THE

NEW YORK PUBLIC LIBRARY

PRESENTED BY

JReT.. , Wilt on Me _r 1 e Smi t h

^ .

29 August 1917.
C 'V^U^'C^^

Moskum
 HISTORICAL COMivifels' J ARIES

ON THE *>*\i'' ;\ ;,'

'>-'

STATE OF CHRISTIANITY
DURING THE FIRST THREE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIVE YEARS

FROM

THE CHKISTIAN ERA:

BEING

A TRANSLATION OF
"THK COMMENTAillES ON THE AFFAIRS OF THE CHRISTIANS BEFORE THE
TIME OF CONSTANTINE THE GREAT,"

BY JOHN LAURENCE VON MOSHEIM, D.D.

LATE CHwlNCELLOK OF THE UNIVEBSITY OF GOTTEXGEJI.

3ii tina l^fllunirs.

VOL. II.

VOLUME I. TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL LATIN,

BY
ROBERT STUDLEY VIDAL, Esq. F. S. A.

VOLUME II. TRANSLATED, AND BOTH VOLUMES EDITED,

BY
JAMES MURDOCK, D.D

NEW-YORK:
PUBLISHED BY S. CONVERSE.

1854.
 THE T:EW YORK
PUBLIC LIBRARY

ACTOr; LLNOX AND

itli-DIIN FOUNDATIONS j

fR 1918 Li

Entered according to Act of Congress, in tlie year one thousand eight hundred and fifty-ouev

By James Mcrdock,
in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Connecticut District

T>, Fanshaw, Printer and Stereotyper,

35 Ann, comer of Nassau-street
 COxNTENTS OF VOL. II.

Page.

The Ecclesiastical History of the Third Century,

§1. Christianity

2.
propagated
Christianity i)ropucrated
in

among
Arabia : Origin,
the Goths: Ulphilas,
....••
. . . •
1-411
1

—
3. Chribtianity

n. (1)

n. (3)
propagated in Gaul, Germany, and Scotland.
The first preachers to the Gauls,
(t2)

The first preachers to the Germans,

.....
....
General view,
.
2
3
3
4. Causes of the progress of Christianity : Miracles and Virtues of Christians 4
5. Persecution under Severus: at first light — General view, 5

n. (1) Christians often bougiit exemption from it, . 6

6. Severus prohibited conversions to Christianity. — General view. 7

n. (1) Tenor of his edict, p. 8 — Why so many suffered, p. 10. —Cause

of the Edict, 10

7. State of Christians under Caracalla and Heliogabalus. — General view, 11

n. (2) Mother of Heliogabalus, pious: he indifferent to Christianity 11

n. (3) Heliogabalus disposed to tolerate Ciiristianity, 12

8. State of Christians under Ale.xaiMler Severus — General view, 13

n. (1) Ilis mother, Julia .Mammaia, favored Christians, 13

71. (2) Whether Ale.xander was a Christian, discussed, 14
n. (3) The old persecuting laws unrepealed, 18
— General view,
9. The persecution under Maxiniin.
n. (1) It reached only the clergy,
n. (2) Not many put to death,
.... . 18
19
20
n. (3) Other can:<es produced persecution, 20
10. Tranquillity under Gordian and Philip — General view, 21
22
72. (1) Philip's reported conversion,
11. Persecution under Decius
n. (I)
— General
Cause of the persecution,
view, ....
examined,

.... 26
27
n. (2) Tenor of the edict, p. 28 —executed diversely, p. 29.
It introduced new modes of proceeding, 30
—The
n. (3) Numerous
12. Contests respecting the !a[)sed
apostasies, p 31.
— General view, .....
Liliellatici, who? 32
38

13. Contest
, n. (3)

n. (4)
Martyrs and Confessors absolved the lapsed,
C'yprian opposed to
between Cyprian and Novatus
tlie practice,
— General view,
..... .•J9

44
44
— Novatus gave ordination,
14.
n. (1) Its origin

Schism of Felicissimns
He
obscure, p. 46.
fled to

at
Rome,
Carthage
........
— General view,
p. 4C.
50
50
n. (1) A party opposed to Cyjirian, 51
n. (2) Character of Felicissimns, and grounds of his opposition, 52
— Novatus withdrew,
n. (3)
Proceedings of Cyprlau,
Council condemned Felicissimus,
p. 54.

..... 55
56
IV CONTENTS OF VOL II.

Poge.
15. Schism of Novatian at Rome. —General view, 59
7!. (1) ^iovatiau's character, 60, — and
p. opposition to Cornelius, . 61
n. (2) Novatus of Carthage, his adviser, 63
n. (3) Novatian condemned by a Council, 65
n. (4) The Novatian sect, 66
16. The Novatian doctrines examined. — General view, 66
He
n. (J)

72. (2)
But not from ail hope of salvation,
Novatian's idea of the church,
....
excludud gross offenders from the church, for ever,

..... i.
. 67
70
71
— General view,
17. The persecution under Galius.
7/. (1) Not so severe as
n. (2) Public calamities
some have supposed,
induced the people to persecute
..... . . .76
73
73

Cyprian's dispute with Demetrianus on this subject, . . 76

18. Disputes respecting baptisms by heretics. — General view, . . . .78
7?. (1) Points at issue : Effects of baptism. — Defects in that of heretics, 79
n. (2)

the parity of Bishops, in that age,

History of this baptismal controversy,
......
Contest between Cyprian and Stephen on this subject, shows

—
p. 81. It was first with
80

—
19. The
ceedings in
persecution under Valerian.
it,

—
.........
Asiatics and then with Africans,

.....
General view,
(p. 84.) Cyprian's pro-
84
91
72. (1) Valerian, first indulgent ; but prompted by Macrianus to persecute, 92
—
Motives of Macrianus,
New
n. (2) Valerian's
p. 93.

methods of proceeding adopted,

second and severer edict,
....
First proceedings in the persecution,

......
.
94
96
96
Mauy Christians of rank, then in the emperor's household, . 97
—
Cause of issuing the edict, p. 99. Edict revoked by GalJienus 100
Some martyrdoms after the revocation,
20. Persecution under Aurelian. — General view, ...... . . . . .100
100
n. (2)

72. (3)
Did Aurelian,
His motives for
at first, treat Christians

21. Efforts of Philosophers against Ciiristianity.

persecuting them,
—
..... kindly?

General view,
.

.
.

.
.

.
101
102
103
72. (3) Writings of Porphyry, Pliilostratus, and Hierocles, . . 104

22. First
They aimed to

Apuleius' Fable of the golden Ass,

movements ag. Christians, under Diocletian. General view, —
.....
lower Christ to a level with the Philosophers,

.
.

.
105
105
106
72. (I) Maximian, his colleague, a persecutor, . . . . 107
Story of the Thebaean Legion, fully discussed, . ... 107
Mosheim's judgment respecting it, . . . . . 112
72. (2) Persecution of Maximian in Gaul, ... . . .113
72. (3) Prosperity of the church, before the Diocletian persecution, . 115
23. Constitution and government of the church. — General view, . . . 115
72. (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
Bishop not excepted, ........
from Cyprian, of the parity of all Bishops ; the Romish
120
 CONTENTS OF VOL. II.

Page.
Yet priority of rank or honor was concedtd to the Romish Bishop, 123
n. (3) Reasons for creating the minor orders of the Clergy, 127
— General view,
24. Prerogatives of Bishops
n. (1)
much
Causes and proofs of the
enlarged, in this century.

Cyprian held, that God makes the Bishops

fact, ...... ; the church makes
128
128

the Presbyters ; and the Bishops makes the Deacons, . 131

Oa these principles he subverted the constitution of the ancient
church, 134
And his views spread and prevailed every where, 137
25. The morals of llie Clergy. — General view, 137
n. (1) Complaints of the corruption of the Clergy, 138
n. (2) Cohabitation of

How apologised
unmarried
for,

26. State of learning, and the Christiau writers, in this cent.

.......
priests with females, disapproved,

— General view,
138
139
141
n. (1)

n. (2)
Proof that
Works of the
human learning
Greek Fathers.
was undervalued,
....
Origen,
. 141
141
Julius Africanus, Dionysius Alex, and Hippolytus,
Gregory of Neocmsarea, Thaumaturgus, ....
....
. 141
142
n. (3) Works of the Latin Fathers.
Miiiulius Felix and Arnohius,
27. Philosophising Theologians: Origen. — General view,
......
Cyprian, 142
142
143
Origen a great man. Deservedly praised mach and censured much, 144
n. (1)
....
.......
Huet. defend.s him, in his Origeniuua, 145
Other apologists
Origen .....
for Origen,
truly great, in a moral view,
—
147
148

Saccas, .......
More learned than profound,
...
....'.
Origen's philosophic principles,
p. 149. A disciple of Ammonius
150
150
His views of the connexion of philosophy with Christianity,
His system of theology ; — the Trinity,
—Object of Christ's mission.
.... . l.=^4

159
Person of Christ,
Idea of the Atonement,
p. 160.

26. Origen's allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures.

.....
— General view,
. .
161
1G4
1G5
How mode
71. (1) fur Origen the author of
Causes leading him to

His system of interpretation stated

adopt it,
this

.... of interpretation.

in xviii Propositions,
.
166
170
173
Seven Rules for tlia application of his principles, . . 181
n. (2) Account of Origen's Hexapla,
S9. Origen's mystic theology.
He
— General view, ......
. . . . 189
190
n. (1) held all the fundamental principles of mystic theology,
His principles stated in xxi Propositions,

Paul
.... 190
191
n. (2) Rise of Eremitism, examined.
30. Origen's contests with his Bishop.
n. (1)
— General view,
Causes of disagreement, and history of
of Thebais,

tlie
....
contest,
&c. 198
200
201
31. Discussions concerning the Trinity and the Person of Christ — General view 209
n. (!) Councils condenmed Unitarianism but did not define Trinity in

Unity, 210
32. The Noetian controversy. — General view, . » . . , 210
 CONTENTS OF VOL. II,

n. (1)

n. (;2)
Sources of knowledge of
His system examined and fully stated,
it,

....
and account of the man, .

.215
^10
210
V. (3) In

33. Sabrllius, and

what sense he was a Patripassian,
tiie Sabellians. — General view, .....
....
' . . .

215
n
»j.
(1)

(2)
History of the man, and of the controversy,
The common statement of Sabellius' views, .... 21G
217

34. Beryllus of Bostra.

His principles examined, and correctly stated in
— General view, ...... vi. Propositions,
.
217
225
»j. (1) Eusebius'
35 Paul of Samosata.
71. (1)
account examined.
— General view,
His personal character examined,
.......
The

......
views of Berj'llus stated, . 226
228
229
His Ducenai ills Procurator explained,
office of . . . 230
n. (2)

n. (3)
Full account of the documents coucerning him,
His opinions stated in xiv. Propositions,

Proceedings of Councils ajainst him,

.....
.....
. . 232
23.3

23D
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
— General view, 244
38. Chiliasm Vanquished.
n. (1) History of Chiliasm in the early church,
Derived from the Jews, p. 245. —Spread
....
unrebuked in the 2d
245

Century, p. 246. —but was depressed in the 3d Century, 247

Assailed by Origev, 247. — Defended
p. by Nepos, p. 248.

39. The rise of

Different systems of
nearly exterminated
Manichaslsm. — General view,
it,
it, p.

......
249.

......
Dionysius of Alexandria
250
251
n. (1) Manes a prodigy of a man; — greatly resembled Mahommed, 252
Ancient documents, p 252 —
and modern writers on MauichsBism, 254
40. The life and labors of Manes. General view, — 255
— His
n. (1) His name, p. 257 history, according to the

His history, according to the Oriental Writers, ....Gr.&

— Details of the Oriental

Lat. writers, 257
258

n. (2)
Which account most

Manes
account, .......... credible, p. 259.

held, that Christ taught the vpay of salvation imperfectly,

2 59

and that he promised to send the Paraelete, i. e. Manes, to give

the world more full instruction, . . • . 262
Of course, his office was, (I) To purge the existing Christianity
—
from
ciencies,
its

..........
corruptions ;

Arguments, by which he sup])orted his claims,

and (II) to perfect, or supply its defi-

266
268
n. (3) He discarded the O. Test, altoget her and held the N. Test, : to

be so corrupted that it was not a safe guide, 269

n. (4) The Bema, or anniversary of Manes' death, how observed, . 274
— General view,
4L His two
n. (1)
eternal W^orlds, and
His mode of substantiating
two eternal Lords.

Beausobre's History of Manicha;ism,

his doctrines,

criticised,
....
....
275
275
275
Manes followed the Persian philosophy, and maintained two first
principles of all things, and two Lords, .... 276
 CONTENTSOFVOL.il. V^

Page.
n. C2) Full description of both worlds,

pr'vinces in each, ........ and of the^i-e elements and^i-e

276

43.
72.

Nature and
(3) Tlie two eternal and
characters compared and contrasted,
attributes of the good God
self-existing

— General view,
.....
Lords of these worlds

....
; their
283
287
n, (1) Manes' own description of — His substance
liim. I. is the pueest
and without form,
Yet,
light,

II.

He
he has perception and knowledge, .... 287
288
III.

his
has xii. Members,
world and representing himself,
or

IV. lie has innumerable Saecula, JEons, or luminous bodies

masses of
.....
light, revolving through

is-
288

suing from him, and acting as iiis 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. Tlie ManichjEan 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 oi God Vi shiuing /naSo, of 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 suu and moon. —This
point discussed, 298
n. (3) The H. Spirit is another shining mass, an cfllux from God, re-

siding in the ether.

men, and fructifies tlie earth,
He

Manes' doctrine of the Son and the H. Sp. coincided with the
......
enlightens and moves the minds of
302

44.
n. (4)

War of the
Persian doctrine of Mithras and the Ether,
Prince of darkness on the Prince of light.
....
— Genera! view, .
303
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 Life, and she
produced the First Man, a giant in human form, whom God

First
forces, ..........
sent as generalissimo to expel the Prince of darkness and his

Man was directed to use artifice rather than force, and to

306

bait the Demon with good matter, 308

First Man did so, p. 309 — .\nd 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
Manichaeans 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,

The
issuing from himself,
origin of our noxious animals,
. .

.
... . .
314
314
VIU CONTENTS OF VOL. II.

Page.
The whole was devised
celestial souls
45. Origin, composition,
fable

and character of Man.

with material bodies,
to account

— General view,
.....311)
for the juuclioii

.
of
315

n. (1) Manes' account of Adam's origin from Satan, is to be taken lite-

rally, and not, as Beausohre supposed, allegorically, 317

JWoncs' own statement, at large,
Augustines' more brief statement,
...
....
.

. 317
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
The 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

n- (2)
JVfanes' opinion of the nature

The origin and character of Eve,

Manes' ideas of Adam's
and origin of human

first sin examined,

.....
....
souls, . . 322
322
323

n. (3)
Statements of Tyrho, Manes, and Augustine,
The drawn out and arranged,
facts

Manes believed man to be composed

.....
of three parts
.

; viz.
.

a sinful
. 323
324

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
46. Formation of this world. Its structure and design. — General view, . . 330
n. (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

Of
darkness, consisted of celestial elements, either pure or defiled
with a mixture of evil

the pure and good Jire and good light, the sun
matter, ..... was formed ;
333

and of the pure and good water, the ?noon, . . . 333

Of the good air, probably, the ether of our world was formed, . 333
Of
were formed,
The earth was formed of the
.........
the matter slightly contaminated, our heavens and the stars

celestial matter, which was debased

334

and pervaded by evil matter, 334

The bad matter not combined with good matter, was excluded
from our world, and sei)arated by a wall or barrier, 334 . .

a. (3) Before he created our world, the Living Spirit imprisoned the
Demons in the air and the stars, 334
 CONTENTSOFVOL.il. IX

Page.
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, 338
n. (4) Our world is borne up by a huge giant called Omophorus, who

47 The mission and

n. (1) Christ's
is assisted by another, called Splenditenens,
offices of Christ. — General view,
mission had two objects ;
.....
Jirst, to accelerate
.

the re-
. . 338
340

— and, secondly, to relieve

covery of souls from defilement,
the wearied Omophorus,
He came
.......
from the sun, and assumed the shadow of a man, .
342
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 Munichteans 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) Manichtcans used the Bible language respecting Christ : but
Christ could jiot 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
themselves
men
for
the truth, and
a return to God,
The severe bodily mortifications of the Manichoeans,
......
showed them how to purify

. .
353
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

49. The
Tiiose of the bosom,
return of souls to the world of
n. (1) The H.
all

Spirit aids souls in freeing

related to sexual pleasures,
light. — General view, ....
themselves from defilement,
. . 365
366
367
n. (2) Repentance alonos 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

n. (2)
or brutes, or vegetables,
This transmigration is
.......
exceedingly faulty, they will pass into other bodies, of men,

disciplinary or reformatory. The rules

373

of it, 377
51. Liberation of (he Pass/i'e Jesus — 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 sou of First Man, whom the Demons
 CONTENTS OF VOL II.

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
n. (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
n. (2) The irreclaimable souls will be stationed on the frontiers of the

Our
world of
Demons,
light, as

....
a guard, to prevent future inroads of the
.... 387

53. The public

The
Worship
reasons for dwelling so long on the Manichaeau system,
general character of this system,
of the MauichEeaus. — General view,
.... 388
389
389
Tt. (1) They had no temples or altars, no images, and no love-feasts,
Their worship was very simple, and quite unobjectionable,
Prayers, hytnns, reading their sacred books, and exhortations
wiih their annual festival of Benin, and Sunday fasts and as
seniblies, were the substance of it, . . . . . 390
54. The private worship of the E/ec< — General view, 391
n. (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)

known,
55. Constitution of their Church.
..........
Tliey observed the Lord's Supper: but in what manner

— ......
General view,
is un
396
398
n. (1) A Pontiff, with xii Magistri, presided ovea Ix.xii Bishops, and

71. (2)
under each Bishop, were Presbyters, Deacons and Evange-
lists : all from amoug the

The community was divided

Elect,
into two Classes
.....
— ; the Elect or
399

Perfect, a very small Class, and subjected to a most rigorous

discipline ; — and the Auditors oi Catechumens, who married,
punsued worldly occupations, and lived much like other people, 399
— General view,
56. The sect of the Hieracites.
n. (!) Character,

I. He
life, and doctrines of Hierax,
regarded the whole Bible as inspired ;
....
and wrote allegor-
404
405

ical comments on it, . . . . . . . . 405

II Respecting God and the Trinity, he was orthodox, . . 407
III He
Spirit
considered Melchisedek as a representative of the
• ... Holy
407
IV. Christ, he supposed, merely taught a stricter morality than
Moses, 408
V. lie forbid marriage, flesh, wine, and all pleasures, . . 408
VI. Hi. rax taught tiiat 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
He enjoined a very austere life on his followers,
VIII.
IX.
X.
He denied the resurrection of the body,
He excluded from heaven all who died in infancy,
.... .

.
.

.
410
410
410
 CONTENTSOFVOL. II. ju

The Ecclesiastical History of the Fourth Century^ 412-481

1. The Pagan Priests urge a new Persecution. — General view, . . . 412

n. {_!) 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
Nicomudia, 420
Hierocles an adviser of it. p. 421. —Diocletian reluctantly con-

n. (2) The
sented,
Contents of the first

proceedings under this edict,

imperatorial edict, ..... 422
422-
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, . . 429
n. (2) These fires, and political disturbances in Syria and Armenia, pro-

A
duce a new
all

third edict required

edict, requiring

Christian teachers,
them
.......
the seizure and incarceration of

to be tortured into sacrificing to the

432

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
5. Civil wars, and the state of Christians, A. D. 30C-311. General view, — . 444
n. (1) Maximian's fruitless machinations against Constantine,
Revolt of IMaxentius, and the civil wars,
State of Christians during these wars, p. 448.
....
— In the West,
. . 445
446

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
In the year 311, Maximian, on his death bed, relaxed the per-

6. The
n. (3)

secution,
edicts of Constantine,
....
A. D. 312, 313. in favor of Christians.
....
— General
45ii

view, . . • 454
301 COKTENTSOFVOL. II.

Page,
n. (1) The first 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 Maximiau ;

and expelled the Christians from some cities, . . . 457

Subsequently he issued edicts favorable to them, . . . 458
In the year 311, Maximin died, and persecution ceased every-
459

n. (1) The
where,
7 Constautine's Conversion. — General view,
reality of Constautine's conversion proved,
. . .... . . .
459
460
Objections answered : viz. the first, from his vices, p. 4G0. —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
6. A short persecution by Liciuius. — General vi6w, 479
n (1) Authorities on the subject. — Motives and progress of the persecu-
tion, 4S0
 THE

ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY
OF THE

THIRD CENTURY.

§ I, Propagation of Christianity in Arabia. That the [p. 448.]

commonwealth were much extended during
limits of the Christian
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, head and leader of a tribe of those
as I suppose, the
Arabs who and have no fixed and permanent resi-
live in tents,
dence,) sent letters to this prelate, and to the prefect of Egypt,
requesting that the celebrated Orirjen might be sent to him, to
impart to him and his people a knowledge of Christianity. Ori-
gen, therefore, went among these Arabs and, having soon dis-
;

patched the business of his mission, he returned to Alexandria.(')

He undoubtedl}'- 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 Avars they waged with various success against
the Romans, 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 affected
VOL. u. 2
2 Century III. — Sectioti 3.

the minds of the barbarians, that they avoAved a willingness to

[p. 44:9.] 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 part of this race, and that
no small portion of them remained for a long time afterwards ad-
dicted to the superstitions of their ancestorsyet, as in the next ;

century Theopldlus, 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. Ecele.s. I. ii. c. 6. Paiilus Diaconus,}iht. Miscellan. 1. x.

c. 14. Philostorgius, Hist. Eccles. 1. ii. c. v. p. 470. Philostorgius states, that
the celebrated Ulphilas,yvho in the next century translated the Christian b'c'rip-

tures ijito the language of tlie 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 perliaps are fiilse.

(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, Dionysiics, Oatianus,
Trojihimus, Paulus, Saturninus, Martialis, and Streraonius, 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 some who fondly adhere to these fables of their ances-

are
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 Gitul, Germuny, and Scotland. 3

country was enlightened 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 Acta Martyrii Saturnini, in the Acta
Martyruni Sincera of Ruinari, pa. 109 ; and, in part, from Gregory of Tours,
Historia Francor. 1. i. c. x.\viii. p. 23, ed. Ruinart. The French anciently re-
ferred these seven persons, and the origin of the churches they founded, to the
first century. In particular, Dionysius, who was the chief man of the seven,
and the founder of the church at Paris, and its first bishop, was for many ages
believed to be Dionysius the Areopagitc, mentioned in the 17th chapter of the
Acts of the Apostles. But in tiie 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 his associates to the third century and to the times
of Decius. The tracts and discussions on this subject by Launoi, Sirniond,
Petavius, Puteanus, Nic. Faber, and others, are well known. The ancient
opinion, iiowcver, 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, numbers make the glory of their church to depend
since great
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 tiiey were sent. Gregory of Tours, Ilistoria Francor. 1. x.
c. xxxi. p, 527, says: Gatianum a Romanas sedis Papa transraissum 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 different times
separately. And otiier 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 and authority of the Romish bishop, removed to
by the direction
Gaul, where they could enjoy greater safety than at Rome and in Italy.
(2) Tlie people of Auxerre, for instance, commemorate one Peregrinus, who,
as they think, came likewise from Rome in this century, and laid the founda-
tion of tiieir church. See Le Bciif, Memoires pour I'Histoire d'Auxerre, torn. 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 are also mentioned by some writers.
(3) What the French believed respecting those seven men, witli none to
gainsay tiiem, the Germans also believed of Eucharius, Malernus, Clemens, anA.
others namely, that tiiey were disciples of the apostles, and that in the [p. 451.]
;

first century they established Christian churches in Germany, on this side

the Rhino and in Lorraine, at Cologne, Treves, Metz, and in other cities, and
governed the Churches they gathered, as their bishops. This opinion became
Buspicious to some learned men in the last century ; and in the present cen-
tury, it has been boldly assailed by Avgusline Calmet, 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 Eucharius and Maternus founded the Churches of Cologne and
Treves, in the third century, and (p. xvii. xx.) that Clemens did not found the
church at Metz prior to that time. To tliis learned man stands opposed the
commentator on the Acta S. Auctoris, in the Acta Sanctor. Antwerp, torn, 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 Honllieim, a man of vast learning, after considering the whole subject
with great care, aud weighing accurately the testimony, in a Dissertation de
Mx3. Fundati Episcopatus Trevirensis, prefixed to the first volume of his his-

tory, has fully due to Calmet than to his opponent.

shown, that more credit is

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 Malernus 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 cliurch. 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 otlier reasons, adduced by Usher and Slillingjleet in their Antiquita-
tes et Origines EcelesiaB 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 tlie many and
grave testimonies of the writers of those 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. we find testified by the best

452.] seriously question w^hat
men of the times, that God
by dreams and visions, excite
did,
not a few among the thoughtless and the enemies of Christianity,
so that they at once, and without solicitation, came forwartl 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 ofmany. 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 xinder Scverus. 5

merit tlie good will of all men, even of their enemies ; the un-
paralleled kindness to the poor, the afflicted, the indigent, to
prisoners, and to the sick, which 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 indifference to all human things, to evils
;

and sufferings, 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 Chris-
which produced and sustained so great virtues. And if, as
tians,

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 cm-
ployed by only a few, and with very little, if any success.

(1) Numerous testimonies of tlie ancients, respecting the miracles of this

century, might easily be collected. See Origen, contra Celsum, I. i. p. 5-7, and
in various other places; Cyprian, Epist. ad Donatum, i. p. 3, on which passage
Bleph. Baluze 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 o? New Cesaria are well known; and yet tiiere are some among them
which may be justly called in question. See Ant. van Dale's Preface 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. 0pp. tom. ii. p. 216. Tertullian,de
Animn, c. xiv. p. 348. Eusebius, Hht. 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.

V. Persecution under Severus. This zeal of Christians [p. 453.]

§
for extending and enlarging the church, Avas 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 Eoman
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
were put to death in various forms
injustice,
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) I cannot regard this practice as one of the least of the causes of the fre-

quent wars of the magistrates and men

power against Christians, contrary to
in

the laws and the pleasure of the emperors. For what will not avarice venture
to do ? The Montanists strongly condemned this practice and hence Terlul- ;

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 statist!, curristi 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 praeside, 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 ? Felices itaque pauperes (for these, being without money, were
obliged to suffer,) quia illorum est regnum coeloruni, qui animam solam in con-
fiscato hnbent . . . Apostoli perse cutionibus agitnti, qu;indo 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

thisway, 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 Tertullian, c. xiii. p. 700. : Parum
dcnique est, si unus aut alius ita eruitur. Massaliter totae ecclesiae tributum
sibi irrocraverunt. Nescio dolendum, an erubescendum sit, cum in mntricibus

Beneficinriorum et Curiosorum, inter tabernarios et lanios, et fures balnearum>

et aleones et leuones, Christian! quoque vectigales continentur. Moreover, as
 The Edict of Sever us. 7

appears from Tertullian, 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 the soldiers; which last deserves
particular notice, because we learn from it, that the magistrates directed the
soldiers to watch and break np, the assemblies of Christians and therefore,
for, :

these were to be pacified with money, in order that Christians might safely
meet together for the worship of God. Says Tertullian Sed quomodo colli- :

genius, inquis, quomodo Dominica solemnia celebrabimus? Utique, quomodo

et Apostoli, fide, non pecunia tuti quae fides si montem transferre potest, muho
:

raagis mililem. Esto sapientia, non praemio cautus. Neque enim statim,
(mark t!ie expression,) el a populo eris tutus, si ofBcia 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. (inWm. Beiereg-e's Pandectae canonumet
concilior. Tom. ii. 20.) he not only decides, that those are not to be censured
who purchase safety with money, but are to be commended ; and he encoun-
ters Tertullian with his own arguments. I will quote only the Latin, omitting

the Greek: lis, qui pecuniam dederunt, ut

omni ex parte ab oinni malitia im-
perturbati assent, crimen intendi non potest. Damnum enim et jacturam
pecuniarum sustinucrunt, ne ipsi animae detrimcnto aflicerentur, vel ipsam
etiam proderent, quod alii propter turpe lucrum non fecerunt, &c.

§ VI. The Edict of Severus against conversions to [p. 455.]

Christianity. were greatly augmented, when the em-
These evils
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 afifected only those recently converted, and those
who wished 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 Acta, illustrious

8 Centurij III. — Section 6.

monuments of antiquity, liave been often published ; and Pota'

miena^ a virgin of Alexandria, and lier mother, MarccUa, with
various others. Eespecting 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 j)laces 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 Cliristians under Severus, Eusebius treats,

Hist. Eceles. L. vi. cap. 1. &Ai. ; but only in a general way : for he neither re-
ports the law, nor tlie 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 Severufs, has told us the year, and stated the reason, of the persecution Vita :

Sever!, c. 16, 17. in the Scriptores Histor. Augustae, p. 617, 618. For he says,
that the emperor, 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 church, and commanded those to be punished,
who should forsake the religion of their fathers and embrace that of the Chris-
tians. Persons, tiierefore, 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 liad nothing to fear. But some learned men are not ready to l>elieve this.

For, perceiving what n multitude of Christians suffered deatli, 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 tiierefore conjecture, either that
Spartian hasrautihxted 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 cm 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 tliat 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 tiio
 The Edict of Severus. ^
Christians, tlian the one mcnlioncd by Spartiun, is contrary to all probaLility.
For, not to mention tiie silence of tiie ancient writers,
appears from explicit it

passages in Tertullian, that ihe emperor did not repeal those ancient laws which
f ivored Christians ; which he undoubtedly would have done, if he intended they
should be treated more severely than in former times. In his book, ad Scapu-
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 enim
ampHus tibi maiidatur, quara nocentes confessos damnare, negnntes autem ad
tormenta revocare? Videlis ergo quomodo ipsi vos contra mandata facialis, ut
confe>sos 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 Ciuistians. In the first place, sentence of death was to be
passed in nocentes confessos. The nocentes here, are tiiose " accused and con-

victed in a regular course of law." This is put beyond controversy [p. 467.]
by various passages in Tertullian, and also in this very passage, in which the
nccentes neganles 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 elogio, concussione ejus intellecta, dimisit, scisso eodem elogio, sine
Accusatore negans se audilurvm hominem, secundum Mandatum (ss. Imperatoris.)
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 Rcynan law. But, thirdly, the laws did not permit the magistrates, 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 torf^urc, they would change their determination. That the laws of Ha-
drian and Antoninus Pius, ordering that Ciuistians should not be put to death
unless convicted of some violation of the Roman laws, were in like manner not
repealed by Severus, appe:irs from another example of the governor Circiua
Severus, mentioned by the same Tertullian ; Circius Severus Thysdri ipse dedit
remedium, quomodo responderent Christiuni ut dimitii 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 different religion from the Roman, namely
the Christian ; but that the emperors forbid a Christian to be punished, unless he
was convicted of some crime, and they had never been guilty of any crime.

With an upright judge, this plea was sufficient. And it is not only certain, that
10 Century III. — Section 6.

Severus did not abrogate the imperial edicts favorable to the Christians, but it

also appears from Tertullian, that he constantly and to the end of his life re-

tained his former kind feelings towards them. For Tertullian says of iiim, after
his death: Sed et clarissimag feminas et clarissimos viros Severus sciens ejus
sectae esse, non modo non laesit, verum et testimonio exornavit, et populo
furenti in eos 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 lias stated, that he ordered the punishment,
not of all Clu'istians universally, but only of such as became Christians 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 1 An

answer is easily given. In ili&firat 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 Christinns willing to redeem their lives
with money, suborned accusers, and inflamed the people, in order to e.xtort
money ; and they actually put some confessors to death, to strike terror into

the more wealthy, and make them willing compound for their lives. In the
to

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 apostucy. For he who instigates another to commit aci^e, is more cul-
pable than the transgressor. It was therefore a necessary consequence, that
many of the Christian teachers were condemned. Lasllij, thosA 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. 5 42. p. 269.; namely* that the emperor's'
victory over the Jews, who had disturbed the public tranquillity by a recent in-
surrection, ga^e rise to this edict. That this Jewish insui'rection 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 But Spartian couples the law against the Christians with
controversy.
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 Heliogabalus. 11

gested to the emperor, that there was equal danger from the Christians, and
that if their numbers and strength should become augmented, they might make
war upon the Romans who worshipped the gods. This argument had great
effect upon tlie superstitious emperor. And tliere is little force in [p. 459.]
what is opposed to this supposition, by certain learned men, who, foUowino-
Tillemont (Memoires pour I'Histoire de I'Eglise, torn. iii. P. I. p. 487.) say, it ap-
pears from Jerome's Chronicon,thatthe war against tlie Jews occurred in the fifth
year of Severus, but that tiie law was not eniicted 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
language is opposed to this idea, he distinctly stating that tliere were two laws,
one against the Jews and the other against the Christians Severus could not
;

be so ignorant of the affairs of his own times, as to confound the Christians

with the Jews. There were Christiana in his own family; and with some of
them he lived in intimacy.

§ VII. The state of Christians nnder Caracalla and IIeIio;;abalus.

Severus, having died at York, in Britain, in tbc year 211, was
succeeded b}- his son, Antoninus^ surnamed Caracalla, who better
deserved the title of tyrant than that of emperor. Yet, under
him, the persecution which his father had excited against the
Cliristians, 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, does 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 Elagahalus, a prince of the most abandoned character, and
a monster of a man. Yet, he also, did nothing against 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 Rome ; and
Alexander Severus, the son of Mammaea, whom Elagabalus had
adopted, and had constituted Cffisar, 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, fron which it

appears that the commeuQement of Caracalla's reign was sullied by the execu-
tion of many Christians in Africa.
(2) Some learned men think, Caracalla had kind feelings towards Christians
and in favor of this opinion they cite the authority of Tertullian and [p. 460.]
12 Century III— Section 7.

Spartian. The former^ in his work ad Scapvlam.c. 4. p. 87, recv^rds, tli.it Anto-
ninus Caracalla lade Christiano educaLum fuisse, which, undoubtedly ui(;ui3,
that he was nursed by a Christian mother. Tne latter, in his life of Camcalla,
(in the Scriptores Hist. Augustae, torn. i. p. 707,) relates of him, that when
seven years old, Quum coHusoreui suum pueruni ob Judaieiim religionem gra-
vius verberatuiu audivi-set, neque patrem suum, neque patrem pueri, vel auc-
tores verberum din respexisse : that is, he was exceedingly offended at the
injury done to his companion. From these two testimonies, learned men have
supposed, that it may be inferred, the Cliris'.ian mother of Caracalla instilled
into him a love of her religion, along wiih her milk; and th;it thi'^ led
huu to so great indignation towards the persons who had punished his com-
panion on account of his religion. Tliey, moreover, do not hesitate to say,
that by Judaica Religiu in the passnge from Spariian, should be understood the
Christian religion ; because it is certain, that Christians were tiequently con-
founded with Jews by the Romans of those times. But to me, all this appears
Tery uncertain. To begin with the last assumption, I cannot easily persuade
myself, that Spartian meant Christianitywhen he wrote Jewish religion for it ;

appears from other passages in his book, that he was not ignorant of the wide
difference 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 fiiend 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 any 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 friei.dship of this very cruel emperor.
(3) There is a passage in the life of Heliogabalus by Larnpridius, (c. 3.

p. 796.) which seems to indiciite, that this emperor, though one of the worst of
men, was destitute of hatred to the Christians. It is this: Dicebat prajterea
(Imperator) Judaeorum et Samnri;anorum religiones et Christianam devotionera
illuc (viz. Rome, where he would have no other god to be worshipped, besides

Heliogabalus, or the sun, of which he was himself pi'iest,) tr^msferendain, ut

omnium culturarum (i. e. all forms of divine worship,) sccretum Heliogabali
sacerdotium teneret. Although more obscure than I could
this passage is

wish, yet the following things can, I it. I. That Helio-

think, be learned from
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 i)lace, he wished to ha\e 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 these
ceremonies to improve and embellish the worship paid to the sun. IJeliognba-
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 '^wn
 Alexander Sever us. l3

way, so that the priests of the sun, by intercourse with them, might Itarn their
most secret discipline. Such an emperor could liave no thoughts of persecut-
ing the Christians.

§ VIII. state of Christians under Alexander Severus. Under

Alexander Severas, tlie Christians saw better times, than under
any of the preceding emperors. The principal cause of their
peace and tranquillity, was Julia Mammcea, 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.C) 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, the}'- 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, thu
mother of Alexander, as a convert to Christianity. See Joh. Rud. [p. 462.]
Welstein: Prsefatio ad Origenis Dialogum contra Marcionitas who thinks, uith
;

others of great authority and learning, that credit must be given to so numerous
testimonies. But the older historians, Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. L. vi. c. 21.
14 Century III. — Section 8.

p. 223.) and Jerome, (Calal. Scriptor. Eccles, c. 54.) speak dubiously. The
former characterises Julia as S-soa-s/Sja-TdT*, and the latter styles her religiosa.
And both that Origen was invited by her to the court, which was then
tell us,

at Antioch, and that 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 Eusebius 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 sevei'al excellent men to believe, that she continued
an adherent to the religion of her ancestors. A fuller discussion of this sub-
jectmay be found in Fred. Spanheini's Diss, de Lucii Britonum Regis, Juliae
Mammaeae et Philiporura 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, torn. i. p. 901,)

styles her Sancta 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 (io-TTivh) quickly returned
home. If I am not deceived, this is evidence, that the avaricious Julia, who
was very greedy of wealth, found no great satisfiiction in the discourses of
Origen, who was a despiser of wealth, and contented with poverty and there- ;

fore, she soon sentl)aek 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.] imperare, mulier sancta, sed avara et auri atque argenti cupida. And
a little after, (c. 26. p. 924.) he says : In matrem Mammaeam unice plus fuit.

The distinguishing kindness, therefore, of the emperor towards Christians,

would seem to be attributable, not so much to liis judgment and wisdom, as to
his deference to his mother.

(2)There are some who rank Alexander Severus himself among the Chris-
tians. And thoughthis 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 the
difficulty. In an ingenious dissertation, de Alexandro Severo Christianorum
sacris per Gnosticos initiato, he endeavors to render it probable, that Alexander
listened to some Gnostic teacher, and embraced that form of Christianity which
 Alexander Severus. 15

the Gnostics professed: but that he dissembled his real opinions before the
people, which was a thing allowable among Gnostics, and publicly worKhipped
the Roman Gods, but privately worshipped Christ. This dissertation of the
learned Jablonski, is found in the JMiscellaneis Lipsiensibus novis, of the ex-
cellent Fred. Otto Me7icken,{tom. iv. P. i. p. 56-94.) The sole foundation of
this opinion, (for all that is brought from Lumpridius 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 : Ma. Luce. These notes he would have U3
Sal. Don. Alex. Fil.

read and interpret thus Solus Donata Alexandra Filio Mammccae Luce (ss.
:

Christi, this name being expressed by the Monogramm.) Charles du Fresne

had previously referred this gem to Alexander Severus, in his Diss, de Inferiorig

ffivi Numismat. ^ 24. contrary to the views of Gisbert Cuper, who (in his notes
on Lactuntius de Mortibus Persequutor. p. 239.) would refer it to soma
emperor's son of the name Alexius. Tobias Eckhard also, (in his 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

thi-i opinion: and he finds gem, not a probable argument,

Q II. p. 71.) in this
(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 arc subjoined to Alex.
Fil. in the gem ; and which he tiiinks cannot possibly denote any other person
than Mammcca. He says, (J II. p. 70.) : Sunt autem illaj Lilteras indicio certis-

simo, nullis machinis elidendo, Gemraam hanc sculptam

esse in honorem et
memoriam Alexandri Mammteae. But, to tell the truth, I must [p. 464.]
Fiiii

confess that I do not see what there is, that compels us to understand by these
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 Mammaa, I see not how he can
be forced to give up his conjecture. If the word Irnperalor, or the abbreviation
Imp. had been prefixed to the name Alex, the person might feel some embar-
rassmcnt. But in the gem, as the learned author admits, there is nothing 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 friend-hip for
the Christians, and will show that nothing more can be inferred from them, than
tliat 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 rescrvavit. Christianos esse
passus est. From this, only a moderate degree of benevolence can be proved.
The emperor f.ivoied the Jews, more than he did the Christians. For he re-

stored to the former, the pri\'ileges 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 no
enactmenta against them. Yet he did not abrogate the old, unjust, and vexa-
tious laws, as we shall presently see; so that the favor which lie conferred on
was yet but moderate. It is meritorious to sus-
the Christians, though real,
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 Lainpridius, (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 his chamber for private worship, for he says Matutinia :

horis in Larario suo, (in quo et divos et principes, sed optime electos et animas
sanctiores, in quels et ApoUonium, et quantum scriptor suorrum temporum dicit,
Chrixtum, Abraham et Orpheum, et hujuscemodi Deos habebat et majorum
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 Miscellanea Lipsiens. (torn. iii. p. 42.)

Tins learned man aims to prove, and, in my opinion, does successfully prove,
that it cannot be inferred from this passage, that Alexander paid divine hoirora
to our Saviour. All that appears from it, is, that Christ had a place assigned
him by the emperor, among the animcc sanctiores, i. e. the men distinguished for
sanctity, piety, and wisdom; and that he was accounted not inferior to Apollo-

[p. 465.] niua, 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 was paid by the emperor to Jesus
Christ: we will admit also the truth of the facts stated, although a strenuous
disputant might call them in question, since Lampridius mentions only a single
witness for them ; and lastly, we will admit, that the historian here gives to

Christ the title oi Deus, or that the words: El hujuscemodi Deos

"God;" and
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-
in"" only in rites, regulations, and modes of worship. For he coupled together
the three chief perionages of the three most distinguished religions of his times,
the Gentile, the Christian, and the Jewish ; namely, Orpheus, (that great master
of the my.stories 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

principadLararium, and esteemed as Did, were not in his opinion holy persona,
and patterns of virtue and wisdom. For as Lampridius tells us, (c. 32. p. 936.)
Consecraverat in Lnrario niajore 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, rscorded by Lampridius, (c. 43.
 Alexander Sever us. 17

p. 995>) namely; Christo templura facere voluit, euinque inter divos recipere.
He would, therefore, only assign Ciiristianity a place among the other religions,
and not recommend it to his people as the onlj' religion that was true and
worthy of God. This will appear more clearly from the grounds of his giving
up the design Sed prohibit us est ab iis, qui consulentes sacra, repererant,
:

omnes Christianos futuros, si id optato evenisset, et templa reliqua deserenda.

For this passsage 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 paid to Christ; but he would have it
so done, that the Roman gods should not be neglected. And when he learned,
that these gods would be despised, if Christ siiould be enrolled among them,
he would rather have divine honors withheld from Christ, though worthy 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. 466.]
gods of the Romans. The old imperial laws against the Christians were an
obstacle to 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 fall 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 a less degree than learned men suppose. The
8t;itement is: Ubi aliquos voluisset vel rectorcs provinciis dare, vel praipositos
facere, vel procuratores, nomina eorum proponebat dicebatque grave esse,
quuni id Christiaiii et Judiei facerent in prajdicandis sacerdotibus, qui ordinandi

sunt, non fieri in provinciarum rectoribus, quibus et fortunaj hominum commit-

terentur et capita. Not to notice that tJie 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 arc entrusted
the lives and fortunes of the citizens ? No man could talk thus, if he believed
that 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 and prosperity of the citizens, as more important than the sal-
life

vation of their souls, fur which the Christian priests labored.

Similar remarks are applicable to the judgment which Alexander is said to
nave passed, in a litigated case between some Christians and the hucksters ; in
Lampridius, c. 49. p. 1003: Quum Christiani quemdam locum, qui fuerat pub-
lieus, occupassent, contra pro])inarii dicerent, sibi eum deberi rescripsit, melius
;

esse, ut quomodocunque illic Deus colatur, quam propinariis dedatur. These

VOL. n 2
18 Century III. — Section 9.

words show a religious mind, and are somewhat commendatory of the Cliris-
tian religion ; for the emperor admitted that the Christians worshipped God
and, on that 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 Quo?nodocunque leaves it doubtful, whether the Christian mode
of serving God was to be approved or was faulty. Such language does not in-
dicate a man who viewed Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and the only ( I will not
say Saviour, but) 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 tibi fieri non
vis, alleri ne feceris, that he ordered it to be inscribed on the palace and on thd
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. c. 28. p. 228.) that the 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 emperor, obsequious in
everything to a mother who loved the Christians, suffered her to take Christiana
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 sacrilegEB et disputationes jurisperitorum (in Christianos)
leguntur injustae. Domiiius de officio proconsulis rescripta principum nefaria
coUegit, 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 Vlpianus, whom Alexander entrusted
with the chief administration of the See Francis Baldwins Comm. ad.
state.

edicta Principum Roman, de Christianis, p. 101. &c. 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, tliat under this mildest and best of emperors, the judges
in several places governed their conduct towards Christians, by the laws which
Ulpian 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 llmam Octob. et diem 22dam Novemb. Yet Theodore Ruinart, (Prsef.
ad Acta Martyr, sincera et Selecta, § 47. 48.) does not conceal the facts, that
he regarded most of them as dubious.

I IX. The Persecution under

Maximin. This tranquility of the
Christians was disturbed bj Maximin the Thracian, whom the
 Persecution iinder Maxlmin. 1'9

soldiers created emperor, when Alexander Severus was slain, in

the year 235. Maximin was actuated, not so much by Qo. 488.]
hatred of Christianity, as hj fear^ lest the Christians should seek
to avenge the slaughter of their beloved Alexander ; and he
therefore did not order all Christians promiscuously to be exe-
and doctors hoping that when these
cuted, but only the bishops ;

were removed, the Christians, being deprived of their leaders

and guides, would remain quiet and attempt nothing to his in-
jury. (') Perhaps also, the tyrant did not purpose the death of
all whom he had known to
Christian bishops, but only of those
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 the governors. And hence, we readily agree with those who
maintain, that the Christians were harrassed, in various places,
dui'ing 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 fomily of Alexander Severus, which was filled with
Ciirlstians, commenced a persecution against the Christians. But he adds, that
the emperor ordered only the bishops {dfxo^f*! rdv iKKKtia-ioyv,) to be slain, as
being the authors of evangelical instruction (din'ouc Twt Kara E'vayyc\iot>
These statements are in conflict; if I am not greatly mistaken,
cTiJ'aTKaXiaj).

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 tliem, 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 («aToj) anger or hatred, in Eusebius, to denote /ear combined with
hatred: for those whom we dread or fear, we naturally hate. Th« tyrant was
afraid, lest the family of the murdered emperor should conspire against him, and
strive toavenge the death of their excellent lord and therefore, he pursued
;

them with violent hatred. To free himself from this fear, 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 III.— Section 9.

and guides, would attempt nothing very formidable against him.

their advisers

Undoubtedly, some one who professed to be acquainted with Cln-istian affairs

had suggested 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.
Although Eusehius says, that Maximin commanded all the Christian
(2)
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 faith into a large part of his family. The chief of these wag
Origen, 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 Oi-osius, who says, (Histor. L. vli. c. 19. p. 509. ed.
Havercamp.) Qui maxime propter christianam Alexandri et matris ejus Mum-
:

maeae familiam, persequutionem in sacerdotes et clericos, id est, doctores, vel

praecipue propter Origensm prcsbyterum 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, Amhrose, a man of great distinction, and
Proloctelus a presbyter; who were first treated with great indignity and abuse,
and then banished to Germany by order of the emperor. See Eusehius, 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
Sulpilius Severus, (Hist. Sacra, L. ii. c. 32. p. 247.) Maximinus nonnuUarum
:

ecclesiarum 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
family.

[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. tom. i. p. 137,
ed Lat.) that earthquakes occurred in some places, and that the people, as usual,
 Gordian and Philip, 21

attributed the calamity to the Christians, and therefore inflicted great evils up-
on them. See also his Exhortalio ad Marlyres, which he wrote in the reitrn of
Maximin. Tlie same cause, and not the cruelty of Maximin, produced the suf-
ferings of the Christians in Cappadocia and in the adjacent regions; which,
however, were augmented by the injustice of Serenianus the governor. Thus
Firmiltian testifies, (in his Epistle to Cyprian, among the Epistlolae Cyprianicae,
No. Ixxv. p. 146, ed Baluz.) Ante viginta et duos fere annos, temporibus post
:

Alexandrum Imperatorom, raultae, istic conflictationes ct pressurae acciderunt,

vel in commune omnibus liominibus, vel privatim Christianis; terrae etiam motus
plurimi et frequenter extiterunt, ut et per Cappadociam et per Pontum multa
Bubruerent, quaedam etiaui civitates in profundum receptae dirupti soli hiatu
devorarentur, ut ex hoc (not in consequence of the imperial edict.) persecutio
quoque gravis adversum nos Christiani nominis fieret, quae post longam retro
pacem repente oborta de inopinato et insueto malo ad turbandum populum
aetatis
nostrum terribilior effecta est. Serenianus tunc fuit in nostra provincia praeses,
acerbus et dirus persecutor. Hence, the Christians were not persecuted in all
the Roman provinces, but only in those which had previously suffered greatly
from tliese natural calamities. For thus Firmillian proceeds: In hac autem
perturbatione constitutis fidelibus, et hue atque illuc persecutionis raetu fugien-
tibus, ct partrias suas relinquentibus, atque in alias partes regionura transeunti
bus, (erat enim transeundi facultas, eo quod persecutio ilia non per totum mun-
dum, sed localis fuisset,) emersit, &c. But, certainly, tlie persecution would have
pervaded every part of the Roman had been commanded by an impera-
world, if it

torial edict. To express frankly my own

I can hardly persuade myself
views,
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 tlie 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.]

min being slain, by the African legions, in the year 238, Gordian, a
mere boy, was created emperor; and, by means of his father-in-law,
Misitheu-s, a man of great energy, he so conducted the government

for six years, as to place the Christians in perfect safet3^ But,

being unable to prevent the murder of Misithcus by Philip the
Arabian, he was, the next year, himself shiin by the same man,
who had usurped the ofl&ce of Praetorian Praifect. From the
year 244 this 3f. Julius Philip, with his son of the same name,
as the Ci>3sar, governed the Eoman 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 the writers, that both these
Philips privately renounced the superstition of the futile gods,
22 Century III. — Section 10.

and embraced Christianity. But whether this report states a fact,

or only a vulgar fable, originating from the kindness of the em-
perors towards Christians, has been disputed with gi'eat earnest-

ness by "Whoever will candidly and impartially

the learned.
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) There are extant many very grave and learned discussions respect-
ing 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 The most important of them are enumerated
cursorily.

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. Omitting
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. c. 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
:

bishop'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 Leonlius, bishop of Antioch, (an ancient writer who
lived in tlie time of Constantius,) preserved in the Chronicoii 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 Christian ? 23

sumed so much authority over the emperor. See the Chronicon PaschaJe, thes.
X. et xiiL ad ann. 253. p. 270. Chrysostom also, in his Oration in honor of St.
Babylas, (opp. torn. L p. 658, 659, ed. German.) mentions this heroic act of the
bishop, but without giving the name of the emperor. To this testimony of
Easebius, learned men add his declaration in his Chronicon, ad ann. 246. iu the
translation of Jerome: Philippus primus omniu7n ex Romanis Imperatoribus
Christianus fuit : with which Jerome himself agrees, in his Catalog. Scriplor.
Eccles. cap. de Origene. —To break down this chief bulwark of those who place
Philip among the Christians, those of the contrary opinion exert themselves
greatly : and Fred Spanheim, (in his Dis. de Christianismo Philippi Arabis, § 1

&c. Opp. tom. ii. p. 418.) has carefully collected all the arguments, which can
be thought of. Yet they all resolve themselves into a few, if we carefully ex-
amine the prolix discussions of these great men. The amount is, that Eusebius
does not cite any specific and suitable testimony, in support of his narrative
but says himself, that lie learned what he states from common fame : his words
are,Kartx,*' Xi-yof, fame has ii —that Leontius also drew his account merely
from public rumor, handed down by tradition, nara S^id'a^n}! , per traditionem —
that Chrysostom, 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 reasoning,
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 may be
the contemporary writers: and yet they
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 fiilsehood of
a story, to show it only on fame: Investigation is to be
that the historians base
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, there 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 Eusebius states as
derived from fame, in his Chronicon he states as being certain : and in this he
is followed by Jerome, as already shown. Consequently, unless the truth ol
this fame 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 Eusebius, (Hht. Eccles. 1. vi. c. 36. p. 233.)
To elude the force of this argument, the learned men who exclude Philip from
the clnss of Christians, advance many things, which truly had better have been
omitted. They, for example, question the genuineness of these epistles ; they
doubt whether Eusebius ever saw them, &.c. They remark, that Eusebius and
24 Century III— Section 10.

Jerome, who both speak of these epistles, do not in all respects agree ; for
Eusehius says, Origen wrote to the emperoi-'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
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 For why may not a Christain write to one who is not a Chris-
Christian.
tian ? A by letter, exhort a person alienated from Christianity,
Christian may,
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 ihird argument of those who make Philip a Chris-
tian, derived from the Ada S. Po7ilri ; (edited, with improvements, by Steph.
Baluze, Miscellaneor. tom. ii. p. 493.) For, the advocates of the Romish
church themselves dare not deny, that these Ada 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 Philip himself, which
no sober, intelligent man, acquainted with antiquity, will ever admit to be true.
It is probable that this whole fable was invented by some person who wished
to add strength 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, Euti/chius (in Annal. Eccles,
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 borrow-ed from the narrative of Eusebius, so that the
whole story ttills And learned men say this, with some ap-
back upon him.
pearance of truth. For many of these 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 authoiic
ties for their statement, besides Eusebius. As to the various other arguments —
in favor of Philip's Christianity, derived coins, from some of his
from certain —
of his enactments, —and
from the regard for Christ, exhibited by his wife
Severn ; 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 Philij) a Chrislian ? «i5

futed. We will only notice those arguments, in which there appears a dcoree
of weight not to be contemned.
In \\\(i first phice, they remind us of the fact, that all the writers of impera-
torial iiistory ;ire wholly
any conversion of Philip to the Christian
silent, as to

faith. And they add, tiiat many of the Christian writers, and Eusebius at the
head of them, (in Vita Constantini Mag.) distinctly state, that Constantine the
Great, was the of all the emperors that embraced Christianity.
first But the
dissidents are from quailing before this argument. They sny, that Philip
fiir

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 hence
the writers of Roman history, and also Julian, and some others, were ignorant
of his renunciation of the old religions, ilnd they say, that the Christian
authors, who declare Constantine to be the
first Christian emperor, are not to

be understood as speaking absolutely, but only as representing Constantine to

be the first of all to profess Christ, openly, fully, and without disguise and, on ;

that account, he was properly and deservedly called the 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 Eusebius 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 openly pro-
fessed himself a Christian. 'EtJ ixovu tuk vuiiroTi ^^trTlavuv S'tapavut dnoS'ttx^cVTl
Koi/a-TotvrivM. When he says that Constantine was the first who openly
worshipped Christ, he seems to intimate, that there were others be-
(tT/a^itvojO

fore him, who {dS'ia.p:tvo)i) secretly and covertly professed Christ and thus he ;

apparently explains the meaning of all those, who, with himself, had placed Con-
stantine first among the Christian emperors.
Secondly, the very flagitious life which Philip led, both before and after his
access to his imperatorial power, is urged by learned men, in opposition to such
as would account him a Christian. Although many go too far in explaining
and amplifying this argument, and set down some things as flagitious, which

deserve a milder and softer name ;

yet it is beyond controversy, that very deep
stains are found upon the life and conduct of this emperor. But I think, those
change the question, who would infer, from the vices and crimes of Philip,
that he disbelieved the Christian religion. The question is not, whether Philip
was worthy of the name of Christian, and lived a life conformable to the pre-
cepts of Christianity. If such were the question, the argument from his
flagitious would be wholly unexceptionable. But the question is, whether
life,

he regarded the Christian religion as more excellent and true than the Roman,
or, in other words, as divine. This he might do, and still lead a very wicked
life. If all those are to be stricken from the list of Christians, whose morals
and actions violate the precepts of Christianity, Constantine himself, can
hardly, if at all, maintain his place among Christian emperors.
Thirdly, learned men say, the secular games, celebrated by Philip with
great pomp, in the thousandth year of the city, are opposed to the supposition
ihat he had embraced Christianity. For these games originated in the supersti-
26 Century III. — Section 11.

tion of the old Romans, were sacred to the gods, and embraced rites that were
[p. 476.] absurd and wholly incongruous with Christianity; and yet Philip
omitted none of these sacrilegious ceremonies, he immolated victims to the gods,
and exhibited the customary spectacles in the Campus Martins, in the circus.
and in the theatre and of course, he sedulously performed all those acts,
;

which it would be an abomination for a Christian to perform. I will not deny,

that here is the strongest evidence that Philip was not such a Christian as he

ought to have been, if indeed he was a Christian, at the time when he celebrated
these games, of which there is doubt and uncertainty. Yet all these unbecom-
ing acts might be done by a prince, who fully believed the truth of the Chris-
tian religion, but was eager to give stability to his government, solicitous to
please the Roman j^eople, studious to conceal his real opinions respecting religion,
and willing to give the name of prudence to this impious dissimulation. Men
of such a character think many things to be allowable, which others, very
justly, regard as criminal. And who does not know, that the Christian emperor
Honorius, permitted the secular games to be celebrated at Rome, in the fourth
century, with tlie omission of some of the most impious of the ceremonies?
The fourth argument adduced by the learned, to disprove the Christianity
of Philip, is derived from his coins, on which are found images of the gods,
and other indications of the grossest superstition. This argument has already
been impugned, by the remarks before made. And, not to repeat what has
long since been urged by others, that we find not a few marks of the ancient su-
perstition on coins of the acknowledged Christian emperors ; who can think it

strange, that an emperor, solicitous to keep the people ignorant of his secret
conversion to Christianity, should have suffered his coins to be struck in the
ancient form of the stale ? Even if Philip had been truly pious, there would
have been a very plausible excuse for his conduct; and the more so, in propor-

tion to the certainty that conclusive evidence of a prince's religious creed, can-
not always be deduced from his coins. It is also to be remembered, that many of
these coins were not struck by his order, but by the colonies and free towns,
in honor to him.
Upon a deliberate and candid comparison of the arguments on bolh sides
of the question, the religion of Philip appears to me to be one of those sub-
jects,on which a controversy may be so maintained, that the victory shall ever
remain dubious. All parties, however, must acknowledge the fact, that under
him, the Clu'istians enjoyed peace and prosperity, and that he gave many proofs
of his marked kindness to them. And yet, just before his death, (as we learn
from Eusebius, or rather, from Dionysius of Alexandria, as quoted by Eusehius,
Hist. Eccles. L. vi. c. 41. et L. vii. c. 22.) there was a serious insurrection of
the infuriated populace of Alexandria against the Christians. Such assaults
were experienced under the mildest and best emperors.

[p. 477.] § XI. The Persecution under Decius, Philip, after

reigning five years, wasyear 249, and was succeeded
slain in tlie

by Decius Trajanus^ a prince, in many respects commendable, but

superstitious, and immoderately attacbed to the old Eomisb
 Tlie Decian Persecution. 27

religion. He, in the very beginning of his reign, either from fear
of the Christians, whom he knew to cherish the memory of
Phihp, or fi'om the promptings of superstition, (') issued terrible
edicts against the Christians, commanding the governors and
magistrates, on pain of incurring themselves the severest animad-
versions, to either wholly exterminate the Christians, or recover
them to the service of the gods by tortures and the rack. From
what is handed down to us respecting this persecution, it appears
that it was conducted differently by those intrusted with its exe-
cution some proceeding more violently, and some more gently
;

and this seems to prove, that the emperor, only in general,

ordered the Christian worship to be suppressed, and the Chris-
tians forced to return to idolatry ; but left the mode of proceed-
ing, and the kinds and degree of punishment, to the discretion of
the governors. (") Very many lost their lives during this perse-
cution, in all parts of the Koman empire, and among them the
distinguished bishops of the larger cities, as Fabian of Eome,
BuJnjlas of Antioch, Alexander of Jerusalem, and many others.
But, to the extreme grief of their pastors, vast numbers of Chris-
tians, preferring the enjoyments of this life more than religion,

procured for themselves safety, by sacrifices or incense presented

to idol gods, or by the purchase of certificates that they were
idolaters. And hence arose the reproachful titles of Sacrificati^
Thurijicati, and Libellatici,denoting those guilty of these several
forms of perfidy towards Christ.(')

(1) Eusebiiis (Hist. Eceles. L. vi. c. 39. p. 234.) saj-s, tliat Decius assailed
the Christians, (Tgoj <i>/a<ttcv i^^cui htK*,) from hatred to Philip : but Gregory
of Nyssa, (in Vita Greg. Thaumaturgi, 0pp. torn. iii. p. 567. 568.) says, that his
attachment to the religion of his country, which was everywhere shorn of its
dignity and respectability by Christianity, and the vast numbers adhering to it,

alone induced this emperor to enter on a persecution of the Christians. These

motives are not so incongruous, but that they might both coexist. Perhaps,
however, it will not be rash to suppose, that the same motive influenced Decius
as had before influenced ^faxtmin ; namely, a fear lest the Christians [p. 478.]

should seek to avenge the death of Philip, who had greatly patronised them,
and by raising insurrections, endanger the new administration. I am the more
inclined to favor this conjecture, because the violence of this persecution very
quickly abated. For we learn from Cyprian, (Epist. 36. 37. 40.) that scarcely
a year elapsed, before tranquillity was, in a great measure, again restored to the
church. The emperor finding his power well established, and perceiving that
the Christians made no disloyal attempts against him, silently abrogated the
28 Century III. — Section 11.

edict, which his fears had dictated. His impassioned cruelty wcu.d have been
more permanent and abiding, if it had originated from his superstition.
(2) The tenor of Decius' edicts against the Christians, can be learned only
from some passages in the early writers who ;idvert to them, and from the pro-
ceeding of the masgistrates who executed them ; for the edicts themselves are

lost. Bern. Medonius, indeed, published at Toulouse in 1664,4to. what he termed,

Decii Augusti Edictum contra Chrisiianos, taken professedly from an ancient
manuscript boolv. But TiUemont has shown, (Memoires pour servir a I'Hist. de
I'Eglise, torn. iii. P. ii. p. 400.) that the document contains many things, which

make its genuineness doubtful, altliough it contains much that agrees very well
with the statements of the ancient writers. If I can judge, this edict was copied
from the Acta of some Saint, and enlarged in some respects, and corrected in
others, by the publisher, to make it agree better with the statements of the an-
cients. And, undoubtedly, Medonius would have told us, to what book he was
indebted for so great a treasure, if he himself had ventured to rely on its

authority. — It is beyond all dispute, that this edict of Decius was more cruel and
unjust than all that preceded it, and particularly, than the rescript of Trajan.
Dionysius of Alexandria, (apud Euscb. Hist. Eccles. L. vi. c. 41. p. 238.) pro-
nounces it {ipa>liifi(i'TctTov) horrible or terrible : and he says, it was such, ut ipsi
Uiam electi, si fieri posset, scandalum pa/erentur ; and he adds, that all Christians^

on hearing of it, were exceedingly terrified. It must, therefore, have threatened

evils beforeunheard of, and have orescribed a new method of assault on Chris-
tians, more formidable than any preceding it. Gregory of Nyssa, (in Vita
Gregorii Thaumat. 0pp. tom. iii. p. 5G8.) states 1. "That the emperor in his —
edict, commanded the governors and magistrates to bring back the Christians to
the worship of the gods, by every species of punishment and terror." — That 2.

he threatened the governors and magistrates with severe and signal penalties, if

they were remiss and negligent in the execution of this his mandate. — Hence,
3.

all the governors, in obedience to the mandate, neglecting all other business,
immediately commenced torturing the Christians ; and expounding to them the
edict, they signified to them, that such of them as refused to renounce Chris-
tianity, would be subjected to every species of punishment, and even to death^
[p. 479.] for such refusal. — 4. That various kinds of
unheard torture, before
of, were invented and the terrible instruments for lacerating and torturing
;

their bodies, were exposed in public for all to behold. 5. That all this pro- —
duaed amazing terror, and universal commotion. What we learn from other —
writers, Origen for instance, respecting the tenor and import of this horrid l.aw,

only confirm these statements in general, without adding any further light con-
cerning them. Undoubtedly, the edict embraced all sorts of Christians, or
those of every order, age, and sex from the examples of
; for this appears

those who suffered at Alexandria, as narrated by Dionysius of Alexandria,

(apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles. L. vi. c. 41. &c.) There is, however, a noticeable pas-
sage in Cyprian, (Ep. 52. ad Antonianum, p. 69. ed. Baluz.) from which we
learn, that Decius, (as Maximin before him had done,) wished to have the
Christian priests and bishops made the principal subjects of the persecution;
and therefore, when Fabian, the Romish bishop, had been slain, he prevented
 The Decian Persecution. 29

the election of another bishop to fill his place. Cyprian says of Cornelius,
the successor of Fabian : Sedit intrepidus Romae in sacerdotal! cathedra eo
tempore, cum tyrannus infeslus sacerdotibus Dei fanda atque infanda commina-
retur, cum multo patientius et tolerabilius audiret levari adversus se £eniulum
prineipem, quam constitui Ronice Dei sacerdotem. If we consider the state-
ments of Dionysius, (in the above-named passage of Ew^ebius.) those of
Cyprian, (in his tract de Lapsis, and in various of his Epistles,) and those of
some others, respecting the zeal of the governors and magistrates in executintr
the emperor's edict, there will appear a great diversity in the modes of proceed-
ing and punishing. As Cyprian expressly states, (Epist. 7. 8. 15. 26. 37. 53.)
Some cast the Christians who boldly confessed Christ, into prison : and, after
some delay, such as utterly refused to submit, tiiey sent into exile. Others
subjected the Christians who confessed, to exquisite tortures, variously modi-
fied and protracted for many days, and then remanded them almost lifeless to

the jails, where tliey left them to languish out life. And hence at the death of
Decius, many Christians were found lying in the prisons, and were set at lihorty.
of which number the celebrated Origen was the most distinguished, lie having

suffered exceedingly under Decius but he was restored to his liberty after the
;

slaughter of Decius. See Eusebius, (Hist. Eccles. L. vi. c. 39.) Others, first
tried the effects of imprisonment in overcoming the resolution of Christians;
and then tried the efficacy of tortures; and, these proving insullicient, tiicy sen-
tenced them to a capital punishment ; but not all in the same form. The more
cruel doomed them to the flames, the more lenient ordered them to be de-
capitated ; and thus, some in one way, and others in another, they inflicted
death on those they accounted pernicious and guilty citizens. Yet amid this
variety in the mode of proceeding, there was still one constant aim. For we
see, that they all tried, in various ways, to induce the Christians to renounce
the profession of Christianity ; they all proceeded tardily and reluc- [p. 480.]

tantly to the punishing with deathand, lastly, they all pursued a more severe
;

and rigorous course with the ministers, and especially with the bishops, than
with others, and put them to death with less delay. What the mode of pro-
ceeding was in Africa, may be learned, in some measure, from the tract of
Cyprian de Lapsis, (in his opp. p. 182.) In the first place, the accused or sus-
pected were allowed by the judge a certain number of days, during which they
might consider and make up their minds, whether to profess Christ, orto deny
him. Explorandcc fidei prcrjiniebanlur dies. During this period they remained
at home and free ; and, as appears in the sequel, no one opposed their seeking
safetyby absconding. This was sufficiently humane. In Egypt, as we learn
from an epistle of Dionysius, (apud Euseb. ubi sup.) immediately after accusa-
tion, confession was extorted ; confession was followed by imprisonment, im-
prisonment by torture, and torture by capital punishment ; and very often all

these followed in rapid succession. Many of the Christians did not hesitate to
avail themselves of the liberty granted them by the indulgence of the gover-
nors, to take time for deliberation. But Cyprian was displeased with it, and
enjoined upon his flock to decline the favor: Sed qui sacculo renuntiasse memi-
nit, nullum Sfficuli diem novit ; nee tempora terrena jam computat, qui astemitfu
30 Century III.— Section 11.

tern de Deo sperat. Nemo, fratres dilectissimi, nemo hanc glomm mutilet,
nemo incorruptara atantium firmitatem maligna obtrectatione debilitet. From
the concluding words of this exhortation, it would appear, that the more count-
geous among the African Christians would not avail themselves of the privi-
lege offered by the governors, and were blamed for it bj^ some, who, undoubt-
edly, accused them of imprudence. After the time for deliberation had elapsed,
those who remained silent, and would neither profess Christ nor deny him,
were held by the judge to be confessed Christians Cum dies negantibus prse. :

stitutus excessit, quisquis professus intra diem non est, Christianum se esse
confessus est. Therefore, such of them as had not fled away, and could be
found, were apprehended and thrown into prison. But many fled, before the
time expired ; and these were publicly proscribed, and their goods confiscated.
Says Cyprian : Primus victorise titulus, gentilium manibus apprehensum Domi-
num confiteri. Secundus ad gloriam gradus est, cauta secessione subtractum
Domino reservari. Ilia publica, heec privata confessio est. —Hie fortasse dilatus
est, qui patrimonio derelicto, idcirco secessit, quia non erat negaturus. Cyprian
himself fled, and suffered the penalty of Those
flight, the loss of his property.
whose constancy could not be overcome by imprisonment, were sometimes
banished, with no additional punishment sometimes they were put to the ;

rack and frequently, when nothing would induce them to renounce Christ,
;

they were subjected to capital punishment.

To one who attentively considers what has now been stated, it will be evi-

dent, that the persecution of the Christians by the mandate of Decius differed
[p. 481.] from all the former persecutions ; and that the mode of proceeding in it,
was not according to the first rescript of Trajan, nor according to the edicts of
the succeeding emperors. The governors now possessed the amplest powers for
whereas before they had to wait for an accuser to appear; any one
inquisition,
80 disposed might act the accuser, without regard to legal forms nor was there ;

any danger attending accusations public accusations of the people, which the
:

former imperatorial laws forbid, were now admitted as appears from the exam- ;

ple of Cyprian; those who professed adherence to Christ, and refused to re-
nounce were not ordered at once to execution, as the law of Trajan
their tiiith,

directed, but were exposed to severe tortures neither were all who withstood ;

the force of torture, put to death but many were either kept in perpetual im-
;

prisonment, or were sent into exile. It is easy, therefore, to conjecture what

the edict of Decius, of the atrocity and cruelty of which the Christians so much
complained, prescribed. The emperor did not order the Christians to be slaugh-
tered : he did not absolutely command, that even those who could not be sub-
dued by sufferings and torture, should be put to death : for, if he had commanded
the capital punisliment of all, whom torture and the rack could not bring to
renounce Christ, the governors would not have dared to discharge many from
the prisons alive and to shut up others who had been tortured, in places of con-
;

finement ; and to grant to others a season for consideration, after they had with
great constancy professed themselves Christians; as was sometimes done in

Egypt, according to Dionysius as quoted by Eusebius. The emperor, therefore,

must have charged the magistrates only, in general, to destroy the Christian
 The Decian Persecution. 31

religion ; to carefully search out all the professors of it, and to punish those who
refused to worship the gods with all sorts of torture and sufferings, until they
would return to the religion of their fathers. Perhaps, however, he commanded
that bishops and priests, on refusing compliance, should be at once put to death>
in order to strike terror into others. He did not prescribe the mode of proceed-
ing against those wlio, on being admonished, refused to renounce Christ, but
left it to the judgment and discretion of the governors : and hence that diversity
in the proceedings of the magistrates with Christians, some proceeding more
mildly, and others more harshly. Tliat many of the governors consigned to the
sword or the flames, a large part of those whom the rack and the prison could
not subdue, can by no means prove, that Dccius commanded the execution of
all the persevering. For the governors had power, without any mandate from
the emperor, to put those to death, whom neither force nor fear, neither argu-
ments nor persuasives, could induce to worship the god.s;by virtue, not only of
the law of Trajan, which threatened death to such as would not forsake Christ,
but also by the common law of the empire, which declared all who should not
—
obey the imperatorial edicts unworthy to live. As to the rewards and honors
which, I find some moderns say, were proffered to those who would apostatise
from Christ, I do not discover a notice of them in any ancient writer. Perhaps
some of the governors attempted to entice here and there an individual, [p. 482.]
to whom they were favorably inclined, by this allurement but that any empe-
;

ror should have sought to secure the obedience of lii.s subjects, by promises,
persons of any acquaintance with Roman affairs will not easily believe.
(3) All the persecutions sustained by the Christians in preceding times, had
not produced so many deserters and apostates from divine truth, as this single
short one under Decius. Persons of all ranks, and, what is especially remark-
able, even bishops and priests, scarcely waited to be informed of the tyrant's
threats, before theyhastened to the tribunals of the governors and magistrates,
and professed themselves ready to worship the gods and to disclaim Christ.
This defection or fall of so many Christians, was deeply deplored by Cyprian,
among others, in his eloquent treatise de Lapsis. This distinguished writer
attributes the evil to the indulgent, luxurious, and degenerate course of life
produced in Christians by the long continued peace, particularly under Alex-
ander Severus and the two Philips ; for only a very few, in certain provinces,
experienced the hostility of Maximin. Freed from solicitude and caution, the
Christians had relaxed much of their contempt of this life and its concerns, and

had in many places contracted vicious habits. This must be believed, on the
autliority of a man perfectly acquainted with the state of Christians in his own
times. And yet, I apprehend, there will be no mistake in assigning an addition-
al cause, and supposing that the peculiar nature and form of the persecution
instituted by Decius, induced more persons to violate their plighted faith to
Christ, than ever before. Trajan decreed death to every avowed Christian
who refused to forsake Christ, making no mention of tortures and racks and :

much the same were the edicts of the other persecutors of the Christians but :

Decius threatened, —not a capital punishment, but long and painful sufferings,
to the despisers of the godsj and a lingering, protracted death, amid varied
 32 Century III— Section 11.

Buccessive tortures, to the more resolute professors of Christianity. And hia

governors executed his threats with great exactitude; they ordered no one to
be put to death, unless he was first subjected to numerous tortures, and ex-
hausted and almost dead in consequence of his pains and horrid sufferings ; and
many also were tortured, until they actually expired. Some of the governors,
in order to strike greater terror into Christians, ingeniously contrived new
modes of and exposed the instruments of the executioners, publicly,
torture,
before the eyes of all. This was a far more efficient way to destroy courage,
and inspire dismay, than the punishments of the preceding times. Men who
are not afraid to die, will look with horror on long continued writhing pains,
and lacerations of the body ; and this horror will be increased by seeing many
examples of such extreme cruelty and inhumanity.
Among the lapsed during this bloody persecution, in addition to the Thuri-
ficali and Sarificati, that is, those who had presented incense before the images
of the gods, or placed victims and sacrifices on their altars, we find notice of a
new class of which there is no mention before this period, namely, the LibellO'
tici. Who these were, the learned are not agreed. In regard to this question,
[p. 483.] the following particulars are true beyond all doubt; First, that the
term Libellaticus was derived from (libellus) the written paper, which those
called Libellatici either presented to the judge, or received from him ; Secondly,
that these persons had redeemed theu* lives, and procured safety from the
emperor's edict, by means of money. And this, as we have before seen, wag
neither a new thing, nor regarded as base and improper. By the disciples of
Montanus, indeed, it was considered as impious to purchase life and safety with
money ; but the rest of the Christians condemned this ilontanist opinion :

and thirdly, this is certain, that the Libellatici did not renounce Christ, either in
words or deeds ; that is, tliey neither payed worship and honor to the gods, nor
concealed or dissembled their own religion. And yet they committed an act
bearing some affinity with this crime, and one which, when carefully considered,
might seem to be a tacit proof of a denial of Christ. Lastly, that the Libellatici
were tiie least criminal, or if you please, the best among the lapsed, and, with
little trouble, obtained reconciliation with the church. The two following
questions, however, have been especially debated ; Whether the Libellatici
were so denominated, from the Qibelli) papers ihay gave in, or from such as they
received ? and". What was the tenor or contents of these libelli, from which they
derived their name 1 This discussion founded wholly on the interpretation
is

of some rather obscure passages in Cyprian: for Tie only makes distinct mention
of the Libellatici ; notwithstanding there is good evidence, that such persons
were found in other countries than Africa ; for avarice reigns every where, and
life is every where more valued than money. To recite the various opinions
and conjectures of the learned, is not in accordance with my plans, nor would
it be of much use. It will be more pleasant, and more profitable, to cite the

passages of Cyprian, and give their true interpretation. In the first place, it is
clear that those learned men have not duly considered the subject, who sup-
pose the Libellatici were thus named on account of their (libelli) petitions

presented to the governor or magistrate, requesting the judge, on the payment of

 The Lapsed, 33

a certain sum of money, to spare the petitioner, and not demand of hira a pub-
lic renunciation of his religion. For, not to mention that it cannot be showa
that such petitions to judges were allowed of, and that on the contrary, it
appears from Cyprian, (as we shall soon see.) that the Libellatici
appeared per-
sonally, or by tiieir agents, before the judge, and implored his clemency, not in
writing, but by oral statements only; —
I say, not to insist on tliis, although it
is of great weight in this controversy, — the
Christians, by presenting such pe-
tilions, would been guilty of no offence. For, as already shown, the laws
liave

of the church allowed Christians to petition the judge, either orallv, or in

writing, to spare them, and to offer him money as an inducement. A Libellati.
CMS, therefore, was a Christian who obtained from the magistrate, by some
pecuniary consideration, a (libellus securitalis) cerlijkate of securiltj, in wiiich it
was stated, that he had complied witii the emperor's edict, tiiat is, had sacrificed
to the gods, although in fact he had done no such tiling, and had told the
judge that his religion utterly forbid his doing it. On account of this cerlififate,
whicli the Christian produced if occasion requitx?d it, he was publicly bv the
citizens regarded as a deserter from his religion, while in reality he [p. 484.]
was no deserter of it. The judge practised deception, by giving the certificate;
and the Christian practised deception by it, and suffered himself to be mistaken
for an apostate. And herein properly consisted the ofl'ence of tlie Libellatici;
for this tacit profession of perfidy, although it was mere .simulation, seemed to
differ but little from a real and open profession of it. This view of tlie subject
is, for the most part, admitted by PrudaUius Maran, in his life of Cyprian,
(} vi. p. liv. &c.) prefixed to the Baluzian edition of Cyprian's Works. Yet he
rejects it in part ; for lie denies, that these certificates declared the holders of
them to have complied with the emperor's edict: this, he thinks, would have
been too gross a falsehood. He therefore supposes, that the judges entered
upon the public records, that the persons holding certificates had sacrificed and
renounced Christ, but they omitted this in the certificates. Tiiis worthy monk
was not destitute of erudition, but he had little acquaintance with human .'iffairs,

and aiming to bring forth something new, he brought it forth ; but under un-
favorable auspices. Good sense forsook him. As to the {Acta) 'public records,
in which he thinks it was written, that the holders of certificates or the Libel-
had offered sacrifices, I shall say nothing. He took this from a passage
latici,

in Cyprian,misunderstood so that the fact of such a record, is not proved

;
j

although it is not contrary to all probability. But when he maintains, that

what was written in the book of Records, was not inserted in the certificates of
safety, he forgets the demands of Decius' edict, which required the governors to
extirpate the Christian religion, and to compel all Christians to offer sacrifices
and worship the gods. The governors, therefore, could not, unless they were
willing to incur the penalties, with which, as before sliown, the emperor's edict
threatened them, grant safety, and certificates thereof, to any others besides
those who had complied with the emperor's edict. And therefore, beyond con-
tro-versy, it must have been staled in the certificate, that the holder of it had

done what the emperor required. Such a public testimonial was supposed to
be written in good faith, although written in bad or deceptive faith ; and there-
VOL. II. 4
34 Century III. — Section
>
11.

fore it exempted those who produced it, frcm all fear and danger. It may bo
added, moreover, that Cyprian, (as we shall presently see.) calls those certifi-

cates, not only impious, but also cerlijicaies of idolatrij. (Epist. 68. p. 119.);
Basilides et jMartialia nefando idololatriae libello contaminati sunt. These cer-

tificates could not have merited such epithets, if they had simply assured certain
Christians of their safety, making no mention of their having paid honour to
the gods. What, I would ask, is a certificate of idolatry, (libellus idololatriae,)
but a certificate declaring the person an idolater, or asserting that he has wor-
shipped the gods? Lastly: if the fictitious crime of the Christian Libellatici had
been entered on the records of the court, but not rnentioned in the certificates,
the holders of the certificates could not have made that use of them, which they
especially desired to do, before other judges; because these judges might de-
mand of them, to commit in their presence the act, of which there was no
mention made in the certificate.

Let us now turn to the principal passages in Cyprian, relative to the LibeU
[p. 485.] and see whether they accord with what has been stated.
latici, The
most noted of all the passages is in his Epistle to Antonianus (Epist. 52. p.

70.) Cum ergo inter ipsos, qui sacrificaverunt, multa sit diversitas, quae
: incle-

mentia est et quam acerba duritia, Libellaticos cum iis, qui sacrificaverunt, jun-
gere, quando is, cui libellus acceptus est, dicat : Ego prius legeram et episcopo
tractante cognoveram non sacrificandum idolis, nee simulacra servum Dei ado-
rare debere, et ideirco ne hoc facerem, quod non licebat, cum occasio libelli

fuisset oblata, quern nee ipsum acciperem, nisi osiensa fuissel occasio, ad magis-
tratum vel veni, vel alio eunte mandavi, Christianum me esse, sacrificare mihi
non licere, ad aras diaboli me venire non posse, dare me ob hoc prasmium, ne
quod non licet faciam. Nunc tamen etiam iste, qui libello maculatus est, pos-
teaquam, nobis admonentibus, didicit, nee hoc se facere debuisse, etsi manus
pura sit, et os ejus feralis cibi nulla contagia polluerint, conscientiam tamen ejus
esse pollutant flet, auditis nobis, et lamentatur. From this extract the following
things are manifest :
—
1. The Libellatici had paid no worship to the gods, they

had not even touched meats offered to the gods, and consequently they were
far more innocent than the Sacrificati. — 2. They procured certificates, lest pos-

sibly, if arraigned before the tribunals, they might commit these crimes through
dread of torture. —
Not at their own solicitation, but at the suggestion of
3.

others, the judges asked them to order certificates to be written for them or, ;

as Cyprian expresses it, while they were not contemplating such a thing, an
occasion was offered them for petitioning for a certificate. That is, the avaricious
magistrates perceiving a prosperous, wealthy person among the Christians, sig-
nified to him, privately, through their satellites or friends, that his safety might
be secured, and exemption from suffering purchased, with a moderate sum of
money; thus him the clemency of the judges. 4. The Libellatici did
proffering —
not present the magistrate, but went to the judge, either
icrilten petitions to

personally or by some friend, and orally made known their wishes, presenting,
at the same time, the price of the favor asked for. Cyprian reports the lan-
guage they used. This method of proceeding was necessary to the magistrate's
eafety. If they had allowed written petitions to be presented by those who
 The Lapsed. 3&

wished to obtain certificates of safety without sacrificing, the very petitions

mio-ht lead to the easy detection of the fraud. Those conversant witli the pro-

ceedin<Ts of men, well know that such transactions being derogatory to the law,
ana counteracting the designs of the sovereign power, are never done in writing,
but always orally. This leads me to wonder the more at those who conceive,
that the Libellatici were so called from the (libelli) written petilions which they
presented.— 5. Some of these Libellatici applied personally to the judges, while

others signified their wishes through the medium of friends. For some sup-
posed they would be less criminal, if they did not themselves attempt to bribe
the judge, but employed others to do it. Some, again, I suspect, were afraid to

appear personally, lest the judges, on their professing themselves Christians,

should at once seize them, and cast them into prison ; and, therefore, tliey em-
ployed some worshipper of idols, who had nothing to fear, to present [p. 486.]
the request, pay the money, and receive the certificate in their name. — 6. It is

manifest that the Libellatici received a writing from the judge whom they had
bribed ; for Cyprian twice mentions the {libellus accepius) writing or certificate
received. And this writing or certificate protected them against all prosecutions,
or attempts to compel them to worship the gods.
Another passage, in an Epistle of the Roman Clergy to Cyprian, (inter Cy-
priani Epistolas, Ep. 31. 0pp. p. 42.) is not quite so lucid, and yet sufficiently
so to confirm the preceding statements : Superioribus litteris nostris (a letter

not now e.\tant,) vobis sententiam nostram dilucida expositionc protulimus, et

adversus eos, qui seipsos infideles illicita nefariorum libellorum professione pro-
diderant, quasi evasuri irretientes illos diaboli laqueos viderentur, quo non
minus quam si ad nefarias aras accessissent, hoc ipso quod ipsum contestati
fucrant, tenerentur, sed etiam adversus illos, qui acta fecissent, licet prajsentes
quum fierent, non affuissent, quum prsesentiam suam utique ut sic scriberentur
mandando fecissent. Non
enim immunis a scelere qui ut fieret imperavit:
est
nee est alienus a crimine, cujus consensu, licet non a se admissum crimen, ta-
men publice Icgitur, et cum totum fidei sacramentum in confessione Christi
nominis intelligatur esse digestum, qui fallaces in e.xcusatione preBstigias quserit,

negavit, et qui vult videri propositis adversus Evangelium vel edictis vel legibus
satisfecisse, hoc ipso jam paruit quod videri se paruisse voluit. From these —
—
words of the Roman clergy we may learn: 1. That the Libellatici were ac-
customed libellos nefarios proftteri, in presence of the judge; and by such
professione se ipsos infideles prodere. What is here meant by libellum profileri,
the writers of the Epistle presently show it is, to direct or require that some-
;

thing be written, or that a libellus be drawn up. This will be perfectly manifest,
to one comparing the expression with what follows it. Those therefore greatly
err, who make profileri libellum here to be equivalent to offerre judici libellum.

It is rather, to profess to the judge, that they stand ready to receive a libellum
at a certain price, or to request one from the judge, tendering him money
2. What was written in the certificate tlius asked for, is clearly indicated in the
following words: cujus Consensu, licet non a se admissum crimen, publice legitur.

The person then who solicited a certificate, consented, thai a crime, which he had
never commilled, should be publicly imputed to him. The crime referred tu, was.
36 Century III — Section 11,

undoubtedly, that of sacrificivg. It is therefore certain, tliat the certificates

stated that sucli and sucli pcr^ons had sacrificed to the gods. And this, more-
over, is confirmed by the folluwing words : Videri vult proposiiis adversus
Eiangelium vel edictis vel legibus salisfecisse ; paruit, quia faruisse videri

toluii. Consequently, the governor testified in liis certificate that Caius or

Seius had complied with and satisfied the emperor's edict ; and he who (pro-
Ulehatur) declared his willingness to receive the certificate, consented that the
judge should so state concerning him, although the statement was false. The
[p. 487.] words pnhlice legitur may lead some to conjecture, that the certificates
thus granted were posted up publicly in the Praetorium, so that all might read
them. And were so but it is not necessary to put this con.struc-
perliaps they ;

tion on the words. For any thing may be said (puhlice legi) to be publicly read,
which is frequently read in public, which is shown and must be shown, to all
who ask to see it and therefore is liable to be read by every one. Maran, who
;

thought it evident from this expression, that the fictitious criminal act was not
stated in the certificate, but only recorded on the court records, did not recol-
lect, that these court records were not read publicly, nor could all have access
to read them. Moreover, the language here used shows most conclusively, that
it must be understood of written papers received from the judge, and not of
papers presented to him. For how could a LibeUaticus. in a paper of his own,
confess a crime which he had not committed? How could he affirm that he had
complied with the emperor's edict? — 3. Hence it is clear what the Roman
priests mean, when they say that the exhibitors of these certificates proclaimed

themselves unbelievers. For when a man professes before a judge, that he is

willing to have a crime publicly attributed to him, which, however, he would
shudder to commit, he betraijs his infidelity ; that is, he makes it known, that he
will not publicly profess Christ, and that he is unconcerned, if the public should
regard him as an apostate. —
These things being kept in sight, it will not be
4.

difficult to apprehend the meaning of the Roman Clergy, when they say Libel' :

laticos irretientes diaboli laijueos evadere velle, at non minus teneri, quam si ad

nefarias aras accessissent, quod hoc ipsum contestati fuerant. The Laquei Diaboli,
which might irretire, or lead men to forsake Christ, were imprisonment, the
Tack, and the tortures wherewith the governors, by command of Decius, sought
to bring Christians to a renunciation of Christ. And the Libcllatici, although
they had not gone to the forbidden altars, nor offered sacrifice to the gods, yet
were equally guilty, in the view of the Roman priests, because they had attest-
ed to (hoc ipsum') this very thing, namely, their going to the altars and oflTering

sacrifice. They had not indeed themselves attested to this ; but, with their

consent, the judge had attested it ; and he who approves the act of another, by
consenting to it, is justly considered as a cause and author of it and one who ;

authorises another to charge him publicly with a crime, in a sense charges it

upon himself. — 5. What we learned from the former passage, is also manifest

from this, namely, that the Libellatici did not present (libellos) written requests

to the judge, but either went to him themselves, or sent their authorised agents

to solicit from him a (libellus) written certificate. Prudentius Maran fancies that
tlie words Acta fecissent, here indicate the (Acta Judicii) Records of the Court;
 The Lapsed. 37

a most unhappy conceit : as if truly, entries on the court records might be

made by was the business of the public nota-
the petitioners to the court ; tliat

ries. In this place, Adasame with lihellum. profiteri: for the

facere is the
Roman clergy are here speaking of those (Ada) ac/s, which were unavoidable, bv
suc^i Christians as would secure their safety by means of a (libellus) certificate.
We subjoin a third passage from the tract of Cyprian {de Lapsis, [p. 48S.]
c. 27. p. 1 90.) : Nee sibi quo minus agant poenitentiam blandiantur, qui etsi
nefandis sacrificiis inanus non contaminaverunt, libellis tamen conscicntiam
pollucrunt. Et ilia professio denegantis contestatio est Christiani quod fuerat
abnuentis. The learned hesitate in regard to the meaning of this p:issage;
because it is concise and rather obscure ; and yet, by proper attention, wo
may easily discover its import. The Professio denegantis is, the Professio lihelli

of a Christian, who denies before the judge, that he can or will offer sacrifice.
This will appear, if we compare the first passage above cited with the one be-
fore us. This Professio libelli is the Contestalio or testimony of a Christian,
abnuenlis id, quod fuerat, i. e. denying that he is any longer a Chrislian, which
he before was. For, he who permits it to be stated, (in libello) in the certifi-
cate, that he has offered sacrifice, virtually denies that he is a Christian, by
allowing the title and glory of a Christian to be taken from him. Fecisse se di.xit

(namely, by the judge, who wrote as he desired,) quicquidalius/aciencfocommisit.

Cumque scriptum sit; non potestis duobus Dominis servire, servivit gaeculari
Domino qui obtcmperavit ejus edicto (i. e. the person who consented to have it
written, that he had obeyed the Deciari edict,) magis obaudivit humano imperio,
quam Deo. Vidcrit an niinore vol dedecorc vel crimine apud homines publiea-
verit, quod adniisit. Deum tamen Judiccm fngere et vitare non poterit. To
avoid prolixity, I will not continue the explication of this passage, notwithstand-
ing it is ill understood by many; for it contributes but little to elucidate the
subject under consideration.— Among the other passages in Cyprian relative to
the Libellalici and their certificates, there are none which throw additional liirht

on the subject, or add weight to the arguments already adduced, e.xccpt a pas-
sage in his Epistle to Fortunatns, (de Exhortatione Martyrii, c. 11. p. 271.)
where he cites the example of Eleazur, in 2 Maccab. 6. to rebuke the crime of
the LiheUalici. lie says: Ac ncquis vel libelli vel alicujus rei oblata sibi occa-
sione qua fallat amplectatur decipientium malum munus, nee Eleazarus tacen-
dus est, qui cum sibi a ministris regis offerretur facultas, ut accepta carne qua
licerct sibi vesci ad circumveniendum Regem simularet se ilia cdere, quae de
sacrificiis ingerebantur, consentire ad banc fallaciam noluit, dicens, ncc aetati
suae, nee nobilitati convcnire, id fingere, quo ceteri scandalizerentur et in errorem
inducerentur, existiraantes Elcazarum ad alienigenarum morem tran.siisse. A cur-
sory reading of this passage will show, that the Libellalici practised an imposi-
tion upon the emperor, and feigned obedience to him and also, that they were :

invited to do this by others for Cyprian says, they embraced the opportunity
;

proffered to them. It is likewise evident that they did not present the (libcllum)
written -paper io the judge, but received from him; for Cyprian calls these
it

Qibellos) written papers malum munus; which single expression is nearly a

sufficient confutation of the false opinions and conjectures of many. For a
38 Century III.— Section 12.

[p. 489.] munus is something received ; and a malum munus is, undoubtedly,
a gift that is injurious to the receiver. There must, therefore, have been some-
thing written in the (libellus) certificate, which might bring reproacli and crimi-

nality on the Libellalicus.

This whole subject miglit have been more clear and easy to be understood,
if the edict of Decius had come down to us. For, as there is no mention
whatever of such (libelli) certificates, by any writer who lived anterior to the
times of this edict, although we know that, before that period. Christians pur-
chased to themselves safety by money and presents, it seems that this whole
matter originated from the severe law of this emperor. He, if I am not mis-
taken, not only required all the Christians that could be found, to be seized,
and by tortures compelled to pay homage to the gods but also, lest some ;

might evade the law, and falsely pretend to have sacrificed, he ordered the
iudges to give a libellum, or public testimonial, that the thing had been actually
done, according to the emperor's requisition. A man, therefore, destitute of a
libellus, or testimonial from the judge, was liable to be accused of disobeying
the law and being a rebel ; but the man who could produce his libellus, was
free from all danger. This idea, in my opinion, throws much light on the
hitherto incomprehensible cause for these libelli. To all Christians who would
be safe from molestation, the libellus or testimonial of the judge, that he had
was indispensable. Vast numbers procured a libellus by actually
sacrificed,

doing what the emperor required: others, too conscientious to follow their ex-
ample, and not knowing what to do, remained trembling at their homes. And
to these timid and hesitating persons the money-loving judges caused it to be
secretly intimated by their retainers, that there was a way to obtain a libellus,

without sacrificing ; that the judges would give the testimonies required by the
imperitorial edict, to persons who would not sacrifice, provided they would

show due gratitude to their benefactors.

§ XII. Contests respecting the Lapsed. This great multitude of

apostates caused a large portion of the Christian community to
be thrown into commotion and here and there it produced in-
;

veterate contests. For while those persons wished to be rein-

stated in the church, Avithout undergoing the long penances pre-
scribed by the ecclesiastical laws and some of the doctors, from
;

a propensity towards lenity, favored that course and others of a ;

sterner mould, and more rigidly adhering to the ancient discip-

parties very naturally arose among the Christians.
line, resisted it ;

Very many of the lapsed, especially in Egypt and Africa, (') in

order to obtain more readily a reconciliation with their bishops
and churches, employed the martyrs to intercede for them. For
as the reputation and influence of martyrs and confessors among
the early Christians were amazingly great, and their decisions
 Contests about the Lapsed. 39

were regarded as almost divine, it had become tlie custom, [p. 490.]
even in the preceding centurj,(^) to admit to the communion those
among the lapsed who could procure a testimonial of fraternal
love from a martyr, on their exhibiting to him a few signs of
contrition. Such testimonies from a martyr, signifying that he
could forgive and hold fellowship with certain persons, were
usually called Libelli Pads. During this Decian persecution, some
martyrs in Africa abused this prerogative immoderately; and
some of the bishops and presbyters, either from fear or veneration
of the martyrs, or from ignorance of ecclesiastical law, were too
ready to receive the offenders who were provided with these
certificates.(^) To the evils which were to be apprehended from
this imprudence and ready acquiescence, Cyprian^ the bishop of
Carthage, placed himself in strong opposition. Being then absent
from his church, he wrote Epistles, recommending that this lenity
should be tempered with due severity, and that proper limits be
set to the rule respecting the certificates of peace. And hence he
became involved in a troublesome controversy with the martyrs,
the confessors, the presbyters, the lapsed, and the people ; but
from it he came forth victorious.(*)

(1) Respecting Egypt, see Dionysius Alexandrinus, (apud Euseb. Hist,

Eccles. L. vi. c. 44.) — As to Africa, Cyprian's Epistles are full on the subject.
(2) The learned have long remarked, that Tertullian is the earliest writer
who mentions this custom ; towards the close of his book', de Piidicitia, (c. 22.)
and in his book, ad Martyrea, (c. 1.) See Gabr. Albaspinaeus, (Observ. Eccles.
L. i. Observ. 20. p. 94.) — Hence it is concluded, that this custom was not older
than the middle of the second century.
(3) Under the title of Martyrs were included, those on whom a sentence of
death had already been passed, and also those who had sustained very grievous
sufferings for Christ's sake, and were still detained in prison, uncertain what was
to befall them. As to the right of these martyrs to give certificates of peace
when so requested, there was no dispute. Neither did any one deny, or pre-
tend to deny, that a shorter and lighter penance was to be imposed on the
persons presenting such certificates to the bishop. Whoever should have con-
troverted either of these points, would have been accused of violating the
sanctity and dignity of the martyrs; nay, of high treason against the majesty
of God, who, as many supposed, spoke and gave his decisions through the
martyrs. The only controversy was, respecting the manner in which this right
was to be used, and the extent of the influence to be allowed to these certifi-
cates. These Libelli Pads were not introduced by any law or canon, but only
by custom ; and therefore, it was uncertain how far this right extended. And
this uncertainty occasioned many things to be done by the martyrs, during the
40 Century III. — Section 12.

Deeiaii persecution, whch were highly detrimentnl to the welfare of the eharch,

[p. 491.] and wiiich, therefore, Cyprian and other bishops felt bound to ceiv

sure. — In the first place, whereas certificates had formerly been given by the
martyrs to only a few individuals, and this after a careful examination of each

case in the present persecution, they were distributed

;
among all, without dis-
crimination or distinction ; and the bishops were of course overwhelmed with
Says Cyprian (Epistola xiv. p. 24.) :
a multitude of these certificates of peace.
Cum comperissem, lapsos exam hire ad martyres passim, confessores quoque,
importuna et gratiosa deprecatione corrnmpere, ut sine ullo discrimine atqne
examine siiigulorum, darentur quotidie libellorum ??H7/ia (a definite number is
here rhetorically used for one indefinite,) contra Evangelii legem, litteras feci,
quibus martyres et confessores, consilio meo quantum posscm ad dominica prae-
cepta revocarem. There are several other passages in Cyprian, which speak of
the immense number of the certificates given by the martyrs. On the evils re-
sulting from them, there is no need to expatiate. With the full expectation of
obtnining such certificates, everybody hurried away to the judicial tribunals,
and publicly renouncing Christ, offered sacrifice to the gods and then, as if ;

they had done right, they proceeded to the ju-isons, where the more resolute
Christians were detained awaiting their final sentence, and requested certificates
of peace and, having readily obtained them, they repaired to the bishops, and
;

asked to be restored to fellowship in the church, on the ground that the martyrs
recognised them in their certificates as brethren. In the persecutions of former
times, the prudence of the bishops had laid checks upon this evil, arising from
the indiscretion of ignorant and illiterate martyrs. For they sent discreet and
well informed deacons to the prisons, to advise the martyrs, and prevent their
giving certificates indiscriminately, or to any but persons worthy of their kind
offices. But under Decius, this wise course was neglected; and hence arose the
sad confusion, and the unmeasured liberality of the martyrs. Let us hear Cy-
prian on the subject (Epistola x. p. 20.) In praeteritum semper sub anteces-
:

soribus nostris factum est, ut diaconi ad carcerera commeantes martyrum deside-

ria consiliis suis et scripturarum prseceptis gnbernarent. Sed nunc cum mnximo
animi dolore cognosco, non tan turn illic vobis non suggeri divina pnecepta, sed
adhuc potius impediri. Most earnestly, therefore, the holy man conjures the
martyrs to follow the example of their predecessors, and not to give their opinion
in any case, without close inspection and examination. Quoniam audio, for-
tissimi et carrissimi fratres, impudentia vos quorundam premi - - oro vos quibus
possum precibus, aut Evangelii memores et considerantes quae et qualia in prae-

teritum antecessores vestri martyres concesserint, quam solliciti in omnibus fue-

rint, vos quoque soUicite et caute petentium desideria ponderetis, utpote amici
[p. 492.] Domini, et inspiciatis et actum et opera et merita singulorum, ipsorum
quoque delictorum genera et qualitales cogitetis, ne si quid abrnpte et indigne
vel a vobis promissum, vel a nobis factum fuerit, apud gentiles quoque ipsos
ecclesia no-^tra erubescere incipiat From this language it is very manifest that
itwas not the right of the martyrs to give certificates of peace to the lapsed,
recommending them ro tlie churches, but only tlie use of (his right, which was
the subject of controversy.
 Contests about the Lapsed. 41

This error was accompanied by another of no less magnitude. The martyrs,

in this Decian persecution, did not always insert the names of the persons to
whom they wished the ciiurcii to be reconciled, but naming an individuii, they
connected with him a company who were not named that is, they recom- ;

mended to the communion of the church, all those whom the bearer of the cer-
might bring forward as his friends and associates. Whoever, therefore>
tificate

had obtained such 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 sliaring in the certificate. Tiiis, I think, I can discover in the some-
what obscure language of Cyprian (Epist. x. p. 20.) : Intelllgentes el compri-
tnenles eos, (he is addressing martyrs,) qui personas accipienies in heneficiis xes^
tris, (i. e. who extend your favors, not to those worthy of them, but to those
they choose, however unworthy,) aul gratificanlur, (i. e. either give them away,)

aul illicilcc negoliationis nundinas aucupantitr, (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
vestram redigere et cmendare debetis, ut nominatim designelis eos, quibus pa-
cem dari desideratis. Audio enim quibusdam sic libellos fieri, ut dicatur:
"Communicet ille cum suis :" quod nunquam omnino a martyribus factum est,
ut incerta et coeca petitio invidiam nobis postmodum cumulct. Late enim patet,
quando dicitur: "Ille cum suis;" et possunt nobis viceni et triceni et amplius
ofl'erri, qui propinqui et atlines et liberti ac domestic! 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 disciplinae congruentea littcras 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 Celeinnus, (among the Epistles of Cyprian, Epist. xxi.
p. 30.) : Cum bcnedictus m:u-tyr Paulus, adhuc in corpore esset, vocavit me et
dixit inihi: Lucianc, 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 Liician, 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 adiiuc in carcere posito, nomine illius libellos manu sua scriptos passim
42 Century III. — Section 12.

dedit, sed et post ejus excessura eadem facere sub ejus nomine perseverav it, di-
cens hoc sibi ab illo mandatiim. And tliis same Lucius gave certificates in the
name of another martyr, Aurelius, who was unable to write Aurclii quoque :

adolescentis tormenta perpessi nomine, libelli multi dati sunt ejiisdem Luciani
inanu scripti, quod litteras ille non nosset. The martyrs wlio were so liberal as
to order certificates to be given to all applicants, when they were dead, appear
to have cherished a great error by believing, that so great was the efficacy of
the death they were about to suffer, that it cuuld expiate the sins of other per-
sons; and that the injunctions of a deceased and triumphant martyr were per-
fectly satisfactory both to God and to men. Thus mncii is certain, and is

manifest from Cypriaii'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 baptismo
prseterita peccata dimitti, hie pra3cepti et Icgis ignarus mandat paccm dari et pec-
cata dimitti in Pauli nomine, et hoc sibi dicit ab illo essemandatum. 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-
sistent, 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.) :

Postquam ad Confessores litteras misi, ut quasi moderatius aliquid et tempe-

rantius fieret, universorum Confessorum nomine idem Lucianus epistolam
scripsit, qua ptene omne vinculum fidui et tinior Dei et mandatum Domini et
Evangelii sanctitas et firmitas solveretur. Scripsit enim omnium nomine nniier-
sis (lapsis) eos pacem dedisse, et banc formam per me aliis episeopis innotes-

cere velle: cujus epistolae exemplum ad vos transmisi.

This improper conduct of the martyrs, vvho 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 tjie

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 under,
took to patronise entirely from ecclesiastical penalties. This is clear, from the
language of Lucian himself, the most audacious and indiscreet of them all:
 Contests about the Lapsed. 43

(Cyprian, Epist. xxi. p. 30.) : Et Iiic, cum Dominu3

ideo, Frater, pelo, ut, sicut

coeperit ipsi ecclesiae paceni dare,secundum praeceptum Pauli (not P;iul the
apostle, but Paul the martyr, in whose name Lucian issued tiie certificates,) et
nostrum tractatum, expoaita caussa apud episcopum, et facta exomoloo-e^i, ha-
beant pacem non tantum hae, sed et quas scis ad animum nostrum pertinere.
It appears therefore, —
1. That he did not wish tiie lapsed to be immediately re-

stored to the church, from which they had excluded themselves by sinning; but
he would have the matter postponed, till tlie return of more tranquil times.
2. That he did not ask to have the lapsed restored to communion, without the
cognisance and assent of the bishop. —
3. That he would have the lapsed pub-

licly confess their fault, and iiumbly ask the forgiveness of the church : Exo-
mologesin facere. He by no means wished all tiie lapsed, who held certificates,
to be received without any punishment, but only those who, after their fall, lead
a manifestly pious and holy life. This condition Lucian expressly added, in that
general certificate, which was so particularly offensive to Cyprian. Says
Cyprian, (Epist. xxii. p. 31.) : Additum est plane, de quibus ratio constiterit, quid
post commissum egerint. Lucian therefore allowed enquiry into the conduct
of those presenting certificates, and would deprive of the benefits of their eertl-
catcs those guilty of new transgressions. Similar prudence and moderation
were observed by other martyrs in giving certificates of peace; as Cyprian has
recorded in repeated instances. Thus, (Epist. ix. p. 19.) : Martyres memores
loci nostri ad me littenvs direxerunt, et petierunt tunc desideria sua [p. 495.]
examinari et pacem dari, quando ipsa antea mater nostra ecclesia pacem de
miscricordia Domini prior sumpserit et nos divina protectio reduces ad eccle-
siam suara fecerit. And (Epi.st. x. p. 20.) addressing tlie martyrs, he says:
Litteras ad me direxisti^, quibus examinari disideria vestra et quibusdam lapsis
pacem dari postulastis, cum persecutione finita convcnire in unum cum clero et
recolligi coeperimus. See also Epist. xi. p. 21. Many also of the lapsed,
though possessed of certificates, wished nothing to be done preposterously, but
very modestly submitted their case to tlie judgment of the bishop. Says Cy-
prian, (Epist. xxviii. p. 38.) Scripserunt mihi nuper quidam de lapsis humiles
:

et mites et trementes et metuentes Deum, et qui in eeclesia semper gloriose et

granditer operati sunt. - - - Et quamvis libello a martyribus accepto, ut tanien a
Domino satisfactio sua admitti possit, orantes scripserunt mihi, se delictum suum

cognoscere et poenitentiam veram agere, nee ad pacem temerc aul importune

properare, sed expectare pracscntiam nostram, dicentes pacem quosque ipsam,
si eam nobis praesentibus acceperint, dulciorem sibi futuram. Certain of the
presbyters, however, at the mere sight of these certificates, in utter disregard of
the respect due to the bishop, and contrary to all order, not even requiring any
public confession of their faults, admitted all sorts of lapsed persons, at once,
not only to the assemblies of the church, but even to the Lord's supper than ;
—
which, nothing in that age could be more indiscreet, or more injurious to the
church. Says Cyprian, (Epist. x. p. 20.) : Presbyteri quidam nee timorem Dei,
nee episcopi honorem cogitantes —contra Evangelii legem, contra vestram quo-
que (he is addressing the martyrs,) honorificam petitionem, (mark the circum-
spection he uses,) ante actam poenitentiam, ante exomologesin gravissimi atque
44 Century III.— Section 12.

exliemi d,elicti foctam, ;inte maiium ab episcopo et clevo in poLMiitentiam impo-

sitam, offerre pro ill is et eucharistiam dare, id est, sanctum Domini corpus pro-
phanare audent. With grief lie repeats the same in the ibllowiiiiT Letter,
(Epist. xi. p. These presbyters, envying Cyprian the honors paid him,
21.)
stirred up the martyrs and confessors to demand that more respect should be
given to their certificates than heretofore, and that disregarding the authority of
the bishops, the lapsed should be restored, with no delay whatever. Says Cy-
prian, (Epist. xl. p. 52. Hi fomenta olim quibusdam Confessoribus et hort:i-
: :

meiita tribuebant, ne concordarent cum episcopo suo, ne ecclesiastieam disci-

plinam cum fide et quiete juxta prajcepta dominica continerent, ne confessionia
suse gloriam incorrupta et immaculata conversatione servarent. Hence tliose

great and tui'bulent movements, both of the confessors and the hxpsed; the for-
mer demanding that their certificates should have the effect of laws and man-
dates,and the latter, that instant admittance should be allowed them to all the
sacred rites, on the ground of their certificates. In our province, says Cijprian,
(Epist. xxii. pp. 31, 32.) : Per aliquot civitates in praepositos (the bishops,) im-

[p. 496.] petus per multitudinem factus est, et pacem, quam semel cuncti a
martvribus et confessoribus datam clamitabant, confestim sibi repraesentari co-

egerunt, territis et subactis praepositis suis, qui ad resistendum minus virtute

inimi et robore fidei preevalebant. Apud nos etiam quidam turbulenti, qui vix
i nobis in praiteritum regebantur, et in nostram prfesentiam difterebantur
velut quibusdam facibus accensi plus exardescere et pacem sibi datnm extor-
quere coeperunt. Some of the lapsed had the audacity to send insulting letters
to Cyprian, in which they did not ask for reconciliation, but claimed that they
had already obtained it. (Epist. xxix. p. 39, 40.) : Quorumdam lapsorum con-
spirata temeritas, qui poenitentiam agere et Deo satisfacere detrectant, litteras
ad me fecerunt,pacem non dandam sibi postulantes, sed quasi jam datam sibi
vindicantes, quod dicant Paulu'n omnibus pacem dedisse.
(4) Cyprian endeavored to repress the disturbances produced by the certi-
ficates of peace, in their commencement, by three grave and explicit Epistles,
addressed, respectively, to the Confessors, the priests, and the people. In these
Epistles he urged to have the subject postponed until he should return to hia
see ; and the Confessors he exhorted to use prudence and moderation, and the
people to wait quietly till the persecution should terminate. But, for various
reasons, these Epistles only created still greater disturbances, as we have al-

ready intimated. The confessors and martyrs, especially, urged their rigiits with
earnestness and open opposition to them would have been hazardous. The
;

Lucian before mentioned, in that general certificate of peace which he wrote in

the name of all the confessors, threatened Cyprian pretty distinctly, that if he
persevered in resisting the wishes and demands of the martyrs, the result would
be, that himself and other martyrs would exclude Cyprian from their commu-
nion. This short, but threatening and arrogant Epistle of Lucian, is worth in-
serting here, from Cyprian, (Epist. xvi. p. 26.) : Universi Confessores Cypriano
Papse salutem ! Scias, nos universis, de quibus apud te ratio constiterit, quid

post commissum egerint, dedisse pacem. Et banc formam per te et aliis episco-

pis innotescere voluraus. Oplamus /e cum Sanctis martyrihus pacem habere.

 Xovatus of Carthage. 45

Prajsente de clero et exoreista et lectore. What Lucian here says of his wish-
ing Cyprian pacem habere cum martyribus, amounts undoubtedly to this : We
will depriveyou of our fence, unless you confirm the peace given by us ; notwith-
standing all the efforts of Stephen Baluz, (in his notes on the passao-o,) to
extenuate the folly of this language. Had they carried these threats into exe-
cution, they would doubtless have brought the good man into great trouble.
He was therefore obliged to yield a little, and to treat this dangerous subject
cautiously and prudently. While he was laboring and trembling, the Roman
priests and confessors afforded him aid, by their epistle addressed to the priests

and the people of Carthage, which they approved and lauded the course he
in
had pursued. They who had by his letters en-
also wrote to Cyprian himself,
deavored to bring them to espouse his cause. These epistles from Rome seem
to have set this controversy nearly at rest ; for we meet with few or [p. 497.]
no traces of it afterwards. — When Cyprian returned to his church on the ter-
mination of the Decian persecution, he called a council at Carthage, the x^cts
and Canons of which are mentioned by him in several of his Epistles, (See
Epistt. lii. liii. Iv. Ivi. Ixviii.) A principal subject of discussion in the council,
was the case of the lapsed, and the penance they should perform. But it does
not appear, that the influence which certificates of peace given by martyrs
ought to have, was discussed and settled. This subject .seems to have been
designedly passed over, and consigned to oblivion. For it was full of danger
and difficulty ; because, while consulting the interests of the church, the honors
and authority of the martyrs and confessors, whom the people venerated ex-
cessively, could not be safely underrated. Cyprian in all his Epistle.s upon
this subject, proceeds as if treading on the treacherous embers of a sleeping
volcano, and is exceedingly careful not to appear to depreciate the honors and
the dignity of the martyrs. Yet with all his prudence he could not escape
entirely the indignation of the martyrs and the complaints of the people.
What then would have occurred, if he had ventured, in the council, in the pre-
sence of 30 many living confessors, idolized by the people, to call their prero-

gatives in question, and to set dcfmite limits to the effects of their certificates
of peace? What contention, what clamors, what disputes
would have arisen?
After this contest, 1 find no further mention of of peace, in anycertificates
ancient history of the Christians. I therefore suspect that the bishops, becom-
ing more cautious and prudent, in view of this troublesome case, whenever a
persecution broke out, pursued the old custom, and sent presbyters and dea-
cons to the prisons, to instruct and guide the martyrs, and prevent their being
too liberal and indiscreet in the issue of such certificates.

§ XIII. Contest between Cyprian and Novatus. The contro-

versy just described, was accompanied by another more trivial
and limited in its nature, but, on account of its source and origin,
greater and more formidable for it arose from hatred and the
;

indulgence of unrestrained passion and it was protracted, and ;

was conducted with an animosity, perhaps, greater than the case

46 CenUirij III. — Section 13.

demanded, till it ended in a deplorable scliism.(') N'ovatus, a

presbyter of Carthage, even prior to the persecntion under De-
cius, had had disagreement with Cyprian, his bishop, for some
cause not now known, and had drawn off some of the brethren
from him that is, he had persuaded them not to follow the de-
;

mands of the bishop in everything. (") If we give credit to his

adversary's statements, N'ovatus was not only factious, vain, and
rash, but also guilty of many offences and crimes. Cyprian,
therefore, purposed to call him to a judicial trial, and to exclude

[p. 498.] him from the communion of the church. And the day
for his trial had been appointed, when, suddenly, the publication
of the emperor's edict intervened and, as it obliged Cyprian to
;

betake himself to Novatus remained safe in his former po-

flight,

sitiou.(^) This was the first act in this protracted drama.

(1)The history of the two-fold schism, produced by Novatus and Nova-

tian atRome, and by Felicissimus at Carthage, in the midst of the Decian per-
pecution, must be gathered from the Epistles of Cyprian, from Eusebius, from
the FabulcU Haereticorum of Theodoret, and from detached passages of other
ancient writers. Yet the few documents we have relative to this protracted
contest, are insufficient to give us a full and perfect knowledge of it. The
primary and, so to speak, interior causes of this conflict, are, in great measure,
undiscoverable ; nor will equity or reason permit us to believe everything true,
which is told us by Cyprian and the other bitter enemies of Novatus and his
friends. If I am not greatly deceived, there were faults on both sides ; but
which was most blameable, the scantiness of the records that have reached us,
make it very difficult to decide. The short statement of this controversy given
above, differs in some respects, from that heretofore given by the learned. Yet
I have stated nothing without good reason ; nor can the order and connexion
of the events be apprehended differently. The affaii-s of Novatus, of Felicissi-
mus, and of Novatian were certainly connected; and yet, in some sense, they
were disconnected. This connexion in some respects and disconnexion in
others, have not been carefully discriminated, by most of those who have
written on the subject and often they so mix up things, that their readers are
;

left in great perplexity and uncertainty. I make no exceptions among even

the most distinguished expounders of the afl[;urs of Christians.

(2) Novatus, with whom tliis whole controversy originated, was undoubt-
edly a Carthagenian presbyter. For no one who reads the Epistles of Cyprian
censuring him, will give credit to Baronius, who would make him a bishop.
And yet, if I can judge, he was not one of the presbyters who served the prin-
cipal church and were always near the bishop, but he presided over a separate
congregation distinct from the principal church. I think this may be inferred
from the he created Felicissimus a deacon; of which Cyprian so
fact, that

bitterly complains, (Epist. xlLx. p. 63.) Ipse (Novatus) est, qui Felicissimum
:
 Novatus of Carthage. 47

satellltein suiim diaconum, nee permittente me, nee seiente, sua factione et am-
bitione constituit. Whether this occurred while Cyprian was at Carthage, or
in his absence during the persecution, I think we must come to the conclusion
stated. If Novalus ventured to do this, before the persecution, and while
Cyprian was in Carthage, (wliich is quite supposeble,) it must be [p. 499.]
manifest, that Novalus had charge of a separate congregation distinct from that
of Cyprian. For how could an individual presbyter create a deacon in the
bishop's own
church, and the bishop be present, and not know of it? How
could he have so obtruded this deacon upon the bishop ? If this occurred dur-
ing the absence of Cyprian, we must come to the same conclusion. For
although some of the presbyters and a portion of the people were not very
partial to Cyprian, yet the greater part of the church had the highest respect
and reverence for him ; and therefore, no presbyter could so manage as to
cause a deacon to be appointed without the bishop's knowledge and contrary
to liis pleasure. The whole, or at least the greater part of the church would
have resisted it, and have cried out that the head of the church must be con-
sulted and have a voice in the matter. But the congregations that were sepa-
rate from the mother church and the bishop, and had tiieir own appropriate
presbyters, had likewise their own deacons; and if Novalus had charge of such
a church, he might have created Felicissimus a deacon in his church, without
the knowledge or consent of the bishop. And this supposition isconfirraed by
the language used by Cyprian. For it appears, that Novalus did not create a
deacon by his own sole authority and choice, but, as Cypriatishnguagc shows,
(sua faclione et amhilione,) in his factious ambitious spirit, by flattery and in-
persuaded the church under him to elect Felicissimus deacon. Had
trigue, he
Novalus simply assumed, contrary to ecclesiastical law, the power of consti-
tuting a deacon in his own church, there would not be ground for charging
him with cither faction or ambition. Besides, Cyprian does not blame him for
recommending to his church the election of Felicissimus to the office of deacon,
which it was lawful and right for him to do but he complained, that Novalus
;

undertook and carried through the whole business, without consulting him, or
letting him know anything of it. Novalus, doubtless, believed that such a con-
gregation, distinct from the mother church, had the right and the power of
electing their own servants, with consent of the presbyter who had charge of
them. But Cyprian, who was a most strenuous defender of episcopal rights
and authority, contended that nothing whatever, even in those minor Christian
assemblies, ought to be undertaken or transacted without the approbation and
consent of the bishop; and he therefore considered Novalus as censurable for
recommending to his church the choice of Felicissimus for deacon, before he
had been approved of and judged worthy of a deaconship by the bishop.
Perhaps Novalus intentionally neglected to consult the bishop, because he
knew that Cyprian had a dislike to the man. The church over which Novalus
presided, worshipped on a certain hill in Carthage. This, I think, Cyprian in-
timates, (Epist. x.xxviii. p. 51.) where he says of Felicissimus : Comminatus est
fratribus nostris - - - potentatu improbo et terrore violento, quod secum in monle
non communicarent, qui nobis obtemperare voluissent. Many copies, both
48 Centurr; III. — Section 13.

[p. 500.] manuscript and printed, here read, in morle. But this reading i? des-
titute of meaning ; and Felicissimus would have been a fool to have tln-eat-
encd sucli a thing to his adversaries, when it would have frightened nobody.
The learned have tlierefore long considered the true reading to be, in mnnte.
And this reading is much confirmed by the appellation of (Montenses) the Hill
People, given to the Novatians at Rome, according to Epiphanius, (in Ancorato,
c. 13. 0pp. torn. ii. p. 18.) They were probably so called, because they con-
sidered that portion of the Carthagenian'churcli, which worshlpjied on some
hill or mountain of the city, to be the only true church of Carthage. Hence
Felicissi?nus threatened the friends of Cyprian with exclusion from communion
in the Hill Church : which was unquestionably the church in which Felicissi-
mus officiated as deacon, and, of course, had some authority ; and, as this was
the church over which Novatus presided, it must be clear, that I am correct in
stating, that Novatus had charge of a small congregation, distinct from the
Riother church, which assembled on some hill in Carthage.
If we may give credit to Cyprian and his adherents, there were few worse
men among the Christians of that age tlian Novatus. Cyprian says of lam,
(Epist. xlix. p. 63.) Rerum semper cupidus, avaritiae inexplebilis, rapacitate
:

furibundus, arrogantia et stupore superbi turaoris inflatus, semper istic episco-

pis male cognitus, quasi haereticus semper et perfidus omnium saccrdotum voce'
damnatus, curiosus semper ut prodat, ad hoc adulatur ut fallat, nunquam fidelis

ut diligat, fax et ignis ad confianda seditionis incendia, turbo et tempestas ad

fidei facienda n.aufragia, hostis quietis, tranquillitatis adversarius, pacis inimicus.
So many and so great diseases of the mind, he had manifested by his gre.at
enormities and crimes. For, not to mention his seditious conduct towards his
bishop, he was a thief, a robber, a parricide, and a perpetrator of sacrilege.
Spoliati ab illo pupilli, fraud.ata3 viduse, pecunias ecclesia) denegata3 has de illo

exigunt poenas. Pater etiam ejus in vico fame mortuus, et ab eo in morte

postmodum nee sepultus. Uterus uxoris calce percussus, et abortione proper-
ante in parricidium partus expressus. What can be more base and detestable
than such a man ? The best informed ecclesiastical historians have no hesita-
tion as to the entire truth of these statements, because they come from a veiy
holy martyr, in whose affirmation implicit confidence must be placed. And far

be it from me, to accuse the holy man of falsehood or intentional misrepresen-

tation. But I suppose, candid and well-informed men will readily concede,

that a martyr might commit mistakes and errors ; that under the influence of
strong passions and an excited imagination he might exaggerate in some things,
and extenuate in others. And therefore, if we suppose something of this na-
ture, in the present case, occurred in regard to the otherwise excellent Cyprian,
we shall do no injury to his reputation. In recounting the vices of Novatus
he is manifestly declamatory, and plays the orator ; and those who understand
human nature, know that we are never more liable to err, than in describhig
the character of other men, and especially of our enemies. That Novatus was
[p. 501.] contentious, prone to innovation, and also factious, I can readily
admit ; but the good Cyprian could sometimes discover faults where there were
none, and was too virulent against those whom he regarded as hostile to his
 Kovatus of Carthage. 49

rjputntion and dignity. To express my own opinion, I cannot look upon

Aoialus as so black a ciuiracter as Cyprian represents him because he neither ;

sought nor obtained for himself any great advantages, througliovit this long and
vehement contest. He allowed others to be created bishops, and enjoy the
fruitsand rewards of the dissension but for himself, he was contented with
;

and the rank of a presbyter, and chose rather to minister than to

his situation
bear rule. This indicates his moderation. The crimes, witli which Cyprian
charges him, were doubtless the subject of common talk, and were, therefore,
collected from common fame; but it is observable, that iVora/ «s was never con-
victed of them. He could not, indeed, after he left Africa, be summoned to a
trial but Cypriun might have substantiated tlie crimes of the absent man by
;

examining the witnesses, and have legitimately passed sentence on him if found
to be guilty. But it is manifest, that he did neither nor does he let fall a ;

single word, even in the passages where he shows the most anger, from which
it can be inferred, that Novatus was proved guilty of the crimes which common

fame charged upon liim, and that on such ground he had been deposed from
officeand ejected from the church. It is therefore no rash conjecture, to sup-
pose that the truth of these enormous imputations could not be substantiated.
Felicissimits the friend of Novatus, Cyprian condemned and excommunicated;
and why should he spare Novatus, if lie knew him to be guilty of such enor-

Biities ?

But let us pass over these points, which it is absolutely impossible at this
day to clear up, becauseno writings of Novatus have readied us and let us ;

look into the controversy, of which Novatus was the prime cause and author.
The learned are agreed, that Novatus was the original cause of the African
disturbances. And this is explicitly stated by Cyprian, ( Epist. xlix. p. 63.) :

Idem est Novatus, qui apud nos primum discordia) et schismatis inccndium
seminavit. —But I cannot agree with those who think, that these contests and
disturbances commenced in the absence of Cyprian, and in the midst of the
persecution, and that, before the Decian persecution, Novatus had never plotted
against his bishop. We have testimony to the contrary, in the epistle already
cited, and proof that before Cyprian's retirement, Novatus was hostile to him.
Cyprian clearly discriminates between the offences of Novatus before the per-
secution, and those during tiie persecution and he says, that Novatus, before
;

the persecution, had alienated brethren from the bishop Qui quosdam istic ex :

fratribus ab episcopo segregavit, (tiiis he did before the persecution began;

next follows his criminal conduct during the persecution:) qui in ipsa persecu-
tione ad evertendas fratrum mentes alia qua;dam persequutio nostris fuit. And
who, let me ask, can doubt, that a controversy had arisen between Cyprian and
Novatus, before the Decian persecution, when he hears Cyprian [p. 502.]
himself declaring, that he should have arraigned Novatus before the tribunal
of bishops, and have cast him out of the church, if he had not been prevented
by the emperor's edict? He says, indeed, that the crimes of Novatus, and not
any private or personal offence, had caused him form that purpose. But of
to
the crimes of Novatus, we have already given our views they were not so ;

clear and manifest as to demand public animadversion. Neither does Cyprian,

VOL. II. 5
50 Century III. — Section 14.

as we have already seen, disguise the fact, that the enormity of his evil deeds
Mas augmented by some offence against the honor and right of liis bishop.
Wlirit it was that set the presbyter and the bishop at variance, does not fully
appear. But I strongly incline to believe, that Noxatus' conferring the office of
deacon on Felicissimus, without the consent and approbation of Cyprian, irri-

tated the feelings of the bishop, who held his episcopal dignity in the highest

estimation and that here

; I am aware,
commenced the whole sad conflict.
thatsome learned men suppose that Felicissimus was constituted deacon while
Cyprian was absent, and they censure John Pearson, who maintains, (Annal.
Cyprian, ^ 20. 22. p. 25.) tliat lie had been put into that office, before the
quarrel began. But they can allege nothing in support of their opinion, except
the question, '•
Who consecrated or ordained Felicissimus .'" What bishop
would have presumed to do it, if Cyprian had been at home ! See Tillemonl,
(Blemoires pour servir a I'Histoire de I'Eglise, torn. iv. P. I. p. 393.) To this
question, I answer: iVoraiws, AzmseZ/", consecrated his deacon; and he thought
this to be lawful. Those Presbyters who, like Noxatus, had charge of separate
churches, enjoyed many prerogatives, which did uot belong to the other pres-
byterswho were connected with the bishop. But Cyprian deemed this to be
unlawful.And so ho intimates, I apprehend, when he says, that (ambitione Novali)
through the ambition of Novatus, the man (constitutum fuisse) was constituted
deacon, (se non permiltente) without his permission. According to Cyprian^s
views, Novatus should have asked leave of his bishop to initiate his deacon
but, being inflated by ambition, and presiding over a church situated perhaps in
the suburbs, or on some neighboring hill, he supposed the permission of the
bishop not necessary to the transaction. And here lay his chief fault.
(3) See Cyprian, (Epist. Hanc conscientiam criminum (Nova-
xlix. p. 64.) :

tus) jam pridem timebat. Propter hoc se non de presbyterio excitari tantum
(be excluded from the class of presbyters,) sed et communicatione prohiberi
pro certo tenebat. (But how could the worthy Cyprian know this, and here
assume power to judge of the thoughts of another ?) Et urgentibus fratribus
imminebat cognitionis dies, quo apud nos caussa ejus agcretur, nisi persecutio
ante venisset, quam iste veto quodam evadendae et lucrandfe damnationis exci-
piens, (i. e. he rejoiced in this occurrence. But who had told Cyprian that
fact ?) hrec omnia commissit et miscuit ; ut qui ejici de ecclesia et excludi habe-
[p. 503.] bat, judicium sacerdotum voluntaria discessione prsecederat : quasi
evasisse sit pcenam, prtevenisse sententiam. —Many, both ancients and moderns,
have understood the last part in this quotation, as referring to the journey of
Novatus to Rome ; and they suppose Cyprian intended to say, that Novatus
escaped the sentence impending over him, by his flight. But in this they are

clearly mistaken. The (voluntaria discessio) vnhmiary departure, of which

Cyprian speaks, was a withdrawal from the church, as is manifest from what
precedes. Novatus withdrew himself from the bishop and the church, to pre-
vent being excluded by the priests.

I XIV. The Schism of Felicissimus at Carthage. After the de-

parture of Cyprian^ and so long as the African magistrates kept
 Schis7a of Felicissimiis. 51

up a vigorous persecution of the Christians, these movements

were dormant. But when the fury of the persecution gradually
subsided^ and Cyprian began to prepare for returning to his church,
now fast recovering its former tranquillity, Novatus^ doubtless,
fearing that the returning bishop would revive the prosecution
which he had commenced before his flight, deemed it necessary
to organize a party which should obstruct the return of his ad-
versary to his church, and thus to deprive him of the means of
annoyance to himself.(') And, therefore, by means of Felicissi-
mus^ the deacon whom he had ordained against the pleasure of
the bishop, he drew off a portion of the church from Cyprian ;
and, particularly, with the aid of one Augendus, he resisted the
regulations which Cyprian had sanctioned, in reference to the
poor. To his party belonged, not only many of the people, but
especially five presbyters, who had long indulged animosity to-
wards Cyprian.i^) This turbulent faction were able to retard
somewhat the return of Cyprian, but they could not frustrate it.
Therefore, after a short delay, which prudence suggested, the
bishop returned to Carthage, and assembling a council, princi-
pally on account of the lapsed, he began to repress the rashness
of his adversaries and he expelled Felicissimus, the author of
;

the sedition, and the five presbyters, his associates, from the
church. The ejected persons, unawed by this punishment, set up
a new church at Carthage, in opposition to Cyprian''s congre-
gation, and placed over it, as bishop, Fortunatus, one of the five
presbyters, whom
Cyprian had excommunicated.Q But this
company had more courage than efficiency, and sinking into dis-
cord, seems, not long after, to have become extinct, for none of
the ancients make mention of its progress.

(1) Cyprian does not expressly say that Noxalus induced Fclicissi- [p. 504.]

mus him but this is inferred, from the fact, that

to organize this opposition to ;

he throws on Novaius all the blame of the divisions and discords in the church.
He says, (Epist. xlix. p. 64.) Circa ca?teros autem fratrcs elaboramus, quos ab
:

eo (Novato) circumventos dolemus, ut veteratoris perniciosum latus fugiaut, ut

.'ethales laqueos sollicitantis evadant, ut de qua pelli ille divinitus meruit eccle-

siam repetant quos quidem, Domino adjuvante, per ejus misericordiam regredi
:

posse confidimus. In the same Epistle, he calls Felicissimus (satellitem Novati)

a satellite of Novatus; which pretty distinctly implies that Novatus used Feli-
cissimus as his agent or instrument for disturbing the peace of the Church, and
setting it at variance with its bishop. But, as I observed at the first, many
52 Century III. — Section 14.

things relating to this contest are unknown to us; and Cyprian Iiiraself some-
times speaks, as if Felicissimus did not act from the instigation of another
but from the impulse of Iiis own mind. In his 38th Epistle, (p. 51.) in which
he descants warmly on the criminality of Felicissimus, he makes no mention
whatever of Novatus, but represents Felicissimus as the cause of all the evil.
He says: Nee loci mei honoremotus, nee vestra auctoritate et praesentia fractus,

instmctu suo quietem fratrum turbans proripuit se cum pluriniis, Ducem se fac-

tionis et seditionis principem temernrio furore contestans. The affairs of JSoxa-

tus and Felicissijnus v/ere undoubtedly connected; and that each of them aided
the other, is beyond controversy yet the two movements seem to have stood
:

disconnected, in some respect, which we are unable even to conjecture. In the

progress of the controversy, this disconnexion becomes manifest. For NovO'
tus joined the followers of Novalian, from whom Felicissimus kept aloof.
Notatus up one Maximus as a bishop at Carthage, and Felicissimus set up
set
another, in the person of Fortunatus. This shows, that the two sects had
nothing in common at that time, except their hatred of Cyprian. In the com-
mencement of the controversy, however, their connexion seems to have been
more intimate.
Felicissimus, as a mnn, was not mucli better than his presbyter Notalus.
(2)
For Cyprian charges him not only with /raut? and rapine,hut also with adultery:
Ad fraudes ejus et rapinas, quas dilucida veritate cognovimus, adulterium etiam
crimen accedit, quod fratres nostri graves viri deprehendisse se nunciaverunt et
probaturos se asseverarunt. This occurs in Epistle 38. (p. 51.): and in .inother

Epistl^, (55. p. 79.) he is branded with marks of still greater infamy ; for he is

pronounced, Pecuniae comraissae sibi fraudator, stuprator virginum, matrimo-

niorum multorum depopulator atque corrupter. It was not therefore one act of
adultery, but many, that he committed; and not satisfied with that form or
wickedness, he violated the chastity of many virgins. I confess, I must here
[p. 505.] doubt a little, and must suspect that Cyprian, in the ardor of his in-
dignation, expressed more than he intended. But let us dismiss our suspicions,
and listen to the martyr. Tiiis debauchee, then, who was unworthy of the name
of a man, stirred up the sad conflict, while Cyprian was absent. Cyprian in
his exile had sent four deputies to Carthage, the two bishops Cald^mius and
Herculanus, and two very distinguished confessors, the priests Rogalianus and
Numidicus, who, in the bishop's name and stead, should distribute among the
poor the moneys due to them, and carefully examine the lives and the condition
of thosewho were living on the bounties of the church, in order to advance the
most worthy of them to sacred functions. I will give the substance of this
commission in the holy man's own words; (Epist. xxxviii. p. 51. ed Baluz.
which is the edition I always quote;) addressing the deputies, he says: Cum-
que ego vos pro me vicarios miserim, ut expungeretis necessitates fratrum nos-
trorum sumptibus (i. e. with the money collected by the church for the poor,)
si qui etiam vellent suas artes exercere, additamento, quantum satis esset, desi-

deria eorum juvaretis : simul etiam et aetates eorum et conditiones et merita

diseerneretis, ut jam nunc ego, cui cura incumbit, oranes optima nossem et

dignos quoque et humiles et mites ad ecclesiasticae administrationis officia pro-

 Schism of Fellcis'Simus. 53.

moverem. It appears then —

First That Cyprian intended, by these deputies,
:

expuugi fralrum sumptihus ; i. e. to relieve the wants of the brethren

necessilales
from the funds of the church. For expungere necessilales, is simply to satisfy and
—
remove the wants of the poor. Secondly Tliat he wished those among the ;

poor, who were disposed to labor at their trades, to be supplied with money
from tlie church treasury sufficient for purchasing the necessary tools and
—
means for business. Thirdly That he wished tliose among the poor, who
:

were fit for deacons and other sacred functions, to be removed from the class of
the poor who were supported by the churcii, in order to their admission to the
class of officers of the church ; in short, he wished the fund for the poor to be
relieved of a part of its burden. All these measures were honorable, pious, and
useful. But Felicissimus resisted them. He would not have {necessilales ex-
pungi,) the wants of the bretliren relieved, nor have such an examination of the
indigent as the bishop directed. Says Cyprian: Intcrcessit, ne quis posset
expungi, (being a deacon, he held the church funds, and therefore was able to
prevent the giving of relief to the embarrassed ; he refused to pay over to the
bishop's deputies the moneys in his hands:) neve ea, quae desideraveram, pos-
sent diligenti examinatione discenii. The necessities of many were indeed re-
lieved; tliat is, as Cyprian soon after states, through the hands of the deputies,
(stipendia episcopo dispensante percipiebant,) they received the stipends which
the bishop dispensed. For Fclicissiiiius had not the whole treasury in his

hands, but only that of the Hill Church, of which he was deacon. But as he
held out severe threats against those who did not reject the relief [p. 506.]
profferred by Cyprian's deputies, many abstained from it, and would not avail

themselves of tiie kind olTers of the deputies. And these, undoubtedly, Feli-
cissimus relieved from the funds in his hands. Comminatus est fratribus nostris,

qui primi expungi accesserant putentatu improbo et terrore violeiito, quod se-
cum in monte non communiearent, qui nobis obteuiperare noluissent; i. e. he
threatened, that he and the Hill Church, of which he was deacon, would not
hold tiiose as brethren, who, being in want, should make appli^tion to the
bishop's deputies. — Here we liave the crime of Felicissimus. But the cause or
pretext for the criminal act, Cyprian does not mention; nor has any one, so far
as know, attempted its investigation. This, therefore, is a problem for us to
I

solve and it is not so abstruce, as to require great ingenuity for its solution.
;

Felicissimus, as we have seen, was a deacon and therefore to him belonged

;

the care of the poor, and the administration of the treasury of the church.
Now the authority and dignity of deacons, were far greater in the African church
than in the other churches, as might be shown from various testimonies. They,
equally with the presbyters, had a seat in the councils, as appears from Cyprian's
55th Epistle, and other places. They were dispatched to the prisons, to look
after the martyrs and confessors, and be their counsellors, as before shown. In
the absynce of the presbyters, they could receive the confessions of offenders,
and absolve the penitent. This Cyprian admits, in his 13th Epistle, where he
allows the lapsed to make their confession to the deacons. They also had

some share in the government of the church. Therefore Felicissimus, inflateo

with the pride of office, maintained, that the distribution of money to the poof
54 Century III. — Section 14.

and other matters, should have been assigned by the bishop to himself and the
other deacons, and not to deputies commissioned by him and he complained, ;

that by his commission, Cyprian trespassed on the rights of tlie order of dea-
cons. This solution will at once suggest itself to a person familiar with Chris-
tian antiquities, and duly considering the case. But, perhaps, this daring man
meditated something still more criminal. He contended, perhaps, that by forsak-
ing his church in the time of persecution, and seeking his own safety by flight,

Cyprian forfeited his dignity, and deprived himself of the honors and the rights
pertaining to a bishop and therefore, that his orders, communicated through
:

his deputies, were to be disregarded, as being those of a man no longer pos-

sessing authority ; and that another head must be placed over the church.
And it is well known, that others, likewise, called in question the prudence of
Cyprian, in withdrawing from his church when conflicting with its enemies.
Cyprian, on being informed of the criminal conduct of Felicissimus, imme-
diately addressed to his legates a letter which has come down to us, ordering
the man be ejected from the church. The legates obeyed their instructions,
to
without delay, and declared unworthy of communion in the sacred rites, not
only Felicissirmis, the author of the disturbance, but also one Augendus, his
associate, concerning whom we have no knowledge, and some others of both
sexes. This appears from a of the legates, among the Epistles of
letter

[p. 607.] This act certainly betokens a man of a vehe-

Cyprian, No. xxxix.
ment and hasty temper, rather than of a discreet and prudent mind ; and it is
one of the things which, in my judgment, show that Cyprian was more stu-
dious of his own honor, than of the public good. In the first place, he assumed
the office of a judge, in his own cause, contrary to the rules of justice; for the
contest was respecting the extent of the bishop's rights, and those of the order
of deacons. And that Felicissimus was not destitute of arguments, by which
to defend his conduct, is sufiiciently manifest from the fact, tliat Cyprian most
carefully conceals from us the cause which produced the controversy. For if
the cause alleged by his adversary for his bold resistance to the bishop, had
been manifestly unjust, or destitute of all plausibility, Cyprian certainly would
not have passed silently over it, but would have assailed it in his usually elo-
quent and severe manner. —In the next place, Cyprian, by his deputies,
expelled from the church one of its ministers or deacons, unheard and uncon-
victed of crime, by his sole authority, and witiiout consulting the people which ;

a bishop had by no means a right to do. He therefore went far beyond the
limits of his power. He mentions, indeed, (in the Epistle before cited,) three
grounds for his sentence: the threats of Felicissimus, his frauds and rapines,
and his adultery. But, as Cyprian himself tacitly admits, Felicissimus had
never carried his threats into execution ; the frauds and rapines of which
the bishop says he had the most certain knowledge (se dilucida veritaie

cognoiisse,) had not been brought forward and spread out before the people
and as to the adultery, as he again admits, it had never been substantiated by
proof. It was therefore unavoidable, that this rash decision should produce

still greater dissensions. Among the Carthagenian presbyters, there were Jive^
who had dissented and opposed the elevation of Cyprian to the episcopate.
 Schism of Felicissimus. 55

These had previously manifested, by various signs, an aversion to him and ;

now they openly forsook him, and went with the party of Felicissimus ; and
undoubtedly, for the purpose of obtaining the appointment of another bishop
in his place. Some learned men think Novaius was one of the Jive ; to which
opinion we shall soon give attention. These presbyters, in order to accomplish
more readily, promised to the lapsed, towards whom Cyprian had
their object
been somewhat severe, that if they would separate themselves from the bishop,
they should be restored to the fellowship of the church without any penance
whatever. Says Cyprian, (Epist. xl. p. 52.) : Conjurationis suas memores, et
antiqua ilia contra episcopatum meum venena retinentes, instaurant veterem
contra nos irapugnationem suam. - - - Nunc se ad lapsorum perniciem venenata
Bua deceptione verterunt, ut ajgros et sauciog. et ad capienda fortiora consilia
per calamitatem ruinaj suae minus idoneos, et minus solidos, a medela vulneris
8ui avocent, et intermissis precibus et orationibus, quibus Dominus longa et
continua satisfactione placandus est, ad exitiosam temeritatera mendacio cap-
tiosffi pacis invitent. IMost bitterly does this holy man complain of the rashness
of the five presbyters, in this Epistle addressed to the Christian people. But
among and accusations, there are some which are extravagant,
his complaints
and would better become an orator laboring to excite odium against [p. 508.]
a criminal, than a Christian bishop. One thing of this character, as it strikes
me, is his comparing the five presbyters to the five principal men of Carthage,
who were joined with the magistrates for suppressing and exterminating the
Christians. Quinque isti prcsbyteri niliil aliud sunt, quani quinque primores
illi, qui edicto nuper magistratibus fuerunt copulati, ut fidem nostram subrue-
rent, ut gracilia fratrum corda ad lethales laqueos pravaricatione veritatis aver-
terent. In searcliing for tiie import of this passage, learned men have labored
wonderfully. But it manifestly refers to the five principal citizens, whom Decius,
in his edict, had coupled with the magistrates, for the more sure accomplish-
ment of his purpose of exterminating Christianity. By this formidable schism,
the return of Cyprian to his diocese was, for a time, retarded; yet, very soon,
casting away all fear, he returned, and by his presence put an end to the strife.

It now remains for us to inquire, whether the famous Novaius, whom Cy-
prian terms the standard-bearer of all the Carthagenian tumults, was one of
those five presbyters who joined the party of Felicissimus? The learned, with
great unanimity, affirm one only, so far as I know, denies it ; namely, John
it :

Pearson, in his Annales Cypriancae and he offers no proof of his opinion. It

;

Novaius were one of these presbyters, the cause of his hatred, and of the se-
dition against Cyprian, would be manifest. But, all things considered, I appre-
hend Pearson was right, and that Novaius is not to be numbered among those
adversaries of Cyprian, In the first place, it has been already shown, clearly,
that Novaius was at enmity with Cyprian some time before Felicissimus at-
tempted to make disturbances in the church at Carthage; and that Cyprian was
prevented from bringing him to trial, and ejecting him from the church, solely

by the sudden outbreak of the Decian persecution, which obliged Cyprian to go

into retirement. But those five presbyters did not withdraw themselves from
Cyprian, until after the sedition excited by Felicissimus. Before that time, they
56 Century III. — Section 14.

had dissembled their alienation, and the bishop had no controversy with Ihem.
In the next place, it appears, from the 49th Epistle of Cyprian, (p. 64.) that
sentence was never pronounced by the council of Carthage against Nmalus, but
that he prevented the sentence by his flight. Says the bishop: Ejici de eeclesia
et excludi habebat. - - Quasi evasisse sit poenam, prsevenisse sententiam. And
he afterwards says : He merited expulsion from the church, (eum meruisse de
eeclesia pelli.) and not that he tvaft expelled. In fact, Noxatus, to prevent being
condemned, withdrew himself from the church of Carthage, and from Cyprian's
jurisdiction. But those five presbyters, as we shall presently see, appeared be-
fore the council of bishops whicli Cyprian assembled after his return, made their
defence, and, by a decree of the council, were excluded from tiie communion of
[p. 509.] the church. I am aware that Cyprian says, (Epist. xlix. p. 63.) that

Novatus was condemned by the voice of all the priests, (jierjidus omniuvi Sacer-
dntiim voce damnaliis.) And hence the learned have inferred, tiiat he was con-
demned in the council, in conjunction with the other presbyters, the enemies of
Cyprian. words may very properly be understood of the private con-
But the
demnation of individuals and they undoubtedly prove, that all the teachers of
;

the cliurch disapproved of his temerity and improbity. Besides, unless I am

wholly deceived, Novatus had already reached Rome, and joined the partizana
of Novatian, when Cyprian, after his return, instituted a process against the
faction of Felicissimus and the five presbyters. The whole history will become
and be very difficult to arrange, unless we take tliis to be certain.
disjointed,
And when Cyprian says, explicitly, that Novalvc {sententiam pravenisse) pre-
vented sentence being passed by retiring; he clearly intimates that Novatus had
gone away, and was residing at Rome, before Cyprian returned to his cliurch.
Lastly, omitting other things for the sake of brevity, it is certain, that although
Novatus aided Felicissimus, and was fevor.ible to his cause while in Africa, yet,
he did not adhere to his party at Rome, but joined a very different one, namely,
that of Novatian. Neither did he recognize the bishop, fortunatus, whom the
faction of Felicissi7nus had set up in opposition to Cyprian ; but he established
another bishop at Carthage, namely, Maximus, one of the Novatian party.
(3) On the subsidence of the Decian persecution, Cijprian returned to Car-
thage, and immediately summoned a council of bishops, to settle the controversy
respecting the lapsed, and to try the cause of Felicissimus and the presbyters
associated with him. It were much to be wished that the Acts of this council,

or at least, the epistle of Cyprian and the African bishops concerning it, of

which Cyprian makes mention, (Epist. had come down to us. But
xlii. p. 57.)
^hey are all lost, and Ave have to form our judgment of the whole affiiir, from a
few words of Cyprian. From these it appears, first, that Felicissimus and the
five presbyters were present and had a hearing before the council. Cyprian,
writing to Cornelius, bishop of Rome, says, (Epist. xlii. p. 57.) Quantum vero :

hie ad presbyterorum quorundam et Felicissimi caussam pertinet, quid hie ac-

tum sit, ut scire posses, littcras ad te collegae nostri (the assembled bishops)
raanu sua subscriptas miserunt, qui, auditis eis, quid senserint et quid pronun-
ciaverint, ex eorum litteris disces. Secondly, from another of his Epistles to
the same Cornelius, (Epist. Iv. p. 87, &c.) it appears, that not only the bishops
 Schistn of FeUcissim\i.s. 57

of the African province, but also the presbyters and deacons, and not in a small
but in a large number, were present in the convention. Si eorum, qui de illis
priore anno judicaverunt, nuraerus cum presbyteris et diaconis computetur, plu-
restunc affiierunt judicio et cognitioni, quam sunt iidem isti, qui cum Fortunato
(tha bishop set up by the factious in opposition to Cyprian,) nunc videntur
esse coiijuncti. From the siunc Epistle, it appears that all of them were eject-
ed from tlie cliurch by the united suffrage of the bishops; yet not [p. 510.]
without the prospect of a pardon of their offences, provided thoy would reform.
Says Cyprian, (p. 88.) : Nee ecclesia istic cuiquam clauditur, nee episcopus
alicui denegatur. Patientia et facilitas et humanitas nostra venientibus praesto
est. Opto omnes in ecclesiam regredi. Neither does Cyprian omit to mention
the offences, which called forth this sentence; but, to my astonishment, he gives
most prominence to that one, which most excusable, and was never num-
is the
bered among the capital crimes which exclude a man from the church; namely,
compassion for the lapsed, and defence of the Cerllficates of Peace heretofore
mentioned. Let us hear the eloquent man's own words: Taceo itaque de frau-
dibus ecclesiae factis, (i. e. the interception and misapplication of the money of
the church,) Conjurationes et adulteria et varia delictorum genera praetereo.
(These the g»od man considers as minor offences, and as not so much against
God, as against men and the bishop. But now comes the huge crime against
God himself, and for wiiich alone they were deemed worthy of punishment.)
Unum illud, in quo non mea, nee hominum, sed Dei caussa est, de eorum facinore
non puto esse reticendum, quod a primo statim persecutionis die - - communkare
cum lapsis, et poenitentiae agendae intercedere non destiterunt: i. e. they wished
those, who brought Certificates of Peace from martyrs, to be received again by
the church. In magnifying this crime, he pours forth all his eloquence, and
consumes a large part of his Epistle, as if nothing could be more atrocious and
offensive to God. Now I suppose, that an adulterer, a sacrilegious man, an
enemy of the public peace, a plunderer of the funds devoted to the poor, is a
far greater sinner, than the man who, being of a mild temperament and aware
of human frailty, shows himself kind and lenient towards those, who aposta-
tised from Christ through fear of death, and themselves abhorred the crime.
But to tell the truth, it was neither this fault, nor the bulk of the others, which
oast Felicissbmis and his associates out of the church ; but (as the whole Epistle
shows.) it was this single one, that Fclicissimus dared to oppose the mandates of
the bishop, and to raise up a party against him. And that excessive lenity to-
wards the lapsed, was so great and heinous a crime, in the view of Cyprian,\)e-
cause it was not only contrary to his judgment in the matter, but also weaken-

ed his authority. We shall see, in another plaee, with what zeal this holy man
labored to defend and exalt the episcopal dignity, at the expense of the people's
rights. —
In what way the accused conducted their defence, or with what argu-
ments they justified their conduct, Cyprian has no where informed us. We
should have been able to judge much better of the merits of this controversy,
if some of those arguments had reached us. I am very confident that they
accused Cyprian of thirsting for power and lordship; and that they urged the
.ights of the presbyters, the deacons, and the people. Felicissimus and the
58 Century III. — Section 14.

presbyters, when condemned by the council, were not disheartened by the

[p. 511.] contumely, but sought to establish a new congregation at Carthage,
separated from Cypriaii's church. And over their flock, they made one Forlu-
natus bishop, obtaining consecration for him from five bishops who are named
and severely castigated by Cyprian, (Epist. Iv. p. 82.) And thus there were
three bishops at Carthage, at one and the same time namely, Cyprian, whom ;

the greater part of the people followed, Maximus, set up by the legates
of Novatian from Rome, and ForLunatus, whom the faction of Felicissimus
had created. This last party, in order to strengthen their new church, sent
Felicissimus with quite a number of delegates to Rome, to endeavor to
bring the Romish bishop Cornelius to espouse their cause, and renounce the
support of Cyprian, Cornelius was a little perplexed, being terrified by the
threats of the legates, and stumbled by their false statements. For they threat-

ened to expose (turpia multa ac probrosa) many base and reproachful things, if
he refused to receive the letter they had brought for him, ( Cyprian, Epist. Iv.
p. 80.) ; and they asserted, that twenty-Jiie African bishops attended the conse-
cration of Foriunatus. Cyprian contends, that this was a gross falsehood; and
I believe, he was correct. And yet he seems to admit, that there were more
tJian_^ie bishops present on that occasion; bad ones, however, eitjier lapsed, or
heretical. Sinomina (of the five-and-tvventy bishops) ab eis quaereres, non
haberent vel quos falso nominarent. Tanta apud eos etiam malorum (episcopo-
rum, undoubtedly; for he is speaking of bishops.) penuria est, ut ad illos nee de
sacrificatis, nee de haereticis viginti quinque (episcopi) coUigi possint. In the
assembly, therefore, besides the five who consecrated Felicissimus, there were
several other bishops, but they were either sacrificers who, of course, must have
been deposed, or they were, in Cyprian's estimation, heretics. Cornelius as-
sumed courage, his first fears subsiding, and rejecting the overtures of Felicis-

simus, he remained friendly to Cyprian. And this was necessary, for his own
sake; for he was hard pressed by the faction of Novatian, which also assailed
Cyprian, and inclined towards the party of Felicissimus. What Cornelius
would have done, had he been free and not in need of CypriaiUs friendship, is
another question, and we offerno conjectures about it. What occured after
this, — whether Foriunatus had any successor, or whether those who separated
—
from Cyprian, returned again to the cliurch, no ancient writer has informed
us. Perhaps, this whole fiiction became amalgamated with the Novatians.
He who shall impartially examine this controversy, will perhaps admit, that
it may be pronounced the last struggle of expiring liberty, in the African
church, against epbcopal domination. Cyprian, although he frequently speaks
modestly enough of himself, and respectfully enough of the martyrs and con-
fessors, the rights of the presbyters and deacons, and the authority of the peo-
ple, yet wished to concentrate all power in his own hands, and, subverting the
ancient form of government, to subject the whole church to the absolute au-
[p. 512.] thority and good pleasure of the bishop. This was the source of all

these conflicts. The confessors, the presbyters, the deacons, and the people,
made a partial resistance ; but the fortitude and perseverance of Cyprian finally
triumphed. No one will approve of every thing done by his antagonists; yet that
 The Novatian Schism. 59

they contended for the rights of the clergy and people in opposition to a
bishop affecting to have absolute dominion over them, is placed beyond all con-
troversy by the scanty and obscure documents which have come down to us.

§ XV. The Schism of Novatian at Rome. Before the return of

Cyprian from exile, Novatus, dreading tlie severity of the bishop,
had retired to Eome ; where discord and strife were no less pre-
valent than at Carthage. Novatian^ one of the Roman presbyters,
a learned, eloquent, and grave man, but rigid and austere, denied
that any persons falling into the grosser sins, and especially tlie
persons who had forsaken Christ in the Decian persecution, were
to be received again to the church; and, perceiving that Cor-
nelius^ a man among the Romish
hckl in the highest estimation
presbyters, and some others, differed fi'om him on this sub-
also
ject, he made the most strenuous opposition to the election of
Coryielius to succeed Fabian, as bishop of Rome.(') From hatred,
perhaps, of Cyprian, who was much attached to Cornelius, No-
vatus became an associate and co-adjutor of Novatian. Neverthe-
less, was elected bishop, and Novatian withdrew from
Cornelius
communion with him, and was followed, at the instigation of his
friend, Novatus, by five presbyters, several of the confessors, and
a portion of the people.(^) Both parties, by their letters, appealed
to Cyprian ; and he, after dispatching legates to Rome, and care-
fully examining the case, gave his decision in favor of Cornelius.
And, on the other hand, Cornelius followed the example of Cy-
prian^ s fortitude and, in a numerous council, which he assembled
;

at Rome, in the 3'ear 251, procured the ejectment of Novatian

and his adherents from the church, since nothing would persuade
them to entertain milder sentiments in regard to the lapsed.(')
The issue of this affair was as unhappy as that of the African
contest and it was the more lamentable, on account of the long
;

continuance of the evil, whereas the African schism was compa-

ratively of short duration. Those whom Cornelius had excluded
from the Romish church formed themselves into an associated
body, over which they placed, as bishop, Novatian, the parent of
the association. This new company of Christians, although de-
tested by most of the bishops, who approved the decrees [p. 513.]
of the Roman council, respecting the lapsed, enjoj^ed, neverthe-
less, staunch patrons, and was at once diffused through many
60 Century III.— Section 15.

parts of Christendom, and could not be suppressed before tlie

fftli century. For
good fortune, it was indebted to the
this, its

gravity and probity of the teachers who presided over it, and to
the severity of its discipline, which tolerated no base characters,
none guilty of the grosser sins.(^)

(1) The authors of most of the schisms among Christians, have been
charged, justly or unjustly, with many crimes and faults; but this iYora/ia??, was
not only accused of no criminal act, but was commended, even by those who
viewed him as warring against the interests of the church, by Cyprian, Jerome
and on account of his eloquence, his learning, and his philosophy. See
others,
Cyprian, Epist. lii. and Ivii. His adversary Cornelius, indeed inveighs against
him with much bitterness, in an Epistle to Fahius, bishop of Antioch, (preserved
in part by Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. L. vi. c. 43. p. 244. &c.) but still he does ;

not impeach his life or moral conduct. And nearly all the charges he brings
against him, great as they may seem to be, relate to the intentions of the mind,
which are known only to God: and some of the charges reflect more disgrace
on Cornelius himself than Noialian. But he has been taxed with ambition
for it is said that he stirred up this great controversy, merely because Cornelius
received most votes for the vacant bishopric, which he himself coveted. This
is an old charge ; and it has acquired so much strength and authority by age
that all the moderns repeat it with entire confidence ; and they tell us, that
Cornelius and Noxalian were competitors for the episcopate, and that the latter
failing of an election, disturbed the church, in his lust for office. But I have
no hesitation to pronounce this a false accusation ; and I think there is no good

proof that Xovatian acted in bad faith, or that he made religion a cloak for his
desire of distinction. His enemy, Cornelius, does indeed say this, (in his Epist.
apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles. L. vi. c. 43. p. 244.): UforraK^i opi-yofAivoc Tiit 'Ett/o-xo-

ttHs QttvfJiad'M ouTOf, Kat KpvTrraiv sv estuTai tjiv Tr^oTriTV tavthv dvTOV CKt^vfxiav,

Admirandus ille vir episcopalis loci cupiditate jampridem accensus, et preecipi-

tem illam ambitionem suam tegens, diu omnes latuit. But the very words in
which he is here accused, carry with them his acquittal. For Cornelius clearly
shows, that he concealed his ambition, which long remained unknown. Now, if
this was true, Novaiian certainly did nothing from which his desire of the epis-

copate could be inferred, nor could he have labored to secure votes or have
attempted to corrupt the electors and draw them into his party. For the man
who so conceals his ambition, that everybody believes him to seek no self-

ao-grandisement, cannot surely be a competitor with another man for the

[p. 514.1 But Cornelius supplies us with still stronger testi-

episcopal office.

mony to For he acknowledges, that when

the innocence of his adversary.
they were deliberating at Rome respecting the choice of a bishop, and Novatian
declared that he wished some other person than Cornelius might be chosen, he
affirmed, with a tremendous oath, that he himself did not wish for the office :

'O •) (ip Tc* Ki-y-TTpoTctTCiQ nai (T/' ogKav 9;/3spo3v t/vwv TrKrTivfXivo^ to fxit i't

't>\wi 'E:ri3-KCi;r?f ipiytS'd-ctt Egregius ille vir tremendis quibusdam sacramentis

 The Novatian Schism. 61

affirmateral, se Episcopatum non cnncupiscere. —

Now, whoever i either does nor
attempts anything that could awaken a suspicion of his being ambitious, and
morever declares, on oath, that he has no desire of the epi-copate, can not possi-
bly be a competitor for the episcopal otfice. But, some may say The viUain :

perjured himself; and although he made a great show of modesty, yet he op-
posed the election of Cornelius, in order to secure the appointment to himself.
To this 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, inflexible and rigorous, and
whom no one ever charged with impiety towards God, or with being of a perverse
and irreligious disposition. What then could Cornelius have designed by writing
to Fabian, and probably to others, that Novalian liad long secretly burned with
desire for the episcopal office 1 I answer: to contirm a conjecture, and that a
very dubious and intangible one. He reasoned in this manner Novatian, on
:

being expelled from the church, allowed himself to be created bishop by his
adherents therefore, he had long coveted the office of a bishop, although lie
;

pretended to the contrary. How fallacious and unworthy of a bishop such

reasoning is, I need not here show. Tliere would indeed be a little plausibility
in it. though very slight, if Novation, immediately after the election of Corne-
lius, had wished his friends to create him also a bishop a thing entirely within
;

his power to ef!eet. 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 alfair 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 Eusebium,
p. 242.): TMv aittiiva>y»3-iiy itai \vKifiKiu.Y, which Valerius translates abhorrentem
ab omni societale feritatem,et lupinam quamdam amiciliam. 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 fallen, 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 tiimiliar with the opinions and ])hraseology of
the ancient Christians, understand Cornelius ditlerently,) 'Ap-.fiuii tow Tris-Ttdnti
:

yiysvtf 2*Tavuc, ;.a;T«Vac its durdu nat oix.iT-j.i l» duTc5 ^piviV lx.a.vn. Caussam
atque inilium crcdendi ipsi Satanas in ipsu?n ingressus atque in ipso aliquamdiu
commoratus. This in our style and mode of speaking, would be : A deep and
62 Century HI. — Section 15.

settled melancholy had fastened on his mind : and the Christians tvho knew him
said, that an evil spirit had got j^ossession of him, and that if he ivould profess
Christ, the evil spirit would go out of him ; so, from a hope of recovering his
health, he professed Christianity. Perhaps his melancholy was attended by con-
vulsions. I have not here put a hasty and unwarrantable construction on the
statement; for not credible that Novatian himself, being a Stoic philosopher,
it is

would malady to an evil spirit. This notion was instilled into him by
refer his
the Christians who, undoubtedly, were desirous to bring a man of such cor-
;

rect morals to become a Christian and they gradually made him a convert to
;

their faith. Impatient of his malady, Novatian yielded to their exhortations.

But by the regulations of the ancient church, he could not be baptized so long
as he appeared to be under the power of an evil spirit. Exorcists were there-
fore sent to him, to expel the foul demon by their prayers. But they failed of
success and Novatian at length being seized with a threatening disease, while
;

under their operations, was baptized in his bed, when apparently about to die.

On recovering from the sickness, he seems to have hesitated whether he should

in health confirm what he had done in his sickness, and thus persevere in the

Christian religion. For, as Cornelius invidiously says of him, he could not be

persuaded to submit to the other rites prescribed by the church, and be con-
firmed by the bishop, or be signed, as the term used expresses it. For this per-

tinacity,and disregard of the Christian regulations, unquestionably the only as-

signable cause must have been, that his mind was fluctuating between the phi-
losophy he had before followed, and the Christian religion which he had
embraced from a hope of recovering his health. Nor can I much wonder at
this dubitation : for the Christians had assured him of the restoration of his
health by the exorcists, who had failed in the undertaking. Nevertheless, the
bishop, Fabian perhaps, a while after, made him a presbyter in his church, con-
trary to the wishes of the whole body of priests, and of a large part of the
church. (See Cornelius, apud Euseh. 1. c. p. 245.) It was altogether irregular
and contrary to ecclesiastical rules, to admit a man to the priestly office, who
had been baptized in bed that is, who had been merely sprinkled, and had not
;

[p. 516.] been wholly immersed in water in the ancient method. For by many,
and especially by the Roman Christians, the baptism of Clinicks, (so they
called those, who, lest they should die out of the church, were baptized on a
sick bed,) was accounted less perfect, and indeed less valid, and not sufficient
for the attainment of salvation. This also was even more strange and unheard
of, man should be admitted among the teachers and leaders of the Chris-
that a
tian people, who disregarded the laws of the church, and pertinaciously rejected
the authority and confirmation of the bishop. The belief of this age was,
that the Holy was imparted by the confirmation or signing of the bishop
Spirit ;

so that all Holy Spirit, whose baptism had not been approved
those lacked the
and ratified by the bishop, by prayers, imposition of hands, and other rites.
Ample proof of this is given by Cornelius, who expressly states, that Novatian
was destitute of the Holy Spirit because he neglected the signing of the
bishop. Tourciu eTe /n» Tu^iov, Trtus Sv Tou ayiou Kvev/udL'ro; 'iru^i ^ Hoc autem

(the signing of the bishop,) minime percepto, quo tandem modo Spirilum sane-
 The Novatian Schism. gg

turn poiuit acciperel The Roman bishop, thtrofore, committed a o-reat fault
by conferring honored otRce of a presbyter on a man, who resisted the laws
tlie

of the church, and whom he knew to be destitute of the Holy Sph-it. And
not only the body of presbyters, but also the people, perceivtd the magnitude
of tills fault; and both entreated the bishop not to confer that honor upon
NocaLian. But I can easily see, what may have induced the prelate to violate
the laws of the church in regard to this man. He feared lest the man should
forsake the Christian religion and revert to his former errors, of which disposi-
tion he had perliaps given some proofs. And therefore, to bind him to the
church, and prevent his apostatizing, he conferred this honor upon him. In
this opinion I am much confirmed by what is stated by Cornelius, (apud Euseb.

p. 245.) that Novatian was raised to the rank of a presbyler, immediately after
receiving baptism : Tlta-Tiua-'Xi KXTii^iaJd-n tou ^^i<r0uTifkv ksltU yigiv Tou
iTTia-KOTrcu, (which not badly translated by Valesius): Post susceptum baptis-
is

mun (properly, as soon as he had believed) Presbyteri gradum fuerat consecuius,

idque per gratiam episcopi. Very justly said to be by the favor of the bishop:
for it was contrary and customs of the church, to admit a man to
to the laws
the office of presbyter almost as soon as he was baptized, and before he iiad
filled the office of deacon. This very honorary and unusual benevolence of the

bishop, retained Novatian in the church, but it did not so heal and confirm his
diseased mind, as wholly to extinguish all propensity to leave the church. For,
on the rise of the Decian persecution, when the deacons called on him to quit
his chamber, where he kept shut up, and perform the functions of a presbyter
among his toiling and oppressed brethren, he refused to do it; nay, openly de-
clared, that the office of presbyter was irksome to him, and that he had thoughts
of returning again to his philosophy : Mii ya^ in ^ivxta-^itt ir^ir^uTifoQ tivm
Ifn, iTt'/iac yap iiva.1 ifiLXca-iifUs «/iusrT»f. Respondit, non amplius se velle [p. 517.]
presbyterum esse, sed alterius philosophicc arnore teneri. — I have introduced these
remarks on the life of Novatian. because they show that he was far from being
an evil-minded man, though he was of a melancholy and singular character
and they explain the cause of that schism which originated from him. Nova-
tian wrote much, but nothing tliat has reached us, except a tract de Trinitale
which is commonly printed with the works of Tertullian, and, a few years
since, was published separately, with Notes and Observations by Jackson, in
London. But some learned men contend, and not without apparent reason,
that it is uncertain whether Novatian was the author of this tract.

(2) Tliat the African presbyter Novatus, who fled from Carthage to Rome to
avoid the sentence of Cyprian, heaxme an associate and a coadjutor of JVoia/icm,
procured him many friends, and with vast zeal and effort cherished and pro-
moted his cause, is abundantly proved by the Epistles of Cyprian, by Jerome,
by Pacian, and many others. Novatian, a man gloomy and retiring, Wv)uld
have given way to admonition, or would have been easily overcome, had not
his irresolute mind been excited and fortified by the various appliances of that
factious, active, eloquent man, an adept at kindling the passions, who was influ-
enced, undoubtedly, by his hatred of Cyprian, the partizan of Cornelius. And
necessity also urged Novatus to embrace and defend the party of Novatian, with
64 Century III. — Section 15.

all his might, and even to the establisliing of a new church at Rome. He had
repaired to Rome as to a haven of security, in order to be safe from the shafts
of Cjjprian and the Africans. But if Cornelius, the intimate of liis adversary,
should continue at the head of the Romish church, he himself would most as-
suredly be rejected and expelled from it. It was therefore necessary for him
either to seek another asylum, or to cause Cornelius to be deposed from the
bishopric, or lastly, to establish a new church in which he would find shelter.
He therefore, more for his own safety, than for the honor of JSovatian, prevailed
by his eloquence on the Roman confessors, e. on that portion of the church
i.

which possessed the greatest influence and efficiency, to place themselves in

opposition to Cornelius; a thing, which Nuvatian either could not, or would not
attempt. Says Cyprian (Epist. xlix. p. 65.) Novato illiuc a vobis recedente,
:

id est, procella et turbine recedente, ex parte illic quies facta est, et gloriosi ac
boni confessores, qui de ecclesia posteaquam ille ah
illo incitante discesserant,

urbe discessit, ad ecclesiara reverterunt. The same man, and not Noiatian,
who was a quiet man, though austere and rigid, induced a portion of the
people at Rome to abandon Cornelius. Says Cyprian: similia et paria Romae
niolitus est, quae Carthagine, a clero portionem plebis avellens, fraternitatia

bene sibi cohaerentis et se invicem diligentis concordiam scindens. He also

[p. 518.] persuaded Novatian, a timid man, and perhaps reluctating, to allow
himself to be created bishop : Qui istic (at Carthage,) adversus ecclesiam dia-
conum fecerat, illic (at Rome,) episcopum fecit; i.e. he ceased not to urge
Novatian and his friends, until he prevailed with the latter to elect a bishop, and
with the former to take upon him that office. He likewise consented to be de-
spatched to Africa, with others, by the new bishop and thus empowered, he
;

established, at Carthage and other places, bishops adhearing to the Novatian

party. Every thing was planned and executed by the active Noralus, and
nothing or but little by Ncvalian. These acts were criminal, and they indicate
a turbulent spirit, thirsting for revenge, and more solicitous for victory and
self-advancement than for either truth or tranquility. Neither would I become
the patron of the man and yet there is one thing, in which he appears to me
:

less culpable than is commonly thought. All the ecclesiastical historians, whom
I have read, add this to his other crimes, that at Rome he approved opinions
directly opposite to those which he maintained in Africa:whence they con-
clude, that he showed by this whiffling and inconsistent course
his malignity, :

At Carthage, say they, he was mild and lenient to the lapsed, and thought they
ought, especially such of them as presented Certificates of Peace, to be kindly
received, and be admitted to the church and to the Lord's supper, without un-
dergoing penance; and this was intended to vex Cyprian. But at Rome, with
Novatian, he excluded the lapsed forever from the church; and was so austere
and uncompassionate, in order to overthrow Cornelius. Now whether the
learned have judged correctly in this matter, I very much doubt. Cyprian, the
most bitter of Novaius' enemies, enumerates all his fiiults, real or fictitious, in a
long catalogue ; but he does not mention this. Such silence in his enemy, is
alone sufficient, in my view, to clear his memory from this charge. Cyprian
likewise touches on the opinion, which, after the example of Novatian, he
 The Novaiian Schism. 65

maiufnined at Rome: but lie does not add, that while in Africa he held a differ-

ent and opposite opinion : which he would doubtless have not omitted, if \ova-
tus could be justly charged with the inconsistency. With an affectation of wit,
Cyprian says: Damnare imnc audet sacrificantium manus, (i. e. he denies that
pcrisons who have sacrificed with their hands, should be received again into the
church,) cum sit ipse nocentior pedibus, (i. e. when he had himself been more
guilty with his feet : very bad taste !) quibus filius qui nascebatur occisus est.
Novatus was reported to have kicked his pregnnnt wife in her abdomen. Cy-
prian would have used other language, Novatus had been chargeable with if

changing his opinions respecting the lapsed. He would have said: Damnare
nunc audet sacrificaniium Tnanus, quum pedes eorum antea osculalus sit, (he now
dares condemn the hands of sacrificers, whereas before he kissed their feet.)
This comparison would have more force and more truth. The learned have no
other reason for believing that Xovatus at Rome condemned the lapsed, whom
in Africa he patronized, except their persuasion, that he was one of the five
presbyters, w!io deserted Cyprian at Carthage ; for Cyprian complains of them,
that they were too indulgent towards the lapsed. But we have before shown
that Novatus was not one of them for it is evident that he had his [p. 519.]
;

contest with Cyprian, long before the five presbyters had theirs.
(3) Of tlie Roman council, in which Novatian was condemned and ejected
from the chur(;h, an account is given by Cyprian, (Epist. lii.) by Eusebius, and
by others of the ancients. Nucatiaii be was present ; but he could not
brought to agree with the bishops, that pardon should be granted to the Chris-
tians who lapsed in the time of persecution. lie had not always held the same
opinion ; for before his contest with Cornelius, he had decided that pardon
should be extended to all the lapsed, who relented, confessed, and submitted to
the ecclesiastical penalties. This we learn, not only from Cyprian, (Epist
lii.) but also from others. But, in the heat of contention, as often happens,
he insensibly became more strenuous than he was before. We are informed,
not only by Cyprian^ but also by Socrates, (Hist Eccles. L. iv. c. 28. p. 245.)
that Novatiayi's reason for opposing the advancement of Cornelius to the See
of Rome, was, that he held friendly intercourse with the lapsed, before they
had made satisfoction to the church. Nor does Cyprian venture to deny that
fact, but only to apologise for it. He says, (Epist lii. p. 69) : Sed et quod
passim (here passim is equivalent to promiscue) communicare sacrificatis Corne-
lius tibi nunciatus, hoc etiam de apostatarum fictis ruraoribus nascitur. He
here seems to deny the fact; but a little afterwards, he admits pretty plainly,
that Cornelius had given reconciliation to the lapsed in case of sickness, and
had not required of them to do penance when restored to health. Si qui infir-

mitatibus occupantur, illis, sicut placuit, in periculo subvenitur. And that he

treated the Libellatici with still greater lenity, is also not dissembled. It was
not, therefore, a sheer fiction, that Novatian charged upon Cornelius. Perhaps
some, at Rome, were less cautious than Cyprian in their defence of Cornelius,
and while they admitted the charge to its full extent, contended that it was a
trivial foult, and not derogatory to the character of a bishop. By the reasoning
of these men, the bilious and morose Novatian was so irritated, that he affirmed,
VOL. n. 6
66 Century III.— Section 16.

at last, that the lapsed ought to be forever excluded from communion whh the
bishop and the church; and in this way he aimed to strip the bishop's advocates
of all arguments in his favor. And having assumed this ground in the heat of
controversy, he afterwards would not abandon it, lest he should appear vacillat-
ing and unstable in his opinions. And undoubtedly, Novaius urged him not to
yield to any admonitions.
enumerate the patrons and favorers of Novaiian, some of
(4) I will not
whom were men of high character, nor trace the progress of the sect. It ap-
pears from Socrates, (Hist. Eccles. L. iv. c. 28. p. 245.) that the Epistles, vs'hich
Novaiian .sent throughout the Christian world, had great effect on the minds of
many, and drew them over to his party. From Eusebius, (Hist. Eccles. L. vi.
c. 44. p. 246. et c. 46. p. 248.) it appears, that Fahius, the bishop of Antioch,
and many others, leaned towards his opinions, from fear lest too great indul-

[p. 520.] gence to the lapsed should produce peril and damage to the church.
It also appears, that the Novatians collected congregations of considerable
magnitude, first in Africa, and then in various parts of Europe, Asia, and
Africa, at Rome, Constantinople, in Spain, in Gaul, and in Phrygia. And the
causes of this success are noticed by the ancients. In the first place, as
Socrates remarks in the passage before cited, the severity of the sect towards
those who stained their characters by sin, procured for it a high estimation
among those very studious of piety. And then, the gravity, and the purity of
morals, which most of their teachers exhibited, could not fail to procure for
them respect from the people. And hence, Constantine the Great exempted
them from the liabilities of the other heretics and, by a law enacted A. D. 326.
;

(inserted in the Codex Theodos. tom. \\. p. 124.) he allowed them to enjoy the
temples and property they had legitimately acquired. But the subsequent em-
perors were not equally indulgent to them and a law of the younger Theodo-
;

sius, A. D. 423, (found also in the Codex Theodos. tom. vi. p. 202.) decreed

the same penalties against them, as against the other sects. He had previouslj--,
in the year 413, enacted a severe law against a branch of the Novatian sect,
who bore the name of Sabbaiians or Prolopaschites. The name was taken
from one Sabbatius, who, near the beginning of the fifth century, separated
from the other Novatians, because he thought the feast of Easter should be
celebrated at the same time with the Jewisii Passover. See Ja. GoOwfrcd on
the Codex Theodos. (tom. vi. p. 222.) From the fifth century, it appears, the
sect gradully died away and yet some slight relics of it were apparent in the
;

sixth century.

§ XYI. The Novatiau Doctrines. As to the Christian rehgion,

generally, there was no disagreement between the Novatians and
other Christians. But that which especially distingTiished them
from the great body of Christians was, that they denied a re-
admission into the church, to all who fell into the greater sins
after baptism, and especially to those who, under the pressuj-e of
persecution, revolted from Christ and sacrificed to the gods: and
 The Novatlan Doctrines. 67

yet tliej did not exclude these persons from all hope of eternal

In close connection with this doctrine was another,

salvation. (')
that they could not look upon a church as anything short of an
assembly of unoffending persons persons who, since they first
;

entered the church, had not defiled themselves with any sin
which could expose them to eternal death. And this error
obliged them to regard all associations of Christians, that allowed
great offenders to return to their communion, (that is, the greatest
part of the Christian commonwealth,) as unworthy of the name
of true churches, and destitute of the Holy Spirit; thus [p. 521.]
arrogating to themselves alone, the appellation of a genuine and
pure church. And this they ventured publicly to proclaim. For
they assumed to themselves the name of Catliari {tJie Pure), there-
by obviously stigmatizing all other Christians as impure and
defiled and they re-baptized the Christians who came over to
;

them, thereby signifying that the baptisms of the churches from

which they dissented were a vain and empty ceremony.('') The
other things reported concerning the faith of this sect, are either

uncertain, or altooether incredible.

(1) Of the ancient writers who mention and condemn the principal error of
Novalian, respecting the perpetual exclusion of lapsed Christians from the
church, some express themselves obscurely and ambiguously, and others seem
to disagree with each other. It is therefore not strange that the moderns, also,
in treating of the Novatians, should vary in their statements, and advance di-

verse opinions. This, in general, is undoubtedly true, that Noiatian and his
adherents excluded for ever from the church, those who fell into sins after bap-

tism. But there are two things which admit of dispute First, who were :

—
meant by the Lapsed? Secondhj, whether he excluded the lapsed from the
cluirch only, or also from heaven and eternal salvation ? As to the first point,
it is certain tliat the contest between Cornelius and Noiatian, in its origin, re-

lated solely to those who had fiillen away in the Decian persecution. And yet
it is no less certain, that Novatian, as Cyprian gravely charges upon him,
(Epist. Hi. p. 74.) placed all persons whatever, whose conduct showed a de-
ficiency of Christian firmness, in one and the same predicament ; and he in-

flicted the same penalties on the Libellalici as on the Sacrijicali and the Thuri-
ficati. And as the laws of the ancient church considered certain other trans-
gressors, especially adulterers and murderers, as equally guilty with the apos-
tates, Novalian, also, seems to have comprehended them all in one sentence,
and to have ordered the church doors to be for ever closed against others, as
well as against apostates. And those writers of the fourth and fifth centuries,
who mention this Novatian doctrine, whether they refute it, or only explain it,
68 Century III.— Section 16,

all so understood it, telling us tliat Novaiian 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 ceutuiies. This is most explicitly
affirmed by Asdepiades, the Novatian bishop of Nice, in the fourth century
(apud Sncratem, Hist. Eccles. L. vii. c. 25; p. 367.): "Extos tov 1-rtd-dira.i koi
aXXai TToXXai k^tu. ra; ypAfai liTiy afj^gTidH irfios ^avarov, (T/' Sj vy.its fA'h wfhf
roijs KKnfutcvs, i/uui S'i x.ai tou; h^'inoug a7roK\ihu.iv. Praeter sacrificium idolo-

[p. 522.] rum sunt et alia multa peccata ad mortem, ut loquuntur scripturae,
propter qua3 vos quidem clericos, nos vero etiam 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 (dva-'nifiov Kavovos) : Neminem, qui post baptismum ejusmodi crimen ad-
miserit,quod pecatum ad mortem divina; scripturaj pronuntiant, ad divinorum
mysteriorum communionem admitti oportere. None of the ancients, so far 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. torn. 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,
Theodoret, and many others. Neither is this utterly ftilse ; for Socrates, who
was well versed in Novatian affiiirs, 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 fixct suggests to us the ori-

gin and source of this custom. There were followers oi Montanus still residing
in Phiygia, 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 62d Epistle of Cyprian, who sometimes speaks as if Novatian al-

lowed a place in his church to adulterers, and to other equally great sinners,
and excluded only deserters of Christianity, or apostates. He says, (p. 74.) •

Aut si se 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 voluntate peccarcrit. A little after he adds Nee sibi
:

in hoc novi hasretici blandiantur, quod se dicant idololatris non communicare,

 The Novatlan Doctrines. 69

quando apud illos adulter! et fraudalores, qui teneantur idololatviaj [p. 523.]
sint
crimine, secundum Apostolum. And a little after: Ita fit. ut si peccato alteiiua
inquinari alterum dicunt, et idololatriam delinquentis ad non delinquentem
transire sua asseveratione contendunt, excusnri secundum suani vocem non
pos^iut ab idololatriaj crimine, cum constet de Apostolica probatione mcechoa
et fraudatores, quibus illi communicant, idololatras esse. One cursorily reading
these passages, migiit easily foil into the belief that Novatian tolerated aduUer-
ers and defrauders in his congregation, or did not forbid this class of offenders,
undergoing the penances prescribed by the church, to be again received
after
among the brethren; and, therefore, that he closed the doors of the church only
against falsifiers 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 of Christians, and, of
all societies

course, also the Novatians. If, then, it be true, as the Novatians maintain, that
a man becomes by associating fraternally with a sinner, the
a sinner himself,
Novatians must be and may not escape the stains and spots
in perpetual peril,

of sin, whatever pains they may take. That such is the import of Cyprian'a
reasoning, is, I think, manifest from the first part of it Si se cordis et renia :

scrutatorem dicit et constituit Novatianus, fraudatores et moechos a latere sue

separet. Had he been speaking of persons, whose 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 sngacity more

than human, an exploration of the hearts of men was requisite. To show how
ditlicult it is to remove all sinners from the congregation of the just, Cyprian

selected two out of many crimes, adultery and fraud, which arc 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 tnmen et ipsis poenitentia conceditur et lamentandi ac satisfaci-
:

endi spes relinquitur secundum ipsum Apostolum, 2 Cor. xii. Some learned
men think that these words warrant the belief, tliat 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 JSoxaiian allowed
a reconciliation to adulterers, that it does not show that all other Christians,
except Novatians, would receive thera. Cyprian says no more than this, that

St. Paul left to adulterers a hope of penitence and satisfaction. And, [p. 524.]

therefore, although the controversy commenced with those unfaithful 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

laws of God, after baptism, ought for ever to be excluded from the assembly
of tJiC brethren.
70 Century III. —Section 16.

I come now to the other point, on which I stated there was room for some
doubt. A great number of modern writers tell us, that Notatian cut off all those
who fell into the greater sins after baptism, not only from the hope of re-admis-
sion to the church, but likewise 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 lovinia-

num, c. 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 reUable documents of this controversy, the morecertain 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 deduce from his principles,
but which he did not allow. Very many in that age believed, that the road to
heaven v/as 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 Cyprian decides. (Epist. lii. p. 71.) thus; Extra ecclesiam
conslilulus, et ah unitate atque caritate divisus, coronari in morle non poteril. 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 haereticae institutionis ineflicax et vana traditio ! hortari ad satisfac-

tionis poenitentiam et subtrahere de satisfactione medicinam, dicere fratribus

nostris,plange et lacrynias funde, et diebus ac noctibus ingemisce, et pro ab-
luendo et purgando delicto tuo largiter et frequenter operare, sed extra eccle-
siam post omnia ista morieris quaccunque ad pacem pertinent facies, sed nul-
;

1am pacem quam quaeris accipies. Q,uis 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 prohiberi - - admittendus est plangentium gemitus et poenitentiae fruotus
dolentibus non negandus. So then Novatian exhorted sinners ejected from the
church to weep, to pray, 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 ab-
wash and purge away their si7i. Therefore, he did not
lv£rent et purgarent,) to
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 sins
committed after baptism. And this opinion of their master, his disciples con-
tinued to retain. The Novatian bishop Acesius, at the council of Nice, in the
 The Novatian Doctrines. 71

presence of Constantine the Great, according to the testimony of Socrates

(Hist. Eccles. L. i. c. 10. p. 39.) tlius stated the doctrine of his sect: "E^t

dXXa Ttafa tow ©sou cxS't^^KT-d-ai, tod S'uyauivcu Kai i^ovTiav eyovTog a-uyymsiliv
Ad
poenitentiam quidem invitandos esse peccatores, remissionis
af/.ufrtifA.ara.

vero spera non a sacerdotibus expectare debere, verum a Deo, qui solus jus
potestatemque habet dimittendi peccata. A similar statement by Asdepiades,
another Novatian bishop, is found in Socrates, (Hist. Eccles. L. vii. c. 25. p. 367.) :

©«o3 fiovce T»v vuy^ufHTtv af^apnoiv iiriTpcjrovTu. Soli Deo potestatem condonaiidl
relinquimus. And Socrates himself, (L. iv. c. 28. p. 245.) obviously explains
the doctrine of Novatian in the same manner.
upon these Let us now res-t

lucid and strong testimonies, and not vainly some

strive to enervate them, as
learned men do, by other far inferior and less e.xplicit 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 wliom the church excluded, sink into utter despair; but,
while committing their case to God alone, and urging them to persevere in their
penitence through life, they declared that the lapsed 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 liis life 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 tiieir 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-
and conceal these consequences, as other sects did, nor
tians did not dissemble,
did they deny, but avowed them openly. In the first place, ro they admitted no
one to their communion who had been guilty of any great sin after baptism,
they must h.ave held, that the visible church of Christ is a congregation of holy
and innocent persons. And this principle migiit 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 they 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 ar^d, as we have just
72 Century III. — Section 16.

h'eard from Cyprian, this impurity, thny 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, liice a contagious disease, communicated itself to the inno-
cent, or whether 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 tlieir sen-
timents, no one can doubt, if he considers, that they regarded the baptisms of
all the ciiurehes that re-admitted transgressors, as being invalid, and that tiiey

rebaptised the members of other churches that came over to them. See Cyprian,
(Epist. Lxxiii. p. 129.) It was the almost univei*sal opinion of that age, that it

isby baptism men obtain forgiveness of sin. on account of their faith and their
profession ofit 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 Euseb.
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 the rebaptizing of heretics, of which we shall soon have occasion to speak.
He says, (Epist. Lxxiii. p. 131.) ; Manifestum est autem, ubi et per quos remissa
peccatorum dari possit, quae in baplismo scilicet datur. 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
offeruntur, et per nostram orationem et manus impositionem Spiriliim Sanctum

[p. 527.] consequuntur et Signaeulo Dominico consummantur. More, to the

same purpose, may be found in this Epistle. I acknowledge it to be uncertain,

whetlier Novaiian attributed the same efficacy to episcopal Confirmation, as

other Christians did. Novatian himself, as we have seen obj(!cted to him by
Cornelius, had no reverence for episcopal Confirmation ; and satisfied himself

virith baptism only : and Theodoret tells us, (Haeret. Fabul. L. iii. e. 5. 0pp. tom-
iv. p. made no account of unction or Confirmation,
229, 230.) that his followers
and of course, other rites accompanying unction. Nor was it, in my judgment,
a bad conjecture of Jo. Morin, (Comm. de sacris Ordinationibus, toni. 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 Novaiian denied all efficacy to the baptisms of the
Christians who received the lapsed to communion, he denied that any of those
dissenting from him had obtained from God the pardon of their sins, or had re-
ceived the "-ifts 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-
larly noticed, that the lapsed, or those excluded from the church for their
 Persecution of Gallus. 73

offences, were in a better condition, according to Novalians d ^ctrine, than those

Christians who admitted the lapsed into their assemblies. For ht taught the hipsed
to hope they might succeed in appeasing God, by persevering in their prayers
and tears, and other acts of penitence: but those 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 inhumane 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 Novatian, to beware of falling into their errors;
for they often confound the two very different, but associated men, being de-
ceived by the affinity of the names, Novaius and Novatian. But learned men
have long since given warning on this point.

§ XA^II. The Persecution under Gallus. While tlicse contro-

versies among Christians were rife, in the year 251, Decius was
slain,with his sons and Gallus 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 was renewed, either by [p. 528.]
years of Decius.,

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 Roman empire, which, however, they seem to
have endured with more fortitude than under Decius.(^) 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 Demetrianum., 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 Gallienus, 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. Dionysius of Alexandria,
(apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles. L. vii. c. 1. p. 250.) expressly says, that when Gallus
saw things moving on according to his wishes, he trod in the steps of Decius,
and persecuted (rouf /spsyj avS'pas) the holy men. That his Christian subjects in

Italy, and especially at Rome, were persecuted, demonstrable from the 57th
is

and 68th Epistles of Cyprian. And that the Christians of Africa were exposed
74 Century III. — Section 17.

to numerous perils, is manifest from Cyprian's Tract, ad Demetrianurn, 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 tlie cruelty
of Decius, or directed to some other mode of proceeding. Cyprian mentions
(Epist. Iv. p. 82.) an edict published at Carthage, respecting 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 litteras feci, ob sacrificia quae edicto proposito
celebrare populus jubebatur, clamore popularium ad leonem denuo postulatus in
circo fui. But as Cyprian, in this Epistle, makes no mention of evils and perils
arising from this edict to the Christians, and writes as if all was then quiet, I
can le 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 the Gentiles Et :

Gentiles et Judaei minanlur et hceretici. 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 I am led to this belief, first, by the language
used by Dionysius of Alexandria, (apud Euzeb. Hist. Eccles. L. vii. c. 1.), who
says that the {nfjits hS'pai) 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. 'HXas-si', :

insectatus est, lie 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 prsetor ; 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 primo aggressus, ut lupus avem secernere a
(the bishop)
grege, ut accipiter columbam ab agmine volantium separare tentaverat. - - Sed
retusus adunati exercitus fide pariter et vigore, intellexit milites Christi vigilare
- - non posse, mori posse, et hoc ipso invictos esse, quia mori non timent.
vinei
Quale illud fuit sub oculis Dei spectaculum gloriosum, quale in conspectu
Christi ecclesiffi suae gaudium, ad pugnam, quam tentaverat hostis, inferre non
singulos milites, sed tola simul castra prodiisse ! Omnes enira constat venturos
fuisse, si audire potuissent, quando accurrerit properanter et venerit quisquis
audivit. 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 this his recall, (which was procured, I suspect, by

the money of Cliristians), Cyprian congratulates 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 tra-
dition I could resist, if I were so disposed. This is certain, that Cyprian's call-
in<4- each of them, (beatum niarlyrem) a blessed martyr (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 the 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 ; altiiough, 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 ; enemy of
for Demetrianus, that violent
the Cliristians. 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
liis 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 Cyprian, by divine inspiration, predicted, before the
persecution of Gallus commenced, tiiat 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 prsenuntiatur et ostenditur. Protulimus, diem certaminis appropinquasse,
. .

hostem violentura cito contra nos exsurgcre, pugnam, non talem qualis fuit
(i. e. under Decius) sed graviorem multo et acriorem venire. And he writes the
same thing in his 56th Epistle, (ad Thibaritanos, p. 90.) : Nam cum Domini in-

struentis dignatione instigemur ssepius et admone amur. - - Scire debetis ac

pro certo credere ac tenere, pressurse diem super caput esse cospisse, et occnsuni
saeculi atque Antichrist! tempus appropinquasse. Gravior nunc et ferocior . .

pugna imiuinet. But, to confess the truth, the prophecies and visions which
Cyprian often announces, are fallacious and of dubious credibility. He was cer-
tainly a piousand 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 this 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
(pccasum scecttli et coming of Antichrist and the end of
Anlichristi tempus) the
the world : and even those who may account him the greatest of prophets in
other things, must admit, that he was here egregiously mistaken. And when a
70 Century III. — 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 visions were ridiculed by many, (Epist. Ixix. p.

124.) : Qaraquam sciara somnia ridicula et vaticinationes ineptas quibusdam

videri, sed utique illis, qui malunt contra sacerdotes 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 Demalrianuvi. That this tract was written in the
reign of Gallus, can be shown by many unexceptionnble proofs and in it the ;

writer bitterly complains of the very great wrongs suffered by the Christians.
He says, (c. xii. p. 220.) Innoxios, justos, Deo caros domo privas, patrimonio
:

spolias, calenis premis, carcere includis, gladio, besliis, 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 atque immanitas tua usitalis
potest contenta esse tormentis ; excogitat novas poenas ingeniosa erudelitas.
Now, if all these things occurred at the time Cyprian was writing that Tract,
it must be acknowledged, tliat 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, and rather declames than teaches or discusses. And hence we are
not obliged to consider all that he states respecting the sufferings of Christians,
as tlien 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 always 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 wiiich he himself enjoyed, wliile writing that Tract, is evidence that the
Christians were not then struggling under any gi'eat 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 Africa declared the
Cliristians to be the cause of these great calamities. Among them there was,
in particular, one Demetrianus. And, as he often called on Cyprian to dispute
^tith him, and continued to repeat tiiis aocusation, Cijprian 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 fames sjeviant, quodque imbres et pluvias serena longa snspendant,
nobis imputari, tacere ultra non oportet, ne - - dum criminationes falsas cou-
temnimus refutare, videamur crimen agnoscere. - - Dixisti per nos fieri et quod
nobis debeant imputari omnia ista, quibus nunc niundus quatitur et urgetur,

quod Dii vestri a nobis non colantur. Hence, as before stated, when the people
of Cartilage were admonished by the edict of the proconsul to appease the
 Persecution of Gallvs. 77

anger of the gods with sacrifices, they immediately demanoed that Cypiiaii, the
Christian bishop, should 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 this Demeirian, 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, what 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 the?e
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,
Demetriano, contemseram, verecundius ac melius existimans errantia imperitiara
silentio spernere, quam loquendo dementis insaniam provoeare. 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 him sacriligiom, impious, ignorant, stupid, insane?
call

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 ho adds, that Demetrian was one of the dogs and swine to
W'hieli Christ had forbidden the casting of what is holy. A little farther on, he
terras him rabid, blind, deaf, brutish ; Labor irritus, offerre lucem cceco, sermonem
surdo, sapientiam bruto. Nor do these suffice Demetrian is still further com-
:

plimented w^ith the terms, raging and impious. He says : Conticui, cum nee
docere indocilem possem, nee impium religione comprimere, nee furentem leni-
tate cohibere. And many more such flowers of rhetoric might be gathered from
this Tract, Undoubtedly, those eminent men, Baronius, Pearson, Tille-

mont, and others, must have read those passages; yet, it is strange that [p. 633.]

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 magistiate of very high rank.

Either Demetrian could not have been a man of such high rank, or Cyprian, in
assailing him 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 obser\ing, 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 Csrthage. 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 frequentlj^ 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 fiict, moreover, of the intimacy existing be-
tween these two men, appears to me to afford a strong argument against the
opinion, that Demetrian 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 1 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 contigit,) "naturally exists between wolves
and lambs."

§ XVIII. Disputes respecting the Baptisms of Heretics. Tllis ex-

ternal tranquillity gave rise to internal conflicts among Chris-
tians. How 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 tlie church, by a second baptism. But the
greater part of tbe Europeans considered the baptisms of errone-
ous churches as conveying forgiveness of sins for Christ's sake,
 Baptisms hj Heretics. 79

and therefore they received the heretics who came over to them,
solely by the imposition of hands and prayers.(') This difference
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,
coming over to the true church, should be puri-
that all heretics
fied by a second baptism. On learning this, Ste]jhen^ bishop of
Eome, 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 Airican bishops, in a council held at Carthage, assentea
to the oriental doctrine, to which many of the Africans had long
been adherents ; and
he signified, though modestly, to
this
Stephen. But so offended was 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 efiicacy,
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 by
the death of Stephen, and the occurrence of a new 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 the
sins of their past lives by baptism, on account of that faith in Christ Jesus which
the candidates for baptism professed ; but that the Holy Spirit is conferred by
As I have already stated, such was
the bishop's imposition of hands and prayers.
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-
dewed 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 tlie Spirit to others. And, of course, they delivered over such persons
to the bishops to be confirmed or sealed. But those who rejected the baptisms
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 proftss 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. Ixxiil.

ad Jubaianum, p. 130). I will quote a few sentences to illustrate and confirm

what I have said. The reasoning of those disagreeing with him, he thus states,
(c. 4.) Quserendum 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 Cln-ist which lie professed.
He then replies to this reasoning at considerable length ; and, among other
things, he says, (c. 5.) : Quoraodo potest videri, qui apud illos baptizatur, con-
secutus esse peccatorum remissam et divinse indulgentias gratiam per suam
fidem, qui ipsius fidei non habuerit veritatem 1 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 credcbat, 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 Constantine, if viewed generally, did not
differfrom 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 between the Roman bishop, Stephen, and
history of the controversy
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. 636.] 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
 Jiaptisms by Heretics, 81

Pontiff could not untie ; or, to apply the sponge, as Augustus to his Ajnx, to
all the most important documents of tliis contest that have reached us. I refer

to Raymiindus Missorius, 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 Stephen, 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.

Walch, in a Dissert, printed at Jena, in 1738, and by Jo. Henry i<baralea, 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 nccessJiry, (in his 15th
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 cvtenuate 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 arc sepa^
rated from the Romish churcii, exhibit greater fidelity in tln-ir treatment of this

controversy. And yet I would not deny, that they sometimes go too far, and
are especially faulty in this, tluit they make Cyprian to have been the author of

the contest. Into this opinion they were led by Euschius, who tells us, (Hist.

Eccles. L. vii. c 3 ; p, 251.) that Cyprian first condemned the baptisms of here-
tics; and yet, he himself subsequent!}' refutes that assertion. It is most fully
attested, in my view, that the Asiatic bishops gave occasion for this contest by
tJieirdecrees, and that Stephen 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 were 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
thename 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, this

question was perpetually coming up, and calling forth deliberation and d;s-
voi>. ir.
7
82 Century III.— Section 18,

cussion. For the custom of holding councils huving first originated in Greece,
as lias been already shown, and quickly extending itself over the Christian com-
monwealth, those things which had before been left to the discretion of indivi-
dual bishops, were brought under public discussion, and were determined by
the suffrages 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 hcerelicis ad ec-
clesiam veniunl : 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. what need was there of new councils and de-
Besides,
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 law. 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 tiie baptisms of the Montanists, many of them assembled at
Iconium and Sennada, 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 Eusehium, Hist. Eceles. L. vii. c. 7 ; p. 254). Concerning the
council at Iconium, in particular, Firmilian, the bishop of Cassarea, 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, as to be overlooked.
But after many years, when Stephen was at the head of the Romish church, the
scene changed, and what had been regarded as free and harmless at Rome, as-
sumed the nature of a crime. What occasioned this change, none of the 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 who 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 wa.s
preferable to that followed at Rome. But Stephen, 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 error. To reclaim his eastern brethren from this error, he wrote them 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 Romisli
church. Those are mistaken, who suppose that these Asiatic Christians, and
subsequently the African, were by Stephen excommunicated from the church. In
that 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 bishop excluded from
the communion oihis church, forfeited their privileges throughout the Christian
world. Tliese opinions first originated long afterwards. 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, eitlier justly
or erroneouslv, judired to be contaminated with gross sins, or guilty of any con-
duct inconsistent with the obligations 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-
frian acted ; by this Victor of Rome by ; this Stephen ; and by this many others
in that age. Moreover, it is very incorrect to call these private decisions excom-
munications; and to say, e. g. that Stephen excommunicated Cyprian: for the
two expressions, to excommunicate, and to deprive one of our co?nmunion, are of

very different import. — But to return to Stephen : Respecting his unkind con-
duct towards the Asiatics, these few tilings only are preserved in the Epistle of
Dionysius Alexandrinus, by Eusebius, (Ilist. Eccles. L. vii. c. 5 ; p. 252.)
'ETSj'TuXKt/ fjt'iy O'Jv Trpirtptiy Kai TrtpX E'xtvoi/ koi rripX 'Pip/AiKtu.vm Kai rrdvToiv tcjv

T« «To T))C KiXlKiAi Kii KaiZTTai'r.Kiai Kai yt.KAT'u.i xai -Kavroiv rdf f^iic cfAopoviTuI

tS-vuv, (Jc iivS'i tKiivoii Ks/vaivuVaiv Jii riiv dvTtiv tsluthv u/T('uy, eTe/cTij tsuc

atfi'TiKoiK (ip>i<rn) dvx0iL7r'Ti^iva-i. Antea quidcm (Stephanus) litteras scripserat

de Heleno et de Firmiliano, de omnibus denique episcopis per Ciliciam, Cappa-

dociam, cunclasque finitimas provincias constitutis, sese ob earn caussam ab
illorum communione discessum, quod hajreticos rebaptisarent. On tliis passage,

Valesiiis (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 Cyprians 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 ;
does not condescend to give Stephen tiie ordinary title
for Firmilian
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.
Secondly, not for from the end of the Epistle, (c. 24.) Firmilian most manifestly
represents, Stephen had declared war, not only against the African
that
churches, but also against many others, and among them against the Oriental
for he thus addresses him Lites et dissensiones quantas parasli per ecclesias
:

totius mundi 1 Peccatum vero quam magnum tibi exaggerasti, quando ie a tot
gregibus scidisti ? Excidisti enim te ipsum. Noli te failere. Siqiiideiii ille est
vere schismaticus, qui se a communione ecclesiastical unilalis apostatam fccerit.
84 Century III. — Section 18.

Dum omnes a te abstiiieri posse, solum te ab omnibus abslinuist'l.

eniro putas
- - (c. Quid enim hurailius aut lenius, quam cum lot. ejiiscopis per iotum
25 )

mundum dissensisse ? Pacem cum singulis vario discordiEe genere rumpenlemt

modo cum Orienlalibus, (so then fraternal intercourse with the Orientals was
actually suspended, and not merely threatened,) quod nee vos latere confidiinus,
modo vohiscum, qui in meridie estis. —Whtther the Asiatics retaliated the

injury they had received from Stephen, and in like manner excluded him from
their fraternal love, is foind 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 Fermilian,
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 Orienlalibus, quod nee vos

latereconfidimus; when he writes thus, I say, he manifestly indicates that

Stephen's Asiatic contest preceded his African contest with Cyprian. Lastly,
Dimujsius Alexandrinus, (apnd 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 (j^on^ov, prius,) 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. Ixxiii. p. 129.) decided.
 Baptisms by Heretics. 85

Vnum baptisma esse, quod sit in ecclesia catholica conslitulum, ac per hoc non
re-
baptizari, sed baplizrari, quicunque ab adullera el prophana aqua xeniunl ahlu-
endi et sanciijicandi salularis aqucc verilale. Tliis decision of the second council
was defended by Cyprian, in iiis long Epistle to Jubaianus, (Epist. Ixxiii. 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 different custom prevailed at Rome, and perhaps had heard some-
thing about the rupture between Stephen, the Roman bishop, and the bishops
of Asia on this subject, both he and the council tliought 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 oif communion with tiiem. 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 v.ritten for the purpose of acquaniting the Romish
bishop with the doings of the council, but solely to forestall his anger and in-
dignation. For they pass silenlly over nearly all the many imporlant decisions
of the council, and mention only two of them, the one concerning the baptisma
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 Epi>tle, that they have no
wish to enter into controversy with any one differing from them in opinion.
They say, (c. 4,) Caeterum, scimus quosdim quod semel iinbiberint nolle de-
poncre, nee propositum suum facile mutare, sed salvo inter collegas pacis et
Concordia; vinculo qua'dam propria qua3 apud se semel sint usurpata retinere.
Qua in re nee uos vim cuiquain facinuis aut legem damns, quando habeat in
ecclesicc adminislraiione voluntatis sua: arbitriiim liberum unusquisque prccpositus
rationem actus sui Domino redditurus. Now, he who sees the Africans writing
in this manner to the Roman contends that the Roman bishop.s
bishop, and still

in that age had any power or jurisdiction whatever over the other bi>hops, 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, a3
the .African council assert, that every iiidiiidual bishop had free arbitriment in the
administration <f the affairs nf 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 false; namely. that God had subjected
all the bishops to a certain one of them, and that a certain one was to enact
laws in Clnist'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, althougli 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. He therefore, in
the name of the Roman church, wrote to Cyprian, or rather to the African
church, in whose name CypHan 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 baptism 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 of it may still be known, partly from the Epistle of Cyprian, to Pom-
peiua, (Epist. Ixxiv.) and partly from the Letter of Firmilian, bishop of Ceesaraea,
to Cyprian, which is the next in order among the Epistles of Cyprian, (Ep.
Ixxv.) According to Cypriaii's account of it, it contained many arrogant things,
irrevelant to the subject, and adverse to his otvn cause, unadvisedly and unskilfully
written : and that this representation is not entirely false, an impartial person
can without difficulty believe; and yet, to be perfectly frank, the same might,
to some extent, be said of Cyprian's own it employs vain and futile
Epistle, for
arguments, and abounds much in sarcasms. But there is this commendable in
[p. 542.] Cyprian, that he does not retaliate upon Stephen, by excluding him from
fellowsiiip,but calls him Our Brother, which title is a manifest indication of a dispo-
sition for peace and a dread of discord. Learned men have greatly lauded tliis

temperate conduct of Cyprian; and not wholly without reason. But, iu my

judgment, it will detract somewhat from this commendation to reflect that
Cyprian could not deny lo Stephen the privileges of a brother, without 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 tlie 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 riglits 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 appears 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 ciiurch, and appealed to con-
tinuous tradition. He says, (c. 6. p. 144.) Adhuc etiam infamans Petrura 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 Firniilian,
(p. 149.) Nos veritati et consuetudinem jungimus, et consuetudini Romanorum
corsuetudinem, sed veritatis, opponimus, ab initio hoc tenentes, quod a Christo
et ab Apostolis traditum est. Li this controversy, therefore, tradition was op-
posed to tradition, the Asiatic tradition from Christ and tiie 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. He 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 sanct«B
ecclesias computaremus. From this Epistle cf Firmilian it appears, moreover,
 Baptisms by Heretics, 87

that Stephen had grently lauded the dignity of his church, and its eminence
among the ciuirclies. Atque ego in h:ic parte juste indignor ad hanc tam aper-
tam et manifestani Stephani stultitiam, quod qui sic de episcopatus sui loco
gloriatur et se successorem Petri tenere conlendit, super quem fundamenta
ecclosiae collocata sunt, inultas alias petras inducat, et ecclesiarum muitarum
alia asdificia constituat, dum baptisma sua auctoritate defendit. This,
esse illic

doubtless, was the part of Stephen's letter, for which Cyprian branded him with
the epitliet proud. I wish we had the reply of the 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 otlier
Epistles of Cyprian, in which he expresses his opinion of the rights of the
bishops. The otiier 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 tlie Romish church or to Stephen, refuted all i)is arguments for tiie efficacy
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
Bunt quasi nostra propria suscepimus, nee in transcursu legimus, sed saepe repe-
tita memoriae mandavimus. Neque obest utilitati salutari aut eadem retexere ad

confirmandam veritaiem aut et quajdam addere ad cumuUindam probationem.

After a few remarks, he proceeds, (c. 7) Sed et ad illam partem bene a vobia
:

responsum est, ubi Steplianus in epistola sua dixit haerelicos in baptismo con-
venire. And a little after: Quo in loco etsi vos jam probastis, satis ridiculum
esse, ut quis sequatur errantcs, 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 waa
that of Cy|>rian to Pompeius, or his 74th Epistle, in which he confutes the
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 vobis scripta sunt, legi. Fos jam probastis:
Vos respondistis. Stephen was so irritated by this Epistle, that he not only re-
plied more harshly and angrily than before, but he assailed Cyprian, whom he
regarded as the author of the African contumacy, with direct maledictions, and
excluded the Africans from his communion. This also may appear perhaps 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 conjecture.
At the time Firmilian wrote, all communion between the Africans and the Ro-
mans had certainly been suspended by Stephen. For Firmilian &ay8:(c. 6, p.
144) : Quod nunc Stephanus ausus est focere, rumpens adversus vos pacetn,
88 Century III. — Section 18.

quam semper antecessores ejus voliiscum amore et honore mntno cnstodierunt.

And towards the end (e. 24, p. 160) Peceatum vero quam magnum tibi ex-
: :

aggenisti, quando te a tot gregibus suidisti! I omit more passages of the s;ime
[p. 544.] tenor. But in the first Epistle of Steplien, 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 generatim putaverat, qui de
suscipiendis hgereticis priseam consuetudinem convellei'e conarentur. There
must, therefore, have followed a second Epistle, in which he carried out the
determination he had formed, and dechired non communion with the Africans.
Moreover, Firmilian testifies, (c. 26,) that in his last Epislle Stephen assailed

Cyprian with invectives Et tamen non pudet Stephanum, talibus (hsereticis)

;

adversus ecclesiam patrocinium praestare, et propter hasreticos asserendos/j'a^er-

nitalem scindere, insuper et Cyprinnum pseudochristum e' pseudoapostolum et dolo-
sum opernrium dicere. Firmilian would, doubtless, never liave said this, had
not Stephen written it. But, in his first Epistle, he had not yet uttered these re-
proaches, for Cyprian would not iiave passed them in silence in his Epistle to
Pompeius, if they had then been uttered. It was. therefore, in another Ej)istle,
written after the first, tiiat 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 Cliristinns 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 meridio estis,

legates opiscopos patienter satis et leniter suscepif, ut eos nee ad sermonem

saltern colloquii communis admittoret, adhuc insuper dileetionis et cariiatis

memor prseciperet fraternitati universae, ne quis cos 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 whei'e it was. I see
not wliat could demonstrate more clearly tlian 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. Afler tiiis many —
things were, doubtless, said and done, of which no record has readied us. Ste-

phen, we may believe without testimony, being a man

weak mind, endeavored
of
to excite the christian world against the Africans; and many councils were iield
on the subject here and there, as 1 recollect Augustine some where intimates.
And therefore Cyprian, that he and his Africans might not stand alone, thought
proper to look about him for friends. And, knowing that the Asi:itics 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 hira
documents wliich would acquaint him with the whole case. Firmilian responded
according to his wishes and, as his Epistle (among those of Cyprian, Ep. Ixxv.)
;

[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 the Asiatics with tiie same abuse as the Africans. At tiie 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 D. 256, from the three
provinces of Africa, Numidia, and Mauritania. The Acts of this council have
been transmitted by Aiigustine, (de Baptismo contra Donatistas, L. vi. and
to us

vii. 0pp. tom. ix.) They are extant also among the works of Cyprian, p. 329.
There were prc^-ent 87 bishops, and not only presbyters and deacons, but also
(plebis maxima pars) a large portion of the pcplc. 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,
witliout 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 ago, 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 iiac ipsa re singuli
quid sentiamus, proferamus, neminem judicantes, aut a jure communicalionis
aliquem, sidiversum senserit, amoventes. Neque enim quisquam nostrum epis-
copum se esse episcoporum constituit, aut tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi
quando habeat omnis episcopus pro licentia
necessitatera collegas suos adigit,
proprium, tamque judicari ab alio non pos-
libertatis et potestatis sua) arbitrium

Bit, quam nee ipse potest alterum judicare. Sed expoctemus universi judicium
Domini nostri Jesu Christi, qui unus et solus habet potestatem et pra;ponendi
nos in ecclesiae suaj gubernatione, et de actu nostro judicandi. At that time,
therefore, Christ had no vicar here on earth, but was himself (sohis 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. c. 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 flenarium (de Baptismo, L. I. c. 7,) held at Nice or Aries, (fur [p. 546.]
the learned are not agreed as to this council,) they universally embraced the
Romish custom.
It remains for us to ascertain the precise sentiments of the two parties.

Cyprian and Firniilian state with sufficient perspicuity, what they and their
brethren maintained. Says Cyprian, (Epist. Ixxiv. ad Pompeium, c. 12, p. 142):
Omnes, qui ex quacunque haBresi ad ecclesiam convertuntur, eeclesia? unieo et

legitime baptismo baptizantur, exccptis his, qui baptizati in ecclesia prius fue-
rant, et sic ad haereticos transierant. Illos enim oportet, cum redeunt, acta
90 Century III.— Section IS.

poenitentia per manus impositionera solam recipi. By heretics, C\«prian under

stood, not merely corrupters of the true religion, but lilvewise all who with-
drew themselves from the principal church, and formed separate congregations.
And iience, he required the Noiatians to be re-baptized on their coming over
to the church, (as we lenni 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 office, 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 the visible
church under the bishops of the Apostolic succession and this obliged him to :

decide, that there could be no saving baptism except was administered by such
it

bishops, or by their direction and authority. He would surely have entertained

different 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 adversary
Stephen, are not equally manifest. Those solicitous for the reputation of Ste-
phen, and such, with iew exceptions, are nearly all the adherents to the Romish
church, to whom it appears hard and difficult to believe that any of the ancient
Pontiffs differed from the modern, or that the church, in the third century,was
divided between —
two errors those in favor of Stephen, I say, tells us that he
taught just as the Romish church does at the present day, not that the baptisms
of all heretics, but only of those who in baptizing invoked the names of the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, were valid baptisms. See Tillemoni, (Memoires
pour servir a I'Hist. de TEglise, tom. iv. P. I. p. 419, &c.) and Natalis Alexan-
der, (Selecta Hist. Eecles. Capita, tom. iii. p. 691, &c.) who treats this subject

in ills usual scholastic rather than historical manner. But others for the most
part, to whom the reputation of the ancient Roman Pontiffs 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 Allix, (Diss.
de vita et scriptis Tertulliani, c. 4, p. 30, &-c.) not to mention Blondell, Launoi,
and others. The former party defend their position by the autiiority especi-

[p. 547.] ally of Eusebiiis, Aiigusline, Vincent of Lirins, and Facimdus : who
say that Stephen accounted no baptism valid, unless it was administered in the
words prescribed by But to these comparatively recent authorities the
Christ.

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 quacunque hceresi vcnerit
ad vos, nihil innovetur nisi quod traditum est, ut manus illi imponatur in poeni-

tentiam, cum ipsi hseretici proprie alterutrum ad se venientes non baptizent, sed
communicent tantum." Moreover, Cyprian, who, almost invariably, represents
Stephen as holding all baptisms adniinistered in the name of Christ to be legi-

timate, says, (Epist. Ixxiv. c. 5, p. 139.) Si eflectum baptismi majeslati nominis

tribuunt, ut qui in nomine Jesu Chrisli ubicunque et quomodocunque baptizen-

tur, innovati et sanctificati judicentur; cur non, &c. And farther, the ancient,
but unknown author of the Liber de Rebaptismate, who takes sides witii Ste-
 Persecution of Valerian. 9]

phen, and whose book is commonly printed with tlie Opera Cijpriani, (p. 353.)
with the following title prefixed: Non debere denuo baplizari qui semel in
nomine Domini nostri Jesu Christi sunt tiiicti ; seems to deeide the question
respecting Stephen's omit other testimonies of less importance.
views. I

These testimonies, I confess, seem to have great weight yet I have some hesi- ;

tation to admit their conclusiveness, because Firmilian, an opposer of Stephen,

in his Epistle to Cyprian, (c. 9, p. 145.) states Stephen's opinion thus: lUud
quoque absurdum, quod non putant quaerendum esse quis sit ille qui baptiza-
verit, eo quod qui baptizatus sit, gratiam conscqui potuerit intocala (rinilate
nom'vium Palris et Filii el Spiriius 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, perliaps, he aimed only to
explain the point, and attributed to Stephen the conceptions of his own mind.
To confess tiie truth, I can believe that Stephen expressed his views only in
general terms, and did not accurately define them ; and, therefore, they were
expliiined diflerently. Men very frequently, at the present day, in theological
controversies, aflirm and denj', attr.ck and defend, only in a general way, and
without defining the conflicting opinions. And why may we not suppose this
to have occurred in tiie present controversy.

§ XIX. The Persecution under Valerian. After showing him-

self kind and indulgent towards the Christians until the fifth
suddenl}'', by the persuasion of Macrianus, his
year of his reign,
bosom companion, a man of very high rank and reputation, but
exceedingly superstitious, Vale7-ian, in the year 257, changed his
policy towards them, and ordered the governors of pro- [p. 548.]
vinces to inhibit the meetings of Christians, and to send their
bishops and teachers into exile.(') But these milder mandates
rather animated than disheartened the Christians, who had 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.Q Eminent among
those that fell were Cyprian, the celebrated
in this persecution
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 tsaid to have been
roasted to death on a slow fire : some, however, refer this last mar-
tyrdom to the 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
92 Century III— Section 19.

peace to tlie Christians, after four years of suffering.(') Yet tliej

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 disposed, could put those Christians
to death who Avere regularly accused and acknowledged their
faith, if they refused to sacrifice to the gods.Q

(1) RespiH-ting the clemency of Valerian to the Christians in the tirst

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 hitter part of which
is preserved by Euse-

bius, (Hist. Eccies. L. vii. c. But as Eusebius cites two passages

10. p. 255.)

from this Epistle, in one of which Dionysius does not mention the name of the
person who induced Valeriiui to persecute the Christians, and in the other tell.'i
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 passnge Dyonisius says: "ATiirxsi/uTao-S-a/ Si Tr^pi-

irmrey dwriv o S't-i'dynnKo; xui twv air' A(j-i/tt;u /udymv dfi^io'uva'yuyoif Toi/; fxiy

jtaS-a/Jouj Kui otri-^vs avip-Xi x.Tlvvuj-d'ai.t xai St(oKi<rb-'j.t x-lXiuaiV . Vcrum magistcr
et Archisynagogus magorum Aegypti ei (Valeraino) tandem persuasit, ut ab hoc
instituto descisceret, jubens, ut castus quidem et sanctos viros persequeretur
atque occideret. But a little after he says: 'O /xh yup O'viKipixvoi U; tout*
t/3-o Tot/Tiu (bAanpidviv) Trp'.u^^its tij v^ptii koli ivuS'i^fx^vs ix.S'o^iii. Nam Vale-
[p. 549.J rianus quidem, qui ad hujusmodi facinora a Macriano (for he is the per-
son spoken of,) impulsus fuerat, 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 Cliief 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 TremelHus Pollio says in his
Gallienus, Scriptor. Hist. August, tom. ii. 189.) "none of the generals were
deemed more none more competent for business, none more opulent,"
wise,
—
should be prefect of the Egyptian Magicians, have supposed this Magician of
Dionysius to be a different per.-on 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 Lactantius de morti-
bus persequutorum, p. 152.) goes so far as to suppose this Magician was a
Jew, infering it from the Jewish words if/tTas-^aAoj and 'Ap)(^i<i-uvdya)yo( 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, Arast.
1742, 4to.) But, as Dionysius most explicitly states, that Macrianus recom-
mended the persecution to the enperor, and that Valerian received the sad
reward of his docility, while he adds nothing which can lead to the supix)-
silion that Macrianus had an associate in the transaction, the supposition haa
 Persecution of Valerian. 93

not the least probability ; on tlie contrary, \\ft must believe Hint Dionysiua
designated one and the same person in this two-fold nmnner. Nor will this
interpretiition be weakened by the two epitliets above mentioned. The first
of them, Mufl-KaAoj, magister, should not be referred to the Magicians, as is
manifest from the Greek. Valesius has not expressed properly the nieanino- of
Dionysius; and this has occasioned some, wiio did not inspect the Greeli, to
fall into a mistake. He should have rendered it {Magister ejus) his (Valerian's)
master, and chief of the synagogue, <^-c. For word undoubtedly has reference
this
who yielded
to Valerian, to tlie opinions of Macrianus in every thine, and al-
ways defered to him as to a master. Valerian himself, in a .spefch to the
senate, said: Ego bellum Persicum gerens, Macriano tolam rempuhlicamtradidi.
See Trebellius PoUid's 30 Tyrants, (in the Scriptor. Historiae Augusta?, torn. ii.

p. 288.) And as to the titleSynagogue of the Egyptian Magicians,

Chief of the

it is a sneer of Dionysius at Macrianus, and not the title of his oJKce 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 oflice 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 m:x- [p. 650.]
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 nefarious 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: Kat yap ei^iv xai ria-Av 'Uavoi Trufivrn
xai opiiy.iv:,t, kui /xivcy euTviovrti; xai fd'i^yofAivoi, J'ta.a-KiS'dfm ras tojp dXiTi^ioij'

J'<ttuova>v Erant enim et sunt etiamnum (inter nos) ejusmodi, qui

iri^ivxas.

vel prsesentia et aspectu suo, et insufilantes duntaxat ac vocem edentes, dremo-

num prajstigias disturbarc possunt. And, therefore, he prevailed on the em-

peror to endeavor to extirpate a sort of men injurious and teuible 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 wiiich 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, I 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 and who control them at their pleasure, also
their power,
upon the worshippers of demons And who
bring, if they choose, various evils !

but a madman, destitute of reason, would voluntarily and eagerly worship be-
94 Century III.— Section 19.

ings whom he knew to be paralyzed and stript of all power by others more
powerful ! Whoever seeks for himself a lord, will, if he be in his senses, pre-
fer the more powerful 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 foi'estalled 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 his infernal rites and mysteries. Let us con-
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 them
designs very foreign from their real ones. I think his superstition alone was
sufficient to prompt Macrianus to inflame the emperor against the Christians.
And I am the more inclined to think so, because I learn from Trehellius
Pollio, (Thirty Tyrants, c. 14, in the Histor. Augustaj, 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. 551.] their garments, and their ornaments, influenced by a peurile conceit of

the vulgar, {juvari in omni actu suo, qui Alexandrum expressum in auro gestita-
rent vel argento,) that whoever 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 himself 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 upon the Christians was such as could be

assault of Valerian
endured as appears from the Acts of Cyprian, and of Dionysius Alexayulrinus,
;

(apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles. L. vii. c. 11), For he merely decreed the banish-
ment of all bishops and presbyters who would 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 the 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 Cypriani, (in Theod. Ruinart,
Acta Martyr, sincera et selecta, p. 216). When Cyprian was arraigned before liim,
Paternus thus addressed him: Sacratissimi Imperatores Valerianus ct Gallienus
litteras ad me dare dignati sunt, quibus prseceperunt eos, qui Romanam religio-

nem non colunt, debere Romanas caeremonias recognoscere. Cyprian had no

sooner declared that he could not obey this mandate, than the proconsul pro-
nounced sentence of banishment upon him, and then proceeded: Non solum de
episcnpis, verum etiam de presbyteris mihi scrlbcre dignati sunt. From this it
is very manifest that the emperor's mandate extended only to the bishops and

presbyters; against the deacons and the people nothing was decreed. Neither
was capital punishment ordered for bishops and presbyters, but merely exile.
Lastly, the proconsul added Praeceperunt etiam, ne in aliquibus locis concilia-
:

bula fiant, nee coemeteria ingrediantur. Si quis itaque hoc tam salubre prascep-
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

wliich they designate as Conciliabula ; and then, in particular, the conventions

which were held in Cemeteries. By this term, it is well known, the places were
designated in which the Christians 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 comiuemorate those
holy men. Perhaps, also, at other times the Christians miglit assemble in their

Cemeteries to ofier prayers at the sepulchres of the saints and martyrs. And as
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 extinction 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 them Mittemini in partes LibyaJ ad locum
to ;

Cephro. Hunc enim locum jiissu Augustorum nostroruni elegi. Nullatenus

autem licebit vobis conventus agere, aut ea qua vocantur coemeteria adire.
Here, however, learned men oppose few examples of persons, who,
to us not a
in 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 marlyres hi melallis

conslitulos, in which he represents (p. 158.) a part of the people of Iiis charge,
as having already gone forth to receive from the Lord the crown of tlieir

merits, by the consummation of their martyrdom, and a part as remaining still

within the bars of their prisons, or at the mines in chainsand 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 vestrum secuta multiplex plebis portio confessa est vobis-
cum pariter et pariter coronata est, connexa vobis vinculo fortissimte caritatis, et
a praspositis suis nee carcere, nee metallis separata. Cujus numero nee virgines
desunt. - - In pueris quoque virtus major actate annos suos confessionis laude
transccndit, ut martyrii vcstri beatum gregem et sexus et ffitas omnis ornaret.
These examples, I say, learned men have cited, to show that the first rescripts

of Valerian and son were more cruel than we have rel>resented, and that
his
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. ordained capital punishment against all who
For this

either held assemblies or entered the cemeteries. All, therefore, bishops and

others, who suffered death, bastinadoing, imprisonment, or otiier punishments

worse than exile, undoubtedly incurred these penalties because they ^vouhl hold
meetings contrary to the emperor, and were caught in the cemeteries.
will of the

For, as we shall major part of the Christians were bold in violat-

soon see, the

ing the imperatorial mandates. This is fully confirmed by the 82d Epistle
of

Cyprian, ad Successum, (p. 165.) where he writes: Xystum autem in

cimilerio

animadversum sciatis octavo Iduum Augustarum die, et cum eo Diaconos qua-

ut qui sibi
et huic persecution! quotidie yisistunt prsefecti in urbe,
si
tuor. Sed
96 Century III.— Section 19.

oblati fuerint (in the cemeteries, undoubtedly,) animadvertantur et bona eomm

fisco vindicentur. The proconsul of Africa, doubtless, had apprelicr.ded 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 meiition of
[p. 653.] boys and virgins. To condemn such a mass of persons to deatii, 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 pov^-ers. The proconsul Paternus required Cyprian to declare who were

his presbyters and when he refused to do it, the proconsul said: Ego hodio
;

in hoc loco exquiro: A me invenientur. See the Acta Cypriani in i^uinay-^'s

Acta martyr, p. 216. Secondly, the emperor's law ordered the punishment, not
of all professed Christians, but only of the bishops and presbyters. No one
compelled i\\c 'people 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 liim 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 quidein Deus est, cum iis,
qui natura Dii sunt, adoretis. This we have from Dionysius hims^'lf, (apud
Ev.seb. 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 tiiink, 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, conventions were abolished and their teachers
if their

removed, their religion would gradually become extinct among the com-
itself

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 cnii)ire,

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 he ;

gives the following summary view of the new edict, (Epist. Ixxxii. p. 165.) :

Quffi autem sunt in vero ita se habent: Rescripsisse Valerianum ad Senatum,

(I) ut episcopi et presbyteri et diaconi incontinenti animadvertantur. The dea-
[p. 554.] cons h.ad before been exempted, but now they are added to the bishopa
 Persecutions of Valerian, 97

and presbyters; undoubtedly, because the enemies of the Christians had learned
tiiat they supplied the phice of the bishops and presbyters, and carried relief to
those in captivity. By this law, therefore, all tiie men of the holy order, if they
refused to pay honor and worship to the gods, were to be immediately 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 Ada, (apud Ruinarlutn, et alios). When
in his

brought before the proconsul, he was first asked whether he was u fapa or
bishop of Christians and he confessed th<at 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 e.vecution,
and there beheaded. This was the uniform mode of proceeding against men in
holy orders, during the Valerian persecuiion. The policy of the law I can easily
see. It was scarcely possible to prevent tiie people from flocking to their teach-
ers lodged in prison and their last words and e.\hortations 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. — (11.) Scnatores vero et egregii viri et equites
Romani, dignitate amissa, etiam bonis spolientur, et si ademptis facultatibus
Christiani esse perscveraverint, capite quoque multentur, matronaj vero ademp-
tis bonis in e.xcilium 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 ismost 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.) Csesariani autem quicun-
que vel prius confessi fuerant, vel nunc confessi fuerint confiscentur et vincti in
Ca2sarianas possessiones descripti mittentur. Subjecit etiam Valerianus Impera-
tor orationi suse exemplum litterarum, quas ad praesides provinciarum de nobis
fecit : quas litteras quotidie speramus venire. The Cccsariani were, undoubt-
edly, the persons whom St. Paul (Philip, iv. 22.) calls: t-^us Ik. riTj xaii-afos imia!,

the domestics, the servants, the freedmen, belonging to the emperor's house-
hold, and residing in his palace. Why the emperor particularized them, we may
learn from Dionysiu^, (apud Eiiseb. L. vii. c. 10; p. 256.) who tells us that Va-
lerian's house or fomily, at the commencement of his reign, was com- [p. 555.]
posed, in great part, of Christians : Trd; o oikos uutou S-sjs-s^cSi' TrerKiipceTo, Kiti

iT» Ukaxj-i'x Qiou. Tota ejus fomilia piis horainibus abundabat, ac Dei ecclesia
esse videbatur. Some of these servants of Ctesar, therefore, had already, in the
vriT. TT_ 8
98 Century III— Section 10.

beginning of the persecution, franldy acknowledged th;it they were Christians,

and refused to apostatize from Christ nor had this proved injurious to them,
:

because the first mandates of the emperor reached only the bishops and presby-
ters among the Christians. But now, both those who had before confessed,
and those who should liereafter confess, were condemned by one and the same
law. Provided they still refused to renounce the Christian worship, the em-
peror commanded them to he conjiscaled ; that is, not only their estates and
property, but also their pei-fons were to be transferred to the public treasury,
and they were to be distributed in bonds over the domains, or the estates and
farms of the emperor, to perform servile labor there. Respecting the people,
or the Christians of the n:>iddle and lower ranks, the emperor decreed nothing.
These, therefore, were out of danger, and could, without hazard, attend the
execution of those put to death under this law. The Acts of Cyprian (ed. Rui-
narl, \ 5. p. 218.) tell us, that when the proconsul pronounced sentence of death
on Cyprian, (turha fratrum) a throng of the brethren were present; and, after
the sentence was pronounced, this throng cried out Et nos cum ipso decole- :

mur. Propter hoc tumultus fratrum c.xortus est, et nnilta turba eum prosecuta
est. In this throng also tliere was a presbyter and several deacons, and one
sub-deacon, who ministered to the dying man. Yet, neither on these, nor on
the Christian people that fearlessly accompanied their bishop to execution, did
any one lay a hand, or offer them any violence. More examples are not needed.
We know, indeed, from Dionysius, (apud Euseh.) and from other sources, that
a considerable number of the common people either lost their lives or were
severely punished in this persecution; but as the emperor had decreed no pun-
ishment against that class of persons, it must be considered as certain, that these
persons had been found, either in assemblies or in the cemeteries, and were
punished for the violation of the imperitorial law on that subject. For no one
can doubt, although Cyprian omits the mention of it, that the former edict
against holding assemblies and going to the cemeteries was repeated in the new
edict. Indeed, we know from two rescripts of Galliemts, (cited by Eusehius,
Hist. Eccles. L. vii. c. 13 ; p. 267.) that Valerian provided, as far as he could,
that the Christians should find it difficult to disregard that law. For, in the first

rescript, Galliemtshaving stopped the persecution of Christians, says to certain

bishops, that he had given orders, OTraj d-ird tottwv twv ^p^r-xi-jo-i/naiv uTr'^-^ictpa-ax!- 1
ut cuncti (miliies, as I suppose,) a religiosis locis abscedant. Therefore Vale-
rian had ordered the soldiers to keep guard about the sacred places of the
Christians, or the places where they assembled to worship God. In the second
rescript he permits the bishops, ra ruy xa'Xov/uevoJv x.:,lfy.>iT>ipiuv diTo'Xaiu^avilv ;^a'/l;s:

iitcoemeteriorum suorum loca recuperarent. The cemeteries, therefore, had been

taken from the Christians by order of the emperor, and undoubtedly confis-
[p. 556.] 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.
09
The cause of (he change of the first and milder edict into this far
severer
and more cruel one, though not expressly stated by any ancient writer,
may
s'ill be easily inferred from the transactions of those times. Neither the bishops
and presbyters, nor the christian people, obeyed the emperor's law respecting
assemblies and the cemeteries. The people resorted, in great numbers, to the
places where the bishops lived in exile; and the bishops, regardless of the im-
peritorialmandate, not only held assemblies in those plnces, but also did what
might seem to be of a more treasonable character, namely, they labored to con-
vert tiie 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 mngnanimity 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, supposing

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 Dionysius Alexandrinus and Cypriatr. learn from Eusebius We
(Hist. Ecclcs. L. vii. c. 1 1, p. when Dionysius was sent into exile, the
258.) that
praefcct said to him : Nullatenus autem licebit vobis (you and the presbvters)
conventus agere. Quod si quis in conventu aliquo fuerit inventus, is sibi ipse
periculum arcesset. How
he obeyed this interdict of the emperors he teils us di-
rectly after. Firsl, though 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 siadessem, majore studio congregavi in ecclesinm, ab-

sens quidem corpore. 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 phice 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 fidclium adfuit multi-
tudo, partira eorura, 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 januani nobis patefecit Deus ad praedicationem verbi
:

sui. - - Non pauci ex gentilibus, relictis simulacris, ad Deum convers^i sunt.

All these things were excellent in themselves, ar.d 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 this, removed
all

Dionysius to more distant and inhospitable regions ; and the indignation against
the Christians increased daily. In very nearly the same m.inncr Cyp-ian con-
ducted, in his exile at Curubis, as appears evident from his life, written [p. 557.]
by his deacon Pontius. For he went thither, attended by many persons, and a
number of the brethren there visited him. (Sec ^ 12.) Neither were these only
the poor and humble, but likewise the most noble and distinguished. Says
Pontius (5 14) : Conveniebant plures egregii ct chiri-siini ordinis et sanguinis,
sed et sfficuli nobilitate generosi. And these congregated together, he in-
structed very frequently with his discourses and exhortations: Ille servos Dei
exhortationibus dominicis instruebat, et ad calcandas passiones hujas teniporis
contemplatione supervcnturse claritatis animabat. Thus the Christian bishops

•-•^^^^ 127
100 Century TIL— Section 20,

and presbyters themselves, because they would prosecute their work of advanc*
injr tlie Christian cause, ratlier than obey the emporor's will, provoked the tyiaiit

to enact severer laws against them.

(3) Dionysius of Alexandria, (apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles. L. vii. c. 10, p. 255.)
thought the words of St. Jolin, in the Apocalypse, (ch. 13 : 5.) were fulfilled in
Valerian : wliether he was correct or not does not effect the present argument:
Et datum est magna et impia: Et data est illi potestas et menses
illi os loquens
quadraginta duo. Hence learned men have riglitly inferred that tlie Valerian
persecution continued into the fourth year. And tliat after Valerian was cap-
tured by tlie Persians, his son Gallienus sent rescripts throughout the Roman
world, staying the persecution, and giving Christians liberty freely to profess
their religion, is fully attestedby 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. Alarinus was put to death at Cajsarea, after the restoration
15, p. 263.)
of peace to the Christian community by Gallienus. He was wealthy, prospe-
rous, and of a good fiiraily, 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 u Christian, before Achaeus the judge, by some one who was his rival
candidate for the oflice, 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 ebipsed, Marinus professed Christ with
greater promptitude than before, and cheerfully submitted to capital jninish-
ment. The proceeding with this man, most evidently, was 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. 558.1 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, one 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 under Aureiiau. few ex- If, therefore, a

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 Aurclian. 101

Valerian, and also under liis successor Claudius, avIio reio-ned two
years.(') Aurelian, who
succeeded Claudius in the year 270
although immoderately given to idolatry, and possessing a strono-
aversion to the Christians, yet devised no measures for their in-
jury during four years. But in the fifth year of his reign,
('-")

either from his own superstition, or prompted by the superstition

of others, 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 anj- of the preceding.
But before his new edicts had reached the provinces, and
all

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 tlie reign of Claudius, a few Christians here and tliere were
put to death by the governors, undoubtedly nr.der cover of the ancient laws, is
evident from the instances adduced by Lupins, in liis Notes on the Epitaph of
Severa, Q ii. ]), 6, &c.) Among these examples is that of Severa herself, whose
particular Epitaiih was dug up in the Via Salaria, A. D. 1730, and has been
elucidated by a long and erudite connnentary.
(2) With great tiie modern writers have stated, that Aurelian
unanimij-y,
in the first years of his reign was kind and friendly to the Christians, but on what
grounds or authority I know not. For I no where find any testimony that he had
this goodwill, nor do F meet with any specimen of it. I know that Euselnus tells

us, (Hist. Ei-cles. L. vii. c. 30. p. 282.) that when the Christians appealed to this

emperor against Paul of S:unosata, who refused to quit the house of the church,
after he was condenmed in a council for corrupt sentiments concerning Christ,
the emperor ordered him to he put out by force; and this decision against Paul
Eusebius seems to regard as evidence of his friendly regards for the [p. 559.]
Christians. But, if I am not greatly deceived, the followers of Eusebius infer
from this act of Aurelian, more than is found in it. We will grant that, at that

time, Aureli:ui 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. Histor.

Augusta?, torn. ii. p. 463.): Miror vos, patres sancli, tamdiu de aperiendis Sybil-
linis dubitasse libris, perinde quasi in Christ ianorum ecclesia, non in tempio Dco-
THm omnium, tractaretis. In this langunge there is a very invidious comparison
between the Christian religion and the worship and sacred rites of the gods;
102 Century III— Section 20.

and it mind wholly averse from the Christians, and paying all
indicates a
reverence to tiie He seems to suppose that a certain divine and celestial
gods.
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 representation 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 Aurelian was
prompted to persecute the Christians {tis-i ^ouxxI;,) hy certain counsellors. Per-

haps this was true. It might be that either the Platonic philosophers, who
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 were suflicient of themselves to prompt him to such a

nefarious resolution. Scarcely any one among the emperors, before Constan-
was more superstitious, or more devoted
tjne the Great, 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 cerius Sol,
(so then he placed more confidence in the sun than in all the other gods,) ut et

senatus de me sic sentiat. (Ibid. c. .xiv. p. 451). When the forces of Zenobia had
[p. 660.] 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 enriched
with jewels," which had been stripped from the vanquished Persians, Armenians,
and other enemies, he conscctrated 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 trecentas auri 11- :

bras e Zenobiee capsulis habes argenti mille octingenta pondo. De Palmyre-

:

norum bonis habes gemmas regias. Ex his omnibus f:ic cohonestari templum
mihi et Diis immortalibus gratissimum feceris. Ego ad senatum siiibam, petens,

ut niittat Pontificem, qui dedicct templum. (Ibid. c. xxxi. p. 491). Afterwards he

erected a very magnificent temple of the sun at Rome, (Ibid. c. xxxi.v. p. 522,)

and placed in it much gold and jewelry. (Ibid. p. 523). And hence, after his death,
Aurelianus Tacitus said, in his oration before the senate : Quindecim millia
 Efforts of Philoso2)hers. 103

librarum auri ex ejus liberalitate unum ttnet templum (solis): omnia in urbe
fana ejus micant donis (Ibid. c. xli. p. 527). On one of his coins, mentioned by
Ezechiel Spanheim, (de usu et praestantia numismat. vol. ii. p. 485.) is this
legend : Sol Dominus imperii Romani. — Now, who
can wonder that a piince
inflamed with such insane zeal for the worship of the sun, should have deter-
mined to assail with the sword, and to persecute with edicts, those Christians
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
Christians, and, as it were, in the very act of subscribing the edicts against them.
This obscure statement is explained by Lactantius, (de raortibuspersecutorum
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 extinctus est. Non-
dum ad provincias ulteriores eruenia ejus edicta pervenerant, et jam Ctenofrurio
qui locus est Thraciaj, cruentus hunii jacebat.

§ XXL Efforts of the Philosophers aa^ainst the Christians. "While

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 whole century, by the

this
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 culti^vated piety and virtue, [p. 561.]
more readily repaired to the Christians than to tlie schools of the
Philosophers, and many went
from the schools of the Pla-
also
tonists themselves,(') they were induced to resist to the utmost a
sect which threatened ruin to their prosperity and fame. Hence
Porplujry., a Syrian or Tyrian, the corypha3US of the Platonist
sect in this centur}-, (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 fragments :

of it still remaining,show that Porphyry was no very formidable

adversary.(') Others of this sect adopted into their creed the 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. weaken the Christians'
Others, again, in order to
argument from the and miracles of the Saviour, labored to
life

show, that among the more devout worshippers of the gods, there
104 Centurij III. — Section 21.

had been men not inferior, and perhaps actually superior, to

Jesus Christ.^ 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 Archylas of Tarentum, Pythagoras^ ApoUoniiis

Tyameus, and other men of great fame and, stufl&ng 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, Avhich might embrace the Christian among
the rest. This plan, which was contrived by Ammoirius, 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 Phitonists, and espe-

cially of the disciples of Plolhius, the Jiead man of the I'iatonist sciiool in thia
century, we have the following very luciJ p.i.-sage in the writings of Augustine,
(Epist. Ixviii. ad Dioscorum, cap. v. J
33. 0pp. torn. ii. p. 260) ; Tunc Plotini
scliola Romse floruit, hubuitque condiscipiiios mnltos, acutissiinos viros. Sed
aliqui eoruui niagicarum ariium curiositate depravati sunt, aliqui Dominum
[p. 562.] Jesum Christum ipsius verifatis atque sapientitc incommutabilis, quam
conabuntur attingero, cognoscentes gestarc personam, in ejus mililiam trmt-
sierunt.

(2) On the work of Porphyry against the Christians, may be consulted Lu-
cas Holslenius, (de Vita Porphyrii, c. xi.) Jo. Fran. Buddeua, (Isagoge in Theo-
logiam, torn. ii. p. 1009, &e.) and Jo. Alb. Fabricius, (Lnx Evangelii toti orbi
exoriens, p. 154). To the observations made by these authors I have nothing
to add.
(3) The Life of Pythagoras was written in this century by Porphyry, and in
the next by Jamblichus, and botli, nnquestionably, 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

Kiisler, in the notes to his edition of the Life of Jamblichus ; and any one will

readily see it, if he will compare eitlier of these biographies with the history of
our Saviour: (See Kilsien Adnot. ad Jamblichi, cap. ii. p. 7. et c.ip. xix. p. 78).
No two lambs could be more alike than Christ and Pythagoras, if all were tru«
which those two biographers have stated. The fable of ApoUonius Tyanseus,
which Philostratus 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 vvith Jesus Christ, and that Eusebius of Cffi.sarea
 Efforts of Fkilosojjhers. 105

wrote a. special treatise against llie book.

That Pliilostraius aimed, in liis very
splendid, and yet most mendacious book, to suggest sueli a comparison
.Ntujjidly

between Clirist and Apolioniiis, has long been shown by the learned men who
are cited and approved by Godfrey OLearius. ihe editor of Philostratus; (Paif.it.
p. x.v.\i.\). Moreover, as Christ impaitcd to his friends and legates the power
of working miracles; so also, to m.-^kc the resemblance pcrfeei, tliese Platonis'.s
repri.'sent Fi/lhagoras as impailing tiie same power to several of his followers, to
Eiiipedocles, Epimenides, Abaris, and oliiers. See Jatnblichus, (Vita Pythagoia;,

c. 28. p. 114}. To exhibit the designs and the impudence of ilns sect, I wi.l cite
a Laiin translation of the words of Jambliclius in the above cited place. Havi,i<T
spoken of some miracles of Pyth.igoras, he adds: Miliia alia, hisque divi:.iora,
magisque miranda, qua de viro traduntur. - - Quorum compotes etiam lat-ti
Empedocles Agrigentinus, Epimenides Cretensis et Abaris iJyperboreus, nuiltia
in locis talia faeinura designaruiit. Satis autem nota sunt ip>orum opeia.
Moreover, these comparisons were made, not so much to disparage Christ,
as to injure Christianity. For those who compared Christ with Pvihgoras, with
Apollouius Tyanaeus, with Empedocles, with Archytas, &c. taeilly 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 aflirmed that the Christians misunderstood and perverted
the opinions of their master and guide. As they wished to reduce all modes of
philoso])hising, whether Greeeian or barbarian, to the one mode of the Plaloru
is(s, and e.vplained 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-.'Egyptian sy.stem, and as they did not deny that
Christ taught a religion w hicii 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, wi-hed to
accomplish two objects by the above-mentioned comparisons Firsi, to prevent :

any credit being given to the assertion of the Christians, that Christ
was Gitd,
or the Son of God. For if there were to be found among men, individuals
possessing the same power of changing and eontroling the laws of nature, as
had been possessed by Christ, then the Christians' argument for Christ's di-
vinity, derived trom his miracles, would fall to tiie 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 worshippLMs, there were found persons the equals, and
perhaps the superiors of Christ in great achievements, liien it would necessarily
follow, that those are mistaken who suj^pose Christ wished to abolish the
temples and the ceremonies of the pagan worship.
To the list of Platonists who labored to subvert the Christian religion by
cunning devices, Apuleius was, not long since, added by the very learned and in-
genious William Warbiirlon,\n his English work, T/;e Divine Legation of Moses
Demonstrated (vol. ii. p. 117). For he thinks that Apuleius, a man excessively
superstitious and hostile to the Christians, both personally and from zeal to his
Beet, wrote his well-known Metamorphosis, or fable of tiie Golden Ass, for tha
106 Century III. — Section 22,
purpose of making appear that the mysteries of the gods possessed the
it

and hcnling tlie minds of men, and were tlierefore

higliest efficacy for purifying

greatly to be preferred to tlie Christian sacred rites. With his accustomed

penetration and skill in matters of antiquity, this distinguished man has disco-

vered in Apuleius some things never before observed by any one. Among these,

the most noticeable is, that he thinks it may be inferred with much probability

from the Defence of Apuieius now extant, tiiat the Licinius Aemilianus, who
accused Apuleius of magic before tiie proconsul of Africa, was a Christian.
But as to the object of the fable of the Ass, which this very learned man sup-
poses to have been to exalt the pagan mysteries, and tiirovv contempt on Chris-
tianity, I have my doubts ; because I see nothing adduced from that fable,

which it would be difficult to explain in a different manner.

§ First Movements of Diocletian. Diocletian was ad-

XXII. The
vanced to government of the empire A. D. 284 and being by
tlie ;

[p. 564.] nature more inclined to

clemency than to cruelty, lie suf-
fered the Christians to live in tranquillity, and to propagate their
religion Avithout restraint. But in the subsequent year, 285, he
took for his colleague in the government Maximian Herculius, a
man who is represented as most inveterately hostile to the Chris-
tians, and as having puuished many of them, both in Gaul and at
Rome, with extreme rigor; nay, as having put to death the
whole Thebiean legion, composed of Christians, because they re-
fused to sacrifice to the gods at the Leman lake. I say, he is so
represented ; for the alleged examples and proofs of such atrocity
are not of so high authority that they cannot be called in ques-
tion and invalidated.(') It is more certain that, near the end of

the century, Maximian Galerius, (whom the two emperors had

created a CfBsar, together Avith Consfantius Chlonis, in the year
292,) persecuted both the ministers of his palace and the soldiers,
who professed Christianit}^, removing some of them from olfice,
harassing others with reproaches and insults, and even causing
some to be put to death.(^) But this hatred of Galerius, because
itdid not reach very far, and seemed to be tolerated rather than
approved by the tAVO emperors, did not prevent the daily ad-
vance of the Christian cause and the Christians, rendered se-
;

cure by long-continued peace, deviated sadly from the primitive

sanctity and piety.(')

(1) Roman Catholic writers mention numerous martyrs, put to death dur-

ino- the first yenrs of Diocletian s reign, in Rome, and elsewhere but
Gaul, at ;

as the early writers say nothing of them, and especially Eusebius, who tells iis
 First Acts of Diocletian. 107

that the condition of the Christians during the eighteen first years of Dio-

cletian was very quiet, and almost wholly

from perils; (see his Hist.
free
Eccles. L. viii. c. 1, p. 291.) these writers either contend tliat Eusebius was
better acquainted with the Eastern churcli tl-.an the Western, or tliey tell us,
that these martyrs were overlooked by the ancients, because they were put to
death not by a public mandate of the emperor Diocletian, but only bv the private
orders of Maximian Herculius. Such as choose may rest satisfied with this
explanation; but I must confess, there is no rashness in doubting the reality of
all these martyrdoms. The whole history of them is based on the credibility of
certain Acts and martyiologies, to which no one will commit himself, if he
judges that confidence is to be placed in none but certain and approved autho-

rities. No one can be ignorant, that the catalogues of martyrs in use in some
churches, are of a most uncertain character, and are collected for the most part
froni dubious ancient and obscure reports; nor are the narratives, [p. 565.]
which have in various places been current for several centuries, entitled to any
greater respect. How few are the undisputed Ads of the saints and martyrs
in the three first centuries, may be learned from 'i'heodore Ruinart, who at-
tempted to collect them all, and did make a collection. This learned man
published a moderate sized volume; and he would have made out a very little

one, if he had determined to admit nothing but what is above all suspicion.
Of all the martyrs whom Maximian Herculius is said to have sacrified to his
gods, there are none more celebrated and noble than those that composed the
Thebecan legion, who, from the place where they were slain, were called the
Agaunian Martyrs. Their relics are spread almost ali over the Romish
church, and are held in special reverence in France, Switzerland, and Italy.
Nor is this reverence of recent date, originating in those centuries in which all
Europe was involved in ignorance; when superstition every year created new
martyrs. For it appears from the works of Avitus, of Vienne, (published by
Ja. tSirmond,) who flourished near the beginning of the sixth century, that at
that time there was at Agaunum, a church dedicated to these martyrs, and that
in it a festal day was observed in memory of them. (See Ja. Sirmond, 0pp.
torn. ii. p. 93-97.) This I mention, because I perceive that some learned men,
who are opposed to these martyrs, maintain that the knowledge of them was
first brought to light in the middle of the sixth century, nay, in the seventh
century. As Maximian Herculius was marching an army into Gaul to quell
some commotions there, having passed the Alps, he arrived at the parts of Valais
on the Leman lake; and to prepare his troops for contending under better au-
spices, he ordered a general lustration, and that the troops should swear fealty

on the altars of the gods. This mandate of the general was resisted by the
Thebaean legion, which iiad Mauriiius for its commander, had just come from the
East, and was wholly composed of Christians. Maximian therefore twice
decimated it, that is, caused every tenth man to be put to death ; and as this

rigor was wholly insufficient to overcome itsconstancy, he ordered his army to

fall upon it and slay the entire legion. This is the substance of that Passio
Sanctorum Mauriiii ac sociorum ejus, which is said to have been composed by
Eucherius, bishop of Lyons, in the sixth century, and which, after others.
108 Century III.— Section 22.

Tlieod. Ruinart publislied, with, le.'uned notes, in liis Ada Martyrum siiiceni et
selecta, p 271, &c. The adversaries of tlie Romisli cliiirch, wiio lia\e contro-
verted so many of tlie otlier alleged uiartyrdoms, all left tlie ' Hapjnj Legion,'' as
tills legion wa.; called, untouched down to the eigiiteenth century, except by
here and there an individual. Nor was this strange, because there is scarcely any
other narrative of martyrdom tiiat is confirmed by so many very ancient docu-
ments and testimonies as this is. Perhaps, also, many feared they should de-
[p. 566.] tract from the honor of Christianity if they brought under discussion
this so illustrious and extraordinary example of early Christian fortitude
and constancy. Others may have been so charmed with the story of the Thun-
dering Legion, of whidi we have before spoken, under Marcus AnUminmt, that
they could see nothing improbable in this Christian Thebccan Legion serving
under Maximian Herculius. For if a whole legion of Christians was admitted
into the Roman army under Marcus, much more miglit such a legion
be counte-
nanced under Maximian, when the Christian cause had been more widely ex-
tended and better established. Bnt in this eighteenth century, John Duhordieu,
a very learned man, who had seen the supposed bones of Mauritius and some
of his fellow-soldiers honored with great superstition at Turin, made a formal
attack upon the Tlieba?an legion, and was the first to class it among the fables
of former ages,in a book publisiied at Amsterdam, in 1705. 8vo., under the title

"Dissertation critique sur le IMartyre de la Legion Thebeenne." Three years

after, Ja. Hoitinger, m his Ecclesiastical History of Switzerland, (torn. i. L. ii.

5 example of Dubordieu, and confirmed his positions

23, &-C.) followed the
with new arguments of no inconsiderable weight. Both reasoned ingeniously
and learnedly. But the dissertation of the latter, as it constituted a small
part of a large volume, and was written in the German language, did less
harm to the Theba;an legion than the treatise of the former; which, being
written in an elegant style, was soon circulated over a large part of Europe,
and forcibly urged those of moderate learning, as well as the more learned, to
place the Hajipj Legion among the pious Jiclions of former ages. A defence
of the Happy Legion was at once contemplated by Claret, the Abbot of St.
Maurice, in the Valais, to whom, more ihan to any other, the task appeared to
belong; but being burdened with too much business, he devolved the task
upon his friend Joseph de Vide, Abbot of St. Leopold, at Nancy and he, after ;

a long interval of came out against the opposers of the holy

tiiirty-five years,

soldiers, in a French work, printed at Nancy in 1741, 12mo. entitled, " Defense
de la verile de la Legion Thebeenne pour repondrc a la Dissertation du Mii:is-
tre du Bordieu." This writer, deficient neiilier in learning nor ingenuity, pours
upon his antagonist a great abundance of testimonies and documents, among
which are some of sufficiently high antiquity, and now first adduced by him but ;

in replving to the arguments of his opponent, and particularly to those brought

against the Ada Sli Mavrilii, attributed to Eucherivs, his strength fails him,

and he hardly maintains his ground: neither does he meet the whole contro-
versy, for he was ignorant of the aiguments which Hotlinger had added to those
of the first assailant. Yet the erudite man fully satisfied his own church, and
especially those members of it who live sumptuously and merrily at the ex-
 First Acts of Diocletian, 109

pense of St. Maurice f.nd Ids companions, that is, on the resources of llie

Happy Legion, contributed and consecrated Ijy weil-meaniiig people ; but the
minds of those wiiom Dubordieu and HoUinger led astray, he could not con-
vince and reclaim. After some years, Dubordieu being- dead, the attack was
renewed by one of the prefects of the Genevan library, Doulairc, [p. 567.]
if I remember correctly, a man of uncommon sagacity and industry; nay, he

fortified the attack by new arguments, in a French Epistle, which is inserted

in the Bibliotheque Raisonnee, (torn, xxxvi. p. 4t27, &c.) This learned man de-
serves special praise, not only for ingenuously admitting that Dubordieu, whom
he patronizes, had committed some mistakes, but also for laboring to ascertain
the origin of tiie fable, and to show that it was brought from the East into
Rhetia. A little afterwards, a rather brief, but ingenious and well-digested
opinion on the subject, was given by the very respectable Loysius Boclial, in his

Memoires Criliques sur rili.stoire ancienne de la Suisse, (vol. i. p. 557, &.c.,

edit, of 1747.) He had no doubt that every intelligent person who shall feel

himself at liberty to express his real sentiments, after examining the whole sub-
we are considering among the pious frauds.
ject, will place the hiritory
Whoever compares with a calm and unbiassed mind the arguments on both
sides, will readily adopt the opinion, that this controversy is not yet decided;
the learned men already mentioned have indeed rendered the story of the The-
bsean Legion dubious, and some parts of it they liave divested of all proba-
bility, but they have not overthrown the whole story. For, as already observ-
ed, the advocates of the Blessed Legion bring forward a mass of testimonies,
some of which have great antiquity ; and although the other party oppose to
these testimonies the silence of the cotcmporary writers, and those of the age
next after the legion, and also arguments derived from the nature of the case,
yet all this proof seems insulVicient to wiiolly overtlirow the evidence of so many
proofs from both facts and testimony. Whoever shall carefully and accurately
weigh all the arguments, however, will, I think, conclude, that the side of the
opposers has the advantage over that of the defendants. The most ancient
witness for tiie legion lived in the fifth century, and wrote the Life of Roma-
nus. Abbot of Mount Jura, in Burgundia, who died after the middle of the fifth

century. This Life is in the Ada Sanclor. Antwerp, (torn. iii. Februar. ad diem
28, p. 740,) and was undoubtedly composed soon after the death of Romanus
by one of his associates. From this author we learn, that in the time of Ro-
manus, and consequently about the middle of the fflh century, there was at
Agaunum a church dedicated to Maurice, the commander of the legion and ;

that his whole history was then inserted in the Acta, and was considered alto-
gether true. For thus he writes (c. iv. J 15, p. 744) Basilicara Sanctorum, :

immo, ut ita dixerim, castra IMartyrum in Agaunensium locum, sicut passionis

ipsorum relatio digesta tcstatur, quce sex millia sexcentos viros, non dicam am-
bire corpore in fabricis, sed nee ipso (ut reor) eampo illic potuit consepire,
fidei ardore doliberavit (Romanus) expetere. And in his preface (p. 741,) he ex-
plicitly commander of the legion, and not obscurely tells
mentions Maurie(>, tiie

us. that his urn, i.was to be seen in the church of Agaunum

e., his sepulchre, :

Prior (Romanus) priscum secutus Johannem supra urnam S. MauriUi, id est

 110 Centunj III.— Section 22.

[p. 568.] Lcgionis Thebaeorum mnrtyrum ciiput, velut ille eximius Apostolus
supra salutiferi pectus recurabit auctoris. This chuich, having fallen by its

age or otherwise, near the close of the century, needed to be rebuilt. Accord-
ingly,it was rebuilt, and Alcimus Avilus, archbishop of Vienne, preached a

sermon in the new built church near the commencement of the sixth century.
The sermon is lost, or at least has not been discovered but Sirmond found ;

the beginning of it in an ancient manuscript, with the following inscription

Dicta in Basilica sanctorum x\g.iunensium, in innovatione monasterii ipsius
vel passione Although the exordium thus recovered is short, yet
martyrum.
it some Ada Legionis Thehaea then existed, that
places beyond dispute, that
they agreed with those we now have, and were publicly read in the presence of
the assembly immediately before this discourse. The Ada now extant are
attributed to Eucherius, bishop of Lyons, in the sixth century, a man of re-
spectabilityon many accounts; and therefore they hold the third place in the
list of documents on which rests the credibility of this story. The documents
of the sixth and following centuries, being much inferior to those of the first
class above mentioned, I pass them without notice. —
It is therefore clear, unless

I wholly misjudge, tliat as early as the beginning of the Jifth century, and per-

haps also in the fourth, the inhabitants of Rhoetia and the Valais, firmly be-
lieved what is at this day stated respecting the Theba3an Legion they possessed ;

and read the Ada of this legion; dedicated a church to it, and in that church
annually celebrated the memory of those illustrious soldiers; they preserved
the bones of Maurice, the commander of the
legion and they pointed out the
;

plain where the slaughter of it took place by command of Maximian Hercv^

litis, h remains then to be inquired, whether these arguments are sufficient to
place the truth of the stor\' beyond all controversy. This the very learned op-
posers deny and on what grounds Twill now shew, with the same impar-
;

'

tiality with which I have stated the arguments in favor of the story.

First. Many, and especially Dubordieii, in opposing the Acta felicis Legionis
which have come down to us, deny that these Acta were written by Eucherius ;
they contend that they contain various errors; and they would attribute the
compilation of them to some ignorant monk of the seventh century. But if we
admit that these objections are urged with as much truth as erudition and inge-
nuity, yet, unless I greatly mistake, they avail nothing against the truth of our
historical facts. For these facts do not rest solely on the authority of those
Acta, but, as we have shown, upon stronger and more ancient testimonies, which
cannot in any way be confuted. Let us suppose that these Acta were com-
piled in the seventh century, or even in the eighth or ninth, and by some igno-
rant and fraudulent person; it would be certain, that as early as the Jifth
still

century there were other Ada in the hands of the Rheetians, which, in regard
to the main facts, agreed with these.
Secomlhj. jMuch strongeris the argument derived from the silence of the

writers, who and near the time when the legion is said to have been
lived at
butchered. Enseliius, the fiither of ecclesiastical history, and otherwise a care-
ful recorder of the suff'erings of the martyrs, knew nothing respecting this
[p. 569.] legion. Sulpicius Seierus, of the Jifih century, who lived in Gaul,
 First Acts of Diocletian. \\\

and wrote a (Hisioria Sacra,) History of Religion, knew notliing of tiiia

legion Paul Ornsius, who commented on the expedition of Maxiiiiian

;
into
Gaul, knew nothing of it; Lactaniius, who, in his book De Mortibus Peise-
quutoriim, describes the cruelty and the tnigical deatli of iMaxiuiian, knew
nothing of it; PrudenLlus,a. distinguished Ciiristian poet, who sung the praises
of the known martyrs of his times, knew nothing of it. In short, all tlie

writers of the fourth century whose works hnve come down to us, knew
nothing respecting this legion. The weight of this negative argument, which
surely is was felt by Joseph de I'lsle; who, of course, does all he can
great,
to evade it. But fairness requires us freely to admit, that, while it is impossi-
ble wholly to destroy it, it may be in a measure weakened. In the first place,
the advocates for the legion say, it is not strange that an occunence in Eu-
rope, and in the valleys of the Alps, should have been unknown to Eusebius,
and to all the Asiatic and African writers; nor can it be denied, that Eusc-bius
is silent as to many occurrences in the West, and that his history, for the most
part, treats of the atfairs of the East. With regard to Sidjiiiius Severus, there
is because he lived in Gaul, where this legion is reported
greater difficulty ;

to havebeen butchered and, as he was of a light and credulous disposition, he

;

would undoubtedly have mentioned it in his history, if there had been a

popular rumor spreading throughout Gaul, in his age, of the glorious death of
so many soldiers. But I am suspicious, that Sulpitius himself afibrds a plausible
answer. After briefly but nervously speaking of the grievousness and severity
of the Diocletian persecution, in the following terms : Hac tempestate omnis
fere sacro martyrum cruore orbis infectus est. - - Nullis umquam magis bellis
mundus exhaustus est ; he proceeds to say explicitly, that for the sake of
brevity, he should not particularly mention any of the martyrs, although their
Acta were extant: Extant ctiam mandata; litteris prreclara; ejus temporis mar-
tyrum passiones : quas connectendas non putavi, ne modum operis excedcrem.
(See his Historia Sacra, L. ii. c. 32, p. 248.) Here, it appears to me, he clearly
explains the reason of his silence. Paul Orosius and Prudcniius lived in Spain;
and therefore it might be that tiiey were ignorant of an occurrence on the bor-
ders of Italy. Orosius, moreover, (Hist. L. vii. c. 25,) treats very summarily of
the affairs of Diocletian and Maximian, and of the per.secution of Christians by
them ; so that he could not well repeat so long a story as that of the Thebacan
Legion ; and, like Sulpitius, he mentions no particular martyr. But in regard
to Lactaniius, whom
asssume to be the author of the celebrated treatise de
I

Mortihus Persequutorum, the most ingenious apologist will find himself stag-
gered. For he might well know the story, since his book shows, that he was
not only fiimiliar with all the occurrences in the empire and the imperial court
in those times, but also with the vices and crimes and flagitious deeds of Max-
imian ; nor can any reason whatever be assigned, why he should omit an oc-
currence so intimately connected with the subject of which he was [p. 570.]
treating, and yet describe very copiously the hostility of Maximian towards the
Christians, and the many sufierings they endured at his hands.

Thirdly. Another argument against tlie legion is drawn by learned men

from the story itself, which, they say, contains many things utterly incredible.
 112 Ceninrij TIL— Section 22.

They contend, first, tliat it is incredible there sliouUl be \n the Roman army, at
that lime, a wliole legion made up of Christians ; and it is stillmore incredible
that Maximian, when n)arching against enemit-s, and just ready to meet them,
Bhould slaughter so great a portion of his army, recently summoned from the
East to ensure his success, and should thus willingly weaken his forces, and
deprive himself of the means necessary to a victory for, however savage ids ;

disposition, he was most skilful in military affairs, and a consummate general.

Again, they contend, that it seems by no means probable, that among so many
soldiers, not one was disposed to consult his safety, either by dis>iniulation or

by flight And, finally, they say it was strange, 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 tiiese 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 Thebaean Legion can be
proved by irresistible testimony, then it has nothing to fear from these argu-
inents; for none of ihem are so strong as to be wholly unanswerable.
For myself, next to the silence of Laciantius, I regard as the strong-
est of all arguments against the story of this legion, what the above-men-
tioned prefect of the Genevan library states to us, from Ceesar Barronius,
(Adnot. ad diem 22, Septembr. Martyrologii Romani, p. 375,) respecting a Mau-
rice among the Greeks, very similar to the Gallic commander of the Thcbrean
Legion. For the Greeks very devoutly observe the twenty-first day of Feb-
ruary, inmemory of a certain Maurice, a military tribune, wiiorn the emperor
Ma.ximian commanded to be put to death on account of his Christian failh, at
Apamea, in Syria, and with him seventy Christian soldiers. The Acta of this
Maurice are given by the Jesuits of Antwerp, (Acta Sanctor. torn. 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 Theodnrel, (Grascar. 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 Theodorel, above cited, affords

objections to our supposing the Greeks received the .story from the Latins
and therefore it ismost probable that the Latins transferred the Maurice of the
Greeks from Syria to Gaul, and augmented and embellished his history with

many fitbles, invented doubtless for the sake of gain. Yet I will not strongly
object if some should conjecture, perhaps, that something actually occurred

[p. 571.] 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
 Mrsf Acts of Diocletian, 113

those holy soidiers, on the spot where they were Sinin ; for such was the cua-
torn of that age. But as tliat little chapel had not sufficient fome and cele-
brity to render it very lucrative to its guardiaits, they, in order to allure people
thither, and thus enrich their domicile, expanded the brief history of its humble
origin, and summoning to their aid the Maurice of the Greeks and his military
companions, they represented Maximian as slaughtering a whole legion in the
Valais. And the multitude of human bones in liiose pai'ts afforded support to
the fable. For, those familiar with ancient history know, that great battlea
were formerly fought in that part of Gaul, and many tliousand 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 Eusehius, (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-
Berved nor can there be any doubt of it-.
; But as to the author of this first
persecution of the soldiers and olTicials of the palace, some doubts have arisen
in my mind, while comparing Euse'Aus with Laclantius; which, I am surprised,
have not occurred to the learned. Eiisebius 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 Lactanlius, (de Mortibus
persequutor. c. 10, p. 85, &.c.) although he inveighs vehemently against tho
cruelty of Maximian 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 assniled the
soldiers and ofiicials 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, fugatis dccmonibus, sacra turhata sunt. The sooth-
sayers repeated their sacrifices several times, but in vain ; they could not disco-
ver the customary appearances on the entrails of the victims. At length the
chief soothsayer declared, non respondere sacra, quod rebus diiinis i^rofani homi-
nes (namely. Christians) inleressent. Then Diocletian, in a rage, ordered all the
persons in the palace to offer and such as refused were to be
sacrifices,

scourged. And by letters addressed to their commanders, milites ad nefanda

sacrificia cogi pra^cepit, ut qui non paruissent, militia soharentur. He adds
Haclenus furor ejus et quidquam contra legem [p. 572.]
ira processit, nee amplius

aut religionem Dei fecit. Neither was he aftervvai'ds 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
palatines tantum et milites ab ea religione prohiberet. (c. 11, p. 99, ed. Bauldrian.)
Whether, therefore, this first light and moderate persecution of soldiers and offi-
cials,which preceded the great Diocletian persecution that commenced in tho
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 ftiult, and assailed
VOL. n, 9 f
 114 Century III.— Section 22.

their soldiers and palace servants at tlie same firae ; Diocletian in the East, and
Maximian in Illyrieum, which was the province under his jurisdiction. And
there is, I confess, a shade of difference between the military persecution descri-
bed by Eusebius, and that which is mentioned by Lactantius, which might
seem to malie them distinct from each other. Laciantius says, that Diocletian
punished no one capitally but Eusebius represents some as being put to death
;

by Maximian. In fact, I do not look upon tliis conjecture with contempt. Yet,
not to dwell on the improbability that the two emperors, when far separated
from each other, should, at the same time, commit tlie same outrage what ;

could have induced Laciantius to state the crime of Diocletian, and to omit
tlie similar crime of Maximian, on whom he at other times charges all the evils
brought by Diocletian on the Christians ? 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 MorLibus 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 Laciantius himself, in his Listiluiiones Divincc,

(L. iv. c. 27, p. 546, ed. Bunemann.) 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 ofrering those sacrifices;
for he speaks of (Domini) lords, in the plural, as being present : Quum enim
quidam ministrorum e cultoribus Dei sacrificantibus Doininis assislerent, impo-
sito frontibus signo, deos illorum fugaverunt. And, a little after : Aruspices
adegerunt Principes 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 Laciantius 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 Laciantius himself, (de Mortibus Persequutor. c. 10, near the end.) where
[p. 573.] 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 wiite
in a rhetorical manner. In short, tliat the great persecution which the Chris-
tians suffered under Diocletian in the subsequent century, commenced with this

sli"^ht 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-
position of a twofold prelude, the one in the East and the other in the West,
botli Eusebius and Laciantius 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 which, 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 Oovernment. 115

occur but that the Christians, by crossing their foreheads, put demons to
;

and disturbed the emperor's divination, I cannot easily believe. The

flight,

soothsaying art, we l^now was a deception, invented to impose on the common

people; and this was well understood by the wiser among the Romans, as ap-
pears from Cicero's second Book de Dhinatione. We therefore suppose that
the crafty soothsayers, who were watcliing for an opportunity to bring down
great evil upon the Cliristians, pretended that they could not sacrifice success-
fully, on account of the presence of Christians, aiming to exasperate the feel-

ings of the superstitious emperor; and the design succeeded. But the Chris-

tians, who supposed that the evil spirit enacted all the frauds of the priests,

had a belief in divination ; which, however, they could not have had, if they
had consulted their reason.
(3) Respecting the prosperous state of the Christians, before the com-
mencement of the Diocletian persecution in the year 303, Eusebius treats at
some length, (Hist. Eccles. L. viii. p. 291.) He says, the emperors showed
great kindness to the Christians ; committed the government of provinces to
some of them ; allowed their domestics, with their children and servants, full

liberty to profess the Christian and even seemed to have peculiar

religion ;

affection for their Christian attendants and servants. The governors of pro-
vinces also, and the magistrates, paid great respect to the bishops. And hence,
the Christian community daily received much enlargement, and churches were
built in the several cities: neither could the calumnies and artifices of the ill-

disposed disturb their tranquillity. But at the same time Eusebius freely ac-
knowledges, with grief, that the Christians in the enjoyment of liberty fell into
licentiousness and great vices ; they had internal broils and contests, congre-
gation with congregation, and prelates with prelates ; frauds and dissimulation
also, reached a very high pitch ; neither did that moderate chastisement [p. 574.]

of the soldiers correct these vicesbut rather the Christians waxed worse and
;

worse: the pastors disregarded the rules of religion in their mutual contests,
affected the despotism of princes, and did various things unbecoming their cha-

racter. These facts should be borne in mind, if we would justly appreciate

the causes of the violent persecution soon after, under Diocletian. For the
Christians, by their imprudent conduct, put weapons into the hands of their ad-
versaries. For who can doubt, that the friends of the gods took occasion,
from the vices and the broils of the Christians, to instil into the emperors, that
the interests of the republic required the utter extirpation of so turbulent a
sect ; a sect that would not be quiet, but, abusing its prosperity, produced so
great commotions in the state ?

§ XXIII. Constitution and Government of the Church. The

form or Constitution of the Christian church, which had been
introduced in the preceding century, not only continued, for
the most part, to exist in this century, but became confirmed
and strengthened. Over the individual congregations of the
larger cities, one person presided, with dignity and authority,
116 Ceaturij Ill.—Section 23.

entitled tlie Bishop ; but lie was allowed to decide nothing in

private matters, without taking counsel with the Presbyters ; and
nothing in public matters pertaining to the whole church, with-
out assembling and consulting the people.(') All Bishops, as well
were perfectly equal in rank and authority yet,
as all Presbyters, ;

for keeping up the consociation of the churches, the Bishop who

governed the congregation in the principal city of a province, was
entitled to some precedence and honor above the others. And
the necessity for this regulation became greater, as councils were
more frequently called together throughout the Christian com-
monwealth, in which the representatives of the churches delibe-
rated and established rules for the common welfare of the whole
province, or of several provinces. The cause which led one
Bishop in a province to have a sort of preeminence over the
rest, also procured a j^rimacy and some authority for the Bishops

of the primary cities in Asia, Africa, and Europe among whom, ;

unquestionably, the first place was assigned to the Bishop of

the city of Eome. But as for any common judge of the whole
church, or a Bishop of Bishops, performing the functions of a
vicegerent of Christ, those times knew nothing of it.(^) To the
Beacons, in the larger and more opulent churches, there were
[p. added functionaries of lower rank, Subdeacons, Acolythists,
575.]
Janitors, Lectors,and Exorcists ; in consequence, as I apprehend,
of the fastidiousness and pride of the Beacons, who, finding them-
selves in greater affluence, were un-\\dlling to discharge the hum-
ble ofl&ces which they had previously never declined. (')

(1) Respecting the authority and rights of presbyters in this century, decla-

ations of the ancients have been collected in abundance, by David Blondell, in

his Apologia pro sententia Hieronymi de episcnpis et presbijteris, (p. 136, &c.)
and many more, by Claud. Fonteius, (the assumed name of a celebrated theo-
logian of the Parisian school, James Boileau.) in his treatise, de aiitiquo jure
presbyterorum in regimine 1676, 12mo.) But there is one
ecclesiastico, (Taurini,

witness who may be a substitute fornamely Cyprian, one of the most

all,

strenuous vindicators of the high rank and authority of bishops. Although he

lays claim to the highest distinction and prerogative, especially when heated by
conflict with those who resist his pleasure, yet he freely acknowledges in many

passages of his Epistles, that he could decide no great question without con-
sulting the clergy and presbyters. And although he sometimes acts inconsis-
tently with his principles, and disregards the rights and prerogatives of the
people, yet when properly master of himself, and more obedient to the law of
 Church Government. 117

nght than to self-will, he does not fail to show, that, in the

government of the
church, and in ecclesiastical jurisdiction, by no means the least part belongs to
the common people. To save the reader from the trouble of searching them
out, I will cite some passages to this purpose, so that ray assertions may not
appear unsupported. To his presbyters and Deacons he thus writes, (Ep. v.
p. 11 ; al. Ep. xiv. c. 4) Ad id vero, quod scripserunt mihi compresbyten iios-
:

tri Donatus et Fortunatus, Novatus et Gordius, solus rescribere nihil jiotui,

quando a primordio episcopalus met slatverim nihil sine consilio veslro, (i. e., of
ihe presbyters and deacons,) et sine consensu plebis mea privaiim senteniia ge-
rcre. Sed cum ad vos per Dei gratiam venero, tunc de iis, quae vel gesta sunt
vel gerenda, sicut honor muluus poscit, in commune tractahimus. Here Cyprian
expresses himself with precision ; for he says he ought, in the more important
cases, to ask the (consilium) advice of the presbyters and deacons; but that
only the (consensus) consent of the people was requisite. The bishop, there-
fore, deliberated on business matters with the presbyters, and not with the
people ; and the course whicli he and the clergy deemed suitable, was proposed
to the people assembled for the purpose, and they either approved or rejected
it. For the common people could either sanction or annul ; they were not
obliged to ratify, whatever the bishop and his counsellors had decided upon.
A similar passage occurs in Epistle xiii. (p. 23, al. Ep. xix. ad Presbyteros et
Diaconos, c. 2.) Hoc et verecundiie et disciplincc et vitae ipsi omnium nostrum
convenit, xit Prccpositi cum clero convenientes, prccsente eliam slantium plebe,
quibus et ipsis pro fide et timore siio hom^r hahendus est, disponere omnia consilii
communis religione possimus. Being requested by the presbyters and [p. 576.]
deacons to decide the case of two deacons and an acolythist, who, having
lapsed, again returned to the church, he replies most explicitly, (_Ep. xxviii. p.

39; al. Ep. xxxiv. ad presbyt. et Diaconos, c. 4) •.

Desiderastis quoque, ut de Phi-
lumeno et Favorino Acolylho, qui medio tempore
et Fortunate hypodiaconis
recesserunt, et nunc venerunt, quid mihi videatur, rescribam. Qui rei nan
potui me solmn judicem dare, cum multi adhuc de clero absenies sint, nee locum
suum vel sero repetendum putaverunt, et hccc singulorum tractanda sit et
limanda plenius ratio, non tantum cum collegis meis, sed et cum plebe ipsa uni-
versa. When he had created a lector and a subdeacon, without consulting the
presbyters, he excuses the deed to his clergy on the ground of necessity, (Ep.
xxiv. p. 33 ; al Ep. xxix. ad Presbyt. et Diacon.) ; Fecisse me autern sciatis lec-
torem Saturum et hypodiaconum Optatum confessorem, quos jam pridem com-
muni consilio clero proximos feccramus. - - Nihil ergo a me absentibus vobis no-
vum foctum est; sed quod jam pridem communi consilio omnium nostrum
cccperai, necessitate nrgente, promolum est. Cyprian then, by his own confession,
would have done something (novum) neu\ and contrary to former usage, if he
had constituted even the lowest officials of the church, lectors and subdeacons,
without consulting the presbyters. There are examples, I am aware, of Cy-
prian's creating presbyters without the consent of the clergy and
and lector.=<,

people ; e. g. Numidicus, whom

he created a presbyter, (Ep. xxxv. p. 48 al. ;

Ep. xl.) and Celerinus and Aurelius, and perhaps others, whom he made lec-
tors with the concurrence of only a few of the clergy, (Ep. xxxiii. et xxxiv.
118 Century III— Section 23.

p. 46, &e. ; al. Ep. xxxviii. et xxxix.) But all these were Confessors, and had
given proofs of their constancy and fortitude. And Confessors enjoyed this
prerogative in the ancient church, that they seemed to be elected and desig-
nated for the sacred office, as it were, by God himself; and therefore they

might be received into the sacred order, by the bishop alone, without the suf-
frages of the c ergy and the people. And so, in this act, the ancient usages
were not violated, but rather followed out. The correctness of these state-
ments will be seen by such as read tliose Epistles of Cyprian to his presbyters
and people, in which he relates the admission of these men to offices, or, in the
phraseology of Tertulliaji, their (CoUeciio in Clerum) enrollment among the
clergy. The Epistle which relates to Aurelius, (Epist. xxxiii. al. xxxviii. ad
clerum et ad pjebem,) commences thus Cyprianus prosbyteris et diaconis et
:

plebi universBe salutem In ordinationibus clericorum, fratres carissimi, sole-

!

mus vos ante consulere et mores et merita singulorum communi consilio pon-
derare. (Here we have the common and ordinary usage ; the extraordinary
usage, or the prerogative, so to speak, of Confessors, next follows.) Sed ex-
pectanda non sunt ieslimonia humana, cum prcccedunt divina suffragia ; that is,

the suffrages of the clergy and people are not necessary in the case of
Confessors, wliom God has declared worthy of the sacred office, by the grace
[p. 577.] which he has given them. And yet Cyprian had not acted alone in
this case, but in conjunction with some presbyters; for he adds, (ibid, c. 2):
Hune igitur, fratres dilectissimi, a me et a coUegis, qui prccsenles aderant, ordina-
tura sciatis. In like manner he speaks of Celerinus the lector, (Epist. xxxiv.

p. 47 ; al. Ep. xxxix. c. 1) : Ego et collegcc mei, qui prccsenies aderant, rcferrimus
ad vos, Celerinum fratrem nostrum virtutibus, pariter et moribus gloriosum
clero nostro,non humana suffragalione, (i. e. not by tlie suffrages of the clergy
and people,) sed divina dignaiiune (which God manifested, by giving him forti-
tude under tortures,) conju7ictu?n. After a sentence or two, Cyprian adds:
Aec fas fuerat, nee Dominus ho-
decehal sine honore ecclesiasiico esse, quern sic
noravit Those unacquainted with ancient customs and
ccelesiis glorias dignitaie.

opinions, may not know the meaning of this last citation and the annotators on ;

Cyprian pass it over, as they do many things which need to be explained by

reference to ancient usages. I will therefore how God cozlestis gloriae
explain
dignitaie honoraurit Celerinum, an illustrious Confessor, who for nineteen days
had been under torture, and bore in his body many scars of his wounds. The
souls of Martyrs and Confessors, on leaving the body, were supposed to ascend
immediately to glory, but not so the souls of other Christians, which had to
await the final advent of the Judge, in a certain intermediate state. See, among
others, TertuUian, (de Anima, c. 55, p. 353, &c.) where he says : Nullis romphaea
paradisi janatrix cedit, nisi qui in Christo decesserit (the Martyrs,) non in Adam?
Nova mors pro Deo, et extraordinaria pro Christo, alio et privato excipitur lios-

pitio. Habes etiam de paradiso a nobis libellum, quo constituimus, omnem ani-
mam (leaving the body by a natural death,) apud inferos (in an intermediate
place,) sequestrari in diem Domini. He therefore who, by God's assistance, had
been superior to tortures, obtained a title to celestial glory, and he was by God
publicly honored with that distinction. Cyprian then means to say : That to the
 Church Government. 119

man whom God hns declared an heir of celestial glory, and to whom he has as-
signed a place among the glorified souls immediately after death, ought to be
assigned a place among the leaders and ministers of the church militant. The —
8J:me account given by Cyprian, in the case of Numidicus, a distinguished
is

Conlessor, whom he had received among the presbyters, without the consent
of the clergy and people, (Ep. xxxv. p. 49; al. Ep. xl.) : Nam admonitos nos et
instructos sciatis, dignal'wne. ditina, (this is explained above,) ut Numidicus
presbyter adscribaturpresbyterorum Carthaginensium numero et nobiscum se-
deat in clero, luce clarissima coiifessionis illustris. We here learn the ground
of the custom, in the ancient church, of receiving into the sacred order Confes-
sors, though unlearned and not duly qualified. They reasoned thus: Confes-
sors, by the resolution and firmness of their minds in confronting tortures and
death, have obtained through grace a title to celestial felicity, which [p. 578.]
other Christians have not ; it is therefore right and proper, that those to whom
God has vouchsafed so great honor, should also be honored by the church, and
be elevated above other Christians. Neither is it necessary that the clergy
and people should, as in other cases, approve of their admission to the rank of
fathers of tlie church. The divine snflVage is sufficient; and the bishop, on
ascertaining that fact, maj' proceed, without a consultation with the clergy and
people, to admit them to the sacred order.
But we return from a digression. There is no passage in Cyprian which
more clearly demonstrates, that the clergy and the people shared with the bishop
the power of governing the church, than one in his 27th Epistle, (p. 37, 38;
al. Epist. xxxiii. c. 1.) and I wonder that it should escape the attention of the
;

learned, who have treated of this subject. The Epistle commences thus Do- :

minus noster, cujus prajcepta et nionita observare debemus, episcopi honorem

et ecclesia3 suae rationem disponens in evangelio loquitur et dicit Petro : Ego tibi

dico, quia tu es Petrus, et super istara petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam, et

portaj inferorum non vincent earn, &c. - - - hide per temporum et succes-
sionum vices episcoporum ordinatio ct ecclesise ratio decurrit, ut ecclesia super
episcopos consliLualur, et omnis actus ecclesicc per eosdem prccpositos guhernetur.
Cum hoc itaque diiina lege favdalum sit, miror; quosdam audaci temeritate sic
mihi sci'ibere voluisse, ut ecclesiam nomine litteras facerent, quando ecclesia
in episcopo et clero et in omnibus stantibus sit conslituta. The reasoning of
Cyprian in this passage deserves contempt ; for no one can suppose, with him,
that the words of Ciu'ist to Peter here cited, define the rights of the church
and of the bishops. The doctrines, however, which he professes, deserve re-
gard for, First, he most explicitly declares the church to be super episcopos
;

constitutam, or, to be superior to the bishops; from which it follows, that su-
preme power in ecclesiastical affairs is vested in the church; and that the
bishop, witiiout the church, can decide and determine nothing. Secondly, he

tells us what lie would have us understand by the word church; and afiirms

that to the church belong, not merely the clergy, but also omnes stanles, that is,
the whole multitude of persons who have not, by any of the greater sins, noi
by defection from Christianity, merited exclusion from the number of the bre-
thren, and therefore continue stedfast in the faith. Thirdly, he teaches that
120 CenUmj III.— Section 23.

actum omnem ecdesice guhemari ah episcopo, or that the tiohop presides in the
meetings of the church, states the subjects to be discussed, and collects the suf-
frages or opinions given. More than this cannot be here intended by the
word gubernari, because he liad declared the church to be the greater and supe-
rior to the bishop. For the church would be the lesser and inferior to the bishop,
if giibernare here meant to pre^'Cribe the decisions and demand an approbation

of the bishop's own personal judgment. The church must necessarily be free to
[p. 579.] act its own pleasure, if it be true, that it has more power and authority
than the bishop. Lastly, he decides that all these are the precepts of Christ,
or divAna lege fundata : with what truth he could so affirm need not be
inquired; it is sufficient that he thought it to be so. From this language there-
fore the learned men may correct their views, who attempt to persuade us that
Cyprian, whenever he calls the clergy and people to his aid, and associates him-
self with them, does so, not in obedience to law and right, but only from mo-
desty and a regard for prudence. He himself denies the truth of this opinion,
and bids us believe, that the bishop who shall decide any matter of much im-
portance without consultinn^ the clergy and people, will violate a mandate and
law of our Savior.
(2) So numerous and strong are the testimonies to the liberty and equality
of the Christian churches in this century, adduced long since by learned men,
in the great controversy respecting the primacy of the Roman bishop, that it
would seem the persons who maintain that one church had power and a sort
of jurisdiction over the rest, must be chargeable with a greater devotion to
their sect and to their early imbibed opinions, than to the truth. Those who
contend that in this century, as well as in subsequent times, all theEuropean
churches were subject to the bishop of Rome, think they find great support for
their opinion in the writings of Cyprian ; which may seem very strange to the
impartial judges of the subject, who know, that from this same writer the de-
fenders of the opposite opinion derive their principal arguments in support of
the opinion that the church, in this century, recognized no visible head or su-
preme bishop. One of two things must be true ; either one or the other of
the contending parties must have misinterpreted Cyprian, or Cyprian is not con-
sistent with himself,and had very obscure and indeterminate ideas respecting
the nature of the church. I will exhibit the arguments on both sides, and then
give my own judgment in the matter. First : The still extant Epistles of
Cyprian to Cornelius, Lucius, and Stephen, bishops of Rome, and also some
Epistles of Cornelius to Cyprian, are written in a manner th?* makes it evident
that no one of them even thought of any difference as to jurisdiction, rank,

and station among them. In that age, as well as in this, when inferiors wrote
to their superiors, or superiors to their inferiors, they distinguished themselves
from the persons they addressed, by certain titles and modes of expression ;
althoufrh the propensity for adulation and for arrogance had not then reached
the height to which it subsequently arose. But nothing of this kind can you
discover in the Epistles I have mentioned. Cyprian addresses the Romish
bishops in the same style as he addresses other bishops, and calls them simply
(Jralres el collegas) Brothers and Colleagues ; and Cornelius addresses Cyprian
 Church Government. 121

in the style, and drops not a syllable which can be considered as i\idica-
same
tive of any jurisdiction or authority. Indeed, C';/joria?i is himself the most
assuming, and not only reproves Stephen severely for claiming some dignity
and power, but also m^st freely censures Cornelius, when he thought him
in error, and recalls him to his duty. I well recollect, that Peter de Marca, (de

Concordia saccrdotii et imperii, L. vii. c. 1, p. 988,) as well as many [p. 580.]

others, attempts to prove from Cyprian's Epistle to Stephen, concerning Marcian,
bishop of Aries, (Epist. Ixvii. p. 115; al. Ep. l.wiii. c. 2,) that Cyprian acknovv-
ledged the primacy of Stephen in the church ; for, in this Epistle, Cyprian
exhorts Stephen " lo write in the fullest manner to the bishops of both Gauls,
that they should no longer suffer Marcian, the friend of Novalian, to insult the col-

lege of bishops :" from whicii the great de Marca infers, that Stephen had some
jurisdiction over the bishops in Gaul. But Stephen Baluze, (in his notes on
the passage, p. 488,) is more cautious, and concludes that Cyprian well knew
" that the defence of the canons xoas committed to the bishop of Rome ;" that is,

this learned man interprets the passage according to the views of the Galilean
church. But I will leave it to all impartial persons to judge whether there is

any force in such reasoning as this : Cyprian admonishes Stephen to write to

the bishops of Gaul about excluding Marcian ; therefore Cyprian believed that
Stephen had some jurisdiction over the Gallic bishops. Who does not know,
that even we ourselves are accustomed every day to exhort those over whom
we have no kind of authority or power ?

Secondly : Cyprian's contest with the Roman bishop Stephen, respecting

the baptisms of heretics, which we have stated above, has vast weight, in proof
that nobody, in that age, ascribed to the Romish prelate the honor of being su-
preme judge in all religious controversies. Indeed, those on the opposite side
cannot deny this ; and therefore they resort to every expedient to cast this

great contest into the shade. Cyprian, having assembled several bishops, de-
cided with them, that all heretics coming over to the church, ought to be again
baptized ; and this decision of his council he transcribed and sent to the Ro-
man Stephen, not on account of any official relation to him, or any law re-

quiring it, but solely as a matter of courtesy. He says (Epist. Ixxii. p. 129,

c. 4,) : Haec ad conscientiam tuam, frater carissirne, et pro honore communi et

pro simplici dilectione pertulimus. Stephen disapproved this decision, and an-
swered Cyprian haughtily : the latter, despising his menaces, held firmly to the
decision, and, assembling a still larger council, fortified it with new and stronger
supports. Stephen, thus situated, did not, as is commonly stated, cast Cyprian
out of the church, but only declared him unworthy of his communion. Cyprian
contemned this ebullition of wrath and the other bishops felt very indignant
;

atit. These were most certainly the facts and who that reads or hears them, ;

can bring himself to believe that the Roman pontiff or bishop then possessed
any supreme power or sovereignty ? Some perhaps will say, that Cyprian did
wrong, and being heated by passion, overstepped the boundaries of respect due
to the Roman bishop. But this is a hasty and futile objection. For if Cypriar.
had done any thing inconsistent with his duty, he would have been reproved
aud deserted by the otiier bishops. They, however, did not think that Cyprian
122 Centtmj III.— Section 23.

had done wrong, but that Stephen was in fault. And this seems to put it beyond
[p. 581.] all controversy, that if perhaps, some priority in honor, yet none in
power or jurisdiction was then conceded to the Romish prelate.
Thirdly: The writings and acts of C?/;)rian while this contest was going
on, afford also very clear testimony on this subject. In his 71st Epistle, (ad
Quintum, p. 127, c. 3.) he denies that Peter had any primacy of authority:
Nam nee Petrus, quem primum Dominus elegit, et super quera aeditieavit ec-
clesiam suam, Aindicavit sibi aliquid insolenter aut arroganter assumsit, ut
diceret, se primatum ienere, et obtemperari a novellis et posteris sibi oportere.

If then, according to Cyprian, Peter himself held no primacy, and neither could
enact any inviolable laws, nor wished to do it, how could he ascribe any primacy
to Peter's successor, so much his inferior? In his 73d Epistle, (p. 137, c. 26,
and elsewhere,) he teaches, that all bishops are independent, and subject to the
power of no one : Unusquisjue episcoporum. quod putat, facial, habens arbitrii
sui liberam potestatem. How very different is this declaration from the opinion
of those who say, all bishops ought to be in subjection to the bishop of Rome?
Still more clearly and fully does he express himself in his Address at the

opening of the Concilium Cathaginense de hsereticis baptizandis, (p. 329) :

Neque enim quisquam nostrum episcopum se esse episcoporum constituit, aut

tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem collegas suos adigit, quando ha-
heat omnis episcopus pro licentia liberlatis et potestalis succ arbitrium proprium,
tamque judicari ah alio non possit, quam nee ipse potest alterum judicare. Sed
expectemus imiversi judicium Domini nostri Jesu Christi, qui unus et solus liahet
potestatem et prccponendi nos in ecclesicc sua: qubernatione et de actu nostri judi'
candi. This language needs no interpreter.
I pass over other passages of similar import, and will add only one more,
which is the more pertinent and forcible, because it occurs in an Epistle to the
Roman bishop himself, Cornelius, (Epist. Iv. p. 86; al. Ep. lix. c. 20) : Nam
cum statutum sit ab omnibus nobis, et sequum sit pariter ac justum, ut uniuscu-
jusque caussa illic audiatur, uhi est crimen admissum, et singulis pas'.orihus por-
tio gregis sit adscripta, quam regat unusquisque et gubernat, rationem sui actus
Domino redditurus, oportet utique eos, quibus prajsumus, non circumcursare, nee
episcoporum cuncordiam cohccrenlem — coltidere, sed agere illic caussam suam,

ubi'el accusatores habere et testes sui criminis possint ; nisi si panels desperatis
et perditis minor videtur esse auctoritas episcoporum in Africa constitutorum,

qui jam de illis judicaverunt. Felicissimus and Fortunatua, two enemies of

Cyprian, had gone to Rome, and implored the aid of Cornelius. Cyprian felt

greatly troubled at this. He first wrote to Cornelius, reminding him that it

had been established by the common consent of all the bishops, that every cri-
minal should be tried where the crime had been committed. Now, from this it

clearly appears, that all Christian bishops were on a level with each other, or

were equals as to power; and that no individual among them held the
[p. 582.]
supreme judge. What follows will make this still more evident. For
office of

he says (ii.) That to the bishops severally, portions of the flock of Christ were
:

committed, to be governed by each bishop according to his own discretion and

judgment only, (iii.) That no bishop had any judge, lord, or master, who could
 Church Government. 123

call him to account for his acts, except Jesus Christ. Therefore, (iv.) that a
sentence passed by one bishop, cannot in any way be
corrected or chancred by
the others. And he adds (v.) Lastly, that the authority of tlie African bishops
was not inferior to that of tlie Roman prelate and that those who would ac- ;

count them inferior to him (homines esse desperaios el perdilos) were men of a
desperate and abandoned character.
But to these testimonies, so clear and unequivocal, the friends of the Ro-
man pontiff oppose others, in
which Cyprian hini«elf seems to enervate what
he had so often said respecting the equality of all bishops, and to attribute to

the Romish prelate a sort of sovereignty and superior authority. For they ob-
serve, that in many passages Cyprian atfirms : Jesum Christum ccclesiajn suam
super Petrum originem unilatis el ralionis fundasse. I will cite only one pas-
sage of this kind, which occurs in Epistle Lvxiii. (p. 131, c. 7): Nam Petrc
pvimum Dominus, super quern aedificavit ecclesiam, et unde unitatis originem
instituit et ostendit, potestatem istam dedit, ut id solveretur in coelis, quod ille

solvisset in terris. Et post rcsurrectionem quoque ad Apostolos loquitur, &c.

— Again, they urge, that on account of this dignity conferred on Peter hy
Christ, Cyprian (Epist. Iv. p. 86; al. Ep. li.v. c. 19,) calls the Romish church:
Petri cathedram atque ecclesiam principalem, unde uniias sacerdotalis oria est. —
But they especially urge a passage from his treatise de Unitate Ecdssice, (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 ra-
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 tlieir own
views and desires. Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum Ego tibi dico, inquit, quia :

tu es Petrus, et super banc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam. - - Et iterum

eidem post rcsurrectionem suam dicit: Pasce oves meas. Super ilium unum
aedificat ecclesiamsuam, et illi pascendas maudat oves suas. Et quamvis
Apostolis omnibus post rcsurrectionem suam parent potestatem tribuat, et
dicat Sicut misit me Pater, et ego mitto vos, accipite Spiritum sanctum - -
:

tamen ut unitatem manifestaret, unitatis cjusdem originem ab uno incipientem

sua auctoritate disposuit. Hoc eranl utique et celeri Apostoli, quod fuit Petrus,
pari consortio frccditi et honoris et potestatis, sed exordium ex unitate proficisci-
tur, et primatus Petro datur, ut una Christi ecclesia et cathedra una raonstre-
tur. - - Hanc ecclesiae unitatem qui non tenet, tenere se fidem credit ? Qui ec-
clesise renititur et resistit, quem fundata [p. 583.]
qui cathedram Petri, super
est ecclesia, deserit, in ecclesia se esseconfidit? From these extracts, distin-
guished men think it can be proved, that Cyprian regarded the Roman bishop
as pi'esiding 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 things
but they copied from him. For the influence of this bishop and martyr among
Christians was immense, and his opinions were regarded by many as divine
124 Century III. — Section 23

oracles. Yet Cyprian, as will not be denied, even by those who consider hirt
a very great and holy man, had imbibed many futile, vain and superstilious n;-
tions, and also ciierished some remarkable errors; and hence we ought to en-
quire, wliether his opinion accords with the truth, or whether it sliouhl be
placed among tlie errors which he indulged. If this dogma of his is to be es-
timated by the arguments and proofs which lie adduces to support it, I fear it

cannot be ranked with those which no man of sound mind can reject.

Secondhj : Let it be considered, tliat Cyprian nowhere ascribes thsxt primacy of

which he speaks, to the Romish bishop, but to the Romish church. But the (ec-
clesia) church, as we have before shown, in Cyprian's estimation, was above

or superior to the bisliop, and consisted of the bisliop and the clergy, and the
whole multitude of the (sLantium) 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 5Mo;j or pontiff for his opinion will be precisely
;

this: The entire Christian population of Rome, together with their clergy and
bishop, have power over the universal church. But how wide is this from the
opinion of those who think the Romish prelate sustains the office of Christ's
vicegerent
But, laying aside these answers, although they are not to be despised, let U3
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 passages
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. 584.] diets himself, and brings forward directly opposite opinions on different
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 Pontiff,choose which side they please of this alternative. If
they choose the first, and admit that Cyprian has advanced contradictory opin-
ions, his authority is gone, and nothing can be proved or inferred from his
declarations. For what credit or authorityis 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, that light controls and illumines darkness;
that is, the obscure and ambiguous passages of a book, are to be elucidated and
explained by the passages which are clear and perspicuous for it would be :

preposterous to guage and measure the import of passages in which there was
 Church Government. 125

no obscurity or ambiguity, by other passages whicli are enigmatical and admit

of many explanations. Now if this rule is to he 3,pplied in the present case
as undoubtedly it should be, I think all will agree, that the passages of Cyprian
which speak of the unity of the church, its being founded on Peter, and the
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 all 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
explanations. According to the rules of correct reasoning, then, we cannot
suppose that Cyprian ascribed to the Romish church a sort of primacy of pow-
er, and a sort of ckil unily of the universal church, a unity as to authority and

control, like that in states or republics, which are governed by the will of one
man. For such a primacy and such a unitij 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 unily 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 lohat 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
unity as maintained by Cyprian, I will read'ily answer, respecting the primacy.
Among all the Christian churches, Cyprian assigned \\\e. first place to the Romish
church ; for reasons, indeed, that are very weak and futile, yet su'ch as satisfied
him. Whether this was his private opinion, or whether he expresses the gene-
ral views of the church, is another question, which I shall leave untouched.

And yet I will not deny, that from the time the Christians embraced the idea
that the Christian church had insome 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 unily 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 very
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 mistaken, who suppose that Cyprian, Tertullian,
and the other Christian writers of that age, clearly understood whatever they
taught and inculcated with great earnestness : so far from it, they annex different
ideas to the same terms, as the subject and convenience to call for them seem
which is evidence, that their minds needed light, and that they entertained vague
and indeterminate notions. And yet this U7iily of the church, which Cyprian
so highly extols, and the commencement of which he places in the Romish
church, may be elucidated, in some sort, provided we may, from a part of the
 12(3 Century III.— Section 23.

?(?z?7j/, judge of the whole. Thnt unity, which ought to prevail in the universal

eliurch, actually existed, and ought to exist, in the African church, over wliich
Cyprian presided; as he tells us repeatedly, and it cannot be questioned.
Therefore, from the unity in the Africa.i 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 Cyprian himself. And yet there was a
•primacy in this same church, composed as it was of members all equal and that ;

primacv was in the church of Carthage. Moreover this primacy was necessary,
because umty 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 pri?nacy a.ud the unity. All that this unity required, was, that
all tlie 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 Ada magni Concilii Carthaginensis de baptizandis
haereticis, in tlie Works of Cyprian, p. 329. The primate, or head of the unity^
stated tlie business for which they were assembled, and gave his colleagues the
.fullest liberty to His own opinion was given last of all.
express their opinions.
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 own judgment ; as the
beyond all controversy.
oration of Cyprian, at the opening of that council, puts
Such a and such a primacy m the universal church, Cyprian conceived of:
unily,
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 and so as to recur to it in doubtful cases of great moment, reserving

rank ;

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 affirm positively that he had not, yet this, at least, is
beyond all question, that he contemplated nothing of such a nature as
evident,
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-
what Cyprian iias said respecting the iindy of the church, and
tively consider
the consequent primacy of the Romish church. The whole subject may be
 Church Government. 127

compreliended in the following propositions the truth or falsehood of which i

;

leave out of Jesus Chri&t foundea his eliurch on Peter.

consideration. (I)

Yet (II) He did not give to Peter any power over the other Apostles, or an\
sovereignty and primacy of jurisdiction over them. But (III) after His resur
rection, he conferred the same power on all the Apostles. (IV.) On Peter,
however, he conferred this power and afterwards on the Apostles i^
first, ;

order to indicate that, unitatis originem ab uno incipere debere. I choose to usj
Cyprian'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 Aposioli, says Cyprian himself, id erant, quod Petrus fuit
pari consorlio ])ra:diti et honoris el polcslatis. We may here observe, tliat Cy-
prian do'es not leave to Peter even a primacy of honor or rank. (VI) At. quo-
niam exordium ab imitate proficiscilur, ideo primatus (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 honor or in
power, in what respects can he be superior to them est, ut una ?) Petro dalus
Chrisli ecclesia et una monstretur. Let others explain this I will not
cathedra :

attempt it. (VH) The Romish bishop represents Peter the other bishops ;

represent the Apostles. (VIII) The respect, therefore, which the other Apos-
tles paid 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 churcii's unity. And of course, the same thing is [p. 587.]
incumbent on the bisJiops, 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. (XII) Therefore whoever separates himself
from the ciiair 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 Romish 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 suffi- :

cient for my purpose, that Cyprian has so stated, and nearly the whole in the
very «'ords now given. And how greatly these propositions differ from the
opinion of those writers, who would make the Roman bishop the judge and
must be obvious to every one.
legislator of the universal church,

(3) Yet I wnll any persons are disposed to offer a more

not contend, if

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 Cmtury ITT.— Section 24.

dignity and honor were attached in this century. It might therefore be thought
hazardous, to receive aspirants to this office, without some previous trial of
their fitness.

§ XXIV. The Prerogatives and Powers of the Bishops much enlarg-

ed. Although, the ancient and venerable form of church govern-
ment which was sanctioned by the Apostles, might seem in gene-
ral to remain undisturbed, yet it was gradually deflected more
and more from the ancient model, and, in the larger congregations
especially, 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-
fully, they devised and set forth new doctrines respecting the
church and the office and authority of bishoj^s, 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
p6wer of bishops, without any difficulty, spread through the
church universal, and were received with implicit faith. (')

(1) Having some knowledge of the course of human affairs, 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,
:

:t isusua. for tnose of eievatevl positions in society to endeavor to enlarge the

boundaries of their authority and power and commonly their efforts are suc-
•

cessful, and are aided by their colleagues or by combinations. For where

 Prerojaiives of J]ishops. 129

power or authority is equally ilistributed among many, disagreements and try-

ing.contests often arise, wliicii it is hardly possible to repress, without increas-
ing the authority and prerogative of the head man of the company. To this

craise many others may be added ; such as zeal for certain objects, ambition,
poverty, tiic desire of wealth, &:c., wliieh stimulate the governors of the society,

even though naturally sluggish, slow in movement, and unaspiring, and tliua
elevate them and place them on a higher level. And those w!io, in these ways,
whether by accident, or by their own efforts, or by the folly of others, obtain
elevation, are very apt to claim the standing they hold as justly due to them ;

and and arguments to prove, that the authority they pos-

to search for reasons
sess did not come to them fortuitously but in a legitimate manner. And hence
arise frequently obscure, futile, perplexing discussions, which yet are necessary
for those that would defend what they have obtained. To apply these remarka
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 Ciiris-
tians, which is common in all human affairs; and that tlie ])rimitivc 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 chuivhes in each province being
established, it was a natural consequence, tliat 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 diminutiun. a Y^
Bcmblancc, 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 h.id 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-
sion 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 Ignatius, the great patron of episcopal dignity, has, in my opinion,

Bpoken more magnificently of the sovereign power and authority of bishops, no

one has exalted their authority more highly.
In Iha 'first place, whenever occasion offers, he very carefully inculcates, that
the bishops do not obtain their office by (he suffrages of the clergy and people,
but from the judgment, testimony and good pleasure of God himself. He
VOL. II 10
130 Century III.— Section 24.

says, (Epist. lii. p. 68, al. Ep. Iv. c. 7.)Factus

: est autern Cornelius epiacopua
de Dei et Chrisii ejus jvdicio. This he repeats in numerous passages ; and it

is customary language with him : Deus sacerdotes suosfacil, (See Epist. xlv.

p. 69., lii. p. 68, 69., Iv. p. 82., l.xv. p. 113., l.\ix. p. 121.) I will cite but one no-
table passiige, which may stand for them all. It is in his 69lh epistle, p. 121. al.
Ep. l.wi. c. 1., where he says to Florentius, one of his adversaries : Animadver-
to, te j)os( Deumjudiciem,qui sacerdotes facit velle, non dicam de me (([uantus
enim ego sum?) sed de Dei et Chrisii judicio,{\\hkh he received, according to
Cyprian's views, when he was constituted a \)hhoY>,Judicare. 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 Deum non credere, hoc est rebellem adversus Christum
;

et adversus evangelium ejus e.xistere, ut tu existimes, sacerdotes Dei sine

conscientia ejus in ecclesia ordinari. How explicit ! how positive ! Now in

this declaration, which is always on his lips, Deus sacerdotes siios facit, by the
words sacerdotes, he means the bishops. There are indeed some passages of his
writings, in which he honors presbyters wiih 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. 590.] he, beyond all controversy, uniformly means the bishops ; and some-
times he employs the very word episcopits instead of sac.erdos. Neither did
tliis holy man suppose, tliat 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 he 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 himself 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 was.
That he could not intend that common and ordinary Law of divine Providence,
which wisely controls all human affixirs, is most certain, and will soon be
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 one thing he must undoubtedly have believed, that to constitute a
is

divine decision in the election of a bishop, the harmonious or unanipious 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. 13]

went with them, wished another man to be made bishop. His opinion, there-
fore, doubtless,was, that whenever the major part of a church pronounced a
mar worlliy of the episcopal office, God is to be supposed to have spoken by
the church, and to have made him his priest. Of the arguments on which he
rests this opinion, I will mention only the one on which he places most reliance;
and the force of the others, which he himself deems less conclusive, may be es-
timated from this. He assumes, that bishops are the successors of the apos-
tles. xlii. (p. 57. al. Ep. xlv. c. 4.)
Epistle Laborare debemus, ut unitatem a
:

Domino per Apostolos nobis successeribus traditam obtinere curemus. This

et
was the common opinion of that age. On this assumption, he thus reasons
But the Apostles were created and constituted by Christ himself; therefore
also, the successorsof the Apostles, the bishops, are created by God himself
and by Christ. I shall presently cite a fine passage relative to deacons, iu which
this argument is most distinctly exhibited. But in this connexion, higher
claims are raised by that argument, which he bases on the authority of Jesus
Christ. For Cyprian solemnly affirms, that by divine revelation, and [p. 591.]
from the mouth of Christ himself, he received the declaration Deus sacerdotes
siios facit. Thus he writes, (Epist. Ixix. p. 122. al. Ep. Ixvi. c. 10.): Memini
enim, quid jam mihi sit oslensum, immo quid sit servo obsequenti et timenti de
dominica el divina aucLorilale prccceptam : qui inter caetera quse ostendere et
revclare dignatus est, et hoc addidit : Itaque, 71/1 Christo nan credit sacerdotem
facienli, 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-
turn sacerdotes facere) that 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 of presbyters and deacons, as this will more fully and perfectiv disclose
to us his entire doctrine respecting the oflice 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 power, 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
presbyters, 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. He 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 nre accountable.
A bishop has no human judge, and is accountable to God only; because it is

God that makes the bishops; but the church, collectively, not merely the
bishop, is the judge of presbyters, —and, doubtless, because the presbyters r^
ceive tlieir otHce from the church. But let us hear him, (Epist. xi. p. 19 ; al.

Ep. xvi. e. 4) : Interim temerarii inter vos (he is addressing his presbyters,}
Deum timeant, scientes, quouinm si ultra in iisdem perseveraverint, utar ea ad-

monitione, qua me uti Dominus jubet, ut interim prohibeantur offerre, acturi et

apud nos apud confessores ipsos et apud plebem universam caussam suam
et

cum. Domino permittente, in sinum matris ecclesiae recolligi cceperimus. Cy-

prian here claims for himself some power over the offending presbyters for ;

he threatens them, if they continue to offend, that he will prohibere offerre ; tkat

[p. 592.] is, them from administering the Lord's supper. But he very
prohibit
cautiously adds, that he assumes this authority by a divine command qua me :

uti Dominus Jubet ; thereby acknowledging, that ordinarily a bishop could not
restrain a presbyter from performing his functions but he signifies, that this ;

power was given to him by God in a vision, such as he declares and affirms
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 tlie 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, the bishop alone can pu-
nish them, without consulting the church. One Rogatianus, a bishop, had
been very illby his deacon but remembering the ancient prerogatives
treated ;

of the church, he would not himself avenge the injury he had received, but
stated his grievance to Cyprian and to the church of Carthage, undoubtedly
asking their counsel. Cyprian replied, (Epist. Jxv. p. 114; al. Ep. iii. c. 1) :

Tu quidem honorifice fecisti, ut malles de eo nobis conqueri, curn pro episcopa-

tus vigore et cathedrae auctoritate haberes potestalem, qua posses de illo stalim
vindicari, certus quod collegae tui omnes gratum haberemus quodcunque circa
diaconum tuum contumeliosum sacerdotali potestate fecisses. 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-
;

prian the martyr for, in truth, it is quite futile, and unworthy of so great a man.
;

He first shows, from the law of Moses, (Dent. 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 prnba- :

retur, sacerdotes Dei ab eo, qui sacerdotes facit (in speaking of bishops he could
 Preror/aiives of Bishops, 133

not omit his fiivorite maxim: Deus sacerdoies facit,) lindicari. Other argu-
ments of siraihir strength then follow, from the Old Testament. Lastly, he
gravely asserts, that Jesus Christ himself has taught us by his example, that
bishops are to be treated with the highest respect; for Christ said to the leper
(Matth. viii. 4,) " Go and show thyself la 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. Qnas omnia ab eo ideo facta sunt
e. 2) :

humiliter atque patienter, ut nos humilitatis ac patientiae haberemus [p. 593.]

exemphim. Docuil enim sacerdoies veros legitime et plene honorari, dum circa
falsos sacerdoies ipse talis exstitil. 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 the deacons, and may punish them if they resist him.
And therefore he now proceeds to establish this prerogative as belonging to
bishops. His reasoning is this, (ibid. c. 3.) Because die bishop makes a deacon,
he says: Meminisse autem Diaconi debent, quoniam Apostolos, id est, cpisco-

pos et prapositos Dominus elegit diaeonos autem post ascensum Domini in,

coelos Aposloli sibi consliluerunl episcopatus sui et ecclesiae ministros. Quod si

nos aliquid audcre contra Deum possumua, qui episcopos facit, possunt et con-
tra nos andere diaconi, a quibiis fiunt. Much is wrapt up in these few words:
For, first, 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 tiiat to bishops 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 jjunish oflTending 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 bishops, by
;

whom they were constituted. Admirable reasoning, truly But we should re- !

collect that Cyprian was a rhetorician. —

Having settled all these points, as he
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 prreposito suo plena humilitate satisfacere.
- -Quod si ultra te provocaverit, fungeris circa eum potestate honoris tui, ut

eum vel deponas 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.

Ecripsisti, quendara cum eodem diacono tuo se miscuisse et superbite ejus atque
audacia3 participem esse, hunc quoque et si qui alii tales extiterint et contra -sa-

[p. 594.] cerdotem Dei (so liecommonly designates a bishop,) fecerint, vel
coercere potes vel abstinere. But, may the manes of St. Cyprian forgive me
In this, as in otiier things, he abandoned and changed the ancient law of the
churcli, through his excessive anxiety to extend the prerogatives of bishops.
By the ancient law, the bishop could neither make deacons nor deprive them of
their office, 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, vvliat he had elsewhere 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 legitimale and right only, qucc mnnium, suffragio et jitdicio fuerit examinala, 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 et in diaconnrum ordinationibus observasse Aposto-
los animadvertimus, de quo et ipso in Aclis eorum scriptum est Et convoca- ;

runt, inquit, iili 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 indignus 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 bishop makes the deacons. And therefore, 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 with the Apostles, Cyprian erects a large su-
perstructure of prerogatives and honors, wiiich, in his judgment, bishops ought
to enjoy. For his Jirst inference from it is, that all the prerogatives which be-
longed to the Apostles whom Clu-ist 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 inqnirere, et post Deum judicem, qui sa-
cerdotcs fticit, fe velle - - de Dei et Christi judicio judicare. Hoc est in
Deum non credere. - - Nam credere quod indigni sint qui ordinantur, quid aliud
est, quam quod non a Deo nee per Deum sacerdotes ejus in ecclesia
credere,
constituantur And, after much of the same import, he adds, (c. 4, 5) Dolens
? :

hsec profero, cum te judicem Dei constituas et Christi, qui dicit ad Apostolos ac
per hoc ad omnes prspositos, qui Apostolis vicaria ordinatione succedunt ;
qui
audit vos, me audit: et qui me audit, eum audit, qui me misit. Inde enim
[p. 595] scliismata et haereses oborta; sunt et oriuntur, dum episcopus, qui

unus est et ecclesiffi prseest, superba quorundam pra;sumlione contemnitur,

et homo dignatione Dei honoratus indigims hominibus judicatur. Qui.s enim
 Prerogatives of Bishops. 135

hic est superbiae tumor, qure arrogantia animi, quai mentis inflatio, ad cognitio-
nem suam praspositos et saccrdotes vocare ? What force there is in all this
and wliither it tends, is sufficiently manifest! But he goes even farther than
this, and maintains, that the whole church is comprised in the bishop: whence
ir, 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 Cyprian spent much labor and pains; and his trea-
tise de unilaie 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 hishop, separates himself from all, and at the

same time from the whole church 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 sacerdoli adunata et pastori suo grex adhccrens. Assuming this, his

first inference is : Unde scire dehes episcopum in ecclesia esse, e' ecclesiam in epis-
copo, el si quis cum episcopo non sit, in ecclesia non esse. Very true, provided
the definiiion is faultless! And there are other instances, from whicii 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 may come forward with this objection: I dissent in-
deed from you, and from some other bishops but ; I fully accord with anotiier,
or several other bishops: if then the man is in the church who adheres to his

own bishop, I am in t!ie church, for I adiiere to t!ie pastor whom I have chosen.
By no means, says Cyprian : Whoever dissents from me, dissents from all: he
who forsakes the bishop under whom
lives, forsakes them all, (Ibid. c. 8)
he :

Et fruslra pacem cum sacerdolibus Dei (that is, with the

sibi blandiri eos, qui

bishops in whose congregations they live,) non habentes, obrepunt, el latenter

apud quosdam (other bishops,) communicare se credunt, quando ecclesia, qucc
catholica et una est (add et in episcopis posila,) scissa non sit neque divisa, sed
:

sit utique connexa et coh<crenlium sibi inxicem sacerdutum glutino 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 unity of the church;
a topic broached by others long before him, and in Africa, 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. 596.]
admirers will not deny that he made some mistakes. — But magnificent as these
views were, and extravagantly as they honored episcopacy, yet they did not
satisfy Cyprian : to make the dignity of Bishops completely inviolable, he deemed
it nessessary to add, that they represent Christ iiimself, 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 if the
bishops represent the person of Christ among men, if they act and decide in his
stead, then it is manifest, that to resist and oppose them, or to refuse to obey
13G Century III.— Section 24.

their muiiflates, would be and despise Christ hico-

to offend the divine mrijesty
seir. And would have us believe it is really so. This
the excellent Cyprian
sentiment he nowhere maintains with more vehemence ard eloquence than in
his 55th Epistle, ad Cornelium, (p. 81, 82, &c. al. Ep. lix. c. 2. 7 ;) an Epistle,
which, I confess, I never read without some pleasure and admiration. The
Cartiiagenian bishop writes to the bishop ofRome, who ought to know, the
best of men, what were the powers and what the prerogatives and honors
all

belonging to Christian bisliops, he being himself, as Cyprian admitted, tiie

(princei-s) chief oi' nW the bishops. And yet the Carthagenian prelate instructs tlie

Roman, just as a master would one of his least pupils, very minutely, respecting
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 much to the people: and moreover suffered himself to
be teriified by the threats of Cyprian's adversaries wiio had gone to Rome.
And therefore Cyprian thus addresses him, near the 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
ac divina potestate, nee Christian! ultra aut durare, aut esse jam possuraus. 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 instruction took
effect 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
BO 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 praecedant, quibua
sacerdotalis auctoritas et potestas de divina dignatione firmatur, quales putas
cos, qui sacerdotum hostes, et contra ecclesiam catholicam rebelles nee prajmo-

[p. 597.] nentis Domini communicatione, nee

futuri judicii ultione terrentur? Ne-
que enim aliunde haereses abortre sunt, aut nata sunt schisinata, quam inde, quod
sacerdoti Dei non obtemperatur, nee wins in ecclesia ad tempus sacerdos, el ad
tempus judex vice Christi cogitalur; cui si secundum magisleria divina ohlemp&-
raret fralernilas universa, nemo adcersum sacerdotum colle::;ium moveret. 'J'he

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 Ro- first taught tiie

man prelate, that all bishops ought to assume it. And

was commonly adopted,
it

from this time onward, by all bishops; as has been proved by Joseph Bingham
in his Origiiies Ecclesiasticx, (vol. i. p. 81, 82. Lib. ii. c. ii. \ 10.) I will add,

that down to the ninlh century, it was customary to speak of all bishops as the

Vicars of Christ: for Servalus Lupus, a writer of that century, (or rather, all

the bishops in ihe part of Gaul denominated Senonia, in whose name Servatus
wrote,) honored Aeneas, the bishop of Paris, with this title. (Epist. xc-ix. p.

149. ed. Baluze.) : Consolationem recipimus, dum vos sub pastorc bono (C)uisto)
 Morals of the Clergy^ 137

agentes, qui sumrne bonus est. vicarium ejus (boni pastoris) scilicet visihilem.
ministeriique nostri consortem, absque dihitioue exoetere - - cognovimus. But
after this period, the Romnn Poiitifl's were accustomed to appropriate this, aa
well as the other honorary titles of the ancient bishops, exclusively to them-

selves. whatever prerogatives the greatest of the Roman Pontifs at

In short,
this day arrogate to themselves, with perhaps the single exception of infallibility,
were all ascribed 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 the powers and the diirnity 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 throughont the Christian world, after his magnanimous
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.]

§ XXY. The 3iorais of the Clergy. Many complaints occur here

and there in tlie writers of this century, of the corrupt morals
of the clergy ; and these complaints cannot be supposed to be
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 inxpress 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 fact do,
would measure the happiness of this age by the examples of
either of these descriptious.(') 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, thatby striving to obtain a reputation for sanctitj^, they
brought upon themselves disgi-ace 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, who
received into their houses females who had vowed perpetual
chastity, and even made them partakers of their bed, at the same
138 Century itl.— Section 25.

time most solemnly protesting tliat notliing occurred incompati-

ble with modesty. For, extravagant ideas of the sanctity of
celibacy having grown up, and consequently those among the
priests being regarded as most venerable, and the most acceptable
before God, who had no many wished so to consult their
wives,
reputation, as measure of social comforts and en-
still to retain a
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.(')

(1) Complaints respecting' the vices of the clergy in this century, are made
by nearly all the Greek and Latin fathers, who attempt to assign the causes of
the calamities, with which the Christians of tiiis centnry often had to conflict.

See Origen's Commentatory on Matthew, (P. I. 0pp. edit. Huet. p. 420, 441,
442.) Cyprian, in many of his Epistles, Eusebius, (Hist. Eccles. L. viii. c. 1.)

and others. Those of the present day, who read these complaints, which often
resemble the declamations of rlietoricians,are apt to conclude that almost nothing
of the primitive piety of the church remained in this age. But it is not difficult

to collect from the same writers, many testimonies to the innocence and the
pure morals of the pastors and ministers of the churches: and theretbre others
are induced by these high commendations, to assert, that, with perhaps a few
[p. .599.J e-xceptions, 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 tlie judgment which Origen passed, appears
to me more probable: (Contra Celsum, L. iii. p. 129, ed. Spencer.) He admits
that there were some among tiie 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 (];hristian 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
appeared to be all excellent men, and patterns of virtue, if compared with those
magistrates of cities and countries, who were opposed to Christianity; 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 Dodwell,
in his Dissertaliones Cyprianicx, (Diss, iii.) and by Ludov. Anton. Muralori, in
his Disqiiisitin de Sy7iisaclis el Agapelis, (thus these females were designated.)
The Dlsquis. is to be found in his Anecdola Grccca, (p. 218.) The former lets
 Morals of the Clerc/jj. I39

his prejudices carry liim too far; and the latter is quite too favorable to the
views of the Romish church respecting the sanctity of celibacy. Tliis shameful
custom, doubtless, existed before the third century and we meet some slioht ;

traces of it in Hermas, in Tertullian, and perhaps in others. But a clear and

distinct mention of it, is made by no one before Cyprian, who severely inveighs
against it in several of his epistles. But this and other questions relatlno- to

this subject, I pass over, as not pertinent to my present object; and I will con-
fine myself to one f ict, whicii learned men have either 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 perpetual chastity, for the salve of at-
taining to higher sanctit}\ For this custom of binding themselves by such
vows w'iiH 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. Those who mark these circumstances, will perceive the true nature
and character of this most vile and perilous practice. These cohabitations, in
fact, were a sort of sacred or divine marriages between persons bound, on both
by vows of perpetual chastity; marriages, I say, not of their bodies, but
sides,

of their souls.For tiiose 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, (hey supposed, souls
might be united in marriage or become associated, without any consociation or
marriage of the bodies. It is well known, that many married 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. Says
Tertullian (ad Uxoreni L. i. c. 6. ]>. 185.): Quot sunt, qui consensu pari inter

se matrimonii debitum tollunt] voluntarii spadones pro cupiditate regni ccelestis.

Quod si saho matrimonio abstinentia toleratur, quanto 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 strengliiened. Now the radical principle of the cohabita-
tions which we are considering, was the same with that just described; and the
former difiered from the latter merely in this, that the one had voluntarily taken
vows of aOs/inence from a marriage of bodies, and the other had voluntarily
taken vows for the dissolittinn of such marriage.
These observations, will, I think, enable us to understand why the unmarried
cohabitants supposed their mode of life not liable to the reproaches cast upon
it, and therefore complained 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 which they
imposed on themselves. On the contrary, most people considered the force of
religious vows to be so great, that their voluntary vow was sufficient to keep
140 Century III.— Section 2G.

them any improper intercourse. And tiierefore, as our unmarried eoliabi-

fi'om
tants were living- togetlier on
tiie same principle, they supposed the same things

to be lawful t'ur them and as both equnlly made solemn vows of chastity, so
;

all, they supposed ougiit to conclude, that the force oi their vow would make

it impossible fur them to violate the law of chastity. This at least we regard
as certain, that many of the tenets and practices of the early Christians, which
displease us, would apfiear more tolerable, and would assume a more becoming
aspect, if they were tried by the opinions and customs of those times.

§ XXVI. Christian Writers ol this Century. Among tllOSe V/ho

superintended and inauaged the affairs of the church, 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-
tei's. 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 Avas too deeply 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 On'gen^ who presided in the school of Alexandria,
a man of indefatigable industry, and equalled by few in learning
and genius, but of whose works the greatest and best part are
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 disciples of Origen, was Gregory, bishop of
jSTeocoesaria, more famous for the numerous miracles said to have

been wrought by him, and from which he obtained the surname

 Christian Writers. 141

of Thau7naturgi'.s, than for his writings.(') — Among the Latins,

only three deserve our notice : C//prian, first a rhetorician, and
then bishop of Carthage, a man, like most Africans, possessing
eloquence, but at the same time tumid, and more splendid in
hiswords and phrases than in his conceptions Minucius Felix, ;

from whose pen we have a neat and elegant dialogue, entitled

Odavius, in which he skilfully recounts and nervously confutes
the calumnies then charged upon Christians and Arnobim, an ;

African rhetorician, who strenuously defended the cause of Chris-

tianity against its opposers, and often with ingenuity, in his
Lihri septem contra Gentes: but he shows himself to be not well
acquainted with the religion which he defends.(')

(1) In the Aposlolic Constitutions, falsely ascribed to Clemens [p. 602.]

Romanus, there is a chapter, (Lib. i. c. 6., in the Patres Apostol. torn. 1. p.

204.) in which the reading' of books on human learning is prohibited and Co- :

telier, in a note on the chapter, has collected many passages of a similar nature

from the early Cin-istian 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 to Eusebius, 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 Bibliothcca Graca
of Jo. Alb. Fabriciiis. The works of Origen explanatory of Scripture, were
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 Germany. Afterwards Bern, de Monlfaiicon, a

in
very learned Benedictine, published what remains of Origen's Hexapla. in two
vols, fob, Paris, 1714. Lastly, Charles de la Rue, also a Benedictine monk,
and 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_^ie 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 tJiird 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 Dionysius Alexandrianus, only
a few fragments are e.xtant. —The reputation of Hippolylus 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 Century III. — Section 26.

Histoire Litteraire de la Fnince, tome i. p. 3G1. The meagre fragments that

remain of this great man, thougii 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

Neocaesarea, including his Panegyric on Origen, his preceptor, which is the best
of his works, and a Greek biograpiiy of Gregory, were published by Gerh. Voss,
Mayence, 1604, 4to. The industry of Voss deserves commendation but Gregory
;

needs a more judicious and learned editor, who would more sagaciously
inquire
and freely, than any one 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

Oraculis. 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
:

ii:terposition, actually e.xhibited 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 was 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 on the ecclesiastical usages and the history of those times and,
light ;

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), '^nd with great dexterity and
care so that this edition was 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, iiis associates, the Benedictine monks
of St. Maur, added some dissertations, and published the whole, Paris, 1726, fol.

But this edition lacks, not only tiie dissertationes Cyprianiccc of Henry Dod-
well, which are very erudite, though abounding in doubtful opinions and con-
jectures, but also the Annates Cyprianici of John Pearson ; so that it does not
supercede the use of Fell's edition. we have
After these labors of correction,
the text of Cyprian sufficiently correct and transcribers have committed fewer
;

blunders with this author than with others: but it may he 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 Tlieologians. — Origen. 143

ideas arc sufficiently clear and intelligible, but his language is such as to create
doubts whether we have his text correct. And hence, altliough eminent [p. 604.1
men have labored intensely on the correction of his text, among wliom tlie
most noted were John Davis, an Englislmian, and James Gmnoiiiis, who lived
within our recollection ;
yet much still remains to tax the ingenuity of critics
and grammarians. — Of Arnobius, (who is eloquent, but often very obscure,
from the use of uncommon terms, and the vicious accumulation of figures and
verbal ornaments,) the best editor is Desiderius Heraldus : yet he is nut ap-
preciated by the authors of the observations and emendations in the latest edi-
tion of Arnobius, Leyden, 1651, 4to. The friends of ancient literature will
owe a debt of gratitude to the man who sh.ill resolve to a])ply the aids of inge-
nuity and a knowledge of ancient antiiors to the elucidation of Arnobius, the
explanation of his numerous difficult passages, and the correction of his many
faults.

§ XXVII. Philosophising Theologians. Origan. The plliloso-

p"hi.sing 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 subtiltics 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 exjjlore the
internal nature and the recondite grounds of scriptural doctrines,
either for the gratification of curiosit3% 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 j)hilosophy some authority
in matters of religion. At the head of these doctors stood Ori-
gen, the master of the school at Alexandria, a man distinguished
for genius, learning, virtue and usefulness. In his [p. 605.]

Lihri de principiis, still extant in a Latin translation, and in his

144 Century III. — Scctloti 27.

iStromata, wliicli are lost, lie attempted formally to demonstrate

the harmony between philosoph}^ and Christianity
and he en- ;

deavored to reconcile with the principles ofreason 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 with 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 confidently, and not unfrequently they put
what he had only stated as probabilities, and
forth as certainties,
which he requested wise men to examine more profoundly. (')
(1) Of Origen, — th.an whom, tlie church down to the times of Constantine,
•Jontnined —
no greater man, of his life, his virtues and his faults, his opinions
Jind 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 ;

thev continue to do so still. But men equally great and excellent, to this day,
have been his .idversaries. And in fiict, both to .issail and to defend him, and
with arguments of great app.irent force, would not be ditlicult for an ingenious
man, wlio would assume either office. In the life, labors, and opinions of Oiigen,
there are many tilings of such excellence and worth, as must extort admiration
from the most reluctant if a person regard these things only, he may
: and
easily persuade himself, that whatever appeared to conflict with such great ex-
cellencies must have been only slight foults, or perhaps were the fabrications
and slanders of enemies, or tlie false constructions put upon allowable, or even
upon correct opinions. On the other hand, there are among liis opinions so
many strangely divergent not only from our belief but also from the plainest
many that are ridiculous and absurd, especially when view,
dictates of reason, so
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 weil meaning
man was lacking in common and if a person should fix his attention
sense :

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 utramque partem disputabilis, as 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 facta in
 Origen, 145

which have long been before the public, or which might have
regai-d to Origen,
been brought forward, (for many have never been noticed,) I shall, for the snko
of brevity, adduce only such as I deem necessiiry to account for the great
changes he produced in the state of the church. For, although his bishop
»3xpelled him from the church, and he was afterwards assailed by numerous
public and private condemnations, yet not only were many of his worst opinions
Bufl'ered to go unrcbuked, but his practice of explaining religious 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 h.ave esteemed Origen very
highly, extolled his writings, and recommended their perusal by theologians,
and have maintained that all the decisions against Origen were unjust. It
would therefore be no mistake to say, that, as Constantino the Great imparted
a new form to the civil state, so this Egyptian imparted a new form to the
theology of Christians.
Among the writers concerning Origen, his opinions, and the contests they
occasioned, the most eminent is undoubtedly Peter Daniel Hitet; 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 Rite, a Benedictine, the recent editor of Origen's works, designed
to republish Iluet's Origeniana, with additional notes and observations; but
death frustrated the purpose of that learned man. Whoever may take up the
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. In the
first place, it is incomplete: for it docs not state and explain all the peculiar
doctrines of Origen, but only those which were publicly censured and con-
demned. I could easily show, to any man wishing to be informed, that Origen
held many other opinions equally novel, false and pernicious with those charged
upon him which however, for diverse reasons, no person censured or condemned.
;

Again, although no person can judge correctly of Origen's theology, [p. 607.]
without well understanding his philosophy, which contained the grounds of his
singular opinions on divine subjects, yet Huet neglects this whole subject,
Bupposing that it was sufficient to say, generally, that Origen introduced the
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 all under general heads
other, but he arranges them
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 is em-
barrassing to those wlio 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 Ccntvry III— Section 27.

opinions to which it is related; because many sentiments, considered apart and

by themselves, appear worthy of toleration or excuse, but if considered in con-
nexion with their origin and consequences, they assume a and different aspect,
become portentous. work Huet labors to exhibit Origen
Lastly, throughout his
as less censurable than his adversaries made him, and thus assumes the office
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
that, 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. ^ 1. p. 69, when entering on a discussion respecting the end
or consummation of the world, he deprecates all offence, by saying Qufe quidem
;

a nobis etiam cum magno metu et cautela dicuntur, discutientibus magis et

pertractantibus, quam pro certo ac definito statuentibus. Indicatum namque a
nobis in superioribus est, quae sint de quibus manifesto dogmate terminandum
sit. - Nunc autem disputandi specie magis, quam definiendi, prout possu-
mus, 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 Deus et si
qui ejus per Christum et Spiritum sanctum amici sunt. In the passage on the in-
carnation of Christ, (de Principiis, Lib. ii. c. 6. \ 2. p. 90,) he says: De quo nos non
[p. 608.] temeritate aliqua, sed quoniam ordo loci deposcit ea magis, quae fides

nostra con tinet, quam quas humanse rationisassertio vindicare solet, quam paucissi-
mis proferemus, suspiciones potius nostras quam manifestas aliquas affirmationes
in mediutu proferentes. And, lest any should misunderstand him, he closes the
whole discussion with this sentence, (p. 92.) Haec interim nobis ad prsesena :

de rebus tam difficilibus disputantibus, id est, de incarnatione et de deitate Christi

occurrcre potuerunt. Si quis sane melius aliquid poterit invenire et evidentio-
ribus de Scripturis Sanctis assertionibus confirmare quas dicit, ilia potius quam
haec recipiantur. Similar protestations occur everywhere in his work de Prin-
cipiis, and in his other writings. Sometimes he brings forward two or three
explications of the same thing, and leaves it optional with his readers to select
any one of them, or to reject the whole. De Princip. Lib. ii. c. 3. § 6. p. 83
His igitur tribus opinionibus de fine omnium et de summa beatitudine prout
sentire potuimus adumbratis, unusquisque legentium apud semetipsum diligen-
harum probari vel eligi.
tius et scrupulosius judicet si potest aliqua To
this hiscommendable modesty, may be added his very great inconstancy in the
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 prescribe laws for hu-
man thought. For example, if we compare the difierent statements he makes
 Origen's Character, I47

respecting the divine Trinity, or respecting Christ, and the Holy Spirit, we must
be persuaded that to him, if to any one, the lines of Horace are applicable
(Epistles, Lib. i. ep. 1.)

Quo teneam vultus mutantem Protea nodo?

Quod petiit, spernit, repetit quod nuper omisit.
Diruit. ffidificat. mutat quadrata rotundis.
For, the Sabellians, the Arians, the Niccnists, 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 Orio-en
wa<, should remember, that he was not always and uniformly controlled by
modesty and instability. His timidity and changeableness are apparent, when
he offers jjhilosnpJdcal explanations of those Christian doctrines which theologi-
ans call revealed truths, that is, of the doctrines which we learn exclusively

from the Bible, such as the doctrine of three persons in the Godhead, the doc-
trine of Christ, of the Holy Spirit, and of the resurrection of our bodies. P''or
while he assumes it as certain, that even these doctrines are accordant with the
teacliings of reason, 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 explained, —and he himself confidently ex-
plains them, in accordance with the precepts of that philosophy wliich 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 explain 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
with ours, he unhesitatingly applies to Christ's soul whateyer he had learned
respecting the human soul in the school of his master, Ammonius; and thus
he produced a doctrine pregnant with dangerous consequences, and one alto-
getlierunknown in the Scriptures. Still it must be admitted, that although the
modesty and inconstancy of Origen did not extend so for as his patrons and
advocates wish us to believe, yet they do serve to vindicate him in a degree.
And of similar tendency is, what Jerome te.stifies 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 are
passages enough tliat may be censured. If now, over and above these ex-
tenuations, 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 hi? friends assert, that
the accusers of Origen disagree among themselves, and charge him with con-
148 Century III.— Section 27.

trary errors ; but the inference they would draw, that therefore Origen was in-

nocent and was borne down by false accusations, will not follow. For they
themselves admit, that Origen was not uniform in his belief, and that he uttered
diiFerent sentiments at different times, according- to the occasions, the persons
he v;as combatting, and the particular state of his 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, aa
he is when, with heated feelings, he comes forth as a disputant and encounters
an 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 true,
but frequently such things, true or false, as are suited to embarrass his adver-
sary. would be easy to show, that he considered disputes as to be settled as
It

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 ciiurch
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 teach 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.
And, J?rs^, we will speak of the man himself; then, of his philosophy; and
laslly, 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 few equals
in any age.

Nor would it divest him of this praise, if were perfectly true, (as stated by
it

Epiphanius, Haeres. Ixiv. c. 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 incense
placed in his hands was shaken into the fire 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, than, 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 fiiult. For who among the
holiest of mortals is so uniformly wise, that, in the most trying circumstances,
be consents to no divergence from the strictest rule of duty? Yet, except this
 Origen's Character. 149

one thing, Origen possessed every excellence that can adorn the Christian
character; uncommon piety, from his very childhood; astonishing devotednesa
to that most holy religion which he professed; unequalled perseverance in
labors and toils for the advancement of the Christian cause ; untiring zeal for the
church, and for the extension of CIn-istianity ; an elevation of soul which placed
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 Jesus,
;
[p. 61 1.]
for whose sake, when he was old and oppressed with ills of every kind, he patient-
ly find perseveiingly endured the severest sufferings. It is not strange, therefore,
that he was held in so iiigh 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 ammally 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. He 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 it be committed by an ordinary man.
devotedness to religion, nor could
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 eloquence and
powers of teaciiing; and these caused both Christians and pagans to listen to
him, with intense interest, when he taught philosophy and other divine and hu-
man But those who are capable
sciences in the Christian school of Alexandria.
of judging, and are familiar with his writings, will not rank him among ge-
niu-ses 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
such a philosopher as many in tiiis 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 tlie 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 and 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 iiis

book against Celsus, the assailant of Christianity. In that work, so long as [p.612]
he can draw from his philosophy, he appears forceable and methodical; but when
150 Century III. — Section 27.

this resource fails him, his arguments are weak, and sometimes futile. These
remarks explain, why the man, who on many topics is a wise and acute rea-
soner, is on others puerile. Unassisted, he rarely produces anything of much
importance but when sustained by his master, or by the 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-
rant of mathematics. In the philosophical department, dialectics, physics, 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. In Hebrew learning he had some
knowledge. In short, he had travelled through the whole encyclopedia of hu-
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 CZemens .4 Zex. rector of the
Christian school at Alexandria, a follower of the eclectic mode of philosophiz-
ing, he had for his preceptor Ammonias 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 philosophers differed only on trivial

points, and were agreed in matters of importance to virtue and happiness; and
consequently, that there is but one philosophy, thougli 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 Egyptinn 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 others w^ill exist in endless succession. (See
de Principiis, lib. iii. c. 5. 0pp. torn. i. p. 149.) Now admitting this doctrine, a
person may believe the declarations of the Scriptures respecting the 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
 Origeri's Philosophy. 151

of an eternal series of worlds, successively springing up and falling to ruin,

though not requiring any great powers of mind for its invention, did not origin-
ate with Origen. He simply adopted it from the Stoics and others, in compli-
ance with the precept of the eclectic philosophy, that the truth is to be gathered
from all sects. — We proceed
Souls, like all other finite things, emanated from
;

the divine nature, long before the material world was formed and tliev were ;

originally all equal in their nature, in moral excellence, and in rank ; and all

therefore, with no exception, had in them some combination or admixture of

corporeal substance. For Origen uniformly inculcates, that only the divine Be-
ing is altogether free from corporeal matter and of a simple nature; that all the
other beings endowed with reason, or are enclosed in a sort of
all finite spirits,

subtile and etherial vehicles, or a drapery of a corporeal nature. All souls more-
over, possess free will, and equal power
do good or to do ill, or are able
to
freely to do the one or the other. And
power or freedom of choice, is so
this
inherent in them, that it can never become extinct and lost. Origen, {de Prin-
cipp. lib. ii. c. 8. sec. 2. p. 94.) defines a soul to be snbs/antiam rationabililer
sensibilem et mohilem: which definition may be understood from what has been
said. On this freedom of volition, which is a property of all souls without ex-
ception, depend all the changes in human affiiirs whether past or future, all the
changes in the universe, all the distinctions and differences among men and
spirits, all the variations in the divine decrees and proceedings. For some
souls, while in their celestial state, before this world was created, used their free
will wisely and properly; but others abused it, in different ways, some more
grievously, and others more lightly. And therefore divine justice demanded,
that the souls which had misused their liberty should undergo some punish-
ment. And hence came the present world, and the race of men. For God de-
creed, that the sinning souls should be clothed in grosser bodies, so that they
might suffer in them the penalties of their temerity. And as there was great
diversity in the offences committed by them, it became necessarv for God to
create bodies of different kinds or natures, so that he might assign to each a
body suited to the magnitude and enormity of the sins which defiled it. [p. 614.]

Some souls were therefore lodged in those splendid bodies, the sun, the moon,
and the stars for it was the belief of Origen, that all the stars have souls.
:

Others were doomed to inhabit human bodies, which are vastly inferior in
strength, healthiness, beauty, &c., because the souls to be imprisoned in them
had in many ways deviated from the path of rectitude and virtue, and therefore
deserved various kinds of chastisement for their ill deserts. Others, tlie de-
mons for example, more tenuous indeed than ours,
were attached to bodies

but extremely ugly, and such as vehemently excite the soul to evil. By the
wisdom of the supreme Being, all these bodies are skilfully located, and most
fitly arranged, so as to produce the admirable fabric of the created world. But
let us hear Origen explain his own views ;
(de Principiis, lib. ii. c. 9. sec. 6,

p. 99.) Deus aequales creavit omnes ac similes, quos creavit, quippe quum
nulla el caussa varietatis ac diversitatis existeret. Verum quoniam rationabilea
ipsae creaturje - - arbitrii faeultate donatas sunt : libertas unumquemque volun-
tatis suce vel ad profectum per imitationem Dei provocavit, vel ad defectum per
152 Century Ill.—Secthn 27.

negligentiam traxit. Et njecexstitit caussa diversitatis inter lalronabiles crea-

turas, lion ex conditoris voluntate vel judicio oiiginem trahens, sed proprise li-

bertatis arbitrio. Deus vero cui jam creaturam suara pro meritodisp&nsarejus-
tuni videbatur, diversitates mentium in unius mundi consonantiam traxit, quo
vehit iinam domum, in qua inesse deberent non solum vasa aurea et argentea,
sed et lignea et fictilia, ex istis diversis vasis vel animis vel mentibus omaret.
Et has caussas mundus iste suae diversitatis accepit, dum unumquemque divina
providentia pro varietate niotuum animorum propositique dispensat.
suorum vel
And, after a few sentences, he thus recapitulates the whole statement (sec. 8. :

p. 100.) Unumquodque vas (i. e. anima) secundum raensuram puritatis suae

aut impuritatis locum, vel regioiiem, vel coiiditionem nascendi vel explendi
aliquid in hoc mundo accepit: quae omnia Deus usque ad minimum virtute
sapientiee suae providens ac dignoscens, moderamine judicii sui aequissima retri-
butione universa disponit, quatenus unicuique pro merito vel succurri vel con-
suli deberet. Origen explains and inculcates this opnion often and largely;
and not without reason: for he supposed it to be of vast importance, for the
vindication of the divine wisdom and justice, and that it accounts for the end-
less diversities which exist among men and spirits. The souls, distributed

through so many and such diversified bodies, do not change their essential
nature; and of course they retain their native freedom of volition. And
although they can not use their free will for good with the same success, as
they did in their celestial state when disconnected with gross matter, yet they
[p. 615.] are not by any means so oppressed and fettered by their bodies as to

be unable, if they would but exert their rational powers, to improve slowly
their condition, and gradually to recover their former beauty. Therefore such
souls as exert their native powers, and by contemplation and other means sever
themselves from the imagination and senses and from the concupiscence gene-
rated by the body, are thereby gradually purified; and, on becoming released
from their bodies, they are again elevated to their former Yet they do
state.

not recover their primitive felicity, at once and in a moment, but they pass, by
a slow process, through various changes up to God. And the souls which ne-
glect this duty, will either migrate into other bodies, or will be subjected to
some harsher modes of purgation, until they shall repent and begin to exert
And when
their liberty for good. all souls shall have returned to their primi-
tive .state and to God, then this material world will be dissolved. But because,
from their very nature, souls can never lose their free will, nor, consequently,

the power of abusing their freedom, the very souls that have overcome the evils
of this life, as well as others, may and will again depart from duty and from God,
and then again deserve punishment. And whenever their number shall be
sufficiently large, God must again create bodies, and out of them frame a new
world in which he can punish the violators of his eternal law, each according
to his merits and the magnitude of his otl'ence. And of this successive rise oj

worlds, there will be no end ; because the liberty of the will, which naturally
belongs to all souls, prevents their ever arriving at an unchangeable constancy
in good. To judge correctly of the theology, which Origen based on this \M-
losophy. we must keep in view his two preceptors, Clement, of Alexandria, and
 Origen's regard for Philosophy. 153

Ammonius. The former of these, as we l)ave already shown, held philosophy

in very high estimation ; and he maintained that philosophy correctly under-
stood, and freed from the folse notions of the sects, does not disagree with the
religion of Christ. The latter, Ammonius, not only sought to reconcile the
Christian religion with the precepts of his pliilosophy, but he also belifved, as
already shown, that Christianity could be reconciled with the Pagan religions,
provided they were rightly explnined and were divested of the fables and error
brouglit into them by the vulgar and by the priests. Now Origen, treading in
the footsteps of his teachers, regarded philosophy as a precious gift of God ;

and he supposed that the wisdom proclaimed by Christ, although more sublime
and perfect than philosophy, was nevertheless based upon it; and that all
Christian doctrines might be explained and vindicated by pliilosophy. Indeed,
it is not to be concealed, that he coincided with Ammonius in the belief that
the popular religions, if their fables and superstition were excluded, might in
a measure be combined with Christianity. In order to reconcile the wor.-hip
of one God, which Christianity requires, with paying homage to many gods,
Ammonius assumed, that God had committed the administration and [p. 616.]
government of the various parts of the universe to demons of great power and
virtue;and that it was reasonable and proper that some honor and public reve-
rence be paid to these powerful ministers of the divine Providence : because
God, the supreme Lord, is honored in the person of his friends; just as the
respect paid to the vicegerents and envoys of earthly kings and princes, re-
dounds to the honor of the kings and princes whom they represent. More-
ever, these legates and ministers of God have the power of conferring benefits
on men, such as health, a salubrious atmosphere, fruitful seasons, and all the
comforts of life and on the other hand, they have power in various ways to
;

harm those who despise them. And hence, the interests of mankind require,
that some worship should be paid to them; and the people of the primitive
ages were divinely instructed to do this; but, in process of time, a depraved
human belief converted these ministers of God into imaginary deities, and in-
troduced numerous errors and corrupt rites, and even caused the worship of the
supreme Being to become almost extinct and lost. Now if these faults were
corrected, and the worship of the demons restored to its pristine simplicity,
there would be nothing to forbid men's paying supreme homage to the one su-
preme God, and at the same time, yielding reverence to the ministers of God,
in the ancient manner, in certain places, at proper times, and with suitable
rites. And to these views, for substance, Origen gave assent. He believed,
that God has committed the care and government of the several provinces of
his great empire, the universe, to angels of diifercnt orders, who are the guar-
dians and protectors not only of nations, but of individual men, and also of ani-
mals, the fruits of the earth, &c. Whether prayers and worship should be of-
fered to these angels, he does not explicitly state, in any of his works that have
reached us : and yet, in a few passages, he docs not disguise the fact that he
leaned much towards an opinion but little diverse from that of Ammonius

above stated, respecting the union of the worship of cue God with the worship
of demons. See Huet's Origeniana, Lib. ii. p. 89.
154 Century III. — Section 27.

Origen's idea of the relation and connexion between Christianity and pliilo-

Bophy, may be learned distinctly from two passages in his writings still preserv-
ed. The first passage is in his Philocalia, taken from his epistle to Gregory
Thaumaturgus, bishop of Neocaesarea, and exhibited in the edition of his works
by Charles de la Rue, torn. i. p. 30. Here Origen asserts, that philosophy is as

important to Christian theology, as geometry, music, grammar, rhetoric and as-

tronomy are to philosophy: 'On^ jSas-i piXoS-o?*!' iratJ'is infi yicjfAiTpiag - - - oi;

ffvvlfi^otv (fiKocopia, TotiS-' Vfji.iii cinu/m-iv (5"l irifii duriij ?iXo5"o?ias Trpdi ^pnyT laviO'fxov.
This, he says, in reference to the true philosophy, or philosophy purified from
the corruptions and figments of the sects : and such he believed to be the philo-
sophy wiiich he had learned from Ammonius, afier correcting it in a few points
[p. 617.] to make it harmonize with Christianity. Therefore, as astronomy,
geometry, music, and the other sciences are useful to a philosopher for sharpen-
ing his acumen, strengthening his reasoning powers, and enabling him to com-
prehend and arrange more perfectly the precepts of philosophy so, he sup- ;

posed, philosophy is useful to a theologian, as helping him to acquire just

views of Christian doctrines and to give just expositions of them. In the other
passage, (which is in his xv. Homily on Genesis, sec. 3. 0pp. tom. ii. 98.) he
discourses more at large, and not only of what he considered the true philoso-
phy, but also of the current philosophy of the d;iy, whether true or false. He
first lays down this proposition : Philosophia neque in omnibus legi Dei con-
traria est, nequeomnibus consona: and he then explains both parts of the
in
On the agreement of philoso-
proposition, adducing examples for illustration.
phy with the divine law, he says Multi enim philosophorum unum esse Deura,
:

qui cuneta creaverit, scribunt. In hoc consentiunt legi Dei. Aliquanti etiam
hoc addiderunt, quod Deus cuneta per verbum suum et fecerit et regat, et ver-
bum Dei sit, quo cuneta moderentur. In hoc non solum legi, sed etiam Evan-
geliis consona scribunt. Moralis vero et physica, qute dicitur, philosophia,
pajne omnia quae nostra sunt sentiunt. He then proceeds to the points of dis.
agreement between the divine law and philosophy, thus Dissident vero a no- :

bis,cum Deo dicunt esse materiam coa^ternam. Dissident, cum Deum negant
curare mortalia, sed providentiam ejus supra lunaris globi spatia cohiberi. Dis-
sident a nobis, cum vitas nascentium ex stellaruni cursibus pendunt. Dissi-
dent, cum sempiternum dicunt hune mundum et nuUo fine elaudendum. Sed
et alia plurima sunt, in quibus nobiscum vel dissident vel concordant. These
statements of Origen will be better understood, if we consider his subdivisions
of philosophy ; namely, that philosophy was commonly divided into three parts,
logic, physics and ethics, or into rational, natural and moral. Therefore, as he
most explicitly affirms, that the philosophers agree perfectly with the Christians

in physics and ethics, or in natural and moral philosophy, it is clear that the
whole disagreement between philosophy and Christianity, in his opinion, re-
lated to logic or rational philosophy. But Ms rational philosophy is not that
which we understand by the term; but it is ontology, or our pneumatology,

cosmogony, and natural theology, as is manifest from the examples he adduces.

This his rational philosophy, as taught by the philosophical sects, was, accord-
ing to his judgment, in many things contrary to the Christian religion: but il
 07-iffen's Theology. 155

freed from the errors and f;ilse opinions of tlie sects, and made to conform to
the truth, it would contain nothing inconsistent with Christianity. And this
true rational philosophy, he believed to be that which he had learned in the
school of Ammonius. This was the philosophy, which he wished to associate
Willi Cliristian truth, and to produce a system embracing both.
How large a place in theology, Origen would allow to what he [p. 618.]
accounted true philosoi)hy, and by what laws he would combine them together,
we are now to show. In the first place, he affirmed, that all the things which
must be believed in order to salvation, are most plainly set forth in the Scrip-
tures and these things, he would have men simply believe without subjecting
:

them at all to the dominion of philosophy. Thus, in the introduction to hia

work de Principiis (sec. 3. p. 47.) he says: Illiid aiitem scire oportet, quoniam
sancti Apostoli fidem Christi pra;dicantes, de quibusdam quidem quaecunque
necessaria (ad salutein) crediderunt, omnibus etiam his qui pigriores erga inqui-
sitioncm divinse scientiao videbantur, manifestissime tradiderunt. And of the
doctrines which he supposed were taught in the clearest manner in the Bible,
and which should be received without dubitation or criticism, he made out a
sort of catalogue. It is 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), and was the minister of the Father in the crea-
tion of all tilings. (IV) The same Christ, although he was God, was made man,
and became incarnate and being made man, he remained God as he was before
;

he truly suflTered, truly died, and truly rose again. (V) In honor and dignity,
the Holy Spirit is an associate of the Father and the Son. (VI) Every soul
possesses reason, and free volition and choice; and, when removed from the
body, will be rewarded or punished according to its deserts. (VII) Our bodies
will be raised in a state highly improved. (VIII) A devil and his angels
exist; and they strive to immerse men in .sins. (IX) This world will hereafter
be dissolved. (X) The holy Scriptures were dictated by the Spirit of God
and they have a twofold sense, the one obvious, the other latent. (XI) There
aregood angels and powers, which minister to the salvation of men. These,
he says, are specimens (species) of the things that are manifestly inculcated in
the Apostolic annunciation. This language seems to imply, that Origen did
rot aim to make a complete enumeration of the doctrines clearly taught in
the Bible and necessary to be known, but only to give a specimen ofsuch a col-
lection. Yet of this [ am not entirely certain, and I leave others to decide.
But the inspired men, by whom the principal truths of religion are stated
BO intelligibly to all, have left other truths in some obscurity. In the first
place, they have not clearly stated the grounds and reasons of the truths which
they require us to believe that is, they have not shown us how the revealed
:

truths tliey teach stand related to the first principles of truth and reason.
And again, the things themselves, they have indeed stated clearly enough ; but
of the how, lohij and u-Jierefore they are so, they are silent. And here the in-
dustry of wise and perspicacious christians may find employment ; first, in

searching out and demonstrating, by the aids of philosophy, the grounds and
156 Century III— Section 27.

[p. 619.] reasons of the doctrines divinely revealed ; nnd secondly, in determin-
ing, on the principles of a, true philosop'.iy, the mndes and relations of the
things revealed in iJie Scriptures. Such, I suppose, were Origen's views: but
let us hear his own words. In the preface to liis work de Principiis, he says:
Ralionem astertionis eorum reliquerunt (Apostoli) ab liis inquirendam, qui
Spiritus dona e.xcellentiora morerentur, et prsecipue sermonis, sripientiee et
Ecientiae grati.ini Here we are
per ipsum Spiritum Sanctum percepissent.
taught, that the things at first obscure, afterwards become more clear. Again
he says De aliis vero dixerunt quidem, quia sint
: quomodo autem, aut unde :

sint, siluerunt ;
profecto ut studiosiores quique e.K posteris suis, qui amatores
essent sapientiaj, exercitium habere possent, in quo ingenii sui fructum osten-
derent, hi videlicet qui dignos se et capaces ad recipiendara sapientiam pise-
pararent. These statements need exemplification: and Origen himself affords
it. That the world at a certain time began to exist, and will al, 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, tliese are things to be investigated by the aid
of philosophy. — 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 the Son, proceeded from the Fatlier, the

Scriptures manifestly teach ; but the mode of the procession, they do not
define. He subjoins : In hoc non jam manifesto decernitnr, utrum (Spiritus S.)
natus an innatus, vel filius etiam Dei ipse habendus sit, nee ne. Sed 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 haec ;
qucc autem sint, aut quomodo sint, non
satis clare 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 tlie things, they are wliolly

silent. And hence, they who attempt, by the aid of philosophy, to explore the
inmost recesses of theolog}', or in other words, to bring into the light what
the Scriptures have left in tiie dark, — have not, in all cases, the same task to
perform, and the same success to anticipate. Those who labor to explain the
causes or reasons of the truths taught in the Bible, must not only call philoso-
phy to must also carefully
their aid, but 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

bodrj of holy writ, (so he denominates the -proper sense 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
 Or (pen's Theology, 157

Pliilo Judseus; whom he, — following' the example and authority of Clement, his
preceptor, — regarded as the wisest of all explorers of the true weiise of
Scripture, and therefore followed as his guide. — But when the modes, or forms
of the things are to 43e exurained, the philosophic theologian need not resort to
the sacred Scriptures; because, as they say nothing of the modes of things, he
must trust and follow his own ingenuity and the dictates of philosophy. pas- A
sage already cited is applicable here; but I will adduce another, equally expli-
cit, and admirably illustrative of the character of Origen's system. He says,
(p. 49) : Oportet igitur, velut dementis ac fundamentis hujusmodi uLi secun-
dum mandatum quod dicit: llLuminale vobis lumen sciendx (Hosea, x. 12, Sep-
tuag.) omnem, qui cupit scriera quamdam et corpus ex horum omnium ratione
perficere, ut manifestis et necessariis assertionibus de singulis, quibusque quid
sit in vero rimetur et unum (ut diximus) corpus efliciat exemplis et afKrmationi-
bus, vel his quas in Sanctis Seripturis invenerit (i. e., he who would combine
theology and philosophy, and from both frame one system, must endeavor to
ascertain the grounds and reasons of the doctrines, by examining into the arcane
sense of the sacred books,) vel quas ex conscquentire ipsius indagine ac recti
tenorc repererit, (i. e. but if the mode is the thing sought for, of which the Scrip-
tures say nothing, then it is sufficient to explain and define it in accordance
with (lenore recti) the dictates of philosophy.) — These statements may enable
us to understand why Origcn, in explaining religious truths, generally bftakea

himself first to reason and philosophy, and then recurs to the sacred oracles,
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 forma
are discussed. Yet as these two things are intimately connected and often
Bcarcely separable, he not unfrequently 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 difficult than the
labor of exploring and defining the modes or /orwis of holy things. Because,
for the former, the illumination and aid of the Holy Spirit are necess.ary ; and
none can succeed in it, (as he says,) " except those who have acquired the more
excellent gifts of the Holy Spirit, and, especially, have obtained, through the
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. 621.]
that they only are competent to this work whom God deems worthy of his spe-
cial friendship. He says, repeatedly : Certius sciunt, qui Dei per Christum et
Spiritum Sanctum amici sunt. The full force of his 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 spiriialem intelligeniiam the remote sense, or that latent under
the words and things, — is manifest only to those whom the Holy Spirit in-
158 Century III.— Section 27.

structs and illuminates. And this gift of the Holy Spirit, which confers the
power of discovering the mysteries hidden in the sacred books, they called the
gijl of tcisdom gift they understood St. Paul to speak,
and knowledge ; and of this
1 Cor. xii. 8 ;
"
For to one is given by the Spirit the vvord of tcisdom fo-opfaj) ;

to another the word of knowledge (yvda-ius) by the same Spirit." And hence
they were accustomed to use the word knowledge (yvoja-ts) to designate the
mystical sense of the Bible. See Jo. Ern. Grabe's Spicil. Patr. et Hasreticor.
Saec. 328 and the notes of the learned on the Epistle of Barnabas, § 6.
i. p. ;

Now, as Origen believed, that in the Scriptures the Holy Spirit teaches us
not indeed by the words but by the things which the words indicate, not openly
but covertly, by allegories and enigmas —how the peculiar doctrines of Chris-
tianityharmonize with each other, and with the decisions of philosophy, it was
natural for him to assert, that divine assistance is necessary for drawing this
nut out of its envelope. —The other task, that of exploring the modes of things,
was less difficult ; because, in addition to a knowledge of true philosophy, it

required only an earnest application of the powers of the human mind. And
hence, as rational truth and revealed or heavenly truth do not disagree, a saga-
cious man, possessing sound reason, can easily discover their agreement. 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 pai-ts of the Christian religion are so
difficult, that they can scarcely, if at be adequately explained by human
all,

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 says (de Pi'incipp. L. ii. e. 6. ^ 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 the gift 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 always ap-
proached this species of discussion with timidity, and he left it timidly h-e ;

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-

f;ictory 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
 Origeii's Philosophic Tlteohgij. 159

those offences of Origen against Christianity, \vnii-,h occasioned so much con-

troversy during so many ages. They all originated from this one principle,
which he regarded as beyond all controversy, that such affinity and congruity
exist between Christianity and human reason, that not only the grounds but also
the forms of all Christian doctrines may be explained by the dictates of philosophy.
Yet this error, though not small, might be considered only a slight stain upon
that holy and extraordinary man, if it had not been carried beyond mere specu-
lation. But he recommended to the preachers of Christianit)', to carry what he
taught into use and general practice and he prescribed for their guidance the
;

following maxim: That it is vastly important to the honor and advantage of

Christianity, that all its doctrines be traced back to the sources of all truth, or be
shown to flow from the principles of philosophy; and consequently, that a Chris-
tian theologian should exert his ingenuity and industry primarily, to demonstrate
the harmony between religion and reason, or to show that there is nothing taught in
the Scriptuj-es but what is founded in reason. He himself, as we have seen, fol-
lowed this his precept with some degree of moderation and prudence but by :

laying down this principle, and also by his example, he gave to the more daring
ample power and licence to do violence to revealed truth, and to strangely pervert

the plainest doctrines of the Bible, so that they might appear in harmony with a
true or false philosophy. His direction to make appeals to the Scriptures, miglit
seem to counteract ihe evil, but, in reality, it increased and amplified it. For,
by teaching that the philosophical reasons of all the Clnisiian doctrines lie con-
cealed in the narration and sentences of the Bible, and should be drawn forth
by art and ingenuity, he prompted the indiscreet and those of exuberant imagi-
nations, as it were, to put out the light of revelation, or obscure its simple wis-
dom, by their childish and silly allegories. —The foundation of all his faults

was, that he fully believed nothing to be more true and certain than [p. 623.J
what the philosophy he received from Ammonias taught him respecting God,
the world, souls, demons, &c. ; and therefore he in a measure recast and re-

modelled the doctrines of Christ, after the pattern of that philosophy, doing it
indeed, for the most part, modestly and hesitatingly, but sometimes quite
boldly, and in a style somewhat authoritative.

The entire system of philosophical religion which existed in the mind of

Origen, no one has fully delineated : nor was Origen uniform and consistent in

his statements of it ; for he discards at one time what he affirms at another. A

large part of his system, however, will be obvious to one who considers what
we have already said of his philosophy, and especially what he held respecting
the origination of all things from God, the free-will of souls, their transgressing
in their primitive state, and before their union with bodies, and other kindred
subjects ; for, while he was undecided on many other topics, on these he had no
doubts ; and therefore he constantly applied these views to the explication of
the Christian doctrines. —
Specimens of his opinions on the most essential
points in theology, are all we shall present for the gratification of those wish-

ing to know these matters. In the first place, he supposed that all the decla-

rations of the Scriptures respecting the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,

might be easily reconciled with his philosophy. For, believing that all things
160 Centunj IlL— Section 27.

eterrically emanated from the divine nature, he attributed to the Son and to tec
Holy Spirit tlie highest raniv among these emanations from tlie divine nat'.i"<5.

And he always and uniformly compares their origination from the Father, with
the efHux of the solar rays from the sun; and teaches that these solar rays
although of the same nature with the sun from which they flow, are yet only
minute particles of the solar light and heat issuing from the immense mass
and that they sustain the same relation to their source, as small streams issuing
from great lakes, sustain to those lakes. In his opinion, therefore, the Father
is the prime cause of all things, and tlie Son is a secondary cause, and, as it

were, the instrument by which the Father created the world, and diffused widely
his beneficence; just as a cloud, when fecundated by the sun's rays, scatters and
spreads those rays over the earth. In evolving and expanding this doctrine,
Origen is wonderfully variable; so that he sometimes seems to come very near
the views of the Nicene fathers, at other times to incline towards the Sabellians,
and at times to agree with the Arians. If we would judge him correctly and
foirly, we must, I think, keep in view his first or fundamental principles. —Ori-
gen finds greater difficulty when he attempts to reconcile with Ids philosophy
what the Scriptures teach respecting the union of two natures in Christ.
For he thought it utterly impossible that God, a being entirely separate from
matter, should ever assume a body, or be willing to associate himself with mat-
ter. He expressly tells us, (de Princip. L. ii. c. 6. p. 90.) : Non enim possibile
erat Dei naturam corpori sine mediatore misceri. That is, the divine nature, being
[p. 624.] generically a different .substance from matter, the two substances cannot
possibly be commingled. To overcome this obstacle, and yet exclude from
the divine nature all propension towards a body or matter, he conceived tiiat

God did not receive the man, but the man received God. Yet not the whole
man did so, but only the soul, tlie principal part of man. Tliat suul, which mi-
grated into the body of Chri-st and inhabited it, exerted more perfectly than all

the souls which emanated from God, its free-will, in the wisest and best man-
ner, in its primitive state, and expended all its energies in the contemplation
of the Son of God, the first emanation from the divine nature. This persever-
ing and most intense consideration or contemplation of the Word or Son of
God, procured for this soul the privilege that it received the entire Word of
God into itself, or itself passed entire into the Son of God, (it is uncertain
which,) and thus it became one person with the Son of God. Hear his own
statement, (de Princip. L. ii. c. 6. p. 90.) : Cum pro liberi arbitrii facultate varie-

tas unumquemque animorum habuisset, ut alius ardentiore, alius

ac diveritas
tenuiore et exiliore erga auctorem suum amore teneretur, ilia anima, de qua
dixit Jesus: quia nemo auferet a me animam meam (Joh. x. 18,) ab initio
creaturse et deinceps inseparabiliter ei atque indissociabiliter inhaerens, ulpote
sapientiae et verbo Dei et veritati ac luci verte, et tota totum recipiens, atque in

ejus lucem splendoremque ipsa cedens, facta est cum ipso principaliter unus

spiritua. Unus spiritus esse cum Deo cui magis convenit, quam huic animae
quas se ita Deo per dilectionem junxit, ut cum eo unus spiritus merito dicatur.
What Origen here asserts of the soul of Christ, appears to us as a mere as-
sumption but he regarded it as accordant both with the dictates of reason and
;
 Origen's views of Atonement 16:1

tJie declarntions of Scripture. By reason, he thus supports liis opinion; No

one can be rewarded or punished by God, unless he nieiits it. Becnuse God,
being most wise and rigiiteous, can do nolhing inconsiderately or witliout good
reason. And therefore he must distribute both happiness and miserv, accord-
ling to the merits of tiiose who are susceptible of tiiem. Hence it, follows, that
this supreme felicity which the soul of Christ received, was conferred upon it.,

solely because of its merits. And if so, then it ibllows that this smd excelled
all others in its love to God, and in consequence of this love, became uiiiled to
the Son of God. — As for scriptural evidence, he supposed tbe words of David,
Ps. xlv. 8. kingdom is a right sceptre,] were especially
[Tiie bccptrc of tiiy
favorable to his opinionand with that text, he connected others both from the
:

—
Old Testament and the New. By means of this union of the soul of Christ
with the Word or Son of God, it became possible for God to be united to a hu-
man body: not indeed directly, and by itself, but indirectly, through the soul
to which he was united. For, according to Origen's views, every finite spirit

is clothed with a tenuous body or a subtile kind of matter, which subtile mat-
ter, wilhout any ditliculty, can coalesce with the grosser kind of matter of wiiich
our bodies are composed. And in a finite spirit, Ui<c tlu; soul, the de-ire [p. H25.]

may arise for greater happiness ; and consequently, also a wish to possess a body.
He says: Hac ergo substantia annufe inter Deuni carnemque mediante, (non
enim possibiie crat Dei naturam corpori sine niediatore misceri) nascitur Deua
homo, ilia substantia media existente, cui utique contra naturam non erat cor-
pus assumere. Sed neque rursus anima ilia, utpote substantia rationabilis,
contra naturam habuit capcre Deum, in quem, uti superius diximus, velut in
verbum et sapicntiam et verltatem tola jam cesserat. Unde et merito etiam ipsa
cum ca,quam assumserat, carne, Dei filius, et Dei virtus, Christus et sapientia ap-
pelatur : et rui-sum Dei filius, per quem omnia crcata sunt, Jesus Christus et filius
hominis nominatur. —But if these things were so, then most assuredly the Son
of God did not connect himself with human flesh ; but it was the soul of Christ
(hat became incarnate. Nor did the Word or Son of Grod, though dwelling in
a body, have any intercourse with that body, (accoixiing to Origen, that was
impossible,) but only the sowZ with which the Word had some affinity, commu-
nicated with the body : that is, the soul, having so coalesced with Son of
tlie

God as to be one spirit, governed the body, and so regulated all its movements
that they could not swerve from the rule of rectitude and duty. Moreover, the
moving cause of the descent of the Son of God to this earth and of the incarna-
tion, was not in God, in his good will towards mankind; but it was in the soul
of Jesus Christ. For this sou! first perseveringly longed after communion with
the Word or Son of God, and, by the right use of its freedom of choice, ob-
tained it and afterwards, it desired to be joined with matter or to a body, which,
;

according to Origen, the divine nature never could desire. And, therefore, in
this whole matter, the Son of God had no concern, except that he became
united with the soul of Christ, and then permitted that soul to follow its wishes
and inclinations.
As to the object and consequences of the advent of the Son of God to our
world, and of his sufferings and death, Origen nowhere fully and explicitly
12
1G3 Centuv'j III— Section 27.

states his views; but that his opinions on this subject were very different from
those of modern Christians, and from the faith taught in the Scriptures, his
philosophical notions respecting the soui and olhcr matters, will not allow us to
doubt. And in various passages he does not disguise the fact, although he may
seem to take much pains not to let his hearers fully understand him. One
thing indeed he often states, namely, that Christ by his death made atonement,
not for the sins committed by souls in their primitive state before they inha-
bited bodies, but for their sins in the body ; and so far his opinions do not
differ from the common views of Christians. But it is quite otherwise, if we
carefully weigh what ho abundantly inculcates. I will not dwell on his belief,
that the sacrifice of Christ had a reference to the sun, the moon, and all the
stars, and to demons and angels; for, while his philosophy taught him that

sinning souls inhabited not only human bodies, but likewise other matenal
[p. 626.] objects, and also the demons, both those wholly depraved and those

but partially bereft of their native beauty, and that Christ proffers aid to all
souls estranged from God; he could not possibly think otherwise. But, what
is vastly more important, Origen was — if T am not wholly deceived —ignorant of
the vicarious nature of Christ's atonement, or he did not hold that Christ, in
our stead, paid to divine justice the penalty of our ill deserts. Nor will this
appear strange, if we consider that he denied the communion of the Son of God

with body of Christ, and the union of the divine and human natures in
tlie

Christ, or what we call the liypostalic union ; and that he held, as we have be-
was connected with the Word or Son
fore stated, that only the soul of Christ
of God; from which must indubitably follow, that the pangs and death of
it

Christ's body were only those of the 7nan Christ, and not also of God joined
with liuman nature and that the blood which Clirist shed was only the blood of
;

a man, and not the blood of God or, what is the same thing, that Christ, not as
;

both God AND man but only as a man, expiated the sins of mankind. And if
this be admitted, all that we teach respecting the vicarious satisfaction of Christ
falls to the ground. — If now the inquiry be raised, in what manner he supposed
the death of Christ to take away the sins of men I answ'er, first
'? he is no- :

where explicit on this subject. Yet I will add, that he seems to have held, that
the effusion of Christ's blood was suflicient to purify men and to appease divine

justice. He has a long passage on this subject, in his 24th Homily, on the book
of Numbers, 5 1. (Opp. tom. ii. p. 362, 363.) From this passage his views are
more clearly learned than from any others. He first asserts: Omnepeccatum pro-
pitiationem requirere ;
propitiationem autem non fieri, nisi per hostiam, id est, per
sanguinem lictimcc Deo ohlatcc ; eaque re necessarium fuisse, ut provideretur
hostia pro peccatis hominum. All this seems well enough but what he goes on to ;

say, and the inferences he makes, clearly show, that he attached to this language
a very different meaning from that common among Christians. For he asserts, that
the blood of any righteous person can expiate the sins of a portion of mankind;
and especially if the righteous person, at the time he dies and pours out his
blood, prays God to pardon those for whom he dies. Between the sacrifice of
Christ and those which holy and righteous men, such as Paul, Abel, and others,
present to God by their death, there are two points of difference, viz. : first, the
 Orlneii's Views of Atonement. 163

Bacriflue cf Clirist was universal, or extended to the whole human -ace, while

tliose of other righteous persons can benefit only a portion of mankind before
God; secondly, the blood of riffhtcous men derives its eilieacy chiefly from the
pravers of those men ; while Christ, being God, can remit sins, solely by his
power, on account of his death : Vide ergo, ne forte sicut Dominus et Salvator

noster, qunsiagnus ad oecisionem ductus et in sacrilicium altaris oblatus, pecca-

torum remissionem universo pracstitit mundo : ita fortasse (a modest [p. 627.]
statonient, as usual with him, but in accordance with his real belief, as tiie whole
context shows,) et caeterorum sanctorum ac justoruin sanguis, qui efi'usus est a
sanguine Abel justi usque ad sanguinem Zacharia) prophetae, alterius quidem
sanguis sicut vituisD, alterius sicut hirci, aut capra; aut alicujus horum fusus
est adexpiandumpro aliqua parte populum. And this, he thinks, can be proved
from the law of iMoses. For while the law required various kinds of animals,
lambs, calves, goats, &-c., to be immolated to God for sin, Origen supposed
slain lambs to be emblems of Christ's death, but that the other animals repre-
sented the deaths of holy and righteous men. Hear him explicitly stating this
strange doctrine Quod si a<rnus, (.\\\i ad purifieanduin populum datus est, ad
:

personam Domini et Salvatoiis nostri refertur, consequens videtur, quod ctiam

csetera animalia, qua) eisdem purificativis usibus deputata sunt, referri dibeant
similiter ad aliquas personas, qua; purificationis aliquid humano generi confe-
rant. And he repeats the same thing a little after, adding that perhaps also
some of the angels and celestial spirits may offer themselves to God, as victims
to expiate the sins of men: Sic ergo forlassis et si quis angelorum, cojlestium-
que virtutum, aut si quis justorum hominum, vel etiam sanctorum prophetarum
atque apostoloruin, qui enixius intervcniat (i. e. precetur) pro peccatis hominum,
hie pro repropitiatione divina, velut aries, aut vitulus, aut hircus oblatus esse in
sacrifieium ob pnrificationem populo impetrandara accipi potest. After elucidat-
ing this subject by the example of Paul, whose language (in Rom. ix. 3, 1 could
wish myself accursed, &c. ; and in 2 Tim. iv. 6, 1 am now ready to be offered,
&e.) he cites in confirmation ; and after fully explaining his views, he returns

to the consideration of Christ's sacrifice, and its difference from human victims,

and tells us: Talis ha^c fuit (Chrisli) hostia ut una sola sufliceret pro totius
mundi salute ; cccteri enim precibus peccala, hie solus potestate di/nisil. Strikingly
coincident herewith are his remarks concerning martyrs and their blood, in his

Exliorlalio ad Martyrium, near the end : Forte, qucmadmodum nos pretioso

Christi sanguine redempti sumus; ita et quidam pretioso martyrum sanguine
redimuntur : oyraij tu rif^ioi Hiuari Twv fAafr'Jpuv ayofao-^Mo'iTai rii-f,-'

Origen did not suppose, and, for various reasons, he could not suppose, that
those holy and rigliteous men, the martyrs, who (as he believed.) expiated the
sins of some men by their deatii or blood, were, either by God or by tiieir own
act, substituted in the place of the persons whose sins they expiated, and so
endured the penalties due to God for other men's sins; and therefore, neither did
—
he believe that Christ whose death he regarded as not in itself differing from
the sufferings of those holy and righteous persons —was a substitute for ihe hu-

man race, and endured our penalties. And, consequently, we must [p. G28.]
believe that Origen thought tlie mere blood of an innocent person could, of
164 Century Ill—Section 27.

itself, move God to pardon sinners; and that, for the remission of sins, divine

justice does not require tlie penalties of tlieui to be endured, elllier by the vio-
laters of the law or by their substitutes.
What we most religiously believe, namely, that the Son of God satisfied

the divine law in our slead, and, by his most perfect obedience, merited for us a
title to eternal life, — all this was alien from the philosophical religion of Origen.
According minds of all men a free will, a na-
to his belief, there resides in tiie
tive power of obeying the divine commands, wiiich, when excited by a know-
ledge of divine truth, and aided by the influences of the Holy Spirit, can so con-
trol and govern all the movements and actions of the man, as to make those

actions perfectly harmonize with the :-ivine will. Nor can God, as Origen —
clearly states in several places, —
bestow the rewards of law, or tiic forfeited
eternal felicity, upon any souls except the meritorious; that is, such as exert
wisely and properly their innate liberty. For as souls, by the depraved use of
their liberty, have deservedly lost their happiness and been tiirust into these
human by their own merits, and not by those of another, they
bodies, so also,
must return to God, and regain their lost felicity. I need not proceed further; —
enough has been stated to show what is the character of Origen's philosopliical
theology, which differed marvellously from that of Christians at the present
day. Yet if any are desirous of examining the entire system of this celebrated
man, and of judging correctly of the controversies of so many great men respect-
ing his sentiments, (which, I can recognize no one hitherto as doing.) they
must, first of all, inv stigate, methodically digest, and intelligibly explain that
philosophy which Origen has given us by fragments in his writings; and this

being done, it will be readily perceived, that they labor in vain who would per-
suade us that Origen had the same views of religion as most Christians of the
present day. For example: distinguished men dispute, with great earnestness,
what opinion did Origen hold in regard to the resurrection, or the return of
souls to their bodies and some accuse, and some defend him.
; I confess I am

ignorant of his opinion ; for on this subject, as on many others, he is variable

and inconstant in the exposition of his views. But if I compare the Christian
doctrine of the resurrection with his philosophical precepts, I readily see that
he must have viewed the subject ditferently from us. For while he places the
whole of man in his soul, and regards the concrete visible hody, in which the
Boul lodges, as no part of human nature, but only the penitentiary or prison of
the soul, it is evident that he could not suppose a soul, at the end of its pe-
riod of exile, and when purged from would again become coupled with
its sins,

its body. —There is another thing generally overlooked by tlie disputants con-
cerning Origen, which is of vast importance in their discussions. As Origen
held to a two-fold religion, the one popular and the other philosophical;
[p. 629.] so he treated religion in a two-fold manner, sometimes in a popular
way and sometimes philosophically. Now, those who overlook this fact may
often suppose him to disagree with himself, wiiilc, in reality, he is entirely con-
sistent ; and this is one cause of the endless disputes respecting his theology.
They who plead his cause and defend his reputation, cite the passages in which
he explains religious subjects as he would have them stated to the common
 Oriqen's Allegories. 1(55

people : and because, these passages, he states divine truths just as the
in
Scriptures and the common preachers of Christianity do, they tiiink his bokier
and more artificial statements should be amended so as to agree with the
former; and they err greatly by confounding liis exterior doctrines, suited to
common apprehension, with iiis interior expositions, which he intended only for
the ears of learned men. And those who accuse him
of errors, argue from the
passages which he explains and accounts for the Christian doctrines on the
in

principles of philosophy. This they have a right to do; yet they fall into two
mistakes: Fin^l, they conclude from these passages that Origen drew away
Christians from the ancient and siiTijjle religion of the earlier times, and plunged
them in a sea of empty speculation
which was but partially true. For he did
;

not aim and simple religion of the previous ages, which

to overtin-ow the ancient

he himself taught and recommended; but he wished the supervisors and doctors
of the Christian church to have a more profound knowledge, and to be able,
when occasion required it, to explain r.itionally that simple religion. Secondly:
they suppos'i that views and opinions of Origen on religious subjects
tiie real
may be learned from the passages mentioned which is sometimes actually ;

the case, but not always. For he often gives us his conjectures, rather than his
fixed opinions ; and in several passages he proposes diflerent opinions on the
same subject. One thing indeed cle.arly appears ; on many subjects he thought
diflerently from other Christians ; and the |)liilosophy which he followed obliged
him to think differently; but how he thought, is not, in many cases, equally
clear; and, not unfrequently, he did not know himself how he ought to think.

§ XXVIII. Orisen's allesorical expositions. Origen's new me-

tliod of explaining and illustrating religious truths by means of
philosophy, rccpired also a new method of expounding the sacred
Scriptures. For, meeting with many things in the Scriptures
repugnant to the decisions of his philosophy, he deemed it ne-
cessary to devise some method of removing this disagreement.
And would add confirmation to his opinions, if he could
as it

make appear that they were supported by the authority of

it

Scripture, some plausible way was to be devised which [p. 630.]

should make his speculations appear to be taught in the holy ora-
cles. Therefore, taking up the ancient doctrine of the Pharisees
and Essenes, which also he had learaed from his preceptor, Cle-
ment^ namely, that of a double sense in holy Scripture, he am-
plified and adorned it so ingeniously that it afforded him am-
ple means of bending the sense of Scripture to suit his purpose,
and eliminating from the Bible whatever was repugnant to his
favorite opinions.(') Yet strange as it may appear, this same
Origen, —
who had offered so much violence to the sacred books,
and almost subverted their true meaning, resolutely undertook —
 166 Centunj Ill.—Scction 28.

and most patiently accomplislied an incredible labor in aid of

thosewho wish to investigate the literal sense of scripture, and
thus produced an enduring monument of his industry, in what
is called his Hexa'pla. And so, frequently, those who disagree
with every body, also disagree with themselves ; and having
magnificently extolled something, are found tacitly disapproving
and censuring it.(')

(1) Those who wish to stigmatize the memory of Origen, represent him aa
the author and inventor of the allegorical mode of interpreting- the Scriptures:
and they account it one of his principal faults, and a great stain upon liis cha-
racter. His patrons, on the contrary, and particularly Huet, deny that lie was
the author of this mode of interpretation ; and they demonstrate that not only
Jews, but Cliristians also, before the days of Origen, recommended the study
of allegories, both by precept and by their example : and they are angry at the
ancient and modern assailants of Origen, who criminate iiim for following the
example of his precursors; which was only a minor fault, and scarcely deserv-
ing much rebuke. In my opinion, both liis accusers and his vindicators go too
far. It is very certain that the Jews, and among them the Pharisees especially
and Essenes, before the birth of our Saviour, believed that in the language of
the Bible, besides the sense wliich is obvious to the reader, there is another more
remote and recondite, concealed under the words of Scripture. And it ia
equally certain that Arislohulus^^w^ others, and especially that celebrated Alex-
andrian Jew, Philn, m:;ny of whose works have come down to us, —did labor
to deduce and to confirm the precepts of the philosophy they embraced, from
and by the books of Moses and tlie prophets. And, finally, it is manifest that
this mode of explaining the holy Scriptures was much approved and practised by
the Christian teachers, before Oiigen was born ; and those masters of the Alex-
[p. 631.] andrian school, Pantcnnus and Clement, (the latter, Origen's preceptor)
did tread in the steps ofPhilo; and they taught their disciples, according to

his example, to believe that the elements of all philosophical truth are interwo-
ven into the history and the laws of the sacred books. Origen therefore had
for his precursors many men of high character ; and he was not the first who
brought into the church the study of either sacred allegories in general or phi-
losophical allegories in particular. And this conduces not a little to diminish

his fiult. But, on the other hand, it is manifest that he did not keep himself
within the bounds which his precursors had placed around this thing; but he
allowed himself much greater liberties than the Christian doctors before him
had deemed allowable. This he himself testifies. For he states repeatedly,
that he had incurred the odium of many by his mystical interpretations, and
that he was accused of violating the dignity of the holy Scriptures. In his

thirteenth Homihj on Genesis, sec. 3. (Opp, tom. ii. p. 95.) lie maintains that
Isaac, —who digged the wells which the Philistines filled up, (Gen. xxvi. 15.)

was an emblem of those interpreters who pass by the liteial meaning and
aearcli for arcane senses in the sacred volume ; and that the Philistines repre-
 Origeii's Allegories. 107

eented tlic persons wlio will never go beyond the historic sense of scripture.
Qui sunt isti, (Pliilislini) qui terra puteos replent ? Illi sine dubio, qui in leo-e

tcrrenaiu ct carnalem iiitelligentiam ponunl, et spiritalem ac mysticuni claudunt

ut neque ipsi bibant, nequc alios bibero permittant. From this exposition he
takes occasion who condemned his alle"-ori-
to inveigh severely against those
cal interpretations. Unnsquisque nostrum, qui vcrbum Dei ministrat, putcum
fodit, et aquam vivam quoerit, ex qua refieiat auditores. Si ergo incipiam et
ego vetcruin dicta discutere et sensum in eis quaerere spiritalem, si conatus fuero
velamen legis amovere, ct ostendere allegorica esse quae scripta sunt, fodio qui-
dem pnteos, sed statiin miiii niovebunt ealumnias amici liiterffi et insidiabuntur
mihi, iiiiniicitias coiitinuo et persecutiones pnrabunt, veritatem negantes stare
posse super terraui. (By teriam, he means the Z;7e7-a/ smse.) Scd nos si Isaac
pueri sumus, puteos aqure vivas diligamus et fontes, a. litigiosis et oahimniato-
ribus recedamus, et rclinquamus eos in terra, (i. e. in the literal sense,) quani
diligant. Nos vero nunquam cessemus puteos aquae vivaj fudiendo. (i. e. will
never cease to follow after allegories.) — A passage not unlike this occurs in \\\s

seventh Hormhj on Levit. sec. 4. p. 2iJ3; 224. where he enters upon a discussion
respecting clean and unclean animals and meats, with great caution, not to
afford weapons to iiis opposers. De cibis qui per umbram dicuntur, asccnda-
musad eos, qui per spirituni veri suntcibi. Sed ad hajc iiivestiganda scriplurae
divinac testimoniis indigemus, nc quis pute!, (amant enim homines exacuere lia-

gus suas ut gladium) ne quod ego vim faeiam scripturis

quis, inquam, putet,
diviiiis, et ea, quas de animalibus in lege referuntur, ad homines fraham, [p. 632.]

ct de liominibiis hicc dicta esse confingam. Fortassis enim dicat quis audito-
rum: cur \iin facis Scripturae? Animalia dicuntur, animalia intelligantiu'.
How came it, I ask, that Origen, by searching for mystical senses of scripture,
incurred odium in an age when ail the Christian doctors, either wholly over-
looking or but slightly regarding the literal sense, fondly pursued allegories?
Beyond a doubt it must have arisen from this, that Origen introduced many in-
novations into this mode of interpretation, and gave new and unheard of rules
concerning it. Certainly, he would have had no enemies, if he had merely
affirmed, what no one llien called in question, that in addition to the sense
which the ?<-wt?s of Scripture convey, .another sense latent in \\\q things describ-
ed, is to be diligenlly sought for. Tins will be manifest, if we consider who
were the men that inveighed so bitterly against Origen's allegories after he was
dead: I refer to Eiislalius, Epiphanins, Jerome, Augustine, and many otiiers.
AH these were tiiemselves Allegorists, if I may use that term and would un- ;

doubtedly have condemned any man, as a great errorist, who should have dared
to impugn the arcane sense of Scripture, or to censure the deriving both doc-
trinesand precepts, and the knowledge of future events, from the narratives
and laws contained in the Bible. There must, tlierefore, neces.:arily, have been
something rew and unusual in Origen's exegetics, whicli appeared to tliem per-
nicious and very dangei'ous. Oliierwise, they would have regarded his system
of interpretation as beautiful and perfectly correct.
These things being so, it was not altogether wrong to call Origen the an.
thor of the allegoric interpretations : and it becomes an important inquiry, what
16S Century III.— Section 28.

wei-v! tliosp additions made by him to the doctrine of allefrories, wliicii other

bolievers in a double sensH of si-ripture deemed altogether inadmissible. The

first and cliief was, that he pron<Hinced a great part of the saered
books to be
void of meaning if taken literally, and that only tlie things indicated by the
words were tiie signs and emblems of h-igher objects. The Clirisiians who had
previously followed after mystic interpretations, let the truth of the sacred
narratives and the proper sen-e of the divine laws and precepts remain 'v.\ full
force; but lie turned much of the sacred history into moral fables, and no small
part of (he divine precepts into mere allegories. I would not say, thr.t this cor-
rupt mode of interpretation 07-?g-?Ha/e</ with Origen ; I siippose rather, that be-

fore him, some among the Jews rejected the grammatical sense of their law,
and followed only a moral and hidden sense of it. For I perceive that Philo, in
his book de Migratione Abrahami, (0pp. torn. i. p. 450. ed Angl.)— notwithstand-
ing he himself sometimes seems to disregard almost wholly the literal sense,
yet severely censures a certain class of men, who entirely disregarded the laws
of Moses, and held only to a mystical interpretation of Ihem for example, they :

believed thatall Moses' injunctions concerning circumcision, should be under-

stood of the excision of our lusts and passions; and under this cover, they
[p. 633.] spurned the letter of the law but Philo admonishes them, distinctly,
:

that the mystical interpretation of the law should be so pursued, as to leave in-
violate the dignity and authority of the literal import of the word. He says;
"RJ'h yiif df/.?orcp<x>v siri/MS>/)S-iiVni, ^'hrvTiui Tt tCsv d^aviov dxgiliar-Apai xai raffias T<or

favi^wv dkSTnMiJrrou. TheyoiiglU to regard both, searchwg critical/if for tlie 7imi-nppa-

renl (the remote sense), and preseruvg Oie manifesl iinassailed. Of the Therapeutcc
I say nothing because, what Philo
; tells us of their allegories, in his book de Vita
Theoretica, doea not appear to me sufficiently perspicuous, to justify a posilive

decision that they rejected the literal import of the law. But among Christians,
there were none, before Origen, who adopted the opinion that many parts of the
scriptures were destitute of any literal meaning. .And hence it was, that when
Origen ventured boldly to assert this doctrine, very many resisted it, and very
and authority of religion itself would be much en-
justly feared, that the truth
dangered, if were fold that many things narrated in the Bible never
the people
took-place, and that many things were commanded which must be understood
far otherwise than the words indicated. And it appears strange, that a man
of so much discernment should not see, that those very heretics, the Gnostics,
for instance, whom he sought to confute by this mode of interpretation, might
very conveniently use it for overthrowing the entire history of the life and
death of Christ, the truth of which they denied. But I suspect, that Origen be-
came accustomed to this bold exegesis, in the same school in which he learned
philosophy. For, those well informed on the sultject, know that all the disci-

ples of AmTwomus interpreted Homer, Hesiod, and the entire history of the pa-
gan deities, in the very same manner, in which Origen taught his followers to
interpret a large part of the Bible. Nearly allied to this first fault, was another;
namely, that he lauded immoderately the recondite and mystical sense of scrip-
ture, and unreasonably depreciated the grammatical or historical sense. The
latter he compared to earth, mud, the body, and other things of little value;
 Origens Alle(jories. 1G9

butllie former he compared to the soul, heaven, gold, :uid tlie most precious
objects. By such representations lie induced the expositors of scripuire, to
think little about the literal sense of passages, and to run enthusiastically after
the sublimer interpretations. It was very dilTerent with the other Chrisijaa
doctors who possessed good sense. Although they hii-lily valued the mystical
sense, yet ihey placed an equal value on the grammatical and hi-^torical : nay,
they made the latter the foundation and basis of the former: whence it would
follow, that no inquiry after the arcane and moral sense should be made, until
the literal meaning is carefully and accurately ascertained. As the stability
and auihority of the Christian religion depend on the truth of the hi-torv given
us in the Bible, and as the true forms and grounds both of its doctrines and
precepts are to be learned from the proper sense of the words of scripture ; it

is manifest, that this religion is equally harmed, by him who makes no [p. 134.]
account of the literal sense, and by him who considers the words to have no
meaning.
Again, it was indeed not altogether a new thing, and yet it was a thing un-
nsual and offensive to many, that Origen souglit to derive from the scriptures
by means of allegories, that philosophy which he had embraced and that he ;

believed, the philosophical grounds of the Christian doctrines were exhibited,

though somewhat obscurely, by the sacred writers. Those who, up to that
time, had sought for allegories in the scriptures, had found there only religious
or sacred allegories ; i. e. such as referred to Christ, to Antichrist, to the state
of the church, and to the duties of Christians; but Origen, following the exam-
ple oi Philo Judreus, whom he was taught by his master Clement to follow as
a guide, endeavored to make a large part of the Bible teach the dogmas of the
philosophers. And this was tiie more offensive to Christians, because many of
them still continued to regard philosophy as a pestilent thing, and to be for
ever kept out of the church. Origen was led into this fault, not merely by the
example of Pliiloy but also by the doctrine of his preceptor, Ammonius, respect-
ing the harmony between philosophy and the Christian religion ; the adoption
of which doctrine, would necessarily lead him to carry phiIosoi)hy into the holy
scriptures. Among the dogmas of his acquired philosophy, one of the more
considerable was, that noted one of the Platonic school respecting a two-fold
world, a lower and an upper, or a visible and an invisible, a corporeal and a
spiritual and of the correspondences of things in this visible world, with the
;

things of the invisible or conceived jvorld. Considering this doctrine as most

certain, he transferred it entire to the holy scriptures; and therefore he affirm-
ed, that whatever the inspired writers tell us respecting clianges and occur-
rences in this lower and visible world, relates also to the affairs and the history
of the upper and invisible world. Of this doctrine we shall say more hereafter.

But it being then altogether novel and strange to the ears of Christians, it

could not fail to excite great complaints among those attached to the ancient
Christian simplicity. — Now, as all the opinions we have mentioned, were dis-
pleasing to most Christian teachers, so the rules of interpretation introduced
by Origen to advance them, could not but displease many, and be rejected not
only as novel, but als.t as injurious to the scriptures and to their author. Be-
170 Centurij IIL— Section 28.

fore the times of Origen, the investigation of scriptural allegories -was altoge-
ther unsettled, or regulati d by almost no laws or fixed principles. And, there-
fore, when he attempted to subject it to fixed rules, founded on his own opi-
nions, lie might be accounted, and he actually was, an innov.itor.
As to the causes which induced Origen to amplify and to systematize the
allegoric mode of interpreting scripture, it must be admitted, in the first place,

thatmuch was due to the excessively fecund genius of the man, to the custo-
mary practice among the Egyptians, to his education, to the instruction of his
[p. 635.] preceptors, example both of the philosophers whom he
and to the
admired, and of the Jews, especially PMlo. But in addition to these external
and natural causes, as they may be called, there were others originating from
his own deliberate judgment: and among the latter, some were not dishonora-
ble, or unworthy of a religious teaciier desii-ous of advancing the cause of Ciiris-

tianity. Firai, he hoped that the Jews would more readily be persuaded to
embrace Old Testament were explained
Christianity, if certain portions of the
mystically and aHegorically. For he supposed certain prophecies, which, if con-
strued literally, would not refer to Christ, were an obstacle to the Jews' era-
bracing Christ; but that if these prophecies were exphiined mystically, and no
regard paid to the literal sense, the Jews might be more ready to believe that
all that the ancient prophets foretold concerning the Messiah actually referred
to Jesus of Nazareth. Secondly, he supposed that the class of heretics called
Gnostics, the Basilidians, the Valentinians and others, could not be completely
put down and confuted, excrept by the admission of allegories in the Old Tes-
tament. For these sects, in order to prove that the supreme God, the Father
of our Saviour, was a different being from him who created this world and
caused the Old Testament to be written, cited many passages from the IMosaie
laws, from the writings of the prophets, and from the historical books of the
Old Testament, vvhich they considered as unworthy of the majesty and holinesa
of the supreme God, and as indicative of a degree of weakness and wickedness.
And as Origen despaired of solving the>'e objections, he thought they must be
avoided by resorting to allegories, and that all the passages with wiiich the
Gnostics reproached God andand ministers, must be construed in a
his friends

mystical sense worthy of the divine character. These two reasons, Origen
himself repeatedly mentions and especially in his book de Principiis, (Lib. ii.
;

c. 8. p. 164. &c.) But if he had been influenced by no reasons besides these,

his system of interpretationwould have extended to only a very small portion
of the scriptures; and would not have greatly offended his fellow Christians.
it

For others before him, in their disputes with the Jews and the Gnostics, had
betaken themselves to allegories as their castle. There were therefore other
reasons for the course he pursued, and reasons of a more exceptionable charac-
ter. Among these the first undoubtedly was, his attachment to his system of
philosophy. For, perceiving that many of the fiicts and declarations of the Bi-
ble conflicted with the principles of his philosophy, he felt the necessity of
resorting to some means of escaping their force ; and he could find none more
easy and effectual than this assumption : Whatever in the sacred books con-
flicts with my philosophy, must not be taken literally, but must be converted
 Orirjen's Allegories. 171

into allegory Safely ported behind this rule, he could easily resist whatever
the scriptures might oppose to his opinions, and whatever the [p. 636.]
philosophers might urge against Christianity. This we see e.xempjified in iiis
—
book against Celsus. Kindred with this was another reason, derived from the
harmony between Christianity and philosophy. As we have before seen, he
believed thattlie grounds of all the doctrines taught in the scriptures, might be

deduced from the principles of philosophy. And closely connected wiih this
opinion, was anotlier, namely, that these philosophical grounds of Christian
doctrines, were all taught in tiie scripture*, not indeed explicitly, but with some
obscurity and as it were covertly ; and, therefore, they can be discovered, and
drawn forth by the sagacious, especially by those whom God favor^i wilh the

gift of language, and of the so-called knmded^e. Having assumed this, lie was
obliged to add, that those philosophical grounds of Christian doctrines, are
wrapt up in figures, images, and facts, in the sacred volume for if we adhere
:

to the literal meaning, that harmony between religion and philosophy can not
be found. To these two causes, a third may be added; namely, that Platonic
dogma, which was firmly estahlished in his mind, tiiat there are two corres-
ponding worlds, this visible world in which we dwell, and corresponding with
it an upper or celestial world. And this dogma led him, in construing tl;e Bib-
lical history of nations and countries, besides the literal import of the words

which refer to this visible world, to seek for another meaning applicable to the
world above. — He held two other opinions, both false, yet in his view unques-
tionable. First, tiiat it was greatly for the honor and glory of Chrisfi inity,
that the holy scriptures, which are its source, should be accounted a book dif-

fering fundamentally from all human conipositions, one full of various and
recondite mysteries. And that if God is to be considered as the author of the
book, there must necessarily be and appear in it, a portion, an effect, or some
exhibition, of that manifold and arcane wisdom wiiich is in God. To this piir-

pose he frequently expresses himself distinctly. Thus in his fifleenlh Hnmily

on Genesis, (Opp. torn. ii. p. !)9.) he says: Observandum est nobis scripturas
Banctas legentibus scripturam divinam non (ut plurimis videtur) ineru-
dito et agresti sermone compositam, (i. e. not in the manner in which men are
accustomed communicate their thoughts to one another,) sed secundum dis-
to
ciplinam divina; eruditionis (i. e. sapientice) aptafam, neque tantum historicia
narrationibus, quantum rebus et sensibus mysticis servientem. His first Ho-
mihj on Exod. (Opp. torn. ii. p. 129.) commences thus: Videtur mihi unusquis-
que sermo divinas scripturse similis esse alieui serainum, cujus natura base est,
ut cum jactum fuerit in terram. regeneralum in spicain, vel in quamcunque
aliam sui generis speciem, multipliciter diffundatur, et tanto cuniulatius, qnanto
vel peritus agrieola plus seminibus laboris impenderit, vel beneficium terras

foecundioris indulserit. - - Ita et hie sermo, qui nunc nobis ex divinis volumi-
nibus recitatus est, si peritum inveniat et diligentem colonum,cum primo attactu
videatur exiguus et brevis, ut coeperit excoli et spirit;diter tractari, crescit [p. 637.]
in arborem, in ramos, et in virgulta diffunditur. - - Unus sermo ex hi.s, quae reci-
tata sunt, in tantum posset longe, lateque ditfnndi, si tamen et audiforum capa-
citas sineret, ut vix nobis ad explicandum suffic ;ret dies. And, {de Principiis
172 Century III— Section 28.

L. iv. sec. 26. p. 189.) he '^iiys : Ad qntiin regulam etiam diviiinrum litteraniin

intelligentia retinenda est, quo .'•cilicet. ea, qua3 dicnntur, noii pro viliate ser-
monis, feed pro divinitate sancli spiiitus, qui eascdiiscribi inspiravit,ceiiseantur.
Secondly, In tlie objections of liie eneiiiies of Cliri-stianity, there are not a few
things which can in no way be fully cle ired up and confuted, unle>^s we aban-
don the historical and grammatical sense, and resort to allegories. E.xenipiifi-
cations will be given iiereafter. Origen was, by his philosophy, disnblcd for
answering satisfactorily all the objeclioi.s isddnced against Christianity by the
pagan priests, the philosophers and ihe Jews. The pious man could liave done
it had been willing to philosophise in a more liberal manner than
easily, if he

the precepts of his masters allowed. And. therefore, to maintain the honor of
that religion which he considered equally true with liis philosophy, lie went over
to the side of the Allegorisis ; not perceiving, that in this way the objections of

the adversaries were not confuted, but in reality were oiily eluded.
Peter Daniel Huet has written learnedly on Origen's doctrine of allegories,
in his Origeniana, Lib. ii. but he writes confusedly, and
Quaest xiii. p. 170. :

not so much and elucidating the subject, as for

for the purpose of e.xplaining
obscuring it, and for e.\eusing and defending its author. He is therefore an
unsafe guide to an inquirer on this subject. The system of Origen is much
better stated and explained by a learned French writer whose name I have not
learned, in a French work entitled, The Literal and the Mystical sense of holy
Scripture, according to the views of the Fathers. Paris, 1727. 8vo. I have not
been able to obtain the book but Charles de la Rue, the editor of Origen, has
;

given a lucid epitome of it, supported by citations from Origen, in his Prefice
to Origen's Works, vol. ii. —
I will attempt to state Origen's views, more pre-

cisely than learned men have hitherto done, to correct their mistakes, to sup-

ply their deficiencies, and to exhibit this whole system of biblical interpreta-
tion, so far as it can be ascertained, in the most correct and intelligible manner
within my power.
Origen's doctrine of allegories may be fitly divided into two parts; iha first,
embracing his opinions respecting the different senses of the holy scriptures;

and the second, containing rules for distinguishing the different senses of scrip-
ture, and for determining in what passages the literal se;:se must be abandoned,
and in what passages a mystical sense may be coupled with the literal sense,
[p. 638.] The first part comprises the following propositions.
Prop. I. Holy scripture is like a man. As a man, according to Plato, con-
sists of three parts, a body, a sensitive soul, and a rational soul; so also the
sacred books have a threefold sense, a body or a historical and grammatical
sense, a soul or a moral sense, and lastly a .spirit or a mystical and spiritual
sense. Origen's fifth Ifimii/y on Levit. sec. 5. (Opp. tom. ii. p. 209.)
Trinlicem in scripturis divinis intelligentias inveniri stepe diximus raodum, his-

toricuni, moralem, et mysticum. Unde et corpus inesse ei, et animam, ac spi-

ritum intelleximus. De PrincijAis L. iv. sec. 2. (Opp. tom. i. p. 168.)-. Sicut

homo constare dicitur ex corpore et anima et spiritn ; it.a etiam sancta scrip-
tura, quffi ad hominum sniutem divina largitione concessa est. Many more paa-

sao-es nii'Tht be adduced from his writings ;

but these are sufficient.
 Origens Allegories. 173

Prop II. As the flcsli or liody i-* llie lowest :ind most ignoble pnrt of man
BO also the iitc;-a! sense of scnptnre, which is like the. body, is f.ir below or infe-
rior to the moral and the mystical senses. And as the body often induces even
pious and good men to commit sin ; so also the proper sense of the words of
scripture may lead incautious readi-rs inio errors and faults. Ori^en's Slrnmata
Lib. X. as quoted by Jerome. Lib. iii. Coram, in Galatasenp. v. (Hieronynii Opp.
torn. i. p. 41.) : Non valde eos jnvat Historia Scrij)turje, qui sie eani intelliount,

uti scripta est. Quis enim non docebitur servire lu.xuria^, et fornicationem habere

pro nihilo, quum Judam ad meretricim let^erit ingredienteni, et Patriarchas ha-

buisse multas pariter u.xores? Quomodo uon ad idoiolatriam provocabitur,
qui sanguinem taurorum et cajteras Levitici victimas non plus, quam quod in

littera sonat, putaverit indicarc? - - - Hjcreses quoque magis de carnali scrip-

quam de opere carnis nostras, ut plurimi cestimant, substit-
turse intelligentia,
erunt. Nee non invidiam et ebrietatem per legis litteram discimus. Jnebriatur
Noe post diluvium, et Patriarchae apud fratrum Joseph in ./Egypto. Sed
in commessationes in Regnorum libro scriptae sunt. - - - Multorum ergo
malornm oecasio est, si quis in scripturee carne permaneat. Qua) qui fecerent,
regnum Dei non consequentur. Quamobrem spiritum scripturaj fructusquc
quacramus, qui non dicuntur esse manifest!. - - • Quum Iiaec nobis aperta fue-
rint, ralionabiliorem habebimus fidem, (Origen sougiit after a rational religion,
i. e. one accordant witii bis philosophy, which he deemed to be accordant with
reason,) et correetos mores temperantia comitabitur. De Principiis L. iv. sec.

8, 9. p. 165. : Simpliciores nonnulli, qui se de ecclesia esse gloriantur - - - de

Deo suspicantur, quae ne de homine quidem crudelissimo ct injustissimo cogi-
tare fas sit. lis autem omnibus nulla falsarum opinionum, nulla impietatis et

Btolidorum de Deo sermonumcaussa esse alia videtur, quam scriplura [p. 639.]

non secundum sensum spiritualcm intellecta. Many otiier passages might easily
be collected.
Prop. III. Yet the literal sense is not altogether worthless ; for to common
people and the more ignorant, it may be of use to lead them to virtue and sal-
vation. De Principiis L. iv. (sec. 12. p. 169.) : E.xposilionem litteralem etiam
per sc utilem esse posse, tcstatur corum multitudo, qui ingenue et simpliciter
crediderunt. (sec. 14. p. 173.) Ipsum quoque spiritualium indumentum, id
:

est, quod in scripturis corporeum est, in multis non est inutile, sed multos po-
test, quantum capaces surt, raeliores efficcre.

Prop. IV. But those who possess a little more wisdom and intelligence
than the vulgar, ought to seek after the soul of the sacred scriptures, passing
beyond their body or literal sense that is, they should search for the moral
:

sense, which accompanies the grammatical ; or, they should apply all they read
to the mind and its moral improvement.
Prop. V. And those who have attained to perfection, or to the highest de-
gree of piety, should ascend higher still, and pry with all their might into the
spirit of the sacred books, or into their spiritual and mystical sense. These two
last precepts, and also the one preceding, are placed beyond all doubt, by
the

following passage, (De Principiis L. iv. sec. 2. p. 168.): Tripliciter ergo des-

cribere oportet in animasua unumquemque divinarum intelligcntiam litteraium,

174 Century III— Section 28.

id est, (1) nt simplk'iores quique aedificentur ab ipso, ut ita dixerim, corpme

scriplurarum : sic eniin appeUnmus communom isturii et histoiialem intellec-
tuiii: (2) si qui vero aliquantum jam profieere eoeperunt, et possuiit amplias all-

quid intueii, ab ipsa scriplurcc anima aedificentur. (3) Qui vero perfect! sunt,
ni tales ab ipsa spirituali lege, quee umbram habet luturorum bonorum, tan-
quam a spirilu aedificentur. These are the rules which Origen invariably fol-

lows in Commentaries and Homilies on the sacred books, yet extant. He

his

either wholly omits, or but slightly touches on the historical or literal sense,
and hastens on to the moral or mystical senses almost as soon as he names the
passages.
Prop. VI. The 7noral sense of the Scriptures consists, partly, in doctrinal in-
structions, respecting those exercises or changes in the state of the mind of which
both good and bad men may be the subjects; and partly in precepts, by which
both the exterior and the interior life of a Christian man should be governed.
Origen nowhere defines, (so ftir as I know.) what he means by the moral sense
of Scripture : but the correctness of the definition above given is demonstrable
from the numberless examples of this sense which he adduces. Thus Moses
tells us, (Exod. i. 6, 7.) tliat after the death of Joseph, the Children of Israel
multiplied exceedingly in Egypt. And to this statement Origen attaches a mo-
ral sense, (First Homily on Exod. \ 4. 0pp. tom. ii. p. 131.) : In te si moriatur
Joseph, id est, si mortificationem Christ! in corpore tuo suscipias et mortifices
membra tua pcccato (so in the printed copies; but 1 think it should read

[p. 640.] peccati,) tunc in te mulliplicabuntur filii Israel. Filii vero Israel .sensus
boni et spirituales accipiuntur. Si ergo sensus carnis mortificentur, sensus spi-
ritus crescunt et quotidie emorientibus in te vitiis, virtutum numerus augetur.
So the king of Egypt commanded the mid wives to kill the Hebrew male chil-

dren, but to let the females And, according to Origen,

live. (Exod. i. 15, 16.)

(Homil. ii. in Exod. ^ 1. p. 133.) the edict of Pharaoh contained this moral
sense: Princeps hujus mundi sen cacodaemon vult sensum rationabilem, qui
potest coelestia sapere, necare quaecunque vero carnis sunt vivere, et quae ad
;

materiam pertinent corporalem augeri. Cum ergo videris homines in voluptati-

bus et deliciis vitam ducere, in isiis scias quod rex .^gypti masculos necat et
vivificat fosminas. In Matt. xv. 21, 22. our Saviour is said to have gone into

the borders of Tyre and Sidon, where a Canaanitess of that country besought
him to heal het daughter. According to Origen (tom. xi. in Matth. ^ 16. 0pp.
tom. iii. p. 503.) the moral sense of the story is this: Unusquisque nostrum
dum peccat, versatur in finibus Tyri et Sidonis, migrans vero a vitio ad virtu-

tem exit e finibus Tyri et Sidonis et ad fines partis Dei pcrvenit. Atque huic
Christus, quemadmodum mulieri Chananaese, occurrit quasi in partes Tyri et
Sidonis veniens. —These examples show that a large part of the philosopjiical
instructions, which Origen supposed to be latent in the scriptures, are contained
in the moral sense; while others of them are contained in the mystical sense,
which we are next to consider.
Prop. VH. Of the ?n?/s/icaZsense,Origen himself gives the foUovring definition,

{(Ic Principiis, Lib. iv. \ 13. p. 170.): iSpiritalis explanatio (Trvst/MoTi^cD cf/n'^ns-ij)

est talis, si quis potest ostendere quorum coelestium exemplaribus et umbra

 Origen^s Allegories. 175

deserviunt hi, qui sccnndimi carnem jiidaei suntet quorum futurovum umbiara
lex habet et si qua hiijusmodi in scripturis Sanctis reperiuntur, vel cum ivquiri-
tur qua3 sit ilia sapientia in m\-sterio absconciita (1 Cor. ii. 7.) et occasionem
nobis prajstat intelligenlia;, ut possimus advertcre, quorum fii^urae erant ista. quje
illis (Judaeis) accidebant. A part of this definition is perspicuous enough: he
thinks emblems and
predictions of things pertaining to Ciirist and the church
are iield up to view in the hnv of Moses and in tiie Old Testament history.
Therefore, whoever refers to Christ, his acts and offices, and to the church, what-
ever in tjie literal sense refers to the Jewish affairs, discovers and follows the
mystical or allegorical sense. Yet a part of this definition cannot be fully
understood by those ignorant of Origen's peculiar opinions. Thus much indeed
every attentive reader will perceive, that what Origen calls the mystical sense
is twofold. For he says: (1) Judaeos secundum carnem coelestium exemplari-
bus et umbr;e deservirc. The Greek is: -noiwv iirovpaviuv sJrKTs/^^aTt x.ai [p. C41.]
ffKiS 01 Kara (rdpua loi/cTu/st iXaTpivav. (Heb. viil. 5.) Tlicrefore the ceremonies of
the law are shadows of heavenly things. He adds: (2) Legem tamen simul
umbram futurorum habere : that is, tlie law is a shadow of Christ's deeds and
of the events concerning him in this world. These two classes of things differ,
just as the celestial and terrestrial, heavenly and eartiily things differ. Again,
he says (1) that in tlie scriptures a certain wisdom is hid in a mystery, as Paul
tells us; and (2) that what things happened to the people of the Jews, were

figures of certain future things; and these two classes of tilings also, ^le so
clearly distinguishes, that they cannot be confounded. But all this is insufficient

to make the views of Origen fully understood ; and they must be more distinctly
exhibited in the following more precise definition.

Prop. VIII. The mijstical sense of scripture is that which presents to us the
nature, sLate, and history of the spiritual or mystical world. Besides this cor-
poreal or material world, there is another, a spiritual world, beyond the reach
of our senses; and this other world is also twofold, celestial and terrestrial;
and the terrestrial may also be called the mystical world. This mystic terres-
trial world is the church of Christ on earth, the xiivji xrtVjc. See his Comm.
on John, (torn. ix. vol. ii. 0pp. p. 147, edit. Huetii. The recent Benedictine
edition has not yet reached this commentary) Mundus autcm et ornamentum :

mundi est ecclesia. And, after a few words; \iyi(r^a) toivZv h iK)i\»o-ia ko3-uo(, i
Ti vird Tou o-(or)i/>o; ^aiTi^sTot. Dicatur itaquc ecclesia mundus, quando a Servatore

illustratur. The other, the celestial or spiritual world, is in the upper regions;
and it corresponds in all its parts with the lower or corporeal world. For the
world in which we now dwell was f;ishioned after the model of the world
above. See his Comm. on John, (tom. xix. vol. ii. 0pp. edit. Huetii, p. 288.
I give the Latin only, which agrees accurately with the Greek.) : Est alius
mundus praeter hunc visibilem et sensibilem mundum (t6v S'ltuvvfAivov xai dia-S-nTdv
Kitr/L'.ov) constantem e ccelo et terra, vel e coelis et terra, in quo sunt qure viden-
tur : Et hoc totum est alius mundus, inaspectabilis mundu.s, qui non videtur,
mundus intelligibilis (''oo-^tof dopaTo?, Koa-f^cg it/ /SXsn-:^8V0$, Kill Vo-ird; x-OTfAOi,) cujua
visione et pulchritudine fruentur qui puro sunt corde, quo hujus mundi intelli-

gibilis visione antea bene parati penetrant vel ad ipsum Deum videndum, qua-
176 Century III— Section 28.

tcniis videri natura potest Deus. That world be3foiid our ken, wiiicli we can
ont<'Uiplate only in thought, is, as before stated, perfVctly like to tiiis cor-

poreal world; and of course it is divided into provinces, just as this world is.

Therefore, us there is a terrestrial Palestine, Jerusalem, Tyre, Sidon, Arabia,

[p. 642.] &c. so the upper or celestial world has similar places and provinc(;s.
The inhabitants of the celestial world are souls or spirits; its kings and magis-
trates are the angels, both the good and the bad. Whatever events occur in this

world, the same occur in the world above ; and there is a perfect similitude be-
tween these worlds. This doctrine he nowhere explains more fully than in his

Principia, (L. iv. J 20, &e. p. 181, &c.) He there first demonstrates, as he sup-
poses, that there is u celestial Judea, a celestial Jerusalem, a celestial Jewish
people. Elevare quodammodo ex terra et crigere infelligentiam nostram volens

eanctus Apostolus ait in qnodatu loco : Videle Israelsecundum carnem,{\ Cor.

X. 18.) Per quod significat utique quod sit, qui non sit secundum
alius Israel

carnem, sod secundum spiritum. - - - Si ergo sunt qufedam animse in hoc mun-
do (superior!) quaj Israel appell.antur, et in coelo civitas quajdam, qua? Jerusa-

lem nominatur, consequens est, ut \\x civitates, qua; gentis laraeliticse esse di-
cuntur, Metropolia habeant Jerusalem coelestem, et secundum haec de omni
Juda3a intelligamus, de qua putamus etiam prophetas mysticis quibusdam nar-
rationibus loquutos. - - Quseunque ergo vel nnrrantur vel prophetantur de
Jerusalem - - utique de ilia civitate, quam (Paulus) dicit Jerusalem coelestem
et de omnibus locis vel urbibus, quae terrae sanclse urbes esse dicuntur, —dicta
esse intelligere debemus. Then dilating the idea, he extends it (o the whole
earth : Si ergo prophetise, qua? de Judea et Jerusalem et de Juda et Israel et
Jacob prophet.ata; sunt, dum non a nobis carnaliter intelliguntur, mysterica qua3-
dam divina significant: consequens utique est etiam iilas prophetias, quaj vel
de vEgypto vel de vEgyptiis, vel de Babylonia vel de Babyloniis, et Sidone ac
Sidoniis prolatse sunt, non de ^Egypto ista, qua3 in terris posita est, vel Baby-
lone vel Tyro, vel de Sidone intelligi prophetatas. - - - - Sicut coslestis est Je-
rusalem et Judffia, et gens sine dubio quae habitat in ea, quae dicitur Israel, ita

possibile est etiam vicina his loca esse quajdam, quae vel ^Egyptus, vel Baby-
lon, vel Tyrus, vel Sidon appellari videantur, eorumque locorum principes, at-

que aniuite si quaj in illis habitant locis, J^gyplii, Babylonii, Tyrii ac Sidonii
appellantur. From this doctrine he infers, tliat wliatcver occurrences there are
in this lower world, the same also exist and the strange
in the world above ;

vatraries lie indulges on this subject will This strange

be noticed hereafter.
fiction is an exemplification of the degree in which Origen could accommodate

his theology to his philosophy. For, although he would persuade his readers
that he derived the doctrine of a twofold world, celestial and terrestrial, from
Paul's writings, (e. g. 1 Cor. x. 18. Rom. ii. 28, 29. Gal. iv. 26. Heb. xii. 22,
&c.) ;
yet it is manifest that this doctrine is nothing more nor less than the
opinion of Plato and the Plalonisls, respecting the eternal procession of the
all things from the divine intelligence, and of
[p. 643.] images and patterns of
the formation of this visible world after the similitude of these so-called ideas.
Captivated with this philosophy, his prolific f;incy led him to amplify tiiis doc-
trine, and apply it to the holy scriptures. Those acquainted with Platonism
 Origoi's Allegories. 177

know, that the Platonic school, professedly following their master, maintained
that from all eternity there issued forth from the divine intelligence the images
of all things ; —
that these images were substantial beings, immutable in their
nature, and from the divine mind from which they issued
distinct that God ;
—
lo Diced on these eternal ideas while forming this corporeal world, just as a pain-
ter keeps his eyes constantly fixed on the objects he would represent in colors;
— that therefore all corporeal and finite things are but copies of tliose eternal
images; —that all truth and science reside in these images or ideas; that minds
wrapped up in matter discover only the obscure shadows of them but yet, ;
—
by reflection and study, they may gradually become able to look upon and
contemplate the eternal ideas themselves and this Plato supposed to be the ;

perfection of all knowledge. All these notions Origen adopted as his own
and hence that fantastic dream of the resemblance of this world to the world
above, and of the creation of the former after the pattern of the latter.
But I do not know that any of the Phitonists went so far as to declare, that all
the things which occur among men, occur also in the heavenly world that ;

souls there live as men do on earth that in heaven angels are rulers, and carry
;

on wars, just as kings and princes do here below. At any rate this is clear,
that Origen by holding these opinions was obliged to assert, that whatever
the sacred books narrate respecting the countries, the nations, the kino's, and
the occurrences of this world, must be equally true of the heavenly world ; so
that the history of our world is also the history of the celestial world and of its
inhabitants. And this he most distinctly asserts in his Principia, (L. iv. ^ 23.
p. 186.) Unde consequens videbitur, etiam prophetias, quae de singulis genti-
:

bus proferuntur, revocari magis ad animas debere, (because the celestial world
is more excellent and noble than this our corporeal world,) et diversas mansi-

ones earum coelestes. Sed et historias rerum gestarum, quas dicuntur vcl genti
Israel, vel Jerusalem, vel Judaeae accidisse, - - - magis ista conveniebant illis
gentibus animarum, quae in ccelo isto, quod transire dicitur, habitant, vel
etiara nunc habitare putandae sunt. In his eleventh Homily on Numbers, Q 4, 0pp.
torn. ii. p. 307.) he says : Puto, quia sicut quajdam nomina vel gentium vel prin-
cipum in Scripturis posita videmus, qua; absque ulla dubitatione ad males an-
gelos et ad \irtutes contrarias referantur : ita etiam ea, quae de Sanctis virls
et gente religiosa scribuntur, ad sanctos Angelos et ad benignas de- [p. 644.]
bemus referre virtutes.
As there is a twofold mystical world, the one here below, the
Prop. IX.
church, and the otiier above, the e.\amplar after which this material and corpo-
real world was created so there is also u twofold mystical sense of scripture,
;

the one relating to the church, and the other to the celestial world. That which
relates to the kingdom of Christ, or the church, is called the allegorical sense
that which relates to the celestial world may be called the anagogical sense.
Yet Origen does not always understand by the allegorical sense, that sense of
the Bible which exhibits the transactions of Christ and his ambassadors in
this lower world ; he sometimes uses the term in a broader accepation ; but
Btill, of the great number of examples of the allegorical sense contained in his
writings, most of the specimens we have adduced serve to illustrate the defini-
tion vve have given. 13
178 Ccrdury Ill.—Sechon 28.

Prop. X. The mystical sense pervades the entire scriptures ; so that there
is not a declaration, in the inspired books, in which tliere is not somctliing latent
that refers either to the church of Jesus Christ, or to the celestial world. See
his Jlrst Homily on Exod. Q 4. 0pp. torn. ii. p. 131.) : Ego credens verbis Do-
mini mei Jesu Christi in lege et prophetis icta quidem unum aut unum apicem
non puto esse mysteriis vacuum, nee puto aliquid horum transire posse, nisi
onmia fiant. He frequently inculcates this idea in various forms and he ex- ;

tends it, not only to the Old Testament, but also to the New, which is of equal
excellence and worth with the Old. See Principia L. vi, ^ 14, &c. (p. 171, 172.)
In a passage ^ 16. (p. 174.) he most explicitly declares the New Testament to
be equally spiritual and mystical with the Old Testament Non solum autera :

de his, quae usque ad adventum Christi scripta sunt, hsec Spiritus sanctus pro-
curavit, sed utpote unus atque idem spiritus et ab uno Deo procedens, eadem
similiter etiam in Evangelistis et Apostolis fecit. Nam ne illas quidem narra-
tiones, quas per eos inspiravit absque hujuscemodi, quara supra exposuiinus sa-
pientiee suae arte contexuit. Hence, in his eleventh Homily on Num. J
1. (Opp.
tom. ii. p. 305.) he thus expresses himself: Requiro, si sunt aliquae (in scriptura

sacra) quae et secundum litteram quidem stare possint, necessario tamen in eis

etiam allegoriam (here he used the word allegoria in the broader sense) requi-
rendam. And a little after : Alia habent quidem secundum litteram veritatem
sui, rocipiunt tamen utiliter et necessario etiam allegoricum sensum. — It is there-
fore beyond all controversy, that those learned men err, who say that Origen be-
lieved many passages of the Bible to have no other than the literal sense his :

opinion was quite otherwise. Nor must we assent to Charles de la Rue, and
to the learned men whom he follows, in saying, {Orig. Opp. tom. ii. Praef p. 11.)
[p. 645.] " Sometimes only the literal sense is admissible, sometimes only
the moral sense, and sometimes only the mystical." The man cannot have
read Origen with due attention who can entertain such an opinion.
Prop. XI. Yet both the mystical senses are not found in all passages: some
have only the allegorical sense, and some only the anagogical. That such was
Origen's opinion his expositions clearly show for from many passages of scrip-
;

ture explained by him, he deduces only a meaning applicable to the church of

Christ on earth ; but sometimes he rises to the celestial or upper world.
Prop. Xn. In like manner the moral sense pervades the whole inspired
volume ; nor is there a single passage in which we have not some precept for
regulating the mind and directing the conduct.
Prop. Xin. It is not so with the grammatical or historical sense. For
there are many passages of the Bible in which the words are destitute of all
literal meaning. Of his many declarations to this effect this one may suffice,
de Principiis, L. iv.
J
12. (Opp. tom. i. p. 169.) 'Eio-/ rtvig ypaipai to a-t)fj^aTix.6v hufa-
Muf e^cv<rai Is'iv ottoU OjoVsI riiV -^v^iiv nai to Tvivf^a Tti; yfaifiil (xita '^fii (^UTilv

Sunt scripturee qucedam, quae nihil habent corporeum (i. e. no literal meaning) :

est ubi sola veluti anima (a moral sense,) et spiritus (a mystical sense) qute-
rendus est.

Prop. XIV. Therefore all declarations of scripture are of two kinds ; some
have only two senses, a moral and a mystical, the latter either allegorical or
 Orirjeii's A Uegoriei 179

anagogical ; others have three senses, a grammatical or litem/, a moral, and

a mystical. But there is no passage whatever that has only one single mean-
ing. In his Principia L. iv. sec. 12. (p. 169, &c.) Origen demonstrates this
P"inciple by a passage in John's Gospel (ch ii. 6.) ;
presenting us at the same
time with a specimen of allegorical interpretation. John tells us, that at the
marriage in Cana, there were six water pots, set for the Jewish purification,
containing two or three firkins each ; and Origen gives this mystical interpre-
tation of the passage : Quibus sub involucro designatur eos, qui apud Aposto-
lum in occulto Judaei sunt, (Rom. il.) purificari per scripturas, aliquando binas
metretas capientes, id est, ut sic dicam, animam (the moral sense) et spiritum

(the 7nyslical sense): aliquando terras (trinas?) quum nonnullffi pra;ter pra?-

dicta, (i. e. the moral and mystical which are always ; present,) habeant etiam
corpus (the literal sense) quod aedificare potest.
Prop. XV. The literal sense is obvious to all attentive readers. To discover
the 7noral sense, some more intelligence is requisite ; and yet it is not very re-
condite and diflficult.

Prop. XVI. But the mystical sense, none but wise men, and such as are di-
vinely instructed, can with certainty discover. Origen, Agreeably to the custom
of that age, considered the ability to interpret the holy scriptures mystically, to
be one of those extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit which are conferred on
but few Christians. And as he, from modesty, dared not lay claim to that gift,
he generally brings forward his mystical expositions with diffidence [p. 646.]
and caution : and sometimes he tells us, that he conjectures or supposes, rather
than decides and pronounces confidently. In his Jiftk Homily on Levit. sec. 1.

(0pp. torn. ii. p. 205.) he says : Sicut cognationem sui ad invicem gerunt visibila
et invisibilia, terra et coelum, anima ct caro, corpus et spiritus, et ex horum con-
junctionibus constat hie mundus ; ita etiam sanctam Scripturam credendum est ex
invisibilibus et visibilibus constare : veluti (1) ex corpore quodam,littera^ scilicet.

quae videtur : et (2) animd, sensus intra ipsam dcprehenditur ; et (3) s-piritu.

secundum id quod qusedam etiam in se ccelestia teneat; ut Apostolus, quia ex-

emplari et umbrae deserviunt coelestium. This passage, though not much con-
nected with the point we are considering, I have thought fit to transcribe, be-

cause not only exhibits clearly and distinctly his doctrine of a threetold sense
it

of scripture, but it also shows, that he believed he had a philosophical reason

for holding that doctrine, derived from the analogy of things. will now We
accompany him as he proceeds ; Quia ergo ha;c ita se hrflicnt, invocantes De-
um, qui fecit scriptural animam et corpus et spiritum : corpus quidem lis, qui
ante nos fuerunt, animam vero nobis, spiritum autem iis, qui in futuro hteredi-
tatera vitae aeterna; consequentur, per quam, (I think it should read per quern,
i. e. spiritum) perveniant ad regna ccelestia ; earn nunc quam diximus legis ani-

mam requiramus, quantum ad pracsens interim spectat. iVe.scio aufem si possu-

mus etiam ad spiritum ejus ascendere in his, qua? nobis de sacrifieiis iecta sunt.
This passage is very noticeable hecause from it we learn, that Origen believ-
;

ed, (1) That a largo portion at lenst of the ceremonial laws of Moses contained
a /t^eraZ meaning, pertaining, however, exclusively to the Jews in wliich he was ;

correct; (2) That in addition to this meaning, there w»& also in the Jlosaio
180 Century III.— Section 28.

laws a Trioral sense, and that this sense is discoverable by 'iH Christian teachers
if they will give th^ir attention to But the mystical sense of these laws
it: (3)
is not equally discoverable by all, but only by those who are chosen unto life

eternal and are divinely illuminated. Therefore (4) he doubts, whether he was
qualified to investigate this abstruse sense of scripture. After several other
things which are not to our purpose, when he would exhibit the mystical import
of certain things pertaining to the laws concerning sacrifices, he again acknow-
ledges, explicitly, that without Holy Spirit, he could effect nothing. He
tiie

says, (sec. 5. p. 209.) Quia secundum spiritalem sensum, quern

potius,
Spiritus donat ecclesia:, videaraus, quod sit istud saerificium, quod coquatur
in ciibano, vel quis iste clibanus iutelligi debeat ? Sed ubi inveniam ? - - Do-
minum meum Jesura invocare me oportet, ut quaerentem me faciat invenire, et

[p. 647.] pulsanti aperiat, ut inveniam in scripturis clibanum,ubi possum coquere

saerificium meum,utsuscipiat illud Deus. Thus he discourses with sufficient acu-

men and subtilty respecting this furnace. Yet, see how timidly and modestly he
closes the discourse Non dubito multa esse, quae nos lateant et sensum nos-
:

trum superent. Non enim sumits illius meriti, ut et nos dicere possimus:
Nos autem sensum Christi hahemus. (1 Cor. ii. 16.) Ipse enim solus estsensus,
cui pateant universa, quae in legibus sacriticiorum intra litterae continentur ar-
canum. Si enim mererer, ut daretur mihi aensus Christi, etiam ego in his dice-
rem: Utsciamus qiuc a deo donata sunt nobis, quas et loquimur. (1 Cor. ii. 12.)

Similar passages abound in all his expository w^orks on the sacred books. On
the vioral sense which he elicits, he is sufficiently positive ; but his mystical
interpretations, he obtrudes upon no one, always professing to be a learner, and
ready to be taught better \'iew3 by any one whom the Holy Spirit may enlighten.
Prop. XVII. Although a man may be divinely endued with the gift of in-
terpreting the scriptures mystically, yet it will be presumption and folly for him
to expect to understand all the arcane senses of the sacred volume. For the
scriptui-es contain an immense treasury of divine truths, only a small part of
which can be grasped by minds enclosed in material bodies. Even the Apos-
tles of Jesus Christ were not able to understand all the mysteries of the sacred

books. Origen discourses on this point, referring equally to the Old Testa-
ment and the New, in his Principia, L. iv. sec. 10. &c. He says: Evangelio-
rum accuratus sensus, utpote Christi sensus, eget gratia. - - Apostolorum au-
tem epistolae cuinam sagaei et perito sermonum judici videantur apertae ac inteU
lectu faciles, cum illic infinita prope sint, quae veluti per foramen maxima et
quamplurima intelligendi materiam amplam praebeant ? Quae cum ita se habe-

ant et prope innumeri labantur, non sine periculo quis pronunciaverit, se legen-
do intelligere, quae indigent clavi intelligenliae, quam Salvator penes legisperi-
tos esse ait. Passing over many other remarks, we will cite from sec. 26. p. 188.
the passages in which he the most clearly expresses his views Si quis cu- :

riosus explanationem singulorum requirat, veniat et nobiscum pariter audiat,

quomodo Paulus Apostolus per Spiritum sanctum - - altitudinem divinae sapi-

entiae ac scientiae scrutans, nee tamen ad tinem, et, ut ita dixerim, ad intimam

cofrnitionem praevalens pervenire, desperatione rei et stupore clamat et dicit.

O altitudo divitiarum sapientiae et scientiae Dei. (Rom.xi. 33.) If this text

 Origeii's Allegories. 181

appears to us irrelevant to the subject,it should be remembered, that Orio-en

supposed Paul usually designates the mystical sense of scripture by the terms
wisdom and knowledge. Quantumcunque enim quia in scrutando promoveat et
studio intentiore proficiat, gratia quoque Dei adjutus, sensusque [p. 648.]
iiluminatus, ad perfectum finem eorum, quae requiruntur, pervenire non poterit
nee omnia meus quae creata est, possibile habet ullo genere comprehendere
sed ut invenerit quaedam ex his quae quaeruntur, iterum videt alia, quae
quaerenda sunt. Quod etsi ad ipsa pervenerit, multo iterum plura ex illis.

quae requiri debeant, pervidebit.

Prop. XVIII. Both diffidence and discretion are highly necessary, in
searching after that mystical sense of scripture which relates to the celestial or
upper world, or in applying what the scriptures relate of the people and the af-

fairs of this world, to the inhabitants of the world above. Because this, the
anagogical sense, God has very obscurely set forth in the sacred books, rather
covering it up and concealing it than actually revealing it. In his Principia,
(L. iv. sec. 23. p. 186,) he says : Si quis vero evidentes et satis manifestas as-
Bcrtiones horum de Seripturis Sanctis exposcat a nobis, respondendum est, quia
occultare magis hacc Spiritui sancto in his quae videntur esse historiae rerum
gestarura, et altius tegere consilium fuit, in quibus descendere dicuntur in
iE^fyptum, vel captivari in Babyloniam, vel in his ipsis regionibus, quidam qui-
dem humiliari nimis et sub servitio effici dominorum, — quae omnia, ut dixi-

mus, abscondita et celata in Scripturae sanctae historiis conteguntur, quia reg-

num coelorum simile est thesauro abscondito in agro. — Hi thesauri ut inveniri
possint, Dei adjutorio opus est, qui solus potest portas aereas, quibus clausi sunt
et absconditi, coiifringere et seras ferreas comminuere, quibus proliibctur
ingressus pfrveniendi ad ea omnia, quae in Genesi de diversis animarum gencri-
busscripta sunt et obtecta, &c. The passage is too long to be here transcribed
I now proceed to the second part of Origen's doctrine of allegories. — As he
maintained that the words of many passages of the Bible are altogether void of
directmeaning, it became necessary for him to establish some rules for deter-
mining what passages of scripture have a direct or literal meaning, and what
passages are destitute of such meaning, or have only a mystical and a moral
sense. His first and most general rule is:

Rule I. When the words of any passage in either Testament aflTord a good
sense, one worthy of God, useful to men, and accordant with truth and sound
reason, — must be considered a sure sign that the passage is to be taken in
this

its literaland proper sense. But whenever any thing absurd, false, contrary to
sound reason, useless, or unworthy of God, will follow from a literal interpreta-
tation, then that interpretation is to be abandoned, and only moral and mystical
senses are to be sought for. This rule, Origen repeatedly attempts to confirm
by the declaration of St. Paul, (2 Cor.
6.) For the letter killeth, but the spi-
iii.

rit giieth hfe. See his work against CeZs«.s, Lib. vii. (sec. 20, 21. edit. Bene-
dict.) By the letter in this text, Origen would have us understand the literal
sense, and by the spirit, the moral and mystical sense thus making the [p. 649.1 ;

import of the passage to be, that the literal sense of scripture often disturbs t!ie

human mind, and bi'ngs it into great difficulties; but the moral and mystical
182 Century III— Section 28.

senses refresh the mind, and fill it with faith, hope, joy, and love to God and
man. This general rule of Origen may therefore be thus expressed :When-
ever the Utter of holy scripture killeth, or disturbs the mind ; then, disregarding
the letter, a man should attend solely to the spirit, which giveth life. —In a gene-
ral view, this rule appears not wholly unreasonable ; for the wisest interpreters
at the present day, both take the liberty,and also allow others, to give up the
literalmeaning of a passage, and to resort to a metaphorical, or, if you please, a
mystical sense, whenever the language taken literally w^ould give a sense clearly
repugnant to reason, or contrary to plain passages of holy scripture. Yet be-
tween these expositors and Origen, there was a very wide difference as tha ;

statement of his other rules will show.

Rule II. Consequently, that portion of sacred history, both in the Old Tes-
tament and the New, w^hich narrates things probable, consonant to reason,
commendable, honest, and useful, must be supposed to state fiicts, and of course
must be understood literally. But that portion of sacred history which states
actions or events that are either false, or absurd, or unbecoming in God and
holy men, or useless and puerile, must be divested of all literal meaning, and be
applied to moral and mystical things in both the spiritual worlds, Origen, for
reasons hereafter stated, assumed it as certain, that the biblical history of both
Testaments contained many false statements, statements of things that never
did, and never could, take place. And he gives two reasons why God intermin-
gled many fables with the true history in the Bible. The Jirst is, that if people
found nothing in the Bible but what is true, probable, beautiful and useful, they
would never think of going beyond the literal meaning of the Bible, and thus
would entirely neglect the soul and the spirit of it. But now, as they meet
with things altogether incredible and absurd, these very impediments and stum-
bling blocks prompt them to search for the sublimer meaning. In his Principia
L. ix. sec. 15. p. 173. (as translated by Charles de la Rue; for the ancient trans-
lation of Riiffinus is quite too free,) Origen thus expresses himself: Verum
quoniam si legis utilitas et varietate oblectans historiae series ubique sese pro-
deret, non utique credidissemus aliud quiddam praeter id, quod obvium est, in
scripturis intelligi posse, idcirco Dei verbum in lege ac liistoria interponi cura-
lit ofiendicula et impossibiiia auaedam, ne dictionc nihil praeter illecebram ha-
benti deliniti, et nihil Deo dignum addiscentes, tandem a dogmatis reeedamus,
dut nudae literae penitus adhaerentes nihil divinius percipiamus. So then, if

[p. 650.] we may believe Origen, when God caused the sacred books to be
written, fearing lest the travellers should be so captivated with the beauty and
comfort of a direct and smooth road, as to forget whither they were travelling,
he placed in their path, here and there rocks, ditches, hills, and other obstruc-
tions, which should oblige them to swerve and deviate from the straight for-
—
ward course. His second reason is, that God wished to instruct men in all the
doctrines and precepts necessary for their salvation, by means of sacred history.
But this object could not always be effected by true history and therefore, ;

with the true, he interspersed here and there the false and fabulous, that men
might learn what he wished them to know, by means of fictitious and imaginary
examples. He says Oportet autem et istud scire cum eo praecipue spectet
: :
 Origeris Allegories. 183

Dei verbum, ut in rebus spiritalibus et gestis et gerendis seriem declaret: ubi

secundum historiam invenit facta, quae arcanis istis accommodari possent, illis

usus est, multis occultans abstrusiorem sensum ; ubi vero in explananda ilia

spiritalium connexione non sequebatur certarum quarundam rerura praxis, quae

propter arcaiiiora ante scripta fuerit, scripture subnexuit historiae quod factum
non erat, imo aliquando quod fieri non poterat, quandoque autem quod poterat
quidem fieri, sed factum tamen non est. Accidit etiam aliquando, ut paucae
interject<e sint dictiones veritati, si ad corpus spectes non consentana). The
closing part of this passage shows, that Origen believed — (1)
That many por-
tions of the sacred history are mere fables : and that these fables are of two
kinds; some have no semblance of truth, but are such fictions as could not have
been facts; others have a verisimilitude, and might have been facts, yet were
not so in reality. (2) Some portions of the sacred history are in the main
true; yet among the things stated, there are some things inserted which are not
true but fictitious. By tlie aid of this rule, Origen easily surmounts all difficul-

ties in the historical parts of both Testaments. Whenever any fact occurs,
which either conflicts with the principles of his philosophy, or seems to afford
the enemies of Christianity a ground for cavilling, he boldly denies the fact, and
converts it into either a moral or a mystical fable. All his Homilies and com-
mentaries afford us examples: we will cite only one of them, from his Princi-
pia (L. iv. sec. 16. p. 174.) Quis sanae mentis e.xistimaverit primam et secun-

dam et tertiam diem et vesperam et mane sine sole, luna et stellis, et eam quae
veluti prima erat, diem sine coslo fuisse? Quis adeo stolidus ut putet, Deum
more hominis agricolae plantasse hortum in Eden ad orientem, ubi lignum vitae
posuerit, quod sub occulos et sensus caderct, ut qui corporeis dentibus fructum
gustasset, vitam inde reciperet, et rursus boni et mali particeps fieret, qui fruc-
tum ex liac arbore deeerptum comedisset? Et cum Deus meridie in paradise

ambulare dicitur, et Adam sub arbore delitescere, neminem arbitror [p. 651.]
dubitare his figurate per apparentem historiam, quae taaeen corporaliter non
eontigerit, quajdam Sed quid attinet plura dicere, cum innu-
indicari mysteria. --
mera ejusmodi quidem tanquam gesta sint, non gesta vero, ut litters
scripta
sonat, quivis, modo non plane stipes, colligere possit. Respecting the New
Testament history, he decides with equal assurance, discarding all the caution
and reserve which he elsewhere rarely neglects. A large part of it he considers
to be fables, by which the holy Spirit aims to instruct us in recondite mysteries.
He says explicitly : Sexcenta ejus generis in evangeliis observare licet attcntius

legenti, unde colliget iis, quae secundum literam gesta sunt, alia adtexti esse,

quae non contigerint In his comment, on John, (torn. x. 0pp. tom. ii. p. 150.

edit: Huetianae,) he openly acknowledges, that the whole history of the four
Gospels is full of statements, either false, or contradictory to each other and ;

that there is no way left to defend the authority and the divine origin of these
books, but by a recurrence to what he calls diraj-ff^wv. Atl nv Tripi Tourcev aXn'S-ei^j'

duoKila-^ai iv rflis voxriti. Veritatem harum rerum oportet rejiositam esse in

his, quae anirao cernuntur. He had just spoken of the forty days' conflict of
Christ with the prince of hell, and he said : Ae7 nv eToKous-nv i'lapbivUv Me^d-ai

J'ta T)tj dvayayiii- Decet nos apparentem dissonantiam dissolvere per Anagogen J
184 Century III.— Section 28.

i. e. by a mystical interpretation. I have already touched upon the causes

whicli led him to adopt this very dangerous rule for interpreting sacred history.
They are obvious to every attentive reader. The statements of the Bible res-
pecting the creation of the world, the origin of man, &c. were contrary to the
precepts of his philosopliy and, therefore, he would sooner deny the truth of a
;

pori ion of sacred history, than give up his philosophy. Again, by the history
of the Old Testament, the Gnostics endeavored to establish their doctrine, that
the Creator of this world was a different being from the Fatiier of Jesus Christ
and from the history in both Testaments, the philosophers drew arguments
against Christianity ; and Origen, not finding any other way to answer them,
concluded to cut tlie knot he could not untie, by turning all the passages which
his adversaries could use, into allegories.
Rule HI. To the preceptive and didactic parts of scripture, the same princi-
ple is to be applied, as to the historical : namely, whatever occurs in them that
is good, agreeable to reason, useful, and worthy of God, must, beyond all ques-
tion, be construed But whatever is absurd, useless, and unworthy of
literally.

God, must not be taken literally but must be referred to morals and to the
;

mystical world. Origen believed, that the preceptive and didactic parts of the
Bible contained some things, which, if taken literally, it was impossible to be-
lieve or to practice, and which were contradictory to sound reason and philoso-
[p. 652.] phy. That he explained a number of the Christian doctrines philo-
sophically, is well known, and has been already stated. And such an explana-
tion required him to maintain, that the passages thus explained have no literal

meaning. Numerous examples for illustration, occur in his writings. We

therefore will only remark briefly on the preceptive parts of the Bible. Res-
pecting the laws of Moses, he utters himself very harshly, and in fiict extrava-
gantly, and almost impiously. In his seventh Homily on Levit. sec. 6. (0pp.
torn, ii, p. 226.) he says ; Si adsideamus literae et secundum hoc vel quod Ju-
daeis, vel id quod vulgo videtur, accipiamus quae in lege scripta sunt, erubesco
dicere et covjiteri, quia tales leges dederit Deus. Videbuntur enim magis elegan-
tes st rationabiles hominum leges, verbi gratia, vel Romanorum, vel Atlienien-
sium, vel Lacedaemoniorum. Si vero secundum banc intelligentiam, quani do-
cet ecclesia, accipiatur Dei lex, tunc plane omnes humanas supereminet leges,
et vere Dei lex, esse credetur. De Principiis, h. iv. (sec. 17. p. 176.): Si ad
leges etiam Mosaicas veniamus, plurimae si eas nude observari oporteat, ahsar-
dum, alise impossibile prajcipiunt. And this he endeavors to demonstrate by
several examples, which we here omit. Respecting his mode of explaining
the Mosaic laws, we shall presently speak particularly. The laws of the New
Testament, he supposed indeed to be superior to those in the Old Testament,
seeing they do not prescribe any rites and ceremonies ;
yet he supposed that
many of these laws must be construed mystically and allegorically. Of this we
have evidence in his where he says- Jam
Principia, L. iv. (sec. 18. p. 179.)

vero si ad Evangelium veniamus et similia requiramus, quid a ratione magis ali.

enum, quam istud Neminem per viam saluiaverilis, (Lu. x. 4.) quod x^postolis
;

praecepisse Salvatorem, simpliciores existimant? Et cum dextera maxilla per-

euti dicitur, res est a verisimili prorsus abhorrens, cum omnis qui percutit, nisi
 Origeiis Allegories. 185

natura mancus fuerit, dextera manu sinistram maxillam feriat. Neque potest ex
Evangelic percipi quo parto dexter oeeulus offensioni sit. After explaininfr
these things at some length, lie proceeds: Praeterea Apostolus preecipit, dicens;
Circumcisus aliquis vocalus esl? non adducat prccpuiium. (1 Cor. vii. 18.) Pri-
raum, quilibet haec abs re praeterque propositum dicere Apostolum videbit.
Nam quomodo de nuptiis et de castitate prsecipiens, non videatur haec temere
interposu isse ? Secundo vero, quid obesset, si obscoenitatis vitandae caussa
ejus, quae ex circumcisione est, posset aliquis revocare praeputium ? Tertio,
quod certe fieri id omni genere impossibile est. Haec a nobis dicta sunt, ut
ostendanius, quia hie prospectus est Spiritus sanctus - - non ut ex sola littera
vel in omnibus ex ea aedificari possimus.
Rule IV. As to the Mosaic laws in particular, there are indeed many ol
them which have a literal meaning; and therefore are to be considered as direct
rules for human life and conduct. But there are many others, the words of
which convey no meaning whatever, and only the things indicated by [p. 653.]
the words are of use to awaken moral and mystical thoughts in our minds. I
will adduce some examples of both these classes of laws, in Origen's own words.
Of the former class he speaks in his Principia, L. iv. (^ 19. p. 180.) Quis non
:

affirmet mandatum hoe, quod praccipit : Ilonora palrem tuum, el matrem luam,
etiam sine ulla spiritale inlcrpretatione suflicere, et esse observantibus nccessa-
rium 1 maxinie cum
Paulus iisdem verbis repetens, confirmaverit ipsum man-
et

datum. Quid Non aduUerahis, non occides, d^c. Rur-

attinet dicere de ceteris :

Bus in Evangelio mandata quajdam scripta sunt, de quibus non quaeritur sintne
—
ad litteram observanda, necne? But it is not true as some learned men have
believed,and among them Charles de la Rue, the editor of Origen, that Origen —
excluded a mystical sense from those laws of Moses which he believed were to
be obeyed in their literal interpretation. A little after the quotation just given,
he adds those expressive words : Taniotsi qui res altius scrutantur componere
possint altitudinem sapiential Dei cmn litlerali mandatorum sensu. A moral alle-

gory he could not indeed seek for in such laws ; because their literal interpre-
tation afforded a moral sense. But a mystical sense, as already observed, he
would attach to every particle of the holy scriptures. —Of the latter class of
laws we have examples same work, ({ 17. p. 176, &c.) as follows In
in the :

lege Moysi praecipitur extcrminari quidem omne masculum, quod non fuerit oc-
tava die eircumcisum quod valde ineonsequens est: cum oporteret utique,
:

si lex secundum litteram servanda tradebatur, juberi, ut parentcs punirentur, qui

filios suos non circumciderunt. - - - Haec verba Sedebitis dumi vestrcc singuli,
:

nemo vestrum exeat e loco suo die septima, (Exod. xvi. 29.) non videntur ad lit-
teram posse servari, cum nullum animae per totum diem immotum sedere
queat.
Ride V. To determine what parts of the Mosaic law are to be understood
literally, and what parts have no literal meaning, the following rule must
be our guide ; Whatever in the writings of Moses is called a law, admits of no
literal interpretation; but whatever is denominated a commandment, a precept, a
statute, a tesfnnony, or a judgment, has a literal meaning which should not be
disregarded. Many passages bearing these latter titles, in addition to their lite-
186 Century III.— Section 28.

ral meaning, have also a moral sense, or are moral allegories. — This rule, so

subtle, so obscure, and so difficult of application, Origen explains and inculcates

atmuch length in his eleventh Humily on Numb. ^ 1. (0pp. tom. ii. p. 304.) To
show how a law differs from commandments, precepts, testimonies, and judg-
ments, he says: "A law has a shadoiv of things to come: but not so a com-
mandment, or a statute, or a judgment; of which it is never written that they
must be regarded as sliadows of things to come e. g., it is not written This ; :

[p. 654.] is the commandment of the passover, but this is the law of the passover.
And, because a law is a shadow of good things to come, the law of the pass-
over is doubtless a shadow of good things to come and, of course, its words :

have no direct meaning." - - " Of circumcision it is written This is the law :

of circumcision. Hence I inquire. Of what good things to come is circum-

cision the shadow." ..." But when it is said Thou shall not kill ; thou shall
:

nol commit adultery ; thou shall not steal, and the like ;
you do not find the title

of laws prefixed, for these are rather commandments : and tlius that scripture

is not made void among the disciples of the Gospel - - because not a com-
mandment, but the law, is shadow of things to come. And a little
said to have a
after, (in 5 2. p. 305.) he says " Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law,
:

(Gal. iii. 13.) ; he did not redeem us from the curse of the commandment, nor
from the curse of the testimony, nor from the curse of judgments, but from the
curse of the law ; that is, that we might not be subject to circumcision in the

flesh, nor to the observance of sabbaths, and otlier like things, which are not
contained in commandments, but are to be considered as in the law." By the
law, in its stricter sense, Origen would have us understand the ceremonial
law. Hence the import of his rule is, that the ceremonial law should be inter-
preted mystically, and not literally ; but the moral law is to be first taken lite-

rally, before we proceed to atiy higher sense of it. Under the moral law, he
also includes the civil or judicial code of the Jews; as many examples in his

Homilies demonstrate. And yet Origen does not uniformly follow this rule.
For he sometimes turns into allegories certain portions of the civil law ;
pre-
cepts which the heretics, and perhaps Origen himself, deemed too harsh, or
which he could not explain satisfactorily. And, on the other hand, some of the
ceremonial laws he forbids being construed only mystically. For instance, he
enjoins on Christians the law of first fruits and of tithes. Thus, in his eleventh
Homily on Numb. Q 1. p. Hanc legem observari etiam secundum litte-
303.) :

ram, sicut et alia nonnulla (among the Jewish rites and institutions,) necessa-
rium puto. Sunt enim aliquanta legis mandata (note — in the style of Origen,

the laio means the ceremonial law,) quae etiam novi testamenti discipuli neces-
sarift observatione custodiunt.
Rule VI. Although the ceremonial part of the IMosaic law has now only a
mystical interpretation, or is not to be construed literally, yet we are not to un-
derstand that it always has been so. There are indeed some things in this part
of the law which never had any literal meaning; but there are many other
things, which, so long as the Jewish commonwealth existed, had a literal mean-

ing for that people, and were to be observed by them accordingly. Since
Christ's advent, however, the whole have lost their ]it<^ral sense, and are either
 Origeri's Allegories. 187

to be construed as moral allegories, or to be referred to the two mystical worlds.

All the learned men who have hitherto attempted to explain Origen's [p. 655.]
system of interpretation, have judged that he considered the whole cere-
monial law as purely mystical, and having no literal meaning. Thus Charles
de la Rue, in his preface to Origen's works, (tom. ii. p. 14.) says, that "Each
and every passage of scripture, which in any manner belonged to the ceremo-
nial law, with no exception, had not a literal, but onhj a mystical sense." The
fiilsehood of this assertion we have already shown Origen
: did make exceptions.
But I do not wonder that learned men should fall into this mistake. For, not
being careful to make distinctions, and sometimes confounding things altoge-
ther different, Origen frequently talks as if he held sucli an opinion. But if we
compare all his expositions, and carefully mark his expressions, it will be mani-
fest, I tiiink, that he could not have been so demented and destitute of common
sense, as to suppose tliat all the ordinances of Closes respecting the tabernacle,
and other priests and Levites, and numerous other
sacrifices, the higli priest,

things,ought to have been mystically understood by the Jews and that of ;

course the ichole Levitical worship was founded on a false exposition of the Mo-
saic law. It is indeed true, that he believed sovie of the ceremonial laws to be
without meaning ; and he accused the Jews of manifesting gross ignorance by
scrupulously obeying them. Some examples have already been adduced, and
more might easily be added. In his third Homily on Levit. {\ 3. 0pp. tom. ii.

p. 194.) he says, that the Jews very unsuitably and uselessly observed (inde-
center satis et inutiliter obscrvare)that law, which forbids touching a dead
body or any unclean thing and he maintains, that this law should be under-
;

stood mystically. The same thing he repeats at large in his seventh Homily.
And again in the third Homily on Levit. explaining that law (Levit. v. 15, 16.)
which requires, in case of involuntary trespass, the offering of a ram, estimated
by the shekel of the sanctuary, he says Quod aperte secundum litteram qui-
:

dem videtur absurdum, secundum spiritalem vero intelligentiam certum est,

quod remissionem peccatorum nullus accipiat, nisi detulerit integram, probam
et sanctam lidem, per quam mereari possit arietem (Jesum Christum.) In his
fifth Homily., {\ 5. p. 209.) after citing the law in Levit. vii. 9 :
" And all the
meat-offering that is baked in the oven, and all that is dressed in the frying-
pan, and in the pan, shall be the priest's that ofTereth it," — he expressly denies
the literal interpretation of it, thus: Quid dicimus ? Putamusque quod omni-
potens Dens qui responsa Moysi c«litus dabat, de clibano, et craticula et sarta-
gine pra;ciperit? - - Sed non ita ecelesiae pueri Christum didicerunt, nee ita in

euni per Apostolos eruditi sunt, ut de Domino majestatis aliquid tarn humile et
tarn vile suscipiant. Quin potius secundum spiritalem sensura, quera spiritus
donat ecelesiae, videamus, quod
sit istud sacrificium, quod coquatur in clibano.

More proof is Yet Origen did not venture to deny that the great-
not needed.
est part of the ritual law had a literal meaning, and that God by Moses [p. 656.]
commanded that very worship which the Hebrews paid before Christ's advent:
nay, he extols and lauds this same worship. To pass over many other exam-
ples, he thus commences his twenty-third Homily on Numb. (Opp. tom. ii. p.
356.) : Si observatio sacrificiorum et instituta legalia quae in typo data sunt
188 Century III. — Section 28,

populo Israel, usque ad praesens tempus stare potuissent, exclusissent sine dubio
Evangelii fideni. Erat enim in illis, quse tunc observabantur, maguifica
quaidem et totius reverentise plena religio, quae ex ipso etiam primo aspectu
obstupefeceret intuentes. Quis enim videns quod appellabatur sanctua-
illud,

rium, et intuens altare, adstantes etiam saeerdotes sacrificia consumraantes, om-

nemque ordinem, quo euncta ilia gerebantur, aspiciens, non putaret, plenissi-
mum hunc esse ritum, quo Deus creator omnium ab humano genere coii debe-
ret? See also the many expositions of the Mosaic laws in his Homilies on
Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, in which he first inquires after the literal
meaning and pronounces it useful, and then proceeds to the mysteries it
contains. He however did maintain, that the Mosaic ritual law, which anciently
had a literal or grammatical sense, entirely lost tliat sense after Christ's advent,
and by Christians was to be understood only mystically. In iiis sixth Homily
on Gen. \ 3. (0pp. tom. ii. p. 77.) he says Quod si edoceri vis, quomodo lex
:

mortua sit, considera et vide, ubi nunc sacrificia, ubi nunc altare, ubi temphim,
ubi purificationes ? nonne mortua est in his omnibus lex? Aut si possunt isti

amici ac defensores litterae, custodiant litterara legis. Origen pronounces the

law dead, when it cannot and should not be observed ; but it is aVne when it

can and should be obeyed according to its literal import. In his eleventh
Homily on Exod. (5 6. p. 171.) he says: Infirmatur lex in carne, id est, in littera,
et nihil potest secundum litteram facere. - - Secundum autem consilium, quod
DOS atferimus ad legem, possunt omnia spiritaliter fieri. Possunt et sacrificia
spiritaliter ofTerri, qua modo carnaliter non possunt. Quomodo nos sentimus
et consiiium damus, omnia fiicit lex : secundum literam autem non omnia, sed
admodum pauca. Therefore there were some, at least, of the ritual laws, which
he supposed, as before shown, can and should be observed at the present day.
But by what marks we are to know what parts of the law never had any literal
meaning, and what parts admitted of a threefold exposition before the advent
of Christ, and now admit of only a twofold exposition, a moral and a mystical, —
— T do not recollect that he has any where informed us. I make no question,

however, that he applied here that general rule already stated, —that whatever
injunctions were unworthy of God, or absurd, or impossible to be executed,
were to be regarded as having no literal meaning.
Rule Vn. In the Biblical narrations and in the prophecies concerning na-
tions, countries, and cities, in addition to the moral or spiritual sense, there is

[p. 657.] also an anagogical sense, or one that relates to the celestial or upper

world but this sense must be explored cautiously and with diffidence, for it is
:

extremely recondite. As we have shown, Origen believed that this lower world
of ours resembles the world above, and therefore, whatever is narrated or pre-
dicted in the scriptures respecting the Jews, the Tyrians, the Sidonians, the
Egyptians, and other nations, — all holds true also of the world of souls, in
which the angels preside. In defending this fiction, he is extravagant enough
to hazard the assertion, that even the sufferings and death of Christ in some
sense took place also in the supersensible world. Thus, in his first Homily on
Levit. {\ 3. p. 186, &c.) Recte ergo (Moses) secundo nominat altare, quod est
:

ad ostium tabernaculi testimonii, quia non solum pro terrestribus sed etiam pro
 Origeiis Hexapla. 189

coeiestibus oblntua eat hostia Jesus: Et hie qnidem pro hominibus ipsam corpo-
ralem maleriam sanguinis siii fudit, in coelestibus vero ministrantibus (si qui ilii

inibi sunt) sacerdotibus, vilalem corporis sui viriutem, velnt spivitale quoddam
Bacrificium immolavit. And this he very strangely endeavors to prove by Ili-br.
ix. 20. and Hebr. vii. 25. Concerning this opinion of Origen, Iluel has a discus-

sion in his Origeniana, (Lib. ii. Quaist. iii. p. 69, (Sec.) ; and he taxes all his in-
genuity to screen the man, at least partially, if not wholly, from this charge.
But this distinguished scholar effects nothing; and he did not, or would not, see
that this fiction of Origen followed, necessarily, from his doctrine of the agree-
ment and similitude existing between the celestial and terrestrial worlds.

(2) The learned have justly admired, and have extolled in the highest terras
the untiring industry and perseverance of Origen, in compiling his TetrapJa and
Hexapla, in which he brought together all the Greek translations of the Old
Testament then extant, and compared them with the Hebrew text. What is
called his Tetrapla, was an Old Testament, in which he combined
edition of the
with the Hebrew Greek versions, those of the Seventy,
text the four celebrated
of Aquila, of Symmachus, and of Theodotiun; and so arranged the whole that
they could easily be compared with each other, and with the Hebrew. The
pages were divided into five column contained the Hebrew
columns ; the first

text, first in Hebrew and then in Greek letters. The four other columns con-
tained the four Greek versions above named, together with significant marks
and critical notes. When three other Greek versions of the Old Testament
were afterwards found at Jericho, Origen added these also to his work; which
then acquired the name of Hexapla, because it contained six Greek versions of
the Old Testament. They might have been called seven ; but they were reckoned
as only six, because the sixth and seventh, which perhaps differed but a little,
were accounted but one, and occupied only one column, namely, the [p. 658.]
Beventh. Of this immortal work, Bernard de Montfaucon has treated largely, in
the Prolegomena to his edition of the remains of the Hexapla, printed at Paris,
1713, 2 vols, folio. This immense labor Origen undertook, especially for the
benefit of those who were either wholly ignorant of Hebrew, or had but a
slight acquaintance with it, that they might obtain a better knowledge of the
literal meaning of the Bible, by comparing so many difl'erent Greek versions.

And yet this same Origen maintained that the words of scripture, in very many
places, have no meaning at all and he advised his pupils to disregard the
;

literal sense of scripture, or what he calls the body of it, and to search onlv for

its marrow and its soul, that is, for itsmystical and moral interpretation. And
his own practice as a commentator coincided with his precepts. And thus, fre-
quently, very great men are inconsistent with themselves, or sometimes follow
one principle, and sometimes another. It was certainly of no importance to
have the means of arriving at the literal meaning, if that meaning is of no
worth; and as for the mystical senses, they can be successfully explored, with-
out the trouble of examining the numberless phrases and uses of words in the
sacred volume. Origen, therefore, by that immense labor, produced a work of
little utility, either to himself or to those who follow his mode of interpreting
the scripturesand he does not himself resort to his Hexapla for aid,
; in his
Commentaries and Homilies, because it was little suited to his purpose.
 190 Century III— Section 29.

§ XXIX. Origen and Mystic Theology. This Origen, who was the
chief corrupter of Christianity by philosophical speculations, ana
who introduced the fictions of his ow^n mind into the holy scrip-
tures, did likewise, by his precejDts respecting the origin of the
soul, and its self-determination in action, give encouragement
and support to that imsocial class of men who strive to with-
draw their minds from all sensible and material objects, and to
associate themselves with the divine nature by contemplation*
At least, this is a fact, that after his writings began to circulate
among Christians, and his opinions to be lauded, embraced, and
propagated, far greater numbers than before ga f e up all worldly
business and cares, to increase their piety ; and, in order to be-
hold God mentally, resolved to retire into solitary places, expect-
ing, by concentrated meditation and by the mortification of their
bodies, to obtain spiritual freedom and complete tranquillity of
mind.(') And, perhaps, the famous Paid of Thebais, who, to
save his life during the Decian persecution, is reported to have

fled into the deserts, and there to have lived to extreme old age,
[p. 659.] and who was accounted the leader and father of the
Eremites^ — chose, on the termination of the persecution, not to
return to social life, but to spend all his days among wild beasts,

for this reason, that he might purge out of his mind all images
of sensible things, and bind it to God by indissoluble tics.(')

(1) Origen embraced and held all those principles which lie at the foundation
of what is properly denominated Myf^tic Theology. In the first place, he be-
lieved that man has two souls ; the one a rational soul, whicli is of divine origin;
the other not rational, but capable of apprehending and of craving external ob-
jects, and of exciting various emotions in the man. He believed that the higher
or rational soul originated out of the divine nature, and would return into it

again ; that it existed from eternity in the upper world, and was of a spotless
character; that, for some fault committed, it was condemned to reside in its
present concrete body ; that it retains its innate perceptions of truth, goodness,
and justice ; that while inhabiting the body, it has a natural power of exciting
the latent principles of truth and goodness inherent in it; that all its propense-
ness to evil and sin, arises from its connection with the sentient soul, and from
the contagion of the body and that there is no way for it to become perfiect
;

and happy, but by freeing itself from the ties which connect it with the animal
soul, subduing the power of the senses, withdrawing itself from the objects
which allure the senses, arousing its inherent perceptions (of virtue) by con-
tinued meditation, and by weakening and exhausting the activities of the body in
which it is imprisoned. Now, the man who adopts all these notions, is a travel-
 Origen and Mystic Theology. 191

ler in the direct road to that system of doctrine which bears the name of Mys-
tic Theology. —But, in addition to these notions, Origen held some opinions
which give energy and force to those common notions of mystics, and prompt
them more strongly and earnestly to desire solitude, and to indulge the hope of
a mystical deification. Tiie first of these opinions was his celebrated doctrine
concerning the soul of Jesus Christ, which, he supposed, as we have before
stated, —by intense and uninterrupted contemplation of the Word or Son of
God, before his descent to our world, had become so absorbed in the divine
Word, as to form but one person witli him. For the soul of Christ is of the
same nature with all other human souls. In his Principia, (L. ii. J 5. P- 91.) he
says Naturam quidem animje Christi banc fuisse, quae est omnium animariim,
:

non potest dnbitari alioquin nee dici anima potuit, si vere non fuit anima.
:

Therefore, all the souls of men, though at present vastly inferior to that chief
of all souls, and though living in exile and in prison houses, have the power? —
by contemplating the Word of God, to witiidraw tliemselves from the bodV and
from the associated sentient soul, and to bring themselves into closer [p. 660.]
communion with the Son of God. He says Anima, qua; quasi ferrnm in igne,
:

sic semper in Verbo, semper in sapienlia, semper in Deo posita est, omne quod

agit, quod sentit, quod intelligit, Deus est. This indeed he says especially of
Christ's soul; but he immediately adds, that he would not exclude entirely the
souls of holy men from the same felicity. Ad omnes denique sanctos calor
aliquis Verbi Dei putandus est pervenisse : in hac autom anima (Christi) ipse
ignis divinus substantialitcr requievissc credendus est, ex quo ad ceteros calor
aliquis porvenerit.This then was Origen's belief: That every rational soul
that follows the example of Christ's soul, and assiduously contemplates the
Word of God, or Christ, becomes a participant of that Word, and, in a sense,
receives the Word into itself. In another passage, (de Principiis, Lib. iii. c. iii.

} 3.) he expresses the same sentiment thus : Sancta; et immaculata; animte si cum
omni aflfectu, omnique puritate se voverint Deo et alienas se ab omni dacmonura
contagione servaverint, et per multara abstinentiam purificaverint se et piis ac
religiosis imbut?e fuerint disciplinis, parlicipiiim per hoc (liiinilalis assumunt et
prophetise ac ceterorum divinorum donorum gratiam merentur. — Whither these
opinions lead, and how much they must strengthen the propensity and facilitate

the progress of those naturally inclined to austerities, to holy idleness and tc

irrational devotion, all who are acquainted with human nature can easily
perceive.
But I think it will not be unpleasant to many, to see this portion of Origen's
system more fully developed, and to learn more clearly how the several parts
stand connected, and by what arguments they are supported. 1 will therefore

show, as briefly as I can, how Origen brings down souls, the daughters of the
supreme Deity, from their state of blessedness in heaven, into this lower world ;

and what method he points out for their recovering their lost felicity. A know-
ledge of these things will be the more useful, the more numerous at the present
day those are, who either altogether or in part agree with Origen, and the fewer
tliose are, who treat of Origen with a full understanding of his views.
I. No one is prosperous and happy, no one is wretched and unhappy, and
192 Century IIL—Sectlon 29.

no one is eithermore h;ippy or more miserable than other people, except in ac-
cordance with his own merits or demerits. For God, who rules and iroverns all
things, is always and infinitel}' just and therefore cannot allot to any crea-
;

ture, not meriting it, either reward or punishment. This is the great and fun-
daraental principle, on which nearly the whole fabric of Origen's theology rests,
and from which he deduces the greater part of his opinions.
II. All the souls or persons, —
for Origen considered the body as no part of
the man, so that with him soul and person were synonymous all the souls in- —
habiting this world, are unhappy, or are encompassed with many evils and trou-
bles, some with greater and some with less. Now as no one can be unhappy,
[p. 661.] or be less happy than others, except by his own fault, we are com-
pelled to believe that all the souls inhabiting bodies, have merited the evils
they now suffer.

III. Hence we can not doubt that our rational souls, before they entered our
bodies, used the powers God gave them, improperly, and for these their faults
they were condemned to live in bodies ; those guilty of greater offences were
encompassed with greater evils, and those guilty of smaller offences were in-

volved in lighter calamities. Unless this be admitted, we cannot account for

the great difference in the conditions of men in this world nor can we silence
;

the objections of adversaries to the providence of God. These principles Origen

inculcates in many we
will cite one of the principal pas-
parts of his writings:
sages, namely, de Principiis L. ii. c
where he says Si hjec tanta rerum
9. p. 97. :

diversitas, nascendique conditio tarn varia tamque diversa, in qua caussa utique
focultas liberi arbitrii locum non habet (non enim quis ipse sibi eligit, vel ubi,vel
apud quos, vel qua conditione nascatur.) Si ergo hoc non f;xcit naturae diversitas
animarum, id est, ut mala natura animas ad gcntem malam distinetur, bona autem
ad bonas, quid aliud superest, nisi ut fortuito ista agi putentur et casu ? Quod
utique si recipiatur, jam nee a Deo factus est raundus, nee a providentia ejus
regi credetur, et consequenter nee Dei judicium de uniuscujusque gestis videbi-
tur expectandum. To these objections of the heretics, he replies in the follow-
ing words : Deus sequales creavit omnes ac similes quos creavit, quippe cum
nulla ei caussa varietatis ac diversitatis existeret. Verum quoniam rationabiles
ipsas creaturae — arbitrii facultate donataj sunt, libertas unumquemque voluntatis
sua;, vel ad profectum per imitationem Dei provocavit, vel ad defectum per neg-
ligentiam traxit. Et haec exstitit caussa diversitatis inter rationabiles creaturas,
non ex conditioris voluntate vel judicio originem trahens, sed propria; libertatis
arbitrio. Deus vero cui jam creaturam suam pro merito dispensare justum vide-
batur, diversitates mentium in unius mundi consonantiam traxit, quo velut unam
doraum - - ex istis diversis vasis, vel animis, vel mentibus, ornaret. Et has caussas

mundus iste suae diversitatis accepit, dum unumquemque divina providentia pro
varietate motuum suorum animorum propositique dispensat. Qua ratione
vel
neque creator injustus videbitur, cum secundum praecedentes caussas pro merito
unumquemque distribuit. And he attempts to prove these his assertions by
scripture, especially by what is said of Jacob and Esau, Rom. ix. 11, 12. He
closes his argument with these words Justitia Dei demum lucidius ostendetur,
;
 Origenh Theology. 193

si ca'iissas dlve-i'sitatis uniuscHJ usque vel coeltstium, vel terrestrium vel inferno-
rum in semetipsop7'(EceJs?ites naliviLalem corpoream habere credatur.
IV. God created all souls perfectly alike, and endued them all with the full-

est power of employing their faculties well or ill, according to their pleasure;
BO that they might be able to look continually on the eternal Reason [p. 662.]
of God or his Word and Son ; and miirht, by this contemplation, increase in

wisdom and become united to God through the medium of

virtue, and finally

his Son. This sentiment of Origen is most manifest from the passage just
cited, and from many others.
V. Tiiese free souls, before they were enclosed in bodies, and before this
world was created, were by God placed under the following law Every soul
:

thatwould be prosperous and happy, must look constantly upon the Son of
God, his Wisdom, his Reason, just as he w-ould upon a mirror or a pattern, and
must imitate him. By wisdom and virtue
so doing, that soul will increase in
and in all blessedness, become incapable of sinning, and will
and will gradually

be united closely with the Son of God whose image it bears. But every soul
that averts its attention from tiiis only exemplar of wisdom and sanctity, and
pleases itself with the contemplation of material things, by the righteous judg-
ment of God, w^ill forfeit its natural blessedness, and be punished for its of-
fences in a material body.
VI. Of all souls no one obeyed this divine law more sacredly and earne?tly,
than that soul which became associated with Jesus Christ the Son of God. For,
by a perpetual and most intense contemplation of the Word or Son of God,
this soul attained to the highest point of sanctity, and merited to be made one
person with the Word.
VII. But a vast multitude of souls disobeyed this divine law, and, disregard-
ing the Son of God, the eternal divine Reason, slid into the contemplation of
other inferior and more ignoble objects. The cause of this transgression may
be traced partly to the very nature of the soul, which is finite and therefore mu-
table, and partly to that subtile body, with which all souls are clothed. For
this tenuous, shadowy body, though it be etherial and very different from our
gross bodies, nevertheless has some power, if the soul is off its guard, of with-
drawing the mind from the contemplation of heavenly and divine things, and of
inducing it to misdirect its movements. De Principiis, L. ii. (c. 9. sec. 2.
p. 97.) : Rationabiles ista3 naturae, quia esse cceperunt, uecessario convertibiles
et mutabiles substiterunt quoniam qua-cunque inerat substantioe earum virtus,
:

non naturaliter inerat, sed beneficio conditoris effecta. - - Omne (ncmpe) quod
datum est, etiam auferri et recedere potest. Recedendi autem caussa in eo
erit, si non recte et probabiliter dirigitur motus animorum. Voluntarios enitn
et liberos motus a se conditis nientibus creator indulsit, quo scilicet bonum in
eis proprium fieret, cum id voluntate propria servaretur sed desidia et laboris :

tffidium in servando bono, et aversio ac ncgligentia meliorum initium dedit rece-

dendi a bono. It is well known, that Origen assigned to all souls tenuous
bodies.
VIII. So many souls having, by their own become vicious, it was ne-
fault,
cessary for God to perform the duty of a judge, and execute his threat to con-
YOL. ir. 14
194 Century Ill.Section 29.

nect them with material bodies and sentient souls. But as all had not .sinned

[p. 663.] in an equal degree, some having departed forlber than others from
goodness, divine justice required, that the punishment of each should be propor-
tionate to his offence.
IX. Hence, God determined to create a world (or material universe,) admi-
rably composed of innumerable bodies of divers kinds ; so that each of the souk
which had variously deviated from their duty in the upper world, might here se-
verally find a prison coi'responding with its crimes. From many passages, 1
select a fenv only. In his Principia (L. ii. c. 9. sec. 2. p. 97.) he says: Unaquse-
que mens pro motibus suis vel amplius, vel parcius bonum negligens, in con-
trarium boni, quod sine dubio malum est, trahebatur. Ex quo videtur semina
quffidam et caussas varietatis ac diver.sitatis ijle omnium conditor accepisse, ut
pro diversitate mentium, id est, rationabiliura creaturarum —varium ac diversum
mundum crearet. Deus cui creaturam suam pro merito
Ibid. (sec. 6. p. 99.) :

dispensare justum videb.itur, diversitates mentium in unius mundi consonan-

tiam traxit. Ibid. (sec. 7. p. 100.) Uiiusquisque in eo quod mens crcatus a
:

Deo est vel rationabilis spiritus, pro motibus mentis et sensibus animorum, vel
plus vel minus sibi meriti paravit, vel amabilis Deo, vel etiam odibilis extitit.
Nam justitia creatoris in omnibus debet apparere.
X. Tiie cause, therefore, of God's creating tiiis material world (or universe;
was, the sins which souls committed before this world existed. Nor should we
view this world otherwise than as a vast dwelling-place, comprising innumerable
cottages of various classes, arranged with consummate art, in which souls, fallen
into sin by their own fault, might be detained for a season, until they repent
and return to their duty. In his Principia, L. ii. (c. 9. sec. 9. p. 100.) he says:
Unumquodque vas secundum mensuram puritatis suaj aut impuritatis, locum,
vel regiouem, vel conditionem nascendi vel explendi aliquid in hoc mundo ac-
cepit : omnia Deus usque ad minimum virtute sapientios sua) providens ac
quEC
dignoscens, moderamine judicii sui aequissima retributione universa disponit,
quatenus unicuique pro merito vel suecurri vel consul! deberet. In quo profccto
omnis ratio eequitatis olTenditur, dum inaequalitas rerum retributionis nierito-
rum servat aequitatem.
XI. Of the punishments endured by souls in their state of exile and captivity,
besides the loss of their former felicity, the principal and the greatest is, that
each is joined with an animated body ; that is, with a mass of gross matter, in
which lives a sentient soul, that now craves and desires, and now abhors and
hates. For it results from this conjunction, that the rational soul feels little or

no desire for heavenly and divine things, but on the contrary, craves and lusts
after earthly and and is agitated and pained with desires that
.sensible objects,

arc sometimes vain and sometimes hurtful. And the society of the body not
only increases this evil, and weakens the force and energy of the mind, but also
causes the rational soul to participate in the pains and anguish of the body.
[p. 664.] XII. As all divine punishments are salutary and useful, so also
that which divine justice has inflicted on vitiated souls, althougn it is a great
evil, is nevertheless .salutary in its tendency, and should conduct them to bless,
edness. For the tiresome conflict of opposite propensities, the onsets of the
 Origois Theolopy. 195

passions, the pains, th.c sorrows, and other evils arisinor from the connexion of
the mind with the body and with a sentient sonl, may and shou.d excite the cap-
tive soul to long for tlie recovery of its lost happiness, and lead it to concen-
trate all its energies in order to escape from its misery. For God acts like a
physician, who employs harsh and bitter remedies, not only to cure the diseas-
ed, but also to induce tliem to preserve their health and avoid whatever mio-ht
impair it. De Principiis, L. ii. (c. 10. sec. 6. p. 102.): Si ad corporis sanita-
tom pro his vitii-i, quce per e-eam potumque collegimus, necessariam haberaus
interdum austerioris ac mordacioris medicamenti curam nonnuniquani vero si :

id vitii qualitas depoposcerit, rigore ferri et sectionis aspciitate indigemus: - .

Qnanto magis inlelligcndum est, et hunc medicum nostrum Deura volentem

diluere viiia animarum nostrarum, quae ex peccatorura et scelerum diversitate
collegerant, uti iuijuscemodi pcE^nalibus curis, insupcr eliam (apud inferos) ignis
inferre supplicium his qui animai sanitatem pcrdiderunt. - - Furor vindietae Dei
ad purgationem proficit animarum. - - Origen indeed here refers, more espe-
cially, to the pains and punishments which souls endure in hell; yet he states
the nature of all the evils which God inflicts upon rational beings. And it is

very clear, that Origen believed in no divine punishments but such as are use-
ful and salutary (to the transgressors).
XIII. For the souls in whom the sorrows of their prison awakens a desire
for their lost happiness, there is one and the same law, as for the .souls desti-

tute of bodies and resident with God. No soul can become happy, except by
means of the eternal Reason and Wisdom of God, or his Word and Son; on
whom they must fix U\m- thoughts, and by persevering meditation and contem-
plation, must appropriate him, as it were, and make themselves one with him.
XIV. Innumerable souls, both among the Jews and among other nations,
have performed this duty, and that before the advent of Christ. For exiled cap.
live souls have not changed their natures, but retain still their inherent free
will: and therefore they arc able, although witii difliculty, by their own inhe-
rent powers to elevate themselves again, and, by the use of correct reason, to
gradually ascend to the eternal Reason or Son of God. And the more reli-

giously and correctly a soul uses its reason, the nearer it approaches to God
and to his Son. De Priricipiis, L. i. (c. 3. sec. 6. p. 62.) : Participatio Dei pa-
tris pervenit in omnes tarn justos, quam peccatores, et rationabiles atque irra-
tionabiles. - - Ostendit sane et Apostolus Paulus, quod omnes habeant parti-
cipiijm Christl. Rom. x. 6, 7, 8. Ex quo in corde omnium significat [p. 665.]
esse Christum secundum id quod verbum vel ratio est, cujus participatione ra-
tionabiles sunt. See here the Christ in vs, or the Word within, of which the
Mystics talk so much. — And hence, there is good ground of hope for the salva-
tion of the ancient philosophers, especially Plato, S(Krates, and others, who
averted their minds from the body and the senses. —Yet for souls oppressed
with bodies, this is a very arduous and difficult task ; and but few successfully
accomplish it without divine aid.

XV. Therefore God, who is dc-irous of the salvation of souls, sent that
Word of his, by communion with whom alone their recovery was ])ossible,

clothed in a human body, from heaven unto men, or unto the exiled souls eu*
196 Century III.— Section 29.

closed in bodies; that he might distinctly teach them divine wisdom, by which
the way of salvation is manifest, but to which they with difficulty attain
when left to themselves; and tlial, while admonishing them of their duty,
he might, by patiently enduring very great sufferings and even death, ob-
tain from God a termination of their imprisonment and exile. What were
Origen's views of the effects of Christ's death and sufferings it is very dif-

ficult to say : yet, unless I entirely misapprehend him, he did not believe
with us, that Ciuist, by his death and sufferings, merited for us eternal life.

This could not be admitted by the man who believed, that no one can become
happy except by his own merits, and that even fallen souls must attain to hap-
piness by the proper use of their own free will. This, therefore, was the great
benefit, which he supposed the death of Christ procured for souls, his showing
them that God can revoke his sentence against them and release them from
prison and exile. The divine justice must, in some way, be moved to remit the
punishment, which souls have merited by the abuse of their free and this will ;

requisite was supplied by the voluntary suffering to which Christ submitted.

Christ, therefore, is like a wealthy and munificent citizen, who, by paying over
an immense sum to the government, or by voluntarily performing some very
difficult service for the public good, obtains from the injured sovereign permis-
sion for banished exiles to return to their country. But the malefiictors who
are permitted to return, are not thereby restored to their former happy state
this they must procure, either by their own virtue, or by the virtues of others.
XVI. There is now, since the advent of Christ, a plain and easy way for
souls to recover that felicity from whicii they have fallen by their own fiiult.
To walk in it, they must first, by faith, embrace the eternal Word of God, who
has appeared on earth clothed in a human body; and they must constantly look
on him as the only author and teaclier of eternal salvation.
XVII. And then, to attain a closer union with Christ, and a more perfect
knowledge of the divine wisdom residing in him, they must make it their first
and great care, to freethemselves from the contagion of the sentient soul.
And therefore they must estrange themselves from their eyes and ears and other
[p. 666.] senses, and with all their might must betake themselves to the con-

templation of heavenly truth. Mortification must also be applied to the body,

which greatly increases and strengthens the power of the sentient soul, espe-
cially, if it be luxuriously fed and greatly indulged. And finally, as the images
of the things and persons about us or with which we are conversant are apt to
rush into the mind through the senses, and greatly to excite and distract tlie
mind, thereby inducing forgetfulncss of the things beyond our senses, and great
debility in our fiee will, —a man will best provide for the freedom and the forti-

tude of a mind altogether upright, by shunning as much as possible inter-

course with men, conversation, business, and the bustle of the world, and re-
tiring into solitude.
XVIII. The rational soul that will thus exercise itself, continually, and
never remove its eyes from Christ, will, by a slow process, become what it was

before it entered the body that is, from being a soul prepense towards corpo-
:

real things and seeking its pleasure in the senses, it will become pure and be
 Origeri's Theology. I97

elevated above all earthly and perishing objects. De Principiis, L. ii. (c. 8.
sec. 3. p. 96.) : Mens (vouc). de statu suo ac dignitate declinans, etfecta vel nun-
cupata est anima (4-"X>i)' ^^ rursuin aniina instructa virtutibus mens fiet. Nay,
as before stated, such a soul, by a perpetual contemplation of Christ, becomes
transformed into Christ, according to its measure and capacity. See,amono' other
passages, the //aVJ chapter of Book ii. of iiis Principia; where, in treating of Paul's
words, 1 Cor. .\v. 53. (For this mortal must put on iminorlality,) he says: In-
corrnptio et iramortalitas quid aliud crit, nisi sapientia, et verbum, et justitia
Dei, qnae formant animam, et induunt, et e.xornant? Et ita fit, ut dicatur, quia
corruptibiie incorruptioneni ind'.iet et mortale immortalitatem. De Principiis
L. i. (c. 3. sec. 6. p. 62.) : Oinnes qui rationabiles sunt, verbi, id est, Ratiouis
participes sunt, et per hoc vclut semina insita sibi gerunt sapientiae et Justitiae,
quod est Christus. Ibid. c. ii. (sec. 7. p. 52.) Propinquitas quaedam est menti
:

ad Deum - - et per haec potest aliqnid de divinitatis sentire natura, ma.xime si

e.\purgalior et segregatior sit a materia corpora!!.
XIX. This whole work of purifying tlie soul and translating it into Christ^^oes
not e.\cecd the powers of man. For as the rational soul is allied to God, althourrh
it may lapse and go astray, it cannot lose its essential character or nature. If,

therefore, the inherent energies of free will are called forth, the soul can, by its
own power, wipe away its pollutions, and by a gradual process work its way out
of its darkness. And as no one can become happy, but by his own merit, the
soul will either never attain to happiness, or it will attain to it by its own powers.
XX. Yet those who jiropcrly use that power of free will which they pos-
sess, are assisted by the Holy Spirit ; and this enables them to advance faster
and reacii the goal the sooner. For, as none can become sharers in the divine
rewards and blessings, e.vcept they merit them, so the Holy Spirit aids no one,
unless he merits that aid. De Principiis, L. i. (c. 3. p. 62.) In iilis [p. 667.] :

solis arbitror esse opus Spiritus snncti, qui jam se ad meliora convertnnt, et per
vias Christi Jesu inccdunt, id est, qui sunt in bonis actibus, et in Deo perma-
nent. And a little after, (in sec. 7. p. 63.) he more clearly states his views
thus: Est et alia quoqne Spiritus sancti gratia, quae dignis praestatur, ministra-
t:i quidem per Christum, inoperata autem a Patre secundum merilum eorum,
qui ciipacesejus efficiuntur.
XXI. The gifts which the Holy Spirit imparts to the enlightened in order

to facilitate their progress, are indeed various; but among them, two are pro-
minent. First, the Holy Spirit lays open to them the mystical and spiritual
sense of the holy Scriptures. De Princijiiis, L. ii. (c. 7. sec. 2. p. 93.) Per
gratiam Spiritus sancti cum reliquis quamplurimis etiam illud magnificentissi-

mum demonstratur, quod (ante Christum) vi.\ unus ex omni populo superare
poterat intellectum corporeum (legis et prophetarum) et majus aliquid, id est,
spiritaie quid poterat intcligere in lege vel prophetis nunc anteni innumerae :

sunt multitudines credentium, qui non omnes possint per ordinem atque
licet

ad liquicluui spiritalis intellegentiae explanare consequentiam, tamen omnes per-

suasum habeant, quod neque circnmcisio corporaliter intelligi debeat, neque
otium sabbati, vel sanguinis effusio pecoris, neque quod de his Moysi respon.sa
darentur a Deo: qui utique sensus dubium non est quod Spiritus sancti virtute
198 Centurij III.— Section 29.

omnibus siiggeratur. Secondly, to those striving after wisdom and virtue, the
Holy Spirit explains the forms and the grounds and reasons of the doctrines
taught in the Bible ; and from these they derive great comfort and delight.
Ibid. (sec. 4. p. 93.) De Spiritu sancto participare meruerit, cognitis ineftabili-
bus sacramentis consolationem sine dubio et laelitiam cordis assumit. Cum
enim rationes omnium, quae fiunt, quare vel qualiter tiant, Spiritu indicante cog-
noverit, in nullo utique conturbari ejus anima poterit nee in aliquo terretur, :

cum verbo Dei et Sapientiae ejus iiihaerens, Dominum Jesum dicit in Spiritu

sancto. I omit what follows, for the sake of brevity.

(2) About the middle of this century, and during the Deeian persecution,
one Paul of Thebes, in Egypt, to preserve his life, tied into the deserts, and
there lived till he died at an extreme age in the fourth century. And this Paul
has generally been accounted the founder of the solitary or Eremite life ; on
the authority of Jerome, who composed his biography. (See the Acta Sane-
tor. Antwerp. Tom. i. Januarii ad diem x. p. 602.) But this opinion, as Jerome
himself tells us in the Prologue to his Life of Paul, rests solely on the testimo-
ny of two disciple of St. Anthony, who are not witnesses above all exceptions;
Amathas vero et Macarius, discipuii Antonii - - etiam nunc affirmant, Paulum
[p. 668.] quemdam Thebaeum principem hujus rei fuisse. Thus much may be
conceded to tliese men, that prior to St. Anlhnny, tiieir master, this Paul resid-
ed in the desert parts of Egypt. But that no Christian anterior to Paul, either

in Egypt or in any otiier country, retired from the society of men in order to
acquire an extraordinary degree of holiness, can never be proved by the testi-
mony of these illiterate men, who, like all the so-called Eremitex, were ignorant
of tiie history of the world. Nor was this opinion as to the origin of the eremite

life, universally adopted in the age of Jerome: for he himself states various
other opinions on the subject. He appears indeed to have believed the state-
ment of the two eremites. And yet this is not altogether certain for his :

words are not the same in the different copies of his work. John Marlianay,
in his edition of Jerome's Works, (tom. iv. P. ii. p. 89.) thus states them
Paulum quemdam principem istius rei fuisse, non nominis quam opinionem :

nos quoque probamus. fiut Erasmus and the Acta Sanctorum read Quod :

non tarn nomine, quam opinione, nos quoque comprobamus; the meaning of
which, it is difficult to mnke out. Other copies read dirterently. If Jerome did
believe, what he says the two disciples of Anthony stated, that the eremite life
originated with this Paul, he certainly erred. For it appears, both from ex-
amples and from testimony, that before this man, not a few of the class of
Christians called Ascetics, especially in Egypt, a country abounding in persons
naturally gloomy and averse from society, did retire from the cities and towns
into the fields and the uncultivated regions, in order to deprive the sentient
soul of its delights, to mortify the body, and to aid the divine mind toiling in

its prison. And that very Anthony, whom some mnke the father of eremites,

followed the example of an old man who had pursued this mode of life from
his youth ; as Athanasius expressly testifies in his Life of St. Anthony, (Opp.
tom. ii. p. 453.) And before this old man, very many adopted the same mode
of life, although they did not retire to perfectly secluded places and to the
 Bise of Eremites. 199

haunts of wild Leasts, but only erected for themselves a retired domicil not far
from their villages. Soi4//ia»asu(s, in the passage just mentioned, says 'Exhs-tos :

i^i Tuu 0ouKof/.cvar i-jlvtu. Trp'^a-i^itv, iu udnfav Tiis li'ias ku/ax; Kj.rauova; ils-jcsiTo.

Unusquisque eorum, qui animum curare volebat, solus non procul a paoo suo
exercebatur tliat is, subdued tlie body by toil, and averted the mind from the
;

senses by prayer, and by meditation on divine things. That so early as the

second century, this mode of life was in Syria esteemed beautiful and accepla-
ble to God, appears from the e.xample of Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem, as
stated by Eusebius, (Histor. Eccles. L. vi. c. 9, 10. p. 210, 211.) This man,
weary of the assaults of his enemies, and eager for a philosophical life, retired
to unfrequented places : 'E* M^wgof rdv piK03-op-,v dj-ira^if^tvo; fidv S'laS'pa;
[p. 669.]
irSv To T>is £xxXJ(3"iaj jtAmS-oj iv ip-tf^iati xat dpavirii/ dypoii Kav^'a/ecv, ttKuS'Tok Itss-j

i'lCTpt/iiv. Cum pliilosophii-ae vitae j;im dudum aniore toneretur, relicta ecclesiae
plebe, in solitudiiio ac deviis agris plurimos annos delituit. After a long time he
returned from solitude to his residence in Jerusalem, and was the admiration of
every body and exceedingly courted by the people "ij « dva;)(^(o:-^3-ia>c hizu. ;

Kai Ti\5 pihio-opiai, cum ob sccessum turn ob philosophiam (sou pliilosophi-

cam vitac formam.) Therefore, even ihen, the highest respect was paid to those
who preferred solitude to society, and who, abandoning social life, rc'tired into
deserts. Wiiat Eusebius inlended by the words philosophy and a fhilosophical
life, those familiar with the customs of tiie ancient Christi:uis need not to be
informed. For they are aware, that the Christian Ascetics, who sought the
health of their souls in prayer, meditation, forsaking all worldly business, and
subduing and mortifying the body by a spare and simple diet, were classed with
the philosophers and assumed the name and the garb of pliilosophers. And
this high opinion of the influence of solitude in sanctifying the soul, like many
others, passed over from the Pagans to the Christians. That such Egyptians
as wished to excel in virtue, and to prepare their souls for the world of bliss,
were accustomed Irom the earliest times, to resort to solitary places, can be
shown by many proofs ; among which, I think, one of peculiar value is found
in Heiodolus, Histor. L. ii. (sec. 36. p. 102. edit Gronov.) where he mentions it

as a trait disfinguisliing the Egyptians from all other nations, that while others
shunned t^Iie society of wild beasts, t!ie Egyptians thought it c.vcellent to live
among them ;
To/3-< /uiv aKKota-i d/d-fuTroiTi ^apX; S-HOiaiv iitira. dTCKiKpiTstt, ' AiyvT-
'TiotTi iCe of^ou ^itpiit<rt « S^iaira trri. Apud cete^os mortales victus a ferarum se-
cretns est consortio : ^Egyptii autem cum feris vivunt. Does not this language
show, that many ages before our Saviour, there were in Egypt not a few Ere-
mites, or persons choosing to live in deserts among the wild beasts ? And at
the present day the same customs prevail in Egypt, not only among Christians,
but also among Mohammedans. The Platonic and Pythagorean pliilosophers,
also, inspired their followers with the love of solitude; and especially those
called New Ammonius, and the associates of that
Platonists, the disciples of
Origen of whom we were accustomed warmly to recom-
are treating,
mend retirement and seclusion from society to every one studious of wis-
dom. In Porphyry, the great ornament of this sect, there is a long passage on
this subject, in his first book Tepi ur:;^j7f, an Abstinence from Jlesh; in which
200 Century III. — Section ZO.

he spciiks in perfect aceordnnce with the sentiments of Oiigen and the leaders
of tiic mystic school. For he recommends that a philosopher njake it his
great object to become, by contemplation, united with the really Existent, or
[p. 670.] God, {) 29. p. 24 ) And to obtain this bliss, in his opinion, the senses
must be repressed and resti'ained, food be witiihuld fVoni the body, and society
be abandoned, and all phices where ihere is dnnger to the soul. He says,
among other thingv, (,5 35. p. 30 edit. Cantabr.) : "Gbm o<n, S'6va;j.ii d^roo-TJ^rioj.

Tdv TOiOiirav -^tefiuiv, b oij nat f6oDh<iui'rji is-Tl ^joi-iTrrSiv

fj^ii tu, ~K -d-ii.
Unde quantum in nobis est, ab iis locis recedere par est, in quibus inviti forsan
in hostile agmen incidemus. And this he confirms by the exnmple of the early
Pythngoreans, who tu t^nfj.i.Tct.'Tn. ;^ao/a xoTwxoyv, joca desertissima incoluerunt;
while others occupied rwy ToXfav ru hfk koX tu aK(T«, £| tSy M -zaTa aTrixixaT^i to^>3»>
urbium templa et nemora, a quibus omnis turba et tumultus arcebatur. By
conijiaring Origan with Porphyry, it is easy to see that they both belonged to
the same school; for they lay down the same precepts in very nearly the same
words. I will transcribe a passage from Porphyry in the Latin translation,
(^30. p. 25.) in order to show the Mystics of the present day, whence came that
doctrine which tiiey deem so sacied, and which they suppose Christ taught.
Oportet nos, si ad en, quae revera nostra sunt et hoinini propria reverti velimus,
qusecunque ex mortali natura nobis ad^-civimus, una cum omni ad ea inclina-
tione, qua illectus animus ad ilia descendit, deponerc, recordari vero beataj
illius, ac ffiternte essentia;, et ad illud ina^pectabile et immutabile properantea
reditum haec duo curare : unum, ut quidquid est mortale ac materiale exuamus,
alterum, quomodo redeamus et salvi ascendamus, diversi jam cum ascen-
dimus a nobis ipsis cum prius ad mortalia de.scenderamus. Intellectuales enim
dim eramus. - - Sensibilibus vero complicati sumus.

§ XXX. Origen's Controversies with his Bishop. That the au-

thor of SO many new and singuhir opinions sliould have been
assailed and harassed by the criminations and reproaches of
many, is not at all strange. And Origen himself, in his writings
yet extant, complains bitterlj- of the malice, the machinations,
and the abuse of his adversaries ; some of whom condemned his
philosophical explanations of Christian doctrines, and others as-
sailed his rules for interpreting the scriptures. Yet his great
merits, his blameless life, and the high reputation he had every-
where gained, might have overcome all this opposition, if he had
not incurred the displeasure and hatred of his patron, Demetrius,
the bishop of Alexandria. The cause of this enmity it is at this
day difficult to trace nor is the generally reported envy of De-
;

metrius free from all doubts, while its effects are most manifest,
[p. 671.] For Demetrius compelled Origen to flee his country^
and in two councils convened at Alexandria in his absence, first
 Origens Controversies. 201

removed liini from bis

of precei^tor, and then depriveid him
office
of his standing amongThe great majority of Chris,
the priests !

tian bishops approved the sentence but the prelates of the ;

churches in Achaia, Palestine. Phenicia, and Arabia, disapproved

it.(') He therefore passed the remainder of his very laborious life

at Ca3sarea, and and at last died at Tyre, A, D.

at other places ;

253, an old man, exhausted by his heroic sufierings for Christ in

the Decian persecution. But after his death he was the occasion
of even greater disputes among polemics, some assailing and
others defending his reputation and his correctness of which ;

long-protracted and unhappy contests, the history of the follow-

ing centuries will exhibit abundant evidence.

(1) Tlie contests of Demetrius, bishop of Alexandiii, with Origeii, which

gave rise to long and fierce conflicts, greatly disqiiie'.ing the church during seve-
ral ages, have been much discussed ; but the causes of the contention are in-
volved in great obscurity, or, at least, are not so palpable as many suppose.
For all our information must be drawn from a few not very perspicuous pas-
sages in the early writers time having deprived us of the second part of Euse-
;

bius' Apology whieh was expressly devoted to the conirideratioa

for Origen,
and illustration See Eusebius, Hist. Eccies. (L. vi. c. 23.
of this subject.
p. 224.) The same Eusebius tells us, (Hist. Eicles. L. vi. c. 8. p. 209.) that
Demetrius was moved by eniy at the great reputation which Origen had acquir-
ed, to persecute the man who had once been So likewise Jerome,
dear to him.
in histwenty-ninth Epistle, (0pp. torn. iv. P. ii. p. 68.) says Damnatum esse :

Originem non propter haeresin, sed quia gloriara eloquentiaj ejus ct scientise
ferre non poterant, et illo dicente oinnes miiti putabantur. Relying on these
very worthy authors, nearly all the writers on ecclesiastical history, and espe-
cially those favorably inclined towards Origen, confidently assert, that the un-
worthy controversy originated in the malevolence and envy of Demetrius; and
they pity the hard fortune of Origen, whose only oft'ence was his learning, his
virtue, and his eloquence. But for my part, — to say nothing of the uncertainty
of such judgments respecting the secret motives of human actions, — when I
survey attentively and weigh the occurrences between Demetrius and Origen,
I come to the conclusion, that Demetrius' ill-will towards Origen did not arise
from envi/, if by eniij be meant repining at the prosperity or fame of another.

For Demetrius placed Origen at the head of the Alexandrian school, when he
was a youth but eigiiteen years old, and he afterwards favored and [p. 672.]
befriended him in various ways he gave him honorable testimonials and lettera
;

of introduction when visiting other countries sent envoys to e.-cort him home
;

afcer a long residence in Palestine and after the disagreement between thero
;

commenced, he permitted him to continue in his office at Alexandria and ai ;

last, did not command him to quit Alexandria, but after he had left the country

voluntarily, called him to account. Do these things indicate a mind envious at

202 Century TIL— Section 30.

the reputation and virtues of Origen ? Persons envious of the viitnes or elo-
quence of others, do not bring them before the public and commend them
they do not invite them to return from abroad, do not confer favors on them
but rather, they depress them, treat tliem with neglect, and wish them away from
their presence. Some other cause, therefore, in my opinion, must be sought
for this conflict. — I will first state what appears to me the true history of the
case ; and then, as direct testimony
is wanting, I will argue from the circum-

stances of the case. Demetrius cheerfully gave Origen employment and office;
- -

he was pleased with the honors and applause which Origen gained; he allowed
him to visit other countries and churches which needed his aid, notwithstanding
he knew that Origen would acquire fresh laurels by these journe}'s; and finally,

he was unwilling that a man whom he lyiew to be so great an ornament and

support to the church of Alexandria, should be removed or taken from him. No
person can doubt any of these things, who shall even superficially examine the
acts of Origen and Demetrius. But this same Demetrius wished Origen to re-
main in the station he was now in, and not to be raised higher, or be put in

orders and take a place among the presbyters of the Alexandrian church. This
fact is .mifliciently obvious, the cause of it is not equally clear. Those fiivoring

Demetrius may conjecture, either that the bishop supposed a man who had
emasculated himself would be a dishonor to the sacred office, or that the
bishop feared lest, if made a presbyter, Origen would neglect his duties in the

school. Those who believe fully \\hat the ancients say of the envy of Deme-
trius, may suppose that he was afraid that a man like Origen, long held in vene-
ration, and superior to his bishop in many branches of learning, if made a pres-
byter, would acquire too much influence ; or tiiat, if authorized to preach in
public, ills eloquence would obscure the dignity and the fame of the bishop.
On the other hand, Origen believed that his services and merits entitled him to
promotion. Those who had presided over the catechetic school of Alexandria
before him, Pantccnus, Clement, and doubtless others, liad been made presby-
ters ; and therefore he, being in no respect inferior to them, thouglit himself
worthy of the same lionor. But when he could not obtain from Demetrius the
honor to whicii he felt himself entitled, he went away to Palestine, and at Caesa-
rea imprudently obtained that honor from other hands. And hence those sad
[p. 673.] scenes! Hence that wrath of Demetrius! 1 will now show, from —
the circumstances of the case, as far as I can, that such were the facts.

In the year 215, or a little after, a severe persecution under Ciracalla nav-
ing arisen at Alexandria, Origen, at that time about forty years old, sought
safety in flight, and proceeding to Palestine, he took residence at Caesarea.
There the bishops honored him, by allowing him to address the public assem-
blies,and in the presence of the bishops. This gave offence to Demetrius. But
the Palestine bishops defended their proceeding, and told Demetrius, that it had
long been customary among Christians for the bishops to invite those whom
fit persons to teach publicly, even if they had not been made
they kn:iw to be
presbyters. Whether Demetrius was satisfied with this excuse or not, is un-
certain ; but this is certain, he not only wrote to Origen requnnng him to return
home and attend to the duties of his public office in Alexandria, but, as Origen
 Orir/en's Controversies. 203

perhaps made some delay, he sent deacons to Palestine to bring Iiim back. See
Eusehius, (Hist. Eccles. L. vi. c. 19. p. 221, 222. These facts show, I. That
Origen, at that time, notwithstanding his reputation for eloquence, was debarred
from the pulpit, or from preaching in public, by iiis bisiiop. II. That Deme-

triuswould not allow him to perform the functions of a public teacher, even
among foreign churclies; doubtless, from a fear that he would insist on doing
the same at Alexandria, and would thus open his way to the rank of a presby-
ter. III. Yet he esteemed Origen very highly and he considered his labors
;

not only useful, but even necessary, to the church of Alexandria. This a|)pear3
from and even great earnestness, to have the man return home.
his desire,
For, as Origen did not at once obey the letter of recall, the bishop sent envoys
to Palestine, to press him with arguments and persuasives on the subject. It
seems, that Origen manifested a disposition to remain in Palestine, wliere he
received greater honor from the bishops th:m he received at Alexandria but ;

Demetrius thought church of Alexandria could not part with so great a

tiie

man witiiout a serious loss. Perhaps also the deacons v.ho were sent to Pales-
tine, were instructed to watch Origen, lest on his way he should do as he had
done in Palestine, and by his preaching draw fortii tiie admiration and respect
of the people. Hence, IV. we may conclude, that Demetrius
felt no envy
against Origen ; and the learning of the man had been anno}'-
for if the virtues
ing to him, he would gladly have had him remain out of the country. Yet he was
unwilling to enroll him among the presbyters of the Alexandrian church. And,
undoubtedly, he did not follow the example of the Palestine bishops, and per-
mit Orii^en to preach in public Init, as Eusehius clearly intimates, he required
;

him to devote himself wholly to the school.

After a pretty long interval, — in the year 228, as learned men have sup-
posed, —Origen again took a journey to Achaia ; not without the [p. 674.]
knowledge and consent of Demetrius his bishop, as Photius affirms, (Biblio-
theca. Cod. cxviii. p. 298.) but, as Jerome testifies, (Catal. Scriptor. Eccles. c. 54
and 62.) with the consent of the bishop, and furnished by him with honorable
On this journey, as he was passing
testimonials, or an Epislala ecclesiaslica.
through Palestine, he was ordained a presbyter by his friends and admirers,
Thenctislus bishop of Cajserea, and Alexander bishop of Jerusalem. (Eusehius,
Hist. Eccles. L. vi. c. 8. p. 209; Jerome, Catal. Scriptor. Eccl. c. 54; Photius,
Bibliotheca, Cod. cxviii. p. 298.) —On hearing this, the wrath of Demetrius
burst forth ; and he despatched letters through the Christian world, severely
censuring both Origen and the bishops who ordained him. His allegation
against Origen by Eusehius. It was, that a man who had mutilated
is stated
himself, though learned and of great merit, is unworthy of the priesthood
and therefore, Origen had grievously sinned, by consenting to become a teacher
in the church, while conscious of the crime he had formerly committed. It ap-
pears that even then, voluntary eunuchs were excluded from the priesthood, if

not by formal canons, (of which there no certain evidence,) at least by

is

common usage among Christians. For, unless we suppose this, we cannot un-
derstand how Demetrius, a man of higii character and well versed in ecclesias-
tical law, should venture, on this ground, to pronounce Origen unworthy of the
204 Century III.— Section 30.

priesthood. But this stain upon the character of the pious and learned
mail, was not l\'no\vn by the bishops who ordained him. Therefore, as De-
metrius assailed them also, accusing them of violating eccle.-iaslical law, we
are obliged to suppose that their offence was of a different nature. What it
was, no ancient writer has informed us but it may be inferred from what
;

Jerome siiys, (Catal. Script. Eccl. c. G2.) namely, that Alexander, the bishop of
Jerusalem, in reply to the accusation of Demetrius, alleged the honorable tes-
timonials given by Demetrius to Origen on his setting out for Achaia. From
this it is manifest, if I Demetrius criminated the ordaining
do not mistake, tliat

bishops, for admitting Origen to the Presbytership, wilhout the knowledge and
consent of Demetrius his bishop, and without consulting him in the matter.
Alexander replied, that he and his associates looked upon the splendid testimo-
Demetrius which Origen carried w^th him, as supplying the place of an
nials of
express consent and that they could not suppose a man so highly recom-
;

mended bv hira, to be unworthy of the priestliood. How the business was

conducted does not fully appear, on account of the silence of the ancient writers;
yet a careful attention may clear up much of the obscurity of the transaction.
In the first place, I will cheerfully concede, that Origen himself did not request
ordination from the Palestine bishops; but only did not refuse it, when offered

[p. 675.] by them. And I have little difficulty in assigning a reason why they
should wish to ordain him. They wished that Origen might publicly instruct
Christians, and expound to them the holy scriptures, as he had done with great
approbation during his former journey. But he, recollecting the great indigna-
nation of Demetrius, when he had before allowed such functions to be assigned
him, would not consent to their wishes, because he was not an ordained pres-
byter. To remove this obstacle out of his way, the bishops declared their wil-
lingness to him; and Origen consented.
ordain I am led to judge thus

favorably of Origen's motives, by the exemplary piety of the man, and by the
knowledge of human conduct; both of which require us, in a case of doubt
and uncertainty, to prefer the most favorable opinion. And yet I think it mani-
fest, that Orioen despaired of obtaining ora. nation from the hands of Deme-

trius, and at the same time desired, though modestly, to attain that honor. For,
if he had either contemned the office of a presbyter, or Iiad supposed he could
obtain from Demetrius, he would never, although urged to it, have consented
it

Being a sagacious man, he could easily

to receive the otfice from these bishops.
foresee, that Demetrius would be offended with both him and the bishops, for
the transaction was undoubtedly discourteous towards Demetrius. And the per-
son who would incur the resentment of a powerful man, rather than not obtain
a certain place, if he is not stupid or altogether thoughtless, shows that he has
not a little desire for that place. As for Demetrius, though I admit that he
showed neither prudence nor gentleness, nor a due regard for Origen's merits,

yet 1 do not see how he can be charged with emy. From this vicious state of
mind he is sufficiently exculpated, first, by the noble testimonial of his affection

and esteem for Origen, given him when he set out for Achaia; and he is still
more proved innocent by the fict th.nt, although offended with Origen, and be-
lieving that he had just cause for resenlment, he nevertheless was not at all
 Origeiis Controversies. 205

opposed to his return to Alexandria, nnd to his resumption of his dnfies in the

school. It is not usu;d ibr the envious to wish those, whose honors and fame
they fear will injure them, tolive by their side, and to fill respectable and im-

portant stations. Demetrius would have directed Origen to remain in Pales-

tine, if he had supposed his new official standing would cause a diminution of

his own authority and fame. Nor is it an indication of envy, that lie publicly
professed to vvisli only for more prudence in the ordaining bishops, and more
modesty in Origen, who had not resisted the proposal of his admirers. For
this declaration might have proceeded from other motives, either praiseworthy
or censurable.
The commotions originating from Origen's elevation to the priesthood,
did not prevent his completing his begun journey to Achaia after [p. 676.] ;

which he returned to Alexandria, and there resumed the duties of his office.
Nor did Demetrius oppose his bearing the title and enjoying the rank of a pres-

byter ; had been so disposed, he could have degraded him. Nay,

for if he
several learned men have thought, that Demetrius actually assigned him a place
among the presbyters of his church. They conclude so, from the sentence
pronounced against Origen by the emperor Justini.an in the sixth century, in
which he is expressly called a Presbyter ecclesiic Alexandrincc. It is at least
very probable, that Demetrius, either expressly or tacitly, allowed him to sit

among the presbyters, provided he would continue to fulfil the duties assigned
hira in the Alexandrian school. —On returning to Alexandria in 228, Origen not
only resumed his former labors, but he also commenced an exposition of the
Gospel of St. John, (Ortgenes, Comm. in Johann. Opp. tom. ii. p. 3. edit. Hue-
tiana3.) ; and also wrote other books, among which Eusehius (Hist. Eccl. L. vi.
c. 24. p. 225.) mentions his celebrated work de Principiis. But in the midst of
these labors, a new storm burst upon him ; at first, indeed, quite moderate and
endurable; for, (in tom. vi. in Johann. p. 94.) he writes: Jesus Christ rebuked
the tci7nls ami the waves of the troubled sea ; and thus, even during the storm, he

could carry forward his exposition of St. John as far as the fifth tome. Gra-
dually, however, the storm increased in violence, and at last became so great,

that in the year 231 he forsook Alexandria, leaving his school under the care of
Heraclas, one of his earliest pupils, and retired to Caesarea among his fnends.

{Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. L. vi. c. 26. p. 228.) —Respecting his presbytership, there

was no longer any contention so that there must have been some other cause
;

of disagreement between him and Demetrius, which, unaccountably, neither

his friends nor his enemies have stated, although they had abundant occasion to
speak of it. For, what Epiphanius relates, (Hjeres. Ixiv. e. 2.) that Origen

was so frightened by the threat of an atrocious insult to his person by an

Ethiopian, that he consented to sacrifice to the Gods, — is very questionable
and, if true, could not have produced the new contest between Demetrius and
him after his return. This new contest lasted more than two years, as we
have already learned from Origen himself; and, being protracted through va-
rious vicissitudes, Origen was able, during its continuance, to compose five of
his tomes on the Gospel of John, besides other works. But if Origen had, un-
willingly, paid some worship to the gods, and his bishop had accounted him a
20G Century III.— Section 30.

criminal for it, the whole matter miglut have been speedily settled ; for Deme-
trius liad only to call a council, and debar the criminal from the sacred rites,
wiiich was the canonical punishment for those who sacrificed to the gods. But
[p. 677.] the bishop, though he harassed Origen, yet still allowed him to per-
form his otfieial duties, and even to retain the rank of a presbyter which he had
acquired in Palestine. After surveying the whole case, and carefully weighing
all tlie circumstances, I conclude the cause of disagreement was this that Ori- :

gen, as he was an ordained presbyter, wished to enjoy all the prerogatives of a

sit in the council of the presbyters, and to be
presbyter, to preach in public, to
i-eckoned as one of them but Demetrius was opposed to it. He admitted, in-
;

deed, that Origen was a presbyter, at least nominally, and he would give him
the title, but he would not allow him to address the people from the pulpit.
Perhaps, also, as his feelings were now alienated from Origen, he frequently
criticised and assailed the opinions which Origen advanced in the school and
elsewhere, and his expositions of the scriptures ; while Origen defended those
opinions and expositions against the bishop.
However this may weary of the perpetual reproofs or in-
be, Origen being
juries he received from Demetrius, more liberty and peace, re-
in order to enjoy

linquished his employment in the year 231, and secretly retired to Palestine;
where he was very cordially received by the bishops, and obtained all that had
been denied him at Alexandria. After this his flight, Demetrius commenced a
prosecution against him ; for previously he had not attempted, nor had been
disposed to attempt, anything of the kind. Eitsebius, indeed, does not ex-

pressly say that Origen left Alexandria secretly, and without the knowledge of
Demetrius; on the contrary, he clearly states that, on leaving, he surrendered
bis office to Heradas. From both these circumstances learned men conclude,
that Demetrius was neither ignorant of his design to leave Alexandria, nor dis-
satisfied at his going. For if he had either not known of his going, or had
been displeased with it, would he have authorized him to transfer his school to
—
another man, and one of his own selection ? But here, undoubtedly, there is
misapprehension. The circumstance omitted by Eusebius, is indicated by Ori-
gen himself, (Comm. in Johann. tom. vi. p. 94.) where he compares his depar-
ture from Egypt with the Exodus of the Hebrews, and says: Deum, qui popu-
lum suum ex J^gypto eduxit, se quoque ex servitute extraxisse. But nothing
could have been more inapposite than such a comparison, if he had gone away
with the free consent of Demetrius. And as to what Eusebius says of his
transferring the Alexandrian school to Heradas, the language is pressed too far.

For Eusebius does not s.ay, that he committed or transferred his school to He-
radas, but that he Ze// it him; 'HfaKkS. S'lS'aa-x.aKiiov •A'j.TaKimi. Scholam HeraclcR
to

reliquit, (not, tradidil.) See Eusebius, (Hist. Eccles. L. vi. c. 26. p. 228.) He-
radas had been his colleague, and had taught the younger boys and now Ori- ;

gen left the school to his sole management. Origen's departure was therefore
clandestine; and his voluntary dereliction of an office which fur so many years
he had usefully tilled, roused the ire of Demetrius to such a pitch, that he de-
[p. 678.] termined to punish him. He acted, indeed, in a manner unbecoming
a bishop, and yet not without some semblance of justice. For the man who
 Origens Controversies. 207

abandons an office committed to him, witliout giving notice, or saying any tiling
to iiim from whom he received it,appears to injure his patron materially, and ia
quite culpable. Besides, tiiis very indignation of Dmnetrius, though unjustifi-a-
ble, proves him not guilty of that envy charged upon Iiim. For it shows, that he
was unwilling to part with the services of Origen, that he felt most sensibly the
great loss, both to the church and the school ; but such feelings could not find
a place in an envious mind. Demetrius envied the Palestinians the possession
of so great and so talented a man, but he did not envy Origen.
Therefore, as it was the only way in which he could puni>ih Origen for the
detriment to the church and the injury to himself, Demetrius summoned a coun-
cil of bishops, with some presbyters. So Pholius states, from Pamphilus*
Apology for Origen, (Bibliotheca, Cod. cxviii. p. 298 : Sijnodum episcoporum et

preshylerorum quorundam). We may here notice, that Pamphilus applies the

pronoun some, {quorundam, i-aoy,) to the presbyters, but not to the bishops.
Hence, if I can judge, Demetrius summoned all tlio bishops under his jurisdic-
tion. And this construction is confirmed by what will soon be said respecting
his second council. The reason why he summoned all the bishops of Egypt,
but only some of tiie presbyters of Alexandria, will be obvious. He well knew,
that most of the presbyters were favorable to Origen, their preceptor and friend,
whom they admired for his piety ; and, therefore, he summoned only such of the
presbyters, as he supposed were more attached to himself than to Origtii. But
the bishops had not been so intimate with Origen; and therefore, Demetrius
hoped, with less ditliculty, to bring the majority of them to vote according to

his wishes. But be was disappointed. For the major part of the council
decided, as Pholius informs us from Pamphilus, in the passage just mentioned:
That Origen should be expelled from Alexandria, (Alexandria quidern pellen-
dum,) and should not be permitted to reside or teach there ; but thai he should not
be degraded from the priesthood. Demetrius, who wished to have Origen degrad-
ed, had expected a severer sentence. But, either Pholius or Pamphilus, I think,
must have stated the decision incorrectly. How, I ask, could these Christiaji
bishops,who were themselves scarcely tolerated in Alexandria and Egypt, and
—
who had no influence or power whatever in the stale how could this despised and
hated body of plebeians expel Origen from Alexandria, or .send him into exile?
If those honest men had attempted it, they would have acted just about as
wisely as the Quakers of London, or the Mennonites of Amsterdam would, if
they should attempt to banish from their city some honorable and upright
citizen : which all would regard as showing a lack of common sense. I [p. 679.]
have, therefore, no doubt, that this council merely pronounced Origen unworthy
of his post as a teacher in the school and cliureh of Alexandria. And such a
sentence, in my would not have been altogether wrong or unjust. For
opinion,
the man who abandons his post, witliout the consent or knowledge of the per-
son who placed him in it, is not unsuitably cut off from all hope of regaining it.
And, perhaps, Origen himself would not have complained, if such a decision had
been satisfactory to his adversary. But Demetrius thought, that this deserter of
liis post ought to be more severely punished. He, therefore, summoned another
council. As P/io/uiS, avowedly copying from the Apology of Pamphilus, writes:
208 Century Ill.—Section 30.

Veriim Demetrius una cum ^gypti episcopis aliquot, sncerdotio quoque iiiuca
alijudicat, .subscribentibus etiam edicto huie, quotquot antea suffVagati ei ["uissent.
(But Demetrius, together with some bishops of Egypt, divested him also of the
priesthood; and this decree, moreover, was subscribed by sucli as had before
voted in his favor). —And here several things deserve notice, which learned men,
in treating on the subject, pass by in silence. I. In this second council, only
some Egyptian bisliops were present. Therefore, in the former
{aliquot) of the
they all were present. Tliat is, Demetrius excluded from the second council,
those among the bishops who, in the first council, voted for the milder sentence,
or were for sparing Origen. And hence it appears, that the decree of the first
council was not passed unanimously, but only by a majority of the council. II.
There were no presbyters present in the second council. Hence it is manifest,
that all the presbyters were in favor of Origen, and their zeal in his behalf
caused tiie milder sentence to pass the council. They, doubtless, expatiated on
the gieat meiits of Origen, in regard both to the church universal, and to the
church of Alexandria in particular; and by such commendations they inclined
the minds of a majority of the bishops to moderation. III. The bishops, who
had voted for Origen in the first council, in acceding to the decree of the second
council, changed their opinions, and came over to the decision of Demetrius and
his associates. And second council Demetrius assailed
this is proof, that in the

Origen on new grounds, and thereby strengthened his cause : and that the dis-
eenting bishops, in view of these new grounds, and being separated from the
presbyters wiio had pleaded the cause of their preceptor and friend, concluded
to yield the point. In the state of Christian affairs at that period, Demetrius
could not have gained the votes of those bishops who favored Origen, by mena-
ces and violence, nor by gifts and promises. It is, therefore, probable that De-
metrius brought forward, and invidiously exposed the singular opinions of Ori-
gen, and his stranga interpretations of Scripture; and against this new churge,
which was much graver than the former, the bishops, most of whom were not
learned, and perhaps were among those who opposed the modifying of theology
by philosophy, were unable to make resistance. That Origen was actually ac-
cused and convicted of adulterating Christianity, at least in the second coun-
[p. 680.] cil, is adequately proved, unless I greatly misjudge, from the single
declaration of Jerome, (in his Tract against Rnffoius, L. ii. c. 5.) that Origen
was not only degraded from the priesthood, but was also excluded from the
church. For in that age, no Christian was excommunicated and debarred from
the church, unless he was either guilty of criminal conduct, or had injured tiie
cause of religion by his errors. Of any criminal conduct, neither Demetrius nor
any other person ever accused Origen. Consequently, we must believe, that
this punishment was inflicted on him because of his novel and noxious opinions.
He had already composed his well-known work, de Principiis, yet extant in La-
tin, which is full of singular opinions, and of explanations of Christian doctrines
never before heard of. Nor could that book have been unknown at that time
in Alexandria, the place where it was written. From this book, therefore, it is
not improbable, Demetrius derived his allegations. —Nearly all the Cliristian
churches approved the sentence passed upon Origen ; for Demetrius, by letters,
 Disputes on (he Trinitij. 209

CKcited them against his iidversary. But thebisliypoof the fou Asiatic provin-
ces, Palestine, Phenicia, Achaia,and Arabia, dissented; and not only permitted
Origen to live among them highly respected, but also to havij the liberty of
teaching both publicly and privately. Nor is this very strange. For the bishops
of Palestine, who were
intimately connected with those of Phenicia, were the
authois of which brought upon the good man all his troubles that is, they
Ikat :

ordained him presbyter. As to the churches of Arabia and Achnia, Origen had
laid them under great obligations to him, by settling disputes among them, and

—
by other Ivind ofHces. But this transaction, manifestly, contains a strong argu-
ment against those who maintain that, in this third century, all Ciiristendom was
submissive to the authority and decisions of the Romish prelate. If tliis had
been tlic fact, those bishops who honored and patronised Origen, would have
ceased from being in communion with all other churches. And yet it is certain,
that they were not at all criminated for relying upon their own judgment, rather
Ihan on that pronounced at Alexandria, and approved by the Romish prelate.

§ XXXL Disputes in the Church respecting the Trinity and the

person of Christ. That authority, which Origen attributed to rea-
son or philosophy — (for he held them to be the same thing) —over
theology generally, was extended by others to certain parts of
theology in particular, and especially to that part which distin-
guishes in the Divine Nature three persons, the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Spirit. Closely connected with this doctrine is, that
concerning the origin and the dignity of Jesus Christ. As this
division of the Divine Nature, of which the Scriptures require a
belief, may seem to disagree with what reason teaches [p. 681.]
respecting the unity or oneness of God, various persons attempt-
ed to so explain it, as to remove all disagreement between the-
ology and philosophy. Those who engaged in this business, pur-
sued various methods if, indeed, the ancients correctly appre-
;

hended their views, which I must confess is very doubtful.

Wherefore, about four different opinions may be produced, re-
specting the Holy Trinity and the Saviour of mankind, advanced
in this century. These opinions, all the prelates of the age
strenuously resisted, casting their authors out of the church. But
they did not so combat these opinions as to exterminate the
roots of the evil, and prevent the future rise of similar opinions.
For, although they determined what should no] be believed, re-
specting God and and thus
Christ, suppressed the rising errors;
yet they did not determine, with equal care and clearness, what
should be positively believed, and in what terms the Scriptural
doctrine of three persons in one God should be expressed. And
VOL. u. 15
210 Century III— Section 32.

tliis enabled others, subsequently, and especially Arius, to disturb

tlie churcli with new explications of this doctrine.(')

(1) The condemned those who subverted the distinc-

prelate3 and councils
and who maintained that God is altogether
tion of persons in the divine nature,
undivided Thus they denied, that the Son and the holy Spirit are to be ex-
cluded from the number of the divine persons. Yet, to those who should ac-
knowledge three persons in God, great liberty remained for disputing about the
relations of these persons to each other, their origin, their dignity, and their
parity or disparity ; and for explaining differently the nature, the offices, and
the acts of the several persons. This liberty produced a great variety of
opinions, and afforded to those whose genius and inclination led them to subor-
dinate revealed religion to reason, abundant opportunity for introducing their
own fictions into the doctrine of the Trinity. Hence arose the rash attempts,
not only of several individuals, \vhose efforts excited little attention, but especi-
ally of Arius, whose most unhappy contests are too well known. At length,
under Constantine the Great, the Nicene council abolished that liberty, the

dangers of which were not foreseen by the ancients, and defined precisely, how
the three divine persons are to be viewed, and in what terms men should speak
of them.

§ XXXII. The Noetian Controversy. At the head of those in

this century, who explained the scriptural doctrine of the Father,
Son, and holy Spirit, by the precepts of reason, stands Noetus of
[p. 682.] Smyrna ; a man
little known, but who is reported by

the ancients to have been cast out of the church by presbyters,

(of whom no account is given,) to have o])ened a school, and to
have formed a sect.(') It is stated, that bfjing wholly unable to
comprehend, how that God who is so often in Scripture declared
to be one^ and undivided, can, at the same time, be manifold; Noe-
tus concluded, that the undivided Father of all things, united him-
self with the man Christ, was born in him, and in him suffered
and died.(") On account of this doctrine, his followers were
called Patripassians ; whicli name, though not perfectly correct
and appropriate, jei appears to be not altogether unsuitable or
in appropriate. Q That Noetus and his followers believed as
above stated, must be admitted, if we place more reliance on the
positive testimony of the ancients, than upon mere conjecture,
however plausible.
(1) All that can be said of Noetus, must be derived from the three follov.ing
writers: Hippolytus, (Serrao contra hasresin Noeti; first published by Jo. Alh.
Fabricius, 0pp. Hippolyti, tom. ii. p. 5. &;c. It had before appeared in Latin :)

Epiphanius, (Haeres. L. vii. tom. i. p. 479.) and Theodoret, (Harct. Fabular. L. iii.
 Hhtortj of JVoetus. 211

c. 3. 0pp. torn. iv. p. 227.) All th.at the other fathers state, (e. g. Aun-ustine,
Pliilaster, Damascenus,) is either taken from the three above named, or is de-
rived from tliose who resorted to these sources. Theodoret is very brief: H'w-
fohjius and Epiplianius are more full : both however, treat only of the principal
tenet of Noetus, and that without method and clearness. They neither explain,
accurately and distinctly, his erroneous sentiment; nor lucidly state either his
conduct, or the proceedings of others ag:iinst him. And hence, but little can be
said, either of Noetus or of his doctrine. That he lived in the third century, is
cert;\in ; but in wh;it part of the century he disturbed the pence of the church, is

doubtful. Hippolijtus and Theodoret say, he was a native of Smyrna; but Epi-
fhanius calls him an Ephesian. Perhaps he was born at Smyrna, but taught at
Ephcsus. Whether he was a layman, or held some sacred ollice, no one has in-

formed us. Both Ilippolylus and Epiphanius tell us, he had a brother; and they
both represent him as so delirious, that he declared himself to be Moses, [p. 683.]
and his brother to be Aaron. But that he was under so great infatuation, is in-

credible; since these very men who la.x him with it, show, by their discussions,
that he was no very contemptible reasoner. I can believe, that after his ex-
clusion from the cluirch, and when laboring to establish his new sect, he com-
pared himself with Moses, and his brother with Aaron; that is, he claimed, that
God was using liis and his brother's instrumentality, in the delivery of the Chris-
tian people from bondage to false religious principles, as he formerly employed
the services of Moses and Aaron in rescuing the Hebrews from bondage in
Egypt. And this really invidious and uncivil language, these his enemies per-
verted to a bad sense, thinking perhaps that he would gain few or no adherents,
if he could be made to appear insane or crazy. — The blessed preshyters («« |Ma«d-

fiot irfiT-fiurtpoi) of the church to which he belonged, when they found that he
taught differently from them respecting the person of Christ, required him to give
account of himself in an assembly of the church. He dissembled concerning his
views, which, at that time, only he and his brother cherished. But after a while,
having gained a number of followers, he expressed his sentiments more boldly.
And being again before a council, together with those whom he had
summoned
seduced into and refusing to obey the admonitions of the presbyters, he
error,

and his adherents were excluded from the communion of the church. Thus Ilip-
folylus and Epiphanius both state. Epiphanius alone adds, that Noetus and his
brother both died, not long after this sentence upon them and that no Christian ;

would bury their bodies. In this there is nothing hard to be believed, nothing
inconsistent with the common custom of Christians. But I wonder, they should
not tell us where tliese things occurred; I also wonder, that only the blessed pres-
byters are named as the judges, and no mention made of a bishop. Some may,
perhaps, infer that Noetus himself was the bishop of tlie place where the
business was transacted. But the usage of the ancient church did not give pres-
byters the power of trying and deposing their bishop. I would therefore sug-
gest, that there may have been no bishop at that time in the place where Noetus
lived. This conjecture is not free from difiiculties, I confess; but it has fewer
than the former supposition. — Lastly, it should not be omitted, that Theodoret,
and he only, states that Noetus was not the original author of the doctrine for
212 Centunj IIL—Sectlon S2.

which he was punished; but thnt he only brought forw.Tid an L-rror. which before
him one Epigonus had broaciied, and one Cleomenes coni\nned; and which, :ifler
the death of Noetus, one Callislus continued to propagate.
(2) The ancients are agreed, that Noetus, while he conceived that the doc-
trine taught by the Church could not be reconciled with those texts of Scripture,
which deny thnt there are any gods beside the one God, the Parent of all things,
(Exod. iii. 6. and xx. 3. Isa. xlv. 5. Baruch iii. 36. Isn. xlv. 14. for both Hippo- —
lytus and Epiphanius distinctly tell us, that it was on these texts he based his
doctrine,) —
while Noetus thus conceived, and yet could not doubt at all, that
Christ is God in the sacred Scriptures, he fell into the belief that the one
called

[p. 684.] supreme God, who is called the Father of mankind and especially of
Christ, took on himself human nature, in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, and,
by his sufferings and death, made atonement for the sins of men. Hippolytus
(Sermo in Noet. { 1.) says: 'Ef« fdv ^pta-Tdv durdv iivj-i top iruTi^a, xoi
dvTov rCv iraTifa -yiyivfij-^ai y a: Trivovd'erai kuj dTroTf^yttiiivat. Dixit Clu'is-
tum eundem esse palrem, ipsumque patrem genitum esse, passum et mortuum.
According to Epiphanius. Noetus replied to the reproofs of the presbyters, by
Baying: Quid mali feci ? Unum Deura veneror, unura novi, (xai cuk aWor r\ri¥
auTou, ytvim^ivra, frtTrorS-oTi., d^oS-dtovra,) nec praeter ipsum alterum natum, pas-
sum, mortuum. And a little after, he makes the Noetians say OV roWiiit :

6tou: XcyofJitV} dXX' ha 0idv aTrat-^i, dvrSv naripa row vnv, avrdv Cidv, xai 7rt-
irov^-oTa. Non plures Deos affirmamus, sed unum dunta.xat Deum, qui et pati
nihil possit, et idem filii pater sit, ac filius, qui passus est. But Theodorel the
most explicitly of all expresses their dogma, (whose words I give only in
Latin, for the sake of brevity,) thus: Unum dicunt Deum et patrem esse -- non
apparentcm ilium, quando vult, et apparentem, cum voluerit -- genitum et in-
genitum, ingenitum quidera ab genitum vero, quando ex virgine nasci
initio,

voluit; impassibilem et immortalem, rursusque patibilcm et mortalem. Tmpas-

sibilis enim cum esset, crucis passionem sua sponte sustinuit. (He adds :) Hunc
et filium appellant et patrem, prout usus exegerit, hoc et illud nomen sortien-
tem. What Epiphanius tells us, viz. that the Noetians made Christ to he both

the Father and the Son; or as Theodoret expresses it, They called Christ both the
Son and the Father, as the occasion required; This, both the ancients and the —
moderns have understood in a worse sense, than was necessary. For they tell
us, that Noetus believed the Father and the Son to be one and the same person;
that this person bore the name of Father, before he connected himself with the
man Christ; but took the title Son, after his union with the man Christ : so that
he be denominated both the Father and the Son, being the Father if view-
covild

ed in himself and apart from Christ, but being the Son if viewed as coupled with
the man Christ. From this exposition of his views, consequences are frequently
drawn which are discreditable to the reputation and talents of Noetus. But such
were not the views of Noetus; as an attentive reader may learn from the very
confutations of them. He distinguished the person of the Father from tJiat of
the Son : the Father is that supreme God who created all things ; the Son of God
is the man Christ, whom he doubtless called the Son of God, emphatically, be-
cause of his miraculous procreation from the virgin Mary. The Father, when
 Ojnnions of Noetus. 213

joined to this Son, did not lose the name or the dignity of the Father; nor was
he properly made the Son: rather, he remained, and will ever remain, the Fa-
ther; nor can he change either his name or his nature. Yet, inasmuch [p. 685.]
as the Father is most intimately joined to the Son, and become one person with
him ; therefore the Father, although his nature is distinct from the nature of the
Son, can, in a certain sense, be called the Son. And thus Noetus uttered no-
thing more absurd, than we do when we say, in accordance with the Holy Scrip-
tures, God is a man : a man is God : God became man a man became God. He :

only substituted tl;e names Father and Son, in phice of the terms God and man.
And The Father is the Son, and the Father became the Son, are
his propositions.

equivalent with ours, is a man, God became man ; and they must be explain-
God
ed in the same manner in which ours are explained, namely, as the result of
what we call the hijposlatic union. 'I'he only difference between him and us, was,
that he, by the Father, understood the whole divine nature, which he considered
incapable of any division we, by God, intend a divine person distinct from the
;

person of the Father. The idea which he annexed to the word Son, was the
same as that we anne.v to the word man. It is certainly altogether fal.se, that
Noetus and all those called Patripassians believed, (what we find stated in so

many books Holy Spirit

as unquestionable,) that the Father, the Son, and the
are only three designations of one and the same person. According to the ap-
prehens'ions of this sect, the Father is the name of the divine person or God, the
(Son is the name of the human person or the man. As to the Holy Spirit, none
of the ancients inform us, what were the views of Noetu.s. Yet from his deny-
ing that God is distributed into three persons, it must be manifest, that he viewed
the term Holy Spirit not as the name of a divine person, but as designating either
a divine energy, or some nature distinct from God.
Therefore the system of Noetus, so far as it can now be ascertained from the
writings of the ancients, was this. I. Very explicit declarations of Scripture put
it beyond all question, that, besides that God who is called the Father of all
things, there are no Gods. II. But those who distinguish three persons in God,
multiply Gods, or make more than one God. 111. Therefore that distinction of
persons in God, must be rejected as being false. IV. Yet the Holy Scriptures
clearly teach, that God was in Christ, and that Christ was the supreme God, fron
whom all tilings originated. V. To bring the two representations into harmony,
therefore, we must believe, that tho God who is in Christ, is thnt supreme God
whom the Scriptures call the Father of mankind. VI. This Father, in order to
bring relief to fallen men, procreated from the virgin Mary, a man free from all

Bin, who Son of God. VII. Thcit man, the Father

in a peculiar sense is called the

60 united with himself, as to make of himself and the Son but one person. VIII.
On account of this union, whatever befel or occurred to that Son or that divinely
begotten man, may also be correctly predicated of the Father, who took him into
society with his person. IX. Therefore the Fa/her, being coupled with the Son,
was born, suffered p.iins, and died. For although the Father, in himself [p. 686.]
considered, can neither be born, nor die, nor suffer pains; yet, as he and the Son
became one person, it may be said, that he was born and died. X. And for the
same reason, the Father being present in the Son, altiough he remains still tiie

Father, he may also be correctly called the Son.

 214 Century III— Section 33.

Tliis system subverts indeed the mystery of the Holy TrinUy,hut it does no
injury to the person or to the offices of Christ the Saviour, and it is much prefe-
rable to the Socinian scheme and its kindred systems. no more Moreover, it is
contrary to renson, tlian the system which supposes a divine person to have
united himself with the man Christ; nay, in more consistency witii reason, it
seems to establish the perfect simplicity of the divine nature. But there are
some men of high cliaracter, who can hardly persuade themselves, that Noetus
believed what I have stated: And they prefer the supposition, that Noetus did
not differ greatly from those commonly caU /d Unitarians : th;it is, tiiat he be-
lieved it was not the Father himself, but only some virtue from tlie Fatlier, that
entered into the man the Son. But I do not perceive that Ihey adduce any ar-
guments, which compel us to believe that the ancients did not understand his
principles. What they tell us, that SabeUius was a disciple of Noetus, and that
therefore the system of the latter must be explained as coinciding with Sabel-
lianism, is of no weight : for, — not to urge, that in regard to the real opinions of
Sabellius there is very great debate, — only Augustine and Philaster tell us that
Sabellius was a disciple of Noetus; and the testimony of these men, who lived
long after the limes of Noetus, and frequently made mistakes, is not worthy of
as much confidence, as that of those Greeks who lived earlier, and who knew no-
thing of Sabellius' being a disciple of Noetus. —Quite recently, an ingenious man,
who is well read in Christian antiquities, Isaac de Beausobte, (Histoire de Mani-
chee, vol. T. p. .534.) thinks he has found a .strong argument against the common
explanation of Noetus' system, in the confutation of that system by Epiphanius,
(Htercs. Ivii. p. 481.) For Epiphanius there states, that Noetus held God to be
(da-aS-it) impassible and Eeausobre thence concludes, with much confidence, that
Noetus coidd not, without consummate folly, have at the same time believed that
God suffered in the person of Cln'ist : because, to suffer ixnd to be incapable of suf-
But this objection is solved
fering, are directly opposite and contradictory ideas.*
by the passage before cited from Theodoret, in which he says the Noetians pro-
nounced one and the same Father or God, to be impassible in one sense, namely,
considered solely in his divine nature; but in another sense passible, on account
of his union with tlie human nature of the Son. It is strange that this worthy
man should not reflect, that this very thing, which he calls consummate folly,
[p. 687.] the great body of Christians daily profess; namely, that God who from
his nature cannot suffer, yet did, in Christ, suffer those penalties which men
owed to God; that is the sufferings of Christ's human nature are predicable of
God who was joined to that nature by an intimate and indissoluble union? —But
what need is there of protracted arguments ! If I do not wholly mistake, it is

manifest from the texts of Scripture by which Noetus supported his opinion,
that the ancients did not misapprehend his views. In the first place, as we are
told by Hippiolytus and Epiphanius, he quoted the words of Paul, (Rom. ix. 5.)

* To show with what assurance this learned man expresses himself, I will subjoin
his own words, (p. 5.34.) A moins que Noet et ses sectateurs ne fussent des foux a
loger aux petites maisons, ils n'oiit jamais dit, qu'un seul et meme Dieu — est iniuassi-

ble et a snuffert.
 Sabellius and the Sabellians. 215

Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning ihejlesh Christ came, who is-.
God blessed for ever. These words drive a man into difficulties, who maiiitiiins
Uiat only a certain divine energy was imparted to Christ; but they appear to aid
those, who maintain that God the Father, personally, was in Christ. And Noetus
thus argued from tiiis passage: If Christ is God blessed for ever, then undoubt-
edly, that God, beside whom there is no other, and who is wholly indivisible,
dwelt in Christ. He also applied to his own doctrine those words of Christ,
(John X. 30.) / and the Father are one : and those addressed to Philip, (John
xiv. 9. IC.) He that hath seeri me hath seen the Father. Believesi thou not that 1 am
in the Father, and the Father in me? Both these pas.sagC3 stand niucli in the way
of those, who believe that only some energy, emanating from the Fatiier, animat-
ed Christ the ambassador of God : but they can be very serviceable to ihose who,
with Noetus, suppose that the person of God the Father became blended with
tlie human nature of Christ so as to make but one person.
(3) The appellation Patripassians,\\hk\\ the early Christian writers applied to
both tlie Noetians and the Sabellians, is ambiguous, or does not express with
fiutlicient precision the error which those sects are said to have embraced. For
the term Father, as used in treating of God, had one meaning among orthodox
Chrii-tians, and another among tiie Noetians. The former understood by the
term Father, the first person of the divine essence; but the latter, the Noetians,
who supposed that to admit of persons in God, would conflict with his unity,

intended by the term Father, the supreme Deity who is altogether indivi^ible,
or the whole divine nature. And, therefore, when a person hears them called
Palripassians, he is liable, by taking the word Father {Paler) in its common
acceptation among Christians, to fall into the belief, that they supposed it was
not the Son, the second person of the divine nature, but ihit first person, who
bore the penalties of our sins, which would be a mistake yet it is a mistake ;

into wliich many fall, But if we

being deceived by the ambiguity of the term.
affix to it the Noetian sense of word Father, then the appellation Patripas-
tlie

siatis will be a suitable one for the sect. The appellation was devised for the
Biike of exciting a prejudice against, the Noetians; and such is generally the
fault in all such appellations.

§ XXXIII. Sabellius and the Sabellians. After the mid- [p. 688.]

die of this century, iSuhdliiis, an African bishop, or presbyter, of

Ptolemais, the capitol of the Pentapolitan province of Libya Cyre-
naica, attempted to reconcile, in a manner somewhat different from
thatof ^^oe/^<s, the scriptural doctrine of Father, Son, and holy Spirit,
with the doctrine of the unity of the divine nature. As the error of
Sabellius infected several of the Pentapolitan bishops, and perhaps
some others, Bionysius, the bishop of Alexandria, assailed it both

orally and by writing but he was not able to eradicate it en-

;

tirely. For, from unquestionable testimony, it appears that, in

the f(rurth and fifth centuries, there were Sabellians in various
21 Century III.— Section 33.

places.(') The doctrine of Sabellius was not identical Avith that

of Noetus ; for the former did not hold, as the latter appears to
have done, that the person of the supreme Deity, which he con-
sidered perfectly simple and indivisible, assumed the human na-
ture of Christ into union with himself; but that only an energy
or virtue^ emitted from the Father of all, or, if you choose, a par-
tide of the person or nature of the Father, became united with the
man Christ. And such a virtue or particle of the Father, he also
supposed, constituted the holy Spirit. Hence, when the ancients
call jSabellius and his disciples PatrijMssians, the appellation must
be understood differently from what it is when applied to Noetus
and his followers.(°)

(1) The name of Sabellius is of much more frequent and marked notice, in
the writings of the ancients, than the name of Nc'elus. Nor is he mentioned
solely by those who treat expressly of the sects in the early ages, viz. Epipka-
nius, Augustine, Theodoret,Damascenus, Philasicr, and the others; but there is
frequent mention of him also, by those who contended with the Arians and the
other corrupters of the doctrine of tiiree persons in God, and by those who ex-
pounded the true doctrine concerning God and Christ. Nevertheless, the his-
tory of Sabellius is very brief: and his views of God and Christ are stated
variously, both by the ancients and moderns. —The place where he lived can be
fully ascertained from Dionysius, Eusebius, Athamsius, and many others but ;

of his station, his conflicts, and his death, we are left in ignorance. Gregory
Abulpharagius (in his Arabic work, Historia Dynastiar. p. 81.) says that i)e was
a presbyler ; which, perhaps, was the fact: but what is added, that he held tiiis

office at Byzantium, is certainly false. Zonaras, (Interpretatio Canonum,) if my

memory is correct, calls him a bishop. Whicli of these authorities is to be

[p. 689.] believed, does not appear. — Tiiat his error spread widely, and not only
in Pentapolis, but elsewhere, and particularly in Egypt ; and that therefore, Dio-
nysius of Alexandria elaborately confuted and repressed it, is fully stated by
Athanasivs, (in his work, de Sententia Diony.sii, of which we sliall speak hereafter,)
and more concisely by Eusebius, (Hist. Eccles. L. vii. c. 6. p. 252). And it is no im-
probable supposition, that Dionysius held a council at Alexandria against Sabel-
lius. Tiie zeal of Dionysius may have driven the Sabellians from Libya and
Egypt. But in the fourth century, according to Epiphanius, (Haeres. Jxii. '(j 1.

p. 513.) the Sabellians were considerably numerous in Mesopotamia, and at

Rome. And in the fifth century, the abbot Euihymius, (as stated in his life,

written by Cyril of Scytopolis, and published by Jo. Bapl. Cotelier, in his Mo-
num. Ecclesiffi Grsecje, torn. iv. p. 52.) boldly assailed row ^a^tWuv a-uvaipurif,

(Sabellii conjunctionem,) i. e. the Sabellian doctrine vvliich confounds or cfl7n-

bines the Father and the Son. — There is extant a Historia Sabeliiann, by Chris-
tian Wormius, published at Leips. Ui96, Svo. It is a learned work, and useful
 Opinions of Sabellius. 217

in researches into the early history of Christianity ; but only a very small part
of it relates to Sabellius.

(2) Respeethig the real sentiments of Sabellius, there is great disaofreement

among learned men. The majority say: He taught that the Father, Son, and
holy Spirit, are only three nar ts of the one God, originating from the diversity
of his acts and operations : that he is called the Father, when he performs the
appropriate works of a Father, such as procreating, providing, cherishing, nour-
and protecting; that he is called the Son, when operating in the Son,
ishinLS
and thereby accomplishing what was necessary for the salvation of mankind;
and that ho is called the holy Spirit, when lie is considered as the source of all

virtue and saiictifieation. This exposition of his views, is supported by numer-

ous passiges from the ancients, who say that Sabellius taught that the Father
himself bore the penalties of the sins of mankind; whence he and his disciples
were denominated Palripassians. This opinion, Clirislian Worm, in his HislU'
ria Sabelliana, supports with all the arguments and authorities he can com-
mand. But others, relying chiefly on the authority of Epiphanius, maintain
that the ancients misunderstood Sabellius ; that he did not hold the Father,
Son, and holy Spirit, to be only three appellations of the one God, as acting in

different ways ; but that he believed the Father to be truly God, in whom is no
division ; and the Son to be a divine virtue, descending from the Father upon
the man Christ, so that he might be able to work miracles, and to point out
correctly the way for men to be saved ; and that he believed the holy Spirit to be
another ray or virtue from the divine nature, moving the minds of men and ele-

vating them to God. And on this ground, they conclude that there was a great
difference between the doctrine of Sabellius and that of No'elus, already de-

scribed ; and that the name of Palripassians was inapplicable to Sabellius, because
he did not teach that the Father, or God, suffered penalties,but only some [p. 690.]
virtue, proceeding from the Father, was present with the man Christ, and aided
him when he bore our penalties. And they say that the doctrine of Sabellius
did not differ greatly from that which is maintained by the Socinians. —Thus
have thought, besides others of less fame, Alexander Morus, (in cap. liii.

Esaiffi, p. 7, and N. T. pp. 81, 82. ed. Fabrici.) Isaac de Beauso-

in Observat. in

bre, (Histoire de Manich6e, vol. i. p. 533, &-c.) and Simon de Vries, (Dis.sert. de
Priscillianistis, Traj. 1745, 4to. p. 35, 36). But de Vries, if I mistake not, has
merely transcribed from Beausobre, without naming him. After very carefully —
comparing and pondering the statements of the ancients, I have concluded, that
those err who make the Sabellian doctrine and that of Aoetus to be the same
but those also are deceived, to some extent, vvho deny that the Sabellians could,
with any propriety, be called Palripassians by the ancients, declaring that they
were very much like the Socinians, and that if the statements of Epiphanius are
compared with those of the earlier writers, the whole controversy will be set-
tled. — I will now state, as carefully and perspicuously as I can, what appears to

me true in regard to this subject.

I. That fear, lest God, who as both reason and the Scriptures tench is a per-
fectly simple unity, should be rent into a plurality of Gods, which influenced
Noetus, likewise induced Sabellius to deny the distinction of persons in the di»
218 Century III.— Section 33.

vine nature, and to maintain tliat there is only one divine person, or (JtoVtos-k.
And hence, according to Epiphanius, (Hseres. Ixii. ^ 1, p. 504.) whenever the
Sabellians fell in with unlearned persons, whom they lioped easily to convert,
they proposed to them this one question Tt o<jv biroiuiv, ha Qiot t^outv, Tflit
: >i

Qioui ; What then shall we say Have we one God, or three Gods ?
?

II. But while Sahellius maintained that there was but one divine person,
he still believed the distinction of Father, Son, and holy Spirit, described in the
Scriptures, to be a real distinction, and not a mere appellaiice or rvmiinal one.
That is, he believed the one divine person whom he recognised, to have three
distinct/orTns, wiiich are really different, and which should not be confounded.
This remark is of the greatest importance to a correct understanding of Sabel-
lius' doctrine; and it ought, therefore, to be accurately substantiated. The first

witness I adduce is Arnohius — not the elder Arnobius, who lived in this third
century, and wrote the Libri vii. contra Gentes, but Arnobhis, junior — a writer
of the fifth whose work, entitled Conflictus de Deo uno et trino cum
century,
Serapione, was published by Francis Feuardenl, subjoined to the works of Ire-
najus. Though he lived long after Sabellius, lie is an author of much import-
anc(; on this subject, because he gives us statements from a work of Sahellius
himself, which he had before him. He makes Serapion say, (in FeuardenCs
edition of Irenseus, Paris, 1675, Fol. p. 520) : Ego tibi Sabeliium lego, (Serapion,

therefore, must be considered as holding in his hand some book of isahellius,

[p. 691.] from which he read,) anathema dicentem his, qui Patrem, et Filinm et
Spiritum sanctum esse iiegarent, ad convincondam Trinitatem. Serapion had be-
fore said : In Sabellii me insaniam induxisti, qui unum Dcum, Patrem et Filium
et Spiritum sanctum confitctur. And when Arnohius iiad replied: Sabeliium
negare Filium et Spiritum sanctum that is, that Sabellius tauglit that the Son
;

and the holy Spirit are nothing different from the Father, Serapion produced
an actual work of Sabellius, and showed from it that Sabellius did not maintain
what Arnohius asserted, or did not confound the Son and holy Spirit witii the
Father, but clearly discriminated the two former from the latter. Arnohius, on
hearing this, yields the point, or admits liiat it is so ; but still he maintains, that
there is a wide difference between the doctrine of Sabellius and that of other
Christians; because the latter believed the Son to be begotten by the Father,
which Sabellius denied : Nos autem Patrem dicimus et credimus, qm genuii Fi-
lium, et est Pater unici sui Filii ante tcmpora geniti. And this is a just repre-

sentation : for although Sabelliusmade a distinction between the Father and

the Son, yet he would not admit that the Son was a divine person, begotten by
the Father. From this passage, tlierefore, it is manifest: (a) That Sabellius
held to a Trinity, (b) That he anathematised those who denied the Father, Son,
and holy Spirit, or a Trinity. Whence it follows, that (c) Sabellius held to a
real,and not a mere nominal distinction between the Father, Son, and holy
Spirit. Had he supposed the terms Father, Son, and holy Spirit, were three
names of the one supreme Deity, there would have been no ground for his ana-
thema. For there never was, and never can be, a single Christian who denies
that these terms occur in the Bible, and are there applied to God. It is un-
questionable, both from the course of the argument, and from the nature of the
 Opinions of SabelUus. 219

case, tliat Sabellius condemned those who commingled and confounded the Fa-
ther, Son, and holy Spirit. But, most certainly, they do confound the Trinity,
who make the Father, Son, and holy Spirit, to ditfer in nothing but in name.
Therefore, was such persons that Sabellius anathematised. A second witness
it —
comes forward, viz. Basil the Great; who, although he sometimes seems to fit-
vor those who held that Sabellius taught a nominal distinction in the Trinity,
yet, in two passages shows, not ob.scurely, that Sabellius held to some real dis-
tinction in God. One of the passages is, (Epist. ce.x. 0pp. torn. iii. p. 317. edit
Benedict.) ; 'Avun-sVraTOi/ ruv TTfioTunrtav dvcivXaTUov, iv i't o la^iWloi TraittTti^aTo,

ItrriiVy roc duTov ©sov f.'o ri* vTroimuivti o/ra, ir^oj Taj fxaarsrs sra^aTtTTiuo'aj
yfiia^ fXiTauofi'^iuuitiov, \iZi (a'iv ojf TTareia, vy» ifs toj Ciov, vZv J'i w; irvivfJa ayiov

SiaXiyi^d-ai. lllud hypostasi carcns personarum commentum ne Sabellius qui-

dem rejecit, quippe cum dieat eundem Deum, cum suhji-cto unus sit, pro occur-
rcnlibus subinde occasionibus transformatum, modo ut Patrem, modo utFilinm,
modo ut Spiritum snnctura loqui. The other passage is (Epist. ccxx.w. p. 364.) :

Sa/SiXXios TToWa^ou (rvy^imv rni/ ivvoiav, i^riy^iifit S^iaifiiv ra irfur loira, tiiv durii*

vTrirraTiv \iybjt irftds r-tv lA.a7T0Ti rafiuiri-TTourav ^fiiav /niTa^nuari^ir- [p. (S92.]

9-ai. Sabellius, tametsi co;ifunuit notioiiem (Dei), tanien saepe conatur personas
distinguere, dum hypostasin eamdem ait pro usu subinde occurrente varJas per-
sonas induere. Basil, indeed, speaks less cle.irly than I could wish, on this very

obscure subject. But this is plain enough, that the Trinity of Sabellius was
not merely nominal or verbal. For while he maintained that there was but one
person (uTroCa-T^ns) in God, he yet held that there are three (vpitrcoTra) forms, or
aspects of the one God, and that he assumes the one or the other of these forms,
according to the st:ite of things. But divers /orwis of one and the same being,
however they may be considered, involve some real distinction, and cannot be
confounded with ditferent appellations for the same thing. But nothing will
better elucidate and confirm my position, than the comparison by which the Sa-
bellians were accustomed to illustrate their doctrine concerning the Father, Son,
and holy Spirit, as it is stated by Epiphanius, (Hajres. l.xii. p. 513). Having
stated the Sabellian doctrine in the common form : tivat iv f^u vTros-rdT-n t^sZj

ctio/LxaTiai, there are three appellations in one person; he proceeds to show that
this language must not be construed too rigidly, by saying : (I's iv dvB-puircc,

0'ai/Ua, xut -l-u^ii, Kai nuluf^a. Kai tivitl fj.iv to (rCifjta, u)j inrfn toi Traripa, 4"^''''
fi cjf iiTTilv Td\i viov, To irviufua (fj uf dv^piaTouy oi/T&jy "ai Td ayiov nvlufjia iv

tS QcirxTi. Patrem, Filium, Spiritum sanctum sic se habere in Deo quemad-

moduni in homine corpus, animara et spiritum ; corporis instar Patrem, anima?
Filium, Spiritum denique sanctum in Divinitate instar spiritus se habere. Com-
parisons, undoubtedly, are not to be pressed too far; but this one would lose
every shadow of likeness and similarity, and would become a dissimilarity rather
than a similarity, if Sabellius had taught only a Trinity of names or words. If
the ditference between the Father, Son, and holy Spirit, is the same — I do not
say altogether, but only in part —
as that between the body, the rational soul or
spirit, and the sentient soul in man then, necessarily, the Father, Son, and holy
;

Spirit, must differ really from each other. Sabellius, therefore, believed that, as
a man is but one perso::, and yet in his one person three things may be diserimi-
2-20 Century III— Section 33.

nated, not iii thought only, but as having a real existcnoe, namely, the body, the
soul, and the spirit, so, also, although there is but one undividi'd person in God,
yet ill that per-on, the Father, the Son, and the holy Spirit can be discnminated,
not ill thought only, but they must be really diseriiuiiiatcd and kept disliiict.

Other testimonies will occur as we proceed.

III. As Sabellius held to the simple unity of the person and nature of God,
and yet supposed the Father, Son, and holy Spirit, to differ really from each
other, and not to be three names of the one God, acting in different ways ; we
are obliged to believe, that he considered the Father, Son, and holy Spirit, as
[p. 693.] being three portions of the divine nature, severed, as it were, from God,
and differing from each other, yet not subsisting as three persons, but all de-
pendent on the one individual divine nature. And therefore God, when about
to create the universe, did not put his whole person in action, but he sent out a
portion of his nature, by which he accomplished his design. And this portion of
the Divinity is called the Father ; becau&e, by its agency, God h:is become the
parent of all things, or procreates, sustains, cherishes, and governs all. This Fa-
ther produced Christ in the womb of the virgin Mary, and for that reason is em-

phatically Christ^s Father ; and Ciirist is called the Son of God, because he
holds the relation of a Son, in regard to this divine energy. Again, when the
same God would veclaim to himself the human race by Christ, he sent forth
another portion of himself, which, being united to Christ, is called the Son ; be-
cause he resides in the Son of God, and by that Son teaches and works, and, in
a certain sense, makes one person with the Son. Lastly, God sent out a third
particle of his nature, perfectly separatefrom the two former, by which he ani-
mates the universe, and enlightens, excites, and regenerates the minds of men.
This portion of God is called the holy Spirit; because, like a wind, he excites
and produces holy movements in men. The three forms, or three irpoa-oMra of
God, therefore, y.ccording to Sabellius, were neither three qualities of the divine

nature, {existence^ wjisc/om, and life; as Abulpharaius supposed, Historia Dynast.

p. 81.) nor three modes of acting, nor three appellations of the one God ; but
they were parts or portions, rent, indeed, in a sense from God, and yet in another
—
sense connected with him. This exposition is compatible with that celebrated
comparison taken from the sun, whic-h Epiphanius mentions, and which had led
some worthy men to make the S:ibelli:ins agree with the Socinians. Epiphanius
(Hseres. Ixii. p. 513.) says, that the Sabellians were accustomed to explain
their doctrine by a comparison with the sun, thus : In the sun there is but one
substance, {f*ia yrrsj-rao-ij,) but there are three powers, {hifyiiai,) namely, {rd
puTirTuov, TO S-oXtov, to TTifiiipciiias <r)(^f^a,) the illuminating power, the warm-
ing and the ciicular form. The warming power answers to the holy
poioer,

Spirit; the illuminating power, to the Son; and the form or figure, (t6 ItS'o;,)
to the Father. This vrpresentation seems in itself to favor the opinions of those
who make Sabellius discard all real distinctions in the divine nature. But Epi-
phanius explains the comparison in a manner that makes it apparent, th:it Sa-
bellius did not intend, by this new comparison, to subvert his former compari-

eon, taken from the soul, body, and spirit in a man. For he adds, that the Son
was sent out like p ray from the Father, to perform what was requisite for the
 Opinions of Sahellius. 221

salvation of mankind, and, having accomplished the business, relumed noain to

heaven; and tliat the holy Spirit also, in like manner, should bo viewed as some-

thing sent into the world. Now, whatever is sent forth from God, and after-
wards returns to God, must undoubtedly be something actually separate in some
way from the divine nature: because, it could not possibly return back [p. G94.]
to God, unless it had departed and been separated from God. Let no one trou- —
ble himself with the difliculties which this dogma involves; for the question is,

not how wisely Sabellius reasoned, but what distinction he made between the
Father, the Son, and the holy Spirit.
IV. Therefore, although the ancients sometimes speak as if they would re-
present Sabellius to believe that the Father, Son, and holy Spirit, differ from
each other only as three modes of acting, or three relations of the same man,
yet their language is not to be pressed too much, but should be construed by

what we have above stated. And they themselves, often correct what they have
in certain passages stated less fitly and distinctly ; and explain themselves in
other passages, in accordance with our statements. One example we have al-
ready seen in Epiphanius ; who seems to teach that the Trinity of Sabellius
was only nominal, and yet he is with us. Another example is afforded by Basil
the Great, who speaks (Epist. ccxiv. p. 322.) as if Sabellius denied any real dis-
tinction in the divine nature ; and yet, in the two passages above cited, he ad-
mits that, while Sabellius rejected a personal distinction, he was not averse from
admitting one that was real and true and while denying that what was divine ;

in Christ differed from God, in the same way that a son differs from a father,
yet conceded that it might be viewed as a sort of separate {rpia-un^iv) person. I
will now add a third example, very striking, and well suited to our purpose,
taken from Theodoret. In his Heretical Fables, (L. ii. c. 9, 0pp. torn. iv. p. 223.)

he explains the dogma of Sabellius in the usual way ; viz. that he held to one
person under three names, and called that person sometimes the Father, some-
times the Son, and sometimes the holy Spirit. But in his Eccles. History,

(L. i. he gives us an Epistle of Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, to Alex-

c. 4.)

ander, the bishop of Constantinople from which it appears, that Sabellius ;

thought very differently. For he tells us (0pp. tom. iii. p. 533.) that Alexander
wrote thus : Trtsrivoutv li; Iva KiptcY, l>irovv Xfio'rdv, Td» vtdv tou ©fsu jMovoj-fvii,

ytwii^ivTa' tic rou oi/toj Tlctrfd;, ou kutu toc roiv a'di/udToiv ofxotoTHTaSy rSi{
T fJt a t i « T a t i CK S'talpciTlixjv dvoffOiatS) wff'Tt^ ^a0*\\ie>, xai BaXcf-
rlvce S'oKii, aW dfp))ra{. Credimus in unum Dominum Jesum Christum, Filium
Dei unigenitum, ex eo, qui Pater est genitum, non corporum ritu, per incisiones,
d\vh\onumque Jluxiones, ut Sabellio et Valentino visum est, sed inefRibili modo.
We may remark, that this is the statement of a man, than whom no one could
better knovv the doctrine of Sabellius ; for he lived in the country and city in

which that doctrine originated, was propag.ited, and condemned ; and he un-
doubtedly had in his possession the writings of Dionysius, his predecessor in the
see of Alexandria, against Sabellius. This man, therefore, who is the very best
authority in the case before us, first, states the doctrine of orthodox Christians
respecting the generation of the Son of God ; secondly, distinguishes [p. 695.]
from it the error of Valentinus and SabelUus, in regard to the generation of the
223 Century III.— Section 33.

Son ; and and Valentinus held, that the Son was

thirdly, tells us, that Sabellius

produced from the Father, manner of material bodies, eitlier (toTs toiaois)
in the
by sections, or (t* S'laiperimv dTroifaloin) by emanation or effluxes of parts. Tlie
latter of these two hypotheses, undoubtedly was that of Valentinus ; wliose well

known v^o^'^\ii {emission), is here not unsuitably called an dTrocooix (pffiux). The
first hypothesis, therefore, beyond all controversy, was that of Sabellius. Con-
sequently, Jirst, Sabellius admitted a species of generation of tlie Son from the
Father ; one of some sort. But, secondly, he de-
not, indeed, a personal one, yet
scribed this generation very grossly, and in the manner of material bodies.
Thirdly, he made the Son proceed from God, by {ri/xnv) a kind of section. Alex-
ander, indeed, speaks of (To^otj) sections, in tlie plural ; but he appears to use
the plural for the singular, as is common. For he also speaks of (dn-ofpo4<jj)

fluxions, in the plural ; and yet it is certain that Valentinus held to but one
diroffoiav or itfojioXyiv of the Son from the Father. Hence, fourthly, it is mani-
fest, that Sabellius considered that divine thing, which dwelt in the man Christ,
as being a part or portion of God ; Son differed from tiie Fatiier, aa
so that the
a part differs from the whole : from whom he was severed by a section. I recol-
lect, that George Bull, (in his Defensio Fidci Nicsenas, Sect. ii. c. 1, 0pp. p. 33.)

and perhaps others, explain passage of Alexander differently, and maintain

this
that Alexander does not here state the opinion of Sabellius, but only shows us
how Sabellius explained the common opinion of Christians, respecting the gene-
ration of the Son of God ; viz. this heretic supposed, that a division of the es-
sence of the Father would necessarily follow from the doctrine of the catholics.
But a careful attention to the passage, will siiow that the learned man was de-
ceived ; for the words will not bear his interpretation. The Sabellian and Va-
lentinian opinions, respecting the nature of tlie divine generation, stand coupled
together ; but the latter is certainly not the catholic opinion, as explained by
Valentinian, but the opinion of Valentinian himself; and, therefore, the Sibel-
lian opinion coupled with it, is the opinion of Sabellius himself, and not that of
the catholics, to whom he was opposed. Bull was led to his mistake by the
full belief, that the common statement of Sabellius' doctrine is correct. Ho
says: Norunt omnes, Sabellium docuisse, Deum esse /n o v o'^fo a- anrovy (a great
mistake ! For we see clearly from Basil, that he acknowledged three jrpitraura in
God, but denied three nullam realem personarum distinctionem in
Cnoa-Tdi-iis.) et
divina essentia, nedum divisionem agnovisse. This is in the main false Sabel- !

lius denied any personal distinction in God, but not a real and true division.
But Worm (in his Historia Sabell. c. 1. p. 20.) blunders still worse. To elude
the force of this passage, he would persuade us that the words to'«» and droffoia
both refer to Valentinian, and neither of ihem to Sabellius. Strange that a
[p. man should say this For who does not see that these two words
696.] learned !

express two different opinions? And who, that has dipped into church history,
can be so ignorant of it, as not to know that a to^mm, or section, can by no means
be attributed to Valentinus ? But what need of discussion? — We have another
equally noticeable passage of an Egyptian of Alexandria, who must have been
fully acquainted with the doctrine of Sabellius; namely, Arius the heresiarch,the
adversary of Alexander, who agrees with his enemy Alexander, and explains tiie
 Opinions of Sahellius. 223

doctrine of Snbellius in the same manner. His Epistle to Alexander, his bishop,
is extant in Epiphanius. (Hieres. Ixix. torn. i. p. 732). Arius there first con-
demns the. opinion of Valenlinus, re<peL-'ang the divine generation, and says:
TTfi^oXhv Td ycwu/ma tou Uarois UoyfAUTuriv : and then he rejects the opinion of

Sabellius, in the following term.s: iuS" wc 2a/3sXX/os o riiv (Aovafa iiaifdi

iioTraTcfx %iTiv. Ncc ego doceo, ut Sabellius, qui uritatem divisil (here we have
the TOfAoi of Alexander,) et Filium-Patrem appellavit. No language could b?tter
agree with our explanation. Sabellius diiided, cleaved the unity of the divine
nature; and he called tliat divine thing wliich dwelt in Christ, iJioTraToia, both
Father and 6'on ; and correctly, for a part of the Father was in Christ, and this
part was at the same time the Son, being united willi him ; and therefore he
might be called J/oirarjig.

V. As Sabellius supposed the Son to be a part of God, or a portion of the

divine nature, severed from it by section, the ancients were not altogether wrong
in denominating him and liis friends Palripassians ; provided we understand by
the Father the one supreme God, who, as Sabellius supposed, was not divisible
into persons. For, whoever supposes tliat a certain part or portion of the eter-
nal Father, taken in a certain sense out of iiim, and yet depending on him, and
hereafter to return into him, — was in Christ when he sud'ered pains and died,
and that it participated in the sulierings endured by the man Christ; — that man
may not improperly be said to believe, — not that a divine person, but God tho
Father himself; not, indeed, in his tchole nature, but so far forlh as he was join-
ed with Christ, actually suffered the penalties incurred by mankind. If any hu-
man being, Peter, for instance, could transfer a half or third pari of his sold into
another man, Paul, for exam})le, and that Paul should be put to torture by some
tyrant, might not that Peter be fitly said to have suffered torture iii Paul
'.
—
shall not cite here the testimonies of Avgusline, Eusebius, and many others,
who have told us either that Sabellius and his associates were called Palripas-
sians, or that they truly merited that appellation ; for such testimonies in great

abundance have been already collected by Woi-m, Tillemonl, and others but I :

will add to those adduced, one witness of great value, and deserving the first
rank, who has been omitted by all who have treated of the subject. lie is Di-

onysius Alexandrinus, the first antagonist of Sabellius. The Arians of the fourth
century, in their writings against Sabellius, affirm that this great and [p. 697.]

excellent man professed exactly their sentiments concerning Christ. And to re-

fute their assertion, Alhanasius wrote a book, entitled de Sententia Dionysii

Alex, de Christo, which has come down to ns, and is in the 0pp. Athanasii,

(torn. i. P. i. p. 242, &.c., edit. Benedict). In this book Alhanasius shows, from
the writings of Diomjsius, that he demonstrated, against Sabellius, that the Fa-
ther did not suffer and, at tiie same time, he shows that the Sabellians really
;

transferred to the Father tliose sufferings which Christ endured. In J

5. p. 246,

he says : TaX/UnpoTe^sv iKthot tov viov itfvovtro, )iat ra dv^pcoi'ivx duTOu t<j riarfl

aHT«3-«3-av (Tsi'laj oTi ot/;^' o jraTi/), dXX' o vioi i^-rlv o ytvif^ivos v-io vf^wv avd-pwrros.

Quum audacius illi (the followers of Sabellius in Pentapolis,) Filium negarent,

(i. e. denied that the Son was a distinct person from the Father,) et humana
ejus (his sufferings and death) Patri adscriberenl ; ostendit ipse (Dionysius) non
224 Century III.— Section 33.

Piilreiii, sed Filium pro nobis hominem esse factum. And in ^ 26. p. 261, he
cites from an Epistle of Dionysius to Euphranor and Ammoniiis, in confutation
of tlie error of Sabellius : TTfC^dWn ra avd-fa-yriwe iip>i/ucva tri^i tow a-amifcs, cisL

ivTi TO iriiySy, to kcttiSv - - or* yaf TiuTa. Ta.7riiva Keytrat^ tco-cvtO) J'luvt/TAI
/k;i irariif) yivifAivo; m^fuiTc;. PrEetermittit ea, quse humano more de ilio dicta
habentur, cujusmodi sunt esurire, laborare : quanto enim hsec dietu sunt humi-
liora, tanto liquidius demonstratur Patrem non esse factum hominem. This re-
nowned opponent of Sabellius, in the ardor of debate and zeal for victory, suf-
fered himself to be carried so far, that, not without apparent justice, he was ac-
cused of error before Dioni/sius, bishop of Rome. For while Sabellius seemed
to change the Son into the Father, or to confound him with the Father, Diony'
sius seemed to degrade the Son, or to rob him of his majesty. And lience it
became necessary for him to explain his views more clearly, and he wrote two
books ill self vindication, namely, his Elenchus and his Apologia. On this sub-
ject Athanasius dwells much and he clearly shows, by more than a sufficiency
;

of citations from Dionysius, that he did not hold the error of the Arians respect-
ing (Christ. (See J 13. p. 252, &c.) But after all the diligence of Athanasiu3
in defending Dionysius, and in wiping away every stain upon the character of

a man, held in the highest veneration at Alexandria, it will be manifest, to a

person carefully considering all that Athanasius has said in his defence, that
there was something erroneous in Dionysius, and that his opinion of Christ, dif-
fered from the Nicene and the modern doctrine. The more clTectually to con-
fute Sabellius, who maintained that God himself, or the Father was born, suf-
fered and died in Christ, Dionysius denied, (as Athanasius clearly shows, { 6.

p. (humana Christi) pertained to the God resi-

246,) that the passions of Christ
dent in Christ ; and he referred them exclusively to the Son. He therefore
went to the opposite extreme. That is, Dionysius distinguished in Christ the
Word, a divine person distinct from the Father, and also the Son ; or rather,
[p. 698.] he supposed two Sons, a human and divine. The Word, or the divine
Son, he exempted from all the passions (dyd-pojirlvots, humanis) of Christ, or from
all that Christ, as a man, did and suffered ; and maintained, that all these
passions, {dvdpuvtva) — his being born, suffering, dyi7ig, pertained solely to that

Son of man who was born of Mary. Here he erred, and entered the direct road
leiiding to the doctrine ascribed to Nestoi-ius. if the Son of God, or the For,
Word, which was united to the man Christ, had no part in the actions and suf-
ferings of the Son of man, it is manifest, that there must have been both two
natures and two persons in Christ, and that the Son of God, or the Word, only
strengthened, enlightened, and aided the Son of man. And, therefore, not with-
out reason, was Dionysius accused at Rome, although not with due accuracy
—
and distinctness. Yet, these mistakes of the pious and truth-loving Dionijsius,
serve admirably to elucidate the tenets of Sabellius: nameh^ that he supposed
a portion of the divine nature was so united with the man Christ at his birth, aa
to be born with him, suffer and die with him, and participate in all the actions and
sufferings of the man Christ, or the Son ; and that this portion of the Deity, on
account of its intimate union with the Son, is in Scripture called the Son,
although, properly speaking, only the man Christ should be called the Son.
 Error of Beryllus. 225

Either such were the views of Sabellius, or the entire argument of Dionysius
against him is futile, irrelevant, and idle. That which we, following the Seiip-
tures, denominate ii begotten by the Father, SalielUus took to
person, eternally

b(! :i pari of tlic Deity separated from iiim within a li;nited time. If he had only
supposed the divine nature in (^hrist to be a person, he would have coincided
with us, more exactly than Dionysius did. —
But perhaps it will not be unac-
ceptable, but rather agreeable to many, if I should discriminate with more ex-
actness the Sabellian, the Dionysian, and our own opinions of Christ We all
hold to two natures in Christ, a divine and a human. And ice hold that these two
natures constituted one person, and we exclude the personality of the human na-
ture, or place the personality in the divine nature. Sabellius, on the contrary,
while be agreed with us in declaring that the two natures constituted but one
person, excluded the personality of the divine nature, or made the personality to
exist only in and by the human nature. And to confute him, Dionysius sepa-
rated, not only the two natures in Christ, but also the persons, and held that the
actions and passions of the human nature, were not predicable of the divine
nature. Thus, in his zeal to confute one error, he fell into another equally
great.
VI. But Sabellius and his disciples cannot be called Patripassians, in the
same sense in which the Aoelians were if the opinions of the latter are cor-
;

rectly stated by the ancients. For Aoi'tus thought the whole person of the Fa-
ther, or the entire divine nature, associated itself with Christ : but Sal/ellius sup-

posed, that only a portion of the divine nature descended into the man Christ.
Hence, Epiplianius made no mistake when he said, in his Anacepha- [p. 699.]
laosis, (Ojtp. torn. ii. p. 146.) : Sabellianos consentire in plerisque cum Noetiiu
nis, hoc uno excepto, quod non ut Noetiani Patrem passum esse doceant.
This is perfectly correct, if it be explained as I have stated, that the Sabel-
lians did not ascribe the sufferings of Christ to the Father, in the same
sense in which the Noetians did. And therefore, there was no ground for
Aiigustine, (de Haeresibus,) and many others since him, to cast blame upon
Epiphanias.

§ XXXIV, Beryllus of Bostra, in Arabia. About the same

time a similar error, though a little worse, was broached by
Beryllus^ the bishop of Bostra, in Arabia, a man otherwise de-
vout, grave, and erudite, who had long governed his congregation
praise worthily, and also acquired reputation by his writings. lie
likewise subverted the distinction of persons in God, and denied
that Christ existed before Mary. He supposed that a soul, the off-

spring of God himself, and therefore, doubtless, superior to all

human souls, was divinely implanted in Christ at his birth. This
opinion of Beryllus was long opposed by many persons, but in
vain.' At length, Orijen, being invited from Egypt for this pur-
pose, confronted him in a council held at Bostra, with such force
VOL. n. 16
 226 Century III— Section 34.

of argument, that Beryllus gave up his opinioiij and Avas recon-

ciled to the church. (')

(1) Nearly all that is now known of Beryllus and his doctrine, is derived
from Eusebius, (Hist. Eccl. L. vi. c. 20. p. 222; and c. 33. p. 231.) and from
Jerome, (Catal. Scriptor. Eccl. c. 60. edit. Fabricii). For all that others tell
us, except a single passage in Socrates, scarcely deserves notice. Eusebius alone
states distinctly the errors of the man : and yet the learned have found some
obscurity in liis language, and therefore have understood him differently. His
words are these: Tox/uoiv \iystv f^it Trpo-Jpi^Tavat Xpia-Tov x*t' lS"iav ov(r{as Trtft-

ypu^y.v TTpd T»i hi di'S'/iwTouf ixiS'iiuiai, fj.vi tTs jMjv QioriiTa. iS'iav t)(^iiv, dW iiATro-

XiTivof^ivitv dvTu, fAiviiv Tiiv TT'XTfuh. I wlll subjolu thc Latin translation of
Heiu-y de Valois, although it is not literal throughout, and is deemed faulty by
some learned men. It is this: Ausus est asserere Christum antequimi inter ho-
mines versaretur (more correctly ante suum ad homines adventum,: id est, ante-
quam nasceretur. For a false inference may be drawn from tlie translation of
de Valois,) non substitisse in propria} personas differentia, (the learned transla-
tor here departs from the words, but follows the sense; for he supposed bus-ta to
be here equivalent to inriia-T^o-n. The literal rendering would be : secundum
propriam essentiae circumscriplionem,) nee propriam, sed paternam dunta.xat di-

[p. 700.] vinitatcm in se residentem habere. Two propositions are here in-
cluded : the first, relating to Christ previous to Ins birth, and tiie second, con-
cerning him wlien clothed in a human body. In the first place, Beryllus denied
that Christ, previously to his advent, so existed, that his essence or ouTia was
circumscribed, (or separated from that of all other beings). Although moat
writers concerning Beryllus follow the translatiort of de Valois, yet learned men
complain that he renders the words of Eusebius very badly. For lua-ia among
the Greeks is never synonymous with vitos-Ti.<7iQ, and nifnypipH never signities
difference, but circumscription. So John le Clerc, (Ars Critica, Vol i. P. ii. sec. i,

c. 14. p. 293, &c.) and the Nouvcau Diction. Historique et Critique, (tom. i. Art.
Beryllus, p. 2(38). The criticisms are correct: and yet I do not think de Valois
guilty of any great fault. Eusebius aimed to express the very same thing, which
de Valois has expressed in other words. Beryllus did not deny, that Christ ex-
isted insome manner, previous to his coming among men but he did not ad- ;

mit that his essence {iva-ia.) was circumscribed. Now things are said to be cir-
cumscribed, or to have (Trtpiyp^tjih) circumscription, when they are separated and
secluded from other things by determinate limits or bounds. Therefore, Beryl-
lus denied that Christ, before he was born of Mary, had a separate existence, or
thiit he was distinct from the essence of the Father. To express this in our
phraseology, would be to say: Christ had no personality before he teas born. He,
indeed, existed then, yet not as a person, but only in the essence of the Father.
He existed, but undefined or without boundaries, if I may so express it that is, ;

he existed in combination, as it were, with the essence of the Father of all

thiiws. To use a homely illustration: thus the ivine, now included in a glass,
existed, indeed, previously in the cask from which it was drawn, but.it iiad not
then its own viftyf^ipb circumscription. In other words, Beryllus excluded from
 Error of BenjUus. 227

the divine nature all divisions, nnd admitted no distinction of pcisons in God.
Jerome expresses his conception, not erroneously, indeed, yet not with sufficient
perspic-uily, (Catal. Scriptor. Eecl. c. 60. p. 138.): Christum ante incarnationem
negabal. He did not wliolly deny tlie existence of Christ before his incarnation,
but only his existence apnrt from tlie Father, or in our phraseology, his personal
existence. Tliat sucli was liis opinion will, I think, be be very manifest from the
second proposition of Eusehins, as follows : Christ, after his natidtij, had no in.
dependent divinity, but tlie divinity of the Father resided in him. This proposition
includes tiio three following positions: First, in the Son, or the man Christ,
there was a divine nature, or a divinity, distinct from his human nature. Yet,
secondly, this divinity was exclusively Chrisi's own. Those things arc said to be
a person's own, which he alone possesses, or does not hold in common with
otiiers. But, thirdly, the dicinily in Christ was that of the Father; in other
words, tlic divinity of tlie Father dwelt in him. This third propo^-ition is not ex-
plicit; for might be adopted by one holding, that the entire divine [p. 701.]
it

nature was united with the man Christ, and by one who holds, that only a part
of it was so united. But here Socrates comes opportunely to our aid, and ex-
hibits clearly the views of Beryllus, (Hist. Eccl. L. iii. c. 7. pp. 174, 175). He
tells us, that Eusebius and Athanasius assembled a council at Alexandria, in
which it was decreed, that Christ assumed, not only a body, but also a hmnan soul.
He proceeds to say, that this s-ime doctrine was taught by various of the holiest
and most distinguished writers among the early Christians ; and adds, that the
council against Beryllus, bishop of Philadelphia, — (a slip of the memory, for
Bostra,) — in Arabia, condemned the opposite doctrine of that bishop. 'H S^th

hifuWov ytrofjievH a-uvci':( ypapouTu. li>'piKK(a ra duru, (t/m^u^ov rov hn-v^fasiryfravTit,)

wafmS'iSaKti.Svnodus propter Beryllum focta scribens ad eum haec eadem tradi-
dil, homo factus est, anima pracditum fuisse. Therefore, Beryllus
Christum, qui
must liavc believed, that Ciirist had no human kouI. For how could the council
have condemned this error in its Epistle to him, if he was entirely free from it?
He, doubtless, admitted that Christ had a sentient soul, which the ancients dis-
tinguished from the rational soul; but the place of the latter, he supposed, was
in Christ supplied by the divinity of the Father. But this divinity of the Father,
which, according to ZJej-yZZi^s, supplied the place of a rational soul in Christ, was
not the ichole essence of the Father ; nor was it a certain influence flowing from
it ; but it was a most wise, excellent, and immaculate soul, issuing from the
very nature and essence of the Father, and therefore very like to the Father. 1

am by what Beryllus maintained, namely, that Christ, be-

led to this supposition
fore his advent among men, had not a distinct essence, or jrsf/>pa?))v iva-iai. For,
as it must follow from this, that after his advent he had a circumscribed, or dis-
tinct and definable essence, the opinion oi Beryllus can be explained in no other
way. And hence we may suppose, that Beryllus adopted the belief that God,
the author of all things, in whom there is no natural distinction, formed the man
Christ in the womb of the virgin Slary, and endowed him with a sentient soul
and then, to enable the man to perform the functions assigned him, united to
him a most perfect rational soul, derived from his oum bosom. And, therefore,
when the fathers of the council attempted to reclaim him from his error, they
228 Century IILSectlon 35.

contended that the ralional soul of Christ must be disthiguished from his
divine nature.

§ XXXV. Paul of samosata. Mucli more pertinacious, and

producing far greater disturbance in Syria, was Paul, a native of
Samosata, and bishop of church at Antioch a man not un-
tlie ;

[p. 702.] learned, nor destitute of genius, but vain and proud,
and, what was unusual, sustaining a civil office under the govern-
ment.('} His opinion, respecting the divine nature and Jesus
Christ the Saviour, is and inconsistently stated by
so variouslj'
the ancients, that it is with But by corn-
difficulty ascertained.
paring the i3rincipal documents which have reached us, respect-
ing the controversy with him, I think it will appear that Paul
held these tenets That the Father, Son, and holy Spirit, are not
:

different persons That the Son and the holy Spirit are in God,
:

just as reason, or the reasoning faculty and action, or the opera-

tive power, are in a man : That the man Christ was born without
any connection with the divine nature: That the Word or Eeason
of the Father descended into the man, and united itself with him
but not so as to make one person with him That the Wisdom or :

Reason of the Father, merely dwelt in the man Christ, and taught
and wrought miracles by him On account of this connection of
:

the divine Word v/ith the man Christ, the latter is, though im-
properly, called GoD.(^) Dionysius of Alexandria first wrote
against him, and afterwards assembled some councils against
him at Antioch. In the last of these councils, which appears to
have met in the year 269, one Malchion, a rhetorician, an acute
and eloquent man, so skilfally drew Paul out of the subterfuges
in which he had before lurked, that his error became manifest to
all. And, as he would not renounce his error, he was divested of

the episcopal office, and excluded from the communion by com-

mon suffrage. This decision Paul resisted and relying, perhaps,;

on the patronage of Zenohia, the queen of Palmja-a, and on the

favor of the people, he refused to give up the house in which
the bishop resided, and in which the church was accustomed to
assemble. But this queen, after governing the province of the
East for a time, was conquered by the emperor Aurelian, in the
year 272 and the contest being brought before the emperor, he
;

did not, indeed, decide it, but referred it to the arbitrament of

 Life of Paul of Samosata. 229

tlieRomish and Italian bishops, who decided against Paul.(^)

He behind him a sect, the Paulians, or Paulianists, which,
left

however, was not numerous, and did not continue beyond the
fourth century,

(1) All that has come down to us respecting the life and morals of [p. 703.]
Paul of Samosata, is found in an Epistle composed by the bishops of the coun-
cil of Antioch, in which lie was condemned; a part of wliicii Episileis preserved
by Eusebius. Hist. Eccles. L. vii. c. 30. p. 279, &.c. Paul was faulty enough,
and unwoilliy of a place among iiishops, even if we suppose tiiese bishops were
excited by passion, and exaggerated his faults. I admit that in his case too much
influence sec-ms to have been allowed to per-onal dislike, partial feelings, rival-
ship and envy : and perhaps he would not have been even accused of any corrupt
doctrine, if he had not been rich, honored, and powerful. And yet. in the ciiargea
ag.iinst him, there are some things which could not have been fabrications; and
these area sufficient ground for entertaining an unfavorable opinion of his life
and conduct. — I. Being born in iiidigc-nt and needy circumstances, he suddenly
acquired v.ist riches and the bishops charge him with having accumulated his
:

wealth by frauds, by deceptive promises, and base artifices. — Tiiis charge*! can
readily believe.For such was the condition of Christians in that age, that it

was not possible the incomes uf bishops should raise them to opulence, if they
did nothing unbecoming their office, or repugnant to religion. I therefore must
suppose, that the bishops state facts when they say, that Paul heard and decided
causes according to the customs of the age, and suffered bribes to be tendered
him by the litigants. — II. {w the conventions of the clergy, he imitated the
pomp of civil magistrates and juilges. For h'j erected for himself a tribunal, and
an elevated tiu'one, from which he pronounced judgments; and he had a private
audience room, like the Roman niagistrates. Tliis also, I have no doubt, was —
true. For the whole history of Paul shows, that he was a proud, arrogant and
vain man. Nor could one who was mucli at court, and high in favor there, relish
the holy and devout modesty of the Chiis'.ian bishops. — III. He loved to have
his discourses received by tlie pe)ple, as the declamations of the rhetoricians and
sophists were, with clappings and applauding acclamations: and he rebuked those
who withheld from him this honor. — This perhaps is not perfectly true : and 3'et

it is not altogether incredible. I su-pecl he was a sophist and rhetorician, be-

fore he became a Christian; and tlierefore was unwilling to forego that honor
among Christians, which he had long been accustomed to receive from his pu-

pils. —IV. He greatly lauded himself in his discourses, and spoke disparagingly
of the ancient doctors. —Perhaps, he affirmed thai certain religious doctrines
were not explained and inculcated with sufficient clearness and accuracy by the
ancients. —V. He abolished the use of the hymns in honor of Christ, to which
the people had been accustomed. —There is no reason to doubt the truth of this

charge. But I would direct attention to his reasons for discontinuing those
hymns. The bishops his accusers, do not s.iy, that he discarded those hymns be-
cause they contained any errors, but because they were recent, and com- [p. 704.]
posed bij modern persons. They say nothing further: but I will state how I uu-
230 Century III. — Section 35.

dersfand the matter. Paul discontinued tlio customary hymns, as b(!ing recent
productions, and substituted in their place the ancient Psalms of David, whicli he
wished to have used exclusively. For, being a shrewd man, and acquainted
with tiie ways of the court, he wished in this matter to gratify the feelings of
queen Zenobia, his patroness; who. as we learn from Aihanasius and others, was
attached to the Jewish mode of worship. — VI. He directed women to sing
hymns to his praise, in a public assembly on the great festival of Easter, and
caused the neighbouring bishops and presbyters to laud Iiim in their sermons.
That such things occurred, namely, that Paid was publicly lauded by svomen
and by neiglibouring bishops and presbyters, I can believe without much diffi-
culty; but that he was so infatuated, and so greedy of praise, as boldly to urge
forwai-d these proclaimers of his virtues, I cannot believe so easily. I suspect
that Paul, after the controversy arising from his novel opinions had become
warm, and the people had become divided into factions and parties, persuaded
some bishops and presbyters to defend and support his cause in public discourses
and, through his satellites, he encouraged some women, on Easter day, when the
people were all assembled, suddenly to shout forth his praise ; — in order to con-
ciliate popular favor to him, and to check the rising storm of opposition. —VII.
He allowed his presbyters and deacons, among other wrong things, to keep the
so-called sub-introduced (<ruv6/9'oiiT*f, subintrodur.tas) women : and he himself
kept lico young women, and carried them with him when he travelled. —This
was not contrary to the custom of the priests of that age of which I have spo- :

ken elsewhere. But the bishops do not accuse Paul of any illicit intercourse
with these women whence it appears, that though a lu.xurious liver, he was not
:

altogether regardless of the laws of chastity and decorum.

But it dearly was unusual and extraordinary, that while sustaining the office

of a bishop among Christians, he held at the same time a high under

civil office

the government; for he was a Ducenarius Procurator. This kind of judges was
institutedby Augustus; and they bore the title of Ducenarii, from the annual
salary of two hundred sestertia allowed them. They are often mentioned in
ancient books and inscriptions. That there were Ducenarii Procuratorcs in
Syria, an particnhuly at Palmyra, where Paul was in favor, is put beyond all
1

doubt by the inscriptions found at Palmyra, and published by Abrali. Seller.

(See his Antiquities of Palmyra, p. 166. 167. Lond. 1696. 8.) But let us at-

tend to the complaints of the bishops on this subject, in Eusebius, (L. vii. c. 30.);
u^tika «/iji?/ Kal CnipifiTai K'^tuiko. d^Kouara vTcS'vofjtiVcs. Kat SouKHVapiO!
/uSWou « 'E-TTis-miTCi Magna meditatur, et sseculares gerit
^i\uv M.nxiiT^Ai.
dignitates et Ducenarius vocari mavult, quam episcopus.
; Some learned
[p. 705.] men, not able to believe that a bishop among the Christians, a people
odious and condemned by the laws, was honored with so high an office among
the Romans, try to construe the language of the bishops differently from the
common Examples enough are found of Christians sustaining dis-
rendering.
tinguished offices in the Roman commonwealth, but that a Christian bishop or
preshijler should be enrolled among the Judges and Magistrates of the Roman

empire, is without example, or any probability, nay, seems to be impossible. I

formerly conjectured, that Paul of Samosatahad been a Ducenarius Procurator,
 Life of Paul of Samosata. 231

before his conversion to Christianity; which, if it were the fact, would show how

two so very different offices, the one sacred the other civil, came to be united in
the man. But the language of the bishops above cited, will not comport with
this supposition : for it could not have been regarded as criminal in Paul, to
retain his civil office after his conversion; and the Christians who created a
Ducenarius a bishop, would have been more criminal tlian Paul, who merely did
not refuse the sacred office luit superadded it to his civil office. Some learned
men, therefore, feeling tlie difficulties of the case, would give a different sense to
the language of tlie bisliops. They say, the bishops do not state tliat Paul was in
fact a Ducenarius, but that he would rather be called a Ducenarius than a bishop •

and therefore they only show us, that he undervalued the title of bisliop, and
would have been glad, if he could, to exchange it for the more splendid title of
Ducenarius. But, however specious this interpretation may seem to be, neither
the words preceding nor those that follow, will permit it. For the bishops
say, most explicitly, that he was xia-^/jca d^idfiara Cir otfuo fjitv o s, clothed
with worldly honors, and not that he merely coveted them. And immediately
after, they add that he moved in stale through the forum, read aloud and publicly
the letters (presented), and diclated (answers), nnd appeared with a throng (of at-
tendants), p-ecerfin? and following after him. Such things would not comport with
the office of a Christian bishop, who, if he should act in sucli a ma.niier, would
undoubtedly be thought deranged or out of his senses; but they are perfectly in
character and keeping for a Ducenary Judge or Magistrate; fur such a man,
clothed in the insignia of his office, and guarded by his attendants, at certain
seasons presented himself before the people, in the forum, where causes were
usually tried; with lictors going before him, and servants and ministers about
him. And as he passed along, many petitioners, as was the custom, presented
to him their petitions; and he, being the judge, read the petitions on the spot,
gave his decision, and dictated it to the attending scribes. —But, say thej^ can it

be believed, that the emperor would confer an office of so much importance on a

—
Christian bishop? I answer, it is not wholly incredible. This Paul was a very
prosperous man, and possessed great wealth and nothing is too high [p. 706.]
:

to be reached by means of money. The Roman provincial governors often sold

the public offices. But it is not necessary for us to suppose, that this bishop ob-
tained the office of a Ducenarius from the emperor. It is known from the Roman
history of those times, that Zenobia, the wife of Odenatus, a petty king of the Pal-
myrenians, a woman of great energy, and endowed with uncommon intellectual
and executive powers, governed the East, directing all public nffairs at her dis-
cretion, during the reign of the emperor Gallienus, from A. D. :262, to the year
272. good graces of the queen, who was a great admirer (f learning
Into the
and learned men, Paul, being a man of learning, a rhetorician, and not ignorant
of the fine arts, and of the ways of courts, had insinuated himself; as we are
expressly told by Athanasius, (Epist. ad. Solitaries, 0pp. torn. I. p. 386, &c.
and in Monlfaucon's Collectio Nova Patr. et Scrlptor. Graecor. tom. II. p. 20.)

and by Theodorel, Chrysostom, Aiceplwrus, (Hist. Eccl. L. vi. c. 27. p. 420.) and by
others. From this queen, therefore, as others before me have conjectured, Paul
obtained, perhaps, this office. — And yet to this queen also, whom he was most
232 Cenhmj III.— Section 35.

studious to plcaso, he o^'ed all those troubles, under which, after various con-
tests, he succumbed. He was, as his conduct shows, not one of those who
seek fame by means of religious controversies, but he was particularly eager for
weallh and honor. Hence it is more than probable, that he would have left
his people to believe what they ple;ised, had not his thirst for wealth and ho-
nors induced him to propose innovations. Zcnobia, as is certain from the testi-
mony of Alhanasius and others, was either a Jewess, or at least exceedingly
partial to the Jewish religion. Hence, like all the Jews, she was disgusted
with the christian doctrines of three persons in one God, and of the generation
of the Son of God. To abate her disgust, Paul accommodated his religion, as
far as possible, to the taste of the queen, by discarding all that was particularly
repugnant to the Jewish doctrine of one individual Gud. This is stated by
Tkeodorel, (Ha3ret. Fabul. L. ii. c. 8. p. 222.) by Chrysostom. (Homil. viii. in Jo-
hann. Opp. tom. viii. p. and by othei-s. And as all his opinions
48. ed. Bened.)
concerning God and we shall soon see,) were manifestly suited to
Christ, (as
repress the cavils of the Jews, who contended that the Christians subverted the
unity of the divine nature, and converted God into a man. nothing, in my —
opinion, is more credible than the above statement. And the same desire to
gra'.ify the feelings of the queen, induced him, as before remarked, to order the
discontinuance of the Hymns in common use among christians, and the substi-
tution of the Psalms of David. For it was his aim, to make the christian
[p. 707.] religion appear to differ as little as possible from that of the Jews.
(_2) Respecting the impiety of Paul of Samosata, scarcely any writer since
the third century, who has treated of the trinity of persons in God. and of
and the writers on heresies,
Christ, either formally or incidentally, is silent;
one and all, place this man among the worst corrupters of revealed truth, and
inveigh against him vehemently so Epiplianius, Theocloret, Augustine, Damas-
:

cenus, and the rest. Moreover, some of the public documents of the proceed-
ings against him, have reached us ; a circumstance which has not occurred in
regard to most of the other heretics. For there is e.xtant, I. a great part of the
Epistle of the bishops, by whose decision he was condemned in the council at
Anlioch, addressed to all the bishops of Christendom, to make it manifest that
they h:id good reasons for what they had done : In Eusebius, (Hist. Ecd. L.
vii. c. 30. p. 279, iScc.) But it is to be regretted, that Eusehius has preserved
only that part of the Epistle which recounts the vices and delinquencies of the
man, omitting the part which stated his doctrines or errors. If the latter had
been preserved, we could more confidently and more definitely determine what
were his principles. —There is extant, II. a copy of one of the Epistles of the
bishops of the council, addressed to Paul, relating to the controversy with him:
in the Bibliotheca Patrum Parisiensis, (tom. xi. p. 302. cd. Paris. 1644. Fol.)
In this Epistle, six of the bishops state tiieir own opinions respecting God and
Christ, and inquire of him, whether he disagrees with them. There is extant, —
III. an Epistle of Diovysius, of Alexandria, to Paul of Sumosata, in which the

writer chides and confutes him in the same Bibliotheca Patrum, (tom. xi.
;

p. 273.) Some very erudite men, and for reasons worthy of consideration, deny
indeed. ,nat this Epistle was written by Dionijsius. See Henry de Valois on
 Doctrines of Paul of Samosat.x. 233

Euscbius, (p. ]55.) Tlie Epistle is unquestionably very

iuiciunt, .iiid it was

addressed to Paul by whose name being omitted in

soiiu; bisliop or presbyter,

the e.irly copy, some person, recollecling that Dionijsius was an opposer of Paul,
ascribed the Epistle to him. From Queslion x. and the Answer to it, (p. 298.)
it seems to be inferable, that the writer of the Epistle, and of the Answers to

the Questions, was a fresbyier: for he is so styled by Paul. Tiiere are e.xtant, —
IV. tell Questions of Paul of Samosata, addressed to Diomjsius of Alexandria,
and the Answers of the latter to these Quest ons in the same Bibliolheea Pa- :

trum, (tom. xi. p. 278.) Of these, my opinion is the same as of the Ejiistle
above mentioned. That the Questions were composed by Paul himself, I do
not hesitate to believe, because I s^ee no ground for doubt. The Answers were
not written by Dionysiits, but by some one of those with whom Paul had dis-
cussion respecting his opinions. —
But this unequalled abundance of documents
relative to the heresy of Paul, has not prevented a great diversity in opinion,
both among the ancients and the moderns, respecting his real sentiments, [p. 708.]

For the ancients speak, sometimes obscurely, sometimes inconsistently, and

sometimes they mistake, either from passion or prejudice; and hence the
moderns difler widely, some criminating, and som*' vindicating the man. To
find the truth, if possible, among these uncertainties, I will first collect togetlier

all that can be learned, respecting PauVs sentiments, from those Epistles and
ancient documents just described ; for they are certainly more veracious and
trustworthy, than any others. And if we then compare with these statements,
whatever has reached us from other ancient sources, we shall see what we
ought to admit, and what we should reject. For whatever accords with those
earliest testimonies, must doubtless be regarded as true and whatever contra- ;

dicts them, bears the marks of falsehood.

I. The bishops by whom Paul was condemned, in their Epistle, preserved

by Eusebius, say First, That he denied his God and Lord: rov Qtdv Iuutov
:

Kon Kufto* dfvoufjthiu. (p. 280.) Secondly, That before the bishops, assembled
in council, he would not acknowledge that the Son of God descended from heaven :
Tdr iitov Tuu Qilj t| oup-^you K-xT-iKiKu^adLi. — Thirdly, Tliat he distinctly said,

Jesus C'nrist originated on earth : Mytt Vna-iZv y.j.irriv xdra-S-jv Fourthly,

That he went over abominable heresy of Artemas. What the heresy of
to the

Artemas was, with which they tax Paul, is a question of doubt and uncertainty,
I shall therefore pass by this charge, and consider only the others in svliich, ;

doubtless, the chief error of Paul was included, and that error which was the

cause of so much odium against him. —From these charges it is evident, that he

would not acknowledge Jesus Christ to be both God and man ; or, he denied,
that Jesus Christ was a person —
if I may so say, compounded of God and man.

For when he said, the Son of God did not descend from heaven, but originated on
the earth, what could he mean, but that Christ was a mere man, though divinely
begotten of the virgin Mary ? And what could the bishops mean, when they
taxed him with denying his God and Lord, but that he divested Christ of his
divinity, or denied that a divine person received the man Christ into union with
himself? From the same charges it also appears, that he called the man Christ
tlie Son of God; and this, undoubtedly, because he was supernatural ly pro-
234 Century III. — Section ob.

duced from tlie For he denied that the Son of God descended
virgin Mary.
from heaven ;most certainly, must be understood as referring to
and as this,

Clirix/, it is manifest that lie applied the title Son of God to the man Christ.

And this alone is a sufficient refutation of the error of those who believe, what
Marius Mercalor asserts, (de xii. Anathcmatisrais Nestorii, in his 0pp. torn. ii.
p. 128.) thatPaul of Samosata represented Christ as being a man, born like
other men Yet we have a better witness for confuting this error,
of two parents.
in Paul himself, who distinctly says, (Quaestio v. in the Biblioth. Patr. torn.
xi. p. 286.) I'^s-ouj I yvnh^iUiK Trvcv/Ltaros ay ion Kai M^piai riit rao^'hov.
;

[p. That the bisliops,

709.] Jesus ex Maria virgine et Spiritu sanclo natus est. —
whose charges we are considering, did him no injustice, he himself makes
manifest. For all his ten Questions now extant, whether addressed to Diowjsius
or to another person, have one sole aim, namely, to evince, by means of various
texts of scripture brought together, that Christ was a mere man, and destitute
of any divinity or, what amounts to the same thing, to confute the belief that
;

the didne and human natures united in Clirist produced one person. It is there-
fore not necessary to produce the testimony of others among the ancients to
the same point. And yet I will add that of Si?neon Betharsamensis, a celebrated
Persian, near the beginning of the sixth century, whose testimony I regard as
of more value than that of all the Greek and Latin futhcrs. In his Epistle on
the heresy of the Nestorians, (in Jns. Sim. Assemans Bibliotheca Oriental.
Clement. Vatie. torn. i. p. 347.) he says: Paulus Samosafenus de beata Maria
hasc dicebat : Nudum hominem genuit Maria, nee post pnrtum virgo permansit.
Christum autem appellavit creaium, factum, morlalem et fdium (Dei) ex gratia.
De se ipso vero dicebat : Ego quoque si voluero, Christus ero, quum ego et

Christus unius, ejusdemque siinus naturcc. These statements accord perfectly

with the allegations of the bishops, and with the character of Paul, who was
rash and extravagant. Epiphaidus also, (Hasres. Ixv. p. 617.) says of him:
that he gate himself the appellation of Christ: a declaration which is elucidated
by the quotation from the Persian Simeon.
II. The six bishops of the council of Antioch, in their letter to Paid before
sentence was pronounced upon him, while they stale their own doctrine respect-
ing God and Christ, condemn some errors of their adversary. In the first place,
they say, it could not be endured, that he should inculcate, iiiiv tZ-j ©;oi/ Qdv futi

iivat TTfd x.aTaSo>.K( nia-f^iv. Filiuni Del uou esse Deum ante constitutionem mundi.
And, foo Ql'^iJs KaTayyi\\i<r^-ai, iav o vio; tou ©aou Qtoi KUfva-s-Xrai. Deos iWonduOS
indueere, qui filium Dei pradicent Deum esse. (Bibliotheca Patr. tom. xi.

p. 303.) The bishops speak less definitely than could be wished; in consequence,
perhaps, of the studied obscurit;y of Paul, who did not wish, his real sentiments
to be distinctly known. And yet it, is not diilicult to see, whither tend the senti-
ments they attribute to lum. First, he acknowledged, thai there is something in
God, which the Scriptures call the Son of God. He therefore supposed, that
there are ttco Sons if God; the one by grace, the man Christ; the other iyjia/we,
who e.xisted long before the other Son. — Secondly. He denied, that the latter Son
of God, was God anterior to the creation of the world. — Thirdly. And consequently
he Iield, thai this Son (f God became, God, at the time the world was created. —These
 Doctrines of Paul of Samosata. 23b

statements appear confused, and very different from the common apprehensions
but tliey will admit of elucidation. Paul meant to say, that the energy, — or, if
any prefer it, the Divine energy, which he denominated the Son of God, was
hidden in God, before the creation of the world; but that, in a sense, it issued
out from God, and began to have some existence exterior to God, at the time
God formed the created universe. —Fourthly. Hence, he inferred, //ia/ [p. 710.]
those profess two Gods, (or speak of two as in the place of the one God,) who pro-
claim the Son of God to be God : but undoubtedly, considering what precedes,
the limitation should be added : before the creation (fthe world. His belief was,
that i/icy divide the one God into two Gods, who make the Son of God to liave
existed as a person, distinct from the Father, before the foundation of the world.
He did not denj-, as we have seen, that the Son of God was, in some sense,
made God, at the time the world was created. From all this we learn, that —
Paul denied the eternal generation of the Son of GoJ, and also his personal dis-
tinclness from the Father and he supposed, that when God was about to create
:

the world, he sent out from himself a certain energy, which is called theSon of
God, and also God, although it is nothing distinct from God. These ideas may
be further illustrated, by the subsequent charge of the bishops; in which they
not obscurely tax Paul, wiih representing God the Father a? creating the world
by the Word (if S'l' opyivcv xat tvirriifjiiii dvuTsa-TdTsu) as by an instrument,
and by intelligence, having no separate existence or jersonality. For it hence ap-
pears, that by the Son or WordofGod, he understood the divine icisdom {trrtTr^-
/*»*), which, before the world was created, had been at rest in God, and hidden
during numberless ages; but now, when the supreme God formed the purpose
of creating the world, it exhibited its powers, and aswere came out from the
it

bosom of the Faliicr ; or in other words, it presence, by discrimi-

manifested its

nating, acting, and operating. From that time onward, it is called, though figu-
ratively, the Son <f Gad, because it proceeded forth from God, just as a son does
from his parents; and also God, because it is essentially Gcd, and can be con-
ceived of as separate from him only by an abstraction of the mind. In perfect
accordance with these views, are the stntements of other ancient writers. Thus
Epiphanius, (Hajres. Ixv. p. 608.) states the sentiments of Paul: God the Fa-
ther, Son and Spirit, are one God. The Word and Spirit are ever in God, as
reason is in man : the Son of God has no separate existence, but he exists in God.
.... Cidi iy Tw vorfi, ws Xoj-oc iv av^pdirrt. The Son is in the Father, as
reason (not speech, sermo, as Petavius rendered it: but cTTt<rTii/uh, as (he bishops
term it.) is in man. Epiphanius, who as an author, was not distinguished for
his accuracy and research, has not stated all that Paul held, but what he has
stated, is very well. I omit similar citations from Alhanasius and others, that
the discussion may not be too prolix.
III. Dionysius, or whoever wrote the epistle bearing his name, (in the Bib-
liotheca Patr. torn. xi. p. 273. 274.) says that Paul taught : S'Co (esse) Ctro^Td^ns
Kui Su'j tTfiJS'it)va Tzu ivu; HjMuv X/iiyTii/, Kai tTus Xpis-Tsuj, x.ui i''J'j Cto'Ji, 'iva

^u^il riv uiOv TOO Qi'jV TrfonTrip^ovrai Jtai Ua Kar (,U'^vv/j.iav 'Kpi^rov x.at vlov

ToZ Ai/SiJ". duas esse hypostases et duv.s forinas (so I \\ould render the word
vpoiTura, rather than l^y penonas) unius Christi, et duos Christo.s, ac duos filiost
236 Century III. — Section 35.

[p. 711.] unum natiira filium Dei, qui fuit .inte sfeculn, et iiniim lioniun_vme Chris-
tum et filium D;ivid, qui .secundum beneplacitum (*«t' suJcxi^v) Uei accepit
nomen filii. Whether Paul so expressed himself, or whether Diovysius so in-
ferred from the language of Paul, there is nothing here disagreeing with the
opinions of Paul. For mere man, born of
since he declared Christ to be a
Mary and denied that the Wisdom of God, combined with the man Christ,
;

constituted one person and yet asserted, that the eternal Son of God, by
;

whom was created, dwelt in the man Christ and as he also called
the world ;

the man Christ the Son of God, and applied the .same appellation. Son of God,
to that power of the divine Wisdom which projected the world it must ; —
necessarily be, that in some sense, he recognized two distinct and separate
things in Christ, two forms, two Sons, two Christs. And here it should be
noticed, that the word v7ri<rTa.(ns, in the language of Diovysius, is not to
be understood in our sense of the term, but in a broader acceptation. And
from the Questions of Paul, (Quaest. vii. p. 290.) it appears, that he used the
word iiTrio-raa-K in a broad sense, as applicable to any thing that is or
exists, whether it subsists by itself, or only in something else. The eternal
Son of God, which Paul acknowledged to e.xist in Christ, he could not have
regarded as truly an ij7ro<TTa.a-t; or person. For, if he had so regarded it,

he would have admitted the very thing which he denied, namely, that the Son
of God is a person distinct from the person of the Father. — In this same Epistle,
(p. 274.) Dionysius blames Paul for saying : Hominem Christum magis Deo
plaeuisse, quam omnes homines, ad habitandum in eo («?«« Tic d<rKHTiKyt; kHi

intTT-.viu SiKiLtca-vvxi) idque sine dura et laboriosa exercitatione jnstitia;. He

therefore admitted, that God, in the sense before explained, i. e. as being the
Wisdom of God, dwelt in Ciirist. —But, he added, that God dwelt in Christ, sine

laboriosa justitiai exercitatione. This well explains the views of Paul, and in
part confirms my former remarks. For PauVs meaning is, that Christ, while

obeying tlie commands of the law, and suffering its penalties, acted and suf-
fered alone ; nor did God, as present with him, either act or sufler along with
the man Christ. And hence it appears, that Paul rejected altogether the
union of the divine and human natures in Christ. And in this manner, Dio-
n7jsius correctly understood him as appears from the confutation he subjoined,
;

in which he endeavors to show, by many proofs, that God was born in Christ,

and suffered the penalties, and died. More passages, of a similar character,
migiit be drawn from this Epistle but they are not needed. ;

IV. In the ten Questions proposed by Paul to Dionysius, the sole aim of
Paul is, to prove that the 7na7i born of jMary had no community of nature or of
action with God dwelling in him. Hence he brings forward the texts in which

the soul of Christ is said to be troubled and sorr(>icful. (John, xii. 27. Matt.

xxvi. 28.) And he then asks Can the nature: of God be sorrowful and troubled?

[p. 712.] And he lays before his antagonist, the words of Christ to the Jews,
Destroy this temple, &.c. (John, ii. 19.) and then demands: Can God be dissolved?
And this objectio-.^ so easy of solution, Dionysius answers miserably, by re-
sorting to a invslical interpretation. For he would have Paul believe, that by
the temple whicii Christ represents as to be dissolved, must be understood the
 Doctrines of Paul of Samosata, 237

disciples of Christ because these the Jews actually

dissolved, that is, dispersed
and scattered. And some
of the other answers are no better. In Question v.
(p. 286.) Paul says: Luke tells us (ch. ii. 40.) that Christ grew. But can God
gi'ow? If, therefore, Christ grew, he was nothing but a ynan. With this ar-
gument, the good Dionysius is greatly puzzled. But at length he finds hia
way out, and says: The hmj who, as Luke tells us, greio and waxed
strong, is the church; so that Ai|»s-/s tou Qiiu its Triv ixxAxa-r^tv ifr'i, the
groicih of God, relates to the church : for it is recorded in the x\cts, that tiie

church increased daily and was enlarged ; and that the word of God increased
every day. How ingenious and beautiful who opposed ! If all the bishops
Paul, were like this Dionysius for acutenesa and genius, do not wonder they I

could not refute him. And lest this fine response should lose its force and
beauty, Dionysius closes it with exquisite taunts But I will desist. Paul, —
undoubtedly, had wrong views, and views very different from those which tiie
scriptures inculcate. But his adversaries also appear to have embraced more
than one error, and they had not sufliciently precise and clear ideas on the sub-
ject they discussed.
These statements, derived from the best and most credable documents on the
Bubjeet, if carefully examined and compared together, will give us easy access
to the real sentiments of Paul of Samosata. The system he embraced, so far
as it can be ascertained at the present day, is contained in the following propo-
sitions. — I. God is a perfectly simple unit, in whom there is no division into
parts whatever I — II. Therefore, all that common christians teach, respecting
different persons in God, an eternal Son of God, and his generation from eter-
and should be corrected by the holy scriptures.
nity, is false, — III. The scrip-
tures speak indeed of the Father, the Son, and the holy Spirit. But those texts
must be so understood, as not to militate with the clearest and most certain
doctrine of both reason and scripture, respecting the unity of the divine na-
ture. —IV. The Son of God mentioned in the scriptures, is merely the
Reason (hiyot) and Wisdom («T/yT«u») of God. —Those who have trans-
Greek writers concerning Paul, into Latin, De Valois, Petavius, and
lated the
others,—commonly render the Greek word xo>of, by the Latin word Tcr-
bum. This is wrong. From
the Epistle of the bishops at Antioch to Pa2il, it
is clear, by Myos the divine Wisdom. Hence this Greek
that he understood
word is equivalent to the Latin word ratio. Marius Mercator, whom many
follow after, (de xii. Anathematismo Nestoriano, in his 0pp. torn. ii. p. 128,
edit. Garnerii) erroneously says : Verbum Dei Patris, non substantivum, sed
prolatiiiim, vel imperativum, sensit Samosatenus. But Paul did not recog-
nize the word Trfip'.fiKdv (prolativum): and by the word AJ^'f' he intended
the Wisdom or the Reason of God ; as is manifest from Epiphanius, [p. 713.]
ivho, it must be confessed, is not always sufficiently accurate; (Hares. Ixv.

p. 609.) : Aoj-o» vo/Ai^ova-t a-cpiav, oiov Iv 4"/^? dt^fwitou iK^o-ro; l^il Koycv. Vocant
sapientiam, qualem quilibet homo in anima possidet divinitus acceptam.
V. This Reason of God was at rest in him, from eternity, and did not project
or attempt any thing exterior to God. But when God determined to create

the visible universe, this Reason in a sense proceeded out from God, and acted
•23S Centimj Ill.—Sectlon 35.

exteriorly to G^d. On this account, in the scriptures, it is metaphorically

called the —
Son of God. VI. Tlie Spii'il is that ^ower, which God possesses, of
producing and animating all things, at his pleasure. It first received the name
of Spirit, when it manifested itself in the creation of the world and it is so ;

called, because it may be compared to the icind or the breath, which produces
motions in the air. When it excites pious emotions in the souls of men, it is

called the holy Spirit. —VII. And therefore, until God entered on the creation
of the world, and operated e.xternally, there was neither any Son of God, nor
any holy Spirit. And yet both may, in a certain sense, be pronounced eternal,
because they eternally existed would make known
in God. —VIII. When God
to men a way means of that eter-
of salvation superior to that of Moses, he, by
nal fou-er of his, which gives life and motion to all things, and which is called
the holy Spirit, begat, of the Jewisli virgin Mary, tiiat very holy and most per-
fect man, Jesus : and this mail, because he was begotten by the power of God,
without any intervening agency, is also called the Son of God ; just as a house
receives the name of its builder. (See Dionysius" Epistle to Paul, ubi Snpr.
p. 274.) — IX. This extraordinary man, though lie was more holy and more
nobhi than any other mortal, yet lived and acted in the way and manner of
other men, and was subject to all the wants and frailties which are incident to
our nature. And all the things which he either did or suffered, prove clearly
that he was a mere man. — X. But to enable him to perform the functions of a
divine ambassador, without failure, (for as a man, he was liable to errors and
defecls,) that same divine Reason, which proceeded forth as it were from God
at the time the world was created, joined itself to his soul, and banished from
it all ignorance on religious subjects and all li:ibility to failure. — At what time,

in the opinion of Paul, the divine Reason or Wisdom became associated with
I do not find stated.
the soul of Christ, I can suppose, that the advent of the

Reason or Word of God to the man Christ, was delayed till the commencement
of his public functions. Because, previously, the man Christ did not need the
aid of this eternal Wisdom. — XI. This presence of the divine Wisdom, (which
is nothing different from God himself,) in the man Christ, makes it proper that
this man should be, and he is, called God. Athanasivs, (de Synodis, 0pp. torn.
i. P. ii. p. 739,) : O'l dird riauXcu Tov XauanraTitss \iyovTat, X/iisttoc jo-ft^ov

[p. 714.1 |W6Ta T»v bavd'jico-iDKrtv ex, ttf'jx.rjTri; Ti^wnoiri'T^ai, tcj tjiv ?£/a-/v

4<xuf ai^fuiTTov yiyavhai. Pauli Samosateni discipuli dicunt Christum post in-
carnationem ex profectu (I am not sure, that Monlfaucon here gives the true
import of the Greek, t* Trf.KCTTii.) Deum fiictum esse, natura vcro nu-
dum hominem factum esse. —XII. It will be no mistake, then, if we say, there

are trco Sons of God : and that there were in Christ two t/.Tce-Tus-s/f, or
two distinct separately existing things, two forms or vrfiss-aiTst. XIII. But we —
must be careful not to commingle and confound the acts of these two Sons of
God. Each acts alone, and without the other. The divine Reason, with no
cooperation of the man, speaks by Christ, instructs, discourses, sways the
minds of the auditors, and performs the miracles. And on the other hand, the
man, with no cooperation of the divine Reason dwelling in him, is begotten, is
hui^ry, sleeps, walks, suffers pains, and dies. XIV. At length, when the man —
 Doctrines of Paul of Samosaia. 239

Christ had fulfilled liis mission, the divine Reason left tlie man, and returned to
God. Epijihanius, (Hasres. Ixv. \. 1. p. 608.)- <b»<T) riiJAor E'xS-wv o \iyoi btit-
ynfft fAovcs, Kut avii;.-3-6 jr^iis rdv narifu.. This passage is miserably translated
by Dion. Pelavius, (as are many other pass-ages in Epiphanius,) thus : Sed
solum, inquit Paulus, adveniens verbum, totuni illud administravit, et ad patrem
revortit. The true meaning of llie pas'^age is : The didne Reason came (to
the man Clnist, long after his birth, and when in mature lifeO ^nd sulehj (with-
out any community of action with the human nature,) operated in Mm, and
qflerivards returned to Gcd.
I am aware, tliat learned men have made the system of PawZ coincident with
the commonly received doctrine of Nestorius concerning Christ. And it is easy
to fall into such an opinion, if we take the words of the ancients in the sense
ordinarily given to them. And indeed there is some affinity between the Nes-
torian and the Samosatean views. Nor is this coincidence a recent discovery
for in the council of Ephesus, in the fifth century, it was supposed that Paul
prepared the way for Nestorius. (Sec JIarduins Concilia, torn. i. p. 1'271.)
And in the sixth century, Sime(m Betliarsamensis, (in Asseman''s Biblioth. Orient.

Clement. Vaticana, torn. i. p. 347.) tells us : Ex Paulo Samosatcno orta est

hosresis dunrum naturarum (or ratiier, personarum) et proprietatum, opera-
tionumque carum. Simeon here refers to the Ncstorian heresy. Yet tliert. —
really was a wide difference between Nestorius and Paul. The former admit
ted a plurality of persons in God and he so coupled the second person of tfit
;

divine nature, or the Son, with the person of the man born of Mary, that the>
continued to be two distinct persons. Neither of these positions was admittec*
by Paul; who denied any distinction of persims in God, and supposed that tiie
mere reason or icisdom of God, was temporarily joined with the man Christ, and
on this account, he acknowledged but one person in Christ.
(3) That more than one council was assembled at Antioch hgainst Paul of
Samosata, is certain, from Eusebiu.s, (Hist. Eccles. L. vii. c. 28, p. 278) and from
others. But how many councils were held, cannot easily be determined, [p. 715.]
That the last was held in 269, has been proved by Tillemonf. and others, by
arguments of the most satisfactory nature. (Sec Tilkmont, IMemoires pour
.... riiistore de I'Eglise, tome iv. p. 625.) In the preceding councils, as
Eusebius says, Dogmatis sua) novitatem occultabat. (See also Theodoret, Hae-
ret. Fabul. L. ii. p. 222, 223.) Being more crafty than his adversaries, Paul
deceived the bishops with his ambiguous terms, so that they thought him free
from error. This might easily be done, as may be inferred from what has been
said respecting his sentiments; and especially before men who were, indeed,
well disposed in regard to God and were with-
religion, but, as is quite evident,

out human and wholly unacquainted with the art of

ler.rning, simple-hearted,

disputation. Paul, as we have seen, expressed his opinions in the very words
and phrases used in the bible, and did not deny that Christ is God, and the Son
of God, and that in God we must distinguish the Father, Son, and
holy Spirit:

but to these terms he affixed a different meaning, which the inexperienced would
not perceive. There was need, therefore, of a more perspicacious disputant,

who could draw the man out of his hiding-places, and strip him of his disguises,
240 Century III. —Section 35. .>

by queries, interrogatories, and accurate distinctions. And such a man was

at lengl h found in Malchion, tlien a presbyter in tlie cliurch at Antioch who ;

had once been a teacher of eloquence, and liad presided over the school of the
Sopliists at Antioch, and, therefore, understood well all the artifices by which
the rhetoricians of that age managed a bad cause. Tliis man, by vanquishing
Paul in argument, is a tacit witness to what I asserted, tliat tlie other persons
engaged in this controversy, even the bishops, were men duficient in learning
and talents, and inadequate arbiters in such subtle controversies. Tlie records
of this discussion, with few exceptions, have perished: but the point at issue
between this Samosatean and Malchion, may be learned from Theadoret ; who
tells us, (Hffiret. Fabul. L. ii. c. 8, 0pp. tom. iv. p. 223,) that Malchion demon-
strated: That Paul considered Chrisl to be h^iia/Trov S-si'aj ^^d/j/i-os J'tapipovrtts
hominem insigniter diiinA gratid ornaium. By artful and deceptive
ii^tx/Aaav,

phraseology, therefore, Paul had endeavored to persuade the bishops, and per-
haps had actually persuaded some of them, that he held Christ to be God but ;

Malchion, by his eloquence and sliill, detected those artifices by which the good
bishops had been beguiled. Paul was condemned and deposed, by the suffrages
of the bishops. But, as Euschius informs us, (ubi supr. p. 282.) lie refused to
vacate (tow tSj UKMvim omou) the house of the church. This phraseology
shows, as learned men have remarked, that the bishops of Antioch resided in the
same house, in which the church ordinarily assembled. And Paul not only con-
tinued to occupy the house, but also to perform the functions of a bishop; as
we are expressly told by Theodore!, (nbi supr. p. 223): T^v tjTj iKKKna-ia; Kirtiy^tf
[p. 716.] vyt/uiviav. Pra^fecturam ecclesifc dimittere nolebat: notwithstanding
the council (as Eusebius informs us) had appointed Domnus his successor. This
however, would have been impossible, if the people of Antioch had regarded
the decision of the council as obligatory. But, undoubtedly, the majority of the
people chose to go with their bishop, rather than obey the council, although it

was very large, and composed (as Eusebius says) ex innumerabililms fere e.pis.

copis. Tins fact is confirmed by the bishops of the council in their epistle,

(apud Eusebium, ubi supr. p. 281.) for they complain, that Paul not only allowed
Psalms to be su7ig i?i honor of himself in the church, and his praises to be cele-
hrated in the congregation, (iv rd Xou,) but that lie was also present in those

assemblies, and did not rebuke persons who pronounced him to be an angel
from heaven, come among men, i. e. a teacher of the true wisdom which is from

heaven. The christian population of Antioch, therefore, or at least a large por-

tion of them, rejected the new bishop ; and remaining in communion with Paul,
continued to resort to the house where he resided for the purpose of worship,
and with willing ears listened to his praises publicly proclaimed from the pul-
pit.The bishops, in their Epistle, express their great displeasure .at this but :

when I consider carefully the whole case, I think they must themselves have
caused the For they disregarded the rights of the people, in the
evil in part.

creation of a new and they do not conceal the fiict, that they alone, with-
bishop ;

out any regard to the judgment and authority of the people, placed Domnus
over the church of Antioch, and ordered Paul to retire from his post. They say:
Wii!tyx.ix7^>flAiv tTf^ov ovt' dyrsa tm K'i.haKiK.^A inKKus-iA KXTtta-Ttifcti. NoS epis-
 Contests tcith Paul of Saniosata. 241

copi coacti fuimus aliuin ejus loco episcopuin ecclesiai cafholicre praeponere.
Tliey acted alone in the appointment ; for they niai<e no mention of the
people, or of the church. And tlierefore, the people of Antioch stood up for
their rights, and denied that it was lawful for the council, witi:out their know-
ledge or consent, to undertake so great a matter, and substitute another man in

place of tlieir old bisliop. And this shows us, liow Pa?/Z, though condennied by
BO many bishops, was able for three years to hold a position, of which he had
been pronounced unworthy. The people favored him and if they had deserted :

him, the affliir would have soon terminated. And yet I do not consider it an
idle supposition of some, that queen Zenobia, the patroness of Paul, afforded
him aid. But after her subjugatiop, in the year 272, the case was carried before
tJie emperor Aurelian, (wlio had ffot then become hostile to tlie christians ;) and

he, after hearing the ca^e, decided, (as Eusebius tells us) Tou'tck vliy-^i tSv :

S/xsv, on ur it xsTi Tay V'ra.Kia'i Kui T»v Pa'«aio)v wikiv EViVxos-o; tcS i'iy-

ptftTof sTKr-TiKXiiiiv. lis domum tradi debere, quibus Italici christians religi-
onis antistitcs et Rcmanus episcopus scribci-ent: or, that the building should
be surrendered to those whom the Italian hUhops should by their letter approre.

This decision of the emperor deserves, I think, a more careful examination than
is usually given it. In the first place, the emperor pays no regard to the decision
of the council !igain>t Paul : nor does he order his ejectment from the church, as
Theodore/, imd after him many others, represent. The decision was not [p. 717.]
in relation to Paul and Domnus; nor was tlie question, which of them was the
true and lawful bishop of tlie church at Antioch: but the subject under consi-
deration was, the possession of the house, and the rights of the parties wlio con-
tended about it before the emperor's tribunal. Aurelian must have pronounced
a very different sentence, if he approved the decree of the council, and decided
that Paul was justly deprived of his office. It appears moreover, from this deci-
sion, that there were two parties at Antioch, who contended for the house of the
church before the emperor. For the decree speaks of them in the plural num.
ber, (rouTot; viluat, k. t. x.) had been agreed, and had
If the Antiochians
united in a petition against Paul on his refusing to vacate the church, undoubt-
edly, Aurelian would have decided in favor of the people against that single
man: and he would not have referred the case to the judgment of the Italian
bishops. But there was a division in the community at Antioch no small part
:

of the people — and perliaps also many of the neighboring bishops, (for among
them, Paul iiad many friends; as the Epistle of the bishops, preserved by Eu-
sebius, testifies,) — took sides with Paul: while others preferred Dommis. And
both these parties contended for the possession of the house. Hence, thirdly,

the emperor being in doubt, and, from his ignorance of the christian religion,
unable to determine which party had the most valid claim, without pronouncing
any judgment, he committed the case to the decision of foreign and disinterested
bishops. And lastly, having learned that it was customary with the christians
to submit all their religious controversies to the determination of councils, he
thought the christian rule should be followed in this case ; and therefore he
directed the bishop of Rome to assemble the Italian bishops, to hear and judge
tiie case ; and he decreed that the decision of such a council should bind the
VOL. n. 17
242 Century III.— Section GO.

parties. There are also, as I appreliended, some implications in tiiis decree of

tiie emperor, which throw liglit on the discipline of tiie christians in that age,
and show us, that the bii-hop of Rome could decide nothing by himself, in the
controversies referred to him, but was obliged to assemble the bishops of Italy
in a council. It hence appears very manifest, unless I am greatly deceived, that
the writers on ecclesiastical aflfirirs wholly misrepresent this act of the emperor,
and that the thing should be understood very differently. Fred. Spanheim, (in his

Instit. Hist. Eccl. 0pp. torn. I. p. 751,) says: Quum parere nollet, ac sedibus
episcopalibus excedere Paulus, ab ipso Aureliano imperatore coercendus fuit. In
the same manner many others: and all of them wrong. Some tell us, more dis-
tinctlv, that the whole congregation of Antioch went before the emperor, and

besought him to expel the degenerate bishop whom the council had condemned
from the house of the church and that the emperor consented
; which is no : —
nearer the truth. The fact was this. There w-ere two parties at Antioch, the
one adhered to Paul, and the other regarded Domnus as the true bishop; and
[p. 718.] they litigated before the emperor, respecting the house of the church,
and not —be it carefully noted — respecting the bishop. And this was wise. If
they had carried their contest about the bishop before the emperor, they would
have exposed to its enemies those evils in the church, which should be kept
from public view ; and they would undoubtedly have increased the odium under
which they already lay. Besides, the question respecting the bishop, being a
religious one, they considered it as not pertaining to the emperor's jurisdiction.
But the controversy concerning the house, was purely of a civil nature, and
therefore could be carried into the forum. Aurelian did not venture to adjudge
the house in question to either of the litigating parties. For the Roman laws,
as is manifest, could not be applied to the case. The emperor, therefore, per-
mitted it to be tried by the christian ecclesiastical laws, and appointed for judges
the bishop of Rome with the other bishops of Italy ; because the oriental
bishops, having sympathy with the parties, could not be safely trusted to decide
the case. Such being the facts, I cannot agree with them who can see, in this
transaction, evidence of the emperor's good will towards the christians. For
nothing can be inferred from this decree of his, except that he would not at that
time have the christians molested : and this, probably, for what we should call

political reasons, or from motives of state policy. Neither can I accord with
those, who was influenced by hatred to Zenobia,'\\hom he
suspect that Aurelian
knew to be friendly to and that therefore he decided the case against
Paul ;

him. For there was no controversy respecting Paul, before the emperor nor ;

is there any indication of ill-will towards /iwn, in the edict of Aurelian,

§ XXXVI. The Arabians reclaimed by Origen. Seduced also

by pliilosopliy, beyond a doubt,were those Arabian followers of
an unknown leader, who supposed the soul of man to die with the
body; and that it would hereafter, along with the body, be restored
by God to life. As the parent of this sect is unknown, they are de-
nominated Arabians, from the country they inhabited. The distur-
 Beneficial Effects of Philosophy. 243

bances produced by this sect in Arabia, under tlie emperor

Philip^ were quieted by Origm; who, being sent for, discussed
the subject with so much eloquence, in a pretty numerous coun-
cil, called for the purpose, that the friends of the error gave up
their opinion.(')

(1) All that we know of this sect, — which is very little, — is to be found in
Eusebius, (Hist. Eccl. L. vi. c.Those adhering to it, believed I.
37. p. 233). —
Tli;it the soul is only the vital power, pertaining to, and moving the human

body. —
II. Hence they concluded, that when the body dies, the soul also be-

comes extinct; as Eusebiussays: in/y*Ts-a-v«Vxj/v toi; <rwM«o-/ kui <rvvS'tap^iifiT^ai.

This language can have no otlicr meaning than that above expressed. Those,
tliercfore, are not to be regarded, who make tiiis sect agree with the [p. 719.]

so-called Psychopanntjchians ; or, with those that believe human souls to be, in-
deed, distinct essences from the body, and that they continue to live or exist
when the body dies, but that they are destitute of consciousness and per-
ception, and, as sleep, when separate from the body. For those Arabians
it were,
supposed the soul, not only to die with the body, but also to become extinct.
They, therefore, must have held the soul to be a constituent p.nrt of the body.
The author of this sect, I can suppose, was an Epicurean before he became a
Christian. For there were, undoubtedly, in that age, adherents to the philoso-
phy of Epicurus, both in Syria and Arabia. When he became a Christian, he
attempted to combine with Christianity his philosophy respecting the soul or ;

rather, he would modify Christianity by his philosophy. III. He therefore —

taught his followers to believe, that God will hereafter recall to life the whole
man, or will restore to the body that vital power which it lost at death.

§ XXXVII. Benefits to Christianity from Philosophy. Yet,

it must not be denied that Christianity received some ad-
vantages from this disposition to elucidate theology by means ot
philosophy. For, in the first place, certain doctrines, which had
before been taught indistinctly and ambiguously, assumed a bet-
ter form, and were better explained in the discu.ssionswith those
who brought philosophy into the church. In the next place, the
growth and progress of the Gnostic sects were more forcibly
and more successfully resisted than before, by such as brought in
the aids of reason. For if the philosophical light, which shone in
Origen and others, was not great, yet it was sufficient to dissipate,
and entirely to overthrow the absurd fictions of these sects. And
therefore, from the time when Christians began to cultivate philo-
sophical knowledge, the Gnostics were unable to entice so inany
from the Catholic ranks into their camp, and to found so many
244 Century III.— Section 38.

uew associations, as in the preceding century, when they \verc

assailed oidy with scriptural arguments.(') Lastly^ this light of
human wisdom, though deceptive and dim, which some doctors
wished to unite with the light of revelation, was useful in chasing
from the church some opinions which the Christians had re-
ceived from the Jewish schools, but which were thought by many
to be of a holy and divine origin.

(1) Those who combated the Gnostics with scriptural arguments, were in

general poor interpreters of the Bible, as we may see by Irenccus, and they
[p. 720.] delighted more in allegories, than in the proper sense of scripture. And
the Gnostics opposed allegories to allegories; for the greater part of them
hunted immoderately after mysteries and recondite senses in the aacred books.

But which party expounded scripture most correctly, it is hard to say, as neither
of them adopted any fixed rules, but merely followed their ftincy. Besides, the
Gnostics had many other modes of evasion, so long as they were assailed only
on scriptural grounds.

§ XXXVIII. Among the Jewish opinions,

chiiiasm vanquished.
to which, in this age, Philosophy proved detrimental, the most
distinguished was that of the reign of Christ on earth, a thousand
years, with the saints restored to their bodies. This opinion, I
believe, was introduced into the church near the commencement
of the Christian commonwealth. And down to the times of Ori-
gen, all the teachers who were so disposed, openly professed and
taught it ; although there were some who either denied it, or at
least called it in question. But Orirjen assailed it fiercely for it ;

was repugnant to his philosophy and, by the system of biblical

:

interpretation which he discovered, he gave a different turn to

those texts of scripture on which the patrons of this doctrine
most relied. The consequence was, that this error lost its influ-
ence with most Christians. But, a little past the middle of this
century, Kepos^ an Egyptian bishop, endeavored to revive it and
give it currency, by an appropriate treatise, which he called a
Confutatio Allegoristarum. This book w\as admired by many in
the district of Arsinoe, and was thought to confirm the visible
reign of Christ on earth, by the most solid arguments. Hence
great commotions arose in that part of Egypt, and many congre-
gations gladly resumed their expectation of the future millennium.
But these commotions were quieted by Dionysius., the bishop of
Alexandria, a pupil of Origen, and inheriting his preceptor's learn-
 Ckiliasm Vanquished. 245

ing, as well as liis mildness of disposition. In the first place,

he held a discussion with one Coracion, the head and leader of
the controversy, and with his followers in which, by his admo- ;

nitions, arguments, and exhortations, he induced them to give up

the opinion they had derived from the treatise of Nepos: and
afterwards, to stopup the fountain of the evil, he wrote a confu-
two books, entitled de Promissionihus divinis.
tation of Niepos, in
In the second book of this work he very discreetly treated par-
ticularly on the authority of the Apocalypse of St. John; from
which Nepjos had derived the chief support of his opinion.(')

(1) The controversy respecting the reign of Christ on the earth, which [p. 721.]
originated from the book of the Egyptian bisliop. A'e/jos, against those he calh'd
AUegorisls, — all the writers on ecclesiastical history, narrate to us from Eiisc-
bias, (Hist. Eccl. L. vii. c. 24, &:c. p. 271, Sic.) and from GcnnacUus of Mar-
Dogmat. Eccles. c;ip. Iv.
seilles, (do p. 32.) for these are the only fathers, who
make formal mention of it. Nor is there any great deficiency in their account,
so far as tl'.e controversy itself is concerned, and aside from the causes wliich
produced it : and yet me rather jejune, and do not
their statements appear to
embrace every thing important to a correct understanding of the controversy.
I will therefore add some things, wliieh I deem worthy of being known. The —
doctrine of a future reign of Christ on the earth, a thousand years, with the
saint.s, was undoubtedly of Jeivish origin ; and it was brought into the church,
along with other Jewish notions, by those Jews who omhraced Christianity.
All Jews have not held one opinion, as to the termination of the Messiah's
reign ;and yet many among them, even at the present da\-, limit it to a thou-
sand years. Among both the ancients and the moderns, many iiave supposed,
that Cerinlhus first propagated this error among the Christians. Few, however,
will readily agree with them, if they consider, that this sentiment was embraced
—
by many, e. g. Irenaeus, TerluUian, and others, who abhorred Cerinlhus, and —
accounted him a pest to Christianity. Nor do I think Eusebius is to be trusted,
when he tells us, (Hist. Eccl. iii. c. 39. p. 112.) that
L. the expectation of a
millennium, flowed down subsequent doctors, from Papias, a bisliop of
to the

Jerusalem in the second century. For, as Papias w.ns not the first e.\cogitator
of the opinion, but received it from others, as Eusebius himself concedes, it is

tlear, that at least some Christians before Papias, had embraced this opinion ;

and therefore, those after him who received it, may have learned it from those
who lived before him. And Irenacns (contra HaM-eses L. v. c. 33. p. 333.) cites
Papias, not as being the author of tliis opinion, but as bearing his testimony to
it. Tt is most probable, that several of the Jewish Ciiristians, to produce some

agreement between the Jewisii doctrine of ,-.n earthly kingdom of the Messiah,
and the christian doctrine of our Saviour's kingdom of heaven, and to combine
the Jewish expectation with that of Christians, —conceived
in their minds, and

also taught, that there is a twofold kingdom of and a twofold expecta-

Christ,
tion of his disciples : and many of the christian teachers eitiier approved thij
 246 Centunj III— Section 38.

device, or tolerated it, as they did many others, in order to facilitate the transi-
tion of Jews to the christian community. We know, how much inclined men
are to combine the ideas they have received from their ancestors, with those
wliich they are compelled by evidence to admit ; nor are we ignorant how
much was conceded, in the first ages of the church, to the weakness of the Jews.
But, however this may be, it is certain that in the second century, the opinion
that Christ would reign a thousand years on the earth, was diffused over a great
[p. 722.] part of Christendom and that the most eminent doctors fixvored it;
;

and no controversy with them was moved by those who thought otherwise.
TertuUian (contra Marcionem, L. iii. c. 24. p. 299. edit. Rigalt.) speaks of it as
the common doctrine of the whole cimrch. He says Confitemur, (Mark he : ;

speaks without limitation ; not a particle, to intimate that the sect of the Mon-
tanists, to which he belonged, differed from other christians on this subject,)
confitemur, in terra nobis regnum repromissum, sed ante coelum, sed alio statu

(Then inserting some remarks on the nature of this kingdom, he proceeds :)

Hsec ratio regni terreni, post cujus mille annos, intra quam aetatem concludi-
tur sanctorum resurrectio, et qua} sequuntur. —
As we learn from Jerome, (Catal.
Scriptor. Eccl. and from the passage of TertuUian just quoted, Terlullian
c. 18.)
had written a book expressly on the subject, entitled de Spe Fidelium but the :

book is lost. He errs, however, in attributing to the wliole church, an opinion

which was lield only by a large part of it. Yet this is certain, from Justin
Martyr^ (Dial, cum Tryph. p. 243. 247. edit. Jebbii,) and others, that very
many, and they men of great influence, thought as he did nor were they, on ;

that account, taxed with corrupt doctrine. One Cuius, indeed, a Roman pres-
byter, in a dispute with Proclus, (as we learn from Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. L. iii.
c. 28. p. 100.) criminates Cerinthus, for holding out the expectation of a terres-
trial kingdom of Christ, abounding in all sorts of pleasures ; but his phraseology
puts it beyond controversy, that he censured, not so much that reign of Christ,
as the corporeal pleasures in it which he supposed, truly or falsely, Cerinthus
had promised. For there were, in that age, two opinions respecting this kingdom
of Christ. Some supposed, that in it holy men would live in the same manner
as men now do, and would freely indulge in all the pleasures whicii can be de-
rived from the senses. Others, although they did not exclude all the sensual
deliglits from that new kingdom of Christ, (which, for various reasons, was im-
possible,) yet they supposed its chief happiness to consist in the joys and plea-
sures of the mind. Says Terlullian, (in the passage before cited, p. 499.)
Hanc novam civitatem dicimus excipiendis resurrectione Sanctis et refovendis
omnium bonorum ulique spiritualium copid in compensationem eorum, qua? in
saccule vcl despeximus, vel amisimus, a Deo prospectam. Si quidem et justum
et Deo dignum, illic quoque exultare famulos ejus, ubi sunt et afflicti in nomine
ipsius. Whoever reads this passage carefully, will clearly perceive, that the
patrons of this opinion expected sensual enjoyments in that kingdom of Christ;
for it says. The saints will be refreshed, in compensation for the pleasures, which
in their former life they renounced for Christ's sake. But from these pleasures
they excluded all lusts, and promised a higher delight in spiritual things.
[p. 723.] Those who were addicted to the former opinion, were again divided
 Chiliasm Vanquished. 247

into two classes, as we shall soon see ; but both were considered as doing a
great injury to Christ, and to the promises he has left us. On the other hand,
the followers of the latter and more moderate opinion, were supposed to hold
nothing very unbecoming in a Christian, and were accounted as brethren.
But in the third century, the reputation of this more moderate doctrine declined
and first in Egypt, through the influence especially of Origen; and afterwards
in the other portions of the christian world, in which the opinions of Oiigen
gradually acquired a high reputation. And yet it could not be exterminated in
a moment; it still had, here and there, some respectable advocates. Origen,
in various passages of his works still e.xtant, censures and rebukes, vehemently,
those who anticipated an earthly kingdom of Christ, and sensual pleasures in
it. And in the eleventh chapter of the second Book of his work de Principiis,

(0pp. torn. i. p. 104, &c.) he assails them expressly, both with philosophical
arguments, and the cxegetical principles which he had adopted. In this chapter,
which is entitled Of the Promises, although he appears to assail only those
patrons of a millennial kingdom, who promised themselves in it nuptials, festivi-
ties, offices, honors, palaces, &.c. or, to use his own language. Secundum vitaa
hujus conversationem per omnia similia fore putabant omnia quaj de repromis-
sionibus e.\pectantur, id est, ut iterum sit hoc, quod est ;
yet, by opposing his
own doctrine concerning the divine Promises to theirs, he refutes also those
who expressed themselves more refinedly and wisely, respecting the joys and
felicities of this kingdom. For he utterly deprives souls, separated from the
body, of all hope of receiving pleasure from the senses; destroys all expectation
of any kingdom, to be established by Christ on this earth ; and maintains, that
God has promised nothing to souls, except an increase of knowledge, both
natural and revealed. In this discussion, there are some things of which even
modern philosophers need not be ashamed. For he infers from the boundless
desire of knowledge natural to the mind, that God will satisfy that desire and :

therefore, that the soul, if duly prepared in this life, and purified from its de-
filements, will, after its retirement from the body, mount on high, rove among
the celestial orbs, discern clearly and manifestly, things which it only knew
obscurely, while it resided in the body and was clogged by the senses, and will
alsocomprehend the grounds and reasons of all the divine plans and opera-
tions. —
But I am diverging from my subject. Origen was more decidedly op-
posed to this doctrine of an earthly kingdom of Christ, affording pleasures,
than others were, partly in consequence of the philosophy he embraced, and
partlyby the system of biblical interpretation which he exclusively approved.
Agreeably to the system of philosophy which he adopted, human bodies are the
penitentiaries of souls, which are doing penance for the sins they com- [p. 724.]
mitted in a former life ; the senses, and the use of the senses by the soul, are
a great impediment to the celestial and rational soul ; they prevent it from dis-

cerning and fully knowing the truth ; sensitive pleasures and delights, even
such as are lawful, allure to evil and poison the soul ; the man, therefore, who
is desirous of salvation, should withdraw his attention from the senses and from
pleasures, and should nourish his soul with the contemplation of things alto-
gether foreign from the senses ; the comforts and conveniences of life should
248 Century III— Section S8.

be avojdfid; and the body slioiild be treated %vith rig-or, and be divested of its
natural energies. A man imbued with such sentiments, could by no means
believe, that Christ will set up a kingdom on earth, in which his friends, clothed
with new On the other hand, Origen
bodies, will enjoy the pleasures of sense.
was obliged modify and debase the christian doctrine of the future resurrec-
to
tion of our bodies and of the reunion of our souls to them, so that it should
contain nothing opposed to his opinion of the nature of a ratiouiil soul : and
tiiat he did so, is very well known. — And then, how much the method of in-
terpreting the bible, which he prescribed, might dissuade him from admitting
this millennial kingdom, the copious remarks already made upon it, will mnke
manifest. For he wished to have the literal and obvious sense of the words dis-
regarded, and an arcane sense, lying concealed in the invelop of the words, to
be sought for. But the advocates of an earthly kingdom of Christ, rested their
cause solely on the natural and proper sense of certain expressions in the bible;
e. g. Matth. v. 6. and xxvi. 29. Luke xix. 17. and other similar passngcs, named
by Irenxus and Ongen. His mind, therefore, could not help revolting from
their opinion and he accounted it a great reproach to them, that they neglect-
;

ed what he considered the marrow of the sacred books, and dwelt only upon
their exterior. He says, (de Principiis, L. ii. c. 11. ^ -2. p. 104.): Quidam la-
borem quodammodo intelligcntia; recusantes, et superfieiem qnandam legia
literae consectantes - - Apostoli Pauli de resurrectione corporis spiritali (Mark
this language,) sententiam non sequentes. And having expatiated much on
this censure, he closes with the following sentence : Hoc ita sentiunt, qui Chris-
to quidem credentes, Judaico autem quodam sensu scripturas divinas iutelli-
gentes, nihil ex his dignum divinis pollicitationibus pra^sumpserunt. See also,
what he says in his xviith tome on Matth. (Opp. torn. iii. p. 826. &c. of the new
edit.) where he reckons it a great excellence of TropoUogij, (sucii is his term

for the allegorical mode of interpretation,) that the dei"enders of a millennial

kingdom cannot be confuted in any other manner. In the Prologue to his
Commentary on the Canticles, (Opp. torn. iii. p. 28.) he promises a formal dis-
cussion, in another place, with such as anticipate sensual pleasures in a kingdom
[p. 725.] of Christ: and periiaps he fulfilled his promise. Simpliciores quidam
nescientes distingucre ac secernere, qute sint qua3 in scripturis divinis interior!
homini, qua3 vero exteriori deputanda sint, vocabulorum similitudinis falsi ad
ineptas quasdam fabulas et figmenta inania se contulerint : ut etiam post resur-
rectionem cibis corporalibus utendum crederent. - - Sed de his alias videbimus.

This and censorious language shows, how odious this sect was to Origen.
bitter

The opinion whicii Origen resisted with so much resolution, Nepos,a lii>hop
of some unascertained city in Egypt, endeavored to restore to its foimor credit,
by '1 work written in defence of it, which he intitled lhiy)(_':,v AXKnycfta-Twi
/vd^cv, Covfutationem Allegoristarum. The opposers of this kingdom of Christ,
he called Allegorisls ; because they maintained that the texts of scripture, on
which the friends of the doctrine rested its defence, were allegories or mere me-
taphors. This appellation seems to iiave been given them in contempt by their
antaironists, as early as the times of Irenaus. See his work (contra. HaM-es. L.
V. c. 35, p. 335.) Yet I can scarcely doubt, that Nepos had espetia.lly belbre his
 Chiliasm Vanquished. 249

mind Origen find liis disfiples; who were spoken against by many on account
of tliL'ii- excessive love of aliegorii's, and wiio, by tlieir principles of interpreta-
tion,pressed very hard npon the friends of a millennial kingdom. But Nepos
was not one of those extravagant Chiliasts, of whom Cerinthus is said to have

been the leader, and who taught that all kinds of corporeal pleasures are to be
expected in the approaching kingdom of Christ: but he agreed with the other
and more moderate class, who, although they did not exclude all s^ensual plea-

sures from the kingdom of Christ, yet circumscribed them wilhin very narrow
limits. For this we have the testimony of Gennadius of Marseilles ;
(de Eccles.
Doginatihus, cap. who, while he leaves the doctrine of Nepos in much
Iv. p. 32.)

obscuiity, yet says enough to show, that Nepos did not belong to the company
of the Cerinthians. And his antagonist Diomjsius, makes him to havs been an
estimable man, and among other commendable acts, ascribes to him the compo-
siti(ni of very beautiful hymns. Gennadius says: In divinis promissionibus,

nihilterrenum vel transitoiium expcctennis, sicut Melitani sperant. Non nuptia-

rum copulain, sicut CerinMius et Marcion delirant. Non quod ad cibum vel ad
potnm pertinet, sicut Papia auctorc, Irenanis et Tertullianus et Lactantius acqui-
escunt. Neque post niille annos (I suspect here is a corrupt r'^ading, and that
the word rosx before milk, should be omitted. For Nepos did not teach that
Christ's kingdom was to commence after a thousand years, but that it was to
continue a thousand years) post rcsurrectionem regnum Christi in terra futurum,
et sanctos cum illo in deliciis regnatnros speremus, sicut Nepos docuit, qui pri-
mam jnstorum resurreclionem et secundam impiorum confinxit. This passage
is well framed for discriminating the various sects of the so called Millenarians
of the early ages. For Gennadius enumerates four opinions among [p. 726.]
them. T\w first is that of the Melitani, which is here obscurely stated, and, so
far as I know, is not explained by any of the ancients. The second is that of
Cerinthus and ^larcion, who promised men pleasures of every kind, and especi-
ally those arising from the conjunction of the sexes, and theretbre allowed a
place for nuptials in the new Jerusalem. The was a little more de-
third class
cent. It included Papias, Irenccus, and others. These were indeed ashamed to
admit of marriages in that kingdom yet they did not hesitate to allow, that its
;

citizens would enjoy the pleasures of eating and drinking. But the food ad-
mitted by them, was not to be like ours, gross, oppressive, and hard of diges-
tion, but of a higher character, more excellent, and more subtile. Hence, it
appears also, that the bodies they assigned to the ju.st when recalled to life,

would be more excellent, more sprightly, and more etherial than our.s. The
fourth opinion was that of Nepos, who taught in gener;d, that the saints will reign
in delights. The nature of these delights Gennadius does not explain. But as
he distinctly represents Nepos as dilTering from all those before named, it is
clean that he did not include connubial pleasures, nor those of feasting and
cai'dusing, among the delights of the citizens of Christ. He doubtless conceded
to them vei'y splendid, convenient, and agreeable mansions, serene and pleasant
skii's, the delights of the eye, the ear, the smell, and perhaps also some new and
etherial kind of aliment, suitable for bodies entirely different from ours and pos-
sesbing almost the nature of spirits. But the greatest part of their happiness
250 Century III— Section 38.

was to consist in mentnl pleasures, in continunl intercourse with perfectly holy

minds, in the contemplation of the providence and works of God, in their daily

advance in the knowledge of divine and human things, in the exercise of the

purest love, and in the joy arising from an increase of knowledge and intelli-

gence. — Tiie book,

which Nepos set forth his opinions, was admired especially
in
by one Coracion, a presbyter doubtless in the province of Arsinoe, and also by
many other cilizens of that province. I suppose it was written in an eloquent
and pleasing style, and on that account, more than from the force of its reason-

ing, charmed the minds of the incautious. For as Dionysius (cited by Euse-
it

bius) tells us, Nepos was an elegant poet, and had composed very beautiful
hymns, which were sung in all the churches of Egypt. And I therefore have
no doubt, his work was written in a flowery style, such as poets usually adopt.
That Cnrar.ion was a presbyter of some village in the province of Arsinoe, appears
to me evident from the language used by Dionysius (in Eusebius p. 272.) For
he says, that when he wished to confute publicly the opinion of Aepos, he called

together the presbyters and teachers who taught in single villages. From this it

appears, that no one of the bishops embraced the opinion of Xepos ; nor did the
doctrine find adherents in the cities, but only in the villages and hamlets. He
[p. 727.] also informs us, that Coracion, when convinced of his error, promised
no more to preach (J'lJ'aTx.fiv) that doctrine to the people. He therefore sustained
the office of a preacher and presbyter some village. But the opinion so high-
in

ly approved by Coracion and many other, though it was quite moderate, and

diflered mucli from the fictions of the grosser Chiliasts, could by no means find

approbation with Dionysius, who, as abundantly appears, was much attached to

the principles of Origen. For, that souls once happily released from their pri-

sons, should again become united and appetites,

to bodies possessing sensations
and susceptible of sensual pleasures, and should, during a thousand years, use
the perishable good things of this life and the allurements to all evil, was wholly
repugnant to the precepts taught by Origen to his followers. Therefore, fir.st,

in a public discussion of three days continuance, in the very province where the
error prevailed, Dionysius confuted the arguments of JSepos ; and then also, in

two written tracts, he demonstrated that all the promises of Christ's kingdom
had reference to the soul and to the celestial world. In the second tract he la-
bored, not indeed to destroy, but to diminish, the credit of those divine visions
of Si. John, from which Nepos had drawn his principal arguments; by contend-
ing that the book called the Apocalypse was not the work of St. John the
Apostle, but of some other person of the same name a holy man, indeed, and ;

one divinely inspired, yet inferior to an Apostle. This discussion respecting the
Apocalypse of St. John, a part of which is preserved by Eusebius, contains
several things both interesting and useful to be known not the least of which :

is this, that Dionysius evidently supposed, there were different degrees of what
is called divine inspiration; and that greater light and power were divinely im-
parted to the Apostles when they wrote, than to other writers who were influ-
enced bv the holy Spirit, but who had not the honor to be Apostles. For in the
close of his discourse he tells us, that St. John, through the divine munificence,
manifestly received not only the gift of knoiuledge, but also that of utterance or
 Rise of Manichcdsm. 251

eloquence. To ^afia-fAct T«; yvdTtu'i, x.ai Tiis 9pdi-iQ>s. But the writer of the Apo-
calypse, he thinks, received indeed from God -yvaij^iv and Trpoar.Tiiav, the gi/l of
knowleds;e and prophecy, but not tluit tvu ippanui, or that of ullerance and elo-

quence. Therefore his inspiration was less perfect than that of John and the
other Apostles. What consequences may be drawn from this doctrine, I need
not state. But it is very probable, that Dionysius supposed, the doctrines of
religion can be fully proved only from tiie writings of Apostles, to whom, as he
supposed, God granted com-plele inspiration, and not from tlie writings of those,
to whom was given less full inspiration, or inspiration inferior to the Apostoli-

cal. For unless he supposed so, the object of his elaborate discussion respect-
ing the author of the Apocalypse, cannot be discovered. —Periiaps the remark is

worth adding, that it appears from the account Dionysius gives of his [p. 728.]
conference with the followers of Xepos, that he pursued with them the Socratic
and Platonic mode of discussion, that by questions and answers which shows in :

what school he had been trained.

§ XXXIX. Rise of Manichaeism. Amid these efforts of the

more sagacious Christian by means of philosophy, to ar-
doctors,
rest the progress of the Gnostic sects, and to purge Christianity
from Jewish defilements, a little past the middle of the century,
a new pest, worse than all that preceded, invaded the church
from Pereia; and, although the greatest and wisest men with-
stood it, both in oral discussion and in books, yet they could not
prevent its spreading with surprising rapidity, almost throughout
Christendom, and captivating a vast multitude of persons of
moderate talents and judgment. Manes, a man of uncommon
genius, eloquence, and boldness, and richly endowed with all the
qualities which can easily move and inflame the popular mind,
either misled by some mental disease, or actuated by the love of
fame, devised a new system of religion, which was a strange com-
pound of the ancient Persian philosophy and Christianity and ;

boldly urged it upon the people, as being divinely communicated

to men. The man himself experienced very adverse fortune, and
died a miserable death but the way of salvation which he pro-
;

posed, though full of monstrous ideas and puerile conceptions,

and in no respect superior to the Gnostic fables, and more absurd
than most of them, obtained a wider circulation than any of the
sects of the preceding times. Xor will this be strange to a per-
son understanding its character. For, if we regard its doctrines,
they are all popular, and explain whatever is abstruse and diffi-

cult of comprehension, in the manner best suited to vulgar ap-

prehension ;
and if we regard its moral precepts, they are gloomy,
252 Century III— Section 39.

and impress tlie beholder \\\\\\ a great show of sanctity, sell-

and contempt for worldl}^ things. Such systems of relig'um,
denial,
though void of solidity, yet, through the weakness of human
nature, generally find many friends and followers. (')

(1) Of all the sects in the first nges of tlie chun-h, none is more notorious,
none was more difficult to be subdued and put down, none had a grenter num-
ber of friends, than tiiat founded by Makes; a prodigy of a man, and ve:ierable
[p. 729.] in a degree, even in tlie frenzy by which he was actuated. Tiiere is
much similarity between him and Moliammed ; for the former, like tlie latter,

boasted of divine visions, proclaimed himself divinely commissioned to reform

the corrupted religion of the Christians, and restore it to its original jierfection;

showed a book, which he falsely stated was dictated to him by God, and sought
to obtrude it upon mankind; and finally, has left the succeeding ages in doubt,
whether he should be classed among the delirious and fanatical, or among the
artful impostors. —The number of the ancient documents, from which tlie his-
tory and the doctrines of Maies may be learned, is not inconsiderable. For,
not to mention the well-known authors who wrote avowedly on the sects of the
early times, namely, Epiphanius, Atiguslvie, Ensebius, Theodorel, Damnscenns,
and Philas/er ; there are extant some of the writings o? Manes himself, and his
disciples, from which the opinions of the sect may be illustrated, and the false

expositions of them be corrected. We have a large part of a tract of Manes, in

a Latin translation from the original, whether Greek or Syriac, entitled Epistola
Fundamenti ; contained in a work of Augustine^ in confutation of it. We have
a small part of his Serrno de Fide, in Epiphanius, (Hajres. Ixvi. 14. tom. i. p. 630.)
We have his Epislola ad Marcellum; (in the Archelai Acta cum Manete, p. 6.

edit. Zaccagnii.) We have some fragments of his Epistle to a certain woman,

called Menuch; preserved by Aiigusline in his imperfect work adversus .Inlia-
num Pelagianum. We have, lastly, some fragments of his Kpistles, extracted
from a manuscript in the Jesuits' College at Paris, and published by Jo. Alb.
Fabricius, (in his Bibliotheca Graeca, vol. v. p. 284.) Tn the next place, there
are extant the Acta disputalionis Arcltelai, cpiscopi Me.sopotamicr., cum Manete,
first published by Laur. Alex. Zaccagnius, (in his Collectanea Monumentor.
veteris Ecclesiae Gr. et Latinse, Rome, 1698, 4to.) and re-published by Jo. Alb.
Fabricius, (in the second vol. of the Opera Hippolyli.) Tliis is a very ancient
work, and was known among Christians in the fourth ceninry ; as is manifest
from Cyril of Jerusalem, and from Epiphanius. The credibility and authority
of this tract are, indeed, learnedly impugned by Isaac de Beausobre, in his His-
tory of Manichfeism, (vol. i. c. 12, 13. p. 129.) who thinks composed
it a fable,
by some Greek scribbler of the fourtli century, about the year 330, and derived
partly from hearsay, true or false, and partly from the ingenuity of the writer;
and intended to exhihit the base character of the Manichsean errors. And he
shows, plainly enough, that these acts contain some things, of the truth of which
there is good reason to doubt. But, I think, he has not given evidence, that no
such discussion ever occurred between Archelaus and Manes. This certainly
be icgitiuiately inferred, from some few historical errors admitted, or
'xj.nnoi
 Ulse of Maniclicdsm. 253

seeming to be admitted, by the writer; nor from the silence of some among the
ancients and moderns respecting these Acts. Yet no better arguments [p. 730.^
are otiered by this very learned man, who po-sesscd genius of a high oidi'r, but
was too ready to question the credibility of the ancient Christi.in writers, and
too often relied upon his own conjectures. But, be this as it may, these AcLs
are certainly of high antiquity ; and as the depreciator will not deny, they con>
tain many things, either extremely probable, or having the appearance of
truth. —We have, moreover, at this day, a book of Fauslus, a Manichasau bishop
in Africa, in which he explains the doctrines of his sect, and defends them with
all the eloquence and energy he possessed. This entire book, Augustine ha3
very laudibly inserted in his confutation of it. To this work of Fauslus, should
be added two public disputes of Augustine with two Manichajan priests, Felix
and Fortunatus ; in both of which, the priests zealously plead the cause of their
church, stating, at the same time, their sentiments. — Lastly, some of the early
opposers of Manes, (of whom Fabricius has given a long list, in his Bihiiotheea

(Jra;ca, vol. v. p. 287.) have come down to us; and no competent and honest
judge will accuse them of bad faith, in stating the opinions of the man they op-
posed, or of inability to confute those opinions. Preeminent among them is

Augustine, the great doctor of the African church; whose writings against the
Manichauans, seem entitled to more consideration than those of others on the
SMme side, becau.se he was for ten years, or from the nineteenth to the twenty-
eighth year of his life, a member of the Manichican community, and had im-
bibed all the principles of that sect. The learned Bcausobrc, jniH mentioned,
objects, indeed, and denies that Augustine is one from whom the doctrines of
the Manichjeans can be ascertained with correctness; and he seeks to confirm
this decision by examples. Nor is he wholly wrong; for it must be acknow-
ledged, that Augustine sometimes deduces consequences from the language and
opinions of the Manieha?ans, which they, his ancient associates, rejected; which
is a common thing with all polemics. I will also willingly admit, that ho slightly
modifies some opinions of his adversaries, in order to assail them with more
effect. And yet I deliberately affirm, after examining well the subject, that in
most things, one who wishes to understand the mysteries of Manichasism, may
follow Augustine without fear of being misled.Nor will the minor errors into
which Augustine sometimes falls, prove injurious, .since he quotes the very
words of Manes and Manichceans, from which may be learned, without difficulty,
—
whether he made a mistake or not. Next to Augustine, among the antagonists
of Manichseism who have escaped the ravages of time, the most worthy of
notice is Titus, bishop of Bostra, in Phenicia, whose Libri tres contra Mani-
cha^os, together with the Argument of the fourth Book, (first published only in
Latin,) are now extant, Greek and Latin, in the Lectiones antiqua? of [p. 731.]
Henry Canisius, as ro-published by Ja. Basnage, (torn. p. 156, &c.) This i.

work is carefully and accurately written; although it does not embrace the
whole system of Manes, but only a very material part of it, draw-n from his
book de Mysteriis. In the same Lectiones antique, (tom. i. p. 197.) there is ex.
tant, Greek and Latin, the Liber contra Manicbaeos of Didijmus of Alexandria;

but it is brief, and does not adequately explain the views of the Manichajana.
2:^« Cenf.ury III. — Section 39.

Mere to be recommended, is the xiyc^ vrpog -as Uuvix^lcv cTi^ac, or I.iber contra
JJ.inichrei opimones, of Alexander, ci philosopher of Lycojtolis; Greek pul/lislied,
ann Lat. by Francis Combejis, (in hisAuctarium novissiiniun Bibliothecae Patr.
torn. ii. p. 260.) But it requires a sagacious reader, and one not ignorant of the
new Platonic philosophy, to which the author was addicted, and the principles
of which are made the basis of the argumentation. Alexander also passes over,
or but slightly touches, many points very necessary to be known, in order to
form a correct judgment of the controversy. Of other writers, inferior to these,
and affording little aid to the investigator, I need not give account. From the —
documents above described, yet without disregarding those which incidentally
speak of the Manichsean doctrines, I will present to the view of my readers a
brief, but faithful digest of the i\ranicha?an system, methodically arranged, taking
great care to state nothing as true, which is dubious and uncertain.
A catalogue of modern writers, concerning the Manicheeans, is given by Jo.
Alb. Fabricius, (in his Bibliotheca Grseca, vol. and most
v. p. 296.) but the best
elaborate of them all, Fabricius could not mention, because his work was not
then published. That writer is Isaac de Beausobre, a man of superior genius
and oi widely extended knowledge; whose Hislorij of ]\Ianes and jManichccism,
written in French, was published at Amsterdam, 1734 and 1739, in two vols.
4to. This work will do honor to the author's name, in all future ages, wherever
letters, genius, learning, and all good arts shall be held in estira;;tion for it ad- ;

mirably elucidates many points of Christian antiquities, and contributes not a

little to a correct knowledge of the doctrines held by those who, in the first
ages of Christianity, receded from the general church and formed separate com-
muniiies. And yet, as in all human composition, so in this work of diversified
learning and of vast labor, there are some things, which an impartial man, whose
only aim is truth, could wish were otherwise. And first, in this history of Ma-
nes and of Manicha'ism, there are many things which do not relate to the sub-
ject. For the very learned author, who had read much, heard much, and
treasured up much, upon every favorable occasion deviates from his subject, and
pours forth abundance of matter, not at all necessary to our having a full know-
ledge of Manes and his followers. These frequent and long digressions, though
all of them contain useful matter, often embarrass the reader, and may cause

[p. 732.] him sometimes to misapprehend the author's meaning. For when
things in some way connected, but in other respects wholly unlike, are associ-
ated and commingled, confusion may arise prejudical to the truth. Still, this

superabundance, as it has its utility, we can the more easily overlook in this ex-
traordinary man. But it is a matter of greater moment, that the author strains
every nerve of his ingenuity, to make nearly all the heretics of the early ages,
and especially the Manichasans, appear to be more wise, more holy, more excel-
lent, than they are commonly held to be. In this matter, as may be easily
shown, this excellent man is first carried too for by a kind of ill-will towards the
doctors of the ancient church; and then, again, he is inconsistent with himself.
when too much evidence presses upon him, he acknowledges,
For, frequently,
thatamong the heretics of the first ages there were men delirious and foolish ;

and that Manes himself, whom he favors the most, was a splendid trifler, and
 Life of Manes. 255

either aimed to beguile and deceive others, or was himself deceived by some
vagary of his own mind yet, at other times, he maintains that the very persons,
:

whom he had before censured, were real pliilosophers, and not weak men and ;

he not only defends and vindicates Manes, but actually honors him, not merely
With the splendid appellation of a philosopher, but of a philosopher who reasons
well. Thus this erudite man fluctuates, and is borne in opposite directions,

being urged on the one side by regard for truth, and on the other, by his partiality
for the heretics, especially for Manes. And in order the more easily to defend Ma-
nes and the heretics generally, he either tacitly or expressly assumes as facts,

some things which those who difler from him will not readily admit. Among these
assumptions, the principal one is, that all the ancient doctors of the church,
either from ignorance or from malice, calumniate the heretics, and misrepresent
their sentiments. This is easily said ; but it is far more difficult to prove it,

than they imagine, who in our age adopt it in treating of the history of the here-
tics:and the number of such is well known
to be great. Yet, relying on this

maxim, this learned man, whenever he finds anything in favor of Manes or the
other heretics, which seems not to accord with the decisions of his adversaries,
confidently embraces it, as a thing not to be questioned at all, and applies it to

overthrow the uniform statements of many other witnesses. And in such cases I

never discover any want of learning and ingenuity, but I often see a deficiency
of caution and fairness. —There is another of this learned man's rules, wliicli is

very dubious. It is, tliat whenever any doctrine attributed to the heretics con-
tains things absurd, silly, futile, or contrary to common sense, then we must
suppose that doctrine falsely attributed to tiiose heretics. It is well, however,
that the learned man himself does not always follow this rule; for he is some-
times compelled, reluctantly, to acknowledge, that Manes and others embraced
not a few opinions wholly at variance with every appearance of rationality, the
dreams of the delirious, rather than the judgments of men in their right minds.
And yet he often resorts to that rule, although it is manifest that notiiing could
be more fallacious; and there are numberless examples of persons, not [p. 733.]
wholly bereft of reason, yet most shamefully violating the first principles of
reason, and debasing religion with the most silly fictions. — I will not mention
other things, which might reasonably be censured, in a book otherwise most
beautiful; things, however, which ought to be so censured, as not to detract
from the great merits and reputation of the author.

§ XL. The Life and Labors of Manes. Respecting the life and
labors of Manes, there is great disagreement between the Greek
and the Oriental writers and as this disagreement can in no way
;

be reconciled, and both seem to have blended the true and the
false, beyond the possibility of a separation at this late day, all

that rem^ains for us to do, is to state what they unitedly teach,

and leave the rest to be discussed by the curious.(') The things
in which they all agree, are substantially as follows: Manes, or
25G Ceiiturij III.-- Section 40.

^fAXICHyEUS, for lie is called by both names, was a native of

Persia, a manof a venerable aspect, of an exceedingly fecund

genius, was educated in the schools of the Magi, and was master
of all the arts and learning, v/hich the Persians of those times
considered as constituting human ^visdom. Having become ac^

quainted with the books of the Christians, and perceiving that

the religion they contained agreed, in some respects, with his
philosophy, but disagreed with it in other respects, he formed the
purpose of combining them, correcting and enlarging the one by
the other, and then of inculcating on mankind a new system of
religion, compounded of the two. Adopting this plan, he first

decided that Jesus Christ left his statement of the way of salva-
tion imperfect; and in the next place, he ventured to declare him-
self to be either a divinely tauglit Apostle of Jesus Christ, or
rather that very Paraclete^ or Comforter, whom the retiring
Saviour promised to his disciples.^) With what sincerity he as-
sumed such a character, it is not easy to say. Some tell us, that
being by nature proud, excessively arrogant, and vain, his heat-
ed mind became deranged. Yet his insanity was not such as to
prevent his digesting his system very well, and distinctly seeing
[p. 734.] how it could be assailed, and how defended. Among
other proofs of the fact that he either wholly rejected, or
this, is

essentially altered, whatever he found in the Christian scriptures

apparently contrary to his doctrines and purposes; and in place
of the discarded passages, he substituted others, especially such
as he wished to have considered as written by him under a divine
inspiration.Q —The king of Persia, for some cause not ascertain-
ed, cast him into prison. Escaping from confinement, and call-

ing to his aid twelve friends or Apostles, in imitation of Christ,

he spread the religion he had devised, over a great part of Persia,
persuading many to embrace it and he sent out the most elo-
;

quent of his disciples into the adjacent countries, who were also
Buccessful. In the midst of these enterprises, by the command ot
the king of Persia, he was seized by soldiers and put to death.
This was probably in the year 278, or a little later. As to the
mode of his death, writers are not agreed. That he was put to
death, is very certain. The memorial of it, the Manichaeans an-
nually celebrated in the month of March, by a festal day, which
they called Bema.{*) This sad fate of the man strengthened hxs
 Z?/e of Munei;, 257

adberents, more than it terrified them. For svich of them as had

the most talent and eloquence, roamed over Syria, Persia, Egypt,
Africa, and almost all countries of the civilized vvoi-ld, and every-
where converted many, by the gravity of theii deportment, and
by the rude simplicity of the religion they inculcated.
(1) The name of the man under consideration, was i^Iani; for so the Oil-

ental writ'ers call him, according to Herheht. (Bibliotheca Orient, voce Mam.)
Nor was this an uncommon name among liie Persians. The Greek writers tell

us, that he was at first called Cuhricus; and that he dropped that, and assumed
the name of Manes. Beausohre (torn. i. p. 67.) conjectures, tiiat he was horn in
tlif city of Carcoub, and thence was called Carcubiit.% whicii became changed
into Cubricits. There is notliing certain on tliis subject. — lie is also called
Maniciij:us. Ac<!ording to Augusline, (de Ha-res. e. 4G. 0pp. torn. viii. p. 10;
and, contra Faustum, L. xi.x. c. 22. tom. viii. p. 231.) it was his disciples who
gave him this name, in order to avoid a name whicii in Greek denotes insanity.
For Manes (fj^avm) in Greek, denotes a mad or crazy man And therefore hia
enemies made his very name a reproach to him, and said: it was so oi"dered, in
divine providence, that he should receive a name expressive of his insanity. To
parry tiiis weapon, of so little force, his adherents chose to name their master
Maniclucus,
All that the Greek and Latin writers state concerning him, with only [p. 735.]
a few exceptions, is contained in the Contest of Archelaiis, the bishop of Cas-
cara, with Manes, first published by Zaccagnius. These writers, however, deny —
that Manes was the author of the religion which he taught; and tell ua that
one Scylliianus, a contemporary of the Apostles, who died in Judea, invented it,
and committed it to writing in four Books. One of his disciples, named Tere-
binthus, who subsequently took the name of Bitdda, after the death of his pre-
ceptor, went and lived with a certain widow woman. lie died a
to Assyria,
violent death: for, as he was praying on the roof of the house, an evil genius,
by divine direction, precipitated him to the ground which caused his death. The ;

widow woman inherited the goods and the books of the unhappy man and, ;

with the money, she purchased a boy seven years old, whose name was Cuhri'
cus ; and as he manifested fine native powers, she caused him to be instructed in

the literature and arts of the Persians ; and finally, at her death, five years
after, she made him heir to all her fortune, including the books left by Tere-
binthus. Cubricus, after the death of his patroness, in order to efface all re-

membrance of his former servile condition, assumed the name of Manes, and
devoted himself intensely to the study of the arts and sciences of the Persians,
but especially to the understanding the books of Terebinthus. He was but
twelve years old at the time he became his own master. When, from the
books of Terebinthus, which he had always before him, he understood the whole
Kvstem of Terebinthus, lie not only embraced it himself, but also persuaded three

others to embrace it, whose names were Tiiomas, Adda, and Hermas. When
sixty years old, he translated the books of Terebinthus into the Persian lan-
guage ; adding, however, many silly and fabulous inventions of h'^ own mind;
VOL. II. IS
258 Century III.— Section 40.

and therefore affixing his own name to the books, instead of that of the original
author. After this, he sent out two of iiis disciples, one of them to Egypt, and
tlie other to Seythia. About the same time, a son of the king of Persia becaniB
dangerously sicli : and Manes, who had learned the medical art, went to the king,
and promised to restore the child to health. But he could not conquer the dis-
ease and the child died.
; The king therefore ordered the physician to be load-
ed with chains, and to be cast into prison. While lie v.-as a pri-oncr. Manes
became acquainted with the Christian religion, of which he had before no know-
ledge. For his (two) disciples returning from their travels, told their master,
that none resisted their teaching and exhortations so strenuously as the chris-
tians. Anxious, therefore, to acquaint himself with this subject, he directed his
friends to procure for him the books of the christians. Having read them, and
learning that Christ promised his followers to send them the Paraclete, he pro-
claimed him-elf to be that Paraclete ; and he transferred into his own system,
a portion of the christian religion, in an adulterated state. Then followed a
new mission of his disciples hito different countries, for the express purpose of
[p. 736.] making proselytes. The king of Persia, on learning this new crime of
Manes, purposed to kill him. But, by bribing his keepers, he escaped from
prison, and concealed himself in a certain fortress called Arabian. Soon after,
leaving this retreat, and taking with him his twelve Apostles or associates, he
travelled over a part of Persia; and, among other efforts for the establishment
of his sect, he held a public religious discussion with Arrhelaus., the prelate of
Cascara. At last, the soldiers, whom the king commanded to pursue him, con-
fined him and the king ordered the unhappy man
in the fortress of Aj'abion :

to be flayed, his skin to be stuffed and hung up before the city gate, and his
—
body to be cast out and be food for the birds. This story, Beausohre has illus-
trated in a long, copious, and very erudite Dissertation, introductory to his

volume. But his chief aim is, to persuade us, that the greatest pnrt of this nar-
rative is a vile fable. And yet he adduces and inserts many things, which serve
rather to protract and extend the discussion, than to confirm it; and w'hich
might be omitted, without any detriment to the cause espoused by the learned
man.
We now proceed to the facts concerning this wonderful man, as stated by
the Oriental writers, Persian, Syrian, and Arabian ; which facts have been col-
lected from various authors, by the well-informed Oriental scholars, Barthol.
Herbelot (Bibliotheque Orientale, voce Mani, p. 548.) Thomas Hyde, (His-
toria Relig. voter. Persar. c. 21. p. 280.) Euseb. Renaudot, (Historia Patri-
arch. Alexandrinor. p. 42.) Edw. Pocock, (Specimen Hist. Arabum, p. 149,
&,c.) and a few others. These focts have been arranged in a certain order,
and amplified with various observations, some more and some less necessary,
by Ja. Beausohre, (Histoire de Manich. tome i. p. 155, &c.) They differ ma-
terially from the by the Greeks: and hence the question arises:
facts stated

Which most worthy of credit? RenaudoL (Hist. Patri:irch. Alex-

statement is

andr. p. 48.) thinks the Greeks are the best authority: nor will this opinion
meet strong opposition, from one who reflects, that the Greek authors are much
more ancient than the Oriental and that the latter, almost universally, are not
;
 Life of Manes. 259

distinguished for either accuracy, or method, or for their selection of f;icts, and
moreover, tliat tliey delight in fablfs aud marvellous stories. And yet Beau-
sobre (p. 156.) deems the Oriental writers preferable to the Greeks; first, be-
cause the events occurred in their country ; and secondly, because the facts
which they more according to nature {plus nalurelle), than those stated
state, are

by the Greeks. 1 doubt whether there is so much strength in these two

But
reasons, as the learned man sup])Oscd. For we know very well, that the Ori-
entals recount very many occurrences in their country, wiiich are exceedingly
dubious and uncertain as I could show by examples that are beyond all con-
;

troversy, if were necessary, and if this were a proper plnce. And, to say
it

nothing of the superstition and habitual credulity of all the Oriental histo-
rian.s, it should be recollected, that it is only the Persians, and not like- [p. 737.]

wise the Syrians and Arabians, who in this case can be said to relate occurrencea
in their own country. —Whether the things stated by the Greeks, or those stated
by the Orientals, are in themselves the most probable, is a ditlicult question to
determine ; because the judgments of men, respecting llie greater or less degree
of probability, difl'cr wonderfully. But I will not assume the functions of an
arbiter in this controversy. Yet I think it proper to warn those who would
assume those funcliona, that they should, in the very outset, determine which
narrative of the Orientals is to be preferred to that of the Greeks. For, while
the Greeks agree with each other very well, except only in some minute points,
and perhaps all derived their information from one source; the Orientals dilFer e.v-

ceedingiy from each other, or do not all give the aame account of the life, la-

bors and death of Mane.s. This disagreement, — to speak plainly, —the learned
Beausobre dissembles, and gives a history of Manes from the Oriental writers,
in a manner that would lead the reader to believe, that all those writers ac-
corded with each other, just as the Greeks do ; and yet his history of Manes,
which he calls that of the Orientals, and sets in opposition to that of the Greeks,
is a tissue of various extracts taken from difTcrent writers. He states, for in-

stance, that Manes was a presbyter among the Christians, before he formed his
new religion and he makes the statement, just as if all the Oriental writers
;

testified to the fact. The thing stated is not incredible and yet it is most cer- :

tain, that no Oriental says it, except Abulpharaius only ; who is indeed a re-

spectable author, but a recent one, and far removed from the age of Manes, for
he lived in the thirteentii century he was, moreover, a Syrian, and not a Per-
;

sian and lastly, he was not exempt from all mistakes. But let us hear what
; —
the OrientJiIs can tell us about Manes.
most of them agree that ^[ancs, or rather Mani, (for that
In the first place,
was was a Magian by birth; and that he excelled in all the
his true name,)
branches of learning, then held in estimation among the Magi. In particular,
they tell us that he was very skilful in Slusic, Mathematics, Astronomy, Medi-
cine, Geography, and finally in Painting; and the Persian Condermr tells us^
that he ornamented his Gospel with admirable devices and imagery. All this is
quite probable, nay, may be accounted nearly certain for he was a man of ex- ;

uberant genius, well and to practise the arts in which the pow-
fitted to .icquirc

ers of genius and imagination predominate. The Greeks do not, indeed, ex-
 200 Century III.— Section 40.

preasly attribute to liim all these .ncqnisiiions; yet they aJmit, in the general,
that he was a very learned man; and, therefore, they do not in this matter con-
tradict the Orientals. I can the most rendily believe, what is reported of his

ornamenting liis Ertimg, or Gospel, with beautiful imagery. For all the
Gnnslic systems of religion are of such a nature, as to be easily delineated, or
[p. 738.] represented by drawings and colors in a picture ; nay, they can be bet-
ter understood from paintings, than from language and written books; and no
one of them can be more easily delineated by the pencil, than the Manichajan;
which consist almost wholly of fables or fictitious histories. And hence the
Gnostic teachers, (as appears from the example of the Ophites, in Origen against
Celsus.) were accustomed to put into the hands of the common people such
pictorial systems of religion ; that is, pictures, in which the principal topics of
their religion were presented to the eye in diagrams, figures, and images. But
what we are fold of the exquisite skill of Manes in the above-named arts, must
be understood and estimated, not according to our standard of excellence, but
according to that of the Persians of that age. Beausohre seems not to have duly
considered this; for he declares the man to have been, in general, an excellent
Mathematician, Natural Philosopher, and Geographer. He might appear so to
the Persians, but he was a small man,
compared with our Mathematicians,
if

Philosophers, and Naturalists; nay, he was a rustic, and scarcely imbued with
the rudiments of I\Iathematics, Geography, and Physical Science and what is ;

more, he embraced not a few errors, which even tyros among us can see
through.
After embracing the Christian religion, 7J/a?;es was made a priest, or presby-
ter, in the city EInvazi, or in the province Ahvas, as Herbeloi renders it. In this
situation he explained books, and disputed with Jews, with
Magi, and tciih the
Pagans. Thus much, and no more, is transmitted by a single writer, Gregory
Ahulpharaius, (in his Historia Dynastarum, p. 82.) But the learned Beausohre,
who is studious of honoring Manes all he can, not only relates the matter, as if
itwere supported by the united testimony of all the Oriental writers, but he
adds to it several things supported by no authority. For he tells us, I. That —
Manes was learned in the scriptures; (Savant dans la Ecriture.) I J. That he —
was very zealous in supporting the dignity and authority of Christianity. (II
avoit un grand zele pour la foi.) —
III. That these qualifications induced the

Christians to raise him to a presbytcrship, while but a youth, and in a city of the
first rank, (une ville ires considerable.) —
IV. That in this station, lie exhibited
great proofs of zeal and virtue. —V.
But that, at length, he apostatized from
Christianity and, for this instance of bad faith, he was excluded from the com-
;

—
munion of Christians. I wonder how so great a man, one so acute and dis-
criminating, one who severely censures and rebukes even the slight errors of
great men, could boldly utter all this, when it has no authority whatever, but is
drawn wholly from his own fancy. Surely if another ! person had dared to do
Ruch a thing, this great man would have castigated him severely.
Manes, — it is uncertain on what occasion, or for what cause, went to the
court of Sapor, the king of Persia, called Shabour by the Persians. And he so
insinuated himself into the king's confidence, that he even drew iiim over to the
 Life of Manes. 261

religion he Iiad devised. EmboldL-ned by this success, lie gathered [p. 739.]
around him a nuinbt-r of disciples, and assailed piil)iicly the ancient Persim re-
ligion,founded by Zoroaster. Sapor, cither offended ;it this, or being prompted
by the Magi and the priests, delerniine^l to put him to deatli. Manes, being in-
formed of tile design, fled into Tnikestan. Tiiere lie drew many to ids party;
and, among other tilings, (as Tiios Hyde stntes from one Ruslem.) pninted two
Persian temples. Afterw;iids, finding a certain ciive in wiiich tiiere was a foun-
tain, lie concealed himself in it during a year; having previously assured his
disciples, that lie ye.ir, and that in the
should ai)pear in a certain plMce after a
meantime he should ascend to heaven. In that cave he composed liis book,
called by the Orientals Azcng, or Arzenk, e. a (jospel; and ornamented it with
i.

very beautiful pictures. At llie end of the year, coming forili from the cave, he
showed the book to his followers, as one wliicii he received in heaven, and
brought thence with liim. These things are stated by a single l^er>i:in historian,
Condemir ; others know nothing of tliem. They are not incongruous with the
genius of the mnn, but whether true or false, who can tell ? In the meantime,
Sapor, the king of Persia, died, and was succeeded by liis son Iformisdas. On
U'iirning tills, Manes returned from Turkestan to Per.-ia, :iiid presented to the
new king his book, wliicli lie cnlled divine and heavenly. Horinibdas, or //t?--

niouz, not only received liiin kindly, but iilso embraced the religion contained in
his book, and ordered a tower to be built for him, called Dascarrah,\\\ wiiich he
might be safe from the plots of ids enemies, who were very numerous. See
lievbdoCs Bibliotlicque Orientale, (voce Dascarrah, p. 288. No authority is

given.) This is the tower, as Beausobre conjectures, which the Greeks call
Arabian. Those who may think this kindness of the king to Manes sini^ular

and strange, should consider tiiat Hormisdas, previously, in the lifetime of his
father, had favored Manes and his opinions. Nor is it supposable that, on
merely hearing Manes speak, and seeing his book, he embraced his opinions.
And here a conjecture arises, which, the more I consider it, the more probiblo
it appears. I suspect, tliat what the Greeks tell us of the king's son's being
consigned to the medical treatment of Manes, and dying in his hands, was an
Oriental allegory, and was misunderstood by the Greeks. Sajwr committed his
son to tlie tniiion of Manes, to be instructed in the precepts of his wisdom;
but Manes seduced tlie prince from the religion of his ancestors, and initiited
him in his new religion. This transaction, the Oiientals, who delight in meta-
phors and allegories, wrapped up in similitudes, by comparing the ignorance of
the prince with a disease, his instruction wi:h the cure of the disease, and his
defection from the religion of his ancestors with death ; but the Greeks, [p. 740.]
little accustomed to this species of discourse, supposed the things described to
be real facts. — Tliis prosperity of Manes was short. Hormisdas died at the end
of two years; and his son Varaties I. whom the Persians call BeJiram, or Baha-
ram, in the beginning of his reign, indeed, treated 3/a»ei' wiili kindness; but
soon his feelings were changed, aiul lie determined to destroy him. He, there-
fore, allured Manes from was concealed, under pretence
the fortress in wiiich he
of holding a discussion with the chiefs of tlie Magi, and then ordered him to be
put to death, as a corrupter of religion. Some tell us he was cleaved asunder;
2G2 Century III.— Section 40.

others, that he was crucified ; and others, agreeing with the Greeks, that lie was
flayed. All, both Greeks and Orientals, dgre.c that he was executed. —This
short story, Beausahre has not only loaded with a mass of various observations,
learned, indeed, but often having little connexion with the subject, but has also
Bometimes augmented, with conjectures wholly unsupported by any testimony.
(2.)Manes differed essentially from the other heretics. For they all professed to
teach tlie religion which was inculcated by Jesus Christ publicly, or among his se-
lect friends ; .-md they proved their doctrines by citations from the writings of his
Apostles. But far otherwise Manes; as is put beyond doubt, by what he taught
respecting himself. He acknowledged, that his religious sy.stem could not be
proved, in all its parts, from the books left and he pro-
us by the Apostles :

duced a new book, which, he snld,was divinely dictated to him and lastly, he :

maintained, that Christ set forth only a part of the knowledge of salvation and ;

left a part to be explained by the Paraclete, whom he promised to his followers.

And he claimed to be himself thnt Paraclete, or that herald and expounder of
divine truth, promised by Christ. How Manes and his disciples wished to hnve
these subjects understood, must be explained accuratelv, and at some length;
because both the ancients and the moderns are sometimes not uniform in their
statements, and sometimes disagree with each other, respecting the character as-
sumed by Manes. Nor has Beausahre brought forward all that is worth consider-
ing,although he says mnny things very learnedly,and demonstrates admirably the
errors committed on this subject. (See his Histoire de Manichee, tome I. p. 252.)
Euselnus (in his Historia Eccles. L. vii. c. 31, p. 283.) siiys Manes exhibUed him- :

self as Chris/, or look the form of Christ (Xp/s-roi' dwrdv fACfipo^ic-d-n iTTiifdro.) And
mnny repeat the same after him. The Orientals are more cautious, if //erie/o/ (Bibl.
Orient, p. 549.) correctly expounds their meaning namely, that he declared himself
;

another or second Christ or Messiah (un second Messie.) —All these writers are un-
doubtedly mistaken. Nor have they any ground for their accusation, except in
the number of associates whom Manes chose: for he took the s:une number of
companions and friends as Chri.st took for his Apostles. The falhicy of such an
[p. 741.] argument need not be pointed out. What the preceding writers expressly
dechire, A!/5^2(.'?//»e only ventured to suspect, (contra. Epistolam Manich. c. 8. Opp.
tom. viii. p. 112;) Quid ergo alind suspicer, nescio, nisi quia iste Manichajus, qui
per Christi nomen ad imperitorum animos aditum qua^rit, pro Christo ipso se coli
voluit? But he supports tiiis weak argument, not worth
conjecture by a very
repeating and confuting. —
Many others have told us, that Manes claimed to be
the Holy Spirit. All these have a good excuse for making the mistake and ;

although in error, they do not deserve severe censure. For Manes did call him-
self the Paraclete; and all his di-ciples denominated him either simply the Para-
cleli, or the Hohj Spirit, the Paraclete : nay, as Augustine repeatedly charges
upon them, work contra Faustum Manich.) they were accustomed to
(in his

swear hy Now, when christians heard them take such oaths, with-
this Paraclete.

out anything explanatory, and recollected that, in the scriptures, the Holy Spirit
is called the Paraclete, and that no sane man swears by any other than God or

some essence cognate with God;— who can wonder that they supposed the
founder of this Manicha3an -sect arrogantly claimed to be the Holy Spirit'^ And
 Life of Manes. 263

those ancient doctors, who cither s:iid roundly, that Manes claimed to be the
Holy Spirit, or else confessed, (as Aiigusllne does, in his work contra Episto-
1am Manichsei, c. 17, and contra Fau^tum, Lib.
xiii. and elsewhere,) that they

meant by applying this appellation to their

did not knoJc,\\hi\t the Manicliffians
master, whether they wished to indicate tiiat Manes was himself the Holv Spirit,
or only that the Holy Spirit resided in him ? the.«e writers, I say, in my jud"'- —
ment, committed no censurable oflTi-nce. For, what rule of duty does he violate,
who uses the very terms of a sect in stating their opinions, or who tells us, he
does not know what meanirrg they aflixed to their terms? They oflend but
slightly, who explain tiie appellation which Maties assumed, and either conjec-
ture or report tiiat the Rlaniclucans supposed the Holy Spirit and Manes to be
combined in one person. And the fault of this misrepresentation is chiefly
chargeable on Manes and his followers, who, by obscure and ambiguous lan-
guage, cause their meaning to be misunderstood. I see learned men of our day
wlio endeavor to treat the hi>tory of christians more wisely than our fathers did,
and become wonderfully copious, eloquent, and energetic, in exaggerating and
castigating the errors, by which the ancient christian authors iiave marred their
accounts of sects and iieresies: but while they show themselves equitable
towards heretics, — which is commendable, — they not unfrequeiuly become un-
just to the contenders against them, not reflecting that a great part, perhaps the
greatest part, of the faults whicli deform the history of the early sects, originat-
ed from the obscurity, the ambiguity, and the foreign and unusual phraseology
of the heretics themselves. —
But let us pass on, and see what Ma7ies [p. 742.]
would have those think of him, whom he instructed.
In the first place, it is ui:questionable that this Persian did not wi^rh to be
accounted Cltrisl himself, but an Af.oslle of Jesus Ckrist, his Lord. For he
commences that celebrated Epis/o/a Fundamenti. against which Avgusiine wrote
a Book, with these words: Manichaeus Apostolus Jesu Christi providentia Dei
Patris. Haec sunt salubria verba de perenni et vivo fonte. (See Augustine, con-
tra Epistolam Manich. c. 5. 0pp. torn. viii. p. Ill, and de Actis cum Felice Ma-
nicliajo, L. L p. 334, 335.) We have also the testimony of Avgvstine, (contra
Epist. Manich. c. G. p. 1 12, and contra Faustum, L. xiii. c. 4. p. 181.) that Manes
assumed the same tiile, in all his Epislles. — But, as we shall soon see, Manes
did not wish this tille to be understood in its common and ordinary sense, when
applied to himself, but in a sense much
For he placed himself far above
higher.
the twelve Apostles of Christ, and proclaimed, that much greater wisdom was
divinely imparted to iiim than to them. When, therefore, lie styles himself an
Apostle, he intended thereby that he was an extraordinary man, far superii)r to
all the first Apostles, one whom Christ had sent to mankind, partly, to perfect
his religion, and partly to free it from stains and corruptions.
Li tiie next place, it is certain that Manes did not wish to be accounted the
Holy Spirit persiinalhj ; or to have his followers believe, that the entire Holy
Spirit had descended into him, joined his person to him, and spoke and gave
forth laws personally through him. They who attribute such insanity to Manes
may be confuted by many proofs, and especially by the Manichaean doctrine
concerning the Holy Spirit, Passing by all the arguments which have been
2(J4 Century III.— Section 40.

addnc-ed \\\ Beavsohre. wc will deiroiistratc, sokdy from the Ej)i>tola Fiindnmenti
of 3Ianey, tliat he dis inguished hetueen the Holy Spirit and liiuisclf. For tliiis

he speaks in tliat, Epistle, (aptid Avgvstiinim de Actis enin Feliee Manieh. L. I.

c. 16. p. 341.) Pax Dei invisibilis et veritatis iiotitia sit (nun lV:itribiis siiis et
caris-imi-, qui maiidatis coelestibus crediint pariler ae desernunt: sed et de.vtera
luiiiinis liieatiir et eripiat vos ab oiiiiii iniur.-iono inaiigna et a laqueo nnir.di
pietas vero Spi7-ilus Sancli intima vestri pectoris adaperiat, ut ipsis oeiilis videa-
tis aiiimas vestras. Here Manes prays for.Jirst, the peace of the supreme Dei;y,
or the Fallier, and, secondly, for ihe aid and a-sislance of the ^on. Beeanse, by
the dexlera luminis, he means Christ, the Son of God. For, according to the
Maiiiclifean system, the light is God himself, the source of all light: whence, in
Oriental [Jiraseology, dexlera luminis hy which the Ughi, i. e. God, .ns-jsts
is that,

men, and manifests to them his kindness, his love, and his power; or tliat per-
son wiio is nearest to God, and is tlie minister of his divine pleasure and govern-
[p. 743.] ment. Lastly, he prays for the illumination of the Ilthj Spirit. For
He it is, who must dispel ihe mental darkness, so tiiat the brellren might see,

their souls luith their own eyes; that is, that they might understand that in them
was a soul, the offspring of eternal light, or of God ; and hat ihey might learn
I

to distinguish it from ihe darkness, or from the body and the senses. Who doc3
not readily see, on reading this passage, that I\Ianes regarded the Jlnly Spirit
as an essence cognate wilh God, and wholly different from himself? For he
joins the Holy Spirit with the Son of God, and witli the Father; and supposes
his internal ilkunination to be necessary for men, to enable them to discover the

truth and divine origin of his doctrines. A man could not so speak, who thought
the Holy Spirit to be hitent in himself, or that he was himself the Holy Spirit.
Although Manes did not wi>h to be considered as being the Holy Spirit, yet

he declared himself to be that Paraclete whom tiie blessed Saviour, a little be-
fore his death, promised to his disciples. John .\iv. 16 and xvi. 7, &c. This is

apparently inconsistent with the previous statements. For how could a man,
who dared not arrogate to himself the dignity and m.ajesty of the Holy Spirit,
and contented himself with the title of an Apostle of Christ. — how could he
claim to be the Paraclete promised by Christ? But we shall soon see that these
pretentions are easily reconcilable. I confess, indi-ed, that I once doubted whe-
ther it were true, that all the Greeks and Orientals really stated that Manes
required men to believe him to be the Paraclete. Because, in the beginning of
his Epistles, he called himself only j.n Apostle of Jesus Christ, and not (he

Paraclete I suspected that Manes probably thought more modestly of hifnself,

and that the whole .story of the mission of the Paraclete in the person of Manes,
was, perhaps, got up by his disciples, who were eager to exalt their master, and
to find evidence of his high dignity in the holy sciiptnres. For I said to myself,
if Manes wished to be considered the Paraclete, why did he not assume that title

in his Epistles? Why did he style himself only an Apostle? Augustine indeed
(in his Eibcr contra Epist. Manichasi, c. 6. p. 112.) would convince us, that the
astute and crafty man aimed tacitly to insinuate, even by the title Apostle of
Christ, that was the Paraclete : Quid hoc esse causssR arbitramur, (viz. that
lie

he called himself an Apostle of Christ, and not of the Paraclete,) nisi quia ilia
 Life of Manes. 2G5

supcibin, mater oinniiini haerilicorum.iinpulit liomincni, ut non missium se a

Par;ii;Ielf> vcllet vidt'ri, sud it;i siiscfptum, ut ip'ie Pjinicletus dice'reUir. Tlii.s in-

deed is not otieiiiig proull but is indulging- eonjecture. Yet tlic sumo Ai/o-hs-
Vnc, ill nnolliei' nianner, lenioved all doubt from my mind on this siibjei-t. For
he elcaily testifies, that Manes did refer tiio promise ot'liie Paraclete to hiui-elf.
He s:iys, (nbi sujira e. 7. p. 112.) ManiL-iucus vcster, sive niissum, sive suseep-
tum a Paiaelelo ^e aflirmiit. And a iiltle alter, (c. 8.) still more elearly : Spiiilua
sanctus nominatus non est, qui UKixime debuit ab eo noniinari, qui nobis Apos-
tolatum suuin PoraclcLi froinissione eommesidat, ut evangelica auctoiitate impe-
ritos premat. words merit careful attention. For it appears [p. 744.]
'I'hese

from tliem,^7-s/, That Manes did not call himself ihe Holy Spirit: yet, sicnndhj,
Til it lie commended his Apostleship, by apjilying to it lite promise of Ihe Para-

clete ; i. e. he would have the langu.ige of Christ concerning the Paraclete, to

refer to hiw. From these declaralions, I tiiinli it manifest, that tiie man distin-
guished the llohj Spirit from the Paracle'e. For one who rejects the title of
the Holy Spirii, yet calls himself the Paraclde, undoubtedly shows that he con-
siders ihe Holij Spirit to be difierent from the Paraclete. This ob.servation sheds
great ligiit on the subject and ; it reveals the source of the error on this subject
of tiie ancients. By the appellation Paraclete \n the language of Christ, il/a«es
supposed, was indicated, not the Holy Spirit personally, but a man whom Christ
would send, aii Apostle of Jesus Christ, as he expresses it; to whom the Holy
Spirit (whose residence, he supposed, was in the air.) would communicnte
greater wisdom and illumination than to the first Apostles of Christ; whereby
this man would be ab'e to hll the blaiii<s left by Christ in tiie science of salva-

tion, and e.xpnnge the errors introduced by men. Perhaps, he confirmed this
exposition by the language in John xvi. 15. He shall not speak of himself; but
whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak. These words, considered by them-
selves, seem more applicable to a man taught by the Holy Spirit, tiian to a
divine being or person. And previously to him, Monlanus, who also called him-
self the Paraclete, and was so c;dled by his followers, seems to have explained
the term Pnrarlete in the promise of Christ, in Ihe same manner. And it is cer-
tain that Mohammed, who, as before stated, in many points greatly resembled
JWisHCS claimed nearly the same authority and it is well known, that he wished
:

to be accounted tiio Paraclete. And hence Condemir, the Persian historian, ac-
cording to Herhelol, (Uibliothequc Orientale p. 549,) understanding the fact, was
indignant that Manes should apply to himself Christ's language respecting (he
Paraclete, which, in his judgment, related to Mohammed. Tiie disciples of il/a-

ncs, to manifest this opinion of their master concerning the Paraclete, although
they commonly c;ill liim simply the Paraclete, yet often add the words Hobj
Spirit, i\\\i\. call Manes the Holy Spirit the Paraclete. This we learn from Augus-
tine, in his Disputatio cum Felice Manichreo, and in other places. The reason
they assign for this double appillation, Avgustine, (who is not always a favor-
able expositor for them.) has stated in his Book contra Epistolam Manichaei,
(c. 8. p. 112.) : Qnod quum a vobis qnrerifur? (i. e. when you are asked, Why

did Manes not call himself the Holy Spirit, but an Apostle of Jesus Christ?)
respondetis, utique Manichceo Apostolo nominalo, Spiritum sanctum Paracletum
260 Century III— Section 40.

nominnii, quia in ipso venire dignatus est. From tliis langunge it is manifest,
first: Tiiat tiie Maiiichaeans, in order to define the meaning of the title of Para-
clete, witli wliieh they honored tlieir master, called liim al>o tiie Holy Spirit the

Paraclete. And secondly: That they maintained, tliat this tiiie had the same

[p. 745.] force and meaning, with tlie title of Apostle of Jesus Christ, whicli he

placed at the head of his Epistles. And hence, thirdly: Accoiding to the opi-
nion of Manes and his disciples, the Paraclete is a vian sent by Cin-ist, in whom
pre-eminently the Hvly Spirit manifests his power and wisdom ; or, in their own
phraseclogy, in ichom the Holy Spirit (venit) comes to men. — The Manichsean
presbyter Felix, in his Discussion with Augu,sline, seems to modify or ch:inge
this idea. For, alth.ougli lie calls his master the Holy Spirit the Paraclete, yet he
gives the snnie nppelhition to the Holy Spirit itself; and he affirms, (p. 338.)
that the Holy Spirit the Paraclete, among other things, came also in St. Paul.
But this man, whom Augustine (Retractat. L. II. c. 8.) pronounces inerudilurti

liberalibus lilleris, — was timid

and he acknowledges, that jiartly from fenr of Au-
;

gustine, whose authority he well knew, and partly from the terror of tiie impe-
rial laws against the M.inichaeans, he did not bring out the whole system of his

sect, but at times concealed some things, which would be ji^rticularly offensive to

christiiins; and sometimes explained certain points differently from the common
explanation of Manichasans, to make them appear less offensive. Thus he address-
es his adversary, Augustine, (L. I. c. 12. p. 339.) : .\on tantum ego possum con-
tra tuam virtutem, quia mira virtus est gradus epihcopalis (This language :

strikingly shows what power the christian bisliops of that age possessed :)
delude contra leges Imperatorum, et superius petivi compendive, ut doceas me,
quid sit Veritas. This uneducated man expresses himself rudely, and violates
the rules of grammar; but his meaning is sufficiently clear. When Avgusline
asked him to explain a passage in a certain book, which lie called Thesaurus
Manetis, he replied, (L. II. c. 19. p. 343.): Hanc tibi ego non possum interpre-
tari scripturam ct exponere quod ibi non est : ipsa sibi inlerprcs est ego non pos- :

sum dicere, ne forte incnrnim in peccatum. This fenr mars the whole discussion
of Felix, and frequently leads him to modify the Manichrean opinions to meet
the views of his adversaries. And therefore he can [not] always be regarded
as an unbiased and safe witness. —The christian doctors, by the Paraclete men-
tioned by Christ in the Gospel of John, understood the Holy Spirit the third
Person of the Deity; and indeed correctly: but they did not perceive that Ma-
nes gave another meaning to the term, and distinguished ihe Paraclete., i. e. a —
man whom the Holy Spirit uses as his instrument, from the Hohj Spirit him- —
self, who taught by that man. And hence, when they learned that Maizes called

himself the Paraclete, and was so called by his disciples, they easily fell into
the errcn- of supposing that Manes assumed to be personally the Holy Spirit,
or would be thought to be a man whom the Holy Spirit had anointed with iiim-

self. Says Eusebius, (Hist. Eecl. L. vii. c. 31.) Tote fAv tSv n-a^axAjiT'.i, xai

d-jTu ru 7rviZ,u-i. ayi'.v, ai^roc iuurdv dvaniip-JTTO'V. Paracletum SO, ipsumque Spi-
ritum sanctum esse praedicabat.
The office of the Paraclete whom Christ promised, and consequently his own
[p. 746.] office, according to his scheme, consisted principally in two things;
 Ufe of Manes. 2G7

first, in restoring the religion of Christ to its original purity, or purging it from tho

corruptions brought into it by tiie base frauds or the ignorance of men and ;

secondly, in completing and perfecting the same religion, which, he maintained,

Christ had left imperfect, or incomplete in its parts. For, as it was tlie dc-io-n
of Manes to combine the christian religion with tlie ancient Magian or Persian
religion, which he imbibed in hi.s youtli, and m.'iny doctrines of Christianity were
obstacles to his purpose, became absolutely necessary, that he sliouhl, like
it

Mohammed, consider the sacred books of the christians as c(irrupted, and should
hold that not a few additions had been made to the christian system, which
were foreign from the mind of Christ. Let us hear the language of Fauslus,
a man of note, and of no contemptible genius, among the followers of Manes:
(in Augustine, conU-a. Faustum Lib. x.\.\ii. c. 1.319.): Quid peregrinum hoc,

aut quid mirum est, si ego de Testaniento novo puri-sima quajque legens et
mea; Naluti convenientia, prsetcrmitto qua; a vestris majoribus inducla fatlaciler
et maJL'statem ii)sius et gratiam decolorant the same eloquent ? A little after,

and talented man thus addresses catholic christians: Soliusne Filii Testninen-
tum putatis non potuisse corrumpi, solum non iiaberc aliquid, quod in se debeat
improbari? prjesertim quod nee ab ipso (Christo) scriptum constat, nee ab ejus
Apostolis, sed longo post tempore, a quibusdam incerli nominis viris, qui ne sibi
non habcretur fides, scribentibus qua; nesciront, parlim Apostolorum nomina,
partim eorum, qui Apostolos seeuti viderentur. scriptorum suorum frontibus
indiderunt, asseverantes secundujn eos se scripsi-se, qure scripserint. - - - Quae
quia nos legentes, animadvertimus cordis obi utu sanisMmo, aequissimum judi-
cavimus ulilibus acceptis ex iisdem, id est, ii-*, quee et finem nostram ajdificent,
et Christi Domini atque ejus Patris omnipotentis Dei propagent gloriam, cetera
repudiare, quaj nee ipsorum majestati, nee (idi'i nostra; conveniant. These words,
which ccrtinnly are lucid, teach us, among otiier things, that Manes denied those
Gos/)e/.s, which the Christians approved and accounted divine, to betlie works of the
Apostles ;because they bore the superscriptions (Karii M«T3-o/iv, Kxra Mifmov,) :

According to Matlheto — Mart Luke — John.

inferred from these super- For he
scriptions, that by them the writers meant to signify, that they wrote what was
taught respectively by these Apostles. These blemishes, therefore, adhering
to true Christianity, according to Manes, the Paraclete, i. e. Manes himself, was
commissioned by Christ to remove, and thus to separate the true from the f dse.
Let us again hear Faustus, aud.iciously drawing a parallel between Jesus Christ
and !iis master; (ubi supra, c. 6. p. 321.) : Si Jesus docet, pauca veteris Testa-
menti accipienda esse, repudianda vero quamplurima: Et nobis Paraditus ex
novo Testamento promissus perinde docet, quid ex eodem accipere debeamus,
et quid repudiare de quo ultro Jesus, cum eum promitteret, dicit in Evangelio;
:

Ipse vos inducet in omnern xeritatem, et ipse vobis annunciabit omnia et [p. 747.]
commemnrahit vos. Quapropter liceat tantundem et nobis in Test:imento novo
per Paraelitum (i. e. Manes') quantum vfibis in veterc licere ostenditis per Jesum.
More of the like character is there :;dded by Faustus, which we on)it for the

sake of brevity. — As to the other fnncliori of the Faraclele, there is abundant

evidence. Let us consider this function. M;ines uif;hed to connect wi.h chris»
tianity the fictions of the ancient Persians, respecting two lir->t principles of all
 2G8 Century III.— Section 40.

tliiiii^r^, t!ie orio-iii of the world .ind of uvil, the souls of men, &c. :ind t(. pnlra
thum on in;i;iidiid :is divine truths. And this design required iiiui to ttach, that
Christ communicated to his Aposiles only ;i y,a?V of tlie irulh,nreess;uT m ihe
hajjpiness of men in tiiisand tiie future life, and left tiie other put to be taught
and explained by the Paradde. We will adduce but a single witness, ye: an
unexeepiionabie one, n.imely, Felix, who was one of llie nuuiber of the Elect,
as the 3Ianieha2ans c.dled them, i. e. one of those fully in^iructed in all n ,e

mysteries of the >eet. 'riiough lie does not e.\pri:ss himself very elegui ly,

yet he explains very well the views of his party. (Disput. eum Augustino, L.
i. c. 9. in AugusLini 0pp. torn. viii. p. 338.) : Paulus in altera Epis'.oia (ss. 1 Cor.
xiii. y, 10.) dicit : Ex farte scimus, el ex parte propkelanius : cum vtnerit autem,
quod ]:erfectam esl. abolebunlw ea, qucc ex jiarte dicta sunt. Nos audienles Pau-
lum hoc dicere, venit Manichffius cum prsedieutione sua, et susuepimus eum se-
cundum quod Christus dixit : Milto vobis Spiiitiini sanctum : et Paulus venit
et dixit, quia et ipse venturus est et postea nemo veniL: ideo suscepimus Maui-
chffium. Et quia venit Manieliasus, et per suam prasdieationem docuit nos in-
itium, medium, et finem docuil nos de fabriea inundi, quare facta e^t, et unde
:

facta est, et qui feeerunt : docuil nos quare dies et quare nox : docuit nos de
cursu solii' et lunaj : quia hoc in Paulo non audivimus, nee in ceterornm Apos-
tolorum .si-ripturis; hoc credi.nus, quia ipse est Paraclitus. Ilaque iliud ilerum
dico,quod superius dixi Si audiero in altera Scriptura, ubi Paraclitus loquitur,
:

de quo voluero interrogare, et docueris me, credo et renunieo, (>s. ManiclijEO.)

We must now speak of the arguments, by which Manes, while he lived and
when dead, induced so many persons to believe him to be the Paraelete, sent
by Christ to reform and to perfect the christian religion. These arguments are
manifest, from the passages just cited from Felix. Like his imitator Maham-
«iec?, JIanes made no pretensions to miracles: nor did those who li-tened to
him,demand signs of him. He simply bid men believe, that he was a messen-
ger fiom Cod and the doubting and such as asked for evidence, he pressed
:

with this single argument ; that Jesus Christ had promised the Paraclete, to
perfect what he had begun, and to acquaint men wi;h what was lacking in his
[p. 748.] system. Since Christ left the world, until I c:une, no one adequate
for this office has appeared ; no one before me, has explained what Christ left

unexplained — the origin of the world, the cause of all evils, die; but I have ex-
plained all these hitherto unknown things. Therefore, I am the PHraclete,
whom Christ directed his followers to expeet. And by this single argument
tlio Maniehseans defended themselves, when called on hy the christim doctors
to prove, that Manes was the chief Apostle of Christ, or the Paraclete. It ap-

pears, from the writings of Augustine against the Manichteans, ami from other
documents, that the chri^ian disput:ints demonstrated, that the Paraclete whom
Christ promised, in f.iet cam?, when the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apos-
tles : Acts ii. The Manicha^ans denie>l that fact, on the ground that none of
the .Apostles had taught all the truths that are jirotitable and needful to men.
Felix s:iys, (in Augiistini Disput. cum Felier, I., i. c. 6. p. 337.): (.'nm proba-
tum niihi fuerit, quod Spirit us s;!nL-tus (in Aposlolos eff'usiis) docuerit veritatem,

quani qua;ro, illaui {Manelis difciplinani) re-puo. Hoc eniin sanetitas tna milii
 L^fe of Manes. 269

legit, ulii Spirltnm sanctum Apo^toli :iccei)eriint : et in ipsi- Apostolis iiiium

quaero, qui me doceat de ini;io, de medio et de fine : (1. c. tiiewhole of ielii>ion
or the whole science of salvation.) And lie rcjieats the snme things a little
after, thus ; Quia sanctit:is tua hoc dicit, quod Apostoli ipsi acccpcrunt Spiri-
turn sanctum Paiacletum : iterum dico, de Apo^tolis ipiis
volucris, doceat qncm
me quod me Manichajus docuit, aut ipsius doctrinam evacuct de duodcciin
quern volueris. AH the pretensions of Manes, therefoie, rested on tiiis argu-
ment : He who explains the deficient topics in Chiisl's ieiigion,is the Paraclete
whom Christ promised but Manes docs tiiis therefore he is the Paraclete and
: :

Apostle of Christ. Nothing can be more fallacioug, nothing more imbecile,

than this argumentation and yet many persons, and some of them neither
;

Rimpietons nor unlearned, were persuaded by Manes and his disciples; and
this single example shows, in what darkness the human mind is involved, and
how easily popular schemes of religion, accommodated to vulgar ai)prehension,

may entrap men.

(3) In the Manes rejected the entire Old Teslamenl ; as did
first place,
nearly all who deformed the Cinistian religion by the pre-
the Gnostic parties,
cepts of the Oriental philosophy. The arguments with which the ISIanichaeana
assailed the Old Testament, are exhibited in a long array, ly Fauslus, the Ma-
nicha-an, in Augustine's work against him; and still more fully and learnedly»
by Beausnbre, (in iiis Histoire de Manichee, vol. p. 2C9, (tc.) The chief argu- i.

ment is this The things, which the books of the O. Test, state concerin'ngCod,
:

do not accord with the good Principle of the Manichasans, which they denomi-
nate God. — In the next place, they rejected the whole New Testament, as it is

read by Christians. They most of the books of

did not indeed deny, that in
the N. Test., there are some things that are divine and came from Christ [p. 749.]
and his Apostles: but among these things, they contended, are interwoven very
many false things, and things wholly im])ious. Hence they inferred, that those

things only in the N. Test, are intillcd to belief, which are in accordance with the
decisions of Manes their master, the reformer of Christianity whom Christ has sent:
every thing else is to be rejected. —But these ide.as need a more full expl.sna-
tion, so that it may appear, in what sense we must understand the aflirmation
of Beansobre, (vol. i. p. 291.) that the Manichasans received our four Go.spela
and the Epistles of Paul. For here, too, this great man was influenced some-
what by his excessively kind feelings towards the Manichaeans and towards all
heretics.
First : As to our four Gospels, there were two opinions among the Mani-
cha;ans, closely allied to each other, and practically, or in their efit'cts, alto-

gether alike. Sometimes they seem to admit, or rather do admit, these Gos-
pels to be of divine origin ; but they soon take back what they granted, and
contradict it. For they add, that these Gospels are wretchedly corrupted, and
interpolated, and enlarged and amplified with Jewish fables, by crafty and men-
dacious persons. Whence it would follow, that as they now are, they are of no
use or value, and .should be kept out of the hands of the pious, lest they .should
be imbued with noxious errors. At other times they deny, most explicitly, that
the Apostles of Christ were their authors, or that they were written by those
270 Centunj III.— Section 40.

Apostles whose names they bear. On the contrary, they contend that the au-
tliors of them were half-Jews, and credulous and mendacious persons. This I

have already shown, from a passage of Fauslus ; and it may be shown by many
other passages. I will adduce only one of them, embracing the substance of
all, taken from Augusiint's work against Faustus, (L. xxxiii. c. 3. p. 329.^1
•

Srepe jam probatum a nobis est, nee ab ipso (Chrislo) base (Evangelia) sunt,
nee ab ejus Apostolis scripta: sed multo post eorum assumptionem a ne>^cio

quibus eL ipsis inter se non concordantibus semi-Judceis per famas, opinioncsque

comperta sunt : qui tamen omnia eadem in Apostolorum Domini conferentcs
nomina, vel eorum, qui secuti Apostolos viderentnr, errores ac mendacia sua
secundum eos se scripsisse mentiti sunt. Between these two opinions respecting
the Gospels, the Manichseans fluctuated : and even Faustus is not uniform in
his statements, but seems to incline, now to one opinion, and now to the other,

as occasion offers. It was undoubtedly their real opinion, that the Gosjiels
were fabricated by fallible men, and men unacquainted with true religion. But
.ISthis opinion was odious, they sometimes dissembled, and pretended not to

repudiate those Gospels, which, in reality, they wholly despised. And with
such conduct, several of the ancients reproach them. But both opinions lead
to the same consequences ; and both show, that the Manichrean sect was very for
from receiving our Gospels. For how could those who thought so injuriously

of the Gospels, or of their authors, recommend them, or even place them among
[p. 750.] — I will not say, inspired books, but among the useful and profitable
books ? In particular, they considered the greatest part of the history of Jesua
Christ, as contained in our four Gospels, to be fixlse, imaginary, and wholly un-
worthy of the majesty of the Sen of God. Let us again hear Fauslus, lucidly
explaining the views of his sect, in the work of Angusiine against him (L. :

xxxii. c. 7. p. 322.) De Testamento novo sola accepimus ea, qua? in honorera

:

et laudem Filii majestatis vel ab ipso dicta comperimus, vel ab ejus Apostolis,
sed jam perfectis ac fidelibus, dissimuluvimus cetera, quas aut simpliciter tunc
et ignoranter a rudibus dicta, aut oblique et maligne ab inimicis objecta, aut
imprudenter a scriptoribns affirmata sunt, et posteris tradita : dico autem {mark
these declarations,) hoc ipsum natum ex foemina turpiter, circumcisum Judaice,
sacrificasse gentiliter, baptizatum humiliter, circumdnctum a diabolo perdeserta,
et ab eo tentatum quam miserrime. His igitur exceptis, et si quid ei ab scrip-
toribus ex Testamento vetcre falsa sub testificatione injectum est, credimus
cetera, prascipue crucis ejus mysticam fixionem, (from this language it appears,
that the portion of Christ's history which they did receive, they did not under-
stand literally, but mystically and allegorically,) qua nostrse animse passionis
monstrantur vulnera, tum pra;cepta salutaria ejus, turn parabolas cunctumque
sermonem deificum, qui maxime duarum pra?fcrens naturarum discretionem (we
shall misunderstand Faustus, if we suppose he here refers to the iico natures
in Christ, and the difference between them : the Manichasans assigned to Christ
only one nature, viz. the divine : the human nature they wholly subtracted.
The two natures, of which Fauslus here speaks, are the two Princijdes of the
Manichfeans, light and darkness, the more subtile and the grosser kinds of mat-
ter,) ipsius esse non venit in dubium. Hence also they rejected the two Gene-
 L\fc of Manes. 271

alogies of Christ, in Matthew and Luke: of whieli Fausius lias much to say,
(L. ii. c. 1. p. 133 &c.) —The Discourses of Je^us Christ recorded in our four
Gospels, Famlus seems to approve : but beware, of supposing lie really did so.
Manes acknowledged, indeed, some tilings are
tliat in these discourses of Ciiri-t
true, divine, and useful but he also contended, that in them the good is mixed
;

up wilh the bad, the true with the false, and that prudence and judgment are
necessary to discriminate them. This again, Fausius will tell us : (L. .xxxiii.

c. 3. p. 329.) : Nl-c immcrito nos ad hujusmodi scrlptiiras (he speaks of the N.

Testament) tnm inconsonantes ct varius nunquam sane sine jndicio et ratione
aures atferimussed contemplantes omnia et cum aliis alia conferentes, pcrpen-
;

dimus utrum eornm quidque a Cliristo dici potuerit, necne. iMulta enim a ma-
joribus vcstris cloquiis Domini nostri insorta verba sunt, quaj nomine signata
ipsius cum ejus fide non congruant. To distinguish the true and the good from
what they considered the false and fictitious in the Gospels, and in the [p. 751.]

New Test, generally, the ^lanichaeans adopted this universal rule : Wiiatever
in the New Test, accords with the doctrine of our master, is to be accounted
true and whatever disagrees with it, (and there is very much that does so,)
;

must be reckoned among the fictions and falseiioods of the writers. Fausius
states tliis rule in the following terms, (L. xxxii. c. 6. p. 321.) ; Paraclitus ex
novo Testamcnto promissus docet, quid accipere ex eodem debeamus, et quid
repudiare. —These things being so, 1 can never persuade myself, that Manes
placed a high value on our Gospels, or recommended their perusal to his fol-

lowers. And yet the learned Beausobre would so persuade us: (vol. i. p. 291.
Nos hcretiqucs recevoient premierement Ics quatre Evangiles.) And this, he
thinks, is manifest from the answer of Fausius to the question : Accipis Emn-
geliujn ? The reply, as stated by Augustine, (contra Fauslum L. ii. c. 1. p. 133.)
is: Maxirne. For Z?ea«sr;^?'e supposes the word Eiangelium in this reply of
Fausius, agreeably to its use in the Greek and Latin writers, means the four
histories of Christ, which we call the Gospels: (Par J'Evangile on entend lo
Volume, qui contenoit lea quatre Evangiles. C'est le style des Grecs et des
Latins.) But the great man is certainly mistaken. 1 admit, that the adversary
who asked the question, so understood the term : but Fausius, in his reply,
affixed a very ditlerent meaning to it. Nor does he disguise the fact, but freely
acknowledges it a little after, by saying : Scias me, ut dixi, accipere Evan-
gelium, id eM, prwdicalionem Chrisli : (of course, not the history.) In the same
manner he explains the term in other passages. In L. v. (c. i. p. 139.) his .ad-

versary again asks : Accipis Evangelium 1 And Fausius, among other things
which I omit, answers : Nescis, quid sit, quod Evangelium nuiicupatur. Est
enim nihil alind, qnam pradicalio et manda.'uin Christi. This Gospel, he says,
he receives. The IManiciioeans, therefore, did not understand by the Gospel
our volume cf Gospels, but the religion taught by Christ : and as they believed
this religion to be divinely communicated only to their m.aster, it is evident,
that they considered the Gospel to be nothing different from the religion* sys-
tem of Manes. And hence Tilus cf Bostra, (L. iii. contra Manichaeos, in H.
Canisii Leclt. Antiquis, torn. i. p. 139, edit. Bnsnagii,) very justly charges upon
the Manichaj.ans ; Quod honorcm tantum Evangeliorum simulent, ut esset si-
272 Century III— Section 40.

tniilntio invitnmenfum conim, quos dcciperent, quod lectiuiieni Evangcliorutn

praeterinittaiit : 'EvjLyyi\ta dvayvu^it 7r-jifi7rc!A7rov<n, quod in locum Evangelii
aliud eo nomine indignuii. substituant, &:c. Beausohre censures tliis language
of Tilus ; and maintains, tliat I'lie Manichaians did read the Gnspels. Ard this,
he thinks, appears from their books still extant: (vol. p. 303. par le pen qui i.

nous reste de leurs ouvragcs.) And it certainly is clear, from these books, tliat
[p. 752.] the Manichrcan doctors did, privately, read and examine our Gospels,
iust as we read the religious books of the sects which go out from us neither :

did Titus deny this, nor could he do so. But he did deny, that the ]\Iani-
chseans publicly read or expounded the Gospels in their assemblies, or that they
read them religiously at home, for the sake of gaining instruction or support
and consolation to their minds and neither of these charges can be refuted by
:

their books now extant. The Manichaean doctors would have been crazy and
have contravened their own precepts, if they had either publicly read, or had
directed their people to read those Gospels, the authors of which (as we have
Been) they pronounced to ])e half-Jews, mendacious, rash and false assumers of
Apostolic names, contradictory to one another, and destitute of divine illumina-
tion. But Beausohre promises to prove, from the language that Augustine puts
into mouth of Faustus, (par cette reponse que S. Augitstin met dans la
the
bouche de Fauste,) that our Gospels were read by the Manichaeans. But here
this great man is somewhat in error. For Augusiiiie does not repeat the worda

of Fauslus, nor does he affirm that Faustus thought that which he attributes to
him, but he only conjectures what he might say. His hmguage is, (Lib. xiii.

c. Hie forte (he therefore states, not what Faustus or the ]Mani-
18. p. 188.):
chaeans did say, but what they might perhaps say) dicetis, sed Evangelium de-
bet legere jam fidelis, ne obliviscatur quod credidit. I repeat, what I before
said : The Manichaeans would have conflicted with themselves, and v.-ould have
displayed consummate folly, if they had put into the hands of their people,
books which they judged to be full of lies, and the productions of insane men.
proceed to the Acts of the Apostles; to which the ^lanichaeans were more
I

hostile than to the Gospels. For while thoy could endure the Gospels, because
they contained some tilings true and useful, they totally rejected the book of
Acts. Thus Augustine testifies, (de Utilitate Credendi, c. 3. 0pp. tom. viii. p. 36.)
Si dicerent, Scripturas sive penitus abjiciendas putnsse, tergiversatio eoium rcc-
tior, vel error humanior. Hoc enim de illo libro fecerunt, qui Actus Apostolo-
rum inscribitur. Augustine wonders at this: Quod eorum consilium, cum
niecum ipse pertracto, nequeo satis mirari. - - Tanta enim liber iste habet, quffi

fiimilia sint his, qute accipiunt, ut magnas stultitia3 mihi videatur, non et hune
accipere, et si quid ibi eos offendit, falsum atque immissum dicere. And he sus-
pects, that their utter aversion to the book of Acts, arose from the declaration
there of the descent of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles; they believing that the
Holy came to mankind only in the person of their master. And he re-
Spirit
peats the same conjecture, in his book against Adimantus, a Manichrcan,
(c. 17. p. 100.) Acta isti non accipiunt, quoniam manifeste continent Paracleti
:

adventum. But they doubtless had other reasons also for wholly rejecting this
book; which, however, it is not necessary here to investigate.
 Life of Manes. 273

Of the Epislles of Paul, they thought more favorably th^n of the other books
of the New Testament. When Faiistus was asked by his adversary, [p. 753.1
(apud Aitgustinum contra Faustum, L. xi. c. 1. p. 155.). Accipis Aposlolum 1
He replied: Maxime. And there are other passages which show, that tiiey did
not question the fact, that Paul wrote those Epistles which we now read. But
if any one pressed them with a passage from those Epistles, they instantly re-
plied, that these sacred Epistles had been corrupted by nefarious men. What
shall I do to you, says Augusdne, (contra Faust. L. xxxiii. c. 6. p. 330.) : quos
contra testimonia Seripturarum ita obsurdefecit iniquitas, ut quidquid adversuni
vos inde prolatum fnerit, non esse dictum ab Apostolo, sed a nescio quo, falsario
sub ejus nomine scriptuni esse dicere audeatis? That Augustine here docs them
no injustice, is manifest from the reasoning of Faustus; who, when reduced to
straits by citations from Paul, boldly replies, (L. xi. c. 1. p. 156.): Si fas non
est, Paulum inemendatura dixLsse aliquid unquam, ipstus non esl. He had a little

before said; Aliquid in Apostolo esse cauponatum. In another place, (L. xviii.

c. 3. p. 221.) he says: Me quidem Manich;ca fides reddidit tutum, quje mihi non
cunctis, quffi ex Salvatoris nomine scripta leguntur, passim credere persuasit,
sed probare, si sint eadem vera, si sana, si incorrupta: (i. e. accordant with the
opinions of Manex ;) esse enim permulta Zizania, qua; in contagium boni semi-
nis Scripturis piMie omnibus noctivagus quidam seminator insper.serit. —The
opinions of the Manichaeans, respecting the other books of the New Testament,
are uncertain.
In place of our scriptures, the Manichjeans substituted the books of their
master, declaring them to be divinely inspired. Beausobre, having very fully
anil very learnedly discussed this subject, I will refer such as are eager for a
knowledge of it to his work, vol. p. 305 &c. He might have despatched the
i.

whole subject in a few words for very little has come down to us upon it.
;

But the learned man very often digresses from the subject, and introduces topics
altogether foreign, and dwells upon them longer than was necessary. He also
advances many things concerning the sacred books of the Manichaeans, which I
would not venture to say, and which rest merely upon conjecture. Manes
wrote many books, of which a list is given by Jo. Alb. Fabricius, (Biblioth.
Grajca, vol. v. p. 281 &.c.) and by Wm. Cave, (Historia Literar. Scriptor. Eccl.
tom. i. p. 139.) : but both lists are imperfect; nor
is that compiled by Beausobre

without That the Manichasaus set a higher value on the writings of their
faults.

master, than upon any other books named by them, no one can doubt, if he re-
flects tiiat they considered him as the Paraclete promised by Christ. No one
of the books of Manes was held by them in higher estimation than his Epislola
Fundamenti, which Augustine has confuted in a single book for this Epistle ;

contained a sort of epitome of the whole doctrine of Manes. And hence Felix
the Manicha'an, when about to dispute with Augustine, requested this only of
all the books taken from him by the order of government, to be re- [p. 754.]
stored to him, (August, contra Felicem, L. i. e. 1. p. 345.) : Ista enim Epistola
Fundamenti est, quod et sanctitas tua bene scit, quod et ego dixi, quia ipsa con-
tinet initium, medium et finem, (i. e. the whole system of religion). Ipsa lega-
tur. And (August, contra Epist. Fundamenti, c. 5. p. 111.): Potissimum illuta
VOL. II. 19
274 dntury III. — Section 40.

considerenins librum. quem Fiindamenti Epistolam dieitis, nbi totuiu pene, quod
creditis. continetur. And hence, it was read to the people, in tlieir assemblies,
by the Maniehceaiis : Ipsa enim nobis illo tempore Diiseris quando lecta est,
illuminati dicebamur a vobis.

(4) The festal day, on which the Maniclireans annually celebrated the me-
morial of their master's execution, was called Bema; from the tribunal, or ele-
vated seat, which on that day was erected in their temples or places of worship.
Says Augustine, (contra Epist. Fundam. c. 8. pp. 112, 113.) Vestrum Bema,\d :

est,diem, quo Manichasus occisus est, quinque giadibus instructo tribunali et

pretiosis linteis adornato, ac in promptu posito et objecto adorantibus prosequi-
mini. And in his work against Faustus, (L. xviii. c. 5. p. 222.) he testifies,
that this day was celebrated, with great festivity, in the month of March.
The tribunal or pulpit, (/S;7«a) a magnificent chair, hung with costly drapery,
undoubtedly denoted that Manes was an
and greater inspired teacher,
and more excellent than all the other teachers sent of God to man; or, a man
exalted above all other mortals. Bi?^*, among the Greeks, properly signifies a
step: but it is also used of the elevated places, from which military commanders
addressed their soldiers, teachers their disciples, and judges pronounced their
decisions ; for to all these the ascent was by steps. Augustine translates it tri-

bunal: perhaps it might better be rendered a chair, a pulpit. Yet the term tri-

bunal is admissable, because the Manichaeans considered their master as not

only a teacher, but also as a Judge in matters of religion. Jac. Tollius, (Insign.

an altar. But he gives no reasons for this

Itinerarii Italic!, p. 142.) translates it

interpretation; which is manifestly opposed by Augustine, a very competent

witness, who had been often present at this ceremony. Beausobre castigates
Tollius; (vol. ii. p. 713.) — Why, the ascent to this tribunal or throne, represent-
ing the presence of their master, was by Jive steps, seems not very evident. But
I conjecture, that the five steps correspond with the Jive elements of the iNIani-

chacans. For they kingdom of darkness and the kingdom

distributed both the
of light into five elements; and our world, they supposed, consisted of five com-
pound elements, derived from both kingdoms. And, if I judge correctly, the
Manichseans, by the five steps to the tribunal or pulpit of their master, intended
to represent, that he alone fully understood the true nature of both kingdoms*

[p. 755.] those of light and darkness, and of this our world; and had explained
it all to mankind. Augustine, moreover, speaks of the tribunali in promptu
posito; i. e. so placed, that all present could see it, and have their eyes upon
it; et objecto adorantibus. What does adorantibus here denote? Beausobre
(ubi sup. p. 713.) thinks it equivalent to precantibus : and, of course, he sup-
poses, that the Manichaeans prayed to God, with their faces towards this tribu-
nal. I would readily concede, that in the proper sense of the word, the Mani-
chaeans adored neither their master nor his pulpit. But as for the import of the

word from him. Among the Latins, adorarc was to show

in this place, I dissent
reverence, by bodily attitudes and motions, either to gods or to men; nor do I
see any reason for believing, that Augustine used the word otherwise here. I

therefore do not doubt, that he means to say, either that the Manichaeans pros-
trated themselves, in the Oriental manner, before this throne ; or, that by somo
 * Manichccan Dualism. 275

ether bodily act, they manifested their very great reverence for their muster.
The ceremony was similar to that of tlie Chinese ; who salute, very respectfully,
a tablet bearing the name of Confucius; in order to manifest publiclv. that to
that philosopher they are indebted for all their wisdom. This was not a religious
adoration, but a manifest:ition of their feelings of gratitude and respect.

§ XLL Two Eternal Worlds, under Two Eternal Lords. Manes

affirmed two first principles of all things; namely, a subtile and a
gross sort of matter, or light and darkness, separated from each
other by a narro^y space. And over each of these he placed an
eternal King or Lord; the Lord over light, he called God; the
Lord over darkness, he called 7Tt/I^, or Demon.i^) The icorld of light
and the luorld of darkness, although different in their natures, have
some things in common. For each is distributed into five op-
posing elements, and the same number of provinces: and both
are equally eternal, and both, with their respective Lords, self-
existent both are unchangeable, and both to exist for ever both
; ;

are of vast extent, yet the icorld of light seems to fill more space
than the empire of darkne-ss.i^) The condition of the two Lords,
presiding over the two kinds of matter, is equal but they are ;

totally unlike in their natures and dispositions. The Lord of light,

being himself happ}'-, is beneficicnt, a lover of peace and quiet-
ness, just and wise; the Lord of dar/cness, being himself very
miserable, wishes to see others unhappy, is quarrelsome, unwise,
unjust, irascible,and envious. Yet they are equal in the eternity
of their existence, in their power to beget beings like themselves,
in their unchangeableness, and in their power and knowledge
and yet the King of light, or God, excells the Prince of [p. 756.]
darkness, or the Demon, in power and knowledge.^

(]) In substantiating the doctrines and opinions of the Manichaeans, I have

determined to employ the very language of Manes and his disciples, as far as
possible; and to cite the testimony of those only, who were well acquainted
with the Manichaean system, and who had actually consulted the books of the
sect, disregarding the writers of less authority and less accuracy; so tliat my
statements may have unexceptionable credibility. In collecting the testimonies,
I acknowledge myself indebted to the industry of Beausobre, that
gratefully
prince of the historians of Manichaeism. But this resource has failed me, in
many cases a fact which I mention, with no disrespect for that extraordinary
;

man, who was my friend. For he not only omitted many things necessary to be
known, and of use for a right understanding of the Manichaean religion but also, ;

being too favorably inclined both to Manes, whom he deemed no mean piiiloso-
 276 Century III.— Section 41.

pher. and to his followers, he taxes his genius and eloquenco, to extenuate the
baseness of the religion they professed. I shall sometimes mention, when the
occasion shall seem to require it, that the best attested truth compels me to dif-
fer from this very learned man: yet often, to avoid wearying tlie reader, I shall si-
lently deviate from him. Whoever shall take the trouble to compare his protract-
ed and very copious work, with my slender and dry production, will see, I hope,
a great difference between them ; and will perceive, that I have examined with
my own eyes, and not with those of another, this gloomy and obscure fable.
In the first it is beyond all controversy, that Manes affirmed the exis-
place,
tence of two first 'principles of all things, and likewise of two Lords of the
universe: in doing which, he followed the opinions of the ancient Persians and
other Oriental nations. The Manichfeans, when they would speak with preci-
sion and accuracy, applied the term first principle (principium) only to the
Rulers or Lords over the two kinds of matter, the good and the evil, or light
and darkness. Faustus, the most learned and eloquent of the Manichceans, says,
(apud Anguslinum, L. xx. c. 1. 0pp. torn. viii. p. 237.) Pagani bona et mala :

unum principiiim habere dogmatizant. His ego valde contraria sentio, qui bonis
omnibus principiiim fateor Deum, contrariis vero Hylen : sic enim mali princi-
pium ac naturam Theologus noster (Manes) appellat. And again, (L. xxi. c.
1. p. 249.) Duo principia confitemur, sed unum ex his Deum nominamus, alte-
:

rura Hylen aut, ut communiter et usitate dixerim, Damonem. - - - Duo frin-

•

cipia doeco, Deum et Hylen. Vim omnem maleficam Hylse assignamus, et

beneficam Deo, ut congruit But good and bad, or light
to denote the matter,
and darkness, over which those first Principles had dominion, they used the
terms nature and substance. So Manes himself, in his Epistola Fundamenti,
[p. 757.] (apud August, contra Epist. Fundam. c. 12, 13, p. 115) : Ausculta
prius qufe fuerint ante constitutionem mundi, ut possis luminis sejungere natu-
ram ac tenebrarum. Haee quippe in exordio fuerunt, dace suhstantitc a sese
divisae. So also Faustus, and the rest of them, often. And Augustine, exactly
according to the views of the sect, of which he had been a member, (de Hacres,
c. 46. tom. viii. duo principia inter se diversa et adversa, eadem-
p. 11.) saN's: Ista
que aeterna ac coaeterna, hoc semper fuisse, composuit duasque naturas ac
est, :

substantias, boni scilicit et mali, opinatus est. —

Yet examples occur in which this
distinction is overlooked, and the term first principle is applied to matter, and
the word nature applied to God and the Demon. I have just cited a passage
from Faustus, (L. xx. c. 1. p. 237.) in which he uses both principiiim and na-
tura in reference to the demon. He adds, (L. xxi. c. 1. p. 249.) Nee diffiteor, :

interdum nos adversam naturam nuncupare Deum. In a similar manner, they

use the words light and darkness, which properly denoting the matter over which
God and the Demon reign, yet sometimes denote the Lords of matter, or God
and Hyle. This is a minute criticism, but it will help us to understand better

some declarations of the Manichaeans.

(2) Manes conceived, that in infinite space, there are tico worlds, or two earths
the one shining, and overspread with light ; the other very caliginous, or full of
darkness and mists. In his Epistola Fundamenti, (apud August, c. 12. p. 115.)

Manes calls the former: Lucidam et beatam terram ; and, Illustrem et -sanctara
 Manichcean Dualism. 277

terrain. The latter he calls, (ibid. 15 .p. 116.) Terram tenebrarutn: and Terrain
pestiferam. Both these worlds existed from eternity neither of them had a begin-
;

ning, or can have an end, or become extinct. Of the world of light or the em|Hre
of God, Manes also says, (ibid. p. 115.) : Ita autem fundata sunt ejusdem (Dei)
spiendidissiraa regna supra lucidam et beatam terrain, ut a nullo unquam aufc

inoveri aut concuti possint. These passages prove the enduring stability of the
world of iigkl. Tliat he believed the same stability characterized the world of
darkness, is manifest from what he says of tiif destruction of our world, and the
events that are to follow. For when God shall have conquered the Frince of
darkness, he will not destroy his kingdom thai is beyond his power, since the :

world of darkness has an equally necessary existence, with the world of light.
But, as the power of God is greater than that of the Ruler of darkness, he will
shut up tile latter in that realm of darkness of which he is Lord. On the eter-
nity of the world of light there is a noted passage of Felix the Manichaean, in
his Dispute with Augustine, (L. I. c. 17. 18. p. 342. 343.) Avgusline nska him:
Fecitne Deus, an genuit, terram illam lucis, an aequalis et coajtanea illi erat?
Felix at first replies evasively, and conceals
For he only proves his opinion.
that there are two worlds: Duae terrae mihi vindentur esse, secundum quod
Mnnichaeus dicit duo regna. Augustine declares himself not satisfied, and
repeats the question. But Felix still seeks concealment, and strives to
elude the subject. For the unhappy man, then a prisoner, was afraid [p. 758.]
of the imperial laws, and of the authority of Augustine ; as he does not dis-
guise. He supposed, he would be accused and punished as a blasphemer, if he
should deny that heaven, tlic residence of God, was created by God. But, be-
ing pressed on every side, at la.st, laying aside fear, he stated clearly what he
did believe : Dixisti de terra ilia, in qua Deus habitat, an focta est ab iilo, an
generavit illam, an coaeterna illi est. Et ego dico, quia quomodo Deus aeter-
nus est, et faetura apud ilium nulla est, iotum ccternurn est. Augustine, not fully
satisfied, asks again : Non illam ergo genuit, nee fecit ? And Felix answers
most distinctly : Non, sed est illi coaeterna. A little after, he assigns the reason
why he does not believe that the world of light w.ns produced by God : Quod
nascitur, finem habet : quod innatum, non habet finein. It appears that from
this principle he reasoned thus : As the world of light will have no end, it of
course cannot have bad abeginning: and, therfore, it was not made or generated
by God. After a few remarks not pertaining to our enquiry, he is again interro-
gated by Augustine: Hujus ergo terrae (Deus) non est Pater, sed Inhabitator?
And Felix answers promptly: Etiam. Augustine proceeds: Ergo duae jam erunt
res ambae ingenitae, terra et Pater ? To this Felix replies : Immo tres sunt.

Pater ingenitus, terra ingenila, et a'er ingenitus. Hence, it appears, that Manes
assigned to the world of light an at?iwsphere, or supposed that world compassed
with air, just as ours is. That Manes supposed the same thing true of the world
of darkness, there can be no doubt. That world, therefore, together with ita
King or Lord, had existed from eternity. But, although both worlds have ever-
lasting duration and permanence, and cannot be overthrown or demolished, yet
it is possible that violence and injury should be done to them, or that some por-
tion of either should be taken from it, and that world thus become diminished.
278 Century III— Section 41.

This is manifest beyond all doubt, from the war between the good and the
malignant first Principles, or the Kings and Lords of the two worlds. For in
this war, as wc shall hereafter see, the King of darkness subjugated a portion
of the elements of the world of light, and likewise not a few of its inhabitants.
And of the same thingwe liavethe best testimony, that of Manes himself, in his
Epistola Fundamenti. (apud August. Disput. cum Felice, L. I. c- 19. p. 343. &e.
and in other places,)
Lucis vero beatissiniae Pater, sciens lahem 7nagna?n ac vas-
:

quae ex tenebris surgeret, adversus sua sancta impendere Saccula, nisi

iitatem,
quod eximium i\umen opponat. The Demon therefore could harm the sancta
ScEcula, or the JEons of God ; and the danger from this source was to be re-
sisted. The same was true, unquestionably, of the world of darkness. Such
was the power of God, that although he could not subvert and annihilate the
empire of the Demon, yet he could, he chose, invade it and dismember it.
if

But this he would not do would have been injurious to the tran-
; because, it

quillity and happiness of his own kingdom, if he had brought a portion of

[p. 759.] darkness into it.— Both worlds occupied very ample spaces, or were

of very great extent. Of the world of darkness. Manes himself says, (Epist.
Fundam. c. 15. p. 116. apud Aiigustinum,) Tencbrarum terra profunda et im- :

mensa magnitudine. But the world of liglit, the Manichaeans seem to have
made rather more extensive than the realm of darkness. I gather this from the
language of Augustiiie, (contra Epist Manichaei, c. 20. p. 118.) ; Dicantergo, quid
adjungebatur terrae lucis, si ex uno latere erat gens tenebrarum ? Non dicunt
sed cum premuntur, ut dicant, infinita dicunt esse alia latera terrae illius, quam
lucem vocant, id est, per infinita spatia distendi et nuUo fine eohiberi. Manes
himself had not said this; for he spoke only in general terms, of the limits of
the two worlds. But his disciples, when hard pressed, so explained their mas-
ter's views : and, indeed, they had reason so to explain them. For he had said,

(in Epist. Fund.) : Juxta U7ia7n vero partem ac lalus illustris illius ac sanctae ter-
rae erat tenebrarum terra profunda. According to his idea, only one side of the
world of light was bounded by the world of darkness. Therefore the Mani-
sides, not being bounded, had no limits, but ex-
chaeans inferred that the other
tended into infinite space. From this, it necessarily follows, that the world of
light is more ample and extensive than the world of darkness. For that thing,
which is contiguous to only one part or side of something, the other sides of
which, being unbounded, are free and without limits; — that thing, undoubtedly,

is smaller or less extensive than the thing to which it is contiguous; although

it may, as Manes says, immensam profundit:ttem et magnitudinem habere, or,
may extend over a very large and unbounded space. In the world of light, —
eternal peace and uninterrupted happiness reign. For all its inhabitants being
the progeny of the beneficent nature of God, there can be no place for discord
and enmity among them and as all are perfectly happy, in their respective
:

spheres, they cannot be disquieted or moved by the desire of greater happiness.

But far different is the state of the" For there, all are con-
world of darkness.
tinuallv atwar with each other. Being naturally propense to broils, seditions,
and discord, no solid and stable pence can exist among them. Says Augustine,
(contra Faustum L. xxi. c. 14. p. 264, 255.) Ilia gens, inquiunt (Manichaei) ex-
:
 Manichcean Dualism, 279

cepto eo, quod vicinne luci mala apud se ipsam mala crat.- —Vastabant
erat, et

se invicein, laedebant, occidebant, absumebant. (This must be understood of

the animals living in the Idngdom of darkness, of which we are soon to speak.
For the progeny of the Prince of darkness, are equally immortal with the off-

spring of the Lord of light.)

But the words lighl and darkness, used by jManes to denote the matter of
histwo worlds, or what they called the two natiiTcs or subslances, have not the
import commonly assigned them namely, that one of tliese worlds was com-
;

posed intirely of light, and the other wholly of darkness. This common mis-
apprehension, which is found with some very learned men, is contrary to the
clearest assertions and dechirations of Manes and his disciples. Light [p. 760.]
is only one Jiflh part of the world of light, and darkness is only ouejiflh part of
the realm of darkness. Bnt because light, from its very nature, is diffused
throughout one of these worlds, and illumines the whole of it with its splendor,
therefore, that whole happy region, inhabited by God himself, is called light, or
the world of light. And moreover, God is himself light ; and he undoubtedly
diffuses the splendor of his nature thrmighout all the realm over which he reigns.
On the other hand, as the darkness from its very nature, obscures the wiiole re-
gion of which it constitutes a fifth part, and spre:ids a sort of cloud over all
the elements of it, tiiat teira pestifera, (as Manes e.vpresses it,) is culled a world
or realm of darkness. Not that there is no light at all in the world of darkness
for it contains ^re, which of course must emit light. But the darkness in con-
tact with this fire, causes it to emit very little ligiit, and almost to assume the
nature of darkness.
Manes distributed eacii of these worlds, from which lie supposed .nil things
were formed, into fiic elements and five provinces. Of the world of darkness,
he has left us this full description, in his Epistola Fundamenti, (apud Augus-
tinum c. 15. p. 116.) : Juxta unam vero partem ac latus illustris illius ac sanctae
terrae erat tenebrarum terra profunda et immensa magnitudine, in qua habita-
bant ignea corpora, genera scilicit pestifera. (i. e. the Demons, with their
Prince.) Hie infinita; tenehrcc. (Here is the first element,) ex eadem manantes
natura inajstimabiles cum propriis fetibus : ultra quas erant aquae ccenoscc (the

second element) ac turbidre cum suis inhabitatoribus ;

quarum interius venti
horribiles ac vehementes (the third element) cum suo Principe ac genitoribus.
Rursum regie ignea ac corruptibilis (ihat which has power to corrupt, de-
is,

stroy, or consume ; not that it is itself corruptible or consumable) cum suis

ducibus et nationibus : (the fourth element.) Pari more introrsura gens caliginis
ac fumi plena, (the fifth element,) in qua morabatur immanis Princeps omnium et
du.x,habens circa se innumerabiles Principes, quorum omnium ipse erat mens
atque origo haeque fuerunt natura: quinque terras pestifei-ac. I will subjoin an
:

extract from Augustine, (de Hieresibus c. 46. p. Il.)w0iich throws light on

some parts of this description ;
quinque elementa, qua3 genucrunt principes pro-
prios, genti tribuunt tenebrarum; eaque elementa his nominibus nuncupant,
fumum, tenebras, ignem, aquam, ventum. (This is not accurately expressed,
and does not clearly and fully exhibit the opinion of Manes. Augustine also
changes the order of the elements.) Infamo nata animalia bipedia, unde ho-
280 Century III. — Section 41.

mines ducere originem eensent, in tenehris serpentia, in igne qun dm podia, hi

aquis natalilia, in xtnto volatilia. See also Augustine against Faustus, (L. ii.

c. 3. pp. 133, 134.) — We will eincidate these whims a little. —The world of
darkness is like an immense dwelling house, which is Jive stories high, and each
[p. 761.] story having its own elementary matter, its Prince, its inhabitants, and
its animals ; the last all venimous and noxious, and resembling our noxious
animals. In each storj', therefore, we may distinguish /ow?- things : ^j-s/, the
elementary matter; secondly, the Prince who presides over the province;
thirdly,the subordinate rulers who aid the Prince in the government; and lastly,

the anbnals corresponding with the several elements. The elements themselves
lire fecund, or have tlie power of generation; iov Augustine says: Suos sibi

Prineipes genuerunt. Nor does he pervert the views of Manes ; for we have a
passage of his, which confirms what Augustine says, in Titus Bostrensis,
(contra Manieiideos, L. i. in Canisii Lectt. Antiquis, torn. i. p. 68.) : "^Hv ySf irork

^ncr'iv, OTS » iiKu iiraicTitfKui iyivvn. xai /lu^dviTO, xui iimiKU TroXXa; 7rfofiu.KKc,uiyi>

(Tt/vd/Mwc Erat, inquit Manichseus, (doubtless in his Liber Myslerioruin, which

Titus had read ;) tempns, cum materia sine ordine ferebatur, et generabat et
crescebat, ac multas potentates producebat. Those Princes, therefore, or the
Governors of provinces in the world of darkness, neither existed necessarily and
from eternity, nor were they the offspring of the King of darkness. Whether
the inferior magistrates also originated from the elements, or were the progeny
of the Princes, seems to be doubtful. Yet, I suspect, they were begotten by
supreme Lord of darkness generated his own subordinate
the princes: for the
commanders and ministers; and it la probable, that the Governors of pi-ovinees
possessed the same powers. Besides, Ma7ies makes express mention of births
in the realm of darkness. The first animals that inhabited the several stories of
the edifice, undoubtedly, were the product of the elements in which they lived.
And these propagated their species, in the same manner that our animals do.

This will very clearly appear from a passage soon to be cited. The inferior ele-

ments produce only the imperfect animals; and the more exalted the elements
are, the more perfect are the beings they produce. The highest element pro-

duces the most perfect animals, namely, those most resembling human beings.
The inhabitants of all the stories are continually warring and fighting with each
other; and animals, which are mortal, also devour and consume one another.
Manes says, (apud Titum Bostrens. ubi supra, p. 70.) : 'Hxauvov nai x5tT»V3-<<;»

0/ £| duTiic (iXX»A5K, tfs/fi nai ^-/.KiTra hscrXaevn;. Qui ex malitia nati sunt, se
mutuo insectati sunt et devoraverunt, dura et gravia passi. More might be said
on these points, but it is not necessary. I proceed rather to a consideration of
the elements themselves, on which some remarks may not be useless. Augustine
has much to say of them, (contra Epist. Fundament!, c. 28. p. 122.) but, as he
too often is, he is more harsh and energetic than was necessary; nor did he
understand the nature of these elements.
The lowest element, and that which produced reptile animals, was tenebraoi
infinite ; that is, wide and infinitely But Manes did not, as
extended darkness.
commonly supposed, understand by word darkness, what we do, the mere
the

[p. 762.] absence of light; for, infatuated as he doubtless was, he was not so
 Manichcean Dualism. 281

infatuated as to believe tliut dmkness, in the proper sense of the woi-d, can be
ranked among elementary substances. And the Manicliaeans themselves, (apud
Artgusl. loco citato, p. 124.) denied, that then- darkness was the same as ours:
Non tales erant ilise tenebrae quales hie nosti. Manes wrote in Syriac, as we
learn from Titus Bostrensis; and perliaps his Latin translator did not adequately
express his meaning. The darkness of Manes was, undoubtedly, earth ; which
being opaque, and emitting no iigiit, might be called darkness. Tliis is not only

manifest from the earthly and reptile animals generated from tliis darkness but

tile thing itself sliows it. For unless by darkness Manes meant earfh, he e.x-
cluded earth from among the elements; which is altogether incredible, and
would be foreign from his views. For his superior world had the same number
of elements, and of the same kinds, as our world has; and ihat earth is one of
the elements of our world, Manes and all the Persians believed. Therefore,
from this immense mass of earth, destitute of all light, arose, according to Ma-
nes, iTUL stimabiles (i. e. innumerable) naturoc (for thus doubtless it should read,
instead of natura, as in the copies of Augustine.) and moreover, fetus, (i. e. the
proper animals of the earth, serpents, vipers, worms, insects, and all that are
destitute of feet —
and creep upon the ground.) Adjacent to earth or darkness,
was the element of water ; filled, in like manner, with its appropriate inhabitants.

But this water was not pure and limpid; it was polluted by the contiguous
earth, and therefore turbid and dark-colored. —The third element, adjacent to
the water, was wind; wiiich likewise had its Prince, its generators, and its ani-

mals, namely, birds; yet not beautiful, harmless, and singing birds, but such as
were savage and ferocious. Beware also of supposing that Manes understood
by wind, what we understand by it, namely, a strong motion of the air. He wa3
a senseless man, yet not so senseless as to account motion an elementary body,
giving birth to various material beings. His wind was air; yet air obscured
with clouds, and immensely and vehemently agitated. This appears from the
thing itself, and also from the animals which lived in the wind, for they were all
ailrial. —Above the wind was the fourth region, which comprised ^Iz-e, the fourth
element. Here lived those quadrupeds whose natures most resembled fire,
vvhich destroys and consumes objects : namely, savage beasts, lions, tigers, ele-
phants, bulls, and panthers. To the gentler animals, and those serviceable to
mankind, such as sheep, cows, horses, &c. I suppose, he did not assign a place
in the world of darkness. The Manichaians being asked, (apud August, loco
cit. c. 32. pp. 124, 125.) why their master placed quadrupeds in the region of
fire, replied: Quod quadrupedes edaces sinl; (this, I suppose, means rapacious,
voracious, inclined to bite,) et The highest and
in concubitum multum ferieant. —
most elevated of the elements, the fifth in number, but the first in rank, was
smoke; in which resided the Prince of the whole world of darkness, [p. 763.]
encompassed with a vast multitude of princes and dukes, who were his offspring.
It appears strange, that Manes should the elements, and above all
place among
the others, smoke, which is and dislodged from burning
merely a vapor, elicited

bodies: and still more strange, that the King of the whole realm of darkness
should dwell in smoke; and that the animals produced from smoke should be
more perfect than any others; for they resembled men in form, were bipeds, and
282 Centurxj III— Section 41.

they generated men. Says Aiigusline, (contra Faustum, L. x.xi. c. 1 4. p. 256.)

Illi principi non tantum sui generis, id est, bipedes, qnos parentes hominum dici-

tis, sed etiam cuncta aniinalia ceterorum generum subditi erant et ad ejus initum

convertebantur. And lience lie ridicules tliis fiftli element, (contra Epistoiam
Manieli. c. 32. p. 125.) and says: Bipedes fumus ofTocat atque necat. - - At hie
fumus bipedes suos — vitaliter atque indulgenter educaverat et continebat. But
I can sui)pose there was no just cause for his ridicule. Perhaps, the Latin trans-
lator of the EpistolaFundamenti, did not understand the meaning of the Syriac
word used by Manes. Those better acquainted with the Syriac language than
am, can judge. But I may safely say, that such smoke as ours, was not in-
tended by Manes, but a material substance more suitable for procreating animals
superior to all others. The smoke of Manes was, undoubtedly, that element
whicli was considered \\\e first by the ancients, and which they called elher ; or,
as Cicero describes it, (de Natura Deor. L. ii. c. 36.) : extrema ora atque deter-
minatio mundi, complexus coeli omnia cingens et coercens, ardor coelestis. This
may be inferred from the fact, that it is contrasted with air ; as we shall pre-

sently see. But this element, being in the world of darkness like the rest, was
contaminated and corrupted; and having a resemblance to smoke, it might be
called smoke. Pure genuine ether is thin and transparent; but this was dense,
turbid, dark, and cloudy. These remarks go to .show, why the malignant Lord

of the dark world dwelt in this element as his home.

Correspondent with these five elements in the pestiferous world, there are
five elements in the world of light, and arranged, doubtless, in the same order;
yet they are salutary, beautiful, benign, and replete with happy and beneficent
inhabitants. Says Augustine, (de Haeres. c. 46. p. 11.) the Manichfeans teach:
Hi-s quinque dementis malis debellandis alia quinque elementa de regno et sub-
stantia Dei (Here is some mistake. The substance of God, as we shall see, wa«
the purest light, with no admixture of any otiier substance. Therefore, tliese
elements are not composed of the substance of God, but only of the empire of
God) missa esse, et in ilia pugna permixta, fumo ai-ra, tenebris lucem, igni malo
ignem bonum, aquas malee aquam bonam, vento malo ventum bonum. There is
also much said by Augustine respecting these five celestial elements, in his work
against Faustus, (L. xi. c. 3. and L. xx. c. 9.) But he does not arrange these
[p. 764.] elements in tlieir proper order. Tiie last and lowest element in the
kingdom of God, is light. And, as it is opposed to the darkness in the kingdom
of darkness, it undoubtedly is a material substance, resembling earth, yet white
and and thin. Manes calls it Lucidam ac beaiam
colorless, shining, pellucid,
terrain, (in his EpistolaFund, apud Angnst. c. 13. p. 115.) And, because the
splendor of this element is diffused through the whole realm of God, therefore
this realm is pronounced splendidissimmn. Next came good water; that is, —
water pure and limpid, free from all eartlily particles and feculency; for the evil
water Manes says, ccenosa et turbida.
\\'1is, as third element was good icind;—The
that is,moving gently and placidly, and tempering agreeably tlie heat pro-
air
duced by the inferior light and the superior fire. This was followed by good —
are; which, as it is opposed to igni corrupiibili, e. to devouring and consum- i.

in"' fire, unquestionably, only warms, revives, and fecundates, like the fire
 Manichcean I}uaUs7n. 2S3

of the sun, and does not consume and destroy. —The uppermost elementj
conlrastcd with the smoke, was air ; not that which is moved, and which Manes
called tvind ; but the purest and most refined ether, encompassing and embr.icing
the whole realm of light. —Of the Princes and the animals of these five provinces
of the world of light, I find no where a description. But as tlie world of light

was the counterpart of the world of darkness, I doubt not, tiiat Manes assigned
to each of these elements its Prince, its magislrales and inhabilants, and also
lisfaiLus, or animals.

You may say, these are whims, and more suitable for old women and
children, than for a man of sense. I grant it : they are so. Yet they have their

grounds and reasons iu the first principles of the Manichajan doctrine; and
therefore the man did not trille, but reasoned consequentially from his premises.

Like the Persians and many others among the ancients, (as appears from
Apuleius, de Mundo, J
29.) Manes supposed this, our world, to be compo^-ed of
five elements, earth, water, fire, air, and ether. And one of his fundamental doc-
ti'ines was, that our world is a compound of the commingled elements of he two I

upper worlds, the good and the For he despaired of accounting for the
evil.

existence of evil, unless he admitted two first principles above us, from the
commingling of which world originated. Hence, this reason, if a ne-
this our —
cessity resulting from an assumed dogma may be called a reason, this reason, I —
say, led him to suppose the worlds above to be composed of the same elements as
ours is, and those elements arranged in much the same order as we here behold
them. If he had assigned any other constitution, either to the world of light,
or to the world of darkness, he could not have accounted for the condition of
our world, and the changes which occur in it.

(3) That the founder of the Manicha;an sect inculcated the belief of tivo
Deities or Gods, is declared by most persons, both ancient and modern. But •

the erudite Beausobre is dissatisfied, and contends earnestly, that they [p. 765.]
believed indeed in two first Principles, but by no means in two Gods. (See his
Histoire de Manichee, tome i. p. 488.) He relies chiefly on the authority of
Faustus ; (apud August, contra Faust. L. xxi. c. 1. p. 250.) who, being interro-
gated : Unus Dcus est, an Z)ho .^ quickly replied : Plarie unus : and then in-

veighed severely against those who explain otherwise the doctrine of his sect.
He said: Nunquam in nostris quidem asserlionibus duorum Deorum audilum
est nomen. - - Est quidem quod duo Principia confitemur, sed unurii ex his
Deum vocamus. - - Quapropter inepta liajc et viribus satis etfeta est argumen-
tatio. Augustine strenuously confutes Faustus : but he fails to satisfy Beau-
sobre, who affirms that in this controversy Faustus had the best of the argument:
and proceeding still farther, he maintains that no one of the ancient heretics
taught the existence of ttco Deities. I think otherwise ; and I do not consider
them in error, who declare that the Manicha^ans preached two Gods. This in-
deed, both Faustus and his learned patron have proved, that the Manichaeans
applied the name God to only the good Principle, and not also to the bad ; and
yet Faustus does not deny, that sometimes, the Prince of darkness is also called
God by the Manichaeans : Nee diftiteor, etiam interdiim nos adversam naturam
nuncnpare Deum, sed non hoc secundum Tiostram fidem, verum juxt:i pra3sump-
284 Century III.— Section 41.

turn jam in earn nomen But the question is not about tha
a cultoribus suis.

navie, but about the thing. We

the name God, a being
commonly designate by
who is eternally self-existent, and subject to the authority and control of no
other being. Now, of this character were both the good Principle and the evil
Principle, according to the opinion of the Manichaeans. And therefore, they
truly held to two Gods, notwitiistanding they, for distinction's sake, applied tlie

name God only good Principle. And if one should change the definition,
to the

and say God is not only an eternally self-existent being, but also one possessed
;

or all conceivable perfections, and the cause of all things this would not ;

answer his purpose. For, according to this definition, the M.michaeans held to
no God at all ; because they did not suppose their good Principle to be ahso-
lulely perfect, nor the cause of all things so that he would not deserve the title
:

of God, according to this definition. Yet I will grant, that in a certain sense,

the Manichffians believed in but one God : namely, they supposed that only
the good Principle was to be worshipped and honored. And, therefore, if it

should be said, that the Being whom all men should religiously worship and
adore, is God, then the Manichaeans are free from the charge brought against
them. And yet, in another sense, they may most justly be charged with what
is called Dualism ; that is, with holding to two Divinities.
Respecting the nature and attributes of the good Principle, I purpose to
speak in the next section. Here I shall only make some remarks on the coinci-
[p. 766.] dences and the discrepancies between the good and the bad Principles,

and on the character and conduct of the bad Principle. And first, that the bad
Principle was co-eternal with the good Principle, and equally self-existent, or
dependent on no antecedent cause, is beyond all controversy. Manes himself
says, (apud Titum Bostrens. L. i. p. 87.) : 2«Tavaf «/ Trcvipds, naX own nort
ivK «;', aii yafi »v. Kat ovk. dni t/voc ?v, iy yap. Ksti pi'^ai kv, piKri, kui iv

Ktjfio;, nil d-jTdi Kv. I will translate this more clearly and accurately than
Francis Turrian does, who is not always the best translator : Mains erat Sa-
tanas; neque tempus quo non erat: aeternus enim est, neque originem ab
est,

aliquo accepit. Necessario enim et per se existebat. Et erat radix, inquit

Manes, (who speaks in the Oriental style. Radix is equivalent to pater or geni.
tor, one who begets a numerous offspring.) Et erat Dominus (i. e. he had an
immense empire,) et idem erat (i. e. was immutable, and could not become ex-
tinct, nor change his nature.) Secondly, the generative power of both Princes
or their power of procreating beings like themselves, is immense. And there-
fore each of them has produced innumerable beings like himself. Manes, in
his Epistola Fundamenti, (apud August, c. 13. p. 115.) expressly calls God illus-

trem falrem ac geniiorem (innumerabilium) bealorum et gloriosorum saculorum.,

(i. e. of JEans). More passages to the same effect, will occur hereafter. Of
the evil Principle, he says, (ibid. c. 15. p. 116.) : Habens circa se innumerabilea

principes, mens atque origo. The Demon was the mind

quorum omnium erat

(mens) of all because they received their minds or souls out of

his children ;

him, and had malignant minds, inclined, like his, to do evil. Lastly, that the
evil Principle possessed an immensely fertile genius, vast sublilty and sagacity,

and consummate and amazing power, the plans which he devised, and actually
 Manichaan Dualism. 285

carried into eifect, put beyond all question. —These are the particulars in which
the two Divinities were alilve. But in other^ respects they were very unlike. —
1. The essential natures of the two Princes were tot:illy different. For God
was light, or his essence was light ; as we sliall show hereafter. But the De'
mon had a black opaque body, resembling smoke, i. e. foul ether ; as we have
before and hence he bore the name of darkness. Augustine, when he
shown ;

was a Manicha^an, doubted whether the Demon's substance was earth, or was
air or ether. For thus he writes, (in his Confessions, L. v. e. 10. 0pp. torn. i.

p. 84.) : Hiiic enim et mali substantiam quandam credebam esse talem, et ha-
bere suam niolem tetram ac deformem, sive crassam, quam terrain dicebant, (It
appears from this passage, that the Maniciiaians made earth to be one of the
elements of the evil world : whence it follows, that what I before stated is true,
viz. that the Manes was simply earth,) sive tenuem atque subtilem,
darkness of
sicut est aeris corpus, quam malignam mentem perillam terram (tene- [p. 767.]
brariim) repentem imaginantur. —
But II. the pious and ingenious man was un-
necessarily in doubt for Manes clearly taught, as we have seen, that the
:

Prince of evils dwelt in smoke or corrujit ether, the counterpart to pure ether
or air; whence, manifestly, his body was etherial or analagous to smoke. And
when Augustine says, the Demon creeps {repere) through the whole world of
darkness, according to the opinion of the Manichseans ; he indicates, that the
Demon's body was a. fluid; which it might be, if it were elher,h\\i not if it were
earth. —
III. God was not confined to any particular part of the world of light;

but, like an immense luminary, he overspread and filled his whole empire. But
the Prince of darkness resided in a single element of his realm ; namely, the
uppermost, which they called smoke : although his influence, as Augustine says,
(repit) creeps or extends through that whole world. We had before learned
the same thing, from —
Manes himself. IV. God had no definite form ; or at
least, he had not the human form as we learn from Augjistine, (Confess. L. v.
:

c. 10. p. 184.) For Augustine says, that he had formerly been pleased with the
Manichaean doctrine, because it attributed to God no human form. But the
Prince of darkness had a body altogether similar to a human body. Says Au-
gustine, (contra Faustum L. xx. c. 14. p. 255.) Illi principi non tantum sui gene-
ris, id est, bipedes, quos parentes hominum dicitis, sed etiam cuncta animalium
ccterorum genera subdita erant. The Demon was therefore a biped; and he
also begat bipeds of his own species, that is, resembling men. Other proofs in
confirmation of this point, the reader may easily collect out of the citations yet
to be made. The Prince of darkness was, therefore, properly, as Manes says,
immanis dux, a monster, a giant of immense bulk, like the Micromegas of an
ingenious man, and like the Typhosus of ancient Greece. Manes wrote a book
expressly on Giants, tov yiyavTinv fit^Kov, as Photius says, (Bibliotheca Cod.
85. p. 204.) In that work he doubtless treated of the Prince of demons, and
of his satellites and ministers and applied what the ancients tell us of the war
;

of the Giants against the Gods, to the conflict between the good Principle and
the bad. —V. These Giants, procreated by the Prince of Giants, were of both
sexes, male and female and they propagated their race, just as men do, by
;

their wives. This is manifest from a signal passage in the seventh book of th«
286 Century III.— Section 41

Thesaurus ot Manes, which Augustine cites, (de natura boni contra Manichteos,
c. 44. p. 365.) : Potestates (mala3) quas in singulis coeloruiu traclibus ordinatae
sunt ex utroque sexu inasculorum ac foeminarum consistunt. Another passage,
proving clearly the same thing, -will be cited further on. Augustine freqiiently
touches upon this subject; e. g. (contra Faust. L. xxi. c. 10. p. 253.): Hinc
etiam prolis fecunditas (among the inhabitants of the world of darkness) suppe-
[p.768.] tebat ; nam et conjugia tribuunt eis. And the Prince of Darkness him-
self had a wife, as will appear further on ; when a captive, he burned with
and,
lust,and even sought coition with a female being of another race, as we shall
see in the proper place. But tlie citizens of the happy world, are not of difter-
ent sexes; and of course do not beget and bring forth children. VI. Altliough —
the reahn of the Prince of darkness is vastly extensive, yet it is narrower and
smaller than that over which God reigns. For the world of light is bounded
only on one side. Tiiis I have before showed : and I now confirm it, by a very

noted passage in Augustine^ s Confessions, (L. v. c. 10. p. 84.): Quia Deura

bonum nullam malam naturam creasse,qualiscunque pietas me credere cogebat,
constituebam (when a Manichaean) ex adverso sibi duas moles, (i. e. two loorlds,

of light and darkness,) iiiramquc infiniiam, sed malam angustlus, honam gran-
dius. - - Et magis plus mihi videbar, si tc, Deus meus, cui confitentur ex me
miserationes tuae, vel ex ceteris jjartibiis infinitum crederem, quamvis ex una,
qua tibi moles mali opponebatur, cogerer infinitum (so the Benedictine edition
reads ; but most corruptly. For it is clear as day, that for infinitum, it should
read jiniliim) fateri, quam si ex omnibus partibus in corporis humani forma te
opinarer finiri. But whether the Manicha3ans, when they said the realm of light
was (infinitum) unbounded on all sides but one, and (finilum) bounded on that
one side only, used the word infinitum absolutely, for that which has no limits
whatever or only in the sense of indefinite, or whose limits exceed human
;

comprehension and measurement I mu.st leave undecided. The whole doctrine ;

of tlie Manicha,'ans respecting the boundaries of both kingdoms, is very diflicult

to be comprehended ; nor could they themselves, when questioned, explain it.

VII. The Prince of darkness was wholly destitute of the moral virtues, justice,
veracity, benevolence, for he vexed, afflicted and harrassed his subjects,
&c. ;

and his own But God, on the contrary, cheri.shed his subjects and his
children.
children in every way, and heaped upon them all the blessings he could.
VIII. The Demon undoubtedly possessed ingenuity, subtilty, and a knowledge
of many things but in this respect, God was superior to him as may appear
; :

from the simple foct, that God had known the existence of the realm of dark-
ness, but the Demon and his princes, for an infinite length of time, had no
knowledge of the realm of light. Manes himself says, (apud Ti^iim Bostrens.
L. i. edit. Canisii tom. i. p. 70.) : 'E-rctus-avTo 'a.\XMXiti iTratvia-Td/Litvoiy fxc^pi ou
7-0 pwj h-\,iTroTt ipdfiaa-cty - - dyvcovvTi; f/.iv, k. t. X. Principes tenebrarum non
prius desierunt in se ipsos moveri, quam lumen sero tandem v'ldercnt, giiod a?itea
ignorabant. The Father of light himself confessed i\\e power of the Prince of
darkness ; as Manes has informed us, in his Epistola Fundamenti, (apud Au-
gust, de natura boni, c. 42. p. 364.) : Lucis vero beatissimae Pater scions labem
magnam ac vaslitatem, quae ex tcnebris surgeret, adversus sua sancta impendere
 The Good Ood of Manes. 287

saecula. The General of the race of darknes^s could therefore do much [p. 769.]
harm, — not indeed to the realm of light, but to the sancla Scccida of God, tjiat

is, to his holy JEons. Yet the victory of God over him, is indubitable evidence
of the inferiority of the Demon in power.

§ XLII. Nature and Attributes of the good God or Principle.

The God who governs the world of light, is, as it were, an im-
mense sun : and consists wholly of the purest light^ much more
subtile than our light, wonderfully diffused through his whole
realm. He has twelve members^ equally bright and splendid and ;

an innumerable family^ who abound in every species of good

things. For he had begotten from himself an immense number
of most happy Scccida ; that is, immutable and enduring Beings,
But though the highest and greatest Being, yet he is finite, and
limited to a certain space and of coarse, is not omnipresent. His
;

natural poivers also have their limits. For he does not know all
things, nor foresee future events, nor can he accomplish all his
pleasure ;and much less, can he effect his purposes solely by his
volitions. But his moral virtues, his goodness, beneficence, justice,
sanctity, and love of truth, can be confined within no bounds, nor
be limited or restrained by anything.(')

(1) As I am about to treat of the nature and attributes of that good Prin-
ciple which Manes called God, and in accordance with his views, T will exhibit
as my pattern and guide, that description of God, which IMancs liimself gave in
his Epistola Fundamenii; and will illustrate it by testimonies from other sources.
—In Augustine's Book against the Epistle of Manes, (c. 13. p. 115.) Manes
says : Luminis quidem imperium tenebat Deus Pater, in sua sancta stirpe perpe-
tuus, in virtute magnificus, natura ipsa verus, aeternitate propria semper e.\sul-
tans, continens apud se sapientiam ct sensus vitales: per qnos etiam duodecim
membra luminis sui comprehendit, i'egni videlicet proprii divitias aflluentes. In
unoquoque autem membrorum ejus sunt rccondita millia innumerabilium et
immeusorum thesaurorum. Ipse vero Pater in sua laude prajcipuus magnitu-
dine incomprehensibilis, copulata habet sibi beata et gloriosa Sascula, ncque nu-
mcro, iieque prolixitate ajstimanda, cum quibus idem sanctus et illustris Pater
et Genitor degit, nullo in regnis ejus insignibus aut indigente aut infirmo con-
stituto. Ita autem fundata sunt ejusdem splendidissima regna supra lucidam
et beatam terram, ut a nullo unquam aut moveri aut concuti possint. In this
mngniticent description of God, some things stand out clearly; namely the eter-
nity of God, his sanctity or his nwgnificeniia viriuiis, as Manes speaks, his im-
mutability, his love of truth, his wisdom, and his necessary existence, [p. 770.]
These, therefore, I shall pass over, and confine myself to those things which are
involved in some obscurity, or are stated too briefly.
I. Manes gives only a passing notice of that light, of which God is com-
288 Centimj ItlSectlon 42.

posed, by saying that the Lumen Dei has twelve members. But there are many
other testimonies at hand, which put beyond all doubt, that Manes made
it

the essence of God to be the purest light. For he uniformly calls God pcSs, Zit-
cem, rd dvairaTov icos, supremam lucem, rd diitcv pw? lucem seDipiiernam. See
the fragments of his Epistles, inJo. Alb. Fahricius^ Bibliotheca Grajcn, (vol. v.

p. 284, 285.) Augustine, in his Confessions, (L. v. c. 10. p. 84.) agreeably to the
views of Manichaeans, whom he once followed, says: Ipsum quoque Salvalo-
rem nostrum tanquam de massa lucidissimcc molts iucc porrectum ad nostram
salutem, (quum Manichaeus essem) putabam. Most accurately expressed For !

Manes supposed God to be a formless but splendid mass ; that is, light wholly
without form, and spreading over infmue space. Faustus, (apud August. L. xx,
p. Patrem quidem ipsum lucem incolere credimus summam ae prin-
237.) says:
cipalem, quam Paulus alias inaccessibilem vocat. These views of the nature of —
God, Manes held, in common with most ancient nations of the East, with the
Gnostics also, and even with not a few christians, who were otherwise orthodox
in regard to the Deity. Whoever, therefore, would form a conception of the
happy world of Manes, must picture to himself a world just like our terraque-
ous globe, but larger, and one in which God supplies the place of the sun for :

his heaven was like our earth, and was composed of the same elements as our
world, tiiough purer and nobler: and what the sun is in our world, God was in
the world of light. And much the same idea is to be formed of his world of
darkness, which Vias the counter part to the world of light. For that world also
had the form of our world, and included the same elements, though deteriorat-
ed and in the uppermost element, the ether, resided that most savage Giant,
:

the Lord of that world. —

But while Manes believed God to be light, he suppos-
ed this divine light to diifer from the light which falls upon our visual organs.
The light of God, as he supposed, is to be apprehended only by the mind in
thinking, and not by our senses or bodily eyes. Titus Bostrensis, (contra Ma-
nichaeos L. i. p. 72.) quotes thus from Manes: ©e^y j"£v i^Tl ^w? dio-^>iT6v
i'MfAiovpyyifxctf duros cTe av h» vooTov, ovK diT^xTov. Lumen sub sensus cadens
Dei quidem opus est, ipse vero Deus lumen est intelligibile, non sensibiie. And
Augustine, who assails the opinions of the Manichaeans with all his might,
frankly owns, that they discriminated between the light which is the essence of
God, and that grosser kind of light which meets our eyes (contra Faustum L. :

XX. p. 238.) Quando enim discrevistis/«ce?«, qua cernimus, ab ea luce, qua in-
:

teUigimus, cum aliud nihil unquam putaveritis esse intelligere veritatem, nisi
formas corporeas cogitare, &c.
[p. 771.] 11. Although this lucid mass of God, which resembled the sun, had

no form yet, besides wisdom or the power of understanding and judging, ac-
;

cording to Manes, it had sensus vitales. The import of this language, can be
nothing but this ; that, although God was destitute of a human form, and con-
sequently, of eyes, ears, nose, and the other organs of sense, yet he had the fa-
culty of sensation and perception ; that is, he could see, hear, percieve, and know
every object external to him.
III. God, by these senses, as Manes says : Duodecim membra luminis sui
comprehendit, regni videlicet proprii diviiias qffluentes. Here he seems to present
 TIW Good. Gcd. OgQ

to us a great enigmn. The light of God lias ItreUe members. V^liat are these
tnenibers ? Beawsr>/;7-c cotijeetuivs, (voi. i, p. 610.) that we are to understand
by tiveni the twelve powers of the divine nature, or in the language of philoso-
phere, Uin peifections, which in Oriental phraseology Afanes calls nieinbers. But
this conjecture is, by the very language of Manes, divested of ail semblance of
trutii.For he says, God comprehends these members, by his sensus vilales. But
how could God, I ask, by his sensus vilales, that is, by the power of sensation
nnd perception whieii was in him, comprehend the perfections inherent in his na-
ture ? How could he, for instance, by his faculty of (sensitive) perception, com-
prehend (or apprehend) his wisdom and goodness? Again; In each of these
n\t^mhevH: Recodiin sunt miUia innhLincrabilium ct immensorum ihesaurorum. How

can this be said of the perfections of the divine nature 1 Take whichever of
them you please, his power, his justice, his goodness; and see, if there can be
conceived to be, innumerable and immense treasures in it? Lastly; To omit
other arguments, Manes clearly distinguishes these members of God, from his
perfections or attributes, from his authority, his truth, his eternity, his immen-
eiiy. — I, indeed, have no doubt, that these twelve members are so many lucid
masses, or globes, originating and proceeding from the divine Being; and either
encompassing the happy world moving through its interior, illu-
like satellites, or

minating and fecundating For Manes calls them members of tiie light of
it.

God, which God comprehends by his sensus vilales ; that is, which, though sepjv-
rate and distinct from God, are yet seen, perceived, and governed by hiui. And
in each of them are innumerable treasures; viz. multifarious specimens of ihc
divine wisdom, power, and goodness; the riches of nature, of various kinds and
uses. diviticc ajluentes, not of God, hut proprii regni Dei;
Finally there were
that from these very splendid globes, various good things descended upon
is,

the whole kingdom of God, and on the inhabitants of all its elements. And the
Prince of these divine members, I supjjosc, was Christ; whom the Maiiichteans
regarded as a light of the second rank, proceeding from the most lucid mass of
God, For Manes, in his Epistohi Fundamenti, calls him the right arm of light,

as if he were the principal member of the divine light: Dextera luminis tueatur
et cripiat vos ab omni incursatione maligna. On the rest of the de- [p. 772.]
pcription, I have nothing to say.
IV. Copulata sibi Deus habet beata et gloriosa scccula, quos nee iiumoro, nee

prolixitate ajstimari possunt. In the Syriac of Manes, undoubtedly, was the

word Ilolam, for which the Latin translator used Scrculum. The Greeks ex-
press it by 'A iwv. By this word the Gnostics, and with them Manes, denoted
beings of a divine origin, and therefore, etherial, immortal, and enduring. We,
in scripture langu.age, Sacula of Manes. Angels. These JEons of
might call the

Manes, like their Parents, lacked a human form, and must be conceived to be
Bmall shining masses or bodies. The JEons of the Gnostics were of both se.xes,
male and female. But Manes admitted of marriages only in the world of dark-
ness; and tlierefore his Scccula had no se.vual distinctions. They were the ofF-
spring of God, or emanated from the divine nature. But what Manes meant
when he said Deumesse in sancta sua slirpe perpeluum, I cannot satisfactorily
determine. He seems to mean, that the progeny of God, or these Saecula, were
VOD, II. 20
290 Centimj III.— Section 42.

equally enduring and eternal with God himself, so that the eternity of God wag
imparted to his off!-<pring. But his meaning may be, that God is always or for
ever generating new Sfficula. In like manner, I do not understand what he
means, when he says of those glorious and happy Stecula: Nee proiixiiale ccsti-

mari possimt. I can suppose he may mean, that the magnitude of the Ssecula
is so great, tliat the human mind cannot estimate or comprehend it. Or can it

be, that the proUxitas attributed to them, denotes abundance of gifts and
virtues ?

V. While Manes declares God to be magnitudine mcomprehensibilem, he

clearly denied his injinity. For he bounded tiie world of light by the world of
darkness; so that infinity, immensity, or absolute omnipresence, could not be at-
tributed to God. The world of darkness, also, was equally eternal and self-

existent with the world, of light; and, therefore, it could not be subject to God;
who, if he were present in that miserable and wretched region, would change
its nature, dispel its darkness, and bring joy and happiness to its inhabitants: all

which, according to Manes, was impossible. But what need of arguments?

Fauslus, the most eloquent of the Manichaeans, clearly states the views of his
sect in the following words, (apud August. L. xxv. e. 1. p. 307.): Summus et
verus Deus, iitrum sit idem infinitus, nccne, si quaeritur, de hoc vero nos boni et
m:ili contrarietas breviter poterit
edocere. Quoniam quidem si non est malum,
Dens: habet autem finem, si malum est: constat autem
profecto infinitus est
esse malum: non igiliir infinitus est Deus: illinc enim esse mala accipiunt (I
think, it should read: incipiunt) ubi bonorum est finis. Whether this pa^^snge

is to be understood solely of the infinity of his nature or essence, or also of the

[p. TVS.] infinity of his attributes or perfections, appears doubtful. The very
learned Beausobre, (vol. i. p. 503 &c.) who always defends the Manichaeans,
maintains, that they denied the infinity of the divine nature, by inclosing their
God but they admitted the infinity of his attributes,
within local boundaries ;

and no bounds to his knowledge and liis power. Of tiiis

particularly, they set
we shall see presently. We here only show, that Faiistus intended, this infinity
should be understood of both his nature and his attributes. For in the very
discussion from which the extract is taken, he aims to prove, that the catholic
Christians ascribed finite attributes to God, and therefore had the same views of
God as the Manichasans. The Christians, h« says, call God, the God of Abra-
ham, of Isaac, of Jacob, and the God of the Hebrews; they therefore limit the
power of God. He adds Cujus autem finita potestas est, et ipse non caret fine.
:

He subjoins other similar arguments, which are no better, and winds up by say-
ing: Hie si est Deus (Abrahami, Isaaci, Jacobi) quem colitis, liquet ex hoc ad-
modum, quod habeat finem. Si vero infinitum Deum esse vultis, huic vos ante
i-enujiciare necesse est. His reasoning is ridiculous; yet, it puts it beyond all
doubt, that he joined both the kinds of infinity together; and respecting both
infinities, there was a discussion between orthodox Christians and Manichscans,

when the question was put to Faustus: Deus finem habet aut infinitus est?

For thus Fauslus reasoned : Whoever is indued with finite attributes, is also

finite in his nature : And conversely : Whoever is of a finite nature, must

necessarily have finite attributes.
 The Good God. 291

VI. The moral attributes of God, his love of truth, his goodness, liia justice,
his beneficence,were undoubtedly boundless, according to Miinicha'an principles.
This is manifest from the language used by Manes. But his other attributes,
and especially his knmcledge and potcer, beyond all controversy, had limits. As
lo the limitation of the knowledge of the Manichjean God, I know not how any
one can doubt it, who is acquainted with the history of the war between the
good and the bad Principle. The Prince of the world of light knew not what
was taking place in the world of darkness, although he knew that such a world
existed. He did not foresee, that tiie Prince of darkness would make war upon
him and his kingdom: for, had he foreseen it, he would have erected barriers
agjinst the assaults of the race of darkness, before the war commenced, as he
did afterwards. He did not foresee, that the commander whom he first sent
against the Demon, would be unsuccessful. He did not foresee, that in the con-
flict light would become mixed up with darkness. There are many other speci-
mens of the ignorance of this God ; and when I consider them, I cannot but
wonder, that this perspicacious and extraordinary man should not have thought
of them, but could bring himself to believe this Deity to be like the God of
Christians. But love and hatred have a mighty influence. — As to the poiver of
this God: in the first place, it is very certain, that it differed greatly from the
power of the God whom we Christians worship. For our God can effVct what-
ever he pleases, by his fial, his volition, or word. Not so the Manichsan
God. He was obliged to raise an army, in order to resist the troops [p. 774.]
of the Prince of darkness, to array force against force, and wage a regular war.
The same God could not, by his own power, rescue the light mixed with dark-
ness; but had to resort to cuiming, counsel, sagacity, in order to recover his
property. Moreover, all that transpired between God and the Prince of dark-
ness, shows his power to be finite; for he encountered many obstacles, which
resisted the accomplishment of his wishes. The philosopher Simplicius, (in his
Comment on Epicletus, p. 164.) has shown
some length, that the God of the
at
Manichaeans did not possess unlimited power. But the very learned man —
(Beausobre) reminds us, that Forlunalus the Manicha;an, (Dispntatio cum
AugusLino, 0pp. tom. viii. p. 73 tfcc.) calls God omnipo/eni. This is true: but it
is also equally true, that the Manicha;ans used this word in a far more limited
sense than the Christians do. In their view, indeed, God can do all things
which are not contrary to nature ; but these things are numerous. He cannot
exterminate the Demon;
he cannot destroy the kingdom of darkness; he can-
not extirpate he cannot restore to liberty the souls made captive by the
evil ;

Demon, solely by his word or volition, but he must employ some artifice for
it; and finally, to pass by other things, he cannot produce mailer, or create a
thing, as we say, out of nothing. All things that exist, from a natural necessity,
have existed from eternity. The God of the Manichaeans, therefore, like the
God of the Stoics, was obliged to yield to fate or necessity. — But, observes the
same learned man, (pp. 505, 506.) God could punish the whole array of dark-
ness, if he had been disposed; and he could so restrain them, that they could
neither effect nor attempt any thing against him. But he would not, because
this miserable race was unworthy of his regard. In proof, he cites Angnsdne,
 292 Century III— Section 43.

(contra Adijnantum Manich. c. 7. p. 85.) who acknowledfres that God, accord-

injr to the belief of the Maniclireans, had prepared (pricparasse) an eternal pri>on
for tlie race of darkness. But if this were so, it would not prove tlie powi'r of
God to be boundless. For it does not follow, that he can do everytliiug he
chooses, because he can hold a certain race in check, and prevent their doing
harm to himself and others. But the fact was not, as the worthy man supposes.
For if this God had possessed such power, he would have pursued a different
course in his war with the Demon. We see him alarmed, and raising forces
against the Prince of darkness. But his alarm and his army were needless, if
he had power to repel, to coerce, and punish the Lord of darkness, by a mere
Volition or word. But our learned author does not quote truly the language of
Augustine. That father did not write praparasse, but merely prccparare; which
makes tiie sense very different. The passage reads thus; Ipsi enim dieunt,
Deum genti tenebrarum sternum carcerem prccparare, quam dieunt iuimieam
esse Deo. From this statement, who can make out, that God could, if he
[p. 775.] pleased, have prevented the race of darkness from issuing forth from
tJieir dark world, and invading the world of light, but that he despised the vile

and imbecile rabble ? Tiie sense of the passage is this : God now holds captive
the race of darkness, which he has vanquished, and in due time he will thrust
them into prison. The prison is the world of darkness itself, into which God
will, at the time appointed, compel them to return ; as we shall see hereafier.
Yet, not to dissemble anything, there is a passage in the Epislola Fumlamenli,
which escaped the learned man's research, and from which it seems inferable,
that Manes thought the power of God adequate to the destruction of the smoky
race of darkness. For thus Manes speaks, (apud August, de natura boni, c. 42.
tom. viii. p. 364.) : Lucis vero beatissimse Pater, sciens labem magnam et vasti-
tatem, qua3 ex tenebris surgeret, adversus sua saneta impendere Saecula, nisi
aliquod eximium et praeelarum et virtute potens Numen opponat, quo superet
simul et destruat slirpem tenebrarum, qua extincla, perpctua quies lucis ineolis

pararetur. But either Manes uttered this incautiously, and forgetting the prin-
ciples of his system, or it must be understood merely of the animals in the

world of darkness. Those animals spring up and die; so that the race of them
might seem to be destructible. But, as for the Demon and his princes, although
God vanquished them, yet he did not destroy and exterminate them ; neither
could he destroy and exterminate them, because they had a necessary existence,
and were immortals. As, according to the views of the Manichaeans, God is
unable to create a thing from nothing, so is he unable to reduce to nothing,
any part or portion of eternal nature.

S XLIII. The Mauichaean Trinity. Christ and the Holy Spirit.

The good God, the Lord of light, although he is one, simple, and
immntable, yet, in a certain sense, is triple or threefold. For
, after the world was founded, he produced from himself two J/a-
jesti^s, that is, two Beings like himself; by whom he might both

save the souls inclosed in bodies, and gradually extract the per-
 Manichcean Trinity. 293

tion of light and of the good fire mixed with earth from it, and
restore it to its original state.(') The one of these Beings is called
Christ; the other the Holy Spirit. Christ is a splendid mass of
the purest light of God, self-existent, animated, endued with wis-
dom and reason, and having his seat in the sun, yet communi-
cating a portion of his influence to the moon. Hence prayers are
and moon.(^) Inferior to him, the Holy
to be directed to the sun
Spirit an
is animated
also and lucid mass, of the same nature with
God himself, connected with and resident in the ether which en-
compasses our globe. He not only moves and illunii- [p. 770.]
nates the minds of men, but he also fecundates the earth; that
is,he excites the particles of the divine fire latent in the earth,
and makes them shoot up in herbs, and shrubs, and trees, and
yield fruits useful and convenient for men.Q This whole doc-
trine is derived from the ancient Persian system. And hence, all
that the Manichtcans teach respecting a divine Trinity, must be
understood and explained, not in conformity with Christian
views, but in accordance with the Persian principles respecting
Miihra and the ether, to which Manes accommodated the Chris-
tian religion,

(1) Tiiat the Maniclincans believed in .i species of Trinity, or held to two

Beings of tlie same nature witii God, subordinate to him, is unquestionable.
Manei himself not obscurely acknowledges a Trinity, in his EpisUda Fuiida-

tnenli, (apud August. Disput. cum Felice, L. i. p. 341.) by saluting those to

whom he wrote, thus* Pax (a) Dei invisilnlis sit cum fratribus: - - sed et (b)
Dexlra luminis (liis name for Christ) tucatur et eripiat vos ab omni incursione
maligna - - pietas vero (c) Spiritis sancti intima vestri pectoris adaperiat. His
disciples spenk much more clearly. But they, as is manifest, prudently accom-
modate themselves to the phraseology of Christians, and especially to the de-
crees of the Nicene council, which w:is after the times of their master; in order
not to appear diflfcring too much from the common views of Christians. For
when Constantine the Great, and so many emperors, had issued laws ag.iinst
their sect, the Manichaeans becnme very considerate and provident, and they
clothed and concealed their sentiments under the usual phraseology of Chris-
tians, and in scripture language in order to avoid odium as much as possible,
;

and to show the coincidence of the Scriptures (which, iiowever, they despised,)
with their o])inions. Fortunaltis, who was peculiarly circumspect, and was well
acquainted with the lantrn.ige of the Bible, which was always on liis lips, says,
(Apud Angustinmn Disput. i. cum eo, p. 69.) Nostra professio est, quod in- :

corruplibilis sit Deus, quod lucidns, quod inadibilis, qwod intenibilis (i. e. cinnot
be grasped i\.n A /(eZfj!/a.s7), impassibilis, aeternam lucera et propri;im inhabitet:
quod nihil ex sese corruplibile (and therefore no material bodies) proferat, nee
 294 Century III.— Section 43.

tenebras, nee daemones, nee Satanam, nee aliud adversum in regno ejus reperiri
posse : Sui autetn similem Salvatorem direxisse. His rebus credimus et haec
est ratio fidei nostrae, et pro viribus animi nostri mandatis ejus obtemperare,
unam fidein sectantes hujus Trinitatis, Pairis et Filii el Spiriius sanct'i. Tlie
eunninor man says much about the office of the Son, which I omit here, but
will cite in a proper place ; while of the Holy Spirit he is wholly silent, till he

comes to the end of his speech ; and then he couples him with the Father and
the Son, although he had not before been mentioned. The doctrine of the Ma-
[p. 777.] nichaeans respecting the Holy Spirit, he could not explain in the lan-
guage of the Bible ; and therefore he thought best to omit it and keep it out of
sight. Fausius, of the same sect, a man of letters, courageous and self confi-
dent, explains more boldly the nature of the Holy Spirit: his statements will
be adduced sliortly. At present, we only consider what he says of the Trinity.
In his Discussion with Augustine, (L. xx. c. 1. p. 237.) he says: Igitur nos
Patris quidem Dei omnipotentis, et Christi Filii ejus et Spiritus sancti unum
idemque sub triplici appellatione Numen credimus. He seems here to accord
with those who regard the three Persons in God, as only three names for one
God, discarding any real distinction of the Persons. But, what follows acqnits
him of the error ; for he very clearly inculcates, that the Son and the Holy
from the Person of the Father. Secundinus, a very in-
Spirit are truly distinct
genious Manichaean, and apparently very modest, whose long and eloquent
Epistle is extant in Augustine, (0pp. torn. viii. p. 369 «5cc.) commences thus

Habeo et ago gratias ineffabili ac sacratissimae Majestati, ejusqne primogenlto,

omnium luminum (i. e. of all the splendid and happy SwcuJa or JEons) Regi,
Jesu Christo, habeo gratias et supplex Sancto refero Spiritui, quod dederint,
praebuerintque occasionem, qua ego securus salutarem egregiam tuam sanctita-
tem. —
More proofs are not necessary. But this Manichaean Trinity diffe'red
essentially from that which Christians profess ; and a very learned man certainly
lost his labor, when he attempted to prove that it was altogether the Catholic
doctrine, except as to the manifest inequality of the Persons. This will appear
further on. At present only one argument will be offered. It is, that neither
the Son nor the Holy Spirit existed anterior to this our world. This is asserted
most explicitly of the Son, by Fortunalus, a man generally cautious, as already
remarked, and one who either dissembles or explains artfully what migiit be
prejudicial to his sect. But in his Dispute with Augustine (i. p. 69.) he says
Nostra professio est - - Deum sui similem Servatorem direxisse (i. e. sent him
unto men) Verbum natum a constilutione mundi, cum mundum. faceret, post
mundi fabrieam inter homines venisse. Secundinus, indeed, in his Epistle to
Augustine, (torn. viii. p. 369.) calls Christ the firsl-boim ( primogenilus) nf Gad:
which would seem to imply, that he existed before all the JEons. But the
word is ambiguous, as Augustine observed in his reply, (c. 5. p. 377.) and
might, as he says, denote the superiority of his divinity. For any one may be
called the first-born, who is the chief and head of many of the same nature with
himself, though he be posterior as to the order of births. If the Son did not

exist before this world, but was born of God at the time the world was made
undoubtedly, the Holy Spirit, who was manifestly inferior to the Son in dignity
 Manichiean Tri?titi/. 295

and greatness, was age.

r.ot Besides, the offices sustained by the
superior in

Son and the Holy Spirit, —not

mention also their residences, whicli were no
to
older than the world, —
remove all doubt in the ease. For the sole [p. 778.]
office of the Son was, to restore to freedom the good souls unfortunately im-

mersed in gross muddy matter and that of the Holy Spirit was, to aid intelli-
;

gent minds in their upward aspirations, and to extract and separate the sparks
of the good fire now mixed up with darkness or earth. Consequently, if that
pernicious war between the Princes of light and of darkness had not occurred,
producing the mixture of the good and the evil, there would have been no need

of either the Son or the Holy Spirit. But a great number of souls being cap-
tured and carried off, and the light being commingled with darkness, it became
necessary, that the Father of light should emit from himself and produce the
two very powerful Beings, the Son and the Holy Spirit, by whom he might
gradually recover the captured part of his realm, and restore it to its pristine
felicity.

(2) Although Manes brought forward and used the appellation Christ, yet
he deemed it unsuitable. It was Jewish, and was appropriate to that Messiah
whom the Hebrew nation expected, who was materially ditierent from the Son
of God of whom he conceived. To tiiis purpose, there is a striking pas.sage in
his Epistle to Odas, (apud Jo. Alb. Fabricium, Biblioth. Gra3ca, vol. v. p. 285.) :

'H (Ts Toy Xf;3"Toy Trporxycfiia hvo/uu. Wti KUTa^^pna-TiKov, ouTt tz/st/f, Sjn ov-riai

rufjiAVTiKdi: Appellatio Christi nomen est, quod per abusionem (as rhetoricians
say) tantum adhibetur: (That is, it is a term unsuitable for the thing, yet one
used because it is common ;) nee enim vel speciem (i. e. the class of beings, to
which the Son of God belongs,) vel essenliam ejus significat. We therefore
see, why he chose, in his Epistola Fundamenti, (as we have before seen,) to
call the Son of God Dexteram Luminis. For this appellation expressed thb
nature and dignity of the Son, according to his views. The Christ of the Ma-
nichaeans was, as Forlunatus says, like the Father, and born of him. And there-
fore, as the Father was the purest light, a light which is conceivable by the
mind, but not appj-ehenslble by the senses, and is destitute of any form or
shape ; so Christ also must be a splendid or shining mass, and endued with the
same attributes with his Parent, though inferior in degree, viz. wisdom, reason,
goodness, munificence. Hence Manes, in his Epistles published by Jo. Alb.
Fabricius, (Biblioth. Grajc. vol. v. p. 284, 285.) calls him : Tcy diSUv ?a)T6y iiif.

Sempiteriihc Liicis Filitim. And he j)roves Christ to be light, by the narrative

of his transfiguration on the mount. And that this light is most pure, and such
as cannot be felt or seen by the eyes, he proves, (in his Epistle to Ciidarus,)
by the fact, that when the Jews attempted to stone Christ, he passed through the
midst of them, and teas unseen. K.ai fttVoc durHv fnKd-uv cv^ iiparc. And to this
arfument, he subjoins: 'H yap di/Aoc uoppii - - cpsLr» /usv Sux, iv, i^xKcifdTo cTi
ouiTat/uaic, S^ia to fx»S^ifAiiv £;^«/v KoiYa^viav TtiY v\>iy Trpof to dt/xcv. Forma enim
omnis expers matcriaj neque videri poterat, neque tangebatur, quia materia nul-
1am habet communioneni cum eo, quod caret materia. Therefore, Augustine,
while a Manichajan, agreeably to the views of his master, conceived of Christ as
a broad and extended light, projecting out and issuing from the Father, [p. 779.]
296 Century III.- Section 43.

He Hays. (Confe?siones, L. v. c. 10. Opp. tom. i. p. 84.) : Ipsnm qjioque S.ilva-

torem nostrum unigeniium tiinm tanipjjiin de iii:iss;i liieidissimac moUs tu:ie

forreclum ad iios:iam salutcm, ita pntabmu, ut aliud de illn mm iTederem, nisi

quod possein vanitate iQingiiiarj. Yet this light of tiie Sun, tliougii like that of
tlie Father, and of course having, as Manes says {i\^uA Fabricium) : 9'^Tn Ins'Xnf

Kai dXa-3-M, simplieem naturatn et veram ;

yet could be so obscured and ob«
strucled by matter, as nut to put forth and exhibit all its energy. For, in lii?i

Epistle til Zebena, (.ipud Fabricium I. c. p. 284.) when assigning a reason why
the Son of God .-issumed among men a human form, he ."^ays it was, itiu. u» (9^5)
KfxtK^ii S'ta TM? ovtrias tmc O'-j^kos, xui tu^h, xai p^uf-^iiy ti'C (TX'jTiai fd'iipovrnt
duToj T«v ivi^yeatv t«» paxH/av. Ne lu.\ eoniprelienderetur ab essentia earnis et
palaretur ac corrumperetur, tenebris operationem luois eorrumpentibus. Tiiia
is very e.Npiieir. There was, therefore, a great difference between the Father
and the Son, although the latter had the like nature with the former. For, as
the Manieh:ieans often inculcate, the light of the Father could not, in any de-
gree, be contaminated, imp lired, or we.ikeiied, by the darkness: but the light
of the Son, if surrounded by matter or by material bodies, suffered some dimi-
nution, and was prevented from imparling all its efficacy to otiiers. In wiiat-
ever manner he explained tiiis matter, it is certain that Manes considered the
light of the Sen as inferior to tiie light of the Fatlier.
Christ or the Son, after he was born of the Father, established his seat 01
residence in the sun ; yet in such a way, as to impart also a portion of his influ-
ence to the moon, and in some measure to reside in it. Tiiis is a well known
dogma of the IManichscan school, and is attested by many writers. But no one
has stated it more clenrly than Fauslus ; {apitd August, contra Faust. L. xx. c.
2. p. 237.) Faustiis being asked: Cw solera calilis, nisi quia estis fagnnnil
does not disown this worship of the sun and moon ; but he denies, that these
luminaries are Deities. He says: Nos Patrem quidem ipsum lucem incolero
credimus summam ac principalem, quam Pauius alias inaccessibilem vocat: Fi-

lium vero in hac secunda ac visibili luce (ss. the sun) consistere, qui quoniam sitr

et ipse geminus, nt eum Apostolus iiovit, Ciuistum dicens esse Dei lirLutem et
sapientiam : xirlutem quidem ejus in sole habitare credimus, sapieiiliam vero in
lana. From this passage, it is clear: First; That Manes supposed the Son of
God not to be the sun itself, but to dwell in the .sw7i as in a palace. Tiie anci-
ents indeed, and not a few of the moderns, think the llanichfeans regarded the
sun But they are abundantly confuted by this passage oi' Faus-
itself as Christ.

lus who. besides other thing.s, declares, that Christ dwells in the second and
:

visible light. We have before seen, that the Son consists, not of the visible light

wiiich falls on our eyes, but of that light which constitutes the Father, v.iiich
can neither be seen nor felt, and can be apprehended only by the mind. There-
fore, that second and visible light, in v.hich he dwells, must necessarily be distinct

[p. 780.] from him. Besides, as Angustine has expressly stated, (Liber de Ha;-
res. c. 46. p. 11.) the Manichajans denied, that the snn consi.sts in what is pro-

perly denominated light; they supposed it to be made up o{ good fire, which is

one of tlie elements of tlie world of light : Duo coeli luminaria ita distinguunt,

ut lunam dicant factam ex bona aqua, solem vero ex igne bono. The good fire
 Manichcean Triiuhj. 297

of tlio Manicliaeans was of a different nntnrc from the liijht. Tlie rude niid illi-

ter.ite among the Manichaeans, or the flock of Aiidilors as tliey were c-.illed,

doubtless confoundeil, as is usual, the sun wiih the Son of God who resided in
it; and tiiey supposed they worsiiipped Christ whenever they turned their faces
to tile sun. And hence arose the opinion of many among the ancients, lliat ihe
Afanicliaeaus considered ihe sun to be the Son of God. —The reason wiiy Ma-
nes located the Son of God or Christ in the sun, it is not difficult to discover. It

was necessary, as he supposed, that the inliabitants of this globe should have
befnre their eyes an iuKige of God, whom no mortal eye can see, or of that Son
of God, whom God iiad produced from liin.seif for ihe purpose of saving >ouls;
in order that ihey migiit think themore con-tantiy and ititenselv on the salvalinn
to be obt.iined liirough him. But the Son of God could not be seen by tlie eves of
mortals, unless he were surrounded by a body, or by some appearance of a body.
And besides, tile pure ligld of which he wascomposed, would, as before noticed,
be tarnished and obscured by material bodies, if it should present it.self to them
naked. As therefore Ciirist needed a hoJij, in which lie could be seen, and in
which he could operate freely and strongly, he chose a body of a nature the
nearest resembling liglit, in which to dwell. For goad fire, winch is very dif-
ferent from ours, could do no injury to the perfectly simple nature of the divino
light. Manes says, (apud Fabvicium, I. c. p. 285.) 16 it dvurarov pCis iSti^t* :

isLura^ Iv Till t/AiJcoTc ffijf^:tri trdfxoL. Suprema lu,\ (i. c. Christ, of whom he is

speaking) ipsa sibi inter corpora ex materia constantia corpus demonstravit seu
delegit : namely, such a body, as agreed the most perfectly with his nature.
Secondly ; It appears from the passage in Fauslus, that some of the energy of
Christ resides in the moon, while his virtus, that is, (as I suppose,) his essential
nature dwells in tlie sun. As we learn from the language of Augustine, recent-
ly quoted, tiie Manicliaeans believed the moon to consist ex aqua bona (of good
icatei-) ; and therefore regarded it as a kind of sea. Manes himself, in the seventh
Book of his Tiicsaurus, (from which Avgiistine gives a long extract, in his
Tract de natura boni, e. 44. p. 366.) calls the moon Naiem vitalium aquarum.
Whence it appears, that they supposed the uioon to have no light of
its own, or

to be an opaque body. But the splendor of the moon arises from the souls
puritied in it. For souls undergo a lustration in the moon, as we shall see in
the proper place. Yet see SimpUcius on Epietetus, p. 167. But, I must confess,
I do not intirely understand what the Manicliaeans mean, when they sav, the
wisd(mi of tiie Son of God appears moon, but Iiis virtus (virtue,
especially in the
or essence) in the known, supposed the sun to be
sun. All the ancients, as is well
fed, sustained or nourished, by water. Perhaps the Manicliaeans were [p. 781.]
of the same opinion and therefore they annexed the good water of the moon
;

to the good fire of the sun, in order to afford it aliment. Manes discourses very
largely respecting the sun, moon and stars, in his writings. Says Augustine,
(Conles>^ioiies L. v. c. 7. p. 81.): Libri (saeri) eorum pleni sunt longi>simis fa-
bulis, de coelo et sideiibus et sole et luna. Yet this part of the system of Manes
must necessarily have been very ob^^cuie. For those of his disciples wiio lived
in the fourth century, being called upon to give account of their master's pre-
cepts, either olfered the merest nonsense, or, if more ingenuous, acknowledged
2P8 Century III— Section 43.

that they did not understand them. Avgusline requested Fausliis, the most
learned Mnnichaean of that age, to explain to iiim tliese mysteries : but Faiislus
frankly acknowledged his ignorance, and declined tlie task : Quae tamen (i. e.

the opinions of Manes respecting the sun, moon and sfars) ubi consiHoranda et
discuetienda protuli, modeste sane ille (Fauslus) nee ausus est subiie ipsam (read,
islam) sarcinara. Noverat enim se ista non nosse. nee euni puduit confiteri. Non
erat de talibns, quales multos loquaces passus eram, conanles ea me docere, el
dicenles (perhaps, docenles) nihil. - - Noluit se tetnere disputando in ea coartari,
unde nee e.xitus ei esset ullus, nee facilis reditus. Of these fables respecting
the sun, which Fauslus could not explain, one was that which Augusline men-
The Manichaeans denied, that the
tions, (contra Faust. L. xx. e. 6. p. 238.) viz.
sun was round; and maintained, on the contrary, that it presented a triangular
form, or shone upon us through a sort of triangular window Quum omnium :

occulis rotundus sol effulgeat, eaque, illi figura pro sui ordinis positione perl'ccta

sit: vos eum triangnlum perhibetis, id est, per quamdam triangulam cocli fenes-
tram lucem istam nuindo terrisque radiare. Ita (it, ut ad istum quideni solem
dorsum, cervicemque curvetis non autem ipsum tani clara rotunditate conspi-
;

cuum. sed nescio quam navim per foramen triangulum micantem atque lucen-
—
tem adoretis. If Augusline coi'rectly apprehended the views of the Mani-
chaeans, they supposed that we do not see the whole of the sun, because God
has interposed between it and us a sort of triangular body, through which some
portion of its splendor reaches the inhabitants of our world. But I doubt whe-
ther Augusline correctly understood the opinion of Manes. — The speculations
of Manes respecting the sun, were not his own inventions, but were derived
from the opinions of the Persians respecting Mithra. The Persians called Milhra
•TfiTrKda-tov (Irifle): on wiiich, I r<?collect to have made remarks formerly, (Notes
on CudworMs Intellectual System, torn. I. p. 333, &c.) They also called the
moon triformis (of three forms) as is stated by Julius Firmicus,
: (de crrore
profanar. religionum p. 413.) Perhaps Manes, being a Persian, said the same
[p. 782.] thing; but Augustine being unacquainted with Persian opinions, mis-
apprehended, and supposed the form of a triangle to be mentioned.
As the j\Ianichaeans supposed the Son of God to reside in the sun and
moon, it is not strange that they should pay some honor to those luminaries;
and it is abundantly testitied, that they turned their eyes to them, when they
prayed, Augusline says, (de Haeres.
c. 46. p 13.) Orationes faciunt ad solem :

per diem, quaqua versum circuit: ad lunan per noctem, si apparet: si aulem non
apparet, ad Aquiloniam partem, qua sdl cum occiderit ad Orientem revertitur,
stiint orantes. And in various passages, Augusline charges the Manichaeans
with the worship of the sun and moon, as being a hateful crime. And so docs
the Platonic Philosopher Simplicius, (Comment, in Enciiirid. Episteti, p. 167.):
Ti in- vavraiv rwv sv Tu ovjiuvie /uiv^vf Tou'c <^vo pooiTTJtpiC Tifxav - - Toiv Si uXXtdv

jtdTiffjveiv, to; T«c To3 jtaxou fxoipai ovToov. Sola totjus cosli duo luuiina hono-
rant - - cetera vero ut quae ad malum pertineant, contenirunt. I know not
whether it was true, as Simplicius here asserts, that the Manichaeans thought
the other stars to be connected with evil ; indeed I can hardly believe it was
true. But that they paid no honors to any celestial body, except the sun and
 Manichcccm Trinity. 299

n.oon, is beyond debate, and may be demonstrated by tlie testimonies of Au-

gustine and laustus. Nor will the reason of tliis distiaclion be deemed uncer.
tain, if we consider, that tliey located the Son of God nowliere, except in the
sun and moon. Moreover, the Manichavuis do not disehiim all worship of the
sun and moon ; but only apologize for it. Fau:>tus, cited by Aitgusline, (contra
Faust. L. XX. c. 1. p. 237.) declares himself /ioi ashamed of the icorship of the di-

vim luminaries : but he adds, that he holds to one God, and abhors all super-
stition: Ego a paganis mulluin diversus incedo qui ipsum me rationabile Dei : —
teraplum puto: vivum vivae majestatis simulacrum Filiuni ejus accipio - - hono-
res divinos ac sacraficia in solis orationibus ac ipsis puris et simplicibus pono.
As there is no doubt on this subject, the only iiKjuiry is, whether the Mani-
chseans addressed their prayers to the sun and moon themselves, or to God and
his Son, as residing in the >un and moon. The ancient Christian doctors nearly
alltell us, that this sect accounted the sun and moon among the Gods; and

Augustine himself, when he becomes much heated with discussion, charges this
crime upon them ; although on other occasions, he explains their views more
favorably. But this accus:ition m:iy be refuted by strong arguments. First, iis

we learn from Augustine, the Maniclueans supposed the sun to consist of good
fire, and the moon of good water. But the ]Manich;eans did not worship the ce-
lestial elements in place of God ; it does not appear credible, therefore, that they
should have worshipped the sun and moon as Gods. Secondly, Alexander of
Lycopiilis, an adversary of the Manichseans, (in his Tract against them, p. 5. in
Covibefis' Auetarium Biblioth. Patrura,) expressly says: Solem et lunam, non
tanqu im Deos revcreri, verum tanquam viam, qua) ducit ad Deum: ow;t "* ©e-t/c,
dXX' ij oS'dy, i'l' ill' im TrfOs rdv Qidy
This langu.ige does [p. 783.1
dpiniiriyaii.

not explain t\w.form of the worship which the Manicha;ans paid to the sun and
moon for the phrase, Nuluram quandam ut viam ad Deum colerc, may be un-
;

derstood variously. Siill, the pass;ige acquits them of the crime commonly laid
to their charge. Moreover, Augustine, a very competent witness, who had fre-
quently been present at their worship, frankly owns, that he found nothing there
contrary to the Christian religion : (Disput. cum Fortunate, p. 69.) : Ego in
oratione, in qua interfui, nihil turpe fieri vidi: sed solum contra fidem animad-
verti, quaiu postea didici et probavi, quod contra solem facitis orationem. Pra-
ter hoc in ilia oratione veslra nihil novi comperi. The Manichajans, therefore,
although they prayed publicly with their faces towards the sun, did not offer
prayers to the sun, but to God himself. Yet this testimony of Au<rustine does
not fully settle the question; for he adds, that he would have what he says to
be understood of their common prayers, at which all Manichaeans mii'lit be pre-
sent; and that perhaps the prayers of the initiated, or those whom they called
the Elect, were diti'erent: Utrum separatim vobiscum habeatis aliquam oratio-
nem, Deus solus potest nosse, et vos. - - Quisquis autem vobis opponit quaes-
tionem aliquam de .noribus, Electis vestris opponit. Quid autem inter vos agatis,
qui Electi estis, ego scire non possum. To this suspicion, Fortunatns makes no
reply. It appears, therefore, first, that the Manichteans did not pl.ice the sun
and moon among Gods, for they worshipped only one God; and, secondly, that
they addressed tiieir prayers to God only, although they turned their faces to
300 Century III— Section 43.

the sun. — It rctniiins to enquire, wliether the Elect among the Maiiichseans, who
understood all tlie mysteries of the seet, made supplications in private to tho
sun and moon, not as being Gods, but. as beneficient Beings. Fausius, a talented
man, and one of tiie Elect, seems to settle this quesiion; (in Augustine, L. xx.
c. 1. p. 237.) Yet he does not settle it; for he equivocites, and avoids giving a
clear and explicit answer. Tlius mneii, indeed, we may learn from him, tiiat
Augustine had reason for the suspicion, ihnt the Elecl prayed diftercntly from
the common people, and paid a sort of worship to the sun and moon; but tiie

nature of that wor.-iiip, Fausius leaves dubious. One of his adver-^aries asked
him : Cur solem colitis, nisi quia pagani et gentium Schisma, non secta?
e->tis

(i. c. not the Christian sec:.) He answers very captiously. First, he concedes,
that the Manichueans do worship the sun and moon: Absit, ut divinornm lumi-
num erui)esc.im culturam. Augustine had witnessed, that the assembled people-
admitted nothing into their prayers that contravened the Christian religion,
although they turned their faces to the sun. This confession of Fanslus must
therefore refer only to the Elecl. Fausius then adds, that this w(n'ship of the

luminaiies has nolhing in commun with paganism (nihil habere cum genlibus
—
commune). He therefore declared vviiat we also admit that his sect did not —
[p. 781.] worship the sun and moon, as Gods. He proceeds to state, that the
Father, tho Son, and the Spirit, were invoked and adored by his people.
Thus far well! But after speaking of the Holy Spirit, he returns to that wor-
ship, with which the Manichaeans were reproached; and he explains it, in a
manner that shows plainly, tiie man would not disclose the nature of it: Qua-
propter et nobis circa universa, et vobis similiter erga panem et calici'iii par re-

ligio est,quamvis eoruu) acerrime oderitis auciores. That is: We worship and
adore the universe, in the same manner in which you worship and adore the
bread and tiie wine in the Lord's supper. This comparison seems to mean some-
thing; and yet it nie:ins nothing. And it was brought forward solely to d.irken
the subject, and to elude the question. We learn from it, indeed, that the Chris-
tians of that age paid some external honor to the bread and wiae of the sacred
supper; but, what Fausius understood by this honor, does not apjjcar. And
therefore we cannot learn from this comparison, in what sense, or fm- what ends,
the jManichaeans worshipped the sun and moon. And Augustine, his rc()ly
i;'

to the passage, shuns the light as much as Fausius. He mentions, indeed, that
the comparison is not to tiie point; bat he does not tell us, what difference
there was between the worship of the bread and wine by Cliristians, and the
w^orship of the sun and moon by tlie Maniciiaeans. He first says, (c. 13. p. 243.);
Noster panis et cnlix non quilibet, sed certa consccratione mysticns fit nobis,
non nascitur. But this is nothing. For Fausius knew very well that the
Christians consecrated the bread and the cup, and on that account, esteemed
them mystical. Auguslive proceeds; Quamvis sit panis et calix. alimeiitum est
refcctionis, non sacranientuni rcligioiiis, ni-i cpiod benedicinins, gratiasque agi-
mus Domino in omni ejus mnnere, non solum spiiitali, sed eliam corporal!.
This also is nothing to the purpose. For he changes the subject, and passes
from the bread and wine of the sacred Sapper, to ordin.lry or common bread
and wine, concerning which there was no dib])ule: he denies tiiat a cup and
 Manichccaii I'riaily. 301

wine are a religious sacramenl : ant] niaiiitaiiis, on tl)e cnnfray, liiat ll>cv are
a refreshing alimeni. Tiiis is true of common bread and wine; but not rlso ol
the broad and wine oftlic holy supper; for these are, not luvw'])- refreshing alimeJU,
but a religious sacramenl i as he had just before admitted, by saying Ihev became
mystical by consecration. And yet, after some cavils, as if he had triumphed,
he closes the discussion thus Quomodo ergo comparas panem et ealicem nos-
:

trum ct parem religionem dicis errorem a veritatc longc discrelum, l)ejns desi-
piens, quam nonnulb', qui nos propter panem et caliccm Cercrem et l.iberum
colere existimant. He therefore concedes, that the CInistians worshipped tlie

bread and wine ; and lie informs us, that on account of this worship, some per-
adored Ceres and Bacchus. But he would
fions believed, that the Christians

not tell what was meant by this Christian adoration of the bread and
plainly,
wine, and how it differed from the Manichwan worship of the sun and moon.
The crafty Faiislus, perceiving the ulcer of his sect to be touched, led [p. 785.]
his adversary into a snare by that comparison, and so e-caped and Avgimline ;

in like manner, looked around for a way of escape merely, and would not say,
whether he approved or disapproved the Christian practice of adoring the bread
and wine, nor disclose the true nature of it. At length, Faitstus attempts to
vindicate the practice of his sect in worshipping the sun and moon, by the ex-
ample of all nations. lie says: Tii vel quilibet alius rogatus, ubinam Deum
Buum credat habitare, respondore non dubitabit; In lumine : ex quo cultus hit
meus (ss. solis) omnium tcstimonio contirmatur. But this is not clear. VVt
are told, indeed, that the Manielijcans venerate the sun or light, because it is

the residence of God : but we wish to know the nature of this veneration or
worsiiip ; and this the man dares not attempt to explain ; but defers the suliject
to another time: De fuic nostra si quacrendum alias putaveris, audies. This
was doubtless wise for him ; but is unsatisfactory to us. —But however it was,
the passage from Faustus, in which he compares the worship of the sun with
the worship of bread and wine in the sacred supper, C()ntains a suggestion,
which, if it do not lead us to a full understanding of the subject, may enable u*
to approximate towards it. He says : Quapropter et nobis circa vriiiersa religio
est: or, we These words follow immediately
religiously worship the universe.
after the above p.assage, and the word quapropter shows, that the ground for
the worship in question, was implied in that passage. Now he had before said
Spiritum sanctum terram gravidare, enmque (foecundatam) gignere Jcsum pas-
sibilem, omni suspensum ex ligno. He therefore gives this reason for the wor-
ship of the universe viz. because the earth, on being impregnated by the Holy
;

Spirit, brings forth the passive Jesus. This passive Jesus of tiie Manichreans,
of whicii we shall speak elsewhere, is the producls and fruits of the earth ; in
which, the Manichccans supposed, there were not only particles of celestial and
divine matter, but also sensation and a soul. Consequently, they worshijjped
the universe, because all things are endued with a kind of divine sensation and a
celestial soul. The universe {universa) denoted undoubtedly the five celestial
elements of the ]Manicha;ans. Of course, they supposed these elements to be
anim?tcd, (as appears also from other testimonies,) and full of a divine spirit

and therefore they paid them some worship. Consequently, the sun and the
302 Century III— Section 43.

moon, being composed of good fire and good water, were intitled to worship.
And, as they supposed good fire and good water to be animated, they doubtless
believed the sun and moon to be endued with intelligence and sensation. This
was an ancient and very common opinion, not only of the Oriental people, but
also of many of the philosophers. — Putting all these things together, I think it

probable, that the Elect among the Manicheeans did invoke the sun and the
moon ; not indeed as Gods, but as excellent and benificent Beings, by whose
influence they might become more happy, and better prepared for liberating their
immortal souls from the bonds of the body.
[p. 786.] (3) Of the Holy Spirit, no one has spoken more fully than Faus-
ius ; (apud Augustinum. L. xx. c. 2. p. 237.) : Spiritus sancti, qui est m:ijestas
tertia (the third Person of the divine nature,) aeris hunc omnem ambitum sedem
fatemur ac diversorium, cujus ex viribus et spiritali profusione, terram quoque
concipientem, gignere patibilem Jesum, qui est vita ac salus hominum, omni
suspensus ex ligno. The Holy Spirit, then, according to the views of the Ma-
nicliEeans, is a Being, produced from God the Father, when the world was
formed. Hence it follows, that he is a lucid parcel or mass. His residence is
the air ; but not that gross air contiguous to us, for in that the Demon and his
princes are confined as captives. Neither is this impure air, which is contami-
nated with the smoke that constitutes the fifth element of the world of darkness,
a fit residence for a Being originating from the Father of lights. Air, in the
Miinich^an phraseology, is ether, ex allissimis ignihus conslans, as Cicero says,
surrounding and enclosing this our globe. Therefore, as the Manicliajans lo-
cated tlie Son of God in the good
and good water, those elements of the
fire
world of light, so they located the Holy Spirit in tlie ether, which is nlso one of
the celestial elements. —
His ofiices are not all mentioned by Faustus, but only
that one from which he could explain the ground for the worship of the sun
nnd moon, then under discussion. Seated in the highest ether or heat encom-
passing our globe, the Holy Spirit, first warms, moves and instructs the minds
of men, and raises them to the Father of lights ; for, as the Manichaian school
proclaimed, he imparted an extraordinary portion of his influence to Manes, a
far greater than to the Apostles and other men. Manes himself says, in his
Epistola Fundamenti : Intima pectoris humani adaperit, ut videant homines ani-
luas suas. Secondly, He fecundates this our earth, and causes it to produce the
passive Jesus (Jesus paiibilis), that is, all kinds o{ fruits which men eat to sus-
tain life. Of this passive Jesus, we shall treat, when we come to speak of the
IMunichcean doctrine respecting our earth : at present, I merely state, that the

Maniclia^ans supposed, there was in our earth a soul or vital force, which they
called Jesus. That force, the Holy Spirit by his influence separates from the
grosser matter, and conducts into plants and shrubs and trees, to make them
bear fruit. And those fruits, because they contain a vital force or soul, are
called Jesus ; and, because they are masticated and crushed by the teeth of
men, the passive Jesus. Faustus says of the passive Jesus : vita et salus est
hominum ; that is, it sustains human life, promotes health, and sometimes re-
stores lost health. These are silly anile fables: but nothing better could be
expected from a delirious old man, a rustic imbued with the Persian philoso-
 Manichcean Trinity. 303

pliy. —As to their pr.iying to the Holy Sph-it, I find notliing recorded. But as
they professed to worship one God in three Persons, and considered [p. 787.]
the Holy Sphit as a part of the divine nature, there can be no doubt, that they
invoked him in cunnexion with the Father and the Son. Besides, Manes, in
the beginning of liis Epislola Fundamenti, prays for tlie lighl of the Holy Spirit
to be shed on his people ; and ISecundinus, (in his Epistle to Augustine, 0pp.
torn. viii. p. 369, »fcc.) declares t'vit he, Spiritui sancto gratias habet et siipjdex
referl.

(4) Manes, being a Persian, estimated the Christian religion by the princi-

ples of the Magi : and what he teaches respecting the Son of God and the
Holy Spirit, agrees entirely with the speculations of the ancient Persians re-
specting Mi/liras and the elJier. Concerning that great Persian God Mitiiras,

we have full commeiilaries by several learned men ; viz. Phil, a Turre, (in his
Monumenta veteris Antii,) Thomas Hyde, (Historia relig. vet. Persarum,) Jac.
Martini, (de veterum Galjorum religione.) and others. What the Persians
taught respecting Mithras, the very same taught Manes respecting Christ, or
the Son of God. The vulgar among the Persians did not distinguish Mithras
from the sun : but the wiser men did so, and held Mithras to be inferior to the
supreme God, yet a great Deity, and resident in the sun. This I will not now stop

to prove, lest I siiould turn aside too far; but it may be easily demonstrated
from Plutarch. — Mithras, as Plutarch observes, (de Iside et O.siride, p. 369.)
was a middle God, between the good Principle and the bad; and was
therefore called by the Persians iw^a-ic^t or Mediator. But beware of suppos-
ing, thatMithras possessed a middle nature, compounded some how of both
light and darkness. Tliis title of Mediator undoubtedly refered to his oflice,
and denoted, that he withstood the efforts of Arimanius, the Prince of dark-
ness, to enlarge his empire; and that he aided the souls abstracted from the
light, in their return to God. Now the same title of Mediator being aj)j)iied

in the Scriptures to the Saviour of mankind, this alone might induce Manes
to compare our Saviour with the Persian Mithras. The Persians also be-
lieved, of their Mithras as Manes did of Christ, that he was present not only
in the sun, but likewise in the moon. And hence, in all the monuments of the
worship of Mithras which have reached us, the moon always accompanies the
sun. See Phil, a Turre, (Monum. veteris Antii, p. 157.) Anton, van Dak, (Dis-
sertt. ad Antiquitates et IMarmora p. 16.) and Jac. Martin, (Religion des Gau-
lois, L. ii. p. 421.) and others. They supposed Mithras possessed a twofold
energy, the one male, the other female ; and that the former resided in the sun,

but the latter in the moon. Says Julius Firmicus, (de errore profanar. religio-

num p. 413, at the end of Minucius Felix, edit. Gronovii) : Per.^se Jovera in
duas dividunt potestates, naturam ejus ad utriusque sexus referentes et viri et

foemina3 simulacra ignis substantiam deputantes. Tiiis doctrine the Mani-

chaeans expressed in a Christian manner, and in Bible language (1 Cor. i. 24.)

by saying. The power (lirtus, JuvafAn) of Christ dwells in the sun, but his
wisdom in the moon. They dared not use the Persian terms and phras- [p. 788.]
es, lest they should be thought tn worship a God and Goddess, in the sun and

moon, as the Persian vulgar did. Firmicus, whom I have just quoted, says a
304 Century III— Section 44.

little after, that the male Jupiter inhiiLitiiig the sun, was called Milliras by the
Persians: nor is he in error. In my notes on CWiiw/Zi, (Intellectual System

p. 327.) I haveshown from Herodotus, that the word Mithras was also transferred
to the moon, and while the dweller in the sun was called Mi/hras, the dweller
in the moon was called Mithra ; indicating that one and the same Being, though
in a ditYerent manner, animated both the sun and the moon. It is therefore

manifest, that Milhras and the Manichaean Christ actually diifered in nothing,
except in name. And perhaps also, the Persians hoped that Milhras would, at
some future time, descend from the sun, assume a hura;in form, and instruct
mortjils in the worship of the true God. But Maries would not have Christ
worshipped in the way the Persians worshipped Mithras ; for, in place of sacrifi-

ces,he substituted nothing but prayers and some external signs of reverence.
—
This was the effect of Christianity. Respecting the worship of the ether by the
Persians, we have not so many proofs as we have of their worship of the sun
and moon, and of Milhras resident in those planets. Yet we have one striking

passage in Herodotus, (Historia, L. I. ^ 131. p. 55. edit. Gronov.) v.hich, while

it affords confirmation to some other things that we have stated, shows, that the
Persians located a Deity in the highest ether, and paid divine honors to it. He
first tells us, that the Persians did not attribute a human form to their Gods;
neither did Manes; as we have seen. He then says: O* /e vc/Ai^cvs-i A/i" y.iv, M
ra v-^yiKc,T<nx rdv iftwv dva^aivovrU) ^vvia ifi'uv. Ton h'jkKcv trujra tIu oufrnviu

£kiaKaUovTH. Moris habent, editissismis conscensis montibus, Jovi (Hercdolus

uses the Greek appellation, to which the Persians were strangers,) facere sacra,
omnem gyrum coeli (i. e. the e/her, encompassing our earth,) Jovem (Deum)
appellantes: or, supposing some God to reside in that ether. After this, he tcll.'^

us, that the Persians likewise offer sacrifices to the sun and the moon : and
hence, the worship of tiie ether was something difierent from the worship of
the sun and moon. And he finally tells us, that they sacrificed to the earth (the
ground.) to fire, to water, to the wind. Here we remark : F;VsZ; The ancient

Persians held to five elements, as Manes did : for, to the ether, which he had be-
fore mentioned, i/erof?o^u5 adds four others. Secondly: They worshipped the

elements : whence it may be inferred that they supposed them animated as Ma.
nes believed. — Thirdly : ]yind was ranked by them among the elements, as it

was by Ma7ies. But, by the wind, they undoubtedly did not mean the lower air

or atmosphere.

§ XLIV. War of the Prince of Darkness on the Trince of Light,

After a vast length of time, the race of darkness having become
exceedingly numerous, an intestine war raged in that miserable
Qd. 789.] world, perhaps respecting boundaries and residences.

In this war, while the victors pursued the vanquished, and the
latter fled into the mountains on the frontiers of the province,
suddenly, from these mountains, the sons of darkness descried the
realm of light and its astonishing splendor, of which they before
had no knowledge. On descrying the light they ceased fighting;
 War with God. 305

and, taking counsel together, they determined to invade that

happy world they so much admired, and to bring it under their
dominion. Without delay an army was raised and marched
forth. —
As the countless and infuriated host came near, the Lord
of the world of light opposed to it a Being of his own nature,
whom he had suddenly procreated, attended by the five celestial
elements and a vast multitude of troops. This General of the
world of light, who bore the name of First Jfan, conducted the
war with valor and discretion, yet not very successfully. For
the leaders of darkness not only plundered a considerable por-
tion of the celestial elements, which they mixed up with their
own depraved elements, but they also greedily devoured large
quantities of the divine light, which was animated: nay, they
nearly overpowered and stripped him of a
First Jfin himself,
part of his excellence. As therefore the bard pressed command-
er of the forces of light implored the aid of God, he sent forth
another General, produced in like manner from himself, but more
powerful than the former, and bearing the name of Livinfj Spirit
This General rescued First Man, and conquered the Prince of
darkness : but he could not restore to its pristine state the plun-
der taken from the world of light, because it had been com-
mingled with vicious matter.(')

(1) The fable of Manes respecting a war between the good and bad Princi-
ples, if estimated by our ideas of God and divine things, is impious and absurd;
but if considered in relation to the objects of its author, and judged of by his
fundamental principles, it is far less senseless : nay, it is necessary, and sup-
ported by good reasons. For, as Manes assumed it for a certainty, that good
and evil arose from two separate causes, he could not show whence originated
that intermixture of good and evil wliich is visible in our world, without ima-
gining such a v,ar; and adorning the fable with various circumstances suited to
his purpose. I will endeavor to make the statements of this subject, as gather-

ed from ancient writers, more intelMgible than they are usunlly made : which
will not only afford satisfaction to many minds, but also be useful for [p. 790.]
illustrating the history of the cliuix'h, and for correcting the errors of many.
As we have ahcady seen, God knew that the world of darkness existed; but the
people of darkness, as they were altogether wretched and miserable, so also
were they ignorant and stupid, and knew nothing of God and of the world of
light. Manes was obliged to suppose this ignorance in the Prince of darkness
and his subjects, in order to account for their entering on the war. For if the
King of darkness had known, that a most powerful Deity existed, and resided
in the world of light, he would not have resolved to invade that happy land,

VOL. ir. 21
300 Century III— Section 44.

in order to subjugate it. Tilus of Bostra tells us, from the Liber Mysterio-
ruin of Manes, (contra Maniclia30s L. I. torn. I. p. 71. of Canisius'' Collection,)
^xtri Td yoafJt/Lt*, dp' cu ra Trufu. toD MavevToc TTAfi^ix-a^iv, d)j ouJ" ori ©eos ip

pittX S'lHTdro iyivttiTx.ov, cvS" art TcXfxwc-avr'ci nara roZ oiKiiTupicv TtjZ &eov ovk
luihK'.v <i-5-w6( TTOTi d^aWayivAt. Scriptiim est in libro (mysteriorum) Manetis
unde quod neque Deum in lumine habitare sciebant, neque ae
liwc apposuinius,

unquam impune laturos, si in Dei domicilium invadere auderent. Add p. 74. He

Well exhibits (p. 70.) the ground of this fiction. An unforeseen occurrence
brought the inhabitants of the world of darkness to a knowledge of the world
of light. A civil war having arisen in the world of darkness, where broils were
unceasing, the vanquished party, on being chased by the conquerors from their
homes, fled to the farthest boundaries of their country ; and there both parties
discovered the world of light. Titus, as recently quoted, states this from the
books of Manes himself. See his work, (L. I. p. 74. and p. 71.) where he says;
*j)£riv « Ttaf' dvTots ySi'^Xoj, TrpS; dXXifAsi/c irTo7(d^iVT8f iTiTrihsttrdtv, xai f^iyjt riov
fjii^cpioiv, Kal TO 9ui iifovy 9-fuMa ri ^idWiTTov kui iuTrpiTerraTov. Sic igitur est
in libro quem habent (mysteriorum), seditione inter ipsos orta, piodierunt usque
ad confinium etviderent lumen, specfaculum quoddnm pnlcheriimum et ma.xime
decorum. After Tilus, (who is more worthy of credit than all others,) the
common writers on the Heresies, namely, Epiphanius, Theodoret, Damascenus,
&c. same thing. A more probable occasion of the discovery of the
relate the
world of by the inhabitants of darkness. Manes could scarcely have devis-
light
ed. To make this manifest, let it be considered, that the world of darkness was
surrounded by lofty mountains, elifts and eminences, which prevented the rays
of light from falling upon it. For if it had been a level plane, the light of hea-
ven, (which was over against the region of darkness.) being exceedingly bright,
and shining to an immense distance, could not possibly have so long escnped
the sight of the citizen ; of that region. In the farthest mountains and cliffs
bounding the renlm of darkness, therefore, the vanquished are supposed to have

sought for safety. And the discovery of the light put an end to the battle. For
the combattants stood amazed ; and forgetting their hatred and fury, they feast-

ed their eyes and their minds with the niagniHeent spectacle. On recovering
themselves, they consulted together, how to get possession of that treasure

[p. 791.] and they resolved to seize upon it. Thus Manes, as quoted by Titus,
(1. C. p. 71.) ''Oi J"f iiTuxTct/v, pijo-t, Kai itSmcuv dWihcv;, tC pt3f Si iScVTic W-jlucaito.

Illi vero, ait Manes, in peiturbato erant, seque oppugnabant, viso vcro Inniine
desierunt. And a little after : Tsts vtto riis tv duToTc Ktviritti lv^cv!riiv'.'Tii nara

TOW paToj iiicvKiu3''J.vro, ti Jii ^s/jiVui/ts; SuvatvTO av duTOUi tu> xpsirrovi a-uyx.tfidti'at

Tunc a motuquem sentiebant, in furorem acti consultabant de lumine, quid

illo,

faciendum esset, ut se cum eo, quod pra^stantius erat, miscerent. It is manifest —

therefore, that those learned men entn-ely mistake, who represent Manes as be-
lieving, that the Prince of darkness deliberately made war upon God and who ;

compare this war with that which, as the Grecian fables state, the Giants waged
against the Gods. The race of darkness, according to the views of Manes, were in-
tirely ignorant of God, and could not possibly have resolved on a war against him.
When God perceived the host of darkness approaching his borders, he was
 War tuiih God. 307

aware that Itis sulijecls were in fiirio is enemy

grent peril from this and there- ;

fore he determined, that a valiant General with a numerous army, should go out
to battle, in order to drive those smoky Giants beyond the limits of ids kino-.
dom. Thus Manes himself, in his Epktola Fundamenli, (apud Avgust. de na-
tura boni, c. 42. p. 364.) : Lueis beatissimaj Pater seiens, hibem mngnam et
vastitatem, quae e.\ tenebris surgeret, adversus sua sancta impendere Ssecula,
nisialiquod eximium et prseclarum et virtute potens Numen opponat. These
words clearly show the weakness of God, or that his power was confined within
narrow limits and of course that those judge too favorably of the Maniehse-
;

ans, who make

their God otunipotent. On this emergency, the Father of light
produced from himself a certain virtue or power, called Mother of Life;
first

and siie bore another Being, called Firf!t Man ; and he with a great retinue,
and armed with the five celestial elements, marched against the Prince of dark-
ness. Tyrbo, (in the Acta Disput. Archelai cum Manele, p. 22. edit. Zaccag-
nii,) says in the language of Manes : Cum cognovisset bonus Pater, tenebras ad
terram suam supervenisse, produ.\it ex se virtutem, quas dicitur Mater Vitcc, qua
virtute circumdedit Primum ILmiinem (so the ancient Latin translator render3
it: but erroneously, as appears from tiie Greek, which is found in Epiphanius,
and is: Kat dwriiv Trpoj^ifi^tiKtvai Et ilia mater vitcc pro-
rov TTfuTov uvd^paTov.

duxit Primum Ihmiinein) eumque circumdedit quinque elementis, qnte sunt

ventus, lux, aqua, ignis et materia (so it is in the Latin, and in the Greek of
Epipluiniiis. But it is evident, as Beaiisobre has said, that instead of uah and
materia., it should read aer. For uhx is a bad principle, and has no place amonf

the elements of the world of light. The fifth element of the Manicha^ans was
air or either,) quibus indutus tanquam ad pnratum belli descenrlit deorsum, ad
pugnandum versus tenebras. Augustine says, (contra Faustum, L. ii. c. 3. p. 133.)
Profertis nobis ox armario vestro nescio quein Primum Hominem, qui ad gentera
tenebrarum debellandum de lucis gente de>cendit, armatum aquis suis [p. 792.]

contra inimicoruni aquas, et igne suo contra inimicorun ignem, et ventis suis con-
tra inimicorum ventos. Cur non ergo et fiimo suo contra inimicorum fumum, et
tenebris suis contra inimicorum tenebras, sed contra fumum aere, uti dicitis, arma-
batur, et contra tenebras lucel - - - Cur contra maltmi fumum non potuit afl'erre

fumum bonum 1 These questions of Augustine are futile and they show that he
;

was ignorant of the nature of the elements of Manes. For the smoke was the bad
either, the opposite of the good air ; and darkness belonged to the misty world, the

opposite of which was light, or the bright and splendid world. See also Augustine,
(L. xi. c. 3. p. 157, and de Ha^es, c. 42.) also Titus of Bostra, (L. L p. 68.) and the
other writers of less authority, who are well known. In these difficult conceits,
there is still some discretion : for Manes is self-consistent, and dexterously ad-
justs all the parts of his system to his first or elementary principles : which
shows that he exercised his reason in his wild vagaries. But it is difficult for
us at this day, to discover the grounds of all his doctrines, because no small
part of his system remains in the dark. Tiie names he assigns to the persons
he introduces, are not arbitrary, (as Titus of Bostra supposed, contra Manichaios
L. I. p. 68.) but are derived from the nature of those persons, and therefore are
appropiiate to them. The Mother- of Life, that Being whom God procreated
 o08 Century III. — Section 44.

from himself, when he saw the Prince of darkness approaching his hordere,
was undoubtedly a Deity, vvliich had the power of transmitting life from herself
to others, or of producing living beings. And for the son of this mother, no
more fit name Man, For it is very certain,
could be devised, t!ian that of the First
that he possessed the human form, because Adam was fashioned by the Demon
after his likeness; as we shall see hereafter. Anterior to him, there had been no
Being in tiie world of light, resembling men: and therefore, very correctly and
properly, he could be called the First Man. namely, among celestials. For all
the jEons or Scccida, were merely lucid masses, like God their Parent, having no
definite form. Nor was it suitable, that the inhabitants of the world of light
should be like men, because the Prince of darkness and all his subordinate
princes resembled men. And therefore that First Man, who warred against
the Prince of darkness, was not received into the world of light, but resided
with his mother in the smaller ship, or moon. And hence also, .nn answer may
be given to the inquiry, why God did not himself produce that First Ma7i,
which he doubtless could have done, but produced another Being, the Mother of
Life of whom he was born. For it was unbecoming the m.ijesty and wisdom
of God, to produce out of himself a Being resembling the Prince of darkness
the Lord of evil ; and therefore tivis function was transferred to an infcror Be-
ing. The purpose of God human form should
required, that a General of
march against the Lord of darkness for it was the pleasure of God, that the
;

[p. 793.] war should be conducted by artifice and stratagem ratlier than by

force of arms, or that the fearful enemy should be entrapped and caught by
blandishments, rather than vanquished in open war. Therefore, as the King of
darkness was a ?nan, or a giant of immense bulk, a hero of his form was to be
sent against him from whom he would expect no harm, supposing him to be
;

of the same nature with himself, and would therefore fearlessly receive him to
friendly intercourse. If the Lord of darkness had seen a Being unlike himself
coming meet him, he would doubtless have attacked him with all his forces,
to
and very many ill consequences might have followed. That First Man of the
Manichffians, therefore, was, we have no doubt, a giant of immense stature, and
fully equal to his adversary in magnitude. The King of darkness, (in the Epis-

tola Fundament! of Manes, apud August, de natura boni c. 46. p. 366.) called
him Magnum ilium, qui gloriosus apparuit. Tliis could not refer to his moral
:

greatness. His armour also, or his vestments, were the five celestial elements,
by the efficacy of which the five evil elements were to be subdued. Many souls,
likewise, or citizens of the world of light, were in his train.
I now come to the conflict between these giants. —As has been remarked,
God, in his wisdom, would not have his General go into a pitched battle w^ith
the King of darkness; but he wished that the enemy might be circumvented,
and artfully diverted from fighting against the light. And hence, as before ob-
served, he opposed tohim an amiable Commander, of the same form with the
Demon, that so the Prince of darkness might take him to be one of his own
race. —
And he further bid him approach the adversary blandly and craftily; and
using no violence, to inject and infuse the celestial elements, with which he w.aa
clad, into the elements of the adverse party. For pursuing this course, there
 War of ike Gods. 309

were several reasons. Frst, God hoped, that the princes of darkness would be-
come so intensely occupied and engrossed with these new and untried elements,
that theywould forget the war against the world of light. And secondly, he
supposed that the^e elements, on being introduced into di-pravcd mattc'r, would
subdue its virulence and rage, so that it could be managed. And las/lij, he ex-
pected that the celestial matter, when joined with dcpravt-d matter,would gra-
dually pervade and molify it, so that aflerw.irds it might easily be driven back
again, with its princes, into the wretched wurld from which it can)e. These things
are well attested by the writings of Manes and his disciples, which have reached
us. Maiies, in his Book of Mysteries, (:ipud Tilum Bostrens. L. p. 68.) says: i.

O Si dyaS'di Juvufjdv d7roa'T6^>v£< Tiva, fvKa^uaav (Mev J';!S'JV Tiui^fivi, to it aKK^'ti

ii\iaf WofAtvuv iii dK'.ua-iov th i/Ah ffaffiivt^fjiiy. o Sx xat yCyiVi. Fr.Ulcis Turrio-
nus lias badly translated this passage, as well as many others in 'I'ilus. I will
therefore render it so as to make it intelligible. Bonus (Deus) potestatera
quamdam mittit, tanquam tines (regni lucis) custodituram, revera vero ideo, ut
materia; incitamenti seu escae loco esset, per quam, ad moderationem contra vo-
luntatem suam seu invita etiam induccretur. A little after, Tilus adds, that the
Manichaeans used to say: Materiam, tanquam ferara belluam, missae a [p. 794.]
Deo potestatis cantione (i. e. by a magical charm) sopitam esse: 'nj ii' iirutSif

Titj dnoa-T^KTitnis iuva/Ltiais mufjiiiT^M. The bisliop does not mistake: for Manes
himself, (in the acta Dispnt. cum Manote, \ 25. p. 41. edit. Zaecag.) elucidates
his doctrine by this very similitude taken from wild beasts: Similis est malignus
leoni, qui irrepere vult gregi boni pastoris, (i. e. strives to invjvde the world of
light, and to drive away (he sheep of God, or the blessed JEons,) quod cum pas-
tor viderit, fodit foveam ingentem, et de grege tulit unum hoedum (i. e. he ex-
poses to him a small portion of the celestial matter,) et jactavit in foveam, quetn
leo invadere de-iderans, cum ingenti indignatione voluit earn absorbere et ac-
currens ad fove;im decidit in earn, ascendendi inde sursum non habens vires,
quern pastor apprehensum pro prudentia sua in cavea concludit, atque hoedum,
qui cum ipso fuerit in fove:i, incolijmem conservavit. Ex hoc ergo infirmatua
jam leone non habente potestatem faciendi aliquid, et salva-
est malignus, ultra
bitur omne animarum genus ac re-tituetur, quod perierat, proprio suo gregi.
We shall soon see, that by this langunge Alanes not badly explains his views.
Foriunatus, the Manichsean, (in Disput. cum AvgusLino II. p. 78.) says: In con-
traria natura esse animam dicimus, ideo, ut contraris naturae modum imponeret:
niodo imposito contraria3 naturee, sumit eanidem Deus. And again, (I. c. p. 57.)
Forlunaius says : Apparet - - missas esse animas contra contrariam naturam,
ut ean.dem sua pasHone subjicientes, victoria Deo redderetur. I omit the testi-
monies of Augusline, Alexander of Lycopolis, Damascenus, and otiiers; because
they are not needed.
The First Man followed exactly the pleasure of his Lord who sent him
forth, and approached the enemy with guile and cunning. Says Augustine,
(contra Faustum L. ii. c. 4. p. 134.) Primum hmiinem vestrum dicitis, secun-
dum I'osiium volunta'em, quo eos caperel, elementa quas portabat mut;isse ac
vertise(>, ut regnum, quod dicitis, falsitatis, in sua n;itura nianens, non fallaciier

dimicaret, et substantia veritatis mutabilis appareret, ut falleret. - - Hunc Pri-

310 Century III. — Section 44.

mum Hominem Inudatb, quia mutabilibus et mendacibus formis cum adversa

geiite piignavit. - - Manichccus aniiuntiat Primum Hominem iiehcio quibus fal-

lacibus elementis quinque veslitmn. Again, he says, (L. \i. c. 3. p. 157.):

Manes annuntiat nesi-io quem Primum Hominem, nee de terra terrenuin, nee

factum in aniiiiam viventem, sed de substantia Dei, id ipsum existentem quod

Deus est,membra sua, vel vestimenta sua, vel arma ^ua, id est, quinque ele-

menta, cum et ipsa niliil aiiud essent, quam substantia Dei, in tenebrai um gente
mer-i-sc, ut iiiquinata caperentur. Tiie clo;-ing words in this passage, I sus-
pect, have becMi corrupted. For, beyond all doubt, God did not wish the celes-
tial climents to be received and become rfe^Zec?, but to remain pure; and by
[p. 795.] them tocapture the princes of darkness. So iiw^iis/JHee.\pre>sly states in
the previously cited passage. I therefore choose to read Ut per inquinata (i. e. by :

the enemies) caperentur. Those who think the pnssage correct as it stands,
must sujipose, that Augustine illy expressed the views of Manes. The First
Man, tiierefore, in order tlie more completely to deceive the race of darkness,
did not present to them the celestial elements with which he was armed or clad,

juMt as they were, but he changed their appearance. And, as he himself ap-
peared like to ihe Prince of darkness, .so he gave to his armor the appearance of
the corrupt elements, or of the enemy's armor, so that he might not be shocked
at it. And yet there is some obscurity here, which is not worth the pains of
an explanation.
The artifice of the First Man was partially successful. Tiie Prince of dark-
ness, together with his fiiends and associates, greedily seized the celestial mat-
ter, liberally offered, and satiated himself with it. This calmed the Demon's
furious pasMuns, and checked his ardor for invading the world of light. It

miglit fitly be called a carminative, which soothed his rage in spite of him, and
subdued his inclination to evil ; or, according to the simile of Manes, it operated
like a magical charm, which has the effect of making wild beasts and serpents
harmless. Siys Manes, (apud Tiium Bostrens. L. i. p. 68.): Qta^afxtiti it um«
Titv dvofrahinrav Suvauiv jrp io-TSKiVirxj-t fAiv wj 'ipa\Tiis-a. 'Op/uti S'e waeioi'I XaSoua-oi

Ta-j^iiv xariffis, Kui li'i^i TpoTov Tiva ottrTTip ^-npiov. Quum vidisset materia potes-
tatem missam, (i. e. when the Demim saw the First Man, clothed in the five

celestial elements, amore capta concupivit eam, et

and pretending friendship,)
ardentiore appetitu prehensam absorbuit, et quodammodo tanquam bellua ligata
est. And thus the principal danger to the world of light was indeed averted :

but another evil sprung up in phice of it and the issue of the scheme was not, ;

in all respects, happy. —

For, First ; While the First Man, by injecting the
celestial matter into the darkness, aimed to capture the Prince of evil ai-'J his
associates; the latter, on the other hand, grasped llie celestial elements and
souls, and subjected them to his power. And four of the elements, namely,
darkness, water, wind and good fire, he so combined with the depraved ele-
ments, that no force could possibly separate them. And no small part of the
cele-tial matter, especially of the light or the souls, he and devoured;
his officers

and, as I may say, converted into their blood and juices. Says Tyrbn, (in the
Acta Disput. Archelai, \ 6. p. 10.) At vero tenebrarnm
: principes, repugnantes
comcderunt de armatura
ei, ejus, quod est ar.ima. Tunc ibi vehementerafflictus
 War of the Gods. 311

est deorsum Piimiis Homo a tenebris. And, Q 11. p. 20.) Deu« non habet
partem cum mmido, nee gaudet super eo, quod ab initio furtum passus sit a
Priiu-ipibus (tenebraruin) et ahorta fuerit ei tribulatio. We shall hereafter eite
the testimony of Manes himself, ivspeetinj,' this light which was devoured by
the Princes of darluiess. In tiie first of these passages, Tyrbo did not mistake,
(as a very learned man supposes,) in sjxying, the armor of the First [p. 796.]
Man teas soul. It is ind;!ed true, as that wortliy man says, that the Manicliieans
considered souls as formed of light, or as particles of that eternal light which is

invisible to our organs : but tlie armor of the First Man was not merely light,

but also all the five celestial elements. And it (!>caped his recollection, that :dl
the Maiiicliasan elements were animated : and that mention is made in theii

schools, of varittus kinds of souls. Rational souls, which hold the highest
rank, are the daughters of Ugh', or pirticles from it. But, be>ides these noblei
souls others likewise, of an inferior order, proceed from the other elements.
Tyrbo therefore could truly say, the armor of the First Man was soul ; that is,
all kinds of souls existed in the five elements with which he was invested. But
I will sulijoin a passige from Augustine, respecting the souls subdued and op-
pressed in that first conflict between light and darkness, (from his Liber de
nalura boni, c. 42. p. 363.) Dicunt etiam nonnullas animas, quas volunt esse
:

de substantia Dei et ejusdem omnino nnturaj, qiue non sponte peccaverint, sed
a gente tenebraruin, quan) mali naturam dicunt, ad quam debellanclam, non ultro^

sed Patris imperio descenderiinl, superaias et oppressa; siat, affigi in seteraum

horribili globo animarum. This, Augustine confirms by the Epistola Funda-
ment! of Manes; in which, speaking of these souls. Manes says: Quod errare
se a priori lucida sua natura passa; sint: unde, et adharebunt iis rebus aiiimaj
eaedem, quas dilexeiunt, relictaj in eodem tenebrarum globo, suis merilis id sibi

conquireiites. The Princes of darkness, therefore, so connected with them-

selves a great number of souls, that liiose souls changed their nature, and volun-
tarily assumed the character of darkness; and therefore, they could not in any
way be converted God and
to recovered. And to this great evil, others were
added. For, — Secondlij ; The Prince of darkness and his associates, devoured
the son of the First Man, whose name was Jesus. This jiart of ihe Manichajan
system is involved in much obscurity, and cannot be elucidated by clear and
explicit testimonies. Yet I hope to make it intelligible. In the first place, it is
certain that the First Man,t\\e Being who eiicounlered the Prince of darkness,
had a son named Jesus. Deceived by this name, (as Beausobrs has observed,
vol. ii. p. 554.) Augustine confounds in many places this son of the First Man,
with the Son of God our Savior; and therefore calls him not only Jesus, but
also Christ. Thus, he says, (contra Faustum L. ii. c. 4. p. 134.) Hujus Primi :

Hominis filium credi vultis Uominiim Jesum Christum. Very faulty! The
Manichffians had two Jesuses, an impassive and a passive, a Savior of souls and
a Savior of bodies. The former, the Savior of souls, or the impassive Jesus,
was the son (jf and was himself all light. The latter,
eternal light or of God,
the passive Jesus, who imparts health and strength to bodies, was the son of
the First Man. The former was distinguished by the surname Christ; [p. 797.]
which tne Manicheeans never applied to the latter. Hence, whenever Avgus-
 SI Century III.— Section 44.

txne speaks of Christ as

combined with fruits, herbs, products of the enrfh, and
and as being eiten by men, (and ho speaks thus very often,) he blunders,
stars,

through ignorance of the Manicheean doctrines. Thus he says, (1. c. p. 134.):

Deliramenta vestra vos cogunt, non solum in eoelo atque in omnibus steliis,
sed etiara in terra atque in omnibus, quae naseuntur in ea, confixum et eolliga-
tum atque concretum Christum dicere, non jam Salvatorem vestnim, sed a vo-
bis salvandum. Instead of Christ he should have said Jesi/s.— Whether the
First Man begat this son, before he marched against the army of darkness, or
in the heat of the contest, I do not find any where stated. But we may con-
jecture, that being reduced to straits by the enemy, he collected his energies,
and produced from himself this potent Being, in order to have an associate in
the fight. The reason for the name, is stated
by Fauslus the Manichjean, (apud
August. L. XX. c. 2. p. 237.) where he say.s, that this Jesus is the life and health
of men. It was the practice of the Manichseans, as we have before shown, to
give names to the celestial Beings whom they mention, derived from tlie charac-
ter and attributes of those Beings. As therefore, tiiis son of the First !Man
afforded health (sulutem). — not indeed to souls, —but to bodies, which h©
nourished, strengthened and sustained, he was called Jesus; a name derived,
as is known, from the Syriac Jeshua, servavit. For Manes wrote in Syriac;
well
and therefore he gave to this son of the First Man a Syriac or Hebrew name,
indicative of his nature. —
If now it be asked. What sort of a Being was thi*
Jesus ? I answer, without hesitation, He was a very large mass of celestial
matter, in which resided vital power, or a living soul, and likewise ability to
communicate of that living soul to others. When God saw the Prince of dark-
ness invading his realm, he produced from himself a kind of sixth element, dif-

ferent from the other fivenamely, the Mother of Life, that is, a Being endowed
;

with the power of conferring life on things around her. And she produced the
First Man. And he, having received from his mother that vital power, or if you
choose, a sentient soul, poured it out in the conflict with the king of darkness,
either by the command of God, or from his own choice. The Maichteans need-
ed a sixth element of this character, in order to account for the production of
fruits and useful plants and herbs; for these could not eas-ily be deduced from
the nature and powers of the five other elements. Moreover, this Jesus, the
son of the First Man, is in the earth ; from which he is drawn forth, l)y the

Holy Spirit resident in the highest ether, and is diff'used throughout the natural
world. Hence Faustus, before quoted, (apud August. L. xx. c. 2. p. 237.) snys:
Terrain ex Spiritus sancti profusione concipere, atque Patibilem Jesum gignere,
omni suspensum ex ligno. It is very clear, that he means the fruits of trees;

and these he calls Jesus, because they contain a portion of the sentient soul
[p. 798.1 generated by the First Man. For the Manichfeans fully believed, that all

fruits, pulse, plants, and whatever grows out of the earth, contained Jesus, or
sensitive life. Thus Augustine, (de Hseres. c. 42. p. 12) says: Herbas eliam
atque arbores sic putant vivere, ut vitam, quae illis inest, et sentire credant et
dolere, cum laeduntur : nee aliqnid inde sine cruciatu eorum quemquam posse
vellere aul carpere. These remarks, which might be confirmed by many other
citations, make the Passive Jesus, if I mistake not, perfectly intelligible. An.
 War of the Gods. 313

gusline often debated with Manichseans on tliis subject, sometimes \eiy cor-

rectly, but frequently not without some mistakes; for instance, when he repre-
sents, or falsely supposes, that this living soul, whicli the
Manichaeans honored
with the name was the same wit!) Jesus our Savior.
Jesus, will cite a pas- J

aige, in whii-h he avoids error, (de moribus Manichreornni, L. ii. c. 15, 16.0pp.
toni. i. p. 554.) Quoniam, iiiquit (Manes), niembrum Dei (i. e. Jesus, the son
:

of the First Man) malorum substantiae conmixtum est, ut eam refrenaret atque
a summo furore comprimeret (sic enim dicitis), de commixta utraque natura, id
est, boni et mali, mundus est fabricatus. Pars autera ilia divina ex omni parte
mundiqnotidie purgatur et in sua regna resumitur: sed luce per lerrmn exhalans
et ad coeliim tendens incurrit m stirpes, quoniam radicibus terra) affiguntur, atque
ita omncs herbas et arbusta omnia fecundat et vcL'etat. - - Primo qutero, unde
doceatis in fruuientis ac leguniine et oieribus et floribus et pomis inesse istam,
nescio quam, partem Dei. Ex ipso coloris nitore, inquiunt, et odoris jucundi-
tate et saporis suavitate manifcstum est. For much more of the like import, I
refer the reader to Augustine''s works. — A large part of the mystery of the Pas-
sive Jesus, is now explained : and it remains, that we substantiate what we have
said, that this Jesus was swallowed by the Prince of darkness, in the conflict
with I he First Man. And this we are able to do, from the declaration of Ma-
nes himself. Altiiough this Jesus ascends from the earth in vegetables and
trees and plants, yet he does not reside in the earth, but in the huge and mon-
strous bodies of the Prince of darkness and his compeers; and from their bodies
he is expressed, by a wonderful artifice of God, descends into the earth, and is

thence elicited by the influences of the Holy Spirit, and is distributed through
the natural world. The artifice of God, by which the Demons are forced to
eject the living soul descended from the First Man, will be explained elsewhere.
We now merely show, from the declarations of Manes, that it does flow out
from the body of the Demon upon the earth. The passage I quote, is in the
seventh book of Manes' Thesaurus, (apud August, de natura boni, c. 44. p. 366.)
Beatus Pater - - pro insita silji dementia fert opem, qua exuitur et liberatur

ab impiis retinaculis et angustiis atqne angoribus sua vitalis substantia. - - Hoc

enim viso decoro, (of this, hereafter,) illorum (Dcumonum)ardoretconcu-[p.799.]
piscentiacrescit. atque hoc modo vinculum pessiniarumcogitationum earum solvi-
tur, viiaque anima (not the rational fOu\,) ijua: eorundem memhris tenebatur, hac

occasione laxata evadit. . - Id vero quod adhuc adver>i generis maculas portat,

per aestus atijue calores particulatim descendit, atque arboribus, ceterisque plan-
- - Atque ex isto aspectu decoro vitae pars,
laiionibus ac satis n7nnibus misretur.
quae earundum membris habetur, laxata deducitur per calores in terram, &c.
in

as hereafter will be cited. —

Now, as it is manifest from this passage, that the
living sensitive soul in plants, fruits and trees, descends into our earth from the
bodies of the Demons, and as this soul is by the Manichaeans called the Pas-
sive Jesus, and the son of the First .Man ; it is certain, that the Demon and his
must have devoured and swallowed this intire Jesus. B.ut I proceed:
assoc-iates —
Thirdly : In that conflict, the First Man was reduced to the greatest extremi-
ties. For the King of darkness almost had him in his power and, as the thing ;

itself shows, he wished to return with all his plunder, to his own country, the
314 Centuri/ III. — Section 44.

realm of darkness. And if he could have done so, that exquisite poitio.i of the
divine nature and of the Demon hud made his own,
celestial elements, wiiicli the

would have been for ever miserable and unhappy. Fur God neither has any power
over the world of darkness, which is equally ecernal and abiding with the world
of light ; nor can he overtln-ow and destroy it. Ttjrbn s.iys, (in the Acta ,47--

chelaU ^ 7. p. 10 ) : Tunc ibi vehementer afflictus est deorsum Primus Homo a

tenebi;is, et nisi orantem eum e.\audi-set Pater, et misi^set alterim virtutem,

quae processerat ex se, quae dicitur iSpiriius Viceiia (f<^i/ 7rvivf/.j), et de^cendens
porrexissetei dexteram, et ednxisset eum de tenebris (he was tlierefure already

a prisoner of the King of darkness,) olim Primus Humo deteutus periciitnretur.

(That is, lie would have been carried away, by the l^ord of evil, into the world of

darkness.)
When, therefore, victory was almost in the hands of the Prince of darkness,
on the General's imploring succor, God sent a more powerful commander from
Demon's retreat with
the world of light, to renew the conflict, and to cut off the
his plunder. The Manichaans new commander was procrented
tell us, tliat this

by God himself; whereas the former General had a mother, who was indeed of
divine origin, but inferior to God. Tiie name of the new General was, the
Livin<^ Spirit. He was called Spirit, because he had not a human form, but
was a lucid mass, like the Father. This we prove from the language ot' Manes,
in his Epistola Fundamenti, (apud August, de natura boni, c. 46. p. 366.) where
he represents the Demon as thus addre-sing his fellow-warriors, respecting this
second General from the world of light: Quid vobis videtur maximum hoc
[p. 800.] Lumen quod oritur? Intnemiiii. quemadniodum poluin movet, concutit
plurimas potestatcs. He was called Living Spirit, because he lives in and of
himself, being the immediate offspring of God. and did not, like the First Man,
derive his existence from a Being inferior to God. This second General did not
proceed alone, but had three Virtues of immense power for his associates. Thus
Ti/rbo. (I. c. p. 11.) : —
Tunc Vivens Spiritus indutus alias tres virtutcs, descen-
dens eduxit (i. e. seized) Principes (tenebrarum), et crucifixit eos in firmamento.
He therefore did not assail the foe, as his predecessor did, with artifice and
stratagem, but with open combat; and he bound the vanquished, so that they
could not retreat, and return with their rich plunder to their country. Yet, in
this second campaign, although it was successful, there was an occurrence not
anticij)ated, and adverse to the designs of God. The General of light had seized

many of the animals, both male and female, which lived in the elements of dark-
ness; andsome of the females, being with young, were unable to bear the rapid
motions of the heavens, and cast their young prematurely. These abortions
afterwards fell from heaven upon this earth, and propagated themselves in our
world, contrary to the pleasure of God. Hence arose our animals, especially
the wild, noxious, and venimous, which cause so much trouble and danger to
men. A fable of this sort was necessary for the Manichajans, to enable them
to answer the inquiry, Whence originated the pernicious and hurtful animals,
the serpents, insects, lions, tiirers, «fec. with which onr woi'ld abounds. The
fable is puerile; yet it harmonizes with the fundamental principles of the sys-
tem. Says Augustine, (contra Faustum, L. vi. c. 8. p. 149.): Dicunt, in ilia
 War of (he Gods. 315

pugna, quando Primus eornm Homo tenebrnriim geiifem elemcntis falli.fibns

irreiivit, utriusque scxus Principibus indidem cnptis - - in qiiibus erant etiam
foeiiiiine ah'quse praegnantes: quse cum coelum rotari coepisset, paiideiii vertioinem

t'erre noii valeiites, concept us ^uos abortu excu^sisso, eosdemque abortivos foe-

tus et masculos et foeiiiinas de coelo in terram cecidisse, vixiss:e, cievisse, coiicu-

buisse, genuisse. Hinc esse dicunt ongiuem carnium omniuin, quae moveiitur
ill terra, in aere. Eitlier ihis passage b:is been corrupted, which is very
aqua, in

probable, or Augustine erred in stating tiie opinion of tiiu iManicha>aiis respect-

ing the origin of our animals. For he speaks as if these animals were tlie off-
spring of llie Princes of darkness, or rather of their wives; whirb was not true.
For the chiefs of darkness begat beings like themselves, or h;iving tiie i)uman
form. And in like manner, the animals of the wcnld of darkness propigated
their own genera and species. Besides, there is another passage of Augustine,
(con'ra Fau^t. L. xxi. c. 12. p. 254.) in which he expres.sly tells us, our animals
originated from the animals captured in tliut war: Itane in ilia iienlc non erit
saniuis corpiuum, in qua et nasci — et ita perdurare potuerunt ilia animalia, ut,

quibusdam eorum gravidis, sjciit. desipiunt, captis, et in coelo colligalis, nee sal-
tim pleni temporis, sed abortivi foe; us de tam excelso in terrain caden- [p. 801.]
tes et vivere potuerint et crescere, et is!a carnium, quaj nunc sunt innu Mera!)ilia,

genera propagare? There is also another fuilt in that passage of Augnstiite:

for he attributes the victory over the leaders of darkness, to the First Man:
but that honor did not belong to him, as we have shown, but to the Living
Spirit, the First Man having been vanquished.
It was necessary for Manes to suppose sucii an unfortunate battle of the

first General of tlie world of whence it arose, that

light. For he had to show,
60 many became commingled
divine es.«ences and panicles of celestial matter
with the corrupt elements ami malignant bodies, and exposed in them to so
great evils, sorrows, and suflering-, during so many ages. The blame could
not be charged on God ; for he, according to Manicluean views, is the kindest of
Beings, and cannot hurt any one. They would have contradicted themselves, if
they had said that was God's will, that the souls descended from him should
it

suffer numberless evils and sorrows during a very long period. They indeed
taught, as we may learn from Fortunatus in his discussion with Augustine, that
souls become intangled in matter, iwt necessarily, hut by the volition nj God: and
this, in a certain sense, they cmild justly say, as appears from the account we
have given of the warfare of the First Man. The adversaries of the JManicIiae-
ans, including Augustine, (p. 78.) assailed this their ductrine, with the following
interrogatory : Quid opus erat lanta malaanimam pati per tantum tempus, donee
niundus finiatur? (See Titus Bostrens. contra M.inichieos, L I. p. 91. 92. &.c.)
To this question, Fortunatus, who was not master of the religion he professed,
ack u)w ledges, that he could give no answer: Quid ergo dicturus
I sum? But
Manes had foi-eseen the question; and he furni>lH'd a sort of answer to it. The
answer is: That it is not God's fault that souls are so long detained in matter,
for he cannot possibly will evil to any being; but it was the fan!., of hi^ Gene-
ral, the Firs/ Man, who, not being sufficiently on his guard, the celestial matter

and the divine essence became completely intermixed with depraved matter in
316 Century III.— Section 45.

the buttle, and therefore cannot now be separated from it, except bv a \ong pro-
cess. Ill tliis way, iuileed, the difficulty which stumbled ForLimaius is solved,
and God is made innocent of the many evils which good souls feel and perform
in their long exile: but another blot, namely that of ignorance, is fastened upon
him. For he is made to be ignorant of future events, or not to hnve foreseen,
that the First Man would commit errors, and be overcome in the conflict with
the Prince of darkness. Tin-!, however, tiie Manichaeans readily conceded ; for
they denied to God other perfections besides that of foreknowledge. We may
here remark, —
what also suggests itself on other occasions, that Manes, although
he may lack sagacity and wisdom, never lacks ingenuity. For he clearly per-
ceived, that God would be judged imbecile and weak, if he taught that the evil
Principle, contrary to the will and the efforts of God, got possession of souls
[p. 802.] and the celestial matter; and unkind and cruel, if he taught, that it was
according to the divine pleasure, that innocent souls for so many ages were in
affliction and in conflict with depraved matter; and therefore, to escape these
difficulties, he made him ignorant of the future. - - In this part of my dis-
cussion, several new views are advanced ; but they are all based on reliable
authorities. It is therefore unnecessary to weary the reader, by stating how
far, and why, I deviate from other writers on Manicha;ism, and especially from
Beausobre.

§ XLV. Orijiin, composition and character of Man. In the

commencement of the new campaigne, the Prince of darkness,
being terrified with the splendor of the Living Spirit, and fore-
seeing that the particles of divine light, or the rational souls de-
voured by him and his companions, would be wrested from them,
formed a cunning device for avoiding, in a measure, so great a
loss. For he persuaded his chiefs to transfer into their wives by
coition those portions of light which were in them and the chil- :

dren thus produced, he himself devoured, and of course with

them all the souls and they being thus incorporated with iiis
:

blood and fluids, he embraced his wife, and so begat the first man
Adam^ in part resembling the celestial First Man whom he had
seen, and in part like himself.^) When all the souls which the
Princes of darkness had captured, were in this manner inclosed
in the body o^ Adam only, and thus placed beyond the power of
the Living Spirit, the King of darkness gave to Adam a wife,
namely Eve ; and Adam, being allured by her beauty, copulated
with her contrary to the will of God: and thus the miserable
race of mortals peopling our globe, began to exist and to be pro-
pagated. (°) These unhappy children of Adam consist of a body
and Livo souls. Their body is comijosed of dqjraved mulltr, and
 Formation of Man. 31 /

belongs -wholly to the King of dai-kness, the father of Adam;

and consequently, when a man dies it returns to its original
source. Of their two souls, the one is animal, sentient, and con-
cupiscent, and was derived from the same Prince of evil but the ;

other, which possesses reason, and is alone immortal, is a particle

of that divine lijht which was captured by the race of darkness

in the contest with the First Man, and was afterwards by their
Prince infused wholly into the body of Adam, and thence distri-
buted among all his offspring, male and female. It hence appears,
whence arose that mixture of good and evil in indivi- [p. 803.]
dual men, and the perpetual conflict betAveen reason and con-
cupiscence.(^)

(1) That the first human beings were formed by the Prhice of evil, and con-
sequently, that the whole race of men are his des^cendants and also that mar-;

riages, by which the race is propagated, were iiis device all the ancient writers ;

declare, and on this subject there can be no doubt among such as keep in sight
the origin of the IMnnicli.Tan system. But as to the manner in which the first

human beings were formed, there is some disagreement among those on wliose
testimony we must here rely. It is fortunate, however, that a long e.xtract from
the Epistola Fundanienti of Manes, wliich treated of tliis very subject, has been
preserved by Avgustine, and gives a clear and perspicuous account of Adam's
origin. This, therefore, is to be especially consulted, and to be exclusively fol-

lowed ; while the divergent and contrary statements of later authors, Theodoret
for instance, and others, must be wholly rejected, as proceeding from impure
sources. Beattsobre, who is Manes was
particularly solicitous to make out that
not a fool but a philosopher, exerts powers of his superior genius, (vol.
all the
II. p. 401 &.C.) to turn the fable of Manes, which we are considering, into an al-

legory the import of which shall be, that the Prince of darkness did not beget
;

the first man and woman, but formed them out of matter, which, as he thinks,
was called the Demon's wife. But Manes does not afford him the slightest
countenance; nor let drop one word on which a conjecture can be fastened, that
he purposed to enlighten the friend he was addressing by any sort of fiction.

On the contrary, the Exordium of the by Augustine, Epistola

Epistle, (preserved
Fundamenti, p. 114.) clearly shows, that Manes uttered himself seriously, and
according to his real belief, aiming to give Paticius whom he addressed a naked
and simple statement of facts. lie says : Haec sunt salubria verba ex perenni
et vivo fonte, quae qui audierit, et eisdem primum crediderit, deinde quae insinu-
ant custodierit, nunquam erit morti obnoxius, verum »eterna et gloriosa vita
fruetur. Nam profecto beatus est judicandus, qui hac divina instructus cogni-
tione fnerit, per quara liberatus in sempiterna vita permanebit. Can we believe
a man would write so, if he aimed to lead his friend into error by some allego-
ry, or to elude his curiosity by an obscure fable? But Blanes goes on to say:
De eo igitur, frater dilectiasime, Patic.i, de quo mihi significasti, dicens, nosse te
318 Century TIL— Section 45.

cLiperp, utriiin verbo (by command of God) iidem sunt prolati, an primogeniti
f X corpore, (i. e. begotten of the Demon's body,) respondebitur tibi ut congiuiU
Namque de his a plerisque in variis scripturis, relationibusque dissimili modo
insertum atque commemoratum est. (Various opinions therefore, relating to
[p. 804.] the origin of the first men, were afloat in the East in various books.

Quapropter Veritas istiusrei ut sese habet ab universis fere gentibus ignoratur,

et ab omnibus, qui etiam de hoc diu multunique disputarunt. (He therefore
proposes to give a new opinion, not before heard of) Si enim illis super Adae
et Evae generatione provenisset manifesto cognoscere, nunquam corruption! et
morti subjacerent. The salvation of men and eternal life, therefore, depend on
a correct knowledge of the origin of Adam and Eve ! And would Manes in-

volve a doctrine of such moment in a ludicrous and silly fable ? But there are
other proofs, which intirely overthrow the officious opinion of Beau&ohre
among which the strongest is, that according to Manes, no living and animated
being can be produced, either in the world of light or in the world of darkness,
except by generation. Yet the ingenious man has one argument in his favor.
He observes, that no one exceptManes only, has said that Adam and Eve were
the fruits of the Demon's intercourse with his wife. This, however, is not per-
fectly true; nor if it were true, would it effect anything. For Manes alone,
when his opinions are concerned, is of higher and greater authority than all

others. Besides, the others do not speak so fully and distinctly on this subject
as Manes does, they aiming to express summarily what he had expressed more
fully and minutely, so that they, as we shall see, treat the subject more concise-
ly and indistinctly. Let us therefore hear Manes himself; and let us not hesi-
tate to take his statements in their literal sense. I will cite the entire passage
from Augustine, (de natura boni c. 46. p. 366. 367.) It will give us a vivid idea
of the man's singular genius. He recites what the Prince of darkness said to
his compeers, thus Iniquis igitur commentis ad eos, qui aderant, ait Quid vo-
: :

maximum hoc lumen, quod

bis videtur oritur.^ (He refers to the Living S])irit,

who came down from heaven to renew the contest.) Intuemini, quemadmodura
polum movet, concutit plurimas potcstates. Quapropter mihi vos potius aequum
est, id quod in vestris viribus habetis luininis, (namely, the light, which the se-

veral leaders of the army of darkness had devoured in the first conflict.) prajro-
gare; Sic quippe illius magni, qui gioriosus (i. a. lucid,) apparuit, imaginem
fingam: (TheGrea/ One here, whose image the King of the land of darkness
would copy, is not the Living Spirit ; for he was merely a splendid mass, with-
out any form it was therefore the First Man, after whose likeness Adam was
:

formed, according to Manes:) per quam regnare poterimus, l«nebrarum alicju.ui-

do conversatione liberati. Hfec audientes (duces et proceres terrae tenebiarum,)
ac diu secum deliberantes, justissimum putaverunt, id. quod postulabantnr, prje-
bere. Nee enim fidebant, se idem lumen jugiter retenturos: unde melius rati
sunt Principi suo id offerre, nequaquam desperantes, eodem se pacto regnaturos.
Quo igitur modo lumen illud,quod habebant, praebuerint, considerandum est.
[p. 805.] Nam hoc etiam divinis scripturis, arcanisqne coelestibus adspersum
^st? (That is, the sacred books touch indeed upon this subject, but it is only
briefly and summarily,) sapientibus vero, (to men divinely faught, as Manes him-
 Formation of Afan, 319

self pretended to be,) ^uomodo sit datum scire, minime est difficile : nam coram
aperteque cognoscitiir ab eo, qui vere ac fideliter intueri voiuerit. Quoniam
eorum, qui convenerant, frequentia promiscua erat, foeminaium sciiicit ac mas-
culoruin, impulit eos, ul inter se coirent: in quo coitu alii seminaruiit, aliee gra-
vidtc eflectse sunt. Erant autnm partus iis, qui genuerunt similes, vires plurinias
parentum, uti Primi (sa. Hominis,) ohliuantes. Hae sumens eorum Princeps
uti prajcipuum donum gavisus est. Et sicuti etiam nunc fieri videmus, corpo-
rum formatricem natiiram mali iiide vires sumentem figurare: ita eti:im ante
dictiis Princeps sodalium prolem accipicns, habentem parentum sensus, prnden-
ti.im, lucem, (i. e. a rational soul, which is a particle of light,) simul secum in

generatione procreatnm, comedit : ac plerisque viribus sumptis ex istiusmodi

esca, inqua non modo inerat fortiludo, sed multo inagis aslutiae et pravi, sensus
e.\ genitorum gente, propriam ad se conjugem evocavit, ex ea, qua ipse erat
fera
Btirpe manantem et facto cum ea coitu, seminavit, ut ceteri, abundiintiam ma-
:

lorum, quai dcvoraverat: nonniliil etiam ipse adjicicns ex sua cogitatione et vir-
tute, ut esset sensus ejus omnium eorum, qua; profiiderat formalor, atque des-
criptor: ejus compar excipiebat Iikc, ut semen consuevit culta optime terra
pei'cipere. In eadcin enim construebantur et contcxebantur omnium imagines,
coek'stium ac terrenarum virtutum, ut pleni videlicet orbis, id quod formabatur
eimilitudinem obtineret. Most of the things here narrated are plain and very
unUke an allegory. Augustine states the whole matter more briefly, (de Haeres.
c. 42. p. 13.) tiius : Adam et Evam ex Prinipibus fumi asserunt natos, cum PiU
ter eorum nomine Saclas sociorum suorum omnium devorasset, et quid-
fetus
quid inde commixtum diviiue subtaiitire ceperat,cum uxore concumbens, in
carne jirolis tanquam tenacissimo vinculo coUigasset. —
The name of Saclas here
given by Augusline to the Prince of evil, as it is also by Tlieodoret, (Hrcret. F:u

bul.L. i. c. 26. p. 213.) and by others, — was a common appellation both among
the Manicha>ans and the Gnostics, as Epiphanius informs us, (Haeres. xxvi. }

10. tom. i. p. 91.) and hence it is manifest, tiiat this was the usual nnme for the

Demon among the Orientals. His wile's name, as preserved by TheoJoret, was
Nebrod. Of the origin of these names, I otl'er no discussion. For what cer-
tainty or utility can such discussions promise us? It will be more profitable
to elucidate certain parts of Manes' statements and confirm them by other tes-
timonies, so that we may more clearly see what Manes dreamed, or, if }ou
choose, adopted from the Magian sy.stem, respecting the origin of mankind.
In \[\Q first place, the time of the formation of the first men by tiie Prince of
evil, must be noticed. In the beginning of the passage just quoted, [p. 806.]
Manes clearly shows, that Saclas formed the purpose of producing man, when
he beheld tlie new Luminary from heaven appearing, and causing his princes to
tremble that is, when he saw tlie Living Spirit coming to succeed the First
;

Man, and to renew the war. He did not greatly fear the First Man, who was
of his own form, and operated more by craftiness and deception, than by
prowess: but on seeing this new General, he lost all confidence in his own
power and that of his associates; and, from the first movements of the new cap-
tain, he could foresee, that he and his companions would have to give up the

light which they had captured. To prevent the loss of this plunder, he deemed
320 Cenfunj III. — Section 45.

it necessary to collect it together, and to place it in safety and this, he thought, ;

couid not be better acconi[)lished, than by vvitlidrawing it all from the wnrriora,
and, after getting it into his own body, to commingle it perfectly with m.-itter. It
may therefore be assumed as certain, that tlie first human beings wei'e formed,
at the very commencement of the second war, and before the Living Spirit had
obtained the victory; and consequently, they, or at least one of them, Adam,
existed before the world was framed and this world was certainly formed by
:

the Living Spirit, after the subjugation of the Prince of darkness. This is a
new thought. For all the writers on the subject, whom I have consulted, say,
that according to Manes, this earth of ours is older than man; and that man was
generated for the sake of the earth. And for the support of their opinion, they

have the respectable testimony of Tyrho, (in the Acta Disput. Archelai, 7. p. 12.) ,j

besides others, who might be mentioned. But they most certainly err, if reli-
ance can be placed on Manes. Man was prior to our world and the previous ;

generation of man was, undoubtedly, the cause of the formation of our world
and God would not have given orders for its formation, had not the crafty foe,
by generating man, frustrated the divine plans, by shutting up the souls which
God wished to rescue, in a body as their prison. In confirmation of these focts,
several passages might be adduced from Titus of Bostra; but I will content my-
self with citing only one, from a Manichjean who wrote a book ^rtp't tms dv<)-pa>'

Trivn; TTfaiTorK-jifiAi, de prima hominis formatione; inserted by Titus in the Pre-

face to his third Book, (torn. I. p. 137. edit. Canisii,): '"Ex-tiinos durwv rwv riif

iura S'u^tfJi.iv, cfxipzaxriv 'hvtov in ^ift-fxa. tyu -^^X^^ ""' /"'WfiW* eTA.«3-8j iir'i tmc

J/itc, To S'ura.iro~\.aT'T!iii hayn-xatv rus ^{.y^05 KaraKxXouuevai. Kai TrKaffxn duTuiw

h^ri TTfoirov i 'hiUf/., n. r. K. Unusquisque procerum materiee, simulatque mo-
tus factus erat, isque apparebat, qui liberare jussus erat animas, simulatque
janua (coelorum) aperiebatur, prae terrore invitus virtutem, quje in eo erat, di-

mittebat et formavit se ipsura ad venandam animam. Et imitationem sui finxit

(This, doubtless, must not be understood of all the princes of darkness, but
only of their King; whom all Manichoeans, as well as the founder of the sect,
[p. 807.] represented as the father of the first human beings.) in terra, (Beware
of hence inferring, that our earth tiien existed ; for this writer had previously
denied it clearly,) cocgitque animas delinitas, ut in earn ingrederentur. Ac pri-
mum quidem eorum specimen Adamus est. What Manes himself had stated
clearly, and at full length, his disciple here states more briefly and indistinctly.

Yet, in the main points, he agrees fully with his master. For he manifestly
teaches: —
1st, That great terror seized the princes of darkness, when they saw

the gates of heaven open, and the Living Spirit issuing forth with a mighty
movement. The cause of their trouble was, the fear that the liglit they had
plundered, would be wrested from them, and that they should fall hack into
their former wretchedness and misery. For thus the writer had before stated*
Quia cognoverunt magistratus materise, quod si omnino pars luminis, quod in
eos incidit, auferretur, mors (by mors, he means some dire calamity; for the
princes of darkness could not die,) eis adventura esset, machinati sunt descen-
 '

Formation of Man. 32

TOIR anitnie in corpora. —2dly, Ho. teaches, that God purposed rescue the to -.niv

tured light or souls, by me;ms of the Living Spirii. — 3dly, Thai prhices of tlie

darkness, to frustrate the designs of God, determined on the formation of a man,

or a material body, and inclosing the captured souls in it. — 4thl\-, That (or this

purpose, they gave up all the particles of light which they had seized, relue-
tantl}', indeed, yet prefering this as the least of tsvo evils. —othly. And hence it

was, that Adam was formed, and all tiie souls thrust into him. Therefore, what
we have stated cannot be denied; namely, that at the commencement of the new
campaign, and as soon as the Living Spii'ii made his appearance, the Prince of

evil determined to generate man ; so that truly, man was born, before that most
powerful Spirit founded this terraqueous globe.
The second thing demanding attention in the passage cited from Alanes, is,

the objects proposed by the Prince of darkness in the formation of man. The
or immediate object, had reference to the light.
first For the Lord of evil
wished to retain dominion over that light which he and his associates had seized,
and to prevent its recovery by the Living Spirit. The other, or more remote
object, is not so manifest. Manes thus describes it; Fingam imaginem, per
quam regnare poterimus, conversatione tenebrarura liberati. He therefore pro-
mised himself and friends a kingdom, as the result of the formation of man and :

his captains and co-warriors relied upon this promise. A little reflection will
make this expectation intelligible. The King of darkness anticipated, that
Adam, when he should generate him, would propagate his species by moans of
Eve and thus all the souls collected together in him, would gradually become
;

distributed into as many bodies. And he had no doubt, that these souls, when
intangled in bodies, would follow their senses and their pleasures, rather than
their reason: and ali who yield to lust and to the instincts of depraved matter,
arc under the power and dominion of the Prince of evil. In this ex- [p. 808.]
pectation, the Lord of evil was not disappointed. He therefore actually pre-
pared for himself a kingdom, when he generated the first man.
The ihird thing requiring illustration in the passage from Manes, is as fol-
lows The King of darkness
: imaginem Magni illius, qui gloriosus
says, that he
appantil, Jicturum esse ; that is, that he would form a man, like to the First
Man. So Manes and all his sect believed, that Adam was a copy of that First
Man whom God sent against the army of darkness. Tyrho, (in the Acta Archelai,
\ 7. p. 12.) says Convocavit (Princeps malorum) omnes principes primarios, et
:

Humpsit ab eis singulas virtutes, et fecit hominem hunc secundum speciem

Primi Hominis illius, et junxit animam (i. e. all the souls) in eo. It is well
known, and yet is worth repeating, that Adam also bore the image of his father,
the Prince of darkness. Thus Tyrho, (1. c. p. 19.) : De Adam vero quomodo
creatus sit, ita dicit (Manes), quia qui dicit : Venile, faciamus hominem ad imagi-
nem et simililudinem nostram, secundum earn, quam videmus, formam Princeps
est, qui hoc dicit ad collegas suos principes, id est, venite, date mihi de lumine,
quod accepimus, et faciamus secundum nostram, qui principes samws,, formam et
secundum cam, quam videmus, quod est Primus Homo, et ita hominem creave-
runt. Adam therefore, in one sense, resembled the First Man, but in another
sense he resembled his fother, the King of evil. As to his external for7n, he
VOL. u. 22
322 Cintnry III.— Section 45.

was like Iiis fatl/er; for we have before showed, that the Lord of darknesa was
a giant in a human form. we must not seek for the
In his figure, therefore,
resembhince of Adam That he was equal to his fither in
to the First Man.
stature and magnitude, and much taller and larger than his posterity, cannot
be doubted. The likeness of Adam to the First Man, I therefore suppose, was
placed by Manes in his attributes of light and power. For, as his father had
imparted to him all the souls, those particles of light, he could not fail of being
resplendent, and possessed of great power and strength just as the First Man ;

was. Most of the Orientals, and many of the Jews likewise, were persuaded
that Adam was a giant, and was clothed with a wavj luminous body. This
Oiiental opinion, iV/a?2es doubtless embraced, and incorporated in his religion,
Lasihj, passing over things so plain as not to need a comment, there remains
to be noticed, the opinion expressed by Manes in the passage, concerning the

origin and nature of the soul. The Prince of darkness committed the whole
mass of souls under his control, to the vast and gigantic body of his single son
Adam. And therefore, whatever exists anywhere on our globe, having the na-
ture of soul, proceeded wholly from Adam by natural generation, and has thus
reached liis posterity. Notwithstanding souls had existed in the world of light
long before bodies were formed, yet souls were not thrust into bodies by God
on account of their sins, as Plato thought nor did they, as others supposed,;

[p. 809.] voluntarily enter into bodies, from a love of voluptuous indulgence
but involuntarily, and contrary to the pleasure of God, they were intangled in
the bonds of material bodies, by the Lord of darkness and they are propagated ;

from parents to their children, by a law of nature, in the same manner as bodies
are. This I could confirm abundantly, from Augustine and others, if it were
necessary. But I only refer to the testimony of Manes himself, which is here-
after to be cited. —His opinion respecting souls, obliged our Persian to profess
what is called the Metempsychosis, or the migration of souls through different
bodies. For he supposed, only a limited and definite number of souls were
thrust into material bodies ; and they who think so, must suppose that when
souls go out of their bodies, they pass into new ones.
Respecting the generation of Eve, nothing has reached us in the writings of
Manes. But Tyrho, (in the Acta Archelai, ^ 10. p. 20.) repeats as his, the following
words Evam quoque similiter fecerunt, dantes ei de concupiscientia sua ad decipi-
;

endum Adam. From this declaration it is manifest, that Eve was of a worse
character, and had more depraved matter in her composition, than her husband.

For Adam, into whom his father had infused the greatest part of the light,
in
there was, as we shall soon show, more of light and goodness than of darkness
and evil matter but in Eve there was a less quantity of light, and a far greater
:

quantity of darkness or propension to pleasures. This Tyrbo indicates, by the

words : Dantes ei de concupiscentia sua. And such a character was necessary
to her ; as it was by her, that the cause and author of all evil, wished his son
to be induced to apostatize from right reason. Theodoret tells us, (Haeret.
Fabul. L. i. c. 26. p. 213.) that Eve had no rational soul, when she was born ;

but that a certain male virgin, named Joel and Daughter of Light, afterwards
imbued her with light or a rational soul. And it may.be, that Manes so taught.
 Formatloyi of Man. 323

For, as the Prince of evil hnd exhausted the whole mass of light in generating
Adam, he could impart nothing to Eve, except a sentient soul. But this part
of from the want of documents to elucidate it, must be left very much
tiie fable,

in the dark. Yet the longer I ponder and consider the fable of Manes, the
more certain I become, that Eve was born long after Adam, and after our world
was estiblished. And I hope those will agree with me, in this point, who may
peruse what I am about to say respecting Manes' views of Adam's sin.

(2) What all Christians believe, on the authority of the inspired writer
Moses, that Adam apostatized from God, and was enticed into sin by the Prince
of hell, — Ma?ies also confessed; yet he explained the matter very differently
from other Clu'istians. What the ancients state, and among them Augusline
who had read Manichtean books, respecting the opinions of Manes in regard to
the sin of the first man, are so various and so discordant, that the most ingeni-
ous cannot reconcile them. Some of them listened too much to rumors, others
confounded certain Gnostic notions with the opinions of Manes, and [p. 810.]
others appear to have misrepresented the truth, from their hatred of the sect.
Therefore laying aside and disregarding the dubious, the uncertain, the ftilse

and the contradictory, I will first bring forward the testimonies which have
most authority and then from these will endeavor, as far as possible, to elicit
;

the true sentiments ofManes and arrange them methodically. Three passages
embrace the whole subject. The first is from Tijrho, (In the Acta Di.sput. Ar-
chelai, \ 10. p. 17.) who tells us, that Manes converted the Mosaic account of
Adam's transgression into an allegory : Paradisus autem, qui vocatur mundus,
et arbores. quae in ipso sunt, concupiscentiae sunt : (An incorrect statement, as
appears from what is said afterwards :) et ceterae seductiones corrumpentes cogi-
tationes hominum. Concupiscencies, then, are not inordinate emotions of the
human mind or will, but real things, which stir up and excite those emotions or
lusts of the man. Tyrbo adds Arborcm scientiae boni et mali esse ipsum Je-
:

sum, quo duce ac magistro homines bonum malo secernere discunt. This ma-
nifestly contradicts what he had before said. For, if the trees of Paradise were
sensible objects, which the man craved and desired, how could the tree of know-
ledge of good and evil be Jesus ? I suppose. Manes likened Jesus to that tree,
and that Tyrbo converted the metaphor into a dogma. The second, a very ne- —
ticeable passage, is from Manes himself, (Epistola ad filiam Menoch, which is
preserved in the unfinished work of Augustine^ contra Julianum Pelagianum,
L. iii. 0pp. torn. x. p. 832.) Operae pretium est advertere, quia prima anima,
:

quae a Deo luminis manavit, accepit fabricam istam corporis, ut earn fraeno suo
regeret. Venit mandatum, peccatum revi.xit, quod videbatur captivum invenit :

articulos suos Diabolus (i. e. an occasion, suited to his purpose,) materiara con-
cupiscentiae in earn seduxit et per iilam occidit. Lex quidem sancta.sed sancta sanc-
tae, et mandatum et bonum, sed justae et bonae. I will here subjoin an
justum et
extract from Atigitstine'sre\)]y to Julian, which aifords light on this subject. Angus-
tine, aiming to convict Julian of coinciding with Manes, by means of this Epistle,

says Manichaeus non hoc de homine, sed de anim^ bona dicit, quam Dei partem
;

—
atque naturam opinatur - - in homine perconcupiscentiamdecipi. Quam concu-
piscentiam non vitiura substantiae bonae, sed malam vult esse substantiam. Mala
324 Century III. — Section 45.

non vaciuim fiiisse dicit Adam, sed ejus minus Tiabuisse, multoque plus lucis. T/ie
third piissage is i\on\ Augustine, (de moribus ecclesiae Calholicae etMmiiehae-
orum, L. ii. c. 19. 0pp. torn. i. p. 552.) Talis apud vos opinio de Adam et Eva:
:

longa fabula est, sed ex ea id attino-am, quod in praesentia satis est. Adam dici-

tis, sic a parentibiis suis genitum, abortivis illis principibus tenebrarura,ut rnaxi-
mam partem lucis haberet in anima et perexignam gentis adversae. Qui cum
sancte viveret propter exsuperantem copiam boni, commotam tamen in eo fuisse
[p.811.] adversam illam partem, ut ad concubitum declinaretur; itaeumlapsura
esse atque peccasse, sed vixisse postea sanctiorem. A Manichaean, whom August-
tnehad previously mentioned for exemplification, when he was severely bastina-
doed for deflowering a virgin, relying upon this doctrine, clamabat, ut sibi ex
auctovitate ManicJiaei parceretur, Adam primum heroem (so all the copies read ;

but I think it what sense could Adam, the son of

should read liominem. For in

the evil Demon, be called a hero by the Manichaeans ?) peccavisse, et post pec-
—
catum fuisse sanctiorem. Whoever will carefully consider the things above
stated in these passages, some of them clearly and others obscurely,<and will
compare with them what has been already proved, and particularly what we
have said respecting Eve, the mother of the human race; unless I greatly mis-
judge, will be able to form no other conception of Manes'' opinion in regard to
the sin of the first man, than as follows: First, When the Prince of evil had
placed in safety those souls or particles of divine light, which the Living Spirit
had been commissioned by God to recover, and they were now all enclosed in
the single body of Adam, the offspring of the Prince of darkness; the first care
of God was, to prevent Adam
from neglecting, and dissipating by carnal copu-
lation, that immense treasure of light which was stored up in him. Secondly,
He therefore placed him in some part of that world, which the Living Spirit
had been instructed to fabricate and commanded him to watch carefully, lest
;

what was of a divine nature in him should be overcome by the assaults of the
body and of the evil soul or concupiscence. The fiict that God gave a law to
Adam, is most clearly stated by Manes ; who says, that the substance of the
law was: Ut Adamus, freno anima divincc, corpus (naturally inclined to lust)
regeret. I therefore wonder that Faustus, a disciple of Manes, (apud AvgusL
L. xxii. c. 4. p. 258.) should censure the Mosaic history of the first human b&.
ings, because, (as he says) : Deus in ea fingatur ignarus futuri, ut prreceptum il-

lud, quod non esset servaturus Adam, ei mandaret. Wlien uttering this he
must have forgotten the written statements of Manes. It is certain, as we have
before put beyond controversy, that the God of the Manichaeans was igiiorant
of the future ; and he did give a law to Adam, which he was not to keep.
Thirdly, Adam could, with a little pains, have kept the law which God gave
him. For although the collection of souls or the mass of light, which his fa-

ther had committed to him, was resident in a malignant body, and also con-
nected with a turbulent and vicious soul ; yet the portion of the divine nature
which he possessed was far greater and more abundant, than the portion of de-
praved matter with which it was surrounded. Nor is this unaccountable for :

the whole mass of light, which the entire race of darkness had seized upon, was
collected and deposited in him : so that he had only oiie evil and vicious soul,
 Formation of Man. 325

but good ones innumerable. Fourthly, Tlierefoi'c, Adam for some time, being
mindful of the divine law, lived a holy and curbed the emotions of desire,
life,

by sound reason. But tliis

Fifthly, eonlinenee portended great danger to the
wishes of the Prince of For if Adam should persevere in it, the [p. 812.]
evil.

whole band of souls latent in him, on the extinction of his body, would soar
aloft to the world of light, and deprive tlie Demon of all hope of founding for
himself a kingdom. The Prince of darkness
Sixthly perceiving thi.s, generated
a most beautiful v.oman, who was to allure Adam to sin, or to enkindle in him
that desire which was kept in subjection by the divine souls. She at first had
only a sentient and vicious soul, because her father had previously divested
himself of all light. But God, wishing to make her better, and to prevent
Adam's sinning, added to her senlient soul a divine and good soul, by means
of a celestial Being named the Daughter (f Light. But this good soul was too
weak, to subdue and hold in subjection that mass of depraved n)atter, of which
Eve was composed. Seventhly, The result therefore was as the Prince of evil
wished. For Eve, in whom desire was more powerful than reason, kindled a flame
in Adam. And, overcome by her blandishments, he yielded to her solicitations,

and Iny with her. And thus the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the fruit of
which ruined man, was Eca: and the sin of Adam was, intercousc with the wifo
provided for him by the Prince of evil.

(3) What Manes thought of man, cannot be unintelligible to those who

have read with moderate care the preceding discussions. And yet this subject
demands some attention, especially in regard to the soul. Manes constituted
man with tuo souls, the one good and the other evil, and a body altogether evil.

And not only was thebody propigated from the parents, but likewise both
souls, though in a dilferent manner. For the body is begotten by a body, and
the soul by or from a soul. Manes will explain this shortly. —To begin with
the body: It is clear, that the body consists wholly of depraved and vicious
matter. For when all the celestial matter, now mixed with the depraved mat-
ter, shall have escaped and evaporated, the impure residuum and malignant
dregs constitute the human body. Augustine is eloquent in explaining this doc-
trine, (de moribus ]\ranicha3orum, L. ii. c. 0pp. tom. i. p. 543.): Carnes jam
15.

de ipsis sordibus dicitis esse concretas. Fugit euim aliquid partis illius divinae,
ut pcrhibctis, dum fruges ct poma carpuntur; fugit, cum afHiguntur vel terendo,
vel molendo, vel coquendo, vel etiam morrtendo atque mandendo. Fugit etiam
in omnibus motibus animalium vel cum gestiunt, vel cum exercentur, vel cum
laborant. - - Fugit etiam in ipsa quiete nostra dum in corpore ilia, quaj appel-
Atque ita tot occasionibus fngiente
latur digestio, interiore calore conficitur.
divina natura,quiddam sordidissimum remanet, unde per concubitum caro for-
metur. - - Quo circa cum anima etiam carnem deseruerit, nimias sordes reli-
quas fieri. Hence all bodies belong, not to God, but to his adversary, the
Prince of darkness; who forms and fabricates them by means of lust, which
comes from him. In his Epistle to Menoch, (in Augustine's unfinished work
against Julian, L. iii. 0pp. tom. x. p. 828.) Manes says: Sicut auctor [p. 813.]
animarum Deus est, ita corporum auctor per concupiscentiam (which passed
from him into the evil soul,) Diabolus est, ut in viscatorio Diaboli per coiicupis-
326 Century III.— Section 45.

centiam mulieris. (Here seems to be something wrong in the language, but the
sense is clear. Manes (I suppose) would say, that women now, as formerly
Eve, is the bird-lime of the Prince of evil, by which he enkindles lust in men,
and entraps them.) Unde Diabolus aucupatur non animas, sed c-orpora sive
per visum, sive per tactum, sive per auditum, sive per odoratum, sive per gus-
tum. (Good souls, being of a celestial nature, and free from all emotions and
desires, cannot possibly be ensnared, or have lustful feelings excited in them.
But bodies, in which evil and concupiscent souls reside, can be insnared or
stimulated to sin, by means of the five bodily senses.) Tolle denique malignse
hujus stirpis radicem, et statim te ipsam spiritalem contemplaris.
That Manes assigned two souls to men, is most certain. See Augustine^s
unfinished work against Julian, (L. iii. p. 82>J.) Duas simul animas in uno homi-:

ne esse delirant, unam malam, alteram bonam, de suis diversis Principiis eman-
antes. And there is extant a Tract of Augustine, (0pp. tom. viii. p. 55 &c.) in-

titled: Libellus de duabus animabus contra Manicha;os. But whoever shall ex-

pect to gain from it a full and accurate knowledge of the Maiiichsean doctrine,
concerning the soul, will find his expectations disappointed in the perusal. For
the author disputes against the doctrine in a general way, and without defining
and explaining it. Indeed, Augustine confesses, though obscurely, in his un-
finished work, (L. iii. p. 828.) that he did not fully and intirely understand the
doctrine of his antagonist concerning the soul. I can believe, that both Manes
and his disciples expressed themselves difierently at ditferent times, on this as

on many other subjects. what can be ascertained in regard to it.

I will state

The evil soul comes from the Prince of evil, and is the seat of all the passions,
lusts, appetites, and desires, by which men are agitated and led astray but the ;

good soul is a daughter of liglit, and of a divine nature, and cannot become ex-
cited, nor crave any of the external objects that meet the senses. This depraved
soul is attached to the body, and is excited and impelled to concupiscence, by
the objects presented to the five senses. This, I think, is clear, from the passage
of Manes before cited, in which he says: Diabolus aucupatur non anunas (i. e.
not the good souls,) sed corpora, (in which the vicious soul resides,) by means
of the five senses. This soul is propagated, with the body, from the parent to
the child. Says Manes, in his Epistle to Menoch, (apud August. Operis imperf.
L. iii. p. 829.) Caro (i. e. the body, in which resides the soul that is evil by
:

nature,) adversatur spiritui, quia filia concupiscentise est, et spiritus oarni, quia
filius animas est. Quare vide, quam stulti sint, qui dicunt, hoc figmentum (the
animated body) a Deo bono esse conditum, quod certi sunt a spiritu concupis-
[p. 814.] centioi gigni. Parents obtain those souls, which they impart to their
children, through the aliments they use. For all matter, and all the five ele-
ments of it, the Manichaeans supposed to be animated or full of souls; and this
they supposed, not only of bad matter, but also of good matter. Therefore,
whenever people nourish their bodies with flesh, wine, and other nutritious sub-
stances, they take therewith into their bodies, the turbulent and vicious soul
latent in those substances. And consequently, it must be, that the children pro-
created from tiieir bodies, receive also that root of all evils. — If now it be asked,
to which of the five elements, of which all things are composed, the evil soul
 Formation of Man. 327

belonged? — (for the Manieha3ans recognized no Beings as simple essences, and

void of matter,) I suppose,it was a portion of smoke, or the bad ether. For the
Prince of darkness lives and dwells in smoke, or in the thick murkcy ether; and
he consists of smoke or malignant ether, just as God does of light. And as evil
souls are descended from him, it is to be supposed, that tliey will possess the
same nature with their parent. Therefore, the depraved soul of the Manichae-
ans,was a portion of smoke or bad ether, which is diffused through all matter,
and from it is transfused into all human bodies.
Its opposite, the good soul, is a particle of celestial light. Of this, there
can be no doubt. But whether it is a portion of that divine nature or light, of
which God himself consists, or whether it belongs to tliat celestial ek'ment,
which the Maniciuxans denominated light, is not equally certain. The ancient
adversaries of the Manichaeans, Tihis, Augustine, and the others, affirm in many
places, that thegood soul of the Manichaeans was a part of God himself. Read
merely the Tract o'l Augustine de duabus animabus, in the beginning of wiiich,
he several times declares the good soul of tlie Manichaeans to be de svbslantid
Dei. But Beausobre takes great pains to prove, that the ancients erred in tiiis
matter, and that the good soul is only a portion of the celestial elements. To
me the point appears doubtful : bec;iuse the doctrine of the Manichaeans rcspeot-
ing the soul is nowhere explained with sufficient clearness. Manes, in a passage
soon to be adduced, calls the soul diiincc slirpis fructum : but this is ambigu-
ous, and may be understood either way. The good soul is propngated but in :

what manner. Manes himself seems not to know ; and, if I mistake not, he is

not self-consistent in regard to the soul. But let us hear him descnnting on
the subject, in his Epistle to his daughter Menoch, (apud August. Operis imperf.
L. iii. p. 828.) where he thus addresses the lady : Gratia tibi, et salus a Deo
nostro, qui est revera verus Deus, tribuatnr, ipseque tuam mentem illustret et

justitiam suam tibimet revelet, quia es divinae stirpis fructus. - - - Per quos et
tu splendida reddita es, agnoscendo qualiter priiis fueris, ex quo genere anima-
rum emanaveris, quod est confusum omnibus corporibus et snporibus [p. 815.]
et speciebus variis cohaM-et. Nam sicut animcc gignuntur animabus, ita figmen-
tum corporis a corporis natura. digeritnr. Quod ergo nascitur do carne, caro
est, et quod de spiritu, spiritus est: spiritum autcm animam intellige, anima de
anima, caro de carne. - - Caro enim advcrsatur spiritui, quia filia concuj)iscentia9
est: et spiritus carni, quia filius animae est. Manes here seems explicitly to
support the opinion of those who make souls originate from souls. And hence
Julian the Pelagian, who wished to prove Augustine to be a Manichaean in his
doctrine of the soul, says : Cognoscis nempe, qnomodo signatissime Manichreus
traducem confirmet animarum, et quo testimonio utatur ad vituperationem car-

nis, illo videlicet, quod in ore vestro versatur, id est, Quod nascitur de carne,
caro est, et quod de spiritu, spiritus est. Augustine here hesitates, and knows
not what reply to make. He first says ; Nescire se banc epistolam Manichaei.
This perhaps was true but it was nothing to the purpose. He then adds,
;

That \^ Manes wrote so, he contradicted himself: Si hoc dixit Manichasus, quid
mirum est, quod se ipse destruxit ? This is no mistake for the opinion, which :

Manes here seems to profess, in regard to the propagation of souls, evidently

33S Ceniimj III.— Section 45.

disagrees with his other opinions respecting the generation of man, tlie world,
and other subjects. Finally, he says lie does not know the opinion of Manes
respecting the soul ; and he is not disposed to inquire into it: Quomodo dicat
Manic'haeus aninias nasci, ad nos quid pertinet 1 But 1 wonder, the acute Ait-
gusLine should not perceive, that the veiy words of Manes before us, contain
enough to overthrow this opinion of the generation of souls by souls. For
Manes says to his daughter, wiioin he is addressing : Animani emanasse de illo

animarum genere, quod est confnsum omnibus corporibus et saporibus et spe-

ciebus variis cohaeret. If Manes said this in reference to \\\n good soul of hia
daughter, then that soul was not born of the soul of her parents ;hut it came
and drink, and thence passed into their daughter.
into their bodies with their food
That Manes had reference to the evil soul, I see no reason at all to believe.
And hence, either the doctrine of Manes concerning the soul, was incoherent
and a compound of contradictions, — which perhaps was the fact; or we must
suppose, that when he said. Souls are the daughters of souls, he only meant,
that good souls descended from that mass of light or souls, which the Prince
all

of darkness had got into his power. Yet no small poition of those souls re-
sides in herbs and trees and animals because the souls of men which are not
;

purgated, migrate at death into various kinds of bodies, from which in process
of time they return into men. And thus Avgusline himself explains the Muni-
ehfean doctrine, in another place, (contra duas Epistolas Pelagianorum, L. iv. c.

[p. 816.] 4. 0pp. torn. X. p. 310.) : Dicunt Manichiei animan bonam, partem scilicet

Dei. pro meritis inquinationis suae per cibuni et potum, in quibus antea coUigata
est, venire in hominem atque ila per concubitum carnis vinculo coUigaii. Let —
us proceed to other points. This good soul, being of celestial origin, and nothing
celestial being able to put off or change its nature, must be holy and just and
good, and it cannot lose its holiness even in the body. It may indeed become
debilitated, or its natural energy and power may be impeded, by the body to
which it is joined, and by the evil soul its associate; but it is absolutely im-
possible for it to become corrupted or vitiated, or to harbor lusts and passions.
Whatever enormities and crimes, therefore, are committed by men, they all per-

tain to the evil soul and the body ; and when they are committed, the good soul
dissents, is unwilling, and reluctating. Says Aitgusline, (Operis imperf L. iii.

p. 829.) : Spiritum concupiscentiae Manichaei substantiam dicunt esse malam,

non vitium substantiae bonae, quo caro concupiscit adversus Spiritum. But let

us hear Manes himself. In his Epistle to Menoch, (1. c. p. 828, 829.) he warmly
contends that the good soul cannot do wrong or sin Cum animo nolenie coeunt
:

et secretis pudoribus gerunt, quo tempore odio habent lucem, uti ne manifes-
tentur opera eorum. Cnjus Non est volentis: ut
rei gratia ait Apostolus:
subaudiatur, hoc opus. bonum geramus, non est carnis quia mani-
Sive enim :

festa sunt opera carnis, quae sunt fornicatio, &.c. Sue malum gera7nus, non est
animcc : quia fructus Spiritus pax, gaudium est. Denique clamat et ad Roma-
nos Apostolus Non bonum, quod volo, ago, sed malum operor, quod exhorreo.
:

Videtis vocem animae contumacis, contra concupiscentiam defendentem liber-

tatem animae. Dolebat enim, quia pecatum, id est, Diabolus operaretur in se

omneiu concupiscentiam. Legalis auctoritas indicat malum ejus, cum omnea

 Formation of Man. 329

ejus usus vitnperat, qnos caro rainUur ct land it: omnis enim amaritudo con-
cupiscentiae siiavis est animne, pt-r qiiam mitntur aniiiia ct ad vioorom aceitur.
Denique coercentis se ab omni usu eonciipiscentiae animus virrilat, ditatur et
crescit: per usura autein eonciipiseenli.ie coiisuevit decrescere. He adds otiier
things of the same nature ; but I omit them, because these are sufficient to ex-
hibit his opinion. —Yet, in a certain way, all the sins of the depraved and
vicious soul, pertain also to the good soul. For this soul is required to repress

the passions and lusts of the evil soul, and to keep it in subjection : and it has
ability to fulfil this divine command. If, iheiefore, it is neglectful of its duty,
and suffers the lust of the evil soul to predominate, it is not only weakened
thereby, but it contracts guilt, and, in a sense, sins through the evil soul, which
it ought to restrain. That Manes so thought, is manifest from his commend-
ing penitence, and promising forgiveness of sins to the penitent. See [p. 817.]
Augusline's Tract de duabus animabus, (c. 12. p. 64.) : nunquara negaverunt,
dari veniam peccatorum,cum fuerit ad Deum quisque conversus: nunquam dix-
erunt (ut alia multa) quod Scripturis divinis hoc qui-piam corruptor inseruerit.
And (ch. 14. p. 65.) : Inter onines sanos constat, et quod ipsi Maniciiaei non
solum fatentur, sed et praecipiunt, utile esse poenitere peccati. Avgiisline, in
this place, slily asks the Manichaeans, Whether it is tiie good soul or the bad
one that repents ? And animam tenebrarum peccati poenitet, non
he says : Si
est de substantia summi mali (Well said !) Si animam lucis, non est de sub-
:

stantia summl boni. (This argument, the Manichaeans would easily answer.
For they would say. The good soul does not itself sin, but by permitting
the sins of the evil soul, it becomes guilty.) But there was no need of Augus-
tine's asking the question, since it is manifest, tiiat repentance is the act of tho
good soul and not of the bad one. For if the latter could feel sorrow for its
sins, it would not be whully evil. These doctrines of Manes, in regard to the
duty and the powers of the good soul, and the utility of repentance, show, that
Manes attributed to the good soul not merely intelligence, but also a will,
feelings, and emotions; notwithstanding he seems to exclude from it all incli-
nation, desire, and passion. And yet, to tell the truth, the opinions of the Ma-
nichffians respecting the two-fold soul of man, are not altogether clear and :

hence they, as well as their founder, appear to have doubted how they ought
to think, and to have expressed their opinions in dubious and equivocal terms.
Still, from what they have said, it is evident, I think, tliat those are mistaken,
who once held, or now hold, that the Manichaeans considered the soul to be tied
down by fate and necessity. The evil soul indeed is enslaved, and, by its very
nature, is borne on to all kinds of concupiscence and wickedness. But the good
soul, although somewhat weakened and fettered by its evil as^^ociate, yet
possesses free volition, even in the body; and it can, according to its pleasure,
either authoritatively restrain and curb its associate, or suffer it to be guided by
its depraved instincts. And whenever it does the first of these, it advances its

own interests, gains strength, and becomes more fit for a return to the world
of light ; but when it does the last, it incurs salutary chastisement at the hands
of God.
330 Century III— Section 4G.

§ XliVI. Formation of this our World. Its structun; and design.

Man having been formed bj tlie Prince of darkness, and the
souls, those daughters of light, inclosed in his bod}', and the
celestial elements combined with matter or with the elements of
the world of darkness nothing remained for God, who was de-
;

sirous of rescuing those souls and the celestial elements, except,

to form from the vitiated matter an intermediate world, between
[p. 818.] the world of light and that of darkness, and compound-
ed of both which should afford to men a domicile, and to God
;

a suitable opportunity for carrying out his purpose of gradually

extracting the souls from the bodies, and separating the good
matter from the bad, and restoring both to the world of light.Q
Therefore, by God's command, the Living Sjnrit, who had already
conquered the Prince of darkness, constructed this our world.
In doing so, he first fabricated the sun and moon, from matter
that had not been corrupted then, from that which was but lit-
;

tle contaminated, he formed the ether, and the stars which re-

volve in the ether and lastly, from that which was entirely per-
;

vaded by depraved matter, he constructed this our earth.^*) And,

as the son of the First Man^ whose name was Jesus^ was still de-
tained a captive in the bodies of the Prince of darkness and his
associates, those miserable Beings were to be confined, lest they
should abscond with their plunder: and therefore the Living Spi-
rit chained them to the stars. This measure was necessary and
wise, and on many accounts exceedingly useful and yet it was
;

a source of troubles and dangers. For these Princes of evil, from

the stars where they dwell, not only lay snares for good minds,
but also send down upon our world hosts of evils, pestilences,
thunders, lightnings, tempests, war, &c.(') And lest so vast a
world should fall and come to pieces, a very powerful Being
from the world of light, by divine command, props it up and
sustains it. His name is Omophorus^ significant of the ver}^ one-
rous task he has to perform. And lest he should succumb under
such a burden, an assistant is given him, to hold the suspended
orb steady. He is a Being equally strong and robust, and bears
the name of Splenditenens.(*)

(1) That our world was created, according to Manes, not only with the
knowledge and consent of God, but also liy his command, there can be no
doubt. And, therefore, those do him injustice, who lell us that the Prince of
 Formation of (his World. 331

darkness was the former of the matorial universe unless, possibly, they mean :

no more than that the Cause of all evil produced the occasion, or, if you choose,
the necessity for God to construct the world. Says Aiigusiine, (de Haeres.
c. 42. p. 11.) : Mundum (He means that
a natura boni, hoc est, a natura Dei
Being or nature, born of God, which the Manichaeans called the Living Spiril,)
factum, confitentur quidem, sed de commixtione boni et mali, quae facta est,
quando inter se utraque natura pugnavit. And so Angustine explains his views
in other passages. Thus, (contra Faustum, L. xx. c. 9. p. 240.) Vos [p. 819.] :

primum hominem cum quinque dementis belligerantem et Spiritum potentem

(who is also called vivens) de captivis corporibus gentis tenebrarum, an potius
de membris Dei vestri victis atqne subjectis mumdum fabricantem credilis. See
also the Exordium of his first Dispute with Fortunatus, p. 67. And Forlunaius
himself, (in this first dispute, p. 72.) says: Constat, non esse unam substan-
tiam, licet ex unius (bonae) jussione eadem ad compositionem hujus mundi et
faciem venerint. Altliough Forlunaius here, as Avgusline himself often, says
that God formed the world yet we must understand it to have been only by
;

the direction or command of God. For it would not be suitable for God hira-
Belf, a most pure and holy Being, to put his own hand to the work so that, what :

God is said to have done, he only caused to be done by his minister, the Living
Spiril ; whom Alexander of Lycopolis (contra Manichaeos p. 4.) calls Sauhupyov
—The causes which induced God to order a world formed, from impure and
defiled matter, may be understood from what has been stated. The first and
principal cause was the human race, which, as God could easily foresee, would
be bora and propagated. For the crafty Prince of evil had collected the
whole mass of souls that he had captured, and placed them beyond the reach
of the Living Spiril, by depositing them all in the single body of Adam
and then he gave him Eve for a wife, and Adam overcome by her blandish-
ments had begun to procreate children. By this artifice the liberation of i-onls,
for which God was was rendered a long and tedious process and
solicitous, ;

during its continuance, some place was to be prepared in which Adam and his
posterity might reside. This cause for creating the world, of which we have
heretofore treated, is expressly mentioned by Tijvbo, (in the Acta Disput. Arche-
lai 5 10. p. 20.) where, having spoken of the formation of the first human
beings by the Prince of evil, he closes the pas-^age with these words:
Kat cTia TOUTnev yeyovtv » 7rxd<Tli toi/ koituoo, ck Tit tow "A^^iVTOf S'lifjilivpyixt.

Et propter haec (on account of Adnra and Eve,) factum est figmentum (the
fabric) mundi, propter fabricationem nimirum Principis (malorum), who had
made the first man. In addition to this first cause, there was another. In the
conflict of the Prince of darkness with the Firsl A an, celestial matter had be-
come completely commingled and coherent with malignant matter; and to sepa-

rate from the evil elements, and restore it to its primitive state, which was the
it

wish of God, would be a vast undertaking, and would require a very long time, if
that matter remained in a confused and chaotic state. But if assorted and arrang-
ed in proper order, the good and divine might with greater ease be severed from
the evil and the vicious; and thus in a shorter time, th.at complete separation
which God desired, might be effected. See Theodurel, (Haeret. Fabul. [p. 820.]
332 Century III— Section 46.

L. i. c. 26. p. 213.) Lastly, the matter which the Living Spirit h.id wrested
from the grasp of the Lord of evil, was not all of one kind some portions of it ;

were better, purer and more holy than others for some portions had contract- ;

ed more, and others less vitiosity and malignity in that contest. And this diver-
sity in the condition of the matter, rendered a separation and distribution
necessary. — The pattern for the new world he was about to form, the Liv-
ing Spirit undoubtedly borrowed from the world of light. Our world contains
the same elements as the world of light, although our elements are polluted;
and they are arranged same order, as in the kingdom of God. Our woild,
in the

imnge of that blessed world, wheie God and the

therefore, is a sort of picture or
innumerable host of his^Eons dwell. It was a common opinion among the peo-
ple of the East, and one prevalent among the Gnostics, that this our world was
formed after the model of the upper or celestial world. Moreover the Mani-
chaeans divided this material universe into two parts, the heavens and the earth.
The Heavens they reckoned to be ten in number, if we may believe Augustine;
but of earths, they reckoned but eight. Thus Augustine says to Faustus, (L.
xxii. c. 19. p 327.): Unde scis, octo esse terras et decern coelos, quod Atlas
mundum ferat, Splenditenensque suspendat, et innumerabilia talia, unde scis

hasc ? Plane, inquis, Manichseus me docuit. Sed infelix credidisti, neque enira
vidisti. As to the number of heavens, I make no question but : as to the earths,
I have abundant reasons for doubt, since I no where find the IManichaeans
speaking of more than one earth, as being laid upon the shoulders of their
Omophorus. There is indeed a pass.nge in the Latin version of the Acta Arclie-
lai. {\ 7. p. 11.) which resembles that of Augustine Et iterum (Spiritns vivens)
;

creavit terram, et simt octo. But in the Greek of Epiphanius, it reads E";j tJtTjf :

cKTcj. Creavit terram octupli forma, sou specie. And this reading certainly ac-
cords better with the preceding noun, terram, of the singular number and ; also
with the whole narration of Tyrbo, who uniformly speaks of but one eartii, than
it does with the words of the Latin translator, who seems to have read E'/s-t (Ts,

instead of e/c hS^n. Neither will the INlanichaean notion of a single world-
bearer or Omophorus, admit of more earths than one. For how, I pray, could
that one Omophorus carry eight worlds, in whatever manner you arrange them?
I therefore suppose that Augustine was deceived, either by the ambiguity of the

words, or perhaps by the mistake of the Latin traslator of Archelaus, and be-
lieved the Manichaeans' earth to be an octagon. That the Manichaeans assigned
to the heavens a round or spherical form. Cosmos Indicoplcustes alone informs
us, (in his Topographia Chistiana, published by Montfaucon in his Nova Colleclio
Patrum Gra3Cor. torn. ii. L. vi. p. 270,271.) M=tv/;^i7o< tov ts ovprtvdv a-puifi'.iiin
:

vcfAi^ovTii. Mnnichaei eeslimant coelum sphparicnm esse. This passage oflers

occasion to correct a striking error of the learned Beausobrc (vol. 2. p. 374.)
[p. 821.] He asserts, that Cosmas above cited, tells us that Manes was an ex-
cellent mathematician : and this testimony of Cosmas, he thinks, is a strong
proof that Manes possessed much genius and learning. For he supposes Cos-
mas to be speaking of Manes, (L. vi. as above, p. 264.) where he sjiys:
Mi)(_'xvticou dvS'fds x.a\ hoyUv k«( vtiji ttokk^^'v ifji-nifcu. Vir meehanicus et doe-
tus, nuiltos periiia reruin superans. But this eulogium is not bestowed by Cos-
 Formation of this World. 333

mas on our Mane^, but on a certain Egyptian matliematicinn, whose name was
Anaslasius. I suppose it was an error oftlie eye, and that the learned man read
Mav';^^(^<c!/, instead of Mf)(;.iviK.ov, wliich is the word used by Cosmas.
(2) The matter, from which tlie Living Spirit liad to form t'ne world which
God commanded, was of different lands. Some of it was perfectly pure, having
remained uncontaminated. Another portion was sliglitly contaminated with
base matter; and another was wholly immersed in bad matter. Interspersed
with these was a portion of the depraved elements, or evil fire, left beiiind by
the living leaders of darkness, and not at all modified by the celestial elements.
To this very different condition of the materials to be used, the builder of the
world had to pay attention in the execution of his work. Manes, or the
Magians, from whom he learned his doctrine, iiad to so imagine things, as to be
able to account for the great dissimilarity in the different parts of this material
universe. The whole
system, as I have already said, was absurd and futile, and
especially if tested by the precepts of the bible and of sound reason but if ;

tried by the opinions and conceptions of the Persians and other Oriental nations,

it will appear more tolerable and there really was genius and ingenuity in its
;

conception and plan, and in the nice adjustment of its parts. The founder of —
the world, therefore, first collected and arranged that celestial matter, which
was not and had remained pure and uneon-
defiled with the contagion of evil,
taminated by the war. Of good
and the light, he constructed the sun
the fire

and of the good water, he formed the moon. Thus Tijrbo, (in the Acta Disput.
Archelai, 5 7. p. 11.) : Tunc vivens Spiritus creavit mundum, et indutus alias tres
virtutes descendens creavit luminaria (roiis ^as-Tii/ioc, the sun and moon.) quae sunt
reliquias aniraa;, « iru tmc 4";^^^ ^ii^tvj. (we have already remarked, that Tijrbo
calls all the celestial elements 4='^*'''> animam; for they were all animated,) et
fecit ea firmamentum {rd v'rtfmij.a.) circumire. Augustine, (de Haeres. c. 46. p. 11.)
says: Quas itidem naves (we shall see in the proper place, that the Manichreans
called the sun and moon ships, or compared them to ships,) de substantid Det
purd peHiibent fabricatas, Lucemque istam corpoream - - in his navibus purissu
main credunt. And not inconsistent with this, is the declaration, (L. xxi. c. 4. p. 251 .):
Solem tam magnum bonum putatis, ut nee factum (created from nothing,) a
Deo putatis, sed prolatura vel missum esse credatis; i. e. consists of celestial
matter, which emanated from the essence of God. Compare, besides [p. 822.]
others, Simplicius, (on Epictetus, p. 167.) and Titus of Bostra, (contra Mani-
cheeos, p. 99.) who says: Solem Manichaeus deccrnit non habere mixtionem
mali. And hence the Son of God himself, and many other celestial Beings of
the highest dignity and power, have fixed their residence in the sun and moon.
Whence Fausdis, (apud August. L. xx. c. 1. p. 237.) calls the sun and moon
—
divina Lumina. Of the good air or ether that remained unpolluted, I find
nothing said. But, since the Holy Spirit, as we have heretofore remarked,
dwells in the ether that encompasses our earth, and he cannot possibly have in-
tercourse with corrupt matter; we are obliged to believe, that a good part of
the celestial ether, in the battle vvith the Prince of darkness, escaped the con.
tamination of the smoke or bad ether, and was collected together by the Livivg
Spirit. —The pure matter being properly located, the framer of the world pro.
3:54 Century III.— Section 4G.

ceeded to that which had only a small portion of depraved matter mixed wita
it. Out of this slightly defiled matter, he formed the heavens and the stars.
For the stars emit light, though less in quantity and more obscure than the sun
and moon. And therefore, it must have been concluded, that a considerable
portion of lightis in the heavens and the stars, though they are not intirely free

from defilement. Says Alexander of Lycopolis, (contraManiehaeos, p. 5. and 16.):

To (Ti iv jutrfiit, •ys-yovo; KiKlu. ds'TefUs Kai t6v ivp:tv6v ffiif^Tra-vruL. Ex partibus
autem materiae medioeri a pravitate pollutis fecit sidera et universum coelum.
Hence Simplicius (in Epictetus, p. 167.) says. The Manichaeans worshipped
only the sun and moon, T>ij tou dyad-cZ ^oifH ^iyowa dwrcu!, quae sidera
dicunt boni (id est, Dei) partem esse; but the other heavenly bodies, they des-
pise, us T>)£ Tou KAKou /uiipai ovTwv, quae ad malum (Daemonem) pertinennt.
Yet these declarations properly refer, not to the malter of the heavenly bodies,
but to the inhabitants of those bodies. For, as we shall soon show, the Demons
dwell in them. Says Augustine, (Confessiones, L. 30. 0pp. torn. I. p. 181.)
xiii. c.

Dicunt te fecisse fabricas coelorura et compositiones siderum, et haec non de

i'tio, (that is, not from matter altogether pure and celestial) sed jam fuisse alibi

creata, quae tu contraheres et compaginares atque contexeres, cum de hostibus

victis mundana mcenia molireris. — After the heavens and the stars, the world-
builder framed this earth; as Tyrbo clearly asserts, (in the Acta Disput.
Arclielai, p. 11.) : Kai iraXiv wr/a-s T«v yh. Et denuo (after making the heavens

and the stars,) terram conficiebat. The earth is composed of that portion of
matter, which contained more evil than good, or into which the elements of
darkness had completely insinuated themselves. Says Tyrbo, (1. c. 5 8. p. 18.):

Mundus autem ex parte materiae (tmc v^m, so the Manichaeans call the evil
principle,) plasmatus est, et ideo omnia exterminabuntur, or will be destroyed.
Lastly, such matter as had not come in contact with any portion of the celestial
matter, — ns the bad fire, wind, air, and water, which the vanquished princes of
[p. 823.] darkness had left behind, he cast intirely out of the world, and erected
strong walls to keep it from entering and destroying it before the appointed
time. Tyrbo, mentions: to Tii^of tou ,uiyd\ou -n-vfos, murum mag-
(1. c. p. 22.)
ni ignis, murum item venti, aeris et aquae So that each sort of evil matter ex-
:

eluded from our world, had its own separate wall, to keep it out. Augustine
likewise occasionally mentions the mounds (aggeres), by which God excludes
'icious matter from our world. (See his Confessiones, L. xiii. c. 30. and else-

where.) But at the end of the world, this evil and devouring fire will issue from

its prison, the mounds being removed ; and then it will consume and destroy
the whole fabric of our world.
(3) Before he commenced fabricating the world, the Living Spirit im-
prisoned the Prince of darkness, and his associates and captains, in the air.
Tyrbo, (in the Acta Disput. Archelai, p. 11.) says: Tunc Spiritus vivens de-
scendens eduxit principes (tenebrarum) et crucifixit eos in firmamcnto, quod est
eorum corpus, (Greek, o Wt\v dwrdv a-u/u.n,) siie sphaera. On this passage, we
may remark, first, that the word a ucijixit must not be construed too rigorously.

For, as we shall soon see, the princes of evil were held in quite free custody,

and, at their pleasure, could do many things contrary to the will of God. Hence
 Formation of this World. 335

crucijixit must mean no more than he stationed, required them to reside. Besides,
the Greek of Epiphanius luis not the word i^mvpaa-i, but icrTtfilaiai, tliat is. lie

so stationed them, that they could not change their residence, he assigned them
a fixed and constant abode. Perhaps this reading is more correct than that
which tiic Latin translator of the Acta Archelai had before him: and yet the
latter is supported by Epiphanius and Damascenus, who retain it. What fol-
lows, namely, that tlie firmament is the corpus {(rd/xa.) of the Demons, is so
contrary to the views of the Manichaeans, that it must be regarded as spurious.
It should undoubtedly read iTco^o, doinus, or domicilium. The heavens are the
seat or house, in which tlie Living Spirit commanded the princes of darkness to
abide, until the time when God should order them to return to their ancient
abode. This heaven, it is added, is a sphere or globe. Here, therefore, is another
passage, beside that of Cosmas, adduced while treating of the heavens, from
which I now again learn that the Manichaeans assigned a globular form to the
heavens. —This passage of Tyrbo, and others of the ancients which accord with
,t, only indicate in general the place where the authors of all evils are detained.
But Beausobre, (vol. II. p. 353.) what part of
wishes to determine precisely, in

the air or heavens they are located and he thinks he proves, by the authority
;

of Theadorct, and Simplicius, that they were confined in the southern regions of
the sky. But vain are the etlurts of the ingenious man. For Simplicius, (comment.
and Theodoret (Haeret. Fahul. L. I. c. 26. Opp. tom. iv. p. 212.)
in Epictet. p. 2. 12.)
merely say, that Manes assigned three parts to God or the world of light, the East,
the West, and the North ; and only one, the South, to the Demon or the [p. 824.]
world of darkness. Says Theodoret, and with him Simplicius !\gvces perfectly:
2;^s7li Toy /ntv ©siv Tar« dpx.Tcoa /utfiti, Kai ra Jtoa, Jiai ra t7-7ripia, T)iv iTj uKuv ra voT/a.
Tenuisse Deum (before tiie war with tlie Prince of darkness,) partes Septen-
trionales, Orientales et Occidcntales, materiam vero Meridionales. Thus, by
these authorities, the position of the world of darkness but is indeed defined ;

not the residence of the Demons, beyond our earth, since they were vanquished
by the Living Spirit. We will adduce something from Augustine, whicli is

better and more certain. The conquered Demons were stationed by the Living
Spirit m the stars. And the more celestial matter any of tiiem had in his body,
the higher and loftier place he obtained. Augustine, (contra Faustum, L. vi.

c. 8. p. 149.) says: Dicunt isti vaniloqui et mentis seductores, in ilia pugna,

quando primus eoruni homo tenebrarum gentem dementis fallacibus irretivit,
utriusque se.xus principibus indidem captis, cum ex eis mundus construeretur,
plerosque eorum in ccelestibus fabricis (thus Augustine frequently designates
the stars,) coUigatos esse. - - In ipsa structura mundi eosdem principes tenebra-
rum ita per omnes eontexliones (ss. the stars,) a summis usque ad ima coUiga-
tos diciHit, ut quanto quisque amplius haberent commi.xti boni (of the celestial
elements and a sentient soul.) tanto sublimius collocari mcrerentur. The stars,
as before observed, arecomposed of matter, for the most part good, yet slightly
tinctured with evil. Yet the stars are not all of one character; some are more
pure and sound than others. Those nearest to the earth, contain more depraved
matter, than those higher or farther off. Therefore, the Living Spirit, according
to the rules of equity, stationed those Demons who possessed the smallest
336 Century III. — Section 4G.
portion of celestial matter, in the lower stars wliich are less pure; while to
those possessing a greater portion of the celestiiil elements, he assigned a resi-
dence in the higher and purer stars. In what place the Prince of evil himself
resides, whether, as may be supposed, in the highest and loftiest of the moving
stars or planets, or hej'ond all the stars in the open heavens, no one, so far as I
know, has informed us. But as he contains in his immense body more celestial
matter than all his fellow-warriors, it can scarcely be doubted, that Saturn, the
highest of the planets, is his residence ; and there also the Gnostic multitude
located their Jaldabacth, or Prince of the aerial Demons.
But the Princes of evil are not so confined and tied to the stars, that they
cannot accomplish or plot anything. They cannot, indeed, leave their places
but in other respects^ they are most busy and active, and they bring to pass
numerous things adverse to the kingdom and purposes of God. In the first
place, they hold a sort of dominion over the stars which they inhabit. For they
are not solitary beings there, as Augustine clearly intimates in the passage
just quoted, but, together with their wives, and the animals of The woild of
darkness captured in the war, they live there, and beget and bring forth offspring,
[p. 826.] Of course there is, undoubtedly, in each star, a sort of commonwealth
or state, which some one, more potent than the rest, governs. In the next
and confirm that empire, which, contrary to the
place, they strive to establish
will of God, they founded on the earth, by the generation and propagation of
mankind and they guard and defend it, against the efforts of God for its sub-
;

version. The manner in which they do this, may be easily understood. AU'
gusline expressly states, that all the leaders of darkness are not confined in the
stars, but only the major part of them. Many of them, therefore, roam freely
through the air, fiu- from the stars. And these, doubtless, the Prince of evil
and his associates employ as their satellites and ministers, in accomplishing
among men their plans for advancing the interests of their empire on the earth.
The great solicitude of the Prince of evil is, to withdraw the inhabitants of the
earth from the knowledge of the true God, and to induce them to adore and
worship himself instead of God. For this purpose, he introduces false religions,
by means of his legates and prophets that is, by men actuated and impelled
;

by himself. Of this nature was the Jewish religion, which Moses brought for-
ward under the influence of the Demon and such were the pagan religions, prevail-
:

ing over the world. Tyrho, (in the Acta Archelai, p. 18.) repeats from the lips of
Manes, thus De prophetis autem heec dicit Spiritus esse impietatis sive iniquita-
: :

tis tenebrarum illarum, quae ab initio ascenderunt, a quibus decepti, non sunt lo-
culi in veritate cxcsecavit enim Princeps illc mentes ipsorum, et si quis sequitur
:

verba ipsorum, morietur in ssecula, devinctus intra massam (tic rHv /3aiXov. i. e.

the world of darkness, to which, as we shall see, those souls that cannot in any
way be reclaimed, will be confined,) quoniam non didicit scientiam Paracliti.
And again, Q 11. p. 20.) : cum Mose, et Judfeis et
Ilium vero, qui locutus est
sacerdotibus, Principem esse dicit tenebrarum Et ideo unum atque idem sunt ;

Christiani et Judaei et gentes eundem Deum colentes: in concupiscentiis enim

Buis seducit eos, quia non est Deus veritatis. Propter hoc ergo quicumque in
ilium Deum sperant, qui cum Moyse locutus est et prophetis, cum ipso habent
 Formation of this World. 337

vinculls tradi, quia uon speraverunt in Deiim veritatis : ille enim secundum con-
cupisceutias suas locutus est cum eis. And these severe censures, which Faus-
tus the Maiiiclisean, in many passages occurring in Augustine, casts upon the
Mosaic law, clearly show, that the sect believed the intire Jewish law and re-
ligion, to be an invention of the Prince of darkness for deceiving the Jews.
Wliat this audacious Fausius thought of the Old Testament prophets, appears
from his own words, (L. Exempla vitaj honestae et pruden-
xii. c. 1. p. 1G2.) :

tiam ac virtuteni in prophctis quajrimns quorum nihil in Judajorum fuisse va-

:

tibus, quia te non latuerit sentio. He also assails Moses wilii very great re-
proaches, (in several places, one of them is L, xiv. c. 1. p. 187.) Some of these
I will mention Mosen, qnanquam humanorum nuUi unquam, divinorumque pe-
:

percerit blasphcmando, plus lamen hinc execramur, quod Christum Filium Dei
diro convitio lacessivit: utrum volens, an casu, tu (Augustine) videris. [p. 826.]
- - Ait enim maledictum esse omnem, qui pcndet in ligno. He also most con-
tumeliously assails the God of the Hebrews, (L. xv. c. 1. p. 193, 194.) : Sordent
ecclosiaa nostra? Testamenti veteris et ejus aucloris munera. - - Amator vester
et pudoris corruptor, Hcbneorum Deus, diptychio lapideo suo (referring to the
two tables of the law,) auru.m vobis promittit et argentum, ventris saturitatem et
terrara Cananjeorum. - - Pauper est, egens est, nee ea quidem praestare potest,

quae promittit. Hebraeorum Dei et nostra admodum diversa conditio est: quia
nee ipse, quae promittit, implere potest, et nos ea fastidimus accipere. Super-
bos nos adversus blanditias ejus, Christi liberalitas fecit. And he expressly
says, tliat the God of the Jews is the Demon, (L. xviii. c. 1. p. 220.) : Placet ad
ingluviem Judaeorum Daemonis (neque enim Dei) nunc tauros, nunc arietea
cultris sternere ? But I forbear. — So far as I can make out by probable con-
jecture, Manes supposed the God of the Jews to be the Prince of evil himself,

and the Deities of other nations and captains resident in the

to be his ciiiefs
stars ; all of whom, being excessively proud by nature, used various arts and
impositions to procure for themselves divine worship among mortals.
Not content with these evils relating to the whole human race, the King of
darkness and his associates prevent, as far as they can, the good souls of indi
vidual men from performing their duty. For, by the five bodily senses, and by
the body itself,and strengthen the evil soul, which in
they e.xcite ail men is as-

sociated with the good soul, so that, burning and inflamed with lust, it over-
comes and weakens and oppresses the good soul. In explaining this topic, Se-

cundinus the Manichaean is copious and eloquent, in an Epistle to Augustine,

(in the 0pp. Augustini, viii. p. 370.) and he strongly urges Augustine to
torn.

beware of the snares of the most crafty and deceptive Prince of evil Illumque :

(divinae personae) a nobis repellant atrocem spiritum, qui hominibus timorem

immittit et pertidiam, ut animas avertat ab angusto tramite Salvatoris, cujua
:

omnis impetus per illos principes funditur, contra quos se Apostolus in Ephesi-
orum - - Ipse enim non ignoras, quam pes.
epistola certamen subiisse fotetur.
simus quamque malignus, quique etiam tanta calliditate adversus fideles e*
sit,

summos viros militat, ut et Petrum coegerit sub una nocte tertio Dominum ne-
gare. The King of darkness is so laborious, because he wisl es not to have hia
empire overthrown or destroyed.
VOL. II. 23
338 Century III. — Section 46.

Lastly, whatever calamities befall our world or its inhabitants, except only

the earthquakes, —as the excessive the tempests, the rains, thunders, the pesti-
lences, the wars, — proceed from the Prince of
all and evil, his associates, resid-

ing in the air and the stars. Thus TUus of Bostra, (contra Manichaeos, L. ii.

p. 109.) quote only the Latin, which exactly represents the Greek Rursus
I :

[p. 827.J est aliud genus eorum,quae Manichaeus dementissimus accusat,

terras,

motum dico (Here Tilus errs for earthquakes do not proceed from the King
;

of evil, but from Omophorus, as we shall soon show,) pestem, famem ex sterili-

tate, ex locustis, et aliis hujusmodi, tanquam a principio contrario haec proficis-

cantur. He had a little before (p. 107.) said Bella etiam assignant et attribu- :

unt nequitiae: (th nan'iA, that is, to the evil principle.) And Tyrbo, (in the
Acta Arclielai, \ 8. p. 14.) Princeps ille niagnus producit nebulas ex se ipso,
:

uli obscuret in ira sua omnem mundum, qui cum tribulatus fuerit (this clause

needs illustration, and will receive it farther on,) sicut iionio sudatpostlaborem,
ita et hie Princeps sudat ex tribulatione sua, cujus sudor pluviae sunt. Sed et

messis princeps (one of the Demons, who mows down men, when he procures
their death by sending diseases and pestilence,) effundit pestem super terram,
ita, ut morte afficiat homines - - incipit excidere radices hominum, et cum cx-

cisae fuerint radices eornm, efficitur pestilentia, et ita moriuntur. Among those
evils, which the Prince of darkness, from his prison or residence, prepares for
men, is iinnc.For often, kindling into rage and fury, he lets out a part of his
bile which falls on the earth, and produces vines and grapes. Augustine, (de
;

moribus Manichaeorum, L. ii. 5 44. tom. i. p. 545.) Quae tunta perversio est :

vinum putare fel Principis lenebrarum, et uvis comedendis non parcere (See !

also his Book de Haeres. c. 46. p. 11, &c.) And therefore, the more perfect
among the disciples of Manes, or those called the Elect, are bound to abstain

from wine altogether. Of tiiis we shall speak in the proper place.

(4) How great and acute a philosopher and investigator of nature. Ma-
nes was, can scarcely be learned more clearly, from anything, than from his
doctrine concerninsr the props of our world ; which was entirely accordant with
the foncies of the Persians and other Orientals, and was derived, I suppose, fi-oiP
the schools of the Magi. This discerning man thought the world would tumbl
down, if it were not propped up. He therefore placed this enormous load upoi
the shoulders of an immensely great angel, whom he named Omophorus, on ac-
count of the office which God assigned him And, lest he should become ex-
:

hausted, and should stagger under his immense burden, he assigns him an assis-
tant, called Splenditenens, to take part in his toil : and he, \\'eeping and groan-
ing, holds the Says Augustine, (contra Faustum, L.
suspended world steady.
XX. c. 9. p. 240.) Vos autem primum hominem cum quinque dementis bel-
:

Hgcrentem, et Spiritiim poientem de captivis corporibus gentis tenebrarum, an

potius de membris Dei vestri victis atque subjectis mundura fabricantera, et

Splenditeneniem, reliquias eorundem membrorum Dei manu habentem,

vestri in

et cetera omnia capta, oppressa, inquinata plangentem, et Allanlem maximum

subter humeris suis cum eo ferentem, ne totum ille fatigatus abjiciat — creditts

et colitis. Also, (L. xv. c. 5. p. 196.) : Ostende nobis moechos tuos, Splendi-
[p. 828.] tenentem ponderatorem et Atlantem laturarium. Ilium enim dicis ca-
 Formation of this World. 339

pita elcmentorura tenere, munclumque suspendere, istum autem gei.u fixo,

seiipulis Viilidis, subbajulare tmtain ino'em, utique ne iile Ubi sunt

deficiat.

isii? And Tyrbo, (in the Acta Archelai, p. 11.): Est autem Omoplwrus (^Au-
gustine translates tlie name : Laturarius in Latin.) deorsum, id est, qui earn
(teiram) portat in liumeris. But Omnphorus, as we might naturally expect,
sometimes becomes impatient with his immense burden, and therefore trembles
under it And this is the cause of earthquakes. Thus proceeds Tijrbo : Et
:

cum laboraverit portans intremiscit, et haec est caussa ten-Be motus preeter con-
stitutum terapus. - - Quotiens enim efficitur terree motus, tremente eo ex labore,
vel de liumero in humcrum transferrente pondus, efficitur. A perspicacious in-
terpreicr truly, of the mysteries of nature, and one admirably instructed by his
Magian teachers ! And hence God sent his Son down into the lower parts of
the earth, to either solace or reprimand the groaning, sweating Atlas or Omo-
phoi'iis : Hac de caussa Filiuni suum misit benignus Pater de finibus suis in
cor terrae, et in interiores ejus partes, quo ilium, ut par est, coerceret, S^ac d-jTu
T»v vfca-i'iKcva-av iTrntfAiav J'd, as it is in the Greek of Epiphanius. These are
memorable expressions ! For it appears from them how Manes understood
the descent of Christ into hell. He supposed, as other Christians did, that the
Son of God actually descended into the infernal regions. But by that language
he understood the interior or lower parts of our earth; and the object of this
descent was, he supposed, to reprimand the huge carrier on whose shoulders the
earth rested. —These two pillars of earth the Manichaeans religiously honored
with hymns, venerating them as Deities. According to Augustine, (contra Faus-
tum, L. XV. c. 5. 6. 7. p. 197, 198.) they had a public sacred hymn, in the tumid
and composed by Manes himself, and called a/no-
inflated style of the Persians,
torium. In it they An non recordaris amalorium canticum
first praised God :

tuum, ubi describis maximum regnantem regem, sceptrigerum perennem, floreis

coronis cinctum et facie rutilantem ? Next followed the twelve iEons; for that
was their number, according to the Manichaeans: Sequeris cantando etadjungis
duodecim Soecula floribus convestita et canoribus plena et in faciem Patris flo-
res suos jactantia :
—
Duodecim magnos quosdam Deos profiteris, ternos per
quatuor tractus, quibus ille unus circumcingitur. Then followed the other citi-
zens of heaven, the angels, inferior to the JDons Adjungis etiam innumerabilea ;

regnicolas —
et angelorum cohortes; quae omnia non condidisse dicis Deuin, sed

de sua substantia genuisse. Lastly, the hymn extolled, with very high praises,
the heroes of the supreme Deity, and among them Spknditenens and Omophorns:
Et Splendileneniem magnum, sex vultus et ora ferentem, micantemque lumine
(from this light or splendor, he doubtless derived his name q. ; d. ifplendidus,

Angelus, qui terram tenet,) et aUerum regem honoris, Angelorum ex- [p. 829.]
ercitibus circumdatura (this, perhaps, is Christ) et alterum adamantcra heroam
belligerum, dextra hastem tenentem ct sinistra clypeum (this undoubtedly is the
Living Spirit, who conquered and imprisoned the Prince of darkness,) et alte-
rum gloriosum Regem tres rotas impellentem ignis, aquae et ventj et maxi- ;

muvi Atlantem, mundum ferentem humeris et eum genu fixo, bntch.iis utrinque
secus fulcientem. —This worship, paid by the Manichaeans ta their Omoplwrus
and Splendilenens, is a sufficient confutation of the ingeniovs Beausohe 1 ^\ho.
340 Century III. — Section 46.

perceiving thih fable of a woild-bearer, to be too sill^- to come from a phllosoplier

of even moderate abilities, and esteeming Manes a great philosu})lier, —maintains
that it is an allegory. (Vol. ii. p. 370 ) And it is the custom of this erudite man,
whenever he cannot otherwise excuse or justify Manes, to depart from the lite-
ral interpretation, and direct his readers to believe, that Manes wrapped up
plain and sober truths in the vestments of figures and metaphors. He there-
fore thinks, Omophorus must be an Angel holding up the world, not with his
shoulders, but by some unknown force and Splenditenens, he supposes, to be
;

the air which encompasses the earth. But who can believe that the Manichaeans
sang the praises of the air in their assemblies ; not to mention many other
things, which will occur to the reader without my stating them ? And if Omo-
phorus'' carrying the world on his shoulders is a mere metaphor, what becomes
of the cause of earthquakes, as taught by the Manichaeans ? I may add, that
the Manichaeans deny that their master concealed the truth under images and
fables ; and they place it among his chief excellencies, that he gives us the knovir-
ledge of divine things nakedly and in simple language. Says Augusline, (con-
tra Faustum, L. XV. c. 5. p. 197,) : Tibi prsecipue laudari Manichaeus non ob
aliud solet, nisi quod romotis figurarum integumentis, ipse tibi veritatem nudam
et propriam loqueretur. And (c. 6. p. 197.) ; Tu vero praecipue Manichaeum ob
hoc praedicas - - quod figuris antiquorum apertis et suis narrationibus ac dis-
putationibus evidenti luce prolatis, nullo se occultaret aenigmate. Addis earn
praesumptionis hujus causam, quod videlicet antiqui, ut figuras hujusmodi dice-
rint, sciebant, istum postea venturum, per quem cuncta manifestarentur, iste au-
tem. qui sciret, post se neminera adfuturura, sententias suas nullis allegoricis
ambagibus texeret. The Maniciiaean community were instructed, therefore, to
understand all the doctrines of their master according to the literal and proper
sense of the words.

§ XLVIL The Mission and OfBces of Christ. The world be-

ing framed and adjusted, the grand aim of the suprenie Deity-
was, first, to liberate from bondage, and restore to the world of
light, those particles of his own nature, or of eternal light, that is,

[p. 830.] the rational souls, which had become inclosed in bodies
and theii, gradually to extract from depraved matter, and recover
to their former happy state, those shreds of the celestial elements
which were dispersed among all the depraved matter and lastly, ;

to press out and set free, the living and sentient soul, the son of
the Fii'st Man, which was absorbed in the bodies of the Prince
of darkness and his fellow warriors. To hasten the return of
souls to the world of light, as much as possible, their heavenly
Father had frequently sent among mankind angels and very
holy men, actuated by himself, to instruct men both orally and
by writings, and to show them the way of return to God when
released from the body. But the work went on too slowly for ;
 Mission and Offices of Christ. 341

tlie Prince of darkness, by

liis ministers and satellites, bj tile body

and and by the depraved soul, impeded the divine

its senses,

plans, and ensnared the good souls. And, in the meantime,

Oraophoriis became weary of his burden, and earnestly impor-
tuned for an end of his toil. And, therefore, to accelerate the
recovery of the numerous souls unhappily inclosed in bodies, God
directed Christ, his Son, to descend from his residence in the sun
to this lower world. And he, having assumed a human form, but
without uniting himself to a body or to human nature, appeared
among the Jews and he, by his words and deeds, made known
;

to the captive intelligences the way of escape from their thral-

dom and, lest mortals should not place confidence in him, he
:

demonstrated his divinity by the most signal miracles. But the

Prince of darkness, fearing the subversion of his empire, excited
the Jews, his most loyal subjects, to seize and crucify him. Yet
Christ did not really endure that punishment, but only seemed
to men to do so. For, as he had no body, and only assumed the
appearance of a man, he could neither be seized, nor crucified,
nor die at all. Yet Christ feigned death, in order that, by this
seeming example, he might teach men, or the good souls lodged
in bodies, that the body and the evil soul resident in the body,
should be tortured, chastised, and mortified, if they would obtain
freedom and salvation. "When he had accomplished his mission,
Christ returned to his residence in the sun, having directed his
Apostles to diffuse his religion among mankind. These ambassa-
dors of Christ, although they did immense good to men, and [p. 831.]
greatly weakened the empire of the Prince of darkness, yet did
not make known that full and perfect wisdom which is neces-
sary for the souls that long for salvation ; for Christ did not im-
part to them the full knowledge of the truth. But, as he was
departing, he promised to send forth in due time a greater and
more holy Apostle, whom he named the Paraclete ; who should
add to his precepts such things as men at that time were not able
to receive and digest, and should dissipate all errors in regard to
divine things. That Paraclete came, in the person of Manes the
Persian and he, by command of Christ, expounded clearly and
;

perfectly, and without figures and enigmas, the whole way of

salvation for toiling and sufi'ering souls.(')

(1) Some things liere stated, Iiave already been sufficiently elucidated and
342 Century Ill.—Section 47.

confirmed, and they are here repeated only to make the connection of the
whole system the more evident. Therefore, pasf-ing by these, I shall now
explain and demonstrate only those things which need confirmation. I be- —
gin with the causes of Christ's mission to men. According to the opinion
of the Manichasans, there were two causes of his advent: the _^rsMvap. the
acceleration of the deliverance of the souls shut up in material bodies by the
Prince of darkness : and the second was, the im^^atience of Omophorus, who
propped up the world : for he, finding himself oppressed by tiie immense load,
longed for the termination of his toil, and often besought God for relief Both
these causes are mentioned by Tyrio, (in the Acta Arclielai, \ 8. p. 12.) : Cum au-
tem animam in corpore, quia est miserator et niisericors,
vidisset Pater vivens afHigi
misit Filium suum dilectum ad salutem hac enim caussa, et fropter Omophorum
:

(here you see the second cause,) misit eum. Of theirs/ cause, the Manichseans
often speak magnificently, and very nearly in the language of the Catholics
which might induce one not familiar with these matters, to suppose there was
little difference of opinion between Christians and Manichajans, as to the object
of Christ's advent among men ; whereas, there was a vast difference, as will be
hereafter shown. For the causes above stated, therefore, the Son of God de-
scended from the sun into our world, inclosed indeed in the form and appear-
ance of a human body, but intirely separate and removed from any kind of body
or matter. Manes could not possibly have assigned to tlie Son of God a real
body, or one composed of matter: for he supposed the matter of all bodies to
belong to the world of darkness, and to be the seat and source of all wicked-
ness and lust. Says Tyrbo, (1. c. p. 12.) : Et veniens Filius transformavit se in
speciem hominis, et apparebat quidem hominibus ut iiomo, cum non esset Jiomo,

et homines putaverunt eum natum esse. But we will let Manes himself speak,
[p. 832.] In his Epistle to Zehena, (in Fahriciiis' Bibliotli. Gra;ca, vol. v. p. 284.) I
cite only the Latin ; Lu.x (Christu.s) non attigit carnis essentiara, sed simililudine et
jigura carnis (SjWoiwwan y.ai <j^»/xaTi a-apKos ia-xtds-S-n) ne comprelienderetur et
corrumperetur. Quomodo ergo pas.sa esset? In his Epistle io Odda, (I. o.

p. 285.) ; Quomoda Galilaei (i. e. the Catholic Christians) duas naturas nomi-
nant atque in Christo esse affirmant, effuse rideamus : nesciunt enim naturam
lucis materiae alii non misceri, (« oua-ia rov pardc eTt'/i* ov fxiyivrai uxh,) sed
sincera est ac simplex, neque uniri alter! naturae potest, licet illi conjungi vide-
atur. Nothing could be more evident! — Therefore, if some minor parties among
the jManichaeans, as some of the ancients have stated, assigned to Christ either
a body like ours, or an elhorial one, they departed entirely from tiie opinions of
their master, and abandoned the first principles of his system. Holding this

opinion of Christ the Manichaeans of course rejected and denied all tliat the
sacred history tells us of his birth from Mary, of his genealogy and descent
from David, and of his childhood and education. They declared these to be
mere fiibles, tacked on to the history of Jesus Christ by some Jews. Tiiey said,
itwould be altogether unbecoming the majesty of the Son of God, to come into
the world from tlie womb of a virgin and that his divine and celestial nature
;

would absolutely resist an assumption of humanity. Manes himself, (in the

Acta Archelai, J 47. p. 85. of the edition of Zaccagni, which we always use,)
 Mission and Offices of Christ. 343

Bays: Absit uc Dominum nostrum Jesum Chnstumper naturalia pudenda auli-

eris descendisse confitear enim testimonium dat, quia de sinibus Patiis
: ipse
descendit. - - Suntinnumeratestimonia hujuscemodi, quae indicant, eum venisse
et non natum esse. Then follows a discussion of Manes, which is too Ion"- to
be conveniently transcribed, in which he tries to prove from various expressions
in the New
Testament, that Christ was not born, and that he had not a body.
But I will which will show, that Manes did not be-
trascribe another passage,
lieve the baptism of Christ; (j 50. p. 91.) Mihi pium videtur dicere, quod niliil
:

cguerit Filius Dei in eo, quod adventus ejus procuratur ad terras, neque opus
habuerlt columba, neque baplismate, neque matre, neque fratribus, fortasse ne-
que patre (what follows shows, that fa/er here does not mean a natural father,
but a step-father or a foster-fiither,) qui ei secundum te (Archelae) fuit Joseph,
sed totus ille ipse descendens, .scmetipsura in quoeunque voluit transformavit in

hominem, eo pacto, quo Paulus dicit, quia {^^(^^uxTt,) habitu repertus est ut ho-
mo. - - Quando voluit hunc hominem rursum transformavit in speciem soils ac
vultum (as on mount Tabor.) All j\Ianichaean writers, whose works have
:

reached us, uniformly repeat the opinions and arguments of their master on this
subject. Fortunatus, (in his first Dispute with Augustine, in tlie Opp. Avgust.
torn. viii. p. 73.) says: Salvatorem Christum credimus do coclo venisse. Vos se-
cundum carmen asseritis e.\ .«;emine David, cum praedicetur ex virgine [p. 833.]
natus esse, et Filius Dei magnificetur. Fieri autem non potest, ni?-i nt quod de
spiritu est, spiritus habeatur, et quod de carne est, caro intclligatur. Contra
quod est ipsa auctoritas Evangciii, qua dicitur, quod caro et sanguis regnum Dei
non possibebunt. Fausliis, the Manichaean, in many passages, disputes largely
and fiercely, against those who think that Christ was born and had a body. See
Lib. ii. iii. vii. xi. xxiii. xxix. Among many other things, he says, (L. xxiii. c. 2
p. 300.) : Symbolum vestruni ita se habet, ut credatis in Jesum Christum, Fili-

um Dei, qui sit natus ex ]Maria virgine ; vestrum ergo de Maria accipere Filinm
Dei, nostrum ex Deo. - - De hac sententia nemo nos prorsus dejicict ex Deo
accipiendi Filium Dei, non ex utero mulieris natum. Secundinus, a Manichaean
not destitute of genius, in his Epistle to Avgusiine, (p. 372.) saya ; Desine quee-
80 utero claudere Christum, ne ipse rursum utero concludaris. Desine duas
naturas facere unam, quia appropinquat Domini judicium. Those Gnostica, who
having similar views of the nature of matter with Manes, likewise denied to
Christ a body and humanity, still admitted, that in the opinion of men, or in
appearance, he was born of Mary. But the ]\Ianicha3ans had such abhorrence
of the idea that Christ was horn, that they would not even concede so much.
Jctt^s/us, indeed, (L. xxix. c. 1. p. 313.) seems not very averse from the opinion,

which makes Christ to have been apparently born. He says; Vos pro certo
puerperiura fuisse (Christum) creditis et utero muliebri portatura. Aut si ita
non est, fateamini vos quia hoc etiam imaginarle sit factum, ut videretur natus,
et omnis nobis erit profligata contentio. But he only, among the Manichseans,
60 thought : the rest thought very differently. For thus Augustine replies to
Faustus: Quaero ab eis, si nostra contentio terminatur, cum hoc dixerimus, cui
hoc ipsi non dicunt? Cur ipsi mortem non veram, sed imaginariam Christi af-
firmant : nativitatem autem non saltern talem, sed prorsus v'h^U>.p>- dicere dele-
 S44 Century III.— Section 47.

gei'unt? - - An quia mortem siaiulare honestum est, nativitatem autem etiam

simulare turpe est? Cur ergo nos iiortatur hoc confiteri, quo possil nostra
contentio profligari ? And again, (contra Faustuni L. xxxi. c. 6. p. 318.) Au-
gustine says : Mors Christi visa vobis est vel fallax et simulata prajdicanda : at
non etiam nativitas. - - In nativitate enim quia ligari Deum vestrum creditis,

banc nee saltern fallaciter imaginatura Cln-istum creditis : Manes therefore

would say, that Christ descending suddenly from heaven, appeared among the
Jews, in the form of a man ; but he was without father, without mother, with-
out relatives, without brethren, without a body ; and all tiiat occurs in the Gos-
pels contradictory to these assertions, as also the history of his baptism, lie

would place among Jewish fables. Says Fauslus, (L. xxxii. c. 7. p. 32-2.) :

Nos de Testamento novo sola accipimus ea, qua in honorem et laudera Filii
majestatis dicta comperimus, dissiraulamus cetera - - - dico autem hoc ipsiim (a)
[p. 834.] natura ex foemina turpiter, (b) circumcisum Judaice, (c) sacriticasse
gentiliter, (d) baptizatura humiliter, (e) circumductum a Diabolo per deserta et
ab eo tentatum quam miserrime. His ab scriptori-
igitur exceptis, et si quid ei

bus ex Testamento vetere falsa sub testificatione injectum est: credimus

cetera. —The reason why Christ showed himself among the Jews especially,
and not among other nations, was, undoubtedly, that tiie Jews, as Manes sup-
posed, worshipped the Prince of darkness himself instead of God, while the
other nations only served liis captains and fellow warriors. The King of dark-
ness, therefore, had established the seat of his empire in Palestine.
He who is destitute of a body, has no need of food or drinij, or of sleep and
rest. Manes, therefere, could not believe, that Christ really ate, drank, slept,
and rested ; but all these he pretended to do, that the Jews might not doubt
his humanity. Says Faustus, (L. xxv'i. c. 1. p. 307.) : Jesus ab initio sumpla

hominis similitudine, omnes hiirnan<c conditionis simulavil affectus : Sic ab re

non erat, si in fine quoque consignandcC ajconomije gratia fuit visus et mori.
But the miracles ascribed to him, Fauslus admitted to be real, (L. xxv. c. 2.
p. 307.) Nam et coecum a nativitate lumen videre natura non sinit, quod tamen
:

Jesus potenter operatus videtur erga hnjus generis coicos - - manum aridam
sanasse, vocesn ac verbum privatis his per naturam redonasse, mortuis et in ta-
bem jam compage reddita vitalem redintegrasse spiritum,
resolutis corporibus
quern non ad stuporem addueat? - - Quae tamen omnia nos communitt-r facta

ab eodem credimus Christiani, non consideratione jam natura?, sed potestatis

tantum et virtutis Dei. It is strange, that the Manichseans could believe these
miracles real. For they were all wrought upon bodies and bodies, in their
:

estimation, are the fabrications of the evil Demon and they belong to the
;

world of darkness, because they consist of gross concrete matter. And there-
fore, the Son of God, who had come to destroy bodies, those works of tlie

Prince of darkness, and to liberate souls from their prisons, actually restored
and healed these vicious bodies, so that the unhappy souls might be the lunger
detained in them and thus the Light bestowed labor on the darkness, and re-
;

newed, arranged, and preserved from destruction evil matter, the possession of
his enemy. Who that embraces Manichajan views, could easily believe this?
And still more incredible should it be, to a Manichaean, that Christ restored the
 Mission and Offices of Christ. S45

dead to life. For death, according to the opinion of Manes, was tlie release of
a soul or a particle of the divine nature, from its gloomy and severe imprison-
ment. Tiiere is an Epistle of Augustine to a certain Mauicha'an presbyter,
(Epist. Ixxi.v. 0pp. torn. ii. p. 141. edit. Benedict.) from which it appears, that
the Manichaeans despised death. He says : Bene, quia non times mortem. And
he subjoins the cause they assigned, for this their contempt of death Quia :

mors est, quod adjungis de vestro, separatio boni a malo. This Ma- [p. 83.^.]
nichfean reasoned most correctly, from the opinions of his master. Now who
conld easily persuade himself, that the Son of God would, by recalling the dead
to life, again connect the good and divine when separated from the eiil, with the
evil his enemy ?
work of This is so incongruous with the object for which the
Son of God came among men, that nothing could be more so. And yet the
Maniehseans, as Faus/us states most explicitly, did believe the miracles of
Christ ; that is, although at the first rise of the sect, they disagreed on this as
well as other points, —In like manner, the Manichaeans believed, that the dis-
courses ascribed to Christ by his biographere, were really uttered by him : and
in those discourses, they thought they discovered their own primary doctrine of
two first principles of all things. Thus Faustus, (L. xxxii. c. 7. p. 322.) .says:
Priecepta salutaria Christi, turn parabolas, cunctumque sermonem deificum, qui
maximeduarum praeferens naturarum (i. e. of two first principles) discretionem,
ipsius esse non venit in dubium.
Now, when the Prince of darkness saw those miracles of Christ, and heard
his discourses, and perceived that Ciirist intended to subvert his empire, and to
abolish the law which the Prince had enacted through Moses, he formed the
purpose of destroying him. He therefore instigated the Jews, the most faithful
subjects over whom he reigned, to seize Christ and nail him to the cross. Se-
cundxnus, a Manichaean, (in his Epistle to Augustine, ^ 4. p. 370.) says: Ipse
non ignoras, quam audacter (the Lord of the world of darkness) illud molitus
sit, ut Domino - - Iscariotem rapuerit, et ut ad ultimum crucis supplicium veni-
retur : in perniciem ipsius Scribas, Pharisaeosque accenderit, ut Barrabam di-

mitti clamarent et Jesum crucifigi. The Son of God was therefore seized by
the Jews, subjected to punishment, nailed to a cross, and at length died ;
yet
none of these things actually occurred, but the whole was feigned. For the
divine Light, being destitute of a body and of all matter, could not be seized,
nor could he die; only the shadow of a body of Christ, therefore, appeared to
endure all these things. Says Manes, (Epistle to Zebena, in the Biblioth.
Graeca O^ Fabricius, vol. v. p. 284.): "Awxji pua-i; ivn dn-oS-VMO-jte/ x.ai a-x/ii a-^px^j

o(/ o'TaupcZrai. Mtav oCv (unvi T;iv fuaiv kui ivcfynav to poji fxxSiv ra^Qua'av tS
IvKTKtd^/uaTi T?c rafKoi I'JK £;^2VT/ ^ia-iv KfaroufAhnv. Simplex natura non mori-
tur, et umbra carnis non crucifigitur. Perpetuo igitur unam naturam et unam
operationeiii Lux (the Son of God, consisting of a mass of divine light) habere
perseveravit nihil paticntem ab umbra carnis, quae naturam (simplicem) neuti-
quatn comprehensam tenet. So, also, in his Epistola fundamenti, (apud Euo.
dium, Libro de fide, c. 28. in 0pp. Augustini, tom viii. Append, p. 29.) Manes
says: Inimicus quippe, qui eundem Salv.atorem justorum patrem crucifixisse se
speravit, ipse est crucifixuSj (metaphorically, not literally) quo tempore aliud :
340 Century Ill.—Section 47.

actum tst, atque aliud ostensiim. And Fansius, (L. xiv. c. 1. p. 187.) says:
[p. 836.] Mosen cxecramur, quod Christum, Filium Dei, qui iiostrae salutis caussS
pependit in ligno, diro devotionis convicio lacessivit — dieens maladictura esse
omiiera, qui pendet in ligno. (His reasoning is very silly, and inconsistent with
his own doctrines; and it is brought forward only to calumniate Moses. For
Faustus himself did not believe that Christ hung on the tree, but only his
shadow.) So, also, (L. xxix. c. 1. p. 313.) lie says expressly: Denique et nos
specielenus passum, nee vere morluum confitemur. And, (L. xxvi. e. 2. p. 308.)-
Nobis nee Jesus mortuus est, nee immortalis Elias. See also Alexander of Ly-
copolis, (contra Manichaeos, p. 19.) where he says: 'O Mav;;;^'"'''^ Mda-Kn Triai
Tovrcu i!>TVifi dS'vvd'TOv ovto; 'atiivcv touts voitlv, id est, Trci^eiv. ManichfeUS do-
cet, fieri id nullo modo posse, ut Christus vere patiatur. Augustine, (contra
Faustum, L. xxix. 314.): Passionem mortemque ejus specietenus factara
c. 2. p.

adumbratum, ut mori videretur, qui non moriebatur. Cinist

et fallaciter dicitis —
had weighty reasons for feignii.g death, and the sufferings and trials that pre-
ceded it. The firsl was, to teach men the wretclied state of souls inclosed in
bodies. For a soul bound to a body, is, as it were, nailed to a cross, and
dreadfully wounded. Forlunatus, (in his first dispute with Augustine, p. 69, 70,):
Hoc ergo sentimus de nobis, quod et de Christo, qui cum in forma Dei esset
constitutus, factus est .subditus usque ad mortem, ut simililudinem animarum
noslrarum ostenderet. - - Si fuit Cliristus in passione ct morte, et nos: si vo-
luntate Patris descendit in passionem et mortem, et nos. And Faustus, (L. xxxii.
c. 7. p. 322.): Credimus praicipue crucis Christi fixionem my»ticam, qua nostras
aninise passionis monstrantur vulnera. Alexander of Lycopolis, (contra Mani-
chaeos, p. 19.) quoting from a book of Manes on this subject, says, that Christ
was crucified, to exiiibit to men: t»» ^vva/aiv tUv S-siaw ivifucT^Ai, aio-rduoitT-i-Ai
tS v\v. divinam virtutem, id est, animam in materiam immersam et in materia

crucifixam esse. —The second reason for Christ's feigning death, was, to teach
men to despise death, or to show them that death is no evil, but a boon, and
therefore should be endured with firmness. Augustine, (contra Faustum,
L. XXX. c. 6. p. 318.): Mortem tanquam separationem anima;, id est, naturae
Dei vestri a corpore inimicorum ejus, hoc est, a figmento Diaboli, praedicatis at-

que rem dignam fuisse credidistis, quam Christus etsi non

laudatis: ac per hoc
moriens, tamen mortem simulans, commendaret. Lastlij, by feigning death,

Christ designed to admonish souls, that they must not spare the body, if they
wish to be saved; but must crucify tiie flesli and all its lusts, or wholly extir-
pate and slay them. Alexander of L3'copolis, (contra Manichaeos, p. 19.) .says:
Manes wrote, that Christ suffered crucifixion, s<c iviS'ifyfASL, to set men an example
These reasons for Christ's feigning death, are manifestly
[p.831. ] for their iinilation.
futile and, I believe. Manes would as readily have denied the death of Christ,
;

as he did his birth, if he could have done it but there was so much evidence of
:

his deatli and resurrection, that he dared not deny them; and therefore, he
must resort to some fanciful explanation, that he might not appear to avoid the
subject. Fansius himself, (L. xxix. c. 1. p. 313.) .seems to place little reliance

on these reasons; Nos passionis Christi rationem aliquam reddiinus et probabi-

lem: (and therefore not solid, sufficient, and satisfactory.) Manes could not
 Mission and Offices of ClLrist. 347

possibly deny either tlie death or the resurrection of Christ. He therefore

taught, that Christ was from the touib to his diit-iples,
hiid in the grave, reiurr.ed

showed them the scars on his body, and perliaps ascended to iieaven before
their eyes. But all these, as well as his death, were only im;igiiiary, and emble-
matic of the return of a soul to its i)rimeval state. Says Furlunaius the Maiii-
chsean, (in his first Dispute with Avgusline, p. 70.) : Quemadinodum Christus
in se mortis similitiidinem ostendit, et se a Patre esse de medio mortuorum re-

suscit,'ztum : eo modo sentimus et do anirais nostris futurum, quod per ipsum

poterimus ab hac morte libcrari. And Aiigusline, (de Haires. e. 46. p. 13.):
Affirmant (Manichaci) Christum non fuisse in carne vera, sed simulatam speciem
carnis ludificandis humanis sensibus non solum mortem, verum
prasbuisse, uti
ctiam resurrectionem similiter mentiretur. And, (contra Faustum, L. ,\xi.\. c. 2.
p. 313): Ex quo fit, ut ejus quoque resurrectionem umbraticam, imagiaariam,
fallacemque dicatis: ncque enim ejus, qui non vere mortuus est, vera esse resur-
rectio potest. Ita fit, ut et cicatrices di.scipulis dubitautibus falsas ostendcrit,
nee Thomas veritate confirmatus, sed fallaciAdeceptus clamarit, Dommus mens,
et Deus mens : et tamen persuadere conamini, liuquu vos loqui verum, cum
Christum dicatis toto corpore fuisse mentitum. —This pious fraud of Christ, in
exhibiting to men the appearance of a body iustead of a real body, had reference
not only to the Jews, but also to his own Apostles; for they had no doubt, that
Christ really died, and actually arose from the dead. And Manes, by the com-
mand and inspiration of God, first brought the truth to light.

As iho Manicha^ans held the opinions described, respecting Christ, they

could not possibly observe all the festal days consecrated by Christians to the
memory of the Savior; and those, which their principKs allowed them to ob-
serve, they of necessity celebrated in a differentmanner from other Christians.
In the first place, commemorative of the naliiilij of Christ, they abso-
the day
lutely could not observe. For they so strenuously denied the birth of Christ,
as not even to concede to him an apparent birth. Neither could they conse-
crate the day, on which the Oriental Christians commemorated his baptism. For
they denied that Christ was baptized. But as they believed that Christ was
apparently crucified and died, they could celebrate the time of his death ; [p. 838.]
and they actually did religiously observe it, though with little display or so-
lemnity. The anniversary of the execution of Maiics their master, as already
stated, they celebrated with considerable display ; but in celebrating Christ's

death, they were quite lukewarm. And fur this difference, they offered the fol-

lowing reason : Manes really died ; Christ only appeared to die. Thus Angus-
title, (in his Liber contra Epistolam Manichrci. c. 8. p. 112.) says: Cum sape
a vobis quaererem illo tempore, quo vos audiebam, quae caussa esset, quod
Pascha Domini (We may observe, that Augustine here uses the word pascha,
as the ancient church did, as denoting, not the day commemorative of Ci/rist's
resurrection, but the day commemorative of his death.) plerumque nulla, inter-
dum a paucis tepidissima celebritate frequentaretur, nullis vigiliis, nullo prolix-
iore jejunio auditoribus indicto, nullo denique festiviore apparatu, quum ves-
trum Bema, id est, diem, quo Manichaeus occisus est - - magnis honoribua
prosequamini. Hoc ergo quum quaererem, respondebatur, ejus diem passionis
348 Century III.— Section 47.

celebrandum esse, qui vere passus esset ; Christum autem, qui natus non esset,

neque veram sed simulatam camera humanis oculis ostendisset, non pertulisse,

sed finxisse passionem. Whether they likewise observed the diiy of Ciirist's
resurrcclion, that other pascka of Christians, called dv'j.(rrd(rif/.ov, cannot be de-
termined from this passage of Augustine, nor from any other source. Perhaps
they did not deem this necessary, because, like other Christians, tliey observed,
every week, Sunday, as day on which Christ rose from the dead. But tiiere
tlie

was this singularity among them,

that while the laws of the church forbid fast-
ing on the day called the Lord's Day, the Manichaeans passed the day without
food. The cause of tiiis custom, Leo the Great tells us, was their reverence

for the sun; Leonis Sermo xli. c. 5. 0pp. torn. i. p. 106. edit. Quesnellii) : Ma-
nichaei in honorem solis et lunae die Dominico et secunda fcria deprehensi
fuerunt jejunare uno perversitatis suae opere bis inipii, bis profani sunt, qui
:

jejunium suum et ad siderum cultum, etad resurrectionis Christi instituere con-

temtum. - - Ob hoc diem salutis et laetitiae nostrae sui jejunii moerore con-
demnant. Leo repeats the same thing, (Epist. xv. ad Turibium, p. 2:28.) Ma- :

nichaei, sicut in noslro examine detecti ac convieti sunt, Dominicum diem, quem
nobis Salvatoris nostri resurrectio consecravit, exigunt in moerore jejunii : Solis,

ut proditum est, revereutiee banc continentiam devoventes. But a very different

reason for this practice, is adduced by Hebed Jesu, an Armeno-Nestoriaii bishop,

on the Canons, (apud Jo. Sim. Assemanum, Biblioth. Oriental. Clement. Vatic,
torn. iii. pars ii. p. 361.) For he tells us, that the Maniclueans abstained from
food and drink on Sunday, because they supposed tiie world would be dissolved
[p. 839.J on that day, and therefore looked for the destruction of it every Sunday:
Manichasi resurrectionem abnegantes contra Christianos jejunium, luctamque in
die Dominico faciunt, aientes, in isto die fore, ut hoc seeculum habeat interitum
dissolutionemque omnem. But this reason is intirely inconsistent with the
opinions of Manichaeans respecting the world ; and therefore, is doubtless
untrue. For, according to the views of Manicha3.ans, the destruction of our
world is to be the end of all evils, the separation of light from darkness,

and the termination of the empire of the Prince of darkness and therefore it ;

presented to them ground for rejoicing, rather than for sorrow. Besides, if we
believe them, this world will not be destroyed, until the greatest part of the
souls in it are recovered to God : and therefore they had no reason to fear its
speedy dissolution. Whether tiie reason offered by Leo was more true, I very
much doubt. I know the Maniclia^ans paid some honor to the sun and moon;
and I have already stated the fact. But that they consecrated certain days to
the sun and moon, and considered fasting as a part of the worship to be paid to
these heavenly bodies, no one, acquainted with the principles of the sect, will
easily believe. I will state,what has occurred to my mind, while thinking on the
subject. The Manichaeans had little regard for the festal days of Christians
and not without reason. For they denied the reality of the facts, in commemo-
ration of which those days were kept. Yet, that they might not appear to dif-
fer too much from other Christians, tliey observed as many of these davs as they
could consistently. And they said, that on those days they expressed by action,
the things symbolized by the apparent actions and sufferings of Christ. Aiu
 Mission and Offices of Christ. 349

gusline is nuthority for this opinion, in liis Tmct against Adimcmlus, a ccK'bra-

ted Manichcean. (c. 16. ^ 3. p. 98.) whin-e lie says: Nos et Doniinicum diem et
Pasclia solemiiiter celebraraus, et qunslibet alias Christiinas dicruni festivi-
taces. - - Manichcci autem sie ea repreiiendimt, quasi nullo3 dies et tempera
observent. (You see, the Manicheeans had little attachment to these festival

days and they declared, that in the celebration of tliem, they differed from
;

other Christians :) Sed cum de his interrogantur secundum opinionem sectag

suae, omnia conantur exponere, ut non ipsa tempera, sed res, quarum ilia signa

stmt, observare videantur. And therefore, on the day kept in memory of

Christ's death, they did not direct their thoughts to his death, which they re.
garded as only fictitious ; but they meditated on, and in a sense performed, the
thing signified by that imaginary death. The death of Christ was a figurative
representation of the calamity and misery, in which souls were involved, when
they were inclosed in bodies. They therefore fixed their thoughts on the sad
condition of their souls, and endeavored to restore the soul in some measure to

life, or to abstract it from the body. And, I can suppose, they did the same
thing on Sundays. Tiie feigned resurrection of Christ, they supposed, was
emblematic of the deliverance of souls from the bondage of their bodies. And
therefore, on Sundays they solaced themselves with the hope of such deliver-
ance, and also prepared tiie way for it. Among the eflfective means of freeing a

soul from its prison, and fitting it for its celestial journey, abstinence [p. 840.]
from food was not the least: and therefore, on Sundays, they denied tiie body
food, to advance the liberty of the soul.

§ XLVIII. Christ as the Saviour of Men. Christ the Son of

God, therefore, came to restore lost happiness to souls but he :

did not, by his sulBferings and death, make expiation for the sins
of intelligent beings nor did he, in their stead, satisfy the divine
;

law. For, good souls, because they are parts of the divine na-
ture, and God is unchangeable, cannot become polluted and cor-
rupt ; and, of course, they cannot really commit sin. They remain
pure, holy, and innocent, even in the most impure body and,
;

by their native energy, if they would exert it, they can pave and
prepare for themselves a way of return to their celestial country.(')
Christ therefore came down to men, Jirst, to destroy the kingdom of
the Prince of darkness that is, to withdraw men from the worship
;

of the evil Principle, and his captains, and fellow warriors, and
draw them to the worship and religion of the true God. And,
secondly, he came down to teach men in what ways the evil soul,
together with the body in which it resides, should be overcome
and subdued so that the good mind may be purged from all its
;

contagion, and gradually become fitted and prepared for a return

to the world of light from which it came. Christ therefore taught
350 Centnrn Ill.—Seit'ion 48.

a severe moral discipline, and prohibited all de&ires after exter-

nal and sensible objects, and all bodily and sensual pleasures
whatever. For as the body is composed of matter that is evil by

nature, and the soul living in it is a part of the nature of the

Prince of darkness and as in these, consequently, the root of all
;

evil is located all the motions of the sentient and craving soul
;

are to be most studiously repressed and the body, which excites ;

those motions, must be weakened and enervated.^

(1) The Manichaeans so talk of the object of Christ's advent to men, that
if one were to regard only their language, and not estimate its import by their
other doctrines, he might easily suppose that there was little or no difference of
opinion on this subject between them and other Christians. For they say, that
Christ, by his advent, procured life and salvation for souls that witiiout him, ;

there was no way to eternal life that lie is the only Saviour of mankind and
; ;

that his death was beneficial to men, by procuring eternal life. In place of all,
hoar how Fortunalus, a Maniciiaean presbyter, speaks, (in his first Dispute with
[p. 841.] Augustine, Y*-
69.) : Nostra professio est - - Deum sui similem Salva-
torem direxisse - - ipso ductore hinc iterum animas ad regnum Dei reversuras

esse, secundum sanctam ipsius pollicitationem, qui dixit Ego sum via, Veritas :

et janua. Et Nemo potest ad Patrem pervenire, ni.-<i per me. His rebus nos
:

credimus, quia alias animae, id est, alio mediante non poterunt ad regnum Dei
reverti, nisi ipsum repcrerint viam, veritatem et januam. Ipse enim dixit: Qui
me vidit, vidit ct Patrem meum. Et : Qui in me crcdiderit, mortem non gus-
tabit in sternum, sed transitum facit de morte ad vitam, et in judicium non ve-
niet. His rebus credimus, et hfec est ratio fidei nostrje. And, after a few
otlierremarks, he says, (p. 70.) Nos ftitemur et ostendimus ex Salvatoris ad-
:

ventu, ex ipsius saneta prajdicationc, ex ipsius electione, dum animis miseretur,

. - ut eamdem animam de morte liberaret, et perduceret earn ad Kternam gloriam,
et resLitueret Patri. And near the end of the discussion, (p. 73.) Animse : substan-
tiam ostendit (Paulus; whom he had just quoted,) quod sit ex Deo, et animam
aliternon posse reconciliari Deo, nisi per magistrum, qui est Chistus Jesus, - - Sal-
vatorem Christum credimus de ccelo venisse, voluntatem Patris complere. Quae
voluntas Patris htec erat, animas nostras de eadera inimicitia (Dei) liberare, in-
terfecta eadem inimicitia. And, a little after Virtute Dei contrariam naturara
:

vinci confiteor et ad meum regressum Salvatorum esse Christum missum.

These declarations appear sound and beautiful, if considered in the gross but :

if compared with the Maniciiaean doctrines concerning Christ and the soul, they

differ immensely from the sentiments of other Christians, as to the objects of

Christ's advent. For, in the first place, the Manichaeans supposed Christ had
no flesh and blood, and that he died only in appearance. Of course, they could
not possibly believe, that he endured punishment in the stead of mankind, and
that he expiated our sins by his deatli and blood. In the next place, they deni-
ed, that our souls are infected and defiled with any stain originating from the
first human pair : for, as souls are portions of the divine nature, which never
 Christ as a Saviour. 351

can be corrupted, vitiated, or deprived of its sanctity, so also souls cannot in any
degree lose their integrity and purity. And hence, souls never do properly sin;.
but, contrary to their will, they are driven by an opposing nature, which is con-
nected with them while they reside in bodies, to permit the criminal deeds ol
the depraved soul. I have already substantiated this, by the declarations ol
Manes in his Menoch ; and I will now adduce some othei
Epistle to his daughter
testimonies. Fortunalus discoursed much on the subject with Augustine ; and
I will cite some portions of that discussion. In the first Dispute, (p. 70.) For-
tunalus says. Negasti (Augustine,) animam e.x Deo esse, quamdiu peccntis ac
vitiis deservit, - - quod fieri non potest, ut aut Dens hoc patiatur (that a soul

should serve sin,) aut substantia ejus, (the aoul.) Est cnim Deus incorruplibi-
lis, et substantia ejus immaculata est et sancta. He goes on to enlarge upon
the subject, constantly inculcating, that the soul is of divine origin, [p. 842.]
and therefore can neither think nor do anything that is evil. In the second Dis-
pute, (p. 73.) he says Dico, quod nihil niali e.x se proferat Deus omnipotena,
:

et quod quae sua sunt incorrupta maneant, uno ex fontc inviolabili orta et ge-
nita : cetera vero quae in hoc mundo versantur contraria, non e.x Deo manare.
And therefore in the soul, which originated from God, sinful emotions and
vicious desires cannot arise ; they are exterior to the soul, and arise frona
the body and the evil soul. Hence, both Manes and all his discpies most
positively deny/ree icill, or the power of the soul to incline itself to either good
or evil. Because the soul, being an offshoot from God, is most constantly, and
by itsown nature, borne towards the good, and cannot possibly choose what
is evil. The same Forliinatus, strenuously arguing against free will, says: Si
mala (if our evil thoughts and emotions) ex Deo essent, aut daret licentiam
peccandi, quod dicis liberum arbitrium dedisse Deum, consensor jam invenieba-
tur delicti mei —aut ignorans, quid futurus cssem, delinqueret. - - Quae ab ipso

diximus fiicta esse, uti ab opifice Deo, uti ab ipso creata et genita incorruptibi
lia haberi — fides Evangelica docet. - - Inviti peccamus et cogimur a contrariu
et inimicil nobis substantia. And (p. 75.) : Dicimus, quod a contrarit\ naturu
anima cogatur delinquere. - - Constat, hoc, quod in nobis versatur, malum, ex
auctore malo descendere et portiunculum esse mali banc radicem. Sccundinus
the Manichacan, in his Epistle to Augustine, Qi
2. p. 369.) says: Si anima a spi-
ritu vitiorum incipiat trahi —ac poenitudinem gerat, habebat harum sordium in-
dulgentiffi fontera. Cnrnis enim commixtione duc.itur, non prnpriA voluntate.
And hence Augustine, (Disput. II. cum Felice, c. 8. p. 348.) shrewdly remarks;
Secundum vos (Manichagos) nulla peccata sunt. Gens enim tenebrarum non
peccat, quia suam naturam facit Natura lucis non peceat, quia quod facit, fa-
:

cere cogitur. Nullum ergo invenis peccatum, quod damnat Deus. These things —
being so, as the good soul cannot change its divine nature, nor commit any sin,
it is manifest, that such a soul has no need of a Saviour, to wasli away and re-

move its sins, by his death and sufferings. Yet Augustine went too far, in say-
ing that there were no sins whatever, which God could punish, on Manichaean
principles. For according to their views, a soul sins, especially if it has received
a knowledge of the truth, whenever it does not use its intelligence to suppress
the emotions and desires of the body and of the malignant soul. It sins by its
 352 Century III— Section 48.

negligence and inaction. For it is required to subdue the body and the incllna-
^
tion to sin ; and tliis it can do, partly by its natural energy, partly by tiie aid of
tbe tj'uih, and partly by the assistance of God and the Holy Spirit. It therclore

€ins whenever it neglects this duty, notwithstanding the ofleuces of the body
and of the evil soul, do not properly belong to it. Forlunaius, (Disput. II. cum
August, p. 75.) says explicitly : Id est peccatum animae, si post eommonitionem
[p. 843.] Salvatoris nostri etsanam doctrinam ejus, a contraria et inimic^ sui
stirpe se non segregaverit anima, et prioribus se non adornans anima aliter enim ;

non potest substantia3 suae reddi. Dictum est enim Si non venissem et locu- :

tus eis fuisseiu, peccatum non haberent. And yet this sin of negligence and
inaction, is not voluntary, but is constrained and coerced against the will of the
soul. For Fortunatus immediately subjoins: Patet igitur, (he had just cited
Rom. viii. 7.) his rebus, quod anima bona, factione illius, quee legi Dei non est
subjecta, peccare videtur, non sua spnnte. And in proof of this doctrine, he
cites Galat. v. 17. and Rom. vii, 23. The Manichaeans, indeed, sometimes speak,
as if the soul sinned voluntarily and, by its assent, approved the lusting of the
;

evil soul. Thus Secundinus, (Epist. ad August. ^ 2. p. 370.) Si vero anima a

spiritu vitiorum incipiat trahi et consential ac post consensum pcBuitudinem ge-
rat. - - At si cum seipsam cognoverit, conseniiai malo et non se arniet contra
inimicum, toluntate sua peccavit. Hence Euodius, (de fide contra Manicliacos,
c. 5. in 0pp. August, Append, p. 25.) says Ipse etiam Manichseus non
torn. 1. ;

potuit nisi faleri animas, etiam quas dicit ad substantiam Dei jiertinQr e, proprid
voluntate peccare. And this he attempts to prove, by some passages in the The-
saurus of Manes, and from his Epislola Fundanienli. But whoever will com-
pare together all the things said in these passages, will easily sec, that the Ma-
nichaeans use terms improperly, when they say, the good soul sins voluntarily,
and consents to the lustings of the evil soul. The soul, the ofispring of the
divine nature, cannot possibly will or approve evil ; and therefore its consent is

not real. Yet the soul is said to consent to the evil deeds of the bad soul, wiien
it suflers its perceptions to be obscured by the flesh and the evil soul, and its

energies to become so impaired and weakened, as not to resist them ; it con-

sents, when it allows itself to be overcome and compelled by the evil mind, so
as not to prevent what it abhors. This consent is like that of a man, who does
not shut up his house at night, nor keep a guard, and by such negligence af-

fords thieves an opportunity to plunder some portion of his goods. Therefore

this, the only sin which the soul can commit, is in one sense involuntarv, and in
another sense voluntary. ]t is involuntary, in as much as the pure mind can-
not but abhor the purposes and actions of the evil soul, and is unwillingly over

come and compelled not to arrest those purposes and actions and it is voluntary, ;

in as much as it does not brace itself against them, when it is blinded and over-
come. This sin, whatever it may be, is not so great and heinous, that God can-
not let it pass unpunished ; nor does it require any Saviour. All the crimina-
lity of it may be washed away by repentance, because it was not voluntary. So
the Manichaeans invariably teach. Thus Secundinus, (Epist. ad August. ^ 2.
p. 369.) anima post consensum pcenitudinem gerat, habebit harum sordium
; Si
indulgentise fontem. Carnis enim commixtione ducitur, non propria voluntate.
 Christ as a Savior. 353

- - Qnam si iterum pudeat errasse, paratum inveniet miserieordiarum [p. 8 14.]

auctorem. Non enim punitur, quia peccavit, sed quia de peccato iion doluit.
And Fortunatus, (Disput. ii. cum Augustino, p. 75.)
; Unde pntet, recte esse
fKBiiiteiitiam datam post adventum Servatoris et post iianc scieiitiam rerum, qua
possit anima, acsi divino fonte lota, de sordibus et vitiis tam niundi totius, quam
corporum, in quibus eadera anima versatur, regno Dei, unde progressa est, re-

pra^sentari. —This doctrine of tlie Manichaeans respecting tiie sins of tiie good

soul, as likewise all that they teach respecting both the good soul and the bad
one, is, I admit, a compound of incongruities, and appear.^ not well put together.
But I will not go into any discussion, as I am merely acting the historian.
(2) According to Manes, Christ's advent had two objects. In the^rs^ place,
it brought to men the knowledge of the truth. Before the advent the greatest
part of mankind, through the wiles of the Prince of darkness, followed the
grossest errors, and were alike ignorant of their own nature, and of the nature
of God. The Jews, instead of worshipping God, worshipped the Prince of
darkness himself, and obeyed his law given by Moses, as if it were divine. The
other nations served the prefects of the world of darkness resident in the stars,
and supposed them to be Deities. The Son of God, therefore, came to over-
throw this kingdom of darkness among men, which was based on ignorance and

error or to teach mortals, whence came evil, what was the origin of souls, and
;

what is the cause of the perpetual conflict in man between

reason and inclina-
tion, &c. Says Forlunalus, (Disput. I. cum
Quia inviti pecc^imus
.'\ugust. p. 74.) :

— idcirco sequimur scientiam rerum. Qua scientiiiadmonita anima et memoriae

pristinae reddita (for the soul resident in the body, forgets the truth which it

before understood) recognoscit, ex quo originem trahat, in quo malo verselur,

quibus bonis iterum emendans, quod nolens peccavit, possit per emendationem
delictorum suorum, bonorum operum gratii\, meritum sibi reconciliationis apud
Deum coUocare, auctore Sulvatore nostro, qui nos docet et bona e.vercere et
mala fugere. — In the second [ilace, Jesus Christ, both by precept and by example,
showed men, how the good soul dweHing in an evil body, and associated with
an evil soul, must be purgated, in order to become worthy to return to its
celestial country. He therefore prescribed an austere system of moral discipline.
That code of morals, which Manes says was taught by Christ, and which Manes
expounded in his Epistola Fundamenti, (as Augustine testifies, in his work de
nioribus JManiehajorum, L. ii. c. 20. Opp, tom. i. p. 554.) was most gloomy, and
repulsive to human nature. The principal parts of it are recounted with much
complacency, by Faustus, an eloquent disciple of Manes, (L. v. c. 1. 2. p. 140.)
thus: Ego patrem dimisi, et matrem, uxorem, filios, et cetera, quae Evangelium
jubet, et interrogas,utrnm accipiam Evangelium ? Nisi adhuc nescis, quid sit,
quod Evangelium nuncupatur. Est enim hihil aiiud, quam prsedicatio et man-
datum Christi. (So then the Manichaeans affirmed, that the Gospel [p. 845 ]
consisted principally in the rules of life enjoined by Christ.) Ego argentum et
aurum rejeci, et aes in zonis habere destiti, quotidiano contentus cibo, ncc de
crastino curans.- - Vides in me Christi beatiaidines illas, vides pauperem, vides

mitem, vides pacificum, puro corde, lugentem, esurientem, sitientem, {Fauslus

omits the words for righteousness, in order to find his fasting, or the hungering
VOL. n. 24
 354 Century Ill.—Section 48.

and thirsting practised by his sect, among the precepts of Clirist;) persecutiones
et odia sustiiientem. - - Omnia mea dimisi, patrem, matrem, uxorem, tilioa, an-

rum, argentum, manducare, bibere, delicias, voluptates. Faustus, a man of in-

genuity and fluency, pursues the subject at considerable length ; and, among
other things, he says: Age, interrogemus Christum, unde potissimum nobis sa-
lutis oriatur occasio. Quis hominum in regnum tuum intrabit, Christe ? Qui
fecerit, inquit, voluntatem Patris mei, qui in coelis est. Non dixit, qui me pro-
fessus fuerit natum : (for the Manichajans pertinaciously denied, that Christ
was ever born.) Et alibi dixit ad discipulos, Ite, docete omnes gentes —docen-
tes eos servare omnia, qua^ mandavi vobis. Non Dixit : docentes eos, quia sum
natus. Nee non in monte quum doceret: Beati pauperes - - nusquam dixit:
Beati, qui me confess! fuerint natum. - - Diviti quaerenti vitam aeternam: Vade,
inquit, vende omnia, quae habes, et sequere me. Non dixit Crede me natum, :

ut in aeternum vivas. And thus, whatever precepts Christ gave to his Apostles,
or to individual men, are all converted into general rules of life, and, solely by
performing them, souls become prepared, as they supposed, for salvation. Says
Secundinus, (Epist. ad August, p. 369.): Ut hominum corpora arma peccati
sunt, ita salutaria (Christi) praecepta arma justitiae. —
As the whole religious
system of Manes, is notliing but the religion of the Persian Magi, tinctured
with some portions of Christianity; so, also, tliis severe code of morals, is Per-
sian,and derived from the schools of the Magi, in which Manes was educated.
For this assertion, I have the authority of Diogenes Lacrlius, and likewise of
Eubulus, whom Jerome, (contra Jovinianum, L. ii. Opp. tom. iv. p. 206. edit.
Benedict.) thus cites Eubulus, qui Historiam Mithrae multis voluminibus ex-
:

plicuit, narrat apud Persas tria genera Magorum, quorum primes, qui sint doc-
tissimi et eloqucntissimi, excepta farina et olere, nihil amplius in cibo sumere. I
add Clemens Alexandrinus, (Stromat. L. iii. p. 533. edit. Paris.) who says-
'AfAiXii iT/u ffiovTiSci 1<7-Ti KSLi Toli Miiyoif, Stvou Tt ouov, Kai fw^y^av xai dppci'tirictl

dni^ar^-M, Xarfiioua-tv dyy'cXoii xai iaifj-oirii. Certe Magjs quoque curae est, qui

angelos et daemones colunt, simul a vino et animatis et rebus venereis abstinere.

No two things could be more perfectly alike, than the Manichaeans and these
Magi. According to our feelings, most of the duties which Manes, in imitixtion
of the Magi, enjoined on his followers, are exceedingly unpleasant; but they
[p. 846.] were, undoubtedly, less annoying to the Persians ; whose bodies, like
those of all the Orientals, do not require so much nutriment as ours, and who
can dispense with flesh and solid food without mucii inconvenience, and neither
crave nor relish wine. The modern Persians have no fondness for wine or
flesh, and can live very comfortably on fruits, herbs, and melons. I have no
doubt, therefore, that both Manes and his early followers observed the precepts

he set forth, and led a sober and apparently an austere life. This, Manes could
the more easily do, because he had been accustomed to those rules from early
life among the Magi. which in Asia was but slightly repul-
But this discipline,

sive and painful, when Europe and other regions, was very an-
transferred to
noying and painful, and it exhausted and emaciated the body. Hence the Mani-
chseans who lived at Rome, and in Italy, and Africa, were most of them pale,
lean, and emaciated, with gloom and anguish visible in their countenances. This
 Christ as a Saviour. 355

appenrance of excessive abstinence and self-denial,

is conceded to them by their

most virulent opposers, notwithstanding they give intimations that the private
habits of the sect were not very sober and chaste. Augustine, in his work de
utilitate credendi, addressed to Honoralus, whom he wished to recover from
Maniclireism, (c. 18. Opp. torn. i. p. 51.) thus writes: Alia multa me docuit ec-
quo illi homines (Manichaji) exsanques corporibus, sed crassi
clesia catiiolica,
mentibus adspirare non possunt. And Leo the Great, (Sermo x.x.xiii. c. 4. Opp.
torn. i. p. 93.) says : Neminem falUint (Manichaei) discretionibus ciborum, sordi-
bus vestium, vuUuumque palloribus. Non sunt casta jejunia, quae non de ratione
veniunt continentia?, sed de arte foUaciae. Leo would persuade his hearers, that
the lean and emaciated form, and the pallidness of the Manichajans, which could
not be denied, were the result of some imposition, and not of abstinence : but
I know not, whether he had good evidence to support him. The pallidnes of the
Manichaeans became proverbial at Rome; so that persons meeting a young
woman with a pallid countenance, would call her a Manichaean. Thus Jerome
tells us, (Epist. xviii. ad Eustochium de custodia virginitatis, Opp. torn. iv. Pars
II. p. 32.): Et quam viderint pallentera atque tristem, miseram, Monacham et

Manichccarn vocant. And yet these colorless, lean, and sorrowful Manichaeans,
who dwelt at Rome and in Italy in the fourth and fiftii centuries, were not
genuine followers of Manes, but had departed in many respects from the strict
rules of their master. For the Manichaean discipline had been relaxed in the
countries of the West; nor were even their bishops able to endure the discip-
line, which Manes imposed in his Epistola Fundamenti. A striking example in
point, is narrated by Augustine, (de moribus Manichaeorum, L. ii. c. 20. torn. i.

p. 553, 554. and, contra Faustum, L. v. c. 7. torn. viii. p. 142.) One Constantius,
a Manichaean of the class called Auditors, a man of great wealth, and peculiarly
devoted to the intersts of his sect, was much troubled, at hearing that the dis-

persed and vagrant JManichaeans often lived quite otherwise than the [p. 847.]
law of Manes required. And, to put an end to this disgrace, he wished to col-
lect them together in his own house, where they could conveniently live accord-
ing to the precepts of their master. At first, the bishops of the sect, knowing the
intollerable severity of their rules, resisted his purpose ; and he complained, that
his so important efforts were foiled, by the laxness of the bishops, (who, neverthe-

less, were pallid and colorless,) by whose assistance those efforts ought to be car-
ried into effect. But, by good fortune, one of the bishops favored his project.
Therefore all the Elect, 2vlio could be collected, were assembled at Rome. The rule

of life in the Epistle of Manes was proposed. Many deemed it intollerable, and
retired ; but a considerable number, from modesty, remained. These connnenced
living, as Constantius wished, and as teas prescribed by so high authority. But
their zeal was of short duration. First, broils arose among them then, they ;

muttered, that these mandates could not be endured; and thence sedition. Constan-
tins, the founder of the company, showed them clearly, that, either all these pre-

cepts are to be followed, or the man 7nust be deemed a consumate fool, ivho gave
precepts which no one can folloiv. But he could effect nothing. First the bishop

eloped ; and many followed his example. Yet, a few remained, who had sepa-
rated from the rest. And these, the otlier Manichaeans contemptuously called
r.r;G Century III.— Section 48.

Mattarii, because they slept on malice (mats), a sort of rude beds without
frames. —This shows, how great was the severity of the moral discipline of Ma-
nei ; wliicli could not be endured, even by those who otherwise lived abstemi-
ously and harshly, or by persons who manifested by their countenances, and by
the leanness and emaciation of their bodies, how much they shunned all indul-
gences. —But, let us come more directly to our subject.
As the body, according to Manes, is itself evil, and is the work of the Prince
of darkness, or a prison in which good souls are held captive, it was necessary
that he should teach, that the be attenuated, tortured, and deprived
body is to

of all comforts. And as he further held, that the good soul is influenced by no
cravings and no desires, and maintained that all appetites and lusts are seated
in the evil soul, which dwells in the body he could not avoid inculcating, that
;

all appetence whatever of things without us, is not merely to be restrained and

allayed, but to be wholly extirpated; that all emotions and aflections of the
mind, being in their very nature evil, are to be slain, and no inclination is lo be
oratified. For, the more liberty is allowed to the evil soul of desiring and
hankering, the more langor and weakness befall the good soul so that ; it becomes
less able to purge itself, and to repel the defilements with which it is beset on
every side. And, on the contrary, the more rigidly the good mind binds down
and confines the body and the evil soul, the more easily it forces its way out of
the darkness. The true Manichacan, therefore, will not sufler himself to be in-
fluenced by any desire whatever of any sensible object; he must neither sorrow
nor rejoice, neither fear nor hope, every pleasure must be shunned, and the
drama of this world must be contemplated with a stable, unmoved, and tranquil
[p. 848.] mind. Those only who obey this law, can hope to return to the world
of light when they leave the body. — But, as Maries could foresee, that if he pre-

scribed to all his followers this very stringent law so revolting to human nature,
he could have but few adherents, and be the head of only a small sect; he pre-
scribed a more indulgent rule for the multitude or the common people. And
thus, following the example of the Magi, from whom lie derived the greatest
part of his regulations, he divided his commonwealth into the Elect and the
Auditors; the former, bound to observe most sacredly all the irksome precepts
soon to be described, and the latter, allowed to follow the instincts of nature.
Of this distinction among Manicheeans, we shall treat in the proper place we ;

now consider only the rule of life for the Elect, and which is the only way
to salvation.
The Manichaeans arranged their whole system of moral discipline under
three heads, which they called Signacula, or Seals namely, the signaculum of
;

tlie moutli, of the hands, and of the bosom. Thus Augustine, (de Moribus Mani-
chaeor. L. ii. c. 10. p. 538.): Videamus tria ilia signacula, qua; in vestris moribus
magna laude ac prasdicatione jactatis. Quas sunt tandem ista signacula ? Oris
certe, et manuum Ut ore, et manibus, et sinu, castus et innocens sit
ac sinus.
homo. I have no doubt that Manes derived this distribution of duties from the
Persian Magi.. Augustine contends, th:^t it is clumsy and imperfect; which we
readily grant: but if the system was in other respects correct, we could put up
with the imperfection of the distribution. Before we arrange the duties en-
 Christ as a Saviour. 357

joined by Maniehas.ins under these three lieads, let us hear their own explana-
tion of the distinction they make.
Augustine thus states the views of the doc-
tors of the sect Quum os nomino, oranes sensus, qui sunt in capite, intelligi
:

volo; quum autem manum, omnem operationem; quum sinum, omnem libidi-
nein seminalem. Therefore, all duties and faults, which can be referred to the
eyes, the ears, the tongue, the month, the taste, or the smell, belong to the first
signaculnm, thai of the mouth. All actions, whether commanded or forbidden,
are comprehended under the second signaculum, that of tlie hands. The third
signaculum, that of the bosom, prohibits all venereal desires wiiatever. — Among
the duties of tiie signaculnm of the vwuth, the first was, (as Augustine tells us,

1. c. c. 11. p. 538.) to refrain from all blasphemy. This precept, in accordance

with their views, they so explained as to declare those blasphemers, who pro-
fessed but one first cause of all things, who taught that the bodies of men and
animals were created by God, who inculcated that the law of Moses proceeded
from God, who declared that the Son of God was born and actually died and, ;

on the contrary, those had holy thoughts of God, and were believed to eschew
all blasphemy, who embraced and professed the religion taught by Manes. This

precept is therefore very broad, and requires the adoption of the intire system
of the Manichteans.— In the next place, to the signaculum oris belongs, the rigid
and austere abstinence of the Manichaeans. This required them, first, [p. 849.]
to abstain from aU flesh. St^e Augustine ; (de Ha3res. c. 46. and, de Moribus
Manicha>or. L. ii. c. 13, &c. p. 540.) Fauslus, also, (L. vi. c. 1 p. 145.) says:
Omnem ego carnem immundnm existimo. Tiie principal reason for this precept
undoubtedly was, tiiat the use of flesh as food, strengthened the body, which
Bhould be weakened and attenuated ; and excited and inflamed animal passions,
which should be wholly extinguished. But there were other reasons. Ani-
mals, while alive, contain light or celestial soul commingled with matter; but
when dead, their flesh is wholly without soul, and consequently is a mere mass
of matter, belonging entirely to the kingdom of darkness: and therefore, those
who eat it, augment and enlarge the quantity of evil which is in them. Says
Augustine, (de jMoril)us IManicli. L. ii. c. 15. p. 543.): Aiunt, cum anima car-
nem deseruerit, nimias sordes reliquas fieri, et ideo eorum, qui carnibus vescun-
tur, animam coinquinari. That no portion of light or celestial matter remained
in the flesh, they proved from this, that flesh when burned emitted no light.

Says Augustine, (1. c. c. 16. p. 544.) : Dieitis, oli\aB folia cum Incenduntur, ig-
nem emittere, in quo praesentia lucis apparet ; carnes autem cum incenduntur
non idem facere. I pass by other reasons. — From the same causes, undoubtedly,
they reckoned eggs and milk among forbidden aliments. Says Augustine, (de
Haeres. c. 46. p. VI.) : Nee ova saltem sumunt, quasi et ipsa cum franguntur
expirent, nee oporteat ullis mortuis corporibus vesci - - Sed nee alimonia lac-

tis utuntur, quamvis de corpore animanlis vivente mulgeatur sive sugatur, non
quia putant divinae substantiae nihil ibi esse permixturn, sed quia sibi error ipse
non constat. Augustine here thinks, they had no reason for prohibiting the
use of milk ; but it is had a reason. Fish, they
sufficiently clear, that they
abominated, even iiore than flesh and they would rather starve than eat it.
;

Aiigustine, (contra Faustum, L. xvi. c. 9. p. 205.) Cur ita piscem vos noxiuaj •'
358 Century III. — Section 48.

praedicatis, ut si alia esca non occurrat, prius fame consumamini, quam iiisee

vescnmini. Perhaps, as often elsewhere, Augustine here exaggerates, in regard

to the Maniehaean abhorrence of fish. But if his statement is true, I confess I
can as-^ign no reason for this abhorrence. — As tlie Manieha?ans prohibited the
use of all animal food, they were obliged to repel hunger, with bread, salads,
herbs, pulse, fruits, and the products of the earth and trees. They therefore
used, first, bread ; both ordinary bread, and also cakes. Of their bread Augus-
tine speaks, (contra Faustum, L. xx. c. 23. p. 248.) : Eo pane vesciniini, quo ce-
teri homines, et fructibus vivitis et fontibus. Of their cakes he often speaks,
and particularly, (de Moribus Manichajor. L. ii. c. 16. p. 547.): In Elecfis ves-
tris esse non potest, qui proditus fuerit, non concupiscendo, sed medendo (for
[p. 850.] the recovery of health,) partem aliquam coenasse gallinae esse autem
:

in iis potest, qui vehementer cumiphas (a species of cakes,) et alia placenta de-
siderasse se ipse providerit. I cite tiiis passage in preference to others of the
kind, because it shows, that flesh was so strictly prohibited by them, that even
the sick could not use it without offending. They also preferred potherbs and
the products of trees and the ground, before bread and cakes ; because the for-

mer, they supposed, contained a greater portion of the celestial elements than
the otlier kinds of food. Says Augustine, (de Moribus Manichseor. L. ii. c. 16.

p. 543.) : Quaero, unde doceatis, in frumentis ac legumine, et oleribus, et flori-

bus et pomis inesse istam nescio quam partem Dei. Ex ipso coloris nitore,
inquiunt, et odoris jucunditate, et saporis suavitate manifestum est: quae dum
non habent putria, eodem bono sese deserta esse significant. A little before,
(c. 13. p. 541.) he had given a li.st, though an imperfect one of the Manichaean
eatables, thus : Quid porro insanius dici aut cogitari potest, hominem bolelos,
orizam, tubera, placentas, caroenum, piper, laser, distento ventre cum gratula-
tione ructantem et quotidie talia requirentem, non inveniri, quemadmodum u
tribus signaculis, id est, a regula sanctitatis excidisse videatur, aliam vcro fru-
ges vilissimas fumoso obsonio {lard, he supposes,) condientem certo supplicio
praeparari. But of no food were the i\Ianichaeans more fond, than of melons.
For their master had a predilection for them which is not strange, he being a ;

Persian, and the Persians to this day making great use of melons, which their
country produces of the most delicious kind. Says Augustine, (de Moribus
lyianichaeor. L. ii. c. 15. p. 544.) De thesauris Dei melonem putatis aureum
:

esse. And, Melonibus quam hominibus estis amiciores. Next

(c. 18. p. 550.) :

to melons, they preferred potherbs and olives. Says Augustine, (1. citato, p. 544.) :

Cur nitorem atque fulgorem olei damare copiam coadmixti boni arbitramini, et
ad id purgandum fauces et ventrem paratis. The first Manichaeans, like their
founder, ate their fruits, potherbs and salads, simple, or undressed and unsea-
soned ; and this was required by the law of Manes ; which condemned all

gratifications of the bodily senses, lest the evil soul should become excited by
tliem. But in this particular, as in many others, the European and African
Manichaeans departed widely from the rule of their master for they seasoned ;

their potherbs and pulse, with pepper and other things. Hence Augustine,
(1. citato, c. 13. p. 541.) charges upon them that: Exquisitas et peregrinas fru-

ges multis ferculis variatas et largo pipere adspersas nona hora libenter assu-
 Christ as a Saviour. 359

mant, noctis etiam principio tulia coenent. And, (c. 16. p. 541.) he says to
them : Quae ratio est, vel potius amentia, de numero Electorum hominem pel-
lere, qui forte carnem valetudinis caussa gustaverit Si autem piperata tubera:

Umtum forte possitis reprehendere, non

voraciter edere concupierit, immodestia
autem ut corruptorem damnare signaculi ? And yet Augustine admits, [p. 851.]
that there were some among them, though few, so zeaUius for the ancient and
rigid customs, that they bhimed these too luxurious brethren ; (1. citato, p. 541.) :

Electus vester tribus sigiiacuiis pra>dicatus, si itn, uti dixi, vivat, ab uno et for-

tasse duobus gravioribus reprelicndi potest, damnari autem tanquam signaculi

dissignator non potest. Si autem semel frusto pernae vel rancido labra unxerit
et vappa udaverit, soiutor signaculi vestri auctoris sententia judicabitur. —From
their food, I pass to their drink. The law of Manes most strictly prohibited all

use of wine ; and, undoubtedly, all other intoxicating drinks. Wine, as already
stated. Manes declared to be the gall of the Prince of darkness, poured upou
the earth. Yet his Italian and African disciples, in the times oi Augualine, had
no hesitation to eat grapes. Says Augustine, Qua3 (1. citato, c. 16. p. 545.);

t.inta perversio est, vinum putarc fcl priiicipum tenebrarum, et uvis comedendis
non parcere ? Magisne inerit illud fel cum in cupa, quam cum in acinis fuerit?
But, I suppose, these Manichasans took greater liberties, than the very severe
and troublesome law of their master allowed. And these later Manichajans
differed also from the more ancient, in other things pertaining to this part of
their discipline. The primitive Manichaeans drank either pure water, or as
Cxjrill of Jerusalem .says, (Cateches. vi. \ 31. p. 108.) water with an infusion of
wheat or barley straw : tcij dx^fi ij<f:t<ri, palearum aquis. But the Auguslinian
Manichaeans were more indulgent to the palate ; although it was displeasing
to the graver and more austere brethren. For Augustine say.s, (1. citato, c. 13.

p, 541.): Bibebant mulsum, caroenum passum, et nonnullorum pomorum e.x-

pressos succos, vini speciem satis imitantcs, atque id etiam suavitate vincentes.
What Augustine here calLs carainum passum, he h:id just before called coctum
vinum, (c. 16. p. 546.) : Carcenum, quod bibitis, nihil aliud quam coctum vinum
est, quod vino dcberet esse sordidius. Beausobre, (vol. II. p. 775.) well con-
jectures, that this caroenum was water in which bruised grapes had been boiled.
Undoubtedly, it was some kind of
produced from bruised grapes, by
liquor,
boiling and one which the Latins called passum, a name also used by Angus-
;

tine. But I do not suppose this caroenum, to be that species of sweet factitious
wiree, called carenum, mentioned by Palladius. And yet I have doubts, whether
the two words caroenum passum should be joined together, as they are in the
printed editions of Augustine ; or should be disjoined, so as to make them de-
note two kinds of liquor. Some of the Manichaeans also used hordei succo ;

that is, as I apprehend, beer or ale.Says Augustine, (c. 16. p. 546.) Hordei :

quidam succo vinum imitantur. — Hoc genus potus citissime inebriat nee tamen :

unquam succum hordei fel principum dixistis. — I proceed to other things. As

the signaculum oris extended to all the senses, and condemned all indulgence
of them, I suppose we must refer to it; First, That the Manichaeans were [p. 852.]
required by their master to sleep, not on couches, but on the ground, or on matts
or coarse rags. Epiphanius, (Haeres. Ixvi. { 12. p. 629.) says, they slept eiri
o(50 Century III. — Sectiofi 48.

xaAd«o/f, on rusJies. Of this, I have already spoken ; and I may here observe,
tliat Manes borrowed this part of his discipline also from the Magi. For Solion,
as quoted by Diogenes Lccriius, (Proem, de dictis et fiictis Philosopher, p. 6.)

says of the Magi : Tovtuv Si Ea-S-iu fjciv Mvx.-ri, a-n/ias /« euvii, nUi Xup^atvcv t^j^»,

Tvpds T6 x.at His vestis candida, lectus humus, esca oius, caseus,
afToc iVTtK^c.

panisque cibarius you except Irom this list the cheese, which, as well as
est. If
milk, the Manichaeans abliorred you have here, the mode of living prescribed
;

by Manes to his disciples. Secondly, That they were to be clad in plain, and
even sordid garments, entirely without ornament and to wear their beards and ;

hair long, after tlie example of their master. We have already cited a passage
from Leo the Great. As for the clothing and beard of Manes, see Archelaus^
Dispute with him, (p. 23.) Habebat calceamenti genus, quod quadrisole vulgo
:

appellari solet, (high and troublesome :) pallium autem varium, tanquam aerina
specie, (old and much worn, I suppose, so that its color could hardly be de-
termined :) in manu vero validissimum baeulum tenebat, (as was usual with the
Magi,) ex ligno ebelino ; crura etiam braccis obtexerat colore diverso, quarum
una rufa, alia velut prasini choris erat, (that is, to indicate his poverty, he wore
trowsers of various pieces of different colored cloth sewed together; such as
beggars wore.) Vultus vero ut senis Persse artificis et bellorum ducis (that
is, grave and venerable.) erat. Archelaus thus addressed him, (^ 36. p. 23.) :

Barba (i. e. long-bearded) Sacerdos Mitln-je et collusor. — Thirdly, That they

were required to shun the baths, the shows, and tlie theatres. Angusline, (in

his last Book de Moribus Manichworum, p. 551, 552.) specifying in what re-

spects tlie Manichaeans had abandoned the unconfortable rule of their master,
among other things, says : Multi in vino et carnibus, mu!ti lavantes in baineia
invent! sunt. In theatris Electos et aetate et moribus graves cum sene presby-
tero saepissime inveninius. Omitto juvencs, quos etiam rixantes pro scenicis et
aurigis deprehendere solebamus. Batiis, therefore, and theatres and shows,

were utterly forbidden them. Tyrho, likewise, (in the Acta Archelai, \ 10.
p. 16.) testifies to the strict prohibition of the baths. To all these duties, com- —
prised under the signaculum of the mouth, were added fasts, both annual and
on certain days of each week, obligatory on Manichaeans. As to their annual
fasts, I find nothing specific on record : yet that they held such fasts, cannot be
doubted. Jerome tells us, (Comment on Amos. c. 3. 0pp. torn. iii. p. 1396.)
that, just like Tatian : Manichaeum laborare continentia et jejiiniis, xeropliagiis,
chamaeeuniis. Many suppose the last word to denote rigils ; but I doubt it.

[Dii Cange, Glossar. mediae et imf. Latinit. torn. i. p 1042, thinks chameiincz
{^rifxivviat) to be matts spread on the ground for sleeping.] Yet it is certain,

[p. 853.] that the Manichaeans kept vigils, and held them at stated times : Au-
gustine occasionally mentions them. Jerome, in another passage, (Comment on
Joel, torn. iii. p. 1345.) says: Jejunat Manichaeus : sed hoc jejunium saturitate
et ebrietate deterius est. Two days in every week, Sundays and Mondays, the
Manichaeans devoted to fasting of this we have before given evidence. One
:

of tliose fiists, that on what we call the Lord's day, or Sunday, was observed
both by the Elect and the Auditors ; and, of course, was a fist of the whole
church. To this Augustine testifies, (Epist. ccxxxvi. tom. ii. p. 643.) : Audi-
 Christ as a Saviour. 351

tores die quoque Dominico cum Electis jejunant, et omnes blaspliemias cum il-

lis credunt. From thi^ it is inferred, that the fast of the second day of the
\v?el<, Monday, was confined to tlie Elect. That these fasts were very strict,
or
ard restrainedtlie Manichaeans from all food and drink, the precepts of the sect

put beyond all controversy. And hence, they accounted it among the best
proofs of their sanctity. Said Fau.sius, (L. v. c. 1. p. 140.) : Vides me esurieu-
tem et .sitientem : et interrogas, utruni accipiam Evangelium? Hunger and
thirst, therefore, according to the j\Ianichaeans, were not the smallest part of
that Gospel which the Son of God proclaimed to men and to prove it, they :

mutilated the words of the Savior, Matth. v. 6. by omitting the word, S'lmtnTufnv,
righeousness ; so tliat their copies read simply ; Blessed are theij that hunger
and thirst. — Of all the pleasures of sense, the signaculum oris tolerated buto«e,
that derived from music. For they supposed music to be of divine origin ; as
Augustine informs us, (de moribus Manichaeor. L. ii. c. 16. p. 546.) : Dulcedo
musica, quam de divinia regnis venisse contenditis, nobis mortuarum carnium
Bordibus e.xhibetur. Beausobre, (in the Preface to his Histoire de Manichee,
p. x.xxi.) adds the pleasure, which the mind derives through the nostrils from
perfumes and burning incense. Where he learned this, I do not know but it ;

is quite credible ; for the Persians, like all the people of the East, are exceed-
ingly fond of sweet odors. Besides, that the pleasures of smell were not deem-
ed unlawful by the ^laiiichaeans,is sufliciently manifest from the fact, before

mentioned, that they concluded ex odoris jucunditate emitted by fruits and

flowers, that these contained more celestial matter than other objects. See
Augustine, (de moribus Manichaeor. L. ii. c. 16. p. 543.)
I pass to the signaculum of the hands ; which prohibited all actions incon-
sistent with the tranquillity of the soul, or proceeding from any desire. For, if
we except the single desire of returning to the celestial country after leavinor
the body, which the divine and good mind ought to cherish, all other desires,
and appetites, according to the opinion of the Manichaeans, originate
instincts,
from the body and the evil soul, and are therefore vicious and impure. Augus-
tine, (de moribus Manichaeor. L. ii. c. 17 &c.) treats of this signaculum manuum,
as if it required nothing but to abstain from killing animals and lacerating
vegetables. But it required many other things, which Augustine seems [p. 854.]
to have omitted, lest he should be obliged toacknowledge something good and
commend.ible in the Manicliaean discipline; and so he named only that, which
would afford opportunity for most censure and vituperation. First, The perfect
Manichaean, therefore, following the example of Christ's Apostles, ought to di-
vest himself intirely of all natural affection towards parents, children, brothers,
and and also to suppress the love of life, health, and comfort. For
relatives;
the love of kindred originates from flesh and blood, and of course frota evil;
and the end of life is the liberation of the soul from its prison, which the wise
should rather desire than fear. Said Faustus, (L. v. c. 1. 2. p. 140.): Ego
patrem dimisi et matrera, uxorem, filios et cetera, quae Evangelium (so he calls
the system of moral discipline.) jubet. - - Omnia mea dimisi, patrem, matrem,
uxorem, filios, aurum, argentum, manducare, bibere, delicias, voluptales. Other
proofs may be gathered from the testimonies heretofore adduced. Secondly,
362 Century III. — Section 48.

The perfect Manichaean ought to live in extreme poverty, and neither to possess
nor desire any worldly goods, neither gold, nor silver, nor furniture, nor home,
nor anything whatever; and to live contentedly on a slender, sparing, daily
amount of food, supplied him by those called Audilors. Said Faustus, (L. v.
c. 1. 2. p. 140.): Ego argentum et aurum rejeei (when I became a Maniciifean,)

et aes in zonis habere destiti, quotidiano cibo, nee de crastino curans. — Vides in

me Christi beatitudines illas, vides pauperem. And a little after: Christus dixit:
Beati pauperes; et, diviti quaerenli vitam aeternain, Vade, vende omnia quae
habes, et sequere me. We may here remark that the Manicheeans, in order to
prove that Christ required this absolute penury of all things, read the language

of tlie Saviour, ^latt. v. 3. simply, MAKdftoi oi vto)x,oi, (Blessed are the poor;)
omittinf the words toT vytZfAtLTi, (in spirit.) And 'I'yrbo, (in the Acta Archelai,
^ 9. p. 16.) says: Si quis dives est in hoc mundo, cum exierit de corpore suo,
necesse est, eum in corpus pauperis injici. - - - Qui aedificaverit sibi domum,
dispersretur in omnia corpora. I am aware, that tills Tijrbo erred in some
things; but in reporting the precepts of the Manichaeans, he did not mistake.
Augustine, (de moribus ecclesiae et Manich. L. i. c. 35. p. 531.) says: Quid ca-

lumniamini, quod fideles jam baptismate renovati procreare filios, et agros ac

domos, pecuiiiamque ullam possidere non debeant. - - Dicitis catechumenis
licere liabere pecuniam, fidelibus non licere. —
Thirdly, The perfect Manichaean
should refrain from all labor, and from all business whatever; and should spend
his life in uninterrupted repose and contemplation. He siiould therefore not

build up, nor pull down; not bake bread, nor grind in the mill; not till the
ground, nor reap the grain, nor engage in any manual labor whatever. Tyrbo,
(in the Acta Archelai, { 9. p. 16, 17.) having said, tiiat it is not lawful for Mani-
[p. 855.] chaeans, (he means, the Elect,) to plant, build, reap, put grain into the
mill, or bake bread, adds: Aia roZra dTiifurai duroli cp-yov TToi^a-cti. Propter hoc
illicitum est apud eos opus quoddatn facere. And hence Augustine, (de utilitato

credendi, c. 1. p. 34.) says, that he refused to pass from the class of Auditors to

that of the Elect among the Manichaeans, Ne hujus mundi spem atque negotia
dimitteret. And a little after, he says that he, while a Manich:iean, Spem
gessisse de pulchritudine uxoris, de pompa divitiarum, de inanitate honorum,
ceterisque volujitatibus. Haec omnia, (he says,) cum studiose illos audirem,
cupi-re et sperare non desistebam. Sed fateor, illos sedulo inonere, ut ista cave-

anlur. the precept is obvious. All manual labors proceed from

The reason of
solicitude,and are subservient to the desires of men; but all solicitudes are
evil and therefore, a holy man sho\ild neither obey them nor harbor them.
;

Fourthly, In particular, it was not lawful for a true and perfect Manichaean, to
pluck the fruit from trees, to strip trees of leaves, to pull up plants, shrubs, and
herbs, or to do violence to any part of nature. Of this obligation, Augustine
treats in many places, and formally, in his work de moribus Manichaeorum,
(L. ii. c. 17 &c.) where, among other things, he says: Poma ipsi non decerpitis,
herbamque non vellitis, sed tamen ab Auditoribus vestris decerpi et evelii atque
afferri vobis jubetis. He had just before said: Si quis non imprudentia, sed
sciens pomum, foliumve de arbore decerpat, signaculi corruptor sine ulla dubi-
tatione damnabitur, sed omnino (damnabitur) si arborem radicitus eruat. And
 Christ as (i Saviour. 303

(de Haeres. c. 46. p. 12.): A^rum spinis piirg.ire, nefas habent. —Eloeti iiil.il in
ajrris operaiites, nee poma c.irpentes, nee saltiui folia ulla vellentes, e.xpeetant

iiaee aiferri u-ibus suis ab Auditoribus sui.s. And, (contra Faustum, L. .\vi. e.

i;8. p. 214.): A vobis qnisquis vulserit .spicas,e.x traditione Manichaei hoinieida

deputatur. Tliis pnerile precept will not appear very strange to one well ac-
quainted with the principles of their system. Tiie Manicliaeans, supposed all

nature to be animated, or that, in all its parts, there was a comrai.vture of the
celestial elements with matter. Thus Manes himself. (Epist. ad filiam Menoch,
apud August. Opus imperf. L. iii. in a passage already quoted,) says: Animam
confusam esse oninibns corporibus et saporibus, et speciebus variis cohaerere.

And, as quoted by Alexander of Lycopolis, (contra Manicliaeos, p. 19.) he says:

riuKra vous sfl-Tc. Omnia sunt anima. Augustine, (de Haeres. c. 46. p. 11, 12.)

says: Ilerbas atque arbores sic putant vivere, ut vitam, quae illis ine.st, et >en-
tire credaiit, et dolere, cum laeduntur, nee aliqnid inde sine cruciatu eorura
quemquam posse veliere aut ciirpere. Therefore, in tlie opinion of this sect,
whoever plucked off or pulled up herbs, apples, leaves, or any fruits, not only
offered violence and gave pain to some soul, but also dislodged it from iis place
or habitation. There was also another and a graver reason. The Manicliaeans
were persuaded, that rational human souls, portions of the divine light, [p. 856.]

if not sufliciently purgated, migrated into other bodies, and also into trees, herbs,
and plants : of this we shall treat hereafter. Augustine, (de Haeres. c. 46. p. 12.)
nays: Animas et in pecora redire putant et in omnia, quae radieibus fi.xa sunt,
et aluntur in terra. Hence it might be, that he who plucked leaves, or an ap-
ple, or a fig, or pulled up an herb, might be equally culpable with one who slew
a man. And, as I have before shown, it was common for Manichaeans to com-
pare the laceration of shrubs, and violence done to trees and ears of corn, with
the crime of homicide. Fifthly, Manes had the same reasons for strictly forbid-

ding his more perfect disciples, from pursuing agriculture, or anything au.xiliary
to it; although he allowed the Auditors a liberty to cultivate the ground. Says
Angustine, (de Haeres. c. 46. p. 12.): Agriculturam, quae omnium artium est
innocentissima, tanquam plurium humicidiorum ream deinenter accusant. And
Tyrho, (in the Acta Archelai, \ 9. p. 16.) tells us, that they held agriculture in

such abhorrence, that they said of usurers, those bloodsuckers of the unfortu-
nate, that they sin less than husbandmen. And Augustine, (de nioiibus Mani-
chaeor. L. ii. c. 17. p. 550.) after saying, that the founder of the sect allowed the
Auditors to pursue agriculture, proceeds thus: Quanquam sacpe etiam dicere au-
deatisfoeneratorem innocentiorem esse,quam rusticum. 3/a;ies supposed the whole
earth to be full of souls; so that whoever disturbs their repose, commits an of-
fence, as it were, against God himself, the parent of those souls. Sixthly, But
it was a much greater violation of the signaculum manuum, to slay animals of
any species whatever. This was not allowable even for the Auditors; although
they might eat the flesh of animals killed by others. See Augustine, (de Hae-
res. c. 46. p. 12. and, de raoribus Manichaeor. L. ii. c. 17. p. 549. and many other

places.) For Manes himself gave a special reason. Animals came

this prohibition.

into this world from the kingdom of darkness, or, as was shown in a proper place,
they fell down from the stars where the demons reside. Therefore the princes
364 Century III.— Section 48.

of darkness are attached to these animals, and inflict punishments on such as

kill them. Augustine, (de moribus Manichaeor. L. ii. c. 17. p. 549.) : Non
deest homini cailido (Maneli) adversus indoctos in naturse obscuritate per-
fugium. Coelestus enira, ait, principes, qui de gente tenebrarura eapti aique
vincti, a eonditore niundi in illis ordinati sunt locis, sua quisque possidet in
terra animalia, de suo scilicet genere ac stirpe venientia: qui pereiiiptores
eorura reos tenent, nee de hoc mundo exire permittunt, poenisque illos quibus
possunt et eruciatibus adterunt. But from this prohibition of killing, they ex-
cepted the insects which annoy men"s bodies, fleas, &c. for they denied that
;

these animals came from the skies, and accounted them the filth of our bodies.
Augustine, (1. citato, p. 550.) : Quid quod a nece animalium nee vos ipsi in pe-
[p. 857.] diculis, in pulicibus et cimicibus temperatis. Magnamque hujus rei

defensionem putatis, quod has esse sordes nostrorum corporum dicitis. Against
this opinion, Augustine argues with shrewdness. Lastly; strange as it may
appear in men professing to be strict imitators of Christ, they forbid the giving
of bread and other things, to the poor, who were not Manicha-ans. But, fur
this inhumanity, if so it may be called, they had their reasons, derived from the
internal principles of their religion. Augustine, (de moribus Manichaeor. K ii.

c. 15. p. 543.) : Hinc est, quod mendicant! hjomini, qui Manichaeus non sit, pa-
rem, vel aliqnid frugum, vel aquam ipsam, quai omnibus vilis est, dari prohihe-
tis, ne mcmbrum Dei (i. e. good and celestial matter,) quod his rebus admixtura
est, suis peccatis sordidatum a reditu (ad terram lucis) impcdiat. But to free

themselves in some measure from the odium they incurred by this custom, they
allowed money, instead of bread, to be given to the needy. Augustine, (1. cit.

c. 16. p. 547.) : Quae cum ita sint, etiam panera mendicanti dare prohibetis:
<5ensetis tamen propter misericordiam, vel potius propter invidiam, nummos dari.

Quid hie prius arguam, crudclitatem an vecordiam 1 Beausobre, (vol. ii. p. 7»6,
&c.) as he is always oflicious in behalf of the Manichaeans, so he labors hard
to wipe from them this stain, which he erroneously thinks to be worse (jilus sur-

prenante) than But this excellent man, in the explication of this mat-
all others.
ter, commits mistakes which show that even great men may err; and he adduces

no proof, on which even a suspicion can be raised, that Augustine, whohad lived
nine years among the Manichaeans, voluntarily misstated and calumniated them.
Nor is Augustine the only writer, as this learned man supposes, that accuses
the Manichffians of this crime. To pass over others, Theodoret, (Haeret. Fabul.
L. i. c. 26. tom. iv. p. 213.) says: Tkv /s In rrti/HTstc •yivc/Acvuv S'njiaWoviri ^ikuv-

d-fi»7ri:tv, TMc vKxt Xivoit Kiyoyri; ^ifxTrtixv. Benignitatem quae exercetur erga
pauperes reprehendunt, dicentes, earn es^^e cultum materise. By >j>'>i or materia,

as has been shown, and as Thecdoret had just before stated, the Manichwans
were accustomed to designate the Lord of matter, or the Prince of darkness
himself. They therefore supposed, that to give food to a poor man, not a Ma-
nichfean, (this limitation is omitted by Theodoret,) would be to render some
honor or service to the demon. This reason appears to differ from that assign-
ed by Aiigv.slme ; but both may be made to harmonize. Those who were not
Manichajans, were the -servants and sniijects of the Prince of darkness: but he
who Jiids and as.sists the sei-vants of Gud"s enemy, in a sense serves that eneujy.
 Christ as a Saviour. 3G5

Moreover, in every part of n:iture, during that first confiic between the good
and the evil Principles, some portion of eelesiial matter became intermixed
and it must be gradually sepanited and restored to its original state. Such a
separation is happily effected in the bodies of Manieha-ans, whose sonis, mind-
ful of their duty, withdraw the celestial in their food from pollution, [p, 858.1
Says Augustine, (1. cit. p. 543.) : Cibi, qui de frngibus et pomis parantnr, (for
flesh is altogether evil, and contains nothing divine,) si ad sanctos, id est, ad
Manichaios veniant, per eorum castitatem, et orationem, et psalmos, quicquid in
eis est luculentum et divinum purgatur, id est, e.\ omni parte perfieitur, ut ad

regna propria sine ulla sordium difficultate referatur. But in the bodies of ser-
vants of the Prince of darkness, in which the evil .^loul has the a.^cendancy, such
a separation is hindered. For the evil .sonl appropiates to itself all the food
they take, and retains the particles of celestial matter in bondage. And hence,
a holy man cannot give food to such men. Says Athandsiits, (Ilistoria Arianor.
ad Monachos, 0pp. torn. i. p. 381.): riitfa Mum^nioK «x«oc cuk ta-riv, dWa koI
l}(^Q-poY ia-Ti TTuf duToTj TO ihiih TTivxTx. Apud Manichffios nulla est conuni-
seratio, illis odiosa est paupercm (He should add
resque non Manichaeum) :

miserari. This was apparently very criminal in them but it was less so, than :

it appeared to be and it was rather superstitious, than criminal, if duly consi-

;

dered. For first, the IManichrcans were kind and liberal to the poor of their
sect. They wholly maintained the Elect among them, as will be shown here-
after and they undoubtedly succoured those of the Auditors who were needy.
;

But, secondly, their Auditors were forbidden to give to the indigent of oilier
sects, bread, water, and those aliments which spring from the earth, with which
they supposed some portion of celestial matter to be mi.ved. Yet, thirdly, they
might, to such baggars give Jlesh. For, as flesh belonged wholly to the world of
darkness, and was intirely destitute of celestial matter, after the soul left it at the

death of the animals, there was nothing to hinder their giving it to them. More-
over, /fwrt/i/y, it was lawful to give such persons money, with which they could
buy food if they wished. As I have said, there was superstition in this regula-

tion ; and I will add, foolish and ridiculous superstition : but as for that great
sin,which their enemies found here, and also learned men of this age, I do not
Bee it. For it is substantially the same, to give a person money with wliich he
can buy food, as to give the food itself. I have placed this prohibition among —
the rules of the severe discipline of the jManichaeans, but in reality itwas onlr
a part of the laxer discipline, or a rule of duty for those called Auditors. For
the Elect or more perfect, were absolute paupers, and lived entirely on the gra-
tuities of the Auditors. They had money, nor bread, nor houses, nor
neither
barns, nor fields, nor anything superfluous and therefore, they could not give
;

either bread, or flesh, or money to mendicants.

The signacuhnn of the bosom required perfect chastity, and forbid all lu.st,

unchastity, and even marriage. For the distinction of sexes and the procreation
of children, as it is well known, the Manichceans believed to be a cunning de-
vice of the Prince of darkness, by which souls are bound up in bodies, [p. 859.]
the empire of darkness in this world extended, and the return of the light, o?
the celestial matter, to God, impeded. And, therefore, they enjoined upon al\
8G6 Century III— Sec lion 48.

tlieir disdples all possible continence and virginity, and upon the Elect they
imposed perfect celibacy. According to their views, whoever procreates a body,
begets a prison for a celestial soul and, by the gratification of lust, he serves
;

the Prince of all evil. Hence, married persons, wishing to be admitted to the
rank of the Elect, were required forthwith to put away their wives and hus-
bands. Faustus, (apud August. L. v. c. 1. p. 140.) says: Omnia mea dimisi,
patrem, matrem, uxorem, liberos. This point does not need elaborate proof,
being so perfectly well known, that no one doubts it. In place of all, see the
passage in Faustus, (L. xxx. c. 4. p. 316.) Some one objecting to him, that
the Manichseans were the persons prophetically foretold by St. Paul, 1 Timo.
Iv. i : Discedunt a fide, intendentes doctrinis daemoniorum, prohibentes nubere ;

Faustus discusses the subject largely, and denies that his sect prohibited mar-
riage ; because, so strong is the force of nature, that to attempt to suppress it,

would border on madness. He says : Demens

non tantum stul-
profecto ille,

tus putandus est, qui id existimet lege privatu prohiberi posse, quod sit publica
concessum dico autem hoc ipsum nubere. Yet he confesses, that they exhorted
;

the people to avoid matrimony Nos horlamur quidem volentes, ut pennaneant

:

(eoelibes,) non tamen cogimus invitos, ut accedant. Novimus enim, quantum

voluntas, quantum et natura9 ipsius vis etiam contra legem publicam valeat, ne-
dum adversus privatam, cui respondere sit liberum Nolo. Nor does he deny, :

that absolute chastity was required of the Elect. And this regulation lie de-
fends, by the words of Christ, Matth, xix. 12, at the same time calling Christ,
Professionis puellarum coclibem sponsum. He says Q,uid de magistro ipso :

dicemus ac sanctimonii totius auctore Jesu, qui tria genera taxans spadonum,
eis palmani attribuit, qui se ipsos spadones fecerunt propter regnum coclorum,

significans virgines et pueros, qui nubendi ipsa a cordibus suis exsecti\ cupidi-
tate, spadonum vice in ejus ecclesia semper, tanquam in domo regia conversen-
tur. Et hoc vobis doctrina videtur da?moniorum ? From this difhcult part of
his discipline. Manes exempted tiie common people, who were called Auditors.
Respecting the milder discipline appointed for the Auditors, we shall speak
when we come to treat of that order of persons. Some parts of it, however,
have already been cursorily noticed.

§ XLIX. The Return of holy Souls to the World of Light. So

many sotils as receive Jesus Christ for the Son of God and Savior,
and, forsaking the worship of the Prince of darlcness and his as-
sociates, serve only the Father of Liglit, and obey with all their
[p. 860.] might the perfectly holy law enacted by Christ, and
constant!}^ resist the desires of the evil soul ; are becoming gra-
dually purged from the pollutions of vicious matter. This pro-
cess, indeed, the Prince of darkness, both personally and by his
ministers and satellites, strives with all his power to retard But :

the Holy Spirit, resident in the ether, aids the struggling souls,
that they may more easily escape his snares and overcome the
 Returri of Souls to Heaven. 367

perpetual temptations.(') And to those souls whicli occasionally

succumb and give the reins to the evil soul, as is not uncommon,
the gate of sorrow and repentance is open, by Avhich the pardon
cf their offences may be obtained from God.(^") Yet the entire
purgation of souls cannot be effected in the body. Therefore,
these souls, when released from the body,
must undergo a two-
fold lustration after death by pure water, and the second
;
the first

by fire. That is, they are first elevated by the sun's rays, and
pass into the moon, which is composed of good water in that :

they are purified during fifteen days, and then they proceed to
the sun, the good fire of which entirely takes away what defile-
ment remains and thence they go perfectly clean and bright to
;

their native country.(') And the body, which they left on the
earth,being composed of evil matter, returns to its original state,
and will never be resuscitated. (')

(1)That the Manichaj.ins believed the Holy Spirit, resident in tiie air, and
God and assist souls conflicting with the Prince of darkness,
in general, to aid

the body and the evil soul, in order to their victory, there can be no doubt.
Faustus, (L. XX. c. 1. p. 237.) mentions: Vires ac spiritalem profusionera Spiri-
tus Sancti, quam (dicit) tertiam Majestatem. And Manes himself, in the be-
ginning of his Epistola Fundamenti, (apud Aiigusl. Disput. i. cum Felice, p. 341.)
says : Pietas Spiritus Sancti intima vestri pectoris adaperiat, ut ipsis oculis vi-
deatis animas vestras. And Secundinits, Manicha3an, (in his Epist. ad Au-
n.

gust. 5 1. p. 260.) says much about the aid, which all the three divine Persons
afford to good souls, against the efforts and the machinations of the Prince of
evil. After giving thanks to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, for af-
fording him an opportunity for a discussion with Augustine, he proceeds thus
Nee mirum : Sunt enim (Pater, Filius, Spiritus Sanctus) ad omnia bona pras-
tanda et ad omnia mala arcenda satis aptissimi, quique tuam benevolentiam suis
defendant propugnaculis, eripiantque ab illo
—
malo quod paratum est, ut ve-
niat. - - Nam dignus es, qui ab iisdem talia muncra consequaris, iidemque veri-
tatis tuse nutritores efRciantur, vere lucerna, quam in cordis tui can- [p. 861.]
delabro dextra posuit veritatis, ne furis adventu thesauri tui dilapidetur patri-
moniuni, - - illumque a nobis repellant atrocem spiritum, qui hominibus timo-
rem immittit et perfidiam, ut animas avertat ab angusto tramite Salvatoris
cujus omnis impetus per illos principes funditur, contra quos se Apostolus, in
Ephesiorum Epistola (Ephes. vi. 12.) ccrtamen subiisse fatetur. - - Hoc Paulus,
hoc ipse iestatur M(7)iichccus. Non ergo armorum pugna est, sed spirituum, qui
iisdem utuntur. Pugnant autem animarum gratia. Horum in medio posita est
anima, cui a principio natura sua dedit victoriam. Hsec si una cum Spiriiu vir-
—
tutem feceret ( The Manichteans, therefore, did not suppose the saints alone
and unaided, repressed the instincts of nature and the motions of the evil soul,
—
but they had the Holy Spirit assisting them ) habebit cum eo vitam perpetuam,
oG8 Centunj III. — Section 49.

illudque possidebit regnum, ad quod Dominus noster invitat. Nor does Au-
giisLine deny, that tlie Maniehasans had no doubts of the grace afforded to uieu
in conflict with the evil Principle, strengthening, assisting, and confirming them.
who charged catholic Christiana
For, in repelling the calumny of the Pelagians,
with having the same views of human nature with the Manicliaeans, (contra
duas Epislolas Pelagianor. L. ii. c. 2. 0pp. torn. .\. p. 286.) he says ; Manichaei
meritis naturae bonae, Pelagiani autera meritis voluntatis honvo, ])erhibent divi-
Debet hoc Deus laboribus menibrorura suorura
nitus subveniri: Illidicunt: ;

isti Debet hoc Deus virtutibus servorum suorum. Augustine appre-

dicunt :

hended the sentiments of the Manichaeans correctly. For, as they supposed

that the good soul did not come voluntarily into this world and into these
bodies, but involuntarily, and by a sad misfortune ; and as they moreover be-
lieved the rational soul to be a portion of the divine nature, or of eternal light,
and therefore ever remaining entire, and neither vitiated nor capable of viti-

ation; consistency required them to maintain, that God was compelled by

justice, to aid tiiese holy souls toiling in bodies and combatting with vile mat-
ter. It is therefore certain, that the Manichaeans promised divine grace and ilto
assistance of the Holy Spirit to their people. But in what w;iy and manner
the Holy Spirit aids souls, or with what energy he illumines them, and by what
means he moves them, I do not find anywhere explained and perhaps, the Ma- ;

nichaeans gave no explanations. They were ignorant of spiritual substances,

and suppospd both the human soul and the Holy Spirit to consist of a subtile
kind of mailer or of light. And therefore, in a manner very different from what
we believe, they must have supposed the Holy Spirit operates on minds, or
moves and guides them.
(2) The Manichaeans ascribed great efficacy to repentance, in restoring
souls accidentally lapsing, and in averting the retributions of the divine
Judge. This has been already demonstrated from some passages in Augus-
tine. I will now explain the subject more fully, and confirm it by a splendid
passage from a celebrated and ingenious Manichajan. Manes made repentance
[p. 862.] sorrow for sins unintentionally committed. For, as
to consist in
we have showed, the soul, which is a portion of eternal liglit, or of the di-
vine nature, and absolutely unchangeable, —cannot sin in the proper and true
sense. But it is said to sin, when it suffers the evil soul to follow and obey its
lusts and instincts and whenever it does so, it increases and confirms its own
:

filthiness and servitude. And tiiis negligence is regarded by God, just as if it

had consented to the criminal deeds of the evil soul which, however, was im- ;

possible from its nature. Moreover, what is said of the soul's sinning, must be
understood especially of enlightened souls ; that is, of such as have attained a
knowledge of the truth, or, as the ^Manichaeans speak, such as have a knou-Jedge
of themselves ; such as have learned, either from the instruction and books of
Manes, or in some other way, the origin of this world, the distinctness of good
and evil, the source of evil, their own divine nature, &c. For, souls remaining
in darkness, and in ignorance of these things, go astray, indeed, and have no
prospect of salvation after death ;
yet they do not properly commit sin, because
10 one can transgress q law. of which he has no knowledge. Therefore peni-
 Return of Soids to Heaven. 369

tence, with Manichseans, was the sorroio of an enlightened soul, arishig from a
consciousness of negligence in repressing the desires of the evil soul. The effect

of this sorrow is, that it exempts from those punishments in hell, which souls
merit, by consenting to the desires of the evil soul, after they have received a
knowledge of the truth. Repentance, therefore, does not purgate the soul, and
open the way for its salvation or return to heaven nor does it free the soul ;

from the discomfort of a migration into another body but it removes the feai :

of hell, or induces God to remit the penalty of hell-fire to the sinner. Says
Secundinus, (in his Epist. ad At/gust. ^ 2. p. 369.) Si anima a spiritu vitiorum :

(so he called the evil soul, in which all the desires and appetites reside,) incipial
trahi et consentiat, ac post consensura posnitudinem gerat, habebit liarum sordi-
um indulgcntise fontem. Carnis enim commixtionc ducitur, non propria volun-
tate. At si cum seipsam cognovcrit, consentiat malo, ct non se armet contra
inimicum, voluntate sua peccavit. Quani si iterum pudeat errasse, paratum in-

veniet misericordiarum Auctorem. Non enim punitur, quia peccavit, sed quia
de peccato non doluit. At si cum eodem peccato sine venia recedat, tunc ex-
cludetur - - tunc ibit cum diabolo ad ignem originis ipsius.
(3) Of the return of the souls purgatcd in the body, to tlic world of light,

Augustine and the other adversaries of the Manichaeans, treat only briefly and
generally. Augustine, for instance, (de Hwres. c. 46. p. 11.) says: Quidquid
undique purgatur luminis per quasdam naves, quas esse lunam et solera volunt,
regno Dei, tanquam propriis sedibus, reddi putant Quas itidem naves de sub-
stantia Dei purfl perhibent fabricatas. - - Naves autem illas, id est, duo coeli

lunam dicant factam ex aquii bona, solem vero ex

luminaria, ita distinguunt, ut
igne bono. And very nearly tiic same statement is given, not only by [p. 863.]
Augustine in several other places, but also by the other writers, both histori-
ans and disputants. The Manichaeans, therefore, supposed the sun and moon
to be two ships, in which souls purgatcd from their filth, were transported to
their country : the sun they called the greater ship, and the moon the lesser.
But in both ships, the disembodied souls had to undergo a severe lustration,

before they were restored to their former happy state, or were borne to their
desired haven. For, although the soul while in the body should spare no efiorts
or diligence in expelling and cj?cting the filth of depraved matter, it will never
depart pure and luminous out of this dark and filtiiy body. Its grosser filth is

tiicrefore washed olf in the good water, of which the moon is composed. But its

interior filth, or the minuter particles of malignant matter, which have penetrat-
ed deeper into the soul and have vitiated, so to speak, its very marrow, requires
a severer lustration by the good fire, of which the sun is composed and this fire,
:

being kindred with that light of which the soul consists, permeates and pervades
it perfectly, and consumes what there is remaining of the evil elements within.
And thus the mind, being first washed, and then roasted, becomes bright and
shining, and therefore worthy to return to its pristine glory. And as Christ
dwells in the sun and in the moon, as we have before showed, hence it is mani-
fest that He, since his departure out of our world, is a Saviour of souls ; He
perfects their purgation begun in this life, after they leave the body.
What the ancient writers state generally, in regard to the return of souls to
VOL. ir. 25
370 Uenhtnj III. — Section 49.

the world of light, Tyrbo describes more particularly and minutely, in the Acta
Disputationis Archelai cum Manete. But these Acta, as published in Latin by
Laur. Alex. Zaccagni, and by Jo. Alb. Fabricius, (in the 0pp. Hippolyii, torn, ii.)

are much corrupted, and greatly deformed by numerous blemishes. And hence,
Epiphanius, who had access to earlier and purer Greek copies of these Acts,
should be consulted and compared, in order to a better understanding of this
amusingfable of Manes, or rather of the Magi, his master. Tyrbo, (5 8. p. 12.

&c.) thus begins : Cum machinam quandam coneinnavit ad

venisset Filius Dei,
salutem aniniarum, id est, rotani statuit habentem duodeeim urceos, quae rota
per banc sphseram vertitur hauriens animas morientium, quasque luminare ma-
jus, id est, sol radiis suis adimens (in the Greek of Epiphanius, Xa^wv, sumens,
aUrahens,) purgat et lunae tradit, et ita adimpletur lunee discus. Naves enim
vel translatorias cymbas esse dicit {Manes) duo ista luminaria. Tyrbo tells
wonders ! For, what, pray, is that wheel, furnished with twelve water-pots, and
whirled and turned about by a sphere, which the Son of God constructed?
But Epiphanius, (Hreres. Ixvi. ^ 10. p. 626.) partially explains the enigma, and
corrects the errors of Tyrbo, or perhaps, of his translator and transcribers. I

[p. 864.] will give only Petaxius' Latin version of Epiphanius, which is suffici-

ently faithful : Sapientia ilia - - et illam duodeeim de-

sidera in coelo collocavit
mentis, ut Gra:'cis placet, constantem machinam produxit. {f^ii;^aviiv J'la rmv J'uS'iitei
a-rcixi'iuv.) Quibus ab dementis affirmat mortuorum hominura et aliorum ani-
malium auimas in altum splendidas et collucentes evehi, unde in scapham feran-
tur. Solem quippe et lunam navigia quffidam esse existimat. We here remark :

First, The erection of the machine in question, is not here ascribed to the Son of
God, as it is by T7jrbo, but to the wisdom of the Being who placed the stars in the
sky, or the Being called the Living Spirit by the Manichaeans a vei-y ditlerent ;

personage from the Son of God. Secondly, There is no mention of a icheel,

nor of twelve water-pots, but only of a machine composed of twelve elements.
The words rota and urceus were metaphorical terms, here used by the Manichae-
ans in the manner of the Persians. In place of them Epiphanius gives the
proper terms. —
Thirdly, The machine is the same that the Greeks mention.
This leads us to believe it to be the heavens; which the Manichaeans compared
to a wheel, because the heavens rotate or turn around like a wheel. And this
being admitted, it is at once evident, that the twelve elements {a-Toi^tia) must be

the ticehe celestial signs, which the Manichaeans compared to water-pots. This
conjecture was before made by Beausobre, (vol. ii. p. 503.) but upon other

o-rounds: for he did not call in Epiphanius to aid him, who, as I suppose, es-
tablishes the point. If there were room for it, and my plan would allow it, I

could show from the Greek writers, that the celestial signs were by them called
a-nixiia or elements. —
Fourthly, These twelve elements take up the purified
body and bear them to the moon, there to be purgat-
souls, as they leave the
,ed. This then was the opinion of the Manichaeans That the better souls, :

which had carefully attended to their purgation while in the body, were borne
by the orb of signs, the Zodiac, as the Greeks named it, up to the moon and, :

to enable them more easily and expeditiously to perform the journey, they were
aided by the light and influence of the stars. Nor was Manes alone in this be-
 Return of Souls to Heaven. 371

lief: For some philosophers, and some -sects of Gnostics, believed that souls
returned to God, or to their celestial country, along the orb of signs. See Cle-
mens Alexr.nd. (Stromal. L. v. p. 538.) wiio thinks Plalo was of this opinion
and Macrobius, (in Somnium Scipionis, L. i. c. 12. p. 60. 61.) Let us now fol- —
low the souls escaping from the body. Their first station was in the moon:
which, being a sea of celestial water, was admirably fitted to wash off the exter-
nal filth of souls. Fifteen days the souls sv/am in this celestial oce:ui and :

when these days terminated, the moon emptied by transferring the well
itself,

washed souls to the sun, to be more perfectly lustrated. On this subject, Tyrho
is not sufficiently explicit: but Epiphanius, (I. cit.
J
10. p. 626.) happily explains

it, thus: Navigium minus pro lunae crescentis spatio onus quindecim diebus ve-
hit, idque demum, confccto post
diem cursu, majus in navigium, [p. 865.]
xv.
solem videlicet, exponit. — This
was invented by the Magi, or by
puerile fable
Manes, to explain the cause of the waxing and waning of the moon. These
subtle philosophers, observing that the moon was sometimes luminous and
sometimes dark, that it increased and decreased ; and, from their consummate
ignorance of astronomy, being unable to ascertain the cause of these changes
in the moon's appearance, — explained this great mystery to their disciples,
by ascribing it to the return of souls to the world of light. The moon in
creases and becomes luminous, according to these acute men, when souls, those
particles of light, are congregated there in great numbers; and it decreases and
loses its light, when it transfers to the sun these shining souls, which illumin-
ed its waves. Says Tyrbo, (1. cit. p. 13.) : Cum repleta fuerit Luna, transfretare
aninias ad subsolanam partem, et ita Apocrysin detrimentum (luna) patitur, cum
onere fuerit relevata, et iterum repleri cymbam et rursus exonerari, dum hauri-
untur per urceos animae. The moon was said, by the Greek Astronomers, to
make its Apocn/sin, when it became old or waned. Epiphanius states the same
thing, (1. cit. c. 22. p. 639.) Plena est alias luna, alias luce privatur, quod earn
:

animae repleant. Also Alexander of Lycopolis, (contra Manichaeos, p. 15.) aud

Simplicius, (comment, in Epictet. p. 167.) and many others. —Were these per-
sons worthy of high commendation from learned men, for their knowledge of
philosophy and their acumen, and to be placed above the ancient Christians in
intelligence ? — After fifteen days spent in the moon, the moon approached the
sun ; and then the souls passed from the lesser ship into the greater, the sun,
where they sustained a new and more thorough purgation. How long a time
was required for this second lustration, I do not find any where stated. The
tediousness of it was relieved by the agreeable society which they enjoyed in
the sun. For Christ himself, the Saviour o^ souls, was present in the sun; and
besides him, many celestial beings, eminent for their virtues. I shall hereafter cite

a splendid passage from the seventh Book of Manes'" Thesaurus, which will con-

firm a large part of these statements. The allotted time having passed, the sun
transferred the souls to their native country, the world of liglit. Says Tyrbo
(in the Acta Archelai, p. 13.): Cum igitur luna (here is an error of Tyrbo or
the transcriber : it should read : Sol, the sun,) onus quod gerit, animarum saecu-
lis (to7s'.'V/w(7<, the JEuns, as the Gnostics called them, agreeing in many things
with Manes,) tradiderit Patris, permanent illse in columna gloriae (Iv ta a-TvKa
372 Century Ill.—Sectkn 49.

tSj J'i^asi^ quod vocatur aer perfectus. —

Hie autem aer ( The Latin translator,
vvlio often blunders, here incorrectly read: di/yif. and therefore translated it; Vir
ferfectus ; which makes no sense. In Epiphanius, the reading is d))^ — ) est co«

lurnna lucis, repleta est enim niundarum animarum. By this air, in whicli the

happy souls dwell, undoubtedly, must be understood, that which Pholius, (BWM'
othcca Cod. clxxix. p. 405. 406.) from Agapius a Manichaean, thus describes
[p. 866.] Qay^oyii Si nut tuv aifia. aiova duTdv Kit av^'pctTrov i^-juvuiv. Aeretn ve-
ro (Agapius) tanquam Deum praedicat, columnam eum et hominem cum laude
vocans. Epiphanius expresses the views of Tyrho, or rather of Manes,xaoxe con-
cisely and more exactly, thus Solem vero sive majorem illam navim in aeter-
:

nam vitam
( —
In the Greek it is h; tov tiTj fa-iij diojua. that is in aeonem xitae.
: ;

For the Gnostics and the Manichaeans apply the name of JEons, not only to
the eternal and unchangeable Beings descended from God, but sometimes also
to their residence or habitation. This JEon vitac, therefore, is the region where
is true and never ending life — ) et terram beatorum animas transmittere putant.
In another passage, Q 22. p. 640.) Epiphanius neatly and vivaciously expresses
the thing thus: A luna tanquam minori navigio animas exonerari putat et intra

solem recipi atque in eevum beatorum ( — So Petavius translates the Greek

its TOV Toiv fjiax.apaiv dtdva,) exponi. What IS here called aeon vitae and aevum
heatorum, we have found Tyrbo calling a-ruxcy, columna gloria el lucis, and aerem
perfecUun. Beausohre supposes this pillar to be the 7nilky tcay : in which, as we
learnfrom the Somnium Scipionis of Cicero, and its expositor Macrohius, many
of the ancients supposed the happy souls to reside. But I do not attribute
much weight to this conjecture. Manes himself, (in the seventh Book of his
Thesaurus, from which Augustine gives a long extract, in his treatise de natura
boni, c. 44. p. 366. 367.) describes the sun and moon: Naves esse lucidas, qua;

ad evectationem animarum atque ad sua: palricc transfretationem sunt praspara-

tee. Therefore, according to the founder of the sect, souls return to their native

country. But that is the world of light, from which they came down, by com-
mand of God, to combat with the Prince of darkness ; and it is not the milky
way, to which the description of the world of light is altogether inapplicable.
(4) That God will resuscitate human bodies, the IManichaeans could not
possibly believe. For bodies are works of the Prince of darkness, composed of
depraved base matter, and the prison-houses of good souls; and if God sliould
restore them to the purgated and liberated souls, he would strengthen the cm-
pire of his enemy, and involve good minds in new perils, calamities and toils.
Says Theodoret, (Haeret. Fabul. L. i. c. 26. p. 214.) : T«v tmv (^mudTuv dvaTTna-n
is fxii^ov e>c0d\\outriv. Mortuorum vero corporum resurrectionem tanquam fa-

bulam rejiciunt. And Augustine, (de Haeres. c. 46. p. 13.) : Christum novissi-
mis temporibus venisse dicunt ad animas, non ad corpora liberanda. The same
testimony is given by all writers concerning the Manichaeans and their affairs.
And to avoid the force of the declarations of holy Scripture respecting the re-
surrection of the body, they either pronounced those declarations interpolations
by imposters, or explained them mystically, of the renovation of souls by means
of divine truth. Augustine, (contra Faustum, L. iv. c. 2. p. 140.): Dicitis,
[p. 867.] nunc esse resurrectionem tantunimodoanimarum perpraedicationem veri-
 Fate of impurgated Souls. 373

corporum autem, quam praedicavenmt Apostoli, futiiram negalis. (Com-

tatis,

pare L. X. c. 3. p. 157.) See also the extract from Agapius a Manichaean, in

Pholius, Bibliotlieea Cod. elxxix. p. 404.)

§ L. Condition of uupurgated Souls alter Death. The Souls that

were ignorant of the saving truth, or that neglected their purgation
while in the body, or that committed certain great crimes, would,
after their exit from their former bodies, pass into other bodies,
either of animals, or trees, or plants, or of something else until ;

they shall fully expiate their guilt, and become prepared to enter
on their celestial journey. In this matter, divine justice will re-
gard the different merits of individuals, and will assign purer and
better bodies to the more innocent, and more uncomfortable and
filthy habitations to the more polluted and deformed. (') Heavier
punishments will fall on the souls which either contemptuously
rejected the truth when presented to them, or persecuted its
friends and professors, or defiled themselves with crimes of the
higher order. For, on leaving the body, such souls will be de-
livered over to the princes of darkness dwelling in the stars, to
be tortured and punished by them, in proportion to their offences,
in the bad fire situated beyond our earth. And yet these pun-
ishments of hell are to have an end. For, after a certain time,
determined by God, has been spent in hell, these souls will be
sent again into this our world, and be put into other bodies, to
commence as it were a new course, and to resume with more fer-
vor the purgation which they neglected in their former life.(°)

(1) The migration of souls into other bodies, is one of the principal dogmas
of Manes : and it is a doctrine indispensable to his system. For as God is ex-
tremely desirous that all the particles of light, or all the souls, which by a sad
misfortune have become connected with material bodies, may be restored to
their original state and as the greatest part of these souls neglect the purga-
;

tion prescribed by Christ, and give w.ay to the lusts of the body and of the evil
soul it is necessary that divine goodness should afford them opportunity to
;

awake and become vigilant, and should in various ways attempt to reform them.
This doctrine, moreover, as well as many others. Manes received from the Magi,
his instructors for they all, as Porphyry informs us, (de abstinentia a car- [p. 868.]
;

nibus, L. iv. ^16. p. Eubuli Historia Mitlirae,) held the doctrine of the
165, from
transmigration most sacred
of souls as A:^.//* -ravTuv ivrX rdv ^rfwrwv T>,r
:

(Ai'riu-\\iym7ii %iiai. Omnibus Magis (though divided into various classes,) pri-
mum hoc et maxime ratuni dogma est, dari animarum transmigrationem. But
from this brief statement, it cannot be determined whether Manes agreed in all
respects, or only in part, with t'le views of the Magi. As we have seen, Manes
374 Century III.— Section 50.

exempted a large portion of human souls from the discomforts of a migration

intonew bodies. Whether the Magi did the same, or whether tliey doomed
all souls without exception, to this process, is not sufficiently known. The —
different state of souls on leaving the body, according to the views of Manes, as
likewise his v»'hole religious system, was professedly expounded by Agapius, a
shrewd and crafty Manichaean, who, for the sake of concealment, used the
com-
mon words and phrases of Christians, but affixed to them meanings accordant
with the opinions of his master. His work was sufficiently extended and co-
pious, for it consisted of xxiii. Books, and 102 Chapters. From it Pholius haa
given us some extracts, (in his Bibliotheea, Cod. clxxix. p. 402.) which are not
indeed useless, and may be serviceable to help us understand the subtilty of
the later Manicha;ans in concealing tiieir doctrines ; and yet they are more
brief than could be wished. Among
is the following neatthem, however,
epitome of the doctrine of the Manichajans, respecting the state of souls when
released from the body: KfidLTvtei (Te x.ai ras fAiri/u^v^coJU;, tcu; fAh hs aKfoi
dpiTii; tXuXVKOrai, iii ©toy dva\uctv. Toi/j S'i in ax.piv x.axtas TrvpX cT/cTouj xat
VKOTm. Touj cTs fxia'cet irc3s TroKlTtvo'i/itiYOVSt Tni\iv en (TcJ/uuTst KuTdyeuv. Probat
praeterea animarum migrationes : alios quidem, qui summum virtutis gradum
attigerunt, ad Deum facit reverti : alios vero, qui ad fastigium malitiie pervener-

unt, igni tradit et tenebris: inter hos vero, qui medio quodnni modo hie vixerunt,
eos in corpora iterum detrudit. Manes, therefore, distributed departing souls
into three classes, the pure, the impure, and the partially pure. The pure, which
had kept the whole law of Christ, went directly to God, and regained their
primeval seats Such were the souls of the perfect Manichseans, whom they
:

called the Elect. The impure, which had wholly disregarded the law of Christ,
were delivered over to the princes of darkness, to sutfer the just penalty of their
wickedness. The had fulfilled their duty in part, were
partially pure, wlio
obliged to migrate into other bodies Such were the souls of those called Au-
;

ditors, who in many things obeyed the body and the instincts of nature. Of the

return of purer souls to God, by means of the moon and the sun, we have al-
ready spoken so that it now remains only to speak of the impure and the par-
;

tially pure.

Such souls as are partially pure, pass into other bodies, until they shall
have completed their purgation ; and they pass not only into the bodies of men
[p. 869.] and animals, but also into those of trees, plants, herbs, &c. For the
whole world of nature, as Manes most expressly asserts, is full of souls. I

will cite only a single passage from Augustine, (de Hseres. c. 46. p. 12.) : Ani-
mas Auditorum suorum ( — he means, such of them as live up to their duty,) in

Eleclos revolvi arbitrantur, aut feliciore compendio in escas Eleciorum, (melons,

cucumbers, herbs, fruits,) ut jam inde purgatae in nulla corpora revertantur.
Ceteras autem animas et in pecora redire putant et in omnia, quae radicibus fixa
sunt, atque aluntur in terra. But from tiie animals into whose bodies souls
may migrate, the Manichreans excepted the very small animals, and particularly
fleas, lice, gnats, and other insects ; wliich, they said, were not animals, but the
filtli of human bodies; and the reason, I suppose, was, that their bodies were
thought too small to contain human souls. Says Augustine, (contra Adiiuan-
 J/hte of unpurgated Souls. 375

turn, c. 12. torn. viii. p. 90.) : Negant (Manichaei) usque ad ista minutissima
animantia revolvi animas humanas posse. Hoc negant, ne tam multarum inter-
fectionum rei teneantur, aut cogantur parcere pediculis et pulicibus et cimici-
bus, et tantas ab eis molestias sine uUa ctedis eorum licentia sustinere. Nam
veliementer urgentur, cur in vulpeculam revolvi aninia huinana possit, et non
in mustelam, cum catulus vulpeculae fortasse etiain minor sit, quam mao-na
mustela. Deinde si in mustelam potest, cur in murem non potest '? Et si in

istum potest, (Tlie Manichaeans certainly did admit, that a soul might migrate
into a mouse ; as will be shown.) cur in steilionem non potest ? Et si in eum
potest, cur in locustam non potest? Deinde in apem, delude in muscam, deinde
in cimicem, atque inde usque in pulicem, et si quid est aliud multo minutius.
pervcnire. Ubi enim terniinum eonstituant, non inveniunt. On tliis subject
Avgustine reasons in tlie same manner, (de moribus Manichaeor. L. ii. c. 17.
torn. i. p. 550.) where, among otiier things, he says : Hue accedit ilia gradatio,
quae, cum vos audirem, nos saepe turbavit. Nulla enim caussa est, cur propter
parvum corporis modulum pulex necandus sit (because, not containing a soul.
For this was the reason why a flea might be killed.) non etiam musca, quae in
faba gignitur. Et si haec, cur non etiam ista paullo amplior, cujus certe fetus
minor est, quam ilia. - - Ne lonqum faeium, nonne videtis his gradibus ad ele-
phantum perveniri 1 I know not whether the Manichaeans also excepted from
among animals into wiiich souls migrate any of those that are noxious and
troublesome to mankind. But I think it quite probable ; because we learn from
Augustine (de moribus Manichaeor. L. ii. c. 17. p. 550.) that they thought
fiome of these animals are not genuine animals, but originated from the dead
bodies of men : Iinpunius ergo occiditur vel angiiis, vel sorex, vel scorpio, quos
de humanis cadaveribus nasci, a vobis potissimum solemus audire. Perhaps,
also, there were some species of trees, plants, and herbs, which they sup-
posed incapable of receiving human souls. But I find nothing written [p. 870.]
on the subject.
These transmigrations of the imperfectly purgated souls, are ordered of God
in perfect equity, according to the merits of individuals. For as each, while in
the body, conducted himself well, or ill, or indifferently, so his new habitation
will be either noble or ignoble, either wretched or tolerable. Tyrbo, in the
Disputation of Archelaus, has said much respecting this doctrine, but very con-
fusedly; and he is apparently not free from errors. I will attempt to systema-
tize the subject. In itself, it is indeed of little importance; yet it may be of use
for elucidating some passages in the ancient writers, and for explaining the in-
ternal principles of this sect. First, the souls of the Auditors, which came the
nearest to the virtue practised by the Elect, who neither cultivated the ground,
nor slew animals, nor begat children, nor busied themselves with building
houses or accumulating wealth, although they pursued other kinds of worldly
business, married wives, and ate flesh ;
—these souls, I say, being purer than
others, passed either into the bodies of the Elect, or into tlie kinds of food most
used by the Elect, such as melons, cucumbers, olives, potherbs, &c. From such
bodies there is direct access to heaven. For, as the Elect live in celibacy, they
cannot again infuse souls into new bodies, as others do, by cohabitation. More-
376 Cenluri] III. — Section 50.

over, (he food eaten by the Elect, is so pnrified by tlieir prayers and sanctity,
that the souls latent in it, can freely ascend to the world of light. A passage
which substantiates this, has just been cited from Augustine. I will now add
two others of similar import. Tiie first is, (contra Faustura, L. v. c. 10. p. 144.):
Falliiis Auditores vestros, qui cum suis uxoiibus, et filiis et familiis et domibiis
et agris vobis serviunt. —Nam eis non resurrectionem, sed revolutionem ad istam
mortalitatem promittitis, ut rursus nascantur et vita Electorum vestrorum vi-

vant —aut si melioris meriti sunt, in melones et cucuraeres, vel in alios aliquos
cibos veniant, quos vos manducaturi estis, ut vestris ructatibus cito purgentur.
The other passiige is, (de Haeres. c. 46. p. 11.): Ipsara boni a malo purgationem
non solum virtutes Dei facere dicunt, verum etiara Electos suos per alimenta,
quEB sumunt. Eis quippc alimentis Dei substantiam perhibent esse commixtam,
quam purgari putant in Electis suis eo genere vitae, quo vivunt Electi. A harder
lot awaited those {Auditors) who pursued agriculture, and especially reapers.
Plowmen were promised impunity ; if Augustine has correctly stated the views
of the sect, (de Hajres. c. 46. p. 12.): Auditoribus suis ideo agriculturam (by
which, however, many homicides were committed,) arbitrantur ignosci, quia prae-
bent iiide alimenta Electis suis, ut divina ilia substantia in eorum ventre purgata
impetret eis veniam, quorum traditur oblatione purganda. But those who cut
down wheat, herbs, potherbs, grass, &.c. would, after death, pass into stalks of
[p. 871.] grain, grass, or herbs, that they might suffer the same pangs which
they had inflicted on grass and herbs. Tyrbo, (in Acta Arclielai, ^ 9. p. 15.) says:
Messores necesse est transfundi in foenuru, aut in faseolum, aut in hordeum,aut
in olera, ut et ipsi desecentur et demetantur. Tijrho adds: Qui manducant pa-
xicm, necesse est, ut et ipsi manducentur, panem eflfecti. Yet this cannot be en-
tirely true; for the Elect themselves, whose souls go immediately to God at the
death of their bodies, ate bread. I therefore suppose, that this is to be under-
stood of such as ate bread, without obtaining a license from the Elect. For, the
Auditors who consulted the interests of their souls, went before the Elect, and
commended thems(!lve3 to their prayers, that so they might fearlessly eat their
food, and especially bread. Such Auditors as slew animals, which was a thing
absolutely forbidden, migrated into the bodies of such animals as they had slain.
Tyrbo. (1. cit. p. 16.): Qui occiderit puUum, et ipse pullus erit,qui murem, mas
«tiam ipse erit. A heavier punishment was to be endured by those, who had
labored to accumulate riches, or had built for themselves convenient houses:
Si quis vero est dives in hoc mundo, cum exierit de corpore suo, necesse est
cum in corpus pauperis injici, ita, ut ambulet et meudicet. - - Qui autem aedifi-

caverit sibi domum, dispergetur per omnia corpora; that is, he will winder
throuo-h various bodies. For, as he wished to prepare himself a permanent seat
or constant home in this life, his just punishment will be, when released from
the body, to have no fixed residence, but to dwell sometimes in one body, and
sometimes in another. It was allowed to Manichsean Auditors, (but not to the

Elect, of whom absolute poverty was required,) to hold property of all kinds
descending to them from their ancestors; and there were examples of wealthy
men among them: such was that Constanlius of Rome, mentioned a few times
by Augustine, who was very wealthy and prosperous. But it was criminal to
 Fate of Unpurgated Souls. 377

eagerly heap up riches, or to build houses; for all such as indulged their desires
and lusts, serve the evil soul and th«i Prince of evil. Those who committed any
great crime, would be punisiied by divine justice, in proportion to the magnitude
and atrocity of their offences. A homicide, for instance, as Tijrbo says: In ele-
phantiacorum corpora transferetur: that is, will pass into human bodies infected
with some species of leprosy, the most loathsome and filthy of diseases. And
he who sliall have planted a persea, (a tree, but of what (-pecies I know not.* It

was held in the greatest abhorrei.ce by the Manichajans, probably, because its

fruit was thought to excite hiscivious desires,) necesse est euni transire per
inulta corpora, usque quo persea ilia, quam plantaverat, concidat. Other crimes,
doubtless, had also their specific penalties. The Elect, as already remarked, if
they should swerve from duty, could wash out the stain thus contracted, by re-
pentance. Souls not belonging to the Manichajan community, and destitute of
a knowledge of what they called the truth, when life ended, roamed through the
bodies of five animals; and, if they became somewhat purgated in these, [p- 8712.]

they passed into the bodies of Manichajans; but it" they wiiolly neglected their
purgation in the five bodies, they were sent to hell. Says Tijrbo, (J 9. p. 15.):

Animae (doubtless, meaning the souls destitute of the light oftruth.) in alia quinque
(—In the Gr. of Epiphanius, ircvn. The Latin translator erroneously says, quO'
— corpora transfunduntur.
que. ) horum primo purgatur aliquid e.x ea parum,
In
deindc transfunditur in camelum, aut in alterins animalis corpus.
canem, aut in

(2) The transmigration of souls into other bodies, was rather a paternal
chastisement, or a salutary admonition, than a judicial penalty; or, if you
please, it was the penalty for negligence. But there were souls, which either
sinned enormously, or contemned God's gentle and wise coercion of the erring,
and in a degree added malignity to negligence and to these divine justice al- ;

lotted a heavier punishment, and they were therefore sent to hell to be tor-
mented by the demons. For the Manichaeans had their hell, though very dif-
ferent from ours. When the Living Spirit arranged the material substances, so
as to frame our world, he found a mass of evil fire, with no mixture of good
fire in which the vanquished and flying princes of darkness had left behind
it,

And that mass he cast out of this world, shutting it up in a place without our
world, I know not where, but probably in the air, lest it should injure this ter-
restrial globe; and this is the Manichaaan hell. Over this noxious fire, which ia
a portion of the world of darkness, the princes of darkness and their king pre-
side; and as they are stationed in the stars or the regions above us, that fire must
be situated in their vicinity. Such souls, therefore, as are distinguished for the
magnitude of their crimes, are delivered over to the enemies of God, not indeed
to perish, for this the divine goodness cannot permit; but that they may b*
it were, in that fierce and terrible fire, and thus become freed in good
roasted, as
measure from the depraved matter which they have absorbed. Some of thes»
souls are sent, immediately on leaving the body, into this fire ; but others, after
a fruitless peregrination in certain bodies. Of the former of these tvvo classes,
besides some perhaps not mentioned by the ancient writers, are: — 1st. Those
* Du Cange, (Glossar. mcd. et inf. Latinitatis, torn. iii. p. 277.) supposes it waa a peach tree, tho
tualus Persica of the Latins, which the Greeks called Ttpfea. Tr.
378 Century III. — Section 50.

whicli spurn divine truth, or the religion of Manes, and wilfully persevere in

their errors. Tijrho, (in the Acta Archelai, \ 10. p. 18.) says: Si exierit aniraa,
quje non cognoverit veritatem, traditur dajnionibus, ut eani doment in gehenna
ignis. And, a little after ; Si quis sequitur verba ipsorura (Moses and the Jew-
ish prophets,) morietur in seecula (tij tows dioiyaf, In longum sevum,) devinctus
intra massara (its tw 0a!hdv, namely, of evil fire.) quoniam non didicit scientiam
is, of Manes.)
Paracliti, (that Beware of understanding this, of the souls un-
avoidably ignorant of the truth; these pass into the bodies of various animals,
as we have before shown. The souls here intended, were undoubtedly such as
[p. 873.] rejected the light of divine truth, and obstinately preferred dnrliness to
]ig]it. — 2dly. The souls which apostatize from the I\I:inieliffian religion, after

having embraced it. The Manichaeans called deserters from their sect, men
destitute of light, or men wholly forsaken by the light.Says Augustine, (de
Utilitate credendi, c. 1. torn. i. p. 35.): Desinant dieere illud, quod in ore habent
tanquam necessarium, cum eos quisque deseruerit, qui diutius audisset: Lumen
per ilium transitum Augustine himself immediately explains it:
fecit; that is, as

A luraine plane desertus est. For those who have cast away the truth, have
lost all claim to divine favors, and deserve to be delivered over to the rulers of
—
darkness for chastisement. 3dly. Still more worthy of such punishment, were
the souls which obstructed the progress of the religion of Manes, and reviled
and abused its professors. Manes himself, in his Epistola Fundament!, (apud
Euodium, de fide, c. 1. in Append. 0pp. August, torn. i. p. 25.) says: Quas ini-

micse lumini sancto extiterunt, aperteque in perniciem sanctorum elementorum

se armarunt, et igneo spiritui (the Demon) obsequutae sunt, infesta etiam per-

secutione sua sanctam ecclesiam, atque Electos in eadem constitutos coelestium

praeceptorum observatores atHixerunt, a beatitudine et gloria terrae sanctae
arceiitur — et configentnr in praedicto horribili globo. — 4thly. Into the evil fire

willbe sent, the souls which left the body without penitence and sorrow for the
sins they may have committed. Says Secundinus, (Epistola ad August. \ 2.
p. 369.): Si cum eodem peccato (anima) sine venia recedat, tunc excludetur,
tunc virgini stultae comparabitur, tunc heres erit sinistrae manus, tunc a Do-
mino pelletur ex convivio nuptiarum, nigrarum caussa vestium, ubi fletus erit et
stridor dentium, ibitque cum diabolo ad ignem originis ipsius. Non punitur,
quia peccavit, sed quia de peccato non doluit. — Sthly. The souls which would
not supply the Elect with food. Tiie Elect, as before shown, spent their lives
in leisure amid prayer and meditations, and could neither engage in or perform
any worldly business whatever; they were also absolute paupers, and wholly
destitute of either money or goods. Hence the Auditors were required to afford
them support. Nor was this any great burden, or an onerous duty, because the
Elect lived upon bread, water, fruit, herbs, and melons; and also macerated their
bodies with frequent fiists. Therefore, such Auditors as refused sustenance to these
very holy persons, involved themselves in an atrocious sin. Says Tyrho, (in the

Acta Archelai, \ 9. p. 16.): Qui non prasstiterit Electis ejus alimenla, pcenis sub-
detur gehennse, et transformatur (after enduring this punishment,) in catechu-
menorum corpora, usque quo faciat misericordias multaa. Consequently, these
hard and inhumane Audiiois, before they passed into other bodies, were sub-
 The Passive Jesus Liberated. 379

jected to severe punishments in iiell. —Of the olher class of souls, (on which
transmigration was first tried, and then hell-fire,) were: — (a) Such as retained
their desires for wealth and riches, even in the bodies of paupers and mendi-
cants, into which they had been sent. Says Ti/rbo, (in the Acta Archelai,
p. 16.): Dives in hoc mnndo cum de corpore sno, necesse est [p. 874.]
exierit

eum in corpus pauperis injici, ita ut ambulet et^mendicet, et post haec (namely,
if in this body he did not overcome his tiiirst for wealth,) eat in poenas aeternas.
(i. e. in the style of the Manichaeans, in poenas diuturnas.) (b) The soula —
which, after migrating through the five bodies, retained all their vitiosily. The
Manichaeans supposed, that in general souls pass tiirough five bodies of animals
in each of which tiicy ougiit to drop some portion of their filth; but if th(!y did
not, they deserved the punishment of hell. For more forceable and energetic
medicines are necessary when moderate and gentle ones fail.

But these punishments in hell, to which God sends the more perverse souls
have their termination, doubtless, according to the offences of the individuals-,
and they are salutary to souls. For by that fierce fire a large part of the filthi-
ness which hindered their purgation in the former life, is consumed and, this ;

being as it were roasted out of them, they are again sent into other bodies, for
a new probation, in which they are to contlict again with the body and the evil
soul. Says Tyrbo, (in the Acta Archelai, p. 18.): Si exierit anima, quae non
cognoverit veritatem, traditur daemonibus, ut earn doment in gehenna ignis, et
posteaquam correcta fuerit, {fj^tra riwi iraiS'iua-iY. See here, the salutary influence
of these punishments.) transfunditur in alia corpora, ut dometur, (to be purgat-
ed,) et ita injicitur in magnum ilium ignem usque ad consummalionem. He
here expresses himself concisely, as he usually does; but it is manifest, that he
intended to say : If a soul, after punishment by fire, is sent into other bodies,
and still perseveres in its negligence, and follows its lusts, just as in the forme?
life, it loses all hope of salvation, and is again cast into the bad fire, over winch
the princes of darkness have control ; and it will remain in that fire until the
end of the world. What will become of it at the end of tlie world, we i.hall
soon show —
The Manichaeans therefore believed, as other Christians did,
though for different reasons, and in a different way, that many souls of sinful
men are now in hell, and are tormented by evil demons. What Tijrbo states
on this subject, is also stated by Epiphanius, and by otiier more modern writers,
whose testimonies I need not cite.

§ LI. The Liberation of the Passive Jesus. Besides tlie ration-

al and intelligent souls, those particles of the divine light, there
are portions of the celestial elements scattered throughout the na-
tural world, and mixed up with base matter and these, in va- ;

rious ways, but especially b}"- the heat and influence of the sun,

are detached from base matter, and drawn upwards and, being ;

purgated in the moon and sun, they return to the world of li[;ht.(*)
But the son of the First Man, the Passive Jesus^ whom [p. 875.]
the Prince of darkness and his warriors devoured during the first
380 Century III.— Section 51.

war, aud still hold in durance, is gradually liberated hy a singu-

lar artifice of For at certain times God presents to the
God.
view of the demon some of the celestial Beings resident in the
sun and moon, clothed in the form of very beautiful boys and
girls and on seeing them, the lusts of the demons are so in-
;

flamed that the}^ sweat most profusely, and the celestial matter
oozing out with the sweat from their huge bodies, falls upon our
earth. This celestial matter, thus expressed from the princes of
darkness and falling upon the earth, fecundates it and causes it
to produce or send forth trees, fruits, plants, salads, potherbs, &c.
and when these are eaten, that which is divine in them, the sen-
tient soul, is detached from depraved matter and escapes, and,
being purgated in the moon and sun, ascends to the world of
light. And this accounts for the clouds, the rains, the storms,
the showers, the lightnings and the thunder. For the Prince of
darkness and his associates, becoming enraged and agitated when
God frustrates their lustful desires, disturb both heaven and
earth, and frequently produce terrible commotions in nature
which, however, are in some respects useful and salutary.^

(1) These statements will be easily understood, from wliat hns been said
and repeated more than once. Souls pertain to the element light ; and conse-
quently, they are nearly allied to the nature of God, or rather, they are his off-

spring. But besides this lis^lit, there are four other elements; and innumerable
particles of all these elements, in the war of the First Man with the Prince of
darkness, became mixed up and joined with the depraved elements. And there-
fore, previously to the destruction of this world, it is necessary that so much of
the celestial elements as adheres to the vicious elements, should be disengaged,
and be restored to the kingdom of God. And this God effects in various ways,
but especially by means of the heat and rays of the sun. For instance, tho
sun, by its influences, gradually extracts the particles of good water joined with
the bad water in our world, and transmits them when purgated to their native
country. And so of all the elements. Our fire is principally evil fire ; yet it

contains many particles of good fire, and these gradually escape, being elicited

by the air which agitates the fire. Augustine, (de natura boni, c. 44. p- 365.)
Ipsam partem naturae Dei dicunt, ubique permixtam in coelis, in terris, sub ter-
ris - - solvi vero, liberari, purgarique non solum per discursum solis et lunae,

et virtutes lucis (Beings living in the sun and moon.) verum etiam per Electos
8U0S.
[p. 876.] (2) We now come to that portion of the Manichpcan system which,
although not destitute of ingenuity, exceeds all the rest in senselessness and folly,
according to our apprehensions : 1 say, according to our apprehensions, for to the
people of the East, especially to the Persians, who philosophized more grossly
 The' Passive Jesus liberated. 38

than we do, it was undoubtedly less insipid, and perlmps appeared wise. By
tilecommixture of good witli evil, 3Innes would account for all occurrences in
the physical world and in human nature. And in many particulars, his plan
seemed to succeed pretty well. But in the midst of his course, a great difficulty
met him namely, whence originated the clouds, the showers, the tempests, the
;

soaldtig rain.s, the thunders, &c ? From God they undoubtedly do not come;
for he is perfectly and exclusively good. Although the rains are of some use
in fertilizing the earth and causing it to produce fruits and plants and trees, the
food of the Elect yet they also cause many evils and inconveniences to men.
;

But the storms, tempests, thunders, and fogs, appear simply evil and hurtful.
Therefore, the Princes of darkness residing in the air or the upper regions, un-
doubtedly, are the cause of these occurrences in nature. But the rain, though
often hurtful, is yet beneficial both to the earth and to its inhabitants : and no-
thing useful or good can come from the rulers of darkness, who are evil by
nature. This difficulty compelled ]\lancs again to resort to his commixture of
good and evil, and to suppose that a considerable portion of celestial matter
Btill remained in the bodies of the evil demons, notwithstanding the principal
part of it, the light, had been forced out of them. Still the difficulty was not
wholly removed ; for it might be asked. What induces the Prince of darkness
and his associates to give up the celestial matter contained in their bodies, and
to sniTer it to descend upon this our earth ? That they would do it spontane-
ously, cannot be believed. It must then be that they are compelled, unwilling-

ly, to relax their hold on the celestial matter. But who can, cither by force or
by artifice, bring them to relinquish so great a treasure? To free himselffrom
this diffioilty, the fertile genius of Manes invented a fable, in itself monstrous

and void of all reason, yet coinciding very well with his other opinions. He
supposed, That during the first conflict between the good and evil Princi-
1st,

ples the general of the army of light produced a son: 2dly, That the Prince of —
darkness and his warriors devoured that son 3dly, That God, in order to ex- : —
tract gradually from the bodies of the demons and liberate this son of the First
Man, (who is a mass of celestial matter, endowed with a sentient soul,) excites
the natural lusts of those demons; —
4thly, And then suddenly withdraws the
spectacle, by which he had inflamed their lustful desires 5thly, And then the ;
—
demons, being much agitated, are thrown into violent perspiration, and pour
out with their sweat the vital matter contained in thcr members. 6thly, This —
sweat is our rain :
— 7thly, And the thunders, high winds, tempests [p. 877.]
and tornadoes, which often accompany rain, are indications of the rage of the
demons when deluded by God with fictitious images. For the sun and moon, —
those two divine ships, are full of celestial Beings, or, as Manes himself calls

them, i\ngels. And God, as often as he sees fit, transforms some of these An-
gels into very beautiful boys and girls, and bids them exhibit themselves to the
princes of darkness. The boys show themselves to the female demons, and the
girls to the male demons. And those extremely libidinous giants, on seeing
these very beautiful images, rush to embrace them, eager for coition. But the
beautiful Angels flee and by their flight elude the hopes of their lovers: and
;

hence the amazing heats and violent commotions in their bodies. Their lust
382 Century III— Section %\.
first raises a very copious perspiration ; and witli their sweat, as God intended,
they let out the vital and celestial matter : a part of vvhich, mixed with the rain,
falls upon our earth, and makes it productive of plants and trees and a part ;

becomes mixed with the air, and flows into the sun and moon, where it is pur-
gated, and then is transmitted into the realm of light. Tlie sweating princes of
darkness meanwhile exhibit terrific evidence of their rage and fury, on account
of the of the beautiful young men and maidens. Their Lord manifests
flight

his rageby terrific roaring, and by darting the malignant fire, of which he has
abundance and these are the thunders and lightning which frighten mortals.
:

He and bis associates violently agitate the air, and produce whirlwinds, hale,
tornadoes and tempests, and emit dense vapors, which form clouds, obscure the
sky, and intercept the rays of the sun and thus they often put all nature into
;

commotion. Tyrbo, (in the Acta Archelai,) relates this absurd fable, though
not very accurately or perspicuously, from the oral teacliing o{ Alanes himself:
and Cyrill of Jerusalem, (Cateches. vi. \ 34. p. 1]0.) tells us, he had read it in
the books of Manichaeans. Augustine and others often mention it, and reproach
the Manichaeans with it. (See Augustine, contra Faust. L. xx. c. 6. p. 238. and,
de Hffires. c. 46. p. 18. and elsewhere.) Felix, the Manichaean, tacitly admits
and acknowledges it, (in his second Dispute \vth .August, c. 7. 8. p. 348.) Says
Augustine to him : Dicitis, Deum virtutes suas convertere in masculos ad irri-

tandum concupiscentias da^monum foeminarum, et eosdem rursus convertere in

foeminas ad irritandum concupiscentias deemonum masculorum, ut cum da3mo-
niis injiciunt libidinem, accensis in formas confictas a Deo, relaxentur membra
eorum et sic evadat pars Dei, quae ibi fuerat colligata. Hoc tantum opprobrium,
hoc tantum sacrilegium credere ausi estis et prsedicare non dubitatis. And what
reply does Felix make ? Does he deny the facts ? Or assert that the whole is
a calumny of their adversaries? Or does he strive to extenuate and explain
[p. 878.] away the turpitude of the thing ? Nothing of these. He is silent.

Silent, did I say ? He acknowledges that this fable was taught by his master

and maintains, that Christ taught what equally grates on human ears, respect-
ing the punishments of the wicked in hell: Crudelem asseritis Manichseum hoc
dicentem ? de Christo quid dicimus, qui dixit Ite in ignem seternum!— But these :

many and credible witnesses have not induced the very learned Beausobre, to
believe that so foolish and absurd a fable could come from Manes, whom he re-

gards as no contemptible pliilosopher : (Histoire critique du Manichee, vol. ii.

p. 388 &LC.) Manichee n'a jamais porte I'egarement jusque-la. He does not in-

deed venture to deny, that Manes considered the raia to be the sweat of the
Prince of darkness, and thunder to be his angry voice but the rest of the fable :

he boldly denies, placing itamong the false criminations maliciously invented,

to bring dishonor upon a man who erred indeed, yet was not wholly infatuated.

Manes, he supposes, taught his followers that God, whenever he thinks rain to
be needed by mankind, exhibits to the princes of darkness a species of virgin
light, i. e. the purest kind of light, perfectly chaste and spotless; and that they

are so charmed and captivated with this delightful spectacle that the sweat flows
from them ; and when they are deprived of it, they manifest their strong indig-
nation by lightning, clouds, and thunder. The other things were idle whims,
 The Passive Jesvs liberated. 383

originnting in the brains of enemies to the good Persian and who, from ignor-
;

ance of the highly figurative Oriental style, transformed virgin light, or the

most perfect light, into a beautiful virgin. — But Manes himself rejects this eru-

dite patron and demands liberty to retain and assert the opinion, which this
;

worthy man would abstract from him. Beausnhre, a man of immense reading,
and at other times of an excellent memory, was so carried away by his strange
eao-erness to exculpate and make respectable the ancie'^it heretics, that he could
not recollect a long and noted passage, still extant, from the seventh Book of
the Thesaurus of Manes, in which he not only stales but expounds, in a copi-
ous and eloquent discourse, that whole fable, conc-rning which Beausohre says,
Nothing could be more stupid. The passage is not only in Augustine, (de na-
tura boni, c. 44. p. 364, 365.) but likewise, in the same words, in Euodius, (de

fide, c, 16, p. 26, 27.) That there may be no ground for a suspicion of any
misrepresentation, I will cite the passage entire. It will conduce much to a just
estimate of the genius of Manes ; and it will show ,hat the Christians of those

times did not deceive posterity by declaring his system folly, and the man him-
self absurdly ingenious. It reads thus : Tunc beatus ille Pater (God, the
Lord of the world of Light,) qui lucidas naves (the sun and the moon,) habet
diversoria et habitacula seu raagnitudincs, (i. e. who has placed in the sun and
moon, as their homes, many Angels and celestial Beings.) pro insita sibi ele-
mentia fert opem, qua exuitur ab impiis retinaculis
ct liberatur et angustiis at-

que angoribus (from the bodies of the princes of darkness,) sua vita- [p. 879.]

lis substantia (the son of the First Man, the Jesus passibilis, of
: whom we have
already spoken.) Itaque invisibili suo nutu illas suas virtutes, quae in clarissi-
ma hac navi (the sun) habentur, transfigurat, (for the Angels, like God himself,

are mere lucid matter without form,) easque parere (i. e. apparere) facit adversis
potestatibus (to the demons,) quje in singulis coelorum tractibus ordinata? sunt.
Quae quoniam ex utroque scxu, masculorum et fa-minarum, consistunt, ideo
praedictas virtutes partim specie puerorum iuvestium (beardless,) parere jubet
generi adverso foeminarum, partim virginum lucidarum forma generi contrario
masculorum sciens eas omnes hostiles potestates propter ingenitam sibi letha-
;

lem et spurcissimam concupiscentiam facillime capi, atque iisdem speciebus

pulcherrimis, quae apparent, mancipari, hocque modo dissolvi. Sciatis autem,

hunc eundem nostrum beatum Patrem hoc idem esse, quod etiam suae virtutes
(that is, these Beings or Angels are of the same nature with God, and were begot-
ten of him.) quas ob necessariam cnussam transformat in puerorum et virginum
intemeratam similitudinem. Utitur autem his tanquam propriis armis atque per eas
suam complet voluntatem. (Behold, the moral character of this stupid fiible!)

Harum vero virtutum divinarum,quaead instar conjugii contra inferna genera sta-
tuuntur,quaeque alacriaate ac falicitate id, quod cogitaverint, momento eodem efB-
ciunt, plaenae sunt lucidae naves : (the sun and moon.) Itaque cum ratio posceret,
ut masculis (daemonibus) appareant eaedem sanctae virtutes, illico etiam suam
effigiem virginum pulcherrimarum habitu demonstrant. Rursus cum ad foeminas
ventum fuerit.postponentes species virginum, puerorum investium speciem osten-
dunt. Hoc autem visa decoro illarum ardor et concupiscentia crescit, atque hoc mo-
do vinculum pessimarum earum cogitationum aulvitur, (For the princes of darkne&a
384 Century III. — Section 51.

have resolved, never to part with that celestial matter which they have devour-
ed : it doubtless temperates and alleviates tlieir misery. But God so beguiles
them with images ofyouths and virgins, that they forget themselves, and disregard
their pernicious plans and purposes;) vivaque anima, (not endowed with reason,
but only with life and sensation,) quae eorundem membris tenebatur, hac occa-
sione laxata evadit, et suo purissimo aeri miscetur, ubi penitus ablutae animae
ad lucidas naves, (the sun and moon,) quae sibi ad evectationem atque ad suae
patriae transfretationem sunt praeparatae. quod adhuc adversi generis
Id vero
maculas portat, per aestus atque calorcs particulatim descendit, (namely, by the
rain,) atque arboribus, ceterisque plantationibus ac satis omnibus miscetur et
caloribus diversis inficitur. Et quo pacto ex ista magna etclarissama nave,(th«
Bun.) figurre puerorum ac virginum apparent contrariis potestatibus, quae in
[p. 880.] ecelis degunt, quseque igneam habent naturam atque ex isto aspectu
decoro vitae pars, quae in earumdem membris habetur, laxata deducitur per
calores in terram : eodem modo etiam ilia altissima virtus, quae in navi vitali-

um aquarum habitat, (Christ is here intended, whom the Manichaeans made

resident in the moon,) in similitudinepuerorum ac virginum sanctarum per sues
angelos apparet his potestatibus, quarum natura frigida est atque humida, quae
que in coelis ordinatae sunt. Et quidem his quae foeminae sunt, in ipsis form&
puerorum apparet, masculis vero virginum. Hac vero mutatione et diversitate
divinarum personarum ac pulcherrimarum, humidae fn'gidaeque stirpis principcs
masculi sive foeminae solvuntur, atque id, quod in ipsis est vitale, fugit quod ;

vero resederit, laxatum deducitur in terram per frigora et cunctis terrac gencri«
bus admiscetur. After reading these declarations attentively, can we say, that

the ancient Christians did injustice to Manes ] —The demons or princes of

darkness dispersed about in the upper regions and resident in the stars, are not
all of the same nature, nor of the same sex. Some are of a fiery nature, and
others of a cold and humid nature : And some are males, and others females.
But they all carry in their bodies no small quantity of celestial matter, or of
vital soul, as Manes calls it. They are all full of unbridled lust ; and tliis they
have most unfortunately propagated among mankind through their bodies. And
God very sag.aciously employs this their innate vitiosity, to extort from them
the vital soul. The princes of a fiery nature, God excites to let out the celestial
matter, by the igneous Beings resident in the sun, clothed in the forms of
young men and virgins. The princes of a cold and humid nature, Christ, resi-
ding in the moon, moves by means of the lunar Beings. The celestial matter
or vital soul, elicited by such deceptions from the huge giants of both sexes in
sweat and otherwise, is in part pure and uncontaminated, and in part defiled

with the stains contracted in those foul bodies. That which is pure, mingles at
once with the virgin air, and mounts aloft to the world of light. But that
which has stains, de.scends with the rains, frosts and showers, to the earth, be-
comes connected with plants and trees, and causes the passive Jesus to shoot
forth, which, as Fausius says, hangs on all the trees. A ludicrous and amusing
philosophy truly, and not unworthy of Persian ingenuity ! — This foible, which
Manes himself announces rhetorically and pompously, others explaim more
briefly, in accordance with the oral teaching of Manes, and with the books of
 TTie Passive Jesns liberated. 885

Manichffians, Among these, are Tyrbo, (in the Acta Archelai, p. 13, 14.) and
Cyrill of Jerusalem. Tyrbo says : Virgo qusedam decora et exornata, elegans
valde, furto appetit Principes (masculos,) qui sunt in firmamento a vivente
Spiritu educti et crucifixi, quae, cum apparuerit, maribus foemina decora apparet:

fo'jminis vero adolescentem speciosum et concupiscibilem demonstrat. Sed

principes quidera (mascuH) cum eam viderint exornatam, amore ejus in libidi-
nem moventur: (All tliis, we have heard Manes himself say: what [p. 881.]
follows, is not so clearly stated by him.) et quia eam apprehendere non pos-
Bunt, vehementer instigantur amoris incendiis excitati rapti sunt enim libidinia :

calore ; cum enim eam anxii effecti fuissent, virgo subito nus-
currentibus post
quam comparuit. Tunc princeps ille magnus producit nebulas ex semetipso,
uti obscuret in ira sua omnem mundum, qui cum tribulatus fuerit plurimum,

slcut homo sudat post laborem, ita et hie Princeps sudat ex tribulatione sua,
cujus sudor pluviae sunt: (which are often preceded by thunders and light-
nings.) Cyrill also, (Cateches. vi. 5 34. p. 110.) more concisely: Imbres ex
amatorio sestu oriri statuunt, audentque dicere, esse quamdam in coelo specio-

sam virginera cum juvene formoso - - illam (virginem) fugere aiunt, istum per-
sequi, atque inde sudorcm cmittere, quo ex sudore imbrem exsistere. Hebc in

Manichasorum libris scripta sunt. Ea nos legimus, dum narrantibus nolumus

fidem habere. The.se absurd notions of the origin of rain, lightning and thun-
der, induced the Manicha;ans, when it thundered and lightened, not like other

Christians to implore the divine clemency by prayers, but to curse the Prince
of darkness, whose voice they supposed they heard. This we learn from Cyrill,
(I. cit. p. 110.) : Tonat Deus et contremiscimus omnes: isti autera in blaspjie-
mas voces erunipunt : (That is, they curse the author of the thunder.) Ful-
gurat Deus, omnesque nos in terram procumbimus : illi autem de coelis con
Vicia jactant : vifi iufia.vCiv tH; (uapvfxai c^outrt -yXdiftras.

§ LII. Destrnction of the World and Consummation of all things.

When the greatest part of souls shall have been recalled to the
world of light, and of course the human race be reduced to a few-
persons, when the celestial matter dispersed through our world
shall in various ways have been extracted, and no souls remain
on such as can in no way be purgated and reformed
earth, except
then will God remove the walls and ramparts by which the evil
fire is inclosed and that fire, bursting from its caverns, will burn
;

up and destroy the fabric of the world. At the same time

OmopJioncs will withdraw his shoulders from it, and will suffer
this dirty, depraved mass, now divested of all life, to be con-
sumed. After this, the Princes of darkness, being deprived of
all celestial be compelled to return to their
matter or light, will
own wretched country : and
world they will for- in that dreary
ever remain.(') And to prevent their again invading the world
of light, God will guard the orb of darkness with a very strong
26
386 Century III.— Section 52.

[p. 882.] force : for tliose souls, whose reformation and salvation
are despaired of, like a cordon of soldiers, will surround tlie world
of darkness and guard its frontiers, lest its wretched inhabitants
should again issue forth and invade the realm of light.(')

(1) Our world was created of God, only that the good matter mixed with
evil might be gi-adually detached ; and especially, that the souls, those daugh-
ters of eternal light, which by the crafty Prince of Darkness had been inclosed
in bodies, might be liberated from their prison. This arduous business being
completed, and the greatest part of the good matter being restored to its origi-

nal state, nothing will remain but a deformed mass, filthy, vile and sterile, which
ought to be thrown back whence it came. Therefore, when God shall have
accomplished his object and recovered his treasures plundered by the evil Prin-
of this world will ensue. That immensely great Angel,
ciple, a conflagration

Omophorus, who sustains the world on his shoulders, being notified by God that
the consummation of all things is at hand, will cast down his burden, the evil
fire will burst its barriers, and will consume the whole fobric ; and all things
will return to their original state. God, with the Beings begotten of him, will

lead a life of blessedness in the world of light: and the Prince of darkness,
with his associates and friends, will lead a life of wretchedness in the world of
darkness. Says Tyrbo, (in the Acta Disput. Archelai, ^ 11. p. 21.): Post haec
omnia, ad ultimum Senior cum manifestam fecerit ejus imaginem, tunc ipse
Omophorus extra se terram derelinquit, et ita dimittitur magnus ille ignis (that
evil fire, which the Living Spirit cast out of this world, when he formed the

earth, and inclosed within strong ramparts or mounds, and in which the very

wicked souls that would not be reformed have been for a time tormented,) qui
niundum consumat universum. - - Tunc autem hsec fient, cum statuta venerit
dies. What is here said of an Elder's exhibiting his image, is very obscure.
But this much is obvious, that by this Elder, whoever he may be, God will sig-

nify to the world-bearing Atlas, called Ornophorus, that the end of the world
has come. And on learning this, the huge giant will quit his position, and
throw down his load, as he had long and ardently wished to do. Tyrbo, soon
after, proceeds Post hajc restitutio erit duarum naturarum, (the Latin version
:

has: duorum luminarium, i. e. of the sun and moon: Extremely erroneous. In

the Greek of Epiphanius, we correctly read: 'A^rcxaraa-Tair/f t^v Svo fua-imv
The sun and the moon need no restoration. The ducc nalura:., in the style of

Manichseans, are the two first principles of all things, good and evil. The im-
port of the passage therefore is : Those two natures (or substances) will then

return to their original state, or that in which they were before the war between
the good and evil Principles :) et Principes habitabunt in inferioribus partibus
suis : (in the world of darkness, where they dwelt before the war ;) Pater au-
tem (God) in superioribus, (in the world of light,) quae sua sunt recipiens

[p. 883.] (i. e. after all the celestial matter which the princes of darkness had

seized, shall have returned to him.) — The burning of our world will be slow
and of long continuance. For Tyrbo says, that all those celestial Beings, who
were concerned in the government of our world, and also the Living Spirit, the
 Consummaiion of all things. 387

framer of the world, will reside iti tlie sun and moon, until the whole fabric is
consumed. And he adds, that he had not learned from Manes, how many years
the burning would continue. Majori in navi (the sun,) vivens Spiritus (the
world-builder,) adhibetur, et Murus illius ignis magni (the Angel, the guardian

of hell fire, who keeps watch lest this evil fire should burst from its caverns
before the appointed time,) et Murus venti (the Angel, who guards the winds)
et acris, et aquae, et interioris ignis vivi Each of the elements had (i. e. boni.
its superintending Angel, or keeper and governor.
quae omnia in luna habita- — )

bunt, usque quo totum niundum ignis absumat; in quot autem annis, numerum
non didici. And I suppose, Manes himself did not know the number of these
years. —
This whole statement of Tyrbo is confirmed by nearly all the ancient
writers. Alexander of Lycopolis, (contra Manichajos, p. 5.) adds moreover, that
this fire which is to consume the world, will also consume itself; which it is

difficult to conceive : 'Avo;^a'/>i(r3-£/!r»y Tiff 3-eiaf (Twyu^eaij to i^ce TTVf, part, <ru(A-
Tria-dv iaurd Kal aAKo a-vfXTTaVf o ti eTe av ^eiTSrat Tits Sxnf, <Tvyx,aTa^Ki>iiv . Se-
gregatii vcro a materia omni crumpet ignis externus, et seme-
virtute coelesti,
tipsum una cum omni, quai restat, materia, consumet. The same thing appears
to be stated, though less distinctly, by Titus of Bostra, (Contra Manichaeos, L.
ii.) But I omit this passage, to avoid needless prolixity. —The time or day of
this conflagration of the world and restoration of all none of the ancient
things,
writers has indicated. But a modern writer, Hebed Jesu, an Armenian, (apud
Assemanum, Biblioth. Orient. Clement. Vatic. Tom. iii. P. ii. p. 361.) affirms,

that the Manicha-ans believed : Fore, ut in die Dominico hoc saeculum habeat
interitum, dissohuionemque omnem post circulum novem mille annorum. But
as this statement is neither confirmed nor contradicted by any other writer, it

must be held doubtful.

(2) The God of the ]\Ianichaeans was cautious and provident, but imbecile,
or of moderate power. And he had reason to fear, lest the Prince of darkness,
although once vanquished, would again venture to invade the world of light; and
if he should do so, the same tragedy as in the former war, would undoubtedly
recur. To prevent tiiis great and terrible evil, he enrolled a powerful army of
guards, from among tiie souls which would not be purgated, and therefore could
not return to the world of light, and yet could not be given over to the kingdom
of darkness because possessed of a divine nature, — of these souls, I say, he
formed an army, which should valiantly resist the counsels and machinations
of the inhabitants of the world of darkness, and prevent their passing beyond
their frontiers. As before shown, the souls which have twice passed through five
successive bodies without being reclaimed, are sent to hell, to be tor- [p. 884.]
mented in the evil fire until the end of the world. When the world is about to
be destroyed, they will be drawn forth from hell, and be made garrison soldiers

for the supreme God, or guards of the world of darkness. To these will be
added the souls, which the last day will find still resident in the bodies of men,
animals, and other things; for these also are such, that their salvation is hope-
less. Says Manes, in the second Book of his Thesaurus, and in his Epistola
Fundamenti, (apud Euodium, de fide contra Manichaeos, c. 4. p. 25.) Animae :

quae negligentia sua a labe praedictorum (malorum) spirituum purgari .«e miaime
888 Century III. — Section 52.

pormiserint, mandatisquc divinis ex intergo parum obtemperaverint, legemque

sibi a 8U0 liberatore (Christ,) datam servare plenius noluerint, neque ut docebat
sese gubernaverint, quae mundi amore errare se a uriori sua lucida natura passae
sunt, atque inimicae lumini sancto extiterunt - - a beatitudine atque gloria ter-
rae sanctae arcentur. Et quia a malo se superari passae sunt, in eadem niali

stirpe perseverabunt, pacifica ilia terra et regionibus immortalibua sibimet inter-

dictis. Quod ideo illis eveniet, quia ita iniquis operibus se obstrinxerunt, ut a
vita et libertate sanctae lucis alieniantur. Non igitur poterunt recipi in regna
ilia pacifica, sed configentur in praedicto horribili globo, cui eiiain necesse est

custodiam adhiberi. Unde adhaerebunt his rebus aniuiae eaedem, quas dilexerunt,
relictae in eodem tenebrarum globo, suis meritis id sibi acquirentes. When
Aucrustine, in his second Dispute with Felix the Manichaean, (c. 15. p. 351.) had
Baid, that according to the opinion of Manes, many portions of the divine nature
would be damned; his antagonist denied the flict, and replied in these words;
Hoc, quod dixit sanctitas tua, quia pars, quae se non mundavit ab coinquinatione
orentis tenebrarum et sic dicit Manichaeus, quia non sunt missi in regnum Dei,
:

Hoc enim asseris tu, quia damnati sunt: Sed Manichaeus non hoc dicit, quia
damnati sunt, sed ad custodiam positi sunt illius gentis tenebrarum. Yet
Augustine did correctly apprehend the sentiment of Manes; as appears from
Beveral passages, but especially from this very lucid one, (de Haeres. c. 46.

p. 13.): The Manichaeans say, In nobis sanatum hoc vitium (of lust) nunquam
futurum: sed a nobis sejunctam atque seclusam substantiam istam mail, et finito
isto saeculo post conflagrationem mundi in globo quodam, tanquam in carcere

sempiterno, esse victuram. Cui globo affirmant accessurum semper et adhaesu-

rum quasi coopertorium atque tectorium ex animabus, natura quidem bonis,
sed quae tamen non potuerint a naturae malae cogitatione mundari. If we es-
timate the doctrine of Manes by these passages, the souls whose filthiness pre-

vents their being received into the world of light, will be stationed within the
sphere of darkness, or on its exterior, and will cover the whole sphere like a

[p. 885.] garment or outer covering, so as to leave no crevice through which the
inhabitants can escape. But Tyrbo, (in the Acta Arehelai, p. 21.) seems to in-
dicate, that those impure and slothful souls will have their station or camp, not
within the world of darkness, but on the intervening space between the world
of bliss and the world of misery. He says Deinde (in the end of the world,)
:

iterum (daemones) dimittunt aniiuam, (or rather animas, which were detained in
the evil fire,) quae objicitur (is opposed to the demons,) inter medium novi sse-

culi (the world of light,) ut omnes animae peccatorum vinciantur in feternum.

But the two opinions are not so different, as to be utterly irreconcilable.
I have bestowed much labor on the explanation of the Manichaean system,

for more reasons than one. None of all the sects that arose among Christians,
was more difficult to be suppressed than this and it still exists, notwithstand-
;

ino- it is regarded as vile and hateful by the Mohammedans as well as Christians.

Perhaps also the books of Manes are preserved to the present day, and read by
his many followers in the eastern countries. There have .also been, and still are
numerous discussions among learned men, respecting this singular form of re-
ligion. Some regard it as not altogether nonsense and folly, but as very dex-
 Manichcean Public Worship. 38&

terously solving all difficulties respecting the origin of evil; while otheis look
upon it as perfectly absurd, and more worthy of brute animals than of men.
The candid man will acl%nowledge, that the system as a whole, and in a general
view, displays ingenuity, that it deduces all its doctrines from a very few prin-
ciples, which have a great appearance of plausibility, and that all the parts of the
system are harmoniously consistent. But if we examine it minutely, we shall
find in it much that is silly, trifling, and fabulous. For Manes, finding that he
could not well explain the changes and operations in nature from the few
all

principles he had admitted, was compelled to tax his ingenuity to invent and de-
vise fables, in order to solve by means of the imagination, what could not be
solved by reason. Moreover, the most discerning and ingenious of the Mani-
chseans themselves have admitted, that some of their master's dogmas could not
be explained and demonstrated satisfactorily. And among these dogmas, they
name in particular, that of two first principles of all things, or, as they call

them, two natures; and the doctrine of the new age or world, (de novo saeculo,)
and some Yet they contended, that these dogmas, although above hu-
others.
man reason, were to be simply believed, because revealed to us by God. Thus
Secundinus writes to Augustine, (p. 371.): Illud tamen notum facio tuas saga-
cissimac bonitati, quia sunt qua»dam res, quae sic exponi non possunt, ut intel-
ligantur: excHidit enim divina ratio mortalium pectora: ut puta hoc ipsum, quo-
modo sint dua) naturse, aut quare pugnaverit (Dens) qui nihil poterat pati, nee
non etiam de saeculo novo, quod idem memorat. What Manes taught respect-
ing a new age or world, like several other things pertaining to his system, is at
thi.s day almost wholly unknown.

among Manichseans. The mode [p. 886.]

§ LIII. Public Worship
of public worship among
the Manichteans was very simple.
They had no temples or houses dedicated to God, no altars, no
images, no love-feasts, nor any of the ceremonies usually prac-
tised by other Christians, When assembled they prayed to God
with becoming devoutness, but with their faces turned towards
the sun. They sung hymns in praise of God, of the sun and
moon, and of the principal JEons; read the books of Manes,
especially his Epistola Fundamenti and heard exhortations from
;

their teachers, enjoining the renunciation and subjugation of sin-

ful desires.They observed Sunday as a sacred day, but abstained
wholly from food on that day. Among their annual holy days,
the most noted was the Bema, the day on which they honored
with great solemnity the memory of their master, who was cruelly
slain by the king of Persia. The Christian festivals commemo-
rative of the birth and baptism of the Saviour, they did not ob-
serve ; because they denied that Christ was either born or bap-
tized. Easter they observed with other Christians, but with
390 Century III— Section 53.

little, or ratlier with no ceremony. For, believing that Christ

only feigned death and a return to life, they supposed that short
services were all that the day required.(')

(1) Of the simple manner in wliich the Manichaeans worsliipped God,

Faustus the Manichaean discourses exultingly, (apud Augustinum, L. xx. c. 1.

torn. viii. p. 238 &c.); and as Augustine in his reply charges him with no mis-
representation, his statements are undoubtedly correct. Some one had objected,
that the Manichaeans were a Pagans and Gentiles. This charge Faustus
sect of

first answers, by showing that there was a very wide difference between Mani-

chaeans and the Gentiles. He says Mea opinio et cultus longe alia sunt, quam
;

paganorum. - - Pagani aris, delubris, simulacris, victimis atque incenso Deum

colendum putant. multum diversus incedo, qui ipsum me, si mode
Ego ab his
sum dignus, rationabile Dei templum puto: vivum vivae majestatis simulacrum
Christum filium ejus accipio aram, mentem bonis artibus et disciplinis imbutam,
:

honores quoque divinos ac sacrificia in solis orationibus, et ipsis puris et simpli-

cibus, pono. The Manichaeans, therefore, had no temples or houses consecrated
to God and no images either of God or saints
; Christ to them was in place of :

all visible representations. Neither had they altars. And lastly, the principal

[p. 887.] part of tiieir worship consisted in prayers to God, and those prayers
pure and simple. If this last clause is true, —and that it is so I will presently

show by other testimony, —then it is manifest, that all rites and ceremonies
were excluded from their worshipping assemblies, except only the custom of
turning the face towards the sun in prayer. In this matter, as in many others,
Manes followed the example of his countrymen the Persians. For it appears
from the testimonies of Herodotus and others, collected by Barnabas Brissonius,
(de regio principatu Persarum, L. ii. j 28. p. 360 &c.) that the Persians deemed
it next to insanity, to dedicate temples, images, and altars to the gods. — Having
vindicated his sect from this calumny, he turns his artillery in another direction,
and endeavors to prove that the Christians were more truly a sect of Pagans.
In doing this, he again testifies that the Manichaeans disregarded and despised
the ceremonies usual among other Christians in that age, and were studious of
simplicity in the worship of God. He says- Vos sacrificia (gentium) mutastis
in agapas: (The Manichaeans therefore omitted altogether those feasts of love,
which the other Christians celebrated.) Vos vertistis idola in martyres, quos
(The Manichaeans therefore paid no honors or worship
votis similibus colitis:
to martyrs, they kept no images of them, and they did not observe their
Natalitia, or the days consecrated to their memory.) Vos defunctorum umbras
vino placatis et dapibus : (This cuts the Christians of those times, who carried

wine and food on certain days to the sepulchres of the martyrs, and there held
feasts.) Vos solennes gentium dies cum ipsis celebratis, ut kslendas et solstitia:

(Therefore the IManichaeans abhorred the practice of the Cin-istians, after the
time of Constantine the Great, of annexing the Christian rites, and in a sense
giving consecration, to the festal days of the Pagans.) De vita certe mutastis
nihil. All these things Augustine endeavors to excuse; but he denies nothing.
As the Manichaean worship consisted chiefly in prayers, they ca'led their wor-
 Arcane Worship of the Elect. 391

Bhipping assemblies the prayer. This we learn from Fortunatus, a Manichaean,

(in his first Dispute witii Augustine, p. 69.) who inquired of Augustine: Inler-
fuisti (nostrae) orationi? And Augustine replied: Interfui. The subsequent
remarlis plainly show, that Manichaean assemblies for public worship were in-
tended. And it is worthy of special notice, that Augustine confesses that
nothing reprehensible occurred in their worshipping assemblies. He disapproves
of only one thing, namely, their turning their faces to the sun in prayer. He
savs: Qnamvis orationi vestrae interfuerim, utrum separatim vobiscum habeatis
aliara orationem, (They certainly had other worship, as Augustine himself in-
forms us soon after; nor does Fortunatus deny it,) Deus solus potest nosse et
vos. Ego tamen in oratione, in qua interfui, nihil turpe fieri vidi, sed solum
contra fidem animadvert!, - - quod contra solem facitis orationem. Praetcr hoc
in ilia oratione vestra nihil novi comperi. On other points here .stated, we have
heretofore treated, so that we need not again remark upon them.

§ LIV. The exclusive Worship of the Elect. Baptism and [p. 888.]
the sacred Supper. Besides tlie public assemblies, in which the Elect
or perfect and the Auditors or imperfect met together, other and
more private conventions for religious objects were held exclu-
sively by the little band of the Elect. "What was done in these
private conventions, or in what manner God was there worshi})ped,
is not known at the present day ; the books of the sect being lost,

or at least not being known. (') To the arcane or private worship

of the Manicha^ans, pertained haiitism and the sacred Siqyper.
Baptism, the Manichaians held to be a mere ceremony, which
conveyed no benefit whatever to the soul. They did not admit
that Christ was baptized and their fundamental principles for-
;

bid their believing that any efficacy existed in water for purify-
ing the divine soul, the offspring of God. Hence they did not
require their people to receive baptisnl but if any of the Elect :

desired a lustration by water, the leaders of the sect did not op-
pose their wishes.(') Of the sacred Supper of the Elect, nothing
scarcely is known at the present day for the horrid and obscene :

rites of it, by many of the ancients, lack authority, cre-

rejDorted
dibility, and probabilit}'' and the genuine followers of Manes
;

cannot be taxed with them, without extreme injustice.(')

(1) Says Augustine, (Disput. I. cum Fortunato, 0pp. torn. viii. p. 68.) De :

moribus vestris plene scire possunt, qui Electi vestri sunt. Nosti autem, me
non Electum vestrum, sed Anditorem fui,sse. - - Quisquis autem vobis opponit
quaestionem aliquam de moribus, Electis vestris opponit. Quid autem inter
vos agatis, qui Electi estis, ego scire non possum. Nam et Eucharistiam audiv;
a vobis saepe, quod accipiatis : (It is manifest from this language that the Eu
S92 Century IIL—Seciion 54.

chaiist pertained to the arcane mysteries of the Elect, and that the Audilon
were not admitted to it,) tempus autem accipiendi cum me lateret, quid accipi-
atis, unde nosse potui ? All these remarks Forlunatus passes by, and tliere-
fore approves, or tacitly acknowledges them to be true. Moreover, there is
other evidence which puts it beyond controversy, that the Elect held secret
meetings, from which the Auditors were excluded.
(2) Respecting Aa/)asm among Manichaeans, learned men have disagreed;
some affirm that they practised it, others deny it, and others combine the
two opinions in some way. The cause of this disagreement is in Augustine;
who seems in some places to teach, that the Manichaeans despised baptism,
while other passages are extant, and some of them in Augustine, which bid us
believe the contrary. Tillemonte, (in his Memoires pour servir a I'Histoire de

[p. 889.] I'Eglise, tom. iv. p. 948.) thinks the difficulty cannot be surmounted,
except by supposing that the Manichaeans, sometimes, and inconsiderately, {far
fantaisie) when the bishops happened to take it into their heads, practiced bap-
tism ; but at other times, when their leaders deemed it expedient, they neglected
baptism. But it is wholly incredible, that a thing of this nature should be
regulated by no rules among them, and should be left altogether to the caprice
of the bishops. Beausohre, (in his Histoire du Manichee, tom. ii. p. 715, &c.) —
if I do not mistake, —
inconsiderately cuts the knot, which he would gently un-
tie. For he tells us, that Augustine has deceived us and he contends, that :

the Manichaeans not only baptized, but attributed to baptism a purifying influ-
ence on the soul, and for that reason they also baptized infants. This extraor-
dinary man would have judged differently, I apprehend, if he had more care-
fully considered the passages of Augustine and others on the subject, and had
compared them with each other. Augustine no where says, what learned men
consider him as saying. —
I will try, if I can disentangle this subject, and lay

open the true character of Manichajan baptism.

First : Baptism was undoubtedly practised among the Manichaeans. The
first witness to this fact is Cyrill of Jerusalem, (Cateches. VI. ^ 33. p. 109.) He
says: 'Ov ro'Xuio itrl dvS'puit' nai yuYatKoJv to Xvrpdv durHv i'i>fyri(7'a<r^ai. Lavac-
rum eorum coram viris et mulieribus enarrare non audeo. Seeing that the com-
mon bathing was prohibited among the Manichfeans, as we have already shewed,
the wordxuT^dv must here necessarily mean baptism. Besides, Cyrill connects
this xvTpdv with the sacred Supper. He therefore here criminates the l\Iani-
chaeans for immersing males and females entirely naked, in the presence of both
men and women. If this were the fact, which for many reasons I doubt, fliey
certainly offended against the laws of decency and modesty. — The second wit-
ness is Felix the Manichaean, who, in his
first Dispute with Augustine, (c. 19.

an argument from baptism, in proof of the existence of an evil

p. 344.) derives
Principle opposed to a good one Si adversarius nullus contra Deura est, ut
:

quid (perhaps it should read ; ad quid) baptizati sumus ? Ut quid Eucharistia,

ut quid Christianitas, si nihil contra Deum est. —The third witness is Augustine,
(de moribus eccles. et Manichseor. L. i. c. 35.) The passage will be cited here-
after. —The fourth witness is Jerome, who bitterly inveighs against Hilary, a
Roman deacon, because he had received into the church persons baptized by
 Baptisms among Manichaians. 393

Manichseans ;
(Dialogo contra Luciferianos, 0pp. torn. iv. p. 305.) : Diaconus
eras, O Hilari, et a Manichajis baptizatos reeipiebas ? —To these are to be added
the testimonies, wiiich will be cited to prove, that baptized Manicha!ans when
received into the Roini-h and otiier churches, were not re-baptized.
Secondly: Yet the Manichaeans attributed to baptism no salutary influence
on the soul ; and, for that reason, they did not require any of their people to
receive baptism. With tin's, Augustine sometimes reproaches them [p. 890.] ;

and whoever understands the opinions of the sect, will readily admit his charge.
He says: (de Haeres. c. 46. torn. viii. p. 13): Baptismum in aqua niliil cuiquara
perliibent saiutis afferre: nee quemquam eorum, quos decipiunt, baptizandura
putant. And (contra diias Epi-<tt. Pelagianor. L. ii. c. 2. torn. x. p. t286.): Ma-
nichaei lavacrum regenerationis, id est, aquam ipsam dicunt esse superHuam, nee
prodesse aliquid profano corde contendunt. And, (same work, L. iv. c. 4. p. 310.):
Quid eis (Pelagianis) prodest Baptismum omnibus aetatibus necessarium confi-
teri, quod Manichaei dicunt in omni aetate superfluum. And, (contra littcras
Petiliani, L. iii. c. 17. torn. i.v. p. 208, 209.) Pelelian having supposed, that bap-
tism was conferred on the Manichaean Auditors, Atigusline confutes him thus:
Petilianus, quod ei placet de illorum (Manichaeorum) baptismo dicat et siribat,
nesciens, aut nescire se fingens, non illic ita appellari catechumenos, tanquara
eis baptisnuisquandoque debcatur. Those learned men, who infer from these
and some similar passages, that the Manichaeans held all baptism in abhorrence,
see in the passages more than they really contain. Avgusline merely says, that
the Manichaeans did not baptize those who came over to their church, and that
they accounted baptism to be a mere ceremony. And this may be substantiated,
not only from Augustine, hut from the language of Manes himself, (in the Acta
Disput. Archelai, J
50. p. 94.) In a discussion respecting the baptism of Christ,
Archclaus uses this language to Manes: Baptisma si non est, nee erit remissio
peccatoruin, scd in suis pcccatis unusquisque inorietur. Manes, on hearing this, is

surprised, Ergo baptisma propter remissionem pec-

and asks with astonishment :

catorum datur? This was as much as to say: You tell me something new and
unheard of; that sins are forgiven through the medium of baptism. He there-
fore disbelieved the saving influence of baptism. Archelaus replied to hia
question : Eliam: this is my opinion. And Manes craftily uses this answer, to
disprove the baptism of Christ, and says: Ergo peccavit Christus, si baptizatus
est? Felix the Manichaean, in the passage recently quoted, seems, indeed, to
admit, that there is some virtue in baptism against the Prince of evil. But
learned men have long since remarked, that Felix was not perfectly acquainted
with the religion he professed : and the testimony of the master is doubtless of
more weight than that of the disciple.
Thirdly : But if any of the Elect wished to be baptized, it was conceded to
them. But no Auditor could receive baptism. These propositions will be clear
and beyond all controversy, if it can be shown, I. that, among Manichaeans, in- —
fants were not received into the church by baptism; — II.that the Auditors were
not admitted to baptism :
—and III. that a.l the Elect were not baptized, but it
was left optional with each of them, to receive baptism or not. — I. Beau- [p. 891.]
sobre, among others, (vol. ii. p. 718 &.c.) maintains, that all Manichaeans, indis<
394 Century III. — Section 54.

criminately, and infants in particular, were bnptized with water. In proof of this
opinion, a certnin passage of Augustine is adduced, and then the Inngunge of
Manes himself is appealed to. Aiigusline, in his work opposed to two Epistles
of Pelagius, (L. iv. c. 3. 0pp. torn. x. p. 309.) seems to say, that Manes believed
infants to need a Saviour. He says: Quapropter utrosque (the Pelagi.ms and
Manichseans) damnat atque devitat, quisquis secundum regulam catholicae fidei

sic in hominibus nascentibus, de bona creatura carnis et animae glorificat Crea-

torem, quod non vult Manichaeus: ut tamen propter vitium, quod in eos per
peccatum primi hominis pertransiit, fateatur et parvulis necessarium Salvatorem,
quod non vult Pelagius. In the last clause of tliis passage, some of the learned
think, Augustine expounds the opinion of tiie Manichajans. But this is much
to be doubted. For, from what Pelagius denied, tiiat infants need a Saviour,
it never can be inferred that the Manichceans believed the contrary. But, sup-
pose it was as learned men think, and that Manes, according to the testimony
of Augustine, believed that infants need a Saviour, (which, however, for several
what inference can be drawn from it ? Can we reason
reasons, is not credible,)
thus: Manes believed need a Saviour, and therefore Manes required
infants to
infants to be baptized? 1 think not. For the first proposition may be true, and
yet the second be false. —
A stronger argument for their purpose, seems to be
found in the language of Manes in his Epistle to his daughter Menoch, (apud
Augusiinum, Opere imperf. contra Julianum, L. iii. j 187. torn. ii. p. 833.) Qui :

(the Catholic Christians) his verbis mihi interrogandi sunt: Si omne malum
actuale est; ante quara malum quispiam agat, quare accipit purificationem aquae,
cum nullum malum egerit per se? Aut si necdum egit et purificandus
est, licet eos naturaliter malae stirpis pullulationem ostendere, ipsos quoa illos

amentia non sinit intelligere neque quae dicunt, neque de quibus affirmant. A
person, on reading this passage cursorily, might ca.siiy fail into the belief, that
Manes here supposes {purijicaiionem aqucc) baptism, to be needful and salutary
to infants; but on a closer inspection, he will change his opinion. Manes here
argues ad hominem, x-ar av^faiTov, as logicians say, from the belief of his adver-
saries, and not from his own belief; and his argument is this: You Catholics
unwillingly establish what I teach, namely, that evil is not, as you say, a nega-
tive thing, or nothing, {niMl; as Secundinus, in his Epistle lo Augustine, p. 369.
explains his opinion of original sin,) but something actually existing and present
in mankind. For, you baptize infants, before they have done anything evil, in

order, as you say, to purify them. And thereby, you admit that evil really ex-

[p. 892.] ists in infants, before they have acted any evil, and that they are
(maloi stirpis pullulatio) the sprout of an evil root, or in a certain sense belong
to the Prince of darkness, and are the work of his hands. And in this manner
Julian, a Pelagian, who was opposing Augustine, understood this passage of
Manes. He says: Audis (Augustine,) quomodo convinciatur nobis (Manes)?
Amentes vocat, nee intelligentes vel quag dicamus, vel quae affirmemus, qui mate
stirpis pullulationem negemus, cum baptizemus etiam eos puriticante aqua, qui

nullum malum egerint, id est, parvulos. Manes, therefore, was laboring to con-
fute the Catholics on their own principles, and not on his II. That the Audi- !
—
tors, or the imperfect among the Manichasans, were not admitted to baptism, is
 Baptism among Manicha:ans. 395

clearly taught by Augustine , who was one of their Auditors nine years, and
therefore a most competent witness. In his work, contra Epistoiam Petiliani,
(c. 17. torn. i.\. p. 208, 209.) he most explicitly teaciies, that Auditors among the

Manichaeans were not admissible to baptism, or that it was not their custom to
baptize them. And the same thing is manifest from tlie very ancient work en-
titled, Commonitorium, quomodo agendum sit cum Manichaeis qui convertuntur,
usually asciibed to Augustine, and printed with his works, (torn. viii. Appendix,
p. 34.) For we from it. that Maniciisean Auditors, when tliev svent
clearly learn
over to the Orthodo.x Christians, were admitted to the rank of Catechunu^ns, that
is, such as had not yet been baptized; but if any of ihcir Elect, who had received

baptism among the Manicheeans, were converted they were em-olled among the
Penitents, or such as did not need baptism. Unusqui<que (of the converted
Manichaeans,) det (to the bishop) libcllum confessionis et poenitentiae suae atque
anathematis, pctens in ecciesia vel Catechumini, (that is, if lie had been an Au-
ditor among the Manichaeans ; as appears incontrovertibly by what fullows:)
vel Pcenitentis, (that is, if lie had been one of the baptized Elect; which also will
be put beyond all doubt, by what I shall presently quote,) locum. - - - Nee
facile admittantur ad baptismum, si Catechumeni sunt, (Therefore the Auditors
were unbaptized persons, whose place among Christians was that of Cat'chu-
si poenitentiae locum acceperint, (For to the Elect
mens,) nee ad reconciliationem,
who had been baptized among the Manichaians, the church did not deem baptism
to be necessary, but only reconciliation or admission to fellowship,) nisi periculo
mortis, urgent vel si cos aliijuanto tempore probatos esse, cognoverit episcopus. — III.

All the Elect among Manichaeans did not receive baptism, but only such as re-
quested it. is demonstrated by the same Commonitorium, which ma-
This also
nifestly discriminatesbetween the bnptized and the unbaptized Elect: Electis
vero eorum, qui se converti dicunt ad Catholicam fidem, etiamsi et ipsi hwrcsim
anathemaverint, non facile dandaj sunt litterae, sed cum Dei servis esse dehebunt,
sive Clericis, sive Laicis in monasterio, donee appareant penitus ipsa supersti-
tione caruisse : et tunc vel baptizentur, si non fuerint baplizati (Therefore, all
"the Elect were not baptized,) vel reconcilientur, si (being already baptized)
poenitentiaj locum acceperint.
Fourthly: Such of the Elect as chose to be baptized, must remain in [p. 893.]
the class of the Elect, and might not change their manner of life. The mode of
life prescribed to the Elect, was, as we have seen, exceedingly severe and dis-

agreeable and those who found by experience, that they could not endure its
;

rigors, might pass over to the class of Auditors, who were subjected to a much
milder law. But those who received baptism, deprived themselves of tins privi-

lege, and might in no case recede from their adopted rule of life. This, if I do
not wholly misapprehend, is confirmed by Augustine, (de moribus ecclesiae et
Manichajor. L. 35. tom. i. p. 531,532.): Quid cnlumniamini (vos Mani-
i. c.

chaji), quod jam baptismate renovali procreare filios, et agros ac donios,

fideles
pecuniamque ullam posidere non debeant? Permittit hoc Fauius. According
to the Manichaean principles, baptized persons were perpetually bound exclu-
sively to the rigorous rules of the £Zec^ which forbid their procreating children,

or possessing any property whatever. But we have shown, tliat all the Elect
396 Century III.—S&:t'wn 54.

did not receive baptism : we must therefore conclude, that such ones might re-
linquish that rule of life. And this, doubtless, was the reason why all the
Elect did not desire baptism.
With what forms and rites the Maniehaeans baptized their Elect, who were
doubtless esteemed holier and better than other people, no one of the ancients
has informed us : for this was a part of the sacred arcana of the sect.But
learned men very justly suppose, they baptized with water, and in the name of
the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We have already seen, from the Commoni-
torium ascribed to Augustine, that the baptized Elect were admitted, by the
Latin church, among Penitents, and were not to be again baptized. And tiiis is

confirmed by an Epistle of Leo the Great, (Epist. viii. ad episcopos per Italiam,
tom. i. p. 215.) in which he writes that he, de voragine impietatis suae confessos,
pcenitentiam concedendo, levasse certain Manichaean doctors, whom he found
at Rome : and he makes no mention whatever of a renewed baptism. It is

also confirmed more distinctly, by the prayers of Augustine, at the close of his
book de natura boni, (c. 28. p. 368.) where he says Dona nobis, Deus, ut per
:

nostrum ministerium, sicut jam multi (Manichaeorum) liberati sunt, et alii libe-
rentur, ei site per sacramentum sancti baptismi tui, sive per sacrificium contribu-
lati spiritus et cordis contriti et humiliati in dolore poeniientice, remissionem
peccatorum accipere mereantur. These sentiments accord exactly with the
Commonitorium. Some Maniehaeans were received into the church, by bap-
tism and others,
; without baptism, by mere penitence. Now, if this was the
two following things were undoubtedly true first, that not all, but only
fact, the :

some Maniehaeans had been baptized and secondly, that the Maniehaeans who
:

had received Manichaean baptism, were not again baptized, but were merely
[p. 894.] purified by penitence. The Latin church accounted Manichaean baptism
legitimate and valid. But how could th«y so esteem it, if the Maniehaeans bap-
tized in a way and manner different from by Christ to his fol-
that prescribed
lowers? For the Latins accounted all baptisms vain and useless, in which any
other substance than wafer was employed, or in which the names of the Fattier,
Son and Holy Spirit were not used, I therefore suppose, Turibius, (a Spanish
bishop of Astorga.) must have been misled by rumor or misapprehension, when,
in an Epistle published among the Epistles of Leo the Great, (tom. i. p. 232.)
he states that the Manichap.ans baptized with oil.
(3) The passages from Felix the Manich?ean, and Augustine, which I re-
cently quoted, when treating of baptism and the sacred rites of the Elect, de-
monstrate that the Elect, and they only, among the Maniehaeans, celebrated the
holy supper. Augustine, who had been only an Auditor, did not know, what
the Elect might receive in the holy supper, or in what manner the supper was
administered. This portion of the secret worship of the Maniehaeans, therefore,
lies wholly in the dark. Some learned men have conjectured, that they used
water instead of wine ; because it was not lawful for the Elect to drink wine
but they might alsio use oil, in wiiich they supposed much celestial matter to be
latent. Among the ancients there were men of high authority, such as Cyrill
of Jerusalem, Augustine, and Leo the Great, not to mention several of less
character i^nd fame, who report that, in the sacred supper, flour or figs sprinkled
 The Lord's Supper among them. 397

with human semen was presented to the Elect to be swallowed. Says AiiguS'
tine, (de haeres. c. 46. p. 11.): Q.ua oecasione vel potius execrabilis cujiisdam
Buperstitionis necessitate, coguntur Elect! eorum velut Eiicharistiam (tlie flour:
which Cyrill calls a Jig, or a dried fig, Cateches. vi. p. 110.) conspersam cum
eemine humano sumere, ut etiam inde, sicut de aliis cibis, quos accipiunt, sub-
stantia ilia divina purgetur. There are other passages of Avgusline, in which
he states this grave charge more fully but they need not be cited. The very
:

learned patron of the Manicha;ans, Beausobre, (in the close of the second vol-
ume of his History of the Manichaeans,) inquires very fully, and with much zeal
and ingenuity, into the truth of this accusation; and, after weighing with great
care all the arguments and testimonies, he pronounces it to be a fabricated
falsehood. I thinlj the business may be accomplished in a more summary man-
ner. In the first place, the Manicha;ans
do not deny, that there was an infa-
mous and filthy set of people, who defiled themselves with such a ceremony ;
but they most strenuously repel the base charge from their sect. Augustine
(loco cit.) says : Sed hoc se facer^negant, et alios nescio quos sub nomine Ma-
nichaeorum fixcere affirmant. And a little after, he says, that a certain Mani-
chaean, named Viator, declared before a judicial court, that they who did those
things, were called Catharistce ; that they originated from the Manichaeans, and
used Manichaian books, yet were a distinct people from the genuine [p. 895.]
Manichseans. In another place, (de natura boni, c. 47. p. 367.) lie says : Isti

autem cum hoc eis objicitur, solent respondere, nescio quem inimicum suum de
numero suo, hoc est, Electorum suorum, descivisse et schisma fecisse, atque
hujusmodi spurcissimam hoeresin infecisse. In my judgment, confidence in this
matter is to be reposed in the Manichaeans, who best understood their own af-

fairs. Some one may say : What the Manichaeans admit, namely, that some
among them, bearing the name of Manichaeans, were guilty of that obscene
conduct, may be believed because no reason can be assigned, why they should
;

fabricate such a story. But the other part, that true Manichaeans abhorred such
conduct, cannot with equal safety be believed. I, however, maintain, that the
may be received as true and this, on the authority of Augustine
latter also ;

himself. For he, although he labors in several passages to make it appear, by

arguments and testimony, that the Manichaeans were not so innocent in this
matter, as they wished to be accounted, yet in other places, he hesitates, fluctu-
ates, and shows plainly, that he had nothing certain to guide him. And this,

in my judgment, is suflicient to establish the testimony of the Manichaeans

respecting themselves. Fortunatus the Manichaean, publicly demanded of Au-
gustine, either to prove the truth of the stories in circulation respecting the
eacred supper of the Manichaeans, or to admit their falsehood. He says, (torn,
viii. p. 68.) : Falsis criminibus pulsamur. Ex te ergo praesentes audiant boni
viri,utrum sint vera, super quibus criminamur et appetimur, an sint fiilsa.
Etenim ex tua doctrina, et ex tua expositione et ostensione poterunt verius
scire nostram conversationem, si a te fuerit prodita. Augustine showed fore-
sight and caution by declining the task assigned him by the Manichaean and ;

his first reply is, that the question before them did not relate to the morals of
the Manichaeans, but to their faith. But Fortunatus still persists, and says,
3!M Century III. — Section 55.

that it is necessary, before discussing the creed of the Manichacans, to investi-

gate their moral character, which appeared to many to be most base. When
driven to extremity, Augustine aclinowledges, that he has no certain Ivnowledge
of the morals of the Manichaean Elect. He linew, indeed, that the Elect at-
tended the sacred supper; but what they received there, he did not know Eu- :

charistiam audivi quod accipiatisquid vero accipiatis, unde nosse potui ? This
:

ingenuous acknowledgment of his ignorance, destroys all the force of those

passages, in which he boldly and confidently charges the Manichaeans with the
shameful conduct above mentioned. In another place, where he is professedly
inquiring what there is reprehensible in the morals and usages of the Manicliae-
ans, (de moribus Manichaeorum, L. ii. c. 19. tom. 1. p. 551.) he again very
timidly and cautiously touches this subject Quia non possunt ab Auditoribus
:

vestris taliasemina (hominum et animalium) vobis purganda offerri, quis non

suspicetur, (So the whole thing rests on suspicion!) secretam de vobis ipsis
[p. 896.] inter vos fieri talem purgationem, et ideo illis ne vos deserant,
occul-

tari? Quae si non facit'is, quod uti nam ilawit. (Who can suppose the man
who so speaks, is stating well ascertained facts?) Videtis tamen quantae sus-

picioni vestra superstitio pateat, et quam non sit hominibus succenscndum id

opiiiantibus, quod de vestra professione colligitur, cum vos animam per escam
et potura de corporibus et sensibus liberare praedicatis. Nolo hie diutius im-

morari : et videtis, quantus sit invectionis locus. Sed res talis est, ut eam po-
tius reformidet quam insectetur, oratio. Thus wrote Augustine, in a calm and
tranquil state of mind. When warmed by passion, he speaks more confidently.
But the utterance of the sober mind, refutes the declarations of the impassioned
mind.

LV. Constitution of the ManichBean Church. The organization

§
of the community established by Ilcuies, was peculiar. Over the
whole community an individual presided, who represented Jesus
Christ. Next to him were twelve Magistri, representing the
twelve Apostles. After them came seventy-two Bishojys, corres-
ponding with the seventy-two disciples of Christ. To the several
Bishops were subject the Presbyters and Deacons. All these be-
longed to the class of the Meet, and were the head men of the
sect.(') The members of the community were divided into two
classes, the Meet or Perfect, and the Auditors, who were also called
Catechumens. The Elect were subjected to a severe and uncom-
fortable rule of life, and consequently were held in very high
veneration. They were of two descriptions, the haiJtized and the
unbaiJtized. The baptized could never change their condition but ;

the unbaptized, if they found themselves utterly unable to en-

dure the rigorous discipline of the Elect, might descend to the
rank of Auditors, who were allowed to live and act with greater
freedom.Q
 Constitution of the Manichcean Church. 399

(1) On the constitution of the Manichsean church, there is only one passage
to be cited from Augustine, (de Hteres. c. 46. p. 13.); Ipse Manichjeus
duode-
ciin discipulos habuit, ad instar Apostolici numeri, quem numerum Manichaei
hodieque custodiunt. Nam ex Electis suis habent duodecim, quos appellant
Magislros et tertium decimum principem ipsorum : episcopos autem sepluaginta
duos, qui ordinantur a Magistris: Et presbyteros, qui ordinantur ab episcopis.
Habent etiam episcopi diaconos. I could wish Augustine had described witli
more particularity the constitution of the Manichaean community, had named
the place where the head of the sect and the Magistri resided, and had informed
us what were the powers and duties of the several orders of the clergy, [p. 897.]
how they were inducted into office, &.c. But I suppose that, being only an
Auditor, he did not himself know these things, as they pertained to the sacred
arcana of the sect, and to the interior discipline of the Elect. It is probable
that the head of the sect and the college of the Magistri resided in some city

of Persia; for the sect originated in Persia, and its founder was a Persian. But
in the times of Augustine, the severe laws of the emperors, which are now ex-
tant in the Codex Theodusianus, were in force against the Manicliaeans; and
therefore, undoubtedly, they concealed the residence of their chief, and the other
things from which the internal state of the sect might be known. —The Mani-
chacans, then, had a supreme Pontiff; though by what title he was designated,
is not known ; for the term Princeps used by Augustine, was not probably his
true title. I conjecture that, as Manes himself assumed the appellation of
Apostle of Jesus Christ, the same appellation was transmitted to his successors.
With the Pontiff was associated a college of twelve Magistri: but whether they
were dispersed in various places, or all resided near the Pontiff, does not appear.
The was elected and consecrated by the Magistri; and he,
Pontiff, I suppose,

in return, appointed and consecrated the Magistri. In what way the Bishops
were created, does not appear: but they could be installed only by the Magistri;
and afterwards they installed the Presbyters. The Bishops seem to have se-
lected the Deacons, and to have inducted them into office. Diverse from all
these, yet doubtless belonging to the sacred order, were the Evangelists, as we
may call them, or those whose office it was to extend and propagate the sect;
but what title the Manichaeans gave to them, I do not know. They were the
more distinguished among the Says Augus-
Elect for talents, ability, and zeal.
tine, (loc. cit. p. 13.): Mittuntur etiam ipsi, qui videntur idonei ad hunc errorem,

vel ubi est, sustentandum et augendum, vel ubi non est, etiam seminandum.
The electing and commissioning of them, undoubtedly belonged to the head of
the sect.
(2) That Manes divided the members of his community into two classes,
the Elect and the Auditors, is a fiict well known. Says Augustine, (de Haeres.
c. 46. p. 11.): Electi Manichaeorum sanctius vivunt et excellentius Auditoribus

suis. Nam his duabus professionibus, hoc est, Electorum et Auditorum, eccle-
siam suam constare voluerunt. Some suppose, that Manes borrowed this classi-
fication from the Pythagorean school; which was composed of the Mathematici
and the Acusmatici (dKova-juartKCi), the former corresponding with the Elect, and
the latter with the Auditors. I am persuaded that this Persian, who was doubt-
400 Century III. — Section 55,

less ignorant of Pythagoras, followed in this matter his instructers, the Magi.
Eubulus, in his historj' of Mithra, (apud Porphyrium de abstinenlia a carnibua.
L. iv. § 16. p. 165.) besides others, testifies that the Magi were distributed into

[p. 898.] three classes: Prirai et doctissimi neque edebant animalia, neqiie neca-
bant : These were very similar to the Elect among the Manichaeans. Secundi
ordinis Magi animantes interficiebant quidem, sed nullas cicures : That is, they
Blew the noxious animals, or such as were injurious to mankind, but spared the
useful animals. Nor was it wholly unlawful for the Manichaean Auditors to
elay those animals which endanger tlie lives of men, such as serpents, field-mice,
and scorpions: these, however, according to tlie testimony of Augustine, (de
moribus Manichaeor. L. ii. c. 18. tom. i. p. 550.) they supposed not to be real
animals, but to originate from the dead bodies of men. Tertii generis Manichasi
{Magi ?) quaedam quidem animalia edebant, sed non omnia. There are several
things which go to show, that the Manichaean Auditors were also forbidden to
eat certain animals.
The Elect, as Theodoret testifies, (Haeret. Fabul. L. i. c. 26.) were likewise
called TtKtiah the Perfect; because they appeared to obey the whole of the law
which was considered a.s enjoined by Christ. And, although they were not all
they were
priests, yet all compared to the Jewish priests, and were generally
called priests, and the priestly order. Thus Faustus, (L. xxx. c. 1. p. 316.):

Nos quidem solum in plebe sacerdotale hominum genus censemus a carnibus

abstinere debere. Perhaps Faustus likewise used the word Fidelium; for Aw-
gustine often calls them fideles : e. g. (de morib. ecclesiae cuthol. L. i. c. 35.

p. 532.): Nolite dicere catechumenis uti licere couiug'ihus, Jidelilms autem non
licere: catechumenis licere habere ])GCumi\m, fidelibus autem non licere. — Tyrho^
(in the Acta Archelai, \ 9. p. 16.) is tiie first that gives the appellation Catechu-

mens to the Auditors. After him, Epiphanius several times designates tliem by
this appellation. But some learned men disapprove the term: they think that
the term Catechumens, which was appropriate to Catholic Christians, is indis-
creetly applied to a class of persons very different from Catechumens. But
Tyrbo, and those who followed him, committed no mistake. For Augustine,
once himself an Auditor, and therefore a very competent witness, informs us
was applied, even among the Manichaeans, to the
that the title of Catechumens
Auditors. I have just cited from him a passage which proves it. But I will

add one still clearer and more irrefragable, (contra litteras Petiliani, L. iii. c. 17.

p. 208, 209.): Nescit (Petilianus,) non (among Manichaeans,) ita appell.-iri

illic,

Catechumenos, tanquam eis baptismus quandoque debeatur, (for Petilian had

supposed, that the Manichaean Catechumens, like those of other Christians,
were to be baptized,) sed eos hoc vocari, qui etiam Audiiores xocantur, quod vi-
delicet et majora praecepta observare non possint, quae obser-
tanquam meliora
vantur ab quos Electorum nomine discernendos et honorandos putant.
eis,

They were also called Seculars; because they might engage in secular business.
[p. 899.] Faustus, (L. xvi. c. 6. p. 204.) Judaei Christo credere non poterant,
:

indifFerentiam docenti ciborum, et a suis quidem discipulis (the Elect,) omnia

penitus removenti, stecularibus vero (to the Auditors,) vulgo concedenti omnia
quae possent edi.
 Uotistitutlon of the Maakhcean Church. 401

The number of the Elect was small.

It would appear from the Ada Arche-

lai, (5 10. p. 19.) Manes was attended by only seven: Praecipit Electis suis
that
soils, qui non sunt amplius, quam septem numero. But I must confess, this tes-
timony appears to me doubtful. For in the same Ada, a little after, (J 12. p. 23.)
Manes is said to have arrived, adducens secura juvenes et virgines electos ad
viginti duo simul. Besides, it is beyond all controversy that Mayies, after the
e-xample of Christ, had twelve disciples of the highest order, or twelve Apostles;
and these were undoubtedly of the class of the Eled. I suspect that the seven,
whom Tyrbo calls Eled, were Magistri; and that Manes, at that time, could
find no more of the Eled worthy of being thus promoted. The smallness of
the number of the Eled will not appear strange, to one who considers what we
have frequently shown, that the Eled were obliged to lead a very uncomfortable
and cheerless life. For as they must live in perfect inactivity, and must so re-
frain from all labor and business as not even to pull up an herb or pluck an
apple, without sinning; this very inactivity was more painful and disagreeable
than the most busy and active life. They were prohibited from everything that
can delight the senses, exhilarate the mind, or give pleasure to the body, except
only music. In part, these disagreeables were relieved by the high veneration
in which they were held. For they were addressed, as Deities are, on bended
luiees. Tlius A^tgustine^ (Episl. ccx.v.wii. ad Deuterium, torn. ii. p. 643.); Au-
ditores qui appellantur apud cos et carnibes vescuntur, et agros colunt, et, si
voluerint, uxores habent, quorum nihil faciunt qui vocantur Electi. Sed ipsi
Auditores ante Electos genua figunt, ut eis manus supplicibus imponantur, non
a solis presbyteris, vel episcopis aut diaeonibus eorum, sed a quibuslibet Electis.
Therefore, although the bishops, presbyters, and deacons, were higher in rank
or dignity, yet all the Eled were supposed to possess equal sanctity, and the
power of conferring celestial gifts on the Auditors, As they were entirely
penniless, and could neither possess anything nor supply their wants by labor,
it was necessary them with salads, potherbs,
that the Auditors should furnish
fruits, melons, bread, &c for their sustenance; and whoever neglected tliis duty,

was deemed guilty of atrocious sin, and deserving the flames of hell. And
hence the Auditors were always ready and willing to present to the Eled whaU
ever they needed and frequently they brought to them more than they wanted.
;

Says Tyrbo, (in the Acta Archelai, p. 16.); Si quid optimum est in escis (those,
namely, which the Eled migiit lawfully eat,) ofTerunt illud Electis. But this
very liberality of the Auditors frequently became onerous to the Elect for, :

whatever the Auditors presented to them, was considered as consecrated, [p. 900.]
and therefore could neither be eaten by any other persons, nor be thrown away.
And hence the Eled had to load their stomachs immoderately, whenever a large
quantity of food was offered them or the boys whom they had under instruc-
;

tion, were compelled to eat what their masters were unable to consume. Au-

gustine, (de moribus eecles. et ^laniehaeor. L. ii. c. 16. p. 527.): Quae vobis
quasi purganda afforuntur, (Manes supposed some portion of the divine and
celestial substance was combiiiod with all natural objects ; and that the conti-
nence, the chastity, and the sanctity of the Eled, caused all that was celestial
and divine in the things they ate, to be at once separated from sordid matter,
VOL. ir. 27
402 Century III. — Section 55.

and so to return to the world of light. Therefore Augustine says :) Quod ea,
quae vobis quasi purganda afferuntur ad epulas, nefas putatis, si quis alius, prze-
ter Electos, ad cibandum tetigerit, quantae turpitudinis et aliquando sceleris

plenum ? Si quidem saepe tam multa dantur, ut consiimi fiiciie a paucis non
est
possint. Et quoniam sacrilegium putatur, vel aliis dare quod redundat, vel
certe abjicere, in magnas eontrudimini cruditates, totum quod datum est quasi
purgare cupientes. Jam vero distenti et prope crepantes, eus, qui sub vestra
disciplina sunt, pueros ad devorandum reliqua crudeli dominatione compellitis;
ita, ut cuidam sit Romse objectum, quod miseros parv^ulos cogendo ad vescendum

tali superstitione necaverit. Quod non crederem, nisi scirem. quantum nefas
esse arbitremini, vel aliis haec dare, qui Eiecti non sunt, vel certa projieienda
curare. Unde ilia vescendi necessitas restat, quae ad turpissimam cruditatera
paene quotidie, aliquando tamen potest et usque ad homicidium pervenire. This
is a memorable passage on several accounts, and particularly as teaching us,
what we nowhere else learn, that the Elect occupied themselves to some extent
in teaching and training up boys. These boys, undoubtedly, were devoted by
their parents to the mode of life prescribed to the Elect. For the sanctity of the
Elect being held in the highest estimation, and their souls being supposed to go
directly to the celestial world on leaving the body, it was a common thing for
parents, influenced by affection and superstition, to commit their children to the

training of the Elect, so that they might become habituated to their harsh and
cheerless mode of life, and be imbued with sound religious knowledge. And if
any one ask, how we know that these boys were consecrated to the life of the
Elect ; I answer, we may infer it from the nature of the case. These boys were
compelled to eat the surplus food of the Elect : but no one of the profane or
the Auditors might touch the food that had been presented to the Elect: tliere-
fore these boys must have been of the class of the Elect, or were destined to
belong to that order. The instruction and education of boys not aspiring to
the highest degree of sanctity, was deemed beneath the dignity of such very
great men, and was therefore intrusted to the Auditors. —Before the Elect ate
the bread presented to them, (and, I suppose, it was the same if other food was
offered them,) they called both God and men to witness, that they had no con.
cern with the sins committed in the production of that bread. For the Mani-
[p. 901.] chaeans believed, that those who till the ground, reap the corn, grind
it, or bake the bread, commit a sin not unlike homicide ; because, as they sup-
posed, this whole material universe is full of celestial and animated matter.
The Elect also added prayers for the Auditors who presented the bread, that
God would pardon the sin committed in making the bread. This custom is
mentioned by Cyrill of Jerusalem, (Cateches. vi. J 32. p. 108. edit. Bened.) But
he speaks in too invidious a manner: for he tells us, the Elect imprecated curses
instead of blessings, on the Auditors who presented to them the bread ; nay
that they blasphemed God himself. Now this is in itself incredible, and it is at
variance with the fundamental precepts of the Manichsean religion. I choose,
therefore, to explain the subject by the language of Tyrbo, (in the Acta Arche-
lai, 5 9. p. 16.) with whom Epiphanius and Titus of Bostra agree: Cum volue-
rint manducare panem, orant primo, ista dicentes ad panera: Neque ego le
 Constitution of the Munichcean Church. 403

niessui, neque molui, neque tribulavi, iit'c in clibanum te inisi, alius te fecit et

detulit te mihi, ego innocenter te nianduuo. Et cum intra semetipsum haec

dlxerit, respondit ad eum, qui ei detulit Oravi pro te, et : ille discedit ita. Tiiese
things were superstitious; but they will be readily credited, by one acquiiinted
with the Manichaean system. After eating, the Elect again prayed ; and then
anointed their head with consecrated oil, for the purpose, I suppose, of expelling

or enervating the virus of the evil matter combined with the celestial in the
food. Says Ttjrbo, (loc. autcm (Manes) Electis suis so-
cit. p. 19.): Praecipit

lis, ut cum desinerint manducantes, orarent, et mittercnt

oleum super caput ex-
orcidiatum, invocatis nominibus plurimis (either of ^ons, the good spirits, or of
the bad ones,) ad confirmationem fidei hujus. But all this pertained to the
arcane discipline: hence, Tyrbo adds: Nomina tamen mihi non raanifestavit,
(Ti/rbo being only an Auditor^ soli enim Elect! his utuntur nominibus.
The Auditors had little that was peculiar in their mode of living. Says Aiu
gustine, (contra Faust. L. xx. c. 23. p. 248.) : Cum Auditores vestri et uxores
habeant, et filios, quamvis inviti, suscipiant, eisque patrimonia congerant vel
custodiant, carne vescantur, vinum bibant, lavent, metant, vindemient, negoti-
vobiscum tamen eos, non cum gentibus,
entur, honores publicos administrent,
eomputatis. But was circumscribed by some limitations neither
tliis lijberty ;

was everything lawful for Manichaean Auditors, which was permitted by other
Christians. First : Although they might possess houses and lands, which they
received by inheritance or by gift; yet, to build houses, or to labor for the ac-
quisition or increase of property, was accounted a great iniquity. Tins has
been already shown. The poorer a person was, and the less he cared about
wealth, the more happy was he considered. Secondly: It was lawful for them
to eat the flesh of animals, though doubtless, with moderation but to kill or :

slaughter animals, was criminal. The reason has been already stated. — [p. 902.]
Thirdly : They were not forbidden to marry : but they were instructed by their
teachers, to avoid as far as possible the begetting of children. Nearly all wri-
ters on their affairs, tax them with this. Thus Tilus of Bostra, Epiphanius,
Theodorel, and others ; but no one more frequently, or more expressly and ve-
hemently, than Augustine. I will cite some of his most noticeable passages

and tliey will show us, what precepts they gave for avoiding the procreation of
children. The first is, (de Haeres, c. 46. p. 12, 13.) Monent Auditorea sues, :

si utuntur conjugibus, conceptum tamen generationemque devitent, ne divina

substantia vinculis carneis ligetur in prole. Another is, (contra Faustum, L.
XXX. c. 6. p. 318.) : Vos eum praecipue concubitum detestaniini, qui solus liones-
tus et conjugalisest, et quern matrimoniales quoque tabulae prae se gerunt, li-

berorum procreandorum caussa unde vere non tarn concuinbere, quam nubere
:

prohibetis. Concumbitur enim etiam caussa libidinum, nulntur autem non nisi fili-
orum. A third passage is, (contra Faust. L. xxii. c. 30. p. 270.) : Perversa lex
Manichaeorum, ne Deus eorum, quem ligatum in omnibus seminibus plangunt
(that is, souls, those particles of the divine light or nature,) in conceptu feminae
arctius colligetur, prolem ante omnia devitari a concumbentibus jubot, ut Deus
eorum turpi Inpsu potius cffundatnr, quam crudeli nexu vinci;itur. There is a
passage still more full and explicit, (de moribus Manichaeor, L, ii, c. 18. p. 551.)
404 Century III. — Section 5G.

Noniie V03 estis, (Manichaei,) qui filios gignere, eo quod animae ligentur in
carne, gravius putatis esse pecentum, quam ipsum concubitum? Nonne vos es-
tis, qui nos (Auditores) solebatis monere, ut, quantum fieii posset, observaremus

tempus, quo ad conceptum mulier post genitalium viscerum purgationera apta

esset; eoque tempore a concubitu temperaremus, ne carni anima implicaretur ?
Ex quo illud sequitur, ut non liberorum procreandorum causs^, sed satiandae
libidinis liabere conjugem censeatis. Whatever some learned men, the advocates
of the Manichaeans, may say on this subject, 1 can never persuade myself that
Augustine has fabriated all these charges unjustly ; and especially, as he is sup-
ported by other writers, and by the primary doctrines of the sect. Yet Augus-
tine himself acknowledges, that the procreation of children was tolerated among
the Manichaeans, and that no penalties were inflicted on the fatliers and mo-
thers : but still he maintains, that it was necessity that directed this lenity, and
that their doctrines condemned it. He says, (contra Faust. L. xxx. c. 6. p. 318.) :

Nee ideo vos dicatis prohibere (legitimate marriage; which Augustine had
charged upon them,) quia multos vestros Auditores in hoc (in avoiding the pro-
creation of children,) obedire nolentes vel non valentes salva amicitia toleratis.
Illud enim habetis in doctrina vestrl erroris, hoc in necessitate societatis. —
Fourthly : Tlie Auditors were not required to observe so many fasts and vigils

as the Elect : only on Sundays or Lord's Days, all food and drink were strictly
forbidden, to them as well as to the Elect. I have already cited a passage from
[p. 903.] Augustine on this subject : and I will now add another, which has not
been noticed, (Epistle xxxv. c. 12. tom. ii. p. 60.) From this we learn, first,
the severity of tliis fast: Toto (enim) die Dominico usque ad medium noctis*
vel etiam usque ad diluculum, reficere corpora non curabant and then also the
:

sanctity of this fost : Impiissimi Manichaei jejunia diei Dominicae non aliqua
necessitate occurrente peragere, sed quasi sacra solennitate statuta dogmatiz;ire
coeperunt, et innotuerunt populis Christianis. —None of the ancients has ac-
quainted us with any other rules obligatory on the Audiioi-s, except those of
kneeling before the Elect, feeding them, and paying them reverence.

§ LVI. The Sect of the Hieracitcs. The Manichaeans were

early divided into several sects : wliicli is by no means strange,
considering how many of their doctrines were vaguely stated.
Among these sects, many esteem that to be one, which was suc-
cessfully founded in Egypt by Hierax or Hieracas, an Egyptian
of Leonto, a learned man and a great writer, near the close of
the century. But this opinion is not supported by competent
testimony, nor by valid arguments. For although Hierax^
equally with Manes opposed marriages, and enjoined on his fol-
^

lowers a severe code of morals, and perhaps also believed that

the source of all evil propensities and sins is to be found in mat

ter or the body yet in other respects he differed widely from
;

Manes : nor is there any testimony that he approved the fun da-
 The Sect of the Hieracites. 405

mental principles which are the basis of the Manichaean re-

ligion. (')

(1) Hierax, or as some call him Hieracas, was not the least among those
who, in this century, disquieted the church with new opinions. For, near the
close of the century, he founded a very considerable sect in Egypt, whic-h con-
tinued after his death ; yet, as E/jipha)iius expressly states, Q 3. p. 714.) it gra-
dually receded, as is common, from the severity prescribed by the founder.
Nearly all we know, at this day, respecting the man or his opinions, is derived
from Epiphanius ; whose Haeresis LX VII. is that of the Hieracites. From
him, Augustine and the other historians of the sects, derive all that they recount
to us respecting the Hieracites. What we can learn from others, adds very lit-

tle to our knowledge, and perhaps does not all relate to this Hierax. The man
was a native Egyptian of the town of Leonto he was well versed in the Gre-
:

cian sciences, especially in medicine, and was well acquainted with the polite
learning and literature of both the Greeks aud the Egyptians: and his life and
habits, as Epiphanius, his adversary, testifies, (j 1. p. 710.) was plane [p. 904."'
admirabilis : d*i<f If^TrKuKrds t« d^jtus-i/. The sanctity of his life so captivated
the Egyptian Monks, that many of them joined his sect. By occup;>tion, he was
a book maker; that he wrote elegantly in both the Grecian and the Egyptian
is,

characters, and obtained his living by transcribing books. Says Epiphanius,

(loc. cit. 5 3. p. 712.) : 'Ewj ris li/Ut/iaj, if iZiXiira UaWiyoa^it. KaXXi>fu?05 yap h.
Ad obitum usque libros descripsit ; calligniphus enim seu librarius erat. He
lived to a great age, andwas vigorous when over ninety years old. He wrote
many books, especially commentaries on the books of the Bible, and in parti-
cular a History of the Creation of the World, or of the si.v day's work of God-
He also composed and published some hymns.
Venerable as he was for his mode of life, his temperance, his chastitj', and
his piety, he nevertheless deviated in many things from other christians, as
Eptphanius tixpTQSs\y Yet Epiphanius mentions and refutes onlv a few
states.

of his opinions; and he is wholly silent as to the sources from which those
very base doctrines, as he terms them, flowed. Yet that the errors assailed by
Epiphanius, were only consequences from other and more general notions or
principles, is manifest. It is very embarrassing, that the early writers on the

affairs of christians, state only some portion of the doctrines advanced by the re-
ligious innovaters; and that they give no account of the coherency of those
and of the sources from which they originated. And hence the true
doctrines,
import of the errors mentioned, cannot be accurately determined or estim.-xted;
and learned men may, with no little plausibility, either censure or excuse the
authors of those errors. And hence the writers who treat of the Hieracites are,
one and all, sterile and diy. jMost of them merely state, that Hierax condemn-
ed marriages, and denied the resurrection of our bodies. And as Manes also
held these errors, some confidentially affirm, that Hierax was one of the early
disciples of Manes. But I apprehend, something more may be said, and that
the alledged Manichaeism of the Hieracites may be completely disproved.
I. Those books of the Old and New Testament, which Christians regarded
406 Century III.— Section 50.

divine, /Z/emo; also received; and on some of them he wrote expositions. This
is expressly stated by his adversary, Epiphanius was well ; who adds, that he
acquninted with both Testaments. But his regard for the sacred books was
tarnished by two errors. For, Jirst, in addition to the sacred volume which all
Christians revere, he appears to have regarded some other books also as divine,
and books written by fallible men. For this we have the testimony of Epi-
phaiiius, a competent witness in the case. He not only tells us tliat Hierax, in
support of his error concerning the Holy Spirit, (of which we shall speak here-
after,) placed special reliance on a passage from a book called the Ascension of
[p. 905.] Isaiah; but also quotes the passage of that book, (^ 3. p. 712.) which
is evidence, among other facts, that Ejnphanius actually saw and read the
books of Hierax. Of this booli, the Ascension of Isaiah, Jo. Alb. Fabricius
treats, (in his Codex Pseudepigraphus Vet. Test. tom. I. p. 1086, &c.) — Se-
condly, abandoning the literal sense of the holy scriptures, and following the
example of Origen, Hierax converted the historical narrations into moral fables
and allegories. See Epiphanius, (loc. cit. \ 3. p. 712.) This method of inter-
preting or rather perverting the sacred books, doubtless afforded him a very
convenient refuge against all the texts and arguments from the scriptures, in
opposition to his views : and perhaps also, it gave rise to some of his errors.
He may have been a disciple of Origen. —As Hierax held the Old Testament
to be equally inspired with the New, it is evident that he had nothing in com-
mon with Manes ; who maintained that the entire Old Testament was the work
of the Prince of darkness, and Moses a legate of the evil demon while Hierax ;

venerated Moses as a prophet of the most high God, according to Epiplianius,

(loc. cit. \ 1. p. 710.) Manes also taught that the New Testament is either false-

ly ascribed to the Apostles of Jesus Christ, or is entirely corrupted and vitiat-

ed. But here some learned men bring forward Athanasius, who wrote, they
say, (in his Sermo contra omnes ha^reses, J.
9. 0pp. tom. ii. p. 233. Edit. Bened.)
that Hierax, equally with Manes, discarded the Old Testament. For, disput-
ing with Hierax respecting marriage, he introduces Hierax as saying: 'AXXo r«

Xt^e/f i
Sri ov J'ly^of^ai Tilir jroXaiuv (cTiaS-^xov) Quid vero dicis? Vetus testamen-
tum non admitto. But these learned men here err, through ignorance of the
system of Hierax. The sense of the pnssage is I do not admit the arguments ;

or dicta of the Old Testament, in this debate about marriage. Athanasius had
proved the divine origin of mariinge from the Old Testament, and particularly
from the history of Adam and Eve. But Hierax conceded, as we shall soon
learn, that under the Old Testament, marriage was allowed to all but he con- ;

tended, that Jesus Christ, the giver of a more perfect law, had abolished this
liberty of marringe. He therefore replied to his antagonist : Your arguments
from the Old Testament, in this matter, prove nothing. But there are other
proofs, besides those already stated, from which it appears that Hierax detract-
ed nothing from the divinity of the Old Testament. He wrote expositions of
some of the books of the Old Testament, and in particular, a very copious ex-
planation of the history of the creation, or of the six day's work. And who will

believe, that a man would voluntarily expend so much labor in explaining a

book which he despised and rejected ? Moreover he taught, that Melchizedek
 The Hieracites. 407

was tlie Holy Spirit. He therefore did not deny tlie divine inspiration of that
book of Moses wiiich cont;iins the history of Melchizedek.
IJ. Respecting God, and the tliree persons in one God, Hierax was sound
and ortliodox ; as Epiphanius clearly teaches, (^ 2. p. 721.) : De Patre, [p. 906.]
Filio ct Spiritu sanctonon eadem, quse Origencs, sentit quin potius et a Patre :

Filiuni revere genituni, et Spiritum sanctum credit a Patre procedere. But —

here again some learned men think to detract from his fame. For they find,
(apud Epiphanium, Hteres. Ixi.v. Arianor. J 7- p. 733 and, apud Athanasium de :

duabus Synodis, 5 15. 0pp. torn, i. P. ii. p. 728 and, apud Hilarium de Trinitate :

L. vi. 5 5. 0pp. p. 881.) an Epistle o( Arius to Ale.xander the bishop of Alexan-

dria, in which he says that Hierax maintained, tiiat the Son of God is, as it were,
luccrnam e lucerna: Ai/'^vcr dzo hC^^you. aut lampadem in duas partes divisam :

b)i Xafx.Tt'tS'a £({ S'uc And lie adds, that this idea of the generation of Christ was
publicly refuted and condemned by Alexander. And hence these learned men
do not Hicrnx among those who debased the doctrine of the
hesitate, to place
eternal generation of the Son from the Father, by unsuitable and improper
comparisons. But, as no other one of the ancients has accused Hierax of any
error, in regard to the doctrine of three persons in one God; and, on the
contrary, as Epiphanius declares his opinions concerning been God to have
sound it appears to me doubtful, wiiether it was our Hierax, or another of the
;

same name, that believed as Arius states, respecting the generation of the Son
of God. The name Hierax or Hieracas was very common in Egypt, as might
be shown from Athanasius and others and therefore, it might be, that some :

presbyter at Alexandria bearing this name, used the above comparison.

III. However this may be, it appears, that Hierax deviated somewhat from
the common opinions of Christians respecting the Holy Spirit. Epiphanius,
(loc. cit. \ 3. p. 711,) says, that Hierax, de Spiritu sancto fusissimam disputatio-
nem instituere, multasque nugas proferre toXXu phuafCiv jrtfi toZ ayicu TritufAaTo;. :

From this it may be inferred that he erred in more than one respect, in regard
to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. And yet Epiphanius, (both here, and Hjeres.
Iv. Melchisedecianor. } 5. p. 472.) mentions only one of his false notions ; name-
ly, that Melchizedek the king of Salem, who blessed Abraham, was the Holy
Spirit. This opinion Hierax proved, or rather, stupidly attempted to prove,
from Rom. viii. 26. Hebr. vii. 3. and from the Ascension nf Isaiah. It was easy
for Epiphanius to refute these arguments: and yet the chief proof he employ.s,
in regard to both passages, appears to me not entirely unexceptionable. If, says
he, Melchizedek was the Holy Spirit, then the Holy Spirit undoubtedly assum-
ed human nature for Melchizedek was a man. But how absurd is such a sup-
;

position where was the mother of the Holy Spirit? It is therefore false,
: for
that Melchizedek was the Holy Spirit. In reasoning in this manner, Epipha-
nijis forgets what he had before told us, that Hierax, after the example of Ori-

gen, disregarding the literal sense, changed tiie sacred history into an allegory.
Undoubtedly, therefore, he maintained that the history of Melchizedek, [p. 907.]
is not an account of actual occurrences, but only a sort of picture of the bless-
ings with which the Holy Spirit enriches men and; that Abraliam represents all

saints and devout persons.

40S Century III.~ Section 5G.

IV. The office of Christ, he placed especially in the promulgation of a iiew

law, more strict and more perfect than that of Moses. This, perhaps, was tiie

greatest of all his errors. Epiphanius, (loc. cil. J

1. p. 710.) clearly shows us,

that he so thought; as we shall soon demonstrate. Nor will it be unreasonable

to suppose, especially if we consider his doctrine respecting the salvation of in-
fants, which soon be brought forward, that he wholly denied the expiation
will

of our sins by the death and obedience of the Saviour; and that hf made the
endeavors of men to repress the evil instincts of nature, the ground of eternal
salvation. How widely such opinions differ from those taught in the New Tes-

tament, is manifest. And yet no one either of the ancients or the moderns has
noticed this the worst of all the errors of Hierax.
V. Regarding this opinion as true and undeniable, he concluded that Jesus
Christ interdicted to his followers marriages, flesh and wine, and enjoined a life

void of all pleasures. According to Epiphanius, Q 1. p. 710.) he thus reason-

ed ; Jesus Christ introduced a new and more perfect law. But, if we except
continence only, every thing that Christ commands, was also required in the
Old Testament. Therefore, unless we would believe that Christ introduced
nothing new, we must believe that he prohibited marriage, &c. Quid verbum :

novi pra'dicare, aut quod egregium facinus moliri voluit (Christus) ? Si Dei
timorem dixeris, hoc jam lex ipsa continebat. Si invidiam, avaritiam, injustitiam
damnasse dicas ; haec omnia Veteri Testamento comprehensa sunt. Superest
ergo, id ut unum efficere voluerit, ut continentiam prajdicaret in mundo, ac sibi

ipsi castimoninm deligeret. —Here again, we perceive a wide difference between

Manes and Hierax. For the latter conceded, that the law of Moses was divine
and full of good precepts, although in a few things less perfect than the law of
Christ ; but the former declared the law of Closes to have been ordained by the
Prince of darkness. Moreover, it was for very far different reasons that Manes
prohibited marriage, and the use of flesh and wine.
VI. So then, Hierax taught, that marriage was abolished by Jesus Christ.
He admitted, that marriages were lawful under the Old Testament; as Epipha-
nius expressly states repeatedly, (^ 1 and 6. p. 710. 714.) But he tells us, that

Jesus Christ, the author of a holier and better law, has abrogated the liberty to
marry. And hence, as Epiphanius says, (^ 2. p. 711.): Neminem in gregem
suum admittebat, nisi virgo esset, aut JMonachus, aut continens {iyxfiarns,) aut
vidua. But his followers, whether by his permission and authority, or from
their own ciioice, I know not; Mulieres contubernales {^vviitraKriivs yuvainas)

[p. 908.] secura habebant, quas ad quotidianum duntaxat rainisterium se adhibere

gloriabantur. See Epiphanius, (loc. cit. J
8. p. 716.) —Did Hierax then teach,
that our Saviour absolutely forbid marriage? And did he therefore believe, that
no married person can attain eternal salvation? Thus all, I perceive, explain his
views. And it must be confessed, that the ancient writers, especially Epipha-
nius and Athanasius, speak as if this were true. Says Alhanasius, (Oratio con-
tra omnes haereses, \ 9. tom. ii. p. 255.): Tov dvinrov nal dru^j^^ia-TaTov '\ij>ax.av

a^iTuv Tcv yd/uiov. Insanum et infelicissimum Hieracam virginitatem extollere,

nuptiasque aspernari. And Epiphanius, (loc. cit. ^ 1. p. 710.) says, that Hierax
denied: Hominem conjugio vinctum cceleste regnum consequi posse. —But I
 The Hieracites. 409

suppose, that no one of the ancient heretics, who were hostile to marriages, was
so infatuated as to maintain, that marriages are absolutely prohibited: I imagine
rather, that they all merely recommended celibacy, as a state more perfect and
more pleasing lo God. No one ever entertained a worse or a more degrading
opinion of matrimony than Manes; for he pronouncod it a device of the Prince
of darkness, for detaining wretched souls in the prison of bodies. And yet he
could see, that nature is more powerful than regulations and comminations; and
therefore he permitted the common people to marry. And that our Hierax did
the same thing, and that the reports of his abliorrence of matrimony must not
be understood strictly, I am led to believe, by tiie very Epiphanius whom those
follow, who tell us that Hierax excluded all married p?r5ons from kingdom
tiie

of heaven. For Epiphanius tells us, (} 2. p. 710, 711.) that when some persons
quoted the language of Paul, 1 Cor. vii. 2. (To avoid fornication, let every man
have his own wife,) in opposition to the opinion of Hierax respecting marriage,
Hierax replied: 'Ouk iTraivdv purl yd/uif (juto. Ttiv iiafnua-iav, dXXo <rufA0a.3-Ta^<^r,

ha. /Ail £ij TripiTToi- SXib-pov ifxTio-uftv. Non laudat Paulus post adventum Do-
mini coiijugium, sed tollerandum putat, ne majus in exitium praecipites ruant
homines. Now wiiat can be phiiner ? Hierax did not condemn matrimony ab-
solutely; but, on tiie it should be tolerated, on
authority of Paul, he supposed
account of the infirmity of nature. His company therefore was, perhaps, in
this respect, like the Manichaean community. Those who aimed at the highest
degree of sanctity, and wished their souls to go to heaven immediately on leaving
the body, lived in celibacy ; while others, whom the fear of purgation after
death did not so much terrify, were allowed to obey the instincts of nature.
Perhaps also, —and this is the more probable supposition, Hierax did not so
much aim to found a sect, as to establish a religious association or order, like
those of our Monks, into which he received none but unmarried persons.
Other Christians he accounted, indeed, as brethren, and allowed to live
in their own way; but he considered them farther removed from eternaJ

felicity. Yet, whatever may have been iiis institution, it appears that [p. 909.]
those err, who suppose he absolutely cut off from everlasting bliss, all married
persons.
VII. This error of Hierax, respecting marriage, if I do not mistake, produced
that opinion respecting Paradise, which Epiphanius thus censures in him,
(5 2. p. 711.): 'Ou Tria-Tojii ifi ouTOi TracaS'iKrov Itvai di^^>iT6v. Paradisum poiTo
sensibilera esse non putat. This is obscure ; but as he adds, that Origen held
the same opinion, the meaning must be, that Hierax considered as mystical, or
turned into a sacred allegorical fable, the narrative of Moses respecting our hrst
parents. Paradise, and the state of innocence. From the reasoning of Athana-
sius against him, (contra omnes Christianos, ^ 9. p. 235.) I perceive, that his op-
posers urged the history of our first parents, in refutation of his error respecting
the excellence and sanctity of celibacy. Hierax believed, that marriage was al-

lowed, indiscriminately, under the Old Testament; but that it was otherwise
under the New Testament, that Jesus Christ did not sanction marriage, but only
tolerated it in the more imbecile; that he forbid it to such as wished to be ad-
admitted to the inheritance of the life to come, immediately after death. To
410 Century III— Section 56.

confute this opinion of Hierax, the Christians of more correct views derived an
argument from the history of our first parents in Paradise. God himself joined
the first human beings in the bonds of marriage in Paradise. And can you tiien
suppose, tliat Christ has prohibited, what God himself approved and instituted?
To parry this argument, Hierax denied that the account given of Paradise was
truly a history. And as, like Origen, he was very fond of allegories, and there-
fore obscured the history of the creation, or of the six days work, with very
Jlimsy allegories {vanissimis allegoriis,) as Epiphanius expressly states, (J 3.

p. 7112.) can any think it strange, that he should treat the history of Paradise in
the same manner?
VIII. He not only exhibited a severe mode of life, abstaining from all ani-

mal food and from wine, but he also directed his followers to live in the same
austere manner. See Epiphanius, (loc. cit. { 3. p. 712.) But that this mode —
of life, like his rule respecting marriage, was not imposed on all his disciples,

but only on the more perfect, I think we may learn from Epiphanius, who
says: '^y-^'^X.^^
''^ xoXXoi i^ dvTtSv ov fxiTC^nui't rdv d\ii^lt(jjv durcov tOV

S'oyfAaros Multi eorum, qui sectam illius vere et ex animo profitentur, ab ani-
matis abstinent. If only many of his true disciples lived on herbs, fruits, and
pulse; the inference is, that the rigid abstinence from all flesh and wine, was'
prescribed only for those who could endure it.

IX. He denied the resurrection of the bodies of the dead : and to elude the

force of the passages of Holy Scripture, which promise a renewed life to

deceased bodies, he maintained that those texts referred to the soul. Says
[p. 910.] Epiphanius, {\ 2. p. 711.) he affirmed; Solas animas resurgere, et
spiritualem nescio quam fabulam contexit: 'Ava7Tari)i viKfdv x'iytt dva^ratriv -\

Twv -^v^vjv, x-ai TTviv/utartKitv riva ifdfKaiv /uiud-aKoyiav. He, therefore, undoubt-
edly, supposed tfie resurrection to be the illumination and renovation of souls;
which the sacred writers often compare with a restoration to life. Nor is such
^n opinion surprising, in a man inflamed with the love of allegories, and
disregarding the proper import of scripture language. How Hierax was —
lead into this error, Epiphanius has not told us. Perhaps his fondness for

allegories produced it: but more probably, he believed, with Manes and
others, that mailer is in itself evil, and that the fountain of all depravity is

situated in the body; whence it would follow, that the body is the prison of
the soul.
X. Hierax excluded from the kingdom of heaven, all infants dying before
they came to the use of reason, on the ground that rewards are due only to
those who have combatted legitimately against their bodies and the force of
their lusts. See Epiphanius, Q 2. p. 711. and 5 4. p. 713.) —This dogma of
Hierax, and the ground of it, strong and just suspicion,
that he
afford

embraced corrupt opinions respecting the redemption and satisfaction for

sin by Jesus Christ; and that he supposed, eternal life is to be obtained,
not so much by fiiith in Jesus Christ, as by one's own efforts to overcome
the depravity of nature, or the commotions of the body and the senses. For,
if children, dying before the use of reason, fail of salvation, because they
have not conflicted, or have not, by reason, overcome the incitements to sin
 The Hieracites. 411

it follows, that those who attain to crowned solely because

salvation, are
they resisted strenuously their natural oropensities. But the sterility and
indiscretion of Epiphanius, who expatiates largely upon doctrines imper-
fectly and cloudily explained, prevent our forming a just estimate of this
opinion of Hierax.

ZHD OF THE THIRD CENTTTET.

 THE

ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY
OF THE

FOURTH CENTURY.

§ I. Attempts of the Pagan Priests to get up a new persecution.

At the commencement of the fourth century after the birth of
the Savior of mankind, the Eoman empire Avas under the govern-
ment of four sovereigns of whom the two highest in rank,
;

Diocletian and Maximianiis Herculius, were called Augusti, and the

two lower in rank, Constantius Chlorus and Maximianus Galerius,
were called Cesars ; but each of them had supreme power over
the province allotted to him. Under these four Emperors, the
state of the christian community, as well as that of the common-
wealth, was cjuite flourishing. For the chief of the Augusti,
Diocletian^ although superstitious and an assiduous worshipper of
the Gods, yet harbored no ill will against the Christians ; and the
first of the Cesars, Constantius Chlorus, was averse to the pagan
religion, followed reason as his religious guide, was friendly to
the Christians, and preferred them before the idolaters. Nor did
the future portend any worse condition of the church but ra- :

ther, it was to be expected, that Christianity would soon gain the

ascendancy in the Roman empire, or at least obtain as much in-

fluence and reputation as the old superstition. The friends of

paganism, particularly the priests, perceiving the danger, exerted
themselves to tiie utmost to raise a new persecution against the
Christians, who then felt themselves too secure : and, by fictitious
oracles and other frauds, they labored especially to excite Diocle-
tian, whom they knew to be timid and credulous, to enact laws
against the Christians.(')

(1) Eusebius (Hist. Eecles. L. viii. c. 1. p. 291.) eloquently describes the

flourishing state of the christian community, at the beginning of this century

 Machinations of the Pagan Priests. 413

before the rise of the Diocletian persecution; and also the security felt [p. 912.]
by the christians in consequence of their prosperity, and their vices and conten-
tions. The palaces of the Emperors were full of Christians, and no one hindered
their freely professing and worshipping Cin-ist without any fear. Some of them
were selected Emperors, the governors of pro-
for confidential friends of the
vinces, magistrates, and military commanders. And the bishops and ministers
of religion were treated with great respect, even by those who preferred the
ancient religion before that of Christ. A vast multitude of people, continually,
every where, abandoning the Gods, made profession of Christianity. And
hence, in all the cities, large and spacious buildings were erected, in which the
people publicly assembled for religious worship. So that there remained but
one thing to be desired by the Christians, namely, that one or more of the Em-
perors might embrace their religion; of which the consequence would un-
doubtedly be, that the worship of the Gods would become prostrate, in a great
part of the Roman empire, and the Christian religion might contest with the
pagan for the preeminence. And the state of the empire at that time, afforded
the observing not a little hope, tliat the desires of Christians would not be dis-
» appointed. Diocletian, although timid and immoderately addicted to supersti-
tion, was yet averse from blood and slaughter and lie had Christians among ;

who, understanding well the genius and character of the

his familiar friends,
man, might perhaps, if no obstacle was raised, withdraw the manageable man
from his idolatry. Besides, Prisca the Emperor's wife, had renounced the wor-
ship of the Gods, and privately joined the Christian church. And Constantius
Chlorus, his colleague, wlio ruled over Spain, Gaul and Britain, was a semi-
Christian, and favored the Christians to the utmost of his power. And his son
Conslaiiline, who afterwards obtained the appellation of the Great, a youth en-
dowed with extraordinary powers of mind and genius, and admired equally by
the people and the soldiers, was living very honorably in the court of Diocletian,
with the highest and most certain prospect of attaining to the rank of an Em-
peror. Being the child of a father, who was the worshipper of the one God,
and the friend of Christians, and of a Christian mother, Helena, he had un-
doubtedly received from his parents a hatred of superstition, and kind feelings
towards Christians and Cin-istian worship; and although he did not publicly
profess Christ, he doubtless showed by his conduct, what would take place if

he obtained supreme power, I have pronounced Helena, the mother of Con-

stantino the Great, a Christian : for I do not hesitate to admit as true, what
Tlieodoret states, (Hist. Eccles. L. i. c. 17.) that she instilled into her son the
elements of piety. From this opinion I am not induced to recede, by a passage
in Eusebius, (de vita Constantini, L. from which learned men
iii. c. 47. p. 506.)
would prove, that he converted her from the worship of the Gods to the Chris-
tian religion. For that passage may very suitably be understood of his inspir-
ing her with a desire to manifest, by actions and various works, her piety to-
wards God. Maxijnianus Galerius, the last of the Emperors, was indeed un-
friendly to the Christians; but, being the son-in-law of Diocletian, he [p. 913.]
had a wife, Valeria, who followed the pious example of her mother Prisca, and
was averse from the worship of imaginary Deities. The state of the Roman
414 Centiiry IV.— Section 1.

commonwealth, at the commencement of this century, was theicfore such, as io

indicate a great religious change, and vast accessions to the Christian cause, as

near at hand. Situated as the three imperial courts then were, a slight unfore-
seen occurrence might divest the priests and worshippers of the Gods of a large
part of their honors and emoluments, and place the Christian religion on the
throne. As this danger was much better understood by the pontiffs of the
Gods and the friends of the ancient religion, than it can be by us with the few
and dubious monuments before us, who can wonder, that they exerted all their

diligence and cunning to avert that danger ? But, for their own preservation
and that of their Deities, it was necessary, that a persecution more violent than
any of the preceding and more pernicious to the Christians, should be got up
by the authority not merely of one but of all the Emperors, and should extend
through all the Roman provinces: for the persecutions under the former Empe-
rors were only partial tempests, of short continuance or limited extent; or they
were so obstructed in various ways, that, though not a little afflictive to the
Christian cause, they did not destroy Yet it was a very diffi-
its vital energies.
cult business, which necessity compelled the patrons of the Gods to undertake.
For they had to act upon a man sluggish, timid, encompassed by Christians,
and of a disposition by no means cruel, averse from shedding blood, and fond
of peace and quietude for, that such was Dicclelian, both his actions and the
:

testimony of the ancients show. But as he was both credulous and supersti-
tious, they concluded to terrify him with fictitious oracles, omens, and other ar-

tifices and thus to obtain from him by /ear, what they could not accomplish by
;

arguments. History acquaints us with two of their artifices whicii demonstrate ;

the fears of the priests as well as their malice and cunning. One of them is
stated by a very distinguished and trust-worthy witness, the Emperor Consian-
tine the Great, in his public letter to the provincials of the East, (apud Eusebi-
um de vita Constantini L. ii. c. 50, 51. p. 467.) It was reported to the Empe-
Apollo had complained, not through the
ror, tliat — priest by whom he usually

gave forth his oracles, but personally, by a mournful voice issuing from a
cavern, Obstare sibi justos viros in terra degentes, quo minus vera praediceret,
atque idcirco falsa ex tripode oracula reddi. Dioclelian, when informed of this
oracle, at once anxiously enquired of the courtiers about him, who were those
Just persons, whom Apollo accused. And some of the sacrificers or priests of
the Gods, being present, instantly replied, that they were the Christians. On
hearing this, the Emperor was in a rage, and forthwith decided, that severe laws
should be issued against the Christians, and that their religion should be extir-
[p. 914.] pated. But soon after, being an unstable man, and perhaps being pa-
cified by his wife and christian friends, he abandoned his designs and returned
ao-ain to a state of tranquillity. —Of the reality of the occurrence, there can be
no doubt ; for Conslaniine was himself present at the time, and he affirms on
oath, or calls God to witness, that he speaks the truth : Te testem appello,
Deus altisime. —This oracle, it is manifest, was a fabrication of the priests of

Apollo : and it obviously had a twofold object. In the first place, the Chris-

tians, in order to convert the idol worshippers to wisdom, demonstrated the

felsehood and equivocation of the oracles uttered by the Gods and thence they
;
 Machinations of the Pagan Priests. 415

worshipped by the pagans, were unreal beings. And

inferred, that the Deities
it iswell known, that the priests defended the truth and sanctity of the pao-an
religion by divination and therefore, if this argument were overthrown, the
;

chief prop and support of the popular religion was removed. And perhaps the
Christians who were the ministers and friends of the Emperor, had assailed the
superstition of Diocletian himself by arguments from the vanity and falsity of
divination and oracles. The titct alleged, the priests could not
deny for they :

were daily confounded by examples of the flexible, false, and dubious oracles.
And hence they only attempted to account for the fact, that the Gods no lono-er
relieved, as formerly, the anxieties of those who consulted them, with clear and
certain responses. And honest Apollo himself acknowledged, that being hard
pressed by the Christians, his oracles had failed of late : but he charged the
blame on i\\QJust or the Christians, who withstood his power of divination.
But whatever construction we put upon it, the response was not only a stupid
but a hazardous one for the Emperor might infer from it, that the Christians'
:

God, and Christians themselves, were more powerful than Apollo. Yet with
Buch a man as Diocletian, imbecile, sluggish, and superstitious, this was a grave
—
and important matter. The epithet just, given by Apollo to Christians in the
was not a commendation, as some learned men have supposed. For
oracle,
who ever praises his enemies? It was rather a reproach. And Apollo denomi-
nates those the just, who vainly and falsely boast of their justice, who without
any reason pretend to be more just than others, and who maintained that the
whole worship of God is summed up in righteousness, and therefore contemned
the sacrifices, the ceremonies of their ancestors, and the public religious rites.
With this first object of the oracle under consideration, another was very closely
connected. By this oracle, the priests wished to stimulate the Emperor to put
an end to the peace of the Christians, and to induce him to enact severe lavva
against them. —This event occurred, undoubtedly, in the year 302, or the year
before the persecution.
A little afterward, another plot of the same character, occurred in the East.
Of this we have an account in Lactanlius, (Institut. diviiiar. L. iv. c. 27. p. 393,

edit. Iloumann.) and in the work generally ascribed to Lactanlius, (da mortibus
persequutor. c. 10. p. 943.) In the year 302, while Diocletian was in the [p. 915.]

East, as his fears led him to inquire into future events, he sacrificed sheep, and
searched in theh* livers for indications of coming events, according to the rules
of haruspicy. The haruspices, cunning and crafty men, pretended not to find
the usual signs in the entrails, and frequently repeated their sacrifices. After
several fruitless researches, the master of the haruspices said : Idcirco non res-
pondere sacra, (that is, the reason why future events could not be divined by
the entrails of the sheep, was) quod rebus divinis profini homines (thus the im-
postor designated the christians.) interessent. For among the ministers and
friends of the Emperor, who, according to the rules of their station, followed

him and attended him while sacrificing, there were many Chris-
into the temple,
tians. Lactanlius believed, that here was a miracle; for the Christians who at-
tended on the sacrificing Emperor, he says Immortale signum (the sign of the
:

cross,) frontibus suis imposuisse : hoc facto, daemones fugatos et sacra turbata
416 Century IV. — Section 2,

esse. Many of the moderns follow the judgment of Lactantius. And that /ip

should attribute to the cross the power of chasing away demons, and should
consider haruspicy an invention of the Devil for deluding mortals, I do not much
wonder : but when I see men of our own age, and not destitute of learning,
agreeing with him, and entertaining no doubts that the haruspices did foretell fu-
ture occurrences by the entrails of sacrificed animals, and that the sign of the
cross could frustrate this sort of divination, I am at a loss what to say. It is

very manifest, that the haruspices wished to terrify the timid and superstitious
Emperor, who was continually surrounded by Christians; and they pretended,
that the business of divination failed of success, as Apollo had already declared,
because Christians were present ; and their aim was, to stimulate the Emperor,
who was eager to know future events, to drive Christians from his court, and
subject them to persecution. Besides, the soothsayers, the diviners, the augurs
and the haruspices, as appears from many examples, could not easily practice
their futile arts in the presence of Christians, who, as they were aware, could
see through their tricks, and were ready to expose them. This new fraud of —
the priests was more successful than the former : for Diocletian, boiling with
indign.ition, as Lalanlius states: Non eos (tantum.) qui sacris ministrabant, sed
(etiam) universos, qui in palatio erant, sacrificare jubebat, etin eos, si detrectas-
sent, verberibus aiiimadverti, etiam milites cogi ad sacrificia,datis ad praepositos

litteris, praecipiebat, ut qui non paruissent, militia solverentur. But, as the Empe-
ror was unstable, and not of a cruel character, this fit of rage also soon cooled down.

§ 11. 3Iaximiaiius Galcrius moves Diocletian to commence Pet"

sedition, .4. D. 303. As these artifices produced little effect, the
priests used Maximianus Galerius, a man naturally cruel, pround,
superstitious, barbarous, and hostile to the Christians, for inflam-
ing the mind of his father-in-law against the Christians. And
high patron of the sinking cause of the Gods, seems
[p. 916.] this
to have been found ready at hand, rather than sought for, by
the anxious ministers of the Gods. For his own rough and furi-
ous temperament, which delighted in nothing but war, and his
mother's extravagant devotion to the Gods and to the priests,
and that lust of power with which he burned, sufficiently
prompted him to extirpate a class of people opposed to his de-
sires and purposes. He therefore did not cease to urge and im-
portune Diocletian, then residing at Nicomedia, till he finally ob-
tained from him, in the year 303, an edict, by which the temples
of the Christians throughout the Eoman empire were to be de-
molished, their sacred books to be burned, and Christians them-
selves to be deprived of all their civil privileges and honors.(')
This first edict, although it spared the lives of the Christians, yet
caused the destruction of many, who refused to deliver up to the
 Persecution begun A. D, 30?>. 417

magistrates tlie sacred books, the furniture of tlie temples and the
treasures (of the churches,) as the imperial law demanded. And
yet rnanj, evenamong the bishops and clergy, to save their lives
obeyed the commands of the Emperor, and gave up the books iu
their hands and the sacred utensils and- these persons, who sup- ;

posed themselves guilty of only a slight fault, were considered

by the more resolute Christians as having committed sacrilege,
and were therefore reproachfully denominated Traditors,{')

(1) This most bloody of all tlie pcreecutions against the Christians, a per-
Becution of ten years continuance, has been called the persecution of Diocle-
tian; but it might more properly be called tlie persecution of Maximian. For
althougli Diocletian, being deceived by tlie frauds of the priests, inflicted some
injuries on the Christians resident at court, or attached to the camps, and also
subsequently enacted laws adverse to them ;
yet it is certain, tliat the principal
author of this calamity was his son-in-law, Maximianus Galerius, — a man of
low birth, agrestic, distinguished for nothing but military bravery, and friendly
to none but soldiers, —who extorted from his unwilling and reluctating father-
in-law the edicts destructive to the Christians. It is true that Diocletian, on
occasion of two condagrations in the palace at Nicomedia, came down upon tlie
Christians of that city, in his first law against Christians. But those who at-
tentively inspect this furious attack upon them by the personal direction of the
Emperor, will perceive that the Cliristians were arraigned before a court and
punished as incendiaries, ov not on religious grounds, but as perpetrators of an
ftlledged crime. And hence this calamity, though interwoven with the great tra-

gedy, should be considered as a distinct and separate act. I may add, that in
less than two years from the commencement of the persecution, Diocletian
relinquished the imperial power, and retired to private life; whence it [p. 917.]
is clear that the greatest part of the persecution, or that decreed and inflicted

on Christians during the eight following years, is not attributable to him. And
lastly, Maximian himself, in the edict by which, a little before iiis death, he re-

stored peace to the Christians, confesses that he himself moved the persecution.
See Eusebius, (Histor. Eccles. L. viii. c. 17. p. 315.) and Lactanlius, (de mortibus
persequutor. c. 34. p. 984. edit Heumann.)

There can be no doubt that the pagan priests, who had in vain attempted to
stimulate Diocletian to attack the Christians, were the principal authors and in-
stigators of this bloody persecution by Maximian, a. barbarous man, and igno-
rant of everything except military affairs,and of course both superstitious and
cruel. And men like him, attached to nothing but lust and war, usually care
littleabout religion and sacred things. Yet such persons, chiefly occupied with
lust and war, if their passions are roused by cunning men, can readily engaga
in themost unjust and cruel projects and can persevere in prosecuting them,
;

causes which confirm and strengthen their unrighteous plans and

if there are

purposes. Maximian himself, in his edict in favor of the Christians just men-
tioncd, states, that attachment to the religion handed down from the ancients,
VOL, II. 28
418 Century IV. —Section 2.

was a reason why he assailed the Christians, the followers of a i.ew religion.
He says: Volueramus antehac juxta leges veteres et publicam disciplinam Ro-
manorum cuncta corrigeie, atque id providere, ut etiam Christiani, qui parentum
suorum veliquerant sectam, ad bonas meiites rudirent. I have no doubt, that he
wrote tills ill Romish superstition,
sincerity: but undoubtedly, this zeal for the
in a man body and disregarding the soul, would have been
caring only for the
sluggish and inefficient, if it had not been excited and inflamed by the priests.
— But the priests were aided by the queruloiisness of his mother, Romulia,
whose influence with her son was very great. She was, mulier admodum super-
stiliosa, as Lactanlias says, (de mortibus pers^equutor. c. 11. p. 944.) and when
she iiad conceived hatred against the Christians, Filium non minus superslitio-
sum querclis muliebribus ad tollendos homines incitabat. Tlie cause of her
hatred to the Christians, Laclantius tells us, was tliis : She offered sacrifices al-
most every day, and tlien held feasts upon the meats sacrificed and presented to
the Gods. But the Christians would not attend those feasts nor could they ;

do it, consistently with their principles. It is presumeable, that this undoubt-

edly proud woman regarded this conduct as disrespectful to herself But be-
sides this reason, I apprehend, another may be gatliered out of Laclantius,
although it is not expressly stated. He tells us that Romulia, Deorum monti-
um cultricem fuisse; i. e. that she worshipped the Deities supposed by the Ro-
mans to preside over mountains. Now the Christians of that age, as much as
possible, chose to erect their sacred edifices on mountains and elevated places,
[p. 918.] The Christiivn first com-
temple at Nicomedia,on wiiich the persecution
menced and which was destroyed by command of tlie Emperor before it was com-
pleted, was situated on a mountain In alto constituta ccclesia, ex palatio (Impe-
:

ratoris) videbatur ; says Lactanlius, (loc. cit. c. 12. p. 947.) And at Carthage also,

as we have seen in another place, there was a christian churc'> built on a moun-
tain. I therefore suspect, that this woman regarded the christian temple on the

mountain as highly injurious to those Gods whom she lionored and on this ;

accomit, she besought her son with tears and entreaties to suppress this re-
proach to the Gods. This conjecture is strengthened by the consideration, that
she and her son were undoubtedly then living at Nicomedia, in llie imperial
palace, and of course had the Christians' temple continually before their eyes.

—This ground for persecuting the Ciiristians, is dishonorable to Max imian;

but in the edict already twice mentioned, he states anotiier reason rather more ho-
norable and not improbable ; which it is strange that no one has mentioned when
treating on this subject. For he says, that he assailed the Christians because

they had departed from the religion of their ancestors, and had become split
into various sects and parties, differing in opinion and practice. Siquidem qua-
darn ratione tanta eosdem Christianos voluntas invasisset, et tanta stuititia oc-

cupasset, ut non ilia veterum instituta scquerentur, quse forsitan primi parentes

eorundem constitucrant, sed pro arbitrio suo, atque ut hisdem erat libitum, ita

sibiinet leges facerent, quas observarent, et per diversa (loca) varios populos
cono-regarent : (i. e. and formed various sects and churches in divers placco. Eu-
sehius correctly apprehended the meaning of the Emperor, and expressed it in

his Greek version of the edict : (Hist. Eccles. L. viii. c. 17.) Maximian there-
 Persecution begun A. D. 303. 419

fore distinctly charged upon llic Christians: — I. That the religion of Cl.ristiana
ill that age differed essentially from the first or primitive Christianity, establish-
ed by iheir progenitors. — II. That in ihe primitive religion of Christians, the
institutions of the Romans and other nations were undoubtedly retained and
approved; that is, that tlie worship of inferior Deities or Gods, to whom the su-
preme Deity committed the government of the world, was not rejected or dia.
approved by the author and head of this religion. III. But that the later —
Christians had abandoned that first law of their religion, and had substituted in
place of it new regulations. —
IV. And hence various sects, holding very diffe-

rent opinions, had arisen among them, in the several provinces of the Roman
empire. This reason for the persecution was unquestionably suggested to the
Emperor, who was wholly ignorant of such matters, by those Platonic philoso-
phers, hostile to the Christians, some of whom were called to that council at
the court of Nicomedia, which deliberated on tl;e subject of crushing and des-
troying the Christians. For these philosophers, as appears from credible testi-
mony elsewhere adduced, wished to make out, that the later Christians had
corrupted the religion taught by Christ, and had swerved from the injunctions
of their master: That Jesus Christ sought indeed to correct certain faults [p. 919.]
and imperfectionsin the ancient religions, to restore the knowledge and worship

of the supreme Deity, which had been obscured and almost extinguished by the
vvor.^hip of the Gods, and to abrogate some useless and superstitious ceremonies;
but he by no means wished to subvert the most ancient religion, or the worship
and honors of the ministers of divine providence, that is, of the inferior Deities who
presided over nations and departments of nature for nature itself and right reason :

taught us, that some honor or worship, though much less than to the supreme
Deity, ought to be paid to those exalted Beings whom God employed in the
government of human affairs And although the priests and the people went
:

too far in this matter, and transferred the ministers of God into Gods, yet the
thing itself, if restored to its primitive integrity, could by no means be con-
demned or di-^approved : And that the Christi:ins, as they had departed from the
intentions and precepts of their master in this as well as other things, so they
sought wholly to subvert all the institutions of the ancients and the worship oi
the Gods, and even wished to have Christ worshipped as a God, although he
never arrogated to himself divine honors: That having thus changed the origi-
nal laws of Christ, it followed as a necessary consequence, that the Christiana
became divided Such were the common
into various mutually hostile sects.
sentiments o^ Ammonius and most of and they undoubtedly
his followers :

brought them forward, to fix the fluctuating and hesitating mind of Diocletian,
and to induce him to enact laws against the Christians. And they said it was
right, that the Christians, who, as Maximanian says, Parentum suorum sectara
reliquerant, should be compelled —
not indeed by capital punishments, yet by
severe laws, — back to their ancient religion which if they should do,
to return :

all disputes respecting the Gods and religious sul'jects would be at an end.
Lastly, it ciin scarcely be doubted, if we consider the conduct of Maximian and
the state of the republic at that time, that jioUlical reasons also conduced to re-
commend the war upon tli*^ Christians: and these, perhaps, had more influence
420 Century IV.— Section 2,

on the mind of Maxhnian, thcaii the exhortntions of ilic priests, tlie entreat "eg of
bis mother, or the reasonings of the philosophers. Being inflated with pride
and llie last of dominion, — for lie ridieulousl}' wisiied to be thought procreaied
by the God Mars ; (See Lactanlius, loc. cit, c. 9. p. 942: Victor, Epitome c. 35.)
— lie could brook neither a superior nor an equal, but wished to dethrone the
other Emperors, and to rule the Roman empire alone. It is well known that
two years after the persecution commenced, he deprived both his father-in-law
and Maximiamis Herculeus of the imperial dignity. But the Christians appear-
ed to stand in the way of his ambition. For they were completely devoted to
Constanlius Clilorus and his very promising son Conslantine, both of whom
greatly favored the Christian worship and caied little for the Gods; and under
their government, the Christians hoped to enjoy iiappy times. And hence it

was would take arms, and would vigorously

easily foreseen, that the Christians

[p. 920.] defend their protectors if any attempt were made either to exclude them

from the throne or to crush them by war. But Maximian, the youngest of the
Emperors, could not hope to become lord of the whole empire, except by the
extermination of Conslanlius and his son. And, therefore, to prevent the occur-
rence of a dubious civil war, in which the Christians would combat for Cor.slati-
tius and his son, and the worshippers of the Gods for Maximian, it seemed
necessary to weaken the very considerable power and resources of the Chris-
tians, and, if possible, to exterminate their religion, before the contest for supre-
macy in the republic was commenced.
Moved by such considerations, in the year 303, Maximian proceeded to
Nicoraedia, the capitol of Bithynia, whither Diocletian had retired on coming
from the East, for the purpose of persuading his father-in-law to enter into a
public and formal war against the Christians. On this subject, there was, be-

tween the father-in-law and the son-in-law, strong opposition both of feelings
and opinions. Diocletian, indeed, conceded to his son-in-law, that Christians
might be excluded from the palace and the army, and that all the attendants on
the palace and the soldiers should be compelled to sacrifice to the Gods; but he
refused to issue public laws against the Christians, and especially to inflict on

them capital punishments. Says Lactanlius, (loc. cit. c. 11. p. 945.): Ostcndebat
quam perniciosum esset, inquietari orbem terrae, fundi sanguinem multorum.
Satis esse, si palatinos tantum ct milites ab ea religione prohiberet. But this

moderation would not comport at all with the designs o{ Maximian. He wished
to reign sole Emperor; and of this he could have no hopes, if the Christians
were spared. He therefore lu-ged, that public laws should be enacted against all
Christians throughout the Roman empire and that they, who sacrificio re«
; —
pugnassent, vivos cremandos esse. The sooner to accomplish his designs, and
wholly overthrow the Christian community at once, he was disposed to proceed,
not as in the former persecutions, which sought gradually to overcome the
minds of Christians by exhortations, menaces, imprisonments, tortures, confis-
cations of goods, banishments, &c. but to adopt a more summary process, and
decree that those who refused to offer sacrifices, should forthwith be put to
death with manner of tortures. If this cruel counsel had prevailed, a very
all

grievous w^ound would unquestionably have been inflicted on the Christian

 Persecution begun A. D. 303. 421

cause. But Diocletian could not be induced to assent to it. After various dis-
cussions, it was determined to refer the very important matter to the advice of

friends, or to a few prudent men of approved fidelity. A lew persons, therefore,

were and partly from the military officers, who
selected, partly from the jurists
were judge which mode of proceeding would be best and most salutary to
to
the republic. Maximian, being exceedingly attached to soldiers and military
affairs, undoubtedly thought niiiitary officers would be the best counsellors; but
Diocletian had more confidence in jurists., on a subject relating to the interests
of the republic. Says Lactaniius, (loc. cit. p. 9J5.): Adniissi ergo jndi- [p. 9^1.]
ces paiici, et pauci militares, ut dignitate antecedebant, interrogMbantur. But
Lactaniius, who often does injustice, if I can judge, to the Knijierors that per-
eecnied the Christians, misrepresents tiie design of Diocletian in referring thia
question to the judgment of men of experience and intelligence. For he says,
it was Diocletian's custom, Cum malum facere vellet, multos in consilium advo-
care, ut aliorum culpae adscriberetur,qulequidipse deliquerat. But Laclanlius^
own statements show, that this censure is unjust. For
from the facts it is clear,
recorded, that Diocletian was averse from doing the edl, and he wished to hear
the opinion of eminent men, in order to avert from the Christians much of the
evil which his son-in-law was plotting. The Emperor's intentions are also vin-
dicated by the fact, that when tiie more rigorous course was approved by the
arbiters mutually chosen, he was utterly unwilling to follow it. \\\ this council
of friends or wise men, the harsh pl:in of Maximian received the preference.
For some, from personal hatred of the Christiins, others from fear of offending
Maximian, and others to gain his favor, Inimicos Deorum et hostes religionum
publicarum tollendos esse censebant. Among the jurists or judges called to de-
cide this question, was Hierncles, \\\q vicar-governor of Biihynia; whom Lactan-
iius, (loc. cit. p. 952.) pronounces, Auetorem et consiliarium ad faeiendam per-
secutionem fuisse: and he says, (Instit. divinar. L. v. c. 2. p. 417.): Auctor in
primis ficienda; persecutionis fuit. This man, afterwards in the midst of the
persecution, adilressed two short treatises to the Christians, whom he called
(ptXaXii9-s7f) lovers of truth. And in these treatises, he loads with much abuse
and injustice the Christian Scriptures, which he shows himself to have read at-
tentively; and Jesus Christ,whoiu he has the audacity to compare with Apol-
lonius Tyauajus, yet without denying his miracles; and especially Peter and
Paul, the Apostles of Christ. Lactantius, in the latter of the passages just
quoted, states pretty fully the ar<;ument of this treatise against the Christians.
This Ilierocles, as learned men have long agreed, was a different person from the
Com uentary on the
Platonic philosopher of the same name, v.iiose respectable
Golden Verses of Pythagoras, has been often published. Yet, from the extracts
which Lactantius makes from his book, it is apparent, that he also was a fol-
lower of Ammonius Saccas, or one of those philosophers called the younger
Platonists. For, although he would have the gods to be worshipped, yet he
makes them to be not gods, but merely the ministers of the one supreme God.
Says Z(ac/rt!?i^n(s, addressing him: Adeniisti Jovi tuo regnum, eumque sunima
potestate depulsum in ministrorum (Dei) numerum redegisti. - - Affirmas Deoi*
esse, et illos tanien subjicis et mancipas ei Deo, cujus religionem conaris ever-
422 Century IV.— Section %
tere. He had just before said Assertor Deorum, cos ipsos ad ultimum prodi-
;

disti. For Hierodes, at the end of his book, composed a splendid eulogy on the
[p. 922.] supreme God, in order to sliow, that he was far from approving the

superstition cf the people and the priests, and that he would have tlie ancestral
Deities so honored, that God should still be exalted greatly above them ail, and
should receive the supreme homage. Says Lactanlius : Prosecutus es surami
Dei laudes, quem Regem, quem ma.ximum, quern opificem rerum, quern fontem
bonorum, quem parentem omnium, quem factorem, altoremque viventium con-
fessus es. —Epilogus itaque te tuus arguit stullitia?, vanitati*, erroris. —When
contemplating this suljecl, it appears to mo exceedingly probable, that from this
Hierodes especially, originated the charge against the Christians in the edict of
Maximian, tliat tliey had changed the religion taught by their fatiiers and also ;

the project of burning tiie sacred books of the Christians, against wiiich he in-

veiglis so violently in his work, taxing them with many errors.

Although the opinion of Maximian, that the Christians should be extirpat-
ed, was approved by the arbiters chosen by the two Emperors, yet Diodelian

still refused his consent. Men, he said, were fallible: and therefore, that no-
thino- might be done preposterously and imprudently, liewould have the matter
referred to the Gods, and particularly to the Miletian Apollo. And, as Laclan-
iius says, Apollo wiien consulted, answered, ut divinae religionis inimicus ; that

is, he took sides with Maximian, and ordered the Christians to be exterminated.
Therefore, to satisfy his son-in-law and friends, and likewise Apollo, and yet
follow his own timid disposition and aversion to blood, he adopted a sort of mid-
dle course ; viz. he would allow public laws to be enacted against the Christians,
which he had before refused ; but he would have tiie business accomplished with-
out bloodshed: (rem sine sanguine transigi volebat.) — From the facts now
faithfully stated, is it not evident that Diocletian was reluctantly, and most un-
williiiglv, brought to disturb and persecute the Christians? and that the cause
of the many evils endured by the Chri>tians for ten years, was rather in Maxi-
mian, who was inflamed with superstition and lust for power, and was instigat-
ed by the priests and his mother? And hence, in my judgment, large deduc-
tions should be made from the reproaches and complaints, wiiich both the an-
cients and tiic moderns have heaped upon Diocletian. I acknowledge that he
was in fault, from his instability, superstition, and timidity; but he was much
commonly supposed.
less in fault, than is
This long and cruel persecution commenced in the month of February or
April, A.D. 303 as has been shown by learned men, TiUemonle, Noris, (^Histor.
Donatistar. P. 1. c. 2.0pp. torn. iv. p. 9, 14, 15.) and many others: and it was
introduced bv the destruction of tiie spacious Christian temple at Nicomedia,
and the burning of the books found in it. See Laclantius, (de raortibus per-
sequutor. c. 12. p. 946, 947.) The Emperor's edict was published the day fol-

lowinrr. Strange as it may appear, its specific injunctions are rot stated, col-

lectively and methodically, by any of the ancients: and therefore we collect

them from diverse sources. — I. The Emperor's edict required all the sacred edi-

[p. 923.1 fices of the Christians to be levelled with the ground. See Eusebius,
(Hist. Eccles. L viii. c. 2. p. 293, 294 : and Oratio in laudem Constant, c. 9.
 Persecutions hegnn A. D. 303. -123

p. 629.) It added, that the thrones of the bishops in those edifices, and the
doors, siiould be publicly burned. See the Gesta purgationis Felicis Aptunga-
ri, (apud Steph. Baluzium, Miscellan. L. ii. p. 84.) : Galatius perrexit ad lo-
cum, ubi orationes celebrare (Christiani) consueti fuerant. Inde cathredram tu-
limus et cpistulas snlutatorias. et ostia onuiia combusta sunt, secundum sacrum
praecepliim. Whatever was of stone, was to be pulled down; and what was
of wood was to be burned. — II. The decree commanded that the sacred books
should be delivered up, by the (christians, and especially by the bishops and
dergy, to the magistrates. See the Passio S. Felicis, (apud Baluz. Miscell.
torn. ii. p. 77, 78.) Magnilianus curator di.xit: Libros deifieos Jiabetis? Janua-
:

rius presbyter respondit: Habemus. Magnilianus di.xit: Date illos igni aduri.
The same Magnilianus thus addressed Feli.v the bisliop: Da libros vel membra-
nas quales.cunque penes te habes. Feli.v episcopus dixit: Ilabeo, sed non tra-

de legem Domini mei. Magnilianus dixit Primum est qxiod Imperatoresjus^er- :

un/, quia nihil est quod loquoris. Other examples may be seen in the citations
hereiifter made. —
-And the penalty of death was decreed, both against the ma-
gistrates who should be negligent in executing the decree, and against tho
Christians who should refuse to give up the sacred books. Of the penalty in-
curred by the Christians refusing to surrender their religious books, when de-
manded by the governors or their officials, we shall soon speak : at jiresent, we
speak only of tlie maj^istrates who were remiss or lenient in the requi-ition of
the Ciu'istian books. That tliey were to be puni>hcd with death, appears from
two passages in Augusline, (Brevicnlum collationis cum Donatistis, c. 15. et 17.

0pp. torn. ix. p. 387. et 390.) One Secnndus had boasted, that when ordered
by the magistrate to deliver up tiie books, he declared he would not. It was
replied. This is incredible. For a magistrate would endanger his life, if he
should let such a man go unpunished. Secundus Centurion! et Beneficiario res-
pondit, se omnino non tradere Scripluras. Quod illi auditum quomodo illo di-

misso rcnuntiare potucrint nine suo exitio non apparet. Deatii (exitium) was
therefore the penalty incurred by a magistrate, who should hesitate to obey the
decree of the Emperor. The second passage expresses the same thing more
clearly: Ordo et Curator et Ceiiturio et Beneticiiirius ac^ if/scrimen ccr/ji^/.s per-
venissent, qui Secundum tradere nolentem impunitum dimisi!=se j)rodebantur.
Hence the more cautious magistrates did not send their centurions or other
subordinates, to bring the sacred books from the temples and bishops' houses,
but contrary to custom, they went tliemselves to the cliurches and clergymen's
houses; and whatever books or other articles they found there, they caused to
becarefullv collected, inventoried, and taken away. A strildng example of tliis,
wc find in the Gesta pnrgationisCacciliani,(apud Baluzium, Miscell. tom.[^p. 924.]
ii. p. 92 &.C.) For Munitius Felix, a fl:\nien, and the chief m;igistrateand cura-
tor of the colony of the Cirtensians, went in person, first to the Christian tem-
ple, and then to the dwellings of the bishop, the lectors, the subdeacons, and
even of the private Christians, and every where demanded the books and pa-
pers: Proferte scripturas legis, et si quid aliud hie habetis (in the temple, the
vestments, the chalices, tlie lamps, the candlesticks,) ut praecepto et jussioni
parere possitis. III. The imperial edict decreed, that all the Christian books
424 Centin-y IV. — Section 2.

given up or found, should be publieJy burned in the forum. Ettseidus, (Hist

Eecles. L. viii. c. 2. p. 293, 294. See also p. 318.) Here .should be rc.-id the
Acta pnssionisj Pliilippi, episeopl Adrianopolilani, (apud Mabillonium, Analec-
tor. torn. iv. p. 189 &c. of the new edit.) Bassns the governor, there addresses
Philip thus: Legt-in Imperatoris audi-^tis, jubentis nusquam colliyere Christia-
nos. - - Vasa ergo quaeeunque vobiscum sunt auren, vel argentea: Scriptnras
etiam, per quas vei legitis, vel docetis, obtutibus nostrae potestatis ingerite.
This Bassus, as I have said was usual with the more cautious magistrates, went
in per.son to the temple of the Cl)ri.s1ians: and the bishop with his assistants
standing at the doors, immediately gave up the vessels. Vasa, quae postulas,
mox aec-ipe. Ista contemnimus. Non pretioso metallo Deum colimus, sed ti-

more. But the books he refused to give up. Bassus therefore snatched them
from the place where they were kept, carried them into the forum, and, accord-
ing to the Emperor's command, burned tiiem all. Igne subposito, adstantihus
etiam p^regrinis, civibusque collectis, scripturas omncs divinas in medium misit
incendiutn. — By the Christian books ordered to be burned, the Emperor seems
to iiave understood merely their divine books, or the holy scripture, librns dei-
ficos, scripluras legis, as it is expressed in the passages just quoted from Baluze,
or ypapai, as Eusehius calls them. But as he knew not what books the Chris-
tians accounted divine, and wiiat human, he used general terms; and as those
who were entrusted with tlie execution of the law were equally ignorant, and
supposed that tlie Clu'istians accounted all as divine, that were religiously kept
either in the churches or in the dwellings of the bisliops and presbyters there- ;

fore all papers, letters, documents, and Acts of martyrs were indiscriminately
drawn from their repositories and cast into the flames. Bassus of Heradea, as
we have before seen, demanded of Piiilip all the scriptu7-as, per quas vel legerent,
vel docerenl ; and whatever he found in the temple, he ordered to be burned.
From the Acta purgationis Felicis, (apud Baluz. Miscel. torn. ii. p. 84.) it ap-
pears that even the Epistnlae Salutatoriae, which the bishops wrote to one an-
other on various occasions, were burned. For these were commonly deposited
in the churches. And hence the history of Cl)ristianity suffered an immense
loss in this Diocletian persecution. For all that had come down from the ear-
[p. 925.] lier ages of the Church, the documents, the paper.s, the epistles, the

laws, the Acts of the martyrs and of councils, —from which the early iiistory of
the Christian community might be happily illustrated, — cZ', or at least very many
of them, perished in these commotions. — And I have little doubt, that the
Hiercoles already mentioned, and such other philosophers of the Platonic sJiool
4s may have sitten among tlie arbiters chosen by the two Emperors, instilled

iinO those Emperors this malignant purpose of destroying by fire the sacred
books of the Christians. This jtroject certainly could not have originated from
uninformed men, who had no knowledge of Christianity, or such men as Max-
imian and his father-in-law; but it must have come from men of learning, men
acquainted with the sacred volume, men who had themselves seen what is there
inculcated, and knew from their own perusal, what influence the scriptures
have to fortify the mind of Christians against pagan worship and superstition.
And just such a man, was Hierocles ; who, in his work against the Christians,
 Persecution begun A. D. 303. 425

as Laclanlius says, (Inslit. divinar. L. v. c. 2. p. 417, 418.) : Adeo rnulta, adeo

intima (e.x sacro codiee) eiiumerabat, ut aliqiiando Christianus ("uisse videretur.
— IV. The imperial edict decreed, that such as resolved to remain Ciiris-

tians, and refused to sacrifice to the Gods, should forfeit all their honor-',

offices, rank, and all civil rights and privileges, and if servants they should
be incapable of manumission, Eusebius has briefly and imperfectly des-
cribed this part of the law, (Hist. Eeelos. L. viii. c. 2. p. 294.) He says :

Vl hnnoraii quidem (rt/^is iTiiKnuuivoi. He doubtless means those in

pub'ii.'. slation-i, or holding somij office or post of honor.) infamia nolarenlur
(uri>ot/j. which, I tiiiiik, Valesius iiere translates in language too strong. I
should suppose the sense to be, Thai llieij shacl be dhesledof all their honora and
dislinclions :) Toij (Te iv outriai; iXiu^npiai.^npilf-yat. As to the meaning of
these words, learned men are not agreed. Henry Valesius, with whom many
agree, renders them : Plebeii vero libei'tule spoliarentur. TJiis very learned man
supposes the Emperor decreed, that if men holding posts of honor ad distinc-
tion, would not return to the religion of their ancestors, they should be reduced
to the rank of jdebeians, and be deprived of all honor and distinction ; but if

they were plebeians, they should lose their freedom, and become servants or
slaves. But, in the first place, the natural import of the phrase, oi iv iixiTiats,

is inconsistent with this interpretation : for it almost invariably denotes seriaiils

and not plebeians. Again, history i-i opposed to it; for no example can be pro-
duced of plebeian Christians being made slaves; while many examples occur of
persons retaining their liberty who merely gave up the sacred books. Hence,
very many, and I go wilh them, prefer the Latin translation of the passage in
Eusebius by Riifinus, a very competent authority in this case. Riifmus renders
it : Si quis aercorum pcrmansiasel Cliristiamis, liberlatem conseiiui [non] posset.
Some punishment, undoubtedly, was to be inflicted on servants who refused to
Bacrificu to the Gods: yet the Emperor wished no blood to be shed in ihis
transaction and therefore servants could not be punished, except by the loss of
:

all and no more grievous punishment [p. 926.]

prospect of obtaining freedom ;

could be inflicted on servants sighing for liberty, Eusebius therefore speaks

only of the penalties decreed by the Emperor against men of distinction and
slaves ; of plebeians he says nothing. Laclanlius, (de mortibus persequutor.
c. 13. p. 947.) slates more at large, and yet not very distinctly, the penalties of
the Diocletian edict, thus: Postridie prospositum est edictum, quo cavebatur, ut
religionis illius homines cararent omni honore et dignitate, (this manifestly re-
fers exclusively to the men holding offices and honors ;) tormentis subject!
essent,e.x quocunque gradu et ordine venirent, (this reaches all classes, or both

gentlemen and plebeians; yet the former rather than the latter;) adversus eos
omnis actio valeret, ipsi non de injuria, non de adulterio, non de rebus ablatis
agere possent, (this, I suppose, was intended for the plebeians. They might be
accused by any body, but could accuse no one ;) libertatem denique ac vocem
non haberent. This last clause I refer, with Batuze, to servants : and I assign
it meaning. Such servants as refuse to abandon the Christian religion shall
this
forfeit all hopes of becoming free, and they shall not be allowed xocem, or have

a right to petition or pray for liberty.

— "V. Moreover, the decree of the Emperor
426 Century IV.— Section 2.

severely prohibited all religious assemblages. This we lenrn from the edict of

the Emperor Maximm in favor of the Christians, extant in Eusehius, (Mist.

Eccles. L. ix. c. 10. p. 364.) which says: Compertum nobis fuit, oueasioiie legis

a Diocletiano et Maximiano parentibus nostris hita3, ut Clirislianorum cnnvenius

penitus abolerentur, (ruj o-yvocfoys rwi/ ;tf/5riai/a)v t^^^^-is-S-ai,) multas eon-
cussioncs factas. These words of Maximm likewise informs us, that the edict
was promulgated, not in the name of Diocletian only, but in the name of both
Diocletian and Maximian. It appears also, that death was the penalty for iiold-

ing religious meetings. There are extant, in Baluze^s Miscellanea, (torn. ii. p.
66, &c.) the Acta martyrum Saturnini Presbyteri, Felicis, Dativi, and others,
who were put to death for holding meetings {coUeclas,) or, in the words of the
Acta, Quia ex more dominica sacramcnta cclebraverant. Tiiis was their chief,

nay, their only crime : Cum Proconsnli ofFerrentur, suggerereturque, quud trans-
missi essentChristiani, qui contra interdictum Impcratorum ct CcTsarum coliec-
tam dominicam celebrasscnt, primum Proconsul Dativum interrognt, utrum col-

lectam fecisset: qui se Christianum in collecta fuissc profitebalur. VI. Finally, —

it appears from the edict of Maximm just quoted, (apud Euseh. Hist. Eccles.

L. ix. c. 10. p. 364.) that, (« ni iii\iuTiu>^) by the decree of the Emperors,

the houses and ground.s, which had belonged to the Cin-istians, were confiscat-
ed, seized upon by the cilies, and either sold or given away.
(2) That many of tlie Christians were put to death, immediately after the

promulgation of the imperial edict, is placed beyond all controversy by Eiisebi.

[p. 927.J us, Lactanlius, and others of the ancients. And yet Diocletian had
ordered the business to be conducted without bloodshed, and he would not al-
low persons to be punished capitally, who should refuse to sacrifice to llie gods.
I have therefore no doubt, that the persons slain, were put to death because
they would not surrender the sacred books. By the edict of the Emperor, this

was a capital offence. In the Passio Felicis Tubiz icensis, published by Baliize,

(Miscellanea, torn. ii. p. 77 &.c.) the judge thus addresses Felix: Si Scriptnras
deificas (I suppose the word deificas, so often repeated in these and other Ada,
was used in the very edict of the Emperors,) tradere nolueris, capita plecteris.
Felix episcopus dixit: Plus piratus sum plecti capile, quam liliros dominicos sa-
crileuio tradere. 'I'he Cognitor, on hearing this reply, and before pronouncing
sentence, ordered the im[)eri:il edict to be read: Tunc memoratns Cognitor jus-

sit, nt sacra Imperatorum (edicti) recitarentur. Cumque a Vineentio scriba quae

constitufa fuerant legerentur, Cognitor dixit; Quoniam iste homo tantiim in

eadem eonfessione secundum prccce/ptum hunc eundem Felicem episco-

duravil,

pum gladio animadverti constituo. In the imperial decree, therefore, it was ex-
plicitly stated and ordered, that those who persisted in refusing to give up the

sacred books, should be capitally punished. The f ict is confirmed by numerous

examples on record, of persons of various classes being tortured and slain, for

no other cause, than that they deemed it sinful to surrender the sacred books,

when they knew they were to be burned. Augustine (Breviculum collationis

cum Donatistis, L. iii c. 13. p. 386. et c. 15. p. 387.) tells us, that Secnndus Ti-
gisitanus, in an Epistle to Mensurius: Commemorasse multos marfyres, qui
cum tradere noluissent excruciati et occisi sint: and that Secnndus added: NoQ
 Persecution begun A. D. 303. 4^7

quoslibet infimos, sed etiam patresfjimilias, cum persccutoribus rcspondissent,

habere se quidem sacros codices, sed omnino tradere nolle, crudelissimis nioiti-
bus occisos esse. — And hence, as Augiixi'ine repovts, from an Epi>tle of'Mensu-
rius to Secnndus, (loc. cit. c.some Christians, either from
13. torn. ix. p. 386.)
weariness of life, or from the hope that their sins
would be exjiiated bv a o-jo-
rious death, voluntarily went before the mngistratcs, and decl.ired that tliey had
eacrcd books, but would not surrender them Quidam in eadem epistola (Men- :

surii) arguebantur et fisci debitores, qui occasioiie perseculionis vel carere vel-
lent onerosEi mnltis debitis tild, vel purgare se putarent et quasi abluere faeinora
sua. For it was supposed, that shedding one's blood for Cin-ist, took away all

Bins. To these may be added the full testimony of Opta/us Milevilanus, who
explicitly says, that the Traditors wished to escape death, (de schismatc Dona-
tistarum, L. i. ^ 13. p. 13, 14. edit, du Pin.): Quid comaiemorem laicos, — quid
ministros pluriinos, quid di conos, — quid presbyteros? Ip^i apices et principes
omnium, aliqui episcopi, illis tempoiibus, ut damno eeternaj vitse, islius in-
certcc lucis moras hrevissimas compararen', instrumenfa divinae iegis [p. 928.]
impie tradiderunt. The Emperors, therefore, ordered u severer procedure
against tho-e who should refuse to bring forth and surrender the sacred books,
than against those who should refuse to sacrifice to the gods. The latter would
only forfeit their civil rights and privileges, but the former would forfeit their
lives. And, consequently, it is not strictly true, as Laclanlius aftirms, that Die-
clelian commanded the business to be done without bloodshed. Yet, undoubt-
edly, the philosophers summoned to the council, and especially Hierocles, as-
sured the Emperor that if the sacred books of Christians were burned, the
whole Christian religion would fall to the ground; and they added, that the
Christians, if made liable to capital punishment, would all surrender their
books: for they had such a horror of sacrifices, that they would rather die than
icake an oblation to the gods; but to deliver up their sacred books, was not
prohibited by their l.-iw, and therefore, undoubtedly, they would all redeem their
lives by surrendering their books. Influenced by these arguments, Diocletian,
who would otherwise have commanded the sparing of blood, permitted the
penalty of death to be decreed against refusers to surrender the books. But
the result was not as the Emperor anticipated: for multitudes, as we have seen,
would sooner die than surrender the divine books. And yet many prized life
more than the books; and they were regarded as apostates, and were branded
with the opprobrious name of Traditors. See Augustine, de baptismo contra
Donatistas, (L. vii. c. 2. tom. ix. p. 126.) The term, however, is ambiguous,
for it may denote simply one who delivers up something; or it may, in a more
restricted sense, denote a flagitious betrayer. Of the vast number of tliese
Traditors in Africa, we shall have occasion to speak hereafter. Out of Africa,
there arose no controversy respecting Traditors, although there can be no doubt,
that in all the provinces, there were persons who deemed life more preiions than
their books. And hence it is highly probable, that the offence of the Traditors
was esteemed a lighter matter in most parts of the Christian world, than auumg
the Africans, who were naturally ardent.
428 Century IV. — Section 3.

8 III. First Year of the Persecution. Occurrences at Nicomedia.

New Edicts. The hatred of became
Diocletian against Christians
more violent a little after tlie promulgation of his first decree,
when two fires occurred in the palace at Nicomedia for the ene- ;

mies of Christianity persuaded the credulous and timid old man

that the Christians were the authors of those fires. Therefore
the Emperor commanded that the Christians of Nicomedia. of all
classes and descriptions, should be put to torture ; and man)^ were
burned at the stake as incendiaries. (') About the same time, se-
[p. 929.] ditions occurred in Armenia and S\-ria and as the ;

enemies of Christianit}^ charged the blame of these also upon the

Christian pastoi's and teachers, the emperor issued a new edict, re-

quiring all bishops and clergymen to be thrown into prison.

This decree was soon afterwards followed by a tliird^ in which the
Emperor ordered that all the imprisoned clergymen, who refused
to worship the Gods, should be compelled to offer sacrifices by
tortures and extreme penalties. For the timid Emperor, terrified
by the priests and their friends, had come to believe that neither
he nor the republic could be safe so long as the Christians re-
mained and he hoped, that if the bishops and teachers were
;

subdued, their flocks would follow their example. And thus a

great multitude of holy and excellent persons, in all the provin-
ces of the Eoman empire, were put to death by various kinds of
the most cruel executions: and others, mutilated and deprived
of their bodily members, were condemned to the mines. (*) Gaul
alone escaped this calamity ; for there Constantius Cldorus, al-
though he did not prevent the Christian temples from being
demolished, forbid the infliction of personal injuries on the
Christians.(')

(1) Laclanllus, (de raortibns pcrseqiiutor. c. 14. p. 948.) mcnfions two con-
flngiMtions in the pulace at Nicomedia soon alter tlie first edict against the
Christians: Easebius, (Hist. Eccles. L. viii. c. 6. p. 297.) inenlions only ojic;
and Conslanline the Great, wlnj tells us he was in Nicomedia at the time,
(Oratio ad sanctor. coetum, c. 25. p. 601.) also mentions but one. But the second
fire, which was fifteen days after the first, was eai'ly discovered, and therefore,
doubtless, proniplly extinguished. And this, I su[)pose, is the reason why Eu-
sehius —
and Cnnstanlins take no noliee of it. But respecting the first fire, or
rather, respecting its cause, there is ground for no little duLitalion. For the
three witnesses to the occurrence, entirely disagree. Conslanline, an eye-
witne.ss, being then resident at the court of Diocletian, declares that the palace
 Occurrences at NicomecUa. 42D

was struck by lightning and tliat the celestial fire destroyed the Emperor's bed.
chamber: and he adds, that the Emperor was so terrified by tliis tiiunderchip,
that he was all his life alter afmid lest he should be struck witli lightning. As
to any aecusalion against the Christians, as authors of the fire, lie is silent. But
Eusebius, who published this very Oration of Constantine, annexing it to his
history, althougli he tells us this conflagration was attributed to the Cliris-
tians, and describes minutely their sufferings in consequence of the [p. 930.]
charge, yet d(;clares (ouk o/cT' oitojs) that he did not knoio the cause of the fire. And
lastly, Lactantius says, that Maximian himself, in order to obtain severer edicts
against the Christians fiom his father-in-buv, Occuitis rninistris palatio subje-
cisse incendium; and afterwards caused a rumor among tiie vulgar, that, Chris-
tianos, consilio cum euuuchis habito, de e.xtinguendis principibus cogitasse, et
duos Imperatores domi suae prene vivos esse combustos. And he states that the
second fire, fifteen days after, was contrived by the same Maximian. Now, —
which of these authors shall we follow? Those learned men, who have written
Bince Baluze published the tract of Lactantius, one and all place reliance on
Laclanlius: but whether, with due consideration, is a question. Wiience did
the honest Laci.antius learn, that Maximian, by his servants, fired the palace, in
order to excite odium against the Christians Maximian ? Certainly not from
himself, nor from the servants he employed in the business. who have any All
knowledge of human affairs, are aware how studiously powerful men and princes,
who resort to such crimes, conceal their own agency in them. And Lactantius
himself acknowledges, that the authors of the fire were (occulli) concealed, and
never (apparuisse) became known. He therefore undoubtedly derived his state-
ment from the belief, or rather from the suspicion of certain Christians who, ;

knowing that Maximian was very malignant against the Christians, suspected
that tliis tragedy was artfully contrived by him; and what they thus suspected,
they reported to their brethren as a fact. But that this suspicion was not uni-
versal, or was only of some few Christians, the silence of Eusebius and Con-

stantine, I think, places beyond all controversy. For if it had been the common

opinion of the Nicomedian Christians, it would certainly have been known by

Conslanline and his friend Eusebius; and they, being exceedingly incensed
against Maximian, would certainly not have omitted a matter so reproachful to
the man they hated. Besides, as on the authority of Constantine, who cannot
possibly be discredited, the palace of Nicomedia was set on fire by lightning, I

do not see how Maximian could have been the author of the conflagration.
And lastly, in Laclanlius himself, there is something which tends to absolve
Maximian, if not altogether, yet at least in part. For it appears from his
statement, that the Christians were not supposed by Diocletian, to have been
the authors of the first fire; this we shall soon show more clearly. But if

Maximian had fired the palace by his servants, in order to enkindle the rage of
his father-in-law against the Christians, he would undoubtedly, immediately
after the first fire, have accused the Christians of it, either himself or by otiiers.

It appears, therefore, that Constantine the Great, the spectator of this sad event,
is the most worthy to be credited and he tells us, that lightning struck the
;

palace, and even the bed-chamber of the Emperor; and that he considered the
430 Ceninrij IV. — Section 3.

[p. 931.] fire, as evidence of the divine wrath against Diocletian, for Iiis perse-
cuting edict against the Cliristians. And yet Eusehius and Lactanlius cxliibit
objections to an exclusive adherence to the statement of Constantine. For ihey
inform us at mucli length, that severe inquisition, attended by tortures, was in-

stituted against the authors of the conflagration; and that alterwards, immense
sufferings were brought upon the Christians, in consequence of tliat fire. How,
I would ask, could the authors of this occurrence be sought after, with so much
eagerness 1 or how could the Christians be suspected of firing the palace, if it

were, as Conslantme states, not by the fault of men, but by a flash of lightning,
that the palace tookfire 1 What tyrant is so senseless and cruel, that when he
knows some came upon him, accidentally, or from natural causes, yet tor-
evil

tures and torments innocent men, to find out the author of it? Neither the testi-
mony of Consiaiiiine, confirmed, as it is, by that strong proof, the mental disease
of Diocletian, produced by the sudden thunder-clap, can be rejected; nor can
the statements of Lactantius and Eusebius, also resting on many fact proofs, be
denied. What then are we to understand? I, indeed, after long considering the
subject, find no other way of reconciling the disagreement of these witnesses of
the higiiest credibility, than by supposing that two fires broke out in the palace
on the same occasion, the one caused by lightning, and the other by the villany
or finilt of persons unknown. Nor is this supposition incredible. For it might
easily occur, that while one part of the palace was burning in consequence of
the lightning, and all were rushing forward to extinguish that fire, some evil
disposed persons might at the same time set fire to another part of it, in order
to have a safer and better opportunity for plundering. Who does not know,
that such villanies at all times have occurred among mankind ?
The first fire being subdued, the affrighted Emperor commanded the most
vigorous inquisition to be made respecting the authors of so great a crime-
Says Laclanlius, (de mortibns persequntor. c. 14. p. 949.) : Ira inflammatus ex-
carnificari omnes suos protinus praecepit. Sedebat ipso atqne innocentes igne
torrebat: item judices universi, omnes denique qui erant in palatio magistri, da-
ta potestate torquebant. (viz. to find out the author of the fire.) Erant certan-
tes, quis prior aliquid inveniret. usquam reperiebatur quippe quum fa-
Nihil :

miliam Caes:nis (i. e. of Maximian,) nemo torqueret. For Lactanlius supposed,

the author of the fire was in the family or among the servants of Maximian.
From this statement, I think, three things appear. First : The Christians were
not supposed to be the authors of tlie first fire. For Diocletian ordered {omnes
suos) all his own servants, (the greatest part of whom, it is manifest, were pa-
gans.) to be subjected to torture. But if the false rumour, that the Christians
sought to burn up the Emperors in the palace, had been then current, manifest-
ly not ail the waiters and servants of the palace, but solely the Christiansi
would have been subjected to tiie rack. Secondly: The author of the fire
[p. 932.] was sought for among the inmates of the palace and the Emperor's
own servants and no one out of the palace was suspected of the high crime.
;

— Thirdly: In this first onset, no one was put to death and as nothing could be ;

ascertained by means of torture, the inquisition after a short time was discon.
tinned. To these conclusions, we may add, with great probability, that only
 Occurrences at Kicomedia. 431

persons of inferior rank, and especially servants, were subjected to this inquisi-
tion this is easily inferred from the langunge of Laclaniius.
:

But anotlier fire broke out fifteen days afterwards. And although it was
soon extinguished, yet Maximian fled away, contestans, fugere se, ne vivus ar-
deret. And then it was, the fatal calumny was spread abroad, Christianos. con-
silio cum eunuchis (tlie eunuchs who were Chrisli:ins, and lived in the palace,) ha-

bito, de extinguendis principibus eogitasse. And as the weak and credulous

Diocletian gave full credit to this calumny, he vented his rage against the
Christians only, yet both against those in the palace and those out of it The :

worsiiippers of the Gods were unmolested. Believing fully, that the Christians
had set fire to the palace, he first commanded all persons residing in it, to offer
sacrifice to the Gods; intending in this way, to rid his house of those noxious
people. And first of all, he requiicd his daughter Valeria, and his wife Prisca,
sacrijlcio se poUuere. This mandate shows, that those women abhorred the wor-
ship of the Gods, and had secretly professed the Christian religion. They
however obeyed the command of their father and husband. But when the
eunuchs and officers of the bed-chamber, who were also Christians, were ad-
dressed, a different scene arose. For they most resolutely declared, that the
religion which they professed, would not allow them to pay honors to the Gods.
And therefore the chief of them, after long and exquisite tortures, were put to
death. Laclaniius says : Potentissimi quondam eunuclii necati, per quos pala-

tium et ipse ante constabat. Eusebius, (Hist. Eecles. L. viii. c. 6. p. 296.) more
fully describes their glorious deaths. —Having destroyed those whom he regard-
ed as his household enemies, the Emperor next attacked the Christians of the
city very many of whom, especially the clergy, he ordered to be put to death
;

with Ihe most cruel tortures, without any regard to legal forms of proceeding.
This he did, not so much on religious grounds, (for he had not yet decreed ca-
pitalpunishment against such as refused to worship the Gods,) as because he
what certain impious men had told him, that theChristi:uis living
fully believed,
without the palace had conspired with the eunuchs in the palace, and had pro-
duced both the fires. Says Laclaniius : comprehensi presbyteri ac ministri (or
the deacons,) et sine ulla probatione ad confessionem damnati, cum omnibus suis

deducebantur (ad supplicium.) Some learned men, not comprehending the

meaning of the words ad confessionem damnali, have supposed the passage cor-
rupted, and have attempted to amend it. But the passage is correct, and needs
no amendment. The sense is, that these Christian priests, when liable to no
just suspicion, were nevertheless subjected to torture to make them confess,
that either they or their brethren and friends were the authors of the [p. 933.]
fire and when they would not so confess, and nothing could be drawn from
;

them by torture, they were still accounted guilty, and were put to death in the
usual manner. The most distinguished of those who were so unjustly slain in
this storm, was Anllwnus, tiie bishop of Nicoraedia. This, Eusebius attests,
agreeing perfectly with Laclaniius, yet amplifying and illus-
(loc. cit. p. 297.)

trating his more concise account. Laclaniius thus proceeds: Omnis sexus et
aetatis homines ad exustionem rapti (as incendiaries) nee singuli (quoniam :

tanta erat malt,"tudo) sed gregatun circumdato igni ambiebantur. Eusebius

432 Century IV. — Section 3.

adf],«, that many men and women, under strong excitement, leaped into the burn-
ini^ fire. The puni^hment of the servants was lighter: Domestic! aliigatis ad
collum mohiribus mergebantur.
Tliis terrible inqui.-ition, although interwoven with the persecution raised
by Diocletian, should nevertheless be regarded as a separate transaction. For
itwas not properly decreed on account of religion, but on account of the con-
flagration neither did it extend to the whole Christian community, but only to
:

the people of Nicomedii, and to the Emperor's domestics. And hence, after ;i
short period, it ceased altogether: nor did tiie Emperor take occasion from it, to
issue other and more severe edicts against the Christians; as will appear further
on. Lactaniius indeed, after describing the sufTerings and calamities of the
Christians occasioned by the conflagration, subjoins: Et jam literae ad Maximi-
anum atque Constantium commeaverant, ut eadem facerent. From whicli it

seems to follow, that Diocletian wished the other Emperors to harrass and alflict

the Christians of their province.'^, in the same manner that he had the Nicome-
dians. But here, as also in some other particulars, Laclanlius is not perfectly
correct. It is demonstrable, from the order of events in this persecution, and
from the authority of Eusebius, that during this first year of these troubles, be-
sides the bishops and clergy, none but those who refused to surrender the sa-
cred books, were exposed to penalties and tortures. And the subsequent edicts,
of which we shall soon speak, place this beyond all controversy. And there-
fore thewords of Laclanlius above quoted, should be referred, not to the storm
at Nicomedia produced by the burning of the palace, but to things more remote,
namely, the edicts first issued by Diocletian and his son-in-law; which edicts

were undoubtedly sent also to the other Emperors. It is evident, that Laclan-
lius is rather unjust towards all the enemies of the Christians, and of course to-
wards Diocletian and Maximian; whom he assails with bitter reproaches, in a
manner not very christian.
weak and timorous men fond of ease, Dioclelian was easily
(2) Like other
thrown into a violent passion but he could not long retain anger. Hence, as
;

his fright at the conflagration subdued, his rage ceased. But soon afterwards, a
new cause of fear arose. Some persons, I know not who, disturbed the peace in
[p.934.] Syria and Armenia, by attempted insurrections: and the enemies of Chrig-
tianity easily persuaded the Emperor, that the Christians had excited these civil

commotions. He therefore, this same year, A. D. 303, published u new edict,

not against the Christians, but against their presiding ofTicers and teachers.
For, as he supposed the Christian people to be guided entirely by their authori-
ty, views, and example, he ordered all their teachers of every grade to bo thrown
into prison ; anticipating, that the irksomeness and discomforts of imprisonment
would induce them to abandon Says Eusebius, (Hist. Eccles. L.
Christianity.
viii. c. 7. p. 298.) : Cum alii Armeniae rigione, alii in Syria imperi-
in Melitina,

am arripere conati essent, promulgatum est Imperatoris edietum, ut omnes

obique ecclesiarum antislites in carcerem truderentur. And therefore, in a short
time, as Eusebius adds : Omnes carceres Episcopis, Presbyteris, Diaconis, Lecto-
ribus, el Exorcislis pleni erant, I may here remark in passing, that it appears
from this representation, that in he beginning of the fourth century, the whole
 New Edicts against Christians. 433

Chrislian clergy were distributed inio five classes, at least in the East; or, that
to tlie three ancient orders of bishops, presbyters and deacons, two others, Lec-
torsand Exorcists, had been added in the preceding century. There could be —
no and stronger proof than this new decree presents, that Diocletian
clearer
long persevered in iiis purpose of accomplisiiing the business without blood or
eiaughter ; and that the inquisition which he ordered at Nicomedia, in conse.
quence of the fire, did not extend to all Christians. The cause of this edict,
which assailed only the Christian clergy, was the rise of the civil commotions in
Armenia and Syria ; as is manifest from the declaration of Eusebius. These
commotions, the enemies of the Christians undoubtedly, persuaded the Empe-
ror to believe, originated from the secret machinations of the Christian clergy.
But he found his expectation, tlint bonds and imprisonment would overcome
the resolution of the clergy, to be fallacious: for the majority of them re-
mained immovable in their religion. And therefore, near the close of the year,
as I suppose, a third edict was issued ; according to which, tlie imprisoned cler-
gy, if they would offer sacrifices, were to be released ; but if they refused to sa-
crifice, they were to be compelled by tortures to worship the Gods. See
Eusebius, (loc. cit. p. 298.) From this edict, began the bloody persecution. For
an innumerable multitude of clergymen, through all the provinces of the Roman
Empire, were subjected to the most cruel tortures and sufferings, and many of
them most painfully and heroically expired amidst those tortures. In recount-
ing these events, Eusebius is much more full and exact than Lactantius. In his
Eccles. History, (L. viii. c. 7. &c.) he describes the cruel sufferings of the
Christians in Egypt, in Thebais, in Phenicia, and in Phrygia. On the Martyrs

of Palestine he has left us a separate treatise, annexed to the Eighth Book of

his Eccles. History, which is full of e-xamples of a cruelty almost exceeding be-
lief. Yet in his Eccles. History, Eusebius seems not to have followed the due
order of events in his narrative but to have intermingled events consequent on
the fourth edict, with those which befell only the clergy, in consequence [p. 935.]

of the third edict. For the second and third edicts did not embrace the people, but
only the pastors of the people. And Eusebius himself, (de niartyribus Pala;s-
tinae, c. ii.. p. 320.) expressly says, that in the first year of the persecution, the
cruelty of the enemies of the Christians spent itself upon — «o»oy roiv thj inKhiKriai

Trp iS^piu V — only the ojficers of the Church. And yet, in his history, he relates many
instances of both men and women among the common people, who, after the
third edict, were in several provinces put to death by different modes of torture
and execution. And therefore, either he confounds dates in his narrative,
which is the most probable supposition or, what might also occur, the gover-
;

nors and judges in many places, went beyond the limits prescribed in the edict,
and tortured the people, either from superstition, or cruelty, or avarice. This
indeed is indubitable, that the governors and magistrates did not confine their
proceedings within the limits of the imperial edicts but either from their sav- ;

age dispositions, or from a desire to please Maximian, who, they well knew,
wished the Christians exterminated, or from some other causes, they proceeded
against the Christians in most of the provinces, more rigorously than they were
commanded to do. Although Diocletian, in his first edict, sanctioned the capi«
VOL. II. 29
454 Century IV. — Section 3.

tal punishment of such as refused to surrender the sacred books, and afterwards
showed himself incensed against the Nicomedian Christians, on account of the
fire of which they were accused yet in no edict (of this year,) did he com-
;

mand those to be put to death who would not renounce the Christian religion,
I will prove this by Eusehius, when we came to tlie fourth edict. And there-
fore, the very considerable number of Christians, who were put to death by the

magistrates during the two first years of the persecution, perished contrary to
the will of the Emperor. And I wonder, that so many learned men, and men
well read in ancient history, should write, that Diocletian condemned to death,
the Christians who would not worship the Gods.
(3) Maximianus Herculius, the other Emperor, who ruled in Italy, readily
obeyed the commands of Diocletian and Maximian (Galerius.) But the other
Cesar, Constanlius Chlorus, being a man of a mild disposition, and a followei
of the religion of nature and reason, was friendly to the Christians in the pro-
vinces under his control, and aided their cause so far as he could. He governed
Gaul, Spain, and Britain. But he could not efl^ect all he wished, lest he should
seem to despise the authority of the First Emperor, and violate the terms of as-
sociation in the government. In Spain many Christians vvere exposed to vio-
lence, and even death, under his dominion ; as appears from many testimonies
and Eusehius, (de martyr. Palaestinae c. 13. p. 345.) clearly states the fact.
What occurred in Britain, we are not informed. But in Gaul, where Constan-
liuswas present in person, he caused the Christians to be exempt from any
great evils, and even to live quietly and comfortably. If he had been able, he

would also have spared their temples and property but something was to be :

conceded to the authority of the Emperor, to the wishes of the superstitious

populace, and to the oflicial station of the magistrates and governors. He
[p. 936.] therefore did not command the Christian temples in Gaul to be demo-
lished; yet he did not prohibit the magistrates and the people from either de-
molishing them or shutting them up. Says Lactantius, (de mortibus perseq.
c. 15. p. 951.): Constantius, ne disscntire a mnjorum (Augustorum) praeceptis
videretur, conventicula, id est, pariotes, qui restitui poterant, dirui passws est, ve-
rum autem Dei templum, quod est in hominibus, incolume servavit. Euse-
hius states the same, (Hist. Eccles. L. viii. c. 13. p. 309. and c. 18. p. 317.) I

omit other passages in which Eusehius praises the clemency and justice of Con-
stanlius towards the Christians. But I suspect, and not groundlessly, that
Eusehius and Lactantius do not tell us all, that Constantius permitted to take
place in Gaul lest he should seem to despise the edict of Diocletian ; but they
extenuate, as much as possible, the injuries which he suffered to light upon the
Christians of his provinces, in order to please his son, the Emperor Constantine.
First, Eusehius himself, (de martyr. Falsest, c. 13. p. 345.) expressly places, not
only Spain, but also Gaul, among those provinces which, in the two first years
of the persecution, belli furorem expertae sunt, but afterwards obtained peace:

which certainly would be folse, ifonly the sacred edifices were demolished in
the life time of Constantius. Again, the same Eusehius, (de vita Constant. L.
1. c. 17. p. 416.) states, that the Christians living in the palace of Constanlius,
could freely worship God; and that among them also there were Kiirovfyoin
 Fourth Edict of Diocletian, A. D. 304. 435

©6:u the mintsters of God., i. e. priests or presbyters : but he adds, beyond the
palace, (wa/ia ru/j TToXXoK among the common people.) was not allowed even
it

to utter the name of Christians. Now, if these things were so, —

and no one can
well doubt them, then, certainly, the edicts of Diocletian were proclaimed in
Gaul ; and there was a severe prohibition of all public profession of Christiani-
ty, and of assemblies for Christian worship. And it was to remedy this evil in
a measure, that Conslantius took some Christian priests into his own palace, so
that there, and under these priests, the Christians might enjoy religious worsliip
which they could not have elsewhere. And lastly, the same edict which ordered
the temples to be demolished, also commanded the sacred books of Christians
to be given up and burned. And therefore I have no doubt, that the sacred
books were taken by the magistrates from the Christian temples in Gaul, and
perhaps they were here and there burned. Yet this one commendation is due
to Conslantius, that he forbid the publication and execution of those later edicts
of the Emperor, which commanded all clergymen to be imprisoned and then
compelled to offer sacrifices. In this, Conslantius followed not only his own
mild disposition, but also the dictates of his religion. For he was averse from
the pagan worship, and therefore could not, without feelings of repugnance and
self-condemnation, permit any person to be driven by fear or penalties, to wor-
ship the Gods. — Yet the Gauls speak of some martyrs slain under Conslantius •

but the accounts we have of them, are of doubtful authority.

§ IV. Fourth Edict of Diocletian.— Itfaximian Emperor [p. 937.]

of the East. AVheii the enemies of Christianity found these laws
against the Christian pastors and ministers less effective than
they anticipated, they induced Diocletian, in the second year of
the persecution, A. D, 304, to issue o. fourth edict., more cruel than
the preceding, in which he required all Christians, without ex-
ception, to be compelled to worship the gods, by all the methods
of torture and punishment which ingenuity could devise. Yet,
even this edict, sanguinary and most iniquitous as it was, did not
command the capital punishment of the Christians refusing to
sacrifice. But those governors and magistrates, who Avere either
the slaves of superstition, or naturally prepense to cruelty, or
solicitous to please Jilaximian, now marching with rapid strides
to supreme power, took occasion from this edict to destroy, either
by protracted tortures, or by sentences of death, a great multitude
of Christians in most of the provinces.(') The Christian commu-
nity being thus debilitated and down-trodden, Maxirnian openly
disclosed the designs he had been secretly revolving.He com-
pelled his father-in-law Diocletian., and the colleague Emperor
Maximianus Herculius., to abdicate their power, and assumed to
4:36 Century IV. — Section 4.

himself rank of Emperor of tlie East, leaving ttie West under

tlie

Oonstantius Chlorus. At the same time he appointed two col-

leagues in the government, or two Cesars, of his own choice, and
entirely devoted to himself, namely, Ifaximin, his sister's son, and
jSeverus, excluding altogether Constantine^ the son of Oonstantius.

This revolution in the government was advantageous to the

Christians of the loestern provinces, and in a measure restored
their peace but the Christians of the East were persecuted with
;

increased violence and cruelty, by Maximian Galerius and Maxi-

min. Hence, the number of Martyrs and Confessors in those
regions was great. (')

(1) The principal authority for tliis new or fourth edict, issued in the second
year of the persecution, is Ensehius, (de martyribus Palaest. c. 3. p. 321.) who
eays: Secundo anno, Urbano tunc provinciam regcnte, Imperatoris missse sunt
litterae, quibus generali pra?eepto (Ko9-iX/jc» T/us-Taj-ittan) jubebatur, ut omnes
ubique locorum et gentium publiee idolis sacrificia et libationes offerrent. Euse-
bius here mentions only one Emperor; whence it appears, that this edict was
[p. 938.] sanctioned by the authority of Diocletian only; and this is confirmed
by a passage soon to be adduced from Constantine the Great. The same decree
that was sent to Urbanus, the governor of Syria, was unquestionably sent to all
the other provincial governors. For Eusebius expressly says, it was a «.a^oKiKii
TTfioiTTdyiua—mandalum generale ; and that it embraced all the provinces of the
empire, or required omnes tihique locorum et gentium to sacrifice to the Gods.
Neither will the numerous examples of martyrdom in the Roman provinces,
which are recounted by Eusebius, (Hist. Eccles. L. viii.) and by the moderns,
Tillemont especially, (Memoires, &c. tome v.) admit of any doubt on this sub-
ject.— Ewseftms does not tell us, what punishment the Emperor decreed for
those whom no tortures could induce to offer sacrifices. But learned men, who
treat of the sufferings inflicted on the Christians prior to the reign of Constan-
tine the Great, would have us believe, that Diocletian ordered those who refused

to honor the Gods, to be put to death. And they probably so judge, because
they see that a great multitude of Christians of every class, were everywhere
cruelly slain with various tortures, after this fourth edict was issued. And Eu-
sebius himself may have led them to believe so, as he, immediately after men-
tioning the imperial edict, proceeds to state examples of Christians either con-
demned to be devoured by wild beasts, or to be decapitated, as if he would
thereby exhibit the force and cruelty of the imperial mandate. But I have con-
cluded, after attentively considering the whole subject, that the edict prescribed
no punishment, and much less that of death, as the penalty of refusing to offer
sacrifices; and that the governors were only commanded, in general, to compel

the Christians to worship the Roman deities in every way they could, and by
Buch inflictions and tortures as they might choose. Constantine the Great, in

his edict preserved by Eusebius, (de vita Constant. L. ii. c. 51. p. 467.) after
 Fourth Edict of Diocletian, A. D. 304. 437

mentioning these later edicts of Diocletian, and saying that these edicts, as it
were cruenlis mitcronibus scripia esse, describes their import thus: T'J? Si

Judicibus praecipit, ut ingenii solertiam ad acerbiores cruciatus excogitandos in-

tenderent. That this description cannot refer to new modes of capital punish-
ment, or new ways of putting men to death, which the governors were to de-
vise, must be manifest. Neither did Diocletian wish the Christians to be slain,
but to have them brought bacli to the religion of their ancestors by coercion
and force. The passage must therefore be understood of new modes of torture
and suffering; and the Emperor would remind the magistrates, that as experi-
ence had shown that the Christians were not moved by the usual methods of
torture, they must exert their iugenuily to devise new modes of torture, and
new forms of suffering, by which the minds of these obstinate persons might be
subdued, and they be induced to honor the gods. And that this was the import of
the edict, is put beyond all dispute, by the manner of its execution, as described
by Lactandus, a spectator of it, (Instit. divinar. L. v. c. 11. p. 449.) He [p. 939.]
represents most of the judges as being careful not to kill any of the Christians;
but, as the Emperor had directed the invention of new modes of torture, they,
as it were, vied with each other in the ingenuity of their modes of compelling
Christians to apostatize: Dici non potest, hujusmodi judices quanta et quam
gravia tormentorum genera excogitaverint, ut ad ef!ectum propositi sui pervene-
rint. Hoc autem non tantum ideo faciunt, ut gloriari possint, nullum se inno-
centium peremisse, - - sed et invidia) caussfl, ne aut ipsi vincantur, (namely, by
other judges. That judge, therefore, who could not overcome his Christians by
his modes of was considered as outdone by others.) aut illi (Christiani)
torture,

virtutis sua3 gloriam consequantur. Itaque in excogitandis poenarum generibua

nihil aliud, quam vicloriam, cogitant. Sciunt enim certamen esse illud et pug-
nam. - - Contendunt igitur, ut vincant, et exquisitos dolores corporibus im-
mittunt, et nihil aliud devitant, quam ut ne torti morianlur. - - Illi pertinaci
8tultiti;\ jubent curam tortis diligenter adhiberi, ut ad alios cruciatus membra
renoventur, et reparetur novus sanguis ad pnenam. Could there be any stronger
proof, than this testimony of the very eloquent man narrating what fell under
his own observation, that Diocletian did not wish the Christians put to death,
but on\)' worried out w'\X\\ tortures, until they should apostatize! Whence it

follows, that he by no means decreed the capital punishment of such as would

not sacrifice. But there are other arguments to the same point. In the Eccles.
History of Eusebius, (L. ix. c. 9. p. 360.) there is an edict of Maximin in favor
of the Christians, which is of great weight in this matter. For, first, Maximin
states the substance of the edict of Diocletian and Maximian Galerius against
the Christians, precisely in accordance with our views: Domini ac parentes nos-
tri. Diocletianus et Maximianus, recte atque ordine constituerunt, ut quicunque
a Deorum suorum religione descivissent, publica animadversione ac siipplicio ad
eorundem cuUum revocarentur. Therefore, they ordered no man to be put to
death. And next, he tells us, how the judges in the East obeyed the decree:
Ego vero cum in Orientis provincias venissem, comperi qnamjlurimos homines,
qui reipublicsb usui esse possent, ob earn quam diximus caussam a judicibus in
438 Century IV. — Section 4.

certa loca relegari. Therefore, in tlie East, the judges merely sent into exile
those Christians whom they could not bring to apostasy by tortures. Who
does not see from Emperors did not decree the capital punishment
this, that the
of the unyielding Christians? For if the persisting Christians were willing to
die, the judges who should only order them into exile, would act contrary to

the mandate of their sovereigns, and would incur their displeasure. But a tine
passage in Eusebius, (Hist. Eccles. L. viii. c. 12. p. 306, 307.) entirely settles
the point. Having stated many examples of Christians most cruelly slain, in
[p. 940.] Egypt, Pontus, Syria, and other countries, he adds, that the judges,
desparing of etfecting anything by inhumanity and cruelty; ad clemenliam et
humanitatem se converlisse. Neque enim fos esse aiebant, ut urbes civium
sanguuie contaminarentur, - - sed potius decere, ut humanitas et beneficentia
Imperitoriae majestatis in universos diifunderetur, nee posthac nostri capitali sup-
plicio plectereiitur : Quippe hujusmodi poena per Imperitorum indulgentiam
(if;u Tov ToJv HpaTouvTuv titKavd-poTriay) no3 liberatos esse. Yet it was a sorrowful
clemency, which the judges chose to substitute for severity. For, omitting ca-
pital punishment, they ordered that tiie Christians whom they could in no way
induce to worship the Gods, should have their eyes dug out, or one of their
legs disabled; and the innocent and holy men, thus mutilated, were condemned
to the mines. Yet, even this inhuman humanity, proves that the Emperors for-
bid, tacitly at least, the slaughter of the Christians; and the judges themselves
acknowledged it. —This nevv and horrid edict of Diocletian, therefore, in general
terms, directed the magistrates to command all citizens whatever, within their
several jurisdictions, to oifer sacrifices to theGods; and such as should resist
and refuse to offer sacrifices in the manner of their ancestors, they were to tor-
ture with every species of suffering and pain, until they would do as the Em-
perors required. Neither the measure nor the duration of these tortures was
prescribed, nor the method of proceeding with those who resisted these tortures
with a determined and invincible resolution. And hence each of the judges, ac-
cording to his personal character and disposition, put a more severe or a more
mild interpretation upon the Emperor's edict: some, as we have seen from the
decree of Maximin in Eusebius, only exiled those they could not subdue; others,
as we also learn from Eusebius, deprived those they could not overcome, of a
leg or an eye; others, infiuenccd by furious passion, condemned them either to
the wild beasts, or to decapitation, or to other horrid modes of execution and :

the most cruel persisted in torturing the Christians variously, until they died
from exhaustion. Many, also, for different reasons, proceeded contrary to the
will of the Emperor, and at once put to death the Christians whom they had
seized. I will cite a noticeable passage from Lactantius, (Instit. divinar. L. v.

c. 11. p. 448.) which admirably illustrates this subject, and clearly supports our
views of the import of Diocletian's edict. Quje per totum orbem singuli
(judices) gesserint, enarrare impossibile est. Quis enim voluminum numerus
capiet tam i)ifinita, tam varia genera crudelitatis? Accepta enim potestate
(which was not well defined,) fro suis moribus quisque sccvit. Alii pra? nimia
timiditate plus ausi sunt, quam jubebantur; (thus did the judges, who con-
demned the captives to die, which was not commanded :) alii suo proprio adver-
 Fourth Edict of Diocletian, A. D. 304. 439

BUS justos odio ;

quidam natural! mentis feritnte; nonnuUi, ut placerent, et hoc
officio viam sibi ad altiora munirent: aliqui ad oecidenduin praecipites [p. 941.]
extiterunt; sieut unus in Pliryj,''ia, populum emu ipso pariter
qui universuni
conventieulo concremavit. - - Illud vero pessimum genus est, cui clementiae
species falsa blanditur: ilie gravior, ille saevior est carnifex, qui nemiuem sta-
tuit occidere.

But while it is certain, that the governors and judges most unjustly put a
great many Christians to death in various ways, contrary to the
Emperors man-
date, must also be admitted, that among those put to death, there were not a
it

few, who, by their own fault, drew upon themselves capital punishment. I say

nothingofthosewhoattended religious meetings, which, from the commencement

of the persecution, was severely forbidden for these had some excuse for their
:

conduct. But there were otliers, who volnnlarily presented themselves before
the judges, professed that they were Christians, and most indiscreetly demanded
death. Says Sulpilius Severus, (Ilistoria sacra, L. ii. c. 32. p. 247. edit. Clerici.)

Certatim gloriosa in certamina ruebatur, multoque avidius turn martyria giorio-

sis mortibus quaerebanlur, quam nunc episcopatus pravis ambitionibus adpetun-

tur. Sulpilius speaks rhetorically. For it is equally wrong and contrary to

Christian morality, unnecessarily to seek marti/rdom, and to aspire after a bishop.
rick from motives of ambition. That there were persons influenced by such in-

considerate zeal as actually to seek death, appears from many examples in

Eusebius and others. I will mention one. After the fourth edict of the Em-
peror was brought into Palestine, six young men of Gaza, hearing that some
Christiana were to fight with wild beasts, all went to Urban the governor, with
their hands tied, confessed that they were Christians, and boasted, that they
were not afraid of the wild beasts. They were all put in prison, and after a
few days decapitated. And this rash conduct, Eusebius commends, (de mai*-
tyribus Falsest, c. 3. p. 321.) but I do not nor did the laws of the Church favor
;

this class of people. Is it at all strange, that those who thus insulted the Em-
peror, the public laws, and the governors, and audaciously provoked those
whom Christianity required them to respect, should be punished for their indis-
cretion, by proud men, high in power, and ignorant of true religion ?

(2) I have before stated, that Maximian Galerius was induced to persecute
and oppress the Christians, not merely by his superstition, but also by his lust

of power. He coveted supremacy in the republic, or wished to secure to him-

self and friends the entire Roman Empire, to the exclusion of the finiily of
Conslantius Chlorus. And as he de-paired of attaining his object without a
civilwar and great movements of dubious result, so long as the Christians, who
were all devoted to Constanlius and his son, remained secure and powerful, he

concluded that they must first of all be oppressed, and deprived of their re-
sources. That I am correct in these views, is clearly shown, if I do not mis-
take, by what this very ambitious man contrived and executed, while the perse-
cution was everywhere raging against the Christians. He dissembled [p. 942.]
his purpose of subjecting everything to himself and friends, so long as the edicts
against the Christians were moderate, and did not extinguish all hope of their
return to prosperity. But after he had prevailed, doubtless by various artificesi
440 Century IV. — Section 4.

on his father-in-law, in the year 304, to issue the very distressing edict already
described, and there seemed to be no salvation possible for the Christians, he
dropped the masli, and openly avowed wliat before he had kept concealed in his
own breast. In the latter part of the year 304, the condition of the Christians
had been made such, by the fourth edict of Diocletian, that they could attempt
nothing important, and could not raise a civil war in behalf of Constanlius and
his son. For, all Roman Empire were drenched in Chris-
the provinces of the
tian blood, except only Gaul, and even there the Christians could hold meetings
only within the palace. The temples dedicated to Christ were every where pros-
trated. Meetings for worship or other purposes, could no longer be held by
Christians. IMost of them had fled the Roman soil, and taken refuge among the
barbarians, who received them kindly. See the edict of Conslaniine the great:
(apud Eiisebium de vita Constantini L. ii. c. 53. p. 468.) Those unable or un-
willing to flee the country, hid themselves, and could not appear in public with-
out imminent peril of their lives and estates. Their principal men, including
the bishops and ministers of religion, were either slain, or maimed and sent to
the mines, or mulcted with exile ; so that the professors of Christianity were
every where without leaders and guides. Their property both public and pri-

vate had, for the most part, been seized by the greedy magistrates and judges.
From a dread of torture and protracted sufferings, many had procured their own
death and others, including not a few presiding
: and men of note or of
officers

rank and standing, had apostatized from Christ. The Christians, who had in
great numbers been connected with the court of Diocletian or with the army,
were all either put to death as culprits, or sent into exile, or detained in prisons.
The needy residue, weak and obscure, and consisting of persons of inferior
rank or standing, could not possibly disturb the republic, and take arms in be-
half of Constanlius. Therefore, all causes of fear being removed, Maximian
Galenus freely disclosed his designs, and made manifest that he wished to rule
the Roman Empire alone. In the first place, he constrained, partly by threats,
and partly by » rgument, his father-in-law Diocletian, to whom he was under the
greatest obligations, and also the other Augustus, Maximian Herculius, on the
Kalends of May A. D. 305, to divest themselves of the purple and the imperial
dignity, the former at Nicomedia, and the latter at Milan, and to retire to private

life. By what method he effected this momentous change, no one has told us
more distinctly and accurately than Lactanliiis ; (de mortibus persequutor. c.

17 &c. p. 954 &c.) This being accomplished, he assumed to himself the title

of Emperor of the East, and left to Conslantius Chlorus the rank of Emperor
[p. 943.]of the West. He hated Constantiiis exceedingly, and would therefore
have gladly deprived him of both life and official power: but Conslantius stood
strong in the affections both of the citizens and the soldiers, and he was guard-
ed by the powerful protection of the army. And therefore, perceiving that he
had not forces adequate, either to destroy a man of such vast power, or to de-
pose him, Maximian thought best not only to bear with him, but even to elevate
him and he was the more willing to do so, because he supposed the mildness of
:

Constantius left nothing to fear from him ; and moreover, as Constantius was
in lad iiealth, he hoped he would soon be removed by death. Says Laclantius^
 Maxiniian Emperor of the East, A. D. 305. 441

(de mortibita perseq. c. 20. p. 361.): Maximianus, postquam senibus expulsis,

quod voluit, et fecit, se jam solus totius orbis dominuin esse fcrebat. Nam Con-
Btantium, quamvis priorem nominari esset necesse, contemnebat, quod ot iiatura
mitis asset, et valetudine corporis impeditus. Hunc sperabat brevi obiturum, et
si non obisset, vel invitum exuerc facile videbatur. Quid enim faeeret, si a tri-
bus cogeretur imperium deponere. From Constantius' son Cotistanline, after-
wards styled the Great, he felt that more was to be feared, he being a young
man, and very hii^rhly esteemed by the people and the soldiers. But as he re-
sided at the Court of Nicouiedia, Maximian thought he had him in his power,
and that he could easily procure his death, either by assassination or by other
means. He indeed actually attempted this repeatedly, and especially in the fol-
lowing year, 306 and from tills may most manifestly be learned the general
:

designs of Maximian, and his reason for persecuting the Christians. Says
Laclaiitiiis, (loc. cit. c. 24. p. 968.) : Insidiis saepe juvenem appetiverat, quia
palam nihil audebat, ue contra se arma quod maxime verebatur, odia
civilia, et,

militum concitaret ; et sub obtentu But

exercitii et lusus feris ilium objecerat.

Conslanline, perceiving the perfidy and plots of the tyrant, sought safety by
flight, and went to his lather in Britain. And this wise step of the young man
alone, frustrated all the plans of Maximian, and procured for the Christian re-
ligion which the tyrant sought to exterminate, the victory over superstition, and
astonishing progress through the whole world. The only benefit, tlicrefore,
vvliicii Diocletian received Uom the edicts which he issued at the instigation of

his son-in-law against the Christians, was the loss of his empire. For Maximi-
an would never have dared to assail him and deprive him of the purple, if he
had seen him encompassed with Christian friends and ministers, of whom Maxi-
mian stood in the greatest fear, and the armies full of Christian soldiers. After —
gaining the supreme power, which he had long coveted, Maximian took for
himself and Constantius, without consulting Constantius, and against the will
of Diocletian, two Cesnrs, men entirely devoted to him the one was Scverns, ;

an Illyrian, and distinguisiied for nothing but his vices; the other was his sis-
ter's son, Daia, to whom he gave tlie name of Maximin. The former, under
Constantius, governed Italy, Sicily, and Africa : to the latter, his uncle [p. 944.]

committed the government of Syria and Egypt.

This great change in the civil government, brought some relief to the afflict-

ed Church. Eusebiiis (de martyr. Fairest, c. 13. p. 345.) expressly says, that
the western provinces, namely, Italy, Sicily, Gaul, Spain, Mauritania and Africa,
obtained peace, when the persecution had scarcely continued two years. Nor
will this appear strange, if we consider that Gaul, Spain, and Britain were go-
verned by Cojistanlitis Chlorus, the fijend of Christians, and a despiser of the
Gods and that Seienis, to whom the other western provinces, Italy, Sicily,
;

Mauritania and Africa, were subject, although he was a Cesar, was obliged to
respect the majesty and authority of the Emperor of the West. Neither was
Severus himself cruel ; though he was a drunkard, and immoderately addicted
to voluptuousness. And yet, what Eusebius states respecting the peace of the
western provinces, must not lead us to suppose, that they all enjoyed equal
tranquility and happiness. The Christians inhabiting the provinces under the
442 Century IV. — Section 4

immediate government of Constantius, namely, Spain, Gaul, and Britair,., were

undoubtedly, either by his command or with his consent, not only freed from
the peril of their lives and estates, but also allowed to hold religious meetings,
and to rebuild their prostrate temples. That it was so in Gaul, is certain. For,
as it has been well ascertained that in Gaul no violence had been done to their
persons, but only to their sacred edifices, the peace which Eusebius tells us was
restored to the Gauls, can be understood only as aifording them full liberty
from the Emperor, of resuming their suspended meetings, and rebuilding their
sacred edifices. In Spain, where the edicts of Diocletian had been more effec-
tive than in Gaul, and where many Christians had been tortured and shiin, the
same happ}^ state was not produced except in part; as will soon be shown.
Yet tiiere can be no doubt, that here :dso, after Co7islantius attained the rank of
Augustus and Emperor of the West, no Christian was molested on accout of
his religion and the bishops and others who had been imprisoned were set at
;

liberty. The Spani.uds, though loo eager for swelling the number of their
martyrs, yet acknowledge that, in the third and following years of the persecu-
tion, no person in their country suffered death for Christ. And this is put
beyond controversy, by the list of Spanish martyrs compiled by John de
Ferreras, (Histoire geiierale d'Espagne, tom. 1. p. 303, &c.) for the li^t termi-
nates in the second year of the persecution. — In the provinces governed by
Severus the Cesar, the state of the Christians was less happy. Penalties, tor-
tures and capital executions had indeed ceased, and private meetings were tole-
rated, and likewise bishops; but Christian temples, and the liberty of meeting
[p. 9-45.] publicly for worship, were by no means allowed. I suppose, this may
be inferred from the exantple of Africa: for undoubtedly, the same state of
things existed in the other provinces governed by Seierus, as in this. Optalus
Mileiilanus, (de schismate Donalistar. L. 1. c. 14. p. 14.) states, that a sort of
council of bishops was held, apud Cirtam civitatem, in domo Urbani Carisi, post
perseeutionem : and, that the meeting of this council was early in the Spring of
the year 305, is proved by unquestionable documents, and has long been de-
monstrated by learned men. And therefore, at the time of this council, near
the beginning of the third year of the persecution, the war upon Christians had
terminated in the province of Africa. But, that perfect peace was not yet re-
stored there, Oi>tatus shows in the same passage. For he says, that the bishops
met in a private dwelling, quia basilicae necdum fuerant reslitutae. And a little
after, (c. 16. p. 17.) he expressly states, that it was Maxentius, who at last gave
perfect tranquility to the African church ; and this could not have occurred be-
fore the year 307 Tempestas persecutionis peracta et definita est. Jubente
:

Deo, indulgentiam miltente Maxenlio, Christianis libertas est restituta. The

persecution therefore, in a measure ceased, in the province of Africa, after the
political changes we have described : The refugees returned to their country
the bishops could meet and deliberate on religious matters, without danger of
imprisonment or any punishment ; the offering of sacrifices was no longer re-
quired and those who would not worship the Gods, were not prosecuted as
;

culprits. And yet, it was after this, that, Indulgentiam miltente Maxentith
Christianis liberlas est restituta ; that is, they might not rebuild their temples*
 Maximian Emperor of the JEast, A. D. 30,5, 443

and they could not openly meet togetlier in public edifices for the worship of
God. In short, Severus truckled, lest he should nppear to disregard the will of
Conslanlius, by whose authority lie reigned and lie did not order the Christians ;

to be molested, and yet he did not revoke the previous laws against them, nor
suffer them openly to profess their religion.
But ill the eastern provinces, where Maximian Galerius with Maximin,
reigned, the calamities of tiie Christians became more grievous. For Maximian
enacted far more atrocious laws against the Christians than the former edicts,
and commanded that all, who could not be forced by repeated tortures to offer
sacrifices, should be burned to death in slow fires. Laclaniius speaks of these
laws,(de mortibus persequutor. c. 21. p. 964.) : Dignitatem non habentibus, poena
ignis fuit. Id exitii primo adversus Christianos permiserat, daii>i leiribus, ul post
tormenta damnati (that is, that such as could not be constrained by tortures to
forsake Christ, should be condemned, and) lends ignibus exurerentur. This ter-
rible punishment eloquently
de.'^cribed in this passage, by Laclaniius.
is And
he closes his by saying, that the bodies when roasted by the slow
account of it

fires, were again burned, and: Ossa lecta et in pulverem comminuta, in flumi?ia

et mare jactata fuisse. The testimony of Laclaniius is confirmed by [p. 946.]

Gvtgorij of Nyssa, (Orat. de S. Theodoro martyre, torn. iii. p. 581.) He e.xpli-

citly says, that a decree was issued by Maximian and Maxentius, that such as
would not renounce Christ, should be put to death: 'E* J^o-y/uaro; Qiof.d;)(_ou,

irdj XplrTiayoi hXauviTO Ta S'uwi^'d ypau/uiaTi kui Trpdi ^avaruv »ytTO. Impio
dccreto sancitum erat, ut quicunque Christianus esset impio script6 exagitare-
tur et ad mortem duceretur. What Gregory calls (Ti/jro-s^ic ypd/jtfjia, as appears
from that which is added, was a slip of paper fastened to the forehead of the
condemned Christians, on which was written the cause of their execution,
doubtless in ignominious terms. Gregory does not state the kind of death
inflicted : but the Theodorus, whose history he recites, after long continued and
extreme tortures, was cast into a fire : which goes to show, that the law of
Maximian mentioned by Laclaniius, was enforced also in Pontus. And yet,
that the procedure against the Christians was not in accordance with this law,
in all the provinces, appears from the examples in Eusebius and others, of
martyrs who perished by various modes of execution. Perhaps, therefore, in
certain provinces, for instance, Asia Minor, Pontus, &:c. the persevering Chris-
tians, by order of the Emperor, were consumed in a slow fire ; but in general,
only death was decreed against the unyielding Christians, while the kind oi
death was left to the choice of the magistrates. This conjecture, however, I finQ

to be unnecessary, on reviewing the statement of Laclaniius. For he does not

say, that execution by burning, was prescribed, but only permilled by the Empe-
ror. The law therefore, only in general, ordered recusant Christians to be put
to death, but left the judges free to burn them, or to execute them in some other
manner.
Maximin,who held Syria and Egypt, at first professed great lenity towards
the Christians. For, perceiving that many of those who refused to sacrifice to
the Gods had been exiled by the magistrates, he commanded the
in the East,
judges not to punish any of the Christians, nor to send them into exile, but ra-
444 Century IV. — Section 5.

ther to endeavor to gain them over to the worship of the Gods by Wandish-
ments and exhortations, without violence or terror. This, he himself states in
his edict preserved by Eusebius, (Hist. Eccles. L. ix. c. 9. p. 360.) And I sup-
pose wa may believe him, alihough some learned men think he speaks fal.-ely.

For Eusebius, after reciting the edict containing these dtciarations, adds, that
the Christians would not avail themselves of the advantages offered them in the
edict ;
Quod jam antea post pacem Christianis similiter indultam, versutiam ao
perfidiam suam ostendisset. Thus Eusebius admits, that Maximin for a time
showed himself mild and placable towards the Christians, and allowed them to
live in peace; yet he adds, that this kind treatment was not permanent. The
insidious or perfidious peace here referred to, was undoubtedly that peace which
is mentioned in the edict. But, not long afterwards, either from his own super-

[p. 947.] stition which was very great, or excited by the authority and influence
of his uncle, or lastly, from discovering the little success of tiie lenity he had
shown, Maximin assailed the Christiars everywhere, with such fury, that he
seemed to exceed all their other persecutors in cruelty. Eusebius, (de martyr.
Falsest, c. 4. p. 323, 324.) tells us, that this new or second assault upon the
Christians by this Cesar, commenced in the third year of the Diocletian perse-
cution. He sent forth edicts, through all the provinces under him, commanding
the magistrates to compel all the citizens, without exception, to offer sncrifices.
And thereupon, the judges, dispatching criers tiirougliout the cities, summoned
all heads of families to come to the temples, and obey tlie impeiatorial mandate
and those who refused were stretched upon the rack, and at last, if they would
not yield, were put to death by various modes of execution. The most sicken-
ing examples are described by Eusebius. See his Eccles. Hist. (L. viii. c. 14.
p. 31 1, 312. L. ix. c. 2. 3. 4. p. 349, &.c.) and his tract on the Martyrs of Pales-
tine, (c. 4. p. 322.) also Laclantius, (de mortibus persequutor. c. 36. p. 987. and

c. 38. p. 990.)

8 V. Civil wars, and state of Christians, from A. D. 306 to

A. D. 311. Maximian Galmus, by the slaughter and des-
"While
truction of the Christians and other tyrannical arts, was seeking
to obtain for himself and son-in-law the supreme power over the
whole empire, divine Pi'ovidence suddenly disturbed all his co-
gitations and all his concealed plans. For in the year 306 Con-
stantius Chlorus, his colleague Emperor, whose death he had long
anticipated, died in Britain, having by his will appointed, as the
heir to his empire, Constantine, his son ; the very man of whom
Maximian stood most in fear and the soldiers, immediately on
:

the death of the father, proclaimed the son Augustus and £m23e-
ror. To this adverse occurrence Maximian found it necessary to
submit but he craftily sought to modify it somewhat, that it
;

might produce the less harm. He unwillingly conceded to Cb?i-

^tantine the lowest place among the Sovereigns of the Empire,
 Events, A. D. 300-311. 445

with the title of Cesar: aud at the same time he raised Severas,
previously a Cesar, to the rank of an Augustus or Emperor, thus
curtailing the power of Constantine. But the obstruction which
human sagacity opposed to the rising power of Constantine^ the
current of events soon prostrated. Maxentius, the son-in-law of
Maximian Galerius, and the son oi Maximian HerciiUus, indignant
that jSeverus should be preferred before him, assumed to himself
the rank of Emperor, and took for a colleague his own father,
whom Maximian had deprived of empire. And [p. 948.]
Galerius
hence arose, in the Koman world, very great commotions and
most destructive civil wars in which, fortune so favored Con-
;

stantine^ that he obtained, contrary to the calculations aud the

will of his enemy Maximian, the rank of Augustus and Empe-

ror. Amidst these civil commotions, the Christians experienced
various fortune, especially in the countries of the East : for the
servants of Christ in the western provinces, if we except those of
Africa and Italy, none of the troubles of those tempestuous
felt

times. For those who contended for political power, according

as they supposed the Christians might aid or thwart their wishes
and interests, showed themselves either friendly or hostile to
them.(') This dubious and fluctuating state of things, Maximian
Galerius, the author of so great evils and sufferings to the Chris-
tians, himself at length terminated. For while laboring under a
long continued and distressing disease, previous to his death, in
the year 311, he issued a public edict, restoring the Christians to
their ancient tranquillity.(')

(1) The events, both prosperous and adverse to the church, wliich occurred
from the year 306, when Constanlius Chlorus died in Britain, to the year 311,
when the dying Maximian Galerius gave peace to the Cliristians, cannot be
correctly understood and appreciated without a knowledge of the great politi-
cal changes during that period. For these changes, if I do not wholly misjudge,
exhibit the causes both of the good and the ill fortune of the christian com-
munity for so great was the multitude of Christians, who increased even
:

amid the calamities they endured, that it would be readily perceived that the
party, to which they should adhere and af!'ord aid and assistance, would have
the superiority. And lience, those who were eager to reign, either oppressed
and persecuted the Christians, whom they feared, or courted, sincerely or feign-
edly, their favor. Maxi?nian Galerius, who very manifestly wished to engross
to himself and friends the whole Roman empire, to the exclusion of the family
of Constanlius Chlorus, endeavored to oppress the Christians, who were devot-
ed to Constantine and his son, lest they should thwart his designs. And h«
446 Century IV. — Section 5,

would doubtless have attained his wishes, if Constantine had not eluded his
life, by
repeated attempts on his flying to his father in Britain. Maximian had
to dissemble his chagrin at this unexpected flight ; but being sovereign of the
greatest part of the Roman empire, he hoped he should be able, without much
dilEcuUy, to conquer the young man when bereft of his father, if, without his
consent, he should arrogate to himself sovereign power. He undoubtedly rea-

soned at that time, as Lactanlius says he did when he granted the imperial pur-

[p. 949.] pie to Constandus Chlorus, (de mortibus persequutor. e. 20. p. 962.) :

Quid faciei, si a tribus cogelur imperium deponere 1 And yet he did not so
rely on this expectation, as to neglect other methods of removing the impending
danger. For he tried, with blandishments, to entice Constantine out of Britain,
and allure him to his court. Says Laclantius, (loc. cit. c.24. p. 968.) : Qui (Constan-
tius Chlorus) cum graviter (morbo) laboraret, miserat (Maximianus) litteras, ut
filium suum Constantinum remitteret sibi videndum, quem jamdudum repetie-
rat. But he could not persuade either the father or the son, to comply with his
request. And the death of Conslanlius, which occurred soon after, in the year
306, frustrated all his efforts. For, as we are told by very credible writers,
(Libanius, Eusebius, Julian, and others,) Conslanlius, by his last will and tes-
tament, transferred to his son, as his patrimony, all the provinces which he had
governed while living : and the soldiers, having a knowledge of this
imme- will,

diately after the death of Conslanlius, proclaimed Emperor Constantine both

and Aitgustus. Nothing could have occurred more disagreeable to Maximian.
But, as he could foresee that a tedious and hazardous civil war would arise, if
he should altogether ?et aside the decision of the soldiers, he concluded to yield
to necessity, and to correct the evils which time might bring forth, by his pru-

dence. He, therefore, took a sort of middle course, which had some show of
equity. He assigned to ConstanUne his father's provinces, Gaul, Spain and
Britain, with the rank of the fourth among the Sovereigns, and the title of Ce-
sar. And Constantine, a sagacious young man, and equally afraid of a civil
war, contented himself with the constrained liberality of his enemy. But, that
Constantine might not be equal to his father in power and resources, Maximian
assumed to himself for colleague, the man who was entirely under his control,
Seierus, hitherto the administrator in Italy .-ind Africa with the title of Cesar,
and made him Emperor and Augustus, in place of the deceased Constanlius.
Seierus had previously governed I/aly and Africa, not independently, but in
subordination to Conslanlius : which had been very advantageous to the Chris-
tians living For he did not dare to disquiet those, to
under his jurisdiction.
whom the Emperor ofWest, Conslanlius, gave his protection. He now
the
received, with the honor of Emperor, the supreme power over Italy and Africa:
and from these provinces, if Maximian should so order, war might ea>ily be
caried into Spain and Gaul, where Conslantine ruled. The new arrangement of
the Roman government was, therefore, wisely contrived to hold Constantine in

check, and if necessar}% to subdue him by war. But, contrary to all expecta-
tion, Maximian himself was caught by those very snares, which he had laid for
Conslantine. There was then living as a private citizen, on a fjxrm in the vici-
nity of Rome, Maxenlius, the son-in-law of Maximian Galerius, and the son of
 Political Events, A. D. 30G-341. 447

that Maximian HercuUus, who had unwillingly abdicated the empire, at the
same time with Diocletian. Tliis Maxentins, a very proud man, was indignant
that Cnnstantine and Seiervs should be preferred before him ; and [p. 950.]
therefore, raising a sedition at Rome and in Italy, he not only assumed to him-
Emperor and Augustus, but likewise persuaded his father,
self tiie rank of
Maximius HercuUus, again to seize the helm of government. There were,
therefore, at the close of the year 306,/o2<r Augusli, three in Its'v and one in
the East ; and two Cesars, the one in Gaul, Cnnstantine, the other in the East,
Maximin. The next year, 307, Maximian Galerius sent Sevenis, at the head
of .1 numerous and powerful army, against the new Emperors in Italy. But
Secenis was unsuccebsful, and, being captured by Maximian HercuUus, wna in-
duced to destroy his own life. Ulaximian Galerius was enraged, but not dis-
couraged, by this victory. HercuUus therefore, foreseeing that Galerius would
soon appear in Italy, at the head of a fresh army, to avenge the death of his
friend Sever us, went Gaul to Constanline the Cesar, and offered him
hastily into
his daughter Fausta, and the rank of Emperor and Augustus, if he would enter

into alliance with him. ConslanUne consented, married Fausta, and exchanged
the title of Cesar for that of Emperor. Again, therefore, there were four Em-
perors presiding over the Roman commonwealth,
West, and one inthree in the
the East: and but one Cesar, namely Maximin. While HercuUus was in Gaul,
Maximian Gaerius arrived in Italy with his army; but he could neither take
Rome, nor induce his son-in-law 3/ajre7i/ jus, to receive the purple and the impe-
rial dignity from his hand. He therefore returned to the East, with ignominy,
and not witiiout great peril to his life and fortune. After the departure of Max-
imian Galerius, HercuUus returned to Rome and, as his son would not be obe-
:

dient to him, he attempted to expel him from the throne. Rut he was unsuc-
cessful, for the soldiers fought in defence of MaxenUus : and therefore, leaving
Italy, HercuUus tied tirst to his son-in-law Conslantine in Gaul, and soon after-
wards to his enemy Maximian Galerius, at that time in Dalmatia. In this very
difficult posture of public affairs, Maximian Galerius, who was very corpulent,
and of course sluggish, perceiving hisneed of the aid of some active and ener-
getic man, beloved by the soldiers, and competent to meet MaxenUus in the
field and restore the republic to tranquillity created
his intimate friend Lkinius,
;

a mannot di.stinguished for birth or virtue, but a good soldier, and in great
favor with the soldiers. Emperor and Augustus. But thi.s remedy, which the
Emperor devised for existing evils, most unfortunately only produced new evils.
For, Maximin, his sister's son, who had hitherto governed the East witi, the
title when informed that Licinius was promoted to the rank of Em-
of Cesar,
peror,was indignant, and the next year, 308, with the consent of his soldiers,
he assumed the same rank and to prevent the rise of a new war, Maximian
:

Galerius deemed it necessary to sanction this rash act of Maximin. [p. 951.]
Roman empire had six Sovereigns; and a seventh
Therefore, in the year 308, the
appeared the same year in Africa, in the person of Alexander; but his reign was
not long. During all these changes and commotions, Conslantine in Gaul, cau-
tious and provident, was a quiet spectator, his only aims being, to render the
provinces he governed tranquil and secure against the incursions of the adjacent
448 Century IV. — Section 5.

barbarians, and to strengthen his power by the attachment of his people to him.
In tlie meantime, his father-in-law Herculius, returned from the East to Gaul,
and laying aside the purple and tiie title of Empeor, pretended to be resolved
to spend the remainder of his life in quietude. Constantine put confidence in
the perfidious man, who all the while was plotting another neftirious project.
Though an old man, he was inflamed beyond measure with the lust of domini-
on and as he saw every avenue to the supreme power closed against him, he
;

contemplated the dethronement of his son-in-law, that he might reign in hia

place. He therefore made war upon Constantine, was vanquished, and for a time
feigned penitence and great moderation; but in the year 310, he returned to his
old habits, and attempted to murder Constandne in his bed-chamber; and being
convicted of this crime, by order of his son-in-law, he hung himself in prison.

While these events were passing in Gaul, Maximian Galerius in the East, was
preparing for war against Maxenlius; and, to raise funds, he imposed very hea-
vy burdens upon the citizens. But in the midst of his great enterprises, and
while every where oppressing the Christians, whom he considered as the princi-
pal obstacle to his success, he was attacked by a dreadful disease in the year
310, and the next year, 311, exhausted by intolerable pains and sufferings, he
ended his days.

What befell the Christians, amidst these various and memorable revolutions
in the Roman government, we will now state, so far as we can learn the facts
from the writers of those times; who are not indeed contemptible, yet are not
very accurate, nor diligent, nor free from partiality, nor well versed in public
affairs and the policy of courts. If historians of this period, like Liiy, Tacitus
and Polihius, had come down to us, we could much better trace the course of
events, and mark the steps by which Christianity rose to dominion over the Ro-
man world. Tiie writers, not Cin-istian, such as Zosimus and Aurelius Victor,
only give us dry summaries of events. The Christian writers are more full,
especially Lactantius, (in his tract de niortibus persequutor.) and Euscbius.
But they are excessive in their praise of the virtues and probity of Constantine,
and continually heap reproaches on Maximian and his friends as well as ene-
mies; and they ascribe everything to God, who, they tell us, avenged the cru-
elties of Maximian, rewarded the piety and wisdom of Constantine, and, in a

wonderful manner, exalLed the Christian religion over the worship of the Gods,
[p. 952.] This is pious, and commendable; and the facts stated are true: and yet
it is manifest, that human passions and worldly policy, had no small influence in
these transactions.
I begin with the West. Constantine, i\s soon as he had obtained power and
the title of Cesar, gave to the Christians of his provinces, full liberty to profess
their religion, and to worship God according to the divine prescription. His fa-

ther, as we have already seen, had forbidden the Christians to be molested: but
he had not confirmed this by a public law; nor had he given them the liberty,
beyond the limits of Gaul, of assembling publicly for worship, of holding coun-
cils, of rebuilding their prostrate temples, or of creating bishops. But Constan-
tine freely bestowed on them all these privileges, and this not in a private way,
but by issuing a public edict. That edict is the oldest of all his religious sta-
 Character of Consiantine. 449

tates. S;i3's Lacianiius. (de inortibus perseqo.utor, c. 24. p. 969.) Suscepto

imperio, Constantiiius aiigjstus nihil egit priiis, quam Christianos cultui ac Deo
suo reddere. Haec fuit prima ejus sanctio .sanctae religioiiis restitutae. Nearly
the same tilings are stated in his divine Institutes, (L. 1. c. 1. p. 6.) where he
says to Consiantine : Salutarem — principatum praeclaro initio auspicatus es, cum
eversam sublatamque justitiam reducens, teterrimum aliorum faeinus e.vpiasti.
The first of these passages manifestly describes the nature of the benefit, con-
ferred by Consiantine on the Christians at the commencement of his reign. For
Laclanlius says, that he Christianos cultui ac Deo suo reddidisse. They had
already been freed from the fear of death and of punishment, by his father;
but it was Consiantine, who cultui eos el Deo sua reddebal ; that is, who restored
their Ic-st power of publicly worshipping God, and of course also of consecrat-
ing edifices to this worship. Consiantius Chlorus, therefore, although friendly
to the Christians, had not conceded to his Spanish subjects, and perhaps not to
his British, the liberty of holding religious meetings, and of public worship ; aa
we have before attempted to prove. —This remarkable kindness of Consiantine
to the Christians, which was the prominent trait in his character, most certainly,
did not proceed from any love for the religion professed by the Christians ; for at
that time he was quite ignorant of this religion. Neither did it proceed from any
magnanimity, justice, equity, or any similar characteristics of his mind ; for these
virtues were very imperfect in him, before he embraced Christianity. I can dis-
cover and appreciate, in Consiantine, before he became a Christian, "prudence, for-
tilude, and skill in governing but I also discover in him many things very un-
;

becoming in a good, wise, magnanimous and just prince, and indicative of a

These declarations it
proud, ambitious, cruel mind, destitute of true virtue.
may be proper by some examples, lest I should appear to assail,
to confirm,
without reason, a prince renowned on so many accounts. I. In the war be- —
tween him and the Franks and Alemanni, in the beginning of his reign, aa
Eutropius tells us, (Breviar. Histor. Rom. L. x. c. 3. p. 457.) the captured kings
of these nations, Bestiis objecil, cum magnificum spectaculum muneris parasset.
A little after, passing the Rhine, he invaded the Bructeri, a people of the Fran-
cic race, slew a great number, and again condemned the captives to [p. 953.]
the wild beasts. See the Panegyrici veleres, published at Antwerp by Livi-
neius, (Orat. ix. p. 197, 198.) These kings and people had broken their cove-

rKinis but such punishments are not indicative of a just and good, but of a bar-
;

barous and cruel prince temperate severity becomes a wise and humane gene-
:

ral, even in the most just wars. —

II. Herculius, when the civil v/ar with his son

arose in Italy, went to Consiantine in Gaul, and offered him his daughter Faus-
tii, with the title of Emperor and Augustus; and Consiantine very eagerly re-

ceived both ; an act unworthy of a magnanimous prince, and manifestly indica-

tive of a mind swelling with pride and ambition. Herculius, whom he knew to
be perfidious and tyrannical, had no power of conferring dominion and rank and
titles of honor: and Consiantine must have been greedy of honor, and exceed-

ingly vain, to suppose that he could be elevated and honored by such a man,
and to actually receive honors at his hands. And yet, to this man, his father-

in-law, patron, friend, and confederate, he would afterwards afford no aid, either

VOL. n. 30
450 Century IV. — Section 5.

against Maximian
Galerius, or his son Maxenlius. Herculius fled from Italy,
and arriving Gaul implored the good faith of tlie son-in-law: but the son-in-
in

law could not be moved. III. A far worse and a blacker crime, undoubtedly,
was, his compelling this very Herculius, from whom he had received both the
purple and a wife, to be his own executioner. Says Lactantius, (de mortibus
pers. c. 30. p. 977.) : Datur ei (there vvas given to Herculius, by his son-in law
Constantine,) polesias liberae mortis : in the use of which he hung himself with
a rope. How cruel a favor for a son-in-law towards his fither-in-law ! I ad-
mit, that Herculius had been guilty of a great crime ; for he liad sought to take
the life of liis son-in-law ; if we believe what Laclanlius and some otlier histo-
rians relate. But this will not efface the mark of cruelty and inhumanity on
Constantine. If Herculius deserved that punishment, it was certainly most un-
suitable for Constantine to pass the sentence on his father-in-law, then venera-
ble for his hoary head. —IV. As to his religion, I suppose, that before he
became a was of no religion. His father had worshipped
Christian, Constantine
the one God, despising the Gods of the nations: and Eusehius expressly tells
us, (de vita Constant. L. 1, c. 17. p. 416.) that all his children, he {Uni omnium
Regi Deo consecraierat ; that is,) had taught them to worship the one God,
and to hold the Gods of the Romans and the other nations in contempt. Con-
stantine, therefore, in obedience to the commands of his father, as he himself ad-

mits, in his edict preserved by Eusehius, (de vita Constant. L. ii. c. 49. p. 466.)
wished to be accounted a worshipper of the one God. And yet, when occasion
seemed to require it, and lest he should alienate the minds of the people and
soldiers from him, he supplicated the Gods, gave thanks to them, and offered
them sacrifices For example, the insurrection of the Franks, in the
and gifts.

year 308, being quelled sooner than was expected, he repaired immediately to the
[p. 954.] temple of Apollo —
of that Apollo, whose oracles he had ridiculed and
detested, when he was a young man in the court of Diocletian, as he himself re-
lates, (apud Eusebium de vita Constant. L. ii. c. 50. p. 467.) he went, I say, —
into the temple of Apollo, and by most splendid gifts, and by prayers to that
God, he manifested his gratitude for the peace bestowed by him on the empire.
See the Panegyrici veteres, by Livineius, (Orat. ix. p. 204, 205.) Such being —
the character of Constantine, before iiis conversion to Christianity, I fully believe,

that the fivors he conferred on the Christians, from the very commencement of
his reign, did not proceed cither from his humanity and justice, or from any love
for the Christian religion, but were owing solely to his desire to establish his
own authority in the empire. Fearing the power and snares of Maximian Go-
lerius, whom he knew to be his enemy, he wished to secure to himself firm pro-
tection in the Christians, against all adverse occurrences and the machinations
of the tyrant.
His kinsman or wife's brother, Maxentius, on assuming the imperatorial dig-
nity, followed the example of Constantine, and for the same reason. In the
provinces which Severus had governed, namely Italy and Africa, after the death
of Constantius Chlorus, and when Severus became an Emperor, the persecutiona
against the Christians waxed a little more severe. But Maxentius, equa.\\y with
Constantine, as soon as he assumed imperatorial power, prudently, and to seo
 '

State of Christians, A. JD. SOl-Sll. 451

cure the; good will of the Christians, put an end to those movements, and forbid
the Chiistians to be molested. As to Africa,we have a substantial witness in
Optalus Miledla7ius,who says, (de schisinate Donatist. L. 1. c. 16. p. 17.) Max- :

entium indulgentiam misisse, atque libertatem Christianis restituisse. By the

word indulgentiam, we may understand permission to meet publicly for the
worship of God, and to create bishops, and build temples. By the word liber-
tatem, we may understand/wZZ liberty, such as they enjoyed before the persecu-
tion of Diocletian. For the liberty of worshipping God privately, without fear,
they had previously enjoyed under Severus. — As to Italy and the other parts of
the Roman empire subject to Maxeniius, Eiisehius, (Hist. Eccles. L. viii. c. 14.
p. 310.) gives such an account, as confirms our statement of the cause o( Max.
entius' kindness to the Christians. It was feigned or political benevolence. For
he says that Maxeniius went so far, Ut religionis Christians professionera
simularet, fictam pietatis speciem prae se tulisse, civibus praecepisse, ut a perse-
outione Christianorum desisterent. And he adds, that his motive was, Ut in eo
morem gereret, blandireturque populo Romano. 'Et' df>i<r».iU Kai Ko\aKii<t to5
S'lif^cu l>a:/itaitjv. A great part, therefore, perhaps the greatest part of the Romish
people, was Christian, or at least friendly to Christianity : and to secure their
aid and attachment, against Maxiniian Galerius, who was meditating war upon
him, he not only annulled all the edicts against the Christians, but even pretend-
ed to be ready to quit the religion of his ancestors, and to embrace Christianity.
He therefore appeared to exceed Constantine, in good will towards [p. 955.]
Christians : for Constantine, though he showed himself friendly to the Chris-
tians, manifested no disposition to embrace their religion, but continued to serve
the Gods of the Romans.
The state of the Chi'istians was therefore tolerably prosperous in the West.
But in the eastern provinces, governed by Maximian Galerius and Maximin, the
storm against them raged with the greater violence. This we learn from several
writers, and especially Eusebius, (Historia Eccles. and de martyr. Paleestinae.)
Yet the monuments of this period that have reached us, though few, leave no
room for doubt, that in those provinces, likewise, the state of the Christians was
afTected by that of the commonwealth; and that Maximin especially, was some-
times more indulgent and sometimes more severe, towards the Christians in his
provinces, as circumstances seemed to him to demand. In the sixth year of the
persecution, A. D. 308, according to Eusebius, (de martyr. Falsest, c. 9. p. 332.)
the war upon the Christians in Syina and Palestine, seemed to cease and even ;

tliose condemned to the mines, were restored to freedom but, after a short :

time, the persecution raged with more violence than before. For new edicts
against the Christians, were issued by Maximin, which required that the de-
caying temples of the Gods should be repaired, and that all the people, chi/dren
and slaves not excepted, should be forced by penalties to eat the flesh sacrificed
to the Gods. Eusebius confesses, that he does not know the causes of these
suspensions and renewals of the persecution. But it will be manifest, to a per-
son consulting the civil history, that in this year, (308,) Maximin a<-sumed the
and rank of Emperor in Syria, contrary to the will of Maximian : and
title

Maximian appeared disposed to avenge this rash act by a war. Now, so long
452 Century IV. — Section 5.

as Maximian's wrath continued, Maximin spared the Christians in his provinces,

in order to conciliate their good will. But when Maximian was appeased, the
new Emperor Maximin issued fresh edicts against the Christians; in order to
show, that he would employ the power conceded to him, agreeably to the plea-
sure of the chief Emperor, whom he knew to be hostile to the Christians, and in
order to Insinuate himself the more effectually into his good graces. This new
fury, after a little time, abated: for Maximin concluded, he had fulfilled his ob-
ligations by his edicts; and he thought it not best to exasperate the feelings of
Christians too much, lest they should turn against him, on the demise of Maxi-
mian, whose declining and very bad health indicated that his death was ap-
proaching. And therefore, in the latter part of the seventh year of the perse-
cution, (309,) and in the beginning of the eighth, (310,) the Christians, (ac-
cording to Eusebius, de martyr. Palaest. c. 13. p. 343.) enjoyed the highest

peace, and surprising liberty ; so that even those who had been condemned to

the mines, now built temples. But this peace was interrupted, in the course of
the year 310, by the governor of the province, who informed the Emperor, that
the Christians abused their liberty. And hence new calamities occurred, and
[p. 956.] many Christians were put to death of whom thirty-nine were beheaded
;

on one and the same day, by order of Maximin. This tempest, however, was
short, and soon clemency was thought to be safer policy than severity. For in
this year, Maximian was attacked by that terrible disease, which the next year
put an end to his life: and, as all could see, that the disease must terminate
fatally, and as it was feared that, after his death, great commotions and contests

for the supremacy would arise, prudence induced Maximin to desist from per-
secuting the Christians. And Maximian Galerius himself, the author of the
persecution, writhing under a horrible disease, gradually laid aside his cruelty,
as his strength and life wasted away. And hence, on the one side the fear of
war, and on the other, the fear of death, restored peace and security everywhere
to the Christians. See Eusebius, (Historia Eccles. L. viii. c. 16. p. 314.)

(2) The disease of Maximian Galerius is described particularly, by Eusebius^

(Hist. Eccles. L. viii. c. 16. p. 314.) and by Laclaniius, (de mortibus persequutor.
c. 33 &c. p. 981 &c.) Nothing can be conceived more distressing. For, a can-
cer attacked his immoderately fat body, and by eating gradually, amid horrible
sufferings, converted it into a living corpse. When various remedies had been
tried in vain, and no hope of recovery remained, a little before his death, in the
month of A. D. 311, by a public edict, in the name of all the Emperors, he
April,
abolished the laws enacted against the Christians. This edict is extant in a
Greek version from the Latin, in Eusebius, (Hist. Eccles. L. viii. c. 17. p. 415.)

and the Latin in Lacianiius, (de mort. perseq. c. 34. p. 984.) In this edict, he
permits, Ul denuo sint Christiani, et convenlicula sua (their sacred edifices or
temples) component (erect or build). But upon this condition, Ut nequid contra
disciplinam agant. By the disciplinam, he means the Roman religion ; as ap-
pears from the preamble to the edict, in which he says, that he, Antehac voluisse
cuncta juxta disciplinam publicam Romanorura corrigere. Therefore, in re-
storing peace to the Christians, the Emperor required of them, that they should
form no projects against the public religion of the Romans, and should not pre-
 State of Christians, A. D. 306-311. 453

sume to assail the Gods, either by words or actions. Indeed, the condition
seems to extend and to require of Christians, that they should not
still farther,
attempt to convert any one from the religion of his ancestors to Christianity. —
Eusebius and Laclaniius tell us, that Maximian, before he issued this edict,
Deo errorem suum confessum esse, atque e.xclamasse inter dolores, se pro sce-
lere salisfactiirum. And if this was the fact, then he confessed, that the Chris-
tians' God was justly punishing- him for his cruelty to the Christians, and that

he was conscious of this divine retribution. But the very edict of the Emperor,
which tiiese writers exhibit, militates against the credibility of their statement.
For Maximian is so far from there confessing that he had done wickedly and
unjustly, that he maintains, on the contrary, tliiit every thing he had done ag-iinst
the Christians, had been done wisely and well. And he tells us, that he had
aimed to effect, by his laws, Ut Cluistiani, qui parentum suorum reli- [p. 957.]
querant sectam, ad bonus menles redirenl. And therefore, in this hist act of his
life, he represents the Cluistians as being senseless; and he entertained no doubt,
that the religion of the Romans was better and more sound than that of Chris-
tians. A little after, he explicitly charges the Christians with stuUilia; and not
a syllable does he utter, from wh.ich it can be inferred, that any penitence for
his conduct had entered his heart, ©r that he regarded Christianity as the only
true and divine religion. He states two reasons for changing his policy towards
the Christians. First, he had noticed that the Christians, while urged by vio-

lence and peril to offer sacrifices, lived destitute of all religion, and neither wor-
shipped Christ nor the Gods: Cum plurimi in proposito perseverarent, ac vide-
remus, nee Diis eosdem cultum ac religionem di-bitam exhibere, nee Christiano-
rum Deum observare. And any religion, even a corrupt
therefore, considering
one, to be better than none, he would rather have the Christians follow their
own religion, than have no religion at all. And secondly, to this he adds ano-
ther reason, namely, his cZernencT/; Contemplationem mitissimce clemenlicc nos-
tras intuentes et consuetudinem senipiternam, qua solemus cunctis hominibus
veniain indulgore, promtissimam quoque indulgentiam nostram credidimus
in his

porrigendani, ut denuo sint Chiistiani. Maximian therefore would not have it

thought, that he followed right and justice, but rather clemency; and that he
was indulgent to persons whom he pronounced /ooZs, and destitute of sense, and
not that he showed himself _;"us/ to the innocent and the good. I can readily
suppose, that the friends who were his counsellers, suggested these reasons to
him. Yet the concluding words of the edict, undoubtedly, disclose the cause
which drew this edict from him, and also manifest his views of tiie Christian re-
ligion Unde juxta banc indulgentiam nostram debebunt (Christiani) Deum suum
:

orare pro salute nostra et reipubliccc ac sud, ut undique vgrsum respublica restet
incolumis, et securi vivere in sedibus suis possint. From these words, it is ma-
nifest, — That Maximian believed, the Christians had some sort of a God.
I. •

II. That this God was not the supreme Creator of all things, whom all men
ought to worship, but merely the God of Christians, or the God of a particular

race, such as many other of the Gods. For the Romans, the Greeks, and all

the nations, in that age, believed that each race of people had its appropriate
and peculiar God. — III. That this God of a particular race, possessed great
 454 Century IV. — Section G.

power, so that he could bestow health, and avert dangers from the state. IV. —
But that this God did not confer such benefits, except at the request of his own
worsiiippers. There can be no doubt, that some one of the attendants on the
diseased Emperor, suggested to him, that the God of the Christians, while resi-

dent in this our world, restored life and health to the sick; and that
to the dead,

[p. 958.] these benefits had not yet ceased; for there were many examples
of

Bick persons miraculously healed by the prayers of Christians. And therefore,

possibly tlie Emperor also, by the aid of this God, might survive the dreadful
disease which was consuming him, if he should grant peace to the Christians,
nnd ask their prayers for him. The Emperor, being extremely anxious to live,
listened to the suggestion and therefore, when his case was desperate, when
;

the Gods of the Romans had in vain been importuned with prayers and sacri-

fices, he at took refuge in the Christians' God; whom, nevertheless, he

last

would not worship. Hence., it was the fear of death, and the influence of sn-
perslilion, and not the goadings of conscience for crimes committed, that pro-

duced this edict. —On the publication of the edict, the war upon the Christiana
every where ceased; the prisoners were released, the exiles were recalled, and
meetings were everywhere held without opposition. Maxiinin, indeed, would
not publicly proclaim the edict, in the provinces which he governed, (as Eusebius
states. Hist. Eecles. L. ix. c. 1. p. 347.) yet he gave verbal instructions to the
• rulers under him, no longer to inflict any evils on the Christians; and this, ac-

cording to Eusebius, was as advantageous to the Christians, as if the edict had

been published. Eusebius tells us, tiiat it was hatred of Ciiristians that pre-

vented Maximin from But I can

publishing an edict so salutary to them.
hardly persuade myself that this was the For Maximin did the thing
fact.

which the edict required, although he would not publish it. It is more probable,
therefore, that Ulaximin, knowing the death of Maximian to be very near, laid
—
up the edii-t of the Emperor who might even then be dead, intending to wait —
and see v.'hat would occur after his death.

§ VI. Constantine's Edicts in favor of the Christians, A. D. 312,

313. On the death of Maximian Galerius in the year 311, the
provinces which he had governed were divided between Maxi-
min and Licinius. The former had the Asiatic provinces, and
the latter the European. But Maxentius, the Emperor of Italy
and Africa, meditated war against Constaniine^ that he might ren-
der himself Emperor of the entire West. The ostensible cause,
however, of the war, was the death of his father Maximian Her-
culius^ whom Constantine had compelled to destroy his own life.
Constantine, therefore, prudently anticipating the counsels of his
enemy, marched his army from Gaul into Italy, and after weaken-
ing Maxentius in several conflicts, entirely routed him in the year
312, in a fierce battle, at the Milvian Bridge, not far from Rome
and Maxentius in the flight, by the breaking down of the bridge,
 Constantlne' s Edicts. 455

fell and perished. The victorious Constantine en-

into tlie Tiber
tered the city, and not long after, with Licinius his col- [p. 959.]
league, issued an edict which gave the Christians the fullest li-
berty of living according to their own principles, institutions and
usages. And the next year A. D. 313, he confirmed and defined
this liberty more precisely, in an edict drawn up at Milan. Maxi-
min, indeed, who governed the East, was menacing the Chris-
tians with new calamities, and also preparing for war with the
Emperors of the West. But fortune forsook his enterprises. For
Licinius, encountering him at Adrianople, obtained a complete
victory. And Maximin escaping by flight, drank poison, and
died a miserable death at Tarsus, in the year oll.(')

(1) These occurrences in civil liistory, I sliall not here amplify and illus-

trate : for they are well known ; and, being supported by the testimony botli of
Christians and Not-Christians, they are doubted by no one. The justice of the
wars, — first against Maxentius and then against Maximin, even the enemies of
Constantine do not question ; but they equally recount the. flagitious acts, the

vices and the crimes of both Maxentius and Maximin. I shall therefore speak
only of things relating to the christian community. — Constantine with Licinius,
immediately after the victory over Maxentius, by an edict addressed to the Pre-
toriiin Prefect, granted to the Christians and to all other sects, perfect liberty to
worship God in their own way, to profess their religion, to hold religious meet-
ings, and to erect temples. See Eusebius, (Hist. Eccles. L. ix. c. 9. p. 360. 363.)
As Maxentius was vanquisiied in the month of October, A. D. 312, and the
edict was issued dirtctly after the victory, I think it certain, that the edict was
written near the close of the same year. This^i''-''^ edict in favor of llie Chris-
tians and other sects, is lost : but from the second edict, which was drawn up at
Milan the next year, 313, (of which we shall speak hereafter,) it appears, that
the first edict contained some defect, which might deter persons from embrac-
ing Christianity. Yet what that defect was, the second edict does not definitely
state. The words of the second edict, emendatory of the first, are given to us
by Eusebius, (Hist. Eccles. L. x. c. 6. p. 388.) Lactantius also gives us this
edict, in Latin, the language in which it was written, (de mort. Persequut.
c. 48. p. 1007.) but he omits the Preface, as not being pertinent to his object.
The words in Eusebius are these : Sed quoniam in eo rescripto, quo hsec facul-
tas illis concessa fuerat, (in which this liberty of retaining and practising their

religion, was conceded to Christians,) mulfse ac diversse sectae nominalim ac

discrte additae videbantar, {-oWaX koX S'lapofcs Ufttreti iJ'iiiouv Trpoa-rt^ilo-B-ai

a-atioi,) quidam eorum, ob banc fortassis caussam, paulo post ab hujus- [p. 960.]
modi observantia destiterunt, (airo Ttii raiaurns vapapuxd^iaii That
dvsx/Jst/c/VTo.)

is — if I do not mistake, they forsook the christian religion, and went over to the
other Sects. From this statement of Eiuehius, it appears, —
1. That this edict

gave absolute freedom of professing their religion, not only to Christians, but
 456 Century IV. — Section 6.

likewise to all other sects ; e. g. Jews, Samaritans, Manichseans, and all others.
II. That these other sects besides Christinns, were expressly named and desig-
nated in the deciee. — III. Hence, some Christians took occasion to forsake the
christian religion, or to neglect the observances of it. This is very obscure for :

who can easily understand how some Christians should forsake their religion,
because other sects besides the christians were expressly named in the Imperato-
rial edict? And hence learned men disagree as to the meaning of the passage.
Some, as Tillemnnt, Basnage and others, frankly confess their ignorance of its
import: and they charge the edict with obscurity: but perhaps, they might
better charge Eusebius' Greek translator, with carelessness in translating. I
think the meaning of the Emperors will be sufficiently clear, if we compare
what precedes and what follows, with the words which contain this apparent
enigma. In the Preface to the edict, the Emperors say, that they, in the first
edict, Sanxisse, ut ceteri omnes, turn Christian], scctte suse ac religionis fidem
et observantiam retinerent, {Tis aifimcts saurwn t;iv virTii puxiTniv.) Now this
liberty, granted to the Christians and to the other sects expressly named, some
persons explained thus: That it was the pleasure of the Emperors, that every
person should adhere to the sect or religion, in which he had been horn and
educated,and should not go over to another religion. And therefore, some who
—
had recently embraced Christianity, Jews, for instance, returned to the reli-
gion of their fathers, that they might not appear to disobey the mandate of
the Emperors : and other persons of other sects, who had not long before em-
braced Christianity, did the same. This false interpretation of their first edict,
the Emperors correcteo by a second edict, (preserved by Eusebius and Lactan-
tius,) the following year, 313, published at Milan, after the defeat of Maximin
and the establishment of the government of the empire. For in this edict, they
corrected the ambiguity of the first: and this they do, in terms which show, that
we have rightly apprehended the defect in the first edict. For they thus ex-
press themselves : Itaque hoc consilio salubri ac rectissima ratione ineundum
esse credimus, ut nulli omninoficultatemabnegandam putaremus, qui vel obser-
vation! Christianorum, vel ei religioni mentera suam dederet, quam ipse sibi ap-
tissimam sentiret. They had just before written : Credidiraus ordinanda, ut dare-
mus et Christians et omnibus liberam postestaiem sequendi religionem, quam quis-

[p. 961.] que voluisset. Therefore many had before supposed, that it was not the
pleasure of the Emperors, that every one should follow the religion which he
preferred; but that, on the contrary, they wished every one to adhere to the
religion transmitted to him from his ancestors. —In the same edict, moreover,
the Emperors expand and amplify the privileges conferred on the Christians by
the first edict. They first removed all the conditions, with which the liberty
gi-anted to Christians in the former edict was circumscribed : Scire dignationen
tuam convenit, placuisse nobis, ut, amotis omnibus omnino conditionibus, quae
prius scriptis — super Christianorum nomine videbantur, nunc cavercs, ut simpli-
citer unusquisque eorura - - citra ullam inquietudinem ac molesti:im sni id ip-

sum observare contendat. What these conditions icere, which the Emperors
now removed, it is impossible at this day to determine satisfactr rily. —The
Emperors add explicitly, that what they conceded to the Christians, they con-
 Constant'me's Edicts. 457

ceded also to the otlier sects, Ut in coleiido, quod quisque delegerit, habeat libe-
ram facultatem. — Afterwards they revert again to the Christians, and, with
great particularity, ordain, that their places of worship should be restored to
them, without pay ; and also the lands, which, before the persecution, Ad jus
corporis eorum, id esti»ecclesiarum, non hominum singulorum, pertinuerint: for
in the first edict, this matter was not stated and explained with perfect clearness.
This last part of the edict is drawn up with great accuracy, and shows that it

was dictated by one very friendly to tiie Christians.

As in the West there were two edicts issued in favor of the Christians, the
fi.sst not very perspicuous, and the second more clear; so in the East, the same
thing occurred, though in a different manner. Maximin, the Sovereign of the
East, notwithstanding he hated the Christians, dared not oppose the edict of
Maximian Galerius favorable to them yet, after a little time, he assailed ;

them again by concealed artifices. For, as Laclantius says, (de mort. perseq.
c. 36. p. 986.) Subornabat legationes civitatum, quae peterent, ne intra civita-
:

tes suas Christianis convep.ticula e.xtruere licerct. Qiiibus ille adnuebat. This
Eusebius confirms, and more fully explains (Hist. Eccles. L. ix. c. 2. p. 349.) ;

for he says, that Maximin first induced the Antiochians, by means of one Theo-
tecnus. Curator of that city, a wicked and violent man, to request of him, as a
very great favor, that no Christian should be permitted to reside in Antioch.
And as Maximin granted their request, other cities readily followed the e.xam-

ple of the Antiochians, and Maximin most cheerfully assented to their wishes;
and thus a new and violent persecution arose in the East against the Christians.
Moreover, the Emperor aided those impious enemies of the christian name, by
edicts engraven on plates of brass ; one of which, presented to the Tyrians,

Evsebius has preserved ;

(Hit. Eccles. L. ix. c. 7. p. 352.) As to these [p. 962.]
legations from cities, there can be no doubt ; for Maximin himself declares, in
his rescript to Sabinus, (apud Eusebium, Hist. Eccles. L. ix. c. 9. p. 361.) that
the Nicomedians, and other cities, did send such legations to him. But whether
it was true, as Laclantius and Eusebius would have us believe, that Maximin
suborned those legations of tlie cities, or, as Eusebius says, (loc. cit. c. 2. p.

349.) : ipsum ad se legationem niisisse adversus Christianos ; I confess, I do

not know. Undoubtedly, the Christians suspected it was so: but whether their
suspicion was well or ill founded is, I think, very uncertain. For they had no
other evidence for their suspicion, than the ill-will of Maximin towards Chris-

tians. It certainly might be, that the Antiochians, either spontaneously, or at

the instigation of Theotecnus, went to the Emperor, requesting the banishment
of the Christians; and that after he had gratified their wishes, other cities, as
Eusebius himself states, followed the example of the Antiochians. That the
Emperor should grant all wonder. For
the petitions of the cities, I do not at
the supremacy in the empire which he sought, and the war against Consiantine
and LJcimius which ho meditated, made the good will of the cities and citizens
exceedingly necessary to him. The narrative of Eusebius throws light on the
subject. —
He acknowledges, notwithstanding Lactantius makes Maximin the
auiiior of aU the legations, —
that only one legation, the Antiochian, was sub-
orned by him ; and that the others proceeded from the free choice of the cities,
458 Century IV. — Section 6.

following the example of the Antiochians. He also says, that Theolecnus,

the Curator of Antioch, by a crafty trick, induced the Antiochian people

to send the legation for the expulsion of the Cliristians from that city: for
he had himself consecrated a statue of Jupiter Philins, and he pretended
that this God, by his statue, had directed that all. Christians, his ene-
mies, should be expelled from the city, and from the fields around An-
tioch. Now if the facts were so, we must believe, that if 3Iaximin sub-
orned the Antiochian legation, which was an example for the others,
then Theotecnus acted tiie part he did, by the command of Muximin. And per-
haps this was the fict. But how did Eusebius and Laclantius get their knowledge
of it? — From Theotecnus?—He certainly never disclosed to the Christians this
state secret of his master. Whence, therefore, did they learn, that Theotecnus
was only the tool of the Emperor? Who does not see, that this charge against
the Emperor, turns out to be a mere suspicion; and that the Christians had no
authority for it? As already remarked, Maximin himself, in the rescript in
which he mentions these legations, (upud Eusebium, Hist. Eccles. L. ix. c. 9.
p. 360, 361.) states, that it was with reluctance and sorrow, he conceded to the

Nicomedians and to others the power of expelling the Christians: for their pe-

titionsseemed to him contrary to equity: but that he was compelled to answer

them kindly for all the Emperors before him had done tlie same thing: and it
;

[p. 963. J was a thing pleasing to the immortal Gods. In this language there is
reference, undoubtedly, to that oracle of Jupiter Philius at Antioch, and to the
responses of other Gods, requiring the expulsion of Christians from the cities.

And I Maximin does not misrepresent the truth and

can almost believe, that ;

that, not he, but tiie pagan priests, who undoubtedly dictated those oracles,
were the real authors of those legations against the Christians. Whoever at-
tentively considers the state of the empire at that time, and the political designs
of Maximin, will readily perceive, that it was not for liis interest, either to irri-

tate the Christians, or to oppose the friends of the Gods : on the contrary, pru-
dence demanded, that he should temporise, and as far as possible, conciliate the
good will of both parlies. And therefore, as he admits in the rescript referred
to, he forbid on the one hand the forcing of Christians by violence and punish-

ments, to worship the Gods; and on the other hand he gratified the cities, which
would not endure Christians among them. It is the common practice of the
Christian writers, to load the memory of the enemies of Christianity with many
and great suspicions and accusations some of which, indeed, are not to be
;

treated with contempt; but others, if carefully examined, will appear weak and
futile.

But let us pass over these transactions, and con>ider what results followed,
in the East, from the edicts of Constantine and Licinius in the fovor of the
Christians. — When the edict of A. D. 312, was first brought to Maximin, he
would not publish it in the provinces under his jurisdiction. This, I would at-

tribute, not so much to his hatred of the Christians, —the cause assigned by
Eusebius, as to his pride and arrogance. For he wished to be accounted the
chief of the Emperors, and superior in rank to Constantine and Licinius : and
therefore, he thought it degrading to his majesty, to publish a law enacted by
 Constantine's Conversion. 459

persons Vv'liom he deemed his inferiors. But he addressed :in epistle to the go-

vernors ill his dominions, wliieh is preserved by Eiisehius, (HisL Eceles. L. ix.

c. 9. p. 360.) differing indeed, in many particuhxrs, from the edict of the West-
ern Emperors, and yet favorable to the Christians. And this epistle shows very
clearly, that Maximin did not wish to alienate the minds of Christians from
him, but rather to conciliate their good will. For he proclaims his humanity and
clemency towards them, and declares, that from the commencement of his reign,
he had inculcated on the magistrates under him, not to compel any person to
worship the Gods by penal inflictions. He says: Saepe devotioni tuae partim
per litcras scrips!, partim coram in raandatis dedi, ut adversus Christianos pro-
vinciarum rcctores nihil acerbe statunnt, sed potius clementer et moderate in-
dulgeant, seque illis accommodent. He had indeed given kind answers to the
delegations from cities that were unwilling to tolerate Christians within their
walls : but this he did, unwillingly, and partly from respect to the laws of for-

mer Emperors, and partly in obedience to the oracles of the Gods : but, now,
he adds in conclusion, it is his pleasure, that the Christians should be treated
—
humanely and kindly. The Christians did not put confidence in this edict,
knowing Maximin to lie unstable minded, and at one time to oppose, [p. 964.]
and at another to favor them, according to the changing state of his affairs, and
the condition of the republic. And as tiie edict did not explicitly give them li-
berty to erect temples and hold religious meetings, they dared not assume
such liberty, and profess openly their religion. But after he had been van- —
quished by Licinius, in the year 313, he issued a new and more ample edict in
favor of the Christians : which also is preserved by Eusebius, (Hist. Eceles. L.
ix. c. 10. p. 363.) In this edict, he complains, (whether truly or fal-ely, is un-
certain,) that the judges and magistrates did not correctly understand his former
edict ; and then, he explicitly gives the Christians liberty to rebuild their sacred
edifices ; and lie commands, tiiat the lands taken from them siiould be restored.
— Shortly after issuing this decree, he died at Tarsus. And thus, in the year
313, the Christians of both the East and West were released from all peril and
fear, after enduring infinite evils, especially in tiie Eastern countries, from the
year 303, or during ten years,

§ VII. Constantine's Conversion to Christianity. Aboilt the

same time, and after the victory over Maxentius at the Milvian
bridi2:e, Constantine the Great is said to have embraced the Chris-
tiau rehgion : and it is the common and ancient opinion, that the
sign of a cross seen by him in the heavens, produced and con-
firmed this resolution of the Emperor. If that man is a Chris-
tian who thinks the Christian's manner of worshipping God is

a good and holy one, then I have no doubt that Constantine was,
at that time, a Christian. But if no man should be called a
Christian, unless he believes that Christianity is the only true re-
ligion, and that all other religions are false, then I suppose Con-
460 Century IV.— Section 7.

staniine became a Christian at a later period, and some years af-

ter the victory over Maxentius. For, if any reliance can be
placed on public records, it is certain that Constantine at first
considered be good, and he supposed Christ to be
all religious to

like the rest of the national Gods but after some time he ac- ;

quired purer and better knowledge on religious subjects, and he

concluded that God ought to be worshipped in no otlier than
the Christian manner.(') But what is reported of the sign of a
crogis, or rather, of a Monogramm of the name of Christy seen in
the clouds by him and his army, is more difficult to be explained
than many imagine ; and the inquiring and truth-seeking mind
is so perplexed, that itcan hardly determine what to deny, or
what to believe.^)

[p. 965.] (1) That Constantine the Great sincerely and truly embraced the
Christian religion, is put beyond all question, by his deeds, his legislation, his poli-

cy and his institutions: nor is there any event in history, except those only of sacred
history, which, in my opinion, rests on stronger evidence both of testimony and of
facts. If the man, who makes it his chief object through a great part of life to es-
tablish and propagate the Christian religion; who resists and depresses the reli-

gions opposed to it ; who changes nearly his whole system of jurisprudence for its

benefit; who, to his last breath, praises and extols and solemnly professes Christ;
who commands his children to be instructed and trained up in that religion who ;

exhorts and excites all his and people to embrace it who honors and dis-
citizens ;

tinguishes its priests and ministers witli various benefits, and does many other
things of like nature, whereby the Christian religion is sustained and strength-
ened, — if, I say, that man does not deserve the name of a Christian, to whom
can that But that the truth may be obscured and rendered pow-
name belong?
erless, by the biasses of the mind, is seen in this case. For there are very
learned and perspicacious men, who either deny that Constantine the Great was
a Christian, or maintain that he hypocritically professed Christianity, in order to
secure his supremacy in the commonwealth. Some of these are led to such
conclusions by their zeal for new religious opinions, some by hostility to the
clergy, whom it pains them to see Constantine invest with so many privileges and
favors ; and some by the evils which, they are grieved to see, crept into the
church through Constantine. Yet they would be thought to indulge no ground-
less suspicion, and therefore they assign reasons for their opinion. First
Many direct our attention to the life and conduct of Constantine; in which
there are doubtless many things altogether unworthy of a Christian man. He
slew Crispus his son, and Fausta his wife, on mere suspicion : He dcstroved
Lieinius his kinsman, together with his innocent son, contrary to his plighted
faith : He was immoderately addicted to pride, to vanity, and to voluptuous-
ness ; He tolerated superstitions, that are inconsistent with Christianity. But
the excellent men who resort to such reasoning, e. g. Christian Thomasius
 Constantine's Conversion. 461

—
Godfrey Avnold, and many others. to speak plainly, trifle with the suhject, and
misuse tlie ambiguous term Chrislian to deceive the incautious. That man is
properly denominated a Christian, who not only believes in Christ, but also re-
gulates his life by the precepts of the religion which Christ taught but those :

also are called Christians, who no doubts of the truth and divinity of
entertain
the Christian religion, although they deviate in conduct from its rules. That
Conslaniine was not a Christian in tiie former sense, is demonstrated by the
vices and crimes laid to his charge: but that he was a Christian in this sense of

the word, no fair-minded man, who is free from superstition, maintains. Tliose
who call Constantine the first Ciiristian Emperor, mean no more than, that he
was the first of the Emperors who regarded Christianity as the only true and
divine religion. This, Conslaniine might do, and yet act very diffe- [p. 966.]

rently from what a Christian ought to do.

Secondly: Learned men who doubt of the religion of Conslaiitine, remark,
that it was only at the close of life, and when laboring under a fatal disease,

(according to Eusebius, de vita Constant. L. iv. c. 61, 62.) that he not only re-
ceived baptism, but likewise was received among the Catechumens by the im-
position of hands: from which they conclude, that through life he was a man of

no religion, but at last, in the near prospect of death, that he might not appeal
to die destitute of all religion, he requested to be enrolled among Christians.
Very many spurn at this reasoning but in my view, it deserves serious consi-
;

deration. For it is well known, that the whole Christian community consisted
of the Catechumens and the Faithful. If then Constantine, during his whole
life, was neither a Catechumen, nor one of the Faithful, and only a little before

his death was admitted a Catechumen, and subsequently by baptism receired

among the faitliful, it would seem to follow, that he lived out of the church
until the end of life, and of course that he should not be classed among Chris-
tians. As to his deferring his baptism
till near the end of his life, the fact is

certain, not only from the testimony of Eusebius, but also of other writers of
the highest character and authority, Jerome, Ambrose, Socrates Sozomen, and
others. There are indeed some learned writers of the Romish community, e. g.
Baronius, Ciampinus, Schelstratus, and mnny others, to whom Mathew Fur-
mann joined himself a few years since (in his Historia sacra de baptismo Con-
stantini, published at Rome, 1742, 4to.) — who, relying on more recent and
doubtful autliorities, believe, that Constantine was initiated with sacred rites, at

Rome, by Sylvester, then bishop of Rome, in the year 324. But these writers
meet with little credence now, even in their own church ; and they are solidly
confuted by various writers, among whom are the Romish Cardinal, Henry
Noris, (in his Historia Donatistar. 0pp. torn. iv. p. 650 &c.) Tillemont, and
others. To these add, one who has neatly and carefully summed up the argu-
ments on both sides, and who pretty clearly shows that he follows those thai
account the story of Constantine!' s baptism at Rome as a mere fable, namely,
Thomas Maria Mamachius, (in his Origines et Antiq. Christianas, tom. ii. p. 232
&c. Rom. 1750, 4to.) That Constantine was admitted a Catechumen at Helen-
opolis, a little before his baptism, is learnedly and copiously maintained bj

Henry Valesius, in his notes on Eusebius, (de vita Constant. L. Jv. c. 61

462 Century IV. — Section 7.

p. 551.) He observes, tluit Eusebius expressly says ; Constantinura tunc primiim

mKiuium impositionem cum solemni praecatione in teiuplo Helenopolitano sus-
cepisse. And from this he infers, that Conslaniine was then first made a Cate-
chumen. For, as appears from many passages in the early writers, the
bishops created Catechumens by the imposition of hands. In canfirmation of
this opinion, Valeshis adds, that no where in the life of Constantine written by
[p. 967.] Eusebius, is it said, that he prayed with the Catechumens, in the church,
or that he received the Sacrament of Catechumens. Yet there is much less force
in this argument, than in the former. postponement of baptism till near
If the
death v\-as the only difficulty, it might easily be surmounted. For those ac-
quainted with the customs and opinions of the early ages, well know, that
many, in that age, purposely deferred baptism till near the close of life, in order
to go perfectly pure and immaculate to eternal life: for they supposed, that
baptism purified the whole man, and entirely washed away all stains and defile-
ment from the soul. And that Constantine had some such idea in his mind, is
evident from Eusebius, (de vita Constant. L. iv. c. 61. p. 557.) where he says:
Firmissime credidisse Imperatorem, quaecunque humanitus peccavisset, arcano-
rum verborum efficacia et salutari lavacro penitus esse delenda. And hence we
findnumerous instances in that age, of great men who deferred baptism a long
time, and even till their dying hour. See the examples collected by the bro-
thers Ballerini, (Notes to Noris, Hist. Donatist. 0pp. tom. iv. p. 651.) by Gian'

none, (Historia civili Neapolitano, torn. i. p. 128.) and by others. In addition to

this opinion, there was another, which had equal influence to cause baptism to
be delayed. Most of the doctors taught, that a protracted, painful and diflicult
fenance was necessary, for those who, after baptism, became defiled with new
transgressions and sins and that it was not easy to obtain the forgiveness of
:

God, if when once purged and washed, they returned to their old pollutions.
Moreover, Constantine himself, in his address to the bishops just before his bap-
tism, (apud Eusebium loc. cit. c. 62. p. 557.) says, that he had formerly intend-
ed to be baptized in the Jordun, in which Christ was baptized by John. And
this would accord with the superstition of those times, and can easily be believ-
ed. — It remains, therefore, only to inquire whether, in fact, Constantine first be-
came a Catechumen a little before his death. Valesius and those who follow
him, think this to be manifest from what Eusebius relates, that the bishops laid
hands on the Emperor with prayer, at Nicomedia, just before he was initiated
into Christian worship by the sacrament of baptism. And it is true, that the
Catechumens were made such by prayer and the imposition of hands. But it i<»
no less certain, and is taught in many passages by the ancients, that persons
who had long been Catechumens, received at certain times, the episcopal impo-
sition of hands. And especially, and most pertinently to our inquiry, the
bishops were accustomed to lay hands on the Catechume7is, just before baptism,
either when they confessed their sins, or when they solemnly execrated the
Printe of Hell, or renounced the Devil. I shall pass by this latter imposition of
hands, and speak only of the former. It was a very ancient custom of the
Church, that such as were about to be baptized, should previously confess their
sins; and upon this, the bishop laid his hands on them accompanied by
 Constantino'' s Conversion. 403

pra3Ti', and in set words he imparted to tliem God's forgiveness of all [p. 968.]
their former sins. Thus TerluUian, (de baptisnio, e. 20.) : Iiigressuros baptis-
mum orationibus crebris, jejuniis, et geniculationibus et pervigiliis ornre oportet,
et cum confessioneomnium retro delictorum, ut e.xponant eliam baptismum Jo-
hannis. The testimonies of Avgusline, Socrales, Gregory Aazianzen, and
others, who mention this ancient custom, might easily be adduced. Now tliia
alone overthrows the whole argument of Valesius from the imposition of hands,
viz. That the bishops laid hands on Conslaniine, before he received baptism
:
;

and therefore, he then first became a Catechumen. For persons, who had been
Catechumens many years, w'hen the time of their baptism drew near, were cus-
tomarily consecrated l^y a renewed imposition of bunds, after confessing their
sins. And that Eusebius, when treating of the baptism of Conslantine, speaks
of that imposition of hands which followed a confession of sins, and not of that
by which persons were made Catechumens, is so manifest from his language,
that nothing could be more clear. He says Genu flexo humi procumbens :

(Imperator) veniam a Deo supple.x poposcit, peccata sua confitens, in Martyrio,

(in seeking baptism, therefcft'e, Cunstantine followed the ancient custom of the
Church, and publicly confessed his sins ; and this act of piety was pertinently
followed by the imposition of hands,) quo in loco manuum impositionem cum
solemni precatione primuni meruit accipere. But this passage, I perceive, will

not satisfy the more dilKcult : for they will say, that Eusebius distinctly tells
us, that Constantine then first (rrfdrov) received imposition of hands. And aa
it may thence be had never before received imposition
inferred, that Constantine
of hands, they will contend, that he had never been admitted to the class of
Catechumens : because, as before stated, Catechumens were created by the im-
position of hands. Not to protract the discussion needlessly, I will grant, that
the word Trpurov in this passage of Eusebius, is to be taken in so strict a sense

as to place beyond controversy, that Constantine had never before received

it

imposition of hands. But, on the other hand, I will demand of these learned
men to prove, that this practice of the ancient Christians of creating Catechu-
mens by the imposition of hands, was not only received throughout the Chris-
tian Church, but also that it was every where regarded as so sacred and so ne-
cessary, that no one could be accounted a Catechumen, unless he had been as it

were consecrated by that ceremony. Most of the testimonies to this practice,

come to us from tlie Latin writers ; while the Greeks who notice it, are very
few, and quite recent authors. Therefore, it might be that the Latin Church
consecrated Catechumens in this manner, but not likewise the Greek and Orien-

tal But suppose, that the Greek and Oriental Christians did also use
Church.
this rite who does not know, that practices of this kind, which depend [p. 969.]
;

on custom rather than on established law, are not observed invariably, but are
frequently neglected or omitted for various reasons? But I will settle the point —
at issue in a shorter way. The things stated by Eusebius, relative to the life

and conduct of Constantine, put it beyond all controversy, that he had previ-
ously been a Catechumen. For he constantly performed all the duties of a
Christian man not yet baptized, or of a Catechumen he attended on the reli- ;

gious worship; he gave himself to fasting and prayer; he celebrated the Lord's
464 Century IV. — Section 7.

Days, and the days consecrated to the memory of the martyrs : and he watched
through the night on the vigils of Easter. I omit some other things. And on
the other hand, he allowed himself to be excluded from those things, to which
Catechumens were not admitted. For in his speech before his baptism, (npud
Eusebium, de vita Constant. L. iv. c. 62. p. 557.) he testifies, that he had beer
partaker in the common prayers; but, of course, not in the sacred supper.
And therefore, nothing more can be inferred from the language of Eusebius,
than that he had not been admitted into the class of Catechumens, by thai
solemn rite, the imposition of hands witii prayer. And who can deem it strange,
that such a man as Consiantine, was not treated common manner ^ And
in the

as he faithfully performed all the duties of a Catechumen, what need was there
of subjecting him to all the rules and regulations foi* plebeians ? The very
learned Valesius admits the zeal of Constantine in performing all the duties in-
cumbent on unbaptized Christians and he says, we may hence infer, that the
:

Emperor was a Christian, but not that he was a Catechumen. How do e.\cel*
lent men, sometimes, deceive both themselves and others Could any man in !

tli.it age be a Christian, yet not be a Catechumen? All the members of the
Church, were either the Faithful, or the Catechumens : and the Christians knew
of no intermediate or third class. That Constantine was not one of the Faith-
ful until near the close of life, is most certain if therefore he was not a Cate-
:

chu7nen, how could he be a Christian ?

Lastly: The learned men who impugn the personal religion of Constantine^
endeavor to show, from the history of those times, that it was his lust for
reigning that induced him to feign himself a Christian ; or, that he sought to
open his way to supreme power by a feigned profession of Christianity. But
this is preferring conjectures, and those too of little plausibility, before reliable
records of facts and testimony. If I may be allowed to speak of myself, I have
read and pondered the history of those times, with all the diligence I could, and
yet I never could discover that the Christian religion ever did, or could aid and
further his desire to reign without an associate, which desire I admit was very
ardent. He had reigned prosperously and with glory, before he became a Chris-
tian, or while he adhered to no religion and he might have attained the su-
;

[p. 970.] preme authority, and have performed great achievements, if he had
continued in the religion of his ancestors, or persevered in the worship of the
Gods. In the first place, nothing can be inferred from his wars against Maxen-
tins and Maximin, to prove him a dissembler in this grave matter of religion.
If Constantine had unjustly commenced aggressive wars against Maxentius and
Maximin, and had chiefly used the assistance of the Christians to oppress his
colleagues, there might arise a strong suspicion that he dissembled, as to Chris-
from motives of ambition. But the justice of his wars against both
tianity,

Maxentius and Maximin, is not denied even by his enemies; and it is placed
beyond all dispute, by the whole history of those times. Moreover, the army
which he conducted from Gaul into Italy against Maxentius, as we shall soon
show from Zosimus, was not composed of Christians, but principally of barba-
rians and worshippers of the Gods. And of a similar character was the army
with which Licinius encountered Maximin. These wars, therefore, cannot be
 Cons'antine's Conversion. 465

adduced to prove his ambition; and nuicli less are thoy evidence of tliat im-
pious iricliery witli wliieli lie is charged. And if any one shall maintain, that
after the conquest of Maxeniius, Constanline showed himself so just and kind
to the Christians, for the sake of accompiisiiing-, by their aid and friendship,
those proud designs which he meditated, he will bring forward a suspicion,
which is unsupported by testimony or by any other proof, and a suspicion easily
confuted. The man who harbors such a suspicion, does not consider that Con-
stanline, after liis victory over Maxentius, did not exalt the Christian religion
above all others, and decide that it is tiie only true religion; but he merely
gave the Christians the power of publicly professing their religion; and th«
same liberty he gave to all sects and all religions, with no exceptions. Neithei
does the man consider, that the worshippers of the Gods were, at that time, fat
more numerous than the Christians, although there were Christians everywhere.
There would be some ground for tiiis ill opinion of Constanline, if he had com.
manded all his subjects to follow the Christian religion, and had endeavored to
extirpate the ancient religion, or even if the number of Christians in the Roman
empire had preponderated over others. My conclusion, after carefully con-
sidering all tiie facts, is, that if the Emperor had wished to attain to supremo
power, by the aid of any religion, he could more readily and more easily have
accomplished his wishes, by pretending to adhere to the old superslilion., which
was favored by the majority of the citizens, than by a feigned adoption of the
new religion, which was odious to a majority both of the soldiers and the
citizens. So, likewise, the contests between Constanline and Licinius, which
occurred after the subjugation of Maxentius and Maximin, did not originate
from religion, nor were they carried on, and successfully terminated by the aid
of religion. And I confidently affirm, that religion was serviceable to Constan-
line, in no one of his political enterprises. And finally, I for one believe, that
the judgments of the cotemporary writers are to be preferred before the divina-
tions, however ingenious, of all the moderns. Zosimus and Julian, [p. 971.]
both shrewd men, and well acquainted with all the counsels and acts of Conslan-
tinc, and both, also his enemies, had no doubts that he, in good faith, passed over
from the religion of his ancestors to Christianity: indeed, they assign causes,

though futile ones, for this defection. These men, certainly, did not lack the

means of discerning the truth in this matter, nor the disposition to publish it:
and shall ive account ourselves more discerning and perspicacious than they,
when, after so many centuries, and by means of a few documents, we see, as it
were, through clouds, a small part of the history of that period ?
Although I suppose that Constanline was a Christian, that is, that he believed
the Christian religion to be the only true religion, during a great part of hia
life, yet, as to the time when he thus embraced Christianity, I disagree with the
common opinion. On this point, nearly all follow Eusehius, (de vita Constant.

L. i. c. 27. p. 421.) who tells us, that until the war with Maxentius, Constanline
was a man of dubious, or rather, of no religion. And this I can easily believe,
for it But when he was about to march
accords very well with his conduct.
against Maxentius, prompted, undoubtedly, by a sense of impending peril, he
pondered in his mind, to which of the Gods he should entrust himself and his
VOL. n. 31
466 Century IV.— Section 7.

fortunes. Eiisebius says : Cogitare apiid se coepit, quemnam sibi Dciim adaei*
ceret. In this, I suppose, he acted sincerely, and not hypocritically. The result
of his deliberations was, that he determined to worship the one God whom hia
father had worshipped, and to neglect the Romish Deities. The grounds of this
resolution, in addition to the example of his fatiier, who worshipped the one
God, were the adversities and the sad end of Diocletian, Maximian, and the other
Emperors, who had sedulously followed the religions of the Gods. These rea-
sons are not forcible, nor creditable to Conslaniine. For he did not abandon
the Roman Gods, and betake himself to the worship of the one God, guided by
reason, or from conviction, founded on the numerous arguments which the light
of nature suggests; but he merely followed the recommendation of his father,
and his hope of vanquishing his enemies and obtaining a prosperous and
splendid reign. For, as Eusebius reports from his own mouth, he reasoned in the
following manner: My /a/fter worshipped the one God, and he was uniformly
prosperous through life. On the contrary, tlwse Emperors who worshipped
many Gods, after a series of calamities, came to miserable deaths. Therefore,
that I may live happily, and be always prosperous in this world, I will imitate
my father, and connect myself with the worship of the one God. The man who,
by such reasoning, is induced to embrace any religion whatever, appears to me
to show a very moderate degree of religious knowledge, and to be more solicit-
ous about the present life than the future. And besides this, there is another
thing,which seems to me to detract more from the reputation of Conslan-
[p. 972.] tine, than his contempt for the Gods can add to it. Constanline did

not know the character of the one God, whom his father had worshipped, and
by whose he had lived prosperously and happily. And this his ignorance,
aid

Eusebius does not conceal. For he says, (de vita Const. L. i. c. 28. p. 410.)
that the Emperor: Obsecrasse Deum ilium, ut se ipsi noscendum pr£eberet. He
therefore did not know, how far the power and influence of his father's God ex-

tended, or with what attributes he w\is invested. It is manifest, both from

other sources and from the citations soon to be made from his edicts, that Coti-

stantine did not regard this God of his f;xther as being that supreme and only
author and creator of all things, whom the Christians adored as a God of infinite

majesty and power, but only as a God of finite or limited powers; yet, as more
benignant, efficient, and powerful, than all the Roman and Grecian Gods. For a
considerable time, therefore, Constantine was (in modern phrase) a Deist ; and
one of the lowest and most ignoble class, worshipping a single God, of whom
he had no determinate conceptions. But not long after this, if we believe Eio-
sebius, he obtained more light. For, as he was marching with his army against
Maxentiu^;, at mid-day, he and his whole army saw in the clouds, that celebrated

Monoirramm of the name Christ, or the sign of the cross, with the inscription:
TtwTU) v/ko. Hac xince. See Eusebius, (de vita Const. L. i. c. 28. p. 422.) Of
this celebrated vision, we shall treat formally hereafter. But this divinely ex-

liibitedimage did not remove all clouds from his mind, or explain to him that
God whom he was desirous to know. Says Eusebius, (de vita
of his father,
Const. L. i. c. 29. p. 422.): Addubitare coepit, quidnam hoc spectrum sibi vellet.
This celestial vi:jion, therefore,— and I would have it particularly noticed, did
 Constan tineas Conversion. 4^7

not profit, liiin at all. The prodigy needed an

interpreter; and this funition
Christ himself assumed. For on the following night, he appeared to him in a
dream, witli the sign which had been shown him in the heavens, and directed
him to make a military standard, in the form of that sign, and to use it in his
battles. (Ibid. c. 29. p. 422.) The Emperor obeyed this command, and forth-
with caused a standard to be made, resembling the sign which he had seen both
waking and sleeping and he afterwards had it carried before his army in all his
;

battles. Constantine, therefore, now knew what God he ought to worship. And
yet, what very strange, although he had long been well acquainted with Chris-
is

and been conversant with Christians so many years, he did not know
tian aff lirs,
what a God, the being called Christ was; nay, he did not understand the im-
port of the vision. Says Eusebius, (de vita Const. L. i. c. 32. p. 423.): Kaj rU
iin Qtos /ipdra, rig re o THy oj3-eiV»j S^fois tow a-tifAiiov xiyoi. InterrOgabat, qUIS-
nam ille Deus esset, quidve signi illius visio sibi vellct. And yet, as Eusebius
had just before said distinctly, Christ himself had conversed with Constantine in
his sleep, and had taught him the meaning of the vision. Therefore Constantine
sent for priests of the Christian religion and when he had learned [p. 973.]
;

from them the character of the God whom he had seen, and the power of that
sign, he betook himself to reading the sacred books of the Christians, with the
assistance of the priests: and he now firmly decided, that Christ alone was
worthy of worship and adoration. (Ibid. c. 32. p. 423 <Sz,c.) The series of the
narration in Eusebius, puts it beyond controversy, that all this occurred in
Gaul, before Constantine had passed the Alps with his army, to encounter Max
entius. And Eusebius expressly says, (loc. cit. c. 32. p. 424.) ; Post luce {after
all above stated,) munitus spe bona, quam in illo (Christo) collocaverat, tyran-
nici furoris (Maxentii) incendium restinguere aggressus est. Therefore, ac-
cording to this author, Constantine was already a Christian, when he determined
on the war against Ma,\entius; as a Christian, he marched into Italy; relying
on the aid of Christ, he fought with Ma.\entius; and to Christ he attributed his
victory and lastly, after his triumph, he manifested his gratitude to his Pre-
;

server, by enacting laws in favor of the Christians. That a large part of this is
true, I do not doubt. For, as Constantine issued his liberal edicts in favor of
the Christians, immediately after his victory over Maxentius, he, doubtless, was
then more favorably disposed towards the Christians than previously; and he
must be supposed to have attributed his victory to Christ. And yet these very
edicts, which evince his good will to the Christians and his reverence for Christ,
at thesame time prove, that all the things stated by Eusebius could not be true,
and they show, that Constantine was not, at that time, a Christian, except in the
lowest sense. For while he believed Christ to be a God, he did not believe him
to be the supreme God who controls all things; nor did he consider the
Christian religion to be the only way of attaining salvation, but only a good and
useful one, and more safe than the other religions. That I may not be thought
to speak unadvisedly, I will cite the Emperor's own language, in his second
edict in favor of the Christians, preserved by Lactantius, (de mort. perseq. c. 48.)
Eusebius, (Hist. Eccles. L. and others: Hsec ordinanda esse credidimus»
.\. e. 5.)

ut daremus et Chrislianis et omnibus liberam potestatem sequendi religionera.

468 Centunj IV. — Section 7.

qu.am quisque voluisset: quo, quieqiiid divinitatis in sede coelesti, (o, rl noH im
S-«;oT«Tcjxa/(3£//iai/ioy5r^d}/|Maros,) nobis atquo omnibus, qui sub polestate nostra
Gunt constituti, placatum ae propitiuni possit existere. The reason why the Em-
peror concluded to allow and among them the Christians, liberty
all tlie citizens,

to follow what religion they chose, was, that he and all the citizens might have
all the Gods resident in the celestial mansion, propitious and friendly to them.

And therefore, at the time Constanline issued this edict, he believed, —

I. That

there are many Gods, in the celestial mansion. — 11. Among the Gods dwelling
in the celestial —
mansion, Christ is one. III. His own safety, and that of the
citizens and of the whole republic, required, that all these Gods, and Christ
among the rest, should be propitious and friendly to the Romans, —IV. Among
these Gods, were the Gods then worshipped by the nations of the earth, and
[p. 974.] particularly —
by the Romans. V. And therefore all these Gods, as well
as Christ, ought to be honored and worshipped, lest they should be otff nded and
become hostile to the republic. —From all which, it clearly follows, —VI. That
the form of religion approved by Christians, was a useful and good one: —yet
yil. The religions of all the Gods, also, had their value: and therefore, —VIII.
All the religions of all the Gods, were to be tolerated and treated with respect,
notwithstanding they were perhaps not all of equal excellence and dignity. A
little after, in the same edict, a sentence occurs, in which the same views are ex-
pressed in terms alittle varied: Credidimus, ut nulli omnino fiicultatcm abne-

gandam putaremus, qui vel observationi Christianorum, vel ei religion! mentem

suam dederet, quam ipse sibi aptissimam esse sentiret, ut possit nobis summa
divinltas, (to ^tlov,) cujus religioni liberis raentibus obsequimur, in omnibus so-
litum suum fovorem atque benevolentiam prsestare. The summa divinitas,
(to S-f7iv,) whose favor the Emperor here deems necessary to him, is not the

one supreme God but the phrase must be explained in accordance with what
;

precedes it: and hence, the summa divinitas is, what Constantine had denomi-
nated, Quiequid diiinitatis in sede ccelesti est. W^hat he subjoins, viz. that he and

his colleague, Hujus divinitatis religioni liberis mentibus obsequi, deserves special
attention. What does the declaration mean ? As the summa divinitas is ex-
plained by Constantine to include all the Gods in the celestial mansion, or quie-
quid divinitatis in sede ccelesti est, it must be evident, that these words can have
no other meaning than the following: We, the Emperors, serve all the Goda
liberis mentihus, both the ancient Gods, and him whom the Christians worship;

that is, we confine ourselves exclusively to no one i-eligion, but we favor them
all : but to our citizens, we give the liberty of selecting from among those re-
ligions, that which they think to be the best. —How far are these views from
those of a true and perfect Christian ? And, if the religious character of Con-
stantine is to be learned from his public edicts, how greatly do they mistake, who
suppose that after vanquishing Maxentius, he forsook the Gentile religions, and
embraced the Christian as being the only true religion ? There is not one of all

the laws enacted by Constantine, during the first years after the victory over
Maxentius, which is not easily explained in accordance with the views we have
attributed to him. He conferred precious privileges and favors on the Christians
and their priests, he spoke I'espectfully of the Christian religion, and he denomi-
 Constantine's Conversion. 4G9

fialed tlie cluircli very holy and Catholic. But all this a man might do, who ap-
proved of the Christian religion, esteeming it holy and good, and yet did not
consider the other religions as f:dse, and to be abandoned. And there is no one
of his laws, for several years, from which it may be clearly inferred, that Con-
slanline held Christ to be the Saviour of mankind, and his Saviour, and that he
disapproved altogether the religions of the Gods. With his edicts, which [p. 975.]
show mind to be fluctuating among various religions, his conduct is coinci-
his
dent; and some of his acts could not have proceeded from a truly Christian
man. His laws tolerating soothsayers, provided they practised their arts openly,
enactedin the seventh and ninth years after his victory over Maxentins, are well

known. (See the Codex Theodosianus, L. ix. Tit. xvi. Leg. 1, 2. and L. xvi.

Tit. X. L^g. 1.) Although Gothofred, Tillemonl, and others, labor to extenuate
the b.iseness of these laws, yet they do not prevent its appearing, that Conslan-
tine had not then wholly abandoned the old Romish religion, and settled down
in the profes'^ion of Christianity alone. Neither do I see, why Zosimus should
be charged with falsehood, when he states, (Lib. ii. p. 103. edit. Oxon. 1679. 8vo.)
that Cimslanline, long after his dominion was established, listened to soothsay-
ers, and put confidence in them. And [ suppose, the same Zosimus does not
ini{>ose on the succeeding ages, when in the same place he say.s, that the Em-
peror, even after Licinius was shiin, Patriis (the Roman) sacris usum esse, non
honoris quidem, sed necessitatis caussa; i. e. lest the Roman people should take
offence. For just so ought an Emperor to do, who had publicly declared, that
lie, LiberO. menle, omnis dicinilalis in ccelesli sede vcrsantis religinne obseqni; or,
was not exclusively devoted to any one of the religions then known in the Ro-
man empire. — 1 pass over other acts of Conslaniine, unsuitable for a man, who
believes no religion to be true but the Christian.
How long Conslaniine retained these vague and undecided views of religion
and religious worsliip, regarding the christian religion as excellent, and salutary
to the Roman state, yet not esteeming the other religions or those of inferior
Gods, as vain, pernicious and odious to God ; — it is difficult to determine.
Zosimus, as is well known, reports, (Historia, L. ii. p. 104, &c.) that Constan-
tine did not publicly profess Christianity, and show himself hostile to the Ro-
mish sacred rites, until after the slaughter of his son Crispus and his wife
Fausta; which truly detestable crimes were perpetrated in the year 326. The
falsehood of this statement, as well as of the cause assigned by Zosiimis for
the Emperor's change of religion, I shall not stop here to prove ; for it has
long since been demonstrated by many persons, and may be easily substanti-
ated from the laws which Constanline, before that time, enacted for the benefit
of the christian religion. And yet, in my opinion, Zosimus has not herein err-
ed so grossly as learned men have supposed. For, not to mention that the error
is of only a few years, who can wonder that a man who understood that Constan-

tine practised the Roman worship for many years, and did not hesitate to sacri-

fice to the Gods, notwithstanding he venerated Christ and was benignant to his
vi'orshipers, — should thence infer, that the Emperor went over to the Christians
at a later period than was commonly supposed ? After well consider- [p. 976.]

ing the subject, I have come to the conclusion, that subsequently to the death of
470 Century IV. — Section 7.

Licimius in the year 323,when Constantine found himself sole Emperor, he he-
came an who believes no religion but the christian to
absolute Christian, or one
be acceptable to God. He had previously considered the religion of one God aa
more excellent than the other religions, and believed that Christ ought especi-

ally to be worshipped: yet he supposed there were also inferior Deities; and
that to these some worship might be paid, in the mannei of the fathers, without
fault or sin. And who does not know, that in those times, many others also
combined the worship of Christ with that of the ancient Gods, whom they re-
garded as the ministers of the supreme God in the government of human and
earthly affairs? From the year above named, commence those laws and actions
of Constantine, from which most clearly appear, his abhorrence of the ancient
superstitions, and his wish to abolish them and to establish every where the
christian religion. Previously, he had enacted no such laws, except the single
one for the observance of the Lord's day, in the year 321, which partially dis-
closed the designs he was then conlemplating. It was not till this year, (323,)
that all persons who, on account of Christianity, had in preceding times been
exiled or condemned to the mines and the public works, or been stripped of
their property, were restored to their homes, their liberty, tlieir reputable stand-
ing, and their estates. See Eusehius, (de vita Constant. L. ii. c. 20. p. 453, &.c.)

And it was at the same time he prohibited the sacrificing to the Gods, which
had before been lawful ;
(Euseb. loc. cit. c. 44. p. 464.) and commanded chris-

tian temples to be erected, and the decayed churches to be repaired and enlarg-
ed ;
(Ibid. c. 46. p. 465.) But the strongest and most certain evidence, that his

mind was entirely alienated from all worship of the Gods and exclusively de-

voted to Ciirist, is the Address he sent to all the citizens, on the falsity and
baseness of the ancient superstitions; in which he exhorted all people to re-
nounce the Gods, and to worship none but Christ. This very pious Addres-?,
worthy of a christian Emperor, is found in Eusehius, (de vita Constat. L. ii. c
48, &c. p. 466, &.C.) These edicts were followed up, in the last years of his life,
by actions and institutions expressive of Constantine's purpose of extirpating
the ancient religions, and of supporting only christiany. For he commanded
the temples of the Gods to be every where demolished, the images to be bro-

ken, the treasures and goods of the temples (to be confiscated,) and the sacri-
fices to be discontinued. See Jac. Gothnfred. ad Codicem Theodosianum, (torn.

vi. P. 1. p. 290.)
As I suppose it to be certain from wbat has been stated, that Constantine
attained gradually to a correct knowledge of religious truth, that at first, and
for a long time, he was only a semi-Christian, but afterwards banished all su-
perstition from his mind, and sincerely embraced Christianity; I therefore con-
clude, that the statement of Zosimus, (Histor. L. ii. p. 104.) is not to be wholly

disregarded. He says, that after the death of Licinius, a certain Egyptian came
to Rome
from Spain, and persuaded the Emperor of the truth of the Christian
[p. 977.] religion. Zosimus, undoubtedly, did not fabricate this story for ;

what possible motive could induce him ? He must have learned it from those
acquainted with the events of those times. But that Egyptian did not first

brino- Constantine to entertain high and honorable views of the christian reli-
 Constantine' s Conversion. 471

gion, for such views he had long entertained ; but he purified and perfected the
Emperor's ideas of Christ and of the christian religion, which iiad before been
and superstitious, and he demonstrated to him, that the wor-
Botnew'iiat corrupt
ship of the Gods was utterly inadmissible. On apprehending and embracing
these views, the Emperor took on him the patronage of the christian religion
only. I venture still farther, and maintain, that there is not a total destitution
of truth in the statement by Zosimus of the manner in which Constantine was
led to desert the Romish religion and attach himself to the ciiristian, notwith-
standing ie;irned men have pronounced it a compound of calumnies and lies.
Zosimus tells us, that Constantine demanded of the flamens of the Gods a lus-
tration in regard to Licinius and his own wife and son;
from his gross crimes
and that they told him there was no lustration possible for so great offences;
But that the Egyptian Christian before mentioned, told the Emperor, that the
Christian religion had power to blot out all sins, and to free those who embraced
it from all guilt. And therefore he willingly embraced so convenient and useful
a religion. I admit, that in this narrative there is not a little of ignorance, of
envy, and of malignity : and yet I can believe, that there is some truth at the
bottom of the fable; and that Conslanline, after the death of Licinius, first learn-
ed, either from this Egyptian or from some others, that Christ has made expiation
for the sins of a// men, by his death and blood, and that the pardon of all their
sins may be confidently promised to all those, who by faith become partakers of
his merits. In the first years after his victory over Maxentius, his views of re-
ligion generally, and of the Christian religion in particular, were not altogether
sound, and they differed not greatly from those of the Greeks and Romans. For,
being ignorant of the nature of the salvation and blessings, which
Ciirist has
purchased for mankind, he supposed Christ to be a God, who rewarded the
fidelity and assiduity of his worshippers with happiness and prosperity, in the
present life, and inflicted evils of all kinds on his contemners and enemies. Con-
stantine himself advances such ideas, not obscurely, in his Rescript to Anulinus,
(apud Eusebiu7n, Hist. Eccles. L. x. c. 7. p. 394.) where he writes, that he had
noticed, that despising and depressing the worship of one God, had brought im-
mense evils upon the republic and the citizens; but the reception and observance
of it, had conferred great glory on the Roman name, and the highest hnppiness on
the citizens. At that time, therefore, he measured the excellence and worth of ditfer-
ent religions by the temporal benefits they conferred, and he signified his appro-
bation of Christianity, because it promised most advantages to the Romans.
Nor does Eusebius, as before remarked, deny that such were at first [p. 978.]
Constantine's opinions. But the Christian teachers with whom he conversed,
gradually removed from his mind this great error, so repugnant to the nature oi
Christianity; and they demonstrated to him, that Christ had not purchased
worldly glory, honors, and pleasures for his followers, but had obtained of God
for them, the pardon of all their sins, and the expectation of eternal salvation.
And thus, having learned at last the true nature of the Christian religion, by the
aid of this Egyptian or some others, he was able to perceive more clearly the
folly and deformity of the ancient superstitions; and therefore sincerely gave
bis name to Christ alone. And hence, if I mistake not, arose that fable of Zosimus.
472 Century IV. — Seclion 7,

(2) The story of Conslanline's seeing a cross in tlie heavens, before his bat.
tie willi M.\xentiu«, is familiar even to the children of all sects of Christians

and yet it has exercised exceedingly, verv distinguished men, who had the full-
est belief in the divine origin of the Christian religion. And firsl, there is dis-

pute as to tiie time and place, in which tlie Emperor saw this wonderful sign.
On this point, there are two opinions among the learned. Some say, he saw the
vision wliile he was in GauU and was contemplating a war against Maxentius.
These follow the high autiiority of Eus^bius, (de vita Constant. L. ii. c. 28.

p. 410.) who certainly so rehites the story, as to leave the impression, that Con-
sianline determined to wage war with Maxentius, afle7- he had seen tiiis cross,

and he had formed a military standard in imitation of it. For he says,

after
(c. 30.) tliat the Emperor having placed the sign of the cross before the sohliers,

advanced with his army, (and it was from Gaul, he marclied,) to restore liberty
to the Romans. And he presently adds, that in all his battles with Maxentius,
this sio-n of the cross was borne in the front. And he closes his narrative of the
subject, with these words, (c. 32. p. 424.): Post hac, (after all t'^at Inid been said
of tlie vision of the cross, and the formation of the Labarum in the likeness of

it,) muni' us spebona — tyrannici furoris incendium restinguere aggressus est. He

therefore determined on the war with Maxentius, after he had seen the cross;
and that determination, all the learned admit, was formed in Gaul. What has
been adduced from Prudent ius and others, in confirmation of this opinion, has
much less weight, and may easily be confuted. But others, relying on the tes- —
timony of Lactanlius, (de mort. persequut. c. 44. p. 999.) maintain, that this

cross appeared to Constantine, at the siege of Rome, A. D. 312. on the 7th of

the Kalends of November. This opinion was first advanced by Steph. Buluze,
in his notes on this passage of Lactantius: and he was followed by Anton. Pagi,
Fabricius, and many others. And it is difficult to say, which of the two, Euse-

bius or Lactantius, is most to be credited. The brothers Balkrini, (in their Ob-
[p. 979.] servations on Noris, Histor. Donatistar. 0pp. torn. iv. p. 662.) have as-
sumed the office of arbiters in the controversy; and, in order to reconcile LaC'
iantius and Eusebius, they would persuade us, that Constantine twice saw the
cross in his sleep, J?rs/ in Gaul, and then in Italy, just before the decisive battle
with Maxentius. But these learned men will not meet ready credence, since it

may be inferred from the language of Lactanlius, that Constantine had seen no
cross, until the dream which he describes. I will dismiss this question, which
is of no great moment, and not easily decided; and will proceed to consider the
vision itself.
Those learned and sagacious men who have disputed concerning this cele-

brated cross of Constantine, may be divided into tico classes. For, since no one
can deny, that the Emperor wished to be regarded as having actually seen that
celestialsign called his cross, and moreover, studiously sought, by various
means, such as institutions, medals, declarations, &,c. to persuade both citizens
and soldiers of the reality of the vision ;
yet there are some, who think his
honesty in this matter, may be called in question, and, indeed, ought to be.

Hence, .So?2ie regard the story as a fable ; and they conjecture various reasons
for the Emperor's fabrication of it. But otkers, and they are the majority, have
 Constant'me\ Vision. 173

no doubts, that Conslantine actually saio whit he states: yet those who consti-
tute this party, entertain different views, as we shall see hereaffer.
The first who ranked Const;intine's story of the cross ixmong fables, were
the friends and worsiiipers of the Gods living in the century in which the virion
is s:iid to have occurred, Gelasius Cyzicenus, (in his Acta Concilii Nicaeni, L.
i.e. 4. in Harduin's Concilia toni. I. p. 351.) says, that they boldly asserted, that
this vision was to be placed amonor the fabrications intended to bcncfil iho
Cliristians: Tcuro rfi Sir.yif/uta Ti/5 /miv ds-iVTi/j jw uS-o; iivat a'jAil koX TXaTua.
Hiec tota narratio inlidelibus/«^u/a et commenLum esse videtur. Against these
eneinios of the cross, Gelasius disputes earnestly but not as he ought to do, ;

by adducing testimonies, but solely by citing e.\aniples of similar vi-ions; which)

if true, would only prove that tids vision was possible, not that it was actual.

Among the moderns, so far as I knovv, the first who formally denied the reality
of Constantine's vision, was Julni Hornbcck, (in Ins comment, on the bull of
Urban VIH. de imigiidbus, p. 182.) But he does not employ historical argu-
ments, nor those derived from the nature of things, but merely theological ob-
jections. He was combatted by Henry Noris, (Append, ad Ilistor. Uunalist.
Opp. torn. IV. p. 662 ) After Hornbsck, very learned n:en in great numbers,
embraced his views. See Jae. Oiselius, (Thesaurus numismal. antiquorum,
p. 463.) Jae. ToUius, (in Laclnndiim de morr. periequut. p. 267. ed. Bauldrii.)
Chris. Thomasius, (Observat. Hallens. tom. i. p. 380.) Gudf-. Arnold, and
many others: all of wliom pronounce the story incredible, and therefore deny
the validity of the tesiimony in support of it. But while they rank the prodigy
axaon]^ frauds, tiiey dis.igree as to the kind of frauds to which it should [p. 980.]
be assigned. Some suppose it was a pious fraud ov a religious wile, devised for
recommending and confirming the Christian religion: while others prefer to
callit a military ivile or stratagem, by which Constantino sought to inspire his

soldiers with conhdeiice of victory and heroic valor in the war before them.
Of these two opinions, the first has, I think, no probability whatever ; for, at

the time the cross is said to have appeared to him, Constanliiie's great solicitude,
most certainly, was, not to establish and extend the christian religion, but to
vanquish Ma.xentius. Besides, Conslantine was not then himself a Christian
and he used this vision, not to aid the Christians, but to animate the soldiers.
The other opinion has more plausibility; ^nd it receives some countenance from
the example of a similar artifice employed by Licinius. For soon afterwards,
when Licinius was about engage
in battle with Maximin, he pretended, that
to
an angel appeared to him byand taught him a form of prayer, which if
night,
the soldiers should repeat, they would certainly gain the victory. See Lactan.
tins, (de mort. persequut. c. 46. p. 1003.) This artifice of Licinius, (for what
liberal minded man will presume to sy-y, it was a true vision ?) produced a
wonderful effect on the soldiers. Says Laclanlius : Crevit animus universis,
victoriam sibi credentibus de coelo nuntiatam. Who that compares the
—
two prodigies, the cross of Constantine and the prayer dictated to Licinius
—
by an angel, does not at once suspect, that Licinius copied the example of his
eolle.igue with some variation? But those who maintain the common opmion,
oppo.se to this conjecture, the fact that Conslantine confirmed his testimony by an
474 Century IV. — Section 7.

oafJi. For Eusehius says, (de vita Constant. L. i. c. 28. p. 410.) that Ccmstan-
Cine not only declared most solemnly, saw the cross, but he
that he actually
by an oath '^o k o j ts ^r/a-Ta'tra^fvou top xiyoy.
also confirmed his assertion : /> <

Who can hesitate to believe the Emperor, a' Christian, and an old man, calling
God to witness the truth of his dechvration? To meet this artjument, the op-
posite side quote Zosimus, who has recorded, (Histor. L. ii. p. 102.) that Con-
stantine often perjured himself: Conxtanlinum saepe pejerasse. But this charge
of an enemy, in this ease, is of little weight. And yet I could wisli, Easebius
had given us the form of the oath used by the Emperor. For it is well known,
the word SpKoj was also used for a mere asseveration and those well informed ;

in ancient customs, are aware, that the ancients had no very distinct and clear
ideas about swearing, and at times placed naked assertions among oaths. But
besides this argument from the oath of the Emperor, I have anotlier, which
seems to free him from the suspicion of a military artifice, and to support the
opinion of those who tliink Constantine really saio something resembling a
cross. Zosimus, who is certainly good authority in the case, tells us, (Histor.
L. n. p. 86.) that the army, which Constantine led against Maxentius, was col-

[p. 981.] lected among the barbarous nations, the Germans, the Celts &c. who
at that time, undoubtedly, were ignorant of Christianity, and worshipped the Gods
of their ancestors : Collectis copiis ex redactis in potestateni baibaris, et Ger-
manis, et aliis Celticis nationibus, itemque de Britannia coactis militibus -- ex
Alpibus in Italiam movcbat. Now to stimulate such soldiers and fire them with
confidence of victory, u very different artifice was necessary. If he had told
his troops, that Mars, or some other among the Gods wilh which they were ac-
quainted, had appeared to iiim sword in hand, and had assured him of a triumph,
he would undoubtedly have awakened their courage. But what influence, I
pray, upon barbarian men, ignorant of Christ, would a speech like the follow-
ing, possess: Take courage, fellow soldiers! We shall be victorious; fori
have seen the sign of a cross in the clouds ; and Christ appeared to me in my
sleep, saying that under the guidance of this sign, I shall be able to triumph
over the enemy! If we would not make Constantine a great simpleton, we

must believe that he would adapt the fraud, by which he sought to animate
them, to their genius, their customs, their capacities, and their opinions. But
this vision, which learned men suppos^ lie invented, was totally opposite to the
feelings, the habits, and the sentiments of the troops which he was leading to
battle and it was suited to impose on none but Christians.
;

Those who acquit Constantine of all fraud, and suppose his vision to
have been arealilij, differ as to the nature of that lision. The majority suppose
that he saw it wiiile aicake; but otliers say, it was in his sleep. Both adduce in
support of their opinions high and very respectable authorities. Those who
maintain the _^rs/ opinion, rely especially on Eusebius, who says, that he receiv-
ed his account from the mouth of the Emperor. Yet there are other ani later
writers, (the principal of whom are Philostorgius and Socrates,) who likewise
state, that the vision was addressed to the bodily eyes, and not to the imagina-
tion or mind; they say, that Constantine beheld in the clouds at midday, a
column of light in the form of a cross. These testimonies are carefully collect
 Consiantines Vision. 475

ed by Jo. Alb. Fahricms, (Diss, de cruce Constant. J

6. Biblioth. Graecae vol. vi,
p. 13, &.C.) But all these writers appear to have derived their int'orination from
Eusehius : and therefore to him, or rather to Conslaniine, whose statements he
records, the whole narrative is to be traced. Eusehius says, (de vita Conslant.
L. i. c. 28, 29. p. 410 &c.) that he heard Conslantine not only declare, but con-
firm with an oath Horis diei meridianis, sole in occasum vergente, se crucis
:

tropaeum in coelo ex luce conflatuin, soli superpositum, ipsis oculis vidisse, cum
hujusmodi inscriptione : Hac Vince : Illud visum milites etiam animadvertisse,
quibus cinctus erat : Nescivisse vero se, quid hoc spectrum sibi vellet : At se-
quenti nocte, Ciiristum dormienti apparuisse cum signo illo, quod in coelo oa-
tensum. fuerat, praecepisseque, ut militari signo ad siniilitudinem ejus, quod in
coelo vidisset, fabricato, eo tanquam salutari prae'sidio in praeliis uteretur. If
this narrative is true, Constantine had two divine visions ; the one in [p. 982.]
broad day light, and when he was awake ; the other the niglil following, and
when he was asleep. The first he did not comprehend at the time : but the lat-

ter dispelled his ignorance and doubts. For Christ himself interpreted to him
the mysterious vision. As all the other writers lived after Eusebius, and, as
appears from their language, transcribed almost their whole account from him,
the whole story rests solely on the fidelity of Constantine and Eusebius. For
though Constantine .says, saw what he saw, yet Eusebius deriv-
that hia soldiers
ed his information solely from the Emperor, and he names no other witness.
And here I cannot liut remark, that the learned men who confidently affirm, that
the tchole army, as well as Constantine, saw this wonderful sign, cannot prove
what they ailirm, from the language of Eusebius. For he does not say, that
Constantine's ar7ny saw that cross, but merely says : Milites omnes, qui ipsum
nescio quo iter facientem sequebanlur, miraculi .spectatores fuisse. This lan-

guage, I and more correctly explained of the/ew men who wore

think, is better

his body guards, or the praetorian soldiers, that accompanied him on some ex-
cursion, than of his whole army. As for Eusebius, there is no reason at all to

euspecT him of any wish to deceive his readers, or that he stated any thing dif-

ferent from what was told to him. He certainly had no reason for misrepresent-

ing or fab icaiiiig any thing of the kind. Indeed there are some things, wiiich
seem to place his fidelity in this narration beyond dispute. First; In hisEucies.
History, which afforded the fairest opportunity for introducing so important a
matter, there is no mention of it whatever. This shows, that when he wrote
his History, that is, prior to the year 324, he was ignorant on the subject and ;

that it was not then generally a subject of conversation. Again; In his life of
Constantine, (L. ii. c. 28.) he frankly acknowledges, that this prodigy seems al-

most incredible ; but that it would be wrong to question the Emperor's veraci-
ty : wliich is as much were as I have stated, be-
as saying :
" I believe the facts

cause my most gracious lord bids me believe them but if another person had :

told them to me, I would not believe them." A man wishing to deceive or me-
ditating a pious fraud, would not so speak. We are therefore brought back to
Conslantine only. Shall we give credence to tliis august witness, or siiall we
disbelieve him ? It seems almost sacrilege, to charge so great a Prince with

guile and falsi hood when under oath. And yet he was but a man; and mo-
476 Century IV. — Section 7.

lives for his using deception can be named. Constaniine was a rain man, and
greedy of praise and glory, as liis conduct sliows; nor do liis frientls wliolly

deny it. I tliereCore tliink, that it will not be temerity to suppoj^e, he added
somewhat to the truth ; and perhaps, he changed a menial and nocturnal vision
into a day vision with the bodily eyes, for ilie saiie of appearing great and
favored of God, in the estimation of the citizens and particularly the bi-

[p.983.J shops. Nor is this a mere naked suspicion: it has some support. For,
—
cotemporary writers of high reputation, to say nothing of more recent writers,
—knew nothing of that day vision of whicii Constaniine speiks, but tliey •"*!-

present the whole as passing in a dream. Thus Laclaniius, (if, as I suppose,

he was the author of the book de mortibus persequuiorum.) the preceptor of
Crispus, Constantine's son, and no less intimate and in confidence with the Em-
peror than Eusebius, tells us, (c. 44.) that the Emperor was admonished in his
sleep, to mark the shields of his soldiers witli crosses: commonilus est in quiete
Constantinus, ut coelesle signujn Dei notaret in scutis, atque ita proelimn commit-
teret. Fecit ut jussus est, et transversa littera X, summo c ipite circnmHcxo,
Christum in '^cutis notat, quo signo armatu^ e.\ercitus capit ferrum. This man,
therefore, living at court and in tiie focus of light, had heard nothing about a
luminous column seen in broad day, and bearing the inscription, Hac Visce.
Neither had Rufinus heard any thing of it; for he likewise, (Hist. Eccles. L. i.v.

c. 9.) speaks only of such a dream. Jf the vision of Constaniine had been pub-
licly known, and if the Emperor had stated to others what he stated to Eusebius,
how, I ask, could the^e men be ignorant of a thing of such magnitude, and sub-
stitute a mere dream in place of a true vision? Whatever conjectures or ex-
ceptions we may form, it is manifest, from this disagreement of wriiers of the
same age and common fame reported nothing definitely respect-
authority, that
ing this vision, and what some supposed was a day vi>ion, others considered to
be a dream. What inferences may be drawn from all this, need not e.xplain I

at length. Consider also the inscription, Hac Vi.\ce, which, it i> said, apj)eared
in the air with tlie cross. This inscription creates so much dirficulty in the af-
that the more it is considered, the more certain it seems, that the whol»
fair,

was a dream.
Those who think this vision was actually seen by the Emperor with his wak-
ing eyes, are again divided in opinion. The majority, following the e.Kample of
Eusebius and the ancients, place the vision among real miracles ; and they sup-
pose God ifitended it as a persuasive to the Emperor to embrace the Christian
religion. But some, with the late Jo. All. Fabricius at their head, place this
cross of Constantino among natural phenomena. They suppose that the Em-
peror saw a solar halo encompassing the sun, and not being well acquainted
with the science of nature, he mistook it for a divine prodigy. The deceased
Fabricius published a Dissertation, (in his Biblioth. Graeca, vol. vi. p. 11, &c.)
in which he displaced this ingenious theory with great fulness and erudition. If
all Eusebius has reported from the mouth of Constaniine, is strictly true,
that
no one can doubt at all, but that this cross is to be ascribed to the mighty
power of God, or to be set down as a miracle. For, whence could come those
two words, Hac Vince, except from the boundless power of God ? But if we
 Conslantbius Vision. 477

apiiroach this interprebuion, we encounter so many and ao great difficulties, that

we start bacic instinctively. First: All.hou<jh no mortal can prescribe limits to
the divine wisdom, as to the ways in which God shall deal with the men [p. 9S4.]
whom he would bless and reclaim from superstition; yet it is certain, tliat he al-
ways selects the more sure, the more suilable, and the more manifesL ways, in
preference to the dubious, the obscure, and the difficull. Now I can clearly per-
ceive, (and all who must agree with me,) that if God intended to
will reflect,
produce a religious reformation Constantino by a miracle, he could have done
in
it in a far clearer and more certain manner, than by placing the form of a cross

before his eyes, the meaning of which, on his own showing, he did not compre-
hend, Seco7idly : ]t must appear strixnge, nay incredible, to all men of sound
minds, that God should make the victory over his foes, to depend on the sign
of a cross painted upon the shields of fhe soldiers. This surely was calculated
to beget superstition in the minds of the ignorant people, and to establish them
in the worship and veneration of a cross, which has no power whatever to pro-
duce, or to preserve and augment true religion. More holy counsel, undoubt-
edly, and more accordant with both reason and Christianity, (I speak confident-
ly and I think all good and Christian men will agree with me,) I say, God
:

would have given more lioly counsel to Constantine, if he had directed both
him and his soldiers, to forsake their superstition and imi)iety,to worship Chri>t,
and with devout supplications to implore his aid and on such conditions, had
:

assured him of victory. But from such a direction as the following: Inscribe
the form of a cross on the soldiers'' shields, and bid them carry it before them, and
you will be victorious, what could result, except the corrupt opinion, that there ia

a supernatural power in the sign of a cross, and therefore, that whoever goes into
battle protected by it, will be victorious, whether he is a good man or a bad one,
a man of sound views or superstitious. I need not say, that if God had wished
to prostrate Maxcntius by a miracle, he could very easily have effected his ob-

ject, not only without a cross, but also without any battle and slaughter. jMure-
over, no one and visions of God are always useful;
will dcr.y, that the miracles

neither can he needlessly and uselessly change the laws of nature. But this
mid-day vision, which Eusebius reports from the mouth of the Emperor, was al-
together vain and useless. Emperor expressly says, neither he nor his
For, as the
soldiers jinderstood what was therefore necessarv, that a divine ex-
it meant. It

positor, the Son of God, should explain the obscure, and consequently, useless

prodigy, and should inform the Emperor, in his sleep, the night following, that
by this sign God intended, to lead him to fabricate a military standard after the
form of that celestial sign. Undoubtedly God foresaw, that Constantine
would not understand the import of the miracle : why then, did he not show
him a more intelligible and certain sign ? Was it, perhaps, that Christ might
have some reason for appearing to the Emperor in his sleep ? The dream also,

in which Christ appeared to Constantine, I can never believe For was divine.

the Son of God would have addressed the Emperor, in a very different manner.
What, I ask, did he say 1 Did he exhort Constantine to believe and to strive
after holiness? Did he bid him eschew and oppose superstition and im-
piety, rule the State with justice and wisdom, repent of his past trans- [p. 98,5.]
4T8 Century IV. — Section 7.

gres-lons, and prefer the salvation of the citizens before all things else ? Not
one of all these. What then did he say ?
He pointed out the way to obtain
a victory ; he showed Constantine what sort of a military standard he must use
in his battles. Was such an address worthy of the Savior of the human race,
of him who men by his death ? Was it worthy of the
expiated the sins of
Author of peace to mortals, who would have his followers forgive their ene-
mies? But why enlarge? This was the natural dream of a soldier and gene-
ral on the eve of battle, who fell asleep while ruminating on the best method

for obtaining the victory. Let us beware, lest by too eager defence of tlie mi-
racles told usby the ancients in their age, we should do injustice to the majesty
of God, and to that most holy religion which teaches us to subdue ourselves,
not our enemies.
The opinion of the very learned man, who ingeniously maintains that the
cross of Constantine was a natural phenomenon, has also its difficulties, wiiich I
have not sagacity enough to remove. First, tliis remarkable man himself ad-
mits, that he had mucli difficulty with those Latin words, Hac Vinxe, which
Constantine said, appeared to him in the air along with the cross. For who. I

pray you, can attribute such a writing to mere natural causes? To surmount
this difficulty, the very accomplished Greek scholar attempts a new interpreta-
tion of the language of Eusebius ; who tells us that Constantine stated, that
he saw the the trophy of a cross, >- /> a <? « v rs avrm awi^^ai, \i-ycv<rav T u r e»
Vina. These words Valesius renders: Cum liiijusmodi inscriptione : Hac
ViNCE. But the learned /^aincn/s would have us translate them thus: Eique
adjunctum fuisse picturam, indicantem, in hoc ipsi esse vincendum. He therefore
supposes, that the word ypafiiii in the passage, does not mean an inscription or
writing, but a picture or figure. And he supposes \c-yttv to be equivalent with
to signify or indicate. And the^^ure indicative of victory, he supposes, was a
croivn, such as every solar halo is. And it is well known, that a crown was the
sign of victory among the ancients. And hence, tiie idea of this distinguished
man and his followers, is, that the words Hac Vince, were not written on the
sky, but were enigmatically or symbolically expressed by {he figure of a crown.
That I may not appear punctilious, I will admit that the words of Eusebius or
rather of Constantine, will bear this interpretation. But 1st, how obscurely and

poetically, would the Emperor have expressed himself in this familiar conversa-

tion, if he had used such terms to convey his meaning to Eusebius 1 Suppose
any man, wishing to tell his friend, that in a dream he saw a croivn, siiould say, he
saw a figure, which signified: conquer by this what should we think of such ;

a man? Certainly, we should conclude that he talked in enigmas, and did not
wish to be understood ; for he would violate all the laws of familiar discourse.
2dly, It is certain, that Constantine did not wish to have his words so understood.
For, on the Labarums, on medals, and on the other monuments, he would have
[p. 986.] the very words Hac Vince, (tc«tm vi'xa,) distinctly written : which is

evidence, that he wished every body to believe, those words appeared before his
eyes in the air. — 3dly, All the incient writers so understood both him and
Eusebius: for their language puts it beyond controversy, that they all believed
Constantine to say, that, not a crown, the sign of victory, but the very words
 Constantine' s Vision. 479

Hac Vince, appeared to the Emperor. Besides, another difficulty of no less

magnitude occurs. Among all the crosses hitherto observed by astronomers
in solar halos, there has not been one similar to that which Constantine says
he saw : so that an example of such a natural phenomenon is a desideratum.
From Eusehius and from most manifest, that Constantine did
the medals, it is

not see the figure of a true cross, but the first Greek letter in the name Christ,
83. X, through the middle of which, the second letter of that name, ss. P, waa

drawn perpendicularly, thus a. Now such a figure as this, has never been
:

seen by any astronomer. I may add, that those who make the day vision a na-
tural occurrence, cannot suppose the nocturnal vision or dream which followed
it, to be supernatural or divine. For, as natural phenomena have no sigiiitican-
cy, who can believe that God undertook to instruct Constantine as to the sense

and meaning of such a plienomena ? Those, therefore, who believe the dream
of Constantine was sent of God, must necessarily believe that the preceding
mid-day vision was also divine or miraculous.
Finally, to give frankly my own opinion on this subject, I think, if there is

any measure of truth in this famous vision, (which I will not take upon me to

deny.) it all But Constantine, a long time afterwards, to

pertains to the dream.
procure for himself greater influence with the bishops, and to gain the reputa-
tion of being in high favor with God, added from his own invention all the rest;
and Eusehius recorded the trhole }mt us he stated. Such frauds, in that age,
were common among Christians nor were they deemed unlawful. Constan-
;

tine, while ruminating on the perilous war with Maxentius in which he was

about to embark, fell And while he slept, he seemed to himself to be-

asleep.
hold Ciirist, having hand that Monogram of his name, of which Constan-
in his

tine retained a distinct recollection, and promising him victory under the guid-
ance of that sign. When he awoke, he supposed he had been divinely taught
the way to obtain the victory, and that he ought to obey the vision. Yet, if

any one prefer the supposition, that Eusehius either did not correctly understand
the Emperor, and mistook what he said of his dream to refer to an ocular vision,

or, purposely added several things to the Emperor's statement, I shall not ob-
ject to his retaining such a supposition.

§ VIII. A Short Persecution by Licinius. The Roman republic

appeared tranquil and liappy, after the subjugation of Maxentius
and Maximin but soon after a new war for dominion, [p. 987.]
;

arose between Constantine the Great and his colleague Licinius,

to whom Constantine had given his sister in marriage. But this
war was of short duration. For in the year 314, Licinius being
defeated in two battles, at Cibalse in Pannonia, and in Thrace,
was compelled to sue for peace with his kinsman. But, nine
man, who wished to have
years after his defeats, this turbulent
no associate in the government, both from his own choice and at

the instigation of the Pagan priests, assailed Constantine with

480 Century IV.—Seclion 8.

larger and more powerful forces, in the year S2i. To attacll

those priests the more to himself, Licinius not only inflicted very
great wrongs upon the Christians of the provinces under his
government, but also cruelly put to death not a few of their
bishops.(') But fortune was again adverse to him. After being
defeated in several battles, he had no resource but to cast himself
on the clemency of his conqueror; and Ae, in the year 325, for
reasons not known, ordered him to be strang'\ed. After this vic-
tory over Licinius, Constantine reigned sole Emperor all his life;

and he strove to the utmost, by and regu-

his counsels, his laws
lations, and by rewards, to extend the Christian religion over all
the nations he governed, and to depress and gradually destroy
the religion of the Gods and the ancient superstitions.

(1) Of renewed persecution of the Christians in the East, Ly Licinius,-^

tliis

not to mention others who touch upon it cursorily, Eusehius treats professedly;
(Hist. Eccles. L. x. c. 8 &c. p. 396 &.c. and de vita Constant. L. ii. c. 3 «S:c.

p. 444 &c.) Among those wlio touch upon the subject incidentially, I think we
are to place Aurelius Victor, a Roman, in whose work de Cccsaribus, (c. 41.
p. 435.) thesewords occur: Licinio ne insontium quidem et nobiliura philoso-
phorum servili more cruciatus adhibili modum fecernnt. Licinius had nothing'
to do with the Philosophers ; nor can ingenuity devise a reason why he should
put them to death. Victor must therefore refer to the Ciu'istian bishops; who
imitated the Greek Piiilosophers in their dress, mode of life, &c. nay, as is well
known, often assumed the name of Philosophers. For, many of these, as EusC'
bins testifies, (ubi supra,) Licinius cruelly .nnd in a servile way put to death,

both personally and by his governors. At first, he sliowed favor to the Chris-
tians; as appears from the edicts in their behalf, issued jointly by him .and Con-
Ijtantine, and also from some other things. But when he resolved on a second
war against Constantine, he became hostile to them; .and this, I apprehend, not
so much from liatred of Christianity, or from the love of superstition, as from
the lust of power, and the hope of subduing Constantine. For, he doubtless, ex-
pected, that the vast multitude of the friends and patrons of the .incicnt religion,

[p. 988.] who were exceedingly mortified to see their interests continually de-
cline,and those of the Christians flourish and enlarge from day to day, would —
foin his party, take up arms, and -rush heartily into an intestine war against
Constantine, the p.atron of Christians, if they should see him to be inclined to
oppress the Christians, and to restore the .ancient religion to its pristine dignity.
To this motive, suggested by policy, we may add the exhortations and promises
of the Pagan priests. For they, as Eusehius tells us, (de vita Const. L. ii. c. 4.

p. 445.) when he consulted them : Respondchanl eum xidorem hostium et superi-

orem in hello fore. And hence, in his oration to his soldiers, (preserved by £u-
sebius, ibid. c. 5. p. 445, 446 ) in order to .animate them, he craftily insinuates,

that he h.ad undertaken the war to avenge .and vindicate the ancient religion
 Licinhts Persecutes. 481

and he promises, after gnining the victory, to wholly oxteniiinate all despisera
of the Gods, For hitherto he had spared the common Christians, although he
had, before the war besfan, put to cruel deaths the more grave, venerable, and
excellent of the bisliops in iiis provinces. See Eiisebiiis, (loc. cit. c. 2. p. 444.)
But this cruelty, likewise, did not so much proceed from a hatred of the religion
taught by these bishops, as from policy, and the desire of conquest. For he
feared that these bisliops, whom he knew to be much attached to Consfantine,
and to have vast influence with the people, if he spared them, would prove
traitors and enemies, would communicate information to Constanline, and would
excite sedition and rebellion among the plebeians whom they controlled. Sozo-
men perceived this motive in the crafty man ; for he says, (Hist. Eccles. L. i.

c. 7. p. 409.): Licinius existimabat, ecclesias Christianorura (and especially the

presidents or bishops of tiie churches,) id unum optare et studere, ut ilium
(^Constant inum) solum Imperntorem haberent. Therefore Licinius first expelled
all Christians from his palace; and then, proceeding farther, he ordered ail mili-
tary men on duty in the cities, if they refused to .sacrifice to the Gods, to be de-
prived of their military honors. (Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. L. x. c. 8. p. 396.)

Other enactments, altogether unjust and cruel, followed. Through his provin-
cial governors, he raised calumnies against the iis/iops most distinguished for
probity of life and for influence, and tiien put them to death in new and most
cruel ways. Some of the temples lie demolished ; others he ordered to be closed.
These were the precursors of heavier calamities and sufferings, with which ho
threatened the Christian.s when he should have conquered Const.intine. There-
fore many of them, to save their lives from peril, fled, and took refuge in tho
fields and deserts. But divine Providence, by the victories of Constanline, dis-
sipated all his atrocious projects. And this war of Licinius, became beneficial
rather than injurious to tlie Christians. For, Licinius being slain, and Constan.
tine, ruling the empire without a colleague, more zealously than ever, protected

(he Christian cause, and defended it against the assaults and machinations of
the old superstition.

END OF THE SECOND VOLUME.

VOL. n. 33
 TABLE OF COINCIDENCES. ,

The paging of ihe original Latin is noted in brackets at the outer endings of the

lines in this translation. But as the figures do not stand out very prominently,
and as the paging of the original is most commonly referred to by writers, the
following table of ihe coincidences of the two paghtgs is subjoined.

Orig.
484 Coincidences of the pages in the Original and in the Trauslation.

Orig.
 Coincidences of the pages in the Original and in the Translation. 485

Ori^
 GENERAL INDEX TO THE WORK.

Aheliles, heretics, II. Cent. I. 485. n. (1.)

Abgarus, his correspondence with Christ. I. 95.
Abraxas, with Basilides, the king of heaven. 417. — Import of (he Word.
I.

I. 421. —Was it applied to Jesus Christ 1 I. 423. — Inscribed on gems. 424. I.

Abstinence, astaught by Mystics, II. Cent. I. 380. — by Saturninus. 414. I.

Academic Philosophers, their doctrines. I. 34, 35.

Accusers of Christians, under Trojan. I. 293. —under Hadrian. . L 296. under
Antoninus Pius. I. 300.
Achamoth, an Aeon, of Valentinus. I. 459.
Actions of men, morality of, subverted by Carpocrates. I. 446.
Acts of the Apostles, disapproved by the Manichaeans. II. 272.
Adam, how viewed by Manes. II. 317.
Adamites, heretics, II. Cent. I. 485.
Adultery, esteemed lawful by Carpocrates, L 445. —a ground for excommuni.-
cation. II. 68.
Advent of Christ, according to Manes. II. 349.
Aelia Capitolina, builL by Hadrian. I. 398.
Aelians, Christians. II. Cent. I. 399.
^on of Valentinus ; see "Atmit.
African church, disputes on heretical baptisms. II. 78. 89.
Agapae, in the early church. I. 194.
Agapelae, or synisactae mulieres. II. 138. n. (2.)
Aganensian Martyrs. 11. 107.
Ages, (Saecula,) associated with the good God of Manes. II. 289.
Agriculture, disapproved by Manichaeans. II. 363.
'Aieovii, of the Orient. Philosophers. I. 43. — of Simon Magus. I. 246. —of
Cerinthus. I. 251. — of Barsilides. I. 416, 419. n. (3.)— Christ the highest
Aeon of Carpocrates. I. 440. —Their number and names, according to
Valentinus. I. 452. Manes associated them with the good God. II. 289.
Alexander, a heretic of
tiie Apostolic age. I. 222. an Impostor, — II. Cent. I. 277.
Alexander Severus, Emp. state of Christians under him. II. 13. —Was he a
Christian? II. 14.??. (2.)

Alexander, a martyr of Jerusalem. II. 27.

Alexandria, church of, very influential. I. 323. — Its school cultivated allegoric
interpretations. II. 166.
Allegoric Interpretation, its origin and abuse. I. 368. — of Origen, fully stated
II. 165, &c.
488 GENERAL INDEX.
Alms, the nlmoners of the piim. cliurch. I. 15-. — Ahns of Christians. I. 331.—
fit Cai-thiige. II. 62.— of Maiiieiite.nns. II. 3G4.
Ambiiion, a source of lieresies ; e. g. of Valentinus. nl. 449. — of Marcion. I.

486.— of Paul of Samosata. II. 229,

Ammonius Saccas, a Philosopher. I. 38. — his school. II. 348.
Amulels. II. 94.
Anabaplism of heretics. II. 78.
Ananias and Sapphira. I. 147.
Angels, called J^ons by the fathers. I. 44, 65. — Bishops, so called. I. 171.
Doctrine of Saiu7-ninus of them. I. 410. Basilides made 375 Orders of.

I. 417. 420. —held the angels presiding over nations, to be the authors of
many evils. I. 429.
Anthony, the father of Eremites. II. 198.
Antichrist, of the Jews. I. 65, &c. — supposed to be at hand, in III. Cent. II. 7.

Anlioch, church of, its rank and influence. I. 323.

Antipas, son of Herod the Gr. 1. 50, 61.
Antoninus Pius, state of Christianity under. I. 300. — under Mar. Aurel. T, 302.
Apelles, a heretic. I. 487.
Apocaltjpse of John, its authority. II. 245.
A/'oZ/o, Oracle of: see Oracles. II. 414.
Appollonius, a Martyr. I. 317. Tyanaeus, compared to Christ. II. 104.
Apologies, they aided Christianity. I. 282. —Authors of, in II. Cent. I. 282.
Estimate of them. 297.— of Justin Martyr.
I. 287, I. 300, 303.—pre-
sented to the Emp. Marcus. I. 308.— of Tertullian. I. 317, 318.— of
Eusebius for Origen. II. 201.
Apostles, chosen by Christ. I. 90. —Import of the word 'Ar.-:9-Toxos. J. 91.

Messengers of the High Priest. — A new one, how chosen. 102.

I. 91. I.

Their labors, travels, miracles, I. 106. and death. —Proof that they wrought
miracles. I. 115. —
Gnostics arose after the decease of the Apostles. I.

406.—The Apostles of the Gauls. Manes styled himself an Apostle II. 2.

of Jesus Christ. 256, 263. — He impiously created Apostles of himsel£

II.

II. 401.
Apostolici, heretics, II. Cent. I. 485.
Apostolical churches, greatly respected. I. 324.
Apotaciics, heretics, II. Cen. I. 482.
Apuleius, his book ag. Christians, entitled The Golden Ass. II. 105.
Arabia Felix, christianized. I. 263.
Arabian Heretics. II. 242.
Arabians converted. 11. I.
Arcane Discipline, among Christians, origin of. I. 373, n. (2.)
Archclaus, king of Judea. I. 50, 51.
Aristotle, some of his opinions, I. 35.

Arius, his Epistle concerning Sabellius. II. 223.

Ariemas, or Artemon, denied the divinity of Christ. I. 618.
Ariemas, his heresy. II. 233.
Ascension of Isaiah. II. 406.
 GENERAL INDEX. 489

Ascetic;, origin of, among Cliristinns. — wore cloaks. 38o. 199.

I. 381. I. II.

Asialic Christians, time of celebrating Easter. 523. — ControversyI. the witli

Romish church. II. 78.

Assemblies, religious, form of, in the prim, church. —The parts of wor-I. 146.
ship in them. I. 185. — proliibiled by tlie —by Diocletian.
rulers. II. 94, 99.
II. 26.
Atheists, were the ancient Philosophers atheists? I. 28, n. (1.) — Christians called
Atheists. I. 300.
Athenagoras, his writings. I. 394.
Auditors, who so called, among ManirliEcans'? II. 399.
Augustine, a principal writer on Manichaeism. II. 253.
Augustus, Emp. state of the empire under him. I. 9, &c.
Aurelian, Emp. referred a dispute among Christians to a council of bishops.
II. 241.
Aurelian, Emp. persecuted the Christians. II. 100, &c.
Avarice, a cause of persecution. II. 6. —an e.vcomnumicable offence. II. 68.

Balylas, a martyr. II. 478.

Baptism, deferred long, by Constantine, and by many others. II. 462. —Rites
of (ibid.) —Christian, explained. I. 89. — confirmed by a bishop. II. 62,
79.— Its efficacy. II. 72.— Heretical, validity of. II. 78, &c.— of the Ma-
nichseans. II. 392.
Barchochba, an enemy of Christians. I. 299.
Bardesanes, his sect. I. 477.
Barnabas, Epistle of. I. 207.
Barthulomew, converted the Indians. I. 262.
Basilides, his Gnostic philosophy and dogmas. I. 416.
Basilidian gems, what ? I. 424.
Bema, a festival of Manichaeans. II. 389.
Beryllus of Bostra, his error. II. 225.
Bishops, their origin. &c. — consulted
I. 168, in all cases. I. 225. — in II. Cent.
I. 3-22. —extent of power. 331. —
their I. per.«ecuted, especially. II. 19, 94.

27, 74. — independence of each

their other. II. 89. — their authority in III.
Cent. 116. —
II. equal. all— II. 122. their prerogatives in III. Cent, en-

larged. II. \28.—Ctjprian thought them created by God. 11. 129. Paul
of Samosata, both a bishop and a magistrate. II. 230.
Blasfhemy, wliat so accounted by I\Ianichaeans. II. 357.
Blastes, a heretic. 1. 486.
Body, severity to, learned from Platonism. I. 380. — resurrection of, denied by
Simonides. I. 429. — etiierial and celestial, assigned to Christ by the Bar-
desanists. I. 479. OrigerCs opinion of the body. II. 152. —the source
of all evil, and therefore to be mortified, according to the Mystica, II. 190
— state of, in the future life. II. 249.
Boehmer, J. H. refuted. I. 156.
490 GENERAL IXDEX.
Books, of the N. Test, pronounced by heretics, corrupted. II. 267. sacred,
commanded by Diocletian, to be burned. II. 423. spurious, forged by
Gnostics. I. 236.— by Ciiristians. I. 202— in II. Cent. I. 288.— ascribed

to Christ. I. 364.— the Gospel of the Nazarsans. I. 400.— of Manes.

If. 257.
Bread, breaking of, what in the N. Test. ? I. 149.
Britons, converted. I. 261. —Origin and doctors of tlieir church. I. 269.
Brothers, a common appellation among eariy Clii'istians. I. ISO.
Burning the Palace of Nicomedia, charged on Christians. II. 428.
Bt/v-ij, in the Orient, philosophy, I. 43. —an .^on of Valentinus. I. 459.

c.

Cabbala, did Valeniinus draw from it ? I. 454.

Ca:sar, C. Jul. his opinion of the immortality of the soul. I. 25, n. (3.)
Caesariani,w\\Q'\ in the edict of Valerian. II. 97.
Cainians, heretics. I. 485.
Calamines, public, attributed to the Christians. I. 134. II. 76.
Calumnies on the Christiana. I. 133. 138. — repelled by the Apologists. I. 297.
300. — ill II. Cent. I. 305. — Christians taxed with the public calamities.
II. 76.— with seditions, (929). II. 428.
Candidates for the ministry, education of, in the early clinrch. I. 166.
Canon of the N. Test, when and by w^hom made. I. 113.
Canons, Apostolic, their character. I. 202. Ecclesiastical, their origin. I. 329.
Captives propagated Christianit}'^ among Barbarians. II. 1, &,c.

Caracalla,Y.m^. persecuted the Cinistians. II. 8. 11.

Carpocrates, his system of Gnosticism. I. 438. —a very corrupt man. I. 445.

Cassianus, a heretic. I. 485.
Catechumens, in the early church. I. 180. — not taught all Christian doctrines.
I. 374, &c. 391.—Was Constantine the Gr. a Catechumen? II. 462.
Cathari, a name assumed by the Novatians. IF. 67.
Celibacy, origin of, among Christians. I. 380. —introduced in III. Cent. II. 138.
Celsus, assailed the Christians. I. 319, &e.
Cemelaries, Christians met in them for worship. II. 95. 99.

Cccnobites, origin of, among Christians. I. 380, &,c.

Cerdo, his hei'esy. I. 486, &c.
Ceremonies, Mosaic, venerated. I. 215. —repudiated by most Chri-tians in IL
Cent. 1.397. — Nazareans' opinion. 1.400. — iiow to be explained. 11.185.
—Christian, in I. Cent. I. 185.— in II. Cent. I. 390.
Cerinthus, a heretic. I. 250, &.c.
Chants, sacred, of early Christians. I. 191. —abrogated by Paul of Samosata.
II. 229.
Children, professors of Christ. II. 95.

Chiliasls, history of. II. 244.— Most of the early Christians Chiliasts. II. 246.
Chor-episcopi, their origin, rights, &c. I. 175.
 GENERAL INDEX. 4'.)1

Christ, lie only could reform mankind. I. 48. — his history at large. I. 83-100.
— Was he a carpenter ? 1.85. n. (1.) His connection with the Jewish —
church. I. 88. —
His fame in other countries. I. 95. He died voluntarily for —
—
our redemption. I. 98. 77. (1.) Why he appeared to many beside his disciples
after his resurrection. —How he was regarded by the Gentiles.
I. 99. I.

119.—Impious opinions of him by the Gnostics. 232. —by Simon Ma- I.

gus. 247. — Cerinlhus distinguished Christ from Jesus, and perverted

I.

the account of humiliation and

his 251. — Veneration of Am-
exaltation, i.

monius Christ and God.

for 362. — He held Christ wrote books on
I. that

theurgy, 364. — Pagan Oracles,

I. laud 304. — Tiie said to Christ. I. inter-

nal of the Mystics.

Christ, 386. — What the Nazaraeans I. respecting held,

his divine nature. 400. 402. — Low I. of him by the Ebonites. ojiinion I.

403. — and by Saturninus. 413. — Was he the Abraxas of Basilides?

I.

423.
I. idea of the object of
Basilides'' advent. 427. — His other his I.

doctrines concerning Saviour. 428. — denied

the 428.
I. his crucifi.xion. I.

— he deny
did freedom from sin?
Christ's 431. — he distinguished Christ I.

from 1.431. — Carpocratcs held the most degrading opinions of

Jesus.
Christ. 439. — distinguished
I. 442. — Valentinus
three tilings in Clirist. I.

accounted him the chief jEon. 453. 465, — jMarcion's views of

I. &-c.

Christ. I. 492, &.c. Montanus deemed Christ's law of jioliness imperfect.

I. 504, &.C. — Praxeas denied the personality of Christ. I. 513. — Thendotus

denied his divinity. I. 518.
Christ, his images worshipped by Emperors. I. 119; II. 16. — He was forsaken
by many professed Christians, in the Decian persecution. II. 31. 38. Ho —
had many true followers in the court of Valerian. II. 97. and in that of —
Diocletian. II. 113. also in the army. —
II. 113. Good and bad men —
among his followers. II. 137. Origen's opinions concerning Clirist.

II. 159. •

Christ, Doctrine of his personality, corrupted by Noctus. II. 210, &c. —by Sa-
helius. II. 215. — by Ben/llus. 225. — His II, millennial reign believed. II.

2U.—Man2s greatly dishonored 256. Christ. II. 292, &c.— dislilied the
name of Christ. 295. — supposed Christ dwelt
II. partially in the Moon,
and fully in the Sun. II. 296. See also the article Jesus.
Christiamly, the Emp. Decius aimed to e.xtirpate it utterly. II. 27.
CImstians, {hti primitive, mostly plebeians; yet some of them learned. I. 117.
Causes of their per.secution. I. 129. —Their number, in II Cent. I. 274. —
and more —Confounded with Atheists and Epicureans.
fully. I. 275. I.

277. — Some eagerly sought martyrdom.

n. 295. — Christians were I.

deemed 303. — esteemed of no importance by the Emp. Marcus.

crazy. I.

I.307. — Some Cent, expected a restoration of

in II 397. .Judaism. I.

They migrate from Pella Jerusalem. 399. — Were the Emp. Seierus
to I.

and Philip Christians? &c. —They became II. when freed

14, 22. corrupt,
from persecution. —Many of the
II. were
115. n. (3). IL earlier Chiliasts.
245.— Was Constantine a Christian 460. — W;is he a true Christian ? II. ]

II. 465.
Christians of St. John. I. 60.
492 GENERAL INDEX.
Church. Origen^s ide.i of it. II. 177. — Manic-Iiacan form of tlic. II. 398. —
Tilt first cliurelies all independent. I. 196. — Apostolic churches higliiy re-

spected. 323. — Were the

I. 197. 7J. churches confederated? 198. early I.

7?. —Churches founded the

(2.) provinces. 1.260. Church go-
in different
ve.nment Centin II 322.— Cent. I. — equalin III II. 115. All churclies

and the
free in Cent. III—Primacy of the Roini-h clnnvh.
II. 120. I.

326. — Independence of churches gradually subverted. 329. — Who pro- I.

perly members of the church ? I. 391. Novatian held, none but holy men
are members. II. 66.
Church Edifice, contest respecting one. II. 241.
was an Academic Philo-opher. I. 35.
C/ce?-o,

Clemer.s Alexandrinus, recommended philosophy. I. 341. —injured biblical in-

terpretation. 1.369. —Mystical opinions germinated in him. 1.388. His

writings. I. 393.
Clemens, Flaiius, a consul and martyr. I. 143.
Clemens Rmnanus, his writings. I. 201. —Spurious works attributed to him.

I. 202.
Clemens, an apostle of the Gauls. II. 2.

Clergy,\n the prim, church. I. 184. —Import of the word, and rights of the
persons. II. 116.—Their morals, in III Cent. II. 137.

Climate, its influence on religion. I. 387.

Clinic Baptism. II. 62.
Colarbasus, a Valentinian heretic. I. 473.
Collins, Anthony, his opinion refuted. I. 79. n. (2.)
Cologne, the church tliere. I. 269.
Communiiy of Asia, an Edict addressed to. I. 301.
Community of goods, in prim, church, the author's opinion of. f. 152.
of women, contended for Carpocrates. I. 446.
Concilabula, what ? II. 94.

Concupiscence, prohibition of, ridiculed by Carpocrales. I. 445. — How to bo

overcome, according to the Mystics. II. 194.
Confessors, who so called in the church. I. 135. —Veneration of, (ibid, n.)—
were elected ministers of churches. II. 118.
*
Confirmation of baptism, by a bishop. II. 62. 79.

Confiscation of goods, a penalty on Confessors. II. 97.

Constantine the Gr. in what sense the firsl Christian Emp. II. 25. — his Histo-

ry. II. 446. — ^greatly favored Christians. II. 448. — his morals and reli-

gion. II. 449. — gave fnll pe:ice to the Christians. II. 454.
Consianlius Chlorus, how disposed towards Christians? II. 412.
Constitutions, Apostolic, the author of not known. I. 202.
Contemplation, mystical, I. 384. II. 196.

Continence, accounted more holy than marriage, in II Cent. I. 382.

Controversies, origin of, in prim, church. —on necessity of observing the I. 214.
Mosaic law, — on the mode of
(ibid.) 220. — x\ppeals ju->tificalion. I. in, to

the Apostolic churches. 324. — Conduced the primacy of

I. Romish to the

church. 326. — respecting philosophy.

I. 343. —among the Gnostics. I. 1.407.
 GENERAL INDEX. 493

Controversies on the time of Easter. I. 423. —Modernscrr by not considering tlie

ancient use of the word sraa-;^*. I. 525. —concerning the lapsed. II. 38.

between Novatus and Cyprian. II. 45. —with Novatian. — on II. 59. here-
tical baptisms. II. 78. — on Trinity and person of Christ. II. 209.
Conveiilians for worship, form of in prim, cluuch. I. 147. — Parts of worship
described. I. 1S5. —prohibited by civil rulers. 11. 94. 99. —by Diocletian.
II. 426.
Coracion,a Chiliast. II. 250.
Cornelius, bp. of Rome.—was a Confessor.
II. 58, &c. IT. 74.
Councils, had the early church any 196. —That Jerusalem.
1 I. —can at I. 199.

it be a Council?
called 216. —Councils originated
I. pent, among
n. in II

the Greeks, and from the connection provinces.

civil 329. — Tertnl- in I.

lian's account of them. 332. — Councils held I. Carthage. at 11. 45. 56.
84. —Council of Antioch Paul of Samosata. 228.—Aurelian, Emp.
ag. II.

respected them. 241. II.

Creation of man, according Orient. Philosophers.

to —of the worll I. 44, &.c.
I. 410. 420. 425. — See Gnostics. — Valentinian's opinion. 452. — Hermo- I.

genes denied creation from nothing. 520. —Views of Manes. 330. I. II.

Creator of world, Basalides had better views of him than the other Gnos-
this

tics. 425. — Opinion of Marcion.

I. 489. I.

Creed, the when and by whom composed.

Apostles', —Conjecture as to I. 114.
the origin of the name. I. 392. n. (1.)
Crescens, an enemy of Christians. I. 320.
Cross, was Christ really or only apparently crucified, according to Basilidcs ? I.

432. — Sign of, on the forehead, and its use. II. 113. —seen by Constantine,
was it a real vision, discussed. II. 472.
Cuhricus, the original name of Manes. II. 257.
Cyprian, how he treated the lapsed. II. 39. — his contest with Novatus. IT. 45.
—demanded for the lions. II. 74, 75. — his life. 11. 117. — his martyrdom,
n. 91.

D.

Darkness, a symbol of evil among Orientals. I. 478. 489. 387. —Manichaean opi-

nions of and of its wars. II. 274. 280, &c.

it

David, his posterity sought after by the Emp. Domitian. I. 143.

Day, the Lord's, observed by Christians. I. 145. Asiatics did not confine Eas-
ter to it. I. 530.
Deacons, in prim, cliurch. I. 152, &c. 155.' Deaconesses. 176. —
I. Cent. in II

I. 322. —high authority of in African church. II. 53. —Cyprian's opinion o£

II. 131.
Decius, Emp. cruelly persecuted Christians. 11. 26.

Deists contend, the Christians were few in I and II Centuries. I. 275.

Demas, was he a heretic ? I. 222.
Demelrianus, mentioned in the history of Cyprian. II. 75.
Demetrius, bp. of Alexandria. I. 262. II. 200.
404 ©ENERAL INDEX.
Demiurge of tiie Orient. Pliilosophers. I. 45. — His genealogy given by Va-
lentinus. I. 461. —The V;ilentinian Creator. I. 462. —Tiie Miinicliae.T.n.

n. 331.
Demon of Manes, a biped. II. 285.
Demons, doctrine of, by Ammonius Saccas. I. 355. —repelled by Christians. IL
93. —by the sign of the cross. II. 113.
Descent of Christ to Hell, according to Marcion. I. 495, n. (4.)
Dioceses. I. 175.
Diocletian, his persecution. II. 106, &c. —had Christians about him. II. 413.
naturally benevolent, but prompted by the pagan priests. II. 414.
Diomjsius, the Arcopagite, Apostle of the Gauls. II. 3, n. (1.)

, bp. of Alexandria. II. 99, 215, 228.

Diotrephes, was he a heretic 1 I. 223.
Disciples, the seventy of Christ, who and what 1 I. 94.
Disciplina Arcani, preposterously introduced. I. 377. — Ecclesiastical. II. 22,
Divinity of Jesus Christ, enemies of. I. 518. Paul of Samosata. II. 233.
Dogmatic Theology, corrupted by philosophy. 1.372. —twofold, sublime 'and
popular. I. 373. —of Basilides, respecting redemption. 427. — of Carpo-
I.

crates. I. 439.— of Valentinus. I. 458, 462.

Domiiian, he 'persecuted. I. 142. —enquired after David's posterity. I. 143.
Domitilla, Flavia. I. 143.
Door of Christ, what? I. 121.
Dreams, divine, in III. Cent. II. 4.

Dositheus, was he a heretic, or delirious? I. Cent. I. 240. n.

Ducenarius, Paul of Samosata one: what this rank? II. 230.
Dynamis, an .^on of Basilides. I. 417.

E.
Earthquakes, pernicious to Christians. I. 301. II. 20.
East, Manichaeans turned towards, in prayer. II. 298.
Easter, controversy as to time of 1.523. TrdT^u. denoted the day of Christ's
death. I. 526.
Ehionites, not of the I. Cent. I. 220, n. (2.)— treated of in II. Cent. I. 400.
Eclectic Philosophers, their opinions. I. 38. — their founder (ibid.)

Edicts ag. Christians. I. 140.— of Trajan. I. 292, 294.— of Hadrian. .1. 297.—
of Antoninus Pius to the Commons of Asia. I. 301. — of ]\Iareus Aure-
lius. —Edicts not repealed, occasioned vexations. 317. —Edicts
I. 303. I.

of Severus. —collected by Ulpian. 13.— of

II. 7. —of II. Deciiis. II. 26.
Valerian. — of Gallienus.
II. 96. — of Diocletian the II. 100. to soldiers.
113.—
11. 416.— The new
ag. all Christians. 428, 435. II. Edicts. II.

Egyptiams, sacred wars.

their — general and provmcial I. 14, ??. (1.) their re-

ligions. —from Egypt came most of the

I. 21. church. 369, evils in the 1.

71, (2.)— the birthplace of mystical Christians in II. Cent. I. 380. II. 198.
Elcesaites, a sect, their discipline. I. 408.
Elect, the, among Manichfeans, revered. II. 299. — their worship. II, 391, 396.
 GENERAL INDEX. 495

£Zec/7on of ministers, belonged to the churches. 1. 103. — as late asIII.Cent. II. 117.
Eiemenls, the material, of Manichseans. II. 280. — in theworld of darkness. IL
280.— in the world of light. II. 282.—fiie in each world (ibid.)
Eleutherus sent Christian teachers to England. I. 273.
Elxai, head of the Elcesaites. I. 408.
Emjperorx, Rom. Some of them respected Christ. I. 119. II. 15. —Their edicts ag.
Christians. I. 140, n. (1.) —see Edicts.— Some of them patronized Chris-
tians. I. 298, n. (3,) 317. II. 91.— especially in the IV. Cent. II. 412,414.^
Who was the first Christian Emp. 1 II. 14, 23.
Encraiites. I. 482.
Epicurean Philosophers, their pestiferous doctrines. I. 33.

Epiphanes, son of Carporates, was he deified? I. 444, 447, n. (2.)

•E5rj3-T»Va», of Paul of Samosata, what ? II. 237.
Eremites, their origin. —from Egyptian and Platonic philosophy.
I. 68. 1. 380.
Paul of Thebnis 198.
their patriarch. II. 190,
Essenes, why not mentioned N. Test. —two kindsin I. 50, n. (1.) of, theoretical

and practical. —Porphyry, concerning them.

I. 68. —They I. 70. sacrificed
in tlie night, and burned the whole offering. I. 71.
Eucharist, what, among the Manichccans. II. 396.
Eucharius, Apostle of Germany. I. 269. II. 2.

Europeans, blindly imitated tiie austere Oriental Mystics. I. 386, 390.

Eve, history of, by Manes. II. 316. —her generation. II. 322.
Evil, whence came it? I. 44. —according to the Gnostic.". I. 230, 255. — Physi-
cal evils attributed to the Ciiristians. I. 301. II. 20. 73. —Thus the confla-
gration of the palace at Nicomedia. 11. 428. —Natural and moral, origin
of. I. 410, 489.—Whence all the evils men suffer. II. 192.
Excommunication. I. 143, ?i. (5.) — Its severity as inflicted on Valentinus. I.

449. —and on ]Montanus. I. 498.— who allowed no absolution from it. I.

506. — Excom. of theAsiatics. 534. —

I. true nature, the
Its church. in early
I. 536. — of the lapsed in III. Cent. — of schismatics. U. —
II. 38. 54. rigo-
rous, of Novatian. II. 66.
Exegetic Theologij. See Scripture.
Exile, a punishment inflicted on Christians. IL 75, 94.
Exorcists, in IV. Cent. II. 415.

P.
Fabian, a martyr. IT. 27.
Faith, the, of Constantine, discussed. II. 460. —corrupted by Corpocrates. 442. 1.

Faithful, the, in the prim, church. I. 180.

Fall of man, how explained by Basilides. I.427. — and by Manes. 323. IT.

Fanatics, Montanus one. I. 497.

Fasts, excessive, among Chirstians. I. 381. —among Montanists. 506. —The I.

Quadragessimal. I. 530. —Fasting of Manichasans. II. 360.

Faustus, the Maniohsean. II. 267.
Felicissimus, his controversy and schism. II. 46, 50.
Felicitas, a martyr. II. 7.
406 GENERAL INDEX.
Felix, a, disciple of Manes. II. 268.
Festal days, among Pagans, devoted to licentiousness. I. 17. —Dispute as to
the day for celebrating Easter. I. 623.
Fire, martyrs punished by. II. 431. — Slow fire a terrible punishment. II. 443.
Firmilian. II. 83.
Flesh, abstinence from,when and how introduced among Christians. I. 380.
Flighl, many Christians resorted to it, in the Decian persecution. II. 30.

among them, Cyprian. II. 54, 66.

Food, Manichsan notions of. II. 357. — different species of. II. 3.58.

Fortunatus, a schismatical bishop. II. 52, 68.

Fraud, an e.xcommunicable offence. II. 69. —pious frauds. I. 212, n. (2.) — re-

sorted to in II. Cent, to propagate Christianity. I. 288. —Manes fraudu-

lently corrupted the Scriptures. II. 256.
Fronto, an enemy of Christians. I. 320.

G.
Galerius, Emp. persecuted the Christians. II. 416.
Gallienus, Emp. favored Christians. II. 100.
Gallus, Emp. persecuted Christians. II. 73.
Garments, what to be used according to the Manichaeans. II. 360.
Galian, Apostle of the Gauls. II. 2.

Gauls, when and by whom converted. I. 111. —the Bazadois. 112. —Origin I.

of the Gallic churches discussed. I. 264. —The Apostles of the

II. 2.

Gauls. II. 2.

Cre77!s of Basilides, with Abraxas engraved on them. I. 424.

Generation of the Son of God, what, according to Sabellius. II. 222.
Genulphus, Apostle of the Gauls. II. 3.

Geomelrrj, study of, discouraged. I. 345. — over-valued by Theodotus and Arte-

mon. I. 518.
Germans, converted. I. 264. —by whom. I. 268. II. 2, &c.
Giants, male and female, of the ManichaBans. II. 285.
Glaucia, Basilides said, he received the Gospel from her. I. 433, n. (3.)

Glory, ridiculous pursuit of, by Paul of Samosata. II. 230.

Gnosis, Tvucri;, what? I. 30, 228. — It is the disciplina arcani. I. 375.
Gnostics, greatly disturbed the Apostolic assemblies. I. 228. —When they
arose. I. 229, n. (3.) —Their discipline. I. 230.— They upset tiie Ciiristian

doctrines. I. 231.—How far were they Platon:?ts? I. 233, n. (1.)— Their

frauds for supporting their tenets. I. 236. —Parties among them. I. 237.

Their morals injured Christians. I. 296. — the decease of

especially after

the Apostles. 1. 406. — Sects of them enumerated. I. 407. — In wliat re-

spects they all agreed. I. 496.

God, various opinions of him by the Philosophers. I. 27, 42. by Jews. I. 54. —
—
by Ammonius. I. 354. by Pra.xeas, his views of the Trinity. I. 516.
by Manes, viz. that God is the purest light. II. 282. —Did he admit two
Gods? II. 283.— Attributes of his evil God. II. 284.— his good Gcd de-
scribed at large. II. 287. — his perfections or members. II, 288.
 GENERAL INDEX. 497

Oods, fictitious, of the Pagans. I. 12. —Immense of them, —

diversity (ibid.)

How they differed in sex, power, &c. — Gods of the Egyptians.

I. 15. I.

21.— of the Persians. I. 22.

Gospels, the IV. What Manes thought of them. II. 269.— Gospel of the Na-
zareans and Ebionites. I. 400. —of Basilides. I. 429. —
The Carpocratians
gave the preference to the Gospel of Matthew. I. 444.
Goths, converted. II. 1.

Government of the church, in U. Cent. I. 322.—in III. Cent. II. 115.

VfafxfAa S'ura-i^ic, whaf II. 443.
Greek, the Christian writers of the II. Cent. I. 393. Letters full of mysteriea
I. 473. Philosophers, too much followed by the early Christian doctors. I.

341. — Churches, in them were the earliest combinations of church. I. 329.

Religion. I. 20. — Its impiety. I. 25.
Gregory of Tours. I. 267.

B.
Hadrian, Emp. state of Christians under him. 295. — He favored Christians. I.

1. — under him, many Jews were converted. 396.

297. I.

Hands imposition of by bps. 79. — Signaculum among Manichseans.

II. 361. of, II.

Happiness of God and men, in what it consists, according to the Orientals. I. 387.
Hatred to mankind, why charged on Christians by Tacitus ? I. 131.
Heaven, Basilides made 365 heavens. I. 417. Carpocrates opened heaven to —
all abandoned characters. I. 447.

Hehraizers, sect of, in II. Cent. I. 396.

Helena, the paramour of Simon Magus. I. 240.
, the mother of Constantine, favored Christians. II. 413.
Helenist s, -who 1 1.152.
Heliogabalus, Emp. state of the church under him. II. 11.
Hell, souls punished there, according to Manes. II. 377.
Hemerobaptists, a Jewish sect. I. 60.
Heraclas, a Platonic Philosopher, I. 348.
Heracleon, a Valentinian heretic. I. 472.
Herculius, Maximianus, Emp. II. 447.
Heretics, who and what, in the golden age of the church. I. 221. — Tlie Gnostics,
see Gnostics. — Simon Magus and Manander, not Heretics, because never
Christians. I. 239, 248.—in II. Cent. I. 396.— Controversy on heretical
baptisms. II. 78. —Burial sometimes denied to heretics. II. 211 Heretics
in the III. Cent, respecting Trinity and personality. II. 209. —Pride, ava-
rice, and levity, chief causes of heresies : see under the names of the prin-
cipal heretics.
Hernias, author of the Shepard. —was he Hermes the brother of Pius
I. 208. ?

I. 209.
HermeneiUics, false. I. 369. —corrupted by Origen. —Rules II. 165. of. II. 181.
Hermes Trismegistus, his Poemandcr spurious. I. 288.
Hermogenes, his heresy. I. 420.
Herod the Gr. his character. I. 49. — his sons. I. 50.
33
498 GENERAL INDEX.
Herodians, sect of. I. 58.
Hieracites, a Manichsean sect. II. 404.
Hierax, his history. (903, &c.) II. 404.
Hierarchy, ecclesiastical. I. 336. — what, in III. Cent. II. 119.
History, Sacred, how to be interpreted, according to Origen. II. 188.
Hormisdas, K. of Persia, greatly favored Manes. II. 261.
Horus, an Mow of Valentinus. I. 459.
Human Nature of Christ, Paul of Samosata's opinion of it. II. 238.
Hydroparasiaicc, or Aydroparastatee. I. 482.
Hyle, one of the lirst principles of all things, with Manichaeans. II. 275.
Hymns in praise of Christ, suppressed by Paul of Samosata. II. 230.
Hyposlosies, Sabellius denied three Hypostasies in God. II. 222. — So did Panl
of Samosata. II. 228, 235.

X.

Idolatry, punished by excommunication. II. 68.

Ignatius, his Epistles. I. 204. —Bp. of Antioch, and a martyr. I. 294.
Illumination of the H. Sp. necessary to a right interpretation of Scripture, said
Origen. II. 157. —What he conceived this to be. II. 197.
Impassible God, II. 2\A.— Christ, Manichaean, what? II. 295.
Impiety of the Pagans. I. 25. — of the Gnostics, especially Carpocrates. I.

440. — his pernicious dogmas. I. 445.

Imposition of hands, its great efficacy. II. 79.
Independence of all the early churches. I. 196. —gradually subverted. I. 329.
contrary to the wishes of Christians (ibid.) —Independence of bps. II. 89.
Indians, converted. I. 262.
Indifference of all actions asserted by Carpocrates. I. 378.
Interpretation of Scripture, in —perverse. 368. —the arcane
II. Cent. I. 367. I.

and philosophic. 376. —Origen's system of hermeneutics.

I. 156. II.

Irenaeus, on the primacy of the Romish church. 325. — Works. 393. I. his I.

Isidorus, the son of Basilides. I. 418, 426.

Italians, when and by whom converted. I. 111.

J.

Jaldaboth of the Ophites. I. 484.

James the Apostle, how put to death. I. 121. — his Gate of Jesus, what? 1. 121. —
was he the first bp. of Jerusalem? I. 172.
Jerusalem, the first centre of Christianity. I. 102. n. —Destruction of. I. 124.

Form of the church there. I. 145. — its rank and high estimation. I. 197,
71. (1.) — Some Christians expected the city to be rebuilt. I. 397. — Christians
migrate thither from Pella, in times of Hadrian. 399. —Did the Ebion- I.

ites worship it ? I. 405. —Why Irenaeus placed the church of Rome before
that of Jerusalem. I. 325.
 GENERAL INDEX. 499

Jesus, distinguished from Christ by Cerinthus. I.—and by

251. Basilides. L
431. — called CioTrdToip by Sabellius. II. 223. —Errors of Paul of Saraosata
respecting him. II. 228. —The passive Jesus of Manes, what? II. 302.
Mission and offices of, according to Manes. II. 340.
Jewish, Church, relation of Christ and tlie Apostles to it. I. 88. Republic, over-
thrown. I. 124. Priesthood, the claimed resemblance of Christian ministers
to it. I. 337. Opinions, many received by Christians. II. 244.
Jews, their state when —Their worship corrupted.
Christ came. I. 49. I. 52.
Their opinions of God,
false &c. —Divided various angels, 1. 54. into sects.
I. —Jews out of
68. —These addressed by the Apos-
Palestine. I. 80. first

tles. 101.—They the

I. harrass —Their hatred
first to Christians. I. 120.
tothe —They accused the
Christians. I. 123. 294. — Slaughter Christians, I.

of Jews under Hadrian. —Jews excluded from Jerusalem. 397.

I. 299. I.

John, the precursor of Clirist. I. 86.

, the Apostle. I. 143.— Christians of St. John. I. 59.
Joseph, of Arimathea, did he preach in Britain ? I. 269.
Jude, the brother of Christ, his descendants sought for by Domitian. I. 144.
Judgment, the last, in what sense near, according to TertuUian. I. 511, n. (4.)
Julia Mammcca. II. 13.

Justin, Martyr, his Apology. I. 300, 303. — martyrdom.

his — I. 309. his life
assailed by the Philosophers. I. 320. —He held some mystic notioijs. I.

386.— His writings. I. 393.

S.
Kabhala, or Cabbala, did Valentinus draw from it? I. 454, n. (1.)
Kingdom, the Neio, of Jesus Christ. II. 246. —A kingdom of light and a king-
dom of darkness, according to Manes. II. 275.

Labor, some viewed all worldly business an obstacle to piety. I. 317.

Lapsed, numerous in the Decian persecution. —Controversy respecting
II. 31.

them. II. 38. —denied restoration by the Novatians. II. 66.

Latin versions of the Bible in II. Cent. 282, I. —Latin Writers the
n. (1.) in
II. Cent. I. 394.
Laurentius, a martyr. II. 91.
Law, the Mosaic, contest respecting its obligation. I. 215. —rejected by many,
in times of Hadrian. I. 397. —how interpreted by Origen. II. 185. of
God, spurned by Carpocrates. I. 445. — Marcion's opinion of it. I. 490.
Montanus' views of it. I. 504.
Law, Ecclesiastical, or Canon, origin of. I. 335. To whom belonged the — su-
preme power in ecclesiastical affairs in III. Cent. II. 116.
Learned Men, few among the first Christian teachers. I. 200.
Learning, human, its utility disputed. I. 344. prohibited. II. 141. —
Lectors, in the early church. II. 117. — in IV". Cent. II. 433.
500 GE^fERAL INDEX.
Legion, Thundering, iti miracle examined. I. 311. Thehccan decimated for
martyrdom. 11. 107.
Leonidas, a martyr. II. 7.

Lihellalici, who ? II. 32.

Libcllus Pads, controversy about such. II. 39.
Liherty of the churches: see Independence.
Licinius, Emp. his history, persecution, and death. IT. 479.
Liege, cliurch of. I. 269.
Light, by the Orientals, accounted the seat of goodness and bliss. I. 478, 489,
387. — God is light; also the Saviour. II. 287. —Manes dreamed of a
kingdom of light. 11. 275. —supposed God to be intelligent Light. 11, 287.
and to have twelve members. II. 288.
Literal Sense of Scripture, despised by Origen. II. 167,
Logic, propriety of a Christian's studying it. I. 344.
Logos, (Aoyci) of Plato, Philo, and the Mystics. I. 385.— of Origen. II. 193.—
of Paul of Samosata. II. 237.
Lord's Day, observed by Christians, I, 145, — Asiatics did not limit Easter to

it. I. 531.
Lot, an Apostle elected by lot. I. 102.
Lucan, a heretic. I. 486.
Lucius king of England, did he invite Christian teachers to England? I. 270.
He was a fictitious character, or never existed. I. 272.
Lucius, a martyr. II. 75.
Lyons and Vienne, church of. I. 264. —persecuted. I. 305, n. (3.) 309.

3VC.

Macrianus, an enemy to Christians. II. 91,

Magians, was Manes a Magian ? II, 259.
Magic. I. 55.— Did Christ write books on it? I. 364.— of Marcus. I. 476,
Magistrates, Roman, equitable to Christians, I. 318, n. (3.) II. 29.

Magisiri of the Manichsans, what? II. 401.

Malchion, a rhetorician who confuted Paul of Samosata. II. 228.
Man, his destiny, according to Oriental philosophy. I. 45, —according to Sa-
turninus. 1.410. —according to Basilides. 1.417. —Creation of, ridiculously
described. I. 462. — How man came to be a biped. II, 285. —The first
Man of Manes. II. 305.
Manes, was an Oriental Philosopher. I. 42. His doctrines explained at — full

length, in more than a hundred and fifty pages. II. 251-404,

Manichccans, their evil deeds stated. II. 251.

Marcion, an Oriental Philosopher. I. 42. — his system explained. I, 486, 489,
Marcosians, heretics, I. 473.
Marcus, Emp. —Was he as great as generally supposed? 306,
I. 302. I, n. (4.)

, —a Valentinian
a bishop. I. 396. 473. heretic. I.

Marriage, when and why disapproved by 380, —accounted a Sa- Christians. I.

tanic institution by Saturninus. I, 416, n.

 GENERAL INDEX. 501

Martial, an Apostle of the Gauls. II. 2.

Martyrs, were all the Apostles martyrs? I. 106, n. (1.) —Extravagant venera-
tion for martyrs. —Their number, how
I. 135. great. —Many rashly
I. 137.
sought martyrdom. 439. 236. — Did suchII. I. magnanimously?
die I.

307. — Martyrs under Marcus. 309. — Their I. cruel tortures.

319, — I. n.

Basilides supposed, martyrdom purged away all sins. 427, — He thought

I. n.

ill of the martyrs, I. 435, n. (3.)— Many escaped it by paying money. II.

6. —Martyrs under Decius. —They give Libellos Facis whence, a

11. 27. ;

new controversy. II. 39 — under Valerian. —Martyrs of every age II. 91.

and sex. II. 95, 97. —under Diocletian. 106, 426. — Aganensian mar- II.

tyrs. II. 107. —Martyrs supposed to ascend immediately to glory. 118. II.

Maturnus, Apostle of the Germans. 269. — Apostle of the Gauls. I. II. 2.

Matter, coeternal with God, said Hermogenes. 321. — and the Manichseans, I.

II. 276.
Matthias, the new Apostle. I. 102.
Mauritius, a general and Martyr. II. 107.
Maximian, Emp. persecutor. II. 416.
Maximilla, a fanatical woman. I. 497.
Maximinus Thrax, Emp, a persecutor. II. 18.

Maximus, bp. competitor with Cyprian. 11. 58.

Melancholy, a source of heresy. I. 499.
Melitn, his apology. I. 303,
Menander. a Gnostic heretic. 1. 248. —Was Saturninus his disciple ? 1. 41 1, ??. (3.)
Messiah, Jewish opinion of the. I. 55. — All Jews expected him. I. 56, &c. n.
(1.) —Did the Sadducees? I. 57. —Marcion said, Christ only feigned him-
self the Messiah. I. 492.—Kingdom of the Messiah. II. 245.
Metempsychosis, of Basilides. I. 418. — of Manichaeans. II. 373.
Metropolitan Bishops, whence their authority. I. 335.
Metus, (Fear,) an ^on of Valentinus. I. 463.
Millenarian reign of Christ : see Chilliasts. II. 444, 446.
Mines, Christians condemned to the. II. 95.
Ministers of the Church, elected by the church. I. 103. — in III. Cent. II. 116.—
not always learned, but always sincere believers. II. 119.
Miracles, not wrought by the Apostles, but by Christ at their supplication, I.

100, n. (1.)—in II. Cent. I. 278.—Testimonies of the ancients cited. I.

279, —Middleton's opinion examined,

n. (2.) (ibid.) —Miracle of the Thun-
dering Legion. —Those of Marcus, what
I. 311. to be thought of. I. 476.—
Miracles in III. Cent. II. 4, 93.
Misery human, whence, according to Origen. II. 191.
Mithra of the Persians and Manichaeans. II. 303.
Mohammed resembled Manes in several respects. II. 265, 268,
Monarchians, heretics. I. 513.
Monks, their origin. I. 68. —^from Egypt and the Platonic philosophy. I. 380.
Monlanists, the first disturbers of Christian liberty. I. 330, n. — were Chiliasts?
II. 246.
Montanus, his heresy explained. I. 497.
502 GENERAL INDEX.
iMooTZ, dreams of Manes about it. 11.296. —did he place Christ in it? 11.296.
did Manichseans worship it ? II. 298.
Moral Sense of Scripture. II. 173.
Moral Discipline, before Christ. I. 24.— of the Oriental Philosophers. I. 46.

of the Jews. — of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

I. 56. — of Ammo- I. 76.

nius Saccas and the new Platonists. 357. — of Saturninus. 414. I. I.

Moral Theology, twofold, for the perfect and for common people, introduced in
II. Cent. I. 380.— of Basilides. I. 433.— of Carpocrates. I. 444.— of Va-
lentinus. I. 465. — of Marcion. I. 492. — of Montanus, very severe. L
501. —He corrupted the discipline of Christ. I. 504.
Morals of Christians in III. Cent. II. 137.
Moses, excessive veneration 219. — and a
of, produced schism.
of Hebra- I. sect
izers in II. Cent. —Opinion of the Nazareans respecting the law
I. 396.
of Moses. 400.—Opinion of Origen of
I. U, 185. it.

Mysteries, among the Pagans. — known, — what done them.

I. 18. little (ibid.) in

—introduced among the Romans by Hadrian.

(ibid.) —The I. 19, n. (1.)
Christians imitated them. 373, — explained by Christian
I. n. (2.) falsely
Philosophers. 378. — Various dogmas concerning them discussed.
I. I.

373, 390.
Mystic Theology, 372. — from Egyptian and the Platonic
its origin. I. philo-
sophy. 380. — Mystic union of the soul with God.
I. 383. — according I.

to Saturninus. 413. — Growth of mystic theology under Origen.

I, 190. II.

Mystical Interpretation of Scripture, its origin and Nature. II. 165.

rr.
Narcissus, an Eremite. II. 199.
Nature, what ? according to the Manichseans. II. 275.
Nazarccans, were of the II. Cent, and not the first, I. 222, n. (2.) —Their dis-

cipline. I. 400.—Their Gospel. I. 400, &c. n. (1.)

Nepos, refuted the Allegorists and revived Chiliasm. II. 244.
Nero, Emp. — Did he favor Christians'? I. 120, n. — his persecution. I. 97.
Nicolaitans, the earliest Gnostic heretics. I. 249.
Night, accounted more sacred than day, by the Essenes. I. 71. —Why the
Orientals regarded the night so highly. I, 73, n.
Noclus, his doctrine fully explained. 11. 210.
Novatian, his schism. II. 59.
Novatus, his disagreement with Cyprian. 11. 45. —Was he a schismatic Pres-
byter? II. 55.
Nswj (Nus) the Son of God, why sent into the world, according to Basilides?
I. 418. —according to Valentinus. I. 380.
Nuptials, second, regarded as very criminal. I. 380, 382. 11. 68.

O.
Oblations of the early Christians. I. 147, 179.
Office, sacerdatal of Christ : see Satisfaction of Christ.
Omophorus, in the Manichaean system of the world, what ? U. 330, 385.
 GENERAL INDEX. 503

Ophites, their history and doctrines. I. 483.

Oracles, the Pagan, said to have lauded Christ as God. I. 364. —impeded by
the presence of Christians. H. 93. — in the times of Diocletian. II. 414.
Orb, of the Manichseans, what ? I. 370.
Ordination of ministers, in whom the power of. 11. 117. — in the Apostolical
churches. I. 179.
Oriental Philosophy, held two Deities. I. 40. — its doctrine of the world, (ibid.)

—divided into various sects and opinions. I. 41. —Many Jews embraced
it. I. 78.
Origen, refuted Celsus. 320. — was devoted to the philosophy of Ammonius
I.

Saccas. —instructed the Arabs. XL —highly esteemed by

I. 348. 1. Julia
Mammaea. —Plots against
11. 13. — His correspondence his life. 11. 20.
with Emperors. —tortured under Decius.
II. 23. —applied philoso- II. 29.
phy theology, perniciously.
to — Estimate of 11. 143. his writings. II.

147. — His —His genius. U. —His

piety. 11. 148. consid- 149. allegories fully
ered. —His death. 202. — Controversies respecting him. 200.
II. 165. 11. II.

P.

Pagans, state of, when Christ came. I. 11. —were — Na-

superstitious. I. 12.

tions in which Christianity existed in II. Cent. 260. — Pagans excited by

I.

their priests, persecuted Christians. I. 319. — See also

Persecution.
Painter, Manes was a distinguished painter. II. 259.
Palace of Diocletian, Christians in it. 11. 113.
Pallium philosophicum, retained by Christian Philosophers. I. 340, n. (1.) —Did
the Ascetics wear it as a mark of distinction ] I. 383. 11. 198.
Pantccnus, converted several nations. 261. — was the
I. recommend phi- first to

losophy to Christians. I. 339. —perverted the true interpretation of Scrip-

ture I. 369.
Papias, a Chiliast. II. 245.
Parishes, in the primitive church. I. 150, n. (3.)
Paschal Supper, observed by the ancient Christians. I. 527.
Passion of Christ, held to be only apparent not real, by many Gnostics, and
particularly by Basilides. I. 428, 432. —Opinion of Valentinian. 465. I.

of Bardesaues. I. 479. — of Marcion. 493. — Did Sabellius ascribe the

I.

passion to the Father ? 11.223.

Passive Jesus of the Manichseans. 11. 302. — 379.
his liberation. II.

Patres Apostolici. I. 200.

Patriarchs, origin of I. 336.
Patripassians. I. 513. — their errors. IT. 212.
Patronage, right of I. 165, n. (2.)
Paul, his conversion. I. 105. —martyrdom. I. 138. —Did he convert the Britons?
I. 270. —The Ebionites reviled him. I. 404. —His how regarded
Epistles,
by the Manichaeans ? 11. 273.
Paul, an Apostle of the Gauls. 11. 2.

, of Thebais, the choriphaeus of Eremites, his history, U. 190, 198.

^

, of Samosata, his history and heresy. 11. 228.

 504 GENERAL INDEX.
Paidians or Paulianisls. 11. 229.
Paupers, were all Cent, poor people?
the Christians in the 116.— Care of I. I.

the poor, by Cyprian. —How treated by the Manichseane. 365.

11. 52. 11.

Peace was not universal the Rom. Empire, under Augustus.

in —External I. 11.

peace of the church, Christians self-indulgence.

led 115. to II. 31,
Pella, a refuge of 398. —Their return to Jerusalem.
Christians. I. 399. I.

Penitence of the Lapsed. —was discarded by Novatian U.

11. 43. it ? 70.
Penitents the early church.
in —Discipline of II. 22. 11. 38.
People the common, had great power the church HI. Cent. — in in 11. 117. in
the Apostolic churches. I. 179.
Peregrinus, an Apostle of the Gauls. 11. 3.

Perfections of God, according to Manes, what ? 11. 288.

Peripatetic Philosophers. I. 35.
Perpetua, a martyr. II. 7.

Persecutions, in I. Cent. I. 120. —^Were there just ten? I. —Causes

125. of.
I. 129. —The Neronian. I. 138.—under Domitian. I. 142. —under Trajan.
I. 292. — under Hadrian. I. 296. — under Antoninus. I. 300. — under Mar-
cus Aurelius. I. 302, 308.— under Sept. Severus. I. 317. 5.—Many 11.

Christians saved themselves from it, by paying money. —under Max-

11. 6.

imin. II. 18. —under Decius. — II. 26. It led many to apost.atize. II. 33.
under G.allus. —under Valerian.
II. 73. 11. 91. —under Aurelian. II. 100.
—under Diocletian, Maximian, &,c. in IV. Cent. 11. 416.
Persians, their religion different in the different sects. I. 22.
Person of Christ : see Christ and Jesus. Did Sabellius admit distinct Persona —
in the Trinity? II. 218.— What Noetus thought. II. 210.— Beryllus de-

nied tripersonality. II. 225. —The Patripassians. I. 513. —Paul of Samo-

sata. II. 228.
Peter, his martyrdom. I. 138. —Did he cause Simon M. to fall down? I. 242.
—Was he Prince of the Apostles ? U. 126.
Pharisees, their origin and opinions. I. 62.
Philetus, a heretic. I. 222.
Philip the Apostle, did he send Joseph a missionary to Britain ? I. 269.
the Emperor, was he a Christian? II. 22.
Philo Judasus, an eclectic Philosopher. I. 39. — his mystical precepts. I. 384.
his views of the Scriptures. II. 166, 168.
Philosophers, they censured but did not correct the popular superstitions. I. 27.

—Many of them propagated pestiferous —Were they Athe- errors. I. 28. all

—^Various of
ists? (ibid.) and dogmas injurious
their sects to religion. I.

33.—Christian Philosophers did some service our holy 282 to religion. I.

—but the Pagan Philosophers were enemies. 303. — its I. II. 103. especially,

I. 219. —Opinion of the Oriental Philosophers respecting Christ and Chris-

tians. 365. I.

Philosophy, the Grecian and the —The Stoic philosophy of

Oriental. I. 30.

the Emp. Marcus, how far injurious to Christianity. I. 306, n. (4.)

Study of philosophy unsettled Christians and corrupted discipline. I.

339. —
Early teachers prized and lauded it extravagantly. I. 339.—
 GENERAL INDEX. 505

Philosophy, Controversy among —Ammonius Saccas

Chistians on its use. I. 343.
attempted to combine all —New Platonism
sects of Philosophers. I. 351.
corrupted the exposition of the Bible 369. — Christian doctrines greatly. I.

were explained away and perverted by philosophy. 372. — I. Basilides. I.

416. — Carpocrates, a example. 439. — Brief Summary of Ori-

strilcing I.

and Gnostic philosophy.

ental 468, —Theodotus and Artemon
I. n. (4.)

prized philosophy too highly. 518. — Philosophy was applied

I. theology to
with bad 143. — Origcn's philosophy.
effects. II. 150. — opinion of II. his
philosophy. II. 154.
Phygelhts, was he a heretic ? I. 222.
Piety, a show of, led many to follow the heretics. 1. 406.
Platonic philosophy gave rise to Mystics. I. 385.
Platonists, their doctrines of God and the human soul. I. 37. how for ap- —
proved by the Gnostics. I. 233.—The New Platonists. I. 348.— Their
doctrines led Christians to extreme austerity in religion. I. 380. —and to
impiety towards Christ. I. 439. —They were enemies to the Christians.
II. 103.
Pleasures of the life to come, in what to consist, according to Chiliasts?
II. 249.
nKMpofjia of the Oriental philosophy. Magus. I. 246. of I. 43. —of Simon —
Cerinthus. I. 251.— of (3.)— of Valentinus. I. 459.
Basilides. I. 419, n.

Pliny, his account of the worship of the prim. Christians. I. 186, n. (1.) and —
—
of the number of Christians. I. 276. His favor to Christians. I. 291, n. (3.)
Plotinus, many of his disciples became Christians. II. 104.

Polanders, when and by whom said to be converted. I. 111.

Polemic Theology, unavoidable, in II. Cent. I. 406.
Polycarp's Epistle. I. 207. — his martyrdom, I. 309.
Pomp, the episcopal, of Paul of Samosata. II. 230.
Ponti/s of the Jews. I. 51. —Romish, owe much of their power to controver-
sies. I. 326. — their power very limited in III. Cent. II. 80. —No bishops
then subject to them. II. 89, 121.
Poor : see Paupers,
Populace, when excited by pagan priests, harrassed Christians. 1.319: —see
also under Persecutions. —They outraged holy men when dead. I. 319, n.
Porphyry, his respect for Christ. 365. — was
I. Christians. hostile to II. 103.
Potamon of Alexandria, was he the author of the eclectic philosophy ? I. 38.
Pothinus. I. 269.— He died for the glory of Christ. I. 309.
Prayer, mystical. I. 389. —
The Pagan prayers absurd and impious. I. 17.
Prayer the chief part of the Manichsean worship. II. 390.
Praxeas, an adversary of Montanus. I. 513, n. (1.)
Predictions of Montanus and the Montanists, did not come to pass. I. 511, n.
(4.) —of Cyprian. II. 75.
Presentation, right of, whence derived. I. 165. n. (2.)
Presidents, the Roman, reluctantly persecuted the Christians. I. 318, n. (3.)
II. 29.
Presbytership of Origen, a cause of contention. 11. 203.
506 GENERAL INDEX.
PresiyfeM, were the vii. Deacons, (Acts iv.) Presbyters? 1. 156. —Their office

in the early church. —Ruling and Teaching Elders,

I. 161. laboring, &,c.
I. (2.)— Their
162, n. and 164.— Cent.
election 322.— stipends. I. in 11. I.

of Carthage, disagree with Cyprian. —Rights and authority 11. 54. in iii.

Cent. 117 11. &, 131.

Pride produced Paul of Samosata.
heresies, 228. —
e. g. persecutions. II. also
II. 416.
Priesthood, Origin was divested of. II. 205, <fcc. —imparted from God. 11. 134.
Priests, Pagan, their character. I. 17. —very hostile to Christians. I. 291,
296. — excite persecution in IV. Cent. II. 412, 414. See Teachers.
Primacy of any church. II. 124. — of the Romish church, according to Irenaeus.

I. 328. II. 125.

Principle of all things, the first ; is it ticofoW, good and bad ? I. 478, 489.
The two of Manichajans. II. 275. — their different attributes. II. 284.
The good one of Manes, fully described. II. 287. —and his Attributes.

{ibid, n.)

Prisca, wife of Diocletian, favored Christians. II. 413.

Priscilla, a fixnatical woman. I. 497.
Procurators, the Roman, vexed the Jews. I. 51. —A bishop and Ducenarius.
II. 230.
Propagation of Christianity, why so rapid? I. 115. — Cent.
in II. 259. — Causes I.

of it. I. 277. — in III. Cent. —and II. 1. causes. II. 4.

Prophetic Oracles, how be explained, according

to Origen. to II. 188.

Prophets, in the prim, church. —Judges of them. 166 —Their func-

I. 165. I.

tions not limited to predicting. I. 166 n. (1.) —Prophets of Basilides, what?

I. 418. —Montanus and his women fanatical. I. 497.
Tlfia-ajira of Sabellius, in the Trinity. II. 220.— of Paul of Samosata. II. 236,
Psalms of David substituted for Hymns, by Paul of Samosata. II. 230.
Phychology of Origen. II. 151.
Ptolomy, a Valentinian heretic. I. 471.
Ptolomaites, a Valentian sect. I. 471.
PiLblicans, they vexed the Jews. I. 51.
Purgation of souls : see Soul, Mystics, Gnostics, and I. 420, n. (7.) —accord-
ing to Origen. II. 199.
Purgated Souls, state of after death. II. 367 &c. 369, &c.— state of the half-
purgated, II. 373.
Pythagoras, compared with Christ. II. 104.

Q.
Quarlodecimani, christians who kept Easter with the Jews. I. 528.
by the Mystics.
Quietists, discipline for, I. 388.
Quietude, predicated of God. I. 387.

Rain, ridiculous opinions of the Manichseans about. II. 382.

Reason, made the interpreter of Scripture by Origen. II. 157.
 GENEKAL INDEX. 507

Recognitions of Clement, estimate of them. I. 203.

Reconciliation, denied to the Lapsed by the Novatians. II. 66.
Redemption of mankind, how Christ himself exphiined it. I. 427.
Reign of the Messiah, opinion of the Jews. II. 245.
Relics of Martyrs, venerated, t. 136, n (2.)
Religions, the Pagan, why they did not persecute each other. I, 14. —Thev led
to impiety. I. 17, 24. —Religions of the Greeks and Romans. I. — of
20.
the Indians, Persians, &c. I. 21. —of the Egyptians. — of the I. 21. Per-
sians. — All framed
I. 22. for state purposes. —and I. 23. therefore, either
civil or military, — Arguments of {ibid.) their priests in support of them.
I. 27. — Ammonias Saccas. 361.—Religion I. of the Jews in time of
Christ, corrupted. I. 51.
Religion, the Christian, where planted in I. Cent. I. 109. — Learning and elo-
quence not the instruments of its propagation. I. 278. — simplicity cor-
Its

rupted by philosophy. I. 344. — Its doctrines perverted. I. 372.

Representatives of churches, namely, the Bishops assembled in councils. I. 332.
Resurrection of the body, denied by Basilides. I. 429. —Origen's opinion of it.

II. 164.
Rhetoricians, they were opposers of Christianity. I. 320.
Riches of God, according to Manes. II. 288.
Rigor, of tlie Gnostics : see Gnostics. —of Montanus. I. 506.
Roman Empire, its state when Christ came. — I. 9. Its facilities and obstacles,
I. 9. — — corrupted by other Pagan systems. 20.
Its religion. I. 20. I.

Impiety of the Romans. — Why they disturbed Christians. 129.

I. 25. I.

Romish Church, had great influence Cent. 323. — Tertullian and Irensus in II. I.

respecting 325. — Yetit. powers were

I. 80, 125. its limited. II.

Russians, wiien and by whom said to be converted. I. 111.

s.
Sabcllius and Sabellians, their history and errors. II. 215.
Sahiin, what sect of Christians'? I. 60.
Sacrijicers, a class of the Lapsed. II. 32.
Sacrifices, formerly offered to the Gods. I. 17. —of the Essenes, nocturnal and
wholly burned. I. 71.
Sadducees, did they e.xpect a Messiah. I. 56, n. (1.) — their doctrines. I. 62.
Josephus represents them as bad men. I. 65.
Salaries or stipends of Presbyters, in the primitive church. I. 164.
Saltation religious, of the Essenes. I. 74.
Samaritans. I. 79. —Apostles endeavored to convert them. I. 101.
Sanctitij austere, among Christians, derived from Platonism. I. 380. II. 66.
Perverse ideas of by the Mystics. I. 386.—in III. Cent. II. 137, 195.
Sanhedrim of the Jews. I. 52. — Its powers indicated as merged in Christ. I. 94.
Sapor, a Christian king of Persia. II. 260.
Satan, according to Saturninus. I. 412.
Satisfaction of Christ, denied by the Gnostics, especial. y Carpojrates. I. 440.
—by Valentinus. I. 468, n. (3.) —Origen's opinion of it. II. 162.
 508 GENERAL INDEX.
Saturmnus, his philosophy. I. 409. —His system explained by himself. I. 411.
Saturninus, an Apostle of the Gauls. II. 2.

Schism respecting the obligation of the Mosaic law. I. Cent. I. 219. —of Felicissi-
mus. II. 50.
Schools, episcopal, origin of I. 168, n. — the catechetic at Alexandria, cultivated
philosophy, I. 339. II. 206. — of Ammonius Saccas. I. 348.
Scots conversion of. U. 2.

Scriptures, translations of, various in II. Cent. I. 282, n. —The reading of, re-

commended to all. (ibid.) —Interpretation of, in II. Cent. I. 367. —Ori-

gen's mode of interpreting. 156. — The
II. allegorical sense of. II. 165.—
How far inscrutable, according to Origen. II. 180. —Copies of, burned by
order of Diocletian. II. 423.
Scythianus, was he the originator of Manichaeism ? II. 257.
Sects, Christian, their origin in II. Cent. I. 396. — of the Hebraizers. I. 396.
the offspring of the Oriental philosophy prevailing after the Apostles were
gone. I. 405. — How they could seduce such multitudes, {ibid.) —The
Valentinian sects. I. 471.
Secundus, a Valentinian heretic. I. 472.
Senses of Scripture, the four (literal, allegorical, tropological, anagogical.) I. 368.
—The allegorical, as uniformly followed by Origen. II. 165.
Sepulture, denied to Noetus and his brother. II. 211.
Serenus Granianus, Proconsul of Asia, a patron of Christians. I. 297.
Serpent of Paradise, worshiped by the Ophites. I. 485.
Severus, Emp. state of the church under him. I. 317. 11. 5, 10.

, a heretic. I. 486.
Sibylline Verses, forgedby Christians. I. 288.
Sign of the Cross, seen by Constantine. II. 472.
Signum or Signaculum, among Manichaeans, what? II. 356.
Simeon, bp. of Jerusalem, and martyr. I. 294.
Si7non Magus, an Oriental philosopher. I. 42. The — first of the Gnostics. I.

239. 241, n. (2.)— his history, I. 242.— Did the Romans deify him? I.

243.— His doctrines. I. 246.

Simon of Cyrene, whose form (says Basilides) Christ assumed, and caused him
to be crucified in his place. I. 428.
Simonians, heretics. I. 241, n. (3.)

Simplicity, Christian, corrupted by philosophy. I. —and 344. especially in the

Alexandrian school. II. 165.
Sins, Carpocrates opened a door for all sins. I. 444 — see Moral. — What
:
sins,

the Novatians would not absolve from. II. 67. —Did they exclude the trans-
gressor from all hope of salvation? II. 70. —Manes' opinion of the na-
ture and origin of sin. II. 349.
Sisters, so the first Christians called the female believers. I. 180.
Sixtus, a martyr. (548.) U. 91.
Skeptic Philosophers. I. 34.
Soldiers, were there Christians in the army of Marcus? I. 313. —and of Dio-
cletian? II. 112, 113.
 GENERAL INDEX. 50i)

Solitude, courted by Christians, on the principles of the Mystics. I. 380. II. 198.
Son of God, did Sabellius distinguish him from the Father. II. 220. —Did
Manes identify him with the sun 7 II. 296.
Sophia, an Mon of Basilides. I. 417. —and of Valentinus. I. 459.
Soul, there are two souls, a rational and a sentient, in man, said the Gnostics.
I. —The Carpocratians claimed have souls equal
426, n. (7.) to to Christ's
soul. —Origen's opinion of the
I. 442. 151. — Beryllus soul. II. said,
Christ had no human 226. — The world has a soul (animam
soul. II.

mundi, Demiurgi,)
vel Valentinus. 401. — The soul of Jesus Christ
said I.

II. —to which our souls should be conformed,

191. —Return of soul* (ibid.)

the world of
to according Manes.
light, 191. — State of both purgate^
to II.

and unpurgated souls death, the system of Manes.

after 373. — Mi
in II.

gration of souls into other bodies, a 3Ianicheean doctrine. 374. II.

Soul of man, opinions of by the Philosophers.it —by the Essenea I. 33, 45.
I. —by Simon Magus. 246. —by Cerinthus. 251.— union witt
69. I. I. Its

God, the doctrine of the Mystics. 381- — destiny according I. Its to Basilides.
417. — What offences
I. committed the upper world, accordiug
it Ba- in to
silides. 427, I. —and Carpocrates. 438. —Of what material Gort
n. (7.) I.

formed according
it, Hermogenes. to
522, —Mystic opinions I. n. (3.)

of the 190. — Souls die and

soul. II. with bodies, said the Arabians.
rise their
II. 242.
Spaniurds, when and by whom said to be converted. I. 110, n. (3.)
Spirit, the Holy, gifts —Valentinus' doctrine of
of to the Apostles. I. 100.
the Holy 459. — Montanus' pretensions
Spirit. I. 497. — Cyprian. to. I. II
75.—His according
offices, the Mystics. — Sabellius held him
to II. 196.
to be a part of the Father. 215, 218. — Did Manes profess himself the
II.

H. Sp.'? II. 263.— His doctrine of the H. S. 11.293.

Spiritual sense of Scripture, according to Origen. II. 173.
Statue inscribed SemoJii Sanco. I. 244.
Statues of the Gods, supposed to be animated by them. I. 16.

Stephen, bp. of Rome, his contest with Cyprian, respecting heretical baptisms,
II. 79, 121.
Stoics, their doctrines. I. 36.
Strangers, opposed to i^'i 'i'l^poh, in St. John's Epist. who ? I. 224.
Stremojiius, Apostle of the Gauls. II. 2.

Study of human leariiing by Christians, its propriety debated. I. 344.

Substance, according to Valentinus, is animal, material, spiritual. I. 461.—
Manes' ideas of substance. II. 275.
/Sw^e?-i7?g-s of the martyrs. 1.319.71. —under Decius. 11.27. —under Gallus. 11.75.
Sun, Sabellius explained the mystery of the Trinity by the sun. II. 220. Did —
Manes suppose the sun to be the Son of God? 11. 296. and did he pay —
divine honors to it? 11.298.
Superstition of the nations when Christ appeared. I. 12. — of the Jews. I. 53.
—^Why Suetonius called Christianity malefica superstiiio. I. 131. —Wliy
Pliny called it immodica superstiiio. I. 187. — Superstition a cause of per
eecutions. II. 102, 414, 415
510 GENEKALINDEX.
Synagogues of the Jews. I. 54.
Syncretism, philosophical, of Aramonius Saccas. I. 351.
Synisactcc mulieres. II. 138.
Synods, originated in II. Cent, from a desire of ecclesiastical unity. I. 329.
Syria, the native country of many Mystics and Gnostics, and why ? I, 387,
416. II. 199.

T.

Tatian, his Oration. I. 394.

Tatian, a Valentinian heretic, his dreams. I. 481.
Taiianists, sect. I. 482.
Teachers, Christian, in HI. Cent, especially persecuted. II. 19, 27, 28, 74, 94, 96.
Teaching in public, was it free to all in the prim, church 1 I. 194, &c. 7i. (2.)
Temples of the Gods. —Emp. Alex. Severus would build a temple
I. 16. for
Christ. —He permitted Christians erect temples.
II. 16. —The to 11. 17.

Manichaeans had none. 389. — Domitian ordered the Christian temples

II.

destroyed. 417, 422. — 11. on mountains. (418.) Christian, built II.

Ten Persecutions, were there precisely number? this I. 126, n. (1.)

Terlullian,on the excellence of the Apostolic 325. — on the power churclies. I.

of Bishops and the of 330. — His

rights 394.
Christians. I. writings. I.

His Montanistic heresy. 498, 501, I. n. (5.)

Testament New, canon, when and by whom made up.

the its —Heretics I. 113.
declared the N. Test, to be corrupted. II. 267.— The Old Test, usually
by the Gnostics, especially by Saturninus, and why.
rejected I. 414.
Manes wholly discarded the Old Test. II. 269.
Thebccan Legion, what to be believed of its martyrdom. II. 117.
Theodotus, extracts from. I. 31. —the tanner, denied the Divinity of Christ.
I. 518.
Theology : see Moral, Dogmatic, &c. —Philosophical, in III. Cent. H. 143. — of
Origen. II. 155.
Theophilus, his writings. I. 394.
Thcrapeutcc, Essenes. I. 73. — of Philo. I. 74, n. (1.) —were they Christians?
I. 75.
Theurgy, Ammonius said, Christ wrote books on it. I. 364.
Thurijicati, a class of the Lapsed. II. 32.
Tiberius, Emp. venerated Christ. I. 119.
Toleration of foreign religions by the Romans. I. 14. —Constantine the Gr.
made all religions free. II. 455, 456.
To^«, what, with Sabellius'? II. 222.
Tongres, (Tungrensis,) church of. I. 269.
Tradition of the Apostles in the Romish church what Irenccus held on this

matter. I. 328. —Some Fathers say, Christ committed ^vwo-zc, i. e. an arcane

discipline, to the Apostles. I. 375. —Carpocratians pretended to arcane
doctrines handed down from Christ. I. 444.
Traditvrs, those who gave up the sacred books to Diocletian to be burned. II. 423.
 GENERAL INDEX. 511

Trajan, Emp. Pliny's Letter to him expounded. I. 186, n. (1.) — St^ite of the
church under him. I. 290.
Treves, church of. I. 269.
Trinity, distinction of the Persons, denied by Praxeas. I. 513. — Origeii's
opinions on the Trinity. II. 159.— Noetus'. II. 210.— Sabellius', 215.—
II.

By vvliat similitudes Sabellius explained the Trinity. II. 220. — Beryllus'

opinion. II. 225.—Paul of Samosata's. II. 228.— The Trinity of Manes.
II. 292.
Trophimus, an Apostle of the Gauls. 11. 2.

U.
Ulpian, the Jurisconsult, hostile to Christians. II. 13.

Unigenitus, an JEon of Valentinus. I. 459.

Union with God, many Christians of the II. Cent, sought it by Platonic austeri-
ties. I. 381.
Union with Christ, (xo>») mystical, II. 195.
Unity of God, how understood by Noetus. II. 210. —by Sabellius. II. 217.—
by Paul of Samosata. II. 228.
Urceus, metaphorically what, with Manichseans? II. 371.

V.
Valentinus, the prince of Gnostics, his history, doctrines, &c. in full. I. 449.
Valeria Augusta, a worshiper of the true God, favored Christians. II. 413.
Valerian, Emp. gave peace to the Christians. II. 73. — Afterwards persecuted
them. II. 91.
Valerius, Apostle of the — of the Gauls.
Germans. I. 269. II. 2.

Veneration for Christ, out of Judea. —by Pagans. 119. —by Roman
I. 95. I.

Emperors: see Emperors. — by Philosophers. 362. — by Oracles. 364, I. I.

Versions of the Scriptures existing in II. Cent, what and by whom. I. 282.
The author of the Itala, largely discussed. I. 283.
Vicar of Christ, the Roman Pontif is not. II. 89.—Origin of the title. II. 136.
Victor, a Rom. bp. excluded Asiatic Christians from his communion. T. 534.

Vienne and Lyons, church of I. 264. —persecuted under Emp. Marcus, I, 309,
Virginity, spontaneous, for Christ's sake. 380.I.

Virgins became Confessors. II. 95. — of the Manichaeans, 383. II.

Virtues, Basilides accounted the Virtues jEons. I, 419,

w.
Wars, religious, why none among Pagans. I. 14.

Water, of what kind, in the kingdom of darkness, according to Manes. U, 281.

Widows, i. e. Deaconesses, in the prim, church. I. 177, n. (1.)
Wine, when and why Christians began to abstain from it in II. Cent, I. 381,
Manes reprobated it. II. 359,
Word, the internal, or Christ in us, of the Mystics. I, 306. —Origen's opinioD
concerning it, II, 193.
512 GENERAL INDEX.
WbrZrf, creation of, opinion of Saturninus. 1.410. — of Basilides. I. 417.— of
Valentinus. I. 462.— of Origen. 11. 150.— of Manes, fully stated. 11. 330.
—The cause of it. (ibid.) —Destruction of it. II. 385. —The two worlds of
Manes. II. 275. —The spiritual world of Origen. II. 175.
Women, the suhiniroductcc of the priests. II. 132, n. (2.)
Worsliif, Mosaic, observed by Christ with limitations. I. 88. Christian, in I.

Cent. I. 185.— described by Pliny. I. 186.—in II. Cent. I. 390.— iT/ani-

cliczan. II. 389.
Writers, Christian, in I. Cent. I. 200.—in II. Cent. I. 393.—in III. II. 140.
Writings of the Apostles. I. 113.

V.
XTToa-Tafi;, Sabellius denied three Hypostasies in God. 11. 222.

Z.
Zenohia, queen of Palmyra, favored Paul of Samosata. 11. 228.

No. of pages, Sit

No. of pages of Contents, &c 12

Total pages in Vol. 2, 524

Ko. of pages in Vol. 1 561

Total No. of pages in Vols. 1 &. 2. ... 1,085

^(?\t' <i,i
THE NEW YORK PUBLIC LIBRARY I

REFERENCE DEPARTMENT 1