immoral, because they are formed in such a fashion as to be unable to practice its precepts.

It has been urged against the religion of Mohammed, that it was propagated by the sword, while Christianity is said to have made its way by the mild and unassisted influence of persuasion. This distinction is triumphantly insisted on by the true sons of the Church; yet, strange as the inconsistency may appear, the same individuals, who abuse the teachers of the Koran for intolerance, are the most active encouragers of modern prosecutions. But however anxiously the zealous, but injudicious piety of ecclesiastical writers, may induce them to disguise or pervert the truth, it cannot be denied that the religion of Jesus met with very little encouragement before the conversion of Constantine, which happened three hundred years after the first preaching of the gospel. During this interval, the Christians were regarded by the pagan philosophers as fanatical enthusiasts; but the universal toleration of polytheism was not withheld from the worshippers of the crucified Nazarene. It is true that they suffered persecution under the Emperors; but it must also be confessed, that the sufferings they endured have been grossly exaggerated, nor can they in point of intensity or duration, be compared with the torturings

which, in later times, the Christians have inflicted on one another. When Constantine renounced the religion of his ancestors, he employed the temporal force of his despotism to secure the triumph of his new creed. The royal convert abrogated the Edict of Milan, which permitted to every Roman citizen the privilege of choosing his own religion. He imitated the example of Augustus, in uniting in his own person the spiritual and temporal dignities, and seems to have been as well aware of the advantages to be derived from the union of the regal and pontifical authority, as that British Monarch, who used to repeat as a favourite maxim, "No Bishop, No King." If the character of Constantine is judged by the panegyrics of the clergy, a very erroneous estimate will be formed of his real merit. Whether his abjuration of paganism be ascribed to bigotry, ambition, or conscientious feelings, it cannot be forgotten, in an impartial estimate of his virtues, that his hands were stained with the blood of his own chlid, and surely it is not uncharitable to presume, that the man who could violate without remorse the most endearing ties of nature, was but imperfectly acquainted with the spirit of his new religion. Neither will it excite surprise that the murder of his son was followed by the persecution of his subjects. "After a preamble filled with

passion and reproach, Constantine absolutely prohibits the assemblies of the heretics, and confiscates their property either to the use of the state, or of the Catholic Church. The sects against whom the imperial severity was directed, appear to have been the adherents of Paul of Samosata; the Montanists of Phrygia, who maintained an enthusiastic succession of prophecy; the Novatians, who sternly rejected the temporal efficacy of repentance; the Marcionites and Valentinians, under whose leading banners the various gnostics of Asia and Egypt had insensibly rallied: and perhaps the Manichæans, who had recently imported from Persia a more artful composition of Oriental and Christian theology. The design of extirpating the name, or at least of restraining the progress of these odious heretics, was prosecuted with rigour and effect. Some of the penal regulations were copied from the edicts of Dioclesian; and this method of conversion was applauded by the same Bishops, who had felt the hand of oppression, and pleaded the cause of humanity."*†

*This extract is sufficient to remove that vulgar error, which industriously, teaches that Christianity has been propagated solely by the unassisted influence of persuasion; and the philosopher will not fail to observe the similarity of

+ Gibbon's Hist. Vol. 3, p. 305, 8vo edition.

The persecuting spirit of Constantine and his counsellors appears to have been attended with little success; for, in spite of the severity of the imperial edicts, differences of opinion continued, and at the commencement of the fourth century, a council was convened at Nice, to decide on the incomprehensible mystery of the Trinity. So keen had been the discussions on this famous subject of polemical controversy, that three distinct systems had been established; and under the title of Arians, Tritheists, and Sabellians, three different hypotheses had been formed of the nature of the Logos. By the decree of the council, the profane doctrine of Arius was pronounced heretical; the presbyter himself was deprived of his ecclesiastical dignity, and banished; his writings were burnt, and sentence of death was fulminated against all in whose possession they might happen to be found. If the infliction of penal laws had been sufficient to produce conformity of opinion, the cruel punishment inflicted on Arius, and the rigour with which his followers were threatened, would

policy pursued by the ancient and modern Church. It may also be noticed as a singular fact, that Constantine and Henry the Eighth of England, the two greatest royal Reformers in the Christian faith, of which history makes mention, were both infamous in private character. Bat "out of evil cometh good."

have secured the orthodox church from a recurrence of the danger with which its integrity had been menaced. But when the reader considers, that almost immediately after the dissolution of the Council of Nice, no fewer than eighteen distinct modifications of the Arian heresy appeared, he may be inclined to suppose, that penal laws are not exactly the fittest weapons to put down schismatical opinions.

1

In the following reign, the persecuted Arians were taken into favour, and Constantius determined to elevate their leader to the archiepiscopal throne: a resolution, which the sudden death of Arius prevented him from fulfilling. It is curious to observe the particular situation in which Constantine and his successor were placed, at the time when they avowed their religious opinions. On the night preceding the battle of the Milvian bridge, Constantine is said to have received a visit from Christ, and in the morning of the eventful day, which rendered him master of the world, to have seen a cross in the sky, encircled by the motto:

66

By this sign you shall conquer." Whether the Emperor deceived himself, or wished to deceive others, every one may believe as he pleases, for it is impossible to decide the fact: thus much, however, is certain, that in conse