Ui^^: 'liil^ ';. :\ ^L^^. ^ i-^ *^:^ y^^ ^ L T B R A^ R Y OF THE Theological Seminary, PRINCETON, N. J. BR 165 .M83213 1852^^2 Mosheim, Johann Lorenz 16947-1755. ' ^^?^°^ical commentaries on -A^^ ,^Af te of Christianity HISTORICAL COMMENTARIES ON THE STATE OF CHRISTIANITY DURING THE FIRST THREE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIVE YEARS FROM THE CHRISTIAN ERA: BEING A TRANSLATION OF "THE COMMENTARIES ON THE AFFAIRS OF THE CHRISTIANS BEFORE THE TIME OF CONSTANTINE THE GREAT," BY JOHN LAURENCE VON^MOSHEIM, D.I). LATE CHA.VCRLLOR OF THE tJNIVF.HSITV OP GOTTENGEN'. 'M tina l3i]luin£5. VOL. II. VOLUME I. TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL LATIN, BY ROBERT STUDLEY VIDAL, Esq. F. S. A. VOLUME n. TRANSLATED. AND BOTH VOLUMES EDITED, JAMES MURDOCK, D. D. NEW- YORK : PUBLISHED BY S. CONVERSE. 1852. Entered accordiug to Act of Cougress, in tlio year one thousand eight hundieil and fifty-one. By James Mckdock, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Connecticut Di--trict. D. Fansuaw, Printer and Stereotyper, 35 Ann, comer of Nassau-street. CONTENTS OF VOL. II. The Ecclesiastical Histonj of the Third Century, §1. Christianity progaguted in Arabia : Origin, 2. Cliristiuuity propagated among tlie Goths: C/ZpAz'Zas, .... 3. Clirittianity propagated in Gaul, Germany, and Scotland. — General view, ^^. (1) (2) The first preachers to the Gauls, 11. (3) The first preachers to the Germans, 4. Causes of the progress of Christianity : Miracles and Virtues of Christians, 5. Persecution under Severus: at first ligiit — General view, n. (1) Christians often bought exemption from it, . 6. Severus prohibited conversions to Christianity. — General view, n. (1) Tenor of his edict, p. 8. — Why so many sufFercd, p. 10. — Cause of the Edict, 7. State of Cliristians under Caracalla and Heliogabalus. — General view, istianity, Pago. 1-411 I 10 11 n. (2) Mother of Heliogabalus, pious: he indifferent to Christianity, . 11 n. (3) Heliogabalus disposed to tolerate Christianity, ... 12 8. State of Christians under Alexander Severus — General view, . . .13 n. (1) His mother, Julia MammsEa, favored Christians, ... 13 71. (2) Whether Alexander was a Christian, discussed, . . .14 71. (3) The old persecuting laws unrepealed, 18 9. The persecution under Maximin. — General view, ...... 18 72. (1) It reached only the clergy, ....... 19 71. (2) Not many put to death, 20 n. (3) Other causes produced persecution, 20 10. Tranquillity under Gordian and Philip. — General view, . . . .21 , 7j. (1) Philip's reported conversion, examined, ... .22 11. Persecution under Decius. — General view, ....... 26 n. (1) Cause of the persecution, ....... 27 n. (2) Tenor of the edict, p. 28. — executed diversely, p. 2D. — It introduced new modes of proceeding, . . . .30 72. (3) Numerous apostasies, p. 31. — The Lihcllaiici, who? . . 32 12. Contests respecting the lapsed. — General view, ...... 38 72. (3) Martyrs and Confessors absolved the lapsed, . . . 30 72. (4) Cyprian opposed to the practice, 44 13. Contest betv^'een Cj'priau and Novatus. — General view, .... 44 n. (1) Its origin obscure, p. 4G. — Novatus gave ordination, p. 4G. — He fled to Rome, 50 14. Schism of Felicissimus at Carthage. — General view, .... ^>0 n. (1) A party opposed to Cyprian, 51 72. (2) Character of Felicissimus, and grounds of his opposition, . 52 Proceedings of Cyprian, p. 5 I. — Novatus withdrew, . ■ 55 72. (3) Council condemned Felicissimus, ...... 56 IV CONTENTSOFVOLII. Page. 15. Schism of Novatian at Rome. — General view, 59 n. (1) Novatian's character, p. GO, — and opposition to Cornehus, • 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 n. (1) He excluded gross offenders from the church, for ever, . 67 But not from all hope of salvation, 70 n. (2) Novatian's idea of the church, 71 17. The persecution under Gallus. — General view, 73 n. (1) Not so severe as some have supposed, 73 n. (2) Public calamities induced the people to persecute - . .76 Cyprian's dispute with Demetrianus on this subject, . . 76 18. Disputes respecting baptisms by heretics. — General view, . . . -76 n. (1) Points at issue : Effects of baptism. — Defects in that of heretics, 79 n. (2) Contest between Cyprian and Stephen on tliis subject, shows the parity of Bishops, in that age, 80 History of this baptismal controversy, p. 81. — It was first vi^hh Asiatics and then with Africans, (p. 84.) — Cyprian's pro- ceedings in it, 84 19. The persecution under Valerian. — General view, 91 n. (1) Valerian, first indulgent ; but prompted by Macrianus to persecute, 92 Motives of Macrianus, p. 93. — First proceedings in the persecution, 94 New methods of proceeding adopted, . . . . . 96 n. (2) Valerian's second and severer edict, 96 Many Christians of rank, then in the emperor's household, . 97 Cause of issuing the edict, p. 99. — Edict revoked by Gallienus 100 Some martyrdoms after the revocation, ..... 100 20. Persecution under Aurelian. — General view, . . . . . 100 «. (2) Did Aurelian, at first, treat Christians kindly ? . - . lOl n. (3) His motives for persecuting them, . . . . . 102 21. Efforts of Philosophers against Christianity. — General view, . . . 103 n. (3) Writings of Porphyry, Philostratus, and Hierocles, . . 104 They aimed to lower Christ to a level with the Philosophers, . 105 Apuleius' Fable of the golden Ass, 105 22. First movements ag. Christians, under Diocletian. — General view, . . 106 n. (1) Maximiau, his colleague, a persecutor, . . . . 107 Story of the Thebaean Legion, fully discussed, . . . 107 Mosheim's judgment respecting it, 112 n. (2) Persecution of Maximian in Gaul, 113 n. (3) Prosperity of the church, before the Diocletian persecution, . 115 23. Constitution and government of the church. — General view, . . 115 n. (1) Testimonies from Cyprian, that the Bishops could not act, in pri- vate matters, without the concurrence of Presbyters ; nor in public matters, without the consent of the brotherhood, . 116 Except to ordain Confessors ; which usage had sanctioned, . 118 (2) Proofs from Cyprian, of the parity of all Bishops ; the Romish Bishop not excepted, 120 CONTENTS OF VOL, II. V Page. Yet priority of rank or honor was conceded to the Romish Bishop, 123 n. (3) Reasons for creating the minor orders of the Clergy, . . 127 24. Prerogatives of Bishops much enlarged, in this century. — General view, . 128 n. (1) Causes and proofs of the fact, ...... 128 Cyprian held, that God makes the Bishops ; the church makes the Presbyters ; and the Bishops makes the Deacons, . .131 On these principles he subverted the constitution of the ancient church, 134 And his views spread and prevailed every where, . . . 137 25. The morals of the Clergy. — General view, 137 n. (1) Complaints of the corruption of the Clergy, .... 138 n. (2) Cohabitation of unmarried priests with females, disapproved, 138 How apologised for, 139 26. State of learning, and the Christian writers, in this cent. — General view, 141 n. (1) Proof that human learning was undervalued, . ... 141 «. (2) Works of the Greek Fathers. — Origen, .... 141 Julius Africanus, Dionysius Alex, and Hippolytus, . . .141 Gregory of Neoca^sarea, Thaumaturgus, .... 1^2 «. (3) Works of the Latin Fathers. — Cyprian, 142 Minutius Felix and Arnohius, ...... 142 27. Philosophising Theologians : Orzg'e?*. — General view, 143 ;;. (1) Origen a great man. Deser\'edly praised much and censured much, 144 Huet defends him, in his Origeniana, 145 Other apologists for Origen, 147 Origen truly great, in a mora! view, 148 More learned than profound, p. 149. — A disciple of Ammonius Saccas, 150 Origen's })hilosophic principles, ....*.. 150 His views of the connexion of philosophy with Christianity, . 1.'4 His system of theology ; — the Trinity, 159 Person of Chri.st, p. 160. — Object of Christ's mission, . . 161 Idea of the Atonement, 164 26. Origen's allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures. — General view, . J 65 71. (1) How far Origen the author of this mode of interpretation, . 166 Causes leading him to adopt it, 170 His system of interpretation stated in xviii Propositions, . . 173 Seven Rules for the application of his principles, . . 181 71. (2) Account of Origen's Hexapla, . . ... 1S9 29. Origen s mystic theology. — General view, 190 n. (1) He held all the fundamental principles of mystic theology, . 190 His principles stated in xxi Propositions, .... 191 11. (2) Rise of Eremitism, examined. — Paul of Thebais, &c. . . 19S 30. Origen's contests with his Bishop. — General view, .... 200 7j. (1) Causes of disagreement, and history of the contest, . . 201 31. Discussions concerning the Trinity and the Persoh of Christ.— General view, 209 71. (1) Councils condemned Unitarianism but did not delinc Trinity in Unity, 210 32. The Noetian controversy. — General view, .... . 210 VI CONTENTS OF VOL.11, Pase. 210 210 215 215 21G 217 217 225 226 228 229 230 232 233 239 242 243 243 244 245 n. (1) Sources of knovvlcdgaof it, and account of tlie man, n, (2) His S3stem exumined and fully stated, . n. (3) In what sense he was a Pairipassian, 33. Sabcllius, and the Sabellians. — General view, .... n. (1) History of the man, and of the controversy, n. (2) The common statement of Sabellius' views, . His principles examined, and correctly stated in vi. Propositioi 34. Beryllus of Bostra. — General view, n. (1) Eusebiub' account examined. The views of Beryllus stated, 35. Paul of Samosata. — General view, 71. (1) His personal character examined His office of Duccnarius Procurator explained, n. (2) Full account of the documents concerning him, His opinions stated in xiv. Propositions, .... 77. (3) Proceedings of Councils against him, .... 36. The Arabians, whom Origen reclaimed. — General view, «. (1) Their opinions stated, .... ... 37. Benefits to Christianity from Philosophy, in three particulars, . 38. Chiliasm Vanquished. — General view, n. (1) History of Chiliasm in the early church. Derived from the Jews, p. 245. — Spread unrebuked in the 2d Century, p. 246. — but was depressed in the 3d Century, . 247 Assailed by Origen, p. 247. — Defended by Nepos, p. 248. — Different systems of it, p. 249. — Dionysius of Alexandria nearly exterminated it, ....... 250 39. The rise of Manichajism. — General view, 251 n. (1) Manes a prodigy of a man; — greatly resembled Mahommed, . 252 Ancient documents, p 252 — and modern writers on Manichasism, 254 40. The life and labors of Manes. — General view, ..... 255 n. (1) His name, p. 257. — His history, according to tlie Gr.& Lat. writers, 257 His history, according to the Oriental Writers, .... 253 Which account most credible, p. 259. — Details of the Oriental account, . . . . . . . . . . 2 59 n. (2) Manes held, that Christ taught the way of salvation iinperfectl}', and that he promised to send the Paraelete, i. e. Manes, to give the world more full instruction, . . • . 2G2 Of course, his office was, (I) To purge the existing Christianity from its corruptions ; — aud (II) to perfect, or supply its defi- ciencies, .......... 266 Arguments, by which he supjiorted his claims, . . . 268 n. (3) He discarded the O. Test, altogether ; and held the N. Test, to be so corrupted that it was not a safe guide, . . . 260 72. (4) The Bema, or anniversary of Manes' death, how observed, . 274 41. His two eternal Worlds, and two eternal Lords. — General view, . . 275 n. (1) His mode of substantiating his doctrines, .... 275 Beausobrc's History of i\Ianicha!ism, criticised, .... 275 Manes followed the Persian philosophy, and maintained two first principles ol M th'n^gs, and two Lords, .... 276 CONTENTSOFVOL.il. vi'l I'ago. n. (2) Full doscriptioii of bolh worlds, and of ihc fire elements -and Jive pr'viiices in eiicli, ........ 27G n. (3) Tlie (wo eternal and self-existing Lords of llic.se worlds; their characters coiiiparcd and contrasted, ..... 283 42. Nature and attributes of the good God — General view, .... 287 n. (1) Manes'' own description of hiui. — I. His substance is the pueest light, and without form, ....... 237 Yet, II. he has perception and knowledge, .... 2b8 III. lie has xii. Members, or masses of light, revolvinff throuirh his world and representing himself, ..... 288 IV. lie has innumerable Suecula, /Eons, or luminous bodies is- suing from him, and acting as his ministers, . . . 289 V. He is himself not omnipresent, ...... 290 VI. His moral attributes are perfect ; but neither his knowledge, nor his power, is infinite, 291 43. The Manichoean Trinity. Christ and the H. Sp. — General view, . . 292 V- (1) He held a sort of Trinity ; but diverse from that of tiio Christians, 293 n. (2) The Son of God a shining mass, 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 sun and moon. — This point discussed, ........ 293 n. (3) The H. Spirit is another shining mass, an efllux from God, re- siding in the ether. He enlightens and moves the minds of men, and fructifies the earth, ...... 302 n. (4) JManes' doctrine of the Son and the II. Sp. coincided wit!j the Persian doctrine of Miihras and the Ether, .... 303 44. War of the Prince of daikness on the Prince of liglit. — General view, . 304 n. (1) The Prince of darkness ignorant of God and of the world of light, till an accidental discovery of them led him to assail them for plunder, 305 On seeing the enemy, God produced the Mother of Life, and she produced the First Man, a giant in human form, whom God sent as generalissimo to expel the Prince of darkness and his forces, .......... 306 First Man was directed to use artifice rather than force, and to bait the Demon with good matter, ..... 308 First Man did so, p. 309 — And the plan succeeded in part, 310 But unexpectedly, some sad consequences resulted ; for I. four of the celestial elements became combined with the base ele- ments ; and many souls were captured by the Demons, . 310 II. The Prince of Daikness devoured Jesus, the son of the Fir^t Man, 311 Manichoeans held to two Jesuses, a passive and impassive, . 311 III. First il/rtn was near being conquered. — p. 313. — and God sent another general, the Living Sj)irit, a luminous mas.-;, issuing from himself, . . ... 3i 1 The origin of our no.\ious animals, . . . 314 via CONTENTS OF VOL. II. Page. The whole fable was devised to account fov the junction ol' celestial souls with material bodies, .... 315 45 Origin, composition, and cliaracter of Man. — General view, . ■ 31(j 71. (1) Manes' account of Adam's origin from Satan, is to be taken lite- rally, and not, as Z?ea?JSoij-e supposed, allegorically, . 317 Mr/nes' own statement, at large, ... .317 All guslines' more brief statement, . . . ' . 318 Adam was produced at the beginning of the second war, and before the victory of the Living Spirit and the creation of our world, . .319 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 Manes' opinion of the nature and origin of human souls, . . 332 The origin and character of Eve, ..... 322 n. (2) Manes' ideas of Adam's first sin examined, .... 323 Statements of Tyrho, Manes, and Augustine, . . . 323 The facts drawn out and arranged, ..... 324 n. (3) Manes believed man to be composed of three parts : viz. a sinful body derived from the body of the Prince of darkness, p. 325. — and two souls : the one evil, lustful, and propagated from the Prince of darkness ; — the other of celestial origin, un- changeably good, communicated from parents to their children, 327 Hence, only the evil soul commits sin ; and the good soul is de- linquent only in not restraining its evil associate, . . 328 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 darkness, consisted of celestial elements, either pure or defiled with a mixture of evil matter, 333 Of the pure and good fire and good light, the su7i was formed ; and of the pure and good water, the ?noon, .... 333 Of the good air, probably, the ether of our world was formed, . 333 Of the matter slightly contaminated, our heavens and the stars were formed, ......... 334 The earth was formed of the celestial matter, which was debased and pervaded by evil matter, ...... 334 The bad matter not combined with good matter, was excluded from our world, and sejiarated 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 CONTENTS OF VOL. II, IX But still they are miscliievoiis. Tliey seduee men to sin, and propagate idolatry, which is the worship of Iheinselves, . XiC> They also send on us tempests, earthquakes, pestilences, and wine, 338 n. (4) Our world is borne up by a huge giant called Omophorus, wlio is assisted by another, called Splcndiicnens, . • . 338 47. The mission and oflices of Christ. — General view, ..... 340 n. (1) Christ's mission had inm objects ; — first, to accelerate the re- covery of souls from defilement, — and, secondly, to relieve the wearied Omophorus, 342 He came from the sun, and assumed the shadow of a man, . 342 His body needed no sustenance, and no rest. He wrought miracles ; 344 And instructed mankind, ....... 34;'! The Demon incited the Jews to kill him : but, having no body, he could not die, ........ 345 Of course, the Manichaians 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) Manichfeans used the Bible language respecting Christ: but Christ could not die ; and sinless souls needed no atonement, 3.'J{) A celestial soul can never be contaminated ; but it may be cri- minally negligent, and so need to repent and be forgiven, . 351 n. (2) Christ taught men the truth, and showed them how to purify themselves for a return to God, 353 The severe bodily mortifications of the Manichseans, . . 353 They reduced all moral duties to three heads, called Signacula, 3n() The duties belonging to the Signaculum of the mouth, enume- rated, 357 Those belonging to the Sigvacuhnn of the hands, described, 3(if Those of the bosom, all related to sexual pleasures, . . 365 49. The return of souls to the world of light. — General view, .... 366 n. (1) The H. Spirit aids souls in freeing themselves from defilement, 367 n. (2) Repentance atones for the involuntary sins of celestial souls, . 36S jj. (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 71. (4) The bodies return to their kindred earth, and will never be re- suscitated, 372 50. Condition of nnpurgated souls after death. — General view, . . . 373 n. (1) If not exceedingly faulty, they will pass into other bodies, of men, or brutes, or vegetables, ....... 373 n. (2) This transmigration is disciplinary or reformatory. The rules of it, •'^~" 51. Liberation of the Passtue JesMS. — General view, 3~9 n. (1) The scattered particles of celestial matter are drawn up, purgat- ed in the sun, and returned to the world of light, • • •'^80 n. (2) The Passive Jasus, or son of First Man, whom the Demons X CONTENTSOFVOLII. Page, devoured, is strangely sweated out of them, and then rescued from defiling matter and saved, 380 52. End of tliis world, or the consummation of all things. — General view, . 385 71. (1) When most of the souls and of the celestial matter, now defiled by gross m.atter, shall have been rescued, this world will bo burned up, and the demons sent back to the world of darkness, 386 n. (2) The irreclaimable sovds will be stationed on the frontiers of the world of light, as a guard, to prevent future inroads of the Demons, 397 Our reasons for dwelling so long on the Manicha;an system, . 388 The general character of this system, ..... 389 53. The public Worship of the Mauichaeans. — General view, . . . 389 n. (1) They had no temples or altars, no images, and no love-feasts. Their worship was very simple, and quite unobjectionable. Prayers, hymns, reading their sacred books, and exhortations, with their annual festival of Bona, and Sunday fasts and as. semblies, were the substance of it, . . . . . 390 54. The private worship of the £Zec«. — General view, 391 n. (1) No ^«c?j7or was admitted to this worship of the Elect, . . 391 72. (2) III it, Baptis7ii was administered to such of the Elect as de- sired it. But it was not regarded as obligatory on them ail, 392 «. (3) They observed the Lord's Supper: but in what manner is un- known, 396 55. Constitution of their Church. — General view, ...... 398 72. (1) A Pontiff, with xii Magistri, presided ovea Ixxii Bishops , and uiider each Bishop, were Presbyters, Deacons and Evange- lists : all from among the Elect, ..... 399 7?. (2) The community was divided into two Classes ; — the Elect or Perfect, a very small Class, and subjected to a most rigorous discipline ; — and the Auditors or Catechumens, who married, pursued worldly occupations, and lived much like other people, 399 56. The sect of the Hieracites. — General view, 404 n. (1) Character, life, and doctrines of Ilicrax, .... 405 I. He regarded the whole Bible as inspired ; and wrote allegor- ical comments on it, . . . . . . . . 405 II. Respecting God and the Trinity, he was orthodox, . . 407 III. He considered Melchisedek as a representative of the Holy Spirit, • ... 407 IV. Christ, he supposed, merely taught a stricter morality than Moses, 408 V. lie forbid marriage, flesh, vv'ine, and all pleasures, . . 408 VI. Hi;Tax 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 VIII. He enjoined a very austere life on his followers, . . 410 IX. He denied the resurrection of the body, ■ • . .410 X. He excluded from heaven all who died in infancy, • . 410 C0NTENT30FV0L, II. xl The Ecclesiastical Historij of tlie Fourth Century, 412-181 1. The Pagan Priests urge a new Persecution. — General view, . . . 412 ?;. (1) Flourishing slate of the church, and the character of the empe- rors, when the century commenced, . ... . '412 Tiie 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, . ...... 41G n. (I) IMaximian, rather than Diocletian, the author of this persecution, 417 Tlie causes of it, p. 417. — It commenced in the year 303, at Nicomedia, 420 Hierocles an adviser of it. p. 421. — Diocletian reluctantly con- sented, 422 Contents of the first imperatorial edict, ..... 422 11. (2) The proceedings under this edict, 42G 3. Tlie first year of tiie persecution. — General view, ..... 428 «. (1) Two fires in the palace of Nicomedia, falsely charged upon the Christians, cause many of them to be put to death, . . 428 «. (2) These fires, and political disturbances in Syria and Armenia, pro- duce a new edict, requiring the seizure and incarceration of all Christian teachers, ....... 432 A third edict required them to be tortured into sacrificing to the Gods, 433 n. (3) The western provinces under Constantius Chlorus sufier but little, 434 4- The Iburtli and severest edict of Diocletian, A. D. 304. — General view, . 435 11. (1) Tenor of the edict, and its execution. It required all Christians to sacrifice, and ordered them to he tortured into compliance, 430 Some Christians voluntarily courted martyrdom, . . 439 n. (2) Seeing the Christians now much depressed, IMaximian compelled the two Emperors to resign tlreir power, and made iiimself E;>iperor of the East, 43D This change in the government benefitted the Christians of the West, under Constantius Chlorus, ..... 441 The Christians of t!ie East gained nothing. Their condition in Syria and Egypt, ........ 4 13 5. Civl! wars, and the state of Christians, A. D. 30G-311. — General view, . 444 n. (1) IMaximian's fruitless machinations against Constantino, . . 4 15 Revolt of ]\Iaxentius, and the civil wars, .... 4 IG State of Ciiristians during these wars, p. 448. — In tlic West, Constantine favored tliem, p. 448. — Yet he was not then a Christian, 440 Maxentius also favored them, 4r>0 Eut in the East, Maximian persecuted them, . . . 4.'>1 n. (3) In tlic year 311, Maximian, on his death bed, relaxed tlic per- secution, . 452 6. The edicts of Constantine, A. D. 312, 313. in favor of Christians. — General view, 454 XJl CONTENTS OF VOL. II. ♦ Page. rt. (1) The, ^rs^ edict, at the close of 312, gave full religious libert}'^ to Christiaag, 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, Maximiu contravened the last edict of Maxiinian ; 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- where, ... ....... 459 7. Constantine's Conversion. — General view, . . .... 459 rt. (1) The reality of Constantine's conversion proved, . . . 460 Objections answered : viz. the ^ffrsf, from his vices, p. 460. — the second, from his late Baptism, p. 461. — the third from his politicalinterest 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 8. A short persecution by Licinius. — General view, ..... 479 n (1) Authorities on the subject. — Motives and progress of the persecu- tion, ..... 480 THE ECCLESIASTICAL HI^OllY THIRD CENTURY. § I. Propagation of Christianity in Arabia. That the [p. 448.] limits of the Christian commonwealth were much extended durino- o this century, no one hesitates to admit ; but, in what manner, by whose instrumentality, and in what parts of the world, is not equally manifest, the ancient memorials having perished. While Demetrius ruled the Alexandrian church, over which he is said to have presided until the year 230, a certain Arabian chieftain, (that is, as I suppose, the head and leader of a tribe of those Arabs who live in tents, and have no fixed and permanent resi- dence,) sent letters to this prelate, and to the prefect of Egypt, requesting that the celebrated Origen might be sent to him, to impart to him and his people a knowledge of Christianity. Ori- gen, therefore, went among these Arabs ; and, having soon dis- patched the business of his mission, he returned to Alexandria. (') He undoubtedly took with him from Alexandria several Christian disciples and teachers, whom he left with that people as he himself could not be long absent from Alexandria. (1) We have a brief narrative of these events in Eusehius, Hist. Ecclea. lib. vi. c. xix. p. 221. § II. Propagation of Christianity among the Goths. To the Goths, a most warlike and ferocious people, dwelling in Moesia and Thrace, the- wars they waged with various success against the 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. n. 2 3 Century III. — Section 3. tlie minds of tlie barbarians, tliat tliey avowed a willingness to [p. 4^9.] follow Christ, and called in additional tcacliers to in- struct tlicm.(') There is, indeed, much evidence that what is here stated, must be understood onlj 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 ancestors; yet, .as in the next century TJieopliilus^ a bishop of the Goths, was a subscriber to the decrees of the Nicene council,(") there can be little doubt that quite a large church was gathered among this people in a short space of time. (1) Sozomcn, Hist. Eccles, ]. ii. c. G. Paulus Diaconus^Wmi. Miscellan. 1. x. c. 14. Philostorgius, Hist. Eceles. 1. ii. c. v. p. 470. Phiiostorgius states, tliat tlie celebrated Ulj>hilas,w'ho in the next century translated the Christian Scrip- tures into the language of the Goths, was descended from those captives that were carried away by the Goths from Cappadocia and Thrace, in the reign of Gallienus. This is not improbable; and yet there are some other things in the narrative of Philostorgius, which perhaps are false. (2) Socrates, Hist. Eccles. 1. ii. c. 41. § III. Christianity in Gaul, Germany, and Scotland. In Gaul a few small congregations of Christians were established by Asiatic teachers, in the preceding century. But in tliis century, during the reign of Decius, seven holy men, namely, Dionysius^ Gatianus, TrojjJumus, Paulus, Saturninus, Ilartialis, and Stremonius, emi- grated to this province, and, amidst various perils and hardshij)S, 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.('') To the same age is now ascribed, by men of erudition, who arc more eager for truth than for vain glor}^, the origin of the churches of Cologne, Treves, Metz, and other places in Germany; although the old tradition is, that the founders of these churches, Eucharius, Valerius, Maternus, Clemens, and others, were sent forth by the apostles themselves, in the first century ; and there still are some who fondly adhere to these fables of their ances- tors. (') And, it must be confessed, that those have the best of the argument, who thus correct the old opinion respecting the origin of the German churches. The Scots, also, stxj that their Christianitu in Gaul, Germany, and Scotland. 3 country was enliglitened with Chwstianity in this cen- [p. 450.] tury ; which, although probable enough in itself considered, rests on proofs and arguments of no great force. (1) This wc learn, in part, from the Acta JJartyrii Satnrnini, in the Acta Martyrum Sinecra of Ruinari, pa. 109 ; and, in part, from Gregory of Tours, Hiytoria Francor. 1. i. c. xxviii. p. 23, ed. Ruinart. The French anciently re- ferred these seven persons, and the origin of the cliurches 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 Areopagite, mentioned in the 17th chapter of tho Acts of the Apostles. But in the last century, men of the greatest erudition among the French did not licsitate to correct tliis error of their predecessors, and to assign Dionysius and his associates to the third century and to the times of Dccius. The tracts and discussions on this subject by Launoi, Sirmond, Petavius, Puteanus, Nic. Faber, and others, are well known. The ancient opinion, however, still remains so fixed in the minds of not a few, and especially among the monks of St. Denys, that it cannot be eradicated ; which is not at all surprising, since great numbers make the glory of their church to depend very much on its antiquity. But the arrival of these sQven men in Gaul, is in- volved in much obscurity. For it does not sufficiently appear, whence they came, nor by whom they were sent. Gregory rf Tours, Ilistoria Francor. 1. x. c. xxxi. p, 527, says: Gatianum a Roraana3 sedis Papa transraissum esse: from wliich 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 other points are involved in the like obseurit}-. I indeed sus- pect, that these devout and holy men, during the Decian persecution in Italy, and especially at Rome, voluntarily, and for the preservation of their lives, rather than by the direction and authority of the Romish bishop, removed to Gaul, where they could enjoy greater safety than at Rome and in Italy. (2) The people of Auxerre, for instance, commemorate one Peregrinns, who, as they think, came likewise from Rome in this century, and laid the founda- tion of their church. See Le Beiif, Memoires pour I'Histoire d' Auxerre, torn. i. p. 1-12. There is also mention of one Genulplms, as an apostle of the Gauls, in this century. See the Acta Sanctor. mensis Januar. tom. ii. p. 92. &c. And others arc also mentioned by some writers. (3) What the French believed respecting those seven men, with none to gainsay them, the Germans also believed of Eucharius, Malcrnus, Ck?nens, af\d others ; namely, that they were disciples of the apostles, and that in the [p. 451.] first century they established Christian churches in Germany, on this side the Rhine and in Lorraine, at Cologne, Treves, Metz, and in other cities, and governed the Churches they gathered, as their bishops. This opinion becanio suspicious to some learned men in the last century; and in the present cen- tury, it has been boldly assailed by Augustine Calmct, 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 churcli at Metz prior to that time. To this learned man stands opposed the commentator ou 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 Trcvirensis Diplomatica, John Nic. ah HonlTieim, a man of vast learning, after considering the whole subject witli great care, aud weighing accurately the testimony, in a Dissertation de ./Era Fundati Episcopatus Trevirensis, prefixed to the first volume of his his- tory, has fully shown, that more credit is due to Calmet than to his opponent. For, having maintained at great length, that those rely on witnesses not to be credited who carry back the founding of the church at Treves, and the other German churches, to the apostolic age, and make the holy men above men- tioned to have taught in the first century, he demonstrates (section vi. p. xxxii. dz,c.) by arguments the strongest possible in such a case, that Maternus 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, eh. 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 a.ppears, for other reasons, adduced by Usher and Siillingjleet in their Antiquita- tes et Origines Ecclesise 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 tlie writers of tliose times, wlio cannot be suspected of eitlier fraud or levity, tliat the success- ful progress of Christianity in this century was, in a great measure, attributable to divine interpositions, by various kinds of miracles, exciting the minds of the people, and moving them to abandon superstition. (') Neither can we easily either reject altogether, or [p. 452,] seriously _^question what we find testified by the best men of the times, that God did, by dreams and visions, excite not a few among the thoughtless and the enemies of Christianity, so that they at once, and without solicitation, came forward and made a public profession of the Christian faith :(') and their ex- amples, without doubt, served to overcome the timidity, or the hesitation, or the indecision of many. And yet, I suppose, it will be no error to maintain, that causes merely human and ordinary, so operated on the minds of many as to lead them to embrace Christianity. For the earnest zeal of the Christians, to Persecution binder Severus. 5 merit the 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, Avdiich 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 justlv, have induced many to admire and to embrace the religion of Chris- tians, which produced and sustained so great virtues. And if, as I would by no means deny, }3ious frauds found a place among the causes of the propagation of Christianity in this centurj^, yet, they unquestionably held a very inferior position, and Avcre em- 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, 1. i. p. 5-7, and in various other places; Cyprian, Epist. ad Donatum, i. p. 3, on which passage Sicph. 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 0? New Cesaria are well known ; and yet there 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 Anima, c. xiv. p. 348. Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. 1. vi. c. v. p. 208, &c. &c. Among these examples, there are some which may, I am aware, be explained by refer- ring them, to natural causes ; but there are others which demand a higher cause. § V, Persecution under Severus. This zeal of Christians [p. 453.] for extending and enlarging the church, was often much favored by the circumstances of the times. For, although they never en- joyed perfect security, the laws against them being not repealed, and the people frequently demanding their condemnation, yet, under some of the Eoman emperors of this century, their enemies, in most of the provinc3S, 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 doAvn as furiously upon the Christians as they would upon robbers: and these storms greatly impeded the work of extirpating the old C Century III. — Section 5. superstitions. Tlic commencement of tliis century Avas 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 injustice, were put to death in various forms of execution. To these evils, originating from various causes, the Christians themselves undoubtedly gave some impetus, by a prac- tice which had for some time prevailed among them, with the ap- probation of the bishops, that of purchasing life and safety by paying money to the magistrates.(') For the avaricious governors and magistrates would often assail the Christians, and direct some of the poorer ones to be put to death, in order to extort money from the more wealthy, and to enrich themselves with the trea- sures of the churches. (1) I cannot regard tliis practice as one of the least of the causes of the fre- quent wars of the mngistrates and men in power against Christians, contrary to the laws and the pleasure of tlie 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« (lemptio 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 dclatore, vel milite, vel furunculo aliquo preside, sub tunica et sinu, ut furtivo, quem coram toto mundo Christus emit, immo et manumisit. Who can wonder, that informers and accusers were never wanting, so long as the Christians, (as :i|)pears from this passage,) would pacify informers with money ? Felices itaque pauperes (for these, being without money, were obliged to suffer,) quia illorum est regnum coelorum, qui animam solam in con- fiscate habent . . . Apostoli perse cutionibus agitati, quando se jiccunia tractantes liberaverunt? qu.'ie illis utique non deerat ex praediorum pretiis ad pedes eo- rum depositis. But not only individual Christians consulted their safety in this way, but wliole cliurches 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 denique est, si unus aut alius ita eruitur. Massaliter totae ecclesiaj tributum sibi irrogaverunt. Nescio dolendum, an crubescendum sit, cum iti matricibus Beneficiariorum et Curiosorum, inter tabernarios et lanios, et fures baliicarum* et aleones et Icnones, Christiani quoquc vectigales continentur. Moreover, as The Edict of Severus. 7 appears from Tertullian, tlie Christians sometimes bargained witli 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, mngistratcs directed the soldiers to watch for, and break up, the assemblies of Christians: and therefore, these were to be pacified with money, in order that Christians might safely meet together for the worship of God. Says Tertullian : Sed quomodo colli- genius, inquis, quomodo Dominica solemnia celebrabimus? Utique, quomodo et Apostoli, fide, non pecunia tuti : quae fides si montem transferre potest, multo niagis mililem. Esto sapientia, non praemio cautus. Neque eniiii stalira, (mark t!ie expression,) el a populo eris iuius, si officia militaria redenieris. 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. (in Wm. Beverege's Pandectae canonum et 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 omni malitia im- perturbati essent, crimen intendi non potest. Damnum enim et jacturam pecuniarura sustinuerunt, ne ipsi animae detriniento affieerentur, vel ipsam etiara proderent, quod alii propter turpe lucrum non feccrunt, &c. § VI. The Edict of Severus against conversions to [p. 455.] Christianity. These evils ^Yere greatly augiiiented, when the em- peror, in the 3^ear 203, for some cause not known, became some- what diifcrcntly disposed towards the Christians, and issned an edict, forbidding Roman citizens, under a severe penalt}^, from abandoning the religion of their fathers, and embracing Christianity. This law, although it opposed only the increase of the church, and affected only those recently converted, and those who 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 espedally because the ancient laws, and particularly that most vexatious one of Trajan, — that persons accused, and refusing to confess, might bo put to death, — remained unrepealed, and in full force.(') Hence, so great was the slaughter among Christians, especially of suoli as could not, or, fi'om conscientious motives, wonld not redeem their lives with mone}^, 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 was Leonidas, the father of Origen ; and in Africa, the celebrated Christian females, Perpetjxa and Felicitas, whose Ada, illustrious 8 Century III. — Section 6. monuments of antiquity, hnve been often publisliecl ; and Pota' miena, a virgin of Alexandria, and her mother, Mai-cella, 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 places under Caracallay 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 Cliristiana under Severus, Eiisebius treats, Hist/Ecc'los. L. vi. cap. 1. &c. ; but only in a general way : for he neither re- ports the law, nor the time and cause of its enactment. Other Christian writere 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. Spariian, however, the writer of the Life of Severus, has told us the year, and stated the reason, of the persecution ; Vita Severi, c. 16, 17. in the Scriptores Histor. Augnstae, p. 617, 618. For he says, that the emperor, in the year tiiat he invested his son Antoninus witji tlie 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 neio laws against the Christians, nor command the extirpation of tjie professors of Christianity, but only resolved to prevent the increase of the churcli, and commanded those to be punished, who should forsake the religion of tlioir fathers and embrace that of tiie Chris- tians. Persons, therefore, who were born Christians, or had become Christians before this law was enacted, might indeed be exposed to some trouble and dan- ger from the old laws, and especially from the noted rescript of Trajan, which subsequent enactments had not abrogated; but from this new law of Severus they had nothing to fear. But some learned men are not ready to believe this. For, perceiving what a multitude of Christians suifered death, under Severus, they say, the fact is not to be accounted for, if Severus wished evil to none but the deserters of their former religion. Tiiey therefore conjecture, either that Spartian has mutilated the law of Severus, and omitted a large part of it, or that the emperor issued other and severer laws against the Christians, which have not reached our times. But I can easily overtlu'ow both these conjectures. That Spartian did not mutilate the law of Severus, his own words show. For he compares the edict against the Jews, with that against the Cln-istians, and says that the latter was of the same tenor with the former. But Severus neitiier interdicted the Jewish religion, nor compelled those born of Jewish parents to embrace the religion of the Romans; but merely forbid accessions to the Jewish community from people of other nations. And therefore he was no more severe against the Christians, seeing his decree against them was precisely the same as against the Jews. That Severus enacted other laws against tho Tlie Edict of Sevcrus. ^ Christians, than the one mentioned by Spartian, is contrary to all probaLility. For, not to mention the silence of the ancient writers, it appears from explicit passages in Tertullian, that the emperor did not repeal those ancient laws which favored Christians ; which he undoubtedly would have done, if lie 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 amplius tibi mandatur, quam nocentes confesses damnare, negantes autem ad tormenta revocare? Videtis ergo quomodo ipsi vos contra mandata fixciatis, ut confessos negare cogatis. This passage shows, most beautifully and admirably, how the emperors, and among them the recently deceased Severus, would have the judges deal with Christians. In the first place, sentence of death was to be passed in nocentes confessos. The ?ioce?i/es here, are those "accused and con- victed in a regular course of law." This is put beyond controversy [p. 457.] by various passages in Tertullian, and also in this very passage, in which the nocentes negantes follow the nocentes confessos. Who could be a nocens negans, except the man who was accused of some crime or fault, and convicted by his accuser, and yet denied that he was guilty? We will, however, let Tertullian himself teach us, how to understand the expression. Among the examples which he shortly after adduces, of governors tiiat fiivored 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 audiiiirum liominem, secundum Mandatum (ss. Imperaloris.) Under Severus, therefore, as is most manifest from these words, the law of Trajan remained in full force ; and it enjoined, that no Christian should be con- demned, unless he was legitimatel}^ accused and convicted. And, moreover, those accused and convicted, but who yet denied themselves to be Chrislians, — the nocentes negantes, might be put to the rack, and be compelled by torture to confess guilt. This was not expressly enjoined by Trajan, but it was in accord- ance with Roman law. But, thirdly, the laws did not permit the 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 torture, they would change their determination. That the laws of Ha- drian and Antoninus Pius, ordering that Christians should not be put to death unless convicted of some violation of the Roman laws, were in like manner not repealed by Severus, appears from another example of the governor Circius Severus, mentioned by the same Tertullian ; Circius Severus Thysdri ipse dcdit remedium, quomodo responderent Christiani ut dimitti possent. By cautious and circumspect answers to the judges, therefore. Christians could elude the malice of their accusers : and in what manner, it is easy to conjecture : viz. they confessed that they followed a 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. — Secilo?i G. Sevcrus did not abrogate the imperial edicts favorable to tlie Christian?, 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 him, after his death : Sed et clarissimas feminas et chirissimos viros Severus sciens ejus soctae esse, non modo non laesit, verum et tostimonio 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 lie had enacted se- [p. 458.] verer laws against them, than the preceding emperors? It must therefore be certain, as Spartian has stated, that he ordered the punishment, not of all Christians 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 ? An answer is easily given. In the first place, let it be remembered, that the Chris- tians had been miserably persecuted in most of the Roman provinces, before the law of Severus existed. This we have shown in the history of the second century, from the Apologeticum of Tertullian; and the fact cannot be denied. The avaricious governors finding the Christians willing to redeem their lives with money, suborned accusers, and inflamed the people, in order to extort money ; and they actually put some confessors to death, to strike terror into the more wealthy, and make them willing to compound for their lives. In the next place, it is to be supposed, that Severus gave power to the governors to in- vestigate the case of such as forsook the Romish religion and embraced Chris- tianity ; and, in these investigations, the magistrates and their minions, as is very common, did many things not warranted by the law. Thirdhj, as the persons who forsook the religion of their fathers were to be punished, un- doubtedly the same penalties, or perhaps greater, awaited those who caused their apostacy. For he who instigates another to commit a crime, is more cul- pable than the transgressor. It was therefore a necessary consequence, that many of the Christian teachers were condemned. Lastly, those conversant in human affairs well know, that when new laws are enacted on any subject, the old laws relating to it acquire new life. It would therefore not be strange, if on Severus' prohibiting conversions to Christianity, the number of accusers should be suddenly increased. I say nothing of the probability, that the more unfriendly governors extended the prohibitions of the law, and summoned to their bar persons who became Christians before the law was enacted. What some of the learned maintain, respecting the cause of this edict, has ■little or no weight. The most probable conjecture is that of Hennj Dodwell, in his Dissert. Cyprian. Diss. xi. \ 42. p. 269. ; namely, that the emperor's victory over the Jews, who had disturbed the public tranquillity by a recent in- surrection, ga'^e rise to this edict. That this Jewish insurrection induced Severus to prohibit Romans from becoming Jews, lest the augmentation of the resources of that people should prove injurious to the commonwealth, is be- yond all controversy. But Spartian couples the law against the Christians with that against the Jews, and tells us, that both were enacted at the same time: and we may reasonably suppose, therefore, that some ill-disposed persons sug- Caracalla and Hellngahalus. W gested to the emperor, that there was equal d:inger from the Christians, and tiiat it Iheir numbers and strength siionld beeonie augmented, they miglit mako war upon the Romans wlio wors'iipped t!ie gol-s. Tiiis argument iuid great effoet upon tiie superstitions emperor. And there is little force in [p. 459.] what is opposed to this supposition, by certain learned men, who, following TUlemoni (Memoircs pour I'Histoire de I'Eglise, tom.iii. P. I. p. 487.) say, it ap- pears from Jerome's Chronicon,thattiie war against tlie Jews occurred in tlie fifth year of Severus, but that the law was not enacted till his tenth year. Forthero might be various reasons for several years to intervene between the war and the promulgation of the law. Z?otZioetV, however, and tliosc who follow him, liave 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 langunge is opposed to this idea, he distinctly stating that there were two laws, one against the Jews and tlie 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 Christians in his own family ; and with some of them he lived in intimacy. § VII. The state of Christiiins under Caracalla and IIelio2:al>alus. Severus, having died at York, in Britain, in tbe year 211, was succeeded by his son, Antoninus^ surnamed Caracalla^ wlio better deserved the title of tyrant than that of emperor. Yet, under him, the persecution which his father liad excited against the Christians, gradually subsided :(') and, during the six years of his reign, we do not learn that they endured any very great griev- ances. AVhether 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 Seuerits, the son of Mammaea, whom Elagabalus had adopted, and had constituted Ciesar, was hailed emperor in the year 222, and proved to be a very mild and excellent prince. (1) We have a work of Tertullian acidrespcd to Scapula, a most bitter enemy of the Ciu-istians, and written after the death of Severus, fro n which it appears that tlie commencement of Caracalla's reign was sullied by the execu- tion of many Christians in Africa. (2) Some learned men think, Caracalla hiid kind feelirgs towards Christians ; and in favor of this opinion they cite the authority of Tertullian and [p. 4G0.] 12 Century III. — Section 7. Spartian. The former, in liis work ad Scapulam, c. 4. p. 87, records, that Anto- ninus Caracalla Jade Christiano educaium fuisse, which, undoubtedly means, that he was nursed by a Christian mother. The latter, in his life of Caracalla, (in the Scriptores Hist. Augustae, torn. i. p. 707,) relates of him, that wlien seven years old, Quum collusorem suum puerum ob Judaicam religionem gra- vius verberatum audivisset, neque patrem suum, neque patrem pueri, vel auc- tores verberum diu respexisse : that is, ho was exceedingly offended at tlie injury done to his companion. From tliese two testimonies, learned men have supposed, that it may be inferred, the Christian mother of Caracalla instilled into him a love of her religion, along with her milk; and that this led him to so great indignation towards the persons who had punished his com- panion on account of his religion. The\-, moreover, do not hesitate to .say, that by Judaica Religio in the passnge from Spartian, should be understood the Christian religion ; because it is certain, that Christians were frequently con- founded with Jews by the Romans of those times. But to me, all this appears very uncertain. To begin with the last assumption, I cannot easily persuade myself, that Spartian meant Christianity when he wrote 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 lovo of the religion, which his companion professed, but attachment to the person of his friend and play-fellow, that made him angry with those who punished him. Lastly, it is not easy to conceive, how a sucking child could be imbued by his mother with the love of 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 friendship of this very cruel emperor. (3) There is a passage in the life of Heliogabalus by Lampridius, (c. 3. p. 796.) which seems to indicate, that this emperor, though one of the worst of men, was destitute of hatred to the Christians. It is this : Dicebat prajterea (Imperator) Judaeorura et Samaritanorum religiones et Christianam devotioneni illuc (viz. Rome, where he would have no other god to be worshipped, besides Heliogabalus, or the sun, of which he was himself priest,) transferendam, ut cranium culturarum (i. e. all forms of divine worship,) secretum Heliogabali sacerdotium teneret. Althougli this passage is more obscure than I could wish, yet the following things can, I think, be learned from it. I. That Helio- gabalus wished to abolish all the deities worshipped by the Romans, and to substitute in their place one deity, the sun, of which he himself was priest. Nor was this very strange ; for among both the Greeks and the Romans, there were persons who supposed that all the Gods represented only the sun. II. That, on this taking place, he wished to have the Jewish, Christian, and Sama- ritan religions transferred also to Rome. And III. That his aim was, that the sacerdotium, that is, the priests of Heliogabalus or the sun, might learn the [p. 461.] secret ceremonies, of all religions, and be able, perhaps, from these ceremonies to improve and embellish the worship paid to the sun. Heliogaba- lus, therefore, did not wish to extirpate the Christian religion, but he would have Christians live at their ease in Rome itself, and worship God in their own Alexander Severus. 13 way, so that the priests of tlie sun, by intercourse with tliem, might learn their most secret discipline. Such an emperor could have no thouglUs of persecut- ing the Christians. § VIII. state of Christians under Alexander Severus. Under Alexander Severus, the Christians saw better times, tlian under any of the j^receding 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.(') Yielding himself, therefore, wholly to the judgment and pleasure of his mother, Alexander not only adopted no measures adverse to the Christians, but he did not hesitate to show, by various tokens, his kind feelings to- wards them. And yet, if we examine carefully all the evidences of these his kind feelings, which history records, they do not ap- pear sufficient to prove, that he regarded Christianity as more true or more excellent than other religions. If I can rightly judge, Alexander was one of those who supposed, that but one God was worshipped by all the nations, under different names, in differing modes and forms, and with diversity of rites. This opinion, it is well known, was held by many of the philosophers of that age, and particularly by the Platonists. And, if so, he would think, that the Christian mode of worshipping God might be tolerated as well as the others ; and perhaps, also, he deemed it in some respects more consentaneous to reason than some of the others.(') Yet his estimate of Christianity was not sufficient to lead him to abrogate the old laws against Christians, if it was true, as it seems to be, that in his reign, Ulpian collected all the laws enacted against the Christians, so that the Eoman 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 ^vc find mention. (1) All the modern Christian historians represent Julia Mammaea, the mother of Alexander, as a convert to Christianity. Sec Joh. Rud. [p. 462.] Welslein: Prajfatio ad Origenis Dialogum contra Marcionitas ; who thinks, with others of great authority and learning, that credit must be given to so numerous testimonies. But the older historians, Eiisebius (Hist. Eccles. L. vi. c. -21. 14 Century III. — Section 8. p. 223.) «ind Jerome, (Catal. Scriptor. Eccles. c. 64.) speak dubiously. The former cliaraeterises Julia as S-sco-e/Ssa-Tc'iT^, and the latter styles her rcUgiosa. And both tell us, that Origen was invited by her to the court, which was then at Antioch, and that she heard him discourse on reUgion. 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 persona, Christians or not Christians, who were solicitous for salvation, and reverenced a supreme Being. On the other liand, we find manifest indications, in the life of Julia, of real superstition, and of the worship of the false Roman gods. These and other considerations induce several excellent men to believe, that she continued an adherent to the religion of her ancestors. A fuller discussion of this sub- ject may be found in Fred. Spanheim's Diss, de Lucii Britonum Regis, Juliae Mammaeaj ct Philiporum Conversionibus, c. 2. 0pp. tom. ii. p. 400. I will add a few things, corroborative, as I think, of this opinion. And first, La7n- pridius, in his life of Severus, c. 14. (Scriptores Hist. August, tom. i. p. 901,) styles her Sancla Mulier, an expression corresponding with the epithets used by Jerome and Eusebius; yet no one supposes that Lanipridius 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-Trivh) quickly reLurned 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 sent back the austere teacher to Alexandria. There can be no doubt, however, that Julia was well disposed towards the Christians and their religion; and, though her manners differed widely from theirs, yet she felt re- spect for the Christian discipline, and for those who practised it. And hence it is not strange, that her son also, Alexander, should be very well disposed towards Christians. For both in his childiiood 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 malre, ut et ilia videretur pariter [p. 463.] imperare, mulier sancta, sed avara et auri atquc argenti cupida. And a little after, (c. 26. p. 924.) he says: In matrem Mammeeam unice plus fait. The distinguishing kindness, therefore, of the emperor towards Christians, would seem to be attributable, not so muck to his judgment and wisdom, as to his deference to his mother. (2) There are some who rank Alexander Severus himself among the Chris- tians. And though this opinion stands opposed by numerous proofs of tha depraved superstition l)y 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 Alexandre Severe Christianorum sacris per Gnosticos initiate, he endeavors to render it probable, that Alexander listened to some Gnostic teacher, and embraced that form of Christianity which Alexander Severus. 15 the Gnostics professed: but that he dissembled his real opinions before the people, whicli was a thing allowable among Gnostics, and publicl}' worshipped the Roman Gods, but privately worshipped Christ. This dissertation of the learned Jablonski, is found in the Miscellancis Lipsicnsibus noiis, of {ha ex. ccllent Fred. Otto Mencken, {torn. iv. P. i. p. SG-94.) The sole foundation of this opinion, (for all that is brought from Lampridius and others in support of it, falls to the ground without it,) is an ancient gem, published by James do Wilde, on which appears the well Icnown Monogramm of Christ, together with this inscription : Sal. Don. Alex. Fil. Ma. Luce. These notes he would have U3 read and interpret thus : Salus Donata Alexandro Ftlio Mammccae Luce (ss. Christi, this name being expressed by the Monogramm.) Charles du Fresne had previously referred this gem to Alexander Severus, in liis Diss, de Inferioris jEvi Numismat. \ 24. contrary to the views of Gisbert Cupcr, who (in his notes on Lactantius de Mortibus Persequutor. p. 239.) would refer it to somo emperoi''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 thii opinion: and he finds (^ 11. p. 71.) in this gem, not a probable argument, (as Eckhard deemed it to be.) but certain and unanswerable proof, that Alex- ander was privately initiated a Christian. But this his certain and strongest possible proof, rests solely on the two letters Ma. which are subjoined to Alex. Fil. in the gem ; and which he thinks cannot possibly denote any other person than Mammcca. He says, ('} 11. p. 70.) : Sunt autem illjc Liltera; indicio certis- simo, nullis machinis elidcndo, Gemmam banc seulptam esse in honorem et memuriam Alexandri Filii Mammajae. But, to tell the truth, I must [p. 464.] confess that I do not see what there is, that compels us to understand by tiiese letters no person but Mammaea. 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 Mammcca, I see not how he can be forced to give up his conjecture. If the word Imperalor, or the abbreviation Imp. had been prefixed to the name Alex, the person might feel some embar- rassment. But in the gem, as the learned author admits, there is nothing that indicates iraperatorial rank. Leaving the more full dijudication of this point to others, I v>ill bring for- ward all the testimonies of the ancients concerning Alexander's friendship for the Christians, and will show that nothing more can be inferred from them, than that he deemed Christianity worthy of toleration, and its religious worship neither absurd nor injurious to the commonwealth ; but that he by no means preferred Christianity to all other religions, or regarded it as more holy, more true, or more excellent. In the first place Lampridius, in his IJfe of the Emperor, (c. 22. p. 914.) says: Judaeis privilegia reservavit. Christianos esse passus est. From this, only a moderate degree of benevolence can be proved. The emperor fivorcd the Jews, more than he did the Christians. For he re- stored to the former, the privileges of which they liad 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 enactments against them. Yet he did not abrogate the old, unjust, and vexa- tious laws, as we shall presently see; so that the favor which he conferred on the Christians, though real, was yet but moderate. It is meritorious to sus- pend the operation of iniquitous laws; but far more so, to rescind and abolish them ; and most of all, to guaranty rights infringed upon by the former laws. But to proceed: this same Lampridius, (c. 29. p. 930.) tells us, that the emperor had an image of our Saviour, together with the likenesses of certain great men, placed in his chamber for private worship, for he says : Matutinia horis in Larario sue, (in quo et divos et principes, sed optime electos et animas sanctiores, in quels et Apollonium, et quantum scriptor suorrum temporum dicit, Christum, 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. (tom. iii. p. 42.) This learned man aims to prove, and, in my opinion, does successfully prove, that it cannot be inferred from this passage, that Alexander paid divine honors to our Saviour. All that appears from it, is, that Christ had a place assigned him by the emperor, among the anirncc sanciiores, i. e. the men distinguished for sanctity, piety, and wisdom; and that he was accounted not inferior to Apollo- [p. 465.] nius, Abraham and Orpheus. But, not to be too strenuous, we will grant, that a degree of probability is attached to the opinion, that Lampridius intended to signify that a sort of worship 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 o? Deus, or "God;" and that the words: Et hujuscemodi Deos Tiabebai, are the correct and true reading, although many think they are not. Yet, after all these admissions, it will not be proved, that Alexander considered the Christian religion as better and more holy than the other religions. On the contrary, the language clearly shows, that the emperor placed Christianity among the plausible and allowable forms of religion, and that he coincided in opinion with those men of his age, who considered all religions as equal, differ- ing only in rites, regulations, and modes of worship. For he coupled together the three chief personages of the three most distinguished religions of his times, the Gentile, the Christian, and the Jewish ; namely, Orpheus, (that great master of the mysteries and theology, and the eulogist of the gods,) and Abraham and Christ : and this shows, that he attributed the same dignity to each of those religions. Moreover, all those whom Alexander honored with a place in his principal Lararium, and esteemed as Diti, were not in his opinion holy persons, and patterns of virtue and wisdom. For, as Lampridius tells us, (c. 32. p. 936.) Consecraverat in Lar.ario majore inter divos et optimos (etiam) Alexandrum Magnum. And yet he was far from denying, that in hi7n were enormous vices, as well as virtues. Our author says (c. 30. p. 932.) : Condemnabat in Alexan- dro ebrietatem et crudelitatem in amicos. Of no more weight is the third thing, relative to Alexander's reverence for Christ, recorded by Lampridius, (c. 43. Alexander Sever ua. 17 p. 993.) namely : Christo templuin focore voluit, eumqne inter div-oa rccipcre. He would, therefore, only assign Christianity a phico among the other reli^'iona, and not recommend it to liis people as the only religion that was true and worlliy of God. This will appear more clearly from the grounds of iiis giving up the design : Sed prohibitus est ab iis, qui consulentes sacra, repererant, omnes Christianos futures, si id optato evcnisset, ct templa reliqua deserenda. For this passsage does not refer (as many have snpposed) 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 tliese gods would be despised, if Christ should be enrolled among them, he would rather have divine honors withheld from Christ, though worthy to re- ceive them, than sec 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 punishment or 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 henrt, 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 aless degree than learned men suppose. The statement is: Ubi aliquos voluisset vel rectores provinciis dare, vel prajpositoa faeere, vol procuratores, nomina eorum proponebat dicebatque grave esse, quum id Christiani et Judsci f:icerent in praidicandis sacerdotibus, qui ordinandi sunt, non fieri in provinciarum rectoribus, quibus et fortunaj hominum commit- tercntur et capita. Not to notice that the Christians are here associated with the Jews, the comparison which the emperor makes between Christian priests and tlie 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 sucii caution is exercised in the election of Christian priests, what caution should be exercised in appointing magistrates, to whom are entrusted the lives and fortunes of the citizens^? No man could talk thus, if he believed 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 life and prosperity of the citizens, as more important than the sal- vation of their souls, for which the Christian priests labored. Similar remarks are applicable to the judgment which Alexander is said to have passed, in a litigated case between some Christians and the hucksters ; in Lampridius, c. 49. p. 1003: Quum Christiani queradam locum, qui fuerat pub- licus, occupassent, contra propinarii dicerent, sibieum deberi ; rescripsit, melius esse, ut quomodocunque illic Deus colatur, quara propinariis dedatur. These VOL. u 2 18 Century III. — Section 9. words sliow Ji religious mind, and arc somowliat commendatory of the Chris- tian religion; for the emperor admitted that tlie 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 Quomodocunque leaves it doubtful, wiiether tlie Christian mode of serving God was to be approved or wns faulty. Such language does not in- dicate a man who viewed Jesus Christ as tiie Son of God, and the only ( I will not Bay Saviour, but) Instriiclor of the human race, and whose doctrines and precepts [p. 467.] were more just and holy than any others. What the same Lampridms 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) Qucd tibi fieri non vis, aUcri ne fcccris, that he ordered it to be inscribed on the palace and on tha public works, lias plainly no decisive force in the question before us. For tho 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 icas full of Christians, much assist those who maintain, that he regarded Christianity as the best and lioliest 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, suflered her to take Christians into her family ? One who placed all religions upon a level, and considered them as difl'ering only as to forms or modes of worshipping the Deity, might consistently admit men of all religions to become his servants. (3) Lacianlius says (Divinar. Instit. 1. v. c. 11. p. 627. ed Biincm.) : Nam et constitutiones sacrilegre et disputationes jurisperitorum (in Christianos) leguntur injustse. Do7iiitius de officio proconsulis rescripta principum nefaria coUegit, ut doceret, quibus poenis adfici oporteret eos, qui se cultorcs Dei confi- terentur. Tiie most learned men have no hesitation in saying, that this Domi- tius, an enemy of Christians, was Dnmilius Ulpianus, whom Alexander entrusted with the chief administration of the state. See Francis Baldwins Comm. ad. 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, that 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 cojlated 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 MartjTologium Romanum, diem 1 1 mam Octob. et diem 22dam Novemb. Yet Theodore Ruinart, (Prasf. ad Acta Martyr, sincera et Selecta, ^ 47. 48.) does not conceal the facts, that he regarded most of them as dubious. § IX. The Persecution under Maximin. This tranquility of tllO Christians was disturbed bj Maximin the Thracian, whom the Persecution tinder Maximin. 19 soldiers created emperor, wlicn Alexander Scvcrus was slain, in tlie year 235. Maximin was actuated, not so much by [p. 4G8.J hatred of Christianity, as by/rar, 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- cuted, but only the bishops and doctors ; hoping that when these were removed, the Christians, being deprived of their leaders and guides, would remain quiet and attempt nothing to his in- jury.(') Perhaps also, the tyrant did not purpose the death of all Christian bishops, but only of those whom he had known to be the friends and intimates of Alexander. It is certain, that very few cases are recorded of bishops or doctors, who honored Christ by martyrdom, or by any severe sufl'erings, under this cmperor.(') 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, during the whole three years reign of Maximin.^') (1) Euschius states, (Hist. Eccles. L. vi. c. 28. p. 225.) tluit Maximin, burn- ing witli hatred to tlie family of Alexander Sevcrus, wliich was filled witii Christians, commenced a persecution against the Christians. But he adds, that the emperor ordered only the bishops (u/);^^5VT*f nSv Un^iis-loiv,) to be slain, as being the authors of evangelical inslruction {aniovc t«c Kara V.'ua-yyi\iov i'li'aTx.aXiai), These statements are in conflict; if I am not greatly mistaken. If his hatred to the familij of Alexander, had been the cause of this persecution, he would not have poured his wrath upon the bishops, who, none of them, be- longed to the family of Alexander, but must have attacked and slain the family of Alexander itself. This course would have gratified his passion; but the punishing of the bishops, brought no evil or detriment to the surviving ministers and servants of Alexander's household. This difliculty will be removed, if we understand the (xotos) anger or hatred, in Eusebius, to denote /ear combined with hatred: for those whom we dread or/ear, we naturally /m/e. The tyrant was afraid, lest the family of the murdered emperor should conspire against him, and strive to avenge the death of their excellent lord; and therefore, he pursued them with violent hatred. To free himself from thh fetr, 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. their advisers find guides, would attempt notliing very formidal)le against Tiim, Undoubtedly, some one wlio professed to be acquainted with Christian 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. (2) Although Eusehius says, that Maximin commanded all the Christian bishops and teachers to be put to death, I yet very much doubt, whether the tyrant's edict was so dreadfully cruel. I suspect, rather, that the emperor's enmity extended only to those Christian teachers, who had been intimate with Alexander and his mother, and whom the former knowingly permitted to instil the Christian ftiith into a large part of hia family. The chief of these was 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 Orosius, who says, (Histor. L. vii. c. 19. p. 509. ed. Havercamp.) : Qui maxime propter christianam Alexandri et matris ejus ^Mnm- meeae familiam, persequutionem in sacerdotes ct clericos, id est, doctores, vel praecipue propter Origemm presbyterum miserat. And it is well known, that in order to avoid the emperor's fury, Origen kept himself concealed at Caesarea for two years. Being unable to find him, the tyrant vented his indignation upon his two most intimate friends, Ambrose, a man of great distinction, and Proloctetus 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 Sulpitius Severus, (Hist. Sacra, L. ii. c. 32. p. 247.) : Maximinus nonnuUarum ecclesiarum Clericos vexavit. Now, whence this paucity of martyrs and con- lessors 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 iiave come down to us, if the edict had ordered the bishops and teachers to be indis- criminately put to death. Bat all that is obscure in -this matter, becomes clear and obvious, if we suppose that hatred or fear of iha 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 empqjor 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, (tom. xxviii. in ^latth, in his Opp. torn. 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 tiie Ciirlstians, and therefore inflicted grent evils up- on them. See also his ExhorLalio ad MarLyres, whicli he wrote in the roitrn of Maximin. The same cause, and not the cruelty of Maximin, luodueed the suf- ferings of the Christiana in Cappadocia and in the adjacent regions; wliich, however, were augmented by tlie injustice of Serenianus the governor. Thus Flrmillian testifies, (in his Epistle to Cyprian, among the Epistlolae Cyprianicjc, No. Ixxv, p. 146, ed Baluz.) : Ante viginta et duos fere annos, temporibus post Alexandrum Imperatorem, muitae, istic conflictationes et pressurae acciderunt, vel in commune omnibus hominibus, vel privatim Christianis; terrae etiam motus plnriini et frequenter extiterunt, ut et per Cappadoeiam et per Pontum muHa subruerent, quaedam etiam civitates in profundum rcceptae dirupti soli hiatti devorarentur, ut ex hoc (not in consequence of the imperial edict.) perseeutio quoque gravis adversuni nos Christiani nominis fieret, quae post longani retro aetatis pacem repente oborta de inopinato et insueto male ad turbandum populum nostrum terribilior effecta est. Serenianus tunc fuit in nostra provincia praeses, acerbus et dims persecutor. Hence, the Christians were not persecuted in all tlie Roman provinces, but only in those which had previously suffered greatly from these natural calamities. For thus Firmillian proceeds: In hac autera jperturbatione constituti^ fidelibus, et hue atque illuc persecutionis metu fiigien- tibus, et partrias suas relinquentibus, atque in alias partes regionum transeunli bus, (erat enim transeundi facultas, co quod jxrsecuiio ilia non per Mum mun- dum, sed localis fuisscl,) emersit, &c. But, certainly, the persecution would have pervaded every part of the Roman world, if it iiad been commanded by an impera- torial edict. To express frankly my own views, I can hardly persuade myself that Maximin issued any decree against the Christian priests and bishops; but I suppose that, after the death of Alexander, lie merely ordered the arrest of Origen and a few others, whom he knew to have been intimate with the murdered em- peror and his mother; and that, after a short time, other objects occupying iiis mind, and tlie state of things being changed, this sudden burst of passion subsided. § X. The tranquillity under (Joidian and Philip. Mcixi- [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, Misilheus, a man of great energy, he so conditcted the government for six years, as to place the Christians in perfect safety. But, being unable to prevent the murder of Misitlieus by PJiilip the Arabian, he was, the next year, himself slain by the same man, who had usurped the oftioc of Praetorian rmofeet. From the year 244: this M. Jalius Pldli.p^ with his son of the same name, as the Coesar, governed the Koman 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, 23 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 great earnest- ness by the learned. Whoever will candidly and impartially weigh the arguments on both sides of the question, will see, that arguments are adduced by both parties, which, on examination, appear weak and po\vcrless ; 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 innny 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 cursorily. The most important of them are enumerated by Jo. Alb. Fabricius, (Lux salutaris Evangelii toti orbi exoriens, p. 235) But to his list, if it were necessary, large additions might easily be made of per- sons of high reputation, among both the ancients and the moderns. Omitting a work of so little importance, we will recount the principal arguments on both sides, so tiiat 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 pioof 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 d&. [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 chui'ch, 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 the time of Constantius,) preserved in the Chronicon Paschale, edited among the Byzantine Historians, by Carol, du Fresne, it appears, that it was Babjjlas, bishop of Antioch, and afterwards a martyr under Decius, who as- Was Philip a Christian ? 23 Bumcd so much authority over the emperor. See the Chronicon Paschale, tliea. ' x. et xiii. ad ami. 253. p. 270. Clinjsostom also, in las Oration in lienor of St. Babylas, (opp. torn. i. p. 658, 659, cd. German.) mentions this heroic act of the bishop, but without giving the name of the emperor. To this testimony of Eusebvus, learned men add his declaration in his Chronicon, ad ann. 246. in the translation of Jerome: PhUippus primus omnium ex Ro?nanis Imperaloribus Chrislianus full: with which Jerome himself agrees, in his Catalog. Scriplor. Ecc'es. cap. de Origcne. — To breakdown this chief bulwark of those who place Philip among the Christians, those of the contrnry opinion e.xert themselves greatly : and Fred Spanlieim, (in his Dis. de Christianismo Philippi Arabis, \ U &e. 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 e.v- amine the proli.x 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 he learned what he states from common fame: his words are, Kart;^^£/ \'jyci, fame has il: — that Leondus also drew his account merely from public rumor, handed down by tradition, KaTa SiS-i^hyy 'per Iradilionem : — that Chrijsosiom, 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 musl have been a fable. For who would deem it conclusive reasoning, to say: This or that is reported olily by fame, and not in any book or author; and therefore it is not true? We know innumerable things, which [p. 473.] have come to us only through the medium of fame or continuous tradition, without being written down by the contemporary writers: and yet they may be perfectly true. And on the other hand, many things are false, for which tlie testimony of many ancient writers may be adduced. Fame is a reporter both of truth and falsehood. It is, therefore, not suflicient proof of the falsehood of a story, to show that the historians base it only on fame: Investigation is to be made, whether reliance should, or should not, be placed on this fame. Now the testimonies adduced, put it beyond controversy, that in the fourth and fifth centuries, over a great part of the Christian world, fame declared Philip to have been a convert to Christianity. In the thing itself, there is nothing absurd, or incredible. On the contrary, there are some things to support it: among which, and not the least, is tiiis: that what, in his History Eusebius states a3 derived from fame, in his Chronicon he states as being certain: and in this lie is followed by Jerome, as already shown. Consequently, unless the truth of tliis/a7?ze 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 adiluced 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. 23o.) To elude tlie force of this argument, the learned men who exclude Philip from tiic class of Christians, advance many things, which truly had better have been omitted. They, for example, question the genuineness of these ejjistles; they doubt whether Eusebius ever saw them, &,c. They remark, that Eusebius and 84 Century III. — Section 10. Jerome, who both speak of these epistles, do not in nil respects agree ; for Eusehius says, Origen wrote to the emperor's spouse, and Jerome, that he wrote to the emperor's mother. But these are trivial objections, and easily answered by the opposite party. The case did not require so elaborate a discussion » for there is notliing in these epistles merely, which can materially aid the ad- vocates of Philip's Christianity, because ncKher Eusebius nor Jerome tells what was in them. No wise and careful man will ever reason thus: A certain Chris- tain teacher wrote a letter to this or that man, therefore the person written to was a Christian. For why may not a Christain write to one wlio is not a Chris- tian'? A Christian may, by letter, exhort a person alienated from Christianity, to become a Christian. Or he may intreat him to be hind 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 worsliip by a bishop, have appealed solely to the authority of tradition. He would, doubtless, have said : " I have seen the epistles of Origcn to Philip, from which I know with certainty, that he adhered to the Christian religion." Of no more weight is the third argument of those who make Philip a Chris- tian, derived from the Acta S. Pontii ; (edited, with improvements, by Steph. Baluze, Miscellaneor. torn. ii. p. 493.) FoV, 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, tlie reputed instrument of PJiilip's conversion, and respecting Philip himself, which no sober, intelligent man, .acquainted with antiquity, will ever admit to be true. It is probable tliat tliis ^^•hole fable was invented by some person who wished to add strength and autliority 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 centurv, and among the Arabians, Euiychius (in Annal. Eccles. Alexandr.) and Abulpharaius (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 tmworthy of re- gard ; because they all borrowed from the narrative of Eusehius, so that the whole story falls back upon him. And learned men say this, with some ap- pearance of truth. For m.any of these witnesses use the very words of Euse- bius in his Chronicon, and otiiers depart very little from them. Yet it must be confessed, that some of them express tliemselves as if they had other authori- ties for their statement, besides Eusebius. — As to the various other arguments in favor of Piiilip's Christianity, derived from some of his coins, — from certain of his enactments, — and from tlie regard for Christ, exhibited by his wife Severa ; though deemed very weighty by some great men, they are too far- fetched to be arguments of any real force. We will therefore pass over to the other side, and examine the arguments of those who maintain th.at Philip was not a Christian. These also adduce many arguments, which may be easily con- Was Philip a Christian ? 25 futcd. We Avill only notice tliosc arguments, in M-Iiich there appears a doTee of wciglit not to be contemned. In i\\Q first place, they remind us of the fiict, that all the writers of impera- torial history are wholly silent, as to any conversion of Philip to the Christian faith. And they add, that many of the Christian writers, and Eusebius at the head of them, (in Vita Constantini Mag.) distinctly state, tliat Constantine the Great, was the first of all the emperors that embraced Christianity. But the dissidents are far from quailing before tliis argument. They say, tliat Philip did not profess Christianity, openly and publicly, but only in private [p. 475.] and secretly ; so that he publicly worshipped the gods, and dissembled liis change of foith, while in private he attended the Christian worship. And henco the writers of Roman history, and also Julian, and some others, were ignorant of his renunciation of the old religions, ilnd they say, that the Ciiristian authors, who declare Constantine to be the first Ciiristian 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 diflicult 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. 'E;ti (ji.ovai roiv TTcJ-rroTi )(_^t7TlaVc^v S'lafavoJ; airoS'if^^aTt KovTTccvrii'ffl. When he says that Constantine ^vas the first who openly (S'lup-j.vus) worshipped Christ, he seems to intimate, that there were others be- fore him, who (dJ'^ipivcoj) secretly and covertly professed Christ : and 'thus ho apparently explains the meaning of all those, who, with himself, had placed Con- stantine first among the Christian emperors. Secondly, the vcry*flagitious life whicli Philip led, both before and after his access to his imperatorial power, is urged by learned men, in opposiiion 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 ehano-e 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 life, would be wholly unexceptionable. But the question is, whether he reL^ardcd the Christian religion as more excellent and true than the Roman, or, iu 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 that 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 Pliilip omitted none ol'thcse sacrilegious ceremonies, he immolated victims to the gods, and exhibited the customary spectacles in the Campus Martins, in the circus, and in tlie 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 ha 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 people, 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 the omission of some of the most impious of the ceremonies? The foiirlh 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 state ? 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 certninty that conclusive evidence of a princdLs 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 both sides of the question, the religion of Philip appears to me to bo 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 Christians enjoyed peace and prosperity, and that he gave many proofs of his marked kindness to Ihem. And yet, just before his death, (as we leiirn from Eusebius,ov 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.] § XL The Persecution tinder Deciiis. Philip, after reigning five years, was slain in the 3^ear 249, and was succeeded by Decius Trajanus, a prince, in many respects commendable, but superstitious, and immcderalcly attached to the old Eomish The Dccian Persecution. 27 religion, lie, in the very beginning of bis reign, cither from fear of the Christians, whom he knew to cherish the memory of Philip, or from 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 Avith 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 Eoman empire, and among them the distinguished bishops of the larger cities, as Fabian of Eome, Bahylas 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 Sacrijicati, Thimjicati, and LihellaticT, denoting those guilty of these several forms of perfidy towards Christ.Q (1) Eusehius (Hist. Ecclea. L. vi. c. 39. p. 234.) snys, tlmt Dccins apsailed the Christians, (rgoj o/a/t.tcv i^^cv; hiKJ,) fro7n lialred I o Philip : but Gregory of Nt/sso, (in Vita Greg. Thamnaturgi, 0pp. torn. iii. p. 567. 5G8.) says, tliat his attacliment to the religion of Iiis country, which was everywhere shorn of its dignity and respcctaliility 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 botli coexist. Perhaps, however, it will not be rash to suppose, that the same motive influenced Vcc.ius as had before influenced Maximin; namel}', 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 tliis conjecture, because the violence of tliis persecution very quickly abated. For we learn from Ci/prian, (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 thai 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 would 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 1 664, 4to. what he termed, Decii Augusti Edictum contra Christianas, taken professedly from an ancient manuscript book. But Tillemont has shown, (Memoires pour servir a I'liist. de I'Eglise, torn. iii. P. ii. p. 400.) that the document contains many things, which make its genuineness doubtful, although 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 ho 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 (fa>j2ipiiTa.Tcv) horrible or terrible : and he says, it was such, ui ipsi etiam electi, si fieri posset, scaiidalum paierenlur ; and he adds, that all Christians, on hearing of it, were exceedingly terrified. It must, therefore, have threatened evils before unheard of, and have prescribed 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. 568.) states — 1. "That the emperor in his edict, commanded the governors and magistrates to bring back the Christians to the worsliip of the gods, by every species of punishment and terror." — 2. That he threatened the governors and magistrates with severe and signal penalties, if they were remiss and negligent in the execution of this his mandate. — 3. Hence, 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 torture, before unheard 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- duced amazing terror, and universal commotion. — What we learn from other writers, Origen for instance, respecting the tenor and import of this horrid law, 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 ; for this appears from the examples of 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. cd. Baluz.) from which we learn, that Decius, (as Maximin before him had done,) wished to have the Christian priests and bi'ihops made the princip.al subjects of the persecution ; and therefore, when Fabian, the Romish bishop, had been slain, he prevented The Dccian Persecution. 29 the election of nnother bishop to fill his phice. Cyprian says of Cornelius tlie successor of Fabian : Sedit intrepidas Ronioe in sacerdotnli c;illiedr;i eo tempore, cum tyrannus infesius sacerdolibus Dei f inda atque infanda commiiia- retur, cum multo paticntius et tolenibilius audiret levari advcrsus se a'-mulura principem, quam constitui Romte Dei sacerdotem. If we consider the stale^ ments of Dionysius, (in the above-named passage of Eu^ebius,) those of Cyprian, (in his tract de Lapsis, and in various of iiis Epistles.) and those of some others, respecting the zeal of the governors and magistrates in executing 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, they sent into exile. Others subjected the Christians who confessed, to exqui:-ite tortures, variously modi- fied and protracted for many days, and then remanded them almost lifeless to the jails, where they 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 liberty. of which number the celebrated Origen was the most distinguished, he having sulfered exceedingly under Decius ; but lie was restored to his liberty after the slaughter of Decius. Sec 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 insufficient, they sen- tenced them to a capital punishment ; but not all in the same form. The more cruel doomed thcin 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 death ; and, 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 Vi'hieh they might consider and make up their minds, whether to profess Christ, or to deny him. Explorandcc fidel prctfinicbantur dies. During this period they remained at home and free ; and, as appears in the sequel, no one opposed their seeking safety by absconding. This was sufficiently humane. In Egypt, as we Icara 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 Ciprian was displeased with it, and enjoined upon liis fiock to decline the favor: Sed qui spccnlo renuntiasse memi- nit, nullum saiculi dieai novit; nee tempora terrena jam computat, qui u;tornita. so Century HI. — Section 11. tein de Deo gperat. Ncttio, fratres dileclissimi, nemo banc gloriam mutilct, nemo incorruptam stantium fumitatem maligna obtrectatione debilitet. From Ihc cont'luding' words of this exhortation, it would appear, that the more coura- geous among the African Christians would not avail themselves of the privi- lege offered by the governors, and were blamed for it b}' some, who, undoubt- cd!}-, 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 prtu. stitutus excessit, quisquis professus intra diem non est, Christianum se esse confessus est. Therefore, such of them as had not fled awaj^, 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 victoriaj titulus, gentilium manibus apprchensum Domi« num confiteri. Secundus ad gloriam gradus est, cauta secessione subtractura Domino rcservari. Ilia publica, hsec privata confessio est. — Ilic fortasse dilatua est, qui palrimonio derelicio, idcirco sccessit, quia non erat negaturus. Cyprian himself lied, and suffered the penalty of flight, tiie loss of his property. Those 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 diflercd [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 inquisition, whereas before they had to wait for an accuser to appear; any one so 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 their faith, were not ordered at once to execution, as the law of Trajan 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 punishment 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 ])laccs 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 Dioriysins 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 comraimded that bishops and priests, on refusing compliance, should be at once put to deatln in order to strike terror into others. He did not prescribe the mode of proceed- ing against those who, 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. That 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 Dcciiis commanded the execution of all the persevering. For the governors had power, without any mandntc frorj the emperor, to put those to death, whom neither force nor fear, neither argu- ments nor persuasives, could induce to worship the gods ; 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 his 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 they hastened 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 Cijprian, among others, in his eloquent treatise de Lapsis. This distinguished W'riter 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 authority 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 despiscrs of the godsi and a lingering, protracted death, amid varied 33 Century III. — Section 11. successive; 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 tliey actually expired. Some of the governors, in order to strike greater terror into Christians, ingeniously contrived new modes of torture, and exposed the instruments of the executioners, publicly, before the eyes of all. This was a far more efficient way to destroy courage, and inspire disma)', than the punishments of the preceding times. Men wiio 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 Thiiri- 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 Libella- 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 Libellaiicus 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 their lives, and procured safety from the emperor's edict, by means of money. And this, as we have before seen, was 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 Montanist opinion : — and thirdly, this is certain, that the Libellatici did not renounce Christ, either in words or deeds ; that is, they 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 the least criminal, or if you please, the best among the lapsed, and, with little trouble, obtained reconciliation with the clmrch. The two following questions, however, have been especially debated : Whether the Libellatici were so denominated, from the (libelli) papers they gave in, or from such as they received? and, What was the tenor or contents of these libelli, from which they derived their name? This discussion is founded wholly on the interpretation of some r.ather obscure passages in Cyprian: for lie 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 him a pub- lic renunciation of his religion. For, not to mention tliat it cannot be biiown that such petitions to judges were allowed of, and that on the contrary, it appears from Cyprian, (as we shall soon see,) that the Libellailci appeared per- sonally, or by their agents, before the judge, and implored his clemency, not in writing, but by oral statements only; — I say, not to insist on this, although it is of great weight in this controversy, — the Christians, by presenting sucli pe- titions, would have been guilty of no offence. For, as already shown, the laws of the church allowed Christians to petition the judge, cither orally, 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 securUaiis) certificate of security, in wliich it was stated, that he had complied witli the emperor's edict, that is, had sacrificed to the gods, although in fact he had done no such thing, and had told the judge that his religion utterly forbid his doing it. On account of tliis certificate, which the Christian produced if occasion required it, he was publicly by 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 offence of the Libcllatici ; 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 the subject is, for the most part, admitted by Prudentius Maran, in his life of Cyj)rian, (5 vi. p. Jiv. &c.) prefixed to the Baluzian edition of Cyprian's Works. Yet he rejects it in part; for he 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 Clnist, but they omitted this in the certificates. This worthy monk was notdestituteof erudition, but he had little acquaintance with human affairs; and aiming to bring forth something new, he brought it forth ; but under un- favorable auspices. Good sense forsook him. As to the (Acta) jmblic records, in which he thinks it was written, that the holders of certificates or the Libcl- latici, had offered sacrifices, I shall say nothing. He took this from a passage in Cyprian, misunderstood; so that the ftict of such a record, is not proved; 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 Dccius' 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 tliey were willing to incur the penalties, with which, as before shown, 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- troversy, it must have been stated in the certificate, that the holder of it had done what the emperor required. Such a public testimonial was supposed lo fce written in good faith, although written in bad or deceptive f lith ; and there- VOL. 11. 4 34 Century III. — Section 11. fore it exempted those who produced it, from all fear and danger. It may be added, moreover, that Cyprian, (as we shall presently see,) calls those certifi- cates, not only impious, but also cerlificales of idolatry. (Epist. 68. p. 119.): Basilides et Martialis 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 certijicalc of idolatry, (libcllus 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 mentioned 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.] laiici, and see whether they accord with what has been stated. 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 accepius 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 oblala, quem nee ipsum acciperem, nisi ostensa 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 preemium, 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, conscicntiam tamen ejus esse poUutam 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 oflTered 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. — 3. Not at their own solicitation, but at the suggestion of 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 suflfering purchased, with a moderate sura of money; thus proffering him the clemency of the judges. — 4. The Libellaiici did not present written petitions to the magistrate, but went to the judge, either personally or by some friend, and orally made known their wishes, presenting, at the same time, the price of the fivor asked for. Cyprian reports the lan- guage they used. This method of proceeding was necessary to the magistrate's safety. If they had allowed written petitions to be presented by those who The Lapsed. 35 wished to obtain certificates of safety witliout sacrificing, tlie very petitions might lead to the easy detection of the fraud. Tiiose conversant witii the pro- ceedings of men, well know that sueli transactions being derogatory to the law, and 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 (Jihelli) wrillen "petitions 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, they 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 acceptus) icriting or certificate received. And this writing or certificate protected them against all prosecutions, or attempts to compel tiiem to worship the gods. Another passage, in an Epistle of the Roman Clergy to Cyprian, (inter Cy- priani Epistolas, Ep. 31. Opp. p. 42.) is not quite so lucid, and yet sufficiently so to confirm the preceding statements : Superioribus litteris nostris (a letter not now extant.) vobis sententiam nostram dilucida e.xpositionc protulimus, et adversus cos, qui seipsos infideles illicita nelariorum libellorum professione pro- diderant, quasi evasuri irretientes illos diaboli laqueos viderentur, quo non minus quam si ad nefarias aras aceessissent, hoc ipso quod ipsum contestati fucrant, tenerentur, sed etiam adversus illos, qui acta fecissent, licet pra^sentes quum fierent, non aflfuissent, quum prsesentiam suam utique ut sic scriberentur mandando fecissent. Non est enim immunis a scelere qui ut fieret imperavit : nee est alienus a crimine, cujus consensu, licet non a sc admissum crimen, ta- men publice legitur, et cum totum fidei sacramentum in confessione Christi nominis intelligatur esse digcstum, qui fallaces in excusatione prassligias qu.-crit, 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 tibellos nefarios projiteri, in presence of the judge; and by such professione se ipsos infideles prodcre. What is here meant by libellum profiteri, the writers of the Epistle presently show ; it is, to direct or require that some- thing be icritten, or that a libellus be drawn up. This will be perfectly manifest, to one comparing the expression with what follows it. Tliose therefore greatly err, who make profiteri 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 thus asked forj i^s clearly indicated in the following words: cujus Consensu, licet non a se axknissum crimen, publice legitur. The person then who solicited a certificate, consented, that a crime, which he had never committed, should be publicly imputed to M>7h. TUe criffiLO ve&ired tu, was, 36 Century III. — Section 11. undoubtedly, that of sacrificing. It ia tlierefore certain, that the certificates stated Ihat such and such persons had sacrificed to the gods. And tliis, more* over, is confirmed by tlic following words: Videri vult proposilis aihersui Evangelium vel ediclis vel legibus satisfecisse ; paruit, quia pandssc videri xoluit. Consequently, the governor testified in Ids certificate that Cuius or Seius had complied with and satisfied the emperor's edict; and he who (pj-o- fUebatur) 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 publice 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 perhaps they were so ; but it is not necessary to put this construc- tion on the words. For any tiling may be said (publice legi) to he publicly read, which is frequently read in public, which is shown and must be shown, to all who ask to see it j 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 tlie judge, and not of papers presented to him. For how could a Libellalicus, m a paper of his own, confess a crime which lie had not committed? How could he affirm that lie 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 liim, whicl), however, he would shudder to commit, he betrays his infidelity ; tliat is, he makes it known, that he will not publicly profess Christ, and that he is unconcerned, if the jjublic should regard him as an apostate. — 4. These things being kept in sight, it will not be difficult to apprehend the meaning of the Roman Clergy, when they say : Libel- laticos irretientes diaholi laqueos evadere velle, at non minus teneri, quam si ad nefarias aras accessissent, quod hoc ipsum coniestati fuerant. The Laquei Diaholi, which might irretire, or lead men to forsake Christ, were imprisonment, the Tack, and the tortures w'herewith the governors, by command of Decius, sought to bring Christians to a renunciation of Clirist. And the Lihellatici, although they had not gone to the forbidden altars, nor ofiered sacrifice to the gods, yet were equally guilty, in the view of the Roman priests, because tliey had attest- ed to Qioc ipsum) this very thing, namely, their going to tlie altars and offering 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 Lihellatici did not present (libellos) ivritlen requests to the judge, but either went to him themselves, or sent their authorised agents to solicit from him a (libellus) uyritten certificate. Prudcntius Maran fancies that the words Acta fecissent, here indicate the (Acta Judicii) Records of the Court; The Lcqysed. 37 a most unhappy conceit: as if truly, entries on the court records nii'^lit bo m:ide by the petitioners to the court; tliat was the business of the public nota- ries. Ill this place, Ada facers is the same with lihdlnm profueri: for the Roman clergy are here speaking of those (Ada) acZs, which were unavoidable, bv such 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. 190.): Nee sibi quo minus agant poenitentiam blandiantur, qui etsi nefandis sacrificiis manus non contaminaverunt, libellis tamen conscientiara pollucrunt. Et ilia professio denegantis contestatio est Christiani quod fuerat abnuentis. The learned hesitate in regard to the meaning of this pnssaTe; because it is concise and rather obscure ; and yet, by proper attention, we may easily discover its import. The Professio denegantis is, the Professio libelli 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 Conleslaiio or testimony of a Christian, abnuentis id, quod fuerat, i. e. denying that he is any longer a Cin-istian, wliich 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 dixit (namely, by the judge, who wrote as he desired,) (iuicqnidalius/ac(c«cZocommisit. Cumque scriptum sit; non potestis duobus Dominis servire, servivit gaeculari Domino qui obtemperavit ejus edicto (i. e. the person who consented to have it written, that he had obeyed the Decian edict,) magis obaudivit humano imperio, quara Deo. Viderit an minore vel dedecore vel crimine apud homines publica- verit, quod admisit. Dcum tamen Judicem fiigere et vitare non pofcrit. 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 Libellatici and their certificates, there are none which throw additional lio-ht on the subject, or add weight to the arguments already adduced, except a pas- sage ill his Epistle to Fortunatus, (do Exhortatione Martyrii, c. 11. p. 271.) where he cites the example of Eleazur, in 2 Maccab. 6. to rebuke the crime of the Libellatici. lie says: Ac nequis 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 liceret sibi vesci ad circumveniendum Regem simularct se ilia edere, quae da sacrificiis ingerebantur, consentire ad banc fallaciam noluit, dicens, nee aitati Buse, nee nobiiitati convenire,id fingere, quo ceteri scandalizerentur et in crrorera indueerentur, existimantes Eleazarum ad alienigenarum morcm transiisse. A cur- sory reading of this passage will show, that the Libellatici 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 {0 them. It is likewise evident that they did not present the (libcllum) written f.aper io the judge, but received it from him; for Cyprian calls these (libellos) written papers ?7;a/wm 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 tliat is injurious to tlie receiver. Tliero must, therefore, have been some- thing written in the (libellus) certificate, wliieli iniglit bring reproach and ci'imi- nality on the Libellaticus. 'This whole subject might have been more clear and easy to be understood, if the edict of Decius had come down to us. For, as tliere is no mention whatever of such (lihelli) 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 Uhellum, 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 tiie judge, was liable to be accused of disobeying tlie 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 sacrificed, was indis]3ensable. Vast numbers procured a libellus by actually 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 tlie 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 lenitj^, favored that course ; and others of a sterner mould, and more rigidly adhering to the ancient discip- line, resisted it; parties very naturally arose among the Christians. 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 anion o- the early Christians were amazingly great, and their decisions Contests about the Lapsed. 39 were regarded as almost divine, it had become the custom, [p. 490.] even in the preceding century, (') to admit to the communion those among the Lapsed wlio 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 Lihelli 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 Avere 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 mart3'rs, the confessors, the presbyters, the lapsed, and the people ; but from it he came forth victorious. (■*) (1) Respecting Egypt, see Dionysius Alexandrinus, (apud Eiiseh. Hist. Eccles. L. vi. c. 44.) — As to Africa, Cypricni's Epistles are full on the subject. (•2) The learned have long remarked, that TerlulUan is the earliest writer who mentions this custom ; towards the close of his book, de Pudicilia, (c. 22.) and in his book, ad JSIartijres, (c. 1.) See Gabr. Alhaspinaeus, (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 sulTerings 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 tiiis right was to be used, and the extent of the influence to be allowed to these certifi- cates. These Lihelli 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. Dccian persecution, whch were highly detrimental to the welfare of the church, [p. 491.] and which, therefore, Cyprian and other bishops felt bound to cen- sure.— In the first place, wliercas certificates had formerly been given by the martyrs to only a few individuals, and tliis 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 a multitude of these certificates of peace. Says Cyprian (Epistola .\iv. p. 24.) : Cum comperissem, lapses e.\ambire ad raartyres passim, confessores quoque, importuna et gratiosa deprecatione corrumpere, ut sine ullo discrimine atque examine singulorum, darentur quotidie libellorum viillia (a definite number is here rhetorically used for one indefinite,) contra Evangelii legem, litteras feci, quibus martyres et confessores, consilio meo quantum possem ad dominica prse- cepta rcvocarem. There are several other passages in Cyprian, which speaic of the immense number of tlie certificates given by the martyrs. On tlie evils re- sulting from them, there is no need to expatiate. With tlie full expectation of obtaining 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 prisons, where the more resolute Christians were detained awaiting tiieir 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 tlie ground tliat the martyrs recognised them in their certificates as bretiiren. In the persecutions of former times, the prudence of tlie 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 worlliy 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 tlie subject (Epistola x. p. 20.) : In prBcteritum semper sub anteces- soribus nostris foctum est, ut diaeoni ad carcerem commoantes martyrum deside- ria consiliis suis et scripturarum prreceptis gubcrnarent. Sed nunc cum maximo animi dolore cognosce, non tantum illic vobis non suggeri divina praecepta, sed adhuc potius impediri. Most earnestly, therefore, the lioly 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 fratrcs, impudentia vos quorundam premi - - oro vos quibus possum precibus, aut Evangelii memores et considerantes qua? et qualia in praj- tcritum 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 abrupte et indigne vol a vobis promissum, vel a nobis factum fuerit, apud gentiles quoque ipsos ccclesia nostra erubescere incipiat. From this language it is very manifest that it was not the right of the martyrs to give certificates of peace to tlie lapsed, recommending them to the churches, but only the use of this right, which was the subject of controversy. Contests about the Lapsed. 41 This error was accompanied by anotlier of no less magnitude. The martyrs in this Declan persecution, did not always insert the names of the persons to whom they wished the churcii to be reconciled, but naming an individu il, they connected with him a company wlio were not named; that is, they recom- mended to the communion of the church, all those whom the bearer of the cer- tificatc might bring forward as his friends and associates. Whoever, therefore, 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 sharing in the certificate. Tliis, I think, I can discover in tlie some- what obscure language of Cyprian (Epist. x. p. 20.) : Intelligenles el compri- mentes eos, (he is addressing martyrs,) qui pcrsonas accipienics in benrficiis ves- tris, (i. e. who extend your favors, not to those worliiy of them, but to those tliey choose, however unworthy,) aut gratificantur, (i. c. either give them away,) aut illicilcc negolialionis nvndinas aucupanlur, (i. c. or search for buyers of the privih'ges 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 cvil-miuded 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 diligentiara vestram redigere et emendare debetis, ut nominatim designetis eos, quibus pa- cera dari desideratis. Audio enira 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 cunnilct. Late enim patet, quando dicitur: "Ille cum suis;" et possunt nobis viceni et triceni et amplius off'erri, qui propinqui et affines et liberti ac domestic! esse asseverentu? ejus, qui accepit libellum. Et ideo peto, ut eos, quos ipsi videtes, quos nostis, [p. 493.] quorum pocnitentiam satisfactioni proximam conspicitis, designetis nominatim libello, et sic ad nos fidei ac disciplinffi congruentes litteras dirigatis. Some of the martyrs, before dying for Christ, gave direction to certain of their friends to issue certificates in their names, when dead, indiscriminately, to all who should ask for them. An example of tiiis we have in the Epistle of Lucian, a Confessor, to Celerinus, {^mox)g the Epistles of Cyprian, Epist. xxi. p. 30.) : Cum benedictus martyr Paulus, adiiuc in corpore esset, vocavit mc et dixit milii: Luciano, 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 Lucian, 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 adliuc in carccrc posito, nomine illius libellos manu sua scriptos passim 42 Century III.— Section 12. dedil, sed et post ejus excessum eadem facere sub ejus nomine perscveravit, di- cens hoc sibi ab illo mandatum. And this same Lucius gave certificates in the name of another martyr, Aurelius, who was unable to write : Aurelii quoqne adolescentis tormenta perpessi nomine, libelli multi dati sunt ejusdem Luciani manu script!, quod iittei'as ille non nosset. Tlie martyrs wlio were so liberal as to order certificates to be given to all applicants, wlien they were dead, appear to have cherisiied a great error by believing, that so great was the eflicacy of the death they were about to suffer, that it could expiate the sins of otiier per- sons ; and that the injunctions of a deceased and triumphant martyr were per- fectly satisfactory both to God and to men. TJms much is certain, and is manifest from Cyprian's Epistles, and from his book de Lapsis, tliat 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 Clnistian religion. This Cyprian in some measure perceived, as appears, among otlier things, from his reprehension of Lucian's proceedings, (Epi.st. xxi. p. 32.) : Cum Doniinus dixerit, in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti gentes tingi, et in baptismo prseterita peccata dimitti, iiic prajcepti et Icgis ignarus mandat pacem dari et pec- cata dimitti in Pauli nomine, et hoe sibi dicit ab illo esse mandatum. This is a frigid and futile argument; as also are, it must be confessed, many others oc- curing in the writings of Cyprian. Tliis 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 iriitated by Cyprian's letters, burst every bond of modesty, and, getting others of the confessors to join him, issued, in Iiis 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 Confessoros litteras misi, ut quasi moderatius aliquid et tempe- rantius fieret, universorum Confessorum nomine idem Lucianus epistolam scripsit, qua pasne omne vinculum fidei et timor Dei et mandatum Domini et Evangelii sanclitas et firmitas solveretur. Scripsit enim omnium nomine iiniier- sis (lapsis) eos pacem dedisse, et banc formam per me aliis episcopis innotea- cere velle : cnjus epistolaj exemplum ad vos transmisi. This improper conduct of the martyrs, who were generally illiterate and un- acquainted with the Christian discipline, might perhaps have been easily check- ed and corrected, if the presbyters and bishops had done their duty. But tlic}^ actuated by hatred of Cyprian and by other motives, shamefully increased the evil, and wished more to be conceded than the martyrs asked for. It was not the aim of the martyrs to subvert all order and to prostrate the authority of (lie bishops by means of their certificates, nor to exempt those whom they under- took to patronise entirely from ecclesiastical penalties. This is clear, frctn the language of Lucian himself, the most audacious and indiscreet of them all: Contests about the Lajised. 43 {Cyprian, Epist. xxi. p. 30.) : Et ideo, Frater, peto, ut, siciit hie, cum Domiuus coeperit ipsi ecelesiae pacem dare, secundum praeceptuin Pauli (not Paul the apostle, but Paul the martyr, in whose name Lucian issued the certificates,) et nostrum tractatum, exposita caussa apud episcopum, et facta exomolorrc-i, ha- beant pacem non tantum hae, sed et quas scis ad animum nostrum pertinere. It appears therefore, — 1. That he did not wish the 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 the 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 bipsed pub- licly confess their fault, and humbly ask the forgiveness of the ciiurch : Exo- mologcsin facere. He by no means wished all the lapsed, who Jield certificates, to be received without any punisliment, 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 certi- cates 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 litteras direxerunt, et petierunt tunc desideria sua [p. 495.] examinari et pacem dari, quando ipsa antea mater nostra ecelesia pacem de misericordia Domini prior sumpserit et nos divina protectio reduces ad eccle- siam suam fecerit. And (Epist. x. p. 20.) addressing the martyrs, he says; Litteras ad me direxistis, quibus examinari disideria vestra et quibusdam Inpsis pacem dari postulastis, cum persecutione finita eonvenire in unum cum clero et recolligi coeperiraus. 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 the judgment of the bishop. Says Cy- prian, (Epist. xxviii. p. 38.) : Scripseruut mihi nuper quidam de lapsis humiles et mites et trementes et metuentes Deum, et qui in eeclesia semper glorioae et granditer operati sunt. Et quamvis libello a martyribus accepto, ut tanien a Domino satisfactio sua admitti possit, orantes scripseruut mihi, se delictum suum cognoscere et poenitentiam veram agere, nee ad pacem temere aut importuno properare, sed expectare praesentiam nostram, dicentes pacem quosque ipsam, si earn nobis praesentibus acceperint, dulciorem sibi futuram. Certain of the presbyter.s, however, at the mere sight of these certificates, in utter disrcgi^.rd 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 U addressing tlie martyrs,) honorificam petitionem, (mark the circum- spection he uses,) ante actam poenitentiam, ante exomologesin gravissinii atque 44 Century III. — Section 13. extremi delicti foctam, ante manum ab episcopo et clero in poenitentlam impo- sitam, offerre pro illis et eueharistiam dare, id est, sanctum Domini corpus pro- phanare audent. With grief he repeats the same in the following Letter, (Epist. xi. p. 21.) These presbyters, envying Cyprian the honors paid him, stirred up the martyrs and confessors to demand that more respect should be given to their certificates than heretoibre, and that disregarding the authority of the bisliops, the lapsed should be restored, with no delay wliatevcr. Says Cy- pria7i, (Epist. xl. p. 52.) : Jli fomenta olim quibusdam Confessoribus et horta- menta tribuebant, ne concordarent cum episcopo suo, ne ecclesiasticam disci- plinam cum fide et quiete juxta prcecepta dominica continerent, ne confessionia suiE gloriam incorrupta et immaculata conversatione servarent. Hence those great and turbulent movements, both of the confessors and the lapsed; the for- mer demanding that their certificates should have the efliect of laws and man- dates, and the latter, that instant admittance sliould be allowed them to all the sacred rites, on the ground of their certificates. In our province, says Cyprian, (Epist. xxii. pp. 31, 32.) : Per aliquot civitates in praepositos (the bishops,) im- [p. 49G.] petus per multitudinem factus est, et pacem, quam semel cuncti a martyribus et confessoribus datam clamitabant, confestim sibi reprsesentari co- egerunt, territis et subactis prajpositis suis, qui ad resistendum minus virtute animi et robore fidei prsevalebant. Apud nos etiam quidam turbulenti, qui vix a nobis in prajteritum regebantur, et in nostram prossentiam differebantur — 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 poenitentlam agere et Deo satisfocere detrectant, litteras ad me fecerunt, pacem non dandam sibi postulantes, sed quasi jam datam sibi vindicantes, quod dicant Paulum 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 his 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 rights 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, tiireatened Cyprian pretty distinctly, tliat if he persevered in resisting the wishes and demands of the martyrs, the result would be, that himself and other martyrs would exclude Cyprian !rom 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 Papa5 salutem ! Scias, nos universis, do quibus apud tc ratio constiterit, quid post commissum cgerint, dedisse pacem. Et banc formam per te et aliis episco- pis innotcscere volumus. Oplamus ie cum sancLis marlyribus pacem habere. Xovatus of Carthage. 45 Prccsente de clcro ct exoreista et Icctorc. What Lucian here says of lils wish- intr Cyprian facem habere cum martyrilms, amounts undoubtedly to tliis : We will deprive you of our fcace, unless you confirm the peace given by us ; notwitli- standing all the efforts of Stephen Baliiz, (in his notes on the passao-e,) 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 sulijcct 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, in which they approved and lauded the course he had pursued. They also wrote to Cyprian himself, who had by his letters en- 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 Acts 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. Cijprian in all his Epistles upon this subject, proceeds as if treading on the treacherous embers of a slccpin^j 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 com2)laints of the people. What then would have occurred, if he had ventured, in the council, in the pre- sence of so many living confessors, idolized by the people, to call their prero- gatives in question, and to set definite limits to the effects of their certificates of peace ? What contention, what clamors, what disputes would have arisen 1 After this contest, 1 find no further mention of certificates of peace, in any 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. § XIIT. Contest between Cyprian and iVovatus. The Contro- versy just described, was accompanied by another more trivial and limited in it.<3 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 4G Century III. — Section 13. demanded, till it ended in a deplorable scliism.(') JSfovatus, a presbyter of Carthage, even prior to the persecution iinder De- cius, had had disagreement Avith Cyprian, his bishop, for some cause not now known, and had drawn oft" some of the brethren from liim ; 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, Novatus was not only factious, vain, and rash, but also guilty of many oftences 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 aj^pointed, when, suddenly, the publication of the emperor's edict intervened ; and, as it obliged Cyprian to betake himself to flight, Novatus remained safe in his former po- sition.(^) This was the first act in this protracted drama. (1) The history of the two-fold schism, produced by Novatus and Nova- tian .at Rome, and by Felicissimus at Carthnge, in the midst of the Decian per- secution', must be gathered from the Epistles of Cyprian, from Eusebiiis, from the Fabulai Hajreticorum 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, nre, in great measure, undiscoverabie; 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, ditfers in some respects, from that heretofore given by the learned. Yet I have stated nothing without good reason ; nor can the order and conne.xion of the events be apprehended differently. The affiiirs of Novatus, of Felicissi- mus, and of Novaiian were certainly connected; and yet, in some sense, they were disconnected. This connexion in some respects and disconnexion in otliers, 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 affivirs of Christians. (2) Novatus, with whom this whole controversy originated, was undoubt- edly a Carthagenian presbyter. For no one who reads the Epistles of Cyprian censuring him, will give credit to Baroniiis, 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 fact, that he created Felicissimus a deacon ; of which Cyprian so bitterly complains, (Epiat. xlix. p. 63.) : Ipse (Novatus) est, qui Felicissimum Novatus of Carthar/e. 47 satellitem suum diaconum, nee permittcnte me, nee sciente, sua factione ol 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 Noialus ventured to do tliis, before the persecution, and while Cyprian was in Carthage, (wliich is quite supposeble.) it must be [p. 499.] manifest, that Novatus had charge of a separate congregation distinct from that of Cyprian. For how could an individual presbyter create a deacon in the bisiiop's own church, and tlie bisliop 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 tlie 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 ills 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. suited and have a voice in the matter. But the congregations that were sepa- rate from the motlier church and the bishop, and liad their own appropriate presbyters, had likewise their own deacons; and if Novatus had charge of such a cluirch, he might have created Felicissimus a deacon in his churcli, without the knowledge or consent of the bishop. And this supposition is confirmed by the language used by Cyprian. For it appears, that Novatus did not create a deacon by his own sole authority and choice, but, as Cypriaris languaga shows, (sua faciione et ambitione.) in his factious ambitious spirit, by flattery and in- trigue, he persuaded the church under him to elect Felicissimus deacon. Had Novatus 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 either 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 Novatus Undertook and carried through the whole business, without consulting him, or letting him know anything of it. Novatus, 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 riglits and authority, contended that nothing whatever, even in those minor Ciu'istian assemblies, ought to be undertaken or transacted witiiout the approbation and consent of the bishop; and he therefore considered Novatus 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 Novatus intentionally neglected to consult the bishop, because he knew that Cyprian had a dislike to the man. The church over which Novatus presided, worshipped on a certain hill in Carthage. This, I think, Cyprian in- timates, (Epist. xxxviii. p. 51.) where he says of Felicissimus : Comminatus est fratribus nostris potentatu improbo et terrore violento, quod secum in vionle non communicarent, qui nobis obtemperare voluisscnt. Blany copies, both 48 Century III. — Section 13. [p. 500.] manuscript and printed, here read, in morte. But this reading is des- titute of meaning; and Feh'ci.ssimus would have been a fool to have threat- ened such a thing to his adversaries, when it would have frightened nobody. The learned have therefore long considered the true reading to be, in monie. And this reading is much confirmed by the appellation of (Monlenses) the Hill People, given to the Novatians at Rome, according to Epiplianius,(m Ancorato, c. 13. 0pp. torn. ii. p. 18.) They were probably so called, because they con- sidered that portion of tiic Cartliagenian cliurch, which worshipped on some hill or mountain of the city, to be the only true church of Carthage. Hence Felicissimus 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 churcli over which Novaius presided, it must be clear, that I am correct in stating, that Novatus had charge of a small congregation, distinct from the mother 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 llian Noiafus. Cyprian says of him, (Epist. xVix. p. 63.) : Rerura semper cupidus, avaritiaj inexplebilis, rapacitate furibundus, arrogantia et stupore superbi tumoris inflatus, semper istic episco- pis male cognitus, quasi hicreticus semper et perfidus omnium sacerdotum voce damnatus, curiosus semper ut prodat, ad hoc adulatur ut fallat, nunquam fidelia ut diligat, fax et ignis ad conflnnda seditionis incendia, turbo et tempestas ad fidei facienda naufragia, 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, fraudatie viduse, pecuniae ecclesias denegatae 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 very holy martyr, in whose affirm.ation 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 tho 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 otiierwise 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 describing the character of other men, and especially of our enemies. That Novatus was [p. 501.] contentious, prone to innovation, and also fiictious, 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 Novatus of Carthage. 49 reputation and dignity. To express my own opinion, I cannot look upoa Aovalus as so blaciv a character as Cyprian represents him ; because he neither Bought nor obtained for himself any great advantages, throughout this long and vehement contest. He allowed others to be created bishops, and enjoy the fruits and rewards of the dissension; but for himself, he was contented witii his situation and the rank of a presbyter, and chose rather to minister tlian to bear rule. This indicates his moderation. Tlie crimes, with which Cyprian charges him, were doubtless the subject of common talk, and were, tlierefore, collected from common fame; but it is observable, that iVora/us was never con- victed of them. He could not, indeed, after he left Africa, be summoned to a trial ; but Cyprian might have substantiated the crimes of the absent man by examining tho 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 tho most anger, from which it can be inferred, that Novatus was proved guilty of the crimes which common fame charged upon him, and that on such ground he had been deposed from office and ejected from the church. It is therefore no rash conjecture, to sup- pose that the truth of tliese enormous imputations could not be substantiated. Felicissimus the friend of Novatus, Cijprian condemned and excommunicated : and why should he spare Novatus, if he knew him to be guilty of such enor- mities? 23ut let us pass over these points, which it is absolutely impossible at this day to clear up, because no writings of Novatus have reached 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 slated by Cijprian, ( Epist. xlix. p. G3.) : Idem est Novatus, qui apud nos primura discordiaj ct schismatis incendium scminaviL — 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 Dccian 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 thft persecution ; and he says, that Novatus, before the persecution, had alienated brethren from t!ie bishop : Qui quosdam istic ex fratribus ab cpiscopo segregavit, (this he did before the persecution began; next follows his criminal conduct during the persecution;) qui in ipsa persecu- tione ad evertendas fratrum mentes alia quadam 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.] iiimsclf 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 to form that purpose. But of the crimes of Novatus, wo- have already given our views; Ihey were not so clear and manifest as to demand public animadversion. Neither does Cyprian, VOL. II, 5 60 Century III. — Section 14. as we have already seen, disguise tlie fact, that the enormity of his evil deeds was augmented by some offence against the honor and riglit of liis bishop. What it was that set tlie presbyter and the bishop at variance, does not fully appear. But I strongly incline to believe, that Novatus^ conferring the office of deacon on Felicissiniup, witiiout the consent and approbation of Ci/prian, irri- tated the feelings of the bishop, who held his episcopal dignity in the highest estimation ; and that here commenced the whole sad conflict. I am aware, that some learned men suppose that Fclicissimus was constituted deacon while Cyprian was absent, .and they censure John Pearson, who maintains, (Annal. Cyprian, { 20. 22. p. 25.) tliat he 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 Fclicissimus .^" What bishop would have presumed to do it, if Cyprian had been at home ! See TiUemont, (Memoires pour servir a I'Histoire de I'Eglise, torn. iv. P. I. p. 393.) To this question, I answer: Novalus, Mmself, con^ccxsXcdi his deacon; and he thought this to be lawful. Those Presbyters who, like Novatus, had charge of separate churches, enjoyed many prerogatives, which did uot belong to the other pres- byters who were connected with the tishop. But Cyprian deemed this to be unlawful. And so ho intim.ate3, 1 apprehend, when he says, that (amhilione Noiali) through the ambition of Novatus, the man {constilutum fuissc) was constituted deacon, (se non permillente) without his permission. According to CypriavUs 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. xlix. p. 64.) : Hanc conscientiam crirainum (Nova- tus) jam pridem timebat. Propter hoc se non de presbyterio excitari tantura (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 ageretur, nisi persccutio ante venisset, quam iste veto quodam evadendse et lucrandse damnationis exci- piens, (i. e. he rejoiced in this occurrence. But who had told Cyprian that fact ?) hsec omnia commissit et miscuit ; ut qui ejTci de ecclesia et excludi habe- [p. 503.) bat, judicium sacerdotum voluntaria discessione prjeccderat : quasi evasisse sit poenam, prrevenisse 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) voluntary 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. § XIV. The Schism of Fclicissimus at Carthage. After tlie de- parture of Cyprian, and so long as the African magistrates kept Schisin of Fcliciss{7nus. 51 up a vigorous persecution of tlie Christians, these movements were dormant. But when the furj of the persecution gradually subsided, and Cijprian began to prepare for returning to his church, now fast recovering its former tranquillity, Novaius^ 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 himsel£(') 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 Ci/jjrian ; and, particularly, with the aid of one Aiigendus, 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.{^) 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 dhurch. 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, Foriunaius^ one of the five presbyters, whom Cyprian had excommunicated. (^) 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 Noiaiiis induced Fdicissi- [p. 504.] mtis to orgfinize this opposition to him; but this is inferred, from the fact, that he throws on Novatus all the blame of the divisions and discords in the church. He says, (Epist. xlix. p. 64.) : Circa eaeteros autem fratres claboramus, quos ab eo (Novato) circumventos dolemus, ut veteratoris perniciosum latus fugiant, ut lethales laqucos sollicitantis evadant, ut de qua pelli ille divinitus meruit eccle- siam repetant : quos quidem, Domino adjuvaute, per ejus ftiisericordiam regredi posse confidimus. In the same Epistle, he calls Fclicissi7nus (sateU'Ucm Novalt)-. a satellite of Novatus; which pretty distinctly implies that Novatus used Feli- cisxirnus 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 5.2 Century III. — Section 14. things relating to this contest are unknown to us; and Cyprian liimself some- times speaks, as if Felicissimus did not act from the instigation of another, but from the impulse of his own mind. In his 38th Epistle, (p. 51.) in which he descants warmly on the criminality of Felicissimus, he makes no mention whatever of Novalus, but represents Felicissimus as the cause of all the evil. He says: Nee loci mei honore motus, nee vestra auctoritate et prsesentia fractus, instinclu suo quietem fratrum turbans proripuit se cum plurimis, Ducem se fac- tionis et sedilionis principem temerario furore contestans. The affairs of Nova- tus and Felicissimus were undoubted!}' 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 Nova- tus joined the followers of Novaiian, from Vv'hom Felicissimus kept aloof. Novatus set up one Maximus as a bishop at Carthage, and Felicissimus set up fiHother, 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. (2) Felicissimus, as a man, was not much better than his presbyter Novalus. For Cyprian charges him not only with fraud Mid rapine,hui also with adultery : Ad fraudes ejus et rapinas, quas dilucida verltate 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 another Epistle, (55. p. 79.) he is branded with marks of still greater infiimy; for he is pronounced. Pecuniae commissae sibi fraudator, stuprator virginum, matrimo- niorum raultorum depopulator atque corrupter. It was not therefore one act of adultery, but many, that he committed; and not satisfied with that form oi 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. This 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 Caldonius 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 those who 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 miserira, 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 discerneretis, ut jam nunc ego, cui cura incumbit, omnes optime nossem et dignoa quoque et humiles et mites ad ccclesiasticae administrationis ofScia pro- Schism of Fellcis^imus. 53 movercm. It appears tlien — First: That Cyprian intended, by these deputies, nccessilatrs exjmngifratrum sumpli/ms; i. c. to relieve tlie wants of the brethren from the funds of the church. For expungerc necessilates, h simply to satisfy and remove the wants of the poor. — Secondly : That he wished those amono- the poor, who were disposed to labor at their trades, to be supplied with money from the church treasury sufficient for purchasing the necessary tools and means for business. — Thirdly : That he wished those 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 church, 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 Felicissi?nus resisted them. He would not have (necessitates ex- pungi,) the wants of the brethren relieved, nor have such an examination of the indigent as the bishop directed. Says Cyprian: Intercessit, ne quis posset expungi, (being a deacon, he held the churcli 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 discerni. The necessities of many were indeed re- lieved; tliat is, as Cyprian soon after states, through the hands of the deputies, (stipcndia episcopo dispensante percipiebant,) they received the stipends which the bishop dispensed. For Fdicissimus had not the wiiole 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 the kind offers of the deputies. And these, undoubtedly, Feli- cissimus relieved from the funds in his hands. Comminatus est fratribus nostris, qui primi expungi accesscraut potentatu improbo ct terrore violento, quod se- cum in montc non communicarent, qui nobis obtemperare noluissent; i. e. ho threatened, that he and the Hill Church, of which he was deacon, would not hold those as brethren, who, being in want, should make application to the bishop's deputies. — Here we have the crime of Felicissimus. But the cause or pretext for the criminal act, Cyprian does not mention; nor has any one, so far as I know, attempted its investigation. This, therefore, is a problem for us to solve : and it is not so abstruce, as to require great ingenuity lor 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 absence of the presbyters, they could receive the confessions of offenders, and absolve the penitent. This Cyprian admits, in his 13th Epistle, where ho allows the lapsed to make their confession to the deacons. They also had Bome siiare in the government of the church. Therefore Felicissimus, inflated with the pride of office, maintained, that the distribution of money to the poor 54 Century III. — Section 14. and other matters, should have been assigned by tlie bishop to himself and the other deacons, and not to deputies commissioned by him; and he complained, that by his commission, Cyprian trespassed on tlie rights of the order of dea- cons. This solution will at once suggest itself to a person fiimiliar with Chris- tian antiquities, and duly considering the case. But, perhaps, this daring man meditated something still more criminal. He contended, perhnps, that by forsak- ing liis church in the time of persecution, and seeking his ov/n 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 beiug 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 liis legates a letter which has come down to us, ordering the man to be ejected from the church. The legates obeyed their instructions, without delay, and declared unworthy of communion in the sacred rites, not only Felicissimus, the author of the disturbance, but also one Aitgendus, his associate, concerning whom we have no knowledge, and some others of both sexes. This appears from a letter of the legates, among the Epistles of [p. 507.] Cyprian, No. x.xxix. This act certainly betokens a man of a vehe- ment and hasty temper, rather than of a discreet and prudent mind; and it is one of the things which, in my judgment, shuw 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 liis conduct, is sufllciently manifest from the f;ict, that 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 authoritj^ and without consulting the people; which a bishop had by no means a right to do. He therefore went far beyond the limits of his pov/er. 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 verilaie cognovisse,) 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 wevefivCf 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 bi>hop in his place. Some learned men think Novatus was one of the five ; to which opinion we shall soon give attention. These presbyters, in order to accomplish their object more readily, promised to the lapsed, towards whom Cyprian iiad been somewhat severe, tliat if they would sep:\rate 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 suae memores, et antiqua ilia contra episcopatum meum venena retincntes,instaurant vetercm contra nos impugnationem suam. Nunc se ad lapsorum perniciem venenata sua deceptione verterunt, ut cegros et saucios, et ad capienda fortiora consilia per calamitateni niinse sua3 minus idoneos, et minus solidos, a medela vulneris sui avocent, et ijiterraissis precibus et orationibus, quibus Dominus longa et continua satisfactione placandus est, ad exitiosam temeritatem mendacio cap- tios£e pacis invitent. Most bitterly does this holy man complain of the rashness of the five presbyters, in this Epistle addressed to the Christi:in people. But among his complaints and accusations, there are some which are extravagant, and would better become an orator laboring to excite odium against [p. 508.] a criminal, than a Ciiristian bishop. One thing of this character, as it strikes me, is his comparing the five presbyters to the five principal 7nen of Carthage, who were joined with the magistrates for suppressing and exterminating the Christians. Quinque isti prcsbyteri nihil aliud sunt, quam quinque primores illi, qui edicto nuper magistratibus fuernnt copulati, ut fidem nostram subrue- rent, ut gracilia fratrum corda ad lethalcs laqueos pra;varicatione veritatis aver- terent. In searcliing for the 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 it: one only, so far as I know, denies it; namely, John Pearson, in his Annales Cyprianca; ; and he olYers no proof of his opinion. It Ni)catus 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 Novatus is not to be numbered among those adversaries of Cyprian. In the first place, it has been already shown, clearly, that Nmatus was at enmity with Cyprian some time before Felicissimus at- tempted to make disturbances in the church at Carthage; and that Ciprian was prevented from bringing him to trial, and ejecting him from the churcli, 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 lime, tiiey 56 Century III. — Section 14. had dissembled their alienation, and the bishop hr.d no controversy with them. 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 Noialus, but that he prevented the sentence by his flight. Says the bishop: Ejici de ecclesia et excludi habebat. - - Quasi evasisse sit posnam, prasvenisse sententiam. And he afterwards says: He merilcd cxpuUion from the cliurch, (eum mcruisse de ecclesia pelli.) and not that he teas expelled. In fact, Novalvs, to prevent being condemned, witlidrew 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 bisliops which Cyprian assembled after his return, made their defence, and, by a decree of the council, were excluded from tlic communion of [p. 509.] tiie church. I am aware tliat Cyprian says, (Epist. xlix. p. 63.) that Novalus was condemned by the voice of all the priests, (perfidus omnium Sacer- dotum voce damnalus.) And hence the learned have inferred, that he was con- demned in the council, in conjunction with the other presbyters, the enemies of Cyprian. But the words may very properly be understood of the private con- demnation of individuals ; and they undoubtedly prove, that all the teachers of the church disapproved of his temerity and improbity. Besides, unless I am wholly deceived, Novalus had already reached Rome, and joined the partizana of Novatian, when Cyprian, after his return, instituted a process against the faction oi Felicissimus and the five presbyters. The whole history will become disjointed, and be very diflicult to arrange, unless we take this to be certain. And when Cyprian says, explicitly, that Novates (sententiam prccvenisse) 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 ciiurch. — Lastly, omilting other tilings for the sake of brevity, it is certain, that although Novalus aided Felicissimus, and was favorable to his cause while in Africa, yet, he did not adhere to his party at Rome, but joined a very dilTerent one, namely, that of Novalian. Neither did he recognize the bishop, Forlunatus, whom the faction of Felicissimus 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, Cyprian returned to Car- thage, and immediately summoned a council of bishops, to settle the controversy respecting the lapsed, and to try the cause of Fe.licissijnus 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. xlii. p. 57.) had come down to us. But they are all lost, and we have to form our judgment of the whole affair, 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 Felieissimi caussam pertinet, quid Iiic ac- tum sit, ut scire posses, litteras ad te collcgae nostri (the assembled bishops) raanu sua subscriptns miserunt, qui, audilis 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 Schism of Felicissimns. 57 of the African province, but also the presbyters and deacons, and not in a small but ill a large number, were present in the convention. Si corum, qui de illis priore anno judicaverunt, numerus cum presbyteris et diaeonis computetur, plu- restune affuerunt jiulicio et cognitioni, quam sunt iideni isti, qui cum Fortunate (the bishop set up by the factious in opposition to Cyjnian,) nunc videntur esse conjunct!. From tlie same Epistle, it appears tluvt ail of them were eject- ed from the church by the united suffrage of the bishops; yet not [p. 510.} without the prospect of a pardon of their offences, provided they would reform. Says Cyprian, (p. 88.) : Nee ccelesia istic cuiquam clauditur, nee episcopus alicui denegatur. Patientia et facilitas et huraanitas nostra venientibus praesto est. Opto omnes in ecclesiam regredi. Neither does Cyprian omit to mention the offences, which called fortii this sentence ; but, to ray astonishment, he gives most prominence to that one, which is the most excusable, and was never num- bered among the capital crimes which exclude a man from the cliurch; namely, compassion for the lapsed, and defence of the Ceriificates of Peace heretofore mentioned. Let us hear the eloquent man's own words: Taceo itaque de frau- dibus ecclesiae faclis, (i. e. the interception and misapplication of the money of the church,) Conjurationes ct adulteria et varia delictorum genera praetereo. (These the good 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 which alone they were deemed worthy of punisiiment.) Unum illud, in quo non mea, nee liominum, sed Dei caussa est, de eorum facinore non puto esse reticendum,quod a primo statim persecutionis die - - communicare cum lapsis, el foenilentiac agendas inlercedere non destiterunt: i. e. they wished those, who brougl^t Certificates of Peace from nuirlyrs, to be received again by the church. In magnifying this crime, he pours forth all his eloquence, and consumes a large part of iiis 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 liind 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, w hich cast Felicissvmus and liis associates out of the church ; but (as the whole Epislle shows,) it was this single one, that Felictssimus 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,hc- cause it was not only contrary to his judgment in the matter, but also weaken- ed his authority. We shall see, in another place, with what zeal this holy man labored to del'end and exalt tlie episcopal dignity, at the expense of the people's rights. — In what way the accused conducted their defence, or witii what argu- ments they justified their conduct, Cyprian has no where informed us. We Bhould 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 Ihcy urged Iho rights of the presbyters, the deacons, and the people. Felicissirnus 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 Cyprian's church. And over their floclc, they made one Forlu- natus bishop, obtaining consecr.ation 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 legites of Novatian from Rome, and ForLunalus, 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 (lurpia mulLa ac probrosd) 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 twenhj-fiie African bishops attended the conse- cration of Fortunatus. Cyprian contends, that this was a gross fiilsehood; and I believe, he was correct. And yet he seems to admit, that there were more thauj^re bishops present on that occasion; bad ones, however, either lapsed, or heretical. Si nomina (of the five-and-twenty bishops) ab eis quaereres, non haberent vel quos falso nominarent. Tanta apud cos etiam malorum (episcopo- rum, undoubtedly; for he is speaking of bishops,) penuria est, ut ad illos nee do sacrificatis, nee de haereticis viginti quinque (episcopi) colligi possint. In the assembly, therefore, besides the fne wiio consecrated Felicissi>nus, there were several other bishops, but they were either sacrificers who, of course, must have been deposed, or they were, in Cyprian's estimation, heretfcs. 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 Novalian, 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 Cyprian's friendsliip, is another question, and we ofler no conjectures about it. What occurcd after this, — whether ForiunaLus had any successor, or whether those who separated from Cyprian, returned again to the church, — no ancient writer has informed us. Perhaps, this whole taction 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 episcopal 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 wis'ied 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 JVovaiian Schiam. 59 they contended for the riglits of tlie clergy and people, in opposition to a bishop affecting to have absolute dominion over them, is phiced beyond all con- troveisy by tlie scanty and obscure documents which have come down to us. § XV. The Schism of Novatian at Rome. Before tllC return of Cyprian from exile, NovaLus, dreading the severity of the bishop, had retired to Rome ; 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 the persons who had forsaken Christ in the Decian persecution, were to be received again to the church; and, j)erceiving that Cor- nelius, a man held in the highest estimation among the Romisli presbyters, and also some others, differed from him on this sub- ject, he made the most strenuous opposition to the election of Cornelius 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, Cornelius was elected bishop, and Novatian withdrew from 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 Cypria,n; 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 year 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. Q 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 Avas 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, enjoyed, neverthe- less, staunch patrons, and was at once dilfused through many 60 Century III.— Section 15. parts of Christendom, and could not be suppressed before tlie fifth century. For tliis, its good fortune, it was indebted to the gravity and 23robity of tlie 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 A'oiah'an 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 others, on account of his eloquence, his learning, and his philosophy. See 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 Eusehius, Hist. Eccles. L. vi. c. 43. p. 244. &c.) ; but still he does not hnpeach 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 Novaiian. 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 liimsclf 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 Novaiian 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 fiilse accusation ; and I think there is no good proof that Novaiian 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 Euseh. Hist. Eccles. L. vi. c. 43. p. 244.): UpcvaKeti ifiiyof/.ivo! rii 'Ettio-xo- Trii 0 Quv/naTlc^ ovrc;, kui Kpiyrtml cv iiuToi thv ^rgi/TSr^ ru.VT»V durov e.jri\)'iifxtav. Admirandus ille vir cpiscopalis loci cupiditate jampridem accensus, et pracipi- tem illam ambitionera suam tegcns, 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 liis 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.] episcopal office. But Cornelius supplies us with still stronger testi- mony to the innocence of his adversary. For he acknowledges, that when 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 T-u/i TC< X!«^Tg5T:tToc xui iT;' o^xail' po/Ss/itov tlfioV TrKrTOu/A.iyci ra fAii cTi •Xuj 'Effia-xdirHf ofiytid-xi Egregius ille vir tremendis quibusdam sacramenlis The JVovatian Schism. 61 affirmavera!, se Episcopalian non concupiscere. — Now, whoever r cither does nor attempts anything th.it coulJ :iw;iken :i suspicion of liis being ambitious, and morever declares, on oath, that he lias no desire of the episcopate, can not possi- bly be a competitor for the epi-copal office. But, some may say : The villain perjured himself; and iilthough lie made a great show of modesty, yet he op- posed the election of Cornelius, in order to secure the appointment to iiimself. To this many things might be said in reply ; I will mention only one. Nova- dan 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 wliom no one ever charged with impiety towards God, or with being of a perverse and irreligious disposition. What then could CorneZms have designed by writing to Fabian, and probably to others, that Novalian had long secretly burned with desire for the episcopal office? I answer: to confirm a conjecture, and that a very dubious and intangible one. He reasoned in this manner: Novaiiaii, 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 hero show. There would indeed be a little plausibility in it, though very slight, if Noiaiian, immediately after the election of Corne- lius, had wished his friends to create Jmn also a bishop ; a thing entirely within his power to effect. But he postponed all movements for erecting a new church, and patiently awaited the decision of the approaching council. And after he had been condemned and excluded from the church, together with his adherents, he thought there could be no sin in his taking the oversight of his own company. The invidious representations of this affiiir 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. Novalian, before he became a Christian, was a iihilosophcr, 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 jvho forsook him and came back to the Romish church, said they found in the man, what Cornelius calls (apud Eusebium, p. 242.): Tuk dKQiyuv.jc-i-jiy xui \u>iofi\iJiv, wliicli Valerius translates abhorrenlem ab omni socielale fcrilalern, ct lupinam quamdam amlciliam. He therefore slinnned 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 !iad fjillen, and from which he hoped to be recovered by the Christians. At least, so we must understand, in my judgment, what Cornelius has stated, (nor will any who are familiar with the opinions and phraseology of the ancient Christians, understand Cornelius ditferentfy,) : 'Ap'.p^jiii tou Trio-rtvi-ai yiyoiiv 0 2:'.Tavuf, psiTwrac in d-JTdv xui oix.ii, sT£'/>«c yap \nti.i (piKc^TQipi-jLs {/IU3-TXS- Respoudil, non amplius se xelle [p. 517.] presbyierum esse, sed alterius philosophic amore 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 ; wiiich is commonly printed with the works of TerluUian, 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) That the African presbyter Novatus, who fled from Carthage to Rome to avoid the sentence of Cyprian, hecame an associate and a coadjutor of iN^oia/mn, 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, would 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 crabracc and defend the party of Novalian, v.-ith 64 Century III. — Section 15. till liis might, and even to the establishing of a new church at Eomo. He had repaired to Rome as to a haven of security, in order to be safe from the shafts of Cyprian 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 lastl}', to establish a new church in which he would find shelter. He therefore, more for his own safety, than for the honor of JSoialian, prevailed by his eloquence on the Roman confessors, i. e. on that portion of the church which possessed the greatest influence and eflicienc}% to place themselves in opposition to Cornelius ; a thing, which Noialian either could not, or would not attempt. Says Cyprian (Epist. xlix. p. 65.) : Novato illinc a vobis recedente, id est, procella et turbine recedente, ex parte illic quies fiicta est, et gloriosi ao boni confessores, qui de ecclesia illo incilante discesserant, posteaquam ille ab urbe disccssit, ad ecclesiara reverterunt. The same man, and not Noxatian, 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 molitus est, quae Carthngine, a clero portionem plebis avellens, fraternitatis bene sibi cohaerentis et se invicem diligentis concordiam scindens. He also [p. 518.] persuaded Novaiian, a timid man, and perhaps reluctating, to allow himself to be created bishop : Qui istic (at Carthage,) adversus ecclesiam dia. couum fecerat, illic (at Rome,) episcopum fecit ; i. c. 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 otlice. He likewise consented to be de- spatched to Africa, with others, by the new bishop; and thus empowered, he established, at Cartilage and other places, bishops adhearing to the Novatian party. Every thing was planned and executed by the active NovaLus, and nothing or but little by Novatian. 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: wiience they con- clude, that he showed his malignity, by this whiffling and inconsistent course : At Carthage, say they, he M'as 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, J very much doubt. Cyprian, the most bitter of Novatus'' enemies, enumerates all his faults, real or fictitious, in a long catalogue ; but he does not mention this. Such sflenee 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 Novatian Schism. 55 maintained at Rome: but he does not add, that while in Africa he held a differ- ent and opposite opinion; which he would doubtless have not omitted, if Nova- tus could be justly charged with the inconsistency. With an affectation of wit, Cyprian says; Damnare nunc audet sacrifieantium manus, (i. e. he denies tiiat persons who have sacrificed with their hands, should be received again into tiie cliurch,) cum sit ipse nocentior pedibus, (i. e. wlien he had himself been more guilty with his feet : very bad taste !) quibus filius qui nascebatur occisus est. Noratus was reported to have kicked his pregnant wife in her abdomen. Cy- prian would have used other language, if Noiatus had been chargeable with changing his opinions respecting the lapsed. He would have said: Damnare nunc audel sacrifieantium manus, 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 Novatus at Rome condemned the lapsed, whom in Africa he patronized, except their persuasion, that he was one of the five presbyters, who 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 the Roman council, in which Novatian was condemned and ejected from the church, an account is given by Cyprian, (Epist. lii.) by Eusebius, and by others of the ancients. Novatian was present ; but he could not be brought to agree with the bisliops, tliat pardon should be granted to the Chris- tians wlio lapsed in tlie time of persecution. He 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 tlie 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 tlian he was before. We are informed, not only by Cyprian, but also by Socrates, (HisL Ecclcs. L. iv. c. 28. p. 245.) that Novatian'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 satisfaction 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 etiara de apostatarum fictis rumoribus 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 perieulo subvenitur. And that he treated the Libellatici with still greater lenity, is also not dissembled. It was not, therefore, a sheer fiction, tiiat 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 feult, 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 aflirnied, VOT.. IT- 6 66 Century III. — Section 16. at last, that the lapsed ought to be forever excluded from communion with 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. (4) I will not enumerate the patrons and favorers of Novation, some of 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, which Novatian sent throughout the Christian world, had great effect on the minds of many, and drew them over to his party. From Eusehius, (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, Conslantint 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. vi. 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 previously, in the year 413, enacted a severe law against a brancli of the Novatian sect, who bore the name of Sahhatians or Protopaschites. The name was taken from one Sahhalius, 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 Jewish Passover. See Ja. Gothofred 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. § XVI. The Novatian Doctrines. As to tlie Cliristiail religion, generally, tliere was no disagreement between the Novatians and other Christians. Bnt that which especially distinguished them from the great body of Christians was, that they denied a re- admission into the chiirch, to all who fell into the greater sins after baptism, and especially to those who, under the pressure of persecution, revolted from Christ and sacrificed to the gods : and Tlic NovcUkm Doctrines. 67 yet ttey did not exclude tlicse persons from all liopc of eternal salvation.(') In close connection with this doctrine was another, 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 api)ellation of a genuine and pure church. And this they ventured publicly to proclaim. For they assumed to themselves the name of Caihari {the 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.C'') The other things reported concerning the faith of this sect, are either uncertain, or altogether incredible. (1) Of the ancient writers wlio mention and condemn the principal error of Novatian, 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 Novatian and his adherents excluded for ever from the church, tliose who fell into sins after bap- tism. But there are two things which admit of dispute : First, who were meant by the Lapsed? — Secondly, whether he excluded the lapsed from the church only, or also from heaven and eternal salvation ? As to the first point, it is certain that the contest between Cornelius and Novatian, in its origin, re- lated solely to those who had fallen away in the Decian persecution. And yet it is no less certain, that Novatian^ as Cyprian gravely charges upon him, (Epist. lii. p. 74.) placed all persons whatever, whose conduct show'ed a de- ficiency of Christian firmness, in one and the same predicament ; and he in- flicted the same penalties on the Libellatici as on the Sacrijicati and the Thnri- ficati. And as the laws of the ancient church considered certain otlier trans- gressors, especially adulterers and murderers, as equally guilty with the apos- tates, Novatian, also, seems to have comprehended them all in one sentence, and to have ordered the church doors to be for ever closed against otliers, 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 that Nomtian proliibited all persons, guilty of any great fault, from re-adniissiou to the church. And this rule certainly was practised by the Novatian churches in tliose centuries. This is most explicitly affirmed by Asclepiades, the Novatian bishop of Nice, in the fourth century (apud Sncralem, Hist. Eccles. L. vii. c. 25; p. 367.) : 'ExToy tou l-ri^Za-ctt not aXXai TToXXoi KsiTu ra; ypa.ipas tiirlv afA.n^TiiLi Trjios S"uvarov, eT/' Sj iifAilg fAiiy Trfos roiis KKufititcvi, ii/nus S\ y.ai tou; K^'iKoi/i d7ri>i\iio/i>.iv. Prseter sacrificium idolo- [p. 522.] rum sunt et alia multa peccata ad mortem, ut loquuntur scripturfe, propter quas vos quidem clericos, nos vero etiam laicos a communione remove- mus. In nearly the same manner, Aceshis, 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 ausleram legem {dva-TXfov xdvovoj) : Neminem, qui post baptismum ejusmodi crimen ad- miserit, quod pecatum ad mortem divinee scripturte 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, Theodorei, and many others. Neither is this utterly false ; for Soc7-ates, who was well versed in Novatian affairs, informs us, (Hist. Eccles. L. v. c. 22 ; p. 288.) that not all the Novatians, but only those of Phrygia, excommunicated the persons who contracted second marriages. This fact suggests to us the ori- gin and source of this custom. There were followers of Montanns still residing in Phrygia, in the fourth century, and they condemned second marriages. These mixed with the Novatians, whom they admired for their severe discipline, so congenial to their own practice, and undoubtedly persuaded them to adopt this part of the Montanist discipline. — It is therefore beyond a question, that the No- vatian church, in its maturity, refused to commune, not only with apostatizing Christians, but also with all persons guilty of the grosser sins. But the inquiry still remains, whether the church, at its commencement, and also the founder of it, held the same opinion. That there is ground for doubt on the subject, ap- pears from the 52d Epistle of Cyprian, who sometimes speaks as if Novatian al- lowed a place in his church to adulterers, and to other equally great sinners, and excluded only deserters of Christianity, or apostates. He says, (p. 74.) • Aut si se cordis et renis scrutatorem constituit et judicera (Novatianus), per omnia sequaliter judicet - - et fraudatores et mojchos a latere atque a comitatu suo separet, quando multo et gravior et pejor sit moechi, quam libellatici caussa, cum hie necessitate, ille voluntate peccaverit. A little after he adds : Nee sibi ill hoc novi hjsretici blandiantur, quod se dicant idololatris non communicare, The Novatlan Doctrines. Q9 quando sint apud illos adulter! ct fraiulalorcs, qui teiicantur idololatrice [p. 523.] crimiuc, secundum Apostoluin. And a little alter: Ita fit, ut si peccato alteriua inquinari alterurn dicmit, et idololatriam delinquentis ad non delinquentem transire sua asseveratioue contendunt, excusari secundum suam vocem non posh^int ab idololatria) crimine, cum constet de Apostolica probatione nioechos et fraudatores, quibus illi communicant, idololatras esse. One cursorily reading these passages, might easily foil into the belief that Novatian tolerated aduUer- ers and defrauders in his congregation, or did not forbid this class of offenders, after undergoing the penances prescribed by the church, to be again received among the brethren; and, therefore, that he closed the doors of the church only against 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 all societies of Christians, and, of course, also the Novatians. If, then, it be true, as the Novatians maintain, that a man becomes a sinner himself, by associating fraternally with a sinner, the Novatians must be in perpetual peril, and may not escape the stains and spots of sin, whatever pains they may take. That such is the import of Cyprian'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 suo 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 sagacity more than human, an exploration of the hearts of men was requisite. To show how difficult it is to remove all sinners from the congregation of the just, Cyprian selected two out of many crimes, adultery and fraud, which are commonly com- mitted with so much secrecy and caution, as to escape public notice. There are, indeed, in this same Epistle of Cyprian, the following words, relative to adul- terers : Quibus tamen et ipsis pffinitentia conceditur et lamentandi ac satisfaci- endi spes relinquitnr secundum ipsum Apostolum, 2 Cor. xii. Some learned men think that these words warrant the belief, that Novatian allowed adulterers to expect a re-admission to the church. But, in my opinion, they are most cer- tainly mistaken. For, so far is this passage from showing that Novatian allowed a reconciliation to adulterers, that it does not show that all other Christians, except Novatians, would receive them. Cyprian says no more than this, that 8L. Paul left to adulterers a hope of penitence and satisfoction. And, [p. .524.] therefore, although the controversy commenced with those unfaithful Christian.s, who apostatized in the Dccian persecution, yet, it is most proljable, tiiat the Novatian church, from its origin, decided that all persons viohvting the princijial laws of God, after baptism, ought for ever to be excluded from the assembly of the 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 Novatian 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 reliable documents of this controversy, the more certain do I feel, that Novatian was not so destitute of clemency, and that those who so repre- sent him, attribute to him a consequence, which they deduce from his principles, but which he did not allow. Very many in that age believed, that the road to heaven was open only to members of the church, and that those who were without the church must die with no hope of eternal salvation; and therefore, they baptised Catechumens, if dangerously sick, before the regularly appointed time; and they restored to the church the unfaithful or the lapsed Christians, when alarmingly sick, without any penances or satisfaction, lest they should perish for ever. Our Cyprian decides, (Epist. lii. p. 71.) thus; Extra ecdesiam constiiutus, et ah imitate alque caritate divisus, coronari in morte non poterii. As there were many holding this doctrine, they must have reasoned thus ; Novatian would leave the lapsed to die excluded from tlie 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. Novation, 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 haeretieae institutionis inefficax et vana traditio ! hortari ad satisfac- tionis poenitentiam et subtrahere de satisfactione medicinam, dicere fratribus nostris, plange et lacrymas funde, et diebus ac noctibus ingemisce, et pro ab- luendo et purgando delicto tuo largiter et frequenter operare, sed extra ecde- siam post omnia ista morieris ; quaecunque ad pacem pertinent facies, sed nul- 1am pacem quam quaeris accipies. Quis non statira pereat, quis non ipsa despe- ratione deficiat, quis non animum suura a proposito lamentationis avertat ? And after illustrating these thoughts with his usual eloquence, he concludes thus : [p. 525.] Quod si invenimus (in the scriptures,) a poenitentia agenda neminem debere prohibcri - - admittendus est plangentium gemitus et poenitentiae 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 salva^on 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 ah' luerent et purgareni,) to wash and purge away their sin. Therefore, he did not close up heaven against them, but only the doors of the church; and he belie- ved, that God had reserved to himself the power of pardoning the greater 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 Novaiian Doctrines. 71 presence of Constantine the Great, according to the testimony of Socrates (Hist. Eccles, L. i. c. 10. p. 39.) thus stated the doctrine of his sect : 'E^n fX'cTxvoUv /M6V ifA-aptlKora; vporfiTiiv, tXTricTa J'i tmc dfie •earned 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 lie bursts forth in a strain of unbridled reproach and contumely : Oblalrantem t(! et adversus Deum ore sacrilege et verbis impiis obstrepentem frequenter, Demetriane, contemscram, verecundius ac melius cxistimans erranlis imperitiam sileutio 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 repi-e- sentative of the emperor, a man who held the power of life and death, with a harking cur, and to call him sacriligious, impious, ignorant, stupid, insane ] (Jyprian, 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 liave escaped from Cyprian through inad- vertence, and that in the progress of the discussion, their harshness is corrected by milder and more gentle language. He proceeds with the same virulence with which he commenced, and heaps on his adversary all the reproaches which an exasperated mind is prone to dictate. Scarcely had he uttered what was just cited, when he adds, that Demetrian was one of the dogs and snnne to which Christ had forbidden the casting of what is holy. A little farther on, he terms him rabid, blind, deaf, brutish ; Labor irritus, offerre lucem caco, sermonera siirdo, sapientiara bruio. Nor do these sufhce : Demetrian is still further com- plimented with the terras, raging and impious. He says : Conticui, cum nee docere indocilem possem, nee impium religione comprimere, nee furenlem leni- tate cohibere. And many more; such flowers of rhetoric might be gathered from this Tract. Undoubtedly, those eminent men, Baronius, Pearson, Tille- monl, and others, must have read these passages; yet, it is strange that [p. 533.] they could have read them, and yet believe Demetrian to have boon 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 tliose great sufferings of the Christians which Cyprian deplores, all proceeded from Demetrian : and if this had been the fact, then, doubtless, he must have been the supreme judge and proconsul. We have above cited the leading accu- sations of Cyprian, at the same time observing, that it is not necessary to refer them to Demetrian, personally, because the language of rlietoricians will admit of a laxer interpretation. As to my own views, I suspect that this adversary of Cyprian, was a man of the same occupation and rank with Cyprian, before his conversion, that is, a Rhetorician or Teacher of Eloquence at Carthage. A Philosopher I w^ould not venture to call him, because he supposed the gods had afflicted the human race with pestilence, w^ar, and famine, on account of the Christians ; an opinion incongruous with the views of a philosopher. He lived in intimacy with Cyprian, visiting him quite frequently, and discussing religious subjects with him. But it is not to be supposed, that tliis intimacy commenced after Cyprian abandoned superstition and became a Cln-istian. I therefore sup- pose tliey became intimate at the time when Cyprian taught eloquence at Carthage. The similarity of their pursuits, perlmps, brought them to associate together, and the bond which united them could not be entirely severed by the change of religion in Cyprian. This fact, moreover, of the intimacy existing be- tween these two men, appears to me to afford a strong argument against the opinion, that 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 ? Between Christians, and especially between Christian bishops and persons of sucli an exalted station,, there must have been as great discord as, to use the words of Horace, (lupis et agnis quanta sorliio contigil,) "naturally exists between wolves and lambs." § XVIII. Disputes respecting the Baptisms of Heretics. This ex- ternal tranquillity gave rise to internal conflicts among Chris- tians. 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 the church by a second baptism. But the greater part of the Europeans considered the baptisms of errone- ous churches as conveying forgiveness of sins for Christ's sake, Baptisms by Heretics. 79 and therefore tliej 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, that all heretics coming over to the true church, should be pui'i- fied by a second baptism. On learning this, Steiohen^ 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 Eomish church, but not from the church universal. Nevertheless, Cyprian^ after consultation with certain African bishops, in a council held at Carthage, assented to the oriental doctrine, to which many of the Africans had long- been adherents ; and this he signified, though modestly, to Stephen. But so offended was Stephen, that he not only gave Cyprian a severe reprimand, but w^hen Cyprian replied with firm- ness, and by a unanimous vote in a second council at Carthage, pronounced the baptisms of all heretics destitute of any efficacy, Stephen declared him and the African bishops unworthy of the name of Brethren, and loaded them with severe reproaches. An end was put to this contest, partly by the prudence of the Afri- cans, who were unwilling to render evil for evil, and partly hj 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 Emehius, (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 jjardon of the sins of their past lives by baptism, on account of that foith in Christ Jesus which the candidates for baptism professed ; but that the Holy Spirit is conferred by the bishop's imposition of hands and prayers. As I have already stated, such was the common opinion of that age. Those, therefore, who received heretics with- out re-baptizing them, believed that the persons baptized among heretics, had received remission of their sins, because they had professed Christ, and iiad been baptized in his words or in his name; but they denied that such persons were en- dowed with the Holy Spirit, because the heretical leaders and bishops [p. 535.] were destitute of the Holy Spirit, and therefore could not communicate the gifts of the Spirit to others. And, of course, they delivered over such persons to the bishops to be confirmed or sealed. But those who rejected the 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 profess a corrupt and false fiiith at baptism, no remission of sins could be expected from such baptism. This argument is pursued at great length by Cyprian, (Epist. Ixxiii. ad Jubaianum, p. 130). I will quote a few sentences to illustrate and confirm what I have said. The reasoning of those disagreeing with him, he thus states, (c. 4.) : Quasrendum 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 wlio administered the baptism, seeing the person received remission of his sins, on the ground of the ftiith in Christ which he professed. He then replies to this reasoning at considerable length ; and, among other things, he says, (c. 5.) : Quomodo potest videri, qui apud illos baptizatur, con- secutus esse peccatorum remissam et divinas indulgentiae gratiam per suam fidem, qui ipsius fidei non habuerit veritatem 1 Si enim, sicut quibusdam videtur, secundum fidem suam quis aceipere aliquid foris extra ecclesiam potuit, utique id accepit, quod credidit. Falsum autem credens verum aceipere non potuit, sed potius adultera et profana, secundum quod credebat, accepit. - - (c. 6.) : Quod si secundum pravam fidem baptizari aliquis foris et remissam peccatorum consequi potuit, secundum candem fidem consequi et Spiritum sanctum potuit, et non est necesse, ei venienti manum imponi, ut Spiritum sanctum consequatur et signetur. Aut utrumque enim fide sua foris consequi potuit, aut neutrum eorum, qui foris fuerat, accepit. The theology of tiie early divines, who lived before the times of Constantino, if viewed generally, did not differ from ours ; but viewed particularly, and with impartiality, it differed wonderfully. Nor will this appear strange to a person acquainted with anti- quity. For the few doctrines which make up the sum of the Christian religion, had not then been inculcated, so to speak, after being subjected to a manipu- lation, and legitimately defined and inclosed in determinate formulas of lan- guage ; and, therefore, the individual doctors explained them as they judged proper. And the explanation which commended itself to a man of some influ- ence and ingenuity, was approved by many others who were less learned, just as at the present day ; and so it passed for the common doctrine of the whole church. (2) The history of the controversy between the Roman bishop, Stephen, and certain African and Asiatic bishops, respecting the efficacy of the baptisms of heretics, the writers belonging to the Romish church labor with all their might to pervert and involve in obscurity. For since it affords the most lucid docu- ments, from which it can be proved that the power of the Romish bishop, although he held a very conspicuous rank among the Christian prelates, was yet [p. 536.] very small in that age, and that his decisions were disregarded and re- pudiated with the utmost freedom; these writers jumble up and confuse every thing, partly by idle conjecture, and partly by violently wresting the meaning of the ancients, lest, as is abundantly manifest, the truth should too clearly shine out and arrest attention. One of them, perceiving clearly that by such artifices the truth might be disguised, but could not be extinguished, concluded to cut the inexplicable knot, like Alexander, which the patrons of the Roman Baptisms by Here lies. 81 Pontiff could not untie ; or, to apply the sponge, as Augustus to his Aj;ix, to all the most important documents of this contest that have reached us. I refer to Ratjmundus Missoriiis, a Franciscan friar, who, in a book appropriately on the subject, (printed at Venice, 1733, 4to.) attempted to prove that the Episllcs 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 tiiia astonishing temerity has been met and rebuked as it deserved, by our Jo. Geo. Walcli, in a Dissert, printed at Jena, in 1738, and by Jo. Henry Sbaralea, an ad- herent to the Roman Pontiff, in a very learned work printed at Bologna, 1741, 4to. With the single e.xception of Jo. Launoi, who boldly lays open this contest, although more spiritedly in some respects than was necessary, (in his loth Epistle, addressed to Ja. Boileau ;) the Romish writers, who otherwise hold moderate opinions of the dignity and authority of the Roman Pontiff, yet study to give some coloring to this history, and to extenuate the vehemence of the disputants, especially of Stephen, lest they should appear to judge the bisliop of the first see in Christendom with too mucli harshness. Those who arc sepa- rated from the Romish church, exhibit greater fidelity in their treatment of this controversy. And yet I would not deny, that they sometimes go too far, and are especially fiiulty in this, that they make Cyprian to have been the author of the contest. Into this opinion they were led by Eusehius, who tells us, (Hist. Eccles. L. vii. c. 3 ; p. 251.) that Cyprimi first condemned the baptisms of here- tics ; and yet, he liimself subsequently refutes that assertion. It is most fully attested, in my view, tliat the Asiatic bishops gave occasion for this contest by their decrees, and that Slephen was in conflict with them before Cyprian took up the subject. So long as the Apostles of Jesus Christ lived, there were either no sects of heretics, or only such as were very small and obscure. Hence they established no rules respecting the effects of baptism by heretics, nor did they determine in what manner churches should receive those who came over to them from the heretics. But in the second century, when by degrees various sects of cor- rupters of the ancient religion arose, and often individuals abandoned them and came over to the orthodox, the question naturally arose, whether these in- dividuals were to be considered as already members of the church, or as aliens 1 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 the name of Jesus Christ, did not need a second baptism. In Asia and Africa, some received heretics without baptizing them, while others held that they must be baptized ; and each bishop followed his own judgment. In the liiird century, the heretical churches being greatly multiplied and amplified, tliis question was perpetually coming up, and calling forth deliberation and dis- VOL. TI. 7 82 Ccntunj III. — Section 18. cussion. For the custom of holding councils having first originated in Greece, as has been already shown, and quickly extending itself over the Christian com- monw^ealth, 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, Agrippmus, 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 hccreticis ad ec- clesiam veniunt: Persons coming over to the church from the heretics, are to be baptized. Many of the African bishops followed this decision, but not all, as appears from these Epistles of Cyprian, and as will be manifest from what will soon be stated. Besides, what need was there of new councils and de- liberations, if all the bishops of Africa had been obedient to the decision of Agrippinus 1 With the modesty which characterized the early bishops, Agrip- pinus and his associates had uttered their opinion, but not enacted a laiv. And the African church, as will soon be shown, had always regarded this as an open question, concerning which either side might be advocated, without danger to religion or to fraternal harmony. But, in process of time, when the minds of the Asiatic bishops became divided on this subject, and especially when dubi- tation arose about the baptisms of the Montanists, many of them assembled at Iconium and 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 Dionysins of Alexandria, (apud Eusehium, Hist. Eccles. L. vii. c. 7 ; p. 254). Concerning the council at Iconium, in particular, Firmilian, the bishop of Ceesarea, 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 ihe 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. Pei'haps these per- sons had come from the East, and contended that the rule in their country was 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 retnined, 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 Romish 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 of his church, forfeited tlieir privileges throughout tlic Christian world. These 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, either justly or erroneously, judged 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- prian 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 excorti' munications ; and to say, e. g. that Stephen excommunicated Cyprian : for the two expressions, to excommunicate, and to deprive one oi our communion, are of very different import. — But to return to Stephen : Respecting his unkind con- duct towards the Asiatics, these few things only are preserved in the Epistle of Dionysius Alexandrinus, by Euseliius, (Hist. Eccles. L. vii. c. 5 ; p. 252.) : "E.TTitTTa'KK.it (/it Out TTpOTipOV X-Ul TTifl E'^tVOU KM TTifi l[ifAIKl^\Zv Kal TTaVrCllV TtOV TS dird T?c KtKtK'ntg xstt KannaS'iK.iai Kal yatKHTia.; Kcil KavTWv rwc £^1?? OfACftcul/fdiV id'Vcov, w; ovSe eKiivot; xo/vftiVJiVaf Jia TitV duTiiv r-xurnv diriav, iTTitS'ii Toiic atfiiTiKouc {piia-iv) avsL/ixTTTi^ourt. Antea quidem (Stcphanus) litteras scripserat de Ileleno et de Firmiliano, de omnibus denique episcopis per Ciliciam, Cappa- dociam, cunclasque finitimas provincias constitutis, sese ob earn caussam ab illoriun communione discessum, quod ha3reticos rebaptisarent. On this passage, Valesius (Adnot. ad Euseb. p. 141.) puts a milder construction, by supposing that Stephen did not actually break off communion with the Orientals, but only threatened to do it, and never carried his threats into execution; and this opinion is embraced by several learned writers among the Romanists, who would, as far as possible, excuse the outrageous conduct of Stephen. But, without insisting that the language of the passage will not admit so mild an interpretation, there is now extant a testimony above ail exception, that Stephen actually [p. 539.] did break communion, not only with the Africans, but also previously with the Orientals and others. I refer to the Epistle respecting this controversy, written by Firmilian (one of those bishops whom Stephen condemned,) to Cyprian, and published among Cyprian''s Epistles, (Epist. Ixxv.). In the first place, this whole epistle is hostile in its tone, and shows, that at the time it was written, harmony between Stephen and Firmilian, and his associates, was wrent and dis- sipated ; for Firmilian does not condescend to give Stephen the ordinary title of brother, but assails him as an enemy and an adversary, with contumelious language. Had Stephen merely threatened to break friendship with him, Fir- milian should, and would have used very different language respecting him. Secondly, not far from the end of the Epistle, (c. 24.) Firmilian most manifestly represents, that Stephen had declared war, not only against the African churches, but also against many others, and among them against the Oriental ; for he thus addresses him : Lites et dissensiones quantas parasli per ccctcsias totius mundi ? Peccatum vero quam magnum tibi exaggerasti, quando te a tot gregibus scidisti ? Excidisli enim te ipsum. Noli te fallere. Siqnidem illc est vere schismaticus, qui se a communione ecclesiastica: unitatis apostatam feccrit. 84 Ceniunj III. — Section 18. Dum enim putas oranes a to abstineri posse, solum te ab omnibus absliiiuisti. - - (c. 25.) Quid enim Immilius aut lenius, quam cum tot episcopis per totum mundum disscnsisse ? Pacem cum singulis vario discordise genere rumpentem, modo cum Orienlalibus, (so then fraternal intercourse with the Orientals was actually suspended, and not merely threatened,) quod nee vos latere confidimus, modo voMscum, qui in meridie estis. — Whether the Asiatics retaliated the injury they had received from Stephen, and in like manner excluded him from their fraternal love, is found nowhere stated. But this Epistle of Firmilian, 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. 640.] him by Cyprian, immediately after Stephen had commenced his con- troversy with Cyprian. And therefore Stephen had suspended intercourse, {ahsti- 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 Orientalibus, quod nee vos latere confidimus; when he writes thus, I say, he manifestly indicates that Stephen's Asiatic contest preceded his African contest with Cyprian. Lastly, Dionysius Alexandrinus, (apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles. L. vii. c. 5, p. 252,) — than whom a better and more reliable authority cannot be given, most clearly states that before (irgoTsgov, 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 oxer 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 Unum haplisma esse, quud sil in ecdcsia calholica conslitutum, ac per hoc non re- haplizari, sed baptizrari, quicunque ah aduliera et prophana aqua veniuiu ahlu- endi el sanctificandi salularis aqua:, verilate. This decision of the second council was defended by Cyprian, in his long Epistle to Jubaianus, (Epist. Ixxiii. p. 129,) just as he Iiad before vindicated the decision of the former council, in his Epis- tle to Quintus, bishop of Mauritania, (Epist. Ixxi. p. 126.) But as lie was aware tiiat a difl'erent 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 thought it advisable to commu- nicate this decision of the council to Stephen, and to take measures to prevent his getting into a passion and breaking off communion with them. The Epistle addressed to Stephen, in the name of the council, is still extant among the Epis- tles of Cyprian, (Epist. Ixxii. p. 129.) Every person reading the Epistle will at once see that it was not written for the purpose of acquainting the Romish bishop with the doings of the council, but .«oIely to forestall his anger and in- dignation. For they pass silently over nearly all the many important decisions of the council, and mention only two of them, the one concerning the baptisms of heretics, and the other concerning priests and deacons coming over [p. 541.] to the church from the heretics. Yet, despairing of Steplien's approving their sentiments, they wisely intimate, at the end of tlie Epistle, that they have no wish to enter into controversy with any one differing from them in opinion. They say, (c. 4,) Cseterum, scimns quosd:im quod seme! imbiberint nolle de- ponere, nee propositum suum facile mutare, sed salvo inter collegas pacis et concordise vinculo quajdam propria quae apud se semel sint usurpata retinere. Qua in re nee nos vim cuiquam facimus aut legem damus, quando habeat in ecclesicc administratione volunlaiis succ arbilriinn liberum unusquisque prtcposilus rationem actus siii Domino reddilurus. Now, he who sees the Africans writing in this manner to the Roman bishop, and still contends that the Roman bisliops 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, as the African council assert, that every individual bishop had free arbitriment in the administration rf the affairs of Ms 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 Christ's name for the church, and that every thing in the church must be conducted and administered according to his pleasure. — But to proceed, it is clear then, that the African church, although it decided that heretics must be again baptized on entering the purer church, yet did not regard the contrary opinion as tearing up the foundations of religion. On the excited mind of Stephen, however, this moderation of sentiment proved rather irritating than sedative; because, doubtless, it provoked him to see the Africans take ground with those whom he had pronounced enemies of his church. He therefore, in the name of the Roman church, wrote to Cyprian, or rather to the AiVican church, in wliose name Cyprian had addressed iiirn, no less impcriou.'^ly lliau 86 Century III. — Section 18. bitterly and revilingly, and doubtless in the same strain as previously to the Asiatic bishops, declaring tliat 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 Fir?nilian, bishop of Cajsarfea, to Cyprian, which is the next in order among the Epistles of Cyprian, (Ep. Ixxv.) According to Cyprian's account of it, it contained 77iany arrogant things, irrevelant to the subject, and adverse to his oicn cause, unadvisedly and unskilfully written : and that this representation is not entirely f:;lse, 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 Epistle, for it employs vain and futile arguments, and abounds much in sarcasms. But there is this commendable in [p. 642.] Cyprian, that he does not retaliate upon Stephen, by excluding him from fellows!iip,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, in my judgment, it will detract somewhat from this commendation to reflect that Cyprian could not deny to Stephen the privileges of a brother, without contra- dicting his own principles. Stephen miglit consistently do so, because he re- garded the opinion of the Africans as militating with true religion ; but Cyprian and the Africans could not do it, because they judged the opinion of Stephen to be one of the minor errors which were to be tolerated. The man must doubtless be lieartless, and destitute of all kind feelings, who can deprive another of the rights of a brother, while he acknowledges him to have erred but slightly, and to have not wounded the vitals of religion. — But we will proceed. It 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 church, and appealed to con- tinuous tradition. He says, (c. 6. p. 144.) Adhuc etiam infamans Petrum et Paulum beatos Apostolos, quasi hoc ipsi tradiderint. But the Asiatics defended their opinion in the same way ; indeed they carried their pretensions still higher, and declared Christ himself to be the author of their tradition. Says Firmilian, (p. 149.) Nos veritati et consuetudinem jungimus, et consuetudini Romanorum coiisuetudinem, sed veritatis, opponimus, ab initio hoc tenentes, quod a Christo et ab Aposiolis traditum est. In this controversy, therefore, tradition was op- posed to tradition, the Asiatic tradition from Christ and the Apostles to the Ro- man tradition from Peter and Paul. But it should be remembered, that even in that early age, the institutions, which no one was able to trace to their origin, were called the traditions of Christ and the Apostles. And Firmilian liim- 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 sanctae ecclesise computaremus. From this Epistle of Firmilian it appears, moreover, Baptisms by Heretics, 87 that Stephen had greatly lauded the dignity of his church, and its eminence among the churches. Atque ego in hac parte juste indignor ad hanc tarn aper- tam et manifestam Stephaui stultitiam, quod qui sic de episcopatus sui loco gloriatur et se successorem Petri tenere conlendit, super quern fundamenta ecclesice collocata sunt, multas alias petras inducat, et ecclesiarum muitarum alia aidificia conslituat, dum esse illic baptisma sua auctoritate dcfendit. This, doubtless, was the part of Stephen's letter, for which Cyprian branded him with the epithet 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 other Epistles of Cyprian, in which he expresses his opinion of the rights of the bishops. The other topics in this Epistle of Stephen, or rather, of the Romish church, I omit, as they throw no light upon liistory. On receiving this Epistle the African bishops did not abandon their cause, but, in another Epistle address- ed to the Romish church or to Stephen, refuted all his arguments for the eflicacy of baptisms by heretics. The learned men who have investigated this history of this controversy, take no notice of this second Epistle of the Africans. But no one who attentively reads the Epistle of Firmilian to Cyprian, can doubt that it was actually written. He says, (c. 4, p. 143.) Nos vero quos a vobis scripta sunt quasi nostra propria suscepimus, nee in transcursu legimus, sod ssepe repe- tita memoriai mandavimus. Neque obest utilitati salutari aut eadcm rctexere ad contirmandam veritatem aut et qusedam addere ad cumulandam probationem. After a few remarks, he proceeds, (c. 7) : Sed et ad illam partem bene a vobia responsura est, ubi Stephanus in epistola sua dixit haereticos in baptismo con- venire. And a little after: Quo in loco etsi vos jam probastis, satis ridiculum esse, ut quis sequatur errantes, illud tamen ex abundanti addimus. The Africans, therefore, had replied to Stephen, and Firmilian had the reply in his hands; and in his own Epistle he, in part, (retexebal,) reconstructed, as he cy- 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 wag that of Cyprian 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: Qua; 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, ai'ain, 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 says:(c. 6, p. 144): Quod nunc Stephanus ausus est facere, rumpcns adcersus vos pacem^ 88 Century III. — Section 18. quam semper antecessorea ejus vobiscura amore et honore mutuo custodierunt. And towards the end : (c. 24, p. 150) : Peceatum vero quam magnum tibi ex- aggerasti, quando te a tot gregibus seidisti ! I omit more passages of the same [p. 544.] tenor. But in the first Epistle of Stephen, wliich Cyprian refutes in his Epistle to Pompeius, Stephen had not proceeded beyond threats ; notwith- standing Avgusline has stated, (de B:iptismo contra Donatistas, L. V. c. 25, Opp. torn. ix. p. 106,) that Stephen, abstinendos generatim putaverat, qui de Buscijiiendis hBereticis priscam consuetudinem convellere conarentur. There must, therefore, have followed a second Epistle, in which he carried out the determination he had formed, and declared non communion with the Africans. Moreover, Firmilian testifies, (c. 26,) that in his last Epistle Stephen assailed Cvprian with invectives : Et taraen non pudet Stephanum, talibus (hajreticis) adversus ecclesiam patrociniura prgestare, et propter hcereticos asserendos/ra/er- nitalem scindere, insuper et Cijprianum pseudochrislum^ et pseiidoapostolum et dolo- sum operarium dicere. Firmilian would, doubtless, never have said this, had not Stephen written it. But, in his first Epistle, he had not yet uttered these re- proaches, for Cyprian would not have passed them in silence in his Epistle to Pompeius, if they had then been uttered. It was, therefore, in another Epistle, written after the first, that he inveighed so reproachfully against Cyprian. The wiser Africans thought they ought to spare no pains to allay this storm, and therefore sent a legation to Rome, to restore peace if possible. But Stephen forbid the Roman Christians to receive into their houses the bishops of the legation, whom he had deprived of his communion, and would not admit tliem even to a conference. Says Firmilian, (c. 25, p. 150,) A vobis, qui in meridie estis, legatos episcopos patienter satis et leniter suscepit, ut eos nee ad sermonem saltem colloquii communis admitteret, adhuc insuper dilectionis et caritatis memor praeciperet fraternitati universse, ne quis eos in doinum suam reciperet, lit venientibus nor solum pax et communio, sed et tectum et hospitium negare- tur! So the legation returned home, leaving the business where it was. I see not what could demonstrate more clearly than this fact does, that Stephen ex- cluded from the communion of the Roman church not only Cyprian, but the whole African church, of which these bishops were the legates. — After this many things were, doubtless, said and done, of which no record has reached us. Ste- phen, we may believe without testimony, being a man of weak mind, endeavored to excite the christian world against the Africans; and many councils were held on the subject here and there, as I recollect Augustine some where intimates. And therefore Cyprian, that he and his Africans might not stand alone, thought proper to look about him for friends. And, knowing tiiat the Asiatics had been attacked in the same manner, he dispatched Rogatian, his deacon, with a letter to the oft-mentioned Firmilian a man of very great influence, and sent him documents which would acquaint him with the whole case. Firmilian responded according to his wishes; and, as his Epistle (among those of Cyprian, Ep. Ixxv.) [p. 645.] 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 tlie same abuse as the Africans. At the same time Cyprian, to prevent any of the African bishops from taking sides with Baptisms by Heretics. 8D Stephen, convoked a council in tlie montli of September, A.D. 256, from the tln-ee provinces of Africa, Numidia, and Mauritania. The Acts of this council have been transmitted to us by Augustine, (de Baptismo contra Donatistas, L. vi. and vil. 0pp. torn, ix.) They are extant also among the works of Cyprian, p. 329. There were present 87 bishops, and not only presbyters and deacons, but also (plehis maxima pars) a large portion of the people. In his address to the attending bishops, Cyprian reiterated what he had before repeatedly declared, that the question to be discussed was one of those on which men might difi'er in opinion, witiiout a violation of fraternal harmony ; and he chastised the arrogance of Stephen, but without naming him. His words are worthy to be here repeated, as they express the sentiments of that age in regard to the independence of bishops, and render perfectly certain that no one in that age, not even Stephen himself, had ever dreamed of any judge and legislator for the univer- sal church. That Stephen himself had not thought of any sucli 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 ditferent course than he did with the Africans. Said Cyprian : Superest, ut de hac ipsa re singuli quid sentiamus, proferamus, neminem judicantes, aut a jure communieationis aliquem, si diversura senserit, araoventes. Neque enim quisquam nostrum epis- copum se esse episcoporum constituit, aut tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem collegas suos adigit, quando habeat omnis episcopus pro licentia libertatis et potestatis sufc arbitrium proprium, tamque judicari ab alio non pos- sit, quam nee ipse potest alterum judicare. Sed expeetemus universi judicium Domini nostri Jesu Christi, qui unus et solus habet potestatcra et pra^ponendi nos in ecclesiaj suae gubernatione, et de actu nostro judicandi. At that time, therefore, Christ had no vicar here on earth, but was himself (solus et unus) the sole and only judge of his church. All the bishops concurred in the opinion of Cyprian, and decided that heretics should be re-baptized. The unanimity and modesty of this great council, and the friendship between the Asiatics and the Africans, I suppose, repressed the violence of Stephen and other bishops ; for we do not learn that this contest continued afterwards. Dionysius Alexandrlnus also, aa we learn from Eusehius (Hist. Eecles. 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 coinicil which Augustine styles plenarium (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 tlie two parties. Cyprian and Firmilian state with sufficient perspicuity, what they and their brethren maintained. Says Cyprian, (Epist. Ixxiv. ad Pompeium, c. 12, p. 142) : Omnes, qui ex quacunque hajresi ad ecclesiam convertuntur, ecclesia3 unico et legitime baptismo baptizantur, exceptis his, qui baptizati in ecclesia prius fue- rant, et sic ad hareticos transierant. Illos enim oportet, cum redeunt, acta 90 Century III.— Section 18. poenitentia per manua impositionem solam recipi. By heretics, Cj^jrian under stood, not merely corrupters of the true religion, but likewise all who with- drew themselves from the princij)al church, and formed separate congregations. And hence, he required the Novatians to be re-baptized on their coming over to the church, (as we learn from his 76th Epist. ad Magnum, p. 151, &c.) ; and yet he acknowledged that the Novatians were free from all gross errors. This pious and good man, but too zealous about his official dignity and office, viewed all who were separated from tlie bishop as also separated from Christ, and hia 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 it was administered by such 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 f&\\ 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 Tillemont, (Memoirea pour servir a I'Hist. de TEglise, tom. iv. P. I. p. 419, &c.) and Natalis Alexan- der, (Selecta Hist. Eccles. Capita, tom. iii. p. 691, &c.) who treats this subject in his usual scholastic rather than historical manner. But others for the most part, to whom the reputation of the ancient Roman Pontiffs does not appear of very great importance, think that Stephen believed all persons baptized in tlie name of Christ, might be received into the fellowship of the better church, without another baptism. Ptcspecting 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 authority especi- [p. 547.] ally of Euscbius, Augustine, Vincent of Lirins, and Facundus ; who say that Stephen accounted no baptism valid, unless it was administered in the words prescribed by Christ. But to these comparatively recent authorities the latter party oppose other more ancient and higher authorities; and first Stephen himself, whose words, in his Epistle to the Africans, preserved by Cyprian, (Epist. Ixxiv. c. 1, p. 138.) are these : " Si quis ergo a quacunque hccresi venerit ad vos, nihil innovctur nisi quod traditum est, ut manus illi imponatur in poeni- tentiam, cum ipsi hsretici proprie alterutrura ad se venientes non baptizent, sed communicent tantum." Moreover, Cyprian, who, almost invariably, represents Stephen as holding all baptisms administered in the name of Christ to be legi- timate, says, (Epist. Ixxiv. c. 5, p. 139.) Si effectum baptismi majestati nominis tribuunt, ut qui in nomine Jesu Christi ubicunque et qiionwdocunquc baptizen- tur, innovati et sanctificati judicentur ; cur non, &c. And farther, the ancient, but unknown author of the Liber de Rebaptismate, who takes sides with Ste- Persecution of Valerian. 9X phen, and wliosc book \a commonly priutod with tlie Opera Cypriani, (p. 353.) with the following title prefixed: Noa debere denuo baptizari qui semel in nomine Domini nostri Jesu Christ! sunt tincti ; seems to decide the question respecting Stephen's views. I omit other testimonies of less importance. These testimonies, I confess, seem to have great weight ; yet I have some hesi- tation to admit their conclusiveness, because FmniUan, an opposer of Steplien, in his Epistle to Cyprian, (c. 9, p. 145.) states Stephen's opinion thus: lllud quoque absurdura, quod non putant qu£erendum esse quis sit ille qui bapfiza- verit, eo quod qui baptizatus sit, gratiam consequi potuerit invocala irinilale nominum Palris et Filii el Spirilus Sancii. Firmilian writes what he had found stated in the Epistle of Cyprian, or of the Africans to Stephen, and he also himself was well acquainted with the opinions of Stephen ; and, therefore, his testimony is worthy of consideration. Yet, perhaps, he aimed only to explain the point, and attributed to Stephen the conceptions of his own mind. To confess the truth, I can believe that Stephen expressed his views only in general terms, and did not accurately define them ; and, therefore, they were explained differently. Men very frequently, at the present day, in theological controversies, affirm and deny, attack and defend, only in a general way. and without defining the conflicting opinions. And why may we not suppose this to have occurred in the present controversy. § XIX. The Persecution under Valerian. After showing llim- self kind and indulgent towards tlie Christians until the fifth year of His reign, suddenly, by the persuasion of Macrianus, his bosom companion, a man of very high rank and reputation, but exceedingly superstitious, Valerian, in the year 257, changed his policy towards them, and ordered the governors of pro- [p. 5-18.] vinces to inhibit the meetings of Christians, and to send their bishops and teachers into exile.(^) 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 Eoman empire, and frequently in- flicted on them punishments worse than death.(") Eminent among those that fell in this persecution were Cyprian, the celebrated bishop of Carthage, who was beheaded ; and Sixtus, the Romish prelate, who is said to have been crucified ; and Laurence, the Eo- man deacon, famous among the martyrs, who is :5aid 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 iSaj^or, king of Persia, his son Qallienus, by a rescript addressed to the provincial governors in the year 2G0, restored full 02 Century III.— Section 19. peace to tlie Christians, after four years of suffering.(') Yet thej 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 were regularly accused and acknowledged their faith, if they refused to sacrifice to the gods.(*) (1) Respecting the clemency of Valerian to the Christians in the first years of his reign, and the author of the subsequent change in his feelings towards them, the most important witness we have is Dionysius Alexandrinus, in his Epistle to Hermammon, the latter part of which is preserved by Euse- bius, (Hist. Eccles. L. vit. c. 10. p. 255.) But as Eusehius cites two passages from this Epistle, in one of which Dionysius does not mention the name of the person who induced Valerian to persecute the Christians, and in the other tells us that Macrianus advised the Emperor to this course, a dispute has arisen among the learned, whether this persecution is to be traced to one man as its author, or to two. In the first passage Dyonisius says: 'A'^oa-KiuaTutrd-at tTs ■Trapi- TrilTiv dvTiV a S'iS'd^KAKo; Kai ruiv ott' AiyvTTou fjtdyaiv dp^ia-uYaytuyo;, Toi/; juiy Ksid-dpovs Kut otrious dvJ'p-jt.s itrivvucrd-cti kui StiliKitr^ctt Kixeucev. Verum matrister et Archisyiiagogus magorum Aegypti ei (Valeraino) tandem persuasit, ut ab hoc instituto descisceret, jubens, ut castos quidem et sanctos viros persequeretur atque occideret. But a little after he says: 'O fjih yup 0'va.K(pta.vd's tts tout* Ctto TowToy [MoKpidvov) Trpoa.^B'Us ti; u0pils kcli oviiS'ia-fjioug t.x.S'o^tis. Nam Vale- [p. 549.] 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, tlierefore, made a question, whether this Macrianus is the same per- son who was before called Chief of the Synagogue of the Egyptian Magicians, or a different person. Not a few, deeming it scarcely credible, that so distin- guished a man as Macrianus was, an intimate with the emperor, and hold- ing the highest position, " than whom," (as Tremelliiis Pollio says in his Gallienus, Scriptor. Hist. August, torn. ii. 189.) " none of the generals were deemed more wise, none more competent for business, none more opulent," should be prefect of the Egyptian Magicians, — have supposed this Magician of Dionysius to be a different person from jMacrianus ; 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 Laciantius de morti- bus persequutorum, p. 152.) goes so far as to suppose this Magician was a Jeiv, infering it from the Jewish words S'tS'as-Ka'Xos and 'Ap;)^icruvdyaiyo; 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 BI. Cuper, p. 386, 390, Arast. 1742, 4to.) But, as Dionysius most explicitly states, that Macrianus recom- mended the persecution to the emperor, and that Valerian received the sad reward of his doeilit}', while he adds nothing which can lead to the suppo- sition that Macrianus had an associate in the transaction, the supposition has Persecution of Valerian, 93 not the least probability; on the contraiy, we must believe that Dioiiysiua designated one and the same person in this two-fold ninnner. Nor will this interpretation be weakened by the two epithets above mentioned. The first of them, S'lS^aa-x.aXog, magisler, should not be referred to the Magicians, as is manifest from the Greek. Valedus has not expressed properly the nieanin«- of Dionysius; and this has occasioned some, who did not inspect the Greek, to fall into a mistake. He should have rendered it {Magider ejus) liis {Valerian's) master, and chief of the synagogue, cf-c. For this word undoubtedly lias reference to Valerian, who yielded to the opinions of Macrianus in every thing, and al- ways defered to him as to a master. Valerian himself, in a speech to llie senate, said: Ego bellura Persicum gerens, Macriano iotam rempublicarn tradidi. See Trebellius Pollid's 30 Tyrants, (in the Scriptor. Historiaj Augusta;, torn. ii. p. 288.) And as to the title Chief of the Synagogue of the Egyptian Magicians, it is a sneer of Dionysius at Macrianus, and not the title of liis office or posi- tion in society. As Macrianus was exceedingly devoted to magic, and delighted greatly in magical sacrifices, according to Dionysius, he represents him as quali- fied, by his skill in the art, to fill the office of Chief or President of the Egyp- tian Magicians. As to the motive which led Macrianus to inflame the Empe- ror's mind against the Christians, Dionysius states it to have been this, that he knew there were persons among them who could frustrate the ma- [p. 550.] gical rites, and destroy their effects 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 execrabk 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 nef\irious mysteries in abhorrence, but also that some of them possessed the power of disconcerting and controlling de- mons, so that they could not manifest their presence by oracular responses and the other signs. Says Dionysius: Kai yap cis-lv kui ria-a.v 'Uavoi TrufovTis nai epd/uivoi, x.at fxovcv ef^'rvioviiz KOti (ii^i^yofAivoi, S'ldLO'x.tS'aiTa.t ruj rCiv dXiTupibyy J'ctifAovaiv ixi^zvKa^. Erant enim et sunt etiamnum (inter nos) ejusmodi, qui vel prresentia et aspeetu suo, et insufllantes duntaxat ac vocera edenles, da;nio- num praistigias distnrbare possunt. And, therefore, he prevailed on the em- peror to endeavor to extirpate a sort of men injurious and terrible to the art he loved and to the demons he consulted. But, we may suppose, the good man here gives us his conjectures rather than what he knew to be facts. Res- pecting the power of the ancient Christians to confound and put to silence demons and their servants and idols, of which 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 their power, and who control them at their pleasure, also bring, if they choose, various evils upon the worshippers of demons ! And who but a madman, destitute of reason, would voluntarily and eagerly worship be- 94 Centimj III.— Section 19. ings whom lie knew to be parnlyzed and stript of all power by others more powerful ! Whoever seeks for himself a lord, will, if he be in his flenses, pre- fer the more powerful to one of less power. But suppose IMacrianus was so insane as to think the demons and their worship frustrated by t!ie Christians, he might have forestalled 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 Trchellius Pollio, (Thirty Tyrants, c. 14, in the Histor. Augusta;, 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 aciu suo, qui Alexandrum expressum in aiiro gesiita- 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 tlieir worship, and have wished evil to the enemies of his country's religion ? The first assault of Valerian upon the Christiiins was such as could be endured ; as appears from the Acts of Cyprian, and of Dionysius Alexandrinus, (apud Euseh. 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 Carubin, by the proconsul Paternus, after refusing to sacrifice to the gods; and Dionysius was sent by the praifect 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 Ada Cypriani, (in Theod. Ruinart, Acta Martyr, sincera et selecta, p. 216). When Cyprian was arraigned before him, Paternus thus addressed him: Sacratissimi Impcratores Valerianus et Gallienus litteras ad me dare dignati sunt, quibus pra3ceperunt eos, qui Romannm religio- nem non colunt, debere Roinanns cffirenionias 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 episcopis, verum etiam de presbyteris milii scribere 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 : PrsBceiierunt etiam, ne in aliquibus locis concilia- bula fiant, nee coemeteria ingrediantur. Si quis itaque hoc tam salubre praecep- turn non observavcrit, 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 vliich they designate as Conciliahula ; and tlien, in particular, llic conventions wiiicli were iield in Cemeteries. By this tei-m, it is well known, the phiecs were designated in which the Ciiristians interred their dead ; and as there were fre- quently martyrs and confessors among their dead, they assembled at these Cemeteries on certain days for religious worship, and to commemorate those holy men. Perhaps, also, at other times the Christians might assemble in their Cemeteries to offer prayers at the sepulchres of the saints and martyrs. And 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. 652.] and with this account fully accords all that Dionysius states, (apud Eiiseb. L. vii. c. 11.) respecting his own sufferings and those of his colleagues. Aemilian, the prefect of Egypt, said to them ; Mittemini in partes Libyse ad locum Cephi'o. Hunc enim locum jussu Avguslorum nostrorum elegi. Nullatenus autem licebit vobis conventus agere, aut ea quas vocantur coemeteria adire. Here, however, learned men oppose to us not a few examples of persons, who, 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 martijres in melallis consliiulos, in which he represents (p. 158.) a part of the people of his charge, as having already gone forth to receive from the Lord tlie crown of their merits, by the consummation of their martyrdom, and a part as remaining still within the bars of their prisons, or at the mines in chains : and he then states, that not only bishops and presbyters, but also many of the people, and among them virgins and boys, were bastinadoed, fettered, and thrust into the mines; Denique exemplum vestrum secuta multiplex plebis portio confessa est vobis- cum pariter et pariter coronata est, connexa vobis vinculo fortissimas caritatis, et a prsepositis suis nee carcere, nee metallis separata. Cujus numero nee virgines desunt. - - In pueris quoque virtus major actate annos suos confessionis laude transcendit, ut martyrii vestri beatum gregem et sexus et setas omnis ornaret. These examples, I say, learned men have cited, to show tliat the first rescripts of Valerian and his son were more cruel than we have represented, and that not only bishops and presbyters, but Christians of every order and sex were subjected to heavy penalties. But whence this severity on many, notwithstand- ing the law was not very rigorous, may be learned from the latter part of the imperatorial mandate. For this ordained capital punishment against all who either held assemblies or entered the cemeteries. All, therefore, bishops and others, who suffered death, bastinadoing, imprisonment, or other punishments worse than exile, undoubtedly incurred these penalties because they tcould hold meetings contrary to the will of the emperor, and were caught in the cemeteries. For, as we shall soon see, the major part of the Christians were bold in violat- ing the imperatorial mandates. This is fully confirmed by the 82d Epistle of Cyprian, ad Successum, (p. 165.) where he writes: Xystum autem in cimiterio animadversum sciatis octavo Iduum Augustarum die, et cum eo Diaconos qua- tuor. Sed et huic perseeutioni quotidie insistunt prajfccti in urbe, ut si qui sibi 96 Century III. — Section 19. oblati fuerint (in the cemeteries, undoubtedly,) animadvertantur et bona eorura fiseo vindicentur. The proconsul of Africa, doubtless, had apprehended a great multitude of Christians of both sexes and of all classes, who were assembled for the purpose of religious worship ; as may be inferred from the mention of [p. 553.] boys and virgins. To condemn such a mass of persons to death, as the Letter of the emperor required to be done, appeared to the proconsul too hard and cruel ; and, therefore, he ordered only a few to be executed to terrify the rest, and the others he ordered to be bastinadoed, and to be sent in chains to the mines. This persecution by Valerian had so much in it new and diverse from the former persecutions, that I cannot but wonder at some learned men, who tell us that Valerian proceeded against the Christians according to the laws of the earlier emperors. Firsts the ancient lavvs required that there should be an ac- cuser, but now no accuser was needed, for the governors themselves had inqui- sitorial powers. The proconsul Paternus required Cyprian to declare who were his presbyters ; and when he refused to do it, the proconsul said : Ego hodic in hoc loco exquiro : A me invenientur. See the Acta Cypriani in RuinarCs Acta martyr, p. 216. — Secovdlij, the emperor's law ordered the punishment, not of all professed Christians, but only of the bishops and presbyters. No one compelled ih.Q -penjple io change their religion and worship the gods: only the pastors of the flocks were required to adore and pay homage to the gods. When Dionysius replied to the prefect Aemiiius, who urged him to the worship of the gods, that he worshipped the one God, the Creator of all things, tlie pre- fect said : The emperors allow you to do so, provided you also worship the gods : Q,uis vero vos prohibet, quo minus et hunc, si quidem Deus est, cum iis, qui natura Dii sunt, adoretis. This we have from Dionysius himself, (apud Euseh. Hist. Eccles. L. vii, c. 11 ; p. 258). — LasLly, those who declared that they would not worship the gods, were not put to death, but were only torn from their flocks, and sent into exile. The people, thus bereaved of their guides and teachers, were forbidden by the emperor to assemble and hold meetings; and, as I think, for this among other reasons, that they might not choose new teach- ers and bishops in the place of those exiled ; for the Romans knew that such functionaries could not be created except by election in a popular assembly. And the emperor hoped, if their conventions were abolished and their teachers removed, their religion itself would gradually become extinct among the com- mon people, and the ancient superstition would occupy its place. (2) In the second year of this persecution. Valerian issued another and much severer edict, which, through nearly all the provinces of the Roman empire, caused the death of numerous Christians, and particularly of bishops and pres- byters, and exposed others to severe punishments of every sort. When vague and uncertain rumors of this new imperial law reached Africa, Cyprian sent messengers to Rome to learn the truth respecting it ; and from their report he gives the following summary view of the new edict, (Epist. Ixxxii. p. 165.) : Quae 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 had before been exempted, but now they are added to the bishops Persecutions of Valerian. 9f and presbyters; undoubtedly, because tlie enemies of the Christians haxl learned that they supplied the place of the bishops and presbyters, and carried relief to those in captivity. By this law, therefore, all the men of 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 in his Acta, (apud Ruinarlum, et alios). When brought before the proconsul, he was first asked whether he was a papa or bishop of Christians ; and he confessed that he was. He was then commanded cccremoniari, that is, to worship the gods in the Roman manner ; whicii he per- sisted in refusing to do. Then sentence of death was passed upon him; and, after sentence, he was conducted from the prsetorium to the place of execution, and there beheaded. This was the uniform mode of proceeding against men in holy orders, during the Valerian persecution. The policy of the law I can easily see. It was scarcely possible to prevent the people from flocking to their teach- ers lodged in prison ; and their last words and exhortations had a wonderful effect upon the minds of the people, animating them, and preparing them to meet death voluntarily and cheerfully for Christ's sake ; of this there are extant many examples. The kind of capital punishment to be inflicted, was not pre- scribed by the law, but was left to the discretion of the magistrate. Hence, we perceive that the officers of Christian churches were put to death in this perse- cution in a diversity of modes. — (II.) Senatores vero et egregii viri et equites Romani, dignitate amissa, etiam bonis spolientur, et si ademptis facultatibus Christiani esse persevcraverint, capite quoque multentur, matronae vero ademp- tis bonis in excilium relegentur. There were, then, among the Christians of that age, persons of both sexes, who were of the first rank and the highest re- spectability ; for, otherwise, this part of the law would have been superfluous. What the emperor decreed respecting matrons, must, doubtless, be construed in the same manner as the decree respecting senators and knights : viz. that they should first be stripped of their property, and then, if they continued to be Christians when their goods were confiscated, they were to be sent into exile. It is most probable that both, after the first part of the sentence, were sent to prison, and time allowed them to deliberate, whether they would return to idolatry or persevere in the Christian religion. — (III.) Ctesariani autem quicun- que vel prius confessi fuerant, vel nunc confessi fnerint confiscentur et vincti in Ca^sarianas possessiones descripti mittentur. Subjecit etiam Valerianus Impera- tor orationi suas exemplum litterarum, quas ad prajsides provinciarum de nobis fecit : quas litteras quotidie speramus venire. The Cccsariani were, undoubt- edly, the persons whom St. Paul (Philip, iv. 22.) calls: rovs U m nadrapos iix.ia;, 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 Dhnysius, (apud Euseb. L. vii. c. 10; p. 256.) who tells us that Va- lerian's house or family, at the commencement of his reign, was com- [p. 555.] posed, in great part, of Christians : Trds o oiko; uutou d-ios-i/itov Tri^rK^fc^ro, khI »Y iKK\y,