Dr. Priefley thinks, for different reafons, that Conftantine's vifion was a natural phænomenon, and that the other circumftances were imagined or invented: the event of the battle probably determined whether it was in the emperor's opinion the crofs, or the illufion of a demon. This period extends from the establishinent of Chriftianity to the death of Conftantine, in 337

The reign of Conftantius was diftinguished for the very frequent contefts between the Arians and Athanafians, either fupported by the emperors of the East and Weft, the fons of Conftantine, or by the different prelates of Conftantinople and Rome, who already began to affume fome pre-eminence; an allowed fuperiority, rather than a legal one. The idle contests of this period are not of confequence enough to delay us for a moment, even if they were not known. The Arians were fupported in the Eaft; and Conftantius, with the eastern empire and the throne of his father, had inherited his religious prejudices alfo: yet Arianifm only dawned. It was fuppofed and maintained that there was fome difference of rank and of nature between the Son and the Father, but the doctrine was not fo clearly and indubitably defined, as in a subsequent period, the time of Apollinaris, when Arianism was more ftrictly a fect. Dr. Priestley again refers to the Chriftians no longer gaining con verts from the fynagogue, and repeats the reafon, that they no longer preferved what was to the Jews the most important tenet, the unity of the Godhead: not to return to our former arguments, we may add that, if this were their oniy obftacle, the Ebionites, an obfcure fet, ftill remained, where at least they could not be in a more abject state; the Arians might have afforded the lefs fcrupulous Jews an afylum; and Photinus, in a later age, might have opened the gates of the church without infringing on their favourite system. In short, we have no hesitation in saying, that the reason is without foundation, as well as the affertion, that the venerable Hofius' of Corduba favoured the Unitarians. He probably changed with his master Conftantine, and was of the Arian fect; but his Arianism was of the stricter caft, and, even in his second childhood, at the age of more than 100, he withstood the threats, and it is faid the tortures, of thofe who would compel him to fign a creed, which might be called a qualified Arianifm. Photinus, and the Unitarians of that age, who were accused in the fame council, were filenced, and feemingly vanquished; and we no where find that they charged their opponents with fullying the purity of the Chriftian fyftem, or argued on the antiquity and originality of their own, though little more than 300 years had elapfed from the death of Chrift. The Trinitarian

doxology

doxology was introduced in this reign by Flavianus of Antioch, and the alternate finging the verses of the Pfalms by Flavianus and Diodorus.

Some notice is taken of the perfecutions in Perfia, fuppofed to have occurred in this reign, which, like other perfecutions, are probably exaggerated. This too was the era of Lactantius and Eufebius.

The former reigns fhow the inutility of councils, and the abfurdity of creeds of human fabrication. The worft paffions are occafionally displayed, and ecclefiaftical history abounds with as dangerous vices and enormities as profane hiftory. Yet this is not the general character of this æra. Julian, who fucceeded, and who earnestly endeavoured to restore the ancient religion, does ample juftice to the piety, the charity, the benevolence of the Chriftians; and among the few attempts to reform the manners, while he introduced the rites of the Heathens, much was borrowed from the conduct of the Chriftians. Julian perhaps really had a little mind, as Dr. Priestley fuppofes, but his brilliancy, his wit, the elegance of his ftyle, and his warm attachment to his former friends, render him, in fome degree, refpectable. He was, however, eager, capricious, impetuous, and often inconfiderate; his wit and his brilliancy were unaccompa nied by prudence: his attempts were neither diftinguished by forefight, nor judgment. His direct and indirect oppofition to Christianity are particularly pointed out; but each confifted in the deprivation of honours and of rank, and in infults: history can furnish no inftances of punishment by authority, and the terrible ftories brought forward with no little care, we must remember were the exceffes of a mob, and at beft the relations of the furferers. Even in the following story and the reflections, we think our author has not displayed a fufficient portion of candour. The facrifice of human victims was confined to the more favage religions of the North, and to harfher fects than those who believed in the Grecian mythology.

Chufing to march through Carrhæ, rather than Edessa, becaufe this place abounded with Chriftians, he entered into a temple, and after performing fome fecret rites, he fhut and sealed the door, leaving a guard of foldiers to fee that it was not opened till his return. As he did not return, and a Chriftian emperor fucceeded him, it is faid that temple was opened, and that the body of a woman, who had been facrificed for the fake of infpecting her liver, was found fufpended by the hair of her head, and her hands extended. It is alfo faid, but with still less appearance of truth, that many heads of perfons who had been killed for fimilar purpofes were found at Antioch. Such, fays our hiftorian, are the rites of these abominable deities.

These flories I do not relate because I think them deferving

of

of credit, but because they are fufficiently fimilar to other facts which no perfon acquainted with the heathen antiquity can deny; fo that they give us a juft idea of the true fpirit and tendency of thofe heathen fuperftitions, to which this emperor was addicted almost to infatuation. It cannot be denied that the entrails not only of animals, but also of men and women, have been thought proper fubjects of infpection in various rites of the heathen religion; a man having been thought a more valuable victim than a beast, and that the surest prognostics were procured by their means.

By means of Chriftianity we in this country are happily removed from the actual obfervance of any thing of this kind, and are therefore more incredulous on the fubject than we should otherwise have been; but all history attests that there is no practice fo abominable or so cruel, as not to have been authorised by the religion of Julian; and he endeavoured to reftore it without any restriction, as it had been practised for ages before him. In this religion there were many fecret rites, at which none but the initiated were present, and which they were under the most folemn obligation not to reveal. These myfterics, as they were called, were not the fublime doctrines of the unity of God, and the vanity of the popular fuperftition, as Warburton paradoxically maintains, but in fome cafes, fuch things as it would have fhocked the common people too much to have been acquainted with. It is impoffible to know, and efpecially to feel, the value of Chriftianity, without a knowledge of the heathen religion, which it happily supplanted.'

In an ecclefiaftical view, this reign was diftinguifhed by the doctrine of the divinity of the Holy Ghoft: it is represented as the refult of the councils of Eufebius end Athanafius.

We have not noticed Dr. Priestley's oppofition to, and sometimes his cavils, respecting Mr. Gibbon's, representations, Thinking, in general, with the hiftorian before us, and regretting the farcasms of an able and elegant writer, farcasms often as weak as his remarks on other subjects are judicious, we might be misunderstood if we had in any cafe attempted to reply. We may, however, be allowed to fay, that Dr. Priestley's obfervations on Mr. Gibbon's account of Julian, are not always fair or juft; and no farcafm of the hiftorian of the Roman empire can be more illiberal than our author's remark on the work of Julian, in oppofition to Christianity.

This work, however, from the particular anfwer to it by Cyril, and every thing that we can collect concerning it, appears to have contained nothing new or important, but to have borne marks of the most inveterate prejudice and antipathy, a fure indication of a mind not fufficiently candid to give the arguments in favour of Christianity their proper weight.

Accordingly, it does not appear that this work of Julian,

which had more of humour than of argument in it, made a feious impreffion on any perfon whatever, notwithstanding the fingular advantage of having an emperor for its author. The on y feming advantage which Julian had arofe from the doctrine of the divinity of Chrift, which had been embraced by too many of the leading Chriftians of his time. The manner in which Libanius fpeaks of this work fufficiently fhews this, “In the long nights of the winter he wrote those books which fhew the folly of that religion which teaches that a man of Palestine was a God, and the fon of God." What Socrates fays, in re ply to Julian's ridiculing Christianity for thus deifying a man, hews to what difficulties Chriftians were reduced by this doctrine. "Heathens, he fays, cannot understand this doctrine till they believe it," and for this purpose he quotes If. chap. vi. Unless ye believe, ye will not understand."

His remarks on the conduct of the Chriftians, and particularly the Chriftians in Julian's army, do not, we think, fully justify them from the imputation of an improper weakness, in complying with pagan ceremonies; and it is unwarrantable to fuppofe, that Julian would probably have become a perfecutor, because some of the heathen emperors had commenced their reigns with moderation.

Jovian enjoyed the imperial power but a few months, and thefe feem to have been chiefly diftinguished by an unlimited toleration. Valentinian and Valens, the next emperors, like the fons of Conftantine, differed in their religious fentiments: the former adhering to the creed of Nice, the latter to the stricteft fect of Arius: moderation was, in his opinion, a more capital crime than herefy. Valens is faid to have perfecuted the Athanafians, and the more moderate Arians; but the worst punishment he inflicted was exile. Bafil, furnamed the Great, was, with Gregory of Nazianzen, the most able supporter of the Catholic faith in this period; and by their endeavours it was brought, as Dr. Priestley obferves, to its prefent form.

Of the fects of this period, we need only notice what our author has obferved of the Unitarians; and it is remarkable, that, by his own confeffion, they do not occur in any historian of this reign. It is, we allow, probable that they may have exifted, because Photinus, and even Paul of Samofata, were not, in this age of herefy and free enquiry, forgotten; but they were evidently few, and neither confpicuous for their rank, their learning, or their abilities; and it is of little confequence what men who cannot read, and whose judgment is not matured by frequent practice, think: any doctrine will gain but little credit by their fupport. The multitude, and perfons of low understanding,' alluded to by Athanafius, as blafphemers, are

evidently

evidently Unitarians, yet, from the tenor of his work, he confiders often the Arians as blafphemers alfo. We have no hefitation, however, in leaving the ignorant multitude, the Ebionites of the fourth and fifth centuries, within the confines of Unitarianifm. The council of Laodicea may probably be referred to this reign. The faft, previous to Eafter, was lengthened by its authority; the invocation to angels condemned; but it was most remarkable for fixing the prefent cationical books of Scripture. The writers were numerous; and they are fuffi ciently known.

To Theodofius was certainly owing the complete eftablishment of the catholic faith; and we can now readily trust Dr. Priestley's encomium on him, for, if he was warped by his fyftem, it would be in a contrary direction. Theodofius evidently poffeffed a strong mind and a grateful heart: he aimed, perhaps, too eagerly to produce conformity by conferences, or the weight of the civil power. It was a more eligible plan to examine cooly the memorials of each fect; but, after all the pious anxiety of the emperor to avoid error, Theodofius did not change his opinion. We fully believe, with our hiftorian, that the determination of councils is generally the promulgation of a previous decifion, from preconceived opinion, from prejudices, from policy or complaifance: few who are acquainted with ecclefiaftical hiftory will truft much to the temper of thefe meetings, or have the flighteft fufpicion of the infpiration of their members. This period is remarkable for the active struggles of the heathens in defence of their expiring faith; ftruggles raised by the rash, hafty, and infulting manner in which their temples were deftroyed, and their facred utenfils expofed in unhallowed hands.

The Prifcillianifts, a new fect in this period, were Gnoftics; for we cannot trust their inveterate enemy pope Leo, in attributing to them fuch an heterogeneous union of opinions as the Gnostic and the Unitarian doctrines. There is a folitary instance or two of Unitarianism at this time. The Arians and Novatians in this reign were greatly divided; and of the Donatifts alfo there were various fects. The peculiar customs of the Christians of different places, the changes of difcipline in the church, and the ornaments of the church, calculated to allure the heathens, and which afterwards became the objects of veneration, perhaps of adoration, are pointed out. Prayers alfo at this time, and indeed previoufly to it, were fuppofed to have fome influence on the dead; but it is too much the cuf tom of our historian to accumulate gradually these proofs of fuperftition, and to bring them forward in different periods, to fhow that every thing, except Unitarianifm, was collected by VOL. LXX. Nov. 1799. degrees

LI