appears to us, what shall we think of the court bishops who, from false prudence, relaxed in his favor the otherwise strict discipline of the church, and admitted him, at least tacitly, to the enjoyment of nearly all the privileges of believers, before he had taken upon himself even a single obligation of a catechumen!

When, after a life of almost uninterrupted health, he felt the approach of death, he was received into the number of catechumens by laying on of hands, and then formally admitted by baptism into the full communion of the church in the year 337, the sixty-fifth year of his age, by the Arian (or properly Semi-Arian) bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia, whom he had shortly before recalled from exile together with Arius.' His dying testimony then was, as to form, in favor of heretical rather than orthodox Christianity, but merely from accident, not from intention. He meant the Christian as against the heathen religion, and whatever of Arianism may have polluted his baptism, was for the Greek church fully wiped out by the orthodox canonization. After the solemn ceremony he promised to live thenceforth worthily of a disciple of Jesus; refused to wear again the imperial mantle of cunningly woven silk, richly ornamented with gold; retained the white baptismal robe; and died a few days after, on Pentecost, May 22,

1

1 Hence Jerome says, Constantine was baptized into Arianism. And Dr. Newman, the ex-Tractarian, remarks, that in conferring his benefaction on the church he burdened it with the bequest of an heresy, which outlived his age by many centuries, and still exists in its effects in the divisions of the East (The Arians of the 4th Century, 1854, p. 138). But Eusebius (not the church historian) was probably the nearest bishop, and acted here not as a party leader. Constantine, too, in spite of the influence which the Arians had over him in his later years, considered himself constantly a true adherent of the Nicene faith, and he is reported by Theodoret (H. E. I. 32) to have ordered the recall of Athanasius from exile on his deathbed, in spite of the opposition of the Arian Eusebius. He was in these matters frequently misled by misrepresentations, and cared more for peace than for truth. The deeper significance of the dogmatic controversy was entirely beyond his sphere. Gibbon is right in this matter: "The credulous monarch, unskilled in the stratagems of theological warfare, might be deceived by the modest and specious professicas of the heretics, whose sentiments he never perfectly understood; and while he protected Arius, and persecuted Athanasius, he still considered the council of Nice as the bui wark of the Christian faith, and the peculiar glory of his own reign." Ch. xxi.

337, trusting in the mercy of God, and leaving a long, a fortu nate, and a brilliant reign, such as none but Augustus, of all his predecessors, had enjoyed. "So passed away the first Christian Emperor, the first Defender of the Faith, the first Imperial patron of the Papal see, and of the whole Eastern Church, the first founder of the Holy Places, Pagan and Christian, orthodox and heretical, liberal and fanatical, not to be imitated or admired, but much to be remembered, and deeply to be studied."

1

His remains were removed in a golden coffin by a pro cession of distinguished civilians and the whole army, from Nicomedia to Constantinople, and deposited, with the highest Christian honors, in the church of the Apostles, while the Roman senate, after its ancient custom, proudly ignoring the great religious revolution of the age, enrolled him among the gods of the heathen Olympus. Soon after his death, Eusebius · set him above the greatest princes of all times; from the fifth century he began to be recognized in the East as a saint; and the Greek and Russian church to this day celebrates his memory under the extravagant title of "Isapostolos," the "Equal of the apostles." The Latin church, on the contrary, with truer tact, has never placed him among the saints, but has been content with naming him "the Great,” in just and grateful remembrance of his services to the cause of Christianity and civilization.

§ 3. The Sons of Constantine. A.D. 337-361.

For the literature see § 2 and § 4.

With the death of Constantine the monarchy also cam、, for the present, to an end. The empire was divided among his

'Stanley, 1. c. p. 320.

This church became the burial place of the Byzantine emperors, till in the fourth crusade the coffins were rifled and the bodies cast out. Mahomet II. destroyed the church and built in its place the magnificent mosque which bears his name. von Hammer, i. 390.

See

'Comp the Acta Sanct. ad 21 Maii, p. 13 sq. Niebuhr justly remarks: "When certain oriental writers call Constantine ‘equal to the Apostles,' they do not know what they are saying; and to speak of him as a 'saint' is a profanation of the word."

three sons, Constantine II., Constans, and Constantius. Their accession was not in Christian style, but after the manner of genuine Turkish, oriental despotism; it trod upon the corpses of the numerous kindred of their father, excepting two nephews, Gallus and Julian, who were saved only by sickness and youth from the fury of the soldiers. Three years later followed a war of the brothers for the sole supremacy. Con stantine II. was slain by Constans (340), who was in turn murdered by a barbarian field officer and rival, Magnentius (350). After the defeat and the suicide of Magnentius, Constantius, who had hitherto reigned in the East, became sole emperor, and maintained himself through many storms until his natural death (353-361).

The sons of Constantine did their Christian education little honor, and departed from their father's wise policy of toler⚫ation. Constantius, a temperate and chaste, but jealous, vain, and weak prince, entirely under the control of eunuchs, women, and bishops, entered upon a violent suppression of the heathen religion, pillaged and destroyed many temples, gave the booty to the church, or to his eunuchs, flatterers, and worthless favorites, and prohibited, under penalty of death, all sacrifices and worship of images in Rome, Alexandria, and Athens, though the prohibition could not be carried out. Hosts now came over to Christianity, though, of course, for the most part with the lips only, not with the heart. But this emperor proceeded with the same intolerance against the ad herents of the Nicene orthodoxy, and punished them with confiscation and banishment. His brothers supported Athanasius, but he himself was a fanatical Arian. In fact, he meddled in all the affairs of the church, which was convulsed during his reign with doctrinal controversy. He summoned a multitude of councils, in Gaul, in Italy, in Illyricum, and in Asia; aspired to the renown of a theologian; and was fond of being called bishop of bishops, though, like his father, he postponed baptism till shortly before his death.

There were those, it is true, who justified this violent suppression of idolatry, by reference to the extermination of the

Canaanites under Joshua.' But intelligent church teachers like Athanasius, Hosius, and Hilary, gave their voice for toler ation, though even they mean particularly toleration for ortho doxy, for the sake of which they themselves had been deposed and banished by the Arian power. Athanasius says, for example: "Satan, because there is no truth in him, breaks in with axe and sword. But the Saviour is gentle, and forces no one, to whom he comes, but knocks and speaks to the soul: Open to me, my sister?' If we open to him, he enters; but if we will not, he departs. For the truth is not preached by sword and dungeon, by the might of an army, but by persuasion and exhortation. How can there be persuasion where fear of the emperor is uppermost? How exhortation, where the contradicter has to expect banishment and death?" With equal truth Hilary confronts the emperor with the wrong of his course, in the words: "With the gold of the state thou burdenest the sanctuary of God, and what is torn from the temples, or gained by confiscation, or extorted by punishment, thou obtrudest upon God."

By the laws of history the forced Christianity of Constantius must provoke a reaction of heathenism. And such reaction in fact ensued, though only for a brief period immediately after this emperor's death.

§ 4. Julian the Apostate, and the Reaction of Paganism. A.D. 361-363.

SOURCES.

These agree in all the principal facts, even to unimportant details, but differ entirely in spirit and in judgment; Julian himself exhibiting the vanity of self-praise, Libanius and Zosimus the extreme of passionate admiration, Gregory and Cyril the opposite extreme of hatred and abhorrence, Ammianus Marcellinus a mixture of praise and censure.

'So Julius Firmicus Maternus, author of a tract De errore profanarum religionum written about 348 and dedicated to the emperors Constantius and Constans. 'Song of Sol. v. 2.

1 HEATHEN Sources: JULIANI imperatoris Opera, quae supersunt omnia, ed. by Petavius, Par. 1583; and more completely by Ezech. Span hemius, Lips. 1696, 2 vols. fol. in one (Spanheim gives the Greek original with a good Latin version, and the Ten Books of Cyril of Alex. against Julian). We have from Julian: Misopogon (Mɩσопwуwv, the Beard-hater, a defence of himself against the accusations of the Antiochians); Caesares (two satires on his predecessors); eight Orationes; sixty-five Epistolae (the latter separately and most completely edited, with shorter fragments, by Heyler, Mog. 1828); and Fragments of his three or seven Books κarà Xploriavov in the Reply of Cyril. LIBANIUS: 'Emiтápios en' 'Iovλtavą, in Lib. Opp. ed. Reiske, Altenb. 1791-97. 4 vols. MAMERTINUS: Gratiarum actio Juliano. The relevant passages in the heathen historians AMMIANUS MAROELLINUS (1. c. lib. xxi.-xxv. 3), ZOSIMUS and EUNAPIUS.

2. CHRISTIAN Sources (all in Greek): the early church historians, SOCRATES (1. iii.), SOZOMEN (1. v. and vi.), THEODORET (1. iii.). GREGORY Naz.: Orationes invectivae in Jul. duae, written some six months after the death of Julian (Opp. tom. i.). CYRIL of ALEX.: Contra impium Jul. libri x. (in the Opp. Oyr., ed. J. Aubert, Par. 1638, tom. vi., and in Spanheim's ed. of the works of Julian).

LITERATURE.

TILLEMONT: Memoires, etc., vol. vii. p. 322–423 (Venice ed.), and Histoire des empereurs Rom. Par. 1690 sqq., vol. iv. 483–576. Abbé DE LA BLETERIE: Vie de l'empereur Julien. Amst. 1735. 2 vols. The same in English, Lond. 1746. W. WARBURTON: Julian. Lond. 3d ed. 1763. NATH. LARDNER: Works, ed. Dr. Kippis, vol. vii. p. 581 sqq. GIBBON: 1. c. ch. xxii.-xxiv., particularly xxiii. NEANDER: Julian u. sein Zeitalter. Leipz. 1812 (his first historical production), and Allg. K. G., iii. (2d ed. 1846), p. 76-148. English ed. Torrey, ii. 37-67. JONDOT (R. C.): Histoire de l'empereur Julien. 1817, 2 vols. C. H. VAN HERWERDEN: De Juliano imper. religionis christ. hoste, eodemque vindice. Lugd. Bat. 1827. G. F. WIGGERS: Jul. der Abtrünnige. Leipz. 1837 (in Illgen's Zeitschr. f. hist. Theol.). H. SCHULZE: De philos. et moribus Jul. Strals. 1839. D. FR. STRAUSS (author of the mythological "Leben Jesu"): Der Romantiker auf dem Thron der Cäsaren, oder Julian der Abtr. Manh. 1847 (containing a clear survey of the various opinions concerning Julian from Libanius and Gregory to Gibbon, Schlosser, Neander, and Ullmann, but hiding a political aim against King Frederick William IV. of Prussia). J. E. AUER (R. C.) : Kaiser Jul. der Abtr. im Kampf mit den Kirchenvätern seiner Zeit. Wien, 1855. W. MANGOLD: Jul. der Abtr. Stuttg. 1862. C. SEMISCH : Jul. der Abtr. Bresl. 1862. F. LÜBKER: Julians Kampf u. Ende Hamb. 1864. G. SIEVERS: Das Leben des Libanius. Berlin, 1858.