a sovereign's eye, as a mighty instrument, while idolatry was none at all, for strengthening an empire and keeping subjects to their duty.'

§ 9. The sign of the cross, which Constantine most solemnly affirmed was seen by him in the heavens, near mid-day, is a subject involved in the greatest obscurities and difficulties. It is, however, an easy thing to refute those who regard this prodigy as a cunning fiction of the emperor, or who rank it among fables; and also those who refer the appearance to natural causes, ingeniously conjecturing that a cross was formed in a solar hale, or in the moon; and like

wise those who ascribe the thing to divine power, then exerted for the confirmation by a miracle of Constantine's wavering faith.' Each

of these suppositions has, indeed, been overthrown, and nothing then is left, but to suppose, that Constantine saw in a dream, while asleep, the appearance of a cross, with the inscription, By this conquer. Nor is this opinion unsupported by competent authorities of good credit.2

§ 10. The happiness anticipated by the Christians from the edicts of Constantine and Licinius, was a little afterwards interrupted by Licinius, who waged war against his kinsman Constantine. Being vanquished in the year 314, he was quiet for about nine years. But in the year 324, this restless man again attacked Constantine, being urged on both by his own inclination and by the instigation of the pagan priests. That he might secure to himself a victory, he attached the pagans to his cause, by severely oppressing the Christians, and cruelly putting not a few of their bishops to death. But his plans failed once more. For, after several unsuccessful battles, he was obliged to throw himself upon the mercy of the victor, who, nevertheless, ordered him to be strangled, in the year 325. After his victory over Licinius, Constantine reigned sole emperor till his death; and by

transpire only through a private conversation between Eusebius and Constantine? - Is it not supposable, that Eusebius may have misunderstood the account the emperor gave him, of a singular halo about the sun, which he saw, and of an affecting dream which he had the night after, and which induced him to make the Labarum, and use it as his standard? Such are the arguments against this hypothesis. Tr.]-Compare with this curious petitio principii, the conclusion of Dr. Burton, Eccles. Hist. 644. I do not see that the writer of history is called upon to give his opinion in a case like the present; but after impartially reviewing all the evidence, I should be inclined to say thus much, that if Constantine had told Eusebius that the cross had been seen only by himself, I should not have ventured to admit the truth of his narration; but when he asserted that the same sight had been witnessed by the whole army, it is difficult to believe that he wilfully invented a falsehood which was so certain to be detected.' Ed.]

1

[Lactantius mentions only the dream; and the same is true of Sozomen, i. 3; and Rufinus, in his translation of the H. E. of Eusebius; and likewise of the author of the Chronicon Orientale, p. 57. Indeed the appeal of Eusebius to the solemn attestation of the emperor (de Vita Constantini, i. 28), and the statement of Gelasius Cyzicenus (Arta Concilii Nicæni, i. 4, in Harduin's Concilia, i. 351), that the whole story was accounted fabulous by the pagans, confirm the supposition, that it was a mere dream. For the appeal of Eusebius would have been unnecessary, and the denial of its reality by the pagans would have been impossible, if the whole army of Constantine had been

eye-witnesses of the event. Schl.]

2 The writers who treat of Constantine the Great, are carefully enumerated by Joh. Alb. Fabricius, Lux Evangelii, &c. c. 12, p. 260, &c. [The latest and by far the best (says Heeren, Ancient Hist. p. 475, ed. Bancroft, 1828) is, Leben Constantin des Grossen, von J. C. F. Manso, Bresl. 1817.] Fabricius moreover (ibid. c. 13, p. 273, &c.) describes the laws of Constantine, relating to religious matters, under four heads. The same laws are treated of by Jac. Godefroi, Adnot. ad Codicem Theodosianum; and in a particular treatise, by Francis Baldwin, in his Constantinus Magn. seu de Legibus Constantini Ecclesiast. et Civilibus, lib. ii. ed. 2nd, by B. Gundling, Halle, 1727, 8vo.

3 Eusebius, H. E. x. 8, and de Vita Constantini, i. 49. Even Julian, than whom no one was more prejudiced against Constantine, could not but pronounce Licinius an infamous tyrant, who was sunk in vices and crimes. See Julian's Casares, p. 222, ed. Spanheim. I would here observe, what appears to have been overlooked hitherto, that Aurelius Victor mentions this persecution of Licinius, in his book de Casaribus, c. 41, p. 435, ed. Arntzenii, where he says: Licinio ne insontium quidem ac nobilium philosophorum servili more cruciatus adhibiti modum fecere. The Philosophers, whom Licinius is here said to have tortured, were, doubtless, Christians; whom many, from their slight acquaintance with our religion, have mistaken for a sect of philosophers. The commentators on Aurelius have left this passage untouched; which is apt to be the case with those who are intent only on the enlargement of grammatical knowledge derived from ancient writers.

policy, enactments, regulations, and munificence, endeavoured as much as possible to obliterate gradually the ancient superstitions, and to establish Christian worship throughout the Roman empire.' He had undoubtedly learned from the wars and the machinations of Licinius, that neither himself nor the Roman empire could remain secure while the ancient superstition continued prevalent; and therefore, from this time onward, he openly opposed the pagan deities and their worship, as prejudicial to the interests of the state.

§ 11. After the death of Constantine, which happened in the year 337, his three surviving sons, Constantine II., Constantius and Constans, assumed the empire, and were all saluted Augusti and emperors by the Roman senate. There were still living two brothers of Constantine the Great, namely, Constantius Dalmatius, and Julius Constantius,and they had several sons. But nearly all these were slain by the soldiers at the command of Constantine's sons, who feared lest their thirst for power might lead them to make insurrections and disturb the commonwealth.2 Only Gallus and Julian, sons of Julius Constantius, with some difficulty escaped the massacre;' and the latter of these afterwards became emperor. Constantine II. held Britain, Gaul, and Spain; but lost his life, A. D. 340, in a war 'with his brother Constantius. Constans at first governed only Illyricum, Italy, and Africa; but after the fall of his brother Constantine II. he annexed his provinces to his empire, and thus became emperor of all the West, until he lost his life A. D. 350, in the war with Magnentius, a usurper. After the death of Constans, Magnentius being subdued, the third brother, Constantius, who had before governed Asia, Syria, and Egypt, in the year 353 became sole emperor, and governed the whole empire till the year 361, when he died.

[Constantine doubtless committed errors which, in their consequences, were injurious to the cause of Christianity. He gave to the clergy the former privileges of the pagan priests, and allowed legacies to be left to the churches, which were everywhere erected and enlarged. He was gratified with seeing the bishops assume great state; for he thought, the more respect the bishops commanded, the more inclined the pagans would be to embrace Christianity: and thus he introduced the love of pomp and display among the clergy. Schl.- It will be seen in section 12, that Julian made war upon Christianity, by abrogating its privileges, and closing its schools for the refinement of mankind. This is no mean testimony to the soundness of Constantine's liberality. So far as Christian ministers, indeed, are personally concerned, there is no justice in their exclusion from such circumstances of comfort and respectability as are open to their kinsmen and compatriots generally. Nor will their ministry carry the weight which the best interests of the world at large require, unless it is allowed to take its due place among liberal professions; which it

never can, while hopelessly confined among poverty-stricken employments. S]

[It is more probable, that the principal design of this massacre was to recover the provinces of Thrace, Macedon, and Achaia, which, in the divisions of the empire, Constantine the Great had given to young Dalmatius, son of his brother of the same name; and Pontus and Cappadocia, which he had granted to Annibalianus, the brother of young Dalmatius. Be that as it will Mosheim has attributed this massacre equally to the three sons of Constantine; whereas almost all authors agree, that neither young Constantine, nor Constans, had any hand in it at all.' Macl.]

[Because they were despised: Gallus, being sickly, it was supposed would not live long; and Julian, being but eight years old, created no fear. Some years after, they were sent to a remote place in Cappadocia, where they were instructed in languages, the sciences, and gymnastics, being in a sense kept prisoners; and were at last designed for the clerical office, having been made lectors or readers. Ammianus Marcell. xxii. 9. Schl.]

No one of these brothers possessed the disposition or the discernment of their father; yet they all pursued their father's purpose of abolishing the ancient superstitions of the Romans, and other pagans, and of propagating the Christian religion throughout the Roman empire. The thing itself was commendable and excellent; but in the means employed there was much to censure.1

§ 12. The cause of Christianity, which had been thus flourishing and prosperous, received immense injury, and seemed on the brink of ruin, when Julian, the son of Julius Constantius, brother of Constantine the Great, now the only surviving branch of the Constantinian family, after a successful campaign in Gaul, A. D. 360, was hailed emperor by his soldiers, and on the death of Constantius, A. D. 361, obtained possession of the whole empire. This credulous and vainglorious prince was, indeed, educated in the Christian religion, but he spurned it; partly from hatred of the Constantinian family, which had slain his father, brother, and others of his race; partly from the cunning of the Platonic philosophers, who imposed upon him with fictitious miracles and prophecies. He took up in its place the principles of his ancestors, and strove to reinstate the rites of paganism in all their former splendour. Julian seemed to abhor all violence, and to leave his people full discretion in religion and its outward forms; but he really cut, by art and policy, the sinews of the Christian cause. He abrogated privileges granted as well to that religion itself as to its principal officers, closed its schools of philosophy and liberal arts, not only tolerated all its opponents, but also inspirited and favoured them in writing books against the Christians, and in other things. He had more objects in contemplation, and would, doubtless, have done immense harm to Christianity, if he had returned victorious from the Persian war, which he undertook directly after he came to the throne. But in this war, which was both undertaken and carried on with little discretion, he fell by a wound received in battle, A. D. 363, when just entered on the thirty-second year of his age, and after reigning sole emperor only twenty months from the death of Constantius.3

All

[Coercive measures were adopted, which only made nominal Christians. A law was enacted, in 342, that all the heathen temples should be shut up, and that no person should be allowed to go near them. sacrifices, and all consultations of the oracles and soothsayers, were prohibited, on pain of death and confiscation of property: and the provincial magistrates were threatened with the same penalties, if they were dilatory in punishing transgressors of the law. This was to compel the conscience, and not to convince it. The history of these emperors may be found in the Universal History, and in Le Beau's History of the Eastern Empire. Schl.-Gibbon, Decline and Fall, e. 18 and 19. Ed.]

[For Gallus, who had been created VOL. I.

Q

Cæsar, was previously murdered by order of Constantius, because of his cruelty, and being charged with aspiring after the supreme power. Ammian. Marcell. xiv. 11. Schl.]

See, besides Tillemont [the Universal History; Le Beau, Histoire du bas Empire, tom. iii. liv. xii-xiv.] and other common writers, the accurately written work of Bletterie, Vie de Julien, Paris, 1734, and Amsterd. 1735, 8vo; the Life and Character of Julian the Apostate, illustrated in VII. Dissertations, by Des Voeux, Dublin, 1746, 8vo; Ez. Spanheim, Preface and Notes to the Works of Julian, Lips. 1696, fol.; and Joh. Alb. Fabricius, Lux salutaris Evangelii, fc., cap. xiv. p. 294, &c. [Add Aug. Neander, über Kayser Julianus und sein Zeitalter, Hamb. 1812, 8vo.. Tr.]