19. Not long after Meletius, one Eustathius excited great commotions in Armenia, Pontus, and the neighbouring countries, and was therefore condemned in the council of Gangra, which was held not long

adversary. On the contrary, Epiphanius, who spent several years in Egypt, several of them probably in the lifetime of Meletius and certainly while the schism excited great attention, and who passed the rest of his life in the neighbourhood of Egypt and had constant communication with it, gives us a full and apparently very candid history of the schism, which is too long to be transcribed, but which is substantially as follows (Har. Ixviii. Opera, tom. i. p. 716, &c. ed. Petar. Colon.):-During the persecution under Diocletian and Maximian, Peter the archbishop of Alexandria and Meletius an eminent bishop in Thebais (who ranked next to Peter, and under him managed ecclesiastical affairs) and many others were imprisoned. While several of these had suffered martyrdom and others had yielded to their fears, and saved themselves by sacrificing to idols, those eminent bishops were kept long in prison and reserved for the last victims. Those who had

lapsed became anxious for reconciliation to the church, and they besought the confessors still in prison to interpose their authority. Warm debates arose on the held that the lapsed ought to be excluded from the subject among these confessors. Meletius and others church to the end of the persecution, and then if they appeared worthy, to be admitted to penances proportionate to their offences. But Peter maintained that they should at once be admitted to suitable penances, and so be restored. At length Peter, finding his proposal defeated by the zeal of Meletius, hung out his mantle in the midst of the prison for a standard, and called on those who agreed with him to assemble round it, and those who sided with Meletius to repair to him. But the mass of the imprisoned confessors gathered round Meletius, and only a very few joined Peter. From this time the two parties worshipped separately, and the schism became complete-even in the prison! (This was in the year 306, according to Baronius, Annal. ann. 306, no. 44, or in the year 301, according to Pagi, Critica. ad Baron. ann. 306, no. 29.) Peter afterwards suffered martyrdom, but Meletius and others were transported from place to placesometimes shut up in the mines and sometimes banished to distant regions. Everywhere Meletius ordained bishops, presbyters, and deacons, and erected separate churches, his followers having no communion with the others. Peter's successors retained the ancient churches, which were called the churches of the Catholics, while the new churches of the Meletians bore the title of the martyrs' churches. According to this account of the origin of the schism, the only crime of Meletius was that he erected separate churches and ordained bishops, &c. over them, not subject to the archbishops of Alexandria nor holding communion with the Catholics. No other crime is alleged against him by the council of Nice which censured him, nor by the four bishops and martyrs (Hesychius, Pachomius, Theodorus, and Philcas) who remonstrated with him for his conduct. (See their letter in Maffei, Osservazioni Letterarie, tom. iii. Verona, 1738; also Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. lib. viii. cap. xiii.) What therefore Athanasius charges upon him as his greatest offence, that he offered sacrifices to idols, is not only inconsistent with the explicit statement of Epiphanius, but is also highly improbable, not to say impossible, since the Meletian party owed its existence to its peculiar rigour against the lapsed; for such a party cannot be supposed to have been formed and ruled over from its commencement by the most notorious of all the lapsed, and one already deposed for this very crime. The subject of this schism was brought before the council of Nice in 325, and they endeavoured to remove it by confirming the jurisdiction of the archbishop of Alexandria and limiting that of Meletius to his own diocese, and subjecting him and his clergy to certain other restrictions. See the letter of the council to the African clergy in Socrates, Hist. Eccles. lib. i. cap. ix. The list of the Meletian clergy at that time embraced the names of twenty-eight bishops, with four presbyters and five deacons of Alexandria. See Athanasius, Apolog. ud Imp. Constant. Opp. tom. i. pages 788-9,

after the Nicene council. Whether this man was Eustathius the bishop of Sebaste in Armenia, who was the coryphæus of the semi-Arians, or whether the ancients confounded two persons of the same name, is debated with nearly equal weight of arguThe founder of the ment on both sides.1 Eustathian sect is charged not so much with unsoundness in the faith as with extravagant notions of piety, for he is said to have prohibited marriage, the use of flesh and wine, love-feasts, &c. and to have recommended immediate divorce to all married persons, and to have granted to children and servants the liberty of violating the commands of their parents and masters under pretext of religion.2

20. Lucifer, bishop of Cagliari in Sardinia, a man of decision, sternness, and vigour, who was driven into exile by the Nicene doctrine of three persons in one emperor Constantine for defending the God, first separated from Eusebius of Vercelli in the year 363, because the latter was displeased that the former had consecrated Paulinus bishop of the church of Anticch. He afterwards separated himself from the communion of the whole church, because it had decreed that absolution might be granted who adds that there were in Egypt, &c. nearly one hundred bishops in his communion. Meletius did not long survive his censure, and after his death Alexander resorted to coercive measures in order to bring the Meletians to submission. They now applied to the emperor Constantine, and Eusebius bishop of Nicomedin promised to assist them if they would join with Arius. They consented, and he obtained from the emperor the privileges of a tolerated sect. But this alliance involved them in the Arian contests, and from this time many of the Meletians embraced the opinions of Arius. See Epiphanius, Hares. lxviii, and Sozomen, Hist. Eccles. lib. ii. cap. xxi.-Mur.

I See Basnage, Annales Politico-Eccles. tome ii. p. 840, &c.

2 Socrates, Hist. Eccl. lib. ii. cap. xli.; Sozomen, Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. cap. xiv. lib. ii. cap. xxiv.; Epiphanius, Hares. lxvi. p. 110; Philostorgius, Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. cap. xvi.; and Gundling, Note ad Concilium Gangrense, p. 9, &c. [Walch, in his Hist. der Ketzer. vol. iii. pages 536-577, has treated circumstantially and solidly concerning the Eustathians. See also his Hist. der Kirchenversammlungen, p. 216, &c. The chief sources for a history of the Eustathians are the documents of the council of Gangra, consisting of a synodical epistle and twenty canons. From these sources both Socrates and Sozomen derived their information. The author of the Life of St. Basil which is prefixed to the third vol, of the works of Basil, maintains (cap. v. sec. iv. &c.) that the founder of this party was not Eustathius, but rather Aerius; and that therefore the persons with whom the council of Gangra had to do should not be called Eustathians but Aerians. But the arguments are not so powerful as to compel a reflecting reader to abandon the common opinion. Whether the bishop of Sebaste in Armenia, who is so famous in the history of the Arian heresy, and who had some connexion with Aerius, or another Eustathius, was the origin of this controversy, cannot be determined with certainty. Yet the arguments for the first supposition seem to preponderate. This Eustathius was a pupil of Aurius, and a lover of monkery. Many different councils passed their judgment on him-some putting him down, and others regarding him as a valuable man. He has been accused of instability in his belief; but h seems properly to have been a semi-Arian.-Schl

Gaul, and obtained of the emperor the council of Milan,

by which however the emperor intended to further his

own purposes. And. as Lucifer was one of those who

in that council zealously espoused the cause of the orthodox, he fell under the emperor's displeasure, and was sent among others into banishment. When the death of the emperor left him at liberty to return from exile, he became involved in the Meletian controversy at Antioch, and this occasioned his falling out with Eusebius, bishop of Vercelli; for he led on and consecrated the aged Paulinus bishop, which Eusebius greatly disapproved, because, according to the decrees of the Lucifer was commissioned to heal the division at Antioch, which was now widened still more by the unwise

council held at Alexandria by Athanasius, he with

step of Lucifer. The same council had also decreed that the Arian bishops, after acceding to the Nicene creed, might be received into the church and remain in their offices. But the refusal of Eusebius to approve of the proceedings of Lucifer at Antioch, and the mild regulations of the Alexandrian council respecting those he accounted apostate bishops, which he could by no means approve, induced him to break off all church communion with such as approved those regulations; and thence arose the schism which bears his name. After this separation he continued to exercise his functions at Cagliari for nine years, and at last died at an advanced age.- Schl. [The following more full account of the Meletian controversy at Antioch is given by Schlegel from Walch:-After the council of Nice, Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, very strenuously opposed the progress of Arian doctrines, and was therefore deprived of his office, and another was elected in his place who was more favourable to the Arians; and after him succeeded others, all holding Arian sentiments. The last of these was Eudoxius, who was removed to Constantinople on the deposition of Macedonius, bishop of that city, A. D. 360. Meletius of Syria was now chosen bishop of Antioch by a council. He had before been bishop of Sebaste, and the heads of the Arian party supposed him to hold the Arian sentiments. He at least held communion with Arians, and had by his virtuous life obtained a high reputation. At first Meletius concealed his sentiments, and in his public discourses treated only on practical subjects. But as one part of his hearers were orthodox and the other part Arians, he did not long leave them in uncertainty, but acknowledged to them his conviction of the correctness of the Nicene faith. This acknowledgment was the source of much suffering to Meletius. The Arians resented it very highly that he should disappoint their expectations; and as he would not retract, they deprived him of his office A.D. 362, by the aid of the emperor Constantius, and banished him from the country. Meletius now left Antioch and went to his native city Melitene. In his place Euzoius, one of the oldest friends of Arius, was appointed. But the orthodox, who would not acknowledge him as a bishop, now wholly ceased to worship with the Arians, which they had done up to this time. Thus there were now three parties at Antioch--the Arians who acknowledged Euzoius for their bishop; the Eustathians, who ever since the deposition of Eustathius (A.D. 327), whom they regarded as the legitimate bishop of Antioch, had ceased to worship with the Arians, and held their separate meetings without making disturbance; and the Meletians, who were the majority and who acknowledged Meletius for the legitimate bishop. The Meletians were willing to unite with the Eustathians, on condition that they would look upon Meletius as themselves did. But the Eustathians refused to do so, and would not acknowledge the Meletians for brethren,

those

21. About the same time, or not long after, Aërius, a presbyter, monk, and semiArian, rent Armenia, Pontus, and Cappadocia, by opinions different from commonly received, and thus founded a sect. First, he maintained that by divine appointment there was no difference between bishops and presbyters. Yet it is not very clear how far he carried this sentiment, though it is certain that it was very pleasing to many who were disgusted with

because they considered both them and their bishop as not pure enough from the Arian infection. Athanasius, Eusebius of Vercelli, and Lucifer. attempted to reconcile these divisions. Lucifer afterwards (A.D. 362) consecrated a new bishop of Antioch, whom however the Eustathians only would receive. Meletius now came back to Antioch, and thus there were two bishops of Antioch, Paulinus (the Eustathian bishop) and Meletius, and the difficulties were increased rather than settled by the procedure of Lucifer. The foreign bishops took part in this controversy. Athanasius looked on Paulinus as the most orthodox, and therefore he and the greater part of the West took the side of Paulinus. The eastern bishops were on the side of Meletius, who was exiled by the emperor Valens, but returned after that emperor's death, and suddenly died, A.D. 311. The Greek and the Latin churches enrolled him among the saints after his death. As respects the Latin church, this was a very extraordinary transaction. Meletius died entirely out of communion with the Romish see; and yet he is numbered among their saints! Either the pope then must not be infallible, or the Romish church worships as saints persons who, according to her own principles, are unworthy of worship. The death of Meletius did not restore peace at Antioch. The Meletians, instead of acknowledging Paulinus for a legitimate bishop, clected Flavianus, an orthodox and irreproachable character, for a successor to Meletius. This Flavianus was supported by the bishops of Syria, Palestine, Phoenicia, Cappadocia, Galatia, the Lesser Asia, and Thrace; on the side of Paulinus were the bishops of Rome and Italy, and of Egypt and Arabia, who wished for the deposition of Flavianus. Paulinus died in 389; but instead of giving peace to the church, influenced probably by a fanatical obstinacy, he consecrated before his death one Evagrius as his successor over his little party. Soon after A.D. 393 Evagrius died, but the disunion still continued. Finally, through the prudence and the peace-making temper of Chrysostomi, peace and ecclesiastical communion between the two parties were restored. Flavianus was acknowledged by the foreign bishops as the bishop of Antioch. Yet there remained a little handful of Eustathians, who did not unite with the general church, till Flavianus was succeeded by other bishops. See Walch, Hist. der Ketzer. vol. iv. pages 410-502.-Schl.

2 See the petition addressed to Theodosius, by Marcellinus and Faustinus, two Luciferians, in the works of Sirmond, tom. ii. p. 229, &c.

3 See Augustine, De Hares. cap. lxxxi.; and on that passage see Danæus, p. 346. [This account is very doubtful, and Augustine himself does not state it as u matter of certainty. See Walch, ubi supra, p. 368.Schl.

the arrogance of the bishops of that age. In the next place, Aerius disapproved of prayers for the dead, the stated fasts, the celebration of Easter, and other things, 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 various persons of this character in the fourth century who were disgusted with the progress of superstition and of errors respecting the true nature of religion, and who opposed the general current; but the only fruit of their labour was that they were branded with infamy. Eminent among them was Jovinian, an Italian monk; who taught first at Rome and then at Milan near the close of the century, and persuaded many that all persons whatsoever, if they keep the vows they make to Christ in baptism and lead godly lives, have an

a

1 Epiphanius, Hares. lxxv. p. 905, &c.; Augustine, De Hares. c. liii. and some others. [The last is not witness of much weight. He had no acquaintance with the Aurians, but took one part of his statement from Epiphanius ubi supra, and the other from Philastrius, De Hares. c. lxxii. p. 140. Epiphanius had it in his power to get, and did get, better information respecting latter speaks of Aerius 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. Aërius was a native of Pontus or of the Lesser Armenia, an eloquent man, and a friend of the well-known semi-Arian Eustathius, afterwards bishop of Sebaste, with whom he lived at the same time among the monks. The elevation of Eustathius to the sec of Sebaste first awakened envy in Aerius, 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. Aerius 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 office and his hospital, and acquired many adherents, to whom none would show indulgence, as the disposition to persecute was then almost universal among the clergy. Aerius maintained that in the times of the apostles there was no difference between a bishop and a presbyter; and this he solidly proved from passages in Paul. He was not disposed to abolish the human rights of bishops, but only to rescue the presbyters from episcopal oppression in the exercise of their legitimate functions. He held the prayers and the alms of the living for the dead to be useless and dangerous, and discarded the regular prescribed Christian fasts on certain days. The festival of Easter he did not wholly discard, as it is commonly supposed, but only the ceremony of slaying a lamb at Easter, which according to ancient custom was practised by some Christians. This appears from the argument by which he supported his opinion. For he says, "Christians should keep no Passover, because Paul declares Christ, who was slain for us, to be our Paschal Lamb." This reasoning would be insipid, if Aerius proposed by it to put down altogether the whole festival of Easter. Aerius was therefore in the right and his opposers in the wrong. Only his obstinacy in pushing matters to a schism is blameable. See Walch, Hist. der Ketzer. vol. iii. pages 321-338.-Schl.

the oriental controversies than Philastrius could. The

equal title to the rewards of heaven, and consequently that those who spent their lives in celibacy, or macerate their bodies by fasting, are 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.3· Jovinian published his opinions in a book, against which 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 some of the most eminent and best informed men rebutted the charge, and strove to vindicate the reputation of their master against these aspersions. Among these,

2 See Jerome In Jovinianum, Opp. tom. ii; Augus tine, De Hares. c. lxxxii.; 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 condemned 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, Hist. der Ketzer. vol. iii. pages 635-682.- Schl. [The reader will find further references to this controversy between Jerome and Jovinian in the next century, pt. ii. chap. iii. sec. 14. when the kindred dispute between the same father and Vigilantius is discussed.-R.

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, in the year 406, must have been dead some considerable time. The law therefore must have been aimed against altogether a different person-and there appears in it no traces of the complaints brought against Jovinian-or the date of it must be erroneous, as was conjectured by Tillemont, tomo x. pages 229, 753. See Walch, Hist. der Ketzer. vol. iii. p. 664, &c.-Schl. [Jovinian was condemned at Rome and Milan about the year 338, and with him eight other persons. About the year 396, Sarmatio and Barbatianus, two monks of Milan, advanced similar doctrines at Vercelli. Sce Ambrose, Epist. Ixiii. (or xxv. or lxxxii. In some editions) an V'ercell. Eccles.-Mur.

Eusebius, bishop of Cæsarea, stood preeminent in consequence of his written 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.

24. All the monks, and especially those of Egypt, were enthusiastic admirers of Origen, and they spared no pains to disseminate everywhere the opinions which they imbibed from him. Yet they could not persuade all to believe that those opinions were sound and correct. Hence first appeared a kind of smothered disagreement respecting the character of Origen's doctrines, 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 to protect the reputation of Origen, and at the same time to have the whole swarm of monks and innumerable others on his side. From this beginning arose 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 who showed not obscurely that he was pleased with the sentiments those books

contained.' He therefore now incurred the implacable wrath of Jerome. But at length Rufinus being dead, the 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 and 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 censurable passages. Theophilus therefore having assembled a council at Alexandria in the year 399, which condemned the Origenists, with an armed

See especially Fontaninus, Hist. Liter. Aquileiens. lib. iv. cap. iii. p. 177, &c. where he gives an elaborate history of Rufinus

force drove the monks from the _mour.. tain of Nitria. They first fled to Jerusalem, and thence removed to Scythopolis; but finding themselves insecure there likewise, they set sail for Constantinople, intending to lay their cause before the imperial court.2 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 who was friendly to Origen, one who looked upon his books as corrupted and did not defend the errors of which he was accused; but at other times it designates 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. WHILE the fostering care of the emreligion, the indiscreet picty of the bishops perors sought to advance the Christian obstructed 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. For the Christian bishops introduced with but slight alterations into the Christian worship, those rites and institutions by which nations had manifested their reverence toformerly the Greeks and Romans and other wards their imaginary deities, supposing that the people would more readily embrace Christianity if they perceived the rites, handed down to them from their fathers, tians, and perceived that Christ and the still existing unchanged among the Chrismartyrs were worshipped in the same manwas of course little difference in these times ner as formerly their gods were. between the public worship of the Christians and that of the Greeks and Romans. In both alike there were splendid robes, mitres, tiaras, wax-tapers, croziers, processions,

There

2 See Huct, Origeniana, lib. ii. cap. iv. p. 196, &c.; Doucin, Hist. de l'Origenisme, livr. iii. p. 95, &c.; Hieron. a Prato, Diss. vi. in Sulpitium Severum De Monachis ob Origenis Nomen ex Nitria totaque Egypto pulsis, p. 273, Veron. 1741, fol. These writers cite the ancient authorities, but they make some mistakes. [The literary history of this controversy is given by Walch, Hist. Eccles. p. 1042, &c.-Schl. [The history Neander in his Chrysostom u. dessen Zeitalter. pt. ii. itself, but without naming authorities, is given by

p. 163, &c.-Mur.

3 Augustine, Ad Januarium, Epist. cxix. according to the ancient division.

4 The crozier or bishop's staff was exactly of the