Showing posts with label Rome. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rome. Show all posts

Representative Men

VI.--REPRESENTATIVE MEN.

In a full catalogue of the distinguished men of the era it would be appropriate to mention Didymus, who, in spite of blindness, became a distinguished teacher in the theological school of Alexandria; Cyril of Jerusalem, a theologian of more than average fruitfulness; Ephræm, the leading poet and divine of Syria in the fourth century, whose mystical piety and enthusiastic asceticism had much influence upon the people of that region; and Hilary of Poitiers, one of the most prominent and steadfast champions of the orthodox faith which the Latin Church supplied against Arianism. But we pass by these, and many others, and limit our attention to those whose character and influence in a special degree summon to an interested attention.

ATHANASIUS. -- "The victorious Athanasius, who had acquired as many crowns as he had engaged in conflicts," --such was the verdict of Theodoret as he reviewed his career. Alert, incisive, eloquent, possessed of indomitable perseverance, great in soul (though small in body), Athanasius was well fitted to make a deep impress upon his own and upon succeeding ages.

As a theologian and a controversialist, the great Alexandrian was not altogether above the faulty polemics of the age. He applied harsh and contemptuous epithets to his Arian opponents. But that may be said of him which cannot be said of some of those opponents; namely, that his violence was confined to words, and did not pass on into deeds. He showed himself, however, abundantly capable of calm argumentation; and, if he sometimes used fiery words, there was, at least, back of them the fire of a great conviction. He believed that the divinity of Christ was the sacred ark of Christianity; that no perfect mediation can be secured, that Christianity cannot claim to be the absolute religion, unless the divine essence was truly in Christ. "From this point of view," says Baur, "Athanasius apprehended the gist of the controversy; always finally summing up all his objections to the Arian doctrine with the chief argument, that the whole substance of Christianity, all reality of redemption, every thing which makes Christianity the perfect salvation, would be utterly null and meaningless if He who is supposed to unite man with God in real unity of being were not Himself absolute God, or of one substance with the absolute God, but only a creature among creatures." 1 Kirchengeschichte, ii. 97.

As an administrator, Athanasius was possessed of eminent tact. Few men could have steered with a firmer hand through such a seething whirlpool of agitation and passion as was Alexandria in his time. Gibbon, while he sees in his dogmatic zeal a token of fanaticism, emphatically acknowledges his capacity to rule. "Athanasius," he says, "displayed a superiority of character and abilities, which would have qualified him, far better than the degenerate sons of Constantine, for the government of a great monarchy." 2 Chap. xxi.

Athanasius may also be viewed as the hero of perilous encounters and romantic adventures. A mark for slanderous accusations, five times exiled from his charge, pursued even with murderous intent by his foes, he had abundant occasion to employ all the resources of a versatile genius. A noted example of his skill in foiling a plot appears in his answer to a council of bishops at Tyre. This council was bent upon his overthrow, and charged him with having murdered a certain Arsenius; also with having atrociously mutilated his body by cutting off the right hand. Fortunately for the accused bishop, Arsenius was discovered, and held subject to the order of Athanasius. Having obtained the testimony of certain in the council that they knew the mutilated man, he brought him into their presence, and obtained their reluctant acknowledgment that this seemed to be the very person in question. "Then, turning back the cloak of Arsenius on one side, Athanasius shows one of the man's hands; again, while some were supposing that the other hand was wanting, after permitting them to remain a short time in doubt, he turned back the cloak on the other side and exposed the other hand. Then, addressing himself to those present, he said, "Arsenius, as you see, is found to have two hands; let my accusers show the place where the third was cut off.'" 1 Socrates, Hist. Eccl., i. 29. The fertility of Athanasius in expedients suited to the emergency is evidenced, among other things, by his reputation for magic, as implying the belief that his own wit was supplemented by that of the devil. No doubt his own wit was effectually aided, but the aid came from the invincible fidelity of his many friends. "No fugitive Stuart in the Scottish Highlands," says Stanley, "could count more securely on the loyalty of his subjects, than did Athanasius, in his hiding-places in Egypt, count upon the faithfulness and secrecy of his countrymen. His whole course was that of an adventurous and wandering prince, rather than of a persecuted theologian; and when, in the brief intervals of triumph, he was enabled to return to his native city, his entrance was like that of a sovereign rather than of a prelate." 2 History of the Eastern Church, Lect. vii.

BASIL AND THE TWO GREGORIES.--These three contemporaries may well be grouped together, not only on account of their intimate relations to each other, but also in view of their moral and intellectual kinship.

Basil, who like Athanasius was honored by later generations with the title Great, was born about the year 329. As his death occurred in 379, his whole life was passed in the intense era of the Arian struggle. However, it was only in the last nine of his fifty years, the time of his episcopate, that he was a prominent figure in the great controversy. Up to middle life he was occupied with the labors of the school and the cloister.

The best of literary advantages fell to the lot of Basil. From the tuition of his father, who was a rhetorician, he passed under that of Libanius at Constantinople, and then studied for several years at Athens. These advantages were well improved. Contact with classic culture had no such effect upon him as upon his fellow-student at Athens, the prince Julian. Leaving his Christian devotion undiminished, his liberal studies were transmuted into an aid and ornament to the Christian calling. They supplied polish and edge to the sword which he wielded for the truth of the gospel. "The style of Basil," says Milman, "did no discredit to his Athenian education; in purity and perspicuity he surpassed most of the heathen, as well as the Christian writers of his age."1 History of Christianity, Book III., chap, ix. Basil did not forget his obligations to the classics. We find him in later years commending the study of the ancient poets and philosophers. He is careful, indeed, to warn against the infection which might be drawn from the less judicious of their sayings; at the same time, he gives full credit to the healthy stimulus and development which may be derived from the masters of classic literature. 2 Sermo de Legendis Libris Gentilium.

In Basil generally we recognize the man of breadth and liberality. There is somewhat in the tone of his writings which reminds of Origen. He did not have the genius or speculative daring of Origen; but we may discern in him something of the same poise, magnanimity, and gentleness, which attract us toward the distinguished Alexandrian. He was a man of more than ordinary fineness of sensibility. One token of this appears in his sympathetic feeling for the beauties of nature, 1 See Epist., xiv. -- a trait which we should hardly expect to find in the age of controversialists and monks.

Considerable celebrity attaches to the name of Basil in connection with monasticism. Several ascetic writings, among them a rule for the cloistral life, came from his hand. The rule prescribes a sufficiently severe régime; at the same time, it falls short of the extreme of monastic austerity, and exhibits special touches of enlightened piety. In one of its specifications, strong emphasis is given to the idea that the life of the solitary is far less compatible with the cultivation of Christian virtue than life in society. 2 Regulæ Fusius Tractatæ, vii.

Basil, as bishop of Cæsarea and metropolitan of Cappadocia, displayed eminent abilities for administration. His steadfastness against the demands of Valens is numbered among the celebrated episodes of the Arian controversy. The Emperor was making use of a tour through the East to depose the orthodox bishops. The prætorian prefect Modestus, who traveled ahead, was instructed to present to such the alternative of communicating with the Arians or the penalty of deposition. Having tried in vain to flatter Basil into acquiescence, he at last rose up in anger, and asked him if he did not fear his power.

Basil. -- Fear what consequences ? what sufferings ?
Modestus. -- One of those many pains which a prefect can inflict.
Basil. -- Let me know them.
Modestus. -- Confiscation, exile, tortures, death.
Basil. -Think of some other threat. These have no influence upon me. He runs no risk of confiscation who has nothing to lose except these mean garments and a few books. Nor does he care for exile who is not circumscribed by place, who does not make a home of the spot he dwells in, but everywhere a home whithersoever he be cast, or rather everywhere God's home, whose pilgrim he is and wanderer. Nor can tortures harm a frame so frail as to break under the first blow. You could but strike once, and death would be gain. It would but send me the sooner to Him for whom I live and labor, for whom I am dead rather than alive, to whom I have long been journeying. 1 See J. H. Newman, Historical Sketches, vol. iii.

In describing Basil, we have also to a large extent described the two Gregories. Probably neither of them was the equal of Basil in administrative talents. But in other respects they were nearly akin, possessed with the same scholarly affinities, the same poetic sensibility and love of nature, the same appreciation of the monastic ideal.

Gregory Nazianzen, like others of the eminent men of this age,-a Chrysostom, a Theodoret, an Augustine, - enjoyed in childhood and youth the sanctifying impress of a mother's fervent piety. A dream of his early days, in which purity and sobriety took the form of angelic visitants, indicates the thoughts which mere then in his mind, as well as the ideal that was before him in maturer years. Like Basil, Gregory availed himself of the best literary advantages of his age, visiting, among other renowned seats of learning, the schools of Athens. His most conspicuous positions in the Church were those which he occupied as pastor of an orthodox congregation in Constantinople, at a time when the city was overrun with Arianism, and later as patriarch of the same metropolis. The latter position, however, was very soon resigned, owing to exhibitions of jealousy and captious opposition. He figured to some extent as a poet, but won his greatest distinction as a pulpit orator. He cannot be excused from a certain rhetorical extravagance, but may be ranked, nevertheless, after Chrysostom, among the principal lights of sacred oratory in the Greek Church.

Gregory of Nyssa, a younger brother of Basil, is known chiefly for his literary productiveness. In this field he served as a champion of trinitarianism; but his thinking was not always in the line of orthodoxy. His bent to idealism reminds of Origen, some of whose peculiar opinions he imbibed.

CHRYSOSTOM. -- John, surnamed Chrysostom, or the Golden-mouthed, was born at Antioch in 347. His mother, Anthusa, was left a widow soon after his birth, and made it henceforth the chief object of her life to perfect the intellectual and religious education of her son. His literary training was conducted under no less a master than the renowned Libanius. As being a mode of life well suited to his rhetorical proficiency, he first chose the calling of an advocate. But he was not long in deciding that this was an uncongenial sphere; and, following the bent of his heart, he dedicated himself wholly to the service of religion. The persuasions of his mother detained him at Antioch till her death, after which he fulfilled a cherished desire, and sought a refuge among the monks dwelling on the mountains near the city. Six years devoted to study and meditation were spent in this retreat, when loss of health gave him a pressing occasion to return to Antioch. Here he was ordained presbyter, and in this office became at once a great light of the pulpit. In 397 the fame of his eloquence caused his election to the office of patriarch of Constantinople. To this elevated position he brought the same simple and abstinent mode of life to which he had previously adhered, and was alert to promote every interest commended to his superintendence. "John," says Theodoret, "had no sooner received the helm of the Church, than he began to rebuke crime with much boldness. He gave many useful counsels to the emperor and the empress; he obliged the priests to observe the canons of the Church, and prohibited those who violated them from approaching the altar." 1 Hist. Eccl., v. 28. His fidelity to his responsibilities was rewarded with the fervent attachment of the better part of the clergy, monks, and people. But, on the other hand, it aroused a relentless opposition. The proud and headstrong empress was offended by the admonitions of the courageous bishop; the more worldly among the clergy disliked his moral strictness; the envious bishop of Alexandria took occasion of the Origenistic controversy to begin a crusade against him; and so it resulted that gross injustice triumphed, and Chrysostom, in 404, was banished to Cucusus, an inhospitable region on the borders of Isauria, Cilicia, and Armenia. Not content with inflicting this banishment, envy and malice sought to drive him into the grave, and succeeded. An attempt to transfer him to Pityus, situated in the neighborhood of Colchis, and upon the very verge of the Empire, proved fatal to the enfeebled prelate, and he died upon the way (407). His remains were deposited at Comana in Pontus. Fourteen centuries later the same place received the remains of the Protestant missionary Henry Martyn, in like manner worn out by sickness and by journeying beyond his strength. 1 J. R. Newman, Historical Sketches. Newman adds: "Let us trust that that zealous preacher came under the shadow of the Catholic doctor, that he touched the bones of Eliseus, and that, all errors forgiven, he lives to God through the intercession of the Confessor, to whom in place and manner of death he was united." We can appreciate the benevolent intent of this comment, but we protest that the Romanist herein does honor neither to Chrysostom nor to Christianity. According to a broad and spiritual View, the union of each of the two men in heart and purpose with Christ is a sufficient guaranty, without the intervention of a human shadow or intercession, of their union in the fruition of the immortal life.

The justice which was denied to the living was soon rendered to the dead. We find, indeed, several years after his decease, that most unsaintly saint, Cyril of Alexandria, still railing against Chrysostom. "He did not hesitate, in a letter still extant, to compare the great Confessor to Judas, and to affirm that the restoration of his name to the episcopal roll would be like paying honor to the traitor instead of recognizing Matthias." 2 Ibid. Cyril, however, lived to see the day when the remains of Chrysostom were brought in state to Constantinople, and when the Emperor, with his face laid upon the coffin, acknowledged and deplored the sin of his parents in having persecuted the noble bishop.

In the domain of doctrine, Chrysostom exhibits in their purity the peculiarities of the Greek type. The freedom of the individual, and his ability to meet and to co-operate with God in the work of personal reformation, are prominent ideas in his system. He appears strongly impressed with the need, as well as with the glorious fruits, of divine grace, but still makes room for the human factor. He stands in clear contrast with the Latin-type as represented by Augustine, in that he does not predicate such a sharp antagonism between nature and grace, is less impressed with the moral solidarity of the race, and does not concede such an overwhelming weight to divine sovereignty.

In the field of exegesis, Chrysostom stands as an eminent representative of the Syrian or Antiochian school, the school of his teacher Diodorus, of his early associate Theodore of Mopsuestia, and of his warm admirer Theodoret. The grand characteristic of this school was its comparative freedom from allegorical interpretations, and its careful attention to grammar and history as the great essentials in exegesis.

The chief distinction of Chrysostom, however, pertains to him as the exponent and advocate of practical Christianity; and in this line of effort the pulpit was his throne. He was one of the great preachers of righteousness. "Chrysostom," says Milman, "was the model of a preacher for a great capital. Clear, rather than profound, his dogmatic is essentially moulded upon his moral teaching. He is the champion, not so exclusively of any system of doctrines, as of Christian holiness against the vices, the dissolute manners, the engrossing love of amusement, which prevailed in the New Rome of the East. His doctrines flow naturally from his subject, or from the passage of Scripture under discussion; his illustrations are copious and happy; his style, free and fluent; while he is an unrivalled master in that rapid and forcible application of incidental occurrences, which gives such life and reality to eloquence. He is at times, in the highest sense, dramatic in his manner." 1 History of Christianity, Book III., chap. ix.

An earnest purpose lay back of the words of Chrysostom; "I am always," says Photius, "in admiration of that thrice-blessed man, because he ever, in all his writings, puts before him, as his object, to be useful." It was his constant endeavor to lead the people to a genuine imitation of Christ, and not merely to a formal and ritualistic Christianity. Purity in heart and in deed was his chosen theme. The surest way to correct in error of the head was, in his view, a good life, since such a life would draw down the favor and special guidance of God. An oft-repeated maxim of his was that nothing outward can by itself work any harm to the man of steadfast faith and purpose; and, in his courageous fidelity to his convictions, he lived as if he believed his maxim. The principle which in one connection he brought forward, and supported by reference to the arts of war and medicine,--namely, that peculiar circumstances may justify, in view of a holy and benevolent aim, a species of accommodation, or departure from the truth,--is rather to be esteemed a piece of ill-advised casuistry than an index of the spirit of the man. The whole bent of Chrysostom was toward an open, fearless, unflinching adherence to the truth, regardless of consequences. The words uttered by him upon the eve of his banishment were no empty boast. "There are many waves," he said, "and a violent flood; but we are not afraid of being overwhelmed, for we stand upon the rock. Let the sea rage, it cannot break the rock in pieces; let the waves mount up, the ship of Jesus cannot go down. Tell me, what is there to fear? Is it death? Christ is my life, and dying is my gain. Is it banishment? The earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof. Is it the loss of earthly goods? We have brought nothing into the world, and we can carry nothing out. I regard not the fearful things of this world, and look with disdain upon its glory." 1 Quoted in Neander's Chrysostomus. In a like tone of steadfastness and religious confidence, he wrote from his place of exile to Olympias: "I do not despair of happier times, considering that He is at the helm of the universe who overcomes the storm, not by human skill, but by His fiat. If He does not do so at once, this is because it is His rule to take this course; and when evils have increased and reached their fullness, and a change is despaired of by the many, then to work His marvelous and strange work, manifesting the power which is His prerogative, while exercising withal the endurance of the afflicted. Never be cast down, then; for one thing alone is fearful, that is sin." 2 Quoted in Newman's Historical Sketches.

THEODORET was born at Antioch about 390. In early manhood he became bishop of Cyros in Syria. His death occurred a few years after the council of Chalcedon. During a large part of his public life, he was an object of bitter attack because of his friendly attitude toward Nestorius. He had, indeed, no favor for the heresy ascribed to Nestorius; but he did not believe that Nestorius entertained that heresy. It was first at Chalcedon, where the furious tide of passion and invective whelmed every attempt to save one's own reputation for orthodoxy, while showing any consideration for the persecuted and exiled patriarch, that he consented to join in the anathema against Nestorius. This ace looks like a trespass against conviction. It is possible, however, that Theodoret finally came to doubt the orthodoxy of Nestorius. If a certain passage in his "Heretical Fables" is genuine, such a conclusion cannot well be avoided.

In principles and character, Theodoret exhibited a certain kinship with Chrysostom. He had much the same elasticity of spirit. Unlike Basil and the Gregories, in whom there was a vein of sedate meditation, or even of sadness, he impresses one as a man of cheerful confidence and restless endeavor. Less intense and eloquent than Chrysostom, he was more versatile. As bishop, preacher, historian, and commentator, he was almost equally eminent. The transformation which he wrought in his diocese is a signal testimony to his ability and industry. As he himself recounted, when compelled by the tongue of the slanderer to speak of himself, he greatly forwarded the material interests of the people, building porticoes, bridges, baths, and an aqueduct. At the same time he pushed the work of Christian instruction with such vigor that thousands of heretics were gained for the Church. "I brought over to the truth," he says, "eight villages of Marcionites, and others in their neighborhood, and with their free consent. Another village filled with Eunomians, another filled with Arians, I led into the light of divine knowledge. And, by God's grace, not even one blade of heretical cockle is left among us. Nor have I accomplished this without personal danger. Often have I shed my blood; often have I been stoned by them, nay, brought down before my time to the very gates of death." Epist. lxxxi., quoted by Newman.

In the credulity which Theodoret exhibits in some of his writings, he shared the infirmity of his age. In his moderation and regard for fair dealing, he was honorably distinguished among the men of his age. "He had large sympathies," says Newman, "keen sensibilities, an indignation at the sight of tyranny, an impatience at wrong, a will of his own, a zeal for the triumph of the truth. He was as genuine a saint as some of those whose names are in the calendar."

AMBR0SE, Bishop of Milan from 374 to 397, might be termed the Cyprian of the fourth century. He was an able and resolute administrator, who nobly sustained the episcopal dignity. The majesty of his righteous dealing with the Emperor Theodosius has already engaged our attention. Another instance of inflexible bearing toward the great of the world appears in his relations to the Empress Justina. To her persistent demand that one of the churches of Milan should be given over to an Arian service, he opposed an uncompromising refusal. He also declared to the usurper Maximus that he could not receive him into the communion of the Church till he had done penance for the murder of the Emperor Gratian. Ambrose knew well the limits of his authority. He had no wish to interfere with the secular power in its own domain. At the same time he had high conceptions of the prerogatives of the spiritual power, and was not deterred by purple robes and jeweled crowns from asserting them. In this sense we may accept the words of Milman: "Ambrose was the spiritual ancestor of the Hildebrands and Innocents." 1 History of Christianity, Book III., chap, x.

As a thinker and writer, Ambrose was not distinguished by originality or by superiority to the current of his age. In some of his productions his liberal borrowing from the Greek Fathers is decidedly perceptible. He came by a sudden transition from the secular to the ecclesiastical sphere, and took opinions in the latter pretty much as he found them. "It would seem," says Robertson, "that on his sudden elevation he yielded himself without suspicion or reserve to the tendencies of that fashion of religion which he found prevailing; and from the combination of this with his naturally lofty and energetic character resulted a mixture of qualities which might almost seem incompatible,--of manliness, commanding dignity, and strong practical sense, with a fanciful mysticism and a zealous readiness to encourage and forward the growing superstitions of the age." 1 History of the Church, Book II., chap, v. As an organizer of church music and a writer of hymns, Ambrose undoubtedly rendered a very valuable service. He marks an era in Latin hymnology.

JEROME was born about the year 340, in Dalmatia. His education was conducted under competent masters at Rome. In early manhood, monastic zeal led him to the desert of Chalcis in Syria. Here he studied Hebrew and Chaldee. Proceeding thence, he visited Antioch, where he was ordained priest; Constantinople, where he listened to the eloquence of Gregory Nazianzen; and, finally, Rome, where he became secretary of the bishop Damasus. Leaving Rome in 385, after a tour through Palestine and Egypt, he took up his abode in a monastery at Bethlehem. Here he remained till his death, in 419 or 420.

An experience of Jerome in the early part of his monastic life indicates the bent of his taste and genius. He dreamed that he was suddenly caught up and ushered through the midst of shining immortals into the presence of the Judge. Being asked concerning his state, he replied, "I am a Christian." "Thou liest," said the Judge: "thou art a Ciceronian." And with that he commanded the terror-stricken culprit to be scourged. He, on his part, ceased not to cry for mercy, till at length the heavenly attendants interceded in his behalf. He was released on his solemn promise to keep clear henceforth of secular literature. 2 Epist. xxii. 30, Ad Eustochium. The imaginary ordeal made a vivid impression upon Jerome for the time being. He believed that it was a visitation from God. Indeed, he claimed that he still felt, after he awoke, the painful impress of the scourge upon his body. In later years, however, he found it very convenient to treat the matter as a simple dream. He remained to the end a Ciceronian. Mastery of words, rhetorical skill, a fondness and an aptitude for brilliant paragraphs, continued to be distinguishing features of his genius.

In learning, Jerome surpassed all the Latin Fathers of the period. He was especially proficient in linguistic studies, and so was prepared for the extensive tasks which he accomplished as a commentator, and, above all, as the author of the standard Latin version of the Bible, the Vulgate. As a thinker, he must be assigned a less eminent rank. The quality of his mind is better described as alertness or smartness, than as profundity.

The character of Jerome cannot endure well a close inspection. To say nothing of the outrageous profanation of taste which appears in his communications to Roman ladies, and which, perhaps, argues rather a mental than a moral infirmity, he gave many and most unwholesome manifestations of passion and self-conceit. In dealing with an opponent, he knew nothing of the claims of charity. He was sure to push criticism into savage abuse where he was not confronted by one whom he felt to be a match for himself. So glaring are the flaws in his record, that Newman does not shun to intimate that nothing short of the verdict of an infallible Church could warrant belief in his saintship. 1

1 Historical Sketches, iii. 173. His words are: "I do not scruple to say, that, were he not a saint, there are words and ideas in his writings from which I should shrink; but, as he is a saint, I shrink with greater reason from putting myself in opposition, even in minor matters and points of detail, to one who has the magisterium of the Church pledged to his saintly perfection. I cannot, indeed, force myself to approve or like these particulars on my private judgment or feeling; but I can receive things on faith against both the one and the other. And I readily and heartily do take on faith these characteristics, words, or acts of this great doctor of the universal Church, and think it not less acceptable to God or to him to give him my religious homage than my human praise." A peculiar illustration, surely, of that broad and roomy freedom which Newman invites his Protestant readers to expect in the Romish Church ! A peculiar specimen, too, of a voluntary abasement of moral judgment ! If one is to compel himself to call that white which his native moral sense emphatically declares to be black, then farewell to moral clearness and health !

AUGUSTINE belonged to that class of men whom the march of centuries and of civilizations never leaves behind. Probably among all who have followed the apostles, no one has exercised a wider influence. The scholastics of the Middle Ages paid homage to him as the great theological master. The foremost leaders of the Protestant Reformation drew from his writings as from no other ancient treasury, the Scriptures alone excepted. Those who disagree with him on some points are glad to appeal to him upon others, and he is still frequently quoted both by Protestants and Roman Catholics. Such breadth of influence argues, of course, a corresponding breadth and fertility of nature. Augustine was a man of extraordinary endowments. Deep thought in him was united with deep sentiment, the head of iron with the heart of flame, high intellectuality with consecrated emotion. The tone of his writings is a prominent element in their worth, as well as the thousand gems of philosophical and theological wisdom which they contain. In the broad circle of his ideas, very serious errors, it is true, were included; and the homage commanded before the majesty and riches of his great mind have often prevented these from being duly considered. Nevertheless, his works remain a source both of valuable instruction and healthful inspiration for every serious reader.

As a Christian, Augustine commands interest, as being one of that class who could refer to an experience positive, profound, and transforming. He was born about 353, at the village of Taoist in Numidia. His father was an adherent of the heathen religion until near his death; his mother, Monica, was a devoted Christian, whose prayers for the salvation of her son were ever fresh upon the divine altar until she obtained the pledge of their acceptance. For many years there was little token of a gracious response. Augustine appeared absorbed in the study and practice of the rhetorician's are, or, still worse, bound by the chain of illicit pleasures. "I was," he said, in subsequent utterances of self-condemnation, "far from Thy face through my darkened affections. I was become deaf by the rattling of the chains of my mortality. ... Behold with what companions I walked the streets of Babylon, in whose filth I was rolled as if in cinnamon and precious ointments....I befouled the spring of friendship with the filth of concupiscence, and dimmed its lustre with the hell of lustfulness; and yet, foul and dishonorable as I was, I craved, through an excess of vanity, to be thought elegant; and urbane." 1 Confessions. Very likely, in these strong accusations against his former life, Augustine acted as an unsparing critic, and judged his course from the stand-point of the most sensitive conscience; but we know from his own explicit statement, that the partner with whom he lived for years, and by whom he had a son, was not his by lawful wedlock. The age of manhood came to Augustine without definite indications of religious awakening, except of an abnormal and fruitless kind. From his nineteenth to his twenty-eighth year he adhered to the sect of the Manichæans, not passing, however, beyond the rank of a hearer. "Nearly nine years paused," he says, "in which I wallowed in the slime of that deep pit and the darkness of falsehood, striving often to rise, but being all the more heavily dashed down."

Meanwhile, the power of a mother's prayers, and the cravings of a nature robbed of its proper food, were drawing him toward the true spiritual goal. An inner discontent proved the truthfulness of the maxim which he afterwards placed upon the opening page of his Confessions: "Thou best formed us for Thyself, and our hearts are restless till they find rest in Thee." As he came to Milan, as teacher of rhetoric, a deeper feeling than mere discontent finally took hold of his heart. The agony of poignant conviction was felt. "Thou didst set me," he writes, "face to face with myself, that I might behold how foul I was, and how crooked and sordid, bespotted and ulcerous. And I beheld, and loathed myself." While thus cast down with a sense of personal degradation and longing for deliverance, the voice of a child, which seemed to come from a neighboring house, directed him to the Scriptures. He opened and read, "Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof." No sooner was the sentence finished, than "a11 the gloom of doubt vanished away." Augustine was now a new man. The chains of sinful delights had been snapped asunder. "How sweet," he exclaims, "did it suddenly become to me to be without the delights of trifles! And what at one time I feared to lose, it was now a joy to me to put away. For Thou didst cast them away from me, Thou true and highest sweetness, and instead of them didst enter in Thyself, -- sweeter than all pleasure, brighter than all light. ... He loves Thee too little who loves aught with Thee, which he loves not for Thee, O love, who ever burnest, and art never quenched!" A joy in God rising to the verge of ecstasy, but at the same time chastened by a feeling of personal unworthiness, was henceforth a principal factor in the inner life of the son of Monica. Augustine was converted in 386. In 395 he became bishop of the Numidian city Hippo, a position retained till his death, in 430. He died as the shadow of the invasion by the Vandals was upon his country. But we may well believe that his faith rose above the outward shadow, and that his departure was lighted by visions of that supernal beauty, toward which his desire had ardently reached, as his own words testify: " 0, how wonderful, how beautiful and lovely are the dwellings of Thy house, Almighty God ! I burn with longing to behold Thy beauty in Thy bridal chamber."

Controversies of Anthropology

V.--CONTROVERSIES ON ANTHROPOLOGY.

The Eastern Church, in this period, indulged very little debate on the subject of man's sinfulness and the province of divine grace in his recovery. While Eastern bishops in the synod at Ephesus in 431 pronounced against Pelagianism, their decision was more or less influenced by extraneous motives, and was not based upon any thorough investigation of the Pelagian system, or upon any profound aversion to the same. It was in the Latin Church alone that the great problems of anthropology received a profound and earnest canvassing.

The radical theories of Pelagius, a monk from Britain, were the primary cause of the controversy that arose. The more essential features of his doctrinal system were a denial of inherited corruption in the moral nature of man, a strong assertion of the freedom of the will, and a decided emphasis upon man's ability to work out his own salvation as opposed to his radical dependence upon divine grace. Such a system naturally provoked the profound opposition of Augustine, whose ardent soul was ever burning with zeal for the honor of divine grace. All the powers of his great mind were brought to the task of refutation. The Pauline conception of sin and grace found in him a more appreciative interpreter than the Church had as yet produced. He criticized, to good effect, the superficial points of Pelagianism, but greatly impaired his service by inculcating an exaggerated idea of divine sovereignty. Augustine was the first of the Christian Fathers to advocate the creed of unconditional predestination.

The positive beginning of the Pelagian controversy may be located about the year 412, when Cœlestius, a prominent disciple of Pelagius, was excommunicated by a Carthaginian synod. In 416 two African synods condemned the Pelagian doctrines, and the Roman bishop Innocent expressed his agreement with their decision. His successor, Zosimus, after a temporary show of favor to the condemned party, gave the full weight of his authority to their proscription. Some adherents still defended the doctrines of Pelagius, among whom the learned and talented Julian of Eclanum especially distinguished himself. No new sect, however, was formed in the interest of Pelagaianism; and, as a theoretical system, it was pretty well overthrown in the Latin Church before the death of Augustine. Semi-Pelagianism, which thrived especially in Gaul, maintained itself for a longer space, and was not emphatically disowned in that region till the sixth century. Still, it was not strict Augustinianism which held the field. In point of theory, the Latin Church showed an inclination to modify the radical tenets of Augustine; while in its spirit and practice it increasingly paid tribute to the idea of salvation by works, and really nurtured a crude species of practical Pelagianism.

The Policy of the Succeeding Emperors Toward Heathenism

III.--THE POLICY OF SUCCEEDING EMPERORS TOWARD HEATHENISM.

The discretion of the emperor who followed Julian saved Christian rule, for the time being, from an unfavorable contrast with heathen rule, as respects tolerance. Jovian earned the hearty encomiums of representative heathens, such as Themistius, by granting full liberty for the exercise of their religion, those obnoxious rites alone excepted for which no one expected a governmental sanction. Valentinian, Emperor of the West from 364 to 375, adhered in general to the same principles; a superstitious zeal in prosecuting those suspected of practising magic being his most serious exhibition of intolerance. Valens (364-378), Emperor of the East, by the grace of his brother Valentinian, acknowledged the same laws in relation to heathenism, and sanctioned a similar severity against all supposed to be guilty of magic and divination. The reputation for intolerance attached to Valens is due rather to the rigor with which, as an Arian, he treated the orthodox party, than to any violent attack upon heathenism, It was during the joint reign of these emperors that the word paganism was first employed officially as a designation of a religion. [Codex Theodos., Lib. XVI., Tit. ii. 18.] Gratian, who followed Valentinian in the rule of the West, while he issued no sweeping prohibition against the practice of heathenism, dealt it a destructive blow by ordering that the revenues of the temples, and the public support which had been given to priests and vestals, should be withdrawn. He also commanded the statue and altar of Victory to be removed from the Senate. A strong effort was made by heathen partisans to have these measures repealed; but the diligence and energy of Ambrose, who was highly influential both with Gratian and his successor, Valentinian II., defeated the attempt.

In 379 Theodosius came to the throne of the East, and in 394 his success in overthrowing the usurper Eugenius gave him also the rule over the West. Reversing the policy of Valens in relation to the doctrinal controversies of the age, he assisted the orthodox party to a final victory. As regards heathenism, his decrees and his practice indicated for a considerable time a wavering between toleration and proscription; but in 391 he entered decidedly upon a policy of total repression, -that is, of heathen rites. The mere belief, or even its advocacy, he did not think of touching, and numbered professed heathen among his friends and officers. By a law of 392, the offering of idolatrous sacrifices was declared a crimen majestatis, and as such might be capitally punished. This penalty, however, had its place in the statute-book, rather than in actual execution. "The ready obedience of the pagans," says Gibbon, "protected them from the pains and the penalties of the Theodosian code." [Chap. xxviii.] But if their persons were spared, their temples in many instances were not. No general edict was issued by Theodosius for their destruction; but the passions of the populace, and the fanatical zeal of the monks, urged on, in various districts, the work of spoliation and ruin. In some cases retaliation was provoked from the heathen. We read of Christian churches being burned in Palestine and Phœnicia. In Alexandria the heathen requited what they deemed an insult to their faith (namely, an ostentatious parading of the indecent symbols found in a temple which had been devoted to the worship of Bacchus) with violence and bloodshed; and, indeed, they so far committed themselves by their sedition, that they finally counted it good fortune that they were allowed to escape with their lives, though obliged to witness the destruction of the magnificent temple of Serapis, as well as of less noted edifices.

A similar course, attended with similar incidents, was pursued by the sons of Theodosius, Arcadius, and Honorius, and by their immediate successors. The episode most disgraceful to the Christian side was the murder at Alexandria, in 415, of the beautiful and talented female philosopher Hypatia. It is to be observed, however, that, while professed Christians were the agents in this brutal and unchristian deed, it was not altogether in the name of religion that it was accomplished. Political motives were prominent. The deed, moreover, was that of a mob, -a mob drawn from a populace noted for its turbulence and ferocity. "The Alexandrians,"says Socrates, who was in middle life at the time of the tragedy, "are more delighted with tumult than any other people; and if they can find a pretext they will break forth into most intolerable excesses." [Hist. Eccl., vii. 13.] The same historian speaks in the highest terms of the character and ability of Hypatia, representing her as gaining universal admiration by her dignified modesty of deportment, as drawing students from a great distance to hear her exposition of the Neo-Platonic philosophy, and as surpassing all the philosophers of her time through her attainments in literature and science. "Yet even she fell a victim," he continues, "to the political jealousy which at that time prevailed. For as she had frequent interviews with Orestes [the prefect], it was calumniously reported among the Christian populace that it was by her influence he was prevented from being reconciled to Cyril. Some of them, therefore, whose ring-leader was a reader named Peter, hurried away by a fierce and bigoted zeal, entered into a conspiracy against her; and observing her as she returned home in her carriage, they dragged her from it, and carried her to a church called Cæsareum, where they completely stripped her, and murdered her with shells. After tearing her body in pieces, they took her mangled limbs to a place called Cinaron, and there burned them. An act so inhuman could not fail to bring the greatest opprobrium, not only upon Cyril, but also upon the whole Alexandrian Church." [Hist. Eccl., vii. 15.] The judgment which the Christian historian passes upon the deed, it may fairly be presumed, was the judgment of intelligent and sober-minded Christians the Empire over.

As heathenism had very little to contend for, it gradually succumbed. Only a remnant of it was left in the East by the time of Justinian (527-565), and to this the despotic emperor endeavored to give a finishing blow. Heathen worship was declared by him a capital offense, and its last source of intellectual prestige was quenched by the abolition of the philosophical school of Athens. In the West, the incursions of the barbarians left little chance for the exercise of any central and decisive authority on the subject. But as the barbarians themselves had no favor for the old classic heathenism, it found no refuge, save in the hearts of occasional devotees in the cities, and in the rites which might safely be practised in the unfrequented districts.

Ordinances

II. -- ORDINANCES.

1. BAPTISM.--A high significance was attached to baptism in the early Church. This was due, in some degree, to the circumstances of the times, as well as to the essential importance of baptism as the seal of discipleship, and the rite of initiation into the Church of Christ. To men of heathen antecedents, baptism could appear as nothing less than the boundary-line, in crossing which they renounced all that was old or customary to them, and entered upon a life emphatically new. It signified a transition such as those nurtured in Christianity from childhood cannot easily apprehend. The rite was much the same to these early converts that it is to the Hindu convert in the present, to whom it often means death to his old ties and associations, and a life in entirely new relations. With the first growth of ceremonialism, therefore, it might be expected that an exaggerated estimate of the virtue of baptism would find place. Something of this occurred within the first period of Christian history. In the time of Tertullian, there were those whose estimate of the absolving power of baptism manifestly verged upon superstition; and the Church generally, in his day, looked upon the rite as the consummation of repentance, the seal of the remission of sins, a means of gracious benefits, as well as a sign of grace already received. At the same time, there were strong protests from men of high standing against the idea that an adult candidate could reap any substantial benefit from this rite, apart from an exercise of genuine repentance and faith.

The stress laid upon baptismal absolution led to certain practical results. Some were inclined to delay the reception or the administration of the rite. They argued, that since baptism was not to be repeated, and any grievous sin would forfeit the baptismal absolution, it was better to practise delay than to run the risk of losing so valuable a grace. It was precisely this view of the case which led Tertullian to deprecate the baptism of infants and children, and also to advise unmarried and widowed adults to defer the ordinance "until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence." [De Baptismo, xviii.] Another result of centring the expectation of absolution upon baptism was a special incentive toward a system of penance. Since for sins committed after baptism no sacramental cleansing was provided, it was easily argued that rigorous inflictions must be imposed upon the transgressor in order to secure the pardon of these.

The form in which baptism was administered in the early Church is not without interest as a subject of historical inquiry, but it has little to do with deciding present obligation. The essence of Christianity is not so far embraced in outward rites that one unvarying form is alone valid. As the Church of to-day is at liberty to vary from the form of church government prevalent in the first centuries, tend from the manner of administering the eucharist most in vogue at that time, so it is at liberty to vary as respects the externals of baptism, only fulfilling the requirements of Christ that one should be born of water and the Spirit.

The principal evidences that the early Church baptized by sprinkling or pouring are the following: (1) The great number said to have been baptized on the Day of Pentecost; (2) occasions in apostolic history where no mention is made of leaving the house for the rite; (3) representations of Christ's baptism found in the Catacombs and ancient mosaics, which picture Him as standing in the Jordan, and having the water poured upon His head by the Baptist, also other instances of a kindred significance. "In the Roman Church, and the other churches of Italy," says Kraus, "in the third and fourth centuries, baptism was administered by a kind of union of immersion with pouring or sprinkling. The sprinkling of the head and the whole body [the candidate standing in the water] forms the
main feature in the pictures at Rome." [Die Römischen Katakomben, Buch IV., cap. vi.]

On the side of immersion the following evidences may be quoted: (1) The New-Testament description of baptism as an instrument of burial and resurrection (Rom. vi. 4; Col. ii. 12); an image, however, whose force is somewhat neutralized by the representation of baptism as an outpouring (Acts i. 5, compared with ii. 16-18). (2) The modern and long-standing practice of the Oriental and Greek Churches. [It should be noticed that in the Coptic, Armenian, and Nestorian Churches the validity of aspersion has been recognized. (A. J. Butler, Ancient Coptic Churches, ii. 267, 268.)] (3) Certain sentences in the writings of the early Fathers in which baptism is described as an immersion. One of the clearest of these is the following from Tertullian: "When we are going to enter the water, but a little before, in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the president, we solemnly profess that we disown the devil and his pomp and his angels. Hereupon we are thrice immersed (mergitamur or mersitamur), making a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the gospel." [De Corona, iii. Compare Adv. Prax., xxvi.; Cons. Apost., iii. 16, 17; Canones Apost., 1.] (4) The statement of distinguished historians, like Neander, that immersion was the prevalent mode of baptism in the early Church. [Various writers have concluded that the candidate was immersed in a nude state; but it is to be noticed that the evidence that is quoted belongs to a later date then the present period, Ambrose being among the earliest to whom appeal is made. It may be questioned also whether such statements upon the point as are found imply complete nudity, or the dispensing with a cincture.]

A comparison of these different lines of evidence can hardly fail to suggest that diversities as to the mode of administering baptism early found place in the Church. It is, perhaps, too much to affirm that practice was uniform even through the whole of the apostolic age. It is certain that we cannot add a very long space to that age without discovering more or less of variety. Surely many of the stanchest advocates of immersion will hesitate to believe that the triple immersion mentioned by Tertullian was continuously and universally practised in the Church frorn the Day of Pentecost down to his time. There is a certain intrinsic improbability that so elaborate a rite had its origin in the days of apostolic simplicity. But if there was a departure in this respect, there may have been in other respects also.

Whether immersion was the prevalent form of baptism in the first three centuries, or not, it certainly was not regarded throughout this period as of the essence of baptism. This appears from the following statement in the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles: "Now, concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first uttered all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water. But if thou hast not running water, baptize in other water; and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm. But if thou hast neither, pour water upon the head thrice, into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit." [Chap. vii.] The case of the clinics, or those baptized by sprinkling on a sick-bed, supplies equally decisive evidence. To be sure, there was more or less of objection to the clinics; but in the intelligent verdict of the Church this was based, not upon the mode, but upon the doubtful religious conditions, of their baptism. The objection was substantially the same as that which is now frequently expressed against sick-bed repentance. Thus the Council of Neo-Cæsarea (A.D. 314) objected in general to promoting clinics to the office of presbyter, for the reason that a Confession of faith which is first made on a sick-bed is more likely to be the offspring of necessity than of free choice. [Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, § 17. The council allowed that a person so baptized might, in virtue of conspicuous zeal and faith, or by reason of the lack of others equally well fitted for the office, be made priest.] The council, however, did not assume to deny that clinic baptism is real baptism. A still more liberal verdict seems to have been rendered by Cyprian more than half a century earlier. "It ought not to trouble any one," says he, "that sick people seem to be sprinkled or affused, when they obtain the Lord's grace, when Holy Scripture speaks by the mouth of the prophet Ezekiel, and says, 'Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean.' Whence it appears that the sprinkling also of water prevails equally with the washing of salvation; and that when this is done in the Church [that is, not among schismatics and heretics], where the faith both of receiver and giver is sound, all things bold, and may be consummated and perfected by the majesty of the Lord and the truth of faith." [Epist., lxxv. 12, Ad Magnum.] Cyprian maintains that persons so baptized are just as legitimate Christians, and just as truly partakers of the Holy Spirit, as are others, and decides that they ought not to be re-baptized. This decision has all the more weight from the fact that Cyprian insisted upon re-baptism in cases where a large portion of the Church of his day did not require it.

Other representations may also be adduced, which, if not so decisive as the above, still indicate that baptism was not strictly identified with immersion in the thought of the early Church. One such appears in the current designation of martyrdom as the baptism of blood, and in the belief that it was a perfect substitute for all other baptism. "This," says Tertullian, "is the baptism which both stands in lieu of the fontal bathing when that has not been received, and restores it when lost." [De Baptismo, xvi.] Cyprian speaks to the same effect, declaring that catechumens who hold the true faith, and do battle for the Church, are not deprived of the sacrament of baptism, in case of death in this standing, since they are "baptized with the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood." [Epist., Ixxii. 22, Ad Jubaianum.] Now, the nature of this baptism precludes all idea of immersion, and the most artificial freak of the imagination would hardly be able to connect with it any image of immersion. The blood of a martyr might be sprinkled or poured upon his body, but that he should be actually immersed in it is simply impossible. Again, Tertullian, whatever his writings may contain in favor of immersion, speaks of sprinkling as a possible mode of consummating baptism. Referring to the supposition that the apostles in the ship, and Peter attempting to walk on the waves, were sufficiently baptized, he remarks: "It is one thing to be sprinkled (adspergi) or intercepted by the violence of the sea, another thing to be baptized in obedience to the discipline of religion." [De Baptismo, xii.] In another instance, speaking of one disposed to shirk the hardship of the repentance which ought to precede baptism, he asks: "Who will grant you, a man of so faithless repentance, one single sprinkling (asperginem) of any water whntever?" [De Pœnit, vi.] Finally, the selection of words to denote the rite, on the part of Tertullian and others, is highly significant. Had the earliest Fathers who wrote in the Latin language believed that immersion was an accurate and complete expression for Christian baptism, it would seem that there should have been no hesitation on their part to choose this as the standard term for the rite. Being accustomed to the verbs mergo and immergo in their mother tongue, they ought to have fixed at once upon immersio as being a word whose import their readers would perfectly comprehend. But what did they do? Tertullian, the oldest Christian writer of any note to use the Latin language, as a rule simply transfers the Greek word to his pages, and for baptism writes baptismus (occasionally baptisma. In his brief treatise on baptism he uses this word no less than fifty times. To be sure, the corresponding verb is with him tinguo rather than baptizo; still, he makes use of the latter, and quite as often, we should judge, as of the verb mergo, which is an exceptional term in his references to this sacrament. Cyprian, the next Latin writer who refers to the subject at ally length, borrows, as a rule, both the Greek noun and verb, and writes baptismus and baptizo. The voice of Christian antiquity is therefore clearly against the use of the word "immersion" as an exact and adequate substitute for the word "baptism."

As respects infant baptism, history records nothing explicit for or against it till near the close of the second century. The language of Irenæus is thought to be indicative of its practice. "He came," he says, "to save all through means of Himself; all, I say, who through Him are born again to God, -- infants and children and boys and youths; and old men." [Cont. Hær., ii. 22. 4.] Since in another connection [Ibid., iii; 17. 1.] he speaks of baptism as the means by which men are "born again to God," it is argued, with a fair show of probability, that in the above sentence he designed to include a reference to infant baptism. Tertullian's opposition to it but a little later shows that the baptism of infants was practiced more or less in that age; while his basing of his opposition on expediency indicates that it was not thought that any absolute impropriety pertained to the rite, or that infants were from their very nature incompetent to be candidates. It seemed to him needless and ill-advised to place children in their comparative innocence under the heavy responsibilities of the baptismal covenant. Cyprian, on the other hand, speaking in the name of a North African council, urged among other things the comparative innocence of children as a reason why they ought not to be refused so great a blessing as the initiatory rite of the Church and kingdom of Christ. In his view, and in that of his colleagues, baptism was evidently the common duty of parents to their newly born children. [Epist., lviii., Ad Fidum.] Origen is a witness to the same effect from the Eastern branch of the Church. He makes several references to infant baptism in his writings, and declares its administration a matter of apostolic tradition. [Comm in Epist., ad Rom., v. 9; In Lev. Hom., viii.] This is a very significant testimony; for even if the grounds upon which he based his verdict were not entirely conclusive, still it is not to be thought that a man of such thorough honesty as Origen, and such general carefulness in his statement of facts, would have made this statement without very considerable grounds. He must, at least, have known that infant baptism was no innovation of his age, and had evidence that it had been practiced for several generations.

As respects re-baptism, there seems to have been a common agreement in the Church that valid baptism was not to be repeated. The only question provoking controversy, in this relation, was whether baptism administered by heretics should be acknowledged as such, in case those baptized by such authority should apply for admission to the Catholic Church. Cyprian answered in the negative, the Roman bishop in the affirmative. Each had his following for the time being, but in the end the Roman principle gained the ascendancy; and it became the policy of the Church to receive without re-baptism those who had been baptized, even though it were among heretics, according to the regular trinitarian formula. Exception, however, was made against the baptism of certain classes of heretics. Thus the Council of Nicæa pronounced the baptism administered by the followers of Paul of Samosata invalid, [Canon 19.] though, according to Athanasius, these anti-trinitarians actually used the trinitarian formula.

The time for baptism was evidently, in the first stage of Christian history, immediately after conversion to the Christian faith. But, with increasing numbers and more complicated relations, the need of caution was apprehended, and a period was appointed for the instruction and proving of candidates for church-membership. The length of this varied according to place and circumstances. By the Council of Elvira, two years were prescribed to the catechumens as the term preparatory to the reception of baptism. [Canon 42.] According to the Apostolic Constitutions, three years should be the regular term, though the time might be shortened for a worthy candidate. [viii. 32.]

2. CONFIRMATION. -- Originally laying on of hands and anointing with oil were closely connected with baptism, and were significant of the impartation of the Holy Spirit. Gradually this ceremonial acquired the force of an independent rite, and under the name of confirmation was celebrated some time after baptism. It was not, however, till the thirteenth century that the practice of separating confirmation from baptism became universal in the Latin Church, and in the Greek Church the two remained closely associated. By the rule of the former Church, confirmation was made the prerogative of the bishop alone; in the latter, both presbyters and deacons had power to confirm.

3. THE EUCHARIST. --In the first centuries the eucharist was made a part of the regular service. It was, therefore, celebrated primarily at least once a week, and in some instances more frequently. The partaking of the elements was preceded by the kiss of brotherly love, by the presentation of the offerings of the congregation, and by prayer and thanksgiving. In the North African Church, in the time of Cyprian, even young children were permitted to taste the wine of the communion. The deacons were expected to carry the elements to those unable to meet with the congregation. Tertullian speaks of communicants reserving portions of the consecrated elements, apparently for the purpose of enjoying them in their sacramental virtue at home. [De Orat., xix.] A mystical presence and virtue were early connected with the eucharist; but it is only by an arbitrary reading of preconceived theories into the rhetorical phrases of a few writers, that any assertion of transubstantiation or of an actual repetition of Christ's sacrifice can be found in the writings of this period. Some ill-guarded expressions may have been indulged which served in a measure as a foundation for these dogmas; but, in the light of other expressions, it may confidently be affirmed that the Church of the first three centuries consciously entertained no such dogmas. [Not a single one of the passages cited by Alzog proves that its author entertained the Romish dogmas. (Kirchengeschichte, § 92.) As near an approach as any, probably, was Cyprian's interpretation of the eucharistic sacrifice. The fuller treatment of the subject belongs to the history of dootrine.]

The Attacks of Heathen Power

II.--THE ATTACKS OF HEATHEN POWER.

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword" (Matt. x. 34). "Ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake" (Mark xiii. 13). Such was the prospect with which the Christians started forth. Such for long centuries was their experience in the world. It could not have been otherwise. An absolute antagonism existed between the Christians and the world of that age, between the spiritual empire of Christianity and the heathen Roman empire. No settlement was possible save by the surrender of the one or the other.

Though heathen Rome tolerated very many religions, her intolerance toward Christianity was not properly an exception to her general policy. Her tolerance in no case was rendered unconditionally. She recognized no universal maxim with respect to the rights of the individual conscience. On the contrary, she steadfastly asserted that it was her prerogative to supervise the worship of the individual. Her most enlightened statesmen were agreed upon this point. Cicero lays down the following as a fundamental rule of administration: "Let no one have any gods by himself; neither to new or strange gods, unless they have been publicly adopted, let any private worship be offered." [De Legibus, ii. 8.] Mæcenas is reported to have given this advice to Augustus: "Revere the gods in every way according to ancestral laws, and compel others so to revere them. Those, however, who introduce any thing foreign in this respect, hate and punish, not only for the sake of the gods, -- want of reverence toward whom argues want of reverence toward every thing else, --but because such, in that they introduce new divinities, mislead many to adopt also foreign laws. Thence come conspiracies and secret leagues which are in the highest degree opposed to monarchy." The distinguished jurist, Julius Paulus, lays down as a fundamental article of Roman law: "Such as introduce new religions, whose bearing and nature are not understood, by which the minds of men are disquieted, should, if they are of the higher ranks, be transported; if of the lower, be punished with death." [Neander, vol. i.] The right to persecute on the score of religious practice could not be more definitely asserted. That right was wrapped up with the Roman conception of the State. To the Roman, the State was the supreme idea. He knew practically nothing about a divine kingdom above and beyond this. If of a believing disposition, he worshipped the ancestral gods as patrons of the State and guardians of its eternal dominion; if sceptical, he was still strongly inclined to insist upon their worship as a thing of political necessity, a means of binding the less intelligent ranks to their allegiance to the State. A state religion was in general counted an essential factor of a state policy. Beyond the limits of this, a wide license might be granted. One polytheistic system can easily make concessions to another. Hence, Rome allowed conquered nations to retain the worship of their own gods. The Jew, for example, was free to worship Jehovah. But none were counted free to assail or to endanger the state religion. The Jew was prohibited by law from making proselytes from heathen Romans. Those who had an ancient national religion of their own were expected st least to be neutral. Those who had no religion that could claim such ancient and national associations might be called upon to show positive deference to the state religion. Now, as the Christians had never existed as a nation and developed a national religion, they seemed the least of all entitled to special privilege or exemption. Their stubborn refusal to make any concession to the state religion appeared to the rulers, at least to those of a truly Roman cast, as a piece of arrogant assumption, and a clear evidence of insubordination. This impression was much strengthened by the bond of unity which the Christians exhibited. They showed themselves to be one in a more emphatic sense than ally other body of men. They stood before the government as an independent, close-bound association, an association animated also by a peculiar confidence and aggressiveness. An unwonted air of certitude was assumed by them. They did not ask doubtfully, with the sceptical philosophers of the age, What is truth? but proclaimed their undoubted possession of the truth in the gospel. "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life, declare we unto you" (1 John i. 1-3). Claiming to represent the absolute religion, they appeared as the uncompromising foes of heathen idolatry, and aliens to the State so far as the State was linked with that idolatry. This explains why the most sweeping persecutions were urged on by some of the best of the emperors; for just those emperors who aspired to a vigorous and comprehensive administration felt obliged to oppose Christianity as foreign to the State, a system that utterly refused to amalgamate with their heathen institutions.

State policy, however, was far from being the only inciting cause to persecution. With the great mass of the people, blind prejudice jealousy, superstitious fears, or material interests were the leading motives. They estimated the subject merely from a surface view. That the Christians were a peculiar class, holding themselves aloof from the common amusements and vices, was enough to arouse their ill-will and suspicion. Priests and artisans who had a pecuniary interest in heathenism sought to magnify this prejudice. So the most abominable slanders were circulated against the Christians. Their isolation was attributed to misanthropy. They were stigmatized as haters of mankind. Odium humani generis was a standing charge against them. As they had no temples or images, they were reprobated as atheists. The seclusion which they naturally sought for their love-feasts and celebrations of the Lord's Supper was declared to be a covering for the most hideous crimes. The report was fostered, that at such gatherings they were accustomed to bind themselves into a criminal league by making a feast upon a slaughtered child, and then to give themselves up to the most shameless indulgence. Such monstrous fabrications could not, of course, preserve credit a great length of time among the more intelligent; but with the unthinking populace they served repeatedly as means of exciting to hatred and violence. The same class were ready, also, upon the instant, to lay every public calamity to the charge of the Christians. "They think," says Tertullian, "the Christians the cause of every public disaster, of every affliction with which the people are visited. If the Tiber rises as high as the city walls, if the Nile does not send its waters up over the fields, if the heavens give no rain, if there is an earthquake, if there is a famine or pestilence, straightway the cry is, 'Away with the Christians to the lion!'" [Apol., xl. Compare Ad Nationes, i. 9.]

Even the more enlightened of the heathen shared in this superstitious prejudice, especially from the time of Marcus Aurelius, when the prospects of the Empire and heathen fanaticism assumed together a darker tinge. The philosopher Porphyry was not above imputing the continued ravages of a pestilence to the presence of the Christians, so obnoxious in his view were they to the gods.

Since the Christians were, at that time, confounded with the Jews, they no doubt suffered from the action of Claudius, in the year 53, by which many Jews were driven from Rome. Perhaps the cause of the expulsion was the intemperate opposition of the Jews to those who had embraced Christianity. "The Emperor Claudius," says Suetonius, "drove the Jews from Rome, because, excited by Chrestus they kept up a continual uproar." [Lives of the Cæsars, Claudius, xxv.]

This language sounds very much like a mistaken interpretation of a dispute about Christus. The heathen, we are informed by Tertullian, frequently fell into the error of putting Chrestus in place of Christus. [Apol., iii.; Ad Nationes, i 3.]

Still, the first decisive persecution is properly referred to Nero's reign. "Nero," says Tertullian, "was the first who assailed, with the imperial sword, the Christian sect." [Apol., v. Compare Scorpiace, xv.] 'His tyranny prepared the flaming portal through which the Christians entered upon the long and painful ordeal. In the month of July, in the year 64, a fire broke out in Pome which raged (with only a brief interval of cessation at the end of the sixth day) for nine days. The calamity was of appalling dimensions. A writer, whose youthful mind must have been deeply stirred by the news, if not by the sight itself, of the conflagration, thus describes its destructive sweep: "Of the fourteen sections into which Rome is divided, four were still standing entire, three were levelled with the ground, and in the seven others there remained but a few remnants of houses, shattered and half-consumed." [Tacitus, Annal., xv. 40.] Nero himself was suspected of having been the willing cause of the awful calamity. Popular rumor represented that the imperial actor gorged his insane appetite for the theatrical with the spectacle of the burning city, delighted to see therein a reproduction of ancient tragedy, and even singing on the stage of his private theatre the "Destruction of Troy," at the very time that the flames were surging over homes and temples. [Tacitus, Annal., xv. 39.] As the days passed, the murmurings grew loud and threatening. Nero found that even the lavish bounties which he bestowed upon the homeless multitudes were of no avail to turn aside accusation. A more effective expedient must be employed. Such an expedient was found in the sacrifice of the Christians. The hatred in which they were held would mage it easy to fasten suspicion upon them; and, even if the crime of firing the city could not be proved against them, popular wrath could be satiated by the sight of their torments. That this was the motive at the basis of the Neronian persecution, is explicitly stated by Tacitus, who, while he shows his contempt for the Christians and his utter ignorance of their real character, indicates his belief that the charge connecting them with the conflagration of Rome was a mere pretence, a lying expedient of the Emperor. "Nero," he says, "to suppress the rumor against himself, pretended that the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities, were guilty; and he punished them with exquisite tortures. . . First those were seized who confessed [that they were Christians]; then on their information a great multitude were convicted, not so much of burning the city, as of hating the human race. And in their deaths they were made the subjects of sport, being covered with the hides of wild beasts and worried to death by dogs, or affixed to crosses, or set on fire and made to serve as nocturnal lights when day had departed. Nero offered his own gardells for that spectacle, and exhibited a circensian game, mingling with the common people in the habit of a charioteer, or standing in his chariot. Hence, a feeling of compassion arose toward the victims, though guilty and deserving the heaviest penalties, since they seemed to be cut off not so much for the public good as to gratify the cruelty of one man." [Annal., xv. 44.] Incidental references to the barbarous spectacle are found also in the satires of Juvenal. [i. 155 viii. 235.]

The Neronian persecution seems to have been but a brief outbreak of savagery. So far as urged on by the Emperor, it was probably confined to Rome. Still, it could hardly be otherwise than that the enemies of the new religion in other places would take courage from the imperial example, and be made more forward to vent their spite against the hated sect. It is possible that the murderers of the faithful martyr Antipas (Rev. ii 13) received an incentive from the bloody carnival at Rome. However received by the heathen, the news of the Neronian persecution produced everywhere profound emotions in the breasts of Christians. Nero appeared to them as the embodiment of the spirit of Antichrist. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that in the subsequent history the belief came to the surface that he was again to make war upon the saints, being that very agent of Satan who was to afflict the Church on the eve of the glorious coming of Christ.
[Heathen thought went before Christian in the notion of Nero's re-appearance. For many years the rumor had place among the people that he was not really dead, and at the opportune moment would appear and reinstate himself in the rule of the Empire. This expectation found expression in the Sibylline verses. Döllinger claims that a Jewish rather than a Christian hand recorded it here; that no earlier Christian writer than Commodianus, in the middle of the third century, refers to it, and that it was brought to his notice by the Sibylline books (First Age of the Church). Lactantius, who says that it was held by some persons of extravagant fancy, connects it with these books (De Mort. Persecut., ii.). Augustine indicates a new phase of belief on the subject, since he speaks of those who imagined that Nero was to re-appear in virtue of a resurrection from the dead (De Civ. Dei, xx. 19). For himself he found no warrant for a re-appearance of the tyrant, either as miraculouslf preserved or as raised to life.]

Domitian (81-96), "a man," to use Tertullian's phrase, "of Nero's type in cruelty," was the second to raise a persecution against the Christians. [Euseb., iii. 17.] The same suspicion and covetousness which led him to visit exile and confiscation of property upon numbers of the heathen nobility urged him to like injustice against the Christians. His own cousin, Flavius Clemens, a man of consular rank, was executed, on the ground, as is supposed, of his Christian profession; and Domitilla, the wife of Clemens, was banished. According to Hegesippus, some grandchildren of Judas, the brother of the Lord, were summoned before the tyrant, who was apprehensive that they might venture to set up royal claims,asbeingofthe Davidic lineage. Their poverty, however, and rustic simplicity, disarmed the suspicions of the Emperor, and secured their release. [Euseb., iii. 19, 20.]

The persecution under Trajan (99-117) was impelled by a very different spirit from that which inaugurated either of the preceding. Here a political motive was the mainspring. In order to clear the Empire of faction, Trajan sought to carry out the law against secret associations. The Christians were placed under this category, and hence were proscribed. The animus of the Government is clearly indicated by the correspondence between Pliny and Trajan. The former came to Asia Minor as governor of Bithynia and Pontus. Thence he wrote, about the year 110, to his imperial master that the land swarmed with Christians; the temples of the gods were deserted; every rank had its representatives among the new sect. As a great number were brought before his tribunal, he was incited to make a thorough investigation. Still, all the testimony he could obtain was the statement that the Christians were accustomed to meet in the morning of a stated day, to sing a hymn to Christ as their God, and to bind each other not to commit any crime; that they then departed, and were wont, prior to the recent edicts, to re-assemble later in the day to a simple and innocent meal. The application of torture to two female slaves, who fulfilled the office of deaconesses in the congregation, failed to elicit any further information, except as it strengthened the impression of the Roman governor that the Christians were devoted to an extravagant superstition. [Epist., x. 96 (97).] Pliny intimated in his correspondence his preference for a mixture of kindness and severity in dealing with the peculiar sect. He would give them suitable opportunity to renounce their connection with Christianity, but visit them with punishment if they persisted. The Emperor approved his policy, and laid down the principle that the Christians should not be sought out, but when properly accused and convicted should be punished. "These people," he wrote, "should not be searched for; if they are informed against and convicted, they should be punished, yet so that he who shall deny being a Christian, and shall make this plain in action, -- that is, by worshipping our gods, --even though suspected on account of his past conduct, shall obtain pardon by his penitence. Anonymous accusations, however, should not be allowed a place in any criminal process; for this would establish the worst of precedents, and is counter to our age." [In Pliny's Epistles, x. 97 (98).] In a twofold respect this rescript of Trajan is highly significant. It shows that the Government did not give credence to the popular calumnies against the Christians, and recognized no crime in them except their association as a religious sect. But, on the other hand, it advertised the intention of the Roman government to deny to Christianity a legal status. It distinctly recorded, if it did not introduce, the verdict, that Christianity was a religio illicita. Notwithstanding, therefore, its appearance of moderation, the rescript of Trajan left a broad foundation for persecution. While it encouraged no one to search out the Christians, by denying their right to an existence it gave every one a legal right to turn accuser against them.

Among the more distinguished victims of Trajan's persecution, ancient belief numbered Simeon, Bishop of Jerusalem, and Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch. The former is said to have been crucified after being subjected to manifold tortures. [Euseb., iii. 32.] The latter is supposed to have been thrown to the wild beasts at Rome. Such was the fate anticipated by himself, as appears from the epistles which he wrote on his way to the great capital, especially from that to the Romans. These writings indicate that he was a man of fiery soul and commanding confidence. With an elevated and fearless devotion, he joined a somewhat intemperate thirst after martyrdom. He wished his friends at Rome to attempt no intervention in behalf of his life. "Do not seek," he says, "to confer any greater favor upon me than that I be sacrificed to God while the altar is still prepared. Suffer me to become food for the wild beasts. I am the wheat of God; and let me be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ. Let fire and cross, let the crowds of wild beasts, let all the dreadful torments of the devil, come upon me: only let me attain to Jesus Christ. All the pleasures of the world, and all the kingdoms of this earth, shall profit me nothing. It is better for me to die in behalf of Jesus Christ than to reign over all the ends of the earth. I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; and I desire the drink of God, namely, His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life." [Epist. ad Rom. passim.]

Hadrian (117-138) followed the policy of his predecessor. Tn the early part of his reign, the Christians suffered in some of the provinces from perfidious accusations and tumultuous assaults. These the Emperor discouraged, and insisted upon legal methods. Perhaps his favorable action was due, in some degree, to the apologies of Quadratus and Aristides, the first apologies known to have been written in behalf of Christianity. Still, the position of the Christians was the reverse of secure. A sword was ever suspended above their necks, and rarely did persecution come to a complete stand-still. Distinguished victims are said to have fallen at Rome, among them the Bishop Alexander and the family of Getulius and Symphorosa. The last bore herself like the mother celebrated in the history of the Maccabees. Rather than participate in the heathen sacrifice, she chose the fate of her husband, who already had been put to death; and her seven sons, who were arraigned with her, followed her example, and were also executed.

The great revolt of the Jews under Hadrian, resulting to them in fearful slaughter, in the sale of many into slavery, and the complete banishment of the nation from Jerusalem, brought a fierce, though temporary, persecution upon the Christians of Palestine. The false Christ, Barcochba, the leader of the insurrection, was animated by a fanatical hatred of Christianity; and as a contemporary, Justin Martyr, testifies, "gave orders that Christians should be led to cruel punishment unless they would deny Jesus Christ, and utter blasphemy." [1 Apol., xxxi.]

Under Antoninus Plus (138-161), a similar course of events appeared. In certain of the provinces, hatred of the people, stimulated by public calamities, over-rode the legal methods of procedure. In Greece, a persecution broke out, during which Publius, the Bishop of Athens, among others, was sacrificed. But the Emperor reprobated all disorder, and, in the spirit of Trajan, insisted upon legal prosecution. If the account of Eusebius could be trusted, he even went so far in his clemency as to decree that no Christian should be molested on the mere ground of his religion. [Hist. Eccl., iv. 13.] But the decree cited by Eusebius is of doubtful authority.

The noted persecntion at Smyrna probably took place during the rule of Antoninus Plus. Eusebius, it is true, locates it in the reign of Marcus Aurelius. [Hist. Eccl., iv. 16.] But a preponderance of evidence supports the conclusion that it occurred in the year 155. [See Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, Part II. vol, i. pp. 629-702] The outbreak had its occasion largely in the resentment of the heathen masses. Although the proconsul was not immoderately bitter against Christianity, spurred on by the popular fury he sent a number to fearful tortures and deaths. Some were thrown to the wild beasts, some burned at the stake. But, according to the memorial of the church, the grace given to the martyrs was equal to their sufferings." Not one of them let a sigh or groan escape them; thus proving to us all that those holy martyrs of Christ, at the very time when they suffered such torments, were absent from the body, or, rather, that the Lord then stood by them and communed with them." [The Martyrdom of Polycarp, a letter sent forth by tile church of Smyrna. Eusebius quotes it largely in his Church History, iv. 15. It may be regarded as genuine, though not wholly free from interpolations.] Among those condemned to the fire was the venerable bishop Polycarp. He died in a manner worthy of his relation as a disciple of the Apostle John. Refraining from a rash zeal for martyrdom, he prudently sought to escape the persecutor until it seemed evident to him that the providential hour had come. To him it was an hour of joy and thanksgiving, rather than of grief, which summoned him to the stake. "O Lord God Almighty," he said in his dying ascription, " the Father of thy beloved and blessed Son Jesus Christ, by whom we have the knowledge of thee, the God of angels and powers, and of every creature, and of the whole race of the righteous who live before thee, I give thee thanks that thou hast counted me worthy of this day and this hour, that I should have a part in the number of thy martyrs, in the cup of thy Christ, unto the resurrection of eternal life."

The reign of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (161-180) was a trying era for the Christians, at least in some parts of the Empire. At first thought, this seems contrary to what might have been expected from the administration of the mild and philosophic Emperor. Unquestionably, he was one of the noblest spirits that ever was intrusted with the Roman sceptre. Rarely has a ruler proposed for his own guidance a more excellent set of maxims. He warned himself against contracting the stain of the purple, and exhorted himself to cultivate every manly and social virtue. "Keep thyself," he wrote in his Meditations, "simple, good, pure, serious, free from affectation, a friend of justice, a,worshipper of the gods, kind, affectionate, strenuous in all proper acts." [vi. 30. Translation by George Long.] " Every moment think steadily, as a Roman and a man, to do what thou best in hand with perfect and simple dignity, and feeling of affection and freedom and justice, and to give thyself relief from all other thoughts; and then wilt thou give thyself relief, if thou doest every act of thy life as if it were the last, laying aside all carelessness and passionate aversion from the commands of reason, and all hypocrisy and self-love and discontent with the portion which has been given to thee." [ii. 5.] "Never value any thing as profitable to thyself which shall compel thee to break thy promise, to lose thy self-respect, to hate any man, to suspect, to curse, to act the hypocrite, to desire anything which needs walls and curtains." [iii. 7. ] In a variety of terms, he asserted the claims of human brotherhood, and urged to the practice of disinterested benevolence. "All things," he said, "are implicated with one another, and the bond is holy." [vii. 9.] " We are made for co-operation, like feet, like hands, like eyelids, like the rows of the upper and the lower teeth. To act against one another, then, is contrary to nature; and it is acting against one another to be vexed, and to turn away." [ii. 1.] "Men exist for the sake of one another. Teach them, then, or bear with them." [viii. 59.] " One thing here is worth a great deal, -- to pass thy life in truth and justice, with a benevolent disposition even to liars and unjust men." [vi. 47.] "When thou hast done a good act, and another has received it, why dost thou still look for a third thing besides these, as fools do, either to have the reputation of having done a good act, or to obtain a return?" [vli. 73. ] Marcus Aurelius, to be sure, was not above the defective teachings of Stoicism. He believed in its pantheistic fatalism, so paralyzing in the long-run, to the very virtue whichis so vigorously inculcated by the Stoic system. He seems, however, for himself, to have escaped this paralyzing influence. The elevated maxims uttered by him were not mere words, but the expressions of earnest thought and feeling. Still, there are abundant reasons why he shoald not have been interested to spare the Christians. In the first place, he was not free from a philosophic pride, which naturally beget enmity against the zealous and uncompromising sect. Their patient endurance of suffering, we may well presume, was a stumbling-block to the philosophic superiority which he assumed. A spirit of unconscious jealousy was stirred up in his heart. This is scarcely concealed in the only passage in which he refers to the Christians. After speaking of the readiness which the soul ought to have to meet death, and the fate which is to follow death, whether that be extinction or continued existence, he adds: "This readiness should come from a man's judgment, not from mere obstinacy, as with the Christians, but considerately, and with dignity, and in a way to persuade another without tragic show." [xi. 3.] Again, the political ideal of the philosophic Emperor urged to intolerance toward the Christians. In proportion as he was of a philosophizing temper, he was tenacious of an ideal. Now, it was a cardinal principle, in his political ideal, that the individual must unqualifiedly serve the universal, must be subservient to the interests of the State. "In the case of every appearance of harm," he says," apply this rule: If the State is not harmed by this, neither am I harmed." [v. 22.] "The end of all rational beings is to follow the reason and the law of the most ancient city and polity." [ii, 16.] The conduct of the Christians, therefore, in refusing to accede to the idolatrous demands of the State, and in maintaining their close-bound community within the State, could seem to him only irrational stubbornness. Finally, the reign of Marcus Aurelius was marked, to a peculiar degree, by calamities and dangers. Earthquakes, inundations, and plagues desolated the Empire, and enemies threatened its overthrow." Gloom and terror oppressed all hearts. There was a vague presentiment that the dominion of Rome would expire on the confines of the German forests." The superstitious fear excited by these adversities was enough to set the populace aflame against the Christians, and was not without its effect upon the conduct of the Emperor himself.

How far Marcus Aurelius was directly connected with the persecutions of his reign, stands somewhat in question. The friendly judgment of the Christians upon the Emperor in later times might be taken as implying that the severities came from the local authorities rather than from him. [The story that Marcus Aurelius in the latter part of his reign became favorably disposed to the Christians, because the prayers of a Christian legion saved his army by bringing the needed rain, is to be regarded as thoroughly disproved. The story is given by Tertullian, Ad Scapulam, iv., Apol., v, and by Eusebius, v. 5.] But Neander concludes that back of the persecutions were special imperial edicts. The severities actually inflicted, a law in the Roman collection which is assigned to the reign of this Emperor, [The law does not name the Christians, but it is altogether probable that they were numbered with the religious disturbers against whom sentence of banishment is denounced. The law is indicated in these terms: " Si quis aliquid fecerit, quo leves hominum animi superstitione numinis terrerentur, divus Marcus hujusmodi homines in insulam relegari rescripsit."] the declarations of Celsus, [Quoted by Origen, Cont. Celsum, viii. 39, 69.] and the references of Melito are the principal data which he adduces; and from these he draws the inference that the policy of Marcus Aurelius departed in two respects from that of Trajan, in that it prescribed that Christians should be sought out, and, instead of simply ordaining their punishment when proved to be guilty, authorized the application of torture in order to make them recant, the recantation being understood to forestall a capital sentence. The testimony of Melito, Bishop of Sardis, is in the form of an address to the Emperor, in which the hardships suffered by his co-religionists are thus depicted: "as never before, the race of the worshippers of God is pursued and harassed with new decrees in Asia. For shameless and greedy sycophants, finding a pretext in the edicts, plunder the innocent day and night. If this were done by your command, let it be granted that it is well,--for a just ruler would not decree injustice,--and we will gladly bear our allotment of death. We only make this request of you, that, having acquainted yourself with the authors of such a contention, you will decide righteously whether they deserve death and punishment, or safety and security. But if this decree and this new edict, which would not be proper even against barbarous enemies, are not from you, so much the more we beseech you not to leave us to be plundered in this way by the populace." [Eusebius, iv. 26.] It might be judged, from the conditional terms in which Melito refers to the edicts, that he doubted whether they emanated from the Emperor. His language, however, was quite likely not designed to give expression to real doubt, but only to avoid an appearance of excessive boldness in protesting against the edicts of his imperial Majesty.

Especially violent and fanatical was the persecution which fell upon the churches of Lyons and Vienne in Gaul, in the year 177. Tortured slaves were forced to false witness, and their testimony was used as a justification for barbarous severity toward every class of Christians. The aged bishop Pothinus, at Lyons, followed well the example which Polycarp had given. To the taunting question of the Legate, "Who is the God of the Christians?" he replied, "You will know when you are worthy." The slave virgin Blandina and the youth Ponticus showed a fortitude worthy of the highest rank and the maturest Christian life. In general, these churches were examples of the purer type of martyrdom. The confessors showed an exemplary humility. They declined the name of martyrs. Leaving that title to Him who died upon the cross, they said that they were but poor and ordinary confessors. With unfeigned desire they besought the prayers of their brethren, that they might be saved from denying their Lord. They mere full of patience and mildness toward their persecutors. But nothing seemed able to produce relentings in their enemies. Satiety with slaughter alone brought to an end the murderous work. Then mocking the hope of the resurrection, the heathen refused all requests for the privilege of burial, and throwing the ashes of the martyred Christians into the Phone exclaimed, "Now we will see if they will rise again." [Euseb., v. 1. 2.] The martyrdom of Symphorian in the neighboring city of Autun probably occurred near the same time.

Among those who suffered at Rome under Aurelius was a leading apologist of the age, Justin Martyr. In him we see an example of that class of sincere inquirers after truth who easily stepped from philosophy to Christianity. According to his own account he had successively tried the Stoic, the Peripatetic, and the Pythagorean philosophy. Neither of these gave satisfaction. The Platonic was for a time more gratifying." The perception of immaterial things," says he, "quite overpowered me; and the contemplation of ideas furnished my mind with wings, so that in a little while I supposed I had become wise." But one day an old man whom he met upon the shore of the sea, unfolded to him a wisdom based on the oracles of God, and so superior that all his previous acquisitions seemed but emptiness in comparison. "Straightway," he says, "a flame was kindled in my soul, and a love of the prophets and of those men who are friends of Christ possessed me; and,whilst revolving his words in my mind, I found this philosophy alone to be safe and profitable." [Dial. cum Tryph., i.-viii.] In turning Christian, Justin had no idea that he was ceasing to be a philosopher. Christianity appeared to him the absolute philosophy, and he still retained his philosopher's mantle. His writings correspond to this habit. He falls naturally into philosophizing, sometimes to an extent beyond the demands of the occasion. Some of his paragraphs contain far-fetched ideas, and reveal an excess of allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures. But he abounds in noble conceptions, and gives evidence that he was a man of good mind and of broad and kindly temper. The martyrdom of Justin is supposed to have occurred about 165. According to Eusebius, [Hist. Eccl., iv. 16. It appears from his own words, 2 Apol., iii., that Justin anticipated his fate.] the enmity of the Cynic philosopher Crescens was the mainspring of the prosecution against Justin. He died as became the Christian philosopher.

Commodus (181-192), the worthless son of Marcus Aurelius, naturally had more concern to feed his own pleasures than to subdue the Christians. Moreover, a mistress by the name of Marcia is said to have been friendly toward the Christians, and to have disposed the Emper or to leniency. Still the laws were unrepealed; and probably this reign proved no exception to the words of Irenæus: "The Church in every place, because of the love which she cherishes toward God, sends forward, throughout all time, a multitude of martyrs to the Father." [Cont. Hær., iv. 33. 9.] Indeed, we read of the sacrifice of a Roman senator and of a proconsular persecution in Asia Minor. [Tertullian, Ad Scapulam, v., represents that the proconsul was arrested in his persecuting design by the voluntary appearance of a great multitude of Christians before his judgment-seat. Ordering a few to be executed, he said to the rest, "O miserable men, if you wish to die, you have precipices or halters."

Septimus Severus (193-211) was favorable to the Christians at the beginning of his reign. Later he became sufficiently hostile to issue a decree forbidding under severe penalties the going over to Christianity. But, independent of the temper of the Emperor, the severe laws still standing gave large opportunity for local persecutions, and such raged with great fierceness in Egypt and North Africa. Clement of Alexandria, writing soon after the death of Commodus, testifies: "We see daily many martyrs before our eyes burned, crucified, beheaded." [Stromata, ii. 20.] Leonides, the father of Origen, perished in this Egyptian persecution. Potamiæna, a young woman of singular beauty, won general admiration by her constancy, and secured for Christ and martyrdom one of the soldiers who led her out to the place where she was tortured to death by boiling pitch. In North africa, also, Christ was abundantly glorified by the heroism of his followers. Barely has natural affection assailed a consecrated will with greater force than in the case of the young wives and mothers Perpetua and Felicitas. The sensibilities of the former in particular were sorely tried. On the one hand was an aged father beseeching her to spare his gray hairs, on the other the helplessness of her infant child calling for maternal nurture. But there was no wavering on the part of the meek heroine. Felicitas, in like manner, proved herself worthy of the crown.

The crazy Caracalla (211-218) was not disposed to molest the Church, and persecution occurred only at the instance of the local authorities. A time of comparative peace ensued. The reign of Maximin excepted, there was no serious discomfiture for the Christians till the middle of the century. Heliogabalus (218-222), who was himself a devotee of a foreign worship, being possessed with a fanatical preference for the impure Syrian worship of the sun, was not in a condition to persecute while absorbed in the effort to introduce his own rites among the heathen; and his death occurred before there was occasion for positive collision with the Christians. Alexander Severus (222-235), with his broad eclectic disposition, was naturally disposed to tolerance. Gordian, who succeeded the Thracian Maximin in 238, and Philip the Arabian (244-249), were mild toward the Christians. The latter, according to an early report, was himself a Christian. [Euseb., vi. 34.] But this is improbable. The silence of Origen, who was in communication with him, and the heathen pomp with which he celebrated the millennial year of Rome, [Gibbon, chap. vii.] are counter to such a conclusion.

This unaccustomed rest led not a few to hope that the storm of persecution was finally passed. But the more far-seeing were able to perceive that a new outbreak was imminent. Origen, for example, predicted that a fiery ordeal was already being prepared for the Church. "It is probable,"said he, "that the secure existence, so far as regards the world, enjoyed by believers at present, will come to an end, since those who calumniate Christianity in every way are again attributing the present frequency of rebellion to the multitude of believers, and to their not being persecuted by the authorities as in old times." [Cont. Celsum iii. 15.]

Origen's prophecy was no sooner spoken than the fulfilment began. Decius Trajan (249-251) made the thorough repression of Christianity a part of his plan of administration. His mind was fully possessed with the idea of restoration, the building up and fortifying of the Roman Empire on the plan of its ancient institutions. So large a foreign element as the Christians being considered a fatal hinderance to his scheme, their elimination was resolved upon as a political necessity. At first the whole effort was to frighten and to constrain into recantation. A limit was set before which all Christians were required to sacrifice to the heathen gods. If ally fled before that time, they were subjected to sentence of perpetual banishment, and their property was confiscated. Those who remained and held fast to their faith were not generally executed at once. If they persisted after a prescribed respite, they were subjected to imprisonment and torture. But, as the persecution progressed, capital inflictions became frequent. Three Bishops of Rome, Fabian, Cornelius, and Lucius, fell in succession (the last two, however, under Gallus). The Bishops of Jerusalem and Antioch were also sacrificed. Origen suffered grievously at Tyre from imprisonment and tortures. Egypt had many martyrs, among others a married pair who were nailed to neighboring crosses, and encouraged each other during their lengthened agony. Many who had entered the Church in the time of repose showed lack of courage and fortitude. The first stages of the persecution revealed the need of a sifting process. But many also glorified Christ by witnessing a good confession. [Euseb., vi. 39-42.]

The death of Decius hardly secured a breathing space for the Christians. His successor, Gallus, was quite as little disposed to tolerance. It was, however, as a purifled body that the Church now met the storm. Defections from the faith were rare. Some who previously had been wanting confirmed their repentance by steadfastness even unto death. "How many," writes Cyprian, "who had fallen have been restored by a glorious confession! " [Epist., Ivi., Ad Cornelium.]

Valerian (253-260) spared the Christians during the first years of his reign, but ere the close became as determined as Decius had been for their extirpation. He considered that it would be an effective piece of strategy, and one sparing of bloodshed, to deprive the Church of its leaders. His first step, therefore, was the banishment of the bishops. This was found to effect but little. The banished bishops continued by letter in communication with their hocks, and were loved all the more on account of their sufferings. Severer measures were therefore decreed. It was ordered that bishops, presbyters, and deacons should forthwith be executed with the sword; that senators and knights should lose their rank and property, and, in case they remained Christian, should in like manner be executed; that women of rank should suffer confiscation of property and banishment; that Christians serving at the imperial court should be treated as the property of the Emperor, and sent to work in chains upon his estates. [Gieseler, Kirchengeschichte, i.§ 55.] Among the first-fruits of this edict was the death of the Roman bishop Sixtus, and four deacons of his church (August, 258). The most distinguished victim, however, was Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage. During the Decian persecution, he had retired before the storm, considering that he could better serve his hock by this exercise of prudence. Now he believed that his hour had come. "God be praised," was his response as the proconsul pronounced sentence of death. His administration fell in one of the stormiest periods of the Church. The difficulties of his position were also increased by interned dissensions among the Christians of Carthage. It is the praise of Cyprian that he met the exigency with equal wisdom and firmness. Persuasive eloquence, practical sagacity, and strength of will, fitted him in a high degree for executive efficiency. He had less of mental force and alertness than Tertullian, whom he regarded as his theological master; but he was better fitted for discreet administration. Perhaps he laid too much stress upon the episcopal office. This, however, flowed from his conviction of the need of a strong government and an efficient bond of unity in the Church. He appears, on the whole, an eminent example of the high-minded and able bishop.

Upwards of forty years of comparative rest for the Church followed the Valerian persecution. Gallienus, the son and successor of Valerian, allowed the Christians the free use of their religion, and restored confiscated property to the different congregations, [Euseb., vii. 13.] - an act really equivalent to making Christianity a lawful religion, since on Roman principles only legal corporations could hold joint property. The Emperor Aurelian came near interrupting this comfortable status, but the hand of an assassin prevented the execution of his persecuting design (275). [Compare Euseb., vii. 30, with Lactantius, De Mort. Persecut., vi.] Again the Church began to dream that the fearful shadow had forever vanished. But an ordeal as severe as any which had been endured was being prepared. In extent and cruelty, the Diocletian persecution was a fit close to the attempts of heathen power to exterminate Christianity.

Diocletian belonged to that class of emperors who had a sincere regard for the welfare of the Empire. In promoting that welfare, however, he was not governed by a conservative spirit, and chose his own methods. He introduced a great change, both in the idea of the imperial office and the plan of the imperial administration. The former, he, so to speak, orientalized, cultivating in every way the impression that the emperor held his place not by the gift of people, senate, or soldiery, but by divine right. To the administration he gave a peculiar cast by his system of co-emperors. Feeling that "a single head can be severed at a single blow," that the fact that only one man needed to be removed, in order to make vacant the highest place in the world, was a constant temptation to conspiracy and assassination, he resolved upon a plan of associate rulers. In all, four were to hold the reins of power, -- two under the superior title of Augustus, and two under the title of Cæsar. In this his design was not to divide the Empire into several kingdoms, "but to quadruple the personality of the sovereign." [A.J. Mason, The Persecution of Diocletian.] The Augustus at Nicomedia, the Augustus at Milan, the Cæsar on the eastern, and the Cæsar on the western border, were reckoned as constituting one sovereignty. The laws were issued under the names of both Augusti, and one of these names always stood first in order. Promotions were to take place in the order of seniority; and, when the imperial dignity had been held for twenty years, there was to be a voluntary resignation.

Diocletian himself, though not above being influenced by pagan superstitions, was averse to beginning a general persecution of the Christians. But his son-in-law, the eastern Cæsar Galerius, was a man of ignorant and fanatical zeal for heathenism, and placed no bounds to his hatred of Christianity. In answer to his repeated urging, [So Lactantins represents, De Mort. Persecut., xi. Compare Euseb., Book VIII , appendix.] Diocletian at length took the first step; and, the first step being taken, retreat was next to impossible, short of a desperate attempt to destroy the Church. On the 23d of February, 303, a company of soldiers proceeded to the cathedral church of Nicomedia, the city of the imperial residence, and levelled the noble edifice to the ground. The next day a decree was issued, requiring the destruction of all Christian churches and all copies of the Bible, deposing from their position and abrogating the civil rights of all Christian officers, and reducing all Christians of ordinary rank to the legal status of slaves, in case they would not renounce their Christianity. A second edict (instigated by certain calamities, especially the breaking out of a fire in the palace, which was slanderously charged against the Christians) required the immediate seizure and imprisonment of all the officers of the Church. A third edict came in the form of an appendix to an amnesty to prisoners generally, such as it was customary to grant on great festival occasions. [So Mason contends, through a different description of the edict has sometimes been given.] This appendix stated that the amnesty was to apply to the Christian ministers, in case they would sacrifice; and to constrain them to sacrifice, any kind of torture might be used. A fourth edict, issued by the authority of the western Augustus, Maximian, and the Senate, advised that death and confiscation of property be visited upon all Christians who should refuse to sacrifice to the gods.

With the exception of Gaul, Britain, and Spain, the persecution was general. Constantius Chlorus was the Cæsar over that region, and, being favorable to the Christians, did little toward executing the edicts, beyond the destruction of churches. His son Constantine, who succeeded him in the midst of the agitation (306), was equally indisposed to severity. With intermissions, the persecution continued till the year 311, and in the most eastern districts, under Maximin, till 313. As is represented by Eusebius, the Christians were subjected to a long catalogue of horrors, some of which were witnessed by the historian himself. One of the more atrocious barbarities practised was the condemnation of Christian virgins to be abused in brothels. As was the case in the Decian persecution, which came after a long rest, many yielded to the pressure; but still a host were found capable of enduring all things in fidelity to Christ.

Though the boast was soon made that Christianity was destroyed, the plain facts of the case finally convinced the imperial persecutors themselves of their failure. Diocletian, who resigned his piece in 305, saw the religion which he had attempted to extirpate more definitely and fully endowed with legal right than it had ever been previously. The misery of his closing days was in pitiable contrast with his former greatness. Galerius upon his dying bed (311), suffering like a Herod Agrippa, issued an edict securing religious tolerance to the persecuted. The edict was a strange document, corresponding to the mixed emotions of the tortured Emperor, his hatred on the one hand toward the Christians, and his desire on the other to appease the Christians' God. "Singular document!" exclaims M. de Broglie, "in part insolent, in part suppliant, which begins with insulting the Christians, and ends with requesting them to beseech their Master for him." [Quoted by Mason.] The following were the closing words of the edict: "Wherefore, in consideration of this our indulgence, it will be their duty to pray to their God for our welfare, and the welfare of the State, and of themselves, that on all sides the State may be found in good condition, and that they may be able to live without anxieties in their own homes." [Euseb., viii. 17; Lactantius, De Mort. Persecut., xxviv.] What was lacking in this decree was soon supplied. The edict of Milan, issued by Constantine in conjunction with the eastern Cæsar Licinius (January, 313), was a broad and explicit declaration of religious tolerance. "Having long since perceived," says the edict, "that religious liberty should not be denied, but that it should be granted to the judgment and the desire of each one to perform divine duties according to his own preference, we had given orders that each one, and the Christians among the rest, have the liberty to observe the religion of his choice, and his peculiar mode of worship." The edict then goes on to state that the limitations contained in the former decree are to be regarded as cancelled, so that the most unrestricted freedom of worship is assured to the Christians. Command is also given for the restoration of the corporate property which had been taken from the churches. [Euseb., x. 5; Lactantius, De Mort. Persecut., xlviii.]

The issue of the Diocletian persecution demonstrated that Christianity was unconquerable. It came now by right to the throne of the Cæsars. By long, patient, and victorious resistance to the exterminating efforts of heathen power, it had proved itself the child of Providence. Above all other causes of its success shines forth its inherent Heaven-born virtue. The five causes assigned by Gibbon [Chap. xv.] a may be allowed a place; namely, (1) the inflexible zeal of the Christians coming in a purified form from the Jewish religion, (2) the doctrine of the future life set forth in a most effective manner, (3) the miraculous powers ascribed to the primitive Church, (4) the pure and austere morals of the Christians, (5) the union and discipline of the Christian republic. But the admission of these causes by no means excludes a higher element, or reduces the establishment of Christianity in the world to a mere natural phenomenon. What brought about the concurrence of these five causes? What caused the causes themselves, the zeal, the vivid sense of the future life, the pure morals, the fraternal union? Surely the explanation most satisfactory to an unbiased judgment is that which points to the supernatural origin and virtue of Christianity.

The statement of Gibbon, that the victims of the Spanish persecution in a single province and in a single reign probably outnumbered the martyrs of the first three centuries, [Chap. xvi.] needs to be verified by a much greater array of evidence than he has given. Only the distance of the field of these early conflicts, and the scantiness of memorials, can save to such a conclusion a color of plausibility. Were it not for the more ample records of the modern era, some future Gibbon might make out a very fair showing for the verdict that only a few hundreds were sacrificed by Spanish bigotry. No doubt there were in the modern persecutions elements of unrelenting severity, as well as of judicial mockery, which did not pertain to the earlier. A Roman magistrate would have been ashamed to employ some of the methods freely used by the Inquisition. Still, the minifying estimate of Gibbon is in no wise justified. Roman intolerance may not have made as great a havoc as has been sometimes imagined; nevertheless, the victims were many. Efforts at extermination, such as were conducted under Decius, Valerian, and Diocletian, at times when the Christians were numbered by the million, together with the local persecutions which broke out at intervals during two centuries and a half, must have resulted in the sacrifice of great multitudes. But the number executed is no proper measure of the suffering endured. The slandered, the tortured, the imprisoned, those condemned to slavish toil, were in many cases less fortunate than those upon whom was visited the penalty of death. It was the heroic age of the Church, the age of sanctified endurance. Many chapters were written here which cover the name of Christian with peculiar lustre. Detracting phases are indeed apparent. Even the martyr zeal was sometimes corrupted. Illustration was given of the truth that long-continued persecution is not wholly a purifying agency. Some, especially in connection with the later ordeals, were betrayed into a kind of theatric and ostentatious temper, and inclined to a fanatical overestimate of martyrdom. The better part of the Church, indeed, protested against this perversion. "Needless exposure to peruecution," writes Clement of Alexandria, "makes one an accomplice in the crime of the persecutor." [Strom., iv. 10.] "Martyrdom," said Cyprian to his flock, "is not in your power, but in the condescension of God." In the divine judgment, too, the merit of martyrdom is not dependent upon an outward occasion for suffering or death." It is one thing for the spirit to be wanting for martyrdom, and another for martyrdom to have been wanting for the spirit. God does not ask for our blood, but for our faith." [De Mortalitate, xvii. Compare Epist., lxxxii. (in Ante-Nicene Library).] The result, however, despite these wholesome maxims, was a tendency at the close of the persecutions, in no inconsiderable part of the Church, to superstitiously laud the virtue of martyrdom, and to render undue honors to the memories of those who had suffered. But giving full weight to the disparaging features, there is still an ample balance on the side of the persecuted Church. Beyond doubt, from this field of bloody strife tens of thousands were exalted to a place in the company of those who have come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.