sense and reason, as works of so great a man.' Thus those who wished to surpass all others in piety deemed it pious to employ deception and fraud in support of piety. § 12. Among the controversies which divided Christians in this century, the most considerable turned upon the millennium, the baptism of heretics, and Origen. That the Saviour is to reign a thousand years among men before the end of the world, had been believed by many in the preceding century, without offence to any: all, however, had not explained the doctrine in the same manner, nor indulged hopes of the same kind of pleasures during that reign.2 In this century the millennarian doctrine fell into disrepute, through the influence especially of Origen, who opposed it because it contravened some of his opinions.3 But Nepos, an Egyptian bishop, [The spurious works ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite (who is mentioned Acts xvii. 34) are the following: de Cœlesti Hierarchia, lib. i.; de Ecclesiastica Hierarchia, L i.; de Divinis Nominibus, 1. i.; de Mystica Theologia, 1. i. together with four Epistles to Caius, one to Dorotheus, one to Sosipater, one to Polycarp, one to Demophilus, one to Titus, one to Apollophanes, and two to St. John the apostle. They all relate to the mystic theology, and breathe a devout spirit, but are exceedingly obscure and difficult of comprehension. It is supposed they were written in the fourth or fifth century, as they bear marks of that period, and are not mentioned by any writer prior to the sixth century. During the middle ages they were held in high estimation, and their genuineness scarcely if at all questioned. The more devout Roman Catholics, and most of the early Protestants, received them and relied upon them as genuine. In the seventeenth century, their spuriousness was abundantly demonstrated, and they are now universally regarded as supposititious. The best edition of these works, Gr. and Lat., with copious notes, is that of Balthazar Corderius, Antwerp, 1634, 2 vols. fol. and Paris, 1644, embracing the Greek scholia of St. Maximus the martyr (A.D. 659), and the paraphrase of George Pachymeres (A.D. 1280). The MS. copies of these works are found in most of the great libraries of Europe. Tr.] 2 [See the learned Treatise concerning the true Millennium, which Dr. Whitby has subjoined to the second volume of his Commentary upon the New Testament. See also, for an account of the doctrine of the ancient Millennarians, the fourth, fifth, seventh, and ninth volumes of Lardner's Credibility, &c.' Macl. also H. Corodi's Kritische Geschichte des Chiliasmus, 2nd ed. 1794, 3 vols. 8vo. Tr.] * See Origen, de Principiis, ii. 11. Opp. i. 104, and Prolog. Comment. in Cantic. Canticor. iii. 28. — [The Cerinthians, Marcionites, Montanists, and Melitans, among the heretical sects, and among the orthodox fathers, Papias, Justin Martyr, and Irenæus, held to a millennial reign of Christ, and Irenæus understood it in a very gross sense. Mosheim, in his Comment. de Rebus Christianor. &c. p. 721, believed that the doctrine had a Jewish origin; and he supposed the Christian doctors to have received, or at least tolerated it, because they hoped by it to make the Jews more willing to embrace Christianity. But Walch, in his Hist. Ketz. ii. 143, is more discriminating, and maintains that the question, whether a millennial reign of Christ is to be expected, had a biblical origin, the earlier Chiliasts relying on the testimony of the Apocalypse: but the explanation of the doctrine was derived from the Jewish opinions. There were two kinds of Chiliasts, the gross and the refined. The latter placed the chief differences between the millennial reign of Christ and his present reign, in the higher enjoyment of spiritual advantages and pleasures, yet without wholly excluding the pleasures of sense. But the former expected, in the millennium, all kinds of sensual delights, and the free indulgence of all, even the most exorbitant lusts. All these gross Chiliasts are to be found not merely among the heretics; they may be found also among the orthodox, as the example of Irenæus proves. According to the account of Gennadius of Marseilles, de Dogmatt. Ecclesiast. c. 55, p. 32, the Chiliasts may be divided into four classes. The first class were the most moderate. They are called Melitans; and expected a fulfilment of the divine promises here on the earth, without attempting to define the nature of the bliss to be enjoyed during the millennium. The second class expected not only to enjoy the indispensable indulgences of appetite, but also marriage pleasures, and every species of sensual indulgence. The third class promised themselves indeed sen attempted to revive its authority, in a work written against the allegorists, as he contemptuously styled the opposers of the millennium. The book and its arguments were approved by many in the province of Arsinoë, and particularly by Coracion, a presbyter of some respectability and influence. But Dionysius of Alexandria, a disciple of Origen, allayed the rising storm by his oral discussions and his two books on the divine promises.1 § 13. As no law determined in what manner those who came over from heretical churches to the Catholic Christians were to be received, usage in this matter was not uniform. Many of the Orientals and Africans classed reclaimed heretics among catechumens, and admitted them to the Christian ordinances by baptism. But most of the Europeans judged the baptism of erring Christians to be valid; and therefore received reclaimed heretics simply with imposition of hands and prayer. This diversity long produced no contention. But in this century the Asiatic Christians determined in several councils what before had been left at discretion, that all heretics coming over to the true church must be rebaptized. This coming to the knowledge of Stephen, bishop of Rome, he with little humanity or prudence excluded those Asiatics from communion with him and his church. Notwithstanding, however, Cyprian, with other Africans, in a council called on the subject, embraced the opinion of the Asiatics, and gave notice of it to Stephen. Upon this, Stephen was very indignant ; but Cyprian replied with energy, and, in a new council at Carthage, again pronounced the baptism of heretics wholly invalid. Stephen's anger now became heavier, and he excluded with great unkindness the Africans from the rights of brotherhood. The discord was healed, sitive delights, and these too as rewards for foregoing them now, and as a compensation for the outward sufferings of saints; but they excluded from them the carnal pleasure of sexual intercourse. The fourth was composed of Nepos and his followers. The millennial doctrine did not prevail everywhere, and uncontradicted. Yet the believers and the rejectors of the doctrine treated each other with affection, and a person might believe or discard it, without bringing his orthodoxy under suspicion. The first open opposer of Chiliasm that we meet with, was Caius, a teacher in the church of Rome, towards the end of the second century. He denied that the Apocalypse was written by John, and ascribed it rather to Cerinthus. But he effected very little. Origen was a more powerful opposer of the doctrine. He did not, like Caius, deny the canonical authority of the Apocalypse, but explained the passages in it which describe the millennial reign of Christ, allegorically, as referring to spiritual delights, suited to the nature of spirits raised to perfection, and these to be enjoyed, not on the earth, but in the world to come. Schl.] See Eusebius, H. E. vii. 24, and Gen nadius Massiliensis, de Dogmatibus Eccle- 2 Eusebius, H. E. vii, 5 and 7. Firmilian, Epist. ad Cyprianum, inter Epp. Cyprian. 75.- [The councils which decided this point, before Stephen's rash procedure, were (1) the council of Carthage, about a. D. 215. See Epp. Cypr. 71 and 73. —(2) that of Iconium in Phrygia, A. D. 235. Epp. Cypr. 75. Euseb. H. E. vii. 4.-(3) that of Synnada, and (4) some others, which are barely mentioned in Epp. Cypr. 75, and Euseb. ubi supra. See Walch, Historie der Kirchenversamml. p. 91, 94, and 96. Tr.] partly by the moderation of the Africans, partly by the death of Stephen.' § 14. The Origenian contests were moved by Demetrius, bishop of Alexandria, whom Origen's friends represent as influenced by envy and hatred; which, however, is very doubtful. In the proceedings of Demetrius against Origen, one may discover marks of a mind exasperated, impassioned, arrogant, and unreasonable, but none scarcely of envy. In the year 228, Origen undertook a journey to Achaia, and on his way suffered himself to be ordained presbyter by the bishops of Cæsarea and Jerusalem. Demetrius took this very ill, not only deeming Origen unworthy of the presbyter's office, because he had emasculated himself, but also denying that the master of his own school ought to be promoted without his knowledge and consent. The matter, however, was compromised, and Origen returned to Alexandria. But not long after, from some unknown cause, new dissension arose between him and Demetrius, which became so great, that Origen left Alexandria and the school in the year 231, and removed to Cæsarea in Palestine. Demetrius accused him in his absence before an assembled council, and deprived him of his office without a hearing, and afterwards, in a second council, divested him of his priestly character. It is probable that Demetrius accused Origen before the council, particularly the last one, of erroneous sentiments in matters of religion; which it was easy for him to do, as Origen's book de Principiis, which was full of dangerous sentiments, had been published not long before. The decision of the Alexandrian council was approved by a majority of the Christian bishops, though rejected by those of Achaia, Palestine, Phoenicia, and Arabia.3 Cyprian, Ep. 70 and 73, and several others, ed. Baluze. Augustine, de Baptismo contra Donatistas, 1. vi. and vii. Opp. t. ix. where he gives the acts of the council of Carthage, A. D. 256. Prudent. Maran, Vita Cypriani, p. 107, and all the writers of the life of Cyprian. [See Mosheim, Comment. de Rebus, &c. p. 540-547, and Walch, Hist. Ketz. ii. 328-384. Schl.] his rancour. Tr.] This account is derived from the original sources, especially from Eusebius, H. E. vi. 23. Photius, Biblioth. cod. cxviii. Jerome, de Viris Illustr. and Origen himself. It differs, in some respects, from that given by the common writers, Doucin, Huet, and others. [That Demetrius accused Origen of erroneous sentiments, is a mere conjecture of Mosheim. The early writers mention nothing of it, but state distinctly other charges as adduced by the persecuting bishop. And that Demetrius assembled two councils, is not clear: see Walch, Historie der Kirchenversamml. p. 92, &c. Tr.-See Neale's Hist. Patriarchate of Alexandria, i. 24. Ed.] VOL. I. CHAPTER IV. HISTORY OF RELIGIOUS RITES. § 1. Rites multiplied-§ 2. Public worship-§ 3. Administration of the sacred supper§ 4. Baptism-§ 5. Various other rites. § 1. ALL the monuments of this century which have come down to us, show that there was a great increase of ceremonies. To the causes of this, which have already been mentioned, may be added the passion for Platonic philosophy, or rather, the popular superstition of the oriental nations respecting demons, which was adopted by the Platonists, and received from them by the Christian doctors. For in these opinions concerning the nature and propensities of attendant spirits, the origins of many rites are to be sought. Hence arose public exorcisms, multiplication of fasts, and aversion to matrimony. Hence men were dissuaded from intercourse with those who either were not yet baptized, or had been excluded from the communion of the church; because such were considered as under the power of some evil spirit. And, to pass over other things, hence the painful austerities and penances which were enjoined upon offenders.' § 2. That the Christians now had in most provinces certain edifices in which they assembled for religious worship, will be denied by no candid and impartial person. Nor would I contend, strenuously, against those who think these edifices to have been generally now adorned with images and other ornaments.2 As to the forms of public worship, and the times set apart for it, it is unnecessary here to be particular, since little alteration was made in this century. Yet two things deserve notice. First, the public discourses to the people underwent a change. For, not to mention Origen, who was the first, so far as we know, that made long discourses in public, and in such discourses expounded the sacred volume, there were certain bishops, who, being educated in the schools of the rhetoricians, framed their addresses and exhortations according to the rules of Grecian eloquence; and their example met with most ready approbation. Secondly, the use of incense was now introduced, at least into many churches. Very learned men have denied this fact; but they do it in the face of testimony altogether unexceptionable.3 Whoever desires to look farther into this subject, may consult Porphyry, on Abstinence from Flesh; and various passages in Eusebius, Præparat. Evang. and Theodoret; comparing them with the Christian institutions. 2 [As yet no other than symbolical figures were used'-e. g. the good shepherd, the ship, the fish, &c. Robertson, i. 150. Ed.] Wm. Beveridge, ad Canon. iii. Apostol. p. 461; and his Codex Canon, vindicatus, p. 78. [The Christians originally abhorred the use of incense in public worship, as § 3. Those who had the direction of religious worship, annexed longer prayer and more of ceremony to the celebration of the Lord's Supper; and this, I suppose, with no bad intentions. Neither those doing penance, nor those not yet baptized, were allowed to be present at the celebration of this ordinance; which practice, it is well known, was derived from the pagan mysteries. That golden and silver vessels were used in it, is testified by Prudentius, among others; and I see no reason to doubt the fact, in respect to the more opulent Christian churches. The time of its administration was different, according to the state and circumstances of the churches. Some deemed the morning, some the afternoon, and some the evening, to be the most suitable time for its celebration. Neither were all agreed how often this most sacred ordinance should be repeated.* But all believed it absolutely necessary to the attainment of salvation; and therefore everywhere would have infants even partake of it. Sacred feasts in some places preceded it in others, followed. 3 §4. Baptism was publicly administered twice a year to candidates who had gone through a long preparation and trial,' none looking on but such as had been themselves already baptized. The effect of baptism was supposed to be the remission of sins: and the bishop, by the imposition of hands and prayer, it was believed, conferred those gifts of the Holy Spirit which were necessary for living a holy life. Of the principal ceremonies attending baptism, we have before being a part of the worship of idols. See Tertullian, Apolog. c. 42; and de Corona militis, c. 10. Yet they permitted its use at funerals, against offensive smells. Afterwards it was used at the induction of magistrates and bishops, and also in public worship, to temper the bad air of crowded assemblies in hot countries, and at last degenerated into a superstitious rite. Schl.] [See Christ. Matth. Pfaff, Diss. 2, de Prejudic. Theolog. § 13, p. 149, &c.; and Jos. Bingham, Antiquitates Eccles. 1. x. c. 5. Schl.] 2 Пeрl σTEдáv. Hymn ii. p. 60, ed. Heinsii [and Optatus Milevit. de Schismate Donatist. c. 12, p. 17. Schl.-The heathen prefect in Prudentius only mentions the use of costly vessels by Christians as a report, but the rumour was probably not without some ground. 'Hunc esse vestris orgiis Moremque et artem proditum est, Aurel, Prudent. ed. Valpy, p. 183. S.] days; and in times of persecution daily. [Dionysius Alex. (cited by Euseb. H. E. vii. 11) calls it alonтv μetà Toû Kupiov Ovvaywyhy. That children partook of it, is testified by Cyprian, de Lapsis, p. 184 and 189, ed. Baluze. See P. Zorn's Historia Eucharist. Infantum, c. 4, § 1, &c. and c. 6, § 3; also J. Bingham, Antiquitates Eccles, book xv. ch. 4, § 7. Schl.] 6 [Chrysostom, Homil. 22. Oportet hæresis esse, Opp. v. Schl.] [In the Apostolic Constitutions, book viii. ch. 32, a three years' preparation was enjoined; yet with allowance of some exceptions. Schl.] This may be placed beyond all controversy by many passages from the fathers of this century. And as it will conduce much to an understanding of the theology of the ancients, which differed in many respects from ours, I will adduce a single passage from Cyprian. It is in his Epist. 73, p. Manifestum est autem, ubi et per quos remissa peccatorum dari possit, quæ in baptismo scilicet datur. · Qui vero præpositis ecclesiæ offeruntur, per nostram orationem et manus impositionem Spiritum sanctum consequuntur. See also a passage from Dionysius Alex. in Eusebius, H. E. vii. 8. 131. |