[Footnote A: I Tim. i:3-7.]
[Footnote B: I Tim. i:19, 20.]
[Footnote C: I Tim. vi:20, 21.]
[Footnote D: II Tim. i:15.]
[Footnote E: II Tim. ii:16, 18.]
[Footnote F: II Tim. iv:10.]
[Footnote G: II Tim. iv:16.]
Paul admonished Titus to hold fast to the faith, for there were many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision; who subverted whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake; and were giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men and turning from the truth.[A]
[Footnote A: Titus i:9-14.]
The Demoralization of Christians Widespread:Peter also had something to say with reference to the danger of heresies and false teachers which menaced the Church. He declared that there would be false teachers among the saints, "who privily would bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction." "And many," said he, "shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you; whose judgment now for a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them unto chains of darkness to be reserved unto judgment"—he argued that the Lord would not spare these corrupters of the Gospel of Christ, who, like the dog, had turned again to his own vomit, and the sow who was washed to her wallowing in the mire.[A]He charged also that some were wresting the epistles of Paul, as they were some of the "other scriptures," unto their own destruction.[B]
[Footnote A: II Peter ii.]
[Footnote B: Ibid. iii; 16.]
John, the disciple whom Jesus loved, also bears testimony to the existence of anti-Christs, false prophets, and the depravity of many in the early Church. "It is the last time," said he, "and as ye have heard that anti-Christ shall come, even now there are many anti-Christs, whereby we know that it is the last time;" * * * * * * "They went out from us * * * * * * that they might be manifest that they were not all of us."[A]"Try the spirits," said he, in the same epistle, "whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world."[B]Again; "Many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver, an anti-Christ."[C]
[Footnote A: I John ii:18, 19.]
[Footnote B: I John iv:1.]
[Footnote C: II John vii:5.]
Jude also is a witness against this class of deceivers. He admonished the saints to "contend earnestly for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints;" "for," said he, "there are certain men crept in unawares, * * * * ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ."[A]The rest of the epistle he devotes to a description of their wickedness, comparing it with the conduct of Satan, and the vileness of the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah.
[Footnote A: Jude 3, 4.]
Object of the Review:I have not given this review of the condition of the Church of Christ in the Apostolic Age with the view of establishing the idea that the Church at that time was in a complete state of apostasy; nor have I dwelt upon the weaknesses and sins of the early saints for the purpose of holding them up for contempt. My only purpose has been to dispel, first of all, the extravagant ideas that obtain in many minds concerning the absolute sanctity of the early Christians; and secondly, and mainly, to show that there were elements and tendencies existing in the early Church, even in the days of the Apostles, that would, when unrestrained by Apostolic authority and power, lead to its entire overthrow.
We have no good reason to believe that there occurred any change for the better in the affairs of the Church after the demise of the Apostles; no reason to believe that there were fewer heresies or fewer false teachers, or false prophets to lead away the people with their vain philosophies, their foolish babblings, and opposition of science falsely so called On the contrary, one is forced to believe the prediction of Paul, viz., that evil men and seducers would wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived;[A]for who, after the Apostles were fallen asleep, would stand up and correct the heresies that were brought into the Church, rebuke the schismatics, the false teachers and false prophets that arose to draw away disciples after them? If false teachers insinuated themselves into the Church, brought in damnable heresies by reason of which the way of truth was evil spoken of, and the pure religion of Jesus Christ corrupted even while inspired Apostles were still in the Church, it is not unreasonable to conclude that all these evils would increase and revel unchecked after the death of the Apostles.
[Footnote A: II Tim. iii, 13.]
(Scripture Reading Exercise.)
PROGRESS OF THE APOSTACY.
ANALYSIS.
REFERENCES.
I. The Existence of False Teachers in the Church.
The Works cited in the Last Lesson and the authorities cited in the notes.
II. Promulgation of False Doctrines.
The Rise of False Teachers:I cannot, of course, here enter into even a brief history of false teachers in the early Christian centuries. That of itself would be matter for a volume. I shall therefore content myself with making quotations from reliable authorities that will directly establish the fact of the rapid increase in the number of false teachers, and the pernicious effect of their doctrines upon the Christian religion.
Position of the Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches, Respectively, on the Question of Early Christian Apostasy:It should be said before making these quotations, however, that Protestant writers are interested in maintaining that the Christian religion was perpetuated, even through the ages of apostasy, and given back to mankind by the agency of the so-called "Reformation" of the' sixteenth century. Hence in their writings, when stating the corruptions of the early Church, they are especially guarded lest too strong a statement would lead to the belief that the Christian religion had been utterly subverted. Indeed, it is well known that Milner wrote his Church History—which should be regarded not so much as the history of the Church as the history of piety—to counteract the influence of Mosheim's "Institutes of Ecclesiastical History," which work Milner considered too frank in its statements of perversions and abuses of religion. The Protestant writers must need set forth the theory that the Christian religion survived all the abuses and corruptions of it through ages of apostasy, else they would have no logical ground for the sixteenth century "Reformation" to stand upon. They seem not oblivious to the fact, though never mentioning it, that if the Christian religion was displaced by a paganized religion—a false religion—as is fully predicted, as we shall see later, in the New Testament prophecies, and of which the works of Protestant writers go far toward proving—then the only possible way in which the true Christian religion and the Church of Christ could be restored would be by a reopening of the heavens and the giving forth of a new dispensation of the Gospel, together with a renewal of divine authority to preach it, and administer its ordinances of salvation. Catholics hold that there has been no great apostasy in the Church. Their theory is that there has been a constant, unbroken perpetuation of the Christian Church from the days of the Messiah and His Apostles until now; and that the Roman Catholic Church is that very Church so perpetuated through the ages. Catholic writers admit that there have been very corrupt periods in the Church, and many wicked prelates, and some vile popes; yet they hold that the Church has persisted, that the Christian religion has been preserved in the earth.
Declension of Excellence in Early Christian Writers:With these remarks on the position of the Protestant and Catholic churches respecting their attitude on the subject of the perpetuation of the Christian religion, I proceed with the quotations promised; and, first, a passage from Neander's History of the Christian Religion and Church, on the very great difference between the writings of the Apostles and the writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers; and the suddenness of that transition, to the disparagement of the productions of the Fathers:
"A phenomenon, singular in its kind, is the striking difference between the writings of the Apostles and the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, who were so nearly their contemporaries. In other cases, transitions are wont to be gradual; but in this instance we observe a sudden change. There are here no gentle gradations, but all at once an abrupt transition from one style of language to another; a phenomenon which should lead us to acknowledge the fact of a special agency of the Divine Spirit in the souls of the Apostles. After the time of the first extraordinary operations of the Holy Ghost followed the period of the free development of human nature in Christianity; and here, as in all other cases, the beginning must be small and feeble before the effects of Christianity could penetrate more widely, and bring fully under their influence the great powers of the human mind. It was to be shown, first, what the divine power could effect by the foolishness of preaching. The writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers have unhappily, for the most part, come down to us in a condition very little worthy of confidence, partly because under the name of these men, so highly venerated in the Church, writings were early forged for the purpose of giving authority to particular opinions or principles; and partly because their own writings which were extant became interpolated in subservience to a Jewish hierarchical interest which aimed to crush the free spirit of the Gospel."[A]
[Footnote A: Vol. i, pp. 656, 657.]
There is no authority of Scripture for the supposition made here by Dr. Neander that the extraordinary operations of the Holy Ghost were to be confined to the Apostles; the whole tenor of Scripture authority is to the contrary. It is the theory of the Gospel itself that all who receive it, and particularly its ministers, shall have the divine Spirit as a special agency working in their souls, through all time, and there is no warrant for the belief that its operations were to be confined to those who first received it and became its first ministers. Therefore, this sudden transition in the matter of excellence and truthworthiness between the writings of the Apostles and the writings of the Apostolic Fathers indicates not only a deterioration in the character of the teachers in the Church and what is taught, but more specially indicates the progress of the "mystery of iniquity" which was at work subverting the Christian religion and destroying the Church of Christ.
On the question of forged books and writings mentioned in the passage from Neander, Dr. Nathaniel Lardner refers to a dissertation written by Dr. Mosheim, which shows the reasons and causes for the many forged writings produced in the first and second centuries, and then adds: "All own that Christians of all sorts were guilty of this fraud. Indeed, we may say it was one great fault of the times; for truth needs no such defenses, and would blush at the sight of them."[A]
[Footnote A: Lardner's Works, vol. viii. p. 330.]
Eusebius, quoting Hegesippus on the subject of false teachers and referring to the condition of the Church about the close of the first century, says:
"The Church continued until then (close of the first century) as a pure and uncorrupted virgin, whilst if there were any at all at that attempted to pervert the sound doctrine of the saving Gospel, they were yet skulking in dark retreats; but when the sacred choir of Apostles became extinct, and the generation of those who had been privileged to hear their inspired wisdom had passed away, then also the combinations of impious errors arose by the fraud and delusions of false teachers. These also, as there were none of the Apostles left, henceforth attempted without shame to preach their false doctrine against the Gospel of truth."[A]
[Footnote A: Eus. Ec. Hist., bk. iii. ch. 32.]
Dr. Mosheim has the following on the same subject:
"Not long after the Savior's ascension, various histories of His life and doctrines, full of impositions and fables, were composed by persons of no bad intentions, perhaps, but who were superstitious, simple and piously fraudulent; and afterwards various other spurious writings were palmed upon the world, falsely inscribed with the names of the holy Apostles."[A]
[Footnote A: Institutes, bk. i, cent. 1, part ii, ch. ii.]
This condition of things with reference to the writers in the centuries under consideration, naturally leads one to the reflection that if there was so much of fraud, and so many forged writings, what must have been the state of the Church at this time with reference to oral teaching? We are justified in believing, I think, that bad as was the state of things with reference to the writings of these early teachers of the Church, the discourses of such as preached may be depended upon as being much worse. In this view of the case, one can readily understand that the "authority of antiquity" so generally urged as a reason for accepting the testimonies of the Fathers, that "handmaid to Scripture," as "antiquity" is sometimes called, the whole body of it, written and oral, may indeed "be regarded," as Dr. Jortin remarks, "as Briarean, for she has a hundred hands, and these hands often clash and beat one another."[A]
[Footnote A: Jortin's Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, vol. i. p. 248.]
Moreover, it often happens that those who are condemned by some of these Fathers as heretics were not only censured for their heresies, but sometimes for the truths which they held. For example: Papias, a Bishop and Christian Father in the second century, is condemned by Eusebius for saying that he received from Apostolic men—meaning thereby men who were associated with the Apostles—the fact that there would be a corporeal reign of Christ on earth with the saints, after the resurrection, which would continue through a thousand years.[A]
[Footnote A: Eusebius, bk. iii, ch. 39.]
Prodicus is censured by Clement of Alexandria for holding that men are of nature the children of Deity.[A]
[Footnote A: Lardner Works, vol. viii, p. 418.]
Controversy Over Baptism for the Dead:Marcion, besides being condemned for his many errors, is also censured by Irenaeus for believing in salvation for the dead, concerning which, it must be acknowledged, Marcion did bold peculiar views; but that is no reason why the general principle should be condemned.[A]He taught that Jesus Christ went to Hades and preached there, and brought hence all that believed on him. "The ancients," continues Irenaeus, as quoted by Lardner, "being of opinion that eternal life is not to be obtained but through faith in Jesus Christ, and that God is too merciful to let men perish for not hearing the Gospel, supposed that the Lord preached also to the dead, that they might have the same advantage with the living." He further adds, "In the language of Marcion and the fathers, hell does not necessarily mean the place of the damned; in that place is Tartarus, the place of torment, and Paradise, or the bosom of Abraham, a place of rest and refreshment. In that part of Hades, Jesus found the just men of the Old Testament. They were not miserable, but were in a place of comfort and pleasure." "For Christ," he continues, "promiseth the Jews after this life, rest in Hades, even in the bosom of Abraham." This far the doctrine of Marcion is in strict agreement with the New Testament, though denounced as blasphemy by his opponent. The unfortunate part of Marcion's doctrine on this head is that he taught that Cain and the wicked of Sodom and the Egyptians, and in fact all the nations in general, though they had lived in all manner of wickedness, were saved by the Lord; but that Abel, Enoch, Noah, and the patriarchs and prophets and other righteous men who walked with God and pleased Him in their earth-life, did not obtain salvation, because they suspected that in the preaching of Christ in the spirit world there was some scheme of deception to lead them away from their present qualified believe in Him, for which reason, as he says, "their souls remained in Hell."[B]
[Footnote A: Lardner Works, vol. viii, 449; also I Peter iii:18-21; Ibid, iv:6; I Cor. xv:29.]
[Footnote B: Ibid, p. 460.]
Marcion is also condemned for believing in the eternity of matter.[A]So, too, Hermogenes is censured by Tertullian for the same cause, and for arguing that God made the world out of matter and could not have made it out of nothing.[B]
[Footnote A: Ibid. p. 581-2.]
[Footnote B: Lardner, vol. viii, p. 345.]
And so throughout there is censure and counter censure between the orthodox and the heretics, and it is difficult at times to determine which are the orthodox and which the heretics, so frequently do they change places. Nor was there any improvement in the ages that succeeded these that have been briefly considered. The editor of Dr. Jortin's learned work on Ecclesiastical History, William Trollope, on a passage of Jortin's on the early fathers, says of the fathers of the fourth century:
"After the council of Nice,[A]a class of writers sprung up, greatly inferior to their predecessors, in whatever light their pretensions are viewed. Sadly deficient in learning, prejudiced in opinion, and inelegant in style, they cannot be admitted for a moment into competition with those who were contemporary with the Apostles and their immediate successors."[B]
[Footnote A: Held in 325 A. D.]
[Footnote B: Jortin, vol. i, p. 166, note.]
The whole tenor of his remarks is to the effect that while the fathers of the second and third centuries are not to be relied upon in their interpretations of Scripture, were frequently deceived in opinions, and not always to be depended upon in matters of tradition, yet they were greatly to be preferred in all respects to the fathers of succeeding centuries.
II. The Development of False Doctrines After the Death of the Apostles:Here, too, I shall rely very largely upon the conclusions of the learned Dr. Lardner, referring to the development of the heresies, the seeds of which were sown in the days of the Apostles, says:
"Eusebius relates that Ignatius, on his way from Antioch to Rome, exhorted the churches to beware of heresies which were then springing up, and which would increase; and that he afterwards wrote his epistles in order to guard them against these corruptions, and to confirm them in the faith. This opinion that the seeds of these heresies were sown in the time of the Apostles, and sprang up immediately after is an opinion probably in itself, and is embraced by several learned moderns, particularly by Vitringa, and by the late Rev. Mr. Brekel of Liverpool."[A]
[Footnote A: Lardner, vol. viii, p. 344.]
Conditions of the Church in the First Three Centuries:A certain Mr. Deacon attempted to refute the Mr. Brekel referred to by Dr. Lardner, and to maintain the purity of the Church of the first three centuries. On this Mr. Brekel observed that "If this point were thoroughly examined, it would appear that the Christian Church preserved her virgin purity no longer than the Apostolic age, at least if we may give credit to Hegesippus." Relying upon the support of the ecclesiastical history of Socrates, a writer of the first half of the fifth century, Mr. Brekel also says: "To mention the corruptions and innovations in religion of the four first centuries, is wholly superfluous; when it is so very notorious that, even before the reign of Constantine, there sprang up a kind of heathenish Christianity which mingled itself with the true Christian religion."[A]
[Footnote A: Lardner, vol. viii, p. 345.]
Of the impending departure from the Christian religion immediately succeeding the days of the Apostles, Dr. Neander says:
"Already, in the latter part of the age of St. Paul, we shall see many things different from what they had been originally; and so it cannot appear strange if other changes came to be introduced into the constitution of the (Christian) communities, by the altered circumstances of the times immediately succeeding those of St. Paul or St. John. Then ensued those strongly marked oppositions and schisms, those dangers with which the corruptions engendered by manifold foreign elements threatened primitive Christianity."[A]
[Footnote A: Neander's History of the Christian Religion and Church vol i p. 191.]
Dr. Phillip Smith, the author of the "Students' Ecclesiastical History," in speaking of the early corruptions of the Christian religion, says:
"The sad truth is that as soon as Christianity was generally diffused, it began to absorb corruptions from all the lands in which it was planted, and to reflect the complexion of all their systems of religion and philosophy."[A]
[Footnote A: Eccles. Hist., vol. i, p. 49.]
Dean Milman, in his preface to his annotated edition of Edward Gibbon's great work, "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," and commenting upon that great author's attitude respecting the Christian religion, says:
"If, after all, the view of the early progress of Christianity be melancholy and humiliating, we must beware lest we charge the whole of this on the infidelity of the historian. It is idle, it is disingenuous, to deny or dissemble the early depravations of Christianity, its gradual but rapid departure from its primitive simplicity and purity, still more from its spirit of universal love. It may be no unsalutary lesson to the Christian world, that this silent, this unavoidable perhaps, yet fatal change, shall have been drawn by an impartial, or even an hostile hand."[A]
[Footnote A: Gibbon's Roman Empire, Preface by Dean Milman, p. 15.]
Dr. Mosheim, in his "Institutes," deals at length with the abuses which arose in the Church in the second and third centuries, which I abridge to the following, and first as to the second century: Many rites were added without necessity to both public and private religious worship, to the great offense of good men; and principally because of the perversity of mankind, who are more delighted with the pomp and splendor of external forms and pageantry than with the true devotion of the heart. There is good reason to believe that the Christian bishops purposely multiplied sacred rites for the sake of rendering the Jews and pagans more friendly to them. For both these classes had always been accustomed to numerous and splendid ceremonies, and believed them an essential part of religion. In pursuance of this policy, and to silence the calumnies of the pagans and the Jews against them—to the effect that the Christians were pronounced atheists, because destitute of temples, altars, victims, priests, and all that pomp in which the vulgar suppose the essence of religion to consist—the Christian leaders introduced many rites, that they might be able to maintain that they really had those things which the pagans had, only they subsisted under different forms. Some of these rites—justified, as was supposed, by a comparison of the Christian oblations with Jewish victims and sacrifices—in time corrupted essentially the doctrine of the Lord's supper, and converted it into a sacrifice. To add further to the dignity of the Christian religion, the churches of the east feigned mysteries similar to those of the pagan religions; and, as with the pagans, the holy rites of the mysteries were concealed from the vulgar:—"And they not only applied the terms used in the pagan mysteries to the Christian institutions, particularly baptism and the Lord's Supper, but they gradually introduced also the rites which were designed by those terms." This practice originated in the eastern provinces of the empire, and thence, after the times of Adrian (who first introduced the Grecian mysteries among the Latins), it spread among the Christians of the west. "A large part therefore, of Christian observances and institutions, even in this century, had the aspect of the pagan mysteries." In like manner many ceremonies and customs of the Egyptians were adopted.[A]
[Footnote A: Institutes, vol. i, cent, ii, part ii, ch. iv.]
Speaking of the third century, the Doctor says that all the monuments of this century show that there was a great increase of ceremonies in the Church, owing to the prevailing passion for the Platonic philosophy. Hence arose the public exorcisms, the multiplication of fasts, the aversion to matrimony, and the painful austerities and penances which were enjoined upon offenders.[A]
[Footnote A: Ibid. cen. iii, part ii, ch. iv.]
(Scripture Reading Exercise.)
CONSTANTINE.
ANALYSIS.
REFERENCES.
I. The Revolution of the Fourth Century.
See the References to Authorities given in the notes.
II. Conversion and Character of the First Christian Emperor.
The Revolution of the Fourth Century: Constantine: It will be observed that I have so far confined my quotations concerning the corruptions which arose in the Church to the first three centuries of the Christian era. I have done so purposely; and chiefly that I might show by such quotations that the forces which were to bring about the destruction of the Christian Church were active during those ages; and also because an event took place in the first part of the fourth century that culminated in the triumph of those forces. This event was the establishment of Christianity as the state religion of Rome.
Parentage and Station of Constantine: Constantine the Great was the emperor under whose reign this unlooked for revolution took place. He was the son of Constantine Chlorus, emperor of the West in the preceding reign; which reign he had shared with Galerius Maximianus, who ruled the East. Constantine was an "emperor bora of an emperor, the pious son of a most pious and virtuous father," is the flattering announcement of his parentage on the paternal side, by his contemporary, Eusebius, the church historian; though he neglects to mention the obscure origin and humble vocation (that of inn keeper) of Constantine's mother, Helena, whom her husband repudiated when raised to the dignity of "Caesar" in the reign of Diocletian.
Constantine was proclaimed emperor by the army in Britain on the death of his father at York, 306 A. D.; but civil strife raged through the empire for eighteen years, occasioned by the contending aspirants for the imperial dignity. The future patron of Christianity, however, overcame all his rivals and reigned sole monarch of Rome from 323 A. D. to the time of his death, fourteen years later.
The policy of Constantine's father towards the Christians in his division of the empire (the West) had been one not only of toleration, but also of friendship; and this policy the son followed from the commencement of his career as emperor. The fact of both his own and his father's friendliness toward the Church on the one hand, and the hostility of his rivals against the Church on the other, brought to him the united support of the Christians throughout the empire; and though they were not so numerous as they are frequently represented to be, yet it cannot be denied that the Christians were important factors in determining the course of events in the empire at this time; and truly they were faithful allies to Constantine, and he, on his part, neglected not to meet their anticipations of reward.
A careful study of his life and character will force the conviction upon the mind that Constantine was a most suitable head for the revolution which ended by establishing a pseudo-Christianity as the state religion of the decaying empire. A professed Christian for many years, if we may believe Lactantius and Eusebius, he postponed his baptism, after the fashion of his times, until the very last year of his life, in order that, purified at once from all the stains of sin by means of it, he might be sure of entering into bliss. Such the explanation of those who would defend this delay of the emperor's; but one cannot fail to remember that it was quite customary at this time among many professing the Christian religion to put off baptism as long as they dared that they might enjoy a life of sin, and then through the means of baptism, just before death, as by magic, obtain forgiveness.[A]On the motives that prompted Constantine's acceptance of Christianity, our historians are not agreed. According to Eusebius, his conversion was brought about through seeing in the heavens a luminous cross at midday, and above it the inscription: "By this Conquer." This miraculous sign was supplemented on the night following by the appearance of Jesus Christ to the emperor in a dream, with the same symbol, the cross, and directed Constantine to make it the ensign of his banners and his protection against the power of the enemy.[B]According to Theodoret, the emperor was converted through the arguments of his Christian mother.[C]According to Zosimus, it was through the arguments of an Egyptian Christian bishop—supposed to be Hosius, Bishop of Corduba—who promised him absolution for his crimes, which included a number of murders, if he would but accept Christianity.[D]
[Footnote A: Neander Ch. Hist., vol. i, p. 252. Decline and Fall., vol. ii, chap. xx.]
[Footnote B: Eusebius' Life of Constantine, bk. i, 27.]
[Footnote C: Hist. Eccles., vol. i, bk. i, ch. 17.]
[Footnote D: Zosimus, bk. ii, p. 104.]
The Conversion of Constantine: It is as difficult to settle upon the time of Constantine's conversion as it is the means and nature of it. Neander inclines to the opinion that he was early influenced in favor of Christianity through the example if not the teachings of his parents, who, if not fully converted to the Christian faith, were at least tolerant of it; and may be reasonably counted among the number who at least admitted Christ to the pantheon of the gods. By an act of his in 308 A. D., after the death of his father, and he himself had been proclaimed emperor of the West, shows that he was at that time still respected the pagan forms of worship; for hearing that the Franks, who had been inclined to rebel against his government, had, on his preparations to make war upon them, laid down their arms, he offered public thanks in a celebrated temple of Apollo, and gave a magnificent offering to the god.[A]
[Footnote A: Neander's Ch. Hist., vol. ii, p. 8.]
The story of Constantine's conversion, as related by Eusebius, would fix that event in the year 312 A. D.; and surely if the open vision of the luminous cross and the subsequent appearing of Christ in his dream were realities, Constantine had sufficient grounds for a prompt and unequivocal conversion to the Christian faith. But after that, if we consider the conduct of the emperor, we shall find him, however astonishing it may seem, still attached to pagan ceremonies of worship. As late as 321 A. D., nine years after the visitation of Christ to him, we find him accused of artfully balancing the hopes and fears of both his pagan and Christian subjects by publishing in the same year two edicts; the first of which enjoined the solemn observance of Sunday; and the second directed the consultation of the Haruspices[A]—the soothsayers of the old pagan religion. Of this circumstance, Neander, who is disposed to palliate the conduct of Constantine as far as possible, after intimating that this lapse might be accounted for on the grounds of state policy, says: "Yet the other hypothesis, viz., that Constantine had actually fallen back into heathen superstitions, may indeed be regarded as the more natural."[B]Five years after his supposed miraculous conversion "we find marks of the pagan state religion upon the imperial coins."[C]"A medal was struck," says Dr. John W. Draper, doubtless referring to the same thing, "on which was impressed his (Constantine's) title of 'God,' together with the monogram of Christ." "Another," he continues, "represented him as raised by a hand from the sky while seated in the chariot of the Sun. But more particularly the great porphyry pillar, a column one hundred and twenty feet in height, exhibited the true religious condition of the founder of Constantinople. The statue on its summit mingled together the Sun, the Savior, and the Emperor. Its body was a colossal image of Apollo, whose features were replaced by those of Constantine, and around the head, like rays, were fixed the nails of the cross of Christ, recently discovered in Jerusalem."[D]While on the day Constantinople was formally made the capital of the empire, he honored the statue of Fortune with gifts. In view of all these acts, ranging as they do over the greater part of the first Christian emperor's life, and through many years after his supposed conversion, I think Gibbon is justified in his remarks upon this part of Constantine's conduct: "It was an arduous task to eradicate the habits and prejudices of his education, to acknowledge the divine power of Christ, and to understand that the truth of his revelation was incompatible with the worship of the gods."[E]
[Footnote A: Gibbon, Decline and Fall, vol. iii, ch. xx.]
[Footnote B: Neander Ch. Hist., vol. ii, p. 21.]
[Footnote C: Neander Ch. Hist., vol. ii, p. 21.]
[Footnote D: Intellectual Development of Europe, vol. i, p. 280.]
[Footnote E: Gibbon, Decline and Fall, ch. xx.]
The Character of Constantine. Turing from the consideration of the equivocal conduct of the emperor to his character, we have a subject about which there is less disagreement among authorities; for even Christian apologists are compelled to admit the wickedness of this first Christian emperor. "Relying with presumptuous confidence," says Neander, "on the great things which God had done throug him, for the advancement of the Christian Church, he found it easy to excuse or extenuate to his conscience, many a wrong deed, into which he had suffered himself to be betrayed by ambition, the love of rule, the arbitrary exercise of power, or the jealousy of despotism."[A]
[Footnote A: Neander Ch. Hist., vol. ii, p. 24.]
"It is indeed true that, Constantine's life was not such as the precepts of Christianity required," Dr. Mosheim remarks, but softens the statement against the emperor by saying that "it is but too notorious that many persons who look upon the Christian religion as indubitably true, and of divine origin, yet do not conform their lives to all its holy precepts."[A]
[Footnote A: Mosheim's Institutes, vol. i, p. 214.]
Dr. Lardner, after drawing a most favorable outline of Constantine's person and character, and citing the flattery of contemporary panegyrists as a description of the man, says: "Having observed these virtues of Constantine, and other things, which are to his advantage: a just respect to truth obligeth us to take notice of some other things, which seem to cast a reflection upon him."[A]And then in the most naive manner he adds: "Among these, one of the chief is putting to death so many of his relatives!" He enumerates the victims of the first Christian emperor as follows: "Maximian Herculius, his wife's father; Bassianus, husband of his sister, Anastasia; Crispus, his own son; Fausta, his wife; Licinius, husband of his sister, Constantia; and Licinianus, or Licinius, the younger, his nephew, and son of the forementioned Licinius."[B]The last named victim was a mere lad when put to death, "not more than a little above eleven years of age, if so much," is Dr. Lardner's own description of him. Fausta was suffocated in a steam bath, though she had been his wife for twenty years and mother of three of his sons. It should be remembered that this is the list of victims admitted by a most learned and pious Christian writer, not a catalogue drawn up by pagan historians, whom we might suspect of malice against one who had deserted the shrines of the ancient gods for the faith of the Christians. But this rather formidable list of murdered victims admitted by Dr. Lardner shakes not his faith in the goodness of the first Christian emperor. Some of these "executions" he palliates, if not justifies, on the ground of political necessity; and others on the ground of domestic perfidy; though he almost stumbles in his efforts at excusing the taking off of Crispus, the emperor's own son; Fausta, his wife, and the lad Licinius. "These are the executions," he says, "which above all others cast a reflection upon the reign of Constantine; though there are also hints of the deaths of some others about the same time, with whom Constantine had till then lived in friendship."[C]After which the Doctor immediately adds—in the very face of all the facts he adduces, and after reciting the condemnation of both heathen and Christian writers of some of these murders—the following: "I do by no means think that Constantine was a man of a cruel disposition; and therefore I am unwilling to touch upon any other actions of a like nature: as his making some German princes taken captive, fight in the theatre; and sending the head of Maxentius to Africa, after it had been made a part of Constantine's triumphal entry at Rome." When one finds a sober Christian writer of the eighteenth century who can thus speak of Constantine; and further remembers that to this day a priest of the Greek Church seldom mentions the name of the "imperial saint," without adding the title, "Equal to the Apostles;" one is not surprised that while he lived and at his court a Christian bishop could be found who "congratulated him as constituted by God to rule over all, in the present world, and destined to reign with the son of God in the world to come."[D]Or that Eusebius, who is spoken of as one of the best bishops of the imperial court, "did not scruple for a moment to ascribe to the purest motives of a true servant of God, all those transactions into which the emperor, without evincing the slightest regard to truth or to humanity, had suffered himself to be drawn by an ambition which could not abide a rival, in the struggle with Licinius; when he represents the emperor, in a war which, beyond a doubt, had been undertaken from motives of a purely selfish policy, as marshaling the order of the battle, and giving out the words of command by divine inspiration bestowed in answer to his prayer."[E]
[Footnote A: Lardner, vol. iv, p. 39.]
[Footnote B: Lardner, vol. iv, p. 39.]
[Footnote C: Lardner, vol. iv, p. 44.]
[Footnote D: Neander Ch. His., vol. ii, p. 25.]
[Footnote E: Neander Ch. Hist., vol. ii, p. 25.]
Concluding Reflections Upon Constantine:Enough of this. Let us look no longer at this first of the Christian emperors through the eyes of churchmen seeking to extol his virtues and hide his crimes, all for the honor of the Church. So odious had he become in Rome for his many murders that a pasquinade, which compared his reign to that of the detested Nero, was nailed to the palace gates. "The guilty emperor," says one, "in the first burst of anger, was on the point of darkening the tragedy, if such a thing had been possible, by a massacre of the Roman populace who had thus insulted him." His brothers were consulted on this measure of vengeance, however, and the result of their counsel was a resolution to degrade Rome to a subordinate rank, and build a metropolis elsewhere, and hence the new capital of the empire rose on the shores of the Bosphorus.
Reflecting upon the career of Constantine from the days of his young manhood, which had in it something of the quality that makes the successful leader of men, to the time when he fell under the influence of the false priests of a corrupted religion, Draper says:
"From the rough soldier who accepted the purple at York, how great the change to the effeminate emperor of the Bosphorus, in silken robes, stiffened with threads of gold; a diadem of sapphires and pearls, and false hair, stained of various tints; his steps stealthily guarded by mysterious eunuchs, flitting through the palace; the streets full of spies, and an ever-watchful police! The same man who approaches us as the Roman imperator retires from us as the Asiatic despot. In the last days of his life, he put aside the imperial purple, and, assuming the customary white garment, prepared for baptism, that the sins of his long and evil life might all be washed away. Since complete purification can thus be only once obtained, he was desirous to procrastinate that ceremony to the last moment. Profoundly politic, even in his relations with heaven, he thenceforth reclined on a white bed, took no further part in worldly affairs, and, having thus insured a right to the continuance of that prosperity in a future life which he had enjoyed in this, expired."[A]
[Footnote A: Draper, Intellectual Development, vol. i, p. 283.]
And so Gibbon:
"The sublime theory of the Gospel had made a much fainter impression on the heart than on the understanding of Constantine himself. He pursued the great objects of his ambition through the dark and bloody paths of war and policy; and, after the victory, he abandoned himself, without moderation, to the abuse of his fortune. Instead of asserting his just superiority above the imperfect heroism and profane philosophy of Trajan and the Antonines, the mature age of Constantine forfeited the reputation which he had acquired in his youth. As he gradually advanced in the knowledge of truth, he proportionately declined in the practice of virtue; and the same year of his reign in which he convened the council of Nice, was polluted by the execution, or rather murder, of his eldest son (Crispus). * * * * * At the time of the death of Crispus, the emperor could no longer hesitate in the choice of religion; he could no longer be ignorant that the church was possessed of an infallible remedy (baptism), though he chose to defer the application of it, till the approach of death had removed the temptation and danger of a relapse. * * * * * * * The example and reputation of Constantine seemed to countenance the delay of baptism. Future tyrants were encouraged to believe that the innocent blood which they might shed in a long reign would instantly be washed away in the waters of regeneration; and the abuse of religion dangerously undermined the foundations of moral virtue."[A]
[Footnote A: Decline and Fall, ch. xx.]
The First "Christian" Emperor: Such, then, was the first Christian emperor. He uplifted "Christianity" from the condition of a persecuted religion, and made it the state religion of Rome; and also provided means for its wider acceptance. If for this it shall be claimed, as it is, that much in his evil life should be overlooked, it would still be pertinent to ask whether his acts in connection with Christianity did not debase rather than exalt it; and if his provisions for its wider acceptance did not tend rather to the corruption of what remained true in the Christianity then extant, than to the establishment of true religion.
(Scripture Reading Exercise.)
CHRISTIANITY A PERSECUTING RELIGION.
ANALYSIS.
REFERENCES.
I. Transposition of the Attitude of Christianity and Paganism.
1. Persecution of the Pagans.
2. Persecution of the Heretics.
See the Authorities cited in the notes.
The Edict of Milan:The edict of Milan, by which was intended no more than the establishment of religious liberty in the empire, and which was issued in 313 A. D., by Constantine and his colleague, Licinius, was well enough. Freedom to teach and practice the truth is all the Christian Church could ask or expect. Had Constantine stopped here, his action in this particular would have met with universal applause. But he went beyond this. He not only protected the Christians by his laws, but prohibited by express edicts the free exercise of religion to the pagans. His proscriptions were mild at first, going no further than to prohibit sooth-saying and divination in private houses or anywhere in secret. Later, however, if we may believe the words of Eusebius, he placed the pagan religion under the ban of the laws. Eusebius says:
"The emperor proceeded to act with great vigor, gave the government of the provinces chiefly to Christians, and when any Gentiles were made governors they were prohibited to sacrifice. Which law comprehended not only presidents of provinces, but also higher officers, and even the praetorian praefects. If they were Christians, they were required to act according to their principles. If they were otherwise disposed, still the practice of idolatrous rites were forbidden. * * * * * * And soon after that were two laws published at one and the same time, one prohibiting the detestable rites of idolatry hitherto practiced in cities and country places; and that for the future none should erect statues to the gods, nor perform the vain arts of divination, nor offer up any sacrifices. The other law was for enlarging Christian oratories and churches, or for rebuilding them more grand and splendid."[A]
[Footnote A: Life of Constantine (Eusebius) I, ii, ch. 44.]
A Contrast Between Christian and Heathen Methods:When contrasting the course of the first Christian emperor with the pagan emperors, Eusebius says: "They commanded the temples to be magnificently adorned; he demolished them to the foundation, especially such as were most respected by superstitious people."[A]Later he expressly says that "throughout the whole Roman empire, the doors of idolatry were shut to the commonalty and to the soldiery;" and that "every kind of sacrifice was prohibited." Again, he says, that there were several laws published for these purposes, forbidding sacrifices, divinations, raising statues, and the secret mysteries or rites of initiation. And he says further, that "in Egypt a sort of priesthood, consecrated to the honor of the Nile, was entirely suppressed."[B]I am not unmindful that some respectable authorities question if Constantine really departed from the policy of toleration announced in his edict of Milan; and that even Gibbon is inclined to believe in his toleration of paganism. The statement here made by Eusebius, the contemporary and biographer of Constantine, however, together with reference to the edicts of suppression quoted by his son, Constans, in the succeeding reign, and which is quoted by Lardner,[C]establishes beyond question the policy of intolerance of Constantine toward Paganism. Especially when what Eusebius has said is supplemented by the fact that the emperor destroyed a number of heathen temples, and peremptorily ordered the closing of the others. Among the heathen temples destroyed was one at Aegae, in Cilicia, erected to Aesculapius, celebrated for the number of sick that had been healed there, and held in high esteem by men of the better class among the pagans and philosophers. It is said that by its destruction and the public exhibition of certain images of the gods, many tricks of the priests were exposed and became objects of sport to the populace.[D]But while this may have been the conduct of some insincere pagans, those who remained heathens, as LeClerc has well said, "were no doubt extremely shocked at the manner in which the statues of their gods were treated; and could not consider the Christians as men of moderation. For, in short, those statues were as dear to them as anything, the most sacred, could be to the Christians."[E]Eusebius taunted the philosophers about the destruction of the temple, without any interference on the part of the god to whom it had been erected, apparently all unmindful of the fact that just such taunts had been hurled at the Christian martyrs in the days that the kingdom of God suffered violence, and the violent took it by force. "Had not Eusebius," remarked Lardner, "often heard with his own ears, and read in the history of ancient martyrs, the insults and triumphs of the heathens over the Christians, that they professed themselves the worshippers of the great and only true God, and yet everybody, that pleased, was able to molest and destroy them, as he saw good?"
[Footnote A: Ibid, ch. 54.]
[Footnote B: Life of Constantine (Eusebius), iv, ch., 23, 25.]
[Footnote C: Lardner, vol. viii, p. 169.]
[Footnote D: Neander Ch. Hist., vol. ii, pp. 26, 27.]
[Footnote E: Lardner Works, vol. iv. p. 49.]
The Policy of Constantine Indefensible:The zeal of Christian writers has done all in its power to excuse or palliate the conduct of Constantine in his acts for the suppression of the pagan religion and worship; but after all is said by his apologists that can be said, after every allowance is conceded for the times in which he lived, and the previous conduct of the pagans through two centuries of violence towards the Christians, the fact remains that the first Christian emperor did by his edicts put the ancient religion of the empire under the ban of the law, and by acts of violence destroyed some of its temples and closed the rest by imperial decree, that the pagan gods might not be worshiped; and this, doubtless, with the approval—and it would not be difficult to believe, under all the circumstances, at the suggestion—of Christian bishops who thronged his court. On the foundation of intolerance thus laid by him, others hastened to build. In the succeeding reign, among the first laws enacted, was this one against pagan sacrifices:
"Let superstition cease; let the madness of sacrificing be abolished. For whoever shall presume contrary to the constitution of our father, a prince of blessed memory, and contrary to this command of our clemency, to offer sacrifices, let a proper and convenient punishment be inflicted, and execution presently done upon him."[A]
[Footnote A: Lardner, Works, vol. viii, p. 169.]
This edict was supplemented a few years later[A]by the following edict:
[Footnote A: In 353 A. D., according to Gothford.]
"It is our pleasure that in all places and in all cities the temples be immediately shut, and carefully guarded, that none may have the power of offending. It is likewise our pleasure that all our subjects should abstain from sacrifices. If anyone should be guilty of such an act, let him feel the sword of vengeance; and after his execution, let his property be confiscated to the public use. We denounce the same penalties against the governors of the provinces, if they neglect to punish the criminals."[A]It is not necessary to pursue the subject much further. It will be sufficient to say that during the fourth century, by following the policy of suppression inaugurated by this first Christian emperor, Christianity was changed from a persecuted to a persecuting religion. Without restraint from the ecclesiastical authorities, the Christian emperors issued edicts against the pagan religion, proscribed its followers, destroyed its temples, and confiscated its property to the uses of the rival religion. Even Neander, speaking of this revolution, and constrained as he is to say all that he can for the honor of the Christian Church, is compelled to admit that "the relations of things had become reversed. As in former times the observance of the pagan ceremonies, the religion of the state, had appeared in the light of a civil duty, and the profession of Christianity in that of a crime against the state, so now it was the case, not indeed that the outward profession of Christianity was commanded as a universal civil duty, for against this the spirit of Christianity too earnestly remonstrated; but that the exercise of the pagan religion was made politically dangerous."[B]In the pages of this eminent Christian historian one may read that before the close of the century which witnessed the elevation of Christianity to the dignity of the state religion of the empire, wild troops of Christian monks were undertaking campaigns, especially in the country, for the destruction of the heathen temples in which sacrifices were alleged to have been performed; of bishops who not only superintended the destruction of heathen temples at the head of bands of soldiers and gladiators, but paraded through the streets of the cities the symbols of the heathen faith, provoking civil conflicts, which Christian emperors did not hesitate to take advantage of for the more complete suppression of paganism.[C]Meantime, a pagan apologist, Libanius, arises to plead the cause of religious toleration, and in the course of his address to the Christian emperor, Theodosius, he puts to shame the Christianity then in vogue, by showing the emperor how far the Church had departed from the spirit of the Christian religion, by saying: "Force is said not to be permitted, even according to the laws of your own religion; persuasion is said to be praised, but force condemned by them. Why, then, do you wreak your fury against the temples, when this surely is not to persuade, but to use force? Thus, then, it is plain you would transgress even the laws of your own religion."[D]Lardner calls attention to the fact that as under pagan emperors previous to Constantine, Christianity had been in a state of persecution, so now, after Constantine, he proceeds to show that paganism under Christian emperors was all along in a state of persecution—"However, I would hope, not so severe and vigorous as that of the Christians in the foregoing period of near three hundred years."[E]And so LeClerc, as quoted by Lardner:
[Footnote A: The law is extant in the Theodocian Code.]
[Footnote B: Neander, vol. ii. p. 34]
[Footnote C: Neander Ch. Hist., vol. ii, pp. 88-110.]
[Footnote D: Ibid., p. 67.]
[Footnote E: Lardner, Works, vol. viii, p. 164.]
"Thus it was that the Christians continued to return to the pagan what they had suffered from them during the first three centuries, instead of gaining them by patience and mildness, which they had so much recommended when they were the weakest. This conduct was proper to make the pagans more obstinate, by teaching them that the Christians affected to speak of humanity and moderation from interest only, and not from a principle of religion as they pretended. At least it is certain that thereby they lost the right to complain of the manner in which the pagans had treated them in times past, or to boast of the mildness of their religion, which they effectually disparaged by those persecutions. * * * * * * * Nor ought we to imagine that the penalties laid by Christians upon the pagans were light. If a sacrifice was offered in a private place, with the knowledge of the proprietor, the place was confiscated; if not, they were to pay a fine of twenty pounds of gold, as much as if it had been done in a temple; and in some cases the penalty of death was appointed. We may look into the oration of Libanius for the temples, where that orator sustains the same character before Theodosius as the Christians had formerly done before pagan emperors. I must acknowledge that this phenomenon, if I may so call it, gives me pain: for I could wish that they who defended the truth had preserved to themselves the honor of being the only persons that were persecuted for religion."[A]
[Footnote A: Lardner Works vol. viii, p. 276.]
Persecution of "Heretics:"Once started upon the policy of suppressing by force those of a different religion, Christianity did not stop with the persecution of the pagans; bad and un-Christian as that was, still more serious results occurred from the persecutions inflicted upon so-called heretics in the Church by those who were considered orthodox. It is true that there were heretics in the Church before the days of Constantine; much progress had been made in the matter of paganizing Christianity, and more or less tolerance was manifested by Christian sects towards each other; but it was the policy and example of this first Christian emperor that laid the real foundation for that monument of shame and disgrace to the Christian name which rises upon the plains of Christian discord and strife and war waged against heretics in the name and for the glory of Christ. It is this which constitutes the most melancholy page of ecclesiastical history.
In his office of supreme pontiff in the old pagan religion, which he held by virtue of being emperor of Rome, Constantine may naturally have supposed that the supreme headship of the religion he had protected and the Church he had elevated fell to him for the same reason; and with it the right to reconcile differences, compose factions, and determine what should be the orthodox faith. At any rate, we find him acting somewhat in this capacity. When contending church parties appealed to him he at first was indifferent to their disputes, and tried to shame them into harmony by referring to the conduct of the Greek philosophers, who never discussed difficult questions before ignorant multitudes, who could "maintain their arguments without losing their temper; and assert their freedom without violating their friendship."[A]His efforts at reconciling the differences that arose among Christians over what is known as the Arian controversy were of no avail; and after six years of bitter strife the emperor summoned the bishops of the Church to Nicea in Bithynia. After long deliberation, Arianism was condemned, and orthodox Christianity was established by decree of the council, ratified by the emperor, to which all Christians must conform. Those who resisted the divine judgment of the synod must prepare themselves for immediate exile.[B]How effectual the argument, "belief or banishment," even among the bishops at the council, was, may be determined from the fact that "the opposition to the decision of the council was almost instantly reduced from seventeen to two."[C]In his zeal to enforce orthodoxy, the emperor forgot his former moderation, and in 326 A. D.—the year following the council at Nicea—he issued a general edict against heretics, in which, after condemning his own past forbearance as occasioning men's being seduced, he says to the various heretical parties:
[Footnote A: Decline and Fall, ch. xxi.]
[Footnote B: Decline and Fall, ch. xxi.]
[Footnote C: Decline and Fall, ch. xxi.]
"Wherefore, since this your pernicious wickedness is no longer to be presume to meet together. And we have given orders that all those places where you are wont to hold assemblies should be taken away. Yea, our concern for this matter is such that we not only forbid you to assemble in any public place, but we likewise forbid all assemblies of your foolish superstition in private houses, and in all private places whatever. All of you, therefore, who have any sincere love of truth, come to the Catholic church. And that this remedy may have its full effect, we ordain that all your superstitious conventicles, I mean oratories of all heretics, if it be fit to call such houses oratories, be forthwith taken away, and without any opposition delivered to the Catholic church: and that the rest of your places be adjudged to the public."[A]
[Footnote A: Lardner Works, vol. iv. p. 36.]
"Thus the dens of heretics were laid open by the imperial edict," exultantly exclaims Eusebius, the Christian bishop, "and the wild beasts, the ring leaders of their impiety, were scattered."[A]And thus the paganized Christian Church launched upon that career of persecution of heretics within the Church, as well as upon the policy of persecuting those of a different religion; a policy that has filled the world with religious wars and deeds of cruelty which would better become the reign of a Nero than Christian rulers of Christian nations. It is a terrible arraignment which Gibbon draws against apostate Christendom in the concluding paragraph of his review of the persecutions which had been endured by the followers of Christ in the Christian centuries preceding Constantine. He says:
[Footnote A: Life of Constantine, Eusebius, p. 66.]
"We shall conclude this chapter by a melancholy truth, which obtrudes itself on the the reluctant mind; that, even admitting, without hesitation or inquiry, all that history has recorded, or devotion has feigned, on the subject of martyrdom, it must still be acknowledged that the Christians, in the course of their intestine dissensions, have inflicted far greater severities on each other than they have experienced from the zeal of infidels. During the ages of ignorance which followed the subversion of the Roman empire in the west,[A]the bishops of the imperial city extended their dominion over the laity as well as the clergy of the Latin church. The fabric of superstition which they had erected, and which might long have defied the feeble efforts of reason, was at length assaulted by a crowd of daring fanatics, who, from the twelfth to the sixteenth century, assumed the popular character of reformers. The church of Rome defended by violence the empire which she had acquired by fraud; a system of peace and benevolence was soon disgraced by proscriptions, wars, massacres, and the institution of the holy office; and as the reformers were animated by the love of civil as well as religious freedom, the Catholic princes connected their own interest with that of the clergy, and enforced by fire and sword the terror of spiritual censures. In the Netherlands alone more than one hundred thousand of the subjects of Charles the Fifth are said to have suffered by the hand of the executioner; and this extraordinary number is attested by Grotious, a man of genius and learning, who preserved his moderation amidst the fury of contending sects, and who composed the annals of his own age and century, at the time when the invention of printing had facilitated the means of intelligence and increased the danger of detection. If we are obliged to submit our belief to the authority of Grotious, it must be allowed that the number of protestants who were executed in a single province and a single reign far exceeded that of the primitive martyrs in the space of three centuries, and of the Roman empire!"[A]
[Footnote A: This event occurred about 476 A. D.]
[Footnote B: Decline and Fall, ch. xvi.]
Both Guizot and Milman, eminent Christian scholars, annotated the work of Edward Gibbon, the former in French, the latter in an English edition; and at every point where they could modify a statement or soften a passage apparently unjust to Christianity, they did so; but in the presence of the important and terrible passage just quoted, they remain absolutely silent! Nor has any other Christian writer since their day, so far as I know, attempted to contradict the statement of Mr. Gibbon. It is proper to say, however, that in a note Mr. Gibbon himself cites the fact that Fra Paola, an Italian writer, places the number of Belgic martyrs at fifty thousand; but even that computation would still leave the conclusion of Mr. Gibbon's reflections unimpaired.
The circumstance of the Church elevated by Constantine becoming a persecuting Church is a strong evidence of its paganized state; for the true Christian religion is not a persecuting religion; the true Church of Christ is not a persecuting Church. When the Samaritans would not receive the Messiah, some of the Apostles would have them consumed by fire from heaven; but the Master turned and rebuked them, saying, "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of Man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."[A]It is true that Messiah said: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household."[B]This, however, is but a prediction of the effect of the proclamation of the Gospel, not an authorization to force the acceptance of Christianity by the sword; nor does it authorize the Church to invoke the arm of the civil authority to execute by force her doctrinal decrees. The Gospel of Jesus Christ, it is true, did not bring peace, but a sword; the sword, however, was found in the hands of those who rejected the Gospel, not in the hands of those who accepted and preached it. And when the Church departed so far from the spirit of Christ that she grasped the sword in her own hands, or dictated the civil authority to wield it in her behalf, and that became the policy of the Church, the adoption of that policy proclaimed her apostate condition to the world, in a manner to be known and read of all men.
[Footnote A: Luke ix:54-56.]
[Footnote B: Matt. x:34-36.]