which most persons regarded as the very soul of religion.' He seems to have aimed to reduce religion to its primitive simplicity: a design which, in itself considered, was laudable; though in the motives and the mode of proceeding, there were perhaps some things censurable. § 22. There were other persons of this character in the fourth century who looked with disgust on the progress of superstition, and of errors respecting the true nature of religion, and who opposed the general current; but received as the only reward of their labour, to be branded with infamy. Eminent among them was Jovinian, an Italian monk, who taught first at Rome, and then at Milan, near the close of this century, and persuaded many, that all persons whatsoever, if they keep the vows they made to Christ in baptism, and live godly lives, have an equal title to the rewards of heaven; so that those who spent their lives in celibacy, or macerated their bodies by 1 Epiphanius, Hares. lxxv. p. 905, &c. Augustine, de Hares. c. 53, and some others. [The last is not a witness of much weight. He had no acquaintance with the Aërians, but took one part of his statement from Epiphanius, (ubi supra,) and the other from Philastrius, de Hares. c. 72, p. 140. Epiphanius had it in his power to get, and did get, better information respecting the oriental controversies, than Philastrius could. The latter speaks of Aërius, as one unknown to him; the former, as one whose history he well knew, and who was then alive. Epiphanius knew the Encratites very well, and he distinguishes them from the Aërians; but Philastrius confounds them. Aerius was a native of Pontus, or of the lesser Armenia, an eloquent man, and a friend of the wellknown semi-Arian Eustathius, afterwards bishop of Sebaste, with whom he lived at the same time among the monks. The elevation of Eustathius to the see of Sebaste, first awakened envy in Aërius, he having himself aspired after that promotion. To allay that feeling, Eustathius made his friend a presbyter, and committed to his care the superintendence of a house for the reception of strangers. But the good understanding between them was of short continuance. Aërius could be restrained by nothing from his restless conduct towards his bishop, whom he accused of avarice and misappropriation of the funds for the poor. At last, they came to a breach. Aerius abandoned his fasting, were no more acceptable to God than those who lived in wedlock, and nourished their bodies with moderation and sobriety. These sentiments were first condemned by the church of Rome, and then by Ambrose, in a council held at Milan in the year 390.2 The emperor Honorius enacted penal laws against those holding such sentiments, and Jovinian he banished to the island Boa. Jovinian published his opinions in a book, against which St. Jerome, in the following century, wrote a most bitter and abusive treatise, which is still extant. § 23. Of all the religious controversies, those concerning Origen made the greatest noise and continued the longest. Though Origen had long been accused of many errors, yet hitherto most Christians had regarded his name with veneration. But now the Arians, cunningly looking on every side for support, maintained that this great man had been of their party. Some believed them, and therefore indulged the same hatred towards Origen as towards the Arians. Yet among the most eminent and best informed men there were those who resisted the charge, and strove to vindicate the reputation of their master against these aspersions. In the number of them, Eusebius, bishop of Cæsarea, stood pre-eminent, from having written an Apology for Origen. And, I believe, this storm raised against the honour of a man, to whom the whole Christian world paid respect, would have soon subsided, if new commotions had not arisen, which proceeded from another source. 2 Hieronymus in Jovinianum, Opp. tom. ii. Augustine, de Hares. c. 82. Ambrose, Ep. vi. &c. [Jovinian lived at Rome, when he advanced the doctrines which were so strenuously opposed. Yet it is uncertain, whether Rome or Milan was his native place. He was not unlearned, and he lived a single life. To the preceding doctrines of Jovinian, the following may be added: that Mary ceased to be a virgin, by bringing forth Christ; which some denied ;--that the degrees of future blessedness do not depend on the meritoriousness of our good works;—and that a truly converted Christian, so long as he is such, cannot sin wilfully, but will so resist the temptations of the devil, as not to be overcome by him. For these doctrines, Jovinian was accused by some Christians at Rome, before Siricius the Roman bishop. A council was assembled by Siricius, by which Jovinian was con demned and excommunicated. He then retired, with his friends, to Milan. There they were condemned, by a council which Ambrose assembled. By such persecution, the party was soon crushed. See Walch, Historie der Ketzereyen, vol. iii. p. 635—682. Schl.] 3 Codex Theodosianus, tom. iii. p. 218, tom. vi. p. 193.-[This law is dated in the year 412. But according to the representation of Jerome, Jovinian must, in the year 406, have been dead some considerable time. The law therefore must have been aimed against altogether a different person-and there appear in it no traces of the complaints brought against Jovinian-or the date of it must be erroneous, as was conjectured by Tillemont, tom. x. p. 229. 753. See Walch, Historie der Ketzereyen, vol. iii. p. 664, &c. Schl.] 4 [Among the orthodox. Tr.] § 24. All the monks, and especially those of Egypt, were enthusiastic admirers of Origen; and they spared no pains to disseminate every where the opinions which they imbibed from him. Yet they could not persuade all to believe that those opinions were sound and correct. Hence arose, at first, a concealed disagreement as to the reasonableness of the doctrines of Origen, which gradually increased till it burst into an open flame. Among many others, John, bishop of Jerusalem, was in favour of Origen; and as Epiphanius and Jerome were, from other causes, hostile to John, they endeavoured to excite odium against him on this ground. He defended himself in such a way as, at the same time, to protect the reputation of Origen; and thus he had the whole swarm of monks and innumerable others on his side. From this beginning followed those vehement contests respecting the doctrines of Origen, which pervaded both the East and the West. In the West they were fomented especially by Rufinus, a presbyter of Aquileia, who translated some of Origen's books into Latin, and showed, not obscurely, that he was pleased with the sentiments that those books contained.5 He therefore incurred the im placable wrath of Jerome. But at length, Rufinus being dead, and men of high reputation in the West opposing the progress of Origenism, both by their influence and their writings, these commotions seemed to subside in the West. 25. In the East, far greater troubles came upon the church on account of Origenism. Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, who was for various reasons hostile to some of the monks of Scetys or Nitria, taxed them with their Origenism, and ordered them to throw away the books of Origen. The monks resisted his command; alleging, sometimes, that the objectionable passages in the writings of that holy man were interpolations of the heretics, and sometimes, that it was improper to condemn the whole together, on account of a few passages which might be justly censurable. Theophilus, therefore, having assembled a council at Alexandria in the year 399, which condemned the Origenists, with an armed force drove the monks from the mountain of Nitria. They fled first to Jerusalem, and thence removed to Scythopolis; but finding 5 See especially Just. Fontaninus, Historia Litteraria Aquileiens. lib. iv. c. 3, &c. p. 177, &c., where he gives an elaborate history of Rufinus. themselves insecure there likewise, they set sail for Constantinople, intending to lay their cause before the imperial court." The remainder of their history belongs to the next century. But it is proper to remark, that those who are denominated Origenists in the writings of this age, were not all of one character. For this ambiguous term sometimes denotes merely a person friendly to Origen, who looked upon his books as corrupted, and did not defend the errors of which he was accused but at other times, it designates those persons who admitted that Origen taught all that he was charged with teaching, and who resolutely defended his opinions. Of this latter class were many of the monks. CHAPTER IV. HISTORY OF CEREMONIES AND RITES. § 1, 2. Ceremonies multiplied.—§ 3. Form of public worship.-§ 4. Some parts of it changed.-§ 5. Festal days.-§ 6. Fasts.-§ 7. Administration of baptism-§ 8. and of the Lord's supper. § 1. WHILE the good-will of the emperors aimed to advance the Christian religion, the indiscreet piety of the bishops obscured its true nature and oppressed its energies, by the multiplication of rites and ceremonies. The observation of Augustine is well known, That the yoke once laid upon the Jews, was more supportable than that laid on many Christians in his age.1 For the Christian bishops introduced, with but slight alterations, into the Christian worship, those rites and institutions by which, formerly, the Greeks and Romans and others had manifested their piety and reverence towards their imaginary deities; supposing that the people would more readily embrace Christianity, if they perceived the rites handed down to them from their fathers, still existing unchanged among the Christians, 6 See Peter Dan. Huet, Origeniana, lib. ii. cap. 4, p. 196, &c. Ludov. Doucin, Histoire de l'Origénisme, liv. iii. p. 95, &c. Hieron. a Prato, Diss. vi. in Sulpitium Severum de Monachis ob Origenis nomen ex Nitria totaque Egypto pulsis, 273, Veron. 1741, fol. These writers cite the ancient authorities; but they make some mistakes. [The literary history of this controversy is given by the senior Walch, Historia Eccles. N. T. p. 1042, &c. Schl.] 'Augustine, Epist. 119, ad Januarium, according to the ancient division. and saw, that Christ and the martyrs were worshipped in the same manner as formerly their gods were. There was, accordingly, little difference in these times between the public worship of the Christians and that of the Greeks and Romans. In both there were splendid robes, mitres, tiaras, wax-tapers, crosiers 2, processions, lustrations, images, gold and silver vases, and innumerable other things. § 2. No sooner had Constantine renounced the religion of his ancestors, than magnificent temples were every where erected, adorned with pictures and images, and both in external and internal form very similar to the fanes and temples of the gods. These temples were of two kinds. Some were erected at the graves of the martyrs, and were called Martyria: the people assembled in these only at stated times. Others were dedicated to the ordinary and common meetings for religious worship, and were afterwards called by the Latins Tituli.* Both were consecrated with great pomp and with rites bor 2 [The crosier, or bishop's staff, was exactly of the form of the lituus, the chief ensign of the ancient Augurs. See Cicero, de Divinatione, 1. i. c. 17. Tr.] See Ezek. Spanheim, Preuves sur les Césars de Julien, p. 47; but especially, Peter Le Brun, Explication littérale et histor, des cérémonies de la Messe, tome ii. p. 101, &c. For a description of such a temple, see Eusebius, de Vita Constantini Magni, 1. iii. c. 35, &c. Plates representing the interior form, are given by Wm. Beveridge, Adnotatt. ad Pandectas Canonum, tom. ii. p. 70, and by Fred. Spanheim, Institutt. Hist. Eccles. in his Opp. tom. i. p. 860. Some parts of the Christian temples were after the pattern of the Jewish temple. See Camp. Vitringa, de Synagoga Veteri, lib. iii. p. 466. [Some of these temples were new buildings, erected by the emperors; others were pagan temples transmuted to Christian churches. See Codex Theodos. lib. ix. tit. xvii. legem 2; and Jerome, Chronicon, ann. 332. From the Jews were borrowed, the division into the holy of holies, the holy place and the court; from which came the Chancel, the Nave, and the Porch, Bua, vads and vápen. Schl.] John Mabillon, Museum Italic. tom. ii. in Comment. ad Ordin. Roman. p. xvi. &c. [Tituli appear to have been ordinary churches, as distinguished from Its the principal churches, now called cathedrals. The term, as thus used, is very ancient in Rome, and appears in England so early as 787, being found in the sixth canon of the council of Calcuith. origin is not certainly known. Titulus is really an inscription: hence the inscription over our Lord's head, upon the cross, is called, from the Latin, TÍTλOS by St. John. Churches, it has been thought, were called tituli, either from some inscription, or other mark, which set them apart for religion, or from the tombs of the martyrs in them; tombs having been customarily called tituli, from the inscriptions upon them. (Du Cange, in voc. Titul.) Inscriptions, it seems from Ovid, (Metam. ix. 791,) were common in temples. Dant munera templis : Addunt et titulum: titulus breve carmen habebat. It may be readily therefore supposed, that titulus, upon the principle of pars pro toto, might be sometimes applied to the whole building, and so used in common speech by the ancient Christians for their churches, which took the places of the heathen temples, and were ordered very much in the same way that they had been. In this case, the inscriptions which gave rise to the term were either, probably, to commemorate some martyr, or for some other pious or commemorative object. Ed.] |