PART II. THE INTERNAL HISTORY OF THE CHURCH. CHAPTER I. THE STATE OF LITERATURE AND PHILOSOPHY. § 1. Decay of learning.—§ 2. State of philosophy, especially the Platonic. Plotinus. -§ 3. This philosophy prevails every where. — § 4. Different sects of it. — § 5. State of learning among Christians. § 1. LITERATURE, which had suffered much in the preceding century, in this lost nearly all its glory. Among the Greeks, with the exception of Dionysius Longinus, an excellent rhetorician, Dion Cassius, a fine historian, and a few others, scarcely any writers appeared who can be much commended for genius or erudition. In the western provinces, still smaller was the number of men truly lettered and well-informed; although schools yet flourished every where devoted to intellectual cultivation. Very few of the emperors, indeed, favoured learning, civil wars keeping the state almost constantly in commotion, and the perpetual incursions of barbarous nations into the most cultivated provinces, extinguished, with the public tranquillity, even the thirst for knowledge.1 2 § 2. As for the philosophers, every sect of Grecian philosophy yet had some adherents that were not contemptible, and who are in part mentioned by Longinus. But the school of Ammonius, the origin of which has been already stated, gradually cast all others into the back ground. From Egypt it 1 See Histoire Littéraire de la France, par les Moines Bénédictins, tom. i. pt. ii. p. 317, &c. In Porphyry's Life of Plotinus, cap. 20, p. 128. ed. Fabricii. spread in a short time over nearly the whole Roman empire, and drew after it almost all persons who took any interest in things of a nature purely intellectual. This prosperity was owing especially to Plotinus, the most distinguished disciple of Ammonius, a man of the greatest acuteness, and by his very nature formed for any abstruse investigation. For he taught, first in Persia, then at Rome, and in Campania, to vast concourses of youth; and embodied precepts in various books, a great part of which has come down to us.3 4 § 3. It is almost incredible what a number of pupils in a short time issued from the school of this man. But among them, no one is more celebrated than Porphyry, a Syrian, who spread over Sicily and many other countries the system of his master, enlarged with new inventions and more elaborately polished. At Alexandria, scarcely any other philosophy than this was publicly taught from the times of Ammonius down to the sixth century. It was introduced into Greece by one Plutarch, who was educated at Alexandria, and who re-established the Academy at Athens, which subsequently embraced many very renowned philosophers, who will hereafter be mentioned." § 4. The character of this philosophy has already been explained as far as was compatible with the brevity of our work. It is here proper to add, that all who were addicted to it did not hold the same opinions, but differed from each other on several points. This diversity naturally arose from that principle which the whole sect kept in sight; namely, that truth was to be pursued without restraint, and to be gleaned out of all systems. Hence the Alexandrian philosophers sometimes would receive what those of Athens rejected. Yet there were certain leading doctrines, which served as foundations to the system, that no one who claimed the name of a Platonist, dared to call in question. Such were the doctrines of one God, the source of all things, of the eternity of the world, of the 3 See Porphyrii, Vita Plotini, republished by J. A. Fabricius, in Biblioth, Græca, vol. iv. p. 91. Peter Bayle, Dictionnaire, tom. iii. v. Plotinus, p. 2330; and the learned Ja. Brucker, Historia Crit. Philos. tom. ii. p. 217, &c. Lu. Holstenius, Vita Porphyrii, republished by Fabricius, in Biblioth. Gr. ["Porphyry was first the disciple of Longinus, author of the justly celebrated treatise on the Sublime. But having passed from Greece to Rome, where he heard Plotinus, he was so charmed with the genius and penetration of this philosopher, that he attached himself entirely to him. See Plotin. Vit. p. 3. Eunap. c. 2, p. 17." Macl.] 5 Marinus, Vita Procli, cap. 11, 12. p. 25, &c. dependence of matter on God, of the plurality of Gods, of the method of explaining the popular superstitions, and some others. § 5. The estimation in which human learning should be held, was a question on which the Christians were about equally divided. For, while many thought that the literature and writings of the Greeks ought to receive attention, there were others who contended that true piety and religion were endangered by such studies. But the friends of philosophy and literature gradually acquired the ascendency. To this issue. Origen contributed very much; who, having early imbibed the principles of the New Platonism, inauspiciously applied them to theology, and earnestly recommended them to the numerous youth who attended on his instructions. And the greater the influence of this man, which quickly spread over the whole Christian world, the more readily was his method of explaining the sacred doctrines propagated. Some of the disciples of Plotinus also connected themselves with the Christians, yet retained the leading sentiments of their master: and these undoubtedly laboured to disseminate their principles around them, and to instil them into the minds of the uninformed. CHAPTER II. HISTORY OF THE TEACHERS AND OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH. § 1. Form of the government of the Church.-§ 2. What rank the bishop of Rome held in this century.-§ 3. Gradual progress towards a hierarchy.-§ 4. The vices of the clergy.-§ 5. Hence the inferior orders of the clergy.-§ 6. Marriage of the clergy. Their concubines.-§ 7. The principal writers, Grecian and Oriental.-§ 8. Latin writers. § 1. The form of ecclesiastical government which had been already adopted was more confirmed and strengthened, both as regards individual churches and the whole society of Christians. He must be ignorant of the history and of the monuments of this VOL. I. Augustine, Epistola Ivi. ad. Dioscor. Opp. tom. ii. p. 260. age, who can deny that a person bearing the title of bishop presided over each church in the larger cities, and managed its public concerns with some degree of authority, yet having the presbyters for his council, and taking the voice of the whole people on subjects of any moment.1 It is equally certain, that one bishop in each province was greater than the rest in rank and in some privileges. This was necessary for maintaining that consociation of churches which had been introduced in the preceding century, and for holding councils more conveniently and easily. Yet it must be added, that the prerogatives of these principal bishops were not every where accurately ascertained; nor did the bishop of the chief city in a province always hold the rank of first bishop. This also is beyond controversy, that the bishops of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria, as presiding over the primitive and apostolic churches in the greater divisions of the empire, had precedence of all others, and were not only often consulted on weighty affairs, but likewise enjoyed certain prerogatives peculiar to themselves. § 2. As to the bishop of Rome in particular, he was regarded by Cyprian, and doubtless by others also, as holding a certain primacy in the church. But the fathers, who with Cyprian attributed this primacy to the Roman bishop, strenuously contended for the equality of all bishops in respect to dignity and authority; and disregarding the bishop of Rome's judgment, whenever they thought it incorrect, had no hesitation in following their own. Of this, Cyprian himself gave a striking example in his famous controversy with Stephen, bishop of Rome, concerning the baptism of heretics. Whoever shall duly con 1 Authorities are cited by David Blondel, Apologia pro Sententia Hieronymi de Episcopis et Presbyteris, p. 136, &c.-[and still more amply by James Boileau, under the fictitious name of Claudius Fonteius, in his book de Antiquo Jure Presbyterorum in Regimine Ecclesiastico, Turin, 1676, 12mo. The most valuable of these testimonies are from the Epistles of Cyprian, bisbop of Carthage, who was a warm advocate for episcopal pre-eminence, yet did not presume to determine any question of moment by his own authority, or without the advice and consent of his presbyters, and was accustomed to take the sense of the whole church on subjects of peculiar interest. See Cyprian, Ep. v. p. 11, ep. xiii. p. 23, ep. xxviii. p. 39, ep. xxiv. p. 33, ep. xxvii. p. 37, 38.-To the objection, that Cyprian did himself ordain some presbyters and lectors, without the consent of his council and the laity, it is answered, that the persons so advanced were confessors, who, according to usage, were entitled to ordination, without any previous election. Cyprian, Ep. xxxiv. p. 46, 47, ep. xxxv. p. 48, 49. Tertullian, de Anima, c. 55, p. 353, &c.-See Mosheim, Commentt. de Rebb. Christ. &c. p. 575-579. Tr.] Cyprian, Ep. lxxiii. p. 131, ep. lv. p. 86, de Unitate Ecclesiæ, p. 195, ed. Baluze. sider the facts together, will readily perceive that this primacy was not one of power and authority, but only of precedence and consociation. Now the primacy of the Roman bishop in regard to the whole church, was the same as that of Cyprian in the African church, which did not impair at all the equality of the African bishops, or curtail their liberties and rights, but merely conferred the privilege of convoking councils, of presiding in them, and admonishing his brethren fraternally, and the like.3 § 3. Although the ancient mode of church government seemed in general to remain unaltered, yet there was a gradual deflection from its rules, and an approximation towards the form of a rule by individuals. For the bishops claimed much. higher authority and power than before, and gradually encroached upon the rights not only of ordinary Christians, but also of the presbyters. And to give plausibility to this, they advanced new doctrines concerning the church and the episcopal office; which, however, were so obscure for the most part, that they scarcely seem themselves to have understood them. The principal author of these innovations was Cyprian, than whom no one had ever contended more boldly and vehemently for episcopal power from the very beginning of Christianity. He was not, however, uniform and consistent, for in times of difficulty, when urged by necessity, he could give up his pretensions, and submit every thing to the judgment and authority of the church.4 3 See Stephan. Baluze, Annott. ad Cypriani Epistt. p. 387. 389. 400, &c. and especially Cyprian himself, who contends strenuously for the perfect equality of all bishops. Ep. lxxi. p. 127. Nam nec Petrus― vindicavit sibi aliquid insolenter, aut arroganter assumpsit se primatum tenere, et obtemperari a novellis et posteris sibi oportere.—Ep. lxxiii. p. 137. Unusquisque Episcoporum quod putat faciat, habens arbitrii sui liberam potestatem. Ep. lv. ad Cornelium Rom. p. 86. Cum statutum- -et æquum sit pariter ac justum, ut uniuscujusque causa illic audiatur ubi est crimen âdmissum, et singulis pastoribns portio gregis sit adscripta, quam regat unusquisque et gubernet, rationem sui actus Domino rediturus.-[and Cyprian's address at the opening of the council of Carthage, A. D. 255. in his Works, p. 329, ed. Baluze. Neque enim quis quam nostrum Episcopum se esse Episcoporum constituit, aut tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem collegas suos adigit, quando habeat omnis Episcopus pro licentia libertatis et potestatis sua arbitrium proprium, tamque judicari ab alio non possit, quam nec ipse potest alterum judicare. Sed expectemus universi judicium Domini nostri Jesu Christi, qui unus et solus habet po-testatem et præponendi nos in ecclesiæ suæ gubernatione, et de actu nostro judicandi.- The passages referred to in the preceding note, in which Cyprian not very intelligibly speaks of a unity in the church and of a certain primacy of the Roman pontiff, must be so understood as not to contradict these very explicit assertions of the absolute equality. of all bishops.-See Mosheim's de Rebus Christ. &c. p. 579-587. Tr.] [No man can speak in higher terms |