Back to History ReportsBack to the Way of Life Home PageWay of Life Literature Online
Catalog
Back to History Reports
Back to the Way of Life Home Page
Way of Life Literature Online
Catalog
THE
HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, from the birth of Christ to the
18th Century: including the very interesting account of the
Waldenses and Albigenses
By William Jones
First Edition 1812
Fourth Edition 1819
Fifth Edition 1826
London: Printed for the Author by W. Myers, 7, Took’s Court,
Castle Street, Holborn
[Note from the publisher. This valuable out-of-print book was carefully formatted for electronic publication by Way of Life Literature. For a catalog of other books, both current and old, in print and electronic format, contact us at P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061-0368, fbns@wayoflife.org (e-mail), http://www.wayoflife.org (web site).]
[Table of Contents for "A History of the Christian Church" by William Jones]
FROM THE DEATH OF CONSTANTINE THE GREAT, TO THE CLOSE OF THE FOURTH CENTURY
A.D. 337 - 400
On the decease of Constantine, the government of the Roman empire was distributed between his three sons. To Constantine the II were assigned the provinces of Britain, Spain, and Gaul, now called France. To his brother Constans, Illyricum, Italy, and Africa; whilst Constantius inherited the east, comprehending Asia, Syria, and Egypt, with the city of Constantinople, to which his father had transferred the imperial residence, and consequently made it the seat of government.
In the year 340, a quarrel arose between the two first mentioned brothers, which ended in a war, and that war in the death of Constantine. Constans now added the dominions of the deceased prince to his own, and thereby became sole master of all the western provinces. He retained possession of this immense territory until the year 350, when Magnentius, one of his own officers, with the view of getting himself declared emperor, contrived to procure the assassination of Constans. The usurper, however, did not long enjoy the fruits of his perfidy; for Constantius, justly incensed by his rebellious conduct, marched an army against him, and repulsing him at the outset, Magnentius, transported with rage and despair at his ill success, and apprehending the most terrible and ignominious death from the resentment of the conqueror, put a termination to his own life. Thus, Constantius, in the year 353, became sole monarch of the Roman empire, which he governed until the year 361. Marching at the head of his army, in that year, to chastise the presumption of his own kinsman, Julian, whom the forces entrusted to his command in Gaul, had, in an hour of victory saluted with the title of Augustus, he was arrested by the hand of death, and expired at Mopsucrene in Cilicia, leaving the vacant throne to Julian. None of the sons of Constantine the Great, inherited the spirit and genius of their father. They, nevertheless, so far trod in his steps, as to extend their fostering care to the Catholic religion, to accelerate its progress through the empire, and to continue to undermine and abolish the system of Paganism.
But the controversy which had arisen between Arius and Alexander, relative to the sonship of Christ, was far from being put to rest by the decision of the council of Nice. The doctrine of Arius, indeed, had been condemned by a very large majority -- he himself was banished to Illyricum, and his followers compelled to assent to the confession of faith composed by the synod -- his writings also had been proscribed as heretical, and the punishment of death decreed against all who were convicted of the crime of harboring them in their houses. But persecuting edicts cannot extend their dominion over the thoughts, and it is scarcely less difficult to impose an effectual restraint upon the tongue. Persecution has generally been found favorable to whatever cause it has been directed against; it somehow enlists the sensibilities of our nature on the side of the persecuted party; and disposes the mind to a more candid and impartial examination of the question in dispute, than we should otherwise possess. It is perhaps too much to affirm with Dr. Middleton, that "truth was never known to be on the persecuting side" [Preface to his Free Inquiry, p. 8, 4to. edit.]; an impartial examination, however, of the opinions and proceedings of both Arians and Athanasians on this occasion, serves in some degree to justify the maxim, and convinces us that they were equally remote from the truth, even as they were alike well disposed to persecute each other in proportion as either party obtained the means of doing it. Only it is due to the orthodox party to say, that they took the lead in punishing heretics with death, and persuaded the emperor to destroy those whom they could not convert.
When the undivided government of the empire centered in the hands of Constantius, he evinced a strong predilection for the Arian side of the controversy, and Arianism became fashionable at court. The emperor favored only the bishops of that party. Paul, the orthodox prelate of the see of Constantinople, was ejected from his office by the emperor’s order, and Macedonius substituted in his room. This man adopted a scheme different from either party, and contended that the Son was not consubstantial, but of a like substance with the Father, openly propagating this new theory, after thrusting himself into the bishoprick of Paul; and thus, by the addition of a single letter, affecting to settle the whole dispute. Frivolous as was this distinction, it enraged the orthodox party, who, filled with rage and resentment, rose in a body to oppose Hermogenes, the officer whom Constantius had sent to introduce him unto his episcopal throne, burnt down his house, and drew him round the streets by his heels until they had murdered him.
ATHANASIUS, who had rendered such essential service to Alexander, his bishop, in managing the dispute with Arius at the council of Nice, had, by this time, risen to great popularity, and in reality was become the oracle of the orthodox party. We are supposed to be indebted to him for the creed which bears his name, and which fills so eminent a place in the liturgy of our national church. Even to this day he is extolled by such respectable writers as Milner and Haweis, as a prodigy of evangelical light. But whatever may be said of the soundness of his speculative creed, he was evidently a man of aspiring views and of persecuting principles. In a letter to Epictetus, bishop of Corinth, alluding to some heretical opinions then prevalent, he says, "I wonder that your piety hath borne these things, and that you did not immediately put those heretics under restraint, and propose the true faith to them, that if they would not forbear to contradict they might be declared heretics, for it is not to be endured that these things should be either said or heard amongst Christians." And upon another occasion, "they ought to be held in universal hatred," says he, "for opposing the truth," -- comforting himself that the emperor, when duly informed, would put a stop to their wickedness, and that they would not be long-lived. In one of his letters he exhorts those to whom he wrote, to "hold fast the confession of the fathers, and to reject all who should speak more or less than was contained in it. And, in his first oration against the Arians, he declares in plain terms, "that the expressing a person’s sentiments in the words of scripture, was no sufficient proof of orthodoxy, because the devil himself, used scripture words to cover his wicked designs upon our Savior, and that heretics were not to be received though they made use of the very expressions of orthodoxy itself."
The Scriptures were now no longer the standard of the Christian faith. What was orthodox, and what heterodox, was, from henceforward, to be determined by the decisions of fathers and councils; and religion propagated not by the apostolic methods of persuasion, accompanied with the meekness and gentleness of Christ, but by imperial edicts and decrees; nor were gainsayers to be brought to conviction by the simple weapons of reason and scripture, but persecuted and destroyed. It cannot surprise us, if after this we find a continual fluctuation of the public faith, just as the prevailing party obtained the imperial authority to support them; or that we should meet with little else in ecclesiastical history than violence and cruelties, committed by men who had wholly departed from the simplicity of the Christian doctrine and profession; men enslaved to avarice and ambition; and carried away with views of temporal grandeur, high preferments, and large revenues.
To dwell upon the disgraceful cabals, the violent invectives, and slanderous recriminations of those ruling factions, would afford little edification to the reader, and certainly no pleasure to the writer. Were we disposed to give credit to the complaints of the orthodox against the Arians, we must certainly regard them as the most execrable set of men that ever lived. They are loaded with all the crimes that can possibly be committed, and represented as bad, if not worse, than infernal spirits. And had the writings of the Arians not been destroyed, we should, no doubt, have found as many and grievous charges laid by them, perhaps with equal justice, against the Athanasians. Constantius banished Athanasius from his bishoprick at Alexandria, and wrote a letter to the citizens, in which he terms him "an impostor, a corrupter of men’s souls, a disturber of the city, a pernicious fellow, one convicted of the worst crimes, not to be expiated by his suffering death ten times;" and a bishop, named George, was put into his see, whom this eloquent emperor is pleased to style "a most venerable person, and the most capable of all men to instruct them in heavenly things." Athanasius, however, in his usual style, calls him "an idolater and hangman; and one capable of all kinds of violence, rapine, and murders;" and whom he actually charges with committing the most impious actions and outrageous cruelties.
The truth is, that the clergy of the Catholic church were now become the principal disturbers of the empire; and the pride of the bishops, and the fury of the people on each side had grown to such a height, that the election or restoration of a bishop seldom took place in the larger cities, without being attended with scenes of slaughter. Athanasius was several times banished and restored at the expense of blood. What shall we make of the Christianity of the man who could act thus, or countenance such proceedings? Had Athanasius been influenced by the benign and peaceable spirit of the gospel, he would at once have withdrawn himself from such disgraceful scenes, and preferred to worship God in the society of only a dozen day-laborers in a cellar or a garret, to all the honor and all the emolument which he could derive from being exalted to the dignity of archbishop of Alexandria, on such degrading conditions. One can scarcely forbear contrasting his conduct with the behavior of Him, whose servant he professed to be.
"When Jesus perceived that they would come and take him by force, and make him a King, he departed again into a mountain alone" John 6:15.
The fruits of the Spirit are not turbulence and strife; "but love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, fidelity, meekness and temperance; and they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its affections and lusts" Galatians 5:22.
The orthodox were deposed, and the Arians substituted in their places, with the murder of thousands; and as the controversy was now no longer about the plain doctrines of uncorrupted Christianity, but about secular honors and dignified preferments, so the bishops were introduced into their churches and placed upon their thrones by armed soldiers. And when once in actual possession, they treated those who differed from them without moderation or mercy, turning them out of their churches, denying them the liberty of worship, fulminating anathemas against them, and persecuting them by every species of cruelty, as is evident from the accounts given by the ecclesiastical historians of Athanasius, Macedonius, George, and others. In short, they seem to have treated one another with the same implacable bitterness and severity, as their common enemies, the heathen, had ever exercised towards them, or as though they thought persecution for conscience-sake had been the distinguishing characteristic of the Christian religion, and that they could not more effectually recommend themselves as the disciples of Christ, than by devouring each other. This made Julian, the emperor, say of them, that he found by experience, that even the beasts of the forest are not so cruel as the generality of Christians then were to one another. Such was the wretched state of things in the reign of Constantius, which affords us little more than the history of councils and creeds differing from, and clashing with each other -- bishops deposing, censuring, and anathematizing their adversaries, and the people divided into factions under their respective leaders, for the sake of words, of the meaning of which they understood nothing, and contending for victory even to bloodshed and death. Thus, as Socrates observes, "was the church torn in pieces for the sake of Athanasius and the word consubstantial!"
It probably would not be easy to sketch in few words a more striking picture of these times than that which is given us by Ammianus Marcellinus, who, having served in the armies, had the best opportunities of studying the character of Constantius. "The Christian religion, which in itself," says he, "is plain and simple, he confounded by the dotage of superstition. Instead of reconciling the parties by the weight of his authority, he cherished and propagated by verbal disputes, the differences which his vain curiosity had excited. The highways were covered with troops of bishops, galloping from every side to the assemblies, which they called synods; and while they labored to reduce the whole sect to their own particular opinions, the public establishment of the posts was almost ruined by their hasty and repeated journies." [Ammianus Marcellinus, 1. 21, ch. 16.] It was certainly a very just, though severe censure, which Gregory Nazianzen passed upon the councils that were held about this time. "If I must speak the truth," says he, "this is my resolution, to avoid all councils of the bishops, for I have not seen any good end answered by any synod whatsoever; for their love of contention, and their lust of power, are too great even for words to express." [Opera, vol. 1, Epist. 55.] The skepticism of Gibbon has subjected him to an unmeasurable effusion of rancor from the clergy of his day; and far be it from me to stand forward the advocate of skepticism in any man; but I most cordially agree with that eminent writer, when he says, "the patient and humble virtues of Jesus should not be confounded with the intolerant zeal of princes and bishops, who have disgraced the name of his disciples." [Decline and Fall, vol. 9, ch. 50. 4]
So fascinating is the influence of worldly pomp and splendor upon the human mind, that it is not to be wondered at, that the see of ROME became at this time a most seducing object of sacerdotal ambition. In the episcopal order, the bishop of Rome was the first in rank, and distinguished by a sort of pre-eminence over all other prelates. He surpassed all his brethren in the magnificence and splendor of the church over which he presided; in the riches of his revenues and possessions; in the number and variety of his ministers; in his credit with the people; and in his sumptuous and splendid manner of living. Ammianus Marcellinus, a Roman historian, who lived during these times, adverting to this subject, says, "It was no wonder to see those who were ambitious of human greatness, contending with so much heat and animosity for that dignity, because when they had obtained it, they were sure to be enriched by the offerings of the matrons, of appearing abroad in great splendor, of being admired for their costly coaches, sumptuous in their feasts, out-doing sovereign princes in the expenses of their table." This led Proetextatus, an heathen, who was praefect of the city, to say, "Make me Bishop of Rome, and I’ll be a Christian too!"
In the year 366, Liberius, bishop of Rome, died, and a violent contest arose respecting his successor. The city was divided into two factions, one of which elected Damasus to that high dignity, while the other chose Ursicinus, a deacon of the church. The party of Damasus prevailed, and got him ordained. Ursicinus, enraged that Damasus was preferred before him, set up separate meetings, and at length he also obtained ordination from certain obscure bishops. This occasioned great disputes among the citizens, as to which of the two should obtain the episcopal dignity; and the matter was carried to such a height, that great numbers were murdered on either side in the quarrel -- no less than one hundred and thirty-seven persons being destroyed in the very church itself! [Socrates’ Eccl. Hist. b. 27, ch. 3.] But the very detail of such shameful proceedings is sufficient to excite disgust; and enough has been said to convince any unprejudiced mind of the absurdity of looking for the kingdom of the Son of God in the "Catholic Church," as it now began to be denominated. "The mystery of iniquity," which had been secretly working since the very days of the apostles (2 Thessalonians 2:7), had nevertheless been subject to considerable control, so long as Paganism remained the established religion of the empire, and Christians were consequently compelled to bear their cross, by patiently suffering the hatred of the world, in conformity to the Captain of their salvation. But no sooner was this impediment removed by the establishment of Christianity, under Constantine, than "the Man of Sin" -- "the Son of perdition" began to be manifest. Men were now found, professing themselves the disciples of the meek and lowly Jesus, yet walking after the course of this world, "lovers of their ownselves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God, having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof" (2 Timothy 3:3-5). And, as this state of things continued to increase in progressive enormity, until it ultimately brought forth that monstrous system of iniquity, denominated "MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS, AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH" described by the prophetic pen, as "the habitation of devils, -- the hold of every foul spirit, -- the cage of every unclean and hateful bird" (Revelation 17:5; and 18:2), we may rest fully assured that the sheep of Christ, -- those who heard his voice and followed his will (John 10:27), would see it their indispensable duty to separate themselves from such an impure communion, in obedience to the reiterated commands of God (2 Corinthians 6:14-18; 2 Timothy 3:5; Revelation 18:4).
It may be proper to remark, that long before the times of which we now treat, some Christians had seen it their duty to withdraw from the communion of the church of Rome. The first instance of this that we find on record, if we except that of Tertullian, is the case of NOVATIAN, who in the year 251, was ordained the pastor of a church in the city of Rome, which maintained no fellowship with the Catholic party. It is a difficult matter, at this very remote period, to ascertain the real grounds of difference between Novatian and his opponents. Those who are in any tolerable degree conversant with theological controversy, will scarcely need to be apprised how much caution is necessary to guard against being misled by the false representations which different parties give of each other’s principles and conduct. Novatian is said to have refused to receive into the communion of the church any of those persons who, in the time of persecution, had been induced through fear of sufferings or death, to apostatize from their profession, and offer sacrifices to the heathen deities; a principle which he founded upon a mistaken view of Hebrews 6:4-6. We may readily conceive how interesting and difficult a subject this must have been to all the churches of Christ in those distressing times, and the danger that must have arisen from laying down any fixed rule of conduct that should apply to all cases that would come before them; or even verging towards an extreme on either side of this question. The following is the account given of Novatian by the late Mr. Robert Robinson, in his Ecclesiastical Researches, p. 126; and I the more readily submit it to the reader, because none who know Mr. Robinson, can, for a moment, suspect him of having any undue predilection for the principles of Novatian.
"He was," says he, "an elder in the church of Rome, a man of extensive learning, holding the same doctrine as the church did, and published several treatises in defense of what he believed. His address was eloquent and insinuating, and his morals irreproachable. He saw with extreme pain the intolerable depravity of the church. Christians within the space of a very few years were caressed by one emperor, and persecuted by another. In seasons of prosperity many persons rushed into the church for base purposes. In times of adversity, they denied the faith, and reverted again to idolatry. When the squall was over, away they came again to the church, with all their vices, to deprave others by their examples. The bishops, fond of proselytes, encouraged all this; and transferred the attention of Christians from the old confederacy for virtue, to vain shows at Easter, and other Jewish ceremonies, adulterated too with Paganism. On the death of bishop Fabian, Cornelius, a brother elder, and a violent partizan for taking in the multitude, was put in nomination. Novatian opposed him; but as Cornelius carried his election, and he saw no prospect of reformation, but on the contrary, a tide of immorality pouring into the church, he withdrew and a great many with him. Cornelius, irritated by Cyprian, who was just in the same condition, through the remonstrances of virtuous men at Carthage, and who was exasperated beyond measure with one of his own elders, named Novatus, who had quitted Carthage, and gone to Rome to espouse the cause of Novatian, called a council and got a sentence of excommunication passed against Novatian. In the end, Novatian formed a church, and was elected bishop. Great numbers followed his example, and all over the empire Puritan churches were constituted and flourished through the succeeding two hundred years. Afterwards, when penal laws obliged them to lurk in corners, and worship God in private, they were distinguished by a variety of names, and a succession of them continued till the Reformation."
The same author, afterwards adverting to the vile calumnies with which the catholic writers have in all ages delighted to asperse the character of Novatian, thus proceeds to vindicate him:
"They say Novatian was the first Antipope; and yet there was at that time no pope, in the modern sense of the word. They call Novatian the author of the heresy of Puritanism; and yet they know that Tertullian had quitted the church near fifty years before, for the same reason, and Privatus, who was an old man in the time of Novatian, had, with several more, repeatedly remonstrated against the alterations taking place; and, as they could get no redress, had dissented and formed separate congregations. They tax Novatian with being the parent of an innumerable multitude of congregations of Puritans all over the empire; and yet he had no other influence over any, than what his good example gave him. People every where saw the same cause of complaint, and groaned for relief; and when one man made a stand for virtue, the crisis had arrived; people saw the propriety of the cure, and applied the same means to their own relief. They blame this man, and all these churches for the severity of their discipline; -- yet this severe discipline, was the only coercion of the primitive churches, and it was the exercise of this that rendered civil coercion unnecessary. Some exclaimed, it is a barbarous discipline to refuse to readmit people into Christian communion, because they have lapsed into idolatry or vice. Others, finding the inconvenience of such a lax discipline, required a repentance of five, ten, or fifteen years; but the Novatians said, you may be admitted among us by baptism or, if any Catholic has baptized you before, by re-baptism; but if you fall into idolatry, we shall separate you from our communion, and on no account readmit you. God forbid we should injure either your person, your property, or your character, or even judge of the truth of your repentance or your future state; but you can never be readmitted to our community, without our giving up the last and only coercive guardian we have of the purity of our [fellowship.] Whether these persons reasoned justly or not, as virtue was their object, they challenge respect, and he must be a weak man indeed, who is frighted out of it because Cyprian is pleased to say, they are the children of the devil."
The doctrinal sentiments of the Novatians appear to have been very scriptural, and the discipline of their churches rigid in the extreme. They were the first class of Christians who obtained the name of (CATHARI) Puritans, an appellation which doth not appear to have been chosen by themselves, but applied to them by their adversaries; from which we may reasonably conclude that their manners were simple and irreproachable. Some of them are said to have disapproved of second marriages, regarding them as sinful; but in this they were in common with Tertullian and many other eminent persons. A third charge against them was, that they did not pay due reverence to the martyrs, nor allow that there was any virtue in their relics! -- A plain proof of their good sense.
Novatian appears to have been possessed of considerable talents. Mosheim terms him, "A man of uncommon learning and eloquence;" and he wrote several works, of which only two are now extant. One of them is upon the subject of the Trinity. It is divided into thirty-one sections: the first eight relate to the FATHER, and treat of his nature, power, goodness, justice, etc. with the worship due to him. The following twenty sections relate to CHRIST -- the Old Testament prophecies concerning him -- their actual accomplishment -- his nature -- how the Scriptures prove his divinity -- confutes the Sabellians -- shows that it was Christ who appeared to the patriarchs, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, etc. The twenty-ninth section treats of the HOLY SPIRIT -- how promised and given by Christ -- his offices, and operations on the souls of men and in the church. The last two sections recapitulate the arguments before adduced. The work appears to have been written in the year 257; six years after his separation from the Catholic church. The other tract is upon the subject of "Jewish Meats," addressed in the form of a letter to his church, and written either during his banishment or retreat in the time of persecution. It opens up the typical nature of the law of Moses, and while he proves its abolition, is careful to guard his Christian brethren against supposing that they were therefore at liberty to eat things sacrificed to idols. [Dr. A. Clarke’s Succession of Sacred Literature, vol. 1, p. 209-212.]
Dr. Lardner in his Credibility of the Gospel History, ch. 47 has been at considerable pains in comparing the various and contradictory representations that have been given of Novatian and his followers, and has exonerated them from a mass of obloquy, cast upon them by the Catholic party. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, wrote many epistles or treatises respecting the sect of the Novatians, which afford abundant evidence that their rigid discipline was relished by many. Fabius, bishop of Antioch, in particular, was their friend and favorer. Marcian, bishop of Arles, was firm in the same principles in the time of Stephen, bishop of Rome. A church was formed at Carthage for the Novatian party, of which Maximus was the pastor. Socrates, the historian, speaks of their churches at Constantinople, Nice, Nicomedia, and Cotioeus in Phrygia, all in the fourth century - these he mentions as their principal places in the East, and he supposes them to have been equally numerous in the West. What were their numbers in these cities does not appear, but he intimates that they had three churches in Constantinople.
Though, therefore, Novatian and his principles were condemned by the Catholic party, at the time that Dionysius wrote the fore-mentioned letters concerning them to the bishop of Rome, he still continued to be supported by a numerous party in various places, separated from the Catholic church. They had among them some persons of considerable note, and of eminent talents. Among these were Agelius, Acesius, Sisinnius, and Marcian, all of Constantinople. Socrates mentions one Mark, bishop of the Novatians in Scythia, who died in the year 439. In fact, the pieces written against them by a great variety of authors of the Catholic church -- such as Ambrose, Pacian, and others -- the notice taken of them by Basil and Gregory Nazianzen -- and the accounts given of them by Socrates and Sozomen in their ecclesiastical histories, are proofs of their being numerous, and that churches of this denomination were to be found in most parts of the world, in the fourth and fifth centuries. "The vast extent of this sect," says Dr. Lardner, "is manifest from the names of the authors who have mentioned them, or written against them, and from the several parts of the Roman empire in which they were found." [Lardner’s Works, 4to. ed. vol. 2, p. 57.]
All the ecclesiastical historians complain loudly of the schism that was made in the Christian church by the Novatians, whose difference from the Catholics respected matters of discipline only. But we should not be too hasty in joining issue with them in these lamentations. On the contrary, it may fairly admit of a doubt, whether this breach in the unity of the Christian church in that age, and other similar breaches that have taken place at different times, have not been productive, upon the whole, of the happiest effects. For besides promoting free inquiry and discussion, without which no subject can be well understood, this multiplication of sects has had a powerful tendency to counteract that overbearing authority which the whole Christian church united, could not have failed to possess, and which, if there had been no place of retreat from power, would have been insupportable. What would have been the terror of an excommunication from a church, and how would it have been possible to correct any abuse in such circumstances? That families and friends should be divided, and that those divisions should be the cause of so much animosity as they have often occasioned, is, no doubt to be lamented. But this is an evil that does not necessarily arise from sects in religion, but solely from the unreasonable spirit of bigotry in men, which cannot bear with patience that others should think or act differently from them -- that bigotry, which a number of sects, and their necessary consequences, can alone cure. Private animosity was an evil inseparable from the promulgation of Christianity itself, and was distinctly foretold by its divine author. The excellent character of many of the Novatian Bishops, was of great use in exciting emulation among those of the Catholic Church, and in checking that abuse of power, which has often disgraced Christianity infinitely more than the divisions that are the subject of complaint. But to proceed.
Constantius, whose death has been already mentioned, was succeeded in the administration of affairs in the year 361, by his nephew JULIAN. This prince, during his infancy, had been entrusted to the care of Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, to whom he was related on his mother’s side. But although considerable pains had been taken to instruct him in the principles of Christianity, the mind of Julian imbibed a partiality for the Pagan worship, which, however, he dexterously contrived to conceal until he had assumed the reins of government. Mr. Gibbon, not without probability, resolves this unhappy bias of the young prince’s mind into a disgust which he had taken at the manner in which the Arian controversy was carried on. "He was educated," says he, "in the lesser Asia, amidst the scandals of the Arian controversy. The fierce contests of the Eastern bishops, the incessant alterations of their creeds, and the profane motives which appeared to actuate their conduct, insensibly strengthened the prejudices of Julian that they neither understood nor believed the religion for which they so fiercely contended." [Decline and Fall, vol. 4, ch. 25.] There is surely nothing incredible in this -- the wonder would have been that, spectator as he was of such detestable squabbles, he should have retained any predilection for the Christians.
The apostasy of Julian (as the Catholic clergy delighted to call it) was carefully concealed during his minority; and, when first intimated, it was cautiously done among the adherents of the ancient Pagan worship. From the zeal and virtues of their royal proselyte, they fondly hoped the restoration of their temples, sacrifices, and worship, of which they had been in a considerable degree deprived during the reigns of Constantine and his sons. Probably they expected that the flames of persecution should again be lighted up against the enemies of their deities; while the Christians beheld with horror and indignation the apostasy of Julian. But the hopes of the former, and the fears of the latter, were disappointed by the prudent conduct of Julian, who, during his short reign, consulted the good of his subjects and the public tranquillity. Actuated by these motives, and apprehensive of disturbing the repose of an unsettled reign, he surprised the world by an edict, extending to all the inhabitants of the empire the benefits of a free and equal toleration -- but he had seen enough of the intolerant principles of the Catholic clergy, to deprive them of the power of persecuting their fellow subjects. The Pagans were permitted to open all their temples, and were at once delivered from the oppressive laws and arbitrary exactions imposed upon them by Constantine and his sons. At the same time, the bishops and clergy, who had been banished by Constantius, were recalled from exile, and restored to their respective churches. Julian, who had paid considerable attention to their disputes, invited the leaders of the different parties to his palace, that he might enjoy the pleasure of witnessing their furious encounters. The clamor of controversy sometimes provoked him to exclaim, "Hear me! the Franks have heard me, and the Germans;" -- but he soon discovered that he was now engaged with more obstinate and implacable enemies; and, though he exerted all the powers of his oratory to persuade them to live in concord, or at least in peace, he was perfectly satisfied he had nothing to fear from their union and co-operation.
There are two particulars in the reign of Julian which ought not to be passed over without being briefly adverted to. The first is, the extraordinary exertions which he made to restore the ancient superstitious worship. No sooner did he ascend the throne, than he assumed the character of supreme Pontiff, and became a perfect devotee to the rites of Paganism. He dedicated a domestic chapel to the sun, his favorite deity -- his gardens were filled with statues and altars of the gods -- and each apartment of his palace displayed the appearance of a magnificent temple. He also endeavored, by his own zeal, to inflame that of the magistrates and people. "Amidst the sacred but licentious crowd of priests, of inferior ministers, and of female dancers, who were dedicated to the service of the temple, it was the business of the emperor to bring the wood, to blow the fire, to handle the knife, to slaughter the victim, and thrusting his bloody hands into the bowels of the expiring animal, to draw forth the heart or liver, and to read, with the consummate skill of a soothsayer, the imaginary signs of future events." [Gibbon, vol. 4, ch. 23.] Encouraged by the example of their sovereign, as well as by his exhortations and liberality, the cities and families resumed the practice of their neglected ceremonies. "Every part of the world," exclaims one of their own writers, with transport, "displayed the triumph of religion -- and the grateful prospect of flaming altars, bleeding victims, the smoke of incense, and a solemn train of priests and prophets, without fear, and without danger. The sound of prayer and of music was heard on the tops of the highest mountains; and the same ox afforded a sacrifice for the gods, and a supper for their joyous votaries," This may give us some notion of what might have ensued had the life of Julian not been cut short.
The other circumstance alluded to, is the project which this emperor entertained of rebuilding the temple of Jerusalem. In a public address to the people of the Jews, dispersed throughout the provinces of his empire, he tells them, that he pities their misfortunes, condemns their oppressors, praises their constancy, declares himself their gracious protector, and expresses a hope, that after his return from the Persian war, he may be permitted to pay his vows to the Almighty in the holy city of Jerusalem. It is probable that the vain and ambitious mind of Julian aspired to the honor of restoring the ancient glory of the temple. He knew the Christians were firmly persuaded that, by the coming of Christ, the typical dispensation had come to an end; and could he succeed in restoring the Jews to their city and the ritual of their worship, he might convert it into an argument against the faith of prophecy and the truth of revelation. He, therefore, resolved to erect, on Mount Moriah, a stately temple; and without waiting for his return from the Persian war, gave instructions to his minister Alypius, to commence without delay, the vast undertaking.
At the call of their great deliverer, the Jews, from all the provinces of the empire, repaired to Jerusalem. The desire of rebuilding the temple has, in every age, been a favorite project with them. In this propitious moment, says Gibbon, the men forgat their avarice and the women their delicacy; spades and pick-axes of silver were provided by the vanity of the rich, and the rubbish was transported in mantles of silk and purple. Every purse was opened in liberal contributions, every hand claimed a share in the pious labor; and the commands of a great monarch were executed by the enthusiasm of a whole people.
The joint efforts of power and enthusiasm were, however, on this occasion unsuccessful. I am aware that the reason of this is differently accounted for. Some resolve it wholly into the early death of Julian, and the additional circumstance of his successor being actuated by different religious principles. I shall, however, transcribe the account which is given of this extraordinary affair, not by a Christian, but by a heathen writer, who lived during the transaction, and wrote his book within twenty years of it -- leaving the reader to make his own reflections on the subject. Ammianus Marcellinus, detailing the history of his own times, says, "whilst Alypius, assisted by the governor of the province, urged with rigor and diligence the execution of the work, horrible balls of fire, breaking out near the foundations, with frequent and reiterated attacks, rendered the place, from time to time, inaccessible to the scorched and blasted workmen; and the victorious element continuing in this manner, obstinately and resolutely bent as it were, to drive them to a distance, the undertaking was abandoned." [Ammianus Marcellinus b. 21, at the beginning.] This "unexceptionable testimony," as Gibbon candidly admits it to be, is also supported by Ambrose, bishop of Milan, in a letter to the emperor Theodosius -- by the eloquent Chrysostom, who at the time was bishop of Antioch -- and by Gregory Nazianzen, who published his account of this preternatural event before the expiration of the same year.
There are few of the Roman emperors, whose characters have been exhibited in more discordant lights, than that of Julian. His predilection for Paganism, or his prejudice against Christianity, or both, have given such a partial bias to the pen of Mr. Gibbon when recording the events of his reign, that he uniformly represents him as a virtuous and amiable monarch. But there certainly were traits in his character of a very different nature. Dr. Lardner, whose impartiality has never been called in question, tells us, that Julian "had a certain levity of mind; was a great talker; very fond of fame; superstitious rather than properly religious; so addicted to sacrificing, that it was said the race of bulls would be destroyed if he returned victorious from Persia: and such was the multitude of his victims, that his soldiers, who partook of them, were frequently much disordered by excess in eating and drinking. He received the rising sun with blood, and attended him with blood at his setting. By frequent devotions he engaged the gods to be his auxiliaries in war; worshipping Mercury, Ceres, Mars, Calliope, Apollo, and Jupiter. Libanius, complaining of the deities who had deserted him, says, ‘Which of them shall we blame? not one, but all, for none were neglected by him, neither gods nor goddesses. And is this the return,’ says he, ‘for all his victims, for all his vows, for all the incense, and all the blood offered up to them, by day and by night? Wherever there was a temple, continues the same writer, whether in the city, or on the hill, or on the tops of the mountains, no place was so rough or so difficult of access but he ran to it, as if the way had been smooth and pleasant.’ But though Julian was so devout and religious in his way, he could be much displeased when he was disappointed, and even angry with his gods, like other heathens. In the Persian war, having obtained some successes and expecting more, he prepared a grand sacrifice for Mars; but the omen not being favorable, he was greatly incensed; and called Jupiter to witness, that he would never more offer a sacrifice to Mars. This excess of superstition, it seems to me, is the proof of the want of judgment -- a defect which appeared upon divers occasions and in many actions not altogether becoming the dignity of an emperor." [Lardner’s Testimonies, vol. 4, p. 25.]
The conduct of Julian towards the Christians does not seem to have been characterized by all that impartiality which his admirers claim for him. Sozomen, the historian, says, he ordered the strictest inquiry to be made after the estates that belonged to Christians, with a view to confiscate the whole of them, not hesitating to employ torture to come at the truth. He subjected the Christian clergy to the lowest services in the army -- and threatened, that unless the Christians rebuilt the Pagan temples, he would not suffer THE GALILEANS to wear their heads; and our historian observes, that if it had been in his power, and he had not been prevented by death, he would probably have been as good as his word. [Sozomen’s History, bk. 5, ch. 5.]
Though Julian forebore to persecute unto death, he could not, on several occasions, refrain from using insults, which sufficiently showed what he felt, and what he wished to do. When he was sacrificing in a temple at Constantinople, and Maris, the bishop of Chalcedon, a man respectable for his learning and for the part he had acted in public life, and now venerable for his age, happening to pass by, he abused him as an impious person, and an enemy of the gods. He had even the meanness to reproach him for his blindness, saying, "Will not your Galilean God cure you?" "The old man replied, "I thank my God that I am deprived of sight, that I may not see your fall from piety." On this occasion, Julian had so much command of himself, as to pass on without making any reply.
But notwithstanding his affectation of magnanimity, Julian was not always so much master of himself, as he appeared to be on this occasion. While at Antioch, just before he set out on his expedition against Persia, two of the officers who usually attended upon his person, inadvertently complained, that by his orders, every thing in the city was polluted with the rites of heathenism, insomuch that the very fountains that supplied the city, and every thing sold in the market, bread, butcher’s meat, herbs, fruit, etc. had been sprinkled with lustral water, by which they were, as it were, consecrated to the heathen gods: such had been his insidious policy, in order to draw the people insensibly into idolatry.
These complaints coming to the ears of Julian, he ordered them to be brought before him; and interrogating them, as was his custom, with great familiarity, they frankly told him, that they had made those complaints; and that having been educated in the Christian religion, under his predecessors, Constantine and Constantius, they could not help being disgusted at seeing every thing contaminated with the rites of heathenism; but that this was the only thing in his reign of which they complained. At this he was so provoked, that he ordered them to be put to death with torture: pretending that it was not on account of their religion, but for their petulance in insulting their emperor.
About the same time, a deaconess, of the name of Pythia, who led the female singers, happening, as the emperor was passing by the doors of a place of worship, to be singing a psalm, and having, perhaps imprudently, pitched upon one of those in which the heathen gods and their worshippers are spoken of with contempt, he was so provoked that he sent for her; and, though she was very old, one of his guards struck her by his command, and in his presence, on both the cheeks, with such violence, that the blood gushed out. [Theod. Hist. b. 3, ch. 15.]
After a short reign of twenty months, Julian, who perished by the lance of a common soldier, while prosecuting the Persian war upon the banks of the Euphrates, was succeeded in the year 363 by JOVIAN, one of the officers of his army. He had been educated in the principles of Christianity, and as soon as he ascended the throne, transmitted a circular letter to all the governors of the provinces, securing the legal establishment of the Christian religion. The edicts of Julian were abolished, and ecclesiastical immunities restored and enlarged. The Catholic clergy were unanimous in the loud and sincere applause which they bestowed on Jovian, but they were yet ignorant what creed or what synod he would choose for the standard of orthodoxy. The leaders of the different factions were properly aware, how much depended upon the first impressions made on the mind of an untutored soldier, and they hastened to the imperial court. The public roads were crowded with Athanasian, Arian, Semi-arian, and Eunomian bishops, who struggled to outstrip each other in the race: the apartments of the palace resounded with their clamors, and the ears of the prince were assaulted, and perhaps astonished by the singular mixture of metaphysical argument and personal invective. He wisely recommended to them charity and concord, but referred the disputants to the decision of a future council.
The conduct of Jovian seems to have given the death blow to the prevalence of Paganism in the empire. "Under his reign," says the historian of the Roman empire, "Christianity obtained an easy and lasting victory; and as soon as the smile of royal patronage was withdrawn, the genius of Paganism, which had been fondly raised and cherished by the acts of Julian, sunk irrecoverably in the dust. In many cities, the temples were shut or deserted; the philosophers who had abused the transient favor, thought it prudent to shave their beards, and disguise their profession; and the Christians rejoiced, that they were now in a condition to forgive or to revenge the injuries which they had suffered under the preceding reign." [Gibbon, vol. 4, ch. 85.]
Jovian, nevertheless, issued a wise and gracious edict, in which he explicitly declares, that though he should severely punish the sacrilegious rites of magic, his subjects might exercise with freedom and safety, the ceremonies of the ancient worship. "I hate contention," says he, "and love those only that study peace;" declaring, that "he would trouble none on account of their faith, whatever it was; and that such only should obtain his favor and esteem, as should stand forward, in restoring the peace of the church." The senate of Constantinople deputed an orator, of the name of Themistius, to express their loyal devotion to the new emperor. His oration is preserved, and merits particular attention, for the discovery which it inadvertently makes of the state of the established Catholic church at that period. "In the recent changes," says he, "both religions have been alternately disgraced, by the seeming acquisition of worthless proselytes, of those votaries of the reigning purple, who could pass, without a reason and without a blush, from the church to the temple, and from the altars of Jupiter to the sacred table of the Christians."[15] Could a volume give us a more striking picture of the wretched state to which the Christian profession was reduced in so short a time as half a century after its establishment?
Jovian reigned only one year. He appears to have been addicted to intemperance; for, after indulging himself in the pleasures of the table at supper, he retired to rest, and the next morning was found dead in his bed. The throne of the empire now remained ten days vacant; but it was at length filled by two brothers, VALENTINIAN AND VALENS, the former a distinguished officer in the army, who, thirty days after his own elevation, voluntarily associated his brother with him in the government of the empire, A.D. 364. Of both these princes, Mr. Gibbon says, that "they invariably retained in the purple, the chaste and temperate simplicity which had adorned their private life; and under their reign, the pleasures of a court never cost the people a blush or a sigh." Though in a great measure illiterate themselves, they were great promoters of learning among their subjects. They planned a course of instruction for every city in the empire; and the academies of Rome and Constantinople, but more especially the latter, were considerably extensive.
The two emperors were of very different tempers, and took different courses in regard to religion. The former was of the orthodox party; but though he especially favored those of his own sentiments, he gave no disturbance to the Arians. Valens, on the contrary, was less liberal in his views, and persecuted all who differed from him. In the beginning of their reign, a synod was convened in Illyricum, which again decreed the con-substantiality of Father, Son, and Spirit. The emperors issued a circular letter, declaring their assent to this, and ordering that this doctrine should be preached -- though they published laws for the toleration of all religious denominations, and even of Paganism. In the year 375, Valentinian died suddenly in a transport of rage, and VALENS being sole emperor, was soon prevailed on by the artifice of Eudoxius, bishop of Constantinople, to take a decided part with the Arians, and to abandon his moderation, by cruelly persecuting the Orthodox. The first thing that fired his resentment was the conduct of these latter, who had solicited and obtained his permission to hold a synod at Lampsacus, for the amendment and settlement of the faith; when, after two month’s consultation, they decreed the doctrine of the Son’s being like the Father as to his essence, to be the true orthodox faith, and deposed all the bishops of the Arian party. This highly exasperated Valens, who without delay, convened a council of the Arian bishops, and in his turn, commanded the bishops who composed the synod of Lampsacus to embrace the sentiments of Eudoxius the Arian: and upon their refusal, sent them into exile, transferring their churches to their opponents. After this, he pursued measures still more violent against them; some were commanded to be whipped, others disgraced, not a few imprisoned, and many fined.
But the most detestable part of his conduct was his treacherous and cruel behavior towards eighty of them, whom, under the pretense of sending them into banishment - a thing to which they had consented, rather than subscribe what they did not believe - he put on board a ship, and caused the vessel to be set on fire as it sailed out of the harbor, through which they all perished either by fire or water. These kinds of cruelty continued to the end of his reign, and there is no room to doubt that he was greatly stimulated to them by the bishops of the Arian party. It is a melancholy reflection, that the pity which such merciless treatment as this could not have failed to excite in every feeling mind, the orthodox should have deprived themselves of, by their own imprudence, in commencing the first assault upon the Arians. They ought to have remembered that divine maxim, "whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so unto them;" for on most of those occasions it was only "the measure they meted that was measured to them again."
But the conduct of Valens was not regulated by the strict rules of equity; for in this persecution he included the Novatians, whose churches he commanded to be shut up, and their pastors banished; although, so far as I can perceive, they took no part whatever in the squabbles that existed between the contending factions. Agelius, the pastor of the church in Constantinople, a man of admirable sanctity and virtue, and remarkable for his perfect contempt of money, was exiled. Yet he was restored not long after, and recovered the churches of his communion. Socrates, the historian, who seems to have been intimately acquainted with the affairs of the Novatians, says, that the toleration which this class of Christians at length obtained, they owed under providence to one Marcian, a presbyter of their church in Constantinople, a man of learning and piety, who tutored two daughters of the emperor. This historian particularly mentions the liberality and kindness which the Novatians exercised towards such of the orthodox party as were the subjects of persecution, while they themselves were tolerated,--trait in their history which even Milner is obliged to admit "reflects an amiable lustre on the character of these Dissenters" [History of the Church, vol. 2, p. 157]-- and for showing which benevolence, they actually incurred the displeasure of the reigning party. Agelius presided over that church forty years, and died in the sixth year of the reign of Theodosius. Before his death, some difference of opinion arose in the church relative to a successor. Agelius gave the preference to Sisinnius,* a person of great learning and talents, and consequently ordained him. The church had a great partiality for Marcian, who had been eminently instrumental in enabling them to weather the storm of persecution under Valens. Distressed that any cause of murmuring should exist among them, Agelius immediately ordained Marcian to the episcopal office, and thereby restored harmony and concord.
[* Socrates, the historian, has given us some interesting particulars of SISINNIUS, which, as I do not recollect to have seen them quoted by any modern writer, I shall here extract. "He was," says he, "an eloquent person and an excellent philosopher — had diligently cultivated the art of Logic, and was incomparably well versed in the sacred Scriptures." He wore a white garment, and regularly bathed himself twice a day in the public baths. He seems to have been remarkable for the readiness of his wit on all occasions; in illustration of which, Socrates has recorded several anecdotes. Being interrogated by one of his acquaintance, why he, who was a bishop, chose to bathe twice a day, Sisinnius promptly replied, "Because I cannot bathe thrice!" His good sense led him to treat with levity the practice of clothing the clergy in black. Calling one day to pay a friendly visit at the house of Arsacius, who had succeeded Chrysostom in the see of Constantinople, he was asked, why he dressed in a manner so unsuitable to his character as a bishop. "Tell me" said he, "where it is written that a bishop should wear a black garment? You, said he, can never show that a priest ought to wear black — but I will give you my authority for wearing White. Hath not Solomon expressly said, Let thy garments be always white?" Ecclesiastes 9:8. He then referred them to Luke 9:29, on which occasion both the Lord Jesus, and Moses, and Elias, appeared to the apostles clothed in white. In the province of Galatia, Leontius, the bishop of Ancyra, commenced a prosecution against the church of the Novatians, in that city, and took from them their place of worship. Happening soon afterwards to come to Constantinople, Sisinnius waited upon him, for the purpose of entreating him to restore to his friends their chapel. Leontius flew into a passion, and said, "You Novatianists ought not to have churches, for you discard all repentance, and exclude the loving kindness of God," etc. Sisinnius listened patiently to this philippic, and then calmly replied, "But no man can repent more than I do!" How, said Leontius, do you repent? "I repent," replied Sisinnius, "that I have seen you!" Chrysostom, who was at the head of the Catholic party, and who was a man of excessive arrogance, on one occasion addressed him with great heat, saying, "You are a heretic, and I will make you leave off preaching." "I’ll give you a reward," said Sisinnius, "if you will free me from the labor of it." "O! if the office is laborious," rejoined Chrysostom, "you may go on with it." Socrates closes his account of Sisinnius with the following sketch. "He was very eminent for his learning, on which account all the bishops who succeeded, loved and honored him. Moreover, all the eminent personages of the Senatorian order had a great affection for him and admired him. He wrote many books, but he is too studious about words in them, and intermixes too many poetic terms; he was more admired for his speaking than for his writings. In his countenance and voice, in his dress and aspect, and in the whole of his action and deportment, there was much gracefulness — by reason of which accomplishments, he was beloved by all sects." Upon another occasion, he remarks that, such was the high estimation in which Sisinnius was held by the Novatian people, that, "his word was law." Sisinnius died in the year 407, and was succeeded by Chrysanthus, a man of signal prudence and modesty, by whose means the churches of the Novatians were not only upheld but increased. Eccles. Hist. b. 6, ch. 22. and b. 7, ch. 12.]
[It is quite amusing to witness Mr. Milner’s spleen against the characters of Novatian and Sisinnius. He terms the latter a "facetious gentleman," and only mentions him for the sake of censuring his singularity in not conforming to the catholic clergy and the clerical garb. Indeed, he seems to have regarded him in much the same light as that in which Dr. Johnson regarded Milton, when he said, "he was not of the Church of England, he was not of the Church of Rome — to be of no church is dangerous." But of AErius (concerning whom the reader will meet with some account in the next section) he disdains, so far as I can perceive, even to record his name or his heresy — though on St. Augustine, a part of whose labors were employed in an attempt to refute him, he has bestowed 172 closely printed pages! — that Augustine, of whom, after all, he is constrained to acknowledge that he understood not Paul’s doctrine of justification — that he perpetually confounds it with sanctification, (vol. 2, p. 426, etc.) and as that to the doctrine of particular redemption, it was unknown to him and all the ancients, as he [Mr. Milner] wishes it had remained equally unknown to the moderns," p. 467. This was, indeed, fulfilling the pledge Mr. M. had given the public, of writing an Ecclesiastical History on a new plan. See his Preface to vol 1 of his History of the Christian Church.]
After having reigned fourteen years, Valens lost his life in a battle with the Goths, A.D. 378, and was succeeded in the government of the empire by GRATIAN, the son of Valentinian. He was of the orthodox party; and after the death of his uncle Valens, he recalled those that had been banished, restored them to their sees, and sent Sapores, one of his captains, to drive the Arians, like wild beasts, out of all their churches. This emperor, soon after his accession to power, united with himself as colleague in the government, "the great THEODOSIUS, a name celebrated in history, and dear to the Catholic church."
Immediately on his advancement to the throne of the empire, Theodosius betrayed a warm zeal for the orthodox opinions. Hearing that the city of Constantinople was divided into different religious parties, he wrote a letter to them from Thessalonica, wherein he acquaints them, that "it was his pleasure, that all his subjects should be of the same religious profession with Damasus, bishop of Rome, and Peter, bishop of Alexandria, and that their church alone should be denominated "Catholic," who worshipped the divine Trinity as equal in honor, and that those who were of another opinion should be called heretics, become infamous, and be liable to other punishments." [Sozomen, b. 7, ch. 4-6.] And on his arrival in the imperial city, he sent for Demophilus, the Arian bishop, demanding to know whether he would subscribe the Nicene confession of faith, adding, "if you refuse to do it, I will drive you from your churches" -- and he kept his word, for he turned him and all the Arians out of the city.
The more effectually to extinguish heresy, he in the year 383, summoned a council of bishops of his own persuasion to meet at Constantinople, in order to confirm the Nicene faith; the number of them amounted to an hundred and fifty, to which may be added, thirty-six of the Macedonian party. This is commonly termed the second Oecumenical or general council. They decreed that the Nicene faith should be the standard of orthodoxy, and that all heresies should be condemned. When the council was ended, the emperor issued two edicts against heretics; the first prohibited them from holding any assemblies; and the second, forbidding them to meet in fields or villages! And as though this were not sufficiently extravagant, he followed up this absurd procedure by a law, in which he forbade heretics to worship or to preach, or to ordain bishops or presbyters, commanding some to be banished, others to be rendered infamous and deprived of the common privileges of citizens. In the space of fifteen years he promulgated at least, fifteen several edicts against the heretics. It is some apology for him certainly that he did not often put these execrable statutes in force; and one would charitably hope that Sozomen and Socrates, who have recorded the history of these whimsical transactions, are correct in thinking that he only intended by them to terrify others into the same opinions of the Divine Being with himself. But the zeal of Theodosius was not wholly absorbed in the establishment of uniformity among the professors of Christianity; he was equally anxious to extinguish the expiring embers of Paganism. About the year 390, he issued a law, in which he expressly states that "it is our will and pleasure, that none of our subjects, whether magistrates or private citizens, however exalted, or however humble may be their rank and condition, shall presume, in any city or in any place, to worship an inanimate idol, by the sacrifice of a guiltless victim." [Theod. 1. 16. tit. 10. leg. 12.] The act of sacrificing, and the practice of divination by the entrails of the victim, are declared a crime of high treason against the state which can be expiated only by the death of the guilty. The rites of Pagan superstition are abolished, as highly injurious to the truth and honor of religion; and luminaries, garlands, frankincense, and libations of wine are enumerated and condemned.
Such were the persecuting edicts of Theodosius against the Pagans, which were rigidly executed; and they were attended with the desired effect, "for so rapid and yet so gentle was the fall of Paganism, that only twenty-eight years after the death of Theodosius, the faint and minute vestiges were no longer visible to the eye of the legislator [Gibbon’s Rome, vol. 5, ch. 20.]."
[The increase of the Christian profession in the world, must always be an interesting topic with those who rightly estimate the importance of the gospel to human happiness; but every one must be aware of the difficulty there is in arriving at certain calculations on the subject. The reader, however, will require no apology from me for subjoining in this place, a short extract from Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. "Under the reign of Theodosius," says he, "after Christianity had enjoyed, more than sixty years, the sunshine of imperial favor, the ancient and illustrious church of Antioch (in Syria) consisted of one hundred thousand persons; three thousand of whom were supported out of the public oblations. The splendor and dignity of the Queen of the East, [the name then given to Antioch] the acknowledged populousness of Caesarea, Seleucia, and Alexandria, and the destruction of two hundred and fifty thousand souls in the earthquake which afflicted Antioch under the elder Justin, are so many convincing proofs that the whole number of its inhabitants was not less than half a million." Vol. 2, ch. 15. Now, according to this calculation, the reader will see that at the time Theodosius attempted to enforce an uniformity of worship throughout the empire, the proportion which the nominal Christians in Antioch bore to the rest of the citizens, was as one to five. Taking this as a fair average, there must have been in Rome two hundred and fifty thousand professed Christians at that time, and at Alexandria, in Egypt, which was the second city in the empire, probably one hundred and fifty thousand. Thus in those three cities alone there were half a million of nominal Christians. The number of inhabitants included in the whole of the Roman Empire at that period, was one hundred and twenty millions; and if we extend the computation to that multitude, we should be led to conclude that there were among them twenty-four millions that professed the Christian religion. We must, however, keep this consideration always in view, that Christianity had, at this time, been sixty years established by law as the religion of the empire, and consequently was not a little corrupted from its original purity.]