it"l|\;l;'i"' ''iiil' li / f »^<^^-«. |, PRINCETON. N. J. "I Part of the ADDISON ALEXANDER LIBRakt wli it'll w;i Mfc..-tiKS. R pn-sented by '>• AM) A. Sti-a BR 165 .M83213 1853 v. 2 Mosheim, Johann Lorenz , 16947-1755. Historical commentaries on the state of Christianity V Z HISTORICAL COMMENTARIES ON THE STATE OF CHRISTIANITY DURING THE FIRST THREE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIVE YEARS FROM THE CHRISTIAN EEA: BEING A TRANSLATION OF -THE COMMENTARIES ON THE AFFAIRS OF THE CHRISTIANS BEFORE THE TIME OF CONSTANTINE THE GREAT," BY JOHN LAURENCE VON " MOSHEIM, D.D. LATE CHANCELLOB OF THE UNIVEBSITV OF GOTTENGEN. 3n tan f nlumrs, VOL. II. VOLUME L TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL LATIN, BY ROBERT STUDLEY VIDAL, Esq. F.S.A. VOLUME n. TRANSLATED, AND BOTH VOLUMES EDITED, BY JAMES MURDOCK, D.D. NEW-YORK: PUBLISHED BY S. CONVERSE. 1853. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year one thousand eight hundred and fifty-one^ By James Murdock, in the Clcrk'a Office of the District Court of Connecticut District D. Fansiiaw, Printer and Stereotyper, 35 Ann, corner of Nassau-strceL CONTENTS OF VOL. 11. Page. The Ecclesiastical History of the Third Century, . . . • 1-411 §1. Christianity propagated in Arabia : Orfo'/w, ^ 2. Christianity propagated among the Goths: Z7/p/n7as, ... 1 3. Christianity propagated in Gaul, Germany, and Scotland. — General view, 2 n. (1) (2) The first preachers to the Gaiils, "^ n. (3) The first preachers to the Germans, 4- Causes of the progress of Christianity : Miracles and Virtues of Christians, 5. Persecution under Severus: at first light. — General view, ... n. (1) Christians often bought exemption from it, . 6. Severus prohibited conversions to Christianity. — General view, n. (1) Tenor of his edict, p. 8. — Why so many suffered, p. 10. — Cause of the Edict, 7. State of Christians under Caracalla and Heliogabalus.— General view. n. (2) Mother of Heliogabalus, pious : he indifferent to Christianity. n. (3) Heliogabalus disposed to tolerate Christianity, 8. State of Christians under Alexander Severus — General view, 72. (1) His mother, Julia Mammcea, favored Christians, n. (2) Whether Alexander was a Christian, discussed, . n. (3) The old persecuting laws unrepealed, 9. The persecution under Maximin. — General view, .... n. (1) It reached only the clergy, n. (2) Not many put to death, n. (3) Other causes produced persecution, 10. Tranquillity under Gordian and Philip. — General view, 72. (1) Philip's reported conversion, examined, 11. Persecution under Decius. — General view, ..... n. (1) Cause of the persecution, n. (2) Tenor of the edict, p. 28. — executed diversely, p. 29. — It introduced new modes of proceeding, 72. (3) Numerous apostasies, p. 31. — The Lihellatici, who? 12. Contests respecting the lapsed. — General view, .... n. (3) Martyrs and Confessors absolved the lapsed, 72. (4) Cyprian opposed to the practice, .... 13. Contest between Cyprian and Novatus. — General view, • 72. (I) Its origin obscure, p. 4G. — Novatus gave ordination, p. 4G. — He fled to Rome 14. Schism of Felicissimus at Carthage. — General view, 72. (1) A party opposed to Cyprian, ..... n. (2) Character of Felicissimus, and grounds of his opposition. Proceedings of Cypriaii, p. 54. — Novatus withdrew, 72. (3) Council condemned Felicissimus, .... 10 11 11 12 13 13 14 18 18 19 20 20 21 22 26 27 30 32 38 39 44 44 50 50 51 52 55 56 iV CONTENTSOFVOLII. Page. 15. Scliism of Novatian at Rome. — General view, 5\) «. (1) Novatiau's character, p. 60,— and opposition to Cornelius, . 61 n. {'2) Novatus of Carthage, his adviser, 63 n. (3) Novalian condemned by a Council, 65 n. (4) The Novatian sect, 66 IG. Tlu' Novatian doctrines examined. — General view, 66 n. (1) He excluded gross offenders from the church, for ever, . 67 But not from all hope of salvation, 70 T7. (2) Novatian's idea of the church, 71 17. The persecution under Gallus. — General view, 73 n. (1) Not so severe as some have supposed, 73 72. (2) Public calamities induced the people to persecute . . .76 Cyprian's dispute with Demetrianus on this subject, . . 76 18. Disputes respecting baptisms by heretics. — General view, . . . .78 7j. (1) Points at issue : Effects of baptism. — Defects in that of heretics, 79 n. (2) Contest between Cyprian and Stephen on this subject, shows the parity of Bishops, in that age, 80 History of this baptismal controversy, p. 81. — It was first with Asiatics and then with Africans, (p. 84.) — Cyprian's pro- ceedings in it, 84 19. Tlie persecution under Valerian. — General view, ..... 91 n. (I) Valerian, first indulgent ; but prompted by Macrianus to persecute, 92 Motives of Macrianus, p. 93. — First proceedings in the persecution, 94 New methods of proceeding adopted, ..... 96 n. (2) Valerian's second and severer edict, ...... 96 Many Christians of rank, then in the emperor's household, . 97 Cause of issuing the edict, p. 99. — Edict revoked by Gallienus 100 Some martyrdoms after the revocation, ..... 100 20. Persecution under Aurelian. — General view, 100 TJ. (2) Did Aurelian, at first, treat Christians kindly ? . . .101 77. (3) His motives for persecuting them, 102 21. Efforts of Philosophers against Christianity. — General view, . . .103 71. (3) Writings of Porphyry, Philostratus, and Hierocles, . . 104 They aimed to lower Christ to a level with the Philosophers, . 105 Apuleius' Fable of the golden Ass, 105 82, First movements ag. Christians, under Diocletian.— General view, . .106 n. (1) Maximian, his colleague, a persecutor, .... 107 Story of the Thebaean Legion, fully discussed, . . .107 Mosheim's judgment respecting it, 112 Ti. (2) Persecution of Maximian in Gaul, 113 n. (3) Prosperity of the church, before the Diocletian persecution, . 115 23. Constitution and goveniment of the church.— General view, . . . 115 n. (1) Testimonies from Cyprian, that the Bishops could not act, in pri- vate matters, without the concurrence of Presbyters ; nor in public matters, without the consent of the brotherhood, . 116 Except to ordain Confessors; which usage had sanctioned, . 118 (2) Proofs from Cyprian, of the parity of all Bishops ; the Romish Bishop not excepted, 220 CONTENTS OF VOL. II, Yet priority of rank or honor was conceded to the Romish Bishop, n. (3) Reasons for creating the minor orders of tho Clergy, . «• . 24. Prerogatives of Bishops mucli enlarged, in this century. — General view, n. (1) Causes and proofs of the fact, ...... : Cyprian held, that God makes the Bishops; the church makes the Presbyters ; and the Bishops makes the Deacons, . On these principles he subverted the constitution of the ancient church, And his views spread and prevailed every where, 25. Tlie morals of the Clergy. — General view, ...... n. (1) Complaints of the corruption of the Clergy, n. (2) Cohabitation of unmarried priests with females, disapproved. How apologised for, 26. State of learning, and the Christian writers, in this cent. — General view, n. (1) Proof that human learning was undervalued, . n. (2) Works of the Greek Fathers. — Origen, .... Julius Africanus, Dionysius Alex, and Hippolytus, . Gregory of Neocaesarea, Thaumaturgus, .... n. (3) Works of the Latin Fathers. — Cyprian, .... Minutius Felix and Arnohius, ....*. 27. Philosophising Theologians : Origen. — General view, .... (1) Origen a great man. Deservedly praised much and censured much, 144 Huet defends him, in his Origeniana, .... Other apologists for Origen, ....... Origen truly great, in a moral view, ..... More learned than profound, p. 149. — A disciple of Ammonius Saccas, ......... Origen's i)hilosophic principles, ....*. His views of the connexion of philosophy with Christianity, His system of theology ; — the Trinity, .... Person of Christ, p. 160. — Object of Christ's mission, Idea of the Atonement, 26. Origen^s allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures. — General view, n. (1) How far Origen the author of this mode of interpretation. Causes leading him to adopt it, . . . . His system of interpretation stated in xviii Propositions, Seven Rules for the application of his principles, n. (2) Account of Origen's Hexapla, . . . . 29. Origen^s mystic theology. — General view, ..... n. (1) He held all tho fundamental principl-s of mystic theology. His principles stated in xxi Propositions, n. (2) Rise of Eremitism, examined. — Paul of Thcbais, &c. 30. Origen's contests with his Bishop. — General view, n. (1) Causes of disagreement, and history of the contest, 31. Discussions concerning the Trinity and the Person of Christ. — General view n. (1) Councils condemned Unitarianism but did not define Trinity in Unity, 32. The Noetian controversy. — General view, .... Paga. 123 127 128 128 131 134 137 137 138 138 139 141 141 141 141 142 142 142 143 145 147 148 150 150 1.^4 159 161 164 165 166 170 173 181 169 190 190 191 198 200 201 209 210 210 VI CONTENTS OF VOL. II. PaL'G. n. (1) Sources of knowledge of it, and account of the man, . 210 n. (2) His sj-stem examined and fully stated, . . . . 210 n. (3) Inwhat sense he was a Patripassian, .... 215 33. Sahcllius, and the Sabellians. — General view, 215 V (1) History of tlie man, and of the controversy, .... 21G 71, (2) The common statement of Sabellius' views, .... 217 His principles examined, and correctly stated in vi. Propositions, 217 34. Bcryllus of Bostra. — General view, 225 H. (1) Eusebius' account examined. The views of Beryllus stated, . 226 35 Paul of Samosata. — General view, 228 7j. (1) His personal character examined, ...... 229 His office of Ducenarius Procurator explained, . . . 230 71. (2) Full account of the documents concerning him, . . . 232 His opinions stated in xiv. Propositions, 233 n. (3) Proceedings of Councils against him, 239 36. The Arabians, whom Origcn reclaimed. — General view, . , . 242 n. (1) Their opinions stated, ^ 243 37. Benefits to Christianity from Philosophy, in three particulars, . , . 243 38. Chiliasm Vanquished. — General view, ....... 244 n. (1) History of Chiliasm in the early church, .... 245 Derived from the Jews, p. 245. — Spread unrebuked in the 2d Century, p. 246. — but was depressed in the 3d Century, Assailed by Origen, p. 247. — Defended by Nepos, p. 248. — Different systems of it, p. 249. — Dioriysius of Alexandria nearly exterminated it, 39. The rise of Manichajism. — General view, ...... n. (1) Manes a prodigy of a man; — greatly resembled Mahommed, Ancient documents, p 252 — and modern writers on Manichaeism, 254 40. Tiic life and labors of Manes. — General view, ..... 255 Tj. (1) His name, p. 257. — His history, according to the Gr.& Lat. writers, 257 His history, according to the Oriental Writers, .... 258 Which account most credible, p. 259. — Details of the Oriental account, .......... 71. (2) Manes held, that Christ taught the way of salvation imperfectly, and that he promised to send the Paraelete, i. e. Ma7ies, to give the world more full instruction, . . • . Of course, his office was, (I) To purge the existing cliristianity from its corruptions ;— and (II) to perfect, or supply its defi- ciencies, • •..... Arguments, by which he supported his claims, n. (3) He discarded the O. Test, altogether ; and held the N. Test, to be so corrupted that it was not a safe guide, u. (4) The liema, or anniversary of Manes' death, how observed, . 41. His two eternal Worlds, and two eternal Lords.— General view, 71. (1) His mode of substantiating his doctrines ^cau.soferp's History of Manichtnism, criticised, . Manes followed the Persian philosophy, and maintained twofrst principles of all things, and two Lords, .... 276 247 250 251 252 2 59 262 266 268 269 274 275 275 275 CONTENTSOrVOL.il. \i\ Pag(5. n. C2) Full description of both worlds, and of tho five elements andyiwe provinces in cacli, ........ 270 n. (3) The two eternal and self-existing Lords of these worlds ; their characters compared and contrasted, 283 42. Nature and attributes of the good God — General view, .... 287 n. (1) Maues^ own description of him. — I. His substance is the pueest light, and without form, 287 Yet, II. he has perception and knowledge, .... 288 III. He has xii. Members, or masses of light, revolving through his world and representing himself, 288 IV. He has innumerable Saecula, Mons, or luminous bodies is- suing from him, and acting as his ministers, . . . 289 V. He is himself not omnipresent, 290 VI. His moral attributes are perfect ; but neither his knowledge, nor his power, is infinite, . • . . . . 291 43. The Manicha3an Trinity. Christ and the H. Sp. — General view, . . 292 n. (1) He held a sort of Trinity ; but diverse from that of the Christians, 293 n. (2) The Son of God a shining mass,o{ the same substance with God and having the same attributes in a lower degree, . . 295 He resides in the sun, but his influence extends to the moon, 296 Hence some worship was paid to the sun and moon. — This point discussed, ........ 293 n. (3) The H. Spirit is another shining mass, an efilux from God, re- siding in the ether. He enlightens and moves the minds of men, and fructifies the earth, 302 n. (4) Manes' doctrine of the Son and the II. Sp. coincided with the Persian doctrine of Mithras and the Ether, .... 303 44. War of the Prince of darkness on the Prince of light. — General view, . 304 n. (1) The Prince of darkness ignorant of God and of the world of light, till an accidental discovery of them led him to assail them for plunder, 305 On seeing the enemy, God produced the Mother of Lfe, and she produced the First Man, a giant in human form, whom God sent as generalissimo to expel the Prince of darkness and his forces, ........•• 306 First Man was directed to use artifice rather than force, and to bait the Demon with good matter, 308 First Man did so, p. 309 — And the plan succeeded in part, 310 But unexpectedly, some sad consequences resulted ; for I. four of the celestial elements became combined with the base ele- ments ; and many souls were captured by the Demons, • 310 II. The Prince of Darkness devoured Jesus, the sou of the First Man, 311 Miinichaeans held to two Jesuses, a passive and impassive, . 311 III. First Man was near being conquered. — p. 313. — and God sent another general, the Living Spirit, a luminous mass, . Til issuing from himself, . . . , . ji-* The origin of our noxious animals, . . . . J14 VUl CONTENTS OF VOL.11. Page. The wliole fable was devised to account for tlie junction of celestial souls with material bodies, .... 315 45. Origin, composition, and character of Man. — General view, . . 31G n. (1) Manes' account of Adam's origin from Satan, is to be taken lite- rally, and not, as Beausobre supposed, allegorically, • 317 Jlfunf*' own statement, at large, ... . 317 Aiigustines' more brief statement, . . . . . 318 Adam was produced at the beginning of the second war, and before the victory of the Living Spirit and the creation of our world, . . . . . . . . • .319 Tlie design of Satan was, to retain possession of captured souls, and, by them, to enlarge his empire, .... 321 Adam was a giant, and bore the likeness of the First Man, and also of the Prince of darkness, 321 Manes' opinion of the nature and origin of human souls, . . 322 The origin and character of Eve, 322 n. (2) Manes' ideas of Adam's first sin examined, .... 323 Statements of Tijrho, Manes, and Augustine, . . . 323 Tiie facts drawn out and arranged, 324 n. (3) Manes believed man to be composed of three parts ; viz. a sinful body derived from the body of the Prince of darkness, p. 325. — and two souls : the one evil, lustful, and propagated from the Prince of darkness ; — the other of celestial origin, un- changeably good, communicated from parents to their children, 327 Hence, only the evil soul commits sin ; and the good soul is de- linquent only in not restraining its evil associate, . . 328 4G. Formation of this world. Its structure and design. — General view, . . 330 71. (1) By God's command, the Living Spirit framed our world, to be the residence of men, until their celestial souls are prepared for heaven ; p. 330. — and to give opportunity for rescuing the celestial matter now mixed with the base matter, . . 331 This world is composed of the same elements, a little deteriorated, as the heavenly world, and similarly arranged ; so that this our world is a a picture or image of the heavenly world, . 332 n. (2) The matter of our world, when it was rescued from the Prince of darkness, consisted of celestial elements, either pure or defiled with a mixture of evil matter, 333 Of the pure and good fire and good light, tho sun was formed ; and of the pure and good water, the ?noon, . . . 333 Of the good air, probably, the ether of our world was formed, . 333 Of the matter slightly contaminated, our heavens and the stars were formed, 334 The earth was formed of the celestial matter, which was debased and pervaded by evil matter, 334 The bad matter not combined with good matter, was excluded from our world, and separated by a wall or barrier, . . 334 o. (3) Before he created our world, the Living Sjnrit imprisoned the Demons in the air and the stars, 334 CONTENTSOFVOL.il. ix Tngc. But still they are mischievous. They seduce men to sin, and propagate idolatry, which is the worship of themselves, . 336 They also send on us tempests, earthquakes, pestilences, and wine, 333 n. (4) Our world is borne up by a huge giant called Otnophorus, who is assisted by another, called Splenditenens, . . . 338 47 The mission and offices of Christ. — General view, ..... 340 n. (1) Christ's mission had two objects ; — first, to accelerate the re- covery of souls from defilement, — and, secondly, to relieve the wearied Otnophorus, 342 He came from the sun, and assumed the shadow of a man, . 342 His body needed no sustenance, and no rest. He wrought miracles ; 344 And instructed mankind, ....... 345 The Demon incited the Jews to kill him : but, having no body, he could not die, 345 Of course, the Manichteans did not observe the festival of Christ's nativity ; nor make much account of that of his death, 347 48. Christ as the Saviour of men. — General view, 349 n. (1) Manichaeans used the Bible language respecting Christ: but Christ could not die ; and sinless souls needed no atonement, 350 A celestial soul can never be contaminated ; but it may be cri- minally negligent, and so need to repent and be forgiven, . 351 n. (2) Christ taught men the truth, and showed them how to purify themselves for a return to God, 353 The severe bodily mortifications of the Manichaeans, . . 353 They reduced all moral duties to three heads, called Signacula, 356 The duties belonging to the Signaculum of the mouth, enume- rated, 357 Those belonging to the Signaculum of the hands, described, 361 Those of the bosom, all related to sexual pleasures, . . 365 49. The return of souls to the world of light. — General view, .... 366 n. (1) The H. Spirit aids souls in freeing themselves from defilement, 367 n. (2) Repentance atones for the involuntary sins of celestial souls, . 368 n. (3) The return of souls, at death, to the world of light ; and their double purgation, first in the moon, and then in the sun, 369 n. (4) The bodies return to their kindred earth, and will never be re- suscitated, ......... 372 50. Condition of unpurgated souls after death. — General view, . . . 373 n. (1) If not exceedingly faulty, they will pass into other bodies, of men, or brutes, or vegetables, 373 n. (2) This transmigration is disciplinary or reformatory. The rules of it, 377 51. Liberation of the Passive Jcsu5. — General view, 379 n. (1) The scattered particles of celestial matter are drawn up, purgat- ed in the sun, and returned to the world of light, • • 380 n. (2) The Passive Jasus, or son of First Man, whom the Donioua Z CONTENTS OF VOL II. rage, devoured, is strangely sweated out of them, and then rescued from defiling matter and saved, ..... 380 52 End of this world, or the consummation of all things.— General view, . 385 71. (1) When most of the souls and of the celestial matter, now defiled by gross matter, shall have been rescued, this world will be burned up, and the demons sent back to the world of darkness, 386 fi. (2) The irreclaimable souls will be stationed on the frontiers of the world of light, as a guard, to prevent future inroads of the Demons, ......... 387 Our reasons for dwelling so long on the Manichagan system, . 388 The general character of this system, 3S9 53. The public Worship of the Manichseans. — General view, . . . 389 Tj. (1) They had no temples or altars, no images, and no love-feasts. Their worship was very simple, and quite unobjectionable. Prayers, hymns, reading their sacred books, and exhortations, with their annual festival of Bema, and Sunday fasts and as- semblies, were the substance of it, 390 54. The private worship of the ^Zect — General view, ..... 391 7j. (1) No Auditor was admitted to this worship of the Elect, . .391 n. (2) In it. Baptism was administered to such of the Elect as de- sired it. But it was not regarded as obligatory on them all, 392 n. (3) They observed the Lord's Supper : but in what manner is un- known, 396 55. Constitution of their Church. — General view, 398 n. (1) A Pontiff, with xii Magistri, presided ovea Ixxii Bishops , and under each Bishop, were Presbyters, Deacons and Evange- lists : all from among the Elect, 399 n. (2) The community was divided into two Classes ; — the Elect or Perfect, a very small Class, and subjected to a most rigorous discipline ; — and the Auditors or Catechumens, who married, pursued worldly occupations, and lived much like other people, 399 56. The sect of the Hieracites. — General view, 404 Ti. (1) Character, life, and doctrines of Hierax, .... 405 I. He regarded the whole Bible as inspired ; and wrote allegor- ical comments on it, . . . . . . . , 405 II. Respecting God and the Trinity, he was orthodox, . . 407 III. He considered Melchisedek as a representative of the Holy Spirit, «... 407 IV. Christ, he supposed, merely taught a stricter morality than Moses, 408 V. He forbid marriage, flesh, wine, and all pleasures, . . 408 VI. Hierax taught that marriage was allowed under the O. Test, but is unlawful under the N.Test. — Yet he probably allowed the imperfect among his disciples to marry, . . . 408 VII. The Mosaic history of Paradise, he regarded as an allegory, 409 VIII. He enjoined a very austere life on his followers, . . 410 IX. He denied the resurrection of the body, . . . .410 X. He excluded from heaven all who died in infancy, . . 410 CONTENTS OF VOL. XI Page. Tlie Ecclesiasticdl History of the Fourth Century^ 412-481 1. The Pagan Priests urge a new Persecution. — General view, . . . 412 n. (1) Flourishing state of the church, and the character of the empe- rors, when the century commenced, , . . . -412 The alarmed priests plotted the destruction of the Christians, and appealed to the superstition of Diocletian, . . • .414 2. Maximian Galerius, from ambitious motives, urged Diocletian to persecute the Christians. — General view, 416 n. (1) Maximian, rather than Diocletian, the author of this persecution, 417 The causes of it, p. 417.— It commenced in the year 303, at Nicomedia, 420 Hierocles an adviser of it. p. 421. — Diocletian reluctantly con- sented, 422 Contents of the first imperatorial edict, 422 T?. (2) The proceedings under this edict, 426 3. The first year of the persecution. — General view, 428 n. (1) Two fires in the palace of Nicomedia, falsely charged upon the Christians, cause many of them to be put to death, . . 428 71. (2) These fires, and political disturbances in Syria and Armenia, pro- duce a new edict, requiring the seizure and incarceration of all Christian teachers, 432 A third edict required them to be tortured into sacrificing to the Gods, 433 n. (3) The western provinces under Constantius Chlorus suffer but little, 454 4. The fourth and severest edict of Diocletian, A. D, 304. — General view, . 435 n. (1) Tenor of the edict, and its execution. It required all Christians to sacrifice, and ordered them to be tortured into compliance, 436 Some Christians voluntarily courted martyrdom, . . 439 n. (2) Seeing the Christians now much depressed, Maximian compelled the two Emperors to resign their power, and made himself Emperor of the East, 439 This change in the government benefitted the Christians of the West, under Constantius Chlorus, 441 The Christians of the East gained nothing. Their condition in Syria and Egypt, 443 6. Civil wars, and the state of Christians, A. D. 306-311. — General view, . 444 n. (1) Maximian's fruitless machinations against Constantino, . . 445 Revolt of Maxentius, and the civil wars, .... 44G State of Christians during these wars, p. 448. — In the West, Constantine favored them, p. 448. — Yet he was not then a Christian, ......... 449 Maxentius also favored them, 450 But in the East, Maximian persecuted them, . . .451 n. (3) In the year 311, Maximian, on his death bed, relaxed the per- secution, 452 6. The edicts of Constantine, A. D. 312, 313, in favor of Christians.— General view, 454 Xii CONTKNTSOFVOL.il. Page. n. (1) Theirs/ edict, at the close of 312, gave full religious liberty to Christians, and to all persons of every religion, . . . 455 The second edict, from Milan, A. D. 313, removed ambiguities from the first edict, and added some privileges to the Christians, 456 In the East, Maximin contravened the last edict of Maximian ; and expelled the Christians from some cities, < . »- . . 457 Subsequently he issued edicts favorable to them, . . . 458 la the year 311, Maximin died, and persecution ceased every- where, 459 7 Constauline's Conversion. — General view, 459 71. (1) The reality of Constantine's conversion proved, . . . 460 Objections answered : viz. the first, from his vices, p. 460. — the second, from his late Baptism, p. 461. — the third from his political interest to feign himself a Christian, . . . 464 He was a Deist, till long after the year 303, . . . 465 His conversion was soon after the year 322, ... . . 469 His enlightenment gradual : a statement of Zosimus examined, 470 n. (2) His vision of a cross in the heavens. Dispute as to the time of it, 472 Dispute as to its reality, p. 472. — The opinion that it was a fabri- cation, examined, 473 Was he asleep or awake, at the time of it, 474 "Was the apparent cross a natural phenomenon, . . . 476 Mosheim's opinion on the whole subject, . . » . 479 £. A short persecution by Licinius. — General view, 479 n (1) Authorities on the subject. — Motives and progress of the persecu- tion, , .480 THE ECCLESIASTICAL Hr»^(>HY OF THE THIRD CENTURY, § I. Propagation of Christianity in Arabia. That the [p. 448.] limits of the Christian commonwealth were much extended during this century, no one hesitates to admit; but, in what manner, by whose instrumentality, and in what parts of the world, is not equally manifest, the ancient memorials having perished. While Demetrius ruled the Alexandrian church, over which he is said to have presided until the year 230, a certain Arabian chieftain, (that is, as I suppose, the head and leader of a tribe of those Arabs who live in tents, and have no fixed and permanent resi- dence,) sent letters to this prelate, and to the prefect of Egypt, requesting that the celebrated Origen might be sent to him, to impart to°him and his people a knowledge of Christianity. Ori- gan, therefore, went among these Arabs ; and, having soon dis- patched the business of his mission, he returned to Alexandria.(0 He undoubtedly took with him from Alexandria several Christian disciples and teachers, whom he left with that people, as he himself could not be long absent from Alexandria. (1) We have a brief narrative of these events in Eusebius, Hist. Eccles, lib. vi. c. xix: p. 221. § II. Propagation of Christianity among the Goths. To the Goths, a most warlike and ferocious people, dwelling in Moesia and Thrace, the wars they waged with various success against the Komans, during almost the whole of this century, produced this advantage, that they became friendly to Christian truth. For, in their incursions into Asia they captured and carried away several Christian priests, the sanctity of whose lives and manners, together with their miracles and prodigies, so aflccted VOL. n. 2 2 Century IIL—Sectlon 3. the minds of the barbarians, tliat tliey avowed a willingness to [p. 449.] follow Christ, and called in additional teachers to in- struct them.(') There is, indeed, much evidence that what is here stated, must be understood only of a i^art of this race, and that no small portion of them remained for a long time afterwards ad- dicted to the superstitions of their ancestors ; yet, as in the next century Thcophilus, a bishop of the Goths, was a subscriber to the decrees of the Nicene council, Q there can be little doubt that quite a large church was gathered among this people in a short space of time. (1) Sozomen, Hist. Ecclos. 1. ii. c. 6. Paulus Diaconns^liht. Miscellan. 1. x. c. 14. Philostorgius, Hist. Eccles. I. ii. c. v. p. 470. Philostorgius states, that tiic celebrated Ulphilas,who in the next century translated the Christian Scri})- tures into the language of the Goths, was descended from those captives that were carried away by the Goths from Cappadocia and Thrace, in the reign of Gallienus. This is not improbable ; and yet there are some other things in tho narrative of Philostorgius, which perhaps are false. (2) Socrates, Hist. Eccles. 1. ii. c. 41. § III. Christianity in Gaul, Germany, and Scotland. In Gaul a few small congregations of Christians were established by Asiatic teachers, in the preceding century. But in this century, during the reign of Decius, seven holy men, namely, Biomjsms, Gatianus, Trophimus, Paulus, Saturninus, Martialis^ and Stremonius, emi- grated to this province, and, amidst various perils and hardships, established new churches at Paris, Tours, Aries, Narbonne, Tou- louse, Limoges, and in Auvergne ;(*) and their disciples, after- wards, gradually spread the knowledge of Divine truth over the whole of Gaul. With these seven men, some have associated others, but it is on authorities obscure and not to be relied on.Q To the same age is now ascribed, by men of erudition, who are more eager for truth than for vain glory, the origin of the churches of Cologne, Treves, Metz, and other places in Germany; although the old tradition is, that the founders of these churches, Eucharius, Valerius, Maternus, Clemens, and others, were sent forth by the apostles themselves, in the first century ; and there still are some who fondly adhere to these fables of their ances- tors.(^) And, it must be confessed, that those have the best of the argument, who thus correct the old opinion respecting the origin of the German churches. The Scots, also, say that their Christianity in Gaul, Germany, and Scotland. 3 country was eiiliglitened with Christianity in this cen- [p. 450.] tury; which, although probable enough in itself considered, rests on proofs and arguments of no great force. (1) This we learn, in part, from the Aetji Martyrii Saturnini, in the Acta Martyrum Sincera of Ruinarl, pa. 109 ; and, in part, from Gref^ory of Toura, Historia Francor. 1. i. c. xxviii. p. 23, ed. Ruinart. The Frencli anciently re- ferred these seven persons, and the origin of tlie churches tliey founded, to the first century. In particular, Dionysius, wlio was tiie chief man of the seven, and tlie founder of the church at Paiis, and its first bishop, was for many ages believed to be Dionysias the Areopagite, mentioned in the 17th chapter of tlie Acts of the Apostles. But in the last century, men of the greatest erudition among the French did not hesitate to correct this error of their predecessors, and to assign Dionysius and liis associates to the third century and to the times of Decius. The tracts and discussions on this subject by Launoi, Sirmond, Petavius, Puteanus, Nic. Faber, and others, are well known. The ancient opinion, however, still remains so fixed in the minds of not a few, and especially among the monks of St. Denys, that it cannot be eradicated ; which is not at all surprising, since great numbers make the glory of their church to depend very much on its antiquity. But the arrival of these seven men in Gaul, is in- volved in much obscurity. For it does not sufficiently appear, whence they came, nor by whom they were sent. Gregory of Tours, Ilistoria Francor. 1. x. c. xxxi. p, 527, says : Gatianum a Romanaj sedis Papa transmissum esse : from which it is inferred, that the other six also came from Rome. The fact may be so, and it may be otherwise. It is equally uncertain whether they emigrated to Gaul together, and all at one time, or whether they went at diflTercnt times separately. And other points are involved in the like obscurity, I indeed sus- pect, that these devout and holy men, during the Decian persecution in Italy, and especially at Rome, voluntarily, and for the preservation of their lives, rather than by the direction and authority of the Romish bishop, removed to Gaul, where they could enjoy greater safety than at Rome and in Italy. (2) The people of Auxerre, for instance, commemorate one Peregrinus, who, as they think, came likewise from Rome in this century, and laid the foundar- tion of their church. See Le Beuf, Memoires pour I'Histoire d' Auxerre, tom. i. p. 1-12. There is also mention of one Genulphus, as an apostle of the Gauls, in this century. >See the Acta Sanctor. mensis Januar. tom. ii. p. 92. &-c. And others arc also mentioned by some writers. (3) What the French believed respecting those seven men, with none to gainsay them, the Germans also believed of Eucharius, Malernus, Cleinens, and others ; namely, that they were disciples of the apostles, and that in the [p. 451.] first century they established Christian churches in Germany, on this side the Rhine and in Lorraine, at Cologne, Treves, Metz, and in other cities, and governed the Churches they gathered, as their bishops. This opinion became suspicious to some learned men in the last century ; and in the present cen- tury, it has been boldly assailed by Augustine Cabnet, in a dissertation prefixed to his History of Lorraine, written in French, tom. i. in which he contends 4 Century III. — Section 4. (p. vii.) that Eiicharlna and Matcrnus founded the Churches of Cologne and Treves, in the third century, and (p. xvii. xx.) that Clemens did not found Ihe church at Metz prior to tliat time. To this learned man stands opposed the commentator on the Acta S. Auctoris, in the Acta Sanctor. Antwerp, tom. iv mensis Augusti, p. 38. who not unlearnedly labors to sustain the ancient opinion. But the recent writer of the Historia Trevirensis Diplomatica, John Nic. ah Honlheim, a man of vast learning, after considering the whole subject with great care, aud weighing accurately the testimony, in a Dissertation de iEra Fundati Episcopatus Trevirensis, prefixed to the first volume of his his- torv, has fully shown, that more credit is due to Calmet than to his opponent. For, having maintained at great length, that those rely on witnesses not to be credited who carry back the founding of the church at Treves, and the other German churches, to the apostolic age, and make the holy men above men- tioned to have taught in the first century, he demonstrates (section vi. p. xxxii. &c.) by arguments the strongest possible in such a case, that Maiernus in par- ticular, did not live in the first century, nor in the second, but near the end of the third ; and as to the church of Cologne, that it is referable to the begin- ning of the fourth century. (4) The Scotch historians tell us, that their king, Donald I. embraced Chris- tianity, while Victor presided over the Romish church. See Sir Geo. MacKen- zie's Defence of the Royal Line of Scotland, ch. viii. p. 219. But, as the strong- est proof of their position is derived from coins of this Donald, never inspected by any one, there can be no doubt as to the credit they deserve. And yet it appears, for other reasons, adduced by Usher and Siillingjleet in their Antiquita- tes et Origines Ecclesiae Britannicae, that the Scotch church is not of later date than the third century. § IV. Causes of the progress of Christianity. We give credence to the many and grave testimonies of tlie writers of tliose times, wlio cannot be suspected of either fraud or levity, that the success- ful progress of Christianity in this century was, in a great measure, attributable to divine interpositions, by various kinds of miracles, exciting the minds of the people, and moving them to abandon superstition.^) Neither can we easily either reject altogether, or [p. 452.] seriously ^question what we find testified by the best men of the times, that God did, by dreams and visions, excite not a few among the thoughtless and the enemies of Christianity, 60 that they at once, and without solicitation, came forward and made a public profession of the Christian faith :(') and their ex- amples, without doubt, served to overcome the timidity, or the hesitation, or the indecision of many. And yet, I suppose, it will be no error to maintain, that causes merely human and ordinary, so operated on the minds of many as to lead them to embrace Christianity. For the earnest zeal of the Christians, to Persecution under Severus. S merit the good will of all men, even of tlieir enemies ; the uu- parallcled kindness to the poor, the afflicted, the indigent, to prisoners, and to the sick, Avhich was peculiar to the church ; the remarkable fortitude, gravity, and uprightness, which character- ized their teachers ; their unwearied assiduity in translating the Sacred Books into various languages, and publishing copies of them ; their amazing indiilerence to all human things, to evils and suiTerings, and even to death itself; — all these, and other equally distinguishing traits of character, may, very justly, have induced many to admire and to embrace the religion of Cliris- tians, which produced and sustained so great virtues. And if, as I would by no means deny, pious frauds found a place among the causes of the propagation of Christianity in this century, yet, they unquestionably held a very inferior position, and were em- ployed by only a few, and with very little, if any success. (1) Numerous testimonies of the ancients, respecting the miracles of this century, might easily be collected. See Origen, contra Celsum, 1. i. p. 5-7, and in various other places ; Cyprian, Epist. ad Donatum, i. p. 3, on which passage ^Lesph. Baliize has collected many testimonies of like import, in his Notes there; Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. 1. vi. c. v. p. 208, &c. The reported miracles of Gre- gory of New Cesaria are well known; and yet there are some among them which may be justly called in question. See Ant. van Dale's Pref:ice to his work de Oraculis, p. 6. (2) The ancients record many instances of this kind. See Origen, contra Celsum, 1. i. p. 35 ; and Homil. in Lucae, vii. Opp. torn. ii. p. 216. TertuUian, de Anima, c. xiv. p. 348. Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. 1. vi. c. v. p. 208, &c. &c. Among these examples, there are some which may, I am aware, be explained by refer- ring them to natural causes; but there are others which demand a higher cause. § Y. Persecution under Severus. This zeal of Christians [p. 453.] for extending and enlarging the church, was often much favored by the circumstances of the times. For, although they never en- joyed perfect security, the laws against them being not repealed, and the people frequently demanding their condemnation, yet, under some of the Roman emperors of this century, their enemies, in most of the provinces, seemed to be quiet, and to dread the perils to which a legal prosecution exposed them. Still, seasons of the severest trial frequently occurred, and emperors, gover- nors, and the people, disregarding the ancient edicts, came down as furiously upon the Christians as they would upon robbers : and these storms greatly impeded the work of extirpating the old 6 Century III. — Section 5. superstitions. The commencement of this century was painfully adverse to the Christian cause. For, although Severus, the Roman emperor, was not personally hostile to Christians, yet, from the re- cords of that age, still extant, it appears that, in nearly all the pro- vinces, many Christians, either from the clamorous demands of the superstitious multitude, whom the priests excited, or by the au- thority of magistrates, who made the law of Trajan a cloak for their barbarity and injustice, were put to death in various forms of execution. To these evils, originating from various causes, the Christians themselves undoubtedly gave some impetus, by a prac- tice which had for some time prevailed among them, with the ap- probation of the bishops, that of purchasing life and safety by paying money to the magistrates.(') For the avaricious governors and magistrates would often assail the Christians, and direct some of the poorer ones to be put to death, in order to extort money from the more wealthy, and to enrich themselves with the trea- sures of the churches. (1)1 cannot regard this practice as one of the least of the causes of the fre- quent wars of the magistrates and men in power against Christians, contrary to the laws and the pleasure of the emperors. For what will not avarice venture to do? The Montanists strongly condemned this practice; and hence Terlvl- lian is vehement and copious in reprobating it; and, in his book de Fuga in Per- secutionibus, c. xii. p. 696, he says: Sicut fuga redemptio gratuita est; ita re- demptio nummaria fuga est. Pedibus statisti, curristl nummis. And then, after some bitter but unsound remarks, he proceeds: Tu pro Christiano pacis- [p. 454.] ceris cum delatore, vel milite, vel furunculo aliquo preeside, sub tunica et sinu, ut furtivo, quern coram toto mundo Christus emit, immo et manumisit. Who can wonder, that informers and accusers were never wanting, so long as the Christians, (as appears from this passage,) would pacify informers with money 1 Felices itaque pauperes (for these, being without money, were obliged to suffer,) quia illorum est regnum coelorum, qui animam solam in con- fiscato habent . . . Apostoli perse cutionibus agitati, quando se pecunia tractantes liberaverunt? quae illis utique non deerat ex praediorum pretiis ad pedes eo. rum depositis. But not only individual Christians consulted their safety in this way, but whole churches also compounded with the governors for peace, by pecuniary contributions, and paid a sort of annual tribute, not unlike that as- sessed on bawds and panders and other vile characters. It is not amiss, to transcribe here the indignant language of I'eriullian, c. xrn. p. 100.: Parum dcniquc est, si unus aut alius ita eruitur. Massaliter totae ecclesia) tributum sibi irrogaverunt. Nescio dolcndum, an erubescendum sit, cum in matricibus Bencficiariorum et Curiosorum, inter tabernarios et lanios, et fures balnearum» et aleones et lenonea, Christian! quoque vectigales continentur. Moreover, aa The Edict of Severiis. 7 appears from Tcrtul!i:iM, the Christians sometimes bargained with those, who threatened to turn accusers if money was not given them, at other times with the governors themselves, and sometimes with tiie soldiers; which last deserves particular notice, because we learn from it, that the mngistrates directed tho soldiers to v/alch for, and break up, the assemblies of Christians: and therefore, these were to be pacified with money, in order that Christians might safely meet together for the worship of God. Says TertuUian : Sed quomodo coUi- gemus, inquis, quomodo Dominica solemnia celebrabimus? Utique, quomodo et Apostoli, fide, non pecunia tuti : quae fides si montera transferre potest, multo magis militem. Esto sapientia, non pracmio eautus. Neque enim stntim, (mark the expression,) et a populo eris tutus, si officia militaria redemeris. What the bishops thought of this practice, is abundantly shown by Peter of Alexan- dria, who was a martyr of this century. In his canons, extracted from his Discourse dePoenitentia, Canon xii. (inW/n. Beverege' s Piindectae canonumet concilior. Tom. ii. 20.) lie not only decides, that those are not to be censured who purchase safety with money, but are to be commended ; and he encoun- ters TertuUian with his own arguments. I will quote only the Latin, omitting the Greek : lis, qui pecuniam dederunt, ut omni ex parte ab omni malitia im- perturbati assent, crimen intendi non potest. Damnum enim et jacturam pecuniarum sustinuerunt, ne ipsi animae detrimento afficerentur, vel ipsain etiam proderent, quod alii propter turpe lucrum non fecerunt, &,c. § VI. The Edict of Severus against conversions to [p. 455.] Christianity. These evils were greatly augmented, when the em- peror, in the year 203, for some cause not known, became some- what differently disposed towards the Christians, and issued an edict, forbidding .Roman citizens, under a severe penalty, from abandoning the religion of their fathers, and embracing Christianity. This law, although it opposed only the increase of the church, and affected only those recently converted, and those who Avished to join the Christians after the publication of the law, yet afforded occasion for the adversaries of Christians to perse- cute and harass them at their pleasure ; and especially because the ancient laws, and particularly that most vexatious one of Trajan, — that persons accused, and refusing to confess, might be put to death, — remained unrepealed, and in full force.(') Hence, so great was the slaughter among Christians, especially of such as could not, or, from conscientious motives, would not redeem their lives with money, that some of their teachers supposed the coming of Antichrist to draw near. Among others, many of the Alexandrian Christians lost their lives for Christ, of whom waa Leonidas, the father of Origen ; and in Africa, the celebrated Christian females, Perpetua and Felicitas, whose xicta, illustrious 8 Century III. — Section 6. monuments of antiquity, have been often published ; and Pota- mienaj a virgin of Alexandria, and her mother, MarceUa, with various others. Respecting the termination of this persecution, the ancient writers are silent ; but, as it appears from reliable authorities, and especially from Tertullian, that the Christians were also persecuted in some places under Caracalla, the son of Severus, it seems to be judging correctly to suppose that the per- secution did not cease till after the death of Severus. (1) On the persecution of the Christians under Severus, Eusehius treats. Hist. Eecles. Ij. vi. cap. 1. &e, ; but only in a general way : for he neither re- ports the hiw, nor the time and cause of its enactment. Other Christian writers incidentally mention the severity of the persecution, the cruelty of the judges, and the constancy of certain Christians; yet they say very little of the mode and the grounds of the persecution. Spartian, however, the writer of the Life of Severn.'^, has told ns the year, and stated the reason, of the persecution : Vita Severi, c, 16, 17. in the Scriptorcs Histor. Augustae, p. 617, 618. For he says, that the erai>?ror, in the year that he invested his son Antoninus with the Toga [p. 456.] virilis, and designated him consul with himself, which was the tenth year of his reign, as he was passing through Palestine into Egypt, enacted a law equal- ly severe against the Jews and the Christians : Palaestinis jura plurima fundavit : Judaeos fieri sub gravi poena vetuit : Idem etiam de Christianis sanxit. This language shows, that Severus did not enact new laws against the Christians, nor command the extirpation of the professors of Christianity, but only resolved to prevent the increase of the churcli, and commanded those to be punished, who should forsake the religion of their fothers and embrace that of the Chris- tians. Persons, therefore, who were born Christians, or had become Christians before this law was enacted, might indeed be exposed to some trouble and dan- ger from the old laws, and especially from the noted rescript of Trajan, which subsequent enactments had not abrogated; but from this new law of Severus they had nothing to fear. But some learned men are not ready to believe this. For, perceiving what a multitude of Christians suffered death, under Severus. they say, the fact is not to be accounted for, if Severus wished evil to none but the deserters of their former religion. They therefore conjecture, either that Spartian has mutilated the law of Severus, and omitted a large part of it, or that the emperor issued other and severer laws against the Christians, which have not reached our times. But I can easily overthrow both these conjectures. That Spartian did not mutilate the law of Severus, his own words show. For he compares the edict against the Jews, with that against the Christians, and says that the latter was of the same tenor with the former. But Severus neither interdicted the Jewish religion, nor compelled those born of Jewish parents to embrace the religion of the Romans; but merely forbid accessions to the Jewish community from people of other nations. And therefore he was no more severe against the Christians, seeing his decree against them was precisely the same as against the Jews. That Severus enacted other laws against tho The Edict of Severus. 9 Christians, than the one mentioned by Spartian, ia contrary to all probaLility. For, not to mention the silence of the ancient writers, it appears from explicit passages in Tertullian, that the emperor did not repeal those ancient laws which favored Christians ; which he undoubtedly would have done, if he intended they should be treated more severely than in former times. In his book, ad Scapii. lam, which was written after the death of Severus, in the reign of Antoninus Caracalla, Tertullian thus addresses that governor, (c. 4, p. 87.) : Quid cnim amplius tibi mandatur, quam nocentes confesses damnare, negantcs autem ad tormenta revocare? Videtis ergo quomodo ipsi vos contra mandata faciutis, ut confesses negare cogatis. This passage shows, most beautifully and admirably, how the emperors, and among them the recently deceased Severus, would have the judges deal with Christians. In the first place, sentence of death was to be passed in nocentes confessos. The nocentes here, are those " accused and con- victed in a regular course of law." This is put beyond controversy [p. 457.] by various passages in Tertullian, and also in this very passage, in which the nocentes negantes follow the nocentes confessos. Who could be a nocens negans, except the man who was accused of some crime or fault, and convicted by his accuser, and yet denied that he was guilty? We will, however, let Tertullian himself teach us, how to understand the expression. Among the examples which he shortly after adduces, of governors that favored the Christians, he extols one Pudens, in the following terms: Pudens etiam missum ad se Chris- tianum, in clogio, concussione ejus intellecta, dimisit, scisso eodem elogio, sine Accusatore negans se auditurum hominem, secundum Mandatum (ss. Imperaloris.) Under Severus, therefore, as is most manifest from these words, the law of Trajan remained in full force ; and it enjoined, that no Christian should be con- demned, unless he was legitimately accused and convicted. And, moreover, those accused and convicted, but who yet denied themselves to be Christians, — the nocentes negantes, might be put to the rack, and be compelled by torture to confess guilt. This was not expressly enjoined by Trajan, but it was in accord- ance with Roman law. But, thirdly, the laws did not permit the mngistrates, to urge confessing persons to a denial or a rejection of Christianity, by means of tortures. This was a liberty which the governors assumed contrary to the laws, as I suppose, and from motives of avarice. For when the confessors declared that they would not redeem life by paying money, the governors hoped, that if put to torture, tiiey would change their determination. That the laws of Ha- drian and Antoninus Pius, ordering that Christians should not be put to death imless convicted of some violation of the Roman laws, were in like manner not repealed by Severus, appears from another example of the governor Circius Severus, mentioned by the same Tertullian; Circius Severus Thysdri ipse dedit remedium, quomodo responderent Christiani ut dimitti possent. By cautious and circumspect answers to the judges, therefore. Christians could elude the malice of their accusers : and in what manner, it is easy to conjecture : viz. they confessed that they followed a dilTerent religion from the Roman, namely the Christian; but that the emperors forbid a Christian to be punished, unless ho was convicted of some crime, and they had never been guilty of any crime. With an upright judge, this plea was suflicicnt. And it is not only certain, that 10 Century III,— Section G. Scverus did not abrogate the imperial edicts favorable to the Christians, but it also appears from Tortullian, that he constiintly and to the end of his life re- tained his former kind feelinj^s towards them. For Tertullian says of iiim, after his death: Sed et clarissimns feminas et clarissimos viros Severus sciens ejus sectae esse, non modo non laesit, verum et testimonio exornavit, et populo furonti in cos palam restitit. How could Severus have been a protector of Christians against popular rage, and also their eulogist, if he had enacted se- [p. 458.] verer laws against them, than the preceding emperors? It must therefore be certain, as Spartian has stated, that he ordered the punishment, not of all Ciiristians universally, but only of such as became Ciu-istians after the enactment of the law. But how was it, you may ask, that so great calamities fell on the Christians, in his reign, if Severus directed only the new converts to be punished ? An answer is easily given. In the^r^-^ place, let it be remembered, that the Chris- tians had been miserably persecuted in most of the Roman provinces, before the law of Severus existed. This we have shown in the history of the second century, from the Apologeticum of Tertullian ; and the fact cannot be denied. The avaricious governors finding the Christians willing to redeem their lives witli money, suborned accusers, and inflamed the people, in order to extort money ; and they actually put some confessors to death, to strike terror into the more wealthy, and make them willing to compound for their lives. In the next place, it is to be supposed, that Severus gave power to the governors to in- vestigate the case of such as forsook the Romish religion and embraced Chris- tianity; and, in these investigations, the magistrates and their minions, as is very common, did many things not warranted by the law- Thirdly, as the persons who forsook the religion of their fathers were to be punished, un- doubtedly the same penalties, or perhaps greater, awaited those who caused their apostacy. For he who instigates another to commit a crime, is more cul- pable than the transgressor. It was therefore a necessary consequence, that many of the Christian teachers were condemned. Lastly, those conversant in human affairs well know, that when new laws are enacted on any subject, the old laws relating to it acquire new life. It would therefore not be strange, if on Severus' prohibiting conversions to Christianity, the number of accusers should be suddenly increased. I say nothing of the probability, that the more unfriendly governors extended the prohibitions of the law, and summoned to their bar persons who became Christians before the law was enacted. What some of the learned maintain, respecting the cause of this edict, has little or no weight. The most probable conjecture is that of Henry Dodwell, in his Dissert. Cyprian. Diss. xi. § 42. p. 269. ; namely, that the emperor's victory over the Jews, who had disturbed the public tranquillity by a recent in- surrection, gai^e rise to this edict. That this Jewish insurrection induced Severus to prohibit Romans from becoming Jews, lest the augmentation of the resources of that people should prove injurious to the commonwealth, is be- yond all controversy. But Spartian couples the law against the Christians with that against the Jews, and tells us, that both were enacted at the same time: and we may reasonably suppose, therefore, that some ill-disposed persons sug- Caracalla and Ilcliogahalus. \\ gestod to the emperor, that there was equal danger from the Christians, and that if tiieir numbers and strength should become augmented, they might mako war upon the Romans who worsliipped the gods. This argument had great elK'ct upon the superstitious emperor. And there is little force in [p. 459.] what is o})posed to this supposition, by certain learned men, who, following TUlemonL (Memoircs pour I'Histoire de I'Eglise, tom.iii. P. I. p. 487.) say, it ap- pears from Jerome's Chronicon,thatthe war against the Jews occurred in iUa fifth year of Severus, but that the law was not enacted till his tenth year. For there might be various reasons for several years to intervene between the war and the promulgation of the law. Dodwell, however, and those who follow him, have erred in supposing that Severus did not distinguish between the Jews and the Christians, but confounded them together. For, not to mention, that Spartian's laiigunge is opposed to this idea, he distinctly stating that there were two laws, one against the Jews and the other against the Christians; Severus could not be 80 ignorant of the affairs of his own times, as to confound the Christians with the Jews. Tiiere were Christians in his own family ; and with some of them he lived in intimacy. § VII. The state of Christians under Caracalla and Helio^abaliis. Severus, having died at York, in Britain, in the year 211, was succeeded by his son, Antoninus, surnamed Caracalla, who better deserved the title of tyrant than tliat of emperor. Yet, under him, the persecution which liis father had excited against the Christians, gradually subsided :(') and, during the six years of his reign, we do not learn that they endured any very great griev- ances. "Whether this is ascribable to his good will towards Chris- tians, or to other causes, docs not sufficiently appear.(") He being slain, after the short reign of Macrinus, who instigated the mur- der, the government of the Roman empire was assumed by Anto- ninus Elanahalus, a prince of the most abandoned character, and a monster of a man. Yet, he also, did nothino* ai>:ainst the Chris- tians.Q After a reign of three years and nine months, he was slain, with his mother, Julia, in a military tumult at Eome; and Alexander Severus, the son of Mammaea, whom Elagabalus had adopted, and had constituted Ciesar, was hailed emperor in the year 222, and proved to be a very mild and excellent prince. (1) We have a work of Tertullian addressed to Scapula, a most bitter enemy of the Christians, and written after the death of Severus, froii which it appears that the commencement of Caracalla's reign was sullied by the execu- tion of many Christians in Africa. (2) Some learned men think, Canicnlla h:id kind feelit-gs townrds Christians ; and in favor of tliis opinion they cite the authority of Tertnilian and [p. 4G0.] 12 Century IIT.—Scction 7. Spartian. The former, in his work ad Scapulam, c. 4. p. 87, records, that Anto- ninus Caracalhi lade Christiano educatum fuisse, which, undoubtedly means, that he was nursed by a Christian mother. The latter, in his life of Caracalla, (in tlie Scriptures Hist. Augustae, torn. i. p. 707,) relates of him, that when seven years old, Quum collusorem suum puerum ob Judaicam religionem gra- vius verberatum audivissut, ncque patrem suum, neque patrem pueri, vel auc- tores verberum diu respexissc : that is, he was exceedingly ofiendcd at the injury done to his companion. From these two testimonies, learned men have supposed, that it may be inferred, the Christian mother of Caracalla instilled into him a love of her religion, along with her milk; and that this led him to 80 great indignation towards the persons who had punished his com- panion on account of his religion. They, moreover, do not hesitate to say, that by Judaica Religio in the passage from Spartian, should be understood the Chrislian religion ; because it is certain, that Christians were frequently con- founded with Jews by the Romans of those times. But to me, all this appears very uncertain. To begin with the last assumption, I cannot easily persuade myself, that Spartian meant Christianity when he wrote Jewjish religion ; for It appears from other passages in his book, that he was not ignorant of the wide ditference between the Jews and the Christians. And again, it was not a love of the religion, which his companion professed, but attachment to the person of his friend and play-fellow, that made him angry with those who punished him. Lastly, it is not easy to conceive, how a sucking child could be imbued by his mother with the love of ariT/ religion. The ancient Christians do not mention Caracalla among their patrons; and the tranquillity they enjoyed under him, was due perhaps to their money, which they would spend freely in times of trouble, more than to the friendship of this very cruel emperor. (3) There is a passage in the life of Heliogabalus by Lampridius, (c. 3. p. 796.) which seems to indicate, that this emperor, though one of the worst of men, was destitute of hatred to the Christians. It is this: Dicebat praiterea (Imperator) Judaeorum et Samaritanorum religiones et Christianam devotionem illuc (viz. Rome, where he would have no other god to be worshipped, besides Heliogabalus, or the sun, of which he was himself priest,) transferendam, ut omnium culturarum (i. e. all forms of divine worship,) secretum Heliogabali sacerdotium teneret. Although this passage is more obscure than I could wish, yet the following things can, I think, be learned from it. I. That Helio- gabalus wished to abolish all the deities worshipped by the Romans, and to substitute in their place one deity, the sun, of which he himself was priest. Nor was this very strange ; for among both the Greeks and the Romans, there were persons who supposed that all the Gods represented only the sun. H. That, on this taking place, he wished to have the Jewish, Christian, and Sama- ritan religions transferred also to Rome. And III. That his aim was, that the sacerdotium, that is, the priests of Heliogabalus or the sun, might learn the [p. 461.1 secret ceremonies, of all religions, and be able, perhaps, from theso ceremonies to improve and embellish the worship paid to the sun. Weliogaba- lus, therefore, did not wish to extirpate the Christian religion, but he would have Christians live at their ease in Rome itself, and worship God in their own Alexander Sever us. 13 way, so that the priests of the sun, by intercourse with them, might learn tlieir most secret discipline. Such an emperor could have no thoughts of pcrsocut- ing the Christians. § VIII. state of Christians under Alexander Severus. Under Alexander Severas, the Christians saw better times, than under any of the preceding emperors. The principal cause of thei;: peace and tranquillity, was Julia Mammcca^ the emperor's mother, who influenced and guided her son ; and, having the greatest re spect for Christianity, once invited Origen, the celebrated Chris • tian doctor, to visit the court, that she might profit by his in- structions and conversation.^) Yielding himself, therefore, wholly to the judgment and pleasure of his mother, Alexander not only adopted no measures adverse to the Christians, but he did not hesitate to show, by various tokens, his kind feelings to- wards them. And yet, if we examine carefully all the evidences of these his kind feelings, which history records, they do not ap- pear sufficient to prove, that he regarded Christianity as more true or more excellent than other religions. If I can rightly judge, Alexander was one of those who supposed, that but one God was worshipped by all the nations, under different names, in differing modes and forms, and with diversity of rites. This opinion, it is well known, was held by many of the philosophers of that age, and particularly by the Platonists. And, if so, he would think, that the Christian mode of worshipping God might be tolerated as well as the others ; and perhaps, also, he deemed it in some respects more consentaneous to reason than some of the others.^ ) Yet his estimate of Christianity was not sufficient to lead him to abrogate the old laws against Christians, if it was true, as it seems to be, that in his reign, Ulpian collected all the laws enacted against the Christians, so that the Koman judges might understand how they were to proceed against them. And hence, perhaps, we must not regard as fictitious, all the examples of martyrdom endured by Christians under him, in one place and another, of which we find mention. (1) All the modern Christian historians represent Julia Mammaea, tho mother of Alexander, as a convert to Christianity. See Joh. Rud. [p. 462.] Wetstein: Praifatio ad Origcnis Dialogum contra Marcionitas ; who thinks, with others of great authority and learning, that credit must be given to so numerouu testimonies. But the older historians, Easehius (Hist. Eccies. L. vi. c. 21. 14 Century III.— Section 8. p. 223.) and Jerome., (C.-itnl. Scriptor. Ecclcs. c. 54.) speak dubiously. The former characterises Julia as ^eccre^iTTuTfl, and the latter styles her religiosa. And both tell us, that Origeu was invited by her to the court, which was then at Aniioch, and tiiat she heard him discourse on religion. But neither states, that she yielded to Origen's views, or that, abandoning superstition, she became a professed Christian. Neither are the two words, by which Eusebias and Jerome express her piety, of such import as clearly to imply her conversion ; for they are applied by the ancients, in general, to all persons, Christians or not Christians, who were solicitous for salvation, and reverenced a supreme Being. On the other hand, we find manifest indications, in the life of Julia, of real superstition, and of the worship of the false Roman gods. These and other considerations induce several excellent men to believe, that she continued an adherent to the religion of her ancestors. A fuller discussion of this sub- ject may be found in Fred. Spanheiyri's Diss, de Lucii Britonum Regis, Juliae Mammaea3 et Philiporum Conversionibus, c. 2. 0pp. torn. ii. p. 400. I will add a few things, corroborative, as I think, of this opinion. And first, Lam- pridius, in his life of Severus, c. 14. (Scriptores Hist. August, tom. i. p. 901,) styles lier Sa?icla Mulier, an expression corresponding with the epithets used by Jerome and Eusebius; yet no one supposes that Lampridius intended, by this language, to indicate that she embraced Christianity. Again, I deem it worthy of remark, that Eusebius states in the passage specified, that Origen did not remain long at Antioch with the empress, but (la-Tnvh) quickly returned home. If I am not deceived, this is evidence, that the avaricious Julia, who was very greedy of wealth, found no great satisfaction in the discourses of Origen, who was a despiser of wealth, and contented with poverty ; and there- fore, she soon sent back the austere teacher to Alexandria. There can be no doubt, however, that Julia was well disposed towards the Christians and their religion; and, though her manners differed widely from theirs, yet she felt re- spect for the Christian discipline, and for those who practised it. And hence it is not strange, that her son also, Alexander, should be very well disposed towards Christians. For both in his childhood and his manhood, as historians inform us, he was governed solely by her authority, and always considered her decisions perfectly right. Says Lampridius, (in Vita Severi, c. 14. p. 901.) : Quum puer ad imperium pervenisset, fecit cuncta cum matre, ut et ilia videretur pariter [p. 463.] impcrare, mulier sancta, sod avara et auri atque argenti cupida. And a little after, (c. 26. p. 924.) he says: In matrem Mamma^am unice plus fuit. The distinguishing kindness, therefore, of the emperor towards Christians, would seem to be attributable, not so much to his judgment and wisdom, as to his deference to his mother. (2) There are some who rank Alexander Severus himself among the Chris- tians. And though this opinion stands opposed by numerous proofs of the depraved superstition by which his life was deformed, yet a man of great learn- ing and worth, Paul Ernest Jablonski, not long since, found a way to solve tlie difficulty. In an ingenious dissertation, de Alexandro Severo Christianorum sacris per Gnosticos initiate, he endeavors to render it probable, that Alexander listened to some Gnostic teacher, and embraced that form of Christianity which Alexander Sevcrus. 15 the Gnostics professed: but thnt he dissembled his real opinions before tljo people, wliich was :i tliing nllowiiblc amon^r Gnostics, and publicly worshipped the Roman Gods, but privately worshipped Christ, This dissertation of the learned Jablonski, is found in the Miscellaneis Lipsiensibus nuvis, oi' iha ex- cellent Fred. Otto MoickenXtom. iv. P. i. p. 66-94.) Tiie sole foundation of this opinion, (for all that is brought from Lampridius and others in support of it, falls to the ground without it,) is an ancient gem, published by James de Wilde, on which appears the well known Monogramm of Christ, together with this inscription : Sal. Don. Alex. Fil. Ma. Luce. These notes he would have us read and interpret thus : Salvs Donata Alexandro Filio Mammccae Lxice (ss. Christ], this name being expressed by the Monogramm.) Charles du Fresno had previously referred this gem to Alexander Severus, in his Diss, de Inferioris sevi Numismat. \ 24. contrary to the views of Gisbert Cuper, who (in his notes on Lactantius de Mortibus Persequutor. p. 239.) would refer it to some emperor's son of the name Alexius. Tobias Eckhard also, (in iiis Testimonia non Christianor. de Christo, p. 157.) professed to regard this gem as no con- temptible proof, that Alexander and his mother privately embraced Christianity. But it was the celebrated Jablonski who undertook formally to state and defend this opinion: and he finds Q II. p. 71.) in this gem, not a probable argument, (as Eckhard deemed it to be,) but certain and unanswerable proof, that Alex- ander was privately initiated a Christian. But this his certain and strongest possible proof, rests solely on the two letters Ma. which are subjoined to Alex. Fil. in the gem ; and which he thinks cannot possibly denote any other person than Mammaea. He says, (§ 11. p. 70.) : Sunt autem illse Littera3 indicio certis- simo, nullis machinis elidendo, Gemmam banc sculptam esse in honorem ct memoriam Alexandri Filii Mammaae. But, to tell the truth, I must [p. 464.] confess that I do not see what there is, that compels us to understand by tiiese letters no person but Mammcca. There were many names, as every one knows, both of males and females, which began with the two letters Ma. And if any person should insert one of these instead of Mammcea, I see not how he can be forced to give up his conjecture. If the word Imperalor, or the abbreviation Imp. had been prefixed to the name Alex, the person might feel some embar- rassment. But in the gem, as the learned author admits, there is notiiing that indicates imperatorial rank. Leaving the more full dijudication of this point to others, I will bring for- ward all the testimonies of the ancients concerning Alexander's friendship for the Christians, and will show that nothing more can be inferred from them, than that he deemed Christianity worthy of toleration, and its religious worship neither absurd nor injurious to the commonwealth; but that he by no means preferred Christianity to all other religions, or regarded it as more holy, more true, or more excellent. In the first place Lampridius, in his Life of the Emperor, (c. 22. p. 914.) says: Judaeis privilegia reservavit. Christianos esse passus est. From this, only a moderate degree of benevolence can be proved. The emperor favored the Jews, more than he did the Christians. For he re- stored to the former, the privileges of which they had been divested by pre- ceding emperors; while to the latter he granted no rights, but merely suspended 16 Century III. — Section 8. the operation of the ancient laws against them; in other words, he made iia enactments a^rainst them. Yet he did not abrogate the old, unjust, and vexa- tious laws, as'xve shall presently see; so that the favor which he conferred on tlie Christians, though real, was yet but moderate. It is meritorious to sus- pend the operation of iniquitous laws; but far more so, to rescind and abolish them ; and most of all, to guaranty rights infringed upon by the former laws. But to proceed: this same Lampridius, (c. 29. p. 930.) tells us, that the emperor had an image of our Saviour, together with the likenesses of certain great men, placed in liis chamber for private worship, for he says : Matutinis horis in Larario suo, (in quo et divos et principes, sed optime electos et animaa Bani'tiores, in quels et ApoUoniiim, et quantum scriptor suorrum temporum dicit, Chriatum, Abraham et Orpheum, et hujuscemodi Deos habebat et rnajorum effigies,) rem divinam faciebat. A very learned dissertation was written, a few years ago, by the distinguished Charles Henry Zibich, and which the celebrated Mencken deservedly placed in the Nova Misc(illanea Lipsiens. (torn. iii. p. 42.) This learned man aims to prove, and, in my opinion, does successfully prove, that it cannot be inferred from this passage, that Alexander paid divine honors to our Saviour. All that appears from it, is, that Christ had a place assigned him by the emperor, among the animce sanctiores^ i. e. the men distinguished for sanctitv, piety, and wisdom; and that he was accounted not inferior to ApoUo- [p. 465.] nius, Abraham and Orpheus. But, not to be too strenuous, we will grant, that a degree of probability is attached to the opinion, that Lampridius intended to signify that a sort of worship v/as paid by the emperor to Jesus Christ: we will admit also the truth of the focts stated, although a strenuous disputant might call them in question, since Lampridius mentions only a single \vitness for them ; and lastly, we will admit, that the historian here gives to Christ the title of Deus, or " God ;" and that the words : El hvjuscemodi Deos habebat, are the correct and true reading, although many think they are not. Yet, after all these admissions, it will not be proved, that Alexander considered the Christian religion as better and more holy than the other religions. On the contrary, the language clearly shows, that the emperor placed Christianity among the plausible and allowable forms of religion, and that he coincided in opinion with those men of his age, who considered all religions as equal, differ- ing only in rites, regulations, and modes of worship. ■ For he coupled together the three chief personages of the three most distinguished religions of his times, the Gentile, the Christian, and the Jewish ; namely, Orpheus, (that great master of the mysteries and theology, and the eulogist of the gods.) and Abraham and Christ : and this shows, that he attributed the same dignity to each of those religions. Moreover, all those whom Alexander honored with a place in his principal Larariu7n, and esteemed as Divi, were not in his opinion holy persons, and patterns of virtue and wisdom. For, as Lampridius tells us, (c. 32. p. 936.) Consecraverat in Larario majore inter divos et optimos (etiam) Alexandrum Magnum. And yet he was far from denying, that in him were enormous vices, as well as virtues. Our author says (c. 30. p. 932.) : Condemnabat in Alexan- dro ebrietatem et crudelitatem in amicos. Of no more weight is the third thing, relative to Alexander's reverence for Christ, recorded by Lampridius, (c. 43. Alexander Severus. 17 p. 993.) namely : Christo tcmpluin faecrc voliiit, euniquo inter divos rccipere. He would, therefore, only iisyign Cln-istiunity a place among the other religiona, and not recommend it to his people as the only religion that was true and worthy of God. This will appear more clearly from the grouiuls of his giving up the design : Sod prohibitus est ab iis, qui consulenles hucva, reporerant, omnes Christianos futures, si id optato evenisset, et tenipla rcliqua descrcndiu For this passsagc does not refer (as many have supposed) to the emperor Hadrian, who formed the same project, but to our Alexander. He was there- fore, not unwilling to have divine honors' pviid to Christ; but he would h.ive it 60 done, that the Roman gods should not be neglected. And when he learned, that these gods would be despised, if Christ should be enrolled among them, he would rather have divine honors withheld from Christ, though w^orthy to re- ceive them, than see the gods neglected and despised. I can conceive how the emperor may have been led to think of enrolling Christ among the [p. 46G.] gods of tlie Romans. The old imperial laws against the Christians were an obstacleto his placing them beyond all danger of punishmentor injury, which his mother ardently desired ; and yet he was afraid to annul these laws precipitately, lest he should irritate the people and the priests. And therefore, to accomplish what he and his mother had at heart, he tried to get Christ admitted among the gods of the republic; because, if this were done, those old edicts against the Christians would of course foil to the ground, and yet would not be subverted by him, but by the Senate who sanctioned Christ's apotheosis. As for what Lampridius tells us ( ^ 45. p. 997.) of his copying the Christians' method of appointing public functionaries, though it was in some measure paying honor to the Christians, yet in aless degree than learned men suppose. The stjitement is: Ubi aliquos voluisset vel rectores provinciis dare, vel praepositos facere, vel procuratores, nomina eorum proponebat dicebatque grave esse, quum id Christiani et Judasi f^icerent in praedicandis sacerdotibus, qui ordinandi sunt, non fieri in provinciarum rectoribus, quibus et fortunae hominum commit- terentur et capita. Not to notice that the Christians are here associated with the Jews, the comparison which the emperor makes between Christian priests and the Roman governors of provinces, shows that, in his view, the functions of a Christian priest were less important and salutary, than the functions of magis- trates. For, in the language of the schools, he reasoned from the less to the greater. If such caution is exercised in the election of Christian priests, what caution should be exercised in appointing magistrates, to whom are entrusted the lives and fortunes of the citizens ? No man could talk thus, if he believed tliat the Christian priests showed men the way to salvation, and taught them the true method of obtaining peace with God. Such a man could not esteem the temporal life and prosperity of the citizens, as more important than the sal- vation of their souls, for which the Christian priests labored. Similar remarks are applicable to the judgment which Alexander is said to have passed, in a litigated case between some Christians and the hucksters ; in Lampridius, c. 49. p. 1003: Quum Christiani quemdam locum, qui fuerat pub- licus, occupassent, contra propinarii dicerent, sibi cum dcberi ; rescripsit, melius esse, ut quomodocunque illic Deus colatur, quam propuiariis dedutur. These VOL. IL 2 18 Century IILScctian 9. words show a religious mind, and are somewliat commendatory of the Chris- tian religion ; lor the emperor admitted that the Christiana worshipped God ; and, on tliat account, the state could tolerate them. And yet he indicates, that the Roman mode of worshipping God was preferable to the Christian ; or, at least, the word Quomodocunqiie leaves it doubtful, whether the Christian modo of serving God was to be ai)proved or was faulty. Such language does not in- dicate a man who viewed Jesus Christ as tiie Son of God, and the only ( I will not Bay Saviour, hut) Instructor of the human race, and whose doctrines and precepts [p. 467.] were more just and holy than any others. What the same Lampridius tells us, (c. 51. p. 1007.) that Alexander was so much pleased with this precept, (which he had learned either from Jews or from Christians) Quod iibi fieri non vis, alter i ne feccris, that he ordered it to be inscribed on the palace and on the public works, has plainly no decisive force in the question before us. For the most virulent enemies of the Christians did not deny, that Christianity con- tained many beautiful and incomparable moral precepts. Nor does the state- ment of Eusehius, (Hist. Eccles. 1. vi. e. 28. p. 228.) that tie family of Alexan- der was full of Christians, much assist those who maintain, that he regarded Christianity as the best and holiest of all religions, notwithstanding he declined a public profession of it. For what wonder is it, if an eraperor, obsequious in everything to a mother who loved the Christians, suffered her to take Christians into her family ? One who placed all religions upon a level, and considered them as differing only as to forms or modes of worshipping the Deity, might consistently admit men of all religions to become his servants. (3) Lactantius says (Divinar. Instit. 1. v. c. 11. p. 627. ed Biinem.) : Nam et constitutiones sacrilegae et disputationes jurisperitorara (in Christianos) leguntur injustse. Domitius de officio proconsulis rescripta principum nefaria collegit, ut doceret, quibus poenis adfici oporteret eos, qui se cultores Dei confi- terentur. The most learned men have no hesitation in saying, that this Domi- tius, an enemy of Christians, was Domitius Ulpianus, whom Alexander entrusted with the chief administration of the state. See Francis Baldioin's Coram, ad. edicta Principum Roman, de Christianis, p. 101. &lc. ed. Gundling. This man, therefore, by collecting together the imperatorial laws against the Christians, may have aimed to moderate the benevolence of his master towards Christians, and to intercept in a measure the effects of his clemency. And of course, it is not beyond credibility, that under this mildest and best of emperors, the judges in several places governed their conduct towards Christians, by the laws which Ulpinn thus spread before them in a collated form, rather than by the wishes of an emperor who had not courage to repeal those laws. Certain it is, that in the Martyrologies and other books, we meet with not a few examples of Christians put to death under Alexander. See the Martyrologium Romanum, diem 11 mam Octob. et diem 22dam Novemb. Yet Theodore Ruinart, (Praef. ad Acta Martyr, sincera et Selecta, ^ 47. 48.) does not conceal the facts, that he regarded most of them as dubious. § IX. The Persecution under Maximin. This tranquility of the Christians was disturbed by Maximin the Thracian, whom the Persecution under Maxlmin. 19 soldiers created emperor, wlicn Alexander Severus was slain, in the year 285. Maximin was actuated, not so muck by [p. 468.] hatred of Christianity, as hj fear^ lest the Christians should sock to avenge the slaughter of their beloved Alexander ; and he therefore did not order all Christians promiscuously to be exe- cuted, but only the bishops and doctors ; hoping that when these were removed, the Christians, being deprived of their leaders and guides, would remain quiet and attempt nothing to his in- jur3^(') Perhaps also, the tyrant did not purpose the death of all Christian bishops, but only of those whom he had known to be the friends and intimates of Alexander. It is certain, that very few cases are recorded of bishops or doctors, who honored Christ by martyrdom, or by any severe sufferings, under this emperor.(") We know, indeed, that in some of the provinces, during this reign, the sufferings and calamities of the Christians were more extensive, and reached all classes ; but these exten- sive calamities are not to be traced to the emperor's edict, but either to insurrections of the populace, who regarded Christianity as the cause of their misfortunes, or to the injustice and cruelty of tlie governors. And hence, we readily agree with those who maintain, that the Christians were harrassed, in various places, during the whole three years reign of Maximin.i^) (1) Eusebius states, (Hist. Eccles. L. vi. c. 28. p. 225.) that Maximin, burn- ing with hatred to the family of Alexander Severus, which was filled with Christians, commenced a persecution against the Christians. But he adds, that the emperor ordered only the bishops (dpx°^'^^s tcjv UKKno-ibJv,) to be slain, as being the authors of evangelical insLrucLion {diriovc T>ic Kara YJuayyiXiov i'iS^a7Ka\ias). These statements are in conflict; if I am not greatly mistaken. If his hatred to the family of Alexander, had been the cause of this persecution, he would not have poured his wrath upon the bishops, who, none of them, be- longed to the family of Alexander, but must have attacked and slain the family of Alexander itself. This course would have gratified his passion; but the punishing of the bishops, brought no evil or detriment to the surviving ministers and servants of Alexander's household. This difficulty will be removed, if we understand the (xdTOf) anger or hatred, in Eusebius, to denote /ear combined with hatred: for those whom we dread or fear, we naturally hale. The tyrant was afraid, lest the family of the murdered emperor should conspire against iiim, and strive to avenge the death of their excellent lord ; and therefore, he pursued them with violent hatred. To free himself from this /ear, he resolved on the slaughter of the Christian bishops, hoping that when they were put out of the way, the adherents and servants of Alexander, being deprived of [p. 469.] 20 Century IIL— Section 9. their iidvisors and guides, would attempt nothing very formidable against him. Undoubtedly, some one who professed to be acquainted with Christian aftairs had sug^a^sted to the emperor, that the Christians followed implicitly the guidance and will of their bishops; and therefore, that he would have nothing to fear, if these bishops were out of the way. Unless this explanation be ad- mitted, I see not how the slaughter of the Christian bishops could originate from hatred to the family of Alexander. (2) Although Eusebius says, that Maximin commanded all the Christian bishops and teachers to be put to death, I yet very much doubt, whether the tyrant's edict was so dreadfully cruel. I suspect, rather, that the emperor's enmity extended only to those Christian teachers, who had been intimate with Alexander and his mother, and whom the former knowingly permitted to instil the Christian ftiith into a large part of his family. The chief of tliese was Origcn, who was well known to have been invited to the court, not long before : and therefore him especially, the tyrant wished to have arrested and put to death. This we learn from Orosius, who says, (Histor. L. vii. c. 19. p. 509. ed. Havercamp.): Qui maxime propter christianam Alexandri et matris ejus Mum- ma3ae familiam, persequutionem in sacerdotes et clericos, id est, doctores, vel praecipuc propter Origenem presbyterum miserat. And it is well known, that in order to avoid the emperor's fury, Origen kept himself concealed at Caesarea for two years. Being unable to find him, the tyrant vented his indignation upon his two most intimate friends, Ambrose, a man of great distinction, and Protocteius a presbyter; who were first treated with great indignity and abuse, and then banished to Germany by order of the emperor. See Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. L, vi. c. 29. p. 229. Besides these, very few only, here and there one, of the Christian priests and bishops, suffered greatly under Maximin. Says Sulpiiius Severus, (Hist. Sacra, L. ii. c. 32. p. 247.) : Maximinus nonnuUarum ecclcsiarum Clericos vexavit. Now, whence this paucity of martyrs and con- fessors among the bishops and teachers, if the edict of Maximin commanded all Christian bishops every where, to be seized and put to death? Numerous examples of martyred clergymen under this very cruel emperor, would have come down to us, if the edict had ordered the bishops and teachers to be indis- criminately put to death. But all that is obscure in this matter, becomes clear and obvious, if we suppose that hatred or fear of the family of Alexander was, as ancient writers expressly state, the cause of this persecution of the Christian teachers: and this alone may lead us to conclude, that the emperor's rage was only against those priests, who had been intimate with Alexander and his fiimily. [p. 470] (3) Those who treat of the persecution under Maximin, trace all the evils of the church during his reign, to this edict of the emperor. But in this they certainly err. The emperor only wished to get rid of some of the bishops and teachers. And therefore, the proceedings against all classes of Christians, in one place and another, must be ascribed to other causes. And of this fact, those early writers who treat of these general persecutions, have not left us in ignorance. Origen tells us, (torn, xxviii. in Matth. in his 0pp. torn. i. p. 137, ed. Lat.) that earthquakes occurred in some places, and that the people, as usual, Gordian and Philip. 21 attributed tlie cahimity to the Christians, and therefore inflicted great evils up- on them. Sec also liis Exhortatio ad Martyres, which he wrote in the reign of Maximin. Tlio same cause, and not the cruelty of Maximin, produced the suf- ferings of the Christians in Cappadocia and in the adjacent regions; which, liowever, were augmented by the injustice of Serenianus the governor. Thus FlrmiUian testifies, (in his Epistle to Cyprian, among the Epistlolae Cyprianicae, No. Ixxv. p. 146, ed Baluz.) : Ante viginta et duos fere annos, teraporibus post Alexandrum Imperatorem, multae, istic conflietationes et pressurae acciderunt, vel in commune omnibus hominibus, vel privatim Christianis; terrae etiam motua pUirimi et frequenter extitcrunt, ut et per Cappadociam et per Pontum multa Bubruerent, quaedam etiam civitates in profundum receptae dirupti soli hiatu devorarentur, ut ex hoc (not in consequence of the imperial edict.) persccutio quoque gravis adversum nos Christiani nominis fieret, quae post longam retro aetatis pacem repente oborta de inopinato et insueto malo ad turbandum populum nostrum terribilior effecta est. Serenianus tunc fuit in nostra provincia praeses, acerbus et dims persecutor. Hence, the Christians were not persecuted in all the Roman provinces, but only in those which had previously suffered greatly from these natural calamities. For thus Firmillian proceeds : In hac autem perturbatione constituti-; fidelibus, et hue atque illuc persecutionis metu fugien- tibus, et partrias suas relinquentibus, atque in alias partes regionum transeunti bus, (erat enim transeundi facultas, eo quod persecutio ilia non fer totum mun- dum, sed localis fuisset,) eraersit, &c. But, certainly, the persecution would have pervaded every part of the Roman world, if it had been commanded by an impera- torial edict. To express frankly my own views, I can hardly persuade myself that Maximin issued any decree against the Christian priests and bishops; but I suppose that, after the death of Alexander, he merely ordered the arrest of Origen and a few others, whom he knew to have been intimate with the murdered em- peror and his mother; and that, after a short time, other objects occupying his mind, and the state of things being changed, this sudden burst of passion subsided. § X. The tranquillity under Gordian and Philip. Maxi- [p. 471.] mill being slain, by tlie African legions, in the year 238, Gordian^ a mere boy, was created emperor; and, by means of his father-in-law, Misitheus, a man of great energy, he so conducted the government for six years, as to place the Christians in perfect safety. But, being unable to prevent the murder of Misitheus by Phihp the Arabian, he was, the next year, himself slain by the same man, who had usurped the office of PrcCtorian Praifect. From tlie year 244 this M. Julius Philip^ with his son of the same name, as the Ciesar, governed the Roman empire for almost five years, and showed himself exceedingly friendly to the Christians. From this fact arose the report, which was propagated in the subsequent ages with great unanimity among tlio writers, that botli tlicso Philips privately renounced the superstition of the futile gods, oo Century III.— Section 10. and embraced Christianity. But wlictlicr tliis report states a fact, or only a vulgar fable, originating from the kindness of the em- perors towards Christians, has been disputed with great earnest- ness by the learned. Whoever will candidly and impartially weigh the arguments on both sides of the question, will see, that arguments are adduced by both parties, which, on examination, appear weak and powerless ; and that there is nothing to fully settle the point, and compel us to accede to either party in the dispute.(') (1) Tlierc are extant many very grave and learned discussions respect- inn- the renunciation of the old superstitions and reception of Christianity by the two Philips; some exclusively devoted to the subject, and others treating of it incidentally and cursorily. The most important of them are enumerated by Jo. Alb. Fabricius, (Lux salutaris Evangelii toti orbi exoriens, p. 235) But to his list, if it were necessary, large additions might easily be made of per- sons of high reputation, among both the ancients and the moderns. Oinitting a work of so little importance, we will recount the principal arguments on both sides, so that those desirous to understand the controversy, may obtain their object with but little labor. In the first place, the reader should be apprised, that arguments are adduced on both sides, which scarcely deserve to rank among slender conjectures. Such, for example, are those from certain coins, — from Origen's journey to Arabia, — from the austerity of the younger Philip, — from certain just and equitable laws of the elder Philip, and from other topics adduced in proof of the sincere regard of the Philips for Christ, but which are of no weight, and vanish when touched. Nor are those more solid which are de- [p. 472.] rived from the celebration of the secular games by Philip, — from the superstitious marks on coins bearing his likeness, — from the apotheosis of Philip, — and from some other topics, in proof that the emperors were averse from Christianity. We propose to bring forward only those arguments which seem worthy of some regard, and may have influence on sober minds. Among the arguments of those who wish to prove Philip a Christian, the first place is due to the testimony of Eusebius, (Hist. Eccles. 1. vi. e. 34. p. 232,) who reports from tradition : "That on the vigils of Easter, the emperor wished to be a participator with the rest of the people in the prayers of the church, but that the bishop would not permit him to be present, until he had made confes- sion of the enormous sins he had committed, and had taken his stand among the penitents : and that the emperor was not displeased, but conformed to the bisliop's wishes." Eusebius mentions neither the place where this occurred, nor the name of the bishop who ventured to exclude the emperor from the church. But from the narrative of Leontius, bishop of Antioch, (an ancient writer who lived in the time of Constantius,) preserved in the Chronicon Paschale, edited among the Byzantine Historians, by Carol du Fresne, it appears, that it was Babylas, bishop of Antioch, and afterwards a martyr under Decius, who as- Was Philip a Ckri^tlan ? 03 sumod so iiiueli authority over tlie emperor. See the Ckronicon Paschale, thca. X. et xiii. ;ui juin. 1253. p. 270. Chnjsostom also, in liis Oralioti in honor of St. Babylas, (opp. toin. i. p. 658, 659, ed. German.) mentions this heroie act of the bishop, but without giving the name of the emperor. To this testimony of Eiisebius, learned men add his declaration in his Ckronicon, nd ann. 2-16. in the translation of Jerome: Philippus primus omnium ex Romanis Imperaloribus Chrislianus fait: with which Jerome himself agrees, in his Catalog. Scriplor. Ecc PS. cap. de Origcne. — To break down this chief bulwark of those who place Piiilip among the Christians, those of the contrary opinion exert themselves greatly: and Fred Spanheitn, (in his Dis. de Christianismo Philippi Arabis, ^ 11 &c. 0pp. torn. ii. p. 418.) has carefully collected all the arguments, which can be thought of. Yet they all resolve tiiemselvcs into a few, if we carefully ex- amine the proh'x discussions of these great men. The amount is, that Eitsebius does not cite any specific and suitable testimony, in support of his narrative ; but says himself, that he learned what he states from common fame : his words are, Kart;^" ^«V°f » /ame has it : — that Leontius also drew his account merely front public rumor, handed down by tradition, xari ^iS'ix^v, per traditionem : — that Chnjsostom, in his statement, committed more than one error, and more- over, does not give the name of the emperor. But all these objections will not be sufficient proof, to discerning minds, that the conversion of Philip to Chris- tianity must have been a fable. For who would deem it conclusive reasonino-, to say : This or that is reported only by fame, and not in any book or author ; and therefore it is not true ? We know innumerable things, which [p. 473.] have come to us only through the medium of fame or continuous tradition, without being written down by the contemporary writers : and yet they may be perfectly true. And on the other hand, many things are false, for which the testimony of many ancient writers may be adduced. Fame is a reporter both of truth and falsehood. It is, therefore, not sufficient proof of the falsehood of a story, to show that the historians base it only on fame: Investigation is to be made, whether reliance should, or should not, be placed on this fame. Now the testimonies adduced, put it beyond controversy, that in the fourth and fifth centuries, over a great part of the Christian world, fame declared Philip to have been a convert to Christianity, In the thing itself, tliere is nothing absurd, or incredible. On the contrary, there are somethings to support it: among which, and not the least, is this: that what, in his History Eusehius states as derived from fame, in his Chronicon he states as being certain : and in this ho is followed by Jerome, as already shown. Consequently, unless the truth of this /awe can be overthrown by other and more potent arguments, there must be reason for doubting at least, whether this fame is to be credited or disbelieved. Another argument adduced by those who contend for Philip's conversion to Christianity, is drawn from the Epistles written by Origen to this emperor and to his consort Severa, mentioned by Eusehius, (Uht. Eccles. 1. vi. c. 36. j). 233.) To elude the force of this argument, the learned men who exclude Philip from the class of Christians, advance many things, which truly had better have been omitted. They, for example, question the genuineness of those epistles; they doubt whether Eusebius ever saw them, &,c. They remark, tiiat Eusehius imd 24 Century IILSeciion 10. Jerome, who both speak of these epistles, do not in all respects agree ; for Eusehius says, Origen wrote to the emperor's spouse, and Jerome, that he wrote to the emperor's mother. But these are trivial objections, and easily answered by the opposite party. The case did not require so elaborate a discussion t for there is nothing in these epistles merely, which can materially aid the ad- vocates of Philip's Christianity, because neither Eusebius nor Jerome tells what was in them. No wise and careful man will ever reason thus: A certain Chris- tain teacher wrote a letter to this or that man, therefore the person written to was a Christian. For why may not a Christain write to one who is not a Chris- tian? A Christian may, by letter, exhort a person alienated from Christianity, to become a Christian. Or he may intreat him to be kind and indulgent to Christians ; or may address letters to him on other subjects. And, assuredly, if Eusebius had found in these epistles any clear proofs of the conversion of Philip and his mother to Christianity, he would not have omitted the notice of [p. 474.J so important a fact; neither would he, when just before treating of Philip's exclusion from the Christian worship by a bishop, have appealed solely to the authority of tradition. He would, doubtless, have said : " I have seen the epistles of Origen to Philip, from which I know with certainty, that he adhered to the Christian religion." Of no more weight is the third argument of those who make Philip a Chris- tian, derived from the Acta S. Ponlii ; (edited, with improvements, by Steph. Baluze, Miscellaneor. torn. ii. p. 493.) For, the advocates of the Romish church themselves dare not deny, that these Acta are of no authority, or at most, of very little; and that they state many things, respecting Pontius, the reputed instrument of Philip's conversion, and respecting Philfp himself, which no sober, intelligent man, acquainted with antiquity, will ever admit to be true. It is probable that this whole fiible was invented by some person who wished to add sti-ength and authority to the old story of Philip's being a Christian. Lastly, those who place Philip among Christians, adduce a host of witnesses from the sixth century downwards. For all the Greek and Latin historians, since that century, and among the Arabians, EiUijchius (in Annal. Eceles. Alexandr.) and Ahulpharaius (in Historia Dynastiarum,) with united voice, de- clare that Philip was a Christian. But those who deny that Philip was a Chris- tian, treat this great army with contempt, and pronounce them unworthy of re- gard ; because they all borrowed from the narrative of Eusebius, so that the whole story falls back upon him. And learned men say this, with some ap- pearance of truth. For many of those witnesses use the very words of Euse- bius in his Chronicon, and others depart very little from them. Yet it must be confessed, that some of them express themselves as if they had other authori- ties for their statement, besides Eusebius. — As to the various other arguments in favor of Philip's Christianity, derived from some of his coins, — from certain of his enactments, — and from the regard for Christ, exhibited by his wife Severa ; though deemed very weighty by some great men, they are too far- fetched to be arguments of any real force. We will therefore pass over to the other side, and examine the arguments of those who maintain that Philip was not a Christian. These also adduce many arguments, which may be easily con- Was Fhilij) a Christian? 05 futcd. Wc will only notice those arguments, in which there appears a deforce of weight not to be contemned. In theirs/ place, they remind us of the f;\ct, that all the writers of impera- torial liistory are wholly silent, as to any conversion of Philip to the Christian faith. And they add, that many of the Christian writers, and Eusehius at the head of them, (in Vita Constantini Mag.) distinctly state, that ConsLanlinc the Great, was the first of all the emperors that embraced Christianity. But the dissidents are for from quailing before this argument. They say, that Philip did not profess Christianity, openly and publicly, but only in private [p. 475.] and secretly ; so that he publicly worshipped the gods, and dissembled his change of faith, while in private he attended the Christian worship. And henco the writers of Roman history, and also Julian, and some others, were ignorant of his renunciation of the old religions, ^nd they say, that the Christian authors, who declare Constaniine to be the first Christian emperor, are not to be understood as speaking absolutely, but only as representing Constaniine to be the first of all to profess Christ, openly, fully, and without disguise ; and, on that account, he was properly and deservedly called i\\Q first Christian emperor. This reply, it is difficult to divest entirely of all force; although it is not free from exceptions. It appears to me, that Eusehius himself affords it some sup- port, in his Life of Constantine, (L. IV. c. 74. p. 563.) where he speaks of Con- stantine as being the first of all the emperors up to that time, who openhj pro- fessed himself a Christian. 'E;Tt (xovui t^jv iruTTOTi Xi'""^"^^'^^ J'tafavwi diroS'ii^^^d-ci'Tt KovrrcLvrivcf). When he says that Constantine was the first who openly (S-ictf-xvCis) worshipped Christ, he seems to intimate, that there were others be- fore him, who (d had obtained sucli a vague and indeterminate certificate, might, at his discretion, make all he pleased partakers with him in the benefit conferred. And some, if I am not deceived, so abused this pernicious power, as actually to sell the pri- vilege of sharing in the certificate. This, I think, I can discover in tiie some- what obscure language of Cyprian (Epist. x. p. 20.) : Intelligentes et compri- mentes eos, (he is addressing martyrs,) qui personas accipienies in benejlciis ves- tris, (i. e. who extend your favors, not to those worthy of them, but to those they choose, however unworthy,) aut gi'atijicaniur, (i. e. either give them away,) out ilUcilcc negotiationis nundinas aucupantur, (i. e. or search for buyers of the priviliges contained in the certificate, thus making merchandise of the privileges they had obtained.) On discovering Christians of such corrupted morals and perverse minds, in this early age of the church, we need not greatly wonder at the temerity and licentiousness of the subsequent ages, in making everything sacred venal, and converting the sins of men into a source of gain. But this was then a new crime ; for the martyrs of earlier times did not give such cer- tificates. At this period, doubtless, there were evil-minded and cunning men, who did not stop with renouncing Christ, but were willing to add sin to sin, and therefore blandly persuaded the honest but uneducated martyrs, who had none to direct and guide them, to issue such certificates. Of this wrong conduct, Cyprian himself complains, (Epist. x. pp. 20. 21.) : Sed et illud ad diligentiam vestrara redigere et emendare debetis, ut nominatim designetis eos, quibus pa- cem dari desideratis. Audio enim quibusdam sic libellos fieri, ut dicatur: " Communicet ille cum suis :" quod nunquam onmino a martyribus factum est, ut incerta et coeca petitio invidiam nobis postmodum cumulet. Late enim patet, quando dicitur: "Jlle cum suis;" et possunt nobis viceni et triceni et amplius offerri, qui propinqui et affines et liberti ac domestici esse asseverentur ejus, qui accepit libellum. Et ideo peto, ut eos, quos ipsi videtes, quos nostis, [p. 493.] quorum poenitentiam satisfactioni proximam conspicitis, designetis nominatim libello, et sic ad nos fidei ac disciplinse congruentes litteras dirigatis. Some of the martyrs, before dying for Christ, gave direction to certain of their friends to issue certificates in their names, when dead, indiscriminately, to all who should ask for them. An example of this we have in the Epistle of Lucian, a Confessor, to Celerinvs, (among the Epistles of Cyprian, Epist. xxi. p. 30.) : Cum benedictus martyr Paulus, adhuc in eorpore esset, voeavit me et dixit mihi: Luciane, coram Christo dico tibi, ut si quis post arcessitionem meam, (i. e. after I am put to death,) abs te pacem petierit, da in nomine meo. And Cyprian informs us, (Epist. xxii. p. 31.) that this Lwc/ar?, whom he pronounces a man of piety, but not well informed on religious subjects : Libellos manu sua scriptos gregatim nomine Pauli dabat. Cyprian adds: Lucianus, non tantum Paulo adhuc in carcere posito, nomine illius libellos manu sua scriptos passim 42 Century IIL—Scctlon 12. dedil, sed et post ejus excessum cadem facere sub ejus nomine perscvemv it, di- cens hoc sibi ab illo mandatum. And this same Lucius gave certificates in the name of another martyr, Aurelius, who was unable to write : Auiciii quoquc adoiescentis tormenta perpessi nomine, libelli multi dati sunt ejusdeni Luc-iani manu scripti, quod litteras ille non nosset. Tiie martyrs who were so liberal as to order certificates to be given to all applicants, when they were dead, apjiear to have cherished a great error by believing, that so great was the efficacy of the death they were about to suffer, that it could expiate the sins of other per- sons; and tiiat the injunctions of a deceased and triumphant martyr were ]ier- fectly satisfactory both to God and to men. Thus much is certain, and is manifest from Cyprian's Epistles, and from his book de Lapsis, that most of the martyrs were ignorant of the true grounds of these certificates of peace ; and they imagined grounds for them quite inconsistent with the Christian religion. This Cyprian in some measure perceived, as appears, among other things, from his reprehension of Lucian's proceedings, (Epist. xxi. p. 32.) : Cum Dominus dixerit, in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti gentes tingi, et in bajjtismo praeterita peccata dimitti, hie prcecepti et legis ignarus mandat pacem dari et pec- cata dimitti in Pauli nomine, et hoc sibi dicit ab illo esse mandatum. This is a frigid and futile argument; as also are, it must be confessed, many others oc- curing in the writings of Cyprian. This excellent man is not entirely self'-con- sistenr, on this whole subject; and he especially vacillates in regard to the force and the ground of these certificates; yet he partially apprehended the subject. Those who gave the certificates, whether from their ignorance, or from rash and hasty judgments, really believed that martyrs received power from God to for- give sins, and remit the penalties incurred by transgressors. And Cyprian ef- fected nothing, either by the preceding argument, or by any others. For this [p. 494.] Lucian, whom he endeavored to set right, being provoked and irritated by Cyprian's letters, burst every bond of modesty, and, getting others of the confessors to join him, issued, in his own name, and in that of all the con- fessors, a general certificate of peace, requiring that all the lapsed, without ex- ception, should be restored to the church. Says Cyprian (Epist. xxii. p. 31.) : Postquara ad Confessoros litteras mi.si, ut quasi moderatius aliquid et tempe- rantius fieret, universorum Confessorum nomine idem Lucianus epistolam scripsit, qua pajne omne vinculum fidci et timer Dei et mandatum Domini et Evangelii sanctitas et firmitas solveretur. Scripsit enim omnium nomine unicer- sis (lapsis) eos pacem dedis.se, et banc formam per me aliis episcopis innotes- cere velle : cujus epistolae exemplum ad vos transmisi. This improper conduct of the martyrs, who were generally illiterate and un- acquainted with the Christian discipline, might perhaps have been easily check- ed and corrected, if the presbyters and bishops had done their duty. But they, actuated by hatred of Cyprian and by other motives, shamefully increased the evil, and wished more to be conceded than the martyrs asked for. It was not the aim of the martyrs to subvert all order and to prostrate the authority of the bishops by means of their certificates, nor to exempt those whom they u'lder- took to patronise entirely from ecclesiastical penalties. This is clear, from the language of Lucian himself, tlie most audacious and indiscreet of them all: Contests about the Lapsed. 48 {Cyprian, Epist. xxi. p. 30.) : Et ideo, Fnitcr, pelo, ut, sieut hie, cum Dominus coeperit i|;8i^ eccleyiae pacein dare, secundum praeceptum Pauli (not, Paul the apostle, but Paul the martyr, in whose name Lucian issued the certificates,) et nostrum tr.ictatum, exposita caussa apud episcopum, et facta exomologc- posed the election of Cornelius, m order to secure the appointment to iiinisolf To tills many things might be said in reply ; I will mention only one. Nova- tian was not a man to whom a suspicion of perjury can be attached; he was a man, whom his very enemies pronounced upright, inllexible and rigorous, and whom no one ever charged with impiety towards God, or with being of a perverse and irreligious disposition. What then could CorneliushsiyQ designed by writing to Fabian, and probably to others, that Novatian had long secretly burned with desire for the episcopal office? I answer: to confirm a conjecture, and that a very dubious and intangible one. He reasoned in this manner : Novatian, on being expelled from the church, allow^ed himself to be created bishop by his adherents; therefore, he had long coveted the office of a bishop, although he pretended to the contrary. How fallacious and unworthy of a bishop such reasoning is, I need not here show. There would indeed be a little plausibility in it, though very slight, if Novatian, immediately after the election of Corne- lius, had wished his friends to create Mm also a bishop; a thing entirely within his power to effect. But he postponed all movements for erecting a new church, and patiently awaited the decision of the approaching council. And after he had been condemned and excluded from the church, together with his adherents, he thought there could be no sin in his taking the oversight of his own company. The invidious representations of this affair by Cornelius, can not at this day be refuted, owing to the want of documents; yet, as they come from an enemy, they are not to be received implicitly by those who would judge equitably. Novatian, before he became a Christian, was a philosopher, and most proba- bly a Stoic. From the account Cornelius gives of him, he appears to have been of a melancholy temperament, and consequently, gloomy, austere, and fond of retirement. Those who forsook him and came back to the Romish church, said they found in the man, what Cornelius calls (apud Eusehium, p. 242.): Thv dKoivccvmriAv kui \viio(fi\ittVy which Valerius translates abhorrenlem ab omni societale feritatem, et Iwpinam quamdam amicitiam. He therefore shunned society, and was wolfish towards even his friends; i. e. he was harsh, [p. 515.] austere, and ungracious in his intercourse. That these things were objected to him with truth, I have no doubt ; for manners like these are entirely accordant with his principles. He was led to embrace Christianity by a deep melancholy, into which he had follen, and from which he hoped to be recovered by the Christians. At least, so we must understand, in my judgment, what Cornelius has stated, (nor will any who are familiar with the opinions and jihraseology of the ancient Christians, understand Cornelius differently,) : 'Api/)^« tow TrtrrtZTdit yeyiyiv o IatavS;, f.o/TJ)Vatf Its avrdv Kai htit.\\fi triple yup 'itvst.t 68 Century III. — Section 16. all 80 understood it, telling u3 that Novatian prohibited all persons, guilty of any great fault, from re-admission to the church. And this rule certainly was practised by the Novatian churches in those centuries. This is most explicitly affirmed by Asdepiade.^, the Novatian bishop of Nice, in the fourth century (apud Sncratem, Hist. Eccles. L. vii. c. 25 ; p. 367.) : 'Extoj tow tTid-va-At koj aWai TToWal Kctru ruj ypAtpas eit'.ui, «,«£7s cTe icai Tovi ka'Uqvs droKKiiofxiv. Praster sacrifieium idolo- [p. 522.] rum sunt et alia multa peccata ad mortem, ut loquuntur seripturse, propter quce vos quidem clericos, nos vero etiara laicos a communione remove- mus. In nearly the same manner, Acesius, another Novatian bishop, explains the views of his sect, (apud Socrat. Hist. Eccles. L. i. c. 10 ; p. 38). He says, that from the times of Decius, there prevailed among his people this austeram legem (dua-rnpov ndvovcs) : Neminem, qui post baptismum ejusmodi crimen ad- miserit, quod pecatum ad mortem divinas scripturse pronuntiant, ad divinorum mysteriorum communionem admitti oportere. None of the ancients, so fir as I know, has left us a catalogue of the sins which the Novatians accounted mortal; and, of course, it is not fully known how far their discipline reached, though all pronounce it very rigid. Gregory Nazianzen, (Orat. xxxix. 0pp. tom. ii. p. 636.) is dissatisfied, because they did not include avarice among the mortal sins, since the Scriptures pronounce this sin as great as that of Pagan worship, and declare it to be a species of idolatry. But the good man is mistaken. The Novatians did not punish vicious mental habits, such as avarice and the like, but acts con- travening any of the greater commands of God, or what are called crimes. Gregory, also, in the same Oration, states that the Novatians reckoned second marriages among mortal sins ; which is attested by Epiphanius, Augustine, Tlieodoret, and many others. Neither is this utterly false ; for Socrates, who was well versed in Novatian affairs, informs us, (Hist. Eccles. L. v. c. 22 ; p. 288.) that not all the Novatians, but only those of Phrygia, excommunicated the persons who contracted second marriages. This fact suggests to us the ori- gin and source of this custom. There were followers oi Montanus still residing in Phrygia, in the fourth century, and they condemned second marriages. These mixed with the Novatians, whom they admired for their severe discipline, so congenial to their own practice, and undoubtedly persuaded them to adopt this part of the Montanist discipline. — It is therefore beyond a question, that the No- vatian church, in its maturity, refused to commune, not only with apostatizing Christians, but also with all persons guilty of the grosser sins. But the inquiry still remains, whether the church, at its commencement, and also the founder of it, held the same opinion. That there is ground for doubt on the subject, ap- pears from the 52d Epistle of Cyprian, who sometimes speaks as if Novatian al- lowed a place in his church to adulterers, and to other equally great sinnez's, and excluded only deserters of Christianity, or apostates. He says, (p. 74.) • Aut si 80 cordis et renis scrutatorem constituit et judicem (Novatianus), per omnia sequaliter judicet - - et fraudatores et moechos a latere atque a comitatu suo separet, quando multo et gravior et pejor sit moechi, quam libellatici caussa, cum hie necessitate, ille voluntatc peccaverit. A little after he adds : Nee sibi in hoc novi haeretici blandiantur, quod se dicant idololatris non comraunicare, The Novatlan Doctrines. ($0 quando sint apud illos iidulteri ct fraiulalorca, qui teneantur idololatriai [p. 523.] criniiue, secundum Apostoluin. And a little after: Ita fit, ut si peceato alteriua inquinari alterum diennt, et idololatriam delinquentis ad non delinquenteni transire sua asseveratione contendunt, excuanii secundum suam voeem non possint ab idololatriai crimine, cum constet dc Apostolica probatione mcechos et IVaudatores, quibus illi communi(.-ant, idololatras esse. One cursorily reading these passages, might easily fall into the belief that Novatian tolerated adulter- ers and defrauders in his congregation, or did not forbid this class of offenders, after undergoing the penances prescribed by the church, to be again received among the brethren; and, therefore, that he closed the doors of the church only against folsifiers of their faith. But, if I do not greatly mistake, one who shall attentively and sagaciously examine all that Cyprian says on the subject, will come to a different conclusion. He is not treating of manifest adulterers and defrauders, but only of clandestine and concealed ones; and his mode of reason- ing is this : It may be that there are dishonest men among the followers of Novatian, who, while they profess chastity and uprightness, secretly defile them- selves with adultery and fraudulent dealing : and it is most probable, that there are such degenerate Christians contaminating all societies of Christians, and, of course, also the Novatians. If, then, it be true, as the Novatians maintain, that a man becomes a sinner himself, by associating fraternally with a sinner, the Novatians must be in perpetual peril, and may not escape the stains and spots of sin, whatever pains they may take. That such is the import of Cyprian's reasoning, is, I think, manifest from the first part of it : Si se cordis et renis scrutatorem dicit et constituit Novatianus, fraudatores et moechos a latere suo separet. Had he been speaking of persons, Avhose adulteries and crimes were publicly known, there would have been no need of searching the heart and the reins, in order to discriminate the evil doers from the other Christians. But for detecting and discriminating secret adulterers and defrauders, a sagacity more than human, an exploration of the hearts of men was requisite. To show how difficult it is to remove all sinners from the congregation of the just, Cyprian selected two out of many crimes, adultery and fraud, which are commonly com- mitted with so much secrecy and caution, as to escape public notice. There are, indeed, in this same Epistle of Cyprian, the following words, relative to adul- terers : Quibus tamen et ipsis poenitentia conceditur et lamentandi ac satisfaci- en(M spes relinquitur secundum ipsum Apostolum, 2 Cor. xii. Some learned men think that these words warrant the belief, that Novatian allowed adulterers to expect a re-admission to the church. But, in my opinion, they are most cer- tainly mistaken. For, so far is this passage from showing that Novatian allowed a reconciliation to adulterers, that it docs not show that all other Christians, except Novatians, would receive them. Cyprian says no more than this, that 8t. Paul left to adulterers a hope of penitence and satisfaction. And, [p. 524.] therefore, although the controversy commenced with those unf;iithful Christians, who apostatized in the Decian persecution, yet, it is most probable, that the Novatian church, from its origin, decided that all persons violating the principal Iaw& of God, after baptism, ought for ever to be excluded from the as.«embly of the brethren. 70 Century Ill—Section 16. I come now to the other point, on which I stated there was room for some doubt. A great number of moilcrn writers tell us, that Novatlau cut oft* all those who fell into the greater sins after baptism, not only from the hope of re-admis- sion to the church, but liiccwise from the hope of eternal salvation. And they have respectable authorities for their assertion, in writers of the fourth and fifth centuries, namely, Eusebius, (Hist. Eccles. L. vi. c. 43. p. 241.) Jerome, (in loviiiia- num, e. 2.) and all those who affirm (and there are many that do so,) that No- vatian discarded and abolished all penances. But the more carefully I examine the best and most reliable documents of this controversy, the more certain do I feel, that Novatian was not so destitute of clemency, and that those who so repre- sent him, attribute to him a consequence, which they dadute from his principles, but which he did not allow. Very many in that age believed, that the road to heaven was open only to members of the church, and that those who were without the church must die with no hope of eternal salvation ; and therefore they baptised Catechumens, if dangerously sick, before the regularly appointed time; and they restored to the church the unfaithful or the lapsed Christians, when alarmingly sick, without any penances or satisfaction, lest they should perish for ever. Our Cijprian decides. (Epist. lii. p. 71.) thus; Extra ecclesiam constituLus, et ah unitate aiquc caritale divisus, coronari in morte non poierit. As there were many holding this doctrine, they must have reasoned thus: Novatian would leave the lapsed to die excluded from the church: but there is no hope of salvation to those out of the church. Therefore he excluded the lapsed, not only from the church but also from heaven. Novatian, however, rejected this conclusion, and did not wholly take from the lapsed all hope of making their peace with God. For this assertion, our first great authority is Cyprian, who otherwise exaggerates the Novatian error quite too much. He says, (Epist. lii. p. 75.) : O haereticac institutionis inefncax et vana traditio ! hortari ad satisfac- tionis poenitcntiam et subtrahere de satisfictione medicinam, dicere fratribus nostris, plange et lacrymas funde, et diebns ac noctibus ingemisce, et pro ab- luendo et purgando delicto tuo largiter ct frequenter operare, sed extra eccle- siam post omnia ista morieris ; quaecunque ad pacem pertinent facies, sed nul- 1am pacem quam quaeris accipies. Quis non statim pereat, quis non ipsa despe- ratione deficiat, quis non animum suum a proposito lamentationis avertat? And after illustrating these thoughts with his usual eloquence, he concludes thus: [p. 525.] Quod si invenimus (in the .scriptures,) a poenitentia agenda neminem debere prohibcri - - admittendus est plangentium gemitus et poenitentiae frnotus dolentibus non negandus. So then Novatian exhorted sinners ejected from the church to weep, to prny, to grieve over their sins, in short to exercise penitence. But why did he so, if he believed there was no hope of salvation for the lapsed ? Undoubtedly, he urged sinners to tears and penitence, that they might move God to have compassion on them, or, as Cyprian expresses it, {ut delictum alu luerenl et purgareni,) to wash and purge away their sin. Therefore, he did not close up heaven against them, but only the doors of the church; and he belie- ved, that God had reserved to himself the power of pardoning the greater sina committed after baptism. And this opinion of their master, his disciples con- tiaued to retain. The Novatian bishop Acesius, at the council of Nice, in the The Novatian Doctrines. 71 prcsonec of Const;intinc the Great, accordln,^ to the testimony of Socrates (Hist. Eceles. L. i. c. 10. p. 39.) thus stated the doetrine of his sect: "Eti fAiTXVoUv f^iV if^uprticora; vporptnitVy c'X^rid'a eTi riif dp'iaius /uti Trapa rwi* Itpccff^ dXXa iraca tsw Qiiu iKSi-)(jT^aiy to-j Swaf^ivou Kai c^owriav tvsvTij o-yvv/i'pjiy afAapr»y.aTa. Ad pocnitentiuin quidem invitniidos esse peecatores, reiiiissioiiia vero spem non a sacerdotibus oxpectare debere, verum a Deo, qui solus jua potestatemquc habct diinittendi peecata. A similar statement by Asclcpiacks, another Novatian bishop, is found in Socrates, (Ilist. Eecles. L. vii. c. 25. p. 367.) : aew y.iva> riiv s-uy^dpi^a-t)/ a^aprnov cTTiTpeirovn;. Soli DeO potestatem COIldonandi reliuquimus. And Socrates himself, (L. iv. c. 28. p. 245.) obviously explains the doetrine of Novatian in the same manner. Let us now rest upon these lucid and strong- testimonies, and not vainly strive to enervate them, as somo learned men do, by other fiir inferior and Jess explicit testimonies. This, how- ever, I must not disguise, that from the very testimonies which in some measure vindicate the Novatian sect, it appears, that this species of Christians did no\ hold out to sinners a sure and undoubting hope of salvation. They would not indeed, have the persons whom the church excluded, sink into utter despair; hut, while committing- their case to God alone, and urging them to persevere in their penitence through life, they declared that the hipsed might hope, but must not feel assured, or that they were unable to promise any thing certain in regard to the judgment of God. This surely was sufficiently hard and discouraging. One utterly uncertain of his salvation, is not much happier, than one who is in despair; for he must pass his Hie in continual fear. — In what condition those of the lapsed were placed, whom the Novatians admitted to penitence, is mani- fest; they remained through life in the class of penitents. They could there- fore be present at the public discourses to the people, for this was allowed to penitents ; and in a particular place, distinct from that of the faithful, they could manifest the sorrows of their heart, in the sight of the brethren; and they could live and converse with their kindred and relatives : but from the common prayers, and from the sacred supper, they remained excluded. (2) The error of the Novatians, in itself, appears to be of no great moment, as it pertained merely to the external discipline of the church ; but in [p. 526.] its consequences, it was of the greatest importance, as being in the highest degree adapted to rend the church, and to corrupt religion itself. The Nova- tians did not dissemble, and conceal these consequences, as other sects did, nor did they deny, but avowed them openly. In the first place, as they admitted no one to their communion who had been guilty of any great sin after b:iptism, they must have held, that the visible church of Christ is a congregation of holy and innocent persons. And this principle might have been borne with, some- how, provided they had allowed, that salvation was also attainable in the other churches, which permitted sinners to become reconciled by penitence ; although they might hold its attainment to be more difficult than in the churches denying restoration to the lapsed. But this ihey utterly denied, or at least, represented it as extremely dubious and uncertain. And by assuming to themselves the arrogant title of Cathari, or the "Pure," they charged all the churches that re- ceived back transgressors, with defilement, or impurity and, as we have just 72 Century III. — Section 1(>. heard from Cyprian, tliis impurity, thfiy said, arose from their intercourse with sinners. How they explained this doctrine, is not stated by any ancient writer, nor need we here attempt its investigation. Whether they supposed the viti- osity of the guilty, like a contagious disease, communicated itself to the inno- cent, or whetlier they believed this guilt and pollution to arise from the sin of too great lenity towards sinners; it is certain, they regarded it as of no small moment, and indeed so great, that it could deprive men of those divine aids which are necessary for the attainment of salvation. That such were their sen- timents, no one can doubt, if he considers, that they regarded the baptisms of all the churches that re-admitted transgressors, as being invalid, and that they rebnptised the members of other churches that came over to them. See CypriaUy (Epist. Ixxiii. p. 129.) It was the almost universal opinion of that age, that it is by baptism men obtain forgiveness of sin. on account of their faith and their profession of it : but that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are conferred, by what they denominated consignation, or the Confirmation of the bishop. So taught Dionysius Alexandrinus in Egypt, as appears from his Epistle, (apud Euseh. Hist. Eccles. L. vii. c. 8. p. 254.) ; so also Cornelius, at Rome ; and so likewise Cyprian in Africa, who uses this doctrine particularly, in the controversy respect- ing tbe rebaptizing of heretics, of which we shall soon have occasion to speak. He says, (Epist. Ixxiii. p. 131.) ; Manifestum est autem, ubi et per quos remissa veccaioriim dari possit, quae in hapLismo scilicet da'ur. And soon after, he thus describes the effects of Confirmation : Qui in ecclesia baptizantur (and conse- quently have already obtained remission of their sins,) praepositis ecclesiae otferuntur, et per nostram orationem et manus impositionem Spiritmn Saiictum [p. 527.] consequuntur et Signaculo Dominico consummantur. More, to the same purpose, may be found in this Epistle. I acknowledge it to be uncertain, whether Novatian attributed the same efficacy to episcopal Confirmation, as other Christians did. Novatian himself, as we have seen objected to him by Cornelius, had no reverence for episcopal Confirmation ; and satisfied himself with baptism only: and Theodoret tells us, (Haeret. Fabul. L. iii. c. 5. 0pp. tom- iv. p. 229, 230.) that his followers made no account of unction or Confirmntion, and of course, other rites accompanying unction. Nor was it, in my judgment, a bad conjecture of Jo. Morin, (Comm. de sncris Ordinationibus, tom. iii. p. 127.) that the Novatians, in this matter, followed the example of their master, who had contemned the so called seal of the bishop. But concerning baptism, and its effects, it clearly appears from Cyprian, (Epist. Ixxvi. p. 154.) that the opinion of Novatian was the same, as that of his adversaries: indeed he must have attributed greater efficacy to baptism than they did ; and must have sup- posed that the Holy Spirit was imparted by it, if he ascribed no virtue to con- firmation. And therefore, as Novatian denied all efficacy to the baptisms of the Christians who received the lapsed to conimnnion, he denied that any of those dissentincT from him had obtained from God the pardon of their sins, or had re- ceived the gifts of the Holy Spirit purchased by the blood of Christ. But what hope of salvation can be left, to men laboring under the burden of their sins, and destitute of the aids of the Holy Spirit? And here I would have particu- hirly noticed, that the lapsed, or those excluded from the church for their Persecution of Galliis. 73 offences, were in .1 better condition, according to Nomiians d Vctrinc, than thoso Christians who admitted the lapsed into their assemblies. For ht taught the lapsed to hope they might succeed in appeasing God, by persevering in their prayers and tears, and other acts of penitence: but thoso Christians who disagreed with Novatian neglected this, the only ground of safety to them, because they did not suppose that they had fallen from a state of grace; and, therefore, they had nothing at all in which they could trust. How inhumnne and dangerous such doctrines were, and whither they tended, I need not explain more fully. Neither is it necessary here to admonish those who may read the ancient writers, respecting Novaius and Novalian, to beware of filling into their errors; for they ofcen confound the two very different, but associated men, being de- ceived by the affinity of the names, Novatus and Novatian. But learned men have long since given warning on this point. § XYII. The Persecution under Gaiius. While tliese contro- versies among Christians were rife, in the year 251, Deciiis was slain, with his sons ; and G alius succeeded him in the govern- ment, with his son, Volusian. The year following, the persecution against the Christians, which had been less vigorously prosecuted during the last years of Decius^ was renewed, either by [p. 628.] the publication of new edicts, or by the revival of the old ones ; and again the Christians had to undergo many evils, in various provinces of the Eoman empire, which, however, they seem to have endured with more fortitude than under Decius.Q) The fury of the people was augmented by the calamities with which the Roman empire was at the time much afflicted, and in particular by a pestilential disease, which carried off an immense number of persons in various parts of the country. For it was supposed that the gods inflicted these penalties on the nations on account of the Christians. This opinion occasioned Cyprian to write his tract, ad Demetriamim^ in which he attempts to confute it.(^) This persecution ceased in the year 254, when Gallus and his son being slain at Interamnia, Valerian, and his son GalliemiSj were placed at the head of the Roman empire; for Valerian immediately restored peace to the Christian world. (1) That Gallus again attacked the Christians, and renewed the persecution commenced by Decius, admits of no controversy. Diojiysins of Ale.\andri:i, (apud Euseh. Hist. Eccles. L. vii. c. i. p. 250.) expressly says, that when Gallus saw things moving on according to his wishes, he trod in the steps of Decius, and persecuted (rot/j hpovi avJ'pai) the holy men. That his Christian subjects in Italy, and especially at Rome, were persecuted, is demonstrable from the 57tb and 58th Epistles of Cyprian. And that the Christians of Africa were exposod 74 Century Ill.—Scctlon 17. to numerous perils, is manifest from CypriarCs Tract, ad Demelrianum, and from other testimonies. But it is not equally apparent, by what law or rule he would have proceedings against them regulated; whether he imitated the cruelty of Decius, or directed to some other mode of proceeding. Cyprian menlions (Epist. Iv. p. 82.) an edict published at Carthage, respeciing sacrifices; and he says, that it occasioned the people to demand him to be cast to the lions: His ipsis diebus, has quibus ad te iitteras feci, ob .sacrificia quae edicto proposilo cclebrare populus jubebatur, chimore popuhirium ad leonem denuo posluhilus in circo fui. But as Cyprian, in this Epistle, makes no mention of evils and I'crils arising from this edict to the Christians, and writes as if all was then quiet, I can re dily accord with the learned in supposing that this edict merely admon- ished the people to placate the gods by sacrifices, in order to avert the pesti- lence and other calamities ; and that it did not order a persecution of the Christians, In this opinion I am confirmed by the fact, that Cyprian does not complain of any actual sufferings, but only of the threats of tiie Gentiles : Et Gentiles et Judaji minaiiLur et haeretici. All things considered, I am induced to [p. 529.] believe that Gallus was not so cruel and unjust to the Christians, as is commonly supposed; that he did not, like Decius, come down with fury upon them, but only terrified the people who believed in Christ, and ordered their principal bishops into exile. And 1 am led to this belief, first, by the language used by Dionysius of Alexandria, (apud Euzeh. Hist. Eccles. L. vii. c. 1.), who says that the {lif-'Oi hS'fai) venerable or holy men were assailed by him. This language, if I am not much deceived, denotes, not the common people, but the bishops and priests. And, as to the evils which these venerable men suffered, he uses a mild term, which seems to exclude capital punishment, viz. : "HXaa-sy, insectatus est, he chased away. As to any martyrs, neither he nor others say one word. And then the occurrences at Rome, in this persecution, as they are fully stated by Cyprian in his Epistle to Cornelius (Epist. Ivii. p. 94, &c.), strongly confirm this opinion. Cornelius, the bishop, was there apprehended, and required to defend his cause before the praetor ; and as soon as the people heard of it, the greatest part of them hastened spontaneously to the judge, and not only professed Christ fearlessly, but declared themselves ready to lay down their lives with their bishop. Prosilierat adversarius terrore violento Christi castra turbare. Sed quo impetu venerat, eodem impetu pulsus et victus est. - - Unum (the bishop) primo aggressus, ut lupus avem secernere a grege, ut accipiter columbam ab agmine volantium separare tcntavcrat. - - Sed retusus adunati exercitus fide pariter et vigore, intclh?xit mi'.ites Christi vigilare - - vinci non posse, mori posse, et hoc ipso invictos esse, quia mori non timent. Quale illud fuit sub oculis Dei spectaculum gloriosum, quale in conspectu Christi ecclesia? suae gaudium, ad pugnam, quam tentaverat hostis, inferre non singulos milites, sed tola simul castra prodiisse ! Omnes enim constat ventures fuisse, si audire potuissent, quando accurrerit properanier et venerit qvisquis audivil. And yet not one of this multitude was either sent to prison, or sub- jected to torture, or put to death. The bishop only, Cornelius, was sent into exile. And no greater punishment was inflicted on Lucius, his successor; and, Buch was the clemency of the times, that he was soon recalled from the exile Persecution of Gallus. 75 into which he was sent. On tliis liis rccnll, (which was procured, I suspoct, by the money of Christians), Cyprian congratuhitcs him in his 58th Epistle (p. 96). There is, indeed, an old tradition, supported by authorities of some respecta- bility, that both Cornelius and Lucius were afterwards put to death. This tnu dition I could resist, if I were so disposed. This is certain, that Cyprian's call- ini>- each of them, (bealicjn. marlyrem) a blessed marhjr (Epist. Ixvii. p. 117), is no solid proof of this tradition ; for it appears, that Cyprian used the word martyr in a broader sense, applying this honorable title to the Confessors also. But, suppose there was no doubt of the violent death of Cornelius and Lucius, these two examples of the execution of bishops, would rather [p. 530.] demonstrate the moderation than tlie cruelty of Gallus; since it is manifest, from the Epistles of Cyprian to each of them, that no one, besides them, suf- fered death at Rome. In Africa, Cyprian lived at Carthage without fear, dur- ing this persecution ; although, shortly before, he had been demanded by the furious populace to be thrown to the lions. Neither was his presence in the city unknown by the magistrates; for Demelrianus, that violent enemy of the Christians, to whom Cyprian wrote a Tract, a man, doubtless, of no little authority, and, perhaps, one of the inferior judges, often called on Cyprian, and disputed with him about religion ; as Cyprian himself states, in the exordium of his Tract. Neither is there anything in his Epistles, from which it can be inferred, that any Christian in Africa suffered death under Gallus. It would seem, therefore, that only exile and the milder punishments were inflicted on certain individuals. I acknowledge that the learned men, who think Gallus was no milder than Decius, have some show of arguments for their opinion. First, they observe that Cypj-ian, by divine inspiration, predicted, before the persecution of Gallus commenced, that there would be one of great magnitude and turbulence. See his 54th Epistle, (ad Cornel, p. 79.) : Spiritu Sancto sug- gerente, et Domino per visiones multas et manifestas admonente, hostis immi- nere prrenuntiatur et ostenditur. . . Protulimus, diem certaminis appropinquasse, hostem violentum cito contra nos exsurgere, pugnam, non talem qualis fuit (i. e. under Decius) sod graiiorem multo et acriorem venire. And he writes the same thing in his 5Gth Epistle, (ad Thibaritanos, p. 90.): Nam cum Domini in- struentis dignatione instigemur saepius et admone amur. - - Scire debetis ac pro certo credere ac tenere, pressurte diem super caput esse coepisse, et occasum saeculi atque Antichrist! tempus appropinquasse. . . Gravior nunc et ferocior pugna imminet. But, to confess the truth, the prophecies and visions which Cyprian often announces, are fallacious and of dubious credibility. He was cer- tainly a pious and good man, but of a fervid temperament, and not sufficiently governed by reason ; and he often rashly supposed the suggestions of his ex- cited imagination to be dictated to him by the Holy Spirit. To demonstrate this by examples from his life and Epistles, cannot be necessary, since tiiis very prophecy of an impending, direful persecution, manifests its human origin and its falsity. He predicts, not only greater evils than under Decius, but likewise (occasum sccculi et Antichristi tempus) the coming of AntirJirisi and tite end (f the world: and even those who may account him the greatest of projlu'ts in other things, must admit, that he was here cgregiously mistaken. And when a 76 Century TIL— Section 17. part of the prediction has been confuted by the event, it cannot be doubtful how the whole of it is to be regarded. Moreover, Cyprian himself frankly owns, that his predictions and vii^ions were ridiculed by many, (Epist. Ixix. p. 124.) : Qamquam seiam somnia ridicula et vaticinationes ineptas quibusdam videri, sed utiquc illis, qui nialunt contra sacordotes credere, quam sacerdoti. With these people he is very angry, but I consider them not so wild in [p. 531.] their opinions as he judged them to be. But a stronger support to those who think Gallus was as cruel to the Christians as Decius, is derived from Cyprian's Tract, ad DemaLrianum. That this tract was written in the reign of Gallus, can be shown by many unexceptionable proofs ; and in it the writer bitterly complains of the very great wrongs suffered by the Christians. lie says, (c. xii. p. 2'20.) : Innoxios, justos, Deo caros domo privas, patrimonio spolias, catenis premis, carcere includis, gladio, hesiiis, ignibus punis. Nee saltern contentus es dolorum nostrorum compendio et simplici ac veloci brevitate poenarum. Admoves laniandis corporibus longa tormenta, multiplicas laceran- dis visceribus numerosa supplicia, nee feritas atquc immanitas tua usitaiis potest contenta esse tormentis ; excogitat novas pa3nns ingeniosa erudelitas. Now, if all these things occurred at the time Cyprian was writing that Tract, it must be acknowledged, that the times of Gallus were not more happy than those of Decius. But it must be remembered, that Cyprian plays the orator in this book, nnd rather declames than teaches or discusses. And hence we are not obliged to consider all that he states respecting the sufferings of Christians, as then taking place before him, or as occurring at the very time he wrote. He is speaking, generally, of the injustice and cruelty of the Roman governors and magistrates ; and, therefore, the things he states may fiiirly be referred to the previous times of Decius. Orators are wont to speak of things of recent oc- currence, and things alvvays to be feared, as if they saw them. And that this is no groundless conjecture, but a correct interpretation of the passage, appears from the fact, that in his Epistles, written about the same time, Cyprian makes no mention at all of the sufferings of his people. Besides, the undisturbed quiet which he himself enjoyed, while writing that Tract, is evidence that the Christians were not then struggling under any great evils. (2) At that time a very destructive and inveterate pestilence afflicted a large part of the Roman empire ; and it was accompanied by other great calamities. Therefore, as was usual for the idolaters, many persons in x\frica declared the Christians to be the cause of these great calamities. Among them there was, in particular, one Demelrianus. And, as he often called on Cyprian to dispute with him, and continued to repeat this accusation, Cyprian undertook to refute it in an appropriate Tract. Near the beginning of this Tract, (ad Demetrianum, c. 2.), he says: Cum dicas plurimos conqueri, quod bella crebrius surgant, quod lues, quod fjimes sseviant, quodque imbres et pluvias serena longa snspendant, nobis imputari, tacere ultra non oportet, ne - - dum criminationes falsas con- temnimus refutare, videamur crimen agnoscere. - - Dixisti per nos fieri et quod nobis debeant imputari omnia ista, quibus nunc mundus quatitur et urgetur, quod Dii vestri a nobis non colantur. Hence, as before stated, when the people of Carthage were admonished by the edict of the proconsul to appease the Persecution of G alius. 77 anger of the gods with sacrifices, they immediately dcmanaed that Cypiian, the Christian bishop, sliould be cast to the lions; because they believed [p. 532.] that this man, and the community of Christians over which he presided, were the causes of their calamities, and that sacrifices and supplications would be fruitless, unless these enemies of the gods were put out of the way. — In this discussion, Cyprian is often eloquent and ingenious, but he is not always solid. With regard to tiiis Demelrian, who so foolishly assailed the Christians, learned men suppose him to have been a man of very high rank, perhaps the proconsul of Africa ; and they infer this from Cyprian's accusing him of inflicting many wrongs on the Christians, and manifesting great cruelty. We have already, in the preceding note, exhibited a part of this accusation. But, as before stated, Cyprian, throughout this Tract, discourses in the style of an orator; and, there- fore, wliat he seems to charge upon Demetrian, personally, may fairly be referred to the Roman judges and magistrates generally. When I read over the exordium of the Tract, he does not appear to me so great a man as he does to these learned gentlemen. Cyprian does not address him in a modest and respectful manner, such as all persons should employ, in their intercourse with men of very high rank, and especially with the vicegerents of the supreme ruler ; but he bursts forth in a strain of unbridled reproach and contumely : Oblatrantem te et adversus Deum ore sacrilego et verbis impiis obstrepentem frequenter, Demetriane, contemseram, verecundius ac melius existimans errantis imperitiam eilentio spernere, quam loquendo dementis insaniara provocare. What an accu- mulation of reproachful terms are in these few words ? Who can think that Cyprian would be so delirious as to compare a proconsul, or governor, a repre- sentative of the emperor, a man who held the power of life and death, with a barking cur, and to call him sacriUgiou% i?npious, ignorant, stupid, insane 1 Cyprian, although he was of a vehement temperament, could admirably curb his impetuosity, and restrain his passions, when occasion required or danger threatened ; as appears from his Epistles. And who does not know that the ancient Christians, after the example of Christ and the Apostles, approached magistrates of all ranks with great caution and respect ? Neither let any one imagine that these expressions may have escaped from Cyprian through inad- vertence, and that in the progress of the discussion, their harshness is corrected by milder and more gentle language. He proceeds with the same virulence with which he commenced, and heaps on his adversary all the reproaches which an exasperated mind is prone to dictate. Scarcely had he uttered what was just cited, when he adds, that Demetrian was one of the dogs and swine to which Christ had forbidden the casting of what is holy. A little farther on, he terms him rahid, blind, deaf, brutish ; Labor irrltus, ofTerre lucem caco, sermonem surdo, sapientiam bruto. Nor do these suffice : Demetrian is still further com- plimented with the terms, raging and impious. He says : Conticui, cum nee docere indocilem possem, nee impium religione comprimere, nee farenteyn leni- tate cohibere. And many more such flowers of rhetoric might be gathered from this Tract. Undoubtedly, those eminent men, Baronius, Pearson, Tillc- mont, and others, must have read these passages; yet, it io strange that [p. 533.] they could have read them, and yet believe Demetrian to have been the 78 Century III.— Section 18. governor or proconsul of Africa ; or, at least, a magistmte of very high rank. Either Demctrian could not have been a man of such higli rank, or Cyprian, in assailing hin) as a man of no character or worth, lacked common sense, and had not the full use of his reason. But these worthy men supposed, they were obliged to consider Demetrian so honorable a man, because they believed that those great sufferings of the Christians which Cyprian deplores, all proceeded from Demetrian : and if this had been the fact, then, doubtless, he must have been the supreme judge and proconsul. We have above cited the leading accu- sations of Cyprian, at the same time observing, that it is not necessary to refer them to Demetrian, personally, because the language of rhetoricians will admit of a laxer interpretation. As to my own views, I suspect that this adversary of Cyprian, was a man of the same occupation and rank with Cyprian, before his conversion, that is, a Rhetorician or Teacher of Eloquence at Carthage. A Philosopher I would not venture to call him, because he supposed the gods had afflicted the human race with pestilence, war, and famine, on account of the Christians ; an opinion incongruous with the views of a philosopher. He lived in intimacy with Cyprian, visiting him quite frequently, and discussing religious subjects with him. But it is not to be supposed, that this intimacy commenced after Cyprian abandoned superstition and became a Christian. I therefore sup- pose they became intimate at the time when Cyprian taught eloquence at Carthage. The similarity of their pursuits, perhaps, brought them to associate together, and the bond which united them could not be entirely severed by the change of religion in Cyprian. This fact, moreover, of the intimacy existing be- tween these two men, appears to me to afford a strong argument against the opinion, that Demctrian governed Africa as the proconsul. For who that is well acquainted with Roman and Christian affairs, will believe, that a proconsul, the governor of a province, who was bound by the emperor's mandate to per- secute the Christians, would pay frequent friendly visits to a Christian bishop, and converse and dispute with him familiarly on religious subjects ? Between Christians, and especially between Christian bishops and persons of such an exalted station, there must have been as great discord as, to use the words of Horace, {lupis et agnis quanta sortilo contigii,) "naturally exists between wolves and lambs." § XVIII. Disputes respecting the Baptisms of Heretics. This ex- ternal tranquillity gave rise to internal conflicts among Chris- tians, now persons should be treated who left heretical congre- gations, and came over to the Catholics, had never been determined by any general rules. Hence some, both in the East, and in Africa, and elsewhere, placed reclaimed heretics in the class of Catechumens ; and, though already baptized, received [p. 534.] them into the church by a second baptism. But the greater part of the Europeans considered the baptisms of errone- ous churches as conveying forgiveness of sins for Christ's sake, Baptisms h'j Heretics, 79 and therefore they received the heretics who came over to them, solely by the imposition of hands and prayers.(') This dillcrence of practice, however, had not hitherto prevented their having fraternal intercourse. The Asiatic Christians, in councils held at times not ascertained, in Iconium, Synnada, and other places, changed their former usage into an established law, by enacting, that all heretics coming over to the true church, should be puri- fied by a second baptism. On learning this, Stephen^ bisliop of Rome, esteeming the other custom more sacred, and as being derived from the Apostles, excluded those oriental Christians from the communion of the Romish church, but not from the church universal. Nevertheless, Cyprian^ after consultation with certain African bishops, in a council held at Carthage, assentea to the oriental doctrine, to which many of the Africans had long been adherents; and this he signified, though modestly, to Stephen. But so offended v.^as Stephen, that he not only gave Cyprian a severe reprimand, but when Cyprian replied with firm- ness, and by a unanimous vote in a second council at Carthage, pronounced the baptisms of all heretics destitute of any efficacy, Stephen declared him and the African bishops unworthy of the name of Brethren, and loaded them with severe reproaches. An end was put to this contest, partly by the prudence of the Afri- cans, who were unwilling to render evil for evil, and partly bj the death of Stephen, and the occurrence of a ncAv persecution under Valerian ; each party persevering in its opinions.(') (1) These facts we learn from several sources, but the most clearly from Eusehius, (Hist. Eccles. L. vii. c. 2. p. 251. and c. 7. p. 253, 254). Those who disagreed on this subject, all admitted that persons received the pardon of tho sins of their past lives by baptism, on account of that foith in Christ Jesus which the candidates for baptism professed ; but that the Holy Spirit is conferred by the bishop's imposition of hands and prayers. As I have already stated, such was the common opinion of that age. Those, therefore, who received heretics with- out re-baptizing them, believed that the persons baptized among heretics, had received remission of their sins, because they had professed Christ, and had been baptized in his words or in his name; but they denied that such persons were en- dowed with the Holy Spirit, because the heretical leaders and bishops [p. 535.] were destitute of the Holy Spirit, and therefore could not communicate the gifts of the Spirit to others. And, of course, they delivered over such persons to the bishops to be confirmed or sealed. But those who rejected the bai)tism9 of heretics, and re-baptized the persons baptized among them, maintained, that 80 Century III.— Section 18. none but a pure and true faith was by God deemed a proper ground for the re- mission of sins ; and, as the heretics taught their people to profess a corrupt and false faith at baptism, no remission of sins could be expected from such baptism. This argument is pursued at great length by Cyprian^ (Epist. Ixxiii. ad Jubaianum, p. 130). I will quote a few sentences to illustrate and contirra what I have said. The reasoning of those disagreeing with him, he thus states, (c. 4.) : Qua3rendum non est quis baptizaverit, quando is, qui baptizatus est, ac- cipere remissam peccatorum potuit secundum quod credidit : i. e. It is not necessary to enquire who administered the baptism, seeing the person received remission of his sins, on the ground of the faith in Christ which he professed. He then replies to this reasoning at considerable length ; and, among other things, he says, (c. 5.) : Quomodo potest videri, qui apud illos baptizatur, con- secutus esse peccatorum remissam et divinai iiidulgentiae gratiam per suam fidem, qui ipsius fidei non habuerit veritatem ? Si enim, sicut quibusdam videtur, secundum fidem suam quis accipere aliquid foris extra ecclesiam potuit, utique id accepit, quod credidit. Falsum autem credens verum accipere non potuit, sed potius adultera et profana, secundum quod credebat, accepit. - - (c. 6.) : Quod si secundum pravam fidem baptizari aliquis foris et remissam peccatorum consequi potuit, secundum candem fidem consequi et Spiritum sanctum potuit, et non est necesse, ei venienti manum imponi, ut Spiritum sanctum consequatur et signetur. Aut utrumque enim fide sua foris consequi potuit, aut neutrum eorum, qui foris fuerat, accepit. The theology of the early divines, who lived before the times of Constant! ne, if viewed generally, did not differ from ours; but viewed particularly, and with impartiality, it differed wonderfully. Nor will this appear strange to a person acquainted with anti- quity. For the few doctrines which make up the sum of the Christian religion, had not then been inculcated, so to speak, after being subjected to a manipu- lation, and legitimately defined and inclosed in determinate formulas of lan- guage ; and, therefore, the individual doctors explained them as they judged proper. And the explanation which commended itself to a man of some influ- ence and ingenuity, ^^^as approved by many others who were less learned, just as at the present day ; and so it passed for the common doctrine of the whole church. (2) The history of the controversy between the Roman bishop, Stephen, and certain African and Asiatic bishops, respecting the efficacy of the baptisms of heretics, the writers belonging to the Romish church labor with all their might to pervert and involve in obscurity. For since it affords the most lucid docu- ments, from which it can be proved that the power of the Romish bishop, although he held a very conspicuous rank among the Christian prelates, was yet [p. 536.] very small in that age, and that his decisions were disregarded and re- pudiated with the utmost freedom; these writers jumble up and confuse every thing, partly by idle conjecture, and partly by violently wresting the meaning of the ancients, lest, as is abundantly manifest, the truth should too clearly shine out and arrest attention. One of them, perceiving clearly that by such artifices the truth might be disguised, but could not be extinguished, concluded to cut the inexplicable knot, like Alexander, which the patrons of the Roman Baptisms brj Heretics. 81 Pontiff could not untie ; or, to apply tlie sponge, ns Augustus to his Ajnx, to all the most important documents of this contest that have reached us. 1 refer to Rayjmindus Alissorius, a Franciscan friar, who, in a book appropriately on the subject, (printed at Venice, 1733, 4to.) attempted to prove that the Epistles of Firmilian and Cyprian, in which they censure the decision of Stej)hen, and some other works, were forgeries got up by the African Donatists. But this astonishing temerity has been met and rebuked as it deserved, by our Jo. Geo. Wahli, in a Dissert, printed at Jena, in 1738, and by Jo. Henry iSbaraka, an ad- herent to the Roman Pontiff, in a very learned work printed at Bologna, 1741, 4to. With the single exception of Jo. Launoi, who boldly lays open this contest, although more spiritedly in some respects than was necessary, (in his loth Epistle, addressed to Ja. Boileau ;) the Romish writers, who otherwise hold moderate opinions of the dignity and authority of the Roman Pontiff", yet study to give some coloring to this history, and to extenuate the vehemence of the disputants, especially of Stephen, lest they should appear to judge the bishop of the first see in Christendom with too much harshness. Those who are sepa- rated from the Romish church, exhibit greater fidelity in their treatment of this controversy. And yet I would not deny, that they sometimes go too far, and are especially faulty in this, that they make Cyprian to have been the author of the contest. Into this opinion they were led by Eusehius, who tells us, (Hist. Eccles. L. vii. e. 3; p. 251.) that Cyprian first condemned the baptisms of here- tics ; and yet, he himself subsequently refutes that assertion. It is most fully attested, in my view, that the Asiatic bishops gave occasion for this contest by tiieir decrees, and that Slephen was in conflict with them before Cyprian took up the subject So long as the Apostles of Jesus Christ lived, there were either no sects of heretics, or only such as were very small and obscure. Hence they established no rules respecting the effects of baptism by heretics, nor did they determine in what manner churches should receive those who came over to them from the heretics. But in the second century, when by degrees various sects of cor- rupters of the ancient religion arose, and often individuals abandoned them and came over to the orthodox, the question naturally arose, whether these in- dividuals were to be considered as already members of the church, or as aliens? Whether they were to be initiated by baptism, or were to be considered as al- ready initiated ? And that there was no uniformity of sentiment on [p. 537.] this subject, might easily be shown, if it were necessary. Nor could there be uniformity in that age, when no one arrogated to himself the office of judge and legislator among Christians, and when assemblies of the whole church could not be convened, and the heretical sects w^ere of different characters, some bet- ter, and some worse. The Romans, whom the other Europeans followed, seem to have always held, that reclaimed heretics, who had been already baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, did not need a second baptism. In Asia and Africa, some received heretics without baptizing them, while others held that they must be baptized ; and each bishop followed his own judgment. In the third century, the heretical churches being greatly multiplied and amplified, tliis question was perpetually coming up, and calling forth deliberation and dis- VOL. IL 7 82 Centurij III— Section IB. cussion. For the custom of holding councils having first originated in Greece, as lias been ah-eady shown, and quickly extending itself over the Christian com- monwealth, those things which had before been left to the discretion of indivi- dual bisiiops, were brought under public discussion, and were determined by the suffrngcs of the bishops. Some dissension on this subject having arisen in Africa, at the commencement of this century, Agrippinus, the bishop of Car- thage, called a council, in which it was decided, as Cyprian informs us, (Epist. Ixxi. p. 127, and Epist. Ixxiii. p. 130.) ; Baptizandos esse, qui ah hccrelicis ad ec- clesiam xcniunl: Persons coming over to the church from the heretics, are to be baptized. Many of the African bishops followed this decision, but not all, as appears from these Epistles of Cyprian, and as will be manifest from what will soon be stated. Besides, what need was there of new councils and de- liberations, if all the bishops of Africa had been obedient to the decision of Agrippinus ? With the modesty which characterized the early bishops, Agrip- pinus and his associates had uttered their opinion, but not enacted a laio. And the African church, as will soon be shown, had always regarded this as an open question, concerning which either side might be advocated, without danger to religion or to fraternal harmony. But, in process of time, when the minds of the Asiatic bishops became divided on this subject, and especially when dubi- tation arose about the baptisms of the Montanists, many of them assembled at Iconium and Sennnda, cities of Phrygia, and in other places, and after mature deliberation, unanimously decided, that heretics coming over to the church ought to be again baptized. The fullest witness to this fact is Dionysius of Alexandria, (apud Easebium, Hist. Eccles. L. vii. c. 7 ; p. 254). Concerning the council at Iconium, in particular, Firmilian, the bishop of Caesarea, in Cappa- docia, gives testimony in his Epistle, printed with those of Cyprian, (Epist. Ixxv. p. 145). All these proceedings either remained unknown at Rome, or, which is more probable, were considered of so little importance, aa to be overlooked. But after many years, when Stephen was at the head of the Romish church, the scene changed, and w^hat had been regarded as free and harmless at Rome, as- sumed the nature of a crime. What occasioned this change, none of iho ancients [p. 538.] has informed us. But it is most probable, that in the time of Stephen, a contest respecting the baptisms of heretics arose at Rome also ; and that there were some there vvho maintained, that heretics ought not to be received without a new baptism, as was the custom of the church of Rome. Perhaps these per- sons had come from the East, and contended that the rule in their country \va» preferable to that followed at Rome. But Slephen, believing the Romish custom to be derived from the apostles, not only decided that it should be retained, but also that the Asiatic churches, by following a different rule, were cherishing a great eiTor. To reclaim his eastern brethren from this error, he wrote thera a letter ; and, as they would not obey him, but defended their own opinions, he excluded them from his communion, and from the brotherhood of the Romish church. Those are mistaken, who suppose that these Asiatic Christians, and subsequently the African, were by Stephen excommunicated from the church. In tliat age the Romish bishop did not claim to have so much power, as to think he could eject others from communion in the universal church ; nor did any Baptisms by Heretics. 83 one hold the opinion, that the persons whom the Romish hishop excluded from the communion of /i/.v church, forfeited their privile^ires tin-oufrliout the Christian world. These opinions first originated long ulterwards. But at that period, each individual bishop could exclude from his communion, or pronounce un- worthy of the privileges of fraternal embrace, all those whom he, either justly or erroneously, judged to be contaminated with gross sins, or guilty of any con- duct inconsistent witii the ohligations of a Christian teacher. But his judgment, every one was at liberty to follow or to reject, as he saw fit. By this rule Cy- friaii acted ; by this Victor of Rome ; by this IStephen ; and by this many others in that ago. Moreover, it is very incorrect to call these private decisions excom- municalions ; and to say, e. g. that Stephen excommunicated Cyprian : for the two expressions, to excommunicate, and to deprive one of our communion^ are of very ditierent import. — But to return to Stephen : Respecting his unkind con- duct towards the Asiatics, these few things only arc preserved in the Epistle of Dionysius Alexandrinus, by Euscbius, (Hist. Eccles. L. vii. e. 5 ; p. 252.) : 'ETrtcTaf^Kti /utv oiiv Trponpiv xat Trtpl E*Atvoy nai Trtpl ipfAtKixvou x.ai TrdvToiv Tc3y TS OTo TWf KiKlKiic x.xi KawaS'oH.iai nal ysLhATi^i xai vavroju rai(/ e^H? ofAcpouvTcyTf eS-KaJv, w; cvS'i EHiivots KOiveevii^cev i la t«v du^h ruuniv diTiav, iTrnS^i} Tcuf fnfiTiKuvi {pitTiv) dvu.0x?rTi^ouo-i. Antea quidem (Stephanus) litteras scripserat de Heleno et de Firmiliano, de omnibus denique episcopis per Ciliciam, Cappa/- dociam, cunclasquc linitimas provincias constitutis, sesc ob earn caussam ab illorum communiune discessum, quod ha3reticos rebaptisarent. On this passage, Valesius (Adnot. ad Euseb. p. 141.) puts a milder construction, by supposing that Stephen did not actually break off communion with the Orientals, but only threatened to do it, and never carried his threats into execution; and this opinion is embraced by several learned writers among the Romanists, who would, as far as possible, excuse the outrageous conduct of Stephen. But, without insisting that the language of the passage will not admit so mild an interpretation, there is now extant a testimony above all exception, that Stephen actually [p. 539.] did break communion, not only with the Africans, but also previously with the Orientals and others. I refer to the Epistle respecting this controversy, written by Firmilian (one of those bishops whom Stephen condemned,) to Cyprian, and published among Cyprian's Epistles, (Epist. Ixxv.). In the first place, this whole epistle is hostile in its tone, and shows, that at the time it was written, harmony between Stephen and Firmilian^ and his associates, was wrent and dis- sipated ; for Firmilian does not condescend to give Stephen the ordinary title of brother, but assails him as an enemy and an adversary, with contumelious language. Had Stephen merely threatened to break friendship with him, Fir- milian should, and would have used very different language respecting him. Secondlij.not far from the end of the Epistle, (c. 24.) Firmilian most manifestly represents, that Stephen had declared war, not only against the African churches, but also against many others, and among them against the Oriental ; for he thus addresses him : Lites et dissensiones quantas parasti per ecctesias toiius mundi 1 Peccatum vero quam magnum tibi exaggerasti, quando te a tot gregibus scidisii ? Excidisti enim te ipsum. Noli te fallere. Siquidem ille est vere schismaticus, qui se a communione ecclesiasticcc unitatis apnstalam fecerit. 84 Century III— Section 18. Dum enim putas omncs a to abstincri posse, solum to nb omnibus abslinuisti. - - (c. 25) Quid enim humilius aut lenius, quam cum iol episcopis per tolum miindum disscnsisse ? Pacem cum singulis vario discordias genere rumpeniern, modo cum Oricnlalibus, (so tlien fraternal intercourse with the Orientals was actually suspended, and not merely threatened,) quod nee vos latere confidimus, modo vobiscum, qui in meridie estis. — Whether the Asiatics retaliated the injury they had received from Stephen, and in like manner excluded him from their fraternal love, is found nowhere stated. But this Epistle of Firniilian, so full of gall and excessive bitterness, renders it most probable they did so. For if the Asiatics had remained friendly and patient under the outpoured indig- nation of Stephen, this very influential and dignified man would have expressed his views and feelings in milder language. As already stated, nearly all the learned, relying on the expressions of Eusebius, place the controversy with the Asiatics after the African controversy with Cyprian, and suppose that the Asiatics only became implicated in the Afri- can disputes. It is, therefore, necessary for me to show, that in this they err, and that the controversy commenced in Asia, and thence was carried into Africa. My first argument is derived from the Epistle of the celebrated Firmilian to Cyprian, which has been already cited. We have seen, that when Firmilian wrote that Epistle, friendly intercourse with the Orientals had already been in- terrupted by Stephen. Now, Firmilian there replies to an Epistle addressed to [p. 540.] him by Cyprian, immediately after Stephen had commenced his con- troversy with Cyprian. And therefore Stephen had suspended intercourse, (absti- nuerat) — to use an ecclesiastical term — with the Asiatics and with Fcrmilian, before he assailed Cyprian. Secondly. When Firmilian writes, that he conceives Cyprian cannot be ignorant of the hostile conduct of Stephen towards the Ori- entals, Pacem cum singulis rumpentem, modo cum Orienialibus, quod nee los latere confidimus; when he writes thus, I say, he manifestly indicates that Stephen's Asiatic contest preceded his African contest with Cyprian. Lastly, Dionysius Alexandrinus^ (apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles. L. vii. c. 5, p. 252,) — than whom a better and more reliable authority cannot be given, most clearly states that before Qr^on^ov, pj-ius,) Stephen commenced his attack on Cyprian and the Africans, he had pronounced Firmilian and the Asiatic bishops unworthy of his communion. The passage has been already cited. Cyprian involuntarily became implicated in this controversy with the Asia- tics. Having assembled a council at Carthage, in the year 256, the question was proposed by the bishops of Numidia, Whether those apparently baptised among heretics and schismatics, ought, on coming over to the catholic church, to be baptized? Cyprian and the thirty-two bishops present in council, replied. That no one could be baptized outside of the church, because there is but one baptism in- stituted in the holy church : and they added, that they did not bring forward a new opinion, but one established long ago by their predecessors. See the Epistle among those of Cyprian, (Epist. Ixx. p. 124.) But, as the number of bishops in this council was not great, Cyprian called another shortly after, in which were seventy-one bishops, and submitted this and other questions to a second discus- sion ; and all the bishops, as Cyprian informs us, (Epist. Ix.xiii. p. 129.) decided : Baptisms by Heretics. g5 Unum bapfisma esse, quod sit in ecdesia calholica consliluluyn, ac per hoc non re- baptizari, sed baplizrari, quicunque ab adultera el prophana aqua veniunt ablu- endi el sanciificandi salutaris aqucB veritaie. This decision of the second council was defended by Cyprian, in his long Epistle to Jiibaianus, (Ep'ist, l.vxiii. p. 129,) just as he had before vindicated the decision of the former council, in his Epis- tle to Quintus, bishop of Mauritania, (Epist. Ixxi. p. 126.) But as he was aware that a diflforent custom prevailed at Rome, and perhaps had heard some- thing about the rupture between Stephen, the Roman bishop, and the bi.-^hops ot Asia on this subject, both he and the council thought it advisable to commu- nicate this decision of the council to Stephen, and to take measures to prevent his getting into a passion and breaking off communion M'ith them. The Epistle addressed to Stephen, in the name of the council, is still extant among the Epis- ties of Cyprian, (Epist. Ixxii. p. 129.) Every person reading the Epistle will at once see that it was not written for the purpose of acquainting the Romish bishop with the doings of the council, but solely to forestall his anger and in- dignation. For they pnss silently over nearly all the many important decisions of the council, and mention only two of them, the one concerning the baptisms of heretics, and the other concerning priests and deacons coming over [p. 541.] to the church from the heretics. Yet, despairing of Stephen's approving their sentiments, they wisely intimate, at the end of the Epistle, that they have no wish to enter into controversy with any one differing from them in opinion. They say, (c. 4,) Cseterum, scimns quosdara quod seme! imbiberint nolle de- ponere, nee propositum suum facile mutare, sed salvo inter collegas pacis et concordise vinculo quasdam propria qua? apud se semel sint usurpata retinere. Qua in re nee nos vim cuiquam facimus aut legem damns, quando habeat in ecclesicc adminislratione voluntatis suce arbitrium liberum unusquisque prcepositus rationem actus sui Domino redditurus. Now, he who sees the Afiicans Avriting in this manner to the Roman bishop, and still contends that the Roman bishops in that age had any power or jurisdiction whatever over the other bishops, surely must be beyond measure obstinate and perverse, or he must be excessively blinded by his early received opinions. If it was true in the third century, as the African council assert, that every individual bishop had free arbitriment in the administration <.f the affairs of his church, and would have to give account of his conduct to the Lord only, then, beyond all question, that which many at this day account true, was at that time absolutely fiilse; namely, that God had subjected all the bishops to a certain one of them, and that a certain one was to enact laws in Christ's name for the church, and that every thing in the church must be conducted and administered according to his pleasure. — But to proceed, it is clear then, that the African church, although it decided that heretics must be again baptized on entering the purer church, yet did not regard the contrary opinion as tearing up the foundations of religion. On the excited mind of Stephen, however, this moderation of sentiment proved rather irritating than sedative; because, doubtless, it provoked him to see the Africans take ground with those whom he had pronounced enemies of his church. lie therefore, in the name of the Roman church, wrote to Cyprian, or rather to the African church, in whose name Cyprian had addressed him, no less imperiously than 86 Century III.— Section 18. bitterly and revilingly, and doubtless in the same strain as previously to the Asiatic bishops, declaring- that he would have no communion with persons who said the bnptism of heretics ought to be repeated. The Epistle is lost through the fault, if I do not misjudge, of those in former times, who thought it benefi- cial to the church to cover up the faults and errors of the Roman Pontiffs. But the tenor (tf it may still be known, partly from the Epistle of Cyprian, to Pom- peius, (Epist. Ixxiv.) and partly from the Letter of Firmillan, bishop of Cajsaraea, to Cyprian, which is the next in order among the Epistles of Cyprian, (Ep. Ixxv.) According to Cyprian's account of it, it contained many arrogant Ikingsy irreulant to the subject, and adverse to his own cause, unadvisedly and un/cilfuLly written : and that this representation is not entirely false, an impartial person can without difliculty believe; and yet, to be perfectly frank, the same might, to some extent, be said of Cyprian's own Epistle, for it employs vain and futile arguments, and abounds much in sarcasms. But there is this commendable in [p. 542.] Cyprian, that he docs not retaliate upon Stephen, by excluding him from fellowsliip, but calls him Our Brother, which titleisa manifest indication of a dispo- sition for peace and a dread of discord. Learned men have greatly lauded this temperate conduct of Cyprian; and not wholly without reason. But, in my judgment, it will detract somewhat from this commendation to reflect that Cyprian could not deny to Stephen the privileges of a brother, witliout contra- dicting his own principles. Stephen might consistently do so, because he re- garded the opinion of the Africans as militating with true religion ; but Cyprian and the Africans could not do it, because they judged the opinion of Stephen to be one of the minor errors which were to be tolerated. The man must doubtless be heartless, and destitute of all kind feelings, who can deprive another of the rights of a brother, while he acknowledges him to have erred but slightly, and to have not wounded the vitals of religion. — But we will proceed. It nppears from the Epistle of Firmilian, already mentioned, that Stephen, in his Epistle to the Asiatics, derived the custom which prevailed in the Roman church from Peter and Paul, the founders of that church, and appealed to con- tinuous tradition. He says, (c. 6. p. 144.) Adhuc etiam infamans Petrum et Paulum beatos Apostolos, quasi hoc ipsi tradiderint. But the Asiatics defended their opinion in the same way ; indeed they carried their pretensions still higher, and declared Christ himself to be the author of their tradition. Says Finnilian^ (p. 149.) Nos veritati et consuefudinem jungimus, et consuetudini Romanorum corsuetudinem, sed veritatis, opponimus, ab initio hoc tenentes, quod a Christo et ah ApostoUs traditum est. In this controversy, therefore, tradition was op- posed to tradition, the Asiatic tradition from Christ and the Apostles to the Ro- man tradition from Peter and Paul. But it should be remembered, that even in that early age, the institutions, which no one was able to trace to their origin, were called the traditions of Christ and the Apostles. And Firmilian him- self attests, that the Asiatics accounted their custom an Apostolical one, solely because they were ignorant of the time of its introduction. lie says: Nee meminimus hoc apud nos aliqando coepisse, cum semper istic observatum sit, ut non nisi unam Dei ecclesiam nossemus, et sanctum baptisma non nisi sanctae ecclesiae computaremus. From this Epistle of Firmilian it appears, moreover, Baptisms hij Heretics. 87 that Stephen had fTre:it]y lauded the dignity of his churcli, and its eminence among the churches. Atque ego in h;;c parte juste indiguor ad lianc tam aper- tani et manifestiim Stcphani stultiliam, quod qui sic de cpiseoputus sui loco gloriatur et se succeseorem Petri tenere eonlendit, super quern fundaraenta ecclesias collocata f^unt, niultas alias pctras inducat, et ecclesiarum mult:;ium alia a^dificia constituat, dum esse illic baptisma sua auctoritate defendit. Tiiis, doubtless, was the part of Stephen's letter, for which Cyprian branded him with the epithet proud. I wish we had the reply of tlie Africans to this [p. 543.] panegyric on the chair of Peter. But it has been lost, undoubtedly, because it was not honorary to the Romish church ; as we may easily infer from the other Epistles of Cyprian, in which he expresses his opinion of the rights of the bishops. The other topics in this Epistle of Stephen, or rather, of the Romish church, I omit, as they throw no light upon history. On receiving this Epistle the African bishops did not abandon their cause, but, in another Epistle address- ed to the Romish church or to Stephen, refuted all his arguments for tiie eflicacy of baptisms by heretics. The learned men who have investigated this history of this controversy, take no notice of this second Epistle of the Africans. But no one who attentively reads the Epistle of Firmilian to Cyprian, can doubt that it was actually written. He says, (c. 4, p. 143.) Nos vero quae a vobis scripta sunt quasi nostra propria suscepimus, nee in transcursu legimus, aed sa^pe repe- tita memoriae mandavimus. Neque obest utilitati salutari aut eadem retexere ad confirmandam veritatem aut et quaedam addere ad cumulandam probationem. After a few remarks, he proeeeds, (c. 7) : Sed et ad ilium partem bene a vobia responsum est, ubi Stephanus in epistola sua dixit haereticos in baptismo con- venire. And a little after: Quo in loco etsi vos jam probastis, satis ridiculum esse, ut quis sequatur errantes, illud tamen ex abundanti addimus. The Africans, therefore, had replied to Stephen, and Firmilian had the reply in his hands; and in his own Epistle he, in part, (retexebat,) reconstructed, as he ex- presses it, and in part confirmed the reasoning of it, by new arguments. Per- haps some may conjecture, that the Epistle which Firmilian had before him was that of Cyprian to Pompeius, or his 74th Epistle, in which he confutes tho Epistle of Stephen. But this conjecture must be abandoned, if we consider that Firmilian cites from the Epistle which he mentions and examines, several things which do not occur in the Epistle to Pompeius. Besides, it is manifest from the words of Firmilian above quoted, that he is not speaking of a private Epistle of one individual to another, but of a common Epistle of the assembled African bishops. He says: Quae a xohis scripta sunt, legi. Vos jam prohasfis: Vos respondistis. Stephen was so irritated by this Epistle, that he not only re- plied more harshly and angrily than before, but he assailed Cyj.riaii, whom he regarded as the author of the African contumacy, with direct maledictions, and excluded the Africans from his communion. This also may appear periiaps to be news, because we do not find it any where expressly stated. But here, again, the Epistle ot Firmilian will show that this is no vain or rash conjeeiurc. At the time Firmilian wrote, all communion between the Africans and the Ro- mans had certainly been suspended by Stephen. For Firmilian says: (c. 6, p. 144); Quod nunc Stephanus ausus est ii\ccvQ, rumpcns adversus vos pacem, 88 Century III. — Section 18. quam semper antecessores ejus vobiseum amore et honore mutuo custodierunt. And towards the end : (o. 24, p. 150) : Peecatum vero quam magnum tibi ex- aggerasti, quando te a tot gregibus seidisti ! I omit more passages of the same [p. 644.] tenor. But in the first Epistle of Stephen, which Cyprian refutes in his Epistle to Pompeius, Stephen had not proceeded beyond threats; notwith- standing Angusline has stated, (de Baptismo contra Donatistas, L. V. c. 25, 0pp. torn. ix. p. 106,) that Stephen, abstinendos generatini putaverat, qui de suscipiendis liaBreticis priscam consuetudinem convellere conarentur. There must, therefore, have followed a second Epistle, in which he carried out the determination he had formed, and declared non communion with the Africans. Moreover, Firmilian testifies, (c. 26,) that in his last Epistle Stephen assailed Cyprian with invectives : Et tamen no^n pudet Stephanum, talibus (haereiicis) adversus ccclesiam patrocinium pra3stare, et propter ha3reticos asserendos/rcr^er- mtalem scindere, insuper et Cyprianum pseudocliristum et pseiidoapostolum et dolo- sum opernrium dicere. Firmilian would, doubtless, never have said this, had not Stephen written it. But, in his first Epistle, he had not yet uttered these re- proaches, for Cyprian would not have passed them in silence in his Epistle to Pompeius, if they had then been uttered. It was, therefore, in another Epistle, written after the first, that he inveighed so reproachfully against Cyprian. The wiser Africans thought they ought to spare no pains to allay this storm, and therefore sent a legation to Rome, to restore peace if possible. But Stephen forbid the Roman Christians to receive into their houses the bishops of the legation, whom he had deprived of his communion, and would not admit them even to a conference. Says Firmilian, (c. 25, p. 150,) A vobis, qui in meridie estis, legates episcopos patienter satis et leniter suscepit, ut eos nee ad sermonem saltem colloquii communis admitteret, adhuc insuper dilectionis et carir.ntis memor pra^ciperet fraternitati nniversse, ne quis eos in domum sunm reciperet, ut venientibus nor solum pax et communio, sed et tectum et hospitium negare- tur! So the legation returned home, leaving the business where it was. I see not what could demonstrate more clearly than this fact does, that Stephen ex- cluded from the communion of the Roman church not only Cyprian, but the whole African church, of which these bishops were the legates. — After this many things were, doubtless, said and done, of which no record has reached us. Ste- phen, we may believe without testimony, being a man of w'eak mind, endeavored to excite the christian world against the Africans; and many councils were held on the subject here and there, as I recollect Augustine some where intimates. Ai;d therefore Cyprian, that he and his Africans might not stand alone, thought proper to look about him for friends. And, knowing that the Asiatics had been attacked in the same manner, he dispatched Rogatian, his deacon, with a letter to the oft-mentioned Firmilian a man of very great influence, and sent him documents which would acquaint him with the whole case. Firmilian responded according to his wishes ; and, as his Epistle (among those of Cyprian, Ep. !xxv.) [p. 545.] shows, approved of all that had been done and written by the Africans ; and, in the severest terms and even with contumely, censured Stephen, who had treated tlie Asiatics with the same abuse as the Africans. At the same time Cyprian, to prevent any of the African bishops from taking sides with Baptisms by Heretics. 89 Stephen, convoked a council in the month of September, A. I). 256, from the three provinces of Africa, Numidia, and Mauritania. The Acts of tiiis council have been transmitted to us by Augustine, (de Baptismo contra Donatistas, L. vi. and vii. 0pp. torn, ix.) They are extant also among the works of Cyprian, p. 329. There were present 87 bishops, and not only presbyters and deacons, but also (pkbis maxima pars) a large portion of the people. In his address to the attending bishops, Cyprian reiterated what he had before repeatedly declared, that the question to be discussed was one of those on which men might differ in opinion, without a violation of fraternal harmony ; and he chastised the arrogance of Stephen, but without naming him. His words are worthy to be here repeated, as they express the sentiments of that age in regard to the independence of bishops, and render perfectly certain that no one in that age, not even Stephen himself, had ever dreamed of any judge and legislator for the univer- sal church. That Stephen himself had not thought of any such judge I confi- dently assert ; for, certainly, if he had supposed such high dignity to be confer- red on himself by Christ, he would have pursued a very different course than he did with the Africans. Said Cyprian : Superest, ut de hac ipsa re singuli quid sentiamus, proferamus, neminem judicantes, aut a jure communicationis aliquem, si diversum senserit, amoventes. Neque enim quisquam nostrum epis- copum se esse episcoporum constituit, aut tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem collegas suos adigit, quando habeat omnis episcopus pro licentia libcrtatis et potestatis sua) arbitrium proprium, tamque judicari ab alio non pos- sit, quam nee ipse potest alterum judicare. Sed expeetemus universi judicium Domini nostri Jesu Christi, qui unus et solus habet potestatem et prjeponendi nos in ecclesise suae gubernatione, et de actu nostro judicandi. At that time, therefore, Christ had no vicar here on earth, but was himself (solus et unus) the sole and only judge of his church. All the bishops concurred in the opinion of Cyprian, and decided that heretics should be re-baptized. The unanimity and modesty of this great council, and the friendship between the Asiatics and the Africans, I suppose, repressed the violence of Stephen and other bishops; for we do not learn that this contest continued afterwards. Dionysius Alexandrinus also, as we learn from Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. L. vii. e. 2, &c.) endeavored by his letters to bring the mind of Stephen to acquiescence and peace ; and per- haps others, who foresaw danger from a continuance of the contest, followed his example. For some time, therefore, the Africans adhered to their opinion, the other christians not taking offence at their constancy; but gradually they went over to the opposite opinion, and finally, in a council which Augustine styles plenarium (de Baptismo, L. I. c. 7,) held at Nice or Aries, (for [p. 546.] the learned are not agreed as to this council,) thoy universally embraced the Romish custom. It remains for us to ascertain the precise sentiments of the two parties. Cyprian and Finnilian state with sufficient persi)icuity, what they and their brethren maintained. Says Cyprian, (Epist. Ixxiv. ad Pompeium, c. 12, p. 142): Omncs, qui ex quacunque hffircsi ad ecclesiam convertuntur, ecclesia) unico et legitimo baptismo baptizantur, exceptis his, qui baptizati in ecclesia prius fuc- rant, et sic ad hareticos transierant. Illos enim oportet, cum redount, acta 90 Century III.— Section 18. poenltentia per manus impositionem solam recipi. By heretics, C3«pmn undei stood, not merely corrupters of the true religion, but likewise all who with- drew themselves from the principal church, and formed separate congregations. And hence, he required the Novatians to be re-baptized on their coming over to tlie church, (as we learn from his 76th Epist, ad Magnum, p. 151, &.c.) ; and yet he acknowledged that the Novatians were free from all gross errors. This pious and good man, but too zealous about his official dignity and oflico, viewed all who were separated from the bishop as also separated from Christ, and his benefits, and believed that salvation was attainable no where but in tiie visible church under the bishops of the Apostolic succession: and this obliged him to decide, that there could be no saving baptism except it was administered by such bishops, or by their direction and authority. He would surely have entertained ditferent ideas about the effects of baptism, if he had not been strangely captivated with a love of the dogma of the unity of the visible church, and had not exalted extravagantly the rights and authority of bishops. The opinions of his adversar}'' Stephen, are not equally manifest. Those solicitous for the reputation of Ste- phen, and such, with few exceptions, are nearly all the adherents to the Romish church, to whom it appears hard and difficult to believe that any of the ancient Pontiff's difft-'red from the modern, or that the church, in the third century, was divided between two errors — those in favor of Stephen, I say, t"lls us that he taught just as the Romish church does at the present day, not that the baptisms of alt heretics, but only of those who in baptizing invoked the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, were valid baptisms. See Tillemont, (Memoires pour servir a I'Hist. de I'Eglise, tom. iv. P. I. p. 419, &c.) and Natalis Alexan- der, (Selecta Hist. Eccles. Capita, tooj. iii. p. 691, &c.) who treats this subject in his usual scholastic rather than historical manner. But others for the most part, to whom the reputation of the ancient Roman Pontiflfs does not appear of very great importance, think that Stephen believed all persons baptized in the name of Christ, might be received into the fellowship of the better church, without another baptism. Respecting these, see in particular Peter AlUx, (Diss. de vita et scriptis Tertulliani, c, 4, p. 30, &c.) not to mention Dhndell, Launoiy and others. The former party defend their position by the authority especi- [p. 547.] ally of Eusebius, Augustine, Vincer.i of Lirins, and Facundus ; who say that Stephen accounted no baptism valid, unless it was administered in the words prescribed by Christ. But to these comparatively recent authorities the latter party oppose other more ancient and higher authorities; and first Stephen himself, whose words, in his Epistle to the Africans, preserved by Cyprian, (Epist. Ixxiv. c. 1, p. 138.) are these : " Si quis ergo a quaciinquc hccresi vencrit ad vos, nihil innovetur nisi quod traditum est, ut manus illi imponatur in poeni- tentiam, cum ipsi haerttici proprie alterutrum ad se venientes non baptizent, sed communicent tantum." Moreover, Cyprian, who, almost invariably, represents Stephen as holding all baptisms administered in the name of Christ to be legi- timate, says, (Epist. Ixxiv. c. 5, p. 139.) Si eftectum haptismi majestati ncminis tribuunt, ut qui in nomine Jesu Chj-isti ubicunque et quomodocxmqiic. baptizen- tur, innovati et sanctificati judieentur ; cur non, &c. And farther, the ancient, but unknown author of the Liber de Rebaplismate, who takes sides with Ste- Persecution of Valerian. 9J phen, nnd whose book is commonly printed with the Opera Cypriani^ (p. 353.) with the following,' title prefixed: Non dcbcre donuo baptizari qui semel in nomine Domini nostri Jcsu Christi sunt tincti ; seems to decide tiic question respecting Stephen's views. I omit other testimonies of less importance. These testimonies, I confess, seem to have great weight ; yet I have some hcsi- tiition to admit their conclusiveness, because Firmllian, an opposer of Stepheny in his P'pistle to Cyprian, (c. 9, p. 145.) states Stephen's opinion thus: lllud quoque absurdum, quod non putant qiiwrendum esse quis sit ille qui bnptiza- verit, eo quod qui baptizatus sit, gratiam consequi potucrit iniocala IriniLalc nomi'ium Palris et Filii el Spiritus Sancti. Firmilian writes what he had found stated in the Epistle of Cyprian, or of the Africans to Stephen, and he also himself was well acquainted with the opinions of Stephen ; and, therefore, his testimony is worthy of consideration. Yet, perhaps, he aimed only to explain the point, and attributed to Stephen the conceptions of his own mind. To confess the truth, I can believe that Stephen expressed his views only in general terms, and did not accurately define them ; and, therefore, they were exphiined differently. Men very frequently, at the present day, in theological controversies, afUrm and deny, attack and defend, only in a general way, and without defining the conflicting opinions. And why may we not suppose this to have occurred in the present controversy. § XIX. The Persecution under Valerian. After showing him- self kind and indalgcnt towards the Christians until the fifth year of his reign, sudden!}^, by the persuasion of Macrianus, his bosom companion, a man of very high rank and reputation, but exceedingly superstitious, Valerian, in the year 257, changed his policy towards them, and ordered the governors of pro- [p. 5-18.] vinces to inhibit the meetings of Christians, and to send their bishops and teachers into exile.(') Bnt these milder mandates rather animated than disheartened the Christians, who liad been accustomed previously to greater evils. Therefore, in the follow- ing year he issued a much severer edict, in the execution of which the magistrates put to death no small number of Christians throughout the provinces of the Roman empire, and frequently in- flicted on them punishments worse than death. (") Eminent among those that fell in this persecution were Cyprian, the celebrated bishop of Carthage, who was beheaded ; and Sixtus, the Romish prelate, who is said to have been crucified ; and Laurence, the Ro- man deacon, famous among the martyrs, who is :5aid to have been roasted to death on a slow fire : some, however, refer this last mnr- tyi'domtothe Decian period. But Valerian being taken captive in a war with Sapor, king of Persia, his son Gallienm, by a rescript addressed to the provincial governors in the year 260, restored full Ife Century Ill.—Scction 19. peace to the Cliristians, after four years of suffering. (^) Yet they were not placed in entire security ; for the ancient laws of the Emperors against them were not abrogated, and, therefore, such of the governors as were so dis|)osed, could put those Christians to death who were regularly accused and acknowledged their faith, if they refused to sacrifice to the gods.Q (1) Respecting the clemency of Valerian to the Christians in the iirst years of his reign, and the author of the subsequent change in his feelings towards them, the most important witness we have is Dionysius Alexandrinus, in his Epistle to Hermammon, the latter part of which is preserved by Euse- hius, (Hist. Eccles. L. vii. c. 10. p. 255.) But as Eusebius cites two passages from this Epistle, in one of which Dionysius does not mention the name of the person who induced Valerian to persecute the Christians, and in the other tell.s us that Macrianus advised the Emperor to this course, a dispute has arisen among the learned, whether this persecution is to be traced to one man as its author, or to two. In the first passage Dyonisiiis says: 'A-rza-Kiuaa-ua-d-ai (Te Trapi- TTiiTiV dvrif 0 S'l^ao-H.ctKoz xai riov ot' AiyvTTTtv /udyaiv dp^ia-vvdyojyoi, tou; /uiv xa^dp^vi Kui oa-iovs uvSp'xs ktivvvs-B-ai xat J'tcjKiTd-ati KiXiucev . Vcrum mao-ister et Archisynagogus magorum Aegypti ei (Valeraino) tandem persuasit, utab hoc instituto descisceret, jubens, ut castos quidem et sanctos viros persequeretur atque occideret. But a little after he snysi 'O f^h yap o'ystxe^/atvdf in TaZru. vTTd Tourov (MoKStavzu) 7rpca.^^ils cig v^pni Kai ovaS'ia-fji.ovs iaS'od'as. Nam Vale- [p. 549. J rianiis quidem, qui ad hujusmodi facinora a Macrinno (for he is the per- son spoken of,) impulsus fiierat, contumeliis et opprobriis fuit expositus et de- ditus. It is, therefore, made a question, whether this Macrianus is the same per- son who was before called Chief of the Synagogue of the Egyptian Magicians, or a different person. Not a few, deeming it scarcely credible, that so distin- guished a man as Macrianus was, an intimate with the emperor, and hold- ing the highest position, " than whom," (as Tremellius Pollio says in his Gallienus, Scriptor. Hist. August, tom. ii. 189.) "none of the generals were deemed more wise, none more competent for business, none more opulent," should be prefect of the Egyptian Magicians, — have supposed this Magician of Dionysius to be a difTei'cnt person from ^Macrianus ; and, of course, that there were two persons who prompted Valerian to show cruelty to the Christians. Among these authors, Gisbert Cuper, (in his Notes on Lactaniius de morti- bu3 persequutorum, p. 152.) goes so far .'is to suppose this Magician was a Jew, infering it from the Jewish words J'lJ'dtrx.a^os and 'Ap)(^iyoc applied to him ; and Ja. Basnage in vain attempted to confute that idea, while he himself did not believe Macrianus and the Magician to be the same person, (see Letters de Critique, Histoire, Litterature par M. Cuper, p. 386, 390, Amst. 1742, 4to.) But, as Dionysius most explicitly states, that Macrianus recom- mended the persecution to the emperor, and that Valerian received the sad reward of his docility, while he adds nothing which can lead to the suppo- siiion that Macrianus had an associate in the transaction, the supposition haa Persecution of Valerian. 93 not the least probability; on the contrary, wo must believe that Dionysiug designated one and the same person in this two-fold manner. Nor will this interpretation be weakened by the two epithets above mentioned. The first of them, ^tS'aTKaXoi, magis/cr, should not he referred to the Magicians, us is manifest from the Greek. Valesius has not expressed properly the meanin"- of Dionysins; and this has occasioned some, who did not inspect the Creek, to fall into a mistake. He should have rendered it {Magister ejus) his (Valerian's) master, and chief of the synagogue, 4'"C. For this word undoubtedly has reference to Valerian, who yielded to the opinions of Macrianus in every thing, and al- ways defered to him as to a master. Valerian himself, in a speech to the senate, said: Ego bellum Persicum gerens, Macriano tolam reinpuhlicam tradidi. See Trehellius Pollids 30 Tyrants, (in the Scriptor. Historia3 Augusta, torn. ii. p. 288.) And as to the title Chief (f the Synagogue of the Egijplian Magicians, it is a sneer of Dionysius at Macrianus, and not the title of bis office or posi- tion in society. As Macrianus was exceedingly devoted to magic, and delighted greatly in magical sacrifices, according to Dionysius, he represents him as quali- fied, by his skill in the art, to fill the office of Chief or President of the Egyp- tian Magicians. As to the motive which led Macrianus to inflame the Empe- ror's mind against the Christians, Dionysius states it to have been this, that he knew there were persons among them who could frustrate the ma- [p. 550.] gical rites, and destroy their eflects by a word or a nod. Being himself greatly devoted to magic, he " prompted the emperor to celebrate impure rites of initiation, abominable incantations, and execrable sacrifices ;" for example, " to immolate infants, and explore the entrails of new-born children." See Diony- sius, as quoted by Eusebius, (L. vii, c. 10.) But he well knew, not only that the Christians universally held these nefiirious mysteries in abhorrence, but also that some of them possessed the power of disconcerting and controlling de- mons, so that they could not manifest their presence by oracular responses and the other signs. Says Dionysius: Kai yap iKriv kui iicrAv 'Uavci n-upovrts xai ofiwfAiVOty Hill /uoviV t/wrveovTt; icai fi^i^yofMVOi, i'lAaKiS^atrat ras tuv dXn^piuv ioLifAQvav tri^ivhas. Erant enim et sunt etiamnum (inter nos) ejusmodi, qui vel praesentia et aspectu suo, et insufflantes duntaxat ac vocem edentes, dsemo- num praestigias disturbare possunt. And, therefore, he prevailed on the em- peror to endeavor to extirpate a sort of men injurious and terrible to the art he loved and to the demons he consulted. But, we may suppose, the good man here gives us his conjectures rather than what he knew to be facts. Res- pecting the power of the ancient Christians to confound and put to silence demons and their servants and idols, of wbich many others also speak, I shall not go into any discussion : but this is easily perceived, we ought not to look there for the cause of Macrianus' hostility to the Christians. If he had believed that Christians possessed such power, that they could control the demons he loved and worshipped,! think he would not have dared to assail them, but would rather have feared and stood in awe of them. For, why cannot they who have the demons under their power, and who control them at their pleasure, also bring, if they choose, various evils upon the worsliipi)ers of demons ! And who but a madman, destitute of reason, would voluntarily and eagerly worship bo- 94 Century IIL— Section 19. ings whom he knew to be piralyzed and stript of all power by others more powerful 1 Whoever seeks for himself a lord, will, if he be in his senses, pre- fer the more powc-fiil to one of less power. But suppose Macrianus was so insane as to think the demons and their worship frustrated by the Christians, he might have forestalJed the evil much more easily than by a resort to edicts, and laws and punishments : for, by a little vigilance he could have excluded all Christians from being present at 'lis infernal rites and mysteries. Let us eon- cede, what is not to be denied, that the ancient Christians often supposed their enemies to reason just as they themselves would, and so attributed to thera designs very forei^a from their real ones. I think his superstition alone was sufficient to prompt Maori., nus to inflame the emperor against the Christians. And I am the more incH ed to think so, because I learn from Trehellius Pollio, (Thirty Tyrains, c. 14, in the Histor. Augustse, torn. ii. p. 297.) that this WAS a hereditary disease in the family of the Macriani. For all the males and females of this family wore an image of Alexander the Great on their rings, [p. 651.] their garments, and their ornaments, influenced by a peurile conceit of the vulgar, [juvari in omni actu suo, qui Alexandrum expressum in aiiro gestila- renl vet argenlo.) that w^hoever carried a likeness of Alexander impressed on gold or silver, would be aided in all their acts. Who can wonder that a man who could promise him elf success from a likeness of Alexander the Macedo- nian, should have been extravagantly attached to the Roman Gods and their worship, and have wished evil to the enemies of his country's religion ? The first assault of Valerian upon the Christians was such as could be endured ; as appears from the Acts of Cyprian, and of Dionysius AlexandrinuSy (apud Euseh. Hist. Eccles. L. vii. c. 11). For he merely decreed the banish- ment of all bishops and presbyters who w-ould not worship the Roman gods, and prohibited the religious assemblies of Christians. Cyprian was exiled to Carubia, by the proconsul Paternus, after refusing to sacrifice to the gods; and Dionysius was sent by 1'>c praefect Aemilius to a place called Cephro, in the parts of Libya. But let the proconsul Paternus state to us the pleasure and the mandate of the emperor, according to the Acta Crjpriani, (in Theod. Ruinart, Acta Martyr, sincera et selecta, p. 216). When Cijprian was arraigned before him, Paternus thus addressed him: Sacratissimi Imperatores Valerianus et Gallienus litteras ad me dare dignati sunt, quibus praeceperunt eos, qui Romanam religio- nem non colunt, debere Romanas ca3reraonias recognoscere. Cyprian had no sooner declared that he coa'd not obey this mandate, than the proconsul pro- nounced sentence of banishment upon him, and then proceeded: Non solum de episcopis, verum etiara de presbyteris mihi scribere dignati sunt. From this it is very manifest that the emneror's mandate extended only to the bishops and presbyters; against the dea^O' s and the people nothing was decreed. Neither was capital punishment ordered for bishops and presbyters, but merely exile. Lastly, the proconsul added : Praeccperunt etiam, no in aliquibus locis concilia- bula fiant, nee ccemeteria ingrediantur. Si quis itaque hoc tam salubre prcecep- tum non observaverit, capite plectetur. Capital punishment, then, was enacted against those who persisted either in holding religious assemblies, or in attend- ing them. The emperors prohibited first in general, all religious assemblies, Persecution of Valerian. 95 which they dcsig-nate as Conciliabula ; and then, in particular, tlie convintions which were held in Cemeteries. By this term, it is well known, the phicca were designated in which the Cliristians interred their dead ; and as there were fre- quently martyrs and confessors among their dead, they assembled at these Cemeteries on certain days for religious worship, and to commemorate those holy men. Perhaps, also, at other times the Christians might assemble in their Cemeteries to offer prayers at the sepulchres of the saints and martyrs. And .13 they commonly came away more resolute and more determined to endure every evil for Christ's sake, it is not strange that such as wished the cxtii:ction of the Christians should oppose their resorting to these places. Here, then, we have the whole contents of the first edict of Valerian against the Christians : [p. 552.] and with this account fully accords all that Dionysius states, (apud Euseb. L. vii. c. 11.) respecting his own sufferings and those of his colleagues. Aemilian, the prefect of Egypt, said to them; Mittemini in partes Libya) ad locum Cephro. Hunc enim locum jussu Angiisiorum nostrorum elegi. Nullatenus autem licebit vobis conventus agere, aut ea quae vocantur cocmeteria adire. Here, however, learned men oppose to us not a few examples of persons, who, 4n this first persecution of Valerian, were either put to death, or thrown into prisons, or bastinadoed, or condemned to the mines. Among other proofs ad- duced is the 77th Epistle of Cyprian, addressed ad mariyres in meiallis cojistilutos, in which he represents (p. 158.) a part of the people of his charge, as having already gone forth to receive from the Lord the crown of their merits, by the consummation of their martyrdom, and a part as remaining still within the bars of their prisons, or at the mines in chains : and he then states, that not only bishops and presbyters, but also many of the people, and among them virgins and boys, were bastinadoed, fettered, and thrust into the mines : Denique exemplum vcstrum secuta multiplex plcbis portio confessa est vobis- cum pariter et pariter coronata est, conncxa vobis vinculo fortissimae caritatis, et a praepositis suis nee carcere, nee metallis separata. Cujus numero nee virginea desunt. - - In pueris quoque virtus major actate annos suos confessionis laudo transcendit, ut martyrii vestri beatum gregem et sexus et cetas omnis ornaret. These examples, I say, learned men have cited, to show that the first rescripts of Valerian and his son were more cruel than we have represented, and that not only bishops and presbyters, but Christians of every order and sex were subjected to heavy penalties. But whence this severity on many, notwithstand- ing the law was not very rigorous, may be learned from the latter part of the imperatorial mandate. For this ordained capital punishment against all who either held assemblies or entered the cemeteries. All, therefore, bishops and others, who suffered death, bastinadoing, imprisonment, or other punisjmients worse than exile, undoubtedly incurred these penalties because they would hold meetings contrary to the will of the emperor, and were caught in the cemeteries. For, as we shall soon see, the major part of the Christians were bold in violat- ing the imperatorial mandates. This is fully confirmed by the 82d Ei)istlc of Cyprian, ad Successum, (p. 165.) where he writes: Xystum autem in cimilcrio animadversum sciatis octavo Iduum Augustarum die, et cum co Diaconos qua- tuor. Scd et huic persecutioni quotidie insistunt pra^fccti in urbe, ut si qui sibi 96 CentuvT/ III.— Section 19. oblati fucrint (in the cemeteries, undoubtedly,) animndvertantur et bona eorum fisco viiidieentur. The proconsul of Africa, doubtless, had appreliended a great multitude of Christians of both sexes and of all classes, who were assembled for the purpose of religious worship ; as may be inferred from the mention of [p. 653.] boys and virgins. To condemn such a mass of persons to death, as the Letter of the emperor required to be done, appeared to the proconsul too hard and cruel ; and, therefore, he ordered only a few to be executed to terrify the rest, and the others he ordered to be bastinadoed, and to be sent in chains to the mines. This persecution by Valerian had so much in it new and diverse from the former persecutions, that I cannot but wonder at some learned men, who tell us that Valerian proceeded against the Christians according to the laws of the earlier emperors. First, the ancient laws required that there should be an ac- cuser, but now no accuser was needed, for the governors themselves had inqui- sitorial powers. The proconsul Paternus required Cyprian to dechire who were his presbyters; and w^heu he refused to do it, the proconsul said: Ego hodie in hoc loco exquiro: A me invenientur. See the Acta Cypriani in RuinarCs Acta martyr, p. 216. — Secondhj, the emperor's law* ordered the punishment, not of all professed Christians, but only of the bishops and presbyters. No one compelled i\\e. feople io change their religion and worship the gods: only the pastors of the flocks were required to adore and pay homage to the gods. When Dionysius replied to the prefect Aemiiius, who urged him to the worship of the gods, that he worshipped the one God, the Creator of all things, the pre. feet said : The emperors allow you to do so, provided you also worship the gods : Quis vero vos prohibet, quo minus et hunc, si quidem Deus est, cum iis, qui natura Dii sunt, adoretis. This we have from Dionysius himself, (apud Euseh. Hist. Eccles. L. vii, c. 11 ; p. 258). — Lastly, those who declared that they would not worship the gods, were not put to death, but were only torn from their flocks, and sent into exile. The people, thus bereaved of their guides and teachers, were forbidden by the emperor to assemble and hold meetings; and, as I think, for this among other reasons, that they might not choose new" teach- ers and bishops in the place of those exiled ; for the Romans knew that such functionaries could not be created except by election in a popular assembly. And the emperor hoped, if their conventions were abolished and their teachers removed, their religion itself would gradually become extinct among the com- mon people, and the ancient superstition would occupy its place. (2) In the second year of this persecution. Valerian issued another and much severer edict, which, through nearly all the provinces of the Roman empire, caused the death of numerous Christians, and particularly of bishops and pres- byters, and exposed others to severe punishments of every sort. When vague and uncertain rumors of this new imperial law reached Africa, Cyprian .sent messengers to Rome to learn the truth respecting it ; and from their report ho gives the following summary view of the new edict, (Epist. Ixxxii, p. 165.) : Quae autem sunt in vero ita se habent : Rcscripsissc Valerianum ad Senatum, (I) ut episcopi et presbyteri et diaconi incontinenti animadvertantur. The dea- [p. 554.] cons had before been exempted, but now they are added to the bishops Persecutions of Valerian. 97 •and presbyiers; undoubtedly, because tl;c enemies of the Christians had learned that they supplied the place of the bishops and presbyters, and carried relief to those in captivity. By this law, therefore, all the men of tiie holy order, if they refused to pay honor and worship to the gods, were to be inunediately put to death ; that is, they were to be led from the tribunal to the place of execution, without being for a time kept in prison. This is strikingly illustrated in the death of Cyprian himself, as described in his Ada, (apud Ruinarlum, et alios). When brought before the proconsul, he was first asked whether he was a papa or bishop of Christians ; and he confessed that he was. He was then commanded cccremoniari, that is, to worship the gods in the Roman manner ; which he per- sisted in refusing to do. Then sentence of death was passed upon him; and, after sentence, he was conducted from the praetorium to the place of execution, and there beheaded. This was the uniform mode of proceeding against men in holy orders, during the Valerian persecution. The policy of the law I can easily see. It was scarcely possible to prevent the people from flocking to their teach- ers lodged in prison ; and their last words and exhortations had a wonderful effect upon the minds of the people, animating them, and preparing them to meet death voluntarily and cheerfully for Christ's sake; of this there are extant many examples. The kind of capital punishment to be inflicted, was not pre- scribed by the law, but was left to the discretion of the magistrate. Hence, we perceive that the officers of Christian churches were put to death in this perse- cution in a diversity of modes. — (II.) Senatores vero et egregii viri et equites Romani, dignitate amissa, etiam bonis spolientur, et si ademptis facultatibua Christian! esse perseveravcrint, capite quoque multentur, matronas vero ademp- tis bonis in excilium relegentur. There were, then, among the Christians of that age, persons of both sexes, who were of the first rank and the highest re- spectability; for, otherwise, this part of the law would have been superfluous. What the emperor decreed respecting matrons, must, doubtless, be construed in the same manner as the decree respecting senators and knights : viz. that they should first be stripped of their property, and then, if they continued to be Christians when their goods were confiscated, they were to be sent into exile. It is most probable that both, after the first part of the sentence, were sent to prison, and time allowed them to deliberate, whether they would return to idolatry or persevere in the Christian religion. — (III.) Cajsariani autera quicun- iT>jpLa>v diroXaf^l^dvtiv x^'F^"-' utccemeteriorum suorum loca rccuperarent. The cemeteries, therefore, had been taken from the Christians by order of the emperor, and undoubtedly confis- [p. 566.] cated. Whether both rescripts refer to the same subject, or whether the " religious places " of the former are different from the "cemeteries " of the latter, is not clear, and I will not therefore decide. Yet, the former appears to me the more extensive, and to remove soldiers from all the sacred places, because the recovery of the cemeteries is made the subject of a special grant. Persecution of Valerian. 99 The cause of the chanfrc of the first and milder edict into this far severer and more cruel one, tlioug-li not expressly stated by any luicient writer, may Btill be easily inferred from the transactions of those times. Neitiier the bi^hopa and presbyters, nor the christian people, obeyed the emperor's law respcctinfr assemblies and tiie cemeteries. The people resorted, in great numbers, to tho places where the bishops lived in exile; and the bishops, regardless of the im- peritorial mandate, not only held assemblies in those phices, but also did what might seem to be of a more treasonable character, namely, they hibored to con- vert the pagans to Christianity, and to enlarge the boundaries of the church. We ought to praise these holy men for their magnanimity : but it may be ques- tioned whether it would not have been better to temper that magnanimity with prudence, and give way to the iniquity of the times, for the sake of avoiding a greater evil. The emperor and the governors, in these circumstances, supposin^r themselves to be contemned by the Christians, especially by the bishops, deter- mined to coerce them by sterner laws. That this is no fiction appears from the history of Diomjsius Alexandrinus and Cyprian. We learn from Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. L. vii. c. 11, p. 258.) that when Dionysius was sent into exile, the prrcfect said to him : Nnllatenus autem licebit vobis (you and the presbyters) conventus agere. Quod si quis in conventu aliquo fuerit inventus, is sibi ipse periculum arccsset. How he obeyed this interdict of the emperors he teils us di- rectly after. First, thougii absent, he took care that the Christians remaining at Alexandria should meet together frequently, contrary to the law : Eos, qui in urbe erant, perinde ac si adessem, majore studio congregavi in ecclesiam, ab- sens quidem corporo. This he was able to accomplish by means of the four presbyters whom he had left at Alexandria, together with several deacons, as he afterwards states. Secondly, in the place of his exile he held assemblies of the Christians who followed him from the city, and others who resorted to him from every quarter: Apud Cephro vero nobiscum magna fidelium adfuit multi- tudo, partim eorum, qui ab urbe nos sequuti fuerant, partim aliorum, qui ex reliqua Egypto confluebant. Lastly, he labored to bring new converts into the church : Ibi quoque januara nobis patefecit Deus ad praedicationem verbi sui. - - Non pauci ex gentilibus, relictis simulacris, ad Deum conversi sunt. All these things were excellent in themselves, and worthy of so great a bishop: but they implied contempt for the emperor's mandates. It is, therefore, not strange that soon after the prefect, who had knowledge of all this, removed Dionysius to more distant and inhospitable regions; and the indignation against the Christians increased daily. In very nearly the same manner Cyprian con- ducted, in his exile at Curubis, as appears evident from his life, written [p. 657.] by his deacon Ponlius. For he went thither, attended by many persons, and a number of the brethren there visited him. (See ^ 12.) Neither were these only the poor aud humble, but likewise the most noble and distinguished. Says Pontius Q 14.) : Conveniebant plures egregii et clarissimi ordinis et sanguinis, sed et saeculi nobilitate generosi. And these congregated together, he in- structed very frequently with his discourses and exhortations: Ille servos Dei cxhortationibus dominicis instruebat, et ad calcandas passiones hujus temporis contemplatione supervcnturre claritatis animabat. Thus the Christian bishops 100 Century Ill.—Scction 20. and presbyters themselves, because tliey would prosecute their work of advanc- ing the Christinn cause, rather than obey the emporor's will, provoked the tyrant to enact severer laws against them. (3) Dionysius of Alexandria, (apud Euseh.\l\^i. Eccles. L. vii. c. 10, p. 255.) thought tlie words of St. John, in the Apocalypse, (eh. 13:5.) were fulHlled in Valerian : whether he was correct or not does not effect the present argument: Et datum est illi os loquens magna et impia: Et data est illi potestas et menses quadraginta duo. Hence learned men have rightly inferred that the Valerian persecution continued into the fourth year. And that after Valerian was cap- tured by the Persians, his son GalHenus sent rescripts throughout the Roman world, staying the persecution, and giving Christians liberty freely to profess their religion, is fully attested by Eusebius, (Hist Eccles. L. vii. c. 13, p. 262.) where he confirms his statement, by quoting the very words of the rescripts. Gallienus seems to have regarded the sad fate of his father as a punishment inflicted on him by the Christian's God, for the persecution of his servants. (4) A memorable example of this kind is stated by Eusebius, (Hist. Eccles. L. vii. c. 15, p. 263.) Marinus was put to death at Ceesarea, after the restoration of peace to the Christian community by Gallienus. He was wealthy, prospe- rous, and of a good fiimily, and he aspired to the honor of a centurionship among the Romans. But when near the attainment of his object he was accused of being a Christian, before Achaeus the judge, by some one who was his rival candidate for the office. Marinus confessed the charge. The judge gave him three hours to consider whether he would sacrifice to the gods or persevere in the Christian faith. When the time had elapsed, Marinus professed Christ with greater promptitude than before, and cheerfully submitted to capital punish- ment. The proceeding with this man, most evidently, w^as not according to the edict of Valerian, which had already been abrogated by Gallienus, but ac- cording to the ancient law of Trajan. For an accuser appeared : The criminal, on confession, was required to renounce Christ, and, as he would not do it, he was forthwith led to execution. From this example, therefore, it appears that the ancient laws of the emperors against Christians retained all their force, even when milder ones had been enacted; and, therefore, under the milder emperors, [p. 558.] and in times of tranquillity, the governors could pass sentence upon the Christians who were formally accused and confessed the charge. The corps of Marinus, ODC Asturius, a Roman senator, and a man of the highest respecta- bility, bore away on his own shoulders, and committed to burial ; as we learn from the same Eusebius, (Hist. Eccles. L. vii. c. 16, p. 264.) And this he could do with impunity and perfect safety : and the reason is obvious. According to to Trajan's law, the judge could not punish without an accuser, and a man of such high reputation and distinction, and the personal friend of the emperors, no one either dared or wished to accuse before the court. § XX. Persecution nnder Aurciian. If, therefore, a few ex- amples be excepted, of Christians put to death by governors who abused their power, the Christians enjoyed a good degree of tran- quillity under Gallienus, who reigned eight years with his brother Persecution of AurcUan. 101 Valerian, and also under his successor Claudius^ wlio reigned two 3^ears.(') Aarelian^ wlio succeeded Claudius in the year 270, although immoderately given to idolatry-, and j^ossessing a strong aversion to the Christians, yet devised no measures for their in- jury dui-ing four years. (') But in the fifth year of his reign, eitlicrirom his own superstition, or prompted by the superstition of otliers, he prepared to persecute them :(') and, had he lived, so cruel and ferocious was his disposition, and so much was he in- fluenced by the priests and the admirers of the gods, that this per- secution would have been more cruel than any of the preceding. But before his new edicts had reached all the provinces, and when he was in Thrace, in the year 275, he was assassinated by the instigation of Mnestheus, whom he had threatened to punish. And, therefore, only a few Christians suffered for their piety under him.(') (1) That in the reign of Claudius, a few Christicins here and tliere were put to death by the governors, undoubtedly under cover of the ancient laws, is evident from the instances adduced by Lupius, in his Notes on the Epitaph of Severa, (^ ii. p. 6, &,c.) Among these examples is that of Severa herself, whose particular Epitaph was dug up in the Via Salaria, A. D. 1730, and has been elucidated by a long and erudite commentary. (2) With great unanimity, the modern writers have stated, that Aurelian in the first years of his reign was kind and friendly to the Christians, but on what grounds or authority I know not. Fori no where find any testimony that he had this goodwill, nor do I meet with any specimen of it. I know that Eusehius tella us, (Hist. Eccles. L. vii. c. 30. p. 282.) that when the Christians appealed to this emperor against Paul of Samosata, who refused to quit the liouse of the church, after he was condemned in a council for corrupt sentiments concerning Christ, the emperor ordered him to be put out by force; and this decision against Paul Eusehius seems to regard as evidence of his friendly regards for the [p. 559.] Christians. But, if I am not greatly deceived, the followers of Eusehius infer from this act of Aurelian, more than is found in it. We will grant that, at that time, Aurelian had not indulged feelings of hostility to the Christians, nor de- termined on their extirpation. But how he could have entertained kind and friendly feelings towards them, I cannot understand, while he was burning with zeal for the worship of those gods which the Christians execrated, and, moreover, spoke contemptuously of the sacred rites of the Christians. For thus he wrote in an Epistle to the Senate, (preserved by Vopiscus in his Aurelius, c. 20. llistor. Augu^tee, torn. ii. p. 463.): Miror vos, patres sancti, tamdiu de aperiendis Sybll- linis dubitasse libris, perinde quasi in Chris iianorum ecclesia,non in temple Deo- rum omnium, tractarelis. In this language there is a very invidious comparison between the Christian religion and the worship and sacred rites of tlie gods ; 102 Century III.— Section 20. and it indicates a mind wholly averse from the Christians, and paying all reverence to the gods. He seems to suppose that a certain divine and celestial influence prevailed in a temple of the gods, which illuminates the minds of those who deliberate there, and shows them what to do ; but that the churches of Christians lack this influence, and, therefore, everything proceeds tardily and heavily in their councils. But this very rej)resentation is honorary to the Chris- tian assemblies of that age : for it shows that nothing was done in them in a headlong and tumultuous manner, but everything was maturely considered and carefully weighed, so that the consultations continued often for a long time Moreover, when we come to treat of Paul of Samosata, we will show that Au- relians decision against him is no evidence of any love for Christians, but of his hatred to Zenobia, a queen of the east. (3) Eusebius tells us (Hist. Eccles. L. vii. c. 30 ; p. 283.) that Aurclian was prompted to persecute the Christians (t/s-i (iovx^li-,) by certain coiuiseUors. Per- haps this was true. It might be that either the Platonic philosophers, wiio possessed great influence in those times, or the heathen priests, who had many friends at court, and especially among the ladies of rank, represented to the emperor that the destruction of the Christians would prove useful to the empire. But whoever will survey the life of Aurelian, will perceive that he needed no external influences to bring him to assail the Christians, for his innate cruelty and superstition w^ere sufficient of themselves to prompt him to such a nefarious resolution. Scarcely any one among the emperors, before Constan- tine the Great, was more superstitious, or more devoted to the imaginary deities. His mother was a priestess of the sun : (see Vopiscus in his Aurelian, c. iv. p. 420). And her son, in consequence, all his life reverenced the sun as the supreme deity. He closes an oration, in which he thanks Valerian for the honors he had received from him, in these words: Dii faciant et Deus certus Sol, (so then he placed more confidence in the sun than in all the other gods,) ut el senatus de me sic sentiat. (Ibid. c. xiv. p. 451). When the forces of Zenobia had [p. 560.] been vanquished at Emessa, he supposed that he was indebted for the victory to the good providence of the sun ; and, therefore, " immediately after the battle, he repaired to the temple of Heliogabalus, as if to pay his vows for the public favor." (Ibid. c. xxv. pp. 478, 479). And " the garments eniiched with jewels," which had been stripped from the vanquished Persians, Armenians, and other enemies, he consectrated in the temple of the sun. (Ibid. c. xxviii. p. 483). When Palmyra was captured, and the infuriate soldiers had plundered the temple of the sun, he was more solicitous for nothing than to have that sacred edifice magnificently repaired and dedicated anew. To Ceionius Bassus, whom he had intrusted with this business, he wrote: Habes trcccntas auri li- bras e Zenobia? capsulis : habes argcnti mille octingenta pondo. De Palmyre- norum bonis habes gemmas regias. Ex his omnibus fac cohonestari templum : mihi et Diis immortalibus gratissimum feceris. Ego ad senatum siribam, petens, ut mittat Pontificem, qui dedicet templum. (Ibid. c. xxxi. p. 491). Afterwards ho erected a very magnificent temple of the sun at Rome, (Ibid. c. xxxix. p. 522,) and placed in it much gold and jewelry. (Ibid. p. 523). And hence, after his death, Aurelianus Tacitus said, hi his oration before the senate: Quindecim raillia Efforts of Philosophers. 103 librarum auri ex ejus liberalitate ununi tc-.net templum (solis): omnia in urbo fana ejus niicant donia (Ibid. c. xll. p. 527). On one of his coins, nienlioned by Ezrcliiel Spanheimy (de usu et prajstantia numismat. vol. ii. p, 485.) is tliia le^^iMid : iSol Dominus imperii Rumani. — Now, who can wonder that a prineo intlamed with such insane zeal ibr the worship of the sun, should have deter- mined to assail with the sword, and to persecute with edicts, those Christiana who deemed the sun unworthy of divine honors ? (4) Eusebius states (Hist. Eccles. L. vii. c. 30; p. 285, &c.) that Aurelian fell by parricidal hands, while preparing for his intended assault upon the Chrisiians, and, as it were, in the very act of subscribing the edicts against them. This obscure statement is explained by Lactantius, (de mortibus persecutorum, c. 6.) who informs us that his edicts had reached only to the provinces border- ing on Thrace, and says: Protinus inter initia sui furoris cxtinctus est. Non- dum ad provincias ulteriores eruenta ejus edicta pervenerant, et jam Cajnofrurio, qui locus est Thraciai, cruentus humi jacebat. § XXI. Efforts of the Philosophers against the Christians. Wllile the emperors and magistrates were striving to subvert the Chris- tian commonwealth by means of Laws and punishments, it was assailed with craft and subtly, during this whole century, by the philosophers of the Ammonian school; who assumed the name of Platonists, extended their discipline over nearly all the Eoman empire, and gradually obscured the glory of all the other sects. For, as most of the people who cultivated piety and virtue, [p. 561.] more readily repaired to the Christians than to the schools of the Philosophers, and many went also from the schools of the Pla- tonists themselves, (') they were induced to resist to the utmost a sect which threatened ruin to their prosperity and fame. Hence Porpliyry^ a Syrian or Tyrian, the corypha3us of the Platonist sect in this century, (according to Plotinus^) a man distinguished for his subtlety and acuteness, composed a long treatise against the Christians ; which, it is to be regretted, the laws of the Chris- tian emperors have caused to disappear : for the few fragmcuts of it still remaining,show that Forpltyry was no very formidable adversary .(') Others of this sect adopted into their creed tlie best and most sublime precepts of Christianity, and especially those relating to piety and morality, so that they might appear to teach religion and virtue with as much purity and sanctity as the Christians, Others, again, in order to weaken the Christians' argument from the life and miracles of the Saviour, labored to show, tliat among the more devout worshippers of the gods, tliere 104 Century III. — Section 21. had been men not inferior, and perhaps actually superior,, to^ Jesus Christy both in their origin and virtue, and in the number and magnitude of their miracles ; and for this purpose they drew up the lives of Archytas of Tarcntum, PylliagoraSy AjJoUonitts Tyanteus, and other men of great fame ; and, stufiing these biographies with silly fables, they put them into the hands of the common people.(^) The men of this class did not revile Jesus Christ, nor deny that the precepts which the Christians taught as coming from him, were, for the most part, excellent and com- mendable, but they devised a sort of harmony of all religions, or a universal religion, which might embrace the Christian among the rest. This plan, which was contrived by Ammonius, the founder of the sect, required the admission of only so much of the Christian system as was not utterly repugnant to idolatry, or to the ancient popular religions. (1) Respecting the conversion to Christianity of many Platonists, and espe- cially of the disciples of Plolinus, the head man of the Platonist school in this century, we have the following very lucid passage in the writings of Augustine^ (Epist. Ixviii. ad Dioscorum, cap. v. ^ 33. 0pp. torn. ii. p. 260.) : Tunc Plotini schola Ronice floruit, habuitque condiscipulos multos, acutissimos viros. Sed aliqui eorum mnglcnrum arlium curiositate depravati sunt, aliqui Dominum, [p. 562.] Jesum Christum ipsius veritatis atque sapientia3 incommiitabilis, quam conabantur attingero, cognoscentes gestare personam, in ejus TniUtiam trails sieruni. (2) On the work of Porphyry against the Christians, may be consulted Lu- cas Holstenius, (de Vita Porphyrii, c. xi.) Jo. Fran. Buddeuii, (Isagoge in Theo- logiam, torn. ii. p. 1009, &c.) and Jo. Alb. Fabricius, (Lux Evangelii toti orbi exoriens, p. 154). To the observations made by these authors I have nothing to add. (3) The Life of Py/liagoras was written in this century by Porplujry, and in the next by Jamblickus, and both, unquestionably, in order to make that philo- Bopher appear in all respects the equal of Jesus Christ, but especially so in his miracles and in the wisdom of his precepts. This is demonstrated by Ludolph KUster, m the notes to his edition of the Life of Jamblichus ; and any one will readily see it, if he will compare eitlier of tiiese biograpiiies with the history of our Saviour : (See Kusteri Adnot. ad Jamblichi, cap. ii. p. 7. et cap. xix. p. 78). No two lambs could be more alike than Christ and Pytiiagoras, if all were tru» which those two biographers have stated. The fable of Apollonius Tyana3U8, which Philostralus composed in this century, by command of Julia, the em- press, wife to the emperor Severus, is abundantly known; and none among the learned need to be informed that Hierocles, a Platonic philosopher of the fourth century, contrasted Pythagoras with Jesus Christ, and that Eusehius of Cassarea Efforts of Philosophers. 105 wrote a special treatise against the book. That Philoslratus aimed, in his very- splendid, and yet most stupidly mendacious book, to suggest such a comparison between Cln-ist and Apollonius, has long been shown by the learned men who are cited and approved by Godfrey Olearius, the editor of Philostratus; (Pajfat. p. xxxix). Moreover, as Christ imparted to his friends and legates the power of working miracles ; so also, to make the resemblance perfect, these IMatonista represent Fijlhagoras as imparting the same power to several of his fol lowers, to Empedocles, Epimenides, Abaris, and others. See Jamblichus, (Vita Pythagorae, c. 28. p. 114). To exhibit the designs and the impudence of this sect, I will cito a Latin translation of the words of Jamblichus in the above cited place. Having spoken of some miracles of Pythagoras, he adds : Millia alia, hisque diviuiora, magisque miranda, qua? de viro traduntur. - - Quorum compotes etiam facti Empedocles Agrigentinus, Epimenides Cretensis et Abaris IJyperboreus, multis in locis talia facinora desigiiarunt. Satis autem nota sunt ipsorum opera. Moreover, these comparisons were made, not so much to disparage Christ, as to injure Christianity. For those who compared Christ with Pythgoras, with Apollonius Tyana3us, with Empedocles, with Archy tas, &c. tacitly admitted that Christ was a divine person, far superior to the common order of men, [p. 563.] the Lord of demons, the controler of nature, and a great benefactor to the human race : but they affirmed that the Christians misunderstood and perverted the opinions of their master and guide. iVs they wished to reduce all modes of philosophising, whether Greeeian or barbarian, to the one mode of the Platon- isis, and explained this mode according to the Egyptian notions of God and nature; and, moreover, labored to bring all the religions of the world into har- mony with this Platonico-iEgyptian system, and as they did not deny that Christ taught a religion which was good and useful, it became necessary that they should maintain, that what the Christians inculcated was, in great measure, diverse from the opinions of [Christ] their master. They, therefore, wished to accomplish two objects by the above-mentioned comparisons : — First, to prevent any credit being given to the assertion of the Christians, that Christ was GoJ, or the Son of God. For if there were to be found among men, individuals possessing the same power of changing and controling the laws of nature, as had been possessed by Christ, then the Christians' argument for Christ's di- vinity, derived from his miracles, would fall to the ground. Their second object was, to bring men to believe that Christ had no design to subvert the ancient pagan religions, but merely to purify and reform them. Now,if among the most devout of the pagan worshippers, tliere were found persons the equals, and perhaps the superiors of Clirist in great achievements, then it would necessarily follow, that those are mistaken who suppose Christ wished to abolish the temples and the ceremonies of tlie pagan worship. To the list of Phitonists who labored to subvert the Christian religion by cunning devices, A;ju/etus was, not long since, added by the very learned and in- genious William Warburion.'m his English work, The Divine Lege, and a thing unheard of, for so great a body of armed men patiently to resign themselves up to their execu- tioners, and make no effort to defend their lives with their arms. All these con- siderations are urged with much ingenuity and address by very learned men; and yet it must be admitted, that if the story of the Thebccan Legion can be proved by irresistible testimony, then it has nothing to fear from these argu- ments; for none of ihera are so strong as to be wholly unanswerable. For myself, next to the silence of Lactantius, I regard as the strong- est of all arguments against the story of this legion, w'hat the above-men- tioned prefect of the Genevan library states to us, from Ca3sar Barronius, (Adnot, ad diem 22, Septcmbr. Martyrologii Romani, p. 375.) respecting a Mmi- rice among the Greeks, very similar to the Gallic commander of the Thebaian Legion. For the Greeks very devoutly observe the twenty-first day of Feb- ruary, in memory of a certain Maurice, a military tribune, whom the emperor Maximian commanded to be put to death on account of his Christian faith, at Apamea, in Syria, and with him seventy Christian soldiers. The Acta of this Maurice are given by the Jesuits of Antwerp, (Acta Sanctor. tom. iii. Feb- ruarii, p. 237,) and are undoubtedly of modern date, and of no historical value. Yet this Maurice was held by the Greeks of the Jiflh century to be a martyr of the highest order ; as is attested by Theodoret, (Graecar. Affectionum L. viii. p. 607.) Now, it is contrary to all probability that there were two Maurices, both tribunes, and both put to death by the same emperor; the one in Syria and the other in Gaul, and at about the same time, and each with the soldiers under him. And. therefore, it would seem that the story of Maurice and his companions must have been borrowed, either by the Latins from the Greeks, or by the Greeks from the Latins. But Tkeodoret, above cited, affords objections to our supposing the Greeks received the story from the Latins ; and therefore it is most probable that the Latins transferred the Maurice of the Greeks from Syria to Gaul, and augmented and embellished his history with many fables, invented doubtless for the sake of gain. Yet T will not strongly object if some should conjecture, perhaps, that something actually occurred [p. 57L] in the Valais, or near the Leman Lake, which afforded occasion for the perpetration of this fraud, by some priest desirous to procure sustenance and wealth from the credulity of the people. Perhaps Maximian, while marching his army into Gaul, actually ordered a few of his soldiers, who refused to sacri- fice to the gods for the success of the war, to suffer the penalty of their con- Btancy. Perhaps, soon afterwards, a little chapel was erected in memory of First Acts of Diocletian. 113 (hoso holy soldiers, on the spot where they were shiin ; for such was the oua- torn of (hat aye. But as that little chapel had not sufficient fame and cele- brity to render it very lucrative to its g'uardians, they, in order to allure people thither, and thus enrich their domicile, expanded the brief Jiistory of its iuinible origiu, and summoning to their aid the Maurice of the Greeks and his military companions, they represented Maximian as slaughtering a whole legion in the Vahiis. And the multitude of human bones \\\ those parts afforded support to the fable. For, those finiiliar with ancient history know, that great battles were formerly fought in that part of Gaul, and many thousand persons slain ; so that the ground, where now is seen the splendid and prosperous monastery of {St. Maurice^ was formerly rich in dead corpses. (2) This is attested by Eusehhis, (Hist. Eccles. L. viii. c. 1, p. 292, c. 4, p. 295; and in the end of the book, p. 317.) So learned men long since ob- served; nor can there be any doubt of it. But as to tlie author of this first persecution of the soldiers and officials of the palace, some doubts have arisen in my mind, while comparing Eusehius with Lacianlius ; which, I am surprised, have not occurred to the learned. Eusehius clearly represents, that before Dio- cletian had made any decrees against the Christians, Maximian Galerius perse- cuted the soldiers and servants of the palace. But Lactantius, (de Mortibus persequutor. c. 10, p. 85, die.) although he inveighs vehemently against the cruelty of Ma.ximian in other instances, and charges him with extraordinary zeal for exterminating the Christians, yet is entirely silent as to this crime of Maximian ; and he tells us, on the contrary, that Diocletian first assiiiled the soldiers and officials of the palace, but without shedding blood. He represents Diocletian as being then in the East, and as searching in the livers of beasts which he had slain, to obtain auguries of future events. But some of his minis- ters who were standing by, being Christians, made the sign of the cross on their foreheads: quo facto^ fugaiis dccmonibus, sacra iurhata sunt. The sooth- sayers repeated their sacrifices several times, but in vain ; they could not di-co- ver the customary appearances on the entrails of the victims. At length the chief soothsayer declared, non respondere sacra, quod rchus die inis pro/an i homi- nes (namely, Christians) interesseni. Then Diocletian, in a rage, ordered all the persons in the palace to offi?r sacrifices, and such as refused were to be scourged. And by letters addressed to their commanders, milites ad nefanda sacrijicia cogi prcccepily ut qui non paruisscnf, militia soharentur. He adds : Haclenus furor ejus et ira processit, nee amplius quidquam contra legem [p. 572.] aut religionem Dei fecit. Neither was he afterwards disposed to go farther. For when, after some years, Maximian wished to have public edicts of a bloody character enacted against the Christians, he refused, and said : Satis esse, si palatinos tanlum et milites ah ea religione prohiberet. (c. 11, p. 99, ed. Bauldrian.) Whether, theretbre, this first liglit and moderate persecution of soldiers and offi- cials, which preceded the great Diocletian persecution that commenced in the third year of the following century, is to be attributed to Diocletian or Maxi- mian, appears to be uncertain, because of the disagreement of the principal authorities on the subject. Those who would reconcile these disagreeing state- ments, may say that both emperors committed the same fault, and assailed VOL. u. 9 I 114 Century III— Section 22. their soldiers and palace servants at the same time ; Diocletian in the East, and Maximian in Illyricum, which was the province under his jurisdiction. And there is, I confess, a shade of difference between tiie military persecution descri- bed by Eusebiiis, and that which is mentioned by Laclantius, which might seem to make them distinct from each other. Laclanlrus says, that Diocletian punished no one capitally ; but Eusebius represents some as being put to death by Maximian. In Hict, I do not look upon tliis conjecture with contempt. Yet, not to dwell on the improbability that the two emperors, when fur separated from each other, should, at the same time, commit the same outrage ; what could have induced Lactantius to state the crime of Diocletian, and to omit tlie similar crime of Maximian, on whom he at other times charges all the evils brouglit by Diocletian on the Christians 1 If you say he was ignorant of the fact ; I answer, first, this is altogether incredible : and, secondly, I ask, how could Eusebius, a man not less well informed respecting the events of those times, than was the author of the treatise de Moriibus Persequutorum, and who represents the first outrage as that of Maximian, — how could he be ignorant that Dio- cletian committed the same outrage ? — Another method of removing the diffi- culty seems to be intimated by Lactantius himself, in his Institutiones Divincc, (L. iv. e. 27, p. 546, ed. Biinemann.) In treating of the interruption of the sa- cred rites of the haruspices by the Christians crossing their foreheads, he speaks as if not Diocletian solely, but also Maximian, were offering those sacrifices j for he speaks of (Domini) lords, in the plural, as being present : Quum enim quidam ministrorum e cultoribus Dei sacrificantibus Dominis assisterent, impo- sito frontibus signo, deos illorum fugaverunt. And, a little after : Aruspiees adegerunt Princifcs suos in furorem, ut expugnarent Dei templum. Now if, as these words seem to imply, Diocletian and Maximian were together, and both united in the sacrifices, then neither Lactantius nor Eusebius is wholly wrong ; but each has erred, by attributing an act of the two emperors to only one or the other of them. But from adopting this opinion, we are withheld by Lactantius himself, (de Mortibus Persequutor. c. 10, near tlie end.) where [p. 673.] he not obscurely shows, that the emperors were in different places at the time when Diocletian was enraged at the Christians for interrupting his re- ligious rites. And why, I ask, if Maximian was then with Diocletian, does he not mention his name, since he wished to make his villanies as notorious as possible ? Besides, every body knows, the plural number is often used in- stead of the singular, especially by those who, like Lactantius, speak or write in a rhetorical manner. In short, that the great persecution which the Chris- tians suffered under Diocletian in the subsequent century, commenced with thia Blight preclude at the close of this century, and was hurtful only to the soldiers and the residents in the palace, can admit of no question ; but against the sup- pf)sition of a twofold prelude, the one in the East and the other in the West, botn Eusebius and Lactantius stand equally opposed, for each of them mentions but one ; and, whether Diocletian or Maximian commenced the tragedy, remains in uncertainty. — I will subjoin a few remarks on the motive wliich, ac- cording to Lactantius, induced Diocletian to maltreat the Christian soldiers and officials of the palace. I cannot doubt that something of the kind narrated did Church Government, 115 occur- but that the Christians, by cro9sin/ Christ, Cyprian (Epist. Iv. p. 86; al. Ep. lix. c. 19,) calls the Romish church: Petri calhedram atque ecclesiam principalem, unde unilas sacerdotalis orta est. — But they especially urge a passage from his treatise de Unilate Ecdesicc, (p. 195, &.C., c. 4.) I will cite the pass;ige as it stands in the edition of Baluze; but it is well known that the ancient copies disagree, and it is justly suspected, or ni- ther proved, that zeal for the honor of the Romish church has induced some learned men in time past to corrupt and enlarge the passage to suit their own views and desires. Loquitur Dominus nd Petrum : Ego tibi dico, inquit, quia tu cs Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam. - - Et iterum eidem post resurrectionem suamdicit: Pasco oves meas. Super ilium unum acdificat ecclesiam suam, et illi pascendas mandat oves suas. Et quamvis Apostolis omnibus post resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuat, et dicat : Sicut misit me Pater, et ego mitto vos, accipite Spiritura sanctum - - tameu ut unitatem manifestaret, unitatis ejusdem originem ab uno inci[)ientem sua auctoritate disposuit. Hoc erant utique et ceteri Apostoli, quod fait Petrus, pari consortia pncditi et honoris et potestatis, sed exordium ex unitate proficisci- tur, et primatus Petro datur, ut una Christi ecclesia et cathedra una monstre- tur. - - Hanc ecclesioe unitatem qui non tenet, tenere se fidem credit? Qui ec- clesiae renititur et resistit, qui cathedram Petri, super quem fundata [p. 583.] est ecclesia, deserit, in ecclesia se esse confidit 1 From these extracts, distin- guished men think it can be proved, that Cyprian regarded the Roman bishop as presiding over the whole church, and represented him to be its common judge and legislator ; and that this opinion was not held by Cyprian alone, but by that age, and by the whole church. Those who, in reply, would cut the matter short, may say: First., that Cyprian here states his own private opinion ; but that there is no evidence to show, that the whole church thought as he did. Others indeed, in times subsequent to Cyprian, said nearly the same thing-; but they copied from him. For the influence of this bishop and martyr ainono Christians was immense, and his opinions were regarded by many as divine 124 Century IILSectloti 23. oracles. Yet Cyprian, us will not be denied, even by those who consider hinn a very great and holy man, had imbibed many futile, vain and superstitious nc» tions, and also cherished some remarkable errors; and hence we ought to en- quire, whether his opinion accords wi;h the truth, or whether it should be placed among the errors which he indulged. ]t' this dogma of his is to be es- timated by the arguments and proofs which he adduces to support it, I fear it cannot be ranked with tliose which no man of sound mind can rtject. — • Secondly: Let it be considered, that Cyprian nowhere ascribes i\\ixi primacy of which he speaks, to the Romish bishop, but to the Romish church. But the (ec- clesia) church, as we have before sliowii, in Cypriaji's estimation, was above or superior to the bishop, and consisted of the bishop and the clergy, and the whole multitude of the (slanlium) the faithful, united. If then it were per- fectly certain, as some learned men think it is, that Cyprian attributed to the Romish church a primacy over all churches, his opinion cannot by any means be transferred to the Romish bishop or pontiff; for his opinion will be precisely this: The entire Christian population of Rome, together with their clergy and bisliop, have power over the universal church. But how wide is this from the opinion of those who think the Romish prehite sustains the office of Christ's vicegerent ! But, laying aside these answers, although they are not to be despised, let us come to close combat. The passages from Cyprian, cited on the side opposed to the Pontifical claims, beyond all controversy, contain these principles: All the bishops in the Christian church, have equal powers and prerogatives ; none of them is under any other lord or judge, than Jesus Christ. And, the African bishops are in no respect inferior to the bishop of Rome. But the passnges cited on the side of the defenders of the Pontiff, contain, according to their interpretation, the following doctrine: There is one bishop in the church, who rules over all the rest, namely, the bishop of Rome; and, therefore, the African bishops are inferior to the bishop of Rome, and ought to yield obedience to his commands and decrees. These two opinions, as is manifest, contradict each other. And, therefore, one of two things must be true; either Cyprian contra- [p. 684.] diets himself, and brings forward directly opposite opinions ondiflerent occasions ; or the passages on one of the sides must be so explained and under- stood, as not to conflict, but to harmonize, with those on the other. Now let the learned men, who are so solicitous about the dignity of the Romish church and the supreme Pontitf, choose which side they please of this alternative. If they choose the first, and admit that Cuprian has advanced contradictory opin- ions, his authority is gone, and nothing can be proved or inferred from his declarations. For what credit or authority is due to the man, who talks absurdly and advocates opinions contradictory to each other? The latter part of the alternative therefore must be tried, and the passages of one sort must be so explained that they will accord or harmonise with the others. Now, by universal consent, it is an established rule, tiiat light controls and illumines darkness; that is, the obscure and ambiguous passages of a book, are to be elucidated and explnined by the passages which are ck-ar and perspicuous; for it would be preposterous to guage and measure the import of passages in which there was Church Qovcrnmcnt. J 25 no obscurity or amlig-nity, by other passages wliieli are enigmatical and ailmit of many explanations. Now if this rale is to bo applied in the pre>;ent ease, as undoubtedly it should be, 1 think all will agree, that the passages of Cyprian wjiieh speak of the unity of the church, its being founded on Peter, and tho primacy of the Romish see. must be understood and explained in such a way as not to conflict with the passages which affirm the parity and independence of . •ill bishops; for the latter passages are clear and perspicuous, and will not admit of various interpretations; but the former, relative to the unity, &c. though of frequent occurrence, are not perspicuous, and will admit of diverse exphmalions. According to the rules of correct reasoning, then, we cannot suppose that Cyprian ascribed to the Romi>h church a sort of primacy of pow- er, and a sort of chil unily of the universal church, a unity as to authority and control, like that in states or republics, which arc governed by the will of one man. For such a primacy and such a unily would subvert and destroy that independence and equality of all the bishops, which he most strenuously main- tains. On the contrary, in our judgment, it must have been, that the holy man revolved in his mind such a unUij of the church, as would accord with his belief of the equal rights of all bishops; and such a primacy of the Romish church, as would comport with his decision, That the African bishops are not inferior to the bishops of Rome, and that what they decree, cannot be reversed or altered, either by the Roman bishop, or by all the other bishops ; which decision Cyprian states in almost these very terms. If any one should here ask for a correct explanation of this primacy and this vnityaa maintained by Cyprian, I will readily answer, respecting the primacy. Among all the Christian churches, Cyprian assigned the first place to the Romish church ; for reasons, indeed, that are very weak and futile, yet such as satisfied him. Whether this was his private opinion, or whether he expresses the gene- ral views of the churi.'h, is another question, wdiich I shall leave untouched. And yet I will not deny, that from the time the Christians embraced the idea that the Christian church had in some sort the form of a body politic, the com- mencement or origin of the combination was always traced to the [p. 585.] Romish church. But, as to the unity which Cyprian attributed to the church, and which he says originated from the Romish church, it is not so easy to an- swer. And I suspect, that Cyprian himself would have felt himself embarrass- ed, if he had been called upon to explain the nature of this unity in clear and definite terms. For, on this subject, which he represents as being of \c.Yf great importance, he yet speaks so vaguely and with so little uniformity, that we can readily perceive, he had no very distinct conception of it in his own mind. Those are exceedingly mlstikcn, who suppose that Cyprian, Tcrtullian, and the other Clirlstian writers of that age, clearly understood whatever they taught and inculcated with great earnestness : so far from it, they annex dilTorcnt ideas to the same terms, as the subject and convenience seem to call for them ; which is evidence, that their minds needed light, and that they entertained vague and indeterminate notions. And yet this unily of the church, which Cyprian go liighly extols, and the commencement of which he places in the Roir.ish church, may be elucidated, in some sort, provided wc may, from a part of the 126 Century III.— Section 23. tmj'/y, judge of the wliole. That unity, which ought to prevail in the universal church, actually existed, and ought to exist, in the African church, over which Cypri;in presided; as he tells us repeatedly, and it cannot be questioned. Therefore, from the xm'xly in tiie African church, we may learn what kind of unity Cyprian supposed to exist in the universal church. Now the African bishops were upon a footing of perfect equality, as to power and jurisdiction: each could sanction and establish what he deemed salutary and proper in his own church, without being accountable for his acts to any one save Jesus Christ. This we learn from the lips of Cijprian himself. And yet there was a primacy in this same church, composed as it was of members all equal ; and that primacy was in the church of Carthage. Moreover this primacy was necessary, because unity was necessary in the African church. As, therefore, the sacerdo- tal unity in the universal church, emanated from the church of Rome, so in the African, it originated from the church of Carthage. That unity, with the pri- macy on which it was based, was no obstacle to the parity, and equality in pow- ers, of the bishops; and, on the other hand, the equality of the bishops was no obstruction to the primacy and the unity. All that this unity required, was, that all the bishops in the province of Africa, should concede the first place in point of rank, to the bishop of Carthage : that on subjects of graver moment, they should communicate with him, and ask his opinion ; but that they should follow that opinion was not necessary; that they should go to the conventions or councils held on great questions, at the summons of the primate; and, lastly? that they should observe and follow out what was decided upon by common consent in those councils. The manner of proceeding in these councils, we learn distinctly from the Acta magni Concilii Carlhaginensis de baptizandis haereticis, in the Works of Cyprian, p. 329. The primate, or head of the unity^ stated the business for which they were assembled, and gave his colleagues the fullest liberty to express their opinions. His own opinion was given last of all. If they disagreed, and the subject did not pertain to an essential point of reli- [p. 5S6.] gion, each bishop was at liberty to follow his ov/n judgment; as the oration of Cyprian, at the opening of that council, puts beyond all controversy. Such a unity, and such a primacy m the universal church, Cyprian conceived of: nor could he have conceived of any other, unless we would make the holy man to be totally ignorant of his own sentiments and meaning. That is, he con- ceived that all bishops ought to be so connected with the Romish church, as to concede to it the same rank which Peter had among the Apostles, namely, the first rank ; and so as to recur to it in doubtful cases of great moment, reserving to themselves, however, the right of dissenting from its judgment, but still re- maining in its communion if practicable. If he had any thing more than this in his mind, and I will not atfirm positively that he had not, yet this, at least, is evident, beyond all question, that he contemplated nothing of such a nature as would invest the Romish prelate with any sovereignty or power over the whole church. Into this my opinion, I am confident all those will come, who shall atten- tively consider what Cyprian has said respecting the unity of the church, and the consequent primacy of the Romish church. The whole subject may be Church Government. 127 comprelicndf?d in the following propositions: the truth or falsehood of which I leave out of consideration. (I) Jesus Christ foundea his church on Peter. Yet (II) He did not (rive to Peter any power over the other Apostles, or any Bovcreigjity and primacy of jurisdiction over them. But (III) after IJis resur- rection, he conferred the same power on all the Apostles. (IV,) On Peter, however, he conferred this power first, and afterwards on the Apostles ; in order to indicate that, uniLalis originem ah uno incipere debere. I clioosc to use Cyp'ian's words rather than my own: for I must confess, I am unable to com- prehend perfectly the force of his reasoning, or the meaning of his language. (V.) Omnes igilur Aposloli, says Cyprian himself, id eranl, quod Pelrus fuil^ pari consorlio frccditi et honoris et poleslalis. We may here observe, that Cy- prian does not leave to Peter even a primacy of honor or rank. (VI) At quo- niam exordium ab unilale pro/iciscilu?; ideo j^rimalus (but of what sort ? Hav- ing very clearly divested Peter of any primacy of power or honor, what primacy could he leave to him ? If a man is not superior to others either in hoiwr or in power, in what respects can he be superior to them ?) Peiro datus est, ul una Christi ecclesia et cathedra una monstretur. Let others explain this : I will not attempt it. (VII) The Romish bishop represents Peter ; the other bishops represent the Apostles. (VIII) The respect, therefore, which the other Apos- tles pnid to Peter, must the bishops show to the Romish prelate. (IX) But Peter was not superior to the other Apostles, either in power or in honor : therefore, also, all the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are not infe- rior to Peter's successor, neither in power nor in honor. (X) Yet as Christ made Peter the beginning and source of the church's unity, therefore the other apostles, although perfectly his equals, owed him some honor as being the source of the church's unity. And of course, the same thing is [p. 587.] incumbent on the bishops, towards the successor of Peter. (XI) Consequent- ly, the Romish church is the principal church, and from it flowed the sacerdotal unity, namely, through Peter. (XTI) Therefore whoever separates himself from the chair of Peter, tears himself from the church, which is one, and has the source of its unity in the church of Rome. Yet, according to Cyprian's views, those do not forsake the chair of Peter, who reject the decisions and de- crees of the Ptomish bishop, and think differently from him in religious mat- ters. For he himself had rejected the decision of Stephen respecting the bap- tisms of heretics; and had rebuked, not only Stephen, but also Cornelius; and yet he had not forsaken the chair of Peter, but remained still in the church's unity. — Those who are able, may digest and comprehend all this : it is sutTi- cient for my purpose, that Cyprian has so stated, and nearly the whole in the very words now given. And how greatly these propositions differ from the ©pinion of those writers, who would make the Roman bishop the judge and legislator of the universal church, must be obvious to every one. (3) Yet I will not contend, if any persons are disposed to offer a more honorable reason for the creation of those minor officers, and should say, per- haps, that they were devised, in order that the candidates for holy orders might go through a sort of preparation and trial of their fitness for the office of dea- cons. To the office of a deacon, and especially in the African church, much 128 Century ITl—Scction 24. dignity and honor were nttuched in this century. It might therefore be thought hazardous, to receive aspirants to tiiis ofhce, without some previous trial of tlieir fitness. § XXIV. The Preroa:atives and PoAvers of the Bishops much enlarg- ed. Althougli tlic ancient and venerable form of clmrcli govern- ment wliicli was sanctioned by tlie Apostles, might seem in gene- ral to remain iindisturbed, yet it was gradually deflected more and more from the ancient model, and, in the larger congregations especiall}^, assumed the nature of a monarchical government. For, as is common in human affairs, the bishops, who presided over the congregations, arrogated to themselves much more dig- nity and authority than they had before possessed, and the ancient rights, not only of the people but also of the presbyters, they first abridged, and then wholly subverted, directing all the affairs of their communities according to their own pleasure. And, lest this should appear to be done rashly and wrong- full v, they devised and set forth new doctrines respecting the church and the office and authority of bishops, which they seem not to have fully understood themselves. In this business, Cy- prian was an example to his brethren in this century ; for, being himself a bishop, and, as cannot be denied, of an aspiring and ambitious disposition, he contended most strenuously for the [p. 588.] honor and the power of bishops, and, lest those pre- rogatives, which he thought belonged to them, should in any measure be wrested from them, he labored to establish them on stable and immoveable foundations. And, as the influence of this man, both while he lived and after his decease, was very re- markable, and such that he might almost be called the common master and guide, his inventions for establishing the dignity and power of bishops, without any difficultj^ spread through the church universal, and were received with implicit faith. (') (1) Having some knowledge of the course of human aflfliirs, I am neither greatly surprised, nor indignant, when I see the progress of episcopal power and dignity in the ancient church, and contemplate the rights of the people first, and then those of the presbyters, gradually extinguished. This might very easily oc- cur: indeed, would almost necessarily occur. As men are naturally fond of ruling, It is usua. f:?r tnose of eievated positions in society to endeavor to enlarge tho boundaries of their authority and power • and commonly their efforts are suc- cessful, and are aided by their colleagues or by combinations. For where Prtrogatives of Bishops. I09 power or authority is equally distributed aiiion^ niany, disagreements and try- ing contests of(en arise, which it is hardly possible to repress, without increas- in^ the authority and prerogative of the head man of the company. To thin cause many others m:iy be added ; such as zeal for certiiin objects, ambition, poverty, the desire of wealth, &:e,, which stimulate the governors of the society, even though naturally sluggish, slow in movement, and unaspiring, iiiid Ihua elevate them and place them on a higher level. And those who, in these ways, whether by accident, or by their own etforts, or by the folly of others, obtain elevation, are very apt to claim the standing they hold as justly due to them ; and to search for reasons and arguments to prove, that the authority they pos- sess did not come to them fortuitously but in a legitimate manner. And hence arise frequently obscure, futile, perple.\ing discussions, which yet are necessary for those that would defend what they have obtained. To apply these remarks to Christian affairs and the gradually increasing power of the bishops, is not necessary ; the wise will readily see, that the same thing occurred among Chris- tians, which is common in all human affairs; and that the primitive equality of all, and the joint administration of sacred things, gradually disappeared, and the rank of those entrusted with the chief management of the church's affairs, was of course amplified. Councils having been every where introduced in the preceding century, and a consociation of the churches in each province being pstablished, it was a natural consequence, that the bishops, who alone delibe- rated in these councils on all great questions, and framed their canons, should appear more exalted characters than formerly, and that the prerogatives, not only of the people, but also of the clergy, should suffer diminution. Yet a semblance, and, indeed, not merely a semblance, but a real part of the ancient liberty, and of the common participation in the government, remained : [p. 589.] nor was any of the bishops of this century so bereft of modesty, as to dare maintain, that he had a right to transact any great business, without consulting the clergy and the people. Strong testimonies to this point, have already been adduced from Cyprian. But this same Cyprian, who, when he has selfposses- eion and is apprehensive of some danger, acknowledges the church to be supe- rior to the bishop, and attributes much importance to the clergy and the peo- ple, at other times so exalts the authority and dignity of bishops, as to subvert and destroy all the prerogatives of the people and presbyters, and strenuously maintain that the whole government of the church belongs to the bishop alone. That is, this man of unquestionable excellence and worth, but too fond of pow- er, follows prudence and yields to circumstances, when he admits associates in the government of the church, but speaks out the sentiments of his heart when he extols bishops and makes them sovereigns of their churches. And in this direction he is so indulgent to his natural propensity, that no one before him, not even IgnaliuSy the great patron of episcopal dignity, has, in my opinion, spoken more magnificently of the sovereign power and authority of bishops, no one has exalted their authority more highly. In \\\(i first place, whenever occasion offers, he very carefully inculcates, that the bishops do not obtain their office by the suffrages of the clergy and people, but from the judgmeiit, testimony and good pleasure of God himself Ho VOL. II. 10 130 Century ITI.—Secfton 24. Bays, (Epist. lii. p. 68, al. Ep. Iv. c. 7.) : Facius est autem Cornelius episcopus de Dei et Christi ejus jvdicio. This he repeats in numerous passages ; and it is customary language with him : Deus sacerdotes suosfacit. (See Epist xlv. p. 59., lii. p. 68, 69., Iv. p. 82., Ixv. p. 1 13., l.vi.x. p. 121.) I will cite but one no- ttiLle passage, which may stand for them all. It is in his 69Lh epistle, p. 121. al. Ep. Ixvi. c. 1., where he says to Florentius, one of his adversaiius : Aiiimadver- to, id post Dexim judiciem, qui sacerdotes facit velle, non dicam de me (quantus enim ego sum?) sed de Dei et Christi judicio,(i\\h\ch he received, according to Cyprians views, when he was constituted a h'lshop, judicai'e. The man whom he here reproves, had doubted whether Cyprian was the true and legitimate" bishop of Carthage. Cyprian replies, that this is sacrilege, and an attack upon God himself and his Son: for men do not make bishops, but God. He goes on to .say : Hoc est in Dcum non credere, hoc est rebellem adversus Christum et adversus evangelium ejus existere, ut tu cxistimes, sacerdotes Dei sine conscientia ejus in ecclesia ordinari. How explicit 1 how positive! Now in tliis declaration, which is always on his lips, Deus sacerdotes suosfacit, by the words sacerdotes, he means the bishops. There are indeed some passages of hia writings, in which he honors presbyters with the appellation, sacerdotes ; and hence some learned men, Blondell, Salmasius, and others, have hastily con- cluded that Cyprian regarded presbyters, as equal in official power and autho- rity with bishops. But whenever he asserts that God creates the priests, [p. 690.] he, beyond all controversy, uniformly means the bishops ; and some- times he employs the very word episcopus instead of sacerdos. Neither did this holy man suppose, Wi^i presbyters are made and created by God: this glory he ascribed only to the bishops. — How Cyprian understood this assertion, of which he is so fond, I do not know exactly : for lie never explains it, and always uses that vague method of stating and defending his opinions, to which he had been accustomed among the rhetoricians when he was hjmself a rhetorician, before he became a Christian ; and, therefore, he defines nothing. But I sup- pose him to mean, that whenever an assembly was collected to choose a new bishop, God so illuminated and influenced those who had the right of voting, that they could not create or nominate any other than the person to whom h« had decreed the office. If this was not his meaning, I know not what wa.s. That he could not intend that common and o-rdinary law of divine Providence, which wisely controls all human affairs, is most certain, and will soon bo shown. But his opinion, as thus explained, is attended by many difficulties. For men were often created bishops, who were wholly unworthy and unfit for the office ; and a wise man can never think that these persons were elected by an extraordinary divine impulse or influence. Moreover, as is well known, the votes of the electors were often divided, so that they could not agree upon any one man. But these difficulties the good Cyprian neither perceived nor heeded. Yet there is one thing ne must undoubtedly have believed, that to constitute a divine decision in the election of a bishop, the harmonious or unanimous con- sent of the whole church was not necessary, but only the suffrages of the ma- jor part of it. For he himself was not elected by the voice of the whole Car- thagenian church; five of the presbyters, and doubtless, a portion of the people, Prerogatives of Bishops. 131 went with them, wislicd another man to be made bishop. His opinion, there- fore, doubtless, was, that whenever the mnjor part of a church pronounced a mar worthy of the episcopal office, God is to be supposed to have f-poki^n by the church, and to have mnde him his ^iviest. Of the arguments on wliich lie rests this opinion, I will mention only the one on which he places most reliance; and the force of the others, which he himself deenis less conclusive, may be es- timated from this. He assumes, that bishops are the successors of the apos- tles. Epistle xlii. (p. 57. al. Ep. xlv. c. 4.): Laborare debemus, ut unitatem a Domino et per Aposlolos nobis successeribus traditam obtinere curemus. This was the common opinion of that age. On this assumption, he thus reasons : But the Ajjostles were created and constituted by Christ himself; therefore also, tlie successors of the Apostles, the bishops, arc created by God himself and by Christ. I shall presently cite a fine passage relative to deacons, in which this argument is most distinctly exhibited. Bat in this connexion, higher chiims are raised by that argument, which he bases on the authority of Jesua Christ. For Cyprian solemnly affirms, that by divine revelation, and [p. 691.] from the mouth of Christ himself, he received the declaration Deus sacerdotes suos facit. Thus he writes, (Epist. Ixix. p. 122. al. Ep. Ixvi. c. 10.): Memini enirn, qiiidjam mihi sil ostensum, itytmo quid sii servo obsequenti et timenti de dominica el diiina aucioritale prcccepLum : qui inter caetera qua; ostendere et revelare dignatus est, et hoc addidit: Itaque, qui Chrislo nan credit sacerdotem facienti, et postea credere incipiet sacerdotem vindicanti. Now, if what Cy- prian would have us regard as true, were true, namely, that Christ himself had dictated to him these denunciations against those who will not believe (Chris- tum sacerdotes facere) thai bishops are appointed by Christ ; then it would be im- pious, to doubt the validity of this principle ! I will now subjoin the opinions of Cyprian respecting the origin of the functions o^ presbyters and deacons, as this will more fully and perfectly disclose to us his entire doctrine respecting the office and prerogatives of bishops. It is a pleasure to know the opinions of an age supposed to be distinguished above others for sanctity and the cultivation of true religion, and to see from what beginnings those dogmas originated, which are still held to be divine by many, and are brought forward to interrupt the peace of the Christian com- monwealth. Neither is this merely pleasant, but it is especially useful and ne- cessary, since learned men of all parties have begun strangely to pervert and involve in obscurity the opinions of the early ages. To whom the presbyters owe their office and rank, how extensive their pov/er, and how far they are infe- rior to bishops, Cyprian nowhere clearly states. And those who shall carefully peruse his writings that have reached us, will perceive that, when treating of firesbyters, he is very cautious not to offend persons of that order, which includ- ed quite a number who were unfriendly to him. Yet this may be inferred, from what he has said here and there in his cautious manner, that he placed presbyters far below the bishops, and would not have applied to them his favorite maxim or declaration, that God makes the priests. That is, he supposed that the church, and not God, created presbyters. lie has not, I admit, said this in so many words in any of his writings; but it is a necessary consequence 132 Century III.— Section 24. from what he says respecting the judge to whom presbyters are rccountable. A bishop lias no human judge, and is accountable to God only; because it is God that makes the bishops; but the church, collectively, not merely tho bishop, is the judge of presbyters, — and, doubtless, because the presbyters re- ceive their ofMce from the church. But let us hear him, (Epist. xi. p. 19; al. Ep. xvi. c. 4) : Interim temerarii inter vos (he is addressing his presbyters,) Deuni limeant, scientes, quoniim si ultra in iisdem persevcraverint, utar ea ad- monitione, qua me uti Dominus jubet, ut interim proliibe:intur ofterre, acturi et apud nos et apud eonfessores ipsos et apud plebem iinhersam caussara suam cum, Domino permittente, in sinum matris ecclcsioe recoUigi coeperimus. Cy- prian here claims for himself" some power over the offending presbyters ; for he threatens them, if they continue to offend, that he svill prohibere offerre ; that [p. 592.] is, prohibit them from administering the Lord's supper. But he very cautiously adds, that he assumes this authority by a divine command : qua me uti Do minus jubel; thereby acknowledging, th;it ordinarily a bisliop could not restrain a presbyter from performing his functions; but he signiiies, that this power was given to him by God in a vision, such as he declares and aflirms had been often made to him, as his writings show. But from the trial of their offence and their judicial sentence, he wholly separates himself; and decides, that the matter must go before an assembly of the whole church. Because, it would seem, that to the church which made them presbyters, it belonged to judge of the magnitude of their offence. Neither had God, although declaring many things and committing many things to him in visions, or believed to do so, signified his pleasure to have this prerogative of the church abolished. — Concerning Deacons, he speaks more distinctly. For he very clearly states, that they are constituted neither by God nor by the church, but by the bishop. And he thence infers, that if they violate their duty, tiie bishop alone can pu- nish them, without consulting the church. One Rogatianus, a bishop, had been very ill treated by his deacon; but remembering the ancient prerogativet of the church, he would not himself avenge the injury he had received, bul stated his grievance to Cyprian and to the church of Carthage, undoubtedly asking their counsel. Cyprian replied, (Epist. Ixv. p. 114; al. Ep. iii. c. 1) : Tu quidem honorifiee fecisti, ut malles de eo nobis conqueri, cum pro episcopa- ius vigore et cathedrae aucloritate haberes potestaiem, qua posses de illo slatim vindicari, certus quod collegoe tui omnes gratum haberemus quodcunque circa diaconum tuum contumeliosum sacerdotal! potcstate fecisscs. This decision is followed by a long and most invidious descant on the reverence and honor due to bishops, and the punishments which those merit who treat bishops with in- dignity ; which, I could wish, had been written by some other person than Cy- p-ian the martyr ; for, in truth, it is quite futile, and unworthy of so great a man. He first shows, from the law of Moses, (Deut. xvii. 12, 13,) that God decreed capital punishment against the despisers of the Jewish priests, who, he thinks, did not differ from the Christian priests ; and then he mentions Corah, Dathan, and Abiram, with their friends and associates, who suffered terrible punishment at the hands of divine justice for their impiety. His own words are : Ut proba- reiuVi sacerdoies Dei ab eo, qui sacerdoies facii (in speaking of bishops he could Prerogatives of Bishops. 133 not omit liis favorite maxim: Dens sacerdotes facU.) vindicari. Other argu- ments of similar strenglli then ibllow, iVom the Old Testament. Lastly, ho gravely asserts, that Jesus Christ liimself has taught us by his example, that bishops are to be treated with the highest respect; for Ciirist said to the leper (Mntth. viii. 4,) " Go and show thyself to the 'priest ;" and when, at his trial, he was smitten on the cheek, (John, xviii. 22, 23,) he uttered nothing reproachful against the Jewish high priest, (ibid. e. 2) : Qnas omnia ab eo idco facta sunt humiliter atque patientcr, ut nos humilitatis ac patieiitia? haberemus [p. 593.] exemplum. Ducuit cnini sacerdotes veros legitime et ylene honoraria dum circa falsos sacerdotes ipse talis exstitit. But all these arguments, if indeed they prove anything, only prove that great respect is due to bishops, and that those who despise or revile them should be punished very severely ; and not that a bishop is the proper judge of tiie deacons, and may punish them if they resist him. And therefi)re he now proceeds to establish this prerogative as belonging to bishops. His reasoning is this, (ibid. c. 3.) Because the bishop makes a deacon^ he says: Meminisse autem Diaconi debent, quouiam Apostolos, id est, episco- pos et prapositos Doininus elegit diaconos autem post ascensum Domini in, coelos Apostoli sibiconstitusrant episcopatus sui et ecclesige ministros. Quod si nos aliquid audere contra Deum possumus, qui episcopos facit, possunt et con- tra nos audere diaconi, a quibus fiunt. Much is wrapt up in these few words : For, firsts he shows why we must believe his darling principle, that God makes the bishops. Christ made the Apostles; but the bishops have succeeded to the place of the Apostles; therefore, not men, but God and Christ make the bishops. Secondly, he shows that to l»ishops belongs the power of making dea- cons, by this argument: The Apostles appointed the first deacons; but the bishops have the same prerogatives as the Apostles, for they are their succes- sors; therefore deacons derive their office from the bishops, or, the bishops make the deacons. This reasoning may surprise those who recollect that ac- cording to the Acts of the Apostles, it was the church, or people, acting accord- ing to a suggestion of the Apostles, and not the Apostles themselves, that first of all constituted deacons. But either this fact did not occur to Cyprian while writing with excited feelings, or he deemed it expedient not to notice it. Ac- cording to Cyprian, then, inasmuch as the bishops make deacons, it must be clear also, that they have the right to coerce and punish offending deacons ; as he attempted to show to his fellow bishop Rogatianus. Lastly, arguing still from his assumptions, which he takes for facts, he shows that deacons must ne- ver oppose a bishop. For, bishops must never oppose God, by whom they were constituted; and therefore deacons must never oppose the bishoi)s, by whom they were constituted. Admirable reasoning, truly! But we should re- collect that Cyprian was a rhetorician. — Having settled all these points, as ho supposed, by sound reasoning, undoubtedly, (for I am unwilling to believe that he acted in sincerity,) he gives the following as his deliberate opinion, (ibid. c. 3) : Ideo oportet diaconum prseposito suo plena humilitate satisfacere. - - Quod si ultra te provocavcrit, fungeris circa cum potcstate honoris tni, ut eum vel doponas vel abstineas. And still more liberal, he assigns to Rogatia- nus authority also over the associates and friends of the deacon : Et quoniam 134 Century III. — Section 24. scripsisti, quendam cum eodem diacono tuo se miscuisse-et .^;uperbia2 ejus atque audacia3 paiticipcm esse, liunc quoquc et si qui aiii tales extiterint et contra fcu- [p. 594.] cerdotem Dei (so he commonly desi<^nates a bishop,) feceriut, vel coercere potes vel abstiiiere. But, may the manes of St. Cyprian forgive me ! In this, as in other things, he abandoned and changed the ancient law of the church, through his excessive anxiety to extend the prerogatives of bishops. By the ancient law, the bishop could neitlier make deacons nor deprive ihem of tiieir othce, at his pleasure; but to the whole multitude, or the church, per- tained both. And this, strange to tell, he himself confesses and maintains on another occasion and in another place. For, being of a fervid temperament, he at times forgets in the ardor of debate, what he had elseu here inculcated. In his 68th Epistle, (p. 118; al. Ep. Ixvii, c. 4,) after maintaining the rights of the people in the creation of bishops, and asserting that the ordinalion of a bishop is legilimale and right only ^ quae omnium suffragio eijudiciofuerii examinata, he immediately adds, that he would have the same rule applied to deacons ; and he denies that the Apostles alone constituted the deacons : Nee hoc in episcoporum tantum et sacerdotum, sed el in diaconorum ordinaLumibus observasse Aposto- los animadvertimus, de quo et ipso in Aclis eorum scriptuin est: Et convoca- runt, inquit, illi duodecim totam plebem discipulorum. — Quod utique idcirco tam diligenter et caute convocata plebe tota gerebatur, ne quis ad altaris minis- terium vel ad sacerdotalem locum indlgnus obreperet. Now, therefore, it will be manifest, how Cyprian makes bishops, presbyters, and deacons to differ from each other. God makes the priests or bishops ; the church makes the presby- ters; and the bi-hop makes the deacons. And theicfore, God only is the judge of the bishops; the church the judge of presbyters; and the bishop the judge of deacons. On this, his darling maxim, that God makes the priests or bishops, which he deduces from the parity of bishops witii the Apostles, Cyprian erects a large su- perstructure of prerogatives and honors, which, in his judgment, bishops ought to enjoy. For his first inference from it is, that all the pi'crogatives which be- longed to the Apostles whom Clirist himself created, belong also to the bishops their successors. Secondly, he infers from it, that no one should judge of the actions of bishops but God only, by whom they were made. And hence he is often very angry with those who call in question the things done by bishops. He writes to Florentius, (Epist. Ixix. p. 121 ; al. Ep. Ixvi. c. 1) : Animadverto te - - in mores nostros diligenter inquirere, et post Deum judicem, qui sa- cerdotes facit, te velle - - de Dei et Christi judicio judlcare. Hoc est in Deum non credere. - - Nam credere quod indigni sint qui ordinantur, quid aliud est, quam credere, quod non a Deo nee per Deum sacerdotes ejus in cctlesia constituantur ? And, after much of the same import, he adds, (c. 4, 5) : Dolena ha3C profero, cum te judicem Dei constituas et Christi, qui dicit ad Aj)(>stolos ac per hoe ad omnes pra3positos, qui Apostolis vicaria ordinatione succedunt; qui audit vos, me audit: et qui me audit, eum audit, qui me misit. Inde enim [p. 595.] schismata et haereses oborlas sunt et oriuntur, duni episcopus, qui unus est et eeclesiae prajest, superba quorundam praesumtione contemnitur, et homo dignalione Dei honoratus indignus hominibus judicatur. Quis enim Prerogatives of Bishops. I35 hic est superbire tunjor, qua; nrroofantia .'uiimi, qiire mentis inflatio, ad coirnUio- nem siiam priepositos et saocnlotes vocaro ? What force tliero is in all this, ami whithoi- it tentls, is sufficiently manifest! But he goes even farther than tiiis, and maintains, that the whole church is comprised in the bisliop: whence it follows, that no person is a member of the church unless he is obedient to the bishop, or in subjection to him. But the church is a unity ; and in the es- tablishment of this doctrine Cyprinn spent much labor and pains ; and his trea- tise de unilate ecclesicc is still extant. Of course all bishops also, as they properly constitute the church, must form a unity of some sort, and be held together by an indissoluble bond. And if this be so, then we must believe, that a person who separates himself from one bishop, separates himself from all, and at the same time from tiie whole ehuix;h ; and he excludes himself from heaven, as well as from the church. This Cyprian maintains in his 69th Epistle, (p. 123; al. Ep. Ixvi. c. 8.) He first gives his definition of the church: Ec- clesia est plebs sacerdoti adunata el pasiori suo grex adhccrens. Assuming this, his JirU inference is: Unde scire debes episcopum in ecclesia esse, et ecclesiayn in epis- copo, el si qids cum episcopo non sil, in ecclesia nan esse. Very true, provided the definition is faultless ! And there are other instances, from which we may learn that Cyprian well understood the great power there is in definitions, and that any thing may be proved, if a neat and suitable definition can be devised. But he supposes some one m:iy come forward with this objection : I dissent in- deed from you, and from some other bishops ; but I fully accord with another, or several other bishops: if then the man is in the church who adheres to his own bishop, I am in the church, for I adhere to the pastor whom I have chosen. By no means, says Cyprian : Whoever dissents from me, dissents from all : he who forsakes the bishop under whom he lives, forsakes them all, (Ibid. e. 8) : Et frustra sibi blandiri eos, qui pacem cum sacerdolibus Dei (that is, with the bishops in whose congregations they live,) non habentes, obrepuni, et latenler apud quosdam (other bishops,) communicare se credunt, quando ecclesia, qua: calholica et una est (add : et in episcopis posi/a,) scissa non sil neque diiisa, sed sit utique cnnnexa et cohccrenlium sibi invicem sacerdoium glul.ino copulata. Sub- servient to the support and confirmation of this doctrine, is that whole topic, so often and so carefully discussed by Cyprian, respecting the vnily of the church; a topic broached by others long before him, and in Africn, by Tertullian in par- ticular, but never investigated, elucidated, and made as intelligible as its impor- tance required. In explaining and illustrating this topic, the holy man is so little consistent with himself, so unsettled and indeterminate in his views, that we readily perceive he indistinctly grasped his subject, and his greatest [p. .5*J6.] admirers will not deny that he made some mistakes. — But magniticent as these views were, and extravagantly as they honored episcopacy, yet they did not satisfy Cyprian : to make the dignity of Bisho])s completely inviolable, he deemed it nessessary to add, that they represent Christ himself, and that they not only guide and rule us as his vicegerents, but also sit in judgment upon us. And this, he thinks, is easily inferred from the divine origin of bishops. Now ii" the bishops represent the person of Christ among men, if they act and decide in his Btcad, then it is manifest, that to resist and oppose them, or to refuse to obey 130 Century III. —Section 24. their mandates, would be to offend the divine miijesty and despise Christ him- self. And the excellent Cyprian would have us believe it is really so. Thia sentiment he nowhere maintains with more vehemence ard eloquence than in his 55th Epistle, ad Cornelium, (p. 81, 82, &e. al. Ep. lix. c. 2. 7;) an Epistle, which, I confess, I never read without some pleasure and admiration. The Carthagenian bishop writes to the bishop of Rome, who ought to know, the best of all men, what were the powers and what the prerogatives and honors belonging to Christian bishops, he being himself, as Cyprian admitted, the (frinceps) chief of nU the bishops. And yet the Carthagenian prelate instructs the Roman, just as a master would one of his least pupils, very minutely, rc.'^pccting the powers and the dignity of bishops; and, pretty clearly taxes him with igno- rance on this most important subject. For Cornelius, the good bishop of Rome, was more modest than Cyprian wished him to be, and seemed not fully to un- derstand the immense amplitude and elevation of his prelacy : he conceded much to his clergy: and miicii to the people: and moreover sullered himself to be terrified by the threats of Cyprian's adversaries wlio had gone to Rome. And therefore Cyprian thus addresses him, near tlie commencement of the Epistle, (c. 2.): Quod si ita res est, frater carissime, ut nequissimorum timeatur audacia, - - actum est de episcopatus vigore, et de ecclesise gubernandse sublimi €ic divina potestaie^ nee Christiani ultra aut durare, aut esse jam possumus. This rebuke he protracts to a considerable length, and then adds a long oration, in which he informs Cornelius, by citing many passages of holy Scripture, (which no competent judge will deem to be in point,) that a bishop is a great man, and has no superior among mortals, except Jesus Christ. This instrnction took eifect on Cornelius^ and on all his successors; among whom it is well known, not one has been so ignorant of his own authority and importance as to need 80 stern a monitor and instructor. Let us see how Cyprian closes that oration, (Ibid. c. 7.): cum haec tanta et talia et multa alia exempla pra3cedant, quibus eacerdotalis auctoritas et potestas de divina dignatione firmatur, quales putas cos, qui sacerdotum hostes, et contra ecclesiam eatliolicam rebelles nt-c pnemo- [p. 597.] nentis Domini communicatione, nee futuri judicii ultione terrentur ? Ne- que enim aliunde hroreses abortoe sunt, aut nata sunt schismata, quam inde, quod sacerdoti Dei non obtemperatur, nee unus in ecclesia ad lempus sacerdoSyCl ad tempus judex vice Chrisli cogilaLur ; cui si secundum magisieria divina obleynpe' raret fralerniLas unixersa, nemo adcersum sacerdotum colle-^ium moveret. 'J'ho rest I omit. Here then we have the author of that proud title, Vicar of Jesus Christ, which the Roman Pontiffs at this day claim as exclusively theirs. The author of it was not born at Rome : but an African bishop first taught the Ro- man prelate, that all bishops ought to assume it. And it was commonly adopted, from tins time onwnrd, by all bishops; as h:is been proved by Joseph Bingham in his Origines Ecclesiasticce, (vol. i. p. 81, 82. Lib. ii. c. ii. ^ 10.) I will add, that down to the ni7ilh century, it was customary to speak of all bishops as the Vicars of Christ: for Servatus Lupus, a writer of that century, (or rather, all the bishops in the part of Gaul denominated Senonia, in whose name Servatus wrote,) honored Aeneas, the bishop of Paris, with this title. (Epist. xcix. p. 149. ed. Baluze.) : Consolatloncm recipimus, dum vos sub pastore bono (Christo) Morals of the Clenjy. 137 ngentes, qui summc bonus est. vicarium ejus (boiu pastoris) scilicet xisibilem. niinistesiique noslri consortem, absque dilatione expetere - - cognovimus. But after this period, the Roman Pontiffs were accustomed to appropriate Uiis, a8 well as the other honorary titles of the ancient bishops, exclusively to them- selves. In short, whatever prerogatives the greatest of the Roman Ponlils at this day arrogate to themselves, with perhaps the single exception of infallibility, were all asi-ribed by Cyprian to the bishops universally; which fact shows, how greatly his views differed from the modern, respecting the nature and govern- ment of the church. And as he thought, so he acted. For whoever candidly surveys and considers those contests which distracted his life, will perceive, that most of them originated from his zeal for innovations on the ancient rights of the Carthagenian church, and amplifying tlie powers and the dignity of the bishop. Most of the business he managed according to his own pleasure and volition, regardless of the consent or opinions of either presbyters, or deacons, or the people. And hence frequently the presbyters, the deacons, or a portion of the people, resisted his wishes, and complained that they were injured. But he rose above them all, being a vigorous and fearless man ; and his doctrines respecting the unity of the church and the authority of bishops, were propagated by means of his Epistles, over the whole church. It is amazing to see, what influence he acquired throughout the Christian world, after his magnanimoua martyrdom for Christ, so that he was accounted almost the common teacher and oracle of all. Those who would look into this subject, may read the 18th Oration of Gregory Nazianzen, in commemoration of him. [p. 598.] § XXV. The Morals of the Clergy. Many complaints occnr hero and there in the writers of this century, of the corrupt morals of the clergy ; and these complaints cannot be supposed to bd vain and groundless : and yet splendid examples of primitive integrity and sanctity are frequently to be seen, both among the bishops and among the presbyters and deacons ; examples well adapted to impress the human mind, and to exhibit the power of religion. Bad men were therefore commingled with the good ; and those deserve not our confidence, who, as many in ftxct do, would measure the happiness of this age by the examples of either of these descriptions.(') I will therefore only observe, that the growing errors among Christians, respecting the nature of true piety, had such influence on not a few of the ministers of religion, that by striving to obtain a reputation for sanctity, they brought upon themselves disgrace and a suspicion of criminal conduct. A striking example of this is afforded by those in Africa, and perhaps also in other provinces of the East, avIio received into their houses females who had vowed perpetual cliastity, and even made them partakers of their bed, at the same 138 Century III.— Section 25. time most solemnly protesting that nothing occurred incompati- ble with modesty. For, extravagant ideas of the sanctity of celibac}'' having grown np, and consequently those among the priests being regarded as most venerable, and the most acceptable before God, who had no wives, many wished so to consult their reputation, as still to retain a measure of social comforts and en- joyments. The bishops, by their exhortations and precepts, re- sisted this custom, which was very offensive to the people: but, so very powerful is every thing which favors our natural instincts, that this practice could not be wholly exterminated, either in this century or the next.C*) (1) Complaints respecting the vices of the clergy in this century, arc made by nearly all the Greek and Latin fathers, who attempt to assign the causes of the calamities, with which the Christians of this century often had to eontlict. See Origen's Commentatory on Matthew, (P. I. 0pp. edit. Hnet. p. 420, 441, 442.) Cyprian, m many of his Epistles, Eusehius, (Hist. Eccles. L. viii. c. 1.) and others. Those of the present day, who read tiiese complaints, which often resemble the declamations of rhetoricians, are apt to conclude that almost nothing of the primitive piety of the church remained in this age. But it is not ditHeuIt to collect from the same writers, many testimonies to the innocence and the pure morals of the pastors and ministers of the churches: and therefore otliers are induced by these high commendations, to assert, that, with perhaps a few [p. 599.J exceptions, all the clergy were free from every vice. And from such wide sweeping general commendations, and accusations, dictated for the most part, and colored by impassioned feelings, in my opinion, little or nothing can be inferred with certainty. And the judgment which Origen passed, appears to me more probable: (Contra Celsum, L. iii. p. 129, cd. Spencer.) He admits that there were some among the Christian bishops and teachers, who did not do their duty as they ought; but, he adds, it is nevertheless certain that if the Christian prefects and senators, are compared with the pagan senators, magistrates and judges, the latter will fall far behind the former, in probity, virtue, and integrity. Such, I apprehend, was in general the fact. In many of the (christian bishops and teachers, there were various things reprehensible and defective, if we judge them by the strict rules of the divine law; and yet they ap])eared to be all excellent men, and patterns of virtue, if compared with those magistrates of cities and countries, who were opposed to Christianily ; among whom examples of goodness and justice were very rare. And the same will hold true of the Christian common people. (2) This scandalous practice of some Christian priests, in admitting females to be inmates of their dwellings, is professedly treated of by Henry Dodwellj in his DisscTtaliones Cijprianicx, (Diss, iii.) and by Ludov. Anton. Muraiori, in his Disquisilio de Synisactis el Agapetis, (thus these females were designated.) The Disquis. is to be found in his Anecdota Grccca, (p. 218.) The former lets Morals of the Clergy. 139 his prejudices carry liirn too far; and the latter is quite too favorable to the views of the Romish church respecting the sanctity of celibacy. This shameful custom, doubtless, existed before the third century; and we meet some slight traces of it in Ifermas, in Tertullian, and perhaps in otiiers. But a clear and distinct mention of it, is made by no one before Cyprian, who severely inveighs ag:iinst it in several of his epistles. But this and other questions relating to this subject, I pass over, as not pertinent to my present object; and I will con- fine myself to one f ict, which learned men have cither entirely omitted, or have treated only with much obscurity. All the priests did not assume this liberty of taking women into their houses and to their beds, but only those who had voluntarily renounced the right to marry, which all priests possessed in this century, or had made a solemn vow of per[ietual chastity, for the sake of at- t4iining to higher sanctity. For this custom of binding themselves by such vows was very common in those times. Neither were all females taken in such cohabitation, but only virgins: nor indeed all virgins, but those only, who had professed never to marry, but to preserve their bodies entirely consecrated to God, Tliose who mark these circumstances, will perceive the true nature and character of this most vile and perilous practice. These cohabitations, in fiict, were a sort of sacred or divine marriages between persons bound, on both sides, by vows of perpetual ciiastity ; marriages, I say, not of their bodies, but of their souls. For those early theologians, whose views most of the [p. 600.] moderns imperfectly understand, supposed that there was both an external mar- riage of bodies and also an internal marriage of souls; and that, as bodies are often united, while the souls are very discordant, so also, they supposed, souls might be united in marriage or become associated, without any consociation or marriage of the bodies. It is well known, that many mnrried Christians in those days, by mutual consent, made vows of continence, and yet wished to be regarded as remaining married persons, and they were so regarded. S.iya Terlullian (ad Uxorera L. i. c. 6. p. 185.) : Quot sunt, qui consensu pari inter Be matrimonii debitum tollunt? voluntarii spadones pro cupiditate regni coslestis. Quod si saho matrimonio abstinentia toleratur, qunnto magis adempto? In these married persons, the external marriage or that of their bodies was an- nulled, but the interior and more holy- marriage of their souls, not only con- tinued, but was even strengthened. Now the radical principle of the cohabita- tions which we are considering, was the same with that just described; and the forrner differed from the latter merely in this, that the one had voluntarily taken vows of ahslinence from a marriage of bodies, and the other had voluntarily taken vows for the dissolution of such marriage. These observations, will, I think, enable us to understand why the nninarried cohabitants supposed their mode of lilc not liable to the reproaches cast upon it, and tlierefure cornjjlained of the injustice of the suspicions heaped upon them. Those married Christians, who voluntarily subjected themselves to the law of continence, could still live together, and sleep together, and no one took offence at it, or suspected them of secretly violating the rule of chastity whirh they imposed on themselves. On the contrary, most people considered the force <>f religious vows to be so great, that their voluntary vow was sufliciciit to keep 140 Century IIL—Sectlon 2G. them from any improper intercourse. And therefore, as our unmarried coliabi- tants were living together on the same principle, they supposed the same things to be hiwfnl for them ; and as both equ.illy made solemn vows of chastity, so all, they supposed ought to conclude, that the force oUheir vow would make it impossible for them to violate the law of chastity. This at least we regard as certnin, that many of the tenets and practices of the early Christians, which displease us, would appear more tolerable, and would assume a more becoming aspect, if they were tried by the opinions and customs of those times. § XXYI. Christian Writers of this Century. Amoilg tllOSC ^vllO superintended and managed tlic affairs of the cliurcli, there were doubtless more learned and well-informed men than in the pre- vious centuries. For many from the different sects of philoso- phers, especially from the Platonists, and also from among the rhe- toricians, embraced Christianity ; and they were honored for their [p. 601.] erudition and talents by being made bishops and presby- ters. The Christians likewise perceived, that their cause needed the support of learning and human science, and therefore took pains to have the youth of the church instructed in sound learn- ing and philosophy. And yet it is well attested, and not to be denied, that many illiterate and ignorant men presided over the churches, in numerous places, and that human learning was not yet considered as an indispensable qualification of a good bishop and teacher. For, not to mention the paucity of schools in which candidates for the sacred office might be educated, and the conse- quent scarcity of the learned men, the opinion was too deepl}^ fix- ed in many minds to be at all eradicated, that learning and phi- losophy were prejudicial rather than advantageous to piety, and should therefore be excluded from the church. (') And hence, only a few Christians in this age obtained permanent notoriety, by their Avritings. Among those who wrote in Greek, the most eminent was Origen^ who presided in the school of Alexandria, a man of indefatigable industry, and equalled by few in learning and genius, but of whose Avorks the greatest and best part arc lost, and a part are preserved only in Latin. Inferior to him in fame and reputation, but not, I think, in solid worth and genius, were Julius Africanus, Dionysius of Alexandria, and Hippolytus^ most of whose writings have unfortunately not been preserved. Eminent among the discii)les of Origen, was Gregory^ bishop of Neocoesaria, more famous for the numerous miracles said to have been wrought by him, and from wliich he obtained the surname Christian Writers. 141 of Thainnnturgv.s, than for liis writings.(')— Among the Latins, only three deserve our notiec : Cyprian^ first a rhetorician, and then bishop of Carthage, a man, like most Africans, ])ossessing eloquence, but at the same time tumid, and more splendid in his Avords and phrases than in his conceptions ; Minucius Fdix, from whoso pen we have a neat and elegant dialogue, entitled Odavias, in which he skilful!}^ recounts and nervously confutes the calumnies then charged upon Christians ; und Aimohius^ an African rhetorician, Avho strenuously defended the cause of Chris- tianity against its opposers, and often with ingenuity, in hia Libri septem contra Gentes: but he shows himself to be not well acquainted with the religion which he dcfends.('') (1) III the Apostolic Constitutions, falsely .iscribed to Clemens [p. 602.] Ronnniis, there is a chnpter, (Lib. i. c. C, in the Patres Apostol. torn. 1. p. 204.) in whieh the reading of books on hnman learning is prohibited: and Co- teller, m a note on the chapter, has collected ni;iny passages of a simil.-ir nature from the early Christian writers. And it is well known, how much Origen was disliked by many, on account of his attachment to science and philoso- phy: and, while vindicating himself in an Epistle toEusebius, he can mention only here and there an individual, who pursued a similar course. (2) Those wishing to become acquainted with the Christian Greek writers of this and of every age, will find all they can desire, in the Bihiiotheca Grctca of Jo. Alb. Fabricius. The works of Origen explanatory of Scripture, wero first published entire and correctly, and with valuable notes, by Peter Daniel Huet: to which he added a very learned work entitled Origeniana, containing elaborate discussions respecting the history and opinions of Origen ; Rouen, 1668, fob, and reprinted in Germany. Afterwards Bern, de Monlfaucon, a very learned Benedictine, published what remains of Origen's Hexapla, in two vols, fob, Paris, 1714. Lastly, Charles de la Rve, also a Benedictine monk, nnd distinguished for talents and learning, undertook to publish all the works of Origen which have escaped the ravages of time, from numerous manuscripts collected with great care and labor, accompanied with notes, a life of the au- thor, and many dissertations. He divided the work into Jive volumes, the last of which was to contain Huet's Originiana, with notes, emendations, and addi- tions, and also dissertations respecting Origen. The two first volumes were published at Paris, 1733, fob The third appeared at Paris in 1740, after the editors death, which occurred in 1739. There remains therefore the two last volumes, the first of which the learned author is said to have left nearly com- plete.— Of the writings of Julius Africanus and Dionysiiis Alexandrianus, only a few fragments are extant. — The reputation of Ilippnhjtus is great ; but his history is involved in obscurity, because several persons of this name became famous among Christians. The most elaborate account of the man is given by the Benedictine monks in the work they have commenced publishing, entitled 142 Ceyxtury III— Section 26. Histoire Litternirc dc la Fnnco, tome i. p. 361. The meagre fragments that remain of tliis great man, though many of them are of doubtful genuineness, have been collected in two thin volumes, by Jo. Alb. Fabricius, designed, I suppose, as a collection for others to improve. — The few remains of Gregory of Neocnesarea, including his Panegyric on Origcn, his preceptor, which is the best of his works, and a Greek biography of Gregory, were published by Gerh. Voss^ Mayence, 1G04, 4to. The industry ofVoss deserves commendation ; but Gregory needs a more judicious and learned editor, who would inquire more sagnciously and freely, than anyone has hitherto done, into the nature and certainty of [p. 603.] those miracles, by which Gregory is said to have excelled all the learned doctors of the church in all ages. Great suspicions of them have been awakened, among others by Anthony Van Dale, in the preface to his work de Oracnlis. These suspicions should be annihilated, if they can be ; and if they can not, I wish to see them better elucidated and confirmed, so that the true may be distinguished from the false. For it is of vast importance to Christian- ity that hoary fables should be exploded, and no longer give nutriment to super- stition : and it is equally important, that the attestations of divine power and interposition, actually exhibited in the early ages, should be placed beyond all doubt, so that they may sustain the majesty and dignity of our religion. Some of the miracles of Gregory bear manifest marks of spuriousness; and yet, per- haps, there vvas something true at the bottom of them, which the popular cre- dulity, as usual, wrought upon, or rather perverted. (3) Of the writings of Cyprian there are extant, first. Epistles, which shed much light on the ecclesiastical usnges and the history of those times ; and, secondly, various Tracts, in which he treats of practical duties, sometimes de- voutly and eloquently, and sometimes with little solidity and correctness. All his works were published, near the close of the last century, in England, by John Fell, bishop of Chester, (Oxford, 1682, fob), and with great dexterity and care ; so that this edition vvas deemed worth reprinting in Holland and Ger- many. Afterwards Stephen Baluze, to whom other branches of divine and hu- man learning are much indebted, spent many of the last years of his long life in laboriously correcting and elucidating the works of Cyprian; and having left his undertaking but partly accomplished, his associates, the Benedictine monks of St. Maur, added some dissertations, and published the whole, Paris, 1726, fol. But this edition lacks, not only the dissertaiiones Cyprianiccc of Henry Dod- well, which are very erudite, though abounding in doubtful opinions and con- jectures, but also the Annales Cijprianici of John Pearson ; so that it does not supercede the use of Fell's edition. After these labors of correction, we have the text of Cyprian sufTiciently correct ; and transcribers have committed fewer blunders with this author than with others; but it may be justly questioned, whether Cyprian has been adequately elucidated and explained. For he pre- sents us with many passages, which no one can fully understand and compre- hend, unless he is well acquainted with that antiquated theology which differed so much from the theology of any modern sect; yet we find the expounders of Cyprian ascribing modern views to him, because his words are still used by us to express our sentiments. — Very different is the fact with Minucius Felix, whose Philosophising Theologians. — Origen, 143 ideas arc sufficiently cloar and intelligible, but his lan^niago is sucli as to create doubts whether we have hia text correct. And hence, although eminent [p. 604.] men have labored intensely on the correction of his text, among whom the most noted were John Z>ai2S, nn Englishman, and James Gronovivs, who lived within our recollection ; yet much still remains to tax the ingenuity of critics ond grammarians. — Of Arnobius, (who is eloquent, but often very obscure, from the use of uncommon terms, and the vicious accumulation of figures ai-.d verbal ornaments,) the best editor is Desiderius Heraldus : yet he is not ap- preciated by the authors of the observations and emendations in the latest edi- tion of Arnobius, Lcyden, 1651, 4to. The friends of ancient literature will owe .1 debt of gratitude to the man who shall resolve to apply the aids of inge- nuity and a knowledge of ancient authors to the elucidation of Arnobius, the explanation of his numerous difficult passages, and the correction of his many faults. § XXYII. Philosophisins: Theologians. Origen. The philoso- phising teachers of Christianity frequently resorted to what they regarded as the dictates of reason, in order to explain and eluci- date those religious doctrines which appeared to lack precision and clearness, so that the harmony of human and divine wisdom might be manifest. The result was, that the ancient simplicity, which received without comment whatever was divinely inculcat- ed, became less esteemed, the subtilties of human device became mixed up with the divine instructions, and contentions and dis- agreements arose respecting the nature of certain mysteries. In the western regions, indeed, this practice of commingling human and divine views made slower progress ; and the Latin theolo- gians of this century were still sufficiently cautious in their ex- plications of the scriptural doctrines, except perhaps Arnobius, who began to write when but slightly acquainted with the prin- ciples of religion, and treated them rhetorically rather than phi- losophically. But among the theologians of Asia and Africa, we more frequently meet with such as ventured to explore the internal nature and the recondite grounds of scriptural doctrines, either for the gratification of curiosity, or for the purpose of confut- ing heretics and the opposers of Christianity. Among these the Alexandrian doctors of Egypt were preeminent, they having, in the preceding century, conceded to philosophy some authority in matters of religion. At the head of these doctors stood Ori- gcn^ the master of the school at Alexandria, a man distinguished for genius, learning, virtue and usefulness. In his [p. 605.] Libi-i de jprmcipm, still extant in a Latin translation, and in hia 144 Century III.— Section 27. Stromata, wliich are lost, lie attempted formally to demonstrate the harmony between philosophy and Christianity ; and he en- deavored to reconcile with tlie principles of reason whatever ap- peared strange and incredible in the Christian faith. And yet Origen himself, — and it greatly diminishes his fault, — treated this slippery and hazardous business Avith becoming prudence and modesty, and he repeatedly stated, that he timidly proposed conjectures, rather than inculcated and decided positively. But his disciples, who were very numerous, followed the speculations of their teacher, too confidentl}-, and not unfrequently they put forth as certainties, what he had only stated as probabilities, and which he requested wise men to examine more profoundly. (*) (1) Of Origen, — than whom, the church down to the times of Constantine, contained no greater man, — of his life, hia virtues and iiis faults, his o})inion3 nnd his errors, enough has been debated and written by Christians, during almost fourteen centuries, to fill out a volume of no small size. Great and excellent men, in former times, stood forth as his patrons and advocates; and they continue to do so still. But men equally great and excellent, to this day, have been h\H adversaries. And in fact, both to assail and to defend him, and with arguments of great apparent force, would not be difficult for an ingenious man, wlio would assume either office. Jn the life, labors, and opinions of Origen, there are many things of such excellence and worth, as must extort admiration from the most reluctant : and If a person regard these things only, he may easily persuade himself, that vyhatever appeared to conflict with such great ex- cellencies must have been only slight faults, or perhaps were the fabrications and slanders of enemies, or the false constructions put upon allowable, or even upon correct opinions. On the other hand, there are among his opinions so many strangely divergent not only from our belief but also from the plainest dictates of reason, so many that are ridiculous and absurd, especially when view- ed separately and apart from that system of doctrine to which he was attached, that they might excite our disgust, and induce the belief that this well meaning man was lacking In common sense : and if a person should fix his attention upon these things exclusively, he might easily be led to believe, that whatever appears great or illustrious in Origen may have arisen from slight or accidental causes, and be ascribable to the instincts of nature, or to his copying after others, rather than to the deliberate decisions of his own mind. And hence, al- though the long controversies respecting Origen, like most other controversies among men, arose in no small degree from passion and prejudice, yet the man [p. 606.] himself, who was so many times both attacked and defended, was, pecu- liarly, in utrmnque partem disputahilis, us Seneca expresses it; for he was a compound of contrarities, wise and unwise, acute and stupid, judicious and in- judicious, the enemy of superstition and its patron, a strenuous defender of Christianity and its corrupter, energetic and irresolute, one to whom the Bible owes much, and from whom it has suffered much. Of the great number of facts in Orujcn. 145 regard lo Origcn, which have long been before the public, or which \wv^\\i have been brought forward, (for man)- have never been noticed.) I shall, for the ^sako of brevity, adduce only such as I deem necessary to account for the great changes he produced in the state of the church. For. although his bishop expelled him from the chuix;h, and he was afterwards assailed hy numerous public and private condemnations, yet not only were many of iiis worst opinion!; Buffi-red to go unrebukcd, but his practice of explaining religions truths by means of philosophy, and of turning the inspired books into allegories, was very generally approved and adopted among Christians. Some institutions, like- wise, which originated from his doctrines, took deep root and were at length regarded as sacred. It need not be stated that at all times there have been great men, and men of distinguished piety, who have esteemed Origen very highly, extolled his wrilings, and recommended their j)crusal by theologians, and have maintained that all the deci>ions against Origeti were unjust. It would therefore be no mistake to say, that, as Constantine the Great imparted a new form to the civil state, so this Egyptian imparted a new form to the theology of Christians. Among the wiiters concerning Origen, his opinions, and the contests they occasioned, the most eminent is undoubtedly Peter Daniel Ihiet; whose elabo- rate and very erudite work, in three books, entitled Origeniana, is the copious fountain from which all the more recent writers concerning Origen have drawn. Charles de la Rue, a Benedictine, the rccent editor of Origen's works, designed to republish Muet's Origeniana, with additional notes and observations; but death frustrated the purpose of that learned man. Whoever may take up tho design of de la Rue, and pursue it judiciously and impartially, will find the un- dertaking to be great and the materials abundant. For, great and excellent as the work of Iluet is in its kind, it is not without faults and defects, [n the first place, it is incomplete: for it does not state and explain all the peculiar doctrines of Origen, but only those which were pubUcIy censured and con- demned. I could easily show, to any man wishing to be informed, that Origen held many otiier opinions equally novel, false and pernicious with those charged upon him ; which however, for diverse rcasons, no person censured or condemned. Again, although no person can judge correctly of Origen's theology, [p. 607.J without well understanding his philosophy, which contained the grounds of hia lingular opinions on divine subjects, y(!t Huet neglects this whole subject, supposing that it was sufficient to say, generally, that Origen introduced tho Academy almost entire into the church. The work of this very learned man is also badly arranged. For, in reviewing those doctrines of Origen which brought him into ill repute, he does not follow the order of nature, but that of the schools: nor does he show us how Origen's opinions stood connected with and dependent on each other, but he arranges them all under general heads without regard to their connexion. This mode of proceeding was quite favora- ble to his main purpose, which was simply to vindicate Origen; but it h em- barrassing to those who wish to gain a correct knowledge and a just estimate of the errors of that great man. For it is not easy to judge of the importance of any error, without tracing it to its source and seeing its connexion with VOL, U. 11 146 Centunj Ill-^Secthn 27. opinions to which it is related; because many sentiments, considered opart and by themselves, appear worthy of toleration or excuse, but if considered in con- nexion with their origin and consequences, they assume a difterent aspect, and become portentous. Lastly, throuirliout his work lluct labors to cxhil)it Orit^^en lis less censurable than his adversaries made him, and thus assumes the ofhco of a patron and advocate, rather than that of a cautious guarded historian and a wise judge. Among the arguments by which Huet thinks he can justify Origen, though not wholly, some are of considerable force, but others are quite weak and in- efficient. Of the former character is the man's very great modesty ; which also his early defender, Pamphilus, and among the moderns, Haloix, (in his Origines defensus. Lib. ii. c. 2.) have urged against his accusers. And it is true (hat, in many places, Origen professes not to decide positively, but only to bring forward, modestly and timidly, probable conjectures. Thus in his work de Prin- cipiis, Lib. i. c. 6. J !• P- 69, when entering on a discussion respecting the end or consummation of the world, he deprecates all offence, by saying; Quie quidern a nobis ctiam cum magno metu et cautela dicuntur, discutientibus magis et pertractantibus, quam pro certo ac defniito statuentibus. Indicatum namque a nobis in superioribus est, qua) sint de quibus manifesto dogmate terminandura eit. Nunc autern disputandi specie magis, quam definiendi, pront possu- Dius, exercemur. And he closes the chapter, (p. 71,) with a plain acknowledg- ment of his ignorance of the future condition of our bodies after the destruction of the world. Certius tamen qualiter se habitura sit res, scit solus Dens et si qui ejus per Christum et Spiritum sanctum amici sunt. In the passage on the in- carnation of Christ, (Je Principiis, Lib. ii. c. 6. { 2. p. 90,) he says : De qiio nos non [p. 608.] temeritate r.liqua, sed quoniam ordo loci deposcit ea magis, quae fidea nostra continet,quam qusB humanse rationisassertio vindicare solet, quam paucissi- mis proferemus, suspiciones potius iioslra s qnnm manifestas aliquas affirmationes in medium proferentes. And, lest any should misunderstand him, he closes tho whole discussion with this sentence, (p. 92.) : Haec interim nobis ad prrcsena de rebus tarn difficilibus disputantibus, id est, de iiTcarnatione ct de deitate Christi occurrcre potuerunt. Si quis sane melius aliquid poterit invenire et evidentio- ribus de Scripturis Sanctis assertionibus confirmare quae dicit, ilia potius q«ara haec recipiantur. Similar protestations occur everywhere in his work de Prhi' cipii!^, and in his other writings. Somolimes he brings forward two or threo explications of the same thing, and leaves it optional with his readers to select Buy one of them, or to reject the whole. De Princip. Lib. ii. c. 3. \ 6. p. 83: His igitur tribus oi)inionibus de fine omnium et de summa beatitudine prout eentirc potuimus adumbratis, unusquisque legentium apud semetipsum diligen- lius et scrupulosius judicet si potest aliqua harum probari vel eligi. To this his commendable modesty, may be added his very great inconstancy in tho explication of religious doctrines. For he does not always and everywhere advance the same sentiments, but, on the gravest subjects, he exhibits different views at different times and in different places: whence it is manifest, that the man changed his own views, and that he did not wish to })rescribe laws for hu- man thought. For example, if wo compare the different statements he makea OrlgeiCs Character. I47 rpspoctinjT tlie divine Trinity, or respecting Christ, and tlic Holy Spirit, we must be persuaded tliat to liim, if to any one, the lines of Horace arc applicable, (Epistles, Lib. i. ep. 1.) Quo loiicam vultus miitantcm Protoa nodo? Quod petilt, spernit, rcpctil quod nuper oinisit. Diruit. aniiflcat, mutat quudrata rotuudis. For, the Sabellians, the Arians, the Nicenists, and others, can all very plausibly lay claim to him. The cause of this modesty and instability, 1 will state pre- sently. But those who wish correctly to understand what sort of a man Orii^en was should remember, that he was not always and uniformly controlled by modesty and instability. His timidity and changeableness are apparent, when lie offers philosophical explanalions of those Christian docti'ines which theologi- nns call revealed truths, that is, of the doctrines which we learn exclusively from the Bible, such as tlie doctrine of three persons in the Godhead, the doc- trine of Christ, of the Holy Spirit, and of the resurrection of our bodies. For while he assumes it as certain, that even these doctrines are accordant with tho teachings of re:ison, or with the philosophy which is agreeable to reason, and that the former may be legitimately deduced from the latter; yet he does not pretend that he is one who can show infallibly how they stand connected, although he has no doubts that others, more intelligent than he, may be able to do it. But he is much more bold and confident, when expound- [p. 609.] ing the doctrines which lie within the sphere of human knowledge, or the doctrines of natural religion, such as those concerning God, the world, the soul, &c. For these he thinks should be e.xplained, — and he himself confidently e.v- plains them, in accordance with the precepts of that philosophy which he embraced as true; and he sometimes ridiculed those who choose to hold these doctrines, simply, and according to the literal statement of the Scriptures, rather than to allow reason to ex])lain and modify them. Take for example, what he says in the second book of his Principia, respecting the human soul of Christ, and the union of the divine with the human nature in our Savior. On this subject, having assumed that the soul of Christ was of the same nature witli ours, he unhesitatingly applies to Christ's soul whatever he had learned respecting tlie human soul in the school of his master, Ammonius; and thus he produced a doctrine pregnant with dangerous consequences, and one alto- gether unknown in the Scriptures. Still it must be admitted, that although tho modesty and inconstancy of Origen did not extend so far as his patrons and fidvoeates wish us to believe, yet they do serve to vindicate him in a degree. — And of similar tendency is, what Jerome testifies of him, (Epist. Ixv. c. 4.) that he wrote to Fabian, the Roman bishop, that his friend Ambrose had published some of his writings which he did not wish to have go abroad. And yet, in the works which he undoubtedly wished to see circulated unlimitedly, there arc passages enough that may be censured, If now, over and above these ex- tenuation^j, we look at the apologies for Origen by Pamphilus, Haloix, Miran- dula, Huet, and his many other advocates, we shall find little that can satisfy a sagacious and impartial mind. For example, it is true, as his friends assert, that the accusers of Origen dis.agreo among themselves, and charge him \vilh coiv 148 Century III.— Section 27. trary errors; but llic inference they would draw, tliat therefore Origen wns in- nocent jind was borne down by falsi; accusations, will not follow. For they themselves admit, that Ori^aMi was not uniform in ids belief, and that he uttered different sentiments at different times, accordinnr to the occasions, ihe persons he was combaltiug", and the particular state of i)is mind. And hence, he is not unfrequently at variance with himself, and the opinion he advanced at one time, he afterwards exchanged for another altogether different. And it may be added, that Origen is not the same man when calmly seated in the teacher's chair, as he is when, with heated feeling-^ he comes forth as n disputant and encounters .in antagonist. As a teacher, he writes soberly, and as he really thinks; but when he is disputing, he does not state just what he believes or regards as trne» but frequently such things, true or f;dse, as are suited to embarrass his adver- sary. It would be easy to show, that he considered disputes as to be settled as wars are, or that it was not important, whether his antagonist was prostrated by guile and subtilty or by valor in combat. And hence, the positions he assumes [p. 610.] when confronting Celsus, or the Jews, or the heretics, are entirely dif- ferent from those he lays down when calmly expounding Christian truth as a teacher. — No more account do I make of the argument, with which nearly all the patrons of Origen surfeit us, that many other doctors of the ancient church taught just as he did on many points of theology. For, not to insist on the principle that the multitude of those who embrace an error does not make it true, it was the fact, that most of those who agreed with Origen, lived after him, and they appear to have received their opinions from him, as being the common teacher of the church. Besides, these other doctors who tench and maintain the same doctrines with Origen, understood those doctrines differently from what he did, and they were led in a very different manner into the belief of them. We will now take a nearer view of the man under consideration. AwA., first., we will speak of the man liimself; ihen^ of his philosophy; and lastly, of his theology, and his method of explaining religious subjects. In the first place, Origen himself, if judged by his moral worth, was unques- tionably a great and estimable man, and one who has had ^q\w equals in any age. Nor would it divest him of this praise, if it were perfectly true, (as stated by Epiphanius, Hajres. Ixiv. e. 2.) that at Alexandria he was once brought to the alternative of either sacrificing to the gods, or yielding his body to be polluted by an Ethiopian; and that to avoid the infamy, he promised to offer sacrifice; yet he did not do so, for he retracted his promise, and the incenso placed in his hands was shaken into the (ire by the bystanders. Men of high character have maintained, and with pretty strong arguments, that this story should be classed among slanderous fables. But, suppose it true, and it will only prove that Origen, being (suddenly arrested, and thrown off his guard, hastily concluded that he should sin less by sacrificing to the gods, thau by yielding his body to be stained with eternal infamy by the Ethiopian ; but that he presently recovered himself, and instantly reversed his determination. In this, I think, no one can find any great and wilful fault. For who among the holiest of mortals is so uniformly wise, that, in the most trying circumstancest he consents to no divergence from the strictest rule of duty 1 Yet, except this Orlgens Character. 149 one tliingf, Origen posses-icd every excellence that can ndorn the Christian character; uncommon piety, from his very childhood; astonishinn- devotedness to th;it most holy rcli«;ion which he professed; unequalled persevt'rance in labors and toils for the advancement of the Christian cause ; untiring zeal for tho cluirch, and for the extension of Christianity ; an elevation of soul uhic-h phiced him above all ordinary desires or fears; a most permanent contempt of wealth, honors, pleasures,and of death itself ; the purest trust in the Lord Jesns, [p. 611.] for whose sake, when he was old and oppressed with ills of every kind, he patient- ly and perseveringly endured the severest suflerings. It is not strange, therefore, tliat he was held in so high estimation, both while he lived and after death. Certainly if any man deserves to stand first in the catalogue of saints and mar- tyrs, and to be aiuuially held up as an example to Christians, this is the man: for, except the apostles of Jesus Christ and their companions, I know of no one, among all those enrolled and honored as saints, who excelled him in holi- ness and virtue. lie was censured indeed, by Demetrius and others, for having emasculated himself: and I will not acquit him of all fault in that matter. But the fault itself is such as demonstrates the strength of his resolution, and his devotcdness to religion, nor could it be committed by an ordinary man. But Origen does not appear equally great, when estimated by his native powers. Undoubtedly he possessed genius, had a very happy memory, great thirst for knowledge, a very fertile imagination, and uncommon elocjuence and powers of teaching; and these caused both Christians and pagans to listen to him, with intense interest, when 1)6 taught philosophy and other divine and hu- man sciences in the Christian school of Alexandria. But those who are capable of judging, and are familiar with his writings, will not rank iiim among ge- niuses of the highest order. Certainly he was not one who, as the saying is, could swim without his board; i. e. not one who, by the inherent powers of his own mind, could examine truth in its fundamental principles, and discover and judge what is accordant with those principles, and what is not. He was 6uch a philosopher as many in this and every age, who can treasure up in their memory and well understand the systems of doctrine inculcated by their teach- ers, and can bring out their acquired knowledge, pertinently, when questions and occasions demand it ; and if any obstruction is thrown in their path, they can swerve a little this way or that, yet always are sure that the truth lies wholly within the sphere of their received instructions. For it is very certain that Origen never travels, in thought or argument, beyond the bounds of that knowledge which he received in early life from his teachers; he never philoso- phises freely, and in the exercise of his own ingenuity, but regards the system he imbibed from Ammonius as the only rational and sound philosophy. And hence, so long as this philosophy, which was his sole reliance, supplies suitable matter for his discussions ar.d compositions, he appears a valuable writer, and treats his subjects with acuteness and ingenuity ; but when destitute of such aid, as is frequently the case, he is like a man travelling in a foreign country, who does understand how the roads run. This is no where more apparent than in his book against Celsus, the assailant of Christianity. In that work, so long as [p.6r2] he can draw from his philosophy, he appears foreeable and methodical ; but when 150 Century Ill.—Scction 27. this resource fails him, Ills arguments are weak, .nnd sometimes fiilile. These remarks explain, ichij the man, wiio on many topics is a wij-'c and acute rea- boner, is on others jiuerile. Unassisted, he rarely produces anything of much importance; but when sustained hy his masti-r, or by ihe instructions of the Bible, he appears very respectable. The learning of Origen, for the age in which he lived, was abundant and excellent. He had read immensely, and was Acquainted with the doctrines of all sects, both of philosophers and Christians. He had acquired from the Greeks their polite learning ; and he was not igno- Fiint of mathematics. In the philosophical department, dialectics, physic, astro- nomy, &c., he was well versed, in the way before stated, namely, whatever he had received from the lips of teachers or had learned from books, he retained well in memory, and had at command. Jn Hebrew learning he had some knowledge. In short, he had travelled through the wiu)le encyclopajdia of liu- man knowledge in that age, and he was justly accounted a universal scholar, both by the Christians and by other people. We now proceed to his philosophy. Besides CZemen.s iiZeo;. rector of the Christian school at Alexandria, a follower of the eclectic mode of pliilosophiz- ing, he had for his preceptor Ammonius Saccas, the celebrated founder of the new Platonic school, who, while he sought to bring all sects of philosophers to agreement, adopted the principle that the philoso})hers differed only on trivial points, and were agreed in matters of importance to virtue and happiness; and consequently, that there is but one ijhUosophy, though under different forms, or differently stated. Now that philosophy, which Origen regarded as true, and as recognized by all the philosophers, was the Ammonian or the new Platonic, though slightly modified, that it might not conflict with Christian principles, with which it stood in the closest alliance. Of this philosophy I will give a brief summary, which it is easy to deduce from the writings of Origen : to state it fully, would be needless. All things that exist, whether corporeal or void of gross matter, emanated eternally from God, the source of all things. This first principle of the new Platonic school, derived from Egyptian wisdom, as we have elsewhere shown, was the basis or foundation of Origen's philosophy. But the Christian scriptures reject this doctrine, taken in the sense in which the Platonists under- stood it. For the Platonists believed the world to be without beginning, and without end, or to have flowed forth from God eternally, and to be destined to continue for ever. The Christian's Bible, on the contrary, clearly teaches that the world was created at a certain time, and that at a certain time it will perish. [p. 613.] Origen therefore thought it necessary to modify this doctrine, and adjust it to the instructions of Christianity ; and so he introduced the idea of a perpetual succession or propagation of worlds. Innumerable worlds similar to this, existed and perished, before the present world was produced ; and after this world shall end, innumerable otiiers will exist in endless succession. (See de Principiis, lib. iii. c. 5. Opp. toin. i. p. 149.) Now admitting this doctrine, a person may believe the declarations of the Scriptures respecting (he origin and the end of this world, and at the same time hold the Platonic dogma of the eternal efflux of the world from God, and its eternal duration. Yet this theory Orirjens Phihsophj. 151 of an cfernnl seiios of worlds, successively sprinn^ing up and filling to ruin, thoii«;fli not ivqnirintle to Gre/^ory Tiiaumaturgus, bi>hop of Neocassarea, and exhibited in the edition of hiswoiks by Charles de la Rue, torn, i, p. 30. Here Origen asserts, that philosopiiy is as important to Christian theology, as geometry, mubic, gr.imniar, rhetoric and as- tronomy are to philosophy: 'OTt^ pari fiXorojictv naif is -nf^l yioyf-^i'^pini - - - wf CVpffi^-osv fi\oTofiay ToDd"' vjUiii cfrhilosophy and Christianity, in his opinion, re- lated to logic or rational piiilosojhy. But his rational philosophy is not that which we understand by tlie term ; but it is ontology, or our pneumatohgy, cosmogony, and natural theology, as is manifest from the ex.-imples he adduces. This his rational philosophy, as taught by the philosophical sects, was, Jiccoid- ing to his judgment, in many things contrary to the Christian religion: but if Ori(/cn's TJicology. 155 frocil f.'O'.n tlic errors niul lalso opinions of llic set-ts, ;iiul ni:ulo lo conform to tlu' 1ru:li, it u«>nKl coiitr.in noil ii«^- inc'on>ist(.'nt wi'.li Clirislianity. And this true ralit'n.il philo.^oiiliy, he bt'licvc d lo be- tli:it which he h;;d learned in Iho school of AminoiiiiKs. This was ihe pliilosopiiy, which lie wished to associate >vilh diiistian truth, and to produce a system embracing boMi. liiiw large a place in Iheology, Origen would allow to what he [p. G18.] accounted true philosoj'hy, and by what laws he would combine them together, we nrc now to show. In the first place, he allirmed, that all the things which must be believed in ordi-r to salvaliun, are most [)lainly set forlh in the Scrip- tures: ard these things, lie would have men simply believe without subjecting them at :ill to the dominion of p!;ilosoi)hy. Thus, in the introduction to hi3 work de Priiicipiis (see. 3. |». 47.) he SJiys : Illud aufem scire oportet, qnoniam sancti Apostoli fidem Christi pra^dicantes, de quibusdam quidem qucccunque necessari:i (adsalutem) crediderunt, omnibus etiam his qui pigriores erga inqui- sitionem divina3 scientia) videbantur, maivfestissime tradiderunt. And of the doctrines which he supposed were taught in the clearest manner in the Bible, and which should be received without dubitalion or criticism, he made out a sort of catalogue. It i- this: (I) There is one God, the author and creator of all things. (II) In these last days, this God hath sent Christ to call first the Jews, and then other nations. (Ill) Jesus Christ was born of the Father, anterior to the creation (ante omnem creaturam),aud was the minister of the Father in thecrca- lion of all things. (IV) The same Christ, although lie was God, was made man, and became ir.carnate ; and being made man, he remained God as he was before ; he truly suflered, truly died, and truly rose again. (V) In honor and dignity, the Holy Spirit is au associate of the Father and the Son. (VI) Every soul posses>es reason, and free volition and choice; and, when removed f.-om the body, will be rewarded or punished aecoiding to its deserts. (VII) Our bodies will be raised in a state highly imi)nived. (VIII) A devil and his angels exist; and they strive to immerse men in sins. (IX) This world will lu reaftcr be dissolved. (X) The holy Scriptures weio dictated 1 y the Spirit of God ; and they have a twofold seu'e, the one obvious, the other latent. (XI) There are good angels and powers, wl.ieh minister to the salvatiiMi of men. Tliepe, he says, are specimens (sjecies) of the ihhigs that are niar.iiestly inculcated in the Apostolic annunci.ition. This language seems to imply, that Ori<4en did not aim to make a complete enumeration of the doctrines clearly taught in the Bible and nccessaiy to be known, but only to give a speci7iien ofsuch a col- lection. Yet of this [ ; m not entirely ceitain, and I leave others to decide. But the inspired men, by whom the })rincij'.al truths of religion are stated KO intelligibly to all, have left other truths in some obscurity. In the first place, they have not clearly stated the nrou7icls and reasons of the trnlhs which they require us to believe: that is, they have not shown us how the reve.iled truths they teach stand related to the first jirinciples of truth and reason. And again, the things themselves, they have indeed stated clearly enough ; but of the how, 7chy ixvd wherefore they are so, they are silent. And here the in- dustry of wise and perspicacious christians may find employment ; first, in Bcarching out and demonstrating, by the aids of philosoi)liy, the groujiJs a:ui 156 Century III.— Section 27. [p. 619.] reasons of the doctrines divinely revealed ; and secondly, in dctermin. ing, on the principk-s of a true philosophy, the modes and relations of the things revealed in v'le L**cripture^. Such, I suppose, were Origen's views : but let us hear his own word^. In the preface to iiis work de Principiis, he says: Ralionem astertionis eoruni reli(|uerunt (Apostoli) ab his inquirendam, qui Spiritus dona exeellentiora niererentur, et proecipue sermonis, sapientiae et Ecientiae gratiani per ipsum Spirituni Sanctum percepisseut. Here we are taught, that the things at first obscure, afterwards become more clear. Again he says: Dc alils vero dixerunt quidem, quia sint : ^ womot/o autem, aut unde sint, siluerunt ; profecto ut studiusiores quique ex posteris suis, qui amatores essent sapientiaj, exereilinm habere possent, in quo ingenii sui frnctum osten- derent, iii videlicet qui dignos se et capaces ad recipiendnni sapientiam prae- pararent. The^e statements need exemplification ; and Origen himself affords it. That the world at a certain time began to exist, and will a(, a certain time perish, is incontrovertible, and is most expressly affirmed in Scripture. But for what cause it was created, and why it will be destroyed, we are very obscurely informed. Therefore, these are things to be investigated by the aid of philo^5ophy. — That men have apostatised, is clear; but the causes of their apostasy are not equally manifest, and therefore must be inquired after. — That the Holy Spirit, no less than tlie Son, proceeded from the Father, the S^-riptures manifestly teach ; but the mode of the procession, they do not define. He subjoins : In hoc non jam manifesto decernitur, utrum (Spiritus S.) natus an innatus, vel filius etiam Dei ipse habendus sit, nee ne. Scd inqui- renda jam ista pro viribus sunt de sacra scriptura et sagaci perquisitione investiganda. — That the devil and his angels are real existences, and also the angels of an opposite character, no person who has read the Bible will deny. Of these he tells us ; Sunt quidem hajc ; qiicc autem sint, aut quomodo sint, non satis cl.ire exposuit. Here, therefore, he who seeks for knowledge, must labor for it. On this subject it is especially to be noticed, that both here and elsewhere Origen teaches, that the Holy Scriptures are not entirely silent respecting the causes or reasons of the truths they assert, but as it were give us intimations of them ; but respecting the modes or forms of the things, they are wholly silent. And hence, they who attempt, by the aid of philosophy, to explore the inmost recesses of theology, or in other words, to bring into the li(^ht what the Scriptures have lelt in the dark, — have not, in all cases, the same task to perform, and the same success to antii-ipate. Those who labor to explain the causes or reasons of the truths taught in tlie Bible, must not only call philoso- phy to their aid, but must also carefully search out the arcane senses of Holy Scripture. For Origen firmly believed, that under cover of the words, phrases, images, and narratives of the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit had concealed the in- ternal reasons and grounds of things; or, as he himself expresses it, that in the body of holy writ, (so he denominates the proper seiise of the words,) there was [p. 620.] a soul, (an arcane and recondite sense,) and that this soul exhibits, to careful contemplaters of it, as it were in a mirror, the causes, connections, and dependencies of both human and divine wisdom. In this he trod in the path of Origeris Thcologrj. 157 P/j//o Judaeus; whom he, — following the example and authorify of Clement^ his pitH'e|it(tr, — ivirarded as the wisest of all e.\i)loreis of the true sense of Seripturt', and therclore followed as his iruide. — HiU wIumi I hi; modes^ or forms of the thing-s are to be ex.imined, the philosophic theologian need not resort to the s:iered Scriptures; because, aa they say nothing of the modes of things, he must trust and follow his own ingenuity and the dictates of philosophv. A pas- sage already cited is applicable here; but I will adduce another, equ:!lly expli- cit, and admir.ibly illustrative of the char.icter of Oiigen's system. He siys, (p. 49) : Oportct igitur, velut elemenlis ac I'uiidaiiK.'ntis hnju-modi uli secun- dum mandatum quod dicit: Illuminate xobis lumen scienlLc (Hose, x. 12, Sep- tuag.) oinneni, qui cupit seriem quamdam et corpus ex horuin omnium rationc perlicere, ut m:ini:eslis ct uccessariis as'^erlioiiibns de s-ingulis, quibus(|ue quid eit in vero riiuetnr et unum (ut diximus) corpus etliciat exemplis et alliiin:itioni. bus, vel his quas in sane'. is Scriptinis invencrit (i. e., he who would combine theology and philosophy, and Irom both frame one system, must endeavor to nscertaiu the grounds and reasons of the doctrines, by examining into the arcane sense of the sacred books.) vel quas ex conscquenlioe ipsins indagine ac recti tenorc repererit, (i. e. but if the jnode is the thing sought for, of wliicli the Scrip- tures say nothing, then it is sullicient to explain and define it in accordance with {tenore recli) the dictates of philosophy.) — These statements may enable us to understind why Origen, in explaining religious truths generally betakes himself first to reason and philosophy, and then recurs to the s;icred or.iclcs, to elucidate by them his explanations, and to confirm his conjectures by some similitude; but sometimes, without consulting the Scriptures at all, he makes philosophy his sole guide. The former is his course, when he supposes the in- quiry relates to the causes of things; and the latter when the modes or forms are discussed. Yet as these two things are intimately connected and often scarcely sepnrable, he not unfrequcnlly confounds them, and but seldom discri- minates accurately between them. The labor of investigating the causes or reasons of the revealed truths and doctrines by appeals to the Scriptures, is more arduous and dirficult than tho labor of exploring and defining the modes oi' forms of holy things. Because, for the former, the illumination and aid of the Holy Spirit are necessary ; and none can succeed in it, (as he says,) "except those who have acquired the more excellent gifts of the Holy Spirit, and, especially. h:ive obtained, through tho Holy Spirit, the gift of language, of wisdom, and of knowledge." This he re- peats often, both in his work de Principiis and elsewhere, declaring [p. 6:21.] that they only are competent to this work whom God deems worthy of his spe- cial friendship. He s.ays, repeatedly : Certius sciunt, qui Dei per Christum et Spiritum Sanctum amici sunt. The full force of iiis declarations can be under- stood by those only who are familiar with the theology of the ancient Chris- tians. It was an established opinion among them, one that prevailed long be- fore the times of Origen, that the proper and natural sense of the words of the Bible is obvious to all readers who are not heedless and stupid; but that what Origen calls spirtialem inlelUgenliam — the remote sense, or that latent under the words and things, — is manifest only to those whom the Holy Spirit in- 158 Centinnj Ill—Section 27. structs nnd illuininntc^. And this gift of the Holy Spirit, whii-li confiTS the power of discovering tlic inysterit's hidden in tlie snered books, Ihey called the gift ofwisdimi and knouiedge ; :ind of this gift tliey understood St. Paul to speak, 1 Cor. .\ii. 8 ; "For to one is given h^ the Spirit the word of wisdom Cac^raj); to another the word of knowledge {yvuiO-tua) by the same Spirit." And iience they were accustomed to use the word knowledge (jvutTn) to designate the mystical sense of the Bible. Sec Jo. Ern. Grabe's Spicil. Patr. et Ilajreticor. Saec. i. p. 328; and tlie notes of the learned on the Epistle of Barnabas, \ 6. Now, as Origen believed, that in the Scriptures the Holy Spirit teaches us — not indeed by the xcords but by the things which the words indicate, not openly but covertly, by allegories and enigmas — how the peculiar doctrines of Chris- tianity harmonize with each other, and with the decisions of philosophy, it was natural for him to assert, thnt divine assistance is necessnry for drawing this nut out of its envelope. — 'J'lie other task, that of exploring the 7nodfs of things, was less diflicult ; because, in addition to a knowledge of true })hilosophy, it required only an earnest application of the powers of the human mind. And hence, as r.itional truth and revealed or heavenly truth do not disagree, a saga- cious man, possessing sound reason, can easily di-cover their agreeniint. Yet he does not deny, but declares often and in various terms, that as divine things are more sublime and excellent than human, great care is necessary lest we misjudge in such matters; and that some parts of the Christian religion are so difficult, that they c:in scarcely, if at all, be adequately explained by human phrases and analogies. Of this nature, he gravely tells us, is the doctrine of the union of two natures in Christ, which, though he explains it according to the principles of his philosophy, yet he bids his hearers remember, can never be fully explained. Of this doctrine he fays (de Principp. L. ii. c. 6. J 2. p. 90) : "I suppose that it is beyond the comprehension of even the holy Apostles; nay, perhaps, the explanation of this sacrament exceeds all created intelligence among the Angels." — From these statements, I think, we may learn the cause of the great modesty and timidity which Origen exhibits in his exposition of many topics in theology. He supposed no one, unless having familiar inter- [p. 622.] course with God, and receiving thcgifl of wisdom and knowledge, could successfully explore the hidden meanings of the Bible; but whether he himself had obtained this gift from God, he dared not decide. He therefore alwiiys ap- proached this species of discussion with timidity, and he left it timidly ; h-o almost never affirmed positively, that he had ascertained the true import of the texts he discussed. He assumes more confidence, indeed, when he thinks the coincidence between theology and philosophy to be manifest ; and he seems, sometimes, to know and be positive, rather than diffidently to utter his opinions. Yet, as he fully believed that many things in theology are beyond human comprehension, he seldom discusses what we call the mysteries of reli- gion, in a manner that would imply the impossibility that anything more satis- fiictory can be said of them. On the contrary, he almost invariably declares himself ready to change his opinion, if any friend of God can offer more correct views of the subject. It will now be seen, if I mistake not, of what nature and magnitude were Orir/en's Philosopliic Theology. 15ft tljosc ofToMCCs of Ori^en u