alteration was made in this century. Yet two things deserve notice. First, the public discourses to the people underwent a change. For, not to mention Origen, who was the first, so far as we know, that made long discourses in public, and in such discourses expounded the sacred volume, there were certain bishops, who being educated in the schools of the rhetoricians, framed their addresses and exhortations according to the rules of Grecian eloquence; and their example met with most ready approbation. Secondly, the use of incense was now introduced, at least into many churches. Very learned men have denied this fact; but they do it in the face of testimony altogether unexceptionable.* § 3. Those who had the direction of religious worship, annexed longer prayer and more of ceremony to the celebration of the Lord's Supper; and this I suppose, with no bad intentions. Neither those doing penance, nor those not yet baptized, were allowed to be present at the celebration of this ordinance; which practice, it is well known, was derived from the pagan mysteries. That golden and silver vessels were used in it, is testified by Prudentius, among others; and I see no reason to doubt the fact, in respect to the more opulent Christian churches. The time of its administration was different, according to the state and circumstances of the churches. Some deemed the morning, some the afternoon, and some the evening, to be the most suitable time for its celebration.7 Neither were all agreed how often this most sacred ordinance should be repeated. But all believed it absolutely necessary versaries of the local martyrdoms were also observed. Von Ein.] 4 Wm. Beveridge, ad Canon. iii. Apostol. p. 461; and his Coder Canon. vindicatus, p. 78. [The Christians originally abhorred the use of incense in public worship, as being a part of the worship of idols. See Tertullian, Apolog. c. 42; and de Corona militis, c. 10. Yet they permitted its use at funerals, against offensive smells. Afterwards it was used at the induction of magistrates and bishops, and also in public worship, to temper the bad air of crowded assemblies in hot countries, and at last degenerated into a superstitious rite. Schl.] 5 [See Christ. Matth. Pfaff, diss. 2, de Prajudic. Theolog. § 13, p. 149, &c.; and Jos. Bingham, Antiquitates Eccles. 1. x. c. 5. Schl.] 6 Περὶ στεφάν. Hymn ii. p. 60, ed* Heinsii, [and Optatus Milevit. de Schismate Donatist. c. 12, p. 17. Schl.-The heathen prefect in Prudentius only mentions the use of costly vessels by Christians as a report, but the rumour was probably not without some ground. "Hunc esse vestris orgiis Moremque et artem proditum est, Aurel. Prudent, ed. Valpy, p. 183. Ed.] 7 8 [See Cyprian, Ep. 63. p. 104. Schl.] [It was commonly administered every Sunday, as well as on other fes to the attainment of salvation; and therefore every where would have infants even partake of it." Sacred feasts, in some places, preceded it in others, followed.1 § 4. Baptism was publicly administered twice a year to candidates who had gone through a long preparation and trial 2, + none looking on but such as had been themselves already baptized. The effect of baptism was supposed to be the remission of sins: and the bishop, by the imposition of hands and prayer, it was believed, conferred those gifts of the Holy Spirit which were necessary for living a holy life.3 Of the principle ceremonies attending baptism, we have before spoken.+ A few things, however, must here be added. None were admitted to the sacred font until the exorcist had, with long and menacing formality, declared them no longer servants to the prince of darkness, but of God. For, after the opinion had become prevalent among Christians, that rational souls originated from God himself, and therefore were in themselves holy, pure, and morally free, the evil propensities of man must be considered as arising from the body and from matter, or some evil spirit must be supposed to possess the souls of men and impel them to sin. The Gnostics all embraced the first supposition; but the catholics could in no wise embrace it, because they held that matter was created by God, and was not eternal. They had, therefore, to embrace the second supposition, and to imagine some evil demon, the author of sin and of all evil, to be resident in all vicious persons. The persons baptized, tival days and in times of persecution, daily. See Cyprian, de Oratione Domin. p. 209. Ep. 56, p. 90, ep. 54, p. 78, ed. Baluze. Schl.] "[They believed that this ordinance rendered persons immortal; and that such as never partook of it, had no hopes of a resurrection. Hence Dionysius Alex. (cited by Euseb. H. E. vii. 11,) calls it, αἰσθητὴν μετὰ τοῦ Κυρίου συναγωγήν. That children also partook of it, is testified by Cyprian, de Lapsis, p. 184 and 189, ed. Baluze. See P. Horn's Historia Eucharist. Infantum, c. 4, § 1, &c.; and c. 6, § 3; also J. Bingham, Antiquitates Eccles. book xv. ch. 4, § 7. Schl.] [Chrysostom, Homil. 22. Oportet hæresis esse, Opp. tom. v. Schl.] was enjoined; yet with allowance of some exceptions. Schl.] 3 This may be placed beyond all controversy by many passages from the fathers of this century. And as it will conduce much to an understanding of the theology of the ancients, which differed in many respects from ours, I will adduce a single passage from Cyprian. It is in his Epist. 73, p. 131. Manifestum est autem, ubi et per quos remissa peccatorum dari possit, quæ in baptismo scilicet datur.Qui vero præpositis ecclesiæ offeruntur, per nostram orationem et manus impositionem Spiritum sanctum consequuntur. See also a passage from Dionysius Alex. in Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. vii. c. 8. * [Cent. ii. pt. ii. c. iv. § 13. Tr.] That exorcism was not annexed to baptism, till some time in the third cen returned home decorated with a crown and a white robe; the first being indicative of their victory over the world and their lusts, the latter, of their acquired innocence. § 5. Greater sanctity and necessity than heretofore, were now attributed to fasting; because it was the general belief that demons laid fewer snares for such as lived abstemiously and hardly, than for the full-fed and luxurious. The Latins were singular in keeping every seventh day of the week as a fast; and as the Greek and Oriental Christians would not imitate them in this, it afforded abundant matter for altercation between the two. Ordinarily, Christians prayed three times a day, at the third, sixth, and ninth hours, as was the custom of the Jews. Besides these regular hours of prayer, they prayed much and often; for they considered it the highest duty of a holy man to hold converse with God. On joyful and festive occasions, when giving thanks to God, they thought it suitable to pray standing, thus expressing their joy and confidence by the posture of their bodies. But on sorrowful occasions and seasons of fasting and humiliation, they were accustomed to make their supplications on their bended knees or prostrate, to indicate self-abasement.2 That certain forms of prayer were every where used, both in public and in private, I have no doubt 3; but I am likewise confident that many per was 3 [In the earliest times, exclusive of the short introductory salutation, Par vobiscum, &c., no established forms of prayer were used in public worship, but the bishop or presbyter poured forth extempore prayers. See Justin Martyr, Apology ii. The Lord's prayer used, not only as a pattern, but also as a formula of prayer. Yet only the baptized, and not the catechumens, might utter it. Tertullian, de Oratione, c. 1. 9. Cyprian, de Oratione Domin. Constitutt. Apostol. I. vii. c. 44. Afterwards, various forms were gradually introduced, and particularly of short prayers, derived from passages of Scripture. When greater uniformity in the churches as to ceremonies was introduced, the smaller churches had to regulate their forms of prayer conformably to those of sons poured out the feelings of their hearts before God in free and unpremeditated effusions. They thought the sign of the cross very efficacious against all sorts of evils, and particularly against the machinations of evil spirits; and, therefore, no one undertook any thing of much moment, without first crossing himself. Other ceremonies I pass by without notice. CHAPTER V. HISTORY OF DIVISIONS AND HERESIES IN THE CHURCH. § 1. Remains of the ancient sects.-§ 2. Manes and the Manichæans. - § 3. His principles.-§ 4. His doctrine concerning man.-§ 5. Concerning the nature of Christ and of the Holy Spirit. § 6. Concerning the offices of Christ and the Comforter. -§ 7. Concerning the purification and future condition of souls.—§ 8. Concerning the state of souls not purified.—§ 9. His opinion of the Old and New Testaments.-§ 10. The severity of his moral principles, and the classification of his followers.-§ 11. The sect of the Hieracites.-§ 12. The Noëtian controversy. § 13. Sabellius.-14. Beryllus. -§ 15. Paul of Samosata. § 16. Disturbances in Arabia.-§ 17. Novatian controversy.-§ 18. Severities of the Novatians towards the lapsed. § 1. Most of the sects which disquieted the church in the preceding centuries, caused it various troubles also in this. For the energies of the Montanists, Valentinians, Marcionites, and other Gnostics, were not wholly subdued by the numerous discussions of their tenets. Adelphius and Aquilinus, of the Gnostic tribe, but very little known, endeavoured to insinuate the larger churches, and of course to adopt the formulas of the metropolitan churches. Origen, contra Celsum, l. vi. ; and Homilia in Jerem. Eusebius, de Vita Constantini Mag. l. iv. c. 19, 20. 17. Hist. Eccles. 1. ii. c. 17. Lactantius, de Morte Persecutor. c. 46, 47. See Baumgarten's Erläuterung der christlichen Alterthümer, p. 432. Schl.] 4 [The Christians at first used the sign of the cross to bring to remembrance the atoning death of Christ, on all occasions. Hence Tertullian, de Corona militis, c. 3, p. 121, says: Ad omnem progressum atque promotum, ad omnem aditum et exitum, ad vestitum, ad calciatum, ad lavacra, ad mensas, ad lumina, ad cubilia, ad sedilia, quæcunque nos conversatio exercet, frontem crucis signaculo terimus. Compare also his work, ad Uxorem, lib. ii. So late as the second century, the Christians attached no particular virtue to the sign of the cross, and they paid it no adoration. See Tertullian, Apologet. c. 16; and ad Nationes, c. 12. But afterwards powerful efficacy began to be ascribed to it. See Cyprian, Testimonia adv. Judæos, 1. ii. c. 21, 22, p. 294; and Lactantius, Institut. 1. iv. c. 27, 28. Schl.] themselves and their doctrines into the esteem of the public at Rome and in Italy. But these men, and others of the same, kind, were resisted not only by Plotinus himself, the chief of the Platonists of this age, but also by his disciples, with all the boldness and energy usual among orthodox believers. The philosophical opinions of this faction concerning God, the origin of the world, the nature of evil, and other subjects, could not, indeed, possibly be approved by Platonists. These united forces of Christians and philosophers were unquestionably strong enough to make the Gnostics gradually lose all credit and influence with discerning minds.2 § 2. While the Christians were struggling with these corrupters of the truth, and upon the point of gaining the victory 3, a new enemy, more fierce and dangerous than any of them, suddenly appeared upon the field. Manes, whom his disciples commonly called also Manichæus, a Persian 6, educated among the Magi, and himself one of their body before he became a Christian, was instructed in all the sciences and arts generally esteemed by the Persians and adjacent nations; he was an astronomer (though a rude one), a physician, painter, and philosopher; but he had an exuberant imagination, and, most probably, a mind beside itself and fanatical. This man Porphyry, Vita Plotini, c. 16, p. 118, &c. 2 The book of Plotinus against the Gnostics, is still extant among his works. Ennead. ii. lib. ix. p. 213, &c. [Dr. Semler, in his Historia Eccles. Selecta Capita, vol. i. p. 81, conjectures, and not without reason, that the Gnosties, and all the assailants of the Old Testament, lost their power after Origen introduced the allegorical and tropological mode of expounding Scripture, and extended it in some measure to the history of Christ. And as he further supposes, the labours of Dionysius Alex. and other learned fathers, e. g. Dorotheus, a presbyter of Antioch, (who understood the Hebrew; Eusebius, H. E. vii. 32,) may have contributed much to diminish the Gnostic party, as they carried investigation farther, and more lucidly confuted the Jewish notions, and at the same time approximated a little towards the Gnostic doctrines concerning the Son of God. Hence it is, we hear no more about the Gnostics in this century; and the few who still remained, united themselves with the Manichæans. Schl.] [A little past the middle of this century. Tr.] [The Oriental writers call him Mani; (Hyde, de Relig. vet. Persarum, c. 21, and D'Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, art. Mani;) but the Greeks and Latins call him Μάνης, Μάνεις, and Manes. See Dr. Walch, Historie der Ketzereyen, vol. i. p. 691. Schl.] 5 [See the Acta Archelai, c. 5. 49. Augustine, de Hæresib. c. 46, and contra Faustum, lib. xix. c. 22. Schl.] [Notwithstanding the Greek and Oriental writers represent Manes as being a Persian, Dr. Walch (Historie der Ketzereyen, vol. i. p. 708.) and Beausobre (Histoire Critique de Manichée, tome i. p. 66,) think it more probable that he was a Chaldean; because Ephraim Syrus expressly so states, Opp. Syro-Latin. tom. ii. p. 468; and because Archelaus, in his Acta cum Manete, c. 36, charges Manes with understanding no language but that of the Chaldees. Schl.] |