and died under Theodosius. The church was now in a very different situation from that in which you have seen it, when looked on with scorn by proud philosophers and contemptuous Pagans; it possessed power, authority, respectability; would that it had possessed the same humility, faith, sincerity, and love. The rapid strides ecclesiastics were making in power and authority may be seen from the conduct of Ambrose to Theodosius, when the latter had been guilty of giving way to his naturally violent passions, and had permitted a massacre at Thessalonica, where a tumult had been made. Ambrose denied the Roman emperor Christian communion, nor allowed him for eight months to enter the church. At the festival of the nativity, Theodosius, who had often petitioned for pardon and acceptance, went himself to the church and offered to submit to anything Ambrose appointed. He was ordered to do public penance, and kneeling on the pavement, the emperor and the soldier pulled off his imperial robes and prostrated himself in prayer. I should hope his penitence was genuine, though I think episcopal power too largely exerted, and the future seeds of popish authority too evident in the conduct of Ambrose. At the present time church discipline is almost unknown; in former times it was acknowledged and abused.

We have now come to the conclusion of the fourth century; it has not been, I fear, so interesting to you as the foregoing; for the church

66

of Christ is now almost hid under the extent of the nominal church. That such a pure and quiet church did exist, we can discover from the writings of a heathen historian, named Ammianus, who is universally allowed to be sincere and candid, though an enemy to Christianity. "At Rome," he says, "Bishops ride in chariots splendidly arrayed: but how much more rationally would they act according to their profession, did they imitate their poorer brethren, the bishops of the provinces, in the plainness of their diet and apparel, the modesty of their looks, and the humility of their demeanour, walking acceptably with the eternal God as his true worshippers."

It is pleasing to think, that at this period of degeneracy, strife, pride, superstition, and ambition, some there were who better adorned the doctrine of God their Saviour: these hidden ones whom the world knew not of, shall perhaps be reckoned choicer gems when the Lord cometh to make up His jewels, than those who shine high and bright in the history of the church, and whose characters have been at once exposed to the admiration, the pity, and the censure of posterity. Such are they who rank highest among the worthies of the fourth century, Ambrose of Milan, Gregory Nazianzen, Basil of Cæsarea, and many others.

It is not improbable, that many of the most faithful followers of Jesus were to be found among the monks and hermits of those times; a

spirit of piety and a love of quiet might have driven them from scenes of ungodliness, confusion, and strife, to serve their God in solitude. The motive might be good, though mistaken; and acquiring for themselves the credit of a vast degree of sanctity, the practice led to vast delusions, errors, and impostures. While the church under Theodosius had thus increased in dignity, wealth, splendour, and corruption, the tottering empire of Rome was alone preserved by his wisdom and abilities. It is interesting to trace the rise and fall of such vast monarchies, and Rome is the most interesting the annals of the world produces. To its exorbitant height of power and greatness it had arisen under the unknown but all-directing hand of Providence; the same hand was now employed in putting down one and setting up another; the hordes of barbarians who were destined to overturn the proud empire of the mistress of the world, were now threatening it with ruin, and Theodosius seemed the single support of a throne that had once appeared settled as it were on an eternal basis, to stretch its sway over all nations of the earth. "The Goths," says the historian, "could only be restrained by the firm and temperate character of Theodosius, and the public safety seemed to depend on the life and abilities of one man." But that man was mortal, and the God whom men were prompt to forget, was then as He still is, ruling in the armies of heaven and among the inhabitants of earth."

66

In the accout of the next century we shall at once see the fall of the Roman power, and mourn the rapid decline of true godliness. The church and the empire decayed together, the one in power, the other in vital holiness; but the first fell irrecoverably; while in the latter a seed' was preserved to praise Him.’

H

CENTURY V.

HONORIUS AND ARCADIUS-ROME BESIEGED AND TAKEN BY THE GOTHS-HISTORY OF THE CHURCH FROM THE DEATH OF THEODOSIUS TO THE SUBVERSION OF THE WESTERN EMPIRE.

WITH Theodosius fell the last hopes of the declining empire of Great Rome, as Trajan had termed it. Torn and distracted as it was, his two sons now divided the sovereignty between them. Arcadius, as Emperor of the East, reigned at Constantinople; and Honorius, in the West, preferred Ravenna to the ancient capital of the empire. These princes left the cares of government to their ministers, and from the repose of their capitals looked carelessly on amidst the increasing ravages and presumption of the barbarians.

The desolations caused by the barbarous invaders were greater than I can describe: and as I am relating not secular but ecclesiastical history, so I am concerned to speak of them only as they regard the Church, whose history I am reviewing.

Christians in the former reign had, I regret to say, evinced a spirit very much at variance