PART II.

FROM THE ACCESSION OF CONSTANTINE TO THE Death of

CHARLEMAGNE.

CHAPTER VI.-Constantine the Great.

The Luminous Cross-Edict of Milan-Character, Conversion, Policy of Constantine-Changes in the Constitution of the Church-Imperial Supremacy-Rights of the Church-Its internal Administration-External-Conclusion.

CHAPTER VII.-The Arian Controversy.

Controversies among Christians accounted for-Conduct of Constantine-Alexander-Arius-Council of Nice-Constantius-Athanasius-Council of Rimini-Theodosius-Council of ConstantinopleArianism of the Barbarians-Justinian-Spain-Council of Toledo-Termination of the Controversy Observations.

CHAPTER VIII.-Fall of Paganism.

Policy of Constantine-of Julian-Designed Reformation of Paganism-Attempt to restore the Temple of Jerusalem-Gradual Decline of the Superstition and virtual overthrow by Theodosius.

CHAPTER IX.-From the Fall of Paganism to the Death of Justinian. Conversion of the Northern Barbarians-Superstitions of the Church-Leo the Great-Papal Aggrandizement-Justinian-his Ecclesiastical Policy-Established Laws against Heresy-Literature, Profane and Christian-Causes and Periods of the Decay of either-Moral Condition of the Clergy and People-Note on certain Fathers of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries.

CHAPTER X.-From the Death of Justinian to that of Charlemagne.

1. Mission of St. Austin to England-of St. Boniface to Germany-Mahomet and his Successors→→→→ Victory of Charles Martel-Charlemagne. 2. Gregory the Great-his Character-Policy-its permanent Results-Council of Francfort-Deposition of Childeric-Donation of Pepin-Charlemagne's Liberality to the Church.

CHAPTER XI.-The Dissensions of the Church from Constantine
to Charlemagne.

1. Schism of the Donatists-St. Augustin. 2. Priscillian-his Opinions, and Death. 3. JovinianVigilantius-St. Jerome. 4. Pelagian Controversy-Councils of Jerusalem and Diospolis-St. Augustin. 5. Controversy respecting the Incarnation-Apollinaris-Nestorius-Council of Ephesus -Eutyches-Second Council of Ephesus-Council of Chalcedon-The Monothelites-Council of C. P. 6. Worship of Images-Leo the Isaurian-The Empress Irene-Seventh General Council -Empress Theodora-Observations.

CHAPTER XII.-Schism between the Greek and Latin Churches.

Origin of the Dispute-Council of Chalcedon-Title of Ecumenical Bishop-John the FasterGregory the Great-Procession of the Holy Spirit-Photius-his Fortunes-Michael CerrilariusAnathema by the Legates of Leo IX.

CHAPTER XIII.-The Constitution of the Church as fixed by Charlemagne. Retrospect of the Condition of the Church at preceding Periods-at the Accession of Constantinethe Death of St. Gregory-the Accession of Charlemagne-The Judicial Rights of the Clergy under Constantine-Justinian-Charlemagne-The false Decretals-Donation of Constantine-The Revenues of the Church-their Sources and Objects.

CHAPTER VI.-Constantine the Great.

Victory over Maxentius-supposed conversion-the miracle of the luminous Cross-evidence for and against it-the latter conclusive-The Edict of Milan-its nature and effects-union of the whole Empire under Constantine-His moral character-sincerity of his conversion-unjustly disputed-Remarks on his policy-power of the Christians-Alterations introduced into the constitution of the Church-Its nature at Constantine's accession-spiritual and temporal power-union and strength of the early Church -how cemented-View of the Church probably taken by Constantine-he sought its alliance-Three periods of the ecclesiastical life of Constantine-How circumstanced with regard to the state Constantine found the Church-He assumes the supremacy-Rights of the Church-Its Internal administration-little altered in theory-permission to bequeath property to the Church-Independent jurisdiction of the Bishops-on what founded-External-subject to the Emperor-what particulars included în it— General observations-Constantine usurped nothing from the Church-Indeterminate limits of the civil and spiritual authority-Alterations in the titles and gradations of the Hierarchy-pre-eminence unattended by authority-Conclusion-Note on Eusebius.

DURING the early part of Diocletian's persecution Constantius Chlorus ruled, with as much humanity as circumstances permitted him to exercise, the provinces of the West. On his death, at York, in the year 306, the army proclaimed Constantine, his son, Emperor. In the mean time, the provinces eastward of Gaul were distracted by the dissensions of rival emperors which favoured the growing strength of Constantine. In 311, Galerius, the fiercest among the assailants of Christianity, died, and his dominions were divided between Maximin and Licinius; Maxentius had already usurped the government of Italy and Africa. Presently Constantine, justified, as most assert, by sufficient provocation, marched into Italy and overthrew Maxentius in the immediate neighbourhood of Rome; that tyrant (as all admit him to have been) was drowned in the Tiber, and his dominions were added to the possessions of the conqueror. This event took place in the year 312; and it has been usually assigned as marking the period of Constantine's conversion to Christianity. A miraculous story is connected with this epoch in our history. As the Emperor was marching toward Rome, at the head of his army, he beheld a luminous Cross, suspended about noonday in the air, and inscribed with the following words-Tour vina- By this conquer.' The phenomenon confirmed his uncertain faith, and afforded him the surest omen of victory. But this was not all: during the ensuing night the form of Christ himself presented itself with the same Cross, and directed him to frame a standard after that shape. And it is certain that, about that period, and possibly on that occasion, a standard was so framed, and continued for many following years to be displayed, whenever it became necessary to excite the enthusiasm of the Christian soldiers-but the extraordinary appearances to which its adoption is ascribed demand the most rigid examination.

In the first place, the story which we have shortly given is related by no contemporary author, excepting Eusebius; next, it is related in his Lifet of Constantine, and not in his Ecclesiastical History; it is related in the year 338, or six-and-twenty years after the supposed appearance; it is related on the authority of Constantine alone, though it must have been witnessed by his whole army, and notorious throughout his whole empire; and lastly it was published after the death of Constantine. In an age, wherein pious

* In the relation of this story we have ventured to omit the dream published by he uncertain author of the book De Mortibus Persecutorum, as well as Nazarius's army of divine warriors. We confine ourselves to that, which appears under the more respectable authority of Eusebius. See Gibbon, chap. xx.

† Euseb. Vit. Const. 1. 1., c. 28, 29, 30, 31.

frauds had already acquired some honour; by a writer, who, respectable as he undoubtedly is, and faithful in most of his historical records, does not even profess those rigid rules of veracity which command universal credit ;* in a book, which rather wears the character of partial panegyric, than of exact and scrupulous history-a flattering fable might be published and believed; but it can claim no place among the authentic records of history, and by writers, whose only object is truth, it may very safely be consigned to contempt and oblivion.†

The defeat of Maxentius was followed by a conference between Constantine and Licinius, which led to the publication, in the March of 313, of the celebrated Edict of Milan.

Edict of
Milan.

This Edict was a proclamation of universal toleration; but its advantages were of course chiefly or entirely reaped by the Christians, as theirs had been the only religion not already tolerated. It gave back to them the civil and religious rights of which they had been deprived; it restored without dispute, delay or expense, the places of worship which had been demolished,' and the lands which had been confiscated-and free and absolute power was granted to the Christians, and to all others, of following the religion which every individual might think proper to follow.

Immediately afterwards, Licinius, who was no friend to Christianity, overthrew the eastern Emperor Maximin, who had been its savage adversary, and became master of the empire of the east. A war followed between the conqueror and Constantine, which terminated, in 315, to the advantage of the latter, who on that occasion extended his empire to the eastern limits of Europe; eight years of peace succeeded, which were employed by the Christian Emperor in securing the real interests and legislating for the happiness of his subjects. This period of rare tranquillity was succeeded by a second wart with Licinius, which terminated in 324 by his submission and death, and by the consequent union of the whole empire under the sceptre of Constantine.

The year which followed the final success of Constantine was disgraced by the execution of his eldest son; and it is not disputed, that the progress of his career was marked by the usual excesses of intemperate and worldly ambition. Some of his laws§ were severe even to cruelty, and the

Eusebius says, that Constantine related the story to himself on oath. May we not believe Eusebius in this? And may we not also suppose, that the Emperor deceived him in some moment, when enthusiasm, or indisposition, or mere human weakness had brought him first to deceive himself? He may really have recollected some uncommon appearance about the Sun, not strongly noticed at the moment, but which the imagination of memory heated by exciting events, or by passion, or by feverish sickness, may have converted into a miracle. The story of the vision (which stands indeed on rather better authority) might be merely the exaggeration of a dream. At least this supposition has nothing in it unnatural; and it is the only supposition which can save both the intention of the Emperor and the veracity of the historian. See Note at the end of the chapter.

It is somewhat singular, that on this same occasion, Maxentius is related by the Pagan historian, Zosimus, (who makes no mention of the Christian miracle, lib. ii.,) to have carefully consulted the Sibylline books, and credulously applied to his own circumstances a prediction which he found there.

This is considered by Eusebius (Vit. Constant. lib. ii.) almost in the light of a religious war-the first, if it was so, among the many by which the name of Christ has been profaned.

Nevertheless, the general spirit of his laws was decidedly humane and favourable to the progress of civilization-for instance, he made decrees tending to the termination of slavery; he abolished some barbarous forms of punishment, as branding, for instance; he restrained exorbitant usury, and endeavoured to prevent the exposure of children, by relieving the poor. See Jortin, Ecc. Hist. book iii. Fleury. Hist. Eccl. L. X. Sect. 21. Baronius, ad ann. 315. Sect. 30.

general propriety of his moral conduct cannot with any justice be maintained. Hence a suspicion has arisen as to the sincerity of his conversion -chiefly, as it appears to us, or entirely founded on the inadequacy of his character to his profession. But is there any page in Christian history, or any form of Christian society, which does not mournfully attest the possibility of combining the most immoral conduct with the most unhesitating faith? Or is this a condition of humanity, from which monarchs are more exempt than their subjects? We should recollect, moreover, that the character of Constantine, notwithstanding its grievous stains, will bear a comparison with some of the best among his pagan predecessors; while it was free from those monstrous deformities which distinguished not a few of them, and which have indeed been rarely paralleled in Christian history. But even had his conduct been more reprehensible, than in truth it was, it would have furnished very insufficient evidence against the sincerity of his belief. Again, it was usual in those days, in continuance of a practice of which we have mentioned the cause and origin, to defer the sacrament of Baptism until the approach of death, and then once to administer it, as the means of regeneration and the assurance of pardon and grace. In compliance with this custom the emperor was not baptized (he did not even become a Catechument) until his last illness; but no argument can hence be drawn against his sincerity, which would not equally apply to a large proportion of the Christians in his empire. In his favour the following facts should be observed. For many years he had publicly and consistently professed his belief in Christianity: in a long discourse, which is still extant, he even expatiated on its various proofs; he began his reign by protecting the Believers; in its progress he favoured and honoured them; he inscribed the cross on the banners of the empire; he celebrated the festivals of the Church; he associated in the closest intimacy with Christian writers and prelates; he inquired into all the particulars of their faith, and displayed what some have thought an inconsiderate zeal for its purity. By such reasons, according to every fair principle of historical inference, we are precluded from any reasonable doubt on this subject; nor need we hesitate for a moment to acquit a wise and, in many respects, a virtuous Prince of the odious charge of the foulest description of hypocrisy.§

* Constantius in like manner put off his Baptism till his last illness, (Athanas. lib. de Synodis) so did Theodosius the Great, until the illness which he mistook for his last. Socrat. 1. v. c. 6.

From Euseb. de Vit. Const. lib. iv. c. 61., it appears that the Emperor, just before his baptism, received for the first time the imposition of hands, usual in making a Catechumen. But in the same work, (lib. i. c. 32,) it would seem that he was xarnxndus on his first profession of Christianity, immediately after the vision. We are disposed to attach greater credit to the former account. See Fleury, 1. xi. sect. 60.

Lactantius possessed his confidence, while his command was confined to the West, and Eusebius enjoyed throughout his life great influence at the Court of Constantinople. The respect which he paid to the festivals of the Church, his 'diligence in prayer,' the issuing of medals throughout the Empire, in which he is represented in the attitude of devotion, are facts mentioned by Euseb. Vit. Const. 1. iv. c. 15 & 22.

A vain dispute has been raised as to the probable moment of his conversion, into which we shall not enter, because the truth is not discoverable, and if it were, would still be unprofitable. Gibbon affects to set some value on it, because he would willingly prove that Constantine was no real proselyte. Two facts he mentions in support of his suspicion-that Constantine persevered till he was near forty years of age in the practice of the established religion,' especially in the worship of Apollo; and that in the same year (321) he published two Edicts, the first of which enjoined the solemn observance of Sunday, (Euseb. Vit. Const. 1. iv. c. 18,) and the second directed the regular consultation of

At the same time, we are willing to admit that his conduct to the Christians was strictly in accordance with his interests; and it is very probable, that the protection with which he distinguished them may in the first instance have originated in his policy. But this is perfectly consistent with his subsequent conversion. And we may here remark, that those who assign policy as his chief or only motive, bear the strongest evidence to the power and real importance which the Church of Christ had acquired before his time; they attest, that its stability had not been shaken by the sword of Diocletian; that by its own unassisted and increasing energy it had triumphed over the fury of the most determined of its persecutors, and that its claims on the justice and respect of the Throne, though only urged by perseverance in suffering, could no longer be overlooked with safety. And this fact is of much greater historical importance, than the motives or sincerity of any individual can possibly be.

Let us now proceed to ascertain what was the condition and constitution of the Church, as Constantine found it; what were the principal alterations introduced by him, and in what form and attitude he left it.

Constitution of the Church.

We have already described the free and independent constitution of the primitive Church; the Bishops and teachers were chosen by the clergy and people; the Bishop managed the ecclesiastical affairs of his diocese, in council with the Presbyters, and with a due regard to the suffrages of the whole assembly of the people.' Again, the great ecclesiastical divisions of the empire appear from the earliest period naturally to have followed the political; and thus for the regulation of matters relating to the interests of a whole Province, whether they were religious controversies, or the forms and rites of divine service, or other things of like moment, the Bishops of the Province assembled in council, and deliberated and legislated.

We have also remarked, that during the course of the third century this constitution was so far changed, that the episcopal authority was somewhat advanced, at the expense of that of the inferior ministers and the people. But in all other respects the government of the Church remained in reality the same, and perhaps even in this respect it was apparently so; for the forms of the lesser or diocesan councils were still preserved, though the relative influence of the three parties composing them had undergone a change.

And here it will be proper to examine how far those are correct who consider the Church at that period, as a separate Republic or Body-poli

aruspices. Both are literally true; but the inferences drawn from both are false-Constantine did not profess his religion, perhaps he did not adopt it, until the campaign against Maxentius in 312-he had previously protected and favoured the Christians, but till then he did not proclaim, nor could he perhaps safely have proclaimed, his own belief; but he seized the earliest moment to do so, and during the twenty-five following years, he maintained his profession with ardent and active perseverance. By bringing forward the second fact as an argument against his belief, the historian has forgotten that the Edict of Milan was an Edict of universal toleration, protecting all Pagan, as well as all Christian, ceremonies; so that the two proclamations, which he is willing to expose as inconsistent, were only the necessary consequence of that generous policy, which had been so little understood by the Pagan Emperors. Before we quit this subject we should mention, that Zosimus (lib. ii.) attributes Constantine's change of faith to the persuasion, instilled into him by one Ægyptius, a Spaniard, that the remission of sins attended the act of conversion to Christianity. Thus it appears, at least, that the Pagan Historian did not doubt the reality of the conversion, though he may have mistaken its motive.

* Mosheim, Cent. iv. Part 2. Č. 2