History. apparent splendour of his character becomes immeasurably enhanced by a contrast with the darkness which surrounds it.

From

A. D.

768.

to

A. D. 814. Estimate of his achievements

and policy

as a conqueror.

Considering him merely as a conqueror, it would not perhaps be difficult to detract largely from the fame of his exploits and the wisdom of his policy. It has been objected against the originality of his merit, that he did no more than conquer with the means which the two heroes of his race who preceded him had prepared and bequeathed to his hand: but neither were the most celebrated conquerors of the ancient and modern world, Alexander, the first two Cæsars, Mahomet II., Charles XII., and Napoleon, any more than Charlemagne, the absolute creators of the military power which they wielded. There is more justice in the remark that it was the fortune of Charlemagne never to encounter an antagonist worthy of his arms, or equal in strength, discipline, and union to the contest with his troops. Enemies utterly incapable alike of singly resisting the force of his Empire or of confederating for their mutual defence, were easily subjugated in detail by his numerous armies. It extremely depreciates the value of his achievements, that his best trophies were torn only from the degenerate Lombards, the barbarous Saxons and Huns, and the disunited Saracens of Spain; and both his martial genius and his glory are heavily impeached in his disgraceful and unrevenged defeat by the mountaineers of Gascony.

The policy which directed the arms of Charlemagne, and the theatre of their employment, has been as freely questioned as the merits of his success. It has naturally excited the surprise of Historians, that he abandoned the brilliant completion of his rich conquests in Italy and Spain, to consume thirty laberious campaigns in the forests and wilds of Germany and Pannonia. There can be little doubt that it would have needed far inferior efforts to extend his Empire over the whole of those two Southern Peninsulas of Europe, than he wasted in the barren consummation of his victories over the Saxons. The weakness of the Greek Empire must have delivered its Provinces of Southern Italy an easy prey to the Frankish arms: the fatal dissensions of the Saracens in Spain offered a splendid prize to his ambition. Nor, if his strong but misdirected anxiety for the propagation of Christianity be held to account for his perseverance in the Saxon wars, is his indifference to the pursuit of his Spanish conquests the more explicable since his Religious zeal and his thirst of glory might have been equally gratified, and his ambition would have been more highly rewarded, by the expulsion of the Infidels from one of the wealthiest and most ancient Kingdoms of Christian Europe. It has been ingeniously suggested that, in his expeditions beyond the Rhine and the Elbe, Charlemagne perhaps aspired to save his Monarchy from the fate of the Roman Empire, to tame the enemies of civilization, and to oppose a rampart to the North against the future torrent of the Barbarian migrations. But this defence of a policy,-which, besides, is only imagined in the opinion, without being supported by any contemporary declaration of the purpose, is rather plausible than justified by the event. The futility of the precaution would be signally exposed in the subsequent devastations of the Norman pirates; and the Northern conquests of Charlemagne could not extinguish, if they did first rouse, the fierce energies of the Scandinavian race, who mercilessly lacerated anew the Provinces of the second Western Empire, with the same fatal wounds

which the earlier Barbarian invaders had inflicted on France, the first.

From

A. D. 768. to

A. D.

814.

Germany, Whatever errors may be fairly imputed to the mili- Italy, &c. tary conduct and judgment of Charlemagne as a conqueror, are deeply aggravated when we view them in connection with his intolerant and sanguinary bigotry. With the furious zeal of a Barbarian, he outraged the gentle spirit of Christianity, when he attempted the forcible conversion of the Saxon idolaters; and true Religion and policy must equally condemn the cruel and inju- His Religi 4 dicious violence which substituted the horrors of perse- ous intole cution for the persuasive truths of the Gospel. The rance laws of a conqueror who punished the refusal of Baptism, the relapse to Paganism, and even the eating of flesh during Lent, with the penalty of death, degrade the bigotry of Charlemagne even below the ignorant ferocity of Clovis, or the fanatical proselytism of the Koran. The perpetual revolts of the Saxons were chiefly provoked by these atrocious edicts; and the Capitularies of Charlemagne offer a sufficient explanation for the obstinate resistance of that people, and an eternal reproach to his own memory. Nor, without and crueleven the same excuse of a mistaken zeal for Religion, ties against was he incapable of yet greater cruelties in the unscru- the Saxons, pulous gratification of his ambition; and both the fate of his brother's children and the shocking massacre of the Saxon thousands in cold blood, are paralleled only by the worst atrocities of a Tartarian despot.

in his Civi

These excesses of Religious and Political cruelty are Contrast of the deep shades in the bright character of Charlemagne: wisdom and the darkening vices of a great nature which, though far benevolence from sanguinary by temperament or in wantonness, administra could scarcely be expected to escape from the conta- tion. gious influence of a superstitious and ferocious Age. It. the judgment of more humane and enlightened times, it requires nothing less than the benevolent attributes of his Civil administration to redeem the offences of his ambition and bigotry: but, even in analyzing his crimes, we ought at once to lose their remembrance, when we compare the benefits of his reign with the previous and subsequent misery of Europe. Seldom has the violent acquisition of power been equally sanctified by its use; and posterity has done justice to the merit of Charlemagne, when it has rested his greatness chiefly on the qualities which were least appreciated in his own times, and conceded to his legislative labours for the public happiness, his encouragement of pacific Arts, and his protection of Learning, the renown which it detracts from his sanguinary conquests and persecuting fanaticism.

In the Civil administration of Charlemagne, however, Defects of some prominent faults are readily discernible. His his govern legislation extended only to the wants of his own ment. immediate reign; and the unsettled Constitution of his Empire, neither provided for the stability of its foundations, nor secured the fabric of Society beyond the term of his own life. Though he frequently convoked the National Councils of the Franks, he neither organized any vigorous system for perpetuating an absolute Monarchy, nor dictated any plan for the improvement and composition of those Representative Assemblies which are the essence of all free Governments. While his sons lived, he even intended the continuance of that custom of partition which had proved the ruin of the Merovingian Monarchy; and his sagacity was not displayed in any effort to prevent the dissolution of his ill-cemented Empire.

History.

From

A. D.

768.

to

A. D. 814.

But the most striking Political error of his Government was the encouragement which he gave to the power of the Clergy. In this he was doubtless actuated by the most magnanimous trait in his character that respect for intellectual superiority, which led him to cherish an Order who engrossed all the knowledge of the times. His esteem for Learning, the remains of which they alone possessed, his anxiety for the support Patronage of of Religion and the advancement of civilization, and his the Clergy. conviction of his own strength, might all impel him to select the Clergy for the most intelligent, virtuous, and pliant instruments of his designs. But this generous confidence had some fatal effects for his own posterity, and the independence of Society. It gave to an ambitious Hierarchy the future means of subjugating the Thrones of Europe to their influence: the Imperial supremacy which restrained the pretensions of the Ecclesiastical Order expired with the genius of Charlemagne; the extravagant pretensions of the Romish Church, if not also of the Papacy itself, were in a great degree of his creation; and the despotism which the Bishops established over the temporal affairs of the Empire almost immediately after his death, may clearly be traced to the share in Civil administration which he had habituated them to exercise.

ties.

His domes In estimating the private character of this great tie and per- Prince, the same large allowance is to be made for the sonal quali manners of the times, which is demanded in the consideration of his public conduct. The licentiousness of his domestic life, the unscrupulous divorce of nine wives, and the unrestrained indulgence of innumerable amours, are sufficient stains upon his morals: without the aggravated charge of an incestuous passion, which appears to have had no other foundation than in the popular mistake of some modern writers.* The frugal economy of his Imperial household, and the temperate simplicity of his own habits in apparel and diet, which Eginhart, his Secretary and Biographer, has minutely described, may be favourably contrasted with these grosser propensities, though they will not extenuate their scandal; and his amiable and generous qualities as a parent, a master, and a friend, at least prove that

This error has strargely originated in a palpable misinterpretation of a passage in Eginhart, Vita Car. c. 19. which indeed gently insinuates, in no very enigmatical language, not the infamy of the father, but the scandalous reputation of his daughters.

France, Germany, Italy, &c.

From

A. D

768.

to

A. D 814.

lectual

tastes and

acquire

his moral infirmities were associated with all the finer and better feelings of our nature. But it is his intellectual tastes and occupations in the midst of the coarse and brutalizing ignorance of Society, which most gracefully redeem his subjection to the common vices of his station and times. His own education was defective and late; and he was indebted to perpetual and laborious study in his mature years, and even in old age, for the sum of his acquirements. As a scholar, these were not perhaps great, even in comparison only with His intelthe most erudite of his contemporaries: but the solicitations and liberality with which he attracted men of Learning and merit to his Court, and the delight which ments. he took in their conversation, show his eagerness to repair his own deficiencies, and explain the mode in which he improved his knowledge. Eginhart celebrates his familiar command of Latin, his ready perusal of Greek, and his acquaintance with the chief Sciences, such as they were, of the times: Grammar, Rhetoric, Logic, and Astronomy. The fluent eloquence with which these acquirements were displayed might be a natural gift; a quick apprehension probably enabled him to gather most of what he knew from oral communication; and we are astonished by the plain testimony of Eginhart to his ignorance even of the mechanical rudiments of writing, which it was the laborious and imperfect effort of his latter years to acquire. But the illustrious qualities and accomplishments of Charlemagne are not to be measured by the pedantry of the Schools. In whatever point of view we regard his intellectual character, we shall find it still surrounded with all the General originality and loftiness of a truly great mind: his grandeur errors and vices were those of his Age, his talents and and elevavirtues were his own.†

The fond zeal of the good Benedictines (Hist. Litt, de France) for the memory of so illustrious a patron of Letters has tempted them to disregard the plain confession of Eginhart, (Vita Car c. 25.) that

his Imperial master "tentavit scribere, &c. ut manum ffingendis literis assuefaceret. Sed parum prosperè successit labor præposterus et serò inchoatus.

+ The most elaborate view of the life, Empire, and character of before quoted. But it errs in the usual partiality of biography. An Charlemagne is to be found in the Work of Gaillard, (4 vols. 12mo.) opposite fault may be objected to the otherwise masterly sketch of his support and elevation of the Church. The industrious and impar Gibbon, c. 49-who cannot forgive the memory of the Emperor for tial Schmidt (Hist. des Allemands, vol. ii.) is here a safer guide than either the French Biographer or the English Historian.

tion of his

mind.

We now resume the thread of Ecclesiastical History, which, as yet, has not guided us beyond the death of Julian. During his short reign, and, indeed, in the whole intermediate period, from the accession of Constantine, the external History of the Church is so intermingled with Civil and Political History, that we have thought it more convenient to treat them together than separately. In the present Chapter we propose to offer a rapid sketch of the chief outward events affecting the fortunes of Religion for the few remaining years till the close of the IVth century; and we shall afterwards, in pursuance of the system which we have heretofore adopted, review the chief Ecclesiastical Writers and Heresies who adorned or distracted the Christian Church in the whole course of the same century. It is only necessary to premise, that if we here speak of certain Heresies not yet noticed, as if the reader were already familiar with them, this anticipation, which is, indeed, a matter of necessity, must neither surprise him, nor create a suspicion that ought is omitted. A full account of the doctrines of the Arians and of the disputes excited by them will be given under the head of Heresies. They bear such a prominent part in the transactions of this period, that it would be difficult to avoid all mention of them in writing the external History of the Church.

Jovian, the successor of Julian, a zealous Christian, conducted himself with great temper and moderation in Ecclesiastical affairs. He lost no time in restoring the free exercise of the Christian Religion, and in abolishing the Laws enacted by Julian to degrade and oppress the Sacerdotal Order. He restored the privileges and immunities of the Church, placing it in nearly the same condition in which it had been left by Constantine. He recalled the Prelates banished during the preceding reign. He manifested his attachment to the Orthodox Believers in the Trinity by the attention which he paid to the illustrious Athanasius, who became his principal adviser on the affairs of the Church; and by checking the petulance of the Arians when they pertinaciously attempted to regain the ascendancy lost since the time of Constantius. But, though decidedly Orthodox, he wisely and magnanimously forbore to per

* Some original documents, containing a curious account of the conferences between Jovian and the Arian deputies from Alexandria, are inserted in the IId volume of the Works of Athanasius. Compare Bleterie, Histoire de Jovien, tom. i. p. 138-147.

secute either the Sectaries or the Pagans.* He granted a full and free toleration to all Religious opinions and all modes of worship, and he showed a sincere desire to allay Religious animosity,† and to promote peace and unity in the Church.

Of the Christian Church, &

From

A. D

363. to

Valentinian, whose great qualities as a Sovereign and a legislator were strangely contrasted with the natural violence and ferocity of his disposition, steadily pursued A. D. the temperate and judicions policy of his predecessor. 400. He, indeed, severely prohibited the nocturnal sacrifices Valentinia of the Pagans, and magical incantations, and occasionally His Religi Ous moder restrained those Sectaries § who were reputedly guilty tion. of flagrant immorality, or obnoxious as disturbers of the public peace. But, with these few exceptions, he allowed the free exercise of Religious worship to all, extending the equal protection of the Law to Heretics, Jews, and Heathens. In consequence of this moderation, and of the Emperor's strict and vigorous administration of the Laws, the Western Churches, generally speaking, were little disturbed by the Religious animosities or rancorous Persecutions, so disgraceful to the reign of Constantius.¶

the worship of Idols, and this statement is adopted by many modern

* Theodoret (lib. v. c. 21.) represents Jovian as having interdicted Ecclesiastical Historians. But Themistius, a contemporary Orator, and himself a Heathen, positively asserts the contrary; and his testimony is quoted, and not contradicted, by Socrates. the knowledge of his pacific sentiments, brought about the Synod of It is probable that either the direct influence of the Emperor, or Antioch, in which a sort of reconciliation took place between the Anomaan party of Acacius of Cesarea, and the Catholics who adhered to Meletius, Bishop of Antioch. The former agreed to receive the definitions of the Nicene Council, and the latter abated something of their rigour respecting the use of the term consubstantial. The consequence was that the sincerity of the Acacians was doubtful, and Meletius and his friends were stigmatized as Semi-Arians and Macedonians.

For a more detailed account of Jovian's proceedings, the reader is referred to Socrates, lib. iii. c. 24, 25. Sozomen, lib. vi. c. 3, 4, 5. Theodoret, lib. iv. c. 1-4.

Particularly the Manicheans and the Donatists, the former of whom were accused of licentiousness, and of practising magical incantations at their secret meetings. The Donatists were regarded, not only as rebels against the Civil authority, but as guilty of sacrilege in rebaptizing the members of a different communion.

After the death of Julian, the Heathen Temples were often attacked, and sometimes demolished in popular tumults, Valentinian allowed guards to be stationed for their protection, and at the same time consulted the feelings of his Christian subjects by forbidding any Christian soldier to be employed in that service.

c. 6.

Socrates, lib. iv. c 1. Sozom. lib. vi. c. 6. Theodoret, lib. iv.

A. D 364,

History.

From

A. D.

363.

to

A. D.

400. Affairs of the Church of Rome.

Sept. 24,
366.

Schism be
ween Da-
masus and

Crsicinus,

Catholics.

The Church of Rome was at this time peaceably governed by Liberius, who, after his return from banishment, retracted his profession of Arianism and his condemnation of Athanasius, and adhered steadfastly to the Orthodox party. That party, superior in numbers, and no longer oppressed by the tyranny of Constantius, or the insidious policy of Julian, speedily regained the ascendancy.* On the death of Liberius, a violent and disgraceful conflict arose between two rival candidates for the vacant See, hitherto unexampled in the annals of Christian Rome, though by no means uncommon in later Ages. Damasus, a Spaniard by birth, was elected to succeed Liberius, an election made, it appears, in due form and with the sanction of the public authorities; but a considerable party in the Church, dissatisfied with his character and with his conduct during the Arian Persecution, protested against his appointment, and elected one Ursicinus in opposition to him. The Præfect Juventius endeavoured to put a stop to those irregular proceedings; upon which a popular commotion was excited, and a number of the friends of Ursicin us assembled in the Basilica of Sicininus. There they were attacked, and many cruelly massacred by the armed partisanst of Damasus. The popular fury on both sides was so great, that the Præfect was compelled to provide for his safety by leaving the city; nor could the tumult be quelled but by the utmost exercise of Imperial authority. The victory remained with Damasus; his election was confirmed; and the rival Pope, with many of his abettors, was banished from Rome. With this exception, the tranquillity of the Western Churches experienced no material interruption during the reign of Valentinian, and Christianity continued to make silent but rapid advances, both in the Roman Provinces and among the independent Barbarians. By the vigorous, and, in the main, judicious enactments of Valentinian, the prosperity of the Western Church was greatly promoted, and increased dignity and importance were attached to the Christian profession.

Valens per Very different was the condition of the Eastern ecutes the Churches under the rule of Valens, brother to Valentinian, but resembling him in nothing but his faults. A proselyte to the opinions of Eudoxius, the Arian Archbishop of Constantinople, by whom he was bap

• Liberius, in his Epistle to those Eastern Bishops who renounced Macedonianism and Semi-Arianism, (apud Socrat. lib. iv. c. 12) represents all the Western Bishops as having disavowed the profession of Rimini, and embraced the doctrine of the Nicene Council. This, however, must be understood with some limitation, as the important See of Milan was then, and for some time, after occupied by the Arian Prelate Auxentius. In the year 364, Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers, had a vigorous contest with Auxentius, endeavouring to prove that he was a Heretic, and unworthy of the situation which he held. But Valentinian, to whom the matter was referred, being either deceived by an ambiguous Confession of Faith drawn up by Auxentius, or resolved to preserve a strict impartiality in those contests, not only maintained him in the possession of his See, but ordered Hilary to quit Milan.

+In a petition presented to the Emperor by two Presbyters of the party of Ursicinus, it is asserted that Damasus marched in person to the attack, at the head of his Clergy and a body of hired Gladiators, and that of a hundred and sixty dead bodies which were found, not one belonged to his party. This accusation excites the choler of Baronius, and is discreetly passed over in silence by Fleury and other Roman Catholic Historians. The reflections which the Heathen Ammianus Marcellinus takes occasion from this incident to make on the ambition, luxury, and worldly-mindedness of the Roman Pontiffs, are too well known to need quoting.

Socr. lib. iv c. 29. Sozom. lib. vi. c. 23. Ammian. Marcellin, lib. xxvii. c. 13.

Of the

From A. D. 363.

to

A. D. 400.

tized, he is said to have solemnly sworn, at the instigation of that Prelate, to exert all his power in favour of Christian the party espoused by him, and to the prejudice of Church, &c. Catholicism. It does not appear that he molested the Pagans, or even the Heretics; but all who adhered to the Nicene* opinions were exposed to a severe Persecution. At Constantinople, and in many other places, the churches were forcibly taken away from the Orthodox and transferred to the Arians. Meletius, Bishop of Antioch, Eusebius of Samosata, Gregory of Nyssa, and many other Catholic pastors, were banished, and the most arbitrary measures were employed to force persons of every age, sex, and condition to abjure their Faith. In Cappadocia those measures were opposed, with some degree of success, by the zeal and activity of Basil, Bishop of Cesarea, and his friend Gregory Nazianzen; the high character and firm and intrepid conduct of both of whom commanded the respect, or excited the awe of the Emperor, and procured them an indulgence which was granted to few. At Alexandria, also, Athanasius was protected from the Imperial officers by their fear of a popular commotion; and during his life his followers experienced comparatively little molestation. After his death, the Arians, supported by the Præfect Palladius, forcibly introduced Lucius, a man previously conspicuous by his rancorous opposition to Athanasius, into the vacant See. Peter, who had been appointed to it by the unanimous consent of the Catholics, was imprisoned; all the Clergy who espoused his cause were banished; and throughout Egypt innumerable acts of cruelty and oppression were exercised upon those who adhered to the Nicene doctrines, especially the Monks, whose zealous opposition to Arianism † rendered them peculiarly obnoxious.

A. D. 373.

The Arians might, perhaps, have been more suc- Want of cessful in their efforts to secure a complete ascendancy unity among if they had not been weakened by their own dissensions, the Arians. Their numerical strength was greatly increased by the accession of the Goths of Mosia and Thrace, who, as

* A copious, and, probably, somewhat exaggerated account of the sufferings of the Orthodox under Valens, is given by Socrates, lib. iv. c. 4. et seq., Sozom. lib. vi. c. 6. et seq., and particularly by Theodoret, lib. iv. c. 22-36.

Gibbon (vol. iv. c. 25.) extenuates the Persecution of Valens, and tries to make it appear that his agents often exceeded their master's instructions and intentions. In such matters it is almost impossible to discriminate between the portion of blame due to an arbitrary monarch, or to his advisers and agents; but the maxim, Qui facit per alterum, facit per se, seems as justly applicable to Princes as to persons of an inferior class. It is certain that many severities were exercised against the Catholics, of which the rigorous prohibition of their Religious worship was not the least. It is no less certain that Valens often interfered personally in the controversy in a busy meddling manner; and the character given of him by the impartial Marcellinus, who represents him as in crudelitatem proclivum, subagrestis ingenti, injuriosum, iracundum, criminantibus sine differentid veri et falsi facilè patentem, would not lead us to suppose that he greatly disapproved of the cruelties inflicted in his name on a Body of men who thwarted his views and inclinations; but rather make us suspect that, on some occasions, his direct share in them was greater than Gibbon is willing to admit.

The time of the first conversion of any considerable portion of the Goths to Christianity, and the immediate occasion of their embracing Arianism, are so variously stated by the Ecclesiastical Histo rians, that it is difficult to arrive at any certain conclusion on those points. The different accounts of the ancient writers are industriously brought together by Mascon, Geschichte der Teutschen, book vii. sec. 39, 40. p. 317-322. However, there seems no reason for doubting that many of them embraced the Christian Faith early in the IVth century; that about A. D. 372, the Pagan King of the Visigoths, Athanaric, instituted a severe Persecution against many of his sub

From A. D.

363.

to

A. D.

400.

History. it is said, through the influence of their Bishop, Ulphilas, embraced the doctrines of Arius in the time of Valens, and by their subsequent conquests disseminated them through a great part of Western Europe. But the divisions * among them were almost infinite, and (though frequently relating only to minor points of doctrine) effectually prevented all unanimity and concert in their proceedings. Many of the Semi-Arians and Macedonians were so jealous of the ascendancy of the pure Arians, that rather than hold any communion with them, they chose to reunite themselves to the Catholics.† The Eunomians were at variance with all other sects, and even among themselves; so that though Valens was able for a time to harass and depress the Orthodox, he could not organize his own party, composed of such discordant materials, into a compact and permanent society.

and Eunomiaus.

Religious liberty greatly abridged by Gratian.

A. D.

367.

Gratian, the son and successor of Valentinian, though of a mild and pacifie disposition, did not exercise his father's impartiality in Religious matters. Imbued by St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, with a strong attachment to the Catholic Faith, and, perhaps, with something of an intolerant spirit, he soon showed a disposition to circumscribe the liberty hitherto enjoyed by the Sectaries. He appears, indeed, to have tolerated the Arians; || but the Eunomians, the Photinians, and the Manichæans were prohibited from holding any public Religious assembly; and the Donatists were commanded to surrender all the churches in their possession to the Catholics, and forbidden, under severe penalties, even to hold any private conventicle. When the death of Valens placed Gratian at the head of the Eastern Empire, the exiled¶ Prelates were immediately recalled; and though not immediately restored to their lost dignities and emoluments, especially where the Arians were numerous and powerful, it was not difficult to perceive that such a measure was in contemplation. The Pagans,** though nominally

jects on account of their attachment to it; and that their lapse into

Arianism took place during the reign of Valens.

*Socrates, lib. v. c. 20—24.

This reconciliation, perhaps more apparent than real, took place in the year 365, chiefly through the influence of Eustathius of Sebaste, whose subsequent conduct made it appear that he acted more from policy than conviction, on this occasion.

Upon the death of Auxentius, A. D. 374, Ambrose, who was then Governor of the Province, was chosen to succeed him by popular acclamation. Though a layman, and not even baptized at the time of his election, he applied himself so zealously to his new profession, that he quickly surpassed most of his contemporaries, and became, through his talents, and his influence with the Emperors, the great arbiter of the affairs of the Western Churches. It is easy to perceive that the authority of the Bishops of Rome was very insignificant compared with that exercised by Ambrose.

Sozom. lib. vii. c. 1.; and for Gratian's Laws against Heretics, see Cod. Theodos. lib. xvi. tit. 5. 1. 4, 5.

The Arians would not have escaped, if the second Constitution of Gratian, published A. D. 379 against Heretics," Omnes vetita," had been acted upon to the full extent of the letter. But this does not seem to have been the case; at least the Arians were allowed to retain their churches, even those which they had usurped from the Catholics, till some time after the accession of Theodosius.

Though persons who have suffered under Religious Persecution are seldom disposed to show much forbearance towards those whom they regard as the authors of their misfortunes, some of the restored Catholic Bishops had the magnanimity to offer to leave their Arian cmpetitors in possession of their Sees, in case they would consent to embrace the Nicene Faith. Sozom. lib. vii. c. 2.

**Gratian's Laws against the Pagans do not now appear in the Theodosian Code. They are, however, mentioned by the Heathen Orator Symmachus, Relat. ad Valentin., as well as by Ambrose, in his Reply to Symmachus, and are appealed to in a subsequent Constitution of Honorius, Cod. Theodos. lib, xvi, tit. 10. 1. 20. De Paganis.

tolerated, were subjected to various vexatious restric- Of the tions; their Priests were deprived of many privileges Christian and exemptions, hitherto enjoyed by them; and plain Church, & indications were given that the liberal policy observed by Jovian and Valentinian was about to be succeeded by a very different system.

From

A. D. 363.

to

A. D.

sius.

400.

A. D.

379.

It was reserved for Theodosius, a Prince of greater talents and energy than Gratian, but acting upon the same maxims, and under the influence of the same advisers, to carry this change into effect. Immediately after Policy an his baptism,* his zeal for the Catholic doctrines displayed legislation itself in a series of intolerant enactments against Here- of Theodo tics. On his arrival at Constantinople, where Arianism had predominated during forty years, Demophilus, the successor of Eudoxius, was immediately required to embrace the Nicene Faith, or renounce his Bishopric. As he refused to change his principles, he, and the Clergy who adhered to him, were expelled from the city. Gregory Nazianzen, who, upon the death of Valens, had come to take charge of the oppressed and scattered Catholicst of Constantinople, was chosen to fill the vacant See, by the arbitrary interposition of the Emperor, rather than by a regular canonical appointment.§ The Sectaries were prohibited from holding any Religious assembly within the walls of towns, and a commission was issued, by which the Imperial officers were empowered to eject them from the churches which they had usurped, and to reinstate the Catholics. This mandate was rigidly enforced, and, shortly after, the Heretics were forbidden to consecrate Bishops, or to erect places of worship, either in the cities or the country. Little opposition was made to these sweeping measures. In many districts the Arians were in an humiliating minority; in others, where their numbers were greater, they were so divided into factions, as to be incapable of unity of purpose. Their Religious principles, moreover, were but ill calculated to support. them in the hour of trial. They were dispersed and intimidated, and gradually conformed to the established system; and thus the public profession of that doctrine, once triumphant throughout the Roman Empire, was suppressed almost without a struggle.

While Theodosius, in the East, thus endeavoured to Conduct Ambrose

Theodosius was baptized in the beginning of the year 380, at Thessalonica, by Ascholius, Bishop of that place. The famous Law, "Cunctos populos," which declares the Faith professed by Pope Damasus and Peter of Alexandria to be the only true one, and every departure from it to be impious and heretical, was promulgated a few days after. Sozom. lib. vii. c. 4, and compare Cod. Theodos, lib. xvi. tit. 1. 1. 2. De Fide Catholica.

+ The Theodosian Code (lib. xvi. tit. 5. De Hæreticis) contains not fewer than fifteen rigorous Constitutions by this Emperor against the various denominations of Sectaries.

The exercise of the Catholic worship had been so completely suppressed at Constantinople that Gregory was forced to assemble his congregation in a private apartment; and even this proceeding was attended with some risk. The apartment was called Anastasia, as being the place of the resurrection of the Nicene Faith. Sozom. lib. vii. c. 5.

The question of the validity of Gregory's appointment was rendered still more perplexed, by Maximus the Cynic, a worthless person, who first insinuated himself into Gregory's favour, and then surreptitiously obtained consecration, as Archbishop of Constantinople, by the Egyptian Bishops. The Western Prelates were at variance with those of the East about this time, and for a while they espoused the cause of Maximus, and opposed the promotion of Gregory.

Gibbon's remarks on the cause of the want of firmness manifested by the Arians at this time, (vol. v. ch. xxvii.) though made in no friendly spirit, are, upon the whole, just and well worthy of attention. The whole tenour of Ecclesiastical History shows that a Christian Sect, denying the divinity of the Saviour, carries a principle of decay in its own bosom.