REIGNS OF VALENS-GRATIAN-THEODOSIUS.

405

churches to their opponents. After this, he pursued measures still more violent against them-some were sentenced to be whipped, others disgraced, several imprisoned, and many fined. But the worst part of his conduct was his cruel and treacherous behaviour towards eighty of them, whom, under the pretext of sending them into banishment, he ordered to be put on shipboard, and as it sailed out of the harbour caused the vessel to be set on fire, in consequence of which they all perished, either by fire or water. Cruelties of this kind continued to the end of his reign, which terminated in the year 378, when he lost his life in a battle with the Goths. He was succeeded by his nephew, Gratian, the son of his brother Valentinian, who was of the orthodox party. This new monarch recalled those whom his predecessor had sent into exile, restored them to their sees, and sent Sapores, one of his military officers, to drive the Arians like so many wild beasts out of all their churches.

Soon after his accession to power, Gratian united with himself, as colleague in the government, "the great Theodosius, a name celebrated in history, and dear to the Catholic church;" for, on his advancement to the throne, he betrayed a warm zeal for the orthodox opinions. Hearing that the city of Constantinople was divided into different religious parties, he addressed a letter to them from Thessalonica, in which he gives them to understand that "it was his pleasure all his subjects should be of the same profession as Damasus, bishop of Rome, and Peter, bishop of Alexandria; that their church alone should be denominated" Catholic" who worshipped the divine Trinity as equal in honour; and that those who were of another opinion should be deemed heretics, be regarded as infamous, and subject to other punishments."* And, on his arrival in the imperial city, he sent for Demophilus, the Arian bishop, demanding to know whether he would subscribe the Nicene confession of faith, adding, "If you do not, I will drive you from your churches"-and he kept his word, for he turned him and all the Arians out of the city.

The more effectually to extinguish heresy, Theodosius, in the year 383, summoned a council of bishops of his own persuasion,

*Sozomen, b. vii, ch. iv.-vi.

to meet at Constantinople, in order to confirm the Nicene faith -their number amounted to 150, independent of 36 of the Macedonian party. They decreed that the Nicene faith should be sustained as the standard of orthodoxy, and that all heresies should be condemned. When the sitting of the council was over, the emperor issued two edicts against heretics-the first prohibiting them from holding any assemblies, and the second forbidding them to meet in fields or villages. And, as though this were not sufficiently extravagant, he followed up this absurd procedure by a law, in which he forbade heretics to worship, or to preach, to ordain bishops or presbyters, commanding some to be banished, and others rendered infamous and deprived of the common privileges of citizens. In the space of fifteen years this intolerant emperor promulgated at least fifteen several edicts against the heretics. It is indeed some apology for him that he did not always put these execrable edicts in force, and one would charitably hope that the historians who have recorded these whimsical transactions were correct in thinking that all he intended by them was to terrify others into the same opinions of the Divine Being which he himself entertained.

But the zeal of Theodosius was not restricted to the establishment of uniformity among the professors of Christianity; he was equally anxious to extinguish the expiring embers of Paganism. About the year 390 he issued a law, in which he expressly stated that it was his will and pleasure, that none of his subjects, whether magistrates or private citizens, however exalted or however humble their rank in life, should presume, in any city or in any place, to worship an inanimate idol by the sacrifice of a guiltless victim. Such persons were declared guilty of the crime of high treason against the state, and made liable to death. The rites of Paganism were abolished as being highly injurious to the truth and honour of religion. Such were the intolerant edicts of Theodosius against the Pagans, and they were rigorously enforced. The result was-that "so rapid and yet so gentle was the fall of Paganism, that, only twenty-eight years after the death of Theodosius, the faint and minute vestiges were no longer visible to the eye of the legislator."

LECTURE XXII.

Descriptive Characters of Antichrist—Predilection for national Christianity accounted for-Little Horn of Daniel, Paul's Man of Sin, and John's Antichrist, the same power-Bishop Hurd referred to and criticized-Scripture the Rule of judging-Claims of the Church of England examined—Her connexion with the "Mother of Harlots"-The Apocalyptic Tenhorned Beast—History of the Roman Empire from the Death of Theodosius-Irruption of the Gothic Tribes into ItalySiege of the City of Rome-Sketch of the Misery to which the Inhabitants are reduced-The City sacked and pillagedOverthrow of the Empire and its Partition into ten independent States-These Kingdoms adopt the Religion of the Church of Rome, and lend their Support to the Beast-Dr. Robertson and Mr. Hallam quoted, A. D. 400 to 500.

WE are now about to enter upon the Ecclesiastical History of the fifth century of the Christian era; at which time, if I may be allowed so to speak, a new world rose into existence. Paganism had irrecoverably sunk to rise no more-Christianity had become the established religion of the Roman empire-her professed friends were no longer called upon to "take up the cross," and follow their divine master, in the way of patiently bearing the hatred of the world; for the world itself was now christianized through the carnal policy of Constantine and the Clergy; and such was the revolution which had taken place, that, at the expiration of three hundred years from the death of the last of the apostles, scarcely a vestige of the primitive church order, discipline, and worship was to be found in what was

called the Catholic church. As the traveller upon a journey through an extensive country occasionally arrives at certain advantageous spots or eminences from which he can obtain a commanding view of the scenery through which he has passed, and the progress he has made, so it may be useful to us to avail ourselves of the present opportunity of reviewing our footsteps, and ascertaining the position on which we are now placed.

I am fully aware that, by persons whose judgments of the profession of Christianity are regulated by maxims of worldly prudence and convenience, by the wisdom of man or the decisions of councils, the change which had, at this period, been introduced will be hailed with applause as the most glorious that can be conceived. Such indeed it has appeared to, and such has been the case with, the advocates of national establishments of religion, from the days of Constantine until now. It is a constitution of things which has never wanted supporters, nor is ever likely to do so, especially from the clergy, whose secular interests are closely identified with it. But, if we would judge aright of it, we must bring it to the touchstone of the New Testamentexamine what apostles and prophets have placed upon record concerning it-and especially compare it with the doctrine of Christ himself concerning his own kingdom. If we do this, under the influence of the fear of God-venerating the authority of the Lord Jesus as the alone Lord, Lawgiver, and Judge-and with an ear to hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches, we shall probably be compelled to arrive at a different conclusion on this important subject.

It will, I presume, be readily admitted, by all who are conversant with the holy Scriptures, that there are various predictions in the Old and New Testament, particularly in the book of Daniel, in the epistles of Paul and John, and more especially in the Apocalypse, which clearly point out a very extraordinary power that was to manifest itself in the times subsequent to the introduction of Christianity. The first clear intimation that we have of it is in Daniel ch. vii. 7, where it is spoken of as a little horn, rising up among ten greater ones, but differing essentially from them, "having the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things," ver. 8. This same little horn is afterwards de

ANTICHRIST FORETOLD.

409

scribed as "making war with the saints and prevailing against them," ver. 21, from which we infer that one of the features of this power, and by which it was to be peculiarly distinguished, was its persecution of the people of God. I do not at present stop to explain these things to you, but content myself with merely referring to the prophecy, and requesting you to keep it in mind, as I shall hereafter have occasion to refer to it.

If now we turn to the New Testament we find the apostle Paul foretelling an awful apostasy, or falling away from the Christian profession, which was to take place after his day, in which "the man of sin was to be revealed, the son of perdition, who should oppose and exalt himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God," 2 Thess. ii. 3, 4. We next pass on to the apostle John, and find him saying "Little children, ye have heard that Antichrist shall come," 1 John, ii. 18. I do not here stop to prove that, by the little horn of Daniel, the man of sin spoken of by Paul, and the Antichrist of John, one and the same power is intended: this point I think I have sufficiently made out in my "Lectures on the Apocalypse."

With regard to the etymology of the word Antichrist, I may observe that it is capable of two different meanings;-it may signify one who assumes the place and office of Christ, i. e. who undertakes to legislate in the affairs of religion; or one who maintains a direct enmity and opposition to him, and in either view the title is perfectly appropriate and applicable to the power in question. I will add that the idea which the early Christians, in general, formed of Antichrist, was that of a power, to be revealed in distant times, when the Roman empire should be broken up and partitioned into ten kingdoms-of a power which was to arise out of the ruins of that empire, agreeably to the prophecy of Daniel. On this point, the testimony of Jerome may suffice. He says, expressly, that such was the notion of all the ecclesiastical writers down to his time.t

*

But an inquiry of vast importance, and, as it would seem, of no

AVTX50s—arı, in the sense either of pro or contra; that is either for or against.

+ Hieronymus in Dan. vii.