relics of Martyrs—Death of Stilicho—Alaric takes
Rome—Vigilantius—Donatists at Carthage—Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria—Martin
of Tours—Progress of Superstition—Martin in the Army—First Monastery in
France—His Fanaticism—And Miracles imputed to him—Sulpitius—Pagan Rites
introduced—Doubtful Character of Proselytes—Credulity of
Sulpitius—Examples—Saint-Worship of Paulinus—Jerome—Early Career of—Character
of—Bethlehem—Monastic Institutions—Birth-Place of Vigilantius—Marvellous
Tales—His Principles in Danger—Propagation of Falsehoods—Difficulty of
studying Scripture—Vigilantius ordained—Abuse of the fourth
Century—Apostolical Authority—Vigilantius at
Bethlehem—Cradle—Desceration—Extravagant Notions of Celibacy—Vigilantius in
the Cottian Alps—Connexion between him and the Waldenses—Gospel professed in
the Cottian Alps—Vigilantius condemns numerous Errors—Perished in the Massacre
of Barcelona—Dr. Henderson—Jerome—Theodosian Code established—Definition of
Heresy—Laws against—Term "Inquisitor" first used—Final Effort of
Paganism—Character of Leo—Aggrandizement of the Roman See—Private
Confession—Genseric upon Carthage—Heresy of Eutyches—Councils of
Constantinople, Chalcedon, and Ephesus—Vandal Persecution—Martyrdom of
Armogastus—Death of Valentinian III.—Numerous Sects—Arians strengthen
Rome—Power of the Church—Christianity extends—Edicts against Heresy—Code of
Theodosius—Code of Justinian

CHAPTER IV.

Not all the Slain are Martyrs—Confusion of the Secular and the Spiritual—The
Britons—Persecution in Armenia, and religious War—Renewed Persecution in
Africa—Massacre of Christians in Arabia—War between Justinian and Chosroes—The
Lombards—Hermenegild, the Rebel, canonized—Chosroes II. takes Jerusalem—The
Mussulmans also take Jerusalem—Constantine-Sylvanus and the Paulicians—Phocas
and Boniface III.—The Monks of Bangor—State of Europe in the EIGHTH
Century—Persecution in the East—In Spain—Gotteschalchus—State of the Church in
the NINTH Century—Claudius of Turin—Pseudo-Martyrs of the TENTH
Century—Adalbert of Prague—Sylvester II.—Canons of Orleans—Christianity
rejected in Hungary—Ordeals—Propagandists of the ELEVENTH Century—First
Crusade—England—Hakem, Father of the Druses—Intellectual Movement in the
TWELFTH Century—Speculations—Foulques de Neuilly—Heretics—Conduct of the
Church towards Heretics—Albigenses—Councils of Lateran and Verona—Judgment of
an enlightened Romanist respecting the Persecutions of those
Times—Jews—Resistance to Ecclesiastical Power—Second Crusade—Third
Crusade—Fourth Crusade—Military Orders—Condition of Christians in the
East—Waldo and the Waldenses—Prohibition of Prayer in vernacular Languages xii

CHAPTER V.

Page.

THE THIRTEENTH Century characterized—SIXTH, SEVENTH, and EIGHTH Crusades to
the Holy Land and Egypt—Fall of the Latin Kingdom in the East—Fruitless
Negotiations between the Latin, Greek, and Roman Churches—Crusades against
reputed Heretics in France and Spain—Spanish Preachers in Africa—Crusades
against Pagans in Livonia and Prussia—Political and religious Opponents of the
Papacy persecuted throughout Europe—State of England, Scotland, and
Ireland—Jubilees invented—Series of Events in the FOURTEENTH Century—Quarrels
and Schism of the Papacy—Monasticism—Disaffection of the Laity—State of
Society—Persecutions in Italy—Germany—France—England—Wycliffe and the
Lollards—Conclusion

MARTYROLOGIA,

&c.

BOOK IV.

PERSECUTIONS WHICH TOOK PLACE FROM THE CLOSE OF THE FIRST TO THE COMMENCEMENT
OF THE FOURTH CENTURY.

========================================================================
  CHAPTER 5: 05. BOOK IV, CHAPTER VIII
========================================================================

CHAPTER VIII.

Moral Courage in the Martyrs—Martyrmdom of Cyrillus—Of Faustus—Martyrs in
Palestine—In Carthage—Martyrmdom of Fructuosus—Apparent Authenticity of the
Narrative of Fructuosus—Beneficiarii—Case of Sapricius and
Nicephorus—Sapricius is tortured—And apostatizes—Nicephorus suffers—Remarks on
this Case—Milner the Historian—The Fall of Valerian—Principles of the Divine
Government—Cruel Edict of Valerian against the Church—He is taken
Prisoner—Reduced to servile Slavery—And dies a miserable
Death—Lactantius—Unfilial Conduct of Gallienus—Dreadful Condition of the Roman
Empire—Pestilence and Earthquakes—Swarm of Usurpers—Their general
Character—Testimony of Gibbon—Conduct of Gallienus—Reason of his Edict in
Favour of the Christians—Sanquinary Character of Macrianus—Persecution still
existing—Neander and Townsend on the term “Religio Licita”—Fall of
Macrianus—The Martyrdom of Marinus—Remarks on the Death of the
Centurion—Tranquil State of the Church—Death of Gallienus—Zenobia—Ascension of
Claudius, and Death—Quintilius—Aurelian, Emperor—His History—His Character—The
Sibylline Books—General Tranquillity of the Church—His Treatment of the
Christians—Paul of Samosata—Change of his Conduct towards the Church—Cause
thereof—History of the Mother of Aurelian—Edict against the
Christians—Quinquennalia—Martyrmdom of Felix, Bishop of Rome—And of
Agapetus—Aurelian undertakes an Expedition to the East—Is
assassinated—Lactantius—Tacitus—His Character, and Death—Florianus and
Probus—Quietude of the Church—Death of Probus—Carus—Carinus—Numerianus—State
of the Christians—Arrius Aper—Death of Numerian—Its suspicious
Character—Diocletian proclaimed Emperor—He slayes Aper—Anecdote of
Diocletian—Progress of Christianity—Theonas, Bishop of
Alexandria—Dorotheus—General Decline of Piety in the Church—History and
Character of Diocletian—Hercules raised to the Office of Cesar—And afterward
of Co-Emperor—Diocletian an Enemy to the Christians, and why—Martyrs of this
Period—Testimony of Mosheim—Hercules a Persecutor—Martyrmdom of Primus and
Felician—Of Marcus and Marcellianus—Of Zoe, Tranquillinus, and
others—Tiburtius and Chromatius—Caius, Bishop of Rome—Christianity in the Army
of Rome—The Theban Legion—Their Martyrdom—Carausius—Constantius Chlorus and
Galerius made Casars—Helena, History of Division of the Government—Mar-

B tyrdom of Faith, Capracius, and Quintin—Heresy of Manicheism—And of
Hierax—Oppression of the Christian Soldiers—Martyrdom of
Maximilian—Persecuting Spirit of Diocletian—The Case of Marcellus—Remarks of
Gibbon, examined Cassianus—Galerius an inveterate Enemy of the
Church—Character of Constantius Chlorus—Baths of Diocletian—State of the
Church—Romula, the Mother of Galerius—Her Character—Active Measures
contemplated against the Christians—Diocletian consents to them—His first
Edict defined—Martyrdom of Sebastian—The Edict of Diocletian is
executed—Nicomedia—Terminalia—Another Edict, and how executed—Arnobius—Conduct
of the Christians—Martyrdom of Maximilian—The Edict is torn down—Heroism of
the Faithful—Numerous Martyrs—Fire at the Palace—The Persecution is
general—Prisca and Valeria are persecuted—Unheard of
Tortures—Vivicomburation—Hierocles—Lactantius—Martyrdom of Vitus, Modestus,
and Crescentia—And also of Victor of Marseilles—Aurelius Clemens Prudentius,
who he was—Account of Tarachus—Romanus and Eulalia—Political Storms
prejudicial to the Church—Martyrdom of Authimus, Bishop of Nicomedia—Of
Peter—George and Erasmus—Eusebius—Martyrdom of Agnes—This Persecution
depreciated—Persecution in Rome—Marcellinus and others suffer—Persecution in
Gaul and Spain—Many suffer—The Persecution extends to Britain—Albanus and
others are martyred—Giraldus—Gildas the Historian—Case of Marcellinus, Bishop
of Rome—Diocletian in the Capital—Porphyrius—Diocletian publishes another
Edict—Persecution in Egypt, and neighbouring Districts—Cyprian, Justina, and
other Martyrs—Theonas, Bishop of Alexandria—Agricola martyred—Mensurius of
Carthage—Saturninus—Persecution in Syria and Palestine—Numerous
Victims—Illness of Diocletian—Case of Apphianus Edesius—Remarks
thereon—Diocletian abdicates—Hercules follows his Example—Constantius Chlorus
and Galerian, Emperors—General Misery of the Empire—Severus and Maximin
Cæsars—Character of the latter—Character of Constantius as an Emperor—Council
of Cirta—Commemoration of Martyrs—Case of the Lapsed revived—Council of
Illiberis—Cruelty of Maximin—Persecution in Egypt revived—It increases in
Severity—Christians multiply—Number of Martyrs—Puntalcon, Julietta, and others
noticed—Results of Christian Fortitude—The Martyrdom of Phileas—Remarks on
Gibbon—Epistle of Phileas—Cruelties in Phrygia, Antioch, Pontus,
&c.—Sufferings of Lucian, Procopius, and others—Also of Hesychius, Pachymius,
and Theodorus—Meletius—Meletian Schism—Another Edict—Intemperate Rage of
Persecutors—Paul, the Bishop of Cirta—Felix of Tibiura—Promising Character of
Constantine—Death of Constantius—Character of Maxentius—His Death—Cruelties at
Cæsarea—Agapius—Cruelty of Maximin—Death of
Severus—Licinius—Alexander—Pamphilus—Persecution again in Palestine and in
Egypt—Antony, the Monk—Marcellus, Bishop of Rome—Persecution revived in
general—Feroity of Urbanus—His subsequent Fate—Death of
Pamphilus—Quirinus—Continued Cruelty of Maximin—Sufferings of the
Christians—Peleus and Nilus, two Egyptian Bishops—Martyrdom at Tyre—Numerous
Sufferers—Barbarous Conduct of Firmilian—Arnobius—State of the Church—Illness
of Galerius—Edict of Galerius—Jealousy of Maximin—Death of Galerius—Various
Plots against the Christians—Number of Martyrs—Maximin—Jealousy of
Licinius—Licinius hostile to Christianity—Re-organization of Paganism—The
Milatian Schism—Persecution continues in Egypt—Maximin and "Acts of
Pilate"—Persecutions perpetrated by Maximin—The Arts and Tyranny of
Maximin—Lucianus—Septuagint Version—Doctrines of Lucianus—State of the
Church—Death of Lucianus—Refined Cruelties of Maximin—Death of
Peter—Distressing State of the Empire—And of the Church—Carthage—The
Donatists—Death of Diocletian, and of his Wife—Cæcilianus—Constantine marches
to Rome—Vision of the Cross—Victory of Constantine—Edict of Constantine—His
Conversion—War between Maximin and Licinius—Licinius defeats Maximin—Maximin
retracts his persecuting Edicts—Death of Maximin—Edicts of Constantine—His
Character—Constantine supports Cæcilian—Donatists defeated—Pro-

MARTYROOM OF CYRILLUS.

gress of Christianity—Persecution in Persia—Conversion of the Empire—Offensive
Movements of Licinius—Full of the New Paganism—Rebuilding of the Church at
Tyre—Remarks.

PERSECUTION still raged. It is, however, an interesting fact, that nearly as
many examples exist of females suffering nobly for the cause of Christ, and
triumphing gloriously, as of men. The instances of such fortitude are not
confined to persons of mature age: youths far below the age of manhood have
been known to expose themselves to the peril of death, for the purpose of
expressing their entire devotion to the truth they had embraced. A
circumstance of this nature is related in the history of the period of which
we are writing, which illustrates this fact in a very striking manner. A lad
named Cyrillus having been converted to Christianity, his father drove him
from his house, and left him exposed to starvation: he was at length
apprehended, and taken before the Magistrate, who endeavoured by his threats
to terrify him into a recantation. But the youthful confessor remained firm to
his purpose; and when the Judge changed his tone, and said mildly, that, if he
would repent of his error, his father would take him home again, and give him
all he could desire, he replied, that he rejoiced at being driven from his
home to suffer for the honour of God; that he should quickly inhabit a nobler
and happier mansion than that which he had lost; and that he should not fear
to die, to obtain a better life. The Magistrate himself was moved at seeing
one so young so unbending in his profession, and determined to save him from
the punishment to which an older Christian would have been condemned without
delay. Desirous, however, of making him recant, if possible, he ordered him to
be bound, and carried to execution; but neither the appearance of the fire,
nor the preparations made to expose him to its flames, had any effect upon his
mind, and he was led back to the tribunal. The Judge again addressed him in
the gentle voice of persuasion; but it was as unavailing as before; and
Cyrillus said, with firmness, "You have done me great wrong in bringing me
back: I fear not your fire; I shall pass through it to an infinitely more
excellent habitation than any I could enjoy upon earth." Few of those most
accustomed to even the scenes of misery which took place during persecutions,
could refrain from tears as they heard him thus express himself, in a voice,
the firmness of which was in singular contrast with its boyish tones. But the
extraordinary magnanimity which he exhibited had no permanent effect on his
Judge; for soon after uttering the words above mentioned, he was again led to
execution, and put to death.*

A "cloud of witnesses," at this period, suffered in the cause of Christ, of
whom mention only needs be made. Faustus, an aged man, was beheaded. At
Cæsarea, in Palestine, there were martyred, Priscus, Malchus, and Alexander;
who, dwelling in the country, had witnessed the effects of the fortitude of
the Christians, were grieved at their own supineness and negligence with
regard to the

* Fleury, Hist. Eccles., liv. vii., sect. 49, Nismes, 8vo. edit., p. 613,
1779; Stebbing, History of the Christian Church, vol. I., p. 118.

B 2 cause of Christianity, and, consulting with each other, they came
voluntarily to the city, and stood before the Governor, declared themselves to
be Christians, and suffered accordingly. The city of Carthage was in no degree
free from renewed exhibitions of the tyrant's power, especially if the
"Speculum Historiale Vincentii" is to be credited, where mention is made of
not less than three hundred martyrs. We are told, that the Proconsul placed
before them coals and incense, adjoining a limekiln, in order to sacrifice to
Jupiter, and, in case of refusal, to throw themselves into the burning
furnace; on which they simultaneously embraced that death to which they had
been doomed. The same writer also testifies, that in the city of Tuburbo, in
Africa, were three ladies of the names of Maxima, Donatilla, and Secunda, who,
in the persecution of Valerian and Gallienus, first had given them for their
drink vinegar and gall, then they were whipped with the scourge, then tortured
upon the rack, and rubbed with lime; after that they were scorched upon the
gridiron, and then thrown to the wild beasts; and as these refused to approach
them, the confessors were beheaded. Mention is also made of Pontius, who was
arrested at Cimele, a small city, now in a state of dilapidation, in the
neighbourhood of Nice, in Sardinia, at the direction of Claudius, the Prefect:
he was first placed on the rack, then he was thrown to the wild beasts, and
afterward committed to the flames; having emerged from these torturing scenes
unhurt, he was beheaded by the river-side, and then thrown into the stream.
Zeno, the Bishop of Verona, is said, also, in the same persecution, to have
sustained martyrdom. Others, also, at Carthage laid down their lives for the
faith, particularly Lucius, Montanus, Flavian, Julian, Victoricus, Primolus,
Remus, and Donatian, most of whom were Clergy, and the disciples of Cyprian.

Aurelius Prudentius, in his work entitled, "Peristephanon," or "The Crowns of
Martyrs," mentions Fructuosus, the Bishop of Tarragona, in Spain, who, with
his Deacons, suffered martyrdom during the reign of Valerian and his son
Gallienus, and under the consulate of Æmilian and Bassus.* Fructuosus was in
bed when the

* Lord Halles, (Sir David Dalrymple,) to whose translation of the account of
Fructuosus we are much indebted, does not hesitate to say, that the narrative
of the trial and execution of Fructuosus and his two Deacons has various marks
of authenticity which seem to distinguish it from others of the like nature,
too hastily admitted as genuine. 1. The time is mentioned in such a manner as
not to be inconsistent with history; and the place, although not mentioned in
the manuscript here used, is to be learned from a manuscript quoted by
Valesius. (Ad Euseb., lib. ix., cap. 9.) "Æmilianus Praeses, adveniens in
civitatem Tarraconientium, immolavit Diis, et—misit beneficiarios ad domum
Fructuosi Episcopi," &c.; and the same thing is said by Prudentius: "Felix
Tarraco," &c. 2. There is in it no pompous declamation by the Roman
Magistrate, and no curious and impertinent inquiry into the grounds and
reasons of the Christian religion. 3. No promise of rewards or honours is made
to apostatizing Christians. 4. The persons accused, instead of displaying a
verbose and systematic confession of their faith, avow that they believe in
one God, and that they are Christians. 5. The Roman Magistrate is not
represented as holding converse with the persons condemned amidst their
sufferings. 6. Some minute and apparently trivial incidents are related, which
add greatly to the credibility of the narrative. Thus days, and even hours,
are scrupulously specified; and the circumstances which attended the putting
on and putting off the shoes of Fructuosus, are related with as much care as
the circumstances of his martyrdom. This is the style of a faithful,

FRUCTUOSUS MARTYRED.

exempted soldiers,* Aurelius, Festucius, Æius, Pollentius, Donatus, and
Maximus arrived at his house. Hearing the sound of their feet, he instantly
arose, and came to the threshold in his slippers. The soldiers said, "Come,
the Governor hath sent for thee, and thy Deacons." Fructuosus answered, "Let
us go; but permit me first to put on my shoes;" and the soldiers permitted
him; and then were Fructuosus, and the two Deacons, straightway received into
prison. The Bishop, in full assurance of obtaining from the Lord that crown to
which he was called, prayed without ceasing. The brethren were with him
comforting him, and entreated to be remembered in his prayers.

On the sixth day of their imprisonment, they were brought forth to the place
of trial, and heard. Æmilian, the President, said, "Bring in Fructuosus, the
Bishop, together with Augurius and Eulogius." It was immediately answered by
the officers of the court, "They are here." Æmilian, addressing Fructuosus,
said, "Hast thou heard what the Emperors have commanded?" The Bishop replied,
"I know not what they have commanded.† As for me, I am a Christian." The
President then said, "They have commanded that the gods be worshipped." "I
worship," rejoined Fructuosus, "the one God, who made heaven and earth, and
the sea, and all that is therein." Æmilian: "Knowest thou that there are
gods?" "No!" said the Bishop. "That," said Æmilian, "thou shalt know
hereafter." Then Fructuosus looked toward God, and began to pray within
himself. Æmilian said, "Who can be obeyed, or feared, or adored, if no worship
is paid to the gods, and no veneration to the image of the Emperors?" And,
addressing himself to Augurius, the Deacon, he said, "Do not thou listen to
the speeches of Fructuosus." To which he replied, "I worship the Almighty
God." The President though not of an elegant, historian. 7. It may be added,
that Augustine was acquainted with the story of Fructuosus, as recorded in
this narrative. He has quoted the most characteristic parts of it, as will
appear in the course of these notes: and, although there be a long interval
between the middle of the third century and the days of Augustine, and too
much reason to suspect that forgers and interpolators were busy during that
interval; yet the authority of Augustine must have weight in the scale of
evidence; and, at least, will serve to show that the account of the martyrdom
of Fructuosus is not the work of a later age. Ruinart has published many a
trifling and many an ignorant story in his "Acta Martyrum sincera." This will
be acknowledged by learned men of his own communion. He generally prefaces
them with a declaration, that he found them in manuscripts eight or nine
hundred years old; that is, in manuscripts just of that age when every man who
could write at all, wrote fables. A story which is more ancient than
Augustine, has a fairer probability of being genuine. (Dalrymple.)

* "Exempted soldiers:" men who, having distinguished themselves in service,
were exempted by their commanders from certain military duties. The term
"beneficium" is equivalent to fendum or "fief" in the writers on feudal law,
and is an interest in land, or things inseparable from the land, or things
immovable. The beneficiarius is he who has a beneficium. The term "benefice"
is also applied to an ecclesiastical preferment. "Beneficium" also signified
any promotion conferred on, or grant made to soldiers, who were thence called
"beneficiarii:" this practice was common. It does not, however, appear what
the beneficium actually was: it might be any kind of honour, special exemption
from service, &c.

† "I know not what they have commanded," &c. As he added this profession of
his faith in Christ, it is not improbable that in saying, "Nescio quid
praecepunt," ("I know not what they have commanded,") he meant, that "to him
it imported nothing what the Emperors had commanded."

then addressed the other Deacon, to whom he said, "Dost thou also worship
Fructuosus?" * "No," said Eulogius; "but I worship Him whom Fructuosus
worshippeth." Æmilian then said to the martyr, "Art thou a Bishop?" "I am,"
said he. "Thou wert!" said the Judge. He then pronounced sentence, and
condemned them all to be burned alive. While the myrmidons of Æmilian were
conducting Fructuosus and the Deacons to the amphitheatre, the multitude
began, with one voice, to lament over the Bishop, so great was the esteem
which not only the brethren, but the Pagans also, manifested towards him. He
was confessedly such an individual as the Holy Spirit, by the Apostle Paul,
declares, that a vessel unto honour, and a teacher of the Gentiles, ought to
be. The disciples, who knew that he was advancing to an "exceeding weight of
glory," rejoiced rather than mourned: many, through kindness, offered him wine
mixed with spices to drink; but he refused, saying, "My fast is not yet
ended:" for Fructuosus, with his Deacons, had, on the fourth day of the week,
instituted a fast in prison; and on the sixth day, says the record, he
hastened with confidence and joy to the feast of the Prophets and martyrs, in
that paradise which the Lord hath prepared for those who love him.

When Fructuosus approached the amphitheatre, his reader, named Augustalis,
forthwith came unto him, and with tears besought permission to take off his
shoes. To whom the Bishop answered, "Let me alone, my son: I myself will
perform that office; for I am strengthened, and I rejoice in the certainty of
the divine promise." After this, Felix, a brother and fellow-soldier, seized
his hand, and requested to be remembered in his prayers: to whom Fructuosus,
in the hearing of all, with a loud voice, replied, "Thou desirest that I
should pray for thee:† depart not, then, from her for whom I must needs pray;
for it behoveth me, in my supplications, to remember the universal church,
spread from the East unto the West." And now standing at the threshold of the
amphitheatre, and about to receive, not punishment, but an unfading crown, he
was encompassed with

* "Dost thou also worship Fructuosus?" These words of the Roman Governor are
quoted by Augustine. (Serm. celxxiii. "In Natali Martyrum Fructuosi Episcopi,
Augurii et Eulogii, Diaconorum," Opera Augustini, tom. v., pars ii., p. 1623.
Edit. 8vo. Paris, 1838.) "Ait illi judex, 'Numquid et tu Fructuosum colis?'"
The sense of the verb "colera" is so vague in the Latin language, that it may
signify the respect due to superiors, or the worship of the supreme Being. It
is probable that the Roman Magistrate intended to express something far short
of religious honour; but that Eulogius understood the word in the obvious and
popular sense.

† "Thou desirest that I should pray for thee," &c. This is added from
Augustine: "Tu si vis ut pro te orem, noll recedere ab illa pro qua oro." In
the manuscript the following words only are to be found: "In mente me habere
necesse est ecclesiam catholicam, ab oriente usque in occidentem diffusam."
Ruinart, considering this as a most apposite authority for the cause of the
Roman Catholic Church, has taken pains to print it in capital letters. He
appears not to have known, that Protestants believed in "the catholic church,
spread from the East unto the West," as truly as himself did; and that the
great matter in controversy is, whether the word "catholic," or "universal,"
ought to be understood in a more extended or more limited sense. It may be
conjectured, that Fructuosus meant to reprove Felix, because he requested the
prayers of his departing Pastor for himself alone, rather than for the
Christian society at large. It is possible, also, that Felix might have been
of a character inclined to divisions, a character not unknown in the primitive
ages. The passage, viewed in this light, contains a weighty and important
admonition. (Dalrymple.)

SAPRICIUS AND NICEPHORUS.

the soldiers of whose names mention has been made; yet so, that the brethren
heard the words which he uttered: he declared, "There will not be wanting a
Pastor among you; for the loving-kindness and the covenant of the Lord shall
never fail; and that which ye now behold, seemeth but as the tribulation of
one hour." Having comforted his companions in affliction, he with them
speedily entered into the rest which remains for the people of God.* They were
worthy in their martyrdom to receive the fruits promised in the holy
Scriptures, and exhibited a striking resemblance to the three Hebrews in the
fiery furnace, of whom we have heretofore written. When the wreaths which
bound their hands were consumed, they, mindful of their wonted religious
worship, and in firm trust of their future resurrection, kneeled down, and
implored the mercy of God, until they gave up the ghost together.†

The little estimation in which many of the Christians held their lives may
also be illustrated from an anecdote related of two citizens of Antioch,
Sapricius, a Priest, and Nicephorus, a layman. These persons had long
cherished towards each other an ardent friendship; but some dispute having
arisen between them, they separated, without a prospect of ever becoming
reconciled. At length Nicephorus, influenced by early recollections and
Christian mildness, determined to heal the schism, and accordingly sought, by
every means in his power, to soothe the irritated feelings of his friend. But
all his efforts proved vain; and Sapricius and he remained apart till the
apprehension of the former, which again induced Nicephorus to attempt a
reconciliation. As his friend was led to execution, after professing his faith
in the boldest manner, he ran to him, and, falling at his feet, implored him
to forgive whatever he had done to anger him; but the Priest preserved a stern
silence, and the afflicted Nicephorus found all his entreaties received with
disdain. Hastening, however, after the procession, he again approached his
resentful friend, and repeated his solicitations, but was again rebuffed; on
seeing which the guards expressed their surprise that any one should be so
anxious to obtain the favour of a man who was on the point of being put to
death; but Nicephorus answered, that they knew not what he sought from the
confessor of Jesus Christ.‡

* It is recorded in some of the ancient Martyrologies, we are informed, that
when these martyrs were in the fire, there was a soldier in the house of
Æmilian, who did see the heavens above open, and these witnesses for the truth
enter in; the soldier likewise showed the sight at the same time to the
daughter of Æmilian, who, beholding the spectacle, was also enabled to testify
to the blessedness of those whom her cruel father had condemned. (Foxe.)

† See "Remains of Christian Antiquities, with Explanatory Notes. By Sir David
Dalrymple."

‡ When Sapricius was apprehended and brought before the Governor, the latter
asked him his name. He answered, "It is Sapricius." "Of what profession are
you?" said the Governor. "I am a Christian," said Sapricius. Governor. "Are
you of the Clergy?" The prisoner at the bar said, "I have the honour to be a
Priest: we Christians acknowledge one Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, who is
God, the only and true God, who created heaven and the earth. The gods of
nations are devils." The President, exasperated at his answer, gave orders for
him to be put into an engine, like a screw-press, which the tyrants had
invented to torment the faithful. The excessive pain of this torture did not
shake the constancy of Sapricius; and he said unto the Judges, "My body is in
your power; but my soul you cannot touch. Only my Saviour,

At length they reached the place of execution; and at the sight of the
preparations which were made to separate his early and venerated acquaintance
from him for ever in this world, Nicephorus renewed his appeals to the
clemency and former affection of the Priest. But Sapricius remained in the
same temper; and God, as it has been rightly observed, punished him for his
unchristian indulgence of resentment, by depriving him of the grace which had
hitherto enabled him to persevere in the profession of the truth. Everything
being ready for his execution, he knelt down to receive the stroke which was
to sever his head from his body; but, just as the executioner raised the
sword, he called out to him to stop, and declared that he was ready to obey
the Emperors, and sacrifice to the gods. Nicephorus started with astonishment
at hearing these words. He had witnessed the constancy hitherto exhibited by
his friend with the highest admiration, and had been induced to humble himself
so deeply before him, because he regarded him not only as one whose affections
he wished to regain, but as a saint whose blessing would render him more
acceptable in the sight of God. Many, therefore, were the sorrowful emotions
which filled his mind at witnessing the fall of Sapricius. He had not only to
lament him as lost, but to behold the faith and constancy of Christians put in
doubt among their pagan enemies. "Lose not the crown," he exclaimed,
addressing the Priest, "which you have won by so many sufferings." But these
words were lost, as his others had been, to the ear of Sapricius; and, as if
the spirit of devotion and truth had passed from the fallen confessor to
redouble the fervour of his despised friend, Nicephorus turned to the
attendants, and said, "I am a Christian: I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ,
whom this man hath renounced. Let me die instead of him." He was taken at his
word; and, information being sent to the Magistrate, he expired beneath the
sword which had been raised for Sapricius.*

Jesus Christ, is Master of this." The President, seeing him so resolute,
pronounced this sentence: "Sapricius, Priest of the Christians, who is
ridiculously persuaded that he shall rise again, shall be delivered over to
the executioner of public justice, to have his head severed from his body,
because he has condemned the edict of the Emperors." After all, Sapricius
apostatized.

* Stebbing, History of the Christian Church, vol. i., pp. 119, 120. Milner
justly observes: "The account ends here; but if Sapricius lived to repent, as
I hope he did, he might see what a thing it is for a miserable mortal, whose
sufficiency rests entirely on divine grace, to despise, condemn, or exult over
his brother. The last became the first, and God showed his people wonderfully
by this case, that he will support them in their sufferings for his name, but,
at the same time, will have them to be humble, meek, and forgiving. This is
the first instance I have seen of a man attempting to suffer for Christ on
philosophical grounds; and it failed. Let Christians and men of self-
sufficiency be ever thus kept asunder, and let both their cause and their
spirit be preserved distinct and separate. It appears that Christian fortitude
is a very different thing from the pride of philosophy, or the sullenness of
Indians, and cannot even subsist in the absence of Christian meekness and
charity. Philosophers and savages can maintain the hardy spirit of nature
amidst the highest gratifications of malice and ferocity. The spirit of
suffering for Christ being above nature, and wrought in the heart by the grace
of Christ, cannot subsist if the Spirit of God be provoked to leave the
sufferer; and the event of this story shows how little reason infidels have to
plume themselves on the hardihood of others who have suffered by the side of
Christians. Their spirit is entirely of a different nature." (Hist. of the
Church of Christ, vol. i., cent. iii., chap. xvi., p. 506.)

AWFUL FATE OF VALERIAN.

The Persian campaign of Valerian was fatally disastrous, a just and awful
retribution of the miseries he brought upon the Christians: it ended in the
spectacle, which had never yet been witnessed, of a Roman Emperor being led in
triumph by a barbarian Prince. This was the fate of Valerian; who was taken
prisoner at Edessa, by Sapor, the King of Persia, and continued in that
condition until his death. An early and a fearful fate appeared to be the
inevitable lot of the persecutors of Christianity. The profound and earnest
conviction of the Christians, namely, that the hand of divine Providence was
perpetually and visibly interposing in the affairs of men, was not so deeply
imbued with the spirit of their divine Master, as to suppress the language of
triumph, or even of vengeance, when the enemies of their God and of themselves
either suffered defeat or death, or, worse than that, a cruel and insulting
captivity. The fall of Decius, which we have recorded already, was, if we give
full credence to the Pagan account, worthy of the ancient Roman republic: he
was environed by the Goths; his son was killed by an arrow; he cried aloud,
that the loss of a single soldier was nothing to the glory of the empire; he
renewed the battle, and fell valiantly. The Christian writers strip away all
the more ennobling incidents. According to their account, having been decoyed
by the enemy, or misled by a treacherous friend, into a marsh, where he could
neither fight nor fly, he perished tamely; and his unburied body was left to
the beasts and carrion-fowls. The captivity of Valerian, the mystery which
hung over his death, allowed ample scope to the imagination of those whose
national hatred of the barbarians would attribute the most unmanly ferocity to
the Persian conqueror, and of those who would consider their God exalted by
the most cruel and debasing sufferings inflicted on the oppressor of the
church. Thus writes Milman; but the primitive Christians were better students
of the word of God. If the Scripture is to be credited, we are bound to
believe in the existence of a retributive Providence; and if a righteous God
be the supernal Arbiter of heaven and earth, he will do right. "To me
belongeth vengeance and recompence." "He is the Lord our God," said the
Psalmist; "his judgments are in all the earth. He has remembered his covenant
for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations. Which
covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac; and confirmed the same
unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant; saying, Unto
thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance: when there
were but a few men in number; yea, very few, and strangers in it. When they
went from one nation to another, from one kingdom to another people; He
suffered no man to do them wrong; yea, he reproved Kings for their sakes;
saying, Touch not mine anointed, and do my Prophets no harm." On these
principles the Most High has ever acted; and persecutors have invariably, both
in ancient and modern times, drunk largely of the bitter cup.

We return to Valerian. Before he met his adversaries in the field, to please
his parasite Macrianus, and to secure the favour of the pagan deities in his
enterprise, he caused the cruel edict against the Chris-

C tians to be issued. He therefore commenced proceedings against Sapor, the
King of Persia, with the blood of the saints upon his skirt, and the withering
curse of the Most High upon his conscience. The sin of Valerian was in
opposition to light and knowledge; he had long known and respected the
Christians; and it is usual with divine Providence to visit such in a manner
the most exemplary and heart-searching. The Emperor entering Mesopotamia, both
armies met, and a general engagement was expected. It proved otherwise;
inasmuch as, immediately before the anticipated conflict, Valerian, through
the negligence, or, as some say, the treachery, of Macrianus, was led into an
incommodious place, without sufficient support; and being surrounded by the
Persians, he was taken prisoner by Sapor,* who conveyed the old man into his
own country, and treated him with greater indignity than his meanest slave.
The tyrannical Persian, elated with the prosperous circumstance, made the
Emperor his footstool whenever he took exercise on horseback; thus causing the
greatest Monarch in the world, and to whom all nations had paid homage, to bow
down, that Sapor might tread upon his neck in mounting his saddle. Valerian
continued seven years in this miserable servitude. Lactantius observes: "That
the Roman name remained long the scoff and derision of the barbarians; and
what added much to the severity of the fallen Emperor's punishment was, that,
although he had an Emperor for his son, he found no one to revenge his
captivity, and his most abject and servile state; neither was he ever demanded
back. After, when he had finished this shameful life under so great dishonour,
he was flayed; and the skin was dyed with vermilion, and placed in the temple
of the gods of the barbarians, that the remembrance of a triumph so signal
might be perpetuated; and that this spectacle might always be exhibited to our
Ambassadors, as an admonition to the Romans, that, beholding the spoils of
their captured Emperor in a Persian temple, they should not place too great
confidence in their own strength."†

Gallienus was now the sole and legitimate Sovereign of the Roman empire: he
had long supported with impatience the censorial severity of his father and
colleague, and received the intelligence of his misfortunes with secret
pleasure and avowed indifference. "I knew that my father was a mortal," said
he; "and since he has acted as becomes a brave man, I am satisfied." While
Rome lamented the fate of her Sovereign, the savage coldness of his son was
extolled, by the servile courtiers, as the perfect firmness of the hero and
the stoic. His reign was most confused and calamitous; heaven and earth
appearing

* "It has been said that Macrianus was concerned in betraying him to the
Persians; and the suspicion is confirmed by his receiving the imperial title
from the army in the East." (Burton.)

† "Ita ille dignissime triumphatus, aliquandiu vixit, ut diu barbaris Romanum
nomen ludibrio ac derisui esset. Etiam hoc ei accessit ad poenam, quod cum
filium haberet Imperatorem, captivitatis sine tamen ac servitutis extremæ non
invenit ultorem, nec omnino repetitus est. Postea vero cum pudendam vitam in
illo dedecore finivit, direpta est ei cutis et exuta visceribus pellis est
infecta rubro colore, ut in templo barbarorum deorum ad memoriam clarissimi
triumphi poneretur, legatisque nostris semper esset ostentus, ne nimium Romani
viribus suis fiderent, cum exuvias capti Principis apud deos suos cernerent."
(Lactantii Liber De Mort. Persecut., cap. v., Vesout. 1838.)

DISTURBED STATE OF THE EMPIRE.

to join their energies to destroy and root up the name and the people of Rome.
At the commencement it is stated that the sun was darkened, earthquakes took
place in many parts, the sea overflowed its bounds, the pestilence continued
to rage, and the whole empire on every side had to withstand the hostile
attacks of invading foes; together with intestine broils which constantly
occurred, at a time when the reins of government were held with a very loose
hand, and produced a troop of usurpers against the son of Valerian. The
soldiers claimed the right of selecting their own Generals, who forthwith
assumed the title of Emperor; and, as they were all opposed to each other, so
they were all unanimous in accomplishing the ruin of Gallienus. These
ephemeral Emperors amounted, it is said, to thirty, and are generally recorded
by the name of "The Thirty Tyrants." Mr. Gibbon imagines the number to have
been greatly overrated; and concludes that the reign of Gallienus, distracted
as it was, produced only nineteen competitors for the throne. Several of these
pretenders to the dignity of empire possessed a considerable share of vigour
and ability, which had recommended them to Valerian, who promoted them to
important commands. Of these nineteen tyrants Tetricus only was a Senator, and
Pison only a noble; and not one enjoyed a life of peace, or died a natural
death. "As soon as they were invested with the bloody purple, they inspired
their adherents with the same fears and ambition which had occasioned their
own revolt. Encompassed with domestic conspiracy, military sedition, and civil
war, they trembled on the edge of precipices; in which, after a longer or
shorter term of anxiety, they were inevitably lost. These upstart Monarchs
received, however, such honours as the flattery of their respective armies and
provinces could bestow; but their claims, founded on rebellion, could never
obtain the sanction of law or history. Italy, Rome, and the Senate, constantly
adhered to the cause of Gallienus; and he alone was considered as the
Sovereign of the empire. The rapid and perpetual transitions from the cottage
to the throne, and from the throne to the grave, might have amused an
indifferent philosopher, were it possible for a philosopher to remain
indifferent amidst the general calamities of human kind. The election of these
temporary Emperors, their power, and their death, were equally destructive to
their subjects and adherents. The price of their fatal elevation was instantly
discharged to the troops, by an immense donative, drawn from the bowels of the
exhausted people. However virtuous was their character, however pure their
intentions, they found themselves reduced to the hard necessity of supporting
their usurpation by frequent acts of rapine and cruelty. When they fell, they
involved armies and provinces in their fall."*

* There is still extant a most savage mandate from Gallienus to one of his
Ministers, after the suppression of Ingenuus, who had assumed the purple in
Illyricum. "It is not enough," says that soft but inhuman Prince, "that you
exterminate such as have appeared in arms; the chance of battle might have
served me as effectually. The male sex of every age must be extirpated;
provided that, in the execution of the children and old men, you can contrive
means to save our reputation. Let every one die who has dropped an expression,
who has entertained a thought, against me; against me, the son of Valerian,
the father and brother of so many Princes. Remember that Ingenuus was c 2

Such was the cloud of ills which hovered around the throne of Gallienus when
he took possession of it. It was no kind regard that he manifested toward the
Christian name and character that actuated him in his movements: he shut
himself up in the capital, and reflected on his perilous position; he had no
friends to lose, and judged it the wisest plan to create some, if possible. He
knew that while his father favoured the Christians, he reigned in prosperity;
but when he began to persecute them, the divine vengeance fell both upon him
and upon the country. The Emperor therefore issued an edict * to terminate the
sufferings of the church, which appears to have taken effect wherever his
authority was acknowledged. By this imperial decree he granted to the
Christians the free exercise of their religion; he commanded that all the
burial-grounds belonging to their churches, and the other houses and grounds
which had been confiscated under the previous government, should be restored
to them: he thus recognised the Christian church as a legally existing
corporate body; for none but such a body could, according to the Roman
constitution, possess a common property.† Macrianus, made Emperor: tear, kill,
hew in pieces. I write to you with my own hand, and would inspire you with my
own feelings." (Gibbon, Decline and Fall, vol. i., chap. x., 8vo. edit.
Milman, 1834.)

* "Gallienus," says Eusebius, "restrained the persecution against us by
sending edicts, in which he commanded that the Ministers of the word might
perform the customary duties of their office with freedom, the copy of which
was as follows:—'The Emperor Cæsar Publius Licinius Gallienus, Pius, Felix
Augustus, to Dionysius, Pinus, Demetrius, and the other Bishops. The benefit
of the privilege, granted by me, I have ordered to be issued through the whole
world, that all may depart from their religious retreats; and therefore you
may make use of this copy of my edict that no one may molest you. And this
liberty, indeed, which you are now permitted to have, has been long since
granted by me. Aurelius Cyrenius, therefore, who has the chief administration
of affairs, will keep the copy here given by me.' This, that it may be the
better understood, we have here presented to our readers in a translation from
the Latin tongue. There is also another ordinance from him, which he addressed
to other Bishops, in which he grants permission to recover what he calls the
cemeteries." (Euseb., Eccles. Hist., lib. vii., cap. 13.)

† Mr. Townsend questions whether Neander is right in his conclusion; and
thinks that Gallienus had no notion of the mass of Christian societies forming
one church, and that only was a religio licita which was established, not
tolerated, by law. "The permission granted by the English law to the
Socinians, that they may have the exercise of their worship, and possess their
burial-grounds, if they have any, without confiscation, does not amount to the
recognition of the Socinians as a corporate, but as a scattered, body. If,
too, the mere toleration of a religious body constitute their faith a religio
licita, then every sect, party, and denomination, from the most ancient error
to the latest fancy, are all in England religioses licita. That which we are
required, by expediency or principle, to tolerate, cannot be described by the
same terms as that which we affectionately or devotionally love." This is
highly hypercritical. Christianity was not intended by Gallienus to be
recognised as the religion of the state; but it was certainly taken under the
imperial protection, and the profession of Christianity viewed as lawful;
consequently, it was a religio licita. The situation of the Christians in the
days of Gallienus was in some degree similar to that of the Nonconformists in
this country, at the passing of the Toleration Act. "By that Act," says Sir J.
Nicholl, in the famous case of Kemp e. Wickes, "an important change was worked
in the situation of His Majesty's Protestant Dissenting subjects; and the
baptisms now administered by Dissenting Ministers stand upon very different
grounds from those by mere laymen. There were many laws, both of Church and
State, requiring conformity to the Church, creating disabilities, imposing
penalties, and denouncing excommunications upon all Nonconformity. Now,
supposing that, during the existence of these disabilities, it could be
maintained that, in point of law, no act of Nonconformists could be recognised
in a court of justice, and therefore that a baptism administered by such
persons could not be noticed at all, either by the Church, or by the courts
administering the law of the

MARINUS THE CENTURION.

however, still adhered to his former measures; and, as he had set himself up
for Emperor in the East, and in Egypt, in these countries it was not till
after his fall,* A.D. 261, that the toleration edict of Gallienus came into
effect. Dionysius was not yet able to return to Alexandria. The whole of
Christian Africa appears to have continued for some time longer in a state of
affliction. Galerius, the Proconsul, who put Cyprian to death, died himself
shortly after; but the Receiver-General of the province continued the same
cruel system, and many of the leading Clergy were tortured and slain. The
names of several persons are recorded who suffered in Numidia;† and from
Eusebius we may infer, that Palestine was one of the countries where the
authority of Macrianus was still productive of evil to the church.‡ Hence,
while the Christians in the West were already in the enjoyment of repose,
persecution may have continued in those countries in compliance with the edict
of Valerian.

Macrianus, having established himself in the East, embraced every opportunity
of vexing the church. Marinus, of Cæsarea, in Palestine, who was one of the
army, distinguished for his military prowess, and illustrious for his family
and opulence, was beheaded for his manly confession of the Lord Jesus. Marinus
was about to receive the office of Centurion, which, in the course of usage in
the army, was to fall upon him by right. Just as the Centurion's staff, the
vitis,§ was about to be intrusted to him, another soldier, who had the next
promise of promotion, stepped forward, and declared that, according to the old
laws, Marinus could not hold any Roman military rank, because he was a
Christian, and did not sacrifice to the gods and the Emperor. Whereupon
Achæus, then being Judge, examined him respecting his faith; and, finding him
to be as represented, and manifesting great firmness in his belief, gave him
three hours to deliberate and to advise with himself, and then decide whether
he would remain a Christian. In the mean time Theotecnus, Bishop in Cæsarea,
perceiving him to be in doubt and perplexity, led him to the church; he then
pointed on the one hand to the sword which the soldier bore upon his side, and
on the other to the book of the Gospel, which he laid before him. "He must
choose between the two,—between the military rank and the Gospel!" The soldier
immediately lifted up his right hand, and took hold of the Gospel. "Now," said
the

Church,—yet could it be maintained now, that such a baptism was a mere
nullity? If such could have been considered as the view of the law before the
Toleration Act, yet that Act would change the whole shape of the thing." Also
the language of Lord Stowell, in K. P. v. Stone, enforcing the obedience due
by a Clergyman to the Articles of the Church of England, "As the law now is,
every one goes to his parochial church with a certainty of not feeling any of
his solemn opinions offended. If any person dissents, a remedy is provided by
the mild and wise spirit of toleration which has prevailed in modern times,
and which allows that he should join himself to persons of persuasion similar
to his own." Consequently, Christianity became, under Gallienus, in the strict
sense of the word, a religio licita.

* He was condemned as an "inimicus diis Romanis et sacris legibus." So Pont.
in Vit. Cypriani; compare also the Passio Cypriani.

† Burton, Lect. on Eccles. Hist., lect. xxvii.

‡ Euseb., Eccles. Hist., lib. vii., cap. 15.

§ The vitis was the badge of office with which the Centurion punished his men.
(Juv. Sat., viii., 247; Plin., xiv., 1.)

Bishop, "hold fast on God; and mayest thou obtain what thou hast chosen.
Depart in peace." On his return into the presence of the Governor, he was
announced by the Crier of the Court; and being arraigned, he was speedily
beheaded. His remains were secured by Astyrius, a noble Senator, and one of
the chief and most wealthy of that order, who bestowed upon them an honourable
burial.*

The beneficial effect of the edict of Gallienus was immediately felt in the
capital. The see of Rome, which had been vacant for nearly a year since the
death of Xystus, was filled up by the election of Dionysius; the same person
who, while he was Presbyter of that church, had corresponded with Dionysius of
Alexandria upon the baptismal controversy. He appears to have been a man of
considerable learning, as well as piety; and from the absence of any materials
for ecclesiastical history for the following year, we may hope that, at least
in Italy, the Christians were without molestation. Gallienus was certainly
favourable to them; but, through the whole of the year 260, his attention was
otherwise engaged. Macrianus, the bigoted persecutor, and his two sons, were
put to death shortly after, and the authority of the Emperor being now
recognised in Egypt, the condition of the Christians in that country became
more favourable. Shortly after this, Æmilianus, the Governor of Egypt, assumed
the title of Emperor, and Alexandria was made the scene of warfare and
bloodshed.† It does not, however, appear that the spirit of party raised the
usual feeling of hostility against the Christians, who were themselves divided
in their political sentiments; for while some supported Æmilianus, others took
the part of Gallienus. Ere long, the usurper was taken prisoner, and the whole
of Egypt once more submitted to the Emperor of Rome. In the state of
comparative cessation from open and direct persecution, the Christian church
was continually, during this time, kept in a state of suspense, from the
irruption of the Goths and other barbarous nations into several parts of the
East, who ran through the country like a flood, and carried away as prisoners
many of the inhabitants. Christians and Heathens, we are told, were alike

* Mosheim loses sight of the fact, that it was under the government of
Macrianus that he was put to death; and says, that he could not have suffered
in consequence of the edict of Valerian; for that was at this time no longer
in force, having been virtually repealed by the rescript of Gallienus; but he
must have been put to death under the old law of Trajan. The course of
proceeding was briefly this: An informer stood forward; and, upon the accused
person confessing himself guilty, he was commanded to sacrifice to the Roman
deities: this he refused; and was, in consequence, consigned over to capital
punishment. From this instance it is evident, says Mosheim, that the ancient
imperial edicts against the Christians, notwithstanding their having been
succeeded by others of a more mild and humane character, were yet considered
as remaining in full force; and that even in the most tranquil times, and
under Emperors by no means disposed to the exercise of severity, a power still
remained with the Presidents of putting to death such persons as should be
regularly informed against, and who acknowledged themselves to be Christians.
The benevolent act of Astyrius brought him into no sort of danger or trouble;
for this very obvious reason,—namely, that, by the law of Trajan, the Judge
had no power of punishing, unless an accuser came forward; and no one, it may
be easily conceived, had either the will or the courage to prefer an
accusation against Astyrius, who, besides being a man of the highest rank and
authority, possessed a still further claim to respect, from his enjoying the
personal friendship of the Emperor. (Mosheim.)

† Burton, Lect. on Eccles. Hist., lect. xxvii.

AURELIAN, EMPEROR.

exposed to these predatory excursions; many of the Clergy were among the
number: it is said, however, that the pious life and amiable conduct of these
men contributed to produce the happiest effects; and an extension of the faith
was manifestly the result. Heresies were rife, to which we have briefly
alluded in our account of Dionysius of Alexandria; and no external persecution
took place until the death of Gallienus. His father continued in Persia, in
servile bondage, his son having no desire to attempt his rescue: charity may
lead us to the conclusion, that Rome was too enfeebled to contest this point
with Persia. An aspirant of the name of Odenatus, a citizen of Palmyra,
invaded the kingdom of Sapor, and proceeded as far as the walls of Ctesiphon;
and Gallienus, as a reward for his bravery, presented to him the government of
Egypt, under the title of Emperor: he prosecuted his conquests; but, in 267,
he, with his son Herod, was put to death, when his masculine and high-spirited
Queen, Zenobia, succeeded to his title and possessions. In the following year,
Gallienus was treacherously persuaded by his two Generals, Claudius Martianus
and Cecropius, to advance against Aureolus, who was becoming formidable in the
north of Italy; and the Emperor, and his brother Valerian, were both put to
death.*

Claudius succeeded to the empire, which was conferred upon him by the
soldiers, and subsequently ratified by the Senate. The obscurity which covered
his origin, sufficiently betrays the meanness of his birth. It appears that he
was a native of one of the provinces bordering upon the Danube, that his youth
was spent in arms, and that his valour arrested the attention of Decius. He
rose to considerable eminence as a soldier, and was much noticed, because
feared, by Gallienus. When he ascended the throne, he was about fifty-four
years of age. If Claudius became a persecutor of the Christians at Rome, as
the annalist Baronius asserts, we may conjecture that he found them disposed
to honour the memory of Gallienus. There is, however, very little reason to
imagine that any systematic persecution took place in the days of Claudius;
because, on the one hand, he was annoyed by competitors for his throne, and
the inroads of barbarous hordes from the East; and, on the other, he was
arrested by the hand of death; for, after a short and glorious reign of two
years, the Emperor expired at Sirmium, amid the tears of his subjects. Before
his decease, he recommended as his successor Aurelian; but the people, wishful
to render honour to the bravery and patriotic enterprise of Claudius, were
determined to retain the imperial purple in his family; therefore his brother
Quintilius was raised to the throne, which he ascended only soon to leave. The
sanction of the Senate and a mutiny of the troops accompanied each other; and,
hearing that the latter had invested the well-known Aurelian with supreme

* "As the cloud rising before the sun, obscuring it by its shadow, and
appearing in its place, afterwards passes away and is dissipated, and the sun,
which had arisen before, seems to rise again; so Macrianus, who had aspired to
the very power of Gallienus, is now no more, indeed never was: but the latter,
as he was previously, is now again, and his government, as if it had lost the
feebleness of age, and had become purified of its former baseness, now arose,
and assumed a more flourishing aspect; and is seen and heard, and diffuses
itself everywhere." (Kusob., Eccles. Hist., lib. vii., cap. 24.)

power, he ordered his veins to be opened, and suicidally withdrew himself from
the unequal conflict, after a reign of only seventeen days.

Lucius Domitianus Aurelianus was the next Emperor: he succeeded to the throne
in 270, and was the son of a peasant of Sirmium. He enlisted in the troops as
a common soldier; successively rose to the rank of a Centurion, a Tribune, the
Prefect of a legion, the Inspector of the camp, and General; and then, during
the Gothic war, he exercised the important office of Commander-in-Chief of the
cavalry. His reign lasted only about four years and nine months; nevertheless,
the greater part of that period was occupied in some memorable achievement. He
put an end to the Gothic war, chastised the Germans who invaded Italy,
recovered Gaul, Spain, and Britain out of the hands of Tetricus, and destroyed
the proud monarchy which Zenobia had erected in the East, on the ruins of the
afflicted empire. Aurelian had been educated in superstition; and had, from
the beginning, scarcely any but hostile feelings towards the Christian
religion: he was not only most fanatically devoted to the eastern worship of
the sun, whose Priestess his mother was, and to which deity he built a temple
at Rome, but he was in every respect a blind supporter of the old heathen
worship. The welfare of the state appeared to him to be most intimately
connected with the proper performance of the olden forms of superstitious
devotion. For instance, when, during the threatened danger of a war with the
German tribes, some of the members of the Roman Senate had proposed in that
body, that, after the old custom, the Sibylline Books should be opened, and
their counsel asked, some of the Senators said, that there was no need to take
refuge there, the power of the Emperor was so great, that there was no need to
ask counsel of the gods. The matter dropped for this time, and was afterwards
taken up afresh. But the Emperor, who might very well have heard of these
transactions in the Senate, expressed his displeasure, and wrote to the people
thus:—"I wonder that you should have hesitated so long to open the Sibylline
Books,* as if you had been consulting in a Christian church, and not in the
temple of all the gods." He called upon them to support him by religious
ceremonies of every kind; for it could be no shame to conquer with the help of
the gods. He offered to pay all costs incurred by the offering of every kind
of victim, and also to give towards it prisoners from all nations, and thus
also human victims.† It is easy to conceive, from these circumstances, that
the

* "The severe Emperor reproaches the Senate for their want of faith in these
mystic volumes, or of zeal in the public service, as though they had been
infected by the principles of Christianity." (Milman.)

† "Est epistola," says Flavius Vopiscus, "Aureliani de Libris Sibyllinis; nam
ipsam quoque indidi ad fidem rerum:—Mirot vos, Patres sancti, tamdiu de
aperiendis Sibyllinis dubitasse libris; perinde quasi in Christianorum
ecclesia, non in templo deorum omnium, tractaretis. Agite, igitur, et
castimonia Pontificum, cærimoniisque solemnibus juvate Principem, necessitate
publica laborantem. Inspiciantur libri: quæ facienda fuerint celebrentur:
quemlibet sumtum, cujuslibet gentis captivos, qualibet animalia regia non
abnuo, sed libens offero: neque enim indecorum est diis juvantibus vincere:
sic apud majores nostros multa finita sunt bella, sic capita. Si quid est
sumptuum, datis ad praefectum ærarii litteris decerni jussi, est præterea
vestra auctoritatis arca publica, quam magis referiam esse reperio, quam
cuplo." (Flav. Vopisc., Vit. Aurelian., cap. xx.)

AURELIAN CONTEMPLATES A PERSECUTION.

Emperor was not disinclined to shed the blood of Christians to the honour of
his deities; and that, from the dictates of his own spirit, he would be
disposed to adopt harsh and severe measures.*

With the exception of a few individuals, who were deprived of their lives
through the abuse of power in the President, after the favourable edict of
Gallienus had been promulgated, the Christians appear to have enjoyed
tranquillity during the eight years that the son of Valerian occupied the
throne, as well as the two years that the empire was governed by Claudius; and
during the first four years in which Aurelian swayed the sceptre, no hostile
measures were taken against Christianity. He also showed, by his conduct on
one occasion, in the third year of his reign, that he considered the Christian
church under imperial protection; for when a contention had arisen among the
Christians in Antioch, who should be the Bishop of that place, the church
appealed to the Emperor, and requested that the Bishop, Paul of Samosata, who
had already been deposed by the Antiochean Council, on account of his
doctrinal opinions, but had hitherto found support in Zenobia, who was now
conquered by Aurelian, might be compelled at last to lay down his office.
Aurelian did not altogether refuse to interfere in this unprecedented cause;
but, with laudable impartiality, declined any actual cognizance of the affair,
and transferred the sentence from the personal enemies of Paul, the Bishops of
Syria, to those of Rome and Italy. This interference, however, cannot wholly
be attributed to the good feeling of the Emperor toward the church; but rather
to the enmity which he manifested to Zenobia, under whose wing the Heresiarch
of the East had taken shelter. Whatever sentiments had been entertained by the
Emperor toward the church until now, they at once became decided, and easily
understood. It was in the fifth year of the Emperor's reign, whether
influenced solely by the superstitious suggestions of his own mind, or
instigated by evil advisers, does not fully appear, that he was, nevertheless,
induced to make preparation for a general persecution of those harmless
people; which, had he lived long enough (and, judging from the severity of his
character, and his recklessness of human blood, he would not, if committed in
the strife, have hesitated at any measures to subdue the spirit of his
subjects) to have carried into execution, would, in all probability, from the
natural ferocity of his disposition, and the subjection in which he was held
by clamorous bigots and a malignant priesthood, have been accompanied with
greater cruelty, and proved more disastrous to the Christian interests, than
any of those which preceded it. Eusebius† does not hesitate to declare, that
Aurelian was industriously prompted, by certain advisers, to persecute the
Christians. It is very possible that either the Platonic philosophers, who
possessed great influence in those days, or the heathen Priests, who had many
friends among the more noble ladies of the court, might have incited the
Emperor to an assault upon the church, as a measure calculated to become
highly beneficial to the interests of the empire. By any one who shall have
made himself

* Neander, History of the Christian Religion and Church, vol. i., p. 144.

† Eusebius, Eccles. Hist., lib. vii., cap. 30.

D acquainted with the life and character of this Emperor, it must readily be
perceived, that, without recurring to the incitements of other people, this
projected extermination of the Christians may well be accounted for from
Aurelian's superstition and cruelty. From the whole list of Emperors, down to
Constantine the Great, it would scarcely be possible to select one who can be
said to have exceeded him in a superstitious cast of mind, or to have been
more devotedly attached to all the extravagant and disgusting absurdities of
the heathen mythology and worship.* About the time that Aurelian would be
celebrating his Quinquennalia, his sanguinary edicts against the faith of
Christ were first issued; but they did not penetrate far into the interior,
owing to the sudden death of the persecutor himself. As the edict would first
take effect at Rome, Felix, the Bishop, appears to have been among the first
victims; who, after having performed all that could be required of him in such
perilous times, having taken great pains to strengthen the weak in faith, and
to encourage such as might be called to suffer for the sake of Christ; having
baptized many catechumens, that they might be provided with the assistance
which the church is able to afford in the trying hour; and having also gained
many infidels to the faith even while it was powerfully attacked and gainsayed
by human authority; he was led forth to suffer, and by his patient and firm
example he instructed more efficaciously than by his sermons. He is supposed
to have suffered death by beheading. About the same time, and before the
progress of the persecution was arrested, Agapetus is said to have suffered.
He was a young man who had consecrated all his fortune

* The mother of Aurelian, as we learn from Vopiscus, was a Priestess of the
sun; and by her son this luminary appears to have been regarded through life
as the supreme deity. At the conclusion of an oration, in which he returns
thanks to Valerian for the honours which he had conferred upon him, he thus
expresses himself:—"Dil faciant et deus certus Sol ut et Senatus de me sic
judicet." (Flav. Vopisc., in Aurel., cap. xiv.) It is plain, therefore, that
he placed more confidence in the sun, than in all the rest of the heathen
deities put together. Upon the discomfiture of the army of Zenobia at Rimesa,
he attributed his victory entirely to the sun; and therefore, immediately
after the battle, "Ad templum Heliogabali tendebat," says the historian,
"quasi communi officio vota soluturans." (Ibid., cap. xxv.) We find it also
recorded of him, (cap. xxviii.) that he placed in the temple of the sun at
Rome the sumptuous vestments, enriched with jewels, which he had taken in his
wars with the Persians, Armenians, and other people of the East. At Palmyra,
also, the temple of the sun having, in the general scene of havoc and
devastation by which the utter ruin of that great and opulent city was finally
completed, been plundered and overthrown by the infuriate soldiery, he, with
the most anxious solicitude, made instant provision for its being
magnificently re-edified and dedicated anew. (Ibid., cap. xxx.) Shortly after
this, he caused a most splendid temple to be erected in honour of the sun at
Rome, and embellished it with an abundance of gold and precious stones.
(Ibid., cap. xxxix.) Hence, in an encomiastic oration in the Senate
subsequently to his death, delivered by Aurelianus Tacitus, it is, amongst
other things, remarked in his praise, that, through his liberality, one temple
alone (namely, the temple of the sun) had been enriched with fifteen thousand
pounds of gold, and that every other temple in the city glittered with the
resplendence of his offerings. (Ibid., cap. xli.) Finally, on one of his coins
(see Spanheim, De Usu et Prestantia Numis. Antiq., vol. ii., p. 485) we find
his portrait encircled with the following legend: "Sol Dominus Romani
Imperii." Now, with proofs like these before his eyes, of this Emperor's very
extravagant, not to say insane, veneration for the sun, who is there, says
Mosheim, "I would ask, that can feel in the least degree surprised at his
having resolved on a rigorous persecution of the Christians, by whom this
great object of his unbounded admiration and reverence was deemed in no shape
deserving of divine honours?" (See Mosheim's Commentaries.)

DEATH OF AURELIAN.

to the relief of the poor; was seized by the imperial officers, exposed to
various torments, and at last beheaded at Præneste, about twenty-four miles
from the capital.

While the ink was scarcely dry which rendered authoritative the edicts of
Aurelian, he was arrested by that mandate which all are compelled to obey:
"Here shall thy proud waves be stayed!" Conceiving it expedient to exercise
the restless temper of his legions in some foreign war, and finding that the
Persian Monarch still exulted in the shame of Valerian, and braved with
impunity the offended majesty of Rome, he resolved to undertake an expedition
in the East. At the head of an army less formidable by its numbers than by its
discipline and valour, the Emperor advanced as far as the straits which divide
Europe from Asia. He there experienced that the most absolute power is a weak
defence against the effects of despair. He had threatened one of his
secretaries, who was accused of extortion; and it was known that he seldom
threatened in vain. The last hope which remained for the criminal was, to
involve some of the principal officers of the army in his danger, or at least
in his fears. Artfully counterfeiting his master's hand, he showed them, in a
long and bloody list, their own names devoted to death. Without suspecting or
examining the fraud, they resolved to secure their lives by the murder of the
Emperor. On his march between Byzantium and Heracles, Aurelian was suddenly
attacked by the conspirators, whose stations gave them a right to surround his
person; and, after a short resistance, fell by the hand of Mucapor, a General
whom he had always loved and trusted. He died regretted by the army, detested
by the Senate, but universally acknowledged as a warlike and a fortunate
Prince.* "Aurelian," says Lactantius, "might have recollected the fate of the
captive Emperor; yet, being of a nature outrageous and headstrong, he forgot
both his sin and its punishment, and by deeds of cruelty irritated the divine
wrath. He was not, however, permitted to accomplish what he had devised; for
just as he began to give loose to his rage, he was slain. His bloody edict had
not reached the more distant provinces, when he himself lay all bloody on the
earth at Cœnophrurium in Thrace, assassinated by his familiar friends, who had
taken up groundless suspicions against him. Examples of such a nature, and so
numerous, ought to have deterred succeeding tyrants; nevertheless, they were
not only not dismayed, but, in their misdeeds against God, became more bold
and presumptuous."†

An interregnum of six months succeeded the death of Aurelian, which doubtless
was not favourable to the church; but Tacitus, who succeeded, revoked the
persecuting edicts which had been issued, and gave to the Christians some
cessation from persecution and bloodshed.‡ Tacitus lived only a few months
after he had assumed the

* Gibbon, Decline and Fall, &c., vol. ii., p. 84. Milman, edit., 8vo. 1838.

† Lactantii Liber de Mortibus Persecutorum, cap. vi.

‡ Tacitus is said to have often dissuaded Aurelian from some act of cruel
severity, which might perhaps lead us to think that he would not have wilfully
persecuted the Christians. (Flavius Vopiscus.)

D 2 purple. Transported in the depth of winter from the soft retirement of
Campania to the foot of Mount Caucasus, he sunk under the unaccustomed
hardships of a military life. The fatigues of the body were aggravated by the
cares of the mind. For a while, the angry and selfish passions of the soldiers
had been suspended by the enthusiasm of public virtue. They soon broke out
with redoubled violence, and raged in the camp, and even in the tent of the
aged Emperor. His mild and amiable character served only to inspire contempt,
and he was incessantly tormented with factions which he could not assuage, and
by demands which it was impossible to satisfy. Whatever flattering
expectations he had conceived of reconciling the public disorders, Tacitus
soon was convinced that the licentiousness of the army disdained the feeble
restraint of laws, and his last hour was hastened by anguish and
disappointment. He expired at Tyana in Cappadocia, after a reign of only six
months and about twenty days.* He was succeeded by his brother Florianus, who
showed himself unworthy to reign by his hasty usurpation of the purple,
without any assurance of the good-will of the Senate; and the soldiers, by
whom he had been raised to the empire, after having witnessed his mode of
treatment about three months, were glad to surrender all pretensions to him
into the hands of Probus, whose activity and enterprise triumphed over every
obstacle. His reign, on the whole, was a season of peace to the Christians.
Probus had little else to do, during the six years of his reign, than to check
the incursions of barbarians into various parts of his empire. The Emperor was
successful, though none of these campaigns furnish subjects of ecclesiastical
history. The Christians endured much suffering, and greatly rejoiced in the
victories which Probus from time to time achieved over the barbarians. This
was the case in Gaul, where Gregory of Tours states that the Germans had been
the cause of considerable affliction to the Christians, but that Probus had
rescued them from their incursions in 277. We have an account of some
martyrdoms† which took place at Antioch in this reign; but the time is
uncertain, and incidents of that kind may have happened occasionally, without
any instructions to that effect having been given by the Emperor.

Probus was put to death by the soldiers in 282, while he was preparing for a
war with Persia; and Carus, who immediately succeeded him, gave the title of
Caesar to his two sons, Carinus and Numerianus. The latter has obtained the
name of a persecutor; and, among others who are said to have suffered in this
reign, mention is made of Eutychianus, Bishop of Rome. There appears but
little ground for this assertion, inasmuch as Numerianus accompanied his
father to Persia, and his facilities for persecuting the Christians would be
very few and distant. He died in the autumn of 284. He can therefore hardly
have molested the Christians during the short time that he held the empire
with his brother Carinus, after the death of Carus. Numerian was engaged in
the Persian expedition, his constitution

Gibbon, Decline and Fall, chap. xii., vol. ii., p. 67. Milman's edit. 8vo.

Baronii Annal. Eccles., ad ann. 281.

DIOCLETIAN, EMPEROR.

destroyed, and himself confined to the solitude and darkness of his tent. All
civil and military affairs devolved upon Arrius Aper, the Prætorian Prefect,
who to the power of his important office added the honour of being father-in-
law to Numerian. The imperial pavilion was strictly guarded by his most trusty
adherents, and during many days Aper delivered to the army the supposed
mandates of their invisible Sovereign. On the return of the troops, the
legions halted at Chalcedon, when a report soon circulated of the Emperor's
death, and of the presumption of the Minister, who exercised the sovereign
power in the name of a Prince who was no more. With rude curiosity the
soldiers rushed into the imperial tent, and discovered the corpse of Numerian.
His death might easily have been attributed to natural causes; but the
concealment which Aper had practised betokened guilt: he was therefore accused
of being his murderer. A general assembly of the army was appointed to be held
at Chalcedon, whither Aper was transported in chains, as a prisoner and a
criminal. A vacant tribunal was erected in the midst of the camp, and the
Generals and Tribunes formed a great military council. They soon announced to
the multitude that their choice had fallen on Diocletian, Commander of the
domestics or body-guards, as the person the most capable of revenging and
succeeding their beloved Emperor. The future fortunes of the candidate
depended on the chance or conduct of the present hour. Conscious that the
station he had filled exposed him to some suspicions, Diocletian ascended the
tribunal, and, raising his eyes towards the sun, made a solemn profession of
his own innocence, in the presence of the all-seeing deity. Then, assuming the
tone of a Sovereign and a Judge, he commanded that Aper should be brought in
chains to the foot of the tribunal. "This man," said he, "is the murderer of
Numerian;" and, without giving him time to enter on a dangerous justification,
drew his sword and buried it in the breast of the unfortunate Prefect.* A
charge supported by such decisive proof was admitted without contradiction,
and the legions, with repeated acclamations, acknowledged the justice and
authority of the Emperor Diocletian. It was not long before Carinus was put to
death, and Diocletian reigned supreme.†

The final contest between Paganism and Christianity approached. Almost three
hundred years had elapsed since the divine Author of the new religion had
entered upon his mortal life in a small village in Palestine; and now, having
gained so powerful an ascendancy over the civilized world, the Gospel was to
undergo its last and most trying ordeal, before it should assume the reins of
empire, and

* Gibbon, Decline and Fall, chap. xii, vol. ii., p. 105. Milman's edit.

† "This Diocletian, ever having an ambitious mind, aspired greatly to be
Emperor; to whom, when serving in Gaul as a common soldier, a Druidese
foretold, that, 'after he had killed a wild boar, he should be Emperor.' He,
taking effect at these words, used much to kill with his hands wild boars;
but, seeing no success to come thereof, he used this proverb: 'Ego apros
occido, alius pulpaenito frantur!' that is, 'I kill the boars, another eats
the flesh!' At length the said Diocletian, being nominated Emperor, and seeing
Aper (who had killed Numerian, the Emperor) standing thereby, aware to the
soldiers that Numerian was wrongfully killed; and forthwith, running upon Aper
with his sword, slew him." (Foxe.)

become the established religion of the Roman world. The temporal authority was
everywhere armed in defence of the ancient polytheistic creed. It is therefore
of importance to look at the situation of Christianity, what front it had to
present that was feasible, and promised ultimate success. Though menaced with
persecution again and again, the Gospel of Christ had recently enjoyed
security and peace. The Christians had become not merely a public, but an
imposing and influential, body; their separate existence had been recognised
by the law of Gallienus; their churches had arisen in most of the cities of
the empire,—as yet, probably, with no great pretensions to architectural
grandeur, though no doubt ornamented by the liberality of the worshippers, and
furnished with vestments and chalices, lamps and chandeliers, of silver. These
buildings were constantly on the increase. The faithful no longer declined or
refused to aspire to the honours of the state: they filled offices of
distinction, and even of supreme authority, in the provinces and in the army,
and they were exempt, either by tacit connivance, or direct indulgence, from
the accustomed sacrifices.* Christians were employed in offices of importance
in the imperial court; some were found among the eunuchs and chamberlains,
(cubicularii,)—from which, however, we are not entitled to infer that the
Emperor had any particular partiality for the Christians, for there had been
for a long time some Christians among the Cæsariani; and although at first
only one of these was a Christian, yet he would probably use his influence, as
Lucius, who, having obtained the confidence of the Emperor, was made by him
the Præpositus Cubiculariorum, to extend Christianity amongst the people of
the court.† These Christians immediately round the Emperor might also have
great effect in rendering him favourable to their fellow-believers.‡ Among the
more immediate attendants upon the Emperor, two or three openly professed the
Christian faith: Prisca the wife, and Valeria the daughter, of Diocletian, and
the wife of Galerius, were suspected, if not avowed, partakers in the
Christian mysteries.§ If it be impossible to form the most remote
approximation to their relative numbers with that of the pagan population, it
is equally erroneous

* Milman, History of Christianity, vol. ii., p. 260. 8vo. edit.

† Theonas, Bishop of Alexandria, who gave Lucius, one of the royal household,
much excellent advice as to the duties of his office, charges him particularly
not to be lifted up, and to pride himself, because many in the palace of the
Prince had been brought to a knowledge of the truth through him; but far
rather to give God thanks that he had made him the instrument of a good work.
But we cannot here determine that this Emperor was Diocletian. At all events,
it is quite clear that the Emperor in whose court he was, was no Christian; it
is not even clear, that he had any prevailing inclination to Christianity; but
only that there were hopes of winning him over to the cause by means of his
Chamberlain. The Christians about the court were recommended to use the utmost
precaution not to offend the heathen Emperor. If a Christian were appointed
librarian, he was to take good care not to show any contempt for worldly
knowledge and the old authors; he was to be as familiar as a Heathen with all
the poets, philosophers, orators, and historians of old; but then he was
sometimes to take an opportunity of praising the Scriptures, to mention
Christ, and, by degrees, to hint that he is the only true God. "Insurgere
poterit Christi mentio, explicabitur paulatim ejus sola divinitas. Omnia hæc
cum Christi adjutorio prouenire possent." (Galland, Bibl. Patr., tom. iv.;
Neander; see also Routh, Relig. Sacr., vol. iii., p. 307.)

‡ Neander, Hist. of the Christ. Relig. and Church, vol. i., p. 145.

§ Euseb., Eccles. Hist., lib. viii., cap. 1.

DECAY OF PIETY IN THE CHURCH.

to estimate their strength and influence by numerical calculation. All
political changes are wrought by a compact, organized, and disciplined
minority. The mass of mankind are shown by experience, and appear fated by the
constitution of our nature, to follow any vigorous impulse from a determined
and incessantly aggressive few.* From the account given by Eusebius, it
appears that the faithful were in every point of view treated with the
greatest kindness and benevolence by the Emperors, who intrusted them with the
government of provinces,† and gave free permission to the domestics of the
palace, together with their wives, their children, and their servants, to make
open profession of the faith; nay, that they even manifested a preference for
such of their attendants as were members of the Christian community. The
Christian Bishops and Pastors, it moreover appears, were held in high respect
by the Magistrates, and the Presidents of the provinces. A daily acceleration
was hence experienced in the diffusion of Christianity, and churches of
considerable extent were founded in most of the principal cities. The
calumnies and invectives, also, with which the religion of Christ had in
former times been so successfully assailed, were now no longer circulated, or
at least failed of producing their accustomed effect. By the same historian,
however, it is ingenuously acknowledged, and most deeply deplored, that,
instead of turning the liberty they thus enjoyed to good account, the
Christians appear to have given the rein to licentiousness, and to have
plunged into faults of the most inexcusable and fatal nature.‡

A period of more than thirty years elapsed between the persecution of Valerian
and that of Diocletian, in which the church enjoyed much external prosperity
and peace; but, alas! many of those virtues which had distinguished their
predecessors, and had enabled them to stand against the power and corruption
of the whole heathen world, became inoperative and evanescent; and the
Christian community displayed a fearful decay of piety and relaxation of
morals. Ecclesiastical historians have not hesitated to ascribe the misery
which afflicted the church in the latter part of the reign of Diocletian to
the displeasure of the Most High on beholding the corruption of the sanctuary.
Instead of manifesting gratitude and increased devotedness to God, as an
acknowledgment of the many mercies and privileges conferred, the great mass of
the people "waxed fat and kicked;" sloth, negligence, envy, discord, fraud,
and malice, form the sad catalogue of sins with which the Bishop of Caesarea
charges the believers of this age; and the Christian will not feel disposed to
contradict the conclusion to which he comes, that it was to purge the church
of this bad leaven, that the providence of God again exposed

* Millman, Hist. of Christianity, vol. ii., p. 260.

† It is perhaps worth recording, that one of the persons taken into the
household of Diocletian was a Presbyter of the church in Antioch, by name
Dorotheus. He was well versed in profane as well as sacred literature, to
which he added a knowledge of Hebrew; and the Emperor was so pleased with him,
that he gave him the honourable and probably lucrative post of presiding over
the establishment for preparing purple dye at Tyre. (Burton; see also
Eusebius, Eccles. Hist., lib. vii., cap. 32.)

‡ Mosheim, Commentaries, vol. iii., p. 207 it to the purge of persecution.*
The more flourishing and extensive the community, the more the pride; perhaps
the temporal advantages of superiority predominated over the Christian
motives, which led men to aspire to the supreme functions in the church.
Sacerdotal domination began to exercise its awful powers, and the Bishop to
assume the language and the authority of the vicegerent of God. Feuds
distracted the bosom of peaceful communities, and disputes occasionally
proceeded to open violence, so as to render them the prey of intestine wars;
congregation was set in array against congregation, and Pastors against
Pastors; whilst fraud and dissimulation were on every side carried to an
alarming extent.† The comparatively inconsiderable persecution which at the
first affected the soldiers and servants of the palace had no apparent effect
in restraining and correcting these evils. By an unfortunate delusion, or
waywardness, the Christians seem rather to have been led to add crime to
crime; and their Pastors, so far from permitting the mild and healing
influence of Christianity to exert itself in assuaging their mutual heats,
affected more the character of despotic rulers or tyrants, and assumed to
themselves, in various other things, a licence no less incompatible with the
respectability than with the sacred duties of their office. It is necessary
that all these things should be taken into consideration by those who may be
desirous of ascertaining the causes that gave rise to the very heavy
persecution which took place a short time subsequently to the period of which
we are now treating.‡ Such is the melancholy confession of the Christians
themselves, who, according to the spirit of the times, considered the dangers
and afflictions to which they were exposed in the light of divine judgments,
and deplored, perhaps with something of the exaggeration of religious
humiliation, the visible decay of holiness and peace.§

Diocletian was the son of a slave, or of obscure and doubtful parentage; and
that he forced his way to sovereign power, and conceived, and actually
accomplished, the project of re-constructing the empire, betokens him to have
been a man of strong political courage, of profound, if not always of wise and
statesmanlike, views: he reigned for a longer period than any Emperor since
the days of Hadrian, and furnished more matter, though of a painful kind, for
the ecclesiastical historian than any of his predecessors. He assumed the new
title of Dominus or Lord, which gave considerable

* Stebbing, History of the Christian Church, vol. I., p. 121.

† "But as commonly the nature of all men, being of itself unruly and untoward,
always seeketh and desireth prosperity, and yet can never well use prosperity;
always would have peace, and yet having peace always abuseth the same: so
here, likewise, it happened with these men, who through this so great liberty
and prosperity of life began to degenerate and languish into idleness and
delicacy, and one to work spite and contumely against another, striving and
contending amongst themselves, for every occasion, with railing words after
most despitful manner; Bishops against Bishops, and people against people,
moving hatred and sedition one against another; besides, also, cursed
hypocrisy and simulation, with all extremity increasing more and more. By
reason whereof, the judgment of God, after his wonted manner, (the multitude
of the faithful as yet meeting in their assemblies,) began by little and
little to visit the people with persecution, falling first upon the brethren
who were abroad in warfare." (Foxe.)

† Mosheim, Commentaries, vol. III, p. 207.

§ Milman, History of Christianity, vol. II., p. 261.

MAXIMIANUS HERCULEUS.

umbrage to the servile and flexible religion of his pagan subjects. The
necessity of the state appeared also to require the active and perpetual
presence of more than one person invested with sovereign authority, who might
organize the decaying forces of the different divisions of the empire, against
the menacing hosts of barbarians on every frontier. His first care, therefore,
was to give the title of Cæsar to Maximianus Herculeus, which was almost
equivalent to associating him with himself in the kingdom. Diocletian
preferred Nicomedia, in Bithynia, as a place of residence; and in the year 286
he gave the title of Augustus to Maximian, and admitted him as his colleague
in authority and power. The Emperor constantly entertained the notion, ever
dear to the heart of the Roman statesman, that the glory of the empire was
necessarily connected with the old state religion, and that one could not
possibly exist without the other: while he wished to renew the former
splendour of the Roman name, he conceived it to be necessary to re-virify the
ancient Heathenism, which was daily and manifestly sinking into neglect, and
to extirpate the Christian faith, which was spreading wider and wider, and
threatening to attain universal sway. By these principles Diocletian appears
to have been governed, which failed not to constitute him an enemy and
persecutor of Christianity. At present, however, no public document
prejudicial to the interests of the church was put forth; and if the
Christians suffered in the midst of the civil and military movements which
were taking place, it was without the consent, or at least without any
positive command, of the Emperors. Some martyrdoms are mentioned about this
time in Lycia, and several in Rome; but the Emperors were not present, and
these are rather to be considered as insulated events, resulting from the
cruelty or the caprice of some particular Magistrate, or from a temporary
ebullition of popular feeling.*

Herculeus, the colleague of Diocletian in the empire, was a bitter opponent of
the Christian church, and eagerly embraced every opportunity of testifying his
zeal in the cause of idolatry. Among the first who suffered in this reign†
were Primus and Felician, two

* Barton, Lect. on Eccles. Hist., lect. xviii.

† "We find," says Mosheim, "many martyrdoms recorded by Roman Catholic
writers, as having taken place both in Gaul and at Rome, as well as in various
other quarters, during the early part of the reign of Diocletian, to which all
the more early Christian historians appear to have been entire strangers; and
more particularly Eusebius (Hist. Eccles., lib. viii., cap. 1) expressly
represents the Christian church as having, during the first eighteen years of
Diocletian's reign, enjoyed a season of such perfect tranquillity, that it may
almost be said to have been freed from every apprehension of danger. By way of
justifying themselves as to this, the Romish writers to whom we allude,
contend, either that Eusebius was better acquainted with the affairs of the
eastern than the western church; or, that the martyrdoms in question were
passed over by the early Christian historians without notice, in consequence
of their not having been authorized by any public imperial mandate, but merely
by the private orders of Maximian Herculeus. Now, with regard to this
explanation, I can certainly have no objection to any one's acquiescing in it,
to whom it may appear satisfactory; but at the same time I must claim for
myself the freedom of remarking, that all the accounts which have been given
of these martyrdoms appear to me to wear a very questionable aspect. The whole
of them are, in fact, derived from certain Martyrologies and Acts, on which
those who are in the habit of giving credit to none but determinate and
approved authorities will not easily place any reliance. No one can be
ignorant that the Martyrologies

E brothers, and natives of the city of Rome, whose religion seems to have been
their only crime. When they were brought before the tribunal, they boldly
confessed their faith; and upon refusing to sacrifice, they were ordered to be
scourged; after which they were sent to Nomen-tum, about twelve miles from the
capital, where Promotus, the Governor, was ordered to use them as the enemies
of the gods; and with great exactness he executed this commission: his
severity, however, only strengthened their constancy and resolution. On their
examination, the responses which they gave proved that with them there was
indeed "one Lord, one faith, one baptism." The Governor, irritated at their
intrepidity, imagined that the courage which they had shown proceeded from
their having been together; but if they were separated from each other, they
might with facility be overcome. This scheme was tried. Promotus forthwith
began with Felician, who was about fourscore years old, supposing that his
age, and numerous infirmities, would readily yield to his suggestions. After a
variety of torments employed to no purpose, and vain exhortations, advising
him to pay some regard to his old age, he was tied to a post in the prison,
where he remained three days without sustenance, that he might ultimately
accept relief on any terms. In the meantime, Primus was summoned before the
Governor, and mendaciously told that his brother had obeyed the orders of the
Emperor, and had saved his life, and he was advised to follow his example. He
was evidently unmoved by the report, manifesting confidence that he had been
preserved from falling. The Judge, therefore, endeavoured to overcome him by
torments; but finding him steadfastly fixed in the faith, he at length
commanded them to be beheaded. Marcus and Marcellianus suffered about the same
time: they were brothers, and natives of Rome, and of noble descent: their
father, whose name was Tranquillinus, held some considerable post in the court
of Diocletian. He, with his wife, was a Heathen; but committed the education
of their sons to those who instructed them in the principles of Christianity,
and employed themselves in providing for them according to the station which
they occupied in society. The brothers were married when they were apprehended
on account of their religion; for though the Emperor, and his colleague
Herculeus, had as yet issued no edict against the Christian faith, the pagan
priesthood, and others interested in the heathen theology, caused several to
suffer as martyrs, by bringing into operation obsolete, but unrepealed, laws
of the empire, which respected all innovations in the worship recognised by
the people. Marcus and his brother were committed to prison, where they were
visited by Sebastian, an officer of the imperial housemade use of in some
churches are of the most dubious and uncertain character, having been chiefly
compiled from old, vague, and obscure reports; nor are the traditions that
have in various places been current for several centuries, at all more
entitled to respect. Of the accounts now extant of the saints and martyrs of
the first three centuries, under the title of their 'Acts,' how very few there
are that can be considered as genuine, or free from suspicion, may be learned
from Ruinart, who undertook to make a collection of them, and certainly did
collect together all that he could of them. The volume, as he published it, is
but of a moderate size; and small and slender indeed would have been its bulk,
had he admitted nothing but what was altogether unexceptionable." (Mosheim's
Commentaries.)

TRANQUILLINUS, SEBASTIAN, &C.

hold, and a Christian: after they had continued some time in confinement, they
were exposed to severe torture, and afterwards condemned to lose their heads.
Their parents procured the postponement of the sentence for a month, during
which time they anticipated inducing them to abandon the faith; and for this
purpose they were removed to the house of Nicostratus, the public Registrar.
It was there that Tranquillinus and Marcia, accompanied by the wives and
children of their sons, attempted their constancy by all the endearing and
affectionate persuasions which a sorrow-stricken family could urge; until
Sebastian, perceiving that his friends began to soften so far as to deliberate
on the case, came opportunely to their relief, by cogent arguments to
perseverance and constancy: this was accompanied by the conversion of their
parents and families, and also of Nicostratus, their keeper. When the period
of their respite terminated, Chromatius, the Prefect, sent for Tranquillinus,
the father, to give him an account of the progress he had made in his
endeavours to make his sons abjure the faith: we are informed, that by his
conversation the Magistrate became a convert to Christianity, liberated his
prisoners, resigned his office, and retired into the country. Castulus, an
officer of the household, concealed Marcus and Marcellianus in his own
apartments in the palace, until they were betrayed by Torquatus, and, being
arrested, were ordered to instant execution.*

Intimately connected with the above, we have information of Zoe and
Tranquillinus, who are said to have suffered martyrdom in 286. Zoe was the
wife of Nicostratus, mentioned above; and being present out of curiosity
during one of the visits of Sebastian to the prison, her heart was so
powerfully affected with the force of the truth, that she fell at his feet,
and entreated to be taught the way of God more perfectly. As paralysis had
deprived her of the power of speech, she could only make her desires known by
her gestures; but Sebastian, deeply affected by her miserable condition, not
only granted her request, but instructed her to pray to God that, as a proof
of the truth of what she had heard, she might recover her speech: the Almighty
was pleased to hear her prayer, so that the neophyte is said to have declared,
in a distinct and audible manner, her full persuasion of the truth of all that
she had heard. Nicostratus, finding his wife thus miraculously healed, made
confession of the same faith; and Sebastian, thus encouraged, further
instructed them in the principles of Christianity, and the duties of the
disciples of Christ, on which they manifested an earnest desire to be admitted
to baptism, which was administered. The conversion of this family created such
an uproar, that there was no security for them or their friends in their own
habitations: they were therefore obliged to take shelter, in company with
Marcus and Marcellianus, in the apartments of Castulus. Here they spent their
time in prayer and mutual exhortation, until

* Fabian, who had succeeded Chromatius as Prefect, condemned them to be bound
to two pillars, with their feet nailed to them. In this posture they remained
a day and a night, and on the following day were pierced with lances, and
buried in the Arenarium, since called their cemetery, or catacombs, two miles
out of Rome, between the Appian and Ardeatine roads.

F 2 the greatest part of the hallowed company obtained the martyr's crown. Zoe
appears to have been the first who suffered, after the former two: she was
apprehended while in the act of prayer, and was strongly urged to sacrifice to
Mars; she refused with a resolution becoming a Christian; and, having
professed an utter contempt of Paganism, and implicit confidence in Christ,
she was cast into a murky dungeon, and prohibited from having either light or
sustenance, being constantly threatened with a lingering death, unless she
would worship the gods of the empire. Fabian being made acquainted with her
firm and inflexible demeanour, ordered her to be hung upon a tree, and under
her a straw fire to be kindled, in which position she expired. Tranquillinus,
ashamed to hear of the stronger sex overcome by the weaker, made an open
confession of the faith, was stoned to death, and thrown into the Tiber.

Tiburtius was a native of Rome, and descended from a family of some
distinction in the city. His father, Chromatius, as some assert, was Governor
of Rome; others declare that he was only a deputy, or Vice-Governor: be that
as it may, this appears certain, that he was a Judge for trying the causes,
and passing sentence upon such as were accused of being Christians, in the
commencement of the reign of Diocletian. Having passed sentence upon the two
sons of Tranquillinus, and having, at the request of the parent, vouchsafed a
short respite, the Most High rendered this act of mercy instrumental in the
manifestation of the glory of his grace. Chromatius instituted a rigid inquiry
into the truth of Christianity, which terminated in his conversion: he then
sent for Polycarp, a Priest, and requested baptism; and engaged, also, that
his son Tiburtius should take the same step. The initiatory rite in respect of
the father was for some special reason deferred; but his son having renounced
all hopes of worldly preferment, and everything that would interfere with the
duties of Christianity, he was forthwith accepted and baptized. Chromatius at
once relinquished the office which he had held, and allowed all the new
converts to take shelter under his roof, where they remained secure for some
time. Apprehensive, however, that it would be impossible for him to conceal
his change much longer, he applied to the Emperor for permission to retire to
his estate in Campania for the benefit of his health. Having obtained his
request, he acquainted Caius, then Bishop of Rome, that he was disposed to
take his new family with him, and all whose faith and courage might suffer by
being exposed to the trial at Rome. The Prelate approved of the proposal, and
sent Polycarp the Priest with them. Tiburtius remained in Rome, where he took
all prudent measures for his own security, and assembled in the apartments of
one of the officers of the Emperor's household, with other Christians. But
their tranquillity was soon disturbed by Torquatus, who, being offended at the
liberty which Tiburtius had taken in reproving him for his faults, accused him
to Fabian the Prefect, who, after several interrogatories, commanded him to
offer incense to the idol-deities, or to walk barefoot over burning coals. The
martyr chose the latter, which, it is said, he accomplished without injury.
The Magistrate, uninfluenced

CHRISTIANITY IN THE ARMY OF ROME.

by the supernatural interposition, and imputing his escape to the effects of
magic, pronounced sentence of death upon him.

In the army of Rome the Christians and the Heathens were placed in constant
opposition, which frequently manifested itself in numerous overt acts of
oppression and cruelty, which prognosticated a general persecution. Nowhere,
as Mr. Milman justly observes, did the old Roman religion retain so much hold
upon the mind as among the sacred eagles. Without sacrifice to the givers of
victory, the superstitious soldiery would advance, divested of their usual
confidence, against the enemy, and defeat was ascribed to some impious
omission in the ceremonial of propitiating the gods. The Christians now formed
no unimportant part of the army: though permitted by the ruling authorities to
abstain from idolatrous conformity, their contempt of the auspices which
promised, and of the rites which insured, the divine favour, would be looked
upon with equal awe and animosity. The unsuccessful General, and the routed
army, would equally seize every excuse to cover the misconduct of the one, or
the cowardice of the other. In the pride of victory, the present deities of
Rome would share the honour with Roman valour: the assistance of the
Christians would be forgotten in defeat; the resentment of the gods, to whom
that defeat would be attributed, would be ascribed to the impiety of their
godless comrades. An instance of this kind took place, during one of his
campaigns, in the presence of Diocletian. The army was assembled around the
altar, the sacrificing Priest in vain sought for the accustomed signs in the
entrails of the victim; the sacrifice was again and again repeated; but always
with the same result. The baffled soothsayer, trembling with awe or with
indignation, denounced the presence of profane strangers. The Christians had
been seen, perhaps boasted that they had made the sign of the cross, and put
to flight the impotent demons of idolatrous worship. They were apprehended,
and commanded to sacrifice; and a general edict issued, that all who refused
to pay honour to the martial deities of Rome should be expelled the army.*
Herculeus was the most ferocious of tyrants; of which the martyrdom of the
Theban Legion would furnish the strongest proof, if the several accounts of it
could be received as authentic. It may be said to have taken place about the
year 286,† when Herculeus was on his march into Gaul; and one entire legion in
his army is stated to have been composed of Christians. While they were
encamped in a narrow defile,

* Milman, History of Christianity, vol. II., p. 271.

† "Insecurable to pity, and fearless of consequences, he was the ready
instrument of every act of cruelty which the policy of that artful Prince,
Diocletian, might at once suggest and disclaim. As soon as a bloody sacrifice
had been offered to prudence or to revenge, Diocletian, by his seasonable
intercession, saved the remaining few, whom he had never designed to punish,
gently censured the severity of his stern colleague, and enjoyed the
comparison of a golden and an iron age, which was universally applied to their
opposite maxims of government. Notwithstanding the difference of their
characters, the two Emperors maintained on the throne that friendship which
they had contracted in a private station. The haughty, turbulent spirit of
Maximian, so fatal afterwards to himself, and to the public peace, was
accustomed to respect the genius of Diocletian, and confessed the ascendant of
reason over brutal violence." (Gibbon, Decline and Fall.)

not far from the head of the lake of Geneva, and now called St. Maurice, from
one of these soldiers; Herculeus ordered this legion to be decimated for
resistance to some orders which no Christian could comply with. The history of
the affair is as follows:—Herculeus, entering Gaul for the purpose of
repressing some disturbances that had arisen, and having crossed the Alps, he,
in order to take the field under more favourable auspices, gave directions for
a general lustration of his forces, and that the whole army should join in
swearing fidelity at the altars of their gods. With these orders of the
Emperor, the Theban Legion, under the command of Mauritius, which had shortly
before been called from the East, refused to comply.* Enraged at their
resistance, Herculeus caused them to be decimated; that is, he ordered one
soldier out of every ten to be put to death. The remainder continuing firm,
the decimation was repeated; and still finding their constancy proof against
all this severity, he caused them all to be put to death. Mauritius, and his
associates in command, exerted themselves incessantly to keep up the spirits
and resolution of their men; and after the execution of the second sentence of
decimation, sent a remonstrance to the Emperor, which shows, if authentic, how
genuine were both the piety and loyalty of these heroic Christians, and how
clearly they understood the nature of their duty to God, and their temporal
Sovereign. "We are your soldiers, Sire," said they; "but we are also the
servants of God, and we willingly confess that we glory in being so. We owe to
you service in war; but we are bound to appear innocent before God. From you
we receive pay; from Him, life; and we cannot obey you, when to do so would be
to renounce God our Creator and our Lord, and yours also, though you thus
obstinately refuse to acknowledge him. If you demand of us nothing that is
contrary to his decrees, we will obey you as heretofore: if you do otherwise,
we must obey him rather than you. We offer to expose ourselves to any of your
enemies, whosoever they may be; but we cannot believe that it would be lawful
for us to dip our hands in the blood of the innocent. We were bound by an oath
to God, before we swore allegiance to you; and you would have good reason to
doubt our fidelity did you find us violating so sacred a pledge. You command
us to pursue the Christians, that they may be taken and punished: behold us!
we confess our belief in God the Father of us all, and in his Son Jesus
Christ. We have seen our

* This company received the name of Theban Legion from their having been
raised in Thebes, or Thebais. They had been stationed in the East, till
Herculeus professed to need their aid in Gaul to put down the peasants of that
country, who, under the appellation of Baganda, had risen in a general
insurrection, very similar to those which in the fourteenth century
successively afflicted both France and England. When they came to Rome, they
were confirmed in the faith by the Bishop of that city, and promised, upon
oath, that they would rather be slain by their enemies than forsake the faith;
after which they followed the army over the Alps, under the command of
Mauritius, Exuperius, and Candidus, their chief officers, men as renowned for
their piety as for their valour. The body of the soldiers halted for a short
time for refreshment, while some detachments were forwarded to Treves and
Cologne. At this time, the Emperor commanded a general sacrifice to be offered
to the heathen deities for the success of their expedition, requiring all the
troops, both of the East and West, to attend, and proposed to them taking such
oaths as were incompatible with Christianity; a part of which included, that
they should persecute the Christians as enemies to the national gods.

THE THEBAN LEGION.

companions suffer without complaining; but have rejoiced, rather, at their
being allowed the honour of dying for their God, and our God. Neither the
injustice with which they have been treated, nor the menaces hurled against
us, have been sufficient to make us revolt. We have still our arms; but we
resist not, for we would rather die innocent, than live with guilt." But no
declaration of loyalty, no demonstration of the most honourable adherence to
principle, could make any impression on the mind of Herculeus; and, perceiving
the inflexible character of the converted legion, he resolved upon its
immediate and entire destruction.* To effect this sanguinary purpose, says the
tradition, he directed a considerable body of troops to surround it, and to
put every man to the sword. The Christians, on being made acquainted with the
Emperor's intentions, awaited their fate with resignation; and when they saw
the regiments approaching which were ordered to act as their executioners,
they laid down their arms, and fell passive victims to the edict of their
barbarous Sovereign.†

Notwithstanding the great activity which Diocletian and Herculeus manifested
in the government of the empire, and especially in the progress of their arms
against the Persians and Germans, new opponents were perpetually arising, who
created considerable annoyance and danger. Carausius had declared himself
Emperor in Britain, in reference to whom the associated Princes met in
consultation, and resolved upon adopting vigorous measures. They terminated,
however, at the commencement of the campaign in favour of the insurgent, so
that Herculeus found it necessary to make peace with him, and ignominiously to
allow him the assumption of the imperial title. In addition to this, a fresh
competitor appeared in Egypt, in the person of Achilleus. Affairs beginning to
wear an aspect so serious, the two Emperors met again at Milan for mutual
conversation; and determined to strengthen their powers of aggression by
calling to their help two individuals, on whom they imposed the title of
Cæsar. These were Constantius Chlorus, and Galerius Valerius Maximianus.
Constantius took the command in Gaul, having first divorced his wife Helena,‡
and married Theodora, the step-daughter of Herculeus.

* Such is the substance of the account now extant, under the title of "Passio
sanctorum Mauritii ac sociorum ejus," which is said to have been compiled by
Kucherina, Bishop of Lyons, in the sixth century; and is to be found,
accompanied with a learned introduction and notes, in Ruinart's "Acta Martyrum
Sincera et Selecta," p. 271, et seq. Fol., 1713. And it may be remarked, that,
notwithstanding the zeal that has occasionally been displayed by the
adversaries of the Church of Rome, in reducing within as narrow limits as
possible the very extensive catalogue of its martyrs, by none of them, with
the exception of one or two, was any attack, previously to the commencement of
the eighteenth century, ever made on the history of the Theban, or, as it is
not unusually, by way of distinction, termed, "the happy, or fortunate,
legion." Nor is there anything in this that should occasion much surprise,
when it is considered that scarcely any other history of this kind has come
down to us so well supported by ancient documents and testimonies. (Mosheim's
Commentaries.) "Such is the story," says Dr. Burton, "of the Theban legion,
which it is difficult, if not impossible, to receive in all its details; but
which may have some foundation in fact; and the local tradition is certainly
extremely ancient."

† Stebbing, History of the Christian Church, vol. 1., p. 196.

‡ Helena was the mother of Constantine the Great. She was born of obscure
parents in Bithynia. When divorced by the marriage of her husband with
Theodora,

At the same time he sent his son, Constantine, who was now sixteen years old,
to attend upon Diocletian at Nicomedia; and though he was treated in a manner
suited to his rank, and had the advantage of gaining military experience, the
young Prince was, in fact, kept as a hostage for the good conduct of his
father. Galerius at the same time married Valeria, the daughter of Diocletian,
and took the command in Illyria. Herculeus had Africa and Italy, while
Diocletian protected the eastern part of the empire, including Egypt, residing
principally at Nicomedia. In this division of the country, the government of
Britain fell to Constantius; but he was occupied in Gaul some years. In the
meantime Carausius was killed by Allectus, who himself assumed the title of
Emperor. In 296 Allectus was defeated and killed, and Constantius then passed
over into the island.* About the same time Diocletian succeeded in recovering
Egypt, having slain the usurper Achilleus.†

The sanguinary act of Herculeus, with regard to the Theban Legion, rekindled
the persecution in Gaul, and many suffered. Among several are enumerated
Faith, Capracius, and Quintin; of whom a brief notice will be recorded. Faith
was a native of Aquitaine, who from her infancy was instructed in the
principles of the Christian faith, and brought up in a manner which accorded
with the opulence of her parents. When Herculeus afflicted the Christians in
Gaul, Aquitaine was governed by Dacian, who was a great devotee to the
superstitious ceremonies of Paganism, and servilely devoted to his master's
will. This Magistrate was extremely active in apprehending the professors of
Christianity, and in endeavouring to persuade them to renounce the faith. He
resided in the same place as our martyr, whose reputation among the Christians
constituted her the peculiar object of his aversion and hate: she was speedily
informed of the dangerous circumstances which were gathering, and being
persuaded that she could not be long concealed, prayed to be divinely
assisted, and then surrendered herself to the officers. Being brought before
the Governor, he employed both promises and threats to induce her to
relinquish the Christian profession; but finding his efforts to be she retired
from the court; but the elevation of her son to the throne restored her to the
honours of her rank, which she adorned by devotion and Christian charity. She
was the founder of various churches; and in her travels into the Holy Land,
she is said to have discovered the true cross. She died in the arms of her
son, A.D. 328, and was interred in the imperial mausoleum at Rome.

* "In the third year of the reign of Diocletian, Carausius, a person of no
extraction, but of great courage and abilities, and of an enterprising temper,
gave Diocletian some trouble in Britain. This Carausius had been ordered to
guard the coasts against the Franks and Saxons: misbehaving himself in his
post, and being suspected of holding a correspondence with the enemy, he was
ordered to be executed by Herculeus, who was now raised by Diocletian to a
partnership in the empire. Carausius, having notice of this order, assumed the
purple in his own defence, and set up for himself; and, seizing upon Britain,
held it seven years, maintaining his ground with great conduct and resolution;
but at last was assassinated by Allectus, a friend of his, whom he had used
with the greatest confidence, and trusted with the main of his affairs. This
Allectus usurped the island three years, and was then slain in the field by
the Prefect Asclepiodotus, who commanded under Constantius Chlorus. And thus,
after ten years' revolt, Britain was recovered to the Roman Emperors."
(Collier, Eccles. Hist. of Great Britain.)

† Burton, Lect. on Eccles. Hist., lect. xxviii.; see also Bede, Eccles. Hist.
of the English Nation, lib. i., cap. 6.

CAPRACIUS, QUINTIN, &C., MARTYRS.

ineffectual, he commanded her to be laid on the iron-bed, or gridiron, over a
slow fire; which cruel and lingering torture she endured with a fortitude
bordering upon cheerfulness, which so influenced several of the spectators,
that they embraced the faith, and, young as they were in the profession of
truth, they were enabled to meet death with intrepidity and courage. Capracius
appears to have been one of those who fled when the storm first broke out in
Gaul; but hearing of the constancy of the before-mentioned martyr, he
addressed himself to God, that he might obtain a similar victory. Being
carried before the Governor, he made a full confession, and was laden with
irons. The Magistrate, perceiving him to be young, and adequate for the
service of his country, attempted his fidelity by the offer of a considerable
post at court: he, however, rejected every proposal, but that of dying for his
faith, from which he could not be removed; declaring that his imperial Majesty
had nothing to bestow, in comparison of what he anticipated from the Most High
whom he served. Dacian, being unable to overcome his constancy, delivered him
over to the executioners, with directions for them to try the utmost power of
their torments upon him. The Governor, finding that all his efforts tended
only to increase the number and fortitude of the faithful, ordered Capracius
to be beheaded, extending this sentence to others who had recently embraced
the truth on beholding the indomitable courage of those who had suffered in
maintaining it. Quintin appears to have been a native of Rome, and descended
from a senatorian family; but the records of his personal history are scanty,
until we find him engaged in the publication of the Gospel. Being desirous of
preaching the word among the Heathen in Gaul, he left his country, and all
hope of temporal advantage, and, in company with one Lucian, arrived in
Picardy, where they for some time preached the faith together. In process of
time they separated: Quintin prosecuted his mission in that part of the
country: his companion went to Beauvois, where he is said to have received the
crown of martyrdom. Although we are not acquainted with any consecutive or
detailed account of the actions of Quintin, we are nevertheless enabled to
say, that God made him powerful both in words and deeds, and that he received
the reward of his labours in this reign. Herculeus having appointed Rectius
Varus his Prefect, he proved himself to be on an equality with his Sovereign
in acts of superstition and cruelty, and executed the whole of his designs
against the Christians with ardour and fidelity. Varus being in Gallis
Secunda, or the Farther Gaul, heard of the great success which attended the
ministrations of Quintin; and, being incensed at the progress of Christianity,
he formed a resolution to destroy its Preacher, but deferred the execution of
it until the affairs of state brought him to Amiens. On his arrival he ordered
Quintin to be arrested, thrown into prison, and placed in irons; and on the
following day he was brought before the Governor, who attempted to subdue his
fidelity by promises and threats; but finding him proof against both, he
ordered him to be severely scourged, and then confined him to a close dungeon,
without the liberty of receiving any comfort or assistance from his friends.
The

F writer of his Acts asserts, but upon what authority we know not, that a
martyr was miraculously set at liberty that night, and found preaching to the
people the following morning, which prodigy is said to have proved the
conversion of many; but the Prefect, ascribing it to the power of magic,
issued a second order to apprehend him, and endeavoured by certain violent
methods to shake his resolution, but with as little success as before. He then
ordered him to be stretched with pulleys, until his joints were dislocated,
after which his body was torn with scourges composed of wire; boiling pitch
and oil were poured down his back, and lighted torches were applied to his
sides and arm-pits; but being strengthened by Him whose cause he defended, he
was superior to all the cruel arts of his barbarous persecutor, and was kept
in a state of holy tranquillity and patience; and, finding him unable to be
overcome, the Governor remanded him to prison. Shortly after Varus being
obliged to journey to Vermandois, he ordered Quintin to be conducted thither
under a strong guard, where he expired under the hands of his executioners.
His remains were carefully watched until the evening to prevent their
interment, and were then ignominiously thrown into the Somme.

The heresies which at the close of the third century infested the church
operated in some degree to increase the prejudices of Diocletian against the
Christians. Manicheism had made considerable progress in Egypt; and, on
account of its Eastern origin, the Emperor, having found difficulty in
subduing Persia by his arms, was afraid that they were about to inundate the
world with a new and dangerous doctrine. In a letter which Diocletian
addressed to Julianus, the Proconsul of Africa, against the Manichees,* are
numerous passages which were greatly calculated to cause alarm among the
Christians. In this epistle, also, mention is made of the old religion having
been supplanted by a new one, and of the criminality of suffering established
usages to fall into decay or desuetude, and orders were given that all persons
professing Manicheism should suffer capitally, that their books should be
burnt, and their property confiscated; but if any of them were high in rank or
station, their property should be seized, and themselves sent to work in the
mines;† a movement which fully harmonized with the Empe-

* Baronii Annales, ad ann. 287.

† Manes, or Manichees, the founder of the sect of the Manichees, flourished
about the year 270. He was a native of Persia, but not born in a condition of
slavery, as some have maintained. He is represented to have been a man of
considerable learning, and to have been, while yet young, ordained a Christian
Priest; but afterwards falling into heresy, he was expelled from the church,
and favourably received at the court of Sapor, King of Persia. That Prince
listened to Manes so far as the doctrine of the two principles is concerned;
but when he proceeded to introduce his peculiar notions of Christianity into
the religion of his country, he lost the favour of the Monarch, and was
obliged to retire into Turkistan. On the death of Sapor, he returned to court,
and was well received by Hormisdas, the new Monarch. This reign only lasted
two years; and though his son Varanes was inclined at first to favour Manes,
he was compelled to give way to the calumnies and jealousies which existed
against him; and, after a public conference, in which, as might have been
supposed, Manes was defeated, he was put to death, either by crucifixion or by
excoriation, A.D. 277. The charge that he impiously pretended to be himself
the Messiah, or the Holy Ghost, is now regarded as an unfounded calumny;
indeed, it is more than probable, that the circumstance of his name,
signifying "comforter," alone gave rise to the latter part of the accusation.
The doctrine of Manes was a motley mixture of the tenets of Christianity with
the

MAXIMILIAN, A MARTYR.

ror's subsequent operations against the church. About this time a new heresy
appeared in Egypt, which was founded by a man named Hieracas, or Hierax.* He
professed himself a Christian; but his Egyptian education had led him to study
astrology and magic, to which he added an acquaintance with the literature and
philosophy of Greece. The Manichaean doctrines which were now becoming popular
soon attracted his notice. He prohibited marriage, and the use of animal food,
in which he followed the more rigorous of the Manichees; although there is
reason to think that Manes did not impose this abstinence upon all his
followers. Hierax appears to have borrowed largely from the Gnostics; and,
with respect to the nature of the Son of God, he had a notion peculiarly his
own, which tended to a denial of the eternal existence of the Son. His
followers were called after him, Hieracitae; and they were likely to be
numerous, when we find Manichaeism so widely spread as to attract the notice
of the Government; and when we remember that many persons in Egypt had from a
long period been following an ascetic or monastic life. It does not, however,
follow, that Hierax adopted the doctrinal as well as the practical principles
of the Manichees; and if the Christians were confounded with the Hieracitae,
or with the Manichees, there was likely at that time to be a revival of the
ancient prejudices against them.†

Until now there had been many Christians in the army, both in the higher and
lower ranks, and they had never been compelled to do anything against their
conscience. This is clearly shown, says Neander, from what is related by
Eusebius, as well as from a remarkable circumstance which, as we can determine
with certainty from the name of the Consul given in a narration prepared by
eye-witnesses, took place in the year 295. It is one of the instances of an
absolute refusal of a part of the Christians to enter into military service,
on the plea that it was, by its very nature, incompatible with their religion;
instances which, although their force was weakened by many others on the
opposite side of the question, might very easily serve as an argument to the
enemies of Christianity to support their assertion, that Christianity was
detrimental to the state. At Sevesta, in Numidia, a young man of the name of
Maximilian was brought before the Proconsul, as bound to serve in the army: as
he entered, and was about to be measured, to see if he had the stature
required, he declared at once, "I cannot be a soldier; I can do nothing
wicked: I am a Christian." The Proconsul, without noticing his protestations,
coolly ordered him to be measured, and, when he was found to ancient
philosophy of the Persians. He combined these two systems, and applied and
accommodated to Jesus Christ the characters and actions which the Persians
attributed to the god Mithras. He established two principles; namely, a good
and an evil one: the first, a most pure and subtle matter, which he called
"light," did nothing but good; and the second, a gross and corrupt substance,
which he called "darkness," nothing but evil. This philosophy is very ancient;
and Plutarch treats of it at large in his Isis and Osiris.

* Hieracites, heretics in the third century, so called from their leader
Hierax, a philosopher of Egypt, who taught that Melchisedek was the Holy
Ghost, denied the Resurrection, and condemned marriage. (Henderson.)

† Burton, Lect. on Eccles. Hist., lect. xxviii.

F 2 be of the standard height, said to him, "Let them put the insignia of the
military service round your neck, and become a soldier;" without taking any
further notice of his profession of Christianity. The young man said, "I will
bear no such badge: I bear already the badge of Christ, my God." The
Proconsul, who was a Heathen, sarcastically threatened him, "I will send you
instantly to your Christ." The young man said, "I hope you may: this would be
a glory to me." The Proconsul, without further debate, ordered them to put the
soldier's leaden badge upon his neck. The young man struggled against this,
and answered in the ardour of youthful faith indeed, but perhaps with some
deficiency of Christian humility and consideration, "I will not take upon me
the badge of the world's service; and if it be put upon me, I will break it;
for it is unavailing. I cannot bear this leaden token about my neck, after
once receiving the saving badge of our Lord Jesus, of whom ye know nothing,
who died for us." The Proconsul, though a cold heathen Statesman, showed,
nevertheless, humanity in this instance, by endeavouring to persuade the young
man by kind arguments: he himself endeavoured to represent to him, that he
might become a soldier without violating his duty as a Christian; that there
were Christians, who performed military service without scruples, in the body-
guards of all the four Emperors, Diocletian, Herculeus, Constantius Chlorus,
and Galerius. However, as this young man of one-and-twenty years of age would
not submit his own conviction to the example of others, he was sentenced to
death; yet, in his sentence of death,* no notice was taken of his
Christianity, and his non-compliance with the duty of military service was
alleged as the only ground. This is a clear proof, that the soldiers, also,
might openly profess their Christianity; and that if they would only fulfil
their other duties, it would not be expected of them to participate in heathen
ceremonies.†

This state of affairs did not last long. Toward the end of the century,
Diocletian practising the superstitious rites of divination, and understanding
or guessing from the ill success of his sacrifices, that the presence of a
Christian servant was the cause, ordered not only those who were present, but
all in his palace, to sacrifice, and in case of refusal to be scourged with
whips. He wrote, also, to the officers of the army, to constrain every soldier
to sacrifice, or to discharge the disobedient from the service. Possibly the
festival of the fifteenth year, the nomination of Maximianus Herculeus to the
imperial dignity, the "dies natalis Cæsaris," in the year 298, was selected
for the purpose of issuing such a command to the army; for this time would be
exactly adapted for that object, as sacrifices and feasts would be held for
the celebration of the festival in which all the soldiers might be compelled
to participate. The result of this trial has been stated by Eusebius:—"Very
many who were soldiers in the kingdom of Christ, without hesitating, preferred
the confession of his name to that apparent glory and comfort which they
enjoyed; and of these a few here

* "Eo quod indevoto animo sacramentum militia recusaverit, gladio animadverti
placuit."

† Neander, History of the Christian Religion and Church, vol. i., p. 149.

MARCELLUS, THE CENTURION, A MARTYR.

and there exchanged their honours, not only for degradation, but even for
death, for their perseverance in religion. These last, however, were not many,
as the great instigator of these violent measures had, as yet, but moderately
proceeded, and ventured only so far as to shed the blood of some only. The
great number of the believers probably deterred, and caused him to shrink from
a general attack upon all; but when he began to arm more openly, it is
impossible to tell how many and how eminent those were that presented
themselves, in every place and city and country, as martyrs in the cause of
Christ."* The story of Marcellus is remarkable.† Mr. Gibbon, in his History of
the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, endeavours to justify the death of
this soldier, representing him as punished solely for desertion and military
disobedience, as a mutineer, and deserving of severe castigation, thus
suppressing or disguising the real facts of the case. The truth is, that the
death of Marcellus was the effect of a partial and undisguised persecution:
his conscience was not burdened with being a soldier,—for it was no uncommon
thing at that time for a Christian to serve in the army,—but with the
introduction of rules among the soldiery which were utterly subversive of the
very name and principles of Christianity; for those who commanded the
Christian soldiers to sacrifice, were aware that in so doing they compelled
them to renounce the faith of Christ. An instance of this occurs in the case
referred to, at Tingi, now Tangier, in Africa. When the festival in honour of
the Emperor, after the pagan custom, was accompanied by sacrifices and
banquets, the Centurion Marcellus stood up from the soldiers' table, and,
throwing down his wand, his belt, and his arms, he declared, "From this moment
I cease to serve your Emperors as a soldier: I despise praying to your gods of
wood and stone, deaf and dumb idols. If the condition of a soldier require
this, that one must offer sacrifice to the gods and to the Emperors, I throw
away my wand and my belt. I renounce the colours, and I am a soldier no more."
All that he had said and done was now associated, which amounted to this, that
Marcellus had publicly cast away the military insignia, and that he had spoken
before the whole people much that was injurious to the gods and the Emperors:
he was consequently sentenced to death. Cassianus, the Registrar who recorded
the sentence, exclaimed, that he was shocked at the injustice of it; and in
the course of a month he also suffered.

These circumstances tended to prepare the way for more active measures against
the church of Christ, of which Galerius was eminently the great instigator.
His ambition had recently been gratified by a victorious campaign against
Narseus, the King of Persia; and Diocletian, who had been afraid of facing the
danger himself, felt alarm at the success of his son-in-law; and his fears led
him to consent in some degree to those measures of severity which he had
proposed with regard to the Christians. Galerius would gladly have enforced
his orders by more sanguinary measures; but Diocletian did

* Kuseb., Eccles. Hist., lib. viii., cap. 4.

† Rainart., Acta Martyrum Sincera et Selecta, p. 302.

not fully consent to this, so that a Christian soldier might for a time make
his option between resigning his commission, or abjuring his faith. The
celebration of the accession of the Emperor doubtless gave numerous
opportunities for insulting the Christians: nevertheless, the instances were
few in which any were put to death, and indeed the letter of the edict did not
of itself authorize such cruelty; but Magistrates may have executed it with
more or less severity, according to their own feelings, and there is evidence
of martyrdoms having taken place in Africa. This country was under the
government of Herculeus, who had been gaining victories in Mauritania, at the
same time that Galerius was pursuing his conquests in the East. Herculeus had
the vices of Diocletian, such as his love of money and his sensuality, but
with a more active and enterprising mind; and Galerius was likely to find him
a willing assistant in his schemes against the Christians. Constantius was the
only one of the four heads of the empire who did not take part in this
cruelty.* Being engaged in the distant provinces of Gaul and Britain, he was
probably not consulted when the edict was issued, and the names only of
Diocletian and Herculeus would be affixed to it. Constantius did not execute
it in the countries under his command; and with some few exceptions, with
which he was not personally concerned, the Christians of those parts were as
much unmolested as before. The case appears to have been otherwise at Rome.
Caius, the Bishop of that see, died in 296, and escaped the painful scenes
which Marcellinus, his successor, was called to witness. Evidence, also, of
another species of persecution is forthcoming, and of which we find monuments
in the present day. When Herculeus was at Carthage, he had some baths
constructed upon a magnificent scale, which were called after his own name;
and when he came to Rome shortly afterwards, he built some others equally
splendid, which bore the name of Diocletian. The ruins of these enormous baths
are still to be seen at Rome; and the interest which they excite is increased,
when we read that they were raised by the labours of Christian soldiers,†

* Though Constantine Chlorus, who was a favourer of the Christians, had the
government of Britain at this time, yet being no more than Cæsar, he was under
the jurisdiction of Diocletian and Herculeus, and obliged to execute their
orders: for, as Aurelius Victor observes, though the titles of Augustus and
Cæsar were both names of sovereignty, yet the latter had more of sound than
power in it, being perfectly under the command of him that was Augustus; and
therefore, Lactantius says, (cap. ix.,) when Diocletian called Galerius Cæsar,
after defeating the Persians, he replied in a question with some disgust,
"Quousque Cæsar?" "How long must I be Cæsar?" meaning, he expected to be
advanced to the supreme station of Augustus. Constantius, therefore, having no
more than a subordinate command, when the Diocletian persecution came on, was
forced to see some rigorous orders put in execution. This Lactantius informs
us, (cap. xv.,) that "the edict against the Christians was sent to Constantius
without asking his consent;" and he confesses, Constantius complied so far as
to "pull down their churches." But his kindness, when declared Augustus, made
the Christians willing to forget what they had suffered under him in other
respects. From this observation we may conclude the persecution was general,
till Diocletian and Herculeus resigned the empire. (Collier, Eccles. Hist.,
vol. I., p. 47.)

† Of these baths, which were the largest in Rome, little is to be said in
description, although great fragments of the ancient building remain.
Herculeus, when he returned from Africa, began them, and employed seven years
in the work. He had distinguished himself very much in persecuting the
Christians, and accordingly he ordered as many as he could find to work in the
building. Some say that forty thousand Christians worked

DECAY OF PIETY IN THE CHURCH.

who were condemned to these and other public works by Herculeus.*

All these premonitions of a general persecution with which the fourth century
opens, did not affect the minds of the Christians at large: the spirit of
prayer was not stirred up among them, a sign of protracted and inveterate
decay in godliness. There was a secret and lamentable decline of the life and
spirit and power of the Gospel. A philosophical kind of religion became
exceedingly fashionable; and, from what we are enabled to gather from the
writings of this period, the discourses of Christian Pastors were confessedly
homilies on different points of morality, rather than sermons on those
evangelical doctrines of justification by faith, the hearty conviction of sin,
and the various influences of the Holy Spirit; on account of which we wonder
not at the circumstances which followed. The Most High, who had exercised long
patience, at length declared, in the dispensations of his providence, "Because
I have purged thee, and thou wast not purged, thou shalt not be purged from
thy filthiness any more, till I have caused my fury to rest upon thee." In the
winter of 302 Diocletian and Galerius met at Nicomedia; and while their
private conferences were supposed to relate to the affairs of the empire, they
were engaged in preparing plans for the persecution of the Christians.
Galerius was the prime mover: his mother, Romula,† was superstitiously devoted
to Paganism, and endeavoured to have various kinds of sacrifices to accompany
her in all her public entertainments. The Christians ever and anon declined
her invitations; and, her pride being now wounded, she was incessant in urging
her son to put down their enemies by force. Galerius had also his share of
superstition, and employed every argument with his father-in-law that the
former edict might be pursued with even severer measures. Diocletian at length
consented to summon a Council, formed of some persons versed in the
administration of the law, and some military men. Of these one here. "Hence,"
says one of the antiquaries of Rome, "though all the other baths are
destroyed, these, which were built by the hands of saints, are still
preserved." He adds, that some of the bricks have been found with a cross
marked upon them. (Burton, Description of the Antiquities, and other
Curiosities of Rome, 8vo. edit., p. 296. Oxford, 1821.) "Ecclesiastical
historians tell us, that these baths were erected during the tenth general
persecution of the Christians. The soldiers who had embraced the religion were
condemned to work here; and after having supported that fatigue for that space
of seven years, many of them were cruelly put to death." (Lumisden, Remarks on
the Antiquities of Rome, 4to., p. 206. London, 1797.)

* Burton, Lect. on Eccles. Hist., lect. xxviii. Barouil Annal. Eccles., A.D.
298.

† Lactantius says: "She was exceedingly superstitious, and was a votary of the
gods of the mountains. Being of such a character, she made sacrifices almost
every day, and she feasted her servants on the meat offered to idols: but the
Christians of her family would not partake of these entertainments; and, while
she feasted with the Gentiles, they continued in fasting and prayer. On this
account she conceived ill-will against the Christians; and, by woman-like
complaints, instigated her son, no less superstitious than herself, to destroy
them. So, during the whole winter, Diocletian and Galerius held council
together, at which no one else assisted; and it was the universal opinion,
that their conferences respected the most momentous affairs of the empire. The
old man long opposed the fury of Galerius; and showed how pernicious it would
be to raise disturbances throughout the world, and to shed so much blood; that
the Christians were wont with eagerness to meet death; and it would be enough
for him to exclude persons of that religion from the Court and the army."
(Lactant., De Mortib. Persecut., cap. 11.)

party was already notoriously hostile to Christianity, Hierocles, who was
probably a member of this assembly. Diocletian, however, prolonged his
resistance; and being old and infirm, and naturally timid, he had no wish to
take the lives of his subjects. To give somewhat greater solemnity to the
proceeding, and to identify their measures as much as possible with the cause
of polytheism, it was determined to consult the oracle of Apollo at Miletus.
The answer of the oracle might be anticipated; and Diocletian submitted to the
irresistible and united authority of his friends, of Galerius, and of the god,
and contented himself with moderating the severity of the edict. Galerius
proposed that all who refused to sacrifice should be burnt alive. Diocletian
stipulated that there should be no loss of life. The first edict issued
against the Christians in this reign appeared early in the year 303.* It was,
says Eusebius, the nineteenth year of the reign of Diocletian, and the month
of Dystrus, called by the Romans March, in which the festival of our Saviour's
passion was at hand, when the imperial edict was everywhere published to tear
down the churches to the foundation, and to destroy the sacred Scriptures by
fire. Such was the character of the primary manifesto; but it was not long
before others were promulgated, in which it was decreed that all the Prelates,
in every place, should first be committed to prison, and that afterward every
method should be adopted to compel them to sacrifice to the pagan deities.†

It was about this time, and before the edict came into operation, that
Sebastian suffered: he held a responsible situation in the court of Rome, and
was a Captain in the Praetorian guards; but his employment in the imperial
household could not draw him aside from his fidelity to the cause of the
Redeemer. His prudence and sincerity, together with the urbanity for which he
was distinguished, secured for him the attachment of the soldiers, and the
esteem of all who were acquainted with him: he conducted himself as an apostle
under the garb of a soldier; and when Christianity was beheld as "the off-
scouring of all things," he was instrumental in leading many to Him who is
"the way, the truth, and the life;" confirmed and strengthened others in
seasons of temptation and difficulty; and several he taught to despise
suffering and death for the sake of Christ. His situation at court for a time
secured him from any attempts being made against himself personally; but when
Diocletian began to sweep his palace and his army of all who bore the
Christian name, Sebastian was charged with being one of the chief supporters
of those martyrs who pertained to the family of Castulus: he was of too great
importance to be put to death without the express order of the Emperor: the
Praetor therefore acquainted Diocletian with the defection of his officer; and
insinuated that he was the abettor, if not the author, of the numerous
disorders which had recently taken place in Rome; and that he, under the
character of a Captain of the Guards, was sheltering an

* The accuracy of this date is proved by Pagi ad Baron, A.D. 302; Walchius,
Dissert. de Christ. sub Dioclet. Persecut., sec. xvi., p. 51; Tillemont,
Memoires, tom. iv., p. 515, et seq.

† Eusebius, Eccles. Hist., lib. viii., cap. 9.

THE GENERAL PERSECUTION OF DIOCLETIAN.

enemy both to the empire and to the gods. The Emperor summoned Sebastian into
his presence, and bitterly reproached him with ingratitude in thus repaying
his favour and confidence: he replied, by observing, that Christianity, so far
from engaging him in any designs prejudicial to His Majesty, taught him, that
it was impossible to give a greater proof of his fidelity to his Sovereign,
than by supplicating the only true God for his preservation and success. The
Emperor, being incensed at an answer so injurious to the gods he adored,
ordered him immediately to be taken to the Campus Martius,* and tied to a post
and shot with arrows. This sentence was executed, and the martyr was left for
dead on the field. Some Christians, however, coming to the place of martyrdom
with the intention of burying the body, found him with signs of life
remaining. The wife of Castulus caused him to be conveyed privately to the
Emperor's palace to the apartments of her husband, where with proper care, in
process of time, he recovered; and the Christians, beholding him thus
restored, besought him earnestly to seek safety in flight. He refused to do
this; and when able to go out, he placed himself in the way of the Emperor, as
he was proceeding to the temple, and addressed him boldly, and in strong
terms, on the unreasonableness of his prejudice against the faith of Christ,
and on the facility with which he credited the calumnies and falsehoods of the
heathen priesthood, whose chief endeavour was to misrepresent the Christians,
and to charge them with being the enemies of the state; although obliged, by
the principles of their faith, to maintain inviolable loyalty to the person of
the Emperor, and to pray for the prosperity of the empire. The freedom of the
language of Sebastian, and especially of one whom Diocletian imagined he had
caused to be put to death, not merely surprised but angered him: he therefore
ordered him to be carried to a spot near his palace, and there beaten till he
expired; and to prevent any future resuscitation, his body was thrown into the
common sewer.

A day was chosen for the execution of the persecuting edict; and the time
which elapsed from its issue, would allow it to be conveyed to several places
before Easter. At Nicomedia, where the decree was first promulgated, and where
Diocletian and Galerius were still staying, an earlier day was fixed. The
feast called Terminalia † took place on the 23d of February, that festival
which was inseparably connected with the stability of the Roman power; that
power which was so manifestly endangered by the progress of Christianity.
Early in the

* The term Campus belongs to the language of Sicily, in which it signified a
hippodrome, or race-course; but amongst the Romans it was used to signify an
open plain, covered with herbage, and set apart for the purpose of exercise or
amusement. Eight of these plains are enumerated by P. Victor, as appertaining
to the city of Rome; among which, the most celebrated was the Campus Martius,
so called because it was consecrated to the god Mars. The most populous part
of modern Rome stands here.

† Terminalia was a festival in honour of the god Terminus, who presided over
boundaries. His statue was merely a stone or post, stuck in the ground to
distinguish between properties. On the festival the two owners of adjacent
property crowned the statue with garlands, and raised a rude altar, on which
they offered some corn, honeycombs, and wine, and sacrificed a lamb, or a
sucking-pig. The public festival in honour of this deity was celebrated at the
sixth mile-stone, on the road towards Laurentum, doubtless because this was
originally the extent of the Roman territory in that direction.

G morning, when it was scarcely light, the Prefect of the city appeared at the
door of the church in Nicomedia, attended by the officers of the city and of
the court, with Generals and officers of the army; the doors were instantly
thrown down, and an immediate entry was effected. The Pagans beheld with
astonishment the appearance of the place; and after seeking in vain for an
idol, or any visible object of worship, they burnt whatever sacred books were
discovered, and the rest of the furniture of the building was plundered by the
tumultuous soldiery. The two Emperors commanded from the palace a full view of
the tumult and the spoliation, and marked the proceedings with evident
anxiety; for the church stood on a height at no great distance, in a populous
part of the city. It was a subject of consultation between them whether the
edifice should not be set on fire. Galerius wished to enjoy the spectacle of
its conflagration; but Diocletian fearing that the flames might extend to the
splendid buildings which were contiguous, his opinion prevailed. The pioneers
of the Praetorian guard were detached; and advancing in battle array, with the
instruments of destruction in their hands, they surrounded the building, and
in a few hours the lofty structure was razed to the ground. This was intended
as a signal for further aggressions: the Christians made no resistance, but
awaited in silent consternation the event.

On the following day another edict was declared, which was framed in terms of
the sternest and most rigorous proscription, short of the punishment of death.
It comprehended all ranks and orders under its sweeping and inevitable
provisions. Throughout the empire the churches of the Christians were to be
levelled with the ground, and the public existence of the religion
annihilated. The sacred books were to be delivered, under pain of death, by
their legitimate guardians, the Bishops and Presbyters, to the imperial
officers, and publicly burnt. The philosophic party thus hoped to extirpate
those pernicious writings with which they in vain contested the supremacy of
the public mind. The property of the churches, whether endowed in land or
furniture, was confiscated; all public assemblies for the purposes of worship
prohibited; * the Christians of rank and distinction were degraded from all
their offices, and declared incapable of filling any situation of trust or
authority; those of the plebeian order were deprived of the right of Roman
citizenship, which secured the sanctity of their persons from corporal
chastisement or torture; slaves were declared incapable of claiming or
obtaining their liberty; the whole race were placed without the pale of the
law, disqualified from appealing to its protection in case of wrong, as of
personal injury, of robbery, or adultery; while they were liable to civil
actions, and bound to bear all the burdens of the state, and amenable to all
its penalties. In many places an altar was put before the tribunal of justice,
on which the plaintiff was obliged to sacrifice, before his cause could obtain
a hearing.† How far the Christians of lower condition were to lose the

* Not only were the meetings of the Christians prohibited, but the houses in
which they were held were liable to be seized for the use of the state.
(Euseb., Eccles. Hist., lib. ix., cap. 10.)

† Milman, History of Christianity, vol. ii., p. 275.

THE PERSECUTING EDICT TORN DOWN.

enjoyment of their freedom, is certainly not sufficiently defined; but
considerable latitude, says Neander, is left in the application of this edict
to individual cases. It is certain, from the decree by which the Emperor
Constantine annulled all the consequences of this persecution in the East,
that, at times, free-born Christians were converted into slaves, and sentenced
to those kinds of slave-labour which were at once the lowest and the most
despised, and to which they would be the least adapted from their former
habits of life.*

We are enabled to discover something of the spirit in which this edict was
received throughout the empire among the Christians, by what took place at
Nicomedia. A Christian of respectable condition allowed himself to be carried
on, by a somewhat inconsiderate zeal, to violate that respect toward the
government which the Gospel prescribes, and publicly to tear down the
document, and then to rend it in pieces, exclaiming, in a sarcastic manner,
"Behold, these are new victories over the Goths and Sarmatians which are
posted up! The Emperor treats the Christians, his own subjects, no otherwise
than if they were the conquered Goths and the Sarmatians!" This outrage on the
imperial Majesty was expiated by the death of the offender, who avowed his
glorious crime. Although less discreet Christians might secretly dignify the
sufferings of the victim with the honours of martyrdom, they could only
venture to approve the patience with which he endured the agony of being
roasted alive by a slow fire.† There were also at this period many additional
circumstances of a peculiar nature, which cast a somewhat disadvantageous
light on Christianity, or, at least, might be made use of so to do. A fire
having broken out in the imperial palace of Nicomedia, which spread almost to
the chamber of the Emperor, it was natural enough that this circumstance
should have been attributed to the revengeful spirit of the Christians; and
the accusation might have still been true, without attaching any general
disgrace to the whole Christian church; inasmuch as, among so numerous a body
as the Christians, there might very likely be many who allowed themselves to
be carried away by passion, which they would palliate under the semblance of
religion, so

* Neander, History of the Christian Religion and Church, vol. I., p. 151. In
order to understand the meaning of the edict as far as possible, we must
compare the two imperfect and inaccurate statements given by Eusebius, (Hist.
Eccles., lib. viii., cap. 2,) and the writer De Mortibus Persecutorum, as well
as the translation of Rufinus. No positive interdict of assemblies for the
worship of God is expressly given in any of these places; but the nature of
the case shows that it was tacitly implied in the edict. But it is moreover
clear, from credible and official documents relating to the first time of the
persecution in proconsular Africa, that such an interdict was positively
expressed in the decree. The words of Eusebius, which have caused much
dispute, are difficult enough: *Τους εν οικετίαις ει στι επιμείνουν τρ του
Χριστιανισμου προθεσει, ελευθερίας στεριακεσθαι.* By the words *εν οικετίαις*,
we cannot, according to the common use of language, understand anything but
persons in the condition of servants, slaves. We must, therefore, if we wish
to put any reasonable sense on the passage, seek for some other meaning for
the word *ελευθερία*, than that which first offers itself. The words implying,
"they shall be deprived of their freedom," may mean, "shall be put into chains
and into prison." Compare above the edict of Valerian against the Cessaians.
But it is safe to follow Rufinus, who may have seen the original of the edict:
"Si φις κεννόμαινις, libertatem consequi non posset." If this be correct, the
translation of Eusebius is very defective.

† Euseb., Hist. Eccles., lib. viii., cap. 8.

G 2 far as to forget of what manner of spirit they ought to be as the
disciples of Christ.* The real origin of this fatal conflagration is unknown;
and, notwithstanding the various causes to which it was ascribed by the fears,
the malice, and the superstition of the different classes, we may probably,
says Milman, refer the whole to accident. It may have arisen from the hasty or
injudicious construction of a palace built but recently. The author of the
work on the judgments which befell the persecutors, says, that Galerius
himself caused the fire,† in order to be able to accuse the Christians of the
crime; and Constantine, who was afterwards Emperor, and who was now at
Nicomedia, says expressly that the palace was struck by lightning,‡ and
discovers in that dispensation evident marks of the judgment of God. The truth
is, as acknowledged by Ensebius, that we do not know the real cause: it was
enough that the Christians were accused of a conspiracy against the Emperor,
and that many of them were arrested without any distinction as to whom
suspicion could attach or not. Most terrible tortures were used in order to
obtain a confession, but to no purpose. Many were burnt, beheaded, and
drowned. About fourteen days after a second fire broke out, which was speedily
extinguished; and this tended to make it more probable that the fire was
intentional. The Christians did not hesitate to throw the guilt of
incendiarism upon Galerius, who had practised the part of a secret incendiary
in order to criminate them, and to alarm Diocletian into his more violent
measures.§ The impolicy of such an accusation as attributing the fire to the
Christians, will at once appear, if we consider the chance which they actually
had of destroying both their imperial enemies in the fire: this must have been
very remote, and could only darken the subtle mind of Diocletian with the
blackest superstition, and irritate Galerius to more unmeasured hostility;
whilst it acquitted the Christians of all such conspiracies, even if their
high principles, their sacred doctrines of peaceful submission, even under the
direst persecution, did not place them above all suspicion. The only Christian
who would have incurred the guilt, or provoked upon his innocent brethren the
danger inseparable from such an act, would have been some desperate
enthusiast, like the man who tore down the edict. The silence of Constantine
may clear Galerius of the darker charge of contriving, by these base and
indirect means, the destruction of a party against which he proceeded with
undisguised hostility: Galerius, however, as if aware of the full effect with
which such an event would work upon the mind of Diocletian, immediately left
Nicomedia; declaring that he could not consider his person safe in that city.∥

The consequences which followed the conflagration were most disastrous to the
whole Christian community. The officers of the household, the inmates of the
palace, were exposed to the most cruel tortures, by the order of the Emperor.
The females of the family were

* Neander, History of the Christian Religion and Church, vol. i., p. 157.

† Lactantius, De Mort. Persecut., cap. 14.

‡ Constant. Orat. ad Sanct., cap. 25.

§ Ensebi., Hist. Eccles., lib. viii., cap. 6.

∥ Milman, History of Christianity, vol. ii., p. 277.

PETER, DOROTHEUS, AND OTHERS, MARTYRS.

by no means exempt from the severest scrutiny in the judicial investigations
which took place in the presence of Diocletian himself. It is remarkable that
the servants of Galerius were subjected to no torture; but he took great pains
to keep up the indignation of the old Emperor, who was now thoroughly in
earnest, and raged most furiously against every individual bearing the
Christian name. His wife Prisca,* and, what is still more extraordinary, her
daughter Valeria, the wife of Galerius, who were at least suspected of a
secret regard for Christianity, were compelled to offer sacrifice. The edict
was still in force, which had been published several years before, ordering
all official persons to attend the religious services of Heathenism; but it
was now interpreted to mean, that they who did not comply should be put to
death: an example was therefore set in torturing several individuals, who not
only held places in the household, but had been great favourites with
Diocletian. Among these, Peter, Dorotheus,† and Gorgonius stand conspicuous.
The Emperor had shown a peculiar respect for them; some of them were even
officers of his chamber; and he placed so great confidence in their fidelity
in discharging trusts reposed in them, that nothing was done in the palace
without their direction or permission; but no worldly advantage could
prejudice any of them against the faith of the Redeemer; and the Almighty
shortly vouchsafed unto them an opportunity of proving how empty and vain were
the pleasures of time when compared with the honours of eternity. After the
second conflagration had been subdued, Peter was seized and carried before
Diocletian, who insisted upon him offering sacrifice. This he, of course,
refused to do. He was immediately stripped naked, and scourged until his bones
were laid bare, when vinegar and salt were applied to his wounds: he
nevertheless maintained his integrity. He was then laid upon the iron-bed, or
gridiron, and literally broiled over a slow fire. Nothing, however, could move
him; and the executioners were conquered by his invincible courage and
fortitude, which triumphed over all their attempts, and procured for him the
glory and reward of martyrdom. Gorgonius and Dorotheus, after having felt the
violent effects of the pagan fury, and endured a variety of torments, were
strangled. Others of the Emperor's household died in a similar manner.
"Diocletian," says Lactantius, "raged not only against his own domestics, but
indiscriminately against all. Eunuchs, once the most powerful, and who had
chief authority at court and with the Emperor, were slain. Presbyters, and
other officers of the church, were seized, and without evidence, by witnesses
or confessions, condemned, and, together with their families, were led to
execution. In burning alive, no distinction of sex or age was regarded; and,
because of their great multitude, they were not burnt one after another, but a
herd of them were encircled with the same fire; and servants, having

* The name of the wife of Diocletian was unknown until the discovery of the M.
De Mort. Persecut. In the Acts of S. Susannah, she is styled Serena; in the
Acts of St. George, Alexandria; and in the life of Pope Vigilius, she is
styled, Eleutheria. This shows what credits is due to such writers: (Lord
Hailes.)

† This Dorotheus is probably the same who had the superintendence of the
manufactory of purple dye at Tyre; though some think that the latter survived
to the reign of Julian.

millstones tied about their necks, were cast into the sea. Nor was the
persecution less grievous on the rest of the people of God; for the Judges,
dispersed through all the temples, sought to compel every one to sacrifice.
The prisons were crowded; tortures hitherto unheard of were invented; and,
lest justice should be inadvertently administered to a Christian, altars were
placed in the courts of justice, hard by the tribunal, that every litigant
might offer incense before his cause could be heard. Thus Judges were no
otherwise approached than divinities. Mandates also had gone to Herculeus and
Constantius, requiring their concurrence in the execution of the edicts; for,
in matters even of such mighty importance, their opinion was never once asked.
Herculeus, a man of no merciful temper, yielded ready obedience, and enforced
the edict through the dominions of Italy. Constantius, on the other hand, lest
he should have seemed to dissent from the injunctions of his superiors,
permitted the demolition of churches, mere walls, and capable of being built
up again; but he preserved entire that true temple of God, which is the human
body;"* and Gaul, which was his favoured province, for a time was not defiled
with Christian blood. The fierce temper of Herculeus only awaited the signal,
and readily acceded to carry into effect the barbarous edicts of his
colleagues.

When the persecutors attempted, by burning all the copies of the Bible, to
annihilate Christianity, with its sources, for ever, they certainly, says
Neander, made choice of means which were more efficacious than the extirpation
of the living witnesses of the faith among mankind; for their example only
excited a greater number of followers. On the contrary, if they could succeed
in annihilating the inspired Scriptures, they would by that means have
suppressed the very source from which true Christianity and the life of the
church had constantly risen up afresh and unconquerable. Let them execute as
many Preachers of the Gospel, Bishops and Clergy, as they would, nothing was
done as long as this book, which could always form new teachers, remained to
the Christians. Considered in itself, indeed, the transmission of Christianity
was not necessarily dependent on the letters of holy writ. Inscribed, not in
tables of stone, but in the living tablet of the heart, the divine doctrine,
once established in the consciences of men, by its own divine power, might
maintain its ground, and make further progress; but, as human nature is at
present constituted, the testimony of history declares, that Christianity,
separated from its source, the word of God, from which it may always be
recalled to its purity, would soon be overwhelmed by the mixture of falsehood
and corruption, and become so disguised as not to be recognised. This means,
therefore, after the laws of human calculation, was well chosen; if only the
wilfulness of man could have defied the almighty power of God, who wished to
preserve the treasure of the holy word as the best possession of man, and
could have brought its deep-laid schemes to effect. But how could it ever be
imagined possible, according to the usual rules of human calculation, to find
and to annihilate, by human power, all the copies of the

* Lactantius, De Mortib. Persecut., cap. 15.

THE BIBLES COMMANDED TO BE BURNT.

Scriptures, which were not only deposited in the churches, but were also in
existence in so many private houses? We here trace that blind policy which the
empire of lies always makes use of, while it expects that nothing can escape
its search, and that it can destroy, by fire and sword, what is protected by a
higher power. The blind zeal for the support of the old religion went so far,
in many cases, that the Heathen would willingly see many of the most glorious
monuments of their own literature perish with the writings of the Christians,
those at least in which a testimony was raised against the superstition of the
popular religion, which were constantly used by the Christians in their
controversy against Heathenism; and they would gladly have drawn up a whole
"Index Librorum prohibitorum," and "expurgandorum." * One is immediately led
to suppose, that where people of this description, or those who would
cheerfully earn imperial favour by doing too much, rather than too little,
were commonly to be found among the Governors and Magistrates of provinces,
many acts of violence and cruelty must have been committed against the
Christians, by the fulfilment of the first edict, in which the delivering up
of the holy Scriptures and the discontinuance of congregations were commanded;
and especially since by this edict Christians of all classes were subject to
judicial investigations with the use of torture.

"But many Magistrates," continues Neander, "who were free from this
fanaticism, and this spirit of flattery, which would sacrifice all higher
objects to lower and baser, and who had more humane feelings, endeavoured, as
far as possible, to soften the rigour of these

* Arnobius, who wrote exactly about this time, says, in his Disput. adv.
Gentes, lib. iii., "Not a few abhorred the work of Cicero, 'De Natura Deorum,'
and could not prevail on themselves to read a book which contradicted their
ancient prejudices." Others said, in the greatest indignation, that a
"Senatus-con-vitum" ought to be published, that those writings might be
annihilated, by which Christianity was confirmed, and the authority of
antiquity undermined: "Aboleanor ut hæc scripta, quibus Christiana religio
comprobetur, ut vetustatis opprimatur auctoritas." Arnobius was a teacher of
rhetoric at Sicca, a town of Numidia, in the reign of Diocletian. His great
work, from which we have quoted above, was written at the time when he was a
candidate for admission into the Christian church, and before he was enrolled
among its members. Of this work, which consists of seven books, the first two
are a defence of the Christian religion against the charges of the Gentiles,
and a defence of the Deity and divine mission of Jesus Christ. The three next
following are directed against the errors of Paganism; and the last two, a
justification of the Christians for abandoning the pomp and luxury of the
temples, sacrifices, and altars in use among the Pagans. He appears to have
known nothing of the Old Testament; and of the New, only the history of
Christ; unless we suppose that he purposely omits any allusion to the contents
of the rest of the holy Scriptures, as being works unknown to those for whom
he wrote. On the other hand, he shows great acquaintance with Greek and Roman
writers, many of whom he cites by name; considerable knowledge of the
Christian apologists, —Justin and Clemens Alexandrinus, for instance; and in
the books devoted to the attack upon the doctrines of Paganism, he exhibits an
extensive mythological knowledge, and quotes, for the purpose of giving them a
philosophical explanation, many myths which are not now to be found in any
other writer. The first edition of this work was published at Rome, (1542-3,)
under the title of "Arnobil Disputationum adversus Gentes libri viii. Romae.
Fr. Priscianensis." The number of books here mentioned is made up by the
addition of the Octavius of Minutus Felix as an eighth. A Commentary on the
Psalms, and a Dispute between Serapion and Arnobius, De Deo Trino et Uno,
which have been ascribed to him, are now decided to be the productions of the
younger Arnobius, who was of Gaul, and a semi-Pelagian, who obtained
considerable reputation for being mistaken as the veritable Arnobius the
elder.

measures, and acted with as much lukewarmness as they could without openly
violating the imperial edict. They either suffered themselves to be deceived
by the Christians, or put the means into their hands of evading the edict, and
fulfilling it only in appearance. Bishop Mensurius, of Carthage, used the
precaution to bring all the copies of the Scriptures from the churches of
Carthage to his own house, to preserve them there, while he left in the
churches only the writings of heretics. When the inquisitors came, they took
these writings, and went away satisfied. They were assuredly religious
writings of the Christians; and in the edict nothing was said of what holy
writings, and of what party among the Christians, it meant to speak. But some
Senators of Carthage discovered the imposition to Annalinus, the Proconsul,
and required him to institute a search in the house of the Bishop, where he
would find all the writings. The Proconsul,* who was willing to be deceived,
refused to comply with this request. When Secundus, another Numidian Bishop,
refused to deliver up the holy writings, the inquisitors asked him why he
could not deliver up some useless extracts, or at least give them something,
anything he pleased.† With the same intention, probably, must the Legate of
the Proconsul have asked the Numidian Bishop Felix, as he did more than once,
'Why, then, do you not give up your superfluous writings?'‡ So, also, in the
case of Felix, the African Bishop, when the Præfectus Præstorio asked him,
'Why dost thou not give up the holy writings? or perhaps thou hast none?' it
is evident enough that he meant to put the latter assertion into his mouth.§

"In the conduct of the Christians at this critical time we find the opposite
results which, under such circumstances, the different inclinations and
imperfections of human nature are apt to bring about: some, in the dread of
martyrdom and death, gave up their copies of the Bible, which were then burnt
in the public market-place,—these men were excommunicated, under the name of
traditores;||

* August., Opera, tom. ix., Brevical. Collat. cum Donat. Dies, ill., cap. 13.
Edit. 8vo. Paris, 1837.

† "Aliqua exfolia aut quodcunque."

‡ "Quare scripturas non tradis supervacuas?" is, perhaps, intentionally
ambiguous; so that the words might be understood to mean, that the Christian
writings in general were something useless.

§ Ruinart, Acta Martyrum Sincera, Acta Felicis, p. 356.

|| A name applied to those who delivered up their Bibles, and the sacred
utensils of the church, to the Heathen to be burnt in the time of the
Diocletian persecution. The first Council of Arles, held immediately after the
persecution, (Labbe. Concilia Sacrosancta, tom. i., p. 1428,) makes it
deposition from his order for any Clergyman who could be convicted by the
public Acts of this crime, either of betraying the Scriptures, or any of the
holy vessels, or the names of his brethren, to the persecutors. The Donatists
frequently, but falsely, objected this crime to Caecilian, Bishop of Carthage,
and those that ordained him, that they were traditors; upon which Augustine
tells them, that if they could evidently make good the charge, the Catholics
would not scruple to anathematize them after death. (August. Opera, tom. ii.,
Epist. ad Bonifac. Bened. edit., p. 967. Paris, 1837.) But the truth of the
matter was, these very objectors were traditors themselves, though they had
the impudence to absolve one another, while they threw the charge upon
innocent men, as Optatus (Opera, De Schismate Donatistarum, lib. i., folio,
Paris, 1676) and Augustine (Opera, tom. ix., Contra Crescon. Donat., lib.
iii., cap. 27, Bened. edit., p. 696, Paris, 1837) show out of the acts of
their own Council of Cirtis, where they acted this comedy which stood as a
witness against them. (Kingdom, Antiquities of the Christian Church, vol. vi.,
book xvi., chap. vi., § 26. Straker's edition.)

WRITERS AGAINST CHRISTIANITY.

others, (of which we find examples more particularly in northern Africa, where
an enthusiastic disposition was natural to the people,) without any necessity,
but in a blind zeal, into the composition of which something of earthly warmth
entered, gave themselves up to death, by declaring that they were Christians,
that they had holy writings in their possession, but that nothing should
induce them to give them up; or else they rejected with scorn the means of
evasion proffered by Governors of humane feelings: in this latter case, we
ought to give high honour to a tender conscientiousness, which did not act
thus out of a delusive enthusiasm to become martyrs, but because they held it
unchristian to deceive in this manner, or because it appeared to them a tacit
denial of the faith, if they delivered up these writings to the Heathen, and
allowed them to think that these were the holy Scriptures of the Christians.
Others believed it to be their duty to remain true to their faith with the
simplicity of doves, and with hallowed prudence to accommodate themselves to
the times. They used every precaution which was not incompatible with the
profession of Christianity, to save from danger their own lives, and at the
same time the copies of the Scriptures; and, in order to divert the jealousy
of the Heathen, they endeavoured to temper the violent zeal of their brethren.
It was likely enough that these men should be condemned by the other party, as
those with whom the fear of man and human considerations had too much weight,
and as cowardly traitors to the faith,—a feeling which proved, in after-days,
the source of many convulsive struggles in the North African church. The
prudence, however, of this party in the Christian community, at least, had
this advantage, that it withdrew from the fanatical fury of the people many
copies of the Bible which otherwise would have been a prey to the flames." *

While the Emperors were declaring war against the Christian church, other
adversaries were attacking them with the pen. Two works were published about
this time at Nicomedia, which were intended to bring Christianity into
contempt and ridicule. One was written by a philosopher, who pretended great
zeal for Paganism, and a wish to save the Christians from suffering; but he
was careful to introduce many compliments to the Emperors, for defending the
old religion.† Lactantius, who was living in Nicomedia at the time, speaks of
this man as extremely dissolute in his life, and of his book as being very
defective in argument.‡ The other work was composed in two books, and called
"Philalethes." The author was Hierocles,§ who

* Neander, History of the Christian Religion and Church, vol. I, p. 152, et
seq.

† Lactantii Divinarum Institutionum lib. v., De Justitia, cap. ii.

‡ Lactantius does not mention his name; it is written in the dust: he was not
unlike some Preachers of morality in all ages,—a defender of virtue, and a
practitioner of vice; a flatterer of the court, very rich and very corrupt;
one who condemned his own practice by his moral writings; and who dealt
largely in the praises of the Emperors on account of their great piety in
supporting the religion of the gods. Yet all men condemned his meanness in
choosing that time particularly to write against Christians; nor did he obtain
the favour at court which he expected. (Miller.)

§ A notorious persecutor of the Christians in the beginning of the fourth
century: he was at first President of Bithynia, and afterwards Governor of
Alexandria. Lactantius relates, that at the time he was teaching rhetoric in
Bithynia, and the Christian church held some judicial station in the city: he
was a man of some talent, but a virulent enemy of the Gospel, and exercised
great influence in promoting this persecution. He appears to have held some
military command in Egypt; but wherever he was employed, he distinguished
himself for cruelty against the Christians. His work was addressed to them in
the form of an expostulation; but it proved to be a bitter attack upon the
founders of their religion, as well as upon the Scriptures, with which he
showed such an intimate acquaintance, that he might almost have been suspected
of having once been a believer. It was utterly unbecoming and discourteous to
choose, for his attack on Christianity, the season when persecution against
the Christians was in full operation; a time which a man of tender feelings,
as he professed himself to be, would have been the last to select. In his
work, Hierocles brings forward much which had been said by Celsus and
Porphyry, and allowed himself to indulge in the most shameless falsehoods
about the history of Christ. In order to deprive Christians of their argument
from the miracles of Christ, he carries on a comparison between him and
Apollonius of Tyana, allowing full credit to all the fables which the
rhetorical Philostratus chose to narrate from unauthenticated sources, and
from his own fancy; as, for example, that he understood the language of
animals: in a word, he everywhere recognises the Apostles as uneducated and
lying impostors. However, at this time Lactantius,* a native of Africa, was
teaching under persecution, Hierocles was one of the Judges, and had been the
chief promoter of the persecution which the Christians suffered under
Diocletian. He composed two small books; not, indeed, professedly against the
Christians, lest he should seem to inveigh against them as an enemy; but
insidiously addressed to them, that he might be thought to advise them kindly
as a friend. They were entitled, Λογοὶ φιλαληθεις στρος Χριστιανοῦς, in which
he insisted upon some points in Scripture which seemed to him to contradict
one another. He attempted also to compare the feigned miracles of Apollonius
Tyanaus with those of Jesus Christ, and pretended to prove that Apollonius had
performed even greater wonders. Eusebius undertook, in his book against
Hierocles, to confute the latter part of this work; but, as Dr. Cave says, "he
has done it very indifferently, his confutation being little more than a bare
running over Philostratus's Life of Apollonius."

* Lactantius, whose name is now generally written Lucius Cælius, or Cæcilius,
Ferminius Lactantius, was the most eloquent of the Latin fathers, and
flourished at the close of the third and in the early part of the fourth
century. Some have conjectured that he was a native of Firmum, now Firmo, in
Italy, and that from thence he was called Firminius; but it is more generally
believed that he was an African. He was educated under Arnobius, who taught
rhetoric at Sicca in Africa. While he studied there he wrote a book, entitled,
Symposium, or The Banquet; by which he acquired so great a reputation, that
when Diocletian entertained the design of rendering Nicomedia a rival to Rome,
he was sent for by him to teach rhetoric in that city. Lardner thinks that he
was educated in the Christian religion. That he was a Christian when
Diocletian's persecution commenced at Nicomedia, is unquestionable. How he
passed through that long and dreadful affliction, we are not informed. He was
afterwards invited by Constantine into Gaul, and appointed Latin preceptor to
his son Crispus. The date of his death is not known. Dupin says, that he is
the most eloquent of all the ecclesiastical authors who wrote in Latin; and he
deserves the name of the Christian Cicero, not only for the clearness and
purity of his language, but also for the turn of his phrase, and his manner of
writing. His principal work is entitled, Divine Institutions, in seven books,
and contains a confutation of the writings of two Heathens of note, who had
published pieces against the Christian religion at the commencement of the
persecution under Diocletian. Critics have widely differed in their judgments
concerning the time of writing and publishing them; but the weight of evidence
appears to preponderate in favour of the opinion of Cave and Lardner, who
consider them to have been composed about the year 306. Basnage and Dupin
place them about A.D. 320. Of the preceding

LACTANTIUS.

rhetoric at Nicomedia, which gave him an opportunity of reading these works,
as well as of witnessing the sufferings of the Christians; and although the
place afforded him but few pupils who cultivated the Latin language, he took
to writing, and some of his voluminous works have come down to us. The "Divine
Institutions," in seven books, though not published till after this period,
were undertaken as an answer to the two works mentioned above; and they
contain much valuable information, as well as decisive proof of the writer
being a sincere believer in the Gospel; but we must not forget that Lactantius
was a layman, and a rhetorician, who was but imperfectly acquainted with some
of the leading points of Christianity. While the religion of Christ was thus
assailed by persecution or argument, if it may be so called, defenders of the
faith were always ready to cope with it.

The persecution now became general. In almost every part of the world,
Christianity found itself assailed by the full force of the civil power,
constantly goaded on by the united influence of the pagan priesthood and the
philosophic party. "The furious rage of the malignant Emperors," says Foxe,
"being let loose against the saints of Christ, proceeded more and more, making
havoc of God's people throughout all quarters of the world. Diocletian, who
had purposed with himself to subvert the whole Christian religion, executed
his tyranny in the East, and Herculeus in the West. But the wily Diocletian
began with great subtlety; for he put the matter first in practice in the
camp, where his Lieutenant * put the Christian soldiers to this
choice,—whether they would obey the Emperor's commandment in that manner of
sacrifice he enjoined, and so both keep their offices and lead their bands, or
else to cast away from them their armour and weapons. Whereunto the Christian
men courageously answered, that they were not only ready to throw aside their
armour and weapons, but also to suffer death, if it should with tyranny be
enforced upon them, rather than they would obey the wicked decrees and
commandments work there is also an abridgment, entitled, Institutionum
Epitome, inscribed by Lactantius to his brother Pentadius. This was imperfect
at the beginning, in Jerome's copy, and was so in those which reached modern
times; till a perfect, or nearly perfect, copy was found in the library of the
King of Sardinia, at Turin, by Dr. Christopher Matthew Pfaff, and published by
him at Paris in 1712. In his treatise, De Ira Del, which is particularly
commended by Jerome, Lactantius endeavours to prove, that God is capable of
anger as well as of mercy and compassion; and in his treatise, De Opificio
Del, he establishes the doctrine of God's providence, by demonstrating the
excellence of his principal work, which is man, giving an elegant description
of the parts of the human body, and the properties or faculties of the soul.
Respecting the well-known book, De Mortibus Persecutorum, the learned world
has been divided in opinion. It is a work which none of the ancients, after
the time of Jerome, have noticed; and it was first published by Stephen
Baluze, in the second volume of his Miscellanea, in 1679. The first edition of
the works of Lactantius was published at Rome in 1468, fol., by Conrad
Lewenhelm; and the last, of any importance, which is the most correct, was
edited at Paris, in 1748, 2 vols., 4io., by the Abbé Lenglet. There is also an
edition by Heumann, Göttingen, 1736. Lactantius also wrote an Itinerary from
Africa to Nicomedia, a work entitled Grammaticus, two books to Asclepiades,
and eight books of Epistles, all of which are lost.

* Ἄνρατονιδάρχης. Eusebius says, in his Chronicon, that this man's name was
Veturius. Foxe renders the word, "Marshal of the field." The Chief Magistrates
in the Emperor's provinces exercised both the civil and military functions,
and bore military titles.

II 2 of the Emperor. There might a man have seen very many who were desirous
to lead a simple and poor life, and who regarded no estimation and honour in
comparison of true piety and godliness. And this was no more but a subtle and
wily flattery in the beginning, to offer them liberty, whether they would
willingly abjure their profession or not; as also this was another, that in
the beginning of the persecution there were but a few tormented with
punishment; but afterward, by degrees, the enemy began more manifestly to
break out into open persecution.* After the second edict, commanding that all
the governors of churches should be committed to prison, the sight of what was
then done no expressions are sufficient to describe, when infinite multitudes
were everywhere committed to custody; and the prisons, which had formerly been
provided for murderers and robbers of the dead, were then filled with Bishops,
Priests, and Deacons, Readers and Exorcists, insomuch that there was now no
place left therein for those who had been condemned for their crimes. Again,
when another edict offered the choice to the imprisoned, of liberty on
sacrificing, or a thousand tortures on refusal, it can hardly be expressed
with words what number of martyrs and what blood was shed throughout all
cities and regions for the name of Christ." †

The tide of persecution had fully set in; edict followed edict in rapid
succession, and unheard-of tortures were invented and applied: nevertheless,
many endeavours have been made to depreciate the accounts which have been
recorded of this general and simultaneous attack upon the church. The
historian Milner says, "If I think it needless to relate distinctly all the
sufferings of the Christians under it, I must not be supposed to countenance
such attempts. The agreement of Lactantius and Eusebius, both contemporary
authors of credit, is apparent. That such edicts were published, that much
pains were used to enforce them, that a real attempt was made to extinguish
the Gospel, more systematical, and conducted with more industry and
refinement, than formerly, are certain. Even if we had no particular
Martyrologies extant, we might be assured, from circumstances, that much blood
must have been spilt, and much misery endured, not only in a regular and legal
way, but also by tumultuary violence, and by the malice of men combined
against a set of persons deprived universally of the protection of the laws.
There wanted not some instances of humanity and generosity in Pagans towards
their Christian friends and relations; but whoever knows what the passions

* Diocletian "did not all at once, nor in a mass, wage an open war against us;
but as yet only made trial of those that were in the armies. For in this way
he supposed that the rest could easily be taken, if he could first succeed in
subduing these. Then one could see great numbers of the military most
cheerfully embracing a private life, so as not to renounce their reverence for
the supreme Creator of the universe. For when the General, whoever he was,
first undertook the persecution against the soldiers, he began by a review and
lustration of those that were enrolled in the army; and gave them their
choice, either to enjoy the honour conferred upon them if they obeyed, or, on
the contrary, to be deprived of it if they disobeyed. Very many who were
soldiers in the kingdom of Christ, without hesitation, preferred the
confession of his name to that apparent glory and comfort which they enjoyed;
and of these a few here and there exchanged their honours, not only for
degradation, but even for death, for their perseverance in religion."
(Eusebi., Eccles. Hist., lib. viii., cap. 4.)

† Foxe, Acts and Monuments, vol. 1., p. 226. Seeley's edition.

THE PERSECUTION IS SANCTIFIED.

of men are capable of, when set afloat, and suffered to act without check or
control, will not doubt that the sufferings of Christians at this period must
have been far greater than can be related by any historian. Thus did God at
once punish the sins of Christians, revive his work in their hearts by
sanctified afflictions, evidence the extreme depravity of mankind, and, above
all, illustrate his own power and wisdom in baffling the rage of Satan,* and
in defending and delivering his church when everything seemed combined for its
destruction. Should any be inclined to pay more regard to the testimonies of
Heathens, than of Christians, let them hear Libanius, the friend of Julian the
Apostate, who thus speaks, in his funeral oration, of that Emperor: 'They who
adhered to a corrupt religion' (he means the Christian) 'were in great
terrors, and expected that their eyes would be plucked out, that their heads
would be cut off, and that rivers of their blood would flow from the multitude
of slaughters. They apprehended their new master would invent new kinds of
torments, in comparison of which mutilation, sword, fire, drowning, being
buried alive, would appear but slight pains. For the preceding Emperors had
employed against them all these kinds of punishments.' He goes on to commend
Julian for using milder methods. Two pillars in Spain were also monuments of
the systematic cruelty of this persecution, on one of which was this
inscription: 'Diocletian, Jovian, Maximian Hercules, Cæsares Augusti, for
having extended the Roman empire in the East and West, and for having
extinguished the name of Christians, who brought the republic to ruin.' On the
other this: 'Diocletian, &c., for having adopted Galerius in the East; for
having everywhere abolished the superstition of Christ; for having extended
the worship of the gods.' And to name only one more evidence, the cruelty must
have been egregious, which could have induced the persecutors to strike the
medal of Diocletian, which still remains, with this inscription: 'The name of
Christians being extinguished.'" †

A political storm, which took place about this time, appears to have farther
exasperated Diocletian, and to have spurred him onwards to exercise greater
cruelties. Two persons, in different places, assumed the imperial title; one
in Armenia, who has not had his name preserved; the other was Eugenius, who
commanded some regiments at Seleucia; and, being invested with the purple by
the soldiers, he took possession of the neighbouring city of Antioch. The
inhabitants soon put him and his supporters to death, and his authority only
lasted a few days; but Diocletian chose to be very angry with the

* "Let not the reader startle, because I ascribe the persecutions of the
church to satanic influence. The following scriptures, carefully compared
together, seem abundantly to warrant such a sentiment: John viii. 38-44; 1
Thess. ii. 18; 1 Peter v. 8, 9; 1 John iii. 8-13; the Revelation throughout.
To these the evangelical reader may easily add many more. Moreover, as the
description of the influences of the Holy Spirit form an essential part of
this History, it seems to fall in with my plan, to bring into view, from time
to time, the counterpart of the said influences, which is undoubtedly the
agency of Satan." (Milner.)

† "Nomine Christianorum deleto." See Milner, History of the Church, vol. ii.,
p. 7, 8vo. edit. Cambridge, 1795.

two cities of Antioch and Seleucia; and it was after this disturbance that he
issued a still more definite edict against the Christians. It was ordered that
the heads of the churches in every place should first be put into prison, and
then that every means should be used to compel them to sacrifice to the
heathen deities.* At the same time, letters were despatched to Hercules and
Constantius, calling upon them to take similar measures in the countries under
their command.† The former was a person of no merciful temper, and therefore
yielded prompt obedience, and enforced the command cheerfully throughout
Italy: it was different with Constantius; but lest he should appear to dissent
from the injunctions of his superiors, he permitted the demolition of the
Christian edifices, but spared the lives of the faithful. The edict was
executed at Nicomedia as soon as it was proclaimed, and many fell victims to
its sanguinary character. Eusebius speaks of the prisons being so full of
these unhappy inmates, that there was no room for others.‡ The same historian
relates, that "some were slain with the axe, as in Arabia; some had their
limbs fractured, as in Cappadocia; and some, suspended by the feet, and a
little raised from the ground, with their heads downwards, were suffocated
with the ascending smoke of a gentle fire kindled below, as was done to those
in Mesopotamia; some were mutilated by having their noses, ears, and hands cut
off, and the rest of their limbs, and portions of their body, cut to pieces,
as was the case at Alexandria. Why should we revive the recollection of those
at Antioch, who were roasted on grates of fire, not to kill immediately, but
torture them with a lingering punishment?"§ Two ladies in Antioch are recorded
as "distinguished for piety, and truly sisters (says Eusebius) in all
respects; illustrious in family, wealth, youth, and beauty; but not less so
for their serious minds, their pious deportment, and their admirable zeal;
and, as if the earth could not bear such excellence, they were ordered by
these worshippers of demons to be thrown into the sea. Others, at Pontus,
endured torments that are too horrible to relate. Some had their fingers
pierced with sharp reeds thrust under the nails. Others had masses of molten
lead, bubbling and boiling with heat, poured down their backs; and others
endured insufferable torments on the most tender and delicate parts of the
human frame, which their Judges, with a view to display their refinement in
cruelty, devised as proof of their wisdom, and worthy of universal
approbation. Thus constantly inventing new tortures, they vied with one
another, as if there were prizes proposed in the contest, who should invent
the most exquisite cruelties. As to the last of these calamities, when the
Judges now had despaired of inventing anything more effectual, and were weary
of slaughter, and had surfeited themselves with shedding blood, they then
directed their energies to what they considered kindness and humanity; so that
they seemed disposed to exercise no farther cruelty against us. For, said

* Euseb., Eccles. Hist., lib. viii., cap. 2.

† Lactant., De Mort. Persecut., cap. xv.

‡ Burton, Lect. on Eccles. Hist., lect. xxix.

§ Euseb., Eccles. Hist., lib. viii., cap. 12.

GORDIUS, THE CENTURION.

they, the cities should not be polluted with blood any more, and the
government of the Sovereigns, which was so kind and merciful toward all,
should not be defamed for excessive cruelty: it was more proper that the
benefits afforded by their humane and imperial Majesties should be extended to
all, and that we should no longer be punished with death. For we were
liberated from this punishment by the great clemency of the Emperors. After
this, therefore, they were ordered only to tear out our eyes, or to deprive us
of one of our legs. Such was their kindness, and such the lightest kind of
punishment against us; so that, in consequence of this humanity of theirs, it
was impossible to tell the great and incalculable number of those that had
their right eye dug out with the sword first, and, after that, seared with a
red-hot iron; those, too, whose left foot was maimed with a searing-iron;
after them, those who in different provinces were condemned to the copper-
mines, not so much for the service as for the contumely and misery they should
endure. Many, also, endured conflicts of other kinds, which it would be
impossible to detail: their noble fortitude surpasses all power of
description. In this the magnanimous confessors of Christ, who shone
conspicuous throughout the whole world, everywhere struck the beholders with
astonishment, and presented the obvious proofs of our Saviour's divine
interposition in their own persons. To mention each by name would be at least
a long and tedious work, not to say impossible."*

We shall now, as we have before done, consider some individual traits of
Christian faith and courage as they have been told in credible accounts. At
the commencement of the persecution we meet with the following relation of
Gordius, a Centurion in the army. In the time of extreme trial, he refused any
longer to discharge his military duties, and chose a voluntary exile, leading
a religious and solitary life in the desert. But on the day on which was
solemnized the festival of Mars in the city of Cæsarea, and when much people
was assembled in the theatre to witness the games, he left his place of
retreat, and entered the chief part of the Circus, and, with a loud voice,
repeated the words of the Apostle, "Behold, I am found of them which sought me
not; and to those which asked not for me, have I openly appeared." By these
words he gave the populace to understand, that he had come of his own accord
to surrender up himself. At this interruption the multitude, little regarding
the sights, looked around to see who it was that had uttered such an address.
As soon as it was recognised to be Gordius, the crier commanded silence, and
the exile was conveyed into the presence of the officer. When he was asked the
question, who he was, and from whence he came, he told the truth: "I am come,"
said he, "to publish that I set nothing by your decrees against the Christian
religion, but that I profess Jesus Christ to be my hope and my salvation; and
when I understood how ye surpassed other men in cruelty, I took this as a fit
time to accomplish my desire." With these words the officer was greatly moved,
and expended all his displeasure upon the victim, commanding the executioners
to be brought forth, with scourges,

* Eusebi., Eccles. Hist., lib. viii., cap. 12.

wheel, gibbet, and whatever torments they could devise. The martyr answered,
that it would be to him a hinderance and a damage if he could not suffer and
endure various pains and punishments for the cause of Christ. The man in
office, being offended at his boldness, directed all the tortures which they
had, to be applied to him: but he, lifting up his eyes to heaven, sang, "The
Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me;" and also,
"I will fear no evil, for thou art with me." After this he again provoked the
extremity of his tormentors, and reproached them if they showed him any favour
at all. When the officer saw that he gained but little, he endeavoured, by
enticing words and gentleness, to turn the stout and valiant mind of Gordius.
He promised large offers of temporal advantage if he would but deny Christ:
all was in vain, inasmuch as he derided the folly of the Magistrate, who
imagined that he could confer any earthly good, worthy of being compared with
a place in heaven. With these words the official was mortified, and prepared
to pronounce the condemnation of the martyr, whom he ultimately caused to be
taken out of the city, and burnt. Many ran to see him executed; others to
testify respect for him, and to urge him to save himself; to whom Gordius
replied, "Weep not, I pray you, for me, but rather for the enemies of God, who
always make war against the Christians: weep, I say, for them who prepare for
us a fire, and purchase for themselves hell-fire in the day of vengeance.
Cease, therefore, to molest and disquiet me. I am ready for the name of Christ
to endure a thousand deaths, if need were." Some persuaded him to deny Christ
with his mouth, and to preserve his conscience clear to himself. He said, "My
tongue, which by the goodness of God I have, cannot be brought to deny the
Author and Giver of the same; for with the heart man believeth unto
righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Shortly
after he underwent his sentence.*

Similar to the above we have the account of Mennas the Egyptian, who, in the
persecution of Diocletian, was led to flee to the desert; but returning to the
city of Cotyæum, in the open Circus, while the people were occupied with the
spectacles and pastimes, he, with a loud voice, proclaimed himself a
Christian. Being brought before Pyrrhus, the President, he was interrogated
respecting his faith; to whom he replied, "Convenient it is that I should
confess God, in whom is light and no darkness." After this the sufferer was
most painfully tortured: in all, however, he manifested a constant heart and
invincible faith, confessing, "There is nothing in my mind that can be
compared to the kingdom of heaven; neither is all the world, if it were
weighed in the balance, able to be estimated with one soul. Who shall separate
us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation or distress? I have thus learned
of my Lord and King, not to fear them which kill the body, and have no power
to kill the soul; but to fear Him rather who hath power to destroy both body
and soul in hell-fire." On being sentenced to lose his head, and being led to
the

* Basilli Magul Opera, tom. i., Homilia xix. In Gordium Martyrem Cæsarienæm,
p. 443, et seq. Fol. Paris, 1638.

MARTYROOM OF ATHANASIA AND OTHERS.

place of execution, he exclaimed, "I give thee thanks, O Lord God, who hast so
accepted me as to be found a partaker of thy precious death, and hast not
given me to be devoured by mine enemies, but hast enabled me to remain
constant in thy pure faith to my latter end;" and after fighting valiantly, he
lost his head, but won his soul.* In this association of martyrs there was
also Cyrus, a Physician of Alexandria, who during the persecution fled into
Egypt, and led a solitary life in Arabia: he was afterwards accompanied by one
of the name of John, who was born in the city of Edessa, and had relinquished
the life of a soldier, which he had aforetime followed. During the time that
the persecution raged in the city of Canope in Egypt, a Christian woman called
Athanasia, and her three daughters, Theoctista, Theodota, and Eudoxia, with
whom Cyrus was acquainted, were cast into prison for the confession of the
faith. Attended by his companion John, he visited them in order to encourage
and comfort them. Syrianus at that time was the chief Captain and Lieutenant
of Egypt, whose licentiousness and cruelty Athanasius has recorded. These
benevolent individuals (Cyrus and John) were accused by certain adversaries of
having persuaded Athanasia and her daughters to continue steadfast in their
opposition to the edicts of the Emperors; and not being induced by any means
to offer the sacrifice required, they were put to death by the sword. The
Christian matron, also, with her family, subsequently suffered.

Basil of Caesarea, in one of his Homilies, makes mention of not less than
forty martyrs, who were called to pass through much tribulation and death for
the kingdom of heaven's sake. The account is, in fact, as follows:—There came
into a certain place the officer of the Emperors, bearing the atrocious edict
which had been promulgated against the Christians, stating that whosoever were
discovered acknowledging Christ should, after various torments, be put to
death. Numerous individuals were arrested, and the sword, the gibbet, and the
wheel were brought forth, at which the hearts of many trembled. Some did fly
for fear, and many stood in doubt, not knowing what course to take. Numbers
were so terrified at the sight of these instruments of torture, that they
denied the faith; and others, who began the conflict, and for a time were
"steadfast" and "unmovable," finally made "shipwreck of their faith, and of a
good conscience." All, however, did not abandon their profession: there were
forty who proved themselves undaunted followers of Christ, that, when the
officer exhibited the cruel edict, freely and without fear acknowledged
themselves Christians, and declared their names. The officer, or Marshal, as
some have termed him, was amazed, and endeavoured, by enticing words, to draw
them from their steadfastness: he alluded to their youth, and that they ought
not to prefer a cruel and untimely death to an easy and pleasant life, and
even promised them wealth and honourable offices in the Emperor's name.

* Another Mennas, a martyr in Libya, under Maximian, is named in the Eastern
and Western Martyrologies. Procopius mentions a church built at Constantinople
by Justinian in honour of him. This Baronies understands of the Libyans.
(Alban Butler.)

I

These confessors did not esteem these things, and assured the Marshal, that
they did not desire life, dignity, nor money, but only the kingdom of Christ;
for they were ready, for the faith and love which they had to and in God, to
endure the affliction of the wheel, the cross, and the fire. The irritated
Marshal forthwith devised a novel mode of punishment. Knowing that before the
walls of the city was a certain large pond, which lay exposed to the northern
blast, and as it was the time of winter, he commanded them to be put into it,
and to remain there during the night. They received this punishment with
cheerfulness, comforting one another by saying, "We put off not our clothes,
but we put off the old man, corrupt with the deceit of concupiscence: we give
thee thanks, O Lord, that with this our apparel we may also put off, by thy
grace, the sinful man; for by means of the serpent we once put him on, and
through Jesus Christ we now put him off." When they had said this, they were
led naked into the water, where they experienced such vehement cold as to
render their limbs stiffened and motionless. As soon as the day began to dawn,
they were conducted to a large fire, where they were consumed. It seems that
one of the company, more vigorous than the rest, appeared to endure the
severity of the cold with less suffering; and the executioners, taking pity
upon him, said unto his mother, who was a spectator, that they would save his
life; but she with her own hands took up her son, and brought him to the pile
of wood where the residue of his companions were lying, literally crooked on
account of the cold, and admonished him to complete the journey which he had
taken in hand.* The same writer, in another Homily, relates the case of one
Barlaam, a distinguished martyr, who endured all the torments of his
executioners to the point of death; which when the myrmidons of the Marshal
saw, they laid him upon the altar where their unholy sacrifices were offered,
and placed fire and frankincense into his right hand, imagining that the
influence of the fire would have induced him to scatter fragments of the
incense upon the altar, and thus he might be said to have sacrificed. In this,
however, they were disappointed; for the flame raged around his hand without
igniting the gum, and the martyr recited out of the Psalms the words, "Blessed
be the Lord, my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to
fight."

By no means dissimilar to the account of Barlaam, we have the

* Basilii Magul Opera, tom. i., Homilia xx. In *Quadraginta Martyrum*, p. 452.
Fol. Paris, 1638. A similar account of forty martyrs, who were married men, is
recorded by Nicephorus (Eccles. Hist., lib. vii., cap. 44) and Sozomen, (lib.
ix., cap. 2,) who were killed likewise in a lake or pond at Sebaste, a town of
Armenia. In all probability it is the same as that mentioned by Basil.
Sozomen, to whom reference is made, was a native of Palestine, and in great
repute as an advocate at Constantinople about the year 440, and is known by a
history of the Christian church from its first establishment to his own times.
Of this work the latter part only has reached posterity, containing an account
of the transactions from the year 324 downwards. It is visibly copied from the
similar history of Socrates, and is equally remarkable for the marvellous
legends which it details, and the florid style in which they are narrated. He
is supposed to have died about the middle of the fifth century. His history
was translated and published by Valesius, with Eusebius, and other
ecclesiastical historians; and separately, with additional notes by Reading.
London, 1720. 3 vols. folio.

MARTYRDOM OF AGRICOLA, VITUS, AND OTHERS.

narrative of the martyrdom of Agricola and Vitalis, which Ambrose * mentions
in his exhortation to certain virgins, and who suffered during this
persecution at Bologna. Vitalis was a servant of Agricola, and, with his
master, resolved to surrender his life in the company of other martyrs for the
sake of Christ. The former had the precedence, and first fell into the hands
of his persecutors, who endeavoured by every means of persuasion to induce him
to deny his Lord: finding these measures abortive, they employed torture so
unmercifully, that no whole skin remained on his person, and in the midst of
painful agony he gave up his life. After his death the executioners addressed
themselves towards Agricola, whose virtuous character and gentle demeanour
were so well known and approved, that his sufferings were longer deferred; but
he, not approving of this delay, and provoking his adversaries to quicker
speed, was fastened to a cross, and in this manner consummated his martyrdom.
Vitus, Modestus, and Crescentius suffered about this time. The first was a
native of Sicily, and descended from one of the respectable families of the
island. Providence ordained that in early life he should be placed in the
hands of a Christian nurse, who instructed him in the principles of religion,
and trained him up in the way in which he should go. Her endeavours were
crowned with success, inasmuch as Vitus increased in piety as he advanced in
years, and was so well-grounded in Christian truth and practice, that nothing
could prevail with him to renounce or dishonour his profession. His constancy
exposed him to numerous trials; but he was superior to them all. Hylas, his
father, attempted to draw him from his steadfastness, and so far forgot the
ties of nature as to deliver him up into the hands of a heathen Magistrate:
the persecution of Diocletian had already commenced in most parts of the
empire, and Valerian, the Governor of Sicily, was by no means backward in
carrying the edicts of the Emperor into execution. Vitus was only twelve years
old when he was brought before the Magistrate, who was requested by his father
to correct him, and, if possible, to frighten him with the fear of death if he
persevered in the faith of Christ. Valerian ordered him to be scourged, and
returned to his father; thinking that after having felt the smart of the rod,
it would not be difficult to bring him to any terms. But in this he was
greatly mistaken: Hylas, finding his son invincible, gave loose to wild
transports of zeal for the heathen deities, whom he thought dishonoured by the
conduct of his son, and resolved to sacrifice him in order to deter the rest
of his family from following his example. Vitus had notice of his father's
intention, and thought it best to avoid the impending blow so long as he could
with safety. With this view he transported himself, with Modestus and
Crescentius, to the Continent, and abode in the province of Lucania, a part of
the kingdom of Naples; to which place they were pursued, and, by the order of
Valerian, or some other persecutor, they were all put to death.

Herculeus was a stranger to humanity; and his presence was at all times fatal
to the Christians: the cruelty of his temper had

* Ambrosii Opera, tom. v., Epistol., lib. vii., p. 318. Fol. Paris, 1661.

I 2 risen to a degree of unparalleled fury against the church through his
blind and superstitious zeal for the pagan deities: when he came to
Marseilles, he immediately commenced proceedings against the faithful, by
commanding the various Prefects and other officers to employ their utmost
endeavours and ingenuity to arrest, imprison, torture, and slay all who bore
the name of Christ. Victor was the most considerable person among the many who
suffered for the truth during the residence of Herculeus at Marseilles: he was
descended from an ancient and honourable family, and held an important office
in the Roman army. His worldly employment, however, did not lead him to forget
the obligations of religion, or the duties which he owed the members of the
Christian church. It was his constant practice to spend a considerable portion
of the night in visiting the faithful, in order to strengthen and confirm them
in the truth, and to comfort and encourage them in this dark and stormy period
of persecution and trial. It was in this labour of love that he was engaged,
when the orders of the Emperor were issued to seize him. He was conducted
before two Prefects of the city, who endeavoured to persuade him to alter his
present line of proceeding; observing, that it was not worth his while to
forfeit his interest with his Prince, and expose himself to his anger, for the
sake of a dead man who was called Christ, the Author and Giver of life. Victor
boldly replied, that he preferred the service of that dead man, who was in
reality the Son of God, and was risen from the grave, to all the advantages he
could possibly reap from the favour of the Emperor; that he was a soldier of
Christ, and should be careful that the post which he held under an earthly
potentate should not interfere with his duty to the King of kings; and as for
the gods, the worship of which they so strongly recommended, he held them as
no better than evil spirits. Those who were present at this examination,
hearing him speak so contemptuously of what they conceived to be most sacred,
loaded him with invectives and reproach; but as he was a man of rank and
fortune, the Prefects resolved to send him in person before the Emperor.

As soon as he came before Herculeus, he was required, under pain of the
severest punishment, to offer the accustomed sacrifice; but these menaces, so
far from shaking the firmness of his resolution, only strengthened it. In his
defence, he fearlessly established the divinity of the Saviour, and by
irrefragable arguments showed the fallacy of all idol-worship. The Prince,
being infuriated, ordered him to be bound and dragged through the streets, an
example to all those who dared to despise the gods of the empire. The populace
ran from all parts to see and assist at this barbarous spectacle, and cruelly
aided the authorities by blows and insults upon the victim. Covered with
wounds and blood, he was re-conducted to the Prefects, who conjectured that,
after having endured so much contumely and suffering, he would readily comply
with their demands. Again they were mistaken: Victor assured them that he
would willingly accept those light and transitory pains, and whatever else
they thought fit to inflict, as he judged all too trifling when compared with
that happy eternity to which he was hastening. The Prefects strove to convince

MARTYROOM OF VICTOR.

him, that the happiness of which he spake was only an imaginary one, and that
if he persisted in his disobedience to the gods and the Emperor, he should
certainly travel the same road to that fantastical bliss as his pretended
Saviour had gone before him! Upon this Victor addressed the Magistrates and
the company present on the truths of the Gospel, and the folly of Paganism;
and, in answer to the objection which had been raised, that the confidence of
the Christian was ill-founded and irrational, informed them, that the
readiness of the disciples of Christ to endure any trial, and the alacrity and
even joy with which they met the most painful and ignominious deaths, were
sufficient proof of the assurance which they entertained of the object of
their hope; and that he also was ready in his own person to give an example of
what he had said. The Prefects now resolved to apply the torture, but differed
in opinion as to the manner of it; and so high did the mutual contest rise,
that Eutychius, one of the Magistrates, indignantly left the court, when
Asterius, the other, who remained on the bench, commanded Victor to be
stretched upon the rack, the pain of which he bore with calmness and serenity.
The executioners were fatigued with their employment, and subdued by the
patience of the martyr, who was then conveyed to a dark dungeon.* During this
incarceration, Victor was instrumental in the conversion of his jailers,
Alexander, Longinus, and Felician, who were baptized by a Priest whom he
caused to be provided for that purpose. The conversion of these men becoming
known, it speedily reached the ears of the Emperor, who condemned them to
death, and Victor again to be placed upon the rack. The martyr, being deeply
concerned for these new converts, exhorted them to persevere, and referred
them to the favour which they received from the great Head of the church, in
being called to suffer for his sake so speedily after they had embraced the
faith. They were all taken to a public place in the city, which was soon
filled with a motley group composed of Christians and Pagans; the former, that
they might receive consolation and instruction; and the latter, to satiate
their malice towards the enemies of the gods. The three soldiers adhering to
their profession lost their heads.

Victor was left alone: the delay of his anticipated happiness, it is said,
drew tears from his eyes. It did not, however, continue long; for shortly
after, when engaged in prayer, the executioners took him, and, according to
the mandate of the Emperor, placed him a second time upon the rack, and, after
beating him unmercifully with batons, conveyed him back to prison, where he
remained three days, when Herculeus again resolved to hear him, and ordered a
small altar or shrine to be introduced, and commanded Victor forthwith to
offer incense to

* Alban Butler, who gluts his readers even to loathing with the wonders
attendant upon martyrdom, says, that Jesus Christ appeared to Victor when upon
the rack, holding a cross in his hands, and gave him his peace, and told him
that he suffered in his servants, and crowned them after their victory. When
thrown into the dark dungeon, he says, that Almighty God visited him by his
angels, the prison was filled with a light brighter than that of the sun, and
the martyr sung with the angels the praises of God. The soldiers who guarded
the prison, seeing this light, were surprised at the miracle, and, casting
themselves at the martyr's feet, desired baptism.—But, enough.

Jupiter, who, being transported with a holy indignation at such a proposal,
stepped forward and overthrew the altar and the idol that stood upon it with
his foot.* This so enraged the Emperor, that he directed the offending member
to be cut off; and being still more irritated at the patience and fortitude of
the martyr, he condemned him to be thrown into a mill and crushed to pieces by
the stones. This barbarous order was punctually obeyed; but before he died,
the machinery of the mill broke, and the sufferer was dragged forth terribly
bruised, his bones fractured, and his body miserably torn, insomuch that it
was impossible for his life to be preserved: but Herculeus had not the mercy
to let him quietly expire, and therefore finished his work by ordering him to
be beheaded.

The treasury from which our professed and olden martyrologists have obtained
their materials, has generally been certain separate treatises entitled "Acts
of the Martyrs;" a series of compositions on the whole extravagant in style,
and of doubtful authenticity. Some of them are translated in the first volume
of Foxe's "Acts and Monuments," as well as in Fleury's "Ecclesiastical
History;" but the best collection of them is that of Ruinart, contained in one
folio volume. Of these histories a few, such as those of Cyprian, Ignatius,
and Polycarp, and some others, are told in a simple and dignified manner; an
observation scarcely applicable in any degree to the remainder. On examining
some of the narratives contained in these "Acts," we are astonished at their
unnatural and improbable character. A condensed enumeration of tortures,
varied only by the repartees of the sufferer, may for a few lines excite our
horror; but when continued through many pages, as Dr. Maitland† justly
observes, "imagination refuses to grant such powers of endurance to frail
humanity. A difficulty meets us at the outset: these 'Acts' are given as an
official report of the trials, entered in the Roman records, and privately
obtained for the Christians by Sebastus, an archer on duty at the time. Yet
their style betrays a Christian author; for they contain abundance of speeches
attributed to the martyrs, related in Christian language. Indeed the chief
point of the narrative is made to lie in these speeches, generally highly
figurative, and the mistakes of the Pagans arising from a too literal
interpretation of them." The writers who flourished soon after the time of
Constantine, literally rivalled each other in elaborating highly coloured
descriptions of the horrors of martyrdom. Prudentius‡ was

* The Council of Eliberis, or Elvira, held about the year 306. "The sixtieth
Canon of which deprives those of the title of martyrs who are killed for
overthrowing idols publicly, because the Gospel commands us not to do any such
thing, and we never read that it was practised by the Christians in the time
of the Apostles." Dupin, Eccles. Hist., vol. i., p. 593, fol., Dublin. 1723.
See also Labbe, Concil. Sacrosanct., tom i., p. 967.

† Maitland, The Church in the Catacombs, p. 98.

‡ Aurelius Clemens Prudentius, a Christian poet, was born in Spain, probably
at Saragossa, in 348, and was brought up to the legal profession, and, after
practising at the bar, became chief Magistrate in two considerable cities. He
also served in the army; and obtained employment at the court of Honorius. In
407, he went to Rome, and after his return to Spain passed his time in
religious exercises and studious pursuits. Nothing further is known of his
life, nor where it terminated. His poems consist of Psychomachia, or the
Soul's Combat; Cathemerion, or Hymns for Festivals; Apotheosis, or, On Deity,
against the Heretics; Hamartigens, or, the Origin of Sin; Peristephanon, or,
the Crowns of Martyrs; and two books against the Oration of

MARTYRDOM OF TARACHUS.

the first of those who wrote in metre, but not always in poetry, and he
brought out the whole subject with fresh embellishments, and was greatly
admired by contemporaries and successors. His various descriptions of the
tortures endured by the sufferers, Ruinart terms "admirable!" The general
tendency of such extravagant productions as written by Prudentius, is to make
us believe that the martyrs suffered no pain, and had therefore little merit
in facing the torments prepared for them; while they exhibit the victim and
the executioner as two combatants;* the one backed by miracles, and supported
by insensibility to pain; the other armed with the most fearful instruments
that human or diabolical cruelty could invent. In this novel species of single
combat, in which high words were not wanting on either side, the Pagan was
invariably worsted.†

Illustrative of the foregoing remarks, we insert the following account. When
the edicts of Diocletian against the Christian church were published, Flavius
Clemens Numerianus Maximus was Governor of Cilicia; and being on a visit at
Pompeiopolis, Eutolmus and Palladius presented before him three Christians, of
different ages and countries; and being on his way to Tarsus the metropolis of
the province, he directed them to be conveyed thither. The name of the senior
confessor was Tarachus, a Roman by extraction, though born in Isauria: he had
served in the army, but had procured his discharge, for fear of being
compelled to do something that was contrary to the Christian name and
character. He was at this time about sixty-five years old. The second was
Probus, a native of Pamphilia, who had relinquished a considerable fortune
that he might be more at liberty to serve Christ. The last was Andronicus, a
young nobleman connected with one of the principal families of the city of
Ephesus. Demetrius, a Centurion in the army, placed them before the Governor's
tribunal, and preferred the charge, by stating that the individuals at the bar
were of the impious sect termed Christians, and disobedient to the orders of
the Emperors. Maximus, addressing himself to Tarachus, said that he commenced
with him, as being the first in rank and age; and then asked his name.
Tarachus promptly replied, that he was a Christian. The Governor requested him
not to mention that hated name, but to say simply what his name was; and, upon
Tarachus repeating the same reply, ordered him to be struck upon the face,
commanding him not to give such perverse responses. Tarachus then assured him,
that he had acknowledged his real name; but if he were desirous of knowing the
cognomen which he had received from his parents, it was Tarachus; and the name
by which he was known in the army was Victor. Maximus then required to know
what station he held. He replied, that he was a soldier; and being born at
Claudiopolis, in Isauria, he enjoyed the privilege of a Roman citizen, but had
quitted the service on account of his religion. To which the Governor most

Symmachus, Prefect of Rome, for the Altar of Victory, and the Restoration of
the Temples and Rites of the Pagan Religion. His works have been chiefly read
and edited in Roman Catholic countries.

* "Hinc Martyr, illinc carnifex," as Prudentius has it.

† Maitland, Church in the Catacombs, p. 107.

dishonourably replied, that he had been dismissed the army on account of his
abominable principles, and was considered unworthy to draw a sword in the
Emperor's defence. The Governor then assumed a milder demeanour, and expressed
compassion for his grey hairs, and urged him to sacrifice to the gods, as the
certain road to promotion and honour. To this the martyr replied, that the
Princes were themselves misled! Maximus resented this affront by commanding
the confessor to be again smitten on the mouth. He replied, that he had said,
and always would say, that the Princes were deceived, and in this respect were
like unto other men. The Governor requested him to throw aside such idle
thoughts, and at once sacrifice to the gods of his forefathers. He answered,
"I do worship the God of my father, not indeed with the blood of victims, but
with the sacrifice of a clean heart." "Well," said Maximus, "my regard for
your age and hoary hairs obliges me to advise you to lay aside these foolish
notions, and to submit." Tarachus * said, that he never had opposed the laws
of his ancestors. "Draw near and sacrifice, then," replies the Governor. "No,"
said the martyr, "my regard for the laws of my ancestors will not allow me to
be guilty of such a wicked action." "Is there, then, any law," says Maximus,
"but that which I now press?" "Yes," replied Tarachus, "and you transgress it,
by worshipping stocks and stones, the work of men's hands." The Governor,
resenting this freedom, ordered him to be struck on the head; but the
undaunted Christian assured him, he would not abandon the means of saving his
soul, though he was pleased to call his perseverance folly. Maximus then
informed him, that he would undertake to cure him, and to bring him to his
senses. Tarachus replied, that he might do what he pleased with his body,
which was in his power; but he could not hurt his soul. Maximus then ordered
him to be severely scourged; when he was told by the martyr, that he had made
him wise, for the blows, said he, which he received, inspired him with fresh
courage, and increased his confidence in God and in Christ. This sentence gave
the Governor an opportunity of accusing the confessor with inconsistency in
worshipping two gods; to which he replied, that he acknowledged but one true
God; and Maximus made him remember, that he had given that appellation
directly to Christ. He then without reserve

* We give a very abridged relation of that which is contained in the Acts of
Tarachus and Probus, as published by Ruinart, and contained in the voluminous
work of Allan Butler, solely on account of their extravagant and doubtful
character. Happily for the reader, says Maitland, his attention is continually
diverted from the mutilation of the martyrs, to their successful wit-combats
with their judge. "Rub him with salt," said the Governor. "Salt me more, that
I may be incorruptible," replies Tarachus. When taunted by Maximus with his
blindness, he returns the reproach, and boasts of superior inward vision. He
professes to be armed from head to foot, clothed in divine panoply: Maximus,
who only sees his naked body one undistinguishable wound, is necessarily
puzzled by the assertion, and has recourse to fresh barbarities to maintain
his credit. Lastly, Maximus dismisses him, promising to think over some fresh
tortures for their next meeting. These Acts of Tarachus bear strong marks of
forgery: the martyrs are declared to have suffered in the first consulate of
Diocletian, that is, in the year 284; whereas the Diocletian persecution did
not begin till 303, after an interval of fifty years' peace. The Prefect is
also made to quote the "Acts of Pilate," which are known to have been invented
by Maximin, certainly not earlier than 303. See Enseb., Eccles. Hist.; and
Maitland, Church in the Catacombs.

MARTYROOM OF PROBUS AND OTHERS.

stated the divinity of the Redeemer, whom he recognised as the Son of God, and
the hope of the Christians; and declared him to be the author of salvation to
all that believe. He would doubtless have continued his address, had he not
been interrupted by the Governor, who required him immediately to sacrifice:
upon his refusal he was conducted to the prison.

The Centurion forthwith introduced Probus, who, upon Maximus demanding his
name, said, that the most valuable name which he bore was that of Christian,
but the cognomen by which he was recognised among men was that of Probus. "The
name of Christian," said Maximus, "will be of little service to you: therefore
be advised, sacrifice to the gods, and thus secure the Emperor's favour."
Probus replied, that he neither wanted to recommend himself to the esteem of
the Emperor, nor desired the friendship of Maximus; who immediately commanded
him to be scourged in his presence. Demetrius then requested him to have some
regard for himself, and to observe how the blood streamed from his body. "My
body," said the sufferer, "is in your power, and the severities which you
inflict are not disagreeable." "What," said Maximus, "does he still persist in
his madness?" He then, having received the lash only on his back, was ordered
to receive the punishment in the opposite position. While thus tormented, the
martyr invoked the assistance of the Almighty; upon which the executioners
asked him, where was his assistance when they applied the torture? He replied,
that He was always ready to help, and that the numerous acts of cruelty
invented by the Governor could not shake his confidence in God. Maximus now
resolved to try further tortures, and ordered him to be taken away, to be
laden with irons, and his hands and feet to be fastened in the stocks.

Andronicus was then placed at the bar, and similar questions proposed; to
which he replied, "I am a native of Ephesus, and descended from one of the
first families in that city." The Governor advised him to waive all idle
speeches, and be ruled by him; that he was desirous to use him with all
tenderness; and that if he would honour the Emperors, and sacrifice to the
gods whom his forefathers had owned, he should be rewarded for his obedience.
To this persuasive language Andronicus replied, "It is with justice you call
them the gods of your fathers; for you are no better than the sons of the evil
one, who do his works." Maximus, incensed at this retort, insinuated, that the
ardour of his youth inspired him with insolence. To this the prisoner replied,
that though he appeared young, his soul notwithstanding was robust in manhood,
and prepared for the severest trials. The Governor then commanded him to
forbear his gabbling, and to sacrifice. Andronicus assured him, that his
resolution was the same as those who had already passed before him; and that
he was ready to encounter suffering, but could not renounce the faith. He was
sentenced to the same punishment, and then to the prison. Soon after Maximus
commanded these undaunted confessors to be brought before him for a second
trial: commencing his interrogations with Tarachus, he observed that old age
was generally honoured, on

K account of its being accompanied with prudence and discretion; therefore he
had reason to anticipate that change in his sentiments which would not fail to
recommend him to the esteem of his superiors. The sufferer replied that he was
a Christian, and most cordially wished that both the Governor and the Emperors
would open their eyes, and correct their mistaken notions. This sentence
provoked Maximus to order him to be struck in the face, accompanied with the
admonition, "Quit your folly;" remarking that his teeth were loosed, and
desiring him to consider what he brought upon himself by such obstinacy.
Tarachus assured him that he could not hurt him; though he were to deprive him
of all his limbs, he should nevertheless stand firm through the strength which
he derived from the Lord Jesus Christ. After this the martyr was silent; but
so great was the cruelty of the Magistrate, that he ordered him again to be
struck, and then commanded to speak. The confessor urged the loss of his
teeth, and the blows which he had received on his mouth and face, as a reason
for his silence. "And yet," said Maximus, "you remain obstinate: come at once,
and sacrifice to the gods." "No," replied the old man, "though I have almost
lost the use of my speech, yet you will never remove me from my resolution,
which increases in strength by the sufferings I have been called to endure."
The tyrant assured him that it was in his power to overcome this resolution.
But Tarachus said he trusted in God, who would impart help proportioned to his
day. The Governor then ordered his hands to be held open, and fire to be
applied; and after enduring other tortures, he was taken back to prison.*

Probus again appeared, and was asked if he were ready to offer the required
sacrifice. He replied, "I come better prepared than before, because what I
have suffered at your hands has tended to confirm me in my resolution; and I
trust you will never induce me to adore gods which I know not." After a short
discourse between the Governor and the martyr, concerning the divinity of the
pagan deities, the latter concluded by declaring, that he would not own a
plurality of gods, and that he was resolved to adhere to the worship of one
Supreme Being, who alone deserved that title. Maximus attempted to take
advantage of this profession, and asked him then to sacrifice to Jupiter whom
he recognised as the great and invincible god! "Shall I pay," replied Probus,
"divine honours to one who married his own sister? that infamous debauchee, as
he is described even by your own poets!" The enraged Governor ordered his
mouth to be stopped by blows, as a caution against blasphemy. The martyr could
not forbear complaining of the injustice of this proceeding, and observed,
that the character of Jupiter had been drawn in the same light by those who
professed to worship him, and appealed to his Judge for the truth of what he
said; but Maximus, instead of listening to or answering him, ordered hot iron
bars to be placed to his body, which he endured apparently without pain. He
then commanded the applica-

* "Dentes ejus et lingnam blasphemam tollite, et comburite, et cinerem facite,
et ubique spargite, ut nemo de consortibus ejus implis, aut de mulierculis
aliqua colligat ut servet quasi pretiosam aliquid aut sanctum æstimet."
(Ruinart, Acta Martyr., p. 444.)

MARTYROOM OF ROMANUS.

tion of iron rendered more hot, and his body to be more closely pressed
thereto; but the fire, according to human observation, seemed to lose its
force. He was then directed to be stretched out, and scourged into obedience;
but no acts of cruelty which the Governor could direct, nor the officers
inflict, had any influence upon Probus, and he was remanded to prison.

Maximus now endeavoured to overcome Andronicus. He assured him that his
companions who had been before him, had at last, though with great difficulty,
acknowledged the gods of the empire; and that unless he followed their steps,
he would make him a terrible example. To this the martyr replied, "Lay not, O
Governor, such a weakness to the charge of those who have appeared before me
in this cause; nor imagine it to be in your power to shake my fixed resolution
with any artful speeches. I cannot believe that they have disobeyed the laws
of their fathers, and renounced their hopes in our God, or obeyed your
extravagant orders; nor will I fall short of them in faith and dependence upon
one common Saviour: thus armed, I neither know your gods, nor fear your
authority." Probus was then, by the Governor's authority, cruelly scourged,
until his body was one continued wound. He was then directed to be rubbed with
salt, and his body turned, that every part might partake of the marks of his
hatred to the religion of Christ. Additional tortures were inflicted upon
these men, and that of the most sanguinary and barbarous kind; but to no
purpose: they were therefore adjudged to be thrown to the wild beasts, and to
the amphitheatre the guards were obliged to carry them. The appearance of such
melancholy and shocking objects caused a confused murmur among the spectators,
many of whom expressed indignation at the proceedings of the Governor, and
left the spectacles. Several beasts were let loose; but all refused to touch
them, and ultimately they were put to death by the sword.*

Romanus, a Deacon in the church of Cæsaren, followed in the wake of Tarachus
to the kingdom of God. He was at Antioch when the edict for the demolition of
the churches came to that city, and hesitated not to inform the Christians
that "grievous wolves would enter in among them, not sparing the flock," but
exhorted them not to fear; he nevertheless had the sorrow to behold great
numbers flocking to the idol-temples, in obedience to the commands of the
Emperor: his spirit was stirred within him, so that he could not forbear
attempting to save some who were evidently on the road to perdition; and in
this enterprise he was successful. The Governor of the East, whom some term
Asclepiades, being then at Antioch with Galerius, was

* In the apparently fabulous account of these martyrs, in what are called
their "Acts," we are told that Maximus commanded their bodies to be
intermingled with those of the gladiators who had been slain; and also to be
guarded that night by six soldiers, lest the Christians should carry them off.
The night was very dark, and a violent storm of thunder and rain dispersed the
guards. The faithful distinguished the three bodies by a miraculous star (1)
or ray of light, which streamed on each of them. They carried off the precious
treasures on their backs, and hid them in a hollow cave in the neighbouring
mountains, where the Governor was not able, by any search he could make, to
find them. Three fervent Christians, Marcian, Felix, and Verus, retired into
this cave of the rock, being resolved to spend there all the remainder of
their lives. (2) What next?

informed of the conduct of Romanus in exhorting the Christians rather to die
than abjure the faith of Christ. He was ordered to be apprehended and brought
before him. The martyr went cheerfully to the tribunal, where he not only
confessed the fact of which he was accused, but also asserted that he was
ready and prepared to undergo any punishment in a cause that was so great and
glorious. The sanguinary Judge at once ordered him to the rack, and his bowels
to be torn out; but one present informing him that Romanus was of noble birth,
and that it was unseemly for him to be put to such an ignoble death, he
ordered him to be scourged, and his body to be torn with the ungulæ.* While he
was in the hands of the executioner, he continued intrepid and invulnerable;
repeated his profession, and reproached the Governor with cruelty, at the same
time requesting the executioner not to show him favour on account of his
nobility; "for," said he, "it is not the blood of my ancestors, but my
Christian profession, that makes me truly noble." Asclepiades exhorted him to
obey the Emperor's commands; but the martyr replied, that he acknowledged
Christ as his supreme King, and was under no obligation to comply with the
mandate of an earthly Monarch, when such clashed with the duty he owed to the
Most High. His flesh was then lanced with knives until the bones appeared:
Romanus then assured the Governor, that he was not grieved that he should be
so mangled; he sorrowed

* Ungula, an instrument of torture, in the shape of a talon or claw, which was
thrust into the sides of criminals. Prudent.: Ungula, Ferramentum mucronatum,
quo sulcatim corpora laniobantur et fodiebantur. Uguio: Ungula, genus
tormenti, quia effodiat, ut fides inveniatur. Papias: Ungulæ, genus
tormentorum, dictæ quod effodiant, ha et fidiculæ. Cyprian, de Lapais: Jam
lassum corpus nunc flagella scinderent, contundent fustes, nunc equuleus
extenderet, nunc ungula effoderet, nunc flamma torreret: Idem de Laude martyr.
Non prædurantibus licet costis ungula recurret in vulnus. Prudent. in Romano
Mart.

Scindunt utrimque milites deterrimi,

Mucrone hiulco pensilis latus viri,

Sulcant per artus longa tractus vulnera

Obliqua rectis, recta transversis secont.

Lib. Peristeph. l. 451.

Illa virga et secures et bisulcas ungulas,

Ultra fortis expetebat, &c.

Alibi non semel, in S. Vincentio, in S. Agnete, &c. Hieron. Epist. 49. Cum
lividas carnes ungula cruenta pulsaret et sulcatis lateribus dolor quæreret
veritatem. Castinus epiæ. Toletanus Hymno in S. Christoph.

Sanctum jubet Christophorum pensum, rudibus ungulis,

Denudatas ejus castas carnibus exciperent.

Strabus in Mammete:

Jubet altius ergo,

Sanctus suspendi, tormentisque acribus amens,

Pulsat utrumque latus, dum carpitur unguibus uncis,

Nullam dat Mammes vocem.

Adde Acta proconsularia Mart. apud Baron. An. 285, N. 5. Acta S. S. Phileæ,
Philoromi, N. 3. Acta S. Saturnini. N. 8, &c. Occurrit passim in Vitis
Sanctorum. Lacerationes, ungularum scilicet, Eculeis atque lacerationibus
subjacere, in l. 4, Cod. Th. de Numerarius. Lacerationes membrorum, apud
Senecam, lib. 3. De Ira, cap. 3. Vide Galloum. Ungulare, exungulare. Ungulis
subjicere, ungularum tormentum inferre. Vita S. Potti mart. ed. M. S. Neapol.
cap. 6. Ferantur scilicet ferreæ ungulæ et unguietur. Ejusdem vita ex. M. S.
velseri cap. 4. Iterum jussit cum exungulari. Acta S. Eulalia. Barcinon. no.
6. Jussit eruleum afferri, et suspendi eam, quamdiu exungularetur. Du Cange,
Gloss.

MARTYROOM OF ROMANUS.

the most, that, being involved in such fearful error, Asclepiades endeavoured
to seduce and compel others to embrace the same. Then descanting on the duties
which all men owe to the living God, he exhorted all around to worship him.
This so enraged the Governor, that he instantly commanded his face to be
disfigured in the same way in which his body had been mangled; but the
patience of Romanus triumphed over the cruelty of the Judge, and he continued
to exhort the spectators to embrace the worship of the Most High. In the
meantime the martyr betrayed no emotion of pain, nor regarded the threatening
of Asclepiades; but proceeded with his discourse on the truths of Christianity
with perspicuity and force, until the tyrant, amazed at his fortitude,
commanded the executioners to withhold their hands; and, after reviling the
sufferer, threatened him with the flames, blasphemously taunting him by
saying, that his crucified Christ was but a God of yesterday, while the
deities of the Gentiles were of the highest antiquity.

Prudentius * informs us, that Romanus offered to abide the deci-

* Prudentius, who was one of the earliest Martyrologists, in his work
entitled, "Peristephanon," dedicates a hymn to Romanus: it is the most
finished, and may be legitimately taken as a sample of the whole. The history
of the sufferings of Romanus is a poem of eleven hundred and forty lines. The
speeches of the hero, though grandiloquent, and often out of place, contain
much that is striking; and constitute a somewhat powerful apology for
Christianity. After the execution of the sentence,—

"Tundatur, inquit tergum, crebris ictibus

Plumboque cervix verberata extuberet;"

the martyr, nothing overwhelmed by the hall-storm of the leaden scourges,
(pulsatus filà grandine,) but retaining both sense and speech, addresses
Asclepiades in an oration of two hundred and seventy lines, enumerating all
the crimes attributed to the heathen deities. The Judge, who had suffered him
to proceed so far without interruption, roused at length by the oft-repeated
question, "Would you have me worship such a god?" attempts a reply: he argues,
that Rome had obtained her present glory under the patronage of Jupiter
Stator, and that it would be ungrateful to leave the worship of the eternal
gods who presided over the building of the city, for a novelty just called
into existence; and, after a thousand consulates had rolled away, to embrace
the new Christian dogma. The flesh is now cut from the bones of Romanus, while
he carries on a comparison between the pains he endures, and those attendant
upon sickness. "The ungulae tearing the sides," he observes, "give no pang so
sharp as those of pleurisy; the red-hot plates are less scorching than the
burning of fever; nor are my swelled and tortured limbs more painful than
those of persons suffering from gout." His constancy is next put to the proof
by fearful mutilations; after which he delivers an harangue on the cross, and
the plan of redemption; then adducing the command not to cast pearls before
swine, he professes his intention of remaining silent for the future. He adds,
however, that if the Judge will fix upon any child of seven years old or
under, he will pledge himself to follow whatever the infant may declare to be
the truth. Acting upon this suggestion, the President seizes an infant in the
crowd, and, after obtaining from it a confession of Christianity, orders it to
be scourged. In this scene, the severity of the punishment, its effects upon
the bystanders, the weeping executioners, but, most of all, the conduct of the
mother of the child, in reproving it for begging of her a cup of water, and
referring it to a long list of Scripture martyrs by way of consolation, have
afforded Prudentius abundant scope for the horrible descriptions in which he
apparently delights:—

"Vix hoc profatus, pusionem præcipit

Sublime tollant, et manu pulsent natas;

Mox et remotè veste virgis verberent,

Tenerumque ductis ictibus tergum secent,

Plus unde lactis, quam cruoris defunt.

Impacta quotibus corpus attigerat salix, sion of an infant, whose age should
be free from malice, or any other vice, and to rest the truth of the Christian
religion upon such a test. His request was granted; and a child was called out
of the crowd, and placed before him: he was then asked, Whether men should
adore one God in Christ, or worship many gods? He replied, "What men affirm to
be God must be One, and as this One is Christ, he must of necessity be God;
for that there are many gods, even we children," said he, "cannot believe."
The Governor was exceedingly angry at this; and calling him a young villain
and a traitor, asked him where he had learned this lesson? The child replied,
"From my mother." At this Asclepiades was fearfully irritated, and cruelly
commanded the infant to be scourged. At this mandate the multitude wept, but
the mother encouraged her boy. The executioners plucked the skin and hair from
the child's head, who at the same time was encouraged by his parent saying,
"Though you suffer here, yet you will shortly be with Christ, who will adorn
thy naked head with a crown of unfading glory." The child smiled upon his
mother, and upon those who performed the will of the Governor, and endured
their tortures with manlike perseverance and fortitude. The Magistrate,
finding the child invincible, and himself vanquished, ordered him to be
committed to

Tenui rubebaat sanguine nda vimina

Quem plaga flerat roscidia livoribus.

* * * * * * * *

At sola mater hisce lamentis caret,

Soli sereno frons renidet gaudio."

The child, though exhausted by loss of blood, revives and smiles; and during
its decapitation, which soon follows, the mother is employed in singing the
versicle, "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints." The
torturing of Romanus now proceeds with redoubled vigour; and after several
miracles, only serving to provoke Asclepiades, and prolong the sufferings of
the martyr, he is despatched by strangling. The writers who flourished soon
after the time of Constantine, tied with one another in elaborating highly-
coloured descriptions of the horrors of martyrdom. The hymn of Prudentius,
from which we have given a quotation, is sufficient to shake our faith in him
as a Martyrologist: without reckoning the miracles, the whole story is a
string of improbabilities: the martyr is represented as betraying an infant to
certain destruction; the mother displays a want of feeling scarcely credible,
and altogether odious; and the infant itself, though lately weaned, exhibits
the understanding and resolution of mature age. The profusion of useless
miracles answers no end, and is supported by no evidence; indeed, the
existence of miraculous adjuncts to martyrdom must be generally doubtful, from
the difficulty of obtaining dispassionate testimony regarding them. It is not
from a highly-excited crowd of spectators, earnestly watching for some
supernatural interposition, and ready to magnify any event that appeared
strange or unusual; it is not from such, still less from those who have only
listened to their descriptions, that satisfactory proof of miraculous
occurrences can be obtained. There are, moreover, strong objections in the
nature of these miracles: that God should deliver his servants from their
enemies, or support them miraculously under torments, is perfectly in
accordance with the tenor of the inspired records; but reason is staggered by
the futility of the many prodigies described in connexion with the later
martyrdoms. Romanus, having had his face completely cut to pieces, and being
still enabled to speak distinctly, derives no relief from the supernatural
aid: he is next delivered to another executioner, who cuts out his tongue.
After the second mutilation, the martyr, silenced perforce, having no voice to
send heavenward, no words with which to proclaim his Master's triumph, draws
from his inmost heart a long sigh; and, supplicating with a groan, breaks
forth,—"Who speaks of Christ, never yet wanted a tongue; nor asked by what
organs words are formed, when the Giver of words is the subject of speech."
Yet no conversion of the bystanders ensues; nor does any effect follow the
miracles, excepting that of exasperating the Judge. The same want of result is
observable in most of the prodigies related by Prudentius. (Maitland, Church
in the Catacombs.)

MARTYRDOM OF EULALIA.

the dungeon without nourishment, and the torments of Romanus not only to be
renewed but increased. He remained inflexible; and therefore Asclepiades
condemned both him and the infant to death; Romanus to be burnt, and the child
to be beheaded. As they were conducted to the place of execution, Romanus told
the Governor that he appealed from his unrighteous decision to the throne of
Christ, who was the Judge of all men, who will reward us according to our
deeds: "not," said the martyr, "that I fear thy torments, but that thy conduct
may be fully known." When they arrived at the place of execution, the officers
demanded the child of its mother, who had taken it in her arms: she, after
kissing the infant, delivered him to the executioner, praising God that out of
a babe he had perfected praise to the confusion of his enemies. The head of
the little one being severed from the body, the mother took it up and placed
it upon her bosom. Romanus was fastened to a post, and the wood * laid in
order around him. A sudden fall of rain prevented the pile taking fire.
Asclepiades attributed this interposition to the influence of magic; and
conveyed this calumny with so much address to the ears of Galerius, that he
obtained permission to proceed to fresh tortures, and then to kill him in any
way he thought proper. He first ordered his tongue to be cut out; and Eusebius
and Chrysostom inform us, that he not only survived the operation, but
actually spake more distinctly than he had done before. The martyr was
remanded to his prison; but the Governor was surprised to hear that he still
possessed the power of speech, and sent for the surgeon who executed this part
of the sentence, whom he charged with favouring the criminal, or with being
himself a Christian. If what Eusebius inform us be true, he had been a
disciple of Christ, but had apostatized on account of the persecution. The
surgeon, however, had for some cause preserved the tongue of Romanus, produced
it to the Governor, and assured him that, according to the rules of nature,
the martyr could not at that time be alive. The same experiment was tried on a
condemned malefactor, who expired shortly after: the Governor was in no degree
changed; and Romanus, after remaining several months in prison, was ultimately
strangled. An innumerable company of martyrs suffered at this time, of whom
but little is recorded. It matters not: their record is on high!

We feel the same objections to the statements which are extant with regard to
the martyrdom of Eulalia. She was a native of Merida, in Spain, and educated
in the principles of Christianity. The amusements which commonly occupy the
youthful mind, possessed no charms in the estimation of Eulalia. She was but
twelve years of age when the persecution under Diocletian commenced; and her
mother, finding her anxious to become a martyr, though she knew not what it

* When the Judge had informed him that he was to die by the flames, with a
cheerful countenance and a most ardent mind he received the sentence, and was
led away. He was then tied to the stake; and when the wood was heaped up
around him, and they were about kindling the pile, only awaiting the word from
the expected Emperor, he (Romanus) exclaimed, "Where then is the fire?" Saying
this, he was summoned again before the Emperor to be subjected to new
tortures, and had his tongue cut out, which he bore with great fortitude.
(Euseb., De Martyr. Palest., cap. 2.)

was to suffer, to prevent her falling into the hands of the persecutors,
conveyed her into the country: she, however, speedily returned to Merida; and
on the following day, either surrendered herself, or was apprehended, as a
Christian. The early Martyrologists say that she went herself into the court,
and reproached the Judge, in no mild terms, on account of the folly and
stupidity of Paganism. She was placed before the tribunal, and the Magistrate,
evidently irritated by the language which Eulalia had previously used,
addressed the executioners, and commanded them to pull her out by the hair of
the head, and torture her to the uttermost. "Let her feel," said he, "the
power of the gods of the land, and what the imperial government of a Prince
is. Nevertheless, sturdy girl, I would desire thee, before thou die, revoke
this thy wickedness. Remember what pleasures thou mayest enjoy from the
honourable house to which thou dost belong: thy fallen house follow thee to
death with lamentable tears. What meanest thou? Wilt thou kill thyself? Doth
not the reverend piety of thy ancestry move thee? Behold the furniture which
is prepared for thy lingering and painful death: either thou shalt be beheaded
with this sword, or else by those wild beasts thou shalt be torn in pieces, or
consumed in the flames. How easy it is for thee to escape all these
punishments! Take and put with thy fingers a little salt and incense into the
censers, and thou shalt escape." To this the martyr made no answer; but, being
in a state of great excitement, she spat in the Magistrate's face, she threw
down the idols,* and

* In narrating the story of Eulalia, Prudentius highly approves of her bold
and insulting bearing towards the pagan authorities. That young lady,
according to the poet, had from the cradle given promise of a fierce and
unsociable disposition, calculated to distinguish her in the religious world
then existing. On the outbreak of persecution she was removed to the country
by her heathen parents, and even shut up, to prevent any collision with the
authorities. On a dark and silent night she escaped from her home; and, guided
by angelic torch-bearers, made her way into the city. Early in the morning she
presents herself at the tribunal, and vehemently abuses the Emperor and his
gods. She earnestly requests that her bodily frame may be torn to pieces, as a
thing useless in itself, and unworthy the trouble of preserving. Provoked by
her language, the Prætor ordered the Lictors to bind her; but, before
inflicting punishment, he sets before her the miseries which she draws upon
herself and her parents, the prospects of happiness which her home offers, and
the speedy marriage which awaits her. A grain of incense cast upon the coals
is to be the sign of her recantation. To this she vouchsafes no verbal answer,
but spits in the face of the Prætor, throws down the images, and kicks over
the thurible. The two executioners immediately perform their office by tearing
with the ungulae her sides and bosom. In the gashes inflicted by the
instrument, her excited imagination traces the letters of her Master's name;
and her voice, unshaken by sob or sigh, joyfully proclaims his triumph.
Torches are afterwards placed under her face, and this gives her an
opportunity of ending her life by inhaling the flames of her burning hair.
Prudentius, Ado, and even Aquilius, mention the fact of a white dove issuing
out of her mouth at the time of her departure, and of the fire quenched about
her body; also of her person being covered miraculously with snow; with other
things more, whereof Foxe sapiently observes, let every reader use his own
judgment. (Aurel. Prudentii Peristeph., lib. 161, et seq., p. 117. 8vo.
Hanorim, 1613.

"Nec mora, carnifices gemini

Juncæ pectora dilacerant;

Et latus ungula virgineum

Pulsat otrimque, et ad osea secat

Eulaliâ numerante notas.

Scribereæ ecce! mihi Domine

Quam juvat hos apices legere."—Peristephan. Prudentii, Hymn 9.

(See Maitland's Church in the Catacombs.)

CHARACTER OF MARTYRDOMS OF THIS AGE.

scattered with her feet the heap of incense which was prepared for the
ceremony. Then, without any hesitation, the executioners seized her, rent her
delicate flesh with the ungulæ, and scorched her sides to the bone. They
afterwards proceeded to the last and final torment, which not only embraced
wounding and lacerating her sufficiently mangled body with the iron grate and
hurdle, and terribly harrowing her flesh, but burned on every side, with
illuminated torches, her bosom and sides: her hair hanging about her
shoulders, in two parts divided, descended to the ground. But when the
crackling flame flew about her face, and kindled her hair, she shortly after
expired.

The numerous ill-concocted tales which emanated from the pen of Prudentius,
and other early Martyrologists, are sufficiently annoying, because every
principle of probability is violated, and between them and the authentic
records of martyrdom there exists not the slightest analogy. Are we to suppose
God, who gave the martyrs grace to suffer gloriously in his service, should
have left them to disgrace that cause by vain bravado, or abusive retorts? And
if the appearance of insensibility to pain is to be considered a test, these
stoical confessors must be allowed infinitely to exceed Paul in fortitude:
compared with his plea of citizenship, adduced to escape torture, their eager
demand for more horrible inflictions must indicate vastly higher attainments
in faith and piety. The physical effects of the torture are never taken into
account in the later Acta: there is no collapse or prostration of strength,
nor swooning from profuse bloodshed. We must either suppose that a miraculous
agency had throughout averted the usual effects of mutilation, or that the
entire narrative is grossly exaggerated. Generally speaking, the only sufferer
is the Judge: he it is who rolls his eyes in frenzy, and gnashes his teeth*
with vexation; while the martyr finds vinegar mild, and salt without pungency;
mistakes mustard for honey, and claps his blood-stained hands as the ungulæ
rend his limbs.†

The author from whom we have last quoted very justly observes, that the
character of the stories alluded to, and even their existence, are to be
ascribed to the excited state of feeling which prevailed when they were
written. Their general tendency is to make us believe that the martyrs
suffered no pain, and had therefore little merit in facing the torments
prepared for them; while they exhibit the victim and the executioner as two
gladiators, the former supported and strengthened by miracles and his
insensibility to pain, and the latter armed with the most fearful implements
which human or diabolical cruelty could invent. Unfettered by the nec Deus
intersit of the profane, the poet liberally introduces the agents of heavenly
or hellish power: if there were no group of Oceanides to console the Christian
Prometheus, there was a chorus of angels to sing around him, to scatter
flowers on his

* "His persecutor saucius

Pallet, rubescit, metuat,

Insana torquens lumina

Spumque freudens egregit."

(Peristeph. Prudentii, Hymnus 2, S. Vincentii Martyris, I. 200. 8vo. Hen.,
1813.)

† Maitland's Church in the Catacombs, p. 100.

L couch, and to fill the air with odours. The invisible Coryphæus invites him
to heaven, and promises an eternal crown. "Arise, illustrious martyr, secure
of thy reward; arise, and join our company, O warrior most invincible, braver
than the bravest; thy tortures, cruel as they are, fear thee their
conqueror."* Early in the history of persecution, we find Celsus reproaching
the Christians with the example of the heathen Anaxarchus;† who, being pounded
in a mortar, exclaimed, "Pound the shell of Anaxarchus, himself you touch
not." "What," he asks, "did your Deity say in his sufferings comparable to
this?" Not to be outdone by a Pagan, Martyrologists took care to record the
fact, that Christians also could maintain composure under the greatest
tortures; in course of time their hyperbolical language rather represented the
martyrs as devoid of feeling, than resolute in enduring pain. In what might be
termed a Christianized version of the speech of Anaxarchus, Prudentius makes
his hero explain the principle of his fortitude. In reply to the taunt of
Celsus concerning the superior fortitude of Anaxarchus, Origen remarks, that a
pious submission to the will of God, or even a prayer, such as, "If it be
possi-

* "Tear as you will this mangled frame,

Prone to mortality;

But think not, man of blood, to tame

Or take revenge on me.

You overlook, in thus supposing,

The nobler self that dwells within;

Throughout these cruel scenes reposing,

Where nought that injures enters in.

"This which you labour to destroy,

With so much madness, so much rage,

Is but a vessel form'd of clay,

Brittle and basting to decay.

Let nobler foes your arms employ;

Subdue the indomitable soul;

Which, when fierce whirlwinds rend the sky,

Looks on in calm security,

And only bows to God's control."

"Eras crnente, si meam

Te rere pernam sumere,

Quum membra morti obnoxia

Dilancinata interficis.

Est alter, est intrinsecus

Violare quem nullus potest,

Liber, quietus, integer,

Exsors dolornin tristum.

Hoc, quod laboras perdere

Tantis furoris viribus,

Vas est solutum ac fertile,

Quocumque frangendum modo."

The entire passage is imitated from Cyprian's Tract to Demetrian, cap. 8.
"Another will suffer in me," said the humble Felicitas one hundred and eighty
years earlier.

† "Anaxarchus, of Abdera, was a pupil of Diomenes, of Smyrna, or, according to
some authorities, of Metrodorus of Chios. He attended Alexander in his Asiatic
expedition, s.c. 334. It seems he was not much of a courtier, and that he took
occasion to reprove the King sometimes. After Alexander's death, he fell into
the hands of Nicocreon, tyrant of Cyprus, whose enmity he had incurred.
Nicocreon avenged himself by pounding Anaxarchus in a mortar. The philosopher
bore the torment with fortitude. Owing to his freedom from passion, and his
tranquillity, he was called Eudæmonicus, or, the Happy." (Blog. Dict.)

ANTONIUS GALLONIUS.

ble, let this cup pass from me," is more truly magnanimous than the
affectation of insensibility so lauded in the pagan sufferers. In the sixty-
third canon of the Quinisextan Council, held A.D. 691, it was ordained, "That,
whereas certain false stories of martyrdom had been circulated by the enemies
of truth, calculated to bring the martyrs into discredit, and drive the
hearers of such things into infidelity: we decree that they be not read in
churches, but be committed to the flames." We are left in uncertainty as to
the real character of the pseudo-Martyrologies referred to by the canon: that
they were read in churches leads to the supposition that they were the
production of Christian writers; who, by their unlimited indulgence in the
licence of the times, had alarmed even a Council of the eighth century. Yet
the severe expressions of the Quinisextan divines, "falso convicte ... ut
martyres Dei ignominiâe efficerent," seem to be pointed against intentional
traducers. In the Council held at Carthage, A.D. 401, it was ordered that all
false martyr churches, and unauthenticated relics, should be destroyed; that
none should be enrolled as martyrs without sufficient proof; and that altars
consecrated upon the authority of dreams, and on other superstitious grounds,
should be disavowed. The necessity for having some relic of a martyr, as a
palladium to a church, was not felt generally till the fifth century; the
follies to which it led, and the frauds resorted to in order to convince the
people of the sanctity of particular bones and dust, are evidently implied in
this canon.

A work which Dr. Maitland says made considerable pretensions to learning and
accuracy, is the small folio of Gallonius, entitled, "De Cruciatibus
Martyrum,"* with plates. The ignorance of this writer concerning the power of
human nature to support mutilation,† is even surpassed by his credulous
eagerness to enumerate the accumulated horrors invented by the Monkish
historians, who, in their dismal seclusion, allowed full licence to a morbid
imagination. For Gallonius to state simply that the martyrs were suspended in
various painful attitudes, would be insufficient for his purpose: sixteen
varieties of hanging have been specified by him; and, to the dismay of the
reader, the whole sixteen appear in engravings. The same principle of
amplification runs throughout the work: lest we should think lightly of the
pains of being burnt alive, if conveyed by mere verbal description, not less
than nineteen modifications of this torture are figured and explained in the
margin. All that lies between a slight historical mention of the details of
martyrdom, and the drawings of Gallonius, is mere invention. We are told by
ancient writers, that the plumbatæ were scourges laden with lead; and, beyond
that, we know nothing of them: also, that the scorpion was a knotted stick, as
opposed to the virgæ læves:

* De Sanct. Martyrum Cruciatibus Antonii Gallouli Rom. Congregationis Oratorii
Presbyteri Liber cum Figuris Romæ in ære incisis per Antonium Tempestram. Et
aliis ejusdem argumenti Libellis ex museo Raphaelis Tricheti du Fresne, fol.,
Parisiis, 1659.

† One of the sufferers has a row of large nails driven into his back; another
is sitting up, alive, with the four limbs amputated, and left to bleed. One
plate represents a Christian whose liver is torn out: the opposite page adds
in explanation, that the Gentiles used to devour it, a statement which
accounts for the fire and frying-pan in the fore ground.

L 2 when, therefore, we are shown an engraving fixing the size and shape of
these instruments, we are imposed upon by the ingenuity of the artist. To
justify these engravings, there should be in existence authentic relics of the
objects, or descriptions by contemporary writers; but no such relics or
descriptions can be found.* The collection of prints employed by Gallonius is
also inserted in some other works, successive editions having been made from
time to time. For instance: the supposed claw of an ungula, found in a
cemetery, is published with due honours by its discoverer; another author, who
has not seen the original, and is nevertheless better informed regarding it,
adds to it a handle; a third puts it, in its complete form, into the hands of
a ferocious executioner, and buries the points in the sides of a Christian. A
favourite subject with the early Martyrologists, and not overlooked by
Gallonius, is the treatment to which the Christian virgins were exposed in the
persecutions. Between the desire to magnify the indignities offered to them,
and at the same time to exhibit them as coming off with undiminished honour,
these writers are sorely perplexed. The usual custom is to introduce a
miracle, by which the spouses of Christ are rescued from impending fate, which
on some occasions is admitted to have befallen them. Some of the latest
histories of martyrdom are worked up into a complete romance, consisting of
the adventures and escapes of the virgins from the perils to which they were
exposed. Several tales of this sort are to be found in the Ecclesiastical
History of Nicephorus. Instance the following:— A young lady, of extraordinary
beauty, received the sentence described as common in the Diocletian
persecution. To the first person who gained access to her she represented
herself as an enchantress, skilled in the knowledge of poisons and their
antidotes: on condition of receiving no insult from him, she proposed to
render him invulnerable to steel, by a preparation which she had discovered.
"But you will, of course," she added, "wish to see its efficacy proved, before
concluding the agreement." Immediately producing an ointment, she applied it
to her neck, directing the youth to draw his sword, and use his utmost
endeavours to inflict a wound. Whether deceived by her manner, or altogether
unacquainted with the master-spirit of the time, he obeyed; nor was his
knowledge of the true Christian character advanced, when he saw with horror
the head of his victim rolling at his feet.†

Agnes ranks high on the pages of ecclesiastical history as a martyr: she was a
native of Rome, and of noble parentage. Some historians have recorded very
much respecting her, especially with regard to

* Stories regarding martyrdom never lose by repetition. In the massacre of the
Huguenots, it is often stated that sixty thousand persons perished in Paris;
whereas Banauni declares, officially, that sixty thousand persons were
employed in the slaughter, and that they destroyed four thousand of their
enemies. (Numismata Romana, opposite the engraving of the medal.) Again:
Ruinart says, that Domitius collected seven books of edicts remaining in force
against the Christians: Lactantius, from whom he professes to quote, mentions
the edicts of the persecutors as contained in the seventh book of the laws
collected by Domitius. (Institutions, lib. v., cap. 2.)

† Maitland's Church in the Catacombs, p. 115. The able author refers his
readers for other narrations of a similar description, both curious and
improbable, to Fleury, Hist. Ecclesiast., livre viii., chap. 36.

MARTYROOM OF AGNES.

certain strange miracles wrought by her during the progress of her eventful
history, which Foxe the Martyrologist hesitates to record, because of the
incredibility of their history, and professes himself to be satisfied with the
testimony of Prudentius.* She appears to have been a remarkable instance of
the power of divine grace. Ambrose and Augustine say that she was about
thirteen years of age when she obtained the martyr's crown. Her personal
accomplishments brought around her a crowd of admirers, all of whom were
rejected, inasmuch as Agnes resolved not to be unequally yoked with a Pagan:
her suitors were exasperated at her repulses, and, taking advantage of the
persecution, delivered her into the hands of the Magistrates as a Christian.
The Judge before whom she was taken endeavoured to shake her steadfastness by
tender and affectionate expressions; but finding her soul endued with even
masculine courage, and proof against his devices, he had recourse to
everything that could terrify and amaze. The various instruments of torture
were shown her: she was alike unmoved, and betrayed no emotions of fear. These
efforts proving ineffectual, she was then forcibly taken to the altars of the
pagan deities, in order that she might be compelled to scatter incense in the
fire. All, however, that her persecutors were enabled to achieve, was to
elicit from the youthful martyr a more triumphant and bold confession of her
faith in Christ. The Judge, confounded at her obstinacy, and manifest
indifference to life, imagined that she might be more successfully attacked by
an attempt upon her chastity: he accordingly threatened to send her to a place
where she would be exposed to the rude and licentious attacks of the
libidinous and the profane. Agnes, confiding in the protection of the Most
High, without hesitation assured the Magistrate, that he might indeed stain
his sword with her blood; but that it would be beyond his power to dishonour
her person, which she had given to Christ her God. Enraged with her dauntless
demeanour, he prepared to carry his threat into execution. Agnes was led to an
infamous place; but the Almighty manifested himself in her behalf, who is said
to have filled all who were present with respect and esteem for her bordering
upon awe, so that none dared to look upon her, much less venture to approach
her.† Transported with rage, the Judge commanded her to be beheaded, that he
might forthwith be rid of the sight of one whose innocence and weakness were a
standing reproach to his injustice and cruelty. She heard the sentence with
pleasure, and went to her execution with cheerfulness. The executioner had
private instructions to employ all possible means to produce a change in her
mind, before he proceeded to the last extremity. All his efforts were
unavailing: she besought him to perform his office, and to destroy a body
which had the misfortune to please any eyes but those of her Redeemer, to whom
she was united by the strongest ties of devotion. The executioner, finding all
he could

* Prudentii Peristephan., hymn. xiv.

† It is stated, that one among the crowd, in this filthy place of resort, with
impure eyes and thought looked upon Agnes, and was immediately stricken with
blindness. Prudentius relates, that Agnes being requested to pray unto Christ
in behalf of the party stricken, the culprit was restored unto his perfect
health and sight.¹ say or do was to no purpose, at last performed the
melancholy task with a trembling hand, and amidst the tears of many of the
spectators.

In the Sermons of Basil * we meet with an account of Julitta, a Christian lady
of Cæsarea, of Cappadocia, who was distinguished for her eminent virtue,
masculine courage, and strength of intellect. We learn, from Basil, that she
had a troublesome lawsuit with one of the principal men in Cæsarea, who was
unjustly possessed of some considerable part of her estate, and had even taken
violent hold on her servants and cattle. This oppressive usurper had found
means to bribe the Judges in his favour, and to hire persons to swear that the
lands and goods in dispute were his property. Julitta, supported by the
justice of her cause, thought that she had nothing more to do, but to give the
Magistrates a plain and ingenuous statement of her title. When the cause came
to be tried, the defendant, instead of supporting his claim, or giving any
answer to the plaintiff's plea, urged that the law would not suffer him to
engage at that bar with one of a different religion; so that he could not
proceed in his defence, unless the lady who was the plaintiff renounced
Christianity. The Judge was too well instructed, not to second the motion; and
gave it as his opinion, that what he insisted on was according to the laws of
the empire. He then ordered an altar to be brought in, and some fire to be put
on it, and incense to be prepared; and then told the parties, that if they
expected, either of them, to enjoy the benefit of the laws, both of them must
forthwith offer incense to the gods. The usurper, who was a Heathen,
immediately complied; but Julitta made it appear that her faith was much
dearer to her than her goods, or even than life itself. "No," said she, "my
affection to what is unquestionably my own shall never hinder me from
sacrificing my all, and even my life, if required, rather than violate my
fidelity to my God and Saviour." This declaration greatly incensed the Judge;
but Julitta proceeded with the same intrepidity, and thanked God for the
assurance she had of an eternal inheritance, while that which was her own upon
earth was disputed, and unjustly taken from her. The Magistrate made several
attempts to induce her to abandon her faith, but without effect: to his
suggestions she invariably replied, that she was the servant of Christ, and,
as such, she could not listen to his proposals without horror; upon which she
was condemned to be burnt. Julitta listened to the sentence with apparent
pleasure, and walked to the place of execution with an alacrity which
indicated the tranquillity of her soul. Her last moments were spent in
exhorting the Christians who were present to prefer the faith of Christ to all
human considerations; and she died a glorious example of that faith which she
had recommended to others.†

* Basilli Opera, tom. 1., Hom. in Martyrem Julittam, p. 314, et seq. Fol.,
Paris, 1638.

† Several women underwent martyrdom at this period; among whom we find
Barbara, a noble lady of Tuscany, who, after a miserable and protracted
imprisonment, sharp cords, and burning torches applied to her sides, was at
length beheaded; Fausta, a virgin; Juliana, a lady of singular excellencies,
in Nicomedia; Anysia, a maiden of Thessalonica, who suffered under Maximin;
and many others.

MARTYRDOM OF VINCENTIUS.

One of the most celebrated martyrs of this day was Vincent of Saragossa, in
Spain, descended from one of the first families in the province of Tarragona:
during comparative infancy, he was placed under the care of Valerius, a Bishop
of that city, who instructed him, with considerable diligence, in the articles
of the Christian faith, and the duties of piety. The progress which he made in
his various studies induced Valerius to ordain him a Deacon; after which,
Valerius, who was well acquainted with every branch of his office, and who
acquitted himself of every obligation with exemplary fidelity, but being
naturally bashful, and having an impediment in his speech, committed the task
of preaching to his Deacon, which office he discharged with distinguished
success. Toward the close of the year 303, when the persecution of Diocletian
reached Spain, Dacian, the Governor of Tarragona, ordered the Christians to be
seized, and brought to him at Valentia, laden with irons. Here, for some time,
he endeavoured to make them feel the miseries of a prison; hoping that the
fatigue of a journey on the one hand, and the hardships they had suffered on
the road on the other, would induce them to purchase their liberty at any
price. Full of this persuasion, he ordered them to be brought before him; but
was surprised to find them strong, healthy, and in full spirits, instead of
the emaciated and worn-out creatures which he anticipated to have met: he even
imputed blame to the officers and guard who had conducted the prisoners from
Saragossa, as if they had showed the culprits more indulgence than what his
orders had allowed. Dacian, however, struck with their appearance, made use of
very bland and gentle language, to induce them to sacrifice to the pagan
deities; and strongly inculcated upon them obedience to the edict of the
Emperors, which required that all their subjects, without exception, should
adhere to the religion of their ancestors; and also represented to them the
danger to which they exposed themselves, by acting in opposition to their
Sovereign's order, and by introducing novelties into the exercise of divine
worship. Vincent, observing that Valerius made no answer to the President's
proposal, which he presumed might proceed from his bashfulness, desired that
he might be allowed to speak in behalf of them: this being granted, with the
utmost freedom he stated their opinion of the idols of the Heathen, and their
fixed resolution to suffer for Christ. The freedom of speech which Vincent
assumed was offensive to Dacian, who told him, that he should either burn
incense to the gods which he despised, or that he himself, for his contumacy,
should fall a sacrifice to their vengeance. This, so far from producing any
change in the resolution of Vincentius, led him to repeat what he had
aforetime related with even greater warmth, and also to declare that those who
were supported by Him whom the Christians adored, were too sensible of the
almighty power of that Deity, to acknowledge themselves to be anything but
what they really were. The Governor could no longer endure the boldness of
this comparatively young man, who, although in chains, conducted himself with
the dignity of a Magistrate. He therefore, without hesitation, banished
Valerius, and directed his animosity against Vincentius, who was first placed
upon the rack, and his limbs stretched and torn with cords, till they were
dislocated and rent asunder. His body, strange to say, was then laid open, and
his flesh torn with the ungulæ: all these torments he bore with comparative
tranquillity; and by his patience, and a smile which rested upon his
countenance, he appeared to reproach his adversaries with the weakness and
insufficiency of their varied efforts. Dacian, who witnessed this behaviour,
in a most violent state of excitement and passion, accused the executioners of
negligence in the discharge of their offices; accounting it to them, that the
patience of the martyr was so great. He then allowed them some rest, that they
might return to their work with renewed vigour; but nothing served to shake
the constancy of one who was so firmly united to, and supported by, the Most
High. The rage of Dacian appeared as if mitigated by the streams of blood
which flowed from all parts of the body of the martyr: he ordered a brief
cessation of his torture; and also informed him, that as he was so obstinately
bent against sacrificing to the gods, and could not be prevailed upon to
approach their altars with reverence, the least return he could make for being
released from torment, was to deliver up the books which contained the
mysteries of his sect, that those seeds of iniquity might be burnt.
Vincentius, who reverenced God in his word, said, that the fire with which he
threatened those holy books would be more justly employed in punishing
impiety.* Finding that the courage of the martyr was indomitable, the Governor
gave way to the most violent transports of fury, and ordered him to be laid
upon the iron bed, or gridiron, which was also filled with sharp projecting
spikes, and placed over a fire: while one side was broiling, the other was
grievously tormented, by the application of red-hot iron bars, and salt thrown
into the wounds; and that nothing might be wanting, to show to what extent the
cruelty of Paganism could go, or what the fortitude of a martyr, when
supported by the grace and strength of the Almighty, could endure, he remained
unmoved, with his eyes fixed on heaven, where his heart had long been. Dacian,
hearing of this last trial, and utterly despairing of successfully vindicating
the honour of his idols, was resolved to remove such an obnoxious person as he
from the public gaze. This,

* In many of these narratives the language put into the mouths of the martyrs
is not always to be justified on Christian principles. Nor should the degree
of provocation received by them be admitted as an excuse; for they are
represented as perfectly unmoved, capable of arguing with precision, and
annoying their tormentors with well-directed sarcasm. Unsuitably enough,
occurs the following passage in the Acts of Boniface:—"The holy martyr said to
him, 'Be dumb, wretch!' and open not thy mouth against my Lord Jesus Christ. O
serpent of darkest mind, ancient of evil days, a curse upon thee!" In the
second hymn of the Peristephanon, Vincentius is made to remind Dacian of the
fate of Sodom and Gomorra, and to assure him of the certainty of his obtaining
the same sulphureous portion in the lowest hell:—

"Vides favillas indices

Gomorreorum criminum;

Sodomita nec latet cinis,

Testis perennis funeris.

Exemplar hoc, Serpens, tuum est,

Fuligo quem nox sulphuris

Bitumen et mixtum pice

Imo implicabant Tartaro."

(Maitland, Church in the Catacombs, p. 99.)

MARTYROOM OF ANTHIMUS.

he imagined, would be most effectually accomplished by enclosing the martyr in
a dark dungeon, with his lower extremities extended in the stocks; and also
ordered the ground whereon he lay to be covered with sharp flints and broken
glass, and to leave him in those circumstances without food; and finally to
inform him when he expired. In this project Dacian had to meet with
disappointment: though excluded from the light of the natural sun, the Sun of
Righteousness illumed his heart; so that when the keepers visited the prison,
they invariably found him singing the praises of the Most High; and the wounds
which he had received were healed: this so astounded the spectators, as to
cause them to abandon Heathenism, and to embrace the religion of the Saviour.
By the order of Dacian, Vincentius was now laid on a soft bed, in order that,
being well refreshed, he might be enabled to endure torments even more severe
and dreadful. All his sufferings were now happily at an end, and the crown was
ready. Shortly after he was laid upon the bed, he surrendered his soul into
the hands of his Redeemer with great tranquillity.

Anthimus, Bishop of Nicomedia, appears to have been among the first who
suffered; but his martyrdom was followed by a great number. Many were burnt to
death, and others drowned. Eusebius speaks of the prisons being so full of
victims, that there was no room for ordinary criminals. The latter was himself
a spectator of numerous atrocities in his own city of Cæsarea, in Palestine.
That province was then under the government of Flavianus; and the first edict
arrived a little time previous to Easter. The Clergy of the neighbouring
churches were brought to be tortured, and the barbarous work was carried
onward to a frightful extent. There were some whose courage failed them, and
who consented to sacrifice; but many had their lives spared; because, when
they were senseless from pain, or when their hands were powerless on account
of the rack, they were compelled to go through some act of sacrificing which
satisfied the Magistrate.* We cannot fully depend upon these details; and
although reports were circulated, in the following century, that Marcellinus,
the Bishop, had been seen to offer incense in a temple, there is good reason
to think that the whole was a calumny.† He is said, by one writer, to have
acquired great glory by his conduct during the persecution.‡ Before the close
of the year 303, Diocletian and his son-in-

* "Some, indeed, from excessive dread, broken down and overpowered by their
terrors, sunk, and gave way immediately at the first onset; but each of the
rest experienced various kinds of torture. Some were scourged with innumerable
strokes of the lash; others racked in their limbs, and galled in their sides
with torturing instruments; some with intolerable fetters, by which the joints
of their hands were dislocated. Nevertheless, they bore this, as regulated by
the secret determinations of God. One was seized by the hands, and led to the
altar by others who were thrusting the polluted and unhallowed victim into his
right hand, and then suffered to go again, as if he had sacrificed. Another,
though he had not even touched, when others said that he had sacrificed, went
away in silence. Another was taken up half dead, and was released from his
bonds, and ranked among the sacrificers. Another crying out, and asserting
that he did not assent to these things, was struck on the mouth, and silenced
by the blows of many who were suborned for that purpose: he was thrust away
violently, although he had never sacrificed." (Kuseb., De Mart. Palest., cap.
1.)

† Baronii Annales, A.D. 302, § lxxxviii. The Acts of the Council of Sinusese,
in which Marcellinus is said to have been condemned, are confessedly spurious.

† Theodoret., Hist. Eccles., Bb. 1., cap 3.

M law left Nicomedia, previous to which another severe edict was issued
against the church. The twentieth anniversary of his succession to the throne
was celebrated in December. Galerius kept it at Antioch. Being now left to
himself, he would be sure to execute his own orders with the greatest
severity. The Bishop of Antioch at this period was Tyrannus, who had succeeded
Cyril in 299; but we do not read of any personal suffering that he underwent.
At the same time, Diocletian was celebrating his Vicennalia at Rome; and the
usual splendour of such occasions was increased by his having a triumph,
together with Herculeus, for victories gained in Persia and Africa. The
presence of the two Emperors, and this succession of public shows, were, as
usual, likely to be productive of evil to the Christians; but there was
something in Diocletian's reception at Rome that displeased him. If these
festivities had been given with a view to conciliate his subjects in the
capital, they totally failed; and he was so disgusted with them, that he set
out, in the depth of the winter, for Ravenna, though his bad health made this
journey particularly unpleasant. In the summer of 304 he found himself once
more in his favourite residence of Nicomedia, but with his constitution
entirely broken, and in a state of great danger.* Herculeus probably continued
at Rome during the whole of the year 304. In the month of October,
Marcellinus, Bishop of Rome, died; and some accounts say that he was martyred.
There is also reason to believe that the see continued vacant for more than
three years, which might seem to point out a season of more than usual danger.
This, however, was not the case; and some other cause must have operated,
beside persecution, which delayed the election of the Bishop. The names of
other martyrs are mentioned, who suffered at Rome: on the whole, however, we
may conclude, that the Christians in the capital were exposed to much less
suffering than in other parts of the empire.†

Egypt suffered severely during this persecution. The see of Alexandria was now
filled by Peter, who had previously been teacher in the catechetical school,
and succeeded Theonas in the bishopric in the year 300, three years before the
persecution began. He had been a sufferer with Dionysius fifty years before,
in the Decian persecution; and his great age, we find, did not preserve him
from severer trials. The whole of Africa being under the government of
Herculeus, the edicts were executed with the same severity in that country as
in Egypt. Anulinus was the Proconsul; and the names of several are recorded
whom he put to death. Particular pains seem to have been taken in Africa to
compel the Christians to give up their books. Mensurius, who had been raised
to the see of Carthage, after Lucianus, the successor of Cyprian, was accused
of having given up the books belonging to his church; but he proved,
satisfactorily, that he had deceived the inquisitors, by giving them some
heretical works. This persecution raged violently in Palestine: this fact
Eusebius, without hesitation, asserts; and that he himself was well acquainted

* Burton, Lect. on Eccles. Hist., lect. xxix.; Lactantius, De Mort. Persecut.,
cap. xvii.

† Baronii Annales, A.D. 304, § xxiv.

MARTYROOM OF CHRYSOGONUS AND ANASTASIA.

with several in that country. He mentions, says John Foxe, "a marvellous
martyrdom at Tyre, where certain Christians, being given to most cruel wild
beasts, were preserved, without being hurt by them, to the great astonishment
of the beholders; and those bears, hoars, leopards, and bulls, kept hungry for
that purpose, and stimulated with hot irons, had no desire to devour them;
which, notwithstanding, most vehemently raged against those by whom they were
brought on the stage; who, standing, as they thought, out of the reach of
danger, were first devoured; but the Christian martyrs, because they could not
be hurt of the beasts, being slain with the sword, were afterwards thrown into
the sea.* At that time was martyred the Bishop of Tyre, whose name was
Tyrannus, who was thrown to the fish, at Antioch; and Zenobius, a Presbyter of
Sidon, and a skilful Physician, who died amidst numerous tortures in that
place. Sylvanus, Bishop of Emiss, a notable martyr, together with certain
others, was thrown to the wild beasts in that city. Sylvanus, a Bishop of
Gaza, was slain, with thirty-nine others, at the copper-mines of Phæno. At
Cæsarea, Pamphilus, a Presbyter, the glory of that church, died a most worthy
martyr, whose Life Eusebius hath written, in a book by itself, and whose
commendable martyrdom he hath declared in another treatise.† Furthermore, he
maketh mention of others at Antioch, who were broiled on gridirons set over
the fire, —yet not to death, but in order to protract their sufferings; of
others that were brought to the altars, and commanded to offer incense, who
would rather thrust their right hand into the fire, than touch the profane or
wicked sacrifice."

Among several whose names have been specially recorded, we find Chrysogonus, a
worthy and exemplary Christian, and who was tutor to Anastasia, of whom he had
care from her infancy, and brought her up in the fear of God, and in the
principles of the Christian religion. He continued to have the oversight of
his pupil until her father, who was a Pagan, compelled her to marry a Heathen.
That engagement, and the persecution which now raged, obliged him to resign
his charge: he was forthwith seized and imprisoned for the truth, where he
continued some time; and during his confinement he wrote to Anastasia, to
comfort her in her affliction, and also to confirm her in the "good and right
way." Diocletian, being at Aquileia, sent an order to the Prefect of Rome,
where Chrysogonus was confined, to send him and other prisoners to himself for
trial. The martyr, having arrived at Aquileia, and being brought before the
Emperor, after numerous promises, and threatened torments, to induce him to
apostatize from the faith, was condemned to lose his head. Anastasia, the
pupil of Chrysogonus, was descended from an illustrious family of Rome, and
educated in the Christian faith by her mother Flavia, a woman of great virtue
and piety. But that excellent lady dying while Anastasia was but young, she
was placed in the hands of Chrysogonus, who completed what her mother had so
auspiciously commenced, and strengthened the foundation which she had laid.
Pretextatus, her father,

* Kuseb., Eccles. Hist., lib. vii., cap. 15.

† Kuseb., Eccles. Hist., lib. viii., cap. 13, De Mort. Palest., cap. xi.

M 2 who was a stranger to the name of Christ, obliged her to marry one
Publius, who had nothing but his birth to recommend him, and was guilty of the
most criminal extravagances. That unhappy debauchee wasted the greater part of
her fortune in riotous living; and in order to secure to himself that part of
it which she had appropriated to charitable purposes, he placed her under a
guard, and confined her as an enemy to the religion of her country. He
deprived her, also, of the comforts of life, and allowed her to receive no
visits, especially from such as he apprehended might confirm her in her
resolution of suffering. Chrysogonus was now in prison. Anastasia had not only
to endure the mortification of being separated from her spiritual guide, but
also to hear of the hardships which he was called to endure. She found means
to convey to him a letter, and desired the assistance of his prayers for her
deliverance. He exhorted her to the exercise of patience, in the prospect of a
calm, which, ere long, would follow the storm. The severe treatment was
considerably increased: she wrote to her tutor a second time, acquainting him
that she could expect no other relief but that which death would bring, and in
a very earnest manner commended herself to his prayers. Chrysogonus had been
informed of the particulars of her case from the woman who brought the
communication from Anastasia, and employed the same individual to exhort her
to perseverance, and to inform her from him, that she, as well as himself, was
on the road to that glory which invariably attends martyrdom. Publius, the
husband of the lady, died soon after while travelling in the East. This
circumstance gave her liberty, and the personal disposal of the rest of her
fortune, which she cheerfully employed in relieving the indigent, in
comforting the sick, and in supplying the wants of those who were suffering
for the faith. We are told that when Chrysogonus went to Aquileia to take his
trial, she followed him to that city, and after his death devoted a
considerable portion of her time in visiting the Christians who were under
confinement, which so provoked the Emperors, that they placed her in the hands
of Florus, the Governor of Illyricum, who endeavoured to shake her constancy
in the faith by a variety of barbarous and unheard-of torments; and
afterwards, finding her to be invincible, he ordered her to be burnt alive,
which sentence was immediately put into execution.

The city of Gaza produced many illustrious martyrs of both sexes, during the
persecution of Diocletian; which was continued by Galerius and Herculeus; some
of whom suffered on the spot; others were sent to Cæsarea, the metropolis of
Palestine, the usual residence of the Governor of that province. None were
more conspicuous among the former, than two holy women, Meuris and Thea, who
bore with great fortitude the cruelty of man, and the malice of the devil; and
ultimately triumphed over both. We are but little acquainted with the
transactions of their lives and sufferings, only that the former died under
the hands of her tormentors; and the latter, after having courageously passed
through a variety of tortures, languished for some time in prison, where she
ultimately expired. Foxe also testifies, and his authority is Nicephorus, that
Eulampia and Eulampius, of Nicome-

MARTYRDOM OF SABINUS AND OTHERS.

dia, Agape, Irene, Chionia of Thessalonica, suffered about this time. He
mentions also a matter full of horror and grief. There were assembled together
in the temple many Christian men to celebrate the memory of the nativity of
Christ. Herculeus, judging this a fit opportunity of exercising his cruelty
towards the Christians, sent a company thither with orders to burn the temple.
The doors being shut and closed round about, they came with fire, and
commanded the herald to announce with a loud voice, that whosoever would have
life, should come out of the temple, and offer sacrifice on the nearest altar
to Jupiter; and upon their refusing so to do, they should all be burnt with
the building. Then an individual answered in the name of the rest, with great
courage and much boldness, that they were all Christians, and believed that
Christ was their only God and King, and that they would offer sacrifice to
him, with the Father and the Holy Ghost; and that they were now all ready to
offer unto him. With these words the fire was kindled, which surrounded the
temple; and of men, women, and children that suffered, many thousands have
been enumerated.*

It was about this time that Sabinus, Bishop of Assisium, was called to suffer
for the sake of Christ; especially when the Romans animated by the sanguinary
edicts of Diocletian and Herculeus clamoured loudly for what they termed
justice on the Christians, and openly advocated the extirpation of that odious
sect at every time and in every place. The Senate forthwith, willing to
gratify the public, and also to oblige the Emperors, published an order for
placing all persons whom they discovered professing Christianity, in the hands
of the Governors of the respective towns, or the Judges of particular places,
who were thereby authorized and required to compel them to renounce the
Christian religion, and to sacrifice at the altars of Paganism. History also
informs us, that, pursuant to this order, Herculeus sent a rescript to the
Governor of Tuscany, directing the confiscation of goods, and inflicting
corporal chastisement on such as should refuse or neglect to execute it. By
virtue of this order, Sabinus and his two Deacons, Marcellus and Exuperantius,
with several other Ecclesiastics, were seized at Assisium in the month of May
following, and thrown into prison by order of Venustianus, Governor of Tuscany
and Umbria. Here they continued until that Magistrate arrived in the town;
when Sabinus, being carried before him, was required to offer incense to the
gods. The Bishop returned an answer suitable to the occasion; and on being
farther importuned, expressed his utter abhorrence of the act, and thrust the
idol from him. Venustianus, being incensed at this boldness, which he
considered to be an act of unparalleled impiety, ordered his hands to be
struck off. Marcellus and Exuperantius, who were of the same opinion as the
Bishop, were placed upon the rack, and for some time were beaten most
unmercifully. Finding them proof against these blows, the Governor directed
their bodies to be torn with hooks, till they expired under this cruel
treatment. Sabinus was doomed to a slower martyrdom, and was confined several
months in prison, without

* Nicephori Callisti, Eccles. Hist., lib. vii., cap. 6, fol., p. 446. Paris,
1630.

any relief, except what he occasionally received from a Christian widow, whose
grandson had recovered his sight through the blessing of God upon his prayers.
This fact coming to the knowledge of Venustianus, who was himself troubled
with a complaint in his eyes, he was startled, and immediately sent for the
Bishop, to whom he said, that he had now sentiments very different from those
which he had formerly entertained, both of himself and the religion which he
professed. He then threw himself at the Bishop's feet, and craved his
assistance in the cure of both body and soul. The fervency of his petitions,
and the sincerity of his intentions, were answered, and, after due and proper
instruction, the Governor received baptism. His own conversion was followed by
that of his household, to the number of fourteen or fifteen persons, who did
not fail to behold the invisible power of Almighty God in the Governor's
favour. When Herculeus heard of the conversion of his officer, he sent Lucius,
one of his principal dependants, to Assisium, with an order to behead
Venustianus and the whole of his family.

We shall now direct attention to the martyrdom of Januarius and his
companions. The former was Bishop of Beneventum in the kingdom of Naples. In
the reign of Diocletian and Herculeus, he was remarkable for his friendship
with Sosius, a Deacon of Misene, near Puzzuolo. The Deacon's reputation for
wisdom and sanctity engaged Januarius to make to him frequent visits, which he
endeavoured to improve to his own advantage, and that of the people committed
to his care; and nothing but the violence of persecution could interrupt their
pious conversation. Pursuant to the several edicts for seizing the Christians,
Sosius was carried before Draconius the Governor of Campania, who, after the
usual interrogatories and answers, insisted on his owning the pagan idols for
his gods. When it appeared that promises and threats were too innocuous to
move him, he was stretched on the rack and cruelly scourged. The Governor,
finding him steadfast, commanded him to be cast into prison at Puzzuolo, where
he was visited by the faithful of that town; and, among the rest, by Proculus
a Deacon, Eutyches and Acutius, two laymen; nor was he forgotten by his friend
Januarius, who saw him frequently, and encouraged him in his resolutions.
These friends of the oppressed did not long pass unobserved; consequently this
office of humanity and Christian friendship which they discharged was
represented to the individuals in authority, as a high offence, and a great
insult to the imperial orders. On this information the accused were taken
before Draconius, and, after several measures were resorted to, to induce
compliance with the imperial mandate, they were committed to the dungeons of
the same prison as Sosius. Timotheus succeeded Draco in the Governorship of
Campania. On arriving at Nola he received information respecting certain
professors of the Christian religion, and was also told that one of that
number, from Beneventum, made a common practice of visiting and assisting the
Christians whom Draconius had thrown into prison at Puzzuolo, for their
adherence to the faith. Whereupon the Bishop Januarius, who was the individual
alluded to, was immediately seized, put to the torture, and committed

MARTYROOM OF JANUARIUS.

to prison. The faithful at Beneventum, alarmed at the incarceration of their
Bishop, deputed Festus, a Deacon, and Desiderius, a Reader, to visit him in
their name, and to make all necessary provision for his comfort and relief. On
arriving at Nola, where the Bishop was imprisoned, they were seized, and taken
before Timotheus, who proposed several questions, to which they replied with
all simplicity and fidelity. Upon the confession which they severally made,
they were laden with irons, and compelled to walk before the Governor's
chariot to Puzzuolo; and then they were immured in the same prison as Sosius,
and the next day were brought out for execution. They were condemned to be
devoured by wild beasts in the amphitheatre, but none of those savage animals
were inclined to molest them. The whole assembly were amazed at this: the
Christians attributed the whole to the interposition of Heaven in favour of
the sufferers; the Heathen imputed it to the influence of magic. They were
subsequently ordered to be beheaded; which sentence being executed, their
remains were taken up and buried by the Christians.*

Of the birth-place or parents of the martyr Dorothy, or what education she
received, we have little or no account; only that Fabricius, being Governor of
Cappadocia, endeavoured to compel her to worship the pagan deities; and,
finding that he could not prevail, he exposed her to several severe and
violent kinds of torture. Before he delivered her up to the executioners, he
placed her under the direction and care of Chrysta and Calliata, two unhappy
women who had apostatized from the faith. They endeavoured to persuade her to
follow their example, and to save her life. In this bad work they exercised
all their skill, but in vain; and, instead of succeeding with her, were so
affected with her behaviour, that they returned to the church, and actually
died in behalf of that faith which they had formally renounced. Dorothy was
obliged to be present at their execution, in the hope that the prospect of
arriving at the same termination might intimidate and deter her from the same
profession. But the Most High, who ever designed the blood of the martyrs to
be the seed of the church, defeated the object of the enemy, inspired this
female martyr with fresh courage, and enabled her with patience to endure all
the

* No martyr of any age has had honour thrust upon him, equal to that of
Januarius. The city of Naples obtained possession of his relics. During the
wars of the Normans, they were removed, first to Benevento, and, some time
after, to the abbey of Monte Vergine; but in 1497 they were brought back to
Naples, which city has long honoured him as principal patron. Among many
miraculous deliverances which it ascribes to the intercession of this saint,
none is looked upon as more remarkable than its preservation from the fiery
eruptions of Mount Vesuvius, which is only eight miles distant, and which has
often threatened the entire destruction of this city, both by the prodigious
quantities of burning sand, ashes, and stones, which it throws up on those
occasions to a much greater distance than Naples; and by a torrent of burning
sulphur, nitre, calcined stones, and other materials, which like a liquid fire
has sometimes gushed from that volcano, and, digging itself a channel, (which
has frequently been two or three miles broad,) rolled its flaming stream
through the valley into the sea, destroying towns and villages in its way, and
often passing near Naples. Some of these eruptions, which in the fifth and
seventh centuries threatened this city with destruction, by the cloud of ashes
which they raised, are said to have darkened the sky as far as Constantinople,
and struck terror into the inhabitants of that capital. The intercession of
Januarius is foolishly said to have saved the city. I refer, for a full
account of the miracles of this martyr, to my edition of Elliott's Delineation
of Romanism, p. 538, et seq.

torture of the rack, until the Governor, discovering that she was resolved not
to abandon her Saviour and her faith, commanded her to be beheaded. About this
time also, according to our most credible authorities, Pancratius suffered,
commonly called Pancras. He was a native of Phrygia, but came to Rome with an
uncle, when only fourteen years of age: his parents being dead, he was left in
the care of this relative, who caused him to be instructed in the principles
of Christianity, and to be baptized. His tutor died before the promulgation of
the edicts of Diocletian; nevertheless, the grace of God supported his pupil
under very severe trials, and brought him off victorious. He was beheaded.
Four Christians, officers in the army of Rome, won the crown of martyrdom:
their names were Basilides, Cyrinus, Nabor, and Nazarius, who had with
boldness declared the truth as it is in Jesus, in that city. Aurelius the
Prefect sent for them, and urged them to renounce the faith, and sacrifice to
the gods of Heathenism; but finding them resolved, he committed them to
prison, where they continued until they were brought before the Emperor. When
they appeared before him, it was proved that they had not only disobeyed the
edict themselves, but they had also been instrumental in the conversion of
Marcellus their jailer, and several others, during their confinement. The
Emperor was incensed at this account, and ordered them to be beaten with wire
rods, and remanded to prison. After a few days they were again brought into
court, and again solicited to offer incense to the gods; and upon their
refusing, they were sentenced to be beheaded. Nicander and Marcian were also
soldiers in the army of Rome, where they had served some time before it
pleased Almighty God to enlighten their minds, and to give them to see the
vanity and deceitfulness of the world. When converted to Christianity, they
quitted the army, renounced all hope of preferment, and heartily engaged in
the spiritual warfare. This change could not long remain a secret; inasmuch as
it opposed the existing authorities, which had from time to time issued
several edicts prohibiting the profession of the Christian faith: they were
speedily accused of disobedience to the Emperor, of gross impiety towards the
gods of the country, and carried before Maximus, the Governor of Illyricum, at
Mœsia. That civic officer immediately ordered the imperial edict which obliged
all persons to sacrifice to the national deities, to be read, and these two
soldiers immediately to comply with its provisions. Nicander urged, that the
laws of his religion forbade such compliance. To this Maximus replied, that he
would make the affair as easy to themselves as possible, and would not insist
on any great and solemn offering, but would be satisfied with his throwing a
little incense into the fire in honour of the gods. "No," said Nicander, "a
Christian cannot adore stocks and stones, without committing an injury to the
Immortal Jehovah, who made the world out of nothing;—who is the only true
object of worship, and who will save all that put their trust in him." Maximus
then asked them, why they would take such a rash step, and deprive themselves
of the favour and reward of the Emperors, which were due to their rank and
merit. Nicander replied, "that their reason for declining these favours was,
because there

MARTYROOM OF NICANDER, AND OTHERS.

existed unhappily a close connexion between them, and such actions as must
leave an indelible stain upon their souls." This noble soldier was married to
one Daria, a Christian woman of singular piety, who, hearing that her husband
was before the Governor, and upon his trial, forthwith went to that court,
and, advancing to the side of her husband, exhorted him to constancy and
perseverance in the faith. Maximus, observing this, turned towards her, and
told her that she was a wicked woman to desire her husband's death! To this
cruel insinuation she replied, that her object was to procure for him a better
and an eternal inheritance. The Governor repeated his charge, and told her,
that it was impossible that she could have any other object in view, than
procuring for herself another husband when she had obtained emancipation from
the present one. "If," said Daria, "you can entertain such a thought with
regard to me, put it in my power to undeceive you, and despatch me the first."
To which Maximus replied, that he knew not how far he might go in that case,
but would immediately send her to prison. Daria being removed to the place of
confinement, the Governor addressed himself to Nicander, advising him not to
heed what his wife had said, and to provide for his own safety in the way
which he proposed; and that he had allowed him time to make his choice.
Nicander replied, "I have already considered this affair, and am resolved, and
have no other thought or desire than, to save myself." Maximus, supposing that
he spoke of his temporal life, was pleased with the conquest which he supposed
he had achieved, and ordered the altar and the incense to be prepared for
sacrificing. Upon this Nicander, raising his voice, repeated with some degree
of vehemence, what he had previously stated, and prayed to be preserved from
the temptation that was prepared for him. Maximus now fully comprehended his
meaning, and told him that he was surprised at his sudden change: "I
apprehended," said he, "that you were desirous to live; but now I perceive
that you make death your choice." "The life that I ask," said Nicander, "is
that of eternity, and not the life of this world, which at best is but of
short duration." Marcian was next examined, who assured the Governor that he
was of the same sentiments with his friend, and could only repeat what he had
before said; upon which he was informed that he should suffer the same fate.
They were both conveyed to prison, where after lying several weeks, they were
again brought up for another hearing. Maximus now observed, that they had had
time enough to consider what to do; and asked whether they were disposed to
give the usual proof of obedience to the imperial authority. Both repeated
their former profession, and declared that they could not think of renouncing
the faith. They manifested full confidence in that omnipotent power whom they
adored, and desired that they might be put in the way in which Christ required
them to walk. The Governor then assured them they should not be disappointed
at death, inasmuch as they desired it so eagerly. Marcian then conjured him by
the life of their Imperial Majesties, to grant their wish without further
delay; and endeavoured at the same time to inform him, that his request did
not proceed from any impatience under

N their sufferings, or apprehension of what he could inflict, but from an
ardent desire to depart and be with Christ. This prayer was urged with so much
warmth, that the Governor immediately sentenced them to lose their heads; for
which the martyrs returned thanks to the Most High, from whom they expected
the crown; and to the Judge, who contributed to their glory, for condemning
them. But a few minutes only passed between the time of pronouncing the
sentence and the execution, to which they went with great cheerfulness, which
the prospect of approaching happiness only could inspire. They were
accompanied by crowds of their friends and relatives, whose sentiments on the
occasion were as diverse as their religious creeds. Marcian's wife was among
the number; but her behaviour was very different from that of Daria, who,
having been set at liberty, was resolved to have the happiness of witnessing
Nicander finish his course gloriously; while the other unhappy woman
reproached her husband Marcian, for neglecting the means offered for saving
his life; she conjured him to have some compassion for her and her child;
telling him that it was yet in his power to avert the stroke of death.
Marcian, however, was immovable: he assured her that Satan had blinded her; he
commanded her to leave him, and not attempt to prevent him completing his
martyrdom. He was proceeding in this strain, when Zoticus, a Christian, took
him by the hand, bade him take courage, applauded his resolution, and
congratulated him on the glory he was about to enjoy. Marcian's wife still
followed him, crying, and teasing him to renounce the faith, which compelled
him to request Zoticus to keep her at some distance from him. When the martyrs
arrived at the place of execution, Marcian desired that his wife might be
brought unto him: he embraced her with all possible tenderness, and then
conjured her in the name of God to retire from a sight which she could not
bear. He then embraced his child, and, lifting up his eyes toward heaven,
recommended him to the divine protection. After this the two martyrs were
allowed to embrace each other, and then parted to make the last preparations,
and to finish the combat. As Marcian was looking round upon the spectators, he
beheld Daria, who was endeavouring to reach the scaffold: he desired that she
might be brought forward, and conducted to Nicander. That admirable woman
stood by her husband, and encouraged him to the last moment. "I had the
misfortune," said she, "to live ten years without seeing you, during which
time I made it my constant prayer to enjoy that satisfaction once more. My
request has been granted; and I am now much happier than I expected, by being
the wife of a martyr. Go on then, as you have begun, and deprive me not of
that honour; and, if you would add anything to my happiness, let it be your
prayers and wishes, that I may follow in the same path to glory." These
martyrs remained constant to the last, and died praising the Most High.

At the distance of so many ages it is impossible to discover by whom
Christianity was first preached in the islands of Great Britain. Some writers
have ascribed that province to Peter, others have preferred the rival claim of
Paul; but both opinions, improbable as they

CHRISTIANITY IN BRITAIN.

are in themselves, rest on the most slender evidence,—on testimonies which are
many of them irrelevant, all ambiguous and unsatisfactory. It is, however,
certain that at a very early period there were Christians in Britain; nor is
it difficult to account for the circumstance from the intercourse which had
long subsisted between the island and Rome. Within a very few years from the
ascension of Christ the church of Rome had attained great celebrity: soon
afterwards it attracted the notice, and was honoured with the enmity, of
Claudius and Nero.* Of the Romans whom at that period choice or necessity
conducted to Britain, and of the Britons who were induced to visit Rome, some
would, of course, become acquainted with the professors of the Gospel, and
yield to the exertions of their zeal. Both Pomponia Gracina, the wife of the
Proconsul Plautius, the first who made any permanent conquest in the island,
and Claudia, a British lady,† who had married the Senator Pudens, are, on very
probable grounds, believed to have been Christians. But whether it was owing
to the piety of these or of other individuals‡ that the doctrine of
Christianity was first introduced among the Britons, it appears to have made
proselytes, and to have proceeded with a silent but steady pace towards the
extremity of the island. The attention of the Roman officers was absorbed in
the civil and military duties of their stations; and while the blood of the
Christians flowed in the other provinces of the empire, the Britons were
suffered to practise the new religion without molestation. There is even
evidence that the knowledge of the Gospel was not confined to the subjects of
Rome. Before the close of the second century, it had penetrated among the
independent tribes of the north.

It might have been expected that the British writers would have preserved the
memory of an event so important in their eyes as the conversion of their
fathers. But their traditions have been so embellished and disfigured by
fiction, that without collateral evidence it is hardly possible to distinguish
in them what is real from that which is imaginary. After deducting from the
account of Nennius and his brethren every improbable circumstance, we may
believe that the authority conferred by the Emperor Claudius on Cogidunus was
continued in his family; that Lucius, (Lever Maur, or "the great light,") one
of his near descendants, was a believer in the Gospel; that

* Sueton, in Claud. xxv.; Taciti Annales, lib. xv., cap. 44.

† Pomponia Gracina was a woman of illustrious birth, and the wife of Plautius,
who, in the reign of Claudius, made the first descent on Britain, and on his
return from that country entered the city with the pomp of an ovation.
Pomponia was accused of embracing the rites of a foreign superstition. The
matter was referred to the jurisdiction of her husband. Plautius, in
conformity with an ancient usage, called together a number of her relations,
and in her presence sat in judgment on the conduct of his wife. He pronounced
her innocent. She lived to a great age in one continued train of affliction.
With regard to Claudia, compare 2 Tim. iv. 21, with Martial, Epig., lib. ii.,
cap. 54; lib. iv., cap. 13.

‡ Nothing can be less probable in itself, nor less supported by ancient
testimony, than the opinion that Britain was converted by oriental
Missionaries. The only foundation on which it rests, is, that in the seventh
century the Britons did not keep Easter on the same day as the Church of Rome.
That, however, they did so in the beginning of the fourth century, is plain
from Eusebius, (Vit. Constantin., lib. iii. cap. 19,) Socrates, (Hist., lib.
v., cap. 22,) and the Council of Arles. (Spelman, pp. 40-42.)

N 2 he sent to Rome Fagan and Dervan, to be more perfectly instructed in the
Christian faith; and that these envoys, having received ordination from Pope
Evaristus or Eleutherius, at their return, under the influence of their
patron, increased the number of the proselytes by their preaching, and
established the British, after the model of the continental, churches. But
independently of their authority, we have undoubted proof that the believers
were numerous, and that a regular hierarchy had been instituted, before the
close of the third century. For by contemporary writers, the church of Britain
is always put on an equality with the churches of Spain and Gaul; and in one
of the most early of the western Councils, that of Arles in A.D. 314, we meet
with the names of three British Bishops; of Eborius of York, for the province
of Maxima; of Restitutus of London, for that of Flavia; and of Adelphius of
Richborough, for that of Britannia Prima.

Origen puts this question, in his fourth homily upon Ezekiel: "When," says he,
"did ever the country of Britain own the unity of the Godhead before the
coming of the Saviour?" And in his sixth homily upon the first of St. Luke, he
tells us that the "influence of the Gospel, and the power of our Saviour's
kingdom, reached as far as Britain, which seemed to lie in another division of
the world." And Tertullian, who lived before Origen, in his list of the
converted nations, mentions "the different clans of the Moors, the provinces
of Spain, from one end to the other, the country of the Gauls, and that in
Britain the Gospel had made its way through places impregnable to the Roman
arms." And a little after he adds, "The Germans are not suffered to pass their
bounds; the Britons are as it were imprisoned by the ocean; the Moors are kept
within compass, and blocked up with the Roman legions; nay, the victorious
empire itself is not without its limits and non ultra; but the dominions of
our Saviour have no frontiers to confine them; his authority is owned in every
climate, and his majesty adored by all the nations above mentioned." To the
testimonies of Origen and Tertullian, we may add those of Gildas and Bede, the
one a Briton, the other a Saxon, and both of them natives of this island.
Gildas, who lived in the middle of the sixth century, informs us, that
Christianity continued here to the Diocletian persecution; and Bede affirms
the same thing, adding withal, that the Britons were constant to their
profession, and maintained the faith without apostasy or any heretical
corruption.

"Before I proceed," says Collier,* "upon this persecution, I shall run through
the interval in a word or two; and just touch upon the British affairs with
reference to the Romish empire. Severus, having defeated his rivals, and grown
absolute in the empire, was at leisure to attend the business of this island,
from whence he had lately received intelligence by Verius Lupus, that the
northern Britons had broke into the Roman province, and harassed the country;
and that there was need of a reinforcement to deal with them. The Emperor
Severus, being an ambitious prince, was glad of the news, in hopes of a
triumph. To this purpose he goes in person in the expedition.

* Eccles. Hist. of Great Britain. By Jeremy Collier. 8vo., vol. I., p. 45.

PERSECUTION IN BRITAIN.

The enemy, being discouraged with the formidableness of their preparations,
sent an embassy to excuse what they had done, and beg a peace. But the
Emperor, being unwilling to lose the opportunity of a victory, threw in
delays, and drew out the treaty in length; and, when his troops were ready to
march, he dismissed the ambassadors without concluding upon any articles."

The dreadful persecution under Diocletian extended to Britain, which had a
large share in the calamity. But when Diocletian and Herculeus resigned the
empire, and Constantius was declared Augustus, the persecution ceased in
Britain and other places of the West;* where, Eusebius affirms, it did not
last two years, though it continued ten in the East. But though the
persecution was comparatively short, it went to the extremity of punishment,
and took away the lives of several Christians.

The historian Gildas gives but a very gloomy description of the trials through
which the Christians at this period had to pass. "The rays of light were
received with lukewarm minds by the inhabitants; but they nevertheless took
root among some of them in a greater or less degree, until the nine years'
persecution of the tyrant Diocletian, when the churches throughout the whole
world were overthrown, all the copies of the holy Scriptures which could be
found burned in the streets, and the chosen Pastors of God's flock butchered
together with their innocent sheep, in order that not a vestige, if possible,
might remain in some provinces of Christ's religion. What disgraceful flights
then took place; what slaughter and death inflicted by way of punishment in
divers shapes; what dreadful apostacies from religion; and, on the contrary,
what glorious crowns of martyrdom then were won; what raving fury was
displayed by the persecutors, and patience on the part of the suffering
saints;—ecclesiastical history informs us; for the whole church were crowding
in a body, to leave behind them the dark things of this world, and to make the
best of their way to the happy mansions of heaven, as if to their proper
home."† "God, therefore," says Gildas, "who wishes all men to be saved, and
who calls sinners no less than those who think themselves righteous, magnified
his mercy towards us; and as we know, during the above-named persecution, that
Britain might not totally be enveloped in the dark shades of night, he, of his
own free gift, kindled up among us bright luminaries of holy martyrs, whose
places of burial and of martyrdom, had they not for our manifold crimes been
interfered with and destroyed by the barbarians, would have still kindled, in
the minds of the beholders, no small fire of divine charity. Such were Alban
of Verulam, Aaron and Julius, citizens of Carlisle, and the rest of both sexes
who in different places stood their ground in the Christian conflict."‡

* Kuseb., de Martyr. Palest., cap. xiii.

† Works of Gildas, surnamed "Sapiens," or the Wise. Sect. 9. Giles's Edit.
12mo. Bohn, 1848.

‡ Works of Gildas, sect. 10. He was surnamed the Wise, a British Monk, and the
most ancient writer of this country extant; was born 511, according to Leland,
but others say in 493. He was a disciple of Iltutus, Abbot of Morgan, and
became a Monk of Bangor. He is said to have visited Ireland; and, after his
return, he appears to have

Among the British martyrs, Alban ranks not only the first, but he is
confessedly the most eminent. He is said to have been a person of noble
extraction, and to have lived near the town of Verulam, which possessed the
several privileges of a Roman colony. It stood near the site of the present
town of St. Alban's, and was cruelly sacked by the Britons, under Boadices,
when Suetonius Paulinus was the General and Governor of the island under Nero.
It was about the year 304 the persecution reached this country. Alban, though
a Pagan, was of a generous and hospitable temper, and had entertained under
his roof a Christian Clergyman, who had absconded on account of the
persecution, whom Alban observed to be continually engaged in prayer both
night and day, when suddenly divine light shone upon his host, who began to
imitate the example of faith and piety which was before him; and, being
leisurely instructed by the wanderer in the path of truth and righteousness,
he cast aside the darkness of idolatry, and became a Christian in all
sincerity of heart. It was not long before the news of a fugitive Christian
having been entertained in the house of Alban was spread, and soldiers were
sent to make diligent search. When they arrived at the martyr's residence,
Alban immediately presented himself to the soldiers, instead of his guest, in
the habit or long coat which it was customary for the sacerdotal order to
wear; and in this garb he was conducted into the presence of the Judge, who
happened at the time when Alban was conducted before him to be standing by the
altars, and offering sacrifice to the pretended deities. The appearance of
this saint put him into a complete fury; and being enraged that Alban should
presume to harbour a Christian, and expose himself to the danger consequent on
such a line of conduct, he ordered him to be dragged to the statues of the
idols, and menaced as follows:—"Because," said he, "you have had the assurance
to conceal a sacrilegious person,* and one that has spent some time in the
northern parts of Britain. According to some writers, he visited France and
Italy, when he returned to his native country, and acquired a high reputation
as a Preacher. In 581, he wrote his Epistola de Excidio Britannica, et
Castigatione Ordinis Ecclesiastici. Archbishop Ussher refers this Epistle to
the year 564; but Cave, on the authority of Ralph de Diccius, Polydore Virgil,
Bale, &c., gives it the later date. It was first printed by Polydore Virgil,
in 1525, &c., from an imperfect and corrupt copy, which edition was followed
in the eighth volume of the Biblioth. Patrum. It was afterwards published in
1568, by John Josselin, from another corrupt MS. An edition of it was
published by Dr. Thomas Gale, from a more ancient and perfect MS. than either
of the preceding in 1691, in the first volume of his Historica Britannica
Saxonica, &c. Gildas also wrote several letters, of which there are numerous
fragments in an old collection of canons preserved among the MS. in the Cotton
library. Some say he died at the abbey of Glastonbury in 570: according to
others, he died at the abbey of Bangor, in 590.

* His name was Amphibalus, one of our earliest English confessors, who is said
to have converted and suffered martyrdom with Alban, in the persecution of
Diocletian. Geoffry of Monmouth, according to Archbishop Ussher, is the first
author by whom he is mentioned. Julius and Aaron, after suffering martyrdom,
were buried in Caerleon, and had each a church dedicated to him. After Albanus
and Amphibalus, they were esteemed the chief proto-martyrs of Britannia Major.
In ancient times there were three fine churches in this city, one dedicated to
Julius the Martyr, ornamented (!) with a choir of Nuns; another to Aaron his
associate, ennobled with an order of Canons; and the third distinguished as
the metropolitan see of Wales. Amphibalus, the instructor of Albanus in the
true faith, was born in this place. This city is well situated on the river
Usk, navigable to the sea, and adorned with woods and meadows. The Roman
ambassadors here received their audience at the court of the great King
Arthur: and

MARTYROOM OF ALBAN.

revolted from the gods, rather than deliver him into the hands of justice,
that he might be punished for his blasphemy; for this misbehaviour you shall
be treated like that criminal, if you pretend to go off from our religion."
Nevertheless, Alban was not to be intimidated: he frankly declared himself to
be a Christian, that he was not moved by the threatenings of the Magistrate,
and that he could not obey his orders. The Judge then asked him about his
family. Alban told him, that question was altogether foreign to the purpose;
but that, if he were desirous of receiving information respecting the true
religion, he assured him that he was a Christian, and would gladly be
serviceable to him in that character. The Magistrate was excessively irritated
by his replies, and commanded him to sacrifice immediately to the gods, if he
expected to be for ever happy. Alban told him that those sacrifices were
offered to evil spirits; that the Pagans paid homage to devils, who were in no
condition to assist their votaries, or make them one jot the better for any
application they might make to them; that so far was this worship from
procuring any advantage, on the other side, those who sacrificed to these
statues would be eternally punished in hell for their idolatry. The freedom of
this discourse still more, if possible, enraged the Magistrate, who ordered
the holy confessor to be seized by the officers, and put to the question;
imagining that might go farther with him than menacing; that his courage might
give way, and his constancy be overcome by torture. But Alban disappointed the
court; and though they strained their invention to put him to pain, yet he
seemed to suffer not only with patience, but satisfaction. When the Judge
perceived the rack signified nothing, and that Alban was not to be wrought
upon by any terror, he ordered him to be beheaded. Being led to execution, he
was to pass over a river; and coming to the bridge, he found a vast crowd of
people, of all ages and degrees, many of whom were supposed to attend him out
of respect. The bridge being blocked up with this vast number, who could
scarcely all have passed until night, Alban, whose zeal could not well digest
any delay of his martyrdom, came to the river-side, and, lifting up his eyes
to heaven, offered a mental prayer; upon which the stream immediately parting,
the channel was, it is said, passable. This, we may imagine, says Collier, was
a surprising spectacle to the company, since the executioner himself was
converted by it. This man, being struck with the miracle, and touched with the
grace of God, threw away his drawn sword; and, when he came to the place, fell
down at Alban's feet, and desired that, instead of beheading him, he might
have the honour to die with him, or, rather for him, if they pleased. The
headman turning Christian, made a stop in the execution; upon which Alban
walked up a neighbouring hill, where, here also the Archbishop Dubricius ceded
his honours to David of Menevia, the metropolitan see being translated from
this place to Menevia, according to the prophecy of Merlin Ambrosius.
(Itinerary of Archbishop Baldwin through Wales, by Sir Richard Colt Hoare,
Bart., &c., &c., 4to. vol. i., p. 104.) "This holy man (called Amphibalius)
suffered at Redburn, about three miles from Verulam, in which town Thomas
Rudburn, who wrote in the fifteenth century, affirms there were two knives of
an extraordinary size, supposed to be used upon this occasion." (Collier,
Eccles. Hist.)

praying for water, a fountain burst out immediately at his feet. Here the
martyr suffered, and received his crown: the person, it is said, who struck
off his head was seized with exemplary vengeance, his eyes dropping out of his
head immediately upon the stroke being given to Alban. That soldier was also
beheaded who refused to execute Alban, who, notwithstanding he had not time to
receive the initiatory sacrament, was baptized in his own blood.* The Judge,
being surprised with these unexpected accidents, and astonished at so many
interpositions of Divine Providence, ordered a cessation to the persecution.†

Some martyrdoms in the East again arrest our attention. Among these we are
called to enumerate that of Timothy, a truly religious man; but being
apprehended by virtue of the imperial edicts, he was carried before Urban, the
Governor of Palestine, an individual notorious for his cruelty, even more than
his predecessor Flavian had been, who had sufficiently distinguished himself
by his rigorous and energetic persecutions of the church. When Timothy was
brought before him, he attempted his constancy by the most exquisite torments;
but having the mortification to find him invincible to all his tortures, he
sentenced him to be burnt to death by a slow fire, in order that his death
might be more lingering and painful. We then meet with Philip of Heraclea, a
Bishop, and his two companions, who suffered martyrdom. He had for some time
appeared in a very advantageous light as Deacon and Priest; he was in advanced
age, and raised to the episcopal dignity by the unanimous voice of all who
were concerned in his election. Severus and Hermes, the first a Priest and the
second a Deacon, were the chief of his disciples, and were so well formed by
his hand, that they were ready to join him, not only in the profession of
their faith, but also in confirming the truth with their blood. Philip had
governed the church of Heraclea, the metropolis of Thrace, for some time with
the utmost prudence and vigilance, when the imperial orders for persecuting
the Christians

* Elliott, Delineation of Romanism. London Edition, p. 123.

† Alban is supposed to have suffered on the 20th of June, near the city of
Verulam, which, in the time of Bede, was called Uverismacestir, or
Uvaliojacentir. In this place, when the times grew more favourable, there was
a stately church built in honour of the martyr's memory, where, as Bede
continues, sick people are recovered, and several miraculous cures performed
to this very day. The place where Alban suffered was called Holm Hurst by the
Saxons, which signifies a woody place. This relation contains an account of
the ancient acts of Alban's martyrdom, which Bede has inserted in his
Ecclesiastical History, without making the least question of the authority.
This narrative used likewise to be read upon Alban's anniversary in the
English Church, before the Norman Conquest, as appears by the Saxon copy in
the Cambridge edition of Bede; and by the Breviary, secundum usum Sarum; first
probably drawn up by Osmund, who might receive this particular service, put
into form by Alfrick, who was Abbot of St. Alban's, about the end of the tenth
century. Matthew Paris, in his history of the Abbots of St. Alban's, tells us,
that "this Alfric, upon the promotion of his brother Leofric to the see of
Canterbury, being chosen Abbot of St. Alban's, drew up the short history of
St. Alban's sufferings, which is now used in the Church, and set notes to it;
and, by the interest of his brother the Archbishop, brought the form into
public use throughout the province, and raised the anniversary to a holy day."
This relation concerning St. Alban, mentioned by Bede, agrees exactly with a
very ancient account written in the Verulamian, or British language, as
Matthew Paris informs us. (Collier, Eccles. Hist.)

MARTYROOM OF PHILIP OF HERACLEA.

were first issued. The dangers which presented themselves to his view, gave
him not the least disturbance. Several of the flock, solicitous for the safety
of the Pastor, advised him to retire, and, if possible, avoid the storm which
was ready to break over his head; but Philip would not listen to the proposal,
and exhorted his flock to patience, assuring them, that in this way they might
defeat the most malicious designs of their enemies, and convert what was
intended for their destruction into the means of improving their virtue and
piety. Philip was instructing his people in these Gospel truths, when
Aristomachus, an officer of the town of Heraclea, undertook to execute the
Governor's orders, and shut up the Christian churches. The Bishop endeavoured
to convince him, that the Christian religion could not be destroyed by that
act of violence, so long as the living temples of the Holy Ghost were in
existence; assuring him that the Almighty dwelt not in houses made with hands,
but in the hearts of such as love and fear him. Aristomachus, however,
proceeded according to his commission, and seized all the sacred books and
vessels, which was a very great mortification to the Christians. Philip,
though not allowed to enter his own church, nevertheless, took his station at
the door, where he instructed and encouraged the people according to their
necessities. Bassus, the Governor of the province, finding the people from
time to time congregated with their Bishop, ordered them all to appear before
him, and then demanded of them who was their instructor. Philip instantly
replied that he was the person; upon which the Magistrate reiterated the
Emperor's orders, which prohibited Christian assemblies, and directed the
persons assembling to be put to death, if they refused to sacrifice to the
pagan gods. "Now, therefore," he said, "bring all the vessels which are used
in your worship, and the Scriptures which you read to and teach the people,
and give them up to me, before you are compelled to do so by torture." "If,"
replied the Bishop, "you take pleasure in seeing us suffer, we are prepared
for the worst you can do. This infirm body is in your power: use it as you
please. The vessels you demand shall be given up; for God is not honoured by
gold or silver: the ornaments of the souls of his servants are more pleasing
to him than the decorations of churches. But with regard to the sacred books,
it is neither proper for me to part with them, nor for you to receive them."
This answer so incensed the Governor, that he immediately ordered the
executioner and his officers to attend the court; among whom was one Mucapor,
a person distinguished for his inhumanity, who was fixed upon to torture the
Prelate. When he had endured his punishment for some time, Hermes, who was
then present, in an abundance of zeal, assured the Governor, that it was not
in his power to destroy the word of God, which was so firmly rooted in the
hearts of the faithful, that it would be still preserved, though all the books
which contain that sacred treasure were lost. This speech drew the indignation
of the Judge upon him, who ordered him to be scourged; after which he
accompanied the Governor's assistant to the place where the church plate and
the Scriptures were kept. The officer attempting to put some of the sacred
vessels aside for his own use, was opposed by Hermes, who suffered for his
freedom. Bassus, being informed of what had passed, severely reprimanded
Publius, the officer; directed some care to be taken of Hermes, who had
received a wound from the officer on his face; and gave directions at the same
time for bringing in all the plate and books that could be found. Philip and
his congregation were conveyed to the market-place under a strong escort, with
a design on the one hand of diverting the pagans, and on the other of
deterring the Christians from following the example of those who went before.
To render the assembly of the Christians even more impracticable, Bassus
ordered the church to be uncovered, and the doors to be walled up, which was
immediately done; after which a fire was kindled, and the sacred books thrown
into it. The news of this sacrilegious act having been brought to Philip, who
was in the market-place, surrounded by a crowd of spectators, he addressed
himself to them in a discourse, in order to show how little we ought to dread
the material or temporary fire, but rather the fire which is eternal, and is
kindled by the justice of the Most High; "where their worm dieth not, and the
fire is not quenched." The exemplary Prelate had scarcely finished his
oration, when Cataphroneus, a pagan Priest, attended by his assistants,
appeared with the instruments of sacrifice, and the food which had been
offered in idolatrous service. This detestable sight to the Christian provoked
Hermes to such a degree, as to lead him to declare aloud, that what was
designed for a feast unto them, was altogether diabolical, and was conveyed
thither with the intention of polluting the souls of the faithful. On which
occasion Philip exclaimed, "The will of God be done."

Not long after this, Bassus himself, attended by a great concourse of people
of both sexes, came to the market-place; some of whom expressed great
compassion for the suffering Christians; while others, especially a few Jews,
clamoured violently against them, asserting that they ought to be compelled to
adore the gods. As soon as the Governor could be heard, he besought the Bishop
to sacrifice to the heathen deities, to the Emperors, and to the fortune of
the city. To this the Bishop replied, that Christians were instructed to pay
their devotions to the one true God only; that their Sovereign had undoubtedly
a right to civil obedience, but not to any religious worship; and that nothing
made by the hands of man should ever influence him in the rejection of
Almighty God. The Governor very significantly pointed to a large and beautiful
image of Hercules, and advised him to consider the veneration that was due to
such an excellent piece of workmanship. "Alas!" replied the Prelate, "how
unhappy are you, who are so grossly mistaken in the nature of the Deity, and
so utterly ignorant of the truth, as to adore the workmanship of your own
hands! What real, intrinsic, spiritual value, can there possibly be in gold,
silver, brass, iron, or lead, which are dug out of the earth? You are
unacquainted with the divinity of Christ, which is incomprehensible to all
human capacity; but of what power can your idols boast, which are manufactured
by base mechanics, a drunken statuary, or some licentious carver, and then
decorated by the art of the tailor and the goldsmith? And, nevertheless, these
are your gods!" After

MARTYRDOM OF PHILIP AND OTHERS OF HERACLEA.

other similar observations on the absurdities of Paganism, he concluded, that
from what he had already said, it appeared that the Heathen worshipped what
might lawfully be trampled under foot, and that they made gods of such things
as Providence had designed for their use. Bassus, who could not but admire the
resolution with which the martyr gave utterance to his sentiments, asserted
that he despaired of being able to persuade the Bishop to offer sacrifice.

The attention of the Governor was now directed to Hermes, of whom he demanded
the requisite proof of obedience to the Emperors. The Deacon, without any
hesitation, urged his religion as an impediment. Bassus then asked, "What was
his station in the world?" Hermes replied, "That he was an officer, and
punctual in following the directions of his master." The Magistrate laid hold
on that profession, and demanded to know, whether he would follow the example
of his Bishop, supposing he could be prevailed upon to respect the gods of the
empire. "I would not," replied Hermes: "but I am thoroughly satisfied that he
will never do it; for our persuasion and resolution are the same." After
several useless threats, and entreating him to sacrifice, he and the Bishop
were conveyed to the prison. On the road thither, the venerable Prelate was
greatly insulted by the rabble, and several times thrown down; yet manifested
neither grief nor resentment at their cruel and barbarous treatment.

After a few days' confinement, the prisoners were removed to a house near the
jail, where they were allowed the liberty of conversing with their friends,
whom they endeavoured to edify by pious discourses and exhortations to courage
and perseverance. The conversion of some pagans, whom curiosity drew thither,
becoming notorious, they were remanded to the prison: still, however, they had
the opportunity of seeing their friends, who resorted thither from all parts.
The period of the office of Bassus having expired, he was succeeded by Justin,
a man of a violent and inhuman temper. On the arrival of the new Governor,
Zoilus, a Magistrate of Heraclea, caused Philip to be carried before him.
Justin asked if he were the Bishop of the Christians. Philip replied in the
affirmative. The new Governor then began to set before him the penalties
denounced by the Emperors; that they peremptorily insisted on all their
subjects sacrificing to the gods; and, in compassion to his grey hairs,
advised him to comply with the mandate. "I am a Christian," said Philip, "and,
therefore, cannot comply with your request: your commission is to punish my
refusal, but not to force my compliance." Justin assured him, that he should
feel the weight of his authority. The devoted Bishop observed, "You may rack
and torture, but can never conquer me; for it is not in the power of man to
induce me to sacrifice to idols." Justin then assured him, that he should be
dragged through the streets by the feet; and, if he survived that punishment,
he should be thrown into prison to suffer additional torture. Philip declared
that he was ready to bear that or any other torture for the sake of the
religion which he professed: upon which his feet were o 2 tied together, and
he was dragged through the town, much wounded with the stones, and thrust into
his old quarters.*

The enraged populace had long been in search for Severus, who now surrendered
himself, and was carried before the Governor. Justin, after much intimidation,
found him immovable: he was re-committed to the prison. Upon his again
representing to Hermes the punishment due to his disobedience, the martyr
replied, "You will never gain your end: I have been educated in this faith; my
holy Master has instructed me in these principles from my cradle; I can never
renounce my religion, nor act in contradiction to the obligation which it lays
upon me. This is my fixed resolution, and you may now use me as you please."
On this declaration he was remanded to his place of confinement, where he and
his companion remained not less than seven months; from whence they were
removed to Adrianople, where they were kept in a private house until the
Governor arrived. On the day following Justin reached the city; and Philip was
brought before him. He declared that he still persisted in the profession of
Christianity; for which confession he was severely scourged, and sent back to
the prison. On the following day, Hermes was brought to the bar, and assailed
with both promises and threatenings; but he remained invulnerable. Three days
after Justin ordered these prisoners to appear before him; when he asked
Philip why he conducted himself so rashly. He answered, "My behaviour is not
the effect of rashness, but of my love to, and fear of, Almighty God, who made
the world, and who will finally judge the living and the dead. His commands I
dare not transgress. I have hitherto done my duty to the Emperors, and am
always ready to

* Among the legendary tales which amused the multitude at this period, or
which had reference to this time, "I have oftentimes before complained, that
the stories of saints have been powdered and sanced with divers untrue
traditions, and fabulous inventions of men, who, either of a superstitious
devotion, or of a subtle practice, have so mangled their stories and lives,
that almost nothing remaineth in them simple and uncorrupt, as in the usual
portasses, or breviaries, wont to be read for daily service, is manifest and
evident to be seen; wherein few legends there be able to abide the touch of
history, if they were truly tried. This I write upon the occasion specially of
good Katharine, whom now I have in hand; in whom, although I nothing doubt but
in her life was great holiness, in her knowledge excellency, in her death
constancy; yet, that all things be true that be storied of her, neither do I
affirm, neither am I bound so to think; so many strange fictions of her be
feigned diversely of divers writers, whereof some seem incredible, some also
impudent. As where Petrus de Natalibus, (lib. x., fol., Lugd., 1508,) writing
of her conversion, declareth, how that Katharine sleeping before a certain
picture or table of the crucifix, Christ with his mother Mary appeared unto
her, and when Mary had offered her unto Christ to be his wife, he first
refused her for her blackness. The next time, she being baptized, Mary,
appearing again, offered her to marry with Christ, who then, being liked, was
espoused to him and married, having a golden ring at the same time put on her
finger in her sleep, &c. Bergomensis writeth thus, that because she in the
sight of the people openly resisted the Emperor Maxentius to his face, and
rebuked him for his cruelty, therefore she was commanded and committed upon
the same to prison; which seemeth hitherto not much to digress from the truth.
It followeth, moreover, that the same night an angel came to her, comforting
and exhorting her to be strong and constant unto the martyrdom, for that she
was a maid accepted in the sight of God; and that the Lord would be with her
for whose honour she did fight, and that he would give her a month and wisdom
which her enemies should not withstand." (Foxe's Acts and Monuments, vol. i.,
p. 274. Edit. Seeley, London, 1843.)

NUMBER OF MARTYRS.

comply with their just orders, according to the doctrine of our Lord Christ,
who bade us render to Caesar and to the Most High their due; but I am obliged
to prefer heaven to earth, and to obey God rather than man."

The Governor then directed his attention to Hermes, and advised him to consult
his own safety, by offering sacrifice. But he endeavoured to show the
reasonableness of his refusing, by exhibiting the enormous folly of pagan
worship: at this he was interrupted by the Magistrate, who remarked, that he
spoke as though he intended him forthwith to embrace Christianity. To this the
martyr replied, "I cordially wish that you, and all who are present, may ere
long enjoy that happiness." Justin, astonished at the invincible courage thus
displayed by the combatants, consulted with his brother Magistrates on the
bench, and afterwards condemned them to be burnt alive; which sentence was
speedily carried into execution. Severus, who was now left in prison, looked
upon himself as a ship at sea without a pilot; at the same time he was full of
joy and gratitude to Almighty God who had crowned his companions with glory,
and earnestly entreated that he might be permitted to partake of the same
happiness. This was vouchsafed on the following day; but the manner of his
death is not recorded.*

Diocletian was not pleased with his reception at Rome, and therefore left the
capital, and returned to Nicomedia; but his constitution was greatly broken,
and he was physically in a state of great danger. Egypt was, doubtless, one of
the first countries in which the Christians were tormented; † and this was the
case for a number of years, when thousands, both men, women, and children,
despising the present life for the sake of the Saviour's word, submitted to
death in various shapes. Some, after being torn with scrapings and the rack,
and most dreadful scourgings, and other almost innumerable agonies, were
finally committed to the flames; some were plunged and drowned in the sea,
some voluntarily offered their heads to the executioners, some died in the
midst of their torments, some wasted away by famine, and others were fixed to
the cross. Many, indeed, were executed as malefactors usually were; others,
more cruelly, were nailed with the head downwards, and kept alive until they
were destroyed by starvation on the cross itself. ‡ The power of description
would fail to give an idea of the sufferings of the martyrs of Thebais. These,
instead of hooks, had their backs scraped with shells, and in this way were
mangled until they died. Women were tied by one foot, and then raised on high
in the air by certain machines, with their bodies uncovered, presenting a most
indecent, cruel, and inhuman spectacle to all beholders: others perished by
being bound to trees,

* Some authors are inclined to think that these individuals suffered under
Julian the Apostate; others, under Decius: but the order for burning the
Scriptures, and destroying the churches, was peculiar to the time of
Diocletian, which has induced the most authentic writers to date this
martyrdom at the close of the year 304, when the persecution first reached the
East.

† Burton's Lectures on Eccles. Hist. Lect. xxix.

‡ Eusebi. Eccles. Hist. lib. viii., cap. 9.

the branches of which being drawn together by machinery, then suddenly
allowing the boughs to resume their natural position, the limbs were torn
asunder in a barbarous manner. These cruelties were perpetrated, not only for
a few days, or occasionally, but for a series of years. At one time, ten or
more, at another, more than twenty, at another time, not less than thirty, and
even sixty; and again at another time, a hundred men with their wives and
little children, were slain in one day, whilst they were condemned to numerous
and varied punishments. We ourselves, says Eusebius, have observed, when on
the spot, many crowded together in one day, some in the torments of flames,
some suffering decapitation; so that the murderous weapon was completely
blunted, and, having lost its edge, broke to pieces; and the executioners
themselves, wearied with slaughter, were obliged to relieve one another.*

Among others who, at this period, endured as seeing him who is invisible, was
Porphyrius, who was servant to Pamphilus, a Christian Priest, who had
discharged all the duties of a master and a Christian towards him, having
instructed him in the path of piety, and in the knowledge of the holy
Scriptures. Pamphilus was condemned to die, with others, for the truth, when
Porphyrius boldly interposed, and requested permission to bury the body of his
master, and also those of his companions. The Governor, viewing his concern
for their mortal remains as proof of his attachment to the cause in which they
were about to shed their blood, ordered him to be seized, and asked him of
what profession he was. He acknowledged himself to be a Christian, though as
yet he had not been baptized: he was immediately delivered to an officer, who
commanded him to sacrifice to the gods. He rejected the proposal with becoming
firmness, whereupon the tormentors began to exercise their cruelties upon him:
they scraped off his flesh, till the bones were denuded; nevertheless, they
could not extort a sigh, a groan, or a tear from him. The mortification of
Firmilian at finding himself subdued by one whom he viewed as being utterly
contemptible, was so great, that he resolved to make an end of him: he
therefore ordered him to be burnt by a slow fire. He was consequently fastened
to a post, and the fire kindled: † the

* Euseb., Eccles. Hist., lib. viii., cap. 10.

† This horrible punishment of vivicomburation is one of the oldest tortures on
record, and has been continued till the year 1826, when a heretic was burned
in Spain. The first fatal instance of its use among the Christians was under
Constantine. Semancha defends the infliction of this punishment on heretics,
from the parable of the tares and wheat. (De Cathol. Instit., tit. xlv., sect.
46.) It was used among the patriarchs as the punishment of unchastity; (Gen.
xxxviii. 24;) and among the Jews for the same offence in a Priest's daughter;
(Lev. xxi. 9;) and for incest. (Lev. xx. 14.) The Philistines punished treason
in the same manner. (Judges xv. 6.) The Romans adopted it. This frightful
punishment, which we trust is at length exploded from the sanction of the laws
of civilized nations, was too frequently commanded by Constantine. It had been
the most common mode of torture among his persecuting predecessors. It seems
to have been the favourite penalty with many of his successors. It was the
ultima ratio of the Church of Rome, which borrowed it, in common with the laws
against heresy and heretics, from the imperial decrees. The last time that
fire was applied as a punishment, was in the exercise of the Lynch law in
America. May it never be known again, even in the moral deserts of the West!
(Townsend, Ecclesiastical and Civil History, vol. i., p. 248.)

MARTYRDOM OF PORPHYRIUS AND SELEUCUS.

martyr maintained a serene and undisturbed mind, singing praises to the Most
High, and invoking the name of Christ, until his spirit returned to God. We
are also informed of one Seleucus who was present at the martyrdom of
Porphyrius, and went and informed Pamphilus how his servant had suffered; as
he was embracing him and some other Christian prisoners, and encouraging them
by the courageous example of Porphyrius, he was seized by the soldiers and
taken before the Governor, who, without even the form of a trial, ordered his
head to be struck off. Seleucus was a native of Cappadocia, and had borne arms
under the Emperor. His person and strength had recommended him to the notice
and esteem of his commanding officers, which procured for him considerable
promotion in the army, from which, about five years previous, he had been
broken on account of his Christian profession; since which period he had lived
in privacy. In him, it is said, the orphan found a parent, the widow a
husband, and the sick a physician; from him also the weak anticipated support,
the oppressed relief, and the poor bread. His Christianity appeared to want
nothing to make it perfect but this trial.

The persecution was now almost at its utmost height. The Magistrates were
directed to make free use of torture to compel every one bearing the name of
Christian to join in the worship of the gods. These orders being strictly
obeyed by men in power, the Christian church was reduced to the last
extremity. Hence, according to the disposition of the several Governors was
the execution of the imperial edict. Some only sent the Christians into
banishment, when the attempt to make them offer sacrifice failed. Others
deprived them of an eye, or lamed one of their feet by burning it; others
exposed them to wild beasts, or lacerated their bodies with iron hooks, or
with the scourge, and afterwards sprinkled vinegar or salt on the wounds, or
dropped melted lead into them. In Phrygia, a whole city, with all its
inhabitants, was burnt to ashes, because an individual in it would not offer
sacrifice. Some Christians also brought death upon themselves,* by holding
religious meetings, contrary to the Emperor's prohibition, or by voluntarily
presenting themselves before the Governors, and requesting to be martyred.
With the exception of Gaul, streams of Christian blood flowed in all the
provinces of the Roman empire. Everywhere the Christian temples lay in ruins,
and all assemblies for worship were suspended. The major part had forsaken the
provinces, and taken refuge among the barbarians. Such as were unable or
unwilling to do this, kept themselves concealed, and were afraid for their
lives if they appeared in public. The Ministers of Christ were either slain,
or mutilated and sent to the mines, or banished the country. The avaricious
Magistrates and Judges had seized upon nearly all the church-property, and
their private possessions. Many, through dread of undergoing torture, had made
away with their own lives, and many had apostatized from the faith; and what
remained

* Euseb., De Mart. Palest., cap. 3. Euseb., De Vita Constantini, lib. ii.,
cap. 51. Lactant., Instit. Divinar. lib. v., cap. 11. Euseb., Eccles. Hist.,
lib. ix., cap. 9; lib. viii., cap. 12. Sulpicius Severus, lib. ii., cap. 32.

of the Christian community consisted of a few weak, poor, and timorous
persons.

Shortly after this period, Cyprian and Justina suffered martyrdom; and ere
long Timothy and Maura increased the number, the former of whom was a Deacon
in Mauritania, who was married to Maura. They had not been married above three
weeks before Timothy was seized by his persecutors, and carried before
Arrianus, the Governor of Thebais, who endeavoured to awe him into an act of
idolatry by the fear of punishment; but he replied, that the Spirit of Christ
residing in him forbade him to comply with his desire or command. The
Governor, being aware that Timothy had the custody of the sacred Scriptures,
commanded him to give them up, that he might burn them, in accordance with the
order of the Emperor; to this the confessor replied, that if he had children,
he would rather present them for sacrifice, than be accessory to the
destruction of the word of God. The Judge, being irritated at his reply,
ordered his eyes to be put out with red-hot irons, that the sacred books no
longer might be of any service to him. He calmly underwent this torture; and
afterwards, he was hung up by the feet, a heavy weight appended to his neck,
and a gag placed in his mouth. All who witnessed these cruelties were amazed
at the fortitude of Timothy: however, some officious individuals acquainted
the Governor that he was but recently married, and suggested, that although he
appeared superior to the attempts which were made to subdue his constancy, he
might probably not be proof against the solicitations of his wife. Arrianus,
being pleased with the proposal, caused Maura to be introduced, whom he
endeavoured to intimidate, by informing her, that the only way to preserve her
husband's life was to persuade him to sacrifice to the heathen deities,
moreover promising her a handsome gratuity if she prevailed. Maura was but
weak in the faith, and, being strongly attached to her husband, employed all
her persuasive influence to induce him to pay the required honour to the idols
of Paganism; the gag was also removed from his mouth, to give him an
opportunity of avowing the efficacy of conjugal love; but he was no sooner
restored to the use of speech, than he declared his abhorrence of her mistaken
affection, and his resolution of persevering in the faith of Christ. The
result of this conflict between natural affection and the stern calls of duty
was, that Maura resolved to imitate his courage and fidelity, and either
accompany or follow him to the paradise of God. The Governor vainly attempted
to shake her constancy; but finding her invincible, he ordered her to be
tortured, and ultimately she was condemned to be crucified in company with her
husband. When on the way to the place of execution, Maura was met by her
mother, who endeavoured to persuade her from persevering in a profession which
conducted her to such a disgraceful end; but she was superior to all such
considerations, and, together with her husband, met death with great
intrepidity.

Agricola, with his servant, suffered also for the name and sake of Christ. The
general behaviour of the former engaged the esteem of his pagan neighbours,
till he, with his servant Vitalis, whom he had

MARTYROOM OF AGRICOLA AND VITALIS.

instructed in the knowledge of the Saviour, were both apprehended, and taken
before the Magistrate, where they witnessed a "good profession before many
witnesses." Vitalis was first tortured, and died under the hands of the
persecutors through the severity of the pain. The martyrdom of Agricola was
delayed for some days, in the expectation, that by reflecting on what his
servant had suffered, he might be induced to save his own life by a
renunciation of the faith; but they were soon convinced that Vitalis had
confirmed and established Agricola in his resolution of adhesion to Christ,
though at the expense of his blood; he was therefore fastened with large nails
to a cross, and had the honour to follow the Saviour to paradise by the same
steps which he had trodden before: after his death, he was not, as others,
taken down from the cross, but was interred with the cross at Bologna in
Italy.

The persecution in Antioch still continued. In Pontus, other horrible
punishments did the martyrs of Christ suffer; some of whom endured bodkins
thrust under the nails at the end of the fingers; some were sprinkled with
boiling lead; so numerous and diversified were the torments with which the
martyrs were afflicted. Phileas, the Bishop of Themuis, a man well learned,
has given, in his epistle to his diocese, a description of them:—"Free leave
being given to all persons, so disposed, to annoy the Christians, some beat
them with cudgels, some with rods, others with whips, some again with leathern
thongs, and others with ropes. The spectacle of the beating was sometimes
interchanged with other torments, exhibiting much wanton cruelty. Some of the
martyrs, having their hands tied behind them, were suspended on the wooden
rack, and every limb was stretched out with certain machines; in this
position, the tormentors, by command of the Judge, operated on them all over
the body; and not only on the sides, (as in the case of murderers,) but also
on the belly, the legs, and the cheeks, they tortured them with scrapers.
Others were hung up by one hand at a portico, the constant straining of their
limbs and joints causing them the most dreadful pain. Others were bound face
to face against pillars, their feet not touching the ground; so the cords,
being strained by the weight of the body, were drawn tighter and tighter. And
this they had to endure, not merely while the President was at leisure
personally to attend them, but almost the whole day; for when he passed from
them to others, he appointed officials to stay by those whom he left, and
watch whether any of them, overcome by the tortures, seemed to flinch,
charging them to brace the cords unsparingly, and then, when about to expire,
to let them down, and haul them along the ground. 'No care,' said he, 'ought
to be taken of these Christians: let all treat them as unworthy the name of
men.' Therefore our adversaries devised this second torture, to follow the
beating. There were some who, after they had been scourged, lay in the stocks
with their faces upward, their feet being stretched four holes asunder, unable
to stand because of their fresh wounds, caused by the stripes which they had
received all over their persons. Others threw themselves on the ground, where
they lay, by reason of the innumerable wounds made by their tortures,
exhibiting a spectacle more horrid to behold than the very

P operation of torture, and bearing on their bodies the varied torments
devised against them. Some of the martyrs expired under their tortures, having
shamed the adversary by their persevering constancy. Others, being half-dead,
were shut up in prison, where, in a few days, sinking under their sufferings,
their martyrdom was consummated. The residue, having recovered by medical
attention, became more stout and confident by time, and their abode in prison.
Therefore, a new order was issued, and it was put to their choice whether, by
touching the detestable sacrifice, they would free themselves from all
molestation, and obtain an acceptable liberty; or whether, refusing to
sacrifice, they would abide the sentence of death. For they well knew what was
before prescribed to us by the sacred Scriptures: for 'he,' say they, 'that
sacrificeth to other gods, shall be utterly destroyed.' And again, 'Thou shalt
have no other gods but me.'"*

The persecution in Syria and Palestine continued, and the martyrs were
numerous; sometimes ten, and occasionally twenty, were slain at once; and
Damasus, Bede, Orosius, and Honorius assert, that there were slain in this
persecution, within the space of thirty days, not less than seventeen thousand
persons, besides a great number who were condemned to the mines. Lucian was a
native of Syria, famous in his youth for his eloquence and learning; but
finding no solid satisfaction in these studies, he sought for retirement.
After the death of his parents, he disposed of his patrimony to charitable
purposes, and turned his attention to the study of the holy Scriptures.
Shortly after, he was ordained Priest in the city of Antioch, and became a
vigilant and exemplary Pastor. Being conscious that the character which he
bore obliged him to devote all his attainments to the service of the Most
High, he not only employed his eloquence in leading men into the paths of
piety, but his pen in rescuing the holy Scriptures from the corruptions
introduced into them either from the variety of versions which had been made,
or by the malicious designs of the enemies of the orthodox faith: this he
accomplished either by a new translation of the sacred books, or a revisal of
the Septuagint version, which he was able to give to the world in a more
correct form, as he was well versed in the Hebrew language. He was a vigorous
defender of the faith against the errors of Sabellius, who maintained the
unity of person in God. Pancratius, a Priest, who professed that heresy, and
who had felt the force of the arguments of Lucian, was resolved to rid himself
of so formidable and troublesome an opponent by any means which might come in
his way. The present persecution of the church presented one, which he
forthwith embraced, and Lucian was speedily betrayed by him into the hands of
the myrmidons of the Emperor. He endured a protracted imprisonment, during
which he wrote an Apology for the Christian doctrine: he procured its
presentation to the Governor of the palace at Nicomedia, who was so far from
being softened towards the author, that orders were issued for him to be still
more rigidly confined. But this effort of Lucian was not entirely useless: if
it did not secure the professors of Christianity from suffering, it inspired
new courage and resolution into many,

* Kuseb., Eccles. Hist., lib. viii., cap. x.

MARTYROOM OF LUCIAN.

whose constancy had well-nigh been shaken by the fear of death. Here also it
was that he wrote several letters to the church at Antioch, one of which
terminates in the following manner,—"All the martyrs that are with me salute
you." Lucian* continued in prison till Maximillian succeeded to the empire in
the East, who revived the persecutions against the Christians as a religious
act, judging that this would ingratiate himself with his subjects, who viewed
all the professors of the faith as enemies of the gods. He had observed the
constancy and courage of the faithful in the midst of the most severe and
unheard-of torments, and employed his utmost efforts to overcome Lucian by
gentleness and kind treatment. Finding these efforts ineffectual, he was
enraged at his disappointment, and commanded him to be cruelly maltreated:
this he endured with becoming fortitude, till the inventive powers of his
executioners seemed to be at a stand, through inability to devise any torture
over which he had not triumphed. At length they fixed upon one which they
anticipated must succeed: they strewed the ground of the dungeon where he was
confined with sharp pieces of flint, broken crockery, and the like; they
rolled him thereon, naked and sore as he was with what he had already suffered
at their hands, and then left him to lie upon them, judging that this would
effectually deprive him of sleep; after this they kept him several days
without sustenance, and then brought him food which had been offered to idols,
thinking it impossible for him to abstain from eating, who had fasted so long
a time. In this also they were disappointed; for although Lucian might have
reasoned as the Apostle Paul, "that the idol was nothing," and therefore what
was offered to it could contract no real impurity, nothing being unclean
before God, but sin; yet, like that Apostle, Lucian was determined not to
offend his weak brother by his proceeding, and resolved not to give the
Heathen any ground for triumph. With this view he left the care of his life to
Almighty God, and preferred the last extremity of suffering to a compliance
attended by such circumstances. The Emperor was resolved to put a speedy end
to the affair. He ordered Lucian to be brought before him, and then placed him
on the rack, asked where he was born, who were his parents, and what was his
profession. Lucian, who was well assured that no answer of his would be able
to change the resolution of the Emperor, made no other reply to his
interrogatories but that he was a Christian; a reply which sufficiently
expressed his heavenly country, and his profession, had it been rightly
understood. Upon this he received sentence of death, and ere long suffered
martyrdom.

* Lucian is frequently mentioned by ecclesiastical writers as a man of great
learning and piety. Jerome says, that "Lucian was so laborious in the study of
the Scriptures, that in his own time some copies of the Scriptures were known
by the name of Lucian." And we learn from another part of his works, that
Lucian's revision of the Septuagint version of the Old Testament was generally
used by the churches from Constantinople to Antioch. Lucian also made a
revision of the New Testament, which Jerome considered inferior to his edition
of the Septuagint. What the opinion of Lucian was on the subject of the
Trinity has been much questioned; and though the evidence is very strong in
favour of his having maintained the same sentiments with Arius, or Paul of
Samosata, yet the accounts concerning him are so difficult to be reconciled,
that this is a point which cannot be easily decided.

P 2

The year 305 brought a great change in the government of the empire.*
Diocletian, as we have seen, had returned to Nicomedia greatly indisposed. His
health, which had been for some time declining, became much worse at the end
of the year, so that a report was spread of his death. He was seized with a
protracted and depressing malady, which affected him, it is supposed, with
some temporary derangement; secluded him within the impenetrable precincts of
the palace, whose sacred secrets were forbidden to be betrayed to the popular
ear. This concealment gave currency to every kind of gloomy rumour. The whole
Roman world waited, with mingled anxiety, hope, and apprehension, the news of
his dissolution. Diocletian, to the universal astonishment, appeared again in
the robes of empire; to their still greater astonishment, he appeared only to
lay them aside, to abdicate the throne, and to retire to the peaceful
occupation of his palace and agricultural villa, on the Illyrian shore of the
Adriatic. This event was, doubtless, the result of the machinations of
Galerius, who, not content with procuring the abdication of Diocletian,
persuaded Herculeus to follow the same example; so that, while one Emperor
abdicated at Nicomedia, his colleague went through the same form, with ill-
dissembled reluctance, at Milan. A circumstantial account is given by
Lactantius, of the proposal made by Galerius in the palace of Nicomedia to
Diocletian, to abdicate his authority, and of the reluctance with which the
old man complied with the request of his ambitious colleague. At last,
however, he was compelled to yield. He then made a feeble effort to name his
successor, and Constantine, the son of Constantius, whose princely qualities
were universally allowed, was proposed by Diocletian, but rejected by
Galerius, who named Severus, a creature of his own; and his nephew Daja,
afterwards named Maximin. It was in vain that the aged Augustus objected to
their unfitness for the empire: the purpose of Galerius was formed; and on the
same day, Diocletian at Nicomedia, and Herculeus at Milan, resigned office,
Galerius and Constantius were elevated to the rank of Augusti, and Maximin and
Severus were proclaimed the two Cæsars.†

The great scheme of Diocletian, the joint administration of the empire by
associate Augusti, with their subordinate Cæsars, if it had averted for a time
the dismemberment of the empire, and had introduced some vigour into the
provincial governments, had introduced other evils of appalling magnitude; but
its fatal consequences were more manifest directly the master-hand was
withdrawn which had organized the new machine of government. Fierce jealousy
succeeded at once, among the rival Emperors, to decent concord; all
subordination was lost; and a succession of civil wars between the contending
Sovereigns distracted the whole world. The earth groaned under the separate
tyranny of its many masters; and, according to the strong expression of a
rhetorical writer, the grinding taxation had so exhausted the proprietors and
the cultivators of the soil, the mer-

* Burton's Lect. on Eccles. Hist. Lect. xxix. Milman's Hist. of Christianity,
vol. ii., p. 280.

† Welsh, Elements of Church History, vol. i., p. 356.

GENERAL MISERY OF THE EMPIRE.

clients and the artisans, that none remained to tax but beggars.*

The sufferings of the Christians, however, still inflicted with unceasing
barbarity, were lost in the common sufferings of mankind. The rights of Roman
citizenship, which had been violated in their persons, were now universally
neglected; and to extort money, the chief persons of the towns, the unhappy
decurions, who were responsible for the payment of the contributions, were put
to the torture. Even the punishment, the wasting by a slow fire, invented to
force the conscience of the devout Christians, was borrowed, in order to wring
the reluctant impost from the unhappy provincial.

The abdication of Diocletian left the most implacable enemy of Christianity,
Galerius, master of the East; and in the East the persecution of the
Christians, as well as the general oppression of the subjects of the empire,
continued in unmitigated severity. His nephew, one of the Cæsars, was the
legitimate heir to his relentless violence of temper, and to his stern
hostility to the Christian name. In the West the assumption of the purple by
Maxentius, the son of the abdicated Maximian, (Herculeus,) had no unfavourable
effect on the situation of the Christians. They suffered only with the rest of
their fellow-subjects from the vices of Maxentius. If their matrons and
virgins were not secure from his lust, it was the common lot of all who,
although of the highest rank and dignity, might attract his

* That which gave rise to public and universal calamity, was the tax imposed
at once on each province and city. Surveyors having been spread abroad, and
occupied in a general and severe scrutiny, horrible scenes were exhibited,
like the outrages of victorious enemies, and the wretched state of captives.
Each spot of ground was measured, vines and fruit-trees numbered, lists taken
of animals of every kind, and a capitation-roll made up. In cities, the common
people, whether residing within or without the walls, were assembled; the
market-places filled with crowds of families, all attended with their children
and slaves; the noise of torture and scourges resounded; sons were hung on the
rack, to force discovery of the effects of their fathers; the most trusty
slaves compelled by pain to bear witness against their masters, and wives to
bear witness against their husbands. In default of all other evidence, men
were tortured to speak against themselves; and no sooner did agony oblige them
to acknowledge what they had not, but those imaginary effects were noted down
in the lists. Neither youth, nor old age, nor sickness, afforded any
exemption. The diseased and the infirm were carried in; the age of each was
estimated; and that the capitation-tax might be enlarged, years were added to
the young, and struck off from the old. General lamentation and sorrow
prevailed. Whatever, by the laws of war, conquerors had done to the conquered,
the like did this man presume to perpetrate against Romans and the subjects of
Rome, because his forefathers had been made liable to a like tax imposed by
the victorious Trajan, as a penalty on the Dacians for their frequent
rebellions. After this, money was levied for each head, as if a price had been
paid for liberty to exist; yet full trust was not reposed on the same set of
surveyors, but others, and others still, were sent round to make further
discoveries; and thus the tributes were redoubled, not because the new
surveyors made any fresh discoveries, but because they added at pleasure to
the former rates, lest they should seem to have been employed to no purpose.
Meanwhile the number of animals decreased, and men died; nevertheless, taxes
were paid even for the dead; so that no one could either live, or cease to
live, without being subject to impositions. There remained mendicants alone,
from whom nothing could be exacted, and whom their misery and wretchedness
secured from ill-treatment. But this pious man had compassion on them: and
determining that they should remain no longer in indigence, he caused them all
to be assembled, put on board vessels, and sunk in the sea. So merciful was he
in making provision, that under his administration no man should want! And
thus, while he took effectual measures that none, under the feigned pretext of
poverty, should elude the tax, he put to death a multitude of real wretches,
in violation of every law of humanity. (Lactant., De Mort. Persecut., cap.
xxiii.)

insatiable passions. If a Christian matron, the wife of a Senator,* submitted
to a voluntary death rather than to the loss of her honour, it was her beauty,
not her Christianity, which marked her out as the victim of the tyrant. In the
mean while, Galerius looked forward to the death of Constantius as placing the
supreme authority in his hands; an event which took place A.D. 306. Eusebius
tells us, that after he had for a long time avowed the one supreme God, and
condemned their impiety who worshipped a plurality of gods, and had on all
sides fortified his house by the prayers of holy men, he completed his life
without trouble or disquietude, consecrating his wife and children to one God,
the supreme King.

So long as Constantius swayed the sceptre, he acted as he thought fit with
regard to the edicts for persecution. The countries under his government had
not altogether escaped during the first two years; † but tranquillity was now
restored for a season, and the Christians of Africa, who had suffered severely
under Herculeus, felt the advantage of being under Constantius. Among the
Palestinian martyrs, mention is made of Apphian about the close of the first
year of the reign of Galerius, when the persecution was prosecuted with great
rigour in the East. Apphian was a native of Lycia, a province in the south
part of Lesser Asia, and descended from one of the most considerable families
in that country. His parents sent him to Berytus to acquire the rudiments of
learning. When he had made sufficient progress to qualify him for superior
studies, he applied himself to the civil law, which was taught in great
perfection in that place. Apphian spent some considerable time in Berytus, and
on account of the thoughtful and sedate direction of his mind, he was
preserved from the corruption which usually reigns, where young persons are
masters of their own actions, before they possess sufficient prudence and
judgment to govern themselves. He was but eighteen years of age when he
returned to his father, who then held a considerable post under the
government. We have no specific account which states the time when he embraced
Christianity: it is, however, probable, that it was about the time that he
completed his studies; ‡ for we are informed that his father's advancement
inspired the son with no vanity, and even no desire to transgress the rule of
Christian sobriety, which is too often forgotten by many who make a
considerable figure in the world, or have any connexion with those who are
raised above the rest of mankind. On the contrary, he was so zealous for the
precepts of the Gospel, and looked on the honours and grandeur of the world
with so much indifference, that he endeavoured to persuade his father and
other relatives to abandon the attachment which they manifested to trifles
such as these. His well-meant endeavours for their conversion meeting with but
little success, he resolved to provide for the

* "He sank into every kind of wickedness, leaving no impurity or
licentiousness untouched; committing every species of adultery and
fornication, separating wives from their lawful husbands, and, after abusing
these, sending them most shamefully violated back again to their husbands."
(Euseb., Hist. Eccles., lib. viii., cap. 14.)

† See the Acts of Rogatianus and Donatianus, who suffered martyrdom at Nantes.
(Apud Ruinart., p. 280.)

‡ Euseb., de Mart. Palest., cap. iv.

MARTYROOM OF APPHIAN.

safety of his own soul, which might be placed in no little peril while he
conversed and resided with such as lived according to the corrupt and mistaken
maxims of the world. He accordingly left the paternal mansion secretly, in
order to prevent any obstacle being thrown in his way, should his purpose be
made known, and threw himself on the merciful care of a gracious Providence,
which guided his steps to Cæsarea in Palestine. Here he placed himself under
the direction of some pious Ecclesiastics, among whom was Eusebius the
historian,* where he studied the sacred writings with great diligence, and, by
prayer and other devout exercises, became prepared for that combat in which he
shortly afterwards engaged.

The persecution which was commenced by Diocletian appeared to be in some
measure subsided, or at least it did not burn with that heat which was
satisfactory to an individual of such a cruel disposition as Galerius: that
Emperor forthwith issued a fresh edict, for inflicting all manner of
severities on the professors of Christianity. Urban, the Governor of
Palestine, expressed prompt obedience to the commands of his Prince, by
ordering a proclamation to be made, that all the heads of families in Cæsarea
should repair to the heathen temples, and pay their devotions to the gods of
the empire: care was also taken to enter the name of every one in a book kept
for that purpose, so that no one could escape conforming to the imperial
order, or suffering the penalty annexed to their disobedience. To give the
greater sanction to this measure, the Governor appointed the time, when he
gave notice that he would himself set the example of what he exacted from
others as a proof of their loyalty and religion. Apphian being informed of the
Governor's design, and stimulated with zeal for the honour of the true God,
and a holy detestation of the abominations practised among the Heathen, under
the sacred name of religion, made his way to the pagan temple, without
communicating his design to any. He entered the place devoted to superstition
and idolatry, passed the guards without experiencing any molestation, and
placed himself contiguous to Urban the Governor, who, when he raised his hand,
to execute the abominable act of sacrifice, Apphian laid hold of it, and
entreated that he would consider the absurdity of what he was about to do, and
even offered to convince him of the unreasonableness and the folly of
sacrificing to devils. This might seem an imprudent and a rash action, in an
individual not yet called to a confession of his faith, and whose age and
station in the world neither added weight to what he said, nor authority to
what he attempted.† Indeed, we must look on this action as one of those

* "Having associated with us in Cæsarea," says Eusebius, "and having studied
the holy Scriptures as much as could be for a short time, and having prepared
himself most cheerfully by the proper exercises and discipline, he finally
made so illustrious an end, as could not be witnessed again without
amazement." (De Mart. Palest.)

† Milner says, "His imprudence was great, and his zeal very irregular and
extravagant; but who will not admire the sincerity of that love of Christ,
which carried this ardent youth through all hardships; who would not prefer
his disposition, with all his faults, to the cowardice, and love of the world,
which in our times prevent such numbers from daring to show true regard for
the divine Saviour?" (Hist. of the Church, cent. iv., chap. i., vol. i., p.
489. Edit., Grantham. 8vo. 1847.) We may rely upon it, that much more mercy
will be shown on the great day of account, towards those who have
extraordinary circumstances which transpire, and are recorded, not for our
imitation, but to excite our gratitude and admiration to Almighty God, who
inspired these champions for the truth with such a courage and resolution as
made them desire suffering and death as a great happiness.

The guard, surprised and enraged at the conduct of Apphianus, fell upon him
with unbridled fury, and dragged him away to prison, where he lay for four-
and-twenty hours in the stocks, with his legs extended to the utmost. The next
day he was brought before the Governor, who endeavoured to soften his
resolution by large promises, and to shake his courage by menaces; but found
him invincible to all he could say, and as intrepid in the court as he was in
the temple. Urban, finding all his efforts ineffectual, ordered him to be
placed on the rack, and tormented with the ungulæ, till his body was so torn,
that his bones appeared, and his head so swollen with the blows he had
received, that it would have been impossible for any one to have recognised
him. This cruelty, however, did not move him: he stood as the beaten anvil to
the stroke, and seemed to obtain fresh courage in his soul, as his bodily
strength declined under the hands of his tormentors. His lower extremities
were now enveloped in linen clothes, then saturated with oil, and ignited.
Apphian endured this refinement in cruelty without any apparent motion, and
was the only individual who appeared to be unconcerned at such tortures. The
pagans were confounded, the executioners fatigued, and the brutal Governor was
overcome by his undaunted fortitude; so that he was again remanded to his
prison. Three days after this commitment he was once more brought before
Urban, and his torments repeated, but without success; and having proved
himself invincible, he was thrown into the sea.*

Shortly after the martyrdom of Apphianus, Ædesius was called to the same
trial, and died as became one who preferred the truth to every other
consideration. He was half-brother to the former martyr, and somewhat older
than he, and had made greater progress in the liberal sciences of the day:
before he embraced the Gospel, he professed himself a philosopher, and wore
the habit peculiar to that character, which he retained after his conversion.
He had been often called to give an account of his faith, and as frequently
triumphed over the art and malice of his persecutors by his invincible
constancy. He had been too eager to show their attachment to the cause of the
Redeemer in the times of persecution, than towards those who have manifested a
craven spirit, and who have not shown attachment enough, or, probably, NONE AT
ALL!

* "What happened immediately after this," says the historian, "would scarcely
be credited by any who had not seen with his own eyes; but, notwithstanding
this, we cannot but record the events. As we may say, all the inhabitants of
Cæsarea were witnesses of the fact. There was no age that was not present at
this wondrous sight. As soon as this blessed and holy youth was cast into the
deepest parts of the sea, suddenly a roaring and uncommon crashing sound
pervaded, not only the sea, but the whole surrounding heavens, so that the
earth and the whole city were shaken by it; and at the same time with this
wonderful and sudden shaking, the body of the martyr was cast by the sea
before the gates of the city, as if unable to bear it. And such was the
martyrdom of the excellent Apphianns, on the second day of the month
Xanthicus, or, Roman style, the fourth of the Nones of April, on the day of
the preparation, or Friday." (De Mart. Palest.)

MARTYROOM OF ÆDESIUS.

more than once experienced the hardship of a prison, and felt the weight of
chains: he had also been doomed for a limited time to labour in the mines.
When he obtained his liberty he went into Egypt. Maximian Daja was Cæsar in
the East, a man worthy of him who raised him to that office: he found the
Governors of the provinces and other Magistrates, faithful ministers of his
hatred towards the Christian name. The Governor of Alexandria* was one of the
most violent at the time that Ædesius arrived: he could not endure beholding
the cruelties which the Magistrate inflicted upon the faithful; but being
animated with a zeal not unlike that of Apphian, he went to the Governor, and
accosted him in a manner which proved that he was disposed to meet death,
although it was connected with most violent torments. He reproached the
Magistrate for his barbarous conduct in no measured terms: that officer was
evidently thrown into considerable embarrassment; but recovering his stoical
insensibility, he employed all the arts of cruelty he was master of, against
this bold impugner of his proceedings, who, after being severely scourged, and
otherwise cruelly tortured, was, like his brother, thrown into the sea. This
martyrdom is supposed to have taken place, April 8th, 306. Ulphianus is
reported to have suffered about this time, in the city of Tyre, and, after
dreadful torments, and the most severe scourgings, was sewed in a raw bull's
hide, together with a dog and poisonous asp, and thrown into the sea. Hence he
appears deservedly to claim a place among the martyrdoms noticed with
Apphianus.†

The persecution which we have now under review, found the church in the lowest
state of Christian wisdom and piety. In addition to what Mr. Milner had said
on the ungenerous remarks of Gibbon the historian,‡ concerning the behaviour
of Ædesius, it should be observed, that amidst the great dearth of instruction
in which he had learned Christianity, it is not to be wondered at, that he
should know his duty so imperfectly. Milner compares the piety of him and of
Apphian with that of Jephthah and of Samson; sincere, but irregular and
injudicious. They lived under similar circumstances, in times of great
ignorance. The Spirit of God, when he creates a new heart and a new spirit,
and furnishes a man with dispositions for obedience, supersedes not the use of
pastoral instruction. When this is much wanted, even divine law itself, though
strong, is blind, comparatively speaking, and will mistake the rule of duty
continually. It is in vain that I look out, he continues, in all this period
for judicious and discreet Pastors, and for clear evangelical views. No
Cyprian, no Dionysius, now appeared to check, to regulate, to control the
spirits of Christians, and to discipline them by Scripture rules. This
persecution found vast numbers perfidious and cowardly; some chosen

* "When he saw the Judge at Alexandria condemning the Christians there, and
rioting beyond all bounds, sometimes insulting grave and decent men in various
ways, sometimes consigning females of the greatest modesty, and virgins who
had devoted themselves to the duties of religion, to panders, to endure every
kind of abuse and obscenity, he made an attempt similar to that of his
brother." (Kuseb., De Mart. Palest.)

† Kuseb., De Mart. Palest., cap. v.

‡ Milner's Remarks on Gibbon.

Q spirits, honourable and faithful unto death; but of these, many, it is to be
feared, poorly informed of their duty both to God and man, and mixing with the
love of Christ the intemperance and precipitation of blind self-will. The best
use to be made of this observation, after teaching us to be candid to the
faults of these good men, is this, that those who enjoy the advantage of
better instruction and of wise Pastors, should thankfully improve their
privileges, and not by the want of just subordination deprive themselves of
the opportunity of exhibiting more regular and edifying examples of holiness.
That knowledge was thus low among Christians, is evident from Eusebius, one of
the most learned of those times, who extols a conduct in these brethren, which
every Christian of common light and capacity now would condemn. The prevalence
of the monastic and philosophic spirit was also apparent. Devotees were
increasing in numbers among serious persons, and Origenism had made philosophy
more and more reputable. Under this influence, the two brothers, whose story
we have seen, imbibed too much of Platonism, knew too little of Christianity;
and, though sincere enough to become martyrs of Christ, attained not the
praise of Christian simplicity. The doctrines of Christ had ceased to be
explicitly unfolded, and it was in sufferings chiefly, endured with patient
faith and cheerful hope, that we can now see, that Christ had yet a church in
the world. The bush was burning indeed, in a fire the most dreadful, yet it
was not consumed.*

Constantius for many years bore the character of an exemplary Prince, and a
good man. At a time when four persons shared the administration of the Roman
empire,† Constantius alone adopted a course of conduct different from that
pursued by his colleagues, and avowed himself the friend of the supreme God.
For while they wasted the church of the Most High, levelling the structure to
the ground, and obliterating the very foundations of the houses of prayer, he
kept his hands free from such impiety. They polluted their provinces by the
indiscriminate slaughter of holy men and women, he preserved himself from
those fearful crimes: they, involved in the mazes of impious idolatry,
enthralled first themselves, and then all under their authority, in bondage to
the errors of evil demons, while Constantius maintained profound peace
throughout his dominions, and secured to his subjects the privilege of
enjoying without hinderance the worship of Almighty God. In a word, while his
colleagues opposed all men by the most grievous exactions, and rendered even
life burdensome to them, he governed the people with a mild and tranquil sway,
and like a father to the country, he manifested towards them a truly parental
and fostering care. Numberless, indeed, are the excellences of his character,
which are the theme of his praise by all writers. "Of this I will," says
Eusebius, "record one or two instances, as specimens of the quality of those
which I must pass by in silence." ‡

In consequence of the many reports in circulation respecting this Prince,
describing his kindness and gentleness of character, and the

* Milner, Hist. of the Church, cent. iv., chap. i., vol. i., p. 490.

† Diocletian, Hercules, Galerius, and Constantius.

‡ Eusebius, De Vita Constant., lib. i., cap. xiii.

CHARACTER OF THE EMPEROR CONSTANTIUS.

extraordinary elevation of his charity, alleging, too, that by reason of his
extreme indulgence to his subjects, he had not even a supply of money laid up
in his treasury; the Emperor who at that time occupied the place of supreme
power sent to reprehend his neglect of the public weal, at the same time
reproaching him with poverty, and alleging in proof of the charge the empty
state of his treasury. On this he desired the messengers of the Emperor to
remain with him awhile; and calling together the wealthiest of his subjects of
all nations under his dominion, he informed them that he was in want of money,
and that this was a time for them all to give a voluntary proof of their
affection for their Prince. As soon as they heard this, (as though they had
long been desirous of an opportunity of showing the sincerity of their good-
will,) with zealous alacrity they filled the treasury with gold and silver,
and other wealth; each eager to surpass the rest in the amount of his
subscription, and this they did with cheerful and joyous countenances. And now
Constantius desired the messengers of the supreme Emperor personally to
inspect his treasures, and directed them to give a faithful report of what
they had seen; adding, that on the present occasion he had taken this money
into his own hands, but that it had long been kept for his use in the custody
of the owners, as securely as if under the charge of faithful treasurers. The
ambassadors were overwhelmed with astonishment at what they had witnessed;
and, on their departure, it is said that the truly generous Prince sent for
the owners of the property, and, after commending them severally for their
obedience and true loyalty, restored it all, and bade them return to their
homes. Constantius appears to have been strongly imbued with divine truth; and
the kind of death which was vouchsafed to him when he was called to exchange
worlds, and how He whom he honoured made his lot to differ from that of his
colleagues in the empire, will promptly be acknowledged by those who will
investigate the circumstances under which he died.

After he had for some time given proof of nobility of soul, in acknowledging
the Most High alone, and condemning the polytheism of the impious, and had, as
it were, fortified his household by the prayers of holy men, he is said to
have passed the remainder of his life in repose and tranquillity, in the
enjoyment of that happiness which consists in neither molesting others, nor
being molested ourselves. Accordingly, during the whole course of his quiet
and peaceful reign, he dedicated his entire household, his children, his wife,
and domestic attendants, to the one supreme God, so that the company assembled
within the walls of his palace differed in no respect from a church of God;
wherein were also to be found his Ministers, who offered continual
supplications on behalf of their Prince, and this at a time when, generally
speaking, it was not lawful to make any allusion, even by name, to the
worshippers of God. The result which followed the abdication of Diocletian and
Herculeus was, that he came into the supreme authority of the empire.* Those
Princes, who were

* As soon as Diocletian and Herculeus had resigned the purple, their station,
according to the rules of the new constitution, was filled by the two Cessars,
Constantius and

Q 2 his superiors in respect of age, for some unknown reason resigned their
authority. From that time Constantius received the honours of chief Augustus,
having been previously indeed distinguished by the diadem of the Imperial
Cæsars, among whom he held the first rank; but after his worth had been proved
in this capacity, he was invested with the highest dignity of the Roman
empire, being named "chief Augustus" of the four who were afterwards elected
to that honour. Moreover, he surpassed most of the Emperors in regard to the
number of his family, having gathered around him a very large circle of male
and female children. And, lastly, when he had attained to a happy old age, and
was about to pay the common debt of nature, and exchange this life for
another, God once more manifested his power on his behalf, in providing that
his eldest son Constantine should be present during his last moments, and
should receive the imperial power from his hands.*

The stern temper of Galerius was cast (says the historian Gibbon) in a very
different mould; and while he commanded the esteem of his subjects, he seldom
condescended to solicit their affections. His fame in arms, and, above all,
the success of the Persian war, had elated his haughty mind, which was
naturally impatient of a superior, or even of an equal. If it were possible to
rely on the partial testimony of an injudicious writer, we might ascribe the
abdication of Diocletian to the menaces of Galerius, and relate the
particulars of a private conversation between the two Princes, in which the
former discovered as much pusillanimity as the latter displayed ingratitude
and arrogance. But these obscure anecdotes are sufficiently refuted by an
impartial view of the character and conduct of Diocletian. After the elevation
of Constantius and Galerius to the rank of Augusti, two new Cæsars were
required to supply their places, and to complete the system of the imperial
Government. Diocletian was desirous of withdrawing himself from the world; he
considered Galerius, who had married his daughter, as the firmest support of
his family and of the empire, and he consented without reluctance that his
successor should assume the merit as well as the envy of the important
nomination. It was fixed without consulting the interest or inclination of the
Princes of the West. Each of them had a son who had arrived at the age of
manhood, and might have been deemed the most natural candidate for the vacant
honour. But the impotent resentment of Herculeus was no longer to be dreaded;
and the moderate Constantius, though

Galerius, who immediately assumed the title of Augustus. The honours of
seniority and precedence were allowed to the former of those Princes, and he
continued, under a new appellation, to administer his ancient department of
Gaul, Spain, and Britain. The government of those ample provinces was
sufficient to exercise his talents, and to satisfy his ambition. Clemency,
temperance, and moderation distinguished the amiable character of Constantius;
and his fortunate subjects had frequently occasion to compare the virtues of
their Sovereign with the passions of Herculeus, and even with the arts of
Diocletian. Instead of imitating their Eastern pride and magnificence,
Constantius preserved the modesty of a Roman Prince. He declared, with
unaffected sincerity, that his most valued treasure was in the hearts of his
people; and that, whenever the dignity of the throne, or the danger of the
state, required any extraordinary supply, he could depend with confidence on
their gratitude and liberality. (Gibbon, Decline and Fall.)

* Eusebi, De Vita Constant.

COUNCIL OF CIRTA.

he might despise the dangers, was humanely apprehensive of the calamities, of
civil war. The individuals whom Galerius appointed to the rank of Cæsar were
much better suited to serve the views of his ambition; and their principal
recommendation seems to have consisted in the want of merit or personal
consequence. The first of these, as we have already noticed, was Daja, or, as
he was afterwards called, Maximin, whose mother was the sister of Galerius.*
The inexperienced youth still betrayed by his manners and language his rustic
education, when, to his own astonishment, as well as that of the world, he was
invested by Diocletian with the purple, exalted to the dignity of Cæsar, and
intrusted with the sovereign command of Egypt and Syria. At the same time
Severus, a faithful servant, addicted to pleasure, but not incapable of
business, was sent to Milan, to receive from the reluctant hands of Herculeus
the Cæsarian ornaments, and the possession of Italy and Africa. According to
the forms of the constitution, Severus acknowledged the supremacy of the
western Emperor; but he was absolutely devoted to the commands of his
benefactor Galerius, who, reserving to himself the intermediate countries from
the confines of Italy to those of Syria, firmly established his power over
three-fourths of the monarchy. In the full confidence that the death of
Constantius, whenever that event occurred, would leave him sole master of the
Roman world, we are assured that he had arranged in his mind a long succession
of future Princes, and that he meditated his own retreat from public life,
after he should have accomplished a glorious reign of about twenty years. But
within less than eighteen months two unexpected revolutions overturned the
ambitious projects of Galerius.† But we must not anticipate.

It was about this time, when the severity of the persecution was in some
degree abated, that a Council met at Cirta, in Numidia. The object was to
elect a Bishop of that city, in the room of Paul; and Secundus, Bishop of
Tigisis, presided. The church having been destroyed, the parties met in a
private house, and, instead of proceeding to their business, they began to
accuse each other, and about eleven or twelve of the Bishops present confessed
that they had been guilty of betraying the sacred books during the
persecution. In order to understand the nature of their crime, it must be
remembered that, during the Diocletian persecution, an edict was promulgated
ordering the destruction of the churches, and obliging the Magistrates
everywhere to take from the Bishops and Priests of the church their copies

* "Then entered into the number of the Cæsars, a person whose blind heathenish
superstition and cruelty were in perfect keeping with the character of
Galerius, who chose him as Cæsar; namely, Caius Galerius Valerius Maximinus.
It was naturally to be expected, that in the provinces assigned to him, in
Syria and the adjoining parts of the Roman empire, and in Egypt, the
persecutions should be renewed with vigour. At times, however, men became
weary of their own violence, and as their efforts proved unavailing, the
execution of the imperial edict slackened of itself, the persecution
slumbered, and the Christians began to enjoy a little repose; but when their
enemies perceived that they had taken breath again, their anger arose afresh,
because they felt that they had been unable to extinguish Christianity, and
again set up Heathenism; and then a new and more violent storm arose."
(Neander.)

† Gibbon, Doctrine and Fall, vol. ii., p. 186. Milman edit. 8vo 1838.

of the holy Scriptures. This edict was executed with the greatest rigour in
Numidia: the Magistrates themselves entered into the churches, and into the
houses of the Bishops and Clergy, to search for the Scriptures, that they
might burn them, threatening with the penalty of death all who refused to
discover them. Many of the Christians were content to suffer death, or any
torment, rather than betray them; but there were also many, not merely among
the lower order of Ecclesiastics, but also among the Priests, and even
Bishops, who, through fear of death, were guilty of delivering up the sacred
volumes. Such were styled traditores. At Cirta there were, unhappily, many
Bishops and others of the Clergy, who had given a miserable example of
cowardice.* Nay, the Council of Cirta appears to have been composed
principally of traditores. And Silvanus, whom they elected Bishop of Cirta,
had the same charge proved against him afterwards. Even the President himself
was accused of being guilty; and the conduct of himself and the other Bishops
led to results which, for a long time, were productive of serious evil to the
African church. Secundus was also in communication with Mensurius, Bishop of
Carthage, upon a subject which always led to much discussion after a
persecution. This was the case of the martyrs. It had long been a custom, that
the names of these persons should be recorded, and their memories honoured, by
an annual celebration in the church to which they belonged. But when, in
course of time, the number of the martyrs became very great, it was found
necessary to use some selection as to the names which were to be preserved.
There is some evidence that the lists were submitted by the Bishop of the
diocese to the Bishop of the province for his approval. Thus Secundus, who
seems to have been Primate of Numidia, wrote to Mensurius, the Bishop of
Carthage, who told him that those persons ought not to be placed on the list
of martyrs who had courted death voluntarily, or those who surrendered their
books before any inquiry was made. It appears, from the same correspondence,
that some persons had been anxious to be put into prison, either for the sake
of the support which they received there from the charity of Christians, or
that the credit which they gained as confessors might cause their former
irregularities to be forgotten. This being the case, it was very necessary
that the lists of martyrs should be submitted to some examination.†

At this period, also, the question was revived, which had been agitated so
warmly in the time of Cyprian, concerning the treatment which was to be shown
to the lapsed. At that period, the whole Christian world, with the exception
of the Novatians, had agreed to act upon the same general principles; but no
definite rules had been laid down for particular cases. Before the Easter of
306, Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, undertook to do this for his own diocese.
The fourteen canons which he drew up are still extant; and it is pleasing to
see this venerable Prelate, who had shown such fortitude himself,

* Labb. Concilia, tom. ii., p. 1518, fol. See also, Landon, Manual of
Councils, p. 132. London, 1846.

† Burton, Lect. Eccles. Hist., lect. xxix.

THE COUNCIL OF ELVIRA.

and had been a sufferer in more than one persecution, yet acting with lenity
and indulgence towards those who had been less courageous. The cases of the
lapsed admitted of many variations. Some had given way immediately, without
offering any resistance; others had resisted at first, and been thrown into
prison, but their courage failed them afterwards. Some had consented to
sacrifice at first, but they afterwards repented, and submitted to suffer
torture; and in all these cases a particular period of penitence was
specified, after which the parties might be admitted to communion. The case
was also considered of persons who had escaped by deceiving the Magistrates,
by submitting their slaves to torture instead of themselves, by paying money,
or by concealing themselves; and indulgence was extended to all of them upon
certain conditions. Those who had had incense put into their hands, or some
meat from a sacrifice forced into their mouths, when their bodily sufferings
had made them insensible, were at once admitted to communion. But if any of
the Clergy had lapsed, though they might be pardoned like the rest, they could
only be admitted to communion as laymen, and could never again exercise their
clerical functions. The Bishop of Alexandria appears to have been less
displeased than the Bishop of Carthage with those who voluntarily courted
persecution; and his proceedings on this occasion are a proof, that though the
churches of any one province were anxious for uniformity, they were quite at
liberty to make rules for themselves, without consulting the Bishops of any
other province. This is farther evident by what the Bishop of Alexandria
states of it being customary in his church to keep a fast on the Wednesday and
Friday before Easter, and always to make the Sunday a festival.*

It was doubtless rather earlier than this, and before the persecution had
subsided, that a Council was held upon the same subject at Elvira, or
Illiberia, in Spain.† It was attended by nineteen Bishops, many of whom had
been confessors, and, among the rest, by Hosius, Bishop of Corduba, who seems
to have suffered during some persecution about the year 296. The canons of
this Council were drawn up in a tone of much greater severity than the
regulations made by the Bishop of Alexandria. The latter had not excluded any
case of lapse from re-admission into the church after a certain period; but
the Spanish Bishops decided that some persons should never be admitted to
communion, not even at their death. They were also more severe towards those
who had purchased their safety by payment of money. It is plain, from all
their regulations, that their great object was to prevent idolatry, to which
perhaps they had seen some lurking attachment in their recent converts. With
this view they prohibited the use of wax candles in the cemeteries, because
they were used at heathen festivals; and paintings in churches were likewise
forbidden.

* Burton, Lect. Eccles. Hist., lect. xxix.

† This Council was probably held about the year 300, but whether in Tarragona
or Betica is uncertain; most probably the latter. Nineteen Bishops were
present, and eighty-one strict canons were published. Amongst the Bishops was
Hosius of Cordova: twenty-six Priests, and certain Deacons, also assisted. The
canons appear to be a collection from the penitential canons of Africa and
Spain. (Labb. Concilia, tom. I., p. 967. Landon Manual of Councils, p. 220.)

This Council is also remarkable for ordering Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, and
sub-Deacons, if they happened to be married, to live separate from their
wives.*

In the meantime the Christians in the West were gradually recovering their
wonted tranquillity, and had time to attend to the arrangement of their
affairs: their brethren in the East, however, found themselves exposed to
still more implacable enemies. Galerius knew well what he was doing when he
conferred the title of Caesar upon Daja, who was also called Maximinus or
Maximin; and the latter soon exercised his newly-obtained power by enforcing
the imperial edicts. There is scarcely a country in Asia in which Eusebius
does not speak of some inhuman acts of cruelty having been performed. Among
those who suffered for the cause of truth was Agapius: this happened in the
presence of the tyrant Maximinus, who was amusing the multitude with public
shows on his birth-day. It was an ancient practice when the Emperors were
present to exhibit a variety of spectacles, and, for the greater novelty, to
collect new and strange sights in the place of others which were more common
and ordinary; including either animals from various parts of India or
Ethiopia, or men who, by their dexterity, exhibited singular specimens of
adroitness: but to complete the whole, as it was no less than an Emperor that
exhibited the sight on the present occasion, it was thought requisite to have
something even more than common. A martyr was introduced, who was led forth
into the arena to endure the contest for the one and only true religion. This
was Agapius: after having been paraded with malefactors from the prison to the
stadium several times, and after various threatenings from the Judges, whether
through compassion, or from the hope of inducing him to change his purpose, he
had been deferred from time to time until now: at length, when the Emperor was
present, he was led forth. He was brought into the stadium with a certain
criminal, who was charged with having murdered his master. This culprit, when
he was about to be cast to the beasts, was favoured with clemency and mercy
from the Emperor, not unlike the manner in which Barabbas was treated in the
days of our Saviour. Hence the whole theatre resounded with acclamation, that
the blood-stained homicide was so humanely saved by the Emperor, and was
honoured with liberty and dignity. But when Agapius was summoned into the
presence of the Monarch, he was required to renounce his faith, with the
promise of liberty. With a loud voice he declared, that he would cheerfully
and with pleasure sustain whatever Maximin might inflict upon him; not indeed
for any wickedness, but for his veneration of the God of the universe. Thus
saying, he associated actions with his words, and rushing against a bear which
was let loose upon him, he readily offered himself to be devoured by the
beast; after which he was taken up yet breathing, and conveyed to prison.
Surviving until the following day, he had stones appended to his feet, and was
plunged into the sea.†

At Easter, in Cæsarea, a maiden of Tyre, Theodosia by name, not yet eighteen
years of age, but distinguished for her faith and piety,

* Burton, Lect. Eccles. Hist., lect. xxix.

† Euseb., De Mart. Palest., cap. vi.

MARTYRDOM OF THEODOSIA AND OTHERS.

approached some prisoners, confessors of Christ, who were placed before the
judgment-seat, in order to comfort and encourage them: she was seized by the
soldiery, as though guilty of some impious and atrocious deed, and led away to
the Commander, who directed her to be tortured with dreadful and horrid
cruelties; furrowing her sides and breasts with instruments even to the bones;
and whilst yet breathing, and withal exhibiting a cheerful and joyous
countenance, he ordered her to be thrown into the sea. Proceeding to other
confessors, he consigned them all to the mines at Phœno, in Palestine. After
this, Silvanus, who was a Presbyter, became a confessor, and not long after he
was honoured with the episcopate, and ultimately crowned with martyrdom. The
same Judge condemned those who exhibited the noblest firmness in the cause of
piety to labour in the mines, having first directed their ankles to be
disabled by searing with red-hot irons. At the time this sentence was
pronounced, he ordered one who had rendered himself illustrious on numerous
occasions of confession to be committed to the flames. This was Dominus, well
known throughout Palestine for his great boldness. After which, this
Magistrate, who was a terrible inventor of miseries, and peculiarly ingenious
in the invention of new devices against the doctrine of Christ, planned
torments against Christians such as had never before been heard of. He
condemned three to pugilistic combat; but Auxentius, a grave and holy
Presbyter, he commanded to be cast to the beasts; others who had reached the
age of maturity, he mutilated, and then sent them to the mines; and others,
after deadly tortures, he committed to prison. Among these was
Pamphilus,—"that dearest of my friends and associates,"* says Eusebius, "a man
who, for every virtue, was the most illustrious martyr of our times."

Pamphilus was a native of Berytus, in Phœnicia, descended from one of the most
considerable families in that province: he commenced his studies in his own
country, but went to complete them in the flourishing school of Alexandria.
The celebrated Pierius was his master; a man of such universal learning, that
he was called a second Origen. From Alexandria, Pamphilus removed to Cæsarea,
in Palestine, was received into the body of the Clergy in that city, and
ordained Priest.† His learning and general deportment rendered him an ornament
to that church. His life was spent in the practice of Christian virtues; but
his humility, contempt of the world, and diffusive charity, rendered him
conspicuous. He was a true Christian

* This is the Pamphilus from whom Eusebius obtained the surname of Pamphilus.

† "Theodymus, Bishop of Cæsarea, dying, Agapius succeeded in that see, a man
prudent and diligent in his charge, and of a very charitable temper; by him
Pamphilus was ordained Presbyter of that church, and probably not long after
Eusebius himself. Between the two commenced so strong a friendship, that
Jerome says, 'they seem to have had but one soul between them.' And Eusebius,
to perpetuate the remembrance of so close an amity, assumed the name of
Pamphilus, a title which he carries to the present day. Besides him, he
mentions another of his familiar acquaintance; Pierius, Presbyter of
Alexandria, and the head of the catechetic school in that city, who had for
some time been the preceptor of Pamphilus, one whose strict life and extensive
learning in all faculties gained him the title of a second Origen." (Cave,
Lives of the Fathers, 8vo., vol. ii., p. 96.)

R philosopher, and maintained a perfect indifference alike to the miseries and
happiness of this life. The study of the holy Scriptures was his favourite
exercise; and, in order to promote the improvement of ecclesiastical learning,
he established a library at Cæsarea, which he furnished with the best books of
that kind. The utility of such an undertaking soon appeared; and we may safely
say, that we owe all our acquaintance with what occurred in the first ages of
Christianity to his industry, to whose collection Eusebius was greatly
indebted for his Ecclesiastical History. Among the ancient authors which
Pamphilus endeavoured to preserve for the use of posterity, no one engrossed
more of his time and thoughts than Origen; for whose works, upon all
occasions, he expressed a particular regard, and transcribed the greatest part
of them with his own hand: Jerome imagined that he had found an inestimable
treasure, when he recovered the twenty-five books of Commentaries on the
twelve lesser Prophets, copied by Pamphilus, whose judgment and accuracy he
knew he might depend upon. But the first care of Pamphilus was to see the
world provided with a correct copy of the Old Testament, which had suffered
much from the ignorance or negligence of transcribers since it passed through
Origen's hands: in this work he had the assistance of Eusebius, who was not
only united to him by the bonds of friendship, but also by a similitude of
study. The application of Pamphilus was not so engrossed by his literary
pursuits as to deprive the world of the advantage of being instructed at his
mouth. He founded a school at Cæsarea, in imitation of that established at
Alexandria, and gave lessons in divinity in that new seminary of religion and
literature, until the persecution interrupted the course of his useful
labours. He was apprehended in 307, and carried before Urban, the President or
Governor of Palestine. The account which this officer had heard of his
extraordinary merit, excited his curiosity to see him, concluding that such a
man must be of great importance to whatever party he espoused, and that his
example would be followed by great numbers of Christians, if he could be
induced to alter his creed. The Governor first endeavoured to win him over by
blandishments and insinuation; but finding him invulnerable, he tried the
influence of terror. All was useless. The martyr remained fixed and unmovable,
nobly rejecting his promises, and despising his threatenings, which so enraged
the Governor, that he commanded him to be severely tortured; so that after
they had raked his sides with their torturing *ungulæ*, and marred his flesh
with hot pincers, he was sent to keep company with other Christians in prison,
with a design of bringing him out again as soon as his wounds were closed.* A
retributive Providence speedily pur-

* It was not all the disgrace and torment which Pamphilus endured that could
fright Eusebius from his friend: he visited him in prison; and diligently
ministered to his necessities, and then they mutually employed their time and
pains to excellent and useful purposes. And as heretofore they had published
the Greek translation of the Septuagint, taken out of Origen's Hexapla, for
the use of the Palestine churches; so now they composed an elaborate Apology
in defence of Origen, to vindicate him from those rude censures and
reflections which the hasty and indiscreet zeal of some had made upon his
memory. It is true, Jerome more than once peremptorily denies that Pamphilus
either wrote this or any other book. But Eusebius, who knew best, expressly

MARTYRDOM OF PAMPHILUS.

sued Urbanus,* which deprived him of his anticipated pleasure in witnessing
the execution of his barbarity: he was soon afterwards dismissed from his
employ, and condemned to lose his head.

As the implacable hatred of Urbanus alone recommended him to the favour of
Maximin, he took care to supply his place with another of the same
disposition, whose name was Firmilianus, to whom Maximin gave strict orders to
continue the persecution without the slightest relaxation. This the new
Governor implicitly obeyed; and established himself in the Emperor's favour by
his severity in the execution of his orders. But whether he forgot Pamphilus,
or reserved him for some particular occasion, he continued in prison for two
whole years, and had the satisfaction of seeing and conversing with his
friends. He received frequent visits from Eusebius, who diligently aided him
on all occasions. Pamphilus was again brought forth with his companions for
trial. The Judge, aware of his constancy and resolution, asked whether he
would comply with the request of the Emperor, and received a positive denial
from himself and the confessors who were with him; sentence of death was
pronounced upon them; and he, with Valens and Paul, was beheaded† on the
evening of the same day that five Egyptian martyrs, his own servant and
Seleucus, suffered. "When the storm had incessantly raged against us," says
Eusebius, "until the sixth year, there had been before this a vast number of
confessors of the true religion in what is called the Porphyry quarry, from
the name of the stone which is found in Thebais. Of these, one hundred,
wanting three, men, women, and young infants, were sent to the Governor of
Palestine, who, for confessing the supreme Jehovah, had the ankles and sinews
of their left legs burnt away with a red-hot iron. Besides this, they had the
whole of the right eye cut out from the orbit, which was then seared with
irons. All this was done by the order of Firmilianus, who was sent thither as
successor to Urbanus, and acted in obedience to the imperial command. After
this, he condemned them to the mines, to drag out a miserable existence in
constant toil and oppressive labour. Nor was it enough that those who endured
such miseries were detells us, that it was the result of their joint
endeavours; and Photius, more particularly, that the whole work consisted of
six books; the five first whereof were finished by Pamphilus in prison, with
Eusebius's assistance; the sixth added by Eusebius after the other's
martyrdom, and that it was designed for the consolation of the martyrs who
laboured in the mines, the chief of whom was Patermuthius, who was shortly
after burnt at the stake. (Cave, Lives of the Fathers, vol. ii, p. 100. 8vo.
edit.)

* "That man whom we but yesterday saw judging on a lofty seat, and surrounded
by a guard of soldiers, and ruling over all Palestine,—the associate,
favorite, and guest of the tyrant,—stripped in a single night, divested of all
his bonours, and covered with disgrace and infamy, before those who had
courted him as the Emperor himself; him we saw timid and cowardly, uttering
cries and entreaties, like a woman, before all the people whom he had ruled."
(Kuseb., De Mart. Palest., chap. vii.)

† In 309, Pamphilus was put to death by order of Firmilianus, the Roman
President at Cæsarea. Eusebius wrote a life of Pamphilus, in three books, of
which only a few fragments remain. In the second volume of the works of
Hippolytus, Fabricius published what he calls, "Acta Passionis S. Pamphili
Martyris, ex Libris Eusebii Cæsariensis de illius Vita, juxta M. S. Medicorum
Regis Christianissimi;" but there are strong reasons for concluding that piece
a forgery.

R 2 prived of their eyes, but those natives of Palestine* also, whom we have
already mentioned as condemned to pugilistic fights, as they neither would
suffer themselves to be supported from the imperial treasury, nor undergo the
exercises preparatory to the combat, were now brought not only before the
Governors, but before Maximin himself; where, displaying the noblest firmness
in their confessions, by enduring hunger and stripes, they suffered finally
the same as the former did, besides other confessors from the same city.
Immediately after these others were seized who had assembled in the city of
Gaza to bear the holy Scriptures read, some of whom suffered the same
mutilations in their eyes and feet; others were obliged to endure still
greater sufferings, by having their sides furrowed and scraped in a dreadful
manner. Among these was one who was a female in sex, but a man in firmness,
not enduring the threat of violation; and having used a certain expression
against the tyrant, for committing the Government to such cruel Judges, she
was first scourged, then raised on high on the rack, and lacerated on the
sides. But notwithstanding those who were appointed incessantly and vehemently
applied the tortures according to the orders of the Judge, another woman who,
like the former, had contemplated a life of perpetual virginity, though
ordinary in bodily form, and common in appearance, yet possessing a mind
otherwise firm, and an understanding superior to her sex, was unable to bear
the merciless, cruel, and inhuman scene before her, and, with a courage
exceeding all the far-famed combatants among the Greeks for their liberty, she
exclaimed against the Judge, from the midst of the crowd, 'And how long, then,
will you thus cruelly torture my sister?' Firmilianus, the more bitterly
incensed by this, ordered the woman immediately to be seized. She was then
dragged into the midst; and after she had called herself by the august name of
our Saviour, attempts were first made to bring her over to sacrifice by
persuasion. But when she refused, she was dragged to the altar by force. Her
sister remaining the same, and still adhering to her purpose, with a resolute,
intrepid step she kicked the altar, and overturned all upon it, together with
the fire. Upon this, the Judge, exasperated, like a savage beast, applied

* Euseb., De Mart. Palest., cap. viii. Eusebius himself was subjected to
imprisonment during this persecution, and he has been accused of offering
incense to idols to secure his release. After the martyrdom of Pamphilus, he
seems to have withdrawn to Tyre, where he witnessed the persecutions of which
he gives an account. He then went to Egypt, and in the course of the
persecution he was seized and carried away to prison. It was here that he was
said to have been guilty of that act of sinful compliance with which he has
been charged. Epiphanius mentions, that at the Synod of Tyre, held 335,
Potamon, a Bishop of Heraclea, in Egypt, perceiving Eusebius to be present,
cried out, "How came you to sit as a Judge upon the innocent Athanasius? Who
can endure it? Tell me, I pray you, were we not in prison together during the
time of the persecution, where I was deprived of an eye for maintaining the
truth, while you suffered nothing? How then did you get out of prison?"
Epiphanius adds, that upon this Eusebius rose up and dismissed the assembly.
In a letter of the Bishops of the Council of Alexandria also, it is said, that
Eusebius was accused by the confessors of sacrificing to idols. It must be
allowed that the dismissal of the assembly, under whatever pretence, was a
suspicious circumstance. But then, on the other hand, Potamon does not
positively assert that Eusebius did sacrifice; and if he really had been
guilty, it is unlikely that he would so soon have been elected Bishop of
Cessarea. (Welsh, Elements of Church History.)

THE PERSECUTION INCREASES IN SEVERITY.

torture beyond all that he had done before; all but glutting himself with her
very flesh, by the wounds and lacerations of her body. But when his madness
was gratified to satiety, he bound her and the former, whom she called sister,
together, and condemned them to the flames. The former of these was said to be
of Gaza; but the other, Valentina by name, was a native of Caesarea, and well
known to many." *

After the flame of persecution had relaxed its violence amidst such heroic
achievements of the noble martyrs of Christ,† and had been almost extinguished
with the blood of holy men, and some relief and liberty had been granted to
those condemned to labour in the mines for Christ's sake, and "we began," says
Eusebius, "to breathe purer air, I know not how, but he that had received the
power to persecute, was again roused by a new impulse against the Christians."
Immediately, therefore, edicts were issued against them from Maximin;
everywhere in the provinces,‡ Governors and the Praetorian Prefect, in
proclamations and edicts, and public ordinances, urged the Magistrates and the
Generals and notaries in every city to execute the imperial mandate; which
ordained,—that with all speed the decayed temples of the idols should be
rebuilt, and that all people, men, women, domestics, and even infants at the
breast, should sacrifice and make libations; that they should be diligently
made to taste of the odious sacrifices; that the things for sale in the
markets should be

* Euseb., De Mart. Palest., cap. vii.

† A person named Paul being sentenced to lose his head, he begged to be
allowed a short space of time. His request being granted, he prayed with a
loud voice for the whole Christian world; that God would forgive them, remove
the present heavy scourge of their iniquities, and restore them to peace and
liberty: he then prayed for the Jews, that they might come to God, and find
access to him through Christ. In the next place he prayed that the same
blessings might be vouchsafed to the Samaritans. The Gentiles, who lived in
error and in ignorance of God, were the next objects of his charitable
petitions, that they might be brought to know and to serve him: nor did he
omit to mention the crowd about him, the Judge who had sentenced him, the
Emperors and the executioner, and, in the hearing of all, he prayed that their
sins might not be laid to their charge. The whole company was moved, and tears
were shed. The martyr composed himself to suffer, and, offering his neck to
the sword, he was beheaded. An admirable Christian hero: in whom divine love
breathed in conjunction with resignation and serenity. The Lord's hand was not
shortened: his grace appeared in him in a manner worthy of the apostolic age.
Soon after, a hundred and thirty Egyptian Chieftains, suffering the same
mutilations which have been mentioned, were sentenced by Maximin to the mines
of Palestine and Cilicia. (Milner, Hist. of the Church.)

‡ The persecution fell most heavily upon the most eminent of the body; upon
men who were deeply pledged, by the sense of shame and honour, even if, in any
case, the nobler motives of conscientious faith and courageous confidence in
the truth of the religion were wanting, to bear with unyielding heroism the
utmost barbarities of the persecutor. Those who submitted performed the hated
ceremony with visible reluctance, with trembling hand, averted countenance,
and deep remorse of heart: those who resisted to death were animated by the
presence of multitudes, who, if they dared not applaud, could scarcely conceal
their admiration; women crowded to kiss the hems of their garments; and their
scattered ashes, or unburied bones, were stolen away by the devout zeal of
their adherents, and already began to be treasured as incentives to faith and
piety. It cannot be supposed that the great functionaries of the state, the
civil or military Governors, could be so universally scared to humanity, or so
incapable of admiring these frequent examples of patient heroism, as not
either to mitigate, in some degree, the sufferings which they were bound to
inflict, or even to feel some secret sympathy with the blameless victims whom
they condemned, which might ripen, at a more fortunate period, into sentiments
still more favourable to the Christian cause. (Milman.)

defiled with the libations of victims, and that before the baths guards should
be stationed, who should pollute those that had been cleansed in them with
their execrable sacrifices. These atrocities having been committed, many of
the Heathen bitterly censured their severity and absurd character, not only as
oppressive and overbearing, but superfluous, especially when they beheld an
ugly storm gathering around themselves. However, the great Head of the church
infused courage and confidence into his wrestlers that, without being drawn or
even encouraged by any one, they voluntarily trampled upon the threatenings of
such opponents. Three of the Christians associated, and rushed upon the
Governor as he was offering sacrifice, and called upon him to desist, for
there was no other God but one, the supreme Jehovah and Creator of the
universe. On being interrogated who and what they were, they boldly confessed
that they were Christians. Firmilianus enraged, and without inflicting any
torture upon the offenders, condemned them to capital punishment. Of these one
was named Antoninus, a Presbyter; the second was called Zebina, a native of
Eleutheropolis; and the third was known by the name of Germanus. They were all
executed on the thirteenth day of the month Dius,* on the ides of November. On
the same day, Eunathas, a woman of Scythopolis, ennobled also by the virgin's
fillet, was added to that number. She had not, indeed, gone the same length as
the former three, but was dragged by force, and brought before the Judge; she
was scourged, and endured dreadful abuse, which was heaped upon her by Maxys,
the Tribune of a neighbouring district, and without any authority from a
higher power: he was a sanguinary character, exceedingly harsh and inflexible,
and in his general deportment so fierce and violent, that he was in the bad
repute of all that knew him. Having denuded Eunathas of her clothes, so as to
leave only her body covered from her loins to her feet, he caused her to be
led about the city of Caesarea, beaten with thongs of hide. After all these
cruelties, which she bore with the greatest firmness, she exhibited the same
cheerful alacrity when before Firmilianus himself, where she was condemned to
the flames. Whilst aiming his cruelty and madness against the worshippers of
the Most High, he overstepped the dictates of nature, and denied the lifeless
bodies of these martyrs a place of sepulture. Night and day he commanded their
mangled remains to be watched, as they lay exposed in the open air, the food
of any beasts of prey: no small number of men were present several days, who
attended to witness the execution of this savage and barbarous decree; some,
indeed, were actually seen peering from behind their

* Three other Bishops are supposed to have suffered about this period, namely,
Hesychius, Pachymius, and Theodorus; the first of whom was a man of
considerable note, if he were the Hesychius who published an edition of the
Septuagint. Origen's great work had now been before the world for more than
half a century, and it contained the fullest materials for settling the Greek
text. The copies, however, still continued very different, and Hesychius
undertook a revision of it, which obtained general circulation in the diocese
of Alexandria. If he were the Bishop who suffered martyrdom, his edition of
the Septuagint probably appeared at the end of the third century. (Burton's
Lectures.)

MARTYROOM OF PANTALEON, AND OTHERS.

post of observation, as though it were considered meritorious to watch that
the lifeless carcasses were not stolen. Wild beasts, dogs, and carnivorous
birds, scattered human limbs in every direction; and the whole city round
about was deluged, so that nothing appeared more dreadful or horrific, even to
those who had been most hostile to the church, not so much lamenting the
calamity of those against whom such things were perpetrated, as the nuisance
against themselves, and the indignity offered to our common nature.*

Others also in the East received the martyrs' crown. On the fourteenth of the
month Apellæus, that is, the nineteenth of the calends of January, some from
Egypt were seized by the spies appointed to observe those who went out at the
gates. They had been sent for the purpose of ministering to the necessities of
the confessors in Cilicia. These experienced the same lot as those whom they
came to serve, and were mutilated in their eyes and feet. Three of them,
however, exhibited wonderful fortitude at Ascalon, where they were imprisoned,
and bore away different prizes of martyrdom. One of them, named Ares, was
committed to the flames; the others, Promus and Elias, were beheaded. On the
eleventh of the month Audynæus, which is the third of the ides of January, in
the same city of Cæsarea, Petrus Ascetes,† also called Apselamus, from the
village of Anea, on the borders of Eleutheropolis, like the purest gold, with
a noble resolution, gave the proof of his faith in the Christ of God.
Disregarding both the Judge and those around him, who besought him in many
ways only to have compassion on himself, and to spare his youth and blooming
years, he preferred his hope in the one supreme God to all, and even to life
itself. With him also was said to be a certain Bishop, named Asclepius, a
follower of Marcion's error, with a zeal for piety, as he supposed, but not
according to knowledge. He departed this life on the same funeral pile.‡

Somewhat earlier than the present date, we have an account of the martyrdom of
Pantaleon, recognised also by the Greeks by the name of Pantelemon, a name
signifying, "full of compassion:" he was a native of Nicomedia, in Bithynia,
was blessed in having a Christian mother, who instructed him in youth in the
religion of Christ, but of whom he was in early life deprived by death. His
father, on whom the responsibility of his education now entirely devolved, was
a Pagan, and placed his son in a situation where he could study the

* After the perpetration of these atrocities, "a strange event," says
Eusebius, "took place. The air happened to be clear and bright, and the aspect
of the whole heavens was most serene. Then, suddenly, from the greater part of
the columns that supported the public porticoes, issued drops like tears; and
the market-places and streets, though there was no moisture from the air, I
know not whence it came, were sprinkled with water and became wet: so that it
was immediately spread abroad among all, that in an unaccountable manner the
earth wept, not being able to endure the extreme impiety of those deeds, and,
to address a reproof to men of a relentless and callous nature, the very
stones and senseless matter could bewail these facts. I well know that these
accounts may, perhaps, appear an idle tale and a fable to posterity; but it
was not so to those who had its truth confirmed by their presence at the
time." (De Mart. Palest.)

† Peter, called the Ascetic, probably from the extraordinary severity of life
and self-denial that he exhibited at an early age.

‡ Eusebius, De Mart. Palest., cap. x.

learning of the times, in which he made such progress, that in a few years he
became one of the most eminent Physicians of the age. Galerius, who, on the
resignation of Diocletian, raised himself to the imperial throne in the East,
kept his court at Nicomedia, and installed Pantaleon in the office of
Physician to his court and household. The corruptions of such a court would,
doubtless, easily have effaced whatever impression his mother's instructions
had made upon his mind, had not Almighty God beheld him with compassion, and
in his providence directed him to one Hermolaus, a venerable old man, and a
sincere Christian, who undertook to instruct him in the way of God more
perfectly: this he accomplished with such success, that Pantaleon soon became
one of the warmest assertors and defenders of the truth as it is in Jesus. The
church in Nicomedia was still suffering under the persecution which commenced
in that city in the year 303, and even now raged in that place more fiercely
than in other parts of the empire. The situation and profession of Pantaleon
did not afford him opportunity to adopt the same measures for his personal
security as those of others: therefore, finding himself exposed to the public
gaze as a Christian, he began to prepare for martyrdom by the exercise of
those duties which placed the religion he professed in such an advantageous
light, as caused numbers to embrace it. The reputation which he acquired,
through the blessing of God attending his prescriptions, roused the envy and
jealousy of the pagan Physicians, who at once began to plot his destruction.
An opportunity soon presented; for it was by no means difficult to find ways
of effecting their purpose, when Christianity was so odious to the powers who
governed that part of the world. His adversaries complained of his proceedings
to Galerius, and assured him that it was in vain to anticipate the extirpation
of Christianity from out of the imperial city, so long as Pantaleon was
suffered to corrupt the minds of the people, and to make such a number of
proselytes. The Emperor was surprised to hear that he harboured an enemy to
the gods in his own court, resolved to know the truth, and had the
mortification of being convinced that he had not been misinformed. Galerius
omitted no means by which he hoped to induce Pantaleon to embrace the worship
of the pagan deities; but finding him invincible to threatenings or promises,
he ordered him first to be tortured, and afterwards beheaded.* The venerable
Hermolaus, who instructed Pantaleon in the faith, was dragged from his
retreat, and in the same manner glorified God.

Sufficient has now been related, to adopt the language of a modern writer, of
the early persecution of the Christians, to make the reader acquainted with
the most striking circumstances by which that dark series of events was
distinguished. The principal points to which we would direct his attention, in
reflecting on the narratives which have been given, are those that
distinguished these persecutions of Christi-

* Alban Butler very sagely informs us, that the relics of Pantaleon were
translated to Constantinople, and there preserved with much honour. The
greater part of them are now shown in the abbey of St. Denys, near Paris; but
his head is at Lyons. Credat Judæus. Ipelia.

FORTITUDE OF THE CHRISTIANS.

anity from other religious persecutions, either of an earlier or a later date.
The primitive Christians were, it is probable, the first people in the world
that ever suffered from religious motives, wholly unmixed with any of a
different nature. There appears the strongest reason for believing that, in
the convulsions of the ancient world, the struggles which took place were
conflicts between liberty and slavery, who set up their standards at the same
time that hostile religions disputed with each other for empire.* Even in the
persecution which the Jews suffered under Antiochus Epiphanes, something of
this kind may be discovered. The Syrian was an invader and a political tyrant,
as well as a persecutor; and the Jews were at least as proud of their
superiority as a nation as they were zealous for the observance of their
religious rites. Scarcely, however, had the sufferers been made to feel the
hand of the oppressor, when they rose unanimously, and resisted the sword with
the sword; triumphing by that fierce and stern vigour which, when force is to
be opposed by force, can only be supplied by the impulse of a national spirit.
But the Christians of the first three centuries had no motive of this kind
either for acting or suffering: the seed of their fortitude was in their
souls, and the plant which sprang from it had no nurture but what it received
from heaven. Other seed was here and there mixed with the former, and the dew
of blessing was sometimes dissipated as it fell on hot and intemperate hearts;
but, as a people, the early sufferers for Christianity had no reasons for
their conduct but those which were established on that precept of their
Scriptures, that by resigning this life for the sake of truth, they should
gain one of eternal continuance. Submission to the reigning powers was a duty,
to which they had been exhorted both by their heavenly Master and his inspired
Apostles; and they could, therefore, never feel themselves agitated by the
passions which usually incite to resistance: the only part they could lawfully
take in the politics of their age was to pray that they might be peaceably and
quietly governed. The medium of their sentiments on such subjects was to be a
prayer for all in authority; and the only weapons with which they were to
contend against the power and tyranny of persecuting rulers and unjust judges
were the words, and, more frequently, only the manifestations, of holiness and
resignation which they were taught by the divine Spirit.†

* The spirit of severity towards erroneous persons, in whomsoever it is found,
is opposed to the calm temper of Christianity, as intimated in the reply of
Christ to his disciples, "Ye know not what spirit ye are of;" that is, "Ye do
not well consider under what dispensation ye were placed by me. The way I come
to teach men, the temper, disposition, and affection I would fix within them,
is not a furious, persecuting, and destructive spirit, but mild and gentle and
tender of the lives and interests of men, even of those who are our greatest
enemies." Under the Old-Testament dispensation, they who rejected and scoffed
at a Prophet, suffered severely for it; the Prophet had commission to call for
fire from heaven to devour them presently, and to curse them in the name of
the Lord. But they who reject and crucify Christ, are by him prayed for, and
are, by his command, still to be preached unto, and if possible brought to
repentance: and according to this example all Christians are to conform
themselves, acting towards despisers of their persons, or rejectors of their
doctrines, not according to the legal, but the evangelical, dispensation; not
according to the severity of Elias, but the meekness and gentleness of Christ.
(Dr. Haramood.)

† It is not easy to add anything of moment to the conclusions of Jeremy
Taylor:—

"It is one of the glories of Christianity, that it came in upon the world with
no other

VOL. II. 8

This humility and peaceableness of disposition constituted a part of their
religious profession, and the situation in which they stood rendered the
exercise of these virtues constantly necessary. They were opposed, in their
belief, to all the nations of the earth; but few as they were in number, and
contradictory as was their creed to that of all other men, it was the open and
professed object of their lives to convert the world to their faith. Had they
been of a turbulent disposition, had they been less meek in their sentiments
and appearance, the hostility which was provoked by their refusal to comply
with established customs, would have given birth to conflicts in which not
some few distinguished members of the society would have died, setting an
example of fortitude to the rest, but the whole body would have been cut off;
fortitude and resignation blunting the edge of the sharpest sword, while pride
and an active valour add continually to its keenness. However useful,
therefore, the latter qualities may be to a people when contending with
enemies to whom their physical force bears some proportion, it is on the
careful cultivation of the former that the members of a new sect must depend
for their only chance of success; and thus the spirit and the maxims of
Christianity required an implicit conformity of disposition in those who
professed the religion, not only for their own excellency, but for the power
which such a conformity would give to whatever means were employed for the
diffusion of the faith.* "Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they
that take the sword shall perish with the sword," was the exhortation of the
Saviour; intimating, that it was not by the boldness which gives success to
other enterprises that his cause was to be advocated, but by an imitation of
his own meekness and resignation. How well these directions were followed in
numerous instances, has been seen. The refusal to recognise any other God but
one, was the sole cause why the persecuted Christians stood opposed to their
rulers; they had no object in view by their labours but the instruction of
their countrymen in the sublime truths of their faith; they had no interests,
as the members of a state, separate from the rest of the citizens. The
doctrines which they preached had a direct tenforce but that of reason and
demonstration of the Spirit; that towards the persons of men it was always
full of meekness, charity, compliance, toleration, condescension, and
forbearance, restoring persons overtaken with an error in the spirit of
meekness. Now things are best preserved by that which gives them their first
being, and which agrees best with their temper and constitution; and it would
be a mighty disparagement to so glorious an institution, that in its principle
it should be merciful and humane, and in the propagation of it so inhuman; and
it would be improbable and unreasonable, that the sword should be used in the
persuasion of one proposition, and yet in the persuasion of the whole nothing
like it. To do so may serve the end of a temporal Prince, but will never
promote the honour of Christ's kingdom." (Liberty of Propheying.)

* It was a principle which generally obtained among Christians till the days
of Constantine, and afterwards continued to be maintained by several fathers
of the church, "that men were to be left to their freedom in matters of
religion, and not to be compelled by outward punishments to the profession of
it." Tertullian says, "This is the natural right of all men, to worship what
they think fit. It is no business of religion to compel men to religion; for
that," he says, "must be embraced willingly, and not by force. Consider," he
says, "whether this do not add to your irreligion, to forbid the freedom of
religion, and interdict the choice of a Deity, that I may not worship whom I
will, but must be compelled to worship whom I would not." (Tertulli., ad.
Scap., cap. ii.; Apolog., cap. xxiv.)

FORTITUDE AND FORBEARANCE OF THE CHURCH.

dency to make them satisfied and peaceable under whatever form of government
they lived; and the precepts by which they professed to be guided were
positive in enjoining the utmost forbearance and charity towards erring and
unenlightened men. With such feelings, the early Christians could provoke
neither jealousy nor fear on the part of their opponents; for they gave no
signs of ambition, were too meek to engage in treasons, too pure in their
morals to afford any dangerous example, and were too intently engaged on one
subject to form any alliance with the disaffected, or the broachers of any
other system. As the religion for which these single-hearted and heroic men
suffered became more extensively known in the world, and, under the protection
of the great and powerful, was rendered respectable in the eyes of those who
had no conception of its real, internal excellence, a different race of
Christians grew up; and the motives which induced men to bear the name became
complicated and indirect. Interest and custom were thenceforward more
frequently the parents of belief than either reason or openness of heart; and
faith thus sitting so loosely on the conscience, it was found necessary to
define what was to be believed with more exactness, and to remind the careless
professor of his creed by appeals to his outward senses.* In the invention or
support of a system which answered the purpose of defining matters of belief,
so that they might be assented to, or understood, by those who were too
indolent or too gross-minded to receive them unless so propounded, differences
of sentiment would, it is easy to see, often arise, both among those who first
produced the systems, and those by whom they were afterwards to be supported.
The doctrines of Christianity being thus mixed with something human, and men
being for the most part more ready to look with interest on what is human than
on what is divine, a variety of new objects would demand their attention and
reverence; and names unknown to their fathers in the faith would be adopted,
and not unfrequently preferred, to the simple appellation of Christian. The
chances of disagreement being multiplied, persecution also would see new
opportunities for unsheathing her sword; and in the course of the struggles
which ensued, the fierceness of the conflict was more owing to zeal for
particular names than for the holiest of doctrines; a circumstance nowhere

* "The Epistles of the Arians," says Hilary, "what do they, but deprecate the
liberty of faith, and ask for bonds and prisons, and tribunals, and all that
is pernicious? whereas, the Almighty rather taught, than exacted, the
knowledge of himself; and learning the authority of his commands by the works
of his power, despised all compelled confessions of himself. If such force be
used to compel your faith," he said to the Arians, "the episcopal doctrine
would oppose it, and would say, God is the God of the whole world, and needs
no compelled obedience, nor requires any such confession of Him; he is not to
be deceived, but well pleased. God is to be sought with simplicity, learnt by
confession, loved by charity, worshipped by fear, retained by probity of will:
whence is it, therefore, that Priests are compelled by bands, and commanded by
punishment, to fear God; that they are imprisoned, &c.? Therefore do ye labour
and rule the commonwealth with salutary counsels," saith he to the Emperor,
"that all under your government may enjoy the sweetest liberty; there is no
other way to compose our troubles; let thy levity permit the people to hear
them teaching whom they would hear, whom they think meet, whom they choose."
(Hilar., Lib. ad Constant. August.)

8 2 apparent in the contest which the primitive Christians endured with
Paganism.*

No eloquence can do justice to the fortitude of the faithful who suffered in
Phrygia, Antioch, Pontus, and in the neighbouring places. Free leave was given
to any to injure them, by beating them with clubs or rods, with thongs of
leather, or with ropes. Some, having their hands tied behind them, were
suspended on the rack, and every limb of their bodies stretched by some rude,
but complicated, machinery. The tormentors rent their whole bodies with iron
nails, which were applied, not only to the sides, as in the case of murderers,
but also to the belly, legs, and cheeks; others were suspended by one hand to
the portico, and underwent the most severe distention of all their joints;
others were bound to pillars, face to face, their feet being raised above the
ground, that their bonds, being elongated by the weight of their bodies, might
be the closer drawn together: and this they endured almost a whole day without
intermission. The Governor ordered them to be bound with the greatest
severity, and, when they breathed their last, to be dragged on the ground. "No
care," said he, "ought to be taken of these Christians: let all treat them as
unworthy of the name of men." Some expired under their tortures; others,
having been recovered by methods taken to heal them, and being reduced to the
alternative of sacrificing or dying, cheerfully preferred the latter. For they
knew what was written, "Whosoever sacrificeth to other gods, shall be
destroyed;" and, "Thou shalt have none other gods but me." Such were the words
of a martyr, a true lover of wisdom and of God, which, previous to the
definitive sentence of his execution, he sent to the brethren of his church.
One city in Phrygia,† being generally Christian, was besieged by armed men,
and set on fire. The men, with their wives and children, were burnt to death,
calling upon Christ, the God over all. All the inhabitants,‡ Magistrates and
people, nobles and plebeians, professing Christianity, were ordered to
sacrifice, and, for refusing, suffered in this manner.§

* Stebbing, History of the Christian Church, vol. i., p. 129. The excuse which
the Heathens offered for their cruelty against the Christians, was, that they
thus punished the Christians to revenge the injuries inflicted by their faith
and doctrines upon their gods. This, the ancient father says, is a ridiculous
and absurd mode of procedure: they ought rather to leave the sacrilegious and
impious transgressors of their law, to the vengeance of their gods. "If your
deities have any power," says Cyprian, "let them rise up and vindicate
themselves, and by their majesty defend themselves: for what can they do for
those who worship them, who are unable to defend themselves against the
impugners of their authority, and even existence?" (Cypr. ad Demet., cap.
xii.) "Is it so," saith Arnobius, "that the gods desire the protection of men?
Are they not able, without your defence, to vindicate themselves, and repel
the calumnies of us Christians?" (Arnob., lib. i.) "When the Heathens punish
the sacrilegious," says Lactantius, "they distrust the power of their gods;
for if they think they can do anything, why do they not leave them to execute
their own vengeance on the offenders?" (Lactant., Div. Institut., lib. ii.,
cap. 4.)

† Euseb., Hist. Eccles., lib. viii., cap. 11.

‡ Gibbon observes, that there was an important circumstance which has been
noticed by Ruffinus, the Latin translator of Eusebius, that the gates were
opened to permit them to depart if they pleased. The remark is worthy of his
own malignity. Is it to be supposed that this permission was unconditional?
Eusebius informs us, that it was expected from them all that they should
sacrifice.

§ Euseb., Eccles. Hist., lib. viii., cap. 11.

CRUELTIES IN PHRYGIA, ANTIOCH, &C.

One Adauctus, a Christian of the highest dignity, who held at that time an
office of great importance, was honoured also with the crown of martyrdom.
Some were slain by axes, as in Arabia; some by breaking the legs, as in
Cappadocia; some, suspended by their feet with the head downward over a slow
fire, were suffocated, as in Mesopotamia; some were mutilated and cut in
pieces, as at Alexandria; some, to avoid falling into the hands of their
enemies, committed suicide, by precipitating themselves from the tops of
houses. Lamentable instances of impatience! But the reader will remember, that
the decline had been very great from Christian purity: that so many should
suffer like Christians in so dull a time, can scarcely be accounted for, but
on the idea of the Lord's reviving his work, and ministering the Holy Spirit
amidst their afflictions. We cannot commend the conduct of a lady of Antioch,
or that of her two daughters, who, to avoid the licentious brutality of the
soldiers, drowned themselves. Two others in the city of Antioch, persons of
quality, and of great piety, died in a much more Christian manner, being
thrown into the sea by the persecutors. As infidel writers have taken pains to
depreciate the authenticity of these facts, it has been thought proper to give
a just picture of them from Eusebius. In addition to what has been adduced
from Lactantius, and ancient memorials, it may with justice be said, in favour
of the credibility of the writer, whose character as a historian of veracity
is before us, that he is large and circumstantial in scenes of which he was a
spectator; succinct and general, where he had no opportunity of knowing the
circumstances. Of the martyrs of Palestine, his own country, he has given us a
copious narrative, a specimen of which has already been delivered, containing
those whose martyrdom fell within the period of Diocletian's reign. The rest
must be considered hereafter. Procopius* was the first of those martyrs who,
being brought before the tribunal, and ordered to sacrifice to the gods,
declared, that he knew only one God, to whom he ought to sacrifice in the
manner which he has appointed. Being then ordered to make libations to the
four Emperors, he repeated a verse of Homer, which by no means pleased the
persecutors, as implying a censure of the present government. Upon this he was
beheaded immediately. Whether the empire was benefited by the appointment of
four Emperors instead of one, is a question of politics, which it certainly
became not the martyr to enter upon, especially on that occasion. And it is
the only instance of deviation into secular matters, which we remember to have
seen in primitive Christians, as yet. It might be only a sally of imprudent
vivacity; but even so, it was extremely ill-timed. Galerius, in whose
dominions he said this, would probably hear of it; and this fiercest of all
the persecutors needed not the addition of such an incentive, to inflame his
wrath against the Christians.†

* Procopius, after his conversion, brake his images of silver and gold, and
distributed the same to the poor; and after all kinds of torments, of racking,
of carding, of tearing his flesh, of goring, stabbing, and firing, at length
had his head smitten off. (Foxe, Acts and Monuments.)

† Milner, History of the Church, cent. iv., chap. i., vol. i., p. 482.

The continued separation of the Pastors from their respective flocks, was
attended with a serious evil, independent of their personal sufferings:
unhappily, it furnished occasion for a schism, which continued to exist for a
long period in the Alexandrian church. Meletius, Bishop of Lycopolis, taking
advantage of the absence of Peter and the other Bishops, took upon himself to
make regulations which no persons but the Bishops of the diocese had authority
to do. Provision had been made for the spiritual wants of the Christians; but
Meletius was determined to interfere, and even went so far as to ordain some
persons for the ministry. An account of these proceedings soon reached the
Bishops who were imprisoned at Alexandria; and the following, Hesychius,
Pachymius, Theodorus, and Phileas, addressed a joint epistle to Meletius,
expostulating with him on the irregularity of his conduct. This letter is
still extant;* and we learn from it, that it was contrary to all custom for
one Bishop to ordain in the diocese of another; and it also shows, that these
Bishops looked up to Peter, as exercising over them a kind of metropolitan
authority.† Meletius paid no attention to this remonstrance; but when the
authors of it had closed their career by martyrdom, he went to Alexandria, and
continued there the same irregular proceedings. Two persons supported him in
his ambitious views: one of them was Isidorus, the other Arius,‡ who
afterwards became so celebrated for his heretical tenets; and by the
assistance of these men, Meletius was able to draw after him some of the
Presbyters, who were left by Peter in charge of the Alexandrian church. Being
now at the head of a party, he visited the confessors, who were in the prison
or in the mines; and two of them received ordination from his hands.§ When
Peter heard of this open infringement of his rights, he wrote from his place
of concealment to his flock at Alexandria, telling them not to hold communion
with Meletius, but to wait till he could return and investigate the affair.
The time of his re-visiting Alexandria is uncertain; but since the persecution
was continued in Egypt, and with still greater fury, for the four or five
following years, it is most probable that he did not quit his concealment till
after the death of Galerius in 311. There is evidence that Meletius himself
was a sufferer in these scenes of cruelty. He was accused of having purchased
his safety by consenting to sacrifice; but he probably lay for some time in
prison before he took this step: and for the present his schismatical conduct
was checked, though he found ample opportunity to resume it afterwards.||

* It was first published by Maffei; (Osservazioni Letterarie, vol. ii., p.
11—18;) and by Routh. (Relig. Sacr., vol. iii., p. 381. Oxon. 1815.)

† Epiphanius mentions Egypt, and the Thebaid, Libya, Ammonia, Marootis, and
Pentapolis, being under the Bishop (or, as he was then called, the Archbishop)
of Alexandria. (Herres. lxviii., cap. 1.)

I Socrat., Eccles. Hist., lib. i., cap. 15.

§ This is also confirmed by Sozom., lib. i., cap. 24. A very different origin
of the Meletian schism is given by Epiphanius; (Herres. lxviii.;) but it is
much safer to follow Athanasius, Socrates, and Sozomen. Pagi places the origin
of this heresy in 301; ad Baron., Ann. 306, §. xxix.

II Burton, Lect. Eccles. Hist., lect. xxix.

VARIOUS MARTYRS IN ITALY.

At Cirta * in Numidia, Paul, the Bishop, ordered a Sub-Deacon to deliver up
the treasures of the church to a Roman officer. The Holy Scriptures, and the
moveables of this society of Christians, were surrendered by the perfidy or
cowardice of those who ought to have protected them. But the Most High
reserved some who were endowed with courage and zeal, at the hazard of their
lives, to take care of the sacred writings, and baffle the intention of the
persecutors, which, doubtless, was to destroy all records of Christianity
among men. Felix of Tibiura,† in Africa, being asked to deliver up the
Scriptures, answered, "I have them, but will not part with them." He was
condemned to be beheaded. "I thank thee, O Lord," says this honest martyr,
"that I have lived fifty-six years, have preserved the Gospel, and have
preached faith and truth. O my Lord Jesus Christ, the God of heaven and earth,
I bow my head to be sacrificed to thee, who livest to all eternity." It is not
judged amiss to distinguish this man in the narrative. The preservation of
civil liberty is valuable, and the names of men who have suffered for it with
integrity are recorded with honour. But how much below the name of Felix of
Tibiura should these be accounted! He is one of those heroes who have
preserved to us the precious word of God itself. In Abitina, in Africa, forty-
nine manfully perished through hunger and ill-treatment. In Sicily,‡ Euplius,
a martyr, being asked, "Why do you keep the Scriptures, forbidden by the
Emperors?" answered, "Because I am a Christian. Life eternal is in them. He
that gives them up loses life eternal." Let his name be remembered with
honour, together with that of Felix: he suffered also in the same cause, in
company with various other martyrs in Italy.§

In the midst of the confusion which now prevailed throughout the empire, the
eyes of all were turned toward Constantine, the elder son of Constantius. If
not already recognised by the prophetic glance of devout hope as the first
Christian Sovereign of Rome, he seemed placed by providential wisdom as the
protector and head of the Christian interest. The enemies of Christianity were
his; and if he were not, as yet, bound by the hereditary attachment of a son
to the religion of his mother Helena, his father would bequeath him the wise
example of wisdom and moderation.¶ The place of his birth, as well as the
condition of his mother Helena, has been the subject, not only of literary,
but of national, dispute. Notwithstanding the recent tradition which assigns
for her father a British King, we are obliged to confess, says Gibbon, that
Helena was the daughter of an innkeeper; but, at the same time, we may defend
the legality of her marriage, against those who have represented her as the
concubine ¶ of Constantius. The great Constantine was, most probably, born at
Naissus, in Dacia; and it is not surprising, that in a family and

* Gesta apud Zenoph., in Routh, Relig. Sacra, vol. iv., p. 101. Oxon. 1815.

† Ruinart, Acta Sincera Martyr., p. 313.

‡ Ibid., p. 361.

§ Milner, History of the Church, vol. i., p. 488.

¶ Milman, History of Christianity, vol. ii., p. 282.

¶ By insisting on the divorce of Helena, Diocletian acknowledged the validity
of her marriage.

province distinguished only by the profession of arms, the youth should
discover very little inclination to improve his mind by the acquisition of
knowledge. He was about eighteen years of age when his father was promoted to
the rank of Cæsar; but that fortunate event was attended with his mother's
divorce; and the splendour of an imperial alliance reduced the son of Helena
to a state of disgrace and humiliation.* Instead of following Constantius in
the West, he remained in the service of Diocletian, signalized his valour in
the wars of Egypt and Persia, and gradually rose to the honourable station of
a Tribune of the first order. The figure of Constantine was tall and majestic;
he was dexterous in all his exercises, intrepid in war, affable in peace; in
his whole conduct, the active spirit of youth was tempered by habitual
prudence; and while his mind was engrossed by ambition, he appeared cold and
insensible to the allurements of pleasure.† Constantius became exceedingly
ill, and wrote to Galerius requesting that his son Constantine might be sent
to see him. He had made a similar proposal long before, but in vain: for
Galerius meant nothing less than to grant it; on the contrary, he laid
repeated snares for the life of that young man. He durst not use open
violence, lest he should stir up civil wars against himself, and incur that
which he most dreaded, the hate and resentment of the army. Under pretence of
manly exercise and recreation, he made him combat with wild beasts; but this
device was frustrated: for the power of God protected Constantine, and, in the
very moment of jeopardy, rescued him from the hands of his pretended friend.
At length, Galerius, when he could no longer avoid complying with the request
of Constantius, one evening gave Constantine a warrant to depart, and
commanded him to set out the following morning with the imperial despatches.
Galerius meant to find either some pretext for detaining Constantine, or to
forward instructions to Severus for arresting him on the road. Constantine
discovered his object; and, therefore, after supper, when the Emperor was gone
to rest, he hastened away, carried off from the principal stages all the
horses maintained at the public expense, and escaped. Next day the Emperor,
having purposely remained in his bed-chamber until noon, ordered Constantine
to be called into his presence; but he learnt that the Prince had set out
immediately after supper.‡ Outrageous with passion, he ordered horses to be
made ready, that Constantine might be pursued, and dragged back; and hearing
that all the horses had been carried off from the main road, he could scarcely
refrain from tears.§ In the mean time Constantine,

* The tradition which raises Helena to the rank of King's daughter, was
unknown to the contemporaries of Constantine, was invented in the darkness of
monasteries, was embellished by Geoffrey of Monmouth, and the writers of the
twelfth century, has been defended by our antiquarians of the last century,
and is seriously related in the ponderous History of England, compiled by Mr.
Carte. (Vol. i., p. 147, fol. Lond. 1747.) He transports, however, the kingdom
of Coil, the imaginary father of Helena, from Essex, to the wall of Antoninus.

† Gibbon, Decline and Fall, &c., vol. ii., p. 188 8vo. edit.

‡ Zosimus tells a very foolish story, that Constantine caused all the post-
horses which he had used to be hamstrung. Such a bloody execution, without
preventing a pursuit, would have scattered suspicions, and might have stopped
his journey. (Lib. ii., pp. 78, 79. 8vo. Oxon., 1679.)

§ Lactant., De Mort. Persec., cap. xxiv.; Euseb., De Vita Constant., lib. i.,
cap. xxi.

THE CHARACTER OF CONSTANTINE.

travelling with incredible rapidity, reached his father before he expired. He
ended his life in the imperial palace of York, fifteen months after he had
received the title of Augustus, and almost fourteen years and a half after he
had been promoted to the rank of Cæsar.

The death of Constantius was succeeded by the elevation of Constantine. The
ideas of succession and inheritance are so very familiar, that the generality
of mankind consider them as founded, not only in reason, but in nature itself.
Our imagination readily transfers the same principles from private property to
public dominion; and whenever a virtuous father leaves behind him a son, whose
merit seems to justify the esteem, or even the hopes, of the people, the joint
influence of prejudice and of affection operates with irresistible weight. The
flower of the Western armies had followed Constantius into Britain, and the
national troops were reinforced by a numerous body of Alemanni, who obeyed the
orders of Crocus, one of their hereditary Chieftains. The opinion of their own
importance, and the assurance that Britain, Gaul, and Spain would acquiesce in
their nomination, were diligently inculcated to the legions by the adherents
of Constantine. The soldiers were asked, whether they could hesitate a moment
between the honour of placing at their head the worthy son of their beloved
Emperor, and the ignominy of tamely expecting the arrival of some obscure
stranger, on whom it might please the Sovereign of Asia to bestow the armies
and provinces of the West? It was insinuated to them, that gratitude and
liberality held a distinguished place among the virtues of Constantine; nor
did that Prince show himself to the troops, till they were prepared to salute
him with the names of Augustus and Emperor. The throne was the object of his
desire; and had he been less actuated by ambition, it was his only means of
safety.* He was well acquainted with the character and sentiments of Galerius,
and sufficiently apprized, that if he wished to live, he must determine to
reign. The decent, and even obstinate, resistance which he offered to the
soldiery, was in character with his general conduct; and he did not yield to
the acclamations of the army, until he had provided the proper materials for a
letter, which he immediately despatched to the Emperor of the East.
Constantine informed him of the melancholy event of his father's death,
modestly asserted his natural claim to the succession, and respectfully
lamented, that the affectionate violence of his troops had not permitted him
to solicit the imperial purple in the regular and constitutional manner. The
first emotions of Galerius were those of surprise, disappointment, and rage;
and, as he could seldom restrain his passions, he loudly threatened, that he
would commit to the flames both the letter and the messenger. But his
resentment insensibly subsided; and when he recollected the doubtful chance of
war, when he had weighed the character and strength of his adversary, he
consented to embrace the honourable accommodation which the prudence of
Constantine had

* The panegyrist of Constantine, Eumenius, ventures to affirm, in the presence
of Constantine, that he put spurs to his horse, and tried, but in vain, to
escape from the hands of the soldiers. (Lib. vii., cap. 8. Vid. Delph. Class.
Varior. Not., No. 122.)

T opened to him. Without either condemning or ratifying the choice of the
British army, Galerius accepted the son of his deceased colleague, as the
Sovereign of the provinces beyond the Alps; but he gave him only the title of
Cæsar, and the fourth rank among the Roman Princes, whilst he conferred the
vacant place of Augustus on his favourite Severus. The apparent harmony of the
empire was still preserved; and Constantine, who already possessed the
substance, expected without impatience an opportunity of obtaining the
honours, of supreme power.* The children of Constantius, by his second
marriage, were six in number, three of either sex; and their imperial descent
might have solicited a preference over the meauer extraction of the son of
Helena. But Constantine was in the thirty-second year of his age, in the full
vigour both of mind and body, at the time when the eldest of his brothers
could not possibly be more than thirteen years old. His claim of superior
merit had been allowed and ratified by the dying Emperor. In his last moments,
Constantius bequeathed to his eldest son the care of the safety, as well as
greatness, of the family; conjuring him to assume both the authority and the
sentiments of a father, with regard to the children of Theodora. Their liberal
education, advantageous marriages, the secure dignity of their lives, and the
first honours of the state with which they were invested, attest the fraternal
affection of Constantine; and as those Princes possessed a mild and grateful
disposition, they submitted without reluctance to the superiority of his
genius and fortune.†

Galerius had bitterly provoked the inhabitants of Rome by a somewhat novel and
vexatious mode of taxation, which, added to the long absence of the Sovereigns
from the imperial city, filled the empire with indignation and discontent, and
ultimately induced a rival to his throne to be encouraged and supported. The
name of this aspirant was Maxentius, the son of the late Emperor Herculeus,
who had also married the daughter of Galerius. His birth and alliance appeared
to offer him the fairest promise of succeeding to the empire; but his vices
and incapacity procured him the same exclusion from the dignity of Cæsar,
which Constantine had deserved by a dangerous superiority of merit. The policy
of Galerius preferred such associates as would never disgrace the choice, nor
dispute the commands, of their benefactor. An obscure stranger was therefore
raised to the throne of Italy; and the son of the late Emperor of the West was
left to enjoy the luxury of a private fortune in a villa a few miles distant
from the capital. The gloomy passions of his soul, shame, vexation, and rage,
were inflamed by envy on the news of Constantine's success; but the hopes of
Maxentius revived with the public discontent, and he was easily persuaded to
unite his personal injury and pretensions with the cause of the Roman people.
Two Praetorian Tribunæ, and a commissary of provisions, undertook the
management of the conspiracy; and as every order of men was actuated by the
same spirit, the immediate

* Gibbon, Decline and Fall, vol. ii., p. 191. 8vo. edit.

† Of the three sisters of Constantine, Constantia married the Emperor
Licinius; Anastasia, the Cæsar Bassianus; and Eutropia, the Consul Nepotianus.
The three brothers were, Dalmatius, Julius Constantius, and Annibalianus.

SEVERUS IS OVERCOME, AND SLAIN.

event was neither doubtful nor difficult. The Prefect of the city and a few
Magistrates, who maintained their fidelity to Severus, were massacred by the
guards; and Maxentius, invested with the imperial ornaments, was acknowledged
by the applauding Senate and people, as the protector of the Roman freedom and
dignity; but as soon as the standard of rebellion was erected at Rome, the old
Emperor broke from the retirement where the authority of Diocletian had
condemned him to pass a life of melancholy solitude, and concealed his
returning ambition under the disguise of paternal tenderness.* At the request
of his son and the Senate, he condescended to re-assume the purple.† His
ancient dignity, his experience, and his fame in arms, added strength, as well
as reputation, to the party of Maxentius.‡

Galerius now thought seriously of checking this formidable opponent, and the
new Emperor Severus was ordered to march into Italy. He immediately hastened
to Rome, in the full confidence that, by his unexpected celerity, he should
easily suppress the tumult of an unwarlike populace commanded by a licentious
and headstrong youth. In this, however, he was fatally mistaken. On his
arrival before the gates of the city, he found them closed against him, the
walls were filled with men and arms, an experienced General at the head of the
rebels, and his own troops destitute of attachment or courage. A large body of
Moors had deserted to the enemy, being allured by the promise of a larger
donative. Anulinus, the Praetorian Prefect, declared himself in favour of
Maxentius, and drew after him a considerable portion of the troops. The
unfortunate Severus, destitute of counsel and of friends, fled to Ravenna,
where for some time he might have been safe. Herculeus conducted the siege in
person, and, soon finding that the position of the fugitive was almost
impregnable, endeavoured by subtlety to overcome Severus. The emissaries of
the father of Maxentius persuaded him, that a conspiracy was formed to betray
the town, and prevailed upon him not to expose himself to the discretion of an
irritated conqueror, but to accept the faith of an honourable capitulation. He
was at first received with humanity, and treated with respect. Herculeus
conducted the captive Emperor to Rome, and gave him the most solemn assurances
that he had secured his life by the resignation of the purple. But Severus
could obtain only an easy death, and an imperial funeral. When the sentence
was signified to him, the manner of executing it was left to his own choice:
he preferred the favourite mode of the ancients, that of opening his veins;
and as soon as he expired, his body was carried to the sepulchre which had
been constructed for the family of Gallienus.

* "Maxentius in the commencement pretended, by a species of accommodation and
flattery towards the Romans, that he was of our faith. He therefore commanded
his subjects to desist from persecuting the Christians, pretending to piety,
with a view to appear much more mild and merciful than the former rulers. But
he by no means proved to be in his actions such as he was expected." (Euseb.,
Eccles. Hist., lib. viii., cap. 14.) This kindness was only assumed to serve a
purpose.

† At present, Constantine stood rather aloof from the affairs of Italy and the
East; and till the resumption of the purple by Herculeus, his active mind was
chiefly employed in the consolidation of his own power in Gaul, and the
repulse of the German barbarians, who threatened the frontiers of the Rhine.
(Milman.)

‡ Gibbon, Decline and Fall, vol. ii., p. 196, 8vo., Milman's Edit.

T 2

News was ere long brought to Rome that Galerius, in order to revenge the death
of Severus, was drawing towards that city, at the head of a powerful army
collected from Illyricum and the East. Though the characters of Constantine
and Maxentius had but little affinity with each other, their situation and
interests were somewhat identified: prudence therefore dictated that they
should unite their forces against the common enemy. With this object in view,
Herculeus visited Gaul, accompanied by his daughter Fausta, whom he gave in
marriage to Constantine as the pledge of the new alliance. In the mean time
Galerius had marched to Rome, impatient to punish the inhabitants as well as
Maxentius. But his soldiers dealt with Galerius as they had with Severus. He
found every place hostile, fortified, and inaccessible. He made the first
advances towards a reconciliation, and despatched two of his most considerable
officers to tempt the Roman Princes by the offer of a conference, and the
declaration of his paternal regard for Maxentius, who might obtain much more
by his liberality than he could hope from the doubtful chance of war. The
offers of Galerius were rejected with firmness; his perfidious friendship
refused with contempt; and it was not long before he discovered, that, unless
he provided for his safety by a timely retreat, he had some reason to
apprehend the fate of Severus. During his flight, Maxentius hung on his rear;
but he very prudently declined a general engagement with those brave and
desperate veterans. His father had undertaken a second journey into Gaul, with
the hope of persuading Constantine, who had assembled an army on the frontier,
to join the pursuit, and to complete the victory. The actions of Constantine
were guided by reason, and not by resentment. He persisted in the wise
resolution of maintaining a balance of power in the divided empire, and he no
longer hated Galerius when that aspiring Prince had ceased to be an object of
terror.*

On their return, Herculeus shared the government of Rome with his son. In
this, however, they could not agree; and perceiving that Maxentius was the
favourite with the army, he resolved to visit Galerius in Illyria. Diocletian
was also there at the same time; and while there, Galerius made Licinius
Emperor in the room of Severus. At this Maxentius was terribly enraged, and,
without waiting for the consent of Galerius, took the same title to himself.
About the same time another Emperor appeared in Africa. Maxentius wished to
extend his authority in that country; but meeting with opposition at Carthage,
and from Alexander, who commanded the Praetorian guards, he laid a plan for
destroying him. Alexander, having discovered it, assumed the purple himself,
and was able to retain his dignity for more than three years. One of his first
acts was to persecute the Christians, and they continued more or less in a
state of suffering during the whole of that time. We also learn from the
events of this period, that the Egyptian church was not partaking of the peace
which was enjoyed by the subjects of Constantine. Egypt was considered to
belong to the eastern division of the empire, and was therefore subject to
Maximinus. That monster appears to have been again in Palestine during

* Gibbon, Decline and Fall, vol. ii., p. 203, Milman's Edit., 8vo.

ANTONY THE MONK.

part of this year, (307,) and when he was absent, his orders were executed to
the utmost of his wishes by Urbanus, and subsequently by Firmilianus, who was
Governor of the province, and the work of torture was kept up during the whole
period at Cæsaræ.* The Martyrologies speak of a Governor of Egypt, named
Mennas, who was a Christian; and Hermogenes, who was sent to supersede him, is
said to have been also converted. Maximinus then went in person to Alexandria,
and had both these persons tortured to death; but though there is reason to
think that Maximinus was at Alexandria during this persecution, the story of
the two Christian Governors is not to be received implicitly. There is,
however, no doubt that it was this Emperor who ordered the persons that were
sent to the mines to have their right eyes forced out, and their left feet
dislocated.† These and similar mutilations became henceforth a favourite
punishment; and, in addition to the pain and lasting inconvenience which they
caused, they were intended also as a mark of disgrace; since persons who were
thus disfigured were considered to be incapable of the rights of citizens.
Another tradition, which is perhaps not authentic, concerns a Governor of the
Thebaid, named Arianus,‡ who is said to have been a Christian, and to have
suffered for his religion. The zeal which was displayed at this trying time by
Antony the Monk, may be received with more certainty. The life of this
extraordinary man has been written by Athanasius, who may be called his
contemporary, though much younger in age; and though the account contains some
marvellous anecdotes, which may excite our suspicions, the outline of his
history must at least be true. Antony was one of those persons who were at
this time living by themselves, or in small fraternities, in the deserts of
Egypt; and when he saw the Christians going in crowds to Alexandria to be
tortured, he followed them thither, that he might encourage and comfort them
under their sufferings. He visited them constantly in the prisons or in the
mines, and was not afraid of personally encountering the Magistrates. He
seemed indeed to be courting martyrdom; but, though he continued a long time
in Alexandria, his wish was not gratified, and he lived to return to his
solitary life.§ Alban Butler

* Burton, Lect. on Eccles. Hist., lect. xxix.

† Compare Euseb., de Mart. Palest., cap. viii.; Lactant., De Mort. Persecut.,
cap. xxxvi. The effects of this cruelty were witnessed many years after.
Paphnutius, an Egyptian Bishop, attended the Council of Nice, who had been
maimed in this way. (Ruffinus, Eccles. Hist., lib. x., cap. iv., fol., 1479;
Theodoret., Eccles. Hist., lib. i., cap. vii.) Paul, Bishop of Neocæsaræ, was
also at the Council of Nice. (Theodoret., Eccles. Hist., lib. i., cap. vii.)
Maximus, Bishop of Jerusalem, is also mentioned. (Theodoret., Eccles. Hist.,
lib. ii., cap. 26.) Also Potamon, Bishop of Heracles. (Epiphan., Hæres., lib.
lxviii., 7.)

‡ Forum etiam qui in Thebaide passit sunt, perillustres habentur Leonides,
Ascla, alique complures sub Ariano Præside, qui et ipse victus potenti Christi
virtute, dans manus, et Christianus effectus, pro fide quoque nobile certamen
subit. Verum et in Philemone Corale miro quodammodo Christi virtus effubit.
Nam Apollonius lector tormenta expavescens, ne fidem omnino negaret, quatuor
Philemoni dedit aureos, ut se Apollonium inutato habitu fingeret, ac coram
Præside una cum aliis immolaret: at mente divinitus illustratus, martyrumque
accensus exemplo, qui alienam gerebat personam ut negaret, propriam
representans se vere in Christum credere constante voce professus, at
tormentis exagitatus, iterum atque iterum id ipsum affirmans, insigni meruit
corona martyrii decorari, enjus exemplo Apollonius roboratus, forti animo idem
certamen obiit. Extant horum Acta fusius scripta. (Annales Ecclesiast.
Baronii, cum Critice Pagii. A.D. 310, sect. 24, tom. iii., Lucæ, fol., 1738.)

§ Burton, Lect. on Eccles. Hist., lect. xxix.

abounds in the miraculous with regard to Antony; but his statements are
thoroughly unworthy of notice.

Quirinus,* the Bishop of Siscla, underwent martyrdom at this time. Siscla was
situated in upper Pannonia, a town now called Sisseg, in Croatia. This
Prelate, having intelligence of the command of the Governor for his
apprehension, left the town, in order to avoid the storm that was gathering:
he was pursued and taken, and conveyed before Maximus the Governor, who asked
him whither he was fleeing. The martyr answered, "I did not flee, but went
away to obey the order of my Master. For it is written, 'When they persecute
you in one city, flee to another.'" Maximus asked, "Who gave you that order?"
Quirinus said, "Jesus Christ, who is the true God." "Know you not," said the
Magistrate, "that the Emperors' orders would find you out anywhere? Nor can he
whom you call the true God help or rescue you when you are fallen into their
hands, as you now see to your cost." The martyr replied, "The God whom we
adore is always with us wherever we are, and can always help us. He was with
me when I was taken, and is now with me. It is He that strengthens me, and now
answers you by my mouth." Maximus replied, "You talk much, and are guilty
therefore of delay in executing the commands of the Sovereigns: read their
edicts, and comply with their demands." The Bishop said, "I make no account of
such injunctions: they are impious, contrary to the commandments of Almighty
God, and would compel us who are his servants to offer sacrifice to imaginary
gods. The God whom I serve is everywhere; He is in heaven, on earth, and in
the sea. He is above all, and by Him all things subsist." Maximus said, "Old
age has weakened your understanding, and you are deluded by idle tales. See!
here is incense, offer it to the gods, or you will have many affronts to bear,
and will suffer a cruel death." The Bishop replied, "That disgrace I account
my glory; and death will procure for me eternal life. I respect only the altar
of my God, on which I have often presented to Him a sacrifice of sweet odour."
"I perceive," said Maximus, "that you are distracted, and that your madness
will be the cause of your death. Sacrifice to the gods." "No," said Quirinus,
"I do not sacrifice to devils." Maximus then ordered him to be beaten with
clubs, and the sentence was executed with great cruelty. The Judge said to
him, while under that torment, "Now confess the power of the gods whom the
great Roman empire adores. Obey, and I will make you Priest of Jupiter."
Quirinus replied, "I am now performing the true functions of a Priest, in
offering myself a sacrifice to the living God. I feel not the blows which my
body has received: they give me no torment. I am ready to suffer much greater
tortures, that they who have been committed to my charge may be encouraged to
follow me to eternal life." Having by this speech convinced the Judge that he
was proof against all his attempts, he was ordered to prison, in the hope that
the weight of his chain, and the other hardships of a jail, would accomplish
the anti-

* Jerome makes honourable mention of Quirinus in his Chronicle. Prudentius
calls him an eminent martyr; and Fortunatus ranks him among the most
illustrious confessors of the church. See his Acts as recorded in Surius,
Ruinart, and Prudentius.

MARTYRDOM OF QUIRINUS.

cipated change. The Magistrate of the place not having authority to put the
martyr to death, after three days' imprisonment, he sent him to Amantius,
Governor of the province called the First Pannonia. Prudentius terms him
Galerius, Governor of Illyricum, under which Pannonia was comprised. The
Bishop was carried in chains through all the towns that lie on the Danube,
till, being brought before Amantius, then on his return from Scarabantia, the
Governor ordered him to be conducted to Sabaria, whither he himself was going.
On his arrival the Governor ordered him to be brought before him in the public
theatre; and, having read the record of what had passed between him and
Maximus, asked the martyr if he acknowledged the truth of its contents, and
whether he persisted in his recognition of the Christian faith. Quirinus
answered, "I have confessed the true God at Siscla: I have never adored any
other. Him I carry in my heart, and no man on earth shall ever be able to
separate me from him." Amantius endeavoured to overcome his resolution by
large promises, and by the consideration of his old age; but finding him
inflexible, he sentenced him to be thrown into the river with a millstone
suspended to his neck; and his order was obeyed. But, to the great
astonishment of the spectators, (who were assembled in crowds on the banks of
the river to witness the execution,) the Bishop, instead of sinking, continued
a long time on the surface of the water, exhorting the Christians to continue
steadfast in the faith, and to dread neither torture nor death itself. But,
perceiving that he did not sink, he feared that he might lose the martyr's
crown, and therefore addressed the Saviour in the following or similar
words:—"It is not wonderful for thee, O Almighty Jesus, to stop the course of
rivers, as thou didst that of Jordan, nor to make men walk upon the water, as
Peter did upon the sea by thy divine power. These people have had a sufficient
proof in me of the effect of thy power. Grant me what now remains, and is to
be preferred to all things, the happiness of dying for thee, Jesus Christ my
God." * His petition was granted, and he expired.

The persecution still prevailed in Palestine. Five Christians of Egypt were
arrested at Cæsarea; and being asked the usual questions, and having confessed
themselves to be the followers of Christ, they acknowledged that they had been
to Cilicia to visit their brethren, who were condemned to work in the mines
for their religion, and that they were come to Cæsarea to pay the like duty to
their afflicted brethren, who were in prison there for the same cause, after
which they intended to return home. This declaration was of itself sufficient
to convict them: they were put in irons as criminals caught in the fact, and
carried before Firmilianus, the Governor of the place, to whom they repeated
their confession, and were ordered to prison. The following day they

* The Acts of this martyr say, "That he with difficulty obtained by his
prayers to be drowned." His body was found a little below the place, and laid
in a chapel built on the bank. Soon after a great church was erected near the
gate of Sabaria, leading to Scarabantia, in which his remains were laid. When,
by the inroads of barbarians, the Pannonians were afterwards driven out of
their country, the relics of this martyr were carried to Rome, and deposited
in the catacombs of St. Sebastian; but removed in 1140 into the church of St.
Mary, beyond the Tiber. Molanus shows that they are now kept in a monastery of
Bavaria. The river in which Quirinus was drowned was called Sabarius, now
Guntz. (Alban Butler, June 4th.)

were brought before the Governor, with Pamphilus, of whom we have already
given the history; with other Christians. Firmilianus commenced with the five
Egyptians, whose courage he assailed by a variety of torments; but finding
them invincible, he proceeded to the usual interrogatories, as to whose
religion and to what country they belonged. One of them replied for the whole
company, and said, that their names were Elias, Jeremiah, Samuel, and David,
and that Jerusalem was their country, evidently meaning the heavenly city, the
true country of the faithful. Firmilian was surprised at the mention of
Jerusalem, knowing that city to have been totally destroyed by Vespasian, and
his son Titus; and the city which Hadrian had erected on its ruins, was called
Ælia Capitolina. He asked where that city was to be found; and even went so
far as to apply additional torture, to compel a further confession. Elias
assured the Magistrate that he had told him the whole truth, and that it was
inhabited only by the true servants of God. He maintained an undisturbed
calmness amidst the most violent torments; and, transported with the views of
the heavenly Jerusalem, he even pursued his allegory, and gave a glowing
account of the riches and strength of that city, until the Governor was
actually alarmed, and imagined that the Christians were concocting designs
against the enemy, and fortifying themselves in Jerusalem. Perplexed with this
thought, and finding that nothing more was to be elicited, he condemned him to
lose his head. His countrymen underwent the same trials, and submitted to the
same punishment.

In Gaul and Britain, where Constantine was personally present, tranquillity
prevailed;* but in Egypt and Palestine the Christians groaned under the
tyranny of Maximinus; and although Maxentius had usurped the imperial
authority in Italy, he did not for some time molest the Christians. The see of
Rome, which had for a season continued vacant, was filled up in 308 by the
election of Marcellus. Such, at least, is the most probable calculation,†
though others suppose Marcellus to have succeeded Marcellinus in the same
year. If we may receive the epitaph as genuine, which is said to have been
written upon Marcellus‡ by Damasus, one of his successors, he was

* Lactant., Institut. Divin., lib. i., cap. I; De Religione et Sapientia. De
Morte Persecut., cap. xxiv.

† Baronil Annales Eccles., cum Critice Pagi, anno 306, sect. 25, tom. iii.,
Lucæ, 1738, fol.

‡ Upon the death of Marcellinus, the see remained vacant somewhat about three
years and a half, when Marcellus was chosen in his room. Thus says the
Pontifical of Bucherius, "where instead of seven years, which is a mistake of
the transcribers, as is manifest from the Consulships marked there, we must
read three. The similitude of the two names has misled some writers to
confound Marcellinus with Marcellus; for Eusebius, as well as Jerome, only
mention the former; and Theodoret, omitting both Marcellus and Eusebius, who
succeeded him, names Melchiades as the immediate successor of Marcellinus;
which has made Dr. Pearson doubt whether Marcellus was ever Bishop of Rome.
But Marcellinus and Marcellus are evidently distinguished in the Pontifical of
Bucherius, by the different times in which they governed, and the different
Consuls under whom their government began and ended. They are, besides,
distinguished both by Optatus Millevitanus and Augustine, who speak of
Marcellus, not only as a Presbyter of the Church of Rome, but as Bishop of
that see. To these testimonies I may add the epitaph of Marcellus by Damasus,
supposing him to have been Bishop

PERSECUTION IN EGYPT.

particularly strict in requiring the lapsed to submit to a course of
penitence. His measures are said to have given rise, not only to discontent
and complaint, but even to tumults and bloodshed, which might confirm the
notion of the Christians being at this time unmolested by their enemies; and
thus, unhappily, they were able to give vent to their feelings of hostility
towards each other. So true it is that seasons of peace, however short, have
often been a cause of misery and scandal to the church. Maxentius was in
possession of Rome, but so entirely engaged with his rival Emperors, that he
had not time to pursue his own corrupt and barbarous inclinations, and
conducted himself so tyrannically to all his subjects, that the Heathen were
occupied in looking to themselves, without seeking to persecute the
Christians.* The persecution was carried on as hotly as ever in Egypt. One
hundred and thirty Christians had their eyes and feet treated as was usual at
this period, and were afterwards sent to work in the mines. It seems to have
required all the activity of Maximinus, and his insatiable love of cruelty, to
have his orders executed by the provincial Magistrates. In spite of all his
vigilance, the humanity of these men sometimes prevailed over their fear of
offending the tyrant, and the Christians felt their chains becoming lighter
upon them. Marcellus thought this a fitting opportunity to restore that
discipline in the church, which the confusion of the times had disturbed. He
failed, however, in his plans: the debates in the church ran high, and even
raised disturbances in the city. Maxentius, who was a great enemy of the
Christians, laid the blame of its worst consequences upon Marcellus, whom he
first condemned to keep beasts in a stable, and then banished him as an
incendiary, and a disturber of the public peace, when the hardships he
suffered in his exile soon put an end to his life, and procured him the title
of a martyr.

The cruelty of Maximinus was notorious. The Christians who were condemned to
work in the mines of Palestine, had begun to enjoy more liberty, and the
houses in which some of them lived were employed as churches. The Governor of
the province, having observed the alteration in their condition, wrote to
Maximinus concerning it; and an order was accordingly sent to the overseer of
the mines, that these indulgences should cease. The plan adopted for annoying
the Christians was, to disperse them in different places. Some were sent to
Cyprus, some to Mount Libanus, others to various parts of Palestine, where
they were all confined to hard labour. This, however, was not sufficient
severity. Four victims were selected, who were, perhaps, of the most note
among the number, and sent to the military commander of the district. Two of
them, Peleus and Nilus, were Egyptian Bishops; the other two were Presbyters;
and when they refused to abjure the faith, they were ordered to be burnt.
There were others, who from their age or bodily infirmities had been unable to
work in the mines, and had been allowed to live in a place of Rome. Damasus
flourished about the year 366. Many things are said of Marcellus; but they are
all founded either on his Acts, or the modern Pontificals, and, consequently,
have little or no authority." (Bower, Hist. of the Popes, vol. i., p. 86.)

* Burton, Lect. on Eccles. Hist., lect. xxix.

U by themselves; one of whom was Silvanus, the venerable Bishop of Gaza, who
had been sent to the mines three years before, having first had his foot
dislocated. Another, named John, had come with the prisoners from Egypt; and
though he was already blind, the same cruelty had been inflicted upon his eyes
as upon the rest. His blindness did not hinder him from knowing the Scriptures
by heart. The whole number of these persons was thirty-nine; and since they
could not bear the removal, and they were of no use as labourers, Maximinus
commanded them all to be beheaded in one day.*

The words of our Saviour, in his incomparable sermon on the Mount, never
received a more just illustration than in the person of Herculeus, who all
along had been one of the most sanguinary and inveterate persecutors of the
Christian name of which the church had to complain. "With what measure ye
mete, it shall be measured to you again." When Herculeus had reluctantly
abdicated the empire, the venal orators of the times applauded his philosophic
moderation. When his ambition excited, or at least encouraged, a civil war,
they returned thanks to his generous patriotism, and gently censured that love
of ease and retirement which had withdrawn him from the public service. But it
was impossible that minds like those of Herculeus and his son could long
possess in harmony an undivided power. Maxentius considered himself as the
legal Sovereign of Italy, elected by the Roman Senate and people; nor would he
endure the control of his father, who arrogantly declared, that by his name
and abilities the rash youth had been established on the throne. The cause was
solemnly pleaded before the Praetorian guards; and those troops, who dreaded
the severity of the old Emperor, espoused the party of Maxentius. The life and
freedom of Herculeus were, however, respected, and he retired from Italy into
Illyricum, affecting to lament his past conduct, and secretly contriving new
mischiefs. But Galerius, who was well acquainted with his character, soon
obliged him to leave his dominions; and the last refuge of the disappointed
Herculeus was the court of his son-in-law Constantine. He was received with
respect and filial tenderness by Fausta. That he might remove every suspicion,
he resigned the imperial purple a second time, professing himself at length
convinced of the vanity of greatness and ambition.† Had he persevered in this
resolution, he might have ended his life with less dignity, indeed, than in
his first retirement; yet, however, with comfort and reputation. But the near
prospect of a throne brought back to his remembrance the state whence he was
fallen; and he resolved, by a desperate effort, either to reign or to perish.
An incursion of the Franks had summoned Constantine, with a part of his army,
to the banks of the Rhine; the remainder of the troops were stationed in the
southern provinces of Gaul, which lay exposed to the enterprises of the
Italian Emperor; and a consider-

* Burton, Lect. on Eccles. Hist., lect. xxix.

† Lactant., De Morte Persecut., cap. xxix. After the resignation of the
purple, Constantine still continued to Herculeus the pomp and honours of the
imperial dignity; and on all public occasions, gave the right-hand place to
his father-in-law. (Eumenius, Panegyr., lib. vii., cap. 15; Delphim. Clam. cum
Var. Not., No. 122.)

THE DEATH OF HERCULEUS.

able treasure was deposited in the city of Arles. Herculeus either craftily
invented, or hastily credited, a vain report of the death of Constantine.
Without hesitation he ascended the throne, seized the treasure, and,
scattering it with his accustomed profusion among the soldiers, endeavoured to
awaken in their minds the memory of his ancient dignity and exploits. Before
he could establish his authority, or finish the negotiation which he appears
to have entered into with his son Maxentius, the celerity of Constantine
defeated all his hopes. On the first news of his perfidy and ingratitude, that
Prince returned by rapid marches from the Rhone to the Saone, embarked on the
last-mentioned river at Chalons; and, at Lyons trusting himself to the
rapidity of the Rhine, arrived at the gates of Arles with a military force,
which it was impossible for Herculeus to resist, and which scarcely permitted
him to take refuge in the neighbouring city of Marseilles. The narrow neck of
land which joined that place to the Continent was fortified against the
besiegers; whilst the sea was open, either for the escape of Herculeus, or for
the succours of Maxentius, if the latter should choose to disguise his
invasion of Gaul under the honourable pretence of defending a distressed or,
as he might allege, an injured father. Apprehensive of the fatal consequences
of delay, Constantine gave orders for an immediate assault; but the scaling-
ladders were found too short for the height of the walls, and Marseilles might
have sustained as long a siege as it formerly did against the arms of Cæsar,
if the garrison, conscious either of their fault or of their danger, had not
purchased their pardon by delivering up the city and the person of Herculeus.
A secret, but irrevocable, sentence of death was pronounced against the
usurper: he obtained only the same favour which he had rendered to Severus;
and it was published to the world, that, oppressed by the remorse of his
repeated crimes, he strangled himself with his own hands.*

Maximinus continued to vex the church; and the martyrdoms which took place in
the early part of the year 310 were chiefly at Tyre, many of which were
witnessed by Eusebius. He was not unlikely to leave Cæsarea when his friend
Pamphilus suffered; and since he was then engaged in finishing his defence of
Origen, he might be able to complete the work at Tyre, where the last years of
the life of that celebrated man were passed, and where Methodius, the earliest
and most formidable assailant of Origen's character, had lately held the
episcopal see. While Eusebius was at Tyre, he saw several Christians exposed
to wild beasts in the amphitheatre; and he could hardly be mistaken, when he
states expressly, that he saw these animals refuse to touch them, though every
expedient was used to excite their fury.† Tyrannion, Bishop of Tyre, and
Zenobius, a Presbyter of Sidon, who was also a Physician, were martyred in the
course of this persecution; but they were taken from their own cities, and
suffered at Antioch;‡ and at the time of Eusebius visiting the city, Paulinus
was Bishop of Tyre, with whom he formed an intimacy, and dedicated to him his

* Gibbon, Decline and Fall, vol. ii., p. 206, edit. Milman, 8vo.

† Eusebius, Eccles. Hist., lib. viii., cap. 7.

‡ Ibid., cap. 13.

v 2 work on Ecclesiastical History. Eusebius also appears to have been in
Egypt, where he witnessed some of the sufferings which he has described; * and
it is most probable, that this journey was undertaken after the death of
Pamphilus. Another author who wrote in defence of Christianity at this time,
was Arnobius, a native of Sicca in Africa, and a teacher of rhetoric. Having
been bred in Heathenism, he had been in the habit of decrying Christianity;
and when he was afterwards convinced of its truth, he found a difficulty in
being admitted to baptism. He accordingly wrote a work in seven books against
the Heathen, which is still extant, and is a masterly exposure of the follies
of Paganism. If the date of this work be rightly fixed to the year 310, the
author, when he speaks of the persecution, may, perhaps, have alluded to what
was done by the usurper Alexander, as well as to the earlier decrees of
Diocletian and Herculeus; but since Lactantius was a pupil of Arnobius, and
was himself a teacher of rhetoric at Nicomedia, at the commencement of the
persecution, Arnobius was probably advanced in years at the time of his
conversion. †

The state of the church assumed at this period a more tranquil aspect. In the
commencement of 310, Marcellus, Bishop of Rome, who had been driven from the
see by Maxentius, was succeeded by Eusebius, ‡ who held the office only for a
few months; and was also followed by Melchiades. Dr. Burton says, that it
seems probable that the Roman Christians were exposed to particular sufferings
at this period. Maxentius could have felt no partiality towards them, except
from political motives; but he had promised them a freedom from vexation at
the beginning of his usurpation; and he does not appear to have behaved more
tyrannically towards them, than he did to all his subjects. If Marcellus were
banished from Rome by his orders, it is not proved that this act formed a part
of any general persecution. An apostate from Christianity is said to have
excited the displeasure of the tyrant against the Bishop; and he may, perhaps,
have invented some accusation which was not connected with questions against
religion. Maxentius had also promised to give back to the Christians their
places of worship, which had been taken from them; but though he had written a
letter to this effect, and his commander of the Praetorian guards had done the
same, the business was not more advanced when Melchiades was elected, than it
had been four years before. This Bishop sent these letters by some of his
Deacons to the Prefect of the city, and claimed a fulfilment of the promise;
but we are not informed whether his application succeeded. Melchiades was
accused afterwards of having sent this message by a Deacon who had delivered
up

* Euseb., Eccles. Hist., lib. viii., cap. 9.

† Burton, Lect. on Eccles. Hist., lect. xxix.

‡ Marcellus was succeeded by Eusebius, who governed seven months, according to
the historian; but only four months and sixteen days, according to the
Pontifical of Bucubrius. From an ancient epitaph on this Pope, we learn that
he opposed with great vigour and zeal one Heraclius, pretending that those who
had fallen during the persecution ought to be re-admitted to the communion of
the church, without giving such satisfaction as was then required; and that
heretofore great divisions occurred among the people. (Bower, Hist. of the
Popes, vol. I, p. 86, 4to.)

DEATH OF GALERIUS.

some property of the church during the late persecution; but he denied the
charge. Maxentius caused some relief to the Christians in another quarter, in
311, by sending an officer into Africa, who defeated and slew Alexander. The
persecution had been revived in that country since 307; and though it perhaps
did not extend far, the immediate presence of the usurper was likely to be a
source of danger to the Christians. There is evidence that Mensurius, Bishop
of Carthage, was exposed to considerable suffering. A Deacon named Felix had
written a letter against the usurper, and, being afraid of the consequences,
had taken refuge with Mensurius. The Bishop, having refused to give him up,
was examined before a Magistrate, who acquitted him, and allowed him to return
to Carthage; but he died before he reached the city, and Caecilianus was
elected in his room. There was a party in the church of Carthage which had
opposed Mensurius, and charged him with belonging to the traditores; but it
appeared afterwards to be a calumny; and at the time of his examination, he
had a list of several valuable articles belonging to his church, which he left
to be given to his successor. The persecution in that country did not, in
fact, entirely cease till the end of the following year, when Maxentius sent
an order into Africa that the Christians should not be molested. There were,
however, much more effectual steps taken to relieve the Christians in the
eastern part of the empire. They had now had little or no intermission of
their sufferings for eight years, since the issuing of the first edict by
Diocletian and Galerius in 303.*

The most signal and unexpected triumph of Christianity was over the author of
the persecution. While victory and success appeared to follow that party in
the state, which, if they had not as yet openly espoused the cause of
Christianity, had unquestionably its most ardent prayers in their favour; the
enemies of the Christians were smitten with the direst calamities, and the
Almighty appeared visibly to exact the most awful vengeance for their
sufferings. Galerius himself was compelled, as it were, to implore mercy; not
indeed in the attitude of penitence, but of profound humiliation at the foot
of the Christian altar. In the eighteenth year of his reign, the persecutor
lay expiring of a most loathsome malady. A deep and fetid ulcer preyed on the
lower regions of his body, and ate them away into a mass of living corruption.
"It is certainly singular," observes Mr. Milman, "that the disease, termed in
Scripture 'caten of worms,' should have been the destiny of Herod, of
Galerius, and of Philip II. of Spain.† Physicians were sought from all
quarters; every oracle was consulted in vain; that of Apollo suggested a cure
which aggravated the virulence of the disease. Not merely the chamber, the
whole palace of Galerius is described as infected by the insupportable stench
which issued from his wound; while the agonies which he suffered might have
satiated

* Burton, Lect. on Eccles. Hist., lect. xxx.

† "A complication of disorders brought him into a state from which it was
manifest he could not recover; and being sensible that his end was
approaching, he caused himself to be conveyed to Madrid to his own palace of
the Escorial, where, in the midst of great suffering, he expired, September
13th, 1598." (Rose, Biog. Dict.)

the worst vengeance of his most unchristian enemy."* At length, being reminded
that the disease was sent by God, he began to reflect upon the injury that he
had done to the saints of the Most High; and from his dying bed he issued an
edict, which—while it condescended to apologize for the past severities
against the Christians, under the special plea of regard for the public
welfare and the unity of the state, and while it expressed compassion for his
deluded subjects, whom the Government was unwilling to leave in the forlorn
condition of being absolutely without a religion—admitted to the fullest
extent the total failure of the severe measures for the suppression of
Christianity. It permitted the free and public exercise of the Christian
religion. The concluding sentences of this edict were still more remarkable:
they contained an earnest request to the Christians to intercede for the
suffering Emperor in their supplications to their God. Whether this edict was
dictated by wisdom, by remorse, or by superstitious terror; whether it was the
act of a statesman, convinced by experience of the impolicy, or even the
injustice, of his sanguinary acts; whether, in the agonies of his excruciating
disease, his conscience was harassed by the thought of his tortured victims;
or, having vainly solicited the assistance of his own deities, he would
desperately endeavour to propitiate the favour, or at least allay the wrath,
of the Christians' God; the whole Roman world was witness of the public and
humiliating acknowledgment of defeat 'extorted from the dying Emperor. On the
13th of April this edict† was issued at Nicomedia in the name of himself,
Constantine, and Licinius. Copies of the decree, and directions in accordance
with it, were immediately sent to the different governments of Asia Minor, and
Galerius expired shortly after its promulgation.

This edict accorded with the sentiments of Licinius and Constantine.
Maximinus, the Caesar of the East, whose peculiar jurisdiction

* Milman, History of Christianity, vol. ii., p. 286.

† A translation of this celebrated decree we subjoin:—"Among the other plans
which we had conceived for the public profit and convenience, it was early our
wish to reform all things according to the ancient laws and the national
principles of the Romans; especially to devise means whereby the Christians,
who have relinquished the opinions and usages of their parents, might be
brought back to a right mind. For such a degree of arrogance and folly has (by
some fancy) possessed them, that they will not follow the sanctions of their
ancestors, which it is likely they also had before received from their
parents; but they make laws for themselves, and observe them, just according
to their own individual fancy and arbitrement, assembling large multitudes of
people in divers places. Therefore, when we had published such an edict as
should oblige them to return to the rites and ordinances of their ancestors,
many of them were exposed to imminent dangers; and many, having been actually
troubled, finally underwent death in various forms. But when many persisted in
this madness, and we perceived they did neither exhibit a due worship to the
celestial gods, nor yet to the God of the Christians; having respect to our
humanity, and that continued usage by which we have been accustomed to
exercise pardon towards all sorts of men, we have thought good most readily to
extend our indulgence in this matter also; so that the Christians should again
be tolerated, and that they should have licence to rebuild the houses wherein
they used to assemble themselves, and that they may not in future be forced to
do anything contrary to their principles. In another rescript we will signify
to our Judges what it shall before them to observe. Wherefore, in gratitude
for this our indulgence, they ought to supplicate their God both for our
welfare and that of the commonwealth, as well as their own; that so both
public affairs may everywhere be kept in a wholesome state, and they
themselves may live securely in their own dwellings." (Foxe, Acts and
Monuments, vol. i., p. 239, Rev., Seeley's edit.)

STATE OF THE CHURCH AT THIS PERIOD.

extended over Syria and Egypt, rendered but an imperfect and reluctant
obedience to the decree of toleration. His jealousy was, no doubt, excited by
the omission of his name in the preamble to the edict; and he seized this
excuse to discountenance its promulgation in his provinces: nevertheless, for
a time, he suppressed his profound and indomitable hostility to the Christian
name. He permitted unwritten orders to go forth to the municipal Governors of
the towns and to the Magistrates of the villages, to put an end to all violent
proceedings. The zeal of Sabinus, the Praetorian Prefect of the East,
supposing the milder sentiments of Galerius to be shared by Maximinus, seems
to have outrun the intentions of the Cæsar.* A circular rescript appeared in
his name, echoing the tone, though it did not go quite to the length, of the
imperial edict. It proclaimed, "that it had been the anxious wish of the
divinity of the most mighty Emperors to reduce the whole empire to pay an
harmonious and united worship to the immortal gods. But their clemency had at
length taken compassion on the obverse perversity of the Christians, and
determined on desisting from their ineffectual attempts to force them to
abandon their hereditary faith." The Magistrates were instructed to
communicate the contents of this letter to each other. The Governors of the
provinces, supposing at once that the letter of the Prefect contained the real
sentiments of the Emperor, with merciful haste despatched orders to all
persons in subordinate civil or military command; the Magistrates both of the
towns and the villages acted also upon them with unhesitating obedience; and
the Christians were released from the prisons and the mines. In a moment all
was joy, wonder, and thanksgiving, where before there had been suffering and
sorrow. Places of worship were immediately opened in the towns, and attended
by crowds. The roads were filled with persons returning to their homes; and
even the Heathen were led to think that God alone could have worked so sudden
and so great a change. How transitory and fleeting this prospect was, will,
ere long, be proved in the sequel.†

* Euseb., Eccles. Hist., lib. ix., cap. 1; and Milman's History of
Christianity, vol. ii., p. 287.

† Eusebius gives a very graphic account of the state of the church at this
period:—

"When these things had been executed, all on a sudden, like a flash of light
blazing from dense darkness, in every city one could see congregations
collected, assemblies thronged, and the accustomed meetings held in the same
places. Every one of the Heathen was not a little astonished at these
appearances; both amazed at the singular state of affairs, and exclaiming that
the God of the Christians was the only great and true God. Those of our
brethren who had faithfully and manfully passed through the conflict of
persecution also obtained great privileges with all. And those who had
deserted their faith, and had been shaken in their souls by the tempest,
eagerly hastened to their remedy, supplicating and entreating the strong to
give them the right hand of safety, and imploring God to be merciful unto
them. Then, also, these noble wrestlers of religion, liberated from the
hardships of labouring in the mines, were dismissed, and allowed to return to
their own country. Joyous and cheerful they proceeded through every city,
filled with an inexpressible pleasure and a confidence which language is
inadequate to explain. Numerous bodies thus pursued their journey through the
public highways and markets, celebrating the praises of God in songs and
poems. And they who had a little before been driven in bonds under a most
merciless punishment from their respective countries, you could now see
regaining their homes and fire-hearths with bright and exhilarated
countenances; so that even they who had before exclaimed against us, seeing
the wonder beyond all expectation, congratulated us on these events."

The jealousy of Maximinus because of Licinius having his name affixed to the
edict of Galerius overpowered all other feelings, and he hastened into
Bithynia to secure to himself the countries which had been governed by
Galerius. Licinius was also at the head of an army, and there was every
prospect of a civil war. They watched each other on either side of the
Bosphorus with ill-dissembled hostility; but the two Emperors finally came to
terms without a battle. Maximinus retained Asia Minor and Bithynia, while
Illyria and Thrace were allotted to Licinius. It is also highly probable that,
during the temporary tranquillity of the church, Peter, the Bishop of
Alexandria, quitted his place of concealment, where he had for several years
been hidden, and returned to his see. He lost no time in inquiring into the
conduct of Meletius; and a synod of Bishops was convened to try him for his
irregular proceedings, as well as for the heavier charge of having sacrificed
in the late persecution.* A sentence of deposition was passed against
Meletius; but so far from complying with it, or taking any steps to justify
himself, he carried to still greater length his schismatical principles, and
treated the Prelate of Alexandria with personal insolence. From this time the
Meletian schism was regularly organized, and Peter would have the
mortification to find his authority rejected by some of his Clergy. Arius at
present did not join the seceders. He ceased to give his support to Meletius;
and the character of Peter appears in a favourable light, when we find that he
not only forgave Arius, but ordained him Deacon.† The reconciliation, however,
did not last long. The Bishop found himself obliged to issue a sentence of
excommunication against all the Meletians, and he took the decided measure of
not recognising their baptisms. "We are scarcely competent," says Dr. Burton,
"to determine whether he were justified in the latter step; but it was likely
to revive ancient dissensions, and among other persons who expressed their
dissatisfaction, Arius again distinguished himself. Peter felt that he had
gone far enough in attempting to conciliate; and Arius, who had so lately been
admitted to officiate in the church, was now excluded from its communion. He
continued in this state for some time; but the persecution, as we shall see,
shortly revived; and the Bishop, if he had acted hastily, was called to answer
for his conduct at a higher tribunal."‡

The slippery character of Maximinus the tyrant scarcely suffered the peaceful
state of the church to continue unviolated six months;

(Eccles. Hist., lib. ix., cap. i.) The cessation of the persecution showed at
once its extent. The prison-doors were thrown open; the mines rendered up
their condemned labourers; everywhere long trains of Christians were seen
hastening to the ruins of their churches, and visiting the places sanctified
by their former devotion. The public roads, the streets, and market-places of
the towns were crowded with long processions, singing psalms of thanksgiving
for their deliverance. Those who had maintained their faith under these severe
trials passed triumphant in conscious, even if lowly, pride, amid the
flattering congratulations of their brethren; those who had failed in the hour
of affliction hastened to reunite themselves with their God, and to obtain
readmission into the flourishing and reunited fold. (Milman.)

* Socrates, Eccles. Hist., lib. i., cap. 6.

† Sozomen, Hist. Eccles., lib. i., cap. 15.

‡ Burton, Lect. on Eccles. Hist., lect. xxx.

REVIVAL OF THE PERSECUTION.

for whatever seemed to lead to its destruction, that did he sedulously foster
and encourage. He deprived the Christians of all liberty to assemble in
church-yards on any pretext whatsoever. He then sent certain miscreants to the
Antiocheans, to solicit their suffrages against the faithful, especially by
provoking him, as an act of favour shown to them, that he would not suffer any
Christian to inhabit that country. Among these emissaries was one Theotecnus,*
an enchanter by profession, and a most deadly enemy of the Christians. Foxe
says, "He first made the way whereby the Christians were put out of credit
with and accused to the Emperor; to which base end he also erected a certain
idol of Jupiter to be worshipped by the enchanters and conjurers, and mingled
the same worship with ceremonies full of deceivable witchcraft. Lastly, he
caused the same idol to give this sound out of his mouth, that is, 'Jupiter
commandeth the Christians to be banished out of the city, and suburbs of the
same, as enemies unto him.' And the same sentence did the rest of the
Governors of the provinces publish against them; and thus at length did the
persecution begin to be kindled. Maximinus also appointed Priests in every
city to offer sacrifice unto idols, and High Priests over these; and inveigled
all those that were in high offices under him, that they should do all in
their power against the Christians, and that they should with new-devised
stratagems against them (as that would please him) put as many to death as by
any means they might."† Another plan was to circulate calumnies concerning
them. The old stories were revived of their religious meetings being full of
indecency. One named Praefectus Castrorum,‡ whom the Romans call "Dux,"
residing at Damascus in Phoenicia, allured certain loose and abandoned women
from the market-place, and their haunts of iniquity, and then, by threats of
torture, compelled them to say in writing, that they were formerly Christians,
and that they were acquainted with those wicked and licentious acts which the
Christians were accustomed to practise amongst themselves at their assemblies
on the Lord's day; and also any other tale which they might invent. The
Praefectus Castrorum then made known to the Emperor their testimonies, as
though they were veritable and correct, who forthwith commanded the same to be
published throughout every city. Furthermore, they were accustomed to suspend,
in some conspicuous and public place, the edicts of the Emperor against the
members of the Christian church, graven on tables of brass. A deep and
deliberate scheme was laid for the advancement of one party in the popular
favour, and for the depression of the other. Measures were systematically
taken to enfeeble the influence of Christianity, not by the authority of
Government, but by poisoning the public mind, and infusing into it a settled

* Foxe, Acts and Monuments, vol. i., p. 241. Seeley's edition.

† Kuseb., Eccles. Hist., lib. ix., cap. iii., iv. Foxe, Acts and Monuments,
vol. i., p. 241.

‡ Ἐτρατοπέδραχος, Kusebius, "the Lieutenant." The chief Magistrate in the
Emperor's provinces exercised both the civil and military functions, (see
Adams, Rom. Antiq.) and bore military titles. The Magistrates of Alexandria
answered to our Sheriffs. It is evident, however, that the chief Magistrate of
the province, or "Lieutenant," is here meant.

X and conscientious animosity. A work was forged, called, "The Acts of
Pilate," which gave a false and disgraceful account of the life of Jesus; and
pains were taken that children at school should learn their lessons from such
books as this.* New regulations were made concerning the heathen Priests; and
not only were they established in every city and town, but each province had
its own High Priest, who was taken from the persons of highest rank, was
ordered to appear dressed in white, and was attended in public by a guard of
soldiers.† The imitation of the Christians was evident in all this; and the
Priests were not only ordered to perform sacrifices daily, but they were to
prevent the Christians from building churches, and to compel them to attend
the sacrifices. Maximinus wished to have it believed that he was only
complying with the petitions of his subjects in again repressing Christianity.
This was done not only by the people of Antioch, but of Nicomedia and Tyre,
together with several other places; and not only were their petitions granted,
but their letters, and the Emperor's answers to them, were engraved on brass,
and exhibited in a conspicuous part of the city.‡ Maximinus had begun his
former practice of burning out an eye, cutting off a hand, or maiming them in
some other way; and he would evidently have gone greater lengths, if he had
not been frightened by letters written to him by Constantine, and by hearing
that a sister of that Emperor

* "Having forged certain Acts of Pilate, respecting our Saviour, full of every
kind of blasphemy against Christ, these, with the consent of the Emperor, they
sent through the whole of the empire subject to him, commanding at the same
time by ordinances in every town and city, and the adjacent districts, to
publish these to all persons, and to give them to the Schoolmasters to hand to
their pupils, to study and commit to memory, as exercises for declamation."
(Euseb., Eccles. Hist., lib. ix., cap. 5.) The original "Acts of Pilate" were
a relation alleged to have been sent by Pilate to the Emperor Tiberius,
concerning Jesus Christ, his death, resurrection, ascension, and the crimes of
which he was convicted before him. It was a custom among the Romans that the
Proconsuls and Governors of provinces should draw up acts or memoirs of what
happened in the course of their government, and send them to the Emperor and
Senate. The Acts of Pilate were sent by him to Tiberius, who reported them to
the Senate; but they were rejected, it is said, by them, because not
immediately addressed to that assembly. (Tertull. Apol., cap. 5, 20, 21.) The
genuine Acts, if they ever existed, are now lost, and those that remain are
manifestly spurious. (See Fabric., Cod. Apoc. Test., p. 298, Ap. 972.)
Pearson, Mosheim, and Lardner are inclined to think that considerable credit
is due to the account given by Justin Martyr and Tertullian of these Acts.
Dupin and some others consider the whole matter very doubtful. Lardner
discusses the subject with his usual impartiality. (Lardner, Works, 4to., ed.
iii., pp. 599-606.)

† Euseb., Hist. Eccles., lib. viii., cap. 14; lib. ix., cap. 4. Lactant., De
Mort. Persecut., cap. xxxvi.

‡ Euseb., Eccles. Hist., lib. ix., cap. 2, 7, 9. "A regular system of
government, also, was instituted for the heathen priesthood, closely copied
from that of the Christian republic. The sedulous care of the followers of
Jesus in instilling into the minds of the young the knowledge and the love of
the Gospel, was imitated under the direction of the advisers of Maximinus, in
diligently impressing upon the youthful mind all that might prejudice it
against Christianity. A work entitled, 'The Acts of Pilate,' the forgery of
some enemy of our faith, and full of impious blasphemy against Christ, was
circulated through the East; and schoolmasters were commanded to use it as one
of their class-books. Rescripts also were engraved on tables of brass,"
(Euseb., Eccles. Hist., lib. ix., cap. 7.) "and placed in every city, by which
Priests and Magistrates were empowered to inflict the most cruel and
ignominious punishments on the refractory Christians. These rescripts
continued in force throughout the dominions of Maximinus till after his defeat
by Licinius, when, under the influence of rage and despair, he directed his
fury against his former advisers, and issued an edict of toleration in favour
of the Christians." (Euseb., Hist. Eccles., lib. ix., cap. 10.)

MAXIMINUS, A BITTER PERSECUTOR OF THE CHURCH.

was about to be married to Licinius.* This made him act more secretly. He
again opened a communication with Maxentius, that Constantine might find
employment nearer home; and though he did not put Christians openly to death,
he frequently caused them to be drowned. He also took care that all the meat
which was served at his table should have passed through the hands of the
Priest, so that whoever tasted it would be considered as party to a sacrifice;
and he had thus the gratification of annoying the Christians who were likely
to be invited to his table.† The faithful now found themselves exposed to
great peril: the dogs of war against Christianity were let slip by the brutal
and hypocritical Maximinus, and the church once more was clothed in sackcloth.
The sufferings of the Christians in other parts of the empire were extremely
great: Eusebius says, "that they felt them more severely than those of the
nine preceding years."‡ It is highly probable that Hierocles§ was still the
Governor of Egypt, who had shown, from the first, such determined opposition
to the Christians. The Governor of the Thebaid at this time was Calcianus, who
was another favourite of the tyrant, and whose hands were imbrued in the blood
of several martyrs.|| Many other Egyptian Bishops suffered.

The Emperor, in his public rescript, in answer to the address from the city of
Tyre, had, as it were, placed the issue of this contest on an appeal to
heaven. The gods of Paganism were asserted to be the benefactors of the human
race: through their influence the soil had yielded its annual increase; the
genial air had not been parched by fatal droughts; the sea had neither been
agitated with tempests, nor swept by hurricanes; the earth, instead of being
rocked by volcanic convulsions, had been the peaceful and fertile mother of
its abundant fruits. Their own neighbourhood spoke the manifest favour of
these benignant deities, in its rich fields, waving with harvests, its flowery
and luxurious meadows, and in the mild and genial temperature of the air. A
city so blessed by its tutelary gods, in prudence, as well as in justice,
would expel those traitorous citizens whose impiety endan-

* Lactant., De Morte Persecut., cap. xxxvii.

† Burton, Lect. on Eccles. Hist., lect. xxx. The Emperor persisted in his
cruel course; and is said to have condescended to an ingenious artifice to
afflict the tender consciences of some persons of the higher orders who
escaped less painful penalties. His banquets were served with victims
previously slain in sacrifice; and his Christian guests were thus
unconsciously betrayed into a crime, which the authority of St. Paul had not
yet convinced the more scrupulous believers to be a matter of perfect
indifference. (Milman.)

‡ Euseb., Hist. Eccles., lib. ix., cap. 6.

§ The circle of writers who opposed the Gospel is closed by Hierocles, the
Governor of Bithynia, and afterwards of Alexandria, who chose for his attack
on Christianity the season when persecution against the Christians was in full
operation; a time which a man of tender feelings and noble sentiments would
have been the last to choose. It was also peculiarly unbecoming in Hierocles
to set himself up as a teacher of the Christians; for he was himself the
founder of the persecution, and bore a principal share in it. And yet he lays
pretences to an impartial love of truth, and kindly feelings towards the
faithful; for he entitles his work, "A truth-loving Discourse, addressed to
the Christians." (1) He brought forward again much which had been said by
Celsus and Porphyry, and allowed himself to indulge in the most shameless
falsehoods about the history of Christ. (Neander.)

|| Euseb., Hist. Eccles., lib. ix., cap. ult.; Epiphan. Hæres., lib. lxviii.,
cap. 1.

x 2 gered these blessings, and would wisely purify its walls from the
infection of their heaven-despising worshippers. Now, all this rhapsodic
language reads well in poetry and in fiction; but how speedily did Maximinus
behold the fine prospects of his own creation covered with a dark and
portentous cloud! He experienced a truth-stirring reverse. Peace and
prosperity by no means ensued upon the depression of the Christian name.
Notwithstanding the embellishment of the heathen temples, the restoration of
the polytheistic ceremonial in more than ordinary pomp, and the nomination of
the noblest citizens to the pontifical offices, every kind of calamity,
tyranny, war, pestilence, and famine, depopulated the Asiatic provinces.*
Foxe, however, asserts, that although the Emperor's answer to the inhabitants
of Tyre boasted of prosperity and plenty during the time of the persecution of
the Christians, there suddenly befell unseasonable famine, drought, and
pestilence in the country; and if we take into consideration the war with the
Armenians, all was found to be untrue, respecting which he had so loudly
boasted. During this famine and pestilence the inhabitants were greatly
decreased: one measure of wheat was sold for two thousand five hundred pieces
of money termed "Attic drachms."† By reason of this scarcity, a great number
of persons died in the cities, but many more in the country and villages; so
that part of the husbandmen, and other inhabitants of the country, perished on
account of the famine and the pestilence.‡ Many there were who, producing
their most valuable treasures, were glad to give them for any kind of
sustenance, no matter how small in quantity. Others, disposing of their
possessions, were soon reduced to a state of poverty and want. Some, eating
grass and devouring unwholesome herbs, were glad to satiate their appetite
with such food as tended not only to injure, but to poison and destroy. A
number of reputable women, and of good family, in the various cities, having
been reduced to extreme misery and pauperism, were constrained to come forth
and crave from the passengers in the

* Milman, History of Christianity, vol. ii., p. 293.

† Eusebi, Hist. Eccles., lib. ix., cap. 8. "The two thousand five hundred
Attic drachms would amount to about £36. The medimnas, or measure, contained
six modii, or a little more than six pecks. Four Attic drachms were equal to
about half-a-crown." But in this statement Eusebius is evidently mistaken: a
measure of wheat at two thousand five hundred attics (drachms) would amount to
nearly £80.

‡ "Throughout the dominions of Maximin the summer rains did not fall, a sudden
famine desolated the whole East, corn rose to an unprecedented price. Some
large villages were entirely depopulated, many opulent families were reduced
to beggary, and persons in a decent station sold their children as slaves. The
rapacity of the Emperor aggravated the general misery. The granaries of
individuals were seized, and their stores closed up by the imperial seal. The
flocks and herds were driven away, to be offered in unavailing sacrifices to
the gods. The court of the Emperor, in the meantime, insulted the general
suffering by its excessive luxury; his foreign and barbarian troops lived in a
kind of free quarters, in wasteful plenty, and plundered on all sides with
perfect impunity. The scanty and unwholesome food produced its usual effect, a
pestilential malady. Carbuncles broke out all over the bodies of those who
were seized with the disorder; but particularly attacked the eyes, so that
multitudes became helplessly and incurably blind. The houses of the wealthy,
which were secure against the famine, seemed particularly marked out by the
pestilence. The hearts of all classes were hardened by the extent of the
calamity. The most opulent, despairing of diminishing the vast mass of misery,
or of relieving the swarms of beggars who filled every town and city, gave up
the fruitless endeavour." (Milman.)

DREADFUL STATE OF THE COUNTRY.

market-place the hard-earned but reluctant aid of charity. Others pined and
withered like spectres; without breath, reeling and staggering, and, from
utter inability to stand upright, fell down in the middle of the streets, and
then, lying at their full length with their faces downward, craved a morsel of
bread; others, at the last gasp, ready to give up the ghost, and not able to
utter any other words, dolefully exclaimed that they were very hungry! Of the
more opulent there were many who, being weary with the number of beggars and
positive dependants on their bounty, after they had bestowed largely upon
them, became themselves callous and hard-hearted, fearing lest they should
fall into a similar state themselves. On this account, the market-places,
streets, lanes, and alleys were full of dead and naked bodies, which lay cast
out and unburied, to the pitiful and grievous sight of those who beheld them.
Many were actually eaten of dogs: hence many forthwith commenced slaughtering
those animals, lest, becoming rabid, they should fall upon and kill them. In
like manner, the pestilence pervading every house, and seizing upon the
inhabitants of every rank and age, committed dreadful devastation, especially
amongst those who had escaped the famine. Hence the wealthy Governors of
provinces, Presidents, and an innumerable company of Magistrates, being more
ready, on account of the plenty they enjoyed, to take the infection, were
quickly despatched. Thus the miserable multitude being destroyed by famine and
pestilence, every place was full of mourning, weeping and wailing were heard
in every corner, and, as it was with Egypt in ancient time when visited with a
similar plague, "there was not a house where there was not one dead." So that
death, by means of famine and pestilence, in a short time broke up and
consumed whole households; two or three corpses were conveyed together from
the same domicile to the place of interment at one funeral. This was the awful
recompence which followed hard upon the vain boastings of Maximinus, which he
published in every town and city throughout the empire against the church of
Christ. "Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will repay, saith the Lord."*

In the meanwhile it was evident to all, how diligent and charitable the
Christians were to the afflicted in their wretched extremity. They only, in
this time of general calamity, showed compassion; being engaged daily in
waiting upon the sick, and in burying the dead, who by the Heathen would have
been utterly forsaken. Many Chris-

* The edicts which followed the celebrated letter addressed to the inhabitants
of Tyre, had scarcely reached their destination, when the reverse of the
pleasing picture which he drew began to be exhibited. While multitudes were
dying, or reduced to the extreme of suffering by famine and disease, the
difference between the Christians and the Heathen was very striking. The
former were incessant in attending upon the sick, and supplying the wants of
the necessitous; and the result, as on similar occasions, was favourable to
the spreading of the Gospel. The absence of the evils of war, which was
another topic urged by Maximinus, was totally at variance with facts. Eusebius
states, that the whole country was in a state of hostility during all the ten
years of the persecution. (Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., lib. viii., cap. 15.)
Travelling by land or water was attended with the greatest danger; and it
could hardly have been otherwise, when so many rival Emperors were intriguing
against each other. But Maximinus was himself the falsifier of his own words.
Early in 312, he marched against the Armenians, and the gods were so far from
showing their approbation of his conduct, that he was defeated in person.
(Burton.)

tians gathered multitudes together, who were in danger of famine, and
distributed quantities of bread among them; and thus they gave occasion to all
men to glorify the Christians' God, and to acknowledge them alone to be the
true worshippers of the Most High, as their works evidently showed. "Whilst
these things," says Eusebius, "were being done, God, the great and celestial
defender of his church, who exhibited his indignation and anger against men by
these calamities, on account of the excesses committed against us, restored
the benign and smiling brightness of his providence towards us, so that, by a
most wonderful concurrence of events, the light of his peace again began to
shine upon us, as from the midst of the densest darkness; showing plainly to
all, that God himself had been the ruler of our affairs at all times; who
sometimes, indeed, chastens and visits his people, by various trials, from
time to time; but, after he has sufficiently chastened, again exhibits his
mercy and kindness to those who trust in him." * The Christians in Armenia, if
we may believe later, and in some respects suspicious, accounts,† had suffered
severely in the earlier years of the persecution. Athenogenes, Bishop of
Sebaste, was memorable among the martyrs;‡ and, at this time, the fame of a
Bishop named Gregory was widely spread. He had received his consecration from
Leontius, another celebrated Bishop of Cæsarea, in Cappadocia; and it seems to
have been the custom for all his successors to do the same.§ Gregory is said
to have converted Tiridates, the King of Armenia, to Christianity; and
Arsaces, who reigned after him, was likewise a Christian. It was probably the
first of these Sovereigns who provoked the hostility of Maximinus. No cause of
war is assigned,|| except the attempts made by the tyrant to force the
Armenian Christians to sacrifice; and the result of the campaign was
unfavourable to the Romans. Maximinus was perhaps diverted from continuing
this war, by the necessity of watching the operations of his colleagues in
Europe.¶

In the midst of the great calamity to which allusion has been made, not the
least scourge of pagan East was the pagan Emperor himself. Christian writers
may have exaggerated—they can scarcely have invented—the vices of Maximinus.
His licentiousness violated alike the honour of noble and plebeian families.
The eunuchs, the purveyors for his passions, traversed the provinces, marked
out those who were distinguished by fatal beauty, and conducted these
extraordinary perquisitions with the most insolent indignity: where milder
measures would not prevail, force was used. Nor was tyranny content with the
gratification of its own licence: noble virgins, after having been dishonoured
by the Emperor, were granted in marriage

* Euseb., Hist. Eccles., lib. ix., cap. 8.

† See Annales Baronii ad Ann., 311, No. xx. Sozomen speaks of Armenia having
embraced Christianity long before the time of Constantine. Eccles. Hist., lib.
ii., cap. 8.

|| He was probably the person mentioned by Basil, de Spir. Sancto, lib. xxix.,
cap. lxxiii., p. 62. Cave supposes that he flourished A.D. 196.

§ Niconis de Armen. Relig., Biblioth. Patr., Ed. 1677, tom. xxv., p. 328.

|| Euseb., Eccles. Hist., lib. ix., cap. 8.

¶ Burton, Lect. on Eccles. Hist., lect. xxx.

INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF THE CHURCH.

to his slaves: even those of the highest rank were consigned to the loathsome
embraces of a barbarian husband. Valeria, the widow of Galerius, and the
daughter of Diocletian, was first insulted by proposals of marriage from
Maximinus, whose wife was still living; and then compelled to wander through
the eastern provinces in the humblest disguise, till at length she perished at
Thessalonica, by the still more unjustifiable sentence of Licinius. It must
not be forgotten, that the war with Armenia was undertaken in a spirit of
persecution. This early Christian kingdom was attached, in all the zeal of
recent proselytism, to the new religion. That part which acknowledged the
Roman sway was commanded to abandon Christianity, and the legions of Rome were
employed in forcing the reluctant kingdom to obedience.*

Though Maxentius had caused Alexander to be killed in the preceding year, and
nominally obtained possession of Africa, he did not celebrate his triumph for
this victory till 312. He then sent an order to stop the persecution of the
Christians; and such a measure was perhaps politic, when hostilities had begun
between himself and Constantine, and the latter was contemplating an entrance
into Italy with an army. We have already mentioned, that Mensurius, Bishop of
Carthage, died before the end of the persecution, and that his place was
filled up by Cæcilianus. This appointment led to a most unfortunate schism in
the church of Carthage, which lasted for a very long period.† Two other
Presbyters, named Botrus and Celeusius, had wished to fill the vacant see;
and, with a view to this, they had caused the election to be made at a meeting
of only the neighbouring Bishops, without any notice being sent to the Bishops
of Numidia. The result was contrary to their expectation; for the choice fell
unanimously upon Cæcilianus, who was consecrated Bishop of Carthage by Felix,
Bishop of the neighbouring city of Aptemgis. The list of articles belonging to
the church, which had been made by Mensurius, when he was summoned before the
Magistrate, was now delivered to Cæcilianus, who sent to demand them from the
persons with whom they were deposited. These persons did not wish to give them
up; and they found the rejected candidates for the bishopric, as well as other
members of the church, who had previously opposed Mensurius, willing to join
them in a schism against the authority of Cæcilianus. They were also supported
by a lady named Lucilla, who was offended with the Bishop for something which
he had done to her while he was a Deacon, and who was able to further their
schemes by command of a large sum of money. One of the principal leaders of
this faction was Donatus, Bishop of Casæ Nigræ, in Numidia, who gave name to
the schism of the Donatists, which had its origin in the manner which has been
described.‡

* Milman, Hist. of Christianity, vol. ii., p. 294.

† The facts which are mentioned connected with the origin of Donatism, will be
found in Optatus, cont. Parmen., lib. i.; August. Collat. Gesta apud
Zenophilum; Routh, Reliq. Sacra, vol. iv., p. 320. Oxon, 1846.

‡ Donatists were ancient schismatics in Africa, so denominated from their
leader Donatus. They had their origin about the year 312, when, in the room of
Mensurius, who died in that year on his return to Rome, Cæcilianus was elected
Bishop of Car-

One of the first acts of the Donatists was to denounce the election of
Cæcilianus, as invalid, to Secundus,* Bishop of Nisibis, on the ground that
the Numidian Bishops had not been present, and that the Bishop had not been
consecrated by Secundus, the Primate of Numidia. We are thus particular in
noticing the rise and progress of Donatism, as having been the cause of
Christians persecuting Christians, which, ere long, cast an awful blot on the
Christian name and profession, and flooded the church herself with the blood
of her noblest children. This act of denouncement brought Secundus and nearly
seventy other Bishops to Carthage, who avoided holding communion with
Cæcilianus, and summoned him to attend a meeting, thage, and consecrated,
without the concurrence of the Numidian Bishops, by those of Africa alone,
whom the people refused to acknowledge, and to whom they opposed Majorinus,
who accordingly was ordained by Donatus, Bishop of Case Nigræ. They were
condemned in a Council held at Rome, two years after their separation; and
afterwards in another at Arles, the year following; and again at Milan, before
Constantine the Great, in 316, who deprived them of their churches, and sent
their seditious Bishops into banishment, and punished some of them with death.
Their cause was espoused by another Donatus, called "the Great," the principal
Bishop of that sect, who, with numbers of his followers, was exiled by order
of Constans. Many of them were punished with great severity. However, after
the accession of Julian to the throne, in 362, they were permitted to return,
and restored to their former liberty. Gratian published several edicts against
them, and, in 377, deprived them of their churches, and prohibited all their
assemblies. But, notwithstanding the severities they suffered, it appears that
they had a considerable number of churches towards the close of this century;
but at this time they began to decline, on account of a schism among
themselves, occasioned by the election of two Bishops in the room of
Parmenian, the successor of Donatus. One party elected Primian, and were
called "Primianists;" and another, Maximian, and were called "Maximianists."
Their decline was also precipitated by the zealous opposition of Augustine,
and by the violent measures which were pursued against them by order of the
Emperor Honorius, at the solicitation of two Councils held at Carthage,—the
one in 404, and the other in 411. Many of them were fined, their Bishops
banished, and some put to death. This sect revived and multiplied under the
protection of the Vandals, who invaded Africa in 427, and took possession of
this province; but it sunk again under new severities, when their empire was
overturned, in 534. Nevertheless, they remained in a separate body till the
close of this century, when Gregory, the Roman Pontiff, used various methods
for suppressing them. His zeal succeeded, and there are few traces to be found
of the Donatists after this period. They were distinguished by other
appellations; as, "Circumcelliones, Montenses," or Mountaineers; "Campetes,"
or "Rupetes," &c. They held three Councils; that of Cita in Numidia, and two
at Carthage. The Donatists, it is said, held that baptism conferred out of the
church—that is, out of their sect—was null; and, accordingly, they re-baptized
those who joined their party from other churches; they also re-ordained their
Ministers. Donatus seems likewise to have embraced the doctrines of the
Arians; though Augustine affirms that the Donatists, in this point, kept clear
of the errors of their leader. (Henderson.)

* Mensurius had abstracted the Scriptures from the church, and substituted for
them writings of no value. Secundus was at this time Bishop of Nisibis, in
Numidia, and Primate of that district which joined the see of Carthage.
Mensurius informed Secundus of his evasion of the imperial decree. Secundus,
in reply to his letter, declared that he ought to have submitted to any
extremity of suffering, rather than have acted in this manner; and he boasts
of his own superior fortitude and resolution. The result, however, proved that
his boasting was premature; for he became a traditor himself, and was absolved
for his offence by the Bishops who met in A.D. 305, or 306, in the Council of
Cirta. At that Council many Bishops were found guilty of the same crime; and
they mutually confessed and pardoned and absolved each other. They did not
acknowledge their ordination to be void. The heads of the subsequently formed
Donatist party were present; none of whom, after their mutual accusations, and
mutual absolutions, affirmed that they had ceased to be Bishops of the church
of Christ. Immediately after their accepting pardon from each other, they
ordained Sylvanus to be Bishop of Cirta, and separated. The Acts of the
Council are to be found in the third book of Augustine against Cresconius.
(Rev. George Townsend.)

DIVISIVE PROCEEDINGS AT CARTHAGE.

where his case should be investigated. Cæcilianus declined attending; and the
Council, as it styled itself, proceeded to annul his election. They brought
two charges against him. The first was, that he had been consecrated by
traditores; that is, by Bishops who had delivered up something belonging to
the church during the persecution: the second was, that, while he was a
Deacon, he had hindered relief being conveyed to the Christians who were in
prison. The first of these charges was the more extraordinary, because it was
notorious that Secundus, and the other Bishops who attended the Council of
Cirta, in 305, (many of whom were now present at Carthage,) had confessed
themselves traditores. Cæcilianus offered to be consecrated again, in the
presence of these Bishops, if it could be proved that his former consecration
was invalid; and it was shown to be the custom for the Bishop of Carthage to
be consecrated by a Bishop of one of the nearest sees, and not by a Bishop of
Numidia, in the same manner as the Bishop of Rome was consecrated by the
Bishop of Ostia.* The Council took no notice of these arguments and proposals,
but proceeded, in defiance of all precedent, and to the destruction of
ecclesiastical discipline, to elect another Bishop for the see of Carthage.
Their choice fell upon Majorinus, who stood upon the interest of Lucilla,† and
received his consecration from Silvanus, Bishop of Cirta, who, from being one
of the traditores, was not competent to assist in such a ceremony. From this
time the Donatiats, as they were afterwards called, continued for several
years to elect a Bishop of their own; although Cæcilianus and his successors
were recognised by the general, or, in other words, the Catholic, Church, as
the legitimate Bishops of Carthage.

Throughout the whole of the West, and in that part of the Eastern empire which
was under Licinius, the favourable sentiments of Constantine towards those of
the Christian faith, the indifference of Maxentius, and the edict of Galerius,
preserved in a considerable

* The ordination of a Bishop by three Bishops was the common rule and practice
of the Church: yet this was not simply and absolutely necessary to the essence
of ordination; for the Church many times admitted the ordination of Bishops,
who had been consecrated by one or two Bishops only. Siderius, Bishop of
Palæbisca, was ordained by one Bishop; yet Athanasius not only allowed his
ordination, and confirmed it, but, finding him to be a useful man, he
afterwards advanced him, as Synesius says, to the metropolitical see of
Ptolemais. Paulinus, Bishop of Antioch, ordained Evagrius, his successor,
without any other Bishop to assist him, which though it was done against the
canon, yet Theodoret assures us that both the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria
owned Evagrius as a true Bishop, and never in the least degree questioned the
validity of his ordination. (Bingham. Antiquities, book ii., chap. xi., sect.
16.)

† There was at Carthage a Christian lady, named Lucilla, who was reproved by
Cæcilianus for superstition, in retaining and kissing, before she proceeded to
the eucharist, the bones of a certain person whom she called a martyr. Lucilla
was indignant at the reproof, and her anger appeared as one cause of the
subsequent commotion. "Ante eucharistiae usum osea alicujus martyris, si modo
martyris, deosculari solebat." Mr. Butler does not condemn Lucilla for kissing
the bones, but for doing so when he had not been acknowledged to have been a
martyr by the Pastors of the Church. To prevent abuses and superstition, it
was always, he says, a necessary law in the Church, that without the Bishops'
approbation no private persons should be allowed to pay to relics the honour
due to martyrs. This might prevent superstition when it was independent of the
priestcraft; but how must it have been increased, when sanctioned by
priestcraft! The plant might not grow in the open air; it would, indeed, soon
have perished there; it must only grow in the hot-house of the Bishops'
approbation.

Y degree the Christians from open and direct persecution. The cruelties,
extortions, and brutalities of Maxentius, made every Roman his enemy; but his
powerful army might long have secured him from the resentment of his degraded
subjects, had he not recklessly provoked Constantine to war. Neither should it
be forgotten that Maximinus had for some time been carrying on a secret
correspondence with Maxentius, and urging him to hostilities with Constantine.
That Prince was not rash in engaging in a contest which could not but be
dangerous to him; but all attempts at negotiating failing, and Maxentius
plainly indicating his purpose of making himself sole Monarch of the West,
self-defence forced Constantine into active measures of hostility. Though
Constantine might view the conduct of Maxentius with abhorrence, and the
situation of the Romans with compassion, we have little reason to imagine that
he would have taken up arms to punish the one, or to relieve the other, had
not the grasping ambition of the tyrant compelled him to make his descent into
Italy. After the death of Herculeus, his titles, according to the established
custom, had been erased, and his statues thrown down with ignominy. His son,
who had deserted and persecuted him when alive, affected to display the most
pious regard for his memory, and gave orders that a similar treatment should
be immediately inflicted on all the statues that had been erected in Italy and
Africa to the honour of Constantine.* That prudent Prince, who sincerely
wished to decline a war, with the difficulty and importance of which he was
fully acquainted, at first dissembled the insult, and sought for redress by
the milder expedients of negotiation, till he was convinced that the hostile
and ambitious designs of the Italian Emperor could only be met by some fearful
struggle. He had already prepared a very considerable force to invade the
Gallic provinces on the side of Rhæția; and though he could not expect any
assistance from Licinius, he was flattered with the hope that the legions of
Illyricum, allured by his presents and promises, would desert the standard of
that Prince, and unanimously declare themselves his soldiers and subjects.
Constantine no longer hesitated. He had deliberated with caution: he acted
with vigour. He gave a private audience to the ambassadors, who, in the name
of the Senate and the people, conjured him to deliver Rome from a detested
tyrant; and, without regarding the timid remonstrances of his council, he

* In the commencement of the war with Maxentius, Constantine appears to have
been at a loss to what god he should trust himself and his affairs. He at
length determined to honour that one God only whom his father had worshipped,
and to show no reverence to the ancient Roman deities. The grounds on which he
came to this decision were, namely, the good fortune of his father who had
adhered to this worship, and the ill fortune and deplorable end of Diocletian,
Galerius, Herculeus, and other Emperors who had worshipped the pagan deities;
and, according to Eusebius, (De Vita Const., lib. i., cap. 28,) he knew so
little of the God of his father, that he prayed he might be able to know him.
He was a Deist of the lowest class, who considered the God of his father as a
limited being, though more benevolent and powerful than any of the Greek and
Roman deities. This is manifest from his regulations in favour of the
Christians, and from his laws tolerating the pagan haruspices. (Codex Theod.,
lib. ix., tit. 16, leg. 1, 2; also, lib. xvi., tit. 10, leg. 1; compare
Zosimus, lib. ii., p. 10, Ed. Oxon., 1679, 8ro.; see also Mosheim, Comment. de
Rebus Christ.) It is, however, certain, that in the first years after his
victory over Maxentius, he had very incorrect ideas of Christ and of the
Christian religion.

CONSTANTINE PREPARES TO MEET MAXENTIUS.

resolved to prevent the enemy, and to carry the war into the heart of Italy.

The enterprise, says the historian Gibbon, was as full of danger as of glory;
and the unsuccessful event of two former invasions was sufficient to inspire
the most serious apprehensions. The veteran troops who revered the name of
Herculeus, had embraced in both those wars the party of his son, and were now
restrained by a sense of honour, as well as of interest, from entertaining an
idea of a second desertion. Maxentius, who considered the Praetorian guards as
the firmest defence of his throne, had increased them to their ancient
establishment; and they composed, including the rest of the Italians who were
enlisted into his service, a formidable body of fourscore thousand men. Forty
thousand Moors and Carthaginians had been raised since the reduction of
Africa. Even Sicily furnished its proportion of troops; and the armies of
Maxentius amounted to one hundred and seventy thousand foot, and eighteen
thousand horse. The wealth of Italy supplied the expenses of the war; and the
adjacent provinces were exhausted, to form immense magazines of corn and every
other kind of provisions. The whole force of Constantine consisted of ninety
thousand foot, and eight thousand horse;* and as the defence of the Rhine
required an extraordinary attention during the absence of the Emperor, it was
not in his power to employ above half his troops in the Italian expedition,
unless he sacrificed the public safety to his private quarrel. At the head of
forty thousand soldiers, he marched to encounter an enemy whose numbers were
nearly five times superior to his own. But the armies of Rome, placed at a
secure distance from danger, were enervated by indulgence and luxury.
Habituated to the baths and theatres of Rome, they took the field with
reluctance, and were chiefly composed of veterans who had almost forgotten, or
of new levies who had never acquired, the use of arms and the practice of war.
The hardy legions of Gaul had long defended the frontiers of the empire
against the barbarians of the North;† and in the performance of that laborious
service, their valour was exercised, and their discipline confirmed. There
appeared the same difference between the leaders, as between the armies.
Caprice or flattery had tempted Maxentius with the hopes of conquest; but
these aspiring hopes soon gave way to the habits of pleasure and the
consciousness of his inexperience. The intrepid mind of Constantine had been
trained from his earliest youth to war, to action, and to military command.

* Zosimus (lib. ii., p. 86) has given us this curious account of the forces on
both sides. He makes no mention of any naval armaments, though we are assured,
(Panegyric. Vet., lib. ix., cap. 25,) that the war was carried on by sea, as
well as by land; and that the fleet of Constantine took possession of
Sardinia, Corsica, and the ports of Italy.

† While therefore he regarded the entire world as one immense body, and
perceived that the head of it all, the royal city of the Roman empire, was
bowed down by the weight of a tyrannous oppression; at first he left the task
of liberation to those who governed the other divisions of the empire, as
being his superiors in point of age. But when none of these proved able to
afford relief, and those who had attempted it had experienced a disastrous
termination of their enterprise, he said that life was without enjoyment to
him as long as he saw the imperial city thus afflicted, and prepared himself
for the effectual suppression of the tyranny. (Kuseb., De Vita Const., lib.
i., cap. 26.)

y 2

The enemy of Maxentius was all activity and vigour, and he crossed the Alps
with forty thousand men. In the age of Constantine, the peasants of the
mountains were a different race of people from what they were in the day of
Hannibal: they were comparatively civilized and obedient subjects; the country
was plentifully stocked with provisions, and the stupendous highways which the
Romans had carried over the Alps opened several communications between Gaul
and Italy. Constantine followed the road of the Cottian Alps, or, as it is now
called, of Mount Cenis, and led his troops with such active diligence, that he
descended into the plain of Piedmont before his enemy knew that he had left
Gaul; a celerity of which there had been no example since the times of
Severus, or even of Julius Cæsar. The city of Susa,* however, which is
situated at the foot of Mount Cenis, was surrounded with walls, and provided
with a garrison sufficiently numerous to check the progress of an invader; but
the impatience of Constantine's troops disdained the tedious forms of a siege.
The same day that they appeared before Susa, they applied fire to the gates,
and ladders to the walls, and, mounting to the assault amidst a shower of
stones and arrows, they entered the place sword in hand, and cut in pieces the
greater part of the garrison. The flames were extinguished by the care of
Constantine, and the remains of Susa preserved from total destruction. About
forty miles from thence, a more severe contest awaited him. A numerous army of
Italians was assembled under the Lieutenants of Maxentius, in the plains of
Turin. Its principal strength consisted in a species of heavy cavalry, which
the Romans, since the decline of their discipline, had borrowed from the
nations of the East. The horses, as well as the men, were clothed in complete
armour, the joints of which were artfully adapted to the motions of their
bodies. The aspect of this cavalry was formidable, their weight almost
irresistible; and, as on this occasion their Generals had drawn them up in a
compact column or wedge, with a sharp point, and with spreading flanks, they
flattered themselves that they should easily break and trample down the army
of Constantine. They might perhaps have succeeded in their design, had not
their experienced adversary embraced the same method of defence, which in
similar circumstances had been practised by Aurelian. The skilful evolutions
of Constantine divided and baffled this massive column of cavalry. The troops
of Maxentius fled in confusion towards Turin; and as the gates of the city
were shut against them, very few escaped the sword of the victorious pursuers.
By this important service, Turin deserved to experience the clemency and even
favour of the conqueror. He made his entry into the imperial palace of Milan,
and almost all the cities of Italy between the Alps and the Po, not only
acknowledged the power, but embraced with zeal the party, of Constantine. †

* Susa is a province of the Sardinian states, in Piedmont, consisting of a
broad valley interspersed with steep rocks. It has an area of seven hundred
square miles, with sixty-five thousand inhabitants. The town Susa possesses a
very strong fort. It is near a triumphal arch to the honour of Augustus Cæsar.

† Zosimus, as well as Eusebius, hasten from the passage of the Alps to the
decisive action near Rome. We must apply to the two Panegyrics for the
intermediate actions of Constantine.

THE ENGAGEMENT AT VERONA.

From Milan to Rome, continues Gibbon, the Æmilian and Firmilian highways
offered an easy march of about four hundred miles; but though Constantine was
impatient to encounter the tyrant, he prudently directed his operations
against another army of Italians, who, by their strength and position, might
either oppose his progress, or, in case of a misfortune, might intercept his
retreat. Ruricius Pompeianus, a General distinguished by his valour and
ability, had under his command the city of Verona, and all the troops that
were stationed in the province of Venetia. As soon as he was informed that
Constantine was advancing towards him, he detached a large body of cavalry,
which was defeated in an engagement near Brescia, and pursued by the Gallic
legions as far as the gates of Verona. The necessity, the importance, and the
difficulties of the siege of Verona, immediately presented themselves to the
sagacious mind of Constantine.* The city was accessible only by a narrow
peninsula towards the west, as the other three sides were surrounded by the
Adige, a rapid river, which covered the province of Venetia, from whence the
besieged derived an inexhaustible supply of men and provisions. It was not
without great difficulty, and after several fruitless attempts, that
Constantine found means to pass the river at some distance above the city, and
in a place where the torrent was less violent. He then encompassed Verona with
strong lines, pushed his attacks with prudent vigour, and repelled a desperate
sally of Pompeianus. That intrepid General, when he had used every means of
defence that the strength of the place or that of the garrison could afford,
secretly escaped from Verona, anxious not for his own but for the public
safety. With indefatigable diligence he soon collected an army sufficient
either to meet Constantine in the field, or to attack him if he obstinately
remained within his lines. The Emperor, attentive to the motions, and informed
of the approach, of so formidable an enemy, left a part of his legions to
continue the operations of the siege, whilst, at the head of those troops on
whose valour and fidelity he more particularly depended, he advanced in person
to engage the General of Maxentius. The army of Gaul was drawn up in two
lines, according to the usual practice of war; but their experienced leader,
perceiving that the number of the Italians far exceeded his own, suddenly
changed his disposition, and, reducing the second, extended the front of his
first line to a just proportion with that of the enemy. Such evolutions, which
only veteran troops can execute without confusion in a moment of danger,
commonly prove decisive; but as this engagement began towards the close of the
day, and was contested with great obstinacy during the whole night, there was
less room for the conduct of the Generals than for the courage of the
soldiers. The return of light displayed the victory of Constantine, and a
field of carnage covered with many thousands of the vanquished Italians. Their
General, Pompeianus, was found

* The Marquis Maffei has examined the siege and battle of Verona with that
degree of attention and accuracy which was due to a memorable action that
happened in his native country. The fortifications of that city, constructed
by Gallienus, were less extensive than the modern walls, and the amphitheatre
was not included within their circumference. (See Verona Illustrata, part 1.,
pp. 142-150.)

among the slain: Verona immediately surrendered at discretion, and the
garrison became prisoners of war.* When the officers of the victorious army
congratulated their master on this important success, they ventured to add
some respectful complaints, of such a nature, however, as the most jealous
Monarchs will listen to without displeasure. They represented to Constantine
that, not content with all the duties of a commander, he had exposed his own
person with an excess of valour which almost degenerated into rashness; and
they conjured him for the future to pay more regard to the preservation of a
life, in which the safety of Rome and of the empire was involved.

While these important movements were taking place, and Constantine had taken
possession of the important city of Verona, the Sovereign of Italy appeared
insensible to the dangers and calamity of a civil war which raged in the heart
of his dominions, and pleasure was still the only business of Maxentius.
Concealing, or at least attempting to conceal, from the public knowledge the
misfortunes of his arms, he indulged himself in a vain confidence, which
deferred the remedies of the approaching evil, without deferring the evil
itself. The rapid progress of Constantine did not awaken him from this fatal
security: he flattered himself, that his well-known liberality, and the
majesty of the Roman name, which had already delivered him from two invasions,
would dissipate with the same facility the rebellious army of Gaul. The
officers of experience and ability, who had served under the banners of
Herculeus, were at length compelled to inform his effeminate son of the
imminent danger to which he was reduced: and, with a freedom that at once
surprised and convinced him, to urge the necessity of preventing his ruin, by
a vigorous exertion of his remaining power. The resources of Maxentius, both
of men and money, were still considerable.† The Praetorian guards felt how
strongly their own interest and safety were connected with his cause; and a
third army was soon collected, more numerous than those which had been lost in
the battles of Turin and Verona. It was far from the intention of the Emperor
to lead his troops in person. A stranger to the exercises of war, he trembled
at the apprehension of so dangerous a contest; and, as fear is commonly
superstitious, he listened with melancholy attention to the rumours of omens
and presages which seemed to menace his life and empire. Shame at length
supplied the place of courage, and forced him to take the field. He was unable
to sustain the contempt of the Roman people. The circus resounded with their
indignant clamours, and they tumultuously besieged the gates of the palace,
reproaching the pusillanimity of their indolent Sovereign, and celebrating the
heroic spirit of Constantine. Before Maxentius left Rome he consulted the
Sibylline books. The guardians of these sacred oracles were as well versed in

* They wanted chains for so great a multitude of captives, and the whole
council was at a loss; but the sagacious conqueror, it is said, imagined the
expedient of converting into fetters the swords of the vanquished!

† Nevertheless, if there be any truth in the scarcity mentioned by Eusebius,
that "the inhabitants of Rome were reduced to the most extreme penury and want
of necessary food, a scarcity such as our contemporaries do not remember ever
before to have existed at Rome," the imperial granaries must have been open
only to the soldiers.

DEFEAT AND FALL OF MAXENTIUS.

the arts of this world, as they were ignorant of the secrets of fate; and they
returned him a very prudent answer,* which might adapt itself to the event,
and secure their reputation, whatever should be the chance of arms.
Constantine always apprehended that the tyrant would consult the dictates of
fear,† and perhaps of prudence; and that, instead of risking his last hopes in
a general engagement, he would shut himself up within the walls of Rome. His
ample magazines secured him against the danger of famine; and as the situation
of Constantine admitted not of delay, he might have been reduced to the sad
necessity of destroying with fire and the sword the imperial city, the noblest
reward of his victory, and the deliverance of which had been the motive of the
civil war. It was with equal surprise and pleasure, that on his arrival at a
place called Saxa Rubra,‡ about

* "The answers given by the heathen oracles were frequently very delusive, and
capable of a contrary interpretation; and the most celebrated of them
concealed their meaning in such ambiguous terms, that they required another
oracle to explain them. Of this ambiguity several authentic instances are
recorded. Thus, when Cræsus consulted the oracle at Delphi, relative to his
intended war against the Persians, he was told that he would destroy a great
empire. This he naturally interpreted of his overcoming the Persians, though
the oracle was so framed as to admit of an opposite meaning. Cræsus made war
against the Persians, and was ruined; and the oracle continued to maintain its
credit. The answer given to Pyrrhus, King of Epirus, many ages after, was of
yet more doubtful interpretation, being conceived in terms so ambiguous, that
it might either be interpreted thus: 'I say, that thou, son of Æacus, canst
conquer the Romans. Thou shalt go, thou shalt return, never shalt thou perish
in war;' or thus: 'I say that the Romans can conquer thee, son of Æacus. Thou
shalt go, thou shalt never return, thou shalt perish in war.' Pyrrhus
understood the oracle in the former sense; he waged an unsuccessful war with
the Romans, and was overcome; yet still the juggling oracle saved its credit.
Another remarkable instance of the ambiguity of the pretended Prophets occurs
in I Kings xxii. 5, 6. Jehoshaphat, King of Judah, and Abab, King of Israel,
having united their forces against the Syrians, in order to recover Ramoth-
Gilead; the latter Monarch 'gathered the false Prophets together, about four
hundred men, and said unto them, Shall I go against Ramoth-Gilead to battle,
or shall I forbear? And they said, Go up, for the Lord shall deliver it into
the hands of the King.' It is to be observed, that the word 'it' is not in the
original, and that the reply of the pseudo-Prophets is so artfully
constructed, that it might be interpreted either for or against the
expedition; as thus,—'The Lord will deliver' (it) Ramoth-Gilead 'into the
King's hand' (Abab's); or, 'The Lord will deliver' (Israel) 'into the King's
hand,' that is, into the hands of the King of Syria. Relying upon this
ambiguous oracle, the Monarchs of Judah and Israel engaged the Syrians, and
were utterly discomfited." (Horne, Introduction, vol. I., p. 276, ninth edit.)

† Maxentius, understanding of the coming of Constantine, and trusting more to
his derilish art of magic than to the good-will of his subjects, which he
little deserved, durst not show himself out of the city, nor encounter with
him in the open field, but with privy garrisons laid wait for him by the way
in sundry straits, as he should come; with whom Constantine had divers
skirmishes, and by the power of the Lord did ever vanquish them, and put them
to flight. (Euseb., Eccles. Hist., lib. ix., cap. 9; De Vita Constant., lib.
i., cap. 26, 37.) Notwithstanding, Constantine yet was in no great comfort,
but in care and dread in his mind, (approaching now near unto Rome,) for the
magical charms and sorceries of Maxentius, wherewith he had vanquished before
Severus, sent by Galerius against him, which made Constantine the more afraid.
(Foxe, Acts and Monuments, vol. I., p. 243, Seeley's 8vo. edit.) "The
crowning-point of the tyrant's wickedness," says Eusebina, (De Vita Const.,
lib. i., cap. 36,) "was his having recourse to sorcery; sometimes, for magic
purposes, opening women with child; at other times searching into the bowels
of new-born infants. He slew lions also, and practised certain horrid arts for
evoking demons, and averting the approaching war, hoping by these means to
make himself secure of victory."

‡ Saxa Rubra was in the neighbourhood of the Cremers, a trifling rivulet,
memorable by the valour and glorious death of the three hundred Fabii. The
post which Maxentius had taken, with the Tiber in his rear, is very clearly
described by the two Panegyrists, lib. x., cap. 28; lib. ix., cap. 16.

nine miles from Rome, he discovered the army of Maxentius prepared to give him
battle. Their long front filled a very spacious plain, and their deep array
reached to the banks of the Tiber, which covered their rear, and forbade their
retreat. We are informed, and we may believe, that Constantine disposed his
troops with consummate skill; and that he chose for himself the post of honour
and of danger. Distinguished by the splendour of his arms, he charged in
person the cavalry of his rival; and his irresistible attack determined the
event of the day. The cavalry of Maxentius was principally composed either of
unwieldy cuirassiers, or of light Moors and Numidians. They yielded to the
vigour of the Gallic horse, which possessed more activity than the one, more
firmness than the other. The defeat of the two wings left the infantry without
any protection on its flanks, and the undisciplined Italians fled without
reluctance from the standard of a tyrant whom they had always hated, and whom
they no longer feared. The Praetorians, conscious that their offences were
beyond the reach of mercy, were animated by revenge and despair.
Notwithstanding their repeated efforts, those brave veterans were unable to
recover the victory: they obtained, however, an honourable death; and it was
observed, that their bodies covered the same ground which had been occupied by
their ranks. The confusion then became general; and the dismayed troops of
Maxentius, pursued by an implacable enemy, rushed by thousands into the deep
and rapid stream of the Tiber. The Emperor himself attempted to escape back
into the city over the Milvian bridge; but the crowds which pressed together
through that narrow passage forced him into the river, where he was
immediately drowned by the weight of his armour.* His body, which had sunk

* A rumour prevailed, that Maxentius, who had not taken any precaution for his
own retreat, had contrived a very artful snare to destroy the army of the
pursuers; but that the wooden bridge, which was to have been loosened on the
approach of Constantine, unluckily broke down under the weight of the flying
Italians. Maxentius, "being constrained by force to issue out of the city,
sendeth all his power to join with him in the field beyond the river Tiber;
where Maxentius craftily breaking down the bridge called 'Pons Milvius,'
caused another deceitful bridge to be made of boats and wherries being joined
together, and covered over with boards and planks, in the manner of a bridge,
thinking therewith to take Constantine as in a trap. But herein came to pass
that which in the seventh Psalm is written, 'He made a pit and digged it, and
is fallen into the ditch which he made; his mischief shall return upon his own
head, and his violent dealing shall come down upon his own pate:' which here
in this Maxentius was rightly verified; for after the two hosts did meet, he,
being not able to sustain the force of Constantine fighting under the cross of
Christ against him, was put to such a flight, and driven to such an exigence,
that, in retiring back upon the same bridge which he did lay for Constantine,
(for haste, thinking to reach the city,) he was overturned by the fall of his
horse into the bottom of the flood, and there, with the weight of his armour,
be, and a great part of his beaten men, were drowned; representing unto us the
like examples of Pharaoh and his host drowned in the Red Sea, who not unaptly
seemeth to bear a prophetic figuration of this Maxentius. For as the children
of Israel were in long thraldom and persecution in Egypt under tyrants there,
till the drowning of this Pharaoh their last persecutor, so was this Maxentius
the last persecutor in the Roman monarchy of the Christians; whom this
Constantine, fighting under the cross of Christ, did vanquish, and set the
Christians at liberty, who before had been persecuted now three hundred years
in Rome. Wherefore, as the Israelites with their Moses, at the drowning of
Pharaoh, sang gloriously unto the Lord, who miraculously had cast down the
horse and horsemen into the sea, so, no less rejoicing and exceeding gladness
was here, to see the glorious hand of the Lord Christ fighting with his
people, and vanquishing his enemies and persecutors." (Foxe, Acts, &c., vol.
i., p. 249, 8vo. edit.)

THE CAREER OF CONSTANTINE.

very deep into the mud, was found with some difficulty the next day. The sight
of his head, when it was exposed to the eyes of the people, convinced them of
their deliverance, and admonished them to receive, with acclamations of
loyalty and gratitude, the fortunate Constantine, who thus achieved by his
valour and ability the most splendid enterprise of his life. In the use of
victory, Constantine neither deserved the praise of clemency, nor incurred the
censure of immoderate rigour. He inflicted the same treatment to which a
defeat would have exposed his own person and family,—put to death the two sons
of the tyrant, and carefully extirpated his whole race. The most distinguished
adherents of Maxentius must have expected to share his fate, as they had
shared his prosperity and his crimes; but when the Roman people loudly
demanded a greater number of victims, the conqueror resisted, with firmness
and humanity, those servile clamours, which were dictated by flattery as well
as by resentment. Informers were punished and discouraged; the innocent who
had suffered under the late tyranny were recalled from exile, and restored to
their estates; and a general act of oblivion quieted the minds, and settled
the property, of the people, both in Italy and Africa.

We have been the more prolix in describing this contest, because it was
attended with so many advantages towards the Christian faith: it put an end,
in a considerable degree, to the shedding of human blood, and obtained much
liberty and life to the posterity of many generations. Prior to the expedition
of Constantine against Maxentius, we have no proof that he had, ex animo,
embraced Christianity. For many years previous to his conquest of Rome, he had
not abjured Paganism. He obtained a certain victory over the Franks, but
condemned the prisoners to the unjust and cruel death of contending with wild
beasts in the theatre of Treves. The prisoners met the beasts, and permitted
themselves to be torn in pieces without a tear. The virtue of the savage seems
to be ever the same,—firmness in bearing pain, and defying his enemies to
derive satisfaction from the least exhibition of weakness. The same
characteristic marked the North-American warriors at the first discovery of
the continent. Christianity softened its converts at a subsequent period; but
the native cruelty of Constantine seems never to have been entirely
eradicated. Religion frequently ameliorates, without wholly subduing the power
of inward evil. We pass by his marriage with Fausts, the daughter of
Herculeus; his reception of him in 308; and the defeat of his treachery when
he endeavoured to corrupt his troops in 309; the romantic story of the father
imploring his daughter to consent to the murder of her husband; her
discovering the plot to Constantine, and the unjustifiable fatal blow upon the
person of an unconscious slave; with the reproaching of the confronted
murderer by his intended victim. We pass by, also, the sacrificing to Apollo,
310, at the station near the Rhine; his embellishing Treves, where he resided;
his wars against the barbarians, and the reputation attendant upon his
success; the invitations of the citizens of Rome to deliver them from
Maxentius, his more oppressive coadjutor in the empire; together with the
rapturous manner in which he was welcomed at Autun. These events

Z have nothing to do with the question of persecution: they prove only his
authority and influence in the empire. They contrast most strongly with the
rapacity, cruelty, and vileness of the other Emperors. He was virtuous, just,
and gentle, despite all his faults, when compared with them; and the time had
arrived when his thoughtful and reflecting mind was at length brought to some
decision, though not perfect and complete, on the preference of Christianity
to Paganism; and he resolved to place himself, if not at the head, as a
powerful auxiliary to the support, of the Christian party. The Heathen
believed that great temporal success was a proof of the favour of the gods. He
had received much prosperity up to this period of his life. He may have
attributed his felicity, not to fortune, not to chance, probably not to
Apollo, nor the now long exploded Olympus. He might remember the arguments
which he must certainly have heard in favour of Christianity. The reflections
which arose in his mind appeared to be his own. The Creator of the human mind
acts upon the human mind, sometimes, as in the case of the Prophets of old, by
an impression more than natural; sometimes by continuing and impressing the
trains of thought which present themselves by relative suggestion. He thus
acts with the mind by the laws of mind; but whenever a thought so arises, and
remains upon the consciousness, the memory, and the conscience, that permanent
change of motive, and lasting benefit, are results which justify us in saying,
that the Holy Spirit of God is present with that mind. This I believe to have
been the case when Constantine forsook the worship of Apollo, to whom he had
offered in the preceding year; and resolving to become, to the best of his
imperfect knowledge, a Christian, he commanded the figure of the cross to
supersede the eagle; and in the following year directed that the soldiers
should wear the same emblem on their shields and arms. He told Eusebius that
his own temporal success had demonstrated to him, that there was one God and a
Providence; though he did not add that Christianity is only that manner in
which the providence of God has made provision for the spiritual happiness and
improvement of the spirit of man. It is possible that these reflections might
occur to Constantine. It certainly appears to have been for his temporal
interest that he should now become decided in the moral grounds of his
opposition to Maxentius, and prove to the empire, that the war was not a war
of ambition, but of virtue against vice, happiness against misery, and of a
pure and holy religion against the consecrated impurities and blood-stained
altars of the desecrated temples of Juno, Mars, and Venus.*

We have now to ask, What is the conclusion at which we may arrive respecting
the cross, which Constantine informed Eusebius he saw on his way from Gaul to
Italy to meet Maxentius? Eusebius attributes the conversion of Constantine, to
the sort of reasoning on God and providence which we have mentioned; and that
his conclusion, after these contemplations, was, to worship the God in whom
his father had believed, as the one God; and that, when he was

* Townsend, Ecclesiastical and Civil History, philosophically considered, vol.
i., p. 222. London, 1847.

THE VISION OF THE CROSS.

praying to this God, then the celebrated vision was seen. He saw in the
afternoon, in the sky, over the sun, after he had prayed to God for assistance
in the approaching contest, a shining, an illuminated cross, with the
inscription, "BY THIS CONQUER." He related the fact to Eusebius, and swore to
its truth, while many of the soldiers were yet living. The next night he had a
vision to the same effect, and he then ordered the cross to supersede the
eagle, and to be engraven on the shields and arms. What are we to think of the
story? is the question. Those who wish to know if it were a solar halo, should
become acquainted with a certain treatise of Fabricius,* to which we refer our
readers, in the margin. In the meantime, let us not hastily dismiss the
subject as being a relic of superstition, and utterly unworthy a thought, and
thus enlarge the ground for future discussion to the incredulous and the
sceptic. Whatever some individuals may think of the reality of the miracle, it
must not be set aside as an invention of a later age, nor as a story which
cannot be traced to any authentic witness. It is related by Eusebius,† a
contemporary historian, who tells us that he had it from Constantine himself,
under the sanction of an oath. It was shortly before the decisive battle that
the preternatural communication took place.‡ The father of Constantine, as we
have already observed, had decidedly favoured the Christians, though there was
no evidence of his having embraced their religion. He appears to have seen
through the absurdity of polytheism, and to have learnt from the Christians to
worship one God. This was certainly the case with Constantine for some time
before his conversion; § and according to the relation which he gave to
Eusebius a long time after, he had been praying to this one spiritual Being,
and asking him to reveal himself; when, about the middle of the day, and in
the presence of the whole army, he saw the figure of a cross, traced in light,
and placed above the orb of the sun, with these words near it, "Hac vince."
The Emperor and his army, as might be supposed, were astounded at this vision;
and in the following night Jesus Christ appeared to Constantine with the same
figure of the cross, and told him to make a copy of what he had seen, and use
it in combat with the enemy. From this time the imperial standards bore a
device || which was composed of the first two letters of the name of Christ in
Greek, which were so placed as to resemble a cross.¶

* The treatise of Fabricius, De Cruce quam vidit Constantinus Magnus, is found
in his Bibliotheca Graeca. He gives many engraved representations of the form
in which it might have appeared. It is well known that this incident has been
warmly contested, and that the truth of the narrative has led to much
discussion. It would occupy too much space were we to attempt to enumerate
even the writings to which the controversy has given origin. A good synopsis
of the subject may be seen in Walsh's Hist. Novi Test., p. 1564.

† Kuseb., De Vita Constant., lib. i., cap. 28.

I The time is fixed by Lactantius, (De Mort. Persecut., cap. 44,) who is not
contradicted by Eusebius, though the latter has been quoted as placing the
event earlier. The testimony of Artemius (Apud Metaphrast., d. 20 Octob.)
agrees with Lactantius. Others have laid the scene in France.

§ Kuseb., De Vita Constant., lib. i., cap. 17, 28.

|| The device seems to have been of this kind. He is not said to have seen the
sign, or form, of a real cross, but the Greek letter X intersected
perpendicularly by the letter P.

¶ Burton, Lect. Eccles. Hist., lect. xxx.

z 2

Such is the celebrated story of the appearance of the cross to Constantine;
and what we have stated above will show, that if there were nothing
miraculous, Constantine was either deceived, or was himself a deceiver. If we
adopt the former hypothesis, the Christians in his army may have been the
guilty persons; and modern experiments have been brought to show, that the
effect might be produced by an optical illusion. Whether the Christians in the
fourth century were likely to be masters of this secret, so as to practise it
upon the whole army, or whether they would have hazarded the experiment, when
a failure would have been fatal to their cause, might furnish matter for
rational inquiry; but the notion of an optical illusion might also be
maintained by our supposing the spectators to have witnessed a natural
phenomenon, which is not very uncommon in the heavens. If we adopt the second
hypothesis, the whole story was probably an invention of Constantine. He could
not have leagued with the Christians to produce the delusion, because this
would imply that he was already converted to their religion, whereas all
history is opposed to such a notion: we should therefore conclude, that the
cross in the heavens was never really seen, but that Constantine imposed upon
the credulity of Eusebius. The latter informs us, that the Emperor gave him
the account a long time after the event; but this, perhaps, does not
invalidate the testimony. Length of time might cause a person to forget what
he had seen, but it could hardly cause him to fancy that he had seen what
never really occurred.* If it be said that the Emperor waited till the persons
who were with him at the time were likely to be dead, it might be replied,
that in that case he would not have added that the whole army witnessed the
phenomenon. Constantine was in his thirty-eighth year when the cross is said
to have appeared to him; and there must have been in his army many persons
younger than himself, who were alive when Eusebius published this account; but
there is no evidence of any of them having contradicted the facts which are
stated.† We do not see that the writer of history is called upon to give his
opinion in a case like the present; but after impartially reviewing all the
evidence, we should be inclined to say thus much, that if Constantine had told
Eusebius that the cross had been seen only by himself, we should not have
ventured to admit the truth of his narration; but when he asserted that the
same sight had been witnessed by the whole army, it is difficult to believe
that he wilfully invented a falsehood which was so certain to be detected.‡

But, to be more particular: Dr. Jortin gives three opposite opinions: that it
was either a miracle, a pious fraud, or a solar halo.

* This notion is maintained at some length by Fabricius, Biblioth. Graeca,
vol. vi., p. 8, where the reader may find all the authorities concerning this
story. For modern writers who have discussed it, see Mosheim, de Rebus ante
Const., Sec. III., sect. vii., p. 978.

† The Acts of Artemius are extant, (Apud Metaphrast., d. 20 Octobris,) who was
deprived of his appointment by Julian the Apostate; and he speaks of the cross
having been seen by himself, and by many persons who were still serving in the
army. But the authority of this document may be doubted. Lactantius mentions
the vision in the night, but not the appearance of the cross. (De Mort.
Persecut., cap. xliv. See Phot. Cod., 256.)

‡ Burton, Lect. Eccles. Hist., lect. xxx.

THE VISION OF THE CROSS.

Those who wish to learn whether or no it were a solar halo, may study
Fabricius.* Those who imagine it was a pious fraud, will doubtless draw their
arguments from certain inconsistencies in the future life of Constantine.
Those who think it was a miracle, will do well to remember, that there are
four very decided objections to this supposition. First, a miracle was not
necessary. Christianity was doing its predicted work: it had conquered, and
was conquering. The conviction was increasing, that the empire must take
refuge in a better religion, at least, than that of Paganism, which
consecrated vileness and murder, and changed the rulers of the earth into
demons. It cannot be imagined that a miracle should be wrought to allay those
anxieties of a wise man, which, with Constantine, were only the sources of
that caution and prudence by which he commanded or deserved success. Such a
miracle would destroy its own object.† There is no evidence that the event
took place at all. Constantine alone saw it. No man of his officers is
mentioned as a spectator. No voice was heard, as at the miraculous appearances
in the New Testament. He might have believed he saw it; and if he had uttered
an exclamation of surprise, or pointed with his hands, many of the courtiers
would have remarked whatever their imperial master affirmed he saw. The cloud
would be like a camel or a whale, if the Prince thought it resembled either.
Another reason against its being regarded as miraculous is, that the incident
may be easily explained by interpreting the expression, an inscription,
saying, "In this overcome," in a wider sense; as if the appearance of the
cross seemed to have the meaning.‡ The last reason is, that it is contrary to
the

* On the night of the dream before the decisive battle between Constantine and
Maxentius, he saw the vision which commanded him to place the labarum on the
shields and arms of the soldiers; not on the night of the day on which he
first saw the labarum itself. "Horia diei meridianis, sole in occasum
vergente, crucis tropaeum, in coelo ex luce confiatum, soli superpositum,
ipsis oculis se vidisse, affirmavit, cum hujus modi inscriptione, HAC VINCE."
(Euseb., Vit. Constant., lib. 1., cap. 28, edit. folio, Reding, p. 515.) This
is repeated from Eusebius by Sozomen, lib. 1., cap. 3. Other early
ecclesiastical histories contain the same story; as, for example, Philostorg.,
lib. 1., cap. 6; Niceph., lib. vii., cap. 29; lib. viii., cap. 3. The sentence
will bear (Jortis, Remarks on Eccles. Hist.) this meaning: He saw, that is,
believed he saw, a cross over the sun; and it appeared to him when he was
thinking of the approaching battle: "Fear not; believe in the cross, and thou
shalt conquer." The whole difficulty is in the words γραφην λεγουσαν, a
speaking writing, or an inscription appearing to speak. If γραφη may be used,
as is supposed, to denote a picture, the difficulty is removed. (See Euseb.,
De Vita Constant, ed. Reding.)

† Lactantius mentions only the dream; and the same is true of Sozomen, lib.
1., cap. 3, and Rufinus in his translation of the Ecclesiastical History of
Eusebius; and likewise of the author of the Chronicon Orientale, p. 57. Indeed
the appeal of Eusebius to the solemn attestation of the Emperor, (De Vita
Const., lib. 1., cap. 28,) and the statement of Gelasius Cyzicenus, (Acta
Concilii Niemi, lib. 1., cap. 4, in Harduin's Concilia, tom. 1., p. 351,) that
the whole story was accounted fabulous by the Pagans, confirm the supposition
that it was a mere dream. For the appeal of Eusebius would have been
unnecessary, and the denial of its reality by the Pagans would have been
impossible, if the whole army of Constantine had been eye-witnesses of the
event.

‡ Eusebius alone, among the writers of that age, gives us any account of the
vision of the cross, though Lactantius and others speak of the dream in which
Constantine was directed to use the sign of the cross. Eusebius's account is
as follows:—"He conceived that he ought to worship only the God of his father.
He therefore called upon this God in prayer, entreating and beseeching him to
manifest to him who he was, and to extend his right arm on the present
occasion. While he was thus praying with earnest entreaty, a most singular
divine manifestation appeared: which, perhaps, analogy of the appearances
mentioned in the Old and New Testament. These were, the flame from heaven
manifesting the presence of God, with a voice speaking from the excellent
glory. When our Lord appeared, he was seen as the God of the Patriarchs,
surrounded with the glory in which, before his incarnation, he had been
accustomed to appear. He was thus seen by Stephen at his martyrdom, and by
Paul at his conversion. The last time that he appeared was to John, in the
isle of Patmos; and there is something very wonderful and awful, that he who
had reposed on his bosom at the supper, he who had been his own familiar
friend, he upon whom the full powers of the pentecostal inspiration rested,
should fall at his feet as dead! No had another declared it, would not easily
be credited: but the victorious Emperor himself having related it to us who
write this, when we had, a long time afterwards, the privilege of knowing and
conversing with him, and having confirmed it with an oath,— who can hesitate
to believe the account? and especially as the subsequent time, or the event
which followed, affords evidence of its truth. He said, that about the middle
hours of the day, as the sun began to verge towards its setting, he saw in the
heavens, with his own eyes, the sun surmounted with the trophy of a cross,
which was composed of light, and had a legend annexed, saying, 'By this
conquer.' And amazement seized him and the whole army at the sight, and the
beholders wondered, as they accompanied him in the march. And he said he was
at a loss what to make of this spectre; and as he pondered and reflected upon
it long, night came upon him by surprise. After this, as he slept, the Christ
of God appeared to him, together with the sign before seen in the heavens, and
bade him make a representation of the sign that appeared in the heavens, and
to use that as a protection against the onsets of his enemies. And as soon as
it was day, he arose, related the wonder to his friends, and then, assembling
the workers in gold and precious stones, he seated himself in the midst of
them, and, describing the appearance of the sign, he bade them imitate it in
gold and precious stones. This we were once so fortunate as to set our eyes
upon." Eusebius then goes into a long description of this sacred standard,
which was called the "labarum." Its shaft was a very long spear, overlaid with
gold. On its top was a crown composed of gold and precious stones, and
containing the sacred symbol, namely, the Greek letter X, intersected with the
letter P. Just under this crown was a likeness of the Emperor in gold; and
below that, a cross piece of wood, from which hung a square flag, of purple
cloth, embroidered and covered with precious stones. Now, if this narrative be
all true, and if two connected miracles were actually wrought, as here stated,
how happens it, that no writer of that age, except Eusebius, says one word
about the luminous cross in the heavens? How came it that Eusebius himself
said nothing about it in his Ecclesiastical History, which was written twelve
years after the event, and about the same length of time before the Life of
Constantine? Why does he rely solely on the testimony of the Emperor, and not
even intimate that he ever heard of it from others; whereas, if true, many
thousands must have been eye-witnesses of the fact? What mean his suggestions,
that some may question the truth of the story; and his caution not to state
anything as a matter of public notoriety, but to confine himself simply to the
Emperor's private representation to himself? Again, if the miracle of the
luminous cross was a reality, has not God himself sanctioned the use of the
cross, as the appointed symbol of our religion? so that there is no
superstition in the use of it; but the Catholics are correct, and the
Protestants in an error on this subject. If God intended to enlighten
Constantine's dark mind, and show him the truth of Christianity, would he
probably use for this purpose the enigma of a luminous cross, in preference to
his inspired word, or a direct and special revelation? Was there no tendency
to encourage a superstitious veneration for the sign of the cross in such a
miracle? And can it be believed, that Jesus Christ actually appeared to the
Emperor in a vision, directing him to make an artificial cross, and to rely
upon that as his defence in the day of battle? But how came the whole story of
the luminous cross to be unknown to the Christian world for more than twenty-
five years, and then to transpire only through a private conversation between
Eusebius and Constantine? Is it not supposable, that Eusebius may have
misunderstood the account the Emperor gave him, of a singular halo about the
sun which he saw, and of an affecting dream which he had the night after, and
which induced him to make the labarum, and use it as his standard? Such are
the arguments against this hypothesis. (Soames, Mosheim.)

DOUBTS RESPECTING ITS MIRACULOUS CHARACTER.

vision of this nature could be expected by Constantine. No new appearances,
other than those already vouchsafed, could be anticipated; and many other
reasons also could be adduced to lead us to infer, that the manifestation to
Constantine was not miraculous. What then is likely to have been the origin of
the Labarum? It was probably an imagination, or a spectral illusion,* similar
to that which Colonel Gardiner† is reported to have beheld, when that
religious

* "Although it is not probable that we shall ever be able to understand the
actual manner in which a person of sound mind beholds spectral apparitions in
the broad light of day, yet we may arrive at such a degree of knowledge on the
subject, as to satisfy rational curiosity, and to strip the phenomena of every
attribute of the marvellous. Even the vision of natural objects presents to us
insurmountable difficulties, if we seek to understand the precise part which
the mind performs in perceiving them; but the philosopher considers that he
has given a satisfactory explanation of vision, when he demonstrates, that
distinct pictures of external objects are painted on the retina, and that this
membrane communicates with the brain by means of nerves of the same substance
as itself, and of which it is merely an expansion. Here we reach the gulf
which human intelligence cannot pass; and if the presumptuous mind of man
shall dare to extend its speculations further, it will do it only to evince
its incapacity and mortify its pride. In his admirable work on this subject,
Dr. Hibbert has shown, that spectral apparitions are nothing more than ideas,
or the recollected images of the mind, which, in certain states of bodily
indisposition, have been rendered more vivid than actual impressions, or, to
use other words, that the pictures in the 'mind's eye' are more vivid than the
pictures in the body's eye. This principle has been placed by Dr. Hibbert
beyond the reach of doubt; but I propose to go much farther, and to show 'the
mind's eye' is actually the body's eye, and that the retina is the common
tablet on which both classes of impressions are painted, and by means of which
they receive their visual existence, according to the same optical laws. Nor
is this true merely in the case of spectral illusions: it holds good of all
ideas recalled by the memory, or created by the imagination, and may be
regarded as a fundamental law in the science of pneumatology. It would be out
of place in a work like this, to adduce the experimental evidence on which it
rests, or even to explain the manner in which the experiments themselves must
be conducted; but I may state in general, that the spectres conjured up by the
memory or the fancy, have always 'a local habitation,' and that they appear in
front of the eye, and partake in its movements, exactly like the impressions
of luminous objects, after the objects themselves are withdrawn. In the
healthy state of the mind and body, the relative intensity of these two
classes of impressions on the retina, is nicely adjusted. The mental pictures
are transient and comparatively feeble, and in ordinary temperaments are never
capable of disturbing or effacing the direct images of visible objects. The
affairs of life could not be carried on, if the memory were to intrude bright
representations of the past into the domestic scene, or scatter them over the
external landscape. The two opposite impressions, indeed, could not co-exist:
the same nervous fibre which is carrying from the brain to the retina the
figures of memory, could not at the same instant be carrying back the
impressions of external objects from the retina to the brain. The mind cannot
perform two distinct functions at the same instant, and the direction of its
attention to one of the two classes of impressions necessarily produces the
extinction of the other; but so rapid is the exercise of mental power, that
the alternate appearance and disappearance of the two contending impressions,
are no more recognised than the successive observations of external objects
during the twinkling of the eyelids. If we look, for example, at the façade of
St. Paul's, and, without changing our position, call to mind the celebrated
view of Mont Blanc from Lyons, the picture of the cathedral, though actually
impressed upon the retina, is momentarily lost sight of by the mind, exactly
like an object seen by indirect vision; and during the instant the recollected
image of the mountain, towering over the subjacent range, is distinctly seen,
but in a tone of subdued colouring, and indistinct outline. When the purpose
of its recall is answered, it quickly disappears, and the picture of the
cathedral again resumes the ascendancy." (Brewster, Letters on Natural Magic.)

† "He thought he saw an unusual blaze of light fall on the book while he was
reading, which he at first imagined might happen by some accident in the
candle. But, lifting up his eyes, he apprehended, to his extreme amazement,
that there was before him, as it were suspended in the air, a visible
representation of the Lord Jesus Christ upon the cross, surrounded on all
sides with a glory; and was impressed as if a voice had come to him to this
effect, (for he was not confident as to the very words,) 'O sinner, did I
suffer this for thee, and are these the returns?' But whether this were
impression on his mind was made, which lasted through life. The most minute
circumstance, which is overruled to permanent and spiritual good, may be
called miraculous, in the sense of its being unusual and attended with a
blessing. But whatever may have been the real history of the appearance of the
cross to Constantine, he obtained the victory over the last pagan enemy but
one, that still remained to oppose the soldiers of the cross. The final battle
with Maxentius was fought nine miles from Rome, in the year 312. Maxentius had
been a persecutor both of Pagans and of Christians: the joy, therefore, of the
people at his defeat was excessively great. Italy dedicated to Constantine a
crown and buckler of gold. Africa established Priests for the worship of his
family. The Roman Senate erected a statue of gold in his honour, and the
Basilica, and the triumphal arch that still bears his name.* The language of
the inscription on the arch, though not Christian, was not so entirely pagan
as before: it did not speak of the gods of Olympus, but declared, that by the
Divinity Constantine had been enabled to deliver them. Now also was the golden
moment when the cross was first raised before the people of Rome, by the ruler
of Rome. A statue was erected to him in the public square: the Emperor placed
a cross in the hand, with an inscription, declaring that it was by the cross
alone he had delivered the city from tyrants, and restored the Senate to its
splendour. From the external demonstrations of joy, he proceeded to give them
the greatest sources of satisfaction. He disbanded the Prestorian guards.
Though he punished some of the adherents of his enemy, he restored others to
their forfeited estates, and spared their lives. He discouraged the laws
against informers. He restored power to the Senate, and filled its ranks with
the best citizens of the empire. He diminished the taxes; he relieved the
poor; he embellished the city; he restored many ruined towns to opulence and
grandeur, and repaired, to the utmost of his power, the effects of tyranny and
war. He was desirous to be regarded as the father of his people, and to be a
blessing to his too long oppressed and harassed empire.† an audible voice, or
only a strong impression on his mind equally striking, he did not seem very
confident; though, to the best of my recollection," says Dr. Doddridge, "he
rather judged it to be the former. Struck with such an amazing phenomenon as
this, there remained scarcely any life in him, so that he sank down in the
arm-chair in which he sat, and continued, he knew not how long, insensible;
(which was one circumstance that made me several times take the liberty to
suggest, that he might possibly be all this while asleep;) but however that
were, he quickly after opened his eyes, and saw nothing more than usual."
(Some remarkable Passages in the Life of the Honourable Colonel James
Gardiner, who was slain at the Battle of Preston-Pans. By Philip Doddridge,
D.D. 8vo. Edinburgh, 1747.)

* As it was not possible to find in the capital of the empire a sculptor who
was capable of adorning that public monument, the arch of Trajan, without any
respect either for his memory, or for the rules of propriety, was stripped of
its most elegant figures. The difference of times and persons, of actions and
characters, was totally disregarded. The Parthian captives appear prostrate at
the feet of a Prince who never carried his arms beyond the Kuphrates; and
curious antiquarians can still discover the head of Trajan on the trophies of
Constantine. The new ornaments which it was necessary to introduce between the
vacancies of ancient sculpture, are executed in the rudest and most unskilful
manner. (Gibbon.)

† Townsend, Ecclesiastical and Civil History philosophically considered, vol.
i., p. 227. London, 1847.

HIS FIRST EDICT IN FAVOUR OF CHRISTIANITY.

Constantine continued in the metropolis about three months, and made himself
so popular with the inhabitants, that the Senate passed a decree for placing
his name before that of the other Emperors, though Maximinus had taken that
honour to himself. Before Constantine marched into Italy, he had secured the
friendship, or at least the neutrality, of Licinius, the Illyrican Emperor. He
had promised his sister Constantia in marriage to that Prince; but the
celebration of the nuptials was deferred till after the conclusion of the war,
which threatened both Monarchs; and the interview of the two Emperors at
Milan, which was appointed for that purpose, appeared to cement the union of
their families and interests. The first edict which Constantine published in
favour of the Christians is not extant.* He proceeded to give the sanction of
the religious and civil supremacy of the Roman law and magistracy, to the long
persecuted Christianity. We should imagine that Constantine thought, that the
highest ecclesiastical authority, as well as the highest civil authority,
should be united in one person, as they had formerly been in the patriarchal
families; of which the government of one person, both as Priest and King, in
the monarchies and empires that followed, was the representative and
successor. The Emperor forthwith assumed the pontificate. Maximinus and
Licinius were his partners in the other divisions of the empire. The former
continued an uncompromising enemy to Christianity. Constantine, in conjunction
with Licinius, who at present did not oppose him, published at Rome the first
edict in favour of freedom of religious worship. It is supposed, however, that
it was not expressed in such unreserved language as the edict which followed.
Maximinus received the decree with deep, though suppressed, indignation; and
he yielded like the bulrush to that which he could not withstand. He published
a similar rescript through his division of the empire. He permitted arguments
and persuasions only to be used to recover Christians to Paganiam. He
prohibited all persons from molesting them, and granted liberty of reasoning
and of conscience to all.† His withholding from them the permission, which
Constantine had granted, of assembling publicly for worship and building
churches, rendered them still jealous of his sincerity. Maximinus (and this
was a great advance towards the total overthrow of persecution) permitted only
that they should not be personally injured for their Christianity.

The war which threatened Constantine and Licinius at Milan, and led them to
postpone the contemplated festivities, was an inroad of the Franks which
summoned Constantine to the Rhine, and also the hostile approach of Maximinus,
the Sovereign of Asia, which demanded the immediate presence of Licinius.
Maximinus had been the secret ally of Maxentius, and, without being
discouraged by his fate, he resolved to try the fortune of a civil war. He
moved out of Syria towards the frontiers of Bithynia in the depth of winter.
The season was severe and tempestuous; great numbers of men as well as

* "Quæ autem edictis pro Christianis ipso imperii ingressu Romæ vel aliis in
provincia promulgaverit, non extant." (Baronii Annal., A.D. 312, sect.
lxxxviii.)

† This was in the year 313. (See Knæb., Hist. Koeles., lib. x., cap. 5; and
the Notes of Valesius upon the Epistle.)

2 A horses perished in the snow; and as the roads were broken up by incessant
rains, he was obliged to leave behind him a considerable part of the heavy
baggage, which was unable to follow the rapidity of his forced marches. By
this extraordinary effort of diligence, he arrived, with a harassed but
formidable army, on the banks of the Thracian Bosphorus, before the
Lieutenants of Licinius were apprized of his hostile intentions. Byzantium
surrendered to the power of Maximinus after a siege of eleven days. He was
detained some time under the walls of Heraclea; and he had no sooner taken
possession of that city, than he was alarmed by the intelligence, that
Licinius had pitched his camp at the distance of only eighteen miles. After a
fruitless negotiation, in which the two Princes attempted to seduce the
fidelity of each other's adherents, they had recourse to arms. The Emperor of
the East commanded a disciplined and veteran army of above seventy thousand
men; and Licinius, who had collected about thirty thousand Illyrians, was at
first appalled by the superiority of numbers. His military skill, and the
firmness of his troops, restored the day, and obtained a decisive victory.*
The incredible speed which Maximinus exerted in his flight, is much more
celebrated than his prowess in the battle. Twenty-four hours afterwards he was
seen, pale, trembling, and without his imperial ornaments, at Nicomedia, one
hundred and sixty miles from the place of his defeat. He survived his
misfortune only three or four months; and his death, which happened at Tarsus,
was variously ascribed to despair, to poison, and to the divine justice. The
provinces of the East, delivered from the terrors of civil war, cheerfully
acknowledged the authority of Licinius.†

It is, however, much to be regretted, that the cruelties which attach
themselves to the name of Maximinus were not suffered to end with his death.
It is perhaps true, that he had put many unworthy persons into places of
importance; and it was not to be expected that the Governors of cities or
provinces, who had seconded the tyrant in all his enormities, should now be
continued in office; but the Christian will wish that their lives had been
spared. Such, however, of old was not the policy of the conqueror. Many
favourites of Maximinus were put to death. The vanquished Emperor had left
behind him two children, a boy of about eight, and a girl of about seven,
years old. Their inoffensive age might have excited compassion; but the
compassion of Licinius was a very feeble resource; nor did it restrain him
from extinguishing the name and memory of his adversary. His wife, perhaps,
deserved her fate; at least it was a just retribution, when she was drowned in
the same stream in which several Christian females had been thrown by her
orders.‡ The death of Severianus

* Zosimus mentions the defeat and death of Maximinus as ordinary events; but
Lactantius expatiates on them, (De Mort. Persecut., cap. xiv., ad cap. l.,)
ascribing them to the miraculous interference of Heaven.

† Gibbon, Decline and Fall, vol. ii., p. 232, 8vo. edit., London.

‡ Before the destruction of the children of Maximinus, "their mother had been
thrown into the Orontes, in which river she herself had frequently commanded
chaste women to be drowned. So by the unerring and just judgment of God, all
the impious received according to the deeds that they had done." (Lactant., De
Mort. Persecut., cap. l.)

CRUELTIES OF LICINIUS.

will admit of no less excuse, as it was dictated neither by revenge nor
policy. The conqueror had never received any injury from the father of that
unhappy youth; and the short and obscure reign of Severus, in a distant part
of the empire, was already forgotten. But the execution of Candidianus was an
act of the blackest cruelty and ingratitude. He was the natural son of
Galerius, the friend and benefactor of Licinius. The prudent father had deemed
him too young to sustain the weight of a diadem; but he hoped that, under the
protection of the Princes who were indebted to his favour for the imperial
purple, Candidianus might pass a secure and honourable life. He was now
advancing towards the twentieth year of his age; and the royalty of his birth,
though unsupported either by merit or ambition, was sufficient to exasperate
the jealous mind of Licinius. To these innocent and illustrious victims of his
tyranny, we must add the wife and daughter of the Emperor Diocletian. When
that Prince conferred on Galerius the title of Cæsar, he had given him in
marriage his daughter Valeria, whose melancholy adventures might furnish a
very singular subject for tragedy. She had fulfilled, and even surpassed, the
duties of a wife. As she had not any children herself, she condescended to
adopt the illegitimate son of her husband, and invariably displayed towards
the unhappy Candidianus the tenderness and anxiety of a real mother. After the
death of Galerius, her ample possessions provoked, and her personal
attractions excited, the desires of his successor Maximinus.* He had a wife
still alive; but divorce was permitted by the Roman law, and the fierce
passion of the adulterous persecutor demanded an immediate gratification. The
answer of Valeria was such as became the daughter and widow of Emperors; but
it was tempered by the prudence which her defenceless condition compelled her
to observe. She represented to the persons whom Maximinus had employed on this
occasion, "that even if honour could permit a woman of her character and
dignity to entertain a thought of second nuptials, decency at least must
forbid her to listen

* "That which distinguished his character, and in which he transcended all
former Emperors, was his desire of debauching women. What else can I call it
but a blind and headstrong passion? Yet such epithets feebly express my
indignation in reciting his enormities. The magnitude of the guilt overpowers
my tongue, and makes it unequal to its office. Eunuchs and panders made search
everywhere; and no sooner was any comely face discovered, than husbands and
parents were obliged to withdraw. Matrons of quality and virgins were deprived
of their garments, and all their limbs were inspected, lest any part should be
unworthy of the bed of the Emperor. Whenever a woman resisted, death by
drowning was inflicted upon her; as if, under the reign of this adulterer,
chastity had been treason. Some men there were who, beholding the violation of
wives whom, for virtue and fidelity, they affectionately loved, could not
endure their anguish of mind, and so killed themselves. While this monster
ruled, it was singular deformity alone which could shield the honour of any
female from his savage desires. At length he introduced a custom prohibiting
marriage, unless with the imperial permission; and he made this an instrument
to serve the purposes of his lawfulness. After having debauched free-born
maidens, he gave them for wives to his slaves. His courtiers also imitated the
example of the Emperor, and violated with impunity the beds of their
dependants. For who was there to punish such offences? As for the daughters of
men of middle rank, any who were inclined took them by force. Ladies of
quality, who could not be taken in this manner, were petitioned for, and
obtained from the Emperor by way of free gift: nor could a father oppose this;
for the imperial warrant having been once signed, he had no alternative but to
die, or to receive some barbarian as his son-in-law." (Lactant., De Mort.
Persecut., cap. xxxviii.)

2 A 2 to his addresses at a time when the ashes of her husband and his
benefactor were still warm, and while the sorrows of her mind were still
expressed by her mourning garments. She ventured to declare, that she could
place very little confidence in the professions of a man whose cruel
inconstancy was capable of repudiating a faithful and affectionate wife." On
this repulse the professed attachment of Maximinus was converted into fury;
and as witnesses and Judges were always at his disposal, it was easy for him
to cover his fury with an appearance of legal proceedings, and to assault the
reputation as well as the happiness of Valeria. Her estates were confiscated;
her eunuchs and domestics devoted to the most inhuman tortures; and several
innocent and respectable matrons, who were honoured with her friendship,
suffered death, on a false accusation of adultery. The Empress herself,
together with her mother Prisca, was condemned to exile; and as they were
ignominiously hurried from place to place, before they were confined to a
sequestered village in the deserts of Syria, they exposed their shame and
distress to the provinces of the East, which, during thirty years, had
respected their august dignity. Diocletian made several ineffectual efforts to
alleviate the misfortunes of his daughter; and, as the last return that he
expected for the imperial purple, which he had conferred upon Maximinus, he
entreated that Valeria might be permitted to share his retirement of Salona,
and to close the eyes of her afflicted father.* He entreated; but as he could
no longer threaten, his prayers were received with coldness and disdain; and
the pride of the tyrant was gratified, in treating Diocletian as a suppliant,
and his daughter as a criminal. The death of Maximinus seemed to assure the
Empresses of a favourable alteration in their fortune. The public disorders
relaxed the vigilance of their guard, and they easily found means to escape
from the place of their exile, and to repair, though with some precaution, and
in disguise, to the court of Licinius. His behaviour in the first days of his
reign, and the honourable reception which he gave to young Candidianus,
inspired Valeria with a secret satisfaction, both on her own account, and on
that of her adopted son. But these grateful prospects were soon succeeded by
horror and astonishment; and the bloody executions which stained the palace of
Nicomedia sufficiently convinced her, that the throne of Maximinus was filled
by a tyrant more inhuman than himself. Valeria consulted her safety by a hasty
flight, and, still accompanied by her mother Prisca, they wandered about
fifteen months through the provinces, concealed in the disguise of plebeian
habits. They were at length discovered at Thessalonica; and, as the sentence
of their death was already pronounced, they were immediately beheaded, and
their bodies thrown into the sea. The people gazed on the melancholy
spectacle; but their grief and indig-

* Diocletian despatched messengers to Maximinus, requesting that his daughter
might be sent to him. He could not prevail. Again and again he entreated; yet
she was not sent. At length he employed a relation of his, a military man,
high in power and authority, to implore the tyrant by the remembrance of past
favours. This messenger, equally unsuccessful in his negotiation as the
others, reported to Diocletian that his prayers were vain. (Lactant., De Mort.
Persecut., cap. xli.)

THE EDICT OF MILAN.

nation were suppressed by the terrors of a military guard.* Licinius himself,
when he was at Antioch, put Theotecnus to the torture, and several persons who
had assisted him in imposing upon the people by some miraculous image of
Jupiter. They were all put to death; as was Picentius, who had been several
times Consul, and the confidential adviser of Maximinus; and Colcianus, who
was a great persecutor of the Christians in Egypt.†

While Licinius was executing severe vengeance upon those whom he thought his
enemies, Constantine was engaged on subjects which were suited to a Christian
Emperor. Between the publication of the decree at Rome in 312, and the month
of March, 313, the marriage of Licinius with the sister of the Emperor took
place, and also the death of Diocletian,‡ who, though he had long been
powerless in his gardens at Salona, might possibly have been restored to the
throne as the ancient enemy and persecutor of the Christian faith, which
confirmed Constantine in the empire. Probably it was the necessity of caution,
and adherence to a prudent polity, which combined with all his efforts in the
promotion of Christianity, that led him to hesitate so long before he
published what has been termed, "the glorious Magna Charta of religious
freedom at Milan." This, however, he accomplished in conjunction with
Licinius, of whom it is difficult to say whether he were a Christian or a
Pagan.§ In this celebrated decree,|| he gives to the Christians entire,
absolute, unlimited freedom to exercise their public worship. He cancels all
the restrictions of former edicts upon their present liberty. He commands the
restoration of their churches, and promises that he will defray the expense of
their re-conveyance, and all other charges. It did more than all this: it
conferred free and absolute permission to all, without exception, by whatever
name they might be called, to follow any religion, or any form of worship,
according to their will, (the word conscience does not occur in the decree,)
and to practise the rites of their chosen religion without any molestation or
interruption from the magistracy or the Emperors. Two reasons have been
assigned for this indulgence. One is the promotion of the peace and happiness
of the empire; and Christians have always prayed for the peace of the city
wherein they dwell. The other is, the hope of pleasing the Deity, whatever his
power may be, to whose worshippers the freedom of religion is thus granted.
The practices of the Heathen in their temples were necessarily suppressed

* Gibbon, Decline and Fall, vol. 1., p. 238, Milman's edit., 8vo.

† Burton, Lect. on Eccles. Hist., lect. xxx.

1 That Diocletian died in the year 313, and not in 316, as had been supposed
by many, is established by Pagl. (Baronii Eccles. Annal., A.D. 316, sect.
iii.)

§ It has been controverted whether Licinius ever was a Christian. Cardinal
Nole takes the negative, Pagl and Basnage take the affirmative. The truth of
the case seems to have been, that he pretended for some time to be a
Christian, but never was so; and that finding the Christians to be much more
attached to Constantine than to himself, he threw off the mask. (See Basnag.,
Annal. ii., p. 447; Baronii Annales Eccles. Pagl, A.D. 318, sect. ix.)

|| The edict of Milan is given by Lactantius in the treatise De Mortibus
Persecutorum, cap. xlviii. A corrected translation of it may also be found in
Foxe's Acts and Monuments, vol. 1., p. 250. Seeley's edit.

some years after, in spite of this edict, in consequence of their scandalous
immorality; and the sternest lover of civil and religious liberty would
justify the overthrow of the public abominations, and the cruel sacrifices
which still resisted the influence of our holier faith.*

Constantine now addressed himself to subjects which were far more suited to
the employment of an Emperor, who threw his protecting shield over the
Christian name; a line of procedure which must have appeared very strange to
those who had watched the usual routine of heathen politics. Africa, as well
as Italy, had now fallen naturally under the government of Constantine; and
while he was at Milan in the spring of the present year, 313, he wrote to
Anulinus, the Proconsul of Africa, impressing upon him the importance of
executing the edict which had lately been published. This ordered the
restitution of houses or gardens, or any public property, which belonged to
the Christians; and the Proconsul was to see that this was done without
delay.† At the same time it was settled, that the African Clergy (including
those of Numidia and Mauritania) should receive a sum of money from the public
treasury.‡ It does not appear that the payment was to be annual, nor is any
reason assigned for the favour being granted to Africa; but the Christians in
that country had suffered during the usurpation of Alexander, and may
therefore have been in a worse condition than their brethren in Italy.
Constantine had also written to Ursus, who was the chief Minister of finance
for Africa, ordering him to pay a certain sum to Cæcilianus, the Bishop of
Carthage; and the Emperor's attention to these affairs is further shown by his
writing in person to Cæcilianus. The Bishop was to receive the money, and to
distribute it according to a list which was made out for that purpose; and if
the sum were not sufficient, he was authorized to draw for more upon the
Emperor's private Treasurer. The payment of this money appears to have been
made to the African Clergy only; but another letter, which was written shortly
after to Anulinus, concerned most probably the whole body of the Clergy. The
Proconsul was instructed to announce to the Bishop of Carthage, that all
persons engaged in the sacred ministry were to be excused from the burden of
any public office.§ This letter was written from Milan in the month of March
or April, when Constantine was on the point of setting out for Gaul; and
Anulinus lost no time in communicating its contents to Cæcilianus. He seems to
have been aware of the schism in the church of Carthage, and coupled his
communication with an exhortation to unity; but, unfortunately, it was of
little avail. The seeds of the Donatist schism were taking deep root,
threatening the church with confusion and even bloodshed. Within a few days, a
meeting was held of the persons who supported Majorinus; and they agreed to
petition the Proconsul, that the

* Townsend, Civil and Eccles. Hist., &c., vol. i., p. 229.

† Ruseb., Eccles. Hist., lib. x., cap. 5.

‡ Ibid., cap. 6.

§ Ibid., cap. 7.

COUNCIL AT CARTHAGE.

immunity granted by Constantine to all the Clergy might be extended to
themselves. The Emperor had expressly named the Clergy of the Catholic Church,
over which Cæcilianus presided; but the Donatists attached another meaning to
the Catholic Church,* and sent two papers to the Proconsul; one of which
contained a series of charges against Cæcilianus, and the other was an address
to the Emperor, requesting him to send some Bishops out of Gaul, who might
settle the dispute between the two parties.† Constantine was anxious to put an
end to the schism. Accordingly he summoned a Council, composed of Prelates of
both parties, and others, in order that all might have the benefit of a full
and impartial decision. Donatus, without any hesitation, conducted the part of
the schismatics. The Council was held in the palace of the Empress Fausta; the
Bishop of Rome, Miltiades,‡ or Melchiades, presided at the head of nineteen
Bishops. Cæcilianus was present with his accusers. Donatus was convicted of
having caused a schism at Carthage, at a time when Cæcilianus was Deacon only;
of having re-baptized several persons, and of having given imposition of hands
a second time in the case of certain Bishops who had relapsed in the
persecutions. Donatus, finding the proof of these things established against
himself, quitted the assembly, and did not again appear; upon which the other
accusers of Cæcilianus dropped their charge against him.

In the second session, the charge brought against Cæcilianus was examined
into, and proved to be utterly groundless. The decision of the Council of
Carthage in 311 (at which seventy Numidian Bishops assembled; Tigesius had
deposed Cæcilianus, and elected Majorinus in his stead) was declared to be
invalid, since Cæcilianus had been condemned in his absence, not having been
able to attend through fear of violence. In the third session Cæcilianus was
declared to be innocent, and his consecration was approved. Donatus was proved
to be the author of all the mischief. The Bishops who had condemned
Cæcilianus, and those who had come to Rome to accuse him, were, nevertheless,
not separated from the Roman communion, since nothing had been established
against them. The Council further ruled, that those Bishops who had been
consecrated by Majorinus, should be permitted to retain their sees; and,
moreover, that in places where there were two Bishops, one consecrated by
Majorinus and the other by Cæcilianus, the Bishop of longest standing should
retain the see, and the other be appointed to some other bishopric. "This," as
Fleury observes, "is a singular instance of the exercise of a dispensing
power, moderating the rigour of the law for the sake of peace."§ This sentence
was decisive; and the Donatists have from that time been always considered as
schismatics.

* Burton, Lect. on Eccles. Hist., lect. xxx.

† Augustin., Opera, tom. ii., fol. 1679, epist. lxxxviii., 1, p. 213; epist.
xciii., 13, p. 236; epist. cxxx., 4, p. 381. Brevic. Collat. diol iii., cap.
7, 12.

‡ Bower, History of the Popes, vol. i., p. 87, et seq. 4to. London, 1750.

§ Labbe, Concilia, tom. i., p. 1401, fol. 1671. See also, "A Manual of
Councils of the Holy Catholic Church, comprising the substance of the most
remarkable and important Canons, alphabetically arranged. By the Rev. Edward
H. Landon, M.A." 8vo. p. 518. London, 1846.

Cæcilianus did not immediately return to Carthage, but remained some time at
Brescia. In the meanwhile two Bishops were sent to Carthage by the Council,
who, after carefully weighing the evidence upon the spot, decided in favour of
Cæcilianus, and held communion with the Clergy of his party. The Bishop then
returned to his city, where he found Donatus had already arrived before him;
and although a definitive sentence had been passed, the schism was carried on
as openly as before. A still further trial was furnished to Cæcilianus, when
Constantine wrote to the Proconsul, and ordered him to examine the charges
which had been brought against Felix,* Bishop of Aptungis. This was the only
shadow which remained of any grounds for questioning the ordination of
Cæcilianus; and, after an impartial examination, it was proved, that Felix had
never delivered up the books of the church, and that there was no impediment
to his administering ordination. There is reason to think that many of the
Clergy, after this sentence, were reconciled with Cæcilianus, though others
continued their opposition, and appealed again to Constantine. This led to a
still more numerous Council being assembled in the following year.

Peace did not come upon Israel as was expected. Licinius, instigated by a
jealousy of the most fatal character, was driven to a procedure which
ultimately terminated in civil war, and in the loss of his own life.
Notwithstanding the proofs which he had had of the divine interposition in
favour of the Gospel, during his contest with Maximinus, the force of old
prejudices imbibed under Galerius operated at length, in conjunction with the
natural depravity of the human heart, to induce him to renew the persecution.
He passed a law which enjoined that men should not appear in company with
women in the houses of prayer, and forbade women to attend the sacred schools
of virtue, or to receive instruction from the Bishops.† He prohibited
Christian Synods in his dominions, expelled believers from his court, and
ordered the women to furnish themselves with separate teachers for their own
sex. He dismissed from his army those who refused to sacrifice, and forbade
any supplies to be afforded them in their necessities. He proceeded still
further. He murdered Bishops and destroyed churches. At Amasia, in Pontus, his
cruelty was particularly distinguished. He used enchantments; and thus the
powers of darkness made a feeble attempt to recover by his means the ground
that was lost.‡ Foxe declares, that "the flattering officers that were under
him, thinking by this means to please him, slew, and made [put] out of the
way, many Bishops, and without any cause put them to death, as though they had
been homicides, and heinous offenders; and such rigorousness used they towards
some of them,

* Optat. de Schism. Donat., lib. i., cap. 27. See also Gesta Purgationis
Felicis, apud Routh. Reliq. Sacra, vol. iv., p. 287, 8vo., Oxonii, 1846.

† "These regulations being received with general ridicule, be devised other
means for effecting the ruin of the churches. He ordered that the usual
congregation of the people should be held in the open country, outside the
gates; alleging that the open air without the city was far more suitable for a
multitude than the houses of prayer within the walls." (Kuseb., De Vita
Constant., lib. i., cap. 53.)

‡ Milner, History of the Church, vol. i., p. 509.

CONTINUED SEVERITIES OF LICINIUS.

that they cut their bodies into gobbets* and small pieces, in the manner of a
butcher, and after that threw them into the sea to feed fishes.† What shall we
speak of the exiles and confiscations of good and virtuous men? for he took by
violence every man's substance, and cared not by what means he came by it; but
threatened them with death, unless they would forego the same. He banished
those who had committed no evil at all. He commanded that both gentlemen and
men of honour should be made [put] out of the way; neither yet herewith
content, he gave their daughters that were unmarried to varlets and wicked
ones. Licinius himself, though on account of age he was impotent, shamefully
attempted to vitiate many women, men's wives, and maids. Which cruel outrages
of his caused many godly men of their own accord to forsake their houses; and
it was also seen, that the woods, fields, desert places and mountains, were
fain to be the habitations and resting-places of the poor and miserable
Christians."‡ Among those who suffered during this transitory outbreak, was
one Theodore, who was first hanged upon the cross, was tormented with bodkins
thrust into his person, and ultimately beheaded; also an individual of the
same name who was martyred at Amassea, and another was crucified at Perga;
Basileus, the Bishop of Amassea, Nicholas, the Prelate of Myra, and Gregory of
Armenia, and afterwards Paul of Neocæssares, who, by the commandment of
Licinius, had both his hands disabled by a searing iron. In a word, Licinius
appeared resolved to extend as far as possible this persecution throughout
Christendom; which would have been the case, had not the providence of God
appeared in behalf of his suffering church.

Licinius could not proceed far in this line of conduct without coming into
collision with Constantine.§ Enough already had been achieved by the former to
cause not only shyness but positive distrust, inasmuch as the edict of Milan
had been so flagrantly violated; but the perfidy of Licinius justifies the
most unfavourable suspicions; and by the faint light which history reflects on
the transaction, we may discover a foul conspiracy which was fomented and
encouraged by the machinations of Licinius against the authority of his
colleague. Constantine had lately given his sister Anastasia in marriage to
Bassianus, a man of considerable family and fortune, and had elevated his new
kinsman to the rank of Cæsar, and Africa was designed for his department in
the empire. But the performance of the promised

* Gobbet, a small piece; as much as may be swallowed at a mouthful.

† Kuseb., Eccles. Hist., lib. x., cap. 8.

‡ Foxe, Acts and Monuments, vol. i., p. 255, 8vo. edit.

§ After several unsuccessful battles, he was obliged to throw himself upon the
mercy of the victor, who, nevertheless, ordered him to be strangled, in the
year 325. After his last victory over Licinius, Constantine reigned sole
Emperor till his death; and by policy, enactments, regulations, and
munificence, endeavoured as much as possible to obliterate gradually the
ancient superstitions, and to establish Christian worship throughout the Roman
empire. He had undoubtedly learned from the wars and the machinations of
Licinius, that neither himself, nor the Roman empire, could remain secure
while the ancient superstition continued prevalent; and, therefore, from this
time onward, he openly opposed the pagan deities and their worship, as
prejudicial to the interests of the state. (Mosheim, Instit. Eccles. Hist.,
edited by Soames.)

2 B favour was either attended with so much delay, or accompanied with so many
unequal conditions, that the fidelity of Bassianus was alienated rather than
secured by the honourable distinction which he had obtained. His nomination
had been ratified by the consent of Licinius; and that artful Prince, by the
means of his emissaries, soon contrived to enter into a secret and dangerous
correspondence with the new Cæsar, to irritate his discontent, and to urge him
to the rash enterprise of extorting by violence what he might in vain solicit
from the justice of Constantine. But the vigilant Emperor discovered the
conspiracy before it was ripe for execution; and, after solemnly renouncing
the alliance of Bassianus, despoiled him of the purple, and inflicted upon him
due punishment for his treason and ingratitude. The haughty refusal of
Licinius, when he was required to deliver up the criminals who had taken
refuge in his dominions, confirmed the suspicions already entertained of his
perfidy; and the indignities offered on the frontiers of Italy to the statues
of Constantine became the signal of discord between the two Princes.* The
first battle was fought near Cibalis, and the contest, which had lasted from
the dawn of day to a late hour in the evening, was decided by a vigorous and
effective charge made by Constantine, which brought the victory to the
standard of the Emperor. The plain of Mardia, in Thrace, was the theatre of a
second battle, no less obstinate and bloody than the former; and the victory
was once more decided by the superior abilities and prowess of Constantine.
The loss of these two battles, and of his bravest veterans, reduced the fierce
spirit of Licinius to sue for peace. The ambassador Mistrianus was admitted to
the audience of Constantine; and the result of the whole was, that the
tranquillity of the Roman world was restored, and the temporary reconciliation
of Constantine and Licinius effected, embittered as it confessedly was by
resentment and jealousy, by the remembrance of recent injuries, and by the
apprehension of future dangers: they maintained, however, above eight years
the tranquillity of the Roman world; nevertheless, at the termination of that
period a civil war between Constantine and Licinius again commenced, and after
a series of important engagements, the vigilance of the conqueror achieved
great success. The decisive engagement was fought on the

* Licinius being vanquished in 314, he was quiet for about nine years. But in
the year 324, this restless man again attacked Constantine, being urged on
both by his own inclination and by the instigation of the pagan Priests. That
he might secure to himself a victory, he attached the Pagans to his cause, by
severely oppressing the Christians, and cruelly putting not a few of their
Bishops to death. Even Julian, than whom no one was more prejudiced against
Constantine, could not but pronounce Licinius an infamous tyrant, who was sunk
in vices and crimes. See Julian's Cæsares, p. 222, ed. Spanheim. I would here
observe, what appears to have been overlooked hitherto, that Aurelius Victor
mentions this persecution by Licinius in his book, De Cæsaribus, cap. xli., p.
435, ed. Arntzenii; where he says, "Licinio ne insontium quidem ac nobilium
philosophorum servili more cruciatus adhibiti modum fecere." The philosophers
whom Licinius is here said to have tortured, were, doubtless, Christians; whom
many, from their slight acquaintance with our religion, have mistaken for a
sect of philosophers. The commentators on Aurelius have left this passage
untouched; which is apt to be the case with those who are intent only on the
enlargement of grammatical knowledge derived from ancient writers. (Mosheim,
Institutes of Eccles. Hist., edited by Soames.)

COMPLETE DEFEAT AND DEATH OF LICINIUS.

heights of Chrysopolis, or, as it is now called, Scutari.* The troops of
Licinius, though they were lately raised, ill-armed, and worse disciplined,
made head against their conquerors with fruitless, but desperate, valour, till
a total defeat, and a slaughter of five-and-twenty thousand men, irretrievably
determined the fate of their leader. He retired to Nicomedia, rather with the
view of gaining some time for negotiation, than with the hope of any effectual
defence. Constantia, his wife, and the sister of Constantine, interceded with
her brother in favour of her husband, and obtained, from his policy rather
than from his compassion, a solemn promise, confirmed by an oath, that after
the sacrifice of Martinianus, and the resignation of the purple, Licinius
himself should be permitted to pass the remainder of his life in peace and
affluence. The behaviour of Constantia, and her relation to the contending
parties, naturally recalls the remembrance of that matron who was the sister
of Augustus, and the wife of Antony. But the temper of mankind was altered,
and it was no longer esteemed infamous for a Roman to survive his honour and
independence. Licinius solicited and accepted the pardon of his offences, laid
himself and his purple at the feet of his lord and master, was raised from the
ground with insulting pity, was admitted the same day to the imperial banquet,
and soon afterwards was sent away to Thessalonica, which had been chosen for
the place of his confinement, which was soon terminated by death; and it is
doubtful whether a tumult of the soldiers, or a decree of the Senate, was
suggested as the motive for his execution. According to the rules of tyranny,
he was accused of forming a conspiracy, and of holding a treasonable
correspondence with the barbarians.† The memory of Licinius was branded with
infamy, his statues were thrown down, and by a hasty edict, of such
mischievous tendency that it was almost immediately corrected, all his laws,
and all the judicial proceedings of his reign, were at once abolished. By this
victory of Constantine,

* Licinius put the truth or falsehood of the Gospel on the event of war. It
was an unwarranted appeal; but God answered him in his own way. He lost in the
issue both his empire and his life. It is remarkable, that one of
Constantine's soldiers, who parted with the banner of the cross to save his
life, lost it, while he who, in his room, supported and upheld the banner was
preserved. (Milner, History of the Church, cont. iv., cap. 2; Eusebi., De Vita
Constant., lib. ii., cap. 9.)

† "Contra religionem sacramenti Thessalonicem privatus occlusus est."
(Entropil Roman. Hist., lib. ii., cap. 6; and his evidence is confirmed by
Jerome, as well as by Zosimus, lib. ii., p. 102.) The Valestan writer is the
only one who mentions the soldiers, and it is Zosimus alone who calls in the
assistance of the Senate. Eusebius gives this transaction the go-by; but
Sozomen, a century afterwards, ventures to assert the treasonable practices of
Licinius. "He was deeply incensed against the Christians on account of his
disagreement with Constantine, and thought to wound him by their sufferings;
and besides, he suspected that they earnestly desired that Constantine alone
should enjoy the sovereign rule." In addition to all this, we may mention
that, when on the eve of another war with Constantine, Licinius, in order to
prepare his mind for the event of the contest, had recourse to sacrifices and
oracles; and that, deceived by promises of power, he returned to the religion
of the Greeks. The Greeks themselves, too, relate that about this period he
consulted the oracle of Apollo Didymus, at Miletus, concerning the result of
the war, and received an answer from the demon, couched in the following words
of Homer:—

"O old man, much do the youths distress thee, warring with thee!

Thy strength has become enfeebled, but thy old age shall be hard."

(Sozomen, Eccles. Hist, lib. i., cap. 7.)

2 B 2 the Roman world was again united under the authority of one Emperor,
thirty-seven years after Diocletian had divided his power and provinces with
his associate Herculeus.*

With the death of Maximinus expired, confessedly, the last hope of Paganism to
maintain itself by the authority of the Government. Though Licinius was only
accidentally connected with the Christian party, and afterwards allied himself
for a short time to the pagan interest, at this juncture his enemies were
those of Christianity, and his cruel triumph annihilated at once the adherents
of Maximinus and those of the old religion. The new hierarchy fell at once:
the chief Magistrates of almost all the cities were executed; for even where
they were not invested in the pontifical offices, it was under their authority
that Paganism had renewed its more imposing form, and it sank with them into
the common ruin. The arts by which Theotecnus of Antioch, the chief adviser of
Maximinus, had imposed upon the populace of that city by mysterious wonders,
were detected, and exposed to public contempt, and the author put to death.
Tyre, which recommended itself to Maximinus by the most violent hostility to
the Christian name, was constrained to witness the re-construction of the
fallen church in far more than its original grandeur. Eusebius, afterwards the
Bishop of Cæsarea, and the historian of the church, pronounced an inaugural
discourse on its re-consecration. His description of the building is curious
in itself, as the model of an Eastern church, and illustrates the power and
opulence of the Christian party in a city which had taken the lead on the side
of Paganism. Nor would the Christian orator venture greatly to exaggerate the
splendour of a building which stood in the midst of, and provoked, as it were,
a comparison with, temples of high antiquity and unquestioned magnificence.†

The Christian church was built on the old site; for, though a more convenient
and imposing space might have been found, the piety of the Christians clung
with reverence to a spot consecrated by the most holy associations; and their
pride, perhaps, was gratified in restoring to more than its former grandeur
the edifice which had been destroyed by pagan malice. The whole site was
environed with a wall; a lofty propylæon, which faced the rising sun,
commanded the attention of the passing Pagan, who could not but contrast the
present splendour with the recent solitude of the place; and afforded an
imposing glimpse of the magnificence within. The intermediate space between
the propylæon and the church was laid out in a cloister, with four colonnades,
enclosed with a palisade of wood. The centre square was open to the sun and
air; and two fountains sparkled in the midst, and reminded the worshipper, by
their emblematic purity, of the necessity of sanctification. The uninitiate
proceeded no further than the cloister, but might behold at this modest
distance the mysteries of the sanctuary. Several other vestibules, or
propylæa, intervened between the cloister and the main building. The three
gates of the church fronted the east; of which

* Gilbon, Decline and Fall, &c., vol. ii., p. 258. Milman edit. 8vo.

† Milman, History of Christianity, vol. ii., p. 298.

REBUILDING OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH AT TYRE.

the central was the loftiest, and most costly, "like a Queen between her
attendants." It was adorned with plates of brass, and richly-sculptured
reliefs. Two colonnades, or aisles, ran along the main building, above which
were windows, which lighted the edifice; other structures, for the use of the
Ministers, adjoined. Unfortunately the pompous eloquence of Eusebius would not
condescend to the vulgar details of measurements, and dwells only in vague
terms of wonder at the spaciousness, the heaven-soaring loftiness, the
splendour of the interior. The roof was of beams from the cedars of Lebanon,
the floor inlaid with marble. In the centre rose the altar, which had already
obtained the name of the place of sacrifice: it was guarded from the approach
of the profane by a trellis of the most slender and graceful workmanship.
Lofty seats were prepared for the higher orders, and benches for those of
lower rank were arranged with regularity throughout the building. Tyre, no
doubt, did not stand alone in this splendid restoration of her Christian
worship; and Christianity, even before its final triumph under Constantine,
before the restoration of their endowments, and the munificent imperial gifts,
possessed sufficient wealth at least to commence these costly undertakings.*

The account which we have just recorded of the consecration of the church of
Tyre, cannot fail to lead us to tremble for the welfare of the church in that
city. Milner, the historian, very properly remarks, "that neither in
Constantine, nor in his favourite Bishops, nor in the general appearance of
the church, can we see much of the spirit of godliness." Pompous apparatus,
augmented superstitions, and unmeaning forms of piety, much show and little
substance, appear. This is the impression which the account given by Eusebius
leaves on the mind. If we look at the external appearance of Christianity,
nothing can be more splendid. An Emperor, full of zeal for the propagation of
the only divine religion, by edicts restores to the church everything of which
it had been deprived, indemnifies those who had suffered, honours the Pastors
exceedingly, recommends to Governors of provinces to promote the Gospel;† and
though he will neither oblige them, nor any others, to profess it, yet he
forbids them to make use of the sacrifices commonly made by Prefects; he
erects churches exceedingly sumptuous and ornamental, with distinctions of the
parts, corresponding, in some measure, to those in Solomon's temple; discovers
with much zeal the sepulchre of Christ at Jerusalem, real or pretended, and
honours it with a most expensive sacred edifice. His mother Helena fills the
whole Roman world with her munificent acts in support of religion; and, after
erecting churches, and travelling from place to place to evidence her zeal,
dies before her son, aged eighty years. Nor is the Christian cause neglected
even out of the bounds of the Roman empire. Constantine‡ zealously pleads, in
a letter to Sapor, King of Persia, for the Christians of his dominions; he
destroys idol-temples, prohibits impious

* Milman, Hist. of Christianity, vol. ii., p. 300.

† Eusebius, De Vita Constant., lib. ii., cap. 20, 21, 44, 45, 56; lib. iii.,
cap. 25.

‡ Ibid., lib. iv., cap. 9.

pagan rites, puts an end to the savage fights of gladiators, stands up with
respectful silence to hear the sermon of Eusebius, Bishop of Cæsarea, the
historian; furnishes him with the volumes of the Scriptures for the use of the
churches, orders the observance of the festivals of the martyrs, has prayer
and reading of the Scripture at his court, dedicates churches with great
solemnity, makes Christian orations himself, one of which of a considerable
length is preserved by the historian, his favourite Bishop; directs the sacred
observation of the Lord's day, to which he adds that of Friday also, the day
of Christ's crucifixion; and teaches the soldiers of his army to pray by a
short form made for their use.†

It may seem invidious to throw any shade on this picture; but though the
abolition of lewd, impious, and inhuman customs must have been of great
advantage to society, and though the benefits of Christianity, compared with
Paganism, to the world, appear very strong by these means; yet all this, if
sound principles be wanting, is but form and shadow. As it was difficult to
clear Origen of depreciating the divinity of Christ, so it is still more
difficult to exculpate Eusebius, with whom he was a favourite author. Not to
anticipate what will more properly pass under examination hereafter, there
seems to have been, both in Eusebius and some of his friends, and probably in
the Emperor himself, a disposition, of which they perhaps were not conscious,
to lessen the honours of the Son of God. In his oration at the dedication of
the church at Tyre, he distinguishes between the first and the second cause,
and seems very careful to give the supreme title exclusively to the Father.
His sermons breathe little of Christianity. He largely assigns various causes
for the coming of Christ into the world; and though among these he gives some
place to the work of redemption and sacrifice for sin, he speaks of them
slightly, and as it were by the by. Milner observes in one place of his
writings, that he speaks in a very subordinate manner of the Holy Ghost,
though it must be confessed, he is so rhetorical and indistinct in his
theological discourses, that it is difficult to extract any determinate
propositions from his writings. It was to be expected, that great
defectiveness of doctrine would not fail to influence practice. External piety
flourished, monastic societies, in particular places, were also growing; but
faith, love, heavenly-mindedness, appear very rare: yet, among the poor and
obscure Christians, we hope, there was far more godliness than could be seen
at courts, and among Bishops and persons of eminence. The doctrine of real
conversion was very much lost, or external baptism was placed in its stead;
and the true doctrine of justification by faith, and the practical flight to a
crucified Saviour for troubled consciences, were scarcely to be seen. There
was much outward religion; but this could not make men saints in heart and
life. The worst part of the character of Constantine is, that as he grew
older, he became more culpable, oppressive in his own family, oppressive to
the government, oppressive by Eastern superfluous magnificence; and the facts
dis-

* Euseb., De Vita Constant., lib. iv., cap. 25, 33, 36.

† Ibid., cap. 18—20.

REMARKS ON THE DEATH OF PERSECUTORS.

played in his history will show how little true humility and charity were
known in the Christian world, while superstition and self-righteousness were
making vigorous shoots, and the real Gospel of Christ was hidden from men who
professed it.*

The longest and severest persecution which the Christians had ever sustained,
was now happily concluded. It had lasted ten years in the East, with a few
occasional interruptions, while it had scarcely been felt in Europe beyond the
first two years. The difference seems to be attributable to nothing but the
will of the Emperors. We are not to assume that the Christians were more
numerous in the West, or that they were more generally unpopular in the East.
In Italy and Africa, while they were governed by Constantius and Constantine,
the persecution was scarcely felt; but it raged almost incessantly in Asia and
Egypt, which were subject to Galerius and Maximinus; and these persecutors,
where are they? How great the working of the divine power! We have seen many
Emperors who conspired at one time against the Lord and his anointed, having
the world under their subjection. If the power of man could have extirpated
the name of Christ, what could they do more than what they did accomplish? If
any policy or device could have answered their purpose, what was wanting? If
torments or pains of death could have assisted, what cruelty could be invented
which was not actually put into execution? Nevertheless, these persecutors
were swept from the earth by the bosom of destruction, and the church of
Christ still exists founded upon the rock. "To his everlasting mercy," says
Lactantius, "ought we to render thanks, that, having at length looked upon the
earth, he deigned to collect again and to restore his flock, partly laid waste
by ravening wolves, and partly scattered abroad; and to extirpate those
noxious wild beasts who had trodden down its pastures, and destroyed its
resting-places. Where now are the surnames of Jovi and Herculei, once so
glorious and renowned amongst the nations, surnames insolently assumed at
first by Diocletian and Herculeus, and afterwards transferred to their
successors? The Lord has blotted them out, and erased them from the earth. Let
us, therefore, with exultation, celebrate the triumphs of God, and oftentimes
with praises make mention of his victory; let us in our prayers, by night and
by day, beseech him to confirm for ever that peace, which, after a warfare of
ten years, he has bestowed on his own; let us implore the Lord, that it would
please him propitiously and mercifully to continue his pity towards his
servants, to protect them from the machinations and assaults of the devil, and
to guard the churches in perpetual felicity."†

Mischief of a different kind arose out of the long interval of peace which
followed the Decian persecution. We have mentioned the remark of Eusebius,
that the Clergy and their flocks had become exceedingly corrupt. This may
account for so many persons lapsing in the time of trial. Others, perhaps, had
been instructed very imperfectly in the doctrines of the Gospel; and though
they no longer

* Milner, History of the Church, cent. iv., chap. 2, vol. i., p. 512

† Lactant., De Mort. Persecut., cap. iii.

worshipped idols, they were Christians in little else than in name. The fiery
trial of ten years would naturally purify the church from these corrupt or
useless members; and if we were to fix upon any time since the days of the
Apostles, when the lives of Christians were likely to win the hearts of the
Heathen, it would probably be the time when the death of Maximinus placed the
whole empire at the disposal of Constantine. The good intention of the Emperor
toward the Christian faith, was undoubtedly a most favourable circumstance;
but it was the consequence, as well as the cause, of the wide extension of the
Gospel. The example set by the court would, of course, be generally followed,
and especially by the higher orders; but Constantine found his subjects almost
prepared for the change which was now made; and the establishment of
Christianity, as the national religion, could not have been long delayed.*

* Barton, Lect. on Eccles. Hist., lect. xxx.

========================================================================
  CHAPTER 6: 06. BOOK V
========================================================================

PERSECUTIONS WHICH TOOK PLACE FROM THE ACCES-

SION OF CONSTANTINE THE GREAT, TO THE DEATH

OF JOHN WYCLIFFE, THE MORNING-STAR OF THE

REFORMATION.

========================================================================
  CHAPTER 7: 07. BOOK V, CHAPTER I
========================================================================

CHAPTER I.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Character foully calumniated—Considerable national Commotion—Athanasius—His

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 C

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

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

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

ERROR AND CORRUPTION IN THE CHURCH.

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

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

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

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

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

2 c 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RISE OF ARIUS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LIBERALITY OF CONSTANTINE TO THE CHURCH.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE GRADUAL ADVANCE OF PRIESTLY POWER.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MARTYROOM OF BLAISE, BISHOP OF SEBASTE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EXTRAVAGANCIES OF THE DONATISTS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH.

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 B

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

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

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

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

THE OBJECT OF COUNCILS AND SYNODS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

§ Ibid., lib. iii., cap. 10.

THE COUNCIL OF NICE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IMPORTANT DISCUSSIONS IN THE COUNCIL.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EUSEBIUS, BISHOP OF NICOMEDIA.

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

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

VOL. II. 2 F

BOOK V. CHAPTER 1.

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

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

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

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

† Ibid., p. 449.

CRITICAL POSITION OF ATHANASIUS.

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

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

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

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

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

Notwithstanding the clearest proofs of the innocence of Athanasius,

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

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

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

CRUEL TYRANNY OF THE ARIANS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

AWFUL DEATH OF ARIUS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STATE OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MURDEROUS TUMULTS IN THE CHURCH.

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

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

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

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

† Ibid., chap. xxv.

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

APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE NEW IMPERIAL CITY OF CONSTANTINOPLE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE GENERAL CONDUCT OF CONSTANTINE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORIANS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONDUCT OF CONSTANTINE TOWARDS HIS FAMILY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE DEATH OF CONSTANTINE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE MASSACRE OF THE PRINCES.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

** Ibid., cap. 60.

EXPIRING EFFORTS OF PAGANISM.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONSTANTIUS, AND HIS PERSIAN CAMPAIGN.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SAPOR IS DEFEATED BEFORE NISIBIS.

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

========================================================================
  CHAPTER 8: 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." *

========================================================================
  CHAPTER 9: 09. BOOK V, CHAPTER III
========================================================================

CHAPTER III.

Accession of Jovian—General Exultation—His Character—Favours the Interests of
the Church—Paganism is at a Discount—Proceedings of the Arians, Donatists, and
Novatians—General Toleration—The Standard of the Cross is replaced—Intolerant
Proceeding of Magnus rebuked and punished—Athanasius re-appears in
Alexandria—Is addressed in an Epistle by Jovian—Who invites him to resume the
See of Alexandria—Which is offensive to the Arians—A Deputation wait upon
Jovian—Who remains firm—Death of Jovian—Is succeeded by Valentinian—Who
associates Valens with him in the Empire—Character of both—Valens ranks among
the Orthodox—But is led by Eudoxius, Bishop of Constantinople, to the Side of
Arianism—Valentinian is tolerant—Ammianus Marcellinus—Paganism is
tolerated—Valens is zealous for Arianism—And persecutes the Orthodox—Prelates
are exiled—Barbarities at Antioch—Murder of eighty Ministers—Modestus a Tool
of Valens—Rev. H. H. Milman—Savage Ferocity of Valentinian—His Death—Valens
again expels the orthodox Prelates from the Churches—Athanasius again
flees—The See is filled by Lucius, a Usurper—Death of Procopius—Heroism of
numerous Martyrs—Death of Athanasius—Nominates his Successor—Prepares the way
for further Persecution—Peter, the orthodox Successor of Athanasius, is
imprisoned—And exiled—Euxoius—Tunult in Alexandria—Lucius attacks the
Monasteries—Pantonius—Heracides—Persecution of the Monks—Macarius—Lucius
installed by the Help of the Sword—Cruelty of Magnus—And of Palladius—Numerous
Monks sent to the Mines—The Goths—Athanaric—Fritigern—Sufferings of Sabas—His
Character—Intolerant Proceedings of Athanaric—Unflinching Integrity of
Sabas—Persecution increases—Sansola, a Fellow Sufferer—Atharides—Sabas is
tortured—And relieved by a pagan Woman—Martyrdom of Sabas—Idolatry and
Superstition of the Goths—Nicetas—Butter Hatred

* Milner, Hist. of the Church, cent. iv., chap. 4, vol. i., p. 595.

CONTENTS OF THE CHAPTER.

of Athanaric—Numerous Attempts to induce Apostacy—A "noble Army of Martyrs"
among the Sufferers of this Period—Valens approaching a Crisis in his
Career—Influence of Christianity on the Barbarian of the Age—The Gothic
Invasion—Salutary Effects of the Christian Clergy—Basil—Interview of
Valens—Efforts of Modestus to shake the Fidelity of the Prelate—Valens
succumbs to the Bishop, and presents an Oblation to the Poor—Piety of
Terentius—Many Christians murdered amongst the Goths—Eusebius of Samosata—A
powerful Adversary of Arianism—His Care of the Church—Machinations of the
Arians—An Instance of his Firmness—Council at Antioch—In Disguise he makes the
Tour of Syria—Continually frustrates the Schemes of the Arians—Eusebius is
banished into Thrace—Perilous Situation of the Messenger—Escapes privately
into Exile—Uproar in Samosata—Corresponds with Gregory Nazianzen—And with
Basil—Character of Eunomius—Gregory Nyssen—Eunomius is superseded by
Lucius—His violent Temper—Evolcius and Antiochus are banished—Paulinus—Defence
of Eusebius and Meletius—Peter of Alexandria—Warlke Movements in Thrace—Valens
marches against the Goths—He restores the exiled Bishops—Death of Eusebius—His
Charity—Progress of the Goths—History of their Movements—Theophilus at the
Council of Nice—Ulphilas, Character of—The Goths embrace Christianity—And
Arianism—Death of Valens—Succeeded by Gratian—Valentinian the
Younger—Theodosius—Murder of Gratian—Ambrose—Rebellion of
Maximus—Justina—Ambrose commanded to resign the Churches of Milan—Refuses—And
is persecuted by Justina—Valentinian II. dies—Critical Period of Church
History—Canons of the Church, part of the civil Law—Priscillian—Persecution
and Death of Priscillian—The first Martyr to sectarian Opinions—Theodosius—His
Baptism—His intolerant Manifesto—Councils and Emperors govern the
Church—Ambrose—Sanguinary Conduct of Theodosius—Bold Conduct of
Ambrose—Penitence of the Emperor—Successfully pleads for the Pardon of an
Offender—Epiphanius—His Character—His supposed Miracles—Exumenical Council of
Constantinople—Maximus—Canons of the Council—Heresies—Theodosius makes a
determined Attack on Paganism—Desecration and Destruction of pagan
Temples—Marcellus, Bishop of Apamea—Temple of Jupiter—Martyrdom of
Marcellus—Olympus—Temple of Serapis destroyed—And the colossal Statue of
Serapis—Acacius, Bishop of Berea—Numerous Heresies—Martyrdom of
Heretics—Donatists—Theodosius—Edicts of—Veneration for Martyrs—Death of
Theodosius—Pelagius—Honorius—Semi-Pelagianism—Origin of Nestorianism—Cessation
of the Agape—Doctrines of the Nestorians—Repartces of Sisinius—John
Chrysostom—Christianity compromised—Corruption of Manners—Troubles of the
Empire—State of the Church—Council of Carthage—Persecution in Persia—Several
Prelates deposed—Persecution of a Deaconess—Chrysostom condemned—Character of
Innocent—Statue of the Empress—Testimony of Prudentius—Tumult in the
Church—Gladiatorial Games prohibited—Death of Chrysostom—Worship of
Martyrs—Theodosius the Younger—Pulcheria—Relics of Martyrs—Death of
Stilicho—Alaric takes Rome—Vigilantius—Donatists at Carthage—Theophilus,
Bishop of Alexandria—Martin of Tours—Progress of Superstition—Martin in the
Army—First Monastery in France—His Fanaticism—And Miracles imputed to
him—Sulpitius—Pagan Rites introduced—Doubtful Character of
Proselytes—Credibility of Sulpitus—Examples—Saint-Worship of
Paulinus—Jerome—Early Career of—Character of—Bethlehem—Monastic
Institutions—Birth Place of Vigilantius—Marcellus Tales—His Principles in
Danger—Propagation of Falsehoods—Difficulty of studying Scripture—Vigilantius
ordained—Abuse of the fourth Century—Apostolical Authority—Vigilantius at
Bethlehem—Cradle—Desecration—Extravagant Notions of Celibacy—Vigilantius in
the Cottian Alps—Connexion between him and the Waldeness—Gospel professed in
the Cottian Alps—Vigilantius condemns numerous Errors—Perished in the Massacre
of Barcelona—Dr. Henderson—Jerome—Theodosian Code established—Definition of
Heresy—Laws against

—Term "Inquisitor" first used—Final Effort of Paganism—Character of Leo-
Aggrandizement of the Roman See—Private Confession—Generic upon
Carthage—Heresy of Eutyches—Councils of Constantinople, Chalcedon, and
Ephesus—Vandal Persecution—Martyrdom of Armogastus—Death of Valentinian
III.—Numerous Sects—Arians strengthen Rome—Power of the Church—Christianity
extends—Edicts against Heresy—Code of Theodosius—Code of Justinian.

AFTER the demise of Julian, the providence of God, to the consummate joy of
the Christian world, directed the troops to Jovian, a man of inferior rank,
but of talent and integrity, who was elected by the unanimous voice of the
army to occupy the vacant throne. The situation of the soldiery, when they
thus took upon them to name a Sovereign for the vast empire of which they
regarded themselves as the bulwark, was hopelessly gloomy; and the new-made
Emperor was obliged to accept a peace which his enemies stigmatized as not
less disgraceful to himself than it was ruinous to the state. But whatever
were the opinions taken of his conduct by the politicians of the age, the
Christians were loud in their expressions of joy at the elevation of a man who
had refused, it was said, to accept the diadem from the hands of the soldiers
till they had professed themselves ready to renounce the pollutions of
Paganism. Nor were they deceived in their hopes. Jovian's earliest attention
was directed to the state of the church.* The newly-elected Emperor without
hesitation informed his constituents that he was a Christian, and could not
hope for divine protection, or the success of their arms, were he to take the
command of men trained up in the principles of the late Emperor Julian. The
soldiers replied, "You shall command Christians. The oldest of us were trained
by Constantine, the next by Constantius; and the reign of Julian has been too
short to bind any man among us to his persuasion." On assuming the reins of
empire, he immediately wrote to the Governors of the provinces, commanding
them to open the churches, and diligently to attend divine worship. He ordered
the Nicene canons to be observed; he restored to the Clergy and the churches
the gifts, revenues, and privileges which his predecessor had confiscated and
abolished; and recalled the Bishops and other exiles from banishment.† Though
Christianity alone was publicly to be practised, by an edict which he issued,
all had liberty to worship God in whatever way they pleased in their private
devotions.‡ On the death of Julian, immediately the temples were everywhere
closed; the Priests absconded; the philosophers had quitted the cloak, and
resumed their common dress; to so great despair were the Pagaus reduced.
Within the church, the orthodox and the Arians were everywhere at variance.
Antioch was split into three divisions. The Donatists in Africa exercised a
turbulence that required the interference of the Magistrate. The Novatians,
chiefly faulty in a narrow bigotry and excess of discipline, had kept up some
good understanding with the general church, had joined her in the defence of
the faith against Arianism, had endured persecution in common with her, while
Arianism triumphed; and some of them at

* Stebbing, History of the Christian Church, vol. i., p. 179.

† Townsend, Civil and Ecclesiastical History, vol. i., p. 351.

‡ Theod., Hist. Eccles., lib. iv., cap. 4; Socrat., Hist. Eccles., lib. iii.,
cap. 21.

ATHANASIUS RETURNS TO ALEXANDRIA.

Martinium in Paphlagonia had cut in pieces several companies of soldiers, who
under Constantius had been sent to oblige them to embrace the heretical
creed.* So persuaded was Jovian of the importance of general toleration, that
he actually permitted Themistius, an illustrious pagan Magistrate, to harangue
before him on the propriety of religious freedom, and the rights of
conscience, and to thank him for the liberty which he gave his subjects.
Jovian replaced in the standard the figure of the Cross, which Julian had
taken away. One Magnus, an officer of note, had burned, by his private
authority, the church of Berytus in Phœnicia: the Emperor was very near
beheading him; but contented himself with obliging him to rebuild the church
at his own expense.

As soon as Athanasius heard of the demise of Julian, he speedily appeared in
Alexandria, to the joy and gladness of his own congregation. An epistle from
Jovian confirmed him in his office. A few sentences from this address will at
once testify the approbation with which the Emperor viewed the misused and
persecuted Prelate. "As we admire beyond expression the sanctity of your life,
in which shine forth the marks of resemblance to the God of the universe, and
your zeal for Jesus Christ our Saviour, we take you, venerable Bishop, under
our protection. You deserve it by the courage which you have shown in the most
painful labours, and your contempt of persecutors, and menacing words. Holding
in your hands the helm of faith, which is so dear to you, you cease not to
combat for the truth, nor to edify the Christian people, who find in you the
perfect model of all virtues. For these reasons we recall you immediately. And
we order you to return to teach the doctrine of salvation. Return to the holy
churches: feed the people of God." This movement on the part of Jovian was
truly obnoxious to the Arian portion of the community, who were determined, if
possible, to secure the episcopate for an individual of the name of Lucius, a
man destitute of even the appearance of piety. Application was made to the
Emperor by a deputation of Arians who waited upon him, and Lucius very
modestly acted the part of spokesman. The friends of Athanasius sent deputies
on their part to oppose them. Already was it proved that the interference of
Constantine, and subsequently of Constantius, in the expulsion of Bishops from
certain dioceses, had established an untoward precedent which was followed
frequently. A short extract of the conferences may throw some light on the
character of Jovian, and on the state of religion at that time. "We beg your
power, your majesty, your piety," say the Arians, "to give us audience." "Who
and whence are you?" "Sir, we are Christians." "Whence, and of what city?" "Of
Alexandria." "What do you desire of me?" "To give us a Bishop." "I have
ordered Athanasius to return to his see." "Sir, this man has been banished
many years, for crimes of which he has not been cleared." A soldier of the
Emperor's guard interposed: "Sir, give yourself the trouble to examine who
these people are: they are the remains of George, the villain who desolated
Alexandria." At these words

* Milner, Hist. of the Church, cent. iv., chap. 10, vol. i., p. 600.

2 x

Jovian, who was on horseback when they met him, spurred his horse and left
them. The Arians were not to be so repulsed: they presented themselves to
Jovian a second time. "We have several heads of accusation against Athanasius,
which we are able to prove. It is thirty years since he was banished by
Constantine and Constantius, of immortal memory." (And in the time of Julian
he was an exile.) "The accusations of ten, twenty, thirty years," replied
Jovian, "are out of date. I know why he was accused, and how he was banished."
A third time Jovian being importuned by the same petitioners, and the deputies
of the Athanasians speaking at the same time, the Emperor said, "When all
speak together, one cannot understand who is in the right. Choose two persons
on both sides: I cannot answer both of you." The Arians begged the Emperor to
set over them any person except Athanasius. "I have made inquiries," said he:
"he teaches sound doctrine." "It is true, he speaks well; but means ill,"
answered the Arians. The Emperor replied, "I need no other testimony: if he
mean ill, he must give account of that to God: we men hear words; God alone
knows the heart." "The Treasurer," said a lawyer, a cynic philosopher, "has
taken some houses from me on account of Athanasius." "Is Athanasius
responsible for the actions of the Treasurer?" "I have a charge against
Athanasius," said another lawyer, named Patalas, a Pagan. "What business,"
asked the Emperor, "has a Pagan like thee to trouble himself about
Christians?" Enraged at the attempt of the Arians to corrupt the eunuchs of
the court, he made them to undergo the torture, to discover the length and
depth of this intrigue; and threatened to treat his first domestics in the
same manner, if they followed similar practices. He established Athanasius in
his diocese. The reign of Jovian was short. He was suddenly removed; but not
without suspicion of poison. The Christians bewailed him; the Pagans in
general spoke well of him: the Arians speedily endeavoured to take advantage
of his decease, and the church was once more clothed in sackcloth.*

Valentinian was a man of high rank and character, who had exposed himself to
trouble in the time of Julian. He had withdrawn from the army rather than
offer even questionable adoration to standards decorated with the symbols of
idolatry. He was chosen the successor of Jovian, and immediately associated
with himself his brother Valens, to whom he committed the eastern provinces;
an imprudent exercise of fraternal affection which was productive of evils
Christendom had long and deeply to deplore. Valens, whose mind, it appears,
was little qualified for the discussion of abstruse opinions, had hitherto
adhered closely to the orthodox faith. By the persuasions of his wife, who had
been taught the system by Eudoxius, Bishop of Constantinople, he was induced
to examine the doctrines of Arius; and, previously to his setting out for the
seat of war in Germany, he received baptism from that Prelate. Valentinian,
the Emperor of the West, maintained a calm and uninterrupted toleration, which
incurred the reproach of indifference from the Christian

* Milner, History of the Church, vol. 1., p. 605.

GENERAL STATE OF THE CHURCH.

party; but has received the respectful homage of the pagan historian,
Ammianus. The immunities and the privileges of the heathen priesthood were
confirmed; and the rites of divination were permitted, if performed without
malicious intent. In Rome the vestal virgins maintained their sanctity; the
altar of Victory, restored by Julian, preserved its place; a military guard
protected the temples from insult; but a tolerant as well as prudent provision
forbade the employment of Christian soldiers on this service. Valens was
zealous above measure in the support of his new creed: he commenced a series
of acts of persecution by banishing all the members of the orthodox party from
Constantinople; sending several of the most eminent Bishops into distant
exile. Among these were Eusebius, of Samosata, a man so beloved by his people,
that he was obliged to employ stratagem to save the officers who apprehended
him from destruction; Pelagius of Laodices, and Meletius of Antioch. Barses,
Bishop of Edessa, was the next victim of intolerance; and his banishment was
followed by a general attack on the defenceless inhabitants, who, though
spared death, were subjected to evils scarcely less to be dreaded. Antioch and
other places suffered in a similar manner; and the barbarities of the day are
said to have been crowned by the murder of no less than eighty Christian
Ministers, by a single contrivance of Arian fury. These victims to the
intolerance of the Emperor had ventured to seek him in his palace at
Nicomedia, and present a series of written complaints against the agents of
his cruelty. Enraged at their temerity, he sent secret orders to Modestus, the
Prefect of Edessa, to apprehend and put them to death. The Magistrate, fearing
the consequence of an open execution, condemned them to banishment; but the
sailors who navigated the vessel in which they were transported, received
directions to set fire to the ship when out at sea, and leave them to their
fate. The order was punctually executed, and they perished in the flames.*

Both Emperors allowed perfect freedom to the public ritual of Paganism; and
both in the East and the West exercised a relentless persecution against magic
and unlawful divination. This operated most effectually against the interests
of Paganism. "It was the more fatal," says Mr. Milman, "because it was not
openly directed against the religion, but against practices denounced as
criminal, and believed to be real, by the general sentiment of mankind, and
prosecuted by that fierce animosity which is engendered by fear. Some
compassion might be felt for innocent victims, supposed to be unjustly
implicated in such charges: the practice of extorting evidence or confession
by torture might be revolting to those, especially, who looked back with pride
and with envy to the boasted immunity of all Roman citizens from such
cruelties; but where strong suspicion of guilt prevailed, the public feeling
would ratify the stern sentence of the law against such delinquents; the
magician or the witch would pass to execution amid the universal abhorrence.
The notorious connexion of any particular religious party with such dreaded
and

* Stebbing, Hist. of the Christian Church, 12mo., vol. I., p. 182; Milner,
Hist. of the Church, vol. I., p. 609; Socrat., Hist. Eccles., lib. iv., cap.
16.

2 x 2 abominated proceedings, particularly if proved by the conviction of a
considerable majority of the condemned from their ranks, would tend to depress
the religion itself."* Julian greatly encouraged these dark and forbidden
practices, against which the persecution of Valentinian was constantly
directed. But with Valentinian justice degenerated into savage tyranny. The
Emperor kept two fierce bears by his own chamber, to which the miserable
criminals were thrown in his presence, while the unrelenting Monarch listened
with ferocious delight to their groans.† One of these animals, as a reward of
his faithful service to the state, received his freedom, and was let loose
into his native forest. Valentinian did not long wield the sceptre, after he
had defeated the Germans, and restored tranquillity to the African provinces:
he had also been successful in an expedition against the Quadi, whose
territories he had laid waste; and afterwards, when giving an audience to
their ambassadors, whilst speaking in a very excited manner, he ruptured a
blood-vessel, and expired.

Valens, at the solicitation of Eudoxius, ordered the Bishops who had been
deposed in the reign of Constantius, and were afterwards restored, to be
expelled from the churches. By virtue of this order Tatian, Governor of
Alexandria, attempted to drive Athanasius out of that city. The Prelate had
the hearts of his people. Long experience of his integrity and virtue, respect
for his talents, and compassion for his sufferings, had secured him this the
most reasonable and the most glorious of all empires. The Prefect was so
sensible of this, that for some time he durst not proceed to execute his
orders. At length he broke one night with an armed force into his church,
where he generally lodged, and sought for his person in every place, but in
vain. Athanasius, probably warned beforehand of the danger, had retired, and
remained for four months concealed in his father's sepulchre. This was the
fourth time that he had fled from Alexandria. Valens, however, from the dread
he seems to have had of the people, ordered him to be recalled; nor could
Lucius, the Arian Bishop of that see, prevail upon him to give Athanasius any
more trouble.‡ The rebellion of Procopius planted many thorns in the pillow of
the Emperor. It was diligently rumoured abroad, that Procopius had been
designated as his successor by the expiring Julian, and the astrologers had
predicted the elevation of that individual to the greatest height. The magical
ceremony of divination, which was denounced before Valens, was Pagan
throughout all its dark and mysterious circumstances; and many fell victims to
the fears and vengeance of Valens. Procopius met with a cruel end.§ About this

* Milman, History of Christianity, vol. iii., p. 115.

† The Christians did not escape these legal murders, constantly perpetrated by
the orders of Valentinian. In Milan, the place where three obscure victims
were buried was called Ad Innocentes. When he had condemned the decurions of
three towns to be put to death, in a remonstrance against their execution, it
was stated, that they would be worshipped as martyrs by the Christians.
(Ammian. Marcell., lib. xxvii., cap. 7.)

‡ Milner, Hist. of the Church, vol. I., p. 608.

§ It is probable that a severe persecution might have ensued at this crisis,
had not Procopius commenced a civil war. As he possessed the chief authority
at Constantinople, he soon collected a large army, and marched against Valens.
The latter quitted Syria, and met Procopius near Nacolis, a city of Phrygia,
and captured him alive.

PERSECUTIONS IN ANTIOCH.

time Valens went to Antioch. During his absence Eudoxius died, after having
governed the church of Constantinople during the space of eleven years.
Demophilus was ordained his successor by the Arian Bishops; but those who
followed the Nicene doctrines, believing that the course of events was in
their power, elected Evagrius as their Bishop. He had been ordained by
Eustathius, who had formerly governed the church at Antioch in Syria, and who,
having been recalled from banishment by Jovian, lived in a private manner at
Constantinople, and devoted himself to the instruction of those who held his
sentiments, exhorting them to perseverance. The Arians were deeply incensed at
this ordination, and commenced a violent persecution against those by whom it
had been effected. During the Emperor's visit to Antioch, he ejected from the
churches of that city and of the neighbouring towns all those who adhered to
the Nicene faith: he persecuted them with extreme severity, put many of them
to death in a variety of ways, and caused others to be drowned in the river
Orontes. Having heard that there was a magnificent church at Edessa, named
after the Apostle Thomas, he went to see it. On approaching the edifice, he
saw the members of the church assembled for worship without the walls of the
city; for they had been deprived of their place of assembly. It is said, that
the Emperor was so indignant with the Prefect for permitting these assemblies,
that he struck him. Modestus, the Prefect, although he was himself a heretic,
secretly warned the people of Edessa not to meet for prayer on the same spot
the next day, for he had received orders from the Emperor to punish all who
resorted thither; but the people, totally disregarding the threat, assembled,
with more than their customary zeal, at the usual place of meeting. Modestus,
on being apprized of their proceedings, was undecided as to what measures
ought to be adopted, and repaired to the place where they had assembled. A
woman, leading a child by the hand, forced her way through the ranks of the
army, as if bent upon some affair of importance. Modestus remarked her
conduct, ordered her to be stopped, and summoned her into his presence, to
inquire the cause of her anxiety. She replied, that she was hastening to the
spot where the members of the Catholic church were assembled. "Know you not,"
replied Modestus, "that the Prefect is on his way thither, for the purpose of
condemning to death all who are found upon the spot?" "I have heard so,"
replied she, "and this is the very reason of my haste; for I am fearful of
arriving too late, and thus losing the honour of martyrdom." The Governor
having asked her why she took her child with her, she replied, "In order that
he may share in the sufferings of the others, and participate in the same
reward." Modestus, struck with astonishment at the courage of this woman, went
to the through the treachery of Aglionius and Gomoarius, two of his Generals.
Valens put them all to a cruel death; and although he had sworn to show favour
to the two Generals, he caused them to be sawn asunder. He commanded Procopius
to be fastened by the legs to two trees, which had been bent together by the
application of a great force; so that, on the sudden removal of that force,
when the trees were left to resume their natural position, the victim was torn
in twain. (Sozomen., Hist. Eccles., lib. vi, cap. 8.)

Emperor, and, acquainting him with what had occurred, persuaded him to
renounce a design which was neither beneficial nor creditable.*

Athanasius departed from this troublesome life in 373, after he had been
Bishop forty-six years. On being desired to nominate a successor, he mentioned
Peter, an aged saint, and the faithful companion of his labours. This last act
of the deceased Prelate prepared the way for further persecution. We are
informed by Sozomen, that the Arians having received early intelligence of the
death of Athanasius, Euzoius, Bishop of the Arians at Antioch, and Magnus, the
Chief Treasurer, lost no time in seizing and imprisoning Peter, whom
Athanasius had appointed to succeed him, and they forthwith transferred the
government of the church to Lucius. Thence followed a cruel persecution of the
faithful in Egypt; for no sooner had Lucius presented himself in Alexandria,
and attempted to take possession of the churches, than he met with great
opposition from the people, and the Clergy and holy virgins were accused as
the originators of the sedition. Some made their escape, as if the city had
fallen into the hands of an enemy: others were seized and imprisoned. Some of
the prisoners were afterwards dragged from the dungeons to be torn with iron
nails, while others were burnt by means of flaming torches. It seemed
wonderful how they could possibly survive the tortures to which they were
subjected. Banishment, or even death itself, would have been preferable to
such sufferings. Peter the Bishop made his escape from prison, and, embarking
on board a ship, proceeded to Rome, the Bishop of which church held the same
sentiments as himself. Thus the Arians, though comparatively few in number,
remained in possession of the churches. At the same time an edict was issued
by the Emperor, enacting, that as many of the followers of the Nicene
doctrines should be ejected from Alexandria, and the rest of Egypt, as might
be directed by Lucius. Euzoius, having thus accomplished his designs,
triumphantly returned to Antioch. This did not satisfy the Arian party.
Lucius, the Arian Prelate of Alexandria, contemplated a crusade against the
monasteries of the country, especially as they were governed by individuals of
undoubted sanctity, and strongly opposed to the heresy of Arius. The leaders
of these Egyptian ascetics appear to have been two men of the name of
Macarius,† and Pantonius and Heraclides, with other disciples of Antony.

* Sozomen., Hist. Eccles., lib. vi., cap. 18.

† MACARIUS, the Elder, was a celebrated hermit of the fourth century, said to
be a disciple of Antony, born at Alexandria in 301 of poor parents. He was
first a baker, which trade he pursued till the age of thirty; then being
baptized, he retired, and led a solitary life. He passed sixty years in a
monastery in Mount Sceta, dividing his time between prayer and manual labour.
He died about 391. Fifty homilies in Greek have been attributed to him, which
were printed in Paris in 1526, with Gregory Thaumaturgus, in folio; and in 2
vols. 8vo. at Leipsic in 1698.

MACARIUS, the Younger, was a famous Monk, a friend of the preceding, and a
native of Alexandria, and had near five thousand Monks under his direction. He
was persecuted by the Arians, and banished into an island, where he converted
almost all the inhabitants by his preaching, and, as some say, by his
miracles. He died in 394 or 395. The Rules of Monks, in thirty chapters, are
attributed to him; and a discourse by him, on the death of the just, was
published by Tollius, in his "Insignia Itinerarii Italici." (Rose, Blog,
Dict.)

INTOLERANT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE FAITHFUL.

Reflecting that the Arians could never succeed in establishing an ascendancy
over the Catholic church, unless the Monks could be drawn towards that party,
Lucius determined to have recourse to force in order to compel the Monks to
embrace his opinion, all gentler measures having been attended with signal
failure. But here the machinations of the Emperor were frustrated, inasmuch as
the Monks were fully prepared to fall by the sword rather than to apostatize
from the Nicene faith. Sozomen, who has a strong predilection for the
miraculous, relates, that at the very time the soldiers were about to attack
them, a man, whose limbs were withered, and who was unable to stand, was
carried to them; and that, when they had anointed him with oil, and commanded
him, in the name of Christ whom Lucius persecuted, to arise, and go to his
house, he was immediately restored to health and strength. This miraculous
cure, if so it were, was intended to manifest the necessity of adopting the
sentiments of those whose prayers were heard and answered by the Most High, in
opposition to the dogmas of Lucius; but the persecutors of the Monks were not
led to repentance by this miracle; on the contrary, they arrested these good
men, and conveyed them by night to an island of Egypt, lying in the midst of
swamps and marshes. The inhabitants of this place had never heard of the
Christian faith, and were devoted to the service of demons; and the locality
contained many temples of great antiquity, used for idolatrous purposes. It is
also related, that when the Monks landed on the island, the daughter of the
Priest, who was possessed of a devil, went to meet them. The girl ran
screaming towards them; and the people of the island, astonished at her
strange conduct, followed in crowds. When she drew near the ship in which
these exiled Ministers were, she flung herself upon the ground, and exclaimed
in a loud voice, "Wherefore are you come to us, O servants of the great God;
for we have long dwelt in this island without giving trouble to any one?
Unknown to men, we have concealed ourselves here, and shut up ourselves within
these marshes. If, however, it please you, accept our possessions, and fix
your abode here: we will quit the island." Macarius and his companions
exorcised the demon, and the girl was restored. Her father and all her house,
with the inhabitants of the island, immediately embraced Christianity, and
demolished their temple for the purpose of erecting a church. On these
occurrences being reported at Alexandria, Lucius was overcome by immoderate
grief; and fearing lest he should incur the hatred of his own partisans, and
be accused of warring against God and not against man, he sent secret orders
for Macarius and his companions to be re-conveyed to their own dwellings in
the wilderness. About the same period Didymus, the philosopher, and several
other illustrious men, acquired great renown. Struck by their virtue, and by
that of the Monks, the people followed their doctrines, and opposed those of
the partisans of Lucius. The Arians, though not so strong in point of numbers
as the other party, grievously persecuted the church in Egypt.*

In these "wars and rumours of wars," with which the tranquillity

* Sozomen., Hist. Eccles., lib. vi., cap. 20.

of the church was so greatly disturbed, imperial violence prevailed. Euzoius
induced Valens to oppose Peter, and Lucius was installed by the power of the
sword. Then we behold the insolent cruelty of Magnus,* a Pagan, whom the mercy
of Jovian had spared. Many Athanasians were murdered, and many treated with
great outrage, whilst Arianism, supported by the civil power, triumphed
without control. Nineteen Priests and Deacons, some very old, were seized by
Magnus. "Agree, wretches," said the Pagan, "to the sentiments of the Arians.
If your religion be true, God will forgive you for yielding to necessity."
"Forbear to importune us," they replied: "we do not believe that God is
sometimes Father and sometimes not. Our fathers at Nice confessed, that the
Son is consubstantial with the Father." Whips and tortures, the grief of the
godly, and the insults of Jews and apostates, altered not their determination:
they were banished to Heliopolis in Phoenicia. Palladius, a Pagan, the
Governor of Egypt, sent many to prison, who had presumed to weep; and, after
he had scourged them, sent twenty-three of them, chiefly Monks, to work in the
mines. Other scenes of savage cruelty are related: it is tedious and
unpleasant, says Milner, to enlarge upon them; but it is a pleasure to behold
the fruits of the labours of Athanasius, in the faithful sufferings of so many
of his followers.† What a Prelate was Euzoius! his conduct at the present
juncture required severe animadversion; otherwise his name deserves to descend
into the waters of oblivion, anathematized and forgotten! The piety of
Terentius, an officer of Valens, deserves to be recorded. The Emperor, pleased
with his services, bade him ask a favour. The man begged the liberty of a
place of worship for the orthodox. Valens, in a rage, tore his petition.
Terentius, gathering the fragments of the petition, said, "I have received the
gift, O Emperor: the Judge of all the earth is judge of my intentions."

Among those who suffered for righteousness' sake was one Sabas, together with
a considerable number among the Goths, who had embraced the Christian religion
some years previous: they were governed by two Kings, who, with much the
greater part of their subjects, continued still Pagans. Fritigern, who
governed the Western Goths, was an ally to the Romans, and therefore did not
persecute the Christians with violence; while Athanaric, King of the Eastern
Goths, who was at war with them, and had been defeated by the Roman forces,
fell on his Christian subjects, whom he hated, because they were of the same
religion with his enemies. Sabas on this occasion was one who felt the weight
of his revenge: he was humble, mild, modest, well-grounded in his religion,
and a perfect model of those virtues which should distinguish the professors
of the true faith from the rest of the world; was constant in his attendance
on divine worship; zealous for the honour and advancement of the church;
remarkable for his contempt of riches, and the numerous advantages and
pleasures of the present world. Thus armed, he convinced and confounded his
idolatrous countrymen, and excited the Christians to

* Theodoret., Hist. Eccles., lib. iv., cap. 22.

† Milner, History of the Church, cent. iv., chap. 11, vol. i., p. 614.

MARTYROOM OF SABAS.

virtue by his discourses and example. All his actions were accompanied by a
lively and an ardent charity, which made him surmount all difficulties and
human considerations, and to press the word of truth with an undaunted
courage, though always with a sweetness that must convince the persons whose
instruction and conversion he contemplated. In the year 370, Athanaric* issued
orders, that all persons in his dominions should partake of the pagan
sacrifices, on which the Christians were required to eat of the meat which had
been offered to idols, which would, had they consented, have been deemed an
act of apostasy. Those among the Pagans who had relations who were Christians,
endeavoured to save them by offering them meat which had not received the
idolatrous consecration: the Magistrates were thus imposed upon, and led to
believe that all had been accomplished according to their instructions. Sabas,
however, was too well acquainted with the principles of the Apostle Paul to
imagine that the sin was only to be found in eating: he knew that causing the
weak to stumble, and giving the enemies of the faith an advantage over them,
also constituted the act criminal and sinful, neither of which consequences
could be possibly avoided by any disguise. He not only refused to comply with
what was proposed to him, but publicly declared, that those who sheltered
themselves under that artifice were not worthy to be called Christians; and
thus preserved several from being deceived by this pernicious dissimulation.
Those whose good intentions for the service of their friends had projected
this scheme in their favour, were so incensed on account of the fidelity of
Sabas, that they obliged him to quit the town; but the general esteem in which
he was held would not allow the inhabitants of the place to be long without
him.

This persecution increased in virulence. Some of the Pagans, desirous of
preserving their friends in safety, offered to make a solemn oath, that there
was not one Christian in their places of residence. Sabas, who could not
endure this officious perjury, went to the place where they were assembled,
and boldly cautioned them against such a step, asserting that he was himself
an exception. The Heathens persisted, and resolved to screen the remainder
from harm, and swore there was but one Christian among them. The Magistrate
knew that Sabas was the person: he ordered him before him; and when inquiry
was made into his fortune and circumstances, it appeared that the garments in
which he was clad constituted nearly the whole of his temporal property, when
he was summarily dismissed with great contumely, as an individual altogether
unworthy of notice. In 372 the persecution was unabated. Sabas, not willing to
expose

* Athanaric, a King of the Visigoths in the fourth century. While this people
were located in Thrace, Athanaric was their Judge. He joined in the revolt of
Procopius against Valens, and drew upon himself the wrath of the latter, who
defeated him in battle in 369. He was afterwards defeated by the Huns; and,
losing his ascendancy, he quitted the post he then held of Judge or Governor
of his people, and retired into the mountains of Caucasus. On the death of
Fritigern, he returned to command the Visigoths, became their King, and
entered into hostilities against the Romans; but soon made peace with
Theodosius, whom he accompanied to Constantinople in 381. He died in that city
the same month, in consequence of his excesses at table. (Biog. Univ.)

2 Y himself to the trial without evident occasion and necessity, left the town
of his residence to spend the festival of Easter with Sansala, a Christian
Priest of great sanctity of life. They spent the first three days in peace,
and employments suited to the occasion; but on the third night they were
surprised by the arrival of a party of soldiers, commanded by Atharides, the
son of one of the first nobility in the land. He knew the character of
Sansala, and entered his house, where they seized both him and Sabas, who were
in bed. The Priest had time allowed to dress himself, after which he was
hurried off in a carriage; but Sabas was taken away in a state of nudity,
dragged through thorns and briers, and violently beaten: but the patience of
Sabas was even superior to the cruelty of Atharides, and God was pleased to
preserve him amidst all their ill-treatment without any external marks of
violence. Afterwards they took two beams, and, extending his limbs, they tied
his arms to one and his legs to the other, and in that position they left him
on the ground, while they went to repose themselves for the evening. The woman
of the house where his tormentors were lodged, becoming acquainted how ill he
had been used, went and released him: he then employed his temporary liberty
in assisting her to prepare a repast for his persecutors. The following
morning Atharides ordered his hands to be tied together, and hung him up on a
cross-beam, and, bringing Sansala to the same place, thought that a proper
time to practise on the fidelity of these two Christians; upon which they
presented them some meats, which had been offered to the heathen deities, and
declared that eating them was the only way to preserve their lives. The
heathen Priests, however, assured these persecutors, that they only lost time
and labour in such an attempt; for they had to deal with persons who were
prepared to meet the most cruel death that could be invented, rather than
commit so detestable an act. Those who were engaged in the affair urged the
compliance of the victims, by informing them, that Lord Atharides had sent
them, and that he anticipated they would be obedient. Sabas, with great
magnanimity, answered them, that they knew no Lord but the Lord Almighty, and
had less reason to fear death from refusing what was offered them than a life
which would be as impure and profane as the person by whose authority they
were sent. One of the servants of Atharides, who was standing by, heard this
severe reflection upon his master, and revenged the affront by striking the
confessor upon the breast with such violence, that the whole company concluded
he could not survive the blow: he nevertheless received it with great
tranquillity. The Priest was then set at liberty, and these myrmidons of
oppression directed their rage entirely against Sabas, whom Atharides ordered
to be promptly despatched on account of his obstinacy, and the great liberties
he had taken with him. He was carried to Mussow, a river in Wallachia, to be
drowned. Sabas, missing Sansala, whom he wished to have been a partaker with
him in his sufferings, and in the glory that was to attend them, asked those
about him what had become of him, and what he had done that he was to be
deprived of the crown of martyrdom. They unceremoniously informed him, that
that was no busi-

GENERAL PERSECUTION UNDER ATHANARIC.

ness of his; and Sabas then employed the rest of his time in praising God for
the favour done to him by the acceptance of his sufferings and life: in fine,
his behaviour was such as to reduce his executioners to pity and respect him.
They were even convinced of his utter innocency with regard to anything worthy
of death. When they were come to the banks of the river, and were on the point
of consigning him to the flood, he overheard the discourse among themselves on
the subject, and, full of an ardent desire of martyrdom, he pressed them to
the punctual execution of their commission. He was then thrown into the river,
where he perished, having manifested a remarkable instance of courage and
fidelity. His body was afterwards found, which received decent sepulture from
the Christians of the place.

About this period the Goths were very powerful in the East; and the greater
part being slaves to idolatry and superstition, the Christians often
experienced the effects of the aversion which this people showed towards the
faith of Christ and its professors. Nicetas was of Gothic race, born near the
banks of the Danube, and had been converted to Christianity during the reign
of Constantine, by Theophilus, Bishop of the Scythians, Sarmatians, and the
Goths; and although the faithful had been frequently called to suffer for the
sake of Christ, we do not find that Nicetas met with any trouble on account of
his religion until the time of the Emperor Valens; when Athanaric, a potentate
remarkable for his savage temper and implacable aversion to the Roman empire,
imagining that Christianity was peculiar to that kingdom, viewed the
professors of that faith as the indomitable adversaries of his crown. These
prejudices were the fruitful source of a severe persecution throughout the
length and breadth of his dominions. Wherever any Christians resided,
Athanaric ordered an idol to be paraded about in a chariot, and exacted a
prompt and servile adoration from all the faithful; who, upon refusing
compliance with this outrageous mandate, were doomed to be burnt in their
houses. Numbers of every age and of both sexes fled to the places of divine
worship, where they anticipated security; but the Pagans had no regard for
anything which the Christians might call sacred: they set on fire the
buildings, and consumed all that were in them. Although it is probable that a
"noble army of martyrs" suffered on this occasion, history has only
transmitted to us the names of Sabas and Nicetas; of the latter of whom we
have no very particular account, the Greek Martyrologies briefly recording,
that he suffered September 15th, A.D. 372, being burnt alive for the faith as
it is in Christ Jesus. In the multitude of martyrs who glorified God among the
barbarous Goths, Nicetas holds a distinguished rank.*

The career of Valens was advancing to a crisis. It was followed by the first
permanent establishment of the barbarians within the frontiers of the Roman
empire. Christianity now began to assume a new and important function,
promoting that assimilation and union between the conquerors and the
conquered, which prevented the total extinction of the Roman civilization, and
the oppression of Europe by

* Butler, Lives of the Saints, Sept. 15th, vol. ii., p. 445.

2 v 2 complete and almost hopeless barbarism. However Christianity might have
disturbed the peace, and therefore, in some degree, the stability, of the
empire by the religious factions which distracted the principal
cities;—however that foreign principle of celibacy, which had now become
completely identified with it, by withdrawing so many active and powerful
minds into the cloister or the hermitage, may have diminished the civil
energies, and even have impaired the military forces, of the country;* yet the
enterprising and victorious religion amply repaid those injuries by its
influence in re-modelling the new state of society. If treacherous to the
interests of Rome, it was true to those of mankind. Throughout the whole
process of the re-settling of Europe, and the other provinces of the kingdom,
by the migratory tribes from the North and East, and the vast system of
colonization and conquest which introduced one or more new races into every
province, Christianity was the one common bond, the harmonizing principle,
which subdued to something like unity the adverse and conflicting elements of
society. Christianity, no doubt, while it discharged this lofty mission, could
not but undergo a great and desecrating change. It might repress, but could
not altogether subdue, the advance of barbarism: it was constrained to
accommodate itself to the spirit of the times; while struggling to counteract
barbarism, itself became barbarized. It lost at once much of its purity and
its gentleness; it became splendid and imaginative, warlike and at length
chivalrous. When a country in a comparatively high state of civilization is
overrun by a foreign and martial horde, in numbers too great to be absorbed by
the local population, the victors usually establish themselves as a kind of
armed aristocracy, while the conquered are depressed into a race of slaves.
Where there is no connecting, no intermediate, power, the two races co-exist
in stern and irreconcilable hostility. The conquerors began to assume the
supreme power, and to take possession of the property in the subjugated lands,
or at least a considerable share in the landed estates; and laid the ground-
work, as it were, for that feudal system which was afterwards developed, with
more or less completeness, in different countries of Europe.

One thing alone, in some cases, observes Mr. Milman, tempered, during the
process of conquest, the irreclaimable hostility; in all, after the final
settlement, moulded up together in some degree the adverse powers. When, as in
the Gothic invasion, it had made some previous impression on the invading
race, Christianity was constantly present, silently mitigating the horrors of
war, and afterwards blending together, at least to a certain extent, the rival
races. At all times it became the connecting link, the intermediate power,
which gave some community of interests, some similarity of feeling, to the
master and the slave. They worshipped at least the same God in the same
church; and the care of the same Clergy embraced both with

* Valens, perceiving the actual operation of this unwarlike dedication of so
many able-bodied men to useless inactivity, attempted to correct the evil by
law, and by the strong interference of the government. He invaded the
monasteries and solitary hermitages of Egypt, and swept the Monks by thousands
into the ranks of the army. But a reluctant Egyptian Monk would, in general,
make but an indifferent soldier. (Milman.)

INTERVIEW OF VALENS WITH BASIL.

something of an harmonizing and equalizing superintendence. The Christian
Clergy occupied a singular position in this new state of society. At the
earlier period they were, in general, Roman: later, though sometimes barbarian
by birth, they were Roman in education. When the prostration of the conquered
people was complete, there was still an order of people not strictly belonging
to either race, which maintained a commanding attitude, and possessed certain
authority. The Christian Bishop confronted the barbarian Sovereign, or took
his rank among the leading nobles. During the invasion, the Christian Clergy,
though their possessions were ravaged in the indiscriminate warfare, though
their persons were not always secure from insult or from slavery, yet, on the
whole, retained, or very soon resumed, a certain sanctity, and hastened,
before long, to wind their chains around the minds of the conquerors. Before a
new invasion, Christianity had, in general, mingled up the invaders with the
invaded; till at length Europe, instead of being a number of disconnected
kingdoms, hostile in race, in civil polity, in religion, was united in a kind
of federal Christian republic, or a principle of unity, acknowledging the
supremacy of the Pope.*

The memorable interview of the Emperor with Basil, as it has been related by
the orthodox party, displays, if the weakness, certainly the patience and
forbearance, of the Sovereign; if the uncompromising firmness of the Prelate,
some of that leaven of pride with which he has been taunted by Jerome. During
his circuit through the Asiatic provinces, the Emperor approached the city of
Cæsarea in Cappadocia. Modestus, the violent and unscrupulous favourite of
Valens, was sent before to persuade the Bishop to submit to the religion of
the Emperor. Basil was inflexible. "Know you not," said the offended officer,
"that I have power to strip you of all your possessions, to banish you, to
deprive you of life?" "He," answered Basil, "who possesses nothing, can lose
nothing: all that you can take from me are the wretched garments I wear, and
the few books which are my only wealth. As to exile, the earth is the Lord's;
everywhere it will be my country, or rather my place of pilgrimage. Death will
be a mercy, it will but admit me into life: long have I been dead to this
world." Modestus expressed his surprise at this unusual tone of intrepid
address. "You have never, then," replied the Prelate, "conversed before with a
Bishop?" Modestus returned to his master. "Violence will be the only course
with this man, who is neither to be appalled by menaces, nor won by
blandishments." But the Emperor shrunk from violent measures. His humbler
supplication confined itself to the admission of Arians into the communion of
Basil; but he implored in vain. The Emperor mingled with the crowd of
undistinguished worshippers; but he was so impressed by the solemnity of the
service, the deep and full chanting of the Psalms, the silent adoration of the
people, the order and the majesty,—by the calm dignity of the Bishop and of
his attendant Clergy, which appeared more like the serenity of angels than the
busy scene of mortal men,—that, awe-struck and overpowered, he

* Milman, History of Christianity, vol. iii., p. 130.

scarcely ventured to approach to make his offering. The Clergy stood
irresolute whether they were to receive it from the infectious hand of an
Arian: Basil at length, while the trembling Emperor leaned for support on an
attendant Priest, condescended to advance, and accept the oblation. But
neither supplications, nor bribes, nor threats, could induce the Bishop to
admit the Sovereign to the communion. In a personal interview, instead of
convincing the Bishop, Valens was so overpowered by the eloquence of Basil, as
to bestow an endowment on the church for the use of the poor. A scene of
mingled intrigue and asserted miracle ensued. The exile of Basil was
determined; but the mind of Valens was alarmed by the dangerous illness of his
son. The prayers of Basil were said to have restored the youth to life; but, a
short time after, having been baptized by Arian hands, he relapsed and died.
Basil, however, maintained his place and dignity to the end.*

The piety of Terentius, an officer of Valens, deserves to be recorded.† He was
eminent for valour, and was able, on his return from Armenia, to erect
trophies of victory. The Emperor promised to give him anything that he should
desire. But he asked neither for gold nor silver, for lands, houses, nor
power; but only that a church might be given to those who preached the
apostolical doctrines. When Valens received the petition, and had read the
contents, he was exceedingly irritated, and desired Terentius to prefer
something else. He gathered up the torn and scattered fragments of the
document, and left the presence of the Emperor, rejoicing that he had been
thought worthy of suffering reproach and shame for the sake of the Saviour of
men.

Numbers of the faithful were murdered among the Goths through the cruelty of
their King, Athanaric. Eusebius of Samosata was among the sufferers. He
sustains a prominent place on the page of ecclesiastical history, having
proved himself to be one of the strongest pillars of the orthodox faith
against the Arians. He was a native of Samosata in Syria, on the banks of the
Euphrates, of which city he was constituted Bishop during the time of
Constantius. The Persian war brought that Emperor to Antioch, where he
assembled a Council with the design of condemning the terms "consubstantial,"
and "different in substance," and thus to preserve some medium between the
orthodox and the pure Arians. The Bishops who met on that occasion, among whom
was Eusebius, made it their first petition, that that church should be
provided with a Pastor, whom they might consult in affairs relating to the
points which were now in dispute; for Eustathius had been deposed by the Arian
party, and Eudoxius, whom they had placed in his room, was removed to
Constantinople, and thus Antioch was entirely destitute of a Prelate. Until
now, the choice fell on Meletius by general agreement; and the writing which
contained the free consent of both parties for his election, having been

* Greg. Nazian., Orat. xx.; Greg. Nyas., Contra Eunom.; and also the
ecclesiastical historians in loco.; Milman, Hist. of Christianity, book iii.,
chap. 7, vol. iii., p. 127.

† Theodoret., Hist. Eccles., lib. iv., cap. 32.

EVIL MACHINATIONS OF ARIANISM.

subscribed by all the Bishops, was lodged in the hands of Eusebius. The first
discourse the new Prelate delivered, opened the eyes of the Arians to see that
they were mistaken in their man; upon which they prevailed with the Emperor to
banish him, after he had been about a month in possession of his see.
Eusebius, perceiving the violence and irregularity of these proceedings,
imagined that he had no further business at Antioch, and made the best of his
way home. The Arians, remembering that he was in possession of the acts of the
election of Meletius, and not judging their honour safe while it remained in
his hands, they persuaded the Emperor to despatch a messenger after Eusebius
to wrest this obnoxious document from him. The answer of the Prelate of
Samosata was, that he could not give up a trust reposed in him by a large
number, without the express consent of all concerned therein. Valens,
irritated by this reply, wrote to Eusebius on the subject, and assured him
that he had commissioned the bearer of his letter to cut off his right hand,
if he refused to surrender the instrument in question; which threat,
historians inform us, was only used to compel Eusebius to comply with their
request. He was fully aware that the party was capable of any cruelty to
advance their cause; but, without the least emotion, he presented both his
hands, and declared that he would rather lose them, than part with so flagrant
a proof of Arian injustice. The Emperor was surprised at his resolution, and
professed highly to esteem him ever after. From this period Eusebius became
exceedingly offensive to the Arians, who viewed him as their inveterate foe.
When Jovian succeeded Julian, he restored peace to the church, and gave
Meletius the liberty of convening a Council at Antioch. Eusebius with twenty-
five other Prelates composed that assembly, who were all unanimous in
declaring for the doctrine of the church as delivered by the Council of Nice.
The church suffered greatly at this time by the Arians, supported as they were
by the authority of Valens, who was blindly devoted to that party. Their
industry and activity obliged the orthodox Prelates to be upon their guard,
none of whom was more vigilant than Eusebius. His zeal, however, was so
governed by the rules of prudence, that his attempts seldom failed of success.
It was not enough for Eusebius to screen his own flock from the insults of the
common enemy, and maintain the faith in its purity against all the stratagems
of those who would corrupt the people; but, knowing that churches were by the
iniquity of the times deprived of their Pastors, he disguised himself, and
made the tour of Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine; fortified the orthodox
against the solicitations of the heretics, ordained several Priests and
inferior Clergy, and when he discovered orthodox Prelates in his travels, he
assisted them in consecrating Bishops for the service of the widowed churches.
It was impossible to conceal the hand that every day gave some additional blow
to the Arian party, and depressed their interests wherever they were employed,
until the Emperor, at their instigation, granted an order for Eusebius to be
banished into Thrace. He was at Samosata when the messenger arrived with this
order: it was late in the evening; and the Bishop, who was well beloved by his
people, requested that he would make no noise, but as much as possible conceal
his business; "for," said he, "if it become public, the people will fall upon
you, throw you into the river, and then I shall be accused of causing your
death." Eusebius was sufficiently collected to go through his accustomed
devotions; and when the evening was far advanced, he left his house on foot,
attended only by one trusty servant, who carried a pillow and a book after
him. At break of day the whole town was in an uproar; for the Bishop's
servant, who accompanied him in his exile, had left his master's orders for
such as were to follow him, and the books which were to be sent after him: but
there was no room for consolation while the Bishop was absent, and the river
was soon covered with boats, manned with individuals who were in quest of
their father and friend. He had not left Zeugma when they reached that town,
and they conjured him with tears and sighs not to abandon them, and thus leave
the flock exposed to the fury of the wolf. The Prelate could not but be
strongly affected with the remonstrances of his people; but urged the
authority of the Apostle Paul, for submitting to the commands of the powers in
existence. Finding they could not prevail upon him to return to Samosata, they
entreated to be allowed to testify their affection for him by furnishing him
with all that could make that long and arduous journey as tolerable as
possible. They offered him money, clothes, and servants, and every
accommodation in their power: he thanked them for these tokens of regard,
accepted a few of them, prayed with the company, exhorted them to "contend
earnestly for the faith which was once delivered to the saints," and then
pursued his journey into Thrace. Gregory Nazianzen could not enjoy the
satisfaction of beholding the exile as he passed through Cappadocia, inasmuch
as he was confined to his room on account of indisposition. But as soon as he
was able to write, he gave him to know how much he was grieved at being
deprived of that pleasure. In this communication he informs him, that, seeing
him assert the faith with such undaunted courage, and submit to all the
hardships which attended his generous behaviour with so much patience and
humility, he viewed him as an illustrious martyr of Jesus Christ, and that he
ought to receive the assistance of the prayers of the faithful.

When Eusebius arrived at his journey's end, he wrote to Basil, and sent the
letter by a person who was well acquainted with the country, and capable of
giving an exact account of his situation in that district. Basil, overjoyed to
hear from Eusebius, embraced the opportunity of one of his flock journeying to
Thrace, to acquaint him with his sentiments with regard to the courage and
fidelity displayed by Eusebius, and the glory that attended his suffering in
such a cause. The correspondence was carried on between these Prelates during
the exile. In the meantime the see of Samosata was filled by Eunomius: not the
individual against whom Basil and Gregory Nyssen wrote; but a man of a sweet
and easy temper, and evidently utterly unfit for supporting such a usurpation.
The conduct of the people on his accession to the episcopate was an undeniable
proof of the uncommon merit of Eusebius, and also of his pastoral
qualifications. They

PERSECUTING MOVEMENTS OF LUCIUS, THE ARIAN USURPER. 353 were so unanimous in
their affections towards their banished Prelate, that not one of them, no
matter of whatever rank, would communicate with the intruder, or even attend
at the public services when he undertook to officiate: they carried their
resentment at his intrusion so high, that they would not speak to him, nor
exchange any of the offices of civil life with him. Eunonius could not but
discover how disagreeable he was to the people of Samosata, and therefore
thought it advisable to leave them. The Arians were soon convinced of their
mistake in placing one of so much moderation at the head of the church in that
city, and chose one of a very different character to supersede him. The second
usurper was named Lucius, notorious for his roughness, and serving the
heretical cause with as much warmth and passion as could be desired by those
who promoted him to that office. Lucius soon discovered that he was as odious
to the people as the opinions which he held, and was endeavouring to establish
among them. Nothing, however, appeared to discourage him. The behaviour of the
Clergy and people only provoked him to still more violent measures. In the
transports of his rage, he banished several Ecclesiastics: among the rest was
Evolcius, a Deacon, and Antiochus, a Priest, nephew to Eusebius, the former of
whom was exiled to the desert of Oasis beyond Egypt, and the latter to a
remote corner of Armenia. Basil could not endure that his friends Eusebius and
Meletius of Antioch should be misrepresented by those who had espoused the
interests of Paulinus, and imposed on the Western Bishops as persons who were
suspected of Arianism: he wrote a letter in their defence to Peter of
Alexandria, then at Rome, urging their sufferings inflicted by that party as a
proof of the purity of their faith; and also solemnly assured him, on his own
experience, that they were perfectly orthodox in their sentiments and
discourses; and, in a letter addressed to Eusebius, he made very strong
complaints against the Prelates of the West, who were so easily prejudiced
against one for whose faith he could so safely answer. Thrace was now become a
scene of war between the Goths and the Emperor's forces, which considerably
increased the pain and mortification attendant on the banishment of Eusebius.
During these contests his life was frequently in peril; but the divine
protection was visibly exercised in his favour, and he was preserved for
greater usefulness in the church. In the year 378 Valens left Antioch, and
made his head-quarters at Constantinople, and, after some stay there, he
resolved to march against the Goths in person; but before he entered upon that
expedition, he endeavoured to secure the protection of Heaven by granting
peace to the church, and allowing the exiled Bishops to return to their
respective sees. Eusebius, thus restored to his post, began to consider the
distressed condition of the faithful in Mesopotamia and Syria, who were
deprived of their Pastors. Historians inform us, he provided them with
Bishops. The last place to which he extended his care in this manner was
Dolica, a small town in Syria, overrun with Arianism: his design was to put
that diocese in the care of Maris, who was every way qualified for that
important post. As he was entering the town with this object, an Arian woman,
who was but

2 2 too well acquainted with his design, threw a tile from the top of the
house, which broke his head, and of this wound he died in a few days.
Eusebius, whose great ambition was to imitate the conduct of his divine
Master, foreseeing his death would bring that unfortunate woman into trouble,
gave his friends who were with him an oath that they would not prosecute her.
He died, A.D. 380.

Christianity had early, as it were, prepared the way for the amalgamation of
the Goths with the Roman empire. In their first inroads, during the reign of
Gallienus, when they ravaged a large part of the Roman territory, they carried
away numbers of slaves, especially from Asia Minor and Cappadocia. Among these
were many Christians. The slaves subdued the conquerors: the gentle doctrines
of Christianity made their way to the hearts of all the barbarous warriors. A
Gothic Bishop,* with a Greek name, Theophilus, attended at the Council of
Nice. Ulphilas, at the time of the invasion in the reign of Valens,
consecrated Bishop of the Goths during an embassy to Constantinople, was of
Cappadocian descent.† Among the Goths, Christianity first assumed its new
office, the advancement of general civilization, as well as of purer religion.
It is difficult to suppose that the art of writing was altogether unknown to
the Goths before the time of Ulphilas. The language seems to have attained a
high degree of artificial perfection before it was employed by that Prelate in
the translation of the Scriptures.‡ Still, the Mæso-Gothic alphabet, of which
the Greek is by far the principal element, was generally adopted by the
Goths.§ It was universally disseminated; it was perpetuated, until the
extinction or absorption of the Gothic race in other tribes, by the
translation of the sacred writings. This was the work of Ulphilas, who, in his
version of the Scriptures,|| is reported to have omitted, with a Christian but
vain precaution, the Books of Kings, lest, being too congenial to the spirit
of his countrymen, they should inflame their warlike enthusiasm. Whether the
genuine mildness of Christianity, or some patriotic reverence for the Roman
empire, from which he drew his descent, influenced the pious Bishop, the
martial ardour of the Goths was not the less fatal to the stability of the
Roman empire. Christianity did not

* Philostorg., Hist. Eccles., lib. ii., cap. 5.

† Socrat., Hist. Eccles., lib. ii., cap. 41.

‡ The Gothic of Ulphilas is the link between the East and Europe, the
transition-state from the Sanscrit to the modern Tentonic languages. It is
possible that the Goths, after their migration from the East to the North of
Germany, may have lost the art of writing, partly from the want of materials.
The German forests would afford no substitute for the palm-leaves of the East;
they may have been reduced to the barbarous runes of the other heathen tribes.
(Milman.)

§ The Mæso-Gothic alphabet has twenty-five letters, of which fifteen are
evidently Greek, eight Latin. The two, th and hie, to which the Greek and
Latin have no corresponding sound, are derived from some other quarter. They
are most likely ancient characters. The th resembles closely the runic letter
which expresses the same sound. (Milman.)

|| The greater part of the fragments of Ulphilas's version of the Scriptures
now extant is contained in the celebrated Codex Argentens, now at Upsala. This
splendid M.S. written in silver letters, on parchment of a purple ground,
contains almost the whole four Gospels. On the Gothic translation of the
Scriptures, see Socrat., Eccles. Hist., lib. iv., cap. 33; Sozomen., Eccles.
Hist., lib. vi., cap. 37; Philost., Hist. Eccles., lib. ii., cap. 5; Theod.,
Hist. Eccles., lib. v., cap. 30, 31.

INFLUENCE OF CHRISTIANITY ON THE GOTHIC INVASION. 355 even mitigate the
violence of the shock with which, for the first time, a whole host of northern
barbarians was thrown upon the empire, never again to be shaken off. This
Gothic invasion, which first established a Teutonic nation within the frontier
of the empire, was conducted with all the ferocity, provoked, indeed, on the
part of the Romans by the basest treachery, of hostile races, with no bond of
connexion. Mr. Milman judiciously observes, that the pacificatory effect of
the general conversion of the Goths to Christianity, was impeded by the form
of faith which they embraced. The Gothic Prelates, Ulphilas * among the rest,
who visited the court of Constantinople, found the Arian Bishops in possession
of the chief authority: they were the recognised Prelates of the empire.
Whether their less cultivated minds were unable to comprehend, or their
language to express, the fine and subtle distinctions of the Trinitarian
faith, or persuaded, as it was said, by the Arian Bishops, that it was mere
verbal dispute, these doctrines were introduced among the Goths before their
passage of the Danube, or their settlement within the empire. The whole nation
received this form of Christianity: from them it appears to have spread, first
embracing the other branch of the nation, the Ostrogoths, among the Gepidæ,
the Vandals, and the Burgundians. Among the barbaric conquerors was the
stronghold of Arianism: while it was gradually repudiated by the Romans, both
in the East and in the West, it raised its head, and obtained a superiority,
which it had never before attained, in Italy and Spain. Whether more congenial
to the simplicity of the barbaric mind, or in some respects cherished on one
side by the conqueror as a proud distinction, more cordially detested by the
Roman population, as the creed of their barbarous masters, Arianism appeared
almost to make common cause with the Teutonic invaders, and only fell with the
Gothic monarchies in Italy and Spain. While Gratian and Valentinian the Second
espoused the cause of Trinitarianism in the West, by measures which show that
their sacerdotal advisers were men of greater energy and decision than their
civil ministers, it subsisted

* Ulphilas, a Gothic Bishop, to whom a Gothic translation of the New Testament
has been ascribed, was a Cappadocian; but the period at which he lived is not
ascertained. Philostorgius places him in 326, under Constantine the Great.
When the Goths were expelled by the Huns, in 375, he was sent to the Emperor
Valens, to solicit a place of settlement for them in Thrace; and, in order to
obtain it, he is said to have embraced Arianism. It is stated that he invented
the Gothic characters, and translated the Bible into that language. The Swedes
flatter themselves with the idea, that they possess a part of this ancient
monument, containing the greater part of the four Gospels, in the so-called
Codex Argenteus. This Codex is mutilated in several places; but what remains
entire, is, for the most part, perfectly legible. It was first discovered in
1597, in the library of the Benedictine abbey of Werden, in Westphalia, by
Anthony Marillon. Soon after, it was observed in the same library by Arnold
Mercator, who transcribed a few verses, which Grüter gave to the public in his
"Inscriptiones Antiquæ." From the abbey of Werden it was conveyed to Prague,
during the short period in which that town was occupied by Frederick, Elector-
Palatine. At the capture of Prague, in 1648, it was found among the literary
spoils by Count Königsmark, and sent as a present to Queen Christina, who, it
is said, gave it to Isaac Vossius, on whose death it was purchased by Count
Magnus Gabriel de la Gardie, and presented to the University of Upsal. Of this
Codex there have been three editions, the first printed at Dort, in 1665; the
second at Stockholm, in 1672; and the third at Oxford, in 1750. The last
contains a Gothic Grammar, by the Editor, Edward Lye.

2 z 2 almost as a foreign and barbarous form of Christianity.* The measures
which Valens took for the suppression of the Goths, left him but little
leisure to vex the church: he therefore endeavoured to soothe the asperities
which he had already created, and obliged the Arian Bishop of Alexandria to
vacate his throne for Peter, the nominee of Athanasius. Valentinian died in
the year 375, and Valens fell in battle, 378.

The empire was now divided between Gratian, the eldest son of Valentinian, his
brother Valentinian, who ruled in the West, and Theodosius, whom he chose as
his colleague, in the East.† The first and last of these Princes were devoutly
attached to the orthodox tenets; and under their reign the church recovered
from the confusion into which it had been thrown by the systematic opposition
of Valens. Gratian put himself, with filial reverence, under the instruction
of Ambrose, who wrote his treatise on the divinity of the Holy Ghost expressly
at his request. But this pious Sovereign was murdered in his attempt to subdue
the rebellion of Maximus, in 383; and for some time Justina, the mother of
young Valentinian, again wasted the strength of the church by her attempts to
restore the Arian ascendancy. In this she was firmly opposed by Ambrose, whom
she in vain sought to expel from his bishopric. Fearless of the consequences,
he intrepidly declared, when his church was surrounded by imperial troops,
that he would never willingly leave the flock of Christ to be devoured by
wolves. But Justina was resolved upon executing her purpose; and trusting
that, by adding the aid of a keen sophist to the authority of her station,
success would be made certain, she invited the Arian Auxentius, a Scythian by
birth, to challenge him to dispute before the Emperor on the subject in
question. Ambrose replied, with dignity, that the Emperor was not to be
constituted a Judge in such matters; and Justina was left to depend solely on
the illegal exercise of authority. Again demanding the resignation of the
churches in Milan, and again meeting with a refusal, the basilica, or
cathedral, in which Ambrose had enclosed himself, was once more surrounded by
the military. But he continued firm to his purpose; while the people, devoted
to their Prelate, gave daily proofs of their attachment, by exposing
themselves to imprisonment, and every other species of oppression, rather than
assent to the Arian dogmas. The united popularity and fortitude of the Bishop
rendered his forcible deposition too perilous an experiment for even Justina
to make; and his influence being required to stop the threatened invasion of
Maximus, he was finally left in the peaceable enjoyment of his authority. The
youthful Valentinian himself, made acquainted with the true merits of the
Prelate by his colleague Theodosius, only lived long enough to win his
regards, and obtain, in dying, a valuable testimony of his pious affection.‡

We now arrive at a critical period in the history of the church, with regard
to the records of persecution. A period of fifty-six years had

* Milman, History of Christianity, vol. iii., p. 139.

† Theolont., Hist. Eccles., lib. v., cap. 1.

‡ Stebbing, History of the Christian Church, vol. i., p. 184.

CONDEMNATION OF PRISCILLIAN.

elapsed between the Council of Nice, and the second General Council held at
Constantinople, the empire in the mean time having fallen under the dominion
of Constantine II., Constantius II., Constans, Julian the Apostate, Jovian,
Valentinian, Valens, Gratian, Valentinian II., and Theodosius; all of whom,
whether orthodox in their faith or otherwise, may be said to have pursued the
policy of Constantine, in enforcing the observance of the canons of the church
by the civil law. In the East a new metropolitan city had been built by
Constantine, and named after him, Constantinople, which was made the seat of
empire. The jurisdiction of the see of Constantinople was rapidly extended in
Europe and Asia, and its Bishops were acknowledged second in precedence; the
Primate of Rome, from that city having been the ancient imperial residence,
being honoured as "head of the church." At this time the incomes of churches
were committed to the management of Deacons and Sub-Deacons; but all
distributions of these revenues were dispensed at the discretion of each
Bishop, for the maintenance of the Clergy of his diocese, and for alms. Many
circumstances, also, contributed during this age to the diffusion of the
Gospel, which had spread eastward into Persia* and India, and westward into
Iberia; also, according to some, it had found its way into Britain and
Ireland; and when it is considered that the first Christian Emperor was
proclaimed in Britain, it is fair to presume that he would desire to propagate
his own religion in this part of the empire.

A sect, whose history belongs rather to this than the ensuing period,
originated from the peculiar opinions of Priscillian, a Spanish Bishop, whose
character is given by Sulpitius, with his usual spirit and brilliancy of
style. He is said to have been a man of great learning and eloquence, endowed
with vast powers of body and mind; who, by assumed modesty and gravity, was
calculated to gain ascendancy over ordinary capacities. Idacius, an aged
Presbyter, in conjunction with Ithacius, Bishop of Sossuba, (a doubtful
locality,) accused him, before a Council of Saragossa, in 380, with being a
teacher of Manichean doctrines, and obtained his condemnation; but the death
of Gratian prevented the rescript for his banishment being put in force, and
he was again restored to his see for a short time. His accusers then urged the
civil power, that the heresiarch might be expelled

* In the year 343, according to Baronias, but more correctly, 349, Sopor, King
of Persia, sent ambassadors to Constantine the Great, to negotiate a treaty of
alliance; when Constantine took occasion to write to that King, entreating him
to grant protection to the Christians in his dominions. Nevertheless, the Magi
raised a persecution against them, by accusing Simeon, Archbishop of Seleucia,
with favouring the Romans, who were then at war with Persia; whereupon Sopor
burdened them with insupportable taxes, and ordered their Priests and
Ministers to be beheaded, their churches to be demolished, and their property
confiscated. He ordered Simeon, also, to be taken into custody, as a traitor
to the state and the religion of the Persians. These orders were executed, and
Simeon was brought before the King in irons. He was commanded to worship the
sun, which he refused, and was condemned to death, with many other Christians.
An edict was published in the following year, by which all the Christians in
Persia were condemned to death; and great numbers perished, together with all
the Bishops and heads of churches; and the persecution was continued by his
successors, with more or less severity, till the year 399. (Sozomen., Hist.
Eccles., lib. ii., cap. 8—15; Socrat., Hist. Eccles., lib. vii., cap. 8.)

from the cities of Spain, which had generally become infected with his errors;
and the Magistrates issued their decrees accordingly. Upon this, the
Priscillianists sought protection in Italy, and prayed to be heard in their
own defence before Damasus, Bishop of Rome; they appealed, also, to Ambrose,
Bishop of Milan, for the same privilege; and in both these cases their suit
was rejected. Maximus, the usurper, at the death of Gratian, entered Treves at
the head of his forces; and Ithacius immediately sought to obtain his decree
against the heretics. Priscillian also appealed to the same authority, and
Maximus took upon himself the office of Judge in the case. The heretics were
accused of spreading opinions opposed to Christianity; and they were declared
guilty, and condemned by the Emperor. Martin, Bishop of Tours, interposed, and
implored Maximus to spare the lives of the victims. He reminded Maximus, that
since they stood expelled from the churches by the sentence of ecclesiastical
Councils, it was a new and unknown evil for a secular Judge to undertake to
decide cases purely spiritual. This interference in behalf of the lives of the
condemned party was ineffectual, and Priscillian, with several of his deluded
adherents, suffered death at Treves, in the year 384. It has not been
satisfactorily shown what the precise opinions of this sect were; but, not
consuming the eucharist, omission of fasts, the enjoining of celibacy, and
making perjury, in times of persecution, a pardonable crime, are stated to
have been errors of which they were guilty. Whatever may have been his
offence, Priscillian is deemed the first martyr to sectarian opinions, under
the operation of the system which resulted from the measures of Constantine.*
When Valens died, Gratian appointed an experienced and judicious person to
take part with himself in the government of the Eastern world. Theodosius, a
Spaniard, who had given abundant proof of valour and prudence, was fixed upon,
and the choice was generally approved. He was forty-three years of age when he
was called to Sirmium, and invested with the purple in the year 379. The first
two years of his reign having been chiefly occupied in clearing Thrace, and
other parts of the realm, from the Gothic invaders, by whom they were overrun,
the first great act in which he made himself conspicuous in the cause of the
church was, the calling of the Council of Constantinople in 381. There is,
however, one incident which, as it occurred about this period, served to
unfold the character of the emperor, and to presage the glory of his reign.
Towards the end of the first year 380, Theodosius received the sacrament of
baptism from Ascolus, the orthodox Bishop of Thessalonica; and as he ascended
from the font, he dictated a solemn edict, which proclaimed his own faith, and
prescribed the religion of his subjects. "It is our pleasure," such is the
imperial style, "that all the nations which are governed by our clemency and
moderation, should steadfastly adhere to the religion which was taught by the
Apostle Peter to the Romans; and which is now professed by the Pontiff
Damasus, and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness.
According to the discipline of the Apostles, and the doctrine of the Gospel,
let us believe the sole

* Townsend, Eccles. and Civil Hist., vol. i., p. 350.

SECULAR POWER EMPLOYED TO EXECUTE THE CANON LAW. 359

Deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, under an equal majesty and sacred
Trinity. We authorize the followers of this doctrine to assume the title of
Catholic Christians; and as we judge that all others are extravagant madmen,
we brand them with the infamous name of heretics, and declare that their
conventicles shall no longer usurp the respectable appellation of churches.
Besides the condemnation of divine justice, they must expect to suffer the
severe penalties which our authority, guided by heavenly wisdom, shall think
proper to inflict upon them." * The power over the church, above that of
Bishops and Metropolitans, was vested in Councils, and in the Emperors. The
latter, as heads of the state, were acknowledged as heads of the church also;
and as such, they convoked Synods at their pleasure, and confirmed their laws;
they, moreover, ordered punishments, and appointed to dignities. Influenced,
as it might happen, by secular or religious motives, they sometimes took upon
themselves to decide controversies, and even to rescind decisions of Synods,
by declaring in favour of those who had been condemned. The party favoured by
such interference was not likely to complain: those only who suffered
maintained the authority of the Bishops over the church, and denied that of
the Emperors. Though dependence of this kind on the civil authority was
generally objected to by the Clergy, they still acknowledged the decision of
the Emperor to be the final appeal; and it was a boast of the Bishop of Rome,
that he could be judged by none other than the Emperor himself. The Bishops
were submissive to the imperial authority, when exercised in the affairs of
the church, so long as the rights of conscience and the doctrines of
Christianity were not infringed. Indeed, the historian Socrates, in the
preface to his fifth book, says, "That from the time Emperors embraced the
Christian religion, the administration of the church devolved upon them."
Still, on the other hand, it is necessary to be borne in mind, that the care
of public morals had always been confided exclusively to the Clergy, which
gave them power over the Emperors themselves. A remarkable instance, which
occurred near the time now under review, may be mentioned in proof of this
authority of the spiritual over the temporal power. Soon after the advancement
of Theodosius the Great to the imperial throne, he was called to account by
Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, for having caused many inhabitants of Thessalonica
to be massacred, in revenge for the murder of some imperial officers which had
been committed in that place; and was compelled to reconcile himself with the
church by the humiliation of public penance.† The account is very graphically
given by Theodoret:—

After the death of Eugenius, the Emperor went to Milan, and repaired towards
the church, to pray within its walls. When he drew near the gates of the
edifice, he was met by Ambrose, the Bishop of the city, who took hold of him
by his purple robe, and said to him, in the presence of the multitude, "Stand
back! a man defiled by sin, and with hands imbrued in blood unjustly shed, is
not worthy, with-

* Townsend, Eccles. and Civil Hist., vol. 1., p. 354.

† Tillemont, Hist. des Emp., tom. v., p. 336.

out repentance, to enter within these sacred precincts, or partake of the holy
mysteries." The Emperor, struck with admiration at the boldness of the Bishop,
began to reflect on his own conduct, and, with much contrition, retraced his
steps. The crime alluded to had been committed under the following
circumstances:—A charioteer had made a declaration of obscene passion to
Buthericus, a military chief of Illyria, and had, in consequence, been
committed to prison. Some time after, some magnificent races were to be held
at the hippodrome, and the populace of Thessalonica demanded the release of
the prisoner, considering him necessary to the celebration of the games. As
their request was not attended to, they rose up in sedition, and slew
Buthericus. On hearing of this deed, the wrath of the Emperor was excited to a
fearful height, and he commanded that a certain number of the citizens should
be put to death. The whole city was deluged with blood unrighteously spilled;
for strangers, who had but just arrived there on their journey to other lands,
were sacrificed with others. There were many cases of suffering well worthy of
commiseration, of which the following is an instance:—A merchant offered
himself to be slain as a substitute for his two sons, who had both been
selected as victims, and promised the soldiers to give them all the gold he
possessed, on condition of their effecting the exchange. They could not but
compassionate his misfortune, and consented to take him as a substitute for
one of his sons, but declared that they did not dare to let off both the young
men, as that would render the appointed number of the slain incomplete. The
father gazed on his sons, and wept bitterly; and, loving them both equally, he
could not make choice between them: he was still standing irresolute, and
utterly unable to decide, when they were both slain before his eyes. I have
also been informed, said the historian Sozomen, that a faithful slave
voluntarily offered to die instead of his master, who was being led to the
place of execution. It appears that it was for these, and other acts of
cruelty, that Ambrose rebuked the Emperor, forbade him to enter the church,
and excommunicated him. Theodosius publicly confessed his sin in the
sanctuary, and, during the time set apart for penance, refrained from wearing
his imperial ornaments, as being inconsistent with a season of mourning. He
also enacted a law, prohibiting the officers intrusted with the execution of
the imperial mandates, from inflicting the punishment of death till thirty
days after the mandate had been issued, in order that the wrath of the Emperor
might have time to be appeased, and that room might be made for the exercise
of mercy and repentance. Ambrose, no doubt, performed many other actions
worthy of his priestly office, which are known only to the inhabitants of the
country. Among the illustrious deeds that are attributed to him, we are made
acquainted with the following:—It was the custom for the Emperor to take a
seat in assemblies of the church within the palisades of the altar, so that he
sat apart from the rest of the people. Ambrose, considering that this custom
had originated either from subserviency, or from want of discipline, caused
the Emperor to be seated without the trellis-work of the altar, so that he sat
in front of the people, and behind the Priests. The Emperor Theodosius
approved

AMBROSE, ARCHBISHOP OF MILAN.

of this wise alteration, as did likewise his successors; and we are told that
it has been ever since scrupulously observed. Another magnanimous action was
performed by this Prelate of Milan. A Pagan of distinction insulted Gratian,
affirming that he was unworthy of his father; and he was, in consequence,
condemned to death. As he was being led out to execution, Ambrose went to the
palace to implore a pardon. Gratian was then engaged in witnessing a private
exhibition of horse-racing; for it was frequently the practice of the Emperors
to engage in these diversions at times that the public were excluded: the
officers at the gates of the palace would not therefore interrupt him by
informing him that Ambrose solicited an interview. On finding this to be the
case, the Bishop went to the circus, and, entering with the persons who took
charge of the animals, he made his way up to the Emperor, and would not leave
him till he obtained a pardon for the man who had been condemned to death.
Ambrose was very diligent in the observance of the canons of the church, and
in maintaining discipline among his Clergy. I have selected the above two
incidents from among the record of his numerous magnanimous deeds, in order to
show with what intrepidity he addressed those in power, when the service of
God was in question.*

The disputes of the belligerent parties on questions of a spiritual character,
were generally embarrassed with perplexing and complicated theories; and the
Emperors were in difficulty to know which opinions were orthodox, and which
were heretical. Appeals to minor Synods became indispensable, in order to
preserve entire the apostolical constitution of the church. These provincial
assemblies were often held until the first Council of Constantinople was
convened.

Epiphanius,† a popular writer of this period, and Bishop of

* Sozom., Hist. Eccles., lib. vii., cap. 25.

† Sozomen, who had a strong tendency to superstitious extravagance, and was
very credulous, gives the following account of Epiphanius, and of a miracle
which he performed:—Peter the Apostle was not, it appears, the only man who
raised another from the dead: John the Evangelist wrought a similar miracle,
it is said, at Ephesus, as did likewise the daughters of Philip at Hierapolis.
The miracle of Epiphanius is said to be as follows:—Two beggars, having
ascertained when Epiphanius would pass that way, agreed to exact a larger
donation than usual from him, by having recourse to stratagem. As soon as the
Bishop was seen approaching, one of the beggars flung himself on the ground,
and simulated death; the other uttered loud lamentations, deploring the loss
of his companion, and his own inability to procure him the rite of sepulture.
Epiphanius prayed to God that the deceased might rest in peace: he gave the
survivor sufficient money for the luterment, and said to him, "Take measures,
my son, for the burial of your companion, and weep no more; he cannot now
arise from the dead; the calamity was inevitable; therefore you ought to bear
it with resignation." Saying these words, the Bishop departed from the spot.
As soon as there was no one in sight, the beggar who had addressed Epiphanius
touched the other with his foot, as he lay extended on the ground, and said to
him, "You have well performed your part: arise now, for through your labour we
have a good provision for to-day." He, however, returned no answer to this
address, and, as he appeared incapable of speech or motion, the other beggar
ran after Epiphanius, wept, and tore his hair, confessed the deception that
had been practised, and besought him to restore the dead man to life.
Epiphanius merely exhorted him to submit with patience to the catastrophe, and
sent him away. God did not raise the dead beggar to life; but (as Sozomen
says) I feel persuaded it was His design to show that those who practise
deception on his servants, are accounted as guilty of the fraud, as if it had
been perpetrated against Him who sees all, and who hears all. (Sozom., Hist.
Eccles., lib. vii., cap. 27.)

3 A

Salamis, in the Isle of Cyprus, was much inferior in ability to his numerous
contemporaries. But his works, though deficient in just argument, and
containing statements on which not much dependence should be placed, are
nevertheless valuable, as exhibiting the general state of opinions and parties
at the time when he wrote. The treatise on heresies is his principal
production, and is divided into three parts. In the first he gives an account
of the heresies which existed before Christ, amounting, according to his
statement, to forty-six; in the next he describes twenty-three of a later
date; and in the third book, eleven.* He was bred a Monk, and the work just
mentioned is disfigured by so many marks of levity and ignorance, that no one
can follow him with confidence.† Intimately connected with our history of the
records of persecution, stands the first œcumenical Council of Constantinople.
By the canons of Nice, and the apostolical code intimately associated
therewith, we are in possession of the fundamental laws and regulations by
which the universal church preserved its principles and rites free from
corruption; and the enactments of the Constantinopolitan Synod complete the
system of episcopal legislature unanimously ratified and acted upon by the
fathers of the first four centuries. The former Synod, held in this city, took
place in 360, or 362, in which sixty-two Bishops excommunicated and deposed
Macedonius, Bishop of Constantinople, for his errors in faith concerning the
Holy Spirit. The first question considered ‡ was that relating to the church
of Constantinople; and it was declared, that Maximus, called the Cynic, had
not been lawfully constituted a Prelate; that his ordination, and all that he
had since done in his pretended character of Bishop, was null and void, and
that he was a usurper of the see of Constantinople. Then they proceeded to
elect to the see Gregory of Nazianzum, and eventually, notwithstanding his
entreaties and tears, obliged him to accept the office. During these
proceedings it pleased God to take away Meletius; and Gregory succeeded him as
President of the Council. He endeavoured, with all his power, to induce them
to leave Paulinus in the see of Antioch, with a view of appeasing the
divisions of that church; but his efforts were ineffectual. The Bishops of
Macedonia and of Egypt vehemently opposed his designs, objecting also to his
election, upon the ground, that, being already Bishop of another see, he ought
not to have been translated to that of Constantinople. In consequence of this,
Gregory formed the resolution to entreat the Fathers to permit him to resign
the see of Constantinople; which he in the end did, and Nectarius was elected
in his room. During this interval Timothy, Bishop of Alexandria, presided over
the Council; but Nectarius, immediately after his election, took that office
upon himself. Now, Nectarius had been a Priest in the latter city;

* Stebbing, Hist. of the Christ. Church, vol. I., p. 217.

† Waddington, A History of the Church, vol. I., chap. vii., p. 217.

‡ Platina dates this Council 370. The proper date is from 381 to 383, it
having been prorogued through that period. Dupus makes three assemblies of
Bishops; one in 381, another in 382, and the last in 383. It began in May,
381, and sat till August. Cave and Newman think there were only two sittings.
(Hey, Lect., vol. iv., p. 96; Newman, Arians, p. 398; Mosheim, vol. i., p.
355.)

ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE.

but, so far from having passed through the inferior degrees, as the canons
direct, he had not been even baptized.* The Council then proceeded to publish
seven canons. 1. Confirms the Council of Nice, and anathematizes, "extremâ
execratione ac detestatione," all who deny it. 2. Forbids Bishops to go beyond
their borders, and to trouble other dioceses; directs that the Bishop of
Alexandria shall have the sole administration of Egypt; that the affairs of
the Asian, Pontic, and Thracian dioceses shall be administered by their
respective Bishops, and that the Synod of each province shall administer the
affairs pertaining thereto. 3. Gives the Bishops of Constantinople the post of
honour next to the Bishops of Rome. 4. Declares the nullity of the
consecration and of the episcopal acts of Maximus. 5. Approves the tome of the
Western Bishops, and of Antioch; which is thought to be the synodical letter
of Damasus, Bishop of Rome, to the Council of Antioch, A.D. 378, and the
letter of the Fathers in answer. These acknowledge one and the same Divinity,
in the three persons of the Trinity.† 6. Lays down a rule for ecclesiastical
judgments, and permits all persons whatever to bring an accusation against a
Bishop, or any other Ecclesiastic, on account of any private injury or wrong
said to have been received; but in church matters it directs, that no
accusation shall be received coming from heretics or schismatics, or from
persons excommunicated or deposed, or accused of any crime, before they shall
have justified themselves. And, 7. States the conditions upon which heretics
may be received into the church, with the ceremony to be observed on the
occasion. It ordains, that Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians, (Novatians,)
Quartodecimans, and Apollinarians, shall be received after they have made
profession of faith, and anathematized their errors, by the unction of the
Holy Spirit; and the chrism, wherewith they shall be anointed on the forehead,
the eyes, the mouth, the hands, the ears, at the pronouncing of these words,
"This is the seal of the Holy Spirit." As to the Eunomians, the Montanists,
the Sabellians, and all other heretics, they were to be received like Pagans;
that is, at first they shall receive the imposition of hands, to give them the
name of Christians; afterwards they shall be placed in the rank of
catechumens; that they shall be exorcised by blowing three times into their
faces, and into their ears; (exufflation;) that they shall be catechised; and
that for a long time they shall be permitted to hear only the holy Scripture
in the church; and at last they shall be baptized.

Notwithstanding many pacific appearances studded the hemisphere of the church,
there was, nevertheless, an under current of deep malignant feeling secretly
spreading the waters of strife, among the various communities of the faithful.
Several of the Emperors, when they embraced the faith of Christ, took the most
effectual and seasonable

* Landon, Manual of Councils, p. 163.

† The tome of the Western Bishops was the confirmation of the Nicene Creed,
and anathematization of those who dissented from it, agreed upon at the
Council of Sardica, where were met three hundred and forty-one Bishops, being
all of the Western Church. (Howel, Synopsis Canonum, p. 23, folio, London,
1710; Dupin, vol. i., p. 273; Cave, vol. i., p. 366, and Beveridge; Cod.
Canon, in loc.)

3 A 2 measures to discountenance the practice of idolatry, and to introduce
the worship of the true God. Constantine the Great, and his son Constantine,
who succeeded him in the East, forbade offering sacrifice to the deities of
Paganism, but gave no directions for the destruction of the temples. Julian
the Apostate, it will be remembered, reversed the decrees of his predecessors,
and employed the weight of his authority in the re-establishment of idolatry
and superstition. Jovian, his immediate successor, prohibited pagan worship,
but did not survive to see the fruit of his exertions. Valens, to whose share
the Eastern empire descended, was so wholly intent on the promotion of
Arianism, that he only disturbed the faithful, and allowed the Heathens the
unlimited exercise of their unhallowed faith. This was the melancholy posture
of affairs in the East, when Theodosius the Great was associated in the empire
with Gratian, A.D. 379. The new Emperor, full of zeal for the Christian name,
was resolved to complete the good work, which had suffered so much
interruption since the days of Constantine. As Egypt had always been
considered the hot-bed of superstition, and the chief seat of idolatry, he
commenced his reform with that country, and proceeded to Phoenicia and Syria.
Theodosius sent an order to Cynegius, Prefect of the East, for shutting up all
the temples, and prohibiting pagan superstition, under very severe penalties.
The Prelates were also required to forward the execution of that order.
Marcellus, the Bishop of Apamea in Syria, was the first who attempted to
demolish the temples of the idols. This ecclesiastical dignitary was a man of
great merit, and universally respected for many excellent qualities. He had
laboured hard for the extirpation of idolatry in Apamea; but his success was
not proportioned to his zeal, until Cynegius came, attended with an armed
force, which kept the Heathens in awe, and deterred them from a revolt before
his arrival, for which they were ripe. The design of the Prefect was to
undermine the very foundations of idolatry in that city, by the destruction of
the temple of Jupiter; a very magnificent and extended structure. He was,
however, unequal to the task. The stones were of a stupendous size, very
durable, and well cemented and bound together by cramps * of iron and lead.
The Bishop perceiving the Prefect at a stand, advised him to direct his course
to some other place; and then besought the Almighty to direct him in the way
of razing that monument of idolatry. His prayer was heard. On the following
morning, a labouring man, who obtained his living by carrying burdens, and was
utterly unacquainted with even the first rudiments of architecture, waited
upon the Bishop, and engaged, on very easy terms, to level this temple of
Jupiter with the ground. Marcellus accepted the proposal, and the affair was
executed in the following manner. This somewhat novel engineer, having
examined the situation of the edifice, and finding it surrounded by a gallery,
supported by stately pillars ten yards in circumference, judged that it would
be more to his help to weaken the foundation of the structure, than to attack
the

* "Cramps."—In architecture, a cramp is a piece of metal, bent, or dovetailed,
at each end, for the purpose of holding two blocks, of any material, firmly
together.

DESECRATION AND DESTRUCTION OF PAGAN TEMPLES.

body of the edifice immediately: he undermined the pillars themselves, which
he supported with beams of timber. When he had thus rendered insecure three of
the most considerable of these pillars, he put fire to the timber, and the
pillars fell, and drew twelve more with them, and thus brought down one side
of the edifice. The people flocked together from all parts of the town,
praising the Most High, who had triumphed over his enemies. The zealous
Prelate made the same havoc wherever he found temples erected in honour of the
false gods, as the most expeditious and efficacious means for gaining the
deluded people to the worship of the one true God. Supported by what forces he
had in the country, the Prefect prosecuted the same work with all imaginable
success. There was at that time a spacious temple at Aulo, in the territory of
Apamea, which the Pagans defended with their might. Marcellus, although out of
order, through bodily indisposition, endeavoured to accompany the soldiers to
that fortress of idolatry. He was so lame, that he could neither pursue the
enemy, nor provide for his own safety by flight; and therefore thought fit to
keep at a proper distance, and give the necessary orders for attack. While the
Emperor's forces were employed in their work, a body of the Pagans sallied
forth, seized the Bishop, and burnt him alive. As he was alone when this
happened, it was some time before it was generally known. When it was
disclosed, and the authors of that barbarous action were discovered, the sons
of Marcellus were for inflicting summary justice on the murderers; but this
motion was opposed and overruled by the most judicious and pious persons of
the province, who were of opinion, that the young men ought rather to thank
God for the favour their father had received at his hands, and the glory of
martyrdom, which he had thus obtained. The Synod of the province also refused
to revenge on his barbarous enemies a death so happy for Marcellus, and so
glorious for his family.*

Although the career of Marcellus terminated so fatally, the work of demolition
was not long content with less famous edifices, these outworks of Paganism; it
aspired to attack again one of its strongest citadels, and, by the public
destruction of one of the most celebrated temples in the world, to announce
that polytheism had for ever lost its hold upon the minds of men. It was
considered the highest praise of the magnificent temple in Edessa, of which
the roof was of remarkable construction, and which contained in its secret
sanctuary certain very celebrated statues of wrought iron, and whose fall had
excited the indignant eloquence of Libanius, to compare it to the Serapion in
Alexandria. The Serapion at that time appeared secure in the superstition
which connected its inviolable sanctity and the honour of its god with the
rise and fall of the Nile, with the fertility and existence of Egypt, and, as
Egypt was the granary of the East, of Constantinople. The Pagans had little
apprehension that the Serapion itself, before many years, would be levelled
with the ground. The temple of Serapis, next to that of Jupiter in the
capitol, was

* Soxom., Hist. Eccles., lib. vii., cap. 15; Theodoret., Hist. Eccles., lib.
v. cap. 21.

the proudest monument of pagan religious architecture. Like the more
celebrated structures of the East, and that of Jerusalem in its glory, it
comprehended within its precincts a vast mass of buildings, of which the
temple itself formed the centre. It was built on an artificial hill, in the
old quarter of the city called Rhacotis, to which the ascent was by a hundred
steps. All the substructure was vaulted over; and in these dark chambers,
which communicated with each other, were supposed to be carried on the most
fearful and, to the Christian, abominable mysteries. All around the spacious
level platform were the habitations of the Priests and the ascetics dedicated
to the worship of the god. Within these outworks of the city rather than
temple was a square, surrounded on all sides with a magnificent portico. In
the centre arose the temple, on pillars of enormous magnitude and beautiful
proportion. The work, either of Alexander himself or of the first Ptolemy,
aspired to unite the colossal grandeur of Egyptian with the fine harmony of
Grecian art. The god himself was the especial object of adoration throughout
the whole country, and every part of the empire into which the Egyptian
worship had penetrated, but more particularly in Alexandria; and the wise
policy of the Ptolemies had blended together, under this pliant and all-
embracing religion, the different races of their subjects. Egyptian and Greek
met as worshippers of Serapis. The Serapis of Egypt was said to have been
adored for ages at Sinope: he was transported from that city with great pomp
and splendour, to be re-incorporated, as it were, and re-identified with his
ancient prototype. While the Egyptians placed in Serapis the great vivific
principle of the universe, the fecundating Nile, holding the Nilometer for his
sceptre, the Lord of Amen-ti, the President of the regions beyond the grave;
the Greeks at the same time recognised the blended attributes of their
Dionysius, Helios, Æsculapius, and Hades. The colossal statue of Serapis
embodied these various attributes.* It filled the sanctuary; its outstretched
and all-embracing arms touched the walls; the right the one, the left the
other. It was said to have been the work of Sesostris: it was made of all the
metals fused together, gold, silver, copper, iron, lead, and tin: it was
inlaid with all kinds of precious stones: the whole was polished, and appeared
of an azure colour. The measure, or bushel, the emblem of productiveness, or
plenty, crowned its head. By its side stood the symbolic three-headed animal,
one the fore-part of a lion, one of a dog, one of a wolf. In this the Greeks
saw the type of their poetic Cerberus.† The serpent, the symbol of eternity,
wound round the whole, and returned, resting its head on the hand of the god.
The more completely, observes Mr. Milman, (from whom on this subject we have
quoted largely,) the adoration of Serapis had absorbed the worship of the
whole Egyptian pantheon, the more eagerly Christianity

* The statue is described by Macrobius, Saturn. i., 20; Clemens Alexandrin.,
Exhortat. ad Gent., i., p. 42; Ruffin., Hist. Eccles., lib. xli., cap. 23.

† According to the interpretation of Macrobius, the three heads represented
the past, the present, and the future: the rapacious wolf, the past; the
central lion, the intermediate present; the fawning dog, the hopeful future.
(Milman.)

DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE OF SERAPIS.

desired to triumph over the representative of polytheism. However, in the time
of Hadrian, the philosophic* party may have endeavoured to blend and harmonize
the two faiths, they stood now in their old direct and irreconcilable
opposition. The suppression of the internal feuds between the opposite parties
in Alexandria, enabled Christianity to direct all its concentrated force
against Paganism. Theophilus was a man of boldness and activity, eager to
seize, and skilful to avail himself of, every opportunity to inflame the
popular mind against the Heathens. A Priest of Serapis was accused and
convicted of practising those licentious designs against the virtue of the
female worshippers, so frequently attributed to the priesthood of the Eastern
religions. The noblest and most beautiful women were persuaded to submit to
the embraces of the god, whose place, under the favourable darkness caused by
the sudden extinction of the lamps in the temple, was filled by the Priest.
These inauspicious rumours prepared the inevitable collision. A neglected
temple of Osiris, or Dionysius, had been granted by Constantius to the Arians
of Alexandria. Theophilus obtained from the Emperor a grant of the vacant site
for a new church, to accommodate the increasing numbers of the orthodox
Christians. On digging the foundation, there were discovered many of the
obscene symbols used in the Bacchic and Osirian mysteries. Theophilus, with
more regard to the success of his cause than to decency, exposed these
ludicrous or disgusting objects in the public market-place, to the contempt
and abhorrence of the people. The Pagans, indignant at this treatment of their
sacred symbols, and maddened by the scorn and ridicule of the Christians, took
up arms, and demanded severe reprisals. The streets ran with blood, and many
Christians who fell in this tumultuous fray received the honours of martyrdom.
A philosopher named Olympus placed himself at the head of the pagan party.
Olympus had foreseen and predicted the ruin of the external worship of
polytheism. He had endeavoured to implant a profound feeling in the hearts of
the Pagans, which might survive the destruction of their ordinary objects of
worship. "The statues of the gods are but perishable and material images: the
eternal intelligences which dwelt within them have withdrawn to the heavens."†
Yet Olympus hoped, and at first with his impassioned eloquence succeeded in
rousing his pagan compatriots to a bold defiance of the public authorities in
support of their religion; faction and rivalry supplied what was wanting to
faith; and it appeared that Paganism would likewise boast its army of
martyrs,—martyrs, not indeed through patient submission to the persecutor, but
in heroic despair perishing with their gods.

The Pagans at first were the aggressors: they sallied from their fortress, the
Serapion, seized the unhappy Christians whom they met, forced them to
sacrifice on their altar, or slew them upon it, or threw them into the deep
trench defiled with the blood and offal of sacrifice. In vain Evagrius, the
Prefect of Egypt, and Romanus, the Commander of the troops, appeared before
the gates of the tem-

* Milman, History of Christianity, vol. ii., p. 155.

† Sozom., Hist. Eccles., lib. vii., cap. 15.

ple, remonstrated with the garrison, who appeared at the windows, against
their barbarities, and menaced them with the just vengeance of the law. They
were obliged to withdraw, baffled and disregarded, and to await the orders of
the Emperor. Olympus exhorted his followers to the height of religious
heroism. "Having made a glorious sacrifice of our enemies, let us immolate
ourselves, and perish with our gods." This was more easily said than done.
Before the edict of Theodosius arrived, Olympus had disappeared: he had stolen
out of the temple, and had embarked for Italy. The Christian writers do honour
to his sagacity, or to his prophetic powers, at the expense of his courage and
fidelity to his party. In the dead of night, when all was slumbering around,
and all the gates closed, he heard the Christian Alleluia pealing from a
single voice through the silent temple. He acknowledged the sign, or the omen,
and anticipated the unfavourable sentence of the Emperor, the fate of his
faction, and of his gods. This temporary triumph of Christianity over the
powers of darkness was not achieved without a struggle. The Bishop of
Alexandria, to whom the temple of Bacchus had, at his own request, been
granted by the Emperor, converted the edifice into a Christian church. The
statues were removed, the most secret recesses of the temple explored. The
Pagans, amazed at so unexpected an exhibition, would not suffer it in silence,
but conspired against the Christians, took possession of the temple of
Serapis, which large and beautiful structure was placed on an eminence. Here
they conveyed their Christian prisoners, put them to the torture, and
otherwise maltreated them. The efforts of Romanus to reduce the citadel to
submission were utterly in vain. The Heathen, who had shut themselves up in
the temple of Serapis, were averse to yield from fear of the punishment that
they knew would await their outrageous proceedings, instigated as they were by
that craven miscreant, Olympus. When the Emperor was informed of all these
occurrences, he declared that the Christians who had been slain were blessed,
inasmuch as they had been admitted to the honours of martyrdom, and had
suffered in defence of the faith. He offered a free pardon to those by whom
they had suffered death, hoping that by this act of clemency they would be the
more readily induced to embrace Christianity; and he commanded the demolition
of the temples which had been the cause of the sedition. It is said, that when
this edict was read in public, the Christians uttered loud shouts of joy,
because the Emperor laid the odium of what had occurred upon the Pagans. The
people who were guarding the temple of Serapis were so terrified at hearing
these shouts, that they took to flight; and the Christians immediately
obtained possession of the spot, which they have retained ever since. It is
said, that when the temple was being demolished, some stones were found on
which were hieroglyphic characters in the form of a cross, which, on being
submitted to the inspection of the learned, were interpreted as signifying
"the life to come." These characters, Sozomen informs us, led to the
conversion of several of the Pagans, as did likewise other inscriptions found
in the same place, and which contained predictions of the

DESTRUCTION OF THE IDOL SERAPIS.

destruction of the temple. It was thus that the temple of Serapis was
converted into a church: it received the name of the Emperor Arcadius.*

The Eastern Pagans appear to have been but little acquainted with the real
character of Theodosius. When the rescript arrived, they laid down their arms,
and assembled in peaceful array before the temple, as if they expected the
sentence of the Emperor in their own favour.† The officer began: the first
words of the rescript plainly intimated the Emperor's abhorrence of idolatry.
Cries of triumph from the Christians interrupted the proceedings; the panic-
stricken Pagans abandoning the temple and the god. Two of the celebrated
Pontiffs, one of Amoun, one of "the Ape," retired to Constantinople, where the
first, Ammonius, taught in a school, and continued to deplore the fall of
Paganism; Helladius, the other, was known to boast of the part he had taken in
the sedition of Alexandria, in which, with his own hands, he had slain nine
Christians.‡ The imperial rescript at once went beyond and fell short of the
fears of the Pagans. It disdained to exact vengeance for the blood of the
Christian martyrs, who had been so happy as to lay down their lives for their
Redeemer; but it commanded the destruction of the idolatrous temples; it
confiscated all the ornaments, and ordered the statues to be melted or broken
up for the benefit of the poor. Theophilus hastened in his triumphant zeal to
execute the ordinance of the Emperor. Marching with the Prefect at the head of
the military, they ascended the steps to the temple of Serapis. They surveyed
the vacant chambers of the Priests and the ascetics; they paused to pillage
the library;§ they entered the deserted sanctuary; they stood in the presence
of the god. The sight of this colossal image, for centuries an object of
worship, struck awe to the hearts of the Christians themselves. They stood
silent, inactive, trembling. The Archbishop alone maintained his courage: he
commanded a soldier to proceed to the assault. The soldier struck the statue
with his hatchet on the knee. The blow echoed through the breathless hall; but
no sound or sign of divine vengeance ensued; the roof of the temple fell not
to crush the sacrilegious assailant, nor did the pavement heave and quake
beneath his feet. The emboldened soldier climbed up to the head, and struck it
off: it rolled upon the ground. Serapis gave no sign of life; but a large
colony of rats, disturbed in their peaceful abode, ran about on all sides. The
passions of the multitude are always in extremes. From breathless awe they
passed at once to ungovernable mirth. The work of destruction went on

* Soxom., Hist. Eccles., lib. vii., cap. 15.

† If the oration of Lilianus, exhorting the Emperor to revenge the death of
Julian, was really presented to Theodosius, it betrays something of the same
ignorance. He seems to think his arguments not unlikely to meet with success;
at all events, he appears not to have the least notion that Theodosius would
not respect the memory of the apostats. (Milman.)

‡ Soerat., Hist. Eccles., lib. v., cap. 16. Helladius is mentioned in a law of
Theodosius the Younger, as a celebrated grammarian, elevated to certain
honours. This law is, however, dated 425, at least five-and-thirty years after
this transaction.

§ "Nos vidimus armaris librorum; quibus direptis, eximatus ea a nostris
homialibus, nostris temporibus memorant." (Oros., lib. vi., cap. 15.)

3 B amid peals of laughter, coarse jests, and shouts of acclamation; and as
the fragments of the huge body of Serapis were dragged through the streets,
the Pagans, with that revulsion of feeling common to the superstitious
populace, joined in the insult and mockery against their unresisting and self-
abandoned god.* The solid walls and deep foundations of the temple offered
more insurmountable resistance to the baffled zeal of the Christians; the work
of demolition proceeded but slowly with the massive architecture; and some
time after, a church was erected in the precincts to look down upon the ruins
of idolatry, which still frowned in desolate grandeur upon their conquerors.†
Yet the Christians, even after their complete triumph, were not without some
lingering terrors; the Pagans, not without hopes that a fearful vengeance
would be exacted from the land for this sacrilegious extirpation of their
ancient deities. Serapis was either the Nile, or the deity who presided over
the periodical inundations of the river. The Nilometer, which measured the
rise of the waters, was kept in the temple. Would the indignant river refuse
its fertilizing moisture, keep sullenly within its banks, and leave the
ungrateful land blasted with perpetual drought and barrenness? As the time of
the inundation approached, all Egypt was in a state of trembling suspense.
Long beyond the accustomed day, the waters remained at their usual level:
there was no sign of overflowing. The people began to murmur; the murmurs
swelled into indignant remonstrances; the usual rites and sacrifices were
demanded from the reluctant Prefect, who despatched a hasty messenger to the
Emperor for instructions. There was every appearance of a general
insurrection; the Pagans triumphed in their turn; but before the answer of the
Emperor arrived,—which replied in uncompromising faith, “that if the
inundation of the river could only be obtained by magic, and impious rites,
let it remain dry; the fertility of Egypt must not be purchased by an act of
infidelity to God,” ‡—suddenly, the waters began to swell, an inundation more
full and extensive than usual spread over the land; and the versatile Pagans
had now no course, but to join again with the Christians in mockeries against
the impotence of their gods.

But the next hostile measure was still more unexpected. Notwithstanding the
manifest authority assumed by Christianity, and by one

* They were said to have discovered several of the tricks by which the Priests
of Serapis imposed on the credulity of their worshippers. An aperture of the
wall was so contrived, that the light of the sun, at a particular time, fell
on the face of Serapis. The sun was then thought to visit Serapis; and at the
moment of their meeting, the flashing light threw a smile on the lips of the
deity. There is another story of a magnet on the roof, which, as in the fable
about Mahomet's coffin, raised either a small statue of the idol, or the sun
in a car with four horses, to the roof, and there held it suspended. A
Christian withdrew the magnet, and the car fell, and was dashed to pieces on
the pavement. (Milman.)

† The Christians rejoiced in discovering the cross in various parts of the
building: they were inclined to suppose it miraculous, or prophetic of their
triumph. But, in fact, the crux anænia is a common hieroglyphic, a symbol of
life. (Milman.)

‡ Improbable as it may seem, that such an answer should be given by a
statesman like Theodosius, yet it is strongly characteristic of the times. The
Emperor neither denies the power of the malignant demons worshipped by the
idolaters, nor the efficacy of enchantments, to obtain their favour, and to
force from them the retarded overflow of the river. (Milman.)

THE GODDESS OF VICTORY DESTROYED.

of the Christian Prelates, best qualified by his own determined character to
wield at his will the weak and irresolute Gratian; notwithstanding the long
ill-suppressed murmurs, and now bold and authoritative remonstrances, against
all toleration, all connivance at Heathen idolatry; it might have been thought
that any other victim would have been chosen from the synod of gods; that all
other statues would have been thrown prostrate, all other worship proscribed,
before that of Victory. The service of the altar was not considered
incompatible with the command of armies; the Romans, after their consulships
and triumphs, aspired to the place of Pontiff, or of Augur; the seats of
Cicero and Pompey were filled, in the fourth century, by the most illustrious
members of the senate; and the dignity of their birth reflected additional
splendour on their sacerdotal character. The fifteen Priests who composed the
College of Pontiffs enjoyed a more distinguished rank as the companions of
their Sovereign; and the Christian Emperors condescended to accept the robe
and ensigns which were appropriated to the office of Supreme Pontiff. But when
Gratian ascended the throne, more scrupulous, or more enlightened, he sternly
rejected those profane symbols; applied to the service of the state, or of the
church, the revenues of the Priests and vestals; abolished their honours and
immunities; and dissolved the ancient fabric of Roman superstition, which was
supported by the opinions and habits of eleven hundred years. Paganism was
still the constitutional religion of the senate. The hall, or temple, in which
they assembled, was adorned by the statue and altar of Victory; a majestic
female standing on a globe, with flowing garments, expanded wings, and a crown
of laurel in her out-stretched hand. The Senators were sworn on the altar of
the goddess, to observe the laws of the Emperor and of the empire; and a
solemn offering of wine and of incense was the ordinary prelude of their
public deliberations. The removal of this ancient monument was the only injury
which Constantius had offered to the superstition of the Romans. The altar of
Victory was again restored by Julian, tolerated by Valentinian, and once more
banished from the senate by the zeal of Gratian. But the Emperor yet spared
the statues of the gods, which were exposed to the public veneration; four
hundred and twenty-four temples, or chapels, still remained to satisfy the
devotion of the people; and in every quarter of Rome the delicacy of the
Christians was offended by the fumes of idolatrous sacrifice. But the faithful
formed the least numerous party in the senate of Rome, and it was only by
their absence that they could express their dissent from the legal, though
profane, acts of a pagan majority. Incessantly, the dying embers of freedom
were, for a moment, revived and inflamed by the breath of fanaticism. Four
respectable deputations were successively voted to the imperial court, to
represent the grievances of the priesthood and the senate, and to solicit the
restoration of the altar of Victory. The conduct of this important business
was intrusted to the eloquent Symmachus, a wealthy and noble Senator, who
united the sacred characters of Pontiff and Augur with the civil dignities of
Proconsul of Africa, and Prefect of the city. This nobleman is said to have

3 B 2 commanded the respect, and even deserved the common attachment, of all
his countrymen: he ventured, a rare example in those days, to interfere
between the tyranny of the Sovereign, and the menaced welfare of the people.*
An uncorrupt Magistrate, he deprecated the increasing burdens of unnecessary
taxes, which weighed down the people; he dared to suggest, that the eager
petitions for office should be at once rejected, and the worthiest chosen out
of the unpretending multitude. The breast of Symmachus was animated by the
warmest zeal for the cause of expiring Paganism, and his religious antagonists
lamented the abuse of his genius, and the inefficacy of his moral virtues. He
mourned in bitter humiliation over the acts of Gratian; the removal of the
statue of Victory; the abrogation of the immunities of the pagan priesthood:
he hoped to obtain from the justice, or perhaps the fears, of the young
Valentinian, that which had been refused by Gratian. The senate met under his
authority: a petition was drawn up, and presented in the name of that
venerable body to the Emperor. In this composition Symmachus lavished all his
eloquence. His oration is written with vigour, with dignity, with elegance.†
But in the feeble and apologetic tone, we perceive at once, that it is the
artful defence of an almost hopeless cause; it is cautious to timidity;
dexterous; elaborately conciliatory; moderate from fear of offending, rather
than from tranquil dignity. Ambrose, on the other hand, writes with all the
fervid and careless energy of one confident in his cause, and who knows that
he is appealing to an audience already pledged by their own passions to his
side; he has not to obviate objections, to reconcile difficulties, to sue or
to propitiate; his contemptuous and criminating language has only to inflame
zeal, to quicken resentment and scorn. He is flowing down on the full tide of
human passion, and his impulse but accelerates and strengthens the rapid
current. The orator whose petition is extant to the Emperor Valentinian, was
evidently conscious of the difficulty and danger of the office which he had
assumed. He cautiously avoids every topic which might appear to reflect on the
religion of his Sovereign; humbly declares, that prayers and entreaties are
his only arms; and artfully draws his arguments from the schools of rhetoric,
rather than from those of philosophy. Symmachus endeavours to seduce the
imagination of a young Prince, by displaying the attributes of the goddess of
Victory; he insinuates that the confiscation of the revenues which were
consecrated to the service of the gods, was a measure unworthy of his liberal
and disinterested character; and he maintains, that the Roman sacrifices would
be deprived of their force and energy, if they were no longer celebrated at
the expense as well as in the name of the republic. Even scepticism is

* Symmachus, who was invested with all the civil and sacerdotal honours,
represented the Emperor under the two characters of Pontifex Maximus and
Princeps Senatis. See the proud inscription at the head of his works.

† Heyne has expressed himself strongly on the superiority of Symmachus to
Ambrose. "Argumentorum delectu, vi, pondere, aculeis, non minus admirabilis
illa est quam prudentia, cautione, ac verecundia: quam tanto magis sentias si
verbosam et inanem, interdum calumulosam et veteratoriam declamationem
Ambrosii compares." (Censur. Ingen. et Mor. Q. A. Symmach. in Heyne Opuscul.)

APPEAL OF SYMMACHUS TO THEODORIUS.

made to supply an apology for superstition. The great and incomprehensible
secret of the universe eludes the inquiry of man. Where reason cannot
instruct, custom may be permitted to guide; and every nation seems to consult
the dictates of prudence by a faithful attachment to those rites and opinions
which have received the sanction of ages. If those ages have been crowned with
glory and prosperity, if the devout people have frequently obtained the
blessings which they have solicited at the altars of the gods, it must appear
still more advisable to persist in the same salutary practice, and not to risk
the unknown perils that may attend any rash innovations. The test of antiquity
and success was applied with singular advantage to the religion of Numa; and
Rome herself, the celestial genius that presided over the fates of the city,
is introduced by the orator to plead her own cause before the tribunal of the
Emperors. "Most excellent Princes," says the venerable matron, "fathers of
your country, pity and respect my age, which has hitherto flowed in an
uninterrupted course of piety. Since I do not repent, permit me to continue in
the practice of my ancient rites. Since I am born free, allow me to enjoy my
domestic institutions. This religion has reduced the world under my laws.
These rites have repelled Hannibal from the city, and the Gauls from the
capitol. Were my grey hairs reserved for such intolerable disgrace? I am
ignorant of the new system that I am required to adopt; but I am well assured
that the correction of old age is always an ungrateful and ignominious
office."* The fears of the people supplied what the discretion of the orator
had suppressed; and the calamities which afflicted or threatened the declining
empire were unanimously imputed by the Pagans to the new religion of Christ
and of Constantine.†

Ambrose was at hand to confront the eloquent Pagan, and to prohibit any fatal
concession. Far different is the tone and manner of the Archbishop of Milan.
He asserts in plain terms, says Mr. Milman, the unquestionable obligation of a
Christian Sovereign to permit no part of the public revenue to be devoted to
the maintenance of idolatry. Their Roman ancestors were to be treated with
reverence; but in a question of religion they were to consider God alone. He
who advises such grants as those demanded by the suppliants is guilty of
sacrifice. Gradually he rises to still more imperious language, and unveils
all the terrors of the sacerdotal authority. "The Emperor who shall be guilty
of such concessions will find that the Bishops will neither endure nor connive
at his sin. If he enter a church, he will find no Priest, or one who will defy
his authority. The church will indignantly reject the gifts of him who has
shared them with Gentile temples. The altar disdains the offerings of him who
has made offerings to images. It is written, 'Man cannot serve two masters.'"
Ambrose, emboldened, as it were, by his success,

* See the fifty-fourth epistle of the tenth book of Symmachus. In the form and
disposition of his ten books of Epistles, he imitated the younger Pliny; whose
rich and florid style he was supposed by his friends to equal or excel. But
the luxuriancy of Symmachus consists of barren leaves, without fruits, and
even without flowers. Few facts, and few sentiments, can be extracted from his
verbose correspondence. (Gibbon.)

† Gibbon, Decline and Fall; Milman's Notes, second edit., vol. iii., p. 6.

ventures, in his second letter, to treat the venerable and hallowed traditions
of Roman glory with contempt. "How long did Hannibal insult the gods of Rome!
It was the goose and not the deity that saved the capitol. Did Jupiter speak
in the goose? Where were the gods in all the defeats, some of them but recent,
of the pagan Emperors? Was not the altar of Victory then standing?" He insults
the number, the weaknesses, the marriages, of the vestal virgins. "If the same
munificence were shown to Christian virgins, the beggared treasury would be
exhausted by the claims. Are not the baths, the porticoes, the streets, still
crowded with images? Must they still keep their place in the great council of
the empire? You compel to worship if you restore the altar. And who is this
deity? Victory is a gift, and not a power; she depends on the courage of the
legions, not on the influence of the religion; a mighty deity, who is bestowed
by the numbers of an army, or the doubtful issue of a battle!"* Such, however,
proved to be the death-struggle of Paganism under the auspices of Theodosius:
nevertheless, a re-action took place in the West, which for a period
threatened much commotion. The pernicious attachment to the Arian sect which
Valentinian had imbibed from the example and instructions of the Empress
Justina, was soon erased by the lessons of a more orthodox education. His
growing zeal for the faith of Nice, and his filial reverence for the character
and authority of Ambrose, disposed the faithful to entertain the most
favourable opinion of the virtues of the young Emperor of the West.† They
applauded his chastity and temperance, his contempt of pleasure, his
application to business, and his tender affection for his two sisters; which
could not, however, seduce his impartial equity to pronounce an unjust
sentence against the meanest of his subjects. But this amiable youth, before
he had accomplished the twentieth year of his age, was oppressed by domestic
treason; and the empire was again involved in the horrors of a civil war.
Arbogastes,‡ a gallant soldier of the nation of the Franks, held the second
rank in the service of Gratian. On the death of his master he joined the
standard of Theodosius; contributed, by his valour and military conduct, to
the destruction of Maximus; and was appointed, after the victory, Master-
General of the armies of Gaul. His real merit, and apparent fidelity, had
gained the confidence both of the Prince and people; his boundless liberality
corrupted the allegiance of the troops; and whilst he was universally esteemed
as the pillar of the state, the bold and crafty barbarian was secretly
determined either to rule or to ruin the empire of the West. The important
commands of the army were distributed among the Franks; the creatures of
Arbogastes were promoted to all the honours and offices of the civil

* Milman, History of Christianity, vol. iii., p. 172.

† See Ambrose, tom. ii., de Obit. Valentin., cap. 15, &c., p. 1178, cap. 36,
&c., p. 1184. When the young Emperor gave an entertainment, he fasted himself;
he refused to see a handsome actress, &c. Since he ordered his wild beasts to
be killed, it is ungenerous in Philostorgius (lib. xi., cap. 1) to reproach
him with the love of that amusement.

‡ Zosimus (lib. iv., p. 275) praises the enemy of Theodosius. But he is
detested by Socrates, lib. v., cap. 25; and Orosius, lib. vii., cap. 35.

CONSEQUENCES OF THE MURDER OF VALENTINIAN.

government, the progress of the conspiracy removed every faithful servant from
the presence of Valentinian; and the Emperor, without power, and without
intelligence, insensibly sunk into the precarious and dependent condition of a
captive.* The indignation which he expressed, though it might arise only from
the rash and impatient temper of youth, may be candidly ascribed to the
generous spirit of a Prince, who felt that he was not unworthy to reign. He
secretly invited the Archbishop of Milan to undertake the office of a
mediator, as the pledge of his sincerity, and the guardian of his safety. He
contrived to apprize the Emperor of the East of his helpless situation; and he
declared, that unless Theodosius could speedily march to his assistance, he
must attempt to escape from the palace, or rather prison, of Vienna in Gaul,
where he had imprudently fixed his residence in the midst of the hostile
faction. But the hopes of relief were distant and doubtful; and as every day
furnished some new provocation, the Emperor, without strength or counsel, too
hastily resolved to risk an immediate contest with his powerful General. He
received Arbogastes on the throne; and, as the Count approached with some
appearance of respect, delivered to him a paper which dismissed him from all
his employments. "My authority," replied Arbogastes, with insulting coolness,
"does not depend on the smile or the frown of a Monarch;" and he
contemptuously threw the paper on the ground. The indignant Sovereign snatched
at the sword of one of the guards, which he struggled to draw from its
scabbard; and it was not without some degree of violence that he was prevented
from using the deadly weapon against his enemy, or against himself. A few days
after this extraordinary quarrel, in which he had exposed his resentment and
his weakness, the unfortunate Valentinian was found strangled in his
apartment; and some pains were employed to disguise the manifest guilt of
Arbogastes, and to persuade the world that the death of the young Emperor had
been the voluntary effect of his own despair.

The political hemisphere was again hung with blackness, and "the dogs" of
civil war were again let loose. The prudence of Arbogastes had prepared for
the success of his sanguinary but ambitious designs; and the provincials, in
whose breasts every sentiment of patriotism or loyalty was extinguished,
expected, with tame resignation, the unknown master whom the choice of a Frank
might place on the imperial throne. But some remains of pride and prejudice
still opposed the elevation of Arbogastes himself, and the judicious barbarian
thought it more advisable to reign under the name of some dependent Roman. He
bestowed the purple on the rhetorician Eugenius, whom he had already raised
from the place of his domestic Secretary to the rank of the Master of the
Offices. In the course both of his private and public service, the Count had
always approved the attachment and abilities of Eugenius; his learning and
eloquence, supported by the gravity of his manners, recommended him to the

* Gregory of Tours, (lib. ii., cap. 9, p. 165,) in the second volume of the
historians of France, has preserved a curious fragment of Sulpitius Alexander,
an historian far more valuable than himself.

esteem of the people; and the reluctance with which he seemed to ascend the
throne, may inspire a favourable prejudice of his virtue and moderation. The
Ambassadors of the new Emperor were immediately despatched to the court of
Theodosius to communicate, with affected grief, the unfortunate accident of
the death of Valentinian; and, without mentioning the name of Arbogastes, to
request that the Monarch of the East would embrace as his lawful colleague the
respectable citizen who had obtained the unanimous suffrage of the armies and
provinces of the West. Theodosius was justly provoked that the perfidy of a
barbarian should have destroyed, in a moment, the labours and the fruit of his
former victory; and he was excited by the tears of his beloved wife, to
revenge the fate of her unhappy brother, and once more to assert by arms the
violated majesty of the throne. But as the second conquest of the West was a
task of difficulty and danger, he dismissed, with splendid presents, and an
ambiguous answer, the Ambassadors of Eugenius; and almost two years were
consumed in the preparations for the civil war. Before he formed any decisive
resolution, the Emperor was anxious to discover the will of Heaven; and as the
progress of Christianity had silenced the oracles of Delphi and Dodona, he
consulted an Egyptian Monk, who possessed, in the opinion of the age, the gift
of miracles, and the knowledge of futurity. Eutropius, one of the favourite
eunuchs of the palace of Constantinople, embarked for Alexandria, from whence
he sailed up the Nile, as far as the city of Lycopolis, or of Wolves, in the
remote province of Thebais. In the neighbourhood of that city, and on the
summit of a lofty mountain, the holy John had constructed, with his own hands,
a humble cell, in which he had dwelt above fifty years without opening his
door, without seeing the face of a woman, and without tasting any food that
had been prepared by fire, or any human art. Five days of the week he spent in
prayer and meditation; but on Saturdays and Sundays he regularly opened a
small window, and gave audience to the crowd of suppliants who successively
flowed from every part of the Christian world. The eunuch of Theodosius
approached the window with respectful steps, proposed his questions concerning
the event of a civil war, and soon returned with a favourable oracle, which
animated the courage of the Emperor by the assurance of a bloody but
infallible victory.* The accomplishment of the prediction was forwarded by all
the means which human prudence could supply. The industry of the two Master-
Generals, Stilicho and Timasius, was directed to recruit the numbers, and to
revive the discipline, of the Roman legions. The formidable troops of
barbarians marched under the ensigns of their national chieftains. The
Iberian, the Arab, and the Goth, who gazed on each other with mutual
astonishment, were enlisted in the service of the same Prince; and the
renowned Alaric acquired, in the school of Theodosius, the knowledge of the
art of war, which he afterwards fatally exerted for the destruction of Rome.†

* Sozom., Hist. Eccles., lib. vii., cap. 22. Claudian mentions the journey of
the eunuch; but he most contemptuously derides the Egyptian dreams, and the
oracles of the Nile.

† Gibbon, Decline and Fall, second edit., vol. ii., p. 553, notes by Milman.

THEODOSIUS ENGAGES ARBOGASTES IN BATTLE.

The Roman historian represents the Emperor of the West, or, to speak more
properly, his General, Arbogastes, as instructed by the misconduct and
misfortune of Maximus, how dangerous it might prove to extend the line of
defence against a skilful antagonist who was free to press or to suspend, to
contract or to multiply, his various methods of attack. Arbogastes fixed his
station on the confines of Italy: the troops of Theodosius were permitted to
occupy, without resistance, the provinces of Pannonia, as far as the foot of
the Julian Alps; and even the passes of the mountains were negligently, or
perhaps artfully, abandoned to the bold invader. He descended from the hills,
and beheld, with some astonishment, the formidable camp of the Gauls and the
Germans, that covered with arms and tents the open country which extends to
the walls of Aquileia, and the banks of the Frigidus, or cold-river.* This
narrow theatre of the war, circumscribed by the Alps and the Adriatic, did not
allow much room for the operations of military skill; the spirit of Arbogastes
would have disdained a pardon; his guilt extinguished the hope of a
negotiation, and Theodosius was impatient to satisfy his glory and revenge by
the chastisement of the assassins of Valentinian. Without weighing the natural
and artificial obstacles that opposed his efforts, the Emperor of the East
immediately attacked the fortifications of his rivals, assigned the post of
honourable danger to the Goths, and cherished a secret wish, that the bloody
conflict might diminish the pride and numbers of the conquerors. Ten thousand
of those auxiliaries, and Bacurius, General of the Iberians, died bravely on
the field of battle. But the victory was not purchased by their blood: the
Gauls maintained their advantage, and the approach of night protected the
disorderly flight, or retreat, of the troops of Theodosius. The Emperor
retired to the adjacent hills, where he passed a disconsolate night,† without
sleep, without provisions, and without hopes; except that strong assurance
which, under the most desperate circumstances, the independent mind may derive
from the contempt of fortune and of life. The triumph of Eugenius was
celebrated by the insolent and dissolute joy of his camp; whilst the active
and vigilant Arbogastes secretly detached a considerable body of troops to
occupy the passes of the mountains, and to encompass the rear of the Eastern
army. The dawn of day discovered to the eyes of Theodosius the extent and the
extremity of his danger; but his apprehensions were soon dispelled by a
friendly messenger from the leaders of those troops, who expressed their
inclination to desert the standard of the tyrant. The honourable and lucrative
rewards which they stipulated as the price of their perfidy, were granted
without hesitation; and as ink and paper could not easily be procured, the
Emperor subscribed

* The Frigidus, a small, though memorable, stream in the country of Goretz,
now called the Vipso, falls into the Soutius, or Lisonzo, above Aquileia, some
miles from the Adriatic. See D'Anville, Ancient and Modern Maps; and the
Italia Antiqua of Cluverina.

† Theodoret affirms, the Apostle John and the Evangelist Philip appeared to
the waking or sleeping Emperor on horseback, &c. This is the first instance of
apostolic chivalry, which afterwards became so popular in Spain and in the
Crusades.

3 C on his own tablets the ratification of the treaty. The spirit of his
soldiers was revived by this seasonable re-inforcement; and they again
marched, with confidence, to surprise the camp of a tyrant, whose principal
officers appeared to distrust either the justice or the success of his arms.
In the heat of the battle, a violent tempest, such as is often felt among the
Alps, suddenly arose from the East. The army of Theodosius was sheltered by
their position from the impetuosity of the wind, which blew a cloud of dust in
the faces of the enemy, disordered their ranks, wrested their weapons from
their hands, and diverted, or repelled, their ineffectual javelins. This
accidental advantage was skilfully improved: the violence of the storm was
magnified by the superstition of the Gauls; and they yielded, without shame,
to the invisible powers of Heaven, who seemed to militate on the side of the
Emperor. His victory was decisive; and the deaths of his two rivals were
distinguished only by the difference of their characters. The rhetorician,
Eugenius, who had almost acquired the dominion of the world, was reduced to
implore the mercy of the conqueror; and the unrelenting soldiers separated his
head from his body, as he lay prostrate at the feet of Theodosius. Arbogastes,
after the loss of a battle, in which he had discharged the duties of a soldier
and a General, wandered several days among the mountains. But when he was
convinced that his cause was desperate, and his escape impracticable, the
reckless barbarian imitated the example of the ancient Romans, and turned his
sword against his own breast. The fate of the empire was determined in a
narrow corner of Italy; and the legitimate successor of the house of
Valentinian embraced the Archbishop of Milan, and graciously received the
submission of the provinces of the West. Those provinces were involved in the
guilt of rebellion, while the inflexible courage of Ambrose* alone had
resisted the claims of successful usurpation. With a manly freedom, which
might have been fatal to any other subject, the Archbishop rejected the gifts
of Eugenius,† declined his correspondence, and withdrew himself from Milan, to
avoid the odious presence of a tyrant, whose downfall he predicted in

* It is related of Ambrose, that, while sleeping in his cradle, a swarm of
bees settled on his lips, and then winged their way towards heaven. From this
circumstance his father is said to have predicted his future greatness and
ability. His works display neither the power nor the erudition of some of the
other Fathers; but they are not deficient in eloquence; and while the
historian may gather from parts of them very useful information on the state
of manners at the period, the general reader will find, in other portions of
them, the most admirable instruction on the great duties of a Christian. His
principal productions, under the former head, are his numerous letters, his
treatises on Penance and Virginity, and the Book of Mysteries, or Sacraments.
Under the latter, his chief work is the Book of Offices, to which may be added
numerous expositions of the Psalms, and other portions of Scripture, in the
form of homilies or sermons. As a theologian, or a scholar, Ambrose was not
much regarded by the great men of his age. Jerome describes his treatise on
the Holy Ghost as a production in which there is nothing logical, nothing
masculine, nothing moving, nothing convincing; in every respect feeble and
languid; but polished, dressed up, and painted with strange colours.
(Stebbing.)

† Arbogastes and his Emperor had openly espoused the pagan party, according to
Ambrose and Augustine. (See Le Beau, lib. v., cap. 40.) Beugnot (Histoire de
la Destruction du Paganisme) is more full, and perhaps somewhat fanciful, on
this remarkable re-action in favour of Paganism.

SYSTEM OF PAGANISM CONDEMNED.

discreet and ambiguous language. The merit of Ambrose was applauded by the
conqueror, who secured the attachment of the people by his alliance with the
church; and the clemency of Theodosius is ascribed to the humane intercession
of the Archbishop.*

With this victory of Theodosius the vain hopes of Paganism expired. The
Emperor had published in the East the last and most peremptory of those edicts
which, gradually rising in the sternness of their language, proclaimed the
ancient worship a treasonable and capital crime. In its minute and searching
phrases it seemed eagerly to pursue Paganism to its most secret and private
lurking-places. Thenceforth no man of any station, rank, or dignity, in any
place, in any city, was to offer an innocent victim in sacrifice: the more
harmless worship of the penates, or household gods, which lingered, probably,
more deeply in the hearts of the Pagans, than any other part of their system,
not merely by the smoke of victims, but by lamps, incense, and garlands, was
equally forbidden. To sacrifice, or to consult the entrails of victims, was
constituted high treason, and thereby a capital offence, although with no
treasonable intention of calculating the days of the Emperor. It was a crime
of sufficient magnitude to infringe the laws of nature, to pry into the
secrets of futurity, or to inquire concerning the death of any one. Whoever
permitted any heathen rite, hung a tree with chaplets, or raised an altar of
turf, forfeited the estate on which the offence was committed. Any house
profaned with the smoke of incense, was confiscated to the imperial exchequer.
Whoever violated this prohibition, and offered sacrifice either in a public
temple, or on the estate of another, was amerced in a fine of twenty-five
pounds of gold; (a thousand pounds of our money;) and whoever connived at the
offence was liable to the same fine; the Magistrate who neglected to enforce
it, to a still heavier penalty. This law, stern and intolerant as it was,
spoke, no doubt, the dominant sentiment of the Christian world; † but its
repetition by the successors of Theodosius, and the employment of avowed
Pagans in many of the high offices of the state and army, may permit us
charitably to doubt whether the exchequer was much enriched by the
forfeitures, or the sword of the executioner stained with the blood, of
conscientious Pagans. Polytheism boasted of no martyrs, and we may still hope,
that if called upon to carry its own decrees into effect, its native clemency,
though, unhappily, Christian bigotry had already tasted of heretical blood,
would have revolted from the sanguinary deed, which it justified in theory, on
the authority

* The events of this civil war have been taken from Gibbon, Decline and Fall
of the Roman Empire, vol. ii., p. 556, second edit., 8vo., Milman's Notes. And
he has compiled this part of his history from the following sources, which we
have carefully examined. Ambrosii Opera, tom. ii., epist. lxii., p. 1022;
Paulinus in Vita Ambros., cap. 26-34; Augustin., De Civitat. Dei, lib. v.,
cap. 26; Orosius, lib. vii., cap. 35; Sorum., Hist. Eccles., lib. vii., cap.
24; Theodoret., Hist. Eccles., lib. v., cap. 24; Zosimus, Hist., lib. iv., pp.
281, 282.

† Gibbon has quoted from Le Clerc a fearful sentence of Augustine addressed to
the Donatists. "Quis nostrum, quis vestrum non laudat leges ab Imperatoribus
datas adversus sacrificia Paganorum? Et certe longe ibi poena severior
constituta est; illius quippe impletatis capitale supplicium est." (Epist.
xciii.) But passages amiably inconsistent with this fierce tone might be
quoted on the other side.

3 c 2 of the Old Testament, with the vital principles of the Gospel.* Rome
heard of the triumphs of Theodosius, and perhaps witnessed the presence of the
conqueror, who, in the East, had already countenanced the most destructive
attacks against the temples of the gods. The Christian poet † describes a
solemn debate of the Senate on the claims of Jupiter and of Christ to the
adoration of the Roman people. According to his account, Jupiter was out-voted
by a large number of suffrages; the decision was followed by a general
desertion of their ancestral deities by the obsequious minority; the old
hereditary names, the Annii and the Probi, the Anicii and Olybii, the Paulini
and Bassi, the popular Gracchi, six hundred families, at once passed over to
the Christian cause. The pagan historian, to a certain degree, confirms the
fact of the deliberate discussion, but differs as to the result. The Senate,
he states, firmly, but respectfully, adhered to their ancient deities.‡ But
the last argument of the pagan advocates was fatal to their cause. Theodosius
refused any longer to assign funds from the public revenue to maintain the
charge of the idolatrous worship. The Senate remonstrated, that if they ceased
to be supported at the national cost, they would cease to be national rites.
This argument was more likely to confirm than to shake the determination of
the Christian Emperor. From this time the temples were deserted; the Priests
and Priestesses, deprived of their maintenance, were scattered abroad. The
public temples still stood, nor was it forbidden to worship within them
without sacrifice; the private, and family, or Gentile deities still preserved
their influence. The Paganism of the West was buried in the ruins of the
empire. Gratian had dissevered the supremacy of the national religion from the
imperial dignity; he had confiscated the property of the temples. Still,
however, the outward form of Paganism remained. Some priesthoods were still
handed down in regular descent; the rites of various deities, even of Mithra
and Cybele, were celebrated without sacrifice, or with sacrifice, furtively
performed; the corporation of the aruspices was not abolished. There still
likewise remained a special provision for certain festivals and public
amusements; § and the expenses of the sacred banquets and of the games were
defrayed by the state.

While Paganism, like the pyramid reversed, was nodding to its fall, a few
pursued the easy tenor of their way, unruffled by the threat of persecution,
or the prospects of worldly emolument and temporal power and grandeur. Among
these we must enumerate Acacius, the Prelate of Beræa, in Syria. He was from
his youth brought up to the profession of ascetic monasticism, and was rigid
in observing all the

* "Quis eorum comprehensus est in sacrificio (cum his legibus ista
prohiberentur) et non negavit?" (Augustin., in Psalm. cxx., quoted by Gibbon
from Lardner.)

† Sexcentas numerare domos de sanguine prisco

Nobilium licet, ad Christi signacula veritas

Turpis ab idoli vasto emersisse profundo.

(Prudent. ad Symmach.)

Prudentus has probably amplified some considerable desertion of the wavering
and dubious believers.

‡ Zosim., Hist., lib. iv., cap. 59.

§ It was called, the vectigal templorum. Vectigalia was the general term for
all the regular revenues of the Roman state.

STRUGGLE BETWEEN THE DONATISTS AND NOVATIANS.

regulations of this mode of life. Zeno and Ajax, two brothers, flourished
about the same period. They defended the truth of their religion with
invincible intrepidity, and confessed themselves to be Christians so
repeatedly in the presence of the Pagans, that they were subjected to the most
cruel treatment. Heresies also sprung up like mushrooms in a newly-mown
meadow, chiefly through the various ramifications of Arianism. The Donatists
retained all their former ferocity. The Novatians found in the candid
historian Socrates, one who gave to the world authentic information respecting
them, having himself been acquainted with the son of one of their Presbyters.
The general church, though surely right in its principle of opposition to the
particular point of Novatian inflexibility, yet afterwards abused the license
of re-admission into the church granted to offenders; and as discipline
relaxed in various places, all kinds of crime abounded. The people of Phrygia
and Pamphylia, being habitually an abstemious people, averse to pleasures and
to the indulgence of sensuality, were, on that account, the more disposed to
admit the severities of Novatianism.* About this time a party of them
separated themselves still farther from the general church, by appointing, in
a Synod, that Easter should be observed at the same time that the Jews kept
the feast of unleavened bread. But as Agelius, the Novatian Bishop of
Constantinople, and other more celebrated Prelates of their denomination, were
not present, a schism was formed from this circumstance among them. Agelius
presided forty years over their church at Constantinople, and died in the
sixth year of Theodosius. When he was near his end, he ordained Sisinnius to
be his successor, a Presbyter of the church, of great learning, who had been
instructed by Maximus, the famous friend of Julian. The flock of Agelius
murmured, because he had not ordained Marcian, a man of eminent piety, by
whose means they had weathered in safety the persecution of Valens. The aged
Bishop, willing to pacify them, ordained Marcian, and directed that he should
be his immediate successor, and that Sisinnius should be the next Bishop to
Marcian. Thus slender and scanty are the accounts left us, of a Prelate, who
for so many years presided over a great flock in turbulent and trying times.
On Marcian's succession, one Sabbatius, a Jew, receiving Christianity, was
advanced by him to the office of Presbyter, and in his heart panted after a
bishopric. This man undertook to defend the innovation concerning Easter, and,
under pretence of greater strictness of life, he withdrew himself from the
church, declaring that he could not conscientiously communicate with some
members of the congregation. In time, however, his views were laid open, as he
attempted to hold separate assemblies. Marcian then found his error in
ordaining so ambitious a person, and often said, in his grief, that he wished
he had laid hands on thorns rather than on Sabbatius. He took measures,
however, to disappoint his ambition. Calling a Council, he sent for Sabbatius,
and desired him to lay open the reasons of his disgust. The man informed them,
that the difference of opinion concerning Easter was his grievance, as he
thought that festival ought to be observed according to the rule of

* Sozom., Hist. Eccles., lib. iv., cap. 28.

the Synod of Pazum. The Bishops, suspecting his designs, obliged him to swear,
that he would not attempt to enter their ranks, and then decreed, that the
time of observing Easter should be left indifferent, and that no schism should
be made in the church on that account. Their design of preserving unity was
laudable; but it succeeded not. Sabbatius drew over a number of the simpler
sort, and particularly those of Phrygia and Galatia, to his own Jewish mode,
and obtained for himself an appointment to the office of Bishop by his
followers, in contradiction to his oath. The consequence was, a variety of
divisions among the Novatians, concerning the time of Easter, and other
frivolous subjects, and the crumbling of this church into contentious parties
of different kinds. Little can be said on this subject, but what must occur to
the mind of a thinking reader. This most respectable of all the dissenting
churches seems to have preserved, for a considerable time, a strictness and
purity of discipline and manners; but its essential characteristic of narrow
bigotry, in things of no moment, gave occasion to internal divisions among its
own members, which, fomented by unprincipled persons, must have perverted them
much from the simplicity of the Gospel.*

We have also to take into consideration martyrs of another character, who,
from the ranks of the heretics, suffered for the Christian faith as it was
held and taught by themselves: there is no reason to doubt but several evinced
the same fortitude, the same conscientious devotion to principle, as the
martyrs of the orthodox church. Allowing, says Dr. Stebbing, that the maxim of
Cyril and Augustine is correct, and that it is not the pain, but the cause,
which makes a martyr; yet, we may ask, how can this be applied, to deprive men
of the honour of martyrdom who were willing to die rather than change their
faith? Or, is it accordant with common justice to deny the praise of
devotedness to those who gave as high a proof of their sincerity as can
possibly be given by a human being? All that we can rightly say is, that if
the principles for which they suffered were not in themselves good, they
cannot be viewed with that gratitude and veneration which we must feel for
those to whom, under God, we owe the establishment of doctrines essential to
our happiness, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come; but
looking upon them as men suffering for what they believed to be true, they
demand our respect; and since they afforded examples of constancy and
fortitude, at all times valuable, constituted as we are, they have a powerful
claim to our gratitude: so that those who died for the faith to which we
ourselves assent, claim in the highest degree our affection and veneration;
those who suffered with the same constancy in support of other principles,
merit a proportionable share of our admiration and praise; the former standing
first in our esteem, because they helped to establish our faith, as well as
left us an example of constancy; the latter in an inferior station, inasmuch
as it is their example only which claims our regard. But according to the
author of the "Apologie pour les Réformateurs," it is impossible that the
constancy of a heretic should be anything but madness and folly, or

* Milner, History of the Church, cent. iv., chap. 19, vol. ii., p. 65.

MARTYROOM AMONG THE HERETICS.

that he should be inspired to die for his heresy by the grace of God, or the
movements of his grace; and he consequently ascribes all instances of such
martyrdoms to the effects of cupidity, a violent desire of vain-glory, or some
other passion of the same kind, equally low and terrestrial. In the same
manner, after describing the characteristics of a true martyr in the hour of
death, he triumphantly demands, "Is it possible, that the spirit of deceit and
illusion, of error and obstinacy, should produce the same movements in a
heretic? Is it possible, in short, that a heretic should appear before the
public full of joy, blessing God, praying for his persecutors, singing sacred
hymns, and proceeding to death with more pleasure than others would escape
from it?" "This, I sustain, is impossible," observes M. Jurieu; and he
concludes, that the ancients did not mean by their celebrated maxim merely to
distinguish those who suffered for the truth from those who suffered for
error, but to mark the difference between those who died for righteousness'
sake, and those who suffered for their crimes. We have already seen, that, as
early as the first century of the Christian era, certain disputatious spirits
had arisen in the church, whose proceedings materially affected the unity and
internal peace of the infant establishment. The Gnostics, the Nicolaitans, the
Cerinthians, and the Ebionites followed hard upon the Apostles themselves; and
these early preachers of error were succeeded by Basilides, Marcion,
Bardesanes, and the far more celebrated Manes, or Manicheaus.* Learning and
philosophy have both expended some of their richest stores in the examination
of the doctrines which are supposed to have been professed by these various
sects; and every intimation we possess of their character leads to the
conclusion, that whatever were the intentions or the moral dispositions of
their authors, they were essentially opposed to the simple character of the
primitive Christian faith. But the church considered the most important part
of the religion of the Gospel to consist in the precepts of resignation to the
plain, but brief, revelations of the Deity. That it should regard such
reasoners, therefore, with suspicion, can admit of no doubt; and it was
natural, that when it found them attempting to subvert the faith of humble
converts, or leading those to dispute who had scarcely learned the principles
of their profession, it should use all lawful expedients to prevent the
progress of the schism. Very far, however, were the first directors of the
Christian church from being persecutors: their only object was to defend it
against the introduction of error; and they employed the means which reason
and custom suggest for the maintenance of peace and unity in any society
whatever. They had neither the power, nor, as it would seem, the inclination,
to use violence against those who dissented from their body; but they were
bound not to hold communion with persons as members of the church, who were
known to oppose its doctrines; and they therefore signified, by a mode of
expression common to their age, and accordant with the customs of other
religious societies, that those who thus upheld principles unknown to the
fathers were separated from the main body of the faithful. So long as this was
done

* Beausobre, Histoire du Manichéisme.

solely from the pure and conscientious motive of preserving the church from
the agitations engendered by unquiet spirits, no offence was committed against
private liberty. Those who doubted were exposed to no other penalty than that
which, if their objections were sincere, could scarcely be felt as a hardship;
that is, they were separated from a communion with which they had previously
ceased to have any real or proper connexion.

Such, however, observes Dr. Stebbing, is the tendency of human nature to
convert necessary precautions into food for unnecessary severity, that there
is reason to fear that, as the principles of Christian practice began to lose
ground in other respects, it was also corrupted in this, and that orthodoxy
was at a very early period made a pretence for measures scarcely conformable
with the mild spirit of the Gospel. But, however this may have been, there is
not the smallest reason for the conjecture, that the first Christians
exercised against each other any personal violence, or that the church viewed
its anathemas in any other light, than simple forms of expulsion from its
communion. If any of the ancient heretics, therefore, suffered for their
religion, it must, doubtless, have been at the hands of the heathen
persecutors; and that there is reason to believe that some of them did so
suffer, has been already shown.* But the allusion to the martyrdom of the
earlier sectarians, by Eusebius, is too brief to make us acquainted with the
circumstances under which they fell victims to persecution; and from the
manner in which the passage referred to before is worded, it may be questioned
whether it ought to be regarded as implying more than that the heretics
boasted of having had martyrs amongst them. When, however, we arrive at the
period in which the Donatists flourished, all doubt vanishes as to the subject
of heretical martyrdoms. This does not affect the argument, that none of the
other sectarians willingly suffered death in defence of their opinions; for,
as far as we can discover the character of these dissentients, the Gnostics,
the Manicheans, and others, were as opposite to the Donatists, as the cool,
sceptical Socinian is to the wild Anabaptist of Germany.

The origin of this sect may in some degree account for the zeal, though
scarcely for the strange enthusiasm, subsequently exhibited by its members.
Donatus, its founder, was one of the Numidian Bishops, who opposed, with just
indignation, the advancement of such of the African Clergy as had, in a moment
of weakness, delivered up the Scriptures in the Diocletian persecution, and
who were then generally stigmatized with the title of traditores. By his
influence the opposition excited against the election of one or two obnoxious
individuals, was quickly extended into a dangerous schism; and in a few years
Africa was overrun by a party whose zeal rapidly degenerated into the worst
species of licentiousness. Under the name of Circumcelliones, the most furious
of these fanatics commenced a war against those who opposed them in opinion,
which was in no respect less disgraceful to human feeling than the most
violent of civil strifes. The

* The Novatians, it has before been mentioned, were frequent sharers in the
sufferings of the orthodox.

STRUGGLES WITH THE DONATISTS.

laws which the Emperor Constantine had deemed necessary to enact against them,
had probably no slight influence in inflaming the sectaries to this degree of
violence; and he was induced by the persuasions of some wise and moderate men,
to restore to the Donatists the privileges of which he had deprived them. But
the flame of discord had been lighted, and it was not now to be easily
extinguished. Donatus, surnamed the Great, and the other Bishops who had
espoused his opinions, vehemently resisted the proffered terms of
reconciliation, and the Circumcelliones pursued the course they had begun, of
terror and bloodshed. The attempts made by the successor of Constantine to
pacify these malcontents, proved equally abortive with those employed by his
father; and an army was at length sent against them under Macarius, who,
having defeated them in a general engagement, banished Donatus and the heads
of the party, exercising against the rest the most dreadful severities of a
military judicature. Some of the most celebrated of the fathers considered
that they were performing an act of the highest piety, by writing against this
sect; and it would have been well for the credit of the orthodox rulers of
those times, had they left the cause to the pious zeal and learning of those
excellent men. After all that was done by the victorious officer of Constans,
and by the laws which were passed in subsequent years, it was to the powerful
eloquence of Optatus * and Augustine that their defeat and suppression were
chiefly owing. The former of these distinguished writers was Bishop of Milevum
in Africa, and his work on the schism of the Donatists is elegantly and even
powerfully written. According to this author, the persons whom they accused of
delivering the Scriptures to the persecutors, were altogether innocent of that
crime; and he boldly retorts the accusation upon the accusers. In answer to
Parmenianus, a Donatist, to whom the work is addressed, and who had strongly
reprehended the orthodox for the persecutions of which they had been guilty,
observes, that the church had never persecuted them, and that they could name
no member of the church that had done so. On the contrary, the Donatists, he
says, had committed the most disgraceful excesses against the orthodox; had
driven away Bishops from their churches, murdered Deacons while officiating at
the altars, exercised cruelties of every kind against women and children, nor
had even forborne to treat the most sacred things with despite. "Your
Bishops," says he, "caused the eucharist to be thrown to the dogs; and
presently the tokens of God's anger were seen; for the enraged animals turned
upon their masters, and tore them as if they were thieves whom they knew not;
the justice of God thus employing their teeth to revenge the sacrilege." With
regard to the persecution commenced by Macarius, he observes, that that
officer was obliged

* Optatus is recognised as a saint in the Romish calendar. He was Bishop of
Milevum, a town of Numidia, and flourished under Valentinian and Valens. He
wrote his very able and judicious treatise on the schism of the Donatists
about the year 370, against Parmenian, Bishop of that sect. He is commended by
Augustine, Jerome, and Fulgen-tius. There are several editions of his works:
the last and best is that of Dupin, (1700,) who has settled the text from four
Mss., and has given short notes, with various readings, at the bottom of the
page; and at the end he has inserted the notes of Badoubin, Casanbon,
Barthius, and others.

3 D to employ rigorous measures to quell the sedition; and again asserts, that
the church itself had no share in instigating such proceedings, which she
neither desired to have pursued, nor was aware of when commenced. The Bishop,
however, notwithstanding these repeated assertions respecting the innocence of
the orthodox, renders his own opinions on the subject of persecution somewhat
doubtful, by suggesting that the attack on the schismatics was authorized by
the example of Moses, who put three thousand men to death for worshipping the
golden calf; and, boldly contending that when our Saviour commanded the
Apostle Peter to put up his sword, he only intended the command to be
understood of that particular time and circumstance! Then, repeating the
accusations he had already brought against them, he exclaims, "Ye have
redoubled your sacrilege, in breaking the chalices which held the blood of
Christ; ye have melted them down to make ingots of gold or silver, which ye
have sold in the markets to every one indifferently who would buy them.
Sacrilegious as ye are, ye have not even respected the chalices in which you
have yourselves offered, and they have been bought, it is probable, by
infamous women for their own use. Or the Pagans, perhaps, have taken them for
vessels to be employed in the service of idols. O fearful crime! O unheard-of
impiety!"*

The origin of the disgraceful excesses to which Optatus thus alludes, was the
same as that of the opposition made by the Donatists to the election of the
obnoxious Bishop. They argued that, as that individual had disgraced himself
by apostacy, the altar would be defiled by his presence; and, when they had
driven their opponents from the churches, they pretended, and many of them,
deceived by a blind fanaticism, doubtless believed, that the vessels which had
been used by these desecrated Priests, had suffered contamination from their
touch, and ought no longer to be employed in the service of God. The absurdity
of their ideas on these points is, of course, sufficiently evident; but there
is every reason to believe that it was thus they justified their conduct, and
that we are, therefore, to regard the accusations brought against them, of an
unprovoked and flagitious sacrilege, with some degree of modification. But in
the year 411, Augustine succeeded in persuading the chiefs of the Donatists to
meet the representatives of the church in a conference at Carthage. The
eloquence with which he there encountered the most accomplished of the party,
and the strong and lucid arguments he opposed to the reasons on which they
established their schism, convinced many of the least obstinate of their
errors. Others, whom his arguments would not, perhaps, have sufficiently
affected, were deeply moved by the mildness and charity with which he
propounded his sentiments. He had agreed, at the opening of the debate, and
had induced the other Bishops to join with him in the promise, that if they
could not convict the Donatists of error, and prove their separation from the
church unreasonable, they would resign their bishoprics into their hands, and
be content to retire into the situation of private persons. All he said

* Sancti Optati, Milevi. Episc., Opera, fol. Lutet. Parisior., 1676.

EXTRAVAGANCIES OF THE DONATISTS.

was in conformity with this assurance. "If they speak injuriously of you," was
his advice to the orthodox, "suffer it to be so, and answer not. Speak not to
him who maltreats you, but speak much to God in his favour. Say meekly to him
who attacks and injures you, 'Whatever you speak or do against me, I,
notwithstanding, love you, because you are my brother.'" But the influence
which Augustine exercised over the assembly by these means was not sufficient
to prevent the debates from being continued with warmth three days; nor did he
succeed in convincing the heads of the party that their schism was unlawful or
unreasonable. The conviction, however, which his arguments failed to convey to
the minds of the Donatists, rushed with full force upon the understandings of
those who agreed with the eloquent orator; and when, at the conclusion of the
conference, it was to be decided on which party lay the guilt of the schism,
the Tribune Marcellinus, who presided at the meeting, passed a sentence
against the Donatists, which doomed them to exile or apostasy. Crowds of them,
it is said, purchased their safety by immediately assenting to the decree of
the Tribune, or the persuasions of Augustine. Those who persevered in their
opposition appealed to the Emperor; but he rejected their application, and not
only confirmed the sentence of his Minister, but directed the revival of the
laws which had been anciently in force against them. This had no other effect
than that of confirming the most dangerous part of the sect in their
fanaticism and licentiousness. The Circumcelliones continued their horrible
violences with the fury of men inspired by despair, as well as the most
deplorable superstition; and the orthodox, while thus exposed to the daggers
of these wretched enthusiasts, everywhere rejoiced at the spectacle of
hundreds of their less guilty opponents sinking under the infliction of
ruinous fines, preparing for banishment, or perishing, as was often the case,
by the hand of the public executioner.

It was at this period of the conflict, continues Dr. Stebbing, thus fiercely
carried on between the two parties, that the Donatists began to exhibit
instances of wilder enthusiasm and contempt of suffering than had as yet been
displayed by any of the Christian sectaries. Despising the power which was
sufficient to crush them, they resolved upon depriving their enemies of the
glory of a triumph, and affected to rejoice that they were deemed worthy of
undergoing death in vindication of their faith. To such a height of madness
did this idea carry them, that when they might have escaped without
difficulty, they voluntarily exposed themselves to their persecutors; and when
those whom they thus dared pitied their fanaticism, and refused them the
desired martyrdom, they either destroyed themselves, or, which was equivalent,
placed their adversaries in a position which rendered forbearance impossible.
The following is one of the anecdotes related of their conduct in this
respect:—A party of the most impatient of these deluded beings, having sought
in vain for some means of terminating their existence with honour, met, in the
course of their wanderings, with a young man, a member of the orthodox church,
whom they resolved to sacrifice to their hatred of his sect. Some of them,
however,

3 D 2 conceived an idea, that this act of barbarity would be less becoming
their zeal, than their suffering a similar piece of cruelty to be perpetrated
on themselves. This notion was immediately embraced by the whole party, and
they signified to the young man, that they would allow him to remain
uninjured, if he would agree to put them to death. To this strange proposition
the young churchman signified his assent; but he demanded, with great
appearance of reason, that they should consent to be bound before he commenced
the slaughter; for, unless they put themselves out of the power of injuring
him, he argued, they would probably no sooner feel the smart of their wounds,
than their agreement would be forgotten, and he made a victim of their still
greater cruelty. There was so much fairness and plausibility in this request,
that the Donatists readily consented to be bound hand and foot, and in that
condition they awaited the stroke which was to place them among the worthiest
of the saints. But, instead of affording them the expected gratification, the
young man first broke the swords which they had placed in his hands, and then
beat them as a punishment for their folly. The firm manner in which he had
bound their hands and feet prevented them from resisting his blows; and they
were afterwards left rolling in the road, to endure the abuse and mockery of
whoever passed by. It was not, however, to such mad and ignorant enthusiasts
as these appear to have been, that the custom of self-murder, the most
remarkable characteristic, was confined. According to the usual accounts given
of this people, those who pretended to offer any apology for their conduct,
defended it by asserting, that they preferred dying to running the risk of
being obliged to communicate in any manner with their adversaries. Others seem
to have considered, that by destroying themselves when the pursuit was hot
against them, they should terrify the orthodox from continuing the
persecution, and by that means save their brethren and their faith. It was to
this notion Augustine appears to have referred, when, in writing to Count
Boniface on the subject of the numerous conversions that had occurred, he
says, "When you see how many have been saved from perdition, by being
delivered from this miserable schism, you will acknowledge that it would have
been great cruelty to abandon so many persons to eternal damnation, and to the
flames of hell, for fear that a band of desperadoes, so few in number compared
with these, should voluntarily commit themselves to the flames which they had
prepared for their own destruction." Among the works of this celebrated
father, are two books addressed to Gaudentius,* the Donatist Bishop of a city
in Numidia, and one of those who had been commissioned by the sect to defend
their rights in the conference at Carthage. The history of the fate of the
Bishop is very imperfect; but from the incidental notices of it in the
epistles addressed to him

* Gaudentius was elected Bishop of Brescia about the end of the fourth
century. He was sent in 405 to Constantinople, with the Legates of Pope
Innocent, to re-establish Chrysostom in his see, and to hold a General
Council. The time of his death is fixed by some at the year 410, and by others
at 427. He wrote a life of his predecessor, Philaster, and letters, and other
pieces, which are inserted in the fifth volume of the Bibliotheca Patrum; but
the most complete edition of his works was published at Brescia, in 1738, by
Paul Galeardi.

FANATICISM OF GAUDENTIUS.

on the subject of his heresy, it appears, that having fled from his diocese,
in order to avoid the fury of the persecution, he was soon after induced, from
some compunctions of conscience, to return. He had no sooner re-established
himself in his church than he made it known, that if any attempt were made to
compel him to communicate with the orthodox, he would immediately set fire to
his cathedral, and perish, with his faithful followers, under its ruins. The
officer to whom the execution of the laws against the Donatists was intrusted
was Dulcitius, a man whose disposition inclined him to tolerance, and who so
far overstepped the usual maxims of his profession, as to write to Gaudentius,
and persuade him, with great earnestness, to re-unite himself to the church,
or at least not to commit the dreadful crime of destroying himself, and the
unfortunate people that were with him. He next asked him how he could find it
in his heart to resolve upon burning the beautiful edifice in which he had so
often called upon the name of God; or how he could deem it consistent with
reason to burn himself, if he believed that he was innocent, instead of
seeking his safety in flight, as Jesus Christ had directed his disciples to do
of old.

To this epistle Gaudentius instantly replied, that he was resolved, if any
violence were employed against him, to finish his days in the camp of the
Lord; but that as for those who were with him, he was so far from wishing to
constrain them, that he had exhorted all who were under the influence of fear
to depart and save themselves. The next day he wrote another letter, in which
he defended his conduct more at length, and cited the example of Itaxis, whose
death is recorded in the Second Book of Maccabees, in proof of the propriety
of his proceedings. Dulcitius, unable to combat these arguments, sent both the
epistles to Augustine, with an earnest request that he would answer them, and
give him instructions as to the method it would be right to pursue with the
heretics. The Prelate replied, that the fear of suffering some few miserable
creatures to perish ought not to prevent his employing the most rigorous
measures for the salvation of others. He afterwards wrote a formal answer to
the arguments of the Donatist, who again defended himself as before; but
history has left it doubtful whether he perished by his own hand, as he
threatened, or consented to avoid the persecutions of his enemies by a
voluntary exile. The former is not at all improbable, considering the
disposition to suicide which prevailed so generally among the sect, and that
it is known that several Bishops and others of the Clergy put themselves to a
violent death. Mention is made by Augustine, in one of his epistles, of a
presbyter named Donatus, who, in order to escape from his pursuers, leaped
into a well, with the intention of destroying himself; but the persons who
were following him coming up soon after, he was dragged out; and the father
employs this instance of care and humanity on the part of the orthodox, to
prove how sincere they were in their anxiety for the spiritual good of the
heretics. Partial, indeed, as are the accounts of this famous controversy, and
allowing that many of the assertions respecting the fury of the Donatists are
somewhat exaggerated by the historians of the opposite side, there appears to
be every reason for believing that considerable forbearance was exercised
towards them by the public authorities, and that they were guilty of excesses
which could only have proceeded from men under the influence of the worst
species of fanaticism. Optatus, whose work, it should be remembered, was
addressed to one of the party, accuses it of being chiefly characterized by a
spirit of untameable ferocity. "Those," he says, "who are seduced either by
faction or subtlety to join the sect, whether they be men or women, are
suddenly converted from sheep into wolves, from faithful into perfidious, from
patient into mad, from pacific into litigious, from simple into artful, from
modest into shameless, from gentle into fierce, from innocent into artificers
of evil." The unmerciful means which they everywhere employed to resent the
injuries they had suffered from the orthodox, tend greatly to prove the truth
of these allegations. Never did the Christian church endure, perhaps, so many
evils from the intrusion of a sectarian spirit as during the existence of the
Donatist heresy; and, to add to the ignominy with which the memory of that
people has been handed down to posterity, they are believed, and with good
reason, to have shared in exciting one of the most sanguinary persecutions
that was ever experienced by a Christian people, either in former or
subsequent days. The province of Africa having fallen into the hands of the
Vandals, Genseric their King, and after him Huneric his son, pursued the
orthodox with a wanton barbarity which the Arians, Donatists, and other
sectarians, appear to have employed every means to influence. One of the
earliest laws of Huneric was, that no person should enjoy any public function
who did not profess himself an Arian; and crowds were soon after sent into
exile, or thrown into unhealthy prisons, in which they died of the fevers
generated by the condition of their miserable cells. When a conference was
proposed, but broken off by the Arians, the unfortunate Clergymen, who were to
have advocated the cause of the orthodox, were severally condemned to receive
a certain number of blows with a wand, and then to be sent into exile.
Eugenius, the Bishop of Carthage, was one of those who were thus treated; and,
in his banishment, he is said to have employed himself continually in writing
letters to his flock, or in the performance of the most rigid acts of
devotion, to obtain divine pardon for the sins to the commission of which he
attributed the present calamity. But, if we may give credit to the earliest
accounts of this persecution, exile was the mildest species of punishment
employed by the Vandal Monarch and his Arian and Donatist advisers against the
orthodox. The catalogue of sufferings recorded by the Bishop of Utica, in his
narrative of these events, presents us with the same frightful spectacles as
those described in the pagan persecutions, except that we may more than once
discover the signs of that bitter hatred which is scarcely to be found but
among warring sectarians. To prevent them saving themselves by flight, the
persecutors exercised the same vigilance against the faithful as if they had
been an invading army: not a fruit-tree, it is said, was allowed to remain
where it was thought they might seek refuge; and every monastery and house of
prayer which might have

VARIOUS HERESIES IN THE CHURCH.

given them shelter was burnt to the ground. Of those who were seized, the most
venerable almost uniformly experienced the worst treatment, the fury of
barbarous pursuers appearing to gather fresh nourishment from the dignity of
those they tormented. Among the favourite methods of manifesting their rage
was that of compelling their victims to drink sea-water, or other nauseous
liquids, till they were on the point of suffocation,—a species of torture
which, some centuries after, obtained great favour with the venerable Fathers
of the Inquisition. At other times, they forced their prisoners to bear
burdens which camels or horses would have almost found oppressive; and when
these contrivances were deemed insufficient to punish their unfortunate
adversaries, they applied sharp instruments to different parts of their
bodies, in order to make them move under the load which they were wholly
unable to support. These methods were pursued indiscriminately with young and
old, and every feeling of nature was outraged and forgotten.* But we must not
anticipate.

The unity no less than the external triumph of the church of Christ occupied
the mind of Theodosius at this critical period. He had been anticipated in
this project in the West by his imbecile predecessors and colleagues, Gratian
and Valentinian the Younger. The laws began to speak the language of the
exclusive establishment of Christianity, and of Christianity under one
rigorous and unaccommodating creed and discipline. Almost the first act of
Theodosius was an edict for the universal acceptance of the catholic faith. It
appeared under the name, and with the conjoint authority, of the three
Emperors, Gratian, Valentinian II., and Theodosius. It was addressed to the
inhabitants of Constantinople. "We, the three Emperors, will that all our
subjects follow the religion taught by the Apostle Peter to the Romans,
professed by those saintly Prelates, Damasus, Pontiff of Rome, and Peter,
Bishop of Alexandria; that we believe the one divinity of the Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit, of majesty co-equal, in the Holy Trinity. We will that those who
embrace this creed be called catholic Christians; we brand all the senseless
followers of other religions by the infamous name of heretics, and forbid
their conventicles to assume the name of churches; we reserve their punishment
to the vengeance of heaven, and to such measures as divine inspiration shall
dictate to us." Thus the religion of the whole Roman world was enacted by two
feeble boys, and a rude Spanish soldier.† The next year witnessed the
condemnation of all heretics, particularly the Photinians, Arians, and
Eunomians, and the expulsion of the Arians from the churches of all the cities
in the East, and their surrender to the only lawful form of Christianity.‡ On
the assembling of the Council of Chalcedon, two severe

* Stebbing, History of the Christian Church, 12mo., vol. I., p. 212.

† Baronius, and even Godefroy, call this law a golden, pious, and wholesome
stature. Happily it was on the right side. (Milman.)

‡ On the accession of Theodosius, according to Sozomen, the Arians possessed
all the churches of the East except Jerusalem. (See Sozom., Hist. Eccles.,
lib. vii., cap. 2.)

laws were issued against apostates and Manichæns, prohibiting them from making
wills. During its sitting, the Emperor promulgated an edict, prohibiting the
Arians from building churches either in the cities or in the country, under
pain of the confiscation of the funds devoted to the purpose.* The
circumstances of the times coincided with the design of Theodosius to
concentre the whole Christian world into one vigorous and consistent system.
The more legitimate influence of argument and intellectual and religious
superiority concurred with the stern mandates of the civil power. All the
great and commanding minds of the age were on the same side, as to the
momentous and strongly-agitated questions of the faith. The productive
energies of Arianism seemed as it were exhausted: its great defenders had
passed away, and left, apparently, no heirs to their virtues and abilities. It
was distracted with schisms, and had to bear the unpopularity of the sects,
which seemed to have sprung from it in the natural course, the Eunomians,†
Macedonians,‡ and a still multiplying progeny of heresies. Everywhere the
Trinitarian Prelates rose to ascendancy, not merely from the support of the
government, but from their pre-eminent character or intellectual powers. Each
province seemed to have produced some individual adapted to the particular
period and circumstances of the time, who devoted himself to the establishment
of the Athanasian opinions. They were master-spirits, capable of guiding the
vessel in troublous seas. The intractable Egypt, more particularly turbulent
Alexandria, was ruled by the strong arm of the bold, but unprincipled,
Theophilus. The dreamy mysticism of Syria found a congenial representative in
Ephrem. A

* Sozomen adverts to these severe laws, but asserts that they were enacted
merely in terrorem, and with no design of carrying them into execution. (Hist.
Eccles., lib. vii., cap. 12.)

† The Eunomians were a sect of the fourth century, a branch of Arianism, and
took their name from Eunomias, Bishop of Cyzicus. Cave, in his Historia
Literaria, vol. i., p. 223, gives an account of their faith, which shows how
nearly their tenets approached Arianism. "There is one God, uncreated and
without beginning, who has nothing existing before him, for nothing can exist
before what is uncreated; not with him, for what is uncreated must be one; nor
in him, for God is a simple and uncompounded Being. This one simple and
eternal Being is God, the Creator and Ordainer of all things; first, indeed,
and principally, of his only-begotten Son, and then, through him, of all other
things. For God begat, created, and made the Son only by his direct operation
and power, before all things and every other creature; not producing, however,
any being like himself, or imparting any of his own proper substance to the
Son; for God is immortal, uniform, invisible, and therefore cannot communicate
any part of his own proper substance to another. He alone is unbegotten, and
it is impossible that any other being should be formed of an unbegotten
substance. He did not use his own substance in begetting the Son, but his will
only; nor did he beget him in the likeness of his substance, but according to
his own good pleasure; he then created the Holy Spirit, the first and greatest
of all spirits, by his own power, in deed and operation mediately, yet by the
immediate power and operation of the Son. After the Holy Spirit, he created
all other things, in heaven and in earth, visible and invisible, corporeal and
incorporeal, mediately by himself, but by the power and operation of the Son,"
&c.

‡ Macedonians were the followers of Macedonius, Bishop of Constantinople, who,
through the influence of the Eunomians, was deposed by 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.

VARIOUS ABUSES OF CHRISTIANITY.

more intellectual, yet still somewhat imaginative, Orientalism animates the
writings of Basil; in a less degree, those of Gregory of Nazianzum; still
less, those of Gregory of Nyssa. The more powerful and Grecian eloquence of
Chrysostom swayed the popular mind in Constantinople. Jerome, a link, as it
were, between the East and the West, transplanted the monastic spirit and
opinions of Syria into Rome; and brought into the East much of the severer
thought, and more prosaic reasoning, of the Latin world. But the greatest, the
most permanently influential, of all the celebrated men of that day was
Augustine, who united the intense passion of the African mind with the most
comprehensive and systematic views, and intrepid dogmatism on the darkest
subjects. United in one common cause, acting in their several quarters
according to their peculiar temperaments and characters, these strong-minded
and influential Ecclesiastics almost compelled the world into a temporary
peace, until first Pelagianism, and afterwards Nestorianism, again unsettled
the restless elements: the controversies, first concerning grace, free-will,
and predestination, then on the incarnation and two natures of Christ,
succeeded to the silenced and exhausted feud concerning the Trinity of Persons
in the Godhead.*

Various abuses had shown themselves in these harsh and rugged days of
Christianity, and there are others yet unnoticed, of which the earliest
vestiges and indications may probably be discovered in the ante-Nicene church,
or in the writings of its Fathers; but among these certainly idolatry is not
one. The ancient Christians continued to shun, with a pious horror, which
persecution exasperated, and which time, that great Physician, did not
mitigate, every approach to that abomination; and while they truly considered
it essentially and distinctively Pagan, the reluctance which they felt to bow
before any image, was aggravated by the firm belief, that the images of the
Pagans represented the implacable adversaries of man and God. So definite and
so broad was the space which, in this point at least, separated the two
religions, that it seemed impossible that either of them should overstep it,
or that any compromise could ever be effected between principles so
fundamentally hostile. Yet the contrary result took place; and a
reconciliation, which in the commencement of the fourth century could not
easily have been imagined, was virtually accomplished before its termination.
The progress of this revolution may be easily traced. On the first
establishment of their religion, it was natural that Christians should look
back from a condition of unexpected security on the sufferings of their
immediate predecessors with the most vivid sentiments of sympathy and
admiration. They had beheld those sufferings, they had witnessed the constancy
with which they were endured: the same terror had been suspended over
themselves, and their own preservation they attributed, under the especial
protection of divine Providence, to the perseverance of those who had
perished. The gratitude and veneration thus fervently excited were loudly and
passionately expressed; and the

* Milman, History of Christianity, vol. III., p. 188.

honours which were due to the virtues of the departed were profusely bestowed
on their names and their memory. Enthusiasm easily passed into superstition,
and those who had sealed a Christian's faith by a martyr's death were exalted
above the condition of men, and enthroned among superior beings. Superstition
gave birth to credulity, and those who sat among the powers of heaven might
sustain, by miraculous assistance, their votaries on earth; and credulity
increased the food on which it fed, by encouraging the detested practice of
forgery and imposture. Under these dangerous circumstances, it became the duty
of the Fathers and the leading Ministers of the church to moderate the
violence of popular feeling, and to restrain any tendency towards vicious
excess. But, unhappily for the integrity of the orthodox faith, the
instructors were themselves carried away by the current, or, we should rather
say, united their exertions to swell and corrupt it. The people we may excuse
and compassionate; but we blush when we discover the most distinguished
writers of the fourth century, Athanasius, Eusebius the historian, Gregory
Nazianzen, Chrysostom, Jerome, and Augustine, engaged in a shameful conspiracy
against their religion, while they exaggerate the merit of the martyrs, assert
or insinuate their immediate sanctification, and claim for them a sort of
reverence which could not easily be distinguished from worship. In this age,
and from this cause, arose the stupid veneration for bones and relics; it was
inculcated and believed, that prayer was never so surely efficacious as when
offered at the tomb of some saint or holy person; the number of such tombs was
then multiplied; at all of them miracles, and prophecies, and prodigies, and
visions were exhibited or recorded; and the spirit of the Gospel was forgotten
in the practice of forbidden ceremonies, and the belief of impious fables.
Such were the first unworthy advances which were made by Christianity, and
encouraged by her leading Ministers, with a view to reconcile at least her
external differences with Paganism.*

The death of Theodosius speedily followed his victory over Eugenius; four
months only elapsed, and his demise was considered by the people as an
unforeseen and a fatal event, that cast a shade over the hopes of a rising
generation: the indulgence, however, of ease and luxury had cast, with a
liberal hand, the seeds of disease and death. The strength of Theodosius was
unable to support the sudden and violent transition from the palace to the
camp, and the increasing symptoms of a dropsy announced the speedy dissolution
of the Emperor. The opinion, and perhaps the interest, of the public had
confirmed the division of the Eastern and Western empires; and the two royal
youths, Arcadius and Honorius, who had already obtained, from the tenderness
of their father, the title of Augustus, were destined to fill the thrones of
Constantinople and of Rome. Those Princes were not permitted to share the
danger and glory of the civil war; but as soon as Theodosius had triumphed
over his unworthy rivals, he called his younger son, Honorius, to enjoy the
fruits of the vic-

* Waddington, History of the Church, vol. I., p. 234.

DEATH OF THEODOSIUS.

tory, and to receive the sceptre of the West from the hands of his dying
father. The arrival of Honorius at Milan was welcomed by a splendid exhibition
of the games of the Circus, and the Emperor, though he was oppressed by the
weight of his disorder, contributed by his presence to the public joy. But the
remains of his strength were exhausted by the painful effort which he made to
assist at the spectacles of the morning. Honorius supplied, during the rest of
the day, the place of his father, and the great Theodosius expired in the
ensuing night. Notwithstanding the recent animosities of a civil war, his
death was universally lamented. The barbarians whom he had vanquished, and the
churchmen by whom he had been subdued, celebrated, with loud and sincere
applause, the qualities of the deceased Emperor which appeared the most
valuable in their eyes. The Romans were terrified by the impending dangers of
a feeble and divided administration; and every disgraceful moment of the
unfortunate reigns of Arcadius and Honorius revived the memory of their
irreparable loss. To adopt the language of the historian of Rome, we may
observe that in the faithful picture of the virtues of Theodosius, his
imperfections have not been dissembled; the acts of cruelty, and the habits of
indolence, which tarnished the glory of one of the greatest of the Roman
Princes. An historian,* perpetually adverse to the fame of Theodosius, has
exaggerated his vices, and their pernicious effects: he boldly asserts, that
every rank of subjects imitated the effeminate manners of their Sovereign;
every species of corruption polluted the course of public and private life;
and that the feeble restraints of order and decency were insufficient to
resist the progress of that degenerate spirit which sacrifices without a blush
the consideration of duty and interest to the base indulgence of sloth and
appetite. The contemporary writers who deplore the increase of luxury and
depravation of manners, are commonly expressive of their peculiar temper and
situation. There are few observers who possess a clear and comprehensive view
of the revolutions of society, and who are capable of discovering the nice and
secret springs of action which impel, in the same uniform direction, the blind
and capricious passions of a multitude of individuals. If it can be affirmed,
with any degree of truth, that the luxury of the Romans was more shameless and
dissolute in the age of Theodosius than in that of Constantine, perhaps, or of
Augustus, the alteration cannot be ascribed to any beneficial improvements
which had gradually increased the stock of national riches. A long period of
calamity or decay must have checked the industry, and diminished the wealth,
of the people; and their profuse luxury must have been the result of that
indolent despair which enjoys the present hour, and declines the thoughts of
futurity. The uncertain condition of their property discouraged the subjects
of Theodosius from engaging in those useful and laborious undertakings which
require an immediate expense, and promise a slow and distant advantage. The
frequent examples of ruin and desolation tempted them not to spare the remains
of a patrimony which might,

* Zoeimi Historia, lib. iv., p. 244.

3 x 2 every hour, become the prey of the rapacious Goth. And the mad
prodigality which prevails in the confusion of a shipwreck or a siege may
serve to explain the progress of luxury amidst the misfortunes and terrors of
a sinking nation. The poison spread, and the camps of the legions were fatally
infected. The enervated soldiers abandoned their own and the public defence;
and the pusillanimous indolence which generally prevailed may be considered as
the immediate cause of the downfal of the empire.*

The resolution to exterminate idolatry was not carried so far by Honorius in
the Western empire, as by his brother Arcadius in the East, inasmuch as the
former directed that the temples, with their images and sacred utensils,
should be protected from injury; yet he prohibited the use of them in
oblations, or any other ceremonies. He was not only a steady opponent of
certain heresies which had for a long time prevailed, but also of the Pelagian
heresy, which in the beginning of the fifth century began to take root.
Pelagius and Celestius were the founders of this sect, upon both of whom the
credit of unimpeachable sanctity and virtue has been bestowed by Augustine,
the most rigid and indomitable adversary of their theological sentiments.
Pelagius was a native of Britain; and, according to tradition, he was educated
in the monastery of Bangor Iscoed, in the county of Flint, in Wales, of which
place he became a Monk, and afterwards an Abbot.† One of the earliest
institutions for theological learning in this island was probably that at
Llantwit-Major, or Llaniltut, so called from Iltutus, after he was set over it
by Garmon. At that place, called Caer Worgan, the Emperor Theodosius is said
to have established a seminary of learning in the preceding century, soon
after the defeat of Maximus, or about A.D. 388. At such a place Pelagius may
have received the rudiments of his education. This person's British name was
Morgan, or perhaps Morien, which, as it signifies "maritime," or "bordering on
the sea," may have been easily Latinized into Pelagius. The county of
Morgannwg, or Glamorgan, was so called on account of its maritime situation;
although, according to others, it received its name from one Morgan, a Prince
of that country. This celebrated character was in all probability a native of
that part of Wales, from whence the name has become very common in all the
adjoining counties, but is scarcely known in North Wales. That country has
produced some eminent characters of comparatively recent date of similar
endowments with Pelagius, who was admired for his learning and unblemished
deportment; and noted as being a

* Gibbon, Decline and Fall, vol. ii., p. 559, Milman's notes, second edit.,
London, 1846.

† It is generally agreed upon by authors of antiquity, that he was a Briton;
but as to the affirmation of certain writers of a more modern date, respecting
his being one of the Monks of Bangor, (meaning Bangor Iscoed in Maelor,) there
is a mistake which is easily detected. The monastic institution being hardly
yet introduced into Britain, he could not have been a member of any monastery;
although in the progress of this century many of those institutions, known
among Britons by the name of "Bangors," were either founded or newly
regulated. But Bangor in Maelor, on the river Dee, or, as it was afterward
called, "Bangor Dunod," from the Prince who founded it, was not known until
the ensuing century. (Hughes, Horn Britannica, vol. i., p. 86.)

PELAGIUS.

man of subtle and metaphysical genius, even while he was condemned on account
of error. He, and many besides him, who secluded themselves from the bustle of
the world, from a desire to addict themselves to study, were called Monks.
Such were Basil and Chrysostom, whom friendship, piety, and learning knit
together in the strictest bonds of fraternity. Chrysostom was compelled to
quit his solitude to undertake the pastoral charge; the important and arduous
duties of which he has so ably depicted in his excellent treatise on the
Christian priesthood.*

At what time Pelagius left the land of his nativity, it is not easy to
ascertain; but it must have been some time previous to the close of the fourth
century. He then resided for some time at Rome, where he was greatly
respected, previous to his being charged with maintaining erroneous doctrines;
and afterwards, when associated with Celestius,† he privately propagated his
obnoxious sentiments. The rise of the Pelagian heresy, according to Bede, was
in the year 394; but, according to both Vossius and Ussher, not until 405. The
latter date will, perhaps, best apply to the time when Pelagius was generally
known to avow the sentiments which he had for some time secretly entertained,
and which had been previously propagated by Rufinus. Pelagius was the author
of certain works well received even by those persons who afterwards opposed
him. He was honoured by the correspondence of Augustine; and when the
celebrated John Chrysostom heard of his falling into erroneous tenets, he
greatly lamented him. In his letter to Olympias, which was written in his
state of exile in Armenia, A.D. 405, he thus expresses himself:—"My grief is
great on account of Pelagius the Monk: think, of how many crowns are they
worthy who stand undaunted,

* Horm Britannicus; or, Studies in ancient British History, containing various
Disquisitions on the National and Religious Antiquities of Great Britain. By
John Hughes, in 2 vols., 8vo., London, 1819, vol. 1, p. 88.

† As a proof that education had made considerable progress in Ireland, we are
distinctly informed by Jerome and others that the celebrated Celestius, so
well known afterwards as the bold follower of Pelagius, the arch-heretic, was
by birth an Irishman; and three letters to his parents are still extant which
demonstrate that he had received an early Christian education in that country.
The epistles not only imply that his parents were Christians, but that there
must have existed an extensive community of them in a country where such a
writer could have been instructed, and such letters at all understood. They
were written, says Moore in his History of Ireland, in the form, as we are
told, of little books, and full of such piety as to make them necessary to all
who love God. Their date is A.D. 369, and they were written, I need scarcely
remark, previously to the falling of Celestius into his grievous errors, and
sixty-two years before the arrival of Patrick; but they evidently imply a full
reception of Christianity into Ireland at a much earlier period. The ablest
opponent, perhaps, to be found to the arrogant and presumptuous heresy of
Pelagius, was the countryman and contemporary of Celestius, the celebrated
Sedulius. As a Missionary he travelled through France, Italy, Asia, and
Arabia. He wrote several works in prose and verse; among the former, a comment
on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle, entitled, "Sedulius Scoti Hiberneuis in
omnes Epistolas Pauli Collectaneum." How profoundly skilled Sedulius was in
the leading doctrines of the Gospel, may be inferred from the clearness,
conciseness, and appositeness of his remarks, critically comparing Scripture
with itself, according to the analogy of faith. He was indeed an honour to his
country, and a bright luminary in the orthodox church of his age. The country
that produced such scholars as Celestius and Sedulius, at that early period,
must have arrived at a high state of mental civilisation. (Dean Murray,
Ireland and her Church, 4to., p. 10, second edit., London, 1846)

when we see men who have lived with so much piety and strictness drawn away."
It would therefore appear, that he did not bring his errors with him from
Britain, whatever there might have been in his way of thinking, which might
dispose him the more readily to imbibe the opinions which he afterwards
propagated.

Celestius subsequently became the principal coadjutor of Pelagius, and Jerome
unhesitatingly recognised him as the Cerberus of Pelagius. He became
acquainted also with one Julian of Campania, who made himself very active in
disseminating his heterodox principles. "But it was not into one city," says
Jerome, "that he introduced those blasphemous opinions; but to the utmost of
his ability he spread them through the world." Celestius was also a man of a
more bold and forward turn than Pelagius:* the latter made use of him as his
agent and right-hand man. It is said that at first he only proposed his doubts
respecting certain points of doctrine generally received, as if he wished to
be more fully satisfied respecting original sin, and the necessity of divine
grace. But after a while he was no longer able to disguise his sentiments, and
then he met with vehement opposition from all quarters. "These persons," says
Mosheim, "looked upon the doctrines which were commonly received concerning
the corruption of human nature, and the necessity of divine grace to enlighten
the understanding and purify the heart, as prejudicial to the progress of
holiness, of virtue, and tending to lull mankind in a presumptuous and fatal
security. They maintained that these doctrines were false, as they were
pernicious; that the sins of our first parents were imputed to them alone, and
not to their posterity; that we derive no corruption from their fall, but are
born as pure and unspotted as Adam came out of the forming hand of his
Creator; that mankind, therefore, are capable of repentance and amendment, and
of arriving at the highest degrees of piety and virtue, by the use of their
natural faculties and powers; that, indeed, external grace is necessary to
excite their endeavours, but that they have no need of the internal succours
of the divine Spirit." This controversy was referred by Celestius and Pelagius
to the decision of Zosimus, who was raised to the Pontificate, A.D. 417. The
new Pontiff, gained over by the ambiguous and seemingly-orthodox confession of
faith that Celestius had artfully drawn up, and also by the letters and
protestations of Pelagius, pronounced in favour of these Monks, declared them
sound in the faith, and unjustly persecuted by their adversaries. The African
Bishops, with Augustine at their head, little affected with this declaration,
continued obstinately to maintain the judgment they had pronounced, and to
strengthen it by their exhort-

* The Pelagians maintained the following doctrines:—1. That Adam was by nature
mortal; and, whether he had sinned or not, would certainly have died. 2. That
the consequences of Adam's sin were confined to his own person. 3. That new-
born infants are in the same situation with Adam before the fall. 4. That the
law qualified men for the kingdom of heaven, and was founded upon equal
promises with the Gospel. 5. That the general resurrection of the dead does
not follow in virtue of our Saviour's resurrection. 6. That the grace of God
is given according to our merits. 7. That this grace is not granted for the
performance of every moral act; the liberty of the will and information in
points of duty being sufficient.

DOCTRINES OF PELAGIANISM.

ations, their letters, and their writings. Zosimus yielded to the perseverance
of the Africans, changed his mind, and condemned, with the utmost severity,
Pelagius and Celestius, whom he had honoured with his approbation, and covered
with his protection. This was followed by a train of evils, which pursued
these two Monks without interruption. They were condemned by that Ephesian
Council which launched its thunder at the head of Nestorius. In short, the
Gauls, Britons, and Africans, by their Councils and Emperors, by their edicts
and penal laws, demolished this sect in its infancy, and suppressed it
entirely before it had acquired any tolerable degree of vigour or consistence.

The almost-interminable disputes to which the Pelagian controversy gave rise,
were instrumental in producing another variety of sectarians; who, from their
aim to avoid the extremes of the contending parties of the day, mingled the
heresies of the one with the orthodox principles of the other, on which
account they were called "Semi-Pelagians."* They maintained the power of free
will to produce goodness, faith, and newness of life; but that man could not
persevere onwards to the attainment of that degree of holiness which should
complete his own salvation without the grace of the Saviour. They denied that
there was any peculiar or special dispensation of his grace through
predestination; but held that all were capable of receiving its efficacy, or
resisting it. It is likewise declared, that they held opinions concerning the
predestination of infants, to which strong objections were raised. This sect
sprang up in the South of France about the year 428, and was upheld by many
persons of learning, the chief of whom was Cassian, a pupil of Chrysostom, and
Honoratius, Bishop of Marseilles. On the other hand, it was resisted by
Hormisdas and Felix III., Bishops of Rome; by Hilarius of Arles, Prosper of
Aquitaine, and others, who faithfully followed the doctrines of Augustine in
their endeavours to interrupt its progress, and to neutralize its effects.
Another heresy, in this fatally-misguided period, which added to the
uneasiness and peril of the church, pertained to the doctrine of the
incarnation, and other abstruse points relating to the union of the Word with
the human offspring of Mary.† It arose from Nestorius

* "Semi-Pelagians" was a name anciently, and is even at this day, given to
such as retain some tincture of Pelagianism. Cassian, who had been a Deacon of
Constantinople, and was afterwards a Priest of Marseilles, was the chief of
these Semi-Pelagians, whose leading principles were, 1. That God did not
dispense his grace to one more than another in consequence of predestination;
that is, an eternal and absolute decree; but was willing to save all men, if
they complied with the terms of his Gospel. 2. That Christ died for all men.
3. That the grace purchased by Christ, and necessary to salvation, was offered
to all men. 4. That man before he received grace was capable of faith and holy
desires. 5. That man was born free, and consequently capable of resisting the
influences of grace, or of complying with its suggestions. The Semi-Pelagians
were very numerous; and the doctrine of Cassian, though variously explained,
was received in the greatest part of the monastic schools in Gaul, from whence
it spread itself far and wide, through the European provinces. As to the
Greeks, and other Eastern Christians, they had embraced the Semi-Pelagian
doctrines before Cassian. In the sixth century the controversy between the
Semi-Pelagians and the disciples of Augustine prevailed much, and continued to
divide the Western churches.

† They believed that in Christ there were not only two natures, but two
persons, of which the one was urine, even the eternal Word; and the other,
which was human, was the man Jesus; that these two Persons had only one
aspect; that the union between the refusing to apply the term Θεοτόκος,
"Mother of God," to "Mary, the mother of Christ." Nestorius substituted the
word Χριστοτόκος. This led, of course, to a violent controversy; and from the
rank and character of the Divines who had embarked in the dispute, it became
impossible to bring the dispute to an end without the decision of a Council.
As the settlement of this question was therefore the principal reason for
calling together a General Council at Ephesus, we shall, in the mean time,
advert to a few further particulars, tending to show the circumstances by
which this intestine broil was rendered of signal importance. Nestorius was a
Syrian, born in Germanicia, a Monk of Euprepias, near Antioch, of the church
in which city he had formerly been a Presbyter; was elected to the episcopate
of Constantinople upon the death of Sisinius, in 428. He was very violent in
his censures against heretics, and immediately after his consecration he
addressed the Emperor: "Give me, O Cæsar, give me the earth purged of
heretics, and I will give you in exchange the kingdom of heaven! Exterminate
with me the heretics, and with you I will exterminate the Persians!" He
violently attacked a secret conventicle of Arians, by setting fire to it; and
the flames spreading did much damage to the city, on which account he was
named the "Incendiary." He also persecuted the Quartodecimans in Lydia, Caria,
and in other parts. Soon after his elevation to the high metropolitan dignity,
he permitted Anastasius, his Priest, and Dorotheæus, a Bishop, to preach the
doctrine above-mentioned, which he himself also maintained. Proclus, Bishop of
Cyzicum, opposed it; and at length the Clergy, Monks, and people combined
against the new heresy. Cyril of Alexandria also resolutely impugned it;
affirming, in opposition, the principles laid down in the Nicene Creed, and
adding twelve tremendous anathemas. Against these Nestorius promulgated as
many. A long correspondence took place between Cyril, Celestine, Nestorius,
and the Eastern and Western Bishops, all without the effect of bringing
Nestorius to confess his error.* At last both parties, Nestorius as well as
the orthodox, applied to the Emperor to summon a General Council, which he
did; and deputed Candidian to watch the proceedings, not for the purpose of
interfering with the controversialists, but to prevent disturbance from the

Son of God and the Son of man was formed in the moment of the virgin's
conception, and was never to be dissolved; that it was not, however, an union
of nature, or of person, but only of will and affection; that Christ was
therefore to be carefully distinguished from God, who dwelt in him as in his
temple; and that Mary was to be called "the mother of Christ," and not "the
mother of God." One of the chief supporters of the Nestorian cause was
Barsumas, created Bishop of Nisibis, A.D. 435. Such was his zeal and success,
that the Nestorians who still remain in Chaldea, Persia, and Assyria, and the
adjacent countries, consider him alone as their parent and founder. By him
Phreoxes, the Persian Monarch, was persuaded to expel those Christians who
adopted the opinions of the Greeks, and to admit the Nestorians in their
place, putting them in possession of the principal seat of ecclesiastical
authority in Persia, the see of Seleucia, which the Patriarch of the
Nestorians has always filled, even down to our time. Barsumas also erected a
school at Nisibis, from which proceeded those Nestorian Doctors who, in the
fifth and sixth centuries, spread abroad their tenets through Egypt, Syria,
Arabia, India, Tartary, and China. (See Account of the Nestorian Christians,
by Asshel Grant.)

* Townsend, Eccles. and Civil Hist. considered, vol. I., p. 369.

THE NESTORIANS.

Monks and others who had assembled in great numbers. In subsequent periods of
the history of this sect, we find they were sometimes called Chaldeans, and
extended their spiritual conquests beyond Mount Imaus, and introduced the
Christian religion into Tartary, properly so called, and especially into that
country called Karit, bordering on the northern part of China. The Prince of
that region, whom the Nestorians converted to the Christian faith, assumed,
according to the vulgar tradition, the name of John after his baptism, to
which he added the surname of "Presbyter," from a principle of modesty;
whence, it is said, his successors were each of them called "Prester John"
until the time of Gingis Khan. But Mosheim observes, that the famous Prester
John did not begin to reign in that part of Asia before the conclusion of the
eleventh century. The Nestorians formed so considerable a body of Christians,
that the Missionaries of Rome were industrious in their endeavours to reduce
them under the Papal yoke. Innocent IV. and Nicholas IV. used their utmost
efforts for this purpose, but without success. Till the time of Pope Julius
III., the Nestorians acknowledged but one Patriarch, who resided first at
Bagdad, and afterwards at Mousul; but a division arising among them, in 1551
the patriarchate became divided, at least for a time, and a new Patriarch was
consecrated by that Pope, whose successors fixed their residence in the city
of Ormus, in the mountainous parts of Persia, where they still continue,
distinguished by the name of Simeon; and so far down as the seventeenth
century, these Patriarchs persevered in their communion with the Church of
Rome, but seem at present to have withdrawn themselves from it. The great
Nestorian Pontiffs, who form the opposite party, and look with a hostile eye
on this little Patriarch, have, since the year 1559, been distinguished by the
general denomination of Elias, and reside constantly in the city of Mousul.
Their spiritual dominion is very extensive, takes in a greater part of Asia,
and comprehends also within its circuit the Arabian Nestorians, and also the
Christians of St. Thomas, who dwell along the coast of Malabar. It is
observed, to the lasting honour of the Nestorians, that of all the Christian
societies established in the East, they have been the most careful and
successful in avoiding a multitude of superstitious opinions and practices
that have infested the Greek and Latin churches. About the middle of the
seventeenth century, the Romish Missionaries gained over to their communion a
small number of Nestorians, whom they formed into a congregation or church;
the Patriarchs or Bishops of which reside in the city of Amida, or Diarbekir,
and all assume the denomination of Joseph. Nevertheless the Nestorians in
general persevere to our own times in their refusal to enter into the
communion of the Romish Church, notwithstanding the earnest entreaties and
alluring offers that have been made by the Pope's Legate to conquer their
inflexible constancy.*

Augustine was confessedly the most celebrated among the ancient Christian
Fathers; but the notice of him in this work must necessarily be brief. He was
born in Numidia, in the year 354, and his

* Henderson, Theolog. Dict. in loco.

early youth was distinguished by his aversion to all study, and especially
that of the Greek language. From profane he directed his attention to
religious subjects; and when we recollect that Tertullian, the greatest among
his African predecessors, seceded from the church in the maturity of his
judgment and learning, in order to embrace the visions of a raving fanatic, we
are scarcely astonished to learn that the youthful imagination of Augustine
was seduced by the Manichæan opinions. He appears to have retained them for
nine or ten years, during which time his rhetorical talents had raised him
into notice, and it was not until the year 386 that he was persuaded, as it is
said, by the sermons of Ambrose, and the writings of the Apostle Paul, to
return to the communion of the church. His baptism speedily followed his
conversion; his ordination took place soon afterwards, and the city of Hippo
in Africa, which owes most of its celebrity to its association with his name,
was that in which he first ministered as a Priest, and afterwards presided as
Bishop. He died in 430, in the thirty-fifth year of his episcopate. The first
recorded exploit of his ecclesiastical life was the destruction of an
inveterate and a consecrated abuse. The origin of the *Agapæ*,\* or “feasts of
charity,” and the purposes to which in early times they contributed, were
innocent and praiseworthy. But as the influx of the pagan converts grew more
rapid, and as these naturally sought in the new religion for any resemblance
to the popular ceremonies of the old, the solemnity in question insensibly
changed its character under their influence, and degenerated into the licence
and debauchery of a heathen festival. Augustine, while yet a Presbyter,
undertook the difficult task of persuading the people to abandon a favourite
and hereditary practice, and by the simple exertion of his eloquence he
succeeded. Services of reading and chanting were substituted in its place; and
while the churches of the heretics resounded with the customary revelry,

\* *Agapæ*, or “love-feasts,” “feasts of charity,” among the ancient
Christians, when liberal contributions were made by the rich to the poor. It
has been supposed by many that the custom is sanctioned by 1 Cor. xi. 20, 21;
but the following verse clearly shows that the Apostle reprobates the idea of
the Corinthian Christians eating any other social meal in public but that of
the Lord’s supper. Chrysostom gives the following account of this feast, which
he derives from the apostolic practice. He says, “The first Christians had all
things in common, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles; but when that
equality of possessions ceased, as it did even in the Apostles’ time, the
*Agapæ* or ‘love-feast’ was substituted in the room of it. Upon certain days,
after partaking of the Lord’s supper, they met at a common feast, the rich
bringing provisions, and the poor, who had nothing, being invited.” It was
always attended with receiving the holy sacrament: but there is some
difference between the ancient and modern interpreters, as to the circumstance
of time; namely, whether this feast was held before or after the communion.
Chrysostom is of the latter opinion; the learned Dr. Cave of the former. These
love-feasts, during the first three centuries, were held in the church without
scandal or offence; but in after-times the Heathens began to tax them with
impurity. This gave occasion to a reformation of these *Agapæ*. The kiss of
charity with which the ceremony used to end, was no longer given between
different sexes; and it was expressly forbidden to have any beds or couches
for the conveniency of those who should be disposed to eat more at their ease.
Notwithstanding these precautions, the abuses committed in them became so
notorious, that the holding them (in churches at least) was solemnly condemned
at the Council of Carthage, in the year 397. Attempts have been made, of late
years, to revive these feasts. They are, however, not very general, being
confined almost entirely to the Sandemanians, and some of the stricter
Antipædichaptists. This primitive practice, though under a simpler form, and
more expressly religious, is retained in modern times only by the Moravians
and by the Wesleyan Methodists.

PERSECUTING CHARACTER OF AUGUSTINE.

the voice of devotion alone proceeded from the assemblies of the orthodox.
This change took place in the year 395; and from that moment the reputation of
Augustine spread rapidly throughout the African church; and thence, as his
labours proceeded, was diffused with no less of splendour to the most distant
parts of Christendom. Besides the faithful discharge of his episcopal and his
private duties, the Bishop of Hippo engaged deeply in the controversies of the
day; and his attacks are chiefly against the Manicheans, the Donatists, and
the Pelagians. His familiarity with the errors of the first may have qualified
him more effectually to confute them; but it is at the same time curious to
observe the motives which he advanced for his own adhesion to the orthodox
church. They are the following: The consent of the people; the authority which
began in the faith of miracles, which was nourished by hope, augmented by
charity, confirmed by antiquity; the succession in the chair of the Apostle
Peter; and the name of "Catholic" so established, that if a stranger should
ask "Where is the catholic church?" no heretic would certainly dare to claim
that title for his own communion.* These arguments, and such as these, have
been so commonly reported in later ages, that, without at all entering (for
such is not our province) into the question of their real value, we are
contented to record their high antiquity, and the sanction which they received
from the name of Augustine. His exertions against the Donatists have attached
to the character of that Father the stain of persecution. The maxim, says
Mosheim,† which justified the chastisement of religious errors by civil
penalties, was confirmed and established by the authority of Augustine, and
thus transmitted to following ages. He cannot be vindicated from that charge;‡
he unquestionably maintained the general principle, that the unity of the
church should be preserved by secular interference, and that its adversaries
should be crushed by the material sword. But his natural humanity in some
degree counteracted the barbarity of his ecclesiastical principles; and there
is still extant an epistle addressed by him to Marcellinus, (in 412,) in which
he earnestly entreated that Magistrate to extend mercy to certain Donatists,
who had been convicted of some sanguinary excesses against the orthodox. But
his misfortune was, that, while his private philanthropy preserved the lives
perhaps of a few individuals, the efficacy which he added to the worst maxim
of church polity not only sharpened the shafts of injustice in his own time,
but tempered them for long and fatal service in after-ages.§

The interests of the Macedonians at Constantinople were materially affected by
their possessing no Bishop; for ever since they had been

* No heretic was so likely to have laid that claim as a Donatist; yet even a
Donatist, while he maintained that the true catholic spirit and purity was
alone perpetuated and inherent in his own communion, would scarcely have
affirmed, that was, bond fide, the universal church, which did not extend
beyond the shores of Africa, and which had not the majority even there.
(Waddington.)

† Mosheim, Institutes of Eccles. History.

‡ Besides the epistle to Dulcitios, see his letter, or rather tract, to
Boniface, "De Correctione Donatistarum;" and that to Vincentius. The principle
is avowed and defended in both, at least provided the animus be to correct,
not to revenge!

§ Waddington, A History of the Church, vol. I., chap. xi., p. 331.

3 v 2 deprived of their churches by Eudoxius, under the reign of Constantius,
they had been governed only by Presbyters. The Novatians, on the other hand,
although they had been agitated by the controversy concerning the Passover,
which had been renewed by Sabbatius, had been allowed to remain in quiet
possession of most of their churches, and had not been molested by any of the
laws enacted against other heretics, because they maintained that the three
Persons of the Trinity are of the same substance. The virtue of their Bishops
also tended greatly to the maintenance of union and concord among them. After
the death of Agelius, they were governed by Marcion, a Bishop of eminent
piety; and on his decease, the bishopric devolved upon Sisinius, a very
eloquent man, well versed in the doctrines of philosophy and of Scripture; and
so expert in disputation, that even Eunomius, who made a practice of
discussing controverted topics, often refused to hold disputes with him. His
course of life was exemplary, and above the reach of calumny; yet he indulged
in luxury, and even in superfluities; so that those who knew him not were
incredulous as to whether he could remain temperate in the midst of so much
abundance. He possessed so much kindness of disposition, and suavity of
manner, that he was highly esteemed by the Bishops of the orthodox church, by
the rulers, and by the learned. His jests were replete with good nature, and
he could bear ridicule without manifesting the least resentment: he was very
prompt and witty in his rejoinders. Being once asked wherefore, as he was a
Bishop, he bathed twice daily; he replied, "Because I do not bathe thrice." On
another occasion, being ridiculed by a member of the orthodox church because
he dressed in white, he asked where it was commanded that he should dress in
black; and as the other hesitated for a reply, he continued, "You can give no
argument in support of your position; but I refer you to Solomon, the wisest
of men, who says, 'Let your garments be always white;' moreover, Christ is
described in the Gospel as having appeared in white; and Moses and Elias
manifested themselves to the Apostles in robes of white." It appears to me,
says Sozomen, that the following reply was also very ingenious. Leontius,
Bishop of Ancyra, in Galatia, repaired to Constantinople, after he had
deprived the Novatians in his province of their churches. Sisinius went to him
to request that the churches might be restored; but far from yielding
compliance, he reviled the Novatians, and said that they were not worthy of
holding assemblies, because, by abolishing the observance of penance, they
intercepted the mercy of God. To this Sisinius replied, "No one does penance
as I do." Leontius asked him in what way he did penance. "In coming to see
you," retorted Sisinius. Many other witty speeches are attributed to him, and
he is even said to have written several works with some elegance. But his
discourses obtained greater applause than his writings; for the intonation of
his voice, the expression of his countenance, and all his attitudes produced
extraordinary effects upon his audience. This brief description may serve to
convey some idea of the disposition and mode of life of Sisinius; * but in
this day

* Sozom., Hist. Eccles., lib. viii., cap. 1.

CHRYSOSTOM OF CONSTANTINOPLE.

of rebuke and blasphemy, these puerile jests and miserable attempts at
jocosity ill become a Prelate of the early church.

John, surnamed from his eloquence, Chrysostom, that is, "the golden-mouthed,"
was a native of Antioch, of a noble and opulent family. In the year 374, while
he was still young, he had acquired such distinction, that the neighbouring
Prelates elected him to a vacant see; but it is generally affirmed, that he
refused that dignity, and fled to an adjacent mountain, where he passed four
years in the society of an ancient solitary; thence he changed his residence
to a frightful cavern, which witnessed, for the two following years, his rigid
austerities. Having completed this preparatory discipline, he entered upon the
offices of the ministry; and after edifying his native city for eighteen years
by the most animating instructions, he was at once exalted, without
solicitation, and even against his professed wish, to the see of
Constantinople. Chrysostom carried with him to that dangerous eminence, not
only the fervour of Christian eloquence, but the severity of monastic virtue;
and he thought it little to move the affections and raise the admiration of
his audience, unless he could reach their practice, and quell their vices. Had
he confined his exhortations to the mass of the people, he would have produced
less effect, perhaps, but he would have excited no odium; but the intrepid and
earnest orator rose, in his vehement denunciations, from the people to the
Clergy, and from the Clergy to the court, without excepting even the Empress
herself from his reproaches.* To the keenness of his censures he added the
weight of ecclesiastical jurisdiction; and both were zealously employed
against episcopal licentiousness,† no less than against the vices and scandals
imputed to the priesthood, and especially to the monastic orders. According to
the most credible accounts, the state of religion in that diocese was far from
being such as a man of Chrysostom's piety and severe character would desire.
From the commencement of his episcopal labours, therefore, he found himself
obliged to oppose many of the most influential of his Clergy, and to set an
example of self-denial and austerity of living little agreeable to men who had
been accustomed to enjoy, with hardly any restraint, the luxuries of the
imperial capital. In the arrangement of his own household, he was so
economical, that he was able to found a variety of hospitals, and comfort
numerous poor persons, with the sums which he saved out of the usual
expenditure of his revenues. This excellent union of economy and charity,
together with the most assiduous attention to the duties of prayer and
preaching, rendered him an object of warm admiration to the people. But in
proportion to the increase of his popularity, those who suffered by the reform
he was anxious to introduce, became more and more desirous of effecting his
ruin; and on the arrival of Theophilus,

* Endoxia, after falling in her first attempt to displace Chrysostom, renewed
her hostilities; and it was then that the Bishop delivered the sermon (if,
indeed, he did at all deliver it) beginning with the celebrated
words:—"Herodias is again furious; Herodias again dances; she once again
requires the head of John." An insolent allusion, says Gibbon, which, as a
woman and a Sovereign, it was equally impossible for her to forgive.

† In his visitation through the Asiatic provinces, he deposed thirteen Bishops
of Lydia and Phrygia, and passed a very severe censure upon the whole order.

Bishop of Alexandria, his declared and inveterate enemy, at Constantinople, a
strong party was instantly formed, determined to carry their wishes into
execution.* In order to accomplish this, Theophilus held a Council in the
neighbourhood of Chalcedon, whither he was attended by thirty-six Bishops, and
there prepared to decide the fate of Chrysostom by one of the most outrageous
violations of the episcopal dignity that was ever committed by one member of
that order towards another. The intended victim of these machinations was not
ignorant of what was plotting against him; but he was destitute of the means
necessary to resist so powerful a party. The Empress Eudoxia also, a woman of
violent temper, had been for some time desirous of avenging herself for an
affront which she was supposed to have received in one of his sermons; and she
consequently forwarded the intentions of his enemies with all the influence
she possessed. Thus menaced, Chrysostom had no resource but his piety and
fortitude; and on these he depended without shrinking. "A terrible storm,"
said he, in one of his sermons preached at this time, "is approaching; but we
have no fear of sinking, for we are founded on a rock: what, in fact, can I
have to dread? Death? Jesus Christ is my life, and death is my gain! Exile?
The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof! Confiscation? We brought
nothing into the world, and we can carry nothing out!" To the summons which
was sent him to appear before the Council, he replied that he would with great
willingness attend, provided his known enemies were not allowed to preside as
Judges. To Theophilus himself he objected, because he was heard to say, as he
came out of Alexandria, "I am going to depose John." He urged the same reason
against three other Bishops, and intimated his resolution not to appear before
the Synod till these persons were ejected from the tribunal. No attention,
however, was paid to his protests; and, after summoning him three times
without avail, the assembly proceeded with the measures on which it had
previously resolved. Chrysostom was, accordingly, deposed in form; and a
letter being sent to the Emperor Arcadius, a weak and ignorant Monarch,
containing an account of the trial, the Bishop was forthwith expelled his
church. This was not effected without considerable difficulty. For three days
the populace surrounded the cathedral into which he was known to have retired,
and from which they were resolved no force should drag him. What would have
been the result of a conflict between his numerous partisans and the officers
of the Emperor, it is not easy to decide; but, to avoid the tumult and
bloodshed which must have been the consequence of such a struggle, he resigned
himself into the hands of the persons employed to take him, and was carried to
a small town in Bithynia.

His departure was no sooner discovered by the multitude, than their previous
murmurs rose into loud and wrathful expressions of vengeance against his
persecutors. The next day the tumult was still

* Socrates, Hist., lib. vi., cap. 9, where it appears, that one of the
earliest causes of the enmity of Theophilus, was the reception which
Chrysostom gave to some Ecclesiastics deposed by that Patriarch.

PERSECUTION AND DEATH OF CHRYSOSTOM.

unsubdued: troops of people besieged the Emperor's palace with prayers for the
restoration of their beloved Bishop; others poured out execrations on the name
of Eudoxia, who, it was believed, had taken the principal part in the
obnoxious proceedings. The most lively alarm was thus excited among the
courtiers: all apprehended the terrors of a general insurrection; and
Constantinople presented, from one end to the other, a scene of mingled fury
and dismay. To add to the confusion, at the moment when the rage of the one
and the anxiety of the other party were at their height, the motions of an
earthquake were felt, and a thousand voices were instantly heard, exclaiming,
that it was a token of divine anger at the persecution of the holy Chrysostom.
Eudoxia herself, it is said, trembled at the ominous coincidence, and now
besought the Emperor to recall the Bishop with as much earnestness as she had
before solicited his condemnation. Arcadius was himself too much alarmed to
deny her request; and messengers were immediately despatched to bring
Chrysostom back to Constantinople.

His return was hailed and commemorated by the people with every demonstration
of enthusiasm; but he had not long resumed the exercise of his functions, when
the Empress, by desiring her statue to be placed in the neighbourhood of the
church, again led him to commit some offence against her pride.* Theophilus
lost no time in availing himself of this circumstance: a new cabal was formed,
and Chrysostom was again ordered into exile. He was, as before, obliged to
employ a stratagem to escape the watchful affection of his people; but his
departure was this time attended with more fatal consequences than on the
previous occasion. Deprived of their Pastor, the numerous congregations which
had assembled in the cathedral to celebrate a festival, left the church,
attended by some Priests, and proceeded to the baths of Constantine, where
they intended to complete their devotions, and baptize some catechumens who
were waiting to receive that sacrament. But scarcely had they reached the
baths, when they were assailed by a body of five hundred soldiers, sent to
disperse them; violences of every description were committed by their
barbarous pursuers; the females were outraged, the Priests severely wounded,
and many of the worshippers seized and forced away to prison. Unfortunately,
on the very day of Chrysostom's departure, the cathedral took fire; and it
being at once suspected that his followers were guilty of planning its
destruction, they were pursued and punished with redoubled cruelty. A Priest
and a Reader were submitted to the most dreadful tortures to force from them a
confession of the crime; but persisting in the assertion of their innocence,
the one was kept on the rack till he expired, and the other, having had
sufficient strength to endure his agonies, was sent to die in exile.

Chrysostom himself was treated without any regard either to his station, or
the infirmities of his constitution. The officer and soldiers to whose custody
he had been committed, compelled him to travel day and night without
cessation, till they arrived at Cæsarea, in Cap-

* Socrat., Hist. Eccles., lib. vi., cap. 18.

padocia, where he was seized with a severe fever, the necessary consequence of
the extreme fatigue to which his exhausted frame had been exposed. He trusted,
however, that he should be allowed to repose for a time in quiet, now that he
was so far beyond the reach of the affectionate people who had provoked his
enemies by rising in his defence. In this he was disappointed: he had hardly
prepared himself for rest, when a party of rude and bigoted Monks surrounded
the house in which he was lodged, and demanded his instant dismissal. The
Governor of the town for some time endeavoured to appease the intolerant
rancour of these religionists; but his efforts were repulsed with indignation,
and the unfortunate Prelate was obliged to resume his journey, suffering as he
was under the violent attacks of an acute fever. For more than a month he was
exposed to the united evils of sickness, confinement in the midst of savage,
implacable soldiers, and the many other troubles which to a sick and nervous
traveller could not be trifling. At length, after a journey occupying about
seventy days, he arrived with his guards at the town of Arcasias, among the
ridges of Mount Taurus, where he was received by the Bishop of the place in a
manner so affectionate, that it almost atoned for the toil to which he had
been unjustly subjected in his long and painful travel. The same attention was
also shown him by a wealthy layman of the town, who afforded him a comfortable
lodging in his house, and sought, by every means in his power, to save him
from the injuries of the severe climate to which he was thus suddenly exposed.
For three years was the illustrious Prelate confined in this remote region;
but his solitude and privations neither diminished the rancour of his enemies,
nor injured the activity of his mind. The attempts which were made in his
favour by numerous partisans, as well in the West as in the East, stirred up
the base and interested faction which had procured his deposition, to employ
the vilest arts to prevent his restoration. How little he feared their
menaces, or was deterred by them from pursuing the course which his conscience
had marked out to him, was made sufficiently evident by the bold and extensive
plans he continued to form for the reformation of the church. Comprehending in
his paternal affection every district over which he could exercise any
influence, he from time to time addressed the people in letters, the eloquence
of which lost none of its force from the recollection of his misfortunes; but,
by its effect on the popular mind, made both his private enemies, and the
enemies of religion itself, tremble for the success of their machinations. It
was while filled with apprehensions at these repeated attacks of the exiled
Bishop on their authority, that the party of Theophilus at Constantinople
renewed their appeals to the wavering Arcadius, and obtained an order for the
further removal of Chrysostom to the town of Pytius, a wretched, lonely place
at the extremity of the desert of that name, on the eastern shore of the
Euxine. The commission was executed in the same ruthless manner as that which
had directed his removal from Constantinople. Though suffering under the
weight of accumulating infirmities, he was hurried along with all the speed
which his robust and merciless guards could use; and he had not yet reached
the

PAGAN CORRUPTION.

coast of the Euxine, when the little strength he possessed was exhausted, and
he fell a martyr to their barbarity.*

It was truly lamentable to witness the unworthy advances which were made about
this time by Christianity, and encouraged by some of her leading Ministers,
with a view to reconcile at least her external differences with Paganism.†
And, no doubt, they were very effective in alluring those easy polytheists,
whose piety was satisfied with numerous festivals in celebration of the
exploits of mortals deified; for with them the change was only in the name of
the Deity, not in the principles of the religion. At the same time, it must be
observed, that the Pagans, on their side, made the concession of sacrifice, or
at least of immolation, which was the centre of their whole system. They were
indulged with a sort of polytheism of saints and martyrs, and even sensible
objects of worship were not withheld from them. But those beings and images
were to be approached only with prayer and supplication; and if it was
presently found expedient to permit offerings to be made to them, their
shrines were never contaminated with the blood of victims. By this degrading
compromise the church was filled by numerous converts, who believed, and who
were probably taught to believe, that the worship which they had deserted was
by no means essentially dissimilar from that which they had embraced; and who
continued, after their admission, to perpetuate and exaggerate those
corruptions by which alone the resemblance was created. Here, then, we
discover the root of several of the abuses of the Papacy: they were
concessions made during this critical period to the genius of Paganism, in
order to entice its votaries into more speedy conformity, and to accelerate
the dissolution of the one religion into the other. The immediate object was
accomplished: to diminish the numerical display of polytheism, and prematurely
to crowd the churches and processions with nominal Christians. But the lasting
result has been to darken and disfigure the features of Christianity, not in
one race only, or for one age, but through a period of which fourteen
centuries have already been accomplished, and of which we cannot yet foresee
the termination.‡ Various circumstances conduced to the approach of
Christianity to this polytheistic form, or at least to permit, what it is
difficult to call by any other name than "polytheistic" habits and feelings of
devotion. It attributed, however vaguely, to subordinate beings some of the
inalienable powers and attributes of

* Stebbing, History of the Christian Church, vol. i., p. 251. A heavy charge
has been brought against Chrysostom, on account of the efforts he made to
enlarge the boundaries and increase the power of his patriarchate. The
authority which he exercised led to the idea that he was a sort of Vicar to
the Roman Pontiff: a notion which could only have had its rise among the most
zealous defenders of the Papal supremacy. (See Baanage, Histoire de l'Eglise,
lib. vi., cap. 2.)

† In the year 410, Synesius a Platonic philosopher of Cyrene, was ordained
Bishop of Ptolemais, by Theophilus of Alexandria. Synesius remonstrated
against this election, declared himself to be a Platonist, and specified
several points in which his speculative opinions differed from those of the
Christians. But as he was an agreeable orator, and had much influence in the
province, his objections were overlooked, and after receiving baptism he
entered upon his episcopal functions. This is far from being the only instance
of the pliancy of the early church, at a period, too, when it had no excuse
from fear or persecution. (Waddington.)

‡ Waddington, History of the Church, vol. i., p. 235.

3 G the Deity. Under the whole of this form lay the sum of Christian doctrine;
but that which was constantly presented to the minds of men was the host of
subordinate, indeed, but still active and influential, mediators between the
Deity and the world of man. Throughout (as has already been, and will
presently again be indicated) existed the vital and essential difference
between Christianity and Paganism. It is possible that the controversies about
the Trinity, and the divine nature of Christ, tended indirectly to the
promotion of this worship of the Virgin, of angels, of saints, and martyrs.
The great object of the victorious, to a certain extent, of both parties, was
the closest approximation—in one sense, the identification—of the Saviour with
the unseen and incomprehensible Deity. Though the human nature of Christ was
as strenuously asserted in theory, it was not dwelt upon with the same
earnestness and constancy as his divine. To magnify, to purify this from all
earthly leaven, was the object of all eloquence: theologic disputes on this
point withdrew or diverted the attention from the life of Christ as simply
related in the Gospels. Christ became the object of a remoter, a more awful,
adoration. The mind therefore began to seek out, or eagerly to seize, some
other more material beings in closer alliance with human sympathies. The
constant propensity of man to humanize his Deity, checked, as it were, by the
receding majesty of the Saviour, readily clung with its devotion to humbler
objects.* The weak wing of the common and unenlightened mind could not soar to
the unapproachable light in which Christ dwelt with the Father: it dropped to
the earth, and bowed itself down before some less mysterious object of
veneration. In theory it was always a different and inferior kind of worship;
but the feelings, especially impassioned devotion, know no logic: they pause
not; it would chill them to death if they were to pause for these fine and
subtle distinctions. The gentle ascent by which admiration, reverence,
gratitude, and love, swelled up to awe, to veneration, to worship, both as
regards the feelings of the individual and the general sentiment, was
imperceptible. Men passed from rational respect for the remains of the dead,†
the communion of holy thought and emotion, which might connect the departed
saint with his brethren in the flesh, to the superstitious veneration of
relics, and the deification of mortal men, by so easy a transition, that they
never

* The progress of the worship of saints and angels has been fairly and
impartially traced by Shroeck, and others. In the account of the martyrdom of
Polycarp, it is said, "We love the martyrs as disciples and followers of the
Lord." The Fathers of the next period leave the saints and martyrs in a kind
of intermediate state, the bosom of Abraham, or paradise, as explained by
Tertullian, contra Marcion, iv. 34; Apologet 47. Compare Iren. adv. Harres.
v., cap. 31; Justin. Dialog. cum Tryph.; Orig. Homil. vi., in Levit.

† The growth of the worship of relics is best shown by the prohibitory law of
Theodosius, against the removal and sale of saints' bodies. "Nemo martyres
distrahat, nemo mercetur." Augustine denies that worship was ever offered to
Apostles or saints. "Quis autem audivit aliquando fidelium stantem sacerdotem
ad altare etiam super sanctum corpus martyris ad Dei honorem cultumque
constructum, dicere in precibus, Offero tibi sacrificium, Petre vel Paule, vel
Cypriane, cum apud eorum memorias offeratur Deo qui eos et homines et martyres
fecit, et sanctis suis angelis coelesti honore sociavit." De Civit. Dei, viii.
27. Compare xvii. 10, where he asserts miracles to be performed at their
tombs. (Milman.)

INTERCESSION OF SAINTS.

discovered the precise point at which they had transgressed the unmarked and
unwatched boundary.

This new polytheizing Christianity, therefore, was still subordinate and
subsidiary, to adopt the language of Mr. Milman, in the theologic creed to the
true Christian worship; but it usurped its place in the heart, and rivalled it
in the daily language and practices of devotion. The worshipper felt and
acknowledged his dependency, and looked for protection or support to these new
intermediate beings, the intercessors with the great Intercessor. They were
arrayed by the general belief in some of the attributes of the Deity.
According to that belief, they had ubiquity; the perpetual cognizance of the
affairs of the earth; they could hear the prayer; they could read the heart;
they could control nature; they had power, derivative, indeed, from a higher
source, but still exercised according to their volition over all the events of
the world. Thus each city, and almost each individual, began to have his
tutelar saint; the presence of some beatified being hovered over and hallowed
particular spots; and thus the strong influence of local and particular
worships combined again with that great universal faith of which the supreme
Father was the sole object and the universal temple.* Still, however, this new
polytheism differed in its influence, as well as in its nature, from that of
Paganism. It bore a constant reference to another state of existence. Though
the office of the tutelary being was to avert and mitigate temporal suffering,
yet it was still more so to awaken and keep alive the sentiments of the
religious being. They were not merely the agents of the divine providential
government on earth, but indissolubly connected with the hopes and fears of
the future state of existence.†

This mournful state of affairs gives an involuntary interrogative, and
suggests a melancholy answer. The influence of the Clergy must evidently have
been greatly diminished, or the manners of their respective congregations
could never have acquired that strong taint of corruption to which so many
allusions are made in the writings of the times. Or, if this were not the
case, the Clergy in general must themselves have ceased to lay that stress
upon sanctity as an essential in the Christian character which formerly
constituted the basis of their addresses. Whichever be true, there can be
little

* An illustration of the new form assumed by Christian worship may be
collected from the works of Paulinus, who, in eighteen poems, celebrates the
nativity of Felix, the tutelary saint of Nola. Felix is at least invested with
the powers ascribed to the intermediate deities of antiquity. Pilgrims crowded
from the whole of the south of Italy to the festival of Felix. Rome herself,
though she possessed the altars of the Apostles Peter and Paul, poured forth
her myriads; the Capenian gate was choked, the Appian Way was covered, with
the devout worshippers. Multitudes came from beyond the sea. Felix is implored
by his servants to remove the impediments to their pilgrimages from the
hostility of men, or adverse weather; to smooth the sea, and send propitious
winds. There is constant reference indeed to Christ, as the source of this
power; yet the power is fully and explicitly assigned to the saint. He is the
prevailing intercessor between the worshipper and Christ. But the vital
distinction between this paganizing form of Christianity and Paganism itself
is no less manifest in these poems. It is not merely as a tutelary deity in
this life that the saint is invoked; the future state of existence, and the
final judgment, are constantly present to the thoughts of the worshipper.
Felix is entreated after death to bear the souls of his worshippers into the
bosom of the Redeemer, and to intercede for them at the last day. (Milman.)

† Milman, History of Christianity, vol. III., p. 543.

3 G 2 doubt that the superior orders of the hierarchy, with the exception of
some few distinguished men, no longer exhibited those examples of self-denial
and meekness, of patient piety and laborious attention to their duties, which
had till of late been the sole foundation on which they rested their claims to
the respect of the people. There were several causes, perhaps, at work in the
production of this change; but the most prominent, and apparently the most
active, was the too great familiarity which the heads of churches had
contracted with courts and Princes. John the Baptist could occupy only the
dungeon of Herod's palace, and sad would it have been for the early community
had Paul, won by the praises of Festus or Felix, become their convert, while
he endeavoured to make them his. But the wretched condition of the empire
contributed in no small degree to disturb the tranquillity and advancement of
the church. Christians appeared to have embarked their chief treasure in the
same vessel as the rest of mankind; and having been delivered by the mercy of
God from the evils of present persecution, they seemed to have returned to the
world, that they might suffer in its miseries and toil.

Theodosius had ceased to reign several years before Chrysostom was summoned to
the pontifical throne of Constantinople. The East was governed by women and
eunuchs. In assuming the episcopal throne of the metropolis, to which he is
said to have been transported almost by force, Chrysostom, who could not but
be conscious of his power over the minds of men, might entertain visions of
the noblest and purest ambition. His views of the dignity of the sacerdotal
character were as lofty as those of his contemporaries in the West: while he
asserted the authority which set them apart and far above the rest of mankind,
he demanded a moral superiority, and entire devotion to their calling, which
could not but rivet their authority upon the minds of men. The Clergy, such as
his glowing imagination conceived them, would unite the strongest corporate
spirit with the highest individual zeal and purity. The influence of the
Bishop in Antioch, the deference which Theodosius had shown to the
intercession of Flavianus, might encourage Chrysostom in the fallacious hope
of restoring peace, virtue, and piety, as well as orthodoxy, in the imperial
city. But in the East, more particularly in the metropolis, the sacerdotal
character never assumed the unassailable sanctity, the awful inviolability,
which it attained in the West. The religion of Constantinople was that of the
Emperor. Instead of growing up like the Bishop of Rome, first to independence,
afterwards to sovereignty, the presence of the imperial government overawed
and obscured the religious supremacy. In Rome, the Bishop was subject at all
times to the rebellious control of the aristocracy, or exposed to the
irreverent fury of the populace; but he constantly emerged from his transient
obscurity, and resumed his power. In Constantinople, a voluptuous court, a
savage populace, at this period multitudes of concealed Arians, and heretics
of countless shades and hues, at all periods thwarted the plans, debased the
dignity, and desecrated the person of the Patriarch of Constantinople.*

* Milman, History of Christianity, vol. iii., p. 218.

DECLINE OF LEARNING.

A canon of the Council of Carthage, which was held a short period previous to
this era, forbade the study of secular books by the Bishops; and this event
has marked a crisis in the history of Christian literature. A deplorable
dearth of learning followed this crisis, and scarcely three names were
recognised as celebrated for any talent or acquirement. However, we must not
attribute this rapid defection to the injudicious ordinance in question; since
its authority was not universal, and since injunctions of that description are
seldom obeyed except by such as are previously disposed to receive them. It
was an index, rather than a cause, of the altering spirit of the church; and
as such we record it. The real reasons of that defection, and of the darkness
which followed it, are two: the first of these, which alone perhaps might
gradually have completed the extinction of sound learning, was the internal
corruption of Christianity, and the spreading influence of Monachism. An age
of prodigies and relics and Stylites, was not proper for the growth of genius,
or the cultivation of knowledge; and the little of either which survived in
the East, may have owed its existence to the dissensions of the Christians, as
much as to their virtues. The second reason was the frequent irruption and
final settlement of the barbarian conquerors. This cause was, indeed, confined
almost entirely to the provinces of the West; but the wounds which it
inflicted there were deeper and of more extensive influence than might at
first have been apprehended. It afforded a fearful prospect, that those hordes
of colonists were wholly uninstructed in literary acquirements, and even
generally prejudiced against them. Theodoric himself, the wisest, as well as
the best, among their Princes, while he respected the superior civilization of
the vanquished, despised and disclaimed that art, which seemed to be employed
for no other end than to inflame and perpetuate religious controversy. He
could never be prevailed upon to learn to read. But the cause which increased
and prolonged that mischief, and created many others, was the superstitious
disposition which the invaders brought with them. They had learnt, as a
rudiment of their own religion, a subservient reverence for their priesthood,
and this principle accompanied them into the Christian church; the priesthood
received without reluctance the unbounded homage which was offered to them;
their authority grew with that obsequiousness, and their ambition swelled with
their authority; and when they found how easily this could be maintained and
extended over a credulous people, and how certainly credulity is the offspring
of ignorance, they became interested in perpetuating blindness and prejudice.*

Notwithstanding the deterioration of Christianity, it continued to spread into
the regions of Paganism. The inhabitants of Libanus and Anti-Libanus accepted
baptism from a Syrian Monk, whose name and title are still famous. Simeon
Stylites, or Simeon of the Pillar, had for many years sat, knelt, or stood on
the top of a lofty pillar within the enclosure of a rude cloister in the
desert of Telanessa, receiving the applausees of the whole country, giving
audience

* Waddington, History of the Church, vol. i., p. 261.

to applicants of all ranks, who expected him to afford them miraculous
assistance, and uttering decisions on theological disputes. The story of the
conversion of the Libanites, divested of fabulous ornament, may perhaps be
thus related. Those Heathens had fallen under the terror of a superstition
still rife in some parts of the East, and believed in the transformation of
human beings into beasts of prey.* Cunning impostors kept up the delusion
until it became insufferable, and they betook themselves to the saint of the
pillar, trusting that his power would prove superior to that of their
tormentors. He enjoined on them, first, the solemn erection of crosses in the
most troubled parts of their country; secondly, watches to be kept around
those crosses for three days together, and as many nights; (a proceeding
admirably calculated to overawe the nocturnal ramblers, who imitated the
howlings of wild beasts;) and, thirdly, a general baptism. The scheme
succeeded so well, that the poor creatures fancied themselves Christians. The
influence of the Stylite was also increased beyond measure; his enmity might
have been formidable; and we are sorry to learn from Evagrius, that
Theodosius, after he had compelled the Christians of Antioch to restore to the
Jews of that city the synagogues of which they had taken forcible possession,
was induced, by his remonstrances, to rescind his own act, give sanction to
the robbery,† displace the Magistrate who had interceded with him on behalf of
the persecuted Jews, and ask pardon of the aerial saint, who feared no other
Emperor but God.

Many of the barbarian tribes also, in establishing themselves in their newly-
acquired conquests, embraced the faith; and even a large body of Jews,
inhabitants of Crete, opening their eyes to the true meaning of their
prophetic records, acknowledged their fulfilment in the person of Christ. The
immediate cause of their conversion deserves to be mentioned, as indicative of
the ready attention given in this age to the boldest pretenders to divine
authority. One of their own nation, taking advantage of their enthusiasm,
declared himself to be Moses, and asserted that he had been sent from heaven
to conduct them through the sea to the land of promise, as he had done in
ancient times through the Red Sea. Having assured them, moreover, that they
had no farther need of money, on the day appointed for their setting forth, he
led them to a promontory which overhung the sea, and commanded them to leap
with confidence into the deep. The foremost ranks of the deluded multitude
instantly obeyed; and while numbers of them sunk to rise no more, others lay
mangled on the sharp points of the jutting rocks, or were seen struggling for
life amid the waves. Some were saved by the humane exertions of fishermen and
Christian merchants; and the rest of the assembly, undeceived by the miserable
fate of their companions, gladly returned to their homes, and, having been led
to reflection, forthwith embraced Christianity. The impostor himself was never
more seen or heard

* See Gobat's Journal of three Years' Residence in Abyssinia, on the Bondas,
May 18th, 1830; Life, &c., of Nathanael Pearce, vol. ii., Appendix I., and
compare with the account of Simeon given by Assemann, Bibliotheca Orientalis,
i., 242, seq.

† Evagrius, Hist. Eccles. i., 13.

PERSECUTION IN PERSIA.

of; and it was the belief of many, that he must have been an evil spirit in a
human shape.

In this century Ireland was converted by the preaching of the celebrated
Patrick, who, after labouring in that country forty years, at length
established a metropolitan church at Armagh. Whatever degree of prosperity,
moreover, may seem indicated by this event, it was fearfully counterbalanced
by the violence which the yet unconverted barbarians exercised against the
vanquished Christians, and by the dissensions which prevailed to so deplorable
an extent among the Christians themselves. On looking beyond the immediate
confines of Christendom, a still darker scene presents itself.

Persia, about the year 421, was deluged with Christian blood, and tortures
were endured by the faithful not inferior to those which had been suffered by
their forefathers in the reign of Nero. Even here, however, our sympathy is
checked by well-grounded suspicions, that this persecution owed its origin as
much to the imprudence of the Christians as to the cruelty or enmity of the
Persians. The first occasion of dispute was afforded by Abda, Bishop of Suza,
who pulled down one of the temples dedicated to fire; and, on refusing to
repair the injury at the command of the King, was put to death. The Persians
appear to have satisfied themselves on this occasion with retaliating on the
sect in general, by pulling down their churches; and the fiercer spirit of
revenge which broke out some time after, is attributable to the belief which
prevailed, that the Romans, then at war with Persia, were aided by their
secret counsels. On the death of Isdegerdes, the Persian King, the nation, as
if by hereditary succession, devolved the war against the church upon his son
Gororanes; and it is not easy to describe the various species of punishments
which were invented to torture the faithful. Some had their hands flayed, and
others their backs. Some had the skin torn off the face, from the forehead to
the chin. Others had reeds, which had been split in half, fastened round their
bodies, and bound on as tightly as possible, from head to foot, then each of
the reeds was dragged off with great force, bearing with it the adjacent skin.
This operation occasioned great agony. The persecutors also dug pits, and
filled them with mice: they then threw the pious defenders of the faith into
these pits, after having first bound their hands and their feet, so that they
could not drive off the vermin. The mice, pressed by hunger, devoured their
flesh, thus occasioning exquisite torture. Besides these cruelties, the
persecutors devised and executed yet more barbarous punishments, which were
suggested to them by the enemy of human nature and truth. But nothing could
shake the fortitude of these defenders of the faith. Some of them voluntarily
surrendered themselves to the persecutors, desiring to receive the death which
leads to immortal life. I shall, says Theodoret, relate the sufferings of two
or three of these holy men, in order that their fortitude may convey an idea
of that of others. Hormisdas was descended from the illustrious race of
Aclemenides, and was the son of a Prefect. When the King heard that he was a
Christian, he sent for him, and desired him to deny God the Saviour. But he
told the King, that this command was neither just nor expedient. "Whoever,"
said he, "can be easily induced to contemn and deny the God of the universe,
would be much more easily persuaded to despise Kings, who are but men, and by
nature subject to death. If it be a crime deserving capital punishment, O
King," continued he, "to deny your power, how much more deserving of
punishment is he who denies the Creator of all things!" The King, instead of
admiring the wisdom of this admirable speech, deprived him of his possessions
and of his honours, and commanded him to take charge of the camels of the
army. After many days had elapsed, the King, as he was looking through a
window, caught sight of this great man, and perceived that he had become
tanned by the heat of the sun, and that he was covered with dust. Remembering
his illustrious parentage, the King sent for him, and ordered him to be
attired in a linen tunic. Then, thinking that his mind would be subdued by his
former labour, contrasted with the present kind treatment afforded him, he
said to him, "Do not now persist in carrying on this contention, but renounce
the Son of the carpenter." Hormisdas, full of divine zeal, tore, in the
presence of the King, the tunic which he had given him, and said, "If by this
present you thought to seduce me from religion, take back your gift." The
King, perceiving his fortitude, banished him, naked as he was, out of the
kingdom. The King also discovering that Suenas, a wealthy man possessed of a
thousand slaves, would not consent to deny his Creator, asked him which of his
slaves was the most wicked. To this very slave the King gave authority over
the whole family, and desired that he should be waited on by his master. He
also gave the wife of Suenas in marriage to this slave; hoping by these means
to subdue the faith of this defender of the truth. But this hope was
frustrated; for Suenas had built his house upon a rock. A certain Deacon,
named Benjamin, was seized, and cast into prison. Two years after, a Roman
Ambassador arrived in Persia, who was sent upon some special embassy. He heard
of the imprisonment of the Deacon, and entreated the King to release him. The
King consented, on condition that Benjamin would promise not to instruct any
of the Magi in the Christian doctrines. The Ambassador promised, in his own
name, that Benjamin would comply with this condition. But Benjamin, on hearing
the declaration of the Ambassador, exclaimed, "I cannot refrain from
communicating the light which I have received. The punishment of which those
are worthy who hide their talents, is declared in the holy Gospel." The King,
not being aware that such a reply had been made by Benjamin, commanded him to
be released from captivity. After he had been set at liberty, he continued as
usual to seek out those who were in the darkness of ignorance, and to lead
them to the light of truth. About a year after, the King was informed of these
proceedings: he sent for him, and commanded him to deny the God he worshipped.
He asked the King what punishment would be merited by one of his subjects who
should leave the kingdom, and prefer to dwell in some other region? The King
having answered that he would be worthy of death, and of the greatest
vengeance, this wise man said, "Of what

CONSTANTINOPLE.

punishment, then, is not that man worthy, who forsakes his Creator to make a
god of one of his fellow-servants, and to render him the worship which he owes
to God!" The King was highly provoked at this reply, and commanded twenty
reeds to be forced up the nails of his hands and of his feet. But perceiving
that he turned this punishment into ridicule, he ordered pointed reeds to be
thrust into the most sensitive parts of his person, which produced unspeakable
agony. The generous defender of the faith was afterwards impaled, and in this
condition he gave up his spirit. Numberless other barbarities were perpetrated
by the Persians. It must not, however, be regarded as a matter of surprise,
that these acts of cruelty and impiety were permitted by the great Ruler of
the universe; for, previous to the reign of the great Emperor Constantine, all
the Roman Emperors furiously persecuted the defenders of the truth.
Diocletian, also, on the day of the commemoration of our Saviour's sufferings,
demolished all the sacred edifices which were in the Roman empire. But nine
years afterwards these churches were rebuilt in a far higher style of
magnificence and grandeur than before, whereas Diocletian perished in his
impiety. The wars in which the church was involved, and her subsequent
victory, were predicted by our Lord. It is evident, says Theodoret, that war
is more profitable to us than peace; for while the one renders us effeminate,
heedless, and timid, the other inspires us with vigilance, and with contempt
for the things which are passing away.*

The faithful of both sexes were still subject to heavy and protracted
persecution, especially in the East, and from members of the same persuasion,
and professing the common faith. The first whom we shall name was Nicarete, a
lady of Bithynia, who belonged to a very illustrious family, and well known on
account of her virtuous life and actions. She bore with invincible fortitude
the calamities which befell her; saw herself unjustly despoiled of the greater
part of her ample patrimony without manifesting any indignation, and managed
the little that remained to her with so much economy, that, although she was
advanced in age, she contrived to supply all the wants of her household, and
to contribute largely to the relief of the poor. To great charity she added so
much ingenuity, that she was able to compound medicines for those who were
suffering from sickness, and she frequently succeeded in curing patients who
had derived no benefit from the skill of the Physicians. Olympias, a
Deaconess, was dragged before the tribunal, and interrogated by the Prefect,
with regard to the charge of having set fire to the church at Constantinople.
She replied, "My past life ought to avert all suspicion from me; for I have
devoted my large property to the reconstruction and embellishment of the
churches of God." The Prefect alleged that he was well acquainted with her
past course of life. "Then," continued she, "you ought to appear as our
accuser, instead of sitting as our Judge." As the accusation against her was
wholly unsubstantiated by proof, and as the Prefect found that he had no
reason on which he could justly

* Theodoret Hist. Eccles., lib. v., cap. 39.

3 H blame her, he adopted another tone, and, as if desirous of advising her,
represented to her and the other ladies, that it was absurd in them to secede
from communion with their Bishop, and thereby entail trouble upon themselves.
They all deferred to the advice of the Prefect with the exception of Olympias,
who said to him, "It is not just that, after having been publicly calumniated
without having had anything proved against me, I should be obliged to clear
myself of charges totally unconnected with the accusation in question. Let me
rather take counsel concerning the original accusation that has been preferred
against me. For even if you resort to unlawful compulsion, I will not hold
communion with those from whom I ought to secede, nor consent to anything that
is contrary to the principles of piety." The Prefect, finding that he could
not prevail upon her to hold communion with Arsacius, dismissed her, that she
might consult the Advocates. On another occasion, however, he again sent for
her, and condemned her to pay a heavy fine; for he imagined that by this means
she would be compelled to change her mind. But she totally disregarded the
loss of her property, and quitted Constantinople for Cyzicus. Tigris, a
Presbyter, was, about the same period, stripped of his clothes, scourged on
the back, bound hand and foot, and stretched on the rack. He was a foreigner,
and an eunuch, but not by birth. He was originally a slave in the house of a
person of rank, and on account of his faithful services had obtained his
freedom. He was afterwards ordained as a Presbyter, and was distinguished by
his moderation and meekness of disposition, and by his charity towards
strangers and the poor. Eutropius, a Reader, was also required to name the
persons who had set fire to the church; but although he was scourged severely,
his sides and cheeks torn with iron nails, and lighted torches applied to the
most sensitive parts of his body, no confession could be extorted from him,
notwithstanding his youth and delicacy of constitution. After having been
subjected to these tortures, he was cast into a dungeon, where he soon after
expired.*

We have already dwelt on the condemnation of Chrysostom. He seized the first
opportunity the absence of his friends afforded him to surrender himself to
the imperial officers; but, owing to an earthquake which took place the same
night, he was forthwith recalled. It was but at an early period of this
century that Innocent, who occupied the episcopal chair at Rome, expired. On
account of his general acquaintance with the laws and traditions of the
church, he was frequently consulted by the Western and Eastern Prelates on
points both of faith and discipline: of this he took advantage to lay down,
with an air of authority, many false and dangerous principles, all tending to
the diminution of the episcopal power, and the advancement of the Papal. The
dignity of the apostolic see was the burden of his epistles, which he improved
into a claim of supremacy; and to him the episcopal chair of Rome was more
indebted for the grandeur it afterwards attained, than to all his
predecessors. He formed the plan of that spiritual monarchy which they, by
constant application, established at length, notwithstanding the almost
insurmountable

* Soxom., Hist. Eccles., lib. viii., cap. 24.

CHRYSOSTOM.

difficulties with which they had to contend. He was the first who, changing
the ancient foundation of the primacy, claimed it as the successor of Peter,
the Prince of the Apostles, and not as the Bishop of the first city, though on
that consideration alone it had been granted by the Councils. He claimed by
divine right the power of finally deciding all ecclesiastical controversies
and disputes, and thus an unlimited jurisdiction; and furnished his successors
with a pretence, to plead some antiquity for the opinions and principles which
they in a short period eagerly pursued,* and none more than Gregory VII. A
statue of the Empress Eudoxia was about to be erected, which gave fresh ground
of offence to the faithful, and on these occasions of public festivity the
people were wont to be indulged in dances, pantomimes, and every kind of
theatrical amusement. The zeal of Chrysostom was always especially directed
against these idolatrous amusements, and on this occasion his invective was
unsparing. An edict of the Emperor again suspended the Prelate, and fresh
tumults arose. In the midst of the solemn celebration of Good-Friday, the
military forced their way, not merely into the nave, but up to the altar, on
which were placed the consecrated elements. Many were trodden under foot; many
wounded by the swords of the soldiers; the Clergy were dragged to prison; some
females, who were about to be baptized, were obliged to flee with disordered
apparel; the water of the font was stained with blood; the soldiers pressed up
to the altar, and seized the sacred vessels as their plunder. Constantinople
for several days had the appearance of a city which had been stormed; and
wherever the partisans of Chrysostom were assembled, they were assaulted and
dispersed by the soldiery. His final banishment to Cucusus in Armenia took
place; but in that miserable seclusion he was not allowed peaceably to remain.
Sometimes his life was endangered by the invasion of the Isaurian marauders,
and he was obliged to take refuge in a neighbouring fortress, named Ardissa,
where he even encouraged the hope of restoration; but he did not calculate
aright the obstinate and implacable resentment of his persecutors. He was at
length ordered to be removed to Pityus, on the Euxine, a still more savage
place on the verge of the empire, and died on the journey thither. The most
remarkable feature in the persecution of Chrysostom is, that it arose not out
of difference of doctrine, or polemic hostility. No charge of heresy darkened
the pure fame of the great Christian orator. His persecution had not the
dignity of conscientious bigotry, it was a struggle for power between the
temporal and ecclesiastical supremacy; but the passions and personal
animosities of Ecclesiastics, the ambition, and perhaps the jealousy, of the
Alexandrian Patriarch, as to jurisdiction, lent themselves to the degradation
of the episcopal authority in Constantinople, from which it never rose. No
doubt the choleric temper, the overstrained severity, the monastic habits, the
ambition to extend his authority, perhaps beyond its legitimate bounds, and
the indiscreet zeal of Chrysostom, laid him open to his adversaries; but in
any other station, in the episco-

* Bower's History of the Popes, vol. 1., p. 328.

3 H 2 pate of any other city, these infirmities would have been lost in the
splendour of his talents and of his virtues. Though he might not have weaned
the general mass of the people from their vices, yet he would have commanded
their respect; and nothing less than a schism, arising out of religious
difference, would have shaken or impaired his authority. At all events, the
fall of Chrysostom was a warning which might repress the energy of future
Prelates; and doubtless the issue of this conflict materially tended to
degrade the office of the chief Bishop in the Eastern empire. And it may be
questioned whether the proximity of the court, and such a court as that of the
East, would, in any circumstances, have allowed the episcopate to assume its
legitimate power, far less to encroach on the temporal sovereignty. But after
this time, the Bishop of Constantinople almost became a mere officer of state:
appointed by the influence of, if not directly nominated by, the Emperor, his
gratitude was bound to reverence, or his prudence to dread, that arbitrary
power which had raised him from nothing, and might dismiss him to his former
insignificance. Except on some rare occasions, he bowed with the rest of the
empire before the capricious will of the Sovereign, or the ruling favourite;
he was content if the Emperor respected the outward ceremonial of the church,
and did not openly espouse any heretical doctrine.*

The veneration of the relics of martyrs, which began very early,† now became
excessive; being, indeed, but another form of Heathenism.‡ During the perilous
and gloomy days of persecution, the reverence for those who endured martyrdom
for the religion of Christ had grown up out of the best feelings of man's
improved nature. Reverence gradually grew into veneration, worship, adoration.
Although the more enlightened maintained a marked distinction between the
honour shown to the martyrs, and that addressed to God, the line was too fine
not to be transgressed by excited popular feeling. The Heathen writers
constantly taunt the Christians with the substituting of the new idolatry for
the old. The charge of worshipping dead men's bones, and the remains of
malefactors, constantly recurs. A pagan philosopher, in the fourth century,
contemptuously selects some barbarous names of African martyrs, and inquires
whether they are more worthy objects of worship than Minerva or Jove.§ But the
modern sceptic, whose derision falls equally on Christianity and on the
practices of those who have corrupted Christianity, while he discerus but
little ridiculous in the idolatry which it displaced, must be reminded that
Paganism abounded

* Milman, History of Christianity, vol. iii., p. 238.

† Mosheim, De Reb. Christ. ante Const., Sec. I., sec. 32.

‡ Rochette, in his essays, has illustrated the extraordinary care with which
the Heathen buried along with the remains of the dead every kind of utensil,
implements of trade, down to the dolls of children; even food and knives and
forks. This appears from all the tombs which are opened, from the most ancient
Etruscan, to the most modern Heathen, sopsichres.

§ "Quis enim ferat Jovi fulmina vibranti præferri Mygdonenem; Junoni, Minerva,
Veneri, Vestæque Sanaem, et cunctis (prop nefas!) diis immortalibus
archimartyrem Nymphanionem, inter quos Lucitas hand minore catu suscipitur,
atque alii interminato numero; diisque hominibusque odiosa nomina." (See
August. Epistol., xvi.)

PULCHERIA.

in absurdities equally gross, to say the least, and in traditions immeasurably
more monstrous.

Theodosius the Younger succeeded his father Arcadius, but the government was
in the hands of Anthemius the Prefect for several years, when it was assumed
by Pulcheria, the sister of Theodosius, who held it till his death in 450. In
421 he had married Eudocia, the daughter of Leontius, an Athenian sophist.
Theodosius was a weak Prince. The whole government was carried on in his name;
but he blindly acquiesced in all that his sister did. His long reign was one
of almost undisturbed peace, and is memorable for the collection of laws that
was made in it, and known by the name of Codex Theodosianus, which was
completed and promulgated in the Eastern empire, 438. The comparative
imbecility of Theodosius brought forward, in bold relief, Pulcheria, of whom
Sozomen relates that, although she was not yet fifteen years of age when
Arcadius died, she had received a spirit of piety and wisdom beyond her years,
determined to remain unmarried, and persuaded her sisters to do the same, lest
any other man should, by means of relationship with them, usurp the empire, to
the exclusion of their brother, or be the occasion of envy and intrigues.
While she provided the best masters for her brother during his minority, she
applied herself assiduously to study, that she might speak and write correctly
both Greek and Latin. She built churches, and enriched them with costly gifts;
honoured the Ministers of religion and all good men, assisted those who
desired to prosecute sacred studies, laboured to prevent the circulation of
heretical doctrine, erected buildings for the reception of paupers, and
monasteries for those who wished to leave, as they thought, the world. She and
her devout sisters were reputed to possess the gift of prophecy: a gift once
possessed by some members of the church, but probably withdrawn long before
her day. The imperial family, under her direction, was distinguished by
simplicity and frugality, and a severe and conventual style of living, utterly
unlike the magnificence usually found in palaces.* This same writer adds to
his record of easily-attested facts a tale about the apparition of a deceased
martyr to Pulcheria, for the sake of directing her to a spot where the bones
of forty martyrs lay interred;† but this may safely be rejected as incredible,
because contrary to many evidences of holy Scripture, that, far from affording
supernatural inducements to the veneration of relics, or of so called holy
places, it has always pleased God to obviate or to discourage all such
superstitious practices.

Meanwhile, the decline of the Western empire was accelerated by the cowardice
of Honorius at its head, the murder of his faithful and often victorious
General, Stilicho, and the sack of Rome by Alaric the Goth. The province of
Africa was agitated by the Donatist controversy; and multitudes of ultra-
Donatists, distinguished as Circumcelliones, committed the most barbarous
excesses, roaming over the country, and murdering the members of the original
church, whether Clergy or laity, wherever they could do so with impunity. A
decree

* Sozomen., Hist. Eccles., lib. ix., cap. 1, 3.

† Ibid., lib. ix., cap. 2.

of Honorius, granting them liberty of conscience, had but emboldened them to
greater violence; and, at an assemblage of both the parties at Carthage, in
the year 410, where Augustine pleaded powerfully on the side of ecclesiastical
order, it was found impossible to effect a reconciliation; and, as all parties
were accustomed, in those days, to appeal to the Emperor, Theodosius II.,
successor of Honorius, confirmed the sentence of his representative, who had
presided at the Council, and issued a decree condemnatory of the Donatists
altogether, involving alike the peaceable and the turbulent in the penalties
of fine, confiscation, or banishment, and even inflicting death on the most
obstinate. The penalties were excessive, no doubt, and imperial justice might
have been satisfied with suppressing outrages of public peace; but the
Donatists cannot be acknowledged worthy of memory among Christian martyrs.
They took the sword, and, in turn, perished by the sword. The same weapon was
employed, without so fair a pretext, not by an Emperor, but by a Bishop,—by
Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, who, under pretence of purifying the
monasteries of the desert of Nitria, in Egypt, from the errors of Origenism,
employed soldiers to drive out the Monks, and chase them from the country.

The son of a Hungarian soldier, if not born, at least educated, at Ticinum, in
Italy, the present Pavia, received the first lessons and hallowing influences
of Christianity in early childhood. When only ten years of age, he sought
peace to his soul, became a catechumen of the church, and would gladly have
incorporated himself at once in a monastic fraternity, to escape the
discomfort of a pagan home; but his father, being a military Tribune in the
imperial service, and probably full of the martial spirit which still
characterizes the people of Hungary, constrained him to enter the army. At
eighteen he was baptized, and, at the age of twenty, after having borne arms
for two years, put off the material armour, and, in the pursuance of the long-
cherished desire, became a Monk. But it was after the Christians in Tours, a
city and diocese of Gaul, had unanimously elected him to be their Bishop, that
Martin of Tours rose into eminence as an unwearied propagator of external
Christianity in that province. Sometimes he dwelt in his monastery, surrounded
by about eighty disciples, whose extreme veneration magnified even his
ordinary actions into achievements of supernatural power; or, attended by
multitudes of willing followers, he travelled from place to place, overturning
the altars, and demolishing the temples, of enfeebled Paganism, and rearing
Christian churches in their stead. Yet he inflicted no cruelty on the
frequenters of those temples; and, although his rude zeal, with the trifling
miracles attributed to him by his biographer, Sulpicius Severus, with the
credulity then prevalent, might obscure the real excellence of his character,
his remonstrances against the conduct of the Bishops who caused the judicial
murder of the heretic Priscillian, his diligence, zeal, and habitual self-
denial, must claim our respect, regardless of the opposite treatment his
memory has received from the Romanists who adore him as canonized, and from
the gentle spirits of our day who regard him as a fanatic. We will at least
rejoice in those names which

PAULINUS OF NOLA.

figure in the Papal Breviary, of which it cannot be said that the men who bore
them ever shed the blood either of heretic or martyr.

The authenticated legends of this devoted man contain no mention of this
brightest feature of his character; but his demolition of the half-deserted
fanes marked him as the final conqueror of Druidism; and the ancient Christian
Gauls believed so devoutly in his valour and sanctity, that they carried his
cloak with them to battle to insure victory; and it is remarked that Martin
was the first confessor, the first who, without being martyred, received
worship in the Latin church. But in the fifth century the Latin church was
declining so rapidly, that its most active and eminent Clergy were unable to
stem the current. Of this unhappy position Paulinus, Bishop of Nola, is an
example. Surrounded by a grossly ignorant and ungodly population, and
destitute of the baptism of the Holy One, which would have given him
resistless power over the people of his diocese, he endeavoured, by external
decorations, to supply the nakedness of the sanctuaries deserted of their
glory. The deplorable idleness and dissoluteness of the crowds who came into
Nola to celebrate the festivals, and especially the vigils, or nocturnal
assemblies, are described and lamented by himself. They were so utterly
untaught as not to know the common rules of Christian decency; and in their
drunken carousals spilt the too abundant wine on the tombs of the saints;* and
therefore, while, in classic and even scriptural style, he adorned both the
interior and exterior of his church with inscriptions, which might instruct
the few who could read them, he had paintings placed on the walls, that
representations of the passage of the Red Sea, Joshua and the ark of God, Job
covered with ulcers, Tobit smitten with blindness, and of Esther and Judith,
examples of female excellence, might engage the visitors to remain within the
building, and hear explanations of the pictures, instead of indulging their
appetites in the neighbourhood,† during the intervals of public worship. But
the glutton and the drunkard soon saw enough: the sermons of Paulinus, however
entertaining, did not reach the heart, and could not subdue the passions; and
the failure stands recorded in reproof to those who would foist upon the
people the lead of an aesthetic substitute, for the pure gold of Gospel truth.
Paulinus meant well, no doubt; and it would be unjust to charge him with
idolatry, although he unintentionally encouraged its entrance, and ought to
have respected a decision of the Council of Elvira, published a few years
before, that paintings were not to be exhibited in churches, lest they should
become an occasion of idolatry. One of our most excellent ecclesiastical
historians‡ observes, that "the written word was neglected, and these poor
substitutes were placed in its room." It was so eventually; but it is due to
the name of Paulinus to say, that he made provision of the word of God in that
very church, by having copies ready for perusal in a secretarium, or distinct
apartment, with this inscription over the door:—

* Paulin, Carm. ad Felicem Martyrem.

† Paulin, Natal. Felicis, lib. ix., x.

‡ Milner, cent. viii., chap. 3.

"Si quem sancta tenet meditandi in lege voluntas,

Hic potarit residens sacris intendere libris."

"If any one feels a holy desire to meditate in the law, he may sit down here
and peruse the sacred books." * The fearful sin of hiding the word of God had
not yet been committed.

Jerome, a man of the preceding century, enjoyed, during the first twenty years
of the fifth, a universal fame. His knowledge of the

Hebrew language and some of its cognate dialects, at that time a rare, and
almost singular, attainment, qualified him to translate the Old

Testament into Latin, independently of the Septuagint Greek version;

to comment on the text in a manner far superior to that of his contemporaries,
especially Origen; and to leave invaluable literary treasures to the church,
in his Version and biblical writings, which have already done much to
counteract the force of errors propagated by himself.

The student of sacred literature will always value the works of Jerome;

but, on the other hand, it cannot be concealed that his asceticism was equal
to his industry, and his impatience to his learning. It does not fall within
the design of this work to portray with minute precision the character of one
in whom were united the lore of the

Rabbins, and the erudition of Italy and Greece; who was equally at home and
equally influential in the monastic cells of Bethlehem, and in the palaces of
Rome; at whose feet noble ladies and sordid Monks alternately poured their
confessions, and who comprehended within the circle of amicable
correspondence, or theological controversy, the most eminent persons of his
day. He appears on this page chiefly as the opponent of Vigilantius.†
Vigilantius is said to have been a native of Aquitaine, although he lived in
Spain, was a Presbyter at

Barcelona, and would be generally regarded as a Spaniard. Mariana calls him a
native of Pamplona; but others have contended that he was not a Spaniard, but
a Gaul, and that therefore the virgin soil of

Spain suffers not the pollution of his birth. Be it so. He was a

Gaul, but spent most of his time in Spain, and found many of the best men
there to be quite of one mind with him. When a young man, he went to Italy,
where he was kindly received by Paulinus,

Bishop of Nola, who probably had known him when at Barcelona, and who
entertained a high opinion of his piety. Bearing a letter commentatory from
this friend, Vigilantius proceeded to Palestine, and presented himself to
Jerome. The learned anchorite gave him a cordial welcome, and, when speaking
of him afterwards, scrupled not to call him "the holy Priest Vigilantius;"
which he certainly would not have done had there been anything unseemly in his
deportment, or if at that time the views of the stranger had been contrary to
his own.

But, during a short residence in Palestine, and travels in Egypt and the East,
where monachism was far more prevalent and more austere and superstitious than
as yet in Europe, Vigilantius perceived its evil tendencies; and, on his
return to Barcelona, openly declared against

* Paulin., epist. xii., ad Severum.

† Jorinian is associated with Vigilantius, both in the history of Jerome and
in the list of heretics; but so little is known of Jorinian, that he cannot be
more than mentioned here.

VIGILANTIUS.

the whole system, and found many, both of the Clergy and the laity, quite
willing to receive his doctrine, and second his endeavours to cast off the
load of trifles which had recently obscured the purity of both faith and
worship. He taught that relics ought not to be carried about, or laid up in
the churches, as objects of religious veneration, much less worshipped,
according to the practice of some, whom he called contemptuously cinerarii, or
ashes-men, because they revered the bones and ashes of the dead. He further
insisted that it was sinful to pay the accustomed honours at the tombs of the
martyrs; that nocturnal assemblies were occasions of crime, and ought to be
suppressed, a fact which the history of that century indubitably attests; that
celibacy, which had been lately introduced into the church, was a heresy, and
the spurious chastity of ecclesiastics and recluses merely a veil of secret
abominations. "What need hast thou," said he, as we find in an extract
produced by Jerome, "what need hast thou, not only to honour with so great
honour, but also to adore, that—I know not what to call it—which thou keepest
with so much care carried about in that little box?" And, again, in the same
book: "Why dost thou kiss that dust, wrapped up for worship in a cloth?" And,
further: "After the fashion of the Gentiles, we see introduced into churches,
under pretext of religion, while yet the sun is shining, heaps of wax tapers
lighted, and people kissing a bit of dust, or whatever it is, inclosed in a
little box, and wrapped in precious linen. Men of this kind pay great honour
to the blessed martyrs, whom they think to render illustrious by such vile
ceremonies, but whom the Lamb that is in the midst of the throne enlightens
with all the brightness of His majesty." Jerome was indignant. His anger burst
all bounds of moderation. No name was too bad to be given to Vigilantius; no
comparison too hateful to set forth his impiety. The antagonist of the mild
Augustine, of Origen, and, in short, of all who presumed to contradict his
oracle, or to speak lightly of his practices, pursued Vigilantius with a
luxuriant vituperation, which might be cited as perfect in its kind. But what
could be done? There was no Pope as yet, no "holy office," no ecclesiastical
police. Spain was independent of Italy, and, as yet, far less corrupt. Even an
anathema, could it have been launched from Bethlehem, would have dropped into
the waters of the great sea, ere it could reach the shores of Iberia; and the
zealous witness against rising idolatry was aided in the work of demolition by
those who shared his views; and, if they had laboured as hard to save souls as
they did to extinguish tapers, and break up reliquaries, Christendom might
even then have been kept from the great apostasy. But they did not so, and the
issue of the whole is merely this,—that Protestants claim Vigilantius as a
confessor of a portion of the truths they hold; and Romanists, following the
example of their master, load his memory with execration, which, in such a
case, may almost pass for praise. With respect to Vigilantius it is also to be
observed, that, as he did not attack the doctrine, so much as the practice, of
the church, in his day, his position was not so perilous as otherwise it might
have been. The edicts of Theodosius against the Arian, Manichean, and other
heresies, and

3 I the laws embodied in the Theodosian Code, did not touch his case, although
he was branded by his opponents as a heretic; that is to say, a dissident, in
the worst and most odious acceptation of the word. These laws cannot be better
described than in the compendious and exact language of Llorente, the
historian of the Spanish Inquisition. "I shall not stay," he says, "to cite
the laws which the Emperors of East and West issued against heretics, as any
one may read them in the codes of Theodosius and Justinian, with the additions
collected by the commentators, Godefroy and others. I will only say that the
result of the whole was to impose, among other penalties, the mark of infamy,
privation of offices and honours, incapacity of dignities, confiscation of
property, prohibition of making a will, or receiving a bequest, banishment
from one's place of abode, and sometimes exile from his country; but never the
penalty of death, except on the Manichees, and in some particular cases; which
particular cases, however, became frequent, as it was pretended that the peace
of the empire would be endangered, unless the danger were obviated by making
examples of some for warning to the rest. The Emperor Theodosius, in the year
382, first promulgated a law against the Manichees, commanding them to be
punished with death, and confiscation of goods, and charging the Praetorian
Prefect to create Inquisitors and informers against all such as might be
concealed. And here, as Godefroy justly observes, is the first notice of an
Inquisition, and of information in matters of heresy; for hitherto it had been
only on occasion of the most atrocious crimes that public accusation, which
was thought injurious to the empire, was permitted. The successors of
Theodosius varied his legal provisions, according to particular circumstances
of time and persons. Heretics were chiefly excited to conversion by edicts,
being told that if they did not voluntarily abjure their heresy, the imperial
Judges would proceed against them. Against those who were known to be
heretics, and did not abjure voluntarily, by virtue of the edicts, proceedings
were instituted; but they were still informed, that if they would be converted
within a time appointed, they should be reconciled to the church, without any
other punishment than canonical penance; and if they showed a disposition to
yield, conferences were held with them to persuade them to be convinced." *
Legal persecution, however, had not attained to this uniformity of practice so
early as the time of Jerome and Vigilantius.

As this century advanced, the quarrel between the Bishops of Constantinople
and Rome, each striving for the pre-eminence, became hotter; and Leo "the
Great," Bishop of Rome, made himself conspicuous in opposition, not only to
his competitor, but to his Sovereign, although the Sovereign of the empire was
then acknowledged to be the head of the church. But this contest is too
secular and too insignificant to command the pen which has to record such a
conflict between the kingdoms of light and darkness as was waged on the shores
of Africa, under Genseric and Hunneric, the Vandals. Boniface, Prefect of the
province of Africa, disappointed of some promotion

* Llorente, Historia Critica de la Inquisicion de España, cap. 1., art. 2.

PERSECUTION BY THE VANDALS.

he had hoped for, invited Genseric, leader of the Vandals, who then occupied
the province of Andalusia,* in Spain, to come over to his assistance, for the
maintenance of his authority against the natives of the interior, who infested
the Roman territory. The barbarian accepted the call; and, in the year 427,
crossed the strait of Gibraltar, and landed not fewer than fifty thousand
fighting men on the coast of Mauritania, or Morocco. The province being thus
occupied, the Vandals—partly heathen and partly Arians, and Genseric himself
an Arian, like the Goths, a similar people, converted also in mere appearance,
without any influence of the Gospel on their understanding or their heart, and
therefore only capable of receiving that humanized form of Christianity which
denies the Godhead of the Saviour—sought possession of the churches. Genseric
propagated Arianism, too, because it was disapproved at Rome; and he was urged
to persecute the orthodox by the Arian Bishops who came over with him, and who
desired establishment in the sees. Turning against Boniface, whom he resolved
not to succour, but supplant, he laid the country waste, sparing none. Babes
were torn from their mothers' bosoms, and either dashed upon the stones, or
impaled by the soldiers on their spears, or cleft asunder by their swords.
Churches were pillaged and burnt down. The Ministers were put to the torture
to discover hidden treasure; and, if any was discovered, tortures were again
applied to extort more, or to destroy the victims; or, if nothing was
forthcoming, they were aggravated through vexation. Wanton barbarities were
perpetrated without any apparent object. They forced open the mouths of some,
and choked them with mire. They bound cords on their heads and legs, until the
cords rang with extreme tension. Others were forced to swallow salt water,
vinegar, and most nauseous liquids, until their state became insufferable, and
they were insensible, or died in the hands of their tormentors. Ministers of
the church and men of high respectability were made to carry heavy loads, like
beasts of burden, and urged on, like them, with goads of iron, until many of
them fell, had not strength to rise again, and perished on the roads.
Pampinias, Governor of Utica, died, after having had his naked body burnt,
from head to foot, with red-hot iron plates; and Mansuetus, a man of rank, was
burnt to death in a gate of the city. When they reached Carthage, Genseric
commanded that Bishops, and other persons eminent for station and piety,
should be stripped, brought out of the churches in a state of nudity, and made
slaves. The Bishop of Carthage, Quod-vult-deus, with a large number of
Presbyters, was put out to sea in a leaky ship, and they were all drowned,
while the Vandals profaned the churches. Edicts were published, that all who
had received sacred orders should be put to death, and their bodies buried in
silence. While these things were going on at Carthage, some of the most
reverend Ministers and Doctors who remained repaired in a body to the King,
surrendered themselves to him, leaving all they had, both public and private
property, and begged him that he would allow them life only, and that among
the

* Mariana (Hist., lib. v., cap. 3) says that Botica, the province they
occupied, was called from them "Vandalosis," and thence "Andalusia."

3 1 2

Vandals. "How," said Genseric, "can you dare to ask so much? I have determined
not to leave one of you alive." The interview took place on the sea-shore; and
he commanded them to be drowned instantly in his presence. Some of his
attendants, touched with compassion, begged for them to be spared, and they
were dismissed. They went away sorrowful, celebrated divine worship where and
as they could, yet always fleeing for life from place to place; and at last,
when they thought they had got beyond the scene of slaughter, if any one of
them, when preaching, happened to pronounce the name of Pharaoh, Holofernes,
Nebuchadnezzar, or any one who is mentioned in Scripture as a persecutor, he
was at once banished for an implied slander on the King. When they had been
banished, no one was allowed to take their place; so that there arose a famine
of the word of God, except where the people, deprived of their Ministers,
comforted and instructed one another. Attempts were made to ordain new
Bishops, but were effectually frustrated; and Victor, of Utica, to whom we are
indebted for this moureful narrative, says, that of one hundred and sixty-four
orthodox Bishops, only three were remaining when he wrote, one of
whom—Quintianus—was then a refugee at Edessa. After taking breath for a short
time from this carnage, the Vandal Chief commanded a general surrender of
everything made use of in religious worship, and especially of the sacred
books, hoping, it was thought, more easily to overpower the orthodox, if he
could deprive them of the word of God. Valerianus, Bishop of the church of
Habessina, finding it hopeless to resist any longer, left that city, that he
might not witness the desecration, wandered about houseless, and was soon
found dead, an old man, more than eighty years of age. In the village of Reia,
a small company of Christians ventured to open a church which had been long
shut up, that they might there observe the solemnities of Easter; but an Arian
Presbyter fell on them with a band of armed men. The reader fell, transfixed
by an arrow, part of the congregation soon lay dying in their gore, and those
who escaped for the moment were seized, and, by slow tortures, all were put to
death. In another place a Vandal mob broke into a church during the time of
communion, and trampled the consecrated elements under foot.

To maintain Arianism intact in the official portion of the state, Genseric
imposed a test on all candidates for employment in his service; and those who
feared sin more than death, proved their faith in the atoning Saviour by
undergoing extreme cruelties. Among these confessors was Armogastus. The cords
which bound his head and limbs caused unutterable pain; but, as he lifted up
his heart in prayer to the divine Redeemer, the cords broke, and he found
instantaneous relief. Other and stronger cords, some even made of horse-hair,
were again wound round him; but again he cried to God in his necessity, and
the power that released Peter from his chains once more set Armogastus free.
He was then suspended by one leg, but seemed free from pain, proof against his
tormentors. Theodoric, son of the tyrant, being present, would have beheaded
him; but an Arian Presbyter, also standing by, suggested that his life should
be taken by some slower method, lest he should be accounted a martyr. He was

PERSECUTION BY THE VANDALS.

therefore sent to hard labour in the field; but, after a short time, brought
nearer to Carthage to be a cow-herd, where he might be seen by passers-by. But
he had a soul too lofty to be cast down thus; and, after suffering shame for
Christ's sake, he sweetly fell asleep in the Lord. Genseric tried a gentler
method with one Masculon, offering him great things if he would turn Arian.
His faith could not be shaken, and the King commanded him to be put to death.
But he secretly ordered the executioner to take his head off, if he waited in
silence to receive the stroke; but, if he began to speak, not to kill him
then, lest he should be regarded as a martyr,—a witness to the divinity of
Christ. But Christ gave him strength to make a prompt confession; so that
while preparing to lay down his life in martyrdom, he, in fact, saved it. The
royal persecutor now found that he had Christians even in his household, which
he began to rid of them in like manner; but, weary and sickened of shedding
blood, yet not relenting, he was constrained to relax the persecution,
although it only ended with his life.

Hunneric, his son and successor, began his reign with an artful appearance of
moderation. At first, that he might get credit for piety,—by so erroneous a
standard was piety estimated in that age,—he instituted a severe inquisition
of heretics, especially of Manichees; and as many as were discovered he
commanded either to be burnt or drowned. Yielding to the request of the
Emperor Zeno, he consented that the Catholics * of Carthage should have a
Bishop of their own, after having been without one for twenty-four years; but
he added the condition, that Arians should also be allowed entire liberty in
Constantinople, and the other eastern provinces; and that, if any obstruction
were offered to them in the exercise of this liberty, the new Bishop, and all
the other Clergy throughout the province of Africa, should be forthwith
banished, and driven to the Moors or Berbers, in the interior of the
continent. When the Carthaginian church heard this, they said that, under such
conditions, they would rather not have a Bishop, but continue still under the
oversight of Jesus Christ, who had governed them hitherto. However, a Bishop
was set over them,—Eugenius, a good man, who soon became obnoxious to the
Arian Priests, and was required, by Hunneric, not to allow any person dressed
as a Vandal to enter his church. To this he answered, that the house of God
was open for all, and he could not forbid entrance to any. Murderous
persecution then broke out again. Men were stationed at the doors with sticks
armed with jagged iron, (palis dentatis,) to lay hold of the long hair (for
such was the Vandal fashion) of those who came to worship. Some had their eyes
torn out of the sockets, and women were scalped, and paraded in that condition
about the town. All the orthodox who were found in any department of the
public service were degraded, and made to work like slaves or convicts. In the
seventh year of Hunneric's reign, these atro-

* The word Catholic is here used in its original and proper meaning, to denote
universal, as opposed to sectarian; and orthodox in the fundamental truths of
Christianity, as distinguished from heretical. It has an implied reference, at
this period of ecclesiastical history, to the Arian and Manichean
controversies.

cities were again renewed at the instigation of Cyrila, an Arian Bishop, who
incessantly had it sounded in his ears that his kingdom was in danger, and
that nothing could save it but the extirpation of Dissenters. Many of the
Dissenters were accordingly transported to Sardinia and Sicily; and in order
to give a judicial colouring to those proceedings, the Christian Ministers
were falsely accused of unchastity, and innocent females subjected to extreme
indignities and tortures, with the hope of extorting something that might
serve to criminate them. Not a word escaped their lips that could be made use
of to dishonour their persecuted Pastors; but many died in consequence, and
others were deformed through life from the injuries they received. At that
time nearly five thousand persons were banished into the desert with
circumstances of most revolting barbarians. From all parts of the country they
were driven like cattle to one place, that there they might hear proposals to
accept Arianism, or submit to the alternative of being abandoned to the savage
Moors. Some persons of rank addressed the assemblage in terms of bland
entreaty; but soft words were not enough to subdue the faith of men who had
already endured such fiery trials, and their answer was worthy of their cause.
"With a loud cry, and with one consent, they raised their voices, saying, 'We
are Christians! We embrace the confession of the universal church,—God one and
three!'" That was enough: they were taken to the desert, a vast human herd,
and so crowded at the resting-places that their appearance became loathsome,
like that of negro slaves on the middle passage. Even the savage Moors
sometimes pitied them. They possessed their souls in patience, and took for
their by-word, "This honour have all his saints." The recital of their
sufferings during this journey is heart-rending. Many aged and sickly people,
and children, perished by the way; but none apostatized. Cyprian, Bishop of
Uniziba, came to meet them, and gave them words of consolation, and was
afterwards banished in consequence. Shortly after this expulsion of the
Catholics, Hunneric convened an assembly of Ecclesiastics to discuss the
controversy, rejecting, however, the petition of Eugenius, that the summons
might also be sent to the provincial churches, banishing some Ministers whose
talent was likely to be troublesome to the Arian Doctors, and having a few
others flogged, to keep the rest in awe. On the morning of the first day of
the Synod, if so it may be called, he had Laetus, a man eminent for piety,
burnt alive. The orthodox who appeared there were made to sit apart from the
Arians, covered with contempt, and forced to hear a royal edict read,
sanctioned, and proclaimed, which was merely a compendium of the imperial
edicts put forth from time to time against the Arians, and now, by change of
names, turned against themselves. The execution of the edict was in exact
agreement with the character of the Synod, and the record of the continued
martyrdoms is not less illustrative of diabolical rage on the one hand, and of
Christian constancy on the other, than any that preceded. But one event is
related so perfectly miraculous, and yet so well attested, that it must be
marked as perhaps the last great authentic instance of the kind in the history
of the Christian church.

PERSECUTION BY THE VANDALS.

And Gibbon, whose levity, infidelity, and heartless contempt of all who have
ever suffered for the sake of Christ, often deprive even truth, in his hands,
of its charm and evidence, shall supply the result of his own research,—a
reluctant but sufficient witness.

"Tipasa, a maritime colony of Mauritania, sixteen miles to the east of
Cæsarea, had been distinguished, in every age, by the orthodox zeal of its
inhabitants. They had braved the fury of the Donatists; they resisted, or
eluded,* the tyranny of the Arians. The town was deserted on the approach of
an heretical Bishop: most of the inhabitants who could procure ships passed
over to the coast of Spain; and the unhappy remnant, refusing all communion
with the usurper, still presumed to hold their pious, but illegal, assemblies.
Their disobedience exasperated the cruelty of Hunneric. A military Count was
despatched from Carthage to Tipasa: he collected the Catholics in the Forum,
and, in the presence of the whole province, deprived the guilty of their right
hands and their tongues. But the holy confessors continued to speak without
tongues; and this miracle is attested by Victor, an African Bishop, who
published his history of the persecution within two years after the event. 'If
any one,' says Victor, 'should doubt of the truth, let him repair to
Constantinople, and listen to the clear and perfect language of Restitutus,
the Sub-Deacon, one of these glorious sufferers, who is now lodged in the
palace of the Emperor Zeno, and is respected by the devout Empress.' At
Constantinople we are astonished to find a cool, a learned, and
unexceptionable witness, without interest, and without passion. Æneas of Gaza,
a Platonic philosopher, has accurately described his own observations on these
African sufferers. 'I saw them myself: I heard them speak: I diligently
inquired by what means such an articulate voice could be formed without any
organ of speech: I used my eyes to examine the report of my ears: I opened
their mouth, and saw that the whole tongue had been completely torn away by
the roots; an operation which the Physicians generally suppose to be mortal.'
The testimony of Æneas of Gaza might be confirmed by the superfluous evidence
of the Emperor Justinian, in a perpetual edict; of Count Marcellinus, in his
chronicle of the times; and of Pope Gregory the First, who had resided at
Constantinople, as the Minister of the Roman Pontiff."† Procopius, also, who
is acknowledged by Gibbon in a note, testifies that he had seen these persons
in the streets of Constantinople talking without any inconvenience.‡

Drought and famine succeeded to the horrors of persecution; after famine a
great mortality, until the dead were too numerous to be buried by the
exhausted survivors; and, lastly, Hunneric himself ended his days in lingering
and painful disease, induced, as it would seem, by constitutional decay. The
force of true religion which had enabled the African church to resist the
protracted persecution

* "Or eluded," is a gratuitous addition, an example of the flippancy with
which this writer manages on every page to insinuate what he has not the
courage plainly to affirm.

† Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chap. 37.

‡ Procopius De Bell. Vandal., lib. 1., cap. 8.

now compendiously described, might have excited the reasonable hope that
Northern Africa would become one of the happiest countries in the world; that
the prayers of so many faithful men would have been answered, and their
example blessed, to the eventual revival of vital Christianity: but the lamp
of doctrine was extinguished; the Ministers of truth were killed or banished;
the multitudes were too ignorant, depressed, and scattered, to restore the
means of grace among themselves; then also the Vandals rapidly declined, and
with them even the name of Christianity passed away from that part of the
world. And throughout the Roman empire, orthodoxy, excellent as it is, was
substituted for life: right opinions were contended for; but right experience
and right practice were forgotten. Councils, as at Ephesus, at Chalcedon, and
at Constantinople, were convened to settle the differences of divided
Christendom, differences often in reality no greater than varieties of opinion
that now arise and pass away in religious society without notice, because they
rather relate to words than things. Worldly passions embittered theologic
hate, and reasons of party and impulses of ambition corrupted the purity even
of men who had some zeal for the maintenance of fundamental truth, but
endeavoured to sustain truth and put down error by dint of authority and
force, instead of seeking the influences of the Holy Spirit, who alone can
effectually teach the disciples of the Saviour.

========================================================================
  CHAPTER 10: 10. BOOK V, CHAPTER IV
========================================================================

CHAPTER IV.

Not all the Slain are Martyrs—Confusion of the Secular and the Spiritual—The
Britons—Persecution in Armenia, and Religious War—Renewed Persecution in
Africa—Massacre of Christians in Arabia—War between Justinian and Chosroes—The
Lombards—Hermenegild, the Rebel, canonized—Chosroes II. takes Jerusalem—The
Mussulmans also take Jerusalem—Constantine-Sylvanus and the Paulicians—Phocas
and Boniface III.—The Monks of Bangor—State of Europe in the EIGHTH
Century—Persecution in the East—In Spain—Gottschalchus—State of the Church in
the NINTH Century—Claudius of Turin—Pseudo-Martyrs of the TENTH
Century—Adalbert of Prague—Sylvester II.—Canons of Orleans—Christianity
rejected in Hungary—Ordeals—Propagandists of the ELEVENTH Century—First
Crusade—England—Hakem, Father of the Druzes—Intellectual movement in the
TWELFTH Century—Speculations—Foulques de Neuilly—Heretics—Conduct of the
Church towards Heretics—Albigenses—Councils of Lateran and Verona—Judgment of
an enlightened Romanist respecting the Persecutions of those
Times—Jews—Resistance to Ecclesiastical Power—Second Crusade—Third
Crusade—Fourth Crusade—Military Orders—Condition of Christians in the
East—Waldo and the Waldenses—Prohibition of Prayer in vernacular Languages.

THE ecclesiastical historian must endeavour to distinguish between war and
persecution. Religious, sectarian, and national antipathies were often so
mingled, that it is not easy to ascertain the dominant principle, or to
determine whether the victims of the conflict are to be honoured with the name
of "martyrs," or left unmentioned amongst the millions who have perished in
unholy warfare. The decision cannot be attained by conjecture; and in the
absence of satisfactory evidence, no

CONFUSION OF THE EMPIRE AND THE CHURCH.

doubtful names will be admitted into the subsequent chapters of this
martyrology, except sometimes, for the sake of illustrating the dominant
spirit of the church, or of the times.

The source of this uncertainty is chiefly to be found in the early, and at
length the inveterate, confusion of the secular and the sacred, of the world
and the church; so that the quarrels of the one were identified with the
controversies of the other. We have already seen the first Christian
Emperor—if, indeed, he could be justly called "Christian," when both
unbaptized and unregenerate—presiding over the affairs of the church of
Christ. But the church acquiesced in, and even courted, this interference; and
never more so than in the fifth century, the period at which we have now
arrived. Leo the Great, for example, Bishop of Rome, although thwarted in his
controversy with the Bishop of Constantinople, who was favoured by the ruler
of the Eastern empire, desired that the royal authority should defend the
church in matters pertaining to divine confession; * and Ambrose reminded
Valentinian III., that his father had not only sanctioned religion in word,
but by laws also.† The codes of Theodosius and Justinian made the law of the
empire to be that of the church; and the same sanction upheld the profession
of evangelical truth, and made heresy illegal. Discontented vassals of the
Roman see have often cited this general fact as a precedent to justify their
recourse for protection to the temporal power; and in several modern states,
the Prince or Magistrate has actually resumed the exercise of this external
discipline: but, leaving altogether the important questions which have been
agitated until the present day, in consequence of the collision of the
temporal and spiritual powers, our only business is to observe the mischief to
the Christian world which resulted from their confusion. The enemies of the
empire were generally the enemies of the church. If they were merely Pagans,
the church in their eye was the assemblage of all who bore the Christian name;
or, if they were proselyted barbarians who had not received the faith of the
New Testament, but the corrupt doctrine known as Arianism, the orthodox, or
Catholics, became the objects of their twofold enmity.

The Vandal persecution in Africa has been described. Their expedition into
that province was by invitation of a discontented Governor; their hostile
position was taken merely for the sake of conquest, adding treachery towards
Count Boniface to enmity towards his master; but, after they had obtained
possession of the country, by relentless oppression and slaughter of the
orthodox, they showed that their hatred was that of sectarian bigotry; and the
facts narrated are evidence to justify the classification of the sufferers
with Christian martyrs.

The martyrs in Persia, in the fourth century, were, at the same time, victims
of political and pagan hatred. On this island, on

* "Qur ad divinam confessionem pertinent, et regia...defendat auctoritas."
(Leo. Mag., Epist. ad Pulcher. August.)

† "Non solum sermone respondit, sed etiam legibus sanxit." (Ambros., Ep.
xxxii., ad Valentin.)

3 K the contrary, the Britons were not harassed by the Picts and Scots, as
might be inferred from the statements of our great Martyrologist, John Foxe,*
because they were Christians, but only for the sake of plunder. During those
incursions there does not seem to have been any religious persecution, for the
barbarians cared for nothing more than booty; but when the cowardly Britons
were delivered from that scourge, these began to persecute their pious
brethren. "When the ravages of the enemy at length ceased, the island began to
abound with such plenty of grain as had never been known in any age before.
With plenty, luxury increased; and this was immediately attended with all
sorts of crimes; in particular, cruelty, hatred of truth and love of
falsehood, insomuch that if any one among them happened to be milder than the
rest, and inclined to truth, all the rest abhorred and persecuted him, as if
he had been the enemy of his country. Nor were the laity only guilty of these
things," (these are the words of Bede,) "but even our Lord's own flock, and
his Pastors, also, addicting themselves to drunkenness, animosity,
litigiousness, contention, envy, and other such like crimes, and casting off
the light yoke of Christ."† Again "the northern nations," as the same
historian calls them, renewed their depredations; and the Saxons, whom the
natives invited to their aid, also turned their arms against them: and then,
when "public as well as private structures were destroyed, the Priests
everywhere slain before the altars, and the Prelates and people, without any
respect of persons, destroyed with fire and sword;"‡ the indiscriminate
slaughter could not be regarded as a martyrdom, but rather as a righteous
retribution in penalty of prevalent ungodliness.

But it was far otherwise in the distant East. The misguided zeal of a
Christian Bishop, who caused a fire-temple to be demolished in Armenia, had,
indeed, provoked the worshippers to persecution. Sapor, the first Persian
Sovereign of that country, amply avenged the wrong; but the Magi could not
forgive it, and their violence broke forth again in the year 441, in the reign
of Izdegerd II., without any immediate provocation. An Armenian historian
furnishes a distinct narrative, which may be preferred to less certain
accounts collected by Socrates; and we borrow it in Mr. Neumann's translation.
"Yasgerd (Izdegerdes) belonged to the accomplices of Satan; he sent forth his
accumulated venom, and offered it as a useful and deceptive remedy. And the
horn of iniquity began to sound, and the mighty cloud of dust spread over all
the four quarters of the earth. The hater and adversary of all believers in
Christ appeared; he persecuted and tortured the Christians, and took from them
their guiltless lives; for his delight was in desolation and bloodshed;
wherefore he constantly thought how he might fully vent the bitterness of his
venom, and whither he might shoot the multitude of his arrows. With immoderate
fury he fell, like a wild beast, on the country of the Greeks, pressed on as
far as the city of Midspin, laid waste sundry provinces of the Romans,

* Acts and Monuments, book II.

† Bede's Ecclesiastical History, chap. xiv., edited by Giles.

‡ Ibid., chap. xv.

ARMENIA.

and, after pulling down the churches, dragged the booty and prisoners after
him, filling all the troops in the land with fear and trembling. Now the
excellent Emperor Theodosius, (the younger,) being a great lover of peace in
Christ, would not give battle to the enemy, but sent his General for the East,
Anatolius by name, to meet him, with much treasure. Those Persians who, by
reason of their Christian belief, had fled and found refuge in the imperial
city, were assembled and delivered into the hands of the King; and all things
required by him were acceded to. By this submission he was prevailed upon to
stay his further progress, and to return to his city Dispon (Ctesiphon, on the
Tigris, opposite to Seleucia). As fire increases by the addition of fuel, so
began the unbelieving Prince to meditate something further, when he saw that
his iniquity was successful. Knowing now that he was secure, and that all
danger of opposition was removed, he proceeded to turn all from the holy
faith; some with mere threats, others with dungeons and chains. If any one
died under persecution, he seized on his property, personal and real; and
acted in all things with the grossest injustice. He suspended misery over the
whole land. He called his officers of state together in council; and all who
were attached to idolatry by indissoluble bonds, burned like a flaming furnace
against the belief of the holy church." His first measures, however, were
cautious: he did little more than impose new burdens on his Armenian subjects,
and levy conscriptions on them for war against some Scythian tribes; but at
length, "when the King saw that the Romans remained true to the treaty that
they had concluded with him, and that peace reigned through all his dominions,
he sent the joyful tidings to all the fire-temples in his kingdom; he brought
fat oxen and long-haired animals in numbers to the holy fire, as a burnt-
offering; and was, besides, incessantly employed in performing his impure
idolatry. He honoured the Magi, more particularly the Mogbeds,* with crowns
and other marks of distinction. He then issued an order for depriving the
Christians of the goods and property which they possessed in Persia." A
succession of oppressive acts followed in execution of this iniquitous order:
the Christians were placed under the jurisdiction of those Mogbeds who were
invested with all the prerogatives of high state-functionaries; and his Grand
Vizier issued a proclamation against them, containing a sort of confession of
faith of Magianism, and a remarkable, but by no means singular, injunction:
"Be mindful, that whatsoever faith your Sovereign holds, the same must you
also receive, especially for this reason, that we have to render an account of
you to God!" Thus, while the Priests of Constantinople and Rome were hotly
disputing which of them should be the greater, and were only hindered from
setting themselves up as gods by the superior temporal power of their
respective coun-

* The Magi were Priests, and the Mogbeds Chief Priests. "The first and most
ancient order of the Persian priesthood was the Mogh, or Mugh, that is, Magus.
Over the ordinary Magi of those times, there was a superior order, each member
of which was called Mugh-bad, or chief of the Magi." They were, in fact, the
Prelates of the royal religion of ancient Persia. (Hyde, Historia Religionis
veterum Persarum, cap. xxx.)

3 K 2 tries, the crowned fire-Prelates of Persia, headed by a Supreme Pontiff,
at once Priest of the Sun and King of men, were elate in the enjoyment of a
spiritual despotism which was caught up by the semi-pagan hierarchy of the
West, about the same time that it passed away from them. The Armenian Clergy
held a council in the royal city of Artaxata,* to consider the proclamation;
and an answer to it was drawn up in the name of Joseph, Bishop of Ararat, and
his brethren. Izdegerd, infuriated at this opposition, summoned to his court
the most distinguished of the Armenian Princes; commanded them to worship the
sun; and swore by that god, that if on the morrow they did not so, he would
inflict the most cruel vengeance on them, their families, and their country.
They were preparing for death rather than apostacy, when a renegade from
Christianity, who fancied that by retaining a sort of secret faith in Christ
his guilt would be covered, advised them to dissemble also. They returned
laden with Persian honours, but, in the eyes of their countrymen, with
everlasting disgrace. A large army followed, bringing seven hundred Magi, to
teach the Armenians their system; and many, both Priests and people, submitted
to profess Magianism. The Persians broke open and desecrated the churches; and
the Armenians, headed by their Bishops, prepared justifiable resistance, and,
rising in the mass, attacked the strong-holds of their enemies, and drove them
from the land. "They destroyed the places, and carried away the men and women,
together with their property and possessions, treasures and riches, into
captivity. They pulled down and laid waste their dwellings, and burned their
houses of idolatry,—the houses for the worship of fire. They removed the
horrors of false worship; and taking the utensils away from the fire-temples,
they placed them in the holy churches, where they were consecrated by the
Priests to be ornaments to the altar of the Lord. Instead of the idolatry
which had been performed in all the heathenish places, they now set up the
cross of Christ the Redeemer; they purified all the holy altars, established
holy and life-giving principles, and appointed Priests and Curates; and, in
all the land, gave themselves up to steadfast hope." This hope, however, was
not exclusively placed in God. They were involved in war; were not satisfied
with a position of defence; many of their brethren had apostatized, instead of
awaiting deliverance in faithful prayer; and they sent to the Emperor
Theodosius to implore his help, in order to withstand the vengeance which
their temporary victory could not but provoke. Theodosius, however, was killed
by a fall from his horse, shortly after the arrival of the envoys at
Constantinople; and his successor, Marcian, so far from helping them,
immediately entered into a close alliance with the Persian Sovereign,
willingly stipulating to withdraw all succour from the distressed Armenians.
The motive to this desertion was his abhorrence of the doctrines of Nestorius,
which they had received, or, at least, had not rejected. For several years the
Armenian soil was almost incessantly wet with blood: in one great battle 1,036
Christians were reported to have fallen, and so

* The present Ardisher, or Ardaschal, but more probably the latter.

ARMENIA.

had 3,544 of their foes; but the defeat was theirs, in the death of Vartan
their leader. At last, although invited by a proclamation to return to the
peaceful cultivation of the country, the Christians, dreading the sway of the
treacherous Vasag, successor of Izdegerd, "quitted their homes, their cities,
and boroughs; the bride left her couch, and the bridegroom his chamber; the
old abandoned their chairs, and the infants their mothers' breasts; the youths
and maidens, and all the men and women, arose and fled to inaccessible
fastnesses, and to impregnable places among the mountains. To them," if the
historian has not overwrought the picture, "a life led like that of the wild
beasts in caves, with the fear of God, seemed better than comfort in their
dwellings, if purchased with apostasy. Without murmuring, they lived upon
herbs, and forgot their accustomed flesh-meals; the caves they considered like
the chambers of their lofty dwellings, and the subterranean abodes like their
ornamented halls. The songs which they sang were Psalms, and they read the
sacred Scriptures with a perfect joy. Each was to himself a church, each was
to himself a Priest; their bodies served them for the holy altar, and their
souls were the offering. No one mourned despairingly for those executed by the
sword; nor were any greatly troubled for their nearest friends. With peace of
soul they suffered the loss of all their goods, and it never occurred to their
recollection that they had once possessed them. Patiently they endured all
fatigues, and met every attack with great valour, although they looked forward
to no joyful hope, and had no means of accomplishing any great feat of arms;
for the greater number of their most distinguished Princes, their brothers,
sons and daughters, with many of their friends, were scattered in various
places of security. Some were in the gloomy land of the Chaldeans; many others
in the southern provinces, in the unapproachable fastnesses of the Dmorians; a
part were in the dense forests of Ardsakh, while others lived in the central
parts of the country, in various mountain-castles. All bore their sufferings
with much patience, fixing their hopes on God, and only imploring of him that
he might not suffer them to witness the fall of the holy church."* Nor did
they. The Persian King was obliged to cease from all effort to coerce them
into Magianism, and to grant them perfect religious liberty. Having obtained
this liberty, they had a synod in the year 491, rejected the decrees of the
tumultuary Council of Chalcedon, held under the authority of Marcian, and
became subject to the charge of heresy from the Latin and Greek churches.

We now enter on the sixth century. In consequence of the disintegration of the
Western empire, those provinces of Christendom which once lay within its
boundaries, are now uncovered to the attacks of barbarian violence; the Roman
eagle no longer protects the follower of Jesus; and he must learn how vain, at
last, is the help of man. The Vandal Chief, whose persecution of the Catholics
in Africa was last related, was succeeded by another who treated them with
kind-

* History of Vartan, in Introduction to Smith and Dwight's Missionary
Researches in Armenia.

ness. Under the reign of Guntimund, their churches were re-opened and
repaired, the exiles permitted to return, Pastors again ordained over the
long-scattered flocks, and worship restored. Eugenius, the faithful Bishop of
Carthage, had influence over Guntimund, and engaged him to recall the Bishops
banished by his predecessor. The work of restoration had steadily advanced
during a reign of twelve years; and the African dioceses might have presented
the singular spectacle of ecclesiastical prosperity under the mild sway of a
Vandal and Arian Monarch, had not death terminated his reign, leaving the
vacant throne to his brother Thrasimund, who was saluted King in September,
A.D. 496. To avoid, perhaps, a sudden change from mildness to severity, which
would have provoked even his Arian subjects into disaffection, he began to
offer places, promotions, money, and exemptions, as the price of defection
from orthodoxy. Thence advancing to bolder measures, he prohibited the
ordination of Bishops to vacant sees. Roused into resistance by this
unrighteous prohibition, the entire episcopate resolved to fill up vacancies
regardless of it, trusting that the reason of the case, and their peaceable
demeanour, would moderate his displeasure; or, if not, that the new Bishops,
associated with themselves, would succeed in encouraging the people to brave
persecution again, rather than surrender the liberty of the church, and to
prefer the crown of martyrdom to life spent under the sway of an enemy of the
truth. Ministers and people united with enthusiastic haste to ordain
Presbyters, and then to raise them to the episcopal office, until the kingdom
was furnished with them more abundantly than at any time since the landing of
Genseric; but the Sovereign could command forces that were not to be resisted,
and an extensive banishment was the consequence, Victor, the historian of the
persecutions, being the first embarked. In the year 505, sixty Bishops are
said to have been torn from their flocks in the province of Byzacena alone;
and from the whole kingdom two hundred and twenty.* From this blow the African
church never recovered; and it has been reserved to our times to evangelize
the northern part of that continent, where purity of doctrine, and
independence of discipline, were, for a time, so faithfully maintained.

Passing from Africa to the neighbouring continent, we there find an
unquestionable example of true Christian martyrdom, not sullied by any mixture
of sectarian or political passion in the sufferers. Arabia yemen, or "happy
Arabia," was at that time tributary to the Sovereign of Ethiopia, a Christian
King; and the Homerites, as they are usually called, received their ruler by
the appointment of the powerful Monarch who reigned at Axum.† By circumstances
which will appear in the narrative now to be related, Dhu Nowás, otherwise
called Dunaan, a Jew, or Jewish proselyte, managed to get into the throne,
and, actuated by twofold hatred, of the Christians and of the Romans, and
perhaps thinking, like Saul of Tarsus, that he was doing

* Fleury, Hist. Eccles., xxxi., 57, 61.

† By laborious examination of Ethiopic inscriptions, compared with other
ancient records, Henry Salt, Esq., in his "Travels in Abyssinia," has thrown
clear light on this historical fact, and on the first part of the Syrian
narrative. See his Travels, chap. x.

ARABIAN MARTYRS.

God a service, slaughtered his unoffending subjects without pity. Simeon,
Bishop of Beth Arsam, in Persia, (the Arsamopolis of the Greeks,) was sent by
the Emperor Justin with proposals of peace, to Monder, a King of the Scenite
Arabs, and during that embassy obtained the information, which he immediately
communicated, by letter, to Simeon, Abbot of Gabula, a town on the banks of
the Euphrates. Assemann has published this letter, if not from the autograph,
at least from a very ancient copy; and, as it will be quite new to the English
reader, it shall be translated here literally and without abridgment.* "We
must inform your benevolence, that on the 20th day of last Conún (January) of
the present year, 835, (of the Greeks, and A.D. 524,) we left the territory of
Naamon, with Abraham the Presbyter, the son of Euphrasius, who was sent by the
Emperor Justin to Monder, King of the Arabs, to negotiate peace. And, as we
wrote concerning him in our first epistle, both we and all the faithful
acknowledged his goodness in taking part with us; and he is aware of what we
wrote, as well as of what we are now writing. By the desert, then, travelling
for ten days towards the south-east, we reached Monder, encamped opposite the
Sandy Mountains, as we call them, by the Arabs known as the Ramle. When we
entered the camp of Monder, we were met by heathen Arabs, and people from the
sea-coast, who addressed us thus: 'What will ye do now that your Messiah is
expelled from the borders of the Romans, the Persians, and the Homerites?'
Thus did the Arabs jeer us. But we stood silent with the excessive grief which
seized us, especially when a messenger came with a letter from the King of the
Homerites to King Monder, full of arrogance, and written after this tenor:—

"Be it known to thee, my brother, King Monder, that the King whom the
Ethiopians placed in our land, died. And the season of winter came, but no
Ethiopians had arrived to appoint a Christian King according to their custom,
so that I reign over all the country of the Homerites. And, first of all, I
laid hold on all the Christians who believe in the Messiah, and threatened
them with death, unless they would become Jews like us. Then I slew two
hundred and eighty Priests that were found, and some Ethiopians who kept a
church; and their church I converted into a synagogue for ourselves. And then,
with one hundred and twenty thousand men, I marched upon Nagran, (Negra,)
their royal city; and, having sat down before it some days without being able
to take it, gave them an oath, which, however, I did not intend to keep with
Christians, my enemies. So I commanded them to give up their gold and silver
and treasures, which they brought to me, and I received. Then I asked for
Paul, their Bishop, and they told me he had died; but I did not believe them,
until they had showed me his sepulchre, and I took out his bones and burnt
them. Their church, too, and their Priests, and as many as I found taking
refuge in the church, I consumed with fire; but endeavoured to compel the
remainder to deny the Messiah and the cross, which they would not do; but made
their confession that

* Assem., Biblioth. Oriental., cap. I., p. 364, et seq.

he is God, and the Son of the blessed One, and rather chose to die. And their
Chief, too, (Arethas,) said many things against me, and spake insolently:
therefore I commanded all their chief men to be put to death. And I had their
wives brought, and commanded them to deny (Christ), when they had seen the
death of their husbands for the Messiah, and to have pity on their sons and
their daughters. They would not consent; but complained that virgins had been
killed in preference to them; and the wives of the chief men threw themselves
upon their husbands, and said that they ought to die with them. So they were
all killed, except Rumai, wife of him who was to have been their King, whom I
would not allow to die; but urged her to deny the Messiah, that her daughters
and her wealth might be spared, and she become a Jewess. We even commanded her
to go and be made Queen; for the guards of our army were waiting to do her
honour. But she went away, clad, as she was, in sackcloth, with her royal
tiara, and her face uncovered, a woman that since her childhood had not been
seen in public by a man, (but had worn a veil, according to the universal
custom,) and, lifting up her voice, she cried aloud: 'Women of Nagran, my
sisters, Christians and Jewesses and Heathens, hear me. You know me to be a
Christian; you know my family and my descent, and that I have gold and silver,
and menslaves and women-slaves, and money and revenue, and that my husband is
now slain for the sake of Christ. If I desired another husband, I could offer
him forty thousand pieces of gold, and great store of jewels of gold and
silver, and pearls, and precious garments, besides my husband's treasures. You
well know that I speak not falsely. And you well know that there is no day
more joyful to a woman than the day of her wedding-feast; but after this come
sorrows, the pains of child-bearing, and then anguish at the death and burial
of her children. From this day forward, therefore, I have no more of these
things. Joyful was I on the first day of my marriage, and now with gladness I
have betrothed my five virgin daughters adorned unto Christ. Look on me, my
sisters, look on me again. For, as you saw me on my first marriage carried to
the house of my husband, so now you see me going home to Christ my Lord, my
Master, and my God, who humbled himself for our sin, and suffered for us. I
renounce all these things, for I need them no longer; I no more need beauty,
nor thereby will I be corrupted to deny him to these Jews; but it shall
witness for me before the Lord, that none can seduce me to the sin of denying
Him to save my life. Far be it from me, far be it from me, my sisters, that I
should deny Christ my God in whom I trust. I and my daughters were baptized in
the name of the holy Trinity, and I adore the cross,* and for it will I gladly
die, I and my daughters, even as He suffered in the flesh for

* Here is superstition mingled with true piety; but the event has shown that
superstition naturally degenerates into idolatry, which continues after piety
has decayed. We must, however, observe, that there is no evidence of
idolatrous adoration of the crucifix in all this narrative, and that the
Jewish usurper does not charge the Christians with worshipping the image of
Christ, which he would certainly have noticed if such an object had been
exhibited at Negra, and approached with reverence like that now rendered by
the Papists.

ARABIAN MARTYRS.

us. I leave all that is desirable to the eye, and pleasant to the body, and
depart hence. Happy are ye, my sisters, if you hear me, and follow my words,
and acknowledge the truth, and love Christ our God, for whom I and my
daughters die. And now, peace and quiet be to the people of God. The blood of
these my brothers and sisters that are slain for Christ, shall be to this city
for a wall, if it trust in Christ my Lord. See, that with my face unveiled I
quit this city, where I have been as in a temporary lodging-place, and go with
my daughters to the eternal city, where they shall find the Spouse to whom I
have delivered them. Pray for me, my sisters, that Christ the Lord may receive
me, and be gracious to me; for I have waited three days after my husband.' And
when we heard, continues Dhu Nowas, 'the sound of great lamentation in the
city, we asked the messengers whom we had sent, and who were now returning,
what meant that unusual clamour; and they related to us what we have now
written, saying that Rumai went out into the city, followed by women, her
companions, whom she encouraged, raising an outcry in the city; the
forbearance of the guards allowing what they would only have permitted in a
woman; and we should therefore have put them to death, if the entreaties of
some had not mitigated our anger. And, behold, the woman herself came out of
the city with her head bare, and leading her daughters, elegantly attired, as
if they were going to the marriage-chamber, and stood erect in our presence.
Then, holding aside her dishevelled locks, she laid bare her neck, and cried,
'We are Christians; we die for Christ. Take off my head, and send me quickly
to my brothers and sisters, and to the father of my daughters.' But
notwithstanding the great folly of the woman, I still endeavoured to persuade
her to deny Christ, or at least not to say that he is God. But I could not
persuade her, and one of her daughters began to reproach me for speaking thus.
When, therefore, I was certain that the woman would not be induced by any
force or any art to deny the Messiah, then, in order to strike terror into the
other Christians, I commanded her to be thrown on the ground, and her
daughters to be held over her, and their throats cut, so that the blood flowed
on her face, and had her killed last of all. I swear by Adonai, (God,) that I
am exceedingly sorry when I think of the great beauty of the woman and her
daughters. However, because it appears both to our Priests and to me, that
innocent children should not be punished for the sins of their parents, which,
indeed, our laws forbid, I therefore published a decree that the young
children should be taken care of by our soldiers, and when they come to be of
sufficient age, they shall either embrace the Jewish religion, or, if they
prefer the Christian, shall be put to death. These things I have thought well
to write to thee, O King, and at the same time to advise thee not to let any
Christians live in thy kingdom unless they will change their religion for
thine; but continue, brother, to treat the Jews, my brethren, with the same
kindness thou hast always shown to them, for which I thank thee, and expect a
letter to assure me that these thanks are accepted.'

"So wrote the wicked Jewish King to Monder. And, after we

VOL. II. 3 L had come thither, Monder called together his army, and commanded
the King's letter to be read to them, and the messenger attested that it was
true, adding more concerning the slaughter of the Christians, and their flight
from the country of the Homerites. Then Monder, addressing the Christians, of
whom there were many in his army, said, 'You hear what has happened: will you
now deny Christ? For I am no better than other Kings that have expelled the
Christians.' Then a Christian soldier of the army courageously answered, and
said to the King, 'We were not made Christians at thy age, O King, that we
should now deny Christ.' To whom Monder said in anger, 'Dost thou prate thus
in my presence?' 'When I have to speak in the fear of God,' replied the
soldier, 'no man shall compel me to be silent. My sword is not shorter than
others, and I am not afraid to fight to death.' Monder was silent, awed by the
noble spirit of the man, who was known for valour among the Captains in
battle.

'And when we returned to the land of Naamon, which we reached on the first
Sabbath of the fast, we found there a messenger of the deceased King of the
Homerites, who, when he learnt from us the slaughter committed by the tyrant
of the Jews, hired a man of Naamon, and sent him with all speed to the city of
Nagran, to ascertain, with the utmost care, all that had taken place. This man
afterwards related to the Christian messenger, in our hearing, all that we
have told, and added that there were slain, on the same occasion, three
hundred and forty chief men who came out of the city to meet the tyrant. He
also added that the Jew insulted Caleb the son of Arethas, their Prince, and
the husband of Rumai, in these words: 'See what thy faith in the Messiah has
brought thee to, by making war against me. Now, wretch, repent, and deny
Christ: consider thy old age, lest thou perish with thy companions.' To whom
Arethas: 'I only repent that I gave no heed to those who advised me not to
trust thee. I said, indeed, that we should stay in the city, and not heed thy
sayings, but settle the matter with arms, not words; that Christ would finish
the war for us, and that, having abundant supplies, we should hold out; but
they determined otherwise, deceived by thee. I therefore think thee unworthy
of the name of King, and call thee rather a deceiver. For Kings, of whom I
have seen many, keep their engagements, and hate tricks and fraud. But I keep
my faith with Christ, and will not become a Jew, an apostate, like thyself.
And I well know that life and death are not in my power: I have lived long
enough already, and leave many children and grandchildren; and, Christ helping
me, have won great fame both in peace and war. As for the future, my hope is
not doubtful, but sure, that as the vine yields more grapes when the
superfluous shoots are pruned away, so shall our Christian people in this city
be more numerous, and the church which thou hast burned be restored more
magnificently. The Christian religion, too, shall reign with renewed power; it
shall subdue Kings; the sect of Jews shall be covered in darkness; thy kingdom
shall fall, and thy people shall perish. Boast not of thy deed; for in
boasting thou shalt come to nought.' Thus

ARABIAN MARTYRS.

spake the great and venerable old man, Arethas; and then, addressing the
Christians who surrounded him, he said: 'Do you hear, brethren, what I have
witnessed to this Jew?' They answer, 'Yes, father.' 'Is it true, or no?'
'True,' said they. 'If any one here is afraid, and thinks of casting off his
faith in Christ, let him go his way.' Here, with a loud cry, they all
exclaimed, 'God forbid that we should be afraid, father: we will all die with
thee for Christ; none of us will leave thee.' Then Arethas, addressing the
mixed multitude of Christians, Jews, and Pagans: 'Hear,' said he: 'if any one
of mine falls away from Christ, and follows that Jew, I disown him, I
disinherit him; and I will that my goods be used for building a church. But if
any one of mine keeps faith towards Christ, and his life be preserved, I
bequeath to him my property, and declare him to be my heir; but whomsoever the
church shall elect, let him have the three estates which are my patrimony, and
keep the building in repair. And as for thee,' said he, turning to the King,
'thee, and whosoever have rejected Christ, do I reject, abjure, deny. Behold,
we stand before thee.' And his companions, taking courage, cried, 'Behold,
Abraham, chief of the fathers, welcomes thee, and us with thee: whoever leaves
thee, and denies Christ, is by Him denied.'

"Then the tyrant commanded that they should all be taken to a river, and there
killed, and their bodies thrown into the stream. Arethas raised his hands
towards heaven, and said: 'O Christ our God, come to our help, and give us
strength, and receive our souls; precious to thee be the blood of thy servants
shed in thy cause: set us in thy presence, and confess us before thy Father,
as thou hast promised, and let thy church be builded, and let there be a
Bishop in this city in place of thy servant Paul, whose bones were burned.'
Then they gave each other the kiss of peace; and Arethas the aged made the
sign of the cross over them,* and presented his head first to the sword. And
his companions ran together with joy, were sprinkled with his blood, and were
all martyred.

"There was a child five years old, whom his mother, as she was going to be put
to death, led by the hand. Seeing the King sitting, and clothed in his royal
garments, he left his mother, ran to him, and kissed his knees; and the King
took him and caressed him, and said, 'Which wilt thou do, my child,—go and die
with thy mother, or stay with me?' 'I must go to my mother: I want to die with
her; for she said to me, Come, my son, we are going to die for Christ. But let
me go: I must go to my mother, or she will die, and I shall not see her; for
she tells me that the King of the Jews has commanded that all who will not
deny Christ shall die; but I will not deny Him.'

* Where an external mark, a stigma, a phylactery, or a form of words
pronounced, or a sign made, is the signal of a distinct religious profession,
as in many countries of the East, to make the sign of the cross may be an
innocent and proper custom. But where it is not usual to make such outward
signals of confession, or where the signing has been associated with
pretensions to some mysterious or magical power, it may become expedient to
avoid the action, however harmless in itself. The word used in the text of
this letter precisely answers to the Hebrew בְּרִית—and signifies to "seal,"
or "confirm," because the profession of the Christian faith was confirmed by
the person making the sign. The custom is purely Oriental. For our part, we
are quite satisfied to be "living epistles, known and read of all men," and
need no better sign.

3 1. 2

Then said the King, 'Where hast thou known Christ?' 'Every day,' said the
child, 'I see him in the church, when I go there with my mother.' 'Which dost
thou love best,' said the King, 'me or thy mother?' 'My mother, to be sure,'
said he. 'Then dost thou love Christ or me best?' 'I love Christ better than
thee.' 'Then why didst thou kiss my knees?' 'I thought thou wast the King of
the Christians that I have seen in the church; I did not know that thou wast a
Jew.' 'But I will give thee nuts and almonds and figs.' 'O no,' said the
child; 'I will not eat Jews' nuts; but let me go, I must go to my mother.'
'Stay with me,' said the King, 'and thou shalt be my son.' 'I will not,' said
the child: 'thou smellest badly, not sweet like my mother.' Then said the King
to them that were standing by, 'See what a bad race this is: the Messiah
perverts them from their infancy.' Then one of the chief men spoke to the
child: 'Come with me, and I will take thee to be the Queen's son.' 'O no,'
said he, 'my mother is better to me than the Queen; for she takes me to
church.' When he found they were holding him fast, he bit the King on his
thigh, and cried out, 'Let me go, thou wicked Jew: I must go to my mother, and
die with her.' But the King gave him to one of the chief men, and commanded
him to be taught until he should be grown up; and then, if he denied the
Messiah, he should live; but if not, should die. As a servant was taking him
away, he struggled hard to escape, and called to his mother: 'O my mother,
come, help me, and I will go with thee to the church.' The mother answered
him, 'Go, now, my son; trust in Christ; weep not: wait for me in the church
with Christ until I come.' And as she was speaking, they beheaded her.

"When these things were known, both by letters and reports, all the Christians
in these parts were filled with grief; and we have thought well to relate them
to you, that the holy and faithful Bishops may know what has happened to the
Homerite Christians, and make a memorial of the holy martyrs. We entreat you
to communicate this to the heads of monasteries, and the Bishops, and
especially to the Bishop of Alexandria, that he may exhort the King of
Ethiopia to send help to the Homerites. And you will also endeavour that the
Chief Priests of the Jews at Tiberias write to this Jewish King, and urge him
to abstain in future from persecuting the Homerites."

Caleb, the Ethiopian King, called by the Greeks Elesbaas, on hearing of the
usurpation and cruelties of the Jew, went over into Arabia with a powerful
army, gained a signal victory; and Dunaan is said by the Arabian historians to
have ridden into the sea in despair after the battle, and drowned himself. The
massacre of the Christians of Negra was long remembered with horror: incidents
not related in the letter of Simeon were also made the subject of traditional
tales: one of them, the burning of a large number of Christians in a pit, was
marked with especial detestation; and about a century afterwards, Mohammed
made reference to it in a chapter of his Koran, where we now read these
remarkable sentences: "Cursed were the contrivers of the pit, of fire supplied
with fuel, when they sat round the same, and were witnesses of what they did
against the true believers. And

JUSTINIAN AND CHOSROES.

they afflicted them for no other reason, but because they believed in the
mighty, the glorious God, unto whom belongeth the kingdom of heaven and earth;
and God is witness of all things. Verily, for those who persecute the true
believers of either sex, and afterwards repent not, is prepared the torment of
hell, and they shall suffer the pain of burning." * According to Mohammed,
then, the Christians were true believers; and it is also worthy of remembrance
that, although he would make war on Christians as well as others for the
extension of his own sect, deference to a common feeling of humanity
constrained even him to declare against the dastardly atrocity of those who
would not dare to fight in open field, but could destroy the defenceless and
unoffending.

In the neighbouring kingdom of Persia, the Christians were again subject to
severe persecution, not, however, on account of religion only. The Grecian and
the Persian empires were now the two principal political powers of the known
world, they were contiguous along a considerable extent of frontier, and were
governed by eminent and ambitious Sovereigns. Justinian, the Greek, was
earnest in his attachment to Christianity, but bigoted, and intimately
possessed with the prevalent idea that it devolved on him to govern the church
as well as the empire. Chosroes, on the other hand, (or Nushirvan,) was also a
zealot for Magianism, was not at all inferior to Justinian in ostentation of
justice, honoured by his subjects with the appellation, "Just," and again
honoured by posterity with a place among the ten sages of Persia, with the
praise of wisdom receiving also that of justice. Both those men were ambitious
and powerful; perhaps both were vain; and in the relative position of their
respective dominions, even if there had been no reasons for mutual disgust,
they would have found it difficult to maintain a cordial understanding. But
each of them was at the head of a hierarchy opposed to the other by reason of
the impassable barrier of truth or error. Two such Monarchs could not disagree
merely as civil rulers; and, independently of their religious opposition,
various incidents, which it belongs to the secular historian to relate, kept
them at variance during almost the entire period of their contemporary reigns.
The Christians in Persia then lost the benefit of previous treaties in which
their interests had been considered; were exposed to the unconquerable hatred
of the sun-worshippers, whose fire-temples had been hated by the pagan Greeks,
and which they profoundly abominated; and regarded the Greek Emperor, a
Christian like themselves, as far more worthy of allegiance than the Persian.
This position, therefore, renders their claim to the honour of being martyrs
very questionable; although there were many, doubtless, to whom that honour
would be allowed, if, instead of the political historian, Procopius, and the
superstitious Evagrius, some more trustworthy witness had related those
events. Bearing in view, however, what these authors state, and passing over
in silence the foolish tales which are copied by Romish compilers, a few facts
shall be gathered from Abulpharagius, who must have drawn his information from
original, or at least from Eastern, sources. Arme-

* Koran, chap. lxxxv., Sale = translation.

nian Christians, harassed by the efforts of Persians to compel them to worship
the sun and fire, crossed the borders into the Grecian territory. Chosroes
demanded that they should be given up to him; but Justinian replied, that if
Christian people threw themselves on his protection to avoid the worship of
demons, he would not surrender them into his hands, and went so far as to say
that if such persons were his, the country where they dwelt was his also.
Chosroes did not perceive the absurdity of that doctrine, which he would as
readily have maintained in his turn; but contented himself with demanding
tribute. A question of tribute or territory was then confounded with one of
religion. The war between them took a correspondent character. From Nisibis,
for example, the Christian population was driven out, and their lands laid
waste. Chosroes entered Apamea with promise of peace; but dispersed the
inhabitants, after selecting two thousand Christian maidens to send as a
present to the Turks, who were in Perida. When these captives were within five
miles of the Turkish camp, and resting on the bank of a deep river, they
begged the soldiers who were conducting them to retire for a little, that they
might be alone; and as the men had been commanded to drive them gently, and
treat them kindly, that they might be given to the Turks in good health and
appearance, they readily withdrew. No sooner were their charge free from
hinderance, than, calling on the name of Christ their Saviour, to avoid the
degradation and impurity to which they had been destined, they plunged into
the flood. The guards hurried to the spot when they heard the shout; but only
in time to see them carried down the stream, without power to save one.* Their
case was deplorable, no doubt; yet prayer and faith might have sustained them;
God could have delivered them; and martyrdom might have been recorded instead
of suicide. Comparison of the conduct of the Christians in Apamea with that of
those in the Arabian city, Negra, indicates a far more elevated standard of
piety in the latter, who do not seem to have been spoiled by politics.

In Europe a flood of barbarism overwhelmed the church, which was almost
everywhere devoid of true religion. She had trusted in Princes, but they were
fallen; and now she could only sit in sackcloth, and weep amidst a desolation
which the triumphant faith of Christ would have cheered; but she had not that
faith. The Lombards, a tribe of Germans, together with a mixed multitude of
other hardy barbarians, invaded Italy, and were regarded as enemies of
Christianity; but even those who lay the calendar before them when writing
history, and enrich their pages with names of martyrs not crowned in heaven,
cannot but reveal the humiliating truth, that the approach of the invaders
towards an Italian city was usually the signal for the flight of the Bishop,
carrying with him, of course, the treasure of the church, the sordid treasure
of accumulated oblations and gifts, but leaving the flock to sustain the
brunt, and the inferior Clergy to suffer the indiscriminate violence of pagan
invaders, utterly indifferent to all religious distinctions. The Lombards are
mentioned here, because sometimes classed among the troublers of the church;

* Bar Hebrai Chronicon, Dynast. viii.

HERMENEGILD. CHOSROES II.

but they soon accepted the name of Christians from the conquered natives, no
test of sincerity being proposed, nor any abstinence from sin earnestly
exacted. In Spain, too, the claim of many whose lives were taken in the name
of religion to be enrolled among the martyrs, is more than doubtful.
Hermenegild, who is worshipped as one of the guardian saints of that country,
is a famous example of the kind; for, according to the diffuse panegyrics
written to his praise by native authors, he was educated in Arianism, but,
having been ill-treated by an Arian step-mother, and then better instructed by
a Catholic wife, took up arms against his father, led a civil war, was
defeated, imprisoned, and beheaded. It is said, indeed, that in the solitude
of the prison his mind became softened, and that, not satisfied with the
hardship inseparable from such a situation, he did much voluntary penance; but
his warmest admirers produce no evidence of true repentance. He is extolled,
however, for the impiety of raising a rebellion against his father because a
heretic; and a gold coin which he caused to be struck during that rebellion,
bears on one side his own image, and on the other the significant inscription,
Hombre huye del Rey, "A man flees from the King," in allusion to the direction
given by St. Paul to avoid* a man that is a heretic. Saint Leander, a Bishop
of Seville, inspirited the "holy youth" to seek his father's kingdom and life;
Gregory of Rome declared that he was in heaven; he was duly canonized as saint
and martyr; and his history admirably illustrates the Papal doctrine which
enjoins the destruction of heresy at any cost of rebellion, impiety, perfidy,
or bloodshed.† England was invaded by the Anglo-Saxons in the preceding
century; and at this time the Britons were driven into Wales and Cornwall; but
their sufferings cannot be attributed to religious persecution. The conversion
of a part of our Saxon ancestors to Christianity, not yet debased so far as to
have lost its hallowing influence, yet far inferior to the divine religion
which was first promulgated in England, was indeed a great event, but belongs
to general ecclesiastical history.

The seventh century is marked by events which gave an entirely new aspect to
the subsequent condition of the world. Magianism made its last effort to
subdue the religion of Christ when the Persian hosts under Chosroes II.,
grandson of Nushirvan, invaded Palestine. A multitude of Arabs, and twenty-six
thousand Jews, accepted pay from the Persian Monarch, and were the most
zealous in wreaking vengeance on the Christians. They approached the Holy
City, no longer fortified as when it withstood the siege of Titus, and soon
took it by assault. The magnificent churches reared by the munificence of
Constantine and Helena were in flames, the brutal soldiery gave loose to
unreined fury, and thousands of Priests, Monks, and virgins perished by the
sword. The Jews, it is said, not satisfied with this, purchased a large number
of Christian captives for the mere purpose of putting

* Vulg. devita.

† Mariana, Hist. Esp., lib. v., cap. 12, and the Spanish Moreri's Biographical
Dictionary. The legend in the Breviary at April 13th is in gross contradiction
to those facts, the falsehood being extracted from the Dialogues of St.
Gregory, and adopted by "the Church" in her solemn prayers.

them to death, until the number of slain rose to ninety thousand. But one week
before this catastrophe, the monastic establishment of St. Sabas was broken
into by a party of Arabs, who found only a remnant of the anchorites
remaining, as the younger and more timorous had escaped; but aged persons of
both sexes, after cruel tortures and indignities, were cut into pieces, and
when, after the retreat of the Pagans, some of the Monks returned, they
gathered their severed limbs and mangled bodies, which were solemnly
interred.* But after this time the followers of Zoroaster were no more able to
fight against Christianity. Chosroes himself was murdered by his son, and the
Persian empire passed away before the new power which suddenly issued from the
Arabian peninsula. The year 622, when Mohammed fled from the Korcistites, who
were plotting to take his life, is the first of the era of the Hegira, or
flight; and from this time the progress of his arms and those of his
successors was rapid beyond example. In the year 637, Jerusalem was again
taken by the Mussulmans, led by Abu Obeidah, after making long and courageous
resistance. The Christian Patriarch at that time was the chief man in the
city, and would only surrender on condition that Omar, the Chaliph, or
successor of Mohammed, should himself come and ratify the treaty for the
occupation of Jerusalem. Omar consented, came from Medina, signed the
articles, and delivered them into the hand of the noble-minded Patriarch.†
Hard as were those

* Fleury, Histoire Ecclésiastique, xxxvii., 10; Gibbon, Decline, &c., chap.
xlii.

† Ockley, in his valuable History of the Saracens, (Omar, Hej. 16, A.D. 637,)
translates these articles from an Arabic history of Jerusalem, and observes
that as they are the pattern which Mohammedan Princes have chiefly imitated,
it is "not inappropriate" to present them to his readers. For the same reason
they are inserted here.

"1. The Christians shall build no new churches, either in the city, or the
adjacent territory. 2. They shall not refuse the Mussulmans entrance into
their churches, either by night or day. 3. They shall set open the doors of
them to all passengers and travellers. 4. If any Mussulman should be upon a
journey, they shall be obliged to entertain him gratis for the space of three
days. 5. They (the Christians) shall not teach their children the Koran, nor
talk openly of their religion, nor persuade any one to be of it: neither shall
they hinder their relations from becoming Mohammedans, if they have an
inclination to it. 6. They shall pay respect to the Mussulmans, and, if they
are sitting, rise up to them. 7. They shall not go like the Mussulmans in
their dress, nor wear the same caps, shoes, or turbans, nor part their hair as
they do, nor speak after the same manner, nor be called by the names used by
the Mussulmans." (While this note was in the hands of the compositor, a member
of the Senate at Madrid, who had made an incidental allusion to the authority
of the Queen of England over her Protestant subjects, was rebuked by "El
Catolico," organ of the priesthood, for having forgotten one of their familiar
maxims:—"Cum hareticis nec nomina debemus habere communis." The very sentiment
in almost the same words! Pope and Turk were with reason put together in an
old Litany. See "El Catolico," Madrid, April 13th, 1849.) "8. They shall not
ride upon saddles, nor bear any sort of arms, nor use the Arabic tongue in the
inscriptions of their seals. 9. They shall not sell any wine. 10. They shall
be obliged to keep to the same sort of habit whithersoever they go, and always
wear girdles upon their waists. 11. They shall set no crosses upon their
churches, nor show their crosses nor their books openly in the streets of the
Mussulmans. 12. They shall not ring, but only toll, their bells; nor shall
they take any servant that has once belonged to the Mussulmans. 13. They shall
not overlook the Mussulmans in their houses.

"The Christians having submitted on these terms, Omar gave them the following
writing under his hand:—

"In the name of the most merciful God. From Omar Ebn Al Khattab, to the
inhabitants of Ælia. They shall be protected and secured both in their lives
and fortunes, and their churches shall neither be pulled down, nor made use of
by any but themselves."

CONSTANTINE-SYLVANUS, THE PAULICIAN.

conditions, they were not so severe as might have been feared from such a
conqueror; but the Mohammedans threw aside gentleness towards the vanquished
when they attained to greater power; and even this milder example suffices to
show that Christians could expect nothing but degradation under their
dominion. The doctrine which, even in our own day, has great prevalence with
some European and nominally Christian statesmen, that proselytism is to be
prevented, or at least by all means discouraged; that the Evangelist is to be
silent, notwithstanding the injunction of his Master to go into all the world,
and preach the Gospel to every creature; was understood by the Mohammedans as
best calculated to enervate the church, and smother the life of Christianity.
Mohammedan, rationalist, and Jesuit can perfectly agree in discouraging or
prohibiting all efforts to turn sinners from the error of their way; but the
Christian can only deserve his name and maintain his piety by seeking,
according to the opportunities and talents he possesses, to honour Christ, the
good Shepherd, by gathering the lost into his fold. And in doing this he will
not so much desire to promote the interests of his particular church, as the
glory of the Saviour in the salvation of sinful men. The rise of Mohammedanism
and the rancour of sects, added to the extreme ignorance and moral degradation
of society, threw a gloom on the face of Christendom which would discourage
any further reference to those times, but for evidence that amidst so much
calamity and wickedness the influences of the Holy Spirit were not utterly
withdrawn.

About the year 650, an Armenian Deacon, who had been carried captive into
Syria, and must have there acquired a knowledge of the language of the
country, slowly returning towards his native land, reached an obscure town,
named Mananalis, not far from Samosata, (the present Samisat in the pachalic
of Aleppo,) and found hospitable entertainment in the dwelling of Constantine,
most probably a countryman of his, and resident in that place. When a few
days' rest had worn away his weariness, he bade his host farewell, and
presented him with two books in acknowledgment of his kindness. These were the
Gospels and the Epistles, bound in distinct volumes, according to the general
custom of antiquity, and the second volume deficient of the two Epistles of
Peter and the Book of Revelation, which, indeed, could not be there, as they
were not extant in the Syriac version, nor were they yet received by the
Syrians as canonical. Neither was the Old Testament, or any part of it,
included in the gift; either because the Deacon did not possess it, or, as the
whole Bible was not yet circulated as one work, he might have retained it as
independent of the New. Until that day the written word of God seems to have
been unknown in the neighbourhood, except to the Priests, and to them but
slightly, while the laity regarded themselves as profane persons, unworthy to
read the sacred books. The public mind, too, was corrupted with Gnosticism,
the Manichean heresy was prevalent, and Constantine might have considered the
Old Testament, if he had ever heard of it, as exclusively adapted to an
inferior dispensation, or even as the work of a spirit hostile to the God of
the Christians.

3 M

But he read these books, his only guide, with close attention. The Holy
Spirit, by whose inspiration they were written, enlightened his mind.
Convinced of the absurdity of Manicheanism, he rejected the theology of Manes,
and the voluminous writings of that sect which then abounded, although the
word of God was unknown, and the two books given him by the stranger became
the standard of his faith, as they had been the instrument of his conversion.
But he found Christianity there without any of its corruptions; and as that
was the only source whence he drew religious knowledge, his faith came to be
in direct opposition to the most cherished notions and practices of the Clergy
who were designated orthodox. He paid no worship to the Virgin, nor any
veneration to cross or image. He sought not the intercession of any saint, saw
no virtue in a relic, nor entertained exaggerated notions of sacramental
grace. A few early prepossessions, which might have been removed by fair and
brotherly instruction, but could not be dislodged by force, are said to have
retained possession of his mind,—vestiges of an erroneous education, but not
hindering faith in the Redeemer. He was brought to God. The fruits of the
Spirit were manifest in his deportment, and in the effect of his labours; for,
obeying the commission which God gave him at a time when the corrupt church
would have withheld her orders, even if he could have desired them, he went
into Pontus and Cappadocia, exhorting sinners to repent, and everywhere
teaching that both Priests and people should study the books which had made
him wise unto salvation. If he had merely opposed existing errors, and striven
to demolish the fabric which he could not own as the church of Christ, his
spirit would have been worldly and violent, and his followers would have been
like him. Even enemies testified to the purity of their conduct, and the
earnestness of their piety, but, of course, charged them with hypocrisy. To
mark his admiration of the great Doctor of the Gentiles, Constantine assumed
the name of one of his companions, Sylvanus, and some of his converts also
took new names from others of the followers of the Apostle; while those whom
he gathered into communion were called Paulicians, in honour of Paul himself,
whose doctrine they professed to hold, or familiarly designated each other
"fellow-pilgrims," as seeking the heavenly country. Their churches, too, were
distinguished by names borrowed from the New Testament. For twenty-seven years
Constantine-Sylvanus prosecuted his arduous mission among the votaries both of
Manes and Zoroaster with constant success and increasing influence, until the
Catholics, as they called themselves, did what the Arabs, who by that time had
succeeded the Persian Governors of that region, although Mussulmans, had never
thought of doing. Pretending to regard him as a heretic condemned by the
imperial laws, the ecclesiastical authorities appealed to the Emperor, who
sent one Symeon, a Greek officer, to Pontus, armed with the twofold power of
the empire and the church, with orders to put him to death, reclaim or
disperse his disciples, destroy whatever books he might find containing the
doctrines of the new sect, or inflict capital punishment on any who should
secrete them. A few of his flock were induced to

THE FIRST UNIVERSAL BISHOP, SO CALLED.

recant; and these men were brought into an open place, drawn up in a line, and
commanded to stone their former Pastor, who was placed before them. They
gathered stones, indeed, as if to perform the execrable deed; but when they
saw the man whom they had once regarded as a messenger from God, they dropped
the stones, slipped their hands into their girdles, and stood shuddering in
the horror of apostasy. One, however, named Justus, as the Catholic historian
writes, indulging heartlessly in the alliteration Justus, justa personit,
"executed the act of justice," and slew the martyr. But it was an awful scene.
Conscience paralyzed the party who had denied the Gospel; Christ himself was
present at the martyrdom with spiritual power; and that very Symeon who had
made so great ostentation of zeal in discharging his murderous commission,
bowed under a conviction of his own sinfulness, accepted the truth, confessed
Christ, united himself with the Paulicians, and afterwards joyfully gave up
his life in testimony to the energy of converting grace. Nor could any
persecution yet prevail against the Paulician church, although imperfectly
constituted; and it will come to view again as we advance from century to
century.*

The pagan idolater, the Magian, and the Jew, have henceforth little power to
persecute the Christian, but are themselves persecuted. Mohammed and his
successors fight against idolaters, and impose tribute on Jews and Christians,
as far as their victories extend; while the elevation of the Bishops of Rome
to temporal power becomes the source of most of the persecutions that have
taken place in following times. The Emperor Maurice had undertaken a war with
the Avars, a barbarian people, whose doubtful, and often perfidious, alliance
had been resorted to in order to swell the imperial forces against Persia. But
Maurice was not a soldier: his army perceived his incapacity, and was
disheartened and alienated by his parsimony. A Centurion, Phocas by name, was
presented by the soldiers as candidate for the purple, entered Constantinople
amidst the acclamations of the populace, was consecrated by the Patriarch;
and, fearing that one of the factions by which the city was divided would
attempt the restoration of his predecessor, who had fled, he sent ruffians to
Chalcedon with orders to take his life. The fugitive was dragged out of a
church where he had taken sanctuary, and, after five of his sons had been
murdered before his eyes, he was also beheaded. All the bodies were thrown
into the sea, and the heads carried to Constantinople and exposed in public,
until, being putrid, the tyrant reluctantly allowed them to be buried. Gregory
I., then Bishop of Rome, perhaps influenced by a charge or suspicion of heresy
which had fallen on Maurice, despatched a messenger to Constantinople, bearing
a letter of congratulation, wherein he lauded, among other equally unreal
excellencies, the piety

* An Inquiry into the History, &c., of the ancient Vallenses and Albigenses,
by George Stanley Faber, B.D., vindicates Constantine from the charge of
Maulechanism, Facts and Documents illustrative of the History, &c., of the
ancient Albigenses and Waldenses, by the Rev. S. R. Maitland, are cited on the
other side; but the facts, as above related, are too clear to be
misunderstood. Gibbon (chap. liv.) relates them fully and impartially; except
that, as usual, he ascribes the zeal of the martyr to "spiritual ambition."

3 M 2 of Phocas. If either of the two Emperors possessed piety, it must have
been Maurice, notwithstanding his acknowledged defects as a Sovereign; for it
is certain that he made public confession of sin, which Phocas never did; and
although his prayers were mingled with superstitious offerings, according to
the fashion of the time, it is undeniable that he implored divine pity with
every appearance of sincerity; and when, after four of his sons had been
murdered in his presence, and he saw an infant taken from its nurse's arms,
also to be immolated to the jealousy of the usurper, but perceived that the
woman had substituted her own child for his, his conscientious regard of
justice refused the extraordinary contrivance to preserve the youngest of his
family, and he desired that the proper child should be delivered to the sword.
The bearer of Gregory's letter to Phocas was an assiduous courtier, although a
Priest; and when afterwards elected in Rome as Bishop, received ample
compensation from the Emperor, who authoritatively decided in his favour the
long dispute between the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Bishop of Rome as
to who should be the greater, by declaring him to be the universal Patriarch
of the Christian world. The rude and depraved Centurion who had waded through
blood to the imperial dignity could know nothing of the merits of an
ecclesiastical dispute; but the truth was, that the Patriarch had humanely
endeavoured to protect the widow of Maurice when she took refuge in the
sanctuary of St. Sophia, and the elevation of Boniface III. to the headship of
the Catholic church, as he fondly imagined, was evidently intended to mortify
his less tractable competitor. This was the first establishment of the Papacy
at Rome, in the year 606; this its title to lordship over God's heritage.

The massacre of the Monks of Bangor, in Wales, which took place the year
after, is usually recounted among the calamities of the church. When the
British Clergy, who had retired into Wales, were represented by some of their
Bishops and others in the last Synod summoned by Augustine the Monk, the
emissary of Gregory I. to this island, in order to effect a union, and there
refused submission to the Bishop of Rome; Augustine, disappointed at the
failure of his endeavours, angrily and imperiously told them, that if they
would not join in unity with their brethren, they should be warred upon by
their enemies; and if they would not preach the way of life to the English
nation, should at their hands undergo the vengeance of death. Popish writers
ascribe to "the man of God," as they call Augustine, the gift of prophecy; but
an impartial reader would rather understand such language as a menace; and the
event tends to confirm the suspicion. Some time afterwards, Ethelfrid, a
Northumbrian King, a Pagan, invaded Wales, and made, Bede says, "a great
slaughter of that perfidious nation" in the neighbourhood of Chester. At
Bangor there was an immense monastic establishment, "in which, it is reported,
there was so great a number of Monks, that the monastery being divided into
seven parts, with a ruler over each, none of these parts contained less than
three hundred men, who all lived by the labour of their hands. Many of these,
having observed a fast of three days, resorted, among others, to pray at the
aforesaid

CHRISTENDOM IN THE EIGHTH CENTURY.

battle, having one Broemail appointed for their protector, to defend them
whilst they were intent upon their prayers to be delivered from the swords of
the barbarians. King Ethelfrid, being informed of the occasion of so unusual
an assemblage, said, 'If, then, they pray to their God against us, in truth,
though they do not bear arms, yet they fight against us, because they oppose
us by their prayers.' He therefore commanded them to be attacked first, and
then destroyed the rest of the impious army, not without considerable loss of
his own forces." The Saxon chronicle relates that two hundred Monks were
slain; Bede counts twelve hundred, but probably includes in this number all
who perished in the destruction of the monastery, which immediately followed.
The venerable Bede closes his account by saying, that "thus was fulfilled the
prediction of the holy Bishop Augustine, though he himself had been long
before taken up into the heavenly kingdom, that those perfidious men should
feel the vengeance of temporal death also, because they had despised the offer
of eternal salvation;" that salvation, in the estimation of Augustine, being
dependent on their submission to his authority as representative of Gregory I.
of Rome. Strange condition of salvation!*

The history of Europe in the eighth century affords little material, if any,
for an authenticated martyrology. In France the Mayors of the palace having
become too powerful for the Kings, their masters, a new race of Princes arose
by their flagrant usurpation of the throne; and at last Charlemagne, during a
very long reign, extending beyond the latter half of the century, recompensed
the Pope for his sanction of that usurpation, by taking the church under his
protection, and again served his own purposes by using it as an engine of
political power. The irruption of the Saracens into Spain and other parts of
Southern Europe, the establishment of their dominion, and a conflict not less
political than religious with their Christian neighbours, kept the priesthood
so much on the alert against the Mussulmans, as generally to divert them from
the persecution of heretics; and the quarrel and war between the Greeks and
Italians, which originated in the zeal of the latter for image-worship, and
the determination of the former to resist the innovation, but which was
aggravated by many personal and political considerations, confounded the
idolater and the iconoclast under equal condemnation, and tended to extinguish
every remaining spark of true religion. Great Britain was sunk in the most
abject superstition; British independence could no longer bear up against the
violence and overwhelming numbers of Anglo-Saxon adherents to the Roman see,
which lorded it alike over Priests and people. The writings of the "venerable
Bede," as he was called, are a humiliating evidence of the puerile
superstition then prevalent; and the Roman taxation of our ancestors, who then
began to pay "Peter's pence," finished and sealed their degradation. The
miserable religion of that age is represented in the credulity which allowed
currency to tales of miracles, visions, and prodigies, monstrous to the last
degree,

* Bede, Ecclesiastical History, book ii., chap. 2; Foxe, Acts and Monuments,
book ii.

with scarcely a vestige of heart-felt and sanctifying Christianity. There are
some obscure traces of the Paulicians in Thrace, in course of emigration from
Armenia, but so slight as not to warrant confident narration. For martyrs,
properly so called, we must go to Syria and Arabia.

The Caliph Omar II. signalized his piety in the eyes of the Mussulmans by
prolonged recitation of prayers, or devout sentences, until, wearied with
prostrations, he would continue the exercise supported on a cord which hung
from the top of his chamber, and proved his zeal in the cause of islam, or
"devotion," to his Prophet, by employing greater severity than any of his
predecessors had used for perverting Christians from their faith. Apostates
were immediately exempted from the payment of tribute, according to general
custom; but it is said, that when such inducements failed to overcome the
constancy of Christians, he put many of them to death, and forbade the
testimony of a Christian to be received in any case against a Mohammedan.*
Walid II. is related to have cut out the tongue of Peter, Metropolitan of
Damascus, and then banished him to Arabia, where he died. The offence which
drew forth the vengeance of this Caliph, was a public denunciation by the
Prelate of the errors of the Mohammedans as well as of the Manichees. The
Roman Martyrology celebrates another Peter, who, being sick, sent for the
principal Arabs in his neighbourhood, and, calling them around his bed,
exhorted them to believe in Christ, to confess the doctrine of the Holy
Trinity, and thus allow him to recompense them for many acts of kindness. For
the moment they fancied him to be delirious; but when he recovered, and, with
even greater earnestness, ceased not to entreat them to renounce their errors,
the stroke of a scimitar delivered them from his importunity, and added his
name to the catalogue of martyrs.† The avidity of Governors was not
unfrequently the real cause of the murder of Christians, irrespective of every
other consideration, and the carnage of war was often increased by the
violence of bigotry; but amidst the brief records of such events, there are a
few fine instances of evangelical confession. Abulpharagius ‡ ascribes to this
same Walid II. intense hatred of the Christians, and proves it by the
following examples:—Christian scribes were no longer permitted to draw up
public documents in the Greek language, but in Arabic. Schamel, a Chief of the
Arab Christians of Taglib, was reproved by him for worshipping the cross at
the same time that he was a Chief among the Arabs. Concerning the veneration
of the material cross, if such it were, we have already spoken; and it may
only be necessary to observe that, at this period of our history, public
adoration of the crucifix could not have been permitted in Arabia, where every
form of idolatry was utterly abolished, and that the language of Walid, being
evidently contemptuous, cannot be taken as descriptive of the existing mode of
Christian worship. The reply of Schamel was admirable: "As Chief of all the
men of Taglib, I should fear, that, if I were to become

* Theophanes, cited by Fleury, A.D. 723.

† Dynastia x.

† Ibid., A.D. 741.

RENEGADES AT ALEPPO.

a Mohammedan, destruction would overtake them all. For if I deny the faith,
they also may deny Christ." The impatient Caliph commanded him to be smitten
on the cheek, and taken out of his presence, swearing that he should eat his
own flesh unless he would consent to be a proselyte; but no threatening could
subdue his faith, and he submitted to have a piece of flesh cut out of his
side, which was roasted and thrust into his mouth. Still unmoved, he was cast
into prison until the wound was healed, and, bearing the honourable scar,
persevered in confession of our divine Master to the day of his death. As for
Walid, he grew in zeal, and, like other persecutors, artfully confounding good
and bad, at the same time had wizards swum to death,* and Christian captives
in all the cities of Syria taken into the churches and there slain; which is
an important fact, for it shows that those captives had refused to save their
lives by renouncing Christianity. Henceforward the alternative of death or
apostasy is constantly enforced, not only on captives, but on inoffensive and
defenceless multitudes. It is related of the Caliph Al Mahdi, that he was met
by a great multitude of people in the neighbourhood of Aleppo, when visiting
that city, some of them well mounted and richly dressed; but that, on hearing
that they were all Christians, he was exceedingly angry, and required them
instantly to become Mussulmans. About five thousand men did change their
external profession; the women, as of less value, were allowed free choice;
and of one man only it is recorded that he played the martyr,† that he was not
less meek than constant, and that his name was Lit. The name was not recorded
in any formal narrative, but remained in the tradition of survivors as in the
records of heaven. As for the apostates, their town was taken by a hostile
tribe about twenty years afterwards, the wealth preserved for so little time
by the sacrifice of conscience fell into other hands, and they were dispersed
beyond recovery.

While the conditions imposed on Christians by the victorious Saracens
diminished their number, and, in some countries, swept away the last vestige
of their religion, there were a few, both in the East and the West, who still
preferred to die for Christ, and, knowing that ambiguous concession or partial
conformity would neither satisfy the persecutors nor please God, even courted
martyrdom. They saw their churches falling into ruin, the congregations
rapidly diminishing by the defection of the timid and the worldly, the efforts
of reviving piety often frustrated by resistless violence; and when the
comparative liberality of a less bigoted ruler had allowed the re-erection of
a sanctuary, notwithstanding the law which forbade the building of churches,
the inflexible zeal of his successor would probably lead to the demolition of
the edifice, or its occupation as a mosque. To them death would be more
desirable than life; the name of Mohammed was

* "Jussit etiam incantores, qui in regione Akulensi vivebant, interfici. Ligno
alligati suspensique, ne mox interirent, in flavium projecti sunt. Qui
natarunt occisi sunt, quia praestigiis natarunt. Qui autem submersi sunt, suis
sorti relicti sunt. (Ab. Pharag. Vers. Lat., ed. Kirsch., p. 122.) One would
scarcely have expected to find such an identity of superstitious barbarism in
Arabia and England, and that after an interval of a thousand years or more.

† This is the expressive phrase of the historian, as already cited.

as hateful as that of Christ was precious; and notwithstanding the scantiness
of scriptural knowledge, the multiplying corruptions of worship, and the
degeneracy of the Clergy, there was a residue of simple and unyielding faith
in the bosoms of a few, and from their lips an univocal confession to the
divinity of the Saviour claims our respect, and exemplifies the power of
Gospel truth whenever it is the subject of sincere and humble faith. The Greek
Emperor Theophilus, in one of his expeditions into Syria, had destroyed
Sozopetra, a small town, the birth-place of the Caliph Al Motassem. The Vicar
of the Prophet vowed reprisal, caused Amorium, the name of the Phrygian city
where the father of Theophilus first saw light, to be painted on the shields
of his army, now united into one vast body, and marched toward the devoted
place. Theophilus rejected the advice of his counsellors to evacuate the town
and leave its empty palaces only to fall before the fury of the Saracen, but
avoiding the loss of life. He prepared for battle, and Amorium was encouraged
to stand a siege. The siege began; the brave inhabitants withstood the enemy
for fifty-five days, until a domestic traitor led Motassem to storm the city
at the weakest place, and enabled him to race it to the ground. Equal
barbarities were committed in those wars on both sides, and Mohammedans were
murdered as cruelly as Christians; but among the chief persons and officers
carried as prisoners of war to Bagdad, there were a few who not only shared
the fortune of war, but patiently endured suffering for the sake of Christ. In
a prison so dark that not a ray of light could penetrate, and the prisoners
could only distinguish each other by the voice, they were confined in irons.
Their only companions were the jailers, their food bread and water, their bed
the bare ground. Sometimes they were permitted to walk in chains through the
streets of Bagdad to solicit alms, each accompanied by ten soldiers; and when
the charitable had given them bread, the loaves were cut up in daylight by the
keepers, lest they should contain letters. As soon as they were seen to be
enfeebled and emaciated through long imprisonment, attempts were made to
induce them to change religions. The Caliph sent the ablest Mussulmans, who at
first came only in the character of humane visitors, bringing money and
clothing, and then began to talk of the kindness of their master, "who counted
the conquest of a city as a little thing, in comparison with winning souls."
When the Christians rejected the overture with horror, the Missionaries gently
renewed their solicitations, reminding them of their parents, wives, children,
and country. To recover all these they advised them only to dissimulate a
little, merely to submit to circumcision, and recite a prayer with the Caliph.
They would have riches and favours heaped on them; and, watching the chances
of war, might return to their homes, and embrace Christianity again. "Would
you do so," said the captives, "if you were in our place?" They swore that
they would; for nothing was so dear as liberty. "Then," they replied, "we
cannot accept advice as to leaving our religion from men who are not steadfast
in their own." Again the tempters brought alms, and, sitting down beside them,
made large professions of commiseration. "Are not these persons, whom we find
here laden with

CONFESSORS AT BAGDAD.

fetters, relatives of the Emperor, men of spirit and courage, brave warriors?
Have they not numerous troops? What renders all these advantages useless, but
their denial of the Prophet, by whose servants they have been conquered? We
are not surprised, however, at their unbelief, since they have never been
instructed: their ignorance entitles them to forgiveness." Then, addressing
the prisoners, they said: "Leave this rugged path in which the Son of Mary
requires you to go, and enter on the pleasant way which our Prophet has shown
us, both for this life and for the other. What does he teach incredible, when
he says that God can give to those who serve him all kinds of pleasure in this
life, and Paradise in the other? Reject not these benefits: God is good, and,
seeing that men are too weak to keep the law of Jesus, hard and difficult as
it is, he has sent his Prophet Mohammed to release them from those burdens,
and save them by faith alone." The Christians refuted this charge of
imperfection and difficulty, and finished by declaring that nothing should
separate them from the love of Christ. Some time afterwards a party of Fakirs
came to the prison with alms again. After presenting the gift, they kissed
them, sat down, and one began a sort of argument. "You see to whom God gives
power: is it to the Romans or the Mussulmans? To whom gives he fruitful lands
and victorious armies? Is it not to us? But he is just. Then if we did not
observe his commandments, he would not give us such good things; neither would
he have subjected you to us, if you had not refused to believe his Prophet."
The Christians replied, "Now suffer us to ask you a question. When two men
dispute for possession of an estate, if one does no more than cry that it is
his, without producing any witnesses, and the other, without debating, brings
many witnesses, and worthy of credit, to which of the two will the inheritance
be adjudged?" "To him," said the Mussulmans, "who brings good witnesses." The
Christians continued, "Jesus Christ came of a Virgin, as you yourselves say,
having as witnesses all the ancient Prophets, who foretold his coming. You say
that Mohammed came to bring a third law; but should he not have had two or
three Prophets at least to accredit his mission? And as for the advantage you
pretend to draw from your conquests, do you not know of those of the Persians,
who subdued almost all the world; and of the Greeks, who conquered the
Persians; and of the ancient Romans, whose empire was so extensive? Did they
follow the true religion? Were they not idolaters? But God sometimes grants
victory to those who serve him; sometimes he permits them to be conquered,
when they have offended him, that he may chastise them by the hands of the
wicked." In the endurance of such conflicts they spent seven years in prison,
praying for the conversion of the Mohammedans, and maintained a clear
conscience,* until the

* Fleury, Hist. Eccles., xlviii., 2. The French historian ends his narrative
with, "Rendant grâces à Dieu, de ce qu'il leur donnoit le moyen d'expier leurs
péchés passés, et priant," &c. This looks like a superfluous addition; but
even if they did at any time fancy their sufferings to be meritorious, which
in so dark an age is not improbable, they might have understood the spirit of
the promise, "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine,
whether it be of God." (John vii. 17.) And no doubt they knew more of Christ
after suffering in his cause, his grace enabling them thus to suffer.

3 N successor of the Caliph, Al Wathek, caused them to be put to death.*

From the East we return to Spain, where the Saracens are acknowledged to have
exercised a sway far less severe than that of their brethren in Asia: yet even
there they persecuted unto death. Abdalrahman II., and Mohammed, his son,
Caliphs of Cordova, although bound by treaty to tolerate Christianity, were
not displeased when occasion occurred to promote its ruin. Liberty of worship
was, indeed, allowed to the original possessors of the country: Priests,
Monks, and Nuns appeared in the streets of the metropolis in their distinctive
costume, without any molestation; churches and monasteries rose by the side of
mosques; from the towers and from the minarets the mixed population were
summoned by criers and by bells to their respective solemnities; and in return
for this toleration, the Christians were required to observe silence in regard
to Mohammedanism. Whoever should utter a word of blasphemy, as it was called,
against the Prophet, would thereby incur the penalty of death. They were also
forbidden to enter the mosques. On the one side, silence and perfect
submission, and on the other, zeal with absolute power, was the condition of
society approved by the invaders of the Peninsula; and, if it could have been
maintained, would have left abject Christianity to die away without a blow.
But the Christian population were incessantly subjected to petty grievances.
The taxes, light at first, were gradually increased until they became
oppressive; and remonstrances, however reasonable, drew down visitations of
arbitrary power which often made the life of the Christian an almost
insufferable burden. Conciliation was at an end, and the two races regarded
each other with bitter hatred. While the Spaniards were secretly contriving
how they might throw off the yoke, their Mussulman neighbours looked on them
with an abhorrence each day more virulent, and thought themselves defiled by
even touching the garment of a Christian. They jealously observed their words,
their looks, and most trifling actions; used towards them every expression of
contempt, and endeavoured to draw them into quarrels where public power would
in the end give vengeance to private enmity. The Spaniards, justly indignant,
were often betrayed into the utterance of language which exposed them to the
utmost consequence of blasphemy, and suffered the mitigated penalty of stripes
and imprisonment, after which the oppressors took credit to themselves for not
having inflicted that of death. Renegades were constantly presenting
themselves to the Magistrates to purchase temporal freedom at the fearful cost
of everlasting ruin; and one of these, named Perfecto, a Priest, who had first
exposed himself to danger, by some conduct or language offensive to the
Mohammedans, and then apostatized, being at last wounded in conscience, could
not repress the utterance of his real sentiments in familiar conversation with
his new companions. "Christ," said he, "is God over all, blessed for ever; and
if I may tell you, my friends, in strictest confidence, what the Christians
think of the Prophet, they believe him to be one of the false Prophets
predicted in the

* Fleury, Hist. Eccles., xviii., 26. A.D. 845.

"THE MARTYRS OF CORDOVA."

Gospel; that he has led many astray, and will suffer, with them, the vengeance
of eternal fire. But I tell you this only in answer to your questions, and
trusting in your promise to keep the secret." They repeated the assurance that
they would not betray him; but a few days afterwards, as he was walking in the
street, these same persons shouted that he had blasphemed the Prophet, the
bystanders seized him, and he was instantly dragged into the presence of the
Cadi, who sent him to prison as one that had denied the Prophet after making a
profession of islām, and condemned him to be put to death at the next great
festival. He spent his time in fastings and prayer, and, when brought out for
execution, cursed Mohammed and his followers, and was beheaded. This
malediction spoils the whole; but it shows the spirit of the times, and leads
to the observation, unhappily too applicable to all the "martyrs of Cordova,"
as they are generally called, that Perfecto, self-condemned for his defection
from the Christian cause, and actuated by bitter hatred of the party to which
he had been reluctantly attached, had not the mind of Christ. The nine or ten
years of persecution which followed afford material for the history of
persecution, rather than for a Martyrology, although a crowd of saints—saints
in the estimation of their Church, because they died on account of religious
profession—are found in the Roman Calendar, and honoured with special
commemoration under the above historical title. The Christian population of
the Caliphate were so enraged at the sight of these executions, that the
Mohammedan authorities feared a revolt, and would fain have tolerated solemn
protestations against their religion, if such apparent unfaithfulness to the
honour of Islamism would not have exposed them to the fury of their own
people. But a powerful party arose among the Spaniards themselves, who, from
timidity, prudence, or unfaithfulness, either so indifferent to all religion
as to think martyrdom a folly, or so persuaded of the mixture of human passion
with the zeal of those who came forward unsought, to solicit and provoke the
sentence of death, opposed the zeal of the confessors in an extraordinary
manner. They maintained that Christians should be satisfied with liberty of
worship, and with a meek and seasonable confession of Christianity, but should
not wantonly provoke their adversaries. They affirmed that persons who thus
suffered death were not martyrs; and adduced the easy disproof of their claim
to that honour, by showing their dead bodies in a state of putrefaction,
whereas a true martyr's body, as it was vulgarly believed, would be without
corruption. The Bishop Recaphredo, and the Count Servando, led this party;
and, by an unwonted coalition with the enemies of the Christian name, assisted
in apprehending the most zealous of the confessors, who were confined in
prison, that they might be prevented from compelling the Cadi to shed their
blood. Abdalrahman himself rejoiced in this interference, and, at their
request, he, the Vicar of Mohammed, the pledged extirpator of every other
religion from the face of the earth, summoned a number of Bishops to meet at
Cordova, in order to check the zeal of Christians by an ecclesiastical
decision. The "false Synod," as Romish writers not unreasonably call it, met,

3 N 2 and declared that all who broke the conditions of the confederation with
the Moors should be regarded as malefactors. This decision was not without
effect. Many withdrew from the scene of conflict; while others, resolving to
obey God rather than man, and believing that God required the sacrifice of
their life, hastened to snatch the crown of martyrdom, and deserved, at least,
the praise of undoubted sincerity and heroic, if not Christian, devotion.
Their case is decided at a higher tribunal, and it becomes not us to pronounce
a decision on motives which can be known only to the Lord in whose name they
chose to die. It is remarkable that Abdalrahman died suddenly, after he had
been looking on the bodies of some Christians that had hung too long on a
gallows, and directing that they should be burnt. He fell while giving the
orders, was carried speechless into his chamber, and died the same night.*

But the nominally-Christian priesthood were not less intolerant than the
Saracens, as the case of Gotteschalcus, a German Monk, who suffered stripes
and imprisonment for maintaining the peculiar doctrine of Augustine,
respecting election and predestination, sufficiently demonstrates. Rabanus,
Archbishop of Mentz, and Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims, headed a formal
persecution of their erring brother, after they had failed to influence his
judgment by angry disputation; and having had him examined by a company of
thirteen Bishops appointed by that Synod, and his alleged heresy proved, he
was condemned, according to the canons of the Council of Agde, and the rule of
St. Benedict, to be scourged with rods and imprisoned. Being of the diocese of
Soissons, within the province of Hincmar, he was placed in his hands. In the
presence of Charles the Bald, King of France, the barbarous penalty was
inflicted, and he was there forced to drop a bundle of his writings into the
fire; but rather confirmed than shaken in his notions of predestinarian
doctrine, he was forthwith thrown into prison, suffered patiently for
conscience' sake, and after an honourable endurance of not less than twenty-
one years was translated, it may be reasonably hoped, into that happy world,
where the saints no longer see through a glass, darkly, but know even as they
are known. It was a saying of Charlemagne, that God had given two swords for
the government of the world, one to the Pope, and the other to the Emperor;
and it was his policy to act in concert with the Pope by keeping the temporal
sword unsheathed in terror to all who should resist or despise the spiritual
authority. Yet he placed himself at the head of the Church in the empire,
ruled the Clergy, exacted compensation for his patronage by chastising them
gently for their immoralities, opposing image-worship, and interdicting
adoration of the saints. He more than made amends for that interference by an
unsparing persecution of heretics; and whoever refused baptism, being as yet
unconverted from Paganism, or presumed to eat flesh in Lent, was threatened
with pain of death.†

* Fleury, Hist. Eccles., xlviii., 47, 54; xlix., 1, 14, 35, 42; Mariana, Hist.
Esp., vii., 15.

† Menzel, Hist. of Germany, part i., chap. 116, et passim; Hallam's Europe
during the Middle Ages, chap. i., part 1.

CLAUDIUS OF TURIN.

So entirely was persecution the fashion of the times. The ferocious barbarism
of general society thoroughly imbued the church,—to use the word in its lax
and popular acceptation. A Pope, Eugenius II., hoping to promote the ends of
justice, when few respected the sanctity of oaths, made superstitious appeals
to the judgment of God by ordeal an ecclesiastical institution. By making the
accused drink holy water under imprecation, by plunging him into a river, by
requiring him to walk on red-hot iron, or between fires, or by bringing
parties litigant, or their champions, to single combat, the Priests hoped to
improve on the ordinary administration of justice, which had become extremely
ineffective, and to prevent the desecration by perjury, of altars, crucifixes,
and relics, on which persons abjured or sworn had been used to lay their hands
without fear; * and those ordeals were attended with appointed forms of
prayer, notwithstanding the prohibitions of Councils. The labours of Amalarius
the Fortunate, and others of the same kind, mark the ninth century with a
strong character of ritualism, as might be expected when inward piety was
scarcely known; and at the same time the monstrous invention of
transubstantiation distinguishes that age as the midnight of the Church, when,
under Cimmerian darkness, the evidences of sense and reason and Scripture were
buried out of sight in western Christendom; while, in the East, the human
understanding, struggling against the absurdities of image-worship, and
contending with the efforts of the Bishop of Rome and his adherents to plunge
the world into idolatry again, was as unhallowed as Heathenism itself; and a
calamitous warfare, excited by those efforts, failed, because not waged
aright, and left the name of iconoclast, or "image-breaker," as a byword of
discredit to be equally applied to godly men who should endeavour, actuated by
a purer spirit, to remove idols from the sanctuaries of Christian worship.
Such an one was Claudius of Turin. That deservedly-eminent man was a Spaniard,
a disciple, in his youth, of Felix of Urgel, who held the doctrine of
Nestorius; but Claudius thought for himself, and does not appear to have
accepted the opinions of his master. After having sustained the office of
Chaplain in the court of Louis the Pious, when that Prince succeeded to the
empire, he was appointed by him to the bishopric of Turin, where idolatry was
then making great progress. He entered on that charge with the advantage of an
established reputation for piety and learning, a reputation which is confirmed
at this day by the remnants of his writings, extant chiefly in manuscript. Of
these it is enough to say, that they prove him to have been evangelical as a
theologian; and, in every essential point, a Protestant in discipline. His
imperial patron protected him amidst the attacks of his hostile brethren,
constantly affirming that his ministry and government were necessary to the
welfare of the diocese of Turin, and that he could not be removed thence
without irreparable injury to his flock. He is chiefly known to us as a
reformer, who had the images removed from all the churches of that diocese,
preached against saint-worship, and discouraged pilgrimages; and an extract
from one of his writings, as translated by Allix, will most exactly

* Fleury, Hist. Eccles., xliii. 30.

exhibit the views of this first precursor of the Protestant Reformation. "Mark
what the followers of the false religion and superstition do allege: they say
it is in commemoration and honour of our Saviour, that we serve, honour, and
adore the cross; whom nothing pleaseth in our Saviour, but that which was
pleasing to the ungodly; namely, the reproach of his passion, and the token of
his death. They witness hereby that they perceive only of him, what the wicked
saw and perceived of him, whether Jews or Heathens, who do not see his
resurrection, and do not consider him but as altogether swallowed up of death,
without minding what the Apostle saith, 'We know Jesus Christ no longer
according to the flesh.' God commands one thing, and these people do quite the
contrary: God commands us to bear our cross, and not to worship it; but these
are all for worshipping it, whereas they do not bear it at all, neither will
they bear it, either corporally or spiritually: to serve God after this
manner, is to go a whoring from him. For if we ought to adore the cross,
because Christ was fastened to it, how many other things are there which
touched Jesus Christ, and which he made according to the flesh? Did not he
continue nine months in the womb of the Virgin? Why do not they, then, on the
same score, worship all that are virgins, because a virgin brought forth Jesus
Christ? Why do not they adore mangers and old clouts, because he was laid in a
manger, and wrapped up in swaddling clothes? Why do not they adore fisher-
boats, because he slept in one of them, and preached to the multitudes, and
caused a net to be cast out, wherein was caught a miraculous quantity of fish?
Let them adore asses, because he entered into Jerusalem upon the foal of an
ass; and lambs, because it is written of Him, 'Behold the Lamb of God, that
taketh away the sins of the world.' But these sort of men would rather eat
live lambs, than worship their images. Why do they not worship lions, because
he is called 'the Lion of the tribe of Judah?' or rocks, because it is said,
'And the Rock was Christ?' or thorns, because he was crowned with them? or
lances, because one of them pierced his side? All these things are ridiculous,
rather to be lamented than set forth in writing; but we are forced to set them
down, in opposition to fools, and to declaim against those hearts of stone,
whom the arrows and sentences of the word of God cannot pierce; and therefore
we are fain to fling such stones at them. Come to yourselves again, ye
miserable transgressors: why are you gone astray from truth? and why, being
become vain, are ye fallen in love with vanity? Why do you crucify again the
Son of God, and expose him to open shame; and by this means make souls by
troops to become the companions of devils, estranging them from their Creator
by the horrible sacrilege of your images and likenesses, and precipitating
them into everlasting damnation?" *

The people of Piedmont could not be insensible to the force of

* Allix's Remarks upon the ecclesiastical History of the ancient Churches of
Piedmont, chap. ix., gives so full an account of Claudius as entirely
supersedes every other reference.

ADALBERT OF PRAGUE.

these familiar illustrations. His rejection of images was reversed after his
death; but the memory of the reformation and the tradition of the doctrine
were deposited in the public mind, and reappeared in later ages. The
Paulicians, too, were still migrating into Europe from Armenia in small
companies, and assiduously spreading their views in the provinces northward
and westward of Constantinople, and are regarded by many as the living
materials of a future renovated church, laid up by divine Providence
simultaneously with those of northern Italy. Unless history has been falsified
beyond example, and that by numerous and distinct witnesses; and unless the
persecutors of heretics were as accomplished in deception as they were
unanimous in bigotry, which is too much to be credited; the majority of
wandering Paulicians, without a complete Bible, unable to assemble for stated
worship, except during brief and uncertain periods, destitute of regularly-
appointed Teachers and of communion guarded by discipline, irritated by ill-
treatment, and involved in the general ignorance and wickedness of the times,
gradually imbibed Manicheanism, while they would reject even truth, because
coming to them from the Priests, and aided in spreading widely fantastic
speculations like those of Manes throughout Europe. But of a few, it appears
to be not less capable of proof that they were Protestants before Luther. The
main body of the followers of Constantine-Sylvanus remained in Armenia; were
goaded into rebellion by the cruelty of persecutors; and, after having waged
formidable war with the Grecian Emperor, Basil, were finally defeated, and
their name now disappears from the pages of oriental history.

Tales of ascetic devotees, not less regardless of decency than of comfort, and
prodigal of a life that was oppressed with penance, abound in the annals of
the tenth century. The barbarians of northern Europe preyed on the Christian
states; churches were desecrated, monasteries pillaged, and ecclesiastical
persons murdered in common with others; or, when they made themselves
conspicuous to the enemy, in preference to others. It would be uncharitable to
affirm so much of all, but of many it is impossible to doubt that they rushed
on death by the sword or arrow of the barbarian as wantonly, if not as
proudly, as did the old Gymnosophists when they displayed their rude contempt
of life by dying on flaming pyres, to the astonishment of the beholders. They
were admired with superstitious veneration, canonized, and worshipped. Here
and there appeared a confessor whose history, although encumbered with
fabulous inventions, deserves to be remembered. Such an one was Adalbert,
Bishop of Prague. The Priests of his diocese opposed him, because he objected
to their custom of taking wives; and, although there can be no question as to
who was in the right, their manner of contending for that liberty does not
prove that they possessed true religion, any more than would his obstinacy, on
the other side, prove him to be utterly unenlightened. His education, like
that of all his brethren, had been miserably defective. But the people were
savage and licentious; he could not safely live among them, and was obliged to
flee. Hastening to Rome, he resigned his mitre to the Pope, and retired to the
monastery of

Monte Cassino, in Naples. Yielding to the entreaties of his Archbishop, who
desired to see the diocese of Prague restored to order, he soon left that
retreat, and solicited of the Bohemians permission to dwell among them again.
This denied, he determined to endeavour to raise a new church among the
Heathen; proceeded to Dantzic, and there taking ship, landed, after a few
days, on some part of the shore of the Baltic, where a small monastery had
been established, and thence, with two of the brethren, went to a small
island, or delta, formed by the outfalls of a river, and began to preach to
the inhabitants with great boldness. But the chief men of the island attacked
him with clenched fists; and, on another occasion, one of them levelled him to
the ground with the stroke of an oar. Rising on his feet again, he meekly
said, "I thank thee, O Lord, that I have suffered this stroke for Him who was
crucified for me." He then crossed the river to the main-land; but, before a
day was over, the Chief of the village made him prisoner; the savages gathered
from all parts, with vociferous expressions of rage, and seemed ready to tear
him limb from limb. They asked him who he was, and why he came thither. "I am
a Sclave by nation," said he, "by name Adalbert, by profession a Monk, once a
Bishop, now your Apostle. The object of my voyage is your salvation, that you
may leave your deaf and dumb idols, and acknowledge your Creator, who is God
alone; and that, believing in his name, you may have life, and receive as
recompence eternal joy in heaven." Their anger was bridled for the time; but
they refused to allow him entrance into their country, and threatened that if
he remained another day he should lose his head. That night he and his
companions departed, and rowed on the river till they reached another village,
where five days were spent in silence, or deliberation. He then proposed that
they should lay aside their habit, which had shocked the Pagans, allow their
hair and beard to grow after the fashion of the country, and, being dressed
like natives, converse familiarly with them, refrain from formal preaching,
and earn their food by labour. He also proposed to visit a tribe with whose
language he was familiar, and to whom, therefore, access would be more easy.
Next morning the party set out on the proposed journey, singing psalms
cheerfully as they went, and at mid-day rested in an open country, where they
first solemnly communicated, then took a meal, and, after walking a little
further, laid them on the ground to rest, and soon fell asleep. Then came a
party of Heathen, headed by Siggo, an idol-Priest, and bound the defenceless
Missionaries hand and foot. Adalbert exhorted his brethren to suffer
courageously for Christ, when the Priest hurled a dart at him, others did the
same; and he, being thus transfixed with the deadly missiles, and reeking in
his blood, raised his eyes towards heaven, prayed in a loud voice for his own
soul and for his persecutors, and in a few moments expired. The savages cut
off his head, and carried it away on the point of a stake as a sign of their
success in resisting Christian innovation; and the trembling companions of his
mission returned to their monastery with the appalling tale. The single-
mindedness and persevering devotion of Adalbert, equally free from rashness
and

ORIGIN OF THE CRUSADES.

ostentation, mark him as worthy to be called a martyr.* The necessary brevity
of this part of our work precludes the few other examples of the same class
contained in the annals of that age.

The condition of Christendom was everywhere deplorable. Either there was war
with Pagans, or Christian Princes were using favourable conjunctures to engage
them to submit to baptism, and enter into matrimonial alliances; so deepening
and perpetuating the character of Paganism, which had already been impressed
on the populations of the dismembered empire. Priests and Monks were, at the
same time, religious propagandists and political emissaries, pledged to
conquer or to die in prosecution of the holy war. The first shock with
Mohammedanism was over. In the East, and in Africa, Christians, such as they
were, became habituated to absolute submission; multitudes everywhere fell
away to the religion of their rulers, and the defection of even dignitaries in
the church ceased to excite surprise. Those renegades seldom failed to court
the favour of their patrons by vexing their former brethren, as is related by
the chronicler, in a single line, of one of those perverts, a Nestorian
Metropolitan of Dakuka, a city of Assyria.† In Spain the extraordinary
elevation of the Caliphate overawed and dazzled both Jews and Christians; and
the latter, for the sake of peace, and to avoid incurring subjection to
ruinous exactions, sank into a state of abject servitude and habitual
compromise of religious principle, until that principle became almost extinct.
But the torpor of the public mind was soon to be broken. Gerbert, a French
Monk, who had pursued his studies at Cordova for the sake of hearing the
Moslem professors, and had also witnessed the splendour of the church at the
court of the French King, having his mind enlarged by learning, to the horror
of many a poor cleric, who attributed his intellectual superiority to Satanic
inspiration, and with his imagination impressed by experience of the
contrasted fortunes of the Christian people, was elevated to the See of Rome,
and took the name of Sylvester II. There he heard lamentable tidings from
Palestine, where the pilgrims to the "holy sepulchre" learned the sufferings
of Christians by participation, as well as by report, and issued a letter
hortatory to arouse Christendom, if possible, to some great effort for
emancipation. Here originated the Crusades; a system of armed intervention in
promotion of ecclesiastical interests wherever endangered, either by infidel
or dissident, that will appear in subsequent chapters with unhappy frequency.

Voluminous indeed would be a full history of persecution at this period; for
the zeal of churchmen chiefly displayed itself in violence. In the year 1017,
or 1022, a number of persons were discovered at Orleans who held private
meetings, and whose doctrine differed from that of the church. To ascertain
their doctrine, one Arefaste, a nobleman, received permission from the Bishop
to pretend to be an

* Fleury, Hist. Eccles., Ivii., 47, 48; Moreri, Great Historical Dictionary.

† Abulpharagius, Dynast. x., where the version of Kirsch, Dedakuka, is an
oversight for de-Dakuka, of Dakuka. The name of the apostate Metropolitan
seems to have perished.

3 o inquirer, get introduction to their assemblies, and solicit admission to
membership, with an injunction to make known their secret doctrine and usages.
To fortify himself against the illusion of their errors, he was directed to
communicate privately as a "Catholic" every day, and so obtain sacramental
grace for the deletion of daily guilt, and the more successful prosecution of
the imposture. In due time he fulfilled the commission; and, guided by his
information, Robert, King of France, and the Prelates, caused some of the
Canons of the cathedral, men in high repute for learning and sanctity, other
persons of respectability, and Stephen, once the Queen's Confessor, among the
rest, to be arrested. They were examined by the King and the Bishops in the
cathedral with closed doors, and the discordant reports of their examiners and
enemies are the only original materials extant by which to judge of them. They
were condemned under the name of Manicheans; but the accusation of Arefaste
laid abominations to their charge as exorbitant as his own hypocrisy and
perfidy, too polluting to be repeated, and too monstrous to be believed. Their
final answer, as reported by those examiners, throws some light on their
character. "The doctrine," they said, "which you," the Bishops, "hold, you may
tell to those who savour of earthly things, and who believe the figments of
carnal men written upon animal parchment. But, to us, who have the law written
in the inner man by the Holy Ghost, and who relish nothing save what we have
learned from God, the Creator of all things, you vainly propound matters which
are superfluous, and altogether alien from sound divinity. Put, therefore, an
end to your words, and do with us what you list. We clearly behold our King
reigning in heavenly places. With his own right hand he is raising us to an
immortal triumph; and is, even now, about to bestow upon us the fulness of joy
celestial." Bad men, who had been careful to avoid punishment by congregating
in secret for the perpetration of obscene orgies, would rather deny an imputed
heresy than suffer death by confession. Good men, who had been so prudent as
to guard against persecution by the private exercise of their religion, might
be bold enough to avow the truth when dragged before such a tribunal. They
were instantly condemned to die. To prevent the mob from pressing into the
building, the Queen herself kept the door of the cathedral when they were
taken out to be burnt; and to show her zeal, if not to vent her spite on the
man who had perhaps been too strict in watching her conduct, with a stick she
thrust out an eye of Stephen, her former Confessor, who was dragged in that
condition to the stake. It is said that a Priest and a Nun recanted, but that
ten Canons and four laymen were committed to the flames, and that when they
began to feel the fire, they cried out that they had been deceived; but it was
then too late to save them. Whether too late or not, the fact that they were
burnt to death is certain; and there is good ground for conjecture that they
had received the doctrine of the Paulicians, taught, at first, by an Italian
lady who came to live in France, and that they held nothing more in common
with the ancient Manicheans than some trifling speculations, which might have
been maliciously inter-

REACTION OF PAGANISM.

preted, and said to be derived from those heretics.* In Hungary there were
many victims to the profession of Christianity. The nation had been recently
proselytized by means of royal authority, which was exerted in the
distribution of rewards and punishments, with all the usual appliances of
temporal inducement to profess a faith honoured in the highest places. But the
King's religion fell with the King himself before a general insurrection of
the Hungarians, who invited three fugitive nobles to head the revolt, under
the condition of allowing them to live as Pagans, follow their old customs,
kill the Bishops and Clergy, demolish the churches, and worship idols. A man
named Vatha was the first who openly relapsed. Following his exhortations, the
multitude again offered sacrifices, and indulged their Tartarian taste in
feasting on horse-flesh. They killed Christians, both Priests and laics, and
burnt several churches: then, in full revolt against their King, Peter, they
murdered the Germans and Latins whom he had brought into the country, and
threatened to massacre all the Bishops, Priests, and collectors of tithes. By
this time two of the insurgent Chiefs were marching on Pesth. Four Bishops, on
their approach to the city, went out to meet them, endeavoured to avert their
fury by showing them signs of honour, and then returned within the gates,
where Vatha and a crowd of Pagans surrounded and assailed them with a shower
of stones. The Bishop, Gerard, was riding in a chariot, and for some time
suffered no injury, but pronounced benedictions on the raging multitude, until
they overturned the chariot, and stoned him as he lay upon the ground. "O Lord
Jesus Christ," he cried with a loud voice, "lay not this sin to their charge:
they know not what they do." Transpierced by a lance, he breathed his last.
Other two Bishops, and a great number of Christians, were slain the same day;
and so that half-barbarous people terribly repaid the severities by which they
had been coerced into the profession of an unfelt, and therefore unknown,
religion, and avenged themselves for the contributions unwisely levied for its
support. The King was killed; one only of the rebel Chiefs survived the civil
war, and gained the crown, which, notwithstanding his promise to the contrary,
he caused to be placed on his head by three Bishops, who had escaped the
slaughter; and then, thinking perhaps to stone for his temporary re-
establishment of Paganism, he suddenly commanded all his subjects to become
Christians again under pain of death, and they once more submitted to profess
a faith inwardly more despised than ever.† Revolutions of the same kind were
not unfrequent in northern Europe. The Sclavonians beyond the Elbe, northward
of Saxony, had yielded in great numbers to the efforts of their Prince,
Gotteschale, to bring them over to a political profession of Christianity;
but, in the year 1065, he was killed while saying mass by some Pagans whom he
had been endeavouring to convert. A Priest named Hippo suffered with him,
killed also at the altar; and

* Inquiry into the History and Theology of the ancient Vallenses and
Albigenses, &c., by George Stanley Faber, B.D., book ii., chap. 4; Maitland,
Albigenses and Waldenses, sect. iv.; Fleury, Hist. Eccles., lviii., 53-56.

† Fleury, Hist. Eccles., lix., 7.

3 o 2 many others, both lay and cleric, were at the same time put to death.
John, an aged Scotch Bishop, who had baptized many thousands, was beaten with
rods, led about several towns amidst the derision of the Heathen, and, as he
remained steadfast in confessing the faith of Christ, they first cut off his
hands and feet, and then beheaded him, and presented his head before the image
of one of their gods. The widow of Gotteschale was subjected to shameful
indignities; the savages overran the entire province of Hamburg with fire and
sword, and razed the city to the ground. Schleswig, too, fell a prey to their
fury, and all who persisted in professing Christianity were massacred. The
Sclavonians altogether returned to Heathenism, as they had done twice before,
after having apparently abandoned it in compliance with the will of
Charlemagne and Otho.*

But the less than half-converted Europeans were everywhere sinking towards
their original condition, and the forms of Christianity were strangely mingled
with those of the old idolatry. Two memorable examples will serve to
characterize the age. The Popes of Rome had, for some time past, been anxious
to supersede the ancient Spanish, or Mozarabic, Liturgy by their own Roman;
and Gregory VII., with characteristic perseverance, urged the adoption of his
Breviary on the Spanish Sovereigns, but without success. At length the
question was brought to a final discussion at Toledo, in the presence of
Alfonso, King of Castile, who had recently recovered that city from the
Saracens. On an appointed day the King and Queen, who both desired the
innovation, the Archbishop, the Legate, the Clergy, and an immense multitude
of people, were gathered together to determine whether the old book or the new
should be the standard of their devotions. The Clergy, the representatives of
the army, and the chief of the people contended during some hours for the
preservation of their national formulary; while the King, supported by Papal
authority, and excited by his wife, urged the adoption of the other, and
spared not threatenings to the terror of the people. Neither party would give
way; and it was gravely determined that two soldiers should be chosen to
settle the matter at once by single combat. The champions were elected; the
great assemblage deferred the choice of their prayers to the issue of the
fight; and the sponsor of the Gothic form vanquished him of the Roman amidst
the loud exultation of army, Priests, and people. But Queen Constance besought
her consort not so readily to yield, but to try his cause by fire. The public
assented; and the Priests, tolerably certain of good success, prepared to
submit their devotionary to the searching test. The Primate, the Legate, and
the Clergy united in exhorting the people to prepare themselves by prayers and
fasting for a second appointed day. A pile of wood was kindled, and, when in
hottest conflagration, the two books were thrown into the flames. To the
admiration of the uninstructed, neither was consumed. The Roman, warped by the
heat, showed a slight motion; the Gothic was singed a little on the surface;
but both were taken entire from the embers. The Roman, having endured the
trial without any visible change, was

* Fleury, Hist. Eccles., lxl., 17.

FIERY ORDEALS.

received generally; but the Gothic, or Mozarabic, being singed, yet otherwise
uninjured, was deemed worthy of preservation on a few altars, and is to this
day honoured with occasional recitation in Toledo. The King gave this
decision, establishing the pleasure of the Pope in his dominions; and on that
day originated the Spanish proverb, Allá van leyes, do quieren Reyes, "When
Kings say whither, the laws go thither."* No doubt the King believed himself
to be pronouncing truly when he said that both rituals pleased God, and the
people were sincerely persuaded that they had seen a twofold miracle; but the
cunning clerics had used the interval appointed for prayer and fasting to
prepare the volumes by a solution that would make them fire-proof.† Despite
the prohibitions of Popes and Councils, "a great fire" often superseded the
only and legal methods of obtaining real evidence; for the elements were
thought to be all under angelic influence, either malign or beneficent; and in
that mysterious world, where natural and supernatural were intimately
confounded, they fancied that God held a tribunal, to be approached with
confidence of receiving an infallible decision. A Bishop of Florence, usually
called Peter of Pavia, was accused of simony; and so notorious were his
simoniacal practices, that a considerable portion of the Clergy separated from
him, and the people commonly called him Simon Magus. But the higher Clergy and
the Pope supported him, as it might be expected that accomplices would do; and
the Florentines, disgusted with the man, took occasion during the solemnities
of Lent, 1067, to appear in sackcloth, with lamentations, and cry to God for
deliverance from "Simon the Magician." The churches were closed, the belfries
silent, and a large body of Clergy, followed by a dense multitude, appeared at
the gate of the monastery of St. Salvatore to demand an audience of the Friars
there living in community. They were all fasting. Florence was under a
voluntary interdict: no mass, no meal. Even the sucking babes were denied
their mothers' breasts; and the brethren of St. Saviour were entreated to
prepare a great fire. The same request had been made in vain to the Bishop;
who, of course, refused to hazard his bishopric, perhaps his life, on the
event of an ordeal which others must prepare; but the Abbot signified the
consent of his brotherhood to take part in the awful ceremony, and one of
them, also called Peter, readily presented himself to pass through the fire,
and therein to be consumed if the Bishop were innocent of simony. His
appearance, as a living man, should prove Peter of Savoy to be guilty. Faggots
were brought in from all directions, and the people raised two piles, each ten
feet long, five broad, and four and a half high; a narrow passage between them
was covered with dry wood; and during the construction of the pyre psalms and
litanies were chanted. Peter then went to the altar of the convent church, by
order of the Abbot, to celebrate mass, which was performed with great
solemnity, many of the people and

* Joan. Pinii Tractatus de Liturgia Mozarabica, Romae, p. xlv., seq.; Mariana,
Hist. Rap., lib. ix., cap. 18.

† Beckmann, History of Inventions. Jugglers, Rope-dancers, Automata, &c., and
notes, Bohn's edition.

Priests weeping through excitement. When they came to the words, Agnus Dei,
"Lamb of God," four Monks went to light the faggots, one carrying a crucifix,
another holy water, the third twelve consecrated candles, and the fourth a
censer full of incense. The people raised a shout as they appeared; chanted
Kyrie eleeson, "Lord, have mercy upon us," in a mournful tone; and then prayed
to Jesus Christ to defend his cause, and to the Virgin, St. Peter, and St.
Gregory, to assist by their intercession. Next came Peter, carrying a cross,
and followed by Abbots and Monks chanting a litany. Silence being had, a
strong-voiced Monk read up a prayer, to which all signified assent. Then an
Abbot raised his voice, and said, "My dear brethren and sisters, God is our
witness that we do this for the salvation of your souls, that you may
henceforth avoid simony, with which nearly the whole world is infected: for
you must know that this crime is abominable, and that others are almost
nothing in comparison." The burning was by that time beginning to abate, and
the heap glowed red. Then the champion, by order of the Abbot, made his
prayer: "O Lord Jesus Christ, I beseech thee that if Peter of Pavia has
usurped the see of Florence by simony, thou wouldst succour me in this
terrible judgment, and preserve me from the power of the fire, as thou didst
of old preserve the three children in the furnace." When all present had said
"Amen," he gave his brethren the kiss of peace, and asked the people how long
he should stay in the fire: they answered, "As long as you can walk slowly
through." Fixing his eyes on the cross, he walked steadily through, with his
feet bare, emerged at the further end, looked gaily around, and returned to
the middle of the burning path to pick up his handkerchief which he had let
fall there. He would have gone in again, but the bystanders prevented him,
covered him with kisses from head to foot, pressed on him to touch if it were
but the hem of his garment; and a deafening cry proclaimed Peter the Monk
blessed, and Peter the Magician a detestable simoniac. The Pope ventured to
confirm the sentence, and to depose the Prelate, who covered himself under a
profession of repentance, turned Monk, found bread in a monastery, and "Peter
the Catholic" follows next on the catalogue of Florentine Bishops, in
ostentatious contrast with his less fortunate predecessor, "Peter the
Simoniac."* The monastic juggler is immortalized in Italian history as "fiery
Peter," and completes the triad. These ordeals are described at length to
supersede any further description of such ceremonies, and to convey a distinct
idea of one of the instruments used on subsequent occasions for the
suppression of truth, or the ruin of obnoxious persons. Silver and steel, fire
and sword, were now the acknowledged resource and weapons of the church
militant. Simony, acknowledged by the above-mentioned Abbot as almost
universal, was inseparable from a church which had become wholly secular.
Pagans were dragooned into submission to that church, and Jews were robbed,
tormented, and murdered beyond all example in the preceding history of
Christendom. At Rome, for

* Fleury, Hist. Eccles., lxl., 27, 28; Moreri, s. v., Pedro del Fuego;
Macquer, Hist. Eccles.

FIRST CRUSADE.

example, there was a shock of earthquake on Good Friday, just after the
worship of the cross; a wretched Jew said that some of his brethren had
laughed at a crucifix, and that the earth had trembled with horror at their
profanity. The Pope informed himself of the truth of the information, and
instantly had a few Jews' heads taken off: the weather, which was tempestuous
at the time, forthwith became serene, public vengeance was satisfied, the
cross was adored with tenfold assiduity, the Jews were hated more intensely
than ever, and the end of the invention was fully answered.* Coercion by brute
force was used over the inferior Clergy, to compel the licentious to put away
their concubines, and the honest to repudiate their wives: force was often
resisted by equal or superior force, and lives were sacrificed in Italy itself
during the discreditable conflict.† In Germany there was a formal revolt of
"concubinary Clerks," as married Ministers were ignominiously designated; and
finding that scriptural argument had no weight with their superiors, they
forcibly dispersed a Council which met at Erfurt, in 1074, to devise methods
of compulsion, leaving the Archbishop of Mayence, as ex-President of that
Council, to anathematize them once a year, amidst the derision of their wives
and children.‡

The too successful contention of Gregory VII. with the Sovereigns of
Christendom for the confirmation of ecclesiastical prerogatives, and the
interminable controversy respecting investitures, cannot be related
intelligibly on pages which must be principally occupied by other subjects;
but the student of church history will find abundant material for reflection
in the annals of the eleventh century, by whomsoever edited or compiled. The
Crusades must now engage our attention for a few moments. Sylvester II. had
called for pity towards the suffering Christians of the East, so that Europe
was already prepared to entertain the project, when Gregory, amidst his
innumerable schemes for aggrandizement, for some time cherished this also. He
corresponded on the subject with the Greek Emperor, Michael, who had thought
it politic to solicit his sympathy, and wrote urgent letters to the Emperor of
the West, and others, asking for assistance; saying that fifty thousand men
were already anxious to set out on the holy war, if he would march at their
head, which he would gladly do, if he could have increased co-operation. But
the grand idea of a universal arming of the church for the destruction of
Saracen, Pagan, and schismatic, was not carried into experiment until nearly
twenty years later, in the pontificate of Urban II. A French pilgrim at
Jerusalem, mingling with the crowd of devotees who visited the spot reputed to
be the sepulchre of Christ, "the holy sepulchre," beheld with grief the
injuries suffered by the Christian population and the pilgrims. Encouraged by
the Patriarch, he hastened his return to Europe; and, in the twofold character
of pilgrim and hermit, threw himself at the feet of Urban, who received him as
a chosen messenger of God, and encouraged him to arouse Christendom to
vengeance on the Saracenian tyrants who desecrated the holy city. Although
Peter was mean in personal appearance, the

* Fleury, Hist. Eccles., lviii., 42.

† Ibid., lxi., 25.

‡ Ibid., lxii., 12.

one idea that possessed his whole soul gave extraordinary power to his
utterance; rusticity of manners and extreme asceticism made him the more
acceptable to the multitude; while the force of his appeals, and the grandeur
of his favourite conception, captivated persons of the highest rank. Immense
congregations heard his descriptions with amazement, caught his indignation,
and groaned with impatience to reconquer the "glorious resting-place" of their
Saviour's body, and avenge the oppressions of Christian people. While Peter
traversed his native country, everywhere kindling a flame of popular
enthusiasm, the Pope convened a Council at Placentia, in Italy; and then, by
adjournment, at Clermont, in France, where hundreds of Prelates, with Princes
and soldiers, and uncounted multitudes of spectators, conducted or witnessed
the discussion of various measures of external reform, all subsidiary to the
object of sending a great army to Palestine for the conquest of the land, and
the expulsion of the infidels. From a platform erected in the market-place the
Pope harangued the people, who needed no persuasion; and the acclamation of
that day, "God wills it," was adopted as the cry to be repeated on the fields
of battle. Urban desired them to wear on the breast, or shoulder, a red
cross;—the cross as the symbol of redemption, the colour to signify the
sacrifice of blood offered in the cause of the Crucified;—and promised plenary
indulgence to every one who should set out with the sacred host, and the glory
of martyrdom beside to every one who should die in the service of the Cross.
Nothing could be more agreeable to myriads than predatory warfare, no
penitential toil more adapted to their ferocious propensities; and where there
existed less courage, restless conscience, aroused, but unenlightened, by the
strange fanaticism, rejoiced in the prospect of a new and glorious method of
salvation. The immediate effect of these incitements was the assemblage of a
vast and promiscuous multitude, gathered by families, encumbered by the
infirmities of age and sex, and without any knowledge of geography or tactics
to serve them on their military pilgrimage. In the wilds of Hungary, on the
Thracian mountains, along the broad and uncertain tracks towards the passage
of the Bosphorus, and on the plain of Nice, where the more hardy remnant were
surrounded and cut to pieces by the Turks, the wretched horde fell victims to
their fantastic zeal. But the example of their departure had roused others
into action; and from France, Piedmont, Lombardy, the Italian peninsula,
Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, England, and even from Scotland and Ireland,
by various routes, with diverse fortunes, and after great losses, the various
sections of croisés, or persons marked with the red cross, were encamped under
the walls of Constantinople, to the terror of the Emperor Alexius, who had
asked for some addition to his own forces to counteract the power of the
Mussulmans, which then threatened his metropolis and empire; but saw, instead
of a reasonable contingent, such an immense array of warriors as, if well
disciplined and conducted, might have been a resistless enemy; in whose good
faith, as mere allies, he could place no confidence, and whose necessities it
could not be possible for him long to satisfy. The complication of

RACK OF JERUSALEM.

intrigues arising from his well-grounded jealousy is traced by the historians
of the Crusades. The pilgrim host was at last mustered on Asiatic ground, to
the number, it was said, of one hundred thousand fighting men, mounted and
equipped, besides armed foot-pilgrims, estimated so high as six hundred
thousand; but certainly a formidable army, if the term "army" could fairly be
applied to an assemblage so undisciplined. Nice fell before them; but Alexius,
their doubtful ally, contrived to plant his standard on the walls; then
Antioch, and finally Jerusalem. Never did an infuriated army dishonour
humanity more deeply than the depraved zealots who sacked that city. For three
days they toiled in the horrid work of carnage. Seventy, some say one hundred,
thousand vanquished and unresisting Saracens, men, women, babes,—for there was
no pity,—perished by the Christian sword. The Jews were thought deserving a
special mark of abhorrence, and therefore burnt alive in their synagogues.
Even a company of three hundred Moslems, to whom two of the Chiefs had given a
standard as a pledge of exemption from the slaughter, were brought out and
murdered. When the greater part of this butchery was finished, and the air was
already infected, the Christians put off their blood-soaked garments, washed
themselves, left Saracen slaves to carry away the bodies of the slain, with
bare feet and uncovered heads went up the hill of Calvary, reciting solemn
anthems, and devoutly kissed the stone which was said to have covered the
sepulchre of our Lord. One shudders in thinking of the horrid details
boastfully related by crusaders themselves; but we may again rejoice in the
consideration that those men were not indeed soldiers of the Cross, that their
religion was anything but Christianity, and that the teaching of Him in whose
name they played the demon, and the known spirit of His holy religion, are as
opposite to those deeds as heaven is to hell. We blush not for them, although
we may weep over the record of their madness and obduracy; for "they were none
of His." The Crusades were not a work of Christianity, but of dark fanaticism;
and whatever of good there may have been in the first intention, it was
utterly lost in the wickedness of those who were impelled by the eloquence of
the hermit, the authority of the Pope, and perhaps actuated in some slight
degree by pity for afflicted brethren. Who can calculate the injury done to
the cause of Christ in Asia by the traditional abhorrence of those murderous
avengers? As might have been expected, the sensuality of the crusaders was as
gross as their thirst of blood was intense; their ambition and avarice were
insatiate; and when their arms were not employed together for the destruction
of the Saracen, they turned them against each other in quarrels of cupidity,
jealousy, and revenge. He who so loved us that he endured the cross and
despised the shame at Jerusalem, was thus dishonoured in that city in the last
year of the eleventh century.* The writer of this brief notice would gladly
have enjoyed the poetry, the ideal romance, of that part of medieval history.
He might pleasantly have borrowed ideas of the Crusades from Tasso, who tells
us that he invoked his muse among the blessed choirs of heaven, wearing of

* Mills, History of the Crusades; Gibbon, Decline and Fall, &c., chap. Iviii.

3 P stars immortal the golden diadem, and breathing celestial ardour into the
poet's breast; * but it would be heartless affectation to whiten and adorn the
sepulchre, forgetful of the unpitied victims whose remains lie mouldering
within.

English history at this time affords little to our purpose. Canute the Dane,
having completed the conquest of England, took the church under his
unremitting care. After spending about fifteen years in the consolidation of
his kingdom, he went to Rome, "to pray for the forgiveness of his sins, for
the safety of his dominions, and for the people under his government." He
there, in imagination, adored the Apostles Peter and Paul, and a multitude of
other saints, who seemed to have revisited that holy city. At their altars or
shrines he deposited costly gifts, acknowledged the power of Peter and his
successors over the kingdom of heaven, conferred with the Emperor Conrad, who
was there during the solemnities of Easter; and obtained from him and one
Rodolfo, "a King," and other Princes, promise of greater freedom for his
subjects on pilgrimage towards Rome through their territories, and from the
Pope, John XX., another promise of reduction of charges on the English Clergy.
The return rendered to His Holiness for that concession was not merely a vow
to reform his life, but the proceeds of a rigorous exaction, from the nobles
and people of England, of "the pence owing to Rome for St. Peter, whether from
cities or villages; and, in the middle of August, the tenth of the produce of
the earth; and, on the festival of St. Martin, the first-fruits of seeds, to
the church of the parish where each one resided, which was called in English
circset." Returned home, he enriched Coventry with the arm of St. Augustine,
bought at Pavia with a hundred talents of silver, and a talent of gold, of his
subjects' money. For the love of heaven, for the pardon of his sins, and the
remission of the transgressions of his deceased brother Edmund, he granted to
the church of "the holy Mother of God, Mary," at Glastonbury, various
perquisites, and immunity of its lands from all claim and vexation, equally
with his own, confirming the exclusive jurisdiction of the "island" of
Glastonbury to the Abbot and convent.† The Clergy were supreme. Bishops and
Abbots were the fountains of dignity, as well as the guides of conscience; and
their hands dispensed the honour of knighthood, together with sacraments and
absolution.‡ When the Normans conquered England, they came under the blessing
of Pope Alexander II., who had sent a consecrated banner to Duke William,§
afterwards the Conqueror; and William accepted and acted on the Laws of King
Edward, wherein it is affirmed, that "the King, because he is the Vicar of the
highest King, is appointed for this purpose, to rule the earthly kingdom and
the Lord's people; and, above all

* "Ma su nel cielo infra i beati cori

Hai di stelle immortali aurea corona;

Tu spira al petto mio celesti ardori."

Gierusalemme Liberata, 1., 2.

† William of Malmesbury, book ii., chap. 11.

‡ Ibid., book iv., chap. 1.

§ Foxe, Acts and Monuments, book iii., A.D. 1066. William the Conqueror.

ANSELM.

things, to reverence his holy church, to govern it and to defend it from all
injuries; to pluck away wicked doers, and utterly to destroy them."* The
Conqueror, however, maintained the regal dignity, in relation to the
priesthood, far more than his Danish predecessors; and his son Rufus went so
far as to prohibit all persons, both lay and clerical, from making appeals to
Rome, or even going thither without royal permission. His evil passions, no
doubt, had something to do with this hostility to the Pope; and Anselm,
Archbishop of Canterbury, had reason to complain of the King's tyranny when he
embarked penniless at Dover, to lay a complaint before his ecclesiastical
Chief. And here it may be noted, that twelve years after the famous ordeal at
Toledo to determine the superiority of the Roman Breviary or Missal,† the
English Archbishop, writing to the Bishop of Naumburg on the subject of ritual
uniformity, displays a spirit of liberality superior to his age. "Your
Worship," he writes, "complaineth of the sacraments of the church, that they
are not made everywhere after one sort, but are handled in divers places after
divers sorts. And truly, if they were ministered after one sort, and agreeing
through the whole church, it were good and laudable; yet, notwithstanding,
because there be many diversities which differ not in the sum of the
sacrament, in the strength of it, or in the faith, or else can be gathered
into one custom, I think they are rather to be borne with in agreement of
peace, than to be condemned with offence. For we have this from the holy
fathers, that if the unity of charity be kept in the catholic faith, the
diversity of customs hurteth nothing. But if it be demanded whereof this
diversity of customs doth spring, I perceive no other cause thereof than the
diversity of men's wits, which, although they differ not in strength and truth
of the thing, yet they agree not in the fitness and comeliness of the
ministering; for that which one judgeth to be meeter, oftentimes another
thinketh to be less meet."‡ But Anselm was not always so liberal and gentle,
as we soon shall see.

Notwithstanding the zeal of the crusaders for the recovery of the Holy
Sepulchre, and the compassion excited by descriptions of the sufferings of
pilgrims and others in Jerusalem, the civil condition of Christians in the
East, with the exception now to be noticed, appears to have become very
tolerable, and often equal to that of their Moslem neighbours. Conquered and
tributary as they were, many of them at this time held the highest offices in
the state, royalty alone excepted, and not only served in arms, but even
commanded armies. They had not that zeal for the propagation of the Gospel
which would have provoked persecution; submitting to refrain from external
display by litanies, processions, or even crosses erected on churches, or
carried through the streets, their worship was generally undisturbed,

* Foxe, Acts and Monuments, book iii., A.D. 1066. William the Conqueror.
"Utterly to destroy them" is the phrase which, very slightly varied, occurs in
all the engagements taken by both Princes and Bishops to their acknowledged
Superior in Rome, for the extirpation of heretics.

† To confound the Breviary and Missal would now prove extreme ignorance; not
so when speaking of a volume which partook of the character of both.

‡ Foxe's translation, Acts and Monuments, book iv., A.D. 1098. William Rufus

3 P 2 except in times of war; and both Mohammedans and Christians regarded
each other with forbearance. The prevalent characteristic of the Oriental
Christians was indifference. If the Patriarch of Jerusalem had deemed it
prudent to recount, in his letters to the European Princes, a persecution
which overwhelmed Jerusalem more than eighty years before, but was followed by
the repentance of the persecutor; or if the western Clergy were not profoundly
ignorant of eastern languages and history; that event would have been related
by the chroniclers of the eleventh century with the usual decoration of
portent and miracle. Their omission is supplied from other sources. In the
year of the Arabs, 386, and of Christ, 1008, the Caliph Hakem began his reign
in Egypt. His first Vizir was a Christian, for Christians were usually
intrusted with that office; and when he had provoked the Egyptians to an
insurrection by murdering a too faithful servant, Pahed, a Christian again,
was hastily invested with "royal robes," and shown to the people as Vizir, in
order to appease their fury by a popular appointment. After three years'
favour, he, too, was killed, to satisfy two Arabs who were jealous of him; but
who, being themselves raised to power over Syria and Egypt, equally oppressed
both Mussulmans and Christians, until the sister of Hakem, by tears and
entreaties, persuaded him to have one of them beheaded, which was done
accordingly. The other soon suffered the same fate, and the people of both
provinces were content. Manzur, a Christian, was then placed over the entire
caliphate, and also became the object of incessant complaint, together with
many Christians whom Hakem, with his characteristic versatility, caused to be
scourged to death. Manzur himself was scourged until they thought him dead,
and left him to be eaten by dogs; but as some one saw the body move, he was
taken home, where he revived, and the Caliph endeavoured to compensate for the
barbarous usage by receiving him to favour again, and, with the restoration of
dignity, gave him a new name, Sufficient. The reign of Hakem was one of
terror. As he rode on his ass through the streets at night, for he was fond of
nocturnal rambling, people were afraid to approach to do him the accustomed
honours, and the way was clear and silent. His pride grew to such a height,
that he fancied the adorations performed in the presence of the Vicar of
Mohammed, (resembling those which are still rendered to the pretended Vicar of
Christ at Rome or elsewhere,) to be an acknowledgment of superhuman dignity,
and was so weak as to avow what others may have imagined in their blindness,
but not often ventured to express aloud. Among his servants were some who
publicly addressed him as a god. "Peace to thee, thou only one and without
companion; Peace to thee, O thou that killest and makest alive, and enrichest
and makest poor;" and the idolatrous salutations were accepted with complacent
smiles. One of his flatterers went to Mecca, struck the black stone in the
Caaba with his lance, and then said to the bystanders, "Ye fools, why do ye
worship a thing which cannot either do you good or harm, and forsake him in
Egypt who can both kill and make alive." But the hero-god in Egypt heard that
by the tricks of Monks in Jerusalem, the Christians there were

HAKEM, PROPHET OF THE DRUGES.

made to believe that in the church of the Holy Sepulchre celestial fire
descended by miracle in answer to their invocations, (the same absurd fraud is
performed there yearly, to the present time,) and, unable to brook the visible
pretension of any other divinity to receive popular adoration, he commanded
that church to be emptied of its furniture, and then razed to the foundations.
The command was readily executed; thousands of other churches throughout his
dominions were levelled to the ground; and criers everywhere proclaimed his
pleasure, that all Christians and Jews should embrace the faith of the Arabs,
and accept honours and rewards, or be exposed to shame. The Christians who
would not renounce their faith were required to wear a cross, suspended from
the neck; the Jews, an image of a calf's head, in memory of the golden calf
which their fathers worshipped in the desert. Neither Jew nor Christian should
wear rings, nor ride on horse-back. They might only mount mules or asses,
without saddles of the kind in general use, and with wooden stirrups. Many
left his dominions, a few apostatized, the remainder wore ornamental crosses,
and rode on ornamented saddles of a new sort, and the Jews carried a small
trinket fashioned after the pattern prescribed by Hakem; but the tyrant was
moved to anger at the partial evasion of his edict, and compelled them, under
pain of death, to wear wooden crosses, each weighing four pounds, by the
Bagdad standard,* and the calf's head was to be of similar material, and equal
weight. After a few years, however, he condescended to recall the decree, and
allow the reluctant proselytes to profess Christianity and Judaism again, the
exiles to return, and the churches to be rebuilt in better style than before.
When he had reigned five years longer, worshipped by the court and their
adherents, and detested by the nation, letters were frequently presented to
him during his nightly rides, which, read within doors, disclosed the bitter
hatred of all classes of his subjects. Anonymous charges against favourites,
the work of malevolence as well as revenge, were mingled with imprecations on
himself. Burning with anger, having no certain object on which to wreak
punishment, and tormented with suspicion, his sister, who, at the commencement
of his reign, had persuaded him to murder the Governor of Syria, became a
chief object of distrust. Aware of her danger, she hurried away to the house
of one of the chief men, whose life was also threatened, contrived a plan by
which to murder Hakem that very night; and when going to a neighbouring hill
to gaze on the stars, for he was a superstitious astrologer, riding on his
ass, and attended by a little boy, it is said that he commanded his other
servants to remain at the foot of the hill, ascended to the top, dismounted,
and, seated on the ground, anxiously fixed his eyes on the starry firmament.
Turning eastward, he saw Mars just risen above the horizon. Astrology had no
bright omen for him, nor conscience any comfort. "Art thou up?" he muttered,
"art thou up, thou cursed star, shedder of blood? My hour is come." He might
have remembered that it was written in his horoscope, that if he should escape
peril on a

* The Bagdad idea, or "pound," is supposed to have been between twelve and
thirteen ounces.

certain night, or, as his historian writes it, if the cup of that hour should
pass from him, he would live eighty years. But shall he escape? He sat with
fixed gaze on the ascending star: the hour was indeed come; two hired
ruffians, concealed near the spot, threw a cord on his neck from behind, and
strangled him. No cry betrayed the deed. The little boy was killed, and the
beast hamstrung. The body of the god, the killer and the reviver, was conveyed
to his sister's dwelling. The next morning various rumours unsatisfactorily
accounted for his disappearance. His sister set abroad the notion that he had
killed the boy to prevent discovery, and then gone into the desert for
meditation. This gained credit with many, and was eagerly caught by his
admirers; for fanaticism had been mixed with pride, and gained even him a few
deluded followers; and to this day the Druses on Mount Lebanon, and even in
India, believe that Hakem did not die, but disappeared; that he still lives,
will return when it pleases him, will reign over all the earth, throughout all
ages; that men of all other sects and religions will be subjected to him, put
in irons and laid under tribute; but that the Unitarians, as they call
themselves, will reign with him throughout all ages. This singular sect, we
may add, is a living evidence of the most remarkable imposture of the darkest
period in the history of the Christian church, and a humiliating example of
the imbecility of our fallen nature.*

We must not hurry over the twelfth century. Observing the sequence of events
from the twelfth to the nineteenth, we recognize the beginnings of the great
social renovation now in happy progress; and although it is too early to speak
of "the dawn of the Reformation," or to select any eminent person who shall be
honoured as the "morning star" of the day now brightening to its noon, it is
not too early to discern the hand of God, in sovereign energy, preparing
instruments, if not yet raising up the living agents who are to rebuild his
ruined church. The human mind begins to awaken from its lethargy. Not
generally, not in the masses of the people, not in the thousands of the
Clergy, not exclusively among Christians; but where Christianity is prostrate,
extinct, or alien as yet, where the ultimate benefit of this increasing mental
activity cannot appear to human foresight, the Father of spirits is gently
awakening the world from the mental slumber of many ages. After the Saracens
had thrown down the feeble barriers which opposed their progress, and
possessed an empire exceeding the Roman in geographical extent, and scarcely
inferior to it in grandeur, although less famous by classical association, and
less familiar to the people of the western world; they cultivated, in various
degrees, the arts of peace. In Spain, where no desert lay to receive tents
like those of the Arabian nomades, and where, instead of the neighbourhood of
savages like those of Africa, the valour of France, and the indomitable
courage of the Spanish

* Abulpharagius, Dynast. x., Jowett, Researches in Syria, (Druses,) and
Milman, Gibbon, vol. x., pp. 363-365, have supplied this account of Hakem. The
Exposé de la Religion des Druses, by M. Silvestre de Sacy, 2 vols., Paris,
1838, which the author has not seen, will probably give the most complete
information both of Hakem and his sect.

STATE OF LEARNING.

mountaineers in the northern marches and the Pyrenees, commanded their
respect; and the multitude of Spanish subjects compelled them to a course of
moderate government; they became more reflective, grew familiar with subjects
hitherto unknown, and, by their occupation of Greece also, conceived a desire
of perusing the histories, philosophical treatises, and even poems written in
the language of that country. Interpreters were always ready to transfer the
speculations of Plato and Aristotle to the sublime vernacular of the European
caliphate, and to render the problems of Euclid intelligible to the Arab who
watched the stars from the plains of Sinaar. A science of medicine, however
imperfect, succeeded to empiricism. Chemistry, although struggling at its
birth with alchemy, was pursued in laborious experiment; and astronomy,
although charmed by the reveries of the astrologist, and mistaken for magic by
the vulgar, was really studied under the light of pure geometry. Christians
began to frequent the colleges of Cordova, where they could not lose much
religion, having but little or none to lose; but gained knowledge, or at least
acquired the habit of study. By this intellectual commerce, the horizon of
science, and the field of labour, became suddenly enlarged.* Nor were the Jews
inactive in this important change. Never since the dispersion of the academies
of Babylon and Tiberias had literature, crude and unsatisfying as it was, made
any progress among them: but it now revived; and Jarchi, Aben Ezra, David
Kimchi, and Maimonides, to say nothing of men of inferior note, were ornaments
of that age; men of extensive travel and unwearied industry, whose volumes
still adorn our libraries, and whose labours facilitate our studies.† In
Constantinople, too, Christian literature, in a garb of Attic elegance, was
cultivated under the patronage of the Patriarch Anchialus, jealous of the
counteractive influence of the Latin Church, and encouraged by the example of
the Princess Anna Comnena, as it had been by that of the Empress Eudocia;
while the voluminous productions of Suidas, Tzetzes, and others, attest their
industry.‡ An eminent political writer, still living, marks this as the period
of "a vivid aspiration after freedom of thought" in France;§ and the future
originators of the University of Paris, the first established in the world,
were already surrounded by disciples in the schools of that city. Scholastic
theology, with all its defects, both of material and method, first arose in
the schools of the twelfth century, and, at least, indicated a transition from
torpor into life. There were some intervening ages of subtle and angry
disputation, serving to put away indifference, if not to increase knowledge;
and scholasticism, no longer esteemed, having finished its work, in our day
exists only within the covers of tomes unread. Happily for the cause of
revealed religion, a set of commentators arose simultaneously with the
dialecticians; and although their com-

* Gibbon, chap. iii., a trusty guide where Christianity is not in the way,
well compendiates the materials of extensive reading; and his notes point out
abundant sources of information to learned inquirers into the history of
Arabian learning.

† Schoettgen, Rabbinicarum Lectionum lib. i., cap. iii., sect. 2; Lindo,
History of Spanish Jews, chap. vii., viii.

‡ Mosheim, Eccles. Hist., cent. xli., part ii., chap. i.; Gibbon, chap. liii.

§ Guizot, Civilization in France, first Lecture.

ments were fantastical, and seldom contained sentences of real exposition,
they tended to preserve the inspired volume from utter neglect, and by
rendering, or professing, deference to divine authority, so far maintained a
principle which contentious Ecclesiastics had for ages overlooked. But the
lucubrations of schoolmen, the cabalistic ingenuities of Monkish commentators,
the various studies pursued at Cordova, Paris, or Bologna, were only
influential on a select minority of the Clergy, and a few laymen who left
promiscuous society to form a circle of their own. The new light was too
feeble to illuminate society; and, therefore, a note of the historical
importance of these beginnings of intellectual action must not lead to the
expectation that we shall find the masses of any country perceptibly improved
by them. When minds of some energy, yet not cultivated by the study of
authentic history or true science, nor enlightened by theology, nor learned
from the Bible, nor hallowed by the influence of God's Holy Spirit, perceived
the vices of the priesthood and the absurdities of the doctrine received as
Catholic, they could produce nothing better than antagonist error, wild and
grotesque creations of their own, which entertained multitudes passive to
every casual impression, and strengthened the pretext of the Clergy to
persecute and to calumniate. The Pasagini in Lombardy, and the Caputiati in
France, seem to be complete examples of this kind of reaction; * and it must
be acknowledged, that among the sects which are classed by the Romanists as
heretical, a few which are claimed by some of ourselves as kindred reformers,
although worthy of honourable remembrance on account of their honest avowal of
sentiments which exposed them to persecution even unto death, were undoubtedly
heretical on some important points; and, like men of extreme views in all
ages, carried their dissent from one kind of error so far as to fall into the
opposite. Many of their followers believed in two principles, or, to speak
more intelligibly, in two gods; uttering openly the proposition which the
whole brood of Monkery condemned in words, but acted out in practice, that an
evil god was the creator of the world, author of carnal infirmities and
passions, and to be renounced in the renunciation of marriage, and abstinence
from the ordinary comforts, if not the necessaries, of life. Because the
priesthood was corrupt, they poured contempt on the idea of a Christian
ministry, which we know to be an institution perfectly distinct from the
sacrificers and official rulers of conscience, with whom alone they were
acquainted. Seeing that the sacraments of the eucharist and baptism were
substituted for those originally appointed, they simply rejected them, without
attempting to restore the others. In their disgust at materialism, as
developed in the common worship, they denied that our Lord had been incarnate
in a substantial body; and in their horror of idolatry they not only taught
that images should be destroyed, but that churches should be demolished. Some,
paying blind and indiscriminate deference to the Old Testament, would have
revived Judaism; others, in headlong zeal for the Gospel, would have severed
it from the law, and obliterated the Old Testament altogether. Conscientiously
interpreting one sentence of holy Scripture,

* Mosheim, cont. xli., part 2.

FOULQUES DE NEUILLY.

which perplexed the ignorant, and forgetful of others which ought to be
collated with it, they refused to be sworn judicially; and dwelling on the
image of a "natural face," referred to by St. James, nourished their beards
with sacred scrupulosity. And not a few, mixing together heavenly and earthly
notions, contended for the abolition of the magistracy as well as of the
priesthood. Individual fanatics there were in the middle age, as well as now;
their names are recorded; and the cruelties inflicted on them were outrages on
our common humanity; but their vagaries are not taken into account in this
description of the darker side of the dissent of the twelfth century. It is
only necessary to observe, that the difference between the profession of those
extreme and eccentric notions then and at the present day, consists chiefly in
that they were then propagated with undue zeal, and opposed with ferocious
cruelty, now they are thrown into the shade, a few instances excepted, by the
good sense and truly Christian piety of the excellent men who entertain them.
But still, as the writer ventures to believe, they are the effects of
reaction, and will pass away as the church of Christ becomes more diligent in
the performance of the great work confided to her hands.

Now to the brighter side. Even the extravagancies of a half-awakening age are
better than death; and after death has brooded over the pulpit for ages, the
slightest token of revival there is most encouraging. Such a token we find in
the history of Foulques de Neuilly. In the village of Neuilly on the Marne,
not far from Paris, a parish Priest of obscure parentage and extreme ignorance
was conspicuous only by scandalous immorality of life. By some means not
recorded, he was moved to compunction. He felt himself to be a degraded
sinner; and the sincerity of his conviction was evidenced by reformation of
his conduct, and assiduity in the discharge of his parochial duties. He began
to preach with earnestness, not only in the church, but probably in the open
air,* agreeably to universal custom, exhorting the people to despise the
things of this world. He reproved sinners with severity, especially attacking
usurers and women of loose character, probably his former associates. His
style was rude, for it scarcely could have been other, and unsparing reproofs,
launched forth on persons of all classes, brought upon him the contradiction
and contempt of all; and the labour of two years was not rewarded with any
visible fruit. But contradiction and contempt did him good, by convincing him
of his ignorance, at least; and he was therefore used to walk into Paris, take
a seat among the students in the schools of theology, and place in a note-
book, not analyses of the lectures, a performance to which he was probably
unequal, but passages of Scripture, striking sentences, and moral maxims. On
each Sunday he delivered the fruit of his week's application, and repeated the
weighty sentences with the full advantage of hallowed earnestness. Peter the
Chanter, a celebrated lecturer, known by his works as an expositor, to the
best of his knowledge, of holy Scripture, marked the village Priest, soon
became interested in the advancement of his auditor, and engaged him to preach
in the church of St. Severin in Paris, in his pre-

* "— aux environs."

3 Q sence, and in that of many students. The village Priest spoke with so much
eloquence and power, that his master and the other hearers declared that the
Holy Spirit had spoken by his lips; and from that time the Doctors and their
disciples crowded to hear his sermons, simple and homely as they were. But the
very homeliness and common sense of those addresses commended them the more;
so different were they from the intricate effusions of the wise men of the
day, ponderous and dead, with divisions, sub-divisions, allegories, common-
places, and dull alliterations, playing on the words of Scripture with no
sobriety of reason, with not a breath of influence.* One day, as Foulques was
preaching at Paris in the place de Champeaux, a market-place, before a great
multitude of Clergy and people, he spoke with so much force, that many, stung
with compunction, rushed to his feet, spoiled themselves of their garments;
and bare-foot and half naked, with rods and thongs in their hands, publicly
confessed their sins, and besought him to direct them what they should do. The
astonished Preacher knew not how to lead them to our only Saviour; but he gave
thanks to God, embraced the penitents, did not enforce penance, but counselled
the usurers and thieves to make restitution. Prostitutes cut off their hair,
forsook their sin; many of them were afterwards married at his hands, and
others took refuge in an asylum which he provided for them, sided by the
charity of admiring citizens. From that time the Parisian Preachers thronged
to hear him, wrote down his sayings, and endeavoured to repeat them in their
pulpits; but what flashed with resistless energy from the lips of Foulques,
was tamely ridiculous when doled out from theirs. They mimicked his
intonations and sped his gestures; but all was vain: they had no power, they
could not gather congregations. "Be short," said he, "speak plainly and
naturally; and cut off all vain subtitles and superfluous questions." Some,
however, caught a little of his spirit; and Peter the Chanter, leaving his
chair of divinity, Peter de Rouissi, two Abbots, the Archdeacon of Paris, and
some others, did no less than form themselves into a company with the rustic
orator at their head, and travel with him over France, preaching also. No
doubt their endeavour was, to some extent, successful; but the Priest of
Neuilly retained his pre-eminence; and at the invitation of Bishops, went
preaching through France, Flanders, and a great part of Germany; and was
received throughout his course as if he were an angel. Unhappily, he either
pretended to work miracles, or was flattered into a belief that he could do
so; and the biography which began in fact terminates in fiction. The fiction
we do not copy. Men of his order were allowed entire freedom of speech; and an
anecdote is related of him not less characteristic of the age than of the
person. It is said that he addressed King Richard I. of England, in such words
as these: "I am come to tell thee, from Almighty God, that thou hast three
daughters, very vicious, whom thou must marry out, or it will be worse for
thee." To which the King answered angrily: "Thou art

* Fleury, (Hist. Eccles., lxv., 12,) from whom this narrative is principally
taken, cites the sermons of Pierre de Celles, Pierre de Blois, and Etienne de
Tournai, as specimens.

"IMMACULATE CONCEPTION" OF THE VIRGIN MARY. 483 a lying hypocrite, I have not
one daughter." "You have three," persiated Foulques, "Pride, Avarice, and
Uncleanness." "Well," said the King, turning to his Barons, "I give my pride
to the Templars, my avarice to the Cistercian Monks, and my uncleanness to the
Prelates of the Church." Rapid elevation to so much popularity and honour
spoiled a well-meaning, but weak and unenlightened, man. Employed by the Papal
Legate in France to preach a crusade, followed by a train of black and white
Monks, and regular Canons, each bearing a red cross, and receiving the lavish
offerings of devout crowds, who made him their treasurer for the "holy war,"
he became suspected of enriching himself at the expense of the cause, and
gradually sank into obscurity again, leaving his tale to be told for the
admonition of those who are in peril by popular applause. The impulse,
however, given to the Preachers of France and Germany, could scarcely have
been unproductive of good; for although the increasing power of the pulpit was
abused to the propagation of error, and strengthened, for a time, the
ascendancy of an ungodly priesthood, it invited the public mind to take some
part in the reception of professedly sacred truths, and the ultimate result
proved that that mind cannot be at the same time appealed to for assent, or
even required to accept the lessons of authority, without relaxing, although
imperceptibly, the trammels of passive acquiescence and implicit faith. The
immediate consequence was, a bolder development of error, a multiplication of
heretical sects, real or reputed. Some of the heretics, as they are called, no
doubt deserved the name in its worst acceptation, while others are thought to
have been calumniated by their persecutors; and as their case is often
doubtful, and embarrassed by long controversy, it cannot be adequately
represented by any statement sufficiently brief to consist with the character
of our present work. The ambiguous sects and persons of the twelfth century
may, therefore, pass unnoticed; leaving one heresy of Romanism, and some other
elections of doctrine (*aipires*) which merge into evangelical orthodoxy, if
they do not unite with it, to be treated of with deliberate attention.

The fable of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, as it contradicts
numerous passages of holy Scripture which declare the universality of original
sin, is undoubtedly a heresy of Romanism.* In the year 1140 we find Bernard,
Abbot of Clairvaux, censuring the Canons of Lyons for having introduced a
festival into their church in honour of the immaculate conception of the
mother of our Lord. The rise of this corrupt doctrine is frequently referred
to this century, on account of the historical fact now mentioned; and as the
persecuting spirit of the Roman Church, even towards its most eminent members,
is seen in the history of the doctrine since made so prominent, we will trace
its progress from the beginning until the present day. The beginning, however,
strange to tell, is not found in any Father of the

* The books chiefly consulted in the preparation of this history of the
doctrine of the immaculate conception, are the Koran; Fleury's Histoire
Ecclesiastique; Fra Paolo Sarpi, History of the Council of Trent, Courayer's
French edition; Pallavicini, Hist. Conc. Tridentini; El Porque de la Iglesia,
Barcelona, 1786; L'Enfant's Council of Constance.

3 Q 2 church, but in the Koran of Mohammed. Possibly from some apocryphal
Gospel no longer extant, or from his own imagination, which is more probable,
the Arab drew the tale that Hannah, wife of Imran, vowed to devote to God her
yet unborn child; that when, with disappointment, she found it to be a female,
she called her MARY, and commended her and her issue to the divine protection,
"against Satan, driven away with stones;" alluding, at the same time, to a
tradition that Abraham had driven away Satan with stones, and to the
superstitious notion entertained by the old Arabians, by the Moslems, and also
by the Church of Rome, that every child born into the world is touched or
possessed by Satan, or an angel of Satan. He then describes the annunciation,
almost in the language of the Evangelists, and the birth of "Christ Jesus, the
Son of Mary." He affirms that God chose Adam, Noah, the family of Abraham, and
the family of Imran, above the rest of the world; that his wife Hannah was
accepted with a gracious acceptance, caused to bear an excellent offspring,
one that was purified, and that she became the mother of Jesus.* The vulgar
tale of Joachim and Hannah is precisely similar to that of the Koran,† whence
it must have been transfused into Christian traditions by the Saracens in
Spain, during a long period of familiar intercourse. From Spain it would be
carried into France, where the influence of the Moslem schools was powerfully
felt; and the spirit of conciliation could not but gather strength from the
production of such fragments of that sacred book as made honourable mention of
the Christian Prophet, of his mother, and of her family. The excessive honour
which was paid to Mary, and the protest against Nestorianism implied in the
increasingly frequent use of the epithet, "mother of God," (Mater Dei,) in the
Latin Church, as of "God-bearer," (Θεοτόκος,) in the Greek, encouraged the
circulation of whatever fable tended to exalt her above women, and to bias the
thoughts of those who reasoned on the sinless purity of the incarnate Son of
God. One of those, Anselm, a native of France, already mentioned as Archbishop
of Canterbury, after his visit to Rome from England, retired to an estate
belonging to the monastery at Bec, and gave himself entirely to exercises of
devotion, and to meditation on the mysteries of religion. There (A.D. 1098) he
composed a tract, entitled, "Why did God become Man?" intended for infidels,
and argumentative rather than scriptural, instructing his readers "not to
arrive at faith by reason; but to understand and contemplate that which they
believe, and to be able to render a reason of their faith to others." The
infidels, according to the style of the Church, must have been the Jews and
Mussulmans; and he, evidently in view of the latter, referred to the notion of
the exemption of Mary from original sin, by answering an objection derived
from the contrary idea of her sinfulness, in such terms as these: "Since it is
certain that this man is God, and the author of the reconciliation of sinners,
there can be no doubt that he is absolutely without sin; and we should not be
perplexed because we cannot comprehend how he has been taken untainted from
the sinful

* Koran, chap. iii., "The Family of Imran."

† El Porque, &c., Tratado 4.

"IMMACULATE CONCEPTION" OF THE VIRGIN MARY. 485 mass." He avoids speaking of
Mary's original sin; but observes that she was of the number of those who were
purified from sin by Jesus Christ, not saying *when*. This caution, however,
was not long observed. The Saracenic invention found such favour with his
countrymen, that in about forty years from the composition of that tract, the
Canons of Lyons had so entirely made it their own, that they instituted a
festival in honour of "the immaculate conception of the holy Virgin." Then it
was (A.D. 1140, *circ.*) that Bernard addressed to them his famous letter,
expressing great surprise that some among them should have introduced a new
festival unknown in the usage of the Church, and neither authorized by reason
nor tradition. "Are we wiser," he asked, "or more devout than our fathers? It
is a dangerous presumption to meddle with matters which their prudence left
untouched; and this is of such a nature that it could never have been
overlooked by them. But you will say that the mother of God deserves great
honours. You are quite right; but they should be rendered with judgment. She
needs not false honour, covered as she is with titles of real dignity." He
concedes that Mary, like Jeremiah and John the Baptist, *may have been*
sanctified before her birth; but contends that such a sanctification could not
have a retroactive effect on her conception, which he believes to have been in
sin, according to the Scripture; and further argues that sanctification must
have been either subsequent to conception, or anterior to it. If anterior, she
must have been sanctified before she had a being, which was impossible; if
subsequent, the conception was not immaculate. This dilemma could only be
avoided by supposing her conception to have been miraculous; but he rightly
maintains that "the privilege of being conceived without sin was reserved for
Him alone who should sanctify all others; that is to say, for Jesus Christ,
who alone was holy before conception." He reprobates innovation as "the mother
of temerity, the sister of superstition, and the daughter of levity." In the
twelfth and thirteenth centuries it is known that there were festivals in the
Greek Church in honour of the conception of both John the Baptist and the
Virgin, which were regarded merely as notable events,—yet some thought that
observance to be ridiculous; and it is reported that there were such in
Armenia; but without the notion of exemption from original sin. The
superstition had taken root in France; but although, in the thirteenth
century, (A.D. 1288,) a Bishop of Paris bequeathed a sum of money to keep up a
special service in honour of the conception of the Virgin, theologians were
far from giving their sanction to the novelty. Even John Duns Scott, a
Scotchman, and Franciscan Monk, who taught first at Oxford, and then in the
University of Paris, and through zeal against the Dominicans, who contended
for the contrary, was exceedingly anxious to establish the new doctrine, could
only plead, after acknowledging that it was commonly said that the Virgin was
conceived in sin, that God *could* have exempted her entirely from original
sin, or allowed her to be in sin but for an instant; or suffered her to be
born in sin, and purified her afterwards; that God alone knew which of the
three he had done; but that it seemed right to attribute to Mary that which is
most excellent, saving the authority of the Church, and of Scripture. (A.D.
1305 or 1306.) The Franciscans went beyond their Doctor in confidence as to
the degree of probability; the University of Paris, supported by the
reputation of the Franciscans for sanctity, accepted and defended the
absurdity; and Scott, encouraged by their applause, is said to have withdrawn
in Paris the modest qualification which appeared in his manuscript written at
Oxford. The mention of a feast in honour of the conception of the Virgin, as
observed in England, is not sufficient to prove that the notion of immaculacy
was admitted here, any more than in Armenia, where it was unheard of. Although
the Saracenic heresy was received so early in France, even there it soon
became the subject of violent disputation. Juan de Monzon, a Spaniard, who had
taught theology at Valencia, came to Paris, occupied a chair in that
University, and gradually excited attention by the boldness of his
propositions. Those propositions chiefly related to the authority of holy
Scripture, and to the universality of original sin. He denied the exemption of
the Virgin from the depravity and curse of our fallen nature, and pointed out
the consequences that would follow from allowing that any mere human being was
born without sin. The Dean desired him to retract this error, for so they
called a plain declaration of the word of God; but he became more earnest than
ever in teaching that all, even Mary, were born in sin, and shapen in
iniquity. The majority of the Doctors were enraged, and threatened; but he was
undaunted, and declared that he would rather die than suppress the truth. At
last the University declared his doctrine to be false, presumptuous,
scandalous, and contrary to the piety of the faithful. Pierre D'Orgemont,
Bishop of Paris, as ordinary Judge in that case, had the judgment placed in
his hands, and cited Juan de Monzon to appear before him; but the Professor,
knowing that justice was not to be expected at that tribunal, disobeyed the
summons. He was therefore forbidden to teach the obnoxious truths, under
penalty of excommunication and imprisonment; and his life would have been
taken, had not the Inquisitor been a Dominican, and therefore, agreeing with
him on the single point that Mary was conceived in sin, refused to act. The
confusion that followed was inconceivable. Those who embraced his doctrine
suffered bitter persecution; and all that could not save themselves by flight
were cast into prison. A few recanted, and among them a Bishop, the King's
Confessor. The Dominicans were expelled the University; and as these were the
Preachers, the men who prosecuted the work of pulpit renovation, begun by
Foulques de Neuilly, and by many powerful adversaries of the priesthood, and
who performed the double work of disputation and persecution for the
suppression of heresy, yet happened to be now on the better side, the pulpits
were deserted, the students were disgusted, and for many years the University
languished, being almost unfrequented. From the Bishop of Paris, Juan de
Monzon appealed to Clement VII., Pope, or Antipope, (for the Roman see was
disputed by two aspirants,) then holding his court at Avignon; and the Pope
wisely avoided hazarding his infallibility, by appointing a Committee to
consider the fourteen propositions. After the Commit-

"IMMACULATE CONCEPTION" OF THE VIRGIN MARY.

tee had entertained the case for about eighteen months, the University
clamoured for a decision, and the Pope forbad the Professor to quit Avignon
until the decision should be pronounced. Foreseeing that the University would
obtain the sentence they desired, he left the court, placed himself under the
jurisdiction of the other Pope, Urban VI., and vigorously maintained his
doctrine by the pen. (A.D. 1387—1389.) The dispute thenceforth agitated all
Popedom, and the immaculatists spared no pains in courting popularity and
patronage. At the Council of Constance, (A.D. 1416,) the famous Gerson
preached a sermon on the subject; but nothing resulted from his advocacy
there. The Council of Basle went further, and, after hearing the report of a
Cardinal who had been employed to search the libraries for evidence, as if the
Bible contained none, declared (A.D. 1439) that "the opinion of the immaculate
conception is pious, agreeable to the worship of the Church, right reason, and
holy Scripture; that all Catholics should approve it; that no one should be
permitted to preach or teach the contrary; that the feast of the conception
should be celebrated everywhere on the 8th of December; that an office
composed by John of Segovia should then be chanted; that indulgences should be
given to all who went to church that day." After all, the legitimacy of the
Council of Basle was disputed, as well it might be, and its declaration had
little force. The University of Paris, however, settled their own faith by a
juridical conversion of all new Bachelors and Doctors, who were sworn on
admission after the following manner. The Dean interrogated thus: "Do you
swear that you will abide by the decision of the faculty touching the
immaculate conception of the holy Virgin Mary; that is to say, that she was
preserved in her conception from the original stain?" The submissive Doctor or
Bachelor answered, "I swear;" and thenceforth that was his faith, or he must
bide the consequences. A little Council at Avignon (A.D. 1457) gave its entire
deliberations to this subject, and propped up the doubtful work of its
predecessor by a decree forbidding Priests and people to preach or speak to
the contrary, under the dreadful penalty of excommunication. Strangely beset
by the idea, its advocates missed no occasion of proclaiming it. The snows of
the Appennines dissolving too rapidly, caused the Tiber to overflow its banks,
and Pope Xystus IV. called on the worshippers of the immaculate to drive back
the waters by supplications to the Queen of heaven. (A.D. 1475.) Of course,
the inundation subsided just in proportion to the rapidity of its rise, and
the fable passed into undoubted credit with the more ignorant Italians. Then
rose a miraculous image of the immaculate "mother of God," and the following
Bull was issued (A.D. 1483) to demonstrate the Mariolatry and the tyranny of
Papal Rome:—"The holy Roman Church, having established the feast of the
conception of Mary, without spot, and ever virgin, as also an office proper
for this feast, we hear, notwithstanding, that some Preachers of different
orders cease not to preach daily to the people that all who believe that the
glorious Virgin was conceived without the stain of original sin, sin mortally,
or are heretics; and that they who say the office or hear the sermons of
Preachers who teach the contrary, sin grievously. We, to arrest their
presumptuous and scandalous proceedings, and to prevent the evils that might
arise from them to the Church, by our own movement, and our certain knowledge,
condemn the propositions of those Preachers who dare to affirm that they who
preach the immaculate conception of the mother of God sin mortally; and that
they who celebrate the office, or hear the sermons, are not exempt from sin.
We declare those propositions to be false, erroneous, and quite contrary to
the truth. We reprobate the books written against this doctrine, and their
authors, whoever they may be, and we pronounce against them the penalty of
excommunication, from which they shall not be absolved by any but the
Sovereign Pontiff, and by him only in the article of death. And that no one
may plead ignorance, we order all Ordinaries to publish this Bull in their
parishes and dioceses at high mass and sermon. If any one presume to act,
preach, or write against this decree, we declare that he shall incur the wrath
of God, and of his Apostles St. Peter and St. Paul." Every genuine devotee of
Rome must have bowed in silence before this terrible decree; but some there
still were who presumed to involve even Popes in the charge of heresy and
mortal sin. Such an one was Wigand, a Dominican of Frankfort, who, in an
anonymous book, attacked Trithemius, author of a panegyric of St. Anna, Mary's
mother, a person unmentioned until Epiphanius made her known in the fourth
century; but anonymous antagonists, like blanched weeds, cannot flourish in
daylight, and Wigand, being discovered, begged pardon of Trithemius. (A.D.
1494.) With signal constancy the University of Paris reiterated its thunders,
whether to appal an imprudent Dominican, (A.D. 1497,) or to show resistance to
the great Reformation in the person of Luther, (A.D. 1521,) until it was found
to be resistless. Before the light of the Reformation, the dream of the
immaculate conception had well-nigh passed away. The Council of Trent (A.D.
1546) was divided on the question, and would probably have passed over it in
silence; but, after warm debate, and, as Fra Paolo says, without being
contradicted by his antagonist, Pallavicini, *to obey the Pope*, they appended
the following sentence to the decree on original sin:—"This holy Synod also
declares that it is not its intention to comprehend in this decree, where
original sin is treated of, the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary, mother of
God; (*Dei genitricem*;) but that the constitutions of Pope Xystus IV., of
happy memory, are to be observed, under the penalties contained in the said
constitutions." The Bull itself is before the reader, who there sees how the
Church of Rome prepares persecution for its own more enlightened members.
Thirty years had not elapsed from the decree of the Council of Trent, before
the Jesuit Maldonat was censured by the University of Paris (A.D. 1575) for
teaching that the doctrine was problematical; but the Bishop of Paris
supported the Jesuit, and excommunicated the University. The question is now
more unsettled than ever; and yet the present Pope, Pius IX., (A.D. 1849,) has
solicited from all his Bishops assent to an ardent wish he entertains to have
the adjective *immaculate* inserted in the Roman Liturgy.

BASIL THE PAULICIAN.

Should they assent, the next step will be for them to add the "holy family" of
Epiphanius, "the revelations" of St. Bridget, and "the family of Imrán" to the
holy Gospels; those documents being classical in the history of the
superstition.

We return to the twelfth century, and trace the dealings of the dominant
Church with reputed heretics. The theological descendants of the Armenian
Paulicians of the seventh century reappear from the eastern to the western
extremity of Europe. At Constantinople they became well known from their great
number in the neighbouring provinces, particularly Bulgaria, whence they were
sometimes called Bulgarians, and at that time Bogomiles, from a phrase or
epithet in their language which signified "prayer to God;" as a more ancient
sect in the same country had been called Euchites, or Massalians,* that is,
"praying people." From their enemies only we have the narrative of a
persecution which they suffered in the reign of the Greek Emperor, the first
Alexius Comnenus; but it is clear enough to show that they were victims of the
most ruthless bigotry. They were acknowledged to be distinguished by the
appearance of great piety, dressed plainly, were often observed to ejaculate
prayer, and by their habit and gravity of deportment resembled Monks. No
longer dispersed over the provinces, they appeared openly in Constantinople,
and made such an impression there that the Bogomiles became the subject of
universal conversation. The Emperor, who had taken of the treasures of the
Church to meet the exigences of the State, endeavoured to soothe the
resentment of the Clergy by affecting great zeal for religion under the
assumed character of theologian. He therefore sent for some of the heretics to
gain information of their proceedings. They told him that their chief Minister
was Basil; that there were other twelve called Apostles, and some women also
who followed him; and that he travelled extensively, propagating his doctrine.
It further appeared that he was, or had been, a Physician; and that, after
joining their communion in his youth, he had spent fifty-two years in the
labours of his ministry. Alexius then commanded Basil to be brought. He came
to the palace without delay, and stood before the Emperor: a venerable old man
he was, tall in stature, thoughtfulness and self-denial marked his
countenance; his dignified bearing, with flowing beard and monastic garb,
commanded involuntary reverence. Alexius rose from his chair to receive him,
bade him be seated, invited him to take refreshment, sat at the same table,
conversed with familiar condescension, intimated a wish to become his
disciple, together with his brother Isaac; and even assured him that he would
receive his instructions with as much deference as if they were oracles, and
take him as his spiritual guide. Basil resisted, at first, so excessive
condescension; and the Emperor and his brother, perceiving that the man was
not so insignificant as they fancied a heretic must be, changed their style,
and managed, during repeated interviews, to win his confidence. Without
reserve, the aged Minister answered their questions, and explained his
doctrine. If Alexius can

* Suicer, Thos. Ecclesiast., s. v. Exxírac, gives an elaborate account both of
the name and of the sect, with the Chaldee, Arable, or Syriac synonyme,
כְּצֶלֶן or כְּשָׁלִים.

be trusted, and Euthymius also, if the notes of the one and the treatise of
the other are faithful records of the statements of Basil, which is altogether
incredible, he was a Manichean; but it may be collected from the latter, and
only extant evidence, that those Paulicians had added to the New Testament the
Psalms (probably the Hagiographa, or Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Canticles, Ruth,
Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles,
contained in a distinct volume, and anciently called, among the Jews, by the
title of the first, "The Psalms") and the Prophets, or at least a part of
them, and thereby approached considerably towards union with other anti-Romish
Christians. They still refused to acknowledge the divine inspiration of the
Pentateuch, retained the scepticism of many of the sectarians of the earlier
ages in respect to the humanity of our Lord, and, with them, entertained
erroneous notions of the sacraments. But their sin, in the eyes of the
priesthood, lay in abhorrence of image-worship and of prayer to the saints.
Basil is said to have acknowledged the Greek iconoclasts as orthodox,
regarding the Prophets, Apostles, and martyrs as true saints, which he
certainly could not have done had he been indeed a Manichean. But the fashion
then was to lay the reproach of Manicheanism and all other old heresies on
dissenters from the prevailing system; and sufficient provocation to do this
was given, in this instance, by his declaring roundly, that "the Catholics"
were Pharisees and Sadducees; (than which nothing could be more true;) that
their learned men were Scribes; that the two orders of Clergy were symbolized
by the two demoniacs who dwelt in the tombs, the churches occupied by the
Priests and Monks being converted into sepulchres by the deposition of relics
therein; that the foxes having holes were figures of the crafty Friars, and
the birds in their nests types of the Stylites on their pillars. The fact that
they had been often hunted to death is proved by a confession put into the
mouth of Basil, that they dissimulated and hid themselves in order to save
their lives; and the weakness of the effort to make them out Manicheans is
betrayed by an acknowledgment that they often ate flesh, eggs, and milk, not
excepting their Ministers, whom, after all, Euthymius scarcely ventures to
confound with the elect of the pretended prototypes. The Emperor caused the
account of the errors of the Bogomiles to be written, and his credit may be
estimated by what follows. The wily Greek was in an inner chamber of his
palace, playing the part of a disciple; Basil, with unsuspecting earnestness,
was expounding his doctrine, and answering questions which he thought to be
put in good faith, and therefore detected not their drift. Behind a curtain
was concealed a Secretary, who wrote down whatever might be made use of to
condemn the victim. "Then the Emperor," these are the words of Fleury, "raised
the mask, assembled the senate and military officers, summoned the Clergy and
the Patriarch Nicholas, and caused the writing containing the doctrine of
Basil to be read. Basil, seeing himself convicted, denied not, but offered to
maintain his doctrine, and declared that he was ready to suffer fire,
torments, and death." He was committed to prison, visited there by
"Catholics," and by

BASIL MARTYRED.

some of his followers, and often taken from the prison to the palace, to be
exhorted by Alexius, but resisted every persuasion to recant. The Apostles of
Basil, as they are called, were also apprehended, with many others, and
subjected to the same trial; but they endured it with equal constancy. So far
from being discouraged were the Bogomiles, that they preached everywhere, and
their doctrine spread; entire families, including some of high rank, joined
them, and so did a multitude of people. The Emperor then sentenced all the
prisoners to be burnt. Many, however, had been imprisoned who denied that they
were of the sect, and Alexius had recourse to a singular expedient to
ascertain the truth. He was mounted on his throne, in a public square,
surrounded by the Senate, the chief of the Clergy, and some choice Monks; two
fires were prepared, with a cross planted near one of them. He then caused the
prisoners to be brought, told them they must all burn, as life would not be
worth saving by any suspected of heresy, however innocent; but that, as the
Christians would of course prefer dying in that character, they should be
consumed in the fire where the cross was erected. At his command those who had
not joined the Bogomiles went to the cross: the people murmured when they saw
them, as it seemed, on the point of being thrown into the flames: the Emperor
graciously gave them their lives, and those who had stood true to their
confession were sent back to prison. A few afterwards gave way, and were
liberated; the greater number died there; but Basil, as an impenitent
heresiarch, was judged worthy of death by the secular Clergy, the Monks, and
the Patriarch himself, the Greek Church thus proving itself as cruel as the
Roman. The Emperor consented to the sentence, and, after many useless
conversations, commanded a pile to be kindled in the middle of the hippodrome,
with a cross on the opposite side. Basil was placed between, with an offer of
life if he would accept it at the cross, or, if not, he must go into the
flames. Some foolish sayings are put into his mouth; but the probability is
that he felt, but soon overcame, a sudden terror, sang praise to God in the
language of inspired Scripture, and rejoiced in the certain prospect of near
deliverance from the toils and persecutions of a lengthened pilgrimage. He was
thrown into the fire, and soon consumed, in the presence of the Emperor and
Clergy; and the stately ceremoniousness of that martyrdom might have given the
model for similar "Acts of Faith" afterwards performed by the Inquisition.
Proud of his deed, and like a hound that has once tasted blood, Alexius
continued the pursuit of the Paulicians to the end of his life; but history
does not preserve a detailed record of exploits* which were insufficient to
extirpate a heresy that, with all its defects, was no doubt superior to the
orthodoxy of the Greek Church, and would have changed the character of that
Church had free course been allowed its teachers. A few years afterwards,
Cosmas II., the Patriarch of Constantinople, was deposed on charge of having
fallen into the same heresy.†

Disaffection to Rome and to the Clergy overspread Europe, and was sometimes
made use of by licentious and ambitious men to

* Fleury, Hist. Eccles., lxvi., 10, 11, 53. † Ibid., lxix, 27.

3 R 2 gratify their passions. Tanchelmus, or Tanquelin, in Flanders, is said
to have been guilty of the most disgusting excesses; and in hatred of
everything ecclesiastical, many of the Flemings long retained an approving
remembrance of his errors. But the original Paulicians, who had spread even to
the shores of the German Ocean, were honourably distinguished from mere rebels
against episcopal authority by an appearance of sanctity which their enemies
called hypocrisy. Many suffered death rather than make shipwreck of a good
conscience. The hearths were first prepared at Utrecht, where some were burnt
alive (A.D. 1135) by command of the Emperor Lotharius for denying
transubstantiation, although that doctrine was not yet put forth under
canonical authority. Others fled, hoping to escape death by self-expatriation;
but a number of them were discovered at Cologne, and imprisoned in a barn,
whither Egbert, the Abbot of Schonaug, was sent to convince them of error. He
disputed with three of them, but failing to overcome by argument or authority,
saw them burnt alive. The Cardinal Archbishop of Rheims, in quality of Papal
Legate, laboured hard to win or to compel the numerous seceders to come into
the communion of his Church, but with small success. They endeavoured, on
their side, to purchase liberty of worship, or at least toleration, offering
him six hundred marks of silver as a voluntary tax, after the manner of the
Jews; but the Legate would not hear of composition, and, after trying other
means for about fourteen years, had several of them burnt. (A.D. 1183.)* In
the country now known as Rhenish Prussia, persecution quickly followed; and
the new, but horrible, method of destroying heretics, which began in the
hippodrome of Constantinople, and was imitated at Utrecht, was repeated, after
a very short interval, at Cologne. The heretics there were described by a
Priest, who had taken part in the inquisition and punishment, and wrote an
account of them to Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux, wherein they are distinguished
as if a part were Manicheans, and the others not. There may not have been two
separate communions; but the fact of a doctrinal difference, added to that of
an enlarged canon of holy Scripture, which we have just observed in the
narrative of the Bogomiles at Constantinople, indicates a simultaneous
advancement in doctrine, highly creditable to the Paulicians in general, and
illustrative of an intellectual and moral progression throughout Europe, which
must be attributed to the care of God in preparing Christendom for the slowly
approaching Reformation. They denied, according to our inquisitorial witness,†
that the body of Christ was made on the altar, because, as he very doubtfully
phrases his relation, all the Priests of the Church were not consecrated. They
said that the apostolical dignity was corrupted by engaging itself in secular
affairs while sitting in the chair of Peter; that because the Pope did not
wage warfare as Peter did, he had deprived himself of the power of
consecrating, which was so great in Peter; (a concession, be it noted,

* Brandt's Reformation in the Low Countries, vol. I, pp. 11-13, London, 1720
Fleury, Hist. Eccles., lxxi., 50.

† Evertinus, as cited by Allix, Ancient Churches of Piedmont, chap. xvi.; and
Trithemius, in chap. xvii.

MARTYRS OF COLOGNE.

that they were not likely to make twenty years before even the Romish Church
had solemnly adopted the doctrine of transubstantiation;) and that the power
of consecrating others, which the pontifical dignity did not possess,
Archbishops and Bishops, who lived like men of the world, could not receive
from it. They cited the words of Christ, "The Scribes and Pharisees sit in
Moses' chair; what, therefore, they bid you do, that do," to prove that such
men as the Priests of that day had only the power of preaching and commanding,
but nothing more. The writer complains that thus they made void the priesthood
of the Church, and condemned the sacraments; baptism alone excepted, which
they would only allow to adults, who, they said, are baptized by Christ
himself, whoever be the Minister of the sacrament:—that they alleged against
infant baptism the words of the Gospel, "Who-soever shall believe, and be
baptized, shall be saved:"—that they called second marriage fornication;
quoting for this the words of the Saviour, "What God hath joined together, let
not man put asunder," (as if God only joined unmarried persons, as were our
first parents before their union,) as also our Lord's words when disapproving
of divorce. He states that they put no confidence in the intercession of
saints; maintained that fasting, and other afflictions undertaken for sin,
were not necessary, because, when the sinner repents of his sins, they are all
forgiven him, and because all other things observed in the church, besides
those commanded by Christ and the Apostles, were superstitious:—that they did
not believe in purgatorial fire after death; but maintained that souls, as
soon as they depart out of the bodies, enter into rest or punishment; proving
it from the words of Solomon, "Which way soever the tree falls, whether to the
north, or to the south, there it lies:"—and that they made void all prayers
and oblations of the faithful for the deceased. He spoke of many having been
burnt to death with extreme complacency; but let Bernard know that those who
had returned to the Church said that there were great numbers of their
persuasion scattered abroad every where, and that amongst them were many
Clergy and Monks. And he reported that some who had been burnt said in their
defence that their heresy had continued from the times of the Apostles, and
was preserved in Greece, and in some other countries. There were some, they
said, who called themselves Apostles, and had a Pope of their own; whereas
others despised the Pope of Rome, and yet had not another; which may amount to
this, that some were Episcopalians, and others not. "These Apostles of Satan,"
he adds, "have amongst them continent women, (as they call them,) widows,
virgins, their wives, some of whom are among the number of their elect, others
of their believers; as in imitation of the Apostles, who had power to lead
about women with them." Bernard exaggerated this circumstance into a charge of
hypocrisy and immorality; but it is easy to perceive that Evervinus merely
described their condition as married Ministers, who were careful to live in
the society of their wives, a caution which would indicate purity of domestic
conduct, contrasted with prevalent licentiousness, under the demoralizing
influence of priestly celibacy. They were known by various names, expressive
of the contempt of their persecutors, or of some peculiarity of their history
or habits. In Germany they were called Cathari or Catharini, a word as yet
unexplained; in Flanders they were known as Piphles or Turlupins, for some
unknown reason; and in France people called them Tisserands, or "weavers,"
because many of them were of that occupation, and their devotional meetings
were held in weaving-rooms and cellars, where they professed to enjoy an
assurance of the divine presence.

Nowhere did clearer vestiges of primitive Christian doctrine remain than in
sub-Alpine Italy. The independence of the dioceses of Piedmont and Lombardy
from the see of Rome until the eleventh century is a most notorious fact of
ecclesiastical history. In the twelfth, although the Bishops had lost their
independence, there were various elements of disaffection to the dominant
Church still existing among the people,—a desire of independence, some
remaining perception of evangelical truth, Manicheanism lingering in the
speculations of many mere dissenters, and the purer, yet imperfect, doctrinal
system of the Paulicians. They were not careful to enforce uniformity among
themselves; and even if historical documents were much more abundant, it would
be impossible to analyze the confused mass, or to place even the more eminent
persons each in his proper class. Relinquishing so hopeless an attempt, let us
fix our attention on some undoubted evidences of religious revival, and the
correspondent instances of Romish persecution. As to doctrine, the most
ancient document extant from which a knowledge of the doctrine of the Vaudois,
or Christian inhabitants of the valleys of Piedmont, can be derived, is "The
Noble Lesson," a metrical compendium of doctrine and precept, so called from
the words, "noble lesson," occurring in the first line. From internal
evidence, which will presently be given, it is assigned to the year 1100, or a
few years later, and therefore may appropriately precede a notice of Italian
martyrs of the twelfth century. A manuscript containing it was deposited by
Samuel Morland, Esq., who had been for some time resident in Piedmont, in the
library of the University of Cambridge, and is printed in his "History of the
Evangelical Churches of the Valleys of Piedmont. London, 1658." These verses,
written in the vernacular dialect of the eleventh century, impressed with
popular simplicity, and breathing scriptural truth, were probably recited or
sung by the Vaudois in their cottages, to preserve the belief and keep alive
the spirit of the fathers in the bosoms of their children. The first eight
lines, comprehending the title and the date, may serve as a specimen of the
whole, which shall be briefly compendiated:—

"O frayre entendé una nobla Leyçon.

Sovent deven velhar e istar en oreson.

C.* nos veen aquest mont esser pres del chavon.

Mot curios deorian esser de bonas obras far.

C. nos veen aquest mont de la fin apropiar.

Ben ha mil a cent an compll entierament.

Que fo scripta lora C. son al derier temp.

Poc deorian cubitar C. son al remanent."

• C. Car, for.

THE NOBLE LESSON.

"O brethren, hear a noble lesson. We should often watch, and be at prayer; for
we see this world to be near its end. We should be very careful to do good
works; for we see this world draw near its end. A thousand and a hundred years
are full well complete, since it was written to them: 'For we are in the last
time.' Little should we covet; for we are at the end." The prevailing
impression of some great approaching change is then expressed with powerful
solemnity of language. They daily saw the signs of such a change accomplished
in increasing evil and decreasing good, perils foretold in Scripture, by the
Gospel, and by St. Paul. As no man living could know the end, nor could they
be certain whether they should die on that day or the morrow, they ought to
fear. But when the day of judgment should come, every one would receive full
recompence, either good or evil. "The Scripture saith,—and we must believe
it,—'All men of the world shall take two ways: the good to glory, the wicked
to torment.' He who will not believe in this distinction, must search the
Scripture, where he will find that, from Adam until his own time, few in
comparison have been saved. But whoever will do good works, must begin with
honouring God the Father, and must implore the aid of his glorious Son,—dear
Son of holy Mary,—and of the Holy Spirit, who gives us a good way: these
three, the Holy Trinity, full of all power, wisdom, and goodness, ought to be
invocated. Men should pray for grace to overcome the world, the devil, and the
flesh, to know the way of life, and keep the soul pure, both soul and body in
the way of charity, loving God and their neighbour; not only them who do them
good, but them who do them evil. They should have firm hope in the heavenly
King, who will lodge them in his glorious home at last; but whoso will not do
what is contained in this lesson, shall not enter the holy house. This is
hardly to be received by wicked people who love gold and silver, contemn the
promises of God, keep not his law, nor suffer those who would. How came this
evil among men? Because Adam sinned at first, eating the apple. Then sprang
the evil seed, then he died, and all that followed. Well may we call that an
evil morsel! But Christ has redeemed the good by his passion." We are told in
this Lesson that "Adam was miscreant to God his Creator, and that men grow
worse and worse, forsaking God, and believing in idols, to their own
destruction. They now break the law which God put into their hearts, and abuse
their power of doing good or evil, as did Cain. The law given to man at first,
and written in the heart of every man, was to love, fear, and serve God, keep
matrimony firm,—that noble covenant,—have peace each with his brother, and
love all beside; hate pride, love humility, and act with equity. Few kept this
law; more broke it, believed the devil, loved the world, served the body, and
therefore perished. Therefore he is to be reproved that says, God did not make
the people to let them perish. But let each one take heed that the like befall
not him." Then follows a sententious, full, and purely scriptural compendium
of sacred history, almost every line capable of practical application. From
the history of the New Testament this "Noble Lesson" passes to that of the
early ages of Christianity, and then to the time of the writer. The
description here is important, and must be translated without abridgment.
"After the Apostles, were some teachers who taught the way of Jesus Christ our
Saviour. One here and there is found even in this present time; but he is
manifest to very few people. Such teachers strongly desire to point out the
way of Jesus Christ, but are so persecuted that they can do but little; so
blinded are the false Christians with error, and, more than all others, they
who are Pastors: for they persecute and hate them that are better than
themselves, and let the false deceivers live in peace. By this may they be
known who are not good Pastors; that they love not the sheep, except for the
fleece; for the Scripture saith,—and we may see,—that if they find one that is
good, that wishes to love God and Jesus Christ, one that will neither curse,
nor swear, nor lie, nor commit adultery, nor kill, nor cheat his neighbour,
nor avenge himself of his enemy, they say that he is a Vaudés, and ought to be
punished. They find occasion, by lies and deceit, to take from him what he has
gotten by his just labour. But strongly is he comforted that is thus
persecuted for the fear of the Lord; for the kingdom of heaven shall be given
to him when he leaves this world; then shall he have great glory if he has had
dishonour here. But in this is their great malice very manifest, that he who
will curse, and lie, and swear, and lend out on usury largely, and kill, and
live licentiously, and take vengeance on those who have offended him; they say
that he is a fine fellow, (prodome,) and he passes for a loyal man. But let
him take heed that he is not deceived at last. The mortal sickness comes,
death seizes him, he can scarcely speak, and the Priest asks if he will
confess. But, according to the Scripture, he has too long delayed what it
commands, and says, 'Confess while thou hast time, and put it not off until
the last.' The Priest asks him if he has any sin. Two words or three he
answers, and has quickly finished. Well says the Priest to him that he cannot
be eased if he does not restore all to his neighbour, and amend his wrong. But
when he hears this, he has great trouble: he thinks within himself, that if he
restores it entirely, what will remain for his children, and what will the
people say? Then he commands his children that they amend the wrong, and makes
a bargain with the Priest that he may be eased. If he has a hundred livres of
another man's, or even two, the Priest acquits him for a hundred sous,* and
sometimes for less, when he can get no more, and bids him give so much in
alms, and promises him pardon if he will have masses said for himself and his
parents, and promises pardons for them, too, whether they have been just or
wicked. Then he lays his hand upon his head; and, when he walks away, the more
money he carries off the more merry is he, and makes him understand that he is
well absolved: but ill are they compensated who have suffered wrong, and he
shall be deceived in such an absolution; and he that makes him believe it
commits mortal sin." Then follows a denial that Popes, Cardinals, Bishops,
Abbots, and the like, have any power to forgive sin, but God only. After some
good instructions, the

* Whatever change the coinage of Piedmont may have undergone, it is enough to
note that, at present, twenty sons make one livre.

ARNOLFO, AN ITALIAN MARTYR.

Lesson closes with a prayer: "May it please the Lord, who formed the world,
that we be of his elect, to dwell in his court." One article, however, is
wanting in this document,—that article of the standing or the falling church,
justification by faith in Christ alone. If this were included, the confession
of faith would have been complete, free, as it is, from any antischirpual
doctrine. So familiar were the Priests with the language of public
reprobation, that hitherto the Vaudois had not suffered persecution unto
death, but yet were kept in perpetual dread of every sort of vexatious
oppression short of martyrdom. Now the hatred of the Priesthood rises higher;
and notices appear of persons who suffered death for truth's sake. A man, of
great zeal and piety,—whether Presbyter, Monk, or hermit, the narrators of the
event scarcely knew, but certainly an impressive Preacher, and who had
travelled through France,—came into the north of Italy; and, in the spirit of
the Noble Lesson, declaimed there, also, against the corruption of the Clergy,
and was attended by the celebrity naturally arising from the bold eloquence
and justice of his discourses, as well as the sanctity of his deportment. Even
the Priests were constrained to respect him, and acknowledge him to be a holy
man, although acting independently, as it would seem, of all episcopal
jurisdiction; which he might the more easily do in a country where there were
so many nonconformists, and where the Priests themselves had fallen but
recently under the Papal yoke. But he proceeded to Rome, and there cried
aloud, sparing not, until "spiritual men," as they were called, moved with
anger at his reproofs of their crimes, licentiousness, and errors, put him to
death; some say by hanging; others, with greater probability, affirm, that he
was secretly assassinated, or drowned in the Tiber. He had forebodings of a
violent death; but, not ceasing to pour forth admonitions, exclaimed, "You
contemn both me and your Creator, him who, by his only-begotten Son, hath
redeemed you. And no marvel if you seek my death, being a sinful person,
preaching unto you the truth; when, if St. Peter himself were here this day,
and rebuked your sins, you would not spare him either. For my part, I am not
afraid to suffer death for the truth's sake; but this I say to you, that God
will look upon your impurities, and will be revenged; for you, being full of
all wickedness, play the blind guides to the people committed to you, leading
them the way to hell: but God is a God of vengeance." His apprehensions were
verified: the name of Arnulph, or Arnolfo, stands at the head of the Italian
martyrs. To the honour of Pope Honorius II. it is recorded, that he was angry
at the murder, but he abstained from seeking out and punishing the murderers;
perhaps fearing lest he should follow, having the Ecclesiastics all against
him.* The sermons of Arnulph were not yet forgotten, when another Preacher
arose, as if to avenge his death on the Church that had rejected him. At
Brescia, in Lombardy, a young man of daring spirit and ready utterance, who
had received only the lesser order of Reader, took up the same strain, and
declaimed, with vehemence, on the corruption of the Clergy, from the Pope to
the Acolyth, mingling, with cutting invective, new and singular opinions. He
taught that

* Foxe, Acts and Monuments, London, 1843, vol. ii., p. 182, and Appendix

3 8 there could be no salvation for those wealthy Clerks, lordly Bishops, and
endowed Monks; that church property rightfully belonged to the temporal
Sovereign, who alone should dispose of it at his pleasure; that the Clergy
ought to be maintained by the tithes and voluntary offerings of the people,
and be content with a bare supply of necessaries for a life of poverty and
self-denial. Explaining, in this style, the sacred text, he aroused the
population of Brescia, already weary of the Priests, to such a pitch of
excitement, that they forsook the churches, and the Clergy fell into extreme
contempt. At the instance of the Bishop of his diocese in the second Council
of Lateran, the Pope silenced him. He then left Brescia, crossed the Alps,
took up his abode at Zurich, where he resumed his attacks on ecclesiastical
abuses, kindled a flame there also, and prepared the way for Zuinglius, who
arose nearly four centuries afterwards, by impressing a new character of
freedom on the inhabitants of Switzerland. Not only the laity, but the heads
of the Church, supported him by connivance, if not by sanction. The Bishop of
Constance, to which diocese Zurich belonged, treated him with marked esteem;
and the Papal Legate received him openly at his table. Bernard, in whom dwelt
the ruling spirit of the age, addressed letters of earnest entreaty to them
both, beseeching them to have him imprisoned, because his preaching did
irreparable damage to the Church; and cautioning them against the milder
measure of expulsion from the diocese, because, if banished from one country,
he would betake himself to another, and there spread the pestilence of heresy
and disaffection. "O that his doctrine were as sound" (wrote the trembling
Abbot) "as his life is blameless!" He suggested to the Legate that if he would
not have him imprisoned, he should undertake to convert him; although that he
considered to be hopeless. So thought both the Legate and the Bishop, who
deferred to the superior talent and better cause of the learned and
enthusiastic Reader. The Pope himself (Innocent II.) wrote to the Archbishops
of Sens and Rheims, under whose jurisdiction, severally, were Arnold, and his
former master, Abelard,* commanding the latter to be put to silence, and both
of them to be not only silenced, but placed in solitary confinement. His
mandate, however, was not obeyed. Being at war with the King of Sicily, he was
himself made prisoner; an Antipope disputed the chair with him; the Romans
revolted; and, longing to be delivered from the rule of a priestly King,
invited Arnold to visit them. Instead of being immured in a prison, he
hastened to Rome, harangued the citizens in classic language, as far as such
language could be spoken in that age; and, with an incongruous mixture of
passages from the Bible, and from Latin historians and poets, he exhorted them
to emulate the spirit of the ancient Romans, and to aspire after "Christian"
liberty. But he told one mighty truth, which Rome remembers at this day, and
never will forget,—that the temporal government pertains not to a Bishop, who
should be contented with spiritual authority. For above ten years he was the
true King of Rome, although the ancient republican form of government was
revived; and an important precedent was afforded for the effort made

* A person far inferior to Arnold in moral character.

ARNOLD OF BRESCIA.

by the Romans in the years 1848 and 1849, to deliver themselves from Papal
tyranny. Frederic Barbarossa then restored the temporal power to the Papacy;
but republican medals are treasured in the cabinets to recall the memory of
that brief period. The fall of Arnold was compassed thus: A Cardinal passing
through "the sacred street" on his way to the Pope, Adrian, the Englishman,
was wounded by some unknown persons. Adrian caught the occasion, and placed
the city under an interdict, until Arnold, and his principal adherents, as
they were called, should be expelled. From Christmas to Easter the Romans
endured the suspension of all religious ceremonies; but, in "the holy week,"
the Senators, pressed on one side by the Priests, and on the other by the
populace, came to the Pope, swore on the Gospels that they would expel Arnold
from the Roman territory; which they did forthwith, and he remained in
Tuscany, until the German Emperor, marching towards Rome, and met there by a
deputation from Adrian, acceded to their request to compel his friends to
deliver the arch-republican into their hands. They carried him to Rome, burnt
him at the stake in the presence of the inconstant public, and cast his ashes
into the Tiber, lest they should be gathered as the relics of a martyr (A.D.
1155). Sad end of a political Preacher! The whole affair, however, was
characteristic of the foreign aid by which alone the Roman Pontiffs could
afterwards retain their regal power, and of the only argument by which they
can ever silence heretics.* Yet impatience of Papal tyranny was increased,
rather than overawed, by the remembrance of that momentary defeat; and, while
the Roman insurgents were too numerous to be punished, and the Pope was
restricted to the exercise of his ecclesiastical functions, the States of the
Church were threatened by an outbreak of discontent in the episcopal city and
province of Orvieto. While Arnold flourished in Rome, a Florentine
(Diotesalvi) was performing a similar part in the provincial city, but rather
as a Christian Preacher than the leader of a political movement. He is
described as a man of venerable appearance, and modest exterior, who preached
against the doctrine of sacramental grace, and was therefore called a
Mauichean, of course. He taught that every good man is equal to St. Peter, and
that every sinner will be punished as Judas. For twenty years, at least, he
preached such truths, (from 1150, until after 1169,) until the reigning Bishop
succeeded in banishing him and another Preacher from the city. The believers
in his doctrine, which was probably that of the Vaudois, do not appear to have
left the dominant Church, but rather to have been active in endeavouring to
reform it. Two ladies are mentioned as remarkably zealous and influential over
the women of Orvieto, and with them a great number of the men, including the
Bishop himself; until the Bishop, finding that he had hazarded his dignity by
allowing freedom to his conscience, renounced the perilous convictions, took
advice of the Canons and others of that class, at their instigation professed
himself to be undeceived, and confirmed the recantation by a bitter
persecution of the reputed heretics. Some were hung, others beheaded, others
burnt alive,

* Gibbon, chap. lxix.; Fleury, lxviii., 55, 66, 67; lxix., 10; lxx., 4.

3 8 2 others banished; and others, who died without submitting to the
ceremonies of Popery, were harmlessly accursed, and their remains not admitted
to ecclesiastical burial. But they were not all dead and buried. All Italy was
permeated by the influence of truth; and soon afterwards, while Innocent III.
prosecuted a territorial quarrel with my Lord of Orvieto, and kept him
prisoner at large at Rome, a body of reforming Preachers came from no more
distant a region than the patrimony of St. Peter, to recall, with
encouragement of brethren from Viterbo, the inquirers of Orvieto. The
reformed, as we may venture to call them, flocked into the latter city, and,
by rapid conversions to the new doctrine and accession of strangers, the
"Catholic" population became a small minority. They then conceived the unhappy
idea of fortifying themselves as a reformed town; and, to avoid this, the
residuary population sent a deputation to Rome to ask for help. Pietro di
Parenzo, a noble Roman, was sent to support the Bishop, who had been at last
liberated, but was unable to enforce obedience to the clerical Sovereign,
which he rashly attempted to do, by demolishing the towers of the principal
houses, and commanding those who had left the Church—for the secession was
then complete—to return, under pain of canonical punishment. The summons
availed but little: therefore he proceeded to execute the threat, by putting
some in irons, flogging others publicly, subjecting others to banishment,
fines, or confiscation, and causing several houses to be pulled down. The
indignant inhabitants threatened him with vengeance. He went to Rome, to keep
Lent, as could scarcely be done in Orvieto. The Pope gave him unlimited
authority, with plenary absolution for whatever sin he might commit in
chastising the heretics; and he returned, boasting, by God, the holy Virgin,
and St. Peter, that he would defend the Catholic faith, though he should die
for it; and that, if he did die a violent death, it should be by the hands of
heretics. A few evenings after his return, as he was going to bed, a party of
men came to his palace, were admitted by a servant who was in the plot, and
called his master from his chamber. They gagged him, bound him hand and foot,
carried him out of the city, and murdered him (A.D. 1199). The Bishop had him
buried in the cathedral; miracles were duly performed at his tomb; and the
church of Orvieto honours his martyrdom annually on the 21st of May.* This
event, with others not dissimilar, goes far to explain the suppression of
doctrinal reform in Italy, which could not be promoted by human passions, even
though the guilt might possibly be extenuated, in the apprehension of the
guilty, by the excess of provocation given.

Having marked the awakening of the public mind in the Netherlands, a part of
Germany, and subalpine and central Italy, during this century, with the
uniform resistance of the higher Clergy, except in one instance, we come to
France, now the most interesting section of the European field. The impulse
given to preaching in the Romish pulpits by Foulques de Neuilly towards the
end of the century has already been noticed as remotely beneficial; but we can
trace a succession of unspeakably more beneficial events beyond the enclosure

* Fleury, Ixxv., 22, 23.

PIERRE DE BRUIS.

of that fallen Church. In the provinces of Dauphiny and Provence, many, very
many persons, branded with ignominious epithets, maintained doctrines hostile
to those which were enforced by ecclesiastical authority. The piercing,
unrelenting vigilance of the Bishops gradually wearied them out, and, after
wandering through Languedoc, most of them found brief respite in Gascony and
the neighbouring country, where they worshipped God in private assemblies, or,
as the cruel taunt of an enemy intimates, (sibi foveus præparavit,) "the
foolish and impious heresy prepared itself dens," found "hiding-places"
(latibula). The above-mentioned Prelates, not content with the expulsion of
those persons from their dioceses, or aware that the innovation advanced
through all the south of France, despite their efforts to prevent it, brought
a complaint to the Council held at Toulouse (A.D. 1119) of the Bishops and
Abbots of Languedoc, Gascony, Spain, and Brittany, with Callistus II., newly
elected Pontiff, at their head, and easily obtained a canon condemnatory of
those "who feigned an appearance of religion, condemned the sacrament of the
body and blood of our Lord, the baptism of infants, the priesthood, and other
ecclesiastical orders, and legitimate marriages." To know certainly what those
dissidents did reject or deny, we should have some testimony of their own,
which unfortunately does not exist; but if their original neighbourhood with
Piedmont and the course of their emigration be considered, and their alleged
heresy compared with the Noble Lesson of the Vaudois,* it will not appear
probable that their opinions are fairly stated. However that might be, the
Fathers pretended to expel them from the Church (with which, indeed, they
chose to hold no communion) as heretics, and ordered that they should be put
down by the secular powers. They subjected their defenders to the same
condemnation, unless they would repent. With equal zeal they pronounced
excommunication against all laymen who laid hands on the property of deceased
Bishops, which some Princes conceived they had a right to do, and on Monks,
Canons, and Clerks who renounced their profession, or allowed their hair and
beards to grow like those of laymen. This looks as if there had been defection
from the ranks of the Clergy, and agrees with a charge brought against the
Vaudois, (so to call them for want of a better name,) that they had compelled
Monks to take wives; a ridiculous accusation, especially when brought against
the very men who were said by the Council to condemn marriage. Their most
eminent Minister was Pierre de Bruis, who had preached in those provinces for
twenty years, when some devout Priests, failing, no doubt, to borrow the sword
of magisterial authority, engaged ruffians to make a riot, and burn him at St.
Gilles, (A.D. 1126,) for having burnt a cross, as they said, or crosses,
cooked his dinner therewith, and eaten it on a Good Friday: an offence not
unlikely to be committed at a time when Priests renounced their orders, Monks
their vows, and idolaters their idols. From his Latin name, Petrus de Bruis,
the appellation of Petrobrusians was given to his followers,†

* Supra, p. 495.

† Allix, Albigenses, chap. xix; Faber, Vallenses and Albigenses, book ii.,
chap. 6; Fleury, lxvii., 2; lxix, 24.

who multiplied after his martyrdom. Disgust of idolatry led many to remove
altars, destroy crucifixes, empty churches of their images, and, it is said,
re-baptize converts, as if the corrupt baptism of Romanism were a nullity.
Alarmed at the rapid secession from his Church, Pope Eugenius III. despatched
an Italian Bishop, who had acquired experience as Legate in Syria and in
England, to represent him at Toulouse (A.D 1147). He was commissioned to
attack Henry, not a disciple of Peter, as they alleged, but, like him, an
eminently successful Minister. When Henry began his ministry, he was a young
man, but of commanding exterior. Tall, with animated countenance, piercing
eye, and a full sonorous voice, attired carelessly, and bare-footed, he
presented an appearance of poverty, opening the way to popular acceptance. But
his reputation for holiness and learning chiefly bespoke attention. When he
entered the town of Mans, he was preceded by two others, carrying staves,
surmounted by small iron crosses, his own staff being similarly adorned; and
they might have passed for Monks on penitential pilgrimage.* It was then Ash
Wednesday. The Bishop Hidelbert received them kindly, directed that they
should be allowed to enter the town, and that the Archdeacons should permit
Henry to preach. The people crowded to hear him, were delighted with his
eloquence, convinced by his reasonings, and soon alienated from their former
superstition. The Priests found themselves neglected, masses were abandoned,
and the living no longer prayed for the dead, but for themselves. When the
Bishop returned from Rome, whither he had gone just after the arrival of
Henry, the people received him coldly on his ceremonious entrance, and he was
surprised to see that they set no value on his blessings. He therefore
required the unwelcome Preacher to quit his diocese, and thought it enough to
boast of, that two persons had relinquished profession of the novel doctrine.
The Legate, on his arrival in Languedoc, found things in a remarkable
condition. The churches were without people, the people separated from the
Priests, and the Priests despised. The old worship was no longer esteemed
holy, feasts were not kept, people died without the last ceremonies; and so
extreme was the re-action against rites, that infants were not baptized. The
Legate, with usual pomp, made a progress through the alienated provinces, but
was everywhere received with mortifying coldness. It was well for his cause
that he had a companion whose high reputation drew together that portion of
the population which yet retained any attachment to the hierarchy, or were so
undecided as to yield to the charm of a great name. Bernard, founder and first
Abbot of the monastery of Clairvaux, who had frequently been invited by the
Clergy of Toulouse to visit them, consented, in that emergency, to accompany
the Legate; and, if his biographer may be believed, which is more than
doubtful, the country was everywhere stirred up to meet him, and crowds, both
day and night, pressed on him to receive his benediction.

* Those who call him a disciple of Pierre de Bruis overlook several marks of
difference. Peter was charged with having burnt crosses: he carried one. His
field of action was far distant from that of Peter. A distinct catalogue of
heterodox opinions was laid to his charge.

PIERRE DE VAUD, OR WALDO.

In every place he performed miracles. Bread, infused with miraculous power by
his touch, healed the sick, whether they had faith or no, for he declared
faith to be unnecessary; a paralytic was raised up by virtue of his blessing;
and the greatest of all his miracles, as we can most easily imagine, was
performed when every one in the congregation, which, doubtless, consisted of
admirers, raised his hand to vote against heresy, in compliance with his
request at the close of a sermon. The most truthful part of the narrative is
that which states that many noblemen and Ecclesiastics, both secular * and
regular,† were attached to the new doctrine, and that the most ignorant
persons, after they had joined them for a week, became so knowing that it was
impossible to convince them of heresy; that when the Legate entered Alby,
people marched before him, leading asses, and beating drums, instead of the
honorific procession which usually greeted the entry of a Legate; that only
thirty persons could be collected at mass, but that Bernard was afterwards
received with tokens of respect; that the gentlemen of Toulouse promised
Bernard that they would not suffer the weavers to meet again in the town; and
that afterwards the Legate pronounced a sentence of excommunication against
the heretics and their abettors, a sentence equivalent with outlawry; and that
the said excommunication followed a preamble describing Henry as an apostate,
a lewd person, and a vagabond. Bernard tracked the excommunicated Preacher,
laboured with poor success to regain for the Clergy the confidence of the
people, but so far succeeded with the chief men of several towns, that Henry
was persecuted, hunted from place to place, and at last brought in chains to
the Bishop. Bernard, having left the diocese, missed the gratification of
seeing him burnt at a stake,‡ by command of the Legate. Others say he died in
prison. Be it as it may, he was a martyr. On his return Bernard wrote to the
people of Toulouse, exhorting them to persecute heretics without relenting,
until they should have driven all out of the country; and repeated an
exhortation often given them before, never to receive a strange Preacher
unless he could produce a licence of the Pope, or obtained the sanction of the
Bishop.

Neither did zeal for the dominant Church in the Clergy, nor alienation from it
in the people, diminish after the expedition into Languedoc. Both parties
continued, and the public mind retained the perception of a few wholesome
truths. Twelve or thirteen years after the death of Henry, the Head of the
church raised up another and more eminent Evangelist. Some of the principal
citizens of Lyons were one day together, when one of the company died
suddenly, (A.D. 1160,) and another, Pierre de Vaud, or, as he is sometimes
incorrectly called, Peter Waldo, a rich merchant, was so impressed with that
visitation of divine Providence, that he resolved forthwith to lead a new
life. Had he been a true Romanist, he would probably have retired to a
monastery, and given his wealth to the Priests; but, instead of idle
seclusion, he devoted himself to the good of his neighbours, distributed his
property among the poor, and

* Priests. † Monks.

1 Fleury, Ixix., 24, 25; Allix, Albigenses, xiv.; Faber, Vallenses and
Albigenses, vi.

began to exhort all around him to repent also. His beneficence to the poor,
and the earnestness of his discourses, attended with that more than human
influence which certainly draws congregations, caused him to be followed by a
multitude of all classes, but chiefly of the indigent. Voluntary poverty was
then esteemed as an evidence of piety. Some others followed his example,
became poor for Christ's sake, and dispersed themselves over the country,
preaching the Gospel. And as the Latin Bible could not then be so easily
understood, as when the language was less corrupted in the vernacular dialect,
he lost no time in translating into French, for the benefit of the common
people, the text of the New Testament and part of the Old. This was the first
version of the holy Scriptures into any of what may be called the modern
languages of Europe, and must have largely tended to promote sacred knowledge
among the opponents of Romanism, and impart a more vigorous character to the
incipient Reformation: for we cannot overlook the fact that the Reformation
began in the twelfth century. The Archbishop endeavoured to silence Waldo, but
in vain. He dreaded not threatened excommunication; and maintained that,
although a layman, he had a divine right to publish the Gospel to all within
his reach. The Archbishop then endeavoured to apprehend him; but he escaped
from Lyons, was followed by many of his converts, thus cast out upon the world
in a state of utter destitution, and therefore known, wherever they came, as
the poor men of Lyons. The same designation, or that of WALDENSES, from Peter
Waldo, continued to be applied to them. Few historical notices of this holy
man remain; but his work could not be destroyed; and while a wanderer, he was
also an Apostle. Picardy, whither he fled at first, was soon the scene of
sanguinary persecution, and in Bohemia, where he finished his course, (A.D.
1179,) Papal domination found memorable resistance.* The struggle between the
Papacy and evangelical dissent was fairly begun, and persecution became
systematic. The Synod of Tours (A.D. 1163) commanded all the Bishops and
Priests of the diocese of Toulouse to take care to forbid all persons, under
pain of excommunication, giving reception, or the least assistance, to the
followers of the Waldensian heresy, whenever they should be discovered.
Neither were they to have any dealings with them, in the way of buying and
selling, to the end that, being deprived of the common succours of life, they
might repent of the evil of their way. All who contravened this order were to
be included in the excommunication; and as many as could be found were to be
imprisoned by the "Catholic Princes," and their property confiscated.† The
French Clergy having so ordained, the secular arm was ready to enforce their
pleasure, and many unrecorded acts of persecution doubtless followed. Nine
persons were found at Vezelay, a town of Burgundy, charged, as usual, with the
follies of Manicheanism, (A.D. 1167,) and placed in solitary confinement,
until Bishops, and other persons of authority, could make it convenient to
assemble in

* Faber, Vallenses, &c., chap. xii.; Milner, Hist., cent. xiii., chap. 1;
Foxe, Acts and Monuments, vol. ii., p. 264, seq.

† Limborch, History of the Inquisition, book I., chap. 9.

CONFERENCE OF ALBY.

the place, and undertake their conversion, as they were used to speak. They
lay in prison two months, harassed by the visits of Priests, who employed
threats and smiles alternately, labouring to move them, but without effect.
Bishops, Abbots, and Doctors then met together, drew up a catalogue of
heretical opinions and practices, but withheld their sentence. Easter
approached: they were told that they must be tried by a fiery ordeal, and two
of them, overcome by terror, begged that they might be tried by water, to
prove that they believed what the Church believed. The whole company was then
made to walk in procession round the cloister of a convent, in the presence of
a crowd of people, the Clergy rejoicing over the inconstancy of the two, until
the Abbot raised his voice, and asked the people what should be done with the
seven. "Burn them, burn them," was the desired answer; and they were
accordingly committed to the flames. The two were tried by water. One was
declared innocent, and the other guilty; towards whom the Abbot graciously
exercised clemency by sparing him from the stake, but commanding him to be
whipped publicly, and then banished.* Next came the famous Council, or
Conference, of Alby. The Waldenses had become so numerous, and were so well
known in Languedoc, that no existing power could suppress them. The nobility
in the neighbourhood of Lombers, a small town near Alby, openly protected
them, and they were honourably known as good men, although the Priests branded
them with the name of an old heresy. To proceed summarily against persons who
had thus risen into favour, would have been imprudent; but if they could be
convicted of heresy, and that with show of condescension and forbearance, by
the dignitaries of the Church, the tide of public opinion might be turned
against them. The Archbishop of Narbonne determined to convene the Bishops of
his province at Alby, (A.D. 1176,) to examine some of those people; and,
having heard their tenets, or extorted answers unfavourable to themselves by
questioning or cross-questioning, to pronounce a formal refutation. They met:
several Waldenses, as we shall now call them, were present. The conference
proceeded without any disorder; the reporter or historian duly made them out
to be Manicheans; the arguments, however, were perplexing: "After divers
reasons alleged on both sides, in presence of the Bishop of Alby, they chose
and settled Judges on both sides, with consent of that Bishop" as diocesan.
The Judges cited authorities out of the New Testament, and then, by command of
the Bishop of Alby, the Bishop of Lyons pronounced sentence. The sentence is
long, but demonstrates that they were very like what we now call Protestants.
It ended in a notice, that they would be denounced as heretics in all Catholic
courts. On hearing this sentence, they turned their backs on the Bishops, and
appealed to the assembled people, one speaking for all, in these terms, if
correctly related by the Romish annalist:—"Good people, the faith which we now
confess, we confess for your sakes. We believe that there is one only God in
three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and that the Son of
God hath taken our flesh upon

* Fleary, lxxi., 50.

3 T him; that he was baptized in Jordan; that he fasted in the wilderness;
that he hath preached our salvation; that he suffered, died, and was buried;
that he descended into hell; that he rose again the third day; that he
ascended into heaven; that he sent the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost;
that he shall come at the day of judgment, to judge both the quick and the
dead; and that all shall rise again. We know, also, that what we believe with
our heart, we ought to confess with our mouth. We believe that he is not saved
who doth not eat the body of Jesus Christ; and that the body of Jesus Christ
is not consecrated but in the Church, and by the Priest, be he good or bad;
and that it is no better consecrated by a good Priest than by a bad one. We
believe also that none can be saved but those who are baptized, and that
little children are saved by baptism. We believe also that man and wife are
saved, though they be carnally joined, and that every one must repent with his
mouth and heart, and be baptized in the church by a Priest. And if they could
show us more from the Gospels, we would believe and own it." It would be
unfair to interpret too rigidly an oral confession, pronounced under the
excitement of an artful and wearisome controversy, even if correctly reported
from their lips; but most unfair so to interpret such a confession when
related by an enemy. Their statements were defensive: as to the sacrament of
the Lord's supper, the heresy of transubstantiation afterwards forced on the
Church by Innocent III. was a favourite speculation, and the acknowledgment of
consecration by a Priest, if really made, might have been intended to parry
the dispute. A notion of salvation by baptism might have been held by the
speakers; but of this it is impossible to be certain: it only proves that they
did not reject infant baptism. The acknowledgment of marriage was a necessary
answer to a vulgar slander, and that of oral confession was elicited by what
had passed in the conference. If the Bishop of Alby or of Lyons, like the
Abbot of Vezelay, had then appealed to the people, they would certainly not
have cried out, "Burn them," nor could the extemporaneous confession be
interpreted as heretical. Yet the Priests were not baffled altogether; for the
good men had avowed an objection to judicial oaths, and my Lord of Lyons,
quite prepared for such an emergency, instantly required them to swear to the
confession. That was impossible; and the Bishop of Lodeve, by command of the
Bishop of Alby, at that instant stood up and declared them suspected of
heresy, and infamous. In vain did they remind the latter that he had promised
not to require them to swear; deaf to remonstrance, he gave notice to the
militia of Lombers that they must not protect their townsmen. Nine Bishops,
Clerks, Abbots, and laymen appended their signatures to this conclusion, and
the Council of Alby ended without any important result. It only gave the good
men of Lombers notoriety, and to them and their brethren the new name of
Albigeois, or ALBIGENSES.* No doubt the persecutors were mortified at having
done no more than talk to so little purpose. That part of Languedoc must have
seemed more heretical than ever. Toulouse was always disaffected to Rome, and
from generation to

* Allix, Albigenses, chap. xv.

PERSECUTION AT TOULOUSE.

generation had been so full of what Papiats call heresy, that a monkish writer
styles the city "mother of heretics, and tabernacle of robbers." Bernard,
after his visit, wrote that the plague had seized the whole population; that,
from the crown of the head to the sole of the foot, there was scarcely any
soundness. There, he said, the heretics were chief among the people, and ruled
in the Clergy: when heretics spake, they were listened to with admiration; but
if a "Catholic" opened his mouth, people said, "Who is this?" He complains
that they had Missionaries who went to preach at a distance, and had even
other Gospels, referring evidently to the vernacular translation. Raymond V.,
the Count of Toulouse, wrote to the Abbot and Chapter-general of the
Cistercians, repeating the same statement, asking their advice and prayers,
saying that the spiritual sword was not sufficient, but that his material
sword was at the service of the Church. He expressed a desire that the King of
France would come to make an end of the evil by his presence, and offered to
throw open the towns to his troops, put the fortified places into his hands,
point out the heretics, and shed his own blood, if necessary, to crush the
enemies of Jesus Christ. The King of France, together with the King of
England, almost determined to accept the invitation; but, fearful of hazarding
their dignity in such an expedition, devolved the work on Peter, Cardinal of
Chrysogon, the Pope's Legate, attended by Archbishops Guerin of Bourges, and
Pons of Narbonne; Bishops Reynolds of Bath, and John of Poitiers, and Henry,
successor of Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux, with several other personages. To
these representatives of the Church were added Raymond, Count of Toulouse, the
Viscount of Turin, and others, as representatives of royalty (A.D. 1178). They
hastened with their formidable trains to the seat of heretical pravity; and
the measure first determined on was to swear the Bishop of Toulouse, some of
the Priests, the Consuls, and a few more, to present, in writing, the names of
all the heretics they knew, none excepted on any consideration. The list grew
rapidly, and a person of consequence was chosen as the first object of
attack,—Pierre Moran, an aged gentleman who had two houses, one in town, and
the other in the country, very rich, extensively related, and of great
influence in Toulouse. Although a layman, he had held meetings in the evenings
in one of his houses, and preached to the persons assembled. The Count sent
Serjeants to cite him into his presence, and with some difficulty induced him
to appear. With deep seriousness he rebutted accusations of Arianism and
Manicheanism, but denied the doctrine held by his examiners, who instantly
condemned him as a heretic. His age, respectability, and dignified Christian
demeanour softened them for a moment, or seemed to soften. They allowed a tear
or two to betray or simulate compassion, but sent him from their presence to
the common gaol. Threatened with death, he was overcome, promised to recant,
stood barefoot and in his shirt before the Commissioners, bound himself by
oath to submit to the orders of the Legate, and the public were invited to see
him do penance next day in the church of St. Sermin. The building was crowded
to excess, and Pierre Moran was made to walk barefoot and naked as before
through the congregation, scourged by the Bishop on

3 T 2 one side and the Abbot of St. Sernin on the other, at every step, until
he reached the high altar, where he fell at the Legate's feet, besought
reconciliation to the Church, and received the words of peace. Then the
triumph over him might have been deemed complete; but it had only begun. All
his property was confiscated. By way of penance, he was to quit the country
within forty days, go to Jerusalem to serve the poor for three years, and
meanwhile appear at all the churches in the city every Sunday, in the same
guise of penitential degradation, to be scourged in each; and the house where
his brethren had knelt with him in prayer was to be razed to the ground. The
Legate and his company having summoned two others to appear before them in the
cathedral on charge of heresy, they came, bringing a written confession of
faith, resembling that of Alby, and were nearly released, when the zealous
Count rose in great anger, declaring that they were liars. The Ecclesiastics
then required them to clear themselves by oath, but, unable to prevail, called
for lighted tapers, and excommunicated them with all possible solemnity. The
Count next promised on oath, before all the people, to enforce the terrors of
that sentence, and never to favour heretics. This done, the Commissaries
gladly closed their labours, not venturing to take life, persuaded that they
had made the most of their authority, covered only by royal sanction, and
backed by the swords of their attendants, and lost no time in going each to
his own place.*

Henry of Clairvaux, successor of Bernard, rewarded with a scarlet gown, and
invested with the honours of Cardinal, Bishop, and Pope's Legate, went into
Burgundy (A.D. 1181) to enforce discipline on the Clergy, and persecute the
Albigenses. Instead of a train of Priests, he led an army, compelled Roger of
Beziers and some other feudal Chiefs to abjure heresy, and returned to Rome,
boasting that he had stormed a castle, that of Lavaur, and converted many to
the bosom of his Church, outdoing his predecessors in monstrous descriptions
of diabolical fables and inhuman licentiousness attributed to the Albigenses,
who withdrew from the churches as soon as he had set his face towards Rome.†
Waldensian Preachers and Missionaries renewed their efforts; and the intimate
political connexion at that time existing between the southern provinces of
France, and the northern kingdom of Spain, laid open the latter country to the
innovations which were now spreading over a great part of Europe. The Pope,
Celestine III., aware of this, sent a Cardinal Legate into Spain, who held a
Council at Lerida, and exhorted the King of Arragon, Alonso II., as Marquis of
Provence, and Lord of some other counties north of the Pyrenees, to issue an
edict against the heretics, after the tenor of the acts of the Council of
Verona. Alonso consented, and (A.D. 1194) commanded the Waldenses, the
Inzapatados,‡ or Poor Men of Lyons, (these being only various names for the
same people,) and all other heretics, to be expelled from his dominions,
prohibiting all

* Faber, Vallenses, &c., book ii., chap. 10, 12; Fleury, lxxiii., 12, 13.

† Allix, Albigenses, chap. xxi.; Fleury, lxxiii., 35.

‡ So called from the Spanish word, zapato, "a shoe," because of the clumsy
wooden shoes the Albigensian peasants wore; as, indeed, did others, but this
marked their poverty, and was conspicuous in Missionaries.

PERSECUTION IN NIVERNOIS.

his "vassals" to abet any in concealment, under penalty of being dealt with as
guilty of treason, their property to be confiscated, of course. He commanded
Bishops and Governors of towns to cause this edict to be published every
Sunday in all their churches, under the same penalties. By All-Saints' day in
that year the said heretics were required to be out of the country; and if any
were found after that day, whoever, whether of high or low condition, should
inflict evil, disgrace, or suffering on such persons, except death or
mutilation, would thereby render himself grateful and acceptable to His
Majesty, and, so far from incurring punishment, should be entitled to royal
favour. After All-Saints' day every living dissenter, though he were indeed a
saint, was delivered to the malice of whomsoever would plunder and torment
him. Alonso soon passed into the state where every one receives righteous
judgment; but his second son, Peter II., finding that the humanity of his
father's vassals had shielded the Poor Men of Lyons from the effects of both
excommunication and edict, assembled the Archbishop of Tarragona, and the
Bishops of Gerona, Barcelona, Vique, and Elna, (A.D. 1197,) and, repeating the
terrible threatenings of the former edict, commanded all civil authorities to
drive the heretics beyond the bounds of their respective jurisdictions within
a time appointed. All Governors and Judges were forthwith to swear before
their Bishops that, within a week, they would discover and punish all
heretics, or suffer the penalties due to them. This document, which was
fortified by the signatures of almost all the grandees of Castile, implied an
acknowledgment that the preceding mandate had not been effectual, and by its
very stringency almost invited disobedience.*

In Nivernois, where popular superstition was more intense, the seceders appear
to have been persecuted with greater violence. At Corbigni, some who had
relapsed into Popery discovered their former associates; and Terrie, their
chief, as he is called, after he had been concealed for some time in a cavern,
was dragged out and burnt. Several of the principal inhabitants of Charité on
the Loire, when summoned to appear on the charge of heresy, fled, were
excommunicated, and delivered to the secular arm. The Dean of Nevers, and the
Abbot of St. Martin, in the same town, were marked as unsound in doctrine,
suspended from their functions, and commanded to answer to charges before the
Archbishop at Auxerre, having two Bishops for assessors. The Dean came boldly,
with several Lawyers, well skilled both in canon and civil law; and the
Archbishop seeing him so strongly environed, adjourned the case. The Abbot,
who was accused of immorality also, appealed to the Pope, but was bound to
appear again at Sens with the Dean. Both causes were remitted to Rome, where
the Dean, probably the better man of the two, and conscious of a good cause,
presented himself without delay, (A.D. 1199,) was heard in the Consistory, but
gained nothing there, and was sent back to submit to the judgment of his
Archbishop.†

* Llorente, Hist. Inquis. Española, cap. i., art. 4; Limborch, Hist.
Inquisition, book i., chap. 9.

† Fleury, lxxv., 7.

No sooner had Innocent III. mounted the Papal throne than he applied himself,
with the zeal of a new comer, to the extirpation of alleged heresy in the
south of France (A.D. 1198). He wrote to the Archbishop of Auch a command to
root it out of Gascony, employing to that end, if necessary, the arms both of
Princes and of people. He sent two Cistercian Monks to carry the command into
execution, or, in his language, to convert the heretics. An encyclical epistle
bound the Bishops to receive the envoys favourably, help them in their
labours, and execute, with inviolable fidelity, whatever they might think
proper to be done against the stubborn heretics and their abettors. "We also,"
added the Pope, "command the Princes, the Counts, and all the Lords of your
province, to assist them effectually against the heretics, with the power that
they have received for the punishment of evil-doers. Therefore, after Friar
Rainier shall have pronounced excommunication against them, the Lords must
confiscate their property, banish them from their territories, and punish them
more severely if they shall dare to linger. Now we have given power to Friar
Rainier to compel the Lords by excommunications, and by interdict on their
lands. We also write to all the people of your province, that as soon as they
shall be required by Friar Rainier and Friar Guy, they march against the
heretics; and to those who shall faithfully assist them we grant the same
indulgence as if they had gone to Rome or to St. James." To make the matter
more sure, the Pontiff sent copies to the other Archbishops of France, their
Suffragans, and the Lords of the dioceses. These two Friars, let it be
observed, were in reality the first Inquisitors, armed with powers independent
of the Clergy, and responsible only to the Pope,* whose office thereby became
exclusively that of arch-murderer; his single and incommunicable prerogative
that of wearing out the saints of the Most High by the agency of his
emissaries, while the episcopal office, notwithstanding its superior claims to
a scriptural original, was reduced to a nullity.† Although some of the Bishops
must have perceived the tendency of a proceeding that subsequently became the
source of extreme dissatisfaction to their order, others no doubt thought
themselves highly honoured by an injunction to send information to the Pope
himself of heretics in their dioceses. We are indebted to the servility of
Bertrand, Bishop of Metz, for a precious fragment in contribution to the
history of evangelical progress. In the city and diocese of Metz (A.D. 1199) a
great number of the laity, both men and women, "touched with a desire to
understand the holy Scripture," had obtained a French translation of the
Gospels, the Epistles of St. Paul, the Psalms, and some other books of the Old
Testament, and applied themselves with so much earnestness to the reading of
these portions of the sacred volume, that they held secret meetings, where
they read and exhorted one another. They thought little of persons who
neglected that study, avoided their society, and when some Priests had
reproved them for their conduct, they plainly taxed the Ecclesiastics with
ignorance, and proved from Scripture that they ought not to be hindered. They
contrasted their own

* Fleury, Ixxv., 8.

† Llorente, Hist. Inquis. Esp., ii., 2; Limborch, i., 9.

BIBLE-READERS AT METZ.

familiar acquaintance with the word of God with the ignorance of the
Preachers, and scrupled not to say that they could expound the Bible better.
No doubt they could. And what said the Pope? He deigned to write a letter to
the people of Metz, in these terms:—

"Although the desire to understand the holy Scriptures, and to draw thence
subjects of exhortation, is rather laudable than reprehensible, those persons
appear much to be blamed for holding their conventicles in secret, for taking
upon themselves to preach, for deriding the simplicity of the Preachers, and
despising the company of those who are not like themselves. Jesus Christ
commanded his Apostles to preach upon the house-tops; and when interrogated by
the High Priest, he answered that he had always taught publicly, and spoken
nothing in secret. Besides, St. Paul says that there are different offices in
the church, and that God has established some Apostles, others Prophets,
others Teachers, and that they cannot preach except they are sent. But if
these people answer that they have received an invisible mission from God,
more excellent than the visible, they must be told that this inward mission
being hidden, it is not enough merely to say that such an one is sent of God,
since any heretic may say as much: he must prove it, either by miracles, like
Moses, or by an express testimony of Scripture, like St. John the Baptist.
Now, although learning is very necessary to Priests that they may teach, they
who are learned should honour in them the sacerdotal ministry, and not despise
their simplicity. It belongs to the Bishop to correct with gentleness the
Priest who is subject to him; but it does not become the people proudly to
reprove their Pastor. If the Pastor is unworthy, or unable to lead his flock,
the case should be regularly laid before the Bishop, who has power to appoint
and also to remove from office. As for those who despise others, and pretend
to be the only righteous, they must be ranked with the Pharisees; since from
the beginning of the church there have been many saints that were not to be
compared with these new perfect ones. And to them may be applied this saying
of Scripture, 'Be not many masters.'"

Innocent concluded his epistle by exhorting the citizens of Metz to cast off
the delusion, and not allow themselves to be deceived by an empty semblance of
piety and virtue. Then, in another letter to the Bishop and Chapter of Metz,
he wrote thus:—"While Prelates should be careful to discover heretics, they
should also take care not to wound the pious simplicity of the faithful by
their impatience, nor to give them occasion of revolting against the Church.
Now you have not said, in your letter, that those of whom you complain err in
faith, or depart from sound doctrine; and we are also in utter ignorance of
the reputation and conduct of those who have made this version of the
Scripture, or of those who have made use of it in teaching. We therefore
command you to exhort them earnestly to desist from what is reprehensible in
their conduct, and by no means to assume the ministry of preaching, which
becomes them not. Do you also ascertain carefully who is the author of this
version, with what intention he made it, what is the faith of them who use it,
what has excited them to teach, and if they respect the Holy See and the

Catholic Church, that we may better know what should be done." This despatch
from the royal Pontiff no doubt put the Bishop and Chapter of Metz in the way
of proceeding more systematically than before; and after a few months a report
from them was forthcoming at Rome, bearing intelligence that some of those
against whom the indefinite complaint had been transmitted had openly refused
to obey the orders of the Holy See, being resolved rather to obey God than
man. Others said the same in private. Notwithstanding prohibition, they
continued their private meetings and their preachings. They were said to
despise others, or, in truth, to reprove sinners; and were so attached to
their version of the Bible that they protested a determination to disobey
Bishop, Metropolitan, and Pope, should they require it to be suppressed. Three
Abbots were then sent by Innocent to Metz, with orders to join the Bishop,
summon the contumacious, endeavour to correct them, and, if unsuccessful,
report the issue. So matters stood at the close of the twelfth century in
France; the controversy with Rome no longer relating to the vices of the
Clergy, the sacraments, saints, and ceremonies, but to the right which every
man has to read and to obey the word of God.*

England was not unvisited by the early dawn of better times. William of
Newbury relates that, in the reign of Henry II., some erring persons, as he
calls them, (erronei quidam,) came into England, and were supposed to be
Publicans, or Paulicians, of whom there were many in the broadest provinces of
France, Spain, Italy, and Germany, multiplied, to borrow the language of a
Prophet, above the sand of the sea; sometimes concealed in hiding-places,
because of persecution; but, at other times, ranging the land without
restraint: rustic and unlettered men, dull in argument, but immovable in
purpose, and, having once tasted the cup of poison or of life, as it was
diversely regarded, seldom known to change. Hitherto, from the expulsion of
the Britons by the Saxons, nothing had disturbed the quiescence of our
forefathers, who slept under the leaden sway of Popes, Legates, and submissive
Princes. But the seeds of truth were sown by a few foreigners, a little colony
of about thirty Germans, who, probably to escape persecution, crossed the
Channel, hoping to find refuge here. They made no stir, conducted themselves
most inoffensively, and had a good man named Gerard at their head,
distinguished by some fruits of education, and probably acting as their
Minister. Indeed, they had to learn English before they could hold intercourse
with their neighbours. After all, one person only was known to have adopted
their opinions, an Englishwoman, who had probably shown them hospitality as
foreigners, and become familiar with the manners and religious observances of
her stranger-friends; and her convictions were attributed, by our eminently
superstitious forefathers, to the power of witchcraft. That conversion,
however, was probably unknown, when some persons, having discovered that they
were of a strange sect, thought it right to lodge them all in prison. The
King, hearing that so dread a novelty had entered his dominions, commanded a
Council of Bishops to be holden at Oxford,

* Fleury, lxxv., 24.

MARRIED PRIESTS IN ENGLAND.

and the sectarians to be there examined. Gerard, speaking for the rest, said
that they were Christians, and received with reverence the doctrine of the
Apostles. But they denied sacramental grace, bore with the charge of
Manicheanism, implied or expressed, mildly declined controversy, refused to
join the Romish Church; and, when threatened with punishment, their venerable
advocate replied, in the words of the beatitude, "Blessed are they which are
persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." The
Bishops, therefore, had no more to do than to declare them heretics, and leave
them to suffer any punishment that the King might think proper to inflict. By
royal decision, the brand of heresy was to be laid on their foreheads, and, in
sight of the people, they were to be beaten with rods as they walked out of
Oxford, and forbidden to pollute the city again by their presence. When they
heard the sentence, far from showing dismay, they appeared happy, and retired
from the court rejoicing, leaving on the ear of the Bishops the words of our
Lord, "Beati eritis cum vos oderint homines:" "Blessed are ye when men shall
hate you." "So greatly," writes the historian, "were their minds deceived by
the spirit of seduction." So triumphantly, we should say, were they supported
by the Spirit of God. "Then," he adds, "that detestable company, having their
foreheads cauterized, were subjected to a just severity: he who bore pre-
eminence over them, on account of his ministry, suffering the dishonour of a
double brand, on the chin as well as on the forehead. Their garments being
torn down to the middle, they were publicly flogged, with resounding stripes
driven out of the city, and, through the inclemency of the weather, (for it
was winter, and a hard frost, and no one showed them the least pity,) they
miserably perished."* More than a thousand years before, a satirist had
enumerated Britons among the most rude and cruel barbarians of the known
world; and this atrocious treatment of defenceless and unoffending foreigners,
in which King, Bishops, citizens, and peasants all took part, demonstrates
that Roman Christianity had done nothing, in all that time, for our country.
We pass over a horrible massacre of Jews which took place about the same time
at York, and wrongs innumerable sustained by that ancient people, both in
England and abroad, because it is painful to relate such examples of
barbarity, and because they belong to another branch of history. But murder of
Jews and Germans cannot appear strange to any one who observes the
constitutional obduracy and impetuosity of the higher Clergy towards their
brethren, as displayed by Anselm of Canterbury and his Bishops. English
Priests had still been permitted to take wives, perhaps because they would not
submit to be prevented; but Council after Council, and letter after letter
from the High Priest at Rome, commanded them to turn their wives out of doors,
never see them again, except in the street in the presence of two witnesses;
and threatened married Priests with degradation, and, consequently, ruin.
Great difficulty had dissolute Popes and Cardinals to quench the spark of
honesty and manly honour yet remaining in the bosoms of poor parish Priests;
and at one time they were so much perplexed in

* Guliel. Neubrig. Rev. Anglican. lib. ii., cap. 13, cited by Faber,
Vallenees, &c., ii., 8.

3 U their ungodly and inhuman enterprise, that the Archbishop required, in
writing, the Bishop of Norwich and other persons "to persuade the people of
Norfolk and Suffolk that, as they professed Christianity, they should subdue
them, as rebels against the Church, and utterly drive both them and their
wives out of the country, placing Monks in their room."* Here, then, is pure
sacerdotal Christianity, to raise the mob on all the married Priests of
Norfolk and Suffolk, with stones and bludgeons, to drive them, their wives,
and little children, out of every town and village, on a cold winter night, it
might be, none showing the least pity, that the rebels might perish like the
martyrs at Oxford.

The third Council of Lateran and that of Verona were of great importance in
relation to subsequent events. The former was held by Alexander III., (A.D.
1179,) during the persecution of the Albigenses in the south of France. To
give efficiency to the priesthood, who had now to cope with "heresy" almost
everywhere, it was ordained that in every cathedral there should be a master
maintained, to give gratuitous instruction to poor Clerks. There were many
regulations tending to the same object, and others relating to Jews and
Saracens; but the last canon is the most remarkable. It set forth that the
Church, although she rejects bloody executions, does not refuse to be aided by
the laws of Christian Princes; and the fear of bodily punishment sometimes
drives people to the spiritual remedy. Heretics, under the names of
Catharines, Patarines, and Publicans, were become so strong in Gascony, the
district of Alby, the territory of Toulouse, and elsewhere, that they no
longer hid themselves, but taught their errors publicly. They were therefore
put under anathema, both they and their protectors, and even any who should
presume to transact any business with them: if they died in sin, there was to
be no oblation for their souls, and the bodies were not to have Christian
sepulture. As for certain provincial heretics, in Brabant, Arragon, Navarre,
and other places, who paid no respect to churches or monasteries, who spared
neither widows nor orphans, nor age nor sex, who pillaged and laid waste
everything as if they were Pagans, (which is quite a new piece of
description,) it was equally ordained that they who listened to them, retained
or protected them, should be read out in the churches every Sunday and feast-
day, as excommunicate, and not absolved until they should have renounced their
pestiferous society, and abjured their heresy. All who had been engaged with
them by any agreement were informed that they were released from all homage or
oath which they might have rendered. All the faithful were required, for the
remission of their sins, courageously to oppose their ravages, and take up
arms to defend Christians against those wretches, whose property ought to be
confiscated; and it was declared that Princes might reduce them to slavery.
All who, being truly penitent, should die in fighting with such persons, were
assured that they need not doubt of receiving pardon of their sins, and
eternal glory. (Here we have a taste of the Korán again.) Two years of
indulgence were offered to all who would take up arms in the holy cause; the
Bishops might enlarge this bounty; and, while so fighting, they were to be

* Foxe, Acts and Monuments, vol. ii., p. 160.

COUNCIL OF VERONA.

privileged persons, under the protection of the Church, like those who visited
the holy sepulchre. Those who despised the exhortations of the Bishops, to
bear arms against sinners, should be excommunicated. And Bishops who did not
vigorously enforce this decree were to be suspended from the functions of
their office.* It is said that at this Council some poor Waldenses made their
appearance, bringing a French book, as a specimen of their writings, and
asking permission to preach. If so, they had a more tolerable reception than
might have been expected. A waggish Clerk was desired by the Pope to examine
them theologically. The selection of the examiner was a signal for merriment;
and after the third question they were dismissed amidst roars of laughter.†
They were probably weak folk, who reverenced the Pope, while they could not be
satisfied with Popery.

Lucius III. celebrated a Council at Verona, (A.D. 1184,) whither he had gone
in consequence of a quarrel with the Romans. The Council was graced by the
presence of the Emperor; and they accepted, from their spiritual head, a
constitution to the following effect:—"The vigour of the Church ought to be
aroused to abolish the various heresies which have begun to spring up in all
directions; especially since they have found support in the imperial power.
Therefore, in the presence of our dear son, the Emperor Frederic, with the
advice of our brethren, the Cardinals, Patriarchs, Archbishops, and Bishops,
and of many Lords assembled from diverse parts of the world, we condemn, by
this decree, all heresies of whatsoever name; among others, the Catharines and
Patarines, and those who are falsely called Humiliati, or Poor Men of Lyons,
the Passagiati, Josephins, and Arnoldists. We place them all under a perpetual
anathema. And because some, under pretence of piety, arrogate authority to
preach, we comprehend under the same anathema all who shall dare to preach in
public or in private, without having mission and authority from us and the
Bishop of the place; all who think or teach otherwise than the Roman Church,
touching the sacrament of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ,
baptism, remission of sins, marriage, and the other sacraments; and, in
general, all those who shall have been judged heretics by the Roman Church, by
each Bishop in his diocese, with the counsel of his Clergy, or, the see being
vacant, by the Clergy alone, or, if necessary, with the advice of neighbouring
Bishops. We also condemn all who shall give entertainment or protection to
these heretics, whether they be called Comforted, Believers, Perfect, or known
by any other superstitious name. And because the severity of ecclesiastical
discipline is sometimes despised by those who do not comprehend its power, we
ordain that those who shall be manifestly convicted of the abovesaid errors,
if they be Clerks or religious, be deprived of every order and benefice, and
abandoned to the secular power, to receive convenient punishment; unless the
offender, as soon as discovered, makes abjuration in the hands of the Bishop
of the place. The layman also shall be punished by the secular Judge, unless
he makes abjuration. Suspected persons shall be punished in

* Como. Lateran. iii., decret. 27.

† Faber, Vallensee, &c., book iii., chap. 19.

3 v 2 the same manner, unless they prove their innocence by due purification;
but those who relapse after abjuration or purification shall be left to the
judgment of the secular authority, without being heard again, and the property
of Clerks shall be applied, according to the laws, to the churches they had
served. This excommunication against all heretics shall be renewed by all the
Bishops at the grand solemnities, or when occasion shall be presented, under
penalty of being suspended for three years from episcopal functions." And,
after some directions to Bishops and others, the decree continues:—"We also
ordain that Earls, Barons, Rectors, and Consuls of cities and other places,
promise on oath to follow the monition of the Bishops, to aid the Church
effectively against heretics and their accomplices, when required, and apply
themselves in good faith to execute to the utmost what the Church and the
empire have ordered in this matter. If not, they shall be deprived of their
dignities, not admitted to any other, and shall be excommunicated besides, and
their lands laid under interdict. The city that resists this decree, or that,
being informed by the Bishop, shall neglect to punish transgressors, shall be
cut off from the commerce of other cities, and lose episcopal dignity. All the
abettors of heretics shall be branded with perpetual infamy, and as such be
incapable of being advocates, or witnesses, or of holding any public office.
Those who are independent of the Bishop, and subject only to the Holy See,
shall nevertheless abide by the judgment of the Bishops as delegates of the
Holy See, their privileges notwithstanding."

This aggression on the civil liberties of Christendom has been extenuated by
the plausible, yet feeble, allegation that the temporal power concurred with
the spiritual, and that therefore the laity, as well as the Clergy, had only
to submit to the decision of their superiors in that Council. But every one
must know that the incessant conflict between the two powers, which
contributed largely to the turbulence of those ages, could not be ended by now
and then an amicable interview of Emperor and Pope. The actual union of powers
in a swarm of Prince-Bishops, and the prostration of regal dignity in Priest-
ridden Kings, left the civil magistracy of Europe devoid of energy, and the
people shorn of their strength. And if there had been no such disagreement or
usurpation existing, as to preclude the possibility of a common understanding
between the hierarchy and the states, nor any usurpation of secular power by
the Church, it would even then be vain to imagine that Frederic at Verona
could represent the interests, or would be very careful to guard the rights,
of nearly all Europe. What really appears in these two Councils, and in the
intermediate proceedings of the Legate Henry in France, is the beginning of
the Inquisition. Bishops were, by any means, to inform themselves of the
private actions and opinions of all persons at whom the finger of detraction
or cupidity might point; common rumour or malicious information was to
supersede legal evidence; persons were to be classified in secret registers as
suspected, convicted, penitent, or relapsed; correspondent penalties were to
be inflicted; the secular arm was to wield the sword of vengeance in obedience
to the ecclesiastical head. As yet, indeed, Inquisitors-general and their
subalterns

INQUISITORIAL TYRANNY.

were not appointed, the Bishops were not laid under the terror of a Holy
Office; but Commissioners, not ordinary Legates, were sent to supply the
deficiency of zeal or courage in the Bishops, for the inquisition and
extirpation of heresy, and their will was to be sovereign, their decision
without appeal. And although the Bishops were temporarily appointed to act
against heretics, that was not to be done by virtue of their office as
overseers, but in pursuance of a special delegation of power from the Pope.

And here we must also mark the inaccuracy of a vulgar apology for the Church,
that the Inquisition, not she, has been guilty of those solemn and judicial
cruelties. The third Council of Lateran, or eleventh of those called General,
the Council of Verons, all the Popes, and every ecclesiastical body
contemporary with the defections from the Romish Church, from the pontificate
of Alexander III. to that of Leo X., and all Popes and Councils from Lateran
to Trent, have maintained the doctrine of which the Inquisition was—thank God
we cannot now say is—the full expression. Each act of the Inquisition was as
truly that of the Church, as the acts of the executive are those of the State.

Facts will be adduced to show that the majority of the Clergy, who, in their
own estimation, are the Church, always cherished that murderous institution,
and resisted the endeavours of the laity to effect its abolition; but it is
encouraging to observe, even amongst them, the leavening of a better
principle, the element, not of reform in Popery, which is impossible, but of a
development in the condition of the nominally Christian world which we had not
yet been so happy as to witness. Some expressions of Fleury—an accomplished
and liberal, if not altogether unbiassed, historian, nor sufficiently careful
to separate fact from fable—deserve notice, as showing, once for all, the
spirit of an important class of persons within the Romish Church. "Of all
changes of discipline," he writes, "I see none that has more discredited the
Church than the severity exercised against heretics, and other excommunicated
persons." After enumerating examples of tolerance in earlier times, marking
the eighth century as the age in which the holy discipline of gentleness and
long-suffering was forgotten, and giving instances of censurable severity
while as yet the Church endeavoured to avoid the crime, or at least the
infamy, of shedding blood, he points out a discrepancy between the theory and
the practice of his brethren. "In practice this has not been always followed.
When Pope Innocent III. wrote to King Philip Augustus to employ his arms
against the Albigeuses, and when he caused a crusade to be preached against
them in France, was that rejecting bloody executions? I shall speak of the
Crusades in another discourse: here I am only speaking of the persecution of
heretics; and I confess that I cannot bring the conduct of the Ecclesiastics
of the thirteenth century to agree with that of the saints of the fourth. When
I see Bishops and Cistercian Abbots at the head of those armies which made
such slaughter of heretics, as at the taking of Béziers; when I see the
Cistercian Abbot desiring the death of the heretics of Minerbe, although,
being Monk and Priest, he did not dare to condemn them openly; and when I see
the Crusaders burning those unhappy people with so great glee, as said the
Monk of Vaux-Sernai in many passages of his history; in all this I no longer
recognise the spirit of the Church."* These are indeed sorrowful reflections,
(tristes reflexions,) but honourable to the learned Prior of Argenteuil, with
whom we join in the inevitable conclusion that in the Church of Rome the
spirit of the church of Christ is no longer to be recognised. The truth is,
that the spirit of that Church is tyrannous, even over her own members. The
inferior Clergy were oppressed equally with the laity, and the humiliation of
both went on with equal progress. We have just seen Anselm, Archbishop of
Canterbury, endeavouring to raise the people of Norfolk and Suffolk upon the
parish Priests of those counties, who were thus excited to employ sticks or
stones for the chastisement of their spiritual Pastors, at the instigation of
their own chief Minister, and of a future saint. A curious letter of the same
dignitary gives a glimpse of monastic discipline in his day. A certain Monk
was reported by his Abbot to have presumed to say that he would rather whip
himself than be whipped by order of his monastical Superior, that he would
prefer doing voluntary penance to being flogged at the discretion of another.
Anselm piously composes a lengthy epistle to teach him otherwise. Kings and
rich proud men command themselves to be whipped, and this he calls "kingly."
Monks are whipped contrary to their own desire, and this kind of whipping he
properly calls "monkish." "Therefore, be thou sure that one whipping of a Monk
by obedience is of more merit than innumerable whippings taken by his own
mind. But whereas he is such that he ought always to have his heart ready,
without murmuring, obediently to be whipped, we ought to judge him then to be
of a great merit, whether he be whipped privily or openly."† The principal
form of this oppression in the twelfth century was frequent coercion of
incontinent Clerks, as they were called; forcible injunction of celibacy,
severing the Clergy from all domestic ties, breaking their spirit, and placing
them at the mercy of their superiors. Stubborn resistance and even murderous
revolt were provoked, adding guilt to degradation; but such proceedings were
ineffectual to remove the evil.

Not only Rome, but Jerusalem also, called a holy city, was the seat of a
temporal power that abused the sanction of Christianity. The warriors who had
won the city, and a few places of lesser consequence, would not, indeed,
submit to the desire of a Patriarch to take the reins of government into his
hand, as one superior to all secular jurisdiction; but they allowed the Clergy
exorbitant power in their petty kingdom; bishoprics were ridiculously
multiplied, Prelates sat with Barons to elect the Sovereign and to rule the
State; the crown was set on the head of the person so elected by the hand of
the Patriarch, not so much a Minister of God, as representative of the Church,
and especially of the supreme Pontiff; heresy was punished by confiscation,
apostasy by burning; Moslems were vexed

* Quatrième Discours sur l'Histoire Ecclésiastique, sect. xiv.

† Foxe, Acts and Monuments, vol. ii., p. 171.

CRUSADES IN THE EAST.

or murdered in the name of Christ on every pretext or opportunity;
ecclesiastical interests were craftily and greedily promoted, while those of
the nation were perilled by rapacity, jealousy, and faction. The knighthood of
Jerusalem were barbarously chivalrous towards pilgrims; but honour, or even
bare compassion, towards a vanquished Moslem was no part of their chivalry;
and, in mad forgetfulness of the small extent of that newly-acquired
territory, imperfectly defended against innumerable hosts of Saracens, they
provoked hostility by contempt, rapine, and every form of reckless insolence.
Christianity, as, by desecration of that sacred name, the religion of the
Franks was called, was probably inferior, in the eye of the world, to the dark
and intolerant system of Islam. The Jerusalem Christians had to cry for help,
and Europe was again invited to enter on crusade. The history of those wars
must be sought elsewhere; but some notice of them is necessary to complete the
picture of a Church busied in destroying men's souls, rather than in saving
them.

While the Pope, Eugenius III., was at Viterbo, (A.D. 1145,) and Rome under the
sway of Arnold of Brescia, some Armenian Bishops, deputed by their
Metropolitan, presented themselves at his feet to solicit communion with the
Roman Church. If their tale may be credited, they had slowly passed through
perils by land and sea for the space of eighteen months; their Catholic, or
Patriarch, had a thousand Bishops under his jurisdiction; and they had been
involved in minute controversy with the Greeks. But their Catholic had been
driven from his see by the Turks or Tartars; * they were rent into factions,
and sought a centre of ecclesiastical unity in the expatriated and feeble
Pontiff. At the same time, a Syrian Bishop appeared before Eugenius, to ask
his sanction of a demand urged by himself and brethren at Antioch, to enjoy a
tenth of all spoils taken from the Saracens, after the precedent of Abraham,
who had given a tenth of the spoils to Melchizedec. Tidings also came of the
fall of Edessa into the hands of the Turks, and of the perilous condition of
Jerusalem. The Pope, recently elected to the pontificate, and taken from
monastic retirement, to borrow the comparison of Bernard, like a babe from the
bosom of his mother, had not energy nor opportunity to help Edessa and
Jerusalem while the gates of Rome were shut against him; but Bernard supplied
the deficiency, and preached in France, urging to the holy war with a force
and authority over Princes, like that which Peter the hermit had exerted on
the common people. The King of France had already determined to cross himself,
and gave the weight of royal authority and example to aid the exhortations of
the Abbot. Both these personages pleaded for the kingdom of Jerusalem as if it
had been the kingdom of heaven,

* These names, which originally belonged to single tribes, and were afterwards
applied to entire peoples, are sometimes interchanged. In the present
instance, some historians attribute the troubles of Armenia to the Turks, but
it is, perhaps, more exact to say Tartars, at whose head Goughiz Chan and his
successors struck terror into the inhabitants of all Asia, and some part of
Europe.

and the second Crusade resulted from that movement. Bernard wrote a circular
letter exhorting the people of Europe to fulfil the will of God, and above all
other inducements placed the merit of such devotion. Almighty God, he
affirmed, had deigned to call to his service murderers, thieves, adulterers,
and perjured men, to make himself debtor for their services, and pay them in
pardons and eternal glory. But many thought that if sin could be blotted out
by killing Saracens, the murder of Jews must be at least equally effectual; a
monkish Preacher of the Crusade on the banks of the Rhine preached up death to
the Jews, and multitudes of that people were massacred. St. Bernard found it
in his conscience to reprove the zealot, and to teach that the descendants of
Ishmael might be meritoriously slain, but not those of Jacob; and the mystery
of his distinction was removed by an exhortation of the Abbot of Clugni,
addressed to St. Louis, to spare the lives of the Jews, but to take their
money, which could not be forthcoming if the nation were extinct. The advice
was taken: blood ceased to flow, gold being exacted in its stead; and two
Sovereigns deserted their dominions to seek after glory in Palestine. The
Emperor, Conrad III., assembled his army at Ratisbon, the French King, Louis
VII., joined his at Mayence, and they simultaneously marched towards
Constantinople (A.D. 1147). Treachery of the Greek Emperor, Manuel, fatigue,
hunger, floods, and battles minished the forces of both Sovereigns; cabals and
treason stole victory out of their hands. Damascus, for example, was lost ere
well conquered, through the corruption of the army by Moslem gold, and the
Monarchs returned with but a small remnant of their hosts. The soldiers of the
West thenceforth regarded Palestine and Syria as the great field on which
their prowess could be most gloriously displayed. Popular superstition was
made subservient to the ambitious projects of their rulers. The Kings of
England and France agreed (A.D. 1177) that they would take the Cross; but
prudence again checked the zeal of Henry, and death frustrated the intention
of Louis. The idea, nevertheless, laid hold on their subjects, and the
Ecclesiastics incessantly fanned the reviving flame. But when intelligence
came that Saladin, Lord of Egypt and Syria, had defeated the Christians in a
great battle near Tiberias, and then taken Jerusalem, (A.D. 1187,) all Europe
was smitten with terror, or burning with revenge. From Constantinople to
London all were of one purpose; but France, Germany, and England made the
greatest efforts to revenge the loss, and our own lion-hearted Richard showed
himself excellent in valour. Yet that expedition only served to prolong, for a
little, the existence of the unprofitable kingdom of Jerusalem; and Richard,
made prisoner by his former allies, on his return homeward, was only restored
to England on the payment of an immense ransom, to the injury of his subjects,
who had not yet learnt that a religious war cannot be forwarded by the divine
blessing, but is, of all others, the most hateful and most disastrous. A
fourth time (A.D. 1195) Western Christendom was summoned by the publication of
a Crusade, to waste human life and treasure in an armed migration for the
recovery of Jerusalem. Saladin had died;

CRUSADE IN THE NORTH.

the Mohammedans were exhausted after long warfare, chiefly with Richard; and
it was thought that the "Holy Land" might then be fully conquered. The English
were suffering too severely from the preceding experiment to hazard a second,
perhaps a fatal, failure; but some Germans and French obeyed the summons of
Pope Celestine III. As if blighted by the breath of Heaven, the combined army
wasted away before the scimitar of the infidel; the Chiefs quarreled as usual,
some of them even deserted their camp at night; and they who had taken the
sword shamefully perished by the sword. A fifth time the pretended Vicar of
Christ endeavoured to call up the declining chivalry of Europe for the service
of the Church. Foulques de Neuilly, whose history is briefly related on
preceding pages, had been long labouring to persuade the populace to seek
heaven by making war upon the enemies of Christianity; and in the last year of
this century, (A.D. 1200,) some French and Flemish Knights, imbued, by the
habit of persecuting heretics at home, with the spirit that breathes
threatening and slaughter towards infidels abroad, responding to the
exhortations of the Preacher, applied to the Venetian Republic for ships to
transport their forces to the shores of Palestine; but, soon deserted by
multitudes who had engaged to contribute or to serve, became involved in debt
to the commercial people of Venice, and were compelled to pay them an
equivalent: first, by storming for them a town on the coast of the Adriatic,
that had revolted; and then, to the amazement of Europe, by aiding in the
conquest of Constantinople on behalf of a pretender to the throne of the Greek
empire, despite the threatenings of the Pope, who was scandalized at seeing
Christian Crusaders turn their arms, blessed for warfare with Saracens,
against Christians untainted with any of the proscribed opinions, free from
any heresy learned out of the Bible.

Besides heretics and Turks, the Church had another set of enemies whom she
deemed herself bound to subdue or to extirpate. Rational and religious
conversion was not contemplated. For in every war with an unconverted northern
people, even if sufficiently justified on other grounds, the Paganism of that
people was counted as a reason for hostility, until the notion became
established, that the rejection of Christianity was alone sufficient to
justify invasion; hatred of the worshippers of idols was esteemed a virtue;
and the holy wars were only distinguished from others by callous disregard of
usages which ordinarily softened the horrors of the battle-field, or the
severities of conquest. During the progress of the second Crusade in Syria and
Palestine, the Pope readily acceded to the requests of a multitude of Saxon
zealots, and sanctioned a Crusade against the Pagans of the North. Frederic,
Archbishop of Magdeburg, the Bishops of Alberstadt, Munster, Merseburg,
Brandenburg, Havelberg, and Olmutz, the Abbot of Corbey, and several lay
Lords, led an army of sixty thousand men. Another armament of forty thousand
was conducted by the Archbishop of Bremen, the Bishop of Werden, Henry Duke of
Saxony, and other laymen. The King of Denmark, with the Bishops of his
kingdom, put into motion all the Danish forces, both by sea and land,
amounting to not fewer than a hundred thou-

3 x sand men, about half of the united armies. This host made a simultaneous
attack on the Sclavonians at several points, spreading devastation, and
murdering unarmed multitudes. Many towns were burnt, and, among them, Malchow,
with a heathen temple in its neighbourhood. After three months had been spent
in desolation rather than war, the German Princes were reminded that those
provinces would yield no revenue if emptied of inhabitants. The lay Chiefs of
the Crusade began to calculate the mischief, the men participated in fear of
the consequences of such an event, and the sword was sheathed, not at the
bidding of mercy, but at the suggestion of cupidity. Peace was made on
condition that the Sclavonians should receive the Christian religion, and
release the Danish slaves. Baptisms were administered, but no one confessed
Christianity with sincerity; old and weakly slaves were emancipated, and the
working-men retained. The Saxons were too politic to venture on extirpation,
the Sclavonians too independent to bear the yoke of so hateful a religion, and
the northern Crusade came to nothing.* One reflection, however, is suggested
by it, that may serve the cause of charity. The Saxons were impelled by Popery
to a general slaughter of their pagan neighbours, and only prevented from
consummating their intention by a motive of self-interest. The Spaniards of
the sixteenth century, so impelled, but not so restrained, did extirpate the
aborigines of those regions of South America which fell under their power.
Saxon and Spaniard were equally guilty; but although one race has produced a
Luther, and the other none more illustrious in common fame than the Inquisitor
and literary Cardinal Ximenes; they were both found obedient to the same
impulse of bigotry. We Anglo-Saxons, then, have no reason to boast over the
Spaniards, since Christianity on one side, and its corruption on the other,
have made them and us what we now are; and proofs without number might be
adduced to show that defects of national character are not intrinsic in the
people, but originate in far deeper causes than diversity of climate, of race,
or of political institutions. Without fear of exaggeration, we may venture to
affirm, that the spirit of the Latin Church had become thoroughly martial. It
was a military Church. There was no degree in either of the two divisions of
the Clergy, secular and regular, that did not contribute of its members to the
command or service of an army. The military orders naturally arose out of the
habits and events of the twelfth century, and probably would have arisen under
other names, if the Crusades had not produced Hospitallers and Templars. While
Jerusalem was under the dominion of the Saracens, the Italian merchants had
obtained permission from the Caliph at Cairo to erect a church in Jerusalem,
where they might worship according to their own ritual. Besides a church, they
had built two hospitals, one for each sex, and therein welcomed indigent
pilgrims, as well as received the sick. After the conquest of the city, the
hospital served for wounded soldiers also; and the humane diligence and self-
denial of persons who voluntarily devoted themselves to that service, won
universal respect. The institution was first

* Mosheim, cent. xli., part 1., chap. 1; Fleury, lxix., 30.

MILITARY ORDERS.

enriched by the donation of an estate in Brabant, from Godfrey, and afterwards
by similar offerings from the more wealthy Crusaders. From the character of
laymen they advanced to that of Monks, paying to the Patriarch vows of
chastity, poverty, and obedience; and about the middle of the century, having
received some special privileges from the Pope, and finding themselves
elevated in honours and wealth, the Friars took the sword, and became Knights.
Careful gradation of rank and distribution of duties gave efficiency to the
institution; within the precincts of the hospital, the sick and the indigent
found succour, while Knights and Serjeants were ready at every call to
vindicate the cause of an oppressed or suffering Christian, or to attack the
enemies of the faith, whoever they might be. They served in the wars of the
Crusades, and afterwards were found all over Europe, classed according to
nation or language, living on endowments, and ready to draw the sword
according to the vocation of their order. The Templars originated in the
benevolence and valour of some Italians and Frenchmen, who bound themselves by
vow to watch the roads frequented by pilgrims passing through their respective
countries towards the Holy Land, and to protect helpless brethren from the
perils of the way, especially from the attacks of robbers. They, too, wore a
cross on their garments, and were thence called Knights of the Red Cross, or
soldiers of Christ. As their number increased, they gradually organized a
system of government for themselves; and as the Hospitallers had added the
military to the religious character, they added the religious to the military.
Their order was confirmed by the Council of Troyes (A.D. 1128). Baldwin I.
gave them permission to occupy part of the royal palace at Jerusalem, near to
the site of the temple of Solomon; and hence came their appellation,
"Templars." These examples were soon imitated. A warlike emulation glowed in
the bosoms of cloistered Monks, who proved themselves far more valorous than
devout; and, if space permitted, we might describe the Knights of the Holy
Sepulchre, and those of Avis, "the bird," who were created at Evora, in
Portugal, with the Spanish orders of Alcántara, Calatrava, and St. James. We
might trace to the benevolence of a poor German on the skirt of the Christian
army at the siege of Acre, who spread a sail over some posts, and under its
shadow, assisted by his wife, dressed the wounds of his countrymen, the order
of Teutonic Knights, and follow the progress of about a dozen such
institutions in this century alone.* Most of them originated in good
intention, and many of the earlier volunteers deserved unqualified
commendation. Their charity was fervent, spontaneous, and disinterested; but
those Knights errant, armed at the same time with steel and with
ecclesiastical prerogative and royal sanction, became injurious both to Church
and State. Monastic vows, generally broken in cell and cloister, would much
less be kept by men who led a predatory life; and dignity

* Mill's Crusades; Moreri's Great Historical Dictionary; Fleury's
Ecclesiastical History. Most of the ecclesiastical historians, and indeed all
the historians of the respective countries, in their accounts of the twelfth
century, furnish information respecting these military orders.

3 x 2 of sentiment could not possibly be sustained by military Friars, whose
rude frames might resist the shocks of war, penance, and excess, but whose
minds were utterly unfurnished, and their ignorance notorious. As for the
state of the Christians in the East, it may be described sufficiently by
saying that, in Palestine and Syria, it was that of war with the Saracens, and
that, beyond the boundaries of Islamism, a deteriorated Christianity still
continued to make some progress. The successes of the Crusaders must have
produced an impression of discouragement in the Mohammedans, who saw, for the
first time, the tide of conquest turned against them. One of their Preachers
in Tarsus of Cilicia endeavoured to lead a reformation, and preached boldly on
the insufficiency of bodily ablution without purity of heart. Even in the
cities of Aleppo and Bagdad, a Fakir went about the streets weeping, and
crying with a loud voice that the religion of the Arabs would be blotted out
by the Franks; and so strongly persuaded were many that it would be so, that
in one of the chief mosques the pulpit was broken up, and the congregation
solemnly declared the accustomed prayers to be ended (A.D. 1110, 1111). The
panic might have spread, and the Crusaders might have obtained easy victories,
if such manifestations had not aroused the Sultan of Bagdad to desperate but
successful efforts. The eastern Christians did not thank the Latins for their
interference. Unlike the pilgrims at Jerusalem, they had domestic interests at
stake, and could foresee no advantage in being made enemies of the established
government, or driven to the alternative of renouncing Christianity. Indeed
their Mohammedan masters scarcely expected them to do this; and it is
observable that, in some instances, as at the recovery of Edessa by Zinghi,
the Turkish soldiers, after the first slaughter on storming the city, spared
both the Syrian and Armenian Christians there, but destroyed every Frank whom
they could find. Joscelyn, who afterwards attempted to reconquer that city, is
branded by Abulpharagius with the epithet of "wicked."* The Armenian
Christians were wasting their zeal in controversy with the Greeks; but in the
remote regions of Tartary the name of Christ was honoured by the external
homage, at least, of multitudes who had, at first, followed the example of
their Sovereign, Prester-John, if that be his name or title;† and it would
seem that the hierarchy of his barbaric court might vie with the princely
retinue of the western Pontiff. But that glory soon faded; and the Christian
Tartars brought no succour to soldiers of the Cross in Palestine. They waited,
say some, for the Tigris to be frozen over, that they might march across. But
the Tigris is never frozen.

Before passing from the twelfth to the thirteenth century we must pause for a
moment to mark an abuse of authority in the discouragement and eventual
suppression of vernacular languages in worship, a

* Abulpharagii Chronicon, Dynasty. x.

† Mosheim, cent. xii., part i., chap. 1, gives the result of his reading in a
few perspicuous sentences, and a note; but, in the absence of authentic
history, they can afford little certain information. See also Asseman,
Bibloth. Orient., tom. iii., pars ii., p. 489, et seq.; Ludolf Comment. in
Hist. Æthiop., pp. 218, 219.

DISUSE OF VERNACULAR LANGUAGES.

measure introductory to the prohibition of versions of the holy Scriptures in
these languages. The original language of a sacred book has indisputable pre-
eminence over every version, and abides the only authentic document, the
standard of comparison, the law to which appeal must be ultimately made for
the settling of controversy. It has also an historical value, growing with
advance of time. The Hebrew Scriptures are the chief example of an original
text preserved amidst great and numerous vicissitudes, still sacred in the
estimation of both Jew and Christian, superstitiously venerated by the most
illiterate member of the synagogue, and not less revered by a Lowth than by a
Maimonides. From this respect to the original language it is universally
retained in Jewish worship, the liturgical books being also written in Hebrew.
The New Testament, written in Greek, was for ages quite intelligible to the
Greeks, and even to this day any Englishman who reads that language may find
his way through a Romsic volume in a week. Ancient Greek, therefore, the
liturgical language of the Greek Church, is not quite unintelligible in
Athens, but utterly barbarian in St. Petersburg. The Latins received
Christianity through the medium of their own language, as did all other
nations, and their forms of public prayer were gradually compiled in the
languages spoken by the people; but when the vulgar speech underwent change,
(and the change was always a corruption,) the Greek, Latin, Syriac, Armenian,
Coptic, and Ethiopic, as perhaps Arabic and other Liturgies now lost, retained
their place in common use, with the sanction of antiquity, the charm of
distinctness from low colloquial speech, and the recommendation of literary
superiority. Indeed the vulgar dialects were seldom employed for writing; and
even at this day, although the passion for writing is excessive, it would be
difficult to collect written specimens of many dialects still spoken, or but
recently extinct. Some, as the ancient Gaulish, are utterly lost, because not
preserved in writing. Throughout a great part of Europe, the most civilized
(using the term "civilized" comparatively) and the oldest nations were
indebted for the little literature they possessed to the language of Roman
conquerors; the Church was literally, as well as geographically, Latin; and
the Bible, the service-book, the treatise of secular science or history, were
alike written in Latin. The orthography of common dialects was not fixed,
provincial differences precluded them from general use, and the one language
of the imperial city was necessarily the medium of general communication. The
same Preacher could make himself understood so late as the tenth century in
all the pulpits of southern Europe; not to speak Latin was a mark of extreme
ignorance; the accomplishment was expected, even though the speaker could not
sign his name; and when Latin became so corrupted, that the illustration of
glossaries is necessary for those who wish now to read the writings of the
middle ages, so extensive an exchange had everywhere been made with the
vernacular, that theological and many other terms were used by the common
people in their most familiar language; ergo, igitur, item, etiam, and scores
more, served for the commencement or the connexion of their sentences, or
Latin combinations were borrowed to express ideas not yet embodied in the
vulgar phrase. In fairness to the old Roman Church it must be acknowledged
that the use of Latin prayers and Latin Bibles was not, at first, a violent
imposition. On one hand, the Priests were exhorted to translate the Scriptures
and the principal formularies of confession to their congregations, just as
the leaders of Jewish restoration translated the law of Moses from Hebrew into
Chaldee on their return to Jerusalem, for the instruction of those who had
lost the language of their fathers; and, on the other, the northern peoples of
Europe, or at least several of them, had versions of the Bible and prayers for
daily worship in their respective languages, Latin having never prevailed
among them. This use of the vernacular was not resisted at Rome until,
perhaps, the ninth century, when the desire for absolute uniformity had laid
hold of many Ecclesiastics; but the resistance was not yet uniform, and we
even find Pope John VIII. (A.D. 872—882) repeatedly protecting the northern
congregations in the exercise of their established liberty. The case, however,
of nations proselyted later is different. They neither had, nor cared to have,
prayer in intelligible words. The ancient churches of Tomi, (Tomisvar,) on the
coast of the Black Sea, those of the Sclavonians in Poland, and of the Germans
under Charlemagne, still afforded distinct examples of worship in their
respective languages. But the zealots of the twelfth century, the age of
reviving persecution, would regard a mass in vulgar tongue as an insufferable
expression of independence, and the power now exercised by the Bishop of Rome
over all the churches of the West would make perseverance therein impossible;
except for some time in Bohemia, and in Poland, where, by a concession wrung
from the Pontiffs by that brave people, the Sclavonic liturgy was celebrated
in the fifteenth century in the Benedictine college of St. Cross, under an
indulgence like that which allowed the Mozarabic to be heard in an endowed
chapel at Toledo. The obnoxious version of Waldo, the writings of the Vaudois
of Piedmont, the association of Bible-readers at Metz, and the appeal made to
the word of God by people of all ranks against the dominant superstition,
determined the priesthood to forbid every where the use of an understood
language to disclose the meaning of either Bible or Prayer-book; and it was,
is, and yet will be, vain for the Romish laity to plead the authority of St.
Paul to the pretended successor of St. Peter in condemnation of the
unreasonable practice of locking up truth in Latin.* These observations are
preparatory to the narration of a series of persecutions "for the word of God,
and for the testimony of Jesus Christ," that will be found in the next
chapter. The fall of Ireland under the domination of Rome, the beginning of
the woes of that unhappy country, is one of those initiatory events which mark
the present period of our history. It may be briefly told. A discontented
Bishop, Malachy O'Morgair, having, no doubt, private understanding with
brethren of Romeward tendencies, crossed the seas, threw himself at the feet
of Pope Innocent II., volunteered his services to bring Ireland into
submission, returned in the character of Papal Legate, bearing preliminary
pro-

* Villanueva, De la Leccion de las sagradas Escrituras en Lenguas vulgares,
cap. ix.; Krasinski, Reformation in Poland, vol. i., part i.

THIRTEENTH CENTURY.

posals, held a meeting, or, for greater dignity, we may say a synod, where
fifteen Bishops, two hundred Priests, and a train of inferior Clergy, at his
earnest entreaty, deputed him to present their homage to the Holy Father.
Eugenius III., by that time succeeded to the Papal throne, gave him the second
welcome, and despatched a Cardinal as Apostolic Legate, with four palls, to be
worn by the four Archbishops. This livery was first accepted in the year
1152.*

========================================================================
  CHAPTER 11: 11. BOOK V, CHAPTER V
========================================================================

CHAPTER V.

The THIRTEENTH Century characterized—SIXTH, SEVENTH, and EIGHTH Crusades to
the Holy Land and Egypt—Fall of the Latin Kingdom in the East—Fruitless
Negotiations between the Latin, Greek, and Roman Churches—Crusades against
reputed Heretics in France and Spain—Spanish Preachers in Africa—Crusades
against Pagans in Livonia and Prussia—Political and religious Opponents of the
Papacy persecuted throughout Europe—State of England, Scotland, and
Ireland—Jubilees invented—Series of Events in the FOURTEENTH Century—Quarrels
and Schism of the Papacy—Monasticism—Disaffection of Laity—State of
Society—Persecutions in Italy—Germany—France—England—Wycliffe and the
Lollards—Conclusion.

By fire and sword the hierarchy of Christendom now endeavour to destroy every
opposer of their ambition, whether at home or abroad. The Church, falsely so
called, takes the world as its patrimony, to be subdued for the gratification
of the priesthood, rather than won for Christ. From the Dead Sea to the
Baltic, against Moslem, heretic, and Pagan, the leaders of the people rage,
breathing threatening and slaughter. In former centuries we have read of
devoted men, who counted not their lives dear unto them, but suffered
martyrdom in pagan lands, while endeavouring to convert the savage
inhabitants; but now the fashion is altogether changed. With one slight and
even doubtful exception, that of some zealous Spaniards, who preached and were
put to death in northern Africa, there is no record of an endeavour to spread
the Gospel by persuasion only. The human mind began to be aroused in the last
century, and in this is awakened to fury rather than to manly action. The
schools afforded means and opportunity for study, and are now multiplied; but
new generations of disputants arise to multiply again sects in philosophy, and
heresies in religion. The populations of Europe supply a general militia for
the service of Pope and Popelings. Thus are blind serfs either impressed into
that service by force of an imperious necessity, or they waste away before the
edge of the sword, or they "wander in deserts and in mountains, and in dens
and caves of the earth." Papal and clerical authority are absolute, reason is
prostrated, and there is not a Prince nor a nation within the compass of
western Christendom that can dare to be independent. Efforts after
independence are sometimes made, but fail without one exception. "They give
their kingdom unto the Beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled." If
the

* Mant's History of the Church of Ireland, chap. I., sect. 1.

hand of God were not seen in the events of the thirteenth century, as in those
of every age, we should hasten on to later times; but that hand is visible;
there are still some testimonies to the truth; and the assurance that the
mercy of the Saviour is as really exerted amidst the horrors of persecution as
in times of peace, alone enables us to invite the reader's attention through
this chapter.

A succession of calamities had reduced the Latin kingdom in the East to a mere
wreck; and the fragments remaining would have been swept away, but for
incursions of the Tartars which diverted the forces of the Saracens, and
quarrels of the Saracens themselves which prevented them from extirpating the
Frankish intruders. Encouraged by this respite, the Christians of Palestine
wrote to Rome for succour. Innocent III. caught at the occasion for gathering
gold into his coffers, if not for adding to the territory and power of his
Church, promised to march at the head of an army to the gates of Jerusalem,
infused new zeal into the Prelates and Princes assembled in a great Council at
Rome, and dispersed over Europe zealots who preached and begged for men and
money. Perhaps the sixth Crusade so raised withdrew the military strength of
France for a time from consummating a threatened destruction of the
Albigenses. A mingled host, directed by the domineering counsels of a Legate,
landed at the mouths of the Nile, and proceeded to besiege Damietta, in full
confidence that both that city and Cairo would fall before them, that Egypt
would be theirs, although Palestine was almost invincible, and that the Moslem
power which had withstood the Cross in the Holy Land, would be crushed on the
graves of the Ptolemies. Damietta fell, after the majority of its inhabitants
had perished with hunger, and the Christians, laden with spoil, and fainting
in the pestilential stench of unburied corpses, returned to their camp, and
might have made good use of conquest, had not the Legate forced them, first by
importunity and then by curses, to advance on Cairo; which they attempted, but
could not reach the city, for the waters of the Nile had overflowed the banks
of a canal, and a remnant only of the deluded army was permitted to retreat by
the Saracens, who had rallied their forces, and magnanimously opened the
granaries of Egypt to save that remnant from perishing with hunger, like their
fellow-citizens of Damietta. The valour of the defeated Crusaders was extolled
in the West, and contempt only was rendered to the prudent forbearance of the
people whose territory they had unjustly invaded. Pope Honorius III. emulated
the zeal of his predecessors in moving Europe to holy war, and distributed
with incessant diligence indulgences, blessings, and anathemas, to entice the
indifferent, and to compel the tardy. The Emperor Frederic II. was among the
latter, until, finding himself excommunicated, and therefore forbidden to wear
the Cross, he embarked in good earnest, despite the prohibition, treated first
with the Sultan of Egypt, then landed in Palestine, claimed the kingdom of
Jerusalem, endured the insolence of the Clergy, who loaded him with disrespect
as excommunicate, obtained an armistice honourable for the Christians, and
returned to Europe. Yet suspension of hostilities could scarcely be observed
in a country where independent tribes were not restrained by the remote
authority, and a seventh, an eighth, and a

END OF CRUSADES TO THE LEVANT.

ninth Crusade were distinguished by deeds of arms most brilliant in the
estimation of the soldier, but affording no satisfaction to the Christian. In
Europe, and especially in England, those wars were the pretext for arbitrary
and exorbitant taxation, as people were excited, when under the influence of
the prevailing mania, to cross themselves, and could only be released from the
obligation by paying money, the Priests determining the amount according to
the supposed ability of the person bound. In Palestine, Syria, and Egypt, the
name of Christ was dishonoured by immorality, perfidy, and jealousies.
Hospitallers and Templars often frustrated each other in the very war which
they professed to regard as meritorious and holy, and turned their swords
against their brethren, or betrayed them to the common enemy. Nothing could be
more empty than their boasting of chivalrous honour; and, even while
desperately courageous, they were often overwhelmed by inundations of Tartars
or Chorasmians, who poured by myriads from the further East, in migrations
like those which had wearied out the Roman hosts, and were not to be resisted
by the disunited occupiers of Jerusalem. Town after town was lost. The
Christians were shut up in Acre, covered with disgrace on account of internal
strife and habitual injustice towards the natives of the country; and, on the
18th day of April, 1291, Acre was stormed by the besiegers, the town was soon
in flames, a tempest hindered the flight of those who sought refuge on board
ship, the swords of the Mussulmans were bathed in blood: and so ended the holy
war, that had been prosecuted for two centuries in the name of Christ, with
the commission of every folly and every crime that could dishonour that
blessed name, and cover Christianity with infamy throughout the Moslem world.
Popery, maddened under final discomfiture, as it had been infatuated
throughout the enterprise, turned upon its own agents; and the suppression of
the order of the Templars stands in history as a perpetual accusation of
ingratitude and ferocious cruelty against the Romish priesthood. Their Grand
Master, Jacques de Molai, was burnt alive in Paris (A.D. 1313). During these
wars the attention of the elder oriental Christians was drawn towards the
Church that could spare so much wealth and exert such gigantic efforts for the
attainment of its objects on the western shores of Asia; and both Kings and
Patriarchs entered into correspondence with the Popes, soliciting, in reality,
military co-operation against the Mohammedans, and amusing them with feints of
submission to Papal authority. Embassies were accordingly sent to Armenia and
Russia; and the Tartars, who then wielded resistless power in central Asia, to
the terror of all their neighbours, being utterly latitudinarian in religion,
made no difficulty on account of diversity of creed, welcomed and amused an
ostentatious commission from Innocent IV., as they had previously received one
from Louis IX., King of France, but retained possession of Hungary, where
their descendants are still known by their original name of Magyar.

Having made this brief note of the Crusades in the East, we now proceed to
describe the persecutions of dissenters from the Church of Rome within the
boundaries of Christendom. Those persecutions were also called Crusades.

3 Y

Nowhere did persecution rage more fiercely than in France. Although the
principal scene of those events was the south of France and the neighbouring
provinces of Spain, or, as that territory was then called, Narbonese Gaul,
reputed heretics were everywhere exposed to extreme danger. Evraud, a
gentleman of Nivernois, intrusted with the management of the estates of Henry,
Count of Nevers, had incurred the enmity of some of the tenants, who revenged
themselves by charging him with heresy. Octavian, the Papal Legate at Paris,
lost no time in proceeding against the heretic. On an appointed day, Evraud
appeared before an assemblage of the Archbishops and Bishops of the kingdom,
together with the Doctors of Paris, to answer the accusation. The Bishop of
Auxerre undertook to act as accuser: many witnesses and some written documents
substantiated the accusation. None could plead for an alleged heretic in that
place. He was summarily convicted, handed over to the secular power, conducted
back to Nevers, and burnt alive, "to the great contentment of the people." A
nephew of his, William, Canon of Nevers, having been confirmed, by witnessing
his uncle's martyrdom, in adherence to his principles, left the city, and,
under another name, no more a Priest, was welcomed and honoured by the
Christians of Narbonne.* Meanwhile the zealous Bishop had much to do in his
own diocese with persons suspected of heresy, or of favouring heretics; but
the work of inquisition soon began in earnest in Toulouse, (A.D. 1204,)
although the Inquisition itself was not yet established. Two Monks, Peter of
Castelnau, and Raoul, or Ralph, of Fontfroide, received powers from the Pope
to act as his Inquisitors of heresy, independently of all episcopal authority
or interference. Invested with these powers, they made their appearance in
Toulouse, "stronghold of heresy," where the professors of evangelical doctrine
enjoyed the patronage of the Count himself, Raymond VI., as well as of a
neighbouring chief, Raymond Roger, Count of Foix. The two Monks condescended
to preach and exhort the inhabitants to expel the heretics, among whom, of
course, were to be numbered the liege Lords of that and the adjacent country.
Finding, however, that the citizens were inaccessible to persuasion, they
tried threats; and many—hoping to avoid the wrath of the King, and of the
Emperor too, should his intervention be required, with consequent destruction
of their property by pillage and confiscation—signed, by deputation, a
document promissory of their best efforts to favour the Catholic religion, and
contribute to the extirpation of heresy. In compensation for this trifling
concession, (trifling, because the extent and application of the very term
Catholic were perpetually contested,) the emissaries promised that they should
be regarded and treated as Catholics. The Pope, encouraged by their report,
added to this legation the Abbot of Citeaux; gave the three a copious letter
of instructions wherein the Bishops were said to have neglected their duty,
and allowed heresy to grow up without restraint; and the Legates—for they were
not yet called Inquisitors—were to recover heretics to the Catholic faith, if
they could, or, if they could not, were to deliver over the pertinacious
excommunicates to the secular arm,

* Fleury, lxxv., 35.

THE LEGATES INQUISITORIAL.

for confiscation of goods and infamy for ever, besides the punishment of
death. They were to exhort Philip II., King of France, his eldest son, and the
Counts, Viscounts, and Barons of the kingdom to proceed with firmness against
the heretics, offering them the same indulgences as they would gain by going
personally to the Holy Land to fight against infidels. And, that the three
messengers might suffer no obstruction, Innocent gave them full pontifical
authority to destroy, disperse, uproot, build and plant whatever should be
necessary or convenient, to punish contradictors canonically, and to act, if
even one of their number should be absent, throughout the ecclesiastical
provinces of Aix, Arles, and Narbonne, or wherever heretics were to be found
in France. Under the same date the indefatigable Pontiff wrote to the King,
charging him to protect and help the three Legates, and presented a golden
motive in the shape of an exhortation to confiscate the property of Counts,
Viscounts, Barons, and any other citizens who should fail to contribute to the
extirpation of heretics; and, if that did not suffice, to send Louis, his
eldest son, to head an army for their destruction, that they who did not fear
the spiritual sword, might feel the temporal. Notwithstanding all this, the
King was unwilling to lend himself to the Pope; the Counts and other men of
influence were generally reluctant to persecute, or even to leave unprotected,
a people whom they esteemed for loyalty, peaceableness, and honesty, and in
whose convictions some of them participated. The Abbot gladly accepted
preferment to an archbishopric; the Friars would have preferred monkish
seclusion to the prosecution of so difficult an undertaking; and the lingering
zeal of the two remaining members of the legation was insufficient, because
unsupported. The Pope, however, administered the cordial of encouragement, to
revive their drooping strength, and sent a fatherly reproof to the King for
his indifference, not sparing the Bishops, although they far better knew the
strength of the Waldenses and their friends than the Bishop of Rome could know
it. But one French Ecclesiastic manifested his loyalty to the Holy Father, who
had made him Archbishop of Rheims, at that time no little dignity, and
signalized the first month of his elevation by burning some persons at the
little town of Braine. One of them was an artist, called Nicholas, famous
throughout France (A.D. 1205). The inhabitants of Braine were, no doubt,
intimidated by the murder of their townsmen; but the terror of that execution
was not felt in Languedoc. The Monks were still dispirited, when a Spanish
Bishop, Diego de Acebes, Bishop of Osma, having just visited Rome, and passing
by on his way homeward, found them at Montpellier. Being a person of great
energy and talent, but dissatisfied with confinement to the narrow circle of a
diocese, and unable to obtain from the Pope a release from his obligation as
Bishop, he gladly volunteered his services to assist them in a resumption of
their work. After careful observation, he found that the Missionaries sent to
recover the wanderers to their Church were exceedingly unpopular. People
contrasted their splendid equipages, the trains of servants and cavalry that
attended them, and their general extravagance and stateliness, with the
poverty of the Waldensian and Albigensian Pastors, and

3 x 2 the simplicity of their followers. Frequently, when Peter and Ralph had
finished their harangues, they reproached them with the licentiousness and
cupidity of their brethren the Priests. Diego insisted that it was useless for
them to attempt the conversion of heretics, unless they would preach by
actions rather than by words, display frugality and austerity, keep their
money out of sight, walk on foot, and imitate the Apostles. The Legates feared
they should be accused of innovation if they took upon themselves, while
representatives of Papal majesty, to lead such a mean life; but, considering
the exigency of the occasion, said that if any person of authority would
begin, they would follow. Diego, being a Bishop, and having been a courtier,
too, but one that had lately assumed the monastic habit, offered to set the
first example, as a man of authority; and accordingly sent away his body-guard
of horsemen with his servants and luggage to Osma, retaining only one
companion, a regular Canon and Sub-Prior of his cathedral, Domingo de Guzman,
afterwards badly eminent in a career of persecution, and eventually known as
St. Dominic. The Spaniard received the submission of his new colleagues as
chief over the renewed enterprise, and established himself in France as a
propagator of the faith. With the two Legates, transformed into poor
mendicants, he made a journey of experiment. At the little town of Carmain
they spent a few days in disputation with Baldwin, a Pastor, and William, the
former Canon of Nevers, who had fled thence after the burning of his uncle;
and contrived, if their adventures are correctly related, to excite a popular
feeling to the prejudice of those persons, but could not deprive them of the
protection of the lord of that place. Thence they went to Beziers, a town long
pervaded with anti-Romish doctrine, and already visited by persecution. There
were few there who bore the name of Catholic; and Peter was so hateful to the
population, that Diego and his colleague advised him to go elsewhere, lest he
should suffer violence. In short, the whole party left Beziers exceedingly
discomforted. The Albigenses,* on the contrary, felt increasing confidence;
and, as the Preachers professed to use argument only, and appeared as poor
men, begging for alms from door to door, their Ministers proposed a conference
for arguing out the questions of doctrine; which then, as now, divided the
believers in holy Scripture from the followers of tradition and ecclesiastical
authority. The challenge was accepted; moderators were appointed on both
sides, men of authority, who should protect both parties against any tumult of
the people; the place of conference was to be free and safe; the subjects of
controversy should be agreed on beforehand; the debate was to be continued
until the question in dispute was settled; the word of God was to be the only
standard of appeal. On one side were the three Preachers, an Abbot, two
Priors, and a train of Priests and Monks, with the Bishops of Villanueva and
Auxerre, as moderators; and, on the other, Arnold Hot, an Albigensian Pastor,
with some others not named, having on their part two men of influence named
Bot and Riviere. Arnold delivered a paper

* Albigenses we say for the sake of brevity. It is often impossible to
determine with certainty how far the name "Albigense" or "Waldense" is to be
preferred, or whether both may not be employed.

FAILURE OF THE LEGATION.

to the Bishop of Osma, containing three propositions: 1. That the mass and
transubstantiation are the invention of men, and not the ordinance of Christ
and the Apostles. 2. That the Church of Rome is not the spouse of Christ, but
the Church of confusion, drunk with the blood of the martyrs. 3. That the
polity of the Church of Rome is neither good nor holy, nor established by
Jesus Christ. The Bishop asked a fortnight to prepare his answer, which was
granted; and, at the expiration of that time, the company assembled, and the
Bishop, producing a large paper, read a carefully elaborated reply. To this
Arnold answered without further preparation, speaking, during long sessions,
on four successive days; and then demanded proofs of the Romish doctrine,
drawn from the holy Bible only. This was a challenge not to be fairly met;
and, after vain attempts to parry the strokes of scriptural truth, the whole
company of Bishops, Priests, Legates, and Monks precipitately withdrew,
complaining of unfair dealing, in order to cover the disgrace of their
retreat. The Bishop of Osma having remained in France but a short time after
this conference, returned to Spain, (A.D. 1206,) yet stopping by the way at
Pamiers to hold another, which led to no result beyond mortification at the
patronage afforded to heretics by Raymond Roger, Count of Foix, who shocked
the Bishop and his brethren by entertaining them and their antagonists in his
palace with equal hospitality, the Countess being a Waldense.* The Papal
emissaries were evidently perplexed. They could not command sufficient force
for the attainment of their object; the public mind was alienated from their
Church; their opponents in controversy were unmanageable; and, in taking the
last resort of conference with those whom they came to silence by authority,
they had utterly miscalculated their ability. The Bishop of Osma quitted the
field, and died soon afterwards. His attendant Dominic remained in France, to
await an opportunity for resuming hostility against heretics. Ralph had no
courage left for the difficult crusade, and retired to a monastery, where he
died; but Peter, irritated by the contempt he had so deservedly incurred by
arrogance and cruelty, stood his ground; and, being stimulated to fresh
exertions by communications from Rome, applied for help to the nobility of
Provence; some of whom formally abjured heresy, in the usual manner, and swore
to cleanse the country from those who were infected by it. The Count of
Toulouse had hitherto refused to take any part in persecution; and, being
known to entertain the same opinions as those whom he protected, was solemnly
excommunicated, treated by the Popish nobles as an enemy; and they were
actually waging war against him, at the instigation of Peter, together with
the Abbot of Vaux Sernai, who had succeeded the Spanish Bishop as his
colleague, and chief of that mission, when he gave way to fear, and made some
overtures to the Legates, which, however, did not satisfy them, and the
negotiation ended in a quarrel with Peter, whose insolence became unbearable.
This quarrel took place at St. Gilles. Peter instantly left the town with his
colleague, and is said to have been

* Fleury, lxxvi., 12, 14, 27; Llorente, Inquisicion, &c., cap. ii., art. 2;
Allix, Abigences, chap. xvii.

followed by some one who avenged the Count by stabbing him as he was about to
cross the Rhone. The blame of the murder was, of course, laid on Raymond, who
could not be proved to have had any complicity in the crime; but it was a
sufficient pretext to bring on him the dreadful consequences, and to deluge
his country with blood. The Pope wrote a long letter to the principal persons
of the provinces of Narbonne, Arles, Embrun, Aix, and Vienne, exhorting them
to inflict vengeance on the delinquent. He styled Peter a martyr; assured them
that miracles would have been wrought at his tomb, but for the unbelief of the
people; and that he had commanded the Archbishops and Bishops to renew their
diligence in extirpating heresy, and display greater zeal in preaching faith
and reconciliation to the Church. The reputed murderer of "that holy man" was
denounced as excommunicate, with all his accomplices, abettors, and defenders;
and all places where such persons might be found were placed under interdict,
until they should be driven out. That sentence was to be read from the altars
every Sunday, until the criminals should be put out of the way by death, or,
having gone to Rome, should have there received absolution. The obedient
Bishops promised remission of sins to whomsoever should undertake to avenge
the innocent blood of the new martyr, by making war upon heretics, destroying
their bodies, to hasten the perdition of their souls. Two Bishops, Foulques of
Toulouse, and Navarre of Couserans, made speed to Rome, where they besought
the Pope to succour the Church, exposed to extreme danger in the disaffected
provinces. Raymond also sent messengers to exculpate himself, and gave the
Pontiff an opportunity to gain his point the more certainly, by sending back
emissaries to Toulouse with confidential instructions to employ soft language,
but make no concession; as also to proceed to Paris, and endeavour to persuade
the King to make war upon the Count. In the latter part of their commission
they were not successful; but the spirit of the age favoured the military
enterprise; a new set of Crusaders made their appearance, wearing the Cross on
the breast, instead of the shoulder, to distinguish them from pilgrims to the
Holy Land; and the persecuted Count, apprehending that he would be the first
victim, negotiated a reconciliation with the Pope, and, having done this, even
consented to wear the Cross. Reconciliation was purchased by a shameful
penance. Stripped to his shirt, he came into the church at St. Gilles, and, in
the presence of the Legate, with about twenty Archbishops and Bishops, swore
obedience to the Pope, received absolution, and engaged to destroy heretics
and persecute the Jews. Two gentlemen only brooked the indignity of taking the
Cross with their liege; and that no time might be lost in making use of the
new Crusaders, who might sympathize with the persons whom they had sworn to
murder, if allowed opportunity for intercourse, an assemblage of them was
convened to be at Lyons from all parts of France on St. John's day, or about
that time (A.D. 1209). An immense multitude of horse and foot encamped there;
and, having been reviewed by the Legate and other Ecclesiastics, marched under
their blessing upon the beautiful city of Beziers, which was chiefly inhabited
by Albigenses. After taking

BURNING OF BEZIERS.

their position before the city, they sent to the Bishop a list of persons whom
he was to require the inhabitants to give up as heretics; and invited any who
might still regard themselves as Catholics to accept deliverance from
impending destruction, by coming out of the city. But the inhabitants despised
the summons to surrender their fellow-citizens to certain death; none accepted
the favour offered to Catholics, in distinction from others; and when the
Crusaders expected to see a multitude of timid folk abandon the city to their
arms, a strong party of bowmen made their appearance and provoked battle by a
shower of arrows. The challenge was accepted, and the champions of that
murderous apostasy which vaunted itself in the name of Catholic, stormed the
city, gave no quarter, but slaked their vengeance in the blood of its
inhabitants. Not one escaped. Men, women, and children were put to instant
death; and, despite the privilege of sanctuary which even an assassin might
enjoy at any altar in Rome, seven thousand persons were butchered in one
church at Beziers. "Kill away," said a Monk to some soldiers who were
beginning to relent: "the Lord knoweth them that are his." Cupidity itself
sickened at the view of so much carnage: the Priests could not allow burial to
the countless corpses of the excommunicate; therefore pestilence might return,
as an avenging angel, upon themselves, from so great a mass of putrefaction; a
city, defiled so thoroughly with heresy seemed unfit to continue any longer;
it was therefore determined to finish the exploit by the semblance of a burnt-
offering, and Beziers was accordingly burnt down on the same day, leaving the
ashes of sixty thousand victims under smoking ruins. This done, the horde
retired; and the Romish historian, ashamed and shuddering as he places on
record so foul a deed, incredibly declares that the soldiers did all without
permission, and even contrary to the wishes of their leaders; yet relates that
the worshippers of St. Magdalene, on whose day the massacre took place, must
have been signally avenged of the blasphemies those heretics had pronounced
against her. From the site of Beziers the zealots marched to Carcassone, where
they took a suburb, by way of intimidating those within the city, and then
continued their operations of siege; while the Bishops, the Abbots, and all
the Clergy, whose hands were deemed too sacred to handle steel, formed
themselves into order of procession, and, keeping beyond the range of bow-
shot, blasphemously chanted the hymn, Veni, Sancte Spiritus, "Come, Holy
Ghost, our hearts inspire." Carcassone might have been annihilated also; but
as the leaders of the attack considered that a deletion of that place also
would discourage the soldiers by again depriving them of booty, and leave the
future Lord of the land without a sufficient place of residence for himself
and followers, they determined to act otherwise, and imposed capitulation on
the inhabitants, with the hard condition that they should all quit the city,
carrying nothing away, but should walk out with nothing more than a single
under-garment. This condition was fulfilled on the 15th of August, 1209, and
Carcassone became, until the fall of Toulouse, the capital of the conquered
territory, while its citizens were dispersed without shelter, to be branded as
heretics or to perish by starvation.* The Crusaders now found themselves in
possession of a conquered territory, small in extent, indeed, but likely to be
enlarged, as no small portion of the neighbouring inhabitants were under the
displeasure of the Church, and therefore to be treated as outlaws; and it
appeared necessary to constitute some one liege Lord of the new domain. The
Cross-bearing Barons, therefore, having met in council to deliberate on whom
the honour and revenue should be bestowed, offered them to the Count of
Nevers. But he refused their homage, as did the Duke of Burgundy. They must
have shrunk with dread from a dignity on which the execration of millions was
already poured, and from a responsibility which in itself implied the
violation of humanity under the pretext of religion. The work of election was
then confided to a committee, consisting of the Legate, two Bishops, and four
Knights, who chose Simon, Count of Montfort, already distinguished by those
martial qualities which, joined with inexorable bigotry, marked him as an
efficient servant of the Roman See. Either from modesty or fear, he refused at
first. The Legate and the Duke of Burgundy entreated him on bended knees to
accept the gift; but when he still appeared to be irresolute, the Legate
changed his posture, and commanded him, with pontifical authority, to
undertake the charge. For a short time he was surrounded by the troops of his
most powerful allies, and reigned at Carcassone as representative of Romanism
for the suppression of dissent. Heretics were brought before him to receive
sentence at his pleasure, and the faggots were instantly kindled at his word.
At Castres, for example, two persons were set before him as convicted of
disaffection to the Church, although the case of one was doubtful; but he
commanded them both to be bound to the stake, observing of the one who denied
the accusation, that if he were an honest man, the fire would expiate his
sins, but if a liar, he would but suffer the penalty due to his imposture.
Perhaps, however, the scene was prepared for the sake of effect; for matters
were so managed that "the Catholic" escaped from the stake as soon as the
flame began to rise. As he ran away the soldiers shouted, "A miracle!" and the
other, as an undoubted heretic, was burnt to death.

About three weeks after the occupation of Carcassone, Hughes, Bishop of Riez,
and Milon, Notary of the Pope, both accredited Legates, held a Council at
Avignon, where about twenty-four Archbishops and Bishops, and a sufficient
number of Abbots and other dignitaries, consulted on the affairs of the Church
in France. The canons of that Council conveyed strict injunction on all
Bishops to preach more frequently and with greater care, or at least to employ
others to preach in their stead, if unable to occupy the pulpits with
convenience, or, as we may be permitted to suspect, with credit. They were
censured for having allowed heresy to spread by their negligence. Various
regulations against Albigenses and other Christian Nonconformists, and against
Jews, were there renewed. Immodest dances and lewd songs in churches were
forbidden, showing that the charge of clerical negligence was not unfounded.
The relatives of the

* Fleury, lxxvi., 36, 37, 44, 45; Llorente, cap. ii., art. 2, 3; Hallam,
Europe during the Middle Ages, chap. i., part 1.

THE POOR CATHOLICS.

murderers of Pierre de Castelnau, and another Ecclesiastic who had met with a
similar end, were excluded, down to the third generation, from every
ecclesiastical benefice; the citizens of Toulouse were excommunicated because
they had failed to expel all reputed heretics from their territory; and the
Count himself, notwithstanding his submission and humiliation at St. Gilles,
was threatened with excommunication if he should presume to recover some civil
rights of which he had been divested. About the same time the Papacy found,
or, at least, seemed to find, a new agency for the maintenance of its
interests. A Spaniard, Durando of Huesca, and a few others, having cleared
themselves from suspicion of heresy, went to Rome, and solicited the sanction
of the Pope on a project for extending the doctrine of the Church of Rome in
France. Aspiring, as they said, towards Christian perfection, they renounced
the world, sold their property and distributed the price among the poor, lived
in voluntary poverty, without caring for the morrow; refused alms in any other
form than that of daily food or clothing; and, most of them being Priests,
wished to devote themselves to study, preaching, and controversy with
sectarians of all sorts, but always under direction of the Bishops. Innocent
III. gladly accepted their proposal, and sanctioned their constitution into a
fraternity, bearing the designation of "Poor Catholics," by two bulls, one
addressed to the Bishop of Tarragona, and the other to Durando himself, and
his poor brethren. For a time they spread rapidly, both in the south of France
and in Italy, labouring hard to bring over the Albigenses, Waldenses, and
others to their opinions; but either these opinions were from the first
different, on some points, from those of Rome, or they became so by
disputation with more enlightened persons, many Bishops complained against
them to Innocent himself, who was reluctant to confess fallibility by
cancelling his bulls within three months; but the experiment failed; and the
priesthood learned by that failure to hold by the only tenable position, that
their system could not be upheld by argument, but must be maintained by fire
and sword. The additional apparatus of racks and dungeons was not yet quite
ready; but the men were living who would prepare that also. Another society of
relapsed Vaudois, or of persons holding opinions resembling theirs, yet in
communion with the dominant Church, also came into existence in Italy, and
fell into oblivion. We therefore close this digression concerning the Council
and the Societies, and return to scenes where the ecclesiastical spirit of
that age found freer scope and greater appearance of success in warring
against the Gospel.

The persecuted Count of Toulouse, finding himself impoverished by the loss of
tolls, and threatened with excommunication if he should proceed to enforce
their payment, applied to the King for redress; but in vain, for the King
would scarcely venture to offend the Pope. To the Pope himself, therefore,
Raymond appealed in person; but was assailed with hard words, and required to
purify himself canonically from suspicion of the murder of Peter of Castelnau,
and of heresy. He then applied to the Emperor Otho for assistance against
Simon de Montfort, who threatened to attack Toulouse; but he could obtain no

3 z earthly succour. Meanwhile Simon de Montfort carried onward his
hostilities against those places where heretics were in possession or found
refuge. Together with the Abbot of Citeaux and a Dr. Theodise, he laid siege
to the castle of Minerbe; and when the besieged proposed to capitulate,
consulted his clerical authorities before answering their proposal. Count
Simon appealed to the Abbot, as chief of the whole enterprise: the Abbot was
exceeding angry, for, being a Monk, it became him to compass the death of
heretics, and heretics would be suffered to live if the castle were occupied
by capitulation; yet, being a Monk, and Priest besides, not permitted so much
as to let blood by a lancet, how could he, even as chief of that enterprise,
openly direct what his heart longed for, a massacre of all the heretics?
However, he granted their lives to all the inhabitants, heretics included, if
they would conform to the Church; and comforted a zealous brother who objected
to that condition through fear that most of them would conform, and the
pleasure of killing them would be missed, by expressing his conviction that
few conformists would be found. Nor was he mistaken; for when both he and the
Count went from house to house to offer the heretics life on the condition
prescribed, not one would sacrifice his conscience. "Why," said they, "do you
preach to us? We want none of your religion. We reject the Roman Church. You
labour in vain: we will not deny our faith for the fear of death, nor for the
hope of life." There was no difficulty in finding those persons: they were
assembled in their usual places of meeting, no doubt met together to encourage
each other to prepare for entrance into the congregation of the blessed; not
fewer than a hundred and forty of *the Perfect*, as they were called, were led
out of the place; and, so far from recanting, or even offering resistance,
many of them, without waiting for executioners, threw themselves upon a huge
burning pile prepared for their martyrdom. Misled by the reports of
persecutors, historians not unfrequently disparage the Albigenses, and concede
to the slander that they were Manicheans. As well might the Moravians, or the
earlier Methodists, be called Manicheans, on account of their men and women
meeting in distinct companies on some occasions, as the confessors of Minerbe
were found by Simon de Montfort and his Abbot. We recognise, not the
asceticism of an unscriptural sect, but the calm devotedness of persons who
lived in a communion distinct from the fallen Church of Rome, who were so
esteemed by their fellow-citizens over an extensive tract of the French
dominions, that they were protected and defended by armed resistance against
the Crusaders, and who, for Christ's sake, counted not their lives dear to
them. What language of evangelical confidence they uttered as Christian
martyrs, it is impossible to say, because the only historians were their
murderers or the abettors of their murder, and no conclusion unfavourable to
their memory should be drawn from the absence of a distinct and honest
narrative. During the siege of Minerbe, Raymond of Toulouse was endeavouring
to persuade the Papal commissioners to allow him to purify himself, according
to the Pope's order, from the suspicion of murder and heresy. But they

BURNINGS AT PARIS, LAVAUR, AND CASSER.

would not suffer him to do so; fearing that if the discredit cast on him by
their own party should be removed, it would be impossible by any other pretext
to keep up the flame of popular fanaticism in France, and bring Crusaders to
extend the conquests of the Church. They therefore commanded him to expel the
heretics forthwith from his country, and, after having done that, to apply
again for the fulfilment of the Pope's orders. With tears he declared himself
unable to expel the heretics, and was again excommunicated, together with all
his abettors (A.D. 1210). A similar conference was shortly afterwards held at
Narbonne, where Peter, King of Arragon, was present, but without any effect,
it being the only object of the Priests to prolong the war, not only for the
extirpation of heresy, but also for extending the temporal dominion of the
Church. For the sake of prosecuting these objects, no method was rejected,
however dishonourable in the sight of men, or wicked in the sight of God. Some
peculiar opinions had found their way into the University of Paris. Amauri,
(or Amalric,) who first gave them currency, had indeed recanted; but, as the
recantation was known to be compulsory, died in disgrace, and his bones were
dug up and burnt. Others perpetuated the opinions; and however erroneous some
of them might have been, for we cannot easily ascertain how far they departed
from the scriptural standard, it is certain that the anger of the priesthood
was aroused by contempt of image-worship and of relics, denial of
transubstantiation, neglect of the fathers of the church, and a declaration
that Rome was Babylon, and the Pope Antichrist. To make out a strong case
against the sect, it was necessary to collect unguarded expressions and
opinions of individuals, for which purpose the Bishop of Paris employed one
Raoul de Nemours as a spy; who, professing to be one of their number, obtained
sufficient information of the kind required, and fourteen persons were duly
examined, condemned, brought to Paris, delivered to the King to be dealt with
according to his pleasure, and finally burnt alive. A few others were
sentenced to perpetual imprisonment; and the writings of Aristotle, hitherto
read in the University, were thenceforth prohibited, as tending to corrupt the
faith. Whoever did not contribute, in some way, to the extirpation of heresy,
was himself suspected. Bishops hastened to the seat of war, and signalized
themselves in the work of fratricide. The Bishops of Chartres and Beauvais sat
down with the troops before the castle of Thermes, and the Archdeacon of
Paris, an excellent engineer in those days, directed the operations of the
siege. The Bishop of Paris, with two other mitred brethren, enjoyed the siege
of Lavaur, which was taken by assault under their eye: eighty of the principal
inhabitants were brought out and killed by the sword, and about three hundred
heretics burnt. By the hands of the pilgrims another company of sixty was put
to death in a place called Casser, after the Bishops had in vain endeavoured
to convert them, as they said, and the devotees were delighted to commit them
to the flames (A.D. 1211). After several other lesser conquests, Simon led all
his pilgrim army to besiege the city of Toulouse; and, being aided by an
accession of Germans, who came to kill "the Beghards," he might have suc-

3 z 2 ceeded, if provisions had not failed, and he therefore gladly accepted
an invitation brought by the Bishop of Cahors, to take possession of that
place, which was ready to withdraw fealty from Raymond. The career of conquest
was, however, checked by the return to their homes of a great part of his
volunteers, who said that they had only vowed to fight for forty days, and by
the revolt of several of the places taken. The Priests, on the contrary, had
not so limited their vows. The Archbishop of Narbonne, as Legate, pressed the
war with indefatigable diligence, scarcely allowing himself time enough for
sleep or food, and a crowd of Prelates quitted their sees to wait upon him in
the camp; yet the zeal of others for the Crusade to the Holy Land diverted the
streams of fanaticism into another channel; the war against Albigenses
languished, and would have utterly failed, if Louis, son of the King of
France, had not crossed himself for that enterprise, and brought with him
considerable reinforcements (A.D. 1213). Raymond, on his part, appealed to his
brother-in-law, Peter of Arragon, for succour, representing the wrongs done to
him by the Crusaders, and the injustice of the Priests, who would not allow
him opportunity to clear away the stain of heresy. He placed his wife, Peter's
sister, under the protection of the King of Arragon, with his son, and the
territory yet remaining. Peter espoused his cause, and wrote to the Pope,
saying that when the Crusaders, following the orders of His Holiness, had
entered on the lands of the Viscount of Beziers, his vassal, he did not afford
him due assistance, lest he should oppose the intentions of the Church, and
that, consequently, the Viscount lost his lands, and at last his life. He
complained that the Legate and Simon of Montfort had not only taken those
places within his dominions which were occupied by heretics, but many others
where the inhabitants were not under the least suspicion of heresy, and
carried their usurpation so far that Montauban and Toulouse were the only
places remaining to him. He said that, during his absence in a war with the
Moors in Spain, they had seized the lands of the Counts of Foix and Comminges,
and of the Viscount of Bearn, all three his vassals, although he was at that
time giving his blood, and that of his subjects, for the faith; and he
concluded by praying the Pope to preserve the county of Toulouse for the son
of the Count, and promised that the youth, then fifteen years of age, should
be educated with great care under his own direction. The Pope could scarcely
disoblige a Sovereign who had been second to none in honouring the Roman See,
and in persecuting nonconformists; and therefore directed his Legates to
convene a Council of Clergy and laity, investigate the proposals of the King
of Arragon, and send him their opinion in writing. He also commanded them to
endeavour to put an end to the war in their legation, in order that nothing
might divert Princes and people from fighting against the Saracens; and
charged Simon of Montfort to render to the King the dues he had been
accustomed to receive from the Viscount of Beziers, and restore to him and his
vassals the lands that had been taken from them. Peter of Arragon went to
Toulouse; a Council was at the same time assembled at Lavaur, and, after
unsatisfactory negotiations

DEATH OF PETER OF ARRAGON.

between him and them, they proclaimed a crusade against him for protecting
heretics, and the war was resumed with as much vigour as the resources of the
priestly party would allow. Encouraged by success in resisting their attacks,
the King called more troops out of Spain, and proceeded to act offensively.
Simon grew desperate, marched on him as he was besieging the castle of Muret,
and gave him battle (A.D. 1213). Peter was left dead on the field; and so one
of the most zealous champions of the Papacy, because he would not go into the
excess of injustice of which Romish Ecclesiastics only could be capable, was
confounded with those whom he had once thought it pious to destroy, and was
slain by Ministers of the Church for which his blood, and the blood of his
subjects, had been so freely shed. And this arose from the pertinacious
resolution of those men to make every other consideration bend before this
one,—the destruction of heretics for the enriching of the Church.

Their excessive zeal had outrun the better policy of the Pope, who would fain
have retained the services of Peter of Arragon; and he therefore sent a new
Legate into Provence with fresh instructions, to obviate, if possible, the
mischief he foresaw as likely to recoil on his cause from the death, in the
very bosom of heresy, of one of his best friends. The Legate arrived in the
beginning of the year, (1214,) and brought many letters to the Clergy, and one
to Simon de Montfort, requiring him to give up to the Papal representative the
son of the King of Arragon, whom he had taken prisoner at the battle of Muret.
The Legate was also empowered to absolve the Count of Comminges, the Viscount
of Bearn, and the people of Toulouse, who were all under anathema. Political
reasons only induced the Pope to make those concessions to the Princes; but
with heretics no measures were to be kept. The Bishop of Carcassone had spent
a year in preaching this Crusade in France, and returned to Provence about the
middle of April, at the head of a formidable company of armed pilgrims; the
Cardinal Legate at Paris, and the Archdeacon of Paris, already famous as an
engineer and soldier, came at the same time with reinforcements; the united
companies met at Beziers, now peopled with Catholics, and this army was
further increased by the arrival of the Duke of Burgundy and the Archbishops
of Lyons and Vienne, leading numerous trains of dependents and volunteers to
help in holy war. The new Legate fulfilled his instructions by reconciling the
Counts and other noblemen to the Church; but the Bishops, headed by Simon de
Montfort, pursued their vocation of taking castles, robbing proprietors of
their estates under the same pretext of religion, and burning the more eminent
of the Waldenses as they fell into their hands. Seven such persons being
brought to the Parisian Legate, freely acknowledged themselves to be followers
of the Waldensian doctrine, and were given over to the Crusaders, who burnt
them with great glee. But the suppression of heresy was not the only object
contemplated by the Church. Visions of temporal grandeur, no doubt, rose to
the imagination of Pope and Prelates, who began to look on the provinces of
Provence and Languedoc as added to the states of the Church. The Kings of
Arragon and France might be expected to oppose a sudden annexation of the
conquered country to the patrimony of St. Peter; and therefore the only
question that could be safely discussed as yet was, who should be temporal
ruler. To this end a Council was assembled at Montpellier, (A.D. 1215,)
consisting chiefly of Ecclesiastics, with laymen enough to give the decision a
colour of legality. Simon de Montfort, who aspired after the sovereignty, was
not present in the assembly, because the inhabitants hated him so thoroughly
that he durst not enter the city; but stayed in the neighbourhood, and met
some of the Bishops daily at the house of the Knights Templars outside the
walls. Business commenced in the form of a sermon delivered by the Legate in
the church of Notre Dame, and proceeded in a meeting of the Bishops only, at
his lodgings, where they consulted as to the person to whom the city of
Toulouse, and the other places conquered by the Crusaders, should be given.
Their choice fell on Simon; and he would probably have been invested with the
honours of lordship at once, if it had not been found, on reference to the
Legate's commission, that so much could not be done without the sanction of
the Pope himself. An Archbishop was immediately despatched with letters to
Rome to supplicate His Holiness to confirm their vote, and quickly returned
with letters appointing Simon as Protector of the conquests made by the
Crusaders, until a General Council, soon to assemble in the Lateran, should
decide respecting the lordship. The Protector was exhorted to persevere in the
service of Christ, and the Barons were instructed to obey him in all things
relating to peace and faith; in a solemn assemblage of the principal
personages present, he was inducted into the new dignity, and his first act
was to proceed to Toulouse, attended by the pilgrims, and dismantle the city
of its walls. Prince Louis, son of the King of France, took part in that
expedition; but only as a servant of the Legate, who had forbidden him to take
any step without his authority, because his royal father had not been
sufficiently zealous in the holy war, nor extirpated all sinners from his
realms, and because he came not as a Prince, but only as a pilgrim. The gentle
Prince obeyed; and having fulfilled forty days, the period required by his
vow, he returned to Paris, wiser than when he came. The expected fourth
Council of Lateran was holden at the time appointed; and a concourse of four
hundred Bishops of all grades, eight hundred Abbots and Priors, with proxies
of many that could not be there in person, Ambassadors of both Emperors, and
the Kings of England, France, Hungary, Jerusalem, and Cyprus, and of a
multitude of lesser Princes, were all managed by the clever and imperious
Pontiff, Innocent III. Raymond, Count of Toulouse, was there as a supplicant,
imploring the Council to restore him the territory and power of which he had
been deprived. Simon de Montfort also sent his messengers to solicit the title
and prerogatives of Count of Toulouse; and although several Prelates,
constrained by a sense of justice and humanity, favoured the suit of Raymond,
the majority applauded Innocent when he haughtily gave sentence that Raymond,
under whose government faith and peace had never been kept, should be for ever
excluded from his possessions, and make his abode in

SIMON DE MONTFORT KILLED.

some suitable place, with a pension of four hundred marks of silver, to do
penance until death. His wife, whose brother, Peter of Arragon, had fallen
while fighting in his defence, should be permitted to retain her dowry, in
consideration of her acknowledged orthodoxy. All the country that the
Crusaders had conquered from the heretics should be given to the Count of
Montfort, saving ecclesiastical privileges, of course, because he had laboured
more than any one else in "the service of Christ." The rest of the country, as
yet unconquered, should be preserved, under the orders of the Church, by
persons able to maintain peace and faith, until the son of Raymond should be
of age. This monstrous usurpation was not submitted to by the vassals of Count
Raymond. Many of them revolted against Simon, and the country was involved in
civil war, not only for religion, but for territorial rights; the Priests were
treated, in many places, with every mark of contempt; and although crowds of
vagrant Preachers came from various parts of France to earn, as they were
told, plenary remission of their sins by endeavouring to convert heretics, the
force of popular disgust was found to be insuperable. Avignon, Marseilles, St.
Gilles, Beaucaire, and Tarascon renounced allegiance to Simon; and when a new
Legate came from Rome, he was obliged to cross the Rhone, and lodge, as
inoffensively as possible, in Orange (A.D. 1217). On the other hand, the new
Pope, Honorius III., availing himself of the services of Dominic, urged the
preaching Friars to give the people of France and Spain no rest, until the
supremacy of the Church should be established. A new order, "the militia of
Christ," was instituted; the members of which, living in their own houses,
were to conduct the business of domestic persecution; * and another order of
women, as a branch of the Dominicans, was charged, by sedulity of devout and
earnest speech, to quicken the zeal of men in the prosecution of the same
object. Raymond, who had retired to Spain, encouraged by the position of
affairs in his own country, returned secretly to Toulouse, and was welcomed by
the inhabitants: Simon was perplexed, the Legate was desperate, the Pope wrote
letters to the Kings of France and Arragon, exhorting them to take up arms on
his behalf, and even threatened the latter with a foreign invasion if he would
not consent. It does not appear that any very large number of Crusaders was
obtained by this means, for people had spent nearly all their zeal, and the
Papal Count sat down nine months before the rebuilt walls of Toulouse without
being able to take the city. Between the sallies of the besieged, and the
reproaches of the Legate, who taunted him with incapacity and negligence,
Simon's spirit sank; in that state he was when killed by a stone from an
engine, and he left his son to inherit an empty title. The young man spent a
month in fruitless attempts to take the city, and then abandoned it to its
rightful Lord (A.D. 1218). Provisions failed, money was exhausted, pilgrims
deserted the camp, and many of the people of the country, hearing that Simon,
whose valour had commanded respect, was dead, refused to acknowledge his son
Amauri. During about seven years the war continued between this second

* Hence came the "Familiars" of the Inquisition.

Count of Toulouse, so called, and the real Count Raymond, and his son and
successor, Raymond VII. At last the Pope contrived to engage the influence of
the Emperor and the King of France to induce Raymond to solicit or accept
reconciliation with the Church. The ceremony was performed at Paris; where the
Legate, Conrad, declared him to be a Catholic, and pronounced the Crusade
against the Albigenses at an end. A Council was then convened at Montpellier;
the Prelates condescended to restore him his earldom; and he engaged to keep
the Catholic faith as taught by the Roman Church, to enforce the same
observance on all his vassals, and to purify his lands from heresy by
executing the judgment of the Church on heretics by fines and corporal
punishment (A.D. 1224).

All this, and much besides, was more easily promised than performed. The faith
and peace of the Roman Church could not be kept in Narbonese Gaul. After so
much suffering, with the remembrance of innumerable injuries, and with a
confirmed hatred of the whole system of Popery, the people were not likely to
submit to the sway of priestcraft in mere compliance with the negotiation of
Raymond the younger, who could not bring the towns to submission, and was
therefore, like his father, treated as an enemy of the Church. In a national
Council at Paris, (A.D. 1226,) the Legate excommunicated him, and confirmed,
as he pretended, the right of Louis VIII., King of France, and his heirs, to
the lands held by the Count of Toulouse, a condemned heretic. Amauri, unable
to govern the towns conquered by his father, surrendered them to the King, who
received the Cross from the Pope's representative, and vowed to exterminate
heresy in his new dominions. Again Preachers were sent forth to stir up the
French to fight for their religion; the Clergy engaged to give the King a
subsidy for the maintenance of his troops; all who owed him military service
were commanded to appear at Bourges on an appointed day, and eventually
marched thence, with Louis at their head, and met with no resistance until
they reached Avignon, which stood a long siege. At last, hunger and disease
compelled the inhabitants to capitulate; and the Crusaders, after seeing two
thousand of their companions perish with sickness under the walls of Avignon,
gladly struck their tents. The war thus ended, Louis died shortly afterwards;
and a Council at Narbonne made various enactments for the punishment of
heretics, and offered the persons and the goods of the Counts of Toulouse and
Foix, the Viscount of Beziers and the Albigenses, to any who could take them
(A.D. 1227). Still the conquest was incomplete, and Raymond did not make final
submission until two years later, when he appeared before the King at Paris,
and was permitted to retain his lands for life; but they were to be
transferred after that to the King and his heirs, and he was to do penance by
five years' service in the wars against the Saracens beyond sea, and
contribute four thousand marks of silver for the establishment of a University
in Toulouse. That city was relieved from interdict; and a Council was shortly
afterwards held there, (A.D. 1229,) which is marked as exerting great
influence in the subsequent proceedings of the priesthood. The Archbishops and
Bishops were to swear in one

COUNCIL OF TOULOUSE.

Priest, and two or three laymen at least, in every parish, both in and out of
cities, who should diligently, faithfully, and frequently seek out heretics by
searching all houses and other places that might lie under suspicion, and
giving notice of such places to the Bishop, the Lord of the place, or his
Bailiff. The Lords were also to be careful to have search made for heretics in
villages, houses, and woods; and if any one should be convicted of having
sheltered a heretic for money, or otherwise allowed him to remain on his land,
he should lose that land, and his person should be delivered to his Lord to
suffer justice. The Bailiff that should neglect to search for heretics in his
neighbourhood should lose his property, and never be Bailiff again. The house
in which a heretic was found should be pulled down, and the site confiscated.
Any one might hunt heretics in any place, and the Bailiff of that place should
be bound to render assistance. Those who had voluntarily abandoned heresy
should not reside any longer in the town where they had previously dwelt, if
that town was suspected of heresy; and, to mark detestation of their ancient
error, they should wear two conspicuous crosses of a different colour from
their garments, and not be allowed to discontinue the mark without letters
testimonial from the Bishop. Neither should they be intrusted with any public
office, nor admitted in any matters of law, until they had been restored to
unity by the Pope or his Legate. Heretics converted through fear of death, or
from any other cause, and not voluntarily, should be imprisoned by the Bishop,
notwithstanding their conversion, so that they might not corrupt any one. They
were to be maintained in prison by those who had got their property, or, if
they had no property, by the Bishop. A list of all the inhabitants was to be
kept in every parish; and all males at the age of fourteen years, and all
females at twelve, should swear before the Bishop or his delegates to renounce
all heresy, hold the Catholic faith, and persecute and denounce heretics.
Every one should communicate at Christmas, Easter, and Whitsuntide, or be
suspected of heresy. "We also prohibit that the laity should be permitted to
have books of the Old and New Testament, unless any one should desire to have
a Psalter, or a Breviary for the Divine Offices, or the Hours of the blessed
Virgin, for the sake of devotion. But they must not have any of the aforesaid
books translated into a vulgar language." Whoever should be defamed or
suspected of heresy, might not exercise the profession of a Physician; and
when any sick person should have received the host from the hand of a Priest,
he was to be carefully looked after until the time of his death or recovery,
lest any heretic, or person suspected of heresy, should get access to him, as
enormous evils had happened in consequence of such interviews. Wills were to
be made in the presence of a Priest, or be invalid. All heads of families were
to attend church, and hear the entire service and sermon on Sundays and fast-
days, except prevented by some sufficient cause, or be fined twelve tournois
pence, half to the Lord of the land, and half to the poor. Many of these
regulations will be recognised as afterwards continued by the Inquisition; and
the prohibition of the holy Scripture in vernacular

VOL. 11.

4 A languages, is remarkable as the first officially published by any part of
the Church of Rome, but afterwards adopted by the whole. The universal
adoption and subsequent relaxation of this rule will be related as the events
arise. And it will occur to the reader that the canons of the Council of
Toulouse are only an enlargement of those of Lateran III. and Verona.*

When Toulouse became a University-town, and an appanage of France, it was also
a stronghold of ecclesiastical power, the Albigenses were no longer in a
condition to defend themselves by taking up arms, nor was it necessary to wage
war against them, or to preach crusade. A system was organized for the
suppression of religious liberty, not only in those provinces, but over a
great part of Europe; and we only read of the followers of Waldo and other
nonconformists throughout the remainder of the thirteenth century as helpless
sufferers of a searching and ruthless persecution more malignant, and
unspeakably more artful, than that inflicted by the Pagans on the early
Christians. Councils at Melun, Beziers, (A.D. 1233,) and Arles, (A.D. 1234,)
followed up the determinations of Toulouse, adding some stringent regulations
which the Priests thought necessary, in order to arm themselves and their
familiars with more ample power to vex and to destroy. The same thing was done
in Spain and Italy; but we must continue to trace the rise of the Inquisition
in Languedoc and Provence. There, as elsewhere, the Dominicans were the chosen
instruments for its establishment; and the Bishops were strictly required to
aid, but by no means to direct, them in all their operations. Yet some
deference was necessarily rendered to the Bishops to obviate or to appease
their jealousy; and accordingly the arrangements for the first or ancient
Inquisition were all made in Councils. The three Archbishops of Narbonne,
Arles, and Aix, with many other Ecclesiastics, being assembled at Narbonne,
were consulted by the Friars, who received, not direction, but advice, to the
following effect:—

"We advise you to impose the following penance on those heretics whom you may
have exempted from imprisonment, because they came to you of their own accord
within the appointed time, and declared to you the truth, as well against
others as themselves. Let them come to church every Sunday, wearing the Cross
on their dress, and present themselves to the Curate between the Epistle and
the Gospel, carrying rods in their hands with which they shall receive
discipline, and they shall suffer the same in every procession. On the first
Sunday of each month let them visit, with the rods in their hands, all the
houses in the town where they have formerly seen heretics. Let them be present
every Sunday at mass, vespers, and sermon. Let them bear arms, at their own
expense, for the defence of the faith and of the Church against Saracens,
heretics, or other rebels, during an appointed time, as the Pope may command;
but let them not be required any more to go beyond sea, lest they should rally
together there, and pervert the Catholics. The Inquisitors may add to, or

* Fleury, lxxvii.—lxxix; Allix, Albigenses, xxi.; Mariana, Hist. de Espana,
xii., 2; Llorente, Hist. de la Inquisicion, ii., 4, 5; Maitland, Albigenses
and Waldenses, sect. vii.

ALBIGENSES BURNT.

diminish from, those periods of penance, according to circumstances, and the
parish Priests shall see that the penance be performed. The heretics who shall
not have presented themselves within the time of grace, or who shall in any
other way have rendered themselves unworthy of indulgence, and yet submit to
the Church, ought to be imprisoned for life; but as the number is so great
that it is impossible to build prisons for them, you might defer imprisonment
until the Pope has been consulted. As for the rebels that refuse to obey,
whether to submit to imprisonment or any other penance, you should abandon
them to the secular Judge without hearing them any more, and treat them in the
same manner as the relapsed after abjuration. It is enough that they have
deceived the Church once." They also advised the Dominicans not to allow any
one who had been subject to discipline on account of heresy to turn Monk, lest
he should corrupt the simple Monks; and not to let any one be exempted from
imprisonment on any account, not the husband for the sake of his wife, nor the
wife for the sake of her husband, nor fathers nor mothers for the sake of
their children, nor others on account of old age or infirmity. "No one," they
said, "should be condemned without proof, or on his own confession; for it
were better to leave crime unpunished, than to condemn the innocent." Here is
a faint gleam of justice, or perhaps, to speak more truly, a simulation of
justice, in the absence of common humanity; and while we peruse the above
sentences, replete with artifice and cruelty, it is impossible to forget that
the framers of these and other rules already cited were not the Inquisitors
themselves, but Bishops, Abbots, parochial Priests, and Monks in Council
assembled, often with Popes and Legates a latere at their head, resistlessly
disproving the empty excuse of those who say that the Inquisition is not the
Church, and that therefore the Church has not been responsible for its
atrocities, but may disclaim them as acts of an independent institution.

Fulminations against heresy resounded from the centre, throughout the whole
area of Popedom. Gregory IX. and Innocent IV. issued Bulls and Briefs to give
uniformity to persecution, and impart one directive spirit to all its agents,
adding to the unbloody sacrifice on the altars immolation at the stake, not as
a rare act of zeal, but as an appointed solemnity. In France, of which country
we are now speaking, no time was lost in obeying the sanguinary mandates; and
one instance must serve, out of many, to illustrate the progress of the
system. At the town of Monthemé, in Champagne, a company of Albigenses was
detected and proceeded against canonically. Handed over to the secular
authority, they were reserved for execution on a convenient day. On the Friday
before Whitsuntide, (May 13th, 1239,) when the improved state of the roads,
and beauty of the vernal landscape, invited citizens and Barons to quit their
workshops and their castles, and enjoy the country, a multitude of not fewer
than a hundred thousand persons was gathered from all parts to the
neighbourhood of that town, there to witness the vengeance of the Church. The
Archbishop of Rheims, a large company of Bishops, and all the Ecclesiastics of
every degree in the district, encircled the

1 A 2 hearths. At their head the King of Navarre, attended by a long train of
Barons, gave royal sanction, and added to the attractions of the spectacle.
One hundred and eighty-three victims were consumed in their presence, and the
Monk who recorded the event pronounces that it was a holocaust agreeable to
God. One Friar Robert is said to have been the active person in detecting and
burning them, himself formerly one of the Bulgarians, as those people were
sometimes called. At that time he was in favour as a successful Inquisitor;
but carried his ferocity so far as to displease his employers, who found that
he was persecuting as many as he could lay hands on, not for conservation of
the faith, but in order to make himself feared, or to extort money. He was at
last convicted of many crimes, and condemned to perpetual imprisonment. But
the Inquisitors were frequently resisted; many of them in several countries
lost their lives in endeavouring to establish the tribunal; and in Toulouse,
during an interval of political change, the inhabitants rose on them, and put
them to death; and eleven Dominicans, Franciscans, and Clerks, were instantly
added to the catalogue of martyrs on the intelligence of their death reaching
Rome, in consideration, it was said, of the holiness of the cause for which
they suffered * (A.D. 1242). Councils were holden at Beziers and Alby, for the
sake of keeping alive inquisitorial discipline; and Louis the Saint, the
Popes, and the Prelates gave the entire weight of their respective dignities
to the same cause; but a recitation of their doings would add nothing varied
to that delineation of Romish intolerance in France during the thirteenth
century which has been already given. Yet Councils and armies, Popes and
Kings, could not prevail against the word of God; and, despite the prohibition
of vernacular versions by the Council of Toulouse in the year 1229, a Canon of
Aire laboured for about two years and eight months on a translation of the Old
and New Testaments, interspersed with the glosses and postils of Peter
Comestor: this work was republished in the dialects of Picardy and the
Walloons, and copies are said to be still extant in the libraries of France.
About the same time, (A.D. 1291 to 1294,) or shortly afterwards, another
French version, but without note or comment, was also published; and if it
originated, as Le Long conjectures, in an order of Louis IX., one of the most
devoted supporters that ever led crusade in the service of the Roman See, the
work may fairly be regarded as a practical disavowal of that part of the
policy of Romanism. This view might seem incompatible with the entire current
of history, if we were not to remember that Toulouse was a feud of the King of
Arragon; and that therefore the Sovereigns of France were not required to
abide by its decisions. And the disapprobation excited by ecclesiastical
proscription of the sacred Scriptures was further expressed in Spain. James I.
of Arragon had followed up the Council of Toulouse by presiding at another in
Tarragona, (A.D. 1233,) and issuing a constitution to the following
effect:—"In the name of the holy and indivisible Trinity, who holds the world
in his fist, commands the commanders, and rules over the rulers, &c., &c. By
an irrefragable decree, we determine

* Fleury, lxxxi., 29, 54.

KING OF ARRAGON EXCOMMUNICATED.

and firmly inhibit that it shall not be lawful for any lay person to dispute
publicly or privately concerning the Catholic faith; and whose shall do the
contrary, it being proved, shall be excommunicated by his Bishop, and, unless
he shall purify himself, shall be had as one suspected of heresy. It is also
appointed that no one shall have books of the Old or New Testament in Romance.
And if any one has them, he must deliver them to the Bishop within eight days
after the publication of this constitution, made at the time of the sentence,
in order that they may be burnt." But as the sentences of these Arragonian
Councils were neglected in France, so were they on the other side the
Pyrenees, in Castile, where Alonso X., surnamed the Wise, afterwards commanded
a version to be made of the canonical books; * (A.D. 1269;) a proceeding which
the Jesuit Mariana endeavours to account for by the well-known desire of
Alonso to polish and improve the Spanish language. But this was done in many
other ways; and considering that dissidents from the Church of Rome had been
the first translators of the Bible, that their work had been again and again
denounced as heretical and dangerous, and that every Sovereign in Europe who
did not aid in the suppression of religious liberty was exposed to the utmost
peril of losing his kingdom, if not his life, it is impossible to read of
translations of the Scriptures made by order of French and Spanish Kings, and
of their reproduction in provincial dialects, without discerning the hand of
God, who would not allow the last morsel of the bread of life to be snatched
from the lips of his children, already perishing for lack of knowledge.

Having passed from France into Spain, we may pause for a moment to observe the
conduct of the Popes there towards those who differed from them. It is certain
that the Spanish priesthood and people had not yet imbibed the spirit of
intolerance prevalent elsewhere. Although the kingdom of Arragon was
politically Spanish, as the scene of persecution was chiefly in Languedoc and
Provence, north of the Pyrenees, it would have perplexed the reader to have
spoken of it as taking place elsewhere than in France. A great part of the
thirteenth century was occupied in reconquering from the Saracens all the
principalities of the Peninsula except Granada. But the court of Rome
quarrelled with Don Pedro, King of Arragon, whose dominion comprehended
Catalonia, Arragon, and Valencia, the King of Majorca, his brother, also doing
him homage for Narbonne. Sicily was added to his dominions by conquest, to the
grief of the Pope, who claimed that island for himself. He therefore
excommunicated Pedro, and offered his kingdom to the French King, Philip, who,
by taking the Cross for holy war against his neighbour, and daring to invade
Spain, (A.D. 1285,) earned the surname of "Bold," but nothing more. The whole
affair is one of secular politics; but the conduct of the Pope and his Legates
in France was so infamous for suggestion and prosecution of treasonable
intrigues and perjuries, for sanction and instigation of the utmost outrages
of barbarian warfare on a defenceless people, and their brave, and ultimately
victorious,

* Villanueva, De la Leccion de la sagrada Escritura en Lenguas vulgares, cap.
I.

Monarch, that, if space allowed, a distinct narration might afford a perfect
example of those political wars which were frequently waged under the standard
of the Church, for the purpose of promoting designs of aggrandizement, and, if
successful, would have gone far to realize the idea of the Pontiffs, that the
world should acknowledge them as its liege lords. It can hardly be necessary
to state that the uniform accompaniment of a promise of eternal salvation to
the licentious army was not forgotten, and that the profaners of churches, and
violators of humanity, were blessed by the irritated Pope as worthy to be
occupants of Paradise.* The King of Arragon was called a heretic, and not
absolved until his last moments; but, although his kingdom was placed under
interdict, the Clergy disobeyed the Pope, and proceeded with their ceremonies
as usual. Other interdicts in Spain and Portugal were repeatedly enforced; and
whenever the High Priest of Rome was angry, the churches were shut up, the
bells hung silent, the altars were unvisited, the dead often lay unburied,
except by trembling relatives of the departed, all religious observances were
suspended, and prayer itself was declared unlawful. When people became
thoroughly terrified by the denial of what seemed necessary for present
comfort and eternal salvation, they usually withdrew obedience from their
rulers, and compelled them to make fatal submissions to the Roman tyrant. The
Inquisition was by this time nominally established in Spain; but, with the
exception already marked, made little progress. But persecution was
unrelenting; and when the Inquisition had overcome the open resistance of the
people, and nearly silenced every expression of dissent from the dominant
religion, the King, James II., commanded that all heretics, of whatever sect,
should quit his dominions; (A.D. 1292;) and ordered the Justices to render
full assistance to the Dominican Friars in character of Papal Inquisitors, to
imprison whomsoever they might desire, to execute all their sentences, to
remove every obstacle that hindered the free exercise of their office, and to
furnish them with lodgings, horses, and provisions when on their inquisitorial
journeys. Alonso II. had published a similar edict in 1194, and thus began the
practice of expulsion which is still carried out to the extreme injury of that
country.†

Some remaining zeal for the extension of Christianity deserves honourable
mention. St. Francis, who has not been mentioned sooner, because not guilty of
persecution, like Dominic, his contemporary, sent a party of six Missionaries
from Spain to Mo-

* Every word of this statement is borne out by an eye-witness. Bernardo
Desclot, Historia de sus Tiempos. Libro III. reimpreso en Madrid, 1793.

† Llorente, iii, 1. The writer of this chapter possesses documents in proof.
One is an officially-published decree of the Queen of Spain, the other an
order of the chief authority of one of the cities of Spain, countersigned by
his own hand, for the expulsion of Wesleyan Methodists, as such. These
documents were issued in the years 1839 and 1840, and therefore are sufficient
to support the assertion that the practice of expulsion is continued; although
the change which has latterly taken place in the policy of continental
legislatures, and in the general opinion of continental Europe, in respect to
religious liberty, as well as the constant advance of better political
principles in Spain itself, warrants the hope that Alonso II. of Arragon, and
Christina of Spain, will have been the first and the last Sovereigns so to
fight against God, and bring dishonour on the inhabitants of that peninsula.

CRUSADE IN LIVONIA.

rocco. Zeal for the Church was more conspicuous than meekness or love for
souls in their discharge of the mission. They mistook invective for fidelity,
and after having been allowed so to preach for some time, they were sent out
of the country; but returned, resumed the same mistaken method of denouncing
Mohammedanism, rather than preaching Christ; and five of the six were put to
death, one having died before the party sailed from Portugal. They have since
been canonized. Seven other Spaniards went to the little island of Ceuta,
entered the town early one morning, contrary to a prohibition which excluded
all Christians, walked through the streets with ashes on their heads, crying
that none could be saved without faith in Christ. They were soon seized, and,
having refused to renounce Christianity, were instantly beheaded.* An order,
or fraternity, for the redemption of captives from the Moors, and styled "the
Order of Mercy," was instituted with great solemnity, and greater
superstition, at Barcelona (A.D. 1224). The object was admirable, but does not
seem to have been attained. Christian slaves and renegades multiplied in
Africa; but the brethren of the order also multiplied in Spain, and by their
zeal accelerated the downfal of the Caliphs of Cordova.†

Great stir was frequently made in Italy about heresy, dissatisfaction with the
Papal government was general, and many persons were treated as heretics; but
it is not easy to discover traces of Christian martyrdom, although it is more
than probable that many of the Vaudois would have been distinguished as
witnesses of Gospel truth, had any record of their confession and suffering
been preserved. It is enough to know that the Inquisition was fully
established.

Conrad of Marpurg, a Dominican Monk, was first Inquisitor in Germany, where,
indulging in the barbarous habits of the people rather than conforming to the
milder professions of his Church, he examined persons accused of heresy by the
ordeal of red-hot iron. As they were not likely to understand the means
employed by Monks for enduring fiery trials without injury, they were, of
course, convicted, and perished accordingly, at least as to their bodies,
while Conrad was spared the trouble of distinguishing between tenets orthodox
and heterodox. The Emperor, Frederic II., who was then on good terms with the
Pope, having been invited to the imperial throne from which an excommunication
had hurled his predecessor, Otho, as an enemy of the Church, confirmed the
Inquisitors in plenary authority, (A.D. 1225,) by a famous decree, containing
the usual enactments, and inflicting death on heretics, and infamy on their
survivors and descendants.‡ Meanwhile the Pagans of Livonia, and those of
Prussia, who are charged with licentiousness resembling that of Paris,
especially in the habitual criminalities of prostitution and infanticide,
combined with the ferocity that is found among savages in general, were
invaded by Crusaders to whom heaven was promised after they should have washed
away their sins in pagan blood. The indefatigable Dr. Conrad discovered a
people on the banks of the Weser, who did not acknowledge the supremacy of
Rome, but lived

* Fleury, Ixxviii., 25, 44.

† Limborch, Hist. Inquisition, book I., chap. 12.

† Mariana, Hist. Esp., xli., 8.

in perfect ecclesiastical independence. According to the Monkish annalists,
they were exceedingly wicked. Their deepest guilt seems to have lain in a
refusal to pay tithes, and an excommunication marked them as fit objects of
hostility; attacked by their neighbours, they bravely defended themselves, and
generally had the advantage; it became necessary to proclaim a crusade against
them, and the Archbishop of Bremen, supported by the Duke of Brabant, and the
Count of Holland, led a little army of Cross-bearers into the accursed
province. The Stadings, for so they were called, gave battle with their
accustomed courage; but the invaders were too strong for them. The Count
charged vigorously, while the Clergy, at a convenient distance, chanted hymns,
the martial music of their Church; the heretics were soon transfixed by
consecrated swords; and, trampled under the horses' hoofs, six thousand fell
in one day; many were dispersed, preferring expatriation to bondage, although
liberty was no more to be found wherever they might go, and the remnant are
said to have submitted to the Prelate * (A.D. 1231). The history of Germany
and the empire during the former part of this century is full of the quarrel
between the same Frederic, who mounted the throne under the patronage of the
Pope, and the Popes themselves, Gregory and Innocent. His services were
forgotten as soon as he displayed a disposition to resist encroachments on his
imperial rights; and, like his predecessor, he was anathematized. His party,
the Ghibellines, or Imperialists, in perpetual hostility with the Guelphs, or
Papists, long divided Germany and Italy; and he might have triumphed, together
with the cause of civil liberty, but for the extreme ignorance of the people,
who heard him described by their Priests as a monster of iniquity. In a
Council at Lyons, holden under Innocent IV., (A.D. 1245,) he was finally
excommunicated by the Pontiff himself with the utmost solemnity; many of his
subjects refused allegiance, and he died oppressed with grief. On this
excommunication an author of high authority observes, that it is "the most
pompous act of usurpation in all the records of the Church of Rome; and the
tacit approbation of a General Council seemed to incorporate the pretended
right of deposing Kings, which might have passed as a mad vaunt of Gregory
VII. and his successors, with the established faith of Christendom."†
Bulgaria, Hungary, and Poland were ravaged by crusading Bishops. So were the
Netherlands. Indeed, all Europe was overrun with Crusaders and Inquisitors;
and if there be a province not mentioned as the seat of religious war or
inquisition, we may suppose the silence to indicate the poverty of history,
rather than any happy exemption from the universal scourge.

England in the thirteenth century affords no materials for our history.
Scarcely is a voice raised to witness for the truth; or, if there were such
witnesses, their names are shrouded under the darkness of that age. The
principal event, an unequal contest of King John with the Pope, related to
regal rights, not to the interests of Christian doctrine, belongs to another
class of history, and cannot be adequately related

* Fleury, lxxx., 24, 43; Moreri, s. v.

† Hallam, Europe during the Middle Ages, chap. iii., part 1.

INSOLENCE OF BONIFACE VIII.

here; but sources of information in our own language are easily accessible.
The independence of Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln, is admirable, yet not
singular. Scotland and Ireland are passing under the Papal yoke, and a few
Irish suffer for sorcery and witchcraft; but as yet there are no Christian
martyrs. The pride and cupidity of Rome have reached their highest point, and
the year 1300 is marked in the capital of the Popedom as the year of Jubilee.
The notion of a great festivity, solemnized at the expiration of each fifty or
hundred years might have been suggested by recollection of such an institution
in the law of Moses, or of the secular games (ludi seculares) of the ancient
Romans. The object was to bring pilgrims to Rome, whose offerings should
enrich the priesthood. The pretext was one of custom: there was no credible
testimony by which that pretext could be established; but the cupidity of Pope
and Clergy, the willingness of the Roman population to make gain of the
multitudes of devotees who might be expected to crowd into their city, the
passion of the populace everywhere for spectacle, and the willingness of a
numerous class to make a safe pilgrimage to Rome, instead of hazarding their
lives in a perilous "passage" to the Holy Land, combined to move the idle and
superstitious gentry of that age in a new direction, and tended, under the
good providence of God, to make the reigning vices of the Papacy yet more
generally conspicuous, and provoke the salutary re-action which followed, and
in no country more vigorously than in England. Fifty years afterwards, the
lucrative experiment was repeated with yet greater splendour and success:
subsequently, it was overdone by reducing the jubilee period, for the second
time, to twenty-five years, and devout pilgrimages to Rome may be now
pronounced as ended.

The Romish Church had risen to the utmost elevation over the temporal
sovereignties and lesser States within its boundary. There were no longer any
bodies of independent Clergy. Heresy, so called, was not extinguished; but it
was driven deeper beneath the surface of society, and one might pass through
the provinces recently subdued by the Crusaders, without perceiving any trace
of its existence; just as the stranger would tread on the green turf covering
the subterranean galleries of troglodytes, without supposing that a living and
watchful population swarmed beneath his feet. The Grecian Patriarch, on the
frontiers of the Popedom, barely retained the allegiance of a Clergy envious
of the power of their western brethren, and ever trembling in the presence of
Tartarian, Turkish, or Saracen invaders. Never did the Italian Antichrist
boast greater things, indulge in greater confidence, or exercise so reckless
provocation. An imperious Pontiff, and, if the charges of his enemies were not
altogether unfounded, one that exceeded most of his predecessors in profligacy
and impiety, carried those pretensions to the last extreme. This man, under
the title of Boniface VIII., seemed to delight in pouring contempt on Princes,
and especially on Philip the Fair, King of France, who had dared to resist his
encroachment on regal power, as well as on the wealth and liberties of the
kingdom. Surrounded by Priests who participated in the spoils of all churches
and states out of Italy,

4 B and who combined all their powers to resist the political claims of both
the Emperor and the French King on their side the Alps, he professed to hold a
Council at Rome, (A.D. 1302,) wherein every thought yielded subservience to
his principles, and every voice re-echoed his commands. In that assemblage he
produced a Bull (Unam Sanctam) expository of the doctrine which all the
ultramontanes, and almost all other members of the priesthood, entertained,
but did not always venture to put forth so undisguisedly. "We believe,"
recited the Council, speaking at his dictation, "We believe and confess one
holy Catholic and apostolic Church, out of which there can be no salvation. We
acknowledge her alone to be the Church, and as there is but one body, so is
there only one head; for, having two heads, she would be a monster. This only
head is Jesus Christ, with St. Peter his Vicar, and the successor of St.
Peter. Whether they be Greeks, or whoever else, that say they are not subject
to this successor, they must confess themselves to be part of the flock of
Christ, who hath said that there is only one flock, and one shepherd. We learn
that in this Church, and under her power, there are two swords, the spiritual
and the temporal; but the former must be wielded by the hand of the Pontiff;
the other by the Church, and by the hands of Kings and warriors following the
order or the permission of the Pontiff. Let one sword be subject to the other,
that is to say, the temporal power to the spiritual; for otherwise there could
be no subordination to the higher powers, according to the command of St.
Paul. Following the testimony of truth, the spiritual power should institute
and judge the temporal; and thus is fulfilled, in the Church, the prophecy of
Jeremiah: 'I have set thee over the nations, and over the kingdoms, to root
out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to
plant.' Therefore, if the temporal power do err, it must be judged by the
spiritual, or if a lesser spiritual power offends, it must be judged by the
greater; but it is God alone who judges the sovereign spiritual power, since
the Apostle says, 'He that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is
judged of no man.' Then 'whosoever resisteth the power, resisteth the
ordinance of God,' and sets up two principles, as did Manes, a doctrine which
we judge to be false and heretical. And we farther declare and define that it
is absolutely necessary to salvation that every human creature be subject to
the Pope." * The Pope did not, indeed, mention Philip, but he published a
claim of superiority over all Princes, a superiority that all should
acknowledge, by granting to his priesthood absolute emancipation from temporal
control, licence for perpetration of all crimes, without fear of punishment,
or even recognition of any tribunal on earth, except that of Boniface or his
representative. There should be a universal revolt of the most influential
part of every population, and the Magistrate was everywhere to be controlled
and even punished by the Priest. The French King grasped his sword, resolved
to try its temper with the sword of Boniface, and burnt copies of the Bull at
Paris in sight of the people, who were soon made to understand who handled the
more potent weapon.

* Extraragantes communes, lib. I., tit. De Majoritate et Obedientia.

BENEDICT XI. POISONED.

Nogaret, a French Lawyer, espoused the cause of his royal master and of his
country; and, as if commissioned of God to wrest power from the pretended
successor of Peter, the undaunted opponent of the foreign tyrant went to
Italy, made common cause with the family of the Colonne, then suffering
persecution in consequence of their adherence to the imperial party, or
Ghibellines, attacked the Pope at a time when, not apprehending any danger, he
had gone without guards to the town of Anagni, and there treated him with such
violence that he died soon afterwards. So did he perish by the very sword
which he had claimed the right to use for the death either of rebel or saint.
The terrible retribution did not finish there. His successor was promptly,
perhaps hastily, elected by the conclave, and took the name of Benedict XI. He
seems to have paid too little deference to the wishes of the Cardinals, and to
have provoked the jealousy of the secular Clergy by patronizing the Mendicant
Friars at their expense. The pontificate of Benedict was therefore very short.
One day as he was sitting at dinner at Perugia, where he sometimes resided, a
boy, disguised as a woman, was introduced into his apartment. He assumed the
character of conversa, or servant of a nunnery, and presented a silver basin
full of confectionary as a present from the Abbess, a devoted admirer of the
Pontiff. The fatal present was accepted without suspicion, the pretended nun
was not required to taste first; but Benedict soon felt the effects of poison,
and died a few days afterwards. With Boniface the French quarrel had not
passed away, nor had the rancorous antipathy of the Guelph and Ghibelline
factions abated in the least. These factions were represented and balanced in
the conclave; but the ultramontanes were outwitted by a Cardinal in the French
interest, who proposed a nomination of three persons, all of them known to be
zealous advocates of every Italian claim, one to be elected after forty days.
One of these was Archbishop of Bourdeaux, at that time in open opposition to
his Sovereign, and therefore most unlikely to make him any concession
unfavourable to the Papacy. But the wily Cardinal despatched couriers to
Paris, proposing to Philip that he should represent to the Archbishop that his
election to the Holy See depended on his royal favour, and negotiate with him
in order to a good understanding for the future. The King welcomed the
proposal, and desired the Archbishop to meet him at a monastery in the heart
of a forest, at night, and under cover of profoundest secrecy. Satisfied by
the tenor of the royal letters that he might trust himself to so mysterious an
interview, the Prelate proceeded thither at the appointed time; and, after
reviewing the secret correspondence, threw himself at his feet, blessed him
for the unexpected boon of the tiara, and professed his readiness to repay the
gift by entire acquiescence in the King's desires. Philip raised up the man
who was already his political convert, and so soon to be his spiritual Chief,
kissed him, and demanded six favours. First. Perfect reconciliation with the
Church, and pardon for whatever wrong he was presumed to have done to
Boniface. Second. Communion then to be given to the King and his suite in sign
of reconciliation. Third. All the tithes

4 ■ 2 of the kingdom during five years. Fourth. Annihilation of the memory of
Boniface by the annulling of his acts. Fifth. The promotion of two nominees of
the King to the dignity of Cardinal, in the first instance, and similar
promotions as they might be desired afterwards. Sixth.—Here the King reserved
the final condition to be declared at a proper time and place, leaving the
expectant Archbishop in utter ignorance of the ulterior demand. But with the
honours of the Popedom so near in prospect, he could not hesitate to place
himself and it at the disposal of the King, and therefore used the precious
moment for giving unqualified consent. Mass was instantly celebrated with
great solemnity; and, as representatives of the two great parties which then
divided Europe, they both at the altar professed reconciliation, swore
fidelity to each other, and then parted: the King also having sworn to make
him Pope; but taking with him his brother and two of his "nephews" as
hostages, the obligation of an oath alone being notoriously insufficient to
bind a Pope. Thus fell the Papal power and independence, after an almost
uninterrupted series of triumphs and encroachments, during six centuries at
least. Thus gave way that antichristian power which, in the name of Christ,
had fought against the truth more cruelly than Nero; for there had been a
quinquennium Neronis, a period of clemency and justice, even in the reign of
that tyrant; but no such period can be found in the reign of Papal tyranny.
Signal, indeed, was the retribution. On the ruins of a French dynasty the
Bishop of Rome had reared his fabric of European power and territorial
sovereignty; but here is a successor elect, of the third Boniface, at the feet
of a successor of Charles Martel. The predecessors of this abject postulant
for the triple crown had hurled interdicts and anathemas on France; but here,
in France, and at the demand of the anathematized Monarch, lie abjured the
enmity, the pride, the terrors of a long hostile Papacy. But observe the
sequel. The intriguing Cardinal receives a satisfactory reply from King
Philip, five days before the expiration of the stipulated time; Bertrand de
Got, or D'Agost, is declared Pope; a Te Deum is chanted with unusual
exultation by the Guelph Cardinals; Bertrand is visiting his diocese, seeming
to be disengaged from every other care, when intelligence of the election
reaches him; he returns to Bourdeaux, and commands the Cardinals to come from
Rome to France to crown him. Startled at so unexpected a summons, they suspect
that it is intended to transfer the chair of Peter beyond the Alps, yet cannot
now prevent it; the Frenchman being Pope, crowned or uncrowned, matters
nothing. The Kings of France and England, with other Princes, and a large
concourse of Ecclesiastics, assembled in the church of St. Just, in Lyons,
November 14th, 1305, and were met by the reluctant Cardinals, who placed the
triple emblem of temporal and spiritual power on his head. The Italians
misgave themselves; the French had triumphed; yet all saluted him as Clement
V.; and every circumstance of the pageant was watched with superstitious
anxiety. Perhaps it pleases God to overrule even trifling events in such times
of ignorance, and thereby to divert the thoughts of the multitude into some
new channel. So it was on that

"CAPTIVITY" OF THE POPES.

day. After the ceremony the Pope mounted a charger that had been kept in
waiting at the church-door. He wore the sacred crown, brought by a Chamberlain
from Rome for the occasion, and glittering with jewels. A compact crowd of
spectators filled every spot available, and covered every eminence. The
procession moved slowly onward, on the way to the Pope's lodgings: the King of
France first holding the bridle, then other Princes, walking on foot, took the
same place in succession, ostensibly signifying that they did homage; but
really, that they led the Pope. Passing near an old wall, covered with
spectators, the whole mass gave way, and, as it fell, the Pope's horse shied.
Not even Kings could save him. Unhorsed, his Holiness lay in the dust; the
crown forsook his head, and by the shock lost a rich carbuncle, valued at six
thousand florins. Portents, if such they were, did not end there; for when, on
the festival of St. Clement, the new Pope had given a dinner to his friends,
in an after-dinner quarrel among the servants several lives were lost; and the
Pope's brother, becoming involved in the confusion, was also killed. Thus
began what the Italians called "the captivity;" their visible head being
removed from Italy to France, and enthroned at Avignon.* Then France, "eldest
daughter of the Church," became prouder than ever of her so-called
Catholicity. A realm, hallowed by the presence of the Vicar of Christ, was not
to be desecrated by that of a people of whom, according to the flesh, Christ
came: as the Pope had paid so high a price for his dignity, their expulsion
might mitigate the bitterness of subsequent regret; and the royal purse, as it
was enriched by a donative of tithes, and should soon, as Philip too hastily
expected, receive the spoils of the Templars, might also have the earnings of
the Jews. In pursuance of a secret order, almost every Jew or Jewess, old or
young, was arrested on the same day. Scarcely one was known to have escaped.
All their property was confiscated, except sufficient to pay expenses to the
frontier or the sea-coast. A few avoided temporal ruin by submitting to
baptism; and many perished with fatigue, hunger, and grief (A.D. 1306).
Encouraged by the temporary revival of his influence in a kingdom which had so
long been alienated from Rome, and stimulated by the presence of a noble
Armenian at the court of Avignon, Clement seriously thought of renewing the
Crusades to Palestine. Haython, of Armenia, was related to the King of that
country, had sustained the dignity of Viceroy over a province, and risen into
celebrity as a soldier; but, imbued with the spirit of that age, and following
the example of some members of his family, had betaken himself to a monastery
of white Canons, or Præmonstratenses, on the island of Cyprus, that "as he had
fought for the world in his youth, he might spend the residue of his days in
the service of God, leaving the pomps of this life," or, to speak more
correctly, that he might take a safer way to fame. The royal Monk presented
himself at Poitiers, where the Pope, the King, and a select but numerous
company of Princes and Prelates were holding a conference on the political
affairs of England and

* Fleury, xc. 32-35, 41, 49-52.

France, and on the reports got up for the crimination of the Templars. He
exerted himself to awaken an interest in those personages for the conquest of
the "perfidious Saracens," and the recovery of the holy sepulchre. Amidst that
rudely brilliant circle he shone as an oracle on all oriental affairs;
answered questions suggested by his enumeration of barbaric realms, heard of
for the first time by most of those present; and his descriptions and
counsels, as those of an eye-witness and actor on the distant scene, gave him
an undisputed authority. He told of Cathay, or northern China, the greatest
kingdom that could be found, filled with people and with boundless wealth,
extending to the shores of an ocean as yet unseen by any traveller from the
west; and comprehending islands that no man could number. It was the emporium
of the most precious works of art and fruits of nature; and "although the men
were of the most perspicacious genius, and skilful in all corporeal works and
exercises, no notion of spiritual things could be found among them." He told
of Taras, whence came, said he, the Kings who visited the infant Saviour at
Bethlehem; and where traditions of Christ were mingled with the figments and
insensate ceremonies of idolatry. He told of the wandering herdsmen of
Turquistan, the robust husbandmen and fierce warriors of Chorasmia, devoid of
letters, yet obedient to the Patriarch of Antioch, and "making the body of
Christ after the manner of the Greeks." While his hearers shuddered at hearing
of the perpetual frosts and desolate snowy steppes of the Caucasian regions,
he refreshed them with pictures of Indian magnificence, in a land where the
blessed Apostle Thomas had preached the faith of Christ, now lost. To the
longing imagination of Philip he displayed the gems, and pearls, and gold, and
spices, and drugs abounding on the Indian main, and in the Archipelago; with
the rubies and sapphires of Ceylon. Persia, Media, Armenia, Georgia, the realm
of the Chaldees, Mesopotamia, Turkey, and Syria, with their customs and their
heresies, passed under his familiar review. He described the history and
polity of the Saracens in general; but dwelt with most assiduous particularity
on all that related to the Tartars, with whom he was most anxious that
Christendom should form alliance for the general conquest of the "perfidious
Saracens," from Cordova, even to Mecca. "Now," cried he, "is the acceptable
time, now is the day of salvation. Now, indeed, is the very time acceptable,
the time for imparting succour to the Holy Land, which hath so long lain
ravaged by perfidious dogs. Now is the acceptable time, when the hearts of the
faithful ought to be inflamed. Now to the passage of the Holy Land. Now let us
recover the holy sepulchre of the Lord, fountain and source of our hope, out
of the hands of his enemies." On this theme he descanted incessantly. The Pope
commanded Salconi, a Secretary, to write down the sum of those communications
from the lips of the accomplished stranger, together with his Counsels, as an
old soldier and statesman; and the French manuscript, revised and
authenticated in his presence, (A.D. 1307,) was immediately translated into
the low Latin of that age, and is now one of the most valuable fragments of
the medieval history of the eastern

CRUSADES GIVE WAY TO MISSIONS.

world.* The disclosures and eloquence of Haython led to no immediate result;
the crusading mania could not be revived; and the wanton pillage of Alexandria
a few years afterwards, and a disastrous expedition to Smyrna, (A.D. 1344,)
only brought greater dishonour on the Christian name. But whoever peruses the
reports of the Mission in Tartary, perhaps the most ancient systematic
Missionary undertaking of which the Church of Rome can boast, reports which
were presented to Clement V. at the same time and place, by a person then
returned from Cambalú, will be satisfied that, although the notion of
crusading could not be suddenly relinquished, the zealous Armenian, and the
bearer of intelligence from Montecorvino, founder of the Tartarian churches,
did more happily for Missions what Peter the hermit had done for Crusades. And
when, fourteen years afterwards, Sanuto the Venetian solicited an audience of
the Pope John XXII., at Avignon, and presented him with "two books for the
recovery and preservation of the Holy Land, one covered with red, and the
other with yellow;" and also put into his hands charts and maps of the
Mediterranean, Palestine, and Egypt, literature and geography began (A.D.
1321) to contribute towards the propagation of Christianity; and even warlike
propagandists were constrained to seek for rational and humane methods of
doing what Knights, carrying the Cross, as Haython said, on their shoulders
and in their hearts, had never been able to effect. Let us pause, then, and
admire the sovereignty of God, who, in the worst of times, gently deposits
elements of intelligence and peace amidst prevailing turbulence, hate, and
fraudulent political and papistical intrigue. The books and charts of Haython
and Sanuto were the earliest contributions to that immense Missionary library
which comprehends some of the mightiest achievements of human learning, and
still affords indispensable assistance to the evangelists of the world. But we
are lured away from the history of persecutions, this via dolorosa, over which
fidelity to truth in an age of mistaken liberality requires us to continue our
weary steps.

Thanks be to God, that as ages of Protestant martyrdom approach, the power
that has persecuted saints during every stage of its existence, visibly
declines. When Clement V. was crowned at Lyons, the "captivity" of the Popes
began, and like that of Babylon, to which the writers of Italy compare it,
lasted about seventy years. "The majority of the Cardinals was always French,
and the Popes were uniformly of the same nation. Timidly dependent upon the
court of France, they neglected the interests, and lost the affections, of
Italy. Rome, forsaken by her Sovereign, nearly forgot her allegiance; what
remained of Papal authority in the ecclesiastical territories was exercised by
Cardinal Legates, little to the honour or advantage of the Holy See." †
Neither was the policy of the new race of Popes and

* The title of this rare and precious little volume is, "Liber Historiarum
Partium Orientis, sive Passagium Terræ Sanctæ, Haythono, Ordinis
Præmonstratensis, Authore, Scriptus anno Redemptoris nostri, M.CCC. Haganom,
per Johan., Sec. Anno M.D.XXIX." The true date of the work is in the preface,
1307.

† Hallam, Middle Ages, chap. vii., part 2.

Cardinals so independent and masterly as that of their Italian predecessors.
The details of the suppression of the Red-Cross Knights, or Templars, by
whomsoever written, can scarcely be read without indignation. Wicked as many
of them no doubt were, they could hardly be worse than other bodies, although
some of their sins might be gross and flagrant, and therefore more severely
censured than the covert abominations of mendicants and hermits; and by
throwing away those auxiliaries, for the sake of their possessions, Clement
committed a mistake injurious to his successors, but beneficial to the world.
John XXII. quarrelled with the Emperor Louis of Bavaria, and by his
intemperance provoked Germany to a formal and legislative resistance which
irrecoverably impaired the influence of the Pontiffs. The same error aroused
England to effectual defence, of which our parliamentary statutes of the reign
of Edward III. afford evidence. Poets, satirists, and Divines in Italy,
resented the alienation of the supreme Pontiff from that classic land; but the
pressure of his presence being removed, bold spirits arose with almost
unrestrained freedom, to lash the venal courtiers of Avignon, and to disclose
the enormities of Popery, religious and secular, by desperately rending the
veil that covered both. The insatiate cupidity of the Avignon Popes also
goaded the inferior Clergy into hostility all over Europe, and thereby
weakened their loyalty, as we shall observe when speaking of Wycliffe, at the
very time when an earnest and combined defence of their Roman master might
have retarded, or even destroyed, the beginnings of reformation.* This
"captivity" led to the schism of the Papacy, which was distinctly seen to be
the beginning of its downfal.

Weary of the exactions and oppression of the Governors appointed over them by
the Popes of Avignon, the Italian states, at that time under their temporal
sovereignty, manifested a spirit of resistance. The Legates were driven out of
some of the cities, officers of the pontifical government were killed by the
populace, and the right of a foreigner to exercise regal power in Italy was
denied. Florence, the greatest commercial city of that peninsula, headed a
league against the Pope; a new banner, bearing the Latin word Libertas,
floated over the battlements of the confederate places; and LIBERTY became the
magic word wherewith the people clamorously answered to exorbitant demands of
obedience and revenue, and aroused themselves to cast off the yoke. Gregory
XI., then on the throne, tried the usual expedients of bulls and interdicts;
but the indignant population treated them with scorn. Still there was a strong
ecclesiastical party who contrived to sow strife in the municipalities, and
strengthen some nobles who, in the style of those times, were familiarly
called tyrants.† Foreign mercenary troops were also marched into the country
to subdue the insurgents. Florentine merchants resident abroad were

* Hallam, chap. vii., part 2, with his authorities, will enable the student to
investigate this highly interesting part of Papal history.

† The Italian tiranno, like the Greek τύραντος, was used in a mild
acceptation, and signified, in the free states, "a leading man." Undefined
power is always abused, and the word has again become odious in modern, as in
ancient, Italy.

CATHERINE OF SIENNA.

ruined; for Kings, especially the King of England, confiscated their property,
every anathematized person being regarded as an outlaw. Traders ceased to
carry their commodities to Florence, and to other places in the league,
because it was thought sinful to buy or sell with any from whom the Beast had
withdrawn the mark of his protection; and the Florentines found themselves
entangled in a most unequal contest. But it fell to a woman to placate the
fury of the contending parties, at least, for a time. Catherine, a native of
Sienna, a nun, a sister of penance of the observance of St. Dominic, was the
heroine of the day. She had not earned glory by any work of active charity,
but by a daring mysticism, the more welcome to the multitude as it overshot
the widest boundary of sense and reason. She acknowledged no other master than
Christ himself; and perpetually related conversations with which she pretended
to have been favoured by Him. During her ecstasies she addressed Him, and
answered and put questions to her Lord, invisible, of course, to every other
person. One day she exhibited a gold ring, enriched with a diamond and four
pearls, which she said He had given her in the presence of his mother, and a
train of saints, to signify a spiritual espousal. Her confessor doubted many
of her tales; but his incredulity was silenced when, awaiting a reply to some
expression of his mistrust, her severe countenance suddenly assumed new
features; and as he saw her face change into that of a middle-aged man,
furnished with a becoming beard, he confessed himself persuaded of the truth
of those wonderful communications. This confessor, humbly participating in the
reputation of his confitent, was deputed to go to Avignon first, and
endeavour, by submissive approaches, to moderate the anger of the Pope. Then
Catherine, invited from Sienna to Florence, and received with reverential
solemnity by the Priors * of the city, was implored to intercede with the Holy
Father. She undertook the mission, and appeared before Gregory to supplicate
for clemency, or, if necessary, to use her authority as being a subject of
supernatural revelation. The Florentines had promised to send a deputation who
should receive her commands, which, however, they failed to do; but the Pope
empowered her to negotiate for him, a message from the Romans invited him to
return to the city of Peter, as they chose to call it, and Catherine employed
her masculine eloquence on the same behalf. Influenced by various political
reasons, the Pope removed to Rome, attended by the Cardinals, who foresaw and
predicted evil in the change. From Pisa, where the party landed, to Rome,
Gregory and his train proceeded amidst a succession of pageantries, but
slowly, and under the incessant anxiety of negotiations with the states. The
"eternal city" welcomed him with every expression of joy; and succeeding
festivals were marked with the highest pontifical solemnity. The Veronica,
that is to say, the kerchief of the holy face, was spread out on the altar of
St. Peter; the Romans were glad, and might have fancied that the veritable
features of the Saviour smiled upon them; but, in

* The democratic Magistrates of Florence were then called Priors, perhaps in
imitation of the monastic style: afterwards the secular title Signori,
"Lorde," was given them in preference.

4 C reality, those days were fatal to the Popedom. It now became a question
whether the Pope and his court should be French or Italian. By a noiseless and
secret contrivance, Philip the Fair had managed to retain the Pope in his
neighbourhood merely, for Avignon was not then subject to the French crown;
but now the return of that most important body, the court of Cardinals, was
made with so much parade, and surrounded by so many circumstances of political
importance, that it was impossible to deliver the Papacy out of the dilemma.
While the Italian laity had been aggrieved by the misconduct of Papal
governors, both Clergy and laity had seen with indignation the honours and
influence of the Pontificate monopolized by foreigners, and only awaited the
demise of Gregory for attempting to recover the alienated right. That event
soon took place (A.D. 1378). The majority of the Cardinals, however, on whom
devolved the election of a successor, had no sympathy with the Italians. Of
eighteen Cardinals then in Rome, only four were natives of the country; one
was a Spaniard, thirteen were Frenchmen. No sooner were they shut up in
conclave, than the Romans, reasonably apprehending that a Frenchman would be
chosen, and fearing that the Holy See would be returned to Avignon, assembled
tumultuously, took arms, surrounded the conclave by thousands, and shouted,
Romano lo volemo lo Papa, "We will have a Roman for Pope." Intimidated by the
demonstration, they conferred the fatal honour on the Archbishop of Bari, a
native of Naples, thus transformed into Urban VI. Between him and his
involuntary electors there was never a good understanding. After a few months
the dissatisfied majority, with some others, withdrew to Anagni, under
pretence of avoiding the heat of Rome in summer, there formed themselves into
conclave again, declared that the election of Urban had not been free, wrote
him a contemptuous letter, addressed to him not as Pope, but as Bartolomeo di
Pregnano, and elected a Genoese, who assumed the title of Clement VII. These
two were thus constituted Antipopes, a circumstance by no means novel, but in
the present instance extremely important, because then began "the great schism
of the West," the division of the house, which continued during more than half
a century, and preceded a gradual, but irrecoverable, fall. The Popedom could
not endure the confusion, expense, and bloodshed arising out of the wars
between the Antipopes and their partisans; and a numerously attended Council
at Pisa (A.D. 1409) endeavoured to terminate the schism. After solemn and
protracted deliberation, sentence was published that the holy universal
Council, representing all the Church, to which it belonged to take cognizance
and pronounce decision in that cause; after having examined all that had been
done touching the union of the Church, and the schism between Pedro de Luna,
called Benedict XIII., and Angelo Corrario, called Gregory XII., declared that
they were both notoriously schismatic, abettors of schism, heretics, guilty of
perjury, and of having violated their oaths; that they had scandalized the
whole Church by their obstinacy; that they had fallen from all dignity, and
were, ipso facto, separated from the Church. The Council forbade all the
faithful to own them, or to favour them, under pain of excommunica-

SCRISM OF THE PAPACY.

tion; and annulled all their acts. But it was easier to pronounce the sentence
than to enforce it. All the adherents of the two Antipopes would not submit to
the authority of the Council. Alexander V., although duly elected by the
Cardinals during the Council, did not receive universal obedience; and John
XXIII., his successor, was prevailed on to convoke another assembly of the
same kind, to meet at Constance, and institute further proceedings against his
contumacious rivals. But no sooner was the Council assembled than he was
surprised by solicitations to abdicate, for the sake, it was said, of the
peace and union of the Church, the one great object which engaged the
solicitude of all parties, who thought that if he would lead the way by such
an example of self-denial, the other Antipopes might reasonably be urged to
follow, or compelled to quit the field by the defection of the nations in
their "obediences." With extreme reluctance, John gave a solemn promise of
resignation in a meeting of the Council; but, after evading the fulfilment,
secretly withdrew from the city in the disguise of a servant, wandered from
place to place, was solemnly deposed, and afterwards imprisoned. The
deposition of a Pope was a measure bold beyond the times, and excited a
strong, but transient, feeling of indignation, even in many who had been
clamorous for abdication by his own act. Gregory XII., reduced again to Angelo
di Corrario, gladly accepted the inferior dignity and emolument of a Cardinal:
but Benedict XIII., desperately tenacious of the forlorn Pontificate, first
promised to lay down his tiara, then delayed; and, when pressed to compliance,
held fast on punctilious objections. The Emperor himself went to Spain to
enforce, by his presence, the persuasions of the King of Arragon, who then lay
in his last sickness, and was even carried in a litter into the presence of
the stubborn Priest, that he might entreat him to restore peace and concord to
Christendom, by following the example of Gregory, and submitting to the fate
of John. But all entreaty was in vain. The Emperor journeyed back again in
anger; the King was enraged beyond description; Spain withdrew obedience from
the impracticable Spaniard; the King Don Juan II. satisfied his "pure
conscience" by a decision of Doctors, that obedience was no longer due; and
having declared that Pedro de Luna was not a Pope, which Pedro retorted with a
declaration that Juan was not a Christian, he calmly bore the harmless
anathema, and left the deserted pretender to the Pontificate to end his days
in voluntary banishment at Peñíscola, confident to the last that he was a true
Pope. When on his death-bed, he made two Cardinals, his companions in exile,
swear that they would elect a successor, and, faithful to their oath, they
shut themselves up, as in conclave; and neither being able to elect the other
by plurality of votes, they unanimously chose one Gil Muñoz, a Canon of
Barcelona, to that dignity. Muñoz accepted their acclamation, created some new
Cardinals, and played the Pope for a year or two, until he thought it prudent
to lay aside the ridiculous pretension, condescended to absolve Martin V.,
whom the Council of Constance had elevated to the Roman See, after the
deposition of John XXIII.; and then, abdicating the throne of Peñíscola,
humbly kissed the slipper of the Holy Father whom he had

4 c 2 formerly discomforted with anathemas. Thus ended the last and longest
schism of the Papacy; (A.D. 1429;)* but neither did the effects of the schism
terminate in the elevation of Martin V., nor was the division itself confined
to the persons and jurisdiction of the Antipopes. The introduction of a new
ecclesiastical principle, and the memorable quarrel with the Mendicant Friars,
also contributed to the establishment of those antagonistic influences which
opened a way for the Protestant Reformation.

When the Council of Constance would have deposed John XXIII., they issued an
apologetic address to Christendom, justificatory of so extraordinary a
proceeding; and before consummating the act of deposition, they endeavoured to
prove that a Council, duly convened, was superior to a Pope, thus resuming the
discussion which had begun in the Council of Pisa, which Council, by the
deposition of two Antipopes, had assumed that superiority, although, the
legitimacy of both being disputed, the precedent of deposition became of
little value. John XXIII., however, was acknowledged as a true Pope by the
majority of Christendom; and those who would consider a Council competent to
proceed against mere pretenders to the pontifical dignity, might yet demur to
its deposition of a person canonically elected. The controversy was fully
opened by Gerson, Chancellor of the Church and University of Paris, one of the
most eminent theologians and canonists of his day, at the desire of the
majority of the Council and of the Princes, but contrary to the wish of the
Cardinals, who absented themselves during his delivery of a discourse
pronounced expressly to establish the claim of the Council to exercise
jurisdiction over the Pope. After maintaining some propositions relative to
the headship of the Church, the orator proceeded to prove that, although the
union between Christ and the Church cannot be dissolved, the union of the
Vicar of Christ with his spouse, the Church, is not indissoluble; and that the
Church, or a General Council representing the body of the faithful, is
appointed by Christ to judge all persons, not excepting the Pope himself, who
must hear and obey, under pain of being treated as a Heathen and a publican.
The visible head, according to the doctrine of Gerson, could not repeal nor
alter laws enacted in a General Council convened by a legal authority; and
although the Church could not take away the fulness of the Papal power
supernaturally conferred by Jesus Christ, she could restrain the use of it;
and this maxim he strenuously recommended to the assembled fathers, as the
solid foundation of all ecclesiastical reform. He specified cases in which it
would be lawful for a Council to assemble without the summons, and even in
spite of the prohibition, of a Pope, who would be bound to execute the
decisions of such an assembly, under penalty of deposition. The University of
Paris supported their Chancellor by sending a written judgment to Constance,
drawn up in language of the utmost independence. They deemed the Church to be
more necessary than the Pope, because there could not be salvation out of

* L'Enfant, History of the Councils of Pisa and of Constance; Fabre, Discours
Préliminaire, servant d'Introduction à l'Histoire Ecclésiastique du 18me
Siècle. Cronica del Señor Rey Don Juan II., &c. Valencia, 1779. Años
1414-1416.

ULTRAMONTANISM.

the Church; but without the Pope salvation might be certainly obtained. The
Pope, they affirmed, was for the Church, not the Church for the Pope. She has
the greater dignity, as being the spouse, not the Vicar, of Jesus Christ;
greater power, because the gates of hell cannot prevail against her, whereas
Popes have been often subdued by vice and heresy; greater wisdom, because she
is endued with manifold gifts which were never found in any single Pontiff.
The Church, they said, is the fountain of power, and depository of the keys of
the kingdom of heaven, which she delivers to her temporal chief, and may take
out of his hands again, when she sees them to be misemployed, as a sword
should be wrested from the grasp of a madman; and the whole argument is wound
up with the inevitable conclusion that, in many cases, a Council is above the
Pope. Nothing could be more contrary to Papal pretensions, and Papal practice
too; for it had become common for Popes to bring decrees into Councils, ready
prepared, and only read for the purpose of being adopted by obsequious assent;
and the custom was at length taken to be law. The Patriarch of Antioch,
supported by a minority, prepared and defended the thesis that the Pope is
superior to the Council, and that decrees are to be formed in the name of the
Pope, and not in the name of the Council. Pierre d'Ailly, Cardinal Bishop of
Cambray, maintained the opposite; and the subject was brought into the light
of a vigorous controversy. Nor did the controversy terminate at Constance.
D'Ailly composed an elaborate treatise, in which he endeavoured to define the
relative rights of the Church and of the Pope, avoiding, as he said, the
extreme opinions of the Vaudois, Wycliffe, and Huss, who would divest him of
all temporal power; and those of "the Herodians," equally extreme, who
imagined that the Messiah was to be a temporal Monarch, having a Vicar
invested with authority over temporal estates. This work, written a few years
before the invention of printing, was soon committed to the press, and
contributed to give permanence to what Mr. Hallam not inappropriately calls
the Whig politics,—political phraseology, however unsuitable to these pages,
is more descriptive of that earthly system than religious,—the Whig politics
of the Catholic Church. Then the advocates of principles which had been
received all over Europe with mute acquiescence, began to be distinguished as
Ultramontanes, because they were chiefly found beyond the Alps, the only
region where the assumed divinity of the Pope could be taught without
encountering general contradiction. Rome and Avignon were no longer the seats
of antagonist jurisdictions; but Italy and the rest of Europe were the fields
whereon adverse principles prevailed, not less fatal to the unity and
consequent power of the system than had been the alternate maledictions and
battles of the Antipopes.* The two parties have subsisted to the present day;
but the notion of a necessity of Papal presence and consent is borne away on
the tide of events; the Pope is less and less prominent in ecclesiastical
proceedings; and a careful observer may now see the fruit of the doctrine of
Pisa and Constance

* I. Enfant, Council of Constance, book II., sect. 3—5, 45, 46; iv. 195.

in the independent action of the episcopate in different nations, and the
obvious disintegration of the Church itself.*

Both before and during the removal of the Popes to Avignon, and the schism of
the Pontificate, another cause of decay existed in the bosom of the Church,
and in that section of the Clergy which had been most subservient to the
ambition of their chief. The independent origin of the dioceses of Christendom
provided the secular Clergy with reasons for withstanding the encroachments of
the Bishop of Rome; and in each nation, both civil and ecclesiastical
authorities, even when submitting to such encroachments, could look back to
times when their fathers had not bowed under the yoke of an alien. Not so the
monastic orders. They had been created by Papal Bulls, and might be dissolved
by the same authority. In return for their existence, and with constant
prevision of danger from the jealousy of the secular Clergy, or rival
institutions of the same kind, they professed loyalty to the supreme Pontiff,
and became increasingly valuable as instruments of his power. Of all others,
the Mendicant Friars were most intimately united to him, and seemed least
likely to manifest disaffection. They were professedly poor, the pauperes
Christi, who lived on the alms of the people, having nothing of their own.
Professing to imitate Christ, who was undoubtedly poor, and received the
offerings of those who loved him, they violated his precept by leading a life
of abject beggary,† and yet evaded the rules of their

* At this time (1849) some eminent Preachers and writers of the Church of Rome
(P. Ventura, for example, the most eloquent Preacher in Italy) are declaring
that the Pope should resign his temporal sovereignty; and a Synod of Bishops
of the United States of America have solemnly pronounced a similar judgment.
Yet to maintain this sovereignty for him, Rome has been besieged, at his
request, and occupied, after much bloodshed, by the French.

† The writer of these pages believes that our Lord, implicitly, at least,
prohibited mendicity under pretext of religion, in the instructions which he
gave to the twelve when he sent them forth to preach; and takes leave to
translate for the English reader part of a note on Matt. x. 9, 10, written for
a country where swarms of begging Friars were to be seen everywhere.—“Provide
neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, nor scrip for your
journey; neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves; for the workman is
worthy of his meat.” Μὴ κτήσησθε, “provide not” for this journey. The verb
κτάομαι signifies to “acquire,” or “provide,” either by purchase or in any
other way. (Compare Gen. iv. 1; xii. 5, et passim, in the Septuagint.) So
Hesychius explains it, and an ancient Latin glossary has κτάομαι, acquiro;
κτησόμενος, adeptus. The Vulgate translates incorrectly, by nolite possidere,
“possess not,” a version suited to the cloisters, where they teach that the
religious should consign their gold and silver to the common stock of the
fraternity, maintaining the individual members in an affluent beggary.

Hrass, χαλκάν, money of the lowest value.

Purses, ζώνας, “girdles.” They carried money in the girdle, in order to keep
it with the greater security; and, according to Livy, (xxxiii. 29,)
“negotiandi ferme saussâ argentum in zoois habentes;” “carrying money in their
girdles in order to lay it out in trade.” But Jesus Christ would not have his
servants to appear like merchants, and manifest desire after temporal riches;
but devote themselves entirely to calling sinners to repentance. They should
not take στήραν εἰς ὁδόν, “a scrip for the journey.” While they carried not
money, and lived above temporal interests, they were to trust in the care of
Divine Providence: yet, poor as they were, the Apostles were to be free from
everything like meanness; and if they were not merchants, carrying money in
their girdles, neither were they permitted to conduct themselves like persons
that with scrip or wallet go begging food.

“Ne mendica ferat barbati prandia nudi

Dormiat et tetrico cum cane, pera rogat.”—(Mart. Epig., xiv., 91.)

SCHISM OF THE MENDICANTS.

founders, Dominic and Francis, especially the latter, by an ostentation of
rapidly acquired wealth. Splendid monasteries, wide domains, granaries and
cellars abundantly stored with the offerings of superstitious multitudes,
betrayed an utter departure from the first idea of poverty which had
characterized the birth of their institutions; and to sanction, if not to
hide, the fraud, the Popes had declared that Monks were but the usufructuaries
of that property, and the Pope for the time being, the proprietor. Under this
fiction the mendicants wallowed in luxury, and scandalized both Priests and
people by their pride and ostentation. The field, therefore, lay open to a
monastic reformer; and one made his appearance in the latter part of the
thirteenth century. The Minorites, or begging Franciscan Friars, held a
general chapter at Strasburg in the year 1282, attended by thirty-three
provincials, and seven hundred brethren. In that chapter Friar Pierre Jean
d'Olive was accused of having spoken too freely against the lax observance of
his order, and of having composed and circulated writings replete with error,
and even tinged with heresy. In his vehement censures none were spared, not
even the superiors, whom he would have to be corrected or expelled; and with
equal severity he declaimed against the indolence, sensuality, and pride of
the Prelates of the Church. D'Olive was not present in the chapter; but having
acquired considerable influence by the austere purity of his manners, with
learning and eloquence, cultivated during a long course of study in his cell
as a Franciscan, from the twelfth year of his age, the General, Bonne-Grace,
was directed to go into the province of France, and examine the brother and
his writings. The accused Friar hastened to Avignon, where he met the General,
and pleaded his own cause with some apparent success. But the cry of reproach
raised by the severe ascetic could not be suppressed. His invectives were
echoed throughout all the provinces of the order; and every one who desired to
attain either the experience or the credit of what was strangely called
evangelical perfection, joined in the outcry against the less rigid members of
the Franciscan communities. When D'Olive was on his death-bed, he professed
entire attachment

"The wallet begs that it may not carry the dinner of a naked and unshaven
beggar, nor lie with a grim dog." The satirist alludes to the Cynic
philosophers, who, affecting poverty, used to go about among the poor, begging
alms. In another place he seems to picture to the life a Capuchin or
Franciscan Friar,

"Cui dat latratos obvis turba cibos

Esse putas Cynicum, deceptus imagine falsè."—Lib. iv., Ep. 53.

"To whom people give victuals in the street, when he begs them like a dog. You
think him a Cynic, but are deceived by a false appearance." Our Lord, then, in
his infinite wisdom, took from his messengers the occasion of mendicity, by
forbidding them to carry a scrip, or wallet, which might be taken for a sign
of beggary.

The labourer is worthy of his meat.—Among Jews, Arabs, and other Orientals, it
was customary to render hospitality to strangers, as in fulfilment of a
religious duty. The Apostles were worthy of the utmost hospitality, in return
for the benefit they conferred on those who gave them welcome; "for the
labourer is worthy of his meat." And well said St. Paul, that "if any one will
not work, let him not eat." The Ministers of God, when they perform their
sacred duties faithfully and diligently, are worthy of their meat, because
they labour for the welfare of their fellow-men, both in this world and that
which is to come. But to them, as to others, must be applied the apostolic
rule: "If any one will not work, let him not eat."—Los Cuatro Kranjellos
traducidos del Oriego al Español, é ilustrados con notas, per Don O. H. Rale.

to the Church of Rome, but solemnly delivered a declaration of the convictions
he had avowed through life. It was essential, he said, to the evangelical life
of the Franciscan, that he should renounce all temporal right, and content
himself with the simple use of things. It was a mortal sin to persist in
justifying laxity and transgressions of the order of St. Francis, and to
coerce and persecute those who endeavoured to conform to its original
simplicity. As scandals were more sinful in proportion to their greater
publicity, so were the builders of huge and magnificent monasteries eminently
criminal. And the contrivances of the Friars to obtain money from the living
and the dying, together with some other unbecoming customs, deserved
unmeasured condemnation. The sayings of the ascetic were remembered after his
decease; his writings circulated, and were compared with those of St. Francis
himself, who was thought to have been divinely inspired. These authorities not
only contradicted the practice of the majority, but a decretal of Pope
Nicholas III., inserted in the body of canon law, and therefore acknowledged
as binding by the Church. Fortified by the example, as they fancied, of the
Saviour, and by the law of St. Francis, thought to be hardly second in
authority, as well as by that of the Church, they hotly contended against the
notion that Friars could call food or raiment their own; and denounced, as
mortally sinful, the practice of storing provisions in granaries or cellars,
with a thousand other things inveterately accustomed; and they carried their
dissent so far, as to secede from their monasteries, elect new superiors, and
a new General, establish themselves with him chiefly in Sicily, and organize
an entire system of provincial government. This aroused John XXII., who
annulled the Bull of Nicholas, poured contempt on their sorry habits and scant
cowls, cursed them as heretics, and exhorted the King of Sicily to banish them
from that island. They saved themselves by flight at first, but were
persecuted wherever found. Yet many stood undaunted, and denied that the Pope
had power to set aside the law of the Church. His power, however, was
vindicated by the Inquisitors, and four brethren were soon burnt at Marseilles
(A.D. 1318) to overawe the contumacious. Persecution on the one side, and
resistance on the other, rose higher and higher. The General of the original
order became involved in the political quarrel with the Pope and the Emperor,
joined the latter, acknowledged an Antipope, went into Germany, patronised the
discontented, and, together with the Emperor and Antipope, gave them the full
benefit of his patronage. The Fratricelli, or Beghards and Beguines, as they
were variously called, multiplied there with extraordinary rapidity, and
decried the dogma of Papal infallibility so effectually, that the world ceased
to reverence the pretenders to that attribute, and was prepared to receive
higher lessons from Wycliffe, Huss, Jerome, Savonarola, Luther, and the whole
host of Protestant Reformers. But meanwhile, John XXII. employed the Prelates
and Inquisitors throughout his "obedience," to extirpate the heresy; and was
zealously obeyed in Italy, Sicily, and the south of France. In Germany, also,
(A.D. 1347,) the Emperor Charles IV. and the Pope Clement VI. being friends,
the schismatic

DECLINE OF CLERICAL POWER.

Minorites were delivered over to persecution, and many suffered death. Those
severities confirmed the survivors in their ideas respecting the
meritoriousness of absolute poverty, and in their abhorrence of Roman pomp:
each sufferer was regarded as a martyr, and some of them produced a powerful
impression by the display of indomitable constancy. So at Avignon, a Priest
named Jean de Chastillon made this public declaration, just before his
execution: "I say that Pope John was a heretic, and enemy of the holy Church,
by the errors contained in his four constitutions, Ad conditorem, Cum inter
nonnullos, Quia quorumdam, and Quia vir reprobus,* which are evidently
contrary to the holy Scriptures, and the life of the Apostles. And I maintain
that the Popes his successors, Benedict XII., Clement VI., and Innocent VI.,
who have encouraged and maintained the same heretics, were heretical and
excommunicate, and ought to have been deprived of all dignity. I say the same
of all those Prelates and others who are appointed to maintain the Catholic
faith." England partook largely in the spirit of this monastic schism; the
secular Clergy strenuously resisted encroachments on their rights committed by
the original mendicants; and Richard, Archbishop of Armagh, having signalized
himself in the affair, was deputed to solicit redress at the Papal court, and
accordingly presented himself to Innocent VI. as the advocate of his
discontented brethren. But neither the fanaticism of the strait-coated
Franciscan beggars, nor the reasonable dissatisfaction of the priesthood,
could induce the Popes to withhold protection from their militia, the rich
mendicants, who retained their honours and possessions, while the
malecontents, who chose so to do, were suffered to establish themselves under
a more strict observance; but a numerous party, still known as Beghards or
Fratricelli, who would not submit to any reconciliation, were treated as
heretics, haunted out of every refuge, and melted away under the rigour of
persecution.†

From the thirteenth century onward, the laity grew increasingly opposed to the
demands of the Clergy. The general history of Europe abounds in evidence of
this important fact. Everywhere efforts were made to restrain the accumulation
of wealth by the Church, whether in the form of revenue or donation. Many
decrees and statutes against mortmain are cited by jurists from the records of
those ages; and the struggles between civil and ecclesiastical corporations,
between Popes and Princes, constitute a great part of European history after
the cessation of Crusades. The moral influence of the Clergy could not but be
weakened during such conflicts; and when people saw that their dissoluteness
was equal to their rapacity, they could not but listen with favour to every
teacher who brought doctrines adverse to the Church. All this was but worldly,
yet it opened the way for something better; and we may now bestow a few
moments in marking the introduction of evangelical truth. While

* Such documents were distinguished by the first words in them, like the
Magnificat, Ilocum, &c.

† Fleury, lxxxvii., 64; lxxxix., 54; xci., 42, 43, 62-64; xciii., 53; xciv.,
24; xcvi., 25; Mosheim, cent. xiv., part ii., sect. 17-24; Foxe, Acts and
Monuments, book v.

4 D the public mind was aroused, and often exasperated, Clergy against laity,
and laity against Clergy, conscience was troubled by some alarming natural
visitations, and by the horrors of a general pestilence; and such a turn was
given to the thoughts of men as could scarcely have resulted from the
discussion of questions more political than religious. First of all, a great
comet (A.D. 1337) seemed to portend calamities which actually followed. Then
swarms of locusts, in some parts of Europe, devoured the fruits of the land,
and induced scarcity, if not famine. Amidst the sufferings of dearth, a
tremendous earthquake overwhelmed with terror the populations of Cyprus,
Greece, Italy, and the Alpine valleys as far as Basle. Mountains sank,
villages were swallowed up, or buried the inhabitants under their ruins. The
air was turbid, unusual meteors were regarded as messengers of Divine wrath,
while both man and beast languished for want of sufficient or healthful food.
In China or Tartary a plague broke out, sweeping away myriads, passed
westward, leaving towns depopulated in its track through Asia, visited Egypt,
and, being conveyed, as it was thought, by merchant-ships, re-appeared in some
of the ports of Europe, but first in Italy. Florence, a chief mart of the
west, suffered under the scourge during five months, until, it was said,
three-fifths of the inhabitants had perished. None of the great cities were
spared within the broad area of devastation. The dead were often laid in the
streets to be carried away by any who had strength or spirit left for
performing the perilous duty of interment, or corpses putrified in the
deserted houses. The living, hardened by familiarity with death, or stupified
with terror, abandoned the sufferers to the rapid progress of disease,
forgetting the endearments of nearest kindred. Priests fled; Monks, having
little hope of life, sought meritorious death, and plunged into the pest,
vainly offering an absolution that could not be given, and as vainly seeking
for themselves a reward that could not be found. Others attributed the
calamity to Turks and Jews, who were supposed to have poisoned the waters; and
multitudes of Jews were massacred, despite the exhortations and threats of the
Pope, who declared that the murderers should be excommunicated; and innocent
blood called for vengeance, when penitential prayer might have prevailed to
turn aside the destroying angel. Panic-stricken populations saw the tide of
death approaching, knew of no human means to avert or mitigate the visitation,
but either awaited it in stupid silence, or wasted their strength in litanies
and penance. Beasts as well as men perished. The labours of agriculture and
trade were suspended. In England, the Parliament was prorogued, because
members, even if alive, durst not venture into any place of meeting. For the
same reason warfare ceased: God imposed an awful truce on dying armies. No
complete history of that pestilence could possibly be written, nor any
computation of the victims be depended on. The vulgar calculation was, that
nine-tenths of the human race had perished: a cooler estimate sets down the
mortality as one-half of the infected populations, which is probably too low.
One hundred thousand are said to have been buried in London, an immense
proportion of inhabitants in the year

FLAGELLANTS.

1348. Although despair and apathy had assumed most revolting forms during the
plague itself, a deep religious feeling appeared afterwards in many places,
but was unhappily perverted by fraud and fanaticism. "The devout," a sect of
voluntary penitents who had gained notoriety in Italy in the preceding
century, now taking the new and more descriptive name of Flagellants, abounded
in Italy, Germany, and Hungary. They professed to believe that a flagellation,
performed publicly during thirty-four days, would turn away the wrath of God.
Their custom was to walk in procession through the streets of the town where
they intended to undergo the penance; and the exhibition at Spire may be taken
as an example of their manner of proceeding. About the middle of June, (A.D.
1349,) some two hundred of them visited that city, conducted by one chief and
two companions, to whom they paid entire obedience. They entered Spire in the
morning, and, amidst a large concourse of spectators, proceeded towards the
cathedral, formed a circle before the building, made their feet bare, and
stripped themselves naked to the waist. Then they entered the circle, solemnly
walked round, and, after having made the circuit, knelt down, with arms
across, each holding a knotted leather thong, laden with pieces of iron. The
hindermost then rose, passed along the circle, gently striking each fellow-
penitent with his thong in passing, and knelt in front, each rising in turn
and doing the same, until the mutual flagellation was completed; the whole
company chanting prayers in German during that part of the ceremony. Three of
them, having strong voices, then stood up, chanting aloud, and lashing their
bare sides with those heavy thongs, adapting the strokes to the measure and
cadence of the hymn. The others accompanied with voice and action. After this,
at a given signal, they all knelt down, bleeding and praying, the three
leaders pronouncing a bidding, which was to implore the pity of God on the
people, and to intercede for their friends, their foes, all sinners, and the
souls in purgatory. The task being accomplished, they dressed themselves, and
those who had kept their clothes and baggage took possession of the ground and
underwent scourging after the same fashion. The savage penance was followed by
the reading, in a loud voice, of a letter, which was said to have been
delivered by an angel in the church of St. Peter at Jerusalem. It set forth
that Jesus Christ was angry with the world for its crimes, especially for the
desecration of the Lord's day, breaking of the Friday fast, blasphemics,
usuries, and adulteries; that the Virgin Mary and the angels had asked the
Saviour to show mercy, and he had answered that every one should set himself
apart to be flogged for thirty-four days. More than a hundred persons obeyed
the letter at Spire, about a thousand at Strasburg, and the elements of a new
sect were rapidly collecting; but the Pope suppressed the Flagellants by a
Bull before six months were over.* Yet while a religious feeling possessed the
minds of many, inquirers found none who could tell them what they should do to
be saved, except here and there a solitary remnant of the

* FIFTH. ACT., 44, 49; Menzel, History of Germany, Second Period, CLXXVIII.;
Moreri, Flagellantes.

4 D 2

BOOK V. CHATTER V.

old heretics, for most of them had been martyred, or forced to apostatize, by
the Crusaders and Inquisitors of the preceding century; and whoever should
confess any portion of Gospel truth not admitted by the Clergy, was instantly
marked and put to silence. Fears remained to be subdued, questions to be
answered; and as nothing was at hand on which the soul could repose with
confidence, a strong desire to look into futurity laid hold on the more
intelligent, and brought out a testimony to the prevalent persuasion that some
great crisis was approaching. Joachim, Abbot of Flora, in the kingdom of
Naples, who had flourished during the latter half of the twelfth, and a few
years of the thirteenth, century, was believed to have possessed "an infused
knowledge" of divine mysteries, and thereby, through a lower kind of
inspiration, to have perceived the true interpretation of prophecy. This gift
was long thought to be attainable by devout meditation; and Papists, who
despise our claim to the right of private judgment, and treat scornfully our
confidence in divine assistance while prayerfully endeavouring to exercise
that judgment, may be referred to the history of a multitude of persons in
their own communion who pretended, or aspired, to an immeasurably higher
participation in spiritual wisdom than any of us ever presume to seek. During
the earlier part of the excitement above described, general attention was
drawn to the prophecies, or prophetical interpretations, of the Cistercian,
which were studied with unspeakable avidity, and so famous did he become, that
the Monks of his order endeavoured (A.D. 1346) to have him canonized. His
prophecies displeased the Clergy, because they foretold the revolution or
destruction of their Church. But the expectation of such an event sank deep
into the mind of all who ventured to approach the subject. Nicholas Oresme, an
eminent Frenchman, in an elaborate sermon delivered before Urban V. and his
Cardinals, on Issi. lvi. 1: "Thus saith the Lord, Keep ye judgment, and do
justice; for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be
revealed;" descanting with bold fidelity on the corruption of the Romish
Church, warned them of tribulation and affliction near at hand; and exhorted
them to avert these by repentance, following the example of the Ninevites.
Bridget, canonized as a saint and Prophetess, affirmed, out of the Apocalypse,
that the Papal throne should be thrown into the depths of the sea, like a
millstone; and that the Cardinals, assessors of the Pope, should burn with
brimstone. Catherine of Sienna, fanatic though she was, gathered from the word
of God that He would purify his church, arouse the spirit of the elect, raise
up a set of holy Pastors, to the universal gladness of the faithful, and
convert the Heathen to the Shepherd and Bishop of their souls. Militz of
Prague, professing to be constrained by the Holy Spirit, went to Rome,
preached there publicly, and affirmed, before the Inquisitor, that Antichrist
was come, the Church desolate, and iniquity abounding. Wycliffe, Huss, and
many others, adopted the predictions of Hildegarde, that God would strip the
Clergy of their wealth, and that the people would desert them, saying, "Go, ye
teachers of wickedness, subverters of the truth, brethren of the Shunammite,
fathers of heresies, false Apostles, who have feigned your-

ORIENTAL LITERATURE.

selves to follow the life of the Apostles, and yet have not fulfilled it in
any part: sons of iniquity! we will not follow the knowledge of your ways, for
pride and presumption have deceived you, and insatiable concupiscence hath
subverted your erroneous hearts; and when ye would yet ascend higher than was
meet or comely for you, by the just judgment of God, ye are fallen back into
perpetual disgrace and shame!" *

The Albigenses long seemed to have been almost extirpated from the subalpine
provinces of France, and the Inquisition overawed all except a few, very few,
bold confessors; heresy, so called, made few advances; but while earthquake,
pestilence, and famine retributed on Europe the wrongs inflicted upon Asia,
and provinces, polluted by persecution, trembled under the avenging scourge,
an appeal to divine revelation, and an ardent longing after prophetic
knowledge within the Church of Rome itself, brought that apostasy to the test
of Scripture, and induced a new habit of appealing to the word of God.

When Christendom had learned that the nations of Islam were not to be
conquered by the sword, and began to suspect that Judaism could not be
destroyed by oppression, expatriation, and massacre, the Head of the church
raised up men to give the first hints, and to supply materials for conducting
the labour of evangelization on better principles. Raymond Lully, born a Jew,
on the island of Majorca, was converted to Christianity; but never consented
to its last corruptions, nor was imbued with the bigotry and bitterness of its
degenerate priesthood. Preferring the milder spirit of the Franciscans, he
became a Minorite, and was branded with the mark of heresy by the Dominicans,
who thought themselves to be the chosen propagators of the Christian faith.
But Lully was occupied by one desire, that of propagating Christianity among
the Moors, by fair argument and liberal instruction. He wrote books in Arabic,
or translated them into that language, then the medium of history and science
in southern Europe, Africa, and the Levant. He travelled to acquire knowledge,
and everywhere advised the Clergy to lay aside the sword and the firebrand,
and employ their pens for the conversion of Mohammedans and Jews. For this end
he visited Rome, and endeavoured, but without immediate success, to obtain the
Papal sanction of oriental studies. At length, in the Council of Vienne, (A.D.
1312,) he carried his point. That Council, failing every endeavour to
establish their faith by violence, ordered that masters should be appointed to
teach Hebrew, Arabic, and Chaldee in the court of Rome, and the Universities
of Paris, Oxford, Bologna, and Salamanca, among the choicest youth of France,
England, Italy, and Spain, and made provision for two such Professors in each
place. Raymond then applied himself with redoubled zeal to controversy with
the Moors, and was consequently stoned to death in Africa; (A.D. 1315;) but
his work abides; and eastern literature, most valuable of all human
contributions to the understanding of the sacred text, began to be cultivated,
to some small extent, under the highest ecclesiastical sanction, in those
seats of learning. Next came Nicholas de Lyra, a native of Normandy, also

* Foxe, Acts and Monuments, books v. and vi.

born a Jew; but, to use the false and inflated language of a biographer, born
again in the water of baptism, and invested with the sacred habit of the
seraphic religion in the convent of Verneuil. He consecrated his Hebrew and
Rabbinical knowledge to the exposition of the holy Scriptures both of the Old
and New Testament, intending to facilitate the conversion of his brethren;
but, in fact, providing materials for the better instruction of Gentile
students who had hitherto bowed to the exclusive authority of patristical
expositors, men almost ignorant of the original language of the Old Testament,
and the Hebrew element of conception and language in the New. As a
commentator, he opened the way for the masters of learning in the Reformation
of the sixteenth century; and of him it has been pleasantly said, that if he
had not harped, Luther would never have danced.

" Si Lyra non lyrasset,

Lutherus non saltasset."

His Commentary was completed in Paris, (A.D. 1330,) where he had expounded the
Scriptures in his convent, not failing to expose the ignorance and even the
errors of his contemporaries. Thus were the stores of academic learning
enriched. Those new chairs raised the Universities into higher estimation;
nations regarded them as necessary to their honour; and of this an example is
afforded in the zeal of Charles IV., King of the Romans, who, on his accession
to the throne of Bohemia, (A.D. 1346,) solicited and obtained of the Pope
sanction for the establishment of a University at Prague, soon to be the seat
of an illustrious Reformer, and of doctrines utterly hostile to the Church of
Rome.* But we must proceed to consider how the confessors and martyrs of that
age, as heralds of the Protestant Reformation, maintained and suffered for the
truth.

During the schism of the Papacy, and quarrels of the Popes and Clergy with the
European Sovereigns, Italy, in its utmost extent, from Nice to Trieste, and
from the Tyrolese to Calabria, was least troubled by persecution. The
political condition of the Italian states was unfavourable to the
aggrandizement of the Church. In those days the Waldenses enjoyed some degree
of rest. Their humble worship was conducted in conjunction with a godly
discipline. On producing sufficient testimonials, the candidate for the office
of Barbe, or Minister, was admitted to a course of scriptural instruction, and
set apart by imposition of hands to the holy ministry. Their children were
carefully taught the elements of Christian doctrine; and a Catechism is yet
extant in proof of their care to reduce the saving truths of the Gospel to a
certain form, and to supply the memory with material for constant meditation.
Following a custom of the apostolic churches, they not only maintained their
Pastors by free offerings, but gave them alms, which were carried by them into
a Council holden annually; and then, as by a Committee of distribution, placed
into the hands of stewards to be divided among travellers and the poor. In
those

* Fleury, lxxxviii., 45; lxxxix., 59; xci., 60; xci., 8; xci., 36; Moreri,
Dict., under the names Lully and Nicholas de Lyra; Mosheim, cent. xiv., part
ii., chap. 1, 3.

BLAUGHTER OF WALDENSES.

Councils the Pastors alone assembled, to treat of ecclesiastical affairs, and
especially of the government of their widely-scattered flocks.* Their law of
discipline required the correction of such as walked ungodly, erred in
doctrine, transgressed the rules of charity, or sinned away their hope of
heaven. Private sins were corrected by private admonition; but public offences
were visited with public censure. When these methods failed, the incorrigible
were expelled. Those Waldenes, striving to keep themselves unspotted from the
world, shunned public spectacles and entertainments with a strictness that has
brought on their memory the contempt of some modern writers. By habitual
perusal of the word of God, and of devotional writings of a highly scriptural
character, they cherished holy affections, while the circulation of
controversial tracts kept alive a just abhorrence of Romanism. Undismayed by
terror of enemies, and superior to motives of mere expediency, the Barbes
maintained the purity of their church by first watching against unfaithfulness
in themselves, of which the suspension of one of their number, Giovanni of
Lucerne, for seven years, is an eminent proof.† But as all that will live
godly in Christ Jesus must suffer persecution, they were not permitted to
continue unmolested. The Pope appointed one Jean de Badis, a French
Inquisitor, to suppress the sect (A.D. 1332). Their assemblies were numerous,
so many as five hundred persons often meeting in the same place; and when
assaulted, they scrupled not to defend themselves, so that Friar Jean
retreated from a work in which he could not be sufficiently supported. Yet
persecution continued, and one of his successors, Francesco Borelli, could
boast of having delivered, during thirteen years, one hundred and fifty
persons to be burned at Grenoble. From the valley of Fraissiniere eighty were
carried to the stake, and their property, being confiscated, was equally
divided between the Inquisitors themselves, and the temporal

* It would seem, from passages in Morland's manuscripts, that spiritual and
secular functions were not intended to be exercised by the same person.
"Regidors son colegi del poble & Freire segond la diversita de l'obrement en
l'unita de Christ." "Rectors, or managers, are elected from the people and
Elders, according to the diversity of the work in the unity of Christ." They
all met together once a year, and first transacted their temporal business.
"Las pecunias lasquals son domas a nos del poble son porta de nos el predict
Concili General, & horas en commun devant tuit nos, lasquals son cendlius de
li nostre Major, & part de lor es despurtia en aquilli que an a far camin
ensima est vist esser beseguivel a lor, & part de la dicta pecunia es dona a
li paure." "The moneys which are given to us by the people, are carried by us
to the aforesaid General Council, and delivered in common before us all, the
which are collected by our Stewards, and part of them is distributed among
those who have to travel, when it appears to be necessary for them, and part
of the said money is given to the poor." They are said to have propagated
their doctrine throughout Italy by travelling, and thus gaining access to
persons of all classes, and enjoying hospitality in the houses of their
brethren on presenting credentials, like the triennial convivial, "letters
commendatory," of the early churches. The lay Elders, or managers, having
performed their part of the work, proceeded no farther in the assembly; but
"nos Pastor nos nissten tuit ensemp una vez l'an, azo que ensemp tratten las
nostras facendas per Concili General." "We that are Pastors meet all together
once in the year, in order that we may together treat of our affairs in a
General Council." One might almost say, that after the mixed financial
Committee, they held their conference of Ministers alone. The difference is
only in the phraseology, not in the fact, which exhibits a remarkable
resemblance to Wesleyan Methodism.

† Morland, History of the Evangelical Churches of the Valley of Piedmont,
chapters v. to viii. inclusive.

Lords.* For nearly seventy years the Italian Inquisition could not find
strength enough to hunt them to death, as it had hunted the Albigenses of
Languedoc, and the neighbouring provinces of France; but, at last, (A.D.
1400,) a troop of persecutors appeared in the valley of Pragela, where was one
of their most flourishing settlements, murdered some, and drove the bulk of
the population into the mountains. It was Christmas, the mountain heights were
laden with snow, and there, at an elevation beyond any human dwelling, and
where the rigour of winter was untempered even by a noon-day sun, men and
women, mothers clasping their babes to bosoms no longer capable of affording
warmth, faint, famished, frozen, sank together on the snow; snow-storms
covered them; and when the returning sun melted away the wintry grave, their
putrid corpses were exposed to view, and told the shuddering goatherd that
from ruthless Priests no pity could be had, not even by woman or babe not
brought under the power of his Church, no compassion shown to them who feared
God more than death. And so did the Waldenses fear Him.† Their constancy was
honoured, and, for more than seventy years, they not only maintained the
ground in those Alpine valleys, but propagated their doctrine throughout Italy
by means of Barbes, who usually travelled by two and two; and, even in Rome
itself, were hospitably received by brethren established there. The Romish
Clergy of the diocese of Turin vainly endeavoured to put down the heresy, and
at last the Pope, Xystus IV., appointed an Inquisitor to institute proceedings
against them; (A.D. 1473;) but the only result of his labour seems to have
been an official report, containing proof that the inhabitants generally were
in a state of separation from his Church, both as to doctrine and
discipline,—a fact which had been notorious for many centuries. After another
pause of ten years, the Archbishop of the province undertook a similar
investigation, and with the like result; finding all the people of the valleys
of Fraissiniere, Argenteria, and Loisia to be "most infamous and suspected."
But during that interval, methods of intimidation were often tried, and
sufficient show of violence was made to induce many to emigrate into foreign
countries. In most of the towns and cities of Piedmont there were martyrs to
the faith; and from the scanty records accessible, a few names have been
gathered of those which are eternally written in heaven. Giordano Tertian was
burnt at Susa, and Hippolito Roussiere at Turin. In the same city, Hugo Chiamp
de Fenestrelles was disembowelled, and his mutilated body exposed to public
insult. In one valley three thousand persons were murdered, either by the
sword, or smothered by fires lighted at the mouths of the caves into which
they had gone for refuge. Still the Waldenses withstood their persecutors, and
Rome was compelled to acknowledge herself vanquished by the faith and patience
of heretics, or hazard an open contest. The latter alternative was taken. The
Lord Innocent VIII., by divine Providence Pope, and servant of the servants of
God, issued a Bull, (A.D. 1487,) appointing Albertus de Capitanie his Legate,
and Commissioner-General for the extirpation of heretics out of the dominions
of his

* Milner, cent. xiii., chap. 4.

† Morland, book ii., chap. I.

SLAUGHTER OF WALDENSES.

beloved son, Charles, Duke of Savoy. After reciting the damnable errors of
those people, he confessed that one Inquisitor after another had tried in vain
to overcome their obstinacy, that they had shut their ears like the deaf
adder, refused to lay aside their most evil and perverse errors, going on from
bad to worse, that they had dared to preach publicly, drawing aside many from
the faith, despised the excommunications and interdicts of the Inquisitor,
pulled down his house, destroyed the furniture, killed one of his servants,
and resisted the authority of their temporal Lords. In other words, that when
they had been attacked in their dwellings, driven to hide themselves in
caverns, and hunted like wild beasts over the mountains; and when "the secular
arm" had been extended against them at the bidding of cowardly Priests who
dared not execute their own sentences; they manfully took up arms in self-
defence. The Commissioner was instructed to enforce the authority of the
Inquisitor, and see that the Bishops did their duty for the extermination of
the heretics. The King of France and the Princes of the German confederacy
were summoned by this Bull to join their forces with those of the Duke of
Savoy, to take up the shield of that holy faith which they had received in
baptism, and attack in every seasonable manner those detestable enemies of
holy Church. Or, if the Commissioner should think it expedient,—that is to
say, if the Princes should hesitate to raise troops for this purpose,—the
Legate was authorized to have a crusade preached, that people, independently
of their governors, might take the saving sign of the Cross upon their hearts
and garments, and thereby obtain a plenary indulgence for all their sins. The
Ecclesiastic who would not preach death to heretics, and the secular person,
of whatever rank, who would not inflict it, should be degraded from priestly
dignity and office, or deprived of all his worldly honours, titles, and
privileges, according to their guilt of disobedience and rebellion, and be
thenceforth persecuted with all the terrors and weapons that the Church had at
her command. As for the Legate, Innocent offered him heaven as a future
reward; but stimulated him to diligence in the execution of the horrible
commission by hope of preferment in the Church. The Legate set to work with
great zeal, obtained a list of principal persons, whom he caused to be cited
by proclamation to appear before himself, which they would not submit to do;
and were therefore declared to be excommunicate, and delivered over to the
secular arm, to be dealt with as stubborn and rebellious heretics. Two
noblemen of Dauphiny were engaged to head an army, and invade the valleys; but
the inhabitants had already fled, and were dispersed among the caverns and
fastnesses of the mountains where no army could act. Messages were therefore
sent, offering mercy if they would return to their dwellings, and abjure their
faith. Some, pressed by hunger, accepted the overture; twelve or fifteen of
them, smitten with remorse, fled again secretly; but the greater number
submitted to pronounce a solemn abjuration, and promised to do penance.
Others, who had defended themselves in their hiding-places for two years, and
others also, who had held out for so long as five years, yielded to the
summons, until at last almost all who had survived the rigour of persecution
returned to their

4 2 long-deserted homes, and engaged to wear crosses on their garments in sign
of penitence. But when the soldiery were withdrawn, and only Priests remained
to occupy the churches, the penitential crosses were laid aside, mass was
deserted, Waldensian worship was again performed, and the report reached Rome
that the crusade had been ineffectual, after all. An army of eighteen thousand
men was then collected, and with a multitude of volunteer crusaders rushed
into the country. But as the fugitive inhabitants dispersed, the force was
broken into small companies; and when those companies had wandered over the
valleys for about a year, subsisting on plunder, the Duke of Savoy, weary of
the affair, interposed his influence, and obtained peace for his persecuted
subjects. He even yielded to an impulse of compassion, and pleaded in their
favour; and when Vaudois fathers brought their children into his presence to
prove that the offspring of heretics were not monsters, as the Priests had
told him, he encouraged the infants to approach, returned their smiles, and
bade the men go home, and be assured of liberty and protection. But in those
days Princes had little power: the promises of the Duke were set at nought by
the Inquisitors, who again and again brought crusaders to spread burning and
bloodshed through Piedmont; until the Waldenses, finding human succour to be
in vain, cast themselves on the help of God, ran to arms, repelled and
overcame the enemy, and their descendants occupied the country without
suffering invasion, for another hundred years. Thus did the Head of the church
preserve his witnesses hereafter to unite in the glorious labours of the
Protestant Reformation.*

As if to maintain by terror an authority which Rome could no longer exercise
by any other means, the Inquisition failed not to commit heretics to the
flames in almost every country of Europe; or Bishops, acting as Inquisitors,
where that tribunal was not established, did the same. No doubt many of the
victims were fanatics, mere revolters against the Clergy, political offenders,
or objects of private hatred. The poverty of history, and the malice of the
murderers, leaves them in obscurity; and, after having related the sufferings
of the Waldenses of Piedmont, and promised to relate the revival of religion
in England by means of Wycliffe, little remains to be narrated here; except,
indeed, as regards the Waldensian emigrants, who were everywhere pursued by
the common enemy of all righteousness. The "fourteen men and women" whom
Limborch, on the authority of Bzovius, briefly states to have been burnt in
Bohemia, were probably Waldenses; and Walter, burnt at Cologne, (A.D. 1322,)
is described as Chief of the sect of Lollards, or praying people.† By sentence
of a Council holden at Mentz, (A.D. 1387,) thirty-six citizens of that city,
convicted of the Waldensian heresy, were burned to death at Bingen, a town on
the Rhine, between Mentz and Coblentz. They declared that the Pope was
Antichrist; ‡ and if they died in the faith of Christ, like many of their
brethren in the Alps, they are worthily numbered with the mar-

* Morland, book ii., chap. 1.

† Limborch, Inquisition, chap. 18.

‡ Foxe, Acts and Monuments, book v., anno 1370.

"THE PLOUGHMAN'S COMPLAINT."

tyrs' host. In the diocese and province of Embrun, in Dauphiny, there was "a
great multitude of persons" who held the same doctrine as the Christians of
Piedmont, and spread their tenets among the population. A Papal Bull was
issued, requiring all Bishops, Abbots, and Clergy, the Lords, Judges, and
communities, to aid the Inquisitor in cleansing that and the neighbouring
provinces from the taint of heresy. Such Bulls were not usually issued until
the probability that they would be executed had been ascertained; and we may
therefore take it for granted that many perished in the flames, or were
slaughtered by the soldiery of the Sovereigns of France and Naples, to whom
also letters were addressed.* But the affairs of England now demand our most
careful observation.

Although the evangelical doctrines of the Waldenses made little progress in
this country at the time when those who entertained them were most numerous,
and while they suffered severest persecution on the Continent, the
imperishable seed of revealed truth had not lost its vitality. From the days
of Aldhelm,† Englishmen had heard the word of God in Anglo-Saxon versions:
long after the Norman conquest that language was but an antiquated form of the
vernacular; and it must not be inferred that England had no knowledge of the
holy Scriptures, because an interval of nearly three hundred years may have
elapsed between the recorded dates of the last Anglo-Saxon and the first
English translation. The former had not ceased to be intelligible when the
latter appeared; and, independently of those works, there were earnest
Preachers, and writers too, who quoted Scripture largely in the language of
the people. Perhaps it is owing to this fact, under the gracious care of God,
that the doctrines of our early Reformers were so near the standard by which
we estimate doctrine at this day. Early in the fourteenth century ‡ an
anonymous tract was circulated, bearing the title of "the Ploughman's
Complaint." The document is intrinsically good, and sufficiently full to
afford material for a judgment of the state of religious opinion in England at
the time of its composition. Whoever the writer was, he must have been a well-
informed and active opponent of the prevailing superstition, and of the
pretensions of the Pope, then so unpopular in this island; for, speaking of
Papal wars and curses, he observes: "Of what thing that I knowe, I may beare
true witness." Personating a ploughman, he may be presumed to represent the
sentiments entertained by many in the humbler classes of society, with whom he
entirely agreed in expounding an evangelical precept to require "poorenes in
spirite; but not to ben a begger," referring to the awarms of begging Friars
who had risen into popularity by the profession of poverty, and then become
hateful for inordinate love

* Fleury, xcvi., 10.

† About the year 706.

‡ Foxe dates this work at 1360; but conjecturally. He altered "not many words
of the phrase thereof," to make it more intelligible in his day; but even
after this alteration, which extended to the more antiquated words, and
therefore despoils it of some of its antiquity, the style is evidently more
ancient, for more strongly Saxon, than that of Wycliffe, whose Bible is dated
"about 1378." "The Ploughman's Complaint," therefore, presents a highly
important example of English quotation and practical use of Scripture many
years before Wycliffe.

4 E 2 of wealth and luxury. Like the author of "the Noble Lesson," * the
Ploughman gives a compendium of some chief points of sacred history, and
passes by the Fathers and other ecclesiastical authorities without the
slightest notice, except some incidental expressions of marked rejection. He
mourns for the flock of Christ, from whom wicked shepherds hide the pure water
of doctrine, and give them to drink only water troubled and defouled by their
feet, until there is dread that the sheep will die of thirst. He charges false
Prophets with beguiling the people, taking away the worship of God, and
substituting a worship of themselves. The worship of God consists, as he
maintains, in loving, dreading, and trusting in God above all other things;
but the Priests have broken the law of love and fear and trust. God should be
prayed to absolve men from sin, as he forgave Peter and Mary Magdalene,
without shrivings to Priests; and God is as mighty now as he was then. The
Apostles taught not that sinners should confess to Priests, nor did they
assert any power to cleanse men from the leprosy of guilt, which Christ alone
can do: "for there nis but one Priest, that is, Christ, that may knowe in
certaine the lepre of the soule." God ordained not that his Priests should set
men penances for their sins, penances which cause them to trust in the shrift
rather than in Christ's absolutions. He sorrows that people are thus led away
from God, and argues, from scriptural examples, against the sale of those
fictitious graces. In a strain of mingled lamentation and invective, he
attacks the whole system of Monkery, and the exorbitant pride of the Clergy.
The Priest forsakes a poor estate and labour, to become a lord of his
brethren, and sing Latin prayers; but, "Ah! Lord!" he exclaims, "if they be
thy servants, whose servants are we that cannot pray as they do? And, Lord, we
laymen have a belief that thy goodness is endless; and if we keep thy
commands, then are we thy true servants; and though we pray thee a little, and
short, thou wilt think on us, and grant us what we need; for so thou didst
promise. And, Lord, I trow that pray a man never so many quaint prayers, if he
keep not thy commands, he is not thy good servant. And, Lord, our hope is,
that thou wilt as soon hear a ploughman's prayer, and he keep thy commands, as
thou wilt do a man's of religion, though the ploughman may not have so much
silver for his prayer as men of religion. For they know not so well how to
price their prayers as these other chapmen; but, Lord, our hope is, that our
prayers be never the worse, though not so well sold as other men's prayers."
These allusions to the custom still prevalent of selling masses, indicate more
than disapprobation of that single abuse: they express a state of popular
feeling that will soon be developed more distinctly. In common with other
Reformers, the Ploughman inveighs against singing in churches: "They singin
merelich thy words, and that singing they clepen thy service." He judges that
weeping for sin is more acceptable to God than turning his words into songs.
Transubstantiation is condemned at considerable length. The pretence of
Priests to make Christ's body is contrasted with their wicked practices, and
the setting up of mawmets, or images, in great stone

* Quoted and described at p. 494, supra.

JOHN DE WYCLIFFE.

houses with glass windows, there to be privily worshipped, is denounced as
gross idolatry. He complains that if a layman attempts to teach the people the
truth of God's words, as bounden by the commandment of charity to do, he is
forbidden and imprisoned. Such observations are repeated again and again,
showing that, as in the primitive church, lay-Preachers had endeavoured to
edify the people; but that the Priests, unlike the men of the apostolic age,
persecuted the Lord's people that were Prophets. This also will have to be
borne in mind when we come to speak of those lay-Preachers who assisted
Wycliffe. Opposition to the payment of tithes is also frequently expressed; an
opposition which soon became prominent in the followers of that eminent man,
and was inseparable from the re-action of those times against the cupidity of
the Clergy, the encroachments of the Popes, and the rapacity of the nobles.
The Ploughman describes the manner in which Priests proceeded against persons
accused of heresy, with a minuteness that confirms the fact that although the
tribunal of the Inquisition was not formally established in England, its forms
were observed, in compliance with the wish of the Pope, as communicated to
Edward III., (A.D. 1335,) on occasion of the discovery of some heretics in
Ireland.* He objects to the canon-law, as different from that of the Old and
New Testaments, and partly taken from "heathen men's laws." Frequent allusions
to the sufferings of his brethren, then put in bodily thralldom, and even
suffering death by fire, and to the cruelty of Priests, exceeding the severity
of laymen that were Lords, exactly coincide with other evidences that even
then the number of dissentients from the Church of Rome, and of confessors,
perhaps also of martyrs to the truth, was far from inconsiderable.† He even
speaks as if there were an open secession of persons who recognised each other
as brethren, but without any Minister at their head. "But, Lord," he says, "we
laymen know no God but thee, and we, with thine help, and thy grace, forsake
Nebuchadnezzar, (the Pope,) and his laws." The celibacy and luxury of the
Priests, and their alliance with the rich to oppress the poor, are so
described within the same paragraphs, as to indicate that the seceders were
generally poor persons, and the wealthy indifferent to the doctrinal
corruptions of the Church.‡

Such were the dawnings of divine truth in England when it pleased God to raise
up John de Wycliffe. A native of Yorkshire, and student at Oxford, he was
early distinguished as a scholar, and acknowledged even by his enemies to be a
skilful dialectician. With unanswerable argument he unmasked the errors of
Churchmen; but the Mendicants chiefly dreaded the force of his invective.
Superior to the prejudices of his age, and willing to be counted a fool for
Christ's sake, he soon renounced the prospect of honours which must have been
awarded to him, had he cultivated the unprofitable learning then in vogue; and
he applied himself to the exposition of holy Scripture, a work which was
thought beneath the dignity of a scholar by those who had been taught to
esteem the traditions of men more than the

* Raynaldi Annales Ecclesiastici, an. 1335, num. 60.

† Idem, An. 1355, num. 28. I Foxe, Acts and Monuments, book v., an. 1360.

revelation of God. But many there were among the laity who appreciated his
diligence in teaching them the way of life, and who gave him the familiar
appellation of "Gospel Doctor." In the spirit of those few predecessors to
whom we have alluded, he inveighed against the avarice and hypocrisy of the
begging Friars; but, having thrown himself into constant controversy with
them, and profoundly studied some questions of right which were involved in
the dispute between the Sovereign of England and the Pope, he gained a clearer
view of the absolute supremacy of Jesus Christ over both Church and State, and
of the sufficiency of the merits of the Saviour to deliver souls from death,
and maintained that the word of God alone suffices to teach men the way of
salvation. For several years he was supported by the temporal power, a power
which he always defended against the encroachments of the Papacy; and, even
when most hotly persecuted, was so far shielded from the fury of his
adversaries as neither to suffer imprisonment nor death. In the heat of his
earlier disputation with those Monkish beggars he was in high favour at
Oxford, and received from the Master and scholars of Baliol College the living
of a country parish, Fylingham,* in the diocese of Lincoln, said to have been
a valuable benefice (A.D. 1361). He was then elected Warden of that College,
and afterwards occupied the same station at Canterbury-Hall. Thus did members
of the University of Oxford avow their respect for a man soon to be regarded
as a heretic by the Bishops. He maintained and taught that the Pope had no
power to exclude any one from the kingdom of heaven; but that if the power of
binding and loosing were committed to sinful men, then might any simple Priest
absolve even him whom the Pope had thought proper to condemn. This he enforced
with no less eloquence than reason, proving it out of the Bible; and yet with
so great modesty, and with such a simplicity of demeanour and purity of
conversation, that his opinions took root beyond the power of the priesthood
to eradicate them from the heart and mind of Englishmen. Admiring a state of
true poverty as much as he abhorred the dissembling of those who professed to
follow it, he went barefoot and poorly clad, as did several who associated
themselves with him, and began to preach after his example. Passing from
points of discipline to articles of doctrine, he became convinced that the
fable of transubstantiation was contrary to God's word, and boldly declared
that the host, after consecration as before, was no more than bread, yet
reverently acknowledged the sacramental presence of the Saviour. Having taken
away their god, he embittered the hatred of the Clergy against himself, by
teaching that if Priests sinned habitually, as unquestionably they did with
but few exceptions, the temporal Lord was bound, under pain of damnation, to
take away their living. Affirming that the Gospel alone was sufficient to rule
the life of any Christian man, he denied at once the whole system of
domination over conscience by Confessors; and declaring that the divers rules
by which "religious persons" were governed, added no more perfection to the
Gospel than doth the white colour to the wall, he lifted the finger of scorn

* Now spelt Fillingham.

JOHN DE WYCLIFFE.

against the Monks, those whited sepulchres, whose inward corruption had become
notorious. And while Popes were labouring to establish the Inquisition on this
island, and Bishops did actually imprison heretics, so called, he preached
that neither the Pope, nor any other Prelate of the Church, ought to have
prisons wherein to punish transgressors. He even went so far as to declaim
against the supremacy of the Pope, and against monasticism, as an
ecclesiastical institution; and contended that tithes were pure alms, not to
be exacted by any human authority, but freely given, if given at all. Many
extreme opinions were laid to his charge; but although it was to have been
expected that a mind suddenly emancipated from its bondage would fall into
some opposite error, the colouring of fanaticism thrown over his character by
Popish historians is, to say the least, considerably removed by candid
examination of his writings; and it is demonstrated that eminent
ecclesiastical historians have been misled in their notions of his doctrine by
the false representations of Monkish writers, who published, as propositions
of Wycliffe, errors and extravagances contradicted by the general tenor and
express testimony of his works.* Many circumstances contributed to bring him
to these bold conclusions. His predecessor in the Wardenship of Canterbury-
Hall had been displaced, together with three Friars who were expelled from
that foundation in consequence of their proceedings in opposition to the other
Fellows, who were secular Priests, and with whom Regulars could not possibly
agree. Islep, Archbishop of Canterbury, himself the founder, removed the Monk,
Woodhall, and put our Reformer in his place; but no sooner did the aged
Archbishop die, than Langham, his successor, restored the Monk, and ejected
Wycliffe. Wycliffe appealed to the Pope, but unsuccessfully; and, after the
lapse of about three years, his ejection was confirmed (A.D. 1370). But the
sentence of the Pope raised him higher in the estimation of Edward III., who
had already made him a royal Chaplain; and in the quarrel with Rome, that
Sovereign, together with his son, John of Gaunt, the Duke of Lancaster, gladly
availed themselves of the antagonist of Monkish impostors, and subject of
Papal suspicion, to prosecute their cause. One year after his definitive
ejection, (A.D. 1371,) when the English Parliament petitioned the King to
remove Ecclesiastics from the administration of the high offices of State,
which had been entirely in their hands, Wycliffe's judgment was given in
favour of the measure: he was necessitated to defend himself by argument, and,
in doing so, became daily more decided in dissent from Romanism. Then it was
that he took his degree of Doctor of Divinity, and began to teach a reformed
theology in the University of Oxford (A.D. 1372). At the same time Edward, as
we have just observed, was engaged in a dispute of long standing with the
Court of Rome, whose abstraction of an immense revenue from England could no
longer be allowed without endangering the kingdom; a con-

* Since Lewis, his elder biographer, and Foxe, Le Bas, in his Memoir, and
especially Dr. Vaughan, in his "Life and Opinions of John de Wycliffe, D.D.,"
and his introductory Memoir to the tracts and treatises of Wycliffe, have
placed the real principles of that holy man in clear light, and enabled modern
readers to judge of him for themselves.

ference was to be holden with Papal representatives by Commissioners from the
King, and among them Wycliffe occupied the second place. The diplomatists met
at Bruges, in Flanders, and the demand of England was for nothing less than
that the Pontiff should desist, in future, from the reservation of benefices
in the Anglican Church; that the Clergy should freely enjoy the right of
electing their Bishops; and that Bishops thus elected should be confirmed by
their own Metropolitan. Had those demands been successful, had Gregory XI.
done anything better than temporize, a disciplinary reformation, and the
independence of the Anglican Church, would have been the immediate
consequences. Wycliffe, however, was rewarded by the King with a pre-bend in
the collegiate church of Westbury, and with the rectory of Lutterworth, in
Leicestershire, (A.D. 1375,) where he afterwards found a retreat from
persecution, and leisure for the preparation of his most valuable works.

But he had yet to take part in the great quarrel between the Church of Rome
and the State, and to suffer open persecution in the cause of national and
Christian liberty. Utterly dissatisfied with the issue of the tedious
negotiations at Bruges, which were protracted through two years, the
Parliament assumed a posture of hostility to the Pope and higher Clergy; and
Wycliffe, faithful to Christ and to his country, gave the full weight of his
learning and eloquence to the side of justice. Thus identified with the
secular power, he could not be injured by priestly adversaries, until, in
consequence of the infirmities of age, the King could no longer discharge the
functions of royalty, and, the Duke of Lancaster, his younger son, Regent, and
friend of Wycliffe, becoming unpopular, and the court itself distracted with
jealousies, the Bishops felt reviving power, and resolved to crush him, if
possible. But, unable to find any occasion against him, except concerning the
law of his God, they incited the Archbishop, Simon Sudbury, who had already
enforced the sentence of deprivation from the Wardenship of Canterbury-Hall,
and had endeavoured to put him to silence, but without effect, now to proceed
against him as a heretic. Readily did he command him to appear at St. Paul's,
before the Bishop of London, and other Prelates, to answer to charges of
heresy. On the day appointed, the Bishops took their places in the church, a
crowd of Londoners filled and surrounded the sacred building, and all waited
to behold the client of royalty, the patriot Priest, the flower of Oxford, the
popular Preacher that should appear as a culprit before a tribunal that
acknowledged but one superior on earth, and he an alien, and one from whose
rigorous jurisdiction no mortal could expect mercy. He came. But he came
preceded by no less a personage than Lord Percy, Earl Marshal of England,
attended by the Duke of Lancaster, the first subject in the realm, and
followed by four Friars, selected for their skill in theology, to aid him, if
necessary, in his defence. My Lord Percy elbowed his way through the skirts of
the crowd, pressed into the thickest, with great difficulty effected an
entrance into the church, and went up to the presence of the Clergy. Lancaster
had encouraged Wycliffe, as they came by the way, to face his Judges boldly.
The Bishops, he said, were

WYCLIFFE'S "POOR PRIESTS."

all unlearned in comparison with himself; and, as for the concourse of people,
he and the Earl would protect him against any violence from them. Animated by
his supporters, and, no doubt, trusting in God, Wycliffe kept close to the
Marshal; and the company, nothing daunted, presented themselves in the Lady
Mary's chapel, where sat the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, with several
other Bishops, Dukes, and Barons. Disturbed by the appearance, probably
unexpected, of the royal and noble protectors of the heretic, and by the stir
made in the promiscuous and excited assemblage, Courtney, Bishop of London,
could not conceal his impatience. As Wycliffe stood, waiting "to know what
should be laid unto him," the friendly Earl bade him sit down, saying, "that
he had many things to answer to, and therefore had need of some softer seat."
The Bishop of London, "cast eftsoons into a furnish chafe," (as Foxe words
it,) said, that he should not sit there; that it was not fitting for one to
sit who was cited there to answer before his Ordinary; and haughtily commanded
him to stand. The fire that had been smouldering so long, now burst forth:
neither the temporal nor spiritual Lord would be beaten in hard words; and the
quarrel was taken up by the people, who shouted, some in anger and others in
alarm. At this moment the Duke took Lord Percy's part, and assailed the
haughty Bishop with as reproachful language as he could find. The Bishop
retorted, and with such mastery of words, that the Duke was fairly overpowered
by a stronger torrent of railing; and, reddening with anger, threatened that
he would bring down his pride, and not only his, but the pride of all the
prelacy of England. Suddenly the Bishop changed his tone, and, putting on an
air of forbearance, that provoked the unwelcome visitors so much the more,
drew forth a menace of personal violence, and so caught the sympathy of the
Londoners, that the whole company began to fear for their lives. The sequel of
this affair was a riotous attack on the house of Lord Percy, who narrowly
escaped death, together with Lancaster, by taking boat and going down the
Thames to Kingston, where the young Prince, grandson of the King, afterwards
Richard II., resided. The citizens, however, were pacified by the
interposition of the Princess, his mother; and Wycliffe was no more meddled
with for that time, except that a prohibition to preach the offensive doctrine
was laid on him by the Bishops.

In partial obedience to their authority, he endeavoured to withhold from the
public ear such propositions as were deemed heretical; but to repress the
ardour of a spirit intent on reformation was impossible. The voice that for
seventeen years had been raised in testimony to God's truth, could not be
silenced; neither could its effects be lost. The caution of the master was not
requisite in the disciples; and while Doctor Wycliffe was considering how he
might best shape his future course, a multitude of "poor Priests," who had
profited by his instructions, dispersed themselves all over England. Clad in
threadbare russet gowns, and barefooted, having no licence from their
Ordinaries, but conscious of an obligation to preach against prevalent
corruptions,—possessing no benefices, nor yet receiving any stipend,—

4 F they went forth like the first disciples, from town to town, and from
county to county, preaching the Gospel, or as much of it as they knew; never
without a congregation, nor ever without a welcome. In the castle of the Baron
as in the cottage of the poor man, they gladly took the common fare; led
conversation on the unfaithfulness of the Church, the pride of Prelates, the
licentiousness of the Clergy, simony, idolatry, persecution, sinners perishing
for lack of knowledge, and the nation impoverished and oppressed by Rome. The
Priests raged and cursed; they threatened the itinerant innovators with
canonical censure, excommunication, imprisonment, and death; but the
congregations stood like centinels around the undaunted evangelists; and until
the population of England should have heard their testimony, God protected
them from harm. Excepting the Mendicant Friars, they were the first itinerant
Preachers; and were properly so called, for they had no local charge. England
was their circuit; and although they travelled but for a short time, they
established a precedent to be followed again and again, sometimes by
ecclesiastical direction, and sometimes under the impulse of the constraining
love of Christ.* Then Papal thunder rolled over the land. Erewhile the human
herd had been affrighted at the sound, and had fled for refuge to the
confessional and the altar; but now Gregory XI. launched his fulminations with
reiterated zeal, without awakening any terror,—for the public mind was not
susceptible. Men were suddenly isolated from the source of dread; and the
thunderer saw his flashes wasted in empty air. To the University of Oxford, to
the Archbishop of Canterbury, Simon Sudbury, to the Bishop of London, William

* The resemblance of these "poor Priests" to the Travelling Preachers who were
appointed by Mr. Wesley to preach in their wide Circuits all over England, is
too close to escape observation. Mr. Le Bas (chap. x.) justly observes, that
Wycliffe, at the head of his poor Priests, might, in some respects, be styled
the Wesley of his day. "He did not, it is true, itinerate himself, neither
does it appear that he encouraged laymen to take upon themselves the office of
public religious instruction. But he gave his express and deliberate sanction
to the practice of itinerancy and field-preaching; though without pretending
to supersede the regular and faithful ministrations of the parochial Clergy.
In one particular, indeed, he had clearly the advantage of Wesley. The modern
Reformer lived in times when the law and practice of the Church gave no
countenance to this species of Missionary proceeding. Whereas Wiclif had
constantly before his eyes the phenomenon of itinerant mendicancy, and might,
therefore, think himself excused for wishing to convert to salutary purposes
an usage which had the avowed sanction of Christ's Vicar upon earth."
Certainly Wycliffe had always been familiar with the practice of itinerant and
field preaching, and, so far, did not innovate. But both Wycliffe and Wesley
had the equal advantage of understanding the higher obligation of obedience to
the supreme law of Christ. Wesley never went farther in setting aside
canonical restraint than did his predecessor, when he lectured the Pope on the
sinfulness of holding temporal authority; nor so far as when he appealed to
the secular power to support him in defiance of his ecclesiastical superiors.
The conduct of Wesley was the reverse of this. Wycliffe had reasons for that
procedure of which, doubtless, Wesley would have felt the force in like
circumstances; but Mr. Le Bas must surely have remembered that Wycliffe
encouraged his travelling Preachers to proceed, in spite of a prohibition of
the Archbishop. Wesley, in his utmost zeal, could not have done more, and
never did so much. Neither did Mr. Wesley encourage laymen to take upon
themselves the office of public religious instruction. As lay Preachers, they
were not instituted to any ministerial office, but on some of them Mr. Wesley
conferred ordination; and his successors fully recognise and act on the
principle of ecclesiastical order that Mr. Le Bas inaccurately conceives the
"modern Reformer" to have violated. Both Wycliffe and Wesley maintained that
the law of the Church was only binding so far as it was in agreement with the
law of God, that law being always acknowledged as supreme.

JOHN DE WYCLIFFE.

Courtney, again to the same Archbishop and the same Bishop, and to the young
Richard II., who had by this time ascended his throne, came letters from the
Fisherman of St. Peter's; and whatever zeal they quickened in the rulers of
the Church, whatever fear they may have awakened in the mind of the young King
and his uncles, they moved not the Commons of England; and Wycliffe again
threw his energies into the work. The first Parliament under that reign
assembled; and measures proposed for delivering this country from Romish
exactions were the subject of anxious deliberation. "As a remedy against the
evils which have hitherto resisted every influence opposed to them, it is
urged that the procuring of a benefice by Papal provision shall be punished
with outlaw; and that the same penalty shall be incurred by the man who farms
any of the livings in the English Church that have been conferred upon
foreigners. It is also urged, that the Pope shall be prevented making
reservations to dignities elective, the same being done against his treaty
taken with Edward III.; that all aliens, as well religious as others, avoid
the realm; and that, during the war with France and Scotland, all their lands
and goods shall be applied thereto." * In short, it was debated whether the
Papal authority in England should be abolished, as, in effect, it would have
been, and a very large amount of Church property confiscated to the State. And
in order to justify such a statute, application was made for judgment to the
very man who was regarded by the Clergy as at the head of a sect,† and was at
that moment obnoxious to prosecution as a heretic. It was demanded of him,
"Whether the kingdom of England may lawfully, in case of necessity, for its
own defence, detain, and keep back, the treasure of the kingdom, that it be
not carried away to foreign and strange nations, the Pope himself demanding
and requiring the same, under pain of censure, and by virtue of obedience."
Wycliffe, in a written answer addressed to his Sovereign, persuaded and proved
the affirmative by the principles of God's law. It is, therefore, no matter of
surprise that he was cited to appear again, not at St. Paul's, but at Lambeth,
to answer to charges of heresy, in the presence of the same Bishops who
declared that they would do "justice" on him in obedience to the Pope, without
fear or favour, even if they should die for it. He obeyed the citation, went
to the Archbishop's chapel at Lambeth, at the appointed time, and was
expecting to be placed on his defence, when a messenger came from the Queen-
mother, and commanded them not to proceed with any definitive sentence against
him. Astounded and crest-fallen, they instantly submitted, and Wycliffe was
again delivered.‡ But thenceforth he had less human patronage,

* Vaughan, Life and Opinions of Wycliffe, i., 360.

† "Comites unius sectæ," is the expression of Walsingham in describing his
followers.

‡ Before leaving that court, Wycliffe presented a written declaration of his
doctrine on points relating to the controversy between the civil and
ecclesiastical powers. There is little or nothing in the eighteen conclusions
therein defended, that relates to theological opinion; but his silence is
accounted for by the fact, that the document was a defence of his position,
not a confession of his faith, and, therefore, not a partial retraction, as
some have represented.

4 F 2 and became less conspicuous in secular affairs, as the troubles of that
unhappy reign increased. During the next three years we hear little of him.
The Bishops desisted from open persecution; Gregory XI. died about the time of
the summons to Lambeth; the Antipopes were too busy in contention to trouble
themselves about heretics; popular discontent, and, at last, a general
insurrection in England, in which the Archbishop of Canterbury was murdered,
withdrew the attention of court and Parliament from the controversy with Rome;
and as Wycliffe was not so much needed by his patrons, nor could so easily be
persecuted by his enemies, he was left at liberty to pursue his vocation as
Rector of Lutterworth, and to use his pen for the propagation of sounder
doctrines. But although there is the most explicit evidence that the rebellion
was excited by the wrongs of the people, who were disaffected to the higher
classes, as well as alienated from the Clergy; Romish writers, both then and
since, have endeavoured to blame the Reformer for an event with which he had
not the slightest conscious relation. The Chancellor of Oxford then appeared
against him, and threatened excommunication and imprisonment to Wycliffe and
his followers, unless they would "repent and amend," as he chose to say.
Against this edict he wished to appeal to the King; but the Duke of Lancaster,
who had hitherto supported him, saw fit to change, and bid him submit to his
Ordinary, and say nothing to the King. Thenceforth he stood alone, and devoted
himself with redoubled earnestness to the study and defence of doctrinal
truths. Yet his influence over the public was undiminished, and still turned
to good account. A singular evidence of the effect of his teaching appeared in
London, (A.D. 1381,) when the citizens, to rebuke the indifference of the
Clergy to the state of public morals, somewhat rudely took the matter into
their own hands, imprisoned immoral persons, or subjected them to a sort of
open penance, by cutting off their hair, making them stand in market-places,
or carrying them through the streets with bag-pipes and trumpets blown, "to
the intent that they should be better known, and their companies avoided." In
this eccentric, however well meant, proceeding, they said that they were
following a suggestion of Master Wycliffe, who had encouraged them "to
perpetrate the act, to the reproach of the Prelates of the Clergy." The truth
appears to be, that John of Northampton, who for that year was Mayor, and a
zealous follower of Wycliffe, was at the head of the movement, probably
conceiving that it thus became him, as chief Magistrate, to show himself a
terror to evil-doers. The last act of the Ecclesiastical authorities against
him, was a summons to appear before the Convocation; but he did not think it
necessary or prudent to attend. It is related, that just as the members of
Convocation were assembled, and about to proceed to the censure of Wycliffe's
writings, (A.D. 1382, St. Dunstan's day,) "a wonderful and terrible earthquake
fell throughout all England; whereupon divers of the Suffragans, being feared
by the strange and wonderful demonstration, doubting what it should mean,
thought it good to leave off from their determinate purpose. But the
Archbishop, (as chief Captain of that army, more rash and bold than wise,)
interpreting the chance which

COUNTERFEIT ACT OF PARLIAMENT.

had happened clean contrary to another meaning or purpose, did confirm and
strengthen their hearts and minds, which were almost daunted with fear,
stoutly to proceed and go forward in their attempted enterprise; who then,
discoursing Wycliffe's articles, not according to the sacred canons of the
holy Scripture, but unto their own private affections, and men's traditions,
pronounced and gave sentence, that some of them were simply and plainly
heretical, other some half erroneous, others irreligious, some seditious, and
not consonant to the Church of Rome." The articles being classified, ten as
heretical, and fourteen as erroneous, were published with a mandate of the
Archbishop, addressed to the Bishop of London, as well as to the other
Bishops, enjoining them to have it admonished and warned in their cathedral
and other churches, "that no man henceforth, of what state or condition
whatever, do hold, teach, preach, or defend the aforesaid heresies and errors,
or any of them; nor that he admit to preach any one that is prohibited, or not
sent to preach, or any one else of whom there is any doubt; nor that he hear
or hearken to any one preaching the said heresies or errors, or any of them;
nor that he favour or adhere to him, either publicly or privily; but that
immediately he shun and avoid him, as he would avoid a serpent putting forth
pestiferous poison, under pain of the greater curse;" and this curse should be
inflicted on the contumacious after three days' canonical monition. The
Archbishop further commanded his brethren, "by the eprinkling of the blood of
Jesus Christ," to be inquisitors of heretical pravity in all their cities and
dioceses; thus too successfully attempting to introduce the Inquisition into
England under the mitigated form of an episcopal court. The Clergy in general
were quite ready to act on this mandate. By the University of Oxford,
indeed,—where the doctrines taught by Wycliffe were still entertained by many,
including the Chancellor, and perhaps favourably regarded by all,—it was at
first resisted; but the Chancellor yielded abject submission, being awed by
the threatenings of the Archbishop. But the Clergy well knew that they had no
power to enforce this mandate. The law of England did not yet authorize a
Bishop to imprison heretics; and as for the office of Inquisitor, it was
utterly incompatible with the constitution of this country. A form of statute
was therefore drawn up privately, and the signature of the young King obtained
without the knowledge of the House of Commons, and entered in the statute-
book, as if it had been regularly carried through that House. This counterfeit
Act of Parliament set forth, that forasmuch as it was openly known that there
were divers evil persons (the poor Priests of Wycliffe) within the realm,
going from county to county, and from town to town, in certain habits, under
dissimulation of great holiness, and without licence, preaching daily in
churches and church-yards, markets, fairs, and other open places where there
were great congregations of people; and that their sermons contained heresies
and notorious errors, to the great emblemishing of the Christian faith,
destruction of the laws and estate of the Church of England, and peril of
souls, &c.:—after a long preamble in the same strain, it was said to be
"ordained and asserted in this present Parliament, that the King's commissions
be made and directed to the Sheriffs and other ministers of our Sovereign Lord
the King, or other sufficient persons learned, and according to the
certifications of the Prelates thereof to be made in the Chancery from time to
time, to arrest all such Preachers, and also their factors, maintainers, and
abettors, and to hold them in arrest and strong prison, till they will justify
themselves according to reason and the law of holy Church. And the King
willeth and commandeth that the Chancellor make such commissions at all times
that he, by the Prelates, or any of them, shall be certified, and thereto
required, as is aforesaid." The Commons were indignant on discovering the
humiliation to which they had been fraudulently made to appear a party, and in
their next session (A.D. 1382) sent a petition to the King for its repeal,
stating that the statute had not had their assent, and that "it was never
anywise their intent to be justified to the Prelates, nor to bind their
successors to be so, more than their ancestors had been in times past." The
petition, or, as we should now say, the bill, received the royal assent, but
was not published. The fraudulent statute, however, continued to be acted on,
and passed for law until the Reformation; a perfect example of Romish truth!
Having gained young Richard, they obtained from him letters patent addressed
to the Archbishop, empowering him and the other Clergy, by a distinct act of
royal authority, to arrest and imprison in their own prisons, if they so
pleased, the Preachers of heretical doctrine, and their abettors (A.D. 1382,
June 28th). From that time the persecutors had a legal pretext under which to
imprison, and even put to death, reputed heretics. Then began in England the
era of persecution.

But God was graciously pleased to preserve his servant, who had always trusted
in Him; and the faith of Wycliffe is powerfully illustrated by the only
familiar anecdote of him that has been preserved. When at Oxford (A.D. 1379)
he fell sick, his life was despaired of by his friends, and a company of
Friars, with some laymen of the city, went to his chamber, hoping to extort a
recantation from their adversary in his last moments. They talked earnestly
and at length; but he calmly lay in silence, until, suddenly rising in the
bed, he exclaimed with a loud voice, "I shall not die, but live, and declare
the works of the Lord." "Of the Friars," say some, and the perversion passes
current; but Foxe, the first narrator, did not find the witticism in his
authority; nor does it sound like the words of such a man as Wycliffe,
speaking at such a time under the influence of holy confidence in his
Redeemer, and must therefore be rejected. While several of his friends forsook
him,—for they recanted under terror of excommunication,—he stood firm; and in
the peaceful retreat of Lutterworth, preached and wrote with unabated
diligence. Some of his principal treatises are said to have been composed
there; but no other work could equal a translation of the entire Bible from
the Latin Vulgate, which is said to have been completed while he was at
Oxford, (A.D. 1378,) and with the assistance of some of his friends in that
University; although others assign its publication to the year 1383, when the
whole may have been completed. "By this means," says an

LAST DAYS OF WYCLIFFE.

author of that time, "the Scripture is made common, and more clear to laymen
and women who can read, than it generally has been to the most learned Clerks;
and thus the pearl of the Gospel is thrown to swine, who trample it under
foot, and it becomes a plaything to the people." These most learned Clerks
were, after all, notoriously deficient in literary attainment; and so
negligent of the word of God, that when Richard Fitz-Ralph, the celebrated
Archbishop of Armagh, sent four Priests from his diocese to study divinity at
Oxford, they were obliged to return to Ireland as they went, because not even
a Latin Bible could be found in that place of study.* And the Clergy were so
mortified at seeing the sacred volume in the hands of the laity, that they
endeavoured, a few years afterwards, to get an Act of Parliament to suppress
the book. They were prevented from gaining their point in the House of Lords
by the opposition of the Duke of Lancaster, but carried it in the Convocation
holden at Oxford in the year 1408, where it was decreed, that no one should
thenceforth translate the Bible into English, nor read it in an English
translation. The laborious Wycliffe, exhausted by toil, banished from Oxford,
and enfeebled by the disease which his enemies hoped would have been fatal,
could no longer engage in public duties with the vigour those duties demanded.
A slight attack of paralysis had probably impaired his utterance, and made the
assistance of a Curate necessary, when a summons came from Urban VI.,
requiring him to appear at the threshold of the Apostles at Rome, where the
Pontiff knew that neither popular sympathy nor royal protection would cover
him from the vengeance of the Church. For a grey old man, already prostrated
by disease, to journey thither by land and sea, and then to endure the
pitiless treatment of that court, with certainty of ending his days in a
dungeon, if not at the stake, was not to be attempted; but he replied to the
citation in a respectful, but faithful, epistle. Rejoicing, he said, to open
and declare to every man the faith he held, but especially to the Bishop of
Rome, who would most willingly confirm his faith, if true, and correct it, if
erroneous; he gave his confession, to this effect:— Christ, very God and man,
gave his Gospel, which is the body of God's law, and of all parts of divine
revelation the most excellent. The Bishop of Rome, as Vicar of Christ, is, of
all men, most bound to submit to the law of the Gospel. For the greatness of
this Vicar does not consist in dignities and honours, but in an exact
imitation of our Lord, who, during his pilgrimage in this world, divested
himself of all worldly rule and honour. Therefore, no faithful man should
follow the Pope, except as far as the Pope follows Christ, nor offend, like
Peter and the sons of Zebedee, by desiring worldly honours. And, therefore,
the Pope ought to "leave unto the secular power all temporal dominion and
rule, and thereunto effectually to move and exhort his whole Clergy." He then
offered, if he had erred in any of these points, to submit to correction, even
by death, if necessity should so require. He would surely have presented
himself before the Bishop of Rome, if he could labour according to his will
and desire in his own person; but the Lord had other-

* Mant, History of the Church of Ireland, chap. I., sec. 3.

wise visited him to the contrary, and taught him rather to obey God than man.
Finally, giving Urban credit for good dispositions and right intentions, but
under an attribution of all that was evil to his advisers,—a plea which may
justly be made in behalf of constitutional Princes, but can never be other
than a fiction in respect to the Roman Chief Priest,—he exhorted him to amend
his ways. Thus closed his personal conflict with the powers of Antichrist, and
he was thenceforth free to prepare for eternity without distraction. There is
no record of his inward experience; but neither is there any ill report of his
daily life. His counsel to Priests had been that they should live holily,
surpassing other men in holy prayer, desire, thinking, speaking, counselling,
and true teaching; that God's commandments and Gospel should be ever in their
mouth, to draw men from sin thereby; that their actions in private and in
public should be exemplary and above reproach, example being more powerful
than precept to draw rude men; and that living thus, with frugality, humility,
and charity, they would be true Priests both to God and man. In the absence of
a sentence to the contrary, even from the most unfriendly biographer, we might
allow to the memory of so honest and simple-minded a confessor, that his
exhortations exhibit the standard to which he would endeavour to attain. And
there is evidence extant, that he was universally revered as a most godly and
virtuous man.* It was either in the pulpit or at the altar of the parish-
church of Lutterworth, that he received the stroke of death, on St. Thomas of
Canterbury's day, December 29th; and on St. Silvester's day, the last day of
the year 1384, he rested from his labours. The Romish historians describe with
malignant pleasure the distortion of countenance, loss of speech, and
trembling of the head; and will have it that he was smitten, as by an avenging
angel, for having spoken blasphemously of those two saints. We leave them with
their own notions of blasphemy and retribution, and rather trust that he has
outflown the shafts of malice, as well as the arrows of death, and now
rejoices in the paradise of God.† After more than a quarter of a century had
elapsed, and the friends and followers of Wycliffe at Oxford had passed away,
search was made in the University for copies of his books, which were burnt;
(A.D. 1410;) but the display of enmity to his doctrine was as impotent as
tardy, for those writings had been copied and circulated, not only throughout
England, but in many parts of Europe. Dutch and Flemish merchantmen conveyed
them to their homes, where they were read with avidity. Lombards and
Florentines did the same. In Bohemia, more than in any other country, they
wrought an indelible impression, and were solemnly defended by John Huss in
the University of Prague (A.D. 1412). The Council of Constance (A.D. 1415)
condemned articles extracted from his writings, or framed out of them

* Thorpe's examination by the Archbishop of Canterbury; Foxe, A.D. 1407.

† Foxe's Acts and Monuments, rich in documentary material; Vaughan's and Le
Bas's Lives of Wycliffe; Vaughan's Tracts and Treatises, with several other
sources of information, have been used in preparing this brief sketch of the
father of the Reformation in England.

THE LOLLARDS.

by its own members; and, to show greater abhorrence of a man whom they
declared to have died impenitent and obstinate, they decreed that "his body
and bones, if they might be discerned from the bodies of other faithful
people, should be taken out of the ground, and thrown far away from the burial
of any church." This notwithstanding, his remains rested there, until, in
lingering obedience to a similar mandate from the Council of Sienna, (A.D.
1421-2,) hands were at last found (A.D. 1428) in Lutterworth to break the
grave, take up and burn his bones, and throw the ashes into the Swift, forty-
four years after their interment.

The ashes of Wycliffe were dispersed; but his spiritual descendants never
became extinct. Against them persecution began to rage during his life-time,
as we have already seen. John Ashton, for example, one of his poor Priests,
remarkable for zeal and self-denial, is said to have died in prison, even
after a retractation had been extorted from him under the influence of
terror.* After the death of the master, the disciples continued to pursue
their labours, and were called "Lollards," a name which was first heard as the
designation of a sect early in the century, in Holland, and soon extended to
all persons in that country, in Germany, and in England, who dissented from
the dominant Church, and were reputed to be pious or fanatical by friends or
foes. According to Mosheim, whose elaborate account of the origin of the name
appears to be indisputable,† the brethren and sisters of the Cellite or
Alexian order distinguished themselves in Antwerp by diligent attendance on
the sick and dying during the prevalence of epidemic diseases, when the
secular Clergy were afraid to enter the chambers, or to receive the dead into
the churches. Some compassionate inhabitants of the city followed their
example, and, like them, took care of the burials, and were accustomed to sing
hymns as they proceeded towards the grave. From this custom they were
familiarly called "Lollards," or "singers," from the old German word, lullen,
tollen, or lallen, "to sing," found also in the English lull, "to compose to
sleep by a pleasing sound;"‡ and the name at first given to those funebrial
singers was transferred to others who, caring for the living rather than the
dead, laboured to instruct the ignorant, frequently sang the praises of God,
and, because of their abstinence from worldly merriment, were reputed to be
sad. The epithet then became contemptuous. Instead, therefore, of giving the
followers of Wycliffe his name, we shall now call them "Lollards;" and under
that epithet they were universally known. During four or five years after his
death, we hear of no severe persecution; but, on the contrary, it would seem
that London swarmed, as they would say, with Lollards, and that the doctrines
of "Lollardie" were preached in many pulpits. A sermon of that time is still
extant.§ A certain learned

* This is affirmed, incidentally, by Foxe, book v., A.D. 1401, who places his
imprisonment in the year 1382. Le Bas, who dislikes the poor Priests, supposes
that he was reconciled.

† Mosheim, Ecclesiastical History, cent. xlv., part ii., chap. 2, note.

‡ Johnson.

§ There are manuscript copies in the Royal and Cambridge Libraries, and in the
Bed leian. It has been repeatedly printed, and is to be found in Foxe, A.D.
1368.

4 6

Clerk, at Paul's-Cross, then the chief preaching-station in London, took for
his text the words, "Redde rationem villicationis tuae," "Give an account of
thy stewardship." The parable of the labourers in the vineyard suggested the
introduction. The "spiritual understanding" was represented thus. Jesus Christ
the householder, Head of the household of holy Church, called men to labour
therein in divers ages of the world, as in the time of the law of nature, the
time of the Law and the Prophets, and the time of grace, and in all times he
has called men of divers ages. The Preacher conceived of the world as
comprehended in the church, and under the law of Christ; and described, under
the figure of culture, the care of society intrusted to Priests, Knights, and
common labourers. To each of these classes he addressed the discourse,
portraying the prevalent wickedness of Priests, Magistrates, and people, in
the style of one who had studied books and men with equal care, gathering
authority and illustration from inspired Scripture, and the writings of the
Fathers, and unveiling the sins of all classes of his hearers. He had not
learned to offer mercy through faith in the Lamb of God, who taketh away the
sins of the world; but preached the law in such a manner as to convince the
congregation of their guilt. The unfaithful Clerk was likened to a candle
newly-quenched that stencheth all the house, instead of a bright lantern; a
smoke that blindeth men's eyes, instead of clean fire. The King, Prince,
Mayor, Sheriff, or Justice, who had sought power for the sake of the profit,
and the desire of winning worldly worship, and not for the help of the people,
was shown to be a tyrant. The people also were exhorted with unsparing
fidelity, reminded of the day of judgment, and of sickness, old age, and
death, as the forerunners of judgment. The world, too, was said to be drawing
towards its end, the night of death to be advancing, the gloom of ignorance
and guilt resting, not only on the low valleys of the commonalty, but on the
most elevated portions of society, on "the high tops of spiritual dignity,"
where there should be some light, if any yet remained, showing the near
approach of the world's night, and the coming of God in vengeance. Abbot
Joachim, and Hildegard, the maiden Prophetess, had foretold the doom; and
although the Preacher did not presume to say at what day or hour it would be
consummated, he gathered from "the book of secrets," (the Revelation,) and
from the history of the church, that the sixth seal was open, and the word of
St. John fulfilled as to the "four angels standing on the four corners of the
earth, holding the four winds, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor
on the sea, nor on any tree." Those four angels he interpreted to be the
devil's ministers, that, for the pleasure of their Lord, Antichrist, stopped
the four winds, the four Gospels from being preached, and so kept the breath
of the grace of the Holy Ghost from falling upon men mourning for sin, from
calling them to amendment, and from quickening those that would increase in
virtue. Then, as if in a prophetic rapture, he described the opening of the
books of conscience, and of doctrine, so long closed, and the gathering of men
together before the bar of God, and, raising his voice, denounced a triple woe
on the trembling

THE LOLLARDS.

multitude. And then, said he, "when these damned men bee in this woe, they
shullen sing this reuful song, that is ywritten in the booke of mourning,—

'The joy of our hart is a go,

Our quiet is turned into woe,

The crowne of our beade is fallen as fro!

Alas, for since that we have doe!'

But joye and joye and joye to them that be saved!" Profound was the impression
produced by this sermon of Thomas Wimbelden, and the excitement spread far and
wide as copies were multiplied and distributed. People thought that indeed the
end of all things was at hand. The Lollards were not less active in England
than the Flagellants had been in Germany; but instead of bodily discipline,
they endeavoured to arouse men's consciences to dread of sin, and the
endeavour was not made in vain. One thing alone was wanting,—a clear
exhibition of Christ the Saviour of sinners by faith in his blood, the truth
which gave completeness and permanence to the Reformation of the sixteenth
century, and would have given an entirely different character to that of the
fourteenth. The undeniable defect of English Lollardism was its falling short
of the true end of religious excitement. Earnest and even pious men were so
intent on demolishing the fabric of Romanism, as to be sometimes diverted from
building up the church of Christ, and were betrayed into the indulgence of
party-spirit, when they ought to have been occupied in the work of turning
sinners from the error of their way. But as the Lollards had their failings,
so have many who profess to write their history, and spare no pains to cover
their memory with contempt; who borrow the misrepresentations of Walsingham
and Knyghton, and injuriously describe them as coarse, hypocritical, and
cowardly fanatics. William Swinderby, a Priest of the diocese of Lincoln, is
one of those who has been honoured most largely with Monkish contumely. He was
presented before the Bishop of Lincoln, and examined in the cathedral as to a
string of articles perversely extracted from his writings. His accusers were a
company of Friars, representing three distinct orders, and attended by a crowd
of brothers, who brought dry wood on their shoulders to burn him. Surrounded
by those ferocious zealots, and overawed by the menaces of the Bishop and his
assessors, he submitted to do penance, and swear to a form of revocation which
they put into his hand, renouncing conclusions and articles attributed to him,
and promising never to teach, preach, or affirm publicly or privily the same,
nor to preach within the diocese of Lincoln without a licence from the Bishop.
Stung with remorse, he soon left that diocese, and removed to the county of
Hereford, where he was again persecuted; but, instead of yielding as before,
answered to the articles alleged against him, and explained, justified, or
denied them as they severally required. Within that county he preached
incessantly; but refused to appear before his persecutors, and was therefore
pronounced to be a heretic, and excommunicated (A.D. 1391). Despite the
excommunication, the people favoured him; he appealed to the King and his
Council, and sent a letter to the Nobles and Burgesses of Parliament,

4 G 2 soliciting their attention to the truths for which he suffered. Richard
afforded him no redress; but issued a writ to the Sheriff and others for his
apprehension and imprisonment. Still he remained at large. Walter Brute, a
layman, and Stephen Bell, described as a learned man, openly espoused his
cause; and were, like him, both persecuted and protected during the reign of
Richard, who strove to please the Bishops; the Parliament, however, being
hostile to the high pretensions of the Clergy, who could do no more than
terrify the weaker Lollards into submission, and make them do penance. One of
those sorry triumphs is described by Archbishop Courtney, (Nov. 17th, 1389,)
as it was to be exhibited in the city of Leicester, in the persons of one
William Smith, with Roger Dexter, and Alice Dexter his wife. These three
involuntary penitents were to be restored to the bosom of holy Mother Church
after public humiliation thus performed. William was to carry an image of St.
Catherine, Roger and Alice each a crucifix, in their right hands, and in their
left hands each one of them a taper of wax, weighing half a pound. The men in
shirts and breeches, and Alice in her chemise alone, were to walk before the
procession of the collegiate church of the Newarks at Leicester, and thrice
during the procession were to bow their knees and kneel devoutly, reverently
to kiss the said images, and then entering the church to stand, during mass,
with the images and crosses in their hands. Then, on the following Saturday,
they were to stand in the full and public market-place barefoot, bareheaded,
with no more clothing than on the Sunday, devout and reverent withal, holding
the images and tapers, and kissing the images with reverential genuflexion
thrice. On the following Sunday the same penance was to be done in their own
parish-church, and they should receive, during the mass on those days, as a
mark of special clemency, permission to wrap cloaks around them, but so that
the feet were still bare, lest peradventure they should take hurt by standing
so long naked during cold November and December days. Holy Church! The men of
Leicester must have adored thee for thy clemency; and specially honest Roger
Dexter's heart must have glowed in filial affection towards thee, now
reconciled, as he saw his wife Alice, weary, ashamed, shivering, with her bare
feet on the cold pavement of his parish-church! But the penitential discipline
of those days was not less ridiculous than cruel. "Ignorance, the mother of
error, had so much blinded and deceived certain persons, to wit, Hugh Pennie,
John Forstall, John Boy, John Wanderton, William Hayward, and John White,
tenants of the Lord of Wingham," that when this same William Courtney,
Archbishop of Canterbury, came to his palace on Palm-Sunday even, (A.D. 1390,)
those farmers did not send waggons laden with hay and straw for the horses of
his retinue, as bound by the tenure of their land; but sent it in privily, in
bags and sacks, in derogation of the right and title of the see of Canterbury.
Courtney's ingenuity covered his insulted honour; and before the procession on
Palm-Sunday those six farmers marched, bare-legged from toe to knee, and heads
uncovered, each carrying a sack of straw, the mouth of the sack being open,
that the straw, hanging out, might tell

LOLLARDS IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

the nature of their delinquency. As yet, however, the Parliament of England
had not been humbled by the enactment of any act that would place the lives of
Englishmen at the mercy of Priests.* That indignity was reserved to the reign
of the usurper, Henry IV.†

Meanwhile the Pope grew sorely dissatisfied with the Prelates of the Church in
England because of their negligence and sluggishness, as he was pleased to
say, in not courageously addressing themselves to the extirpation of heresy,
and despatched two Bulls of equal date (Sept. 17th, 1395) to the King, and to
the Bishop of Hereford; according to which documents it evidently appears that
the new Preachers ranged over the country with little restraint, and were so
far supported by popular sympathy, in most places, that the Diocesans could
not prevail against them. He therefore required, exhorted, and besought his
princely Highness to enjoin the Magistrates more straitly to execute justice
against those "damned men;" to expel, banish, imprison them, and keep them
imprisoned, until condign sentence should pronounce them worthy to suffer
punishment, or, in other words, to be burnt to death. As these Bulls were on
the way hither, the King was in Ireland, and the spirit of England was aroused
more than ever against the Church of Rome. Twelve conclusions were presented
to the House of Commons, where theological matters were not unfrequently
discussed, tending to establish that the Roman Church was only a step-mother
of the Anglican; that the priesthood, as it then was, was not such as the
Apostles had ordained; that Monkery and transubstantiation were sinful and
idolatrous; that the Pope should have no temporal power; and that the whole
system of worship and sacraments was unscriptural. The multitude of arts used
in this realm was also censured as unnecessary and wasteful; and it is worthy
of observation that the same dislike of art and luxury prevailed amongst all
the dissentients from Popery throughout Europe in the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries, arising, perhaps, from their exclusive possession by the Clergy and
the aristocracy, who were alike devoid of sympathy with the humbler classes of
the laity. Yet these conclusions were strongly supported in Parliament by some
of the nobles; and the friends of Romanism, alarmed at the unprecedented
boldness of the Lollards, and their growing influence, sent over to Ireland to
entreat Richard to return. He did so, and on reaching England summoned those
noblemen into his presence, and even made one of them swear not to favour or
defend such opinions any more. "And I swear," said he, "to thee, that if thou
dost ever break thine oath, thou shalt die for it a shameful death." Still the
Lollards multiplied: their principal idea of humbling the Church of Rome was
popular; and even Richard wrote a letter to the Pope, Boniface IX., exhorting
him to cease from struggling with his antagonist for lordship over the Church,
in language which might have been dictated by a Lollard (A.D. 1398).

* It will be remembered that what passed for a Parliamentary Statute only went
to imprisonment of heretics. And that counterfeit statute, although still
acted on, had been disclaimed and repealed by the Commons, with the sanction
of the King.

† This brief notice of the Lollards is gathered from the Acts and Monuments
preserved by John Foxe, compared with the records of Raynaldus, Rymer, &c.

We now enter on the reign of Henry IV. (A.D. 1399.) He soon obtained a great
advantage over his subjects by the suppression of a revolt. The throne was not
his; but in the usurpation of it the high Clergy were his abettors, and he
gratified them by engaging the Parliament to pass a law, enacting that any
heretic refusing to abjure, or relapsed, and delivered over to the secular arm
by the Bishop, or his Commissaries, should be burnt alive by the civil
Magistrate before the whole people.* Nothing more was necessary to complete
the horrid ceremonial of Popery in England, nor could the humiliation of
England be more abject, nor the power of an inexorable and sanguinary
priesthood over the lives of Englishmen be more assuredly established. Only a
victim was wanting whose pyre should serve as a beacon to warn the nation of a
vengeance that would consume whomsoever should dare to dispute the authority
now to be made paramount over Scripture, conscience, and humanity. Many,
seeing the danger which had come suddenly to view, and astounded at the
prospect, abjured; many had saved themselves, for the time, by keeping
silence. Yet for the Lord there were witnesses, and a victim was soon found,
to be the proto-martyr of England. William Sautre, (or Chatris,) parish Priest
of St. Margaret's of Lynn, in Norfolk, and of Tilney, a parish in the
neighbourhood, known to preach against the worship of images, the adoration of
the cross, and transubstantiation, had been cited to appear before the Bishop
of Norwich, and in his presence had been terrified into recantation of his
opinions (April and May, 1399). "In a certain chamber within the Manor-House
of the said Bishop," at South Helingham,† the Prelate himself, his Archdeacon,
John de Derlington, a Canonist; Friar Walter Dish, and John Rikinghal,
Professors of Theology; and William Carlton, Doctor of Civil and Canon Laws,
with two Notaries, had "Sir William" into their presence, and required him to
answer to the articles alleged against him. Two days were spent in
disputation; threatenings were not usually spared; and although not recorded,
since no record but their own remains to disclose the proceedings of that
court, they were no doubt resorted to in this case. After two days of close
contest, and seventeen more of anxiety and suspense, his confidence gave way;
and then, in the chapel of the Manor-House, he took his oath upon a book, in
the presence of the Bishop and of a congregation of the villagers, that from
that time forward he would never preach, affirm, or hold, privily or openly,
the heretical conclusions; and that he would solemnly renounce them in the
parish churches of Lynn and Tilney, and such other places as the Bishop might
appoint. "Then, next after this, upon the 25th day of May, in the year of our
Lord aforesaid, in the church-yard of the chapel of St. James, within the town
of Lynn, the aforesaid William, in the presence of the aforesaid Bishop and
Clergy, and the people of the said town of Lynn standing round about, publicly
declared in the English tongue" that the obnoxious conclusions were erroneous
and heretical. The same ceremony was exhibited in the

* 2 Henry IV., chap. vii., happily expunged from our statute-books.

† The three parishes of Ellingham, in Norfolk, are now otherwise
distinguished; they are Ellingham, and Great and Little Ellingham.

SAUTRE, PROTO-MARTYR OF ENGLAND.

church of St. John's hospital in the same town, as no doubt at Tilney also. He
was deprived of his office of Confessor in that diocese, and, for some reason
not known, removed to London, and became parish Priest of the church of St.
Osyth, then standing in Size-Lane. But his conviction of the sinfulness of
image-worship and the mass deepened; he could not conceal the truth; and being
known as a Lollard, and marked as one that had relapsed, was just such a
subject as Arundel, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was pleased to find ready
for his purpose. Threatened with death, he appealed to the Parliament to be
heard at their bar in justification of himself, and "for the commodity of the
whole realm." But the Parliament no longer represented the realm. Its
independence was crushed. It could not now protect life. The Archbishop called
him into his own presence, and he appeared before him in the Chapter-House;
but after one sitting, Arundel repaired to the Parliament, there to watch that
House, and left a deputy to go through the formalities of a mock trial. These
accomplished, the Primate set his hand to a sentence, which declared Sautre to
be a heretic, and a heretic to be punished. A few days afterwards my Lord of
Canterbury took the Bishop's chair in St. Paul's, attended by six Bishops,
performed on Sautre the tedious process of degradation in the presence of the
multitude, put a coloured cap on his head, and handed him over, as a layman,
to the High Constable and Marshal of England there present, with other civil
authorities, "beseeching them that they would regard favourably the said
William, unto them thus recommended." But that recommendation was the
established form in which Inquisitors on the Continent demanded of the civil
authorities that they should put heretics to death; to burn the body being
considered as a deed of mercy to the soul. This was done accordingly, by
virtue of an order bearing the royal signature, and ready written, being of
equal date with the sentence of degradation (Feb. 26th, 1401). He was
forthwith committed to the flames in Smithfield, being the first person
judicially put to death for Christ's sake in this country.* It must be
observed, that when standing before his Judges in the Chapter-House, he
attempted not any defence, neither denied nor qualified any of his opinions,
but meekly smiled with acquiescence in the will

* As this is the first writ for burning a heretic that was issued by a King of
England, was the model of all that followed, and is exceedingly characteristic
of those by whom it was dictated, a translation (excepting the preamble) may
be interesting. "We therefore, keeper (sellator) of justice, and preserver
(cultur) of the Catholic faith, desiring to maintain and defend Holy Church,
and the rights and liberties of the same, and to extirpate heretics and errors
of this kind out of our kingdom of England, and to punish heretics thus
convicted with condign animadversion; and bearing in mind that heretics of
this kind, convicted and condemned in the aforesaid form, ought, according to
divine and human law, canonical institutes, and, in this part, customarily, to
be burned with burning of fire: We command you as strictly as possibly we can,
and firmly enjoin, that ye cause the aforesaid William (Sautre), who is now in
your custody, in some public and open place, within the liberty of the
aforesaid city, (London,) the cause above recited being published before the
people, to be committed to fire, and himself in the same fire to be really
burned, in detestation of such a crime, and for a manifest example to other
Christians. And this, at your peril, you will not fail to do. Given at
Westminster, the King being witness, on the 26th day of February."—Rymed
Fodder, tom. viii., p. 178.

of God. That smile was registered as a sign of derision and contempt.*

During nine years following the Prelates did not venture to burn another
Lollard. Even Arundel, first in murderous zeal, as well as in worldly dignity,
found it necessary to repress his passion, and impose no other penalty than
imprisonment on those who could not be moved by intimidation, or by promises,
to swear unlimited submission to the authority of the Church. The poor Priests
of Wycliffe still prosecuted their labours, welcomed by the common people, and
often concealed by them from the knowledge of persecutors. But many persons,
both Priests and laymen, without favour shown to age or sex, were wearied into
recantation by the dread or the suffering of incarceration in loathsome
dungeons; and many others perished in such places. This state of things
continued until the year 1409, when the Primate and his Clergy renewed their
efforts. A set of Constitutions of his, then issued, conveyed through the
province of Canterbury his command, that no person unlicensed should preach,
under penalty of excommunication and confiscation of all his goods; that no
Clergyman or other person should admit an unlicensed Preacher into church,
church-yard, or any other place, under penalty of interdict on the place. The
Preacher who scandalized his hearers by too great freedom of speech, was to be
sharply punished by the Ordinary, who might use unlimited discretion. A breath
of dissent from authorized doctrine respecting the sacraments, brought down
excommunication; a second utterance of the kind was to be visited with
confiscation of goods, but might be atoned for by penance and open
recantation. Schoolmasters were to refrain from teaching anything contrary to
what was called "catholic faith," and to prevent their pupils from expounding
or disputing about the words of Scripture; every negligent Schoolmaster should
be "grievously punished" by the Ordinary of the place, as a favourer of errors
and schisms. Wycliffe's books were to be excluded from schools, halls,
hospitals, until expurgated by twelve censors then appointed; and
transgressors were to be dealt with as sowers of heresy. Under the same
penalty, no man should dare to translate the text of holy Scripture into
English or any other tongue, or read any such book, libel, or treatise, set
forth in the time of Wycliffe, or since. Formal propositions, even if but
apparently repugnant to authorized doctrine, and sayings unfavourable to
image-worship, pilgrimages, crossings, holy-water, and other like
superstitions, were marked as criminal, and were to be avenged according to
the laws against heresy. No Chaplain should be admitted to say mass in any
diocese, of whom it should not be duly certified that he was untainted by any
suspicion of having favoured the new doctrines; otherwise both he and he that
suffered him should be "sharply punished." Because Oxford was defiled with
"the new and damnable name of Lollardy," and the students' teeth were set on
edge by eating the sour grapes left there by their predecessors,—those sour
grapes, the writings of Wycliffe; the heads of houses were instructed how to
make inquisition of heresy, or, failing

* Foxe, Acts and Monuments.

JOHN BADBY.

obedience, to be deprived and excommunicated. On that Constitution Foxe
pithily notes in the margin: "I would the like were used now, for the
banishment of Papiatry." Suspected Clerks were to be made incapable of
preferment for three years. And, finally, for the easier punishment of
offenders, all persons not appearing on citation before the Ordinary, or other
superior, should be presumed guilty, and dealt with accordingly.* The zeal of
the Clergy was necessarily quickened, and the Church appeared more terrible
than ever, domineering over all speech and all thought, except where the
spirit of Christ had set men free from the fear of man. There were a few thus
emancipated; and, among them, John Badby, a tailor of Evesham, in the diocese
of Worcester, was found ready to surrender his life for Christ's sake. We find
him first at Worcester, in the chapel of the charnel-house of St. Thomas (à
Becket) the Martyr, in the cathedral. The Bishop of Worcester sat as his chief
Judge, attended by the Prior and Sub-Prior of the Church, and a full company
of "Parsons," Friars, Knights, and Esquires, chosen for their learning and
rank, to give a shadow of credit to the prosecution. The Evesham tailor stood
manfully before them, and, in the course of a "diligent" examination conducted
by the Bishop, answered without hesitation, that it was impossible for any
Priest to make the body of Christ, and that he would never believe it until
"he saw manifestly the like body of Christ to be handled in the hands of the
Priest upon the altar, in his corporal form;" but if that body could so be
made, any good man might do it as well as a Priest. And he argued against the
mass with a severity so unsparing, that the Friars exclaimed that his words
were horrible and out of order. The "reverend father" admonished him to abjure
utterly that heresy, and to believe all other things, as the holy mother the
Church believed; but the good man was nothing moved, and said expressly, that
"he would never believe otherwise than before he had said, taught, and
answered." That was enough. The company were not troubled with discussion of
any more articles. Thomas of Worcester subscribed an accusation of him as a
heretic, two Notaries set their hands and seals to the document, and it was
forwarded, forthwith, to the Primate. The Commons of England were not
insensible to the condition of the tailor of Evesham. The abbey of that town,
alone, endowed so richly, that it was in itself a principality, might have
suggested the measure that they resolved on taking. The country was
impoverished by the diversion of its wealth from the State to the Church, and
they renewed the complaint, already so often, but so ineffectually, made. The
Parliament, therefore, sent up a petition to the King, containing, by way of
preamble, a calculation of the value of property wasted by Ecclesiastics, to
the amount of 322,000 marks annually for the Priests, and 105,000 for the
Friars, and asking for the impropriation of that wealth to secular use.† The

* These Constitutions, published by Foxe, may be found in the appendix to
Lyndwood's Provincial, at the year 1408.

† The comparative value of these 427,000 marks may be conjectured from the
fair income of a Knight being 100, of an Esquire 40, and of a Priest 7 marks
per annum, according to the same preamble.

4 H

King answered, that he would consider of the matter, but did no more. But they
also petitioned that such persons as might be arrested by force of the statute
made against the Lollards nine years before, might be bailed, and freely clear
themselves; and that none but the civil authority might be allowed to arrest
them, nor any havoc be made of their goods. This would have delivered Badby
out of the hands of the Bishop of Worcester; but the King gave no answer; and
in a few weeks the confessor was taken up to London, and presented to Arundel,
not at St. Paul's nor Lambeth, but in a monastery of the preaching Friars;
and, as before, and like Sautre in the Bishop's Manor-House, not in open
court. Their failure in the case of Wycliffe, for want of the like precaution,
could not have been forgotten. There (March 1st, 1410) the inexorable
Archbishop, assisted by the Archbishop of York, eight Bishops, the Duke of
York, the Chancellor of England, the Clerk of the Rolls, and a great number of
other Lords, heard the record of the meeting at Worcester, received the
accusation of the Bishop, who, however, was not present, and asked Badby
whether he would renounce and forsake those conclusions. It was a question of
life or death. The humble tailor stood alone before the rulers of the kingdom;
men who held the Sovereign himself in their hands. No John of Gaunt protected
him. No Earl Marshal bade him sit down. No shout from a sympathizing
multitude, nor any message from royalty, demanded justice, or interposed
authority. To remonstrate, to argue, to implore, would have been vain. He
might have denied the truth: yet by seeking to save his life he would have
lost it; therefore, mindful of his Master's command and promise, he calmly
accepted the alternative, and said, in few words, that to his life's end he
would never retract the same. That answer sealed his doom; but "his
countenance was stout and his heart confirmed:" Canterbury pronounced him an
incorrigible heretic, and, as usual, very instantly desired the temporal Lords
there present, that they would not put John Badby to death, nor deliver him to
be put to death. Nor did they. The Archbishop and the Bishop of London agreed
together that he should be kept safe, and sent him to a cell in the same
monastery; the Archbishop took the key into his own charge; and on the
following Wednesday,* arrangements being complete, re-assembled the Prelates
and nobles in St. Paul's, brought up Badby again, read over the proceedings,
repeated the demand for retractation, heard his determination never to retract
repeated, reiterated the anathema, and sent him back in custody to the Black
Friars. In the afternoon the King issued a writ for burning the heretic, and
he was instantly taken to Smithfield, where preparations were made for
executing the sentence. He was chained to a stake, with dry wood underneath a
sort of grating at the foot, and a large barrel, open at both ends, put over
him, to hide the burning sacrifice from the eyes of Englishmen, not yet
accustomed to look on such objects. The fire was not yet kindled, and while
the executioners waited for the Priests, whose presence was deemed necessary
at so religious and important a solemnity, the Prince of Wales, a young man of
twenty, capable of

* The trial, if it may be so called, took place on a Saturday.

LORD COBHAM.

humane and generous emotions, notwithstanding habits of great profligacy, was
on the ground, went up to the spot, had the barrel removed, essayed to save
him during a long conversation, uttering in one breath the kindest expressions
of compassion, and in another the most boisterous threatenings; but it was all
in vain. Then came Courtney, Chancellor of Oxford, and preached to him the
faith of holy Church, but still without effect. Then the Prior of St.
Bartholomew's in Smithfield came in procession, with the host, preceded by
twelve torches, showed him the wafer, and asked him if he believed in it. "I
know," he replied, "that it is hallowed bread; but it is not God's body." At
this word the barrel was put over him, and the fire kindled underneath. When
the martyr felt the fire, he cried, "Mercy!" The Prince, thinking the prayer
such an one as he could answer, commanded the fire to be quenched, and the
barrel taken off; asked him if he would forsake heresy, and return to holy
Church; and offered him, under that condition, a yearly stipend from the
King's treasury. But he was unmoved; and the Prince, offended, ordered the
barrel to be replaced, and the flames re-kindled. It was done, and the martyr
was translated into paradise (March 5th, 1410). It was impossible that the
deed of that evening should not excite horror throughout England, and the
Priests were therefore placed on their defence. But the King had commanded it,
they could say, and the like had been done before, under the Act of 1401. That
Act, which Henry had just refused to repeal, was read in Convocation five days
afterwards; and the Crown, the Church, and the nobility being all on the side
of persecution, the Lollards could find no human succour.

Ostensibly to deliberate on a reformation of discipline, but really to
prosecute the suppression of Lollardism, the Primate assembled a national
Synod at St. Paul's (A. D. 1413). Reports of the Inquisitors of heretical
writings were laid before the Synod, and information was collected of the
proceedings of the Lollards, whose numbers multiplied throughout the land; and
the hierarchy of England felt bold to strike higher than they had hitherto
presumed. Sir John Oldcastle, Earl of Cobham, was either known or suspected to
have originated bills for reducing the temporalities of the Church in two
Parliaments,* and had openly espoused the cause of evangelical truth. If the
law against heresy could be inflicted on him, the Priests imagined that their
triumph would be great; and Arundel himself went to the young King, who, when
Prince of Wales, had seen Badby burnt, to solicit permission to indict Lord
Cobham on a charge of heresy. Henry felt unwilling to offend the nobility by
giving a hasty sanction to such a proceeding; desired the Archbishop to wait
until he should have conversed with Cobham, and endeavoured to bring him to
submission; and, having summoned his Lordship into his presence, earnestly
admonished him to submit to his mother, holy Church, and, as an obedient
child, acknowledge himself to be in error. The Christian nobleman had counted
the cost of his confession, and instantly addressed the King in such words as
these: "You, most worthy Prince, I am always prompt and willing to obey;
forasmuch as I know

* 18 Richard II., and 11 Henry IV.

4 H 2 you to be a Christian King, and the appointed minister of God, bearing
the sword to the punishment of evil-doers, and for safeguard of them that be
virtuous. Unto you, next my eternal God, I owe my whole obedience, and submit
thereunto, as I have ever done, all that I have, either of fortune or nature,
ready at all times to fulfil whatever ye shall, in the Lord, command me. But
touching the Pope and his spirituality, I owe them neither suit nor service;
forasmuch as I know him, by the Scriptures, to be the great Antichrist, the
son of perdition, the open adversary of God, and the abomination standing in
the holy place." Henry, finding his influence no greater than it had been with
the martyr in Smithfield, angrily gave him up, and granted full authority to
the Archbishop to proceed against him. Then the chief summer of my Lord of
Canterbury appeared before the gate of Cowling Castle to summon the Earl into
his master's presence; but the man's courage failed him; and not daring to
enter the gates of so noble a person without licence, he returned home without
delivering his message. Accompanied, however, by the door-keeper of the King's
Privy Chamber, who pretended to be sent with a verbal order from the
Sovereign, he came back to Cowling, and delivered the summons; but Lord Cobham
refused to acknowledge the competence of any Ecclesiastic to cite him thus.
Letters citatory were then nailed to the gates of Rochester Cathedral, but the
people tore them down; and he, expressing a just contempt of their
proceedings, went to ask an audience of the King, and presented a written
confession of his faith. But Henry was inexorable; and, after a second
interview, commanded him to be imprisoned in the Tower of London, in order to
answer at the ecclesiastical tribunal. From the Tower he was carried to the
Chapter-house of St. Paul's, (September 23d, 1413,) and informed by Arundel,
at whose side were the Bishops of London and Winchester, and some other
Doctors, that he had been convicted of heresy and excommunicated, but might
even then find mercy if he would recant, and ask to be absolved. Scorning
controversy, yet ready to give an answer of the hope that was in him, he drew
a paper from his bosom, containing a brief statement of his belief respecting
the sacrament of the eucharist, penance, (which he described as penitence
before God,) images, and pilgrimages, so drawn up as to exhibit only so much
on those points as consists with the word of God; but the confession was
inadmissible by the Prelates, because it tacitly excluded Popish innovations.
After talking, aside, with his assessors, Arundel called him up again,
acknowledged that the confession was good as far as it went, but demanded his
opinion on other points not therein mentioned. Such interrogatories he would
not answer; and, after long conversation, declared that he would stand to his
written confession, and to no other, until death. Gladly would he believe and
observe whatever Christ's holy church had determined, and what God willed; but
as for the Pope of Rome, with his Cardinals and Prelates, he would not affirm
that they had lawful power to determine such matters as stood not thoroughly
with the word of God. If they would send him their determination in writing,
he would consider it, but would not be ensnared in oral controversy. Sir
Robert

LORD COBHAM.

Morley, Lieutenant of the Tower, took him back thither, and the next day,
Sunday, a paper was sent to him containing four articles of Romish faith, with
the question, "How believe ye this article?" or, "How feel ye this article?"
attached to each. In his belief and feeling of Christian verity he stood
unmoved: the day was passed in prayer and resignation to God, at whose mercy-
seat he freely offered up his life, and sought help from the Holy Spirit to
bear a faithful testimony to the doctrines of the Gospel. On the Monday he was
again hurried from the Tower, not to the Chapter-house, but to the church of
the Dominican monastery, where Badby had been condemned, and found himself
before the same Judges as before, with the addition of the Bishop of Bangor,
and a large company of select Ecclesiastics, with Notaries to make a record of
what should be said or done. The Archbishop opened the proceedings by
addressing him in such words as these: "Lord Cobham, ye be advised, I am sure,
of the words and process which we had unto you upon Saturday last past, in the
Chapter-house of Paul's, which process is too long to be rehearsed again now.
I said unto you then, that you were accursed for your contumacy and
disobedience to the holy Church, thinking that ye should with meekness have
desired your absolution." With a cheerful meekness the noble prisoner replied:
"God said by his holy Prophet Malachy, 'Maledicam benedictionibus vestris.'"
At hearing these words, "I will curse your blessings," Arundel made as though
he heard not, and continued to proffer absolution, and urge him to ask for
pardon. Then said the Lord Cobham, "Nay, forsooth, will I not. I never yet
trespassed against you, and therefore I will not do it." Then, kneeling on the
pavement, he raised both his hands towards heaven, and said, "I shrive me here
unto thee, my eternal, living God, that in my frail youth I offended thee, O
Lord, most grievously, in pride, wrath, and gluttony, in covetousness, and in
uncleanness. Many men have I hurt in mine anger, and done many other horrible
sins; good Lord, I ask thee mercy." Weeping with contrition, not with
cowardice, he rose on his feet, and with a loud voice addressed the people who
filled the place: "Lo, good people, lo! for the breaking of God's law, and his
great commandments, they never yet cursed me; but for their own laws and
traditions, most cruelly do they handle both me and other men; and therefore
both they and their laws, by the promise of God, shall be utterly destroyed."
As God heard the prayer, so did the people respond to the appeal; a murmur
expressive of compassion rose in the congregation, the Bishops and their
company were overawed, even Arundel was abashed, and, for a few moments,
betrayed embarrassment by an ungraceful effort after exculpation. However, he
soon rallied, and a long dispute followed on the articles sent to Lord Cobham
on the preceding day, throughout which the prisoner displayed an immeasurable
superiority to his accusers. At the close, the Archbishop repeated the demand
of submission; and Cobham said expressly, "I will no otherwise believe in
these points than what I have told you here before. Do with me what you will."
A sentence, ready prepared, was then read by Arundel, declaring him to be a
heretic, and another consigning him to the temporal power to be put to death.
When the reading was finished, he briefly exhorted the people to beware of
those blind guides, knelt down again and prayed aloud that God would forgive
his persecutors, and was forthwith reconducted to the Tower. The secular
power, however, durst not precipitate the burning of such a man as Lord
Cobham, whom every one respected, and whom many thousands loved and venerated
as a holy man. His friends, too, circulated a short statement of his faith in
regard to the eucharist, in order to counteract the tales of his enemies; but
Priests were employed by their Superiors to circulate a report that he had
recanted. They even exhibited an abjuration forged in his name, hoping to make
him pass for a penitent, and save themselves the disgrace and danger of
putting him to death. That expedient failed; but another was found. The Clergy
presented a complaint to the King, that in every quarter of the realm, by
reason of Wycliffe's opinions, and the said Lord Cobham, were wonderful
contentions, rumours, tumults, uproars, confederations, dissensions,
divisions, differences, discords, harms, slanders, schisms, sects, seditions,
perturbations, perils, unlawful assemblies, variances, stripes, fightings,
rebellious agitations, and daily insurrections. They complained that the
Church was hated, (as well it might be,) and its dignitaries, Ministers, and
summers, (constables or familiars,) everywhere despised, and laughed to scorn.
All spiritual jurisdiction, they said, was had in utter contempt, and all that
was good come to nought. The truth seems to be that the Lollards persevered in
preaching and in worship. They had schools of their own, wrote books, which
were read by zealous persons who could not preach, in companies of such as
could not read, had their own forms of praise, like the old Waldenses, and met
together like them in fields, forests, and caves, when driven from houses. A
few persons were committed to the Tower; and Henry, with an affectation of
magnanimity, published a general pardon of those who had been betrayed by the
subtle enemy of mankind into error, and had gone so far as to plot the death
of himself, and certain Lords spiritual and temporal. But he excepted from the
pardon John Oldcastle, (Lord Cobham,) Richard Colfox, William Parchemyner,
Robert Shene, Clerk, Thomas Drayton, Rector of Drayton-Beauchamp, in
Lincolnshire, John Hoper, Thomas Sernes—, (the name is incomplete,) Thomas,
younger son of Robert Cheyne, Thomas Eston, a merchant of London, and another,
as well as some who had sought refuge in sanctuaries, or were elsewhere
imprisoned on the same account, or had escaped from prison, or were out on
bail.* Thus, it would seem, most of the leading Lollards were within the grasp
of their persecutors, in one way or another; and, this point being gained, the
King summoned a Parliament, which met at Leicester, (April 30th, 1414,) and
therein gave the Priests a statute setting forth that whosoever should read
the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue should forfeit land, cattle, body, life,
and goods from their heirs for ever; and so be condemned as heretics to God,
enemies to the Crown, and most arrant traitors to the land. Persons

* Rymeri Fœders, tom. ix., pp. 119, 120.

LORD COBHAM.

accused of "Wycliffe's learning" were to have no privilege of sanctuary, and,
when taken, were to be first hanged as traitors to the King, and then burnt as
heretics. Pardon was extended to a few, who probably submitted to the Church.*
Many suffered cruel death, many fled into Germany, Bohemia, France, Spain, and
Portugal; and many hid themselves in remote and uncultivated parts of
Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. Their flight was in winter; a circumstance at
which the mass-Priest would, no doubt, be all the better pleased.

There is some indistinct, yet undoubted, account of several persons having
been previously burnt in the month of January (1414); and on the 20th of
February, Arundel himself was called to answer for his deeds. His death-stroke
was sudden. Like Wycliffe, he suffered paralysis, a visitation which should
suffice to silence those Papistical writers who mark the affliction of the
Reformer as if it were the effect of God's displeasure. But Arundel had missed
the pleasure of numbering Lord Cobham with his victims. In a Parliament holden
at Westminster, (January 10th, 1414,) that eminent Lollard was charged with a
treasonable conspiracy against the King, a charge which careless or hostile
historians have copied into their books; but which is utterly at variance with
every known fact; and the King gave a commission for the arrest and punishment
of him, and the persons alleged to be his accomplices. The fact was, that he
had escaped from the Tower, and, like others, had fled into Wales. There he
remained for some time in concealment, while persecution raged in England, and
some more were put to death. Henry Chichesley, successor of Arundel in the see
of Canterbury, hotly prosecuted the work of extirpation, as his Constitutions
(A.D. 1416) witness; and multitudes of imprisoned Lollards, with long lists of
abjurations and of exiles, attest the continued power of the truth, and the
relentless wrath of those who ought to have maintained and taught the truth
they laboured to suppress. One effect of their wicked perseverance was the
discovery of Lord Cobham. Lord Powis, a Welsh nobleman, who had, for four
years, assisted in protecting his peer from persecution, now, attracted by the
proclamation of a large reward to whomsoever should present him to the King,
either "quick or dead," or else weary of incurring danger on account of a
religion he did not enjoy, basely brought his outlawed guest to London, and
delivered him, bound, in the House of Lords (December 14th, 1417). In that
assembly, the sentences of his excommunication and outlawry were again read.
He heard them in silence, and, after once more entering the Tower-gate as a
prisoner, rendering thanks to God that he was counted worthy to suffer for His
name's sake, he prepared for the long-expected martyrdom; calmly expecting the
day when, to borrow a prediction of his own, he should be taken up to heaven,
like Elijah, in a fiery chariot. On the day appointed, he was led out of the
Tower, with his hands bound behind him, placed on a hurdle, and drawn through
London. Yet his countenance betrayed neither fear

* Their names are preserved in a royal writ, De pardonatione pro Lollardis, in
Rymar, tom. ix., pp. 129, 130.

nor shame as he was dragged through the mire to St. Giles's Field, where a new
gallows was erected for the twofold execution. When taken from the hurdle, he
fell on his knees, and devoutly prayed Almighty God to forgive his enemies.
Then standing up, he looked around, with an air of conscious integrity, on the
multitude who had come to see him hanged as a traitor, and exhorted them at
some length to follow the laws of God as written in the Scriptures, and to
beware of such teachers as they saw to be contrary to Christ in their
conversation and living. Then, in obedience to the letter of the law, he was
hanged; but the manner of that hanging was so contrived that he should still
be burnt to death as a heretic; for all knew him to be innocent of treason.
Suspended by chains, he was swung on the gallows, a fire was kindled under
him, and he was roasted in the flames, but heard praising God as long as life
lasted.*

Chichesley, not less diligent than his predecessor in uprooting heresy, which
yet outgrew his labours, imprisoned (A.D. 1421) Thomas Purvey, author of
numerous treatises, "gravely and exactly written," on the chief points of
doctrine, discipline, and practices of Romanism; and designated "the Library
of Lollards, and Glosser upon Wycliffe." But these manuscript instructions
found their way into the chamber of the Priest, and to the hearths of lewd
men,† despite the searchings of inquisitors. William Tailor, a Priest, after
long endeavouring to expound his views in such a manner as might not violently
shock the zealots, and after having suffered various acts of discipline, was
drawn into controversy; and, being too honest to deny what he believed to be
true, was degraded and then burnt (A.D. 1423). Some of the opinions for which
he suffered, were precisely those which the Council of Trent afterwards
adopted, in order to palliate the absurdity of their system; such, for
example, as the distinction between the higher worship (latria) which he, as
they, denied to images, and the inferior veneration (dulia) which he allowed,
and they have pretended to be that alone which is rendered to the "mawmets" in
their temples. The Bishop of Norwich was second to none in fanaticism that
would persecute, even unto death. The records of that diocese during seven
years abound in accounts of abjurations, and lists of penitents. There, as
elsewhere, the practice seems to have been to imprison, fine, and subject to
humiliating public penances, the more active Lollards; and now and then to
burn one for the sake of maintaining authority, and spreading terror. William
White, a Priest, gave up his benefice, married, preached the Gospel, read good
books to the people, and added others by his own pen. He was therefore made an
example of, being burnt at Norwich, to the horror and "grief of all the good
men of Norfolk" (A.D. 1428). About the same time, Father Abraham, of
Colchester, and John Waddon, a Priest, were consumed to ashes. Indeed, several
other names might be recorded; but little is known of the circumstances of
their martyrdom, and the mere recitation of names would be rather tedious than
instructive. But the

* Foxn, Acts and Monuments; Rymeri Fader, tom. ix., pp. 119, 129, 193.

† Laymen were so called in common language.

ARROGANCE OF PRIESTS.

martyrs were often honoured by the multitude, who had revered them for their
piety, and beheld their constancy with admiration; and when the Bishop of
London had caused a poor Priest, Richard Wiche, to be burned on Tower-Hill,
people crowded to the place of martyrdom, raised on it a mound of stones
surmounted by a cross, offered up prayers around it, as if the spot had been
consecrated by the translation of a saint to glory, and the excitement became
so great, and the mortification of the Clergy so profound, that they applied
to the King for help, and obtained a writ from His Majesty to the Sheriffs of
London and Middlesex, and not to them only, but, because persons from all
parts of the country began to join the crowds on Tower-Hill, to all the
Sheriffs of England, setting forth the royal desire to abolish idolatry,
charging the Londoners with having been guilty of that sin in worshipping the
ashes of Richard Wiche; "whereas it is not lawful to worship any manner of
person, be he ever so holy, before he is canonized by the Bishop of Rome;" and
prohibiting all persons from resorting thither, under pain of being taken and
punished as favourers of heretics. Even a word spoken in favour of Richard
Wiche, a syllable of censure on the Prelate who sent him to the stake, was to
be thus avenged * (A.D. 1440).

The power and arrogance of the Clergy were now raised to the highest pitch.
The Bishop of Winchester, made Cardinal against the will of Henry V., and
still holding that bishopric contrary to the common law of the realm, and in
contempt of the statute præmunire facias, had managed, together with the
Archbishop of York, to get the government of the infant King Henry VI., after
the death of his father, so that England was, for a time, prostrate under
ecclesiastical predominance. "The good Duke Humphrey," brother of the deceased
King, endeavoured to resist the usurpation and fraudulent practices of the
Cardinal; but without success. Accused of heresy, his Duchess was compelled to
undergo a shameful penance; and the citizens of London passively saw the aunt
of their Sovereign walk through Cheapside thrice as a penitent, carrying a
taper in her hand, and then separated from her royal husband, outlawed, and
placed in the custody of an appointed keeper in the Isle of Man (A.D. 1440).
As for the Duke of Gloucester himself, he was found murdered in his bed, (A.D.
1447,) and his memory was tainted with the reproach of heresy. The tale of
Reynold Peacock, Bishop of Chichester, could not be very briefly told; but the
summary is, that he entertained some correct views of discipline and doctrine,
and desired that the Church in England should be released from some of the
bonds imposed thereon by the Bishop of Rome; and that for this offence he was
charged with heresy, cited to appear before the Archbishop of Canterbury, and
compelled to make a public retractation of his opinions. Notwithstanding this
humiliation, he was confined as a prisoner to his house, thence taken to a
monastery, and never heard of more. And so onward, to the time of the
Reformation, persons were commonly burned for heresy, without respect to age
or sex, or perished in dungeons. There even seemed to be a thirst for noble

* Foxe, Acts and Monuments.

4 1 blood, a pride in outraging the last notions of humanity, an abject
submission of all ranks to the terrors of the priesthood. Had it not been so,
Henry VII. and the nobles of England would not have allowed Joan Boughton,
mother of the Lady Young, an aged and holy woman, for she was upwards of
eighty, to have been dragged into Smithfield, and openly burnt to death.
Public opinion had no utterance in those days. The Commons, indeed, revered
her as a saint. A trembling multitude heard her declare that she feared not
the fire, that God loved her, and that angels would attend her spirit into
heaven. They wept silently around the stake; treasured in their memory her
last prayer, while burning, that God would take her soul into his holy hands;
and some of them came, in the dead of the night, to steal away her ashes from
the embers (A.D. 1496). Confessions and martyrdoms are no longer described by
chroniclers as rare events. A sentence, or even a name, suffices for the
record, and the coldness of an incidental note shows that the obduracy of the
Priest, and the degradation of England, had become complete; while, on the
other hand, the frequency of public penances, public burnings, or secret
deaths, confirms the statement of later historians, that the doctrines of
Wycliffe continued to spread and to deepen, and serves to fill up the series
of evidence that the truth of God is immortal, and the kingdom of Christ a
kingdom that cannot be moved.

At this point of our history, the witnesses are nearly put to silence; and
almost throughout Europe the priesthood seem to domineer over Sovereigns and
people; yet the beginnings and the means of Reformation are established. We
have marked those beginnings and observed those means latent in infant
institutions and in new principles of social and national existence. Beside
the thrones and professorial chairs of Christendom, there now stand ready
monitors of independence. Hidden in the walls and buried under the floors of
our fathers' violated habitations, lie the Lollards' books; and in the
monastic cells and inquisitorial chambers are laid up, in manuscript, the
first elements of a new moral science, a divine literature, that shall soon be
taught in schools, debated in Parliaments, and, in a yet higher and holier
form, proclaimed from pulpits, and poured from the press. Christendom, nearly
lifeless, has fallen under the temporary triumph of a Church making her last
grand effort after the undisputed sovereignty of mankind, and utter
suppression of the Gospel; but we are only in the chill and darkness that
precedes the dawn. The morning star is up; and in a subsequent volume, if the
Lord will guide the hand that undertakes to write it, we shall hail its
appearance, and humbly emulate the gladness of the sons of God who shouted
together for joy while He laid down the foundations of a new and beauteous
world to be the object of a Redeemer's love.

END OF VOLUME II.

LONDON: PRINTED BY JAMES NICHOLS, HOXTON-SQUARE.

University of California

SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY

405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1388

Return this material to the library from which it was borrowed.

MAY 10

========================================================================
  MARTYROLOGIA; OR, RECORDS OF RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION
  sermonindex.net
========================================================================