and the Clementina, and other works of the like character, which a too credulous world long held in high estimation. By the same artifice the mystics, as they are called, sought to advance their cause. Having no means of replying to those who asked for the first author of this new sort of wisdom, they declared themselves to have received it from Dionysius, the Areopagite, a contemporary with the apostles; and to make the falsehood plausible, they passed off books void of sense and reason, as works of so great a man. Thus those who wished to surpass all others in piety deemed it pious to employ deception and fraud in support of piety. 8 § 12. Among the controversies which divided Christians in this century, the most considerable turned upon the millennium, the baptism of heretics, and Origen. That the Saviour is to reign a thousand years among men before the end of the world, had been believed by many in the preceding century, without offence to any all, however, had not explained the doctrine in the same manner, nor indulged hopes of the same kind of pleasures during that reign. In this century the millennarian 9 but himself full of errors, under the forged name of Clemens Romanus. Schl.] [The Clementina are nineteen Homilies, first published, Gr. and Lat., by Cotelier, in his Patres Apostol. tom. i. p. 603, &c. They are supposed to have been the work of some Ebionite. Schl. --The Clementina and the Recognitions are works of a similar character. Both profess to give us the history of St. Peter's contests with Simon Magus, and his private instructions to his particular friends, respecting the mysteries of nature and the deep things of theology. They are downright romance, yet not uninteresting, as specimens of the speculations of semi-Christians of a philosophic turn, who lived about A. D. 200. Tr.] 8 [The spurious works ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite, (who is mentioned Acts xvii. 34,) are the following: de Cœlesti Hierarchia, lib. i.; de Ecclesiastica Hierarchia, 1. i. ; de Divinis Nominibus, 1. i.; de Mystica Theologia, 1. i.; together with four Epistles to Caius, one to Dorotheus, one to Sosipater, one to Polycarp, one to Demophilus, one to Titus, one to Apollophanes, and two to St. John the apostle. They all relate to the mystic theology, and breathe a devout spirit, but are exceedingly obscure and difficult of comprehension. It is supposed they were written in the fourth or fifth century, as they bear marks of that period, and are not mentioned by any writer prior to the sixth century. During the middle ages they were held in high estimation, and their genuineness scarcely if at all questioned. The more devout Roman Catholics, and most of the early Protestants, received them and relied upon them as genuine. In the 17th century, their spuriousness was abundantly demonstrated, and they are now universally regarded as supposititious. The best edition of these works, Gr. and Lat., with copious notes, is that of Balthazar Corderius, Antwerp, 1634, 2 vols. fol. embracing the Greek scholia of St. Maximus the martyr (A. D. 659), and the paraphrase of George Pachymeras (A. D. 1280). The MS. copies of these works are found in most of the great libraries of Europe. Tr.] 9 ["See the learned Treatise concerning the true Millennium, which Dr. Whitby has subjoined to the second volume of his Commentary upon the New Testament. See also, for an account of the doctrine of the ancient Millennarians, the fourth, fifth, seventh and ninth volumes of Lardner's Credibility, &c." Macl. doctrine fell into disrepute, through the influence especially of Origen, who opposed it because it contravened some of his opinions. 1 But Nepos, an Egyptian bishop, attempted to revive its authority, in a work written against the allegorists, as he contemptuously styled the opposers of the millennium. The book and its arguments were approved by many in the province of Arsinoë, and particularly by Coracion, a presbyter of some respectability and influence. But Dionysius of Alexandria, a disciple of Origen, allayed the rising storm by his oral discussions and his two books on the divine promises.2 also H. Corodi's Kritische Geschichte des Chiliasmus, 2nd ed. 1794, 3 vols. 8vo. Tr.] 11. See Origen, de Principiis, lib. ii. c. Op. tom. i. p. 104, and Prolog. Comment. in Cantic. Canticor. tom. iii. p. 28. [The Cerinthians, Marcionites, Montanists, and Melitians, among the heretical sects, and among the orthodox fathers Papias, Justin Martyr, and Irenæus, held to a millennial reign of Christ, and Irenæus understood it in a very gross sense. Dr. Mosheim, in his Comment. de Rebus Chistianor. &c. p. 721, believe that the doctrine had a Jewish origin; and he supposed the Christian doctors to have received, or at least tolerated it, because they hoped by it to make the Jews more willing to embrace Christianity. But Dr. Walch, in his Entwurf einer vollständigen Hist. der Ketzereyen, vol. ii. p. 143, is more discriminating, and maintains that the question, whether a millennial reign of Christ is to be expected, had a biblical origin, the earlier Chiliasts relying on the testimony of the Apocalypse: but the explanation of the doctrine was derived from the Jewish opinions. There were two kinds of Chiliasts, the gross and the refined. The latter placed the chief differences between the millennial reign of Christ and his present reign, in the higher enjoyment of spiritual advantages and pleasures, yet without wholly excluding the pleasures of sense. But the former expected, in the millennium, all kinds of sensual delights, and the free indulgence of all, even the most exorbitant lusts. All these gross Chiliasts are to be found not merely among the heretics; they may be found also among the orthodox, as the example of Irenæus proves. According to the account of Gennadius of Marseilles, de Dogmatt. Ecclesiast. c. 55, p. 32, the Chiliasts may be divided into four classes. The first class were the most moderate. They are called Melitians; and expected a fulfilment of the divine promises here on the earth, without attempting to define the nature of the bliss to be enjoyed during the millennium. The second class expected not only to enjoy the indispensable indulgences of appetite, but also marriage pleasures, and every species of sensual indulgence. The third class promised themselves indeed sensitive delights, and these too as rewards for foregoing them now, and as a compensation for the outward sufferings of saints; but they excluded from them the carnal pleasure of sexual intercourse. The fourth was composed of Nepos and his followers. The millennial doctrine did not prevail every where, and uncontradicted. Yet the believers and the rejecters of the doctrine treated each other with affection, and a person might believe or discard it, without bringing his orthodoxy under suspicion. The first open opposer of Chiliasm that we meet with, was Caius, a teacher in the church of Rome, towards the end of the second century. He denied that the Apocalypse was written by John, and ascribed it rather to Cerinthus. But he effected very little. Origen was a more powerful opposer of the doctrine. He did not, like Caius, deny the canonical authority of the Apocalypse, but explained the passages in it which describe the millennial reign of Christ, allegorically, as referring to spiritual delights, suited to the nature of spirits raised to perfection, and these to be enjoyed, not on the earth, but in the world to come. See Mosheim, Comment, de Rebus Christianor. p. 720, &c. and Dr. Walch, Histoire der Ketzereyen, vol. ii. p. 136—151. Schl.] See Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. vii. 24, § 13. As no law determined in what manner those who came over from heretical churches to the Catholic Christians were to be received, usage in this matter was not uniform. Many of the Orientals and Africans classed reclaimed heretics among catechumens, and admitted them to the Christian ordinances by baptism. But most of the Europeans judged the baptism of erring Christians to be valid; and therefore received reclaimed heretics simply with imposition of hands and prayer. This diversity long produced no contention. But in this century the Asiatic Christians determined in several councils what before had been left at discretion, that all heretics coming over to the true church must be re-baptized.3 This coming to the knowledge of Stephen, bishop of Rome, he with little humanity or prudence excluded those Asiatics from communion with him and his church. Notwithstanding, however, Cyprian, with other Africans, in a council called on the subject, embraced the opinion of the Asiatics, and gave notice of it to Stephen. Upon this, Stephen was very indignant; but Cyprian replied with energy, and in a new council at Carthage, again pronounced the baptism of heretics wholly invalid. Stephen's anger now became heavier, and he excluded with great unkindness the Africans from the rights of brotherhood. The discord was healed, partly by the moderation of the Africans, partly by the death of Stephen.4 § 14. The Origenian contests were moved by Demetrius, and Gennadius Massiliensis, de Dogmatibus Ecclesiasticis, cap. 55, p. 32, ed. Elmenhorst. [Nepos held the Apocalypse to be an inspired book; and he maintained, in opposition to the allegorists, that the passages which speak of a millennial reign of Christ, must be understood literally, and as promising corporeal and sensitive pleasures. But he does not appear to have defined clearly what these pleasures were to be, though he excluded eating and drinking and marraige, as Dr. Mosheim supposes, 1. c. p. 726. The very obscure and defective history of Nepos, and the controversy with him, is explained, as far as it can be, by Dr. Walch, l. c. p. 152–167. Schl.] Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. vii. c. 5 and 7. Firmilian, Epist. ad Cyprianum, inter Epp. Cyprian. 75.-[The councils which decided this point, before Stephen's rash procedure, were (1) the 75. council of Carthage, about A. D. 215. See Epp. Cypr. 71 and 73.—(2) that of Iconium in Phrygia, A. D. 235. Epp. Cypr. Euseb. H. E. vii. 4.-(3) that of Synada, and (4) some others, which are barely mentioned in Epp. Cypr. 75, and Euseb. ubi supra. See Walch, Historie der Kirchenversamml. p. 91, 94, and 96. Tr.] Cyprian, Ep. 70 and 73, and several others, ed. Baluze. Augustine, de Baptismo contra Donatistas, 1. vi. and vii. Opp. tom. ix. where he gives the acts of the council of Carthage, A. D. 256. Prudent. Maran, Vita Cypriani, p. 107, and all the writers of the life of Cyprian. [The whole history of this controversy is discussed at large by Dr. Mosheim, Comment. de Rebus, &c. p. 540-547, and still more fully by Dr. Walch, Historie der Ketzereyen, vol. ii. p. 328-384. Schl.] bishop of Alexandria, whom Origen's friends represent as influenced by envy and hatred; which, however, is very doubtful. In the proceedings of Demetrius against Origen, one may discover marks of a mind exasperated, impassioned, arrogant, and unreasonable, but none scarcely of envy. In the year 228, Origen undertook a journey to Achaia, and on his way suffered himself to be ordained presbyter by the bishops of Cæsarea and Jerusalem. Demetrius took this very ill, not only deeming Origen unworthy of the presbyter's office, because he had emasculated himself, but also denying that the master of his own school ought to be promoted without his knowledge and consent. The matter, however, was compromised, and Origen returned to Alexandria. But not long after, from some unknown cause, new dissension arose between him and Demetrius, which became so great, that Origen left Alexandria and the school in the year 231, and removed to Cæsarea in Palestine, Demetrius accused him in his absence before an assembled council, and deprived him of his office without a hearing, and afterwards, in a second council divested him of his priestly chaIt is probable that Demetrius accused Origen before the council, particularly the last one, of erroneous sentiments in matters of religion; which it was easy for him to do, as Origen's book de Principis, which was full of dangerous sentiments, had been published not long before. The decision of the Alexandrian council was approved by a majority of the Christian bishops, though rejected by those of Achaia, Palestine, Phoenicia, and Arabia.6 racter. 5 [Dr. Mosheim is singular in this opinion, which he defends at great length, in his Comment. de Rebus, &c. p. 671, &c. in opposition to the express testimony of Eusebius, H. E. vi. 8, and Jerome, Epist. 29. Opp. tom. iv. pt. ii. p. 68. If Demetrius was not envious of the growing reputation of Origen, or otherwise affected by personal antipathy, it seems impossible to account for the rancour that he manifested. Tr.] 6 This account is derived from the original sources, especially from Euse bius, Hist. Eccles. vi. 23. Photius, Biblioth. cod. cxviii. Jerome, de Viris Illustr. and Origen himself. It differs, in some respects, from that given by the common writers, Doucin, Huet, and others. [That Demetrius accused Origen of erroneous sentiments, is a mere conjecture of Dr. Mosheim. The early writers mention nothing of it, but state distinctly other charges as adduced by the persecuting bishop.-And that Demetrius assembled two councils, is not clear see Walch, Historie der Kirchenversamml. p. 92, &c. Tr.] CHAPTER IV. HISTORY OF RELIGIOUS RITES. § 1. Rites multiplied.-§ 2. Public worship.—§ 3. Administration of the sacred supper.-§ 4. Baptism.-§ 5. Various other rites. § 1. ALL the monuments of this century which have come down to us, show that there was a great increase of ceremonies. To the causes of this, which have already been mentioned, may be added the passion for Platonic philosophy, or rather, the popular superstition of the oriental nations respecting demons, which was adopted by the Platonists, and received from them by the Christian doctors. For in these opinions concerning the nature and propensities of attendant spirits, the origins of many rites are to be sought. Hence arose public exorcisms, multiplication of fasts, and aversion to matrimony. Hence men were dissuaded from intercourse with those who were either not yet baptized, or had been excluded from the communion of the church; because such were considered as under the power of some evil spirit. And to pass over other things, hence the painful austerities and penances which were enjoined upon offenders.' § 2. That the Christians now had in most provinces certain edifices in which they assembled for religious worship, will be denied by no candid and impartial person. Nor would I contend, strenuously, against those who think these edifices to have been generally now adorned with images and other ornaments. As to the forms of public worship, and the times3 set apart for it, it is unnecessary here to be particular, since little |