It was the invariable custom of the Jews to make a great hole near where the body of a criminal was buried, and throw into it, as detestable objects, such things as belonged to his execution. From this custom the cross on which Christ suffered had lain hidden during the Roman persecutions, and from the care which the Pagans had used to conceal the place where Christ was crucified, there was no mark or tradition to discover the identical spot where our Saviour was buried, and the instruments of his death deposited. The heathens too out of an aversion to Christianity, had done all they could to conceal the spot of our Saviour's burial place; for besides heaping upon it a great quantity of stones and rubbish, and building a temple to Venus, they erected a statute to Jupiter, according to St. Jerom, where Christ rose from the dead, which figure continued there from the time of the emperor Adrian to Constantine. Arianism observe began to bud about the year 318. Till that time the church had to contend with open enemies, now she was attacked by treacherous foes. Heathenism was subdued under the standard of the CROSS, and Arianism was now about to sustain a signal discomfiture by the same instrument. St. Helena, Constantine's mother, though eighty years of age, undertook a journey to Palestine in 326. On her arrival at Jerusalem she felt a strong desire to discover the identical cross on which Christ had suffered. With this view she consulted the most intelligent people in Jerusalem, and was informed by them that if she could find out the sepulchre, she would be sure to find also the instruments of punishment. The pious empress accordingly ordered the profane temples to be erased, the statutes to be destroyed, and the rubbish to be removed from the place where it was supposed the crucified Saviour had been interred. After digging some depth, they came to the holy sepulchre, and near it they found three crosses, together with the nails that had pierced Christ's hands and feet, and the label which had been fixed to his cross. But, as the title was separated from the cross, a difficulty arose to distinguish which was the identical cross on which the Redeemer had suffered. In this perplexity, according to the testimony of Sozomen, Theodoret, and Rufinus, the holy bishop Macarius of Jerusalem suggested to the empress to have the crosses carried to a person then sick unto death, not doubting but God, on such an occasion, would manifest the true one. The suggestion was adopted, and the crosses being severally applied, the patient was perfectly recovered by the touch of the third, the other two having been applied without effect. Sceptics may sneer at this extraordinary event, and attempt to deny it; but they might as well attempt to deny the existence of such a character as Constantine himself, as to invalidate this fact. A church was erected on the spot by St. Helena, where part of the cross was lodged and held in great veneration. Another church was built by Constantine at Constantinople, where a second part of the cross was deposited. A third church was built at Rome by order of the said empress, to which she conveyed the remainder of the cross, which church still remains, and is called Of the Holy Cross of Jerusalem. Besides, the very same pope that baptized Constantine, who, as before related, was converted through the appearance of the cross, instituted a festival in the church on the 3d of May, in honour of this discovery, which festival has been ob

.

served ever since, in every Catholic country to this day, as it is also in the Greek church. Such a weight of evidence we think too ponderous for unbelievers to remove, and it was considered by the Catholics of the fourth century, as it is by those of the present day, a most signal and triumphant victory over the enemies of Christianity.

Constantine at his death left three sons, namely, Constantine, Constantius, and Constans, in favour of whom he divided the empire into three parts. Constantine and Constans were Catholics, but Constantius was infected with Arianism. While the elder brother was alive Constantius was held in fear by him, and dared not to enter into the views meditated by the Arians. But the former being cut off by death, the heretics soon threw off the mask and exhibited the most vindictive fury against the Catholics. Fox states that thirty bishops were martyred in Egypt and Lybia, and many other Christians cruelly tormented. By distinguishing these sufferers as Christians, it is inferred that Fox deemed the persecutors anti-Christians, which is perfectly correct, as they certainly could not be Christians since they wanted to rob Christ of his divine nature, the groundwork of Christianity, and evinced a spirit of vindictiveness and cruelty the very reverse of Christ's precepts. Fox further says, that "George, the Arian bishop of "Alexandria, under the authority of the emperor, began a persecution "in that city, and its environs, which was continued with the utmost "severity," equalling, if the martyrologist is to be credited, and he may be believed here, in fierceness and barbarity any of the ten Pagan persecutions that preceded it. George, after rioting in the blood of the Catholics, was himself slain by the Pagan people of the city for his cruelties and oppressions, Arius, too, as Fox admits, met with a miserable death, but the nature of his end is not stated by him. It was as follows. The emperor Constantine, some short time before his death, had been persuaded by Arius that his profession of faith was orthodox, and through the influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia, was weak enough to issue an order to St. Alexander, the last bishop of Byzantium and the first of Constantinople, to admit Arius into the communion of the Catholic church. This order was an usurpation of authority Constantine had no right to assume, and the holy bishop refused to conform to it. Eusebius, however, was resolved to enforce it, and a day was fixed for its execution. A Sunday was chosen that the act might be the more notorious. The holy bishop Alexander, who had assisted at the council of Nice, had nothing to oppose to this violence but prayers, which he offered up to God with great fervency. Arius and his friends, relying on the power of the civil magistrate, went to the church in great pomp and insolence. In their way, the heresiarch felt a sudden attack of nature; he stepped aside to a place of convenience, while the procession halted to await his return. Some time having elapsed the party grew impatient, and some of them were sent to see what was become of him. They entered the place, and there found him dead, his bowels voided out upon the ground. Thus perished the impious impugner of his Redeemer's divinity. This signal stroke of the divine judgment was immediately proclaimed by the public voice, and for a time the Arians were struck dumb.

The remainder of the section is occupied with the "Persecution of

66

"Paul," the holy bishop of Constantinople. The venerable and learned prelate was a continual sufferer from the malice and fury of the Arian party. The practice of these heretics was to flatter and gratify the passions of the reigning prince, whereby they succeeded in glutting their vengeance on those who boldly and effectually detected and exposed their errors. When by violence and injustice they exasperated the public voice against them, they basely represented to the emperor, that the advocates of truth were the aggressors, and the causers of the seditions and tumults occasioned by their own malpractices; and the affection which the people entertained for a good pastor was made a mat'ter of complaint. So it is now with "Protestant ascendency." The attachment shewn by the Irish Catholics to their truly exemplary and indefatigable clergy is, in these days of professed illumination, de'scribed as a mark of their superstition and proneness to priestcraft. Fox says, that Paul "being very much concerned at what the orthodox bishops suffered from the power and malice of the Arian faction, he 'joined Athanasius who was then in Italy, in soliciting a general coun"cil. This council was held at Sardica in Illyrium, in the year 347, 66 at which were present one hundred bishops of the western, and seventy-three of the eastern empire. But disagreeing in many points, "the Arian bishops of the east retired to Philipoppolis, in Thrace; and ❝forming a meeting there, they termed it the council of Sardica, from "which place they pretended to issue an excommunication against Ju"lius bishop of Rome; Paul bishop of Constantinople; Athanasius bishop of Alexandria; and several other prelates." So, then, the bishop of Rome is here acknowledged an orthodox bishop, and the attempt to excommunicate him a pretension. The assembly at Sardica is admitted to be a general council of the church, and the club formed by the seceders is called a meeting. Very good, most sapient editors of the Book of Martyrs; but why not be more explicit in this affair? Why not tell us the cause of the Arian bishops running away, and the points on which they disagreed? How can any man come at the knowledge of the transactions of this council and meeting, so as to form a judgment upon them, from the bungling and confused relation you have made? Is it not evident that your object is the suppression, not the illustration, of truth? Be it then our province to clear it up.

The council of Sardica was convened at the instance of Julius bishop of Rome, through the intervention of the emperor Constans, who wrote to his brother Constantius on the subject, being desirous to settle the unhappy disputes that afflicted the church. Having communicated his sentiments to this effect, Constantius was at length prevailed upon to consent to his brother's proposition. Constans, it should be observed, reigned over the western part of the empire, and Constantius governed in the east. Sardica was chosen as being on the boundaries of the two empires, and affording equal facility to those who came from the east or the west. Above three hundred bishops composed the assembly, according to the best historians, selected from upwards of thirty-five provinces, among whom were some who had attended the council of Nice twenty-two years before. Hosius, bishop of Cordova in Spain, presided in this council as the representative of the pope, as he had done in that of Nice. The famous confessor Paphnutius, who had suf

fered so much for his divine Master under the Roman persecutions, and had vindicated his cause at Nice, repaired also to Sardica, even in the extremity of old age to fight again his battles. The Arians mustered about eighty of their party, who, on finding that every thing was to be conducted according to the laws and customs of the church, and that there were neither courtiers nor soldiers to prevent the most perfect freedom of discussion, refused to attend the meetings, and kept themselves shut up in the place where they had taken lodgings. The majority of the fathers finding this faction deaf to all entreaties and obstinate in their secession, proceeded to open the council, and examine into the causes of contention that existed. They restored several orthodox or Catholic bishops, who had been unjustly deprived of their sees, and passed many canons of discipline, with a view to prevent irregularities from again taking place. As to matters that concerned faith, they confined themselves to confirming that which had been declared at Nice. Of the twenty-one canons agreed to, the first provided against bishops being transferred from lesser, diocesses to greater, without the consent of the church; a practice which the Arians had introduced, and was considered an abuse by the Catholics. The chief of these canons, however, was that which related to the supremacy of the church of Rome. The Arians, to carry on their innovating purposes, had recourse frequently to councils composed of their own crea-tures, in which they passed decrees of deposition against such of the Catholic prelates as were most obnoxious to them. To guard against this abuse the council of Sardica decreed, that if a bishop thinks himself unjustly condemned in a synod, he may have recourse to the bishop of Rome as his lawful Judge. Another canon forbids a successor to be elected till the bishop of Rome had passed sentence in the cause. Here then it is clear that the supremacy of the pope was held by the primitive Christians in the fifth century, as it is now by the Catholics of the present day, and for which they are calumniated and abused by "Protestant ascendency."

The council having concluded its proccedings, and communicated the same to the pope, Julius, the emperors were also addressed and entreated to allow the church a full and entire liberty to govern the faithful by its own laws. In the mean while the factious bishops had withdrawn to Philippopolis, situated in the territories of Constantius, where they continued their cabals, and as Fox states pretended to excommunicate pope Julius, &c.; and, to add to their inconsistencies, they called this meeting at Philippopolis the council of Sardica. They next proceeded to prepossess Constantius in their favour, and having gained the Arian emperor over to their cause, they set no bounds to their fury and implacability towards the Catholics. Paul, the holy bishop of Constantinople, was strangled, after being thrown into a dungeon and left there six days without any kind of sustenance. short, the outrages committed by these heretics, as Fox properly calls them, were of so horrible a nature, that we cannot better describe them than in the words of the martyrologist himself: "Arming them"selves with swords, clubs, &c." he says, "they broke into one of the principal churches of Alexandria, where great numbers of orthodox Christians were assembled at their devotions; and falling upon them in

66

In

a most barbarous manner, without the least respect to sex or age, "butchered the greater number. Potamo, a venerable bishop of Heraclea, who had formerly lost one of his eyes in Diocletian's persecution, "fell a martyr upon this occasion; being so cruelly scourged and beaten "that he died of his wounds. The Arians also broke into many places, public and private, under a pretext of, searching for Athanasius, and "committed innumerable barbarities: robbing orphans, plundering the "houses of widows, dragging virgins to private places to be sacrifices "of desire, imprisoning the clergy, burning churches and dwelling "houses belonging to the orthodox Christians; besides other enormous 66 cruelties." Such is the account given by Fox of the persecutions commenced by the Arian heretics against the Catholic Christians.

The third section of this book is headed, "Persecutions under Julian "the apostate," and commences with the following account of this renegado monarch. "Julian the apostate was the son of Cholorus Constantius, and the nephew of Constantine the great. He studied the "rudiments of grammar under the inspection of Mardonius, an eunuch "and a heathen. His father sent him afterwards to Nicomedia, to be