making; and, if the reader is desirous of a striking one, he has only to take a view of the doctrines which began to be taught in this century, concerning the state of the soul after the dissolution of the body. Jesus and his disciples had simply declared, that the souls of good men were, at their departure from their bodies, to be received into heaven, while those of the wicked were to be sent to hell; and this was sufficient for the first disciples of Christ to know, as they had more piety than curiosity, and were satisfied with the knowledge of this solemn fact, without any inclination to penetrate its manner, or to pry into its secret reasons. But this plain doctrine was soon disguised, when Platonism began to infect Christianity. Plato had taught that the souls of heroes, of illustrious men, and eminent philosophers alone, ascended after death into the mansions of light and felicity, while those of the generality, weighed down by their lusts and passions, sunk into the infernal regions, whence they were not permitted to emerge before they were purified from their turpitude and corruption.* This doctrine was seized with avidity by the Platonic Christians, and applied as a commentary upon that of Jesus. Hence a notion prevailed, that only the martyrs entered upon a state of happiness immediately after death, and that, for the rest, a certain obscure region was assigned, in which they were to be imprisoned until the second coming of Christ, or, at least, until they were purified from their various pollutions. This doctrine, enlarged by the irregular fancies of injudicious men, became a source of innumerable errors, vain ceremonies, and monstrous superstitions. IV. But, however the doctrines of the Gospel may have been abused by the commentaries and interpretations of different sects, all were unanimous in regarding the Scriptures with veneration, as the great rule of faith and manners; and hence arose the laudable and pious zeal of adapting them to general use. We have mentioned already the translations that were made of them into different languages, and it will not be improper to say something here concerning those who employed their useful labours in explaining and interpreting them. Pantænus, the head of the Alexandrian school, was probably the first who enriched the church with a version of the sacred writings, which has been lost among the ruins of time. The same fate attended the commentary of Clemens the Alexandrian, upon the canonical epistles; and also another celebrated work of the same author, in which he is said to have explained, in a compendious manner, almost all the sacred writings. The Harmony of the Evangelists, composed by Tatian, is yet extant. But the Exposition of the Revelations, by Justin Martyr, and of the four Gospels by Theophilus bishop of Antioch, together with several illustrations of the Mosaic * See an ample account of the opinions of the Platonists and other ancient philosophers on this subject, in the notes which Dr. Mosheim has added to his Latin translation of Cudworth's Intellectual System, vol ii. Viz. Clementis Hypotyposes history of the creation, by other ancient writers, are lost. V. The loss of these ancient productions is the less to be regretted as we know, with certainty, their vast inferiority to the expositions of the holy Scriptures that appeared in succeeding times. Among the persons already mentioned, none deserved the name of an able and judicious interpreter of the sacred text. They all attributed a double sense to the words of Scripture; the one obvious and literal, the other hidden and mysterious, which lay concealed, as it were under the veil of the outward letter. The former they treated with the utmost neglect, and turned the whole force of their genius and application to unfold the lat ter; or, in other words, they were more studious to darken the Scriptures with their idle fictions, than to investigate their true and natural sense. Some of them also forced the expressions of sacred writ out of their obvious meaning, in order to apply them to the support of their philosophical systems; of which dangerous and pernicious attempts, Clemens of Alexandria is said to have given the first example. With respect to the expositors of the Old Testament in this century, we shall only make this general remark, that their excessive veneration for the Alexandrian version, commonly called the Septuagint, which they regarded almost as of divine authority, confined their views, fettered their critical spirit, and hindered them from producing any thing excellent in the way of sacred criticism or interpretation. VI. If this age was not very fertile in sacred critics, it was still less so in expositors of the doctrinal parts of religion; for hitherto there was no attempt made, at least that has come to our knowledge, to compose a system or complete view of the Christian doctrine. Some treatises of Arabians, relative to this subject, are indeed mentioned; but, as they are lost, and seem not to have been much known by any of the writers whose works have survived them, we can form no conclusions concerning them. The books of Papias, concerning the sayings of Christ and his apostles, were according to the account which Eusebius gives of them, rather an historical commentary, than a theological system. Melito, bishop of Sardis, is said to have written several treatises; one concerning faith, another on the creation, a third respecting the church, and a fourth for the illustration of truth; but it does not appear from the titles of these writings, whether they were of a doctrinal or controversial nature. Several of the polemic writers, indeed, have been naturally led, in the course of controversy, to explain amply certain points of religion. But those doctrines which have not been disputed, are very rarely defined with and the treatises mentioned by Dr. Moshe.m, wrote a * Melito, beside his Apology for the Christians, discourse upon Esther and several other dissertations, of which we have only some scattered fragments remaining but what is worthy of remark here, is, that he is the first Christian writer who has given us a catalogue of the books of the Old Testament. His catalogue, also, is perfectly conformable to that of the Jews, except in this point only, that he has omitted it in the book of Esther. such accuracy, by the ancient writers, as to point out to us clearly what their opinions concerning them were. Hence it ought not to appear surprising, that all the different sects of Christians pretend to find, in the writings of the fathers, decisions favourable to their respective tenets. application and force. They frequently inake use of arguments void of all solidity, and much more proper to dazzle the fancy, than to enlighten and convince the mind. One, laying aside the sacred writings, from which all the weapons of religious controversy ought to be drawn, refers to the decisions of those bishops who ruled the apostolic churches. Another thinks, that the antiquity of a doctrine is a mark of its truth, and pleads prescription against his adversaries, as if he was maintaining his property before a civil magistrate; than which method of disputing nothing can be more pernicious to the cause of truth. A third imitates those wrong-headed disputants among the Jews, who, infatuated with their cabalistic jargon, offered, as arguments, the imaginary powers of certain mystic words and chosen numbers.* Nor do they seem to err, who are of opinion, that, in this century, that vicious method of disputing, which afterwards obtained the name of economical, was first introduced.‡ VII. The controversial writers, who shone in this century, had three different sorts of adversaries to combat; the Jews, the Pagans, and those who, in the bosom of Christianity, corrupted its doctrines, and produced various sects and divisions in the church. Justin Martyr, and Tertullian, embarked in a controversy with the Jews, which it was not possible for them to manage with the highest success and dexterity, as they were very little acquainted with the language, the history, and the learning of the Hebrews, and wrote with more levity and inaccuracy, than such a subject would justify. Of those who managed the cause of Christianity against the Pagans, some performed this mportant task by composing apologies for the Christians, and others by addressing pathetic IX. The principal points of morality were exhortations to the Gentiles. Among the for-treated by Justin Martyr, or, at least, by the mer were Athenagoras, Melito, Quadratus, Miltiades, Aristides, Tatian, and Justin Martyr; and among the latter, Tertullian, Clemens, Justin, and Theophilus bishop of Antioch. All these writers attacked, with judgment, dexterity, and success, the pagan superstition, and also defended the Christians, in a victorious manner, against all the calumnies and aspersions of their enemies. But they did not succeed so well in unfolding the true nature and genius of Christianity, nor were the arguments adduced by them to demonstrate its truth and divinity so full of energy, so striking and irresistible, as those by which they overturned the pagan system. In a word, both their explication and defence of many of the doctrines of Christianity are defective and unsatisfactory in several respects. As to those X. Learned men are not unanimous with who directed their polemic efforts against the regard to the degree of esteem that is due to heretics, their number was prodigious, though the authors now mentioned, and the other anfew of their writings have come down to our cient moralists. Some represent them as the times. Irenæus refuted the whole tribe in a || most excellent guides in the paths of piety and work destined solely for that purpose. Cle-virtue; while others place them in the lowest mens,* Tertullian,† and Justin Martyr, wrote | rank of moral writers, consider them as the also against all the sectaries; but the work of the last, upon that subject, is not extant. It would be endless to mention those who combated particular errors; of whose writings also, many have disappeared amidst the decays of time, and the revolutions that have happened in the republic of letters. VIII. If the primitive defenders of Christianity were not always happy in the choice of their arguments, yet they discovered more candour and probity than those of the following ages. The artifice of sophistry, and the habit of employing pious frauds in support of the truth, had not, as yet, infected the Christians. And this, indeed, is all that can be said in their behalf; for they are worthy of little admiration on account of the accuracy or depth of their reasonings. The most of them appear to have been destitute of penetration, learning, order, * In his work entitled, Stromata. writer of the Epistle to Zena and Serenus, which is to be found among the works of that celebrated author. Many other writers confined themselves to particular branches of the moral system, which they handled with much attention and zeal. Thus Clemens of Alexandria wrote several treatises concerning calumny, patience, continence, and other virtues, which discourses have not reached our times. Those of Tertullian upon chastity, upon flight in the time of persecution, as also upon fast ing, shows, female ornaments, and prayer, have survived the waste of time, and might be read with much fruit, were the style in which they are written less laboured and difficult, and the spirit they breathe less melan|| choly and morose. worst of all instructers, and treat their precepts and decisions as perfectly insipid, and, in many respects, pernicious. We leave the determination of this point to such as are more capable of pronouncing decisively upon it, than we pretend to be.§ It, however, appears * Several examples of this senseless method of reason ing are to be found in different writers. See particularly Basnage, Histoire des Juifs, tom. iii. p. 660, 694. The economical method of disputing was that in which the disputants accommodated themselves, as far as was possible, to the taste and prejudices of those whom they were endeavouring to gain over to the truth. Some of the first Christians carried this condescension too far, and abused St. Paul's example, (1 Cor. ix. 20 21, 22.) to a degree inconsistent with the purity and simplicity of the Christian doctrine. Rich. Simon, Histoire Critique des principaux Com mentateurs du N. T. cap. ii. p. 21. This question was warmly and learnedly debated between the deservedly celebrated Barbeyrac and Cellier, a Benedictine monk. Buddeus has given us a history of this controversy, with his own judgment of it, in his Isa goge ad Theologiam, lib. ii. cap. iv. p. 620, &c. Bar beyra, however, published after this a particular treatise all orders of men; and that of counsels to such as related to Christians of a more sublime rank, who proposed to themselves great and glori ous ends, and aspired to an intimate commu nion with the Supreme Being. XII. This double doctrine suddenly produc uncommon degrees of sanctity and virtue, and declared their resolution of obeying all the counsels of Christ, that they might enjoy com munion with God here; and also, that, after the dissolution of their mortal bodies, they might ascend to him with greater facility, and find nothing to retard their approach to the supreme centre of happiness and perfection They looked upon themselves as prohibite from the use of things which it was lawful fo other Christians to enjoy, such as wine, flesh matrimony, and trade. They thought it their indispensable duty, to extenuate the body by watchings, abstinence, labour and hunger.They looked for felicity in solitary retreats, in desert places, where, by severe and assiduour efforts of sublime meditation, they raised the soul above all external objects and all sensual to us incontestable, that in the writings of the primitive fathers, there are several sublime sentiments, judicious thoughts, and many things 'hat are naturally adapted to form a religious temper, and to excite pious and virtuous affections; while it must be confessed on the other hand, that they abound still more with pre-ed a new set of men, who made profession of cepts of an excessive and unreasonable austerity, with stoical and academical dictates, vague and indeterminate notions, and what is yet worse, with decisions that are absolutely false, and in evident opposition to the precepts of Christ. Before the question mentioned above concerning the merit of the ancient fathers, as moralists, be decided, a previous question must be determined, namely, What is meant by a bad director in point of morals? and, if by such a person be meant, one who has no determinate notion of the nature and limits of the duties incumbent upon Christians, no clear and distinct ideas of virtue and vice; who has not penetrated the spirit and genius of those sacred books, to which alone we must appeal in every dispute about Christian virtue, and who, in consequence thereof, fluctuates often in uncertainty, or falls into error in ex-pleasures. plaining the divine laws, though he may frequently administer sublime and pathetic instructions; if, by a bad guide in morals, such a person, as we have now delineated, be meant, then it must be confessed, that this title belongs indisputably to many of the fathers. Both men and women imposed upon themselves the most severe tasks, the most austere discipline; all which however the fruit of pious intention, was, in the issue, extremely detrimental to Christianity. These persons were called Ascetics, 2, 'Exλextos, and philosophers; nor were they only distinguished by their title from other Christians, but also by their garb. In this century, in deed, such as embraced this austere kind of life, submitted themselves to all these mortifications in private, without breaking asunder their social bonds, or withdrawing themselves from the concourse of mer.. But, in process of time, they retired into deserts; and after the example of the Essenes and Therapeutæ, they formed themselves into certain companies. One XI. The cause of morality, and indeed, of Christianity in general, suffered deeply by a capital error which was received in this century; an error admitted without any sinister views, but yet with great imprudence, and, which, through every period of the church, even until the present time, has produced other errors without number, and multiplied the evils under which the Gospel has so often groaned. Jesus Christ prescribed to all his disciples one and the same rule of life and manners. But XIII. Nothing is more obvious than the reacertain Christian doctors, either through a de- sons that gave rise to this austere sect. sire of imitating the nations among whom they of the principal was, the ill judged ambition of lived, or in consequence of a natural propensi- the Christians to resemble the Greeks and Roty to a life of austerity (which is a disease not mans, many of whose sages and philosophers uncommon in Syria, Egypt, and other Eastern distinguished themselves from the generality provinces,) were induced to maintain, that by their maxims, by their habits, and, indeed, Christ had established a double rule of sanctity by the whole plan of life and manners which and virtue, for two different orders of Chris- they had formed to themselves, and by which tians. Of these rules one was ordinary, the they acquired a high degree of esteem and auother extraordinary; one of a lower dignity, thority. It is also well known, that, of all the other more sublime; one for persons in the these philosophers, there were none whose senactive scenes of life, the other for those who, timents and discipline were so well received by in a sacred retreat, aspired to the glory of a ce- the ancient Christians as those of the Platonestial state. In consequence of this wild sys-ists and Pythagoreans, who prescribed in their tem, they divided into two parts all those moral doctrines and instructions which they had received, either by writing or tradition. One of these divisions they called precepts and the other counsels. They gave the name of precepts to those laws which were obligatory upon m defence of the severe sentence he had pronounced against the fathers. This ingenious performance was printed at Amsterdam in 1720, under the title of Traite sur la Morale des Peres; and is highly worthy of the perusal of those who have a taste for this interesting branch of literature, though they will find in it some imputations cast upon the fathers, against which they may be easily defended. lessons two rules of conduct; one for the sages, who aspired to the sublimest heights of virtue; and another for the people, involved in the cares and hurry of an active life. The law of moral conduct, which the Platonists prescribed to the philosophers, was as follows: *Athenagoras, Apologia pro Christian. cap. xxviii. + See Salmas. Comm. in Tertullianum de Pallio. These famous sects made an important distinction. between living according to nature, Znν xxx cuiv, and living above nature, ZAY UTTER CUGIV. The former was the rule prescribed to the vulgar; the latter, that which was to direct the conduct of the philosophers, who aimed at superior degrees of virtue. See Eneas Gazeus in Theophrast. over the beauty and simplicity of the Christian religion. Hence the celibacy of the priestly order, the rigour of unprofitable penances and mortifications, the innumerable swarms of monks, who, in the senseless pursuit of a visionary sort of perfection, refused their talents and labours to society. Hence also that distinction between the theoretical and mystical life, and many other fancies of a like nature, which we shall have occasion to mention in XV. It is generally true, that delusions tra "The soul of the wise man ought to be remov- || rites, that still, in many places, throw a veil ed to the greatest possible distance from the contagious influence of the body; and, as the depressing weight of the body, the force of its appetites, and its connexions with a corrupt world, are in direct opposition to this sacred obligation, all sensual pleasures are to be careully avoided; the body is to be supported, or -ather extenuated, by a slender diet; solitude is to be sought as the true mansion of virtue, and contemplation to be employed as the means of raising the soul, as far as is possible, to a sub-the course of this history. lime freedom from all corporeal ties, and to a noble elevation above all terrestrial things.* || vel in a train, and that one mistake produces The person who lives in this manner, shall enjoy, even in the present state, a certain degree of communion with the Deity; and, when the corporeal mass is dissolved, shall immediately ascend to the sublime regions of felicity and perfection, without passing through that state of purification and trial, which awaits the generality of mankind." It is easy to perceive, that this rigorous discipline was a natural consequence of the peculiar opinions which these philosophers, and some others who resembled them, entertained concerning the nature of the soul, the influence of matter, the operations of invisible beings, or demons, and the formation of the world; and, as these opinions were adopted by the more learned among the Christians, it was natural that they should embrace also the moral discipline which flowed from them. It was XIV. There is a particular consideration that will enable us to render a natural account of the origin of those religious severities of which we have been now speaking, and that is drawn from the genius and temper of the people by whom they were first practised. in Egypt that this morose discipline had its rise. That country, we may observe, has in all times, as it were by an immutable law, or disposition of nature, abounded with persons of a melancholy complexion, and produced, in proportion to its extent, more gloomy spirits than any other part of the world. It was here that the Essenes and Therapeutæ, those dismal and gloomy sects, dwelt principally, long before the coming of Christ; as also many others of the Ascetic tribe, who, led by a melancholy turn of mind, and a delusive notion of rendering themselves more acceptable to the Deity by their austerities, withdrew themselves from human society, and from all the innocent pleasures and comforts of life. From Egypt, this sour and insocial discipline passed into Syria, and the neighbouring countries, which also abounded with persons of the same dismal constitution with that of the Egyptians;§ and thence, in process of time, its infection reached the European nations. Hence arose that train of austere and superstitious vows and many. The Christians who adopted this austere system had certainly made a very false step, and done much injury to their excellent and most reasonable religion. But they did not stop here; another erroneous practice was adopted by them, which, though it was not so general as the other, was yet extremely perni cious, and proved a source of numberless evils to the Christian church. The Platonists and Pythagoreans held it as a maxim, that it was not only lawful, but even praiseworthy, to deceive, and even to use the expedient of a lie, in order to advance the cause of truth and piety. The Jews, who lived in Egypt, had learned and received this maxim from them, before the coming of Christ, as appears incontestably from a multitude of ancient records; and the Christians were infected from both these sources with the same pernicious error, as appears from the number of books attributed falsely to great and venerable names, from the Sibylline verses, and several supposititious productions which were spread abroad in this and the following century. It does not indeed seem probable, that all these pious frauds were chargeable upon the professors of real Christianity, upon those who entertained just and rational sentiments of the religion of Jesus. The greatest part of these fictitious writings undoubtedly flowed from the fertile invention of the Gnostic sects, though it cannot be affirmed that even true Christians were entirely innocent and irreproachable in this respect. XVI. As the boundaries of the church were enlarged, the number of vicious and irregular persons who entered into it, received a proportional increase, as appears from the many complaints and censures that we find in the writers of this century. Several methods were practised to stem the torrent of iniquity. Excommunication was peculiarly employed to prevent or punish the most heinous and enormous crimes, and the crimes deemed such, were murder, idolatry, and adultery, which terms, however, we must here understand in their more full and extensive sense. In some places, the commission of any of these sins irrevocably cut off the criminals from all hopes of restoration to the privileges of church communion; in others, after a long, laborious, and painful course of probation and discipline, they were re-admitted into the bosom of the church. * By this distinction, we may easily reconcile the dif ferent opinions of the learned concerning the effects of xiii.excommunication. See Morinus, de Disciplina Pœnitent. lib. ix. cap. xix. p. 67.-Sirmond, Historia Poenitentia publicæ, cap. i.-Joseph. Augustin. Orsi, Dissert. de XVII. It is here to be attentively observed, || added to this, which, though they suppose no that the form, used in the exclusion of heinous || bad intention, yet manifest a considerable deoffenders from the society of Christians, was, gree of precipitation and imprudence. at first, extremely simple. A small number II. And here we may observe, in the first of plain, yet judicious rules, made up the place, that there is a high degree of probability whole of this solemn institution, which, how-in the notion of those who think that the ever was imperceptibly altered, enlarged by an bishops augmented the number of religious addition of a vast multitude of rites, and new- rites in the Christian worship, by way of ac modelled according to the discipline used in the commodation to the infirmities and prejudices, Heathen mysteries.* Those who have any ac- both of Jews and heathens, in order to faciliquaintance with the singular reasons that tate their conversion to Christianity. Both obliged the Christians of those ancient times Jews and heathens were accustomed to a great to be careful in restraining the progress of variety of pompous and magnificent ceremovice, will readily grant, that it was incumbent nies in their religious service. And as they upon the rulers of the church to perfect their deemed these rites an essential part of religion, discipline, and to render the restraints upon it was natural that they should behold with iniquity more severe. They will justify the indifference, and even with contempt, the simrulers of the primitive church in their refusing plicity of the Christian worship, which was to restore excommunicated members to their destitute of those idle ceremonies that rendered forfeited privileges, before they had given in- their service so specious and striking. To recontestable marks of the sincerity of their re- move then, in some measure, this prejudice pentance. Yet it remains to be examined, against Christianity, the bishops thought it newhether it was expedient to borrow from the cessary to increase the number of ceremonies enemies of the truth the rules of this salutary and thus to render the public worship more discipline, and thus to sanctify in some mea- striking to the outward senses. sure, a part of the Heathen superstition. But, however delicate such a question may be, when determined with a view to all the indirect or immediate consequences of the matter in debate, the equitable and candid judge will consider principally the good intentions of those from whom these ceremonies and institutions proceeded, and will overlook the rest from a charitable condescension and indulgence to human weakness. CHAPTER IV. Of the Ceremonies used in the Church during this Century. III. This addition of external rites was also designed to remove the opprobrious calumnies which the Jewish and pagan priests cast upon the Christians on account of the simplicity of their worship, considering them as little better than atheists, because they had no temples, altars, victims, priests, nor any mark of that external pomp in which the vulgar are so prono to place the essence of religion. The rulers of the church adopted, therefore, certain external ceremonies, that thus they might captivate the senses of the vulgar, and be able to refute the reproaches of their adversaries. cessary in ecclesiastical, as well as in civil institutions; but they must be of such a nature This, it must be confessed, was a very I. THERE is no institution so pure and ex- awkward, and indeed, a very pernicious stracellent which the corruption and folly of man tagem; it was obscuring the native lustre of will not in time alter for the worse, and load the Gospel, in order to extend its influence. with additions foreign to its nature and origi- and making it lose, in point of real excellence, nal design. Such, in a particular manner, what it gained in point of popular esteem. was the fate of Christianity. In this century Some accommodations to the infirmities of many unnecessary rites and ceremonies were mankind, some prudent instances of condeadded to the Christian worship, the introduc-scension to their invincible prejudices, are netion of which was extremely offensive to wise and good men. These changes, while they destroyed the beautiful simplicity of the Gospel, were naturally pleasing to the gross multitude, who are more delighted with the pomp and splendour of external institutions, than with the native charms of rational and solid piety, and who generally give little attention to any objects but those which strike their outward senses. But other reasons may be Criminum capitalium per tria priora Sæcula Absolutione, published at Milan in 1730. See Fabricius, Bibliograph. Antiquar. p. 397, and Morinus, de Pœnitentia, lib. i. cap. xv, &c. Tertullian, Lib. de Creatione, p. 792, op. It is not improper to remark here, that this attachment of the vulgar to the pomp of ceremonies, is a circumstance that has always been favourable to the ambitious views of the Romish clergy, since the pomp of religion naturally casts a part of its glory and magnificence upon its ministers, and thereby gives them, imperceptibly, a vast ascendency over the minds of the people. The late lord Bolingbroke, being present at the elevation of the host in the cathedral at Paris, expressed to a nobleman who stood near him, his surprise that the king of France should commit the performance of such an august and striking ceremony to any subject. How far ambi tion may, in this and the succeeding ages, have contributed to the accumulation of gaudy ceremonies, is a question not easily determined. A remarkable passage in the life of Gregory, sur. named Thaumaturgus, i. e. the wonder worker, will illustrate this point in the clearest manner. The passage is as follows: Cum animadvertisset (Gregorius) quod ob corporeas delectationes et voluptates simplex et im peritum vulgus in simulacrorum cultus errore permaneret-permisit eis, ut in memoriam et recordationem sanctorum martyrum sese oblectarent, et in lætitiam ef funderentur, quod successu temporis aliquando futurem esset, ut sua sponte ad honestiorum et accuratiorem vitæ rationem transirent." i. e. "When Gregory perceived that the ignorant multitude persisted in their idolatry, on account of the pleasures and sensual gratifications which they enjoyed at the pagan festivals, he granted them a permission to indulge themselves in the like pleasures, in celebrating the memory of the holy martyrs, hoping that, in process of time, they would return of their own accord, to a more virtuous and regular course of life." There is no sort of doubt, that, by this permission Gregory allowed the Christians to dance, sport, and feast at the tombs of the martyrs, upon their respective festi vals, and to do every thing which the pagans were ac customed to do in their temples, caring the feasts rele brated in honour of their gods." |