PREFACE PART 1 To precent circumlocation merely, we shall call the inhabitants of Piedmont since the Reformation and especially since the great persecution near the close of the seventeenth century, Vaudois, in contradistinction to the Waldenses and Albigenses previous to that time. 2 Quoted by Jones, p. 324. 3 Peyran, p. 479. 4 Perrin, p. 2. 5 Petrin, p. 5. 6 Ib. p. 7 Ut Supra. 8 Perrin, p. 3. 9 Perrin, p. 36. 10 Jones, p. 348. 11 Debate, p. 405. 12 As quoted in Pope and McGuire’s Debate, p. 209. 13 Perrin, pp. 83, 84. 14 Letter of Ecclampadius, Jones, p. 445. 15 Perrin, p. 80. 16 Jones, p. 446. 17 Fox’s Acts and Monuments, Vol. 2, p. 1-6. 18 Murdock’s Mosheim, vol. 3, p. 184, note 57. 19 Ib. 20 Perrin, p. 21 p. 22 Divine Right of Infant Baptism, pp. 37, 38. 23 Eccl. History, vol. 3, p. 184. 24 Perrin, p. 231.

PART 1 Gill’s Divine Right of Infant Baptism, etc., p. 29. 2 Quoted in Hinton’s History of Baptism, p. 287. 3 Eccl. Hist., Vol. 1, p. 204. 4 Jones, 288. Benedict’s Hist. of the Baptists, p. 65. 5 Quoted by Gill, ut supra, p. 28. 6 Quoted by Benedict, p. 52. 7 “Next followed Peter Bruis, from whom many gave them [the Waldenses] the name of Petrobrusians.” p. 46. 8 Vol. 2, p. 267. 9 Ib. 10 Giesler’s Text Book of Eccl. Hist., Vol. 2, p. 371. 11 Ut supra. 12 Hist, of Infant Baptism, Vol. 2, p. 265. 13 Gill, ut supra, p. 14 Jones, pp. 276,278. 15 Dr. Gill, ut supra. 16 Perrin, pp. 267-269. 17 Perrin, pp. 216, 216. 18 Perrin, p. 40. 19 Jones, p. 333; Perrin 52. 20 Jones, p.324 21 Perrin, p.245 22 Benedict’s History of the Baptists, p. 74. 23 Wall’s Hist. of Infant Baptism, Vol. 2, p. 243. 24 Wall, ut supra, p. 250. 25 Wall, ut supra, p. 259. 26 Ib., p. 262. 27 Hist. of Pedo Bapt., ut supra, 265. 28 Benedict’s Hist. of the Baptists, p. 68. 29 Ib. 68. 30 Quoted by Sims, in Peyran, p. 476. 31 Historical Discourse of Revelation William Hague, p. 72. 32 Benedict, p. 69. 33 Quoted by Hague, p. 82. 34 Benedict, p. 189. 35 Rob. Eccl. Res. p. 462. 36 Benedict, p. 140. 37 Eccl. Hist., Vol. 2, p. 200. 38 Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Art. Mennonites. 39 Benedict, p. 75. 40 Benedict, ut supra. 41 Perrin, p. 326. 42 Jones, p. 335. 43 Perrin, p. 295. 44 Peyran, p. 465. 45 Perrin, p. 402. 46 Ib. 47 Ib. 48 Ib. 49 Ib., p. 403. 50 Ib. 51 Ib., p. 404. 52 Perrin, pp. 404,405. 53 p. 419. 54 p. 420. 55 Perrin, pp. 420,421. 56 Perrin, p. 3. 57 Hist. of Infant Baptism, Vol. 2, p. 400. 58 Ib. 403. 59 Ib.

TO THE FIRST EDITION 1 The first edition was comprised in one volume. 2 HISTORY OF FRANCE, Vol I. p. 412. London, 1791. I am not insensible that there is a grossness in this quotation which renders it almost unfit to be transplanted into any other soil; and I am anxious to apologize to my readers for laying it before them; but the truth is, that it is not worse than may be found on the same subject in many other writers; while the recency of its publication, and the high ground which its author has lately taken among us, seemed to entitle him to the right of preference. As to the statement itself, it cannot but remind us of the words of Jesus, “Blessed are ye when men shall say all manner of evil against you falsely for my name’s sake.” 3 Dr. Allix’s Remarks on the Churcites of Piedmont, preface, p. 6. 4 History of the Council of Trent, translated by Brent. p.2.

INTRODUCTION PART 1 Rollin’s Roman History.—Hook’s ditto. —and Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. 2 Hence the apostle’s expression, “there are, that are called, lords many and gods many.” 1 Corinthians 8:5. 3 See Bishop Warburton’s Divine Legation, Book 2. Sect 6. 4 See Divine Legation of Moses, Warburton’s Works,Vol. 2. Edit. 8vo. 1811. 5 Arnobius adv. Gentes, lib. 6. Augustin de Civitate, lib. 8. 6 Pope’s Essay on Man. See Warburton’s Works, Vol. 1. p. 309. 7 See the Treatise of Philo-Judaeus de Cherubim, p. 155. 8 Clarkson’s Discourses on the Liturgies, Sect. 4. Meursius de Mysteriis Eleusiniis, and Warburton’s Divine Legation, Book I1. Sect. IV. 9 Livy’s Roman History, Book 39. 10 Rollin’s Ancient History. Vol. 5. 11 Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. 1. ch. ii. 12 The Greek term Aiwn (AEon) properly signifies, indefinite or eternal duration, as opposed to that which is finite or temporal. It was however metonymically used for such natures as are in themselves unchangeable and immortal. That it was commonly applied in this senses even by the Greek philosophers, at the time of Christ’s births is plain from Arrian, who uses it to describe a nature the reverse of ours, superior to frailty, and liable to no vicissitudes. There was therefore nothing strange or unusual in the application of this term, by the Gnostics, to beings of a celestial nature, liable to neither accident nor change. Indeed the term is used by the ancient fathers of the purer class, to denote the angels in general, good as well as bad. 13 SeeBRUCKER’ S History of Philosophys translated by Dr. Enfield; — and\parMOSHEIM’ S Commentaries on the affairs of the Christians before the time of Constantine the Great, translated by R.& Vidal, Vol. I. Introd. ch. 1.

PART 1 The Jews acknowledge two laws, which they believe to have been delivered to Moses on Mount Sinai: of which one was immediately committed to writing in the text of the Pentateuch, and the other is said to have been handed down from generation to generation, for many ages, by oral tradition. Fropa the time of Moses to the days of Rabbi Jehuda, ao part of the oral law had ever been committed to writing for public perusal. In every generation, the president of the Sanhedrim, or the prophet of his age, for his own private use, is said to have written notes of the traditions which he had heard from his teachers, but he taught in public only from word of mouth: and thus each individual wrote for himself an exposition of the law and the ceremonies it enjoined, according to what he had heard. Thus things were situated till the days of Rabbi Jehuda. He observed, that the students of the law were gradually diminishing, that difficulties and distresses were multiplying, that the kingdom of impiety was increasing in strength and extending itself over the world, while the people of Israel were driven to the ends of the earth. Fearing lest, in these circumstances, the traditions would be forgotten and 1ostj he collected them all, arranged them under distinct heads, and formed them into a methodical code of traditional law. Of this book, entitled the MISHNA, copies were speedily multiplied and extensively circulated; and the Jews at large received it with the highest veneration. SeeMR.ALLEN’ S Modern Judaism; ch. 3. p. 22 — 36, where the reader will find numerous quotations from the Rabbi’s shewing how this (supposed) oral law is by them extolled above the written law of Moses — just as the Papists in later ages have made void the doctrine of Christ and his apostles by the traditions of the fathers. 2 For a very ingenious and interesting account of the Cabbala, the reader is referred to Mr. Allen’s Modern Judaism, ch. 5:p. 65. 3 “Jehoida, the high priest at Jerusalem, had a son named Manasseh, who married a daughter of Sanballat, governor of the Samaritans. Nehemiah governor of Jerusalem, banished Manasseh for this breach of the law.

This exile carried a copy of the Pentateuch with him, read it to the Samaritans, and dissuaded them from idolatry, to which they never afterwards returned; and it was his father-in-law Sanballat, who obtained leave of Darius Nothus to erect the temple on Mount Gerizim, of which Manasseh was the first high priest. Hence proceeded a race of men, as the Jews acknowledge, more exact in worshipping the true God than themselves. Hence came the Samaritan Pentateuch in the old Phoenician character, which confirms that of the Jews. Hence also went a Greek version of the Pentateuch, for the use of Hellenistic Samaritans resident in other countries, and especially for those at Alexandria; and of course the conversion of the Samaritans was an event in providence favorable to the general knowledge and worship of the one true God.” Robinson’s Ecclesiastical Researches, p 27.

TABLES 1 The succession of the bishops of Rome is an extremely intricate affair.

But the following catalogue, which is according to the learned Bishop Pearson, will, perhaps, be sufficiently accurate to serve the purpose of assisting the readers of this history. I am apprehensive, however, that the dates, as respects the Bishops of Rome and the Popes, denote the time of their elevation to the chair of St. Peter.

CHAPTER - SECTION 1 2 Samuel 7:11-16. Psalm 2:8. and 22:27. and 73. passim, and 89:19—36.

Isaiah 9: 6,7. and chap. 11:1—9. chap. 60. Jeremiah 23:5-6. chap. 33:15. ad finem. Daniel 2:44, and chap. 7:14. 2 White’s Sermons at Bampton’s Lecture. 3 Suetonius in vita Vespasiani. ch. 1. Taciti Hist. 1. 5. cap 13.

SECTION 1 Paley’s Evidences of Christianity, vol 2:ch. 8. 2 Corresponding to our nine in the morning. 3 Cant. 6:10. 4 Antiq. b. 13. ch. sect. 10. 6. and b. 20. ch. 9, sect. 1. Jew. Wars, b. 2. ch. 3. sect. ult. 5 SoMILTON, in reference to the Syrian idol, whose temple was fixed in that city, thus writes; — “Rimmen, Whose delightful seat “Was fair Damascus, on the fertile banks “Of Abbana and Pharphar, lucid streams.”

PAR LOST, b. 1. 1. 467, etc.

Mr. Maundrell describes it as “situated on an even plain of so great extent, that one can but just discern the mountains which compass it on the farther side; It stands on the west side of the plain, about two miles distant from the head of the river Barrady which waters it. It is of a long straight figure, about two miles in extent, adorned with mosques and steeples, and encompassed with gardens, according to computation, full thirty miles round.”—The fruit tree called the Damascene, and the flower called the Damask rose, were transplanted from the gardens belonging to this city; and the silk and linen, known by the name of Damask, were probably the invention of its inhabitants. Anc. Univ. Hist. 8vo. vol. 1. p. 260. 6 Wars, b. 2. oh. 20. sect. 2. 7 Ibid. b. 7. ch. 8. sect. 7.

SECTION 1 Dion. Cassius, b, 58. 2 Suetonius’ Life of Calig. c. 11:Josephus Antiq. b. 18. c. 6. sect. 10.

Eutrop. Brev. Hist. Romans b. 7. sect. 12. 3 Philo de Legat. ad Caium, p. 1010-1021. Josephus de Bello Jud. b. 2. c. 10. sect. 1. Lardner’s Credibility, ed. 1730. p. 121-145. 4 Josephus’ Wars, b. 7. ch. 3. sect. 3. 5 Josephus’ Antiq, b. 18. ch. 6. sect. 5. and Wars, b. 1. ch. 9. sect. 4. 6 See Benson’s First Planting of Christianity, ch. 5. sect. 6. 7 The account which Josephus gives of the death of Herod coincides with that given by Luke in the Acts of the Apostles, except that the former goes more into detail, and has particularly noticed that the king himself could not but acknowledge the hand of God in his sufferings,and how flattering and unjust the acclamations were, which ascribed divinity to him, a mortal being, now seized with a disease which would quickly hurry him out of the world. He left behind him a son namedAGRIPPA, then seventeen years of age, before whom Paul afterwards appeared and made the well known apology for Christianity, by which he almost persuaded Agrippa to be a Christian. He also left two daughters, who are noticed in the New Testament, viz. BERNICE, who was married to Herod, king of Chalcis, her father’s brother, when she was only sixteen years of age; andDRUSILLA, who was afterwards married to the governor Felix. After the death of Herod Agrippa, the kingdom was again reduced to a Roman province, and then the persecution of the Christians, for awhile, abated.

SECTION 1 The following are some of the grounds on which this supposition is founded. The writer of the Acts of the Apostles, previous to this event, carries on the narrative in the following manner. Acts 16:11-6. “Loosing from Troas,WE came with a straight course to Samothrace — -and on the Sabbath dayWE went out of the city, by a river side— and it came to pass as we went to prayer,” etc. But after Paul and the rest departed from Philippi, the writer changes his style, thus— “Now whenTHEY had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia,THEY came to Thessalonica,” etc. Nor does he resume his former manner of writing, until chap. 20. where, describing Paul’s voyage to Syria, he thus writes—“These going before tarried for us at Troas; andWE sailed from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto\parTHEM to Troas, whereWE abode seven days.” It is therefore very probable, that Luke remained with the new converts at Philippi, until Paul, several years afterwards, in his way from Corinth to Syria, came to Philippi and took him with them. 2 Anciently called Thermae; it still subsists as a place of some note, and is now in possession of the Turks, under the name of Salonichi. 3 Aulus Gellius, b. 12. ch. 7. 4 Potter’s Gr. Antiq. vol. 1. p. 105. 5 Very religious, for so the word, deisidaimonesteroi, should be translated, as has been frequently remarked by critics, and not too superstitious, as our translators have it. 6 Thus the Roman poet Horace,— “Non cuivis homini contingit adire Corinthum.” 7 Life of Claudius, ch. 25. 8 Life of Nero, ch. 16. 9 Senecae Praefat. ad Natural. Quest. lib. 4. 10 Lib. 10. p. 688, etc. 11 See Whitby on Acts 19:31.

SECTION 1 See Suetonius’ Life of Augustus, ch. 19. Tacit. Annals, b. 15. ch. 56. 57.

Joseph. Antiq. b. 16. ch. 10. sect. 2-5. 2 See Bryant’s Observations on Ancient History, and Pliny’s Natural History, b. 3. ch. 26. 3 Decline and Fall, vol. 2. ch. 15. 4 Hence it was called Urbis septicollis, and a festival was celebrated in December, called Septimontium festus, to commemorate the addition of the seventh hill. The names were Mons Palatinus, Capitolinus, Aventinus, Quirinalis, Coelius, Viminalis, and Exquilinus. There is a very striking allusion to this local circumstance, Revelation 17:9. and the reader may see the subject ably illustrated in Hurd’s Introductory Sermons, vol. 2. Serm. 11. 5 Josephus’ Antiq. b. 18. ch. 6. sect. 6, 7. 6 “Ingens multitudo,” is the expression of Tacitus, the literal translation of which is, “a very great multitude.” It is impossible for us, in the present day, to ascertain the exact import of this phrase: Gibbon, who evinces no solicitude to overrate the number of Christians, has ingeniously compared these words of Tacitus with the import of the same words as used by Livy on another occasion; a careful inquiry into the meaning of which had furnished the result to be seven thousand. Decline and Fall, vol. 2. ch. 15. 7 Tacit. Annal. b. 15. c. 44.

SECTION 1 Young’s History of Idolatrous Corruptions in Religion, vol. 2:p. 216- 240. See also a Sermon by Dr. Geo. Campbell, entitled “The Success of the Gospel, a Proof of its Truth.” 2 Antiq. b. 20, ch. 9. 3 Eccles. Hist. b. 2, ch. 23. 4 Joseph. Antiq. b. 20. ch. 1, and 5. 5 Joseph. Antiq. b. 20. ch. 5. 6 Joseph. Antiq. b. 2. ch. 13. 7 Joseph. Antiq. b. 20. ch. 8. 8 Joseph. Antiq. b. 20. ch. 11. 9 Joseph. Wars of the Jews, b. 2. ch. 14, 15. 10 Joseph. Wars, b. 2. ch. 18. 11 Joseph. Wars, b. 2. ch. 19. 12 Joseph. Wars, b. 3. ch. 7. 13 JOSEPHUS, whose “History of the Wars of the Jews” is too well known to need any description from me, was, by his father, of the race of the priests, and of the first of the twenty-four courses; and by his mother he was descended from the Asmonsaean family, in which the royal power was united with that of the high-priesthood. He was born at Jerusalem, in the first year of Caius Caligula. At sixteen years of age, he began to inquire into the sentiments of the different sects among the Jews,—the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes. At twenty-six he went to Rome, to petition the emperor Nero in behalf of several priests of his acquaintance, whom Felix had sent bound to Rome. At Puteoli he became acquainted with Aliturus, a Jewish comedian, who had ingratiated himself with Nero. Through this man he was introduced to Poppaea, the wife of Nero, by whose interest he succeeded in obtaining liberty for his friends, and from whom he also obtained many considerable presents. The following year he returned into Judea, when he saw every thing tending to a revolt under Gessius Florus. In the beginning of the Jewish war, he commanded in Galilee. When Vespasian, who was a general of the Roman army under the reign of Nero, had conquered that country, Josephus was taken at Jotapata. He and forty more Jews had concealed themselves in a subterraneous cavern, where they formed the desperate resolution of killing each other rather than surrender themselves to the Romans. Josephus, having been governor of the place, and therefore entitled to priority in point of rank, it was at first proposed by the rest to yield it to him as an honor, to become the first victim. He, however, contrived to divert their minds from this, by proposing to cast lots for the precedency; and after thirty-nine of them had ballotted and killed one another, he, and the other who survived, agreed not to lay violent hands upon themselves, nor to imbrue their hands in one another’s blood, but deliver themselves up to the Romans. Upon this, Josephus surrendered himself up to Nicanor, who conducted him to Vespasian.

When brought into the presence of the latter, Josephus told him that he had something to communicate to him which would probably strike him with much surprise, and perhaps not obtain his immediate credit—it was that he, Vespasian, should become emperor of Rome, in less than three years. Aware that the general might think this was merely a stratagem on the part of Josephus to save his life, the latter told him that he did not ask for his liberty,—he was content to be kept as a close prisoner during the interval; and that, should his prediction not be realized, he was content to be then put to death. Vespasian yielded to his request, although he, at first, placed no credit in what Josephus had said. He, however, kept the latter with him, as a prisoner, while he himself continued in these parts; but when he heard that he had been elected emperor at Rome, he gave him his liberty, and raised him to his confidence and favor. Josephus continued with his son Titus, who took the command of the army after his father Vespasian was gone to Rome. He was present at the siege of Jerusalem, and was a spectator of the awful desolations of the city, temple, and country; and soon after wrote his History of the Jewish Wars, and Jewish Antiquities. The whole were finished in the 56th year of his age, in the 13th of Domitian, and Anno Christi, 93. 14 Joseph. Wars, b. 3. ch. 7, 9, 10. 15 Joseph, Wars, b. 4, ch. 1. 16 Joseph. Wars. b. 4. ch. 2. 17 Joseph. Wars, b.4. ch. 6. 18 Ibid. b. 4. ch. 9. 19 Joseph. Wars. b. 4. ch. 9. 20 Ibid. b. 4. ch. 11. and b. 5. ch. 2, and 4. 21 Joseph. Wars, ch. 7-9. 22 Ibid. b. 5. ch. 19, and b. 6, ch. 4. 23 Joseph. Wars, b. 6. ch. 1. 24 Joseph. Wars, b. 6. ch. 3. 25 Joseph. Wars, b. 6. ch. 3. 26 Joseph. Wars, b. 6, ch. 4. 27 Ibid. b. 6. ch. 4. 28 Joseph. Wars, b. 7. ch. 1. 29 Joseph. Wars, b. 5. ch. 12. 30 Joseph. Wars, b. 6. ch. 5. and b. 5. ch. 13. 31 Ibid. b. 6, ch. 8, 9. 32 Tacit. Annal. b. 5.

CHAPTER - SECTION 1 Jortin’s Remarks, vol. 1. p. 30. 2 Vitellius consumed in mere eating, at least six millions of our money in about seven months. It is not easy to express his vices with dignity or even decency. Tacitus fairly calls him “a hog.” 3 Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 1.ch. 3. 4 Gibbon, vol. 1. ch. 3. 5 Divine Legation of Moses, vol. 2. b. 2. sect. 6. etc. 6 Quoted in Dr. Middleton’s Free Enquiry, p. 201.4to. ed. 7 Inveterate as were the prejudices of this classical historian against the Christians, it seems he could condescend occasionally to borrow a striking thought or a brilliant sentence from their writings. The reader may compare the above quotation with the following extract from Tertullian’s Apology. “If the city be besieged, if any thing happen ill in the fields, in the garrison, in the lands, immediately they, (the Pagans,) cry out, “Tis because of the Christians.” Our enemies thirst after the blood of the innocent, cloaking their hatred with this silly pretense, “That the Christians are the cause of all public calamities.” If the Tyber flows up to the walls—if the river Nile do not overflow the fields—if the heavens alter their course—if there be an earthquake, a famine, a plague, immediately the cry is “Away with the Christians to the lions.” APOL. cap. 1. Operum, p. 17. 8 Gibbon’s Decline, vol. 2:ch. 16.

SECTION 1 Gibbon’s Rome, vol. 1:ch. 3. 2 Eusebius, b. 4. ch. 23. and Cave’s Life of Quadratus. 3 Eusebius, b. 4. c. 9. and Justin Martyr’s First Apology, ad finem. 4 Decline and Fall, vol. 3. ch. 3. 5 This is the emperor, whom Pope has panegyrised in the following lines— “Who noble ends by noble means obtains, Or, failing, smiles in exile or in chains; Like good Aurelius, let him reign; or bleed Like Socrates, that man is great indeed.” 6 Cave’s Life of Polycarp, p. 53. 7 Cave’s Life of Melito, and Eusebius, b. 4. ch. 26. 8 Cave’s Life of Justin. 9 Second Apology, ch. 42. 10 Church Hist. vol. 1:p. 223. 11 Credibility of the Gospel History, part 2. But though I bow with great deference to the judgment of Dr. Lardner, I must be allowed to say that the style in which this letter is drawn up does not meet my taste. It is much too labored to correspond with the melancholy nature of the subject. It is not the simple, natural, unaffected language of a feeling heart. We must, however, remember that Iraeneus was a Greek, and that the Greeks were great admirers of eloquence. 12 A late ecclesiastical historian (Mr. Milner) has the following remark upon this passage. “Hence it appears that the eating of blood was not practiced among the Christians at Lyons; and they understood not Christian liberty in this point.” But with all due deference to Mr.

Milner, one cannot help wishing that he had shewn us, “Who gave Christians the liberty of eating things strangled and blood.” Nothing can be more express than the prohibition, Acts 15:28,29. Can those who plead their “Christian liberty” in regard to this matter, point us to any part of the word of God. in which this prohibition is subsequently annulled? If not, may we be allowed to ask, “By what authority, except his own, can any of the laws of God be repealed?” Mr. M. held that “the church has power to decree rites and ceremonies, and to settle controversies in matters of faith;” and doubtless, that church which has power to make new laws in Christ’s kingdom, cannot want authority to abolish old ones; but where they obtained this power and authority, we have yet to learn.

The following remark of a sensible writer shews, that he is far from agreeing with Mr. Milner in thinking that blood eating is any part of Christian liberty. “This (i.e. eating the blood of animals) being forbidden to Noah, appears also to have been forbidden to all mankind; nor ought this prohibition to be treated as belonging to the ceremonies of the Jewish dispensation. It was not only enjoined before that dispensation existed, but was enforced upon the Gentile Christians by the decrees of the apostles, Acts 15:20. To allege, as some do, our Lord’s words, ‘that it is not that which goeth into a man which defileth him,’ would equally justify the practice of cannibals in eating human flesh. — -Blood.is the life, and God seems to claim it as sacred to himself. Hence, in all the sacrifices, the blood was poured out before the Lord, and in the sacrifice of Christ, he shed his blood, or poured out his soul unto death.” Fuller’s Disc. on Genesis 9: 3, 4. 13 Euseb. Hist. b. 5:ch. 1.

SECTION 1 Haweis’s Church History, vol. 1:p. 192. 2 I cannot but think that this language of Tertullian is much too strong, and that the reader who would not be misled, should receive it with some degree of qualification. There can be no doubt that the profession of Christianity had spread extensively at the commencement of the third century: but Paganism was still the religion of the empire; and if any reliance can be placed upon Gibbon’s calculation as it respects this matter, “not more than a twentieth part of the subjects of the Roman empire had enlisted themselves under the banners of the cross before the conversion of Constantine.” 3 Reeves’s Apologies, vol. 1.p. 302-339. 4 Athenagores’ Legatio pro Christianis, c. 4. 5 It has been made a question by some, how far it is probable the apologies which were, from time to time, drawn up by the Christians and addressed to the emperors, ever reached the hands of those monarchs.

But with all their pomp and mightiness, there is good reason to think that the Roman emperors were more accessible than many of the petty sovereigns of Europe are in the present day. Augustus, for example, suffered all sorts of persons to approach him; and when a poor man once offered him a petition in a timorous manner, with a hand half extended and half drawn back, the emperor jested with him, and told him he looked as if he was giving an halfpenny to an elephant. — Jortin’s Remarks. 6 Opuscula tria veterum auctorum, FASTIDII EPISCOPI Passio S.S.

MartyrumPERPETUAE etFELICITATIS, etc. a Luca Holstenio, 8vo.

Romans 1663. The editor of this publication, Lucas Holstenius, was Keeper of the Vatican Library, at Rome, a person of great learning, and the friend of our poet Milton. He studied three years at Oxford, and had a great esteem and affection for Milton, who visited him at Rome, and received many civilities from him there. See Bp. Newton’s Life of Milton, prefixed to his edition of Paradise Lost. 8vo. p, 13. 7 Gibbon’s Decline and Fall, vol. 1:ch. 7. 8 Cyprian’s Works, Letter 75. p. 256. 9 Eusebias, b. 6. oh. 28. Orosius, b. 7. ch. 19. Origen, tom. 28. 10 Introduction to Limborch’s History of the Inquisition, vol. 2, sect. 1. p. 14. Should any suspect Dr. Chandler of having overcharged the picture in this dreadful detail, I must entreat him to look into any of the larger histories of this period, and he will soon be undeceived. 11 Cyprian’s Works, Epist. 11. 12 Remarks on Ecclesiastes Hist. vol. 1. p. 376. 13 Eusebius’s Hist. b. 8. ch.1.

SECTION 1 Tertullian’s Apology, ch. 32.

CHAPTER - SECTION 1 Mosheim, Cent. 4:ch. 1. 2 Mosheim, Ubi supra. 3 See a Sermon of Dr. Calamy’s, on Matthew 16:18. Mr. Gibbon has labored to diminish the number of martyrs on this trying occasion, and to show that they were inconsiderable indeed; but even his own account of things, when impartially weighed, will be found to justify all I have said of it. 4 Gibbon’s Decline and Fall, vol. 2, ch. 16. 5 Decline and Fall, vol. 2, ch. 16. 6 Few things have occasioned more perplexity to the writers of ecclesiastical history, and set them more at variance, than this vision of Constantine. Mr. Milner, whose credulity on most occasions is sufficiently apparent, entertains no doubt of the reality of the miracle; and such is his inconsistency with his own theological creed, that he resolves it into an answer to Constantine’s importunate prayer. “He prayed, he implored,” says he, “with much vehemence and importunity, and God left him not unanswered.” (As though the blessed God would listen to any prayer but that of faith! Proverbs 15:8 and Hebrews 11:6.) Dr. Haweis gives up the miracle altogether, and seems to consider the whole as an imposition. The learned Mosheim is evidently perplexed about it, and seems at a loss in what light to consider it — and so also is his translator. “The whole story,” says the latter, “is attended with difficulties which render it, both as a miracle and as a fact, extremely dubious, to say no more.” If any should think the subject worthy of further investigation, I would recommend to their perusal a very ingenious and learned disquisition upon it, subjoined as an appendix to the first volume of Dr. Gregory’s Church History, written by Mr. Henely of Rendlesham. They will there find a compressed account of the opinions of the different writers on the subject, and the following deductions not unfairly drawn from the whole — That Eusebius, who received the account of this extraordinary scene from the mouth of Constantine himself, and who wrote the life of that emperor, does not appear to have given credit to it, though the latter attested it by an oath — that neither the day, the year, the time, nor the place of this vision is recorded — that there is no evidence that any one of the army saw the phenomenon besides the emperor — that the accounts given of it by the emperor at different times do not quadrate — that the whole story is replete with contradictions — and that there exists a presumption diametrically opposite to the intent of the alleged miracle, in the declaration of Christ to the Roman governor, “My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight,” etc. — and that, in a word, the powerful inducements of policy and party, the obvious character of Constantine, and the opinions of the times, when judiciously considered and properly combined, present in themselves an easy solution of the whole contrivance and fraud. 7 Eusebius’s Life of Constantine, b. 4. ch. 62. 8 Ammianus Marcellinus, b. 27, p. 362. 9 Priestley’s History of the Corruptions of Christianity, vol. 2, p. 342. 10 Eccles. Hist. vol. 1, p. 105-107. 11 Eusebius, b. 10, ch. 5, 6. 12 Campbell’s Lectures on Eccles. Hist. vol. 1, p. 73. 13 Socrates’s Eccles. Hist. b. 1, ch. 6. 14 Eusebius’s Life of Constantine, b. 1, ch. 63. 15 “The eloquence of Lactantius, and the beauty and purity of his style, raise him superior to every author of the fourth century, and place him upon an equality with some of the most accomplished writers of ancient Rome. Entrusted with the education of Crispus, the unfortunate son of Constantine, whom that monarch afterwards put to death, Lactantius, amidst the splendors of a court, was distinguished only by his talents and his poverty. His principal work consists of a masterly refutation of Paganism, and a learned comparison between it and Christianity. It is to the indelible disgrace of the age, that while a number of fanatic monks and popular declaimers obtained the highest stations in the church, a man who possessed the learning of Aristotle, with the eloquence of Cicero, who united philosophy with religion, and an earnest piety with all the graces of a polished taste and enlightened understanding, should be permitted to languish without distinction or reward. It is, however, but too common a case, that the service which is rendered to a party, is rated higher than that which is rendered to mankind in general. The defense of a single dogma shall raise a man to eminence and fortune; while the enlightening of thousands, the improving of the hearts, the morals, the judgments, and religious sentiments of the nation, shall frequently be passed over, with scarcely the cold return of fruitless praise.” — Gregory ’s Church History , vol. 1, p. 224. “Such was the taste of the times and the people, that Lactantius, who was a man of learning and real eloquence, a man of sound sentiments, extensive knowledge, and inoffensive life, the most excellent of the Latin fathers, and justly called the Christian Cicero, was in want of common necessaries; while Ambrose, who was not worthy to carry his books, was elected to the rich see of Milan; and this when the people elected their own bishops.” — Robinson ’s Eccles . Researches . 16 Eusebius’s Life of Constantine, b. 3, ch. 10-14. 17 As a matter of curiosity, which may gratify some readers, I subjoin this summary of the orthodox faith at this period. The original may be found in the epistle of Eusebius to the Caesareans. “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things, visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten; begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance of the Father. God of God; Light of Light; true God of true God; begotten, not made; consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things were made, things in heaven, and things on earth; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate, and became man, suffered and rose again the third day, and ascended into the heavens, and comes to judge the quick and the dead: and in the Holy Ghost. And the catholic and apostolic church doth anathematize those persons who say, that there was a time when the Son of God was not; that he was not before he was born; that he was made of nothing, or of another substance or being; or that he is created, or changeable, or convertible.” 18 Maimbourg’s History of Arianism, vol. 1, p. 48. 19 Eusebius’s Life of Constantine, b. 3, ch. 20. Socrates, b. 1, ch. 9. 20 The following is a copy of the Edict which Constantine issued on that occasion; it was addressed to the Bishops and People throughout the Empire. “Since Arius hath imitated wicked and ungodly men, it is just that he should undergo the same infamy with them. As therefore, Porphyrius, an enemy of godliness, for his having composed wicked books against Christianity, hath found a suitable recompense, so as to be infamous for the time to come, and to be loaded with great reproach, and to have all his impious writings quite destroyed: so also it is now my pleasure, that Arius, and those of Arius’s sentiments, shall be called Porphyrians, so that they may have the appellation of those whose manner they have imitated. Moreover, if any book composed by Arius shall be found, it shall be committed to the flames; that not only his evil doctrine may be destroyed, but that there may not be the least remembrance of it left. This also I enjoin, that if any one shall be found to have concealed any writing composed by Arius, and shall not immediately bring it and consume it in the fire, death shall be his punishment; for as soon as he is taken in this crime, he shall suffer a capital punishment. GOD PRESERVE YOU.” 21 Eusebius’s Life of Constantine, b. 3, ch. 65; Sozomen, b. 1, ch. 21.

Socrates, b. 1, ch. 9. The reader will also find a very amusing account of the proceedings of this memorable council (provided he can make the necessary allowance for the author’s predilection for the Catholic party, it being written More Maimburgiano , as Dr. Jortin would express it) in Maimbourg’s History of Arianism, translated by Webster, vol. 1, book 1. 4to. edition, 1727.

SECTION 1 Preface to his Free Inquiry, p. 8, 4to. edit. 2 Ammianus Marcellinus, 1. 21, ch. 16. 3 Opera, vol. 1, Epist. 55. 4 Decline and Fall, vol. 9, ch. 50. 5 Socrates’ Eccl. Hist. b. 27, ch. 3. 6 Dr. A. Clarke’s Succession of Sacred Literature, vol. 1, p. 209-212. 7 Lardner’s Works, 4to. ed. vol. 2, p. 57. 8 Decline and Fall, vol. 4, ch. 25. 9 Gibbon, vol. 4, ch. 23. 10 Ammianus Marcellinus b. 21, at the beginning. 11 Lardner’s Testimonies, vol. 4, p. 25. 12 Sozomen’s History, bk. 5, ch. 5. 13 Theod. Hist. b. 3, ch. 15. 14 Gibbon, vol. 4, ch. 85. 15 Quoted by Gibbon, ubi supra . 16 History of the Church, vol. 2, p. 157. 17 Socrates, the historian, has given us some interesting particulars of Sisinnius, which, as I do not recollect to have seen them quoted by any modern writer, I shall here extract. “He was,” says he, “an eloquent person and an excellent philosopher — had diligently cultivated the art of Logic, and was incomparably well versed in the sacred Scriptures.”

He wore a white garment, and regularly bathed himself twice a day in the public baths. He seems to have been remarkable for the readiness of his wit on all occasions; in illustration of which, Socrates has recorded several anecdotes. Being interrogated by one of his acquaintance, why he, who was a bishop, chose to bathe twice a day, Sisinnius promptly replied, “Because I cannot bathe thrice !” His good sense led him to treat with levity the practice of clothing the clergy in black. Calling one day to pay a friendly visit at the house of Arsacius, who had succeeded Chrysostom in the see of Constantinople, he was asked, why he dressed in a manner so unsuitable to his character as a bishop. “Tell me” said he, “where it is written that a bishop should wear a black garment? You, said he, can never show that a priest ought to wear black — but I will give you my authority for wearing white.

Hath not Solomon expressly said, Let thy garments be always white?”

Ecclesiastes 9:8. He then referred them to Luke 9:29, on which occasion both the Lord Jesus, and Moses, and Elias, appeared to the apostles clothed in white. In the province of Galatia, Leontius, the bishop of Ancyra, commenced a prosecution against the church of the Novatians, in that city, and took from them their place of worship.

Happening soon afterwards to come to Constantinople, Sisinnius waited upon him, for the purpose of entreating him to restore to his friends their chapel. Leontius flew into a passion, and said, “You Novatianists ought not to have churches, for you discard all repentance, and exclude the loving kindness of God,” etc. Sisinnius listened patiently to this philippic, and then calmly replied, “But no man can repent more than I do!” How, said Leontius, do you repent? “I repent,” replied Sisinnius, “that I have seen you !” Chrysostom, who was at the head of the Catholic party, and who was a man of excessive arrogance, on one occasion addressed him with great heat, saying, “You are a heretic, and I will make you leave off preaching.” “I’ll give you a reward,” said Sisinnius, “if you will free me from the labor of it .” “O! if the office is laborious,” rejoined Chrysostom, “you may go on with it.”

Socrates closes his account of Sisinnius with the following sketch. “He was very eminent for his learning, on which account all the bishops who succeeded, loved and honored him. Moreover, all the eminent personages of the Senatorian order had a great affection for him and admired him. He wrote many books, but he is too studious about words in them, and intermixes too many poetic terms; he was more admired for his speaking than for his writings. In his countenance and voice, in his dress and aspect, and in the whole of his action and deportment, there was much gracefulness — by reason of which accomplishments, he was beloved by all sects.” Upon another occasion, he remarks that, such was the high estimation in which Sisinnius was held by the Novatian people, that, “his word was law.”

Sisinnius died in the year 407, and was succeeded by Chrysanthus, a man of signal prudence and modesty, by whose means the churches of the Novatians were not only upheld but increased. Eccles . Hist . b. 6, ch. 22. and b. 7, ch. 12.

It is quite amusing to witness Mr. Milner’s spleen against the characters of Novatian and Sisinnius. He terms the latter a “facetious gentleman,” and only mentions him for the sake of censuring his singularity in not conforming to the catholic clergy and the clerical garb. Indeed, he seems to have regarded him in much the same light as that in which Dr. Johnson regarded Milton, when he said, “he was not of the Church of England, he was not of the Church of Rome — to be of no church is dangerous.” But of AErius (concerning whom the reader will meet with some account in the next section) he disdains, so far as I can perceive, even to record his name or his heresy — though on St. Augustine, a part of whose labors were employed in an attempt to refute him, he has bestowed 172 closely printed pages! — that Augustine , of whom, after all, he is constrained to acknowledge that he understood not Paul’s doctrine of justification — that he perpetually confounds it with sanctification, (vol. 2, p. 426, etc.) and as that to the doctrine of particular redemption, it was unknown to him and all the ancients , as he [Mr. Milner] wishes it had remained equally unknown to the moderns.” p. 467. This was, indeed, fulfilling the pledge Mr. M. had given the public, of writing an Ecclesiastical History on a new plan . See his Preface to vol 1 of his History of the Christian Church . 18 Sozomen, b. 7, ch. 4-6. 19 Theod. 1. 16. tit. 10. leg. 12. 20 Gibbon’s Rome, vol. 5, ch. 20. 21 The increase of the Christian profession in the world, must always be an interesting topic with those who rightly estimate the importance of the gospel to human happiness; but every one must be aware of the difficulty there is in arriving at certain calculations on the subject. The reader, however, will require no apology from me for subjoining in this place, a short extract from Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. “Under the reign of Theodosius,” says he, “after Christianity had enjoyed, more than sixty years, the sunshine of imperial favor, the ancient and illustrious church of Antioch (in Syria) consisted of one hundred thousand persons; three thousand of whom were supported out of the public oblations. The splendor and dignity of the Queen of the East, [the name then given to Antioch] the acknowledged populousness of Caesarea, Seleucia, and Alexandria, and the destruction of two hundred and fifty thousand souls in the earthquake which afflicted Antioch under the elder Justin, are so many convincing proofs that the whole number of its inhabitants was not less than half a million.” Vol. 2, ch. 15.

Now, according to this calculation, the reader will see that at the time Theodosius attempted to enforce an uniformity of worship throughout the empire, the proportion which the nominal Christians in Antioch bore to the rest of the citizens, was as one to five. Taking this as a fair average, there must have been in Rome two hundred and fifty thousand professed Christians at that time, and at Alexandria, in Egypt, which was the second city in the empire, probably one hundred and fifty thousand. Thus in those three cities alone there were half a million of nominal Christians. The number of inhabitants included in the whole of the Roman Empire at that period, was one hundred and twenty millions; and if we extend the computation to that multitude, we should be led to conclude that there were among them twenty-four millions that professed the Christian religion. We must, however, keep this consideration always in view, that Christianity had, at this time, been sixty years established by law as the religion of the empire, and consequently was not a little corrupted from its original purity.

SECTION 1 See Gibbon’s Rome, vol. 5, ch. 28. 2 Mosheim, vol. 1, p. 386. 3 Mosheim, vol. 1, cent. 4, part 2, ch. 3. 4 Ubi Supra, p. 388. 5 Campbell’s Lectures on Ecclesiastical History, vol. 1, p. 125, 126. 6 Essay on Christain Temperance and Self-denial, by Dr. George Campbell. 7 Fleury’s Eccles. Hist. tom. 7. 8 Gibbon’s Rome, vol. 6, ch. 27. 9 Fleury’s Eccles. Hist. b. 16, ch. 51. 10 Boswell’s Life Johnson, vol. 2. 11 The reader whose curiosity may prompt him to look further into the history of this champion of monkish austerity, may consult Dr.

Middleton’s Free Inquiry, 4to. p. 164-168. It may justly excite one’s astonishment, that only half a century ago there were to be found learned doctors of the established Church of England, defending the fame of this wretched fanatic, and advocating, with all their might, the truth and reality of the miracles reported to have been wrought by him! See Middleton , ut supra . 12 Introductory Discourse to Dr. Middleton’s Free Inquiry, p. 52-56. where the reader will find the authorities quoted. Of these, and a thousand other legendary tales, with which the writings of the fathers of this period are prolific, we may say, as Voltaire has said upon a similar occasion; “They have been related by many historians, and cannot be denied without overturning the very foundation of history; but it is certain we cannot give credit to them without overturning the very foundation of reason!” 13 Postscript to Free Inquiry, p. 131-134. 14 Ubi Supra , p. 137. 15 I subjoin Mr. Gibbon’s account of this singular matter; — even as a specimen of the splendid magnificence of that writer’s style, it deserves regard. “The grateful respect of the Christians for the martyrs of the faith, was exalted, by time and victory, into religious adoration; and the most illustrious of the saints and prophets were deservedly associated to the honors of the martyrs. One hundred and fifty years after the glorious deaths of St. Peter and St. Paul, the Vatican and the Ostian road were distinguished by the tombs, or rather by the trophies of those spiritual heroes. In the age which followed the conversion of Constantine, the emperors, the consuls, and the generals of armies, devoutly visited the sepulchers of a tent-maker and a fisherman; and their venerable bones were deposited under the altars of Christ, on which the bishops of the royal city continually offered the unbloody sacrifice. The new capital of the eastern world, unable to produce any ancient and domestic trophies, was enriched by the spoils of dependant provinces. The bodies of St. Andrew, St. Luke, and St. Timothy, had reposed, near three hundred years, in the obscure graves, from whence they were transported, in solemn pomp, to the church of the apostles, which the magnificence of Constantine had founded on the banks of the Thracian Bosphorus. About fifty years afterwards, the same banks were honored by the presence of Samuel, the judge and prophet of the people of Israel. His ashes, deposited in a golden vase, and covered with a silken veil, were delivered by the bishops into each other’s hands. The relics of Samuel were received by the people, with the same joy and reverence which they would have shown to the living prophet; the highways, from Palestine to the gates of Constantinople, were filled with an uninterrupted procession; and the emperor Arcadius himself, at the head of the most illustrious members of the clergy and senate, advanced to meet his extraordinary guest, who had always deserved and claimed the homage of kings. The example of Rome and Constantinople confirmed the faith and discipline of the Catholic world. The honors of the saints and martyrs, after a feeble and ineffectual murmur of profane reason, were universally established; and in the age of Ambrose and Jerome, something was still deemed wanting to the sanctity of a Christian church, till it had been consecrated by some portion of holy relics, which fixed and inflamed the devotion of the faithful. “In the long period of twelve hundred years, which elapsed between the reign of Constantine and the reformation of Luther, the worship of saints and relics corrupted the pure and perfect simplicity of the Christian model; and some symptoms of degeneracy may be observed even in the first generations which adopted and cherished this pernicious innovation.” 16 Fleury’s Eccles. Hist. tom. 8, p. 91-93.

SECTION 1 Robertson’s Hist. Charles V. vol. 1, sect. 1. 2 Decline and Fall, vol. 5, ch. 30. 3 We seem in general to entertain a very inadequate idea in the present day of what was the extent and magnificence of the city of Rome, at the period of which we are now treating. The subject is somewhat foreign to the object of this work: yet I flatter myself a few hints may be pardoned by the reader, were it merely on the score of exciting attention to a subject of considerable curiosity. When the capital of the empire was besieged by the Goths, the circuit of the walls was accurately measured by Ammonius, the mathematician, who found it equal to twenty-one miles. The form of the city was almost that of a circle. It probably covered a less space of ground than the metropolis of Great Britain; but it contained about one-fifth more inhabitants; for “we may fairly estimate the number of inhabitants,” says Mr. Gibbon, referring to this period, “at twelve hundred thousand.” The total number of houses, in the fourteen regions of the city, amounted to forty-eight thousand, three hundred, and eighty-two — a number inferior to those of the British capital; but that is accounted for from the loftiness of the buildings, which were carried to such an enormous elevation, that it was repeatedly enacted, by Augustus, as well as by Nero, in consequence of the frequent and fatal accidents which happened through the hastiness of their erection, and the insufficiency of their materials, that the height of private edifices , within the walls of Rome, should not exceed the measure of SEVENTY FEET from the ground! House rent was immoderately dear — the rich acquired, at an enormous expense, the ground which they covered with palaces and gardens; but the bulk of the common people was crowded into a narrow space, and the different floors and apartments of the same house were divided among several families. There were seventeen hundred and eighty superb mansions, the residence of wealthy and honorable citizens. No doubt the language of one of their own poets (Claudius Rutilius,) who lived at the time of the Gothic invasion, is to be understood as indulging in poetic license, when it describes “each palace as equal to a city, since it included within its own precincts, every thing which could be subservient either to use or luxury; markets race-courses, temples, fountains, baths, porticoes, shady groves, and artificial aviaries.” Of the riches and luxury of these nobles, we may form an estimate from this circumstance; that several examples are recorded in the age of Honorius, of persons who celebrated the year of their praetorship by a festival which lasted seven days, and cost above one hundred thousand pounds sterling. Before the Dioclesian persecution, which commenced A.D. 303 the places of Christian worship in Rome were augmented to more than forty in number; and the pastors and teachers to upwards of an hundred and fifty. — Gibbon ’s Rome , vol. 8, ch. 31. and Optatus de Schism . Donat . lib. 2, p. 40. 4 Gibbon’s Rome, vol. 5, ch. 23. 5 There is a very eloquent passage referring to this particular subject, in a letter written byPELAGIUS, the author of the Pelagian heresy, to a Roman lady of the name ofDEMETRIAS, and it deserves insertion in this place, were it only to exhibit to the reader a specimen of the superior talents which were possessed by that apostate from the doctrines of grace. PELAGIUS, whose original name was Morgan, was a native of Wales, and by profession a monk. He was far advanced in life before he began publicly to propagate his heretical sentiments, and until that period it seems that he sustained a blameless reputation; for Augustine, who was cotemporary with him, and combated all his errors, does him the justice to own that “he had the esteem of being a very pious man, and a Christian of no vulgar rank.” Pelagius happened to be at Rome when that city was besieged by the Goths, and was probably a spectator of all that passed during the sacking of that metropolis. Soon after it was taken he set sail for Africa, and from thence wrote to the Lady Demetrias the letter, of which the following is an extract, referring to the Gothic invasion. “This dismal calamity is but just over, and you yourself are a witness how Rome that commanded the world was astonished at the alarm of the Gothic trumpet, when that barbarous and victorious nation stormed her walls, and made her way through the breach. Where were then the privileges of birth, and the distinctions of quality? Were not all ranks and degrees leveled at that time, and promiscuously huddled together? Every house was then a scene of misery, and equally filled with grief and confusion. The slave and the man of quality were in the same circumstances, and every where the terror of death and slaughter was the same, unless we may say the fright made the greater impression on those who got the most by living. Now, if flesh and blood has such power over our fears, and mortal men can terrify us to this degree, what will become of us when the trumpet sounds from the sky, and the Arch-angel summons us to judgment; when we are not attacked by sword, or lance, or any thing so feeble as a human enemy: but when all the terrors of nature, the artillery of heaven, and the militia, if I may so speak, of Almighty God, are let loose upon us?” — In the Letters of Augustine , No . 142. 6 History of Charles V . vol. 1, sect. 1. The intelligent reader will not need to be reminded, how well this account of things corresponds with the striking language of the book of Revelation quoted at the beginning of the last Section. 7 This is the circumstance which gave rise to that ponderous folio volume of St. Augustine, intitled, “THE CITY OF GOD.” The writer’s object is to justify the ways of Providence in the destruction of the Roman greatness; and he celebrates with peculiar satisfaction, this memorable occurrence, while he insultingly challenges his adversaries to produce one similar example of a town taken by storm, in which the fabulous gods of antiquity had been able to protect either themselves or their deluded votaries — appealing particularly to the examples of Troy, Syracuse, and Tarentum. Had the life of this great luminary been prolonged about half a century beyond this time, he might have been instructed, by facts and experience, how fallacious his vaunting was. In the year 455, Genseric, a Vandal warrior, invaded Italy, and once more sacked the city of Rome. “The pillage lasted fourteen days and nights, and all that yet remained of public or private wealth, of sacred or profane treasure, was diligently transported to the vessels of Genseric.” Among the spoils were the holy instruments of the Jewish worship, — the golden table, the golden candlesticks with seven branches, etc. which four hundred years before Titus had brought from Jerusalem, and which had been since deposited in the Temple of Peace.

He also stripped the Christian churches of every article of plate and grandeur that was moveable. 8 History of Charles V. vol. 1, sect. 1. 9 Gregory here seems to refer to the irruption of the Goths into the Roman empire, and its total subversion by those Barbarians. — Author . 10 Epist. Greg. Mag. Ep. 32. 11 Epist. Greg. 1. 6. Ep. 30. 12 Introductory Sermons to the Study of Prophecy. Vol. 2, Serm. 7.

APPENDIX TO SECTION 1 Decline and Fall, ch. 46. 2 Campbell’s Lectures on Eccles. History, vol. 2, p. 79.

SECTION 1 See Lardner’s Works, 4to. ed. Vol. 2, p. 295-301, and Long’s History of the Donatists. 2 White’s Bampton Lectures, Notes , p. 8. 3 Ep. Greg. I. 1. 7. Epist. 109. 4 Acts of the Nicene Council, tom. 8. 5 Walch’s Compend. Hist. of the popes, p. 101. 6 The Exarch was the chief imperial officer appointed by the emperor of Constantinople for near two centuries past, to superintend as a vicar or praefect, the affairs of Italy. Ravenna was his residence and the seat of government; and Lori, the territory attached to him, was called the Exarchate of Ravenna. 7 It was at this time the prevailing fashion in the Catholic church to dignify the Virgin Mary with the title of “Mother of God.” The emperor one day said to the patriarch of Constantinople, “What harm would there be in terming the Virgin Mary Mother of Christ ?” “God preserve you,” answered the patriarch, “from entertaining such a thought. Do you not see how Nestorius is anathematized by the whole church for using similar language?” — “I only asked for my own information,” said the emperor; “let it go no further .” 8 Platoon’s Lives of the Popes — Life of Paul I. 9 Platina — Life of Stephen. 10 Platina — Life of Hadrian I. 11 The story of this extraordinary man, the pretended Arabian prophet, has been written by the author of the “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” with all that felicity of diction, for which he stands unrivaled; but at much too great a length to be introduced into this sketch. I have endeavored to seize the more prominent features of the portrait. 12 I am aware that this subject has been much disputed among the learned; but the reader who wishes to see it critically examined will find it done by the learned and judicious Bishop Lowth, in his Lectures on the Hebrew Poetry. See Lect. 32, 33, 34. — See also theBIBLICAL CYCLOPIEDIA, Article Job — and Clark ’s Succession of Sacred Literature , vol. 1, p. 13-15. Also Du Pin on the Canon; and the Notes of Michaelis on Lowth’s Lectures. 13 White’s Bampton Lectures, Serm. 2 and Notes, p. 6. 14 Surely the late Mr. Milner must have been very much off his guard when, writing of this bishop, he tells his reader — “Eloi, bishop of Noyon, carefully visited his large diocese — -and was very successful among the people. — But God was with him both in life and doctrine .”

History of the Church, vol. 3, p. 116. 15 Roberton’s History of Charles V. vol. 1. 16 General History, vol. 1, ch. 35. 17 It is much to be regretted that of this class of Christians, all our information is derived through the medium of their enemies. The two original sources of intelligence concerning them are Photius, b. 1.

Contra Manichaeos; and Siculus Hist. Manicheor. and from them Mosheim and Gibbon have deduced their account of the Paulicians.

The latter writer has entered far more fully into the subject than the former, and, what is singular enough, he has displayed more candor! I have collected from these two modern authors the concise account given above, and have aimed at impartiality. 18 Decline and Fall, vol. 10, ch. 54. 19 Gibbon, Ubi supra . 20 Gibbon, ut supra . 21 “Thrice hail, ye faithful shepherds of the fold, “By tortures unsubdued, unbribed by gold; “In your high scorn of honors, honored most, “Ye chose the martyr’s, not the prelate’s post; “Firmly the thorny path of suffering trod, “And counted death “all gain” to live with God.”

HYPOCRISY, a poem by the Rev. C. Colton, pt. 1. p. 156. 21 It has been already stated that we derive all our information concerning the Paulicians, through the medium of their adversaries, the writers belonging to the Catholic church. It should not, therefore, surprise us to find them imputing the worst of principles and practices to a class of men whom they uniformly decry as heretics. Mosheim says, that of the two accounts of Photius and Peter Siculus, he gives the preference for candor and fairness to that of the latter — and yet I find Mr.

Gibbon acknowledging, that “the six capital errors of the Paulicians are defined by Peter Siculus with much prejudice and passion .” (DECLINE andFALL, vol. 10, ch. 54.) One of their imputed errors is, that they rejected the whole of the Old Testament writings; a charge which was also brought, by the writers of the Catholic school, against the Waldenses and others, with equal regard to truth and justice. But this calumny is easily accounted for. The advocates of popery, to support their usurpations and innovations in the kingdom of Christ, were driven to the Old Testament for authority, adducing the kingdom of David for their example. And when their adversaries rebutted the argument, insisting that the parallel did not hold, for that the kingdom of Christ, which is not of this world, is a very different state of things from the kingdom of David, their opponents accused them of giving up the divine authority of the Old Testament. Upon similar principles, it is not difficult to vindicate the Paulicians from the other charges brought against them; but to do that would require more room than can be here allotted to the subject.

CHAPTER - SECTION 1 The term “Piedmont” is derived from two Latin words, viz. Pede montium , “at the foot of the mountains.” 2 History of the Churches of Piedmont, p. 5. 3 Swinburne’s Travels, ch. 44. 4 Robinson’s Eccles. Researches, p. 280. 5 General History, ch. 69. 6 Dr. Allix’s Remarks on the Ancient Churches of Piedmont, ch. 5, p. 32. 7 Allix’s Remarks, p. 52. 8 Allix’s Remark, ch. 9, p. 64-77. 9 Collection of his Works, tom. 1, quoted by Dr. Allix, p. 72.

SECTION 1 For the honor of our country, I here record a few particulars concerning Alcuin. He was born in the north of England, and educated at York, under the direction of archbishop Egbert, whom in his letters he frequently styles his beloved master, and the clergy of York the companions of his youthful studies. Being sent on an embassy by Offa, king of Mercia, to the emperor Charlemagne, his talents and his virtues so won upon the latter, that he contracted a high esteem for him, and a mutual friendship ensued. Charles earnestly solicited, and at length prevailed upon him to settle in his court and become his preceptor in the sciences. He accordingly instructed that prince in rhetoric, logic, mathematics, and divinity, and was treated with so much kindness and familiarity by the emperor, that by way of eminence, the courtiers called him “the emperor’s delight.”

Alcuin, having passed many years in the most intimate familiarity with Charlemagne, at length, with great difficulty, obtained leave to retire to his Abbey of St. Martins at Tours. Here he kept up a constant correspondence with the emperor, and their letters evince their mutual regard for religion and learning, and their anxiety to promote them in the most munificent manner. In one of these letters, which Dr. Henry has translated, there is a passage which throws some light on the learning of the times. “The employments of your Alcuin,” says he to the emperor, “in his retreat, are suited to his humble sphere, but they are neither inglorious nor unprofitable. I spend my time in the halls of St. Martin, in teaching some of the noble youths under my care the intricacies of grammar, and inspiring them with a taste for the learning of the ancients; in describing to others the order and revolutions of those shining orbs which adorn the azure vault of heaven; and in explaining to others the mysteries of divine wisdom, which are contained in the Holy Scriptures; suiting my instructions to the views and capacities of my scholars, that I may train up many to be ornaments to the church of God and to the court of your imperial majesty. In doing this, I find a great want of several things, particularly of those excellent books in all arts and sciences, which I enjoyed in my native country, through the expense and care of my great master Egbert. May it, therefore, please your majesty, animated with the most ardent love of learning, to permit me to send some of your young gentlemen into England, to procure for us those books which we want, and transplant the flowers of Britain into France, that their fragrance may no longer be confined to York, but may perfume the palaces of Tours.” Charlemagne often solicited Alcuin to return to court, but he excused himself, and remained at Tours until his death, May 19, 804.

He understood the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew languages extremely well; was an excellent orator, philosopher, and mathematician. His works, which consist of fifty-three treaties, homilies, commentaries, letters, poems, etc. are comprised in 2 vols. folio. 2 Gibbon, vol. 9, ch. 49. 3 The following short letter written by Charlemagne, and addressed to Odilbert, archbishop of Metz, while it exhibits a striking proof of this monarch’s concern to promote attention to the means of instruction and learning, is not less deserving regard on account of the disclosure which it makes of the state of religion in his day. “We have often wished,” says he, “if we could accomplish it, to converse with you and your colleagues familiarly on the utility of the holy church of God. But although we are not ignorant of the real concern with which you watch over divine things, yet we must not omit, while we trust in the co-operating influence of the Holy Spirit, by our authority to exhort and admonish you to labor in word and doctrine in the church of God, more and more studiously, and with watchful perseverance; so that by your pious diligence the word of God may spread and flourish extensively, and the number of the Christian people may be multiplied, to the praise and glory of our Savior. Wherefore we desire to know in writing, or from your own mouth, in what manner you and your clergy teach and instruct both those who are candidates for the holy office of the ministry, and the people committed to you in the Sacrament of Baptism. That is, Why does a child first become a Catechuman? and what is a Catechuman?

And so of other things in their order. Of examination, what is it? Of the creed; what is the interpretation, or meaning of it among the Latins? Of belief, in what manner are we to believe in God the Father Almighty, in Jesus Christ his Son, and in the Holy Spirit? etc. Of renouncing Satan, and his works and pomp, what is this renunciation?

What is the meaning of breathing on the person, and exorcising him?

Why does the Catechuman receive salt? Why are the ears touched? the breast anointed with oil? the arms crossed? and the breast and arms washed? Why are white garments put on? Why is the head anointed with the holy chrism? Why is it covered with a mystical vail? And why is conformation made with the body and blood of Christ? All these things we require you by careful study to examine, and to report an accurate account of them to us in writing; and further, to state whether you so maintain and preach these things, and govern your own life by the doctrines which you preach.” Rankin ’s History of France , vol. 1, p. 406. Now all this had been well, if the Scriptures had said any thing about these things; but it was unfortunate for the zeal of this monarch, that the things here enumerated, and about which he was concerned, were almost entirely the corruptions of Christianity, with which that divine institution has nothing to do, except to condemn them as the doctrines and commandments of men. One cannot but feel curious to know what kind of answers the archbishop would return to these sage questions. 4 Millot’s Elements of General History, part 2. 5 Vita Ludov. Pii. Passim. 6 Gibbon’s Rome, vol. 9, ch. 49. 7 Russel’s Modern Europe, vol. 1, let. 10. 8 Fleury’s Eccles. Hist. 9 Quoted from Fleury’s Eccles. Hist. 10 Voltaire’s Universal History, vol. 1, ch. 36. 11 Mosheim’s Eccles. Hist. vol. 2, cent. 11, part 2. 12 Fleury’s Eccles. History. 13 Life of Gregory VII. by Dithmar. 14 The word ban originally signified banner, afterwards edict, and lastly, a declaration of outlawry, which was thus intimated: “We declare thy wife a widow, thy children orphans, and send thee, in the name of the devil, to the four corners of the earth.” 15 Russell’s Modern Europe, vol. 1, part 1, letter 23, and the authors there quoted on this subject.

SECTION 1 See chap. 4, sect. 1, and L’Hist. Generale des Eglises Vaud. par. Giles Juan Leger, ch. 20, 21, 22, 28. Rankin’s Hist. France, vol. 3. 2 Perrin’s History of the Vaudois, part 2, b. 2, ch. 4. 3 Dr. Rankin’s History of France, vol. 3, p. 193-198. 4 Mosheim, vol. 2, Cent. 11, part 2. 5 We shall see reason hereafter to believe that, in this particular, Evervinus misrepresented them. 6 Dr. Haweis loses all patience with his brother Milner, for attempting to introduce the great Bernard into the calendar of saints. “I am astonished,” says he, “at his attempt to enroll Bernard in his catalogue of evangelical religion. Saint added to such a name would be impious.

However orthodox some of his sentiments may be, can false miracles, lying prophecies, bloody persecutions of the faithful, and servitude to the papacy and her dominion, constitute a saint of the first water? A protestant divine disgraces his page by these commendations, and renders even the truths which he supports, and contends for as evangelical, suspicious.” Impartial Hist . vol 2, p. 230. In all this I fully agree with Dr. Haweis; but then it furnishes me with a powerful plea against his own consistency, who has no scruple to enroll in his catalogue the names of Athanasius and Augustine — men equally renowned for their lust of power, their persecuting principles, their false miracles, their lying prophecies, and abject servitude to the prevailing corruption of their respective times.

To the character of Bernard, however, let us not be unjust. He was not a blind and slavish supporter of the court of Rome, even in those days.

On the contrary, he used the greatest freedom of speech in lashing the vices of the clergy of his time, and made himself extremely obnoxious to them by his free remonstrances. “Who at the outset,” says he, “when the order of monks began, would ever have imagined that monks would become so wicked as they since have? Oh, how unlike are we to those in the days of Anthony? Did Macarius live in such a manner? Did Basil teach so? Did Anthony ordain so? Did the fathers in Egypt carry themselves so? How is the light of the world become darkness? How is the salt of the earth become unsavory? I am a liar,” says he, “if I have not seen an abbot having above sixty horses in his train! When ye saw them riding, ye might say, ‘These are not fathers of monasteries, but lords of castles — not shepherds of souls, but princes of provinces!’ — Oh, vanity of vanities! the walls of churches are glorious, while the poor are starving.” Even the popes themselves were not spared by Bernard. He wrote to Eugenius and to Innocent the Second, imputing to them the blame of all the wickedness in the church, — though he approved of its constitution, and defended all its rights and ceremonies. This inconsistent conduct gave rise to a saying which passed into a proverb, and was common for centuries after, viz. Bernardus non vidit omnia — Bernard does not see every thing. 7 See his Sermon against the Cathari in Bib. Pat. tom.2, p. 99, 106.

D’Anver’s Hist. Bapt. p. 249. 8 Dr. Allix’s Remarks, p. 150. 9 Serm. 1, p. 889, in Bib. pp. Colon. ed. quoted by Dr. Allix, p. 152. 10 Mosheim’s Church History, vol. 3, cent. 12 part 2, ch. 5 and the authors there referred to. 11 Mosheim, vol. 3, cent. 12, part 2, ch. 5. 12 Brewster’s Edinburgh Encyclop. Art.ARNOLD. 13 Allix’s Remarks, p. 169. 14 Dr. Allix’s Remarks, p. 172. 15 Robinson ’s Ecclesiastical Researches , p. 407-412. and p. 455. As it may afford satisfaction to some readers to know from what sources of authority Mr. R. has drawn his account of thePATERINES, I here subjoin them.MURATORI, Antiq . Ital . tom. 5.GREGORII, contra Manichaeos , qui Paterini dicuntur , opusculi specimen , cap. 6.SICARDI Episcopi Cremonensis chronicon , ad. An. 1213.BONACURSI Vitae haereticorum . Manifestatio haeresis Catharorum D’ARCHERII Spicilegium , tom. 1. 208. De Catharis monitum .