KARLY AGES OF CHRISTIANITY. 



165 



as heretical, was to another sound 

 doctrine. What was the consequence? The 

 clergy, whose influence was already great at 

 court, and still greater among the people, began 

 to withdraw from the sovereign authority that 

 respect which religion inspires. The popular 

 ferments being heightened by the animosity of 

 the clergy, prince, country, law, and duty, were 

 no longer regarded. Men were Arians, Dona- 

 tists, Priscillianists, Nestorians, Eutychians, 

 Monotholites, &c., but no longer citizens; or 

 rather, every man became the mortal enemy of 

 those citizens whose opinions he condemned. 

 This unheard-of madness, for irreconcilable quar 

 rels on subjects that ought to have been referred 

 to the judgment of the Church, never abetted amidst 

 trie, most dreadful disasters. Every sect formed 

 a different party in the state, and their mutual 

 animosities conspired to sap its foundations.&quot;* 



At the period to which these observations re 

 fer, it appears that two erroneous maxims gene 

 rally prevailed, which tended to undermine the 

 moral system of revelation, and which were pro 

 ductive of almost all the tumults, massacres, and 

 disasters, which distinguished that era of the 

 Christian church. These were, 1. That reli 

 gion consists chiefly in the belief of certain ab 

 stract and incomprehensible dogmas, and in the 

 performance of a multitude of external rites and 

 ceremonies: and, 2. That all heresies or differ 

 ences of opinion on religious points, ought to be 

 extirpated by the strong arm of the civil power. 

 Than such maxims, nothing can be more repug 

 nant to reason, more subversive of genuine mo 

 rality, or more inconsistent with the spirit and 

 genius of the Christian religion. And yet, to 

 this very hour, they are recognised and acted 

 upon by more than three fourths of the Christian 

 world, notwithstanding the melancholy examples 

 wnich history has furnished of their futility, and 

 tneir pernicious tendency. The narrow limits 

 to which I am confined will permit me to state 

 only two or three instances in reference to the 

 period to which I allude. 



Theodosius, one of the emperors, who com 

 menced his reign in the year 379, and who re 

 ceived baptism during a dangerous distemper, in 

 the second year of it, professed great zeal in fa 

 vour of religion. By a law addressed to the 

 people of Constantinople, he enacted, &quot; That all 

 (subjects shall profess the catholic faith with re 

 gard to the articles of the Trinity ; and that they 

 who do not conform shall ignominiously be called 

 heretics, until they shall feel the vengeance of 

 God and our own, according as it shall please 

 Divine providence to inspire us.&quot; He declared 

 apostates and Manicheans incapable of making a 

 will, or receiving any legacy ; and having pro 

 nounced them worthy of death, the people thought 

 they had a right to kill them as proscribed per- 



Mill-rt s Modern History, voL i 



sons. He enacted a law, condemning lo the 

 flames cousins german who married without a 

 special license from the emperor. He establish 

 ed inquisitors for the discovery of heretics. He 

 drove the Manicheans* from Rome as infamous 

 persons, and, on their death, ordered their goods 

 to be distributed among the people. Yet, with 

 all this religious zeal, he, on one occasion, gave 

 orders for a universal massacre at Thessalonica, 

 because some persons of distinction had been 

 killed in a sedition at the time of the races. The 

 inhabitants were caused to assemble in the circus, 

 under the pretence of an exhibition of games, 

 and slaughtered without distinction of age. 

 Seven thousand, according to some, and fifteen 

 thousand according to others, the greatest part 

 unquestionably innocent, were thus sacrificed to 

 atrocious revenge. f Leo, another emperor, 

 &quot; commanded every person to be baptized, under 

 pain of banishment, and made it capital to relapse 

 into idolatry, after the performance of the cere 

 mony ;&quot; just as if Christians could be made by 

 a forced baptism, or by a law of the state. Such 

 edicts clearly showed, that, whatever zeal prin 

 ces or the clergy might manifest in favour of the 

 Christian religion, they were grossly ignorant of 

 its true spirit, and of the means by which its 

 benevolent objects were to be accomplished. 



As a specimen of the manner in which such 

 edicts were sometimes carried into effect, the 

 following instance may be stated. Hypatia, 

 daughter of the celebrated Geometrician, Theon 

 of Alexandria, exceeded her father in learning, and 

 gave public lectures in Philosophy, with the 

 greatest applause ; nor was she less admirable 

 for the purity of her virtue, joined to an uncom 

 mon beauty, and every accomplishment that 

 could adorn human nature. But this excellent 

 woman, because she was a Pagan, trusted by the 

 magistrates and suspected to be active against 

 St. Cyril, the bishop, became an object of detes 

 tation to the Christian multitude. A set of 

 monks and desperadoes, headed by a priest, seiz 

 ed her in the open street, hurried her into a 

 church, where they stripped her naked, tore her 

 body with whips, cut her in pieces, and publicly 

 burned her mangled limbs in the market place.J 

 St. Cyril, who was suspected of having fomented 

 this tragedy, had previously attacked the syna 

 gogues, and driven out the Jews ; their goods 

 were pillaged, and several persons perished in the 

 tumult. Such conduct plainly demonstrates the 

 tendency of the human mind, in every situation, 

 to abuse power and authority, for the purposes of 

 persecution and revenge; and shows us what 

 false ideas the Christians of that period must 

 have entertained of the God of Mercy ; and how 



* The distinguishing characteristic of the Mani 

 cheans was, their recognising the doctrine of two 

 independent and eternal principles, the one the au 

 thor of all good, and the other the author ot tui evil. 



t Millet s Ancient History, vol. li. 



I Millot s Ancient Hist. vol. ii. 



