it"l|\;l;'i"'
''iiil'
li
/
f
»^<^^-«.
|, PRINCETON. N. J. "I
Part of the
ADDISON ALEXANDER LIBRakt
wli it'll w;i
Mfc..-tiKS. R
pn-sented by
'>• AM) A. Sti-a
BR 165 .M83213 1853 v. 2
Mosheim, Johann Lorenz ,
16947-1755.
Historical commentaries on
the state of Christianity
V Z
HISTORICAL COMMENTARIES
ON THE
STATE OF CHRISTIANITY
DURING THE FIRST THREE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIVE YEARS
FROM
THE CHRISTIAN EEA:
BEING
A TRANSLATION OF
-THE COMMENTARIES ON THE AFFAIRS OF THE CHRISTIANS BEFORE THE
TIME OF CONSTANTINE THE GREAT,"
BY JOHN LAURENCE VON " MOSHEIM, D.D.
LATE CHANCELLOB OF THE UNIVEBSITV OF GOTTENGEN.
3n tan f nlumrs,
VOL. II.
VOLUME L TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL LATIN,
BY
ROBERT STUDLEY VIDAL, Esq. F.S.A.
VOLUME n. TRANSLATED, AND BOTH VOLUMES EDITED,
BY
JAMES MURDOCK, D.D.
NEW-YORK:
PUBLISHED BY S. CONVERSE.
1853.
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year one thousand eight hundred and fifty-one^
By James Murdock,
in the Clcrk'a Office of the District Court of Connecticut District
D. Fansiiaw, Printer and Stereotyper,
35 Ann, corner of Nassau-strceL
CONTENTS OF VOL. 11.
Page.
The Ecclesiastical History of the Third Century, . . . • 1-411
§1. Christianity propagated in Arabia : Orfo'/w, ^
2. Christianity propagated among the Goths: Z7/p/n7as, ... 1
3. Christianity propagated in Gaul, Germany, and Scotland. — General view, 2
n. (1) (2) The first preachers to the Gaiils, "^
n. (3) The first preachers to the Germans,
4- Causes of the progress of Christianity : Miracles and Virtues of Christians,
5. Persecution under Severus: at first light. — General view, ...
n. (1) Christians often bought exemption from it, .
6. Severus prohibited conversions to Christianity. — General view,
n. (1) Tenor of his edict, p. 8. — Why so many suffered, p. 10. — Cause
of the Edict,
7. State of Christians under Caracalla and Heliogabalus.— General view.
n. (2) Mother of Heliogabalus, pious : he indifferent to Christianity.
n. (3) Heliogabalus disposed to tolerate Christianity,
8. State of Christians under Alexander Severus — General view,
72. (1) His mother, Julia Mammcea, favored Christians,
n. (2) Whether Alexander was a Christian, discussed, .
n. (3) The old persecuting laws unrepealed,
9. The persecution under Maximin. — General view, ....
n. (1) It reached only the clergy,
n. (2) Not many put to death,
n. (3) Other causes produced persecution,
10. Tranquillity under Gordian and Philip. — General view,
72. (1) Philip's reported conversion, examined,
11. Persecution under Decius. — General view, .....
n. (1) Cause of the persecution,
n. (2) Tenor of the edict, p. 28. — executed diversely, p. 29. —
It introduced new modes of proceeding,
72. (3) Numerous apostasies, p. 31. — The Lihellatici, who?
12. Contests respecting the lapsed. — General view, ....
n. (3) Martyrs and Confessors absolved the lapsed,
72. (4) Cyprian opposed to the practice, ....
13. Contest between Cyprian and Novatus. — General view, •
72. (I) Its origin obscure, p. 4G. — Novatus gave ordination, p. 4G. —
He fled to Rome
14. Schism of Felicissimus at Carthage. — General view,
72. (1) A party opposed to Cyprian, .....
n. (2) Character of Felicissimus, and grounds of his opposition.
Proceedings of Cypriaii, p. 54. — Novatus withdrew,
72. (3) Council condemned Felicissimus, ....
10
11
11
12
13
13
14
18
18
19
20
20
21
22
26
27
30
32
38
39
44
44
50
50
51
52
55
56
iV CONTENTSOFVOLII.
Page.
15. Scliism of Novatian at Rome. — General view, 5\)
«. (1) Novatiau's character, p. 60,— and opposition to Cornelius, . 61
n. {'2) Novatus of Carthage, his adviser, 63
n. (3) Novalian condemned by a Council, 65
n. (4) The Novatian sect, 66
IG. Tlu' Novatian doctrines examined. — General view, 66
n. (1) He excluded gross offenders from the church, for ever, . 67
But not from all hope of salvation, 70
T7. (2) Novatian's idea of the church, 71
17. The persecution under Gallus. — General view, 73
n. (1) Not so severe as some have supposed, 73
72. (2) Public calamities induced the people to persecute . . .76
Cyprian's dispute with Demetrianus on this subject, . . 76
18. Disputes respecting baptisms by heretics. — General view, . . . .78
7j. (1) Points at issue : Effects of baptism. — Defects in that of heretics, 79
n. (2) Contest between Cyprian and Stephen on this subject, shows
the parity of Bishops, in that age, 80
History of this baptismal controversy, p. 81. — It was first with
Asiatics and then with Africans, (p. 84.) — Cyprian's pro-
ceedings in it, 84
19. Tlie persecution under Valerian. — General view, ..... 91
n. (I) Valerian, first indulgent ; but prompted by Macrianus to persecute, 92
Motives of Macrianus, p. 93. — First proceedings in the persecution, 94
New methods of proceeding adopted, ..... 96
n. (2) Valerian's second and severer edict, ...... 96
Many Christians of rank, then in the emperor's household, . 97
Cause of issuing the edict, p. 99. — Edict revoked by Gallienus 100
Some martyrdoms after the revocation, ..... 100
20. Persecution under Aurelian. — General view, 100
TJ. (2) Did Aurelian, at first, treat Christians kindly ? . . .101
77. (3) His motives for persecuting them, 102
21. Efforts of Philosophers against Christianity. — General view, . . .103
71. (3) Writings of Porphyry, Philostratus, and Hierocles, . . 104
They aimed to lower Christ to a level with the Philosophers, . 105
Apuleius' Fable of the golden Ass, 105
82, First movements ag. Christians, under Diocletian.— General view, . .106
n. (1) Maximian, his colleague, a persecutor, .... 107
Story of the Thebaean Legion, fully discussed, . . .107
Mosheim's judgment respecting it, 112
Ti. (2) Persecution of Maximian in Gaul, 113
n. (3) Prosperity of the church, before the Diocletian persecution, . 115
23. Constitution and goveniment of the church.— General view, . . . 115
n. (1) Testimonies from Cyprian, that the Bishops could not act, in pri-
vate matters, without the concurrence of Presbyters ; nor in
public matters, without the consent of the brotherhood, . 116
Except to ordain Confessors; which usage had sanctioned, . 118
(2) Proofs from Cyprian, of the parity of all Bishops ; the Romish
Bishop not excepted, 220
CONTENTS OF VOL. II,
Yet priority of rank or honor was conceded to the Romish Bishop,
n. (3) Reasons for creating the minor orders of tho Clergy, . «• .
24. Prerogatives of Bishops mucli enlarged, in this century. — General view,
n. (1) Causes and proofs of the fact, ......
: Cyprian held, that God makes the Bishops; the church makes
the Presbyters ; and the Bishops makes the Deacons, .
On these principles he subverted the constitution of the ancient
church,
And his views spread and prevailed every where,
25. Tlie morals of the Clergy. — General view, ......
n. (1) Complaints of the corruption of the Clergy,
n. (2) Cohabitation of unmarried priests with females, disapproved.
How apologised for,
26. State of learning, and the Christian writers, in this cent. — General view,
n. (1) Proof that human learning was undervalued, .
n. (2) Works of the Greek Fathers. — Origen, ....
Julius Africanus, Dionysius Alex, and Hippolytus, .
Gregory of Neocaesarea, Thaumaturgus, ....
n. (3) Works of the Latin Fathers. — Cyprian, ....
Minutius Felix and Arnohius, ....*.
27. Philosophising Theologians : Origen. — General view, ....
(1) Origen a great man. Deservedly praised much and censured much, 144
Huet defends him, in his Origeniana, ....
Other apologists for Origen, .......
Origen truly great, in a moral view, .....
More learned than profound, p. 149. — A disciple of Ammonius
Saccas, .........
Origen's i)hilosophic principles, ....*.
His views of the connexion of philosophy with Christianity,
His system of theology ; — the Trinity, ....
Person of Christ, p. 160. — Object of Christ's mission,
Idea of the Atonement,
26. Origen^s allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures. — General view,
n. (1) How far Origen the author of this mode of interpretation.
Causes leading him to adopt it, . . . .
His system of interpretation stated in xviii Propositions,
Seven Rules for the application of his principles,
n. (2) Account of Origen's Hexapla, . . . .
29. Origen^s mystic theology. — General view, .....
n. (1) He held all tho fundamental principl-s of mystic theology.
His principles stated in xxi Propositions,
n. (2) Rise of Eremitism, examined. — Paul of Thcbais, &c.
30. Origen's contests with his Bishop. — General view,
n. (1) Causes of disagreement, and history of the contest,
31. Discussions concerning the Trinity and the Person of Christ. — General view
n. (1) Councils condemned Unitarianism but did not define Trinity in
Unity,
32. The Noetian controversy. — General view, ....
Paga.
123
127
128
128
131
134
137
137
138
138
139
141
141
141
141
142
142
142
143
145
147
148
150
150
1.^4
159
161
164
165
166
170
173
181
169
190
190
191
198
200
201
209
210
210
VI
CONTENTS OF VOL. II.
PaL'G.
n. (1) Sources of knowledge of it, and account of the man, . 210
n. (2) His sj-stem examined and fully stated, . . . . 210
n. (3) Inwhat sense he was a Patripassian, .... 215
33. Sahcllius, and the Sabellians. — General view, 215
V (1) History of tlie man, and of the controversy, .... 21G
71, (2) The common statement of Sabellius' views, .... 217
His principles examined, and correctly stated in vi. Propositions, 217
34. Bcryllus of Bostra. — General view, 225
H. (1) Eusebius' account examined. The views of Beryllus stated, . 226
35 Paul of Samosata. — General view, 228
7j. (1) His personal character examined, ...... 229
His office of Ducenarius Procurator explained, . . . 230
71. (2) Full account of the documents concerning him, . . . 232
His opinions stated in xiv. Propositions, 233
n. (3) Proceedings of Councils against him, 239
36. The Arabians, whom Origcn reclaimed. — General view, . , . 242
n. (1) Their opinions stated, ^ 243
37. Benefits to Christianity from Philosophy, in three particulars, . , . 243
38. Chiliasm Vanquished. — General view, ....... 244
n. (1) History of Chiliasm in the early church, .... 245
Derived from the Jews, p. 245. — Spread unrebuked in the 2d
Century, p. 246. — but was depressed in the 3d Century,
Assailed by Origen, p. 247. — Defended by Nepos, p. 248. —
Different systems of it, p. 249. — Dioriysius of Alexandria
nearly exterminated it,
39. The rise of Manichajism. — General view, ......
n. (1) Manes a prodigy of a man; — greatly resembled Mahommed,
Ancient documents, p 252 — and modern writers on Manichaeism, 254
40. Tiic life and labors of Manes. — General view, ..... 255
Tj. (1) His name, p. 257. — His history, according to the Gr.& Lat. writers, 257
His history, according to the Oriental Writers, .... 258
Which account most credible, p. 259. — Details of the Oriental
account, ..........
71. (2) Manes held, that Christ taught the way of salvation imperfectly,
and that he promised to send the Paraelete, i. e. Ma7ies, to give
the world more full instruction, . . • .
Of course, his office was, (I) To purge the existing cliristianity
from its corruptions ;— and (II) to perfect, or supply its defi-
ciencies, • •.....
Arguments, by which he supported his claims,
n. (3) He discarded the O. Test, altogether ; and held the N. Test, to
be so corrupted that it was not a safe guide,
u. (4) The liema, or anniversary of Manes' death, how observed, .
41. His two eternal Worlds, and two eternal Lords.— General view,
71. (1) His mode of substantiating his doctrines
^cau.soferp's History of Manichtnism, criticised, .
Manes followed the Persian philosophy, and maintained twofrst
principles of all things, and two Lords, .... 276
247
250
251
252
2 59
262
266
268
269
274
275
275
275
CONTENTSOrVOL.il. \i\
Pag(5.
n. C2) Full description of both worlds, and of tho five elements andyiwe
provinces in cacli, ........ 270
n. (3) The two eternal and self-existing Lords of these worlds ; their
characters compared and contrasted, 283
42. Nature and attributes of the good God — General view, .... 287
n. (1) Maues^ own description of him. — I. His substance is the pueest
light, and without form, 287
Yet, II. he has perception and knowledge, .... 288
III. He has xii. Members, or masses of light, revolving through
his world and representing himself, 288
IV. He has innumerable Saecula, Mons, or luminous bodies is-
suing from him, and acting as his ministers, . . . 289
V. He is himself not omnipresent, 290
VI. His moral attributes are perfect ; but neither his knowledge,
nor his power, is infinite, . • . . . . 291
43. The Manicha3an Trinity. Christ and the H. Sp. — General view, . . 292
n. (1) He held a sort of Trinity ; but diverse from that of the Christians, 293
n. (2) The Son of God a shining mass,o{ the same substance with God
and having the same attributes in a lower degree, . . 295
He resides in the sun, but his influence extends to the moon, 296
Hence some worship was paid to the sun and moon. — This
point discussed, ........ 293
n. (3) The H. Spirit is another shining mass, an efilux from God, re-
siding in the ether. He enlightens and moves the minds of
men, and fructifies the earth, 302
n. (4) Manes' doctrine of the Son and the II. Sp. coincided with the
Persian doctrine of Mithras and the Ether, .... 303
44. War of the Prince of darkness on the Prince of light. — General view, . 304
n. (1) The Prince of darkness ignorant of God and of the world of
light, till an accidental discovery of them led him to assail
them for plunder, 305
On seeing the enemy, God produced the Mother of Lfe, and she
produced the First Man, a giant in human form, whom God
sent as generalissimo to expel the Prince of darkness and his
forces, ........•• 306
First Man was directed to use artifice rather than force, and to
bait the Demon with good matter, 308
First Man did so, p. 309 — And the plan succeeded in part, 310
But unexpectedly, some sad consequences resulted ; for I. four of
the celestial elements became combined with the base ele-
ments ; and many souls were captured by the Demons, • 310
II. The Prince of Darkness devoured Jesus, the sou of the First
Man, 311
Miinichaeans held to two Jesuses, a passive and impassive, . 311
III. First Man was near being conquered. — p. 313. — and God
sent another general, the Living Spirit, a luminous mass,
. Til
issuing from himself, . . . , . ji-*
The origin of our noxious animals, . . . . J14
VUl CONTENTS OF VOL.11.
Page.
The wliole fable was devised to account for tlie junction of
celestial souls with material bodies, .... 315
45. Origin, composition, and character of Man. — General view, . . 31G
n. (1) Manes' account of Adam's origin from Satan, is to be taken lite-
rally, and not, as Beausobre supposed, allegorically, • 317
Jlfunf*' own statement, at large, ... . 317
Aiigustines' more brief statement, . . . . . 318
Adam was produced at the beginning of the second war, and
before the victory of the Living Spirit and the creation of
our world, . . . . . . . . • .319
Tlie design of Satan was, to retain possession of captured souls,
and, by them, to enlarge his empire, .... 321
Adam was a giant, and bore the likeness of the First Man, and
also of the Prince of darkness, 321
Manes' opinion of the nature and origin of human souls, . . 322
The origin and character of Eve, 322
n. (2) Manes' ideas of Adam's first sin examined, .... 323
Statements of Tijrho, Manes, and Augustine, . . . 323
Tiie facts drawn out and arranged, 324
n. (3) Manes believed man to be composed of three parts ; viz. a sinful
body derived from the body of the Prince of darkness, p. 325.
— and two souls : the one evil, lustful, and propagated from
the Prince of darkness ; — the other of celestial origin, un-
changeably good, communicated from parents to their children, 327
Hence, only the evil soul commits sin ; and the good soul is de-
linquent only in not restraining its evil associate, . . 328
4G. Formation of this world. Its structure and design. — General view, . . 330
71. (1) By God's command, the Living Spirit framed our world, to be
the residence of men, until their celestial souls are prepared
for heaven ; p. 330. — and to give opportunity for rescuing the
celestial matter now mixed with the base matter, . . 331
This world is composed of the same elements, a little deteriorated,
as the heavenly world, and similarly arranged ; so that this our
world is a a picture or image of the heavenly world, . 332
n. (2) The matter of our world, when it was rescued from the Prince of
darkness, consisted of celestial elements, either pure or defiled
with a mixture of evil matter, 333
Of the pure and good fire and good light, tho sun was formed ;
and of the pure and good water, the ?noon, . . . 333
Of the good air, probably, the ether of our world was formed, . 333
Of the matter slightly contaminated, our heavens and the stars
were formed, 334
The earth was formed of the celestial matter, which was debased
and pervaded by evil matter, 334
The bad matter not combined with good matter, was excluded
from our world, and separated by a wall or barrier, . . 334
o. (3) Before he created our world, the Living Sjnrit imprisoned the
Demons in the air and the stars, 334
CONTENTSOFVOL.il. ix
Tngc.
But still they are mischievous. They seduce men to sin, and
propagate idolatry, which is the worship of themselves, . 336
They also send on us tempests, earthquakes, pestilences, and
wine, 333
n. (4) Our world is borne up by a huge giant called Otnophorus, who
is assisted by another, called Splenditenens, . . . 338
47 The mission and offices of Christ. — General view, ..... 340
n. (1) Christ's mission had two objects ; — first, to accelerate the re-
covery of souls from defilement, — and, secondly, to relieve
the wearied Otnophorus, 342
He came from the sun, and assumed the shadow of a man, . 342
His body needed no sustenance, and no rest. He wrought
miracles ; 344
And instructed mankind, ....... 345
The Demon incited the Jews to kill him : but, having no body,
he could not die, 345
Of course, the Manichteans did not observe the festival of
Christ's nativity ; nor make much account of that of his
death, 347
48. Christ as the Saviour of men. — General view, 349
n. (1) Manichaeans used the Bible language respecting Christ: but
Christ could not die ; and sinless souls needed no atonement, 350
A celestial soul can never be contaminated ; but it may be cri-
minally negligent, and so need to repent and be forgiven, . 351
n. (2) Christ taught men the truth, and showed them how to purify
themselves for a return to God, 353
The severe bodily mortifications of the Manichaeans, . . 353
They reduced all moral duties to three heads, called Signacula, 356
The duties belonging to the Signaculum of the mouth, enume-
rated, 357
Those belonging to the Signaculum of the hands, described, 361
Those of the bosom, all related to sexual pleasures, . . 365
49. The return of souls to the world of light. — General view, .... 366
n. (1) The H. Spirit aids souls in freeing themselves from defilement, 367
n. (2) Repentance atones for the involuntary sins of celestial souls, . 368
n. (3) The return of souls, at death, to the world of light ; and their
double purgation, first in the moon, and then in the sun, 369
n. (4) The bodies return to their kindred earth, and will never be re-
suscitated, ......... 372
50. Condition of unpurgated souls after death. — General view, . . . 373
n. (1) If not exceedingly faulty, they will pass into other bodies, of men,
or brutes, or vegetables, 373
n. (2) This transmigration is disciplinary or reformatory. The rules
of it, 377
51. Liberation of the Passive Jcsu5. — General view, 379
n. (1) The scattered particles of celestial matter are drawn up, purgat-
ed in the sun, and returned to the world of light, • • 380
n. (2) The Passive Jasus, or son of First Man, whom the Donioua
Z CONTENTS OF VOL II.
rage,
devoured, is strangely sweated out of them, and then rescued
from defiling matter and saved, ..... 380
52 End of this world, or the consummation of all things.— General view, . 385
71. (1) When most of the souls and of the celestial matter, now defiled
by gross matter, shall have been rescued, this world will be
burned up, and the demons sent back to the world of darkness, 386
fi. (2) The irreclaimable souls will be stationed on the frontiers of the
world of light, as a guard, to prevent future inroads of the
Demons, ......... 387
Our reasons for dwelling so long on the Manichagan system, . 388
The general character of this system, 3S9
53. The public Worship of the Manichseans. — General view, . . . 389
Tj. (1) They had no temples or altars, no images, and no love-feasts.
Their worship was very simple, and quite unobjectionable.
Prayers, hymns, reading their sacred books, and exhortations,
with their annual festival of Bema, and Sunday fasts and as-
semblies, were the substance of it, 390
54. The private worship of the ^Zect — General view, ..... 391
7j. (1) No Auditor was admitted to this worship of the Elect, . .391
n. (2) In it. Baptism was administered to such of the Elect as de-
sired it. But it was not regarded as obligatory on them all, 392
n. (3) They observed the Lord's Supper : but in what manner is un-
known, 396
55. Constitution of their Church. — General view, 398
n. (1) A Pontiff, with xii Magistri, presided ovea Ixxii Bishops , and
under each Bishop, were Presbyters, Deacons and Evange-
lists : all from among the Elect, 399
n. (2) The community was divided into two Classes ; — the Elect or
Perfect, a very small Class, and subjected to a most rigorous
discipline ; — and the Auditors or Catechumens, who married,
pursued worldly occupations, and lived much like other people, 399
56. The sect of the Hieracites. — General view, 404
Ti. (1) Character, life, and doctrines of Hierax, .... 405
I. He regarded the whole Bible as inspired ; and wrote allegor-
ical comments on it, . . . . . . . , 405
II. Respecting God and the Trinity, he was orthodox, . . 407
III. He considered Melchisedek as a representative of the Holy
Spirit, «... 407
IV. Christ, he supposed, merely taught a stricter morality than
Moses, 408
V. He forbid marriage, flesh, wine, and all pleasures, . . 408
VI. Hierax taught that marriage was allowed under the O. Test,
but is unlawful under the N.Test. — Yet he probably allowed
the imperfect among his disciples to marry, . . . 408
VII. The Mosaic history of Paradise, he regarded as an allegory, 409
VIII. He enjoined a very austere life on his followers, . . 410
IX. He denied the resurrection of the body, . . . .410
X. He excluded from heaven all who died in infancy, . . 410
CONTENTS OF VOL.
XI
Page.
Tlie Ecclesiasticdl History of the Fourth Century^ 412-481
1. The Pagan Priests urge a new Persecution. — General view, . . . 412
n. (1) Flourishing state of the church, and the character of the empe-
rors, when the century commenced, , . . . -412
The alarmed priests plotted the destruction of the Christians, and
appealed to the superstition of Diocletian, . . • .414
2. Maximian Galerius, from ambitious motives, urged Diocletian to persecute the
Christians. — General view, 416
n. (1) Maximian, rather than Diocletian, the author of this persecution, 417
The causes of it, p. 417.— It commenced in the year 303, at
Nicomedia, 420
Hierocles an adviser of it. p. 421. — Diocletian reluctantly con-
sented, 422
Contents of the first imperatorial edict, 422
T?. (2) The proceedings under this edict, 426
3. The first year of the persecution. — General view, 428
n. (1) Two fires in the palace of Nicomedia, falsely charged upon the
Christians, cause many of them to be put to death, . . 428
71. (2) These fires, and political disturbances in Syria and Armenia, pro-
duce a new edict, requiring the seizure and incarceration of
all Christian teachers, 432
A third edict required them to be tortured into sacrificing to the
Gods, 433
n. (3) The western provinces under Constantius Chlorus suffer but little, 454
4. The fourth and severest edict of Diocletian, A. D, 304. — General view, . 435
n. (1) Tenor of the edict, and its execution. It required all Christians
to sacrifice, and ordered them to be tortured into compliance, 436
Some Christians voluntarily courted martyrdom, . . 439
n. (2) Seeing the Christians now much depressed, Maximian compelled
the two Emperors to resign their power, and made himself
Emperor of the East, 439
This change in the government benefitted the Christians of the
West, under Constantius Chlorus, 441
The Christians of the East gained nothing. Their condition in
Syria and Egypt, 443
6. Civil wars, and the state of Christians, A. D. 306-311. — General view, . 444
n. (1) Maximian's fruitless machinations against Constantino, . . 445
Revolt of Maxentius, and the civil wars, .... 44G
State of Christians during these wars, p. 448. — In the West,
Constantine favored them, p. 448. — Yet he was not then a
Christian, ......... 449
Maxentius also favored them, 450
But in the East, Maximian persecuted them, . . .451
n. (3) In the year 311, Maximian, on his death bed, relaxed the per-
secution, 452
6. The edicts of Constantine, A. D. 312, 313, in favor of Christians.— General
view, 454
Xii CONTKNTSOFVOL.il.
Page.
n. (1) Theirs/ edict, at the close of 312, gave full religious liberty to
Christians, and to all persons of every religion, . . . 455
The second edict, from Milan, A. D. 313, removed ambiguities
from the first edict, and added some privileges to the Christians, 456
In the East, Maximin contravened the last edict of Maximian ;
and expelled the Christians from some cities, < . »- . . 457
Subsequently he issued edicts favorable to them, . . . 458
la the year 311, Maximin died, and persecution ceased every-
where, 459
7 Constauline's Conversion. — General view, 459
71. (1) The reality of Constantine's conversion proved, . . . 460
Objections answered : viz. the first, from his vices, p. 460. — the
second, from his late Baptism, p. 461. — the third from his
political interest to feign himself a Christian, . . . 464
He was a Deist, till long after the year 303, . . . 465
His conversion was soon after the year 322, ... . . 469
His enlightenment gradual : a statement of Zosimus examined, 470
n. (2) His vision of a cross in the heavens. Dispute as to the time of it, 472
Dispute as to its reality, p. 472. — The opinion that it was a fabri-
cation, examined, 473
Was he asleep or awake, at the time of it, 474
"Was the apparent cross a natural phenomenon, . . . 476
Mosheim's opinion on the whole subject, . . » . 479
£. A short persecution by Licinius. — General view, 479
n (1) Authorities on the subject. — Motives and progress of the persecu-
tion, , .480
THE
ECCLESIASTICAL Hr»^(>HY
OF THE
THIRD CENTURY,
§ I. Propagation of Christianity in Arabia. That the [p. 448.]
limits of the Christian commonwealth were much extended during
this century, no one hesitates to admit; but, in what manner, by
whose instrumentality, and in what parts of the world, is not
equally manifest, the ancient memorials having perished. While
Demetrius ruled the Alexandrian church, over which he is said
to have presided until the year 230, a certain Arabian chieftain,
(that is, as I suppose, the head and leader of a tribe of those
Arabs who live in tents, and have no fixed and permanent resi-
dence,) sent letters to this prelate, and to the prefect of Egypt,
requesting that the celebrated Origen might be sent to him, to
impart to°him and his people a knowledge of Christianity. Ori-
gan, therefore, went among these Arabs ; and, having soon dis-
patched the business of his mission, he returned to Alexandria.(0
He undoubtedly took with him from Alexandria several
Christian disciples and teachers, whom he left with that people,
as he himself could not be long absent from Alexandria.
(1) We have a brief narrative of these events in Eusebius, Hist. Eccles,
lib. vi. c. xix: p. 221.
§ II. Propagation of Christianity among the Goths. To the
Goths, a most warlike and ferocious people, dwelling in Moesia
and Thrace, the wars they waged with various success against
the Komans, during almost the whole of this century, produced
this advantage, that they became friendly to Christian truth.
For, in their incursions into Asia they captured and carried
away several Christian priests, the sanctity of whose lives and
manners, together with their miracles and prodigies, so aflccted
VOL. n. 2
2 Century IIL—Sectlon 3.
the minds of the barbarians, tliat tliey avowed a willingness to
[p. 449.] follow Christ, and called in additional teachers to in-
struct them.(') There is, indeed, much evidence that what is here
stated, must be understood only of a i^art of this race, and that
no small portion of them remained for a long time afterwards ad-
dicted to the superstitions of their ancestors ; yet, as in the next
century Thcophilus, a bishop of the Goths, was a subscriber to
the decrees of the Nicene council, Q there can be little doubt that
quite a large church was gathered among this people in a short
space of time.
(1) Sozomen, Hist. Ecclos. 1. ii. c. 6. Paulus Diaconns^liht. Miscellan. 1. x.
c. 14. Philostorgius, Hist. Eccles. I. ii. c. v. p. 470. Philostorgius states, that
tiic celebrated Ulphilas,who in the next century translated the Christian Scri})-
tures into the language of the Goths, was descended from those captives that
were carried away by the Goths from Cappadocia and Thrace, in the reign of
Gallienus. This is not improbable ; and yet there are some other things in tho
narrative of Philostorgius, which perhaps are false.
(2) Socrates, Hist. Eccles. 1. ii. c. 41.
§ III. Christianity in Gaul, Germany, and Scotland. In Gaul a
few small congregations of Christians were established by Asiatic
teachers, in the preceding century. But in this century, during
the reign of Decius, seven holy men, namely, Biomjsms, Gatianus,
Trophimus, Paulus, Saturninus, Martialis^ and Stremonius, emi-
grated to this province, and, amidst various perils and hardships,
established new churches at Paris, Tours, Aries, Narbonne, Tou-
louse, Limoges, and in Auvergne ;(*) and their disciples, after-
wards, gradually spread the knowledge of Divine truth over the
whole of Gaul. With these seven men, some have associated
others, but it is on authorities obscure and not to be relied on.Q
To the same age is now ascribed, by men of erudition, who are
more eager for truth than for vain glory, the origin of the
churches of Cologne, Treves, Metz, and other places in Germany;
although the old tradition is, that the founders of these churches,
Eucharius, Valerius, Maternus, Clemens, and others, were sent
forth by the apostles themselves, in the first century ; and there
still are some who fondly adhere to these fables of their ances-
tors.(^) And, it must be confessed, that those have the best of
the argument, who thus correct the old opinion respecting the
origin of the German churches. The Scots, also, say that their
Christianity in Gaul, Germany, and Scotland. 3
country was eiiliglitened with Christianity in this cen- [p. 450.]
tury; which, although probable enough in itself considered, rests
on proofs and arguments of no great force.
(1) This we learn, in part, from the Aetji Martyrii Saturnini, in the Acta
Martyrum Sincera of Ruinarl, pa. 109 ; and, in part, from Gref^ory of Toura,
Historia Francor. 1. i. c. xxviii. p. 23, ed. Ruinart. The Frencli anciently re-
ferred these seven persons, and the origin of tlie churches tliey founded, to the
first century. In particular, Dionysius, wlio was tiie chief man of the seven,
and tlie founder of the church at Paiis, and its first bishop, was for many ages
believed to be Dionysias the Areopagite, mentioned in the 17th chapter of tlie
Acts of the Apostles. But in the last century, men of the greatest erudition
among the French did not hesitate to correct this error of their predecessors,
and to assign Dionysius and liis associates to the third century and to the times
of Decius. The tracts and discussions on this subject by Launoi, Sirmond,
Petavius, Puteanus, Nic. Faber, and others, are well known. The ancient
opinion, however, still remains so fixed in the minds of not a few, and especially
among the monks of St. Denys, that it cannot be eradicated ; which is not at
all surprising, since great numbers make the glory of their church to depend
very much on its antiquity. But the arrival of these seven men in Gaul, is in-
volved in much obscurity. For it does not sufficiently appear, whence they
came, nor by whom they were sent. Gregory of Tours, Ilistoria Francor. 1. x.
c. xxxi. p, 527, says : Gatianum a Romanaj sedis Papa transmissum esse : from
which it is inferred, that the other six also came from Rome. The fact may
be so, and it may be otherwise. It is equally uncertain whether they emigrated
to Gaul together, and all at one time, or whether they went at diflTercnt times
separately. And other points are involved in the like obscurity, I indeed sus-
pect, that these devout and holy men, during the Decian persecution in Italy,
and especially at Rome, voluntarily, and for the preservation of their lives,
rather than by the direction and authority of the Romish bishop, removed to
Gaul, where they could enjoy greater safety than at Rome and in Italy.
(2) The people of Auxerre, for instance, commemorate one Peregrinus, who,
as they think, came likewise from Rome in this century, and laid the foundar-
tion of their church. See Le Beuf, Memoires pour I'Histoire d' Auxerre, tom. i.
p. 1-12. There is also mention of one Genulphus, as an apostle of the Gauls,
in this century. >See the Acta Sanctor. mensis Januar. tom. ii. p. 92. &-c.
And others arc also mentioned by some writers.
(3) What the French believed respecting those seven men, with none to
gainsay them, the Germans also believed of Eucharius, Malernus, Cleinens, and
others ; namely, that they were disciples of the apostles, and that in the [p. 451.]
first century they established Christian churches in Germany, on this side
the Rhine and in Lorraine, at Cologne, Treves, Metz, and in other cities, and
governed the Churches they gathered, as their bishops. This opinion became
suspicious to some learned men in the last century ; and in the present cen-
tury, it has been boldly assailed by Augustine Cabnet, in a dissertation prefixed
to his History of Lorraine, written in French, tom. i. in which he contends
4 Century III. — Section 4.
(p. vii.) that Eiicharlna and Matcrnus founded the Churches of Cologne and
Treves, in the third century, and (p. xvii. xx.) that Clemens did not found Ihe
church at Metz prior to tliat time. To this learned man stands opposed the
commentator on the Acta S. Auctoris, in the Acta Sanctor. Antwerp, tom. iv
mensis Augusti, p. 38. who not unlearnedly labors to sustain the ancient
opinion. But the recent writer of the Historia Trevirensis Diplomatica, John
Nic. ah Honlheim, a man of vast learning, after considering the whole subject
with great care, aud weighing accurately the testimony, in a Dissertation de
iEra Fundati Episcopatus Trevirensis, prefixed to the first volume of his his-
torv, has fully shown, that more credit is due to Calmet than to his opponent.
For, having maintained at great length, that those rely on witnesses not to be
credited who carry back the founding of the church at Treves, and the other
German churches, to the apostolic age, and make the holy men above men-
tioned to have taught in the first century, he demonstrates (section vi. p. xxxii.
&c.) by arguments the strongest possible in such a case, that Maiernus in par-
ticular, did not live in the first century, nor in the second, but near the end of
the third ; and as to the church of Cologne, that it is referable to the begin-
ning of the fourth century.
(4) The Scotch historians tell us, that their king, Donald I. embraced Chris-
tianity, while Victor presided over the Romish church. See Sir Geo. MacKen-
zie's Defence of the Royal Line of Scotland, ch. viii. p. 219. But, as the strong-
est proof of their position is derived from coins of this Donald, never inspected
by any one, there can be no doubt as to the credit they deserve. And yet it
appears, for other reasons, adduced by Usher and Siillingjleet in their Antiquita-
tes et Origines Ecclesiae Britannicae, that the Scotch church is not of later date
than the third century.
§ IV. Causes of the progress of Christianity. We give credence
to the many and grave testimonies of tlie writers of tliose times,
wlio cannot be suspected of either fraud or levity, that the success-
ful progress of Christianity in this century was, in a great measure,
attributable to divine interpositions, by various kinds of miracles,
exciting the minds of the people, and moving them to abandon
superstition.^) Neither can we easily either reject altogether, or
[p. 452.] seriously ^question what we find testified by the best
men of the times, that God did, by dreams and visions, excite
not a few among the thoughtless and the enemies of Christianity,
60 that they at once, and without solicitation, came forward and
made a public profession of the Christian faith :(') and their ex-
amples, without doubt, served to overcome the timidity, or the
hesitation, or the indecision of many. And yet, I suppose, it
will be no error to maintain, that causes merely human and
ordinary, so operated on the minds of many as to lead them to
embrace Christianity. For the earnest zeal of the Christians, to
Persecution under Severus. S
merit the good will of all men, even of tlieir enemies ; the uu-
parallcled kindness to the poor, the afflicted, the indigent, to
prisoners, and to the sick, Avhich was peculiar to the church ; the
remarkable fortitude, gravity, and uprightness, which character-
ized their teachers ; their unwearied assiduity in translating the
Sacred Books into various languages, and publishing copies of
them ; their amazing indiilerence to all human things, to evils
and suiTerings, and even to death itself; — all these, and other
equally distinguishing traits of character, may, very justly, have
induced many to admire and to embrace the religion of Cliris-
tians, which produced and sustained so great virtues. And if, as
I would by no means deny, pious frauds found a place among
the causes of the propagation of Christianity in this century, yet,
they unquestionably held a very inferior position, and were em-
ployed by only a few, and with very little, if any success.
(1) Numerous testimonies of the ancients, respecting the miracles of this
century, might easily be collected. See Origen, contra Celsum, 1. i. p. 5-7, and
in various other places ; Cyprian, Epist. ad Donatum, i. p. 3, on which passage
^Lesph. Baliize has collected many testimonies of like import, in his Notes there;
Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. 1. vi. c. v. p. 208, &c. The reported miracles of Gre-
gory of New Cesaria are well known; and yet there are some among them
which may be justly called in question. See Ant. van Dale's Pref:ice to his
work de Oraculis, p. 6.
(2) The ancients record many instances of this kind. See Origen, contra
Celsum, 1. i. p. 35 ; and Homil. in Lucae, vii. Opp. torn. ii. p. 216. TertuUian, de
Anima, c. xiv. p. 348. Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. 1. vi. c. v. p. 208, &c. &c. Among
these examples, there are some which may, I am aware, be explained by refer-
ring them to natural causes; but there are others which demand a higher cause.
§ Y. Persecution under Severus. This zeal of Christians [p. 453.]
for extending and enlarging the church, was often much favored
by the circumstances of the times. For, although they never en-
joyed perfect security, the laws against them being not repealed,
and the people frequently demanding their condemnation, yet,
under some of the Roman emperors of this century, their enemies,
in most of the provinces, seemed to be quiet, and to dread the
perils to which a legal prosecution exposed them. Still, seasons
of the severest trial frequently occurred, and emperors, gover-
nors, and the people, disregarding the ancient edicts, came down
as furiously upon the Christians as they would upon robbers :
and these storms greatly impeded the work of extirpating the old
6 Century III. — Section 5.
superstitions. The commencement of this century was painfully
adverse to the Christian cause. For, although Severus, the Roman
emperor, was not personally hostile to Christians, yet, from the re-
cords of that age, still extant, it appears that, in nearly all the pro-
vinces, many Christians, either from the clamorous demands of the
superstitious multitude, whom the priests excited, or by the au-
thority of magistrates, who made the law of Trajan a cloak for
their barbarity and injustice, were put to death in various forms
of execution. To these evils, originating from various causes, the
Christians themselves undoubtedly gave some impetus, by a prac-
tice which had for some time prevailed among them, with the ap-
probation of the bishops, that of purchasing life and safety by
paying money to the magistrates.(') For the avaricious governors
and magistrates would often assail the Christians, and direct some
of the poorer ones to be put to death, in order to extort money
from the more wealthy, and to enrich themselves with the trea-
sures of the churches.
(1)1 cannot regard this practice as one of the least of the causes of the fre-
quent wars of the magistrates and men in power against Christians, contrary to
the laws and the pleasure of the emperors. For what will not avarice venture
to do? The Montanists strongly condemned this practice; and hence Terlvl-
lian is vehement and copious in reprobating it; and, in his book de Fuga in Per-
secutionibus, c. xii. p. 696, he says: Sicut fuga redemptio gratuita est; ita re-
demptio nummaria fuga est. Pedibus statisti, curristl nummis. And then,
after some bitter but unsound remarks, he proceeds: Tu pro Christiano pacis-
[p. 454.] ceris cum delatore, vel milite, vel furunculo aliquo preeside, sub tunica
et sinu, ut furtivo, quern coram toto mundo Christus emit, immo et manumisit.
Who can wonder, that informers and accusers were never wanting, so long as
the Christians, (as appears from this passage,) would pacify informers with
money 1 Felices itaque pauperes (for these, being without money, were
obliged to suffer,) quia illorum est regnum coelorum, qui animam solam in con-
fiscato habent . . . Apostoli perse cutionibus agitati, quando se pecunia tractantes
liberaverunt? quae illis utique non deerat ex praediorum pretiis ad pedes eo.
rum depositis. But not only individual Christians consulted their safety in
this way, but whole churches also compounded with the governors for peace, by
pecuniary contributions, and paid a sort of annual tribute, not unlike that as-
sessed on bawds and panders and other vile characters. It is not amiss, to
transcribe here the indignant language of I'eriullian, c. xrn. p. 100.: Parum
dcniquc est, si unus aut alius ita eruitur. Massaliter totae ecclesia) tributum
sibi irrogaverunt. Nescio dolcndum, an erubescendum sit, cum in matricibus
Bencficiariorum et Curiosorum, inter tabernarios et lanios, et fures balnearum»
et aleones et lenonea, Christian! quoque vectigales continentur. Moreover, aa
The Edict of Severiis. 7
appears from Tcrtul!i:iM, the Christians sometimes bargained with those, who
threatened to turn accusers if money was not given them, at other times with
the governors themselves, and sometimes with tiie soldiers; which last deserves
particular notice, because we learn from it, that the mngistrates directed tho
soldiers to v/alch for, and break up, the assemblies of Christians: and therefore,
these were to be pacified with money, in order that Christians might safely
meet together for the worship of God. Says TertuUian : Sed quomodo coUi-
gemus, inquis, quomodo Dominica solemnia celebrabimus? Utique, quomodo
et Apostoli, fide, non pecunia tuti : quae fides si montera transferre potest, multo
magis militem. Esto sapientia, non pracmio eautus. Neque enim stntim,
(mark the expression,) et a populo eris tutus, si officia militaria redemeris. What
the bishops thought of this practice, is abundantly shown by Peter of Alexan-
dria, who was a martyr of this century. In his canons, extracted from his
Discourse dePoenitentia, Canon xii. (inW/n. Beverege' s Piindectae canonumet
concilior. Tom. ii. 20.) lie not only decides, that those are not to be censured
who purchase safety with money, but are to be commended ; and he encoun-
ters TertuUian with his own arguments. I will quote only the Latin, omitting
the Greek : lis, qui pecuniam dederunt, ut omni ex parte ab omni malitia im-
perturbati assent, crimen intendi non potest. Damnum enim et jacturam
pecuniarum sustinuerunt, ne ipsi animae detrimento afficerentur, vel ipsain
etiam proderent, quod alii propter turpe lucrum non fecerunt, &,c.
§ VI. The Edict of Severus against conversions to [p. 455.]
Christianity. These evils were greatly augmented, when the em-
peror, in the year 203, for some cause not known, became some-
what differently disposed towards the Christians, and issued an
edict, forbidding .Roman citizens, under a severe penalty, from
abandoning the religion of their fathers, and embracing
Christianity. This law, although it opposed only the increase of
the church, and affected only those recently converted, and those
who Avished to join the Christians after the publication of the law,
yet afforded occasion for the adversaries of Christians to perse-
cute and harass them at their pleasure ; and especially because
the ancient laws, and particularly that most vexatious one of
Trajan, — that persons accused, and refusing to confess, might be
put to death, — remained unrepealed, and in full force.(') Hence,
so great was the slaughter among Christians, especially of such
as could not, or, from conscientious motives, would not redeem
their lives with money, that some of their teachers supposed the
coming of Antichrist to draw near. Among others, many of the
Alexandrian Christians lost their lives for Christ, of whom waa
Leonidas, the father of Origen ; and in Africa, the celebrated
Christian females, Perpetua and Felicitas, whose xicta, illustrious
8 Century III. — Section 6.
monuments of antiquity, have been often published ; and Pota-
mienaj a virgin of Alexandria, and her mother, MarceUa, with
various others. Respecting the termination of this persecution,
the ancient writers are silent ; but, as it appears from reliable
authorities, and especially from Tertullian, that the Christians
were also persecuted in some places under Caracalla, the son of
Severus, it seems to be judging correctly to suppose that the per-
secution did not cease till after the death of Severus.
(1) On the persecution of the Christians under Severus, Eusehius treats.
Hist. Eecles. Ij. vi. cap. 1. &e, ; but only in a general way : for he neither re-
ports the hiw, nor the time and cause of its enactment. Other Christian writers
incidentally mention the severity of the persecution, the cruelty of the judges,
and the constancy of certain Christians; yet they say very little of the mode
and the grounds of the persecution. Spartian, however, the writer of the Life
of Severn.'^, has told ns the year, and stated the reason, of the persecution : Vita
Severi, c, 16, 17. in the Scriptorcs Histor. Augustae, p. 617, 618. For he says,
that the erai>?ror, in the year that he invested his son Antoninus with the Toga
[p. 456.] virilis, and designated him consul with himself, which was the tenth year
of his reign, as he was passing through Palestine into Egypt, enacted a law equal-
ly severe against the Jews and the Christians : Palaestinis jura plurima fundavit :
Judaeos fieri sub gravi poena vetuit : Idem etiam de Christianis sanxit. This
language shows, that Severus did not enact new laws against the Christians,
nor command the extirpation of the professors of Christianity, but only resolved
to prevent the increase of the churcli, and commanded those to be punished,
who should forsake the religion of their fothers and embrace that of the Chris-
tians. Persons, therefore, who were born Christians, or had become Christians
before this law was enacted, might indeed be exposed to some trouble and dan-
ger from the old laws, and especially from the noted rescript of Trajan, which
subsequent enactments had not abrogated; but from this new law of Severus
they had nothing to fear. But some learned men are not ready to believe this.
For, perceiving what a multitude of Christians suffered death, under Severus.
they say, the fact is not to be accounted for, if Severus wished evil to none but
the deserters of their former religion. They therefore conjecture, either that
Spartian has mutilated the law of Severus, and omitted a large part of it, or that
the emperor issued other and severer laws against the Christians, which have not
reached our times. But I can easily overthrow both these conjectures. That
Spartian did not mutilate the law of Severus, his own words show. For he
compares the edict against the Jews, with that against the Christians, and says
that the latter was of the same tenor with the former. But Severus neither
interdicted the Jewish religion, nor compelled those born of Jewish parents to
embrace the religion of the Romans; but merely forbid accessions to the
Jewish community from people of other nations. And therefore he was no
more severe against the Christians, seeing his decree against them was precisely
the same as against the Jews. That Severus enacted other laws against tho
The Edict of Severus. 9
Christians, than the one mentioned by Spartian, ia contrary to all probaLility.
For, not to mention the silence of the ancient writers, it appears from explicit
passages in Tertullian, that the emperor did not repeal those ancient laws which
favored Christians ; which he undoubtedly would have done, if he intended they
should be treated more severely than in former times. In his book, ad Scapii.
lam, which was written after the death of Severus, in the reign of Antoninus
Caracalla, Tertullian thus addresses that governor, (c. 4, p. 87.) : Quid cnim
amplius tibi mandatur, quam nocentes confesses damnare, negantcs autem ad
tormenta revocare? Videtis ergo quomodo ipsi vos contra mandata faciutis, ut
confesses negare cogatis. This passage shows, most beautifully and admirably,
how the emperors, and among them the recently deceased Severus, would have
the judges deal with Christians. In the first place, sentence of death was to be
passed in nocentes confessos. The nocentes here, are those " accused and con-
victed in a regular course of law." This is put beyond controversy [p. 457.]
by various passages in Tertullian, and also in this very passage, in which the
nocentes negantes follow the nocentes confessos. Who could be a nocens negans,
except the man who was accused of some crime or fault, and convicted by his
accuser, and yet denied that he was guilty? We will, however, let Tertullian
himself teach us, how to understand the expression. Among the examples
which he shortly after adduces, of governors that favored the Christians, he
extols one Pudens, in the following terms: Pudens etiam missum ad se Chris-
tianum, in clogio, concussione ejus intellecta, dimisit, scisso eodem elogio, sine
Accusatore negans se auditurum hominem, secundum Mandatum (ss. Imperaloris.)
Under Severus, therefore, as is most manifest from these words, the law of
Trajan remained in full force ; and it enjoined, that no Christian should be con-
demned, unless he was legitimately accused and convicted. And, moreover,
those accused and convicted, but who yet denied themselves to be Christians, —
the nocentes negantes, might be put to the rack, and be compelled by torture to
confess guilt. This was not expressly enjoined by Trajan, but it was in accord-
ance with Roman law. But, thirdly, the laws did not permit the mngistrates, to
urge confessing persons to a denial or a rejection of Christianity, by means of
tortures. This was a liberty which the governors assumed contrary to the laws,
as I suppose, and from motives of avarice. For when the confessors declared
that they would not redeem life by paying money, the governors hoped, that if
put to torture, tiiey would change their determination. That the laws of Ha-
drian and Antoninus Pius, ordering that Christians should not be put to death
imless convicted of some violation of the Roman laws, were in like manner not
repealed by Severus, appears from another example of the governor Circius
Severus, mentioned by the same Tertullian; Circius Severus Thysdri ipse dedit
remedium, quomodo responderent Christiani ut dimitti possent. By cautious
and circumspect answers to the judges, therefore. Christians could elude the
malice of their accusers : and in what manner, it is easy to conjecture : viz.
they confessed that they followed a dilTerent religion from the Roman, namely
the Christian; but that the emperors forbid a Christian to be punished, unless ho
was convicted of some crime, and they had never been guilty of any crime.
With an upright judge, this plea was suflicicnt. And it is not only certain, that
10 Century III,— Section G.
Scverus did not abrogate the imperial edicts favorable to the Christians, but it
also appears from Tortullian, that he constiintly and to the end of his life re-
tained his former kind feelinj^s towards them. For Tertullian says of iiim, after
his death: Sed et clarissimns feminas et clarissimos viros Severus sciens ejus
sectae esse, non modo non laesit, verum et testimonio exornavit, et populo
furonti in cos palam restitit. How could Severus have been a protector of
Christians against popular rage, and also their eulogist, if he had enacted se-
[p. 458.] verer laws against them, than the preceding emperors? It must
therefore be certain, as Spartian has stated, that he ordered the punishment,
not of all Ciiristians universally, but only of such as became Ciu-istians after the
enactment of the law.
But how was it, you may ask, that so great calamities fell on the Christians,
in his reign, if Severus directed only the new converts to be punished ? An
answer is easily given. In the^r^-^ place, let it be remembered, that the Chris-
tians had been miserably persecuted in most of the Roman provinces, before
the law of Severus existed. This we have shown in the history of the second
century, from the Apologeticum of Tertullian ; and the fact cannot be denied.
The avaricious governors finding the Christians willing to redeem their lives
witli money, suborned accusers, and inflamed the people, in order to extort
money ; and they actually put some confessors to death, to strike terror into
the more wealthy, and make them willing to compound for their lives. In the
next place, it is to be supposed, that Severus gave power to the governors to in-
vestigate the case of such as forsook the Romish religion and embraced Chris-
tianity; and, in these investigations, the magistrates and their minions, as is
very common, did many things not warranted by the law- Thirdly, as the
persons who forsook the religion of their fathers were to be punished, un-
doubtedly the same penalties, or perhaps greater, awaited those who caused
their apostacy. For he who instigates another to commit a crime, is more cul-
pable than the transgressor. It was therefore a necessary consequence, that
many of the Christian teachers were condemned. Lastly, those conversant in
human affairs well know, that when new laws are enacted on any subject, the
old laws relating to it acquire new life. It would therefore not be strange, if
on Severus' prohibiting conversions to Christianity, the number of accusers
should be suddenly increased. I say nothing of the probability, that the more
unfriendly governors extended the prohibitions of the law, and summoned to
their bar persons who became Christians before the law was enacted.
What some of the learned maintain, respecting the cause of this edict, has
little or no weight. The most probable conjecture is that of Henry Dodwell,
in his Dissert. Cyprian. Diss. xi. § 42. p. 269. ; namely, that the emperor's
victory over the Jews, who had disturbed the public tranquillity by a recent in-
surrection, gai^e rise to this edict. That this Jewish insurrection induced
Severus to prohibit Romans from becoming Jews, lest the augmentation of the
resources of that people should prove injurious to the commonwealth, is be-
yond all controversy. But Spartian couples the law against the Christians with
that against the Jews, and tells us, that both were enacted at the same time:
and we may reasonably suppose, therefore, that some ill-disposed persons sug-
Caracalla and Ilcliogahalus. \\
gestod to the emperor, that there was equal danger from the Christians, and
that if tiieir numbers and strength should become augmented, they might mako
war upon the Romans who worsliipped the gods. This argument had great
elK'ct upon the superstitious emperor. And there is little force in [p. 459.]
what is o})posed to this supposition, by certain learned men, who, following
TUlemonL (Memoircs pour I'Histoire de I'Eglise, tom.iii. P. I. p. 487.) say, it ap-
pears from Jerome's Chronicon,thatthe war against the Jews occurred in iUa fifth
year of Severus, but that the law was not enacted till his tenth year. For there
might be various reasons for several years to intervene between the war and the
promulgation of the law. Dodwell, however, and those who follow him, have
erred in supposing that Severus did not distinguish between the Jews and the
Christians, but confounded them together. For, not to mention, that Spartian's
laiigunge is opposed to this idea, he distinctly stating that there were two laws,
one against the Jews and the other against the Christians; Severus could not
be 80 ignorant of the affairs of his own times, as to confound the Christians
with the Jews. Tiiere were Christians in his own family ; and with some of
them he lived in intimacy.
§ VII. The state of Christians under Caracalla and Helio^abaliis.
Severus, having died at York, in Britain, in the year 211, was
succeeded by his son, Antoninus, surnamed Caracalla, who better
deserved the title of tyrant than tliat of emperor. Yet, under
him, the persecution which liis father had excited against the
Christians, gradually subsided :(') and, during the six years of his
reign, we do not learn that they endured any very great griev-
ances. "Whether this is ascribable to his good will towards Chris-
tians, or to other causes, docs not sufficiently appear.(") He being
slain, after the short reign of Macrinus, who instigated the mur-
der, the government of the Roman empire was assumed by Anto-
ninus Elanahalus, a prince of the most abandoned character, and
a monster of a man. Yet, he also, did nothino* ai>:ainst the Chris-
tians.Q After a reign of three years and nine months, he was
slain, with his mother, Julia, in a military tumult at Eome; and
Alexander Severus, the son of Mammaea, whom Elagabalus had
adopted, and had constituted Ciesar, was hailed emperor in the
year 222, and proved to be a very mild and excellent prince.
(1) We have a work of Tertullian addressed to Scapula, a most bitter
enemy of the Christians, and written after the death of Severus, froii which it
appears that the commencement of Caracalla's reign was sullied by the execu-
tion of many Christians in Africa.
(2) Some learned men think, Canicnlla h:id kind feelit-gs townrds Christians ;
and in favor of tliis opinion they cite the authority of Tertnilian and [p. 4G0.]
12 Century IIT.—Scction 7.
Spartian. The former, in his work ad Scapulam, c. 4. p. 87, records, that Anto-
ninus Caracalhi lade Christiano educatum fuisse, which, undoubtedly means,
that he was nursed by a Christian mother. The latter, in his life of Caracalla,
(in tlie Scriptures Hist. Augustae, torn. i. p. 707,) relates of him, that when
seven years old, Quum collusorem suum puerum ob Judaicam religionem gra-
vius verberatum audivissut, ncque patrem suum, neque patrem pueri, vel auc-
tores verberum diu respexissc : that is, he was exceedingly ofiendcd at the
injury done to his companion. From these two testimonies, learned men have
supposed, that it may be inferred, the Christian mother of Caracalla instilled
into him a love of her religion, along with her milk; and that this led
him to 80 great indignation towards the persons who had punished his com-
panion on account of his religion. They, moreover, do not hesitate to say,
that by Judaica Religio in the passage from Spartian, should be understood the
Chrislian religion ; because it is certain, that Christians were frequently con-
founded with Jews by the Romans of those times. But to me, all this appears
very uncertain. To begin with the last assumption, I cannot easily persuade
myself, that Spartian meant Christianity when he wrote Jewjish religion ; for It
appears from other passages in his book, that he was not ignorant of the wide
ditference between the Jews and the Christians. And again, it was not a love
of the religion, which his companion professed, but attachment to the person of
his friend and play-fellow, that made him angry with those who punished him.
Lastly, it is not easy to conceive, how a sucking child could be imbued by his
mother with the love of ariT/ religion. The ancient Christians do not mention
Caracalla among their patrons; and the tranquillity they enjoyed under him,
was due perhaps to their money, which they would spend freely in times of
trouble, more than to the friendship of this very cruel emperor.
(3) There is a passage in the life of Heliogabalus by Lampridius, (c. 3.
p. 796.) which seems to indicate, that this emperor, though one of the worst of
men, was destitute of hatred to the Christians. It is this: Dicebat praiterea
(Imperator) Judaeorum et Samaritanorum religiones et Christianam devotionem
illuc (viz. Rome, where he would have no other god to be worshipped, besides
Heliogabalus, or the sun, of which he was himself priest,) transferendam, ut
omnium culturarum (i. e. all forms of divine worship,) secretum Heliogabali
sacerdotium teneret. Although this passage is more obscure than I could
wish, yet the following things can, I think, be learned from it. I. That Helio-
gabalus wished to abolish all the deities worshipped by the Romans, and to
substitute in their place one deity, the sun, of which he himself was priest.
Nor was this very strange ; for among both the Greeks and the Romans, there
were persons who supposed that all the Gods represented only the sun. H.
That, on this taking place, he wished to have the Jewish, Christian, and Sama-
ritan religions transferred also to Rome. And III. That his aim was, that the
sacerdotium, that is, the priests of Heliogabalus or the sun, might learn the
[p. 461.1 secret ceremonies, of all religions, and be able, perhaps, from theso
ceremonies to improve and embellish the worship paid to the sun. Weliogaba-
lus, therefore, did not wish to extirpate the Christian religion, but he would
have Christians live at their ease in Rome itself, and worship God in their own
Alexander Sever us. 13
way, so that the priests of the sun, by intercourse with them, might learn tlieir
most secret discipline. Such an emperor could have no thoughts of pcrsocut-
ing the Christians.
§ VIII. state of Christians under Alexander Severus. Under
Alexander Severas, the Christians saw better times, than under
any of the preceding emperors. The principal cause of thei;:
peace and tranquillity, was Julia Mammcca^ the emperor's mother,
who influenced and guided her son ; and, having the greatest re
spect for Christianity, once invited Origen, the celebrated Chris •
tian doctor, to visit the court, that she might profit by his in-
structions and conversation.^) Yielding himself, therefore,
wholly to the judgment and pleasure of his mother, Alexander
not only adopted no measures adverse to the Christians, but he
did not hesitate to show, by various tokens, his kind feelings to-
wards them. And yet, if we examine carefully all the evidences
of these his kind feelings, which history records, they do not ap-
pear sufficient to prove, that he regarded Christianity as more
true or more excellent than other religions. If I can rightly
judge, Alexander was one of those who supposed, that but one
God was worshipped by all the nations, under different names,
in differing modes and forms, and with diversity of rites. This
opinion, it is well known, was held by many of the philosophers
of that age, and particularly by the Platonists. And, if so, he
would think, that the Christian mode of worshipping God might
be tolerated as well as the others ; and perhaps, also, he deemed
it in some respects more consentaneous to reason than some of
the others.^ ) Yet his estimate of Christianity was not sufficient
to lead him to abrogate the old laws against Christians, if it was
true, as it seems to be, that in his reign, Ulpian collected all the
laws enacted against the Christians, so that the Koman judges
might understand how they were to proceed against them. And
hence, perhaps, we must not regard as fictitious, all the examples
of martyrdom endured by Christians under him, in one place and
another, of which we find mention.
(1) All the modern Christian historians represent Julia Mammaea, tho
mother of Alexander, as a convert to Christianity. See Joh. Rud. [p. 462.]
Wetstein: Praifatio ad Origcnis Dialogum contra Marcionitas ; who thinks, with
others of great authority and learning, that credit must be given to so numerouu
testimonies. But the older historians, Easehius (Hist. Eccies. L. vi. c. 21.
14 Century III.— Section 8.
p. 223.) and Jerome., (C.-itnl. Scriptor. Ecclcs. c. 54.) speak dubiously. The
former characterises Julia as ^eccre^iTTuTfl, and the latter styles her religiosa.
And both tell us, that Origeu was invited by her to the court, which was then
at Aniioch, and tiiat she heard him discourse on religion. But neither states,
that she yielded to Origen's views, or that, abandoning superstition, she became
a professed Christian. Neither are the two words, by which Eusebias and
Jerome express her piety, of such import as clearly to imply her conversion ;
for they are applied by the ancients, in general, to all persons, Christians or
not Christians, who were solicitous for salvation, and reverenced a supreme
Being. On the other hand, we find manifest indications, in the life of Julia, of
real superstition, and of the worship of the false Roman gods. These and
other considerations induce several excellent men to believe, that she continued
an adherent to the religion of her ancestors. A fuller discussion of this sub-
ject may be found in Fred. Spanheiyri's Diss, de Lucii Britonum Regis, Juliae
Mammaea3 et Philiporum Conversionibus, c. 2. 0pp. torn. ii. p. 400. I will
add a few things, corroborative, as I think, of this opinion. And first, Lam-
pridius, in his life of Severus, c. 14. (Scriptores Hist. August, tom. i. p. 901,)
styles lier Sa?icla Mulier, an expression corresponding with the epithets used
by Jerome and Eusebius; yet no one supposes that Lampridius intended, by
this language, to indicate that she embraced Christianity. Again, I deem it
worthy of remark, that Eusebius states in the passage specified, that Origen
did not remain long at Antioch with the empress, but (la-Tnvh) quickly returned
home. If I am not deceived, this is evidence, that the avaricious Julia, who
was very greedy of wealth, found no great satisfaction in the discourses of
Origen, who was a despiser of wealth, and contented with poverty ; and there-
fore, she soon sent back the austere teacher to Alexandria. There can be no
doubt, however, that Julia was well disposed towards the Christians and their
religion; and, though her manners differed widely from theirs, yet she felt re-
spect for the Christian discipline, and for those who practised it. And hence it
is not strange, that her son also, Alexander, should be very well disposed
towards Christians. For both in his childhood and his manhood, as historians
inform us, he was governed solely by her authority, and always considered her
decisions perfectly right. Says Lampridius, (in Vita Severi, c. 14. p. 901.) : Quum
puer ad imperium pervenisset, fecit cuncta cum matre, ut et ilia videretur pariter
[p. 463.] impcrare, mulier sancta, sod avara et auri atque argenti cupida. And
a little after, (c. 26. p. 924.) he says: In matrem Mamma^am unice plus fuit.
The distinguishing kindness, therefore, of the emperor towards Christians,
would seem to be attributable, not so much to his judgment and wisdom, as to
his deference to his mother.
(2) There are some who rank Alexander Severus himself among the Chris-
tians. And though this opinion stands opposed by numerous proofs of the
depraved superstition by which his life was deformed, yet a man of great learn-
ing and worth, Paul Ernest Jablonski, not long since, found a way to solve tlie
difficulty. In an ingenious dissertation, de Alexandro Severo Christianorum
sacris per Gnosticos initiate, he endeavors to render it probable, that Alexander
listened to some Gnostic teacher, and embraced that form of Christianity which
Alexander Sevcrus. 15
the Gnostics professed: but thnt he dissembled his real opinions before tljo
people, wliich was :i tliing nllowiiblc amon^r Gnostics, and publicly worshipped
the Roman Gods, but privately worshipped Christ, This dissertation of the
learned Jablonski, is found in the Miscellaneis Lipsiensibus nuvis, oi' iha ex-
cellent Fred. Otto MoickenXtom. iv. P. i. p. 66-94.) Tiie sole foundation of
this opinion, (for all that is brought from Lampridius and others in support of
it, falls to the ground without it,) is an ancient gem, published by James de
Wilde, on which appears the well known Monogramm of Christ, together with
this inscription : Sal. Don. Alex. Fil. Ma. Luce. These notes he would have us
read and interpret thus : Salvs Donata Alexandro Filio Mammccae Lxice (ss.
Christ], this name being expressed by the Monogramm.) Charles du Fresno
had previously referred this gem to Alexander Severus, in his Diss, de Inferioris
sevi Numismat. \ 24. contrary to the views of Gisbert Cuper, who (in his notes
on Lactantius de Mortibus Persequutor. p. 239.) would refer it to some
emperor's son of the name Alexius. Tobias Eckhard also, (in iiis Testimonia
non Christianor. de Christo, p. 157.) professed to regard this gem as no con-
temptible proof, that Alexander and his mother privately embraced Christianity.
But it was the celebrated Jablonski who undertook formally to state and defend
this opinion: and he finds Q II. p. 71.) in this gem, not a probable argument,
(as Eckhard deemed it to be,) but certain and unanswerable proof, that Alex-
ander was privately initiated a Christian. But this his certain and strongest
possible proof, rests solely on the two letters Ma. which are subjoined to Alex.
Fil. in the gem ; and which he thinks cannot possibly denote any other person
than Mammaea. He says, (§ 11. p. 70.) : Sunt autem illse Littera3 indicio certis-
simo, nullis machinis elidendo, Gemmam banc sculptam esse in honorem ct
memoriam Alexandri Filii Mammaae. But, to tell the truth, I must [p. 464.]
confess that I do not see what there is, that compels us to understand by tiiese
letters no person but Mammcca. There were many names, as every one knows,
both of males and females, which began with the two letters Ma. And if any
person should insert one of these instead of Mammcea, I see not how he can
be forced to give up his conjecture. If the word Imperalor, or the abbreviation
Imp. had been prefixed to the name Alex, the person might feel some embar-
rassment. But in the gem, as the learned author admits, there is notiiing that
indicates imperatorial rank.
Leaving the more full dijudication of this point to others, I will bring for-
ward all the testimonies of the ancients concerning Alexander's friendship for
the Christians, and will show that nothing more can be inferred from them, than
that he deemed Christianity worthy of toleration, and its religious worship
neither absurd nor injurious to the commonwealth; but that he by no means
preferred Christianity to all other religions, or regarded it as more holy, more
true, or more excellent. In the first place Lampridius, in his Life of the
Emperor, (c. 22. p. 914.) says: Judaeis privilegia reservavit. Christianos esse
passus est. From this, only a moderate degree of benevolence can be proved.
The emperor favored the Jews, more than he did the Christians. For he re-
stored to the former, the privileges of which they had been divested by pre-
ceding emperors; while to the latter he granted no rights, but merely suspended
16 Century III. — Section 8.
the operation of the ancient laws against them; in other words, he made iia
enactments a^rainst them. Yet he did not abrogate the old, unjust, and vexa-
tious laws, as'xve shall presently see; so that the favor which he conferred on
tlie Christians, though real, was yet but moderate. It is meritorious to sus-
pend the operation of iniquitous laws; but far more so, to rescind and abolish
them ; and most of all, to guaranty rights infringed upon by the former laws.
But to proceed: this same Lampridius, (c. 29. p. 930.) tells us, that the
emperor had an image of our Saviour, together with the likenesses of certain
great men, placed in liis chamber for private worship, for he says : Matutinis
horis in Larario suo, (in quo et divos et principes, sed optime electos et animaa
Bani'tiores, in quels et ApoUoniiim, et quantum scriptor suorrum temporum dicit,
Chriatum, Abraham et Orpheum, et hujuscemodi Deos habebat et rnajorum
effigies,) rem divinam faciebat. A very learned dissertation was written, a few
years ago, by the distinguished Charles Henry Zibich, and which the celebrated
Mencken deservedly placed in the Nova Misc(illanea Lipsiens. (torn. iii. p. 42.)
This learned man aims to prove, and, in my opinion, does successfully prove,
that it cannot be inferred from this passage, that Alexander paid divine honors
to our Saviour. All that appears from it, is, that Christ had a place assigned
him by the emperor, among the animce sanctiores^ i. e. the men distinguished for
sanctitv, piety, and wisdom; and that he was accounted not inferior to ApoUo-
[p. 465.] nius, Abraham and Orpheus. But, not to be too strenuous, we will
grant, that a degree of probability is attached to the opinion, that Lampridius
intended to signify that a sort of worship v/as paid by the emperor to Jesus
Christ: we will admit also the truth of the focts stated, although a strenuous
disputant might call them in question, since Lampridius mentions only a single
\vitness for them ; and lastly, we will admit, that the historian here gives to
Christ the title of Deus, or " God ;" and that the words : El hvjuscemodi Deos
habebat, are the correct and true reading, although many think they are not.
Yet, after all these admissions, it will not be proved, that Alexander considered
the Christian religion as better and more holy than the other religions. On
the contrary, the language clearly shows, that the emperor placed Christianity
among the plausible and allowable forms of religion, and that he coincided in
opinion with those men of his age, who considered all religions as equal, differ-
ing only in rites, regulations, and modes of worship. ■ For he coupled together
the three chief personages of the three most distinguished religions of his times,
the Gentile, the Christian, and the Jewish ; namely, Orpheus, (that great master
of the mysteries and theology, and the eulogist of the gods.) and Abraham and
Christ : and this shows, that he attributed the same dignity to each of those
religions. Moreover, all those whom Alexander honored with a place in his
principal Larariu7n, and esteemed as Divi, were not in his opinion holy persons,
and patterns of virtue and wisdom. For, as Lampridius tells us, (c. 32. p. 936.)
Consecraverat in Larario majore inter divos et optimos (etiam) Alexandrum
Magnum. And yet he was far from denying, that in him were enormous vices,
as well as virtues. Our author says (c. 30. p. 932.) : Condemnabat in Alexan-
dro ebrietatem et crudelitatem in amicos. Of no more weight is the third thing,
relative to Alexander's reverence for Christ, recorded by Lampridius, (c. 43.
Alexander Severus. 17
p. 993.) namely : Christo tcmpluin faecrc voliiit, euniquo inter divos rccipere.
He would, therefore, only iisyign Cln-istiunity a place among the other religiona,
and not recommend it to his people as the only religion that was true and
worthy of God. This will appear more clearly from the grouiuls of his giving
up the design : Sod prohibitus est ab iis, qui consulenles hucva, reporerant,
omnes Christianos futures, si id optato evenisset, et tenipla rcliqua descrcndiu
For this passsagc does not refer (as many have supposed) to the emperor
Hadrian, who formed the same project, but to our Alexander. He was there-
fore, not unwilling to have divine honors' pviid to Christ; but he would h.ive it
60 done, that the Roman gods should not be neglected. And when he learned,
that these gods would be despised, if Christ should be enrolled among them,
he would rather have divine honors withheld from Christ, though w^orthy to re-
ceive them, than see the gods neglected and despised. I can conceive how the
emperor may have been led to think of enrolling Christ among the [p. 46G.]
gods of tlie Romans. The old imperial laws against the Christians were an
obstacleto his placing them beyond all danger of punishmentor injury, which his
mother ardently desired ; and yet he was afraid to annul these laws precipitately,
lest he should irritate the people and the priests. And therefore, to accomplish
what he and his mother had at heart, he tried to get Christ admitted among the
gods of the republic; because, if this were done, those old edicts against the
Christians would of course foil to the ground, and yet would not be subverted
by him, but by the Senate who sanctioned Christ's apotheosis.
As for what Lampridius tells us ( ^ 45. p. 997.) of his copying the Christians'
method of appointing public functionaries, though it was in some measure
paying honor to the Christians, yet in aless degree than learned men suppose. The
stjitement is: Ubi aliquos voluisset vel rectores provinciis dare, vel praepositos
facere, vel procuratores, nomina eorum proponebat dicebatque grave esse,
quum id Christiani et Judasi f^icerent in praedicandis sacerdotibus, qui ordinandi
sunt, non fieri in provinciarum rectoribus, quibus et fortunae hominum commit-
terentur et capita. Not to notice that the Christians are here associated with
the Jews, the comparison which the emperor makes between Christian priests
and the Roman governors of provinces, shows that, in his view, the functions of
a Christian priest were less important and salutary, than the functions of magis-
trates. For, in the language of the schools, he reasoned from the less to the
greater. If such caution is exercised in the election of Christian priests, what
caution should be exercised in appointing magistrates, to whom are entrusted
the lives and fortunes of the citizens ? No man could talk thus, if he believed
tliat the Christian priests showed men the way to salvation, and taught them
the true method of obtaining peace with God. Such a man could not esteem
the temporal life and prosperity of the citizens, as more important than the sal-
vation of their souls, for which the Christian priests labored.
Similar remarks are applicable to the judgment which Alexander is said to
have passed, in a litigated case between some Christians and the hucksters ; in
Lampridius, c. 49. p. 1003: Quum Christiani quemdam locum, qui fuerat pub-
licus, occupassent, contra propinarii dicerent, sibi cum dcberi ; rescripsit, melius
esse, ut quomodocunque illic Deus colatur, quam propuiariis dedutur. These
VOL. IL 2
18 Century IILScctian 9.
words show a religious mind, and are somewliat commendatory of the Chris-
tian religion ; lor the emperor admitted that the Christiana worshipped God ;
and, on tliat account, the state could tolerate them. And yet he indicates, that
the Roman mode of worshipping God was preferable to the Christian ; or, at
least, the word Quomodocunqiie leaves it doubtful, whether the Christian modo
of serving God was to be ai)proved or was faulty. Such language does not in-
dicate a man who viewed Jesus Christ as tiie Son of God, and the only ( I will not
Bay Saviour, hut) Instructor of the human race, and whose doctrines and precepts
[p. 467.] were more just and holy than any others. What the same Lampridius
tells us, (c. 51. p. 1007.) that Alexander was so much pleased with this precept,
(which he had learned either from Jews or from Christians) Quod iibi fieri non
vis, alter i ne feccris, that he ordered it to be inscribed on the palace and on the
public works, has plainly no decisive force in the question before us. For the
most virulent enemies of the Christians did not deny, that Christianity con-
tained many beautiful and incomparable moral precepts. Nor does the state-
ment of Eusehius, (Hist. Eccles. 1. vi. e. 28. p. 228.) that tie family of Alexan-
der was full of Christians, much assist those who maintain, that he regarded
Christianity as the best and holiest of all religions, notwithstanding he declined
a public profession of it. For what wonder is it, if an eraperor, obsequious in
everything to a mother who loved the Christians, suffered her to take Christians
into her family ? One who placed all religions upon a level, and considered
them as differing only as to forms or modes of worshipping the Deity, might
consistently admit men of all religions to become his servants.
(3) Lactantius says (Divinar. Instit. 1. v. c. 11. p. 627. ed Biinem.) : Nam
et constitutiones sacrilegae et disputationes jurisperitorara (in Christianos)
leguntur injustse. Domitius de officio proconsulis rescripta principum nefaria
collegit, ut doceret, quibus poenis adfici oporteret eos, qui se cultores Dei confi-
terentur. The most learned men have no hesitation in saying, that this Domi-
tius, an enemy of Christians, was Domitius Ulpianus, whom Alexander entrusted
with the chief administration of the state. See Francis Baldioin's Coram, ad.
edicta Principum Roman, de Christianis, p. 101. &lc. ed. Gundling. This man,
therefore, by collecting together the imperatorial laws against the Christians,
may have aimed to moderate the benevolence of his master towards Christians,
and to intercept in a measure the effects of his clemency. And of course, it is
not beyond credibility, that under this mildest and best of emperors, the judges
in several places governed their conduct towards Christians, by the laws which
Ulpinn thus spread before them in a collated form, rather than by the wishes
of an emperor who had not courage to repeal those laws. Certain it is, that
in the Martyrologies and other books, we meet with not a few examples of
Christians put to death under Alexander. See the Martyrologium Romanum,
diem 11 mam Octob. et diem 22dam Novemb. Yet Theodore Ruinart, (Praef.
ad Acta Martyr, sincera et Selecta, ^ 47. 48.) does not conceal the facts, that
he regarded most of them as dubious.
§ IX. The Persecution under Maximin. This tranquility of the
Christians was disturbed by Maximin the Thracian, whom the
Persecution under Maxlmin. 19
soldiers created emperor, wlicn Alexander Severus was slain, in
the year 285. Maximin was actuated, not so muck by [p. 468.]
hatred of Christianity, as hj fear^ lest the Christians should sock
to avenge the slaughter of their beloved Alexander ; and he
therefore did not order all Christians promiscuously to be exe-
cuted, but only the bishops and doctors ; hoping that when these
were removed, the Christians, being deprived of their leaders
and guides, would remain quiet and attempt nothing to his in-
jur3^(') Perhaps also, the tyrant did not purpose the death of
all Christian bishops, but only of those whom he had known to
be the friends and intimates of Alexander. It is certain, that
very few cases are recorded of bishops or doctors, who honored
Christ by martyrdom, or by any severe sufferings, under this
emperor.(") We know, indeed, that in some of the provinces,
during this reign, the sufferings and calamities of the Christians
were more extensive, and reached all classes ; but these exten-
sive calamities are not to be traced to the emperor's edict, but
either to insurrections of the populace, who regarded Christianity
as the cause of their misfortunes, or to the injustice and cruelty
of tlie governors. And hence, we readily agree with those who
maintain, that the Christians were harrassed, in various places,
during the whole three years reign of Maximin.i^)
(1) Eusebius states, (Hist. Eccles. L. vi. c. 28. p. 225.) that Maximin, burn-
ing with hatred to the family of Alexander Severus, which was filled with
Christians, commenced a persecution against the Christians. But he adds, that
the emperor ordered only the bishops (dpx°^'^^s tcjv UKKno-ibJv,) to be slain, as
being the authors of evangelical insLrucLion {diriovc T>ic Kara YJuayyiXiov
i'iS^a7Ka\ias). These statements are in conflict; if I am not greatly mistaken.
If his hatred to the family of Alexander, had been the cause of this persecution,
he would not have poured his wrath upon the bishops, who, none of them, be-
longed to the family of Alexander, but must have attacked and slain the family
of Alexander itself. This course would have gratified his passion; but the
punishing of the bishops, brought no evil or detriment to the surviving ministers
and servants of Alexander's household. This difficulty will be removed, if we
understand the (xdTOf) anger or hatred, in Eusebius, to denote /ear combined with
hatred: for those whom we dread or fear, we naturally hale. The tyrant was
afraid, lest the family of the murdered emperor should conspire against iiim, and
strive to avenge the death of their excellent lord ; and therefore, he pursued
them with violent hatred. To free himself from this /ear, he resolved on the
slaughter of the Christian bishops, hoping that when they were put out of
the way, the adherents and servants of Alexander, being deprived of [p. 469.]
20 Century IIL— Section 9.
their iidvisors and guides, would attempt nothing very formidable against him.
Undoubtedly, some one who professed to be acquainted with Christian aftairs
had sug^a^sted to the emperor, that the Christians followed implicitly the
guidance and will of their bishops; and therefore, that he would have nothing
to fear, if these bishops were out of the way. Unless this explanation be ad-
mitted, I see not how the slaughter of the Christian bishops could originate
from hatred to the family of Alexander.
(2) Although Eusebius says, that Maximin commanded all the Christian
bishops and teachers to be put to death, I yet very much doubt, whether the
tyrant's edict was so dreadfully cruel. I suspect, rather, that the emperor's
enmity extended only to those Christian teachers, who had been intimate with
Alexander and his mother, and whom the former knowingly permitted to instil
the Christian ftiith into a large part of his family. The chief of tliese was
Origcn, who was well known to have been invited to the court, not long before :
and therefore him especially, the tyrant wished to have arrested and put to
death. This we learn from Orosius, who says, (Histor. L. vii. c. 19. p. 509. ed.
Havercamp.): Qui maxime propter christianam Alexandri et matris ejus Mum-
ma3ae familiam, persequutionem in sacerdotes et clericos, id est, doctores, vel
praecipuc propter Origenem presbyterum miserat. And it is well known, that
in order to avoid the emperor's fury, Origen kept himself concealed at Caesarea
for two years. Being unable to find him, the tyrant vented his indignation
upon his two most intimate friends, Ambrose, a man of great distinction, and
Protocteius a presbyter; who were first treated with great indignity and abuse,
and then banished to Germany by order of the emperor. See Eusebius, Hist.
Eccles. L, vi. c. 29. p. 229. Besides these, very few only, here and there one,
of the Christian priests and bishops, suffered greatly under Maximin. Says
Sulpiiius Severus, (Hist. Sacra, L. ii. c. 32. p. 247.) : Maximinus nonnuUarum
ecclcsiarum Clericos vexavit. Now, whence this paucity of martyrs and con-
fessors among the bishops and teachers, if the edict of Maximin commanded
all Christian bishops every where, to be seized and put to death? Numerous
examples of martyred clergymen under this very cruel emperor, would have
come down to us, if the edict had ordered the bishops and teachers to be indis-
criminately put to death. But all that is obscure in this matter, becomes clear
and obvious, if we suppose that hatred or fear of the family of Alexander was,
as ancient writers expressly state, the cause of this persecution of the Christian
teachers: and this alone may lead us to conclude, that the emperor's rage
was only against those priests, who had been intimate with Alexander and his
fiimily.
[p. 470] (3) Those who treat of the persecution under Maximin, trace all
the evils of the church during his reign, to this edict of the emperor. But in this
they certainly err. The emperor only wished to get rid of some of the bishops
and teachers. And therefore, the proceedings against all classes of Christians,
in one place and another, must be ascribed to other causes. And of this fact,
those early writers who treat of these general persecutions, have not left us in
ignorance. Origen tells us, (torn, xxviii. in Matth. in his 0pp. torn. i. p. 137,
ed. Lat.) that earthquakes occurred in some places, and that the people, as usual,
Gordian and Philip. 21
attributed tlie cahimity to the Christians, and therefore inflicted great evils up-
on them. Sec also liis Exhortatio ad Martyres, which he wrote in the reign of
Maximin. Tlio same cause, and not the cruelty of Maximin, produced the suf-
ferings of the Christians in Cappadocia and in the adjacent regions; which,
liowever, were augmented by the injustice of Serenianus the governor. Thus
FlrmiUian testifies, (in his Epistle to Cyprian, among the Epistlolae Cyprianicae,
No. Ixxv. p. 146, ed Baluz.) : Ante viginta et duos fere annos, teraporibus post
Alexandrum Imperatorem, multae, istic conflietationes et pressurae acciderunt,
vel in commune omnibus hominibus, vel privatim Christianis; terrae etiam motua
pUirimi et frequenter extitcrunt, ut et per Cappadociam et per Pontum multa
Bubruerent, quaedam etiam civitates in profundum receptae dirupti soli hiatu
devorarentur, ut ex hoc (not in consequence of the imperial edict.) persccutio
quoque gravis adversum nos Christiani nominis fieret, quae post longam retro
aetatis pacem repente oborta de inopinato et insueto malo ad turbandum populum
nostrum terribilior effecta est. Serenianus tunc fuit in nostra provincia praeses,
acerbus et dims persecutor. Hence, the Christians were not persecuted in all
the Roman provinces, but only in those which had previously suffered greatly
from these natural calamities. For thus Firmillian proceeds : In hac autem
perturbatione constituti-; fidelibus, et hue atque illuc persecutionis metu fugien-
tibus, et partrias suas relinquentibus, atque in alias partes regionum transeunti
bus, (erat enim transeundi facultas, eo quod persecutio ilia non fer totum mun-
dum, sed localis fuisset,) eraersit, &c. But, certainly, the persecution would have
pervaded every part of the Roman world, if it had been commanded by an impera-
torial edict. To express frankly my own views, I can hardly persuade myself
that Maximin issued any decree against the Christian priests and bishops; but I
suppose that, after the death of Alexander, he merely ordered the arrest of Origen
and a few others, whom he knew to have been intimate with the murdered em-
peror and his mother; and that, after a short time, other objects occupying his
mind, and the state of things being changed, this sudden burst of passion subsided.
§ X. The tranquillity under Gordian and Philip. Maxi- [p. 471.]
mill being slain, by tlie African legions, in the year 238, Gordian^ a
mere boy, was created emperor; and, by means of his father-in-law,
Misitheus, a man of great energy, he so conducted the government
for six years, as to place the Christians in perfect safety. But,
being unable to prevent the murder of Misitheus by Phihp the
Arabian, he was, the next year, himself slain by the same man,
who had usurped the office of PrcCtorian Praifect. From tlie
year 244 this M. Julius Philip^ with his son of the same name,
as the Ciesar, governed the Roman empire for almost five years,
and showed himself exceedingly friendly to the Christians. From
this fact arose the report, which was propagated in the subsequent
ages with great unanimity among tlio writers, that botli tlicso
Philips privately renounced the superstition of the futile gods,
oo Century III.— Section 10.
and embraced Christianity. But wlictlicr tliis report states a fact,
or only a vulgar fable, originating from the kindness of the em-
perors towards Christians, has been disputed with great earnest-
ness by the learned. Whoever will candidly and impartially
weigh the arguments on both sides of the question, will see, that
arguments are adduced by both parties, which, on examination,
appear weak and powerless ; and that there is nothing to fully
settle the point, and compel us to accede to either party in the
dispute.(')
(1) Tlierc are extant many very grave and learned discussions respect-
inn- the renunciation of the old superstitions and reception of Christianity by
the two Philips; some exclusively devoted to the subject, and others treating
of it incidentally and cursorily. The most important of them are enumerated
by Jo. Alb. Fabricius, (Lux salutaris Evangelii toti orbi exoriens, p. 235)
But to his list, if it were necessary, large additions might easily be made of per-
sons of high reputation, among both the ancients and the moderns. Oinitting
a work of so little importance, we will recount the principal arguments on both
sides, so that those desirous to understand the controversy, may obtain their
object with but little labor. In the first place, the reader should be apprised,
that arguments are adduced on both sides, which scarcely deserve to rank
among slender conjectures. Such, for example, are those from certain coins, —
from Origen's journey to Arabia, — from the austerity of the younger Philip, —
from certain just and equitable laws of the elder Philip, and from other topics
adduced in proof of the sincere regard of the Philips for Christ, but which are of
no weight, and vanish when touched. Nor are those more solid which are de-
[p. 472.] rived from the celebration of the secular games by Philip, — from the
superstitious marks on coins bearing his likeness, — from the apotheosis of
Philip, — and from some other topics, in proof that the emperors were averse
from Christianity. We propose to bring forward only those arguments which
seem worthy of some regard, and may have influence on sober minds.
Among the arguments of those who wish to prove Philip a Christian, the
first place is due to the testimony of Eusebius, (Hist. Eccles. 1. vi. e. 34. p. 232,)
who reports from tradition : "That on the vigils of Easter, the emperor wished
to be a participator with the rest of the people in the prayers of the church, but
that the bishop would not permit him to be present, until he had made confes-
sion of the enormous sins he had committed, and had taken his stand among
the penitents : and that the emperor was not displeased, but conformed to the
bisliop's wishes." Eusebius mentions neither the place where this occurred, nor
the name of the bishop who ventured to exclude the emperor from the church.
But from the narrative of Leontius, bishop of Antioch, (an ancient writer who
lived in the time of Constantius,) preserved in the Chronicon Paschale, edited
among the Byzantine Historians, by Carol du Fresne, it appears, that it was
Babylas, bishop of Antioch, and afterwards a martyr under Decius, who as-
Was Philip a Ckri^tlan ? 03
sumod so iiiueli authority over tlie emperor. See the Ckronicon Paschale, thca.
X. et xiii. ;ui juin. 1253. p. 270. Chnjsostom also, in liis Oralioti in honor of St.
Babylas, (opp. toin. i. p. 658, 659, ed. German.) mentions this heroie act of the
bishop, but without giving the name of the emperor. To this testimony of
Eiisebius, learned men add his declaration in his Ckronicon, nd ann. 2-16. in the
translation of Jerome: Philippus primus omnium ex Romanis Imperaloribus
Chrislianus fait: with which Jerome himself agrees, in his Catalog. Scriplor.
Ecc PS. cap. de Origcne. — To break down this chief bulwark of those who place
Piiilip among the Christians, those of the contrary opinion exert themselves
greatly: and Fred Spanheitn, (in his Dis. de Christianismo Philippi Arabis, ^ 11
&c. 0pp. torn. ii. p. 418.) has carefully collected all the arguments, which can
be thought of. Yet they all resolve tiiemselvcs into a few, if we carefully ex-
amine the proh'x discussions of these great men. The amount is, that Eitsebius
does not cite any specific and suitable testimony, in support of his narrative ;
but says himself, that he learned what he states from common fame : his words
are, Kart;^" ^«V°f » /ame has it : — that Leontius also drew his account merely
front public rumor, handed down by tradition, xari ^iS'ix^v, per traditionem : —
that Chnjsostom, in his statement, committed more than one error, and more-
over, does not give the name of the emperor. But all these objections will not
be sufficient proof, to discerning minds, that the conversion of Philip to Chris-
tianity must have been a fable. For who would deem it conclusive reasonino-,
to say : This or that is reported only by fame, and not in any book or author ;
and therefore it is not true ? We know innumerable things, which [p. 473.]
have come to us only through the medium of fame or continuous tradition,
without being written down by the contemporary writers : and yet they may be
perfectly true. And on the other hand, many things are false, for which the
testimony of many ancient writers may be adduced. Fame is a reporter both
of truth and falsehood. It is, therefore, not sufficient proof of the falsehood of
a story, to show that the historians base it only on fame: Investigation is to be
made, whether reliance should, or should not, be placed on this fame. Now
the testimonies adduced, put it beyond controversy, that in the fourth and
fifth centuries, over a great part of the Christian world, fame declared Philip to
have been a convert to Christianity, In the thing itself, tliere is nothing absurd,
or incredible. On the contrary, there are somethings to support it: among
which, and not the least, is this: that what, in his History Eusehius states as
derived from fame, in his Chronicon he states as being certain : and in this ho
is followed by Jerome, as already shown. Consequently, unless the truth of
this /awe can be overthrown by other and more potent arguments, there must be
reason for doubting at least, whether this fame is to be credited or disbelieved.
Another argument adduced by those who contend for Philip's conversion to
Christianity, is drawn from the Epistles written by Origen to this emperor and
to his consort Severa, mentioned by Eusehius, (Uht. Eccles. 1. vi. c. 36. j). 233.)
To elude the force of this argument, the learned men who exclude Philip from
the class of Christians, advance many things, which truly had better have been
omitted. They, for example, question the genuineness of those epistles; they
doubt whether Eusebius ever saw them, &,c. They remark, tiiat Eusehius imd
24 Century IILSeciion 10.
Jerome, who both speak of these epistles, do not in all respects agree ; for
Eusehius says, Origen wrote to the emperor's spouse, and Jerome, that he wrote
to the emperor's mother. But these are trivial objections, and easily answered
by the opposite party. The case did not require so elaborate a discussion t
for there is nothing in these epistles merely, which can materially aid the ad-
vocates of Philip's Christianity, because neither Eusebius nor Jerome tells what
was in them. No wise and careful man will ever reason thus: A certain Chris-
tain teacher wrote a letter to this or that man, therefore the person written to
was a Christian. For why may not a Christain write to one who is not a Chris-
tian? A Christian may, by letter, exhort a person alienated from Christianity,
to become a Christian. Or he may intreat him to be kind and indulgent to
Christians ; or may address letters to him on other subjects. And, assuredly,
if Eusebius had found in these epistles any clear proofs of the conversion of
Philip and his mother to Christianity, he would not have omitted the notice of
[p. 474.J so important a fact; neither would he, when just before treating of
Philip's exclusion from the Christian worship by a bishop, have appealed solely
to the authority of tradition. He would, doubtless, have said : " I have seen the
epistles of Origen to Philip, from which I know with certainty, that he adhered
to the Christian religion."
Of no more weight is the third argument of those who make Philip a Chris-
tian, derived from the Acta S. Ponlii ; (edited, with improvements, by Steph.
Baluze, Miscellaneor. torn. ii. p. 493.) For, the advocates of the Romish
church themselves dare not deny, that these Acta are of no authority, or at
most, of very little; and that they state many things, respecting Pontius, the
reputed instrument of Philip's conversion, and respecting Philfp himself, which
no sober, intelligent man, acquainted with antiquity, will ever admit to be true.
It is probable that this whole fiible was invented by some person who wished
to add sti-ength and authority to the old story of Philip's being a Christian.
Lastly, those who place Philip among Christians, adduce a host of witnesses
from the sixth century downwards. For all the Greek and Latin historians,
since that century, and among the Arabians, EiUijchius (in Annal. Eceles.
Alexandr.) and Ahulpharaius (in Historia Dynastiarum,) with united voice, de-
clare that Philip was a Christian. But those who deny that Philip was a Chris-
tian, treat this great army with contempt, and pronounce them unworthy of re-
gard ; because they all borrowed from the narrative of Eusebius, so that the
whole story falls back upon him. And learned men say this, with some ap-
pearance of truth. For many of those witnesses use the very words of Euse-
bius in his Chronicon, and others depart very little from them. Yet it must be
confessed, that some of them express themselves as if they had other authori-
ties for their statement, besides Eusebius. — As to the various other arguments
in favor of Philip's Christianity, derived from some of his coins, — from certain
of his enactments, — and from the regard for Christ, exhibited by his wife
Severa ; though deemed very weighty by some great men, they are too far-
fetched to be arguments of any real force. We will therefore pass over to the
other side, and examine the arguments of those who maintain that Philip was
not a Christian. These also adduce many arguments, which may be easily con-
Was Fhilij) a Christian? 05
futcd. Wc will only notice those arguments, in which there appears a deforce
of weight not to be contemned.
In theirs/ place, they remind us of the f;\ct, that all the writers of impera-
torial liistory are wholly silent, as to any conversion of Philip to the Christian
faith. And they add, that many of the Christian writers, and Eusehius at the
head of them, (in Vita Constantini Mag.) distinctly state, that ConsLanlinc the
Great, was the first of all the emperors that embraced Christianity. But the
dissidents are for from quailing before this argument. They say, that Philip
did not profess Christianity, openly and publicly, but only in private [p. 475.]
and secretly ; so that he publicly worshipped the gods, and dissembled his
change of faith, while in private he attended the Christian worship. And henco
the writers of Roman history, and also Julian, and some others, were ignorant
of his renunciation of the old religions, ^nd they say, that the Christian
authors, who declare Constaniine to be the first Christian emperor, are not to
be understood as speaking absolutely, but only as representing Constaniine to
be the first of all to profess Christ, openly, fully, and without disguise ; and, on
that account, he was properly and deservedly called i\\Q first Christian emperor.
This reply, it is difficult to divest entirely of all force; although it is not free
from exceptions. It appears to me, that Eusehius himself affords it some sup-
port, in his Life of Constantine, (L. IV. c. 74. p. 563.) where he speaks of Con-
stantine as being the first of all the emperors up to that time, who openhj pro-
fessed himself a Christian. 'E;Tt (xovui t^jv iruTTOTi Xi'""^"^^'^^ J'tafavwi diroS'ii^^^d-ci'Tt
KovrrcLvrivcf). When he says that Constantine was the first who openly
(S-ictf-xvCis) worshipped Christ, he seems to intimate, that there were others be-
fore him, who (d<r;a?*vt3f) secretly and covertly professed Christ ; and thus he
apparently explains the meaning of all those, who, with himself, had placed Con-
stantine first among the Christian emperors.
Secondly, the very flagitious life which Philip led, both before and after his
access to his imperatorial power, is urged by learned men, in opposition to such
as would account him a Christian. Although many go too fiir in explaining
and amplifying this argument, and set down some things as flagitious, which
deserve a milder and softer name ; yet it is beyond controversy, that very deep
stains are found upon the life and conduct of this emperor. But I think, those
change the question, who would infer, from the vices and crimes of Philip,
that he disbelieved the Christian religion. The question is not, whether Philip
was worthy of the name of Christian, and lived a life conformable to the pre-
cepts of Christianity. If such were the question, the argument from his
flagitious life, would be wholly unexceptionable. But the question is, whether
he regarded the Christian religion as more excellent and true than the Roman,
or, in other words, as divine. This he might do, and still lead a very wicked
life. If all those are to be stricken from the list of Christians, whose morals
and actions violate the precepts of Christianity, Constantine himself, can
hardly, if at all, maintain his place among Christian emperors.
Thirdly, learned men say, the secular games, celebrated by Philip with
great pomp, in the thousandth year of the city, are opposed to the supposition
that he had embraced Christianity. For these games originated in the supersti-
26 Century III.— Section 11.
tion of the old Romans, were sacred to the gods, and embraced rites that were
[p. 476.] absurd and wholly incongruous with Christianity; and yet Philip
omitted none of these sncrilegious ceremonies, he immolated victims to the gods,
and exhibited the customary spectacles in the Campus Martins, in the circus,
and in the theatre ; and of course, he sedulously performed all those acts,
which it would be an abomination for a Christian to perform. I will not deny,
that here is the strongest evidence that Philip was not such a Christian as he
ought to have been, if indeed he was a Christian, at the time when he celebrated
these games, of which there is doubt and uncertainty. Yet all these unbecom-
ing acts might be done by a prince, who fully believed the truth of the Chris-
tian religion, but was eager to give stability to his government, solicitous to
please the Roman people, studious to conceal his real opinions respecting religion,
and willing to give the name of prudence to this impious dissimulation. Men
of such a character think many things to be allowable, which others, very
justly, regard as criminal. And w^ho does not know, that the Christian emperor
Honorius^ permitted the secular games to be celebrated at Rome, in the fourth
century, with the omission of some of the most impious of the ceremonies?
The fourth argument adduced by the learned, to disprove the Christianity
of Philip, is derived from his coins, on which are found images of the gods,
and other indications of the grossest superstition. This argument has already
been impugned, by the remarks before made. And, not to repeat what has
long since been urged by others, that we find not a few marks of the ancient su-
perstition on coins of the acknowledged Christian emperors ; who can think it
strange, that an emperor, solicitous to keep the people ignorant of his secret
conversion to Christianity, should have suffered his coins to be struck in the
ancient form of the state? Even if Philip had been truly pious, there would
have been a very plausible excuse for his conduct; and the more so, in propor-
tion to the certainty that conclusive evidence of a prince's religious creed, can-
not always be deduced from his coins. It is also to be remembered, that many of
these coins were not struck by his order, but by the colonies and free towns,
in honor to him.
Upon a deliberate and candid comparison of the arguments on both sides
of the question, the religion of Philip appears to me to be one of those sub-
jects, on which a controversy may be so maintained, that the victory shall ever
remain dubious. All parties, however, must acknowledge the fact, that under
him, the Christians enjoyed peace and prosperity, and that he gave many proofs
of his marked kindness to them. And yet, just before his death, (as we learn
from Eusebius, or rather, from Dionysius of Alexandria, as quoted by Eusehius,
Hist. Eccles. L. vi. c. 41. et L. vii. c. 22.) there was a serious insurrection of
the infuriated populace of Alexandria against the Christians. Such assaults
were experienced under the mildest and best emperors.
[p. 477.] § XL The Persecution under Decius, Philip, after
reigning five years, was slain in the 3^ear 249, and was succeeded
by Decius Trajanus, a prince, in many respects commendable, but
superstitious, and immoderately attached to the old Eomish
Tlie Decian Persecution. 07
religion. lie, in tlic very beginning of his reign, cither from fear
of the Christians, whom he knew to cherish the memory of
Phihp, or from the promptings of superstition, (') issued tcrriljle
edicts against the Christians, commanding the governors and
magistrates, on pain of incurring themselves the severest animad-
versions, to either wholly exterminate the Christians, or recover
them to the service of the gods by tortures and the rack. From
what is handed down to us respecting this persecution, it appears
that it was conducted differently by those intrusted with its exe-
cution; some proceeding more violently, and some more gently;
and this seems to prove, that the emperor, only in general,
ordered the Christian Avorship to be suppressed, and the Chris-
tians forced to return to idolatry ; but left the mode of proceed-
ing, and the kinds and degree of punishment, to the discretion of
the governors. (") Yery many lost their lives during this perse-
cution, in all parts of the Roman empire, and among them the
distinguished bishops of the larger cities, as Fabian of Rome,
Bahylas of Antioch, Alexander of Jerusalem, and many others.
But, to the extreme grief of their pastors, vast numbers of Chris-
tians, preferring the enjoyments of this life more than religion,
procured for themselves safety, by sacrifices or incense presented
to idol gods, or by the purchase of certificates that they were
idolaters. And hence arose the reproachful titles of Sacrificati^
Thurificati^ and Lihellatici, denoting those guilty of these several
forms of perfidy towards Christ. (^)
(1) Eusehius (Hist. Eccles. L. vi. c. 39. p. 234.) says, that Decius apsailed
the Christians, {jre^d? ^ixiTTTrcv t^^-ovg hinc/,) fro?n hafred fo Philip : but Gregory
of Nyssa, (in Vita Greg. Thaumaturgi, 0pp. toin. iii. p. 567. 568.) says, that his
attachment to the religion of his country, which was everywhere shorn of its
dignity and respectability by Christianity, and the vast numbers adhering to it,
alone induced this emperor to enter on a persecution of the Christians. These
motives are not so incongruous, but that they might both coexist. Perhaps,
however, it will not be rash to suppose, that the same motive influenced Decius
as had before influenced Maximin; nameljs a fear lest the Christians [p. 478.]
should seek to avenge the death of Philip, who had greatly patronised them,
and by raising insurrections, endanger the new administration. I am the more
inclined to favor this conjecture, because the violence of this persecution very
quickly abated. For we learn from Cyprian, (Epist. 36. 37. 40.) that scarcely
a year elapsed, before tranquillity was, in a great measure, again restored to the
church. The emperor finding his power well established, and perceiving that
the Christians made no disloyal attempts against him, silently abrogated the
28 Century Ill.—Sectlon 11.
edict, which his fears had dictated. Ilia impassioned cruelty would have been
more permanent and abiding, if it had orio-jnatcd from hia superstition.
(2) The tenor of Decius' edicts ag-ainst tlie Christians, can be learned only
from some passages in the early writers who advert to them, and from the pro-
ceeding of the masgistrates who executed them ; for the edicts themselves are
lost. Bern. Medonius, indeed, published at Toulouse in 1 664, 4to. what he termed,
Deed Aiigusti EdicUim contra Christianas, taken professedly from an ancient
manuscript book. But Tillemont has shown, (Memoires pour servir a I'Hist. de
I'Eglise, tom. iii. P. ii. p. 400.) that the document contains many things, which
make its genuineness doubtful, although it contains much that agrees very well
with the statements of the ancient writers. If I can judge, this edict was copied
from the Acta of some Saint, and enlarged in some respects, and corrected in
others, by the publisher, to make it agree better with the statements of the an-
cients. And, undoubtedly, Medonius would have told us, to what book he was
indebted for so great a treasure, if he himself had ventured to rely on its
authority. — It is beyond all dispute, that this edict of Decius was more cruel and
unjust than all that preceded it, and particularly, than the rescript of Trajan.
Diofujsius of Alexandria, (apud Euseh. Hist. Eccles. L. vi. c. 41. p. 238.) pro-
nounces it (ifuj2ipw'rctTCY) liorrihle or terrible : and he says, it was such, ut ipsi
etiam electi, si fieri posset, scandalum paterentur ; and he adds, that all Christians,
on hearing of it, were exceedingly terrified. It must, therefore, have threatened
evils before unheard of, and have prescribed a new method of assault on Chris-
tians, more formidable than any preceding it. Gregory of Nyssa, (in Vita
Gregorii Thaumat. 0pp. tom. iii. p. 568.) states — 1. "That the emperor in his
edict, commanded the governors and magistrates to bring back the Christians to
the worship of the gods, by every species of punishment and terror." — 2. That
he threatened the governors and magistrates with severe and signal penalties, if
they were remiss and negligent in the execution of this his mandate. — 3. Hence,
all the governors, in obedience to the mandate, neglecting all other business,
immediately commenced torturing the Christians; and expounding to them the
edict, they signified to them, that such of them as refused to renounce Chris-
tianity, would be subjected to every species of punishment, and even to death^
[p. 479.] for such refusal.— 4. That various kinds of torture, before unheard
of, were invented ; and the terrible instruments for lacerating and torturing
their bodies, were exposed in public for all to behold.— 5. That all this pro-
duced amazing terror, and universal commotion. — What we learn from other
writers, Origen for instance, respecting the tenor and import of this horrid law,
only confirm these statements in general, without adding any further light con-
cerning them. Undoubtedly, the edict embraced all sorts of Christians, or
those of every order, age, and sex ; for this appears from the examples of
those who suffered at Alexandria, as narrated by Dionysiiis of Alexandria,
(apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles. L. vi. c. 41. &c.) There is, however, a noticeable pas-
sage in Cyprian, (Ep. 62. ad Antonianum, p. 69. ed. Baluz.) from which we
learn, that Decius, (as Maximin before him had done,) wished to have the
Christian priests and bishops made the principal subjects of the persecution ;
and therefore, when Fabian, the Romish bishop, had been slain, he prevented
The Dccian Persecution. 09
tlie election of nnot'ncr bishop to fill his plucc. Ci/prlan aaya of Cornelius,
the successor of Fnbian : Sedit iutrepidus Ronuc iu sacerdotali cathedra eo
tempore, cum tyrannus infesius sacerdulibus Dei fanda atque Infanda comniina-
retur, cum multo patientius et tolerabilius audiret levari adversus so lemulum
principem, quam constitui Roma3 Dei sacerdotem. If we consider "the state-
ments of Dionysius, (in the above-named passage of Ew^ebius,) those of
Cyprian, (in his tract de Lapsis, and in various of his Epii^tles,) and those of
some others, respecting the zeal of the governors and magistrates in cxcculiiirr
the emperor's edict, there will appear a great diversily in the modes of proceed-
ing and punishing. As Cyprian expressly states, (Epist. 7. 8. 15. 26. 37. 53.)
Some cast the Christians who boldly confessed Christ, into prison : and, after
some delay, such as utterly refused to submit, they sent into exile. Others
subjected the Christians who confessed, to exquisite tortures, variously modi-
fied and protracted for many days, and then remanded them almost lifeless to
the jails, where they left them to languish out life. And hence at the death of
Decius, many Christians were found lying in the prisons, and were set at liberty:
of which number the celebrated Origen was the most distinguished, he having
suffered exceedingly under Decius ; but he was restored to his liberty after the
slaughter of Decius. See Eusebius, ("Hist. Eccles. L. vi. e. 39.) Others, first
tried the effects of imprisonment in overcoming the resolution of Christians ;
and then tried the eflicacy of tortures; and, these proving insufficient, they sen-
tenced them to a capital punishment ; but not all in the same form. The more
cruel doomed them to the flames, the more lenient ordered them to be de-
capitated; and thus, some in one way, and others in another, they inflicted
death on those they accounted pernicious and guilty citizens. Yet amid this
variety in the mode of proceeding, there was still one constant aim. For we
see, that they all tried, in various ways, to induce the Christians to renounce
the profession of Christianity ; they all proceeded tardily and reluc- [p. 480.]
tantly to the punishing with death ; and, lastly, they all pursued a more severe
and rigorous course with the ministers, and especially with the bishops, than
with others, and put them to death with less delay. What the mode of pro-
ceeding was in Africa, may be learned, in some measure, from the tract of
Cyprian de Lapsis, (in his opp. p. 182.) In the first place, the accused or sus-
pected were allowed by the judge a certain number of days, during which they
might consider and make up their minds, whether to profess Christ, or to deny
him. Explorandcc Jidei prcc.finiehantur dies. During this period they remained
at home and free ; and, as appears in the sequel, no one opposed their seeking
safety by absconding. This was sufficiently humane. In Egypt, as we learn
from an epistle of Dionysius, (apud Euscb. ubi sup.) immediately after accusa-
tion, confession was extorted ; confeseion was followed by imprisonment, im-
prisonment by torture, and torture by capital punishment ; and very often all
these followed in rapid succession. Many of the Christians did not hesitate to
avail themselves of the liberty granted them by the indulgence of the gover-
nors, to take time for deliberation. But Cyprian was displeased with it, and
enjoined upon his flock to decline the favor: Sed qui vSa3Culo renuntiasse mcmi-
nit, nullum sajculi diem novit ; nee tempora terrena jam computat, qui ictcrnita-
30 Century III— Section 11.
teui de Deo sperat. Nemo, fratres dilectissimi, nemo hanc gloriam mutiJet,
nemo ineorruptam atantium iirmitatem maligna obtreetatione debilitet. From
the coiu'luding words of this exhortation, it would appear, that the more coura-
geous among the African Christians would not avail themselves of the privi-
lege offered by the governors, and were blamed for it by some, who, undoubt-
edly, accused them of imprudence. After the time for deliberation had elapeed,
those who remained silent, and would neither profess Christ nor deny him,
were held by the judge to be confessed Christians : Cum dies negantibus pra3.
stitutus .excessit, quisquis professus intra diem non est, Christianum se esse
confessus est. Therefore, such of them as had not fled away, and could be
found, were apprehended and thrown into prison. Bui many fled, before the
time expired ; and these were publicly proscribed, and their goods confiscated.
Says Cyprian : Primus victoria} titulus, gentilium manibus apprehensum Domi-
num confiteri. Secundus ad gloriam gradus est, cauta secessione subtractum
Domino reservari. Ilia publica, hasc privata confessio est. — Hie fortasse dilatua
est, qui patrimonio derelicto, idcirco secessit, quia non erat negaturus. Cyprian
himself fled, and suffered the penalty of flight, the loss of his property. Those
whose constancy could not be overcome by imprisonment, were sometimes
banished, with no additional punishment; sometimes they were put to the
rack ; and frequently, when nothing would induce them to renounce Christ,
they were subjected to capital punishment.
To one who attentively considers what has now been stated, it will be evi-
dent, that the persecution of the Christians by the mandate of Decius differed
[p. 481.] from all the former persecutions ; and that the mode of proceeding in it,
was not according to the first rescript of Trajan, nor according to the edicts of
the succeeding emperors. The governors now possessed the amplest powers for
inquisition, whereas before they had to wait for an accuser to appear; any one
so disposed might act the accuser, without regard to legal forms; nor was there
any danger attending accusations: public accusations of the people, which the
former imperatorial laws forbid, were now admitted; as appears from the exam-
ple of Cyprian; those who professed adherence to Christ, and refused to re-
nounce their faith, were not ordered at once to execution, as the law of Trojan
directed, but were exposed to severe tortures ; neither were all who withstood
the force of torture, put to death ; but many were either kept in perpetual im-
prisonment, or were sent into exile. It is easy, therefore, to conjecture what
the edict of Decius, of the atrocity and cruelty of which the Christians so much
complained, prescribed. The emperor did not order the Christians to be slaugh-
tered : he did not absolutely command, that even those who could not be sub-
dued by sufferings and torture, should be put to death : for, if he had commanded
the capital punishment of all, whom torture and the rack could not bring to
renounce Christ, the governors would not have dared to discharge many from
the prisons alive ; and to shut up others who had been tortured, in places of con-
finement ; and to grant to others a season for consideration, after they had with
great constancy professed themselves Christians; as was sometimes done in
Egypt, according to Dionysius as quoted by Eusebius. The emperor, therefore,
must have charged the magistrates only, in general, to destroy the Christian
The Dccian Persecution. 31
religion ; to carofiilly search out all the professors of it, and to punish those who
refused to worship the gods with all sorts of torture and sulVerin«,rs, until thoy
would return to the religion of their fathers. Perhaps, however, he commanded
that bishops and priests, on refusing compliance, should be at once put to death*
in order to strike terror into others. He did not prescribe the mode of proceed-
ing against those who, on being admonished, refused to renounce Christ, but
left it to the judgment and discretion of the governors : and hence that diversity
in the proceedings of the magistrates with Christians, some proceeding more
mildly, and others more harshly. That many of the governors consigned to the
sword or the flames, a large part of those whom the rack and the prison could
not subdue, can by no means prove, that Decius commanded the execution of
all the persevering. For the governors had power, without any mandate from
the emperor, to put those to death, whom neither force nor fear, neither argu-
ments nor persuasives, could induce to worship the gods; by virtue, not only of
the law of Trajan, which threatened death to such as would not forsake Christ,
but also by the common law of the empire, which declared all who should not
obey the imperatorial edicts unworthy to live. — As to the rewards and honors
which, I find some moderns say, were proffered to those who would apostatise
from Christ, I do not discover a notice of them in any ancient writer. Perhaps
some of the governors attempted to entice here and there an individual, [p. 482.]
to whom they were favorably inclined, by this allurement; but that any empe-
ror should have sought to secure the obedience of his subjects, by promises,
persons of any acquaintance with Roman affairs will not easily believe.
(3) All tlje persecutions sustained by the Christians in preceding times, had
not produced so many deserters and apostates from divine truth, as this single
short one under Decius. Persons of all ranks, and, what is especially remark-
able, even bishops and priests, scarcely waited to be informed of the tyrant's
threats, before they hastened to the tribunals of the governors and magistrates,
and professed themselves ready to worship the gods and to disclaim Christ.
This defection or fall of so many Christians, was deeply deplored by Cyprian,
among others, in his eloquent treatise de Lapsis. This distinguished writer
attributes the evil to the indulgent, luxurious, and degenerate course of life
produced in Christians by the long continued peace, particularly under Alex-
ander Severus and the two Philips; for only a very few, in certain provinces,
experienced the hostility of Maximin. Freed from solicitude and caution, the
Christians had relaxed much of their contempt of this life and its concerns, and
had in many places contracted vicious habits. This must be believed, on the
authority of a man perfectly acquainted with the state of Christians in his own
times. And yet, I apprehend, there will be no mistake in assigning an addition-
al cause, and supposing that the peculiar nature and form of the persecution
instituted by Decius, induced more persons to violate their plighted faith to
Christ, than ever before. Trajan decreed death to every avowed Christian
who refused to forsake Christ, making no mention of tortures and racks : and
much the same were the edicts of the other persecutors of the Christians : but
Decius threatened, — not a capital punishment, but long and painful suflerings,
to the despisers of the godsj and a lingering, protracted death, amid varied
32 Centurij Ill—Section 11.
successive tortures, to the more resolute professors of Christianity. And his
governors executed iiis tlireats witii great exactitude: they ordered no one to
be put to death, unless he was first subjected to numerous tortures, and ex-
hausted and almost dead in consequence of his pains and horrid sufferings; and
many also were tortured, until they actually expired. Some of the governors,
in order to strike greater terror into Christians, ingeniously contrived new
modes of torture, :ind exposed the instruments of the executioners, publicly,
before the eyes of all. This was a far more efhcient way to destroy courage,
and inspire dismay, than the punishments of the preceding times. Men who
are not afraid to die, will look with horror on long continued writhing pains,
and lacerations of the body ; and this horror will be increased by seeing many
examples of sucii extreme cruelty and inhumanity.
Among the lapsed during this bloody persecution, in addition to the Thuri-
ficali and Sarificati, that i<, those who had presented incense before the images
of the gods, or placed victims and sacrifices on their altars, we find notice of a
new class of which there is no mention before this period, namely, the Libella-
tici. Who these were, the learned are not agreed. In regard to this question,
[p. 483.] the following particulars are true beyond all doubt; — First, that the
term Libellaiicus was derived from Qibellus) the written 'paper, which those
called Libellatici either presented to the judge, or received from him ; — Secondly,
that these persons had redeemed their lives, and procured safety from the
emperor's edict, by means of money. And this, as we have before seen, was
neither a new thing, nor regarded as base and improper. By the disciples of
Montanus, indeed, it was considered as impious to purchase life and safety with
money ; but the rest of the Christians condemned this Montanist opinion : —
and thirdly, this is certain, that the Libellatici did not renounce Christ, either in
words or deeds ; that is, they neither payed worship and honor to the gods, nor
concealed or dissembled their own religion. And yet they committed an act
bearing some affinity with this crime, and one which, when carefully considered,
might seem to be a tacit proof of a denial of Christ. — Lastly, that the Libellatici
were the least criminal, or if you please, the best among the lapsed, and, with
little trouble, obtained reconciliation with the church. The two following
questions, however, have been especially debated : Whether the Libellatici
were so denominated, from the (libelli) papers they^^are in, or from such as tiiey
received ? and, What was the tenor or contents of these libelli, from which they
derived their name ? This discussion is founded wholly on the interpretation
of some rather obscure passages in Cyprian: for lie only makes distinct mention
of the Libellatici ; notwithstanding there is good evidence, that such persona
were found in other countries than Africa; for avarice reigns every where, and
life is every where more valued than money. To recite the various opinions
and conjectures of the learned, is not in accordance with my plans, nor would
it be of much use. It will be more pleasant, and more profitable, to cite the
passages of Cyprian, and give their true interpretation. In the first place, it is
clear that those learned men have not duly considered the subject, who sup-
pose the Libellatici were thus named on account of their (libelli) petitions
presented to the governor or magistrate, requesting the judge, on the payment of
The Lapsed. 33
a certain sura of money, to spare the petitioner, and not demand of iiim a pub-
lic renunciation of his religion. For, not to mention that it cannot be shown
tliat such petitions to judges were allowed of, and that on the contrary, it
appears from Cyprian, (as we shall soon see,) that the Libellatici appeared per-
sonally, or by their agents, before the judge, and implored his clemency, not in
writing, but by oral statements only; — I say, not to insist on this, although it
is of great weight in this controversy, — the Christians, by presenting such pe-
titions, would have been guilty of no offence. For, as already sliown, the laws
of the church allowed Christians to petition the judge, either orally, or in
writing, to spare them, and to offer him money as an inducement. A LibellaLi-
cus, therefore, was a Christian who obtained from the magistrate, by some
pecuniary consideration, a (libellus securitaLis) cerlijicate of security, in which it
was stated, that he had complied with the emperor's edict, that is, had sacrificed
to the gods, although in fact he had done no such thing, and had told tlie
judge that his religion utterly forbid his doing it. On account of this certificate,
which the Christian produced if occasion required it, he was publicly by the
citizens regarded as a deserter from his religion, while in reality he [p. 484.]
was no deserter of it. The judge practised deception, by giving the certificate;
and the Christian practised deception by it, and suffered himself to be mistaken
for an apostate. And herein properly consisted the offence of the Libellatici;
for this tacit profession of perfidy, although it was mere simulation, seemed to
differ but little from a real and open profession of it. This view of the subject
is, for the most part, admitted by PrudenLius Maran, in his life of Cyprian,
Q vi. p. liv. &c.) prefixed to the Baluzian edition of Cyprian's Works. Yet he
rejects it in part; for he denies, that these certificates declared the holders of
them to have complied with the emperor's edict: this, he thinks, would have
been too gross a falsehood. He therefore supposes, that the judges entered
upon the public records, that the persons holding certificates had sacrificed and
renounced Christ, but they omitted this in the certificates. This worthy monk
was not destitute of erudition, but he had little acquaintance with human affairs;
and aiming to bring forth something new, he brought it forth; but under un-
favorable auspices. Good sense forsook him. As to the (Ada) public records,
in which he thinks it was written, that the holders of certificates or the Libel-
latici, had offered sacrifices, I shall say nothing. He took this from a passage
in Cyprian, misunderstood ; so that the fact of such a record, is not proved ;
although it is not contrary to all probability. But when he maintains, that
what was written in the book of Records, was not inserted in the certificates of
safety, he forgets the demands of Decius' edict, which required the governors to
extirpate the Christian religion, and to compel all Christians to oflier sacrifices
and worship the gods. The governors, therefore, could not, unless they were
willing to incur the penalties, with which, as before shown, the emperor's edict
threatened them, grant safety, and certificates thereof, to any others besides
those who had complied with the emperor's edict. And therefore, beyond con-
troversy, it must have been stated in the certificate, that the liolder of it had
done what the emperor required. Such a public testimonial was supposed to
be written in good faith, although written in bad or deceptive faith ; and there-
VOL. u. 4
34 Century III.-^ Section 11.
fore it exempted those who produced it, from all fear and danger. It may ber
added, moreover, that Cijprian, (as we shall presently soe,) calls those certifi-
cates, not only vnpious, but also cerlificales of idolalnj. (Epist. 68. p. 119.):
Basilides et Martialis nefando idololatriae libello contaminati sunt. These cer-
tificates could not have merited such epithets, if they had simply assured certain
Christians of their safety, making no mention of their having paid honour ta
the gods. What, I would ask, is a ceriificate of idolatry, (lihellus idololatriae,)
but a certificate declaring the person an idolater, or asserting that he has wor-
shipped the gods? — Lastly : if the fictitious crime of the Christian Libellatici had
been entered on the records of the court, but not mentioned in the certificates,
the holders of the certificates could not have made that use of them, which they
especially desired to do, before other judges; because these judges might de-
mand of them, to commit in their presence the act, of which there was no
mention made in the certificate.
Let us now turn to the principal passages in Cyprian, relative to the LibeU
[p. 485.] latici, and see w^hether they accord with what has been stated. Tho
most noted of all the passages is in his Epistle to Antonianus (Epist. 52. p.
70.) : Cum ergo inter ipsos, qui sacrificaverunt, multa sit diversitas, qua) incle-
mentia est et quam acerba duritia, Libellaticos cum iis, qui sacrificaverunt, jun-
gere, quando is, cui libellus acceptus est, dicat : Ego prius legeram et episcopo
traetante cognoveram non sacrificandum idolia, nee simulacra servum Dei ado-
rare debere, et ideirco ne hoc facerem, quod non licebat, cum occasio libelli
fuissel oblata, quern nee ipsum acciperem, nisi ostensa fuissct occasio, ad magis-
tratum vel veni, vel alio eunte mandavi, Christianura me esse, sacrifieare mihi
non liccre, ad aras diaboli me venire non posse, dare me ob hoc prajmium, ne
quod non licet faciam. Nunc tamen etiam iste, qui libello maculatus est, pos-
tcaquam, nobis admonentibus, didicit, nee hoc se facere debuisse, etsi manus
pura sit, et os ejus feralis cibi nulla contagia polluerint, conscientiam tamen ejus
esse pollutara flet, auditis nobis, et lamentatur. From this extract the following
things are manifest : — 1. The Libellatici had paid no worship to the gods, they
had not even touched meats offered to the gods, and consequently they were
far more innocent than the Sacrificati. — 2. They procured certificates, lest pos-
sibly, if arraigned before the tribunals, they might commit these crimes through
dread of torture. — 3. Not at their own solicitation, but at the suggestion of
others, the judges asked them to order certificates to be written for them ; or,
as Cyprian expresses it, while they were not contemplating such a thing, an
occasion was offered them for petitioning for a certificate. That is, the avaricious
magistrates perceiving a prosperous, wealthy person among the Christians, sig-
nified to him, privately, through their satellites or friends, that his safety might
be secured, and exemption from suffering purchased, with a moderate sum of
money; thus proffering him the clemency of the judges.— 4. The Libellatici did
not present written petitions to the magistrate, but went to the judge, either
personally or by some friend, and orally made known their wishes, presenting,
at the same time, the price of the favor asked for. Cyprian reports the lan-
guage they used. This method of proceeding was necessary to the magistrate's
safety. If they had allowed written petitions to be presented by those who
The Lapsed. 35
wished to obtain certificates of safety without sacrifK'ing, the very petilions
mi""lit lead to the easy detection of the fraud. Tiiose coiiveryant with tiie pro-
ceedings of men, well know that such transactions being derogatory to the law,
and counteracting the designs of the sovereign power, are never done in writing,
but ahvajs orally. This leads me to wonder the more at those who conceive,
that the Libellatici were so called from tlie Qibelli) written •petitions which they
presented. — 5. Some of these Libellatici applied personally to the judges, while
others signified their wishes through tlie medium of friends. For some sup-
posed they would be less criminal, if they did not themselves attempt to bribe
the judge, but employed others to do it. Some, again, I suspect, were afraid to
appear personally, lest the judges, on their professing themselves Christians,
should at once seize them, and cast them into prison ; and, therefore, they cm-
ployed some worshipper of idols, who had nothing to fear, to present [p. 48G.]
the request, pay the money, and receive the certificate in their name. — 6. It ia
manifest that the Libellatici received a writing from the judge whom they had
bribed ; for Cyprian twice mentions the (Hbellus acceplus) writing or certificate
received. And this writing or certificate protected them against all prosecutions,
or attempts to compel them to worship the gods.
Another passage, in an Epistle of the Roman Clergy to Cyprian, (inter Cy-
priani Epistolas, Ep. 31. Opp. p. 42.) is not quite so lucid, and yet sufficiently
so to confirm the preceding statements : Superioribus litteris nostris (a letter
not now extant.) vobis sententiam nostram dilucida expositionc protulimus, et
adversus eos, qui seipsos infideles illicita nefariorum libellorum professione pro-
diderant, quasi evasuri irretientes illos diaboli laqueos viderentur, quo non
minus quani si ad nefarias aras accessissent, hoe ipso quod ipsum contestati
fucrant, tenerentur, sed etiain adversus illos, qui acta fecissent, licet priesentes
quum fierent, non affuisscnt, quum prsesentiam suam utique ut sic scriberentur
mandando fecissent. Non est enim immunis a scelere qui ut fieret imperavit:
nee est alicnus a crimine, cnjus consensu, licet non a se admissum crimen, ta-
men publice legitur, et cum totum fidei sacramentum in confessione Christ!
nominis intelligatur esse digestum, qui fallaces in excusatione prcestigias qua3rit,
negavit, et qui vult videri propositis adversus Evangelium vel edictis vcl legibua
satisfecisse, hoc ipso jam paruit quod videri se paruisse voluit. — From these
words of the Roman clergy we may learn: — 1. That the Libellatici were ac-
customed libellos nefarias profiler^ in presence of the judge ; and by such
professione se ipsos infideles prodere. What is here meant by libellum profiterif
the writers of the Epistle presently show ; it is, io direct or require that some-
thing be written., or that a Hbellus be drawn up. This will be perfectly manifest,
to one comparing the expression with what follows it. Those therefore greatly
err, who make profiteri libellum here to be equivalent to offerre judici libellum.
It is rather, to profess to the judge, that they stand ready to receive a libellum
at a certain price, or to request one from the judge, tendering him money
2. What was written in the certificate thus asked for, is clearly indicated in tlie
following words: ciijus Consensu, licet non a se admissum crimen, publice legitur.
The person then who solicited a certificate, consented, that a crime, which he had
never committed, sliould be piiblicly imputed to him. The crime referred to, was,
36 Century III.— Section 11.
undoubtedly, that of sacrificing. It is tlicrcfore certain, that the certificates
stated that such and such persons had sacrificed to the gods. And tliis, more-
over, is confirmed by the following words: Videri viilt propositis adversus
Evatigelium vet ediclis vel legihus salisfecisse ; paruit, quia paruisse videri
voluit. Consequently, the governor testified in Ms certificate that Caius or
Seius had complied with and satisfied the emperor's edict ; and he who {pro-
fUebatur) declared his willingness to receive the certificate, consented that the
judge should so state concerning him, although the stateaient was false. The
[p. 487.] words publice legitur may lead some to conjecture, that the certificates
thus granted were posted up publicly in the Praetorium, so that all might read
them. And perhaps they were so ; but it is not necessary to put this construc-
tion on the words. For any thing may be said {publice legi) to be publicly read,
which is frequently read in public, which is shown and must be shown, to all
who ask to see it ; and therefore is liable to be read by every one. Maran, who
thought it evident from this expression, that the fictitious criminal act was not
stated in the certificate, but only recorded on the court records, did rot recol-
lect, that these court records w-ere not read publicly, nor could all have access
to read them. Moreover, the language here used shows most conclusively, that
it must be understood of written papers received from the judge, and not of
papers presented to him. For how could a Libellaticus, in a paper of his own,
confess a crime which he had not committed? How could he aflirm that he had
complied with the emperor's edict? — 3. Hence it is clear what the Roman
priests mean, when they say that the exhibitors of these certificates proclaimed
themselves unbelievers. For when a man professes before a judge, that he is
willing to have a crime publicly attributed to him, which, how^ever, he would
shudder to commit, he betrays his infidelity ; that is, he makes it known, that he
will not publicly profess Christ, and that he is unconcerned, if the public should
regard him as an apostate. — 4. These things being kept in sight, it w^ill not be
difficult to apprehend the meaning of the Roman Clergy, when they say : Libel-
laticos irretientes diaboli laqueos evaders telle, at non minus teneri, quam si ad
nefarias aras accessissent, quod hoc ipsum contestati fuerant. The Laquei Diaboli,
which might irretire, or lead men to forsake Christ, were imprisonment, the
Tack, and the tortures wherewith the governors, by command of Decius, s'ought
to bring Christians to a renunciation of Christ. And the Libellatici, although
they had not gone to the forbidden altars, nor offered sacrifice to the gods, yet
were equally guilty, in the view of the Roman priests, because they had attest-
ed to (hoc ipsum) this very thing, namely, their going to the altars and offering
Baorifice. They had not indeed themselves attested to this ; but, with their
consent, the judge had attested it; and he who approves the act of another, by
consenting to it, is justly considered as a cause and author of it; and one who
authorises another to charge him publicly with a crime, in a sense charges it
upon himself. — 5. What we learned from the former passage, is also manifest
from this, namely, that the Libcllnticl did not present Qibellos) written requests
to the judge, but either went to him themselves, or sent their authorised agents
to solicit from him a (libellus) uyritten certificate. Prudentius Maran fancies that
the words Acta fecissent, here indicate the {Acta Judicii) Records of the Court;
The Lapsed. 37
a most unhappy conceit : as if truly, entries on the court records raitrht bo
made by the petitioners to the court ; that was the business of the public nota-
ries. In this place, Ada facere is the same with Uhellum prnfueri: for the
Roman clergy are here speaking of those (Acta) acts, which were unavoidable, bv
such Christians as would secure their safety by means of a (libellus) certificate.
We subjoin a third passage from the tract of Cyprian (de Lapsis, [p. 488.1
c. 27. p. 190.) : Nee sibi quo minus agant pocnitentiam blandiantur, qui etsi
nefandis sacrificiis manus non contaminaverunt, Ubellis tamen conscientiara
pollucrunt. Et ilia professio denegantis contestatio est Christian! quod fucrat
abnuentis. The learned hesitate in regard to the meaning of this passao-e;
because it is concise and rather obscure ; and yet, by proper attention, we
may easily discover its import. The Professio denegantis is, the Professio Ubelli
of a Christian, who denies before the judge, that he can or will offer sacrifice.
This will appear, if we compare the first passage above cited with the one be-
fore us. This Professio Ubelli is the Contestatio or testimony of a Christian,
abnuentis id, quodfuerat, i. e. denying that he is any longer a Ciiristian, which
he before was. For, he who permits it to be stated, (in libello) in the certifi-
cate, that he has offered sacrifice, virtually denies that he is a Christian, by
allowing the title and glory of a Christian to be taken from him. Fecisse se dixit
(namely, by the judge, who wrote as he desired,) quicquid almafaciendo commisit.
Cumque scriptum sit; non potestis duobus Dominis servire, servivit gaeculari
Domino qui obtemperavit ejus cdicto (i. e. the person who consented to have it
written, that he had obeyed the Deeian edict,) magis obaudivit humano imperio,
quam Deo. Viderit an minore vel dedecore vel crimine apud homines publica-
verit, quod admisit. Deum tamen Judicem fugere et vitare non poterit. To
avoid prolixity, I will not continue the explication of this passage, notwithstand-
ing it is ill understood by many ; for it contributes but little to elucidate the
subject under consideration. —Among the other passages in Cyprian relative to
the Libellalici and their certificates, there are none which throw additional light
on the subject, or add weight to the arguments already adduced, except a pas-
sage in his Epistle to Fortunatus, (de Exhortatione Martyrii, c. 11. p. 271.)
where he cites the example of Eleazur, in 2 Maccab. 6. to rebuke the crime of
the LibellaticL He says: Ac nequis vel Ubelli vel alicujus rei oblata sibi occa-
sione qua fallat amplectatur decipientium malum nmnus, nee Eleazarus tacen-
dus est, qui cum sibi a ministris regis offerretur facultas, ut accepta carne qua
liceret sibi vesci ad circumveniendum Regem simularet se ilia cdere, quae de
sacrificiis ingerebantur, consentire ad banc fallaciam noluit, dicens, nee atati
suae, nee nobilitati convenire,id fingere, quo ceteri scandalizerentur et in errorem
inducerentur, existimantes Eleazarum ad alienigenarum morem transiisse. A cur-
sory reading of this passage will show, that the Libellatici practised an imposi-
tion upon the emperor, and feigned obedience to him ; and also, that they were
invited to do this by others ; for Cyprian says, they embraced the opportunity
proffered to them. It is likewise evident that they did not present the (llbcllinn)
written paper to the judge, but received it from him; for Cyprian calls these
(libellos) written papers //m/wm mnnvs ; which single expression is nearly a
sufficient confutation of the false opinions and conjectures of many. For a
88 Century IIL^Sectioii 12.
[p. 489.] munus is something received ; and a inalum munus is, undoubtedly,
a gift that is injurious to the receiver. There must, therefore, have been some-
thing written in the (libellus) certificate, which might bring reproacli and crimi-
naliiy on the Libellaticus.
This whole subject might liave been more clear and easy to be understood,
if the edict of Decius had come down to us. For, as there is no mention
whatever of such {libelU) certificates, by any writer who lived anterior to the
times of this edict, although we know that, before that period, Christians pur-
chased to themselves safety by money and presents, it seems that this w^hole
matter originated from the severe law of this emperor. He, if I am not mis-
taken, not only required all the Christians that could be found, to be seized,
and by tortures compelled to pay homage to the gods; but also, lest some
might evade the law, and falsely pretend to have sacrificed, he ordered the
iudges to give a libellum, or public testimonial, that the thing had been actually
done, according to the emperor's requisition. A man, therefore, destitute of a
libeUuSy or testimonial from the judge, was liable to be accused of disobeying
the law and being a rebel ; but the man who could produce his libellus, was
free from all danger. This idea, in my opinion, throws much light on the
hitherto incomprehensible cause for these libelU. To all Christians who would
be safe from molestation, the libellus or testimonial of the judge, that he had
sacrificed, was indispensable. Vast numbers procured a libellus by actually
doing what the emperor required: others, too conscientious to follow their ex-
ample, and not knowing what to do, remained trembling at theh- homes. And
to these timid and hesitating persons the money-loving judges caused it to be
secretly intimated by their retainers, tliat there was a wny to obtain a libellus,
without sacrificing ; that the judges would give the testimonies required by the
imperiLorial edict, to persons who would not sacrifice, provided they would
show due gratitude to their benefactors.
§ XII. Contests respecting the Lapsed. This great multitude of
apo-states caused a large portion of the Christian community to
be thrown into commotion ; and here and there it produced in-
veterate contests. For while those persons wished to be rein-
stated in the church, without undergoing the long penances pre-
scribed by the ecclesiastical laws ; and some of the doctors, from
a pjopensity towards lenity, favored that course ; and others of a
sterner mould, and more rigidly adhering to the ancient discip-
line, resisted it; parties very naturally arose among the Christians.
Very many of the lapsed, especially in Egypt and Africa,(') in
order to obtain more readily a reconciliation with their bishops
and churches, employed the martyrs to intercede for them. For
as the reputation and influence of martyrs and confessors amono-
the early Christians were amazingly great, and their decisions
Contests about the Lapsed. 39
were regarded as almost divine, it had become the custom, [p. 490.]
even in the preceding century,(') to admit to the communion those
among the hipsed who could procure a testimonial of fraternal
love from a martyr, on their exhibiting to him a few signs of
contrition. Such testimonies from a mart3^r, signifying that he
could forgive and hold fellowship with certain persons, were
usually called Libdli Pads, During this Decian persecution, some
martyrs in Africa abused this prerogative immoderately; and
some of the bishops and presbyters, either from fear or veneration
of the martyrs, or from ignorance of ecclesiastical law, were too
ready to receive the offenders who were provided with these
certificates,(^) To the evils which were to be apprehended from
this imprudence and ready acquiescence, Cyprian^ the bishop of
Carthage, placed himself in strong opposition. Being then absent
from his chiu'ch, he wrote Epistles, recommending that this lenity
should be tempered with due severity, and that proper limits be
set to the rule Respecting the certificates of peace. And hence he
became involved in a troublesome controversy with the mart}- rs,
the confessors, the presbyters, the lapsed, and the people ; but
from it he came forth victorious.(^)
(1) Respecting Eg3'pt, see Dionysius Alexandrinus, (apud Euseb. Hist.
Eecles. L. vi. c. 44.) — As to Africa, Cyprian's Epistles are full on the subject,
(2) The learned have long remarked, that TerluUian is the earliest writer
who mentions this custom ; towards the close of his book, de Pudicilia, (c. 22.)
and in his book, ad Marlyres, (c. 1.) See Gabr. Aibaspinaeus, (Observ. Eecles.
L. i. Observ. 20. p. 94.) — Hence it is concluded, that this custom was not older
than the middle of the second century.
(3) Under the title of Martyrs were included, those on whom a sentence of
death had already been passed, and also those who had sustained very grievous
sufferings for Christ's sake, and were still det^iined in prison, uncertain what was
to befall them. As to the right of these martyrs to give certificates of peace
when so requested, there was no dispute. Neither did any one deny, or pre-
tend to deny, that a shorter and lighter penance was to be imposed on the
persons presenting such certificates to the bishop. Whoever should have con-
troverted either of these points, would have been accused of violating the
sanctity and dignity of the martyrs; nay, of high treason against the majesty
of God, who, as many supposed, spoke and gave his decisions throngii the
martyrs. The only controversy was, respecting the manner in which this right
was to be used, and the extent of the influence to be allowed to these certifi-
cates. These Libelli Pads were not introduced by any law or canon, but only
by custom ; and theretore, it was uncertain how far this right extended. And
this uncertainty occasioned many things to be done by the martyrs, during the
40 Century III. — Section 12.
Decian persecution, whch were highly detrimental to the welfare of the chnrch,
[p. 491.] and which, therefore, Cyprian and other bishops felt bound to cei»-
sure. — In the first place, whereas certificates had formerly been given by the
martyrs to only a few individuals, and this after a careful examination of each
case ; in the present persecution, tliey were distributed among all, without dis-
crimination or distinction ; and the bishops were of course overwhelmed with
a multitude of these certificates of peace. Says Cyprian (Epistola xiv. p. 24.) :
Cum comperissem, lapsos exambire ad martyres passim, confcssores quoque,
importuna et gratiosa deprecatione corrumpere, ut sine ullo discrimine aique
examine singulorum, darentur quoiidie libellorum millia (a definite number is
here rhetorically used for one indefinite,) contra Evangelii legem, litteras feci»
quibus martyres et confcssores, consilio meo quantum possem ad dominica prse-
cepta revocarcm. There are several other passages in Cyprian, which speak of
the immense number of the certificates given by the martyrs. On the evils re-
sulting from them, there is no need to expatiate. With the full expectation of
obtaining such certificates, everybody hurried away to the judicial tribunals,
and publicly renouncing Christ, offered sacrifice to the gods ; and then, as if
they had done right, they proceeded to the prisons, where the more resolute
Christians were detained awaiting their final sentence, and requested certificates
of peace ; and, having readily obtained them, they repaired t© the bishops, and
asked to be restored to fellowship in the church, on the ground that the martyrs
recognised them in their certificates as brethren. In the persecutions of former
times, the prudence of the bishops had laid checks upon this evil, arising from
the indiscretion of ignorant and illiterate martyrs. For they sent discreet and
well informed deacons to the prisons, to advise the martyrs, and prevent their
giving certificates indiscriminately, or to any but persons- worthy of their kind
offices. But under Decius, this wise course was neglected; and hence arose the
sad confusion, and the unmeasured liberality of the martyrs. Let us hear Cy-
prian on the subject (Epistola x. p. 20.) : In pra)teritum semper sub anteces-
soribus nostris factum est, ut diaconi ad carcerem commeantes martyrum deside-
ria consiliis suis et scripturarum praBceptis gubernarent. Sed nunc cum maximo
animi dolore cognosce, non tantum illic vobis non suggeri divina pnecepta, sed
adhuc potius impediri. Most earnestly, therefore, the holy man conjures the
martyrs to follow the example of their predecessors, and not to give their opinion
in any case, without close inspection and examination. Quoniam audio, for-
tissimi et carrissimi fratres, impudentia vos quorundam premi - - oro vos quibus
possum prccibus, aut Evangelii memores et considerantes quae et qualia in prse-
teritum antecessores vestri martyres concesserint, quam solliciti in omnibus fue-
rint, vos quoque sollicite et caute petentium desideria ponderetis, utpote amici
[p. 492.] Domini, et inspiciatis et actum et opera et merita singulorum, ipsorum
quoque delictorum genera et qualitales cogitetis, ne si quid abrupte et indigne
vel a vobis promissum, vel a nobis factum fuerit, apud gentiles quoque ipsos
ecclesia nostra erubescere incipiat. From this language it is very manifest that
it was not the right of the martyrs to give certificates of peace to the lapsed,
recommending them to the churches, but only the use of this right, which wjia
the subject of controversy.
Contests about the Lapsed. 41
This error was accompanied by another of no less magnitude. The martyrs,
in this Decian persecution, did not always insert the names of the persons to
whom they wished the church to be reconciled, but naming an individual, they
connected with him a company who were not named; that is, they recom-
mended to the communion of the church, all those whom the bearer of the cer-
tificate might bring forward as his friends and associates. Whoever, thereibre>
had obtained sucli a vague and indeterminate certificate, might, at his discretion,
make all he pleased partakers with him in the benefit conferred. And some, if
I am not deceived, so abused this pernicious power, as actually to sell the pri-
vilege of sharing in the certificate. This, I think, I can discover in tiie some-
what obscure language of Cyprian (Epist. x. p. 20.) : Intelligentes et compri-
mentes eos, (he is addressing martyrs,) qui personas accipienies in benejlciis ves-
tris, (i. e. who extend your favors, not to those worthy of them, but to those
they choose, however unworthy,) aut gi'atijicaniur, (i. e. either give them away,)
out ilUcilcc negotiationis nundinas aucupantur, (i. e. or search for buyers of the
priviliges contained in the certificate, thus making merchandise of the privileges
they had obtained.) On discovering Christians of such corrupted morals and
perverse minds, in this early age of the church, we need not greatly wonder at
the temerity and licentiousness of the subsequent ages, in making everything
sacred venal, and converting the sins of men into a source of gain. But this
was then a new crime ; for the martyrs of earlier times did not give such cer-
tificates. At this period, doubtless, there were evil-minded and cunning men,
who did not stop with renouncing Christ, but were willing to add sin to sin, and
therefore blandly persuaded the honest but uneducated martyrs, who had none
to direct and guide them, to issue such certificates. Of this wrong conduct,
Cyprian himself complains, (Epist. x. pp. 20. 21.) : Sed et illud ad diligentiam
vestrara redigere et emendare debetis, ut nominatim designetis eos, quibus pa-
cem dari desideratis. Audio enim quibusdam sic libellos fieri, ut dicatur:
" Communicet ille cum suis :" quod nunquam onmino a martyribus factum est,
ut incerta et coeca petitio invidiam nobis postmodum cumulet. Late enim patet,
quando dicitur: "Jlle cum suis;" et possunt nobis viceni et triceni et amplius
offerri, qui propinqui et affines et liberti ac domestici esse asseverentur ejus, qui
accepit libellum. Et ideo peto, ut eos, quos ipsi videtes, quos nostis, [p. 493.]
quorum poenitentiam satisfactioni proximam conspicitis, designetis nominatim
libello, et sic ad nos fidei ac disciplinse congruentes litteras dirigatis.
Some of the martyrs, before dying for Christ, gave direction to certain of
their friends to issue certificates in their names, when dead, indiscriminately, to
all who should ask for them. An example of this we have in the Epistle of
Lucian, a Confessor, to Celerinvs, (among the Epistles of Cyprian, Epist. xxi.
p. 30.) : Cum benedictus martyr Paulus, adhuc in eorpore esset, voeavit me et
dixit mihi: Luciane, coram Christo dico tibi, ut si quis post arcessitionem meam,
(i. e. after I am put to death,) abs te pacem petierit, da in nomine meo. And
Cyprian informs us, (Epist. xxii. p. 31.) that this Lwc/ar?, whom he pronounces
a man of piety, but not well informed on religious subjects : Libellos manu sua
scriptos gregatim nomine Pauli dabat. Cyprian adds: Lucianus, non tantum
Paulo adhuc in carcere posito, nomine illius libellos manu sua scriptos passim
42 Century IIL—Scctlon 12.
dedil, sed et post ejus excessum cadem facere sub ejus nomine perscvemv it, di-
cens hoc sibi ab illo mandatum. And this same Lucius gave certificates in the
name of another martyr, Aurelius, who was unable to write : Auiciii quoquc
adoiescentis tormenta perpessi nomine, libelli multi dati sunt ejusdeni Luc-iani
manu scripti, quod litteras ille non nosset. Tiie martyrs who were so liberal as
to order certificates to be given to all applicants, when they were dead, apjiear
to have cherished a great error by believing, that so great was the efficacy of
the death they were about to suffer, that it could expiate the sins of other per-
sons; and tiiat the injunctions of a deceased and triumphant martyr were ]ier-
fectly satisfactory both to God and to men. Thus much is certain, and is
manifest from Cyprian's Epistles, and from his book de Lapsis, that most of the
martyrs were ignorant of the true grounds of these certificates of peace ; and
they imagined grounds for them quite inconsistent with the Christian religion.
This Cyprian in some measure perceived, as appears, among other things, from
his reprehension of Lucian's proceedings, (Epist. xxi. p. 32.) : Cum Dominus
dixerit, in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti gentes tingi, et in bajjtismo
praeterita peccata dimitti, hie prcecepti et legis ignarus mandat pacem dari et pec-
cata dimitti in Pauli nomine, et hoc sibi dicit ab illo esse mandatum. This is a
frigid and futile argument; as also are, it must be confessed, many others oc-
curing in the writings of Cyprian. This excellent man is not entirely self'-con-
sistenr, on this whole subject; and he especially vacillates in regard to the force
and the ground of these certificates; yet he partially apprehended the subject.
Those who gave the certificates, whether from their ignorance, or from rash and
hasty judgments, really believed that martyrs received power from God to for-
give sins, and remit the penalties incurred by transgressors. And Cyprian ef-
fected nothing, either by the preceding argument, or by any others. For this
[p. 494.] Lucian, whom he endeavored to set right, being provoked and irritated
by Cyprian's letters, burst every bond of modesty, and, getting others of the
confessors to join him, issued, in his own name, and in that of all the con-
fessors, a general certificate of peace, requiring that all the lapsed, without ex-
ception, should be restored to the church. Says Cyprian (Epist. xxii. p. 31.) :
Postquara ad Confessoros litteras mi.si, ut quasi moderatius aliquid et tempe-
rantius fieret, universorum Confessorum nomine idem Lucianus epistolam
scripsit, qua pajne omne vinculum fidci et timer Dei et mandatum Domini et
Evangelii sanctitas et firmitas solveretur. Scripsit enim omnium nomine unicer-
sis (lapsis) eos pacem dedis.se, et banc formam per me aliis episcopis innotes-
cere velle : cujus epistolae exemplum ad vos transmisi.
This improper conduct of the martyrs, who were generally illiterate and un-
acquainted with the Christian discipline, might perhaps have been easily check-
ed and corrected, if the presbyters and bishops had done their duty. But they,
actuated by hatred of Cyprian and by other motives, shamefully increased the
evil, and wished more to be conceded than the martyrs asked for. It was not
the aim of the martyrs to subvert all order and to prostrate the authority of the
bishops by means of their certificates, nor to exempt those whom they u'lder-
took to patronise entirely from ecclesiastical penalties. This is clear, from the
language of Lucian himself, tlie most audacious and indiscreet of them all:
Contests about the Lapsed. 48
{Cyprian, Epist. xxi. p. 30.) : Et ideo, Fnitcr, pelo, ut, sieut hie, cum Dominus
coeperit i|;8i^ eccleyiae pacein dare, secundum praeceptum Pauli (not, Paul the
apostle, but Paul the martyr, in whose name Lucian issued the certificates,) et
nostrum tr.ictatum, exposita caussa apud episcopum, et facta exomologc<i, ha-
Leant pacem non tantum hae, sed et quas scia ad animum nostrum pertinere.
It appears therefore, — 1. That he did not wish the lapsed to be immedi.itely re-
stored to the church, from which they iiad excluded themselves by sinning; but
he would have tiic matter postponed, till the return of more tranquil times.
2. That he did not ask to have the lapsed restored to communion, without the
cognisance and assent of the bishop. — 3. That he would have the Lipscd pub-
licly confess their fault, and humbly ask the forgiveness of the church: Exo-
mologesm facere. He by no means wished all the lapsed, who held certificates,
to be received without any punishment, but only those who, after their fall, lead
a manifestly pious and holy life. This condition Lucian expressly added, in that
general certificate, which was so particularly offensive to Cyprian. Says
Cyprian, (Epist. xxii. p. 31.): Additum est plane, dequibus ratio constiterit, quid
post commissum egerint. Lucian therefore allowed enquiry into the conduct
of those presenting certificates, and would deprive of the benefits of their certi-
cates those guilty of new transgression.?. Similar prudence and moderation
were observed by other martyrs in giving certificates of peace ; as Cyprian has
recorded in repeated instances. Thus, (Epist. ix. p. 19.): Martyres memores
loci nostri ad me litteras direxerunt, et petierunt tunc desideria sua [p. 495.]
examinari et pacem dari, qnando ipsa antea mater nostra ecclesia pacem de
misericordia Domini prior sumpserit et nos divina protectio reduces ad eccle-
siam suam fecerit. And (Epist. x. p. 20.) addressing the martyrs, he says:
Litteras ad me direxistis, quibus examinari disideria vestra et quibusdam lapsis
pacem dari postulastis, cum persecutione finita convenire in unum cum clero et
recolligi coeperimus. See also Epist. xi. p. 21. Many also of the lapsed,
though possessed of certificates, wished nothing to be done preposterously, but
very modestly submitted their case to the judgment of the bishop. Says Cy-
frian, (Epist. xxviii. p. 38.) : Scripserunt mihi nuper quidam de lapsis humiles
et mites et trementes et metuentes Deum, et qui in eeclesia semper gloriose et
granditer operati sunt. Et quamvis libello a martyribus accepto, ut tanien a
Domino satisftictio sua admitti possit, orantes scripserunt mihi, se delictum suum
cognoscere et poenitentiam veram agere, nee ad pacem temere aut importune
properare, sed expectare praesentiam nostram, dicentes pacem quosque ipsam,
si eam nobis praesentibus acceperint, dulciorem sibi futuram. Certnin of the
presbyters, however, at the mere sight of these certificates, in utter disregard of
the re^psct due to the bishop, and contrary to all order, not even requiring any
public confession of their faults, admitted all sorts of lapsed persons, at once,
not only to the assemblies of the church, but even to the Lord's supper ; — than
which, nothing in that age could be more indiscreet, or more injurious to the
church. Says Cyprian, (Epist. x. p. 20.) : Presbyteri quidam nee timorem Dei,
nee episcopi honorem cogitantes — contra Evangelii legem, contra vestram quo-
que (he is addressing the m:irtyrs,) honorificam petitionem, (mark the circnm-
spection he uses,) ante actam poenitentiam, ante exomologesin gravissinii atque
44 Century III— Section 12.
extremi delicti factam, ante maimm ab episcopo et clcro in poenitentiam impo-
sitarn, offerre pro illis et eiicharistiara dare, id est, sanctum Domini, corpus pro-
phanare audent. With grief he repeats the same in the following Letter,
(Epist. xi. p. 21.) These presbyters, envying Cyprian the honors paid him,
stirred up the martyrs and confessors to demand that more respect should be
given to their certificates than heretofore, and that disregarding the authority of
the bishops, the lapsed should be restored, with no delay whatever. Says Cy-
prian, (Epist. xl. p. 52.; : Hi fonienta dim quibusdam Confessoribus et horttu
menta tribuebant, ne eoncordarent cum episcopo suo, ne ecclesiasticam disci-
plinam cum fide et qulete juxta praecepta dominica continerent, ne confessionia
suae gloriara incorrupta et immaculata conversatione servarent. Hence those
great and turbulent movements, both of the confessors and the lapsed; the for-
mer demanding that their certificates should have the effect of laws and man-
dates, and the latter, that instant admittance should be allowed them to all the
sacred rites, on the ground of their certificates. In our province, says Cyprian,
(Epist. xxii. pp. 31, 32.) : Per aliquot civitates in prajpositos (the bishops,) im-
[p. 496.] petus per multitudinem factus est, et pacem, quam semel cuncti a
martyribus et confessoribus datam clamitabant, confestim sibi repreesentari co-
egerunt, territis et subactis pracpositis suis, qui ad resistendum minus virtute
animi et robore fidei pra^valebant. Apud nos etiam quidam turbulenti, qui vix
a nobis in praiteritum regebantur, et in nostram prajsentiam differebantur
velut quibusdam facibus accensi plus exardescere et pacem sibi datnm extor-
quere cceperunt. Some of the lapsed had the audacity to send insulting letters
to Cyprian, in which they did not ask for reconciliation, but claimed that they
had already obtained it. (Epist. xxix. p. 39, 40.) : Quorumdam lapsorum con-
spirata temeritas, qui poenitentiam agere et Deo satisfacere detrectant, litteras
ad me fecerunt, pacem non dandam sibi postulantes, sed quasi jam datara sibi
vindicantes, quod dicant Pauluin omnibus pacem dedisse.
(4) Cyprian endeavored to repress the disturbances produced by the certi-
ficates of peace, in their commencement, by three grave and explicit Epistles,
addressed, respectively, to the Confessors, the priests, and the people. In these
Epistles he urged to have the subject postponed until he should return to his
see ; and the Confessors he exhorted to use prudence and moderation, and the
people to wait quietly till the persecution should terminate. But, for various
reasons, these Epistles only created still greater disturbances, as we have al-
ready intimated. The confessors and martyrs, especially, urged their rights with
earnestness; and open opposition to them would have been hazardous. The
Lucian before mentioned, in that general certificate of peace which he wrote in
the name of all the confessors, threatened Cyprian pretty distinctly, that if he
persevered in resisting the wishes and demands of the martyrs, the result would
be, that himself and other martyrs would exclude Cyprian from their commu-
nion. This short, but threatening and arrogant Epistle of Lucian, is worth in-
serting here, from Cyprian, (Epist. xvi. p. 26.) : Universi Confessores Cypriano
Papae salutem ! Scias, nos universis, de quibus apud te ratio constiterit, quid
post commissum egerint, dedisse pacem. Et banc formam per te et aliis episco-
j)is innotescere volumus. Oplamus ie cum Sanctis martyribus pacem habere.
youahfs of Carthage. 45
Preesente de clero et exorcista et lectorc. What Luci:m here says of liis wish-
ing Cyprian pacem habere cum marlyrilms, amounts undoubtedly to this : We
will deprive you of our peace, unless you confirm the peace given by us ; notwith-
standing all the efforts of Stephen Bahiz, ( in his notes on the passajje,) to
extenuate the folly of this language. Had they carried these threats into exe-
cution, they would doubtless have brought the good man into great trouble.
He was therefore obliged to yield a little, and to treat this dangerous subject
cautiously and prudently. While he was laboring and trembling, the Roman
priests and confessors afforded him aid, by their epistle addressed to the priests
and the people of Carthage, in which they approved and lauded the course he
had pursued. They also wrote to Cyprian himself, who had by his letters en-
deavored to bring them to espouse his cause. These epistles from Rome seem
to have set this controversy nearly at rest ; for we meet with few or [p. 497.]
no traces of it afterwards. — When Cyprian returned to his church on the ter-
mination of the Decian persecution, he called a council at Carthage, the Acta
and Canons of which are mentioned by him in several of his Epistles, ( See
Epistt. lii. liii. Iv. Ivi. Ixviii.) A principal subject of discussion in the council,
was the case of the lapsed, and the penance they should perform. But it does
not appear, that the influence which certificates of peace given by martyrs
ought to have, was discussed and settled. This subject seems to have been
designedly passed over, and consigned to oblivion. For it was full of danger
and difficulty; because, while consulting the interests of the church, the honors
and authority of the martyrs and confessors, whom the people venerated ex-
cessively, could not be safely underrated. Cyprian in all his Epistles upon
this subject, proceeds as if treading on the treacherous embers of a sleeping
volcano, and is exceedingly careful not to appear to depreciate the honors and
the dignity of the martyrs. Yet with all his prudence he could not escape
entirely the indignation of the martyrs and the complaints of the people.
Wliat then would have occurred, if he had ventured, in the council, in the pre-
sence of so many living confessors, idolized by the people, to call their prero-
gatives in question, and to set definite limits to the effects of their certificates
of peace ? What contention, what clamors, what disputes would have arisen 1
After this contest, 1 find no further mention of certificates of peace, in any
ancient history of the Christians. I therefore suspect that the bishops, becom-
ing more cautious and prudent, in view of this troublesome case, whenever a
persecution broke out, pursued the old custom, and sent presbyters and dea-
cons to the prisons, to instruct and guide the martyrs, and prevent their being
too liberal and indiscreet in the issue of such certificates.
§ XIII. Contest between Cyprian and Novatus. The contro-
versy just described, was accompanied by another more trivial
and limited in its nature, but, on account of its source and origin,
greater and more formidable ; for it arose from hatred and the
indulgence of unrestrained passion ; and it was protracted, and
was conducted with an animosity, perhaps, greater than the case
46 Century HI. — Section 13.
demanded, till it ended in a deplorable scliism.(') N'ovatus, a
presbyter of Carthage, even prior to the persecution under De-
cius, had had disagreement with Cyprian, his bishop, for some
cause nut now known, and had drawn off some of the brethren
from him ; that is, he had persuaded them not to follow the de-
mands of the bishop in everything. Q If we give credit to his
adversary's statements, N'ovatus was not only factious, vain, and
rash, but also guilty of many offences and crimes. Cyprian,
therefore, purposed to call him to a judicial trial, and to exclude
[p. 498.] him from the communion of the church. And the day
for his trial had been appointed, when, suddenly, the publication
of the emperor's edict intervened ; and, as it obliged Cyprian to
betake himself to flight, N'ovatus remained safe in his former po-
sition.(^) This was the first act in this protracted drama.
(1) The history of the two-fold schism, produced by Novalus and Nova-
tian at Rome, and by Felicissimus at Carthage, in the midst of the Decian per-
secution, must be gathered from the Epistles of Cyprian, from Eusehius, from
the Fabulai Ifereticorum of Theodoret, and from detached passages of other
ancient writers. Yet the few documents we have relative to this protracted
contest, are insufficient to give us a full and perfect knowledge of it. The
primary and, so to speak, interior causes of this conflict, are, in great measure,
undiscoverable ; nor will equity or reason permit us to believe everything true,
which is told us by Cyprian and the other bitter enemies of Novalus and his
friends. If I am not greatly deceived, there were faults on both sides ; but
which was most blameable, the scantiness of the records that have reached us,
make it very difficult to decide. The short statement of this controversy given
above, differs in some respects, from that heretofore given by the learned. Yet
I have stated nothing without good reason ; nor can the order and connexion
of the events be apprehended differently. The affairs of Novalus, of Felicissi-
mus, and of Novalian were certainly connected; and yet, in some sense, they
were disconnected. This connexion in some respects and disconnexion in
others, have not been carefully discriminated, by most of those who have
written on the subject ; and often they so mix up things, that their readers are
left in great perplexity and uncertainty. I make no exceptions among even
the most distinguished expounders of the affairs of Christians.
(2) Novalus, with whom this whole controversy originated, was undoubt-
edly a Carthagenian presbyter. For no one who reads the Epistles of Cyprian
censuring him, will give credit to Baronius, who would make him a bishop.
And yet, if I can judge, he was not one of the presbyters who served the prin-
cipal church and were always near the bishop, but he presided over a separate
congregation distinct from the principal church. I think this may be inferred
from the fact, that he created Felicissimus a deacon; of which Cyprian so
bitterly complains, (Epist. xlix. p. 63.) : Ipse (Novatus) est, qui Felicissimum
Novatus of Carthage. 47
Bntcllitem suiim diaconuiii, nee permittciito me, nee scicntc, sua factione et am-
bitione constitnit. Whether this occurred while Cyprian was at C:\rlliaife, or
in iiis nbsencc during the persecution, I think we must come to the conclusion
stated. If Novatus ventured to do this, before the persecution, and while
Cyprian was in Carthage, (which is quite supposeble,) it must be [p. 499,]
manifest, that Novatus had charge of a separate congregation distinct from that
of Cyprian. For how could an individual presbyter create a deacon in the
bishop's own church, and the bishop be present, and not know of it? IIow
could he have so obtruded this deacon upon the bishop ? If this occurred dur-
ing the absence of Cyprian, we must come to the same conclusion. For
although some of the presbyters and a portion of the people were not very
partial to Cyprian, yot the greater part of the church had the highest respect
and reverence for him ; and therefore, no presbyter could so manage as to
cause a deacon to be appointed without the bishop's knowledge and contrary
to his pleasure. The wliole, or at least the greater part of the church would
have resisted it, and have cried out that the head of the church must be con-
sulted and have a voice in the matter. But the congregations that were sepa-
rate from the mother church and the bishop, and had their own appropriate
presbyters, had likewise their own deacons; and if Novatus had charge of such
a church, he might have created Felicissimus a deacon in his church, without
the knowledge or consent of the bishop. And this supposition is confirmed by
the language used by Cyprian. For it appears, that Novatus did not create a
deacon by his own sole authority and choice, but, as Cyprian' s\ar\gua.gQ shows,
(sua factione et amhiiione,) in his fiictious ambitious spirit, by flattery and in-
trigue, he persuaded the church under him to elect Felicissimus deacon. Had
Novatus simply assumed, contrary to ecclesiastical law, the power of consti-
tuting a deacon in his own church, there would not be ground for charging
him with either faction or ambition. Besides, Cyprian does not blame him for
recommending to his church the election of Felicissimus to the office of deacon,
which it was lawful and right for him to do ; but he complained, that Novatus
undertook and carried through the whole business, without consulting him, or
letting him know anything of it. Novatus, doubtless, believed that such a con-
gregation, distinct from the mother church, liad the right and the power of
electing their own servants, with consent of the presbyter who had charge of
them. But Cyprian, who was a most strenuous defender of episcopal riglits
and authority, contended that nothing whatever, even in those minor Christian
assemblies, ought to be undertaken or transacted without the approbation and
consent of the bishop ; and he therefore considered Novatus as censurable for
recommending to his church the choice of Felicissimus for deacon, before he
had been approved of and judged worthy of a deaconship by the bishop.
Perhaps Novatus intentionally neglected to consult the bishop, because he
knew that Cyprian had a dislike to the man. The church over which ISovatus
presided, worshipped on a certain hill in Carthage. This, I think, Cyprian in-
timates, (Epist. xxxviii. p. 51.) where he &ays of Felicissimus : Comminatus est
fratribus nostris potentatu improbo et terrore violento, quod secum in morde
non communicarent, qui nobis obtemperarc voluissent. Many copies, both
48 Century Ill—Section 13.
[p. 500.] manuscript and printed, here read, in morte. But this reading^ is des-
titute of meaning; and Felicissimus would iiave been a fool to have threat-
ened such a thing to his adversaries, when it would have frightened nobody.
The learned have therefore long considered the true reading to be, in monte.
And this reading is much confirmed by the appelhition of (Montenses) the Hill
People, given to the Novatians at Rome, according to Epiphanius, (in Ancorato,
c. 13. Opp. torn. ii. p. 18.) They were probably so called, because they con-
sidered that portion of the Carthagenian church, which worshipped on some
hill or mountain of the city, to be the only true church of Carthage. Hence
Felicissimus threatened the friends of Cyprian with exclusion from communion
in the Hill Church : which was unquestionably the church in which Felicissi-
mus officiated as deacon, and, of course, had some authority ; and, as this was
the church over which Novatus presided, it must be clear, that I am correct in
stating, that Novatus had charge of a small congregation, distinct from the
mother church, which assembled on some hill in Carthage.
If we may give credit to Cyprian and his adherents, there were few worse
men among the Christians of that age than Novatus. Cyprian says of him,
(Epist. xlix. p. 63.) : Rerum semper cupidus, avaritiae inexplebiiis, rapacitate
furibundus, arrogantia et stupore superbi tumoria inflatus, semper istic episco-
pis male cognitus, quasi hasreticus semper et perfidus omnium sacerdotum voce
damnatus, curiosus semper ut prodat, ad hoc adulatur ut fallat, nunquam fidelis
ut diligat, fax et ignis ad conflnnda seditionis incendia, turbo et tempestas ad
fidei facienda naufragia, hostis quietis, tranquillitatis adversarius, pads inimicus.
So many and so great diseases of the mind, he had manifested by his great
enormities and crimes. For, not to mention his seditious conduct towards his
bishop, he was a thief, a robber, a parricide, and a perpetrator of sacrilege.
Spoliati ab illo pupilli, fraudatse viduse, pecuniae ecclesise denegatse has de illo
exigunt poenas. Pater etiam ejus in vico fame mortuus, et ab eo in morte
postmodum nee sepultus. Uterus uxoris calce percussus, et abortione proper-
ante in parricidium partus exprcssus. What can be more base and detestable
than such a man? The best informed ecclesiastical historians have no hesita-
tion as to the entire truth of these statements, because they come from a very
holy martyr, in whose affirmation implicit confidence must be placed. And far
be it from me, to accuse the holy man of falsehood or intentional misrepresen-
tation. But I suppose, candid and well-informed men will readily concede,
that a martyr might commit mistakes and errors ; that under the influence of
strong passions and an excited imagination he might exaggerate in some things,
and extenuate in others. And therefore, if we suppose something of this na-
ture, in the present case, occurred in regard to the otherwise excellent Cyprian^
we shall do no injury to his reputation. In recounting the vices of Novatus
he is manifestly declamatory, and plays the orator ; and those who understand
huma^i nature, know that we are never more liable to err, than in describing
the character of other men, and especially of our enemies. That Novatus was
[p. 501.] contentious, prone to innovation, and also factious, I can readily
admit; but the good Cyprian could sometimes discover faults where there were
none, and was too virulent against those whom he regarded as hostile to his
Novatus of Carthage. 49
reputation and dignity. To express my own opinion, I cannot look upon
Novatus a3 so blacif a cliaracter as Cyprian represents liiin ; because he neittier
soug'iit nor obtained for himself any great advantages, throughout this long and
vehement contest. He allowed others to be created bishops, and enjoy t.ho
fruits and rewards of the dissension ; but for himself, he was contented witii
his situation and the rank of a presbyter, and chose rather to minister than to
bear rule. This indicates his moderation. The crimes, with wiiich Cyprian
charges him, were doubtless the subject of common talk, and were, therefore,
collected from common fame; but it is observable, that iVol•a^^/s was never con-
victed of them. He could not, indeed, after he left Africa, be summoned to a
trial ; but Cyprian might have substantiated the crimes of the absent man by
examining the witnesses, and have legitimately passed sentence on him if found
to be guilty. But it is manifest, that he did neither; nor does he let fall a
single word, even in the passages wjiere he shows the most anger, from which
it can be inferred, that Novatus was proved guilty of the crimes which common
fame charged upon him, and that on such ground he had been deposed from
office and ejected from the church. It is therefore no rash conjecture, to sup-
pose that the truth of these enormous imputations could not be substantiated.
Felicissimus the friend of Novatus, Cyprian condemned and excommunicated :
and why should he spare Novatus, if he knew him to be guilty of such enor-
mities 1
But let us pass over these points, which it is absolutely impossible at this
day to clear up, because no writings of Novatus have reached us; and let us
look into the controversy, of which Novatus was the prime cause and author.
The learned are agreed, that Novatus v/as the original cause of the African
disturbances. And this is explicitly stated by Cyprian, ( Epist. xlix. p. 63.) :
Idem est Novatus, qui apud nos primum discordia) et schismatis incendium
eeminavit. — But I cannot agree with those who think, that these contests and
disturbances commenced in the absence of Cyprian, and in the midst of the
persecution, and that, before the Decian persecution, Novatus had never plotted
against his bishop. We have testimony to the contrary, in the epistle already
cited, and proof that before Cyprian's retirement, Novatus was hostile to him.
Cyprian clearly discriminates between the offences of Novatus before the per-
tecution, and those during the persecution ; and he says, that Novatus, before
the persecution, had alienated brethren from the bishop : Qui quosdam istic ex
fratribus ab episcopo segregavit, (this he did before the persecution began ;
next follows his criminal conduct during the persecution;) qui in ipsa persecu-
<sone ad evertendas fratrura mentes alia qua? dam persequutio nostris fuit. And
who, let me ask, can doubt, that a controversy had arisen between Cyprian and
Novatus, before the Decian persecution, when he hears Cyprian [p. 602.]
himself declaring, that he should have arraigned Novatus before the tribunal
of bishops, and have cast him out of the church, if he had not been prevented
by the emperor's edict? lie says, indeed, that the crimes of Novatus, and not
any private or personal offence, had caused him to form that purpose. But of
the crimes of Novatus, we have already given our views ; they were not so
clear and manifest as to demand public animadversion. Neither does Cyprian^
VOL. II. 5
50 Century Ill—Section 14.
as we have already seen, disguise the fact, that the enormity of hi3 evil deed*
was augmented by some offence against the honor and right of his bishop.
What it was that set tlie presbyter and the bishop at variance, does not fully
appear. But I strongly incline to believe, that Novatus^ conferring the office of
deacon on Felicissimu*", witiiout the consent and approbation of Cyprian, irri-
tated the feelings of the bishop, who held his episcopal dignity in the highest
estimation ; and that here commenced the whole sad conflict. I am aware,
that some learned men suppose that Felicissimus was constituted deacon while
Cyprian was absent, and they censure John Pearson, who maintains, (Annal.
Cyprian, 5 20. 22. p. 25.) tliat he had been put into that office, before the
quarrel began. But they can allege nothing in support of their opinion, except
the question, " Who consecrated or ordained Felicissimus ?" What bishop
would have presumed to do it, if Cyprian had been at home ! See Tillemonl^
(Memoires pour servir a THistoire de I'Eglise, torn. iv. P. I. p. 393.) To this
question, I answer: iVom/us, Mmse//", consecrated his deacon; and he thought
this to be lawful. Those Presbyters who, like Novaius, had charge of separate
churches, enjoyed many prerogatives, which did uot belong to the other pres-
bytei-s who were connected with the bishop. But Cyprian deemed this to be
unlawful. And so ho intimates, I apprehend, when he says, that (amhitione Novali)
through the ambition of Novatus, the man (conslitutum fuisse) was constituted
deacon, (se non permittente) without his permission. According to Cyprian's
views, Novatus should have asked leave of his bisliop to initiate his deacon ;
but, being inflated by ambition, and presiding over a church situated perhaps in
the suburbs, or on some neighboring hill, he supposed the permission of the
bishop not necessary to the transaction. And here lay his chief fault.
(3) See Cyprian, (Epist. xlix. p. 64.) : Hanc conscientiam criminum (Nova-
tus) jam pridem timebat. Propter hoc se non de presbyterio excitari tantum
(be excluded from the class of presbyters.) sed et communicatione prohiberi
pro eerto tenebat. (But how could the worthy Cyprian know this, and here
assume power to judge of the thoughts of another ?) Et urgentibus fratribus
imminebat eognitionis dies, quo apud nos caussa ejus ageretur, nisi persecutio
ante venisset, quam iste voto quodam evadendte et lucrandaj damnationis exci-
piens, (i. e. he rejoiced in this occurrence. But who had told Cyprian that
fact?) haec omnia commissit et miscuit ; ut qui ejici de ecclesia et cxcludi habe-
[p. 603.] bat, judicium sacerdotum voluntaria discessionc prsecederat : quasi
evasisse sit poenam, praevenisse sententiam. — Many, both ancients and moderns^
have understood the last part in this quotation, as referring to the journey of
Novatus to Rome ; and they suppose Cyprian intended to say, that Novatus
escaped the sentence impending over him, by his flight. But in this they are
clearly mistaken. The (voluntaria discessio) voluntary departure, of which
Cyprian speaks, was a withdrawal from the church, as is manifest from what
precedes. Novatus withdrew himself from the bishop and the church, to pre-
vent being excluded by the priests.
§ XIY. The Schism of Felicissimus at Carthage. After the de-
parture of Cyprian, and so long as the African magistrates kept
Schism of Fdicissimus. 5|
up a vigorous persecution of the Christians, these movements
were dormant. But when the fury of the persecution gradually
subsided, and Cyprian began to prepare for returning to his church,
now fast recovering its former tranquillity, Novaius^ doubtless,
fearing that the returning bishop would revive the prosecution
which he had commenced before his flight, deemed it necessary
to organize a party which should obstruct the return of liis ad-
versary to his church, and thus to deprive him of the means of
annoyance to himself (') And, therefore, by means of Felicissi-
mus^ the deacon whom he had ordained against the pleasure of
the bishop, he drew off a portion of the church from Cyprian ;
and, particularly, with the aid of one Augendus^ he resisted the
regulations which Cyprian had sanctioned, in reference to the
poor. To his party belonged, not only many of the people, but
especially five presbyters, who had long indulged animosity to-
wards Cyprian.{') This turbulent faction were able to retard
somewhat the return of Cyprian^ but they could not frustrate it.
Therefore, after a short delay, which prudence suggested, the
bishop returned to Carthage, and assembling a council, princi-
pally on account of the lapsed, he began to repress the rashness
of his adversaries ; and he excelled* Felicissiinus, the author of
the sedition, and the five presbyters, his associates, from the
church. The ejected persons, unawed by this punishment, set up
a new church at Carthage, in opposition to Cyprianh congre-
gation, and placed over it, as bishop, Fortunatus^ one of the five
presbyters, whom Cyprian had excommunicated. (^) But this
company had more courage than efficiency, and sinking into dis-
cord, seems, not long after, to have become extinct, for none of
the ancients make mention of its progress.
(1) Cijjprian does not expressly say that Novatus induced Felicissi- [p. 504.]
mus to organize this opposition to him; but this is inferred, from the fact, that
he throws on Novatus all the blame of the divisions and discords in the church.
He says, (Epist. xlix. p. 64.) : Circa cseteros autem fratres elaboramus, quos ab
eo (Novato) circumventos dolemus, ut veteratoris perniciosum latus fugiant, ut
lethales laqueos sollicitantis evadant, ut de qua pelli ille divinitus meruit eccle-
siam repetant : quos quidem, Domino adjuvante, per ejus misericordiam regrcdi
posse confidimus. In the same Epistle, he calls Fdicissimus (satcllitem Novalx)
a satellite of Novatus; which pretty distinctly implies tiiat Novatus used Fcli-
cissimus as his agent or instrument for disturbing the peace of the Church, and
setting it at variance with its bishop. But, as I observed at the first, many
52 Century III. — Section 14.
things relating to this contest arc unknown to us; and Cyprian himself some-
times speaks, as if Felicissimus did not act from the instigation of another,
but from the impulse of his own mind. In his 38th Epistle, (p. 51.) in which
he descants warmly on the criminality of Felicissimus, he makes no mention
whatever of Novalus, but represents Felicissimus as the cause of all the evil.
He says: Nee loci mei honoremotus, nee vestraauctoritateet praesentia fractus,
insi'mctu S'uo quietem fratrum turbans proripuit se cum plurimis, Ducem se fac-
tionis ct seditionis principem temerario furore contestans. The affairs of Nova-
ius and Felicissimus were undoubtedly connected; and that each of them aided
the other, is beyond controversy : yet the two movements seem to have stood
disconnected, In some respect, which we are unable even to conjecture. In the
progress of the controversy, this disconnexion becomes manifest. For Nova-
tus joined the followers of Novatian, from whom Felicissimus kept aloof.
Novatus set up one Maximus as a bishop at Carthage, and Felicissimus set up
another, in the person of Forlunatus. This shows, tliat the two sects had
nothing in common at that time, except their hatred of Cyprian. In the com-
mencement of the controversy, however, their connexion seems to have been
more intimate.
(2) Felicissimus, as a man, was not much better than his presbyter Novatus.
For Cyprian charges him not only with /m«c? and 7'apine,'b\it also with adultery :
Ad fraudes ejus et rapinas, quas dilucida veritate cogno\imus, adulterium etiam
crimen accedit, quod fratres nostri graves viri deprehendisse se nunciaverunt et
probaturos se asseverarunt. This occurs in Epistle 38. (p. 51.): and in another
Epistle, (55. p. 79.) he is branded with marks of still greater infamy; for he is
pronounced. Pecuniae commissae sibi fraudator, stuprator virginum, matrimo-
niorum multorum depopulator atque corruptor. It was not therefore one act of
adultery, but many, that he committed; and not satisfied with that form oi
wickedness, he violated the chastity of many virgins. I confess, I must here
[p. 505.] doubt a little, and must suspect that Cyprian, in the ardor of his in-
dignation, expressed more than he intended. But let us dismiss our suspicions,
and listen to the martyr. This debauchee, then, who was unworthy of the name
of a man, stirred up the sad conflict, while Cyprian was absent. Cyprian in
his exile had sent four deputies to Carthage, the two bishops Caldonius and
Herculanus, and two very distinguished confessors, the priests Rogalianus and
Numidicus, who, in the bishop's name and stead, should distribute among the
poor the moneys due to them, and carefully examine the lives and the condition
of those who were living on the bounties of the church, in order to advance the
most worthy of them to sacred functions. I will give the substance of this
commission in the holy man's own words; (Epist. xxxviii. p. 51. ed Baluz.
which is the edition I always quote ;) addressing the deputies, he says : Cum-
que ego vos pro me vicarios miserim, ut expungeretis necessitates fratrum nos-
trorum sumptibus (i. e. with the money collected by the church for the poor,)
si qui etiam vellent suas artes exercere, additamento, quantum satis esset, desi-
deria eorum juvaretis: simul etiam et aetateseorum et conditiones et merita
discerneretis, ut jam nunc ego, cui cura incumbit, omnes optime nossem et
dignos quoque et humiles et mites ad ecclesiasticae adrainistrationis ofRcia pro-
Schism of FcUcismmus. 53
moverera. It appears then — First : Thut Cyprian intended, by these deputies,
necessitates expungi fratrum sumptihus ; i. e. to relieve the wants of the brethren
from the funds of the church. For expungere necessitates, is simply to satisfy and
remove the wants of the poor. — Secondly ; That he wished those among the
poor, who were disposed to labor at their trades, to be supplied with money
from the church treasury suilieient for purchasing the necessary tools and
moans for business. — Tiiirdly : That he wished tliose among the poor, who
were fit for deacons and other sacred functions, to be removed from the class of
the poor who were supported by the church, in order to their admission to the
class of officers of the church; in short, he wished the fund for the poor to be
relieved of a part of its burden. All these measures were honorable, pious, and
useful. But Felicissimus resisted them. He would not have (necessitates ex-
pungi,) the wants of the brethren relieved, nor have such an examination of the
indigent as the bishop directed. Snys Cyprian: Intercessit, ne quis posset
expungi, (being a deacon, he held the church funds, and therefore was able to
prevent the giving of relief to the embarrassed; he refused to pay over to the
bishop's deputies the moneys in his hands:) neve ea, quae desideraverara, pos-
sent diligenti examinatione discerni. The necessities of many were indeed re-
lieved; that is, as Cyprian soon after states, through the hands of the deputies,
(stipendia episcopo dispensante percipiebant,) they received the stipends which
the bishop dispensed. For Felicissimus had not the whole treasury in his
hands, but only that of the Hill Ciiurch, of which he was deacon. But as he
held out severe threats against those who did not reject the relief [p. 506.]
profferred by Cyprian^s deputies, many abstained from it, and would not avail
themselves of the kind offers of the deputies. And these, undoubtedly, Feli-
cissimus relieved from the funds in his hands. Comminatus est fratribus nostris,
qui primi expungi accesserant potentatu improbo et terrore violento, quod se-
cum in monte non coramunicarent, qui nobis obtemperare noluissent; i. e. he
threatened, that he and the Hill Church, of which he was deacon, would not
hold those as brethren, who, being in want, should make application to the
bishop's deputies. — Here we have the crime of Felicissimus. But the cause or
pretext for the criminal act, Cyprian does not mention; nor has any one, so far
as I know, attempted its investigation. This, therefore, is a problem for us to
solve : and it is not so abstruce, as to require great ingenuity for its solution.
Felicissimus, as we have seen, was a deacon ; and therefore to him belonged
the care of the poor, and the administration of the treasury of the church.
Now the authority and dignity of deacons, were far greater in the African church
than in the other churches, as might be shown from various testimonies. They,
equally with the presbyters, had a seat in the councils, as appears from Cyprian's
65th Epistle, and other places. They were dispatched to the prisons, to look
after the martyrs and confessors, and be thoir counsellors, as before shown. In
the absence of the presbyters, they could receive the confessions of offenders,
and absolve the penitent. This Cyprian admits, in his 13th Epistle, where ho
allows the lapsed to make their confession to the deacons. They also had
some share in the government of the church. Therefore Felicissimjis, inllated
with the pride of office, maintained, that the distribution of money to the poor
54 Century III. — Section 14.
and other matters, should have been assigned by the bishop to himself and the
other deacons, and not to deputies commissioned by him; and he complained,
that by his commission, Cyprian trespassed on the rights of the order of dea-
cons. This solution will at once suggest itself to a person familiar with Chris-
tian antiquities, and duly considering the case. But, perhaps, this daring man
meditated something still more criminal. He contended, perhaps, that by forsak-
ing his church in the time of persecution, and seeking his own safety by flight,
Cyprian forfeited his dignity, and deprived himself of the honors and the rights
pertaining to a bishop: and therefore, that his orders, communicated through
his deputies, were to be disregarded, as being those of a man no longer pos-
sessing authority ; and that another head must be placed over the church.
And it is well known, that others, likewise, called in question the prudence of
Cyprian, in withdrawing from his church when conflicting with its enemies.
Cyprian, on being informed of the criminal conduct of Felicissimus, imme-
diately addressed to his legates a letter which has come down to us, ordering
the man to be ejected from the church. The legates obeyed their instructions,
without delay, and declared unworthy of communion in the sacred rites, not
on]y Feiicissi77ius, the author of -the disturbance, but also one Aiigendus, hh
associate, concerning whom we have no knowledge, and some others of both
sexes. This appears from a letter of the legates, among the Epistles of
[p. 507.] Cyprian, No. xxxix. This act certainly betokens a man of a vehe-
ment and hasty temper, rather than of a discreet and prudent mind ; and it is
one of the things which, in my judgment, show that Cyprian was more stu-
dious of his own honor, than of the public good. In the first place, he assumed
the office of a judge, in his own cause, contrary to the rules of justice; for the
contest was respecting the extent of the bishop's rights, and those of the order
of deacons. And that Felicissimus was not destitute of arguments, by which
to defend his conduct, is sufficiently manifest from the fact, that Cyprian most
carefully conceals from us the cause which produced the controversy. For if
the cause alleged by his adversary for his bold resistance to the bishop, had
been manifestly unjust, or destitute of all plausibility, Cyprian certainly would
not have passed silently over it, but would have assailed it in his usually elo-
quent and severe manner. — In the next place, Cyprian, by his deputies,
expelled from the church one of its ministers or deacons, unheard and uncon-
victed of crime, by his sole authority, and without consulting the people; which
ft bishop had by no means a right to do. He therefore went far beyond the
limits of his power. He mentions, indeed, (in the Epistle before cited,) three
gi'ounds for his sentence: the threats of Felicissimus, his frauds and rapines,
and his adultery. But, as Cyprian himself tacitly admits, Felicissimus liad
never carried his threats into execution ; the frauds and rapines of which
the bishop says he had the most certain knowledge (se dilucida teriiaie
cognovisse,) had not been brought forward and spread out before the people ;
and as to the adultery, as he again admits, it had never been substantiated by
proof. It was therefore unavoidable, that this rash decision should produce
still greater dissensions. Among the Carthagenian presbyters, there were /re,
who had dissented and opposed the elevation of Cyprian to the episcopate.
Schism of Felicissimus. 55
These had previously manifested, by various signs, an aversion to him ; and
now they openly forsook him, and went with the party of Felirissimus ; and
undoubtedly, for the purpose of obtaininf,^ the appointment of another bi-hop
in his plaee. Some learned men think Novalus was one of the fLce ; to whieh
opinion we shall soon give attention. These presbyters, in order to accomplish
their object more readily, promised to the lapsed, towards whom Cyprian had
been somewhat severe, that if they would separate themselves from the bishop,
they should be restored to the fellowship of the church without any penance
whatever. Says Ci/prian, (Epist. xl. p. 52.) : Conjurationis suae memores, et
anliqua ilhi contra episcopatum meum venena retinentes,instaurant vetcreni
contra nos impugnationem suam. - - - Nunc se ad lapsorum perniciem venenata
sua deceptione verterunt, ut a3gros et saucios, et ad caplenda fortiora con^ilia
per calamitatem ruinaj suae minus idoneos, et minus solidos, a medela vulnerls
6ui avocent, et intermissis precibus et orationibus, quibus Dominus longa et
continua satisfactione plaeandus est, ad exitiosam temeritatem mendacio cap-
tiosas pads invitent. Most bitterly does this holy man complain of the rashness
of the five presbyters, in this Epistle addressed to the Christian people. But
among his complaints and accusations, there are some which are extravagant,
and would better become an orator laboring to excite odium against [p. 5D8.]
& criminal, than a Christian bishop. One thing of this character, as it strikes
me, is his comparing the five presbyters to the five principal men of Carthagey
who were joined with the magistrates for suppressing and exterminating the
Christians. Quinque isti presbyteri nihil aliud sunt, quam quinque primores
illi, qui edicto nuper magistratibus fuerunt copulati, ut fidem nostram subrue-
rent, ut grncilia fratrum corda ad lethales laqueos prcevaricatione veritatis aver-
terent. In searching for the import of this passage, learned men have labored
wonderfully. But it manifestly refers to the five principal citizens, whom Decius,
in his edict, had coupled with the magistrates, for the more sure accomplish-
ment of his purpose of exterminating Christianity. By this formidable schism,
the return of Cyprian to his diocese was, for a time, retarded; yet, very soon,
casting away all fear, he returned, and by his presence put an end to the strife.
It now remains for us to inquire, whether the famous Noialus, whom Cij-
prian terms the standard-bearer of all the Cartiiagenian tumults, was one of
those five presbyters who joined the party of Felicissijnus? The learned, with
great unanimity, affirm it: one only, so tar as I know, denies it; namely, John
Pearson, in his Annales Cypriancae ; and he offers no proof of his opinion. It
Novalus were one of these presbyters, the cause of his hatred, and of tiie se-
dition against Cyprian, would be manifest. But, all things considered, I appre-
liend Pearson was right, and that Novalus is not to be numbered among those
adversaries of Cyprian, In the first place, it has been already shown, clearly,
that Novalus was at enmity with Cyprian some time before Felicissimus at-
tempted to make disturbances in the church at Carthage; and that Chjtrian was
prevented from bringing him to trial, and ejecting him from the cliurcl), solely
by the sudden outbreak of the Decian persecution, which obliged Cyprian to go
into retirement. But those five presbyters did not withdraw themselves from
Cyprian, until after the sedition excited by Felicissimus. Before that time, they
56 Century III. — Section 14.
had dissembled their alienation, and tlie bishop hnd no controversy with them.
In the next place, it appears, from the 49lh Epistle of Cyprian, (p. 64.) that
sentence was never pronounced by the council of Carthage against Novalus, but
tliat he prevented the sentence by his flight. Says tiie bishop: Ejici de ecclesia
et exdudi habebat. - - Quasi evasisse sit poenam, praivenisse sententiam. And
he afterwards says : He merited cxpulbiun from the church, (eum meruisse de
ecclesia pelli.) and not tliat he wan expelled. In fact, Novaiiis, to prevent being
condemned, witluirew himself from the church of Carthage, and from Cyprian's
jurisdiction. But those five presbyters, as we shall presently see, appeared be-
fore the council of bishops whicii Cyprian assembled after his return, made their
defence, and, by a decree of the council, were excluded from the communion of
[p. 509.] the church. I am aware that Cyprian says, (Epist. xlix. p. 63.) that
Novalus was condemned by the voice of all the priests, (perjidus ovinium tSacer-
datum voce damnalus.) And hence the learned have inferred, that he was con-
demned in the council, in conjunction with the other presbyters, the enemies of
Cyprian. But the words may very properly be understood of the private con-
demnation of individuals ; and they undoubtedly prove, that all the teachers of
the church disapproved of his temerity and improbity. Besides, unless I am
wholly deceived, Novalus had already reached Rome, and joined the partizan»
of Novaliaji, when Cyprian, after his return, instituted a process against the
faction of Felicissimiis and the five presbyters. The whole history will become
disjointed, and be very difficult to arrange, unless we take this to be certain.
And when Cyprian says, explicitly, that Novalv? (sententiam prccvenisse) pre-
vented sentence being passed by retiring; he clearly intimates that Novalus had
gone away, and was residing at Rome, before Cyprian returned to his church. —
Lastly, omitting other things for the sake of brevity, it is certain, that although
Novalus aided Felicissimus, and was favorable to his cause while in Africa, yet,
he did not adhere to his party at Rome, but joined a very different one, namely,
that of Novalian. Neither did he recognize the bishop, Forlunatus, whom the
faction of Felicissimus had set up in opposition to Cyprian ; but he established
another bishop at Carthage, namely, Maximus, one of the Novatian party.
(3) On the subsidence of the Decian persecution, Cyprian returned to Car-
thage, and immediately summoned a council of bishops, to settle the controversy
respecting the lapsed, and to try the cause of Fe.licissimus and the presbyters
associated with him. It were much to be wished that the Acts of this council,
or at least, the epistle of Cyprian and the African bishops concerning it, of
which Cyprian makes mention, (Epist. xlii. p. 57.) had come down to us. But
they are all lost, and we have to form our judgment of the \vhole affair, from a
few words of Cyprian. From these it appears, Jirst, that Felicissiinus and the
five presbyters were present and had a hearing before the council. Cyprian^
writing to Cornelius, bishop of Rome, says, (Epist. xlii. p. 57.): Quantum vero
hie ad presbyterorum quorundam et Felicissimi caussam pertinet, quid hie ac-
tum sit, ut scire posses, litteras ad te collegae nostri (the assembled bishops)
raanu sua subscriptas miserunt, qui, audilis eis, quid senserint et quid pronun-
ciaverint, ex eorum litteris disces. Secondly, from another of his Epistles to
the same Cornelius, (Epist. Iv. p. 87, &c.) it appears, that not only the bishops
Schism of Felicissimus. 57
of the African province, but also the presbyters and deacons, and not in a small
but in a largo number, were present in the convention. Si coruni, qui do illis
priore anno judicavcrunt, nuraerus cum presbyteris et diaconis coniputetur, plu-
restunc aftuerunt judicio et cognitioni, quam sunt iidem isti, qui cum Furtinuito
(the bishop set up by the factious in opposition to Cyprian,) nunc videntur
esse conjuucti. From the same Epistle, it appears that all of them were eject-
ed from tlie church by the united suffrage of the bishops; yet not [p, 510.]
without the prospect of a pardon of their offences, provided they would reform.
Says Cyprian, (p. 88.) : Nee ecclesia istic cuiquam elauditur, nee episcopus
alicui denegatur. Patientia et facilitas et humanitas nostra venientibus pracsto
est. Opto omnes in ecclesiam regredi. Neither does Cyprian omit to mention
the offences, which called fortii tliis sentence ; but, to my astonishment, he gives
most prominence to that one, which is the most excusable, and was never num-
bered among the capital crimes which exclude a man from the church; namely,
compassion for the lapsed, and defence of the Certificates of Peace heretofore
mentioned. Let us hear the eloquent man's own words: Taceo itaque de frau-
dibus ecclesiae fiictis, (i. e. the interception and misapplication of the money of
the church,) Conjurationes et adulteria et varia delictorum genera praetereo,
(These the good man considers as minor offences, and as not so much against
God, as against men and the bishop. But now comes the huge crime against
God him.self, and for which alone they were deemed worthy of punishment.)
Unum illud, in quo non mea, nee hominum, sedDei caussa est, de eorum facinore
non puto esse reticendum, quod a primo statim persecutionis die - - communkare
cum lapsis, et poeniieniiae agendas intercedere non destiterunt: i. e. they wished
those, who brought Certificates of Peace from martyrs, to be received again by
the church. In magnifying this crime, he pours forth all his eloquence, and
consumes a large part of his Epistle, as if nothing could be more atrocious and
offensive to God, Now I suppose, that an adulterer, a sacrilegious man, an
enemy of the public peace, a plunderer of the funds devoted to the poor, is a
far greater sinner, than the man who, being of a mild temperament and aware
of human frailty, shows himself kind and lenient towards those, who aposta-
tised from Christ through fear of death, and themselves abhorred the crime.
But to tell the truth, it was neither this fliult, nor the bulk of the others, which
oast Felicissimus and his associates out of the church; but (as the whole Epistle
ehows,) it was this single one, that Felicissimus dared to oppose the mandates of
the bishop, and to raise up a party against him. And that excessive lenity to-
wards the lapsed, was so great and heinous a crime, in the view of Cyprian, be-
cause it was not only contrary to his judgment in the matter, but also weaken-
ed his authority. We shall see, in another place, with what zeal this holy man
labored to defend and exalt the episcopal dignity, at the expense of the people's
riglits. — In what way the accused conducted their defence, or with what argu-
ments they justified their conduct, Cyprian has no where informed us. We
should have been able to judge much better of the merits of this controversy,
if some of those arguments had reached us. I am very confident that thoy
accused Cyprian of thirsting for power and lordship; and that they urged tho
rights of the presbyters, the deacons, and the people. Felicissimus and the
58 Century Ill.—Sectioji 14.
presbyters, when condemned by the council, were not disheartened by the
[p. 511.] contumely, but sought to estabhsh a new congregation at Carthage,
separated from Cypriaiis church. And over their flock, they made one Forlu-
natus bishop, obtaining consecration for him from five bishops who are named
and severely castigated by Cyprian, (Epist. Iv. p. 82.) And thus there were
three bishops at Carthage, at one and the same time ; namely, Cyprian, whom
the greater part of the people followed, Maximus, set up by the legates
of Novatian from Rome, and ForLunalas, whom the faction of Felicissimus
had created. This last party, in order to strengthen their new chinch, sent
Felicissimus with quite a number of delegates to Rome, to endeavor to
bring the Romish bishop Cornslius to espouse their cause, and renounce the
support of Cyprian. Cornelius was a little perplexed, being terrified by the
threats of the legates, and stumbled by their false statements. For they threat-
ened to expose (lurpia mulia ac probrosa) many base and reproachful things, if
he refused to receive the letter they had brought for him, {Cyprian, Epist. Iv.
p. 80.) ; and they asserted, that iwenly-five African bisJiops attended the conse-
cration of Forlunalus. Cyprian contends, that this was a gross falsehood; and
I believe, he was correct. And yet he seems to admit, that there were more
ihtmjive bishops present on that occasion; bad ones, however, eitiier lapsed, or
heretical. Si nomina (of the five-and-twenty bishops) ab eis quaereres, non
haberent vel quos falso nominarent. Tanta apud eos etiam malorum (episcopo-
rum, undoubtedly; for he is speaking of bishops,) penuria est, ut ad illos nee de
gacrificatis, nee de haereticis viginti quinque (episcopi) colligi possint. In the
assembly, therefore, besides the Jive who consecrated Felicissimus, there were
several other bishops, but they were either sacrijicers who, of course, must have
been deposed, or they were, in Cyprian's estimation, heretics. Cornelius as-
sumed courage, his first fears subsiding, and rejecting the overtures of Felicis-
simus, he remained friendly to Cyprian. And this was necessary, for his own
sake; for he was hard pressed by the faction of Novatian, which also assailed
Cyprian, and inclined towards the party of Felicissimus. What Cornelius
would have done, had he been free and not in need of Cyprian^s friendship, is
Another question, and we of^er no conjectures about it. What occured after
this, — whether Foriunalus had any successor, or whether those who separated
from Cyprian, returned again to the church, — no ancient writer has informed
us. Perhaps, this whole taction became amalgamated with the Novatians.
He who shall impartially examine this controversy, will perhaps admit, that
it may be pronounced the last struggle of expiring liberty, in the African
church, against episcopal domination. Cyprian, although he frequently speaks
modestly enough of himself, and respectfully enough of the martyrs and con-
fessors, the rights of the presbyters and deacons, and the authority of the peo-
pie, yet wished to concentrate all power in his own hands, and, subverting the
ancient form of government, to subject the whole church to the absolute au-
[p. 512.] thority and good pleasure of the bishop. This was the source of all
these conflicts. The confessors, the presbyters, the deacons, and the people,
made a partial resistance ; but the fortitude and perseverance of Cyprian finally
triumphed. No one will approve of every thing done by his antagonists; yet that
The Novatlan Schism. 59
they contended for the rights of the clerg'y and people, in opposition to a
bishop affecting to have absolute dominion over them, is phiecd beyond all eon-
troveisy by tiie scanty and obscure documents which iiave come down to us.
§ XV. The Schism of Novatiaii at Rome. Before the return of
Cyprian from exile, Novaius, dreading the severity of the bishop,
had retired to Rome ; where discord and strife were no less pre-
valent than at Carthage. N'ovatian, one of the Roman presbyters,
a learned, eloquent, and grave man, but rigid and austere, denied
that any persons falling into the grosser sins, and especially the
persons who had forsaken Christ in the Decian persecution, were
to be received again to the church; and, perceiving that Cor-
nelius, a man held in the highest estimation among the Romish
presbyters, and also some others, differed from him on this sub-
ject, he made the most strenuous opposition to the election of
Cornelius to succeed Fabian, as bishop of Rome.(') From hatred,
perhaps, of Cyprian, who was much attached to Cornelius, No-
vaius became an associate and co-adjutor of Novatian. Neverthe-
less, Cornelius was elected bishop, and Novatian withdrew from
communion with him, and was followed, at the instigation of his
friend, Novatus, by five presbyters, several of the confessors, and
a portion of the people.(") Both parties, by their letters, appealed
to Cypriani ; and he, after dispatching legates to Rome, and care-
fully examining the case, gave his decision in favor of Cornelius.
And, on the other hand, Cornelius followed the example of Cy-
prian^s fortitude ; and, in a numerous council, which he assembled
at Rome, in the year 251, procured the ejectment of JSovaiian
and his adherents from the church, since nothing would persuade
them to entertain milder sentiments in regard to the lapsed.(^)
The issue of this affair was as unhappy as that of the African
contest; and it was the more lamentable, on account of the long
continuance of the evil, whereas the African schism was compa-
ratively of short duration. Those whom Cornelius had excluded
from the Romish church formed themselves into an associated
body, over which they placed, as bishop, Novatian, the parent of
the association. This new company of Christians, although de-
tested by most of the bishops, who approved the decrees [p. 513.]
of the Roman council, respecting the lapsed, enjoyed, neverthe-
less, staunch patrons, and was at once diffused through many
60 Century III.— Section 15.
parts of Christendom, and could not be suppressed before tbe
ffth century. For this, its good fortune, it was indebted to the
gravity and probity of the teachers who presided over it, and to
the severity of its discipline, which tolerated no base characters,
none guilty of the grosser sins.(')
(1) The .nutbors of most of the schisms among Christians, have been
charged, justly or unjustly, with many crimes and faults; but this A^orah'an was
not only accused of no criminal act, but was coinmended, even by those who
viewed him as warring against the interests of the church, by Cyprian, Jerome
and others, on account of his eloquence, his learning, and his philosophy. See
Cyprian, Epist. Hi. and Ivii. His adversary Cornelius, indeed inveighs ngainst
him with much bitterness, in an Epistle to Fabius, bishop of Antioch, (preserved
in part by Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. L. vi. c. 43. p. 244. &c.) ; but still he does
not impeach his life or moral conduct. And nearly all the charges he brings
against him, great as they may seem to be, relate to the intentions of the mind,
which are known only to God: and some of the charges reflect more disgrace
on Cornelius himself than Aovatian. But he has been taxed with ambition ;
for it is said that he stirred up this great controversy, merely because Cornelius
received most votes for the vacant bishopric, which he himself coveted. This
is an old charge ; and it has acquired so much strength and authority by age
that all the moderns repeat it with entire confidence ; and they tell us, that
Cornelius and Novalian were competitors for the episcopate, and that the latter
failing of an election, disturbed the church, in his lust for office. But I have
no hesitation to pronounce this a false accusation ; and I think there is no good
proof that Novalian acted in bad faith, or that he made religion a cloak for his
desire of distinction. His enemy, Cornelius, does indeed say this, (in his Epist.
apud Eiiseb. Hist. Eccles. L. vi. c. 43. p. 244.): UpoTraKcti opiyofMvoc tmc 'E-ria-Ko-
TtHs 0 Qit.VfA.a7t'A Ot/TO?, KUl X-puTTTUiV CP iClVTCJ TJjV TT^CiTTiT^) r^tVrHV dUTOU EITld-VfAiav.
Admirandus ille vir episcopalis loci cupidiLate jampridem accensus, et preecipi-
tem illam ambitionem suam tegens, diu omnes latuit. But the very words in
which he is here accused, carry with them his acquittal. For Cornelius clearly
shows, that he concealed his ambition, which long remained -unknown. Now, if
this was true, Novalian certainly did nothing from which his desire of the epis-
copate could be inferred, nor could he have labored to secure votes or have
attempted to corrupt the electors and draw them into his party. For the man
who so conceals his ambition, that everybody believes him to seek no self-
aggrandisement, cannot surely be a competitor with another man for the
[p. 514.] episcopal oflice. But Cornelius supplies us with still stronger testi-
mony to the innocence of his adversary. For he acknowledges, that when
they were deliberating at Rome respecting the choice of a bishop, and Novatian
declared that he wished some other person than Ccrnelius might be chosen, he
affirmed, with a tremendous oath, that he himself did not wish for the office ;
'O yap TO/ \5i(M7rgoTaTOf Kai cT/' le^naiv ipo/^ipuv Tiviov Tria-TiufAivo; ro jM« tTi
oXcjj 'ETTto-KOTTiif opeytSd-Ai. Egregiiis ille vir iremendis quibusdam sacramentis
The Novatian Schism. 61
affirmaverat, se Episcopalum non concupiscerc. — Now, whoever r eitlicr does nor
attempts anytliing that coiUd awaken a suspicion of his being ambitious, and
morevcr dechires, on oath, tliat lie haa no desire of the episcopate, can not possi-
bly be a competitor for the episcopal office. But, some may say : The vilhiin
perjured himself; and althoufrh he made a great show of modesty, yet he o\>-
posed the election of Cornelius, m order to secure the appointment to iiinisolf
To tills many things might be said in reply ; I will mention only one. Nova-
tian was not a man to whom a suspicion of perjury can be attached; he was a
man, whom his very enemies pronounced upright, inllexible and rigorous, and
whom no one ever charged with impiety towards God, or with being of a perverse
and irreligious disposition. What then could CorneliushsiyQ designed by writing
to Fabian, and probably to others, that Novatian had long secretly burned with
desire for the episcopal office? I answer: to confirm a conjecture, and that a
very dubious and intangible one. He reasoned in this manner : Novatian, on
being expelled from the church, allow^ed himself to be created bishop by his
adherents; therefore, he had long coveted the office of a bishop, although he
pretended to the contrary. How fallacious and unworthy of a bishop such
reasoning is, I need not here show. There would indeed be a little plausibility
in it, though very slight, if Novatian, immediately after the election of Corne-
lius, had wished his friends to create Mm also a bishop; a thing entirely within
his power to effect. But he postponed all movements for erecting a new
church, and patiently awaited the decision of the approaching council. And
after he had been condemned and excluded from the church, together with his
adherents, he thought there could be no sin in his taking the oversight of his
own company. The invidious representations of this affair by Cornelius, can
not at this day be refuted, owing to the want of documents; yet, as they come
from an enemy, they are not to be received implicitly by those who would
judge equitably.
Novatian, before he became a Christian, was a philosopher, and most proba-
bly a Stoic. From the account Cornelius gives of him, he appears to have
been of a melancholy temperament, and consequently, gloomy, austere, and
fond of retirement. Those who forsook him and came back to the Romish
church, said they found in the man, what Cornelius calls (apud Eusehium,
p. 242.): Thv dKoivccvmriAv kui \viio(fi\ittVy which Valerius translates abhorrenlem
ab omni societale feritatem, et Iwpinam quamdam amicitiam. He therefore shunned
society, and was wolfish towards even his friends; i. e. he was harsh, [p. 515.]
austere, and ungracious in his intercourse. That these things were objected to
him with truth, I have no doubt ; for manners like these are entirely accordant
with his principles. He was led to embrace Christianity by a deep melancholy,
into which he had follen, and from which he hoped to be recovered by the
Christians. At least, so we must understand, in my judgment, what Cornelius
has stated, (nor will any who are familiar with the opinions and jihraseology of
the ancient Christians, understand Cornelius differently,) : 'Api/)^« tow TrtrrtZTdit
yeyiyiv o IatavS;, f.o/TJ)Vatf Its avrdv Kai htit.\\<r'xs iv duno ;tp3V5V Uavov. Caussa?n
alque iniiimn crcdendi ipsi Satanas in ipsum ijigressus atque in ipso aliquamdiu
commoratus. This in our style and mode of speaking, would be : A deep and
62 Century III.— Section 15.
settled melanchohj had fastened on his mind: mid the Christians who knew him
said, that an evil spirit had got possession of him, and that if he would profess
Christ, the evil spirit would go out of him ; so, from a hope of recovering his
health, he professed Christianity. Perhaps his mehineholy was attended by con-
vulsions. I have not here put a hasty and unwarrantable construction on the
statement; for it is not credible that Novatian himself, being a Stoic philosopher,
would refer his malady to an evil spirit. This notion was instilled into him by
the Christians; who, undoubtedly, were desirous to bring a man of such cor-
rect morals to become a Christian ; and they gradually made him a convert to
their faith. Impatient of his malady, Novatian yielded to their exhortations.
But by the regulations of the ancient church, he could not be baptized so long
as he appeared to be under the power of an evil spirit. Exorcists were there-
fore sent to him, to expel the foul demon by their prayers. But they failed of
success ; and Novatian at length being seized with a threatening disease, while
under their operations, was baptized in his bed, when apparently about to die.
On recovering from the sickness, he seems to have hesitated whether he should
in health confirm what he had done in his sickness, and thus persevere in the
Christian religion. For, as Cornelius invidiously says of him, he could not be
persuaded to submit to the other rites prescribed by the church, and be con-
firmed by the bishop, or be signed, as the term used expresses it. For this per-
tinacity, and disregard of the Christian regulations, unquestionably the only as-
signable cause must have been, that his mind was fluctuating between the phi-
losophy he had before followed, and the Christian religion which he had
embraced from a hope of recovering his health. Nor can I much wonder at
this dubilation : for the Christians had assured him of the restoration of hia
health by the exorcists, who had failed in the undertaking. Nevertheless, the
bishop, Fahian perhaps, a while after, made him a presbyter in his church, con-
trary to the wishes of the whole body of priests, and of a large part of the
church. (See Cornelius, apud Euseh. 1. c. p. 245.) It was altogether irregular
and contrary to ecclesiastical rules, to admit a man to the priestly office, who
had been baptized in bed ; that is, who had been merely sprinkled, and had not
[p. 516.] been wholly immersed in water in the ancient method. For by many,
and especially by the Roman Christians, the baptism of Clinicks, (so they
called those, who, lest they should die out of the church, were baptized on a
eick bed,) was accounted less perfect, and indeed less valid, and not sufficient
for the attainment of salvation. This also was even more strange and unheard
of, that a man should be admitted among the teachers and leaders of the Chris-
tian people, who disregarded the laws of the church, and pertinaciously rejected
the authority and confiimation of the bishop. The belief of this age was,
that the Holy Spirit was imparted by the confirmation or signing of the bishop ;
so that all those lacked the Holy Spirit, whose baptism had not been approved
and ratified by the bishop, by prayers, imposition of hands, and other rites.
Ample proof of this is given by Cornelius, who expressly states, that Novatian
was destitute of the Holy Spirit because he neglected the signing of the
bishop. Toyrcy tTe ^« tu^uv, rraif av tow ayiou jrvcv/uetro{ tTU^t ^ IJoc autem
(the signing of the bishop,) minime percepto, quo tandem modo Spiritum sane-
The Novatian Schism. g3
turn jiotuit accipere 1 The Roman bishop, thtrofore, committed a gre:it fault
by conferring the honored office of a presbyter on a man, who resisted tlic hiwa
of the church, and whom he knew to be destitute of the Holy Spirit. And
not only the body of presbyters, but also the people, perceived tlie magnitude
of this fault; and both entreated the bishop not to confer that honor upon
Novatian. But I can easily see, what may have induced the prelate to violate
the laws of the church in regard to this man. He feared lest the man should
forsake the Christian religion and revert to his former errors, of which disposi-
tion he had perhaps given some proofs. And therefore, to bind him to the
church, and prevent his apostatizing, he conferred this honor upon him. In
this opinion I am much confirmed by what is stated by Cornelius, (apud Euseb.
p. 245.) that Novatian was raised to the rank of a presbyter, immediately after
receiving baptism: Uia-Tiva-cti x:it«^/w3-« tou Tr^ia^vTifiou ksltu ;^u§/v tow
iTTia-Ko^roVi (which is not badly translated by Valesius) : Post susceplum baptis-
man (properly, as soon as lie had believed) Presbyteri gradum fuerat conseculus^
idque per graiiam episcopi. Very justly said to be by the favor of the bishop:
for it was contrary to the laws and customs of the church, to admit a man to
the office of presbyter almost as soon as he was baptized, and before he had
filled the office of deacon. This very honorary and unusual benevolence of the
bishop, retained Novatian in the church, but it did not so heal and confirm his
diseased mind, as wholly to extinguish all propensity to leave the church. For,
on the rise of the Decian persecution, when the deacons called on him to quit
his chamber, where he kept shut up, and perform the functions of a presbyter
among his toiling and oppressed brethren, he refused to do it ; nay, openly de-
clared, that the office of presbyter was irksome to him, and that he had thoughts
of returning again to his philosophy : M« ya^ In 0ovKi<r^st.t rr§£o-/3t/Ts/)cc Itvm
tf>fi triple yup 'itvst.t <pi\c<r6<pisL5 tpaa-rns. Respondit, non ampUus se velle [p. 517.]
presbytei'wn esse, sed alterius philosophicc amore teneri. — I have introduced these
remarks on the life of Novatian. because they show that he was fiir from being
an evil-minded man, though he was of a melancholy and singular character;
and they explain the cause of that schism which originated from him. Nova-
tian wrote much, but nothing that has reached us, except a tract de Trinitate ;
which is commonly printed with the works of Terlullian, and, a few years
since, was published separately, with Notes and Observations by Jackson, in
London. But some learned men contend, and not without apparent reason,
that it is uncertain whether Novatian was the author of this tract.
(2) That the African presbyter Novatus, who fled from Carthage to Rome to
avoid the sentence of Cyprian, became an associate and a coadjutor of Novatian,
procured him many friends, and with vast zeal and effort cherished and pro-
moted his cause, is abundantly proved by the Epistles of Cyprian, by Jerome,
by Pacian, and many others. Novatian, a man gloomy and retiring, would
have given way to admonition, or would have been easily overcome, had not
his irresolute mind been excited and fortified by the various appliances of that
factious, active, eloquent man, an adept at kindling the passions, who was influ-
enced, undoubtedly, by his hatred of Cyprian, the pnrtizan of Cornelius. And
necessity also urged Novatus to embrace and defend the party of ISovatian, with
64 Century III. — Section 15.
all his might, and even to the establishing of a new church at Rome. He had
repaired to Rome as to a haven of security, in order to be safe from the shafts
of Cyprian and the Africans. But it' Cornelius, tiie intimate of his adversary,
should continue at the head of the Romish church, he himself would most as-
suredly be rejected and expelled from it. It was therefore necessary for him
either to seek another asylum, or to cause Cornelius to be deposed from the
bishopric, or lastly, to establish a new church in which he would find shelter.
He therefore, more for his own safety, than for the honor of JSovalian, prevailed
by his eloquence on the Roman confessors, i. e. on that portion of the church
whic-h possessed the greatest influence and efficiency, to pUice themselves in
opposition to Cornelius; a thing, which Noiatian eilher could not, or would not
attempt. Says Cyprian (Epist. xlix. p. 65.) : Novato illinc a vobis recedente,
id est, procella et turbine recedente, ex parte illic quies facta est, et gloriosi ac
boni confessorcs, qui de ecclesia illo incilante discesserant, posteaquam ille ab
urbe discessit, ad ecclesiam reverterunt. The same man, and not Novatian,
who was a quiet man, though austere and rigid, induced a portion of the
people at Rome to abandon Cornelius. Says Cyprian: similia et pariaRomae
molitus est, quae Carthagine, a clero portionem plebis avellens, fraternitatis
bene sibi cohaerentis et se inviceni diligentis concordiam scindens. He also
[p. 518.] persuaded Nomtian, a timid man, and perhaps reluctating, to allow
himself to be created bishop : Qui istic (at Carthage,) adversus ccclesiam dia-
conum fecerat, illic (at Rome,) episcopum fecit; i.e. he ceased not to urge
Novalian and his friends, until he prevailed with the latter to elect a bishop, and
with the former to take upon him that office. He likewise consented to be de-
spatched to Africa, with others, by the new bishop ; and thus empowered, he
established, at Carthage and other places, bishops adhearing to the Novatian
party. Every thing was planned and executed by the active Novatus, and
nothing or but little by Novatian. These acts were criminal, and they indicate
a turbulent spirit, thirsting for revenge, and more solicitous for victory and
self-advancement than for either truth or tranquility. Neither would I become
the patron of the man : and yet there is one thing, in which he appears to ma
less culpable than is commonly thought. All the ecclesiastical historians, whom
I have read, add this to his other crimes, that at Rome he approved opinions
directly opposite to those which he maintained in Africa: whence they con-
clude, that he showed his malignity, by this whiffling and inconsistent course :
At Carthage, say they, he was mild and lenient to the lapsed, and thought they
ought, especially such of them as presented Certificates of Peace, to be kindly
received, and be admitted to the church and to the Lord's supper, without un-
dergoing penance; and this was intended to vex Cyprian. But at Rome, with
Novalian, he excluded the lapsed forever from the church; and was so austere
and uncompassionate, in order to overthrow Cornelius. Now whether the
learned have judged correctly in this matter, I very much doubt. Cyprian, the
most bitter of Novatus' enemies, enumerates all his faults, real or fictitious, in a
long catalogue ; but he does not mention this. Such silence in his enemy, is
alone sufficient, in my view, to clear his memory from this charge. Cyprian
likewise touches on the opinion, which, after the example of Novatian, he
The Novatian Schism. 65
maintnincd at Rome: but he docs not add, that wliilc in Africa he held a diflor-
ent and opposite opinion: which he would doubtless have not omitted, if .Volo-
tits could be justly charged with the inconsistency. With an affectation of wit,
Cyprian says: Damnarc nunc audet sacrificantiuin manus, (i. e. he denies that
persons who have sacrificed with their hands, should be received again into the
church,) cum sit ipse nocentior pcdibus, (i. e. when he had himself been more
guilty with his feet: very bad taste!) quibus filiiis qui nascebatur occisus est.
Novatus was reported to have kicked his pregnnnt wife in her abdomen. Cy-
prian would have used other language, if Novatus had been chargeable with
changing his opinions respecting the lapsed. He would have said: Damnare
nunc audel sacrijicantium manus, quum pedes eorum aniea osculatus sit, (he now
dares condemn the hands of sacrificers, whereas before he kissed their feet.)
This comparison would have more force and more truth. The learned have no
other reason for believing that Novatus at Rome condemned the lapsed, whom
in Africa he patronized, except their persuasion, that he was one of the five
presbyters, who deserted Cyprian at Carthage ; for Cyprian complains of them,
that they were too indulgent towards the lapsed. But we have before shown
that Novatus was not one of them ; for it is evident that he had his [p. 519.]
contest with Cijprian, long before the five presbyters had theirs.
(3) Of the Roman council, in which Novatian was condemned and ejected
from the church, an account is given by Cyprian, (Epist. lii.) by Eusebius, and
by others of the ancients, Novatian was present ; but he could not be
brought to agree with the bishops, that pardon should be granted to the Chris-
tians who lapsed in the time of persecution. He had not always held the same
opinion ; for before his contest with Cornelius, he had decided that pardon
should be extended to all the lapsed, who relented, confessed, and submitted to
the ecclesiastical penalties. This we learn, not only from Cyprian, (Epist.
lii.) but also from others. But, in the heat of contention, as often happens,
he insensibly became more strenuous than he was before. We are informed,
not only by Cyprian, but also by Socrates, (Hist. Eccles. L. iv. c. 28. p. 245.)
that Novatian's reason for opposing the advancement of Cornelius to the See
of Rome, was, that he held friendly intercourse with the lapsed, before they
had made satisfaction to the church. Nor does Cyprian venture to deny that
fact, but only to apologise for it. He says, (Epist. lii. p. 69) : Sed et quod
passim (here passim is equivalent to promiscue) communicare sacrificatis Corne-
lius tibi nunciatus, hoc etiam de apostatarum fictis rumoribus nascitur. Ho
here seems to deny the fact; but a little afterwards, he admits pretty plainly,
that Cornelius had given reconciliation to the lapsed in case of sickness, and
had not required of them to do penance when restored to health. Si qui infir-
mitatibus occupantur, illis, sicut placuit, in periculo subvenitur. And that he
treated the Libellatici with still greater lenity, is also not dissembled. It was
not, therefore, a sheer fiction, that Novatian charged upon Cornelius. Perhaps
some, at Rome, were less cautious than Cyprian in their defence of Cornelius,
and while they admitted the charge to its full extent, contended that it was a
trivial fault, and not derogatory to the character of a bishop. By the reasoning
of these men, the bilious and morose Novatian was so irritated, that he allirmcd,
VOL. n. 6
66 Century III— Section 16.
at last, that the lapsed ought to be forever excluded from communion with the
bishop and the church ; and in this way he aimed to strip the bishop's advoeatea
of all arguments in his favor. And having assumed this ground in the heat of
controversy, he afterwards would not abandon it, lest he should appear vacillat-
ing and unstable in his opinions. And undoubtedly, Novalus urged him not to
yield to any admonitions.
(4) I will not enumerate the patrons and favorers of Novatian, some of
whom were men of high character, nor trace the progress of the sect. It ap-
pears from Socrates, (Hist. Eccles. L. iv. c. 28. p. 245.) that the Epistles, which
Novatian sent throughout the Christian world, had great effect on the minds of
many, and drew them over to his party. From Eusebius, (Hist. Eccles. L. vi.
c. 44. p. 246. et c. 46. p. 248.) it appears, that Fabius, the bishop of Antioch,
and many others, leaned towards his opinions, from fear lest too great indul-
[p. 520.] gence to the lapsed should produce peril and damage to the church.
It also appears, that the Novatians collected congregations of considerable
magnitude, first in Africa, and then in various parts of Europe, Asia, and
Africa, at Rome, Constantinople, in Spain, in Gaul, and in Phrygia. And the
causes of this success are noticed by the ancients. In the first place, as
Socrates remarks in the passage before cited, the severity of the sect towards
those who stained their characters by sin, procured for it a high estimation
among those very studious of piety. And then, the gravity, and the purity of
morals, which most of their teachers exhibited, could not fail to procure for
them respect from the people. And hence, Consianiine the Great exempted
them from the liabilities of the other heretics ; and, by a law enacted A. D. 326.
(inserted in the Codex Theodos. torn. vi. p. 124.) he allowed them to enjoy the
temples and property they had legitimately acquired. But the subsequent em-
perors were not equally indulgent to them ; and a law of the younger Theodo-
sius, A. D. 423, (found also in the Codex Theodos. torn, vi, p. 202.) decreed
the same penalties against them, as against the other sects. He had previously,
in the year 413, enacted a severe law against a branch of the Novatian sect,
who bore the name of Sabbatians or Protopaschites. The name was taken
from one Sabbalius, who, near the beginning of the fifth century, separated
from the other Novatians, because he thought the feast of Easter should be
celebrated at the same time with the Jewish Passover. See Ja. GoiJwfred on
the Codex Theodos. (tom. vi. p. 222.) From the fifth century, it appears, the
sect gradully died away ; and yet some slight relics of it were apparent in the
sixth century.
§ XYI. The Novatian Doctrines. As to the Christian rchgion,
generally, there was no disagreement between the Novatians and
other Christians. But that which especially -distinguished them
from the great body of Christians was, that they denied a re-
admission into the church, to all who fell into the greater sins
after baptism, and especially to those who, under the pressure of
persecution, revolted from Christ and sacrificed to the gods : and
The Novatian Doctrines. fff
yet tliey did not exclude tlicsc persons from all hope of eternal
salvation. (') In close connection witli this doctrine was another,
that they could not look upon a church as an3^thing short of an
assembly of unoffending persons ; persons who, since they first
entered the church, had not defiled themselves with any sin
which could expose them to eternal death. And this error
obliged them to regard all associations of Christians, that allowed
great offenders to return to their communion, (that is, the greatest
part of the Christian commonwealth,) as unworthy of the name
of true churches, and destitute of the Holy Spirit; thus [p. 521.]
arrogating to themselves alone, the appellation of a genuine and
pure church. And this they ventured publicly to proclaim. For
they assumed to themselves the name of Caihari (the Pure), there-
by obviously stigmatizing all other Christians as impure and
defiled ; and they re-baptized the Christians Avho came over to
them, thereby signifying that the baptisms of the churches from
which they dissented were a vain and empty ceremony.Q The
other things reported concerning the faith of this sect, are either
uncertain, or altogether incredible.
(1) Of the ancient writers who mention and condemn the principal error of
Novalian, respecting the perpetual exclusion of lapsed Christians from the
church, some express themselves obscurely and ambiguously, and others seem
to disagree with each other. It is tlierefore not strange that the moderns, also,
in treating of the Novatians, should vary in their statements, and advance di-
verse opinions. Tlii?, in general, is undoubtedly true, that Novatian and his
adherents excluded for ever from the church, those who fell into sins after bap-
tism. But there are two things which admit of dispute: First, who were
meant by the Lapsed? — Secondhj, whether he excluded the lapsed from the
church only, or also from heaven and eternal salvation ? As to the first point,
it is certain that the contest between Cornelius and Novalian, in its origin, re-
lated solely to those who had fallen away in the Dccian persecution. And yet
it is no less certain, that Novatian, as Cyprian gravely charges upon him,
(Epist. lii. p. 74.) placed all persons whatever, whose conduct showed a de-
ficiency of Christian firmness, in one and the same predicament ; and he in-
flicted the same penalties on the Libellatici as on the Sacrificati and the Thuri-
jkati. And as the laws of the ancient church considered certain other trans-
gressors, especially adulterers and murderers, as equally guilty with the apos-
tates, Novatian, also, seems to have comprehended them all in one sentence,
and to have ordered the church doors to be for ever closed against others, fia
well as against apostates. And those writers of the fourth and fifth ccnturica,
who mention this Novatian doctrine, whether they refute it, or only cx])hiin it>
68 Century III. — Section 16.
all 80 understood it, telling u3 that Novatian prohibited all persons, guilty of
any great fault, from re-admission to the church. And this rule certainly was
practised by the Novatian churches in those centuries. This is most explicitly
affirmed by Asdepiade.^, the Novatian bishop of Nice, in the fourth century
(apud Sncratem, Hist. Eccles. L. vii. c. 25 ; p. 367.) : 'Extoj tow tTid-va-At koj
aWai TToWal Kctru ruj ypAtpas ei<riv afxigtixi irpos d-avarovy cT/' Sj vfxiti juiiv Trpof
rous K\iipi>t'.ui, «,«£7s cTe icai Tovi ka'Uqvs droKKiiofxiv. Praster sacrifieium idolo-
[p. 522.] rum sunt et alia multa peccata ad mortem, ut loquuntur seripturse,
propter quce vos quidem clericos, nos vero etiara laicos a communione remove-
mus. In nearly the same manner, Acesius, another Novatian bishop, explains
the views of his sect, (apud Socrat. Hist. Eccles. L. i. c. 10 ; p. 38). He says,
that from the times of Decius, there prevailed among his people this austeram
legem (dua-rnpov ndvovcs) : Neminem, qui post baptismum ejusmodi crimen ad-
miserit, quod pecatum ad mortem divinas scripturse pronuntiant, ad divinorum
mysteriorum communionem admitti oportere. None of the ancients, so fir as I
know, has left us a catalogue of the sins which the Novatians accounted mortal;
and, of course, it is not fully known how far their discipline reached, though all
pronounce it very rigid. Gregory Nazianzen, (Orat. xxxix. 0pp. tom. ii. p. 636.)
is dissatisfied, because they did not include avarice among the mortal sins, since
the Scriptures pronounce this sin as great as that of Pagan worship, and declare
it to be a species of idolatry. But the good man is mistaken. The Novatians
did not punish vicious mental habits, such as avarice and the like, but acts con-
travening any of the greater commands of God, or what are called crimes.
Gregory, also, in the same Oration, states that the Novatians reckoned second
marriages among mortal sins ; which is attested by Epiphanius, Augustine,
Tlieodoret, and many others. Neither is this utterly false ; for Socrates, who
was well versed in Novatian affairs, informs us, (Hist. Eccles. L. v. c. 22 ; p.
288.) that not all the Novatians, but only those of Phrygia, excommunicated
the persons who contracted second marriages. This fact suggests to us the ori-
gin and source of this custom. There were followers oi Montanus still residing
in Phrygia, in the fourth century, and they condemned second marriages. These
mixed with the Novatians, whom they admired for their severe discipline, so
congenial to their own practice, and undoubtedly persuaded them to adopt this
part of the Montanist discipline. — It is therefore beyond a question, that the No-
vatian church, in its maturity, refused to commune, not only with apostatizing
Christians, but also with all persons guilty of the grosser sins. But the inquiry
still remains, whether the church, at its commencement, and also the founder of
it, held the same opinion. That there is ground for doubt on the subject, ap-
pears from the 52d Epistle of Cyprian, who sometimes speaks as if Novatian al-
lowed a place in his church to adulterers, and to other equally great sinnez's,
and excluded only deserters of Christianity, or apostates. He says, (p. 74.) •
Aut si 80 cordis et renis scrutatorem constituit et judicem (Novatianus), per
omnia sequaliter judicet - - et fraudatores et moechos a latere atque a comitatu
suo separet, quando multo et gravior et pejor sit moechi, quam libellatici caussa,
cum hie necessitate, ille voluntatc peccaverit. A little after he adds : Nee sibi
in hoc novi haeretici blandiantur, quod se dicant idololatris non comraunicare,
The Novatlan Doctrines. ($0
quando sint apud illos iidulteri ct fraiulalorca, qui teneantur idololatriai [p. 523.]
criniiue, secundum Apostoluin. And a little after: Ita fit, ut si peceato alteriua
inquinari alterum diennt, et idololatriam delinquentis ad non delinquenteni
transire sua asseveratione contendunt, excuanii secundum suam voeem non
possint ab idololatriai crimine, cum constet dc Apostolica probatione mcechos
et IVaudatores, quibus illi communi(.-ant, idololatras esse. One cursorily reading
these passages, might easily fall into the belief that Novatian tolerated adulter-
ers and defrauders in his congregation, or did not forbid this class of offenders,
after undergoing the penances prescribed by the church, to be again received
among the brethren; and, therefore, that he closed the doors of the church only
against folsifiers of their faith. But, if I do not greatly mistake, one who shall
attentively and sagaciously examine all that Cyprian says on the subject, will
come to a different conclusion. He is not treating of manifest adulterers and
defrauders, but only of clandestine and concealed ones; and his mode of reason-
ing is this : It may be that there are dishonest men among the followers of
Novatian, who, while they profess chastity and uprightness, secretly defile them-
selves with adultery and fraudulent dealing : and it is most probable, that there
are such degenerate Christians contaminating all societies of Christians, and, of
course, also the Novatians. If, then, it be true, as the Novatians maintain, that
a man becomes a sinner himself, by associating fraternally with a sinner, the
Novatians must be in perpetual peril, and may not escape the stains and spots
of sin, whatever pains they may take. That such is the import of Cyprian's
reasoning, is, I think, manifest from the first part of it : Si se cordis et renis
scrutatorem dicit et constituit Novatianus, fraudatores et moechos a latere suo
separet. Had he been speaking of persons, Avhose adulteries and crimes were
publicly known, there would have been no need of searching the heart and the
reins, in order to discriminate the evil doers from the other Christians. But for
detecting and discriminating secret adulterers and defrauders, a sagacity more
than human, an exploration of the hearts of men was requisite. To show how
difficult it is to remove all sinners from the congregation of the just, Cyprian
selected two out of many crimes, adultery and fraud, which are commonly com-
mitted with so much secrecy and caution, as to escape public notice. There are,
indeed, in this same Epistle of Cyprian, the following words, relative to adul-
terers : Quibus tamen et ipsis poenitentia conceditur et lamentandi ac satisfaci-
en(M spes relinquitur secundum ipsum Apostolum, 2 Cor. xii. Some learned
men think that these words warrant the belief, that Novatian allowed adulterers
to expect a re-admission to the church. But, in my opinion, they are most cer-
tainly mistaken. For, so far is this passage from showing that Novatian allowed
a reconciliation to adulterers, that it docs not show that all other Christians,
except Novatians, would receive them. Cyprian says no more than this, that
8t. Paul left to adulterers a hope of penitence and satisfaction. And, [p. 524.]
therefore, although the controversy commenced with those unf;iithful Christians,
who apostatized in the Decian persecution, yet, it is most probable, that the
Novatian church, from its origin, decided that all persons violating the principal
Iaw& of God, after baptism, ought for ever to be excluded from the as.«embly
of the brethren.
70 Century Ill—Section 16.
I come now to the other point, on which I stated there was room for some
doubt. A great number of moilcrn writers tell us, that Novatlau cut oft* all those
who fell into the greater sins after baptism, not only from the hope of re-admis-
sion to the church, but liiccwise from the hope of eternal salvation. And they
have respectable authorities for their assertion, in writers of the fourth and fifth
centuries, namely, Eusebius, (Hist. Eccles. L. vi. c. 43. p. 241.) Jerome, (in loviiiia-
num, e. 2.) and all those who affirm (and there are many that do so,) that No-
vatian discarded and abolished all penances. But the more carefully I examine
the best and most reliable documents of this controversy, the more certain do I
feel, that Novatian was not so destitute of clemency, and that those who so repre-
sent him, attribute to him a consequence, which they dadute from his principles,
but which he did not allow. Very many in that age believed, that the road to
heaven was open only to members of the church, and that those who were
without the church must die with no hope of eternal salvation ; and therefore
they baptised Catechumens, if dangerously sick, before the regularly appointed
time; and they restored to the church the unfaithful or the lapsed Christians,
when alarmingly sick, without any penances or satisfaction, lest they should
perish for ever. Our Cijprian decides. (Epist. lii. p. 71.) thus; Extra ecclesiam
constituLus, et ah unitate aiquc caritale divisus, coronari in morte non poierit. As
there were many holding this doctrine, they must have reasoned thus: Novatian
would leave the lapsed to die excluded from the church: but there is no hope
of salvation to those out of the church. Therefore he excluded the lapsed, not
only from the church but also from heaven. Novatian, however, rejected this
conclusion, and did not wholly take from the lapsed all hope of making their
peace with God. For this assertion, our first great authority is Cyprian, who
otherwise exaggerates the Novatian error quite too much. He says, (Epist. lii.
p. 75.) : O haereticac institutionis inefncax et vana traditio ! hortari ad satisfac-
tionis poenitcntiam et subtrahere de satisfictione medicinam, dicere fratribus
nostris, plange et lacrymas funde, et diebns ac noctibus ingemisce, et pro ab-
luendo et purgando delicto tuo largiter ct frequenter operare, sed extra eccle-
siam post omnia ista morieris ; quaecunque ad pacem pertinent facies, sed nul-
1am pacem quam quaeris accipies. Quis non statim pereat, quis non ipsa despe-
ratione deficiat, quis non animum suum a proposito lamentationis avertat? And
after illustrating these thoughts with his usual eloquence, he concludes thus:
[p. 525.] Quod si invenimus (in the .scriptures,) a poenitentia agenda neminem
debere prohibcri - - admittendus est plangentium gemitus et poenitentiae frnotus
dolentibus non negandus. So then Novatian exhorted sinners ejected from the
church to weep, to prny, to grieve over their sins, in short to exercise penitence.
But why did he so, if he believed there was no hope of salvation for the lapsed ?
Undoubtedly, he urged sinners to tears and penitence, that they might move
God to have compassion on them, or, as Cyprian expresses it, {ut delictum alu
luerenl et purgareni,) to wash and purge away their sin. Therefore, he did not
close up heaven against them, but only the doors of the church; and he belie-
ved, that God had reserved to himself the power of pardoning the greater sina
committed after baptism. And this opinion of their master, his disciples con-
tiaued to retain. The Novatian bishop Acesius, at the council of Nice, in the
The Novatian Doctrines. 71
prcsonec of Const;intinc the Great, accordln,^ to the testimony of Socrates
(Hist. Eceles. L. i. c. 10. p. 39.) thus stated the doetrine of his sect: "Eti
fAiTXVoUv f^iV if^uprticora; vporptnitVy c'X^rid'a eTi riif dp'iaius /uti Trapa rwi* Itpccff^
dXXa iraca tsw Qiiu iKSi-)(jT^aiy to-j Swaf^ivou Kai c^owriav tvsvTij o-yvv/i'pjiy
afAapr»y.aTa. Ad pocnitentiuin quidem invitniidos esse peecatores, reiiiissioiiia
vero spem non a sacerdotibus oxpectare debere, verum a Deo, qui solus jua
potestatemquc habct diinittendi peecata. A similar statement by Asclcpiacks,
another Novatian bishop, is found in Socrates, (Ilist. Eecles. L. vii. c. 25. p. 367.) :
aew y.iva> riiv s-uy^dpi^a-t)/ a^aprnov cTTiTpeirovn;. Soli DeO potestatem COIldonandi
reliuquimus. And Socrates himself, (L. iv. c. 28. p. 245.) obviously explains
the doetrine of Novatian in the same manner. Let us now rest upon these
lucid and strong- testimonies, and not vainly strive to enervate them, as somo
learned men do, by other fiir inferior and Jess explicit testimonies. This, how-
ever, I must not disguise, that from the very testimonies which in some measure
vindicate the Novatian sect, it appears, that this species of Christians did no\
hold out to sinners a sure and undoubting hope of salvation. They would not
indeed, have the persons whom the church excluded, sink into utter despair; hut,
while committing- their case to God alone, and urging them to persevere in their
penitence through life, they declared that the hipsed might hope, but must not
feel assured, or that they were unable to promise any thing certain in regard to
the judgment of God. This surely was sufficiently hard and discouraging.
One utterly uncertain of his salvation, is not much happier, than one who is in
despair; for he must pass his Hie in continual fear. — In what condition those
of the lapsed were placed, whom the Novatians admitted to penitence, is mani-
fest; they remained through life in the class of penitents. They could there-
fore be present at the public discourses to the people, for this was allowed to
penitents ; and in a particular place, distinct from that of the faithful, they could
manifest the sorrows of their heart, in the sight of the brethren; and they could
live and converse with their kindred and relatives : but from the common
prayers, and from the sacred supper, they remained excluded.
(2) The error of the Novatians, in itself, appears to be of no great moment,
as it pertained merely to the external discipline of the church ; but in [p. 526.]
its consequences, it was of the greatest importance, as being in the highest
degree adapted to rend the church, and to corrupt religion itself. The Nova-
tians did not dissemble, and conceal these consequences, as other sects did, nor
did they deny, but avowed them openly. In the first place, as they admitted no
one to their communion who had been guilty of any great sin after b:iptism,
they must have held, that the visible church of Christ is a congregation of holy
and innocent persons. And this principle might have been borne with, some-
how, provided they had allowed, that salvation was also attainable in the other
churches, which permitted sinners to become reconciled by penitence ; although
they might hold its attainment to be more difficult than in the churches denying
restoration to the lapsed. But this ihey utterly denied, or at least, represented
it as extremely dubious and uncertain. And by assuming to themselves the
arrogant title of Cathari, or the "Pure," they charged all the churches that re-
ceived back transgressors, with defilement, or impurity and, as we have just
72 Century III. — Section 1(>.
heard from Cyprian, tliis impurity, thfiy said, arose from their intercourse with
sinners. How they explained this doctrine, is not stated by any ancient writer,
nor need we here attempt its investigation. Whether they supposed the viti-
osity of the guilty, like a contagious disease, communicated itself to the inno-
cent, or whetlier they believed this guilt and pollution to arise from the sin of
too great lenity towards sinners; it is certain, they regarded it as of no small
moment, and indeed so great, that it could deprive men of those divine aids
which are necessary for the attainment of salvation. That such were their sen-
timents, no one can doubt, if he considers, that they regarded the baptisms of
all the churches that re-admitted transgressors, as being invalid, and that they
rebnptised the members of other churches that came over to them. See CypriaUy
(Epist. Ixxiii. p. 129.) It was the almost universal opinion of that age, that it
is by baptism men obtain forgiveness of sin. on account of their faith and their
profession of it : but that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are conferred, by what
they denominated consignation, or the Confirmation of the bishop. So taught
Dionysius Alexandrinus in Egypt, as appears from his Epistle, (apud Euseh.
Hist. Eccles. L. vii. c. 8. p. 254.) ; so also Cornelius, at Rome ; and so likewise
Cyprian in Africa, who uses this doctrine particularly, in the controversy respect-
ing tbe rebaptizing of heretics, of which we shall soon have occasion to speak.
He says, (Epist. Ixxiii. p. 131.) ; Manifestum est autem, ubi et per quos remissa
veccaioriim dari possit, quae in hapLismo scilicet da'ur. And soon after, he thus
describes the effects of Confirmation : Qui in ecclesia baptizantur (and conse-
quently have already obtained remission of their sins,) praepositis ecclesiae
otferuntur, et per nostram orationem et manus impositionem Spiritmn Saiictum
[p. 527.] consequuntur et Signaculo Dominico consummantur. More, to the
same purpose, may be found in this Epistle. I acknowledge it to be uncertain,
whether Novatian attributed the same efficacy to episcopal Confirmation, as
other Christians did. Novatian himself, as we have seen objected to him by
Cornelius, had no reverence for episcopal Confirmation ; and satisfied himself
with baptism only: and Theodoret tells us, (Haeret. Fabul. L. iii. c. 5. 0pp. tom-
iv. p. 229, 230.) that his followers made no account of unction or Confirmntion,
and of course, other rites accompanying unction. Nor was it, in my judgment,
a bad conjecture of Jo. Morin, (Comm. de sncris Ordinationibus, tom. iii. p. 127.)
that the Novatians, in this matter, followed the example of their master, who
had contemned the so called seal of the bishop. But concerning baptism, and
its effects, it clearly appears from Cyprian, (Epist. Ixxvi. p. 154.) that the
opinion of Novatian was the same, as that of his adversaries: indeed he must
have attributed greater efficacy to baptism than they did ; and must have sup-
posed that the Holy Spirit was imparted by it, if he ascribed no virtue to con-
firmation. And therefore, as Novatian denied all efficacy to the baptisms of the
Christians who received the lapsed to conimnnion, he denied that any of those
dissentincT from him had obtained from God the pardon of their sins, or had re-
ceived the gifts of the Holy Spirit purchased by the blood of Christ. But what
hope of salvation can be left, to men laboring under the burden of their sins,
and destitute of the aids of the Holy Spirit? And here I would have particu-
hirly noticed, that the lapsed, or those excluded from the church for their
Persecution of Galliis. 73
offences, were in .1 better condition, according to Nomiians d Vctrinc, than thoso
Christians who admitted the lapsed into their assemblies. For ht taught the lapsed
to hope they might succeed in appeasing God, by persevering in their prayers
and tears, and other acts of penitence: but thoso Christians who disagreed with
Novatian neglected this, the only ground of safety to them, because they did
not suppose that they had fallen from a state of grace; and, therefore, they had
nothing at all in which they could trust. How inhumnne and dangerous such
doctrines were, and whither they tended, I need not explain more fully.
Neither is it necessary here to admonish those who may read the ancient
writers, respecting Novaius and Novalian, to beware of filling into their errors;
for they ofcen confound the two very different, but associated men, being de-
ceived by the affinity of the names, Novatus and Novatian. But learned men
have long since given warning on this point.
§ XYII. The Persecution under Gaiius. While tliese contro-
versies among Christians were rife, in the year 251, Deciiis was
slain, with his sons ; and G alius succeeded him in the govern-
ment, with his son, Volusian. The year following, the persecution
against the Christians, which had been less vigorously prosecuted
during the last years of Decius^ was renewed, either by [p. 628.]
the publication of new edicts, or by the revival of the old ones ;
and again the Christians had to undergo many evils, in various
provinces of the Eoman empire, which, however, they seem to
have endured with more fortitude than under Decius.Q) The fury
of the people was augmented by the calamities with which the
Roman empire was at the time much afflicted, and in particular
by a pestilential disease, which carried off an immense number of
persons in various parts of the country. For it was supposed
that the gods inflicted these penalties on the nations on account
of the Christians. This opinion occasioned Cyprian to write his
tract, ad Demetriamim^ in which he attempts to confute it.(^) This
persecution ceased in the year 254, when Gallus and his son being
slain at Interamnia, Valerian, and his son GalliemiSj were placed
at the head of the Roman empire; for Valerian immediately
restored peace to the Christian world.
(1) That Gallus again attacked the Christians, and renewed the persecution
commenced by Decius, admits of no controversy. Diojiysins of Ale.\andri:i,
(apud Euseh. Hist. Eccles. L. vii. c. i. p. 250.) expressly says, that when Gallus
saw things moving on according to his wishes, he trod in the steps of Decius,
and persecuted (rot/j hpovi avJ'pai) the holy men. That his Christian subjects in
Italy, and especially at Rome, were persecuted, is demonstrable from the 57tb
and 58th Epistles of Cyprian. And that the Christians of Africa were exposod
74 Century Ill.—Scctlon 17.
to numerous perils, is manifest from CypriarCs Tract, ad Demelrianum, and
from other testimonies. But it is not equally apparent, by what law or rule he
would have proceedings against them regulated; whether he imitated the cruelty
of Decius, or directed to some other mode of proceeding. Cyprian menlions
(Epist. Iv. p. 82.) an edict published at Carthage, respeciing sacrifices; and he
says, that it occasioned the people to demand him to be cast to the lions: His
ipsis diebus, has quibus ad te iitteras feci, ob .sacrificia quae edicto proposilo
cclebrare populus jubebatur, chimore popuhirium ad leonem denuo posluhilus in
circo fui. But as Cyprian, in this Epistle, makes no mention of evils and I'crils
arising from this edict to the Christians, and writes as if all was then quiet, I
can re dily accord with the learned in supposing that this edict merely admon-
ished the people to placate the gods by sacrifices, in order to avert the pesti-
lence and other calamities ; and that it did not order a persecution of the
Christians, In this opinion I am confirmed by the fact, that Cyprian does not
complain of any actual sufferings, but only of the threats of tiie Gentiles : Et
Gentiles et Judaji minaiiLur et haeretici. All things considered, I am induced to
[p. 529.] believe that Gallus was not so cruel and unjust to the Christians, as
is commonly supposed; that he did not, like Decius, come down with fury upon
them, but only terrified the people who believed in Christ, and ordered their
principal bishops into exile. And 1 am led to this belief, first, by the language
used by Dionysius of Alexandria, (apud Euzeh. Hist. Eccles. L. vii. c. 1.), who
says that the {lif-'Oi hS'fai) venerable or holy men were assailed by him. This
language, if I am not much deceived, denotes, not the common people, but the
bishops and priests. And, as to the evils which these venerable men suffered,
he uses a mild term, which seems to exclude capital punishment, viz. : "HXaa-sy,
insectatus est, he chased away. As to any martyrs, neither he nor others say
one word. And then the occurrences at Rome, in this persecution, as they are
fully stated by Cyprian in his Epistle to Cornelius (Epist. Ivii. p. 94, &c.),
strongly confirm this opinion. Cornelius, the bishop, was there apprehended,
and required to defend his cause before the praetor ; and as soon as the people
heard of it, the greatest part of them hastened spontaneously to the judge, and
not only professed Christ fearlessly, but declared themselves ready to lay
down their lives with their bishop. Prosilierat adversarius terrore violento
Christi castra turbare. Sed quo impetu venerat, eodem impetu pulsus et
victus est. - - Unum (the bishop) primo aggressus, ut lupus avem secernere a
grege, ut accipiter columbam ab agmine volantium separare tcntavcrat. - - Sed
retusus adunati exercitus fide pariter et vigore, intclh?xit mi'.ites Christi vigilare
- - vinci non posse, mori posse, et hoc ipso invictos esse, quia mori non timent.
Quale illud fuit sub oculis Dei spectaculum gloriosum, quale in conspectu
Christi ecclesia? suae gaudium, ad pugnam, quam tentaverat hostis, inferre non
singulos milites, sed tola simul castra prodiisse ! Omnes enim constat ventures
fuisse, si audire potuissent, quando accurrerit properanier et venerit qvisquis
audivil. And yet not one of this multitude was either sent to prison, or sub-
jected to torture, or put to death. The bishop only, Cornelius, was sent into
exile. And no greater punishment was inflicted on Lucius, his successor; and,
Buch was the clemency of the times, that he was soon recalled from the exile
Persecution of Gallus. 75
into which he was sent. On tliis liis rccnll, (which was procured, I suspoct, by
the money of Christians), Cyprian congratuhitcs him in his 58th Epistle (p. 96).
There is, indeed, an old tradition, supported by authorities of some respecta-
bility, that both Cornelius and Lucius were afterwards put to death. This tnu
dition I could resist, if I were so disposed. This is certain, that Cyprian's call-
ini>- each of them, (bealicjn. marlyrem) a blessed marhjr (Epist. Ixvii. p. 117), is
no solid proof of this tradition ; for it appears, that Cyprian used the word
martyr in a broader sense, applying this honorable title to the Confessors also.
But, suppose there was no doubt of the violent death of Cornelius and
Lucius, these two examples of the execution of bishops, would rather [p. 530.]
demonstrate the moderation than tlie cruelty of Gallus; since it is manifest,
from the Epistles of Cyprian to each of them, that no one, besides them, suf-
fered death at Rome. In Africa, Cyprian lived at Carthage without fear, dur-
ing this persecution ; although, shortly before, he had been demanded by
the furious populace to be thrown to the lions. Neither was his presence in
the city unknown by the magistrates; for Demelrianus, that violent enemy of
the Christians, to whom Cyprian wrote a Tract, a man, doubtless, of no little
authority, and, perhaps, one of the inferior judges, often called on Cyprian, and
disputed with him about religion ; as Cyprian himself states, in the exordium
of his Tract. Neither is there anything in his Epistles, from which it can be
inferred, that any Christian in Africa suffered death under Gallus. It would
seem, therefore, that only exile and the milder punishments were inflicted on
certain individuals. I acknowledge that the learned men, who think Gallus
was no milder than Decius, have some show of arguments for their opinion.
First, they observe that Cypj-ian, by divine inspiration, predicted, before the
persecution of Gallus commenced, that there would be one of great magnitude
and turbulence. See his 54th Epistle, (ad Cornel, p. 79.) : Spiritu Sancto sug-
gerente, et Domino per visiones multas et manifestas admonente, hostis immi-
nere prrenuntiatur et ostenditur. . . Protulimus, diem certaminis appropinquasse,
hostem violentum cito contra nos exsurgere, pugnam, non talem qualis fuit
(i. e. under Decius) sod graiiorem multo et acriorem venire. And he writes the
same thing in his 5Gth Epistle, (ad Thibaritanos, p. 90.): Nam cum Domini in-
struentis dignatione instigemur saepius et admone amur. - - Scire debetis ac
pro certo credere ac tenere, pressurte diem super caput esse coepisse, et occasum
saeculi atque Antichrist! tempus appropinquasse. . . Gravior nunc et ferocior
pugna imminet. But, to confess the truth, the prophecies and visions which
Cyprian often announces, are fallacious and of dubious credibility. He was cer-
tainly a pious and good man, but of a fervid temperament, and not sufficiently
governed by reason ; and he often rashly supposed the suggestions of his ex-
cited imagination to be dictated to him by the Holy Spirit. To demonstrate
this by examples from his life and Epistles, cannot be necessary, since tiiis very
prophecy of an impending, direful persecution, manifests its human origin and
its falsity. He predicts, not only greater evils than under Decius, but likewise
(occasum sccculi et Antichristi tempus) the coming of AntirJirisi and tite end (f
the world: and even those who may account him the greatest of projlu'ts in
other things, must admit, that he was here cgregiously mistaken. And when a
76 Century TIL— Section 17.
part of the prediction has been confuted by the event, it cannot be doubtful
how the whole of it is to be regarded. Moreover, Cyprian himself frankly
owns, that his predictions and vii^ions were ridiculed by many, (Epist. Ixix. p.
124.) : Qamquam seiam somnia ridicula et vaticinationes ineptas quibusdam
videri, sed utiquc illis, qui nialunt contra sacordotes credere, quam sacerdoti.
With these people he is very angry, but I consider them not so wild in
[p. 531.] their opinions as he judged them to be. But a stronger support to
those who think Gallus was as cruel to the Christians as Decius, is derived
from Cyprian's Tract, ad DemaLrianum. That this tract was written in the
reign of Gallus, can be shown by many unexceptionable proofs ; and in it the
writer bitterly complains of the very great wrongs suffered by the Christians.
lie says, (c. xii. p. 2'20.) : Innoxios, justos, Deo caros domo privas, patrimonio
spolias, catenis premis, carcere includis, gladio, hesiiis, ignibus punis. Nee saltern
contentus es dolorum nostrorum compendio et simplici ac veloci brevitate
poenarum. Admoves laniandis corporibus longa tormenta, multiplicas laceran-
dis visceribus numerosa supplicia, nee feritas atquc immanitas tua usitaiis
potest contenta esse tormentis ; excogitat novas pa3nns ingeniosa erudelitas.
Now, if all these things occurred at the time Cyprian was writing that Tract,
it must be acknowledged, that the times of Gallus were not more happy than
those of Decius. But it must be remembered, that Cyprian plays the orator in
this book, nnd rather declames than teaches or discusses. And hence we are
not obliged to consider all that he states respecting the sufferings of Christians,
as then taking place before him, or as occurring at the very time he wrote. He
is speaking, generally, of the injustice and cruelty of the Roman governors and
magistrates ; and, therefore, the things he states may fiiirly be referred to the
previous times of Decius. Orators are wont to speak of things of recent oc-
currence, and things alvvays to be feared, as if they saw them. And that this is
no groundless conjecture, but a correct interpretation of the passage, appears
from the fact, that in his Epistles, written about the same time, Cyprian makes
no mention at all of the sufferings of his people. Besides, the undisturbed
quiet which he himself enjoyed, while writing that Tract, is evidence that the
Christians were not then struggling under any great evils.
(2) At that time a very destructive and inveterate pestilence afflicted a large
part of the Roman empire ; and it was accompanied by other great calamities.
Therefore, as was usual for the idolaters, many persons in x\frica declared the
Christians to be the cause of these great calamities. Among them there was,
in particular, one Demelrianus. And, as he often called on Cyprian to dispute
with him, and continued to repeat this accusation, Cyprian undertook to refute
it in an appropriate Tract. Near the beginning of this Tract, (ad Demetrianum,
c. 2.), he says: Cum dicas plurimos conqueri, quod bella crebrius surgant, quod
lues, quod fjimes sseviant, quodque imbres et pluvias serena longa snspendant,
nobis imputari, tacere ultra non oportet, ne - - dum criminationes falsas con-
temnimus refutare, videamur crimen agnoscere. - - Dixisti per nos fieri et quod
nobis debeant imputari omnia ista, quibus nunc mundus quatitur et urgetur,
quod Dii vestri a nobis non colantur. Hence, as before stated, when the people
of Carthage were admonished by the edict of the proconsul to appease the
Persecution of G alius. 77
anger of the gods with sacrifices, they immediately dcmanaed that Cypiian, the
Christian bishop, sliould be cast to the lions; because they believed [p. 532.]
that this man, and the community of Christians over which he presided, were
the causes of their calamities, and that sacrifices and supplications would be
fruitless, unless these enemies of the gods were put out of the way. — In this
discussion, Cyprian is often eloquent and ingenious, but he is not always solid.
With regard to tiiis Demelrian, who so foolishly assailed the Christians, learned
men suppose him to have been a man of very high rank, perhaps the proconsul
of Africa ; and they infer this from Cyprian's accusing him of inflicting many
wrongs on the Christians, and manifesting great cruelty. We have already, in
the preceding note, exhibited a part of this accusation. But, as before stated,
Cyprian, throughout this Tract, discourses in the style of an orator; and, there-
fore, wliat he seems to charge upon Demetrian, personally, may fairly be referred
to the Roman judges and magistrates generally. When I read over the exordium
of the Tract, he does not appear to me so great a man as he does to these
learned gentlemen. Cyprian does not address him in a modest and respectful
manner, such as all persons should employ, in their intercourse with men of
very high rank, and especially with the vicegerents of the supreme ruler ; but
he bursts forth in a strain of unbridled reproach and contumely : Oblatrantem
te et adversus Deum ore sacrilego et verbis impiis obstrepentem frequenter,
Demetriane, contemseram, verecundius ac melius existimans errantis imperitiam
eilentio spernere, quam loquendo dementis insaniara provocare. What an accu-
mulation of reproachful terms are in these few words ? Who can think that
Cyprian would be so delirious as to compare a proconsul, or governor, a repre-
sentative of the emperor, a man who held the power of life and death, with a
barking cur, and to call him sacriUgiou% i?npious, ignorant, stupid, insane 1
Cyprian, although he was of a vehement temperament, could admirably curb
his impetuosity, and restrain his passions, when occasion required or danger
threatened ; as appears from his Epistles. And who does not know that the
ancient Christians, after the example of Christ and the Apostles, approached
magistrates of all ranks with great caution and respect ? Neither let any one
imagine that these expressions may have escaped from Cyprian through inad-
vertence, and that in the progress of the discussion, their harshness is corrected
by milder and more gentle language. He proceeds with the same virulence
with which he commenced, and heaps on his adversary all the reproaches which
an exasperated mind is prone to dictate. Scarcely had he uttered what was
just cited, when he adds, that Demetrian was one of the dogs and swine to
which Christ had forbidden the casting of what is holy. A little farther on, he
terms him rahid, blind, deaf, brutish ; Labor irrltus, ofTerre lucem caco, sermonem
surdo, sapientiam bruto. Nor do these suffice : Demetrian is still further com-
plimented with the terms, raging and impious. He says : Conticui, cum nee
docere indocilem possem, nee impium religione comprimere, nee farenteyn leni-
tate cohibere. And many more such flowers of rhetoric might be gathered from
this Tract. Undoubtedly, those eminent men, Baronius, Pearson, Tillc-
mont, and others, must have read these passages; yet, it io strange that [p. 533.]
they could have read them, and yet believe Demetrian to have been the
78 Century III.— Section 18.
governor or proconsul of Africa ; or, at least, a magistmte of very high rank.
Either Demctrian could not have been a man of such higli rank, or Cyprian, in
assailing hin) as a man of no character or worth, lacked common sense, and had
not the full use of his reason. But these worthy men supposed, they were
obliged to consider Demetrian so honorable a man, because they believed that
those great sufferings of the Christians which Cyprian deplores, all proceeded
from Demetrian : and if this had been the fact, then, doubtless, he must have
been the supreme judge and proconsul. We have above cited the leading accu-
sations of Cyprian, at the same time observing, that it is not necessary to refer
them to Demetrian, personally, because the language of rhetoricians will admit
of a laxer interpretation. As to my own views, I suspect that this adversary of
Cyprian, was a man of the same occupation and rank with Cyprian, before his
conversion, that is, a Rhetorician or Teacher of Eloquence at Carthage. A
Philosopher I would not venture to call him, because he supposed the gods had
afflicted the human race with pestilence, war, and famine, on account of the
Christians ; an opinion incongruous with the views of a philosopher. He lived
in intimacy with Cyprian, visiting him quite frequently, and discussing religious
subjects with him. But it is not to be supposed, that this intimacy commenced
after Cyprian abandoned superstition and became a Christian. I therefore sup-
pose they became intimate at the time when Cyprian taught eloquence at
Carthage. The similarity of their pursuits, perhaps, brought them to associate
together, and the bond which united them could not be entirely severed by the
change of religion in Cyprian. This fact, moreover, of the intimacy existing be-
tween these two men, appears to me to afford a strong argument against the
opinion, that Demctrian governed Africa as the proconsul. For who that is
well acquainted with Roman and Christian affairs, will believe, that a proconsul,
the governor of a province, who was bound by the emperor's mandate to per-
secute the Christians, would pay frequent friendly visits to a Christian bishop,
and converse and dispute with him familiarly on religious subjects ? Between
Christians, and especially between Christian bishops and persons of such an
exalted station, there must have been as great discord as, to use the words of
Horace, {lupis et agnis quanta sortilo contigii,) "naturally exists between wolves
and lambs."
§ XVIII. Disputes respecting the Baptisms of Heretics. This ex-
ternal tranquillity gave rise to internal conflicts among Chris-
tians, now persons should be treated who left heretical congre-
gations, and came over to the Catholics, had never been
determined by any general rules. Hence some, both in the East,
and in Africa, and elsewhere, placed reclaimed heretics in the
class of Catechumens ; and, though already baptized, received
[p. 534.] them into the church by a second baptism. But the
greater part of the Europeans considered the baptisms of errone-
ous churches as conveying forgiveness of sins for Christ's sake,
Baptisms h'j Heretics, 79
and therefore they received the heretics who came over to them,
solely by the imposition of hands and prayers.(') This dillcrence
of practice, however, had not hitherto prevented their having
fraternal intercourse. The Asiatic Christians, in councils held at
times not ascertained, in Iconium, Synnada, and other places,
changed their former usage into an established law, by enacting,
that all heretics coming over to the true church, should be puri-
fied by a second baptism. On learning this, Stephen^ bisliop of
Rome, esteeming the other custom more sacred, and as being
derived from the Apostles, excluded those oriental Christians
from the communion of the Romish church, but not from the
church universal. Nevertheless, Cyprian^ after consultation with
certain African bishops, in a council held at Carthage, assentea
to the oriental doctrine, to which many of the Africans had long
been adherents; and this he signified, though modestly, to
Stephen. But so offended v.^as Stephen, that he not only gave
Cyprian a severe reprimand, but when Cyprian replied with firm-
ness, and by a unanimous vote in a second council at Carthage,
pronounced the baptisms of all heretics destitute of any efficacy,
Stephen declared him and the African bishops unworthy of the
name of Brethren, and loaded them with severe reproaches. An
end was put to this contest, partly by the prudence of the Afri-
cans, who were unwilling to render evil for evil, and partly bj
the death of Stephen, and the occurrence of a ncAv persecution
under Valerian ; each party persevering in its opinions.(')
(1) These facts we learn from several sources, but the most clearly from
Eusehius, (Hist. Eccles. L. vii. c. 2. p. 251. and c. 7. p. 253, 254). Those who
disagreed on this subject, all admitted that persons received the pardon of tho
sins of their past lives by baptism, on account of that foith in Christ Jesus which
the candidates for baptism professed ; but that the Holy Spirit is conferred by
the bishop's imposition of hands and prayers. As I have already stated, such was
the common opinion of that age. Those, therefore, who received heretics with-
out re-baptizing them, believed that the persons baptized among heretics, had
received remission of their sins, because they had professed Christ, and had been
baptized in his words or in his name; but they denied that such persons were en-
dowed with the Holy Spirit, because the heretical leaders and bishops [p. 535.]
were destitute of the Holy Spirit, and therefore could not communicate the
gifts of the Spirit to others. And, of course, they delivered over such persons
to the bishops to be confirmed or sealed. But those who rejected the bai)tism9
of heretics, and re-baptized the persons baptized among them, maintained, that
80 Century III.— Section 18.
none but a pure and true faith was by God deemed a proper ground for the re-
mission of sins ; and, as the heretics taught their people to profess a corrupt
and false faith at baptism, no remission of sins could be expected from such
baptism. This argument is pursued at great length by Cyprian^ (Epist. Ixxiii.
ad Jubaianum, p. 130). I will quote a few sentences to illustrate and contirra
what I have said. The reasoning of those disagreeing with him, he thus states,
(c. 4.) : Qua3rendum non est quis baptizaverit, quando is, qui baptizatus est, ac-
cipere remissam peccatorum potuit secundum quod credidit : i. e. It is not
necessary to enquire who administered the baptism, seeing the person received
remission of his sins, on the ground of the faith in Christ which he professed.
He then replies to this reasoning at considerable length ; and, among other
things, he says, (c. 5.) : Quomodo potest videri, qui apud illos baptizatur, con-
secutus esse peccatorum remissam et divinai iiidulgentiae gratiam per suam
fidem, qui ipsius fidei non habuerit veritatem ? Si enim, sicut quibusdam
videtur, secundum fidem suam quis accipere aliquid foris extra ecclesiam potuit,
utique id accepit, quod credidit. Falsum autem credens verum accipere non
potuit, sed potius adultera et profana, secundum quod credebat, accepit. - -
(c. 6.) : Quod si secundum pravam fidem baptizari aliquis foris et remissam
peccatorum consequi potuit, secundum candem fidem consequi et Spiritum
sanctum potuit, et non est necesse, ei venienti manum imponi, ut Spiritum
sanctum consequatur et signetur. Aut utrumque enim fide sua foris consequi
potuit, aut neutrum eorum, qui foris fuerat, accepit. The theology of the early
divines, who lived before the times of Constant! ne, if viewed generally, did not
differ from ours; but viewed particularly, and with impartiality, it differed
wonderfully. Nor will this appear strange to a person acquainted with anti-
quity. For the few doctrines which make up the sum of the Christian religion,
had not then been inculcated, so to speak, after being subjected to a manipu-
lation, and legitimately defined and inclosed in determinate formulas of lan-
guage ; and, therefore, the individual doctors explained them as they judged
proper. And the explanation which commended itself to a man of some influ-
ence and ingenuity, ^^^as approved by many others who were less learned, just
as at the present day ; and so it passed for the common doctrine of the whole
church.
(2) The history of the controversy between the Roman bishop, Stephen, and
certain African and Asiatic bishops, respecting the efficacy of the baptisms of
heretics, the writers belonging to the Romish church labor with all their might
to pervert and involve in obscurity. For since it affords the most lucid docu-
ments, from which it can be proved that the power of the Romish bishop,
although he held a very conspicuous rank among the Christian prelates, was yet
[p. 536.] very small in that age, and that his decisions were disregarded and re-
pudiated with the utmost freedom; these writers jumble up and confuse every
thing, partly by idle conjecture, and partly by violently wresting the meaning
of the ancients, lest, as is abundantly manifest, the truth should too clearly
shine out and arrest attention. One of them, perceiving clearly that by such
artifices the truth might be disguised, but could not be extinguished, concluded
to cut the inexplicable knot, like Alexander, which the patrons of the Roman
Baptisms brj Heretics. 81
Pontiff could not untie ; or, to apply tlie sponge, ns Augustus to his Ajnx, to
all the most important documents of this contest that have reached us. 1 refer
to Rayjmindus Alissorius, a Franciscan friar, who, in a book appropriately on
the subject, (printed at Venice, 1733, 4to.) attempted to prove that the Epistles
of Firmilian and Cyprian, in which they censure the decision of Stej)hen, and
some other works, were forgeries got up by the African Donatists. But this
astonishing temerity has been met and rebuked as it deserved, by our Jo. Geo.
Wahli, in a Dissert, printed at Jena, in 1738, and by Jo. Henry iSbaraka, an ad-
herent to the Roman Pontiff, in a very learned work printed at Bologna, 1741,
4to. With the single exception of Jo. Launoi, who boldly lays open this contest,
although more spiritedly in some respects than was necessary, (in his loth
Epistle, addressed to Ja. Boileau ;) the Romish writers, who otherwise hold
moderate opinions of the dignity and authority of the Roman Pontiff", yet study
to give some coloring to this history, and to extenuate the vehemence of the
disputants, especially of Stephen, lest they should appear to judge the bishop
of the first see in Christendom with too much harshness. Those who are sepa-
rated from the Romish church, exhibit greater fidelity in their treatment of this
controversy. And yet I would not deny, that they sometimes go too far, and
are especially faulty in this, that they make Cyprian to have been the author of
the contest. Into this opinion they were led by Eusehius, who tells us, (Hist.
Eccles. L. vii. e. 3; p. 251.) that Cyprian first condemned the baptisms of here-
tics ; and yet, he himself subsequently refutes that assertion. It is most fully
attested, in my view, that the Asiatic bishops gave occasion for this contest by
tiieir decrees, and that Slephen was in conflict with them before Cyprian took
up the subject
So long as the Apostles of Jesus Christ lived, there were either no sects of
heretics, or only such as were very small and obscure. Hence they established
no rules respecting the effects of baptism by heretics, nor did they determine in
what manner churches should receive those who came over to them from the
heretics. But in the second century, when by degrees various sects of cor-
rupters of the ancient religion arose, and often individuals abandoned them and
came over to the orthodox, the question naturally arose, whether these in-
dividuals were to be considered as already members of the church, or as aliens?
Whether they were to be initiated by baptism, or were to be considered as al-
ready initiated ? And that there was no uniformity of sentiment on [p. 537.]
this subject, might easily be shown, if it were necessary. Nor could there be
uniformity in that age, when no one arrogated to himself the office of judge and
legislator among Christians, and when assemblies of the whole church could
not be convened, and the heretical sects w^ere of different characters, some bet-
ter, and some worse. The Romans, whom the other Europeans followed, seem
to have always held, that reclaimed heretics, who had been already baptized in
the name of Jesus Christ, did not need a second baptism. In Asia and Africa,
some received heretics without baptizing them, while others held that they
must be baptized ; and each bishop followed his own judgment. In the third
century, the heretical churches being greatly multiplied and amplified, tliis
question was perpetually coming up, and calling forth deliberation and dis-
VOL. IL 7
82 Centurij III— Section IB.
cussion. For the custom of holding councils having first originated in Greece,
as lias been ah-eady shown, and quickly extending itself over the Christian com-
monwealth, those things which had before been left to the discretion of indivi-
dual bisiiops, were brought under public discussion, and were determined by
the suffrngcs of the bishops. Some dissension on this subject having arisen in
Africa, at the commencement of this century, Agrippinus, the bishop of Car-
thage, called a council, in which it was decided, as Cyprian informs us, (Epist.
Ixxi. p. 127, and Epist. Ixxiii. p. 130.) ; Baptizandos esse, qui ah hccrelicis ad ec-
clesiam xcniunl: Persons coming over to the church from the heretics, are to
be baptized. Many of the African bishops followed this decision, but not all,
as appears from these Epistles of Cyprian, and as will be manifest from what
will soon be stated. Besides, what need was there of new councils and de-
liberations, if all the bishops of Africa had been obedient to the decision of
Agrippinus ? With the modesty which characterized the early bishops, Agrip-
pinus and his associates had uttered their opinion, but not enacted a laio. And
the African church, as will soon be shown, had always regarded this as an open
question, concerning which either side might be advocated, without danger to
religion or to fraternal harmony. But, in process of time, when the minds of
the Asiatic bishops became divided on this subject, and especially when dubi-
tation arose about the baptisms of the Montanists, many of them assembled at
Iconium and Sennnda, cities of Phrygia, and in other places, and after mature
deliberation, unanimously decided, that heretics coming over to the church
ought to be again baptized. The fullest witness to this fact is Dionysius of
Alexandria, (apud Easebium, Hist. Eccles. L. vii. c. 7 ; p. 254). Concerning the
council at Iconium, in particular, Firmilian, the bishop of Caesarea, in Cappa-
docia, gives testimony in his Epistle, printed with those of Cyprian, (Epist. Ixxv.
p. 145). All these proceedings either remained unknown at Rome, or, which
is more probable, were considered of so little importance, aa to be overlooked.
But after many years, when Stephen was at the head of the Romish church, the
scene changed, and w^hat had been regarded as free and harmless at Rome, as-
sumed the nature of a crime. What occasioned this change, none of iho ancients
[p. 538.] has informed us. But it is most probable, that in the time of Stephen,
a contest respecting the baptisms of heretics arose at Rome also ; and that there
were some there vvho maintained, that heretics ought not to be received without
a new baptism, as was the custom of the church of Rome. Perhaps these per-
sons had come from the East, and contended that the rule in their country \va»
preferable to that followed at Rome. But Slephen, believing the Romish custom
to be derived from the apostles, not only decided that it should be retained, but
also that the Asiatic churches, by following a different rule, were cherishing a
great eiTor. To reclaim his eastern brethren from this error, he wrote thera a
letter ; and, as they would not obey him, but defended their own opinions, he
excluded them from his communion, and from the brotherhood of the Romish
church. Those are mistaken, who suppose that these Asiatic Christians, and
subsequently the African, were by Stephen excommunicated from the church. In
tliat age the Romish bishop did not claim to have so much power, as to think
he could eject others from communion in the universal church ; nor did any
Baptisms by Heretics. 83
one hold the opinion, that the persons whom the Romish hishop excluded from
the communion of /i/.v church, forfeited their privile^ires tin-oufrliout the Christian
world. These opinions first originated long ulterwards. But at that period,
each individual bishop could exclude from his communion, or pronounce un-
worthy of the privileges of fraternal embrace, all those whom he, either justly
or erroneously, judged to be contaminated with gross sins, or guilty of any con-
duct inconsistent witii the ohligations of a Christian teacher. But his judgment,
every one was at liberty to follow or to reject, as he saw fit. By this rule Cy-
friaii acted ; by this Victor of Rome ; by this IStephen ; and by this many others
in that ago. Moreover, it is very incorrect to call these private decisions excom-
municalions ; and to say, e. g. that Stephen excommunicated Cyprian : for the
two expressions, to excommunicate, and to deprive one of our communion^ are of
very ditierent import. — But to return to Stephen : Respecting his unkind con-
duct towards the Asiatics, these few things only arc preserved in the Epistle of
Dionysius Alexandrinus, by Euscbius, (Hist. Eccles. L. vii. e. 5 ; p. 252.) :
'ETrtcTaf^Kti /utv oiiv Trponpiv xat Trtpl E*Atvoy nai Trtpl <I>ipfAtKixvou x.ai TrdvToiv Tc3y
TS OTo TWf KiKlKiic x.xi KawaS'oH.iai nal ysLhATi^i xai vavroju rai(/ e^H? ofAcpouvTcyTf
eS-KaJv, w; cvS'i EHiivots KOiveevii^cev i la t«v du^h ruuniv diTiav, iTrnS^i} Tcuf
fnfiTiKuvi {pitTiv) dvu.0x?rTi^ouo-i. Antea quidem (Stephanus) litteras scripserat
de Heleno et de Firmiliano, de omnibus denique episcopis per Ciliciam, Cappa/-
dociam, cunclasquc linitimas provincias constitutis, sesc ob earn caussam ab
illorum communiune discessum, quod ha3reticos rebaptisarent. On this passage,
Valesius (Adnot. ad Euseb. p. 141.) puts a milder construction, by supposing
that Stephen did not actually break off communion with the Orientals, but only
threatened to do it, and never carried his threats into execution; and this opinion
is embraced by several learned writers among the Romanists, who would, as far
as possible, excuse the outrageous conduct of Stephen. But, without insisting
that the language of the passage will not admit so mild an interpretation, there
is now extant a testimony above all exception, that Stephen actually [p. 539.]
did break communion, not only with the Africans, but also previously with the
Orientals and others. I refer to the Epistle respecting this controversy, written
by Firmilian (one of those bishops whom Stephen condemned,) to Cyprian,
and published among Cyprian's Epistles, (Epist. Ixxv.). In the first place, this
whole epistle is hostile in its tone, and shows, that at the time it was written,
harmony between Stephen and Firmilian^ and his associates, was wrent and dis-
sipated ; for Firmilian does not condescend to give Stephen the ordinary title
of brother, but assails him as an enemy and an adversary, with contumelious
language. Had Stephen merely threatened to break friendship with him, Fir-
milian should, and would have used very different language respecting him.
Secondlij.not far from the end of the Epistle, (c. 24.) Firmilian most manifestly
represents, that Stephen had declared war, not only against the African
churches, but also against many others, and among them against the Oriental ;
for he thus addresses him : Lites et dissensiones quantas parasti per ecctesias
toiius mundi 1 Peccatum vero quam magnum tibi exaggerasti, quando te a tot
gregibus scidisii ? Excidisti enim te ipsum. Noli te fallere. Siquidem ille est
vere schismaticus, qui se a communione ecclesiasticcc unitatis apnstalam fecerit.
84 Century III— Section 18.
Dum enim putas omncs a to abstincri posse, solum to nb omnibus abslinuisti.
- - (c. 25) Quid enim humilius aut lenius, quam cum iol episcopis per tolum
miindum disscnsisse ? Pacem cum singulis vario discordias genere rumpeniern,
modo cum Oricnlalibus, (so tlien fraternal intercourse with the Orientals was
actually suspended, and not merely threatened,) quod nee vos latere confidimus,
modo vobiscum, qui in meridie estis. — Whether the Asiatics retaliated the
injury they had received from Stephen, and in like manner excluded him from
their fraternal love, is found nowhere stated. But this Epistle of Firniilian, so
full of gall and excessive bitterness, renders it most probable they did so. For
if the Asiatics had remained friendly and patient under the outpoured indig-
nation of Stephen, this very influential and dignified man would have expressed
his views and feelings in milder language.
As already stated, nearly all the learned, relying on the expressions of
Eusebius, place the controversy with the Asiatics after the African controversy
with Cyprian, and suppose that the Asiatics only became implicated in the Afri-
can disputes. It is, therefore, necessary for me to show, that in this they err,
and that the controversy commenced in Asia, and thence was carried into Africa.
My first argument is derived from the Epistle of the celebrated Firmilian to
Cyprian, which has been already cited. We have seen, that when Firmilian
wrote that Epistle, friendly intercourse with the Orientals had already been in-
terrupted by Stephen. Now, Firmilian there replies to an Epistle addressed to
[p. 540.] him by Cyprian, immediately after Stephen had commenced his con-
troversy with Cyprian. And therefore Stephen had suspended intercourse, (absti-
nuerat) — to use an ecclesiastical term — with the Asiatics and with Fcrmilian,
before he assailed Cyprian. Secondly. When Firmilian writes, that he conceives
Cyprian cannot be ignorant of the hostile conduct of Stephen towards the Ori-
entals, Pacem cum singulis rumpentem, modo cum Orienialibus, quod nee los
latere confidimus; when he writes thus, I say, he manifestly indicates that
Stephen's Asiatic contest preceded his African contest with Cyprian. Lastly,
Dionysius Alexandrinus^ (apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles. L. vii. c. 5, p. 252,) — than
whom a better and more reliable authority cannot be given, most clearly states
that before Qr^on^ov, pj-ius,) Stephen commenced his attack on Cyprian and the
Africans, he had pronounced Firmilian and the Asiatic bishops unworthy of
his communion. The passage has been already cited.
Cyprian involuntarily became implicated in this controversy with the Asia-
tics. Having assembled a council at Carthage, in the year 256, the question
was proposed by the bishops of Numidia, Whether those apparently baptised
among heretics and schismatics, ought, on coming over to the catholic church, to be
baptized? Cyprian and the thirty-two bishops present in council, replied. That
no one could be baptized outside of the church, because there is but one baptism in-
stituted in the holy church : and they added, that they did not bring forward a
new opinion, but one established long ago by their predecessors. See the Epistle
among those of Cyprian, (Epist. Ixx. p. 124.) But, as the number of bishops in
this council was not great, Cyprian called another shortly after, in which were
seventy-one bishops, and submitted this and other questions to a second discus-
sion ; and all the bishops, as Cyprian informs us, (Epist. Ix.xiii. p. 129.) decided :
Baptisms by Heretics. g5
Unum bapfisma esse, quod sit in ecdesia calholica consliluluyn, ac per hoc non re-
baptizari, sed baplizrari, quicunque ab adultera el prophana aqua veniunt ablu-
endi el sanciificandi salutaris aqucB veritaie. This decision of the second council
was defended by Cyprian, in his long Epistle to Jiibaianus, (Ep'ist, l.vxiii. p. 129,)
just as he had before vindicated the decision of the former council, in his Epis-
tle to Quintus, bishop of Mauritania, (Epist. Ixxi. p. 126.) But as he was
aware that a diflforent custom prevailed at Rome, and perhaps had heard some-
thing about the rupture between Stephen, the Roman bishop, and the bi.-^hops
ot Asia on this subject, both he and the council thought it advisable to commu-
nicate this decision of the council to Stephen, and to take measures to prevent
his getting into a passion and breaking off communion M'ith them. The Epistle
addressed to Stephen, in the name of the council, is still extant among the Epis-
ties of Cyprian, (Epist. Ixxii. p. 129.) Every person reading the Epistle will
at once see that it was not written for the purpose of acquainting the Romish
bishop with the doings of the council, but solely to forestall his anger and in-
dignation. For they pnss silently over nearly all the many important decisions
of the council, and mention only two of them, the one concerning the baptisms
of heretics, and the other concerning priests and deacons coming over [p. 541.]
to the church from the heretics. Yet, despairing of Stephen's approving their
sentiments, they wisely intimate, at the end of the Epistle, that they have no
wish to enter into controversy with any one differing from them in opinion.
They say, (c. 4,) Cseterum, scimns quosdara quod seme! imbiberint nolle de-
ponere, nee propositum suum facile mutare, sed salvo inter collegas pacis et
concordise vinculo quasdam propria qua? apud se semel sint usurpata retinere.
Qua in re nee nos vim cuiquam facimus aut legem damns, quando habeat in
ecclesicc adminislratione voluntatis suce arbitrium liberum unusquisque prcepositus
rationem actus sui Domino redditurus. Now, he who sees the Afiicans Avriting
in this manner to the Roman bishop, and still contends that the Roman bishops
in that age had any power or jurisdiction whatever over the other bishops, surely
must be beyond measure obstinate and perverse, or he must be excessively
blinded by his early received opinions. If it was true in the third century, as
the African council assert, that every individual bishop had free arbitriment in the
administration <.f the affairs of his church, and would have to give account of his
conduct to the Lord only, then, beyond all question, that which many at this day
account true, was at that time absolutely fiilse; namely, that God had subjected
all the bishops to a certain one of them, and that a certain one was to enact
laws in Christ's name for the church, and that every thing in the church must
be conducted and administered according to his pleasure. — But to proceed, it
is clear then, that the African church, although it decided that heretics must be
again baptized on entering the purer church, yet did not regard the contrary
opinion as tearing up the foundations of religion. On the excited mind of
Stephen, however, this moderation of sentiment proved rather irritating than
sedative; because, doubtless, it provoked him to see the Africans take ground
with those whom he had pronounced enemies of his church. lie therefore, in
the name of the Roman church, wrote to Cyprian, or rather to the African
church, in whose name Cyprian had addressed him, no less imperiously than
86 Century III.— Section 18.
bitterly and revilingly, and doubtless in the same strain as previously to the
Asiatic bishops, declaring- that he would have no communion with persons who
said the bnptism of heretics ought to be repeated. The Epistle is lost through
the fault, if I do not misjudge, of those in former times, who thought it benefi-
cial to the church to cover up the faults and errors of the Roman Pontiffs. But
the tenor (tf it may still be known, partly from the Epistle of Cyprian, to Pom-
peius, (Epist. Ixxiv.) and partly from the Letter of Firmillan, bishop of Cajsaraea,
to Cyprian, which is the next in order among the Epistles of Cyprian, (Ep.
Ixxv.) According to Cyprian's account of it, it contained many arrogant Ikingsy
irreulant to the subject, and adverse to his own cause, unadvisedly and un/cilfuLly
written : and that this representation is not entirely false, an impartial person
can without difliculty believe; and yet, to be perfectly frank, the same might,
to some extent, be said of Cyprian's own Epistle, for it employs vain and futile
arguments, and abounds much in sarcasms. But there is this commendable in
[p. 542.] Cyprian, that he docs not retaliate upon Stephen, by excluding him from
fellowsliip, but calls him Our Brother, which titleisa manifest indication of a dispo-
sition for peace and a dread of discord. Learned men have greatly lauded this
temperate conduct of Cyprian; and not wholly without reason. But, in my
judgment, it will detract somewhat from this commendation to reflect that
Cyprian could not deny to Stephen the privileges of a brother, witliout contra-
dicting his own principles. Stephen might consistently do so, because he re-
garded the opinion of the Africans as militating with true religion ; but Cyprian
and the Africans could not do it, because they judged the opinion of Stephen
to be one of the minor errors which were to be tolerated. The man must
doubtless be heartless, and destitute of all kind feelings, who can deprive
another of the rights of a brother, while he acknowledges him to have erred but
slightly, and to have not wounded the vitals of religion. — But we will proceed.
It nppears from the Epistle of Firmilian, already mentioned, that Stephen, in
his Epistle to the Asiatics, derived the custom which prevailed in the Roman
church from Peter and Paul, the founders of that church, and appealed to con-
tinuous tradition. He says, (c. 6. p. 144.) Adhuc etiam infamans Petrum et
Paulum beatos Apostolos, quasi hoc ipsi tradiderint. But the Asiatics defended
their opinion in the same way ; indeed they carried their pretensions still higher,
and declared Christ himself to be the author of their tradition. Says Finnilian^
(p. 149.) Nos veritati et consuefudinem jungimus, et consuetudini Romanorum
corsuetudinem, sed veritatis, opponimus, ab initio hoc tenentes, quod a Christo
et ah ApostoUs traditum est. In this controversy, therefore, tradition was op-
posed to tradition, the Asiatic tradition from Christ and the Apostles to the Ro-
man tradition from Peter and Paul. But it should be remembered, that even
in that early age, the institutions, which no one was able to trace to their
origin, were called the traditions of Christ and the Apostles. And Firmilian him-
self attests, that the Asiatics accounted their custom an Apostolical one, solely
because they were ignorant of the time of its introduction. lie says: Nee
meminimus hoc apud nos aliqando coepisse, cum semper istic observatum sit,
ut non nisi unam Dei ecclesiam nossemus, et sanctum baptisma non nisi sanctae
ecclesiae computaremus. From this Epistle of Firmilian it appears, moreover,
Baptisms hij Heretics. 87
that Stephen had fTre:it]y lauded the dignity of his churcli, and its eminence
among the churches. Atque ego in h;;c parte juste indiguor ad lianc tam aper-
tani et manifestiim Stcphani stultiliam, quod qui sic de cpiseoputus sui loco
gloriatur et se succeseorem Petri tenere eonlendit, super quern fundaraenta
ecclesias collocata f^unt, niultas alias pctras inducat, et ecclesiarum mult:;ium
alia a^dificia constituat, dum esse illic baptisma sua auctoritate defendit. Tiiis,
doubtless, was the part of Stephen's letter, for which Cyprian branded him with
the epithet proud. I wish we had the reply of tlie Africans to this [p. 543.]
panegyric on the chair of Peter. But it has been lost, undoubtedly, because it
was not honorary to the Romish church ; as we may easily infer from the other
Epistles of Cyprian, in which he expresses his opinion of the rights of the
bishops. The other topics in this Epistle of Stephen, or rather, of the Romish
church, I omit, as they throw no light upon history. On receiving this Epistle
the African bishops did not abandon their cause, but, in another Epistle address-
ed to the Romish church or to Stephen, refuted all his arguments for tiie eflicacy
of baptisms by heretics. The learned men who have investigated this history of
this controversy, take no notice of this second Epistle of the Africans. But no
one who attentively reads the Epistle of Firmilian to Cyprian, can doubt that
it was actually written. He says, (c. 4, p. 143.) Nos vero quae a vobis scripta
sunt quasi nostra propria suscepimus, nee in transcursu legimus, aed sa^pe repe-
tita memoriae mandavimus. Neque obest utilitati salutari aut eadem retexere ad
confirmandam veritatem aut et quaedam addere ad cumulandam probationem.
After a few remarks, he proeeeds, (c. 7) : Sed et ad ilium partem bene a vobia
responsum est, ubi Stephanus in epistola sua dixit haereticos in baptismo con-
venire. And a little after: Quo in loco etsi vos jam probastis, satis ridiculum
esse, ut quis sequatur errantes, illud tamen ex abundanti addimus. The
Africans, therefore, had replied to Stephen, and Firmilian had the reply in his
hands; and in his own Epistle he, in part, (retexebat,) reconstructed, as he ex-
presses it, and in part confirmed the reasoning of it, by new arguments. Per-
haps some may conjecture, that the Epistle which Firmilian had before him was
that of Cyprian to Pompeius, or his 74th Epistle, in which he confutes tho
Epistle of Stephen. But this conjecture must be abandoned, if we consider
that Firmilian cites from the Epistle which he mentions and examines, several
things which do not occur in the Epistle to Pompeius. Besides, it is manifest
from the words of Firmilian above quoted, that he is not speaking of a private
Epistle of one individual to another, but of a common Epistle of the assembled
African bishops. He says: Quae a xohis scripta sunt, legi. Vos jam prohasfis:
Vos respondistis. Stephen was so irritated by this Epistle, that he not only re-
plied more harshly and angrily than before, but he assailed Cyj.riaii, whom he
regarded as the author of the African contumacy, with direct maledictions, and
excluded the Africans from his communion. This also may appear periiaps to
be news, because we do not find it any where expressly stated. But here,
again, the Epistle ot Firmilian will show that this is no vain or rash conjeeiurc.
At the time Firmilian wrote, all communion between the Africans and the Ro-
mans had certainly been suspended by Stephen. For Firmilian says: (c. 6, p.
144); Quod nunc Stephanus ausus est ii\ccvQ, rumpcns adversus vos pacem,
88 Century III. — Section 18.
quam semper antecessores ejus vobiseum amore et honore mutuo custodierunt.
And towards the end : (o. 24, p. 150) : Peecatum vero quam magnum tibi ex-
aggerasti, quando te a tot gregibus seidisti ! I omit more passages of the same
[p. 644.] tenor. But in the first Epistle of Stephen, which Cyprian refutes in
his Epistle to Pompeius, Stephen had not proceeded beyond threats; notwith-
standing Angusline has stated, (de Baptismo contra Donatistas, L. V. c. 25,
0pp. torn. ix. p. 106,) that Stephen, abstinendos generatini putaverat, qui de
suscipiendis liaBreticis priscam consuetudinem convellere conarentur. There
must, therefore, have followed a second Epistle, in which he carried out the
determination he had formed, and declared non communion with the Africans.
Moreover, Firmilian testifies, (c. 26,) that in his last Epistle Stephen assailed
Cyprian with invectives : Et tamen no^n pudet Stephanum, talibus (haereiicis)
adversus ccclesiam patrocinium pra3stare, et propter ha3reticos asserendos/rcr^er-
mtalem scindere, insuper et Cyprianum pseudocliristum et pseiidoapostolum et dolo-
sum opernrium dicere. Firmilian would, doubtless, never have said this, had
not Stephen written it. But, in his first Epistle, he had not yet uttered these re-
proaches, for Cyprian would not have passed them in silence in his Epistle to
Pompeius, if they had then been uttered. It was, therefore, in another Epistle,
written after the first, that he inveighed so reproachfully against Cyprian. The
wiser Africans thought they ought to spare no pains to allay this storm, and
therefore sent a legation to Rome, to restore peace if possible. But Stephen
forbid the Roman Christians to receive into their houses the bishops of the
legation, whom he had deprived of his communion, and would not admit them
even to a conference. Says Firmilian, (c. 25, p. 150,) A vobis, qui in meridie estis,
legates episcopos patienter satis et leniter suscepit, ut eos nee ad sermonem
saltem colloquii communis admitteret, adhuc insuper dilectionis et carir.ntis
memor pra^ciperet fraternitati nniversse, ne quis eos in domum sunm reciperet,
ut venientibus nor solum pax et communio, sed et tectum et hospitium negare-
tur! So the legation returned home, leaving the business where it was. I see
not what could demonstrate more clearly than this fact does, that Stephen ex-
cluded from the communion of the Roman church not only Cyprian, but the
whole African church, of which these bishops were the legates. — After this many
things were, doubtless, said and done, of which no record has reached us. Ste-
phen, we may believe without testimony, being a man of w'eak mind, endeavored
to excite the christian world against the Africans; and many councils were held
on the subject here and there, as I recollect Augustine some where intimates.
Ai;d therefore Cyprian, that he and his Africans might not stand alone, thought
proper to look about him for friends. And, knowing that the Asiatics had been
attacked in the same manner, he dispatched Rogatian, his deacon, with a letter
to the oft-mentioned Firmilian a man of very great influence, and sent him
documents which would acquaint him with the whole case. Firmilian responded
according to his wishes ; and, as his Epistle (among those of Cyprian, Ep. !xxv.)
[p. 545.] shows, approved of all that had been done and written by the Africans ;
and, in the severest terms and even with contumely, censured Stephen, who
had treated tlie Asiatics with the same abuse as the Africans. At the same
time Cyprian, to prevent any of the African bishops from taking sides with
Baptisms by Heretics. 89
Stephen, convoked a council in the month of September, A. I). 256, from the three
provinces of Africa, Numidia, and Mauritania. The Acts of tiiis council have
been transmitted to us by Augustine, (de Baptismo contra Donatistas, L. vi. and
vii. 0pp. torn, ix.) They are extant also among the works of Cyprian, p. 329.
There were present 87 bishops, and not only presbyters and deacons, but also
(pkbis maxima pars) a large portion of the people. In his address to the attending
bishops, Cyprian reiterated what he had before repeatedly declared, that the
question to be discussed was one of those on which men might differ in opinion,
without a violation of fraternal harmony ; and he chastised the arrogance of
Stephen, but without naming him. His words are worthy to be here repeated,
as they express the sentiments of that age in regard to the independence
of bishops, and render perfectly certain that no one in that age, not even
Stephen himself, had ever dreamed of any judge and legislator for the univer-
sal church. That Stephen himself had not thought of any such judge I confi-
dently assert ; for, certainly, if he had supposed such high dignity to be confer-
red on himself by Christ, he would have pursued a very different course than
he did with the Africans. Said Cyprian : Superest, ut de hac ipsa re singuli
quid sentiamus, proferamus, neminem judicantes, aut a jure communicationis
aliquem, si diversum senserit, amoventes. Neque enim quisquam nostrum epis-
copum se esse episcoporum constituit, aut tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi
necessitatem collegas suos adigit, quando habeat omnis episcopus pro licentia
libcrtatis et potestatis sua) arbitrium proprium, tamque judicari ab alio non pos-
sit, quam nee ipse potest alterum judicare. Sed expeetemus universi judicium
Domini nostri Jesu Christi, qui unus et solus habet potestatem et prjeponendi
nos in ecclesise suae gubernatione, et de actu nostro judicandi. At that time,
therefore, Christ had no vicar here on earth, but was himself (solus et unus) the
sole and only judge of his church. All the bishops concurred in the opinion of
Cyprian, and decided that heretics should be re-baptized. The unanimity and
modesty of this great council, and the friendship between the Asiatics and the
Africans, I suppose, repressed the violence of Stephen and other bishops; for
we do not learn that this contest continued afterwards. Dionysius Alexandrinus
also, as we learn from Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. L. vii. e. 2, &c.) endeavored by
his letters to bring the mind of Stephen to acquiescence and peace ; and per-
haps others, who foresaw danger from a continuance of the contest, followed
his example. For some time, therefore, the Africans adhered to their opinion,
the other christians not taking offence at their constancy; but gradually they
went over to the opposite opinion, and finally, in a council which Augustine
styles plenarium (de Baptismo, L. I. c. 7,) held at Nice or Aries, (for [p. 546.]
the learned are not agreed as to this council,) thoy universally embraced the
Romish custom.
It remains for us to ascertain the precise sentiments of the two parties.
Cyprian and Finnilian state with sufficient persi)icuity, what they and their
brethren maintained. Says Cyprian, (Epist. Ixxiv. ad Pompeium, c. 12, p. 142):
Omncs, qui ex quacunque hffircsi ad ecclesiam convertuntur, ecclesia) unico et
legitimo baptismo baptizantur, exceptis his, qui baptizati in ecclesia prius fuc-
rant, et sic ad hareticos transierant. Illos enim oportet, cum redount, acta
90 Century III.— Section 18.
poenltentia per manus impositionem solam recipi. By heretics, C3«pmn undei
stood, not merely corrupters of the true religion, but likewise all who with-
drew themselves from the principal church, and formed separate congregations.
And hence, he required the Novatians to be re-baptized on their coming over
to tlie church, (as we learn from his 76th Epist, ad Magnum, p. 151, &.c.) ; and
yet he acknowledged that the Novatians were free from all gross errors. This
pious and good man, but too zealous about his official dignity and oflico, viewed
all who were separated from the bishop as also separated from Christ, and his
benefits, and believed that salvation was attainable no where but in tiie visible
church under the bishops of the Apostolic succession: and this obliged him to
decide, that there could be no saving baptism except it was administered by such
bishops, or by their direction and authority. He would surely have entertained
ditferent ideas about the effects of baptism, if he had not been strangely captivated
with a love of the dogma of the unity of the visible church, and had not exalted
extravagantly the rights and authority of bishops. The opinions of his adversar}''
Stephen, are not equally manifest. Those solicitous for the reputation of Ste-
phen, and such, with few exceptions, are nearly all the adherents to the Romish
church, to whom it appears hard and difficult to believe that any of the ancient
Pontiff's difft-'red from the modern, or that the church, in the third century, was
divided between two errors — those in favor of Stephen, I say, t"lls us that he
taught just as the Romish church does at the present day, not that the baptisms
of alt heretics, but only of those who in baptizing invoked the names of the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, were valid baptisms. See Tillemont, (Memoires
pour servir a I'Hist. de I'Eglise, tom. iv. P. I. p. 419, &c.) and Natalis Alexan-
der, (Selecta Hist. Eccles. Capita, tooj. iii. p. 691, &c.) who treats this subject
in his usual scholastic rather than historical manner. But others for the most
part, to whom the reputation of the ancient Roman Pontiflfs does not appear of
very great importance, think that Stephen believed all persons baptized in the
name of Christ, might be received into the fellowship of the better church,
without another baptism. Respecting these, see in particular Peter AlUx, (Diss.
de vita et scriptis Tertulliani, c, 4, p. 30, &c.) not to mention Dhndell, Launoiy
and others. The former party defend their position by the authority especi-
[p. 547.] ally of Eusebius, Augustine, Vincer.i of Lirins, and Facundus ; who
say that Stephen accounted no baptism valid, unless it was administered in the
words prescribed by Christ. But to these comparatively recent authorities the
latter party oppose other more ancient and higher authorities; and first Stephen
himself, whose words, in his Epistle to the Africans, preserved by Cyprian,
(Epist. Ixxiv. c. 1, p. 138.) are these : " Si quis ergo a quaciinquc hccresi vencrit
ad vos, nihil innovetur nisi quod traditum est, ut manus illi imponatur in poeni-
tentiam, cum ipsi haerttici proprie alterutrum ad se venientes non baptizent, sed
communicent tantum." Moreover, Cyprian, who, almost invariably, represents
Stephen as holding all baptisms administered in the name of Christ to be legi-
timate, says, (Epist. Ixxiv. c. 5, p. 139.) Si eftectum haptismi majestati ncminis
tribuunt, ut qui in nomine Jesu Chj-isti ubicunque et quomodocxmqiic. baptizen-
tur, innovati et sanctificati judieentur ; cur non, &c. And farther, the ancient,
but unknown author of the Liber de Rebaplismate, who takes sides with Ste-
Persecution of Valerian. 9J
phen, nnd whose book is commonly printed with the Opera Cypriani^ (p. 353.)
with the following,' title prefixed: Non dcbcre donuo baptizari qui semel in
nomine Domini nostri Jcsu Christi sunt tincti ; seems to decide tiic question
respecting Stephen's views. I omit other testimonies of less importance.
These testimonies, I confess, seem to have great weight ; yet I have some hcsi-
tiition to admit their conclusiveness, because Firmllian, an opposer of Stepheny
in his P'pistle to Cyprian, (c. 9, p. 145.) states Stephen's opinion thus: lllud
quoque absurdum, quod non putant qiiwrendum esse quis sit ille qui bnptiza-
verit, eo quod qui baptizatus sit, gratiam consequi potucrit iniocala IriniLalc
nomi'ium Palris et Filii el Spiritus Sancti. Firmilian writes what he had found
stated in the Epistle of Cyprian, or of the Africans to Stephen, and he also
himself was well acquainted with the opinions of Stephen ; and, therefore,
his testimony is worthy of consideration. Yet, perhaps, he aimed only to
explain the point, and attributed to Stephen the conceptions of his own mind.
To confess the truth, I can believe that Stephen expressed his views only in
general terms, and did not accurately define them ; and, therefore, they were
exphiined differently. Men very frequently, at the present day, in theological
controversies, afUrm and deny, attack and defend, only in a general way, and
without defining the conflicting opinions. And why may we not suppose this
to have occurred in the present controversy.
§ XIX. The Persecution under Valerian. After showing him-
self kind and indalgcnt towards the Christians until the fifth
year of his reign, sudden!}^, by the persuasion of Macrianus, his
bosom companion, a man of very high rank and reputation, but
exceedingly superstitious, Valerian, in the year 257, changed his
policy towards them, and ordered the governors of pro- [p. 5-18.]
vinces to inhibit the meetings of Christians, and to send their
bishops and teachers into exile.(') Bnt these milder mandates
rather animated than disheartened the Christians, who liad been
accustomed previously to greater evils. Therefore, in the follow-
ing year he issued a much severer edict, in the execution of
which the magistrates put to death no small number of Christians
throughout the provinces of the Roman empire, and frequently in-
flicted on them punishments worse than death. (") Eminent among
those that fell in this persecution were Cyprian, the celebrated
bishop of Carthage, who was beheaded ; and Sixtus, the Romish
prelate, who is said to have been crucified ; and Laurence, the Ro-
man deacon, famous among the martyrs, who is :5aid to have been
roasted to death on a slow fire : some, however, refer this last mnr-
tyi'domtothe Decian period. But Valerian being taken captive in
a war with Sapor, king of Persia, his son Gallienm, by a rescript
addressed to the provincial governors in the year 260, restored full
Ife Century Ill.—Scction 19.
peace to the Cliristians, after four years of suffering. (^) Yet they
were not placed in entire security ; for the ancient laws of the
Emperors against them were not abrogated, and, therefore, such
of the governors as were so dis|)osed, could put those Christians
to death who were regularly accused and acknowledged their
faith, if they refused to sacrifice to the gods.Q
(1) Respecting the clemency of Valerian to the Christians in the iirst
years of his reign, and the author of the subsequent change in his feelings
towards them, the most important witness we have is Dionysius Alexandrinus,
in his Epistle to Hermammon, the latter part of which is preserved by Euse-
hius, (Hist. Eccles. L. vii. c. 10. p. 255.) But as Eusebius cites two passages
from this Epistle, in one of which Dionysius does not mention the name of the
person who induced Valerian to persecute the Christians, and in the other tell.s
us that Macrianus advised the Emperor to this course, a dispute has arisen
among the learned, whether this persecution is to be traced to one man as its
author, or to two. In the first passage Dyonisiiis says: 'A-rza-Kiuaa-ua-d-ai (Te Trapi-
TTiiTiV dvrif 0 S'l^ao-H.ctKoz xai riov ot' AiyvTTTtv /udyaiv dp^ia-vvdyojyoi, tou; /uiv
xa^dp^vi Kui oa-iovs uvSp'xs ktivvvs-B-ai xat J'tcjKiTd-ati KiXiucev . Vcrum mao-ister
et Archisynagogus magorum Aegypti ei (Valeraino) tandem persuasit, utab hoc
instituto descisceret, jubens, ut castos quidem et sanctos viros persequeretur
atque occideret. But a little after he snysi 'O f^h yap o'ystxe^/atvdf in TaZru.
vTTd Tourov (MoKStavzu) 7rpca.^^ils cig v^pni Kai ovaS'ia-fji.ovs iaS'od'as. Nam Vale-
[p. 549. J rianiis quidem, qui ad hujusmodi facinora a Macrinno (for he is the per-
son spoken of,) impulsus fiierat, contumeliis et opprobriis fuit expositus et de-
ditus. It is, therefore, made a question, whether this Macrianus is the same per-
son who was before called Chief of the Synagogue of the Egyptian Magicians,
or a different person. Not a few, deeming it scarcely credible, that so distin-
guished a man as Macrianus was, an intimate with the emperor, and hold-
ing the highest position, " than whom," (as Tremellius Pollio says in his
Gallienus, Scriptor. Hist. August, tom. ii. 189.) "none of the generals were
deemed more wise, none more competent for business, none more opulent,"
should be prefect of the Egyptian Magicians, — have supposed this Magician of
Dionysius to be a difTei'cnt person from ^Macrianus ; and, of course, that there
were two persons who prompted Valerian to show cruelty to the Christians.
Among these authors, Gisbert Cuper, (in his Notes on Lactaniius de morti-
bu3 persequutorum, p. 152.) goes so far .'is to suppose this Magician was a
Jew, infering it from the Jewish words J'lJ'dtrx.a^os and 'Ap)(^i<rvvdya>yoc applied
to him ; and Ja. Basnage in vain attempted to confute that idea, while he
himself did not believe Macrianus and the Magician to be the same person,
(see Letters de Critique, Histoire, Litterature par M. Cuper, p. 386, 390, Amst.
1742, 4to.) But, as Dionysius most explicitly states, that Macrianus recom-
mended the persecution to the emperor, and that Valerian received the sad
reward of his docility, while he adds nothing which can lead to the suppo-
siiion that Macrianus had an associate in the transaction, the supposition haa
Persecution of Valerian. 93
not the least probability; on the contrary, wo must believe that Dionysiug
designated one and the same person in this two-fold manner. Nor will this
interpretation be weakened by the two epithets above mentioned. The first
of them, ^tS'aTKaXoi, magis/cr, should not he referred to the Magicians, us is
manifest from the Greek. Valesius has not expressed properly the meanin"- of
Dionysins; and this has occasioned some, who did not inspect the Creek, to
fall into a mistake. He should have rendered it {Magister ejus) his (Valerian's)
master, and chief of the synagogue, 4'"C. For this word undoubtedly has reference
to Valerian, who yielded to the opinions of Macrianus in every thing, and al-
ways defered to him as to a master. Valerian himself, in a speech to the
senate, said: Ego bellum Persicum gerens, Macriano tolam reinpuhlicam tradidi.
See Trehellius Pollids 30 Tyrants, (in the Scriptor. Historia3 Augusta, torn. ii.
p. 288.) And as to the title Chief (f the Synagogue of the Egijplian Magicians,
it is a sneer of Dionysius at Macrianus, and not the title of bis office or posi-
tion in society. As Macrianus was exceedingly devoted to magic, and delighted
greatly in magical sacrifices, according to Dionysius, he represents him as quali-
fied, by his skill in the art, to fill the office of Chief or President of the Egyp-
tian Magicians. As to the motive which led Macrianus to inflame the Empe-
ror's mind against the Christians, Dionysius states it to have been this, that he
knew there were persons among them who could frustrate the ma- [p. 550.]
gical rites, and destroy their eflects by a word or a nod. Being himself greatly
devoted to magic, he " prompted the emperor to celebrate impure rites of
initiation, abominable incantations, and execrable sacrifices ;" for example, " to
immolate infants, and explore the entrails of new-born children." See Diony-
sius, as quoted by Eusebius, (L. vii, c. 10.) But he well knew, not only that
the Christians universally held these nefiirious mysteries in abhorrence, but also
that some of them possessed the power of disconcerting and controlling de-
mons, so that they could not manifest their presence by oracular responses
and the other signs. Says Dionysius: Kai yap iKriv kui iicrAv 'Uavci n-upovrts
xai ofiwfAiVOty Hill /uoviV t/wrveovTt; icai fi^i^yofMVOi, i'lAaKiS^atrat ras tuv dXn^piuv
ioLifAQvav tri^ivhas. Erant enim et sunt etiamnum (inter nos) ejusmodi, qui
vel praesentia et aspectu suo, et insufflantes duntaxat ac vocem edentes, dsemo-
num praestigias disturbare possunt. And, therefore, he prevailed on the em-
peror to endeavor to extirpate a sort of men injurious and terrible to the art
he loved and to the demons he consulted. But, we may suppose, the good
man here gives us his conjectures rather than what he knew to be facts. Res-
pecting the power of the ancient Christians to confound and put to silence
demons and their servants and idols, of wbich many others also speak, I shall
not go into any discussion : but this is easily perceived, we ought not to look
there for the cause of Macrianus' hostility to the Christians. If he had believed
that Christians possessed such power, that they could control the demons he
loved and worshipped,! think he would not have dared to assail them, but would
rather have feared and stood in awe of them. For, why cannot they who have
the demons under their power, and who control them at their pleasure, also
bring, if they choose, various evils upon the worsliipi)ers of demons ! And who
but a madman, destitute of reason, would voluntarily and eagerly worship bo-
94 Century IIL— Section 19.
ings whom he knew to be piralyzed and stript of all power by others more
powerful 1 Whoever seeks for himself a lord, will, if he be in his senses, pre-
fer the more powc-fiil to one of less power. But suppose Macrianus was so
insane as to think the demons and their worship frustrated by the Christians, he
might have forestalJed the evil much more easily than by a resort to edicts, and
laws and punishments : for, by a little vigilance he could have excluded all
Christians from being present at 'lis infernal rites and mysteries. Let us eon-
cede, what is not to be denied, that the ancient Christians often supposed their
enemies to reason just as they themselves would, and so attributed to thera
designs very forei^a from their real ones. I think his superstition alone was
sufficient to prompt Maori., nus to inflame the emperor against the Christians.
And I am the more incH ed to think so, because I learn from Trehellius
Pollio, (Thirty Tyrains, c. 14, in the Histor. Augustse, torn. ii. p. 297.) that this
WAS a hereditary disease in the family of the Macriani. For all the males and
females of this family wore an image of Alexander the Great on their rings,
[p. 651.] their garments, and their ornaments, influenced by a peurile conceit of
the vulgar, [juvari in omni actu suo, qui Alexandrum expressum in aiiro gestila-
renl vet argenlo.) that w^hoever carried a likeness of Alexander impressed on
gold or silver, would be aided in all their acts. Who can wonder that a man
who could promise him elf success from a likeness of Alexander the Macedo-
nian, should have been extravagantly attached to the Roman Gods and their
worship, and have wished evil to the enemies of his country's religion ?
The first assault of Valerian upon the Christians was such as could be
endured ; as appears from the Acts of Cyprian, and of Dionysius AlexandrinuSy
(apud Euseh. Hist. Eccles. L. vii. c. 11). For he merely decreed the banish-
ment of all bishops and presbyters who w-ould not worship the Roman gods,
and prohibited the religious assemblies of Christians. Cyprian was exiled to
Carubia, by the proconsul Paternus, after refusing to sacrifice to the gods; and
Dionysius was sent by 1'>c praefect Aemilius to a place called Cephro, in the
parts of Libya. But let the proconsul Paternus state to us the pleasure and the
mandate of the emperor, according to the Acta Crjpriani, (in Theod. Ruinart,
Acta Martyr, sincera et selecta, p. 216). When Cijprian was arraigned before him,
Paternus thus addressed him: Sacratissimi Imperatores Valerianus et Gallienus
litteras ad me dare dignati sunt, quibus praeceperunt eos, qui Romanam religio-
nem non colunt, debere Romanas ca3reraonias recognoscere. Cyprian had no
sooner declared that he coa'd not obey this mandate, than the proconsul pro-
nounced sentence of banishment upon him, and then proceeded: Non solum de
episcopis, verum etiara de presbyteris mihi scribere dignati sunt. From this it
is very manifest that the emneror's mandate extended only to the bishops and
presbyters; against the dea^O' s and the people nothing was decreed. Neither
was capital punishment ordered for bishops and presbyters, but merely exile.
Lastly, the proconsul added : Praeccperunt etiam, no in aliquibus locis concilia-
bula fiant, nee ccemeteria ingrediantur. Si quis itaque hoc tam salubre prcecep-
tum non observaverit, capite plectetur. Capital punishment, then, was enacted
against those who persisted either in holding religious assemblies, or in attend-
ing them. The emperors prohibited first in general, all religious assemblies,
Persecution of Valerian. 95
which they dcsig-nate as Conciliabula ; and then, in particular, tlie convintions
which were held in Cemeteries. By this term, it is well known, the phicca were
designated in which the Cliristians interred their dead ; and as there were fre-
quently martyrs and confessors among their dead, they assembled at these
Cemeteries on certain days for religious worship, and to commemorate those
holy men. Perhaps, also, at other times the Christians might assemble in their
Cemeteries to offer prayers at the sepulchres of the saints and martyrs. And .13
they commonly came away more resolute and more determined to endure every
evil for Christ's sake, it is not strange that such as wished the cxtii:ction of the
Christians should oppose their resorting to these places. Here, then, we have
the whole contents of the first edict of Valerian against the Christians : [p. 552.]
and with this account fully accords all that Dionysius states, (apud Euseb. L.
vii. c. 11.) respecting his own sufferings and those of his colleagues. Aemilian,
the prefect of Egypt, said to them; Mittemini in partes Libya) ad locum
Cephro. Hunc enim locum jussu Angiisiorum nostrorum elegi. Nullatenus
autem licebit vobis conventus agere, aut ea quae vocantur cocmeteria adire.
Here, however, learned men oppose to us not a few examples of persons, who,
4n this first persecution of Valerian, were either put to death, or thrown into
prisons, or bastinadoed, or condemned to the mines. Among other proofs ad-
duced is the 77th Epistle of Cyprian, addressed ad mariyres in meiallis
cojistilutos, in which he represents (p. 158.) a part of the people of his charge,
as having already gone forth to receive from the Lord the crown of their
merits, by the consummation of their martyrdom, and a part as remaining still
within the bars of their prisons, or at the mines in chains : and he then states,
that not only bishops and presbyters, but also many of the people, and among
them virgins and boys, were bastinadoed, fettered, and thrust into the mines :
Denique exemplum vcstrum secuta multiplex plcbis portio confessa est vobis-
cum pariter et pariter coronata est, conncxa vobis vinculo fortissimae caritatis, et
a praepositis suis nee carcere, nee metallis separata. Cujus numero nee virginea
desunt. - - In pueris quoque virtus major actate annos suos confessionis laudo
transcendit, ut martyrii vestri beatum gregem et sexus et cetas omnis ornaret.
These examples, I say, learned men have cited, to show that the first rescripts
of Valerian and his son were more cruel than we have represented, and that
not only bishops and presbyters, but Christians of every order and sex were
subjected to heavy penalties. But whence this severity on many, notwithstand-
ing the law was not very rigorous, may be learned from the latter part of the
imperatorial mandate. For this ordained capital punishment against all who
either held assemblies or entered the cemeteries. All, therefore, bishops and
others, who suffered death, bastinadoing, imprisonment, or other punisjmients
worse than exile, undoubtedly incurred these penalties because they would hold
meetings contrary to the will of the emperor, and were caught in the cemeteries.
For, as we shall soon see, the major part of the Christians were bold in violat-
ing the imperatorial mandates. This is fully confirmed by the 82d Ei)istlc of
Cyprian, ad Successum, (p. 165.) where he writes: Xystum autem in cimilcrio
animadversum sciatis octavo Iduum Augustarum die, et cum co Diaconos qua-
tuor. Scd et huic persecutioni quotidie insistunt pra^fccti in urbe, ut si qui sibi
96 CentuvT/ III.— Section 19.
oblati fucrint (in the cemeteries, undoubtedly,) animndvertantur et bona eorum
fisco viiidieentur. The proconsul of Africa, doubtless, had appreliended a great
multitude of Christians of both sexes and of all classes, who were assembled
for the purpose of religious worship ; as may be inferred from the mention of
[p. 653.] boys and virgins. To condemn such a mass of persons to death, as
the Letter of the emperor required to be done, appeared to the proconsul too
hard and cruel ; and, therefore, he ordered only a few to be executed to terrify
the rest, and the others he ordered to be bastinadoed, and to be sent in chains
to the mines.
This persecution by Valerian had so much in it new and diverse from the
former persecutions, that I cannot but wonder at some learned men, who tell us
that Valerian proceeded against the Christians according to the laws of the
earlier emperors. First, the ancient laws required that there should be an ac-
cuser, but now no accuser was needed, for the governors themselves had inqui-
sitorial powers. The proconsul Paternus required Cyprian to dechire who were
his presbyters; and w^heu he refused to do it, the proconsul said: Ego hodie
in hoc loco exquiro: A me invenientur. See the Acta Cypriani in RuinarCs
Acta martyr, p. 216. — Secondhj, the emperor's law* ordered the punishment, not
of all professed Christians, but only of the bishops and presbyters. No one
compelled i\\e. feople io change their religion and worship the gods: only the
pastors of the flocks were required to adore and pay homage to the gods.
When Dionysius replied to the prefect Aemiiius, who urged him to the worship
of the gods, that he worshipped the one God, the Creator of all things, the pre.
feet said : The emperors allow you to do so, provided you also worship the
gods : Quis vero vos prohibet, quo minus et hunc, si quidem Deus est, cum iis,
qui natura Dii sunt, adoretis. This we have from Dionysius himself, (apud
Euseh. Hist. Eccles. L. vii, c. 11 ; p. 258). — Lastly, those who declared that they
would not worship the gods, were not put to death, but were only torn from
their flocks, and sent into exile. The people, thus bereaved of their guides and
teachers, were forbidden by the emperor to assemble and hold meetings; and,
as I think, for this among other reasons, that they might not choose new" teach-
ers and bishops in the place of those exiled ; for the Romans knew that such
functionaries could not be created except by election in a popular assembly.
And the emperor hoped, if their conventions were abolished and their teachers
removed, their religion itself would gradually become extinct among the com-
mon people, and the ancient superstition would occupy its place.
(2) In the second year of this persecution. Valerian issued another and much
severer edict, which, through nearly all the provinces of the Roman empire,
caused the death of numerous Christians, and particularly of bishops and pres-
byters, and exposed others to severe punishments of every sort. When vague
and uncertain rumors of this new imperial law reached Africa, Cyprian .sent
messengers to Rome to learn the truth respecting it ; and from their report ho
gives the following summary view of the new edict, (Epist. Ixxxii, p. 165.) :
Quae autem sunt in vero ita se habent : Rcscripsissc Valerianum ad Senatum,
(I) ut episcopi et presbyteri et diaconi incontinenti animadvertantur. The dea-
[p. 554.] cons had before been exempted, but now they are added to the bishops
Persecutions of Valerian. 97
•and presbyiers; undoubtedly, because tl;c enemies of the Christians had learned
that they supplied the place of the bishops and presbyters, and carried relief to
those in captivity. By this law, therefore, all the men of tiie holy order, if they
refused to pay honor and worship to the gods, were to be inunediately put to
death ; that is, they were to be led from the tribunal to the place of execution,
without being for a time kept in prison. This is strikingly illustrated in the death
of Cyprian himself, as described in his Ada, (apud Ruinarlum, et alios). When
brought before the proconsul, he was first asked whether he was a papa or
bishop of Christians ; and he confessed that he was. He was then commanded
cccremoniari, that is, to worship the gods in the Roman manner ; which he per-
sisted in refusing to do. Then sentence of death was passed upon him; and,
after sentence, he was conducted from the praetorium to the place of execution,
and there beheaded. This was the uniform mode of proceeding against men in
holy orders, during the Valerian persecution. The policy of the law I can easily
see. It was scarcely possible to prevent the people from flocking to their teach-
ers lodged in prison ; and their last words and exhortations had a wonderful
effect upon the minds of the people, animating them, and preparing them to
meet death voluntarily and cheerfully for Christ's sake; of this there are extant
many examples. The kind of capital punishment to be inflicted, was not pre-
scribed by the law, but was left to the discretion of the magistrate. Hence, we
perceive that the officers of Christian churches were put to death in this perse-
cution in a diversity of modes. — (II.) Senatores vero et egregii viri et equites
Romani, dignitate amissa, etiam bonis spolientur, et si ademptis facultatibua
Christian! esse perseveravcrint, capite quoque multentur, matronas vero ademp-
tis bonis in excilium relegentur. There were, then, among the Christians of
that age, persons of both sexes, who were of the first rank and the highest re-
spectability; for, otherwise, this part of the law would have been superfluous.
What the emperor decreed respecting matrons, must, doubtless, be construed
in the same manner as the decree respecting senators and knights : viz. that
they should first be stripped of their property, and then, if they continued to be
Christians when their goods were confiscated, they were to be sent into exile.
It is most probable that both, after the first part of the sentence, were sent to
prison, and time allowed them to deliberate, whether they would return to
idolatry or persevere in the Christian religion. — (III.) Cajsariani autera quicun-
<j«e vel prius confessi fuerant, vel nunc confess! fuerint confiscentur et vincti in
Caesarianas possessiones descripti mittentur. Subjecit etiam Valerianus Impera-
tor orationi sua3 exemplum litterarum, quas ad prcesides provinciarum de nobis
fecit : quas litteras quotidie speramus venire. The Cccsariani were, undoubt-
edly, the persons whom St. Paul (Philip, iv. 22.) calls: tous U m naiTapo^ oiKia;,
the domestics, the servants, the freedmen, belonging to the emperor's house-
hold, and residing in his palace. Why the emperor particularized them, we may
learn from Dionysius, (apud Euseb. L. vii. c. 10; p. 256.) who tells us that Va-
lerian's house or family, at the commencement of his reign, was com- [p. 655.]
posed, in great part, of Christians: TSi o o/xof dvroy d-iCfO-t/icZf Trtrrx^fmroy x.clx
«? tK.K.\n7ix 0£oo. Tota ejus familia piis hominibus abundabat, ac Dei ecclesia
esse videbatur. Some of these servants of Caesar, therefore, had already, in the
VOL. IL 8
98 Century Ill—Section 19.
beginning of the persecution, frankly acknowledged that they were ChrlstLing,
and refused to apostatize from Christ : nor had this proved injurious to theiDy
because the first mandates of the emperor reached only the bishops and presby-
ters among the Christians. But now, both those who had before confessed,
and those who should liereafter confess, were condemned by one and the same
law. Provided they still refused to renounce the Christian worship, the em-
peror commanded them to be confiscated ; that is, not only their estates and
property, but also their persons were to be transferred to the public treasury,
and they were to be distributed in bonds over the domains, or the estates and
farms of the emperor, to perform servile labor there. Respecting the people,
or the Christians of the middle and lower ranks, the emperor decreed nothing.
These, therefore, were out of danger, and could, without hazard, attend the
execution of those put to death under this law. The Acts of Cyprian (ed. Rui-
narl, § 5. p. 218.) tell us, that when the proconsul pronounced sentence of death
on Cyprian, (tia-ba frairum) a throng of the brethren were present ; and, after
the sentence was pronounced, this throng cried out ; Et nos cum ipso decole-
mur. Propter hoc tumultus fratrum exortus est, et multa turba eum prosecuta
est. In this throng also there was a presbyter and several deacons, and one
8ub-deacon, who ministered to the dying man. Yet, neither on these, nor on
the Christian people that fearlessly accompanied their bishop to execution, did
any one lay a hand, or offer them any violence. More examples are not needed.
We know, indeed, from Dionysius, (apud Euseh.) and from other sources, that
a considerable number of the common people either lost their lives or were
eeverely punished in this persecution ; but as the emperor had decreed no pun-
ishment against that class of persons, it must be considered as certain, that these
persons had been found, either in assemblies or in the cemeteries, and were
punished for the violation of the imperitorial law on that subject. For no one
can doubt, although Cyprian omits the mention oi it, that the former edict
against holding assemblies and going to the cemeteries was repeated in the new
edict. Indeed, we know from two rescripts of Gallienus, (cited by Eusehius^
Hist. Eccles. L. vii. c. 13; p. 267.) that Valerian provided, as far as he could,
that the Christians should find it difficult to disregard that law. For, in the first
rescript, Gallienus having stopped the persecution of Christians, says to certain
bishops, that he had given orders, on-as dTO rin-wj' rdv ^fHKr-xiva-i/nuv uTro^a^p-Aa-aia-iZ
ut cuncti (milites, as I suppose,) a religiosis locis abscedant. Therefore Vale*
rian had ordered the soldiers to keep guard about the sacred places of th»
Christians, or the places where they assembled to worship God. In the second
rescript he permits the bishops, ra twv «a\oufAcvojv )Loi/L(>iT>jpLa>v diroXaf^l^dvtiv x^'F^"-'
utccemeteriorum suorum loca rccuperarent. The cemeteries, therefore, had been
taken from the Christians by order of the emperor, and undoubtedly confis-
[p. 566.] cated. Whether both rescripts refer to the same subject, or whether
the " religious places " of the former are different from the "cemeteries " of the
latter, is not clear, and I will not therefore decide. Yet, the former appears to
me the more extensive, and to remove soldiers from all the sacred places,
because the recovery of the cemeteries is made the subject of a special
grant.
Persecution of Valerian. 99
The cause of the chanfrc of the first and milder edict into this far severer
and more cruel one, tlioug-li not expressly stated by any luicient writer, may
Btill be easily inferred from the transactions of those times. Neitiier the bi^hopa
and presbyters, nor the christian people, obeyed the emperor's law respcctinfr
assemblies and tiie cemeteries. The people resorted, in great numbers, to tho
places where the bishops lived in exile; and the bishops, regardless of the im-
peritorial mandate, not only held assemblies in those phices, but also did what
might seem to be of a more treasonable character, namely, they hibored to con-
vert the pagans to Christianity, and to enlarge the boundaries of the church.
We ought to praise these holy men for their magnanimity : but it may be ques-
tioned whether it would not have been better to temper that magnanimity with
prudence, and give way to the iniquity of the times, for the sake of avoiding a
greater evil. The emperor and the governors, in these circumstances, supposin^r
themselves to be contemned by the Christians, especially by the bishops, deter-
mined to coerce them by sterner laws. That this is no fiction appears from the
history of Diomjsius Alexandrinus and Cyprian. We learn from Eusebius
(Hist. Eccles. L. vii. c. 11, p. 258.) that when Dionysius was sent into exile, the
prrcfect said to him : Nnllatenus autem licebit vobis (you and the presbyters)
conventus agere. Quod si quis in conventu aliquo fuerit inventus, is sibi ipse
periculum arccsset. How he obeyed this interdict of the emperors he teils us di-
rectly after. First, thougii absent, he took care that the Christians remaining
at Alexandria should meet together frequently, contrary to the law : Eos, qui
in urbe erant, perinde ac si adessem, majore studio congregavi in ecclesiam, ab-
sens quidem corporo. This he was able to accomplish by means of the four
presbyters whom he had left at Alexandria, together with several deacons, as he
afterwards states. Secondly, in the place of his exile he held assemblies of the
Christians who followed him from the city, and others who resorted to him
from every quarter: Apud Cephro vero nobiscum magna fidelium adfuit multi-
tudo, partim eorum, qui ab urbe nos sequuti fuerant, partim aliorum, qui ex
reliqua Egypto confluebant. Lastly, he labored to bring new converts into
the church : Ibi quoque januara nobis patefecit Deus ad praedicationem verbi
sui. - - Non pauci ex gentilibus, relictis simulacris, ad Deum conversi sunt.
All these things were excellent in themselves, and worthy of so great a bishop:
but they implied contempt for the emperor's mandates. It is, therefore, not
strange that soon after the prefect, who had knowledge of all this, removed
Dionysius to more distant and inhospitable regions; and the indignation against
the Christians increased daily. In very nearly the same manner Cyprian con-
ducted, in his exile at Curubis, as appears evident from his life, written [p. 657.]
by his deacon Ponlius. For he went thither, attended by many persons, and a
number of the brethren there visited him. (See ^ 12.) Neither were these only
the poor aud humble, but likewise the most noble and distinguished. Says
Pontius Q 14.) : Conveniebant plures egregii et clarissimi ordinis et sanguinis,
sed et saeculi nobilitate generosi. And these congregated together, he in-
structed very frequently with his discourses and exhortations: Ille servos Dei
cxhortationibus dominicis instruebat, et ad calcandas passiones hujus temporis
contemplatione supervcnturre claritatis animabat. Thus the Christian bishops
100 Century Ill.—Scction 20.
and presbyters themselves, because tliey would prosecute their work of advanc-
ing the Christinn cause, rather than obey the emporor's will, provoked the tyrant
to enact severer laws against them.
(3) Dionysius of Alexandria, (apud Euseh.\l\^i. Eccles. L. vii. c. 10, p. 255.)
thought tlie words of St. John, in the Apocalypse, (eh. 13:5.) were fulHlled in
Valerian : whether he was correct or not does not effect the present argument:
Et datum est illi os loquens magna et impia: Et data est illi potestas et menses
quadraginta duo. Hence learned men have rightly inferred that the Valerian
persecution continued into the fourth year. And that after Valerian was cap-
tured by the Persians, his son GalHenus sent rescripts throughout the Roman
world, staying the persecution, and giving Christians liberty freely to profess
their religion, is fully attested by Eusebius, (Hist Eccles. L. vii. c. 13, p. 262.)
where he confirms his statement, by quoting the very words of the rescripts.
Gallienus seems to have regarded the sad fate of his father as a punishment
inflicted on him by the Christian's God, for the persecution of his servants.
(4) A memorable example of this kind is stated by Eusebius, (Hist. Eccles.
L. vii. c. 15, p. 263.) Marinus was put to death at Ceesarea, after the restoration
of peace to the Christian community by Gallienus. He was wealthy, prospe-
rous, and of a good fiimily, and he aspired to the honor of a centurionship among
the Romans. But when near the attainment of his object he was accused of
being a Christian, before Achaeus the judge, by some one who was his rival
candidate for the office. Marinus confessed the charge. The judge gave him
three hours to consider whether he would sacrifice to the gods or persevere in
the Christian faith. When the time had elapsed, Marinus professed Christ with
greater promptitude than before, and cheerfully submitted to capital punish-
ment. The proceeding with this man, most evidently, w^as not according to
the edict of Valerian, which had already been abrogated by Gallienus, but ac-
cording to the ancient law of Trajan. For an accuser appeared : The criminal,
on confession, was required to renounce Christ, and, as he would not do it, he
was forthwith led to execution. From this example, therefore, it appears that
the ancient laws of the emperors against Christians retained all their force, even
when milder ones had been enacted; and, therefore, under the milder emperors,
[p. 558.] and in times of tranquillity, the governors could pass sentence upon
the Christians who were formally accused and confessed the charge. The corps
of Marinus, ODC Asturius, a Roman senator, and a man of the highest respecta-
bility, bore away on his own shoulders, and committed to burial ; as we learn
from the same Eusebius, (Hist. Eccles. L. vii. c. 16, p. 264.) And this he could
do with impunity and perfect safety : and the reason is obvious. According to
to Trajan's law, the judge could not punish without an accuser, and a man of
such high reputation and distinction, and the personal friend of the emperors,
no one either dared or wished to accuse before the court.
§ XX. Persecution nnder Aurciian. If, therefore, a few ex-
amples be excepted, of Christians put to death by governors who
abused their power, the Christians enjoyed a good degree of tran-
quillity under Gallienus, who reigned eight years with his brother
Persecution of AurcUan. 101
Valerian, and also under his successor Claudius^ wlio reigned two
3^ears.(') Aarelian^ wlio succeeded Claudius in the year 270,
although immoderately given to idolatry-, and j^ossessing a strong
aversion to the Christians, yet devised no measures for their in-
jury dui-ing four years. (') But in the fifth year of his reign,
eitlicrirom his own superstition, or prompted by the superstition
of otliers, he prepared to persecute them :(') and, had he lived, so
cruel and ferocious was his disposition, and so much was he in-
fluenced by the priests and the admirers of the gods, that this per-
secution would have been more cruel than any of the preceding.
But before his new edicts had reached all the provinces, and
when he was in Thrace, in the year 275, he was assassinated by
the instigation of Mnestheus, whom he had threatened to punish.
And, therefore, only a few Christians suffered for their piety
under him.(')
(1) That in the reign of Claudius, a few Christicins here and tliere were
put to death by the governors, undoubtedly under cover of the ancient laws, is
evident from the instances adduced by Lupius, in his Notes on the Epitaph of
Severa, (^ ii. p. 6, &,c.) Among these examples is that of Severa herself, whose
particular Epitaph was dug up in the Via Salaria, A. D. 1730, and has been
elucidated by a long and erudite commentary.
(2) With great unanimity, the modern writers have stated, that Aurelian
in the first years of his reign was kind and friendly to the Christians, but on what
grounds or authority I know not. Fori no where find any testimony that he had
this goodwill, nor do I meet with any specimen of it. I know that Eusehius tella
us, (Hist. Eccles. L. vii. c. 30. p. 282.) that when the Christians appealed to this
emperor against Paul of Samosata, who refused to quit the liouse of the church,
after he was condemned in a council for corrupt sentiments concerning Christ,
the emperor ordered him to be put out by force; and this decision against Paul
Eusehius seems to regard as evidence of his friendly regards for the [p. 559.]
Christians. But, if I am not greatly deceived, the followers of Eusehius infer
from this act of Aurelian, more than is found in it. We will grant that, at that
time, Aurelian had not indulged feelings of hostility to the Christians, nor de-
termined on their extirpation. But how he could have entertained kind and
friendly feelings towards them, I cannot understand, while he was burning with
zeal for the worship of those gods which the Christians execrated, and, moreover,
spoke contemptuously of the sacred rites of the Christians. For thus he wrote
in an Epistle to the Senate, (preserved by Vopiscus in his Aurelius, c. 20. llistor.
Augu^tee, torn. ii. p. 463.): Miror vos, patres sancti, tamdiu de aperiendis Sybll-
linis dubitasse libris, perinde quasi in Chris iianorum ecclesia,non in temple Deo-
rum omnium, tractarelis. In this language there is a very invidious comparison
between the Christian religion and the worship and sacred rites of tlie gods ;
102 Century III.— Section 20.
and it indicates a mind wholly averse from the Christians, and paying all
reverence to the gods. He seems to suppose that a certain divine and celestial
influence prevailed in a temple of the gods, which illuminates the minds of
those who deliberate there, and shows them what to do ; but that the churches
of Christians lack this influence, and, therefore, everything proceeds tardily and
heavily in their councils. But this very rej)resentation is honorary to the Chris-
tian assemblies of that age : for it shows that nothing was done in them in a
headlong and tumultuous manner, but everything was maturely considered and
carefully weighed, so that the consultations continued often for a long time
Moreover, when we come to treat of Paul of Samosata, we will show that Au-
relians decision against him is no evidence of any love for Christians, but of
his hatred to Zenobia, a queen of the east.
(3) Eusebius tells us (Hist. Eccles. L. vii. c. 30 ; p. 283.) that Aurclian was
prompted to persecute the Christians (t/s-i (iovx^li-,) by certain coiuiseUors. Per-
haps this was true. It might be that either the Platonic philosophers, wiio
possessed great influence in those times, or the heathen priests, who had many
friends at court, and especially among the ladies of rank, represented to the
emperor that the destruction of the Christians would prove useful to the
empire. But whoever will survey the life of Aurelian, will perceive that he
needed no external influences to bring him to assail the Christians, for his innate
cruelty and superstition w^ere sufficient of themselves to prompt him to such a
nefarious resolution. Scarcely any one among the emperors, before Constan-
tine the Great, was more superstitious, or more devoted to the imaginary deities.
His mother was a priestess of the sun : (see Vopiscus in his Aurelian, c. iv. p.
420). And her son, in consequence, all his life reverenced the sun as the
supreme deity. He closes an oration, in which he thanks Valerian for the
honors he had received from him, in these words: Dii faciant et Deus certus Sol,
(so then he placed more confidence in the sun than in all the other gods,) ut el
senatus de me sic sentiat. (Ibid. c. xiv. p. 451). When the forces of Zenobia had
[p. 560.] been vanquished at Emessa, he supposed that he was indebted for the
victory to the good providence of the sun ; and, therefore, " immediately after
the battle, he repaired to the temple of Heliogabalus, as if to pay his vows for
the public favor." (Ibid. c. xxv. pp. 478, 479). And " the garments eniiched
with jewels," which had been stripped from the vanquished Persians, Armenians,
and other enemies, he consectrated in the temple of the sun. (Ibid. c. xxviii.
p. 483). When Palmyra was captured, and the infuriate soldiers had plundered
the temple of the sun, he was more solicitous for nothing than to have that
sacred edifice magnificently repaired and dedicated anew. To Ceionius Bassus,
whom he had intrusted with this business, he wrote: Habes trcccntas auri li-
bras e Zenobia? capsulis : habes argcnti mille octingenta pondo. De Palmyre-
norum bonis habes gemmas regias. Ex his omnibus fac cohonestari templum :
mihi et Diis immortalibus gratissimum feceris. Ego ad senatum siribam, petens,
ut mittat Pontificem, qui dedicet templum. (Ibid. c. xxxi. p. 491). Afterwards ho
erected a very magnificent temple of the sun at Rome, (Ibid. c. xxxix. p. 522,)
and placed in it much gold and jewelry. (Ibid. p. 523). And hence, after his death,
Aurelianus Tacitus said, hi his oration before the senate: Quindecim raillia
Efforts of Philosophers. 103
librarum auri ex ejus liberalitate ununi tc-.net templum (solis): omnia in urbo
fana ejus niicant donia (Ibid. c. xll. p. 527). On one of his coins, nienlioned by
Ezrcliiel Spanheimy (de usu et prajstantia numismat. vol. ii. p, 485.) is tliia
le^^iMid : iSol Dominus imperii Rumani. — Now, who can wonder that a prineo
intlamed with such insane zeal ibr the worship of the sun, should have deter-
mined to assail with the sword, and to persecute with edicts, those Christiana
who deemed the sun unworthy of divine honors ?
(4) Eusebius states (Hist. Eccles. L. vii. c. 30; p. 285, &c.) that Aurelian
fell by parricidal hands, while preparing for his intended assault upon the
Chrisiians, and, as it were, in the very act of subscribing the edicts against them.
This obscure statement is explained by Lactantius, (de mortibus persecutorum,
c. 6.) who informs us that his edicts had reached only to the provinces border-
ing on Thrace, and says: Protinus inter initia sui furoris cxtinctus est. Non-
dum ad provincias ulteriores eruenta ejus edicta pervenerant, et jam Cajnofrurio,
qui locus est Thraciai, cruentus humi jacebat.
§ XXI. Efforts of the Philosophers against the Christians. Wllile
the emperors and magistrates were striving to subvert the Chris-
tian commonwealth by means of Laws and punishments, it was
assailed with craft and subtly, during this whole century, by the
philosophers of the Ammonian school; who assumed the name of
Platonists, extended their discipline over nearly all the Eoman
empire, and gradually obscured the glory of all the other sects.
For, as most of the people who cultivated piety and virtue, [p. 561.]
more readily repaired to the Christians than to the schools of the
Philosophers, and many went also from the schools of the Pla-
tonists themselves, (') they were induced to resist to the utmost a
sect which threatened ruin to their prosperity and fame. Hence
Porpliyry^ a Syrian or Tyrian, the corypha3us of the Platonist
sect in this century, (according to Plotinus^) a man distinguished
for his subtlety and acuteness, composed a long treatise against
the Christians ; which, it is to be regretted, the laws of the Chris-
tian emperors have caused to disappear : for the few fragmcuts
of it still remaining,show that Forpltyry was no very formidable
adversary .(') Others of this sect adopted into their creed tlie best
and most sublime precepts of Christianity, and especially those
relating to piety and morality, so that they might appear to teach
religion and virtue with as much purity and sanctity as the
Christians, Others, again, in order to weaken the Christians'
argument from the life and miracles of the Saviour, labored to
show, tliat among the more devout worshippers of the gods, tliere
104 Century III. — Section 21.
had been men not inferior, and perhaps actually superior,, to^
Jesus Christy both in their origin and virtue, and in the number
and magnitude of their miracles ; and for this purpose they drew
up the lives of Archytas of Tarcntum, PylliagoraSy AjJoUonitts
Tyanteus, and other men of great fame ; and, stufiing these
biographies with silly fables, they put them into the hands of the
common people.(^) The men of this class did not revile Jesus
Christ, nor deny that the precepts which the Christians taught as
coming from him, were, for the most part, excellent and com-
mendable, but they devised a sort of harmony of all religions, or
a universal religion, which might embrace the Christian among
the rest. This plan, which was contrived by Ammonius, the
founder of the sect, required the admission of only so much of
the Christian system as was not utterly repugnant to idolatry, or
to the ancient popular religions.
(1) Respecting the conversion to Christianity of many Platonists, and espe-
cially of the disciples of Plolinus, the head man of the Platonist school in this
century, we have the following very lucid passage in the writings of Augustine^
(Epist. Ixviii. ad Dioscorum, cap. v. ^ 33. 0pp. torn. ii. p. 260.) : Tunc Plotini
schola Ronice floruit, habuitque condiscipulos multos, acutissimos viros. Sed
aliqui eorum mnglcnrum arlium curiositate depravati sunt, aliqui Dominum,
[p. 562.] Jesum Christum ipsius veritatis atque sapientia3 incommiitabilis, quam
conabantur attingero, cognoscentes gestare personam, in ejus TniUtiam trails
sieruni.
(2) On the work of Porphyry against the Christians, may be consulted Lu-
cas Holstenius, (de Vita Porphyrii, c. xi.) Jo. Fran. Buddeuii, (Isagoge in Theo-
logiam, torn. ii. p. 1009, &c.) and Jo. Alb. Fabricius, (Lux Evangelii toti orbi
exoriens, p. 154). To the observations made by these authors I have nothing
to add.
(3) The Life of Py/liagoras was written in this century by Porplujry, and in
the next by Jamblickus, and both, unquestionably, in order to make that philo-
Bopher appear in all respects the equal of Jesus Christ, but especially so in his
miracles and in the wisdom of his precepts. This is demonstrated by Ludolph
KUster, m the notes to his edition of the Life of Jamblichus ; and any one will
readily see it, if he will compare eitlier of tiiese biograpiiies with the history of
our Saviour : (See Kusteri Adnot. ad Jamblichi, cap. ii. p. 7. et cap. xix. p. 78).
No two lambs could be more alike than Christ and Pytiiagoras, if all were tru»
which those two biographers have stated. The fable of Apollonius Tyana3U8,
which Philostralus composed in this century, by command of Julia, the em-
press, wife to the emperor Severus, is abundantly known; and none among the
learned need to be informed that Hierocles, a Platonic philosopher of the fourth
century, contrasted Pythagoras with Jesus Christ, and that Eusehius of Cassarea
Efforts of Philosophers. 105
wrote a special treatise against the book. That Philoslratus aimed, in his very-
splendid, and yet most stupidly mendacious book, to suggest such a comparison
between Cln-ist and Apollonius, has long been shown by the learned men who
are cited and approved by Godfrey Olearius, the editor of Philostratus; (Pajfat.
p. xxxix). Moreover, as Christ imparted to his friends and legates the power
of working miracles ; so also, to make the resemblance perfect, these IMatonista
represent Fijlhagoras as imparting the same power to several of his fol lowers, to
Empedocles, Epimenides, Abaris, and others. See Jamblichus, (Vita Pythagorae,
c. 28. p. 114). To exhibit the designs and the impudence of this sect, I will cito
a Latin translation of the words of Jamblichus in the above cited place. Having
spoken of some miracles of Pythagoras, he adds : Millia alia, hisque diviuiora,
magisque miranda, qua? de viro traduntur. - - Quorum compotes etiam facti
Empedocles Agrigentinus, Epimenides Cretensis et Abaris IJyperboreus, multis
in locis talia facinora desigiiarunt. Satis autem nota sunt ipsorum opera.
Moreover, these comparisons were made, not so much to disparage Christ,
as to injure Christianity. For those who compared Christ with Pythgoras, with
Apollonius Tyana3us, with Empedocles, with Archy tas, &c. tacitly admitted that
Christ was a divine person, far superior to the common order of men, [p. 563.]
the Lord of demons, the controler of nature, and a great benefactor to the
human race : but they affirmed that the Christians misunderstood and perverted
the opinions of their master and guide. iVs they wished to reduce all modes of
philosophising, whether Greeeian or barbarian, to the one mode of the Platon-
isis, and explained this mode according to the Egyptian notions of God and
nature; and, moreover, labored to bring all the religions of the world into har-
mony with this Platonico-iEgyptian system, and as they did not deny that
Christ taught a religion which was good and useful, it became necessary that
they should maintain, that what the Christians inculcated was, in great measure,
diverse from the opinions of [Christ] their master. They, therefore, wished to
accomplish two objects by the above-mentioned comparisons : — First, to prevent
any credit being given to the assertion of the Christians, that Christ was GoJ,
or the Son of God. For if there were to be found among men, individuals
possessing the same power of changing and controling the laws of nature, as
had been possessed by Christ, then the Christians' argument for Christ's di-
vinity, derived from his miracles, would fall to the ground. Their second object
was, to bring men to believe that Christ had no design to subvert the ancient
pagan religions, but merely to purify and reform them. Now,if among the most
devout of the pagan worshippers, tliere were found persons the equals, and
perhaps the superiors of Clirist in great achievements, then it would necessarily
follow, that those are mistaken who suppose Christ wished to abolish the
temples and the ceremonies of tlie pagan worship.
To the list of Phitonists who labored to subvert the Christian religion by
cunning devices, A;ju/etus was, not long since, added by the very learned and in-
genious William Warburion.'m his English work, The Divine Le<j^ation nf Moses
Demonstrated (vol. ii. p. 117). For he thinks that Apuleius, a man excessively
superstitious and hostile to the Christians, both personally and from zeal to his
sect, wrote his well-known Metamorphosis, or fable of the Golden Ass, for the
106 Centunj III.— Section 22.
purpose of making it appear that the mysteries of the gods possessed the
highest efficacy for purifying and iiealing the minds of men, and were therefore
greatly to be preferred to the Christian sacred rites. With his accustomed
penetration and skill in matters of antiquity, this distinguished man has disco-
vered in Apuleius some things never before observed by any one. Among these,
the most noticeable is, that he thinks it may be inferred with much probability
from the Defence of Apuieius now extant, that the Licinius Aemilianus, who
accused Apuleius of magic before the proconsul of Africa, was a Christian.
But as to the object of the fable of the Ass, which this very learned man sup-
poses to have been to exalt the pagan mysteries, and tiirow contempt on Cliris-
tianity, I have my doubts; because I see nothing adduced from that fable,
which it would be dithcult to explain in a different manner.
§ XXII. The First Movements of Diocletian. Diocletian AVas ad-
vanced to the government of the empire A. D. 284 ; and being by
[p. 664:.] nature more inclined to clemency than to cruelty, he suf-
fered the Christians to live in tranquillit}^, and to propagate their
religion without restraint. Bat in the subsequent year, 285, he
took for his colleague in the government Maximian Herculius^ a
man who is represented as most inveterately hostile to the Chris-
tians, and as having punished many of them, both in Gaul and at
Rome, with extreme rigor; nay, as having put to death the
whole Thebcean legion, composed of Christians, because the}^ re-
fused to sacrifice to the gods at the Leman lake. I say, he is so
represented ; for the alleged examples and proofs of such atrocity
are not of so high authority that they cannot be called in ques-
tion and invalidated.(') It is more certain that, near the end of
the century, Maximian Galerius, (whom the two emperors had
created a Csesar, together with Constantius Chlonis^ in the 3^ear
292,) persecuted both the ministers of his palace and the soldiers,
who professed Christianity, removing some of them from office,
harassing others with reproaches and insults, and even causing
some to be put to death.Q But this hatred of Galerius^ because
it did not reach very far, and seemed to be tolerated rather than
approved by the two emperors, did not prevent the daily ad-
vance of the Christian cause; and the Christians, rendered se-
cure by long-continued peace, deviated sadly from the primitive
sanctity and piety.(')
(1) Roman Catholic writers mention numerous martyrs, put to death dur-
ing the first years of Diocletian s reign, in Gaul, at Rome, and elsewhere ; but
as the early writers say nothing of them, and especially Eusebius, who tells us
First Acts of Diocletian. 107
that tlie condition of the Christians during the eighteen first years of Dio-
cletian was very quicf, and almost wliolly free from perils; (see his Hist.
Ecclcs. L. viii. e. 1, p. 291.) these writers either contend that Euscbius was
better acquainted with the Eastern ciiurcii tl'.an the Western, or lliey tell us,
that these martyrs were overlooked by the ancients, because they were put to
deatii not by a public mandate of the emperor Dioclelian, but only by the private
orders of Maximian Herculius. Such as choose m:iy rest satisfied with this
exphination ; but I must confess, there is no rashness in doubting the reality of
all tiiese martyrdoms. The whole history of them is based on the credibility of
certain Acts and martyrologies, to which no one will commit himself, if he
judges that confidence is to be placed in none but certain and approved autho-
rities. No one can be ignorant, that the catalogues of martyrs in use in some
churches, are of a most uncertain character, and are collected for the most part
from dubious ancient and obscure reports; nor are the narratives, [p. 565.]
which have in various places been current for several centuries, entitled to any
greater respect. How few are the undisputed Acts of the saints and martyrs
in the three first centuries, may be learned from Theodore Ruinari, who at-
tempted to collect them all, and did make a collection. This learned man
published a moderate sized volume; and he would have made out a very little
one, if he had determined to admit nothing but what is above all suspicion.
Of all the martyrs whom Maximian Herculius h said to have sacrified to his
gods, there are none more celebrated and noble than those that composed the
Thebivan legion, who, from the place where they were slain, were called the
Agaunian Martyrs. Their relics are spread almost all over the Romish
church, and are held in special reverence in France, Switzerland, and Italy.
Nor is this reverence of recent date, originating in those centuries in which all
Europe was involved in ignorance; when superstition every year created new
martyrs. For it appears from the works of AvUils, of Vienne, (published by
Ja. !Sirmond,) who flourished near the beginning of the sixth century, that at
that time there was at Agaunum, a church dedicated to these martyrs, and that
in it a festal day was observed in memory of them. (See Ja. Sirmond, 0pp.
torn. ii. p. 93-97.) This I mention, because I perceive that some learned men,
who are opposed to these martyrs, maintain that the knowledge of them was
first brought to light in the middle of the sixth century, nay, in the seventh
century. As Maximian Herculius was marching an army into Gaul to quell
some commotions there, having passed the Alps, he arrived at the parts of Valaia
on the Leman lake; and to prepare his troops for contending under better au-
spices, he ordered a general lustration, and that the troops should swear fealty
on the altars of the gods. This mandate of the general was resisted by the
Thebaean legion, which had Mauritius for its commander, had just come from the
East, and was wholly composed of Christians. Maximian therefore twice
decimated it, that is, caused every tenth man to be put to death ; and as this
rigor was wholly insuflicient to overcome its constancy, he ordered his army to
fall upon it and slay the entire legion. This is the substance of that Passio
Sauclorum Maurilii ac sociorum ejus, which is said to have been conii)osed by
Evcherius, bishop of Lyons, in the sixth century, and which, after others,
lOS Century Ill—Section 22.
Tiieod. Ruinart published, witli learned notes, in I)is Acta Martyrum sincora et
selecta, p. 271, &:c. The adversaries of the Romish cliurch, who have contro-
verted so many of the otheridleged martyrdoms, all left the ^' Happy Legion^'' as
this legion was called, untouched down to the eighteenth century, except by
here and there an individual. Nor was this strange, because there is scarcely any
other narrative of martyrdom that is confirmed by so many very ancient docu-
ments and testimonies as this is. Perhaps, also, many feared they should de-
[p. 566.] tract from the honor of Christianity if they brought under discussion
this so illustrious and extraordinary example of early Christian fortitude
and constancy. Others may have been so charmed with the story of the Thun-
dering Legion, of which we have before spoken, under Marcus Antoninus, that
they could see nothing in)probable in this Christian Thehccan Legion serving
under Maximian Herculius. For if a whole legion of Christians was admitted
into the Roman army under Marcus, much more might such a legion be counte-
nanced under JMaximian, when the Christian cause had been more widely ex-
tended and better established. But in this eighteenth century, John DubordieUj
a very learned man, who had seen the supposed bones of Mauritius and some
of his fellow-soldiers honored with great superstition at Turin, made a formal
attack upon the Theba3an legion, and was the first to class it among the fables
of former ages, in a book published at Amsterdam, in 1705, 8vo., under the title :
" Dissertation critique sur le Martyre de la Legion Thebeenne." Three years
after, Ja. HoUinger, in his Ecclesiastical History of Switzerland, (tom. i. L. ii.
§ 23, &c.) followed the example of Dubordieu, and confirmed his positions
with new arguments of no inconsiderable weight. Both reasoned ingeniously
and learnedly. But the dissertation of the latter, as it constituted a small
part of a large volume, and was written in the German language, did less
harm to the Thebsean legion than the treatise of the former ; which, being
written in an elegant style, was soon circulated over a large part of Europe,
and forcibly urged those of moderate learning, as well as the more learned, to
place the Happy Legion among the pious fictions of former ages. A defence
of the Happy Legion was at once contemplated by Claret, the Abbot of St.
Maurice, in the Valais, to whom, more than to any other, the task appeared to
belong ; but being burdened with too much business, he devolved the task
upon his friend Joseph de VIsle, Abbot of St. Leopold, at Nancy ; and he, after
a long interval of thirty-five years, came out against the opposers of the holy
soldiers, in a French work, printed at Nancy in 1741, r2mo. entitled, "Defense
de la verite de la Legion Thebeenne pour repondrc a la Dissertation du Minis-
tre du Bordieu." This writer, deficient neither in learning nor ingenuity, pours
upon his antagonist a great abundance of testimonies and documents, among
which are some of sufliciently high antiquity, and now first adduced by him ; but
in replying to the arguments of his opponent, and pnrticularly to those brought
against the Acta Sti Mauritii, attributed to Eucherius, his strength fails him,
and he hardly maintains his ground: neither does he meet the whole contro-
versy, for he was ignorant of the arguments which Hottinger had added to those
of the first assailant. Yet the erudite man fully satisfied his own church, and
especially those members of it who live sumptuously and merrily at the ex-
First Acts of Diocletian. 100
pcnse of St. Maurice and liia companions, that is, on the resources of tho
Happy Legion, contributed and consecrated by well-meaning people ; but tho
nnnds of those whom Dubordieu and JloUin'^er led astray, he could not con-
vince and reclaim. After some years, Dubordieu \)c\\\<r dead, tho aLtiick was
renewed by one of the prefects of the Genevan library, Boulnirc, [p. 5G7.]
if I remember correctly, a man of uncommon sagncity and industry; nay, he
fortified the att;ick by new arguments, in a French Epistle, which is inserted
in the Bibliolheque Raisonnee, (torn, xxxvi. p. 427, &,c.) This learned man de-
serves special praise, not only for ingenuously admitting that Dubordieu, whom
he patronizes, had committed some mistakes, but also for laboring to ascertain
the origin of the fiible, and to show that it was brought from the East into
Rhetia. A little afterwards, a rather brief, but ingenious and well-digested
opinion on the subject, was given by the very respectable Loysius Buchat, in \m
Mcmoires Critiques sur I'Histoire ancienne de la Suisse, (vol. i. p. 557, &c.,
edit, of 1747.) He had no doubt that every intelligent person who shall feel
himself at liberty to express his real sentiments, after examining the whole sub-
ject, will place the history we are considering among the pious frauds.
Whoever compares with a calm and unbiassed mind the arguments on both
sides, will readily adopt the opinion, that this controversy is not yet decided ;
the learned men already mentioned have indeed rendered the story of the The-
btean Legion dubiou?, and some parts of it they have divested of all proba-
bility, but they have not overthrown the whole story. For, as already observ-
ed, the advocates of the Blessed Legion bring forward a mass of testimonies,
some of which have great antiquity; and although the other party oppose to
these testimonies the silence of the cotcmporary writers, and those of the age
next after the legion, and also arguments derived from the nature of the case,
yet all this proof seems insufficient to wholly overthrow the evidence of so many
proofs from both facts and testimony. Whoever shall carefully and accurately
weigh all the arguments, however, will, I think, conclude, that the side of the
opposers has the advantage over that of the defendants. The most ancient
witness for the legion lived in the Jiflk century, and wrote the Life of Roma-
nus, Abbot of Mount Jura, in Burgundia, who died after the middle of the fifth
century. This Life is in the Ada Sanclor. Antwerp, (torn. iii. Fcbruar. ad diem
28, p. 740,) and w\as undoubtedly composed soon after the death of Romanus
by one of his associates. From this author we learn, that in the time of Ro-
manus, and consequently about the middle of the Jiflh century, there was at
Agaunum a church dedicated to Maurice, the commander of the legion ; and
that his whole history was then inserted in the Acta, and was considered alto-
gether true. For thus he writes (c. iv. } 15, p. 744) : Basilicam Sanctorum,
immo, ut ita dixerim, castra Martyrum in Agaunensium locum, sicut passionis
ipsorum relatio digesta testatur, qua3 sex millia sexcentos viros, non dicam am-
bire corpore in fabricis, sed nee ipso (ut reor) campo illic potuit consepire,
fidei ardore deliberavit (Romanus) expetere. And in his preflice (p. 741,) he ex-
plicitly mentions Maurice, the commander of the legion, and not obscurely tells
us. that his urn, i. e., his sepulchre, was to be seen in the church of Agauinim :
Prior (Romanus) priscum sccutus Johannem supra urnam S. Mauritii, id est
110 Century III— Section 22.
[p. 6G8.] Legionis Thebaeorum martyrum cnpul, velut ille eximius Apostolua
Kupni siilutifuri pectus rceumbit auctoris. This church, havhig fallen by its
age or otherwise, near the close of the century, needed to be rebuilt. Accord-
ingly, it was rebuilt, and Alcimus Aviliis, archbishop of Vienne, preached a
sermon in the new built church near the commencement of the sixlh century.
The sermon is lost, or at least has not been discovered ; but Sirmo?id found
the beginning of it in an ancient manuscript, with the following inscription :
Dicta in Basilica sanctorum Agaunensium, in innovatione monasterii ipsius
vel pubsione martyrum. Although the exordium thus recovered is short, yet
it places beyond dispute, that some Acta Legionis Thehaecc then existed, that
they agreed withthose we now have, and were publicly read in the presence of
the assembly immediately before this discourse. The Acta now extant are
attributed to Eiicherius, bishop of Lyons, in the sixth century, a man of re-
spectability on many accounts; and therefore they hold the third i)lace in the
list of documents on which rests the credibility of this story. The documents
of the sixth and following centuries, being much inferior to those of the first
class above mentioned, I pass them without notice. — It is therefore clear, unless
I wholly misjudge, that as early as the beginning of the Jifih century, and per-
haps also in the fourth, the inhabitants of Rha^tia and the Valais, firmly be-
lieved what is at this day stated respecting the Thebaean Legion ; they possessed
and read the Ada of this legion; dedicated a church to it, and in that church
annually celebrated the memory of those illustrious soldiers ; they preserved
the bones of Maurice, the commander of the legion; and they pointed out the
plain where the slaughter of it took place by command of Maximian Hercu-
lius. h remains then to be inquired, whether these arguments are sufficient to
place the truth of the story beyond all controversy. This the very learned op-
posers deny ; and on what grounds I will now shew, with the same impar-
tiality with which I have stated the arguments in favor of the story.
First, Many, and especially Duhordieii, in opposing the Actafelicis Legionis
which have come down to us, deny that these Acta were written by Eucherius;
they contend that they contain various errors ; and they would attribute the
compilation of them to some ignorant monk of the seventh century. But if wc
admit that these objections are urged with as much truth as erudition and inge-
nuity, yet, unless I greatly mistake, they avail nothing against the truth of our
historical facts. For these fiicts do not rest solely on the authority of those
Acta, but, as we have shown, upon stronger and more ancient testimonies, which
cannot in any way be confuted. Let us suppose that these Acta were com-
piled in the seventh century, or even in the eighth or ninth, and by some igno-
rant and fraudulent person; it would still be certain, that as early as the ffih
century there were other Acta in the hands of the Rhaetians, which, in regard
to the main facts, agreed with these.
Secondlij. Much stronger is the argument derived from the silence of tho
writers, who lived at and near the time when the legion is said to have been
butchered. Eusebius, the father of ecclesiastical history, and otherwise a care-
ful recorder of the sufferings of the martyrs, knew nothing respecting this
[p. 669.] legion. Sulpicius SeveruSy of the Ji/th century, who lived in Gaul,
First Acts of Diocletian, \\\
and wrote a (Ilisloria Sacra,) Ili.-tory of Religion, knew notiiinfr of lliia
legion; Paul Orosius, who commented on the expedition of Maxiinian into
Gaul, knew notJiing of it; Lacianiius, who, in \m book De Mortihus Perse-
quulorum, describes the cruelty and the tnigical death of Maximian, knew
nothing of it; Frude7iUus,ii distinguished Christian poet, who sung the praises
of the known martyrs of his times, knew nothing of it. In short, all the
writers of the fourth century whose works li.ive come down to us, knew
nothing respecting this legion. The weight of this negative argument, which
surely is great, was felt by Joseph de I'lsle; who, of course, does all he can
to evade it. But fairness requires us freely to admit, that, while it is impossi-
blc wholly to destroy it, it may be in a measure weakened. In the first place,
the advocates for the legion say, it is not strange that an occurrence i:i Eu-
rope, and in the valleys of the Alps, should have been unknown to EusebiuSf
and to all the Asiatic and African writers; nor can it be denied, that EvscMus
is silent as to many occurrences in the West, and that his history, for the most
part, treats of the affairs of the East. With regard to Siilpitius Seierus, there
is greater difficulty ; because he lived in Gaul, where this legion is reported
to have been butchered ; and, as he was of a light and credulous disposition, he
would undoubtedly have mentioned it in his history, if there had been a
popular rumor spreading throughout Gaul, in his age, of the glorious death of
so many soldiers. But I am suspicious, that Sulpitius himself affords a plausible
answer. After briefly but nervously speaking of the grievousness and severity
of the Diocletian persecution, in the following terms : Hac tempestate omnia
fere sacro martyrum cruore orbis infectus est. - - Nullis umquam mngis bellis
mundus exhaustus est; he proceeds to say explicitly, that for the sake of
brevity, he should not particularly mention any of the martyrs, although iheir
Acta were extant: Extant etiam mandatce litteris praidaraj ejus temporis mar-
tyrum passiones : quas connectendas non putavi, ne modum operis excederem.
(See his Historia Sacra, L. ii. c. 32, p. 248.) Here, it appears to me, he clearly
explains the reason of his silence. Paul Orosius and Prudentius lived in Spain ;
and therefore it might be that they were ignorant of an occurrence on the bor-
ders of Italy. Orosius, moreover, (Hist. L. vii. c. 25,) treats very summarily of
the affairs of Diocletian and Maximian, and of the persecution of Chrisfians by
them; so that he could not well repeat so long a story as that of the Thebaian
Legion ; and, like Sulpitius, he mentions no particular martyr. But in regard
to Lactaniius, whom I asssume to be the author of the celebrated treatise de
Mortihus PersequutoTum, the most ingenious apologist will find himself stag-
gered. For he might well know the story, since his book shows, that he waa
not only familiar with all the occurrences in the empire and the imperial court
in those times, but also with the vices and crimes and flagitious deeds of Max-
imian ; nor can any reason whatever be assigned, why he should omit an oc-
currence so intimately connected with the subject of which he was [p. 570.]
treating, and yet describe very copiously the hostility of Maximian towards the
Christians, and the many sufferings they endured at his hands.
Thirdly. Another argument against the legion is drawn by learned men
from the story itself, which, they say, contains many things utterly incredible.
112 Ccnlvry III.— Section 22.
They contend, first, that it is incredible there should be in the Roman arm)', at
that time, a whole legion made up of Cliristians ; and it is still more incredible
that Maximian, when marching against enemies, and just ready to meet them,
should slaughter so great a portion of his army, recently summoned from the
East to ensure his success, and should thus willingly weaken his forces, and
deprive himself of the means necessary to a victory; for, however savage his
disposition, he was most skilful in military affairs, and a consummate general.
Again, they contend, that it seems by no means probable, that among so many
soldiers, not one was disposed to consult his safety, either by dissimulation or
by flight. And, finally, they say it was strai>ge, and a thing unheard of, for so
great a body of armed men patiently to resign themselves up to their execu-
tioners, and make no effort to defend their lives with their arms. All these con-
siderations are urged with much ingenuity and address by very learned men;
and yet it must be admitted, that if the story of the Thebccan Legion can be
proved by irresistible testimony, then it has nothing to fear from these argu-
ments; for none of ihera are so strong as to be wholly unanswerable.
For myself, next to the silence of Lactantius, I regard as the strong-
est of all arguments against the story of this legion, w'hat the above-men-
tioned prefect of the Genevan library states to us, from Ca3sar Barronius,
(Adnot, ad diem 22, Septcmbr. Martyrologii Romani, p. 375.) respecting a Mmi-
rice among the Greeks, very similar to the Gallic commander of the Thebaian
Legion. For the Greeks very devoutly observe the twenty-first day of Feb-
ruary, in memory of a certain Maurice, a military tribune, whom the emperor
Maximian commanded to be put to death on account of his Christian faith, at
Apamea, in Syria, and with him seventy Christian soldiers. The Acta of this
Maurice are given by the Jesuits of Antwerp, (Acta Sanctor. tom. iii. Feb-
ruarii, p. 237,) and are undoubtedly of modern date, and of no historical value.
Yet this Maurice was held by the Greeks of the Jiflh century to be a martyr
of the highest order ; as is attested by Theodoret, (Graecar. Affectionum
L. viii. p. 607.) Now, it is contrary to all probability that there were two
Maurices, both tribunes, and both put to death by the same emperor; the one
in Syria and the other in Gaul, and at about the same time, and each with the
soldiers under him. And. therefore, it would seem that the story of Maurice
and his companions must have been borrowed, either by the Latins from the
Greeks, or by the Greeks from the Latins. But Tkeodoret, above cited, affords
objections to our supposing the Greeks received the story from the Latins ;
and therefore it is most probable that the Latins transferred the Maurice of the
Greeks from Syria to Gaul, and augmented and embellished his history with
many fables, invented doubtless for the sake of gain. Yet T will not strongly
object if some should conjecture, perhaps, that something actually occurred
[p. 57L] in the Valais, or near the Leman Lake, which afforded occasion for
the perpetration of this fraud, by some priest desirous to procure sustenance and
wealth from the credulity of the people. Perhaps Maximian, while marching
his army into Gaul, actually ordered a few of his soldiers, who refused to sacri-
fice to the gods for the success of the war, to suffer the penalty of their con-
Btancy. Perhaps, soon afterwards, a little chapel was erected in memory of
First Acts of Diocletian. 113
(hoso holy soldiers, on the spot where they were shiin ; for such was the oua-
torn of (hat aye. But as that little chapel had not sufficient fame and cele-
brity to render it very lucrative to its g'uardians, they, in order to allure people
thither, and thus enrich their domicile, expanded the brief Jiistory of its iuinible
origiu, and summoning to their aid the Maurice of the Greeks and his military
companions, they represented Maximian as slaughtering a whole legion in the
Vahiis. And the multitude of human bones \\\ those parts afforded support to
the fable. For, those finiiliar with ancient history know, that great battles
were formerly fought in that part of Gaul, and many thousand persons slain ;
so that the ground, where now is seen the splendid and prosperous monastery
of {St. Maurice^ was formerly rich in dead corpses.
(2) This is attested by Eusehhis, (Hist. Eccles. L. viii. c. 1, p. 292, c. 4,
p. 295; and in the end of the book, p. 317.) So learned men long since ob-
served; nor can there be any doubt of it. But as to tlie author of this first
persecution of the soldiers and officials of the palace, some doubts have arisen
in my mind, while comparing Eusehius with Lacianlius ; which, I am surprised,
have not occurred to the learned. Eusehius clearly represents, that before Dio-
cletian had made any decrees against the Christians, Maximian Galerius perse-
cuted the soldiers and servants of the palace. But Lactantius, (de Mortibus
persequutor. c. 10, p. 85, die.) although he inveighs vehemently against the
cruelty of Ma.ximian in other instances, and charges him with extraordinary zeal
for exterminating the Christians, yet is entirely silent as to this crime of
Maximian ; and he tells us, on the contrary, that Diocletian first assiiiled the
soldiers and officials of the palace, but without shedding blood. He represents
Diocletian as being then in the East, and as searching in the livers of beasts
which he had slain, to obtain auguries of future events. But some of his minis-
ters who were standing by, being Christians, made the sign of the cross on
their foreheads: quo facto^ fugaiis dccmonibus, sacra iurhata sunt. The sooth-
sayers repeated their sacrifices several times, but in vain ; they could not di-co-
ver the customary appearances on the entrails of the victims. At length the
chief soothsayer declared, non respondere sacra, quod rchus die inis pro/an i homi-
nes (namely, Christians) interesseni. Then Diocletian, in a rage, ordered all the
persons in the palace to offi?r sacrifices, and such as refused were to be
scourged. And by letters addressed to their commanders, milites ad nefanda
sacrijicia cogi prcccepily ut qui non paruisscnf, militia soharentur. He adds :
Haclenus furor ejus et ira processit, nee amplius quidquam contra legem [p. 572.]
aut religionem Dei fecit. Neither was he afterwards disposed to go farther.
For when, after some years, Maximian wished to have public edicts of a bloody
character enacted against the Christians, he refused, and said : Satis esse, si
palatinos tanlum et milites ah ea religione prohiberet. (c. 11, p. 99, ed. Bauldrian.)
Whether, theretbre, this first liglit and moderate persecution of soldiers and offi-
cials, which preceded the great Diocletian persecution that commenced in the
third year of the following century, is to be attributed to Diocletian or Maxi-
mian, appears to be uncertain, because of the disagreement of the principal
authorities on the subject. Those who would reconcile these disagreeing state-
ments, may say that both emperors committed the same fault, and assailed
VOL. u. 9
I
114 Century III— Section 22.
their soldiers and palace servants at the same time ; Diocletian in the East, and
Maximian in Illyricum, which was the province under his jurisdiction. And
there is, I confess, a shade of difference between tiie military persecution descri-
bed by Eusebiiis, and that which is mentioned by Laclantius, which might
seem to make them distinct from each other. Laclanlrus says, that Diocletian
punished no one capitally ; but Eusebius represents some as being put to death
by Maximian. In Hict, I do not look upon tliis conjecture with contempt. Yet,
not to dwell on the improbability that the two emperors, when fur separated
from each other, should, at the same time, commit the same outrage ; what
could have induced Lactantius to state the crime of Diocletian, and to omit
tlie similar crime of Maximian, on whom he at other times charges all the evils
brouglit by Diocletian on the Christians 1 If you say he was ignorant of the fact ;
I answer, first, this is altogether incredible : and, secondly, I ask, how could
Eusebius, a man not less well informed respecting the events of those times, than
was the author of the treatise de Moriibus Persequutorum, and who represents
the first outrage as that of Maximian, — how could he be ignorant that Dio-
cletian committed the same outrage ? — Another method of removing the diffi-
culty seems to be intimated by Lactantius himself, in his Institutiones Divincc,
(L. iv. e. 27, p. 546, ed. Biinemann.) In treating of the interruption of the sa-
cred rites of the haruspices by the Christians crossing their foreheads, he speaks
as if not Diocletian solely, but also Maximian, were offering those sacrifices j
for he speaks of (Domini) lords, in the plural, as being present : Quum enim
quidam ministrorum e cultoribus Dei sacrificantibus Dominis assisterent, impo-
sito frontibus signo, deos illorum fugaverunt. And, a little after : Aruspiees
adegerunt Princifcs suos in furorem, ut expugnarent Dei templum. Now if,
as these words seem to imply, Diocletian and Maximian were together, and
both united in the sacrifices, then neither Lactantius nor Eusebius is wholly
wrong ; but each has erred, by attributing an act of the two emperors to only
one or the other of them. But from adopting this opinion, we are withheld
by Lactantius himself, (de Mortibus Persequutor. c. 10, near tlie end.) where
[p. 673.] he not obscurely shows, that the emperors were in different places at
the time when Diocletian was enraged at the Christians for interrupting his re-
ligious rites. And why, I ask, if Maximian was then with Diocletian, does he
not mention his name, since he wished to make his villanies as notorious
as possible ? Besides, every body knows, the plural number is often used in-
stead of the singular, especially by those who, like Lactantius, speak or write
in a rhetorical manner. In short, that the great persecution which the Chris-
tians suffered under Diocletian in the subsequent century, commenced with thia
Blight preclude at the close of this century, and was hurtful only to the soldiers
and the residents in the palace, can admit of no question ; but against the sup-
pf)sition of a twofold prelude, the one in the East and the other in the West,
botn Eusebius and Lactantius stand equally opposed, for each of them mentions
but one ; and, whether Diocletian or Maximian commenced the tragedy,
remains in uncertainty. — I will subjoin a few remarks on the motive wliich, ac-
cording to Lactantius, induced Diocletian to maltreat the Christian soldiers and
officials of the palace. I cannot doubt that something of the kind narrated did
Church Government, 115
occur- but that the Christians, by cro9sin<T their foreheads, put demons to
fljirht, and disturbed the emperor's divination, I cannot easily believe. Tho
soothsaying art, we know, was a deception, invented to impose on the common
people; and this was well understood by the wiser among the Romans, as ap-
pears from Cicero's second Book de Divinatione. We therefore suppose that
the crafty soothsayers, who were watching for an opportunity to bring down
great evil upon the Christians, pretended that they could not sacrifice succesa-
fully, on account of the presence of Christians, aiming to exasperate the feel-
ings of the superstitious emperor; and the design succeeded. But the Chris-
tians, who supposed that the evil spirit enacted all the frauds of the priests,
had a belief in divination ; which, however, they could not have had, if they
had consulted their reason.
(3) Respecting the prosperous state of the Christians, before the com-
mencement of the Diocletian persecution in the year 303, Eusebius treats at
some length, (Hist. Eccles. L. viii. p. 291.) He says, the emperors showed
great kindness to the Christians ; committed the government of provinces to
some of them ; allowed their domestics, with tlieir children and servants, full
liberty to profess the Christian religion ; and even seemed to have peculiar
affection for their Christian attendants and servants. The governors of pro-
vinces also, and the magistrates, paid great respect to the bishops. And hence,
the Christian community daily received much enlargement, and churches were
built in the several cities : neither could the calumnies and artifices of the ill-
disposed disturb their tranquillity. But at the same time Eusebius freely ac-
knowledges, with grief, that the Christians in the enjoyment of liberty fell into
licentiousness and great vices ; they had internal broils and contests, congre-
gation with congregation, and prelates with prelates ; frauds and dissimulation
also, reached a very high pitch ; neither did thnt moderate chastisement [p. 574.]
of the soldiers correct these vices ; but rather the Christians waxed worse and
worse: the pastors disregarded the rules of religion in their mutual contests,
affected the despotism of princes, and did various things unbecoming their cha-
racter. These facts should be borne in mind, if we would justly appreciate
the causes of the violent persecution soon after, under Diocletian. For the
Christians, by their imprudent conduct, put weapons into the hands of their ad-
versaries. For who can doubt, that the friends of the gods took occasion,,
from the vices and the broils of the Christians, to instil into the emperors, that
the interests of the republic required the utter extirpation of so turbulent a
sect ; a sect that would not be quiet, but, abusing its prosperity, produced so
great commotions in the state ?
§ XXIII. Constitution and Government of the Church. The
form or Constitution of tlie Christian church, which had been
introduced in the preceding century, not only continued, for
the most part, to exist in this century, but became confirmed
and strengthened. Over the individual congregations of the
larger cities, one person presided, with dignity and authority,
116 Century Ill.^Scction 23.
entitled tlic Bkliop ; but lie Avas allowed to decide notliing in
private matters, without taking counsel witli tlie Preshyters ; and
notliing in public matters pertaining to tlic whole church, with-
out assembling and consulting the people.(') All Bishops^ as Avell
as all Preshyters, were perfectly equal in rank and authority ; yet,
for keeping up the consociation of the churches, the Bishop who
governed the congregation in the principal city of a province, was
entitled to some precedence and honor above the others. And
the necessity for this regulation became greater, as councils Avere
more frequently called together throughout the Christian com-
monwealth, in Avliich the representatives of the churches delibe-
rated and established rules for the common Avelfare of the wdiole
province, or of several provinces. The cause Avhieh led one
Bishop in a provmce to have a sort of preeminence over the
rest, also procured a primacy and some anthority for the Bishops
of the primary cities hi Asia, Africa, and Euroj^e ; among wdiom,
unquestionably, the first place was assigned to the Bishop of
the city of Eome. But as for any common judge of the whole
church, or a Bishop of Bishops, performing the functions of a
vicegerent of Christ, those times knew nothing of it.(") To the
Deacons^ in the larger and more opulent churches, there Avere
[p. 575.] added functionaries of loAv^er rank, Suhdeacons^ AcolytJdstSj
Jcmitors, Lectors^ and Exorcists ; in consequence, as I apprehend^
of the fastidiousness and pride of the Deacons^ Avho, finding them-
selves in gTcater affluence, Avere uiiAvilling to discharge the hum-
ble offices Avhich they had previously never declined. (')
(1) Respecting the authority and rights of presbijlers in tliis century, dccla-
ations of the ancients have been collected in abundance, by David Blondell, in
his Apologia pro senlentia Hieronymi de episcopis cl presbijieris, (p. 136, &c.)
and many more, by Claud. Fonteius, (the assumed name of u celebrated theo-
logian of the Pnrisian school, James Boilean,) in his treatise, (k antiquo jure
freshyterorum in regimine ecdesiaslico, (Taurini, 1676, 12mo.) But there is one
witness who may be ii substitute for all, namely Cyprian, one of the most
strenuous vindicators of the high rank and authority of bishops. Although he
lays claim to the highest distinction and prerogative, especially when heated by
conflict with those who resist Jiis pleasure, yet he freely acknowledges in many
passages of his Epistles, that he could decide no great question without con-
sulting the clergy and presbyters. And although he sometimes acts inconsis-
tently with his principles, and disregards the rights and prerogatives of tho
people, yet when properly mast^jr of himeGjf, and more obedient to the law of
Church Government. 117
right than to self-will, ho doe3 not fail to show, that, in the government of tlio
church, and in ecclesiastical jurisdiction, by no means the least part belongs to
the common people. To save the render from the trouble ot searching them
out, I will cite some passages to this purpose, so that my assertions may not
appear unsupported. To his presbytera and Deacons he thus writes, (Ep. v.
p. 11 ; al. Ep. .\iv. c. 4) : Ad id vero, quod scripserunt milii compresbyteri nos-
tri Donatus et Fortunatus, Novatus et Gordius, solus rcscriberc nihil potuiy
quando a primordio episcopatus mei stalnerini nihil sine consilio vestrOj (i. e., of
ihe presbyters and deacons,) el sine consensu plebis mea privalim senteniia ge-
rcre. Sed cum ad vos per Dei gratiam venero, tunc de iis, quse vel gesta sunt
vel gcrenda, sicut honor muluus poscit, in commune traclabimus. Here Cyprian
expresses himself with precision ; for he says he oitghi, in the more important
cases, to ask the (consiliiun) advice of the presbyters and deacons; but that
only the (consensus) consent of the people was requisite. The bishop, there-
fore, deliberated on business matters with the presbyters, and not with the
people ; and the course which he and the clergy deemed suitable, was proposed
to the people assembled for the purpose, and they either approved or rejected
it. For the common people could either sanction or annul ; they were not
obliged to ratify, whatever the bishop and his counsellors had decided upon.
A similar passage occurs in Epistle xiii. (p. 23, al. Ep. xix. ad Presbyteros et
Diaconos, e. 2.) Hoc et verecundios et discipUncc et vitae ipsi omnium nostrum
co?nenil, id Prccpositi cum clero convenienles, pncsente etiam stantium plehe^
quibus et ipsis pro fide et timore suo honor habendus est, disponere omnia consilii
communis religione possimus. Being requested by the presbyters and [p. 576.]
deacons to decide the case of two deacons and an acolythist, who, having
h\psed, again returned to the church, he replies most explicitly, (Ep. xxviii. p.
39 ; al. Ep. xxxiv. ad presbyt. et Diaconos, c. 4) : Desiderastis quoque, ut de Phi-
lumeno et Fortunate hypodiaconis et Favorino Acolylho, qui medio tempore
recesserunt, et nunc venerunt, quid milii videatur, rescribam. Cui rei non
potui ms solum judicsm dare, cum muUi adhuc de clero absentes sint, nee locum
8uum vel sero repetendum putaverunt, et hccc singulorum iractanda sit et
limanda plenius ratio, non tantum cum colkgis meis, sed et cum plebe ipsa uni-
versa. When he had created a lector and a subdeacon, without consulting the
presbyters, he excuses the deed to his clergy on the ground of necessity, (Ep.
xxiv. p. 33 ; al Ep. xxix. ad Presbyt. et Diacon.) ; Fecisse me autem sciatis lec-
torem Saturum et hypodiaconum Optatum eonfcssorem, quos Jam pridem corn-
muni consilio clero proximos feceramus. - - Nihil ergo a me absentibus vobis no-
vum factum est; sed quod jam pridem communi consilio omnium nostrum
cccperal, necessitate urgente, promotum est. Cyprian then, by his own confession,
would have done something {novum) new, and contrary to former usage, if he
had constituted even the lowest officials of the church, lectors and subdeacons,
without consul ling the presbyters. There are examples, I am aware, of Cy-
prian's creating presbyters and lectors, without the consent of the clergy and
people ; e. g. Numidicus, whom he created a presbyter, (Ep. xxxv. p. 48 ; al.
Ep. xl.) and Celerinus and Aiireliiis, and perhaps others, whom ho made lec-
tors with the concurrence of only a few of the clergy, (Ep. xxxiii. et xxxiv.
118 Century III— Section 2Z.
p. 46, &c. ; al. Ep. xxxviii. et xxxix.) But all these were Confessors, and had
given proofs of their constancy and fortitude. And Confessors enjoyed tliis
prerogative in the ancient church, that they seemed to be elected and desig-
nated for the sacred office, as it were, by God himself; and therefore they
might be received into the sacred order, by the bishop alone, without the suf-
frages of the clergy and the people. And so, in this act, the ancient usages
were not violated, but rather followed out. The correctness of these state-
ments will be seen by such as read those Epistles of Cyprian to his presbyters
and people, in which he relates the admission of these men to offices, or, in the
phraseology of Terlullian, their (CoUeclio in Clerum) enrollment among the
• clergy. Tiie Epistle which relates to Aurelius, (E])ist. xxxiii. al. xxxviii. ad
clerum et ad plebem,) commences thus: Cyprianus presbyteris et diaconis et
iplebi univeri^a3 salutem! In ordinationibus clerlcorum, fratres carissimi, sole-
mus vos ante consulere et mores et merita singulorum communi consilio pon-
derare. (Here we have the common and ordinary usage ; the extraordinary
usage, or the prerogative, so to speak, of Confessors, next follows.) Sed ex-
pectanda non sunt iesiimonia liumana, cum prccaedunt divina suffragia ; that is,
the suffrages of the clergy and people are not necessary in the. case of
Confessors, whom God has declared worthy of the sacred office, by the grace
[p. 577.] which he has given them. And yet Cyprian had not acted alone in
this case, but in conjunction with some presbyters ; for he adds, (ibid, c. 2) :
Hunc igitur, fratres dilectissimi, a me et a coUegis, qui prccsentes aderani, ordina-
tum sciatis. In like manner he speaks of Celerinus the lector, (Epist. xxxiv.
p. 47 ; al. Ep. xxxix, c. 1) : Ego et coUegcc mei, qui prccsentes aderant, referrimus
ad vos, Celerinum fratrem nostrum virtutibus, pariter et moribus gloriosura
clero nostro, non humana sujfragatwne, (i. e. not by the suffrages of the clergy
and people,) sed divina dignaiiune (which God manifested, by giving him forti-
tude under tortures,) conjunctum. After a sentence or two, Cyprian adds:
iN'ec fas fuerat, nee decebat sine honore ecclesiastico esse, quern sic Doininus ho-
noravil ccelestis gloria dignitale. Those unacquainted with ancient customs and
opinions, may not know the meaning of this last citation ; and the annotators on
Cyprian pass it over, as they do many things which need to be explained by
reference to ancient usages. I will therefore explain how God ccelestis gloriae
dignitale lionoraxerit Celerinum, an illustrious Confessor, who for nineteen days
had been under torture, and bore in his body many scars of his wounds. The
souls of Martyrs and Confessors, on leaving the body, were supposed to ascend
immediately to glory, but not so the souls of other Christians, which had to
await the final advent of the Judge, in a certain intermediate state. See, among
others, TertuUian, (de Aniraa, c. 55, p. 353, &:c,) where he says : Nullis romphcca
paradisi janatrix cedit,nisi qui in Christo decesserit (the Martyrs,) non in Adam ?
Nova mors pro Deo, el extraordinaria pro Christo, alio et privato exeipitur hos-
pitio. Ilabes etiam de paradise a nobis libellum, quo constituimus, omnem ani-
mam (leaving the body by a natural death,) apud inferos (in an intermediate
place,) sequestrari in diem Domini. He therefore who, by God's assistance, had
been superior to tortures, obtained a title to celestial glory, and he was by God
publicly honored with that distinction. Cyprian then means to say : That to the
Church Government. 119
man whom God li.is declared an heir of celestial glory, and to whom he his as-
signed a place among the glorified souls immediately after death, ought to bo
assigned a place among the leaders and ministers of the church militant. — The.
same account is given by Cyprian^ in the case of Numidicus, a distinguished
Confessor, whom he had received among the presbyters, without the consent
of the clergy and people, (Ep. xxxv. p. 49; al. Ep. xl.) : Nam admonitos nos et
instructos sciatis, dignadone. duincL, (this is explained above,) ut Numidicus
presbyter ad-^cribaturpresbyterorum Carthaginensium numero et nobiscum se-
deat in clero, luce clarissima confessionis illustris. We here learn the ground
of tiie custom, in the ancient church, of receiving into the sacred order Confes-
sors, though unlearned and not duly qualified. They reasoned thus: Confes-
sors, by the resolution and firmness of their minds in confronting tortures and
death, have obtained througli grace a title to celestial felicity, which [p. 578.]
other Christians have not ; it is therefore right and proper, that those to whom
God has vouchsafed so great honor, should also be honored by the church, and
be elevated above other Christians. Neither is it necessary that the clergy
and people should, as in other cases, approve of their admission to the rank of
fathers of the church. The divine suftrage is sufficient; and the bishop, on
ascertaining that fact, may proceed, without a consultation with the clergy and
people, to admit them to the sacred order.
But we return from a digression. There is no passage in Cyprian which
more clearly demonstrates, that the clergy and the people shared with the bishop
the power of governing the church, than one in his 27th Epistle, (p. 37, 38 ;
al. Epist. xxxiii. c. 1.) ; and I wonder tliat it should escape the attention of the
learned, who have treated of this subject. The Epistle commences thus: Do-
minus noster, cujus praeccpta et monita observare debemus, episcopi honorem
et ecclesiae sua3 rationcm disponens in evangelio loquitur et dicit Petro : Ego tibi
dico, quia tu es Petrus, et super istara petram aedificubo ecclesiam nieam, et
portse inferorum non vincent earn, &;e, Inde per temporum et succes-
sionum vices episcoporum ordinatio et ecclesise ratio decurrit, ut ecclesia super
episcopos constUuatur, et omnis actus ecclesicc per eosdem prccpositos gubernetur.
Cum hoc itaque divina lege fundatum sit, miror, quosdam audaci temeritate sic
mihi scribere voluisse, ut ecclesiaj nomine litteras facerent, quando ecclesia
in episcopo et clero et in omnibus stantibus sit constituta. The reasoning of
Cyprian in this passage deserves contempt ; for no one can suppose, with him,
that the words of Christ to Peter here cited, define the rights of the church
and of the bishops. The doctrines, however, which he professes, deserve re-
gard; for. First, he most explicitly declares the church to be super episcopos
constitutam, or, to be superior to the bishops ; from which it follows, that su-
preme power in ecclesiastical affairs is vested in the church ; and that the
bishop, without the church, can decide and determine nothing. Secondly, he
tells us what he would have us understand by the word church; and affirms
that to the church belong, not merely the clergy, but also omnes stanles, that is,
the whole multitude of persons who have not, by any of the greater sins, nor
by defection from Christianity, merited exclusion from the number of the bre-
thren, and therefore continue stedfast in the faitii. Thirdly, he teaches that
120 Century III.— Section 23.
actum omnem eccJesicc guhernari ah episcopo, or that the biohop presides in the
meetings of the church, states the subjects to be discussed, and collects the suf-
frag-es or opinions given. More tli.in tliis cannot be here intended, by the
word guhcrnari, because he had declared the church to be tlie greater and supe-
rior to the bishop. For the church would be the lesser and inferior to the bishop,
if guhernare here meant to prescribe the decisions and demand an approbation
of the bi;<hop's own personal judgment. The church must nccess-arily be free to
[p. 579.] act its own pleasure, if it be true, that it has more power and authority
than the bishop. LaslJy, he decides that all these are the precepts of Christ,
or divina lege fundata : with what truth lie could so affirm need not be
inquired ; it is sufficient that he thought it to be so. From this language there-
fore the learned men may correct their views, who attempt to persuade us that
Cyprian, whenever he calls the clergy and people to his aid, and associates him-
self with them, does so, not in obedience to law and right, but only from mo-
desty and a regard for prudence. He himself denies the truth of this opinion,
and bids us believe, that the bishop who shall decide any matter of much im-
portance without consultln_g- the clergy and people, will violate a mandate and
law of our Savior.
(2) So numerous and strong are the testimonies to the liberty and equality
of the Christian churches in this century, adduced long since by learned men,
in the great controversy respecting the primacy of the Roman bishop, that it
would seem the persons who maintain that one church had power and a sort
of jurisdiction over the rest, must be chargeable with a greater devotion to
their sect and to their early imbibed opinions, than to the truth. Those who
contend that in this century, as well as in subsequent times, all the European
churches were subject to the bishop of Rome, think they find great support for
their opinion in the writings of Cyprian ; which may seem very strange to the
impartial judges of the subject, who know, that from this same writer the de-
fenders of the opposite opinion derive their principal arguments in support of
the opinion that the church, in this century, recognized no visible head or su-
preme bishop. One of two things must be true ; either one or the other of
the contending parties must have misinterpreted Cyprian, or Cyprian is not con-
sistent w-ith him.self, and had very obscure and indeterminate ideas respecting
the nature of the church. I will exhibit the arguments on both sides, and then
give my own judgment in the matter. First: The still extant Epistles of
Cyprian to Cornelius, Lucius, and Stephen, bishops of Rome, and also some
Epistles of Cornelius to Cyprian, are written in a manner that makes it evident
that no one of them even thought of any difft-rence as to jurisdiction, rank,
and station among them. In that age, as well as in this, when inferiors wrote
to their superiors, or superiors to their inferiors, they distinguished themselves
from the persons they addressed, by certain titles and modes of expression;
although the propensity for adulation and for arrogance had not then reached
the height to which it subsequently arose. But nothing of this kind can yon
discover in the Epistles I have mentioned. Cyprian addresses the Romish
bishops in the same style as he addresses other bishops, and calls them simply
(JraLres et coUegas) Brothers and Colleagues ; and Cornelius addresses Cyprian
Church Government. 121
in the same style, and drops not n, syllable which can be eoiisidcrtd as indic:u
live of any jurisdiction or authority. Indeed, Cyprian ia himself the most
assuming, and not only reproves Stephen severely for claiming some dignity
and power, but also most freely censures Cornelius, when he thought hini
in error, and recalls him to his duty. I well recollect, that Peter de Marca, (do
concordi:; sacerdotii et imperii, L. vii. e. 1, p. 988,) as well as many [p. 58U.J
others, attempts to prove from Cyprian's Epistle to Stephen, concerning Marrian,
bishop of Aries, (Epist. Ixvii. p. 115; al. Ep. Ixviii. c. 2,) that Cyprian acknow-
ledged the primacy of Stephen in the church ; for, in this Epistle, Cyprian
exhorts Stephen " to write in the fullest manner to the bishops of both Gauls,
that they should no longer suffer Marcian, the friend of Novatian, to insult the col-
lege of bishops :" from which the great de Marca infers, that Stephen had some
jurisdiction over the bishops in Gaul. But Stephen Baluze, (in his notes on
the passage, p. 488,) is more cautious, and concludes that Cyprian well knew
" that the defence of the canons was committed to the bishop of Rome ;" that is,
this learned man interprets the passage according to the views of the Gallican
church. But I will leave it to all impartial persons to judge whether there ia
any force in such reasoning as this: Cyprian admonishes Stephen to write to
the bishops of Gaul about excluding Marcian; therefore Cyprian believed that
Stephen had some jurisdiction over the Gallic bishops. Who does not know,
that even we ourselves are accustomed every day to exhort those over whom
we have no kind of authority or power?
Secondly : Cyprian's contest with the Roman bishop Stephen, respecting
the baptisms of heretics, which we have stated above, has vast weight, in proof
that nobody, in that age, ascribed to the Romish prelate the honor of being su-
preme judge in all religious controversies. Indeed, those on the opposite side
cannot deny this; and therefore they resort to every expedient to cast this
great contest into the shade. Cyprian, having assembled several bishops, de-
cided with them, that all heretics coming over to the church, ought to be again
baptized ; and this decision of his council he transcribed and sent to the Ro-
man Stephen, not on account of any official relation to him, or any law re-
quiring it, but solely as a matter of courtesy. He says (Epist. Ixxii. p. 129,
c. 4,) : Haec ad conscientiam tuam, frater carissinie, et pro honore communi et
pro simplici dilectione pertulimus. Stephen disapproved this decision, and an-
swered Cyprian haughtily : the latter, despising his menaces, held firmly to the
decision, and, assembfing a still larger council, fortified it with new and stronger
supports. Stephen, thus situated, did not, as is commonly stated, cast Cyprian
out of the church, but only declared him unworthy of his communion. Cyprian
contemned this ebullition of wrath ; and the other bishops felt very indignant
at it. These were most certainly the facts ; and who that reads or hears them,
can bring himself to believe that the Roman pontiff or bishop then possessed
any supreme power or sovereignty ? Some perhaps will say, that Cyprian did
wrong, and being heated by passion, overstepped the boundaries of respect due
to the Roman bishop. But this is a hasty ajid futile objection. For if Cypriar.
had done any thing inconsistent with his duty, he would have been reproved
ard deserted by the other bishops. They, however, did not think that Cyprian
122 Century III.— Section 23.
had done wrong, but that Stephen was in fault. And this seems to put it beyond
. [p. 581.] all controversy, that if perhaps, some priority in lioncr, yet none in
power or jurisdiction was then conceded to the Romish prelate.
Thirdly: The writings and acts of Cyprian while this contest was going
on, afford also very clear testimony on tliis subject. In iiis 71st Epistle, (:id
Quintam, p. 127, c. 3,) he denies that Peter had any primacy of authority:
Nam nee Petrua, quern primum Doniinus elegit, et super quern aedificavit ec-
clesiani suam, vindicavit sibi aliquid insolenter aut arroganter assumsit, ut
diceret, se primatum tenere, et obtemperari a novellis et pesteris sibi oportere.
If then, according to Cyprian, Peter himself held no primacy, and neither could
enact any inviolable laws, nor wished to do it, how could he ascribe any primacy
to Peter's successor, so much his inferior? In his 73d Epistle, (p. 137, c. 26,
and elsewhere,) he teaches, that all bishops are independent, and subject to the
power of no one: Unusquisiue episcoporum. quod putat, facial, habens arbilrii
sui liberam poteslalem. How very different is this declaration from the opinion
of those who say, all bishops ought to be in subjection to the bishoi) of Rome?
Still more clearly and fully does he express himself in his Address at the
opening of the Concilium Cathaginense de hasreticis baptizandis, (p. 329) :
Neque enim quisquam nostrum episcopum se esse episcoporum constituit, aut
tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem collegas suos adigit, qiiando ha-
heat omnis episcopus pro licentia liberlalis et poteslalis sua; arbilrium proprium,
tamque judicari ah alio non possil, quam nee ipse potest allerum judicare. Sed
expectemus univer si judicium Domini noslri Jesu Chrisli, qui unus et solus habet
potestatem et pra^ponendi nos in ecclesia: sucn qubernatione et de acta noslri judi-
candi. This language needs no interpreter.
I pass over other passages of similar import, and will add only one more,
which is the more pertinent and forcible, because it occurs in an Epistle to the
Roman bishop himself, Cornelias, (Epist. Iv. p. 86 ; al. Ep. lix. c. 20) : Nam
cum statutum sit ab omnibus nobis, et a3quum sit pariter ac justum, ut uniuscu-
jusque caussa illic audiatur, ubi est crimen admissum, et singulis pastoribus por-
iio gregis sit adscripla, quam regat unusquisque et gubernat, ralionem sui actus
Domino redditurus, oportet utique eos, quibus prsesumus, non circumcursare, nee
episcoporum concordiam cohccrentem - - collidere, sed agere illic caussam suam^
vbi et accusatores habere et testes sui criminis possini ; nisi si panels desperatis
et perditis minor videtur esse auctoritas episcoporum in Africa constitutorum,
qui jam de illis judicaverunt. Felicissimus and Fortunatus, two enemies of
Cyprian, had gone to Rome, and implored the aid of Cornelius. Cyprian felt
greatly troubled at this. He first wrote to Cornelius, reminding him that it
had been established by the common consent of all the bishops, that every cri-
minal should be tried where the crime had been committed. Now, from this it
clearly appears, that all Christian bishops were on a level with each other, or
[p. 582.] were equals as to power; and that no individual among them held the
office of supreme judge. What follows will make this still more evident. For
he says : (ii.) That to the bishops severally, portions of the flock of Christ were
committed, to be governed by each bishop according to his own discretion and
judgment only, (iii.) That no bishop had any judge, lord, or master, who could
Church Government. 123
call him to account for his acts, except Jesus Christ. Therefore, (iv.) that a
sentence passed by one bishop, cannot in any way be corrected or chanjred by
the others. And he adds (v.) lastly, that the aathority of the African bishops
was not inferior to that of tiie Roman prelate; and that those who would ac-
count them inferior to him (homines esse desperatos el perdiios) were men of a
desperate and abandoned character.
But to these testimonies, so clear and unequivocal, the friends of the Ro.
man pontiff oppose others, in which Cyprian himself seems to enervate what
he had so often said respecting the equality of all bishops, and to attribute to
the Romish prelate a sort of sovereignty and superior authority. For they ob-
serve, that in many passages Cyprian adirms : Jesum Christum ccclesiam suam
super Peirum originem unilatis et rationis fundasse. 1 will cite only one pas-
sage of this kind, which occurs in Epistle Ixxiii. (p. 131, c. 7): Nam Petrc
primum Dominus, super quem aedificavit ecclesiam, et unde unitatis originem
instituit et ostendit, potestatem istam dedit, ut id solveretur in coelis, quod ille
solvisset in terris. Et post resurrectionem quoque ad Apostolos loquitur, &c.
— Again, they urge, that on account of this dignity conferred on Peter ]>/
Christ, Cyprian (Epist. Iv. p. 86; al. Ep. lix. c. 19,) calls the Romish church:
Petri calhedram atque ecclesiam principalem, unde unilas sacerdotalis orta est. —
But they especially urge a passage from his treatise de Unilate Ecdesicc, (p. 195,
&.C., c. 4.) I will cite the pass;ige as it stands in the edition of Baluze; but it
is well known that the ancient copies disagree, and it is justly suspected, or ni-
ther proved, that zeal for the honor of the Romish church has induced some
learned men in time past to corrupt and enlarge the passage to suit their own
views and desires. Loquitur Dominus nd Petrum : Ego tibi dico, inquit, quia
tu cs Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam. - - Et iterum
eidem post resurrectionem suamdicit: Pasco oves meas. Super ilium unum
acdificat ecclesiam suam, et illi pascendas mandat oves suas. Et quamvis
Apostolis omnibus post resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuat, et
dicat : Sicut misit me Pater, et ego mitto vos, accipite Spiritura sanctum - -
tameu ut unitatem manifestaret, unitatis ejusdem originem ab uno inci[)ientem
sua auctoritate disposuit. Hoc erant utique et ceteri Apostoli, quod fait Petrus,
pari consortia pncditi et honoris et potestatis, sed exordium ex unitate proficisci-
tur, et primatus Petro datur, ut una Christi ecclesia et cathedra una monstre-
tur. - - Hanc ecclesioe unitatem qui non tenet, tenere se fidem credit? Qui ec-
clesiae renititur et resistit, qui cathedram Petri, super quem fundata [p. 583.]
est ecclesia, deserit, in ecclesia se esse confidit 1 From these extracts, distin-
guished men think it can be proved, that Cyprian regarded the Roman bishop
as presiding over the whole church, and represented him to be its common
judge and legislator ; and that this opinion was not held by Cyprian alone, but by
that age, and by the whole church. Those who, in reply, would cut the matter
short, may say: First., that Cyprian here states his own private opinion ; but
that there is no evidence to show, that the whole church thought as he did.
Others indeed, in times subsequent to Cyprian, said nearly the same thing-;
but they copied from him. For the influence of this bishop and martyr ainono
Christians was immense, and his opinions were regarded by many as divine
124 Century IILSectloti 23.
oracles. Yet Cyprian, us will not be denied, even by those who consider hinn
a very great and holy man, had imbibed many futile, vain and superstitious nc»
tions, and also cherished some remarkable errors; and hence we ought to en-
quire, whether his opinion accords wi;h the truth, or whether it should be
placed among the errors which he indulged. ]t' this dogma of his is to be es-
timated by the arguments and proofs which he adduces to support it, I fear it
cannot be ranked with tliose which no man of sound mind can rtject. — •
Secondly: Let it be considered, that Cyprian nowhere ascribes i\\ixi primacy of
which he speaks, to the Romish bishop, but to the Romish church. But the (ec-
clesia) church, as we have before sliowii, in Cypriaji's estimation, was above
or superior to the bishop, and consisted of the bishop and the clergy, and the
whole multitude of the (slanlium) the faithful, united. If then it were per-
fectly certain, as some learned men think it is, that Cyprian attributed to the
Romish church a primacy over all churches, his opinion cannot by any means be
transferred to the Romish bishop or pontiff; for his opinion will be precisely
this: The entire Christian population of Rome, together with their clergy and
bisliop, have power over the universal church. But how wide is this from the
opinion of those who think the Romish prehite sustains the office of Christ's
vicegerent !
But, laying aside these answers, although they are not to be despised, let us
come to close combat. The passages from Cyprian, cited on the side opposed
to the Pontifical claims, beyond all controversy, contain these principles: All
the bishops in the Christian church, have equal powers and prerogatives ; none
of them is under any other lord or judge, than Jesus Christ. And, the African
bishops are in no respect inferior to the bishop of Rome. But the passnges
cited on the side of the defenders of the Pontiff, contain, according to their
interpretation, the following doctrine: There is one bishop in the church, who
rules over all the rest, namely, the bishop of Rome; and, therefore, the African
bishops are inferior to the bishop of Rome, and ought to yield obedience to his
commands and decrees. These two opinions, as is manifest, contradict each
other. And, therefore, one of two things must be true; either Cyprian contra-
[p. 684.] diets himself, and brings forward directly opposite opinions ondiflerent
occasions ; or the passages on one of the sides must be so explained and under-
stood, as not to conflict, but to harmonize, with those on the other. Now let
the learned men, who are so solicitous about the dignity of the Romish church
and the supreme Pontitf, choose which side they please of this alternative. If
they choose the first, and admit that Cuprian has advanced contradictory opin-
ions, his authority is gone, and nothing can be proved or inferred from his
declarations. For what credit or authority is due to the man, who talks absurdly
and advocates opinions contradictory to each other? The latter part of the
alternative therefore must be tried, and the passages of one sort must be so
explained that they will accord or harmonise with the others. Now, by universal
consent, it is an established rule, tiiat light controls and illumines darkness;
that is, the obscure and ambiguous passages of a book, are to be elucidated and
explnined by the passages which are ck-ar and perspicuous; for it would be
preposterous to guage and measure the import of passages in which there was
Church Qovcrnmcnt. J 25
no obscurity or amlig-nity, by other passages wliieli are enigmatical and ailmit
of many explanations. Now if this rale is to bo applied in the pre>;ent ease,
as undoubtedly it should be, 1 think all will agree, that the passages of Cyprian
wjiieh speak of the unity of the church, its being founded on Peter, and tho
primacy of the Romish see. must be understood and explained in such a way
as not to conflict with the passages which affirm the parity and independence
of . •ill bishops; for the latter passages are clear and perspicuous, and will not
admit of various interpretations; but the former, relative to the unity, &c.
though of frequent occurrence, are not perspicuous, and will admit of diverse
exphmalions. According to the rules of correct reasoning, then, we cannot
suppose that Cyprian ascribed to the Romi>h church a sort of primacy of pow-
er, and a sort of chil unily of the universal church, a unity as to authority and
control, like that in states or republics, which arc governed by the will of one
man. For such a primacy and such a unily would subvert and destroy that
independence and equality of all the bishops, which he most strenuously main-
tains. On the contrary, in our judgment, it must have been, that the holy man
revolved in his mind such a unUij of the church, as would accord with his belief
of the equal rights of all bishops; and such a primacy of the Romish church, as
would comport with his decision, That the African bishops are not inferior to
the bishops of Rome, and that what they decree, cannot be reversed or altered,
either by the Roman bishop, or by all the other bishops ; which decision Cyprian
states in almost these very terms.
If any one should here ask for a correct explanation of this primacy and this
vnityaa maintained by Cyprian, I will readily answer, respecting the primacy.
Among all the Christian churches, Cyprian assigned the first place to the Romish
church ; for reasons, indeed, that are very weak and futile, yet such as satisfied
him. Whether this was his private opinion, or whether he expresses the gene-
ral views of the churi.'h, is another question, wdiich I shall leave untouched.
And yet I will not deny, that from the time the Christians embraced the idea
that the Christian church had in some sort the form of a body politic, the com-
mencement or origin of the combination was always traced to the [p. 585.]
Romish church. But, as to the unity which Cyprian attributed to the church,
and which he says originated from the Romish church, it is not so easy to an-
swer. And I suspect, that Cyprian himself would have felt himself embarrass-
ed, if he had been called upon to explain the nature of this unity in clear and
definite terms. For, on this subject, which he represents as being of \c.Yf
great importance, he yet speaks so vaguely and with so little uniformity, that
we can readily perceive, he had no very distinct conception of it in his own
mind. Those are exceedingly mlstikcn, who suppose that Cyprian, Tcrtullian,
and the other Clirlstian writers of that age, clearly understood whatever they
taught and inculcated with great earnestness : so far from it, they annex dilTorcnt
ideas to the same terms, as the subject and convenience seem to call for them ;
which is evidence, that their minds needed light, and that they entertained vague
and indeterminate notions. And yet this unily of the church, which Cyprian
go liighly extols, and the commencement of which he places in the Roir.ish
church, may be elucidated, in some sort, provided wc may, from a part of the
126 Century III.— Section 23.
tmj'/y, judge of the wliole. That unity, which ought to prevail in the universal
church, actually existed, and ought to exist, in the African church, over which
Cypri;in presided; as he tells us repeatedly, and it cannot be questioned.
Therefore, from the xm'xly in tiie African church, we may learn what kind of
unity Cyprian supposed to exist in the universal church. Now the African
bishops were upon a footing of perfect equality, as to power and jurisdiction:
each could sanction and establish what he deemed salutary and proper in his
own church, without being accountable for his acts to any one save Jesus
Christ. This we learn from the lips of Cijprian himself. And yet there was a
primacy in this same church, composed as it was of members all equal ; and that
primacy was in the church of Carthage. Moreover this primacy was necessary,
because unity was necessary in the African church. As, therefore, the sacerdo-
tal unity in the universal church, emanated from the church of Rome, so in the
African, it originated from the church of Carthage. That unity, with the pri-
macy on which it was based, was no obstacle to the parity, and equality in pow-
ers, of the bishops; and, on the other hand, the equality of the bishops was no
obstruction to the primacy and the unity. All that this unity required, was, that
all the bishops in the province of Africa, should concede the first place in point
of rank, to the bishop of Carthage : that on subjects of graver moment, they
should communicate with him, and ask his opinion ; but that they should follow
that opinion was not necessary; that they should go to the conventions or
councils held on great questions, at the summons of the primate; and, lastly?
that they should observe and follow out what was decided upon by common
consent in those councils. The manner of proceeding in these councils, we
learn distinctly from the Acta magni Concilii Carlhaginensis de baptizandis
haereticis, in the Works of Cyprian, p. 329. The primate, or head of the unity^
stated the business for which they were assembled, and gave his colleagues the
fullest liberty to express their opinions. His own opinion was given last of all.
If they disagreed, and the subject did not pertain to an essential point of reli-
[p. 5S6.] gion, each bishop was at liberty to follow his ov/n judgment; as the
oration of Cyprian, at the opening of that council, puts beyond all controversy.
Such a unity, and such a primacy m the universal church, Cyprian conceived of:
nor could he have conceived of any other, unless we would make the holy man
to be totally ignorant of his own sentiments and meaning. That is, he con-
ceived that all bishops ought to be so connected with the Romish church, as to
concede to it the same rank which Peter had among the Apostles, namely, the
first rank ; and so as to recur to it in doubtful cases of great moment, reserving
to themselves, however, the right of dissenting from its judgment, but still re-
maining in its communion if practicable. If he had any thing more than this in
his mind, and I will not atfirm positively that he had not, yet this, at least, is
evident, beyond all question, that he contemplated nothing of such a nature as
would invest the Romish prelate with any sovereignty or power over the
whole church.
Into this my opinion, I am confident all those will come, who shall atten-
tively consider what Cyprian has said respecting the unity of the church, and
the consequent primacy of the Romish church. The whole subject may be
Church Government. 127
comprelicndf?d in the following propositions: the truth or falsehood of which I
leave out of consideration. (I) Jesus Christ foundea his church on Peter.
Yet (II) He did not (rive to Peter any power over the other Apostles, or any
Bovcreigjity and primacy of jurisdiction over them. But (III) after IJis resur-
rection, he conferred the same power on all the Apostles. (IV,) On Peter,
however, he conferred this power first, and afterwards on the Apostles ; in
order to indicate that, uniLalis originem ah uno incipere debere. I clioosc to use
Cyp'ian's words rather than my own: for I must confess, I am unable to com-
prehend perfectly the force of his reasoning, or the meaning of his language.
(V.) Omnes igilur Aposloli, says Cyprian himself, id eranl, quod Pelrus fuil^
pari consorlio frccditi et honoris et poleslalis. We may here observe, that Cy-
prian does not leave to Peter even a primacy of honor or rank. (VI) At quo-
niam exordium ab unilale pro/iciscilu?; ideo j^rimalus (but of what sort ? Hav-
ing very clearly divested Peter of any primacy of power or honor, what primacy
could he leave to him ? If a man is not superior to others either in hoiwr or in
power, in what respects can he be superior to them ?) Peiro datus est, ul una
Christi ecclesia et cathedra una monstretur. Let others explain this : I will not
attempt it. (VII) The Romish bishop represents Peter ; the other bishops
represent the Apostles. (VIII) The respect, therefore, which the other Apos-
tles pnid to Peter, must the bishops show to the Romish prelate. (IX) But
Peter was not superior to the other Apostles, either in power or in honor :
therefore, also, all the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are not infe-
rior to Peter's successor, neither in power nor in honor. (X) Yet as Christ
made Peter the beginning and source of the church's unity, therefore the
other apostles, although perfectly his equals, owed him some honor as being
the source of the church's unity. And of course, the same thing is [p. 587.]
incumbent on the bishops, towards the successor of Peter. (XI) Consequent-
ly, the Romish church is the principal church, and from it flowed the sacerdotal
unity, namely, through Peter. (XTI) Therefore whoever separates himself
from the chair of Peter, tears himself from the church, which is one, and has
the source of its unity in the church of Rome. Yet, according to Cyprian's
views, those do not forsake the chair of Peter, who reject the decisions and de-
crees of the Ptomish bishop, and think differently from him in religious mat-
ters. For he himself had rejected the decision of Stephen respecting the bap-
tisms of heretics; and had rebuked, not only Stephen, but also Cornelius; and
yet he had not forsaken the chair of Peter, but remained still in the church's
unity. — Those who are able, may digest and comprehend all this : it is sutTi-
cient for my purpose, that Cyprian has so stated, and nearly the whole in the
very words now given. And how greatly these propositions differ from the
©pinion of those writers, who would make the Roman bishop the judge and
legislator of the universal church, must be obvious to every one.
(3) Yet I will not contend, if any persons are disposed to offer a more
honorable reason for the creation of those minor officers, and should say, per-
haps, that they were devised, in order that the candidates for holy orders might
go through a sort of preparation and trial of their fitness for the office of dea-
cons. To the office of a deacon, and especially in the African church, much
128 Century ITl—Scction 24.
dignity and honor were nttuched in this century. It might therefore be thought
hazardous, to receive aspirants to tiiis ofhce, without some previous trial of
tlieir fitness.
§ XXIV. The Preroa:atives and PoAvers of the Bishops much enlarg-
ed. Althougli tlic ancient and venerable form of clmrcli govern-
ment wliicli was sanctioned by tlie Apostles, might seem in gene-
ral to remain iindisturbed, yet it was gradually deflected more
and more from the ancient model, and, in the larger congregations
especiall}^, assumed the nature of a monarchical government.
For, as is common in human affairs, the bishops, who presided
over the congregations, arrogated to themselves much more dig-
nity and authority than they had before possessed, and the ancient
rights, not only of the people but also of the presbyters, they
first abridged, and then wholly subverted, directing all the
affairs of their communities according to their own pleasure.
And, lest this should appear to be done rashly and wrong-
full v, they devised and set forth new doctrines respecting the
church and the office and authority of bishops, which they seem
not to have fully understood themselves. In this business, Cy-
prian was an example to his brethren in this century ; for, being
himself a bishop, and, as cannot be denied, of an aspiring and
ambitious disposition, he contended most strenuously for the
[p. 588.] honor and the power of bishops, and, lest those pre-
rogatives, which he thought belonged to them, should in any
measure be wrested from them, he labored to establish them on
stable and immoveable foundations. And, as the influence of
this man, both while he lived and after his decease, was very re-
markable, and such that he might almost be called the common
master and guide, his inventions for establishing the dignity and
power of bishops, without any difficultj^ spread through the
church universal, and were received with implicit faith. (')
(1) Having some knowledge of the course of human aflfliirs, I am neither
greatly surprised, nor indignant, when I see the progress of episcopal power and
dignity in the ancient church, and contemplate the rights of the people first, and
then those of the presbyters, gradually extinguished. This might very easily oc-
cur: indeed, would almost necessarily occur. As men are naturally fond of ruling,
It is usua. f:?r tnose of eievated positions in society to endeavor to enlarge tho
boundaries of their authority and power • and commonly their efforts are suc-
cessful, and are aided by their colleagues or by combinations. For where
Prtrogatives of Bishops. I09
power or authority is equally distributed aiiion^ niany, disagreements and try-
ing contests of(en arise, which it is hardly possible to repress, without increas-
in^ the authority and prerogative of the head man of the company. To thin
cause many others m:iy be added ; such as zeal for certiiin objects, ambition,
poverty, the desire of wealth, &:e,, which stimulate the governors of the society,
even though naturally sluggish, slow in movement, and unaspiring, iiiid Ihua
elevate them and place them on a higher level. And those who, in these ways,
whether by accident, or by their own etforts, or by the folly of others, obtain
elevation, are very apt to claim the standing they hold as justly due to them ;
and to search for reasons and arguments to prove, that the authority they pos-
sess did not come to them fortuitously but in a legitimate manner. And hence
arise frequently obscure, futile, perple.\ing discussions, which yet are necessary
for those that would defend what they have obtained. To apply these remarks
to Christian affairs and the gradually increasing power of the bishops, is not
necessary ; the wise will readily see, that the same thing occurred among Chris-
tians, which is common in all human affairs; and that the primitive equality of
all, and the joint administration of sacred things, gradually disappeared, and
the rank of those entrusted with the chief management of the church's affairs,
was of course amplified. Councils having been every where introduced in the
preceding century, and a consociation of the churches in each province being
pstablished, it was a natural consequence, that the bishops, who alone delibe-
rated in these councils on all great questions, and framed their canons, should
appear more exalted characters than formerly, and that the prerogatives, not
only of the people, but also of the clergy, should suffer diminution. Yet a
semblance, and, indeed, not merely a semblance, but a real part of the ancient
liberty, and of the common participation in the government, remained : [p. 589.]
nor was any of the bishops of this century so bereft of modesty, as to dare
maintain, that he had a right to transact any great business, without consulting
the clergy and the people. Strong testimonies to this point, have already been
adduced from Cyprian. But this same Cyprian, who, when he has selfposses-
eion and is apprehensive of some danger, acknowledges the church to be supe-
rior to the bishop, and attributes much importance to the clergy and the peo-
ple, at other times so exalts the authority and dignity of bishops, as to subvert
and destroy all the prerogatives of the people and presbyters, and strenuously
maintain that the whole government of the church belongs to the bishop alone.
That is, this man of unquestionable excellence and worth, but too fond of pow-
er, follows prudence and yields to circumstances, when he admits associates in
the government of the church, but speaks out the sentiments of his heart when
he extols bishops and makes them sovereigns of their churches. And in this
direction he is so indulgent to his natural propensity, that no one before him,
not even IgnaliuSy the great patron of episcopal dignity, has, in my opinion,
spoken more magnificently of the sovereign power and authority of bishops, no
one has exalted their authority more highly.
In \\\(i first place, whenever occasion offers, he very carefully inculcates, that
the bishops do not obtain their office by the suffrages of the clergy and people,
but from the judgmeiit, testimony and good pleasure of God himself Ho
VOL. II. 10
130 Century ITI.—Secfton 24.
Bays, (Epist. lii. p. 68, al. Ep. Iv. c. 7.) : Facius est autem Cornelius episcopus
de Dei et Christi ejus jvdicio. This he repeats in numerous passages ; and it
is customary language with him : Deus sacerdotes suosfacit. (See Epist xlv.
p. 59., lii. p. 68, 69., Iv. p. 82., Ixv. p. 1 13., l.vi.x. p. 121.) I will cite but one no-
ttiLle passage, which may stand for them all. It is in his 69Lh epistle, p. 121. al.
Ep. Ixvi. c. 1., where he says to Florentius, one of his adversaiius : Aiiimadver-
to, id post Dexim judiciem, qui sacerdotes facit velle, non dicam de me (quantus
enim ego sum?) sed de Dei et Christi judicio,(i\\h\ch he received, according to
Cyprians views, when he was constituted a h'lshop, judicai'e. The man whom
he here reproves, had doubted whether Cyprian was the true and legitimate"
bishop of Carthage. Cyprian replies, that this is sacrilege, and an attack upon
God himself and his Son: for men do not make bishops, but God. He goes
on to .say : Hoc est in Dcum non credere, hoc est rebellem adversus Christum
et adversus evangelium ejus existere, ut tu cxistimes, sacerdotes Dei sine
conscientia ejus in ecclesia ordinari. How explicit 1 how positive! Now in
tliis declaration, which is always on his lips, Deus sacerdotes suosfacit, by the
words sacerdotes, he means the bishops. There are indeed some passages of hia
writings, in which he honors presbyters with the appellation, sacerdotes ; and
hence some learned men, Blondell, Salmasius, and others, have hastily con-
cluded that Cyprian regarded presbyters, as equal in official power and autho-
rity with bishops. But whenever he asserts that God creates the priests,
[p. 690.] he, beyond all controversy, uniformly means the bishops ; and some-
times he employs the very word episcopus instead of sacerdos. Neither did
this holy man suppose, Wi^i presbyters are made and created by God: this glory
he ascribed only to the bishops. — How Cyprian understood this assertion, of
which he is so fond, I do not know exactly : for lie never explains it, and
always uses that vague method of stating and defending his opinions, to which he
had been accustomed among the rhetoricians when he was hjmself a rhetorician,
before he became a Christian ; and, therefore, he defines nothing. But I sup-
pose him to mean, that whenever an assembly was collected to choose a new
bishop, God so illuminated and influenced those who had the right of voting,
that they could not create or nominate any other than the person to whom h«
had decreed the office. If this was not his meaning, I know not what wa.s.
That he could not intend that common and o-rdinary law of divine Providence,
which wisely controls all human affairs, is most certain, and will soon bo
shown. But his opinion, as thus explained, is attended by many difficulties.
For men were often created bishops, who were wholly unworthy and unfit for
the office ; and a wise man can never think that these persons were elected by
an extraordinary divine impulse or influence. Moreover, as is well known, the
votes of the electors were often divided, so that they could not agree upon any
one man. But these difficulties the good Cyprian neither perceived nor heeded.
Yet there is one thing ne must undoubtedly have believed, that to constitute a
divine decision in the election of a bishop, the harmonious or unanimous con-
sent of the whole church was not necessary, but only the suffrages of the ma-
jor part of it. For he himself was not elected by the voice of the whole Car-
thagenian church; five of the presbyters, and doubtless, a portion of the people,
Prerogatives of Bishops. 131
went with them, wislicd another man to be made bishop. His opinion, there-
fore, doubtless, was, that whenever the mnjor part of a church pronounced a
mar worthy of the episcopal office, God is to be supposed to have f-poki^n by
the church, and to have mnde him his ^iviest. Of the arguments on wliich lie
rests this opinion, I will mention only the one on which he places most reliance;
and the force of the others, which he himself deenis less conclusive, may be es-
timated from this. He assumes, that bishops are the successors of the apos-
tles. Epistle xlii. (p. 57. al. Ep. xlv. c. 4.): Laborare debemus, ut unitatem a
Domino et per Aposlolos nobis successeribus traditam obtinere curemus. This
was the common opinion of that age. On this assumption, he thus reasons :
But the Ajjostles were created and constituted by Christ himself; therefore
also, tlie successors of the Apostles, the bishops, arc created by God himself
and by Christ. I shall presently cite a fine passage relative to deacons, in which
this argument is most distinctly exhibited. Bat in this connexion, higher
chiims are raised by that argument, which he bases on the authority of Jesua
Christ. For Cyprian solemnly affirms, that by divine revelation, and [p. 691.]
from the mouth of Christ himself, he received the declaration Deus sacerdotes
suos facit. Thus he writes, (Epist. Ixix. p. 122. al. Ep. Ixvi. c. 10.): Memini
enirn, qiiidjam mihi sil ostensum, itytmo quid sii servo obsequenti et timenti de
dominica el diiina aucioritale prcccepLum : qui inter caetera qua; ostendere et
revelare dignatus est, et hoc addidit: Itaque, qui Chrislo nan credit sacerdotem
facienti, et postea credere incipiet sacerdotem vindicanti. Now, if what Cy-
prian would have us regard as true, were true, namely, that Christ himself had
dictated to him these denunciations against those who will not believe (Chris-
tum sacerdotes facere) thai bishops are appointed by Christ ; then it would be im-
pious, to doubt the validity of this principle !
I will now subjoin the opinions of Cyprian respecting the origin of the
functions o^ presbyters and deacons, as this will more fully and perfectly disclose
to us his entire doctrine respecting the office and prerogatives of bishops. It
is a pleasure to know the opinions of an age supposed to be distinguished
above others for sanctity and the cultivation of true religion, and to see from
what beginnings those dogmas originated, which are still held to be divine by
many, and are brought forward to interrupt the peace of the Christian com-
monwealth. Neither is this merely pleasant, but it is especially useful and ne-
cessary, since learned men of all parties have begun strangely to pervert and
involve in obscurity the opinions of the early ages. To whom the presbyters
owe their office and rank, how extensive their pov/er, and how far they are infe-
rior to bishops, Cyprian nowhere clearly states. And those who shall carefully
peruse his writings that have reached us, will perceive that, when treating of
firesbyters, he is very cautious not to offend persons of that order, which includ-
ed quite a number who were unfriendly to him. Yet this may be inferred,
from what he has said here and there in his cautious manner, that he placed
presbyters far below the bishops, and would not have applied to them his
favorite maxim or declaration, that God makes the priests. That is, he supposed
that the church, and not God, created presbyters. lie has not, I admit, said this
in so many words in any of his writings; but it is a necessary consequence
132 Century III.— Section 24.
from what he says respecting the judge to whom presbyters are rccountable.
A bishop lias no human judge, and is accountable to God only; because it is
God that makes the bishops; but the church, collectively, not merely tho
bishop, is the judge of presbyters, — and, doubtless, because the presbyters re-
ceive their ofMce from the church. But let us hear him, (Epist. xi. p. 19; al.
Ep. xvi. c. 4) : Interim temerarii inter vos (he is addressing his presbyters,)
Deuni limeant, scientes, quoniim si ultra in iisdem persevcraverint, utar ea ad-
monitione, qua me uti Dominus jubet, ut interim proliibe:intur ofterre, acturi et
apud nos et apud eonfessores ipsos et apud plebem iinhersam caussara suam
cum, Domino permittente, in sinum matris ecclcsioe recoUigi coeperimus. Cy-
prian here claims for himself" some power over the offending presbyters ; for
he threatens them, if they continue to offend, that he svill prohibere offerre ; that
[p. 592.] is, prohibit them from administering the Lord's supper. But he very
cautiously adds, that he assumes this authority by a divine command : qua me
uti Do minus jubel; thereby acknowledging, th;it ordinarily a bisliop could not
restrain a presbyter from performing his functions; but he signiiies, that this
power was given to him by God in a vision, such as he declares and aflirms
had been often made to him, as his writings show. But from the trial of their
offence and their judicial sentence, he wholly separates himself; and decides,
that the matter must go before an assembly of the whole church. Because, it
would seem, that to the church which made them presbyters, it belonged to
judge of the magnitude of their offence. Neither had God, although declaring
many things and committing many things to him in visions, or believed to do
so, signified his pleasure to have this prerogative of the church abolished. —
Concerning Deacons, he speaks more distinctly. For he very clearly states,
that they are constituted neither by God nor by the church, but by the bishop.
And he thence infers, that if they violate their duty, tiie bishop alone can pu-
nish them, without consulting the church. One Rogatianus, a bishop, had
been very ill treated by his deacon; but remembering the ancient prerogativet
of the church, he would not himself avenge the injury he had received, bul
stated his grievance to Cyprian and to the church of Carthage, undoubtedly
asking their counsel. Cyprian replied, (Epist. Ixv. p. 114; al. Ep. iii. c. 1) :
Tu quidem honorifiee fecisti, ut malles de eo nobis conqueri, cum pro episcopa-
ius vigore et cathedrae aucloritate haberes potestaiem, qua posses de illo slatim
vindicari, certus quod collegoe tui omnes gratum haberemus quodcunque circa
diaconum tuum contumeliosum sacerdotal! potcstate fecisscs. This decision is
followed by a long and most invidious descant on the reverence and honor due
to bishops, and the punishments which those merit who treat bishops with in-
dignity ; which, I could wish, had been written by some other person than Cy-
p-ian the martyr ; for, in truth, it is quite futile, and unworthy of so great a man.
He first shows, from the law of Moses, (Deut. xvii. 12, 13,) that God decreed
capital punishment against the despisers of the Jewish priests, who, he thinks,
did not differ from the Christian priests ; and then he mentions Corah, Dathan,
and Abiram, with their friends and associates, who suffered terrible punishment
at the hands of divine justice for their impiety. His own words are : Ut proba-
reiuVi sacerdoies Dei ab eo, qui sacerdoies facii (in speaking of bishops he could
Prerogatives of Bishops. 133
not omit liis favorite maxim: Dens sacerdotes facU.) vindicari. Other argu-
ments of similar strenglli then ibllow, iVom the Old Testament. Lastly, ho
gravely asserts, that Jesus Christ liimself has taught us by his example, that
bishops are to be treated with the highest respect; for Ciirist said to the leper
(Mntth. viii. 4,) " Go and show thyself to the 'priest ;" and when, at his trial, he
was smitten on the cheek, (John, xviii. 22, 23,) he uttered nothing reproachful
against the Jewish high priest, (ibid. e. 2) : Qnas omnia ab eo idco facta sunt
humiliter atque patientcr, ut nos humilitatis ac patieiitia? haberemus [p. 593.]
exemplum. Ducuit cnini sacerdotes veros legitime et ylene honoraria dum circa
falsos sacerdotes ipse talis exstitit. But all these arguments, if indeed they
prove anything, only prove that great respect is due to bishops, and that those
who despise or revile them should be punished very severely ; and not that a
bishop is the proper judge of tiie deacons, and may punish them if they resist him.
And therefi)re he now proceeds to establish this prerogative as belonging to
bishops. His reasoning is this, (ibid. c. 3.) Because the bishop makes a deacon^
he says: Meminisse autem Diaconi debent, quouiam Apostolos, id est, episco-
pos et prapositos Doininus elegit diaconos autem post ascensum Domini in,
coelos Apostoli sibiconstitusrant episcopatus sui et ecclesige ministros. Quod si
nos aliquid audere contra Deum possumus, qui episcopos facit, possunt et con-
tra nos audere diaconi, a quibus fiunt. Much is wrapt up in these few words :
For, firsts he shows why we must believe his darling principle, that God makes
the bishops. Christ made the Apostles; but the bishops have succeeded to the
place of the Apostles; therefore, not men, but God and Christ make the
bishops. Secondly, he shows that to l»ishops belongs the power of making dea-
cons, by this argument: The Apostles appointed the first deacons; but the
bishops have the same prerogatives as the Apostles, for they are their succes-
sors; therefore deacons derive their office from the bishops, or, the bishops
make the deacons. This reasoning may surprise those who recollect that ac-
cording to the Acts of the Apostles, it was the church, or people, acting accord-
ing to a suggestion of the Apostles, and not the Apostles themselves, that first
of all constituted deacons. But either this fact did not occur to Cyprian while
writing with excited feelings, or he deemed it expedient not to notice it. Ac-
cording to Cyprian, then, inasmuch as the bishops make deacons, it must be
clear also, that they have the right to coerce and punish offending deacons ; as
he attempted to show to his fellow bishop Rogatianus. Lastly, arguing still
from his assumptions, which he takes for facts, he shows that deacons must ne-
ver oppose a bishop. For, bishops must never oppose God, by whom they
were constituted; and therefore deacons must never oppose the bishoi)s, by
whom they were constituted. Admirable reasoning, truly! But we should re-
collect that Cyprian was a rhetorician. — Having settled all these points, as ho
supposed, by sound reasoning, undoubtedly, (for I am unwilling to believe
that he acted in sincerity,) he gives the following as his deliberate opinion,
(ibid. c. 3) : Ideo oportet diaconum prseposito suo plena humilitate satisfacere.
- - Quod si ultra te provocavcrit, fungeris circa cum potcstate honoris tni, ut
eum vel doponas vel abstineas. And still more liberal, he assigns to Rogatia-
nus authority also over the associates and friends of the deacon : Et quoniam
134 Century III. — Section 24.
scripsisti, quendam cum eodem diacono tuo se miscuisse-et .^;uperbia2 ejus atque
audacia3 paiticipcm esse, liunc quoquc et si qui aiii tales extiterint et contra fcu-
[p. 594.] cerdotem Dei (so he commonly desi<^nates a bishop,) feceriut, vel
coercere potes vel abstiiiere. But, may the manes of St. Cyprian forgive me !
In this, as in other things, he abandoned and changed the ancient law of the
church, through his excessive anxiety to extend the prerogatives of bishops.
By the ancient law, the bishop could neitlier make deacons nor deprive ihem of
tiieir othce, at his pleasure; but to the whole multitude, or the church, per-
tained both. And this, strange to tell, he himself confesses and maintains on
another occasion and in another place. For, being of a fervid temperament,
he at times forgets in the ardor of debate, what he had elseu here inculcated.
In his 68th Epistle, (p. 118; al. Ep. Ixvii, c. 4,) after maintaining the rights of
the people in the creation of bishops, and asserting that the ordinalion of a bishop
is legilimale and right only ^ quae omnium suffragio eijudiciofuerii examinata, he
immediately adds, that he would have the same rule applied to deacons ; and he
denies that the Apostles alone constituted the deacons : Nee hoc in episcoporum
tantum et sacerdotum, sed el in diaconorum ordinaLumibus observasse Aposto-
los animadvertimus, de quo et ipso in Aclis eorum scriptuin est: Et convoca-
runt, inquit, illi duodecim totam plebem discipulorum. — Quod utique idcirco
tam diligenter et caute convocata plebe tota gerebatur, ne quis ad altaris minis-
terium vel ad sacerdotalem locum indlgnus obreperet. Now, therefore, it will
be manifest, how Cyprian makes bishops, presbyters, and deacons to differ from
each other. God makes the priests or bishops ; the church makes the presby-
ters; and the bi-hop makes the deacons. And theicfore, God only is the judge
of the bishops; the church the judge of presbyters; and the bishop the judge
of deacons.
On this, his darling maxim, that God makes the priests or bishops, which he
deduces from the parity of bishops witii the Apostles, Cyprian erects a large su-
perstructure of prerogatives and honors, which, in his judgment, bishops ought
to enjoy. For his first inference from it is, that all the pi'crogatives which be-
longed to the Apostles whom Clirist himself created, belong also to the bishops
their successors. Secondly, he infers from it, that no one should judge of the
actions of bishops but God only, by whom they were made. And hence he is
often very angry with those who call in question the things done by bishops.
He writes to Florentius, (Epist. Ixix. p. 121 ; al. Ep. Ixvi. c. 1) : Animadverto
te - - in mores nostros diligenter inquirere, et post Deum judicem, qui sa-
cerdotes facit, te velle - - de Dei et Christi judicio judlcare. Hoc est in
Deum non credere. - - Nam credere quod indigni sint qui ordinantur, quid aliud
est, quam credere, quod non a Deo nee per Deum sacerdotes ejus in cctlesia
constituantur ? And, after much of the same import, he adds, (c. 4, 5) : Dolena
ha3C profero, cum te judicem Dei constituas et Christi, qui dicit ad Aj)(>stolos ac
per hoe ad omnes pra3positos, qui Apostolis vicaria ordinatione succedunt; qui
audit vos, me audit: et qui me audit, eum audit, qui me misit. Inde enim
[p. 595.] schismata et haereses oborlas sunt et oriuntur, duni episcopus, qui
unus est et eeclesiae prajest, superba quorundam praesumtione contemnitur,
et homo dignalione Dei honoratus indignus hominibus judicatur. Quis enim
Prerogatives of Bishops. I35
hic est superbire tunjor, qua; nrroofantia .'uiimi, qiire mentis inflatio, ad coirnUio-
nem siiam priepositos et saocnlotes vocaro ? What force tliero is in all this,
ami whithoi- it tentls, is sufficiently manifest! But he goes even farther than
tiiis, and maintains, that the whole church is comprised in the bisliop: whence
it follows, that no person is a member of the church unless he is obedient to
the bishop, or in subjection to him. But the church is a unity ; and in the es-
tablishment of this doctrine Cyprinn spent much labor and pains ; and his trea-
tise de unilate ecclesicc is still extant. Of course all bishops also, as they properly
constitute the church, must form a unity of some sort, and be held together by
an indissoluble bond. And if this be so, then we must believe, that a person
who separates himself from one bishop, separates himself from all, and at the
same time from tiie whole ehuix;h ; and he excludes himself from heaven,
as well as from the church. This Cyprian maintains in his 69th Epistle,
(p. 123; al. Ep. Ixvi. c. 8.) He first gives his definition of the church: Ec-
clesia est plebs sacerdoti adunata el pasiori suo grex adhccrens. Assuming this, his
JirU inference is: Unde scire debes episcopum in ecclesia esse, et ecclesiayn in epis-
copo, el si qids cum episcopo non sil, in ecclesia nan esse. Very true, provided
the definition is faultless ! And there are other instances, from which we may
learn that Cyprian well understood the great power there is in definitions, and
that any thing may be proved, if a neat and suitable definition can be devised.
But he supposes some one m:iy come forward with this objection : I dissent in-
deed from you, and from some other bishops ; but I fully accord with another,
or several other bishops: if then the man is in the church who adheres to his
own bishop, I am in the church, for I adhere to the pastor whom I have chosen.
By no means, says Cyprian : Whoever dissents from me, dissents from all : he
who forsakes the bishop under whom he lives, forsakes them all, (Ibid. e. 8) :
Et frustra sibi blandiri eos, qui pacem cum sacerdolibus Dei (that is, with the
bishops in whose congregations they live,) non habentes, obrepuni, et latenler
apud quosdam (other bishops,) communicare se credunt, quando ecclesia, qua:
calholica et una est (add : et in episcopis posi/a,) scissa non sil neque diiisa, sed
sit utique cnnnexa et cohccrenlium sibi invicem sacerdoium glul.ino copulata. Sub-
servient to the support and confirmation of this doctrine, is that whole topic, so
often and so carefully discussed by Cyprian, respecting the vnily of the church;
a topic broached by others long before him, and in Africn, by Tertullian in par-
ticular, but never investigated, elucidated, and made as intelligible as its impor-
tance required. In explaining and illustrating this topic, the holy man is so
little consistent with himself, so unsettled and indeterminate in his views, that
we readily perceive he indistinctly grasped his subject, and his greatest [p. .5*J6.]
admirers will not deny that he made some mistakes. — But magniticent as these
views were, and extravagantly as they honored episcopacy, yet they did not
satisfy Cyprian : to make the dignity of Bisho])s completely inviolable, he deemed
it nessessary to add, that they represent Christ himself, and that they not only
guide and rule us as his vicegerents, but also sit in judgment upon us. And
this, he thinks, is easily inferred from the divine origin of bishops. Now ii" the
bishops represent the person of Christ among men, if they act and decide in his
Btcad, then it is manifest, that to resist and oppose them, or to refuse to obey
130 Century III. —Section 24.
their mandates, would be to offend the divine miijesty and despise Christ him-
self. And the excellent Cyprian would have us believe it is really so. Thia
sentiment he nowhere maintains with more vehemence ard eloquence than in
his 55th Epistle, ad Cornelium, (p. 81, 82, &e. al. Ep. lix. c. 2. 7;) an Epistle,
which, I confess, I never read without some pleasure and admiration. The
Carthagenian bishop writes to the bishop of Rome, who ought to know, the
best of all men, what were the powers and what the prerogatives and honors
belonging to Christian bishops, he being himself, as Cyprian admitted, the
(frinceps) chief of nU the bishops. And yet the Carthagenian prelate instructs the
Roman, just as a master would one of his least pupils, very minutely, rc.'^pccting
the powers and the dignity of bishops; and, pretty clearly taxes him with igno-
rance on this most important subject. For Cornelius, the good bishop of Rome,
was more modest than Cyprian wished him to be, and seemed not fully to un-
derstand the immense amplitude and elevation of his prelacy : he conceded
much to his clergy: and miicii to the people: and moreover sullered himself to
be terrified by the threats of Cyprian's adversaries wlio had gone to Rome.
And therefore Cyprian thus addresses him, near tlie commencement of the
Epistle, (c. 2.): Quod si ita res est, frater carissime, ut nequissimorum timeatur
audacia, - - actum est de episcopatus vigore, et de ecclesise gubernandse sublimi
€ic divina potestaie^ nee Christiani ultra aut durare, aut esse jam possumus. This
rebuke he protracts to a considerable length, and then adds a long oration, in
which he informs Cornelius, by citing many passages of holy Scripture, (which
no competent judge will deem to be in point,) that a bishop is a great man, and
has no superior among mortals, except Jesus Christ. This instrnction took
eifect on Cornelius^ and on all his successors; among whom it is well known,
not one has been so ignorant of his own authority and importance as to need
80 stern a monitor and instructor. Let us see how Cyprian closes that oration,
(Ibid. c. 7.): cum haec tanta et talia et multa alia exempla pra3cedant, quibus
eacerdotalis auctoritas et potestas de divina dignatione firmatur, quales putas
cos, qui sacerdotum hostes, et contra ecclesiam eatliolicam rebelles nt-c pnemo-
[p. 597.] nentis Domini communicatione, nee futuri judicii ultione terrentur ? Ne-
que enim aliunde hroreses abortoe sunt, aut nata sunt schismata, quam inde, quod
sacerdoti Dei non obtemperatur, nee unus in ecclesia ad lempus sacerdoSyCl ad
tempus judex vice Chrisli cogilaLur ; cui si secundum magisieria divina obleynpe'
raret fralerniLas unixersa, nemo adcersum sacerdotum colle-^ium moveret. 'J'ho
rest I omit. Here then we have the author of that proud title, Vicar of Jesus
Christ, which the Roman Pontiffs at this day claim as exclusively theirs. The
author of it was not born at Rome : but an African bishop first taught the Ro-
man prelate, that all bishops ought to assume it. And it was commonly adopted,
from tins time onwnrd, by all bishops; as h:is been proved by Joseph Bingham
in his Origines Ecclesiasticce, (vol. i. p. 81, 82. Lib. ii. c. ii. ^ 10.) I will add,
that down to the ni7ilh century, it was customary to speak of all bishops as the
Vicars of Christ: for Servatus Lupus, a writer of that century, (or rather, all
the bishops in the part of Gaul denominated Senonia, in whose name Servatus
wrote,) honored Aeneas, the bishop of Paris, with this title. (Epist. xcix. p.
149. ed. Baluze.) : Consolatloncm recipimus, dum vos sub pastore bono (Christo)
Morals of the Clenjy. 137
ngentes, qui summc bonus est. vicarium ejus (boiu pastoris) scilicet xisibilem.
niinistesiique noslri consortem, absque dilatione expetere - - cognovimus. But
after this period, the Roman Pontiffs were accustomed to appropriate Uiis, a8
well as the other honorary titles of the ancient bishops, exclusively to them-
selves. In short, whatever prerogatives the greatest of the Roman Ponlils at
this day arrogate to themselves, with perhaps the single exception of infallibility,
were all asi-ribed by Cyprian to the bishops universally; which fact shows, how
greatly his views differed from the modern, respecting the nature and govern-
ment of the church. And as he thought, so he acted. For whoever candidly
surveys and considers those contests which distracted his life, will perceive, that
most of them originated from his zeal for innovations on the ancient rights of
the Carthagenian church, and amplifying tlie powers and the dignity of the
bishop. Most of the business he managed according to his own pleasure and
volition, regardless of the consent or opinions of either presbyters, or deacons,
or the people. And hence frequently the presbyters, the deacons, or a portion
of the people, resisted his wishes, and complained that they were injured. But
he rose above them all, being a vigorous and fearless man ; and his doctrines
respecting the unity of the church and the authority of bishops, were propagated
by means of his Epistles, over the whole church. It is amazing to see, what
influence he acquired throughout the Christian world, after his magnanimoua
martyrdom for Christ, so that he was accounted almost the common teacher
and oracle of all. Those who would look into this subject, may read the 18th
Oration of Gregory Nazianzen, in commemoration of him. [p. 598.]
§ XXV. The Morals of the Clergy. Many complaints occnr hero
and there in the writers of this century, of the corrupt morals
of the clergy ; and these complaints cannot be supposed to bd
vain and groundless : and yet splendid examples of primitive
integrity and sanctity are frequently to be seen, both among the
bishops and among the presbyters and deacons ; examples well
adapted to impress the human mind, and to exhibit the power
of religion. Bad men were therefore commingled with the good ;
and those deserve not our confidence, who, as many in ftxct do,
would measure the happiness of this age by the examples of
either of these descriptions.(') I will therefore only observe, that
the growing errors among Christians, respecting the nature of
true piety, had such influence on not a few of the ministers of
religion, that by striving to obtain a reputation for sanctity, they
brought upon themselves disgrace and a suspicion of criminal
conduct. A striking example of this is afforded by those in
Africa, and perhaps also in other provinces of the East, avIio
received into their houses females who had vowed perpetual
cliastity, and even made them partakers of their bed, at the same
138 Century III.— Section 25.
time most solemnly protesting that nothing occurred incompati-
ble with modesty. For, extravagant ideas of the sanctity of
celibac}'' having grown np, and consequently those among the
priests being regarded as most venerable, and the most acceptable
before God, who had no wives, many wished so to consult their
reputation, as still to retain a measure of social comforts and en-
joyments. The bishops, by their exhortations and precepts, re-
sisted this custom, which was very offensive to the people: but,
so very powerful is every thing which favors our natural instincts,
that this practice could not be wholly exterminated, either in this
century or the next.C*)
(1) Complaints respecting the vices of the clergy in this century, arc made
by nearly all the Greek and Latin fathers, who attempt to assign the causes of
the calamities, with which the Christians of this century often had to eontlict.
See Origen's Commentatory on Matthew, (P. I. 0pp. edit. Hnet. p. 420, 441,
442.) Cyprian, m many of his Epistles, Eusehius, (Hist. Eccles. L. viii. c. 1.)
and others. Those of the present day, who read tiiese complaints, which often
resemble the declamations of rhetoricians, are apt to conclude that almost nothing
of the primitive piety of the church remained in this age. But it is not ditHeuIt
to collect from the same writers, many testimonies to the innocence and the
pure morals of the pastors and ministers of the churches: and therefore otliers
are induced by these high commendations, to assert, that, with perhaps a few
[p. 599.J exceptions, all the clergy were free from every vice. And from such
wide sweeping general commendations, and accusations, dictated for the most
part, and colored by impassioned feelings, in my opinion, little or nothing can
be inferred with certainty. And the judgment which Origen passed, appears
to me more probable: (Contra Celsum, L. iii. p. 129, cd. Spencer.) He admits
that there were some among the Christian bishops and teachers, who did
not do their duty as they ought; but, he adds, it is nevertheless certain that
if the Christian prefects and senators, are compared with the pagan senators,
magistrates and judges, the latter will fall far behind the former, in probity,
virtue, and integrity. Such, I apprehend, was in general the fact. In many of
the (christian bishops and teachers, there were various things reprehensible and
defective, if we judge them by the strict rules of the divine law; and yet they
ap])eared to be all excellent men, and patterns of virtue, if compared with those
magistrates of cities and countries, who were opposed to Christianily ; among
whom examples of goodness and justice were very rare. And the same will
hold true of the Christian common people.
(2) This scandalous practice of some Christian priests, in admitting females
to be inmates of their dwellings, is professedly treated of by Henry Dodwellj
in his DisscTtaliones Cijprianicx, (Diss, iii.) and by Ludov. Anton. Muraiori, in
his Disquisilio de Synisactis el Agapetis, (thus these females were designated.)
The Disquis. is to be found in his Anecdota Grccca, (p. 218.) The former lets
Morals of the Clergy. 139
his prejudices carry liirn too far; and the latter is quite too favorable to the
views of the Romish church respecting the sanctity of celibacy. This shameful
custom, doubtless, existed before the third century; and we meet some slight
traces of it in Ifermas, in Tertullian, and perhaps in otiiers. But a clear and
distinct mention of it, is made by no one before Cyprian, who severely inveighs
ag:iinst it in several of his epistles. But this and other questions relating to
this subject, I pass over, as not pertinent to my present object; and I will con-
fine myself to one f ict, which learned men have cither entirely omitted, or have
treated only with much obscurity. All the priests did not assume this liberty
of taking women into their houses and to their beds, but only those who had
voluntarily renounced the right to marry, which all priests possessed in this
century, or had made a solemn vow of per[ietual chastity, for the sake of at-
t4iining to higher sanctity. For this custom of binding themselves by such
vows was very common in those times. Neither were all females taken in such
cohabitation, but only virgins: nor indeed all virgins, but those only, who had
professed never to marry, but to preserve their bodies entirely consecrated to
God, Tliose who mark these circumstances, will perceive the true nature
and character of this most vile and perilous practice. These cohabitations, in
fiict, were a sort of sacred or divine marriages between persons bound, on both
sides, by vows of perpetual ciiastity ; marriages, I say, not of their bodies, but
of their souls. For those early theologians, whose views most of the [p. 600.]
moderns imperfectly understand, supposed that there was both an external mar-
riage of bodies and also an internal marriage of souls; and that, as bodies are
often united, while the souls are very discordant, so also, they supposed, souls
might be united in marriage or become associated, without any consociation or
marriage of the bodies. It is well known, that many mnrried Christians in
those days, by mutual consent, made vows of continence, and yet wished to be
regarded as remaining married persons, and they were so regarded. S.iya
Terlullian (ad Uxorera L. i. c. 6. p. 185.) : Quot sunt, qui consensu pari inter
Be matrimonii debitum tollunt? voluntarii spadones pro cupiditate regni coslestis.
Quod si saho matrimonio abstinentia toleratur, qunnto magis adempto? In
these married persons, the external marriage or that of their bodies was an-
nulled, but the interior and more holy- marriage of their souls, not only con-
tinued, but was even strengthened. Now the radical principle of the cohabita-
tions which we are considering, was the same with that just described; and the
forrner differed from the latter merely in this, that the one had voluntarily taken
vows of ahslinence from a marriage of bodies, and the other had voluntarily
taken vows for the dissolution of such marriage.
These observations, will, I think, enable us to understand why the nninarried
cohabitants supposed their mode of lilc not liable to the reproaches cast upon
it, and tlierefure cornjjlained of the injustice of the suspicions heaped upon them.
Those married Christians, who voluntarily subjected themselves to the law of
continence, could still live together, and sleep together, and no one took offence
at it, or suspected them of secretly violating the rule of chastity whirh they
imposed on themselves. On the contrary, most people considered the force <>f
religious vows to be so great, that their voluntary vow was sufliciciit to keep
140 Century IIL—Sectlon 2G.
them from any improper intercourse. And therefore, as our unmarried coliabi-
tants were living together on the same principle, they supposed the same things
to be hiwfnl for them ; and as both equ.illy made solemn vows of chastity, so
all, they supposed ought to conclude, that the force oUheir vow would make
it impossible for them to violate the law of chastity. This at least we regard
as certnin, that many of the tenets and practices of the early Christians, which
displease us, would appear more tolerable, and would assume a more becoming
aspect, if they were tried by the opinions and customs of those times.
§ XXYI. Christian Writers of this Century. Amoilg tllOSC ^vllO
superintended and managed tlic affairs of the cliurcli, there were
doubtless more learned and well-informed men than in the pre-
vious centuries. For many from the different sects of philoso-
phers, especially from the Platonists, and also from among the rhe-
toricians, embraced Christianity ; and they were honored for their
[p. 601.] erudition and talents by being made bishops and presby-
ters. The Christians likewise perceived, that their cause needed
the support of learning and human science, and therefore took
pains to have the youth of the church instructed in sound learn-
ing and philosophy. And yet it is well attested, and not to be
denied, that many illiterate and ignorant men presided over the
churches, in numerous places, and that human learning was not
yet considered as an indispensable qualification of a good bishop
and teacher. For, not to mention the paucity of schools in which
candidates for the sacred office might be educated, and the conse-
quent scarcity of the learned men, the opinion was too deepl}^ fix-
ed in many minds to be at all eradicated, that learning and phi-
losophy were prejudicial rather than advantageous to piety, and
should therefore be excluded from the church. (') And hence,
only a few Christians in this age obtained permanent notoriety,
by their Avritings. Among those who wrote in Greek, the most
eminent was Origen^ who presided in the school of Alexandria,
a man of indefatigable industry, and equalled by few in learning
and genius, but of whose Avorks the greatest and best part arc
lost, and a part are preserved only in Latin. Inferior to him in
fame and reputation, but not, I think, in solid worth and genius,
were Julius Africanus, Dionysius of Alexandria, and Hippolytus^
most of whose writings have unfortunately not been preserved.
Eminent among the discii)les of Origen, was Gregory^ bishop of
Neocoesaria, more famous for the numerous miracles said to have
been wrought by him, and from wliich he obtained the surname
Christian Writers. 141
of Thainnnturgv.s, than for liis writings.(')— Among the Latins,
only three deserve our notiec : Cyprian^ first a rhetorician, and
then bishop of Carthage, a man, like most Africans, ])ossessing
eloquence, but at the same time tumid, and more splendid in
his Avords and phrases than in his conceptions ; Minucius Fdix,
from whoso pen we have a neat and elegant dialogue, entitled
Odavias, in which he skilful!}^ recounts and nervously confutes
the calumnies then charged upon Christians ; und Aimohius^ an
African rhetorician, Avho strenuously defended the cause of Chris-
tianity against its opposers, and often with ingenuity, in hia
Libri septem contra Gentes: but he shows himself to be not well
acquainted with the religion which he dcfends.('')
(1) III the Apostolic Constitutions, falsely .iscribed to Clemens [p. 602.]
Ronnniis, there is a chnpter, (Lib. i. c. C, in the Patres Apostol. torn. 1. p.
204.) in whieh the reading of books on hnman learning is prohibited: and Co-
teller, m a note on the chapter, has collected ni;iny passages of a simil.-ir nature
from the early Christian writers. And it is well known, how much Origen
was disliked by many, on account of his attachment to science and philoso-
phy: and, while vindicating himself in an Epistle toEusebius, he can mention
only here and there an individual, who pursued a similar course.
(2) Those wishing to become acquainted with the Christian Greek writers
of this and of every age, will find all they can desire, in the Bihiiotheca Grctca
of Jo. Alb. Fabricius. The works of Origen explanatory of Scripture, wero
first published entire and correctly, and with valuable notes, by Peter Daniel
Huet: to which he added a very learned work entitled Origeniana, containing
elaborate discussions respecting the history and opinions of Origen ; Rouen,
1668, fob, and reprinted in Germany. Afterwards Bern, de Monlfaucon, a
very learned Benedictine, published what remains of Origen's Hexapla, in two
vols, fob, Paris, 1714. Lastly, Charles de la Rve, also a Benedictine monk,
nnd distinguished for talents and learning, undertook to publish all the works
of Origen which have escaped the ravages of time, from numerous manuscripts
collected with great care and labor, accompanied with notes, a life of the au-
thor, and many dissertations. He divided the work into Jive volumes, the last
of which was to contain Huet's Originiana, with notes, emendations, and addi-
tions, and also dissertations respecting Origen. The two first volumes were
published at Paris, 1733, fob The third appeared at Paris in 1740, after the
editors death, which occurred in 1739. There remains therefore the two last
volumes, the first of which the learned author is said to have left nearly com-
plete.— Of the writings of Julius Africanus and Dionysiiis Alexandrianus, only
a few fragments are extant. — The reputation of Ilippnhjtus is great ; but his
history is involved in obscurity, because several persons of this name became
famous among Christians. The most elaborate account of the man is given by
the Benedictine monks in the work they have commenced publishing, entitled
142 Ceyxtury III— Section 26.
Histoire Litternirc dc la Fnnco, tome i. p. 361. The meagre fragments that
remain of tliis great man, though many of them are of doubtful genuineness,
have been collected in two thin volumes, by Jo. Alb. Fabricius, designed, I
suppose, as a collection for others to improve. — The few remains of Gregory of
Neocnesarea, including his Panegyric on Origcn, his preceptor, which is the best
of his works, and a Greek biography of Gregory, were published by Gerh. Voss^
Mayence, 1G04, 4to. The industry ofVoss deserves commendation ; but Gregory
needs a more judicious and learned editor, who would inquire more sagnciously
and freely, than anyone has hitherto done, into the nature and certainty of
[p. 603.] those miracles, by which Gregory is said to have excelled all the
learned doctors of the church in all ages. Great suspicions of them have been
awakened, among others by Anthony Van Dale, in the preface to his work de
Oracnlis. These suspicions should be annihilated, if they can be ; and if they
can not, I wish to see them better elucidated and confirmed, so that the true
may be distinguished from the false. For it is of vast importance to Christian-
ity that hoary fables should be exploded, and no longer give nutriment to super-
stition : and it is equally important, that the attestations of divine power and
interposition, actually exhibited in the early ages, should be placed beyond all
doubt, so that they may sustain the majesty and dignity of our religion. Some
of the miracles of Gregory bear manifest marks of spuriousness; and yet, per-
haps, there vvas something true at the bottom of them, which the popular cre-
dulity, as usual, wrought upon, or rather perverted.
(3) Of the writings of Cyprian there are extant, first. Epistles, which shed
much light on the ecclesiastical usnges and the history of those times ; and,
secondly, various Tracts, in which he treats of practical duties, sometimes de-
voutly and eloquently, and sometimes with little solidity and correctness. All
his works were published, near the close of the last century, in England, by
John Fell, bishop of Chester, (Oxford, 1682, fob), and with great dexterity and
care ; so that this edition vvas deemed worth reprinting in Holland and Ger-
many. Afterwards Stephen Baluze, to whom other branches of divine and hu-
man learning are much indebted, spent many of the last years of his long life
in laboriously correcting and elucidating the works of Cyprian; and having left
his undertaking but partly accomplished, his associates, the Benedictine monks
of St. Maur, added some dissertations, and published the whole, Paris, 1726, fol.
But this edition lacks, not only the dissertaiiones Cyprianiccc of Henry Dod-
well, which are very erudite, though abounding in doubtful opinions and con-
jectures, but also the Annales Cijprianici of John Pearson ; so that it does not
supercede the use of Fell's edition. After these labors of correction, we have
the text of Cyprian sufTiciently correct ; and transcribers have committed fewer
blunders with this author than with others; but it may be justly questioned,
whether Cyprian has been adequately elucidated and explained. For he pre-
sents us with many passages, which no one can fully understand and compre-
hend, unless he is well acquainted with that antiquated theology which differed
so much from the theology of any modern sect; yet we find the expounders of
Cyprian ascribing modern views to him, because his words are still used by us
to express our sentiments. — Very different is the fact with Minucius Felix, whose
Philosophising Theologians. — Origen, 143
ideas arc sufficiently cloar and intelligible, but his lan^niago is sucli as to create
doubts whether we have hia text correct. And hence, although eminent [p. 604.]
men have labored intensely on the correction of his text, among whom the
most noted were John Z>ai2S, nn Englishman, and James Gronovivs, who lived
within our recollection ; yet much still remains to tax the ingenuity of critics
ond grammarians. — Of Arnobius, (who is eloquent, but often very obscure,
from the use of uncommon terms, and the vicious accumulation of figures ai-.d
verbal ornaments,) the best editor is Desiderius Heraldus : yet he is not ap-
preciated by the authors of the observations and emendations in the latest edi-
tion of Arnobius, Lcyden, 1651, 4to. The friends of ancient literature will
owe .1 debt of gratitude to the man who shall resolve to apply the aids of inge-
nuity and a knowledge of ancient authors to the elucidation of Arnobius, the
explanation of his numerous difficult passages, and the correction of his many
faults.
§ XXYII. Philosophisins: Theologians. Origen. The philoso-
phising teachers of Christianity frequently resorted to what they
regarded as the dictates of reason, in order to explain and eluci-
date those religious doctrines which appeared to lack precision
and clearness, so that the harmony of human and divine wisdom
might be manifest. The result was, that the ancient simplicity,
which received without comment whatever was divinely inculcat-
ed, became less esteemed, the subtilties of human device became
mixed up with the divine instructions, and contentions and dis-
agreements arose respecting the nature of certain mysteries. In
the western regions, indeed, this practice of commingling human
and divine views made slower progress ; and the Latin theolo-
gians of this century were still sufficiently cautious in their ex-
plications of the scriptural doctrines, except perhaps Arnobius,
who began to write when but slightly acquainted with the prin-
ciples of religion, and treated them rhetorically rather than phi-
losophically. But among the theologians of Asia and Africa,
we more frequently meet with such as ventured to explore the
internal nature and the recondite grounds of scriptural doctrines,
either for the gratification of curiosity, or for the purpose of confut-
ing heretics and the opposers of Christianity. Among these the
Alexandrian doctors of Egypt were preeminent, they having, in
the preceding century, conceded to philosophy some authority
in matters of religion. At the head of these doctors stood Ori-
gcn^ the master of the school at Alexandria, a man distinguished
for genius, learning, virtue and usefulness. In his [p. 605.]
Libi-i de jprmcipm, still extant in a Latin translation, and in hia
144 Century III.— Section 27.
Stromata, wliich are lost, lie attempted formally to demonstrate
the harmony between philosophy and Christianity ; and he en-
deavored to reconcile with tlie principles of reason whatever ap-
peared strange and incredible in the Christian faith. And yet
Origen himself, — and it greatly diminishes his fault, — treated
this slippery and hazardous business Avith becoming prudence
and modesty, and he repeatedly stated, that he timidly proposed
conjectures, rather than inculcated and decided positively. But
his disciples, who were very numerous, followed the speculations
of their teacher, too confidentl}-, and not unfrequently they put
forth as certainties, what he had only stated as probabilities, and
which he requested wise men to examine more profoundly. (*)
(1) Of Origen, — than whom, the church down to the times of Constantine,
contained no greater man, — of his life, hia virtues and iiis faults, his o})inion3
nnd his errors, enough has been debated and written by Christians, during
almost fourteen centuries, to fill out a volume of no small size. Great and
excellent men, in former times, stood forth as his patrons and advocates; and
they continue to do so still. But men equally great and excellent, to this day,
have been h\H adversaries. And in fact, both to assail and to defend him, and
with arguments of great apparent force, would not be difficult for an ingenious
man, wlio would assume either office. Jn the life, labors, and opinions of Origen,
there are many things of such excellence and worth, as must extort admiration
from the most reluctant : and If a person regard these things only, he may
easily persuade himself, that vyhatever appeared to conflict with such great ex-
cellencies must have been only slight faults, or perhaps were the fabrications
and slanders of enemies, or the false constructions put upon allowable, or even
upon correct opinions. On the other hand, there are among his opinions so
many strangely divergent not only from our belief but also from the plainest
dictates of reason, so many that are ridiculous and absurd, especially when view-
ed separately and apart from that system of doctrine to which he was attached,
that they might excite our disgust, and induce the belief that this well meaning
man was lacking In common sense : and if a person should fix his attention
upon these things exclusively, he might easily be led to believe, that whatever
appears great or illustrious in Origen may have arisen from slight or accidental
causes, and be ascribable to the instincts of nature, or to his copying after
others, rather than to the deliberate decisions of his own mind. And hence, al-
though the long controversies respecting Origen, like most other controversies
among men, arose in no small degree from passion and prejudice, yet the man
[p. 606.] himself, who was so many times both attacked and defended, was, pecu-
liarly, in utrmnque partem disputahilis, us Seneca expresses it; for he was a
compound of contrarities, wise and unwise, acute and stupid, judicious and in-
judicious, the enemy of superstition and its patron, a strenuous defender of
Christianity and its corrupter, energetic and irresolute, one to whom the Bible
owes much, and from whom it has suffered much. Of the great number of facts in
Orujcn. 145
regard lo Origcn, which have long been before the public, or which \wv^\\i have
been brought forward, (for man)- have never been noticed.) I shall, for the ^sako
of brevity, adduce only such as I deem necessary to account for the great
changes he produced in the state of the church. For. although his bishop
expelled him from the chuix;h, and he was afterwards assailed hy numerous
public and private condemnations, yet not only were many of iiis worst opinion!;
Buffi-red to go unrebukcd, but his practice of explaining religions truths by
means of philosophy, and of turning the inspired books into allegories, was very
generally approved and adopted among Christians. Some institutions, like-
wise, which originated from his doctrines, took deep root and were at length
regarded as sacred. It need not be stated that at all times there have been
great men, and men of distinguished piety, who have esteemed Origen very
highly, extolled his wrilings, and recommended their j)crusal by theologians,
and have maintained that all the deci>ions against Origeti were unjust. It
would therefore be no mistake to say, that, as Constantine the Great imparted
a new form to the civil state, so this Egyptian imparted a new form to the
theology of Christians.
Among the wiiters concerning Origen, his opinions, and the contests they
occasioned, the most eminent is undoubtedly Peter Daniel Ihiet; whose elabo-
rate and very erudite work, in three books, entitled Origeniana, is the copious
fountain from which all the more recent writers concerning Origen have drawn.
Charles de la Rue, a Benedictine, the rccent editor of Origen's works, designed
to republish Muet's Origeniana, with additional notes and observations; but
death frustrated the purpose of that learned man. Whoever may take up tho
design of de la Rue, and pursue it judiciously and impartially, will find the un-
dertaking to be great and the materials abundant. For, great and excellent as
the work of Iluet is in its kind, it is not without faults and defects, [n the
first place, it is incomplete: for it does not state and explain all the peculiar
doctrines of Origen, but only those which were pubUcIy censured and con-
demned. I could easily show, to any man wishing to be informed, that Origen
held many otiier opinions equally novel, false and pernicious with those charged
upon him ; which however, for diverse rcasons, no person censured or condemned.
Again, although no person can judge correctly of Origen's theology, [p. 607.J
without well understanding his philosophy, which contained the grounds of hia
lingular opinions on divine subjects, y(!t Huet neglects this whole subject,
supposing that it was sufficient to say, generally, that Origen introduced tho
Academy almost entire into the church. The work of this very learned man
is also badly arranged. For, in reviewing those doctrines of Origen which
brought him into ill repute, he does not follow the order of nature, but that of
the schools: nor does he show us how Origen's opinions stood connected with
and dependent on each other, but he arranges them all under general heads
without regard to their connexion. This mode of proceeding was quite favora-
ble to his main purpose, which was simply to vindicate Origen; but it h em-
barrassing to those who wish to gain a correct knowledge and a just estimate
of the errors of that great man. For it is not easy to judge of the importance
of any error, without tracing it to its source and seeing its connexion with
VOL, U. 11
146 Centunj Ill-^Secthn 27.
opinions to which it is related; because many sentiments, considered opart and
by themselves, appear worthy of toleration or excuse, but if considered in con-
nexion with their origin and consequences, they assume a difterent aspect, and
become portentous. Lastly, throuirliout his work lluct labors to cxhil)it Orit^^en
lis less censurable than his adversaries made him, and thus assumes the ofhco
of a patron and advocate, rather than that of a cautious guarded historian and a
wise judge.
Among the arguments by which Huet thinks he can justify Origen, though
not wholly, some are of considerable force, but others are quite weak and in-
efficient. Of the former character is the man's very great modesty ; which
also his early defender, Pamphilus, and among the moderns, Haloix, (in his
Origines defensus. Lib. ii. c. 2.) have urged against his accusers. And it is true
(hat, in many places, Origen professes not to decide positively, but only to bring
forward, modestly and timidly, probable conjectures. Thus in his work de Prin-
cipiis, Lib. i. c. 6. J !• P- 69, when entering on a discussion respecting the end
or consummation of the world, he deprecates all offence, by saying; Quie quidern
a nobis ctiam cum magno metu et cautela dicuntur, discutientibus magis et
pertractantibus, quam pro certo ac defniito statuentibus. Indicatum namque a
nobis in superioribus est, qua) sint de quibus manifesto dogmate terminandura
eit. Nunc autern disputandi specie magis, quam definiendi, pront possu-
Dius, exercemur. And he closes the chapter, (p. 71,) with a plain acknowledg-
ment of his ignorance of the future condition of our bodies after the destruction
of the world. Certius tamen qualiter se habitura sit res, scit solus Dens et si
qui ejus per Christum et Spiritum sanctum amici sunt. In the passage on the in-
carnation of Christ, (Je Principiis, Lib. ii. c. 6. { 2. p. 90,) he says : De qiio nos non
[p. 608.] temeritate r.liqua, sed quoniam ordo loci deposcit ea magis, quae fidea
nostra continet,quam qusB humanse rationisassertio vindicare solet, quam paucissi-
mis proferemus, suspiciones potius iioslra s qnnm manifestas aliquas affirmationes
in medium proferentes. And, lest any should misunderstand him, he closes tho
whole discussion with this sentence, (p. 92.) : Haec interim nobis ad prrcsena
de rebus tarn difficilibus disputantibus, id est, de iiTcarnatione ct de deitate Christi
occurrcre potuerunt. Si quis sane melius aliquid poterit invenire et evidentio-
ribus de Scripturis Sanctis assertionibus confirmare quae dicit, ilia potius q«ara
haec recipiantur. Similar protestations occur everywhere in his work de Prhi'
cipii!^, and in his other writings. Somolimes he brings forward two or threo
explications of the same thing, and leaves it optional with his readers to select
Buy one of them, or to reject the whole. De Princip. Lib. ii. c. 3. \ 6. p. 83:
His igitur tribus oi)inionibus de fine omnium et de summa beatitudine prout
eentirc potuimus adumbratis, unusquisque legentium apud semetipsum diligen-
lius et scrupulosius judicet si potest aliqua harum probari vel eligi. To
this his commendable modesty, may be added his very great inconstancy in tho
explication of religious doctrines. For he does not always and everywhere
advance the same sentiments, but, on the gravest subjects, he exhibits different
views at different times and in different places: whence it is manifest, that the
man changed his own views, and that he did not wish to })rescribe laws for hu-
man thought. For example, if wo compare the different statements he makea
OrlgeiCs Character. I47
rpspoctinjT tlie divine Trinity, or respecting Christ, and tlic Holy Spirit, we must
be persuaded tliat to liim, if to any one, the lines of Horace arc applicable,
(Epistles, Lib. i. ep. 1.)
Quo loiicam vultus miitantcm Protoa nodo?
Quod petilt, spernit, rcpctil quod nuper oinisit.
Diruit. aniiflcat, mutat quudrata rotuudis.
For, the Sabellians, the Arians, the Nicenists, and others, can all very plausibly
lay claim to him. The cause of this modesty and instability, 1 will state pre-
sently. But those who wish correctly to understand what sort of a man Orii^en
was should remember, that he was not always and uniformly controlled by
modesty and instability. His timidity and changeableness are apparent, when
lie offers philosophical explanalions of those Christian docti'ines which theologi-
nns call revealed truths, that is, of the doctrines which we learn exclusively
from the Bible, such as tlie doctrine of three persons in the Godhead, the doc-
trine of Christ, of the Holy Spirit, and of the resurrection of our bodies. For
while he assumes it as certain, that even these doctrines are accordant with tho
teachings of re:ison, or with the philosophy which is agreeable to reason, and
that the former may be legitimately deduced from the latter; yet he does not
pretend that he is one who can show infallibly how they stand connected,
although he has no doubts that others, more intelligent than he, may be able
to do it. But he is much more bold and confident, when expound- [p. 609.]
ing the doctrines which lie within the sphere of human knowledge, or the
doctrines of natural religion, such as those concerning God, the world, the soul,
&c. For these he thinks should be e.xplained, — and he himself confidently e.v-
plains them, in accordance with the precepts of that philosophy which he
embraced as true; and he sometimes ridiculed those who choose to hold these
doctrines, simply, and according to the literal statement of the Scriptures,
rather than to allow reason to ex])lain and modify them. Take for example,
what he says in the second book of his Principia, respecting the human soul of
Christ, and the union of the divine with the human nature in our Savior. On
this subject, having assumed that the soul of Christ was of the same nature
witli ours, he unhesitatingly applies to Christ's soul whatever he had learned
respecting tlie human soul in the school of his master, Ammonius; and thus
he produced a doctrine pregnant with dangerous consequences, and one alto-
gether unknown in the Scriptures. Still it must be admitted, that although tho
modesty and inconstancy of Origen did not extend so far as his patrons and
fidvoeates wish us to believe, yet they do serve to vindicate him in a degree. —
And of similar tendency is, what Jerome testifies of him, (Epist. Ixv. c. 4.) that
he wrote to Fabian, the Roman bishop, that his friend Ambrose had published
some of his writings which he did not wish to have go abroad. And yet, in
the works which he undoubtedly wished to see circulated unlimitedly, there arc
passages enough that may be censured, If now, over and above these ex-
tenuation^j, we look at the apologies for Origen by Pamphilus, Haloix, Miran-
dula, Huet, and his many other advocates, we shall find little that can satisfy a
sagacious and impartial mind. For example, it is true, as his friends assert, that
the accusers of Origen dis.agreo among themselves, and charge him \vilh coiv
148 Century III.— Section 27.
trary errors; but llic inference they would draw, tliat therefore Origen wns in-
nocent jind was borne down by falsi; accusations, will not follow. For they
themselves admit, that Ori^aMi was not uniform in ids belief, and that he uttered
different sentiments at different times, accordinnr to the occasions, ihe persons
he was combaltiug", and the particular state of i)is mind. And hence, he is not
unfrequently at variance with himself, and the opinion he advanced at one time,
he afterwards exchanged for another altogether different. And it may be added,
that Origen is not the same man when calmly seated in the teacher's chair, as
he is when, with heated feeling-^ he comes forth as n disputant and encounters
.in antagonist. As a teacher, he writes soberly, and as he really thinks; but
when he is disputing, he does not state just what he believes or regards as trne»
but frequently such things, true or f;dse, as are suited to embarrass his adver-
sary. It would be easy to show, that he considered disputes as to be settled as
wars are, or that it was not important, whether his antagonist was prostrated by
guile and subtilty or by valor in combat. And hence, the positions he assumes
[p. 610.] when confronting Celsus, or the Jews, or the heretics, are entirely dif-
ferent from those he lays down when calmly expounding Christian truth as a
teacher. — No more account do I make of the argument, with which nearly all
the patrons of Origen surfeit us, that many other doctors of the ancient church
taught just as he did on many points of theology. For, not to insist on the
principle that the multitude of those who embrace an error does not make it
true, it was the fact, that most of those who agreed with Origen, lived after
him, and they appear to have received their opinions from him, as being the
common teacher of the church. Besides, these other doctors who tench and
maintain the same doctrines with Origen, understood those doctrines differently
from what he did, and they were led in a very different manner into the belief
of them. We will now take a nearer view of the man under consideration.
AwA., first., we will speak of the man liimself; ihen^ of his philosophy; and
lastly, of his theology, and his method of explaining religious subjects.
In the first place, Origen himself, if judged by his moral worth, was unques-
tionably a great and estimable man, and one who has had ^q\w equals in any age.
Nor would it divest him of this praise, if it were perfectly true, (as stated by
Epiphanius, Hajres. Ixiv. e. 2.) that at Alexandria he was once brought to
the alternative of either sacrificing to the gods, or yielding his body to be
polluted by an Ethiopian; and that to avoid the infamy, he promised to offer
sacrifice; yet he did not do so, for he retracted his promise, and the incenso
placed in his hands was shaken into the (ire by the bystanders. Men of high
character have maintained, and with pretty strong arguments, that this story
should be classed among slanderous fables. But, suppose it true, and it will
only prove that Origen, being (suddenly arrested, and thrown off his guard,
hastily concluded that he should sin less by sacrificing to the gods, thau by
yielding his body to be stained with eternal infamy by the Ethiopian ; but that
he presently recovered himself, and instantly reversed his determination. In
this, I think, no one can find any great and wilful fault. For who among the
holiest of mortals is so uniformly wise, that, in the most trying circumstancest
he consents to no divergence from the strictest rule of duty 1 Yet, except this
Orlgens Character. 149
one tliingf, Origen posses-icd every excellence that can ndorn the Christian
character; uncommon piety, from his very childhood; astonishinn- devotedness
to th;it most holy rcli«;ion which he professed; unequalled persevt'rance in
labors and toils for the advancement of the Christian cause ; untiring zeal for tho
cluirch, and for the extension of Christianity ; an elevation of soul uhic-h phiced
him above all ordinary desires or fears; a most permanent contempt of wealth,
honors, pleasures,and of death itself ; the purest trust in the Lord Jesns, [p. 611.]
for whose sake, when he was old and oppressed with ills of every kind, he patient-
ly and perseveringly endured the severest suflerings. It is not strange, therefore,
tliat he was held in so high estimation, both while he lived and after death.
Certainly if any man deserves to stand first in the catalogue of saints and mar-
tyrs, and to be aiuuially held up as an example to Christians, this is the man:
for, except the apostles of Jesus Christ and their companions, I know of no
one, among all those enrolled and honored as saints, who excelled him in holi-
ness and virtue. lie was censured indeed, by Demetrius and others, for having
emasculated himself: and I will not acquit him of all fault in that matter.
But the fault itself is such as demonstrates the strength of his resolution, and
his devotcdness to religion, nor could it be committed by an ordinary man.
But Origen does not appear equally great, when estimated by his native
powers. Undoubtedly he possessed genius, had a very happy memory, great
thirst for knowledge, a very fertile imagination, and uncommon elocjuence and
powers of teaching; and these caused both Christians and pagans to listen to
him, with intense interest, when 1)6 taught philosophy and other divine and hu-
man sciences in the Christian school of Alexandria. But those who are capable
of judging, and are familiar with his writings, will not rank iiim among ge-
niuses of the highest order. Certainly he was not one who, as the saying is,
could swim without his board; i. e. not one who, by the inherent powers of
his own mind, could examine truth in its fundamental principles, and discover
and judge what is accordant with those principles, and what is not. He was
6uch a philosopher as many in this and every age, who can treasure up in their
memory and well understand the systems of doctrine inculcated by their teach-
ers, and can bring out their acquired knowledge, pertinently, when questions
and occasions demand it ; and if any obstruction is thrown in their path, they
can swerve a little this way or that, yet always are sure that the truth lies
wholly within the sphere of their received instructions. For it is very certain
that Origen never travels, in thought or argument, beyond the bounds of that
knowledge which he received in early life from his teachers; he never philoso-
phises freely, and in the exercise of his own ingenuity, but regards the system
he imbibed from Ammonius as the only rational and sound philosophy. And
hence, so long as this philosophy, which was his sole reliance, supplies suitable
matter for his discussions ar.d compositions, he appears a valuable writer, and
treats his subjects with acuteness and ingenuity ; but when destitute of such aid,
as is frequently the case, he is like a man travelling in a foreign country, who
does understand how the roads run. This is no where more apparent than in his
book against Celsus, the assailant of Christianity. In that work, so long as [p.6r2]
he can draw from his philosophy, he appears foreeable and methodical ; but when
150 Century Ill.—Scction 27.
this resource fails him, Ills arguments are weak, .nnd sometimes fiilile. These
remarks explain, ichij the man, wiio on many topics is a wij-'c and acute rea-
boner, is on others jiuerile. Unassisted, he rarely produces anything of much
importance; but when sustained hy his masti-r, or by ihe instructions of the
Bible, he appears very respectable. The learning of Origen, for the age in
which he lived, was abundant and excellent. He had read immensely, and was
Acquainted with the doctrines of all sects, both of philosophers and Christians.
He had acquired from the Greeks their polite learning ; and he was not igno-
Fiint of mathematics. In the philosophical department, dialectics, physic, astro-
nomy, &c., he was well versed, in the way before stated, namely, whatever he
had received from the lips of teachers or had learned from books, he retained
well in memory, and had at command. Jn Hebrew learning he had some
knowledge. In short, he had travelled through the wiu)le encyclopajdia of liu-
man knowledge in that age, and he was justly accounted a universal scholar,
both by the Christians and by other people.
We now proceed to his philosophy. Besides CZemen.s iiZeo;. rector of the
Christian school at Alexandria, a follower of the eclectic mode of pliilosophiz-
ing, he had for his preceptor Ammonius Saccas, the celebrated founder of the
new Platonic school, who, while he sought to bring all sects of philosophers to
agreement, adopted the principle that the philoso})hers differed only on trivial
points, and were agreed in matters of importance to virtue and happiness; and
consequently, that there is but one ijhUosophy, though under different forms, or
differently stated. Now that philosophy, which Origen regarded as true, and as
recognized by all the philosophers, was the Ammonian or the new Platonic,
though slightly modified, that it might not conflict with Christian principles,
with which it stood in the closest alliance. Of this philosophy I will give a
brief summary, which it is easy to deduce from the writings of Origen : to state
it fully, would be needless.
All things that exist, whether corporeal or void of gross matter, emanated
eternally from God, the source of all things. This first principle of the new
Platonic school, derived from Egyptian wisdom, as we have elsewhere
shown, was the basis or foundation of Origen's philosophy. But the Christian
scriptures reject this doctrine, taken in the sense in which the Platonists under-
stood it. For the Platonists believed the world to be without beginning, and
without end, or to have flowed forth from God eternally, and to be destined to
continue for ever. The Christian's Bible, on the contrary, clearly teaches that
the world was created at a certain time, and that at a certain time it will perish.
[p. 613.] Origen therefore thought it necessary to modify this doctrine, and
adjust it to the instructions of Christianity ; and so he introduced the idea of a
perpetual succession or propagation of worlds. Innumerable worlds similar
to this, existed and perished, before the present world was produced ; and after
this world shall end, innumerable otiiers will exist in endless succession. (See
de Principiis, lib. iii. c. 5. Opp. toin. i. p. 149.) Now admitting this doctrine, a
person may believe the declarations of the Scriptures respecting (he origin and
the end of this world, and at the same time hold the Platonic dogma of the
eternal efflux of the world from God, and its eternal duration. Yet this theory
Orirjens Phihsophj. 151
of an cfernnl seiios of worlds, successively sprinn^ing up and filling to ruin,
thoii«;fli not ivqnirin<j: any great powers of mind for its invenlion, did not ori^Mn-
ate with Oriijen. lie sinijily adcpted it from the Stoics and others, in conipli-
nnce with the precept of the eclectic philosophy, that the truth is to be feathered
from all sects. — We proceed; Souls, like all other finite thinjrs, cman«ted from
tlie divine nature, long- before the material world was formed ; and they wero
originally all equal in their nature, in moral excellence, and in rank ; and all
therefore, with no exception, had in them some combination or admixture of
corporeal substance. For Origen uniformly inculcates, that only the divine Be-
ing is altogether free fronu-orporeal matter and of a simple nature; that all the
other beings endowed with reason, or all finite spirits, are enclosed in a sort of
subtile and etherial vehicles, or a drapery of a corporeal nature. All souls more-
over, possess free will, and equal power to do good or to do ill, or are able
freely to do the one or the other. And this power or freedom of choice, is so
inherent in them, that it can never become extinct and lost. Origcn, (de Prin-
cij)p. lib. ii. c. 8. sec. 2. p. 94.) defines a soul to be subsfantiam ratumahiUter
sensibikm et mcbilem: which definition may be understood from what has been
said. On this freedom of volilion, which is a property of nil souls without ex-
ception, depend all the changes in human affairs whether past or future, all the
changes in the universe, all the distinctions and differences among men and
spirits, all the variations in the divine decrees and proceedings. For some
souls, while in their celestial state, before this world was created, used their free
will wisely and properly ; but others abused it, in differejit ways, some mora
grievously, and others more lightly. And therefore divine justice demanded,
that the souls which had misused their liberty should undergo some punish-
ment. And hence came the present world, and the race of men. For God de-
creed, that the sinning souls sliould be clothed in grosser bodies, so that they
might sufiTer in them the penalties of their temerity. And as there was o-reat
diversity in the offences committed by them, it became necessarv for God to
create bodies of different kir.ds or natures, so that he might assign to each a
body suited to the magnitude and enormity of the sins which defiled it. [p. 614.]
Some souls were therefore lodged in those splendid bodies, the sun, the moon,
and the stars: for it was the belief of Origen, that all the stars have souls.
Others were doomed to inhabit human bodies, whicli are vastly inferior in
strength, healthiness, beauty, <l-c., btcnuselhe souls to be imprisoned in them
had in many ways deviated froni the paih of rectitude and virtue, and therefore
deserved various kinds of chastisement for their ill deserts. Others, the de-
mons for example, were attached to bodies more teiuious indeed than ours,
but extremely ugly, and such as vehemently excite the soul to evil. Hy the
wisdom of the supreme Being, all these bodies are skilfully lo(;ated, and most
filly r.rranged, so as to pi'oduce the admirable fibric of the created world. But
let us hear Origen explain his own views; (de Privcijiii^, lil'. ii. c. 9. sec. 6,
p 99.) Deus ffiquales creavit omnes ac similes, quos creavit, quijpe (pium
nulla ei caussa varietafis ac diversitatis existeret. Verurn qiioniam raliouabilca
ipsrc creatur;c - - arbitrii ficultale donatio sunt : lihertas ununuiiiem(]ue volun-
tatis suce vel ud profectum per imilationem Dei provocavit, vcl ad defect uin per
152 Century III— Section 27.
negligentiam traxit. Et hsec ex8titit caussa diversitatis inter lationaLiles crea-
turns, non ex conditoris voluntate vel judicio originem trahens, sod propria) li-
bertatis arbitrio. Dens vero cui jam creaturam suain pro meritodispensarejiis-
tum vjdebatur, diversitatcs montiiiin in iinius mundi eonsonantiam traxit, quo
velut unani domum, in qua inosse dubcrent non solum vasa aurea et argentea,
Ked et lignea et fictilia, ex istis diversis vasis vel aniniis vel mentibus oniaret.
Et has caussas mundus iste suae diversitatia accepit, dum unumquemque divina
providentia pro varietate motuum suorum vel animorum propositique dispensat.
And, after a few sentences, he thus recapitulates the whole statement: (sec. 8.
p. 100.) Unumquodque vas (i. e. anima) secundum mensuram puritatis suae
aut impuritatis locum, vel regionera, vel eonditionem nascendi vel explendi
aliquid in hoc mundo accepit: qua3 omnia Deus usque ad minimum vh-tute
sapientia3 suae providens ac dignoscens, moderamine jiulicii sui sequissima retri-
butione univcrsa disponit, quatenus unicuique pro merito vel succurri vel con-
sul! deberet. Oiigen explains and inculcates this opnion often and largely;
and not without reason: for he supposed it to be of vast importance, for the
vindication of the divine wisdom and justice, and that it accounts for the end-
less diversities which exist among men and spirits. The souls, distributed
through so many and such diversified bodies, do not change their essential
nature; and of course they retain their native freedom of volition. And
although they can not use their free will for good with the same success, as
they did in their celestial state when disconnected with gross matter, yet they
[p. 615.] are not by any means so oppressed and fettered by their bodies as to
be unable, if they would but exert their rational powers, to improve slowly
their condition, and gradually to recover their former beauty. Therefore such
souls as exert their native powers, and by contemplation and other means sever
themselves from the imagination and senses and from the concupiscence gene-
rated by the body, are thereby gradually purified; and, on becoming released
from their bodies, they are again elevated to their former state. Yet they do
not recover their primitive felicity, at once and in a moment, but they pass, by
a slow process, through various changes up to God. And the souls which ne-
glect this duty, will either migrate into other bodies, or will be subjected to
some harsher modes of purgation, until they shall repent and begin to exert
their liberty for good. And when all souls shall have returned to their primi-
tive state and to God, then this material world will be dissolved. But because,
from their very nature, souls can never lose their Ucc will, nor, consequently,
(he power of abusing their freedom, the very souls that have overcome the evils
of this life, as well as others, may and will aga!n depart from duty and from God,
and then again deserve punishment. And whenever their number shall be
sufficiently large, God must again create bodies, and out of them frame a new
world in which he can punish the violators of his eternal law, each according
to his merits and the magnitude of his otlence. And of this successive rise or
worlds, there will be no end ; because the liberty of the will, which naturally
belongs to all souls, prevents their ever arriving at an unchangeable constancy
in good. To judge correctly of iho theology, whieh Origen based on this phi-
losophy, we must keep in view his two preceptors, Clement, of Alexandria, and
Origens regard for P/nhsopIn/. 153
Ammnnius. The former of these, as we have already shown, held philosopiiy
in very high estimation; and he maintained that philosophy correctly under-
stood, and freed from the false notions of the sects, does not disagree with the
religion of Christ. The latter, Ammonins, not only sought to reconcile the
Christian religion with the precepts of his philosopiiy, but he also believed, as
already sliown, that Christianity could be reconciled with the Pagan religions,
provided they were rightly explained and were divested of the fables and error
brouglit into them by the vulgar and by the priests. Now Origen, treading in
the footsteps of his teachers, regarded philosophy as a precious gift of God ;
and he supposed that the wisdom proclaimed by Christ, although more sublime
and perfect than philosophy, was nevertheless based upon it; and that all
Christian doctrines might be explained and vindicated by philosophy. Indeed,
it is not to be concealed, that he coincided with Ammonius in the belief that
the popular religions, if their fables and superstition were excluded, might in
a measure be combined with Christianity. In order to reconcile the worship
of one God, which Christianity requires, witli paying homage to many gods,
Ammonius assumed, that God had committed the administration and [p. 616.]
government of the various parts of the universe to demons of great power and
virtue; and that it was reasonable and proper that some honor and public reve-
rence be paid to these powerful ministers of the divine Providence : because
God, the supreme Lord, is honored in the person of his friends ; just as the
respect paid to the vicegerents and envoys of earthly kings and princes, re-
dounds to the honor of the kings and princes whom they represent. More-
©ver, these legates and ministers of God have the power of conferring benefits
on men, such as health, a salubrious atmosphere, fruitful seasons, and all the
comforts of life ; and on the other hand, they have power in various ways to
harm those who desjiise them. And hence, the interests of mankind require,
that some worship should be paid to them; and the people of the primitive
ages were divinely instructed to do this; but, in process of time, a depraved
human belief converted these ministers of God into imaginary deities, and in-
troduced numerous errors and corrupt rites, and even caused the worship of the
supreme Being to become almost extinct and lost. Now if these faults were
corrected, and the worship of the demons restored to its pristine t-implicity,
there would be nothing to forbid men's paying supreme homage to the one su-
preme God, and at the same time, yielding reverence to the ministers of God,
in the ancient manner, in certain places, at proj)er times, and with suitable
rites. And to these views, for substance, Origen gave assent. He believed,
that God has committed the care and government of the several provinces of
his great empire, the universe, to angels of different orders, who are the guar-
dians and protectors not only of nations, but of individual men, and also of ani-
mals, the fruits of the earth, &c. Whether prayers and worsliip i-hould bo of-
fered to these angels, he does not explicitly state, in any of his works that have
reached us: and yet, in a few passages, he does not disguise the fict that ho
leaned much towards an opinion but little diverse from that of Amnioniua
above stated, respecting the union of the worship of one God wiih the worship
of demons. See liuet's Origeniana, Lib. ii. p. 89.
154 Century IIL—Section 27.
Orig-cn's Idea of the relation and connexion between Christianity :'nd })hilo-
eophy, may be learned distinctly from two passages in his writings still presrrv-
•cd. The first passnge is in his Phi/ccalia, taken from his epi>tle to Gre/^ory
Tiiaumaturgus, bi>hop of Neocassarea, and exhibited in the edition of hiswoiks
by Charles de la Rue, torn, i, p. 30. Here Origen asserts, that philosopiiy is as
important to Christian theology, as geometry, mubic, gr.imniar, rhetoric and as-
tronomy are to philosophy: 'OTt^ pari fiXorojictv naif is -nf^l yioyf-^i'^pini - - - wf
CVpffi^-osv fi\oTofiay ToDd"' vjUiii cfr<j},uiv cTg vipl dwy^s 9i\o^opiai nidi ^pii^T lavi^uoy.
This, lie says, in reference to the true philosophy, or philosophy purified from
the corrnptions and figments of the sects : and such he believed to be the philo-
eophy which he had learned from Ammonius, after correcting it in a few point3
[p. 617.] to make it harmonize with Christianity, 'i herefore, as astroiiomy,
geometry, music, and the other sciences are useful to a philosopher for siiarpen-
ing his acumen, strengthening his reasoning powers, and enabling him to com-
prehend and arrange more perfectly the precepts of i)hilosopIiy ; so, he sup-
posed, philosophy is useful to a theologian, as helping l.im to acquire just
views of Christian doctrines and to give just expositions of them. In the oiher
passnge, (which is in his xv. Homily on Genesis, sec. 3. 0pp. torn. ii. 98.) he
discourses more at large, and not only of what he considered the true philoso-
phy, but also of the current philosopiiy of the d.iy, whether true or fal-e. Ho
first lays down this proposition : Philosophia neque in omnibus le<ri Dei coii.
traria est, neque in omnibus consona: and he then explains both parts of the
proposition, adducing examples for illustration. On the agreement ot'piiiloso-
phy wiih the divine law, he says : Multi enim philosophorum unum esse Deum,
qui cnneta oreavcrif, scribunt. In hoc consen!iunt legi Dei. Aliqu;!n:i etiam
hoc addiderunt, quod Deus cur.cta per verbum suum et fecerit et regat, et ver-
bum Dei sit, quo cuncta moderentur. In hoc iion solum legi, sed etiam Evan-
geliis consona seribunt. Moralis vero et physica, qua3 dicitnr, ihilusnphia^
paene omnia qua? nostra sunt sentiunt. He then proceeds to the points of dis-
agreement between the divine law and philosophy, thus: Dissident vero a no-
bis, cum Deo dicunt esse materinm coa?ternam. Dissident, cum Deum negant
curare mortali.i, sed providentiam ejus supra lunaris globi spntia cohiberi. Dis-
sident a nobis, cum vitas naf-ccntium ex stellarum cursibus per.dunt. Dissi-
dent, cum sempiternuin dicunt hune mundum et nullo fine elaudendum. Sed
et :di.i plurima sunt, in quibus nobis(um vel disvi.lent vel concordant. These
Btatenients of Origen will be better understood, if we consider his subdivisions
of philosophy ; namely, that philosophy was commonly divided into tlu'ee parts,
logic, physics and ethics, or into rational, natural and moral Therefore, as he
most explicitly affirms, that the philosophers agree perfectly with the Christi:in9
in physics and ethics, or in natural and mor.d pl.ilosophy, it is clear that the
whole disngreemeut between |>hilosophy and Christianity, in his opinion, re-
lated to logic or rational piiilosojhy. But his rational philosophy is not that
which we understand by tlie term ; but it is ontology, or our pneumatohgy,
cosmogony, and natural theology, as is manifest from the ex.-imples he adduces.
This his rational philosophy, as taught by the philosophical sects, was, Jiccoid-
ing to his judgment, in many things contrary to the Christian religion: but if
Ori(/cn's TJicology. 155
frocil f.'O'.n tlic errors niul lalso opinions of llic set-ts, ;iiul ni:ulo lo conform to
tlu' 1ru:li, it u«>nKl coiitr.in noil ii«^- inc'on>ist(.'nt wi'.li Clirislianity. And this
true ralit'n.il philo.^oiiliy, he bt'licvc d lo be- tli:it which he h;;d learned in Iho
school of AminoiiiiKs. This was ihe pliilosopiiy, which lie wished to associate
>vilh diiistian truth, and to produce a system embracing boMi.
liiiw large a place in Iheology, Origen would allow to what he [p. G18.]
accounted true philosoj'hy, and by what laws he would combine them together,
we nrc now to show. In the first place, he allirmed, that all the things which
must be believed in ordi-r to salvaliun, are most [)lainly set forlh in the Scrip-
tures: ard these things, lie would have men simply believe without subjecting
them at :ill to the dominion of p!;ilosoi)hy. Thus, in the introduction to hi3
work de Priiicipiis (see. 3. |». 47.) he SJiys : Illud aufem scire oportet, qnoniam
sancti Apostoli fidem Christi pra^dicantes, de quibusdam quidem qucccunque
necessari:i (adsalutem) crediderunt, omnibus etiam his qui pigriores erga inqui-
sitionem divina3 scientia) videbantur, maivfestissime tradiderunt. And of the
doctrines which he supposed were taught in the clearest manner in the Bible,
and which should be received without dubitalion or criticism, he made out a
sort of catalogue. It i- this: (I) There is one God, the author and creator of
all things. (II) In these last days, this God hath sent Christ to call first the Jews,
and then other nations. (Ill) Jesus Christ was born of the Father, anterior to the
creation (ante omnem creaturam),aud was the minister of the Father in thecrca-
lion of all things. (IV) The same Christ, although lie was God, was made man,
and became ir.carnate ; and being made man, he remained God as he was before ;
he truly suflered, truly died, and truly rose again. (V) In honor and dignity,
the Holy Spirit is au associate of the Father and the Son. (VI) Every soul
posses>es reason, and free volition and choice; and, when removed f.-om the
body, will be rewarded or punished aecoiding to its deserts. (VII) Our bodies
will be raised in a state highly imi)nived. (VIII) A devil and his angels
exist; and they strive to immerse men in sins. (IX) This world will lu reaftcr
be dissolved. (X) The holy Scriptures weio dictated 1 y the Spirit of God ;
and they have a twofold seu'e, the one obvious, the other latent. (XI) There
are good angels and powers, wl.ieh minister to the salvatiiMi of men. Tliepe,
he says, are specimens (sjecies) of the ihhigs that are niar.iiestly inculcated in
the Apostolic annunci.ition. This language seems to imply, that Ori<4en did
not aim to make a complete enumeration of the doctrines clearly taught in
the Bible and nccessaiy to be known, but only to give a speci7iien ofsuch a col-
lection. Yet of this [ ; m not entirely ceitain, and I leave others to decide.
But the inspired men, by whom the })rincij'.al truths of religion are stated
KO intelligibly to all, have left other truths in some obscurity. In the first
place, they have not clearly stated the nrou7icls and reasons of the trnlhs which
they require us to believe: that is, they have not shown us how the reve.iled
truths they teach stand related to the first jirinciples of truth and reason.
And again, the things themselves, they have indeed stated clearly enough ; but
of the how, 7chy ixvd wherefore they are so, they are silent. And here the in-
dustry of wise and perspicacious christians may find employment ; first, in
Bcarching out and demonstrating, by the aids of philosoi)liy, the groujiJs a:ui
156 Century III.— Section 27.
[p. 619.] reasons of the doctrines divinely revealed ; and secondly, in dctermin.
ing, on the principk-s of a true philosophy, the modes and relations of the
things revealed in v'le L**cripture^. Such, I suppose, were Origen's views : but
let us hear his own word^. In the preface to iiis work de Principiis, he says:
Ralionem astertionis eoruni reli(|uerunt (Apostoli) ab his inquirendam, qui
Spiritus dona exeellentiora niererentur, et proecipue sermonis, sapientiae et
Ecientiae gratiani per ipsum Spirituni Sanctum percepisseut. Here we are
taught, that the things at first obscure, afterwards become more clear. Again
he says: Dc alils vero dixerunt quidem, quia sint : ^ womot/o autem, aut unde
sint, siluerunt ; profecto ut studiusiores quique ex posteris suis, qui amatores
essent sapientiaj, exereilinm habere possent, in quo ingenii sui frnctum osten-
derent, iii videlicet qui dignos se et capaces ad recipiendnni sapientiam prae-
pararent. The^e statements need exemplification ; and Origen himself affords
it. That the world at a certain time began to exist, and will a(, a certain
time perish, is incontrovertible, and is most expressly affirmed in Scripture.
But for what cause it was created, and why it will be destroyed, we are very
obscurely informed. Therefore, these are things to be investigated by the aid
of philo^5ophy. — That men have apostatised, is clear; but the causes of their
apostasy are not equally manifest, and therefore must be inquired after. —
That the Holy Spirit, no less than tlie Son, proceeded from the Father, the
S^-riptures manifestly teach ; but the mode of the procession, they do not
define. He subjoins : In hoc non jam manifesto decernitur, utrum (Spiritus S.)
natus an innatus, vel filius etiam Dei ipse habendus sit, nee ne. Scd inqui-
renda jam ista pro viribus sunt de sacra scriptura et sagaci perquisitione
investiganda. — That the devil and his angels are real existences, and also the
angels of an opposite character, no person who has read the Bible will deny.
Of these he tells us ; Sunt quidem hajc ; qiicc autem sint, aut quomodo sint, non
satis cl.ire exposuit. Here, therefore, he who seeks for knowledge, must labor
for it.
On this subject it is especially to be noticed, that both here and elsewhere
Origen teaches, that the Holy Scriptures are not entirely silent respecting the
causes or reasons of the truths they assert, but as it were give us intimations
of them ; but respecting the modes or forms of the things, they are wholly
silent. And hence, they who attempt, by the aid of philosophy, to explore the
inmost recesses of theology, or in other words, to bring into the li(^ht what
the Scriptures have lelt in the dark, — have not, in all cases, the same task to
perform, and the same success to antii-ipate. Those who labor to explain the
causes or reasons of the truths taught in tlie Bible, must not only call philoso-
phy to their aid, but must also carefully search out the arcane senses of Holy
Scripture. For Origen firmly believed, that under cover of the words, phrases,
images, and narratives of the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit had concealed the in-
ternal reasons and grounds of things; or, as he himself expresses it, that in the
body of holy writ, (so he denominates the proper seiise of the words,) there was
[p. 620.] a soul, (an arcane and recondite sense,) and that this soul exhibits, to
careful contemplaters of it, as it were in a mirror, the causes, connections, and
dependencies of both human and divine wisdom. In this he trod in the path of
Origeris Thcologrj. 157
P/j//o Judaeus; whom he, — following the example and authorify of Clement^ his
pitH'e|it(tr, — ivirarded as the wisest of all e.\i)loreis of the true sense of
Seripturt', and therclore followed as his iruide. — HiU wIumi I hi; modes^ or forms
of the thing-s are to be ex.imined, the philosophic theologian need not resort to
the s:iered Scriptures; because, aa they say nothing of the modes of things, he
must trust and follow his own ingenuity and the dictates of philosophv. A pas-
sage already cited is applicable here; but I will adduce another, equ:!lly expli-
cit, and admir.ibly illustrative of the char.icter of Oiigen's system. He siys,
(p. 49) : Oportct igitur, velut elemenlis ac I'uiidaiiK.'ntis hnju-modi uli secun-
dum mandatum quod dicit: Illuminate xobis lumen scienlLc (Hose, x. 12, Sep-
tuag.) oinneni, qui cupit seriem quamdam et corpus ex horuin omnium rationc
perlicere, ut m:ini:eslis ct uccessariis as'^erlioiiibns de s-ingulis, quibus(|ue quid
eit in vero riiuetnr et unum (ut diximus) corpus etliciat exemplis et alliiin:itioni.
bus, vel his quas in sane'. is Scriptinis invencrit (i. e., he who would combine
theology and philosophy, and Irom both frame one system, must endeavor to
nscertaiu the grounds and reasons of the doctrines, by examining into the arcane
sense of the sacred books.) vel quas ex conscquenlioe ipsins indagine ac recti
tenorc repererit, (i. e. but if the jnode is the thing sought for, of wliicli the Scrip-
tures say nothing, then it is sullicient to explain and define it in accordance
with {tenore recli) the dictates of philosophy.) — These statements may enable
us to understind why Origen, in explaining religious truths generally betakes
himself first to reason and philosophy, and then recurs to the s;icred or.iclcs,
to elucidate by them his explanations, and to confirm his conjectures by some
similitude; but sometimes, without consulting the Scriptures at all, he makes
philosophy his sole guide. The former is his course, when he supposes the in-
quiry relates to the causes of things; and the latter when the modes or forms
are discussed. Yet as these two things are intimately connected and often
scarcely sepnrable, he not unfrequcnlly confounds them, and but seldom discri-
minates accurately between them.
The labor of investigating the causes or reasons of the revealed truths and
doctrines by appeals to the Scriptures, is more arduous and dirficult than tho
labor of exploring and defining the modes oi' forms of holy things. Because,
for the former, the illumination and aid of the Holy Spirit are necessary ; and
none can succeed in it, (as he says,) "except those who have acquired the more
excellent gifts of the Holy Spirit, and, especially. h:ive obtained, through tho
Holy Spirit, the gift of language, of wisdom, and of knowledge." This he re-
peats often, both in his work de Principiis and elsewhere, declaring [p. 6:21.]
that they only are competent to this work whom God deems worthy of his spe-
cial friendship. He s.ays, repeatedly : Certius sciunt, qui Dei per Christum et
Spiritum Sanctum amici sunt. The full force of iiis declarations can be under-
stood by those only who are familiar with the theology of the ancient Chris-
tians. It was an established opinion among them, one that prevailed long be-
fore the times of Origen, that the proper and natural sense of the words of the
Bible is obvious to all readers who are not heedless and stupid; but that what
Origen calls spirtialem inlelUgenliam — the remote sense, or that latent under
the words and things, — is manifest only to those whom the Holy Spirit in-
158 Centinnj Ill—Section 27.
structs nnd illuininntc^. And this gift of the Holy Spirit, whii-li confiTS the
power of discovering tlic inysterit's hidden in tlie snered books, Ihey called the
gift ofwisdimi and knouiedge ; :ind of this gift tliey understood St. Paul to speak,
1 Cor. .\ii. 8 ; "For to one is given h^ the Spirit the word of wisdom Cac^raj);
to another the word of knowledge {yvuiO-tua) by the same Spirit." And iience
they were accustomed to use the word knowledge (jvutTn) to designate the
mystical sense of the Bible. Sec Jo. Ern. Grabe's Spicil. Patr. et Ilajreticor.
Saec. i. p. 328; and tlie notes of the learned on the Epistle of Barnabas, \ 6.
Now, as Origen believed, that in the Scriptures the Holy Spirit teaches us —
not indeed by the xcords but by the things which the words indicate, not openly
but covertly, by allegories and enigmas — how the peculiar doctrines of Chris-
tianity harmonize with each other, and with the decisions of philosophy, it was
natural for him to assert, thnt divine assistance is necessnry for drawing this
nut out of its envelope. — 'J'lie other task, that of exploring the 7nodfs of things,
was less diflicult ; because, in addition to a knowledge of true })hilosophy, it
required only an earnest application of the powers of the human mind. And
hence, as r.itional truth and revealed or heavenly truth do not disagree, a saga-
cious man, possessing sound reason, can easily di-cover their agreeniint. Yet
he does not deny, but declares often and in various terms, that as divine things
are more sublime and excellent than human, great care is necessary lest we
misjudge in such matters; and that some parts of the Christian religion are so
difficult, that they c:in scarcely, if at all, be adequately explained by human
phrases and analogies. Of this nature, he gravely tells us, is the doctrine of
the union of two natures in Christ, which, though he explains it according to
the principles of his philosophy, yet he bids his hearers remember, can never be
fully explained. Of this doctrine he fays (de Principp. L. ii. c. 6. J 2. p. 90) :
"I suppose that it is beyond the comprehension of even the holy Apostles;
nay, perhaps, the explanation of this sacrament exceeds all created intelligence
among the Angels." — From these statements, I think, we may learn the cause
of the great modesty and timidity which Origen exhibits in his exposition of
many topics in theology. He supposed no one, unless having familiar inter-
[p. 622.] course with God, and receiving thcgifl of wisdom and knowledge, could
successfully explore the hidden meanings of the Bible; but whether he himself
had obtained this gift from God, he dared not decide. He therefore alwiiys ap-
proached this species of discussion with timidity, and he left it timidly ; h-o
almost never affirmed positively, that he had ascertained the true import of the
texts he discussed. He assumes more confidence, indeed, when he thinks the
coincidence between theology and philosophy to be manifest ; and he seems,
sometimes, to know and be positive, rather than diffidently to utter his
opinions. Yet, as he fully believed that many things in theology are beyond
human comprehension, he seldom discusses what we call the mysteries of reli-
gion, in a manner that would imply the impossibility that anything more satis-
fiictory can be said of them. On the contrary, he almost invariably declares
himself ready to change his opinion, if any friend of God can offer more correct
views of the subject.
It will now be seen, if I mistake not, of what nature and magnitude were
Orir/en's Philosopliic Theology. 15ft
tljosc ofToMCCs of Ori^en u<jnin3t Cliris'.imity, uhi.Ii occasioned so nnicli con-
troversy during so many ages. Tliey all originated from tula one princij)le,
whic'i lie regarded as beyond all controversy, I'.iat suck ajjln'Uy and congruilij
exist bclween ChrlslianUy and human reason, that not only the grounds but also
the forms of all Christian doctrines may be explained by the dicta'es if 'philosophy.
Yet this error, tliougli not small, might be considered only a slight stain upon
that holy and extraordinary man, if it h:id not been carried beyond mere specu-
lation. Bat he recommeniled to the preachers of Christianity, to carry what he
tauy^ht into use ajid general practice; and he preseribi-d for their gnid ince tho
following maxia: That it is xastly important to the honor and odcantajc of
C'lristianitij, that all its doctrines be traced bade to the sources of all truth, or bs
shown to flow from the principles of philosophy ; and consequently, that a Chris-
tian theologian should exert his ingenuity and industry primarily, to demonstrate
Vie harmony between religion and reason,or to show that there is nothing taught in
the l^criptures but what is founded in reason. He himself, as \\a have seen, fol-
lowed thii his prect'pt with some degree of moderation and prudence ; but by
1 lying down this principle, and also by his exunple, he gave to the more daring
ample power and licence to do violence to revealed truth, and to strangely pervert
the plainest doctrines of the Bd)le, so that they might appear in harmony with a
true or false philosophy. His direction to make apj)eals to the Scriptures, might
fceem to counteract ihe evil, but, in reality, it increased and amplified it. For,
by teaching tlint the philosophical reasons of all the Christian doctrines lie con-
cealed in the narration and sentences of the Bible, and should be drawn forth
by art an I ingenuity, he prompted the indiscreet and those of exuberant imagi-
nations, as it were, to put out the light of revelation, or obscure its simple wis-
dom, by their childish and silly allegories. — The foundation of all his faults
vas, that he fully believed nothing to be more true and certain than [p. 623.]
what the philosophy he received from Ammonias taught him respecting God,
the world, souls, demons, &c. ; and therefore he in a measure recast and re-
modelled the doctrines of Christ, after the pattern of that philosophy, doing it
indeed, for the most part, modestly and hesitatingly, but sometimes quito
boldly, and in a style somewhat authoritative.
The entire system of philosophical religion which existed in the mind of
Origen, no one has fully delineated: nor was Origen uniform and consistent in
his statements of it ; for he discards at one time what he affirms at another. A
large part of his system, however, will be obvious to one who considers what
we have already said of his philosophy, and especially what he held respcc'ting
the origination of all things from God, the free-will of souls, their transgressing
in their primitive state, and before their union with bodies, and other kindred
subjects; for, while he was undecided on many other topics, on these he had no
doubts; and therefore he constantly applied these views to the explication of
the Christian doctrines. — Specimens of his opinions on the most essential
pointa in theology, are all we shall present for the gratification of those wish-
ing to know these matters. In the first place, he supposed that all the decla-
rations of the Scriptures respecting the Father, the Son, and thcf Holy Spirit,
might be easily reconciled with his philosophy. For, believing that all things
160 Century III— Section 27,
eternally emanated from tlie divine nature, lie .-ittributed to the Son and to the
Holy Spirit the iiiiiliest rank among- these emanalloiis from the divine nature.
And he always and uniformly compares tlieir origination from the Faiher, with
the efflui: of the solar rays from the sun; and teaches that these solar rays,
although of the same nature with the sun from which they flow, are yet only
minute particles of the solar light and heat issuing from the immeniic mass;
and that they sustain the same relation to their source, as small streams i<suing
from great lakes, sustain to those lakes. In his opinion, therefore, the Father
is the prime cause of all things, and the Snn is a secondary cause, and, as it
Avere, the instrument by which the Father created the world, and ditfused widely
his beneficence ; just as a cloud, wiien fecundated by the sun's rays, scatters and
spreads those r.iys over the e;irlh. In evolving and expanding this doctrine,
Origen is wonderfully variable; so that he sometimes seems to come very near
the views of the Nicenc fathers, at other times to incline towards the Snbellians,
and at times to agree with the Arians. If we would judge him correctly and
fairly, we must, I think, keep in view his first or fundamental principles. — Ori-
gen finds greater difficulty when he attempts to reconcile with his philosophy
what the Scrii)tures teach re^«pecting the union of two natures in Christ.
For he thought it utterly impossible that God, a being entirely separate from
matter, shouhl ever assume a body, or be willing to associate himself with mat-
ter. He expressly tells us, (de Princip. L. ii. c. 6. p. 90.) : Non cnim possibUe
crat Dei natiiram corpori sine mediatore nilscerl. That is, the divine nature, being
[p. 624.] generically a different substance from matter, the two substances cannot
possibly be commingled. To overcome this obstacle, and yet exclude from
the divine nature all propension towards a body or matter, he conceived that
God did not receive the man, but the man received God. Yet not the whole
man did so, but only the srml, the principal part of man. Tliat soul, which mi-
grated into the body of Chri.^t and inhabited it, exerted more perfectly than all
the souls which emanated from God, its free-will, in the wisest and best man-
ner, in its primitive state, and expended all its energies in the contemplation
of the Son of God, the first emanation from the divine nature. This persever-
ing and most intense consideration or contemplation of the Word or Son of
God, procured for this soul the privilege that it received the entire Word of
God into itself, or itself passed entire into the Son of God, (it is uncertain
wliich.) and thus it became one person with the Son of God. Hear his own
statement, (de Princip. L, ii, c. 6. p. 90.) : Cum pro liberi avbitrii facultate varic-
tas unumquemque ac diveritas animorum habuisset, ut alius ardentiore, alius
tenuiore et exiliore crga auctorem suum amore teneretur, ilia anima, de qua
dixit Jesus: quia nemo auferet a me animam meam (Joh. x. 18,) ab initio
creaturae et deinceps inseparabiliter ei atque indissociabiliter inhaerens, utpotc
sapienticc et verbo Dei et veritati ac luci verac, et tota totum recipiens, atque in
ejus lucem splendoremquc ipsa cedens, facta est cum ipso principaliter unu3
spiritus. - - - Unus spiritus esse cum Deo cui magis convenit, quam huic animaa
quae se ita Deo per dilectionem junxit, ut cum co unus spiritus merito dicatun
What Origen here asserts of the soul of Christ, appears to us as a mere as-
sumption ; but he regarded it as accordant both with the dictates of reason and
J
OrigeiCs views of Atonement. 161
t!ie declarations of Scripture. By reason, he tliiis supports his opinion : No
one can be rewarded or punished by God, unless he merits it. Because God,
being most wise and righteous, can do nothing inconsiderately or without good
reason. And therefore he must distribute both happiness and misery, accord-
ing to the merits of those who are susceptible of them. Hence it follows, that
this supreme felicity which the soul of Christ received, was conferred upon it,
solely because of its merits. And if so, then it follows that this soul excelled
all others in its love to God, and in consequence of this love, became united to
the Son of God. — As for scriptural evidence, he supposed tlve words^of David,
Ps. xlv. 8. [The sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre,] were especi;illy
favorable to his opinion: and with that text, he connected others both from the
Old Testament and the New. — By means of this union of the soul of Christ
with the Word or Son of God, it became possible for God to be united to a hu-
man body: not indeed directly, and by itself, but indirectly, through the soul
to which he was united. For, according to Origen's views, every linite spirit
is clothed with a tenuous body or a subtile kind of matter, which subtile mat-
ter, without any ditliculty, can coalesce with the grosser kind of matter of which
our bodies are composed. And in a finite spirit, like the soul, the desire [p. 625.1
may arise for greater happiness ; and consequently, also a wish to possess a body.
lie says: Hac ergo substantia animaa inter Deum carnemque mediante, (non
enim possibile crat Dei naturam corpori sine mediatore misceri) nascitur Deus
liomo, ilia substantia media existente, cui utique contra naturam non erat cor-
pus assumere. Sed neque rursus anima ilia, utpote substantia rationabilis,
contra naturam habuit capere Deum, in quern, uti superius diximus, velut in
verbum et sapientiam et veritatem tota jam cesserat. Unde et merito etiam ipsa
cum ea, quam assumserat, carne, Dei filius, el Dei virtus, Christus et sapientia ap-
j)t?latur: et rursum Dei filius, per quern omnia creata sunt, Jesus Christus et filius
iiominis nominatur. — But if these things were so, then most assuredly the Son
of God did not connect himself with human flesh ; but it was the soul of Christ
that became incarnate. Nor did the Word or Son of God, though dwelling in
a body, have any intercourse with that body, (according to Origen, that was
impossible,) but only the soulW\i\\ which the Word had some affinity, commu-
nicated with the body : that is, the soul, having so coalesced with the Son of
God as to be one spirit, governed the body, and so regulated all its movements
that they could not swerve from the rule of rectitude and duty. Moreover, the
moving cause of the descent of the Son of God to this earth and of the incarnii-
tion, was not in God, in his good will towards mankind; but it was in the soul
of Jesus Christ. For this soul first perseveringly longed after communion with
the Word or Son of God, and, by the right use of its freedom of choice, ob-
tained it ; and afterwards, it desired to be joined with matter or to a body, which,
according to Origen, the divine nature never could desire. And, therefore, in
this whole matter, the Son of God had no concern, except that he became
united with the soul of Christ, and tiien permitted that soul to follow its wishes
and inclinations.
As to the object and consequences of the advent of the Son of God to our
world, and of his sufferings and death, Origen nowhere fully and explicitly
12
163 Centimj III.— Section 27.
states his views ; but that his opinions on this subject were very different from
those of modern Christians, and from the faith taught in the Scriptures, liis
philosophical notions respecting' the soul and other matters, will not allow us to
doubt. And in various passages he does not disguise the fact, although he may
seem to take much pains not to let his hearers fully understand him. One
thing indeed he often states, namely, that Christ by his death made atonement,
not for the sins committed by souls in their primitive state before they inha-
bited bodies, but for their sins in the body ; and so far his opinions do not
differ from the common views of Christians. But it is quite otherwise, if we
carefully weigh what he abundantly inculcates. I will not dwell on his belief,
that the sacrifice of Christ had a reference to the sun, the moon, and all the
stars, and to demons and angels; for, while his philosophy taught him that
sinning souls inhabited not only human bodies, but likewise other material
[p. 626.] objects, and also the demons, both those wholly depraved and those
but partially bereft of their native beauty, and that Christ proffers aid to all
souls estranged from God ; he could not possibly think otherwise. But, what
is vastly more important, Origen was — if I am not wholly deceived — ignorant of
the vicarious nature of Christ's atonement, or he did not hold that Christ, in
our stead, paid to divine justice the penalty of our ill deserts. Nor will this
appear strange, if we consider that he denied the communion of the Son of God
with the body of Christ, and the union of the divine and human natures in
Christ, or what we call the hypostatic union ; and that he held, as we have be-
fore stated, that only the soul of Christ was connected with the Word or Son
of God ; from which it must indubitably follow, that the pangs and death of
Christ's body were only those of the man Christ, and not also of God joined
with human nature ; and that the blood which Christ shed was only the blood of
a man, and not the blood of God ; or, what is the same thing, that Christ, not as
both God AND man, but only as a wan, expiated the sins of mankind. And if
this be admitted, all that we teach respecting the vicarious satisfiiction of Christ
falls to the ground. — If now the inquiry be raised, in what manner he supposed
the death of Christ to take away the sins of men ? I answer, first : he is no-
where explicit on this subject. Yet I will add, that he seems to have held, that
the effusion of Christ's blood was sufficient to jpurify men and to appease divine
justice. He has a long passage on this subject, in his 24th Homily, on the book
of Numbers, \ 1. (0pp. tom. ii. p. 362, 363.) From this passage his views are
more clearly learned than from any others. He first asserts: Omnepeccatum pro-
pitiationem requirere ; propitiationem autcm non fieri, nisi per hostiam, id est, per
sanguinem victimcc Deo ohlatcc ; eaque re necessarium fuisse, ut provideretur
hostia pro peccatis hominum. All this seems well enough; but what he goes on to
say, and the inferences he makes, clearly show, that he attached to this language
a very different meaning from that common among Christians. For he asserts, that
the blood of any righteous person can expiate the sins of a portion of mankind;
and especially if the righteous person, at the time he dies and pours out his
blood, prays God to pardon those for whom he dies. Between the sacrifice of
Christ and those which holy and righteous men, such as Paul, Abel, and others,
present to God by their death, there are two points of difference, viz. : first, the
Origcn's Views of Atonement. 1G3
sacrifice cf Christ was universal, or extended to the whole human race, while
those of other righteous persons can benefit only a portion of mankind before
God ; secondly, the blood of righteous men derives its efficacy chiefly from the
prayers of those men ; while Christ, being God, can remit sins, solely by his
power, on account of his death : Vide ergo, ne forte sicut Dominus et Salvator
noster, quasi agnus ad occisionem ductus et in sacrificium altaris oblatus, pecca-
torum remissionem universo prcestitit mundo : ita fortasse (a modest [p. 627.]
statement, as usual with him, but in accordance with his real belief, as the whole
context shows,) et cseterorum sanctorum ac justorum sanguis, qui effusus est a
sanguine Abel justi usque ad sanguincm Zacharioe prophets, alterius quidem
sanguis sicut vitula3, alterius sicut hirci, aut caprae aut alicujus horum fusus
est adexpiandum pro aliqua parte populum. And this, he thinks, can be proved
from the law of Moses. For while the law required various kinds of animals,
lambs, calves, goats, &c., to be immolated to God for sin, Origen supposed
slain lambs to be emblems of Christ's death, but that the other animals repre-
sented the deaths of holy and righteous men. Hear him explicitly stating this
strange doctrine : Quod si agnus, qui ad purificandum populum datus est, ad
personam Domini et Salvatoiis nostri refertur, eonsequens videtur, quod etiam
cffitera animalia, quae eisdem purificativis usibus deputata sunt, referri dibeant
similiter ad aliquas personas, qua3 purificationis aliquid humano generi confe-
rant. And he repeats tiie same thing a little after, adding that perhaps also
some of the angels and celestial spirits may offer themselves to God, as victims
to expiate the sins of men: Sic ergo fortassis et si quis angelorum, coelestium-
que virtutum, aut si quis justorum hominum, vel etiam sanctorum prophetarum
atque apostolorum, qui enixius interveniat (i. e. precelur) pro peccatis hominum,
hie pro repropitiatione divina, velut aries, aut vitulus, aut hircus oblatus esse in
sacriticium ob purificalionem populo impetrandam accipi potest. After elucidat-
ing this subject by the example of Paul, whose language (in Rom. ix. 3, 1 could
wish myself accursed, &c. ; and in 2 Tim. iv. 6, 1 am now ready to be offered,
Sm.) he cites in confirmation ; and after fully explaining his views, he returns
to the consideration of Christ's sacrifice, and its difference from human victims,
and tells us: Talis ha3c fuit (Chrisli) hostia ut una sola sufficeret pro totius
mundi salute ; cceieri enim precibus peccata, hie solus potestate dimisit. Strikingly
coincident herewith are his remarks concerning martyrs and their blood, in his
Exhorialio ad Marlyi'ium, near the end : Forte, quemadmodum nos pretioso
Christi sanguine redempti sumus; ita et quidam pretioso martyrum sanguine
redimuntur : ot/Taj tw Tiy-tta aiuari ruv /nafTvfbyv dyopafr^-YiO-ovrai nvec' •
Origen did not suppose, and, for various reasons, he could not suppose, that
those holy and righteous men, the martyrs, who (as he believed,) expiated the
sins of some men by their death or blood, were, either by God or by their own
act, substituted in the place of the persons whose sins they expiated, and so
endured the penalties due to God for other men's sins; and therefore, neither did
he believe that Christ — whose death he regarded as not in itself differing from
the sufferings of those holy and righteous persons — was a substitute for the hu-
man race, and endured our penalties. And, consequently, we must f p. 628.]
believe that Origen thought the mere blood of an innocent person could, of
164 Century IIL—Sectlon 27.
itself, move God to pardon sinners ; and that, for the remission of sins, divine
justice does not require the penalties of them to be endured, either by the via-
laters of the law or by their substitutes.
What ICC most reli^nously believe, namely, that the Son of God satisfied
the divine law in our slead, and, by his most perfect obedience, merited for us a
title to eternal life, — all this was alien from the philosophical religion of Origen.
According to his belief, there resides in the minds of all men a free will, a na-
tive power of obeying the divine commands, which, when excited by a know-
ledge of divine truth, a^id aided by tlie influences of the Holy Spirit, can so con-
trol and govern all the movements and actions of the man, as to make those
actions perfectly harmonize with the divine will. Nor can God, — as Origen
clearly states in several places, — bestow the rewards of law, or the forfeited
eternal felicity, upon any souls except the meritorious; that is, such as exert
wisely and properly their innate liberty. For as souls, by the depraved use of
their liberty, have deservedly lost their happiness and been thrust into these
human bodies, so also, by their own merits, and not by those of another, they
must return to God, and regain their lost felicity. — I need not proceed further;
enough has been stated to show what is the character of Origen's philosophical
theology, which differed marvellously from that of Christians at the present
day. Yet if any are desirous of examining the entire system of this celebrated
man, and of judging correctly of the controversies of so many great men respect-
ing his sentiments, (which, I can recognize no one hitherto as doing,) they
must, first of all, investigate, methodically digest, and intelligibly explain that
philosophy which Origen has given us by fragments in his writings; and this
being done, it will be readily perceived, that they labor in vain who would per-
suade us that Origen had the same views of religion as most Christians of the
present day. For example: distinguished men dispute, with great earnestness,
what opinion did Origen hold in regard to the resurrection, or the return of
souls to their bodies; and some accuse, and some defend him. T confess I am
ignorant of his opinion ; for on this subject, as on many others, he is variable
and inconstant in the exposition of his views. But if I compare the Christian
doctrine of the resurrection with his philosophical precepts, I readily see that
he must have viewed the subject differently from us. For while he places the
whole of man in his soul, and regards the concrete visible body, in which the
soul lodges, as no part of human nature, but only the penitentiary or prison of
the soul, it is evident that he could not suppose a soul, at the end of its pe-
riod of exile, and when purged from its sins, would again become coupled with
its body. — There is another thing generally overlooked by the disputants con-
cerning Origen, which is of vast importance in their discussions. As Origen
held to a two-fold religion, the one popular and the other philosophical;
[p. 629.] so he treated religion in a two-fold manner, sometimes in a popular
way and sometimes philosophically. Now, those who overlook this fact may
ofte« suppose him to disagree with himself, while, in reality, he is entirely con-
sistent ; and this is one cause of the endless disputes respecting his theology.
They who plead his cause and defend his reputation, cite the passages in which
he explains religious subjects as he would have them stated to the common
Origcn's Allegories. 1(J5
people ; and because, in tliese passages, he states divine trutlis just as tho
Scriptures and the common preachers of Christianity do, they thiniv liis bolder
and more artificial statements should be amended so as to agree with the
former; and they err greatly by confounding his exterior doctrines, suited to
common apprehension, with his interior expositions, which he intended only for
the ears of learned men. And those who accuse him of errors, argue from the
passages in which he explains and accounts for the Christian doctrines on tlie
principles of philosophy. This they have a right to do; yet they fall into two
mistakes : Firi^t, they conclude from these passages that Origen drew away
Christians from the ancient and simple religion of the earlier times, and plunged
them in a sea of empty speculation ; which was but partially true. For he did
not aim to overthrow the ancient and simple religion of the previous ages, which
he himself taught and recommended; but he wished the supervisors and doctors
of the Christian church to have a more profound knowledge, and to be able,
when occasion required it, to explain rationally that simple religion. Secondly:
they suppose that the real views and opinions of Origen on religious subjects
may be learned from the passages mentioned; which is sometimes actually
the case, but not always. For he often gives us his conjectures, rather than his
fixed opinions ; and in several passages he proposes different opinions on the
same subject. One thing indeed clearly appears ; on many subjects he thought
dilferently from other Christians ; and the philosophy which he followed obliged
him to think differently ; but how he thought, is not, in many cases, equally
clear; and, not unfrequently, he did not know himself how he ought to think.
§ XXVIII. Origen's allegorical expositions. Origeil's new me-
thod of explaining and illustrating religious truths by means of
philosophy, required also a new method of expounding the sacred
Scriptures. For, meeting with many things in the Scriptures
repugnant to tlie decisions of his philosophy, he deemed it ne-
cessar}^ to devise some method of removing this disagreement.
And as it would add confirmation to his opinions^ if he could
make it appear that they were supported by the authority of
Scripture, some plausible way was to be devised which [p. 630.]
should make his speculations appear to be taught in the holy ora-
cles. Therefore, taking up the ancient doctrine of the Pharisees
and Essenes, which also he had learned from his preceptor, Cle-
ment^ namely, that of a double sense in holy Scripture, ho am-
plified and adorned it so ingeniously that it afforded him am-
jjlc means of bending the sense of Scripture to suit his purpose,
and eliminating from the Bible Avhatever Avas repugnant to his
favorite opinions.(') Yet strange as it may appear, this same
Origen, — who had offered so much violence to the sacred books,
and almost subverted their true meaning, — resolutely undertook
166 Century III.— Section 28.
and most patiently accomplished an incredible labor in aid of
tbose who wish to investigate the literal sense of scripture, and
thus produced an enduring monument of his industry, in what
is called his llexapla. And so, frequently, those who disagree
with every body, also disagree with themselves ; and having
magnificently extolled something, are found tacitly disapproving
and censuring it.Q
(1) Tliose who wish to stigmatize the memory of Origen, represent him as
the autiior and inventor of the allegorical mode of interpreting the Scriptures :
and they account it one of his principal faults, and a great stain upon liis clia-
racter. His patrons, on the contrary, and particularly Huet, deny that he was
the author of this mode of interpretation ; and they demonstrate that not only
Jews, but Christians also, before the days of Origen, recommended the study
of allegories, both by precept and by their example : and they are angry at the
ancient and modern assailants of Origen, who criminate him for following the
example of his precursors; which was only a minor fault, and scarcely deserv-
ing much rebuke. In my opinion, both his accusers and his vindicators go too
far. It is very certain that the Jews, and among them the Pharisees especiaMy
and Essenes, before the birth of our Saviour, believed that in the language of
the Bible, besides the sense which is obvious to the reader, there is another more
remote and recondite, concealed under the words of Scripture. And it is
equally certain that Aristoibulus, and others, and especially that celebrated Alex-
andrian Jew, Philo, many of whose works have come down to us, — did labor
to deduce and to confirm the precepts of the philosophy they embraced, from
and by the books of Moses and the prophets. And, finally, it is manifest that
this mode of explaining the holy Scriptures was much approved and practised by
the Christian teachers, before Origen was born ; and those masters of the Alex-
[p. 631.] andrian school, Panta^nus and Clement, (the latter, Origen's preceptor)
did tread in the steps of Philo ; and they taught their disciples, according to
his example, to believe that the elements of all philosophical truth are interwo-
ven into the history and the laws of the sacred books. Origen therefore had
for his precursors many men of high character ; and he was not the first who
brought into the church the study of either sacred allegories in general or phi-
losophical allegories in particular. And this conduces not a little to diminish
his f;iult. But, on the other hand, it is manifest that he did not keep himself
within the bounds which his precursors had placed around this thing ; but he
allowed himself much greater liberties than the Christian doctors before him
had deemed allowable. This he himself testifies. For he states repeatedly,
that he had incurred the odium of many by his mystical interpretations, and
that he was accused of violating the dignity of the holy Scriptures. In his
iliirteenth Homily on Genesis, sec. 3. (Opp, tom. ii. p. 95.) he maintains that
Isaac, — who digged the wells which the Philistines filled up, (Gen. xxvi. 15.) —
was an emblem of those interpreters who pass by the literal meaning and
isearch for arcane senses in the sacred volume ; and that the Philistines repre-
Ongens Allegories. |(^7
Bented the persons wlio will never go beyond the historic sense of scripture.
Qui sunt isti, {PhUhlini) qui terra puteos replent? Illi sinedubio, qui in letre
terrenarn et carnalem intelli,i]:entiam poiiunt, et spiritalem ac niysticuni I'hiudunt,
lit iiequo ij)si bibaiit, neque alios bibore permittant. From tliis exposition he
takes occasion to inveigh severely against those who condemned his allegori-
cal interpretations. Unusquisque nostrum, qui verbum Dei ministrat, puteum
fodit, et aquam vivam quaerit, ex qua refieiat auditores. Si ergo incipiam et
ego veteruui dicta discutere et sensum in eisquaerere spiritalem, si eonatus fuero
velamen legis amovere, et ostendere allegorica esse quae scripta sunt, fodio qui-
dein puteos, sed statim mihi movebunt calunmias amici litterae et insidlabuntur
milii, inimicitias continuo et persecutiones parabunt, veritatem negantes stare
posse super terram. (By lerram, he means the literal sense.) Sed nos si Isaac
pueri sumus, puteos aqua? viva) diligamus et fontes, a litigiosis et calnmniato-
ribus recedamus, et relinquamus eos in terra, (i. e. in the literal sense,) quam
diligant. Nos vero nunquara cessemus puteos aquse vivae fodiendo. (i. e. will
never cease to follow after allegories.) — A passage not unlike this occurs in his
seventh Homily on Levit. sec. 4. p. 223, 224. where he enters upon a discussion
respecting clean and unclean animals and meats, with great caution, not to
afford weapons to his opposers. De cibis qui per umbram dicuntur, ascenda-
mus ad eos, qui per spiritum veri sunt cibi. Sed ad ha3C investiganda scripturse
divinaj testimoniis indigemus, ne quis putet, (amant enim homines exacuere lin-
gus suas ut gladium) ne quis, inquam, putet, quod ego vim fiiciam scripturia
divinis, et ea, qua2 de animalibus in lege referuntur, ad homines traham, [p. 632.]
et de hominibus haec dicta esse confingam. Fortassis enim dicat quis audito-
rum: cur vim facis Scripturae ? Animalla dicuntur, animalia intelligantur. —
How came it, I ask, that Origen, by searching for mystical senses of scripture,
incurred odium in an age when all the Christian doctors, either wholly over-
looking or but slightly regarding the literal sense, fondly pursued allegories?
Beyond a doubt it must have arisen from this, that Origen introduced many in-
novations into this mode of interpretation, and gave new and unheard of rules
concerning it. Certainly, he would have had no enemies, if he had merely
affirmed, what no one then called in question, that in addition to the sense
which the words of Scripture convey, another sense latent in the things describ-
ed, is to be diligently sought for. This will be manifest, if we consider who
were the men that inveighed so bitterly against Origen's allegories after he was
dead: I refer to Eustatius, Epiphanius, Jerome, Augustine, and many others.
AH these were themselves Allegorists, if I may use that term ; and would un-
doubtedly have condemned any man, as a great errorist, vvho should have dared
to impugn the arcane sense of Scripture, or to censure the deriving both doc-
trines and precepts, and the knowledge of future events, from the narratives
and laws contained in the Bible. There must, therefore, necessarily, have been
something new and unusual in Origen's exegetics, which appeared to them per-
nicious and very dangerous. Otherwise, they would have regarded iiis system
of interpretation as beautiful and perfectly correct.
These things being so, it was not altogether wrong to call Origen the au~
ikor of the allegoric interpretations: and it becomes an im])ortinit inquiry, what
168 Centimj III.— Section 28.
were those additions made by him to the doctrine of allef^ories, which other
believers in a double sense of scripture deemed altogether inadmissible. The
first and chief was, that he pronounced a great part of the sacred books to be
void of meaning if taken literally, and that only the things indicated by the
words were the signs and emblems of liigher objects. The Christians who had
previously followed after mystic interpretations, let the truth of the sacred
narratives and the proper sense of the divine laws and precepts remain in full
force ; but he turned much of the sacred history into moral fiibles, and no small
part of the divine precepts into mere allegories. I would not say, that this cor-
rupt mode of interpretation originated with Origen ; I suppose rather, that be-
fore him, some among the Jews rejected the grammatical sense of their law,
and followed only a moral and hidden sense of it. For I perceive that P]iilo,m
his book de Migratione Ahrahami, (0pp. tom. i. p. 450. ed. Angl.) — notwithstand-
ing he himself sometimes seems to disregard almost wholly the literal sense,
yet severely censures a certain class of men, who entirely disregarded the laws
of Moses, and held only to a mystical interpretation of them : for example, they
believed that all Moses' injunctions concerning circumcision, should be under-
stood of the excision of our lusts and passions; and under this cover, they
[p. 633.] spurned the letter of the law : but Fhilo admonishes them, distinctly,
that the mystical interpretation of the law should be so pursued, as to leave in-
violate the dignity and authority of the literal import of tl.e word. He says;
"EjTei ytif d/ufoTepcjv S7ri(UgX«'&"iii'at> ^«r«o"sws n tcjv dipavCiv dn^i&io-Tipas x-ai ra/xias twit
9avtgwv dviiTixiirTov. They ovght to regard both, searching critically for the noji-oppa-
renl (the remote sense), and preserving the manifest unassailed. Of the Therapeiitcc
I say nothing; because, what Philo tells us of their allegories, in his book de Vita
Theorelica, does not appear to me sufficiently perspicuous, to justify a positive
decision that they rejected the literal import of the law. But among Ciiristians,
there were none, before Origen, who adopted the opinion that many parts of tho
scriptures were destitute of any literal meaning. And hence it was, that when
Origen ventured boldly to assert this doctrine, voy many resisted it, and very
justly feared, that the truth and authority of religion itself would be much en-
dangered, if the people were told that many things narrated in the Bible never
took place, and that many things were commanded which must be understood
far otherwise than the words indicated. And it appears strange, that a man
of so much discernment should not see, that those very heretics, the Gnostics,
for instance, whom he sought to confute by this mode of interpretation, might
very conveniently use it for overthrowing the entire history of the life and
death of Christ, the truth of which they denied. But I suspect, that Origen be-
came accustomed to this bold exegesis, in the same school in which he learned
philosophy. For, those well informed on the subject, know that all the disci-
ples of Am7nonius interpreted Homer, Hesiod, and the entire history of the pa-
gan deities, in the very same manner, in which Origen taught his followers to
interpret a large part of the Bible. Nearly allied to this first fault, was another;
namely, that he lauded immoderately the recondite and mystical sense of scrijv
ture, and unreasonably depreciated the grammatical or iiistorical sense. The
latter he compared to earth, mud, the body, and other things of little value;
Orlgens Allegories. IGi)
but the former he compared to the soul, heaven, gold, and the most prceioua
objects. By such representations he induced the expositors of scripture, to
think little about the literal sense of passages, and to run enthusiastically after
the sublimer interpretations. It was very different with the other Christian
doctors who possessed good sense. Although they highly valued the mystical
sense, yet they placed an equal value on the grammatical and historical : nay,
they made the latter the foundation and basis of the former : whence it would
follow, that no inquiry after the arcane and moral sense should be made, until
the literal meaning is carefully and accurately ascertained. As the stability
and authority of the Christian religion depend on the truth of the history given
us in the Bible, and as the true forms and grounds both of its doctrines and
precepts are to be learned from the proper sense of the words of scripture ; it
is manifest, that this religion is equally harmed, by him who makes no [p. 634.]
account of the literal sense, and by him who considers the words to have no
meaning.
Again, it was indeed not altogether a new thing, and yet it was a thing un-
usual and offensive to many, that Origen sought to derive from the scriptures
by means of allegories, that philosophy which he had embraced ; and that he
believed, the philosophical grounds of the Christian doctrines were exhibited,
though somewhat obscurely, by the sacred writers. Tiiose who, up to that
time, had sought for allegories in the scriptures, had found there only religious
or sacred allegories ; i. e. such as referred to Christ, to Antichrist, to the state
of the church, and to the duties of Christians; but Origen, following the exam-
ple of Philo Judfeus, whom he was taught by his master Clement to follow as
a guide, endeavored to make a large part of the Bible teach the dogmas of the
philosophers. And this was the more offensive to Christians, because many of
them still continued to regard philosophy as a pestilent thing, and to be for
ever kept out of the church. Origen was led into this fault, not merely by the
example of Philo, but also by the doctrine of his preceptor. Ammonias, respect-
ing the harmony between philosophy and the Christian religion ; the adoption
of which doctrine, would necessarily lead him to carry philosophy into the holy
scriptures. Among the dogmas of his acquired philosophy, one of the more
considerable was, that noted one of the Platonic school respecting a two-fold
world, a lower and an upper, or a visible and an invisible, a corporeal and a
spiritual; and of the correspondences of things in this xislble world, wWh the
things of the invisible or conceived world. Considering this doctrine as most
certain, he transferred it entire to the holy scriptures ; and therefore he affirm-
ed, that whatever the inspired writers tell us respecting changes and occur-
rences in this lower and visible world, relates also to the affairs and the history
of the upper and invisible world. Of this doctrine we shall say more hereafter.
But it being then altogether novel and strange to the ears of Christians, it
could not fail to excite great complaints among those attached to the ancient
Christian simplicity. — Now, as all the opinions we have mentioned, were dis-
pleasing to most Christian teachers, so the rules of interpretation introduced
by Origen to advance them, could not but displease many, and be rejected not
only as novel, but also as injurious to the scriptures and to their author. Be-
170 Century Ill—Section 28.
fore the times ofOrigen, the investigation of scriptural allegories was altoge-
tiier unsettled, or regulated by almost no laws or fixed principles. And, there-
fore, when he attempted to subject it to fixed rules, founded on his own opi-
nions, he might be accounted, and he actually was, an innovator.
As to the causes which induced Origen to amplify and to systematize the
allegoric mode of interpreting scripture, it must be admitted, in the first place,
that much was due to the excessively fecund genius of the man, to the custo-
mary practice among the Egyptians, to his education, to the instruction of his
[p. 635.] preceptors, and to the example both of the philosophers whom he
admired, and of the Jews, especially Philo. But in addition to these external
and natural causes, as they mny be called, there were others originating from
his own deliberate judgment : and among the latter, some were not dishonora-
ble, or unworthy of a religious teacher desirous of advancing the cause of Chris-
tianity. First, he hoped that the Jews would more readily be persuaded to
embrace Christianity, if certain portions of the Old Testament were explained
mystically and allegorically. For he supposed certain prophecies, which, if con-
strued literally, would not refer to Christ, were an obstacle to the Jews' em-
bracing Christ; but that if these prophecies were explained mystically, and no
regard paid to the literal sense, the Jews might be more ready to believe that
all that the ancient prophets foretold concerning the Messiah actually referred
to Jesus of Nazareth. — Secondly, he supposed that the class of heretics called
Gnostics, the Basilidians, the Valentinians and others, could not be completely
put down and confuted, except by the admission of allegories in the Old Tes-
tament. For these sects, in order to prove that the supreme God, the Father
of our Saviour, was a different being from him who created this world and
caused (he Old Testament to be written, cited many passages from the Mosaic
laws, from the writings of the prophets, and from the historical books of the
Old Testament, which they considered as unworthy of the majesty and holiness
of the supreme God, and as indicative of a degree of weakness and wickedness.
And as Origen despaired of solving these objections, he thought they must be
avoided by resorting to allegories, and that all the passages with which the
Gnostics reproached God and his friends and ministers, must be construed in a
mystical sense worthy of the divine character. These two reasons, Origen
himself repeatedly mentions ; and especially in his book de Principii.% (Lib. ii.
c. 8. p. 164. &c.) But if he had been influenced by no reasons besides these,
his system of interpretation would have extended to only a very small portion
of the scriptures; and it would not have greatly offended his fellow Christians.
For others before him, in their disputes with the Jews and the Gnostics, had
betaken themselves to allegories as their castle. There were therefore other
reasons for the course he pursued, and reasons of a more exceptionable charac-
ter. Among these the first undoubtedly was, his attachment to his system of
philosophy. For, perceiving that many of the facts and declarations of the Bi-
ble conflicted with the principles of his philosophy, he felt the necessity of
resorting to some means of escaping their force ; and he could find none more
easy and effectual than this assumption : Whatever in the sacred books con-
flicts with my philosophy, must not be taken literally, but must be converted
Origcns Allegories. 171
into allegory. Safely posted behind this rule, he could easily resist whatever
the scriptures might oppose to his opinions, and whatever the [p. 636.]
philosophers might urge against Christianity. This we see exemplified in his
book against Celsvs. — Kindred with this was another reason, derived from the
harmony between Christianity and philosophy. As we have before seen, he
believed that the grounds of all the doctrines taught in the scriptures, might be
deduced from the principles of philosophy. And closely connected with this
opinion, was another, namely, that these philosophical grounds of Christian
doctrines, were all tauglitin the scriptures, not indeed explicitly, but with some
obscurity and as it were covertly ; and, therefore, they can be discovered, and
drawn forth by the sagacious, especially by those whom God favors with the
gift of language, and of the so-called knowledge. Having assumed this, he was
obliged to add, that those philosophical grounds of Christian doctrines, are
wrapt up in figures, images, and facts, in the sacred volume : for if we adhere
to the lileral meaning, that harmony between religion and philosophy can not
be found. To these two causes, a third may be added; namely, that Platonic
dogma, which was firmly established in his mind, that there are two corres-
ponding worlds, this visible world in which we dwell, and corresponding with
it an upper or celestial world. And this dogma led him, in construing the Bib-
lical history of nations and countries, besides the literal import of the words
which refer to this visible world, to seek for another meaning applicable to the
world above. — He held two other opinions, both false, yet in his view unques-
tionable. First, that it was greatly for the honor and glory of Christianity,
that the holy scriptures, which are its source, should be accounted a book dif-
fering fundamentally from all human compositions, one full of various and
recondite mysteries. And that if God is to be considered as the author of the
book, there must necessarily be and appear in it, a portion, an effect, or some
exhibition, of that manifold and arcane wisdom which is in God. To this pw-
pose he frequently expresses himself distinctly. Thus in his fifteenth Homily
on Genesis, (Opp, torn. ii. p. 99.) he says : Observandum est nobis scripturas
sanctas legentibus scripturam divinam non (ut plurimis videtur) inern-
dito et agresti sermone compositam, (i. e. not in the manner in which men are
accustomed to communicate their thoughts to one another,) sed secundum dis-
ciplinam divinae eruditionis (i. e. sapiential) aptatam, ncque tantum historicis
narrationibus, quantum rebus et sensibus mysticis servientem. His first Ho-
mily on Exod. (Opp. tom. ii. p. 129.) commences thus: Videtur mihi unusquis-
que sermo divinae scriptura3 similis esse alicui seminum, cujus natura hacc est,
ut cum jactum fuerit in terram, regeneratum in spicam, vel in quamcunque
aliam sui generis speciem, multipliciter diffundatur, et tanto curaulatius, quanto
vel peritus agricola plus seminibus laboris impenderit, vel beneficium terrre
foecundioris indulserit. - - Ita et hie sermo, qui nunc nobis ex divinis volumi-
nibus recitatus est, si peritum inveniat et diligentem colonum,cum primo attnctu
videatur exiguus et brevis, ut coeperit excoli et spiritaliter tructari, crescit [p. 637.]
in arborem, in ramos, et in virgulta diffunditur. - - Unus sermo ex his, (pue roci-
tata sunt, in tantum posset longe, lateque difFimdi, si tamen et auditoruni c-a|).i-
citas sincret, ut vix nobis ad explicandum suflio* !ret dies. And, {de Principiis
112 Centunj IlT.— Section 28.
L. iv. see. 26. p. 189.) lie s.iys : Ad qii:im regulani etiam divinarum littevanira
intelligentia retinenda est, quo scilicet ea, quae dicuntur, non pro vilitate ser-
monis, sed pro divinitate sancti spirit us, qui easconscribi inspiravit, censeantur. —
Secondly, In the objections of the enemies of Christianity, there are not a few-
things which can in no way be fully cleared up and confuted, unless we aban-
don the historical and grammatical sense, and resort to allegories. Exempliti-
cations will be given hereafter. Origen was, by his philosophy, disabled for
answering satisfactorily all the objections adduced against Christianity by the
pagan priests, the philosophers and the Jews. The pious man could have done
it easily, if he had been willing to philosophise in a more liberal manner than
the precepts of his masters allowed. And, therefore, to maintain the honor of
that religion which he considered equally true with his philosophy,, he went over
to the side of the AUcgorists ; not perceiving, that in this way the objections of
the adversaries were not confuted, but in reality were only eluded.
Peter Daniel Huei has written learnedly on Origen's doctrine of allegories,
in his Origeniana, Lib. ii. Quasst .xiii. p. 170. : but he writes confusedly, and
not so much for the purpose of explaining and elucidating the subject, as for
obscuring it, and for excusing and defending its author. He is therefore an
unsate guide to an inquirer on this subject. The system of Origen is much
better stated and explained by a learned French writer whose name I have not
learned, in a French work entitled, The Literal and the Mystical sense of holy
Scripture, according to the views of the Fathers. Paris, 1727. 8vo. I have not
been able to obtain the book ; but Charles de la Rue, the editor of Origen, has
given a lucid epitome of it, supported by citations from Origen. in his Preface
to Origen's Works, vol. ii. — I will attempt to state Origen's views, more pre-
cisely than learned men have hitherto done, to correct their mistakes, to sup-
ply their deficiencies, and to exhibit this whole system of biblical interpreta-
tion, so far as it can be ascertdned, in the most correct and intelligible manner
within my power.
Origen's doctrine of allegories may be fitly divided into two parts; the Jirst,
embracing his opinions respecting the diflTerent senses of the holy scriptures ;
and the second, containing rules for distinguishing the diflTerent senses of scrip-
ture, and for determining in what passages the literal sense must be abandoned,
and in what passages a mystical sense may be coupled with the literal sense.
[p. 638.] The first part comprises the following rnoposiTioxs.
Prop. I. Holy scripture is like a man. As a man, according to Plato, con-
sists of three parts, a body, a sensitive soul, and a rational soul; so also the
sacred books have a threefold sense, a>body or a historical and grammatical
sense, a soul or a moral sense, and lastly a spirit or a mystical and spiritual
sense. Origen's Jiflh Homily on Lcvit. sec. 5. (0pp. torn. ii. p. 209.) :
Triplicem in scripturis divinis intelligenti?e inveniri ssepe diximus modum, his-
toricum, moralem, et mysticum. Unde et corpus inesse ei, et animam, ac spi-
ritum intelleximus. De Principiis L. iv. sec. 2. (0pp. tom. i. p. 168.) : Sicut
homo constare dicitur ex corpore et anima et spiritu : ita etiam sancta scrip-
tura, quae ad hominum sojutem divina Inrgitione concessa est. Many more pas-
sages might be adduced from his writings ; but these are suflScient.
Ori gal's Allegories. 173
Prop. II. As the flesh or body is the lowest and moat ignoble pnvt of man ;
so also the literal sense of scripture, which is like the body, is far below or inf^j-
rior to the moral and the mystical senses. And as the body often induces even
pious and good men to commit sin ; so also the proper sense of the words of
scripture may lead incautious readers into errors and faults. Origen's Slromafa
Lib. X. as quoted by Jerome, Lib. iii. Comm. in Galatas cap. v. (llieronymi 0pp.
tuin. i. p. 41.) : Non valde cos juvat Historia Scripturse, qui sic earn intelligunt,
uti scriptaest. Quis enim non doeebitur servire luxuriac, et fornicationem habere
pro nihilo, quum Judam ad meretricem legerit ingredientem, et Patriarchas ha-
buisse multas pariter uxores? Quomodo non ad idololatriam provocabilur,
(jui sanguinem taurorum et caeteras Levitici victimas non plus, quam quod in
littera sonat, piitaverit indicare ? Hroreses qiioque magis de carnali scrij).
turffi intelligentia, quam de opere earnis nostrae, ut plurimi a3stimant, substit-
erunt. Nee non invidiam et ebrietatem per legis litteram discimus. Jnebriatur
Noe post diluvium, et Patriarchae apud fratrum Joseph in ^Egypto. Sed
in commessationes in Regnorum libro scriptee sunt. - - - Multorum ergo
malorum occasio est, si quis in scripturaj carne permaneat. Quae qui fecerent,
regnum Dei non consequentur. Quamobrem spiritum seripturae fructusque
quaeramus, qui non dicuntur esse manifesti. - - - Quum base nobis aperta fuc-
rint, ralionahiUorem liabehimiis fidem, (Origen sought after a rational religion,
I. e. one accordant with his philosophy, which he deemed to be accordant with
reason,) et correctos mores temperantia comitabitur. De Principiis L. iv. sec.
8, 9. p. 165.: Simpliciores nonnulli, qui se de ecelesia esse gloriantur de
Deo suspicantur, quae ne de homine quidem crndelissimo ct injustissimo cogi-
tare fas sit. lis autem omnibus nulla falsarum opinionum, nulla impietatis et
stolidorum de Deo sermonum caussa esse alia videtur, quam scriptura [p. 639.]
non secundum sensum spiritualem intellecta. Many other passages might easily
be collected.
Pi-op. Ill Yet the literal sense is not altogether worthless ; for to common
people and the more ignorant, it may be of use to lead them to virtue and sal-
vation. De Principiis L. iv. (sec. 12. p. 169.) : Exposilionem litteralem etiam
per se utilem esse posse, testatur eorum multitudo, qui ingenue et simpliciter
crediderunt. (sec. 14. p. 173.): Ipsum quoque spiritualium indumentum, id
est, quod in scripturis corporeum est, in multis non est inutile, sed multos po.
test, quantum capaces sunt, meliores elTicere.
Prop. IV. But those who possess a little more wisdom and intelligence
than the vulgar, ought to seek after the soul of the sacred scriptures, passing
beyond their body or literal sense : that is, they should search for the moj-al
sense, which accompanies the grammatical ; or, they should apply all they read
to the mind and its moral improvement.
Prop. V. And those who have attained to perfection, or to the highest de-
gree of piety, should ascend higher still, and pry with all their might into the
spirit of the sacred books, or into their spiritual and mystical sense. These two
last precepts, and also the one preceding, are placed beyond all doubt, by the
following passage, {De Principiis L. iv. sec. 2. ]). 168.): Tripliciter ergo dcs-
cribere oportet in animasua unumquemque divinarum intelligentiani litterarum,
174 Century Ill.-^Sectioii 28.
id est, (1) ut simpllciores qiiique aedificentur ab ifso, ut ita dixerim, corpoie
scripturarum : sic eniiu appelhimus communem istum et historialem intellec-
tuni : (2) si qui vero aliquantuni jam proficere coeperunt, et possunt amplius ali-
quid intueri, ab ipsa scripturcc anima aedificentur. (3) Qui vero perfecti sunt,
ni tales ab ipsa spirituali lege, qure umbram habet futurorum bonorum, tan-
quam a spiriiu aedificentur. These are the rules which Origen invariably fol-
lows in his Commentaries and Homilies on the sacred books, yet extant. He
either wholly omiis, or but slightly touches on the historical or literal sense,
and hastens on to the moral or mystical senses almost as soon as he names the
passages.
Prop. VI. The moral sense of the Scriptures consists, partly, in doctrinal in-
structions, respecting those exercises or changes in the state of the mind of which
both good and bad men may be the subjects ; and partly in precepts, by which
both the exterior and the interior life of a Christian man should be governed.
Origen nowhere defines, (so far as I know,) what he means by the moral sense
of Scripture : but the correctness of the definition above given is demonstrable
from the numberless examples of this sense which he adduces. Thus Moses
tells us, (Exod. i. 6, 7.) that after the death of Joseph, the Children of Israel
multiplied exceedingly in Egypt. And to this statement Origen attaches a mo-
ral sense, (First Homily on Exod. ^ 4. 0pp. torn. ii. p. 131.) : In te si moriatur
Joseph, id est, si mortificationem Christi in corpore tuo suscipias et mortificea
membra tua peccato (so in the printed copies; but I think it should read
[p. 640.] peccaii,) tunc in te multiplicabuntur filii Israel. Filii vero Israel sensus
bnni et spiriiuales accipiuntur. Si ergo sensus carnis mortificentur, sensus spi-
ritus crescunt et quotidie emorientibus in te vitiis, virtutum nuraerus augetur.
So the king of Egypt commanded the midwives to kill the Hebrew male chil-
dren, but to let the females live. (Exod. i. 15, 16.) And, according to Origen,
{Homil. ii. in Exod. 5 1. p. 133.) the edict of Pharaoh contained this moral
sense: Princeps hujus mundi seu cacodaemon vult sensum rationabilem, qui
potest coelestia sapere, necare ; quaecunque vero carnis sunt vivere, et qu?e ad
materiara pertinent corporalera augeri. Cum ergo videris homines in voluptati-
bus et deliciis vitam ducere, in istis scias quod rex ^Egypti masculos necat et
vivificat foeminas. In Matt. xv. 21, 22. our Saviour is said to have gone into
the borders of Tyre and Sidon, where a Canaanitess of that country besought
him to heal her daughter. According to Origen (torn. xi. in Matth. § 16. 0pp.
torn. iii. p. 503.) the moral sense of the story is this: Unusquisque nostrum
dum peccat, versatur in finibus Tyri et Sidonis, migrans vero a vitio ad virtu-
tem exit e finibus Tyri et Sidonis et ad fines partis Dei pervenit. Atque huic
Christus, quemadmodum mulieri Chananacffi, occurrit quasi in partes Tyri et;
Sidonis veniens. — These examples show that a large part of the philosopliical
instructions, which Origen supposed to be latent in the scriptures, are contained
in the moral sense; while others of them are contained in the mystical sense,
which we are next to consider.
Prop. VH. Of the mystical sense, Origen himself gives the following definition,
(de Principiis, Lib. iv. § 13. p. 170.): Spiritalis explanatio (Trvsy^anxw J'tnyna-ts)
est talis, si quis potest ostendero quorum coelestium exemplaribus et umbrae
Origeiis Allegories, 175
deserviunt hi, qui secundum carnem judaei suntet quorum futurorum umbram
lex habet et si qua liiijusmodi in scripturis Sanctis repcriuntur, vol cum requiri-
tur qure sit ilia sapientia in m^stcrio abscondita (1 Cor. ii. 7.) et occasionem
nobis pra^stat intelli^a-ntia}, ut possimus advertere, quorum figurae crant istn, qua;
illis (Judaiis) aecidcbant. A part of this definition is pers})ieuous enouii^h : he
thinks emblems and predictions of things pertaininnr to Christ and the church
are held up to view in the law of Moses and in the Old Testament history.
Therefore, whoever refers to Christ, his acts and offices, and to the church, what-
ever in the literal sense refers to the Jewish affairs, discovers and follows the
mystical or allegorical sense. Yet a part of this definition cannot be fully
understood by those ignorant of Origen's peculiar opinions. Thus much indeed
every attentive reader will perceive, that what Origen calls the mystical sense
is twofold. For he says: (1) Judaeos securidura carnem coelestium exemplari-
bus et umbree deservire. The Greek is: Troiusv tTtovfavioiv C-KUtlyfjcari kHi [p. 641.]
crjud 01 Kara a-apx-a loi/eTa/ot t'KaTptvav. (Heb. viii. 5.) Therefore the ceremonies of
the law are shadows of heavenly things. He adds : (2) Legem tamen simul
umbram futurorum habere : that is, the law is a shadow of Christ's deeds and
of the events concerning him in this world. These two classes of things differ,
just as the celestial and terrestrial, heavenly and earthly things differ. Again,
he says (1) that in the scriptures a certain wisdom is hid in a mystery, as Paul
tells us ; and (2) that what things happened to the people of the Jews, were
figures of certain future things ; and these two classes of things also, he so
clearly distinguishes, that they cannot be confounded. But all this is msufficient
to make the views of Origen fully understood; and they must be more distinctly
exhibited in the following more precise definition.
Prop. VIII. The mystical sense of scripture is that which presents to us the
nature, state, and history of the spiritual or mystical world. Besides this cor-
poreal or material world, there is another, a spiritual world, beyond the reach
of our senses; and this other world is also twofold, celestial and terrestrial;
and the terrestrial may also be called th.e mystical world. This mystic terres-
trial world is the church of Christ on earth, the xaivH xrtVjc. See his Comm.
on John, (tom. ix. vol. ii. 0pp. p. 147, edit. Huetii. The recent Benedictine
edition has not yet reached this commentary) : Mundus autem et ornamentum
mundi est ecclesia. And, after a few words; 'Xiyio-^oo <roivZv « ^«xX«<7-ra xoV^ao?, o
TivTTo Toy <T(OTYpos(fa)ri^iTai. Dicatur itaque ecclesia mundus, quando a Servntore
illustratur. The other, the celestial or spiritual world, is in the upper regions;
and it corresponds in all its parts with the lower or corporeal world. For the
world in which we now dwell was foshioned after the model of the world
above. See his Comm. on John, (tom. xix. vol. ii. 0pp. edit. Huetii, p. 288.
I give the Latin only, which agrees accurately with the Greek.) : Est alius
mundus praeter hunc visibilem et sensibilem mundum (rdv J'tiKvu/utvov nat dtv^-^rdy
xoTfAov) constantem e ccelo et terra, vel e ccelis et terra, in quo sunt qu<c viden-
tur: Et hoc totuin est alius mundus, inaspectabilis mundus, qui non videtur,
mundus intelligibilis (vo<r/uoi doparos, KCiO-fAo^ Iv ^Xinofxtvos, Kai VoHTOi KO<rfACi,) cujlis
visione et pulchritudine fruontur qui puro sunt corde, quo liujus mundi intelli-
gibilis visioneantea bene parati penetrant vel ad ipsum Deum videndum, qua-
176 Century IIL—Section 28.
tonus vidcri natura potest Deus. That world beyond our ken, which we can
ontemplate only in thought, is, as before stated, pertVctly like to this cor-
poreal world; and of course it is divided into provinces, just as this world is.
Therefore, as there is a terrestrinl Palestine, Jerusalem, Tyre, Sidon, Arabia,
[p. 642.] &:c. so the upper or celestial world has similar places and provinces.
The inhabitants of the celestial world are souls or spirits; its kings and magis-
trates are the angels, both the good and the bad. Whatever events occur in this
world, the same occur in the world above; and there is a perfect similitude be-
tween these worlds. This doctrine he nowhere explains more fully than in hia
Principia, (L. iv. $ 20, &c. p. 181, &c.) He there tirst demonstrates, as he sup-
poses, that there is a celestial Judea, a celestial Jerusalem, a celestial Jewish
people. Elevare quodammodo ex terra et erigere intelligentiara nostram volens
Bunctus Apostolus ait in quodam loco : Videle Israel secundum carnem,(l Cor.
X. 18.) Per quod signiiieat utique qut)d alius Israel sit, qui non sit secundum
carnem, sed secundum spiritum. - - - Si ergo sunt queedam anim» in hoc mun-
do (superiori) qua3 Israel appellautur, et in coelo ci vitas quaedam, quae Jerusa-
lem nominatur, consequens est, ut has civitates, qua; gentis Israeliticoe esse di-
cuntur, Metropolia liabeant Jerusalem coelestem, et secundum haec de omni
Judasa intelligamus, de qua putamus etiam prophetas mysticis quibusdam nar-
rationibus loquutos. - - Quajcunque ergo vel nnrrantur vel prophetantur de
Jerui^alem - - utique de ilia civitate, quam (Paulus) dicit Jerusalem coelestem
et de omnibus locis vel urbibus, qua3 terra; sanctte urbes esse dicuntur, — dicta
esse intelligere debemus. Then dilating the idea, he extends it <o the whole
earth : Si ergo prophetias, qua de Judea et Jerusalem et de Juda et Israel ct
Jacob prophetata3 sunt, dum non a nobis carnaliter intelliguntur, mysteria quai-
dam divina significant: consequens utique est etiam illas prophetias, qua3 vel
de ^gypto vel de ^Egyptiis, vel de Babylonia vel de Babyloniis, et Sidone ac
Sidoniis prolataj sunt, non de Ji^gypto ista, qua?, in terris posita est, vel Baby-
lone vel Tyro, vel de Sidone intelligi prophetatas. - - - - Sicut coelestis est Je-
rusalem et Judaja, et gens sine dubio qua3 habitat in ea, qufe dicitur Israel, ita
possibile est etiam vicina his loca esse quaedam, quae vel iEgyptus, vel Baby-
lon, vel Tyrus, vel Sidon appellari videantur, eorumque locorura principcs, at-
que animae si quae in illis habitant locis, ^gyptii, Babylonii, Tyrii ac Sidonii
appellantur. From this doctrine he infers, that whatever occurrences there are
in this lower world, the same also exist in the world above ; and the strange
vagaries he indulges on this subject will be noticed hereafter. This strange
fiction is an exemplification of the degree in which Origen could accommodate
his theology to his philosophy. For, allhough he would persuade his readers
that he derived the doctrine of a twofold world, celestial and terrestrial, from
Paul's writings, (e. g. 1 Cor. x. 18. Rom. ii. 28, 29. Gal. iv. 26. Heb. xii. 22,
&c.) ; yet it is manifest that this doctrine is nothing more nor less than the
opinion of Plato and the Plalonists, respecting the eternal procession of the
[p. 643.] images and patterns of all things from the divine intelligence, and of
the formation of this visible world after the similitude of these so-called ideas.
Captivated with this philosophy, his prolific fancy led him to amplify this doc-
trine, and apply it to the holy scriptures. Those acquainted with Platonism
Orlgetis Allegories. 177
know, tliat the Platonic school, professedly following tiieir master, maintained
that from all eternity there issued forth from the divine intelligence the images
of all things ; — that these images were substantial beings, immutable in their
nature, and distinct from the divine mind from which they issued ; — that God
looked on these eternal ideas while forming tiiis corporeal world, just as a pain-
ter keeps his eyes constantly fixed on the objects he would represent in colors;
— that therefore all corporeal and finite things are but copies of those eternal
images; — that all truth and science reside in these images or ideas; that minds
wrapped up in matter discover only the obscure shadows of them. ; — but yet,
by reliection and study, they may gradually become able to look upon and
contemplate the eternal ideas themselves ; and this Plato supposed to be the
perfection of alL knowledge. All these notions Origen adopted as his own;
and hence that fantastic dream of the resemblance of this world to the world
above, and of the creation of the former after the pattern of the latter.
But I do not know that any of the Platonists went so far as to declare, that all
the things which occur among men, occur also in the heavenly world ; that
souls there live as men do on earth ; that in heaven angels are rulers, and carry
on wars, just as kings and princes do here below. At any rate this is clear,
that Origen by holding these opinions was obliged to assert, that whatever
the sacred books narrate respecting the countries, the nations, the kings, and
the occurrences of this world, must be equally true of the heavenly world ; so
that the history of our world is also the history of the celestial world and of its
inhabitants. And this he most distinctly asserts in his Principia, (L. iv. § 23.
p. 186.) : Unde consequens videbitur, etiam prophetias, qua) de singulis genti-
bus proferuntur, revocari magls ad animas debere, (because the celestial world
is more excellent and noble than this our corporeal world,) et diversas mansi-
ones earum coelestes. Sed et historias rerum gestarum, quae dicuntur vel genti
Israel, vel Jerusalem, vel Judajae accidisse, magis ista conveniebant illis
gentibus animarum, quae in coelo isto, quod transire dicitur, habitant, vel
etiara nunc habitare putanda3 sunt. In his eleventh Homily on Numbers, (^ 4, Opp.
tom. ii. p. 307.) he says : Puto, quia sicut quajdam nomina vel gentium vel prin-
cipum in Scripturis posita videmus, quae absque uUa dubitatione ad malos an-
gelos et ad virtutes contrarias referantur : ita etiam ea, quae de Sanctis viris
et gente religiosa scribuntur, ad sanctos Angelos et ad benignas de- [p. 644.]
beraus referre virtutes.
Prop. IX. As there is a twofold mystical world, the one here below, the
church, and the other above, the examplar after which this material and corpo-
real world was created ; so there is also a tioofold mystical sense of scripture,
the one relating to the church, and the other to the celestial world. That which
relates to the kingdom of Christ, or the church, is called the allegorical sense ;
that which relates to the celestial world may be called the anagogical sense.
Yet Origen does not always understand by the allegorical sense, that sense of
the Bible which exhibits the transactions of Christ and his ambassadors in
this lower world ; he sometimes uses the term in a broader accepation ; but
still, of the great number of examples of the allegorical sense contained in his
writings, most of the specimens we have adduced serve to illustrate the defini-
tion we have given. 13
178 Century Ill.—Section 28.
Proji. X. The mystical sense pervades the entire scriptures ; so that there
is not a declaration, in the inspired books, in which there is not something latent
that refers either to the church of Jesus Christ, or to the celestial world. See
his first Homily on Exocl. {\ 4. Opp. torn. ii. p. 131.) : Ego credens verbis Do-
mini mei Jesu Christi in lege et pruphetis icta qnidem unum aut unum apicem
non puto esse mysteriis vacuum, nee puto aliquid horum transire posse, nisi
omnia iiant. He frequently inculcates this idea in various forms; and he ex-
tends it, not only to the Old Testament, but also to the New, which is of equal
excellence and worth with the Old. See Priiicipia L. vi. § 14, &c. (p. 171, 172.)
In a passage § 16. (p. 174,) he most explicitly declares the New Testament to
be equally spiritual and mystical with the Old Testament : Non solum autem
de his, qua) usque ad adventum Christi scripta sunt, ha3c Spiritus sanctus pro-
curavit, sed utpote unus atque idem spiritus et ab uno Deo procedens, eadem
similiter etiam in Evangelistis et Apostolis fecit. Nam ne illas quidem narra-
tiones, quas per eos inspiravit absque hujuscemodi, quam supra exposuimus sa-
pientise suae arte contexuit. Hence, in his eleventh Homily on Num. ^ 1. (Opp.
tom. ii. p. 305.) he thus expresses himself: Requiro, si sunt aliquce (in scriptura
eacra) quae et secundum litteram quidem stare possint, necessario tamen in eis
etiam allegoriam (here he used the word allegoria in the broader sense) requi-
rendam. And a little after : Alia habent quidem secundum litteram veritatera
sui, recipiunt tamen utiliter et necessorio etiam allegorieum sensura. — It is there-
fore beyond all controversy, that those learned men err, who say that Origen be-
lieved many passages of the Bible to have no other than the literal sense : hia
opinion was quite otherwise. Nor must we assent to Charles de la Rue, and
to the learned men whom he follows, in saying, {Orig. Opp. tom, ii. Praef. p. 11.) :
[p. 645.] " Sometimes only the literal sense is admissible, sometimes only
the moral sense, and sometimes only the mystical." The man cannot have
read Origen with due attention who can entertain such an opinion.
Prop. XL Yet hoth the mystical senses are not found in all passages : some
have only the allegorical sense, and some only the anagogical. That such was
Origen's opinion his expositions clearly show ; for from many passages of scrip-
ture explained by him, he deduces only a meaning applicable to the church of
Christ on earth ; but sometimes he rises to the celestial or upper world.
Prop. XII. In like manner the moral sense pervades the whole inspired
volume ; nor is there a single passage in which we have not some precept for
regulating the mind and directing the conduct.
Prop. Xin. It is not so with the grammatical or historical sense. For
there are many passages of the Bible in vvhich the words are destitute of all
literal meaning. Of his many declarations to this effect this one may sullice,
de Principiis, L. iv. § 12. (Opp. torn. i. p. 169.) 'Eisr/ rtvegypaipal rd a-cjjua~i)idv ovfa-
ucjg i^cutrai eTtv ottov oiovil r»v -^v^iiv Kai to -rviv/ua tUs y[>a<p»? /miva ^pyi ^UTilv
Sunt scripturse quaedam, quae nihil habent corporeum (i. e. no literal meaning):
e.st ubi sola veluti anima (a moral sense,) et spiritus (a mystical sense) quae-
rendus est.
Prop. XIV. Therefore all declarations of scripture are of tuw kinds; some
have only two senses, a moral and a mystical, the latter either allegorical or
Or iff ens Allcr/orie^. 179
analogical ; others have three senses, a grammatical or liter:'.l, a moral, and
a mystical. But there is no passage whatever that has only uiie single mean-
ing. In hh Frincipia L. iv. sec. 12. (p. 169, &c.) Origen demonstrates this
principle by a pas>age in John's Gospel (eh ii. 6.) ; presenting us at the same
time with a specimen of allegorical interpretation. John tells us, that at the
marriage in Cana, there were six water })ots, set for the Jewish purification,
containing two or three firkins e:.ch ; and Origen gives this mystical interpre-
tation of the passage: Quibns sub involucro designatur eos, (jui apud Aposto-
lum in occulto Judaei sunt, (Rom. ii.) purificari per scripturas, aliquando binas
metretas capientes, id est, ut sic dicam, animam (the moral sense) et spirituni
(the mystical sense): aliquando terras (trinas?) quum nonnulhe propter prie-
dicta, (i. e. the moral and mystical; which are always present,) habeant etiam
corpus (the literal sense) quod aedificare potest.
Prop. XV. The literal sense is obvious to all attentive readers. To discover
the moral sense, some more intelligence is requisite ; and yet it is not very re-
condite and difiicult.
Prop. XVI. But the mystical sense, none but wise men, and such as are di-
vinely instructed, can with certainty discover. Origen, agreeably to the custom
of that age, considered the ability to interpret the holy scriptures mystically, to
be one of those extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit which are conferred on
but few Christians. And as he, from modesty, dared not lay claim to that gift,
he generally brings forward his mystical expositions with diflidence [p. 646.]
and caution : and sometimes he tells us, that he conjectures or supposes, rather
than decides and pronounces confidently. In his fftk Homily on Levit. sec. 1.
(0pp. tom. ii. p.. 205.) he says: Sicut cognationem sui ad invicem gerunt visibila
et invisibilia, terra et ca3lum,anlma et caro, corpus et spiritus, ct ex horum con-
junctionibus constat hie mundus; ita etiam sanctam Scripturam credendum est ex
invisibilibus et visibilibus constare : veluti (1) ex corpore quodam, litterse scilicet,
qua3 videtur: et (2) animd, sensus intra ipsam deprehenditur ; et (3) spiritu.
secundum id quod quaidam etiam in se coelestia teneat; ut Apostolus, quia ex-
emplari et umbrce deserviunt coelestium. This passage, though not much con-
nected with the point we are considering, I have thought fit to transcribe, be-
cause it not only exhibits clearly and distinctly his doctrine of a threefold sense
of scripture, but it also shows, that he believed he had a philosophical reason
for holding that doctrine, derived from the analogy of things. We will now
accompany him as he proceeds ; Quia ergo ha3c ita se hiifbent, invocantes De-
um, qui fecit scriptur.u animam et corpus et spiritum : corpus quidem iis, qui
ante nos fuerunt, animam vero nobis, spiritum autem iis, qui in futuro ha?redi-
tatem vitae aeternae consequentur, per quam, (T think it should read per quem^
i. e. spiritum) perveniant ad regna coelestia ; earn nunc quara diximus legis ani-
mam requiramus, quantum ad pracsens interim spectat. Aescio autem si possio-
mus eliam ad spiritum ejus ascendere in his, quoe nobis de sacrificiis lecta sunt.
This passage is very noticeable ; b( cause from it we learn, that Origen believ-
ed, (1) That a largi^ portion at le.ist of the ceremonial laws of Moses contained
a /t7e7-aZ meaning, pertaining, however, exclusively to the Jews ; in which he was
correct ; (2) That in addition to this meaning, there was also in the Mosaic
180 Centiinj III.— Section 28.
laws a Trioral sense, and that this sense is discoverable by all Christian teachers
if they will give th'^ir attention to it: (3) But the mystical sense of these laws
is not equally discoverable by all, but only by those who are chosen unto life
eternal and are divinely illuminated. Therefore (4) he doubts, whether he was
qualified to investigate this abstruse sense of scripture. After several other
things which are not to our purpose, when he would exhibit the mystical import
of certain things pertaining to the laws concerning sacrifices, he again acknow-
ledges, explicitly, that without the Holy Spirit, he could effect nothing. He
says, (sec. 5. p. 209.) Quia potius, secundum spiritalem sensum, quern
Spiritus donai ecclesicB, videamus, quod sit istud sacrificium, quod coquatur
in clibano. vel quis iste clibanus intcUigi debeaf? Sed ubi inveniam? - - Do-
minum meum Jesum invocare me oportet, ut quaerentem me faciat invenire, et
[p. 647.] pulsanti aperiat, ut inveniam in scripturis clibanum,ubi possum coquere
sacrificiummeum,utsuscipiat illud Deus. Thus he discourses with sutHcien.t acu-
men and subtilty respecting this furnace. Yet, see how timidly and modestly he
closes the discourse: Non dubito multa esse, quae nos Meant et sensum nos-
trum superent. Non enim sumus illius meriti, ut et nos dicere possimus:
Nos autem sensum Christi hahemus. (1 Cor. ii. 16.) Ipse enim solus estsensus,
cui pateant universa, quae in legibus sacrificiorum intra litterae continentur ar-
canum. Si enim mererer, ut daretur mihi sensus Christi, etiam ego in his dice-
rem: Utsciamus qucc a deo donata sunt nobis, qucc et loquimur. (1 Cor. ii. 12.)
Similar passages abound in all his expository works on the sacred books. On
the moral sense which he elicits, he is sufficiently positive ; but his mystical
interpretations, he obtrudes upon no one, always professing to be a learner, and
ready to be taught better views by any one whom the Holy Spirit may enlighten.
Pro-p. XVII. Although a man may be divinely endued with the gift of in-
terpreting the scriptures mystically, yet it will be presumption and folly for him
to expect to understand all the arcane senses of the sacred volume. For the
scriptures contain an immense treasury of divine truths, only a small part of
which can be grasped by minds enclosed in material bodies. Even the Apos-
tles of Jesus Christ were not able to understand all the mysteries of the sacred
books. Origen discourses on this point, referring equally to the Old Testa-
ment and the New, in his Principia, L. iv. sec. 10. &.c. He says: Evangelio-
rum accuratus sensus, utpote Christi sensus, eget gratia. - - Apostolorum au-
tem epistolae cuinam sagaci et perito sermonum judici videantur apertae ac intel-
lectu faciles, cum illic infinita prope sint, quae veluti per foramen maxima et
quamplurima intelligendi materiam amplam praebeant 1 Quae cum ita se habe-
ant et prope innumeri labantur, non sine periculo quis pronunciaverit, se legen-
do intelligere, quae indigent clavi inlelligentiae, quam Salvator penes legispcri-
tos esse ait. Passing over many other remarks, we will cite from sec. 26. p. 188.
the passages in which he the most clearly expresses his views : Si quis cu-
riosus explanationem singulorum requirat, veniat et nobiscum pariter audiat,
quomodo Paulus Apostolus per Spiritum sanctum - - altitudinem divinae sapi-
entiae ac scientiae scrutans, nee tamen ad finem, et, ut ita dixerim, ad intimam
cognitionem praevalens pervenire, desperatione rei et stupore clamat et dicit.
O altitude divitiarum sapientiae et scientiae Dei. (Rom. xi. 33.) If this text
Or iff en'' s Allegories. 181
appears to us irrelevant to the subject, it should be remembered, that Origcn
supposed Paul usually designates tlie myUical sense of scripture by the terms
wisdom and knowledge. Quantumcunque enim quis in scrutando promoveat et
studio intentiore profieiat, gratia qiioque Dei adjutus, sensusque [p. 648.]
illuminatus, ad perfectum finem eorum, quae requiruntur, pervenire non poterit
nee omnis raeus quae creata est, possibile habet uUo genere comprehendere
sed ut iiivenerit quaedam ex his quae quaeruntur, iterum videt alia, qune
qiKU'renda sunt. Quod elsi ad ipsa pervenerit, multo iterum plura ex illis,
quae requiri debeant, pervideliit.
Prop. XVIII. Both diflidence and discretion are highly necessary, in
searching after that mystical sense of scripture which relates to the celestial or
upper world, or in applying what the scriptures relate of the people and the af-
fairs of this world, to the inhabitants of the world above. Because this, the
anagogical sense, God has very obscurely set forth in the sacred books, rather
covering it up and concealing it than actually revealing it. In his Princijpia^
(L. iv. sec. 23. p. 186,) he says : Si quis vero evidentes et satis manifestas as-
sertiones horum de Scripturis Sanctis exposcat a nobis, respondendum est, quia
occultare magis haec Spiritui sancto in his quae videntur esse historiae rerum
gestarum, et altius tegere consilium fuit, in quibus descendere dicuntur in
iEgyptum, vel captivari in Babyloniam, vel in his ipsis regionibus, quidam qui-
dem humilinri nimis et sub servitio effici dominorum, quae omnia, ut dixi-
mus, abscondita et celata in Scripturae sanctae historiis conteguntur, quia reg-
num coelorum simile est thesauro abscondito in agro. — Hi thesauri ut inveniri
possint, Dei adjutorio opus esi, qui solus potest portas aereas, quibus clausi sunt
et absconditi, confringere et seras ferreas comminuere, quibus prohibetur
ingressus perveniendi ad ea omnia, quae in Genesi dediversis animarumgeneri-
busseripta sunt et obtecta, &c. The passage is too long to be here transcribed.
I now proceed to the second part of Origen's doctrine of allegories. — As he
maintained that the words of many passages of the Bible are altogether void of
direct meaning, it became necessary for him to establish some rules for deter-
mining what passages of scripture have a direct or literal meaning, and what
passages are destitute of such meaning, or have only a mystical and a moral
sense. His first and most general rule is:
Rule 1. When the words of any passage in either Testament afford a good
sense, one worthy of God, useful to men, and accordant with truth and sound
reason, — this must be considered a sure sign that the passage is to be taken in
its literal and proper sense. But whenever any thing absurd, folse, contrary to
sound reason, useless, or unworthy of God, will follow from a literal interpreta-
tation, then that interpretation is to he abandoned, and only moral and mystical
senses are to be sought for. This rule, Origen repeatedly attempts to confirm
by the declaration of St. Paul, (2 Cor. iii. 6.) For (he letter killeth, but the spi-
rit givelh life. See his work against Cehus, Lib. vii. (sec, 20, 21. edit. Bene-
dict.) By the letter in this text, Origen would have us understand the literal
sense, and by the spirit, the moral and mystical sense ; thus making the [p. 649.1
import of the passage to be, that the literal sense of scripture often disturbs the
human mind, and brings it into great difficulties; but the moral and mystical
182 Century Ill—Section 28.
seriFes refresh the mind, and fill it with faith, liopc, joy, and love to God and
man. This general rule of Origen may therefore be thus expressed : When-
ever the letter of holy scripture killelh, or disturbs the mind; then, disregarding
the letter, a man should attend solely to the spirit, v^'hich gixelh life. — In a gene-
ral view, this rule appears not wholly unreasonable; for the wisest interpreters
at the present day, both take the liberty, and also allow others, to give up the
literal meaning of a passnge, and to resort to a metaphorical, or, if you please, a
mystical sense, whenever the language taken literally would give a sense clearly
repugnant to reason, or contrary to plain passages of holy scripture. Yet be-
tween these expositors and Origen, there was a very wide difference ; as the
statement of his other rules will show.
Rule II. Consequently, that portion of sacred history, both in the Old Tes-
tament and the New, which narrates things probable, consonant to reason,
commendable, honest, and useful, must be supposed to state f:icts, and of course
must be understood literally. But that portion of sacred history which states
actions or events that are either false, or absurd, or unbecoming in God and
holy men, or useless and puerile, must be divested of all literal meaning, and be
applied to moral and mystical things in both the spiritual worlds, Origen, for
reasons hereafter stated, assumed it as certain, that the biblical history of both
Testaments contained many f:ilse statements, statements of things that never
did, and never could, take place. And he gives two reasons why God intermin-
gled many fables with the true history in the Bible. T\\q first is, that if people
found nothing in the Bible but what is true, probable, beautiful and useful, they
would never think of going beyond the literal meaning of the Bible, and thus
would entirely neglect the soul and the spirit of it. But now, as they meet
with things altogether incredible and absurd, these ver}^ impediments and stum-
bling blocks prompt them to search for the sublimer meaning. In his Principia
L. ix. sec. 15. p. 173. (as transfated by Charles de la Rne; for the ancient trans-
lation of Rufjinus is quite too free.) Origen thus expresses himself: Verum
quoniam si legis utilitas et varietate oblectans historine series ubique sese pro-
derct, non utique credidissemus aliud quiddam praeter id, quod obvium est, in
scripturis intelligi posse, idcirco Dei verbum in lege ac liistoria interponi cura-
vit ofiendicula et impossibilia quaedam, ne dictione nihil praeter illecebram ha-
benti deliniti, et nihil Deo dignum addiscentes, tandem a dogmatis recedamus,
dut nudiie literae penitus adhaerentes nihil divinius percipiamus. So then, if
[p. 650.] we may believe Origen, when God caused the sacred books to be
written, fearing lest the travellers should be so captivated with the beauty aiid
comfort of a direct and smooth road, as to forget whither they were travellings
he placed in their path, here and there rocks, ditches, hills, and other obstruc-
tions, which should oblige them to swerve and deviate from the straight for-
ward course. — His second reason is, that God wished to instruct men in all tho
doctrines and precepts necessary for their salvation, by means of sacred history.
But this object could not always be effected by true history ; and therefore,
with the true, he interspersed here and there the fiilse and f/ibulous, that men
might learn what he wished them to know, by means of fictitious and imaginary
examples. He says: Oportet autem et istud scire: cum eo praecipue speclet
Orif/ens Allegories. 183
Dei vorbum, ut in rebus spiritalibus et gcstij4 et gercndis scriem declaret: ubi
si'cuiidiim historiain iiivonit facta, qiuc arcauis istis aceommodaii possent, illin
usus est, muliis oceultans abstru.siorein sensum ; ubi vero in explananda ilia
fipiritalium connexionc non sequebatur certarum quarundam rerum praxis, quce
propter arcaniora ante scripta fiierit, scriplurae subnexuit historice quod iactuin
non erat, imo aliquando quod tieri non poterut, quandoque autem quod poterat
quidi-m fieri, sed factum tamen non est. Accidit etiani aliquando, ut paucae
inlerjectae sint dictiones veritati, si ad corpus .spcctes non consentanse- The
closing part of this passage shows, that Origen believed — (1) That many por-
tions of the sacred history are mere fables : and that these fables are of two
kinds; some have no semblance of truih,but are such fictions as could not have
been facts; others have a verisimilitude, and might have been facts, yet were
not so in reality. (2) Some portions of the sacred history arc in the main
true ; yet among the things stated, there are some things inserted which are not
true but fictitious. By the aid of this rule, Origen easily surmounts all difficul-
ties in the historical parts of both Testaments. Whenever any fact occurs,
which either conflicts with the principles of his philosophy, or seems to aftbrd
the enemies of Christianity a ground for cavilling, he boldly denies the fact, and
converts i: into either a moral or a mystical fable. All his Homilies and com-
mentaries alford us examples: we will cite only one of them, from his Princi-
pia (L. iv. sec. 16. p. 174.) Quis sanas mentis existimaverit primam et secun-
dam et tertiam diem et vesperam et mane sine sole, luna et stellis, et eam quae
veluti prima erat, diem sine coelo fuisse? Quis adeo stolidus ut putet, Deum
more hominis agricolee plantasse hortum in Eden ad orientcm, ubi lignum vitae
posuerit, quod sub occulos et sensus caderet, ut qui corporeis dentibus fructum
gustasset, vitam inde reciperet, et rursus boni et mali particeps fieret, qui fruc-
tum ex hac arbore decerptum comedissef? Et cum Deus meridie in paradise
ambulare dicitur, et Adam sub arbore delitescere. neminem arbitror [p. 651.]
dubitare his figurate per apparentem historiam, qua? taa3en corporaliter non
contigerit, qua3dam indicari mysteria. -- Sed quid attinet plura dicere, cum innu-
mera ejustnodi scripta quidem tanquam gesta sint, non gesta vero, ut littera
fionat, quivis, modo non plane stipes, colligere possit. Respecting the New
Testament history, he decides with equal assurance, discarding all the caution
and reserve which he elsewhere rarely neglects. A large part of it he considers
to be fables, by which the holy Spirit aims to instruct us in recondite mysteries.
He says explicitly : Sexcenta ejus generis in evangeliis observare licet attentius
Icgenti, unde colliget lis, quae secundum literam gesta sunt, alia adtexti esse,
quae non contigerint. In his comment, on John, (torn. x. Opp. tom. ii. p. 150.
edit: Huetiante,) he openly acknowledges, that the whole history of the four
Gospels is full of statements, either false, or contradictory to each other; and
that there is no way left to defend the authority and the divine origin of these
books, but by a recurrence to what he calls ava^a^wv. Atl t>)v Tripi to-jtuv dXit^-itxti
dwoKila^-ai iv rois vo»Toti. Veritatem harum rerum oportet repositam esse in
his, quae animo cernuntur. He had just spoken of the forty days' conflict of
Christ with the prince of hell, and he said : AeT t»v J'oKouTav S'lapufiiav \utT^at
J'la T«j dvayai-yiis. Decet nos apparentem dissonantiam dissulvere per Anagogen;
184 Century IIL—Section 28.
i. e. by a mystical interpretation. I have already touelied upon the causes
which led liim to adopt this very dangerous rule for interpreting sacred history.
They are obvious to every attentive reader. The statements of the Bible res-
pecting the creation of the world, the origin of man, &c. were contrary to the
precepts of his philosophy ; and, therefore, he would sooner deny the truth of a
portion of sacred Jiistory, than give up his philosophy. Again, by the history
of the Old Testament, the Gnostics endeavored to establish their doctrine, that
the Creator of this world was a different being from the Father of Jesus Christ;
and from the history in both Testaments, the philosophers drew arguments
against Christianity ; and Origen, not finding any other way to answer them,
concluded to cut the knot he could not untie, by turning all the passages which
his adversaries could use, into allegories.
Rule HI. To the preceptive and didactic parts of scripture, the same princi-
ple is to be applied, as to the historical: namely, whatever occurs in them that
is good, agreeable to reason, useful, and worthy of God, must, beyond all ques-
tion, be construed literally. But wliatever is absurd, useless, and unworthy of
God, must not be taken literally; but must be referred to morals and to the
mystical world. Origen believed, that the preceptive and didactic parts of the
Bible contained some things, which, if taken literally, it was impossible to be-
lieve or to practice, and which were contradictory to sound reason and philoso-
[p. 652.] phy. That he explained a number of the Christian doctrines philo-
sophically, is well known, and has been already stated. And such an exi>lana-
tion required him to maintain, that the passages thus explained have no literal
meaning. Numerous examples for illustration, occur in his writings. We
therefore will only remark briefly on the preceptive parts of the Bible. Res.
pecting the laws of Moses, he utters himself very harshly, and in fact extrava-
gantly, and almost impiously. In his seventh Homily on Levit. sec. 6. (0pp.
tom. ii, p. 226.) he says : Si adsideamus literse et secundum hoc vel quod Ju-
daeis, vel id quod vulgo videtur, accipiamus qu^ in lege scripta sunt, eruhesco
dicere et confUeri, quia tales leges dederit Dens. Videbuntur enim magis elegan-
tes st rationabiles hominum leges, verbi gratia, vel Romanorura, vel Athenien-
sium, vel Lacedtemoniorum. Si vero secundum hanc intelligentiam, quam do-
cet ecclesia, accipiatur Dei lex, tunc plane omnes humanas supereminet leges,
et vere Dei lex, esse credetur. De Principiis, L. iv. (sec. 17. p. 176.): Si ad
leges etiam Mosaicas veniamus, plurimae si eas nude observari oporteat, absar-
dum, aliae imj^ossibile prsecipiunt. And this he endeavors to demonstrate by
several examples, which we here omit. Respecting his mode of explaining
the Mosaic laws, we shall presently speak particularly. The laws of the New
Testament, he supposed indeed to be superior to those in the Old Testament,
seeing they do not prescribe any rites and ceremonies ; yet he supposed that
many of these laws must be construed mystically and allegorically. Of this we
have evidence in his Principia, L. iv. (sec. 18. p. 179.) where he says: Jam
vero si ad Evangelium veniamus et similia requiramus, quid a ratione mngis ali,
enum, quam istud ; Neminem per xiam saluiaveritis, (Lu. x. 4.) quod Ajiostolis
prsecepisse Salvatorem, simpliciores existimant? Et cum dextera maxilla per-
cuti dicitur, res est a verisimili prorsus abhorrens, cum omnis qui percutit, nisi
Origeii's Allegories, 185
natura nianciis fuerit, dcxtora manii sinistram maxillam foriat. Ncque potest ex
Evangelio peiripi quo paeto dexter oeeulus oiVensioni sit. After ex])lainino-
these things at some length, lie proceeds: Pra3terca Apostolus praeeipit, dicens;
Circumcisus aliquis vocaliis est? noii adducal fnc/pulium. (1 Cor. vii. 18.) Pri-
muin, quilibet iiaec abs re prajterque propositum dicere Apostolum videbit.
Nam quoDiodo de nuptiis et de castitate praecipiens, non videatur haec temere
interposu isse ? Secundo vero, quid obesset, si obscoenitatis vitandae caussa
ejus, quae ex circumcisione est, posset aliquis revocare praeputium ? Tertio,
quod certe fieri id omni genere impossibile est. Haec a nobis dicta sunt, ut
ostendamus, quia hie prospectus est Spiritus sanctus - - non ut ex sola littera
vel in omnibus ex ea aedificari possimus.
Ride IV. As to the Mosaic laws in particular, there are indeed many o£
them which have a literal meaning; and therefore are to be considered as direct
rules for human life and conduct. But there are many others, the words of
which convey no meaning whatever, and only the things indicated by [p. 653.]
the words are of use to awaken moral and mystical thoughts in our minds. I
will adduce some examples of both these classes of laws, in Origen's own words.
Of the former class he speaks in liis Principia, L. iv. {\ 19. p. 180.) ; Quis non
afhrmet mandatum hoc, quod praicipit : Honora patrem tuum, et mairem tuam^
etiam sine ulla spiritale interpretatione sufficere, et esse observantibus necessa-
rium ? maxime cum et Paulus iisdem verbis repetens, confirmaverit ipsum man-
datum. Quid attinet dicere de ceteris : Non adulterabis, non occides, t^c. Rur-
sus in Evangelio mandata quasdam scripta sunt, de quibus non quteritur sintne
ad litteram observanda, uecne?— But it is not true as some learned men have
believed, and among them Charles de la Rue, the editor of Origen, — that Origen
excluded a mystical sense from those laws of Moses which he believed were to
be obeyed in their literal interpretation. A little after the quotation just given,
he adds those expressive words : Tametsi qui res altius scrutantur componere
possint altitudinem sapientise Dei cum litterali mandatorum sensu. A moral alle-
gory he could not indeed seek for in such laws; because their literal interpre-
tation afforded a moral sense. But a mystical sense, as already observed, he
would attach to every particle of the holy scriptures. — Of the latter class of
laws we have examples in the same work, Q 17. p. 176, &c.) as follows: In
lege Moysi praecipitur exterminari quidem omne masculum, quod non fuerit oc-
tava die circumcisum : quod valde inconsequens est: cum oporteret utique,
si lex secundum litteram servanda tradebatur, juberi, ut parentes punirentur, qui
filios suos non circumciderunt. - - - Haec verba : Sedebitis domi xestrcc singuli,
nemo vestrum exeat e loco suo die septima, (Exod. xvi. 29.) non videntur ad lit-
teram posse servari, cum nullum animae per totum diem immotum sedere
queat.
Rule V. To determine what parts of the Mosaic law are to be understood
literally, and what parts have no literal meaning, the following rule must
be our guide ; Whatever in the writings of Moses is called a law, admits of no
literal interpretation; but whatever is denominated a commandment, a precept, a
statute, a testimony, or a judgment, has a literal meaning which should not be
disregarded. Many passages bearing these latter titles, in addition to their lite-
186 Century Ill.—Sectlon 28.
ral meaning, liave also a moral sense, or are moral allegories. — This rule, so
sublle, so obscure, and so difficult of application, Origen explains and inculcates
at much length in his eleventh HumUy on Numb. \ 1. (0pp. torn. ii. p. 304.) To
show how a law differs from commandments, precepts, testimonies, and judg-
ments, he aays : " A law has a shadow of things to come : but not so a com-
mandment, or a statute, or a judgment; of which it is never written that they
must be regarded as shadows of things to come; e. g., it is not written: This
[p. 654.] is the commandment of the passover, but this is the law of the passover.
And, because a law is a shadow of good things to come, the law of the pass-
over is doubtless a shadow of good things to come : and, of course, its words
have no direct meaning." - - "Of circumcision it is written: This is the law
of circumcision. Hence I inquire, Of what good things to come is circum-
cision the shadow." - - - " But wiien it is said : Thou shall not kill ; thou shall
not commit adultery ; thou shall not steal, and the like ; you do not find the title
of laws prefixed, for these are rather commandments: and thus that scripture
is not made void among the disciples of the Gospel - - because not a com-
mandment, but the laic, is .said to have a shadoio of things to come. And a little
after, (in § 2. p. 305.) he says: "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law.
(Gal. iii. IS.) ; he did not redeem us from the curse of the command?nent, nor
from the curse of the testimony, nor from the curse o{ judgments, but lium the
curse of the law; that is, that we might not be subject to circumcision in the
flesh, nor to the observance of sabbaths, and other like things, which are not
contained in commandments, but are to be considered as in the law.''^ By the
law, in its stricter sense, Origen would have us understand the ceremonial
law. Hence the import of his rule is, that the cerejnonial law should be inter-
preted mystically, and not literally ; but the moral law is to be first taken lite-
rally, before we proceed to any higher sense of it. Under the moral law, he
also includes the civil or judicial code of the Jews; as many examples in his
Homilies demonstrate. And yet Origen does not uniformly follow this rule.
For he sometimes turns into allegories certain portions of the civil law ; pre-
cepts which the heretics, and perhaps Origen himself, deemed too harsh, or
which he could not explain satisfactorily. And, on the other hand, some of the
ceremonial laws he forbids being construed only mystically. For instance, he
enjoins on Christians the law of first fruits and of tithes. Thus, in his eleventh
Homily on Numb. (^ 1. p. 303.) : Hanc legem observari etiam secundum litte-
ram, sicut et alia nonnulla (among the Jewish rites and institutions,) necessa-
rium puto. Sunt enim aliquanta legis mandata (note — in the style of Origen,
the law means the ceremonial law.) qu£e etiam novi testamenti discipuli neces-
saria observatione custodiunt.
Rule VI. Although the ceremonial part of the ]\fosaic law has now only a
mystical interpretation, or is not to be construed literally, yet we are not to un-
derstand that it always has been so. There are indeed some things in this part
of the law which never had any literal meaning ; but there are many other
things, which, so long as the Jewish commonwealth existed, had a literal mean-
ing for that people, and were to be observed by them accordingly. Since
Christ's advent, however, the whole have lost their literal sense, and are either
Origeiis AUegorles. 187
to be construed as mornl alleg-ories, or to be referred to the two mystical worlds.
All the learned men who have hitherto attempted to explain Origcn's [p. 655.]
system of interpretation, have judged that he considered the whole cero-
mouial law as purely mystical, and having no literal meaning. Thus Charlea
de la Rue, in his preface to Origcn's works, (torn. ii. p. 14.) says, that " Each
and every passage of scripture, which in any manner belonged to the ceremo-
nial law, with no exception, had not a literal, but only a mystical sense." The
falsehood of this assertion we have already shown: Origen did make exceptions.
But I do not wonder that learned men should fall into this mistake. For, not
being careful to make distinctions, and sometimes confounding things altoge-
ther ditlerent, Origen frequently talks as if he held such an opinion. But if we
compare all his expositions, and carefully mark his expressions, it will be mani-
fest, I think, that he could not have been so demented and destitute of common
sense, as to suppose that all the ordinances of Moses respecting the tabernacle,
sacrifices, the high priest, and other priests and Levites, and numerous other
things, ought to have been mystically understood by the Jews; and that of
course the ichole Levilical worship was founded on a false exposition of the Mo-
saic law. It is indeed true, that he believed some of the ceremonial laws to be
without meaning ; and he accused the Jews of manifesting gross ignorance by
scrupulously obeying them. Some examples have already been adduced, and
more might easily be added. In his third Homily on Levit. {\ 3. 0pp. torn. ii.
p. 194.) he says, that the Jews very unsuitably and uselessly observed (inde-
center satis et inutiliter observare) that law, which forbids touching a dead
body or any unclean tiling ; and he maintains, that this law should be under-
stood mystically. The same thing he repents at large in his seventh Homihj.
And again in the third Homily on Levit. explaining that law (Levit. v. 15, 16.)
which requires, in case of involuntary trespass, the offering of a ram, estimated
by the shekel of the sanctuary, he says: Quod aperte secundum litteram qui-
dem videtur absurdum, secundum spiritalem vero intelligentiam certum est,
quod remissionera peccatorum nullus accipiat, nisi detulerit integram, probam
et snnctara fidem, per quam mereari possit arietem (Jesum Christum.) In his
fifth Homily, Q 5. p. 209.) after citing the law in Levit. vii. 9 : " And all the
meat-offering that is baked in the oven, and all that is dressed in the frying-
pan, and in the pan, shall be the priest's that offereth it," — he expressly denies
the literal interpretation of it, thus: Quid dicimus ? Putamusque quod omni-
potens Deus qui responsa Moysi ca3litus dabat, de clibano, et craticula et sarta-
gine praeciperit? - - Sed non ita ecclesiae pueri Christum didicerunt, nee ita in
eum per Apostolos eruditi sunt, ut de Domino majestatis aliquid tam humile et
tam vile suscipiant. Quin potius secundum spiritalem sensura, quem spiritus
donat ecclesiae, videamus, quod sit istud sacrificium, quod coquatur in clibano.
More proof is not needed. Yet Origen did not venture to deny that the great-
est part of the ritual law had a literal meaning, and that God by i\Ioses [p. 656.]
commanded that very worship which the Hebrews paid before Christ's advent:
nay, he extols and lauds this same worship. To pass over many other exam-
ples, he thus commences his twenty-third Homily on Numb. (0pp. torn. ii. p.
356.): Si observatio sacrificiorum et instituta Jegalia quae in typo data sunt
188 Ce)iturij IIL—Sectioii 28.
populo Israel, usque mcI praesens tempus stare potuissent, exclusissent sine dubio
Eviingelii J'ulem. - - - Erat enim in illis, quce tunc observabantur, magnifica
qua3dem et totius reverentise plena religio, quce ex ipso ctiam primo aspeetu
obstupefaceret intuentes. Quis enim videns illud, quod appellabatur sanctua-
rium, et intuens altare, adstantes etiam sacerdotes sacrifieia consuminantes, om-
nemque ordinem, quo euncta ilia gerebantur, aspiciens, non putaret, plenissi-
mum liunc esse ritum, quo Deus creator omnium ab humano genere coli debe-
ref? See also the many expositions of the Mosaic laws in his Homilies on
Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, in which he first inquires after the literal
meaning and pronounces it useful, and then proceeds to the mysteries it
contains. He however did maintain, that the Mosaic ritual law, which anciently
had a literal or grammatical sense, entirely lost that sense after Christ's advent,
and by Christians was to be understood only mystically. In his sixth Homily
on Gen. \ 3. (0pp. tom. ii. p. 77.) he says : Quod si edoceri vis, quomodo lex
mortua sit, considera et vide, ubi nunc sacrifieia, ubi nunc altare, ubi tempi um,
ubi purificationes ? nonne mortua est in his omnibus lex? Aut si possunt isti
amici ac defensores littera3, custodiant litteram legis. Origen pronounces the
law dead^ when it cannot and should not be observed ; but it is aliie when it
can and should be obeyed according to its literal import. In his eleventh
Homily on Exod. (;) 6. p. 171.) he says: Infirmatur lex in carne, id est, in littera,
^ nihil potest secundum litteram facere. - - Secundum autem consilium, quod
nos afferimus ad legem, possunt omnia spiritaliter fieri. Possunt et sacrifieia
spiritaliter offerri, quae modo carnaliter non possunt. Quomodo nos sentimus
et consilium damns, omnia faeit lex: secundum literam autem non omnia, sed
admodum pauca. Therefore there were some, at least, of the ritual laws, which
he supposed, as before shown, can and should be observed at the present day.
But by what marks we are to know what parts of the law never had any literal
meaning, and what parts admitted of a threefold exposition before the advent
of Christ, and now admit of only a twofold exposition, — a moral and a mystical,
— T do not recollect that he has any where informed us. I make no question,
however, that he applied here that general rule already stated, — that whatever
injunctions were unworthy of God, or absurd, or impossible to be executed,
were to be regarded as having no literal meaning.
Rule Vn. In the Biblical narrations and in the prophecies concerning na-
tions, countries, and cities, in addition to the moral or spiritual sense, there is
[p. 657.] also an anagogical sense, or one that relates to the celestial or upper
world: but this sense must be explored cautiously and with diffidence, for it is
extremely recondite. As we have shown, Origen believed that this lower world
of ours resembles the world above, and therefore, whatever is narrated or pre-
dicted in the scriptures respecting the Jews, the Tyrians, the Sidonians, the
Egyptians, and other nations, — all holds true also of the world of souls, in
W'hich the angels preside. In defending this fiction, he is extravagant enough
to hazard the assertion, that even the sufferings and death of Christ in some
sense took place also in the supersensible world. Thus, in his first Homily on
Levit. (§ 3. p. 186, &c.) : Recte ergo (Moses) secundo nominat altare, quod est
ad ostium tabernaculi testimonii, quia non solum pro terrestribus sed etiam pro
Or Ig ell's Ilcxapla. 189
cceiestibus oblatus est hostia Jesus: Et hie quidem pro hominibus ip^am corpo-
rakm materiam sanguinis sui fudit, in ca3lestibu3 vcro miiiistrantibus (si qui illi
inibi sunt) saoerdotibus, vilalem corporis sui viriuiem, velut spiritalc quoddani
pacrificium iinmolavit. And this he very strangely endeavors to prove by IK-br.
ix. 20. and Hebr. vii. 25. Concerning this opinion of Origcn, lluel h;is a discus-
sion in his Origeniana, (Lib. ii. Qua^st. iii. p. 59, &c.) ; and he taxes all his in-
genuity to screen the man, at least partially, if not wholly, from this charge.
But this distinguished scholar effects nothing; and he did not, or would not, see
that this fiction of Origeu followed, necessarily, from his doctrine of the agree-
ment and similitude existing between the celestial and terrestrial worlds.
(2) Tiie learned have justly admired, and have extolled in the highest terms
the untiring industry and perseverance of Origen, in compiling liis Tetrapla and
Hexapla, in which he brought together all the Greek translations of the Old
Testament then extant, and compared them with the Hebrew text. What is
called his Tetrapla, was an edition of the Old Testament, in which he combined
with the Hebrew text the four celebrated Greek versions, those of the Seventy,
of Aquila, of Symmachus, and of Theodotion ; and so arranged the whole that
they could easily be compared with each other, and with the Hebrew. The
pages were divided into five columns ; the first column contained the Hebrew
text, first in Hebrew and then in Greek letters. The four other columns con-
tained the four Greek versions above named, together with significant marks
and critical notes. When three other Greek versions of the Old Testament
were afterwards found at Jericho, Origen added these also to his work ; which
then acquired the name of Hexapla, because it contained six Greek versions of
the Old Testament. They might have been called seven ; but they were reckoned
as only six, because the sixth and seventh, which perhaps differed but a little,
were accounted but one, and occupied only one column, namely, the [p. 658.]
seventh. Of this immortal work, Bernard de Monffaucon has treated largely, in
the Prolegomena to his edition of the remains of the Hexapla, printed at Paris,
1713, 2 vols, folio. This immense labor Origen undertook, especially for the
benefit of those who were either wholly ignorant of Hebrew, or had but a
slight acquaintance with it, that they might obtain a better knowledge of Ihe
literal meaning of the Bible, by comparing so many different Greek versions.
And yet tliis same Origen maintained that the words of scripture, in very many
places, have no meaning at all; and he advised his pupils to disregard the
literal sense of scripture, or what he calls the body of it, and to search only for
its marrow and its soul, that is, for its mystical and moral interpretation. And
his own practice as a commentator coincided with his precepts. And thus, fre-
quently, very great men are inconsistent with themselves, or sometimes follow
one principle, and sometimes another. It was certainly of no importance to
have the means of arriving at the literal meaning, if that meaning is of no
worth; and as for the mystical senses, they can be successfully explored, with-
out the trouble of examining the numberless phrases and uses of words in the
sacred volume. Origen, therefore, by that immense labor, produced a work of
little utility, either to himself or to those who follow his mode of interpreting
the scriptures ; and he does not himself resort to liis Hexapla for aid, in hia
Commentaries and Homilies, because it was little suited to his purpose.
100 Century Ill.—Section 29.
§ XXIX. Oriircn and Mystic Theology. This Origen, wllO was the
chief corrupter of Christianity by philosopliical speculations, ana
who introduced the fictions of his own mind into the holy scrip-
tures, did likewise, by his precepts respecting the origin of the
soul, and its self-determination in action, give encouragement
and support to that unsocial class of men who strive to with-
draw their minds from all sensible and material objects, and to
associate themselves with the divine nature by contemplation-
At least, this is a fact, that after his writings began to circulate
among Christians, and his opinions to be lauded, embraced, and
propagated, far gi^eater numbers than before ga f e up all worldly
business and cares, to increase their piety ; and, in order to be-
hold God mentally, resolved to retire into solitary places, expect-
ing, by concentrated meditation and by the mortification of their
bodies, to obtain spiritual freedom and complete tranquillity of
mind.(') And, perhaps, the famous Paul of Thebais, who, to
save his life during the Decian 23ersecution, is reported to have
fled into the deserts, and there to have lived to extreme old age,
[p. 659.] and who was accounted the leader and father of the
Eremites^ — chose, on the termination of the persecution, not to
return to social life, but to spend all his days among wild beasts,
for this reason, that he might purge out of his mind all images
of sensible things, and bind it to God by indissoluble ties.(^)
(1) Origen embraced and held all those principles which lie at the foundation
of what is properly denominated Mystic Theology. In the first place, he be-
lieved that man has two souls; the one a rational soul, which is of divine origin;
the other not rational, but capable of apprehending and of craving external ob-
jects, and of exciting various emotions in the man. He believed that the higher
or rational soul originated out of the divine nature, and would return into it
again ; that it existed from eterniiy in the upper world, and was of a spotless
character; that, for some fault committed, it was condemned to reside in its
present concrete body; that it retains its innate perceptions of truth, goodness,
and justice ; that while inhabiting the body, it has a natural power of exciting
the latent principles of truth and goodness inherent in it; that all its propense-
ness to evil and sin, arises from its connection with the sentient soul, and from
the contagion of the body ; and that there is no way for it to become perfect
and happy, but by freeing itself from the ties which connect it with the animal
soul, subduing the power of the senses, withdrawing itself from the objects
which allure the senses, arousing its inherent perceptions (of virtue) by con-
tinued meditation, and by weakening and exhausting the activities of the body in
which it is imprisoned. Now, the man who adopts all these notions, is a travel-
Origcn and Mi/stk Theology. 191
ler in tlic direct road to th:it system of doctrine which bears the name of Mys-
tic Theology. — Hut, in addition to these notions, Origen held some opinions
which give energy and force to those common notions of mystics, and prompt
them more strongly and earnestly to desire solitude, and to indulge the hope of
a mystical deification. The first of these opinions was his celebrated doeirine
concerning the soul of Jesus Christ, which, he snjjposed, as we have before
stated, — by intense and uninterrupted contemi)lation of the Word or Son of
God, before his descent to our world, had become so absorbed in the divine
Word, as to form but one person with him. For the soul of Christ is of the
same nature with all other human souls. In his Principia, (L. ii. § 5. p. 91.) he
says: Naturam quidem anima3 Christi banc fuisse, quae est omnium animarum,
non potest dubitari: alioquin nee dici anima potuit, si vere non fuit anima.
Therefore, all the souls of men, though at present vastly inferior to that chief
of all souls, and though living in exile and in prison houses, — have the power*
by contemplating the Word of God, to withdraw themselves from the body and
from the associated sentient soul, and to bring themselves into closer [p. 660.]
communion with the Son of God. He says : Anima, quae quasi ferrum in igne,
sic semper in Verbo, semper in sapientia, semper in Deo posita est, omne quod
agit, quod sentit, quod intelligit, Deus est. This indeed he says especially of
Christ's soul; but he immediately adds, that he would not exclude entirely the
souls of holy men from the same felicity. Ad omnes denique sanctos calor
aliquis Verbi Dei putandus est pervenisse : in hac autem anima (Christi) ipse
ignis divinus substantialiter requievisse credendus est, ex quo ad ceteros calor
aliquis pervenerit. This then was Origen's belief: That every rational soul
that follows the example of Christ's soul, and assiduously contemplates the
Word of God, or Christ, becomes a participant of that Word, and, in a sense,
receives the Word into itself. In another passage, (de Principiis, Lib. iii. c. iii.
^ 3.) he expresses the same sentiment thus: Sanctai et immaculatie animac si cum
omni afFectu, omnique puritate se voverint Deo et alienas se ab omni daemonum
contagione servaverint, et per multara abstinentiam purificaverint se et piis ac
religiosis irabuta? fuerint disciplinis, participium per hoc duinitatis assumunt et
prophetiae ac ceterorum divinorum donorum gratiam merentur. — Whither these
opinions lead, and how much they must strengthen the propensity and facilitate
the progress of those naturally inclined to austerities, to holy idleness and to
irrational devotion, all who are acquainted with human nature can easily
perceive.
But I think it will not be unpleasant to many, to see this portion of Origen's
system more fully developed, and to learn more clearly how the several parts
stand connected, and by what arguments they are supported. I will therefore
show, as briefly as I can, how Origen brings down souls, the daughters of the
supreme Deity, from their state of blessedness in heaven, into this lower world ;
and what method he points out for their recovering their lost felicity. A know-
ledge of these things will be the more useful, the more numerous at the present
day those are, who either altogether or in part agree with Origen, and the fewer
tliose are, who treat of Origen with a full understanding of his views.
1. No one is prosperous and happy, no one is wretched and unhappy, and
192 Centunj III— Section 29.
no one is either more li.ippy or more miserable than other people, except in ac.
pordai-kce with his own merits or demerits. For God, who rules and ^-overns all
tilings, is always and infinitely just ; and therefore cannot allot to any crea-
ture, not meriting it, either reward or punishment. This is the great and fun-
damental principle, on which nearly the whole fabric of Origen's theology rests,
and from which he deduces the greater part of his opinions.
II. All the souls or persons, — for Origen considered the hody as no part of
the man, so that with him soul and person were synonymous — all the souls in-
habiting this world, are unhappy, or are encompassed with many evils and trou-
bles, some w-ith greater and some with less. Now as no one can be unhappy,
[p. 661.] or be less happy than others, except by his own fault, we are com-
pelled to believe that all the souls inhabiting bodies, have merited the evils
they now suffer.
III. Hence we can not doubt that oui; rational souls, before they entered our
bodies, used the powers God gave them, improperly, and for these their faults
they were condemned to live in bodies ; those guilty of greater offences were
encompassed with greater evils, and those guilty of smaller offences were in-
volved in lighter calamities. Unless this be admitted, we cannot account for
the great ditlerence in the conditions of men in this world ; nor can we silence
the objections of adversaries to the providence of God. These principles Origen
inculcates in many parts of his waitings : we will cite one of the principal pas-
sages, namely, de Principiis L. ii. c 9. ]). 97. where he says : Si haec tanta rerura
diversitaa, nascendique conditio tam varia tamque diversa, in qua caussa utique
facultas liberi arbitrii locum non habet (non enim quis ipse sibi eligit, vel ubi,vel
apud quos, vel qua conditlone nascatur.) Si ergo hoc non facit naturte diversitas
animarum, id est, ut mala natura animee ad gentem malam distinetur, bona autem
ad bonas, quid aliud superest, nisi ut fortuito ista agi putentur et casu ? Quod
utique si recipiatur, jam nee a Deo factus est mundus, nee a providentia ejus
regi credetur, et consequenter nee Dei judicium de uniuscujusque gestis videbi-
tur expectandum. To these objections of the heretics, he replies in the follow-
ing words : Deus sequales creavit omnes ac similes quos creavit, quippe cum
nulla ei caussa varietatis ac diversitatis existeret. Verum quoniam rationabiles
ipsae creaturae — arbitrii facultate donatte sunt, libertas unumquemque voluntatis
suae, vel ad profectum per imitationem Dei provocavit, vel ad defectum per neg-
ligentiam traxit. Et ha3c exstitit caussa diversitatis inter rationabiles crcatnras,
non ex conditioris voluntate vel judicio originem trahens, sed propria libcrtatis
arbitrio. Deus vero cui jam creaturam suam pro merito dispensarc justum vide-
batur, diversitates mentium in unius mundi consonantiam traxit, quo velut unam
doraum - - ex istis diversis vasis, vel animis, vel mentibus, ornaret. Et has caussas
mundus iste suae diversitatis accepit, dum unumquemque divina providentia pro
varietate raotuum suorum vel animorum propositique dispensat. Qua ratione
neque creator injustus videbitur, cum secundum prrecedentes caussas pro merito
unumquemque distribuit. And he attempts to prove these his assertions by
Bcripture, especially by what is said of Jacob and Esau, Rom. ix. 11, 12. He
closes his argument with these words ; Justitia Dei demum lucidius ostendetur,
Ongcii*s Tlieolo(jy. 193
SI caussas diversita,ti3 uniuscnjusque vol coelestium, vel terrestrium vel infonio-
nitn insemetipsoyjrcTceJ^n^es nathitatem corpoream Iiabere credatar.
IV. God created nil souls perfectly alike, and endued them all witli the full-
est power of employing their faculties well or ill, according to their pleasure ;
80 that they might be able to look continunlly on the eternal Reason [p. 662.]
of God or his Word and Son ; and mi<rht, by this contemplation, increase in
wisdom and virtue, and finally become united to God through the medium of
his Son. This sentiment of Origeii is most manifest from the passage just
eited, and from many others.
V. These free souls, before they were enclosed in bodies, and before this
world was created, w'ere by God placed under the following law ; Every soul
that would be prosperous and happy, must look constantly upon the Son of
God, his Wisdom, his Reason, just as he w^ould upon a mirror or a pattern, and
must imitate him. By so doing, that soul will increase in wisdom and virtue
and in all blessedness, and will gradually become incapable of sinning, and will
be united closely with the Son of God whose image it bears. But every soul
that averts its attention from this only exemplar of wisdom and sanctity, and
pleases itself with the contemplation of material things, by the righteous judg-
ment of God, will forfeit its natural blessedness, and be punished for its of-
fences in a material body.
VI. Of all souls no one obeyed this divine law more sacredly and earnestly,
than that soul which became associated with Jesus Christ the Son of God. For,
by a perpetual and most intense contemplation of the Word or Son of God,
this soul attained to the highest point of sanctity, and merited to be made one
person with the Word.
VII. But a vast multitude of souls disobeyed this divine law, and, disregard-
ing the Son of God, the eternal divine Reason, slid into the contemplation of
other inferior and more ignoble objects. The cause of this transgression may
be traced partly to the very nature of the soul, which is finite and therefore mu-
table, and partly to that subtile body, with which all souls are clothed. For
this tenuous, shadowy body, though it be etherial and very different from our
gross bodies, nevertheless has some power, if the soul is off its guard, of with-
drawing the mind from the contemplation of heavenly and divine things, and of
inducing it to misdirect its movements. De Principiis, L. ii. (c. 9. sec. 2.
p. 97.) : Rationabiles istje naturae, quia esse coeperunt, necessario convertibiles
et mutabiles substiterunt : quoniam qua^cunque inerat substantia) earum virtus,
non naturaliter inerat, sed beneficio conditoris effecta. - - Omne (nempe) quod
datum est, etiam auferri et recedere potest. Recedendi autem caussa in eo
erit, si non recte et probabiliter dirigitur raotus animorum. Voluntarios enim
et liberos motus a se conditis mentibus creator indulsit, quo scilicet bonum in
eis proprium fieret, cum id voluntate propria servaretur : sed dcsidia et lalioris
tredium in servando bono, et aversio ac negligentia meliorum initium dedit rece-
dendi a bono. It is well known, that Origen assigned to all souls tenuous
bodies.
VIII. So many souls having, by their own fault, become vicious, it was ne-
cessary for God to perform the duty of a judge, and execute his threat to con-
VOL. IL 14
194 Century III.— Section 29.
neet them with material bodies and sentient souls. But as all had not sinned
[p. 663.] in an equal degree, some having departed farther than others from
goodness, divine justice required, that the punishment of each should be propor-
tionate to his offence.
IX. Hence, God determined to create a world (or material universe,) admi-
rably composed of innumerable bodies of divers kinds; so that each of the souls
which had variously deviated from their duty in the upper world, might here i-e-
verally find a prison corresponding with its crimes. From many passages, 1
select a few only. In his Principia (L. ii. c. 9. sec. 2. p. 97.) he says : Unaqua;-
que mens pro motibus suis vel amplius, vel parcius bonum negligens, in con-
trarium boni, quod sijie dubio malum est, traliebatur. Ex quo videtur semina
qua?dam et caussas varietatis ac diversitatis ille omnium conditor accepisse, ut
pro diversiiate mentium, id est, rationabilium creaturarum — varium ac diversum
mundum crearet. Ibid. (sec. 6. p. 99.) : Deus cui creaturam suam pro merito
dispensare justum videbatur, diversitates mentium in unius mundi consonan-
tiam traxit. Ibid. (sec. 7. p. 100.) : Unusquisque in co quod mens creatus a
Deo est vel rationabilis spiritus, pro motibus mentis et sensibus animorum, vel
plus vel minus sibi meriti paravit, vel amabilis Deo, vel etiara odibilis cxtitit. —
Nam justitia creatoris in omnibus debet apparere.
X. The cause, therefore, of God's creating this material w^orkl (or universe;
was, the sins which souls committed before thi;5 world existed. Nor should we
view this world otherwise than as a vast dwelling-place, comprising innumerable
cottages of various classes, arranged with consummate art, in which souls, fallen
into sin by their own fault, might be detained for a season, until they repent
and return to their duty. In his Principia, L. ii. (c. 9. sec. 9. p. 100.) he says:
Unumquodque vas secundum mensuram puritatis suce aut impuritatis, locum,
vel regionem, vel conditionera nascendi vel explendi aliquid in hoc mundo ac-
cepit : quae omnia Deus usque ad minimum virtute sapientiiis sUcC providens ac
dignoscens, moderamine judicii sui aequissima retributione universa disponit,
quatenus unicuique pro merito vel succurri vel consul! deberet. In quo profecto
omnis ratio sequitatis offenditur, dum inaequalitas rerum retributionis merito-
rura servat aequitatem.
XI. Of the punishments endured by souls in their state of exile and captivity,
besides the loss of their former felicity, the principal and the greatest is, that
each is joined with an animated body; that is, with a mass of gross matter, in
Avhich lives a sentient soul, that now craves and desires, and now abhors and
hates. For it results from this conjunction, that the rational soul feels little or
no desire for heavenly and divine things, but on the contrary, craves and lusts
after earthly and sensible objects, and is agitated and pained with desires that
are sometimes vain and sometimes hurtful. And the society of the body not
only increases this evil, and weakens the force and energy of the mind, but also
causes the rational soul to participate in the pains and anguish of the body.
[p. 664.] XII. As all divine punishments are salutary and useful, so also
that which divine justice has inflicted on vitiated souls, although it is a great
evil, is nevertheless salutrry in its tendency, and should conduct them to bless-
edness. For the tiresome conflict of opposite propensities, the onsets of the
Or it/en's Theology. 1<)5
passions, the pains, the sorrows, jvnd other evils arisiiifj from the connexion of
the mind with the body and with a sentient soul, may and shou.d excile the cap.
tive soul to long for the recovery of its lost happiness, and lead it to concen-
trate all its energies in order to escape from its misery. For God acis like a
physician, wlio employs harsh and bitter remedies, not only to cure ihe diseas-
ed, but also to induce them to preserve their health and avoid whatever might
impair it. De Principiis, L. ii. (c. 10. sec. 6. p. 102.): Si ad corporis sanita-
teni pro Iiis vitiis, qua3 per escam potumque collegimus, necessariam habemus
interdum austerioris ac mordacioris medicamenti curam : notniumquam vero si
id vitii qualitas depoposcerit, rigore ferri et sectionis asperitate indigemus: - .
Quanto magis inlelligendura est, et hunc medicum nostrum Deum volentem
diluero viiia animarum nostrarum, qntc ex peceatorum et scelerum diversitate
collegerant, uti hujuscemodi pa-.nalibus curis, insuper eliam (apud inferos) ignis
inferre supplicium his qui anima3 sanitatem perdiilerunt. - - Furor vindictae Dei
ad purgationem proficit animarum. - - Origen indeed here refers, more espe-
cially, to the pains and punishments which souls endure in hell; yet he states
the nature of all the evils which God inflicts upon rational beings. And it is
very clear, that Origen believed in no divine punishments but such as are use-
ful and .salutary (to the transgressors).
XIII. For the souls in whom the sorrows of their prison awakens a desire
for their lost happiness, there is one and the same law, as for the souls desti-
tute of bodies and resident with God. No soul can become happy, except by
means of the eternal Reason and Wisdom of God, or his Word and Son; on
whom they must fix their thoughts, and by persevering meditation and contem-
plation, must appropriate him, as it were, and make themselves one with him.
XIV. Innumerable souls, both among the Jews and among other nations,
have performed this duty, and that before the advent of Christ. For exiled cap-
tive souls have not changed their natures, but retain still their inherent free
will: and therefore they are able, although with difficulty, by their own inhe-
rent powers to elevate themselves again, and, by the use of correct reason, to
gradually ascend to the eternal Reason or Son of God. And the more reli-
giously and correctly a soul uses its reason, the nearer it approaches to God
and to his Son. De Principiis, L. i. (c. 3. sec. 6. p. 62.) : Participatio Dei pa-
tris pervenit in omnes tarn justos, quara peccatores, et rationabiles atque irrii-
tionabiles. - - Ostendit sane et Apostolus Paulus, quod omnes habeant parti-
cipium Christi. Rom. x. 6, 7, 8. Ex quo in corde omnium significat [p. C65.J
esse Christum secundum id quod verbum vel ratio est, cujus participatione ra-
tionabiles sunt. See here the Christ in us, or the Word wilkin, of which the
Mystics talk so much. — And hence, there is good ground of hope for the salva-
tion of the ancient philosophers, especially Plato, Socrates, and others, who
averted their minds from the body and the senses. — Yet for souls oppressed
with bodies, this is a very arduous and difficult task ; and but few successfully
accomplish it without divine aid.
XV. Therefore God, who is desirous of the salvation of souls, sent that
Word of his, by communion with whom alone their recovery was possible,
clotiicd in a human body, from heaven unto men, or unto the exiled souls en-
196 Century Ill.—Section 29.
closed in bodies; that he might distinctly teach them divine wisdom, by which
the way of salvation is manifest, but to which they with difficulty attain
when left to themselves; and that, while admonishing them of their duty,
he miglit, by patiently enduring very great sufferings and even death, ob-
tain from God a termination of their imprisonment and exile. Wliat were
Origen's views of tlie effects of Christ's death and sufferings it is very dif-
ficult to say : yet, unless I entirely misapprehend him, he did not believe
with us, that Christ, by his death and sufferings, merited for us eternal life.
This could not be admitted by the man who believed, that no one can become
happy except by his own merits, and that even fallen souls must attain to hap-
piness by the proper use of their own free will. This, tlierefore, was the great
benefit, w^hich he supposed the death of Christ procured for souls, his showing
them that God can revoke his sentence against them and release them from
prison and exile. The divine justice must, in some w^ay, be moved to remit the
punishment, which souls have merited by the abuse of their free will ; and this
requisite was supplied by the voluntary suffering to which Christ submitted.
Christ, therefore, is like a wealthy and munificent citizen, who, by paying over
an immense sum to the government, or by voluntarily performing some very
difhcult service for the public good, obtains from the injured sovereign permis-
sion for banished exiles to return to their country. But the malefiictors who
are permitted to return, are not thereby restored to their former happy state :
this they must procure, either by their own virtue, or by the virtues of others.
XVI. There is now, since the advent of Christ, a plain and easy w^ay for
souls to recover that felicity from which they have fallen by their own fault.
To walk in it, they must first, by faitli, embrace the eternal Word of God, who
has appeared on earth clothed in a human body ; and they must constantly look
on him as the only author and teacher of eternal salvation.
XVII. And then, to attain a closer union with Christ, and a more perfect
knowledge of the divine wisdom residing in him, they must make it their first
and great care, to free themselves from the contagion of the sentient soul.
And therefore they must estrange themselves from their eyes and cars and other
[p. 666.] senses, and with all their might must betake themselves to the con-
templation of heavenly truth. Mortification must also be applied to the body,
which greatly increases and strengthens the power of the sentient soul, espe-
cially, if it be luxuriously fed and greatly indulged. And finally, as the images
of the things and persons about us or with which we are conversant are apt to
rush into the mind through the senses, and greatly to excite and distract the
mind, thereby inducing forgetfulness of the things beyond our senses, and great
debility in our free will, — a man will best provide for the freedom and the forti-
tude of a mind altogether upright, by shunning as much as possible inter-
course with men, conversation, business, and the bustle of the world, and re-
tiring into solitude.
XVIII. The rational soul that will thus exercise itself, continually, and
never remove its eyes from Christ, will, by a slow process, become what it was
before it entered the body : that is, from being a soul propense towards corpo-
real things and seeking its pleasure in the senses, it will become pure and be
Orig ell's Th color/]/. 197
elevated above all earthly and perishing- ol;)jo<;ts. De Principiis, L, ii. (o. 8.
see. 3. ]). 96.) : Mens ("owc), de statu suo ac diijiiilatc declinans, ctfecta vel nun-
ciipata est anima (i^X'^)^ ^^ rursuin aiiima instrueta virtutibus mens fict. Nav,
as before stated, such a soul, by a perpetual contemplation of Christ, becomes
transformed into Christ, according^ to its measure and capacity. See, among other
passages, the /Am/ chapter of Book ii, of his Principia; where, in treating of Paul's
words, 1 Cor. xv. 63. (For tliis mortal must put on immortality,) he says : In-
corruptio et immortalitas quid aliud erit, nisi sapientia, et verbum. ct justitia
Dei, quae formant aiiimam, et induunt, et exornant? Et ita lit, ut dicatur, quia
corruptibile incorruptionem induct et mortale immortalitatem. De Principiis
L. i. (e. 3. sec. 6. p. 62.) : Omnes qui rationabiles sunt, verbi, id est, Rationis
partieipes sunt, et per hoc velut semina insita sibi gerunt sapientiae et Justitiae,
quod est Christus. Ibid. c. ii. (sec. 7. p. 52.) : Propinquitas quaedam est menti
ad Deum - - et per haec potest aliquid de divinitatis sentire natura, maxime si
expurgatior et segregatior sit a materia corporali.
XIX. This whole work of purifying the soul and translating it into Ciu-ist, doea
not exceed the powers of man. For as the rational soul is allied to God, although
it may lapse and go astray, it cannot lose its essential character or nature. If,
therefore, the inherent energies of free will are called forth, the soul can, by its
own power, wipe away its poUution.s, and by a gradual process work its way out
of its darkness. And as no one can become happy, but by his own merit, the
soul will either never attain to happiness, or it will attain to it by its own powers.
XX. Yet those who properly use that power of free will which they pos-
sess, are assisted by the Holy Spirit ; and this enables them to advance foster
and reach the goal the sooner. For, as none can become sharers in the divine
rewards and blessings, except they merit them, so the Holy Spirit aids no one,
unless he merits that aid. De Principiis, L. i. (c. 3. p, 62.) : In illis [p. 667.J
solis arbitror esse opus Spiritus sancti, qui jam se ad meliora convertunt, et per
vias Christi Jesu incedunt, id est, qui sunt in bonis actibus, et in Deo perma-
nent. And a little after, (in sec. 7. p. 63.) he more clearly states his views
thus: Est etalia quoque Spiritus sancti gratia, quae dignis praestatur, ministra-
ti quidem per Christum, inoperata autem a Pat re secundum meritum eoruw,
qui capacesejus efliciuntur.
XXI. The gifts which the Holy Spirit imparts to the enlightened in order
to facilitate their progress, are indeed various ; but among them, two are pro-
minent. FirsU the Holy Spirit lays open to them the mystical and spiritual
sense of the holy Scriptures. De Principiis, L. ii. (c. 7. sec. 2. p. 93.) Per
gratiam Spiritus sancti cum reliquis quamplurimis etiara illud magnificentissi-
mum demonstratur, quod (ante Christum) vix unus ex omni populo superare
poterat intellectum corporeum (legis e4. prophetarum) et majus aliquid, id est,
spiritale quid poterat inteliigere in lege vel prophetis : nunc autem innumerae
sunt multitudines credentinm, qui licet non omnes possint per ordinem atque
ad liquidum spiritalis intellegentiae explanare consequentiam, tamen omnes pcr-
Buasum habeant, quod neque circumcisio corporaliter intelligi debeat, neque
otium sabbati, vel sanguinis effusio pecoris, neque quod de his IMoysi resjionsa
darentur a Deo: qui utique sensus dubiura non est quod Spiritus sancti virtute
198 Century Ill.—Scctlon 20.
omnibus sng-geratur. — Secondly, to those striving after wisdom and virtue, the
Holy S})irit explains the forms and tlie grounds and reasons of the doctrines
taught in the Bible; and from these they derive great eon)fort and delight.
Ibid. (see. 4. p. 93.) De Spiritu sancto partieipare meruerit, eognitis ineilubili-
bus sacramenlis consolationem sine dubio et laetitiam cordis assumit. Cum
enim rationes omnium, quaj fiunt, quare vol qualiter fiant, Spiritu indicante cog-
noverit, in nullo utique conturbari ejus anima poterit : ncc in aliquo terretur,
cum verbo Dei et Sapientiac ejus inhaerens, Dominum Jesum dieit in Spiritu
sancto. I omit what follows, for tlic sake of brevity.
(2) About the middle of this century, and during the Decian persecution,
one Paul of Thebes, in Egypt, to preserve his life, fled into the deserts, and
there lived till he died at an extreme age in the fourth century. And this Paul
has generally been accounted the founder of the solitary or Eremile life ; on
the authority of Jerome, who composed his biography. (See the Acta Sane-
tor. Antwerp. Tom. 1. Januarii ad diem x. p. 602.) But this opinion, as Jerome
himself tells us in the Prologue to his Life of Paul, rests solely on the testimo-
ny of two disciple of St. Anthony, who are not witnesses above all exceptions;
Amathas vero et Macarius, discipuii Aiitonii - - etiam nunc affirmant, Paulum
[p. 668.] quemdam Thebaeum principem hujus rei fuisse. Thus much may be
conceded to these men, that prior to St. Anthony, their master, this Paul resid-
ed in the desert parts of Egypt. But that no Christian anterior to Paul, either
in Egypt or in any other country, retired from the society of men in order to
acquire an extraordinary degree of holiness, can never be proved by the testi-
mony of these illiterate men, who, like all the so-called Eremites, were ignorant
of the history of the world. Nor was this opinion as to the origin of the eremite
life, universally adopted in the age of Jerome: for he himself states various
other opinions on the subject. He appears indeed to have believed the state-
ment of the two eremites. And yet this is not altogether certain ; for his
words are not the same in the dilTerent copies of his work. John Mariianay,
in his edition of Jerome's Works, (torn. iv. P. ii. p. 89.) thus states them :
Paulum quemdam principem istius rei fui.-^se, non nominis : quam opinionem
nos quoque probamus. But Erasmas and the Acta Sanctorum read : Quod
non tam nomine, quam opinione, nos quoque comprobamus; the meaning of
which, it is difficult to moke out. Other copies read differently. If Jerome did
believe, what he says the two disciples of Anthony stated, that the eremite life
originated with this Paul, he certainly erred. For it appears, both from ex-
amples and from testimony, that before this man, not a few of the class of
Christians called Ascetics, especially in Egypt, a country abounding in persons
naturally gloomy and averse from society, did retire from the cities and towns
into the fields and the uncultivated regions, in order to deprive the sentient
soul of its delights, to mortify the body, and to aid the divine mind toiling in
its prison. And that very Anthony, whom some make the father of eremites,
followed the example of an old man who had pursued this mode of life from
his youth ; as Athanasius expressly testifies in his Life of St. Anthony, (0pp.
tom. ii. p. 4.53.) And before this old man, very many adopted the same mode
of life, although they did not retire to perfectly secluded places and to the
Rise of Eremites. 199
haunts of wild hcarits, but only erected for Ihemselvcs a retired domieil not Jar
trotii tlieir vill.-iii^cs. So Alhanasiiis, in the passage just mentioned, says : "^.x.Ji<ms
ifi rii'v f^cvKOfAeveuV i-iVTCc irpocrs^iiv, ov fAiiKfsav T«i iJ'ias }tu\u)is KXTauovai; iia-mirc,
Unnstjuisijue eoruin, qui aniniuin curare volebat, solus non proeul a paL''o suo
exerei'balur ; that is, subdued the body by toil, and averted the mind from the
senses by prayer, and by meditation on divine things. Th:it so early as the
second century, tliis mode of life was in Syria esteemed beantit'ul and accepla-
ble to God, appears from the example of Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem, as
stated by Euscbius, (Hhiov. Eccles. L, vi. c. 9, 10. p. 210, 211.) This man,
weary of the assaults of ids enemies, and eager for a jihilosophical life, retired
to unfrequented places : 'Eic rxun^Zu rdv tpixoa-op^^v da-ira^ijuivo^ /3coy S'laJ^pu; [p. 669.]
irdv To T«s eH.K\no-iai nhii^cs iv tp»fj.iats y-<ii d^avis-iv dypoii havd-dvuv, ttAuo-to/; 'iriTi
S'd^piliiv. Cum philosophicae vitac jam dudura amore teneretur, relicta ecclesiae
plebe, in solitudine ac deviis agris plurimos annos delituit. After a long time he
returned from solitude to his residence in Jerusalem, and was the admiration of
every body and exceedingly courted by the people ; m « di'a;:^w/5«crea? 'ivoc-t
Kut Tiis (ptKca-opias, cum ob sccessum turn ob philosophi.im (sou philosophi-
cam vitfe formam.) Therefore, even iheii, the highest respect was paid to those
who preferred solitude to society, and who, abandoning social life, retired into
deserts. What Eusebius intended by the words philosophy and a philosophical
life, those ftimiliar with the customs of the ancient Christians need not to be
informed. For they are aware, that the Christian Ascetics, who sought the
health of their souls in prayer, meditation, forsaking all worldly business, and
subduing and mortifying the body by a spare and simple diet, were classed with
the philosophers and assumed the name and the garb of philosophers. And
this high opinion of the influence of solitude in sanctifying the soul, like many
others, passed over from the Pagans to the Christians. That such Egyptians
as wished to excel in virtue, and to prepare their souls for the world of bliss,
were accustomed from the earliest times, to resort to solitary places, can be
shown by many proofs ; among which, I think, one of peculiar value is found
in Heiodotus, Histor. L. ii. (sec. 36. p. 102. edit. Gronov.) where he mentions it
as a trait distinguishing the Egyptians from all other nations, that while others
shunned t*lie society of wild beasts, the Egyptians thought it excellent to live
among them ; Ioiti /ulv u/.hoia-t dv^f>ai7roi<rt ;i(^afic d-npiocv S'ltira droxiKpiTAt, 'Aiyvr-
Ti'.io-i cTg lulu d->,pi:tcrt ii S'laira i^ri. Apud ceteros mortales victus a for;\rnm se-
cretus est consortio : ^gyptii autem cum feris vivunt. Does not this language
show, that many ages before our Saviour, there were in Egypt not a few Ere-
mites, or persons choosing to live in deserts among the wild beasts? And at
the present day the same customs prevail in Egypt, not only among Christians,
but also among Mohammedans. The Platonic and Pythagort^an philosophers,
also, inspired their followers with the love of solitude; and especially those
called New Platonists, the disciples of A7nmonius, und the associates of that
Origen of whom we are treating, were accustomed warmly to recom-
mend retirement and seclusion from society to every one studious of wis-
dom. In Porphyrij, the great ornament of this sect, there is a long passage on
this subject, in his first book ^«pi aTi;t"*"j "^ Abstinence from flesh; in which
200 Century III.— Section 80.
he speaks in perfect accordance with the sentiments of Origen and the leaders
of the mystic school. For he recommends that a philosopher make it his
great object to become, by contemplation, united with the really Existent, or
[p. G70.] God, {\ 29. p. 24.) And to obtain this bliss, in his opinion, the senses
must be repressed and restrained, food be withheld from the body, and society
be abandoned, and all places where there is danger to the soul. He says,
among other things, (^35. p. 30 edit. Cantabr.) : "O^iv oa-n cTj^'va^tf dvoa-TATiov
tdv TOiovruv ^apicDV, iv Tts x,at ^t« fioiihoui\ov IttX Tri^nr'nTTHV To- TikU'd-u.
Unde quantum in nobis est, ab iis locis recedere par est, in quibus iiiviti forsan
in hostile agmen incidemus. And this he confirms by the example of the early
Pythagoreans, who tu eptif^orstTA x^"'^ KaruKovvy loca deserlissima incoluerunt;
while others occupied rdv 7ro\ca>v tu iipa Kai TCI aha-Hy i^ wv « Tcdi(rad7ri\^KaT:ti rvp/^Hy
urbium templa et nemora, a quibus omnis turba et tumultus arcebatur. By
comparing Origen with Porphyj-y, it is easy to see that they both belonged to
the same school ; for they lay down the same precepts in very nearly the same
words. I will transcribe a passage from Porphijry in the Latin translation,
(§ 30. p. 25.) in order to show the Mystics of the present day, whence came that
doctrine which they deem so sacred, and which they suppose Christ taught.
Oportet nos, si ad ea, quae revera nostra sunt et homini propria reverti velimus,
qusecunque ex raortali natura nobis adscivimus, una cum omni ad ea inclina-
tione, qua illectus animus ad ilia descendit, deponere, recordari vero beatee
illius, ac seternae essentiee, et ad illud inaspectabile et immutabile properantes
reditum htec duo curare: unum, ut quidquid est mortale ac materiale exuamus,
alterum, quomodo redeamus et salvi ascendamus, diversi jam cum ascen-
dimus a nobis ipsis cum prius ad mortalia descenderamus. Intelleetuales enim
oiim eramus. - - Sensibilibus vero complicati sumus.
§ XXX. Origen's Controversies with his Bishop, Tliat tlie au-
tlior of so many new and singular opinions should have been
assailed and harassed by the criminations and reproaches of
many, is not at all strange. And Origen himself, in his writings
yet extant, complains bitterly of the malice, the machinations,
and the abuse of his adversaries ; some of whom condemned his
philosophical explanations of Christian doctrines, and others as-
sailed his rules for interpreting the scriptures. Yet his great
merits, bis blameless life, and the high reputation he had every-
where gained, might have overcome all this opposition, if he had
not incurred the displeasure and hatred of his patron, DemetriuSy
the bishop of Alexandria. The cause of .this enmity it is at this
day difficult to trace ; nor is the generally reported envy of De-
metrius free from all doubts, while its effects are most manifest,
[p. 671.] For Demetrius compelled Origen to flee his country,
and in two councils convened at Alexandria in his absence, first
iris-
10
Orl(jeris Controversies. i>01
removed him from his oflico of prccoj^tor, iind then deprived him
of his standing among the priests ! The great majority of CI
tian bishops approved the sentence ; but the prehates of tl
churclies in Achaia, Palestine. Phenicia, and Arabia, disapproved
it.(') lie therefore passed the remainder of his very laborious life
at CiBsarea, and at other places ; and at last died at Tyre, A. D.
253, an old man, exhausted by his heroic sufferings for Christ in
the Decian persecution. But after his death he was the occasion
of even greater disputes among polemics, some assailing and
others defending his reputation and his correctness; of which
long-protracted and unhappy contests, the history of the follow-
ing centuries will exhibit abundant evidence.
(1) The contests of Demetrius, bishop of Alexandria, with Origen, which
gave rise to long and fierce conflicts, greatly disquieting the church during seve-
ral ages, have been much discussed ; but the causes of the contention are in-
volved in great obscurity, or, at least, are not so palpable as many suppose.
For all our information must be drawn from a few not very perspicuous pas-
sages in the early writers ; time having deprived us of the second part of Euse-
bius' Apology for Origen, which was expressly devoted to the consideration
and illustration of this subject. See Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. (L. vi. c. 23.
p. 224.) The same Eusebius tells us, (Hist. Eccles. L. vi. c. 8. p. 209.) that
Demetrius was moved by eiivy at the great reputation wiiich Origen had acquir-
ed, to persecute the man who had once been dear to him. So likewise Jerome,
in his twenty-ninth Epistle, (0pp. tom. iv. P. ii. p. 68.) says : Damnatum esse
Originem non propter ha3resin, sed quia gloriam eloquentias ejus ot scientisc
ferre non poterant, et illo dicente omnes muti putabantur. Relying on these
very worthy authors, nearly all the writers on ecclesiastical history, and espe-
cially those favorably inclined tovvards Origen, confidently assert, that the un-
worthy controversy originated in the malevolence and envy of Demetrius ; and
they pity the hard fortune of Origen, whose only offence was his learning, his
virtue, and his eloquence. But for my part, — to say nothing of the uncertainty
of such judgments respecting the secret motives of human actions, — when I
survey attentively and weigh the occurrences between Demetrius and Origen,
I come to the conclusion, that Demetrius' ill-will towards Origen did not arise
from envij, if by envy be meant repining at the prosperity or fume of another.
For Demetrius placed Origen at the head of the Alexandrian school, when he
was a youth but eighteen years old, and he afterwards favored and [p. 672.]
befriended him in various ways ; he gave him honorable testimonials and letters
of introduction when visiting other countries; sent envoys to escort him home,
afier a long residence in Palestine; and after the disagreement between them
commenced, he permitted him to continue in his oflice at Alexandria ; and at
last, did not command him to quit Alexandria, but after he had left the country
voluntarily, called him to account. Do these things indicate a mind envious at
202 Century TIL— Section 30.
the reputation and virtues of Origen ? Persons envious of (he vii lues or elo-
quence of others, do not bring them before the public and commend them ;
they do not invite them to return from abroad, do not confer favors on them ;
but rather, they depress them, treat them witii neglect, and wish them away from
their presence. Some other cause, therefore, in my opinion, must be sought
for this conflict. — I will first state what appears to me the true history of the
case ; and then, as direct testimony is wanting, I will argue from the cii-cum-
stances of the case. - - Demetrius cheerfully gave Origen employment and oflice ;
he was pleased with tlie honors and applause w'hich Origen gained; he allov\ed
him to visit other countries and churches which needed his aid, notwithstanding
he knew that Origen would acquire fresh laurels by these journe3's; and finally,
he was unwilling that a man whom he knew to be so great an ornament and
sup[)c»rt to the church of Alexandria, should be removed or taken from him. No
person can doubt any of these things, wlio shall even superficially examine the
acts of Origen and Demetrius. But this same Demetrius wished Origen to re-
main in the station he was now in, and not to be raided higher, or be put in
orders and take a place among the presbyters of the Alexandrian church. This
fact is sufficiently obvious, the cause of it is not equally clear. Those favoring
Demetrius may conjecture, either that the bishop supposed a man who had
emasculated himself would be a dishonor to the sacred office, or that the
bishop feared lest, if made a presbyter, Origen would neglect his duties in the
scliool. Those who believe fully what the ancients say of the envy of Deme-
trius, may suppose that he was afraid that a man like Origen, long held in vene-
ration, and superior to his bishop in many branches of learning, if made a pres-
byter, would acquire too much influence ; or that, if authorized to preach in
public, his eloquence would obscure the dignity and the fame of the bishop.
On the other hand, Origen believed that his services and merits entitled him to
promotion. Those who had presided over the catechetic school of Alexandria
before him, Pantccnus, Clement, and doubtless others, had been made presby-
ters ; and therefore he, being in no respect inferior to them, thought himself
worthy of the same honor. But when he could not obtain from Demetrius the
honor to which he felt himself entitled, he went away to Palestine, and at Ca3sa-
rea imprudently obtained that honor from other hands. And hence those sad
[p. 673.] scenes! Hence that wrath of Demetrius! — I will now show, from
the circumstances of the case, as far as I can, that such were the facts.
In the year 215, or a little after, a severe persecution under Caraealla hav-
ing arisen at Alexandria, Origen, at that time about forty years old, sought
safety in flight, and proceeding to Palestine, he took residence at Cresarea.
There the bishops honored him, by allowing him to address the public assem-
blies, and in the presence of the bishops. This gave offence to Demetrius. But
the Palestine bisho-ps defended their proceeding, and told Demetrius, that it had
long been customary among Christians for the bishops to invite those whom
they knew to be fit persons to teach publicly, even if they had not been made
presbyters. Whether Demetrius was satisfied with this excuse or not, is un-
certain ; but this is certain, he not only wrote to Origen requn-mg him to return
home and attend to the duties of his public office in Alexandria, but, as Origen
Oricfcii's Controversies. 203
perhaps* made some delay, lie sent deacons to Palestine to bring him back. See
Evsehiim, (Hist. Ec'cles. L. vi. c. 19. p. 221, 222. Those facts show, I. That
Ori^'-en, at that time, notwithstanding his reputation for eloquence, was debarred
from the pulpit, or from preaching in public, by his bishop. II. That Deme-
trius would not allow him to perform the functions of a public teacher, even
among foreign churches ; doubtless, from a fear that he would insist on doing
the same at Alexandria, and would thus open his way to the rank of a presby-
ter. III. Yet he esteemed Origen very highly ; and he considered his labors
not only useful, but even necessary, to the church of Alexandria. This appears
from his desire, and even great earnestness, to have the man return home.
For, as Origen did not at once obey the letter of recall, the bishop sent envoys
to Palestine, to press him with arguments and persuasives on the subject. It
seems, that Origen manifested a disposition to remain in Palestine, where he
received greater honor from the bishops than he received at Alexandria ; but
Demetrius thought the church of Alexandria could not part with so great a
man without a serious loss. Perhaps also the deacons v.ho were sent to Pales-
tine, were instructed to watch Origen, lest on his way he should do as he had
done in Palestine, and by his preaching draw^ forth the admiration and respect
of the people. Hence, IV. we may conclude, that Demetrius felt no envy
against Orige» ; for if the virtues and the learning of the man had been annoy-
ing to him, he would gladly have had him remain out of the country. Yet he was
unwilling to enroll him among the presbyters of the Alexandrian church. And,
undoubtedly, he did not follow the example of the Palestine bishops, and per-
mit Origen to preach in public ; but, as Eusebiiis clearly intimates, he required
him to devote himself wholly to the school.
After a pretty long interval, — in the year 228, as learned men have sup-
posed,— Origen again took a journey to Achaia ; not without the [p. 674.]
knowledge and consent of Demetrius his bishop, as Photius affirms, (Biblio-
theca, Cod. cxviii. p. 298.) but, as Jerome testifies, (Catal. Scriptor. Eccles. c. 54
and 62.) with the consent of the bishop, and furnished by him with honorable
testimonials, or an Episiola ecclesiastica. On this journey, as he was passing
through Palestine, he was ordained a presbyter by his friends and admirers,
Thcoctistus bishop of Ca3serea, and Alexander bishop of Jerusalem. (Eusehius,
Hist. Eccles. L. vi. c. 8. p. 209; Jerome, CataL Scriptor. Eccl. c. 54; Phoiius,
Bibliotheca, Cod. cxviii. p. 298.) — On hearing this, the wrath of Demetrius
burst forth ; and he despatched letters through the Christian world, severely
censuring both Origen and the bishops who ordained him. His allegation
against Origen is stated by Eusehius. It was, that a man who had mutilated
himself, though learned and of great merit, is unworthy of the priesthood ;
and therefore, Origen had grievously sinned, by consenting to become a teacher
in the church, while conscious of the crime he had formerly committed. It ap-
pears that even then, voluntary eunuchs were excluded from the priesthood, if
not by formal canons, (of which there is no certain evidence,) at least by
common usage among Christians, For, unless we suppose this, we cannot un-
derstand how Demetrius, a man of high character and well versed in ccclcsias-
tical law, should venture, on this ground, to pronounce Origen unworthy of the
204 Centimj III.— -Section 30.
priestliood. But this stain upon the character of the pious and learned
man, was not known by the bishops who ordained him. Therefore, as De-
metrius assailed them also, accusing them of violating ecclesiastical law, we
are obliged to suppose that their offence was of a different nature. What it
was, no ancient writer has informed us ; but it may be inferred from what
Jerome says, (Catal. Script. Eccl. c. G2.) namely, that Alexander, the bishop of
Jerusalem, in reply to the accusation of Demetrius, alleged the honorable tes-
timonials given by Demetrius to Origen on his setting out for Achaia. From
this it is manifest, if I do not mistake, that Demetrius criminated tiie ordaining
bishops, for admitting Origen to the Presbytersliip, without the knowledge and
consent of Demetrius his bishop, and without consulting him in the matter.
Alexander replied, that he and his associates looked upon the splendid testimo-
nials of Demetrius which Origen carried with him, as supplying the place of an
express consent ; and that they could not suppose a man so highly recom-
mended by him, to be unworthy of the priesthood. How the business was
conducted does not fully appear, on account of the silence of the ancient writers ;
yet a careful attention may clear up much of the obscurity of the transaction.
In the first place, I will cheerfully concede, that Origen himself did not request
ordination from the Palestine bishops; but only did not refuse it, when offered
[p. 675.] by them. And I have little difficulty in assigning a reason why they
should wish to ordain him. They wished that Origen might publicly instruct
Christians, and expound to them the holy scriptures, as he had done with great
approbation during his former journey. But he, recollecting the great indigna-
nation of Demetrius, when he had before allowed such functions to be assigned
him, would not consent to their wishes, because he was not an ordained pres-
byter. To remove this obstacle out of his way, the bishops declared their wil-
lingness to ordain him ; and Origen consented. I am led to judge thus
fiivorably of Origen's motives, by the exemplary piety of the man, and by the
knowledge of human conduct; both of which require us, in a case of doubt
and uncertainty, to prefer the most favorable opinion. And yet I think it mani-
fest, that Origen despaired of obtaining ordination from the hands of Deme-
trius, and at the same time desired, though modestly, to attain that honor. For,
if he had either contemned the office of a presbyter, or had supposed he could
obtain it from Demetrius, he would never, although urged to it, have consented
to receive the office from these bishops. Being a sagacious man, he could easily
foresee, that Demetrius would be offended with both him and the bishops, for
the transaction was undoubtedly discourteous towards Demetrius. And the per-
son wlio would incur the resentment of a powerful man, rather than not obtain
a certain place, if he is not stupid or altogether thoughtless, shows that he has
not a little desire for that place. As for Demetrius, though I admit that he
showed neither prudence nor gentleness, nor a due regard for Origen's merits,
yet I do not see how he can be charged with eniy. From this vicious state of
mind he is sufficiently exculpated, first, by the noble testimonial of his affection
and esteem for Origen, given him when he set out for Achaia; and he is still
more proved innocent by the fact that, although offended with Origen, and be-
lievinr*- that he had just cause for resentment, he nevertheless was not at all
Origeiis Controversies. 205
opposed to his return to Alexandria, and to his rosuniplion of his duties in the
BL'liool. It is not usual lor the envious to wish thosf, whoso honors and tame
they fear will injure them, to live by their side, and to till respectable and im-
portant stations. Demetrius would have directed Origen to remain in Pales-
tine, if he had supposed his new oflieial standing would cause a diminution of
his own authority and fame. Nor is it an indication of envy, that he publicly
professed to wish only for more prudence in the ordaining bishops, and more
modesty in Origen, who had not resisted the proposal of his admirers. For
this declaration nught have proceeded from other motives, either praiseworthy
or censurable.
The commotions originating from Origen's elevation to the priesthood,
did not prevent his completing his begun journey to Achaia ; after [p. 676.]
which he returned to Alexandria, and there resumed the duties of his office.
Nor did Demetrius oppose his bearing the title and enjoying the rank of a pres-
byter ; for if he had been so disposed, he could have degraded him. Nay,
several learned men have thought, that Demetrius actually assigned him a place
among the presbyters of his church. They conclude so, from the sentence
pronounced against Origen by the emperor Justinian in the sixth century, in
which he is expressly called a Presbyter ecclesicc AlexandriiKC. It is at least
very probable, that Demetrius, either expressly or tacitly, allowed him to sit
among the presbyters, provided he would continue to fulfil the duties assigned
him in the Alexandrian school. — On returning to Alexandria in 228, Origen not
only resumed his former labors, but he also commenced an exposition of the
Gospel of St. John, (Origenes, Comra. in Johann. 0pp. tom. ii, p. 3. edit. Hue-
tianse.) ; and also wrote other books, among which Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. L. vi.
c. 24. p. 225.) mentions his celebrated work de Principiis. But in the midst of
these labors, a new storm burst upon him ; at first, indeed, quite moderate and
endurable ; for, (in tom. vi. in Johann. p. 94.) he writes : Jesus Christ rebuked
the whids and the ivaves of the troubled sea ; and thus, even during the storm, he
could carry forward his exposition of St. John as far as the fifth tome. Gra-
dually, however, the storm increased in violence, and at last became so great,
that in the year 231 he forsook Alexandria, leaving his school under the care of
Heraclas, one of his earliest pupils, and retired to Cassarea among his friends.
{Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. L. vi. c. 26. p. 228.) — Respecting his presbytership, there
was no longer any contention ; so that there must have been some other cause
of disagreement between him and Demetrius, which, unaccountably, neither
his friends nor his enemies have stated, although they had abundant occasion to
speak of it. For, what Epiphanius relates, (Hieres. Ixiv. c. 2.) that Origen
■was so frightened by the threat of an atrocious insult to his person by an
Ethiopian, that he consented to sacrifice to the Gods, — is very questionable ;
and, if true, could not have produced the new contest between Demetrius and
him after his return. This new contest lasted more than two years, as wc
have already learned from Origen himself; and, being protracted through va-
rious vicissitudes, Origen was able, during its continuance, to compose ^/?re of
his tomes on the Gospel of John, besides other works. But if Origen had, un-
willingly, paid some worship to the gods, and his bishop had accounted him a
20G Century IIL—Scctioii 30.
criminal for it, tlie whole matter iniglU have been speedily settled ; for Deme-
trius had only to call a council, and debar the criminal from the sacred rites,
which was the canonical punishment for those who sacrificed to the gods. But
[p. 677.] tiie bisliop, though he harassed Origen, yet still allowed him to per-
form his official duties, and even to retain the rank of a presbyter which he had
acquired in Palestine. After surveying the whole case, and carefully weighing
all the circumstances, I conclude the cause of disagreement was this: that Ori-
gen, as he was an ordained presbyter, wished to enjoy all the prerogatives of a
presbyter, to preach in public, to sit in the council of the presbyters, and to be
rei-koncd as one of them ; but Demetrius was opposed to it. He admitted, in-
deed, that Origen was a presbyter, at least nominally, and he would give him
the title, but he would not allow him to address the people from the pulpit.
Perhaps, also, as his feelings were now alienated from Origen, he frequently
criticised and assailed the opinions which Origen advanced in the school and
elsewhere, and his expositions of the scriptures ; while Origen defended those
opinions and expositions against the bishop.
However this may be, Origen being weary of the perpetual reproofs or in-
juries he received from Demetrius, in order to enjoy more liberty and peace, re-
linquished his employment in the year 231, and secretly retired to Palestine;
where he w^as very cordially received by the bishops, and obtained all that had
been denied him at Alexandria. After this his flight, Demetrius commenced a
prosecution against him ; for previously he had not attempted, nor had been
disposed to attempt, anything of the kind. — Eusebius, indeed, does not ex-
pressly say that Origen left Alexandria secretly, and without the knowledge of
Demetrius; on the contrary, he clearly states that, on leaving, he surrendered
his office to Heradas. From both these circumstances learned men conclude,
that Demetrius w^as neither ignorant of his design to leave Alexandria, nor dis-
satisfied at his going. For if he had either not known of his going, or had
been displeased w'ith it, would he have authorized him to transfer his school to
another man, and one of his own selection ? — But here, undoubtedl}^ there is
misapprehension. The circumstance omitted by Eusebius, is indicated by Ori-
gen himself, (Coram, in Johann. tom. vi. p. 94.) where he compares his depar-
ture from Egypt with the Exodus of the Hebrews, and says: Deum, qui popu-
lum suuni ex ^gypto eduxit, se quoque ex servitute extraxisse. But nothing
could have been more inapposite than such a comparison, if he had gone away
with the free consent of Demetrius. And as to what Eusebius says of his
transferring the Alexandrian school to Heradas, the language is pressed too far.
For Eusebius does not say, that he commiUed or transferred his school to He-
radas, but that he Ze/]: it to him : 'Hpax.\a JuS'aa-Kakiiov xAraKiirn. Scliolam Herache
reUquii, (not, tradidit.) See Eusebius, (Hist. Eccles. L. vi. c. 26. p. 228.) He-
raclas had been his colleague, and had taught the younger boys; and now Ori-
gen left the school to his sole management. Origen's departure was therefore
clandestine ; and his voluntary dereliction of an ofiice which for so many years
he had usefully filled, roused the ire of Demetrius to such a pitch, that he de-
[p. 678.] termined to punish him. He acted, indeed, in a manner unbecoming
a bishop, and yet not without some semblance of justice. For the man who
Orif/cn's Controversies. 207
abandons an onicc committod to liim, without jL^iving notice, or saying any tlunt»
to him from wliom he received it, appears to injure his patron nuiteiiully, and is
quite culpable. Besides, this very indignation of DiMnetrius, though unjustilia-
ble, proves him not guilty of that eiuy charged upon him. For it shows, that he
was unwiliiiig to part with the services of Origen, that he felt most sensiblv the
great loss, both to the church and the school ; but such feelings could not find
a place in an envious mind. Demetrius envied the Palestinians thii pos:«es>ion
of so great and so talented a man, but he did not envy Origen.
Therefore, as it was the only way in which he could punish Origen fur the
detriment to the church and the injury to himself, Demelrius summoned acoun-
cil of bishops, with some presbyters. So .Photius states, from Pamphllus'
Apology for Origen, (Bibliotheea, Cod. cxviii. p. 298 : Si/nodum episcoporum et
presbijterorum qaonmdam). We may here notice, that Pamphilus applies tlie
pronoun some, {quorumlam, Tirwy,) to the presbyters, but not to the buliops.
Hence, if I can judge, Demetrius summoned all the bishops under his jurisdic-
tion. And this construction is confirmed by what will soon be said respecting
his second council. The reason why he snmtuoncd all the bishops of Egypt,
but only some of the presbyters of Alexandria, will be obvious. He well knew,
that most of the presbyters were favorable to Origen, their preceptor and friend,
whom they admired for his piety; and, therefore, he summoned only such of the
pre.-^byters, as he supposed were more attached to himself than to Origen. But
the bishops had not been so intimate with Origen; and therefore, Demetrius
hoped, with less difiieulty, to bring the majority of them to vote according to
his wishes. But he was disappointed. For the major part of the council
decided, as Photius informs us from Pamphilus, in the passage just mentioned :
That Origen should be expelled fro?n Alexandria, (Alexandria quidera pellen-
dum,) and should not be permitted to reside or teach there; but that he should not
be degraded from the priesthood. Demetrius, who wished to have Origen degrad-
ed, had expected a severer sentence. But, either Photius or Pamphilus, I think,
must have stated the decision incorrectly. How, I ask, could these Christiim
bishops, who were themselves scarcely tolerated in Alexandria and Egypt, and
who had no influence or power whatever in the state — how could this despised and
hated body of plebeians expel Origen from Alexandria, or send him into exile ?
If those honest men had attempted it, they would have acted just about as
wisely as the Quakers of London, or the Mennonitcs of Amsterdam would, if
they should attempt to banish from their city some honorable and upright
citizen: whicli all would regard as showing a lack of common sense, t [p. 679.]
have, therefore, no doubt, that this council merely pronounced Origen unworthy
of his post as a teacher in the school and dmrch of Alexandria. And such a
sentence, in my opinion, would not have been altogether wrong or unjust. For
the man who abandons his post, without the consent or knowledge of the i)er-
son who placed him in it, is not unsuitably cut off from all Iiope of regaining it.
And, perhaps, Origen himself would not have complained, if such a decision had
been satisfactory to his adversary. But Demetrius thought, that this deserter of
his post ought to be more severely punished. He, therefore, summoned another
council. As P/ioa'i^s, avowedly copying from the Apology of Pamphilus, writes:
208 Century IIL—Sectioii 30.
Verum Demotrina una cum ^gypti episcopis aliquot, sacerdotio quoque ilium
abjudicat, suhscribontibus etiain edicto liuic, quot([UOt antea sulfragati ei fuisBeni..
(But Demetrius, together with some bishops of Egypt, divested him also of the
priesthood; and this decree, moreover, was subscribed by such as had before
voted in his favor). — And here several things deserve notice, vviiich learned uien,
in treating on the subject, pass by in silence. I. In this second council, only
some {aliquot) of the Egyptian bishops were present. Therefore, in the former
they all were present. That is, Demetrius excluded from the second council,
those among the bishops who, in the first council, voted for the milder sentence,
or were for sparing Origen. And hence it appears, that the decree of the first
council was not passed unanimously, but only by a majority of the council. II.
Tliere were no presbyters present in the second council. Hence it is manifest,
that all the presbyters were in favor of Origen, and their zeal in his behalf
caused the milder sentence to pass the council. They, doubtless, expatiated on
the great merits of Origen, in regard both to the church universal, and to the
church of Alexandria in particular ; and by such commendations they inclined
the minds of a majority of the bishops to moderation. III. The bishops, who
had voted for Origen in the first council, in acceding to the decree of the second
council, changed their opinions, and came over to the deci>ion of Demetrius and
his associates. And this is proof, tliat in the second council Demetrius assailed
Origen on new grounds, and thereby strengthened his cause : and that the dis-
senting bishops, in view of these new grounds, and being separated from the
presbyters who had pleaded the cause of their preceptor and friend, concluded
to yield the point. In the state of Christian affairs at that period, Demetrius
could not have gained the votes of those bishops who favored Origen, by mena-
ces and violence, nor by gifts and promises. It is, therefore, probable that De-
metrius brought forward, and invidiously exposed the singular opinions of Ori-
gen, and his strange interpretations of Scripture; and against this new charge,
which was much graver than the former, the bishops, most of whom were not
learned, and perhaps were among those who opposed the modifying of theology
by philosophy, were unable to make resistance. That Origen was actually ac-
cused and convicted of adulterating Christianity, at least in the second coun-
[p. 680.] cil, is adequately proved, unless I greatly misjudge, from the single
declaration of Jerorne, (in his Tract against Rujfinus, L. ii. c. 5.) that Origen
was not only degraded from the priesthood, but was also excluded from the
church. For in that age, no Christian was excommunicated and debarred from
the church, unless he was either guilty of criminal conduct, or had injured the
cause of religion by his errors. Of any criminal conduct, neither Demetrius nor
any other person ever accused Origen. Consequently, we must believe, that
this punishment was inflicted on him because of his novel and noxious opinions.
He had already composed his well-known work, de Principiis, yet extant in La-
tin, which is full of singular opinions, and of explanations of Ciiristian doctrines
never before heard of. Nor could that book have been unknown at that time
in Alexandria, the place where it was written. From this book, therefore, it is
not improbable, Demetrius derived his allegations. — Nearly all the Christian
churches approved the sentence passed upon Origen ; for Demetrius, by letters,
Disputes on the Trinifj/. 209
excited (hem ngainst liis adversary. But tliebishop^of the fou Asintie provin-
CCS, Palestine, Phenicia, Acliaia, and Arabia, dissented ; and ncit. only permitted
Ori<^en to live among- them liigiily respected, but also to have the liberty of
teaching both publicly and pj-ivately. Nor is this very strange. For the bishops
of Palestine, who were intimately connected with those of Phenicia, were the
authors of thai which brought upon the good man all his troubles : that is, they
ordained him presbyter. As to the churches of Arabia and Achaia, Origen had
laid them under great obligations to him, by settling disputes among them, and
by other kind olHces. — But this transaction, manifestly, contains a strong argu-
ment against those who maintain that, in this third century, all Christendom was
submissive to the authority and decisions of the Romish prelate. If this had
been the fact, those bishops who honored and patronised Origen, would have
ceased from being in communion with all other churches. And yet it is certain,
that they were not at all criminated for relying upon their own judgment, rather
than on that pronounced at Alexandria, and approved by the Romish prelate.
§ XXXI. Disputes in the Church respecting the Trinity and the
person of Christ. That authority, which Origen attributed to rea-
son or philosophy — (for he held them to be the same thing) — over
theology generally, was extended by others to certain parts of
theology in particular, and especially to that part which distin-
guishes in the Divine Nature three persons, the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Spirit. Closely connected Avith this doctrine is, that
concerning the origin and the dignity of Jesus Christ. As this
division of the Divine ISTature, of which the Scriptures require a
belief, may seem to disagree with what reason teaches [p. 681.]
respecting the unity or oneness of God, various persons attempt-
ed to so explain it, as to remove all disagreement between the-
ology and philosophy. Those who engaged in this business, pur-
sued various methods ; if, indeed, the ancients correctly appre-
hended their views, which I must confess is very doubtful.
Wherefore, about four different opinions may be produced, re-
specting the Holy Trinity and the Saviour of mankind, advanced
in this century. These opinions, all the prelates of the ago
strenuously resisted, casting their authors out of the church. But
they did not so combat these opinions as to exterminate the
roots of the evil, and prevent the future rise of similar opinions.
For, although they determined what should not be believed, re-
specting God and Christ, and thus suppressed the rising errors;
yet they did not determine, with equal care and clearness, what
should be positively believed, and in what terms the Scriptural
doctrine of three persons in one God should be expressed. And
VOL. II. 15
210 Ccntur]/ IIL—Sectlon 32.
tliis enabled others, subsequently, and especially Arius^ to disturb
the church with new explications of this doctrine.(')
(1) Tiic prelates and councils condemned those who subverted the distinct
tion of persons in the divine nature, and who maintained that God is altogether
undivided. Thus they denied, that the Son and the holy Spirit are to be ex-
cluded from the num!)er of the divine persons. Yet, to those who should ac-
knowledge tlu-ec persons in God, great liberty remnined for disputing about the
relations of these pci-sons to each other, tiieir origin, their dignity, and their
parity or disparity ; and for explaining differently the nature, the offices, and
the acts of the several persons. This liberty produced a great variety of
opinions, and nfforded to those whose genius and inclination led them to subor-
dinate revealed religion to reason, abundant opportunity for introducing their
own fictions into the doctrine of the Trinity. Hence arose the rash attempts,
not only of several individuals, whose efforts excited little attention, but especi-
ally of Arius, whose most unhappy contests are too well known. At length,
under Constantino the Great, the Nicene council abolished that liberty, the
dangers of which were not foreseen by the ancients, and defined precisely, how
the three divme persons are to be viewed, and in what terms men should speak
of them.
§ XXXII. The Noetian Controvcr.sy. At the head of those in
this century, who explained the scriptural doctrine of the Father,
Son, and holy Spirit, by the precepts of reason, stands Noetus of
[p. 682.] Smyrna ; a man little known, but Avho is reported by
the ancients to have been cast out of the church by presbyters,
(of whom no account is given,) to have opened a school, and to
have formed a sect.(') It is stated, that being Avholly unable to
comprehend, hoAv that God who is so often in Scripture declared
to be one^ and undivided, can, at the same time, be manifold; Noe-
tus concluded, that the undivided Father of all things, united him-
self with the man Christ, vras born in him, and in him suffered
and died.(") On account of this doctrine, his followers "were
called Patripassians ; which name, though not perfectly correct
and appropriate, yet appears to be not altogether unsuitable or
inappropriate.(') That Noetus and his followers believed as
above stated, must be admitted, if Ave place more reliance on the
positive testimony of the ancients, than upon mere conjecture,
however plausible.
(1) All that can be said of Noetus, must be derived from the three following^
writers: Ilippolyfus, (Sermo contra hoeresin Noeti; first published by Jo. Alb.
Fabricins, Opp. Hippolyti, tom. ii. p. 5. &c. It had before appeared in Latin:)
Epipkanius, (Hajres. L. vii. tom. i. p. 479.) and Theodore^ (Hseret. Tabular. L. iiL
History of Noetus. oj|
c. 3. 0pp. torn. iv. p. 227.) All that the oth(»r fathers state, (c. g. Axip:usL'me^
Philasiei; Darnasccnus,) is cither taken from the thi-cc above iiaiiuid, or is de-
rived from those who resorted to these sources. Thcadorel is very brief: Hip.
polyUis and Epiphanius are more full : both however, treat only of the principal
tenet of Noetus, and that without method and clearness. They neither explain,
accurately and distinctly, his erroneous sentiment; nor lucidly state either his
conduct, or the proceedingrs of others against him. And hence, but little can bo
said, either of Noetus or of his doctrine. That he lived in the third century, is
certain ; but in wlint part of the century he disturbed the peace of the church, ia
doubtful. Hippohj/its and TheodoreL say, he was n native of Smyrna; but Epi-
phanius calls him an Epliesian. Perhaps he was born at Smyrna, but taught at
Ephcsus. Whether he was a layman, or held some sacred otlice, no one has in-
formed us. Both Hippolijius and Epiphanlits tell us, he had a brother; and Ihcy
both represent him as so delirious, that he declared himself to be Moses, [p. 683.]
and his brother to be Aaron. But that he was under so great infatuation, is in-
credible; since these very men who (ax him with it, show, by their discussions,
that he was no very contemptible reasoner. I can believe, that after his ex-
clusion from the church, and when laboring to establish his new. sect, he com-
pared himself with Moses, and his brother with Aaron; that is, he claimed, that
God was using his and his brother's instrumentality, in the delivery of the Chris-
tian people from bondage to false religious principles, as he formerly employed
the services of Moses and Aaron in rescuing the Hebrews from bondage in
Egypt. And this really invidious and uncivil language, these his enemies per-
verted to a bad sense, thinking perhaps that he would gain few or no adherents,
if he could be made to appear insane or crazy. — The blessed preshyiej's (ot fAAna-
fioi rfi^SuTipoi) of the church to which he belonged, when they found that he
taught diffcrenfly from them respecting the person of Christ, required him to give
account of himself in an assembly of the church. He dissembled concerning his
views, which, at tiiat time, only he and his brother cherished. But after a while,
having gained a number of followers, he expressed his sentiments more boldly.
And being again summoned before a council, together with those whom he had
seduced into error, and refusing to obey the admonitions of the presbyters, he
and his adherents were excluded from the communion of the church. Thus Hip-
polylus and Epiphanius both state. Epiphanius alone adds, that Noetus and his
brother both died, not long after this sentence upon them ; and that no Christian
would bury their bodies. In this there is nothing hard to be believed, nothing
inconsistent with the common custom of Christians. But I wonder, they should
not tell us where these things occurred; I also wonder, that only the blessed pres-
byters are named as the judges, and no mention made of a bishop. Some may,
perhaps, infer that Noetus himself was the bishop of the place where the
business was transacted. But the usage of the ancient church did not give pres-
byters the power of trying and deposing their bishop. I would therefore sug-
gest, that there may have been no bishop at that time in the place where Noetus
lived. This conjecture is not free from difliculties, I confess; but it has fewer
than the former supposition. — Lastl}', it should not be omitted, that Theodoral^
and he only, states that Noetus was not the original author of the doctrine fox
212 Century Ill.—Scction 32.
which he was punished; but that he only brought forward an error, which before
him one Epigonus had broached, and one CZwmenes confirmed; and which, after
the death of Noetus, one Ca//is/ws continued to propagate.
(2) The ancients are agreed, tiiat Noetus, while he conceived that the doc-
trine taught by the Church could not be reconciled with those texts of Scripture,
which deny that there are any gods b"side the one God, the Parent of all things,
(Exod. iii. 6. and xx. 3. Isa. xlv. 5. Baruch iii. 36. Lsa. xlv. 14. — for both HippO'
lytus and Epiphanius distinctly tell us, that it was on these texts he based his
doctrine,) — while Noetus thus conceived, and yet could not doubt at all, that
Christ is called God in the sacred Scriptures, he fell into the belief that the one
[p. 684.] supreme God, who is called the Father of mankind and especially of
Christ, took on himself human nature, in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, and,
by his sufferings and death, made atonement for the sins of men. Ilippolylus
(SermO in Noet. ^ 1.) says: *£?« tov XP^*^"^"" avrdv iivui rdv nuripa, Kai
dvrdv ToV raTtfa yiyivvyi(r^ai yai Treirovd'aai Kui aTroTtd-VifKivai. Dixit Chris-
tum eundem esse pntrem, ipsumque patrem genitum esse, passum et mortuum.
According to Epiphanius, Noetus replied to the reproofs of the presbyters, by
saying: Quid mali feci ? Unum Deum veneror, unum novi, (xat ct;» aWov v>,»r
uuTGVy ytwud-'ivra, TTiTTovd-cniLy dTTo^dvovTa,) nec praeter ipsum alterum natum, pas-
sum, mortuum. And a little after, he makes the Noetians say: o'w roW'.ix
©tovc \iyofJ(.ivy cXX' ha ©«dv d^rstS-if, durdv traripa tov viovy dvrdv ddv, x.ai 7ri~
frovQ-ora. Noii plures Deos affirmamus, sed unum duntaxat Deum, qui et pati
nihil possit, et idem filii pater sit, ac filius, qui passus est. But Theodcrel the
most explicitly of all expresses their dogma, (whose words I give only in
Latin, for the sake of brevity,) thus: Unum dicunt Deum et patrem esse -- non
apparentera ilium, quando vult, et apparentem, cum voluerit-- genitum et in-
genitum, ingenitum quidem ab initio, genitum vero, quando ex virgine nasci
voluit; impassibilem et imraortalem, rursusque patibilem et mortalem. Tmpas-
sibilis enim cum esset, crucis passionem sua sponte sustinuit. (He adds :) Hunc
et filium appellant et patrem, prout usus exegerit, hoc et illud nomen sortien-
tem. What Epiphanius tells us, viz. that the Noetians made Christ to he. both
the Father and the Son; or as Theodoret expresses it. They called Christ both the
Son and the Father, as the occasion required; — This, both the ancients and the
moderns have understood in a worse sense, than was necessary. For they tell
us, that Noetus believed the Father and the Son to be one and the same person;
tliat this person bore the name of Father, before he connected himself with the
man Christ; but took the title Son, after his union with the man Christ: so that
he could be denominated both the Father and the Son, being the Father if view-
ed in himself and apart from Christ, but being the Son if viewed as coupled with
the man Christ. From this exposition of his views, consequences are frequently
drawn which are discreditable to the reputation and talents of Noetus. But such
were not the views of Noetus; as an attentive reader may learn from the very
confutations of them. He distinguished the person of the Father from that of
the Son : the Father is that supreme God who created all things ; the Son of God
is the man Christ, whom he doubtless called the Son of God, emphatically, be-
cause of his miraculous procreation from the virgin Mary. The Father, when
Opinions of Noetus. 213
joined to this Son, did not lose the name or the dignity of tlie Father; nor waa
he properly made the Son : rather, lie remained, and will ever remain, the Fa-
ther; nor can he change either hi^ name or his nature. Yet, inasmuch [p. 685.]
as the Father is most intimately joined to the Son, and become one person with
him; therefore the Father, although his nature is distinct from the nature of the
Son, can, in a certain sense, be called the Son. And thus Noiitus uttered no-
thing more absurd, than we do when we say, in accordance with the Holy Scrip-
tures, God is a man : a man is God : God became man : a man became God. He
only substituted the names Father and .So;?, in place of the terms GoJ and man.
And his propositions, The Father is the Son, and the Father became the Son, are
equivalent with ours, God is a man, God became man ; and they must be explain-
ed in the same manner in which ours are explained, namely, as the result of
what we call the hypostatic union. The only difference between him and us, was,
that he, by the Father, understood the whole divine nature, wliich he considered
incapable of any division ; we, by God, intend a divine person distinct from the
person of the Father. The idea which he annexed to the word Son, was the
same as that we annex to the word man. It is certainly altogether false, that
Noetus and all those called Patripassians believed, (what we find stated in so
many books as unquestionable,) that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit
are only three designations of one and the same person. According to the ap-
prehensions of this sect, the Father is the name of the ditine person or God, the
Son is the name of the human person or the man. As to the Holy Spirit, none
of the ancients inform us, what were the views of Noetus. Yet from his deny-
ing that God is distributed into three persons, it must be manifest, that he viewed
the term Holy Spirit not as the name of a divine person, but as designating either
a divine energy, or some nature distinct from God.
Therefore the system of Noetus, so far as it can novv be ascertained from the
writings of the ancients, was this. I. Very explicit declarations of Scripture put
it beyond all question, that, besides that God who is called the Father of all
things, there are no Gods. 11. But those who distinguish three persons in God,
multiply Gods, or make more than one God. 111. Therefore that distinction of
persons in God, must be rejected as being false. IV. Yet the Holy Scriptures
clearly tench, that God was in Christ, and that Christ was the supreme God, from
whom all things originated. V. To bring the two representations into harmony,
therefore, we must believe, that the God who is in Christ, is that supreme God
whom the Scriptures call the Father of mankind. VI. This Father, in order to
bring relief to fallen men, procreated from the virgin Mary, a man free from all
sin, who in a peculiar sense is called the Son of God. VJI. Thatwa??, the father
60 united with himself, as to make of himself and the Son but one person. VIII.
On account of this union, w'hatever befel or occurred to that <Son or that divinely
begotten man, may also be correctly predicated of the Father, who took him into
society with his person. IX. Therefore the Father, being coupled with the Son,
was born, suffered pains, and died. For although the Father, in himself [p. 686.]
considered, can neither be born, nor die, nor suffer pains; yet, as he and the Son
became one person, it maybe said, that he was born and died. X. And for the
same reason, the Father being present in the Son, although he remains still the
Father, he may also be correctly called the Son.
214 Cejitury Ill.—Section 32.
This system subverts indeed the mystery of the Holy Triniiy,h\it it does no
injury to the person or to the offices of Christ the Saviour, and it is much prefe-
rable to the Soeinian scheme and its kindred systems. Moreover, it is no more
contrary to renson, than the system which supposes a divine person to have
united himself with the man Ciirist; nay, in more consistency with reason, it
seems to establish the perfect simplicity of the divine nature. But there are
some men of high cliaracter, who can hardly persuade themselves, th;it Noctiia
believed what I have stated: And they prefer the supposition, that Noetus did
not differ greatly from those commonly cal' /d Unitarians : that is, that he be-
lieved it was not the Father himself, but only some virtue from the Father, that
entered into the man the Son. But I do not perceive that they adduce any ar-
guments, which compel us to believe tliat the ancients did not understand his
principles. What they tell us, that SabeUius was a disciple of Noetus, and that
therefore the system of the latter must be explained as coinciding with Sabel-
lianism, is of no weight : for, — not to urge, that iu regard to the real opinions of
Sabellius there is very great debate, — only Augustine and Philaster tell us that
Sabellius was a disciple of Noetus; and the testimony of these men, who lived
long after the times of Noetus, and frequently made mistakes, is not worthy of
as much confidence, as that of those Greeks who lived earlier, and who knew no-
thing of Sabellius' being a disciple of Noetus. — Quite recently, an ingenious man,
who is well rend in Christian antiquities, Isaac de Beausobre, (Histoire de Mani-
ehee, vol. T. p. 534.) thinks he has found a strong argument against the common
explanation of Noetus' system, in the confutation of that system by EfiphaniuSy
(Hseres. Ivii. p. 481.) For Epiphanius there states, that Noetus held God to be
(dTa3-ii) impassible and Feausobre thence concludes, with much confidence, that
Noetus could not, without consummate folly, have at the same time believed that
God suffered in the person of Christ : because, to suffer -Awd to be inr.apable of suf-
fering, are directly opposite and contradictory ideas.* But this objection is solved
by the passage before cited from Theodoret, in which he says the Noetians pro-
nounced one and the same Father or God, to be impassible in one sense, namely,
considered solely in his divine nature; but in another sense passible, on account
of his union with tha human nature of the Son. It is strange that this worthy
man should not reflect, that this very thing, which he calls consummate folly,
[p. 687.] the great body of Christians daily profess; namely, that God who from
his nature cannot suffer, yet did, in Christ, suffer those penalties which men
owed to God; that is the sufferings of Christ's human nature are predicable of
God who wns joined to that nature by an intimate and indissoluble union? — But
what need is there of protracted arguments! If I do not wholly mistake, it is
manifest from the texts of Scripture by which Noetus supported his opinion,
that the ancients did not misapprehend his views. In the first place, as we are
told by Hippolytus and Epiphanius, he quoted the words of Paul, (Rom. ix. 5.)
* To show with what assurance this learned man expresses himself, I will subjoin
Ills own words, (p. 534.) A moins que Noet et ses sectateurs ne fussent des foux a
loger aux pctites maisons, ils n'ont jamais dit, qu'uu seul et meme Dieu — est impassi-
ble et a souffert.
ScfbelHus and the SahclUans. 215
Wlinsc are llic. fathers, and of ichom as concerning (hejlesh Christ came, ivho is--
Gnd blessed fur ever, 'i'liese words drive .'i niun into dillicultics, who iiKiiiilnina
that only a cert-iin divine energy wns imparted to Christ; but they Jippear to aid
those, who maintain that Gud the Father, personally, was in Christ. And Noetus
thus argued from this passage : If Christ is God blessed for ever, then unduubt-
cdly, thai God, beside whom there is no other, and who is wholly indivisible,
dwelt in Christ, lie also applied to his own doctrine those words of Christ,
(John X. 30.) / and the Father are o?/e ; and those addressed to Philip, (John
xiv. 9. ][.) He that hath seen me hath seen the Father. Believest thou not that 1 am
in the Father, and the Father in mel Both these passages stand much in the way
of those, who believe that only some energy, emanating from the Father, animat-
ed Christ the ambassador of God: but they can be very serviceable to those who,
with Noetus, suppose that the person of God the Father became blended with
the human nature of Christ so as to make but one person.
(3) The appellation Patripassians, which the early Christian writers applied to
both the Noetians and the Sabellians, is ambiguous, or does not express with
sufficient precision the error which those sects are said to have embraced. For
the term Father, as used in treating of God, had one meaning among orthodox
Christians, and another among the Noetians. The former understood by the
term Father, the first person of the divine essence; but the latter, the Noetians,
who supposed that to admit of persons in God, would conflict with his unity,
intended by the term Father, the supreme Deity who is altogether indivi.Mble,
or the whole divine nature. And, therefore, when a person hears them called
Patripassians, he is linble, by taking the word Father {Pater) in its common
acceptation among Christians, to f;ili into the belief, that they supposed it was
not the Son, the second person of the divine nature, but the first person, who
bore the penalties of our sins, which would be a mistake ; yet it is a mistake
into which many fall, being deceived by the ambiguity of the term. But if we
affix to it the Noetian sense of the word Father, then the appellation Patripas-
sians will be a suitable one for the sect. The appellation was devised for the
sake of exciting a prejudice against the Noetians; and such is generally the
fault ill all such appellations.
§ XXXIII. Sabellius and the Sabellians. After the mid- [p. 688.]
die of this century, Sabellius, art African bishop, or presb^'ter, of
Ptolemais, the capitol of the Pentapolitan province of Libya Cyre-
naica, attempted to reconcile, in a manner somewhat different from
that of iVoc/ws, the scriptural doctrine of Father, Son, and holy Spirit,
with the doctrine of the unity of the divine nature. As the error of
SahcUius infected several of the Pentapolitan bishops, and perhaps
some others, Diomjsius, the l)ishop of Alexandria, assailed it both
orally and by writing ; but he was not able to eradicate it en-
tirely. For, from unquestionable testimony, it appears that, in
the fourth and fifth centuries, there were Sabellians in various
216 Century III.— Section 33.
places.(') The doctrine of Sahellius was not identical witli that
of Noctus ; for the former did not hold, as the latter appears to
have done, that the person of the supreme Deity, which he con-
sidered perfectly simple and indivisible, assumed the human na-
ture of Christ into union with himself; bat that only an energy
or virtue, emitted from the Father of all, or, if you choose, a ^jwr-
ticle of the person or nature of the Father, became united with the
man Christ. And such a virtue or particle of the Father, he also
supposed, constituted the holy Spirit. Hence, when the ancients
call Sahellius and his disciples Patripassians, the appellation must
be understood differently from what it is when applied to Noetus
and his followers.(")
(1) The name of Sahellius is of much more frequent and marked notice, in
the writings of the ancients, than the name of Noelus. Nor is he mentioned
solely by those who treat expressly of the sects in the early ages, viz. Epipha-
nius, Augustine, Theodoret, Damascenus, Philastcr, and the others; but there is
frequent mention of him also, by those who contended with the Arians and the
other corrupters of the doctrine of three persons in God, and by those who ex-
pounded the true doctrine concerning God and Christ. Nevertheless, the his-
tory of Sahellius is very brief: and his views of God and Christ are stated
variously, both by the ancients and moderns. — The place where he lived can be
fully ascertained from Dionijsius, Eusehius, Athanasius, and many others ; but
of his station, his conflicts, and his death, we are left in ignorance. Gregory
Abulpharagius (in his Arabic work, Historia Dynastiar. p. 81.) says that he was
a preshijler ; which, perhaps, was the fact : but what is added, that he held this
office at Byzantium, is certainly ftilse. Zonaras, (Interpretatio Canonum,) if my
memory is correct, calls him a bishop. Which of these authorities is to be
[p. 689.] believed, does not appear. — That his error spread widely, and not only
in Pentapolis, but elsewhere, and particularly in Egypt ; and that therefore, Dio-
nysius of Alexandria elaborately confuted and repressed it, is fully stated by
Athanasivs, (in his work, de Sententia Dionysii, of which we sjiall speak iiereafter,)
and more concisely by Eusehius, (Hist. Eecles. L. vii. c. 6. p. 252). And it is no im.
probable supposition, that Dionysius held a council at Alexandria against Sabel-
lius. The zeal of Dionysius may have driven the Sabellians from Libya and
Egypt. But in the fourth century, according to Epiphanius, (Haeres. Ixii. ^ 1.
p. 513.) the Sabellians were considerably numerous in Mesopotamia, and at
Rome. And in the fifth century, the abbot Eulhymius, (as stated in his life,
written by C^n7 of Scytopolis, and published by Jo. Bapl. Cotelier, in his Mo-
num. Ecclesire Graecac, torn, iv, p. 52.) boldly assailed tou la^iWiou a-waipariy,
{Sahellii conjunclionem,) i. e. the Sabellian doctrine which confounds or com-
bines the Father and tiie Son. — There is extant a Historia Sabelliana, by Chris-
tian Wormius, published at Leips. ir»96, 8vo. It is a learned work, and useful
Opinions of SahcUius. 217
in researches into the early liistory of Christianity ; but only a very small part
of it relates to Sabcllius.
(2) Respecting the real sentiments of Sabellius, there is great disagreement
among learned men. The majority say: He tanght that the Father, ISon, and
holy Spirit, are only three nar f.s of the one God, originating from the diversity
of his acts and operations: that he is called the Father, when he performs the
appropriate works of a Father, such as procreating, providing, cherishing, nour-
ishing, and protecting; that he is called the Son, when operating in the Son,
and thereby accomplishing what was necessary for the salvation of mankind;
and that he is called the holy Spirit, when he is considered as the souive of all
virtue and sanctilication. This exposition of his views, is supported by numer-
ous passages from the ancients, who say that Sabellius taught that the Father
himself bore the penalties of the sins of mankind; whence he and his disciplea
were denominated Palripassians. .This opinion, Christian Worm, in his JiiUO'
ria Sabelliana, supports with all the arguments and auihorities he can com-
mand. But others, relying chiefly on the authority of Epiphanius, maintain
that the ancients misunderstood Sabellius ; that he did not hold the Father,
Son, and holy Spirit, to be only three appellations of the one God, as acting in
different ways : but that he believed the Father to be truly God, in whom is no
division ; and the Son to be a divine virtue, descending from the Father upon
the man Christ, so that he might be able to work miracles, and to point out
correctly the way for men to be saved; and that he believed the holy Spirit to be
another ray or virtue from the divine nature, moving the minds of men and ele-
vating them to God. And on this ground, tliey conclude that there was a great
difference between the doctrine of Sabellius and that of Noelus, already de-
scribed ; and that the name of Palripassians was inapplicable to Sabellius, because
he did not teach that the Father, or God, suffered penalties, but only some [p. 690.]
virtue, proceeding from the Father, was present with the man Christ, and aided
hira when he bore our penalties. And they say that the doctrine of Sabellius
did not differ greatly from that which is maintained by the Socinians. — Thua
have thought, besides others of less fame, Alexander Moras, (in cap. liii.
Esaiae, p. 7, and in Observat. in N. T. pp. 81, 82. ed. Fabrici.) Isaac de Bcauso-
hre, (Histoire de Manichee, vol. i. p. 633, &c.) and Simon de Vries, (Dissert, de
Priscillianistis, Traj. 1745, 4to. p. 35, 36). But de Vries, if I mistake not, has
merely transcribed from Beausohre, without naming him. — After very carefully
comparing and pondering the statements of the ancients, I have concluded, that
those err who make the Sabellian doctrine and that of Noelus to be the same ;
but those also are deceived, to some extent, vvho deny that the Sabellians could,
with any propriety, be called Patripassians by the ancients, declaring that they
were very much like the Socinians, and that if the statements of Epiphanius are
compared with those of the earlier writers, the whole controversy will be set-
tled.— I will now state, as carefully and perspicuously as I can, what appears to
me true in reg.ird to this subject.
1. That fear, lest God, who as both reason and the Scriptures tench is a per-
fectly -simple unity, should be rent into a plurality of God.s, which influenced
Noelus, likewise induced Sabellius to deny the distinction of persons in the di-
218 Century III.— Section 33.
vine, nature, and to maintain that there is only one divine person, or vn-o^TaTn.
And hence, according to Epiphanius, (Haercs. Ixii. ^1, p. 504.) whenever the
Sabellians fell in with unlearned persons, whom they hoped easily \a i-onverf,
they proposed to them this one question: Tl duv eiirwuiv, ha Qiov txoy-tv, » nrplit
Qioiii i What then shall we say ? Have we one God^ or three Gods I
II. But wliile Sabellius maintained tiiat there was but one divine person,
he still believed the distinction of Father, Son, and holy Spirit, described in the
Scriptures, to be a real distinction, and not a mere appellalice or w.minal one.
That is, he believed the one divine person whom he recognised, to liave three
di^^tinct/orm.s, which are really different, and wiiich should n(;t be confounded.
This remark is of the greatest importance to a correct understanding of Sabel-
lius' doctrine; and it ought, therefore, to be accurately substantiated. The first
witness I adduce is Arnobius — not the elder Arnobius, who lived in this third
century, and wrote the Libri vii. contra Gentes, but Arnobius, junior — a writer
of the tifth century, w-hose work, entitled Conflictus de Deo uno et trino cum
Serapione, was published by Francis Feuardent, subjoined to the works of Ire-
nteus. Though he lived long after Sabellius, he is an author of much import-
ance on this subject, because he gives us statements from a work of Sabellius
himself, which he had before him. He makes Serapion say, (in FeuardenCs
edition of Irenseus, Paris, 1675, Fol. p. 620) : Ego tibi Sabellium lege, (Serapion,
therefore, must be considered as holding in his hand some book of iSabeUius^
[p. 691.] from which he read,) anathema dicentem his, qui Patrem, et Filinm et
Spiritum sanctum esse negarent, ad convincendam Trinitatem. Serapion had be-
fore said: In Sabellii me insaniam induxisti, qui unum Deum, Patrem et Filinm
et Spiritum sanctum confitetur. And when Arnobius had replied: Sabellium
negare Filium et Spiritum sanctum ; that is, that Sabellius taught that the Son
and the holy Spirit are nothing different from the Father, Serapion produced
an actual w^ork of Sabellius, and showed from it that Sabellius did not maintain
what Arnobius asserted, or did not confound the Son and holy Spirit with the
Father, but clearly discriminated the two former from the latter. Arnobius, on
hearing this, yields the point, or admits that it is so ; but still he maintains, that
there is a wide difference between the doctrine of Sabellius and that of oiher
Christians; because the latter believed the Son to be begotten by tlie Father,
which Sabellius denied : Nos autem Patrem dicimus et credimus, qui genui I Fi-
lium, et est Pater unici sui Filii ante tempora geniti. And this is a just repre-
sentation : for although Sabellius made a distinction between the Father and
the Son, yet he would not admit that the Son was a divine person, liegol/en by
the Father. From this passage, therefore, it is manifest: (a) That Sabellius
held to a Trinity, (b) That he anathematised those who denied the Father. Son,
and holy Spirit, or a Trinity. Whence it follows, that (f) Sabellius lield to a
real, and not a mere nominal distinction between the Father, Son, and holy
Spirit. Had he supposed the terms Father, Son, and holy Spirit, were three
names of the one supreme Deity, there would have been no ground for his ana-
thema. For there never was, and never can be, a single Christian who denies
that these terms occur in the Bible, and are there applied to God. It is un-
questionable, both from the course of the argument, and from the nature of the
opinions of SaheUlus. 219
case, lliat Sibellius condemned tliose who coinmingl(.'d andconfounded tlic Fo-
tluT, Son, and Imly 8i)irit. But, most certainly, theij do confonnd the Trniily,
wlio make the Father, Son, and holy Spirit, to ditVer in iiothin<i^ bnt in name.
ThLMctori', it was such persons that Sabellius anathematised. — A second vvilnesa
come>i forward, viz, Basil the Great; who, although he sometimes seems to fa-
vor iho-e who held that Sabellius tanght a nominal dislinctiou in the Trinity,
yet, in two passages shows, not obscurely, that Sabellius held to some real dis-
tineliou in God. One of the passages i-, (Epist. cc.x. Opp. torn. iii. p. 317. edit
Bv-'Uedict.) : ^Avjnita-TaTOv TU)V irpoTioitoiv dv-x ■i:\aTfxdvy ou tTt o ia/SiXX/of rrafwrxVaTo,
eiTioVy Tov duTov Qiof e>'o rtf Cv ox.it fAcvcfi SjTa, tt^oj Taf in-dcmTi TrafaTiTTTiwai
vcftjj fAiTay.op<f>ivi/.ivoVy vv/ (Atv wf TraTcia, vZv S'i wj vtoVy vZv S't w; irviZfJa aytov
J'^a\e}i7d-a'.. lllud iiyposlasi carens personarum commontum ne Sabellius qui-
dem rc'j.'cit, quippe cam dicat eundem Deum, cum subji'cto unus sit, pro occur-
renlibus subinde occaaionibus trani-formatum, modo ut Patrem, modo ut Filium,
moilo nt Spiri um sanctum locjui. The other pas.^age is (Epist. ccxxxv. p. 364.) :
2aSi;XXtoff TroWa^ov (Tuy^icov rtiv ivvoiaVy eni^tipli S^tatfilv to. irpoiro-rray -^nv dDri^i
vTr-jTrara \iyoii irfoi t,)v \<La7T0Ti TTapiUTrUrova-av X?^^'^^ /uira^nuar ii^ar- [p. C92.]
^ai. Sabellius, tamotsi confundit nolionem (Dei), tamen sape conatur personaa
distinguere, dum hypostasin eamdem ait pro usu subinde occurrente varias per-
sonas induere. Basil, indeed, speaks less clearly than I could wish, on this very
obscure subject. But this is plain enough, that the Trinity of Sabellius was
not merely nominal or verbal. For while he maintained that there was but one
•person {v7roC<rTX<ni) in God, he yet held that there are three (Tr/JoVwn-a) formZy or
aspects of the one God, and that he assumes the one or the other of these forms,
according to the state of things. But divers/orm.s of one and the same being,
however they may be considered, involve some real distinction, and cannot be
confounded wilh different appellations for the same thing. But nothing will
better elucidate and confii-m my po>i;ion, than the comparison by which the Sa-
bellians were accustomed to illustrate their doctrine concerning the Father, Son,
and holy Spirit, as it is stated by Epiphanius, (Hceres. l\ii. p. 513). Having
stated the Sabellian doctrine in the common form: Xivai Iv (aU C^oTTa^rn Tpui
cvoLiaTiaiy there are three appellations in one person; he proceeds to show that
this language must not be construed too rigidly, by saying : Q'j iv dvd-puzft
c-uf^ay xui 4^^/^^' '^^^ TTvlvfA.a- Kai bivsLt fj.iv To <ru)/uay wj Ifrruv rdv TraTtpa, -^v^ny
Si (Lj il"Hv Toi i/iox, To irnufJia Si wf d»'-3"OwToy, • owTcj? xai To 'dyiov TrVtu/ua iv
Tn edTun. Patrem, Filium, Spiritum sanctum sic se habere in Deo quemad-
moduin in homine corpus, nnimam et spiritum ; corporis instar Patrem, aniraaj
Filium, Spiritum denique sanctum in Divinitate instar spiritus se habere. Com-
parisons, undoubtedly, are not to be pressed too far; but this one would lose
every shadow of likeness and similarity, and would become a dissimilarity rather
than a similarity, if Sabellius had taught only a Trinity of ?iames or words. If
the difference between the Father, Son, and holy Spirit, is the same — I do not
say altogether, bnt only in part — as that between the hoJy, the rational soul or
spirit, and tiie sentient soul in man ; then, necessarily, the Father, Son, and holy
S|)irit, must differ really from each other. Sabellius, therefore, believed that^aa
a man is but one perso.iy and yet in his one person three things may be discrimi*
^20 Century III.— Section, 33.
nated, not m thought only, but as having a real existence, namely, tlie body, tho
souU and the spirit, so, also, although there is but one undi\ided person in God,
yet in that person, the Father, the Son, and the holy Spirit can be discriminated,
not in thought only, but they must be really discriminated and kept disliiict. —
Other testimonies will occur as we proceed.
III. As Sabellius held to the simple unity of the person and nature of God,
and yet supposed the Father, Son, and holy Spirit, to dilfer really from each
other, and not to be three na?nes of the one God, acting in different ways ; we
are obliged to believe, that he considered the Father, Son, and holy Spirit, as
[p. 693.] being three portions of the divine nature, severed, as it were, from God,
and differing from each other, yet not subsisting as three persons, but all de-
pendent on the one individual divine nature. And therefore God, when about
to create the universe, did not put his whole person in action, but he sent out a
portion of his nature, by which he accomplished his design. And this portion of
the Divinity is called the Father ; becaus-e, by its agency, God has become the
parent ofall things, or procreates, sustains, cherishes, and governs all. This Fa-
ther produced Christ in the womb of the virgin Mary, and for that reason is em-
phatically Chrisfs Father ; and Christ is called the Son of God, because he
holds the relation of a Son, in regard to this divine energy. Again, when the
same God would «-eclaim to himself the human race by Christ, he sent forth
another portion of himself, whicii, being united to Christ, is called tlie Son; be-
cause he resides in the Son of God, and by that Son teaches and works, and, in
a certain sense, makes one person with the Son. Lastly, God sent out a third
particle of his nature, periectly separate from the two former, by which he ani-
mates the universe, Jind enlightens, excites, and regenerates the minds of men.
This portion of God is called the holy Spirit ; because, like a wind, he excites
and produces holy movements in men. 'J'he three forms, or three irfoToiira of
God, therefore, y.':cording to Sabellius, were neither three qualities of the divine
nature, {existencf-, toisc?ow2> and life; as Abulpkaraius supposed, Historia Dynast.
p. 81.) nor three modes of acting, nor three appellations of the one God ; but
they were parts or portions, rent, indeed, in a sence from God, and yet in another
sense connected with him. — This exposition is compatible with that celebrated
comparison taken from the sun, which Epiphanius mentions, and which had led
Fome worthy men to make the Sabellians agree with the Socinians. Epiphanius
(Uteres. Ixii. p. 513.) says, that the Sabellians were accustomed to explain
their doctrine by a comparison with the sun, thus : In the sun there is but 07ie
suistance, (f^ta CirirTaa-n,) but there are three powers, (tvffytiai,) namely, (t«
9cjTi7T(Kcv, TO d-a\Tdv, TO TTf^KptoHas ^x^if^a,) the illiiminatinfr power, the warm-
ing poiver, and the ciicular form. Tiie warming power answers to the holy
Spirit; the illuminating power, to the Son ; and the form or figure, (to ItJ'oc,)
to the Father. This representation seems in itself to favor the opinions of those
who make Sabellius discard all real distinctions in the divine nature. But Epi-
phanius explains the comparison in a manner that makes it apparent, that Sa-
bellius did not intend, by this new comparison, to subvert his former compari-
son, taken from the soul, body, and spirit in a man. For he adds, that the Son
was sent out like p. ray from the Father, to perform what was requisite for the
Opinions of SaheUius. 221
flalvation of mankind, and, h:iving accomplished the business, returned again to
heaven; and that the holy Spirit also, in like manner, should be viewed as some-
tiiing sent into the world. Now, whatever is sent forth from God, and after-
wards returns to God, must undoubtedly be something actually separate in some
way from the divine nature: because, it could not possibly return hack [p. 694.]
to God, unless it had departed and been separated from God. — Let no one trou-
ble himself with the dilliculties whicli this dogma involves; for the question is,
not how wisely Sabellius reasoned, but what distinction he made between the
Father, the Son, and the holy Spirit.
IV. Therefore, although the ancients sometimes speak as if they would re-
present Sabellius to believe that the Father, Son, and holy Spirit, differ from
each other only as three modes of acting, or three relations of the same man,
yet their language is not to be pressed too much, but should be construed by
what we have above stated. And they themselves, often correct what they have
in certain passages stated less fitly and distinctly ; and explain themselves in
other passages, in accordance with our statements. One example we have al-
ready seen in Epiphanius ; who seems to teach that the Trinity of Sabellius
was only nominal, and yet he is with us. Another example is afforded by Basil
the Great, who speaks (Epist. ccxiv. p. 322.) as if Sabellius denied any real dis-
tinction ill the divine nature ; and yet, in the two passages above cited, he ad-
mits that, while Sabellius rejected a personal distinction, he was not averse from
admitting one that was real and true; and while denying that what was divine
in Christ differed from God, in the same way that a son differs from a father,
yet conceded that it might be viewed as a sort of separate (ir/»oVaffov) 'person. I
will now add a third example, very striking, and well suited to our purpose,
taken from Theodoret. In his Heretical Fables, (L. ii, c. 9, 0pp. torn. iv. p. 223.)
he explains the dogma of Sabellius in the usual way ; viz. that he held to one
person under three names^ and called that person sometimes the Father, some-
times the Son, and sometimes the holy Spirit. But in his Eccles. History,
(L. i. c. 4.) he gives us an Epistle o^ Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, to Alex-
ander, the bishop of Constantinople ; from which it appears, that SabeHiu.3
thought very differently. For he tells us (0pp. tom. iii. p. 533.) that Alexander
wrote thus: Tria-Hvouiv it; Iva Kvfiicv, lua-ouv Xfttrrdr, rdv vidv tou Qiou fxovoytiHy
ytwu^cvTa' ix. rou ovros Il:trfoC) lu kato. Taf rwj/ a-ujudruv o/ucioTitrai, rati
T 0 fx a I <; ii Totf Ik J'latpeiTicjv dirOffoiaig, wa-nif) 2a/S»XX<o, Kai BaXtx-
Tivcc cToxst, aXX' dppMraj. Credimus in unum Dominum Jesum Christum, Filium
Dei unigcnitum, ex eo, qui Pater est genitum, non corporum ritu, per incisiones^
divisionumque^i^a:?one.9, ut Sabcllio et Valentino visum est, sed ineffabili modo.
We may remark, that this is the statement of a man, than whom no one could
better know the doctrine of Sabellius; for he lived in the country and city in
which that doctrine originated, was propagated, and condemned ; and he un-
doubtedly had in his possession the writings of Dionyslus, his predecessor in the
see of Alexandria, against Sabellius. This man, therefore, who is the very best
authority in the case before us, first, states the doctrine of orthodox Christians
respecting the generation of the Son of God ; secondly, distinguishes [p. 695.]
from it the error of Valentinus and Sabellius, in regard to the generation of the
222 Century Ill—Section 33.
Son ; and (liirdli/, tells us, t!i:it Sabellius and Valentinus held, that the Son was
produced from the Father, in the manner of material bodies, either (Ta7j touoIs)
by seclvms, or {U J'laipia-iav drci'^aiom) by emanaiion or effluxes of parts. The
ialter of these two hypotheses, undoubtedly was that of Valentinus ; whose well
known npo^iXH {emissi'm), is here not unsuitably called an diroiooix {r-Jffiux). The
first hypolhesia, therefore, beyond all controversy, was that of Sabellius. Con-
soquenily, first, Sabelliiis admitted a species of generation of the Son from the
Father; not, indeed, n 'personal one, yet one of some sort. But, secondly, he de-
scribed this generation very grossly, and in the miinner of material bodies.
Thirdly, he made the Son proceed tVom God, by {TifA>iv) a kind of seciiun. Alex-
ander, indeed, speaks of (joy-ai^) sections, in tiie plural ; but he appears to use
tlie plural for the singular, as is common. For he also speaks of {dno'f^oUis)
fluxions, in the plural ; and yet it is certain that Valentinus held to but one
dir:f(>oiav OF npo^oXh of the Son from the Father. Hence, fourthly, it is mani-
fest, that S.ibellius considered that divine thing, which dwelt in the man Christ,
as being a part or portion of God ; so that the Son differed from the Father, as
apart ditTei's from the whole: from whom he was severed by a section. 1 recol-
lect, that George Bull, (in his Defensio Fidei Niea^nae, Sect. ii. c. 1, 0pp. p. 33.)
and perhaps others, explain this passage of Alexander differently, and maintain
that Alexander does not here state the opinion of Sabellius, but only shows us
hovv Sabellius explained the common opinion of Christians, respecting the gene-
ration of the Son of God; viz. this heretic supposed, that a division of the es-
sence of the Father would necessarily follow from the doctrine of the catholics.
But a careful attention to the passage, will show that the learned man was de-
ceived; for the words will not bear his interpretation. The Sabellian and Va-
lentinian opinions, respecting the nature of the divine generation, stand coupled
together; but the latter is certainly not the catholic opinion, as explained by
Valentinian, but the opinion of Valentin ian himself; and, therefore, the Sabel-
lian opinion coupled with it, is the opinion of Sabellius himself, and not that of
the catholics, to whom he was opposed. Bull was led to his mistake by the
full belief, that the common statement of Sabellius' doctrine is correct. He
says: Norunt omnes, Sabellium doculsse, Deum esse fA. o v oTrp 6 o- air ov, (a great
mistake ! For we see clearly from Basil, that he acknowledged three Trpia-uita in
God, but denied three viroTrr d<rns.) et nullam realem personarum distinctionem in
divina essentia, nedum divisionem agnovisse. This is in the main false ! Sabel-
lius denied any personal distinction in God, but not a real and true division. —
But Worm (in his Historia Sabell. c. 1. p. 20.) blunders still worse. To elude
the force of this passage, he would persuade us that the words to«« and droffoia
both refer to Valentinian, and neither of them to Sabellius. Strange that a
[p. 696.] learned man should say this ! For who does not see that these two words
express two diirerent opinions'? And who, that has dipped into church history,
can be so ignorant of it, as not to know that a rSjun, or section, can by no means
be attributed to Valentinus ? But what need of discussion ? — We have another
equally noticeable passage of an Egyptian of Alexandria, who must have been
fully acquainted with the doctrine of Sabellius; namely, Arius the heresiarch, the
adversary of Alexander, who agrees with his enemy Alexander, and explains the
Opinions of Scthellius. 223
doctrine of S;ibclliiis in the same innnner. Mis Epistle to Alexander, his bishop,
is extant in Kpiphanius, (Hicres. ixix. torn. i. p. 732). Arius there first conti
deinns the opinion of Va/t'n/m/^s re^pee'.ing the divine generation, and says:
7rfijio\nv To ytvvnfxa roy Flarficf i^oyfAuT iviv: and then he rejects the opinion of
Sabellius, in the ibllo\vin<i: terms: ovJ" <!>; Ja/SsXX/oj o r«v /uovaS'a J'laifiot
CioraTcfu. Iirtv. Nec ego doceo, ut Sabellius, qui uritatem divisil (here we liavo
the T'jf^ta; v^ Alexander,) et Filium-Patrem appellavit. No language could better
agree with our explanation. Sabellius divided, cleaved the unity of the divine
nature; and he c;illed that divine thing which dwelt in Christ, jytojruTooa, both
Father and !<on : and correctly, for a part of the Father was in Christ, and this
part was at the same time the Son, being united with him ; and therefore ho
might be called Ciiirarn^.
V. As Sabellius supposed the Son to be a fart of God, or a portion of tho
divine nature, severed from it by section, the ancients were not altogether wrong
in denominating him and his friends Patripassians ; provided we understand by
the Father the one supreme God, who, as Sabellius supposed, was not divisible
into persons. For, whoever supposes that a certain part or portion of the eter-
nal Father, taken in a certain sense out of him, and yet depending on him, and
hereafter to return into him, — w;is in Christ when he suHered pains and died,
and that it participated in the sufferings endured by the man Christ ; — that man
may not improperly be said to believe, — not that a d.W\wQ, person, but God tho
Father himself; not, indeed, in his whole nature, but so far forth as he was join-
ed with Christ, actually suffered the penalties incurred by mankind. If any hu-
man being, Peter, for instance, could transfer a half or third part of his soul into
another man, Paul, for example, and that Paul should be put to torture by some
tyrant, might not that Peter be fitly said to have suffered torture in Paul ? — I
shall not cite here the testimonies of Augustine, Eusebius, and many others,
who have told us either that Sabellius and his associates were called Patripas-
sians, or that they truly merited that appellation ; for such testimonies in great
abundance have been already collected by Worm, Tillemont, and others : but I
will add to those adduced, one witness of great value, and deserving the first
rank, who has been omitted by all who have treated of the subject. He is Di-
omjsius Alexandrinus, the first antagonist of Sabellius. The Arians of the fourth
century, in their writings against Sabellius, afhrm that this great and [p. 697.]
excellent man professed exactly their sentiments concerning Christ. And to re-
fute their assertion, Athanasius wrote a book, entitled de Sententia Dianysii
Alex, de Christo, which has come down to us, and is in the 0pp. Athiinasii,
(torn. i. P. i. p. 242, &c., edit. Benedict). In this book Athanasius shows, from
the v\-ritings of Dionysius, that he demonstrated, against Sabellius, that the Fa-
ther did not suffer; and, at the same time, h<^. shows that the Sabellians really
transferred to the Father tliose sufferings which Christ endured. In ^ 5. p. 246,
he says: TaXuhpirtpcv imivoi rdv viov ypvivvTOy kui to. dv^pcjrtVA durou tw Uarft)
d¥iTld-i7CtV S'li^ai OTl OUp^' 0 TTUThp, dW (t ClOS £3"riJ' 0 ytvO/AiViS CttSO i\U(Zv uv3"/)(»;Taf.
Quum audacius illi (the followers of Sabellius in Pent:ipolis,) Filium negarcnt,
(i. e. denied that the Son was a distinct person from the Father,) ct humana
gus (his sufferings and death) Palri adscriberent ; ostendit ipse (Dionysius) non
224 Century Ill.—Section 33.
Patreni, sed Filinm pro nobis liominom esse factum. And in \ 26. p. 261, he
cites from an Epistle of Dionysius to Eupln-jinor and Atnmonius, in confutation
of the error of iSabellius : T^o/SaXXt/ rH llvd'paiTriva-^c iipn/uiva Tnfi tow o-oitjj'^cj, oli,
£o"Ti TO TTf/vdv, rd KCTTiclv - - 6t X "yap ruvrx TsLTrtiva hi-yncti^ TarcUTai J'iix.M/TUi
f^)) 0 Tzaritp ytvif^ivos atd-pcerc^. Pnutormittit ea, qua3 humano more de illo dictJk
habentur. cujusmodi sunt csurire, laboraro : quanto enim hicc dictu sunt humi-
liora, tanto liquidius denionstratur Patrcm non esse factum hornineu). This re-
nowned opponent of Sabellius, in the ardor of debate and zeal for victory, suf-
fered liimseif to be carried so far, that, not without apparent justice, he was ac-
cused of error before Diomjsius, bishop of Rome. For while Sabellius seemed
to change the Son into the Father, or to confound him with the Father, Diony-
sins seemed to degrade the Son. or to rob iiim of his majesty. And hence it
became necessary for liim to explain his views more clearly, and he wrote two
books in self vindication, namely, his Elenchus and his Apologia. On this sub-
ject Athanasius dwells much ; and he clearly shows, by more than a sufficiency
of citations from Dionysius, that he did not hold the error of the Arians respect-
ing Christ. (See 5 13. p. 252, &c.) But after all the diligence of Athanasius
in defending Dionysius, and in wiping away every stain upon the character of
a man, held in the highest veneration at Alexandria, it will be manifest, to a
person carefully considering all that Athanasius has said in his defence, that
there was something erroneous in Dionysius, and that his opinion of Christ, dif-
fered from the Nicene and the modern doctrine. The more effectually to con-
fute Sabellius, who maintained that God himself, or the Fatlier was born, suf-
fered and died in Christ, Dionysius denied, (as Atlianasius clearly shows, \ 5.
p. 246,) that i\\e passions of Christ (humana Christi) feriained to the God resi-
dent in Christ; and he referred them exclusively to the Son. He therefore
went to the opposite extreme. That is, Dionysius distinguished in Christ the
Word, a divine person distinct from the Father, and also the Son ; or rather,
[p. 698.] he supposed two Sons, a human and divine. The Woj-d, or the divine
Son, he exempted from all the passioiis (di'd-pwnivoiSi humanis) of Christ, or from
all that Christ, as a man, did and suffered ; and maintained, that all these
passio7is, {dvdpcoTrtva) — his being horn, suffering, dying, pertained solely to that
Son of man who was born of Mary. Here he erred, and entered the direct road
leading to the doctrine ascribed to Nestorius. For, if the Son of God, or the
Word, which was united to the man Christ, had no part in the actions and suf-
feiings of the Son of man, it is manifest, that there must liave been both itoo
natures and two persons in Christ, and that the Son of God, or the Word, only
strengthened, enlightened, and aided the Son of man. And, therefore, not with-
out reason, was Dionysius accused at Rome, although not wiih due accuracy
and distinctness. — Yet, these mistakes of the pious and truth-loving Dionysius,
serve admirably to elucidate the tenets of Sabellius: namely, that he supposed
a portion of the divine nature was so united with the man Christ at his birth, as
to be born with him, suffer nud die w-ith him, and participate in all the actions and
sufferings of the man Christ, or the Son ; and that this portion of the Deity, on
account of its intimate union with the Son, is in Scripture called the Son,
although, properly speaking, only the mail Christ should be called the Son.
Error of Berijllus. 225
Either such were the views of SahclUus, or the entire argument of Dionijsius
against him is futile, irrelevant, and idle. That which we, following the JScrip-
lures, denominate a person eternally begotten by the Father, Sabellius took to
be a part of the Deity separated from him within a limited time. If he had only
supposed the divine nature in Christ to be a person, he would have coincided
with us, more exactly than Dionysius did. — But perhaps it will not be unac-
ceptable, but rather agreeable to many, if I should discriminate with more ex-
actness the Sabellian, the Dionysian, and our own opinions of Christ. We all
hold to two natures in Christ, a divine and a human. And loe hold that these two
natures constituted one person, and we exclude the personality of the human na-
ture, or place the personality in the divine nature. Sabellius, on tlie contrary,
while he agreed with us in declaring that the two natures constituted but one
person, excluded the personality of the divine nature, or made the personality to
exist only in and by the human nature. And to confute him, Dionysius sepa-
rated, not only the two natures in Christ, but also the persons, and held that the
actions and passions of the human nature, were not predicable of the divine
nature. Thus, in his zeal to confute one error, he fell into another equally
great.
VI. But Sabellius and his disciples cannot be called Patripassians, in the
same sense in which the Noeiians were ; if the opinions of the latter are cor-
rectly stated by the ancients. For Noetus thought the ivhole person of the Fa-
ther, or the entire divine nature, associated itself with Christ: but Sabellius sup-
posed, that only a portion of the divine nature descended into the man Christ.
Hence, Epiplianius made no mistake when he said, in his Anacepha- [p. 699,]
la^osis, (0pp. tom. ii. p. 146.) : Sabellianos consentire in plerisque cum Noetia-
nis, hoc uno excepto, quod non ut Noetiani Patrem passum esse doceant.
This is perfectly correct, if it be explained as I have stated, that the Sabel-
lians did not ascribe the sufferings of Christ to the Father, in the same
sense in which the Noetians did. And therefore, there was no ground for
Augustine, (de Hseresibus,) and many others since him, to cast blame upou
Epiphanius.
§ XXXIY. Beryllus of Bostra, in Arabia. About tlie same
time a similar error, tliongh a little worse, was broached, by
BenjUus, the bishop of Bostra, in Arabia, a man otherwise de-
vout, grave, and erudite, who had long governed his congregation
praiseworthily, and also acquired reputation by his writings. He
likewise subverted the distinction of persons in God, and denied
that Christ existed before Mary. He supposed that a soul, the off-
spring of God himself, and therefore, doubtless, superior to all
human souls, was divinely implanted in Christ at his birth. This
opinion of Beryllus was long opposed by many persons, but in
vain. At length, Origen^ being invited from Egypt for this pur-
pose, confronted him in a council held at Bostra, with such force
VOL. II. 16
226 Century Ill.—Sectlon 34.
of argument, that BeiijUus gave up Lis opinion, and was recon-
ciled to tlie cliurch.C)
(1) Nearly all that is now known of Berylhis and his doctrine, is derived
from Euscbhis, (Hist. Eccl. L. vi. e. 20. p. 222; and c. 33. p. 231.) and from
Jerome, (Catal. Scriptor. Ecel. c. 60. edit. Fabricii). For all that others tell
us, e.\cept a single passage in Soci'ates, scarcely deserves notice. Eusebius alone
states distinctly the errors of the man : and yet the learned have found some
obscurity in his language, and therefore have understood him ditfercnlly. His
words are tiiese : Toa^cjI' ^^iynv /uii Trfo-J^tTrlvai Xpio-Tdv kat"^ icTtar ovo-iai TTtpi-
ypotpiiv Trpd TJif in dvd-puivovs iriS'ii/LAiaSy y.ii Si /niV QiOTHTU. IS'iav ?p^2/i', t/AX' iiA.To-
\iTi-jofAtv»v dvTtf, fxovHv TiiY TT-jLTpiniiv . I wlll suLjoin the Latin translation of
Henry de Valois, although it is not literal throughout, and is deemed faulty by
some learned men. It U this: Ausus estassererc Christum antequam inter ho-
mines versaretur (more correctly: ante suum ad homines adventum, id est, ante-
quam nasceretur. For a false inference may be drawn from the translation oi
de Valuis,) non substitis^e in propria3 personse differentia, (the learned transla-
tor here depaits from the words, but follows the sense; for he supposed Iva-i^i to
be here equivalent to 'Jn-o(rr:ta-ii. The literal rendering would be: secundum
propriam essentia) circumscriptinnem,) nee propriam, sed paternam duntaxat di-
[p. 700.] vinitatem in ae rendentem habere. Two propositions are here in-
cluded : the first, relating to Christ previous to iiis birth, and the second, con-
cerning him when clothed in a human body. In the first place, Beryllus denied
that Christ, previously to his advent, so existed, that liis essence or ovs-ia was
circumscribed, (or separated from that of all other beings). Although most
writers concerning Beryllus follow the translation of de Ta/ozs, yet learned men
complain that he renders the words of Eusebius very b:idly. For ova-ia among
the Greeks is never synonymous with Ctro^Ti^ic, and ■r:ipiyi)x(pif never signifiea
difference, but circumscription. So John le Clerc, (Ars Critica, Vol i. P. ii. sec. i.
c. 14. p. 293, &c.) and the Nouvcau Diction. Historique et Critique, (tom. i. Art
Beryllus, p. 268). The criticisms are correct: and yet I do not think de Valois
guilty of any great fault. Eusebius aimed to express the very same thing, which
de Valois has expressed in other words. Beryllus did not deny, that Christ ex-
isted in some manner, previous to his coming among men ; but he did not ad-
mit that his essence (lua-i-j.) was circumscribed. Now things are said to be cir-
cumscribed, ov to have {Tiptyp:tp}iy) circumscription, when they are separated and
secluded from other things by determinate limits or bounds. Therefore, Beryl-
lus denied that Christ, before he was born of Mary, had a separate existence, or
that he was distinct from the essence of the Father. To express this in our
phraseology, would be to say: Christ had no personality before he was born. He,
indeed, existed then, yet not as a person, but only in the essence of the Father,
He existed, but undefined ov without boundaries, if I may so express it ; that is,
he existed in combination, as it were, with the essence of the Father of all
things. To use a homely illustration: thus the zoine, now included in a glass,
existed, indeed, previously in the cask from which it was drawn, but it had not
then its own inpiyp^p^v circumscription. In other words, Beryllus excluded from
Error of BenjUus. 227
fhe divine n:itiirc all divi.-ions, :ind ndinitted no distinction of persons in God.
Jerome expresses his conception, not erroneously, indeed, yet not with sullieicnt
perspicuity, (C;i!nl. Scriptor. Eccl. c. GO. p. 138.): ChrisLmn ante incur nalionem
negabat. He did not wholly deny the exisiencc of Christ before his incarnation,
but only his nxistence apart from the F;ither, or in our phraseology, his personal
existence. That sucli was his opinion will, I think, be be very manifest from tho
second proposition of Eusebius, as follows : Christ, after his naliviti/, had no in-
dependent divinity, but the divinity <f the Father resided in him. This proposition
includes the three following positions: First, m the Son, or the man Christ,
there was a dicins nature, or a diviniry, distinct from his human nature. Yet,
secondly, this divinity was exclusively Christ''s own. Tho-c things are said to bo
a person's own, which he alone possesses, or does not hold in common with
others. But, thirdly, the divinity in Christ was that of the Father ; in other
words, the divinity of the Father dwelt in him. This third proposition is not ex-
plicit; lor it might be adopted by one holding, that tiie entire divine [p. 701.]
nature was united wi;h the man Christ, and by one who holds, that only a part
of it was so united. But here Socrates comes opportunely to our aid, and ex-
hibits cle;irly the views of Beryllus, (Hist. Eccl. L. iii. c. 7. pp. 174, 175). He
tells us, that Eusebius and Athanasius assembled a council at Alexandria, in
which it was decreed, that Christ assumed, not only a body, but also a human soul.
He proceeds to say, that this s:ime doi-trine was taught by various of the holiest
and most distinguished writers among the early Christians; and adds, that tho
council against Beryllus, bishop of Philadelphia, — (a slip of the memory, for
Boslra.) — in Arabin, condemned the opposite doctrine of that bishop. ^H //i
^tifvWov ytvo/mtvn ir-jViS^^i ypipovTst. Byp'jKXff) to. avra, (i/u-^v^ov rdv 'ivav^fiaDirYio-avTXy)
i:apmS"JuKii. Syuodus propter Beryllutn facta scribens ad eum hacc eadem tradi-
dii, Christum, qui homo fact us es% aninia prgeditum fuisse. Therefore, Beryllus
must have believed, that Cin-ist h:id no human aoul. For how could the council
have condemned this error in its Epistle to him, if he was entirely free from it?
He, doubtless, admitted tli;it Christ had a sentient soul, which the ancients dis-
tinguished from the rational soul ; but the place of the latter, he supposed, was
in Christ supplied by the divinity of the Father. But this divinity of the Father,
which, according to Beryllus, supplied the place of a ration.Ml soul in Christ, was
not the u-hole essence of the Father; nor was it a certain injluence flowing from
it; but it was a most wi-^e, excellent, and immaculate so.vZ, issuing from the
very nature and essence of the Father, and therefore very like to the Father. I
am led to this supposition by what Beryllus maintained, namely, that Christ, be-
fore his advent among men, had not a distinct essence, or Tnptyp:t.<th Iva-ias- For,
as it must follow from this, that afur his advent he had a circumscribed, or dis-
tinct and definable essence, the opinion of Beryllus can be explained in no other
way. And hence we may suppose, that Beryllus adopted the belief that God,
the author of all things, in whom there is no natural distinction, formed the man
Christ in the womb of the virgin Mary, and endowed him with a sentient soul;
and then, to enable the man to perform the functions assigned him, united to
him a most perfect rational soul, derived from his own bosom. And, therefore,
when the fathers of the council attempted to reclaim him from liis error, they
228 Century Ill—Sectioji 35.
contended that the rational soul of Christ must be distinguished from his
divine nature.
§ XXXV. Paul of samosaia. Mucli more pertinacious, and
producing far greater disturbance in Syria, was Paul, a native of
Samosata, and bishop of the church at Antioch ; a man not un-
[p. 702.] learned, nor destitute of genius, but vain and proud,
and, what was unusual, sustaining a civil office under the govern-
ment.(') His opinion, respecting the divine nature and Jesus
Christ the Saviour, is so variously and inconsistently stated by
the ancients, that it is with difficulty ascertained. But by com-
paring the principal documents which have reached us, respect-
ing the controversy with him, I think it will appear that Paul
held these tenets : That the Father, Son, and holy Spirit, are not
different persons : That the Son and the holy Spirit are m God,
just as reason, or the reasoning faculty and action, or the opera-
tive power, are in a man : That the man Christ was born without
any connection with the divine nature : That the Word or Reason
of the Father descended into the man, and united itself with him ;
but not so as to make one person with him : That the Wisdom or
Reason of the Father, merely dwelt in the man Christ, and taught
and wrought miracles by him : On account of this connection of
the divine Word with the man Christ, the latter is, though im-
properly, called GoD.(^) — Dionysius of Alexandria first wrote
against him, and afterwards assembled some councils against
him at Antioch. In the last of these councils, which appears to
have met in the year 269, one Malchion, a rhetorician, an acute
and eloquent man, so skilfully drew Paul out of the subterfuges
in which he had before lurked, that his error became manifest to
all. And, as he would not renounce his error, he was divested of
the episcopal office, and excluded from the communion by com-
mon suffrage. This decision Paul resisted ; and relying, perhaps,
on the patronage of Zenohia, the queen of Palmyra, and on the
favor of the people, he refused to give up the house in which
the bishop resided, and in which the church was accustomed to
assemble. But this queen, after governing the province of the
East for a time, was conquered by the emperor Aurelian, in the
year 272 ; and the contest being brought before the emperor, he
did not, indeed, decide it, but referred it to the arbitrament of
Life of Paul of Samosata.
the Romisli and Italian bisliops, who decided against Paul.i^)
He left behind him a sect, the Paulians, or Paulianists^ which,
however, was not numerous, and did not continue beyond the
fourth century.
(1) All that has come down to us respectuig the life and morals of [p. 703.]
Paul of Samosata, is found in an Epistle composed by the bishops of the coun-
cil of Antioch, in which he was condemned; a part of wiiich Epistle is preserved
by Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. L. vii. c. 30. p. 279, &c. Paul was faulty enough,
and unworthy of a place among bishops, even if we suppose these bishops were
excited by passion, and exaggerated his faults. I admit that in his case too much
inflaence seems to have been allowed to personal dislike, partial feelings, rival-
ship and envy : and perhaps he would not have been even accused of any corrupt
doctrine, if he had not been rich, honored, and powerful. And yet, in the charges
against him, there are some things which could not have been fabrications; and
these area sufficient ground for entertaining an unfavorable opinion of his life
and conduct. — I. Being born in indigent and needy circumstances, he suddenly
acquired vast riches : and the bishops charge him wiLii having accumulated his
wealth by frauds, by deceptive promises, and base artifices. — This charge I can
readily believe. For such was the condition of Christians in that age, that it
was not possible the incomes of bishops should raise them to opulence, if they
did nothing unbecoming their office, or repugnant to religion. I therefore must
suppose, that the bishops state facts when they say, that Paul heard and decided
causes according to the customs of the age, and suffered bribes to be tendered
him by the litigants. — II. In the conventions of the clergy, he imitated the
pomp of civil magistrates and judges. For he erected for himself a tribunal, and
an elevated throne, from which he pronounced judgments; and he had a private
audience room, like the Roman magistrates. — This also, I have no doubt, was
true. For the whole history of Paul shows, that he was a proud, arrogant and
vain man. Nor could one who was much at court, and high in favor there, relish
the holy and devout modesty of the Christian bishops. — III. He loved to have
his discourses received by the people, as the declamations of the rhetoricians and
sophists were, with clappings and applauding acclamations; and he rebuked those
who withheld from him this honor. — This perhaps is not perfectly true : and yet
it is not altogether incredible. I suspect he was a sophist and rhetorician, be-
fore he became a Christian; and therefore was unwilling to forego that honor
among Christians, which he had long been accustomed to receive from his pu-
pils.— IV. He greatly lauded himself in his discourses, and spoke disparagingly
of the ancient doctors. — Perhaps, he affirmed that certain religious doctrines
were not explained and inculcated with sufficient clearness and accuracy by the
ancients. — V. He abolished the use of the hymns in honor of Cln-ist, to which
the people had been accustomed. — There is no reason to doubt the truth of this
charge. But I would direct attention to his reasons for discontinuing those
hymns. The bishops, his accusers, do not say, that he discarded those hymns be-
cause they contained any errors, but because they were recent^ and com- [p. 704.]
posed by modem persons. They say nothing further : but I will state how I uu-
230 Century III— Section 35.
dtTsland the matter. Paul discontinued the customary liymns, as being recent
productions, and substituted inlheii- phice the ancient P^al^ls of DaviJ, which he
wished to have used exclusively. For, beinjr n shrewd man, and acquainted
with the ways of the court, he wished in this matter to gratify the feelings of
queen Zenobia, his patroness; who, as welenrn from Aihanasius and others, was
attached to the Jewish mode of worship. — VF. He directed women to sing
hymns to his praise, in a public assembly on the gi-eat festival of Easter, and
cau.sed the neighbouring bishops and presbyters to laud him in their sermons. —
That such things occurred, namely, that Paul was publicly lauded by women
and by neighbouring bishops and presbyters, I can believe without much diffi-
culty; but that he was so infatuated, and so greedy of praise, as boldly to urge
forward these proclaimers of his virtues, I cannot believe so easily. I suspect
that Paul, nfter the controversy arising from his novel opinions had become
warm, and the people had become divided into factions and parties, persuaded
some bishops and presbyters to defend and support his cause in public discourses ;
and, through his satellites, he encouraged some women, on Easter day, when the
peojile were all assembled, suddenly to shout forth his praise ; — in order to con-
ciliate popular fiivor to him, and to check the rising storm of opposition. — VII.
He allowed his presbyters and deacons, among other wrong things, to keep the
ho-caWad sub-inlroduced {<rv\ii9dKTdLCy subintroductas) icomen : and he himself
kept two young women, and carried them with him when he travelled. — This
was not contrary to the custom of the priests of that age : of which 1 have spo-
ken elsewhere. But the bishops do not accuse Paul of any illicit intercourse
ti'ith these women : whence it appears, that though a luxurious liver, he was not
altogether regardless of the laws of chastity and decorum.
But it clearly was unusual and extraordinary, that while sustaining the office
of a bishop among Christians, he held at the same time a high ciiil ojjice under
the government; for he was a Ducenarius Procurator. This kind of judges was
instituted by Augustus; and they bore the title of Ducenarii^ from the annual
salary of two hundred sestertia allowed them. They are of! en mentioned in
ancient books and inscriptions. That there were Ducenarii Procuratores in
Syria, and particularly at Palmyra, where Paul was in favor, is put beyond all
doubt by the inscriptions found at Palmyra, and published by Abrah. Seller.
(See his Antiquities of Palmyra, p. 166. 167. Lond. 1696. 8.) But let us at-
tend to the complaints of the bishops on this subject, in Eusebius, (L, vii. e. 30.);
i/>{,>iXa ppovli Kui virif>-^f>Tai x-otuikol d'^tMuara urcJ^uo/nivos. Kdt J'cvKHVdpioi
fxaWov ii 'ETT-tVxoTTCf 3-tXcjv sctxifr^-At. jMngna mcditatur, et srcculares gerit
dignitates ; et Ducenarius vocari mavult, quam cpiscopus. Some learned
[p. 705.] men, not able to believe that a bishop among the Christians, a people
odious and condemned by the laws, was honored with so liigh an office among
the Romans, try to construe the language of the bishops differently from the
common rendering. Examples enough are found of Christians sustaining dis-
tinguished offices in the Roman commonwealth, but that a Christian bishop or
presbijler should be enrolled among the Judges and Magistrates of the Roman
empire, is without example, or any probability, nay, seems to be impossible. I
formerly conjectured, that Paul of Samosatahad been a Ducenarius ProcuratoTy
L^fe of Paul of Samosata. 231
beTore his conversion to Christianity; which, if it were the fact, would fliow how
two so very difTerent othces, the one sacred the other civil, c;inie to be united in
the man. Bnt the language of the bishops above cited, will not comport with
this sni>posiiion : for it could not have been regarded as criminal in Paul, to
retain his civil ofKce after his conversion; and the Christians who created a
Ducenarius a bishop, would have been more criminal than Paul, who merely did
not refuse the sacred otiiee but superadded it to his civil office. Some learned
men, therefore, feeling the difficulties of the case, would give a diflerent sense to
the language of the bishops. They say, the bishops do not state that Paul teas in
fact a Dtk-enarius, but that he would rather be called a Ducenarius than a bishop •
and therefore they only show us, that he undervalued the title of bishop, and
would have been glad, if he could, to exchange it for the more splendid title of
Ducenarius. But, however specious this interpretation may seem to be, neither
the words preceding nor those that follov/, will permit it. For the bishops
say, most explicitly, that he was K(,o-fAixa d^idJ/naTa CrroS'vofAfvosy clothed
with worldly honors, and not that he merely coveted them. And immediately
after, they add that he moved in stale through the forum, read aloud and publicly
the letters (presented), and dictated (answers), and appeared loitha throng (of at-
tendants), preceding and following after him. Such things would not comport with
the office of a Christian bishop, who, jf he should act in such a majiner, would
undoubtedly be thought deranged or out of his senses; but they are perfectly in
cliaracter and keeping for a Ducenary Judge or Magistrate; for such a man,
clothed in the insignia of his office, and guarded by his attendants, at certain
seasons presented himself before the people, in the forum, where causes were
usually tried; with lictors going before him, and servants and ministers about
liim. And as he passed along, many petitioners, as was the custom, presented
to him their petitions; and he, being the judge, read the petitions on the spot,
gave his decision, and dictated it to the attending scribes. — But, say they, can it
be believed, that the emperor would confer an office of so much importance on a
Christian bishop? — I answer, it is not wholly incredible. This Paul was a very
prosperous man, and possessed great wealth: and nothing is too high [p. 706.]
to be reached by means of money. The Roman provincial governors often sold
the public offices. But it is not necessary for us to suppose, that this bishop ob-
tained the office of a Ducenarius from the emperor. It is known from the Roman
history of those times, that Zenobia, the wife of Odenatus, a petty king of the Pal-
myrenians, a woman of great energy, and endowed with uncommon intellectual
and executive powers, governed the East, directing all public rffairs at her dis-
cretion, during the reign of the emperor Gallienus, from A. D. 263, to the year
272. Into the good graces of the queen, who was a great admirer < f learning
and learned men, Paul, being a man of learning, a rhetorician, and not ignorant
of the fine arts, and of the ways of courts, had insinuated himself; as we are
expressly told by Alhanasius, (Ej)ist. ad. So'itaiios, 0pp. torn, I. p. 386, &;c.
and in Monifaucon's Collectio Nova Patr. et ^criptor. Grtecor. torn. II. p. 20.)
and by Theodoret, Chrysos'om, Nicephorus, (Hist. Eccl. L. vi. c. 27. p. 420.) and by
others. From this queen, therefore, a.<, others before me have conjectured, Paul
obtiiued, perhaps, this office. — And yet to this queen also, whom he was most
232 Century III— Section 35.
studious to please, he o;ved all those troubles, under which, after various con-
tests, he succumbed. He was, as his conduct shows, not one of those who
seek fame by means of religious controversies, but he was particularly eager for
wealth and honor. Hence it is more than probable, that he would have left
his people to believe what they pleased, had not his thirst for wealth and ho-
nors induced him to propose innovations. Zenobia, as is certain from the testi-
mony of Afhajiasius and others, was either a Jewess, or at least exceedingly
partial to the Jewish religion. Hence, like all the Jews, she was disgusted
with the christian doctrines of three persons in one God, and of the generation
of the Son of God. To abate her disgust, Paul accommodated his religion, as
far as possible, to the taste of the queen, by discarding all that was particularly
repugnant to the Jewish doctrine of one individual God. This is stated by
Theodoret, (Ha; ret. Fabul. L. ii. c. 8. p. 222.) by Chrysostom, (Homil. viii. in Jo-
hann. 0pp. torn. viii. p. 48. ed. Bened.) and by others. And as all his opinions
concerning God and Christ, (as we shall soon see,) were manifestly suited to
repress the cavils of the Jews, who contended that the Christians subverted the
unity of the divine nature, and converted God into a man, — nothing, in my
opinion, is more credible than the above statement. And the same desire to
gratify the feelings of the queen, induced him, as before remarked, to order the
discontinuance of the Hymns in common use among christians, and the substi-
tution of tbe Psalms of David. For it was his aim, to make the christian
[p. 707.] religion appear to ditler as little as possible from that of the Jews.
(2) Respecting the impiety of Paul of Samosata, scarcely any writer since
the third century, who has treated of the trinity of persons in God, and of
Christ, either formally or incidentally, is silent ; and the writers on heresies,
one and all, place this man among the worst corrupters of revealed truth, and
inveigh against him vehemently : so Epiphanius, Theodoret, Augustine, Damas-
cenus, and the rest. Moreover, some of the public documents of the proceed-
ings against him, have reached us ; a circumstance which has not occurred in
regard to most of the other heretics. For there is extant, I. a great part of the
Epistle of the bishops, by whose decision he was condemned in the council at
Antioch, addressed to all the bishops of Christendom, to make it manifest that
they had good reasons for what they had done : In Eusebius, (Hist. Eccl. L.
vii. c. 30. p. 279, &c.) But it is to be regretted, that Eusebius has preserved
only that part of the Epistle which recounts the vices and delinquencies of the
man, omitting the part which stated his doctrines or errors. If the latter had
been preserved, we could more confidently and more definitely determine what
were his principles. — There is extant, II. a copy of one of the Epistles of the
bishops of the council, addressed to Paul, relating to the controversy with him:
in the Bibliotheca Patrum Parisiensis, (tom. xi. p. 302. ed. Paris. 1644. Fol.)
In this Epistle, six of the bishops state their own opinions respecting God and
Christ, and inquire of him, whether he disagrees with them. — There is extant,
III. an Epistle of Dionysius, of Alexandria, to Paul of Samosata, in which the
writer chides and confutes him ; in the same Bibliotheca Patrum, (tom. xi.
p. 273.) Some very erudite men, and for reasons worthy of consideration, deny
indeed, that this Epistle was written by Dionysius. See Henry de Valois on
Doctrines of Paul of Samosata. 233
Eiisebius, (p. 155.) The Epistle is unquestionably veiy nnciont, and it was
addressed to Paul by some bishop or presbyter, whose name being omitted in
the early copy, some person, recollecting- that Dionysius was an opposer of Paul,
ascribed the Epistle to him. From Question x. and the Answer to it, (p. 298.)
it seems to be inferable, that the writer of the Epistle, and of the Answers to
the Questions, was a 'presbyter: for he is so styled by Paul. — There are extant,
IV. ten Questions of Paul of Samosata, addressed to Dionysius of Alexandria,
and the Answers of the latter to these Questions : in the same Bibliotheca Pa-
trum, (tom. xi. p. 278.) Of these, my opinion is the same as of the EpLstle
above mentioned. That the Questions were composed by Paul himself, I do
not hesitate to believe, because I see no ground for doubt. The Answers were
not written by Dionysius, but by some one of those with whom Paul had dis-
cussion respecting his opinions. — But this unequalled abundance of documents
relative to the heresy of Paul, has not prevented a great diversity in opinion,
both among the ancients and the moderns, respecting his real sentiments, [p. 708.]
For the ancients speak, sometimes obscurely, sometimes inconsistently, and
sometimes they mistake, either from passion or prejudice ; and hence the
moderns differ widely, some criminating, and some vindicating the man. To
find the truth, if possible, among these uncertainties, I will first collect together
all that can be learned, respecting Paul's sentiments, from those Epistles and
ancient documents just described ; for they are certainly more veracious and
trustworthy, than any others. And if we then compare vt^ith these statements,
whatever has reached us from other ancient sources, we shall see what we
ought to admit, and what w^e should reject. For whatever accords with those
earliest testimonies, must doubtless be regarded as true ; and whatever contra-
dicts them, bears the marks of falsehood.
I. The bishops by whom Paul was condemned, in their Epistle, preserved
by Eusebius, say : — First, That he denied his God and Lord : top Qtdv tuvrlu
Kai Kvpiov dfvovf^hcu. (p. 280.) — Secondly, That before the bishops, assembled
in council, he would not acknowledge that the Son of God descended f?-om heaven :
Tdv viov Tou ©soy j| oupcivou KXTcixiw^-cviti. — Thirdly, That he distinctly said,
Jesus Clirist originated on earth : Aiyn V^o-c^Zv Xptj-rdv KaTuB-iv. — Fourthly,
That he wdnt over to the abominable heresy of Arlemas. What the heresy of
Artemas was, with which they tax Paul, is a question of doubt and uncertainty.
I shall therefore pass by this charge, and consider only the others ; in which,
doubtless, the chief error of Paul w'as included, and that error which was the
cause of so much odium against him. — From these charges it is evident, that he
would not acknowledge Jesus Christ to be both God and man ; or, he denied,
that Jesus Christ wms a person — if I may so say, compounded of God and man.
For when he said, the Son of God did not descend from heaven, but originated on
the earth, what could he mean, but that Christ was a mere man, though divinely
begotten of the virgin Mary 1 And what could the bishops mean, when they
taxed him with denying his God and Lord, but that he divested Christ of his
divinity, or denied that a divine person received the man Christ into union with
himself? From the same charges it also appears, that he called the manC\msi
the Son of God; and this, undoubtedly, because he was supernaturally pro-
234 Century III— Section 35.
duced from the virgin IMary. For he denied Ihnt the Son of God descended
from heaven ; and ns this, most certainly, must be understood as ret'errinn- to
Chris/, it is m:iniiest that lie applied the litle Soji of God to the man Christ.
And this alone is a sufficient refutation of the error of those who believe, what
Marias Mercalor asserts, (de xii. Anathematismis Nestorii, in his 0pp. tom. ii.
p. 128.) that Paul of Samosala represented Christ as being a man, horn like
other men of two parents. Yet we have a better witness for confuting this error,
in Paul himself, who distinctly snys, (Quaestio v. in the Bibliofh. Patr. tom.
xi. p. 286.) : I'^^rtuf o yiwuB-itiiK ttveviuutos ayiou xat Manias t«? TraoS-tfiw.
[p. 709.] Jesus ex Maria virgine et Spiritu sancto natus est. — That the bishops,
whose charges we are considering, did him no injustice, he himself makes
manifest. For all his ten Questions now extant, whether addressed to Dionysius
or to another person, have one sole aim, namely, to evince, by means of various
texts of scripture brought together, that Christ was a mere man, and destitute
of any divinity ; or, what amounts to the same thing, to confute the belief that
the divine and human natures united in Christ produced one person. It is there-
fore not necessary to produce the testimony of others among the ancients to
the same point. And yet I will add that of Simeon Betharsamensis, a celebrated
Persian, near the beginning of the sixth century, whose testimony I regard as
of more value than that of all the Greek and Latin fathers. In his Epistle on
the heresy of the Nestorians, (in Jos. Sim. Assemans Bibliotheca Oriental.
Clement. Vatie. tom. i. p. 347.) he says: Paulus Samosatcnus de bcata ^laria
haec dicebat : Nudum hominem genuit Maria, nee post partum virgo permansit.
Christum autem appellavit crealum, factum, mortalem et fdium (Dei) ex gratia.
De se ipso vero dicebat : Ego quoque si voluero, Christus ero, quum ego et
Chrisius unius, ejusdemque simus naiurce. These statements accord perfectly
with the allegations of the bishops, and with the character of Paul, who was
rash and extravagant. Epiphanivs also, (Heeres. Ixv. p. 617.) says of him:
that he gate himself the appellation of Christ: a declaration which is elucidated
by the quotation from the Persian Simeon.
II. The six bishops of the council of Antioch, in their letter to Paul before
sentence was pronounced upon him, while they state their own doctrine respect-
ing God and Christ, condemn some errors of their adversary. In the first place,
they say, it could not be endured, that he should inculcate, Ctiv to-j Qio-j etdu .«»
Itvat Trpi) Kara&'jKyit k^t/xcu. Filium Dei non esse Deum ante constitutionem mundi.
And, Suo Qi'.ijs x-aTayycWiO-^aiy cav o Cids rou Qiou Qidi Kitfv(TiTHTai. DCOS illos (/moS
inducere, qui filium Dei praedicent Deum esse. (Bibliotheca Patr. tom. xi.
p. 303.) The bishops speak less definitely than could be wished; in consequence,
perhaps, of the studied obscurity of Paul, who did not wish, his real sentiments
to be distinctly known. And yet it is not di.TJcult to s^e, whither tend the senti-
ments they attribute to him. First, he acknowledged, that there is something in
God, tcldch the Scriptures call the Son of God. lie therefore supposed, that
there are tico Sons (f God; the one h>j grace, the man Christ; the other by naluie,
*who existed long before the other Son. — Secondly. He denied, that the latter Son
of God, was God anterior to the creation of the world. — Thirdly. And consequently
he held, that this Son of God became. God, at the time the world loas created. — The^o
Doctrines of Paul of Samosata. 23b
fitatomonts appear confused, and very difterent from the common apprehensions:
but thoy will ;idiuit of elucidation. Paul meant to say, that the energy^ — or, if
any prefer it, ihe Divine energy, which he denominated the Son of God^ was
hidden in God, before the creation of the world; but that, in a sense, it issued
out from God, and began to have some existence exterior to God, at the time
God formed the created universe. — Fourthly. Hence, he inferred, //ta/ [p. 710.]
thoae profess two Gods, (or speak of two as in the place of the one God,) who pro-
claim the Son of God to be God : but undoubtedly, considering what precedes,
the linutation should be added: before the creation of the world. His belief was,
that //.'C?/ divide the one God into two Gods, who make the Son of God to have
existed as a person, distinct from the Father, before the foundation of the world.
He did not deny, as we have seen, that the Son of God was, in some sense,
made God, at the time the world was created. — From all this we learn, that
Paul denied the eternal generation of the Son of God, and also his personal dis-
tinctness from the Fatl-.er : and he supposed, that when God was about to create
the woild, he sent out from himself a certain energy, wliich is called the 8on of
God, and also God, although it is nothing distinct from God. These ideas may
be further illustrated, by the subsequent charge of the bishops; in which they
rot obscurely tax Paul, wi.h representing God the Father as creating the world
by the Word (w? cT/' ipyivcu x.ai tjrto-Tx'iMxj djuri(rTiiTcv) as by an instrument^
and by intelligence, having no separate existence or personality. For it hence ap-
pears, that by the Son or Word (f God, he understood the divine wisdom {iiriTri-
M«>')i which, before the world was created, had been at rest in God, and hidden
during numberless ages; but now, when the supreme God formed the purpose
of creating the world, it exhibited its powers, and as it were came out from tho
bosom of the Father; or in other words, it manifested its presence, by discrimi-
nating, acting, and operating. From that time onward, it is called, though figu-
ratively, the Son of God, because it proceeded forth from God, just as a son does
from his parents; and also God, because it is essentially God, and can be con-
ceived of as separate from him only by an abstraction of the mind. In perfect
accordance with these views, are the statements of other ancient writers. Thus
Epiphanius, (Ha3res. Ixv. p. 608.) states the sentiments of Paul: God ihe Fa-
ther, Son and Spii'it, are one God. The Word and Spirit are ever in God, as
reason is in man : the Son of God has no separate existence, but he exists in God.
.... vi6z tv Tu> TTorfi, wj Xs^&f iv dvB-pcomi). The Son is in the Father, as
reason (not speech, sermo, as Petavius rendered it: but t^iTr^fxn, as the bishops
term it.) ts in man. Epiphanius, who as an author, was not distinguished for
his accuracy and research, has not stated all that Paul held, but what he has
stated, is very well. I omit similar citations from Athanasius and others, that
the discussion may not be too prolix.
III. Dionysius, or whoever wrote the epistle bearing his name, (in the Bib-
liothecaPatr. tom. xi. p. 273. 274.) says that Paid taught: J'Co (esse) vTroTrda-us
xu( JC'j rp'jTuna Toy ivdi Y^fxCiv XpiTT'.u, Kal cTys X/JcVTOff, kui S^'jo CtoOi, ha
pv^it Tuv CiCv Toy GfiU TrpoiJ-iTjp^ov-a, kui i^a Kar lu:\vfj.[av \pi7rov nui i/idr
ToZ ^■i^\S^. duas esse hypostases et du-is fornias (so I would render the word
wfiffu-TTa, rather than by personas) unius Christi, et duos Chrislos, ac duos filios.
236 Centimj III— Section 35.
[p. 711.] unum natura filium Dei, qui fuit ante sa?cula,et iinum homonyme Chris-
tum et filium David, qui secundum bcneplacitum (x^t' st/iTsx/xv) Dei accepit
nomen filii. Wlietlier Paul so expressed himself, or whether Diovysius so in-
ferred from the language of Paul, there is nothing here disagreeing with the
opinions of Paul. For since he declared Christ to be a mere man, born of
Mary ; and denied that the Wisdom of God, combined with the man Christ,
constituted one person ; and yet asserted, that the eternal Son of God, by
whom the world was created, dwelt in the man Christ ; and as he also called
the man Christ the Son of God, and applied the same appellation, Son of God,
to that power of the divine Wisdom which projected the world; — it must
necessarily be, that in some sense, he recognized two distinct and separate
things in Christ, two forms, two Sons, two Christs. And here it should be
noticed, that the word vTroa-Ttta-isy in the language of Dionysius, is not to
be understood in our sense of the term, but in a broader acceptation. And
from the Questions of Paul, (Quast. vii. p. 290.) it appears, that he used the
word vTroa-TAo-ic in a broad sense, as applicable to any thing that is or
exists, whether it subsists by itself, or only in something else. The eternal
Son of God, which Paul acknowledged to exist in Christ, he could not have
regarded as truly an CTrio-rcta-i? or person. For, if he had so regarded it,
he would have admitted the very thing which he denied, namely, that the Son
of God is a person distinct from the person of the Father. — In this same Epistle,
(p. 274.) Dionysius blames Paul for saying : Hominem Christum magis Deo
placuisse, quam omnes homines, ad habitandum in eo (avm T-iif d(rKiirix.it; kui
iirnzovov StKntoa-uvHs) idque sine dura et laboriosa exercitatione justitise. He
therefore admitted, that God, in the sense before explained, i. e. as being the
Wisdom of God, dwelt in Christ. — But, he added, that God dwelt in Christ, sine
laboriosa jiisiitiai exercitatione. This well explains the views of Paul, and in
part confirms my former remarks. For PauVs meaning is, that Christ, while
obeying the commands of the law, and suffering its penalties, acted and suf-
fered alone ; nor did God, as present with him, either act or suffer along with
the man Christ. And hence it appears, that Paul rejected altogether the
union of the divine and human natures in Christ. And in this manner, Dio-
nysius correctly understood him ; as appears from the confutation he subjoined,
in which he endeavors to show, by many proofs, that God was horn in Christ,
and suffered the penalties, and died. More passages, of a similar character,
might be drawn from this Epistle ; but they are not needed.
IV. In the ten Questions proposed by Paul to Dionysius, the sole aim of
Paul is, to prove that the man born of Mary had no community of nature or of
action with God dwelling in him. Hence he brings forward the texts in which
the soul of Christ is said to be troubled and sorrowful. (John, xii. 27. Matt.
xxvi. 28.) And he then asks : Can the nature of God be sorrowful and troubled ?
[p. 712.] And he lays before his antagonist, the words of Christ to the Jews,
Destroy this temple, &c. (John, ii. 19.) and then demands : Can God be dissolved 1
And this objection, so easy of solution, Dionysius answers miserably, by re-
sorting to a mystical interpretation. For he would have Paul believe, that by
the temple which Christ represents as to be dissolved, must be understood the
Doctrines of Paul of Samosata. 237
disciples of Christ ; because these tlie Jews actually dissolved, that is, disporsod
and scattered. And some of the other answers are no better. In Question v.
(p. 286.) Paul says: Luke tells us (ch. ii. 40.) that Christ grew. But can God
grow ? If, therefore, Christ grew, he was nothing but a rnan. With this ar-
gument, the good Dio7ujsius is greatly puzzled. But at length he finds his
way out, and says: The bojj who, as Luke tells us, grew and loaxed
strong, is the church; so that Av^}i<ns tou Qdu lis rHv iKx.\»(r(ai.v Itti, (he
growth of God, relates to the church : for it is recorded in the Acts, that the
church increased daily and was enlarged ; and that the word of God increased
every day. How ingenious and beautiful ! If all the bishops who opposed
Paul, were like this Dionysius for acuteness and genius, I do not wonder they
could not refute him. And lest this fine response should lose its force and
beauty, Dionysius closes it with exquisite taunts. — But I will desist. Paul,
undoubtedly, had wrong views, and views very different from those which the
scriptures inculcate. But his adversaries also appear to have embraced more
than one error, and they had not sufficiently precise and clear ideas on the sub-
ject they discussed.
These statements, derived from the best and most credable documents on the
subject, if carefully examined and compared together, will give us easy access
to the real sentiments of Paul of Samosata. The system he embraced, so far
as it can be ascertained at the present day, is contained in the following propo-
sitions.— I. God is a perfectly simple unit, in whom there is no division into
parts whatever ! — II. Therefore, all that common christians teach, respecting
different persons in God, an eternal Son of God, and his generation from eter-
nity, is false, and should be corrected by the holy scriptures. — III. The scrip-
tures speak indeed of the Father, the Son, and the holy Spirit. But those texts
must be so understood, as not to militate with the clearest and most certain
doctrine of both reason and scripture, respecting the unity of the divine na-
ture.— IV. The Son of God mentioned in the scriptures, is merely the
Reason {Kayo^) and Wisdom (i7n<rTriu») of God.— ^Those who have trans-
lated the Greek writers concerning Paul, into Latin, — De Valois, Petavius, and
others, — commonly render the Greek word xoycgy by the Latin word Ver-
bum. This is wrong. From the Epistle of the bishops at Antioch to Paul, it
is clear, that he understood by >^oyos the divine Wisdo77i. Hence this Greek
word is equivalent to the Latin word ratio. Marius Mercator, wiiom many
follow after, (de xii. Anathematismo Nestoriano, in his 0pp. tom. ii. p. 128.
edit. Garnerii) erroneously says : Verbum Dei Patris, non substantivum, sed
prolativum, vel imperativum, sensit Samosatenus. But Paul did not recog-
nize the word Trpoifcpmov ( prolativum) : and by the word \oyogy he intended
the Wisdom or the Reason of God ; as is manifest from Epiphanius, [p. 713.]
A'ho, it must be confessed, is not always snlficiently accurate ; (Ilasres. Ixv.
p. 609.) : Ao^-ov vof/.i^ov<ri a-otpiav, oiov ev 4'^/CV dvB'pdJirov iKxa-TCi e^ti Koycv. Vocant
sapientiam, qualem quilibet homo in anima possidet divinitus acccptara. —
V. This Reason of God was at rcvst in him, from eternity, and did not project
or attempt any thing exterior to God. But when God determined to create
the visible universe, this Reason in a sense proceeded out from God, and acted
238 Century III.— Section 85.
exteriorly to G^d. On this account, in the scriptures, it is metnphorically
cnlled the Hon of God. — VI. The Hp\r\L is XXv.xi fower^ which God possesses, of
producing and animating- all things, at his pleasure. It first received the name
of Spirit, when it manifested itself in the creation of the world; and it is so
called, because it may be compared to the icind or the breath, which produces
motions in the air. When it excites pious emotions in ihe souls of men, it is
cnllc-d the hohj Spirit. — VII. And therefore, until God entered on the creation
of the world, and operated externally, there was neither any Son of God, nor
any holy Spirit. And yet both may, in a certain sense, be pronounced clernaU
because they eternally existed in God. — VIII. When God would make known
to men a way of salvation superior to that of Moses, he, by means of that eter-
nal pmcer of his, which gives life and motion to all things, and which is called
the holy Spirit, begat, of the Jewish virgin Mary, that very holy and most per-
fect man, Jesus : and this man, because he was begotten by the power of God,
without any intervening agency, is also called the Son of God; just as a house
receives Ihc name of its builder. (See Dionysius' Epistle to Paul, ubi Supr.
p. 274.) — IX. This extraordinary W2a?2, though he was more holy and more
noble than any other mortal, yet lived and acted in the way and manner of
othiM- men, and was subject to all the wants and frailties which are incident to
our nature. And all the things which he either did or suffered, prove clearly
that he was a mere man. — X. But to enable him to perform the functions of a
diune ambassador, without failure, (for as a man, he was liable to errors and
defects.) that same divine Reason, which proceeded forth as it were from God
at the time the world was created, joined itself to his soul, and banished from
it all ignorance on religious subjects and all liability to failure. — At what timej
in the opinion of Paul, the divine Reason or Wisdom became associated with
the soul of Christ, I do not find stated. I can suppose, that the advent of the
Reason or Word of God to the man Christ, was delayed till the commencement
of his public functions. Becau.se, previously, the man Christ did not need tho
aid of this eternal Wi.sdom, — XI. This presence of the divine Wisdom, (which
is nothing different from God himself,) in the man Christ, makes it proper that
this man should be, and he is, called God. Alhanasiiis, (de Synodis, 0pp. torn.
i. P. ii. p. 739,) : Oi and UauKou Tiii ^auoaraTias \iyovTaiy 'Kpi(rrdv iic-rtpcv
[p. 714.] lUiTa T«v tvavd-puTTittrtv tn iTfiOKOTrn; Ti^iOTroiii^d'aiy tcj t«v ^uitdi
^ixdv avd-pwrrov yfyovivat. Pauli Samosateni discipuli dicunt Christum post in-
carnationem ex profectu (I am not sure, that Monfaucon here gives the true
import of the Greek, t» ^/JixcTiff.) Deum factum esse, natura vero nu-
dum hominem. f ictum esse. — XII, It will be no mistake, then, if we say, there
are two Sons of God ; and that there were in Christ two i/TcyTa^^wf, or
two distinct separately existing things, two forms or Trpiaob-m.. — XIII. But we
must be careful not to commingle and confound the acts of these tvro Sons of
God. Each acts alone, and without the other. The dizine Reason, with no
cooperation of the man, speaks by Christ, instructs, discourses, sways the
minds of the auditors, and performs the miracles. And on the other hand, the
man, with no cooperation of the divine Reason dwelling in him, is begotten, is
hui^ry, sleeps, walks, suffers pains, and dies. — XIV. At length, when the man
Doctrines of Paul of Samosata. 03c)
Christ had fnlfillcd his mission, the divine Reason li-ft the man, and rt'turned to
God. Epi}'ha7iius, (Iltores. Ixv. J. 1. p. GU8.) • <^«3■} riajJxof E"x3-wv 0 xo^cc tvx'p-
),«j« (UCKcs, xui dvvixd-e Tr^of rov nar'ipj. Tiiis p:iss:ige is miserably t^all^,l:ited
by Dion. Pelavius, (as aro many ol her pas>ages in Epiphanius.) {\\u^: ^od
solum, inquit Paul us. advenicns verbnni, totum illud adminislravif, et nd patiom
revertit. The true meaning of the passage is : The didne Rcaaon came {io
the man Christ, long after his blrlh, and when in mature life,) and solelij (witli-
out any conimnnity of action with the huniaa nature,) operated in Jii/n, <ind
afterivards returned to God.
I am aware, that learned men have made the sys!em of PauZ coincident with
the commonly received doctrine of Nestorius concerning Christ. And it is easy
to fall into sucli an opinion, if we take the words ot the ancients in the sense
ordinarily given to them. And indeed there is some aflinity between the Nes-
torian and the Samosatean views. Nor is this coincidence a recent discovery;
for in the council of Ephesus, in the fifth century, it was supposed that Paul
prepared the way for Nestorius. (Sec Harduin's Concilia, ton), i. p. 1271.)
And in the sixth century, Simeon Bethnrsamensis, (in Assemaii^a Biblioth. Client.
Clement. Vaticana, torn. i. p. 347.) tells us: Ex Pa.ulo Samosateno orta est
ha^resis duarum naturarum (or rather, personarum) et propriitatum, opera-
tionumque earum. Simeon here refers to the Neslorian heresy. — Yet thcrb
renlly was a wide difference between Nestorius and Paid. The former admit
ted a plurality of persons in God ; and he so coupled the second person of tfm
divine nature, or the Son, wiih the person of the man born of Mary, that ihe>
continued to be two distinct persons. Neither of these positions was admitteci
by Paul; who denied any distinction of persons in God, and supposed that the
mere reason or wisdojn of God, was temporarily joined with the man Christ, and
on this account, he acknowledged but one person in Christ.
(3) That more than one council was assembled at Antioch hgainst Paul of
Samosata, is certain, from Eusebius, (Hist. Eccles. L. vii. c. 28, p. 278 ) and from
others. But how many councils were held, cannot ca>ily be determined, [p. 715.]
That the last was held in 269, has been proved by Tillcmonf. and otiiers, by
arguments of the most satisfactory natni'c. (See Tillcmoni., I\Iemoires pour
- - - - I'Histore de I'Eglise, tome iv. p. 6J5.) In the preceding councils, as
Eusebius says, Dogmalis sua) novitatcm oceultabat. (See aUo Theodoret, HaD-
rel. Fabul. L. ii. p. 222, 223.) Being more crafty than his adversaries, Paul
deceived the bishops with his ambiguous terms, so that they thought him free
from error. Tliis might easily be done, as may be inferred from what has been
said respecting his sentiments; and especially before men who were,' indeed,
well disposed in regard to God and religion, but, as is quilc evident, were with-
out human learning, simple-hearted, and wholly unacquainted with the art of
disputation. Paul, as we have seen, expressed his oi)inions in the very words
and phrases used in the bible, and did not deny that Christ is Gcd, and the So7i
of God, and that in God we must distingui-^h the Father, Son, and holy Sj)irit:
but to these terms he affixed a different meaning, which the inexperienced would
not perceive. There was need, therefore, of a more i)erspicacious disputant,
who could draw the man out of his hiding-places, and strip him of his disguises,
240 Century Ill—Section 35.
by queries, interrogatories, and accurate distinctions. And such a man was
at length found in Malchion, then a presbyter in the church at Antioch ; who
had once been a teacher of eloquence, and had presided over the school of the
Sophists at Antioch, and, therefore, understood well all the artifices by which
the rhetoricians of that age managed a bad cause. This man, by vanquishing
Paul in argument, is a tacit witness to what I asserted, that the other persona
engaged in this controversy, even the bishops, were men deficient in learning
and talents, and inadequate arbiters in such subtle controversies. The records
of this discussion, with few exceptions, have perished : but the point at issue
between this Samosatean and Malchion, may be learned from Themloret ; who
tells us, (Hccret. Fabul. L. ii. c. 8, 0pp. torn. iv. p. 223,) that Malchion demon-
strated : That Paul considered Christ to be avd-pam-ov d-iiag :^d/!/Tos J^iaztpovTus
yi^iaufxivovy hominem insigniter divind gratid ornatum. By artful and deceptive
phraseology, therefore, Paul had endeavored to persuade the bishops, and per-
haps had actually persuaded some of them, that he held Christ to be God ; but
Malchion, by his eloquence and skill, detected those artifices by which the good
bishops had been beguiled. Paul was condemned and deposed, by the suffrages
of the bishops. But, as Eusehius informs us, (ubi supr, p. 282.) he refused to
vacate (tou tiis iKJiK}t<riai liKov) the house of the church. This phraseology
shows, as learned men have remarked, that the bishops of Antioch resided in the
same house, in which the church ordinarily assembled. And Paul not only con-
tinued to occupy the house, but also to perform the functions of a bishop ; as
we are expressly told by Theodoret, (ubi supr. p. 223) : T«v t«s enKXna-ias Kitrli^n
[p. 716.] -i^yifjioviav. Praefecturam ecclesia3 dimittere nolebat: notwithstanding
the council (as Eusehius informs us) had appointed Domnus his successor. This
however, would have been impossible, if the people of Antioch had regarded
the decision of the council as obligatory. But, undoubtedly, the majority of the
people chose to go with their bishop, rather than obey the council, although it
was very large, and composed (as Eusehius says) ex innumerahilihus fere epis-
copis. This fact is confirmed by the bishops of the council in their epistle,
(apud Eusehium, ubi supr. p. 281.) for they complain, that Paul not only allowed
Psalms to he sung in honor of himself in the church, and his praises to he cele-
brated in the congregation, (iv rw Xaw,) but that he was also present in those
assemblies, and did not rebuke persons who pronounced him to be aji angel
from heaven, come among men, i. e. a teacher of the true wisdom which is from
heaven. The christian population of Antioch, therefore, or at least a large por-
tion of them, rejected the new bishop ; and remaining in communion with Paul,
continued to resort to the house where he resided for the purpose of worship,
and with willing ears listened to his praises publicly proclaimed from the pul-
pit. The bishops, in their Epistle, express their great displeasure at this : but
when I consider carefully the whole case, I think they must themselves have
caused the evil in part. For they disregarded the rights of the people, in the
creation of a new bishop ; and they do not conceal the fact, that they alone, with-
out any regard to the judgment and authority of the people, placed Domnus
over the church of Antioch, and ordered Paul to retire from his post. They say:
H'vat.5^xaff"3"))iMfV trefov dvT* duTou t« Kst-'^oXixJi iKKKixrict xArAa-rtia-Ai. NoS cpis-
Contests with Paul of Samosata. 211
copi coacti fuimus alium ejus loco episcopura ecclesias cathollcae pra?ponere.
They acted alone in the appointment; for they make no mention of tiie
people, or of the church. And therefore, the people of Antioch stood up for
their rights, and denied that it was lawful for the council, without their know-
ledge or consent, to undertake so great a matter, and substitute another man in
place of their old bishop. And this shows us, how Paw?, though condemned by
so many bishops, was able for three years to hold a position, of which he had
been pronounced unworthy. The people favored him : and if they had deserted
him, the affair would have soon terminated. And yet I do not consider it an
idle supposition of some, that queen Zenobia, the patroness of Paul, jiffbrded
him aid. But after her subjugation, in the year 272, the case was carried before
the emperor Aurelian, (who had not then become hostile to the christians ;) and
he, after hearing the case, decided, (as Eusebiits tells us): Tovron vlt/xAt tov
Mitov, on av ll KATa T«v iVaXfav Jtat riiV Vcefxaioiv Tfihiv E^TTiTKOTrct T6U S'iy-
/M*Tof i-rivTixKouv. lis domum tradi debere, quibus Italici Christianas religi-
onis antistites et Romanus episcopus scriberent: or, that the building should
be surrendered to those ivhom the Italian bishops should by their letter approve.
This decision of the emperor deserves, I think, a more careful examination than
is usually given it. In the first place, the emperor pays no regard to the decision
of the council against Paul : nor does he order his ejectment from the church, as
Theodoret, and after him many others, represent. The decision was not [p. 717.]
in relation to Paul and Domnus ; nor was the question, which of them was the
true and lawful bishop of the church at Antioch: but the subject under consi-
deration was, the possession of the house, and the rights of the parties who con-
tended about it before the emperor's tribunal. Aurelian must have pronounced
a very different sentence, if he approved the decree of the council, and decided
that Paul was justly deprived of his office. It appears moreover, from this deci-
sion, that there were two parties at Antioch, who contended for the house of the
church before the emperor. For the decree speaks of them in the plural num-
ber, (tcwtok ytifAAi^ K. T. K.) If the Antiochians had been agreed, and had
united in a petition against Paul on his refusing to vacate the church, undoubt-
edly, Aurelian would have decided in favor of the people against that single
man : and he would not have referred the case to the judgment of the Italian
bishops. But there was a division in the community at Antioch : no small part
of the people — and perhaps also many of the neighboring bishops, (for among
them, Paul had many friends ; as the Epistle of the bishops, preserved by Eu-
sebius, testifies,) — took sides with Paul : while others preferred Domnus. And
both these parties contended for the possession of the house. Hence, thirdly,
the emperor being in doubt, and, from his ignorance of the christian religion,
unable to determine which party had the most valid claim, without pronouncing
any judgment, he committed the case to the decision of foreign and disinterested
bishops. And lastly, having learned that it was customary with the christians
to submit all their religious controversies to the determination of councils, he
thought the christian rule should be followed in this case ; and therefore ht
directed the bishop of Rome to assemble the Italian bishops, to hear and judge
the case ; and he decreed that the decision of such a council should bind the
VOL. n. 17
242 Century III— Section 36.
parties. There are also, as I apprehended, some implications in tliis decree of
the emperor, wliich throw light on the discipline of the christians in that age,
and show us, that the Li>hop of Rome could decide nothing by himself, in the
controversies referred to him, but was obliged to assemble the bishops of Italy
in a council. It hence appears very manifest, unless I am greatly deceived, that
the writers on ecclesiastical affairs w-holly misrepresent this act of the emperor,
and that the thing should be understood very differently. Fred. Spanheim, (in his
Instit. Hist. Eccl. 0pp. tom. I. p. 751,) says: Quum parere nollet, ac aedibus
episcopalibus excedere Paulus, ab ipso Aureliano imperatore coercendus fuit. In
the same manner many others : and all of them wrong. Some tell us, more dis-
tinctly, that the whole congregation of Antioch went before the emperor, and
besought him to expel the degenerate bishop whom the council had condemned
from the house of the church ; and that the emperor consented : — which is no
nearer the truth. The fact was this. There were two parties at Antioch, the
one adhered to Paul, and the other regarded Domnus as the true bishop; and
[p. 718.] they litigated before the emperor, respecting the house of the church,
and not — be it carefully noted — respecting the bishop. And this was wise. If
they had carried their contest about the bishop before the emperor, they w^ould
have exposed to its enemies those evils in the church, which should be kept
from public view; and they would undoubtedly have increased the odium under
which they already lay. Besides, the question respecting the bishop, being a
religious one, they considered it as not pertaining to the emperor's jurisdiction.
But the controversy concerning the house, was purely of a civil nature, and •
therefore could be carried into the forum. Aurelian did not venture to adjudge
the house in question to either of the litigating parties. For the Roman laws,
as is manifest, could not be applied to the case. The emperor, therefore, per-
mitted it to be tried by the christian ecclesiastical laws, and appointed for judges
the bishop of Rome with the other bishops of Italy; because the oriental
bishops, having sympathy with the parties, could not be safely trusted to decide
the case. Such being the facts, I cannot agree with them who can see, in this
transaction, evidence of the emperor's good will towards the christians. For
nothing can be inferred from this decree of his, except that he would not at that
time have the christians molested ; and this, probably, for what we should call
political reasons, or from motives of state polic3^ Neither can I accord with
those, who suspect that Aurelian was influenced by hatred to Zenobia, whom he
knew to be friendly to Paul ; and that therefore he decided the case against
him. For there was no controversy respecting Paul, before the emperor ; nor
is there any indication of ill-will towards him, in the edict of Aurelian.
§ XXXYI. The Arabians reclaimed by Origen. Seduced also
by philosophy, be3^ond a doubt, were those Arabian followers of
an unknown leader, who supposed the soul of man to die luith the
body; and that it would hereafter, along with the body, be restored
by God to life. As the parent of this sect is unknown, they are de-
nominated Arabians, from the country they inhabited. The distur-
Benejicial Effects of PlL'dosophy. 243
bances produced by this sect in Arabia, under the emperor
Philip^ were quieted by Origen; who, being sent for, discussed
the subject with so much eloquence, in a pretty numerous coun-
cil, called for the purpose, that the friends of the error gave up
their opinion.(^)
(1) All that we know of this sect, — which is very little, — is to be found in
Eusehius, (Hist. Eccl. L. vi. c. 37. p. 233). Those adhering to it, believed — I.
That the soul is only the vilal power, pertaining to, and moving the human
body. — II. Hence they concluded, that when the body dies, the soul also be-
comes extinct; as Eusehius says: (ruvctTrob-Vrta-niiv roi; o-co/uati Kui <ruvJ'tapd-iipi(r^-ai.
This language can have no other meaning than that above expressed. Those,
therefore, are not to be regarded, who make tiiis sect agree with the [p. 719.]
so-called Psj/chopannychians ; or, with those that believe human souls to be, in-
deed, distinct essences from the body, and that they continue to live or exist
when the body dies, but that they are destitute of consciousness and per-
ception, and, as it were, sleep, when separate from the body. For those Arabians
supposed the soul, not only to die with the body, but also to become exlinct.
They, therefore, must have held the soul to be a constituent part of the body. —
The author of this sect, I can suppose, was an Epicurean before he became a
Christian. For there were, undoubtedly, in that age, adherents to the philoso-
phy of Epicurus, both in Syria and Arabia. When he became a Christian, he
attempted to combine with Christianity his philosophy respecting the soul ; or
rather, he would modify Christianity by his philosophy. — III. He therefore
taught his followers to believe, that God will hereafter recall to life the whole
man, or will restore to the body that vital power which it lost at death.
§ XXXVII. Benefits to Christianity from Philosophy. Yet,
it must not be denied that Christianity received some ad-
vantages from this disposition to elucidate theology by means ot
philosophy. For, in the first place, certain doctrines, which had
before been taught indistinctly and ambiguously, assumed a bet-
ter form, and were better explained in the discussions with those
who brought philosophy into the church. In the next place, the
growth and progress of the Gnostic sects were more forcibly
and more successfully resisted than before, by such as brought in
the aids of reason. For if the philosophical light, which shone in
Origen and others, was not great, yet it was sufficient to dissipate,
and entirely to overthrow the absurd fictions of these sects. And
therefore, from the time when Christians began to cultivate philo-
sophical knowledge, the Gnostics were unable to entice so many
from the Catholic ranks into their camp, and to found so many
244 Centimj Ill—Section 38.
new associations, as in tlie preceding century, wlien they Avere
assailed only with scriptural arguments.(') Lastly^ this light of
human wisdom, though deceptive and dim, which some doctors
wished to unite with the light of revelation, was useful in chasing
from the church some opinions which the Christians had re-
ceived from the Jewish schools, but which were thought by many
to be of a holy and divine origin.
(1) Those who combated the Gnostics with scriptural arguments, were in
general poor interpreters of the Bible, as we may see by Irenccus, and they
[p. 720.] delighted more in allegories, than in the proper sense of scripture. And
the Gnostics opposed allegories to allegories; for the greater part of them
hunted immoderately after mysteries and recondite senses in the sacred books.
But which party expounded scripture most correctly, it is hard to say, as neither
of them adopted any fixed rules, but merely followed their fancy. Besides, the
Gnostics had many other modes of evasion, so long as they were assailed only
on scriptural grounds.
§ XXXYIII. Chiiiasm vanquished. Among the Jewish opinions,
to which, in this age, Philosophy proved detrimental, the most
distinguished was that of the reign of Christ on earth, a thousand
years, with the saints restored to their bodies. This opinion, I
believe, was introduced into the church near the commencement
of the Christian commonwealth. And down to the times of Ori-
gen, all the teachers who were so disposed, openly professed and
taught it ; although there were some who either denied it, or at
least called it in question. But Origen assailed it fiercely ; for it
was repugnant to his philosophy : and, by the system of biblical
interpretation which he discovered, he gave a different turn to
those texts of scripture on which the patrons of this doctrine
most relied. The consequence was, that this error lost its influ-
ence with most Christians. But, a little past the middle of this
century, Nepos, an Egyptian bishop, endeavored to revive it and
give it currency, by an appropriate treatise, which he called a
Confutatio Allegoristamm. This book was admired by many in
the district of Arsinoe, and was thought to confirm the visible
reign of Christ on earth, by the most solid arguments. Hence
great commotions arose in that part of Egypt, and many congTe-
gations gladly resumed their expectation of the future millennium.
But these commotions were quieted by Dionysius^ the bishop of
Alexandria, a pupil of Origen^ and inheriting his preceptor's learn-
Chiliasm Vanquished. 245
ing, as well as his mildness of disposition. In the first place,
he held a discussion with one Coracion^ the head and leader of
the controversy, and with his followers ; in which, by his admo-
nitions, arguments, and exhortations, he induced them to give up
the opinion tliey had derived from the treatise of Nepos: and
afterwards, to stop up the fountain of the evil, he wrote a confu-
tation of Nepos^ in two books, entitled de Promissionihus divinis.
In the second book of this work he very discreetly treated par-
ticularly on the authority of the Apocalypse of St. John ; from
which Kepos had derived the chief support of his opinion.(')
(1) The controversy respecting the reign of Christ on the earth, which [p. 721.]
originated from tiie book of the Egyptian bishop, Nepos, against those he called
Allegorists, — all the writers on ecclesiastical history, narrate to us from Euse-
bins, (Hist. Eccl. L. vii. c. 24, &c. p. 271, &c.) and from Gennadius of Mar-
seilles, (de Dogmat. Eccles. cap. Iv. p. 32.) for these are the only fathers, who
make formal mention of it. Nor is there any great deficiency in their account,
so far as the controversy itself is concerned, and aside from the causes which
produced it : and yet their statements appear to me rather jejune, and do not
embrace every thing important to a correct understanding of the controversy.
I will therefore add some things, wliich I deem worthy of being known. — The
doctrine of a future reign of Christ on the earth, a thousand years, with the
saints, was undoubtedly of Jeivish origin ; and it was brought into the church,
along with other Jewish notions, by those Jews who embraced Christianity.
All Jews have not held one opinion, as to the termination of the Messiah's
reign ; and yet many among them, even at the present day, limit it to a thou-
sand years. Among both the ancients and the moderns, many have supposed,
that Cerinlhus first propagated this error among the Christians. Few, however,
will readily agree with them, if they consider, that this sentiment was embraced
by many, — e. g. Irenaeus, TertuUian, and others, — who abhorred Cerinthus, and
accounted him a pest to Christianity, Nor do I think Eusebius is to be trusted,
when he tells us, (Hist, Eccl. L. iii. c. 39. p. 112.) that the expectation of a
millennium, flowed down to the subsequent doctors, from Papias, a bisiiop of
Jerusalem in the second century. For, as Papias was not the first excogitator
of the opinion, but received it from others, as Eusebius himself concedes, it is
elear, that at least some Christians before Papias, had embraced this opinion ;
and therefore, those after him who received it, may have learned it from those
who lived before him. And Irenccus (contra Hrereses L. v, c, 33, p, 333.) cites
Papias, not as being the author of tliis opinion, but as bearing his testimony to
it. It is most probable, that several of tlie Jewish Christians, to produce some
agreement between the Jewish doctrine of an earthly kingdom of the Messiah,
and the christian doctrine of our Saviour's kingdom of heaven, and to combine
the Jewish expectation with that of Christians, — conceived in their minds, and
also taught, that there is a twofold kingdom of Christ, and a twofold expecta-
tion of his disciples : and many of the christian teachers either a])proved this
246 Century IIL—Section 38.
device, or tolerntcd it, as thc}' did many otliers, in order to focilitate the transi-
tion of Jews to the christian community. We know, how much inclined men
are to combine the ideas they have received from their ancestors, with those
which they are compelled by evidence to admit ; nor are we ignorant how
much was conceded, in the first ages of the church, to the weakness of the Jews.
But, however this may be, it is certain that in the second century, the opinion
that Christ would reign a thousand years on the earth, was diffused over a great
[p. 722.] part of Christendom ; and that the most eminent doctors favored it ;
and no controversy with them was moved by those who thought otherwise.
Terlullian (contra Marcionem, L. iii. c. 24. p. 299. edit. Rigalt.) speaks of it as
the common doctrine of the whole church. He says : Confitemur, (Mark ; he
speaks without limitation ; not a particle, to intimate that the sect of the Mon-
tanists, to which he belonged, differed from other christians on this subject,) —
confitemur, in terra nobis regnum repromissum, sed ante coelum, sed alio statu
(Then inserting some remarks on the nature of this kingdom, he proceeds :)
Ha3C ratio regni terreni, post cujus mille annos, intra quam aetatem concludi-
tur sanctorum resurrectio, et qua) sequuntur. — As we learn from Jerome, (Catal.
Scriptor. Eccl. c. IS.) and from the passage of Tertullian just quoted, Terlullian
had written a book expressly on the subject, entitled de Spe Fidelium : but the
book is lost. He errs, however, in attributing to the wliole church, an opinion
which was held only by a large part of it. Yet this is certain, from Justin
Martyr, (Dial, cum Tryph. p. 243. 247. edit. Jebbii,) and others, that very
many, and they men of great influence, thought as he did ; nor were they, on
that account, taxed with corrupt doctrine. One Caius, indeed, a Roman pres-
byter, in a dispute with Proclus, (as we learn from Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. L. iii.
c. 28. p. 100.) criminates Cerinthus, for holding out the expectation of a terres-
trial kingdom of Christ, abounding in all sorts of pleasures ; but his phraseology
puts it beyond controversy, that he censured, not so much that reign of Christ,
as the corporeal pleasures in it which he supposed, truly or falsely, Cerinthus
had promised. For there were, in that age, two opinions respecting this kingdom
of Christ. Some supposed, that in it holy men would live in the same manner
as men now do, and would freely indulge in all the pleasures w-hich can be de-
rived fro!n the senses. Others, although they did not exclude all the sensual
delights from that new kingdom of Christ, (which, for various reasons, was im-
possible,) yet they supposed its chief happiness to consist in the joys and plea-
sures of the mind. Says Tertullian, (in the passage before cited, p. 499.) :
Hanc novara civitatem dicimus excipiendis resurrectione Sanctis et refovendis
omnium bonorum utique spiritualium copid in corapen.sationem eorum, qua; in
saeculo vel despeximus, vel amisimus, a Deo prospectam. Si quidem et justum
et Deo dignum, illic qnoque exultaro faniulos ejus, ubi sunt et atllieti in nomine
ipsius. Whoever reads this passage carefully, will clearly perceive, that the
patrons of this opinion expected sensual enjoyments in that kingdom of Christ;
for it says, Tlie saints will be refreshed, in compensation for the pleasures, which
in their former life they renounced for Christ's sake. But from these pleasures
they excluded all lusts, and promised a higher delight in spiritual things.
[p. 723.] Those who were addicted to the former opinion, were again divided
CJiUiasiii Vanquished. 247
into two classes, as we shall soon see ; but both were eonsiilercd as doing a
great injury to Christ, and to the promises lie has left us. On the other hand,
the followers of the latter and more moderate opinion, were supposed to hold
iiothintj very unbeeoming in a Christian, and were accounted as brethren.
But in the third century, the reputation of this more modernte doctrine declined ;
and first in Egypt, through the influence especially of Orlgcii ; and afterwards
in the other portions of the christian world, in which the opinions of Origcn
gradually acquired a high reputation. And yet it could not be exterminated in
a moment; it still had, here and there, some respectable advocates. Origcn^
in various passages of his works still extant, censures and rebukes, vehemently,
those who anticipated an earthly kingdom of Christ, and sensual pleasures in
it. And in the eleventh chapter of the second Book of his work de Principiis,
(0pp. tom. i. p. 104, &-c.)he assails them expressly, both with philosophical
arguments, and the exegetical principles wiilch he had adopted. In this cluipter,
which is entitled Of the Promises, although he appears to assail only those
patrons of a millennial kingdom, who promised themselves in it nuptials, festivi-
ties, offices, honors, palaces, &:.c. or, to use his own language, Secundum vitse
hujus conversationem per omnia similia fore putabant omnra quas de repromis-
sionibus expectantnr, id est, ut iterum sit hoc, quod est ; yet, by opposing his
own doctrine concerning the divine Promises to theirs, he refutes also those
who expressed themselves more refinedly and wisely, respecting the joys and
felicities of this kingdom. For he utterly deprives souls, separated from the
body, of all hope of receiving pleasure from the senses; destroys all expectation
of any kingdom, to be established by Christ on this earth ; and maintains, that
God has promised nothing to souls, except an increase of knowledge, both
natural and revealed. In this discussion, there are some things of which even
modern philosophers need not be ashamed. For he infers from the boundless
desire of knowledge natural to the mind, that God will satisfy that desire : and
therefore, that the soul, if duly prepared in this life, and purified from its de-
filements, will, after its retirement from the body, mount on high, rove among
the celestial orbs, discern clearly and manifestly, things which it only knew
obscurely, while it resided in the body and was clogged by the senses, and will
also comprehend the grounds and reasons of all the divine plans and opera-
tions.— But I am diverging from my subject. — Origen was more decidedly op-
posed to this doctrine of an earthly kingdom of Christ, affording pleasures,
than others were, partly in consequence of the philosophy he embraced, and
partly by the system of biblical interpretation which he exclusively approved.
Agreeably to the system of philosophy which he adopted, human bodies are the
penitentiaries of souls, which are doing penance for the sins they com- [p. 724.]
mitted in a former life ; the senses, and the use of the senses by the soul, are
a great impediment to the celestial and rational soul ; they prevent it from dis-
cerning and fully knowing the truth ; sensitive pleasures and delights, even
such as are lawful, allure to evil and poison the soul ; the man, therefore, who
is desirous of salvation, should withdraw his attention from the senses and from
pleasures, and should nourish his soul with the contemj)lation of .things alto-
gether foreign from the senses ; the comforts and conveniences of life should
248 Century Ill.—Section 38.
be avoided ; and the body should be treated with rigor, and be divested of its
natural energies. A man imbued with such sentiments, could by no means
believe, that Christ will set up a kingdom on earth, in which his friends, clothed
with new bodies, will enjoy the pleasures of sense. On the other hand, Origen
was obliged to modify and debase the christian doctrine of the future resurrec-
tion of our bodies and of the reunion of our souls to them, so that it should
contain nothing opposed to his opinion of the nature of a rational soul : and
that he did so, is very well known. — And then, how much the method of in-
terpreting the bible, which he prescribed, might dissuade him from admitting
this millennial kingdom, the copious remarks already made upon it, will mnke
manifest. For he wished to have the literal and obvious sense of the words dis-
regarded, and an arcane sense, lying concealed in the invelop of the words, to
be sought for. But the advocates of an earthly kingdom of Christ, rested their
cause solely on the natural and proper sense of certain expressions in the bible;
e. g. Matth. v. 6. and xxvi. 29. Luke xix. 17. and other similar passages, named
by Irenccus and Origen. His mind, therefore, could not help revolting fron*
their opinion ; and he accounted it a great reproach to them, that they neglect-
ed what he considered the marrow of the sacred books, and dwelt only upon
their exterior. He says, (de Principiis, L. ii. c. 11. § 2. p. 104.): Quidam la-
borem quodammodo intelligentia3 recusantes, et superficiem quandam legis
literse consectantes - - Apostoli Pauli de resurrectione corporis spiritali (Mark
this language,) sententiam non sequentes. And having expatiated much on
tliis censure, he closes with the following sentence : Hoc ita sentiunt, qui Chris-
to quidem credentes, Judaico autem quodam sensu scripturas divinas intelli-
gentes, nihil ex his dignum divinis pollicitationibiis prsesumpserunt. See also>
what he snys in his xviith tome on Matth. (0pp. torn. iii. p. 826. &.c. of the new
edit.) where he reckons it a great excellence of TropoUogy, (such is his term
for the allegorical mode of interpretation,) that the defenders of a millennial
kingdom cannot be confuted in any other manner. In the Prologue to his
Commentary on the Canticles, (0pp. torn. iii. p. 28.) he promises a formal dis-
cussion, in another place, with such as anticipate sensual pleasures in a kingdom
[p. 725.] of Christ : and perhaps he fulfilled his promise. Simpliciores quidam
nescientes distinguere ac secernerc, qute sint qua3 in scripturis divinis interior!
homini, quai vero exteriori deputanda sint, vocabulorum similitudinis falsi ad
ineptas quasdam fabulas et figmenta inania se contulerint : ut etiam post resur-
rectionem cibis corporalibus utendum crederent. - - Sed de his alias videbimus.
This bitter and censorious language shows, how odious this sect was to Origen.
The opinion which Origen resisted with so much resolution, Nepos, a bishop
of some unascertained city in Egypt, endeavored to restore to its former credit,
by a work written in defence of it, which he intitled cKty^ov Axxnyopta-rwi
?.6ycvy Covfutalionem Allegorislarum. The opposers of this kingdom of Christ,
he called Allegorists ; because they maintained that the texts of scripture, on
Wiiich the friends of the doctrine rested its defence, were allegories or mere me-
taphors. This appellation seems to have been given them in contempt by their
antagonists, as early as the times of Irenccus. See his work (contra. Haeres. L.
V. c. 35, p. 335.) Yet I can scarcely doubt, that Nepos had especially before his
ChiUasm Vanquished. 249
mind Ongcn and liis disciples; who were spoken atrainst by raany on account
of their excessive love of allegories, and who, by their principles of interpreta-
tion, pressed very hard upon the friends of a millennial kingdom. But Nepos
was not one of those extravagant ChUiasis, of whom Cerinthus is said to linve
been the leader, and who taught that all kinds of corporeal pleasures are to be
expected in the approaching kingdom of Christ: but he agreed with the other
and more moderate class, who, although they did not exclude all sensual plea-
sures from the kingdom of Christ, yet circumscribed them within very narrow
limits. For this we have the testimony of Gennadius of Marseilles ; (de Eccles.
Dogmatibus, cap. Iv. p. 32,) who, while he leaves the doctrine of Nepos in much
obscurity, yet says enough to show, that Nepos did not belong to the company
of the Cerinthians. And his antagonist Dionysius, makes him to have been an
estimable man, and among other commendable acts, ascribes to him the compo-
sition of very beautiful hymns. Gennadius says : In divinis promissionibus,
nihil terrenura vel transitorium expectemus, sicut Melitani sperant. Non nuptia-
rum copulam, sicut Cerinthus et Marcion delirant. Non quod ad cibum vel ad
potum pertinet, sicut Papia auctore, Irenceus et Tertullianus et Lactantius acqui-
escunt. Neque post mille annos (I suspect here is a corrupt reading, and that
the word post before mille, should be omitted. For Nepos did not teach that
Christ's kingdom was to commence after a thousand years, but that it was to
continue a thousand years) post resurrectionem regnum Christi in terra futurum,
et sanctos cum illo in deliciis regnaturos speremus, sicut Nepos doeuit, qui pri-
mam justorum resurrectionem et secundam impiorum confinxit. This passage
is well framed for discriminating the various sects of the so called Millenarians
of the early ages. For Gennadius enumerates four opinions among [p. 726.]
them. T\\e first is that of the Melitani, which is here obscurely stated, and, so
far as I know, is not explained by any of the ancients. The second is that of
Cerinthus and Marcion, who promised men pleasures of every kind, and especi-
ally those arising from the conjunction of the sexes, and therefore allowed a
place for nuptials in the new Jerusalem. The third class was a little more de-
cent. It included Papias, Irenccus, and others. These were indeed ashamed to
admit of marriages in that kingdom ; yet they did not hesitate to allow, that its
citizens would enjoy the pleasures of eating and drinking. But the food ad-
mitted by them, was not to be like ours, gross, oppressive, and hard of diges-
tion, but of a higher character, more excellent, and more subtile. Hence, it
appears also, that the bodies they assigned to the just when recalled to life,
would be more excellent, more sprightly, and more etherial than ours. The
fourth opinion was that of Nepos, who taught in general, that the saints will reign
in delights. The nature of these delights Gennadius does not explain. But as
he distinctly represents Nepos as differing from all those before named, it is
clear, that he did not include connubial pleasures, nor those of feasting and
carousing, among the delights of the citizens of Christ. He doubtless conceded
to them very splendid, convenient, and agreeable mansions, serene and ])Ieasant
skit's, the delights of the eye, the ear, the smell, and perhaps also some new and
etherial kind of aliment, suitable for bodies entirely dlirerent from ours and pos-
sessing almost the nature of spirits. But the greatest part of their happiness
250 Centimj III. —Section 33.
was to consist in niontal pleasures, in continual intercourse with perfectly holy
minds, in tiie contemplation of the providence and works of God, in their daily
advance in the knowledge of divine and human things, in the exercise of t!ie
purest love, and in the joy arising from an increase of knowledge and intelli-
gence.— The book, in which Nefos set forth his opinions, was admired especially
by one Coracioriy a presbyter doubtless in the province of Arsinoe, and also by
many other citizens of that province. I suppose it was WTitten in an eloquent
and pleasing style, and on that account, more than from the force of its reason-
ing, it charmed the minds of the incautious. For as Dionysius (cited by Euse-
bius) tells us, Ntpos was an elegant poet, and had composed very beautiful
hymns, which were sung in all the churches of Egypt. And I therefore iiave
no doubt, his work was written in a tlowery style, such as poets usually adopt.
That Cnracion was a presbyter of some village in the province of Arsinoe. ^ippears
to me evident from the language used by Dionysius (in Eusebius p. 272.) For
he says, that when he wished to confute publicly the opinion of JVepos, he called
together the presbyters and teachers who taught in single xillages. From this it
appears, that no one of the bishops embraced the opinion of Nepos ; nor did the
doctrine find adherents in the cities, but only in the villages and hamlets. He
[p. 727.] also informs us, that Coracion, when convinced of his error, promised
no more to preach {^iS'aTx.uv) that doctrine to the people. He therefore sustained
the office of a preacher and presbyter in some village. But the opinion so high-
ly approved by Coracion and many other, though it was quite moderate, and
differed much from the fictions of the grosser Chiliasts, could by no means find
approbation with Dionysius, who, as abundantly appears, was much attached to
the principles of Origen. For, that souls once happily released from their pri-
sons, should again become united to bodies possessing sensations and appetites,
and su.'^ceptible of sensual pleasures, and should, during a thousand years, use
the perishable good things of this life and the allurements to all evil, was wholly
repugnant to the precepts taught by Origen to his followers. Therefore, first,
in a public discussion of three days continuance, in the very province where the
error prevailed, Dionysius confuted the arguments of JSepos; and then also, in
two written tracts, he demonstrated that all the promises of Christ's kingdom
had reference to the soul and to the celestial world. In the second tract he la-
bored, not indeed to destroy, but to diminish, the credit of those divine visions
of St. John, from which Nepos had drawn his principal arguments; by contend-
ing that the book called the Apocalypse was not the work of St. John the
Apostle, but of some other person of the same name ; a holy man, indeed, and
one divinely inspired, yet inferior to an Apostle. This discussion respecting the
Apocalypse of St. John, a part of which is preserved by Eusebius, contains
several things both interesting and useful to be known : not the least of which
is this, that Dionysius evidently supposed, there were diflerent degrees of what
is called divine inspiration; and that greater light and power were divinely im-
parted to the Apostles when they wrote, than to other writers who were influ-
enced by the holy Spirit, but who had not the honor to be Apostles. For in the
close of his discourse he tells us, that St. John, through the divine munificence,
manifestly received not only the gift of knowledge, but also that of ntterajice or
Hise of Mamcha'ism. 251
eloquence. Td ^dpia-fxct TMf yYO}<rtai, )tai tyu ^piia-tai. But tlie Writer of the Apo-
calypse, lie thinks, received indeed from God yvticriv and Trpopmtiav, the gift of
knowledge and -prophecy^ but not that t«j ippda-iwi, or that (/ utterance and elo-
quence. Therefore his inspiration was less perfect than that of John and the
other Apostles. What consequences may be drawn from this doctrine, I need
not state. But it is very probable, that Dionysius supposed, the doctrines of
reliiTion can be fully proved only from the writings oi Apostles, to whom, as he
supposed, God granted complete inspiration, and not from the writings of those,
to whom was given less full inspiration, or inspiration inferior to the Apostoli-
cal. For unless he supposed so, the object of his elaborate discussion respect-
ing the author of the Apocalypse, cannot be discovered. — Perhaps the remark is
worth adding, that it appears from the account Dionysius gives of his [p. 728.]
conference with the followers of Nepos, that he pursued with them the Socratic
and Platonic mode of discussion, that by questions and answers : which shows in
what school he had been trained.
§ XXXIX. Rise of Manichaeism. Amid tliese efforts of tlie
more sagacious Christian doctors, by means of pliilosopliy, to ar-
rest the progress of the Gnostic sects, and to purge Christianity
from Jewish defilements, a little past the middle of the century,
a new pest, worse than all that preceded, invaded the church
from Persia; and, although the greatest and wisest men with-
stood it, both in oral discussion and in books, yet they could not
l^revent its spreading with surprising rapidity, almost throughout
Christendom, and captivating a vast multitude of persons of
moderate talents and judgment. Manes, a man of uncommon
genius, eloquence, and boldness, and richly endowed w^ith all the
qualities which can easily move and inflame the popular mind, —
either misled by some mental disease, or actuated by the love of
fame, devised a new system of religion, which was a strange com-
pound of the ancient Persian philosophy and Christianity ; and
boldly urged it upon the people, as being divinely communicated
to men. The man himself experienced very adverse fortune, and
died a miserable death ; but the .way of salvation which he pro-
posed, though full of monstrous ideas and puerile conceptions,
and in no respect superior to the Gnostic fables, and more absurd
than most of them, obtained a wddcr circulation than any of the
sects of the preceding times. Nor will this be strange to a per-
son understanding its character. For, if we regard its doctrines,
they are all popular, and explain whatever is abstruse and diffi-
cult of comprehension, in the manner best suited to vulgar ap-
prehension ; and if we regard its moral precepts, they are gloomy,
252 Century Ill.—Section 39.
and impress tlie beholder with a great show of sanctity, self-
denial, and contempt for worldly things. Such systems of religion,
though void of solidity, yet, through the weakness of human
nature, generally find many friends and followers.(^)
(1) or nil the sects in the first ages of the church, none is more notorious,
none was more difTicult to be subdued and put down, none had a greater num-
ber of friends, than that founded by Manes; a prodigy of a man, and venerable
[p. 729.] in a degree, even in the frenzy by which he was actuated. There is
much similarity between him and Mohammed; for the former, like the latter,
boasted of divine visions, proclaimed himself divinely commissioned to reform
the corrupted religion of the Christians, and restore it to its original perfection;
showed a book, which he falsely stated was dictated to him by God, and sought
to obtrude it upon mankind; and finally, has left the succeeding ages in doubt,
whether he should be classed among the delirious and fanatical, or among the
artful impostors. — The number of the ancient documents, from which the his-
tory and the doctrines of Manes may be learned, is not inconsiderable. For,
not to mention the well-known authors who wrote avowedly on the sects of the
early times, namely, Epiphanius, Augustine, Eusebius, Theodoret, Damascenus,
and Philasler; there are extant some of the writings o^ Manes himself, and his
disciples, from which the opinions of the sect may be illustrated, and the false
expositions of them be corrected. We have a large part of a tract of Manes, in
n Latin translation from the original, whether Greek or Syriac, entitled Episiola
Fundamenti ; contained in a work of Augustine, in confutation of it. We have
a small part of his 8ermo de Fide, in Epiphanius, (Hseres. Ixvi. 14. torn. i. p. 630.)
We have his Epistola ad Marcellum ; (in the Archelai Acta cum Manete, p. 6.
edit. Zaccagnii.) We have some fragments of his Epistle to a certain woman,
called Menoch; preserved by Augustine in his imperfect work adversus Julia-
num Pelagianum. We have, lastly, some fragments of his Epistles, extracted
from a manuscript in the Jesuits' College at Paris, and published by Jo. Alb.
Fabricius, (in his Bibliotheca Graeca, vol. v. p. 284.) In the next place, there
are extant the Acta disputationis Archelai, episcopi Mesopotamia:, cum Manete,
first published by Laur. Alex. Zaccagnius, (in his Collectanea Monumentor.
veteris Ecclesia) Gr. et Latinte, Rome, 1698, 4to.) and re-published by Jo. Alb.
Fabricius, (in the second vol. of the Opera Hippolyti.) This is a very ancient
work, and was known among Christians in the fourth century ; as is manifest
from Cyril of Jerusalem, and from Epif.hanius. The credibility and authority
of this tract are, indeed, learnedly impugned by Isaac de Beausobre, in his His-
tory of Manichaeism, (vol. i. c. 12, 13. p. 129.) who thinks it a fable, composed
by some Greek scribbler of the fourth century, about the year 330, and derived
partly from hearsay, true or false, and partly from the ingenuity of the writer;
and intended to exhihit the base character of the Manichaean errors. And he
shows, plainly enough, that these acts contain some things, of the truth of which
there is good reason to doubt. But, I think, he has not given evidence, that no
such discussion ever occurred between Archelaus and Manes. This certainly
cannot be legitimately inferred, from some few historical errors admitted, or
Blse of Manichccism. 053
seeming to be admitted, by the writer; nor from the silence of some amonrr the
ancients and moderns respecting these Acts. Yet no better arguments [p. 730.]
are offered by this very learned man, who possessed genius of a high ordc'r, but
was too ready to question the credibility of the ancient Christian writers, and
too often relied upon his own conjectures. But, be this as it may, these Acts
are certainly of high antiquity ; and as the depreciator will not deny, they con-
tain many things, either extremely probable, or having the appearance of
truth. — We have, moreover, at this day, a book of Faiisius, a Manichasan bishop
in Africa, in which he explains the doctrines of his sect, and defends them with
all the eloquence and energy he possessed. This entire book, Augustine has
very laudibly inserted in his confutation of it. To this work of Faustus, should
be added two public disputes of Augustine with two Manicheean priests, Felix
and Foriunatus; in both of which, the priests zealously plead the cause of their
church, stating, at the same time, their sentiments. — Lastly, some of the early
opposers of Manes, (of whom Fahricius has given a long list, in his Bibliotheca
(jrseca, vol. v. p. 287.) have come down to us; and no competent and honest
judge will accuse them of bad faith, in stating the opinions of the man they op-
posed, or of inability to confute those opinions. Preeminent among them is
Augustine^ the great doctor of the African church; whose writings against the
Manichaeans, seem entitled to more consideration than those of others on the
same side, because he was for ten years, or from the nineteenth to the twenty-
eighth year of his life, a member of the Manichfean community, and had im-
bibed all the principles of that sect. The learned Beausohre, just mentioned,
objects, indeed, and denies that Augustine is one from whom the doctrines of
the Manichaeans can be ascertained with correctness; and he seeks to confirm
this decision by examples. Nor is he wholly wrong; for it must be acknow-
ledged, that Augustine sometimes deduces consequences from the language and
opinions of the Manichaeans, which they, his ancient associates, rejected ; which
is a common thing with all polemics. I will also willingly admit, that he slightly
modifies some opinions of his adversaries, in order to assail them with more
effect. And yet I deliberately affirm, after examining well the subject, that in
most things, one who wishes to understand the mysteries of Manichaeism, may
follow Augustine without fear of being misled. Nor will the minor errors into
which Augustine sometimes falls, prove injurious,. since he quotes the very
words of Manes and Manichaeans, from which may be learned, without difficulty,
whether he made a mistake or not. — Next to Augustine, among the antagonists
of Manichaeism who have escaped the ravages of time, the most worthy of
notice is Titus, bishop of Bostra, in Phenicia, whose Libri tres contra Mani-
chaeos, together with the Argument of the fourth Book, (first published only in
Latin,) are now extant, Greek and Latin, in the Lectiones antiqua; of [p. 731.]
Henry Canisius, as re-published by Ja. Basnage, (tom. i. p. 156, &c.) This
work is carefully and accurately written; although it does not embrace the
whole system of Manes, but only a very material part of it, drawn from his
book de Mysteriis. In the same Lectiones antiquae, (tom. i. p. 197.) there is ex-
tant, Greek and Latin, the Liber contra Manichajos of Didymus of Alexandria;
but it is brief, and does not adequately explain the views of the Manichaeans.
254 Centunj IIL—Sectlon 39.
More to be recommended, is the ^o>-5f ^/>oj t-u? Uttnx^i'^^ cTo^ac, or Liber contra
Manichcei opiniones, of Alexander, a philosopher of Lycopolis; published, Greek
and Lat. by Francis Combefis, (in his Auetarium novissimum Bibliothecae Patr.
torn. ii. p. 260.) But it requires a sagacious reader, and one not ignorant of the
new Phitonic philosophy, to which the author was addicted, and the principles
of whicli are made the basis of the argumentation. Alexander also passes over,
or but slightly touches, many points very necessary to be known, in order to
form a correct judgment of the controversy. Of other writers, inferior to these,
and affording little aid to the investigator, I need not give account.— From the
documents above described, yet without disregarding those which incidentally
speak of the Manichaan doctrines, I will present to the view of my readers a
brief, but faithful digest of the Manichsean system, methodically arranged, taking
great care to state nothing as true, which is dubious and uncertain.
A catalogue of modern writers, concerning the Manichseans, is given by Jo.
Alb. Fahricius, (in his Bibliotheca Graeca, vol. v. p. 296.) but the best and most
elaborate of them all, Fahricius could not mention, because his work was not
then published. That writer is Isaac de Beausohre, a man of superior genius
and of widely extended knowledge; whose History of Manes and Manichccism,
written in French, was published at Amsterdam, 1734 and 1739, in two vols.
4to. This work will do honor to the author's name, in all future ages, wherever
letters, genius, learning, and all good arts shall be held in estimation ; for it ad-
mirably elucidates many points of Christian antiquities, and contributes not a
little to a correct knowledge of the doctrines held by those who, in the first
ages of Christianity, receded from the general church and formed separate com-
munities. And yet, as in all human composition, so in this work of diversified
learning and of vast labor, there are some things, which an impartial man, whose
only aim is truth, could wish were otherwise. And first, in this history of Ma-
nes and of Manichccism, there are many things which do not relate to the sub-
ject. For the very learned author, who had read much, heard much, and
treasured up much, upon every favorable occasion deviates from his subject, and
pours forth abundance of matter, not at all necessary to our having a full know-
ledge of Manes and his followers. These frequent and long digressions, though
all of them contain useful matter, often embarrass the reader, and may cause
[p. 732.] him sometimes to misapprehend the author's meaning. For when
things in some way connected, but in other respects wholly unlike, are associ-
ated and commingled, confusion may arise prejudicai to the truth. Still, this
superabundance, as it has its utility, we can the more easily overlook in this ex-
traordinary man. But it is a matter of greater moment, that the author strains
every nerve of his ingenuity, to make nearly all the heretics of the early ages,
and especially the Manichseans, appear to be more wise, more holy, more excel-
lent, than they are commonly held to be. In this matter, as may be easily
shown, this excellent man is first carried too far by a kind of ill-will towards the
doctors of the ancient church ; and then, again, he is inconsistent with himself.
For, frequently, when too much evidence presses upon him, he acknowledges,
that among the heretics of the first ages there were men delirious and foolish ;
and that Manes himself, whom he favors the most, was a splendid trifler, and
L'lfc of Manes. 255
either aimed to boiTuile and deceive others, or was liiniself deceived hy some
vagary of his own mind : yet, at otiier times, he maintains that the very persons,
vvlioni lie iiad bel'ore censured, were re:il philosopliers, and not weak men; and
he not only defends and vindicates Manes, but actually honors him, not merely
with the splendid iippellation of a philosopher, but of a philosopher lohn reasojis
well. Thus this erudite man fluctuates, and is borne in opposite directions,
being urged on the one side by regard for truth, and on the other, by his partiality
for the heretics, especially for Manes. And in order the more easily to defend Ma-
nes and the heretics generally, he either tacitly or expressly assumes as facts,
some things which those who differ from him will not readily admit. Among these
assumptions, the principal one is, that all the ancient doctors of the church,
either from ignorance or from malice, calumniate the Jieretics, and misrepresent
their sentiments. This is easily said ; but it is far more difficult to prove it,
than they imagine, who in our age adopt it in treating of the history of the here-
tics : and the number of such is well known to be great. Yet, relying on this
maxim, this learned man, whenever he finds anything in fiivor of Manes or the
other heretics, which seems not to accord with the decisions of his adversaries,
confidently embraces it, as a thing not to be questioned at all, and applies it to
overthrow the uniform statements of many other witnesses. And in such cases I
never discover any want of learning and ingenuity, but I often see a deficiency
of caution and fairness. — There is another of this learned man's rules, which is
very dubious. It is, that whenever any doctrine attributed to the heretics con-
tains things absurd, silly, futile, or contrary to common sense, then we must
suppose that doctrine ft^lsely attributed to those heretics. It is well, however,
that the learned man himself does not always follow this rule; for he is some-
times compelled, reluctantly, to acknowledge, that Manes and others embraced
not a few opinions wholly at variance with every appearance of rationality, the
dreams of the delirious, rather than the judgments of men in their right minds.
And yet he often resorts to that rule, although it is manifest that nothing could
be more fallacious; and there are numberless examples of persons, not [p. 733.]
wholly bereft of reason, yet most shamefully violating the first principles of
reason, and debasing religion with the most silly fictions.— I will not mention
other things, wliich might reasonably be censured, in a book otherwise most
beautiful ; things, however, which ought to be so censured, as not to detract
from the great merits and reputation of the author.
§ XL. The Life and Labors of Manes. Eespecting tlie life and
labors of Manes, there is great disagreement between tlie Greek
and tbe Oriental writers ; and as this disagreement can in no way
be reconciled, and both seem to have blended the true and the
false, beyond the possibility of a separation at this late day, all
that remains for us to do, is to state what they unitedly teach,
and leave the rest to be discussed by the curious.(') The things
in which they all agree, are substantially as follows : Manes, or
25G Century Ill—Section 40.
Manich^us, for lie is called by both names, was a native of
Persia, a man of a venerable aspect, of an exceedingly fecund
genius, was educated in the schools of the Magi, and was master
of all the arts and learning, which the Persians of those times
considered as constituting human wisdom. Having become ac*
quainted with the books of the Christians, and perceiving that
the religion they contained agreed, in some respects, with his
philosophy, but disagreed with it in other respects, he formed the
purpose of combining them, correcting and enlarging the one by
the other, and then of inculcating on mankind a new system of
religion, compounded of the two. Adopting this plan, he first
decided that Jesus Christ left his statement of the way of salva-
tion imperfect ; and in the next place, he ventured to declare him-
self to be either a divinely taught Apostle of Jesus Christ, or
rather that very Paraclete, or Comforter, whom the retiring
Saviour promised to his disciples. (^) With what sincerity he as-
sumed such a character, it is not easy to say. Some tell us, that
being by nature proud, excessively arrogant, and vain, his heat-
ed mind became deranged. Yet his insanity was not such as to
prevent his digesting his system very well, and distinctly seeing
[p. 734.] how it could be assailed, and how defended. Among
other proofs of this, is the fact that he either wholly rejected, or
essentially altered, whatever he found in the Christian scriptures
apparently contrary to his doctrines and purposes ; and in place
of the discarded passages, he substituted others, especially such
as he wished to have considered as written by him under a divine
inspiration.(^) — The king of Persia, for some cause not ascertain-
ed, cast him into prison. Escaping from confinement, and call-
ing to his aid twelve friends or Apostles, in imitation of Christ,
he spread the religion he had devised, over a great part of Persia,
persuading many to embrace it ; and he sent out the most elo-
quent of his disciples into the adjacent countries, who were also
successful. In the midst of these enterprises, by the command ot
the king of Persia, he was seized by soldiers and put to death.
This was probably in the year 278, or a little later. As to the
mode of his death, writers are not agreed. That he was put to
death, is very certain. The memorial of it, the Manicha^ans an-
nually celebrated in the month of March, by a festal day, which
they called Bema.{*) This sad fate of the man strengthened his
Life of Manes, 257
adherents, more than it terrified tlieni. For such of them as had
the most talent and elo(iuenee, roamed over Syria, Persia, J^gypt,
Afriea, and ahnost all ei)untries of the civilized world, and every-
where converted many, by the gravity of their deportment, and
by the rude simplicity of the religion they inculcated.
(1) The iKvine of the man under consideration, was j\rANi; for so the Ori-
ental writers call him, according to Herbeloi, (Bibliotheca Orient, voce Mani.)
Nor was this an uncommon name among the Persians. The Greek writers tell
us, that he was at first called Cubricus; and that he dropped that, and assumed
the name of Manes. Beausohre (torn. i. p. 67.) conjectures, that he was born in
the city of Carcoub, and thence was called Carcubius, which became changed
into Cubricus. There is nothing certain on this subject. — He is also called
]\rANicH.EUS. According to Augustine, (de Ilaeres. c. 46. 0pp. tom. viii. p. 10;
and, contra Faustum, L. xix. c. 22. tom. viii. p. 231.) it was his disciples who
gave him this name, in order to avoid a name which in Greek denotes insanity.
For Manes (/uaK«j) in Greek, denotes a mad or crazy man. And therefore his
enemies made his very name a reproach to him, and said : it was so ordered, in
divine providence, that he should receive a name expressive of his insanity. To
parry this weaj[>on, of so little force, his adherents chose to name their master
j\Ianich<£iis,
All that the Greek and Latin writers state concerning him, with only [p. 735.]
a few exceptions, is contained in the Contest of Archelaus, the bishop of Cas-
<'.ara,with Manes, first published by Zaccagnius. — These writers, however, deny
that Manes was the author of the religion which he taught ; and tell us that
one Scythianus, a contemporary of the Apostles, who died in Judea, invented it,
and committed it to w^riting in four Books. One of his disciples, named Tere-
binthus, who subsequently took the name of Buclda, after the death of his pre-
ceptor, went to Assyria, and lived with a certain widow woman. He died a
violent death: for, as he was praying on the roof of the house, an evil genius,
by divine direction, precipitated him to the ground ; which caused his death. The
widow woman inherited the goods and the books of the unhappy man ; and,
with the money, she purchased a boy seven years old, whose name was CubH'
cus ; and as he manifested fine native powers, she caused him to be instructed in
the literature and arts of the Persians ; and finall}', at her death, five years
after, she made him heir to all her fortune, including the books left by Tere-
bintlnis. Cubricus, after the death of his patroness, in order to efface all re-
membrance of his former servile condition, assumed the name of Manes, and
devoted himself intensely to the study of the arts and sciences of the Persians,
but especially to the understanding the books of Terebinthus. He was but
twelve years old at the time he became his own master. When, from the
books of Terebinthus, which he had always before him, he understood the whole
system of Terebinthus, he not only embraced it himself, but also persuaded three
others to embrace it, whose names were Thomas, Adda, and Hernias. When
sixty years old, he translated the books of Terebinthus into the Persian lan-
guage ; adding, however, many silly and fabulous inventions of hio own mind ;
VOL. II. 18
258 Century IIL—Secilon 40.
and therefore affixing his own name to the books, instead of that of the original
author. After this, he sent out two of his disciples, one of them to Egypt, and
the other to Seythia. About the same time, a son of the king of Persia became
dangerously sick : and Manes, who had learned the medical art, went to the king,
and promised to restore the child to health. But he could not conquer the dis-
ease ; and the child died. The king therefore ordered the physician to be load-
ed with chains, and to be cast into prison. While he was a prisoner, Manes
became acquainted with the Christian religion, of which he had before no know-
ledge. For his (two) disciples returning from their travels, told their master,
that none resisted their teaching and exhortations so strenuously as the chris-
tians. Anxious, therefore, to acquaint himself with this subject, he directed his
friends to procure for him the books of the christians. Having read them, and
learning that Christ promised his followers to send them the Paraclete, he pro-
claimed himself to be that Paraclete ; and he transferred into his own system,
a portion of the christian religion, in an adulterated state. Then followed a
new mission of his disciples into different countries, for the express purpose of
[p. 736.] making proselytes. The king of Persia, on learning this new crime of
Manes, purposed to kill him. But, by bribing his keepers, he escaped from
prison, and concealed himself in a certain fortress called Arabian. Soon after,
leaving this retreat, and taking with him his twelve Apostles or associates, he
travelled over a part of Persia ; and, among other efforts for the establishment
of his sect, he held a public religious discussion with Archelaus, the prelate of
Cascara. At last, the soldiers, whom the king commanded to pursue him, con-
fined him in the fortress of Arabion : and the king ordered the unhappy man
to be flayed, his skin to be stuffed and hung up before the city gate, and his
body to be cast out and be food for the birds, — This story, Beausohre has illus-
trated in a long, copious, and very erudite Dissertation, introductory to his
volume. But his chief aim is, to persuade us, that the greatest part of this nar-
rative is a vile fable. And yet he adduces and inserts many things, which serve
rather to protract and extend the discussion, than to confirm it; and which
might be omitted, without any detriment to the cause espoused by the learned
man.
We now proceed to the fticts concerning this wonderful man, as stated by
the Oriental writers, Persian, Syrian, and Arabian ; which facts have been col-
lected from various authors, by the well-informed Oriental scholars, Barthol.
Herbelot (Bibliotheque Orientale, voce Mani, p. 548.) Thomas Hyde, (His-
toria Relig. veter. Persar. c. 21. p. 280.) Euseb. Renaudot, (Historia Patri-
arch. Alexandrinor. p. 42.) Edw. Pocock, (Specimen Hist. Arabum, p. 149,
&c.) and a few others. These facts have been arranged in a certain order,
and amplified with various observations, some more and some less necessary,
by Ja. Beausohre, (Histoire de Manich. tome i. p. 155, &c.) They differ ma-
terially from the facts stated by the Greeks : and hence the question arises :
Which statement is most worthy of credit ? Renaudot (Hist. Patriarch. Alex-
andr. p. 48.) thinks the Greeks are the best authority : nor will this opinion
meet strong opposition, from one who reflects, that the Greek authors are much
more ancient than the Oriental ; and that the latter, almost universally, are not
Life of Manes. 250
distinguished for either accuracy, or method, or for their selection of facta, and
moreover, that tliey delight in fabU's aud marvellous stories. And yet /imu-
sohre (p. 156.) deems the Oriental writers preferable to the Greeks ; /rs^, be-
cause the events occurred iu their country ; and secondly, because the facts
which they state, are more according to nature (plus naiurelle), than those stated
by the Greeks. But I doubt whether there is so much strength in these two
reasons, as the learned man supposed. For we know very well, that the Ori-
entals recount very many occurrences in their country, which are exceedingly
dubious and uncertain ; as I could show by examples that are beyond all con-
troversy, if it were necessary, and if this were a proper place. And, to say
nothing of the superstition and habitual credulity of all the Oriental histo-
rians, it should be recollected, that it is only the Persians, iind not like- [p. 737.]
wise the Syrians and Arabians, who in this case can be said to relate occurrences
in their own country. — Whether the things stated by the Greeks, or those stated
by the Orientals, are in themselves the most probable, is a difficult question to
determine ; because the judgments of men, respecting the greater or less degree
of probability, dilTer wonderfully. But I will not assume the functions of an
arbiter in this controversy. Yet I think it proper to warn those who would
assume those functions, that they should, in the very outset, determine which
narrative of the Orientals is to be preferred to that of the Greeks. For, while
the Greeks agree with each other very well, except only in some minute points,
and perhaps all derived their information from one source; the Orientals differ ex-
ceedingly from each other, or do not ail give the same account of the life, la-
bors and death of Manes. This disagreement, — to speak plainly, — the learned
Beausohre dissembles, and gives a history of Manes from the Oriental writers,
in a manner that would lead the reader to believe, that all those writers ac-
corded with each other, just as the Greeks do ; and yet his history of Manes,
which he calls that of the Orientals, and sets in opposition to that of the Greeks,
is a tissue of various extracts taken from different vvriters. He states, for in-
stance, that Manes was a presbyter among the Christians, before he formed his
new religion ; and he makes the statement, just as if all the Oriental writers
testified to the fact. The thing stated is not incredible : and yet it is most cer-
tain, that no Oriental says it, except Ahulpharaius only ; who is indeed a re-
spectable author, but a recent one, and far removed from the age of Manes, for
he lived in the thirteenth century ; he was, moreover, a Syrian, and not a Per-
sian ; and lastly, he was not exempt from all mistakes. — But let us hear what
the Orientals can tell us about Manes.
In the first place, most of them agree that Manes, or rather Mani, (for that
was his true name,) was a Magian by birth; and that he excelled in all the
branches of learning, then held in estimation among the Magi. In particular,
they tell us that he was very skilful in Music, Mathematics, Astronomy, Medi-
cine, Geography, and finally in Painting; and the Persian Condemir tells us»
that he ornamented his Gospel with admirable devices and imagery. All this ia
quite probable, nay, may be accounted nearly certain ; for he was a man of ex-
uberant genius, well fitted to*acquire and to practise the arts in which the pow-
ers of genius and imagination predominate. The Greeks do not, indeed, ex-
20)0 Century IIL—Section 40.
prcssly attribute to him .ill these acquisitions ; yet they admit, in the general,
that he was a very learned man ; and, therefore, they do not in this matter con-
tradiet the Orientals. I can the most readily believe, what is reported of his
ornamenting his Erlung, or Gospel, with beautiful imagery. For all the
Gnostic systems of religion are of such a nature, as to be easily delineated, or
[p. 738.] represented by drawings and colors in a picture; nay, they can be bet-
ter understood from paintings, than from language and written books ; and no
one of them can be more easily delineated by the pencil, than the Maniehaan;
which consist almost wholly of fables or fictitious histories. And hence the
Gnostic teachers, (as appears from the example of the Ophites, in Origen against
Celsus,) were accustomed to put into the hands of the common people such
pictorial systems of religion ; that is, pictures, in which the principal topics of
their religion were presented to the eye in diagrams, figures, and images. But
what we are told of the exquisite skill of Manes in the above-named arts, must
be understood and estimated, not according to our standard of excellence, but
according to that of the Persians of that age. Beausohre seems not to have duly
considered this; for he declares the man to have been, in general, an excellent
Mathematician, Natural Philosopher, and Geographer. He might appear so to
the Persians, but he was a small man, if compared wdtli our Mathematicians,
Philosophers, and Naturalists; nay, he was a rustic, and scarcely imbued with
the rudiments of Mathematics, Geography, and Physical Science ; and what is
more, he embraced not a few errors, which even tyros among us can see
through.
After embracing the Christian religion, Manes was made a priest, or presby-
ter, in the city Ehivazi, or in the province Ahvas, as Herbelot renders it. In this
situation he explained books, and disputed with Jews, loith the Magi, and with
Pagans. Thus much, and no more, is transmitted by a single writer, Gregory
Ahulpharaius, (in his Historia Dynastarum, p. 82.) But the learned Beansobre,
who is studious of honoring Manes all he can, not only relates the matter, as if
it were supported by the united testimony of all the Oriental writers, but he
adds to it several things supported by no authority. For he tells us, — I. That
Manes was learned in the scriptures; (Savant dans la Ecriture.) — II. That he
was very zealous in supporting the dignity and authority of Christianity. (72
avoit un grand zele pour la foi.) — III. That these qualifications induced the
Christians to raise him to a presbytership, zvhile but a youth, and in a city of the
first rank, (une xille ires considerable.) — IV. That in this station, he exhibited
great proofs of zeal and virtue. — V, But that, at length, he apostatized from
Christianity; and, for this instance of bad faith, he was excluded from the com-
munion of Christians. — I wonder how so great a man, one so acute and dis-
criminating, one who severely censures and rebukes even the slight errors of
great men, could boldly utter all this, when it has no authority whatever, but is
drawm wholly from his own fimcy. Surely ! if another person had dared to do
such a thing, this great man would have castigated him severely.
Manes, — it is uncertain on what occasion, or for what cause, went to the
court of Sapor, the king of Persia, called Shaboi& by the Persians. And he so
insinuated himself into the king's confidence, that he even drew him over to the
Life of Manes. 2G1
religion he liad devised. Einboldoned by tiiis success, he gathered [p. 739.]
around him a number of discipkvs, and assailed publicly the ancient Persian re-
ligion, founded by Zoroaster. Sapor, either offended at this, or being prompted
by the Magi and the priests, determined to put him to death. Manes, beincr in-
formed of the design, Hed into Turkestan. There he drew many to his party;
and, among other things, (as Thos. Hyde states from one Rustejn.) painted two
Persian temples. Afterwards, finding a certain cave in which there was a foun-
tain, he concealed himself in it during a year; having previously assured his
disciples, that lie should appear in a certain place after a year, and that in the
meantime he should nscend to heaven. In that cave he composed his book,
called by the Orientals Azeng, or Arzenk, i. e. a Gospel; and ornamented it with
very beautiful pictures. At the end of the year, coming forth from the cave, he
showed the book to his followers, as one which he received in heaven, and
brought thence with him. These things are stated by a single Persian historian,
Condemir; others know nothing of them. They are not incongruous with the
genius of the man, but whether true or false, who can tell? In the meantime,
Sapor, the king of Persia, died, and was succeeded by his son Hormisdas. On
learning this, Manes returned from Turkestan to Persia, and presented to the
new king his book, which he called divine and heavenly. Hormisdas, or' Hor-
moiiz, not only received him kindly, but also embraced the religion contained in
his book, and ordered a tower to be built for liim, called Dascarrah, in which he
might be safe from the plots of his enemies, who were very numerous. See
HerheloCs Bibliotheque Orientale, (voce Dascarrah, p. 288. No authority is
given.) This is the tower, as Beausobre conjectures, which the Greeks call
Arabian. Those who may think this kindness of the king to Manes singular
and strange, should consider that Hormisdas, previously, in the lifetime of his
father, had favored Manes and his opinions. Nor is it supposable that, on
merely hearing Manes speak, and seeing his book, he embraced his opinions.
And here a conjecture arises, which, the more I consider it, the more probable
it appears. I suspect, that what the Greeks tell us of the king's son's being
consigned to the medical treatment of Manes, and dying in his hands, was an
Oriental allegory, and was misunderstood by the Greeks. Sapor committed his
son to the tuition of Manes, to be instructed in the precepts of his wisdom ;
but Manes seduced the prince from the religion of his ancestors, and initiated
him in his new religion. This transaction, the Orientals, who delight in meta-
phors and allegories, wrapped up in similitudes, by comparing the ignorance of
the prince with a disease, his instruction with the cure of the disease, and his
defection from the religion of his ancestors with death ; but the Greeks, [p. 740.]
little accustomed to this species of discourse, supposed the things described to
be real facts. — This prosperity of Manes was short. Hormisdas died at the end
of two years; and his son Varanes I. whom the Persians call Behram, or Baha-
ram,\n the beginning of his reign, indeed, treated Manes with kindness; but
soon his feelings were changed, and he determined to destroy him. He, there-
fore, allured Manes from the fortress in which he was concealed, under pretence
of holding a discussion with the chiefs of the Magi, and then ordered him to be
put to death, as a corrupter of religion. Some tell us he was cleaved asunder;
262 Century Ill—Section 40.
others, that he was crucified ; and others, agreeing with the Greeks, that he wag
flayed. All, both Greeks and Orientals, agree that he was executed. — This
short story, Beausobre has not only loaded with a mass of various ob^^ervatioM^,
learned, indeed, but often having little connexion with the subject, but has also
sometimes augmented, with conjectures wholly unsupported by any testimony.
(2.)Manes dilfered essentially from the other heretics. For they all professed to
teach the religion which was inculcated by Jesus Christ publicly, or among his se-
lect friends ; and they proved their doctrines by citations from the writings of his
Apostles. But far otherwise Manes ; as is put beyond doubt, by what he taught
respecting himself. He acknowledged, that his religious system could not be
proved, in all its parts, from the books left us by the Apostles : and he pro-
duced a new book, which, he said, was divinely dictated to him : and lastly, he
maintained, that Christ set forth only a part of the knowledge of salvation ; and
left a part to be explained by the Paraclete, whom he promised to his followers.
And he claimed to be himself that Paraclete, or that herald and expounder of
divine truth, promised by Christ. How Manes and his disciples wished to have
these subjects understood, must be explained accurately, and at some length;
because both the ancients and the moderns are sometimes not uniform in their
statements, and sometimes disagree with each other, respecting the character as-
sumed by Manes. Nor has Beausobre brought forward all that is worth consider-
ing, although he says many things very learnedly, and demonstrates admirably the
errors committed on this subject. (See his Histoire de Manichee, tome I. p. 252.)
Eusebius (in his Historia Eccles. L. vii. c. 31, p. 283,) says : Manes exhibited him-
self as Christ, or took the form of Christ (Xpia-Tdv durdv fxcp^o^ia-d-Ai eirufSTo.) And
many repeat the same after him. The Orientals are more cautious, if i/er^^e/o/ (Bibl.
Orient, p. 549.) correctly expounds their meaning; namely, that he declared himself
another or second Christ or Messiah (iin second Messie.) — All these writers are un-
doubtedly mistaken. Nor have they any ground for their accusation, except in
the number of associates whom Manes chose : for he took the same number of
companions and friends as Christ took for his Apostles. The fallacy of such an
[p. 741.] argument need not be pointed out. What the preceding writers expressly
declare, A ug-i/s/i??e only ventured to suspect, (contra Epistolam Manich.c. 8. 0pp.
tom. viii. p. 112;) Quid ergo aliud suspicer, nescio, nisi quia iste Manichseus, qui
per Christi nomen ad imperitorum animos aditum quserit, pro Christo ipso se coli
voluit? But he supports this conjecture by a very weak argument, not worth
repeating and confuting. — Many others have told us, that Manes chiiraed to be
the Holy Spirit. All these have a good excuse for making the mistake ; and
although in error, they do not deserve severe censure. For Manes did call him-
self the Paraclete; and all his disciples denominated him either simply the Para-
cleti, or the Hohj Spirit, the Paraclete : nay, as Augustine repeatedly charges
upon them, (in his work contra Faustum Manich.) they were accustomed to
swear by this Paraclete. Now, when christians heard them take such oaths, with-
out anything explanatory, and recollected that, in the scriptures, the Holy Spirit
is called the Paraclete, and that no sane man swears by any other than God or
some essence cognate with God;— who can wonder that they supposed the
founder of this Manichaean sect arrogantly claimed to be the Holy Spirit? And
L\fe of Manes. 2G3
those ancient doctors, who either said roundly, tliat Manes claimed to be the
floly Spirit, or else confessed, (as Angiistim does, in his work contra Epistc -
lam Manicliaii, c. 17, and contra Faustuni, Lib. xiii. and elsewiiore,) Ihat they
did not knon\''\hi\t the Manichceans meant by applying this appelhition to their
master, whether they wished to indicate that Manes was himself the Holv Spirit,
or only that the Holy Spirit resided in him ? — these writers, I say, in my judg-
ment, committed no censurable ofl'ence. For, what rule of duty does he violate,
who uses the very terms of a sect in stating their opinions, or who tells us, he
does not know what meaning they affixed to their terms? They offend but
slightly, who explain the appellation which Manes assumed, and either conjec-
ture or report that the Manicha^ans supposed the Holy Spirit and Manes to be
combined in one person. And the fault of this misrepresentation is chiefly
chargeable on Manes and his followers, who, by obscure and ambiguous lan-
guage, cause their meaning to be misunderstood. I see learned men of our day
who endeavor to treat the history of christians more wisely than our fathers did,
and become wonderfully copious, eloquent, and energetic, in exaggerating and
castigating the errors, by which the ancient christian authors have marred their
accounts of sects and heresies: but while they show themselves equitable
towards heretics, — which is commendable, — they not unfrequently become un-
just to the contenders against them, not reflecting that a great part, perhaps the
greatest part, of the faults which deform the history of the early sects, originat-
ed from the obscuritj', the ambiguity, and the foreign and unusual phraseology
of the heretics themselves. — But let us pass on, and see what Manes [p. 742.]
would have those think of him, whom he instructed.
In the first place, it is unquestionable that this Persian did not w^ish to be
accounted Christ himself, but an Apostle of Jesus Christ, his Lord. For he
commences that celebrated Epistola Fundamenti. against wiiich Augustine wrote
a Book, with these words : Manichaeus Apostolus Jesu Chrlsti providentia Dei
Patris. Haec sunt salubria verba de perenni et vivo fonte. (See Augustine, con-
tra Epistolam Manich. c. 5. 0pp. torn. viii. p. Ill, and de Actis cum Felice Ma-
nichaeo, L. L p. 334, 335.) We have also the testimony of Augustine, (contra
Epist. Manich. c. 6. p. 112, and contra Faustum, L. xiii. c. 4. p. 181.) that Manes
assumed the same title, in all his Epistles. — But, as we shall soon see, Manes
did not wish this title to be understood in its common and ordinary sense, when
applied to himself, but in a sense much higher. For he placed himself far above
the twelve Apostles of Christ, and proclaimed, that much greater wisdom was
divinely imparted to him than to them. When, therefore, he styles himself an
Apostle, he intended thereby that he was an extraordinary man, far superior to
all the first Apostles, one whom Christ had sent to mankind, partly, to perfect
his religion, and partly to free it from stains and corruptions.
In the next place, it is certain that Manes did not wish to be accounted the
Holy Spirit personally ; or to have his followers believe, that the entire Holy
Spirit had descended into him, joined his person to him, and spoke and gave
forth laws personally through him. They who attribute such insanity to Maries
may be confuted by many proofs, and especially by the Manic-hicaii doctrine
concerning the Holy Spirit. Passing by all the arguments which have been
2G4 Ccntimj III— Section 4.0.
adduced by Beausnhre, we will deinonstrate, solely from the Epistola Fundamenti
of Manes, tiiat he disting-uislied between the Holy Spirit and himself. For thus
he speaks in that Epistle, (apud Avgustinum de Actis cum Felice Manich. L. L
c. 16. p. 341.) Pax Dei invisibilis et veritatis notitia sit cum fratribus suis et
carissimis, qui mandatis ccelestibus credunt pariter ac deserviunt : sed et dextera
luminis tueatur et eripiat vos ab omni ineursione maligna et a laqueo mundi :
pietas vero Spiritus Sancti intima vestri pectoris adaperiat, ut ipsis oculis videa-
tis animas vestras. Here Manes prays {or, first, the peace of the supreme Deity,
or the Father, and, secondly, for the aid and assistance of the Son. Because, by
the dextera luminis, he means Christ, the Son of God. For, according to the
Manioha?an system, the light is God himself, the source of all light: whence, in
Oriental phraseology, dextera luminis is ihat,hy which the Z/^'-/;/, i» e. God, assists
men, and manifests to them his kindness, his love, and his power ; or that per-
son who is nearest to God, and is the minister of his divine pleasure and govern-
[p. 743.] ment. Lastly, he prays for the illumination of the Holy Spirit. For
He it is, who must dispel the mental darkness, so that the brethren might see
their souls with their own eyes ; that is, that they might understand that in them
was a soul, the offspring of eternal light, or of God ; and that they might leani
to distinguish it from the darkness, or from the body and the senses. Who does
not readily see, on reading this passage, that Manes regarded the Holy Spirit
as an essence cognate with God, and wholly diiferent from himself? For he
joins the Holy Spirit with the Son of God, and with the Father ; and supposes
his internal illumination to be necessary for men, to enable them to discover the
truth and divine origin of his doctrines. A man could not so speak, who thought
the Holy Spirit to be latent in himself, or that he was himself the Holy Spirit.
Although Manes did not wish to be considered as being the Holy Spirit, yet
he declared himself to be that Paraclete whom the blessed Saviour, a little be-
fore his death, promised to his disciples. John xiv. 16 and xvi. 7, &c. This is
apparently inconsistent with the previous statements. For how could a man,
who dared not arrogate to himself the dignity and majesty of the Holy Spirit,
and contented himself with the title of an Apostle of Christ, — how could he
claim to be the Paraclete promised by Christ ? But we shall soon see that these
pretensions are easily reconcilable. I confess, indeed, that I once doubted whe-
ther it were true, that all the Greeks and Orientals really stated that Manes
required men to believe him to be the Paraclete. Because, in the beginning of
his Epistles, he called himself only an Apostle of Jesus Chi-ist, and not the
Paraclete I suspected that Manes probably thought more modestly of himself,
and that the whole story of the mission of the Paraclete in the person of Manes^
was, perhaps, got up by his disciples, who were eager to exalt their master, and
to find evidence of his high dignity in the holy scriptures. For I said to myself,
if Manes wished to be considered the Paraclete, why did he not assume that title
in his Epistles? Why did he style himself only an Apostle? Augustine indeed
(in his Liber contra E])ist. Manichasi, c. 6. p. 112.) would convince us, that the
astute and crafty man aimed tncitly to insinuate, even by the title Apostle of
Christ, that lie was the Paraclete: Quid hoc esse causspe arbitramur, (viz. that
he called himself an Apostle of Christ, and not of the Paraclete.) nisi quia ilia
Life of Manes. 0(55
Biiperbia, mater omnium ha3riticoruin,inipulit homincm, ut non missiun se a
Paracleto vellet videri, sed ita susccptiim, ut ipse Paracletus diceretur. Tliis in-
deed is not offering proof, but is indulging conjecture. Yet tlie same Aufrus-
iine, in another manner, removed all doubt from my mind on this subject. For
he clearly testifies, that Manes did refer the promise of the Paraclete to himself.
He says, (ubi supra c. 7. p. 112.) Mnnieha'us vester, sivc missum, sive suscep-
tum a Paracleto se affirmat. And a little after, (c. 8.) still more clearly : Spiritus
sanctus nominatus non est, qui mnxlnie debuit ab eo nominari, qui nobis Apos-
tolatum suum Paracleti promissione commendat, ut evangelica auctoritate impe-
ritos premat. These words merit careful attention. For it appears [p. 744.]
from them, /rs^, That Manes did not call himself the Holy Spirit : yet, secondhjy
That he commended his Aposileship, by api)lying to it the promise of the Para-
clete ; i. e. he would have the language of Christ concerning the Paraclete, to
refer to him. From these declarations, I think it manifest, that the man distin-
guished the Holy Spirit from the Paraclete. For one who rejects the title of
the Holy Spirit, yet calls himself the Paraclete, undoubtedly shows that he con-
siders the Holy Spirit to be different from the Paraclete. This observation sheds
great light on the subject ; and it reveals the source of the error on this subject
of the ancients. By the appellation Paraclete in the language of Christ, Manes
supposed, was indicated, not the Holy Spirit personally, but a man whom Christ
would send, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, as he expresses it; to whom the Holy
Spirit (who?e residence, he supposed, was in the air,) would communicate
greater wisdom and illumination than to the first Apostles of Christ ; whereby
this man would be able to fill the blanks left by Christ in the science of salva-
tion, and expunge the errors introduced by men. Perhaps, he confirmed this
exposition by the language in John xvi. 15. He shall not speak of himself; hut
whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak. These words, considered by them-
selves, seem more applicable to a man taught by the Holy Spirit, than to a
divine being or person. And previously to him, Monlanus, who also called him-
self the Paraclete, and was so called by his followers, seems to have explained
the term Paraclete in the promise of Christ, in the same manner. And it is cer-
tain that Mohammed, who, as before stated, in many points greatly resembled
Manes, claimed nearly the same authority : and it is well known, that he wished
to be accounted the Paraclete. And hence Condemir, the Persian historian, ac-
cording to Herhelot, (Bibliotheque Orientale p. 549,) understanding the fact, was
indignant that Manes should apply to himself Christ's language respecting the
Paraclete, which, in his judgment, related to Mohammed. The disciples of Ma-
nes, to manifest this opinion of their master concerning the Paraclete, although
they commonly call him simply the Paraclete, yet often add the words Holy
-Sp?n7,and call Manes the Holy Spirit the Paraclete. This we learn from Augus-
tine, in his Disputatio cum Felice Manicha30, and in other places. The reason
they assign for this double appellation, Augustine, (who is not always a favor-
able expositor for them,) has stated in his Book contra Epistolam Mnniehrei,
(c. 8. p. 112.) : Quod quum a vobis quccritur ? (i. e. when you arc asked, Why
did Manes not call himself the Holy Spirit, but an Apostle of Jesus Ciirist?)
respondetis, utique Manichao Apostolo nominato, Spiritum sanctum i'araclftum
2G6 Century III.— Section 40.
nomin.iri, quia in ipso venire dignatus est. From this language it is manifest,
first: That the Maniehaeans, in order to define the meaning of the title of Para-
clete, with which they honored their master, called him also the Holy Spirit the
Paraclete. And secondly: That they maintained, that this title had the same
[p. 745.] force and meaning, with the title of Apostle of Jesus Christ, which he
placed at the head of his Epistles. And hence, thirdly : According to the opi-
nion of Manes and his disciples, the Paraclete is a man sent by Christ, in whom
pre-eminently the Holy Spirit manifests his power and wisdom ; or, in their own
phraseology, in whom the Holy Spirit (venit) comes to men. — The Manicha3an
presbyter Felix, in his Discussion with Augustine, seems to modify or change
this idea. For, although he calls his master the Holy Spirit the Paraclete, yet he
gives the same appellation to the Holy Spirit itself; and he affirms, (p. 338.)
that the Holy Spirit the Paraclete, among other things, came also in St. Paul.
But this man, wiiom Augustine (Retractat. L. II. c. 8.) pronounces ineruditurn
liberalibus lilLeris, — was timid ; and he acknowledges, that partly from fear of Au-
gustine, whose authority he well knew, and partly from the terror of the impe-
rial law3 against the Manicheeans, he did not bring out the whole system of his
sect, but at times concealed some things, which would be particularly offensive to
christians ; and sometimes explained certain points differently from the common
explanation of Maniehaeans, to make them appear less offensive. Thus he address-
es his adversary, Augustine, (L. I. c. 12. p. 339.) : Non tantum ego possum con-
tra tuam virtutem, quia mira virtus est gradus episcopalis : (This language
strikingly shows what power the christian bishops of that age possessed :)
deinde contra leges Imperatorum, et superius petivi compendive, ut doceas me,
quid sit Veritas. This uneducated man expresses himself rudely, and violates
the rules of grammar; but his meaning is sufficiently clear. When Augustine
asked him to explain a passage in a certain book, which he called Thesaurus
Manetis, he replied, (L. II. c. 19. p. 343.) : Hanc tibi ego non possum interpre-
tari scripturam et exponere quod ibi non est : ipsa sibi interpres est : ego non pos-
sum dicere, ne forte incurram in peccatum. This fear mars the whole discussion
of Felix, and frequently leads him to modify the Manicha3an opinions to meet
the views of his adversaries. And therefore he can [not] always be regarded
as an unbiased and safe witness. — The christian doctors, by the Paraclete men-
tioned by Christ in the Gospel of John, understood the Holy Spirit the third
Person of the Deity ; and indeed correctly: but they did not perceive that Ma-
nes gave another meaning to the term, and distinguished the Paraclete, — i. e. a
man whom the Holy Spirit uses as his instrument, — from the Holy Spirit him-
self, who taught by that man. And hence, when they learned that Manes called
himself the Paraclete, and was so called by his disciples, they easily fell into
the error of supposing that Manes assumed to be personally the Holy Spirit,
or would be thought to be a man whom the Holy Spirit had anointed with him-
self Says Eusebius, (Hist. Eccl. L. vii. c. 31.) Tore (uiv tdv TrapaKXurov, x-at
duTo TO TVivfA'j, ayicfy duToi islvtov dvaKHfivTrav. Paracletum SO, ipsumque Spi-
ritum sanctum esse praedicabat.
The ojfice of the Paraclete whom Christ promised, and consequently his own
[p. 746.] office, according to his scheme, consisted principally in two things ;
Ufe of Manes. 2G7
firsts in restoring the religion of (^inist to its original pnrity, or pnrging it from the
corruptions brought into it by the base frauds or the ignorance of men ; and
secondly^ in completing and perfecting the same religion, which, he maintained,
Christ had left imperfect, or incomplete in its parts. For, as it was the desin-ii
of Manes to combine the christian religion with the ancient Magian or Persian
religion, which he imbibed in his youth, and many doctrines of Christianity were
obstacles to his purpose, it became absolutely necessary, that he should, like
Mohammed^ consider the sacred books of the christians as corrupted, and should
hold that not a few additions had been made to the christian system, which
were foreign from the mind of Christ. Let us hear the language of Faustus,
a man of note, and of no contemptible genius, among the followers of Manes :
(in Augustine, contra Faustum Lib. xxxii. c. L 319.) : Quid peregrinum hoc,
aut quid mirum est, si ego de Testamento novo purissima quoeque legens et
mea3 saluti convenientla, praetermitto qua3 a vestris majoribus inducla fallaciter
et majestatem ipsius et gratiam decolorant ? A little after, the same eloquent
and talented man thus addresses catholic christians : Soliusne Filii Testamen-
tum putatis non potuisse corrumpi, solum non habere aliquid, quod in se debeat
improbari ? prsesertim quod nee ab ipso (Christo) scriptum constat, nee ab ejus
Apostolis, sed longo post tempore, a quibusdara incerti nominis viris, qui ne sibi
non haberetur fides, scribentibus qua3 nescirent, partini Apostolorum nomina,
partim eorum, qui Apostolos secuti viderentur, scriptorum suorura frontibus
indiderunt, asseverantes secundum eos se scripsisse, qua3 scripserint. Quae
quia nos legentes, animadvertimus cordis obtutu sanissimo, a3quissimum judi-
cavimus utilibus acceptis ex iisdem, id est, iis, quae et finem nostram c-cdificent,
et Christi Domini atque ejus Patris omnipotentis Dei propagent gloriam, cetera
repudiare, quae nee ipsorum majestati, nee fidei nostras conveniant. These words,
which certainly are lucid, teach us, among other things, that Manes denied those
Gospels, which the Christians approvad and accounted divine, to be the works of the
Apostles; because they bore the superscrij)tions : (k*tu MctTS-a/ov, katu Mapicov,)
According to Mattheiv — Mark — Luke — John. For he inferred from these super-
scriptions, that by them the writers meant to signify, that they wrote what was
taught respectively by these Apostles. These blemishes, tiierefore, adhering
to true Christianity, according to Manes, the Paraclete, i. e. Manes himself, was
commissioned by Christ to remove, and thus to separate the true from the false.
Let us again hear Fausius, audaciously drawing a parallel between Jesus Christ
and his master; (ubi supra, c. 6. p. 321.) : Si Jesus docet, pauca veteris Testa-
menti accipienda esse, repudianda vero quamplurima: Et nobis Paraclitus ex
novo Testamento promissus perinde docet, quid ex eodem accipere debeamus,
et quid repudiare : de quo ultro Jesus, cum eum promitteret, dicit in Evangelio ;
Ipse vos inducet in omnem veritatem, et ipse vobis annunciabit omnia et [p. 747.]
commemorabit vos. Quapropter liceat tantundem et nobis in Testamento novo
per Paraclitum (i. e. Manes) quantum vobis in vetere licere ostenditis per Jesum.
More of the like character is there added by Fauslns, which we omit for the
sake of brevity, — As to the other function of the Paraclete, there is abundant
evidence. Let us consider this function. Manes wished to connect with Chris-
tianity the fictions of the ancient Persians, respecting two (ir.st principles of all
268 Century IIL—Sectlon 40.
things, the origin of the world and of evil, the souls of men, «Sic. and to palm
them on UKUikind as divine truths. And this design required him to te.aeh, that
Christ communicated to liis Apostles only a fart of the truth, necessary to the
happiness of men in this and the future life, and left the other part to be taught
and explained by the Paraclete. We will adduce but a single witness, yet an
unexceptionable one, namely, FelLv, who was one of the number of the Elect,
as the Manichaeans called them, i. e. one of those fully instructed in all the
mysteries of the sect. Though he does not express himself very elegantly,
yet he explains very well the views of his party. (Disput. cum Augustino, L.
i. c. 9. in Aiigustifii 0pp. tom. viii. p. 338.) : Paulus in altera Epistola (ss. 1 Cor.
xiii. 9, 10.) dicit : Ex parte scimus, et ex parte prophetamus : cum venerit autem,
quod perfcctum est, aholehuntur ea, qucc ex parte dicta sunt. Nos audientes Pau-
lum hoc dicere, venit Manicha^us cum prajdicatione sua, et suscepimus eum se-
cundum quod Christus dixit : Mitto vobis Spiritum sanctum : et Paulus venit
et dixit, quia et ipse venturus est et postea nemo venit : ideo suscepimus Mani-
cha3um. Et quia venit Manichajus, et per suam prsedicationem docuit nos in-
itium, mediuni", et finem : docuit nos de fabrica mundi, quare facta est, et unde
facta est, et qui fecerunt : docuit nos quare dies et quare nox : docuit nos de
cursu solis et luna3 : quia hoc in Paulo non audivimus, nee in ceterorum Apos-
tolorum scripturis ; hoc credimus, quia ipse est Paraclitus. Itaque illud iteruni
dico, quod superius dixi ; Si audiero in altera Scriptura, ubi Paraclitus loquitur,
de quo voluero interrogare, et docueris me, credo et renunico, (ss. Manicheeo.)
We must now speak of the arguments, by which Manes, while he lived and
when dead, induced so many persons to believe him to be the Paraclete, sent
by Christ to reform and to perfect the christian religion. These arguments are
manifest, from the passages just cited from Felix. Like his imitator Moham-
med, Mimv.s made no pretensions tomirncles: nor did those who listened to
him, demand signs of him. He simply bid men believe, that he was a messen-
ger from God : and the doubting and such as asked for evidence, he pressed
with this single argument ; that Jesus Christ had promised the Paraclete, to
perfect what he had begun, and to acquaint men with what was lacking in his
[p. 748.] system. Since Christ left the world, until I came, no one adequate
for this office has appeared ; no one before me, has explained what Christ left
unexplained — the origin of the world, the cause of all evils, &c. ; but I have ex-
plained all these hitherto unknown things. Therefore, I am the Paraclete,
whom Christ directed his followers to expect. And by this single argument
tho Manichffians defended themselves, when called on by the christian doctors
to prove, that Manes was the chief Apostle of Christ, or the Paraclete. It ap-
pears, from the writings of Augustine against the Manichaeans, and from other
documents, that the christian disputants demonstrated, that the Paraclete whom
Christ promised, in fact carne, when tlie Holy Spirit descended upon the Apos-
tles : Acts ii. The Manicha3ans denied that fact, on the ground that none of
the Apostles had taught all the truths that are profitable and needful to men.
Felix says, (in Augustini Disput. cum Felice, L. i. c. 6. p. 337.) : Cum proba-
tum mihi fuerit, quod Spiritus sanctus {in Apostolos eff'usus) docuerit veritatem,
quam qua^ro, illam {Manetis discipUnam) respuo. Hoe enim sanctitas tua mihi
Life of Manes. 209
leg-it, ubi Spiritum sanctum Apostoli acceperunt : et in ipsis Apostoli.s uiium
quaero, qui nic doceat de initio, de medio ct de fine : (i. c. tlie whole of ivli<rion
or the whole science of salvation.) And he repeats llu; snnie things a little
after, thus ; Quia sanctitas tua hoe dieit, quod Apostoli ipsi aeeeperunt Spiri-
tum sanctum Paracletum : iterum dico, de Apostolis ipsis quem volueris, decent
me quod me ManicliKUs docuit, aut ipsius doctrinam evacuet de duodecim
quem volueris. All the pretensions of Manes, therefore, rested on this argu-
ment : He who explains the deficient topics in Christ's religion, is the Paraclete
whom Christ promised : but Manes docs this : therefore he is the Paraclete and
Apostle of Christ. Nothing can be more fallacious, nothing more imbecile,
than this argumentation ; and yet many persons, and some of them neither
simpletons nor unlearned, were persuaded by Manes and his disciples; and
this single example shows, in what darkness the human mind is involved, and
how easily popular schemes of religion, accommodated to vulgar apprehension,
may entrap men.
(3) In the first place, Manes rejected the entire Old Testament ; as did
nearly all the Gnostic parties, who deformed the Christian religion by the pre-
cepts of the Oriental philosophy. The arguments \vith which the Manichaijins
assailed the Old Testament, are exhibited in a long array, by Faustus, the i\Ia.
nichffian, in AugiLstines work against him ; and still more fully and learnedly*
by Beausohre^ (in his Histoire de Manichee, vol. i, p. 269, &c.) The chief argu-
ment is this : The things, which the books of the O. Test, state concerning God,
do not accord with the good Principle of the Manichteans, which they denomi-
nate God. — In the next place, they rejected the whole New Testament, as it is
read by Christians. They did not indeed deny, that in most of the books of
the N, Test., there are some things that are divine and came from Christ [p. 749.]
and his Apostles: but among these things, they contended, are interwoven very
many false things, and things wholly impious. Hence they inferred, that those
things only in the N. Test, are intitledto belief, which are in accordance with the
decisions oi Manes their master, the reformer of Christianity whom Christ has sent :
every thing else is to be rejected. — But these ideas need a more full explana-
tion, so that it may appear, in what sense we must understand the affirmation
of Beausobre, (vol. i. p. 291.) that the Manichasans received our four Gospels
and the Epistles of Paul. For here, too, this great man was influenced some-
what by his excessively kind feelings towards the Manicha3ans and towards all
heretics.
First : As to our four Gospels, there were two opinions among the Mani-
chaeans, closely allied to each other, and practically, or in their efiects, alto-
gether alike. Sometimes they seem to admit, or rather do admit, these Gos-
pels to be of divine origin ; but they soon take back what they granted, and
contradict it. For they add, that these Gospels are wretchedly corrupted, and
interpolated, and enlarged and amplified with Jewish fables, by crafty and men-
dacious persons. Whence it would follow, that as they now are, they are of no
use or value, and should be kept out of the hands of the pious, lest they should
be imbued with noxious errors. At other times they deny, nio.st explicitly, that
the Apostles of Christ were their authors, or that they were written by those
270 Centimj III.— Section 40.
Apostles whose names they bear. On the contrary, they contend that the au-
thors of them were half-Jews, and credulous and mendacious persons. This I
have already shown, from a passage of FausLus ; and it may be shown by many
other passages. I will adduce only one of them, embracing the substance of
all, taken from Augustine's work against Faustus, (L. xxxiii. c. 3. p. 329.) :
Sccpe jam probatum a nobis est, nee ab ipso (Christo) haec (Evangelia) sunt,
nee ab ejus Apostolis scripta : sed multo post eorum assumptionem a nescia
quibus et ipsis inter se non concorduntibus semi-Judseis per fiunas, opinionesque
comperta sunt : qui tamen omnia eadem in Apostolorum Domini conferentes
nomina, vel eorum, qui secuti Apostolos viderentur, errores iic mendacia sua
secundum eos se scripsisse mentiti sunt. Between these two opinions respecting
the Gospels, the Manichceans fluctuated : and even Faustus is not uniform in
his statements, but seems to incline, now to one opinion, and now to the other,
as occasion offers. It was undoubtedly their real opinion, that the Gospels
were fabricated by fallible men, and men unacquainted with true religion. But
as this opinion was odious, they sometimes dissembled, and pretended not to
repudiate those Gospels, which, in reality, they wholly despised. And with
such conduct, several of the ancients reproach them. But both opinions lead
to the same consequences ; and both show, that the Manichsean sect was very far
from receiving our Gospels. For how could those who thought so injuriously
of the Gospels, or of their authors, recommend them, or even place them among
[p. 750.] — I will not say, inspired books, but among the useful and profitable
books ? In particular, they considered the greatest part of the history of Jesus
Christ, as contained in our four Gospels, to be false, imaginary, and wholly un-
worthy of the majesty of the Son of God. Let us again hear Faustus, lucidly
explaining the views of his sect, in the work of Augustine against him : (L.
xxxii. c. 7. p. 322.) : De Testament© novo sola accepimus ea, quae in honorem
et laudem Filii majestatis vel ab ipso dicta comperimus, vel ab ejus Apostolis,
sed jam perfectis ac fidelibus, dissimulavimus cetera, quae aut simpliciter tunc
et ignoranter a rudibus dicta, aut oblique et maligne ab inimicis objecta, aut
imprudenter a scriptoribus aflirmata sunt, et posteris tradita : dico autem (mark
these declarations,) hoc ipsum natum ex foemina turpiter, circumcisum Judaice,
sacrificasse gentiliter, baptizatum humiliter, circumductum a diabolo per deserta,
et ab eo tentatum quam miserrime. His igitur exceptis, et si quid ei ab scrip-
toribus ex Testament© vetere falsa sub testificatione injectum est, credimua
cetera, praecipue crucis ejus mysticam fixionem, (from this language it appears,
that the portion of Christ's history which they did receive, they did not under-
stand literally, but mystically and allegorically,) qua nostras animae passionis
monstrantur vulnera, tum praecepta salutaria ejus, turn parabolas cunctumque
sermonem deificum, qui maxime duarum praeferens naturarum discretionem (we
shall misunderstand Faustus, if we suppose he here refers to the two natures
in Christ, and the difference between them : the Manichaeans assigned to Christ
only one nature, viz. the divine : the human nature they wholly subtracted.
The two natures, of which Faustus here speaks, are the two Principles of the
Manichaeans, light and darkness, the more subtile and the grosser kinds of mat-
ter,) ipsius esse non venit in dubium. Hence also they rejected the two Gene-
Ufe of Manes. 271
alogies of Christ, in Matthew and Luke: of which Faustus has much to aay,
(L. ii. c. 1. p. 133 &,c.) — The Discourses of Jesus Christ recorded in our four
Gospels, Fauatiis seems to approve : but beware, of supposing lie really did so.
Manes acknowledged, indeed, tiiat in these discourses of Christ some tliiiiirs aro
true, divine, and useful ; but he also contended, that in them the good is mixed
up with the bad. the true with the false, and that prudence and judgment aro
necessary to discriminate them. This again, Faustus will tell us : (L. xxxiii.
c. 3. p. 329.) : Nee immerito nos ad hujusmodi scripturas (he speaks of the N.
Testament) tarn inconsonantes et varias nunquam sane sine judicio et rationo
aures airerimus ; sed contemplantes omnia et cum aliis alia conferentes, perpen-
dimus utrum eorum quidque a Christo dici potuerit, nocne. Multa enim a ma-
joribus vestris eloquiis Domini nostri inserta verba sunt, qute nomine signata
ipsius cum ejus fide non congruant. To distinguish tlie true and the good from
what they considered the false and fictitious in the Gospels, and in the [p. 751.]
New Test, generally, the Manichaeans adopted this universal rule : Whatever
in the New Test, accords with the doctrine of our master, is to be accounted
true ; and whatever disagrees with it, (and there is very much that does so,)
must be reckoned among the fictions and fiilsehoods of the writers. Faustus
states this rule in the following terms, (L. xxxii. c. 6. p. 321.) ; Paraditus ex
novo Testamento promissus docet, quid accipere ex eodem debeamus, et quid
repudiare. — These things being so, I can never persuade myself, that Manes
placed a high value on our Gospels, or recommended their perusal to his fol-
lowers. And yet the learned Beausohre would so persuade us : (vol. i. p. 291.
Nos heretiques recevoient premierement les quatre Evangiles.) And this, he
thinks, is manifest from the answer of Faustus to the question : Accipis Exan-
gelium ? The reply, as stated by Augustine, (contra Faustum L. ii. c. 1. p. 133.)
is: Maxime. For i^eawsoire supposes the word E v angel ium in this reply of
Faustus, agreeably to its use in the Greek and Latin writers, means the four
histories of Christ, which we call the Gospels : (Par I'Evangile on entend Ic
Volume, qui contenoit les quatre Evangiles. C'est le style des Grecs et des
Latins.) But the great man is certainly mistaken. I admit, that the adversary
who asked the question, so understood the term : but Faustus, in his reply,
affixed a very different meaning to it. Nor does he disguise the fact, but freely
acknowledges it a little after, by saying : Scias me, ut dixi, accipere Evan-
gelium, id est, p-ccdicationem Christi : (of course, not the history.) In the same
manner he explains the term in other passages. In L. v. (c. i. p. 139.) his ad-
versary again asks : Accipis Evangelium 7 And Faustus, among other things
which I omit, answers : Nescis, quid sit, quod Evangelium nuncupatur. Est
enim nihil aliud, quam prccdicatio et mandatum Christi. This Gospel, he says,
he receives. The Manichseans, therefore, did not understand by the Gospel
our volume of Gospels, but the religion taught by Christ : and as they believed
this religion to be divinely communicated only to their master, it is evident,
that they considered the Gospel to be nothing different from the religious f=ys-
tera of Manes. And hence Titus of Bostra, (L. iii. contra Manicha^os, in II.
Canisii Lectt. Antiquis, tom. i. p. 139, edit. Basnagii,) very justly charges upon
the Manichaeans : Quod honorem tantum Evangeliorum simulent, ut esset si-
272 Century III— Section 40.
mulatio invitnmcntuni corum, quos deciperent, quod lectionem Evangeliorutn
praetermittiiut : "'£.vdiyyt\ia avayvuo-n 7ru[>A7ref^7rovm, qiiod in locum Evangelii
aliud eo nouiinc indignum substituant, &c. Beausobre censures this language
of Titus ; and maintains, that the Mamch(cans did read the Gospels. And this,
he thinks, appears from their books still extant : (vol. i. p. 303. par le pen qui
nous reste de leurs ouvrages.) And it certainly is clear, from these books, that
[p. 752.] the Manicluuan doctors did, privately, read and examine our Gospels,
iust as we read the religious books of the sects which go out from us : neither
did Tilus deny this, nor could he do so. But he did deny, that the Mani-
cheeans publicly read or expounded the Gospels in their assemblies, or that they
read them religiously at home, for the sake of gaining instruction or support
and consolation to their minds: and neither of these charges can be refuted by
their books now extant. The Manichaean doctors would have been crazy and
have contravened their own precepts, if they had either publicly read, or had
directed their people to read those Gospels, the authors of which (as we have
seen) they pronounced to be half-Jews, mendacious, rash and false assumers of
Apostolic names, contradictory to one another, and destitute of divine illumina-
tion. But Beausobre promises to prove, from the language that Augustine puts
into the mouth of Faiistus, (par cette reponse que S. Augustin met dans la
bouche de Fauste,) that our Gospels were read by the Manichaeans. But here
this great man is somewhat in error. For Augustine does not repeat the words
of Faustus, nor does he affirm that Faustus thought that which he attributes to
him, but he only conjectures what he might say. His language is, (Lib. xiii.
c. 18. p. 188.): Hie forte (he therefore states, not what Faustus or the Mani-
chaeans did say, but what they might perhaps say) dicetis, sed Evangelium de-
bet legere jam fidelis, ne obliviscatur quod credidit. I repeat, what I before
said : The Manichaeans would have conflicted with themselves, and would have
displayed consummate folly, if they had put into the hands of their people,
books which they judged to be full of lies, and the productions of insane men.
I proceed to the Acts of the Apostles ; to which the Manichfeans were more
hostile than to the Gospels. For while they could endure the Gospels, because
they contained some things true and useful, they totally rejected the book of
Acts. Thus Angustine testifies, (de Utilitate Credendi, c. 3. 0pp. tom. viii. p. 36.) :
Si dicerent, Scripturas sive penitus abjiciendas putasse, tergiversatio eorum rec-
tior, vel error humanior. Hoc enim de illo libro fecerunt, qui Actus Apostolo-
rum inscribitur. Augustine wonders at this: Quod eorum consilium, cum
meenm ipse pertracto, nequeo satis mirari. - - Tanta enim liber iste habet, quae
similia sint his, qua? accipiunt, ut magna; stultitiai mihi videatur, non et hunc
accipere, et si quid ibi eos offendit, falsum atque immissum dicere. And he sus-
pects, that their utter aversion to the book of Acts, arose from the declaration
there of the descent of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles; they believing that the
Holy Spirit came to mankind only in the person of their master. And he re-
peats the same conjecture, in his book against AdimantuSy a Manichaean,
(c. 17. p. 100.): Acta isti non accipiunt, quoniam manifeste continent Paracletl
adventum. But they doubtless had other reasons also for wholly rejecting this
book; which, however, it is not necessary here to investigate.
Life of Manes. 073
Of the Epistles of Paul, they thought more favorably thin of the other books
of tlie New Testament. When Faustus was asked by his adversary, [p. 753.1
(apud Augusiinum contra Faustura, L. xi. c. 1. p. 155.). Accipis Apos/olinnf
lie replied: Maxi}ne. And there are other passages \\'hioh sliow, that they did
not question the fact, tliat Paul wrote tliose Epistles which we now read. But
if any one pressed them with a passage from those Epistles, they instantly re-
plied, that these sacred Epistles had been corrupted by nefarious men. What
shall I do to you, says Augustine, (contra Faust. L. xxxiii. c. 6. p. 330.) : quos
contra testimonia Scripturarum ita obsurdefecit iniquitas, ut quidquid adversura
vos inde prolatiun fnerit, non esse dictum ab Apostolo, sed a nescio quo, falsario
sub ejus nomine scriptum esse dieere audeatis? That A-ugustinehQVit does them
no injustice, is manifest from the reasoning of Faustus ; who, when reduced to
straits by citations from Paul, boldly replies, (L. xi. c. 1. p. 156.): Si fas non
est, Paulum inemendatum dixisse aliquid unquam, ipsius non est. He had a little
before said: Aliquid in Apostolo esse cauponatum. In another place, (L. xviii.
c. 3. p. 221.) he says: Me quidem Manichasa fides reddidit tutum, qua3 mihi non
'cunctis, quae ex Salvatoris nomine scripta leguntur, passim credere per.suasit,
sed probare, si sint eadem vera, si sana, si incorrupta: (i. e. accordant with the
opinions of Manes ;) esse enini permulta Zizania, qua3 in contagium boni semi-
nis Scripturis pene omnibus noctivagus quidam seminator insperserit. — The
opinions of the Manichajans, respecting the other books of the New Testament,
are uncertain.
In place of our scriptures, the Manichaeans substituted the books of their
master, declaring them to be divinely inspired. Beausobre, having very fully
and very learnedly discussed this subject, I will refer such as are eager for a
knowledge of it to his work, vol. i. p. 305 &c. He might have despatched the
whole subject in a few words; for very little has come down to us upon it.
But the learned man very often digresses from the subject, and introduces topics
altogether foreign, and dwells upon them longer than was necessary. He also
advances many things concerning the sacred books of the Manichaeans, which I
would not venture to say, and which rest merely upon conjecture. Manes
wrote many books, of which a list is given by Jo. Alb. Fabricius, (Biblioth.
Grseca, vol. v. p. 281 &c.) and by Wm. Cave, (Historia Literar. Scriptor. Eccl.
torn. i. p. 139.) : but both lists are imperfect; nor is that compiled by Deausobre
without faults. That the Manichseans set a higher value on the writings of their
master, than upon any other books named by them, no one can doubt, if he re-
flects that they considered him as the Paraclete promised by Christ. No one
of the books of Manes was held by them in higher estimation than his Epislola
Fundamenti, which Augustine has confuted in a single book ; for this Epistle
contained a sort of epitome of the whole doctrine of Manes. And hence Felix
the Manichoean, when about to dispute with Augustine, requested this only of
all the books taken from him by the order of government, to be re- [p. 754.]
stored to him, (August, contra Felicem, L. i. c. 1. p. 345.) : Ista enim Epistohi
Fundnmenti est, quod et sanctitas tua bene scit, quod et ego dixi, quia ipsa con-
tinet initiura, medium et finem, (i. e. the whole system of religion). Ipsa lega-
tur. And (August, contra Epist. Fundamenti, c. 5. p. 111.): Potissimum ilium
VOL. u. 19 V
274 Century IIL—Sedion 40.
consideremus librum, quem Fundamenti Epistolam dicitis, ubi totum pene, quod
creditis, continetur. And hence, it was read to the people, in their asscmbliea,
by the Maniciu\;ans : Ipsa cnim nobis illo tempore miseris quando lecta est,
illuminati dicebamur a vobis.
(4) The festal day, on which the Manichreans annually celebrated the me-
morial of their master's execution, was called Bema ; from the tribunal^ or ele-
vated seat, which on that day was erected in their temples or places of worship.
Says Augustine, (contra Epist. Fundam. c. 8. pp. 112, 113.) : Vestrum Bema/\di
est, diem, quo iManicha^us occisus est, quinque gradibus instructo tribunali et
pretiosis linteis adornato, ac in promptu posito et objecto adorantibus prosequi-
mini. And in his work against Faustus, (L, xviii. c. 5. p. 222.) he testifies^
that this day was celebrated, with great festivity, in the month of March.
The tribunal or pulpit, (iS»a**) a magnificent cliair, hung with cosily drapery,
undoubtedly denoted that Manes was an inspired teacher, and greater
and more excellent than all the other teachers sent of God to man; or, a man
exalted above all other mortals. Bii/u*, among the Greeks, properly signifies a
step: but it is also used of the elevated places, from which military commanders
addressed their soldiers, teachers their disciples, and judges pronounced their
decisions; for to all these the ascent was by steps. Augustine translates it iri^
hunal: perhaps it might better be rendered a chair, a pulpit. Yet the term tri-
bunal is admissable, because the Manichajans considered their master as not
only a teacher, but also as a. judge in matters of religion. Jac. ToUius, (Insign.
Itinerarii Itaiici, p. 142.) translates it an altar. But he gives no reasons for this
interpretation; which is manifestly opposed by Augustine, a very competent
witness, who had been often present at this ceremony. Beausobre castigates
Tollius; (vol. ii. p. 713.) — Why, the ascent to this tribunal or throne, represent-
ing the presence of their master, was by Jive steps, seems not very evident. But
I conjecture, that the five steps correspond with the Jive elements of the Mani-
chseana. For they distributed both the kingdom of darkness and the kingdom
of light into five elements ; and our world, they supposed, consisted of five com-
pound elements, derived from both kingdoms. And, if I judge correctly, the
Manicha^ans, by the five steps to the tribunal or pulpit of their master, intended
to represent, that he alone fully understood the true nature of both kingdoms*
[p. 755.] those of light and darkness, and of this our world ; and had explained
it all to mankind. — Augustine, moreover, speaks of the tribunali in 'promptu
•posito; i. e. so placed, that all present could see it, and have their eyes upon
it; et objecto adorantibus. What does adorantibus here denote? Beausobre
(ubi sup. p. 713.) thinks it equivalent to precantibus: And, of course, he sup-
poses, that the Manichaians prayed to God, with their faces towards this tribu-
nal. I would readily concede, that in the proper sense of the word, the Mani-
chseans adored neither their master nor his pulpit. But as for the import of the
word in this place, I dissent from him. Among the Latins, adorare was to show
reverence, by bodily attitudes and motions, either to gods or to men; nor do I
see any reason for believing, that Augustine used the word otherwise here. I
therefore do not doubt, that he means to say, either that the Manichaeans pros-
trated themselves, in the Oriental manner, before this throne ; or, that by somo
Manichwan Dualism. 275
other bodily act, they manifested their very great reverence for tlioir master.
The ceremony was similar to that of the Chinese; who salute, very respect fully,
a tablet bearing the name of Confucius ; in order to manifest publielv, tliat to
that phik^sopher they are indebted for all their wisdom. This was not a religious
adoration^ but a manifestation of their feelings of gratitude and respect.
§ XLI. Two Eternal Worlds, under Two Eternal Lords. Manes
affirmed two first principles of all things; namely, a subtile and a
gross sort of matter, or light and darkness^ separated from each
other b}^ a narrow space. And over each of these he placed an
eternal King or Lord ; the Lord over light, he called God; the
Lord over darkness, he called Ilyle^ or Demon.i^) The loorld of light
and the world of darkness^ although different in their natures, have
some things in common. For each is distributed into five op-
posing elements, and the same number of provinces: and both
are equally eternal, and both, with thefr respective Lords, self-
existent ; both are unchangeable, and both to exist for ever ; both
are of vast extent, yet the world of light seems to fill more space
than the empire of darkness.^) The condition of the two Lords,
presiding over the two kinds of matter, is equal ; but they are
totally unlike in their natures and dispositions. The Lord of light,
being himself happy, is beneficient, a lover of peace and quiet-
ness, just and wise; the Lord of darkness, being himself very
miserable, wishes to see others unhappy, is quarrelsome, unwise,
unjust, irascible, and envious. Yet they are equal in the eternity
of their existence, in their power to beget beings like themselves,
in their unchangeableness, and in their power and knowledge;
and yet the King of light, or God, excells the Prince of [p. 756.]
darkness, or the Demon, in power and knowledge.(^)
(]) In substantiating the doctrines and opinions of the Manichaeans, I have
determined to employ the very language of Manes and his disciples, as far as
possible; and to cite the testimony of those only, who were well acquainted
with the Manichaean system, and who had actually consulted the books of the
sect, disregarding the writers of less authority and less accuracy; so that my
statements may have unexceptionable credibility. In collecting the testimonies,
I gratefully acknowledge myself indebted to the industry of Beausobre, that
prince of the liistorians of Manichaeism. But this resource has failed me, in
many cases ; a fact which I mention, with no disrespect for that extraordinary
man, who was my friend. For he not only omitted many things necessary to be
known, and of use for a right understanding of the Manichaean religion ; but also,
being too favorably inclined both to Manes, whom he deemed no mean philoso-
276 Century III.— Section 41.
phcr. and to his followers, he taxes his genius and eloquence, to extenuate the
baseness of the religion they professed. I shall sometimes mention, when the
occasion shall seem to require it, that the best attested truth compels me to dif-
fcf from this very learned man : yet often, to avoid wearying the reader, I shall si-
lently deviate from him. Whoever shall take the trouble to compare his protract-
ed and very copious work, with my slender and dry production, will see, I hope,
a great difference between them; and will perceive, that I have examined with
my own eyes, and not with those of another, this gloomy and obscure fable.
In the tirst place, it is beyond all controversy, that Manes affirmed the exis-
tence of tioo first principles of all things, and likewise of t7i-o Lords of the
universe : in doing which, he followed the opinions of the ancient Persians and
other Oriental nations. The Manich83ans, when they would speak with preci-
sion and accuracy, applied the term Jirst principle (principimn) only to the
Rulers or Lords over the two kinds of matter, the good and the evil, or light
and darkness. Fausius, the most learned and eloquent of the Manichoeans, says,
(apud Augusiinum, L. xx. c. 1. 0pp. tom. viii. p. 237.) : Pagani bona et mala
unum principium habere dogmatizant. His ego valde contraria sentio, qui bonis
omnibus principium fiiteor Deum, contrariis vero Hylen : sic enim mali princi-
pium ac naturam Theologus noster (Manes) appellat. And again, (L. xxi. c.
1. p. 249.) : Duo principia confitemur, sed unum ex his Deum nominamus, alte-
rum Hylen ' aut, ut communiter et usitate dixerim, Doimonem. - - - Duo prm-
cinia doeco, Deum et Hylen. Vim omnem maleficam Hylae assignamus, et
beneficam Deo, ut congruit But to denote the matter, good and bad, or light
and darkness, over which those first Principles had dominion, they used the
terms nature and sithstance. So Manes himself, in his Epistola Fundament!,
[p. 757.] {a\)ud. August, contra. Epist. Fundam. c. 12, 13, p. 115): x\usculta
prius quae fuerint ante constitutionem mundi, ut possis luminis sejungere notv^
ram ac tenebrarum. Haec quippe in exordio fuerunt, duce substantias a sese
divisae. So also Faustus, and the rest of them, often. And Augustine, exactly
according to the views of the sect, of which he had been a member, (de Haeres.
c. 46. tom. viii. p. 11.) says: Ista duo principia inter se diversa et adversa, eadem-
que aeterna ac coaeterna, hoc est, semper fuisse, composuit : duasque naturas ac
substantias, boni scilicit et mali, opinatus est. — Yet examples occur in which this
distinction is overlooked, and the term Jirst principle is applied to matter, and
the word nature applied to God and the Demon. I have just cited a passage
from Faustus, (L. xx. c. 1. p. 237.) in which he uses both principium and na-
tura in reference to the demon. He adds, (L. xxi. c. 1. p. 249.) : Nee diffiteor,
interdum nos adversam naturam nuncupare Deum. In a similar manner, they
use the words light and darkness, w^hich properly denoting the matter over which
God and the Demon reign, yet sometimes denote the Lords of matter, or God
and Hyle. This is a minute criticism, but it will help us to understand better
some declarations of the Manichseans.
(2) Manes conceived, that in infinite space, there are two worlds, or two earths ;
the one shining, and overspread with light ; the other very caliginous, or full of
darkness and mists. In his Epistola Fundament!, (apud August, c. 12. p. 115.)
Manes calls the former : Lucidam et beatam terram ; and, Illustrera et sanctam
Manicha'an Dualism. 077
terrain. The latter he calls, (ibid. 15 .p. IIG.) Tcrram tenebrarum : ondTornun
pestiferam. Both these worlds existed from eternity ; neither of them h:id a be<Tiii-
ning, or can have an end, or become extinct. Of the world of light or the empire
of Cod, Manes also says, (ibid. p. 115.) : Ita autem fundata sunt ejusdem (Dei)
splondidissima regna supra lucidam et beatam terram, ut a nullo unquam aut
moveri aut concuti possint. These passages prove the enduring stability of the
world of light. That he believed the same stability characterized the world of
darkness, is manifest from what he says of the destruction of our world, and the
events that are to follow. For when God shall have conquered the Prince of
darkness, he will not destroy his kingdom: ilial is beyond his power, since the
world of darkness has an equally necessary existence, with the world of light.
But, as the power of God is greater than that of the Ruler of darkness, he will
shut up the latter in that realm of darkness of which he is Lord. On the eter-
nity of the world of light there is a noted passage of Felix the Manichaean, in
his Dispute with Augustine, (L. I. c. 17. 18. p. 342. 343.) Augusihie a&ks him:
Fecitne Deus, an genuit, terram illam lucis, an aequalis et coa^tanea illi erat?
Felix at first replies evasively, and conceals his opinion. For he only proves
that there are two worlds: Duae terrae mihi vindentur esse, secundum quod
Manichaeus dicit duo regna. Augustine declares himself not satisfied, and
repeats the question. But Felix still seeks concealment, and strives to
elude the subject. For the unhappy man, then a prisoner, was afraid [p. 758.]
of the imperial laws, and of the authority of Augustine; as he does not dis-
guise. He supposed, he would be accused and punished as a blasphemer, if he
should deny that heaven, tl)e residence of God, was created by God. But, be-
ing pressed on every side, at last, laying aside fear, he stated clearly what he
did believe : Dixisti de terra ilia, in qua Deus habitat, an facta est ab iilo, an
generavit illam, an coaeterna illi est. Et ego dico, quia quomodo Deus aeter-
nus est, et faetura apud ilium nulla est, totum (cternum. est. Augustine, not fully
satisfied, asks again : Non illam ergo genuit, nee fecit ? And Felix answers
most distinctly: Non, sed est illi coaeterna. A little after, he assigns the reason
why he does not believe that the world of light was produced by God : Quod
nascitur, finem habet : quod innatura, non habet finem. It appears that from
this principle he reasoned thus : As the world of light will have no end, it of
course cannot have had abeginning: and, therfore, it was not made or generated
by God. After a few remarks not pertaining to our enquiry, he is again interro-
gated by Augustine : Hujus ergo terrae (Deus) non est Pater, sed Inhabitator?
And Felix unswers promptly: Etiam. Augustine proceeds: Ergo duae jam erunt
res ambae ingenitae, terra et Pater 1 To this Felix replies : Tnnno ires sunt,
Pater ingenitus, terra ingenila, et a'er ingenitus. Hence, it appears, that Manes
assigned to the world of light an atjnosphere, or supposed that world compassed
with air, just as ours is. That Manes supposed the same thing true of the world
of darkness, there can be no doubt. That world, therefore, together with lis
King or Lord, had existed from eternity. But, although both worlds have ever-
lasting duration and permanence, and cannot be overthrown or demolished, yet
it is possible that violence and injury should be done to them, or that some por-
tion of either should be taken from it, and that world thus become diminished.
278 Century III.— Section 41.
This is manifest beyond all doubt, from the war between the good and the
malignant first Principles, or the Kings and Lords of the two worlds. For in
this war, as we shall hereafter see, the King of darkness subjugated a portion
of the elements of the world of light, and likewise not a few of its inhabitants.
And of the same thingvve liave the best testimony, that of Manes himself, in his
Epistola Fundamenti. (apud Avgust. Disput, cum Felice, L. I. c« 19. p. 343. &c.
and in other places,) : Lucis vero beatissiniae Pater, sciens lahem magnam ac vas-
titalem, quae ex tenebris surgeret, adversus sua sancta impendere Saecula, nisi
quod e.\imium Numen opponat. The Demon therefore could harm the sancta
Scccula, or the jEo7is of God; and the danger from this source was to be re-
sisted. The same was true, unquestionably, of the world of darkness. Such
was the power of God, that although he could not subvert and annihilate the
empire of the Demon, yet he could, if he chose, invade it and dismember it.
But this he would not do ; because, it would have been injurious to the tran-
quillity and happiness of his own kingdom, if he had brought a portion of
[p. 759.] darkness into it.— Both worlds occupied very ample spaces, or were
of very great extent. Of the world of darkness. Manes himself says, (Epist.
Fundam. c. 15. p. 116. apud Avgusiinum.) : Tenebrarum terra profunda et im-
mensa magnitudine. But the world of light, the Manichaeans seem to have
made rather more extensive than the realm of darkness. I gather this from the
language of Augustine, (contra Epist Manichaei, c. 20. p. 118.) ; Dicantergo, quid
adjungebatur terrae lucis, si ex uno latere erat gens tenebrarum ? Non dicunt :
sed cum premuntur, ut dicant, infinita dicunt esse alia latera terrae illius, quam
lucem vocant, id est, per infinita spatia distendi et nullo fine cohiberi. Aiayies
iiimself had not said this; for he spoke only in general terms, of the limits of
the two worlds. But his disciples, when hard pressed, so explained their mas-
ter's views : and, indeed, they had reason so to explain them. For he had said,
(in Epist. Fund.) : Juxta unam vero partem ac latus illustris illius ac sanctae ter-
rae erat tenebrarum terra profunda. According to his idea, only one side of the
world of light was bounded by the world of darkness. Therefore the Mani-
chneans inferred that the other sides, not being bounded, had no limits, but ex-
tended into infinite space. From this, it necessarily follows, that the world of
light is more ample and extensive than the world of darkness. For that thing,
which is contiguous to only one jiai't or side of something, the other sides of
which, being unbounded, are free and without limits; — that thing, undoubtedly,
is smaller or less extensive than the thing to which it is contiguous ; although
it may, as Manes says, immensara profunditatem et magnitudinem habere, or,
may extend over a very large and unbounded space. — In the world of light,
eternal peace and uninterrupted happiness reign. For all its inhabitants being
the progeny of th« beneficent nature of God, there can be no place for discord
and enmity among them : and as all are perfectly happy, in their respective
spheres, they cannot be disquieted or moved by the desire of greater happiness.
But far different is the state of the world of darkness. For there, all are con-
tinually at war with each other. Being naturally propense to broils, seditions,
and discord, no solid and stable peace can exist among them. Says Augustine,
(contra Faustum L. xxi. c. 14. p. 254, 255.) : Ilia gens, inquiunt (Manichaei) ex-
Mankhimn Dualism. 279
cento CO, quod virinne luei m.ln erat, et apud se ipsam m.Ia crat.-Vastabant
.e inviccn, laedok.nt, occidebnnt, absumebant. (This must be understood of
tbe ani,nals living in tl>e ir.ngdom of darkness,, of wl, eh wo are soon o speak.
For the progeny of the Prince of darl<ness, arc equally .nunortal with the off-
BDrim' of the Lord of light.) , . ., ., r
But the words ligU and darkness, used by Manes to denote the .natter of
bis two worlds, or what they ealled the two natures or .uhslances, have not the
import eon,n,only assigned them; namely, that one of these worlds was com-
posed intirely of light, and the other wholly of darkness. This eommon mis-
Apprehension, which is found with some very learned men, is contrary to the
clearest assertions and declarations of Manes and h,s disciples. L,gU[v- '6«.]
is only one //(A part of the world of light, and darkness is only onei/^ft I».rt ot
the realm of darkness. But because light, from its very nature, is dillused
throu<.hout one of these worlds, and illumines the whole of it with "s splendor,
therefore, that whole happy region, inhabited by God himself is called l,ga,o,
the xoorld of light. And moreover, God is himself light ; and he undoubtedly
diffuses the splendor of his nature throughout all the realm over which he reigns.
On the other hand, as the darkwss from its very nature, obscures the whole re-
gion of which it constitutes a fifth part, and spreads a sort of cloud over aU
fhe elements of it, that i^ra jestfera, (as Manes expresses it,) - -• «> " -■^'^
or realm of darkness. Not that there is no light at all in the world of daikness ,
for it contains>e, which of course must emit light. But the darkness in con-
tact with this fire, causes it to emit very little light, and almost to assume the
nature of darkness. n ^i •
Manes distributed each of these worlds, from which lie supposed all things
were formed, into ft^e deme,Us and five provinces. Of the world of darkness,
he has left us this full description, in his Epistola Fundamenti, (apud Augus-
tinum c 15 P. 116.) : Juxta unam vero partem ac latus illustris lllius ac sanctas
terr<e erat teuebrarum terra profunda et immensa magnitudine, m qua habita-
bant ignea corpora, genera seilicit pestifera. (i. e. the Demons, with thoir
Prince ) Hie infinita, tenebr<c, (Here is the first element,) ex eadem manantes
natura ina^stimabilescum proiuiis fetibus : ultra quas erant aqua, c<.«os<c (the
second element) ac turbid^ cum suis inhabitatoribus ; quarum mterius urm
horribiles ac vehementes (the third element) cum suo Principe ac genitoribus.
Rursnm regio ignea ac eorruptibilis (that is, which has power to corrupt, de-
stroy, or consume ; not that it is itself corruptible or consumable) cum suis
ducibus et nationibus : (_lho fourth element.) Pari more introrsum gens cal.gzms
ac fumi plena, (ih. fifth element,) in qua morabatur immanis Princeps omii....u e
dux, habens circa se innumerabiles Principes, quorum omnium ipse eia ne s
atque orl™ : ho^que fuerunt nature quim,ue terra, pestifera, I will suVyo n a
exhact f^om Avgustine, (de H.resibus e. 46. p. 11.) which throws light on
some parts of this description ; .juingne eUmenla, quic genuerunt P"" W™'
prios,genti tribuunt tenebrarum ; eaque elementa h^» nominibus i uncupant.
fumum, tenehras, ignem, a,uam, rerUum. (This is -/'-"-'; f„,,';Pn,,'
and does uot clearly and fully exhibit the opinion of Mmes A gus ne a,,o
chan.'cs the order of the elements.) Ufumo nata anim:.ha bipedia, uiidu ho-
280 Century IIL—Section 41.
mines duccre origincm censent, in tenehris serpentia, in igne quadrupedia, in
aquis natutilia, in xento volatilia. See also Avgusline against Faustus, (L. ii„
c. 3. pp. 133, 134.) — We will elucidate these whims a little.— The world of
darkness is like an immense dwelling house, which is five stories higli, and each
[p. 761.] story having its own elementary matter, its Prince, its inhabitants, and
its animals ; the last all venimous and noxious, and resembling our noxious
animals. In each story, therefore, we may distinguish /aur things :^rs/, the
elementary matter; secondly, the Prince who presides over the province;
third! y,the subordinate rulers who aid the Prince in the government; and lastly,
the animals corresponding with the several elements. The elements themselves
are fecund, or have the power of generation; foY Augustine says: Suos sibi
Principes gennerunt. Nor does he pervert the views of Manes ; for we have a
passage of his, which confirms what Augustine says, in Titus Bostrensis,
(contra ]Manich<3eos, L. i. in Canisii Lectt. Antiquis, tom. i. p. 68.) : ^Hv yhfi ttots
^naiv, OTS « vK» HraKTHyKui iyevvsL nai iiu^dnTO, Kai S'liiTeXst TroXXa; Trpo^AWofAivn
•Tt/vciyMgK. Erat, inquit Manichseus, (doubtless in his Liher Mysteriorum, which
Titus had read ;) tempus, cum materia sine ordine ferebatur, et generabat et
crescebat, ac raultas potestates producebat. Those Princes, therefore, or the
Governors of provinces in the world of darkness, neither existed necessarily and
from eternity, nor were they the offspring of the King of darkness. Whether
the inferior magistrates also originated from the elements, or were the progeny
of the Princes, seems to be doubtful. Yet, I suspect, they were begotten by
the princes: for the supreme Lord of darkness generated his own subordinate
commanders and ministers; and it is probable, that the Governors of provinces
possessed the same powders. Besides, Manes makes express mention of births
in the realm of darkness. The first animals that inhabited the several stories of
the edifice, undoubtedly, were the product of the elements in which they lived.
And these propagated their species, in the same manner that our animals do.
This will very clearly appear from a passage soon to be cited. The inferior ele-
ments produce only the imperfect animals; and the more exalted the elements
are, the more perfect are the beings they produce. The highest element pro-
duces the most perfect animals, namely, those most resembling human beings. —
The inhabitants of all the stories are continually warring and fighting with each
other; and animals, which are mortal, also devour and consume one another.
Manes says, (apud Titum Bostrcns. ubi supra, p. 70.) : '■H^ayvcv xat xjtT»V3-/oy
it i'^ duTMf dXX>;Ao/?, Sliva. jtai "^rfhiTra S^tnTXaevTig. Qui ex malitia nati sunt, se
mutuo insectati sunt et devoraverunt, dura et gravia passi. More might be said
on these points, but it is not necessary. I proceed rather to a consideration of
the elements themselves, on which some remarks may not be useless. Augustine
has much to say of them, (contra Epist. Fundamenti, e. 28. p. 122.) but, as he
too often is, he is more harsh and energetic than was necessary; nor did he
understand the nature of these elements.
The lowest element, and that which produced reptile animals, was tenebraoi
infinitcc ; that is, wide and infinitely extended darlcness. But Manes did not, as
commonly supposed, understand by the word darkness, what we do, the mere
[p. 762.] absence of light; for, infatuated as he doubtless was, he was not so
Manichccaii Dualism. 281
infatuated as to believe that daikness, in tlie proper sense of the word, can bo
ranked among elementary substances. And tiie Manichteans themselves, (apud
Avgiisi. loco citato, p. 124.) denied, that their darkness was the same as ours:
Non tales erant illai tenebra3 quales hie nosti. Manes wrote in Syriac, as wo
learn from T/Z».s Bostrensis ; and perhaps his Latin translator did not adeijuately
express his meaning. The darkness of Manes was, undoubtedly, earth; which
being opaque, and emitting no light, might be called darkness. This is not only
manifest from the earthly and reptile animals generated from this darkness, but
the thing itself shows it. For unless by darkness Manes meant earth, he ex-
cluded earth from among tlie elements; which is altogether incredible, and
would be foreign from his views. For his superior world had the same number
of elements, and of the same kinds, as our world has; and that earth is one of
the elements of our world. Manes and all the Persians believed. Therefore,
from this immense mass of earth, destitute of all light, arose, according to Ma-
nes, ina:,stimabiles (i. e. innumerable) naturae (for thus doubtless it should read,
instead of natura, as in the copies of Augustine,) and moreover, fetus, (i. e. the
proper animals of the earth, serpents, vipers, worms, insects, and all that are
destitute of feet and creep upon the ground.) — Adjacent to earth or darkness,
was the element of loater ; filled, in like manner, with its appropriate inhabitants.
But this tvater was not pure and limpid; it was polluted by the contiguous
earth, and therefore turbid and dark-colored. — The third element, adjacent to
the water, was loind; which likewise had its Prince, its generators, and its ani-
mals, namely, birds; yet not beautiful, harmless, and singing birds, but such as
were savage and ferocious. Beware also of supposing that Manes understood
by wind, what we understand by it, namely, a strong motion of the air. He was
a senseless man, yet not so senseless as to account motion an elementary body,
giving birth to various material beings. His wind was air ; yet air obscured
with clouds, and immensely and vehemently agitated. This appears from the
thing itself, and also from the animals which lived in the wind, for they were all
aisrial. — Above the wind was the fourth region, which comprised ^ire, the fourth
element. Here lived those quadrupeds whose natures most resembled JirCy
vvhich destroys and consumes objects : namely, savage beasts, lions, tigers, ele-
phants, bulls, and panthers. To the gentler animals, and those serviceable to
mankind, such as sheep, cows, horses, &.c. I suppose, he did not assign a place
in the world of darkness. The Manicha3ans being asked, (apud August, loco
cit. c. 32. pp. 12-1, 125.) why their master placed quadrupeds in the region of
fire, replied: Quod quadrupedes edaces sint ; (this, I suppose, "means rajyaciow."?,
voracious, inclined to bite,) ei in concuhitum mullum ferveanl. — The highest and
most elevated of the elements, the fifth in number, but the first in rank, was
smoke; in which resided the Prince of the whole world of darkness, [p. 763.]
encompassed with avast multitude of jprinces and dukes, who were his offspring.
It appears strange, that Manes should place among the elements, and above all
the others, smoke, which is merely a vapor, elicited and dislodged from burning
bodies: and still more strange, that the King of the whole realm of d;irkness
should dwell in smoke; and that the animals produced from smoke should be
more perfect than any others; for they resembled men in form, were bipeds, and
282 Century III— Section 41.
they generated men. Says Augustine, (contra Faustum, L. xxi. c. 1 4. p. 256.) :
Illi prineipi non tantum sui generis, id est, bipedes, quos parentes hominum dici-
tis, sed etiam cuncta animalia ceterorum generura subditi erant et ad ejus nutum
convertebantur. And hence he ridicules this fifth element, (contra Epistolain
Munich, c. 32. p. 125.) and says: Bipedes fumus offocat atque necat. - - At hie
fumus bipedes suos — vitaliter atque indulgenter educaverat et continebat. But
I can suppose there was no just cause for his ridicule. Perhaps, the Latin trans-
lator of the Epistola Fundamenti, did not understand the meaning of the Syriae
word used by Manes. Those better acquainted with the Syriae language than
am, can judge. But I may safely say, that such smoke as ours, was not in-
tended by Manes, but a material substance more suitable for procreating animals
superior to all others. The smoke of Manes was, undoubtedly, that element
which was considered the first by the ancients, and wliich they called ether ; or,
as Cicero describes it, (de Natura Deor. L. ii. c. 36.) : extrema ora atque deter-
minatio mundi, complexus coeli omnia cingens et coercens, ardor coelestis. This
may be inferred from the fact, that it is contrasted with air ; as we shall pre-
sently see. But this element, being in the world of darkness like the rest, was
contaminated and corrupted; and having a resemblance to smoke, it might be
called smoke. Pure genuine ether is thin and transparent; but this was dense,
turbid, dark, and cloudy. These remarks go to show, why the malignant Lord
of the dark world dwelt in this element as his home.
Correspondent with these five elements in the pestiferous world, there are
five elements in the world of light, and arranged, doubtless, in the same order ;
yet they are salutary, beautiful, benign, and replete with happy and beneficent
inhabitants. Says Augustine, (de Hseres. c. 46. p. H.) the Manichaeans teach:
His quinque dementis malis debellandis alia quinque elementa de regno et sub-
stantia Dei (Here is some mistake. The substance of God, as we shall see, was
the purest light, with no admixture of any other substance. Therefore, these
elements are not composed of the substance of God, but only of the empire of
God) missa esse, et in ilia pugna permixta, fumo a&ra, tenebris lucem, igni malo
ignem bonum, aquae mala3 aquam bonam, vento malo ventum bonum. There is
also much said by Augustine respecting these five celestial elements, in his work
against Faustus, (L. xi. c. 3. and L. xx. c. 9.) But he does not arrange these
[p. 764.] elements in their proper order. The last and lowest element in the
kingdom of God, is light. And, as it is opposed to the darkness in the kingdom
of darkness, it undoubtedly is a material substance, resembling earth, yet white
and colorless, shining, pellucid, and thin. Manes calls it Lucidam ac beatam
terram, (in his Epistola Fund, apud August, c. 13. p. 115.) And, because the
splendor of this element is diffVised through the whole realm of God, therefore
this realm is pronounced splendidissimum. — Next came good water; that is,
water pure and limpid, free from ail earthly particles and feculency ; for the evil
water was, as Manes says, ccenosa et turbida. — The third element was good wind;
that is, air moving gently and placidly, and tempering agreeably the heat pro-
duced by the inferior light and the superior fire. — This was followed by good
-fire; which, as it is opposed to igni corruptibili, i. e. to devouring and consum-
ing fire, unquestionably, only warms, revives, and fecundates, like the fire
Manichccan Dualism. 283
of the Fun, nnd does rot consume and destroy. — The uppermost clomcnt,
conlrnstod with the smoke, was air ; not that which is moved, and wMiich Manes
called lo'md; but the purest and most refined ether, encompassing and embracing
the whole realm of light. — Of the Princes and the animals of these five provinces
of the world of light, I find no where a description. But as the world of light
was the counterpart of the world of darkness, I doubt not, that Manes assigned
to each of these elements its Prince, its magistrates and inhabitants, and also
its foetus, or animals.
You may say, these are whims, and more suitable for old w'omen and
cliildren. than for a man of sense. I grant it: they are so. Yet they have their
grounds and reasons in the first principles of the Manichaan doctrine; and
therefore the man did not trifle, but reasoned consequentially from his premises.
Like the Persians and many others among the ancients, (as appears from
Apuleius, de Mundo, § 29.) Manes supposed this, our world, to be composed of
J? re elements, earth, water, fire, air, and ether. And one of his fundamental doc-
trines was, that our world is a compound of the commingled elements of I he tioo
upper worlds, the good and the evil. For he despaired of accounting for the
existence of evil, unless he admitted two first principles above us, from the
commingling of which this our world originated. Hence, this reason, — if a ne-
cessity resulting from an assumed dogma may be called a reason, — this reason, I
say, led him to suppose the worlds above to be composed of the same elements as
ours is, and those elements arranged in much the same order as we here behold
them. If he had assigned any other constitution, either to the world of light,
or to the world of darkness, he could not have accounted for the condition of
our world, and the changes which occur in it.
(3) That the founder of the Manichaean sect inculcated the belief of two
Deities or Gods, is declared by most persons, both ancient and modern. But
the erudite Beausohre is dissatisfied, and contends earnestly, that they [p. 765.]
believed indeed in two first Principles, but by no means in two Gods. (See his
Histoire de Manichee, tome i. p. 488.) He relies chiefly on the authority of
Faust us ; (apud August, contra Faust. L. xxi. c. 1. p. 250.) who, being interro-
gated: Unus Deus est, an Z)mo .^ quickly replied : Plane unus : and then in-
veighed severely against those who explain otherwise the doctrine of his sect.
He said : Nunquara in nostris quidem assertionibus duorum Deorura auditum
est nomen. - - Est quidem quod duo Principia confitemur, sed unwn ex his
Deum vocamus. - - Quapropter inepta haec et viribus satis effeta est argumen-
tatio. Augustine strenuously confutes Faustus : but he fails to satisfy Beau-
sohre, who afliirms that in this controversy Faustus had the best of the argument:
and proceeding still farther, he maintains that no one of the ancient heretics
taught the existence of two Deities. I think otherwise ; and I do not consider
them in error, who declare that the Manicha3ans preached two Gods. This in-
deed, both Faustus and his learned patron have proved, that the Manichaeans
applied the name God to only the good Principle, and not also to the bad ; and
yet Faustus does not deny, that sometimes, the Prince of darkness is also called
God by the Manicha3ans : Nee diffiteor, etiam interdum nos adversam natur.nm
nuncnpare Deum, sed non hoc secundum nostram fidem, verum juxta praisump-
284 Century III.— Section 41.
turn jam in onm nonion a cuUoribus suis. But the question is not about the
name, but about tlie thin<r. We commonly designate by the name God, a being
who is eternally self-existent, and suliject to tlie authority and control of no
other being. Now, of this character were both the good Principle and the evil
Principle, according to the opinion of the ManichcBans. And therefore, they
truly held to two Gods, notwithstanding they, for distinction's sake, applied the
name God only to the good Principle. And if one should change the definition,
and say ; God is not only an eternally self-existent being, but also one possessed
of all conceivable perfections, and the cause of all things; this would not
answer his purpose. For, according to this definition, the Manichceans held to
no God at all ; because they did not suppose their good Principle to be abso-
lutely perfect, nor the cause of all things : so that he would not deserve the title
of God, according to this definition. Yet I will grant, that in a certain sense,
the Manichoeans believed in but one God : namely, they supposed that only
the good Principle was to be worshipped and honored. And, therefore, if it
should be said, that the Being whom all men should religiously worship and
adore, is God, then the Manichieans are free from the charge brought against
them. And yet, in another sense, they may most justly be charged with what
is called Dualism ; that is, with holding to two Divinities.
Respecting the nature and attributes of the good Principle, I purpose to
speak in the next section. Here I shall only make some remarks on the coinci-
[p. 766.] dences and the discrepancies between the good and the bad Principles,
and on the character and conduct of the bad Principle. — And first, that the bad
Principle was co-eternal with the good Principle, and equally self-existent, or
dependent on no antecedent cause, is beyond all controversy. Manes himself
says, (npud Titum Bostrens. L. i. p. 87.) : ^ot.ra.vas «v Trovipdi, kuI oun ttots
OVK m, dii yap i)v. Y^cti oux. dn-i T/vcf i'V, i\v yap. Kai pi^a. «v, ?«o-t> Kai )'u'
Kvpic;, xai dvTdi h. I Will translate this more clearly and accurately than
Fi-ancis Turrian does, who is not always the best translator : Malus erat Sa-
tanas ; neque tempus est, quo non erat : ffiternus enim est, neque originem ab
aliquo acccpit. Necessario enim et per se existebat. Et erat radix, inquit
Manes, (who speaks in the Oriental style. Radix is equivalent to pater or geni-
ior, one who begets a numerous offspring.) Et erat Dominus (i. e. he had an
immense empire,) et idem erat (i. e. was immutable, arid could not become ex-
tinct, nor change his nature.) — Secondly, the generative power of both Princes
or their power of procreating beings like themselves, is immense. And there-
fore each of them has produced innumerable beings like himself. Manes, in
his Epislola Fundament!, (apud August, c. 13. p. 115.) expressly calls God illus-
irem patrem ac genitorem (innumerab ilium) beaiorum et gloriosorum scccnlormn,
(i, e. of jEons). More passages to the same effect, will occur hereafter. Of
the evil Principle, he says, (ibid. c. 15. p. 116.): Ilabens circa se innumerabiles
principes, quorum omnium erat mens atque origo. The Demon was the mind
(mens) of all his children ; because they received their minds or souls out of
him, and had malignant minds, inclined, like his, to do evil. — Lastly, that the
evil Principle possessed an immensely fertile genius, vast subtilty and sagacity,
and consummate and amazing power, the plans which he devised, and actually
Mankhccaii Dualism. 285
carried into effect, put beyond nil question. — These are the particulars in which
tiie two Divinities were alike. But in other respects they were very unlike. —
1. The essential natures of the two Princes were tot.illy ditlerent. For God
was light, or his essence was li^Wit ; as we shall show hercafler. But the De-
mnn had a black opaque body, resembling smoke, i. e. foul ether ; as we have
before shown ; and hence he bore the name of darkness. Augustine, when he
was a Manichtean, doubted whether the Demon's substance was earth, or was
air or ether. For thus he writes, (in his Confessions, L. v. e. 10. 0pp. toin. i.
p. 84.) : nine enim et mail substantiam quandam eredebam esse talem, et ha-
bere suam molem tetram ac deformem, sive crassam, quam terram dicebant, (It
appears from this passage, that the Manicha3ans made ea.rth to be one of the
elements of the evil world : whence it follows, that what I before stated is true,
viz. that the darkness of Manes was simply earth,) sive tenuem atque subtileni,
slcut est aeris corpus, quam malignam mentem per illam terram (tene- [p. 767.]
brarum) repentem imaginantur. — But ]I. the pious and ingenious man was un-
necessarily in doubt : for Manes clearly taught, as we have seen, that the
Prince of evils dwelt in smoke or corrupt ether, the counterpart to pure ether
or air; whence, manifestly, his body was etherial or analagous to smoke. And
when Augustine says, the Demon creeps (repere) through the whole world of
darkness, according to the opinion of the Manichaeans ; he indicates, that tlie
Demon's body was afiuid; which it might be, if it were e/7ier,but not if it were
earth. — III. Grod was not confined to any particular part of the vi^orld of light ;
but, like an immense luminary, he overspread and filled his whole empire. But
the Prince of darkness resided in a single element of his realm ; namely, the
uppermost, which they called smoke : although his influence, as Augustine says,
(repit) creeps or extends through that whole world. We had before learned
the same thing, from Manes himself. — IV. God had no definite form ; or at
least, he had not the human form : as we learn from Augustine, (Confess. L. v.
c. 10. p. 184.) For Augustine says, that he had formerly been pleased with the
Manichasan doctrine, because it attributed to God no human form. But the
Prince of darkness had a body altogether similar to a human body. Says Au-
gustine, (contra Faustum L. xx. c. 14. p. 255.) Illi principi non tantura sui gene^
ris, id est, bipedes, quos parentes hominum dicitis, sed etiam cuncta animalium
ceterorum genera subdita erant. The Demon was therefore a biped ; and he
also begat bipeds of his own species, that is, resembling men. Other proofs in
confirmation of this point, the reader may easily collect out of the citations yet
to be made. The Prince of darkness was, therefore, properly, as Manes says,
immanis dux, a monster, a giant of immense bulk, like the Micromegas of an
ingenious man, and like the Typhccus of ancient Greece. Manes wrote a book
expressly on Giants, rdv yiyavnm /ii&Kov, as Photius says, (Bibliothcca Cod.
85. p. 204.) In that work he doubtless treated of the Prince of demons, and
of his satellites and ministers ; and applied what the ancients tell us of the war
of the Giants against the Gods, to the conflict between the good Principle and
the bad. — V. These Giants, procreated by the Prince of Giants, were of both
sexes, male and female ; and they propagated their race, just as men do, by
their wives. This is manifest from a signal passage in the seventh book of the
286 Century IIL—Section 41.
Thesaurus ot Manes, which Augustine cites, (de natura boni contra Manichfeos,
c. 44. p. 365.) : Potestates (niaUo) qua? in singulis ca3loruTn tractibus ordinatae
sunt ex utroque sexu masculoi'um ac focininarura consistunt. Another passage,
proving clearly the same thing, will be cited further on. Augustine frequently
touches upon this subject; e. g. (contra Faust. L. xxi. c. 10. p. 253.): Ilinc
etiani prolis fecunditas (among the inhabitants of the world of darkness) suppe-
[p.768.] tebat ; nam et conjugia tribuunt eis. And the Prince of Darkness him-
self had a wife, as will appear further on ; and, when a captive, he burned with
lust, and even sought coition with a female being of another race, as we shall
see in the proper place. But the citizens of the happy world, are not of differ-
ent sexes; and of course do not beget and bring forth children. — VI. Although
the realm of the Prince of darkness is vastly extensive, yet it is narrower and
smaller than that over which God reigns. For the world of light is bounded
only on one side. This I have before showed : and I now confirm it, by a very
noted passage in Augustine's Confessions, (L. v. c. 10. p. 84.): Quia Deura
bonum nullam malam naturamcreasse,qualiscunque pietas me credere eogebat,
constituobam (when a Manichsean) ex adverso sibi duas moles, (i. e. two worlds,
of light and darkness,) w^rflW2(/ue injinitam, sed malam angustius, honam gran-
dins. - - Et magis plus mihi videbar, si te, Deus meus, cui confitentur ex me
miserationes tuae, vel ex ceteris partibus infinitum crederem, quamvis ex una,
qua tibi moles mail opponebatur, cogerer infinitum (so the Benedictine edition
reads ; but most corruptly. For it is clear as day, that for infiniium, it should
read finitum) fateri, quam si ex omnibus partibus in corporis humani forma te
opinarer fiiiiri. But whether the Manichseans, when they said the realm of light
was (infinitum) unbounded on all sides but one, and {finitum) bounded on that
one side only, used the word infinitum absolutely, for that which has no limits
whatever ; or only in the sense of indefinite, or whose limits exceed human
comprehension and measurement ; I must leave undecided. The whole doctrine
of the Manicha3ans respecting the boundaries of both kingdoms, is very difficult
to be comprehended ; nor could they themselves, when questioned, explain it. —
VII. The Prince of darkness was wholly destitute of the moral virtues, justice,
veracity, benevolence, &:c. ; for he vexed, afflicted and harrassed his subjects,
and his own children. But God, on the contrary, cherished his subjects and his
children in every way, and heaped upon them all the blessings he could. —
VIII. The Demon undoubtedly possessed ingenuity, subtil ty, and a knowledge
of many things ; but in this respect, God was superior to him : as may appear
from the simple fact, that God had known the existence of the realm of dark-
ness, but the Demon and his princes, for an infinite length of time, had no
knowledge of the realm of light. Manes himself says, (apud Titum Bostrens.
L. i. edit. Canisii tom. i. p. 70.) : 'E7retuo-a.vTo "ctKXyiXoti iTrAVlard/uivol, fj^sxf"- o^"
TO pwf o-^ivcn £?w/)a(r*v - - dy-vcovvrig fAiv, k. t. X. Principes tenebrarum non
prius desierunt in se ipsos moveri, quam lumen sero tandem viderent, quod antea
ignorahant. The Father of light himself confessed ih^ power of the Prince of
darkness ; as Manes has informed us, in his Epistola Fundamenti, (apud Au-
gust, de natura boni, c. 42. p. 364.) : Lucis vero beatissimae Pater sciens labem
magnam ac vastitatem, quae ex tenebris surgeret, adversus sua sancta impendere
The Good God of Manes. 287
saecula. The General of the race of darkness could therefore do much [p. 769.]
harm, — not indeed to the realm of light, but to tiie sancla Scccula of God, that
is, to his holy JEons. Yet the victory of God over him, is indubitable evidence
of the inferiority of the Demon in power.
S XLII. Nature and Attributes of the good God or Principle.
The God wlio governs the world of light, is, as it were, an im-
mense sun: and consists wholly of the purest light^ much more
subtile than our light, wonderfully diffused through his whole
realm. He has twelve members^ equally bright and splendid ; and
an innumerable family^ who abound in every species of good
things. For he had begotten from himself an immense number
of most happy ^S(-t^a/?a ; that is, immutable and enduring Beings.
But though the highest and greatest Being, yet he is finite, and
limited to a certain space ; and of course, is not omnipresent. His
natural powers also have their limits. For he does not know all
things, nor foresee future events, nor can he accomplish all his
pleasure ; and much less, can he effect his purposes solely by his
volitions. But his moral virtues^ his goodness, beneficence, justice,
sanctity, and love of truth, can be confined within no bounds, nor
be limited or restrained by anything. (')
(1) As I am about to treat of the nature and attributes of that good Prin-
ciple which Manes called God, and in accordance with his views, T will exhibit
as my pattern and guide, that description of God, which Manes himself gave in
his Epistola Fundamenti ; and will illustrate it by testimonies from other sources.
— In Augustine^ s Book against the Epistle of Manes, (c. 13. p. 115.) Manes
says : Luminis quidem imperium tenebat Deus Pater, in sua sancta stirpe perpe-
tuus, in virtute magnificus, natura ipsa verus, seternitate propria semper exsul-
tans, continens apud se sapientiam et sensus vitales : per quos etiam duodecim
membra luminis sui comprehendit, regni videlicet propril divitias affluentes. In
unoquoque au^em membrorum ejus sunt recondita millia innumerubilium et
immeusorum thesaurorum. Ipse vero Pater in sua laude preecipuus magnitu-
dine incomprehensibilis, copulata habet sibi beata et gloriosa Saecula, neque nu-
mero, neque prolixitate a3stimanda, cum quibus idem sanctus et illustris Pater
et Genitor degit, nullo in regnis ejus insignibus aut indigente aut infirmo con-
stitute. Ita autem fundata sunt ejusdem splendidissima regna supra lucidam
et beatam terram, ut a nullo unquam aut moveri aut concuti possint. In tliis
magnificent description of God, some things stand out clearly ; namely the eter-
nity of God, his sanctity or his magnificenlia tirlutis, as Manes speaks, his im-
mutability, his love of truth, his wisdom, and his necessary existence, [p. 770.]
These, therefore, I shall pass over, and confine myself to those things wJiich are
involved in some obscurity, or are stated too briefly.
I. Manes gives only a passing notice of that light, of which God is com-
288 Centunj III— Section 42.
posed, by saying that the Lumen Dei has twelve nierabers. But there are many
other testimonies at hand, which put it beyond all doubt, that Manes made
the essence of God to be the purest ligliL For he uniformly calls God fwj, lu-
cem, TO dvc:,TaTov f wj, svpremam lucem, to dihov ?wj lucem sempiternam. See
the fragments of his Epistles, inJo. Alb. Fahricius' Bibliotheca Gra3ca, (vol. v.
p. 284, 285.) Avgusline, in his Confessions, (L. v. c. 10. p. 84.) agreeably to the
views of Manichaeans, whom he once followed, says: Ipsum quoque Salvato-
vem nostrum tanquam de massa lucidissimcc molis iucc porreetum ad nostram
salutem, (<iuum Manichaeus essem) putabam. Most accurately expressed ! For
Manes supposed God to be a formless but splendid mass ; that is, light wholly
without form, and spreading over infinite space. Faustus, (apud August. L. xx.
p. 237.) says: Patrem quidem ipsum lucem incolere credimus summam ac prin-
cipalem, quam Paulus alias inaccessibilem vocat. — These views of the nature of
God, Manes held, in common with most ancient nations of the East, with the
Gnostics also, and even with not a few christians, who were otherwise orthodox
in regard to the Deity. Whoever, therefore, would form a conception of the
happy world of Manes, must picture to himself a world just like our terraque-
ous o-lobe, but larger, and one in which God supplies the place of the sun : for
his heaven was like our earth, and was composed of the same elements as our
world, though purer and nobler: and what the sun is in our world, God was in
the world of light. And much the same idea is to be formed of his world of
darkness, which was the counter part to the world of light. For that world also
had the form of our world, and included the same elements, though deteriorat-
ed : and in the uppermost element, the ether, resided that most savage Giant,
the Lord of that world.— But while Manes believed God to be light, he suppos-
ed this divine light to differ from the light which falls upon our visual organs.
The light of God, as he supposed, is to be apprehended only by the mind in
thinking, and not by our senses or bodily eyes. Titus Bostrensis, (contra Ma-
nichaeos L. i. p. 72.) quotes thus from Manes: Qfov fAh Io-tI pwj dia-^nTov
i'iifxiivfyhfA.dL^ dwros ^i av hn vojjtov, ovk dir^nTdv. Lumen sub sensus cadens
Dei quidem opus est, ipse vero Deus lumen est intelligibile, non sensibile. And
Augustine, who assails the opinions of the Manichaeans with all his might,
frankly owns, that they discriminated between the light which is the essence of
God, and that grosser kind of light which meets our eyes : (contra Faustum L.
XX. p. 238.) : Quando enim discrevistis/'/cew, qua cernimus, ab ea luce, qua in-
telligimus, cum aliud nihil unquam putaveritis esse intelligere veritatcm, nisi
formas corporeas cogitare, &c.
[p. 771.] n. Although this lucid mass of God, which resembled the sun, had
no form; yet, besides wisdom or the power of understanding and judging, ac-
cording to Manes, it had sensus vitales. The import of this language, can be
nothing but this ; that, although God was destitute of a human form, and con-
sequently, of eyes, ears, nose, and the other organs of sense, yet he had the fa-
culty of sensation and perception ; that is, he could see, hear, percieve, and know
every object external to him.
III. God, by these senses, as !Manes says : Duodecim membra luminis sui
comprehendit, regni videlicet proprii divitias affiuentes. Here he seems to present
77/ (? Good God. 039
to ns a great enigma. The light of God has twcke members. \Vliat are those
members? Beaxisobve co\^]Q^.•X\\ve9, (vol. i. p. 510.) lliat we are to understaiid
by them the twelve pourrs of the divine nature, or in the language of philoso-
piiers, his perfections, which in Oriental phraseology j\lanes eall.s members. But
tiiis conjecture is, by the very language of Manes, divested of all semblance of
truth. For he says, God comprehends these members, by his sensus vilales. But
how could God, I ask, by his sensus vitales, that is, by the power of sensation
and perception which was in him, comprehend the peifectioiis inherent in his na-
ture ] How could he, for instance, by his faculty of (sen.sitive) perception, com-
prehend (or apprehend) his wisdom and goodness? Again; In each of these
lucmhevs-.Recodita, sunt milUa innunier ah ilium et immcnsormn ihesauroriim. How
can this be said of the perfections of the divine nature ? Take whichever of
them you please, his power, his justice, his goodness; and see, if there can be
conceived to be, innumerable and immense treasures in it? Lastly; To omit
other arguments, Manes clearly distinguishes these members of God, from his
perfections or attributes, from his authority, his truth, his eternity, his immen-
sity.— I, indeed, have no doubt, that these twelve members are so many lucid
masses, or globes, originating and proceeding from the divine Being; and either
■encompassing the happy world like satellites, or moving through its interior, illu-
minating and fecundating it. For Manes calls them members of the light of
God, which God comprehends by his sensus vitales; that is, which, though sepa-
rate and distinct from God, are yet seen, perceived, and governed by him. And
in each of them are innumerable treasures; viz. multifarious specimens of the
divine wisdom, power, and goodness; the riches of nature, of various kinds and
uses. Finally there were diviticc affiuentes, not of God, hwt proprii regni Dei;
that is, from these very splendid globes, various good things descended upon
the whole kingdom of God, and on tlie inhabitants of all its elements. And the
Prince of these divine members, I suppose, was Christ ; whom the Manichauma
regarded as a light of the second rank, proceeding from the most lucid mass of
God. For Manes, in his Epistola Fundamenti, calls him the right arm of lights
as if he were the principal member of the divine light : Dextera luminis tueatur
et eripiat vos ab omni incursatione maligna. On the rest of the de- [p. 772.]
Bcription, I have nothing to say.
IV. Copulata sibi Deus habet beata et gloriosa scccida, quoe nee numero, ncc
prolixitate sestimari possunt. In the Syriac of Manes, undoubtedly, was the
word Holam, for which the Latin translator used Sa^culum, The Greeks ex-
press it by 'Atoji/. By this word the Gnostics, and with them Manes, denoted
beings of a divine origin, and therefore, etherial, immortal, and enduring. We,
in scripture language, might call the Scecvia of Manes Angels. These ^ojis of
Manes, like their Parents, lacked a human form, and must be conceived to bo
small shining masses or bodies. The JEons of the Gnostics were of both sexes,
male and female. But Manes admitted of marriages only in the world of dark-
ness ; and therefore his Scccula had no sexual distinctions. They were the off-
spring of God, or emanated from the divine nature. But what Manes meant
when he said Deum esse in sancta sua stirpe perpetuum, I cannot satisfactorily
determine. He seems to mean, that the progeny of God, or these Seecula, were
VOL. IL 20
290 Century III— Section 42.
equally enduring and eternal with God himself, so that the eternity of God was
imparted to his offspring. But his meaning may be, that God is alv\ ays or for
ever generating new Siecuhi. In like manner, I do not understand what he
means, when he says of those glorious and happy Saecula: Nee froUxilate (cslt"
mart possunt. I can suppose he may mean, that the magnitude of the Saecuhi
is 80 great, that the human mind cannot estimate or comprehend it. Or can it
be, that the jn-olixilas attributed to them, denotes abundance of gifts and
virtues ?
V. While 3Ianes declares God to be magnitudine incomprehensibilem, lie
clearly denied his infinity. For he bounded the world of light by the world of
darkness; so that infinity, immensity, or absolute omnipresence, could not be at-
tributed to God. The world of darkness^ also, was equally eternnj and self-
existent with the world of light; and, therefore, it could not be subject to Godj
who, if he were pre&ent in that miserable and wretched region, would change
its nature, dispel its darkness, and bring joy and happiness to its inhabitants: all
which, according to Manes, \yas impossible. But what need of arguments?
Faustus, the most eloquent of the Manicha^ians, clearly states the views of his
sect in the following words, (apud August. L. xxv. c. 1. p. 307.): Summus et
verus Deus, utrum sit idem infniitus, necne, si qua3ritur, de hoc vero nos boni et
mali contrarietas breviter poterit edocere. Quoniam quidem si non est malum,
profecto infinitus est Deus: habet autem fineroy si malum est: constat autem
esse malum: non igitur infinitus est Deus: illinc enhn esse mala accipinnt (I
think, it should read: incipiunt) ubi bonorum est finis. Whetlier this pass;ige
is to be understood solely of the infinity of his nature or essence, or also of the
[p. 773.] infinity of his attributes or perfections, appenrs doubtful. The very
learned Beausohre, (vol. i. p. 503 &c.) who always defends the Manicha^ans,
maintains, that they denied the infinity of the divine nature, by inclosing their
God within local boundaries ; but they admitted the infinity of his attributes,
and particularly, they set no bounds to his knowledge and his power. Of this
we shall see presently. We here only show, that Faustus intended, this infinity
ehould be understood of both his nature and his attributes. For in the very
discussion from which the extract is taken, he aims to prove, that the catholic
Christians ascribed finite attributes to God, and therefore had the same views of
God as the Manicha^ans. The Christians, h* says, call God, the God of Abra-
ham, of Isaac, of Jacob, and the God of the Hebrews; they therefore limit the
power of God. He adds: Cujus autem finita potestas est, et ipse non caret fine.
He subjoins other similar arguments, which are no better, and winds up by say-
ing: Hie si est Deus (Abrahami, Isaaci, Jacobi) quern colitis, liquet ex hoc ad-
modum, quod habeat finem. Si vero infinitum Deum esse vultis, huic vos ante
rennnciare necesse est. His reasoning is ridiculous; yet, it puts it beyond all
doubt, that he joined both the kinds of infinity together: and respecting both
infinities, there was a discussion between orthodox Christians and Manichajans,
when the question was put to Faustus: Deus finem habet aut infinitus est?
For thus Faustus reasoned : Whoever is indued with finite attributes, is also
finite in his nature: And conversely: Whoever is of a finite nature, must
necessarily have finite attributes.
The Good God. 291
VI. The moral attributes of God, his love of truth, hia goodness, his justice
his beneficeucc, were undoubtedly bouudleas, according to Manich;i;an principles.
This is manifest from the language used by Manes. But his other attributes,
and especially his knowledge and power, beyond all controversy, had limits. As
to the limitation of the knowledge of the Manichaean God, I know not how any
one can doubt it, who is acquainted with the history of the war between the
good and the bad Principle. The Prince of the world of light knew not what
was taking place in the world of darkness, although he knew that such a world
existed. He did not foresee, that the Prince of darkness would make war upon
him and his kingdom : for, had he foreseen it, he would have erected barriers
against the assaults of the race of darkness, before the war commenced, as he
did afterwards. He did not foresee, that the commander whom he first sent
against the Demon, would be unsuccessful. He did not foresee, that in the eon-
tlict light would become mixed up with darkness. There are many other speci-
mens of the ignorance of this God; and when I consider them, 1 cannot but
wonder, that this perspicacious and extraordinary man should not have thought
of them, but could bring himself to believe this Deity to be like, the God of
CIn-istians. But love and hatred have a mighty influence. — As to the powei' of
this God : in the first place, it is very certain, that it differed greatly from the
power of the God whom we Christians worship. For our God can effect what-
ever he pleases, by his Jiat, his volition, or word. Not so the Manichaean
God. He was obliged to raise an army, in order to resist the troops [p. 774.]
of the Prince of darkness, to array force against force, and wage a regular war.
The same God could not, by his own power, rescue the light mixed with dark-
ness; but had to resort to cunning, counsel, sagacity, in order to recover his
property. Moreover, all that transpired between God and the Prince of dark-
ness, shows his power to be finite; for he encountered many obstacles, which
resisted the accomplishment of his wishes. The philosopher SimpUclus, (in his
Comment on Epiclelus, p. 164.) has shown at some length, that the God of the
Manichaeans did not possess unlimited power. — But the very learned man
{Bsausohre) reminds us, that Foriunalus the Manichjean, (Disputatio cum
Aiigustino, 0pp. tom. viii. p. 73 &c.) calls God nmnipolent. This is true: but it
is also equally true, that the Manichseans used this word in a far more limited
sense than the Christians do. In their view, indeed, God can do all things
which are not contrary to nature; but these things are numerous. He cannot
exterminate the Demon; he cannot destroy the kingdom of darkness; he can-
not extirpate evil ; he cannot restore to liberty the souls made captive by the
Demon, solely by his word or volition, but he must employ some artifice for
it; and finally, to pass by other things, he cannot produce ?natlej\ or create a
thing, as we say, out of nothing. All things that exist, from a natural necessity,
have existed from eternity. The God of the Manichaeans, therefore, like the
God of the Stoics, was obliged to yield to fate or necessity. — But, observes the
same learned man, (pp. 605, 606.) God could punish the whole army of dark-
ness, if he had been disposed; and he could so restrain them, that they could
neither efTect nor attempt any thing against him. But he would not, because
this miserable race was unworthy of his regard. In proof, he cites Avgnstine^
292 Centurij IIL—Sectlon 43.
(contra Adimantum Manieh. c. 7. p. 85.) who acknowledges that God, accord-
ing to the belief of the Manichaeans, had prepared (prccparasse) an eternal prison
for the race of darkness. But if this were so, it would not prove the power of
God to be boundless. For it does not follow, that he can do everything ho
chooses, because he can hold a certain race in check, and prevent their doing
harm to himself and others. But the fact was not, as the w^orthy man supposes.
For if this God liad possessed such power, he would have pursued a difierent
course in his war with the Demon. We see him alarmed, and raising forces
against the Prince of darkness. But his alarm and his army were needless, if
he had power to repel, to coerce, and punish the Lord of darkness, by a mere
volition or word. But our learned author does not quote truly the language of
Augustine. That father did not write jjrccparasse, but merely pncparare; which
makes the sense very diflerent. The passage reads thus; Ipsi enim dicunt,
Deum genti tenebrarum sternum carcerem prccparare, quam dicunt inimicam
esse Deo. From this statement, who can make out, that God could, if he
[p. 775.] pleased, have prevented the race of darkness from issuing forth from
tlieir dark world, and invading the world of light, but that he despised the vile
and imbecile rabble ? The sense of the passage is this : God now holds captive
the race of darkness, which he has vanquished, and in due time he will thrust
them into prison. The prison is the world of darkness itself, into which God
will, at the time appointed, compel them to return ; as we shall see hereafter. —
Yet, not to dissemble anything, there is a passage in the Epistola Fundamentiy
which escaped the learned man's research, and from which it seems inferable,
that Manes thought the powder of God adequate to the destruction of the smoky
race of darkness. For thus Manes speaks, (apud August de natura boni, c. 42.
torn. viii. p. 364.) ; Lucis vero beatissimse Pater, sciens labem magnam et vasti-
tatem, quae ex tenebris surgeret, adversus sua sancta irapendere Saecula, nisi
aliquod eximi'um et praeclarum et virtute potens Numen opponat, quo superct
simul el desiruat slirpem tenebrarum, qua extincta, perpetua quies lucis incolis
pararetur. But either Manes uttered this incautiously, and forgetting the prin-
ciples of his system, or it must be understood merely of the animals in the
world of darkness. Those animals spring up and die ; so that the race of them
might seem to be destructible. But, as for the Demon and his princes, although
God vanquished them, yet he did not destroy and exterminate them ; neither
could he destroy and exterminate them, because they had a necessary existence,
and were immortals. As, according to the views of the Manichaeans, God 13
unable to create a thing from nothing, so is he unable to reduce to nothing,
any part or portion of eternal nature.
§ XLIII. The Manichaean Trinity. Christ and the Holy Spirit.
The good God, the Lord of light, although he is one, simple, and
immutable, yet, in a certain sense, is triple or threefold. For
after the world was founded, he produced from himself two Ma-
jesties, that is, two Beings like himself; by whom he might both
save the souls inclosed in bodies, and gradually extract the por-
Manichccaii Trinity/. 093
tion of liglit and of the good fire mixed with earth from it, and
restore it to its original statc.(') The one of these Beings is called
Christ; the other the ITohj Spirit. Christ is a splendid mass of
the purest light of God, self-existent, animated, endued with wis-
dom and reason, and having his seat in the sun, yet communi-
cating a portion of his influence to the moon. Hence prayers are
to be directed to the sun and moon.f') Inferior to him, the Holy
Spirit is also an animated and lucid mass, of the same nature with
God himself, connected with and resident in the ether which en-
compasses our globe. He not only moves and illumi- [p. 776.]
nates the minds of men, but he also fecundates thi3 earth ; that
is, he excites the particles of the divine fire latent in the earth,
and makes them shoot up in herbs, and shrubs, and trees, and
yield fruits useful and convenient for men.Q This whole doc-
trine is derived from the ancient Persian system. And hence, all
that the Manichosans teacli respecting a divine Trinity, must be
understood and explained, not in conformity with Christian
views, but in accordance witli the Persian principles respecting
Mithra and the ether, to which Manes accommodated the Chris-
tian religion.
(1) That the Manichaeans believed in a species of Trinity, or held to two
Beings of the same nature with God, subordinate to liim, is unquestionable.
Mane.^ himself not obscurely acknowledges a Trinity, in his Epistola Funda-
menti^ (apud August. Disput. cum Felice, I^ i. p. 341.) by salutiug those to
whom he wrote, thus : Pax (a) Dei invisibilis sit cum fratribus : « - sed et (b)
Dextra luminis (his name for Christ) tueatur et eripiat vos ab omni incursione
maligna - - pietas vcro (c) Spiritis sanct'i intima vestri pectoris adaperiat. His
disciples speak much more clearly. But they, as is manifest, prudently accom-
modate themselves to the phraseology of Christians, and especially to the de-
crees of the Nicene council, which was after the times of their master ; in order
not to appear differing too much from the common views of Christians. For
when Constantine the Great, and so many emperors, had issued laws against
their sect, the Manichaeans became very considerate and provident, and they
clothed and concealed their sentiments under the usual phraseology of Chris-
tians, and in scripture language ; in order to avoid odium as much as possible,
and to show the coincidence of the Scriptures (which, however, they despised,)
with their opinions. Forlunalus, who was peculiarly circumspect, and was well
acquainted with the language of the Bible, which was always on his lips, says,
(Apud Augustinum Disput. i. cum eo, p. 69.) : Nostra professio est, quod in-
corruptibilis sit Deus, quod lucidus, quod inadibilis, quod intenibilis (i. e. c.innot
be grasped ^wd. /ic/cZ/asO, impassibilis, aeternam lucem et propriam inliabitet:
quod nihil ex sese corruptibile (and therefore no material bodies) proferat, nee
294 Century Ill.—Section 43.
tenebras, nee daemones, nee Satanam, nee aliud adversura in regno ejus reperiri
posse : Sui autem similem Salvatorern direxisse. - - - His rebus credimus et haec
est ratio fidei nostrae, et pro viribus animi nostri mandatis ejus obteinperare,
unam fidem sectantes hvjus Trinitalis, Palris et Filii et Spiritus sancli. The
cunning man says much about the oflice of the Son, which I omit here, but
will cite in a proper place ; while of t!ie Holy Spirit he is wholly silent, till he
comes to the end of his speech ; and then he couples him with the Father and
the Son, although he had not before been mentioned. The doctrine of the Ma-
[p. 777.] nichneans respecting the Holy Spirit, he could not explain in the lan-
guage of the Bible ; and therefore he thought best to omit it and keep it out of
sight. Faustus, of the same sect, a man of letters, courageous and self confi-
dent, explains more boldly the nature of the Holy Spirit : his statements will
be adduced shortly. At present, we only consider what he says of the Trinity.
In his Discussion with Augustine, (L. xx. c. 1. p. 237.) he says : Igitur nos
Patris quidem Dei omnipotentis, et Christi Filii ejus et Spiritus sancti unum
idemque sub triplici appellutione Numen credimus. He seems here to accord
with those who regard the three Persons in God, as only three names for one
God, discarding any real distinction of the Persons. But, what follows acquits
him of the error ; for he very clearly inculcates, that the Son and the Holy
Spirit are truly distinct from the Person of the Father. Secundinus, a very in-
genious Manichaean, and apparently very modest, whose long and eloquent
Epistle is extant in Augustine, (0pp. torn. viii. p. 369 &,c.) commences thus :
Habeo et ago gratias ineffabili ac sacratissimae Majestati, ejusque primogenito,
omnium luminum (i. e. of all the splendid and Inippy Scccula or jEo7is) Regi,
Jesu Christo, habeo gratias et supplex Sancto refero Spiritui, quod dederint,
praebuerintque occasionem, qua ego securus salutarem egregiam tuam sanetita-
tem. More proofs are not necessary. — But this Manichaean Trinity differed
essentially from that which Christians profess ; and a very learned man certainly
lost his labor, when he attempted to prove that it was altogether the Catholic
doctrine, except as to the manifest inequality of the Persons. This will appear
further on. At present only one argument will be offered. It is, that neither
the Son nor the Holy Spirit existed anterior to this our world. This is asserted
most explicitly of the Son. by Forlunatus, a man generally cautious, as already
remarked, and one who either dissembles or explains artfully what might be
prejudicial to his sect. But in his Dispute with Augustine (i. p. 69.) he says :
Nostra professio est - - Deum sui similem Servatorem direxisse (i. e. sent him
unto men) Verhum natum a constitulione mundi, cum mimdam faceret, post
mundi fabricam inter homines venisse. Secundinus, indeed, in his Epistle to
Aujrustine, (tom. viii. p. 369.) calls Christ the first-born {'primogenUus) of God:
which would seem to imply, that he existed before all the jEons. But the
word is ambiguous, as Augustine observed in his reply, (c. 5. p. 377.) and
might, as he says, denote the superiority of his divinity. For any one may be
called the first-born, who is the chief and head of many of the same nature with
himself, though he be posterior as to the order of births. If the Son did not
exist before this world, but was born of God at the time the world was made ;
undoubtedly, the Holy Spirit, who was manifestly inferior to the Son in dignity
ManiclKxan Trinity. 095
and greatness, was not superior in age. Besides, the offices sustained by tho
Son and the Holy Spirit, — not to mention also their residences, which were no
older than the worhl, — remove all doubt in the case. For the sole [p. 778.]
office of the Son was, to restore to freedom the good souls unfortunately im-
mersed in gross muddy matter; and that of tiie Holy Spirit was, to aid iiitclli-
gent nn'nds in their upward aspirations, and to extract and separate the sparks
of the good fire now mixed up with darkness or earth. Consequently, if that
pernicious war between the Princes of light and of darkness had not occurred,
producing the mixture of the good and the evil, there would have been no need
of either the Son or the Holy Spirit. But a great number of souls being cajv
tured and carried of?', and the light being commingled with darkness, it became
necessary, that the Father of light should emit from himself and produce the
two very powerful Beings, the Son and the Holy Spirit, by whom he might
gradually recover the captured part of his realm, and restore it to its pristine
felicity.
(2) Although Manes brought forward and used the appellation Christ, yet
he deemed it unsuitable. It was Jewish, and was appropriate to that Messiah
whom the Hebrew nation expected, who was materially ditrerent from the Son
of God of whom he conceived. To this purpose, there is a striking passage in
his Epistle to Odas, (apud Jo. Alb. Fabriciiun, Biblioth. Graeca, vol. v. p. 285.) :
'H (Tg Tov XpiTTou Trpod'nycpia ovo/uu, Wr] x.a.Ta.^p>i(rTiKdvy ovn hS'ovi, iuTi oua-ias
r«aatvT<xor. Appellatio Christi nomen est, quod per abusionem (as rhetoricians
say) tantum adhibetur : (That is, it is a term unsuitable for the thing, yet one
used because it is common ;) nee enira vel speciem (i. e. the class of beings, to
which the Son of God belongs,) vel essentiam ejus significant. We therefore
see, why he chose, in his. Epistola Fundamenti, (as we have before seen,) to
call the Son of God DexLeram Luminh. For this appellation expressed the
nature and dignity of the Son, according to his views. The Christ of the Ma^
nichseans was, as Fortunalus says, like the Father, and born of him. And there-
fore, as the Father was the purest light, a light which is conceivable by the
mind, but not apprehensible by the senses, and is destitute of any form or
shape ; so Christ also must be a splendid or shining mass, and endued with the
same attributes with his Parent, though inferior in degree, viz. wisdom, reason,
goodness, munificence. Flence Manes, in his Fipistles published by Jo. Alb.
Fabricius, (Biblioth. Grace, vol. v. p. 284, 285.) calls him : Tcu oUicv ipwTdi Cior.
Sempitermcc Lucis Filium. And he proves Christ to be light, by the narrative
of his transfiguration on the mount. And that this light is most pure, and such
as cannot be felt or seen by the eyes, he proves, (in his Epistle to Cudarns^
by the fact, that when the Jews attempted to stone Christ, he passed through the
midst of them, and was unseen. Kit fx'to-oi dvTdv S'uk^mv Iv^ ^pdro. And to this
argument, he subjoins: 'H yap dvKc; /ucpipn — c,pxr» /uh oux. ^k, i-\nx^<f,riTo <fi
oi/<ra|Wdjf, S'ta TO /muS^ifxictv c^iiv Kctvaviav Tiiv vKiiv Trpoi rd dvKcv. Forma ciimi
omnis expers matcriae neque videri poterat, neque tangebatur, quia materia nul-
1am habet communionem cum eo, quod caret materia. Therefore, Augustine^
while a ^fanichaean, agreeably to the views of his master, conceived of (.'lirist a.s
a broad and extended light, preceding out and issuing from the Father, [p. 779.]
296 Century Ill—Seciion 43.
He says, (Confessiones, L. v. c. 10. 0pp. torn. i. p. 84.) : Ipsura quoqne Salva-
torera nostrum unigenitum tuum tanquain de iiiassa lucidissimae molis tuae
porrectum ad nostram salutem, ita putabam, ut aliud de illo non crederem, nisi
quod possem vanitate imagiiiari. Yet this light of the Son, though like that of
the Father, and of course having, as Manes says (npud Fabricium) : ^tjtriv air'\»y
Kai dA»3-»i, simplieem naturam et verara ; yet could be so obscured and ob-
structed by matter, as not to put forth and exhibit all its energy. For, ia his
Epistle to Zebena, (apud Fabricium 1. c. p. 284.) when assigning a reason why
the Son of God assumed among men a human form, he says it was, tvu. «« (jpui)
xoiT«3-« S'la THf cva-iai t«c orufKos, Kai ird^'iiy «ai (pd-Ap-d-Hy Tii? cntoTj'as (p^'Upiva-tit
duToy T«v ive^yiia.v t«v (fceTuvtiv. Ne lux comprelienderetur ab essentia carnis et
pataretur ac corrumperetur, tenebris operationem lueis corrumpentibus. This
is very explicit. There was, therefore, a great difference between the Father
and the Son, although the latter had the like nature with the former. For, aa
the Manichaeans often inculcate, the light of the Father could not, in any de-
gree, be contaminated, impaired, or weakened, by the darkness : but the light
of the Son, if surrounded by matter or by material bodies, suffered some dimi-
nution, and was prevented from imparting all its efficacy to others. In what-
ever manner he explained this matter, it is certain that Manes considered the
light of the Son as inferior to the light of the Father.
Christ or the Son, after he was born of the Father, established his seat or
residence in the sun ; yet in such a way, as to impart also a portion of his influ-
ence to the moon, and in some measure to reside in it. This is a well known
dogma of the Manichscan school, and is attested by many writers. But no one
has stated it more clearly than Faustus ; {apud August, contra Faust. L. xx. c.
2. p. 237.) Faustus being asked : Cur solera colitis, nisi quia estis paganni ?
does not disown this worship of the sun and moon ; but he denies, that these
luminaries are Deities. He says: Nos Patrem quidem ipsum lucem ineolere
credimus summam ac principalem, quam Paulus alias inaccessibilem vocat : Fi-
lium vero in hac secunda ac visibili luce (ss. the sun) consistere, qui quoniam sit
et ipse geminus, ut eum Apostolus tiovit, Christum dicens esse Dei virtutem et
sapientiam : virtutem quidem ejus in sole habitare credimus, sapientiam vero in
luna. From this passage, it is clear : First; That Manes supposed the Son of
God not to be the sun itself, but to dwell in the sun as in a palace. The anci-
ents indeed, and not a few of the moderns, think the Manichajans regarded the
sun itself as Christ. But they are abundantly confuted by this passage of Faus-
tus: who, besides other things, declares, that Christ die ells in the second and
visible light. We have before seen, that the Son consists, not of the visible light
which fiiUs on our eyes, but of that light which constitutes the Father, which
can neither be seen nor felt, and can be apprehended only by the mind. There-
fore, that second and risible light, in which he dwells, must necessarily be distinct
[p. 780.] from him. Besides, as Augustine has expressly stated, (Liber de Hee-
res. c. 46. p. 11.) the Manichceans denied, that the sun consists in what is pro-
perly denominated light; tliey supposed it to be made up o^ good fire, which is
one of the elements of the world of light : Duo coeli luminaria ita di.stinguunt,
ut lunam dicant lactam ex bona aqua, solem vero ex igne bono. The good fire
Manicliccan Trinity. 297
of the Manichaeans was of a different nature from the light. The rude and illi-
terate among the ]\Ianiehaeans, or the flock of Avdilors as they were called,
doubtless confounded, as is usual, the sun with the Son of God who resided in
it ; and they supposed they worshipped Christ whenever they turned their laces
to the sun. And hence arose the opinion of many among the ancients, that the
Manichaeans considered the sun to be the Son of God. — The reason why Ma-
nes located the Son of God or Christ in the sun, it is not diflicult to discover. It
was necessary, as he supposed, that the inhabitants of this globe should have
before their eyes an image of God, whom no mortal eye can see, or of that Son
of God, whom God had produced from himself for the purpose of saving souls ;
in order that they might think the more constantly and intensely on the salvation
to be obtained through him. But the Son of God could not be seen by the eyes of
mortals, unless he were surrounded by a body, or by some appearance of a body.
And besides, the pure light of which he was composed, would, as before noticed,
be tarnished and obscured by material bodies, if it should present itself to them
naked. As therefore Christ needed a body, in which he could be seen, and in
which he could operate freely and strongly, he chose a body of a nature the
nearest resembling light, in which to dwell. For good fire, which is very dif-
ferent from ours, could do no injury to the perfectly simple nature of the divine
light. Manes says, (apud Fabricium, 1. c. p. 285.) : T6 cTg dvcoTarov ?ws iS'ti^iv
tAvrcv tv TcTf vKu-Kol: <ru)fji.Ao-i o-wfAA. Suprema lux (i. e. Christ, of whom he is
speaking) ipsa sibi inter corpora ex materia constantia corpus demonstravit seu
delegit : namely, such a body, as agreed the most perfectly with his nature. —
Secondly ; It appears from the passage in Faustus, that some of the energy of
Christ resides in the moon, while his virtus, that is, (as I suppose,) his essential
nature dwells in the sun. As we learn from the language of Augustine, recent-
ly quoted, the Manichaeans believed the moon to consist ex aqua bona (of good
water) ; and therefore regarded it as a kind of sea. Manes himself, in the seventh
Book of his Thesaurus, (from which Augustine gives a long extract, in his
Tract de natura boni, e. 44. p. 366.) calls the moon A'aiem vitalium aquarum.
Whence it appears, that they supposed the moon to have no light of its own, or
to be an opaque body. But the splendor of the moon arises from the souls
purified in it. For souls undergo a lustration in the moon, as we shall see in
the proper place. Yet see Simplicius on Epictetus, p. 167. But, I must confess,
I do not intirely understand what the Manichaeans mean, when they say, the
wisdom of the Son of God aj)pears especially in the moon, but his virtus (virtue,
or essence) in the sun. All the ancients, as is well known, supposed the sun to be
fed, sustained or nourished, by Avater. Perhaps the Manichaeans were [p. 781.]
of the same opinion ; and therefore they annexed the good water of the moon
to the good fire of the sun, in order to afford it aliment. Manes discourses very
largely respecting the sun, moon and stars, in his writings. Says Augustine,
(Cont'essiones L. v. c. 7. p. 81.): Libri (sacri) eorum pleni sunt longissimis fa-
bulis, de coelo et sideribus et sole et luna. Yet this part of the system of ^f(nJrs
must necessarily have been very obscure. For those of his disciples who lived
in the fourth century, being called upon to give account of their master's pre-
cepts, either oftered the merest nonsense, or, if more ingenuous, acknowledged
298 Century III— Section 43.
that they did not understand them. Augustine requested Fausliis, the most
learned Mnnichaean of that age, to exphiin to him these mysteries : but Fauslus
frankly acknowledged his ignorance, and declined the task : Qufc tamen (i. e.
the opinions of Manes respecting the sun, moon and stars) ubi corsiileranda et
discuc-.tienda protuli, raodeste sane ille (Fauslus) nee ausus est subire ipsam (read,
islam) sarcinam. Noverat enim se ista non nosse, nee eum puduit eonfiteri. Non
erat de talibus, quales multos loquaces passus cram, conarUes ea me docere, et
dicenles (perhaps, docentes) nihil. - - Noluit se temere disputando in ea coartari,
unde nee exitus ei csset ullns, nee facilis reditus. Of these fables respecting
the sun, which Faustus could not explain, one was that which Augustine men-
tions, (contra Faust. L. xx. c. 6. p. 238.) viz. The Manichaeans denied, that the
sun was round ; and maintained, on the contrary, that it presented a triangular
form, or shone upon us through a sort of triangular window : Quum omnium
occulis rotundus sol effulgeat, eaque,illi figura pro sui ordinis positione perfecta
bit: vos eum triangulum perhibetis, id est, per quamdam triangulam coelifenes-
tram lucem istam mundo terrisque radiare. Ita fit, ut ad istum quidem solem
dorsum, cervicemque curvetis ; non autem ipsura tam clara rotunditate conspi-
cuum, sed nescio quam navim per foramen triangulum micantem atque lucen-
tem — adoretis. If Augustine correctly apprehended the views of the Mani-
chaeans, they supposed that we do not see the whole of the sun, because God
has interposed between it and us a sort of triangular body, through which some
portion of its splendor reaches the inhabitants of our world. But I doubt whe-
ther Augustine correctly understood the opinion of Manes. — The speculations
of Manes respecting the sun, were not his own inventions, but were derived
from the opinions of the Persians respecting Mitlira. The Persians called Mithra
TpiTTKac-iov (triple) : on which, I recollect to have made remarks formerly, (Notes
on C'udicorOCs Intellectual System, torn. I. p. 333, &:c.) They also called the
moon triformis (of three forms) : as is stated by Julius Firmicus, (de errore
profanar. religionum p. 413.) Perhaps Manes, being a Persian, said the same
[p. 782.] thing ; but Augustine being unacquainted with Persian opinions, mis-
apprehended, and supposed the form of a triangle to be mentioned.
As the Manichaeans supposed the Son of God to reside in the sun and
moon, it is not strange that they should pay some honor to those luminaries;
and it is abundantly testified, that they turned their eyes to them, when they
prayed, Augustine says, (de Ilaeres. c. 46. p. 13.) : Orationes faciunt ad solem
per diem, quaqua versum circuit: ad lunan per noctem, si apparet: si autem non
apparet, ad Aquiloniam partem, qua sol cum occiderit ad Orientem revertitur,
stjint orantes. And in various passages, Augustine charges the Manichaeans
with the worship of the sun and moon, as being a hateful crime. And so does
the Platonic Philosopher Simplicius, (Comment, in Enchirid. Episteti, p. 167.):
Tod in iravTOiv rdv iv Tu ovfiuvce fxovovi rov; S'uo pa)5-T«p:tc Tt/uav - - roiv cTg a\\(ov
KOLTcifipivuvy u>s T«c Tou KstKov fxoipai ovTiDV. Sola totlus ccsU duo lumlua hono-
rant - - cetera vero ut quae ad malum pertineant, contemnunt. I know not
whether it was true, as Simplicius here asserts, that the Manichaeans thought
the other stars to be connected with evil ; indeed I can hardly believe it waa
true. But that they paid no honors to any celestial body, except the sun and
Manichccan Tr'uiity. 299
moon, is beyond debate, mid may be demonstrated by the testimonies of Au-
gustine and Faustus. Nor will tiie reason of this distinction be deemed uncer-
tain, if we consider, that they located the Son of God nowhere, except in the
sun and moon. Moreover, the Manicha3ans do not disclaim all worship of the
sun and moon; but only apologize for it. Faustus, cited by Auguslinc, (contra
Faust. L. XX. c. 1. p. '237.) declares himself not ashamed of the worship of the di-
vim luminaries: but he adds, tiiat he holds to one God, and abhors all super-
stition: Ego a paganis multum diversus incedo : qui ipsum me — rationabile Dei
templum puto : vivum vivae majestatis simulacrum Filium ejus accipio - - hono-
res divinos ac sacraficia in soils orationibus ac ipsis puris et simplicibus pono.
As there is no doubt on this subject, the only inquiry is, whether the Mani-
chaeans addressed their prayers to the sun and moon themselves, or to God and
his Son, as residing in the sun and moon. The ancient Christian doctors nearly
all tell us, that this sect accounted the sun and moon among the Gods; and
Augustine himself, when he becomes much heated with discussion, charges this
crime upon them ; although on other occasions, he explains their views more
favorably. But this accusation may be refuted by strong arguments. First, as
we learn from Augustine, the Manichoeans supposed the sun to consist of good
fire, and the moon of good ivater. But the Manichaaans did not worship the ce-
lestial elements in place of God; it docs not appear credible, therefore, that they
should have worshipped the sun and moon as Gods. Secondly, Alexander of
Lycopolis, an adversary of the Maniciiseans, (in his Tract against them, p. 5. in
Com6e/is' Auctarium Biblioth. Patrum,) expressly says: Solem et lunam, non
tanquam Deos revereri, verum tanquam viam, quee ducit ad Deum: oup^ wj esou?,
dXX' u>f 0 (T 0 V, (/"/' «v eTTt TTftoi Tov Qiov dp lit. iff iy a. t. This langunge does [p. 783.1
not explain the. form of the worship which the Manichajans paid to the sun and
moon ; for the phrase, Naturani quandam ut viam ad Deum colere, may be un-
derstood variously. Still, the passage acquits them of the crime commonly laid
to their charge. Moreover, Augustine, a very competent witness, who had fre-
quently been present at their worship, frankly owns, that he found nothing there
contrary to the Christian religion : (Disput. cum Fortunato, p. 69.) : Ego in
oratione, in qua interfui, nihil turpe fieri vidi: sed solum contra fidem animad-
verti, quam postea didici et probavi, quod contra solem facitis orationem, Prae-
ter hoc in ilia oratione vestra nihil novi comperi. The Manicha3ans, tlierefore,
although they prayed publicly with their faces towards the sun, did not offer
prayers to the sun, but to God himself. Yet this testimony of Augustine does
not fully settle the question; for he adds, that he would have what he says to
be understood of their common prayers, at which all Manichaeans might be pre-
sent; and that perhaps the prayers of the initiated, or those whom they called
the Elect, were different : Utrum separatim vobiscum habeatis aliquam oratio-
nem, Deus solus potest nosse, et vos. - - Quisquis autem vobis opponit quajs-
tionem aliquam de moribus, Electis vestris opponit. Quid autem inter vos agatis,
qui Ek'cti estis, ego scire non possum. To this suspicion, Fortunatus makes no
reply. It appears, therefore, first, that the Manichasans did not pl.ice the sun
and moon among Gods, for they worshipped only one God; and, secondly, that
they addressed their prayers to God only, although they turned their faces to
300 Century Ill.—Section 43.
the sun. — Tt remains to enquire, whether the Elect among- tlie Manichaeans, who
understood all the mysteries of the sect, made supplieations in private to the
sun and moon, not as being Gods, but as beneficient Beings. Fauslus, a talented
man, and one of the Elect, seems to settle this question ; (in Augustine, L. xx.
c. 1. p. 237.) Yet he does not settle it; for he equivocates, and avoids giving a
clear and explicit answer. Thus much, indeed, we may learn from him, that
Augustine had reason for the suspicion, that the Elect prayed differently from
the common people, and paid a sort of worship to the sun and moon; but the
nature of that worship, Faustus leaves dubious. One of his adversaries asked
him : Cur solcm colitis, nisi quia estis pagani et gentium Schisma, non secta?
(i. e. not the Christian sect.) He answers very captiously. First, he concedes,
that the Manichaeans do worship the sun and moon: Absit, ut divinorum lumi-
num erubescara culturam. Augustine had witnessed, that the assembled people
admitted nothing into their prayers that contravened the Christian religion,
although they turned their faces to the sun. This confession of Faustus must
therefore refer only to the Elect. Faustus then adds, that this worship of the
luminai'ies has nothing in coinman with faganism (nihil habere cum gentibus
cojnmune). He therefore declared — what we also admit — that his sect did not
[p. 784.] worship the sun and moon, as Gods. He proceeds to state, that the
Father, the Son, and the Spirit, were invoked and adored by his people.
Thus far well! But after speaking of the Holy Spirit, he returns to that wor-
ship, with which the Manichaeans were reproached; and he explains it, in a
manner that shows plainly, the man would not disclose the nature of it: Qua-
propter et nobis circa universa, et vobis similiter erga panem et calicem par re-
ligio est, quamvis eorum acerrime oderitis auctores. That is: We worship and
adore the universe, in the same manner in which you worship and adore the
bread and the wine in the Lord's supper. This comparison seems to mean some-
thing; and yet it means nothing. And it was brought forward solely to darken
the subject, and to elude the question. We learn from it, indeed, that the Chris-
tiana of that age paid some external honor to the bread and wine of the sacred
supper; but, what Faustus understood by this honor, does not appear. And
therefore we cannot learn from this comparison, in what sense, or for what ends,
the j\Ianichaeans worshipped the sun and moon. And Augustine, in his reply
to the passage, simns the light as much as Faustus. He mentions, indeed, that
the comparison is not to the point; but he does not tell us, what difference
there was between the worship of the bread and wine by Christians, and the
worship of the sun and moon by the Manichaeans. He first says, (c. 13. p. 243.) ;
Noster panis et calix non quilibet, sed certa consecratione mysticus fit nobis,
non nascitur. But this is nothing. For Faustus knew very well that the
Christians consecrated the bread and the cup, and on that account, esteemed
them mystical. Augustine proceeds: Quamvis sit panis et calix, alimentum est
refectionis, non sacramentum religioni.s, ni^i quod benedicimus, gratiasque agi-
mus Domino in omni ejus munere, non solum spiritali, sed etiam corporali.
This also is nothing to the purpose. For he changes the subject, and passes
from the bread and wine of the sacred Supper, to ordinary or common bread
and wine, concerning which there was no dispute : he denies that a cup and
Manichocan Trinity. 301
wine are a religious sacrament; and maintains, on tbe contray, that tlicv are
a refreshing aliment. This is true of common bread and wine; but not nlso ot
the bread and wine of the holy supper ; for tiiese are, not merely refreshin<r alirnent,
but a religious sacrament; as he had just before admitted, by saying they became
mystical by consecration. And yet, after some cavils, as if he had triumphed,
he closes the discussion thus : Quomodo ergo comparas panem et calicem nos-
trum et parem religionem dicis errorem a veritate longe discretum, pejus desi-
piens, quam nonnulli, qui nos propter panem et calicem Cererem et Liberuni
eolere existimant. He therefore concedes, that the Christians worshipped the
bread and wine ; and he informs us, that on account of this worship, some per-
sons believed, that the Christians adored Ceres and Bacchus. But he would
not tell plainly, what was meant by this Christian adoration of the bread and
wine, and how it differed from the Manicha^an worship of the sun and moon.
The crafty Faustus, perceiving the ulcer of his sect to be touched, led [p. 785.]
his adversary into a snare by that comparison, and so escaped ; and Auguatine
in like manner, looked around for a way of escape merely, and would not say,
whether he approved or disapproved the Christian practice of adoring the bread
and wine, nor disclose the true nature of it. At length, Faustiis attempts to
vindicate the practice of his sect in worshipping the sun and moon, by the ex-
ample of all nations. He says: Tu vel quilibet alius rogatus, ubinam Deum
suum credat habitare, respondere non dubitabit; In lumine : ex quo cultus hit
mens (ss. solis) omnium testimonio confirmatur. But this is not clear. We
are told, indeed, that the Manicha^ans venerate the sun or ligTit, because it is
the residence of God : but we wish to know the nature of this veneration or
worship ; and this the man dares not attempt to explain ; but defers the subject
to another time : De fide nostra si quaerendum alias putaveris, audies. This
was doubtless wise for him ; but is unsatisfactory to us. — But however it was,
the passage from Faustus, in which he compares the worship of the sun with
the worship of bread and wine in the sacred supper, contains a suggestion,
which, if it do not lead us to a full understanding of the subject, may enable U3
to approximate towards it. He says : Quapropter et nobis circa universa religio
est : or, we religiously worship the universe. These words follow immediately
after the above passage, and the word quapropter shows, that the ground for
the worship in question, was implied in that passage. Now he had before said :
Spiritum sanctum terram gravidare, earaque (foecundatam) gigncre Jcsum pas-
sibilem, omni suspensum ex ligno. He therefore gives this reason for the wor-
ship of the universe ; viz. because the earth, on being impregnated by the Holy
Spirit, brings forth the passive Jesus. This passive Jesus of the Manichreans,
of which we shall speak elsewhere, is the products and fruits of the earth ; in
which, the Manichaeans supposed, there were not only particles of celestial and
divine matter, but also sensation and a soul. Consequently, they worshipped
the universe, because all things are endued with a kind of divine sensation and a
celestial soul. The universe (universa) denoted undoubtedly the five celestial
elements of the Manichajans. Of course, they supposed these elements to be
animated, (as appears also from other testimonies,) and full of a divine spirit ;
and therefore they paid them some worship. Consequently, the sun and the
302 Century JIL— Section 43.
moon, being composed of good fire and good water, were intitled to worship.
And, as they supposed good fire and good water to be animated, they doubtless
believed the sun and moon to be endued with intelligence and sensation. This
was an ancient and very common opinion, not only of the Oriental people, but
also of many of the philosophers. — Putting all these things together, I think it
probable, that the Elect among the Miinichseans did invoke the sun and ihe
moon ; not indeed as Gods, but as excellent and benificent Beings, by whose
influence they might become more happy, and better prepared for liberating their
immortal souls from the bonds of the body.
[p. 786.] (3) Of the Holy Spirit, no one has spoken more fully than Fans-
tus ; (apud Avgustinum L. xx. c. 2. p. 237.) : Spiritus saneti, qui est majestas
tertia (the third Person of the divine nature,) aeris hunc omnem ambitum sedem
fatemur ac diversorium, cujus ex viribus et spiritali profusione, terram quoque
concipientem, gignere patibilem Jesum, qui est vita ac salus hominum, omni
suspensus ex ligno. The Holy Spirit, then, according to the views of the Ma-
niclucans, is a Being, produced from God the Father, when the world was
formed. Hence it follows, that he is a lucid parcel or mass. His residence is
the air ; but not that gross air contiguous to us, for in that the Demon and his
princes are confined as captives. Neither is this impure air, which is contami-
nated with the smoke that constitutes the fifth element of the world of darkness,
a fit residence for a Being originating from the Father of lights. Air, in the
Manic heean phraseology, is ether, ex altissimis ignihus constans, as Cicero says,
surrounding and enclosing this our globe. Therefore, as the Manichccans lo-
cated the Son of God in the good fire and good loater, those elements of the
world of light, so they located the Holy Spirit in the ether, which is also one of
the celestial elements. — His offi^ces are not all mentioned by Faustiis, but only
that one from which he could explain the ground for the worship of the sun
and moon, then under discussion. Seated in the highest ether or heat encom-
passing our globe, the Holy Spirit, first warms, moves and instructs the minds
of men, and raises them to the Father of lights ; for, as the Manichaean school
proclaimed, he imparted an extraordinary portion of his influence to Manes, a
far greater than to the Apostles and other men. Manes himself says, in his
Epistola Fundamenti : Intima pectoris humani adaperit, ut videant homines ani-
mas suas. — Secondly, He fecundates this our earth, and causes it to produce the
passive Jesus (Jesus patibilis), that is, all kinds of fruits which men eat to sus-
tain life. Of this passive Jesus, we shall treat, when we come to speak of the
Manichsean doctrine respecting our earth : at present, I merely state, that the
Manichrcans supposed, there was in our earth a soul or vital force, which they
called Jesus. That force, the Holy Spirit by his influence separates from the
grosser matter, and conducts into plants and shrubs and trees, to make them
bear fruit. And those fruits, because they contain a vital force or soul, are
called Jes2is ; and, because they are masticated and crushed by the teeth of
men, the passive Jesus. Faustus says of the passive Jesus : vita et salus est
hominum ; that is, it sustains human life, promotes health, and sometimes re-
stores lost health. These are silly anile fables: but nothing better could be
expected from a delirious old man, a rustic imbued with the Persian philoso-
Manichccan Trinity. 303
phy. — As to their pnying to the Holy Spirit, I find nolhinf^ recorded. Hut as
they professed to worship one God in three Persons, and considered [p. 787.)
the Holy Spirit as a part of the divine nature, there can be no doubt, that they
invoked hitn in connexion with the Father and the Son. Besides, Manes, '\\\
the bci^inning of his Epislola Finulamenli, i)rays for the light of the Holy Spirit
to be shed on his people ; and iSccundinus, (in his Epistle to Avgusline, Opp,
toni. viii. p. 369, &-c.) declares t'^^it he, kiSpirilui sancto gratias habet el svpplex
refert.
(4) Manes, being a Persian, estimated the Christian religion by the princi-
ples of the Magi : and what he teaches respecting the Son of Cod and the
Holy Spirit, agrees entirely with the speculations of the ancient Persians re-
specting Mithras and the ether. Concerning that great Persian God Mithras,
we have full commentaries by several learned men ; viz. Phil, a Turrc, (in his
Monumenta veteris Antii,) Thomas Hyde, (Historia relig. vet. Persarum,) Jac.
Martini, (de veterum Gallorum religione,) and others. What the Persians
taught respecting Mithras, the very same taught Manes res^pecting Christ, or
the Son of God. The vulgar among the Persians did not distinguish Mithras
from the sun : but the wiser men did so, and held Mithras to be inferior to tho
supreme God, yet a great Deity, and resident in the sun. This I will not now stop
to prove, lest I should turn aside too far ; but it may be easily demonstrated
from Plutarch. — Mithras, as Plutarch observes, (de Iside et Osiride, p. 369.)
was a middle God, between the good Principle and the bad; and was
therefore called by the Persians ^?!rt'r«c or Mediator. But beware of suppos-
ing, that Mithras possessed a middle nature, compounded some how of both
light and darkness. This title of Mediator undoubtedly refered to his ofHce,
and denoted, that he withstood the efforts of Arimanius, the Prince of dark-
ness, to enlarge his empire; and that he aided the souls abstracted from the
light, in their return to God. Now the same title of Mediator being applied
in the Scriptures to the Saviour of mankind, this alone might induce Ma7ies
to compare our Saviour with the Persian Mithras. The Persians also be-
lieved, of their Mithras as Manes did of Christ, that he was present not only
in the sun, but likewise in the moon. And hence, in all the monuments of the
worship of Mithras which have reached us, the moon always accompanies the
sun. See Phil, a Turre, (Monum. veteris Antii, p. 157.) Anton, van Dale, (Dis-
sertt. ad Antiquitates et Marmora p. 16.) and Jac. Martin, (Religion des Gau-
lois, L. ii. p. 421.) and others. They supposed Mithras possessed a twofold
energy, the one male, the other female ; and that the former resided in the sun,
but the latter in the moon. Says Julius Firmicus, (de errore profanar. religio-
num p. 413, at the end of Minucius Felix, edit. Gronovii) : PersEe Jovem in
duas dividunt potestates, naturam ejus ad utriusque sexus referentes et viri et
foeminai simulacra ignis substantiam dcputantes. This doctrine the Mani-
chaeans expressed in a Christian manner, and in Bible language (1 Cor. i. 24.)
by saying. The power {virtus, ^Cvaui^) of Christ dwells in the sun, but his
wisdom in the moon. They dared not use the Persian terms and phra.s- [p. 788.]
es, lest they should be thought to worship a God and Goddess, in the sun and
moon, as the Persian vulgar did. Firmicus, whom I have just quoted, says a
304 Century III. — Section 44.
little after, that the male Jupiter inhabiting the sun, was called Milhras by the
Persians: nor is he in error. In my notes on Ce/Jwo?-//;, (Intellectual System
p. 327.) I have shown from Herodotus, that the word Mithras was also transferred
to the moon, and while the dweller in the sun was called Milhras, the dweller
in the moon was called Mithra ; indicating- that one and the same Being, though
in a difterent manner, animated both the sun and the moon. It is therefore
manifest, that Milhras and the Manichaean Christ actually differed in nothing,
except in name. And perhaps also, the Persians hoped that Milhras would, at
sonic future time, descend from the sun, assume a human form, and instruct
mortals in the worship of the true God. But Manes would not have Christ
worshipped in the way the Persians worshipped Milhras ; for, in place of sacrifi-
ces, he substituted nothing but prayers and some external signs of reverence.
This was the effect of Christianity. — Respecting the worship of the ether by the
Persians, we have not so many proofs as we have of their worship of the sun
and moon, and of Milhras resident in those planets. Yet we have one striking
passage in Herodotus, (Historia, L. I. § 131. p. 55. edit. Gronov.) which, while
it affords confirmation to some other things that we have stated, shows, that the
Persians located a Deity in the highest elhei', and paid divine honors to it. He
first tells us, that the Persians did not attribute a human form to their Gods:
neither did Manes; as we have seen. He then says: 0< S^i vcfAi^ova-i Aii i^h, irl
ra C^nKOTttra. twv opewv dva^aivovri^t ^va-'ia.z tpJ'itv, tov kvkXov iravra tow oupxvov
Aia KaXeovng. Moris habent, editissismis conscensis montibus, Jovi (Herodotus
uses the Greek appellation, to which the Persians were strangers,) facere sacra,
omnem gyrum coeli (i. e. the ether, encompassing our earth,) Jovera (Deum)
appellantes: or, supposing some God to reside in that ether. After this, he tells
us, that the Persians likewise olTer sacrifices to the sun and the moon : and
hence, the worship of the ether was something different from the worship of
the sun and moon. And he finally tells us, that they sacrificed to the earth (the
ground,) to fire, to water, to the u-ind. Here we remark: First; The ancient
Persians held \o fite elements, as Manes did : for, to the ether, which he had be-
fore mentioned, /feroc?oms adds four others. — Secondly: They worshipped the
elements : whence it may be inferred that they supposed them ammated as Ma.
nes believed. — Thirdly : Wind was ranked by them among the elements, as it
was by Manes. But, by the wind, they undoubtedly did not mean the lower air
or atmosphere.
§ XLIY. War of the Prince of Darkness on the Prince of Light.
After a vast length of time, tlie race of darkness having become
exceedingly numerous, an intestine war raged in that miserable
[p. 789.] world, perhaps respecting boundaries and residences.
In this war, while the victors pursued the vanquished, and the
latter fled into the mountains on the frontiers of the province,
suddenly, from these mountains, the sons of darkness descried the
realm of light and its astonishing splendor, of which they before
had no knowledge. On descrying the light they ceased fighting ;
War with God. 305
and, taking counsel together, they determined to invade that
happy world they so much admired, and to bring it under their
dominion. Without delay an army was raised and marched
forth. — As the countless and infuriated host came near, the Lord
of the world of light opposed to it a Being of his own nature,
whom he had suddenly procreated, attended by the five celestial
elements and a vast multitude of troops. This General of the
world of light, who bore the name of First Man^ conducted the
war with valor and discretion, yet not very successfully. For
the leaders of darkness not only plundered a considerable por-
tion of the celestial elements, which they mixed up with their
own depraved elements, but they also greedily devoured large
quantities of the divine light, which was animated: nay, they
nearly overpowered First Man himself, and stripped him of a
part of his excellence. As therefore tlie hard pressed command-
er of the forces of light implored the aid of God, he sent forth
another General, produced in like manner from himself, but more
powerful than the former, and bearing the name of Living Spirit
Tliis General rescued First 2fan, and conquered the Prince of
darkness : but lie could not restore to its pristine state the plun-
der taken from the world of light, because it had been com-
mingled with vicious matter.(^)
(1) The fable of Manes respecting .1 war between the good and bad Princi-
ples, if estimated by our ideas of God and divine things, is impious and absurd ;
but if considered in relation to the objects of its author, and judged of by his
fundamental principles, it is fur less senseless : nay, it is necessary, and sup-
ported by good reasons. For, as Manes assumed it for a certainty, that good
and evil arose from two separate causes, he could not show whence originated
that intermixture of good and evil which is visible in our world, without ima-
gining such a W'ar ; and adorning the fiible with various circumstances suited to
his purpose. I will endeavor to make the statements of this subject, as gather-
ed from ancient writers, more intelligible than they are usually made : wliich
will not only afford satisfaction to many minds, but also be useful for [p. 790.]
illustrating the history of the church, and for correcting the errors of many. —
As we have already seen, God knew that the world of darkness existed ; but the
people of darkness, as they were altogether wretched and miserable, so also
were they ignorant and stupid, and knew nothing of God and of the world of
light. Manes was obliged to suppose this ignorance in the Prince of darkness
and his subjects, in order to account for their entering on the war. For if the
King of darkness had known, that a most powerful Deity existed, and resided
in the world of light, he would not have resolved to invade that happy land,
VOL. II. 21
306 Cejitury IIL—Section 44.
in order to subjugate it. Titus of Bostra tells us, from the Liber Mysterio-
rum of Manes, (contra Maniehseos L. I. torn. I. p. 71. of Canisius' Collection,)
4»i(rt TO yfafxfjLAf d?' cy to. ttu^u. tow Mavivroi 7rAfi%^Y>Ka(xiti wf owtT' ort Qidi iv
fajTi (T/jjTdro iyivaxTKOv, ouJ" oti TcA/Loicravraj Kara tqZ oizMmpicv rev Qiou ouk
iutKxoY d^woi TTOTt dnaWayiivcti. Sciiptum est in libro (mysteriorum) Manetis
undo hccc npposuinuis, quod neque Deum in lumine habitare sciebant, ne'quc se
unquam impune laturos, si in Dei domicilium invadere auderent. Add p. 74. He
well exhibits (p. 70.) the ground of this fiction. An unforeseen occurrence
brought the inhabitants of the world of darkness to a knowledge of the world
of light. A civil war having arisen in the world of darkness, where broils were
unceasing, the vanquished party, on being chased by the conquerors from their
homes, tied to the tiirthest boundaries of their country ; and there both parties
discovered the world of light. Titus, as recently quoted, states this from the
books of Manes himself See his work, (L. J. p. 74. and p. 71.) where he says:
^«<rij/ « nap' durots /^I'/SXcfj Trpds dXX«Act/? o-ra^id^ovTis gTSToAstcroty, nai f^cXP^ '"'*'*'
(Hi^-cpiuv, Kal TO fcos i/tTov, ^idiAO. tI x.d\\itrrcv nhi tv^pirio-rarop. Sic igUur est
in libro quem habent (mysteriorum), seditione inter ipsos orta, prodierunt usque
ad confinium et viderent lumen, spectaculum quoddam pulcherrimum et maxima
decorum. After 7'itus, (who is more worthy of credit than all others,) the
common writers on the Heresies, namely, Epiphanius, I'lieadoret, Damascenus^
&LQ. relate the same thing. A more probable occasion of the discovery of the
world of light by the inhabitants of darkness. Manes could scarcely have devis-
ed. To make this manifest, let it be considered, that the world of darkness was
surrounded by lofty mountains, cliffs and eminences, w^hich prevented the rays
of light from falling upon it. For if it had been a level plane, the light of hea-
ven, (which was over against the region of darkness,) being exceedingly bright,
and shining to an immense distance, could not possibly have so long escaped
the sight of the citizens of that region. In the farthest mountains and cliffs
bounding the realm of darkness, therefore, the vanquished are supposed to have
sought for safety. And the discovery of the light put an end to the battle. For
the combattantg stood amazed ; and forgetting their hatred and fury, they feast-
ed their eyes and their minds with the magnificent spectacle. On recovering
themselves, they consulted together, how to get possession of that treasure ;
[p. 791.] and they resolved to seize upon it. Thus Manes, as quoted by Tiius,
(1. C. p. 71.) :'0/ S'i YiTaKTCuv, fiio-l, K.a\ iiSiKivv dXXviXcy?, TO <pioi <r« /lT&vts? hrctva-ciVTO.
Illi vero, ait Manes, in perturbato erant, seque oppugnabant, viso vero lumine
desierunt. And a little after : Tot« Ctto r«s h dinoh Kivyis-ioo^ iv^ov<nc,vvrii Kara
Tou ^aiTOf i^cvXivTULVTOi t\ (Tjj TTOiyKTavTit J'vvaivTO av dvTOVi Tffl KptiTTOvi (rvyv.ffd<rai
Tunc a motu illo, quem sentiebant, in furorem acti consultabant de lumine, quid
faciendum esset, ut se cum eo, quod prsestantius erat, miscerent. — It is manifest
therefore, that those learned men entirely mistake, who represent Manes as be-
lieving, that the Prince of darkness deliberately made war upon God; and who
compare this war with that which, as the Grecian fables state, the Giants waged
against the Gods. The race of darkness, according to the views oi Manes, were in-
tirely ignorant of God, and could not possibly have resolved on a war against him.
When God perceived the host of darkness approaching his borders, he was
War u'lth God. 307
aware that his subjects were in great peril from tiiis furious enemy ; and there-
fore he determined, that a valiant General with a numerous army, should uo out
to battle, in order to drive those smoky Giants beyond the limits of his kino-.
dom. Thus Manes himself, in his Epistola Fimdamenti, (npud August, de na-
tura ^oni, c. 42. p. 364.) : Lucis beatissimse Pater seiens, labem mnonam et
vastitatem, qua; ex tcnebris surgeret, advcrsus sua sancta impendcre ISaicula
nisi aliquod eximium et pra3clarum et virtute potens Numen opponat. These
words clearly show the weakness of God, or that his power was confined within
narrow limits ; and of course that those judge too favorably of the Manichtc-
ans, who make their God omnipotent. On this emergency, the Father of liaht
first produced from himself a certain virtue or power, called Mother of Life ;
and she bore another Being, called First Man; and he with a great retinue,
and armed with the five celestial elements, marched against the Prince of dark-
ness. Ti/rbo, (in the Acta Disput. Archelai cum Manele, p. 22. edit. Zaccag-
nii,) says in the language of Manes : Cum cognovisset bonus Pater, tenebras ad
terram suam supervenisse, prodnxit ex se virtutem, qua3 dicitur Alaicr Ffte,qua
virtute circumdcdit Primum Hominem (so the ancient Latin translator renders
it : but erroneously, as appears from the Greek, which is found in Epiphanhis,
and is : Kai duT«v Trpo^ifixuKivai top Trfdrov av^fceTTov. Et ilia mater vitcc pro-
duxit Prinrum Hominem) eumque circumdcdit quinque dementis, quee sunt
ventus, lux, aqua, ignis et materia (so it is in the Latin, and in tiie Greek of
Epiphanius. But it is evident, as Beausohre has said, that instead of vkd and
materia^ it should read aer. For ^x» is a bad principle, and has no place among
the elements of the world of light. The fifth element of the Manichajans was
air or either,) quibus indutus tanquam ad paratum belli descendit deorsum, ad
pugnandum versus tenebras. Augustine says, (contra Faustum, L. ii. c. 3. p. 133.)
Profertis nobis ex armario vestro nescio quem Primum Hominem., qui ad gentera
tenebrarum debcllandum de lucis gente descendit, armatum aquis suis [p. 792.]
contra inimicorum aquas, et igne suo contra inimicorun ignem, et ventis suis con-
tra inimicorum ventos. Cur non ergo et fiimo suo contra inimicorum fumum, et
tenebris suis contra inimicorum tenebras, scd contra fumum aere, uti dicitis, arma-
batur, et contra tenebras luce} Cur contra malum fumum non potuit afferre
fumum bonum ? These questions of Augustine are futile ; and they show that he
was ignorant of the nature of the elements of Manes. For the smoke was the bad
either, the opposite of the good air ; and darkness belonged to the misty world, the
opposite of which was light, or the bright and splendid world. See also Augustine^
(L, xi. c. 3. p. 157, and de Ha3res, c. 42.) also Titus of Bostra, (L. I. p. 68.) and the
other writers of less authority, who are well known. In these difiicult conceits,
there is still some discretion : for Manes is self-consistent, and dexterously ad-
justs all the parts of his system to his first or elementary principles : which
shows that he exercised his reason in his wild vagaries. But it is difficult for
us at this day, to discover the grounds of all his doctrines, because no small
part of his system remains in the dark. The names he assigns to the })erson3
he introduces, are not arbitrary, (as Titus of Bostra supposed, contra Manicha^oa
L. L p. 68.) but are derived from the nature of those persons, and therefore are
appropriate to them. The Mother of Life, that Being whom God procreated
SOS Century III.— Section 44.
from himself, when he saw the Prince of darkness approaching his borders,
was undoubtedly a Deity, which had the power of transmitting life from herself
to others, or of producing living beings. And for the son of this mother, no
more fit name could be devised, than that of the First Man. For it is very certain,
that he possessed the human form, because Adam was fashioned by the Demon
after his likeness ; as we sliall see hereafter. Anterior to him, there had been no
Being in the world of liglit, resembling men: and therefore, very correctly and
properly, he could be called the First Man. namely, among celestials. For all
the JEons or Scccnla, were merely lucid masses, like God their Parent, having no
definite form. Nor was it suitable, that the inhabitants of the world of light
should be like men, because the Prince of darkness and all his subordinate
princes resembled men. And therefore that First Man, who warred against
the Prince of darkness, was not received into the world of light, but resided
with his m.other in the smaller ship, or moon. And hence also, an answer may
be given to the inquiry, why God did not himself produce that First Man,
which he doubtless could have done, but produced another Being, the Mother of
Life of whom lie was born. For it was unbecoming the majesty and wisdom
of God, to produce out of himself a Being resembling the Prince of darkness
the Lord of evil ; and therefore this function was transferred to an inferor Be-
ing. The purpose of God required, that a General of human form should
march against the Lord of darkness ; for it was the pleasure of God, that the
[p. 793.] war should be conducted by artifice and stratagem rather than by
force of arms, or that the fearful enemy should be entrapped and caught by
blandishments, rather than vanquished in open war. Therefore, as the King of
darkness was a man, or a giant of immense bulk, a hero of his form was to be
sent against him ; from whom he would expect no harm, supposing him to be
of the same nature with himself, and would therefore fearlessly receive him to
friendly intercourse. If the Lord of darkness had seen a Being unlike himself
coming to meet him, he would doubtless have attacked him with all his forces,
and very many ill consequences might have followed. That First Man of the
Manichajans, therefore, was, we have no doubt, a giant of immense stature, and
fully equal to his adversary in magnitude. The King of darkness, (in the Epis-
tola Fundamenti of Manes, apud August, de natura boni c. 46. p. 366.) called
liim : Magnum ilium, qui gloriosus apparuit. This could not refer to his vioral
greatness. His armour also, or his vestments, were the five celestial elements,
by the efficacy of which the five evil elements were to be subdued. Many souls,
likewise, or citizens of the world of light, were in his train.
I now come to the conflict between these giante. — As has been remarked,
God, in his wisdom, would not have his General go into a pitched battle with
the King of darkness ; but he wished that the enemy might be circumvented,
and artfully diverted from fighting against the light. And hence, as before ob-
served, he opposed to him an amiable Commander, of the same form with the
Demon, that so the Prince of darkness might take him to be one of his own
race. — And he further bid him approach the adversary blandly and craftily; and
using no violence, to inject and infuse the celestial elements, with which he was
clad, into the elements of the adverse party. For pursuing this course, there
War of the Gods. 309
were several reasons. Fist, God hoped, that the princes of darkness would be-
come so intensely occupied and engrossed with these new and untried elements,
that they would forget the war against the world of light. And secondly, he
supposed that these elements, on being introduced into depraved matter, would
subdue its virulence and rage, so that it could be managed. And lastly, he ex-
pected that the celestial matter, when joined with depraved matter, would gra-
dually pervade and molify it, so that afterwards it might easily be driven back
again, with its princes, into the wretched world from which it came. These things
are well attested by the writings of Manes and his disciples, which have reached
us. Manes, in his Book of Mysteries, (apud Tiium Bostrens. L. i. p. 68.) says:
'O St dya^oi SvvAfxiv airoaTiKKil TivUf ^uKa^dLO-av fA.i)i Sin^iv TOvs'ofOvSi to Si d\«3-ij
ScXtap io-ofAtvuv Eis dKov<riov tm l/xh o-cDtpfovia-fAoy. o Sm koi yeyovi. Francis Turria-
nus has badly translated this passage, as well as many others in Titus. I will
therefore render it so as to make it intelligible. Bonus (Deus) potestatem
quamdam mittit, tanquara fines (regni lucis) custodituram, revera vero ideo, ut
materiae incitaraenti seu escae loco esset, per quam, ad moderationem contra vo-
luntatem suam seu invita etiam induceretur. A little after, Titus adds, that the
Manichaeans used to say: Materiam, tanquam ferara belluam, missae a [p. 794.]
Deo potestatis cantione (i. e. by a magical charm) sopitam esse: 'n? St' iiruSHs
Tiii dTToo-TAKria-ns Suvdf^icus £Ko;^tV3-«. The bishop does not mistake: for Manes
himself, (in the acta Disput. cum Manete, \ 25. p. 41. edit. Zaccag.) elucidates
his doctrine by this very similitude taken from wild beasts : Similis est malignus
ieoni, qui irrepere vult gregi boni pastoris, (i. e. strives to invade the world of
light, and to drive away the sheep of God, or the blessed jEons,) quod cum pas-
tor viderit, fodit foveam ingentem, et de grege tulit unum hoedum (i. o. he ex-
poses to him a small portion of the celestial matter,) et jactavit in foveam, quern
leo invadere desiderans, cum ingenti indignatione voluit earn absorbere et ac-
currens ad foveam decidit in eam, ascendendi inde sursum non habens vires,
quem pastor apprehensum pro prudentia sua in cavea concludit, atque hoedum,
qui cum ipso fuerit in fovea, incolumem conservavit. Ex hoc ergo infirmatus
est malignus, ultra jam leone non habente potestatem faciendi aliquid, et salva-
bitur omne animarum genus ac restituetur, quod perierat, proprio suo gregi.
We shall soon see, that by this language Manes not badly explains his views.
Fortunatus, the Manichsean, (in Disput. cum Avgustino II. p. 78.) says: In con-
traria naturu esse animam dicimus, ideo, ut contrarioe naturee raodum imponeret:
modo imposito contraria3 natura3, sumit eamdem Deus. And again, (1. c. p. 57.)
Fortunatus says : Apparet - - missas esse animas contra contrariam naturara,
ut eamdem sua passione subjicientes, victoria Deo redderetur. I omit the testi-
monies oi Augustine, Alexander of Lycopolis, Damascenus, and others; because
they are not needed.
The First Man followed exactly the pleasure of his Lord who sent him
forth, and approached the enemy with guile and cunning. Says Augustine,
(contra Faustum L. ii. c. 4. p. 134.) Primum liominem vestruni dicitis, secun-
dum hostium voluntatcm, quo eos ca-peret, elementa (jua3 portabat muta.sse ac
vertisse, ut regnum, quod dicitis, falsitatis, in sua natura manens, non fallaciter
dimicaret, et substantia veritatis mutabilis appareret, w/ /aZ/c/-e/. - - liunc Pri.
310 Century III.— Section 44.
mum Ilominem l:\U(iati^, quia muiabilibus et mendacibus formis cum adversa
gente pugnavit. - - Manichccus annuntiat Primum Hominem nescio quibus fal-
lacibus elementis quinque vestitum. Again, he says, (L. xi. c. 3. p. 157.):
Manes annuntiat nescio quern Primum Hominem, nee de terra terrenum, nee
factum in aniinam viventem, sed de substantia Dei, id ipsum existentem quod
Deus est, membra sua, vel vestimenta sua, vel arma sua, id est, quinque ele-
menta, cum et ipsa nihil aliud essent, quam substantia Dei, in tenebrarum gente
mer>i.-se, ut inquinata caperentur. The closing words in this passage, I sus-
pect, have been corrupted. For, beyond all doubt, God did not wish the celes-
tial elements to be received and become defiled, but to remain pure ; and by
[p. 795.] them to capture the princes of darkness. So Augustine expressly states in
the previously cited passage. I therefore choose to read : Ut per inquinata (i. e. by
the enemies) caperentur. Those who think the passage correct as it stands^
must suppose, that Augustine illy expressed the views of Manes. The First
Man, therefore, in order tlie more completely to deceive the race of darkness,
did not present to them the celestial elements with which he was armed or clad,
just as they were, but he changed their appearance. And, as he himself ap-
peared like to the Prince of darkness, so he gave to his armor the appearance of
the corrupt elements, or of the enemy's armor, so that he might not be shocked
at it. And yet there is some obscurity here, which is not worth the pains of
an explanation.
The artifice of the First Man was partially successful. The Prince of dark-
ness, together with his friends and associates, greedily seized the celestial mat-
ter, liberally offered, and satiated himself with it. This calmed the Demon's
furious passions, and checked his ardor for invading the world of light. It
might fitly be called a carminative, which soothed his rage in spite of him, and
subdued his inclination to evil ; or, according to the simile of Manes^ it operated
like a magical charm, which has the effect of making wild beasts and serpents
harmless. S.iys Manes, (apud Titum Bostrens. L. i. p. 68.) : Qiaa-api-ivn « vkh
riiy drroyTdKiia-av J'uvaufv Trfco-riKla-trHyt /utv tbf ipa^ucra. 'Of/uvi cTg TrXiiovi Xafiovo-X
Ta^Titv KuTEinit icui iS'i^i TpoTTov Tivo. o)(77rif> 3-«/)/ov. Quum vldisset materia potes-
tatem missam, (i. e. when the Demon saw the First Man, clothed in the five
celestial elements, and pretending friendship,) amore capta eoncupivit eam, et
ardenti(.re appetitu prehensam absorbuit, et quodammodo tanquam bellua ligata
est. And thus the principal danger to the world of light was indeed averted :
but another evil sprung up in place of it; and the issue of the scheme was not,
in all respects, happy. — For, First ; While the First Man, by injecting the
celestial matter into the darkness, aimed to capture the Prince of evil and his
associates ; the latter, on the other hand, grasped the celestial elements and
souls, and subjected them to his power. And four of the elements, namely,
darkness, water, wind and good fire, he so combined with the depraved ele-
ments, that no force could possibly separate them. And no small part of the
celestial matter, especially of the light or the souls, he and his officers devoured;
and, as I may say, converted into their blood and juices. Says Tyrbo, (in the
Acta Disput. Archelai, ^ 6. p. 10.) : At vero tenebrarum principes, repugnantes
ei, comederunt de armatura ejus, quod est anima. Tunc ibi vehementer afllictus
War of the Gods. 311
e«^t deorsum Primus Homo a tencbris. And, (§ 11. p. 20.) Deu« non habet
partem ouin imuido, ncc gaudet super eo, quod ab initio furtum passus sit a
Principihus (tenebrarum) et aborta fuerit ei tribuhitio. We siniU hereafter cito
the testimony of Manes himself, respecting this light which was devoured by
the Princes of darkness. In the tirst of tliese passages, Tyrbo did not mistake,
(as a very learned man supposes,) in saying, the armor of the First [p. 796.]
Man was soul. It is indeed true, as that worthy man says, that the Manichajana
considered souls as formed of light, or as particles of that eternal light which in
invisible to our organs : but the armor of the First Man was not merely light,
but also all the five celestial elements. And it escaped his recollection, that all
the Manicliffian elements were animated : and that mention is made in theit
schools, of various kinds of souls. Rational souls, which hold the highest
rank, are the daughters of light, or particles from it. But, besides these noblei
souls, others likewise, of an inferior order, proceed from the other elements.
Tijrbo therefore could truly say, the armor of the First Man was soul ; that is,
all kinds of souls existed in the live elements with which he was invested. But
I will sul.ijoin a passage from Augustine, respecting the souls subdued and op-
pressed in that first conflict between light and darkness, (from his Liber de
natura boni, c. 42. p. 363.) : Dicunt etiam nonnullas animas, quas volunt esse
de substantia Dei et ejusdem omiiino naturaj, quae non sponte peccaverint, sed
a gente tenebrarum, quam mali naturam dicunt, ad qiiam dehellandam, non ultrot
sed Patris imferio descender iint, superatse et oppressae sint, affigi in feternum
horribili globo animarum. This, Augustine confirms by the Epistola Funda-
menti of Manes ; in which, speaking of these souls. Manes says : Quod errare
se a priori lucida sua natura passa3 sint: unde, et adhserebunt iis rebus aniraae
eaedem, quas dilexerunt, relictas in codem tenebrarum globo, suis merilis id sibi
conquirentes. The Princes of darkness, therefore, so connected with them-
selves a great number of souls, that those souls changed their nature, and volun-
tarily assumed the character of darkness ; and therefore, they could not in any-
way be converted to God and recovered. And to this great evil, others were
added. For, — Secondly ; The Prince of darkness and his associates, devoured
the son of the First Man, whose name was Jesus. This part of the Manichaean
system is involved in much obscurity, and cannot be elucidated by clear and
explicit testimonies. Yet I hope to make it intelligible. In the first place, it is
certain that the First Man, the Being who encountered the Prince of darkness,
had a son named Jesus. Deceived by this name, (as Beausobrs has observed,
vol. ii. p. 554.) Augustine confounds in many places this son of the First Man,
with the Son of God our Savior ; and therefore calls him not only Jesus, but
also Christ. Thus, he says, (contra Faustum L. ii. c. 4. p. 134.) : Hujus Pritni
Horainis filium credi vultis Dominum Jesum Christum. Very faulty! The
Manichroans had two Jesuses, an impassive and a passive, a Savior of souls and
a Savior of bodies. The former, the Savior of souls, or the impassive JesuSy
was the son of eternal light or of God, and was himself all light. The latter,
the passive Jesus, who imparts health and strength to bodies, was the son of
the First Man. The former was distinguished by the surname Christ ; [p. 797.]
which the Manichaeans never applied to the latter. Hence, whenever Augus-
312 Century Ill.—Section 44.
tine speaks of Christ as combined with fruits, herbs, products of the earth, and
stars, and as being eaten by men, (and he speaks thus very often,) he blunders,
through ignorance of the Manichaean doctrines. Thus he says, (1. c. p. 134.):
Deliramenta vestra vos cogunt, non solum in coelo atque in omnibus stellis,
sed etiam in terra atque in omnibus, qua; nascuntur in ea, confixum et colliga-
tum atque concretum Ciu-istum dicere, non jam Salvatorem vestrum, sed a vo-
bis salvandum. Instead of Christ he should have said Jes?/5.— Whether the
First Man begat this son, before he marched against the army of darkness, or
in the heat of the contest, I do not find any where stated. But we may con-
jecture, that being reduced to straits by the enemy, he collected his energies,
and produced from himself this potent Being, in order to have an associate in
the fight. The reason for the name, is stated by Faustus the Manicheean, (apud
Atigust. L. XX. c. 2. p. 237.) where he says, that this Jesus is the life and health
of men. It was the practice of the Manichseans, as we have before shown, to
give names to the celestial Beings whom they mention, derived from the charac-
ter and attributes of those Beings. As therefore, this son of the First Man
afforded health (sulutem), — not indeed to souls, — but to bodies, which he
nourished, strengthened and sustained, he was called Jesns ; a name derived,
as is well known, from the Syriac Jeshua, servavit. For Manes vvrote in Syriac;
and therefore he gave to this son of the First Man a Syriac or Hebrew name,
indicative of his nature. — If now it be asked, What sort of a Being was this
Jesus 1 I answer, without hesitation. He was a very large mass of celestial
matter, in which resided vital power, or a living soul, and likewise ability to
communicate of that living soul to others. When God saw the Prince of dark-
ness invading his realm, he produced from himself a kind of sixth element, dif-
ferent from the other five ; namely, the Mother of Life, that is, a Being endowed
with the power of conferring life on things around her. And she produced the
First Man. And he, having received from his mother that vital power, or if you
choose, a sentient soul, poured it out in the conflict with the king of darkness,
either by the command of God, or from his own choice. The Maichseans need-
ed a sixth element of this character, in order to account for the production of
fruits and useful plants and herbs; for these could not easily be deduced from
the nature and powers of the five other elements. Moreover, this Jesus, the
son of the First Man, is in the earth ; from which he is drawn forth, by the
Holy Spirit resident in the highest ether, and is diffused throughout the natural
world. Hence Faustus, before quoted, (apud August. L. xx. e. 2. p. 237.) says:
Terram ex Spiritus sancti profusione concipere, atque Patibilem Jesum gignere,
omni suspensum ex ligno. It is very clear, that he means the fruits of trees;
and these he calls Jesus, because they contain a portion of the sentient soul
[p. 798.] generated by the First Man. For the Manichecans fully believed, that all
fruits, pulse, plants, and whatever grows out of the earth, contained Jesus, or
sensitive life. Thus Augustine, (de Haeres. c. 42. p. 12.) says: Herbas etiam
atque arbores sic putant vivere, ut vitam, quae illis inest, et senlire credant et
dolere, cum lajduntur : nee aliquid inde sine cruciatu eorum quemquam posse
vellere aut earpere. These remarks, which might be confirmed by many other
citations, make the Passive Jesus, if I mistake not, perfectly intelligible. Au-
War of the Gods. 313
gusiine often debated with Manichaeans on this subject, sometimea a ery cor-
rectly, but frequently not without some mistakes ; for instance, when he repre-
sents, or falsely supposes, that this limng soul, which the Maniehajans honored
with the name Jesus, was the same with Jesus our Savior. I will cite a pas-
sage, in which he avoids error, (de moribus Manicha3orum, L. ii. c. 1^ 16. 0pp.
tom. i. p. 554.) : Quoniam, inquit (Manes), membrum Dei (i. e. Jesus, the son
of the First Man) malorum substantice conmixtura est, ut eam refrenaret atque
a summo furore comprimeret (sic enim dicitis), de commixta utraque naturtV id
est, boni et mali, mundus est fabricatus. Pars autem ilia divina ex omni parte
muiidiquotidie purgatur et in sua regna resumitur : sed luce per terrarn exhalans
et ad caelum tendens incurrit in stirpes, quoniam radicibus terrae affiguntur, atque
ita omnes herbas et arbusta omnia fecundat et vegetat. - - Primo quaro, unde
doceatis in frumentis ac legumine et oleribus et floribus et pomis inesse istam,
nescio quam, partem Dei. Ex ipso coloris nitore, inquiunt, et odoris jucundi-
tate et saporis suavitate manifestum est. For much more of the like import, I
refer the reader to Augustine's works. — A large part of the mystery of the Pas-
sire Jesus, is now explained : and it remains, that we substantiate what we have
said, that this Jesus was swallowed by the Prince of darkness, in the conflict
with the First Man. And this we are able to do, from the declaration of Ma-
nes himself. Although this Jesus ascends from the earth in vegetables and
trees and plants, yet he does not reside in the earth, but in the huge and mon-
strous bodies of the Prince of darkness and his compeers ; and from their bodies
he is expressed, by a wonderful artifice of God, descends into the earth, and is
thence elicited by the influences of the Holy Spirit, and is distributed through
the natural world. The artifice of God, by which the Demons are forced to
eject the living soul descended from the First Man, will be explained elsewhere.
We now merely show, from the declarations of Manes, that it docs flow out
from the body of the Demon upon the earth. The passage I quote, is in the
seventh book of Manes' Thesaurus, (apud August, de natura boni,c. 44. p. 366.) :
Beatus Pater - - pro insita sibi elementia fert opem, qua exuitur et liberatur
ab impiis retinaculis et angustiis atque angoribus suaxitalis substantia. - - Hoc
enim viso decoro, (of this, hereafter,) illorum (DcTmonum) ardor et concu- [p. 799.]
piscentiacrescit, atque hoc modo vinculum pessimarumcogitationum earum solvi-
tur, vivaque anima (not the rational >-on\,)quce. eorundem membris tenebatur, hac
occasione laxata evadit. - - Id vero quod adhuc adver.si generis maculas portat,
per aestus atque calores particulatim descendit, atque arboribus, celerisque plan-
ialionibus ac satis omnibus miscetur. - - Atque ex isto aspectu decoro vitae pars,
quae in earundum membris habetur, laxata deducitur per calores in terram, «Sic.
as hereafter will be cited. — Now, as it is manifest from this passage, that the
living sensitive soul in plants, fruits and trees, descends into our earth from the
bodies of the Demons, and as this soul is by the Manichaeans called the Pas-
sive Jesus, and the son of the First Man ; it is certain, that the Demon and his
associates must have devoured and swallowed this intire Jesus. — But I proceed :
Thirdly: In that conflict, the First Man was reduced to the greatest extrenii-
ties. For the King of darkness almost had him in his power ; and, as the thing
itself shows, he wished to return with all his plunder, to his own country, the
314 Century IIL — Section 44.
realm of darkness. And if he could have done so, that exquisite portio.i of the
divine nature and of the celestial elements, which the Demon had made his own,
would have been for evef miserable and unhappy. For God neither has any power
over the world of darkness, which is equally eternal and abiding with the world
of light ; nor can he overthrow and destroy it. Tyrho says, (in the Acta Ar-
ch^lai, 5 7. p. 10.) : Tunc ibi vehementer afflictus est deorsum Primus Homo a
tenebnis, et nisi orantem eum exaudisset Pater, et misisset alteram virtutem,
quae processerat ex se, quae dicitur Spirilus Vivens {^^v TrviZfxu), et descendens
porrexisset ei dexteram, et eduxisset eum de tenebris, (he was therefore already
a prisoner of the King of darkness,) olim Primus Homo detcntus perielitaretur.
(That is, he would have been carried away, by the Lord of evil, into the world of
darkness.)
When, therefore, victory was almost in the hands of the Prince of darkness,
on the General's imploring succor, God sent a more powerful commander from
the world of light, to renew the conflict, and to cut off the Demon's retreat with
his plunder. The Manichasans tell us, that this new commander was procreated
by God himself; whereas the former General had a mother, who was indeed of
divine origin, but inferior to God. The name of the new General was, the
Living Spirit. He was called Spirit, because he had not a human form, but
was a lucid mass, like the Father. This we prove from the language of Manes,
in his Epistola Fundamenti, (apud August, de natura boni, c. 46. p. 366.) where
he represents the Demon as thus addressing his fellow-warriors, respecting this
second General from the world of liglit: Quid vobis videtur maximum line
[p. 800.] Lumeii quod oritur? Intuemini, quemadmodum polum movet, concutit
plurimas potestates. He was called Living Spirit, because he lives in and of
himself, being the immediate offspring of God, and did not, like the First Man,
derive his existence from a Being inferior to God. This second General did not
proceed alone, but had three Virtues of immense power for his associates. Thus
Tyrho, (I. c. p. 11.) : Tunc Vivens Spiritus — indutus alias tres virtutes, descen-
dens eduxit (i. e. seized) Principes (tenebrarum), et crucifixit eos in firmamento.
He therefore did not assail the foe, as his predecessor did, w^th artifice and
stratagem, but with open combat; and he bound the vanquished, so that they
could not retreat, and return with their rich plunder to their country. Yet, in
this second campaign, although it was successful, there was an occurrence not
anticipated, and adverse to the designs of God. The General of light had seized
many of the animals, both male and female, which lived in the elements of dark-
ness; and some of the females, being with young, were unable to bear the rapid
motions of the heavens, and cast their young prematurely. These abortions
afterwards fell from heaven upon this earth, and propagated themselves in our
world, contrary to the pleasure of God. Hence arose our animals, especially
the wild, noxious, and venimous, which cause so much trouble and danger to
men. A fable of this sort was necessary for the Manichaeans, to enable them
to answer the inquiry. Whence originated the pernicious and hurtful animals,
the serpents, insects, lions, tigers, &c. with which our world abounds. The
fable is puerile; yet it harmonizes with the fundamental principles of the sys-
tem. Says Augustine, (contra Faustum, L. vi. c. 8. p. 149.): Dicunt, in ilia
War of the Gods. 31 5
pujrna, quando Primus eormn Homo tenebrarum g^entem elementis falljicibus
irreiivit, utriusquc soxus Principibus indidem captis - - in qiiibus erant etiam
tbeininte aliquae prceornaiites: quae cum ccuhim rotari ca3pisset, candoin vcrtijriiK'in
ferre non valeiites, conceptus suos abortu excussisse, oosdcinque abortivos foe-
tus et masculoa et foeminas de coelo in terram cecidisse, vixisse, crevisse, concu-
buisse, genuissc. Hinc esse dicunt originem carnium omnium, quae moventur
in terra, in aqua, in aere. Either this passage has been corrupted, which is very
prol>able, or Augustine erred in stating the opinion of the Manichacans respect'-
ing the origin of our animals. For he speaks as if these animals were the off-
spring of the Princes of darkness, or rather of their wives; which was not true.
For the chiefs of darkness begat beings like themselves, or having the human
form. And in like manner, the animals of the world of darkness propagated
their own genera and species. Besides, there is another passage of Augustine,
(contra Faust. L. xxi. c. 12. p. 254.) in which he expressl}'- tells us, our animals
originated from the animals captured in that war: Itane in ilia gente non erat
sanitas corporum, in qua et nasci — et ita perdurare potuerunt ilia animaUa, ut
quibusdam eorum gravidis, sicut desipiunt, captis, et in cceIo colligatis, ncc sal-
lim pleni temporis, sed abortivi foetus de tam excelso in terram caden- [p. 801.]
tes et vivere potuerint et crescerc, et ista carnium, quae nunc sunt innuraerabilia,
genera propagare? There is also another fault in that passage of Augustine:
for he attributes the victory over the leaders of darkness, to the First Man :
but that honor did not belong to him, as we have shown, but to the Living
Spirit, the First Man having been vanquished.
It was necessary for Manes to suppose such an unfortunate battle of the
first General of the world of light. For he had to show, whence it arose, that
so many divine essences and particles of celestial matter became commingled
with the corrupt elements and malignant bodies, and exposed in them to so
great evils, sorrows, and sufferings, during so many ages. The blame could
not be charged on God; for he, according to Manichaean views, is the kindest of
Beings, and cannot hurt any one. They would have contradicted themselves, if
they had said that it was God's will, that the souls descended from him should
suffer numberless evils and sorrows during a very long period. They iiulecd
taught, as we may learn from Fortunatus in his discussion with Augustine, that
souls become intangled in matter, not necessarily, but by the volition of God: and
this, in a certain sense, they could justly say, as appears from the account we
have given of the warfare of the First Man. The adversaries of the Manichaj-
ans, including Augustine, (p. 78.) assailed this their doctrine, with the following
interrogatory: Quid opus erat tanta malaanimam pati per tantum tempus, donee
mundus finiatur? (See Titus Bostrens. contra Manichseos, L I. p. 91. 92. &i^c.)
To this question, Fortunatus, who was not master of the religion he professed,
acknowledges, that he could give no answer: Quid ergo dicturus sum? But
Manes had foreseen the question ; and he furnished a sort of answer to it. The
answer is: Tliat it is not God's fault that souls are so long detained in matter,
for he cannot possibly will evil to any being; but it was the fault of his Gene-
ral, the First Man, who, not being sufficiently on his guard, the celestial matter
and the divine essence became completely intermixed with depraved matter in
316 Century III.— Section 45.
the battle, and therefore cannot now be separated from it, except by a long pro-
cess. In this way, indeed, the difficulty which stumbled Forlunatus is solved,
and God is made innocent of the many evils which good souls feel and perform
in their long exile: but another blot, namely that of ignorance, is fastened upon
him. For he is made to be ignorant of future events, or not to have foreseen,
that the First Man would commit errors, and be overcome in the conflict with
the Prince of darkness. This, however, the Manichaeans readily conceded ; for
they denied to God other perfections besides that of foreknowledge. We may
here remark, — what also suggests itself on other occasions, that Manes, although
he may lack sagacity and wisdom, never lacks ingenuity. For he clearly per-
ceived, that God would be judged imbecile and weak, if he taught that the evil
Principle, contrary to the will and the efforts of God, got possession of souls
[p. 802.] and the celestial matter; and unkind and cruel, if he taught, that it was
according to the divine pleasure, that innocent souls for so many ages were in
affliction and in conflict with depraved matter; and therefore, to escape tliese
difficulties, he made him ignorant of the future. - - In this part of my dis-
cussion, several new views are advanced; but they are all based on reliable
authorities. ]t is therefore unnecessary to weary the reader, by stating how
far, and why, I deviate from other writers on Manichaeism, and especially from
Bcausobre.
S XLV. Oriijin, composition and character of Man. In the
commencement of the new campaignl, the Prince of darkness,
being terrified with the splendor of the Living Spirit^ and fore-
seeing that the particles of divine light, or the rational souls de-
voured bj him and his companions, would be wrested from them,
formed a cunning device for avoiding, in a measure, so great a
loss. For he persuaded his chiefs to transfer into their wives by
coition those portions of light which were in them : and the chil-
dren thus produced, he himself devoured, and of course with
them all the souls : and they being thus incorporated with his
blood and fluids, he embraced his wife, and so begat the first man
Ad(xm^ in part resembling the celestial First Man whom he had
seen, and in part like himself (') When all the souls which the
Princes of darkness had captured, were in this manner inclosed
in the body of Adam only, and thus placed beyond the power of
the Living Spirit, the King of darkness gave to Adam a wife,
namely LJve ; and Adam, being allured by her beaut}^, copulated
with her contrary to the will of God : and thus the miserable
race of mortals peopling our globe, began to exist and to be pro-
pagated.Q These unhappy children of Adam consist of a body
and lico soids. Their body is composed of depraved matter, and
Formation of Maji. Hi /
belongs wholly to the King of darkness, the fixther of Adam ;
and CDnscqucntly, when a man dies it returns to its original
source. Of their two souls, the one is animal, sentient, and con-
cupiscent, and was derived from the same Prince of evil ; but tlie
other^ which possesses reason, and is alone immortal, is a pariude
of that divine light which was captured by the race of darkness
in tlie contest with the First Man^ and was afterwards by their
Prince infused Avholly into the body of Adam, and thence distri-
buted among all his offspring, male and female. It hence appears,
whence arose that mixture of good and evil in indivi- Q). 808.]
dual men, and the perpetual conflict between reason and con-
cupiscence.('')
(1) That the first human beings were formed by the Prince of evil, mid con-
sequently, that the whole race of men are his descendants; and also that mar-
riages, by which the race is propagated, were his device ; all the ancient writers
declare, and on tliis subject there can be no doubt among such as keep in sight
the origin of the Manichsean system. But as to the manner in which the lirst
human beings were formed, there is some disagreement among those on whose
testimony we must here rely. It is fortunate, however, that a long extract from
the Epistola Fundamenti of Manes, which treated of this very subject, has .been
preserved by Augustine, and gives a clear and perspicuous account of Adam's
origin. This, therefore, is to be especially consulted, and to be exclusively fol-
lowed ; while the divergent and contrary statements of later authors, Theodord
for instance, and others, must be wholly rejected, as proceeding from impure
.sources. Beausobre, who is particularly solicitous to make out that Manes was
not a fool but a philosopher, exerts all the powers of his superior genius, (vol.
II. p. 401 &c.) to turn the fable of Manes, which we are considering, into an al-
legory ; the import of which shall be, that the Prince of darkness did not beget
the first man and woman, but formed them out of matter, which, as he thinks,
was called the Demon's wife. But Manes does not afford him the slightest
countenance; nor let drop one word on which a conjecture can be fastened, that
he purposed to enlighten the friend he was addressing by any sort of fiction.
On the contrary, the Exordium of the Epistle, (preserved by Augustine, Epistola
Fundamenti, p. 114.) clearly shows, that Manes uttered himself seriously, and
according to his real belief, aiming to give Paticius whom he addressed a naked
and simple statement of facts. He says : Ha3c sunt salubria verba ex perenni
et vivo fonte, qua? qui audierit, et eisdem primum crediderit, deinde qua? insinu-
ant custodierit, nunquam erit morti obnoxius, verum fcterna et glorio«a vilA
fruetur. Nam profecto beatus est judicandus, qui hac divina instructus cogni-
tione fuerit, per quam liberatus in sempiterna vita permanebit. Can we believo
a man would write so, if he aimed to lead his friend into error by some allego-
ry, or to elude his curiosity by an obscure fable ? But Manes goes on to say:
De eo igitur, frater dilectiesime, Patici, de quo raihi significasti, diccns, nosse te
318 Century III— Section 45.
cupere, utrum verbo (by command of God) iidom sunt prolati, an primogeniti
ex corpore, (i. e. begotten of the Demon's body,) respondebitur tibi ut congruit.
Namque de his a plcrisque in variis scripturis, relationibiisque dissimili modo
insertum atque commomoratum est. (Various opinions therefore, relating to
[p. 804.] the origin of the first men, were afloat in the East in various books.
Quapropter Veritas istius rei ut sese habet ab universis fere gentibus ignoratur,
et ab omnibus, qui etiam de hoc diu multumque disputarunt. (He therefore
proposes to give a new opinion, not before heard of.) Si enim illis super Adae
ct Eva) generatione provenisset manifesto cognoscere, nunquam eorruptioni et
morti subjacerent. The salvation of men and eternal life, therefore, depend on
a correct knowledge of the origin of Adam and Eve ! And would Manes in-
volve a doctrine of such moment in a ludicrous and silly fahle 7 But there are
other proofs, which intirely overthrovi^ the officious opinion of Beausobre ;
among which the strongest is, that according to Manes, no living and animated
being can be produced, either in the world of light or in the world of darkness,
except by generation. Yet the ingenious man has one argument in his favor.
He observes, that no one except Manes only, has said that Adam and Eve were
the fruits of the Demon's intercourse with his wife. This, however, is not per-
fectly true ; nor if it were true, would it effect anything. For Manes alone,
when Ms opinions are concerned, is of higher and greater authority than all
others. Besides, the others do not speak so fully and distinctly on this subject
as Manes does, they aiming to express summarily what he had expressed more
fully and minutely, so that they, as we shall see, treat the subject more concise-
ly and indistinctly. Let us therefore hear Manes himself; and let us not hesi-
tate to take his statements in their literal sense. I will cite the entire passage
from Augustine, (de natura boni c. 46. p. 366. 367.) It will give us a vivid idea
of the man's singular genius. He recites what the Prince of darkness said to
his compeers, thus : Iniquis igitur commentis ad eos, qui aderant, ait : Quid vo-
bis videtur maximum hoc lumen, quod oritur.^ (He refers to the Living Spirit,
who came down from heaven to renew the contest.) Intuemini, quemadmodura
polura raovet, concutit plurimas potestates. Quapropter mihi vos potius eequum
est, id quod in vestris viribus habetis luminis, (namely, the light, which the se-
veral leaders of the army of darkness had devoured in the first conflict.) pra^ro-
gare; Sic quippe illius magni, qui gloriosus (i. e. lucid,) apparuit, imaginem
fingam: (The Greai One here, whose image the King of the land of darkness
would copy, is not the Living Spirit ; for he was merely a splendid mass, with-
out any form : it was therefore the First Man, after whose likeness Adam was
formed, according to iWanes;) per quam regnare poterimus, tenebrarum aliquan-
do conversatione liberati. Haec audientes (duces et proceres terras tenebrarum,)
ac diu secum deliberantes, justissimum putaverunt, id, quod postulabantur, pra-
bere. Nee enim fidebant, se idem lumen jugiter retenturos: unde melius rati
sunt Principi suo id oflfevre, nequaquam desperantes, eodem se pacto regnaturos.
Quo igitur modo lumen illud, quod habebant, prsebuerint, considerandum est.
[p. 805.] Nam hoc etiam divinis scripturis, arcanisque coelestibus adspersum
est ? (That is, the sacred books touch indeed upon this subject, but it is only
briefly and summarily,) sapientibus vero, (to men divinely taught, as Manes him-
Formation of Man, 319
self pretended to be,) quomodo sit dntiiin scire, miniinc est diflicilc: nam coram
aperteque cognoacitur ab eo, qui vere ac fideliter intueri voluerit. Quoniara
eorum, qui convenerant, frequentia promiseua erat, foeminarum scilicit ac mas-
culorum, impulit eoa, ut inter se coirent: in quo coitu alii seminarunt, alia^ frra-
vida3 eftecta) sunt. Erant autnm partus iis, qui genucrunt similes, vires plurimas
parentum, uti Priml (ss. Hofninis,) obtinentes. Ila^c sumens eoruni I'rinceps
uti proicipuum donum gavisus est. Et sicuti etiam nunc fieri videmus, corpo-
rum formatriccm naturam mali inde vires sumentem figurare: ita cti;im ante
dictns Princeps sodulium prolem accipiens, liabentcm parentum sensus, pruden-
tiam, lucem, (i. e. a rational soul, which is a particle of light,) simul secum in
generatione proereatam, comedit : ac plerisque viribus sumptis ex istiusmodi
esc^, in qua non modo inerat fortitude, sed multo magis astutise et pravi, sensus
ex fera genitorum gente, propriam ad se conjugem evocavit,ex ea, qua ipse erat
stirpe manantem : et facto cum ea coitu, seminavit, ut ceteri, abundantiam ma-
lorum, qua} devoraverat: nonnihil etiam ipse adjiciens ex sua cogitatione et vir-
tute, ut esset sensus ejus omnium eorum, qua) profuderat formator, atque des-
criptor: ejus compar excipiebat ha3c, ut semen consuevit culta optime terra
percipere. In eadem enim construebantur et contexebantur omnium imagines,
coelestiura ac terrenarum virtutum, ut pleni videlicet orbis, id quod fprmabatur
similitudinem obtineret. Most of the things here narrated are plain and very
unlike an allegory. Augustine states the whole matter more briefly, (de Ha3res.
c. 42. p. 13.) thus: Adam et Evam ex Prinipibus fumi asserunt natos, cum Pa-
ter eorum nomine Saclas sociorum suorum fetus omnium devorasset, et quid-
quid inde commixtum divinee subtantiae ceperat, cum uxore concumbens, in
earneprolis tanquam tenacissimo vinculo colligasset. — The name of Saclas here
given by Augustine to the Prince of evil, as it is also by Theodorei, (H^eret. Fa-
bul.L. i. c. 26. p. 213.) and by others, — was a common appellation both among
the Manichaians and the Gnostics, as Epiphanius informs us, (Haeres. xxvi. ^
10. tom. i. p. 91.) and hence it is manifest, that this was the usual name for the
Demon among the Orientals. His wife's name, as preserved by Theodoret, was
Nebrod. Of the origin of these names, I offer no discussion. For what cer-
tainty or utility can such discussions promise us? It will be more profitable
to elucidate certain parts of Manes' statements, and confirm them by other tes-
timonies, so that we may more clearly see what Manes dreamed, or, if vvu
choose, adopted from the Mngian system, respecting the origin of mankind.
In the^rs^ place, the time of the formation of the first men by the Prince of
evil, must be noticed. In the beginning of the passage just quoted, [p. 80G.]
Manes clearly shows, that Saclas formed the purpose of producing man, when
he beheld the new Luminary from heaven appearing, and causing his princes to
tremble; that is, when he saw the Living Spirit coming to succeed tiie First
Man, and to renew the war. He did not greatly fear the First Man, who was
of his own form, and operated more by craftiness and deception, than by
prowess: but on seeing this new General, he lost all confidence in his own
power and that of his associates; and, from the first movements of the new cap-
tain, he could foresee, that he and his companions would have to give up the
light which they had captured. To prevent the loss of this plunder, he deemed
320 Century Ill.—Section 45.
it necessary to collect it together, and to place it in safety; and this, he thought,
could not be belter accomplished, than by withdrawing it all from the warriors,
and, after getting it into his own body, to commingle it perfectly with matter. It
may therefore be assumed as certain, that the first human beings were formed,
at the very commencement of the second war, and before the Living Spirit had
obtained the victory ; and consequently, they, or at least one of them, Adam,
existed before the world was framed: and this world was certainly formed by
the Living Spirit, after the subjugation of the Prince of darkness. This is a
new thought. For all the writers on the subject, whom I have consulted, say,
that according to Manes, this earth of ours is older than man; and that man waa
generated for the sake of the earth. And for the support of their opinion, they
have the respectable testimony of Tijrho, (in the Acta Disput. Archelai, ^ 7. p. 12.)
besides others, who might be mentioned. But they most certainly err, if reli-
ance can be placed on Manes. Man was prior to our world; and the previous
generation of man was, undoubtedly, the cause of the formation of our world;
and God would not have given orders for its formation, had not the crafty foe,
by generating man, frustrated the divine plans, by shutting up the souls which
God wished to rescue, in a body as their prison. In confirmation of these facts,
several passages might be adduced from Titus of Bostra; but I will content my-
self with citing only one, from a Manichaean who wrote a book Trip] t«j dv^pce-
7riv>ig vfiairo7r\ct<ri:tsy de prima homip.is formatione; inserted by Titus in the Pre-
face to his third Book, (tom. I. p. 137. edit. Caiiisii^): "Ekao-tos durwv twv t/c
i/A»j dpyovTav thj yivouhm )t/v«Vta'j 'iviKtv kui tow fixvcvros Trpwrov htrX tjiv hurpcoTi^
T>if '^V)(yiii T«f ^vp-xs Trpwrov dvoiyii^rn;, vtt' sitTrKi^iUii Iik'jov x.^rctTrcfx-^t^ tmv iV
dvru S'vv^fJitv, e/uopzaxriv (ivtov tii Q-itpA/uct t«j -^^X^^ ""' /nifAHfAct irXAO-ii l-xl Tii;
V«f, cTf S'v^ctTTO-^da-Teos iivdyx.u.a-iv raj -^v^ai KaraiciiKovMevas- Kat TTKa^y.^ dvToiv
ia-Tt TrpwTcv o 'a/u^, x. t. k. Unusquisque procerum materia3, siraulatque mo-
tus factus erat, isque apparebat, qui liberare jussus erat animas, simulatque
janua (eoelorum) nperiebatur, pra3 terrore invitus virtutem, quae in eo erat, di-
mittebat et forraavit se ipsum ad venandam animam. Et imitationera sui finxit
(This, doubtless, must not be understood of all the princes of darkness, but
only of their King; whom all Manichseans, as well as the founder of the sect,
[p. 807.] represented as the father of the first human beings,) in terra, (Beware
of hence inferring, that our earth then existed ; for this waiter had previously
denied it clearly,) coegitque animas delinitas, ut in eam ingrederentur. Ac pri-
mum quidem eorum specimen Adamus est. What Manes himself had stated
clearly, and at full length, his disciple here states more briefly and indistinctly.
Yet, in the main points, he agrees fully with his master. For he manifestly
teaches: — 1st, That great terror seized the princes of darkness, when they saw
the gates of heaven open, and the Living Spirit issuing forth with a mighty
movement. The cause of their trouble was, the fear that the light they had
plundered, would be wrested from them, and that they should fall back into
their former wretchedness and misery. For thus the writer had before stated:
Quia cognoverunt magistratus materia?, quod si omnino pars luminis, quod in
cos incidit, auferretur, mors (by mors, he means some dire calamity; for th»
princes of darkness could not die,) eis adventura esset, machinati sunt descen-
Formation of Man. 321
ttim animje in corpora. — 2dly, He teaches, tluit God purposed to rescue the oajv
tured light or souls, by means of the Living Spirit. — 3dly, That the princes of
darkness, to frustrate the designs of God, determined on the formation of a man,
or a material body, and inclosing- the captured souls in it. — 4thl3% That lor this
purpose-, they gave up all the particles of light which they had seized, reluc-
taiitly, indeed, yet prefering this as the least of two evils. — 5thly, And hence it
way, that Adam was formed, and all the souls thrust into him. Therefore, what
we have stated cannot be denied; namely, that at the commencement of the new
campaign, and as soon as the Living Spirit made his appearance, the Prince of
evil determined to generate man; so that truly, man was born, before that most
powerful Spirit founded this terraqueous globe.
The second thing demanding attention in the passage cited from Manes, is,
the objects proposed by the Prince of darkness in the formation of man. The
first or immediate object, had reference to the light. For the Lord of evil
wished to retain dominion over that light which he and his associates had seized,
and to prevent its recovery by the Living Spirit. The other, or more remote
object, is not so manifest. Manes thus describes it: Fingam imaginem, per
quam regnare poterimus, conversatione tenebrarum liberati. He therefore pro-
mised himself and friends a kingdom, as the result of the formation of man : and
his captains and co-warriors relied upon this promise. A little retiection will
make this expectation intelligible. The King of darkness anticipated, that
Adam, when he should generate him, would propagate his species by means of
Eve ; and thus all the souls collected together in him, would gradually become
distributed into as many bodies. And he had no doubt, that these souls, when
intangled in bodies, would follow their senses and their pleasures, rather than
their reason : and all who yield to lust and to the instincts of depraved matter,
are under the power and dominion of the Prince of evil. In this ex- [p. 808.]
pectation, the Lord of evil w-as not disappointed. He therefore actually pre-
pared for himself a kingdom, when he generated the first man.
The third thing requiring illustration in the passage from Manes, is as fol-
lows : The King of darkness says, that he imaginem Magni illius, qui gloriosus
apparnif, ficturum esse ; that is, that he w'ould form a man, like to the First
Man. So Manes and all his sect believed, that Adam was a copy of that First
Man whom God sent against the army of darkness. Tyrho, (in the Acta Archelai^
5 7. p. 12.) says : Convocavit (Princeps malorum) omnes prineipes primaries, et
Hurapsit ab eis singulas virtutes, et fecit hominem hunc secundum spcciem
Primi Hominis illius, et junxit animam (i. e. all the souls) in eo. It is well
known, and yet is worth repeating, that Adam also bore the image of his father,
the Prince of darkness. Thus Tyrho, (I. c. p. 19.) : De Adam vero quomodo
creatus sit, ita dicit (Manes), quia qui dicit : Veni(e,faciamus hominem ad imagi-
nem et similitudinem nostram, secundum eam, quam videmus, formam Princeps
est, qui hoc dicit ad collegas sues prineipes, id est, venite, date mihi de lumine,
quod accepimus, et faciamus secundum nostram, qui prineipes fiumuH, for marnet
secundum earn, quam videmus, quod est Primus Homo, et ita hominem creave-
runt. Adam therefore, in one sense, resembled the First Man, but in another
•ense he resembled his father, the King of evil. As to his external forrn, he
VOL. n. 22
S22 Century Ill.—Seciion 45.
was like his father ; for we have before showed, that the Lord of darkness was
a giant in a human form. In his figure, therefore, we must not seek for the
resembhince of Adnm to the First Man. That he was equal to his father in
stature and magnitude, and much taller and larger than his posterity, cannot
he doubted. The likeness of Adam to the First Man, I therefore suppose, was
placed by Manes in his attributes of light and power. For, as his father had
imparted' to him all the souls, those particles of light, he could not fail of being
resplendent, and possessed of great power and strength ; just as the First Man
was. Most of the Orientals, and many of the Jews likewise, were persuaded
that Adam was a giant, and was clothed with a very luminous body. This
Oriental opinion. Manes doubtless embraced, and incorporated in his religion.
Lastly, passing over things so plain as not to need a comment, there remains
to be noticed, the opinion expressed by Manes in the passage, concerning the
origin and nature of the soul. The Prince of darkness committed the whole
mass of souls under his control, to the vast and gigantic body of his single son
Adam. And therefore, whatever exists anywhere on our globe, having tiie na-
ture of soul, proceeded wholly from Adam by natural generation, and has thus
reached his posterity. Notwithstanding souls had existed in the world of light
long before bodies were formed, yet souls were not thrust into bodies by God
on account of their sins, as Plato thought; nor did they, as others supposed,
[p. 809.] voluntarily enter into bodies, from a love of voluptuous indulgence ;
but involuntarily, and contrary to the pleasure of God, they were intangled in
the bonds of material bodies, by the Lord of darkness ; and they are propagated
from parents to their children, by a law of nature, in the same manner as bodies
are. This I could confirm abundantly, from Augustine and others, if it were
necessary. But I only refer to the testimony of Manes himself, which is here-
after to be cited. — His opinion respecting souls, obliged our Persian to profess
what is called the Metempsychosis, or the migration of souls througli different
bodies. For he supposed, only a limited and definite number of souls were
thrust into material bodies ; and they who think so, must suppose that when
souls go out of their bodies, they pass into new ones.
Respecting the generation of Eve, nothing has reached us in the writings of
Manes. But Tyrho, (in the Acta ArcJielai, pO. p. 20.) repeats as his, the following
words : Evam quoque similiter fecerunt, dantes ei de concupiscientia sua ad deeipi-
endum Adam. From this declaration it is manifest, that Eie was of a worse
character, and had more depraved matter in her composition, than her husband.
For in Adam, into whom his father had infused the gi'eatest part of the light,
there was, as we shall soon show, more of light and goodness than of darkness
and evil matter : but in Eve there was a less quantity of light, and a far greater
quantity of darkness or propension to pleasures. This Tyrbo indicates, by the
words : Dantes ei de concupiscentia sua. And such a character was necessary
to her ; as it was by her, that the cause and author of all evil, wished his son
to be induced to apostatize from right reason. Theodorel tells us, (Ha3ret.
Fabul. L. i. c. 26. p. 213.) that Eve had no rational soul, when she was born ;
but that a certain male virgin, named Joel and Daughter of Light, afterwards
imbued her with light or a rational soul. And it may be, that Manes so taught.
Formation of Man. 323
For, as the Prince of evil had exhausted the whole mass of liglit in gencratinrr
Adam, he could impart nothing- to Eve, except a sentient soul. But this part
of the fable, from the want of documents to elucidate it, must be left very much
in the dark. Yet the longer I ponder and consider the fable of Manes, the
more certain I become, that Eve was born long after Adam, and after our world
was established. And I hope those will agree with me, in this point, who may
peruse what I am about to say respecting Manes' views of Adam's sin.
(2) What all Christians believe, on the authority of the inspired writer
Moses, that Adam apostatized from God, and was enticed into sin by the Prince
of hell, — M«7ies also confessed; yet he explained the matter very differently
from other Christians. What the ancients state, and among them Augustine
who had read Manichrean books, respecting the opinions of Manes in regard to
the sin of the first man, are so various and so discordant, tliat the most ingeni-
ous cannot reconcile them. Some of them listened too much to rumors, others
confounded certain Gnostic notions with the opinions of Manes, and [p. 810.]
others appear to have misrepresented the truth, from their hatred of the sect.
Therefore laying aside and disregarding the dubious, the uncertain, the false
and the contradictory, I will first bring forward the testimonies which have
most authority; and then from these will endeavor, as far as possible, to elicit
the true sentiments of Manes and arrange them methodically. Three passages
embrace the whole subject. The first is from Tyrho, (in the Acta Disput. Ar-
clielai, \ 10. p. 17.) who tells us, that Manes converted the Mosaic account of
Adam's transgression into an allegory : Paradisus autem, qui vocatur mundus,
et arbores, quae in ipso sunt, concupiscentiae sunt : (An incorrect statement, as
appears from what is said afterwards :) et ceterae seductiones corrumpentes cogi-
tationes hominum. Concupiscencies, then, are not inordinate emotions of the
human mind or will, but real things, which stir up and excite those emotions or
lusts of th.e man. Tyrho adds : Arborem scientiae boni et mali esse ipsum Je-
sura, quo duce ac magistro homines bonum malo secernere discunt. This ma-
nifestly contradicts what he had before said. For, if the trees of Paradise were
sensible objects, which the man craved and desired, how could the tree of know-
ledge of good and evil be Jesus ? I suppose. Manes likened Jesus to that tree,
and that Tyrho converted the metaphor into a dogma. — The second, a very ne-
ticeable passage, is from Manes himself, (Epistola ad filiam Menocli, which is
preserved in the unfinished work of Augustine, contra Julianum Pelagianum,
L. iii. 0pp. torn. x. p. 832.) : Operae pretium est advertere, quia prima anima,
quae a Deo luminis manavit, accepit fabricam istam corporis, ut earn fraeno sue
regeret. Venit mandatum. peccatum revixit, quod videbatur captivum : invenit
articulos suos Diabolus (i, e. an occasion, suited to his purpose,) materiam con-
cupiscentiae in eam seduxit et per illam occidit. Lex quidem sancta,8ed sancta sanc-
tae, et mandatum et justum et bonum, sed justae et bonae. I will here subjoin an
extract from Augusfme^s rep]y to Julian, which affords light on this subject. Augus-
tine, aiming to convict Julian of coinciding- with Manes, by means of this Epistle,
says : Manichaeus non hocde homine, sed de animfi bona dicit, quam Dei j)artom
atque naturam — opinatur - - in homine perconcupiscentiamdecipi. Quam concu-
'•iscentiam non vitium substantiae bonae, sed malam vult esse substantiam. Mala
324 Century III.— Section 45.
non vacuum fuisse dicit Adam, sed ejus minus lidbuisse, muUoque plus lucis. The
third p.'issage is from Augustine, (de morlbus ecclesiae Catholicae etManichae-
orum, L. ii. c 19. 0pp. torn. i. p. 552.) : Talis apud vos opinio de Adam et Eva:
lono;i fabula est, scd ex ea id attiiiijam, quod in praesentia satis est. Adam dici-
tis, sica parentibus suis (rcniturn, abortivis illis piincipibus tenebrarum,ut maxi-
mam parLem lucis haberet in anima et perexiguam gentis adversae. Qui cum
s;tiu'te viveret propter exsuperantem copiam boni, commotam tamen in eo fuisse
[p. 811.] adversam illam partem, ut ad concubitura declinaretur : ita eum lapsura
esse atque peccasse, sed vixisse postea sanctiorem. A Manichaean, whom August-
ine had previously mentioned for exemplification, when he was severely bastina-
doed for deflowering a virgin, relying upon this doctrine, clamabat, ut sibi ex
auctoritate Maniehaei parceretur, Adam primum heroem (so all the copies read ;
but I think it should read hominem. For in what sense could Adam, the son of
the evil Demon, be called a liero by the Manichaeans ?) peccavisse, et post pec-
catum fuisse sanctiorem. — Whoever will carefully consider the things above
stated in these passages, some of them clearly and others obscurely, and will
compare with them what has been already proved, and particularly what we
have said respecting Eie, the mother of the human race; unless I greatly mis-
judge, will be able to form no other conception of Manes'' opinion in regard to
the sin of the first man, than as follows: — First, When the Prince of evil had
placed in safety those souls or particles of divine light, which the Living Spirit
had been commissioned by God to recover, and they w^ere now all enclosed in
the single body of Adam, the offspring of the Prince of darkness; the first care
of God was, to prevent Adam from neglecting, and dissipating by carnal copu-
lation, that immense treasure of light which w^as stored up in him. — Secondly,
He therefore placed him in some part of that world, which the Living Spirit
had been instructed to fabricate ; and commanded him to watch carefully, lest
what was of a divine nature in him should be overcome by the assaults of the
body and of the evil soul or concupiscence. The tact that God gave a law to
Adam, is most clearly stated by Manes ; who says, that the substance of the
law was : Vt Adamus, freno animcc divincc, corpus (naturally inclined to lust)
regeret. I therefore wonder that Faustus, a disciple of Manes, (apud August.
h. xxii. c. 4. p. 258.) should censure the Mosaic history of the first human be-
ings, because, (as he says) : Deus in ea fingatur ignarus futurl, ut prseceptum il-
lud, quod non esset servaturus Adam, ei mandaret. When uttering this he
must have forgotten the written statements of Manes. It is certain, as we have
before put beyond controversy, that the God of the Manichaeans was ignoranl
of the future ; and he did give a law to Adam, which he was not to keep. —
Thirdly, Adam could, with a little pains, have kept the law which God gave
him. For although the collection of souls or the mass of light, which his Ei-
ther had committed to him, was resident in a malignant body, and also con-
nected with a turbulent and vicious soul; yet the portion of the divine nature
which he possessed was far greater and more abundant, than the portion of de-
praved matter with which it was surrounded. Nor is this unaccountable : for
the whole mass of light, which the entire race of darkness had seized upon, was
collected and deposited in hun : so that he had only one evil and vicious soul,
Formation of Man. 305
but good ones innumeralilo. — Fourthhj, Therefore, Adam, for some time, being
mindful of tiie divine i:uv, lived a holy life, and curbed the emotions of desire,
by sound reason. — F'ljVdy, But this continence portended great danger to the
wishes of the Prince of evil. For if Adam should persevere in it, the [p. 812,]
whole band of souls latent in him, on the extinction of his body, would soar
aloft to the world of light, and deprive the Demon of all hope of founding for
himself a kingdom. — Sixlhltj The Prince of darkness perceiving this, generated
a most beautiful woman, who was to allure Adam to sin, or to enkindle in him
that desire which was kept in subjection by the divine souls. She at first had
only a sentient and vicious soul, because her father had previously divested
himself of all ligiit. But God, wishing to make her better, and to prevent
Adam's siiming, added to her sentient soul a divine and good soul, by means
of a celestial Being named the Daughter of Light. But this good soul was too
weak, to subdue and hold in subjection that mass of depraved matter, of which
Eve was composed. — Seventhly, The result therefore was as tlw? Prince of evil
wished. For Eve, in whom desire was more powerful than reason, kindled aflame
in Adam. And, overcome by her blandishments, he yielded to her solicitations,
and lay with her. And thus the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the fruit of
which ruined man, was Eve : and the sin of Adam was, intercouse with the wife
provided for him by the Prince of evil,
(3) What Manes thought of man, cannot be unintelligible to those who
have read with moderate care the preceding discussions. And yet this subject
demands some attention, especially in regard to the soul. Manes constituted
man with two souls, the one good and the other evil, and a body altogether evil.
And not only was the body prop:igated from the parents, but likewise both
souls, though in a difterent manner. For the body is begotten by a body, and
the soul by or from a soul. Manes will explain this shortly, — To begin with
the body; It is clear, that the body consists wholly of depraved and vicious
matter. For when all the celestial matter, now mi.xed with the depraved mat-
ter, shall have escaped and evaporated, the impure residuum and malignant
dregs constitute the human body. Augustine is eloquent in explaining this doc-
trine, (de moribus Manicha3ornm, L, ii. c. 15. 0pp. torn, i, p, 543,): Carnes jam
de ip.sis sordibus dicitis esse concretas. Fugit enim aliquid partis illius divina^
ut perhibetis, dum fruges et poma carpuntur; fugit, cum aflhguntur vel tcrendo,
vel molendo, vel coquendo, vel etiam raordendo atque mandendo. Fugit etiam
in omnibus motibus animalium vel cum gestiunt, vel cum exercentur, vel cum
laborant. - - Fugit etiam in ipsa quiete nostra dum in corpore ilia, qua? appel-
latur digestio, interiore calore conficitur. Atque ita tot occasionibus fugiente
divina natura, quiddam sordidissimum remanet, unde per concubitum caro for-
mctur. - - Quo circa cum anima etiam carnem deseruerit, nimias sordes reli-
quas fieri. Hence all bodies belong, not to God, but to his adversary, the
Prince of darkness; who forms and fabricates them by means of lust, which
comes from him. In his Epistle to Menoch, (in Augustine's unfinished work
against Julian, L. iii, 0pp. tom. x. p. 828.) Manes says: Sicut auctor [p. 813,]
animarum Deus est, ita corporum auctor per concupiscentiam (which passed
from him into the evil soul,) Diabolus est, ut in viscatorio Diaboli per concupis-
326 Century III. — Section 45.
centiam mulieris. (Here seems to be something wrong in tlie language, but the
sense is clear. Manes (I suppose) would say, that women now, as formerly
Eve, is the bird-lime of the Prince of evil, by which he enkindles lust in rnen,
and entraps them.) Unde Diabolus aucupatur non animas, sed c-orpora sive
per visum, sive per tactum, sive per auditum, sive per odoratum, sive per gus-
tum. (Good souls, being of a celestial nature, and free from all emotions and
desires, cannot possibly be ensnared, or have lustful feelings excited in tlK-m.
But bodies, in which evil and concupiscent souls reside, can be insnared or
stimulated to sin, by means of the five bodily senses.) ToUe denique malignae
hujus stirpis radicem, et statim te ipsam spiritalem contemplaris.
That Manes assigned two souls to men, is most certain. See Augustine's
unfinished work against Julian, (L. iii. p. 82S.) : Duas simul animns in uno horai-
ne esse delirant, unam malam, alteram bonara, de snis diversis Prineipiis eman-
antes. And there is extant a Tract of Avguslme, (0pp. tom. viii. p. 55 &c.) in-
titled: Libellus de duabus animabus contra Manicha30s. But whoever shall ex-
pect to gain from it a full and accurate knowledge of the Manichaean doctrine,
concerning the soul, will find his expectations disappointed in the perusal. For
the author disputes against the doctrine in a general way, and without defining
and explaining it. Indeed, Augustine confesses, though obscurely, in his un-
finished work, (L. iii. p. 828.) that he did not fully and intirely understand the
doctrine of his antagonist concerning the soul. I can believe, that both Manes
and his disciples expressed themselves differently at different times, on this as
on many other subjects. I will state what can be ascertained in regard to it. —
The evil soul comes from the Prince of evil, and is the seat of all the passions,
lust.-*, appetites, and desires, by which men are agitated and led astray ; but the
good soul is a daughter of light, and of a divine nature, and cannot become ex-
cited, nor crave any of the external objects thnt meet the senses. This depraved
soul is attached to the body, and is excited and impelled to concupiscence, by
the objects presented to the five senses. This, I think, is clear, from the passage
of Manes before cited, in which he says : Diabolus aucupatur non animas (i. e.
not the good souls,) sed corpora, (in which the vicious soul resides,) by means
of the five senses. This soul is propagated, with the body, from the parent to
the child. Says Manes, in his Epistle to Menoch, (apud August. Operis imperf.
L. iii. p. 829.) : Caro (i. e. the body, in which resides the soul that is evil by
nature,) adversatur spiritui, quia filia concupiscentia3 est, et spiritus oarni, quia
filius animse est. Quare vide, quam stulti sint, qui dicunt, hoc figmentum (the
animated body) a Deo bono esse conditum, quod certi sunt a spiritu concupis-
[p. 814.] centiae gigni. Parents obtain those souls, which they impart to their
children, through the aliments they use. For all matter, and all the five ele-
ments of it, the Manichaeans supposed to be animated or full of souls; and this
they supposed, not only of bad matter, but also of good matter. Therefore,
whenever people nourish their bodies with flesh, wine, and other nutritious sub-
stances, they take therewith into their bodies, the turbulent and vicious soul
latent in those substances. And consequently, it must be, that the children pro-
created from their bodies, receive also that root of all evils. — If now it be asked,
to which of the five elements, of which all things are composed, the evil soul
Formation of Man. 307
bclon^d? — (for the Maiiieha3ans recognized no Beings as simple essences, and
void of matter,) I suppose, it was a portion of smoke^ or the bad ether. For the
I'rint'c of darkness lives and dwells in smoke, or in the thick murkey ether; and
he consists of smoke or m;ilignant ether, just as God does of light. And as evil
souls are descended from him, it is to be supposed, tiiat they will possess the
same nature with their parent. Therefore, the depraved soul of the IManiohic-
ans, was a portion of smoke or bad ether, which is dilTuscd through all matter,
and from it is transfused into all human bodies.
Its opposite, the good soul, is a particle of celestial light. Of this, there
can be no doubt. But whether it is a portion of that divine nature or light, of
which God himself consists, or whether it belongs to that celestial element,
which the ]\[anicha3ans denominated light, is not equally certain. The ancient
adversaries of the Manichaaans, Tilus, Augustine, and the others, afiirm in many
places, that the good soul of the Manichagans was a part of God himself Read
merely the Tract of Augustine de duabus animabus, in the beginning of which,
he several times declares the good soul of the Manichseans to be de suhstantUl
Dei. But Beausohre takes great pains to prove, that the ancients erred in this
matter, and that the good soul is only a portion of the celestial elements. To
me the point appears doubtful : because the doctrine of the Manichfeans respeot-
ing the soul is nowhere explained with sufficient clearness. Manes, in a passage
80on to be adduced, calls the soul divincc stirpis fructum : but this is ambigu-
ous, and may be understood either way. The good soul is propagated : but in
what manner. Manes himself seems not to know ; and, if I mistake not, he is
not self-consistent in regard to the soul. But let us hear him descanting on
the subject, in his Epistle to his daughter Menoch, (apud August. Operis imperf.
L. iii. p. 828.) where he thus addresses the lady : Gratia tibi, et salus a Deo
nostro, qui est revera verus Deus, tribuatur, ipscque tuam mentem illustret et
justitiam suam tibimet revelet, quia es diviucC stirpis fructus. - - - Per quos et
tu splcndida reddita es, agnoscendo qualiter prius fueris, ex quo genere anima-
rum emanaveris, quod est confusum omnibus corporibus et saporibus [p. 815.]
et speciebus variis cohasret. Nam sicut animcc gignuntur animabus, ita figmen-
tum corporis a corporis natura digeritur. Quod ergo nascitur de came, caro
est, et quod de spiritu, spiritus est : spiritum autem animam intellige, anima de
anima, caro de carne. - - Caro enim adversatur spiritui, quia filia concu])iscentia3
est: et spiritus carni, quia filius animaj est. Manes here seems explicitly to
support the opinion of those who make souls originate from souls. And hence
Julian the Pelagian, who wished to prove Augustine to be a Manichasan in his
doctrine of the soul, says : Cognoscis nempe, quomodo signatissime Manichajus
traducem confirmet animarum, et quo testimonio utatur ad vituperationem car-
nis, illo videlicet, quod in ore vestro versatur, id est. Quod nascitur de carne,
caro est, et quod de spiritu, f^piritus est. Augustine here hesitates, and knows
not what reply to make. He first says : Nescire se hanc epistolam ^Maniciuei.
This perhaps was true ; but it was nothing to the purpose. lie then adds,
That if Manes wrote so, he contradicted himself: Si hoc dixit Manicha^us, quid
mirum est, quod se ipse destruxit ? This is no mistake : for the opinion, which
Manes here seems to profess, in regard to the propagation of souls, evidently
328 Century JIL— Section 45.
disagrees with his other opinions respecting the generation of man, the world,
and other subjects. Finally, he says he does not know the opinion of Manes
respectir)g the soul ; and he is not disposed to inquire into it : Quomodo dicat
Manichaeus aninias nasci, ad nos quid pertinet ? But I wonder, the acute Aw-
gusiine should not perceive, that the very words of Manes before us, contain
enough to overthrow this opinion of the generation of souls by souls. For
Manes says to his daughter, whom he is addressing : Animani emanasse de illo
animarum genere, quod est confusum omnibus corporibus et saporibus et spe-
ciebus variis cohaeret. If Manes said this in reference to the good soul of his
daughter, then that soul was not born of the soul of her parents ; but it came
into their bodies with their food and drink, and thence passed into their daughter.
That Manes had reference to the evil soul, I see no reason at all to beiieve.
And hence, either the doctrine of Manes concerning the soul, was incoherent
and a compound of contradictions, — which perhaps was the fact; or we must
suppose, that when he said. Souls are the daughters of sovls, he only meant,
that all good souls descended from that mass of light or souls, which the Prince
of darkness had got into his power. Yet no small portion of those souls re-
sides in herbs and trees and animals ; because the souls of men which are not
purgated, migrate at death into various kinds of bodies, from which in process
of time they return into men. And thus Augustine himself explains the Mani-
chrean doctrine, in another place, (contra duas Epistolas Pelagianorum, L, iv. c.
[p.816.] 4, Opp. tom. X. p. 310.) : Dicunt Manichsei animan bonam, partem scilicet
Dei, pro mentis inquinationis suae per cibum et potura, in qiiibus antea colligata
est, venire in hominem atque ita per concubitum carnis vinculo colligari. — Let
us proceed to other points. This good soul, being of celestial origin, and nothing
celestial being able to put oif or change its nature, must be holy and just and
good, and it cannot lose its holiness even in the body. It may indeed become
debilitated, or its natural energy and power may be impeded, by the body to
which it is joined, and by the evil soul its associate ; but it is absolutely im-
possible for it to become corrupted or vitiated, or to harbor lusts and passions.
Whatever enormities and crimes, therefore, are committed by men, they all per-
tain to the evil soul and the body ; and when they are committed, the good soul
dissents, is unwilling, and reluctating. Says Augustine, (Operis imperf L. iii.
p. 829.) : Spiritum concupiscentiae Manichaei substantiam dicunt esse malam,
non vitium substantiae bonae, quo caro concupiscit adversus Spiritum. But let
us hear Manes himself. In his Epistle to Menoch, (1. c. p. 828, 829.) he warmly
contends that the good soul cannot do wrong or sin : Cum animo nolente coeunt
et secretis pudoribus gerunt, quo tempore odio habent lucem, uti ne manifes-
tentur opera eorum. Cujus rei gratia ait Apostolus: Non est volentis : ut
subaudiatur, hoc opus. Sive euim bonum geramus, non est carnis : quia mani-
festa sunt opera carnis, quae sunt fornicatio, &,c. She malum geramus, non est
animcc : quia fructus Spiritus pax, gaudium est. Denique clamat et ad Roma-
nos Apostolus : Non bonum, quod volo, ago, ^ed malum operor, quod exhorreo.
Videtis vocem animae contumacis, contra concupiscentinm defendentem liber-
tatem animae. Dolebat enini, (juia pecatum, id est, Dinbolus operaretur in se
omnem concupiscentiam. Legalis auctoritas indicat malum ejus, cum omnes
Formation of Man, 329
ejus usiis vitupcrat, quos caro miratur et laudat : omnia enim amaritiuio con-
cupiseentiae suavis est animae, per quam nutritur anima et ad vi^i^oivm aecitur.
Denique coercentis se ab oinni usu concupiseentiae animus vinril;,t, diliitur et
creseit : per usum autem concupiscentiae consuevit decrescere. He adds other
things of the same nature ; but I omit them, because these are sufficient to ex-
hibit his opinion. — Yet, in a certain way, all the sins of the depraved and
vicious soul, pertain also to the good soul. For this soul is required to repress
the passions and lusts of the evil soul, and to keep it in subjection : and it has
ability to fulfil this divine command. If, therefore, it is neglectful of its duty,
and suffers the lust of the evil soul to predominate, it is not only weakened
thereby, but it contracts guilt, and, in a sense, sins through the evil soul, whii-h
it ought to restrain. That Manes so thought, is manifest from his commend-
ing penitence, and promising forgiveness of sins to the penitent. See [p. 817.]
Augustine's Tract de duabus animabus, (c. 12. p. 64.) : nunquara negaverunt,
dari veniam peccatorum, cum fuerit ad Deum quisque conversus : nunquam dix-
erunt (ut alia multa) quod Scripturis divinis hoc quispiam corrupter inseruerit.
And (ch. 14. p. 65.) : Inter omnes sanos constat, et quod ip.^i Manichaei non
solum fatentur, sed et praecipiunt, utile esse poenitere peccati. Augustine, in
this place, slily asks the Manichaeans, Whether it is the good soul or the bad
one that repents 1 And he says : Si animam tenebrarum peccati poenitet, non
est de substantia summi mali : (Well said !) Si animam lucis, non est de sub-
stantia surami boni. (This argument, the Manichaeans would easily answer.
For they would say. The good soul does not itself sin, but by permilting
the sins of the evil soul, it becomes guilty.) But there was no need of Augus-
tine's asking the question, since it is manifest, that repentance is the act of the
good soul and not of the bad one. For if the latter could feel sorrow for its
sins, it would not be wholly evil. These doctrines of Manes, in regard to the
duty and the powers of the good soul, and the utility of repentance, show, that
Manes attributed to the good soul not merely intelligence, but also a will,
feelings, and emotions ; notwithstanding he seems to exclude from it all incli-
nation, desire, and passion. And yet, to tell the truth, the opinions of the Ma-
nichceans respecting the two-fold soul of man, are not altogether clear : and
hence they, as well as their founder, appear to have doubted how they ought
to think, and to have expressed their opinions in dubious and equivocal terms.
Still, from what they have said, it is evident, I think, that those are mistaken,
who once held, or now hold, that the Manichaeans considered the soul to be tied
down by fjite and necessity. The evil soul indeed is enslaved, and, by its very
nature, is borne on to all kinds of concupiscence and wickedness. But the good
soul, although somewhat weakened and fettered by its evil associate, yet
possesses free volition, even in the body ; and it can, according to its ple;isiire,
either authoritatively restrain and curb its associate, or sutler it to be guided by
its depraved instincts. And whenever it does the first of these, it advances its
own interests, gains strength, and becomes more fit for a return to the world
of light ; but when it does the last, it incurs salutary chastisement at tlie hands
of God.
330 Century Ill—Section 40.
§ XLVI. Formation of this our World. Its structure and design.
Man having been formed by the Prince of darkness, and the
souls, those daughters of light, inclosed in his body, and the
celestial elements combined with matter or with the elements of
the world of darkness ; nothing remained for God, Avho was de-
sirous of rescuing those souls and the celestial elements, except,
to form from the vitiated inatter ad intermediate world, between
[p. 818.] the world of light and that of darkness, and compound-
ed of both ; which should afford to men a domicile, and to God
a suitable opportunity for carrying out his purpose of gradually
extracting the souls from the bodies, and separating the good
matter from the bad, and restoring both to the world of light.(')
Therefore, by God's command, the Living Sinrit, who had already
conquered the Prince of darkness, constructed this our world.
In doing so, he first fabricated the sun and moon, from matter
that had not been corrupted ; then, from that which was but lit-
tle contaminated, he formed the ether, and the stars which re-
volve in the ether ; and lastly, from that which was entirely per-
vaded by depraved matter, he constructed this our earth. (^) And,
as the son of the Frrst Man^ whose name was Jesus^ w^as still de-
tained a captive in the bodies of the Prince of darkness and his
associates, those miserable Beings were to be confined, lest they
should abscond with their plunder: and therefore i\\Q Living Spi-
rit chained them to the stars. This measure was necessary and
wise, and on many accounts exceedingly useful ; and yet it was
a source of troubles and dangers. For these Princes of evil, from
the stars w^here they dwell, not only lay snares for good minds,
but also send down upon our world hosts of evils, pestilences,
thunders, lightnings, tempests, war, &c.Q And lest so vast a
world should fall and come to pieces, a very powerful Being
from the world of light, by divine command, props it up and
sustains it. His name is Omophorus^ significant of the very one-
rous task he has to perform. And lest he should succumb under
such a burden, an assistant is given him, to hold the suspended
orb steady. He is a Being equally strong and robust, and bears
the name of Splenditenens.(')
(1) That our world was created, according to Manes, not only with the
knowledge and consent of God, but also Ly his command, there can be no
doubt. And, therefore, those do him injustice, wiio tell us that the Prince of
J^
Formation of thin World. ^31
darkness was the former of the material universe : unless, possibly, they mean
no more than that the Cause of all evil produced the oecaKion,or, if you choose,
the necessity for God to construct the world. Says Av<rnsiwe, (de llaercs.
c. 42, p. 11.) : Mundum a natura boni, hoc est, a natura Dei (He means that
Being or nature, born of God, which the Manichaeans called the Living Spirit,)
factum, eonfitentur quidem, aed de coramixtione boni et mali, quae facta est,
quando inter se utraque natura pugnavit. And so Avgusline explains his views
in other passages. Thus, (contra Faustum, L. xx. c. 9. p. 240.) ; Vos [p. 819.]
primnm hominem cum quinque dementis belligerantem et Spiriium poientem
(who is also called viiens) de captivis eorporibus gentis tenebrarum, an potius
de meinbris Dei vestri victis atque subjectis mumdum fabricaniem creditis. See
also the Exordium of his first Dispute with Fortunatus, p. 67. And Foriunatus
himself, (in this first dispute, p. 72.) says: Constat, non esse unam substan-
tiam, licet ex unius (bonne) jussione eadem ad compositionem hujus mundi et
faciem venerint. Although Fortunatus here, as Augustine himself often, says
that God formed the world ; yet we must understand it to have been only by
the direction or command of God. For it would not be suitable for God him-
self, a most pure and holy Being, to put his own hand to the work : so that, what
God is said to have done, he only caused to be done by his minister, the Living
Spi7'it ; whom Alexander of Lycopolis (contra Manichaeos p. 4.) calls SMUicvpyov.
— The causes which induced God to order a world formed, from impure and
defiled matter, may be understood from what has been stated. The first and
principal cause was the human race, which, as God could easily foresee, would
be born and propagated. For the crafty Prince of evil had collected the
whole mass of souls that he had captured, and placed them beyond the reach
of the Living Spirit, by depositing them all in the single body of Adam :
and then he gave him Eve for a wife, and Adam overcome by her blandish-
ments had begun to procreate children. By this artifice the liberation of j-ouIs,
for which God was solicitous, was rendered a long and tedious process; and
during its continuance, some place was to be prepared in which Adam and his
posterity might reside. This cause for creating the world, of which we have
heretofore treated, is expressly mentioned by Ti/rbo,(\n the Acta Disput. ^rc/ie-
lai 5 10. p. 20.) where, having spoken of the formation of the first human
beings by the Prince of evil, he closes the passage with these words :
Kat S'la rovToeV ycyoviv « irxao-ic tou Kcxr/uoyj, Ik tm? tow "Apyf^ovrc^ i'lijuiovpy i-xi,
Et propter haec (on account of Adam and Eve,) factum est figmentum (the
fobric) mundi, propter fabricationem nimirum Principis (malorum), who had
made the first man. In addition to this first cause, there was another. In the
conflict of the Prince of darkness with the First iMan, celestial matter had be-
come completely commingled and coherent with malignant matter; and to sepa-
rate it from the evil elements, and restore it to its primitive state, which was the
wish of God, would be a vast undertaking, and would require a very long time, if
that matter remained in a confused and chaotic state. But if assorted and arrang-
ed in proper order, the good and divine might with greater ease be severed from
the evil and the vicious; and thus in a shorter time, that complete separation
which God desired, might be effected. See Tlieodoret, (Ilocrct. Fabul. [p. $20.]
332 Century III.— Section 46.
L. i. c. 26. p. 213.) Lnstl}', the matter which the Livivg Spirit had wrested
from the grasp of the Lord of evil, was not all of one kind ; some portions of it
were better, purer and more holy than others ; for some portions had contract-
ed more, and others less vitiosity and malignity in that contest. And this diver-
sity in the condition of the matter, rendered a separation and distribution
necessary. — The pattern for the new world he was about to form, the Liv-
ing Spirit undoubtedly borrowed from the world of light. Our world contains
the same elements as the world of light, although our elements are polluted ;
and they are arranged in the same order, as in the kingdom of God. Our world,
therefore, is a sort of picture or im:ige of that blessed world, where God and the
innumerable host of his^Eons dwell. It was a common opinion among the peo-
ple of the East, and one prevalent among the Gnostics, that this our world was
formed after the model of the upper or celestial world. Moreover the Mani-
chaeans divided this material universe into two parts, the heavens and the earth.
The Heavens they reckoned to be ten in number, if we may believe Augustine ;
but of earths, they reckoned but eight. Thus Augustine says to Faustus, (L.
xxii. c. 19. p 327.): Unde scis, oeto esse terras et decern coelos, quod Atlas
muiidum ferat, Splenditenensque suspendat, et innumerabilia talia, unde scis
haec ? Plane, inquis, Manicha3us me docuit. Sed infelix credidisti, neque enim
vidisti. As to the number of heavens, I make no question : but as to the earths,
I have abundant reasons for doubt, since I no where find the Manichaeans
speaking of more than one earth, as being laid upon the shoulders of their
Omnphorus. There is indeed a passage in the Latin version of the Acta Arche-
lai. (5 7. p. 11.) which resembles that of Augustine ; Et iterum (Spiritus vivens)
creavit terram, et sunL oclo. But in the Greek of Epiphanius, it reads : E';j tiJ'n
cATo). Creavit terram octupli forma, sen specie. And this reading certainly ac-
cords better with the preceding noun, terram, of the singular number; and also
with the whole narration of Tyrbo, who uniformly speaks of but one earth, than
it does with the words of the Latin translator, who seems to have read E'/<rt cTe,
instead of e/c aS'ii. Neither will the Manichaean notion of a single world-
bearer or Omophorus, admit of more earths than one. For how, I pray, could
that one Omophorus carry eight worlds, in whatever manner you arrange them?
I therefore suppose that Augustine was deceived, either by the ambiguity of the
w^ords, or perhaps by the mistake of the Latin trashitor of Archelaus, and be-
lieved the Manichaeans' earth to be an octagon. That the Manichaeans assigned
to the heavens a roiind or spherical form, Cosmas Indicopleustes alone informs
us, (in his Topographia Chistiana, published by Montfaucon in his Nova Collectio
Patrura Graecor. torn. ii. L. vi. p. 270, 271.) : M^v/;^*?©/ tov <rt ovpavdv arpcttfonSn
vo/ut^ovra. Manichaei aestimant eoelum sphasricum esse. This passage offers
occasion to correct a striking error of the learned Beausohre (vol. 2. p. 374.)
[p. 821.] He asserts, that Cosmas above cited, tells us that Manes was an ex-
cellent mathematician : and this testimony of Cosmas, he thinks, is a strong
proof that Manes possessed much genius and learning. For he supposes Coi-
mas to be speaking of Manes, (L. vi. as above, p. 264.) where he says:
Ms;;^5tv/Kou dvS'pds x.al Koytou k*i v-rtp -roW'Ttv iunip'.u. Vir mechanicus et doc-
tus, multos peritia rerum superans. But this eulogium is not bestowed by Cos-
Formation of this World. 333
mas on our Manea^ "but on .1 certain Eg"yptian niathcniaticlnn, whose name was
Ariastnsius. I sii})poHe it was iin error of the eye, and that tlie learned man read
Muvt^^ur.vy insteaci of Mi^'^viKouy whieli is the word usod hy Cosinas.
(2) The matter, from which the Living Spiril had to form the world which
God commanded, was of different kinds. Some of it was perfectly pure, having
remained uncontaminated. Another portion was slightly contaminated wi;h
base matter; and another was wholly immersed in bad matter. Interspersed
with these was a portion of the depraved elements, or evil fire, left behind by
the t]yin<r leaders of darkness, and not at all modified by the celestial elements.
To this very different condition of the materials to be used, the builder of the
world had to pay attention in the execution of his work. Manes, or the
Magians, from whom he learned his doctrine, had to so imagine things, as to be
able to account for the great dissimilarity in the different parts of this material
universe. The whole system, as I have already said, was absurd and futile, and
especially if tested by the precepts of the bible and of sound reason ; but if
tried by the opinions and conceptions of the Persians and other Oriental nations,
it will appear more tolerable; and there really was genius and ingenuity in its
conception and plan, and in the nice adjustment of its parts. — The founder of
the world, therefore, first collected and arranged that celestial matter, which
was not defiled with the contagion of evil, and had remained pure and uncon-
taminated by the war. Of the good fire and the light, he constructed the sun;
and of the good water, he formed the moon. Thus Tyi'bo, (in the Acta Disput.
Archelai, § 7. p. 11.): Tunc vivens Spiritus creavit mundum, et indutus alias tres
virtutes descendcns creavit luminaria (tcwj ipoea-Tiipa;, the sun and moon,) quee sunt
relicjuioe aniraa3, a icru t«c 4'^/C"? ki'i-^-jlvu. (we have already remarked, that Tyrbo
calls all the celestial elements -{vx^^v^ animam; for they were all animated,) et
fecit ea firmamentum (to a-npcafAct) circumire. Augustine, (de Hseres. c. 46. p. 11.)
says: Quas itidem naves (we shall see in the proper place, that the Manichceana
called the sun and moon ships, or compared them to ships,) de subsianiid Dei
purd perhibent fabricatas. Lucemque istara corpoream - - in his navibus puris.si-
77?a7n credunt. Andnotinconsistentwith this,is the declaration, (L.xxi.c. 4. p. 251.):
Solem tarn magnum bonum putalis, ut nee factum (created from nothing,) a
Deo putatis, sed prolatura vel missum esse credatis; i. e. consists of celestial
matter, which emanated from the essence of God. Compare, besides [p. 822.]
others, Simplicius, (on Epictetus, p. 167.) and Titus of Bostra, (contra ]\Iani-
chaeos, p. 99.) who says: Solem Manichaeus decernit non habere mixtionem
mail. And hence the Son of God himself, and many other celestial Beings of
the highest dignity and power, have fixed their residence in the sun and moon.
Whence Fausfus, (apud August. L. xx. c. 1. p. 237.) calls the sun and moon
divina Lmnina. — Of the good air or ether that remained unpolluted, I find
nothing said. But, since the Holy Spirit, as we have heretofore remarked,
dwells in the ether that encompasses our earth, and he cannot possiljly have in-
tercourse with corrupt matter; we are obliged to believe, that a good part of
the celestial ether, in the battle with the Prince of darkness, escaped the con.
tamination of the smoke or bad ether, and was collected together by the Living
Spirit, — The pure matter being properly located, the framer of the world pro-
334 Century III.— Section 4G.
ceeded to that which had only a small portion of depraved matter mixed witn
it. Out of this slightly defiled matter, he formed the heavens and the stars.
For the stars emit light, though less in quantity and more obscure than the sun
and moon. And therefore, it must have been concluded, that a considerable
portion of light is in the heavens and the stars, though they are not intirely free
from defilement. Says Alexander of Lycopolis, (contra Mnnichaeos, p. 6 and 15.):
To J"t cv /uiT^idL yeycYCi kukIu. d<rrffit.i xut tov ou^avov a-ufATrsLvra.. Ex partlbus
autem materiae mediocri a pravitate pollutis fecit sidera et universum coelum.
Hence Simplicius (in Epictetus, p. 167.) says, The Manichaeans worshipped
only the sun and moon, ris tou dyct^-oZ (AoifA^ Xt^cvrej avTovcy quae sidera
dicunt boni (id est, Dei) partem esse; but the other heavenly bodies, they des-
pise, wj T>)j Toy KAMu fAoipas ovTcovy quae ad malum (Daemonem) pertineant.
Yet these declarations properly refer, not to the matter of the heavenly bodies,
but to the inhabitants of those bodies. For, as we shall soon show, the Demons
dwell in them. Says Augustine, (Confessiones, L. xiii. c. 30. 0pp. torn. I. p. 181.) :
Dicunt te fecisse fabricas coelorura et compositiones siderum, et haec non de
tuo,{i\\Sii is, not from matter altogether pure and celestial) sed jam fuisse alibi
areata, quae tu contraheres et compaginares atque contexeres, cum de hostibus
victis mundana raoenia molireris. — After the heavens and the stars, the world-
builder framed this earth; as Tyrho clearly asserts, (in the Acta Disput.
Archelai, p. 11.) : Kai yrdXiv 'Uria-i T«v yh. Et denuo (after making the heavens
and the stars,) terram conficiebat. The earth is composed of that portion of
matter, which contained more evil than good, or into which the elements of
darkness had completely insinuated themselves. Says Tyrho, (1. c. ^ 8. p. 18.):
IMundus autem ex parte materiae (t«j vx«f, so the Manichaeans call the evil
principle,) plasmatus est, et ideo omnia exterminabuntur, of will be destroyed. —
Lastly, such matter as had not come in contact with any portion of the celestial
matter, — as the bad fire, wind, air, and water, which the vanquished princes of
[p. 823.] darkness had left behind, he cast intirely out of the world, and erected
strong walls to keep it from entering and destroying it before the appointed
time. Tyrho, (1. c. p. 22.) mentions: to tiI^o? tou ,uiydKov Trupoi, murum mag-
ni ignis, murum item venti, aeris et aquae : So that each sort of evil matter ex-
cluded from our world, had its own separate wall, to keep it out. Augustine
likewise occasionally mentions the mounds (aggeres), by which God excludes
-! icious matter from our world. (See his Confessiones, L. xiii. c. 30. and else-
where.) But at the end of the world, this evil and devouring fire will issue from
its prison, the mounds being removed; and then it will consume and destroy
the whole fabric of our world.
(3) Before he commenced fabricating the world, the Living Spirit im-
prisoned the Prince of darkness, and his associates and captains, in the air.
Tyrho, (in the Acta Disput. Archelai, ip. 11.) says: Tunc Spiritus vivens de-
scendens eduxit principes (tenebrarum) et crucifixit eos in firmamento, quod est
eorum corpus, (Greek, o iarlv duTuv o-w^^t,) site sphaera. On this passage, we
may remark, first, that the word ciucifixit must not be construed too rigorously.
For, as we shall soon see, the princes of evil were held in quite free custody,
and, at their pleasure, could do many things contrary to the will of God. Hence
Formation of this World. 335
crucifixil must mean no more than he stationed, required them to reside. Besides
the Greek of Epipha7iius h;is not the word lcrTaupa^<rt, but i^-Ti^taa*, that \h. he
BO stationed them, that they coukl not change their residence, he assigned them
a fixed and constant abode. Perhaps this reading is more correct than that
wliieh the Latin translator of the Acta Archelai had before him : and yet the
latter is sap{)orted by Epiphanius and Damascenus, who retain it. What fol-
lows, namely, that the firmament is the corpus (o-w^*) of the Demons, is so
contrary to the views of the Manichaeans, that it must be regarded as spurious.
It should undoubtedly read /w^a, domus, or domicilium. The heavens are the
seat or house, in which the Living Spirit commanded the princes of darkness to
abide, until the time when God should order them to return to their ancient
abode. This heaven, it is added, is a sphere or globe. Here, therefore, is another
passage, beside that of Cosmas, adduced while treating of the heavens, from
which I now again learn that the Manichaeans assigned a globular form to the
heavens. — This passage of Tijrbo, and others of the ancients which accord with
\t, only indicate in general the place where the authors of all evils are detained.
But Beausohre, (vol. II. p. 353.) wishes to determine precisely, in what part of
the air or heavens they are located ; and he thinks he proves, by the authority
of Theodnrel, and Simplicius, that they were confined in the southern regions of
the sky. But vain are the eflforts of the ingenious man. For Simplicius, (comment,
in Epictet. p. 2. 12.) and Theodoret (Haeret. Fabul. L. I. c. 26. Opp. tom. iv. p. 212.)
merely say, that Jiane.s assigned three parts to God or the world of light, the East,
the West, and the North ; and only one, the South, to the Demon or the [p. 824.]
world of darkness. Says Theodoret^ and with him Siynplicius agrees perfectly:
l^ilv rdv fAiv Qiov TtiT-s dpicrda /u.ip>iy Kal tu ioia, xat to. 'oTTrepiay T«y eTi i;X»i» ra voria.
Tenuisse Deum (before the war w^th the Prince of darkness,) partes Septen-
trionales, Orientales et Occidentales, materiam vero Meridionales. Thus, by
these authorities, the position of the world of darkness is indeed defined ; but
not the residence of the Demons, beyond our earth, since they were vanf|ui>hed
by the Licing Spirit. We will adduce something from Augustine, which is
better and more certain. The conquered Demons were stationed by the Living
Spirit in the stars. And the more celestial matter any of them had in his body,
the higher and loftier place he obtained. Augustine, (contra Faustum, L. vi.
c. 8. p. 149.) says: Dicunt isti vaniloqui et mentis seduclores, in ilia pugna,
quando primus eorum homo tenebrarum gentem dementis fallacibus irretivit,
utriusque sexus principibus indidem captis, cum ex eis mundus construeretur,
plerosque eorum in coelesiibus fabricis (thus Augustine frequently designates
the stars.) colligatos esse. - - In ipsa structura mundi eosdcm principes tenebra-
rum ita per omnes contextiones (ss. the stars,) a summis usque ad ima colliga-
tos dicunt, ut quanto quisque amplius haberent commixti boni (of the celestial
elements and a sentient soul,) tanto sublimius collocari mererentur. The stars,
as before observed, are composed of matter, for the most part good, yet slightly
tinctured with evil. Yet the stars are not all of one character ; some are more
pure and sound than others. Those nearest to the earth, contain more doj)raved
matter, than those higher or farther olT. Therefore, the Ijiving Spirit, according
to the rules of equity, stationed those Demons who possessed the smallest
336 Century IIL—Scctlon 46.
portion of celestial matter, in the lower stars which are less pure; while to
those possessiiiir a greater portion of the celestial elements, he assigned a resi-
dence in the higher and purer stars. In what phice the Prince of evil himself
resides, whether, as may be supposed, in the highest and loftiest of the moving
stars or planets, or beyond all the stars in the open heavens, no one, so far as I
know, has informed us. But as he contains in his immense body more celestial
matter than all his fedow-warriors, it can scarcely be doubted, that Saturn, the
highest of the planets, is his residence; and there also the Gnostic multitude
located their Jaldabacth, or Prince of the aerial Demons.
But the Princes of evil are not so confined and tied to the stars, that they
cannot accomplish or plot anything. They cannot, indeed, leave their places ;
but in other respects, they are most busy and active, and they bring to pass
numerous things adverse to the kingdom and purposes of God. In the first
place, they hold a sort of dominion over the stars which they inhabit. For they
are not solitary beings there, as Augustine clearly intimates in the passage
just quoted, but, together with their wives, and the animals of the world of
darkness captured in the war, they live there, and beget and bring forth oflfspring.
[p. 825.] Of course there is, undoubtedly, in each star, a sort of commonwealth
or state, which some one, more potent than the rest, governs. In the next
place, they strive to establish and confirm that empire, which, contrary to the
will of God, they founded on the earth, by the generation and propagation of
mankind ; and they guard and defend it, against the efforts of God for its sub-
version. The manner in which they do this, may be easily understood, Au-
gustine expressly states, that all the leaders of darkness are not confined in the
st irs, but only the major part of them. Many of them, therefore, roam freely
through the air, tar from the stars. And these, doubtless, the Prince of evil
and his associates employ as their satellites and ministers, in accomplishing
among men their plans for advancing the interests of their empire on the earth.
The great solicitude of the Prince of evil is, to withdraw the inhabitants of the
earth from the knov/ledge of the true God, and to induce them to adore and
worship himself instead of God. For this purpose, he introduces fiilse religions,
by means of his legates and prophets ; that is, by men actuated and im{)elled
by himself Of this nature was the Jewish religion, which Moses brought for-
ward under the influence of the Demon: and such were the pagan religions, prevail-
ing over the world. Tyrho, (in the Acta Archelai, p. 18.) repeats from the lips of
MaiveSy thus : De prophetisautem ha3C dicit : Spiritus esse impietatis sive iniquita-
tis tenebrarum illarum, quaj ab initio ascenderunt, a quibus decepti, non sunt lo-
cuti in veritatc : excaecavit enim Prineeps ille mentes ipsorum, et si quis sequitur
verba ipsorum, morietur in ssccula, devinctus intra massam (uz tyiv jBuXou- i, e.
the world of darkness, to which, as we shall see, those souls that cannot in any
way be reclaimed, will be confined,) quoniam non didicit scientiam Paracliti.
And again, (§ 11. p, 20,) : Ilium vero, qui locutus est cum Mose, et Juda3is et
sacerdotibus, Principem esse dicit tenebrarum ; Et ideo unum atque idem sunt
Christiani et Judsei et gentes eundem Deum colentes: in concupiscentiis enim
Buis seducit eos, quia non est Deus veritatis. Propter hoc ergo quicumque in
ilium Deum sperant, qui cum Moyse locutus est et prophetis, cum ipso habent
Formation of this World, 337
vinculis tradl, quia non spcraverunt in Deum veritatis : ille enim secundum con-
cupiscentias suas locutus est cum eis. And these severe censures, which Vaiis-
tiis the Manichcean, in many p:issagcs occurring in Augustine., casts upon tho
Mosaic law, clearly show, that the sect believed the intire Jewish law and re-
ligion, to be an invention of tlie Prince of darkness for deceiving the Jews.
What this audacious Faustus thought of the Old Testament prophets, appears
from his own words, (L. xii. c. 1. p. 1G2.): Exempla vita3 honestae et prudcn-
liam ac virtutcm in prophetis quocrimus : quorum nihil in Judasorum fuissc va-
tibus, quia te non latuerit sentio. He also assails Moses with very great re-
pronehes, (in several places, one of them is L. xiv, c. 1. p. 187.) Some of these
I will mention: Mosen, quanquam humanorum nulli unquam, divinorumque pe-
percerit biasphemando, plus tamen hinc exccramur, quod Christum Filium Did
diro convitio lacessivit : utrum volens, an casu, tu (Augustine) videris. [\\ 82f).]
- - Ait enim maledictum esse omnem, qui pendct in ligno. He also most con-
tumeliously assails the God of the Hebrews, (L. xv. c. 1. p. 193, 194.): Sordcnt
ecclesios nostrce Testamenti veteris et ejus auctoris munera. - - Amator vester
et pudoris corruptor, Hebrccorum Deus, diptychio lapideo suo (referring to the
two tables of the law,) aurura vobis promittit et argentum, ventris saturitatem et
ten-am Cananceorum. - - Pauper est, egens est, ncc ea quidem prgestare potest,
qua; promittit. Hebraeorum Dei et nostra admodum diversa conditio est: quia
nee ipse, quae promittit, implere potest, et nos ea fastidimus accipere. Super-
bos nos adversus bhinditias ejus, Christi liberalitas fecit. And he expressly
eays, that the God of the Jews is the Demon, (L. xviii. c. 1. p. 220.) : Placet ad
ingluviem Judaeorum Daemonis (neque enim Dei) nunc tauros, nunc arietea
cultris sternere? But I forbear. — So far as I can make out by probable con-
jecture. Manes supposed the God of the Jews to be the Prince of evil himself,
and the Deities of other nations to be his chiefs and captains resident in the
stars; all of whom, being excessively proud by nature, used various arts and
impositions to procure for themselves divine worship among mortals.
Not content with these evils relating to the whole human race, the Kino- of
darkness and his associates prevent, as far as they can, the good souls of indi-
vidual men from performing their duty. For, by the five bodily senses, and by
the body itself, they excite and strengthen the evil soul, which in all men is as-
sociated with the good soul, so that, burning and inflamed with lust, it over-
comes and weakens and oppresses the good soul. In explaining this topic, Se-
cundinus the Manichaean is copious and eloquent, in an Epistle to Augustine^
(in the 0pp. Augustini, torn. viii. p. 370.) and he strongly urges Augustine to
beware of the snares of the most crafty and deceptive Prince of evil: Illumquo
(divinae personae) a nobis repellant atrocem spiritum, qui hominibus timorera
immittit : et perfidiam, ut animas avcrtat ab angusto tramite Salvatoris, cujus
omnis impetus per illos principes funditur, contra quos se Apostolus in Ephesi-
orum epistola certamen subiisse fatetur. - - Ipse enim non ignoras, quam pes-
eimus sit, quamque malignus, quique etiam tanta calliditate adversus fideles et
Bummos viros militat, ut et Petrum coegerit sub una nocte tertio Dominum ne-
gare. The King of darkness is so laborious, because he wishes not to have hia
empire overthrown or destroyed.
VOL. 11. 23
838 Century IIL—Sectloii 46.
Lastly, whatever calamities befall our world or its inhabitants, except only
the earthquakes, — as the excessive rains, tiie tempests, the thunders, the pesti-
lences, the wars, — all proceed from the Prince of evil, and his associates, resid-
ing in the air and the stars. Tims T'dus of Bostra, (contra Manichaeos, L. ii.
p. 109.) I quote only the Latin, which exactly represents the Greek : Rursus
[p. 827. J est aliiid genus eorum, quae Manichaeus dementissimus accusal, terrae
motum dico (Here Titus errs; for earthquakes do not proceed from the King
of evil, but from Omophorus, as we shall soon show,) pestem, fomem ex steriU-
tate, ex locustis, et aliis hujusmodi, tanquam a principio contrario haec proficis-
cantur. He had a little before (p. 107.) said : Bella etiam assignant et attribu-
unt nequitiae: (tS hmU, that is, to the evil principle.) And Tyrbo, (in the
Acta Archelai, § 8. p. 14.) : Princeps ille mngnus producit nebulas ex ae ipso,
uti obscuret in ira sua omnem mundum, qui cum tribulatus fuerit (this clause
needs illustration, and will receive it further on,) sicut homo sudatpostlaborem,
ita et hie Princeps sudat ex tribulatione sua, cujus sudor pluviae sunt. Sed et
messis princeps (one of the Demons, who mows down men, when he procures
their death by sending diseases and pestilence,) effundit pestem super terram,
ita, ut morte afficiat homines - - incipit excidere radices hominum, et cum ex-
cisae fuerint radices eorum, effieiturpestilentia, et ita moriuntur. Among those
evils, which the Prince of darkness, from his prison or residence, prepares for
men, is icine. For often, kindling into rage and fury, he lets out a part of his
bile ; which falls on the earth, and produces vines and grapes. Augustine, (de
moribus Manichaeorum, L. ii. \ 44. torn. i. p. 545.) : Quae tanta perveisio est
vinum putare fel Principis ienebrarum, et uvis comedendis non parcere ! (See
also his Book de Haeres. c. 46. p. 11, &c.) And therefore, the more perfect
among the disciples of Manes, or those called the Elect, are bound to abstain
from wine altogether. Of this we shall speak in the proper place.
(4) How great and acute a philosopher and investigator of nature. Ma-
nes was, can scarcely be learned more clearly, from anything, than from his
doctrine concerning the props of our world ; w^iich w\as entirely accordant with
the fancies of the Persians and other Orientals, and was derived, I suppose, frou?
the schools of the Magi. This discerning man thought the world vvould tumble,
down, if it were not propped up. He therefore placed this enormous load upoi?
the shoulders of an immensely great angel, whom he named Omopliorus, on ac-
count of the office which God assigned him : And, lest he should become ex-
hausted, and should stagger under his immense burden, he assigns him an assis-
tant, called Splenditenens, to take part in his toil : and he, weeping and groan-
ing, holds the suspended world steady. Says Augustine, (contra Faustum, L.
XX. c. 9. p. 240.) : Vos autem primum hominem cum quinque dementis bel-
ligerentem, et Spiritum potentem de captivis corporibus gentis tenebrarum, an
potius de raembris Dei vestri victis atque subjectis mundum fabricantem, et
Splendilenentem, reliquias eorundem membrorum Dei vestri in manu habentem,
et cetera omnia capta, oppressa, inquinata plangentem, et Atlantem maximum
subter humeris suis cum eo ferentem, ne totum ille fiitigatus abjiciat — creditis
et colitis. Also, (L. xv. c. 5. p. 196.) : Ostende nobis moechos tuos, Splendi-
[p. 828.] tenentem ponderatorem et Atlantem laturarium. Ilium enim dicis ca-
Formation of this World. 339
pita clemontorum tenerc, mumUuiuiue suspt-ndere, istuni autein goiui fixo,
scapulis validis, subbajulare tantain niolem, utique no illc doficiat. Ubi sunt
isti? And Tyrbo, (in the Acta Archelai, p. 11.): Est autem Chjwplwrus (Aii-
gusline translates the name : LaLurarius in Latin,) deorsum, id est, qui earn
(terrani) portat in hutneris. But Omnphorus, as we might naturally expect,
sometimes becomes impatient with his immense burden, and therefore trembles
under it: And this is the cause of earthquakes. Thus proceeds Tyrhn : Et
cum laboraverit porlans intremiscit, et hajc est caussa terra) motus propter con-
stitutnn) tempus. - - Quotiens enim eflicitnr terra) motus, tremente eo ex labore,
vel de humero in humeriim transferrente pondus, efiicitur. A perspicacious in-
terpreter truly, of the mysteries of nature, and one admirably instructed by his
Magian teachers ! And hence God sent his Son down into the lower parts of
the earth, to cither solace or reprimand the groaning, sweating Atlas or Omo-
phorus : Hac dc caussa Filium suum raisit benignus Pater de finibus suis in
cor terra), et in interiores ejus partes, quo ilium, ut par est, coerceret, orrac doT»
Tjjv 7rpi<rmova-av iTriri/uLiav J'w, as it is in the Greek of Epiphanius. These are
memorable expressions ! For it appears from them how Manes understood
the descent of Christ into hell. He supposed, as other Christians did, that t'he
Son of God actually descended into the infernal regions. But by that language
he understood the interior or lower parts of our earth ; and the object of this
descent was, he supposed, to reprimand the huge carrier on whose shoulders the
earth rested. — These two pillars of earth the Manichaeans religiously honored
with hymns, venerating them as Deities. According to Augustine^ (contra Faus-
tum, L. XV. c. 5. G. 7. p. 197, 198.) they had a public sacred iiymn, in the tumid
and inflated style of the Persians, composed by Manes himself, and called a77ia-
torium. In it they first praised God: An non recordaris ama/onuTn canticum
tuum, ubi describis maximum regnantera regem, sceptrigerum perennem, floreis
coronis cinctnm et fiicie rutilantem 1 Next followed the tw^elve iEons ; for that
was their number, according to the Manichaeans : Sequeris cantando et adjungis
duodecim Sa?cula floribus convestita et canoribus plena et in faciem Patris flo-
res suos jactantia : — Duodecim magnos quosdam Deos profiteris, ternos per
quatuor tractus, quibus ille unus circumcingltur. Then followed the other citi-
zens of heaven, the angels, inferior to the iEons : Adjungis etiam innumerabiles
regnicolas — et angelorum eohortes; quae omnia non condidisse dicis Deum, sed
de sua substantia genuisse. Lastly, the hymn extolled, with very high praises,
the heroes of the supreme Deity, and among them Splendilenens and Omophorus :
Et Splendilenentem magnum, sex vultus et ora ferentem, micantemque lumine
(from this light or splendor, he doubtless derived his name ; q. d. S]ikndidus
Angel us, qui terram tenet.) et alterum regem honoris, Angelorum ex- [p. 829.]
ercitibus circumdatum (this, perhaps, is Christ) et alterum adamantcm lieroara
belligerum, dextra hastem tenentem et sinistra clypeum (this undoubtedly is the
Living Spirit, who conquered and imprisoned the Prince of darkness,) et alte-
rum gloriosum Regem tres rotas impellentem ignis, aquae et venti : et maxi-
mum Atlantemy mundum ferentem humeris et eum genu fixo, brachiis utrinquo
secus fulcientem. — This worship, paid by the ]\Lanichacans to their Omophorus
-.md Splenditenens, is a sufficient confutation of the ingenious Beausobrc ; \n1io,
340 Century III— Section 46.
perceiving this fable of a world-bearer, to be too silly to come from a phllosoplier
of even moderate abilities, and esteeming Manes a great philosopher, — maintains
that it is an allegory. (Vol. il. p. 370.) And it is the custom of this erudite man,
whenever he cannot otherwise excuse or justify Manes, to depart from the lite-
ral interpretation, and direct his readers to believe, that Manes wrapped up
plain and sober truths in the vestments of figures and metaphors. He there-
fore thinks, Omophorus must be an Angel holding up the world, not with his
shoulders, but by some unknown force; and Spkndilenens, he supposes, to be
the air which encompasses the earth. But who can believe that the Manichaeans
sang the praises of the air in their assemblies ; not to mention many other
things, which will occur to the reader without my stating them ? And if Omo-
phorus^ carrying the world on his shoulders is a mere metaphor, what becomes
of the cause of earthquakes, as taught by the Manichaeans ? I may add, that
the Manichaeans deny that their master concealed the truth under images and
fables ; and they place it among his chief excellencies, that he gives us the know-
ledge of divine things nakedly and in simple language. Says Avgusline, (con-
tra Faustum, L. XV. c. 5. p. 197,) : Tibi pra3cipue laudari Manichaeus non ob
aliud solet, nisi quod romotis figurarum integumentis, ipse lib! veritatem nudara
et propriam loqueretur. And (c. 6. p. 197.) ; Tu vero praecipue Manichaeum ob
hoc praedicas - - quod flguris antiquorum apertis et suis narrationibus ac dis-
putationibus evidenti luce prolatis, nullo se occultaret aenigmate. Addis earn
praesumptionis hujus causam, quod videlicet antiqui, ut figuras hujusmodi dicc-
rint, sciebant, istum postea venturum, per quern cuncta manifestarentur, iste au-
tem.qui sciret, post se neminem adfuturum, sententias suas nullis allegoricis
ambagibus texeret. The Manichaean community were instructed, therefore, to
understand all the doctrines of their master according to the literal and proper
sense of the words.
§ XLVII. The Mission and Offices of Christ. The world be-
ing framed and adjusted, the grand aim of the supreme Deitj
was, first^ to liberate from bondage, and restore to the world of
light, those particles of his own nature, or of eternal light, that is,
[p. 830.] the rational souls, which had become inclosed in bodies ;
and then, gradually to extract from depraved matter, and recover
to their former happy state, those shreds of the celestial elements
which were dispersed among all the depraved matter ; and lastly,
to press out and set free, the living and sentient soul, the son of
the First Man, which was absorbed in the bodies of the Prince
of darkness and his fellow warriors. To hasten the return of
souls to the world of light, as much as possible, their heavenly
Father had frequently sent among mankind angels and very
holy men, actuated by himself, to instruct men both orally and
by writings, and to show them the way of return to God when
released from the body. But the work went on too slowly ; for
Mission and Offices of Christ. 841
the Prince of darkness, by liis ministers and satellites, by tlie body
and its senses, and by the depraved soul, impeded the divine
plans, and ensnared the good souls. And, in the meantime,
Omophorus became weary of his burden, and earnestly impor-
tuned for an end of his toil. And, therefore, to accelerate the
recover}^ of the numerous souls unhappily inclosed in bodies, God
directed Christ, his Son, to descend from his residence in the sun
to this lower world. And he, having assumed a human form, but
without uniting himself to a body or to human nature, appeared
among the Jews ; and he, by his words and deeds, made known
to the captive intelligences the way of escape from their thral-
dom : and, lest mortals should not place confidence in him, he
demonstrated his divinity by the most signal miracles. But the
Prince of darkness, fearing the subversion of his empire, excited
the Jews, his most loyal subjects, to seize and crucify him. Yet
Christ did not really endure that punishment, but only seemed
to men to do so. For, as he had no body, and only assumed the
appearance of a man, he could neither be seized, nor crucified,
nor die at all. Yet Christ feigned death, in order that, by this
seeming example, he might teach men, or the good souls lodged
in bodies, that the body and the evil soul resident in the body,
should be tortured, chastised, and mortified, if they would obtain
freedom and salvation. When he had accomplished his mission,
Christ returned to his residence in the sun, having directed his
Apostles to difi*use his religion among mankind. These ambassa-
dors of Christ, although they did immense good to men, and [p. 831.]
greatly weakened the empire of the Prince of darkness, yet did
not make known that full and perfect wisdom which is neces-
sary for the souls that long for salvation ; for Christ did not im-
part to them the full knowledge of the truth. But, as he was
departing, he promised to send forth in due time a greater and
more holy Apostle, whom he named the Paraclete ; who should
add to his precepts such things as men at that time were not able
to receive and digest, and should dissipate all errors in regard to
divine things. That Paraclete came, in the person of Manes the
Persian ; and he, by command of Christ, expounded clearly and
perfectly, and without figures and enigmas, the whole way of
salvation for toiling and suifering souls.(')
(1) Some things here stated, have already been sufBciently elucidated and
342 Century III.— Section 47.
confirmed, and tliey are here repeated only to make the connection of the
whole system the more evident. Therefore, passing by these, I shall ntiw
explain and demonstrate only those things which need confirmation. — I be-
gin with the causes of Christ's mission to men. According to the opinion
of the Manicha3ans, there were two causes of his advent: the jZrsMvaf--. the
acceleration of the deliverance of the souls shut up in material bodies by the
Prince of darkness : and the second was, the impatience of Omophoriis, who
propped up the world : for he, finding himself oppressed by the immense load,
longed for the termination of his toil, and often besought God for relief. Both
these causes are mentioned by Tyrbo, (in the Acta Archelai, 1} 8. p. 12.) : Cum au-
tem vidissct Pater vivens nfHigi animam in corpore, quia est miserator et rnisericors,
misit Filium suum dilectum ad sjiiutem : hac enim caussa, et propter Omophoriim
(here you see the second cause,) misit eum. Of theirs/ cause, the Manichaans
often speak magnificently, and very nearly in the language of the Catholics :
which might induce one not familiar with these matters, to suppose there was
little difierence of opinion between Christians and Manicha^ans, as to the object
of Christ's advent among men ; whereas, there was a vast difference, as will be
hereafter shown. For the causes above stated, therefore, the Son of God de-
scended from the sun into our world, inclosed indeed in the form and appear-
ance of a human body, but inti.rely separate and removed from any kind of body
or matter. Manes could not possibly have assigned to the Son of God a real
body, or one composed of matter: for he supposed the matter of all bodies to
belong to the world of darkness, and to be the seat and source of all wicked-
ness and lust. Says Tyrbo, (1. c. p. 12.) : Et veniens Filius transformavit se in
speciem hominis, et apparebat quidem hominibus ut homo, cum non essel JiomOt
et homines putaverunt eum natum esse. But we will let Manes himself speak,
[p. 832.] In his Epistle to Zebena, (in Fahricius' Biblioth. Gra3ca, vol. v. p. 284.) I
cite only the Latin : Lux (Christus) non attigit carnis essentiam, sed similitudine et
Jigura carnis {ofji.oico/u.aTi xut a-^yiy-ari a-apuds ia-x.ida-b-n) ne comprehenderetur et
corrumperetur. Quomodo ergo passa essef? In his Epistle io Odda, (L c.
p. 285.) ; Quomoda Galilaei (i. e. the Catholic Christians) duas naturas nomi-
nant atque in Christo esse affirmant, effuse ridcamus : nesciunt enim naturam
lucis materiae alii non misceri, (« cva-ia roZ purd; 'nifA hu fAtywrai iixji,) sed
sincera est ac simplex, neque uniri alteri naturae potest, licet illi conjungi vide-
atur. Nothing could be more evident! — Therefore, if some minor parties among
the jManichaeans, as some of the ancients have stated, assigned to Christ either
a body like ours, or an ethcrial one, they departed entirely from the opinions of
their master, and abandoned the first principles of his system. Holding this
opinion of Christ the Manichaeans of course rejected and denied all that the
sacred history tells us of his birth from ]Mary, of his genealogy and descent
from David, and of his childhood and education. They declared these to be
mere fables, tacked on to the history of Jesus Christ by some Jews. They said,
it would be altogether unbecoming the majesty of the Son of God, to come into
the world from the womb of a virgin ; and that his divine and celestial nature
would absolutely resist an assumption of humanity. Manes himself, (in the
Acta Archelai^ \ 47. p. 85. of the edition of Zaccagni, which we always use,)
JUssion and Offices of Christ. S^,^
says: Absit ut Domimim nostrum Josiim Christum per naturalia pudenda muli-
cris descetidisse I'oiiHti'ar : ipse enim testimonium dat, quia de sinibus Patris
(loceiidit. - - Sunt innumeratestimonia iiujuscemodi, quae indicant, eum venisso
et non natum esse. 'I'iien follows a dis^cussion of Manes, which is too lonrr to
be conveniently transcribed, in Mhich he tries to prove from various expressions
in the New Testament, that Christ was not born, and that he had not a body.
l)ut I will trascribe another passage, which will show, that Mcmes did not be-
lieve the ()apUs7n of Christ ; (h 50. p. 91.) : Milii pium videtur dicere, quod nihil
eguerit Filius Dei in eo, quod adventus ejus procuratur ad terras, neque opus
lui-buerit columba, neque baplismale, neque matre, neque fratribus, fortasse ne-
que patrc (what follows shows, that fater here does not mean a natural father,
but a step-father or a foster-fiither,) qui ei secundum te (Archelae) fuit Joseph,
sed totus ille ipse descendens, semetipsum in quocunque voluit transformavit in
homincm, eo pacto, quo Paulus dicit, quia {(r^fitAATiy) habitu repertus est ut ho-
mo. - - Quando voluit hunc hominem rursum transformavit in speciem solis ac
vultum : (as on mount Tabor.) All Manichaean writers, whose works have
re:iehed us, uniformly repeat the opinions and arguments of their master on this
subject. Foriunalus, (in his first Dispute with Augustine, in the 0pp. August.
tom. viii, p. 73.) says : Salvatorem Christum credimus de ccelo venisse. Vos se-
cundum carmen asseritis ex semine David, cum praedicetur ex virgine [p. 833.]
natus esse, et Filius Dei magnificetur. Fieri autem non potest, nisi ut quod de
spiritu est, spiritus habeatur, et quod de carne est, caro intelligatur. Contra
quod est ipsa auctoritas Evangelii, qua dicitur, quod caro et sanguis regnum Dei
non possibebunt. Faustus, the Manichaean, in many passages, disputes largely
and fiercely, against those who tiiink that Christ was born and had a body. See
Lib. ii. iii. vii. xi. xxiii. xxix. Among many other things, he says, (L. xxiii. c. 2
p. 300.) : Symbolum vestrum ita se habet, ut credatis in Jesum Christum, Fili-
um Dei, qui sit natus ex Maria virgine ; vestrum ergo de Maria accipere Filium
Dei, nostrum ex Deo. - - De hac sententia nemo nos prorsus dejiciet ex Deo
accipiendi Filium Dei, non ex utcro mulieris natum. Secundinus, a Mnnichaean
not destitute of genius, in his Epistle to Augustine, (p. 372.) says ; Desine qua}-
80 utero claudere Christum, ne ipse rursum utero conclndaris. Desine duas
naturas facere unam, quia appropinquat Domini judicium. Those Gnostics, who
having similar views of the nature of matter with Manes, likewise denied to
Christ a body and humanity, still admitted, that in the opinion of men, or in
appearance, he was born of Mary, But the Manichccans had such abhorrence
of the idea that Ciirist was born, that they would not even concede so much.
Faustus, indeed, (L. xxix. c. 1. p. 313.) seems not very averse from the opinion,
which makes Christ to have been aiiparently born. lie says : Vos pro certo
puerperiura fuisse (Christun)) creditis et utero muliebri portatum. Aut si ita
non est, fatenmini vos quia hoc etiam imaginarie sit factum, ut videretur natus,
et omnis nobis erit profligata contentio. But he only, among the Manicha^ans,
60 thought : the rest thought very diflerently. For thus Augustine replies to
Faustus: Quaero ab els, si nostra contentio terminatur, cum hoc dixerimus, cur
hoc ipsi non dicunt? Cur ipsi mortem non veram, sed imaginariam Chri^yti af-
firmant : nativitatem autem non saltern talem, sed prorsus m<JlMP^ dicere dele-
344 Century III.— Section 47.
g-erunt? - - An quia mortem simulare honestum (st, nativitatera autem etiam
simulare turpe est ? Cur ergo nos hortatur hoc confiteri, quo possit nostra
contentio profligari ? And again, (contra Faustum L. xxxi. c. 6. p. 318.) Aw-
gusline ?ays : Mors Christi visa vobis est vel fallax et simulata prsedicanda : at
non etiam nativitas. - - In nativitatc enim quia ligari Deum vestrum creditis,
banc nee saltern fallaciter imaginatum Christum creditis: Manes therefore
would say, that Christ descending suddenly from heaven, appeared among the
Jews, in the form of a man ; but he was without father, without mother, with-
out relatives, without brethren, without a body ; and all that occurs in the Gos-
pels contradictory to these assertions, as also the history of his baptism, he
would place among Jewish fables. Says Fausius, (L. xxxii. c. 7. p. 322.) :
Nos de Testamcnto novo sola accipimus ea, qua3 in honorem et laudem Filii
mnjestatis dicta comperimus, dissimulamus cetera - - - dico autem hoc ipsum (a)
[p. 834.] natum ex focminu turpiter, (b) circumcisum Judnice, (c) sacrificasse
gentiliter, (d) baptizatum humiliter, (e) circuraductum a Diabolo per deserta et
ab eo tentatum quam miserrime. His igitur exceptis, et si quid ei ab scriptori-
bus ex Testamento vetere falsa sub testificatione injectum est: credimua
cetera. — The reason why Christ showed himself among the Jews especially,
and not among other nations, was, undoubtedly, that the Jews, as Manes sup-
posed, worshipped the Prince of darkness himself instead of God, while the
other nations only served his captains and fellow warriors. The King of dark-
ness, therefore, had established the seat of his empire in Palestine.
He who is destitute of a body, has no need of food or drink, or of sleep and
rest. ManeSy therefere, could not believe, that Christ really ate, drank, slept,
and rested : but all these he pretended to do, that the Jews might not doubt
his humanity. Says Fausius, (L. xxvi. c. 1. p. 307.) : Jesus ab initio sumpta
hominis similitudine, omnes huma?icc condilionis simulacit ajfectus : Sic ab re
non erat, si in fine quoque consignandse ceconoraias gratia fuit visus et mori.
But the miracles ascribed to him, Fausius admitted to be real, (L. xxv. c. 2.
p. 307.) : Nam et coecum a nativitate lumen videre natura non sinit, quod tamen
Jesus potenter operatus videtur erga hujus generis coecos - - manum aridam
sanasse, vocem ac verbum privatis his per naturara redonasse, mortuis et in ta-
bem jam resolutis corporibas compage reddita vitalem redintegrasse spiritum,
quern non ad stuporem adducat ? - - Quoe tamen omnia nos communiter facta
ab eodem credimus Christiani, non considerationc jam naturae, sed potestatis
tantum et virtutis Dei. It is strange, that the Manichseans could believe these
miracles real. For they were all wrought upon bodies : and bodies, in their
estimation, are the fabrications of the evil Demon ; and they belong to the
world of darkness, because they consist of gross concrete matter. And there-
fore, the Son of God, who had come to destroy bodies, those works of the
Prince of darkness, and to liberate souls from their prisons, actually restored
and healed these vicious bodies, so that the unhappy souls might be the longer
detained in them ; and thus the Light bestowed labor on the darkness, and re-
nevved, arranged, and preserved from destruction evil matter, tlie possession of
his enemy. Who that embraces Manicha3an views, could easily believe this?
And still more incredible siiould it be, to a Manichsean, that Christ restored the
Mission and Offices of Christ. 345
dead to life. For death, according to the opinion of Manes, was the release of
a soul or a particle of the divine nature, from its gloomy and severe imprison-
ment. There is an Epistle of Augustine to a certain Manichajan presbyter,
(Epist. Ixxi.v. 0pp. torn. ii. p. 141. edit. Benedict.) from which it appears, that
the Manichseans despised death. He says : iJene, quia non times mortem. And
he subjoins the cause they assigned, for this their contempt of death : Quia
mors est, quod adjungis de vestro, separatio boni a male. This Ma- [p. 83").]
nichrean reasoned most correctly, from the opinions of his master. Now who
could easily persuade himself, that the Son of God would, by recalling the dead
to life, again connect the good and divine when separated from the evil, witli the
evil work of his enemy ? This is so incongruous with the object for which tho
Son of God came among men, that nothing could be more so. And yet the
Manichseans, as Faustus states most explicitly, did believe the miracles of
Christ ; that is, although at the first rise of the sect, they disagreed on this as
well as other points. — In like manner, the Manichseans believed, that the dis-
courses ascribed to Christ by his biographers, were really uttered by him : and
in those discourses, they thought they discovered their own primary doctrine of
two first principles of all things. Thus Faustus, (L. xxxii. c. 7. p. 322.) says:
Praecepta salutaria Christi, tuni parabolas, cunctumque sermonem deificum, qui
maxime duarum praeferens naturarum (i. e. of two first principles) discretionem,
ipsius esse non venit in dubiura.
Now, when the Prince of darkness saw those miracles of Christ, and heard
his discourses, and perceived that Christ intended to subvert his empire, and to
abolish the law which the Prince had enacted through Moses, he formed the
purpose of destroying him. He therefore instigated the Jews, the most faithful
subjects over whom he reigned, to seize Christ and nail him to the cross. Se-
cundinus, a Manichaean, (in his Epistle to Augustine, § 4. p. 370.) says : Ipse
non ignoras, quam audacter (the Lord of the world of darkness) illud molitua
sit, ut Domino - - Iscariotem rapuerit, et ut ad ultimum crucis supplicium veni-
retur: in perniciem ipsius Scribas, Pharisaeosque accenderit, ut Barrabam di-
mitii clamarent et Jesum crucifigi. The Son of God was therefore seized by
the Jews, subjected to punishment, nailed to a cross, and at length died ; yet
none of these things actually occurred, but the whole was feigned. For the
divine Light, being destitute of a body and of all matter, could not be seized,
nor could he die ; only the shadow of a body of Christ, therefore, appeared to
endure all these things. Says Manes, (Epistle to Zehena, in the Biblioth.
Graeca o^ Fabricius, vol. v. p. 284.) : "A;tx» ?i/V/c ova d7ro3-v«'crx«; xut tkiu a-cf^ndi
Iv a-ravfiiVTai. Miay cuv ifxiivt T«v pv<nv xut hipynav to pais f^hSlv -Tra^oZo-av t»
inio-KtcLTfAaTi THf capKoi lux. i;)(^cv'Tt (pva-iv Kparov/nivuv. Simplex natura non mori-
fur, et umbra carnis non crucifigitur. Perpetuo igitur unam naturam et un:im
operalionein Lux (the Son of God, consisting of a mass of divine light) habere
perseveravit nihil patientem ab umbra carnis, quae naturam (simpliccm) neuti-
quam comprehensam tenet. So, also, in his Epistola fundamenti, (apud Eiio-
dium. Libro de fide, c. 28. in 0pp. Augustini, torn viii. Append, p. 29.) Manes
says: Inimicus quippe, qui eundem Salvatorem justorum patrem crucifixisse ae
speravit, ipse est crucifixus, (metaphorically, not literally) : quo ten)pore aliud
340 Century III.— -Section 47.
actum est, atque aliud ostensum. And Faushis, (L. xiv. c. 1. p. 187.) says:
[p. 836.] Mosen execmmur, quod Christum, Filium Dei, qui nostrao snluHs caussa
pependit in ligno, diro devotionis convieio lacessivit — dieens maladictum esse
omnem, qui pendet in liirno. (His reasoning is very silly, and inconsistent with
his own doctrines; and it is brought forward only to calumniate Moses. For
Faustus himself did not believe that Christ hung on the tree, but only his
shadow.) So, also, (L. xxix. c. 1. p. 313.) he says expressly: Denique et noa
specietenus passum, nee vere mortuum confitemur. And, (L. xxvi. c. 2. p. 308.)-
Nobis nee Jesus mortuus est, nee immortalis Elias. See also Alexander of Ly-
copolis, (contra Manichaeos, p. 19.) where he says: 'O M^vtxaioi i'tS-aa-Kn Trifi
TowTcy iia-Ttp dS'vvdrcv ovtos tKtivov rovro iroulv, id est, Trct^ilv. ManichffiUS do-
cet, fieri id nullo modo posse, ut Christus vere patiatur. Augustine, (contra
Faustum, L. xxix. c. 2. p. 314.): Passionem mortemque ejus specietenus factara
et fallaeiter dicitis adumbratum, ut mori videretur, qui non moriebatur. — Christ
had weighty reasons for feignii.g death, and the sufferings and trials that pre-
ceded it. The first was, to teach men the wretched state of souls inclosed in
bodies. For a soul bound to a body, is, as it were, nailed to a cross, and
dreadfully wounded. Fortunatus, (in his first dispute with Augustine, p. 69, 70,):
Hoc ergo sentimus de nobis, quod et de Christo, qui cum in forma Dei esset
constitutus, factus est subditus usque ad mortem, ut similitudinem animarum
noslrarum ostenderet. - - Si fait Christus in passione et morte, et nos: si vo-
luntate Patris descendit in passionem et mortem, et nos. And Faustus, (L. xxxii.
c. 7. p. 322.): Credimus praacipue crucis Christi fixionem mysticam, qua nostrse
anima3 passionis monstrantur vulnera. Alexander of Lycopolis, (contra Mani-
chaeos, p. 19.) quoting from a book of Manes on this subject, says, that Christ
was crucified, to exhibit to men: t«v S'vva/hiv tJjv S-a'av ev^puoerd-ui, hitrraupuT-d-At
tJi Sx«. divinam virtutem, id est, animam in materiam immersam et in materia
crucifixam esse. — The second reason for Christ's feigning death, was, to teach
men to despise death, or to show them that death is no evil, but a boon, and
therefore should be endured with firmness. Augustine, (contra Faustum,
L. XXX. c. 6. p. 318.): Mortem tanquam separationem anima?, id est, naturae
Dei vestri a corpore iniraicorum ejus, hoc est, a figmento Diaboli, praedicatis at-
que laudatis: ac per hoc rem dignam fuisse credidistis, quam Christus etsi non
moriens, tamen mortem simulans, commendaret. — Lastly, by feigning death,
Christ designed to admonish souls, that they must not spare the body, if they
wish to be saved; but must crucify the flesh and all its lusts, or wholly extir-
pate and slay them. Alexander of Lycopolis, (contra Manichaeos, p. 19.) says:
Manes wrote, that Christ suffered crucifixion, «/? t-TiS'uyfAit, to set men an example
[p. 837.1/or their imitation. These reasons for Christ'sfeigiiing death, are manifestly
futile; and, I believe. Manes would as readily have denied the death of Christ,
as he did hia birth, if he could have done it : but there was so much evidence of
his death and resurrection, that he dared not deny them; and therefore, he
must resort to some fanciful explanation, that he might not appear to avoid the
subject. Faustus himself, (L. xxix. c. 1. p. 313.) seems to place little reliance
on these reasons: Nos passionis Christi rationem aliquam reddimus et prohahi-
Um: (and therefore not solid, sufiicient, and satisfactory.) Manes could not
Missioti and Offices of Christ. 347
possibly deny either the dcatli or the resurrection of Christ. He thcroforc
taught, that Christ was laid in the grave, returned from the tomb to his disc-ipU-s,
showed them the scars on his body, and perhaps ascended to iieaven before
their eyes. But all these, as well as his death, were only imaginary, and emble-
matic of the return of a soul to its primeval state. Says Fortunalus the Mani-
chasan, (in his first Dispute with Augustine, p. 70.) : Quemadmodum Christus
in se mortis similitudiiiem ostendit, et se a Patre esse de medio mortuorum re-
suscitatum : eo modo sentimus et de animis nostris futurum, quod per ipsum
poterimus ab hac morte liberari. And Augustine, (de Ilceres. e. 46. p. 13.):
Alhrmnnt (iManichaji) Christum non fuisse in carne vera, sed simulatam spcciem
carnis ludificandis humanis sensibus pra^buisse, uti non solum mortem, verum
etiain resurrectionem similiter mentiretur. And, (contra Faustum, L. x.xix. c. 2.
p. 313.): Ex quo fit, ut ejus quoque resurrectionem umbraticam, imaginariam,
fallacemque dicatis : neque enim ejus, qui non vere mortuus est, vera esse resur-
rectio potest. Ita fit, ut et cicatrices discipulis dubitantibus fiilsas ostenderit,
nee Thomas veritate confirmatus, sed fallacia deceptus clamarit, Dominus mens,
et Deus mens: et tamen persuadere conamini, linqua vos loqui verum, cum
Christum dicatis toto corpore fuisse mentitum. — This pious fraud of Christ, in
exhibiting to men the appearance of a body instead of a real body, had reference
not only to the Jews, but also to his own Apostles; for they had no doubt, that
Christ really died, and actually arose from the dead. And Manes, by the com-
mand and inspiration of God, first brought the truth to light.
As the Manichfcans held the opinions described, respecting Christ, they
could not possibly observe all the festal days consecrated by Christians to the
memory of the Savior; and those, which their principles allowed them to ob-
serve, they of necessity celebrated in a different manner from other Christians.
In the first place, the day commemorative of the nativity of Christ, they abso-
lutely could not observe. For they so strenuously denied the birth of Christ,
as not even to concede to him an apparent birth. Neither could they conse-
crate the day, on which the Oriental Christians commemorated his baptism. For
they denied that Christ was baptized. But as they believed that Christ was
apparently crucified and died, they could celebrate the time of his death ; [p. 838.]
and they actually did religiously observe it, though with little display or so-
lemnity. The anniversary of the execution of Manes their master, as already
stated, they celebrated with considerable display ; but in celebrating Christ's
death, they were quite lukewarm. And for this difference, they oflfered the fol-
lowing reason : Manes really died ; Christ only appeared to die. Thus Augus-
tine, (in his Liber contra Epistolam Manichasi, c. 8. p. 112.) says: Cum saepe
a vobis quaererem illo tempore, quo vos audiebam, quae caussa esset, quod
Pascha Domini (We may observe, that Augustine here uses the word paschn,
as the ancient church did, as denoting, not the day commemorative of Christ's
resurrection, but the day commemorative of his death.) plerumque nulla, intcr-
dum a paucis tepidissima celebritate frequentaretur, nullis vigiliis, nullo prolix-
iore jejunio auditoribus indicto, nullo denique festiviore apparatu, quum ves-
trum Bema, id est, diem, quo Manichaeus occisus est - - magnis honoribu.<*
prosequamini. Hoc ergo quum quaererem, respondebatur, ejus diem passionis
348 Century III.— Section 47.
celebrandura esse, qui vcre passus esset ; Christum autem, qui natus non esset,
neque veram sed simulatam carnem humanis oculis ostendisset, non pertulisse,
sed finxisse passionem. Whether they likewise observed the day of Chrisi'a
resurrection, that other pascha of Christians, called dvu<rTd<rtfA0Vi cannot be de-
termined from this passage of Augustine, nor from any other source. Perhaps
they did not deem this necessary, because, like other Christians, they observed,
every week, Sunday, as the day on which Ciirist rose from the dead. But there
was tiiis singularity among them, that while the laws of the church forbid fast-
ing on the day called the Lord's Day, the Manichacans passed the day without
food. The cause of this custom, Leo the Great tells us, was their reverence
for the sun; Leonis Sermo xli. c. 5. 0pp. tom. i. p. 106. edit. Quesnellii) : Ma-
nichaei in honorem soils et lunac die Dominico ct secunda feria deprehensi
fuerunt jejunare : uno perversitatis suae opere bis impii, bis profani sunt, qui
jejunium suum et ad siderum cultum, etad rcsurrectionis Christi instituere con-
temtum. - - Ob hoc diem salutis et laetitiae nostrae sui jejunii moerore con-
demnant. Leo repeats the same thing, (Epist. xv. ad Turibium, p. 228.) : Ma-
nichaei, sicut in nostro examine detect! ac convicti sunt, Dominicum diem, quern
nobis Salvatoris nostri resurrectio consecravit, exigunt in moerore jejunii: Soils,
ut proditum est, reverentiee banc continentiam devoventes. But a very different
reason for this practice, is adduced by Hebed Jesu, an Armeno-Nestoriau bishop,
on the Canons, (apud Jo. Sim. Assemanum, Biblioth. Oriental. Clement. Vatic,
tom. iii. pars ii. p. 361.) For he tells us, that the Manicha2ans abstained from
food and drink on Sunday, because they supposed the world would be dissolved
[p. 839.J on that day, and therefore looked for the destruction of it every Sunday :
Manichsei resurrectionem abnegantes contra Christianos jejunium, luctamque in
die Dominico faciunt, aientes, in isto die fore, ut hoc sajculum habeat interitum
dissolutionemque omnem. But this reason is intirely inconsistent with the
opinions of Manichaeans respecting the world ; and therefore, is doubtless
untrue. For, according to the views of Manichaeans, the destruction of our
world is to be the end of all evils, the separation of light from darknesg»
and the termination of the empire of the Prince of darkness ; and therefore it
presented to them ground for rejoicing, rather than for sorrow. Besides, if we
believe them, this world will not be destroyed, until the greatest part of the
souls in it are recovered to God : and therefore they had no reason to fear its
speedy dissolution. Whether the reason offered by Leo was more true, I very
much doubt. I know the Manichaeans paid some honor to the sun and moon ;
and I have already stated the fact. But that they consecrated certain days to
the sun and moon, and considered fasting ns a part of the worship to be paid to
these heavenly bodies, no one, acquainted with the principles of the sect, will
easily believe. I will btate,what has occurred to my mind, while thinking on the
subject. The Manichaeans had little regard for the festal days of Christians;
and not without reason. For they denied the reality of the facts, in commemo-
ration of which those days were kept. Yet, that they might not appear to dif-
fer too much from other Christians, they observed as many of these days as they
could consistently. And they said, that on those days they expressed by action,
the things symbolized by the apparent actions and sufferings of Christ. Aiu
Missio7i and Offices of Christ. 34^
gustine is authority for this opinion, in his Tract against Adimantua, a celebra-
ted Manicliajan, (c. 16. \ 3. p. 98.) where he says: Nos et Dominicum diem et
Pascha soletnniter celebramus, et quaslihet alias Christianas dieriun festivi-
tales. - - Manieha)i autem sic ca rcprciiendunt, quasi nullos dies et tempora
observent. (You see, the Mani'jha3ans had little attachment to these festival
days ; and they declared, that in the celebration of them, they ditfered from
other Christians:) Scd cum de his interrogantur secundum opinionem secta)
6ua3, omnia conantur exponere, ut non ipsa tempora, sed res, quarum ilia signa
sunt, observare videantur. And therefore, on the day kept in memory of
Christ's death, they did not direct their thoughts to his death, which they re-
garded as only fictitious ; but they meditated on, and in a sense performed, the
thing signified by that imaginary death. The death of Christ was a figurative
representiition of the cahimity and misery, in which souls were involved, when
they were inclosed in bodies. They therefore fixed their thoughts on the sad
condition of their souls, and endeavored to restore the soul in some measure to
life, or to abstract it from the body. And, I can suppose, they did the same
thing on Sundays. The feigned resurrection of Christ, they supposed, was
emblematic of the deliverance of souls from the bondage of their bodies. And
therefore, on Sundays they solaced themselves with the hope of such deliver-
ance, and also prepared the way for it. Among the effective means of freeing a
soul from its prison, and fitting it for its celestial journey, abstinence [p. 840.]
from food was not the least: and therefore, on Sundays, they denied the body
food, to advance the liberty of the soul.
§ XLYIII. Christ as the Saviour of Men. Christ the Son of
God, therefore, came to restore lost happiness to souls : but he
did not, by his sufferings and death, make expiation for the sins
of intelligent beings ; nor did he, in their stead, satisfy the divine
law. For, good souls, because they are parts of the divine na-
ture, and God is unchangeable, cannot become polluted and cor-
rupt ; and, of course, they cannot really commit sin. They remain
pure, holy, and innocent, even in the most impure body ; and,
by their native energy, if they would exert it, they can pave and
prepare for themselves a way of return to their celestial country.(')
Christ therefore came down to men, j??'5^, to destroy the kingdom of
the Prince of darkness ; that is, to withdraw men from the worship
of the evil Principle, and his captains, and fellow warriors, and
draw them to the worship and religion of the true God. And,
secondly^ he came down to teach men in what ways the evil soul,
together with the body in which it resides, should be overcome
and subdued ; so that the good mind may be purged from all ita
contagion, and gradually become fitted and prepared for a return
to the world of light from which it came. Christ therefore taughi
350 Century III.— Section 48.
a severe moral discipline, and prohibited all desires after exter-
nal and sensible objects, and all bodily and sensual pleasures
whatever. For as the body is composed of matter that is evil by
nature, and the soul living in it is a part of the nature of the
Prince of darkness ; and as in these, consequently, the root of all
evil is located ; all the motions of the sentient and craving soul
arc to be most studiously repressed ; and the body, which excites
those motions, must be weakened and enervated.(')
(1) The Manichaeans so talk of the object of Christ's advent to men, that
if one were to regard only their language, and not estimate its import b}' their
other doctrines, he might easily suppose that there was little or no difference of
opinion on this subject between them and other Christians. For they say, that
Christ, by his advent, procured life and salvation for souls ; that without him,
there was no way to eternal life ; that he is the only Saviour of mankind ; and
that his death was beneficial to men, by procuring eternal life. In place of all,
hear how Foriunatus, a Manicliaean presbyter, speaks, (in his first Dispute with
[p. 841.] Aygusiine,ix 69.) : Nostra professio est - - Deum sui similem Salva-
torem direxisse - - ipso ductore hinc iterum animas ad regnum Dei reversuras
esse, secundum sanctam ipsius pollicitationem, qui dixit : Ego sum via, Veritas
et janua. Et : Nemo potest ad Patrem pervenire, nisi per me. His rebus noa
credimus, quia alias animae, id est, alio mediante non poterunt ad regnura Dei
reverti, nisi ipsum repererint viam, veritatem et januam. Ipse enim dixit: Qui
me vidit, vidit et Patrem meum. Et : Qui in me crediderit, mortem non gus-
tabit in seternum, sed transitum facit de morte ad vitam, et in judicium non ve-
niet. His rebus credimus, et h?ec est ratio fidei nostra). And, after a few
other remarks, he says, (p. 70.) : Nos fotemur et ostendimus ex Salvatoris ad-
ventu, ex ipsius sancta prasdicatione, ex ipsius electione, dum animis miseretur,
- - ut eamdem animam de morte liberaret, et perduceret eam ad seternam gloriam,
et restitueret Patri. And near the end of the discussion, (p. 73.) : Animee substan-
tiam ostendit (Paulus ; whom he had just quoted,) quod sit ex Deo, et animam
aliternon posse reconciliari Deo, nisi per magistrum, qui est Chistus Jesus, - - Sal-
vatorem Christum credimus de ccelo venisse, voluntatem Patris complere. Qua3
voluntas Patris hajc erat, animas nostras de eadera inimicitia (Dei) liberare, in-
terfecta eadem inimiciti^i. And, a little after : Virtute Dei contrariam naturam
vinci confiteor et ad meum regressum Salvatorum esse Christum missum.
These declarations appear sound and beautiful, if considered in the gross : but
if compared with the Manichaean doctrines concerning Christ and the soul, they
differ immensely from the sentiments of other Christians, as to the objects of
Christ's advent. For, in the first place, the Manichaeans supposed Christ had
no flesh and blood, and that he died only in appearance. Of course, they could
not possibly believe, that he endured punishment in the stead of mankind, and
that he expiated our sins by his death and blood. In the next place, they deni-
ed, that our souls are infected and defiled with any stain originating from the
first human pair : for, as souls are portions of the divine nature, which never
Christ as a Saviour. 351
can be corrupted, vitiated, or deprived of its sanctity, so also souls cannot in any
degree lose their integrity ;ind purity. And hence, souls never do propi-rly sin;
but, contrary to their will, tiicy are driven by an opposing nature, which is con-
nected with them wliile they reside in bodies, to permit the criminal deeds of
the depraved soul. I have already substantiated this, by the declarations o\
Manes in his Epistle to his daughter Menoch ; and I will now adduce some otliei
testimonies. Fortunatus discoursed much on the subject with Avgustine ; and
I will cite some portions of that discussion. In the first Dispute, (p. 70.) Fur-
tunalus says. Negasti (Augustine.) animam ex Deo esse, quamdiu peccatis ac
vitiis deservit, - - quod lieri non potest, ut aut Deus hoe patiatur (that a soul
should serve sin,) aut substantia ejus, (the soul.) Est enim Deus incorruplibi-
lis, ct substantia ejus immaculata est et sancta. He goes on to enlarge upon
the subject, constantly inculcating, that the soul is of divine origin, [p. 842.]
and therefore can neither think nor do anything that is evil. In the second Dis-
pute, (p. 73.) he says : Dico, quod nihil mali ex se proferat Deus omnipotens,
et quod quae sua sunt incorrupta maneant, uno ex fonte inviolabili orta et ge-
nita : cetera vero quae in hoc mundo versantur contraria, non ex Deo manare.
And therefore in the soul, w'hich originated from God, sinful emotions and
vicious desires cannot nrise ; they are exterior to the soul, and arise from
the body and the evil soul. Hence, both Manes and all his discpies most
positively deny/?'ee will, or the power of the soul to incline itself to either good
or evil. Because the soul, being an offshoot from God, is most constantly, and
by its own nature, borne towards the good, and cannot possibly choose what
is evil. The same Fortunatus, strenuously arguing against free will, says: Si
mala (if our evil thoughts and emotions) ex Deo essent, aut daret licentiam
peccandi, quod dicis liberum arbitrium dedisse Deum, consensor jam invenieba-
tur delicti mei — aut ignorans, quid futurus essera, delinqueret. - - Quae ab ipso
diximus lacta esse, uti ab opifice Deo, uti ab ipso creata et genita incorruptibi
lia haberi — fides Evangelica docet. - - Inviti peccamus et cogimur a contraria
et inimica nobis substantia. And (p. 75.) : Dicimus, quod a contraria natur^
anima cogatur delinquere. - - Constat, hoc, quod in nobis versatur, malum, ex
auctore malo descendere et portiunculum esse mali banc radicem. Secundinus
the Manichaean, in his Epistle to Augustine, {\ 2. p. 369.) says: Si anima a spi-
ritu vitiorum incipiat trahi — ac poenitudinem gerat, habebat harum sordium in-
dulgentiae fontem. Carnis enim commixtione ducitur, non proprid voluntate.
And hence Augustine, (Disput. II. cum Felice, c. 8. p. 348.) shrewdly remarks:
Secundum vos (ManichaBOs) nulla peccata sunt. Gens enim tenebrarum non
peccat, quia suam naturam facit : Natura lucis non peccat, quia quod facit, fa-
cere cogitur. Nullum ergo invenis peccatum, quod damnat Deus. — These things
being so, as the good soul cannot change its divine nature, nor commit any sin,
it is manifest, that such a soul has no need of a Saviour, to wash away and re-
move its sins, by his death and sufferings. Yet Augustine went too far, in say-
ing that there were no sins whatever, which God could punish, on Manichaean
principles. For according to theirViews, a soul sins, especially if it has received
a knowledge of the truth, whenever it does not use its intelligence io suppress
the emotions and desires of the body and of the malignant soul. It sins by its
352 Century Ill.—Section 48.
negligence and inaction. For it is required to subdue the body and the inclina-
tion to sin ; and this it can do, partly by its natural energy, partly by the aid of
the truth, and partly by the assistance of God and the Holy Spirit. It therefore
sins whenever it neglects this duty, notwithstanding the offences of the body
and of the evil soul, do not properly belong to it. Fortunaliis, (Disput. II. cum
August, p. 75.) says explicitly : Id est peceatum animae, si post cominonitionem
[p. 843.] Salvatoris nostri ct sanam doctrinam ejus, a contraria et inimic^ sui
stirpe se non segregaverit aniraa,et prioribus se nonadornansanima: aliterenira
non potest substantise sua3 reddi. Dictum est enim : Si non venissem et locu-
tus eis fuissem, peceatum non haberent. And yet this sin of negligence and
inaction, is not voluntary, but is constrained and coerced against the will of the
soul. For Forlunatus immediately subjoins: Patet igitur, (he had just cited
Rom. viii. 7.) his rebus, quod anima bona, factione illius, quae legi Dei non est
Bubjectn, peccare videtur, non sua sponte. And in proof of this doctrine, he
cites Galat. v. 17. and Rom. vii, 23. The Manichaeans, indeed, sometimes speak,
as if the soul sinned voluntarily ; and, by its assent, approved the lusting of the
evil soul. Thus Secundinus, (Epist. ad August. § 2. p. 370.) Si vero anima a
Bpiritu vitiorum incipiat train et consenliat ac post consensum poenitudinem ge-
rat. - - At si cum seipsam cognoverit, consenliat malo et non se armet contra
inimicum, voluniate sua peccavit. Hence Euodius, (de fide contra Manichaeos,
c. 6. in 0pp. August, tom. I. Append, p. 25.) says ; Ipse etiam Manichaeus non
potuit nisi fateri animas, etiam quas dicit ad substantiam Dei pertinere, propria
voluntale peccare. And this he attempts to prove, by some passages in the The-
saurus of Manes, and from his Epislola Fundamenii. But whoever will com-
pare together all the things said in these passages, will easily see, that the Ma-
nichaeans use terms improperly, when they say, the good soul sins voluntarily,
and consents to the lustings of the evil soul. The soul, the offspring of the
divine nature, cannot possibly will or approve evil : and therefore its consent is
not real. Yet the soul is said to consent to tlie evil deeds of the bad soul, when
it suffers its perceptions to be obscured by the flesh and the evil soul, and its
energies to become so impaired and weakened, as not to resist them; it con-
sents, when it allows itself to be overcome and compelled by the evil mind, so
as not to prevent what it abhors. This consent is like that of a man, who does
not shut up his house at night, nor keep a guard, and by such negligence af-
fords thieves an opportunity to plunder some portion of his goods. Therefore
this, the only sin which the soul can commit, is in one sense involuntary, and in
another sense voluntary. It is involuntary, in as much as the pure mind can-
not but abhor the purposes and actions of the evil soul, and is unwillingly over
come and compelled not to arrest those purposes and actions : and it is voluntary,
in as much as it does not brace itself against them, when it is blinded and over-
come. This sin, whatever it may be, is not so great and heinous, that God can-
not let it pass unpunished ; nor does it require any Saviour. All the crimina-
lity of it maybe washed away by repentance, because it was not voluntary. So
the Manichaeans invariably teach. Thus Secundinus, (Epist. ad August. ^ 2.
p. 369.) ; Si anima post consensum poenitudinem gerat, habebit harum sordiura
indulgentiee fontem. Carnis enim commixtione ducitur, non propria voluntate.
Christ as a, Savior. 353
- - Quam si itcrum piideat errasse, paratum invcniet misericordiaruni [p. R-U.]
auctorem, Non enim punitur, quia peccavit, sed quia de peceato iion doluit.
And FortunatKS, (Disput. ii. cum Augustino, p. 75.) ; Unde patet, rccte esse
pceiiitentiam datam post adventum Servatoris ct post banc scietitiam reruni, (jua
possit anima, aesi divino fonte lota, de sordibus et vitiis tani mundi totius, quam
corporuni, in quibu8 eadeiii anima versatur, regno Dei, unde progrcssa est, rc-
pra?scntari. — Tiiis doctrine of tlie Manichaeans respecting tlie sins of tlie good
soul, as likewise all that they teach respecting both the good soul and the bad
one, is, I admit, a compound of incongruities, and appears not well put together.
But I will not go into an}' discussion, as I am merely acting the historian.
(2) According to Manes, Christ's advent had two objects. In the Jlrst place,
it brought to men the knowledge of the truth. Before the advent the greatest
part of mankind, through the wiles of the Prince of darkness, followed the
grossest errors, and were alike ignorant of their own nature, and of the nature
of God. The Jews, instead of worshipping God, worshipped the i^rince of
darkness himself,' and obeyed his law given by Moses, as if it were divine. The
other nations served the prefects of the world of darkness resident in the stars,
and supposed them to be Deities. The Son of God, therefore, came to over-
throw this kingdom of darkness among men, which was based on ignorance and
error ; or to teach mortals, whence came evil, what was the origin of souls, and
what is the cause of the perpetual conflict in man between reason and inclina-
tion, &c. Says Fortunalus, (Disput. I. cum August, p. 74.) : Quia inviti peccamus
— idcirco sequimur scientiam rerum. Qua scientia admonita anima et memoriae
pristinae reddita (for the soul resident in the body, forgets the truth which it
before understood) recognoscit, ex quo originem trahat, in quo malo versetur,
quibus bonis iterum emendans, quod nolens peccavit, possit per emendationem
delictorum suorum, bonorum operum gratia, meritum sibi reconciliationis apud
Deum collocare, auctore Salvatore nostro, qui nos docet et bona exercere et
mala fugere. — In the second place, Jesus Christ, both by precept and by example,
showed men, how the good soul dweliing in an evil body, and associated with
an evil soul, must be purgatcd, in order to become worthy to return to its
celestial country. He therefore prescribed an austere system of moral discipline.
That code of morals, which Manes says w\as taught by Christ, and which Manes
expounded in his Epistola Fundamenti, (as Augustine testifies, in his work de
moribus Manichseorum, L. ii. c. 20. 0pp. tom. i. p. 554.) was most gloomy, and
repulsive to human nature. The principal parts of it are recounted with much
complacency, by Fausiiis, an eloquent disciple of Maries, (L. v. c. I. 2. p. 140.)
thus : Ego patrem dimisi, et matrem, uxorem, filios, et cetera, qua3 Evangeliura
jubet, et interrogas, utrum accipiam Evangelium ? Nisi adhuc nescis, quid sit,
quod Evangelium nuncupatur. Est enim hihil aliud, quam praedicatio et man-
datum Christi. (So then the Manicha3ans affirmed, that the Gospel [p. 845.]
consisted principally in the rules of life enjoined by Christ.) Ego argentum et
aurum rejeci, et ses in zonis habere destiti, quotidiano contentus cibo, ncc de
crastino curans. - - Vides in me Christi beatitudines illas, vides pauperem, vides
mitem, vides pacificum, puro corde, lugentem, esurientem, sitientem, (Faus/us
omits the words for righteousness^ in order to find his fasting, or the hungering
VOL. H. 24
354 Century III. — Scctlo?i 48.
and thirsting practised by his sect, among the precepts of Christ;) persecutiones
et odia sustiiientem. - - Omnia mea dimisi, patrem, mutrem, uxorem, liiios, au-
rum, argentum, mandiicare, bibere, delicias, voluptates. Faustus, a man of in-
genuity and liueney, pursues the subject at considerable length ; and, among
other things, lie says: Age, interrogemus Christum, undo potissimum nobis sa^
lutis oriatur occasio. Quis hominum in regnum tuum intrabit, Chrisle? Qui
fecerit, inquit, voluntatem Patris mei, qui in coelis est. Non dixit, qui me pro-
fessus fuerit natum : (for the Manicha3ans pertinaciously denied, that Christ
was ever born.) Et alibi dixit ad discipulos, Ite, docete omnes gentes — docen-
tes eos servare omnia, quae mandavi vobis. Non Dixit: docentes eos, quia sura
natus. Nee non in monte quum doceret: Beati paupercs - - nusquam dixit:
Beati, qui me confessi fuerint natum, - - Diviti quaerenli vitam aeternam: Vade,
inquit, vende omnia, quae habes, et sequere me. Non dixit: Crede me natum,
ut in aeternum vivas. And thus, whatever precepts Christ gave to his Apostles,
or to individual men, are all converted into general rules of life, and, solely by
performing them, souls become prepared, as they supposed, for salvation. Saya
Secundinus, (Epist. ad August, p. 369.): Ut hominum corpora arma peccati
sunt, ita salutaria (Christi) praecepta arma justitiae. — As the whole religious
system of Mattes, is nothing but the religion of the Persian Magi, tinctured
with some portions of Christianity; so, also, this severe code of morals, is Per-
sian, and derived from the schools of the Magi, in which Manes was educated.
For this assertion, I have the authority of Diogenes Lacrlius, and likewise of
Eubidus, whom Jerome, (contra Jovinianum, L. ii, Opp. torn. iv. p, 206. edit.
Benedict.) thus cites : Eubulus, qui Historian! Mithrae multis voluminibus ex-
plicuit, narrat apud Persas tria genera Magorum, quorum primos, qui sint doc-
tissimi et eloquentis^imi, excepta farina et olere, nihil amplius in cibo suraere. I
add Clemens Alexandrinus, (Stromat. L. iii. p. 533. edit. Paris.) who says*
'AfAiKii J'iu p/JOVTjtToj ia-Ti H.AI Toii Mayots, oiyov Tt huovy koX £,«%j.y^av x.a\ dj'poS'iTiar
dzt;)(^i'r^ut, Xar^ivova-iv dyyc'Xois xai S'aifAo<riv. Certe Magis quoque curae est, qui
angelos et daemones colunt, simul a vino et anim:itis et rebus venereis abstinere.
No two things could be more perfectly alike, than the Manichaeans and these
Magi. According to our feelings, most of the duties which Manes, in imitation
of the Magi, enjoined on his followers, are exceedingly unpleasant; but they
[p. 846.] were, undoubtedly, less annoying to the Persians; whose bodies, like
those of all the Orientals, do not require so much nutriment as ours, and who
can dispense with flesh and solid food without much inconvenience, and neither
crave nor relish wine. The modern Per-sians liave no fondness for wine or
flesh, and can live very comfortably on fruits, herbs, and melons. I have no
doubt, therefore, that both Manes and his early followers observed the precepts
he set forth, and led a sober and apparently an austere life. This, Manes could
the more easily do, because he had been accustomed to those rules from early
life among the Magi. But this discipline, which in Asia was but slightly repul-
sive and painful, when transferred to Europe and other regions, was very an-
noying and painful, and it exhausted and emaciated the body. Hence the Mani-
chseans who lived at Rome, and in Italy, and Africa, were most of them pale,
lean, and emaciated, with gloom and anguish visible in their countenances. Thia
Christ as a Saviour. 355
appearance of excessive abstinence and self-denial, is conceded to them by IJicir
most virulent opposers, notwithstanding they give intiin.itions thut the j)rivato
habits of the sect were not very sober and chaste. Aiigusline, in his work de
utilitate crcdendi, addressed to Honoratus, whom lie wished to recover from
Manichaeism, (c. 18. 0pp. torn. i. p. 51.) thus writes: Alia niulta me docuit ec-
clesia catholica, quo illi homines (Manichaei) exsanques corporibus, scd crassi
mentibns adspirare non possunt. And Leo the Great, (Serrno xxxiii. c. 4. 0pp.
tom. i. p. 93.) says: Neminem fallant (Manichaii) discretionibus ciboruni, sordi-
bns vestiuni, vultumnque palloribus. Non sunt casta jejunia, quaj non de ralione
veniunt continentite, sed de arte fiillacias. Leo would persuade his hearers, tiuit
the lean and emaciated form, and the pallidness of the Manichaians, which could
not be denied, were the result of some imposition, and not of abstinence: but
I know not, whether he had good evidence to support him. The pallidncs of the
Manichaeans became proverbial at Rome; so that persons meeting a young
woman with a pallid countenance, would call her a Manichaean. Thus Jerome
tells us, (Epist. xviii. ad Eustochium de custodia virginitalis, 0pp. tom. iv. Pars
ir. p. 32.); Et quam viderint pallentem atque tristem, miseram, Monacham et
Manichccam vocant. And yet these colorless, lean, and sorrowful Manichaeans,
who dwelt at Rome and in Italy in the fourth and fifth centuries, were not
genuine followers of Manes, but had departed in many respects from the strict
rules of their master. For the Manichaean discipline had been relaxed in the
countries of the West; nor were even their bishops able to endure the discip-
line, which Manes imposed in his Epistola Fundamenti. A striking example in
point, is narrated by Augustine, (de moribus Manichaeorum, L. ii. c. 20. tom. i.
p. 553, 554. and, contra Faustum, L. v. c. 7. tom. viii. p. 142.) One Constanlius,
a Manichaean of the class called Auditors, a man of great wealth, and peculiarly
devoted to the intersts of his sect, was much troubled, at hearing that the dis-
persed and vagrant Manichaeans often lived quite otherwise than the [p. 847.]
law of Manes required. And, to put an end to this disgrace, he wished to col-
lect them together in his own house, where they could conveniently live accord-
ing to the precepts of their master. At first, the bishops of the seel, knowing the
intollerablo severity of their rules, resisted his purpose; and he complained^ that
his so important efforts were foiled, by the laxness of the bishops, (who, ne\erthe-
less, w^ere pallid and colorless,) by whose assistance those efforts ought to be car-
ried into effect. But, by good fortune, one of the bishops favored his project.
Therefore all the Elect, who could be collected, ivere assembled at Rome. The rule
of life in the Epistle of Manes was proposed. Many deemed it intollerable, and
retired; but a considerable number, from modesty, remained. These commenced
living, as Constantius wished, and as was j^rescribed by so high authority. But
their zeal was of short duration. First, broils arose among them ; then, they
muttered, that these mandates could not be endured; and thence sedition. Constan-
tius, the founder of the company, showed them clearly, that, either all these pre-
cepts are to be followed, or the man must be deemed a consumate fool, who gave
precepts which no one can follow. But he could effect nothing. First the bishop
eloped; and many followed his example. Yet, a few remained, who had sepa-
rated from the rest. And these, the other Manichaeans contemptuously called
Tl)(j Century Ill.—Sectloii 48.
Mattarli, because they slept on malice (mats), a sort of rude beds without
frames. — This shows, how great was the severity of the moral discipline of Ma-
nes; which could not be endured, even by those who otherwise lived abstemi-
ously and harshly, or by persons who manifested by their countenances, and by
the leanness and emaciation of their bodies, how much they shunned all indul-
gences.— But, let us come more directly to our subject.
As the body, according to Manes, is itself evil, and is the work of the Prince
of darkness, or a prison in which good souls are held captive, it was necessary
that he should teach, that the body is to be attenuated, tortured, and deprived
of all comforts. And as he further held, that the good soul is influenced by no
cravings and no desires, and maintained that all appetites and lusts are seated
in the evil soul, which dwells in the body; he could not avoid inculoating, that
all appetence whatever of things without us. is not merely to be restrained and
allayed, but to be wholly extirpated; that all emotions and affections of the
mind, being in their very nature evil, are to be slain, and no inclination is to be
gratified. For, the more liberty is allowed to the evil soul of desiring and
hankering, the more langor and weakness befall the good soul ; so that it becomes
less able to purge itself, and to repel the defilements with which it is beset on
every side. And, on the contrary, the more rigidly the good mind binds down
and confines the body and the evil soul, the more easily it forces its way out of
the darkness. The true Manichaean, therefore, will not suffer himself to be in-
fluenced by any desire whatever of any sensible object; he must neither sorrow
nor rejoice, neither fear nor hope, every pleasure must be shunned, and the
drama of this world must be contemplated with a stable, unmoved, and tranquil
[p. 848.] mind. Those only who obey this law, can hope to return to the world
of light when they leave the body. — But, as Manes could foresee, that if he pre-
scribed to all his followers this very stringent law so revolting to human nature,
he could have but few adherents, and be the head of only a small sect ; he pre-
scribed a more indulgent rule for the multitude or the common people. And
thus, following the example of the Magi, from whom he derived the greatest
part of his regulations, he divided his commonwealth into the Elect and the
Auditors; the former, bound to observe most sacredly all the irksome precepts
soon to be described, and the latter, allowed to follow the instincts of nature.
Of this distinction among Manichaeans, we shall treat in the proper place ; we
nosv consider only the rule of life for the Electa and which is the only way
to salvation.
The Manichajans arranged their whole system of moral discipline under
three heads, which they called Signacula, or Seals; namely, the signaculum of
the mouth, of the hands, and of the bosom. Thus Augustine, (de Moribus Mani-
chseor. L. ii. c. 10. p. 538.): Videamus tria ilia signacula, quae in vestris moribus
magna laude ac prajdicatione jactatis. Qua? sunt tandem ista signacula ? Oris
certe, et manuum ac sinus. Ut ore, et manibus, et sinu, castus et innocens sit
homo. I have no doubt that Manes derived this distribution of duties from the
Persian Magi.. Augustine contends that it is clumsy and imperfect ; which we
readily grant: but if the system was in other respects correct, we could put up
with the imperfection of the distribution. Before we arrange the duties en-
Christ as a Saviour. 357
joined by Maniehasans under these three heads, let us hear their own explana-
tion of the distinction they make. Aiigusline thus states the views of the doc-
tors of the sect : Quum os nomino, onines sensus, qui sunt in capite, intclligi
volo; quum auteni raanum, omnem operationem; quum sinum, omnem libidi-
nem seminalem. Therefore, all duties and faults, which can be referred to the
eyes, the ears, the tongue, the mouth, the taste, or the smell, belong to the first
sigjiacidum, that of the mouth All actions, whether commanded or forbidden,
are comprehended under the second signaculum, that of the hands. The third
signaculum^ that of the bosom, prohibits all venereal desires whatever. — Among
the duties of the signaculum of tiie mouth, the first was, (as Augustine tells us,
1. c. c. 11. p. 538.) to refrain from all blasphemy. This precept, in accordance
with their views, they so explained as to declare those blasphemers, who pro-
fessed but one first cause of all things, who taught that the bodies of men and
animals were created by God, who inculcated that the law of Moses proceeded
from God, who declared that the Son of God was born and actually died ; and,
on the contrary, those had holy thouglits of God, and were believed to eschew
all blasphcmrj, who embraced and professed the religion taught by Manes. This
precept is therefore very broad, and requires the adoption of the intire system
of the Manichteans.— In the next place, to the signaculum oris belongs, the rigid
and austere abstinence of the Manichaeans. This required them, first, [p. 849.]
to abstain from all flesh. See Augustine ; (de Hajres. c. 46. and, de Moribus
Manichffior. L. ii. c. 13, «fec. p. 540.) Faustus, also, (L. vi. c. 1 p. 145.) says:
Omnem ego carnem immundum existimo. The principal reason for this precept
undoubtedly was, that the use of flesh as food, strengthened the body, which
should be weakened and attenuated ; and excited and inflamed animal passions,
which should be wholly extinguished. But there were other reasons. Ani-
mals, w^hile alive, contain light or celestial soul commingled with matter; but
when dead, their flesh is wholly without soul, and consequently is a mere mass
of matter, belonging entirely to the kingdom of darkness: and therefore, those
who eat it, augment and enlarge the quantity of evil which is in them. Says
Augustine, (de Moribus Manich. L. ii. c. 15. p. 543.): Aiunt, cum anima car-
nem deseruerit, nimias sordes reliquas fieri, et ideo eorum, qui carnibus vescun-
tur, animam coinqulnari. That no portion of light or celestial matter remained
in the flesh, they proved from this, that flesh when burned emitted no light.
Says Augustine, (1. c. c. 16. p. 544.): Dicitis, olivse folia cum Incenduntur, ig-
nem emittere, in quo pra^sentia lucis apparet; carnes autem cum incenduntur
non idem facere. I pass by other reasons. — From the same causes, undoubtedly,
they reckoned eggs and milk among forbidden aliments. Says Augustine, (de
Hajres. c. 46. p. 12.) : Nee ova saltem sumunt, quasi et ipsa cum franguntur
expirent, nee oporteat ullis raortuis corporibus vesci - - Sed nee alimonia lac-
tis utuntur, quamvis de corpore animantis vivente mulgeatur sive sugatur, non
quia putant divinoe substantia nihil ibi esse permixtum, sed quia sibi error ipse
non constat. Augustine here thinks, they had no reason for prohibiting the
use of milk ; but it is sufficiently clear, that they had a reason.— F/.-^A, they
abominated, even more than flesh ; and they vvould rather starve than cat it.
Augustine, (contra Faustum, L. xvi. c. 9. p. 205.) : Cur ita piscem voa noxiuro
358 Century IlL— Section 48.
proedicatis, ut si alia esca non occurrat, prius fame consumamini, quam piscb
vescamiiii. Perhaps, as often elsewiiere, Augustine here exaggerates, in regard
to the Manichaean abhorrence of fish. But if his statement is true, I confess I
can assign no reason for this abhorrence. — As the Manichseans prohibited the
use of all animal food, they were obliged to repel hunger, with bread, salads,
herbs, pulse, fruits, and the products of the earth and trees. They therefore
used, first, bread; both ordinary bread, and also cakes. Of their bread Angus-
tine speaks, (contra Faustum, L. xx. c. 23. p. 248.) : Eo pane vescimini, quo ce-
teri homines, et fructibus vivitis et fontibus. Of their cakes he often speaks,
and particularly, (de Moribus Manichaeor. L. ii. c. 16. p. 547.): In Electis ves-
tris esse non potest, qui proditus fuerit, non concupiscendo, sed medendo (for
[p. 850.] the recovery of health,) partem aliquam coenasse gallinae : esse autem
in iis potest, qui vehementer cumiphas (a species of cakes,) et alia placenta de-
sidorasse se ipse providerit. I cite this passage in preference to others of the
kind, because it shows, that flesh was so strictly prohibited by them, that even
the sick could not use it without offending. They also preferred potherbs and
the products of trees and the ground, before bread and cakes ; because the for-
mer, they supposed, contained a greater portion of the celestial elements than
the other kinds of food. Says Augustine^ (de Moribus Manichaeor. L. ii. c. 16.
p. 543.) : Quaero, unde doceatis, in frumentis ac legumine, et oleribus, et flori-
bus et pomis inesse istam nescio quam partem Dei. Ex ipso coloris nitore,
inquiunt, et odoris jucunditate, et saporis suavitate manifestum est: quae dum
non habent putria, eodem bono sese deserta esse significant. A little before,
(c. 13. p. 541.) he had given a list, though an imperfect one of the Manichaean
eatables, thus: Quid porro insanius dici aut cogitari potest, hominem boletos,
orizam, tubera, placentas, caroenum, piper, laser, distento ventre cum gratula-
tione ructantem et quotidie talia requirentem, non inveniri, quemadmodum a
tiibus signaculis, id est, a regula sanctitatis excidisse videatur, aliam vero fru-
ges vilissimas fumoso obsonio (lard, he supposes,) condientem certo supplicio
praeparari. But of no food were the IManichaeans more fond, than of melons.
For their master had a predilection for them ; which is not strange, he being a
Persian, and the Persians to this day making great use of melons, which their
country produces of the most delicious kind. Says Augustine, (de Moribus
Manichaeor. L. ii. c. 15, p. 544.) : De thesauris Dei melonem putatis aureum
esse. And, (c. 18. p. 550.) : Melonibus quam hominibus estis amiciores. Next
to melons, they preferred potherbs and olix:es. Says Augustine, (1. citato, p. 544.) :
Cur nitorcm atque fulgorem olei clamare copiam coadmixti boni arbitraraini, et
ad id purgandum fauces et ventrem paratis. The first Manichaeans, like their
founder, ate their fruits, potherbs and salads, simple, or undressed and unseiu
soned ; and tiiis was required by the law of Manes ; which condemned all
gratifications of the bodily senses, lest the evil soul should become excited by
them. But in this particular, as in many others, the European and African
Manichaeans departed widely from the rule of their master ; for they seasoned
their potherbs and pulse, with pepper and other things. Hence Augustine^
(1. citato, c. 13. p. 541.) charges upon them that: Exquisitas et peregrinas fru-
ges multis ferculis variatas et largo pipere adspersas nona hora libenter assu-
Christ as a Saviour. 359
mant, noetia etinm principio talli cocnent. And, (e. 16. p. 541.) ho says to
tliem : Quat' ratio est, w\ potiiis amentia, de numero Electoruni lioniincMn j)el-
lere, qui forte carnoni vaU-tudinis eaussa gustaverit : Si auteni piperata tuhera
voraeiter edere concupierit, iinmodestia tantum forte possitis reprehendcrc, non
uutem ut corruptort'm damiiure sigiiaculi ? And yet Augustine admits, [p. 851.]
that there were some among them, though few, so zealous for the ancient and
rigid customs, that they blamed these too luxurious brethren ; (I. citato, p. 541.) :
Electus vostcr tribus signaculis proedicatus, si ita, uti dixi, vivat, ab uno et for-
tasse duobus gravioribus reprclicndi potest, damnari autcm tanqnam signaculi
dissignator non potest. Si autem seme! frusto pernae vel rancido labra unxerit
et vappa udaverit, solutor signaculi vestri auctoris sententia judicabitur. — From
their food, I pass to their drink. The law of Manes most strictly prohibited all
use of wine ; and, undoubtedly, all other intoxicating drinks. Wine^ as already
stated, Manes declared to be the gall of the Prince of darkness, poured upon
the earth. Yet his Italian and African disciples, in the times of Augustine, had
no hesitation to eat grapes. Says Augustine, (I. citato, c. 16. p. 545.) ; Qufe
tanta perversio est, vinum putare fel principum tenebrarum, et uvis comedendis
non parcere 1 Magisne inerit illud fei cum in cupa, quam cum in acinis fuerit?
But, I suppose, these Manicha3ans took greater liberties, than the very severe
and troublesome law of their master allowed. And these later Manichajana
differed also from the more ancient, in other things pertaining to this part of
their discipline. The primitive Manichaeans drank either pure water, or as
Cyrill of Jerusalem says, (Cateches. vi. § 31. p. 108.) water with an infusion of
wheat or barley straw : tcis dx'jp'^v uS^no-ty palearum aquis. But the Angustinian
Manichaeans were more indulgent to the palate ; although it was displeasing
to the graver and more austere "brethren. For Augustine says, (1. citato, c. 13.
p. 541.): Bibebant mulsum, caroenum passum, et nonnullorum poniorum ex-
presses succos, vini speciem satis imitantes, atque id etiam suavitate vincentes.
What Augustine here calls caroenum passum, he hnd just before called coctuin
vinum, (c. 16. p. 546.) : Caroenum, quod bibitis, nihil aliud quam coctum vinum
est, quod vino deberet esse sordidius. Beausobre, (vol. II. p. 775.) well con-
jectures, that this caranum was water in which bruised grapes had been boiled.
Undoubtedly, it was some kind of liquor, produced from bruised grapes, by
boiling ; and one which the Latins called passum, a name also used by Augus-
tine. But I do not suppose this caroenum, to be that species of sweet factitious
wine, called carenum, mentioned by Palladius. And yet I have doubts, whether
the two words caroenum passum should be joined together, as they are in the
printed editions of Augustine ; or should be disjoined, so as to make them de-
note two kinds of liquor. Some of the Manichaeans also used hordei succo ;
that is, as I apprehend, beer or ale. Says Aiigustine, (c. 16. p. 546.) : Ilordci
quidam succo vinum imitantur. — Hoc genus potus citissime inebriat : nee tanien
unquam succum hordei fel principum dixistis. — I proceed to other things. As
the signaculum oris extended to all the senses, and condemned all indulgenco
of them, I suppose we must referto it; — First, Thatthe Manichaeans were [p. 852.]
required by their master to sleep, not on couches, but on the ground, or on matts
or coarse rags. Epiphanius, (Ilaeres. Ixvi. {12. p. 629.) says, they slept iwl
SCO Century Ill—Section 48.
x5txaMo/f, on rushes. Of thie, I have already spoken ; and I may here observe,
that Manes borrowed this part of his discipline also from the Magi. For Soiion,
as quoted by Diogenes Lccrllus, (Proem, de dictis et factis Philosophor. p. 6.)
says of the Magi: Touruv J'l itrd-m /utv >w«yx«, a-Ti0as /« iwiii x«i \d^Avov t^o^»,
Tvpds ri Kai aproc iuriK»i. His vestis Candida, lectus humus, esca olus, caseus,
panisque eibarius est. If you except from this list the cheese, which, as well as
milk, the Manichaeans abhorred ; you have here, the mode of living prescribed
by Manes to his disciples. — Secondly, That they were to be clad in plain, and
even sordid garments, entirely without ornament ; and to wear their beards and
hair long, after the example of their master. We have already cited a passage
from Leo the Great. As for the clothing and beard of Manes, see Archelaiis*
Dispute with him, (p. 23.) : Habebat caleeamenti genus, quod quadrisole vulgo
appellari solet, (high and troublesome :) pallium autem varium, tanquam aerina
specie, (old and much worn, I suppose, so that its color could hardly be de-
termined :) in manu vero validissimum baculum tenebat, (as was usual with the
Magi,) ex ligno ebelino ; crura etiam braccis obtexerat colore diverso, quarum
una rufa, alia velut prasini choris erat, (that is, to indicate his poverty, he wore
trowsers of various pieces of different colored cloth sewed together; such as
beggars wore.) Vultus vero ut senis Persse artificis et bellorum ducis (that
is, grave and venerable,) erat. Archelaus thus addressed him, (^ 36. p. 23.) :
Barba (i. e. long-bearded) Sacerdos Mithrse et collusor. — Thirdly, That they
were required to shun the baths, the shows, and the theatres. Augustine, (in
his last Book de Moribus Manichseorum, p. 551, 552,) specifying in what re-
spects the Maniehseans had abandoned the unconfortable rule of their master,
among other things, says : Multi in vino et carnibus, multi lavantes in balneis
inventi sunt. In theatris Electos et aetate et moribus graves cum sene presby-
tero saepissime invenimus. Omitto juvenes, quos etiam rixantes pro scenicis et
aurigis deprehendere solebamus. Baths, therefore, and theatres and shows,
were utterly forbidden them. Tyrho, likewise, (in the Acta Archelai, \ 10.
p. 16.) testifies to the strict prohibition of the baths. — To all these duties, com-
prised under the signaculum of the mouth, were added fasts, both annual and
on certain days of each week, obligatory on Manichaeans. As to their annual
fasts, I find nothing specific on record : yet that they held such fasts, cannot be
doubted. Jerome tells us, (Comment on Amos. c. 3. 0pp. tom. iii. p. 1396.)
that, just like Tatian : Manichaeum laborare continentia et jejuniis, xerophagiis,
chamaeeuniis. Many suppose the last word to denote vigils ; but I doubt it.
[Du Cange, Glossar. mediae et imf Latinit. tom. i. p. 1042, thinks chameuncc
{^dLfAtuviai) to be matts spread on the ground for sleeping.] Yet it is certain,
[p. 853.] that the Manichaeans kept vigils, and held them at stated times : Au-
gustine occasionally mentions them. Jerome, in another passage, (Comment on
Joel, tom. iii. p. 1345.) says: Jejunat Manichaeus : sed hoc jejunium saturitate
et ebrietate deterius est. Two days in every week, Sundays and Mondays, the
Manichaeans devoted to fasting : of this we have before given evidence. One
of these fasts, that on what we call the Lord's day, or Sunday, was observed
both by the Elect and the Auditors ; and, of course, was a fast of the whole
church. To this Augustine testifies, (Epist. ccxxxvi. tom. ii. p. 643.) : Audi-
Christ as a Saviow, 3(51
tores die quoque Dominleo cum Electis jejiinant, et omnes blnspliomias cum il-
lia credunt. From tliis it is inferred, that the fast of the second day of tho
week, or Monday, was confined to the Elect. Tiiat these fasts were very strict
and restrained the Manichaeans from all food and drink, the precepts of tiie sect
put beyond all controversy. And hence, tliey accounted it among the best
proofs of tJieir sanctity. Said Fauslus, (L. v. c. 1. p. 140.) : Vides me esurien-
teni et sitientem : et interrogas, utrum accipiam Evangelium? Huno-er and
thirst, therefore, according to the Manichaeans, were not the smallest part of
that Gospel which the Son of God proclaimed to men : and to prove it, they
mutilated the words of the Savior, Matth, v. 6. by omitting the word, ^iKuioa-uinvy
righteousness ; so that their copies read simply ; Blessed are they that hun<rer
and thirst. — Of all the pleasures of sense, the signaculum oris tolerated but o?/e,
that derived from music. For they supposed music to be of divine orin-in ; as
Augustine informs us, (de moribus Manichaeor. L. ii. c. 16. p. 546.) : Dulcedo
musica, quam de divinis regnis venisse contenditis, nobis mortuarum carnium
sordibus exhibetur. Beausobre, (in the Preface to his Histoire de Manichee,
p. xxxi.) adds the pleasure, which the mind derives through the nostrils from
perfumes and burning incense. Where he learned this, I do not know ; but it
is quite credible ; for the Persians, like all the people of the East, are exceed-
ingly fond of sweet odors. Besides, that the pleasures of smell were not deem-
ed unlawful by the Manichaeans, is sufficiently manifest from the fact, before
mentioned, that they concluded ex odoris jucunditate emitted by fruits and
flowers, that these contained more celestial matter than other objects. See
Augustine, (de moribus Manichaeor. L. ii. c. 16. p. 543.)
I pass to the signaculum of the hands; which prohibited all actions incon-
sistent with the tranquillity of the soul, or proceeding from any desire. For, if
we except the single desire of returning to the celestial country after leaving
the body, which the divine and good mind ought to cherish, all other desires,
instincts, and appetites, according to the opinion of the Manichaeans, originate
from the body and the evil soul, and are therefore vicious and impure. Augus-
tine, (de moribus Manichaeor. L. ii. c. 17 &c.) treats of this signaculum manuum,
as if it required nothing but to abstain from killing animals and lacerating
vegetables. But it required many other thing?, which Augustine seems [p. 854.]
to have omitted, lest he should be obliged to acknowledge something good and
commendable in the Manichaean discipline; and so he named only that, which
would afford opportunity for most censure and vituperation. — First, The perfect
Manichaean, therefore, following the example of Christ's Apostles, ought to di-
vest himself intirely of all natural affection towards parents, children, brothers,
and relatives; and also to suppress the love of life, health, and comfort. For
the love of kindred originates from flesh and blood, and of course from evil ;
and the end of life is the liberation of the soul from its prison, which the wise
should rather desire than fear. Said Faustus, (L. v, c. 1. 2. p. 140.): Ego
pafrem dimisi et matrem, uxorem, filios et cetera, quae Evangelium (so he calls
the system of moral discipline,) jubet. - - Omnia mea dimisi, patrem, matrem,
uxorem, filios, aurum, argentum, manducare, bibere, delicias, voluptales. Other
proofs may be gathered from the testimonies heretofore adduced. — Secondly,
362 Century III. — Section 48.
The perfect Maniehaean ought to live in extreme poverty, and neither to possess
nor desire any worldly goods, neither gold, nor silver, nor furniture, nor home,
nor anything whatever; and to live contentedly on a slender, sparing, daily
amount of food, supplied him by tliose called Auditors. Said Fauslus, (L. v.
c. 1. 2. p. 140.): Ego argentum et aurum rejeci (when I became a Manichaian,)
et aes in zonis habere destiti, quotidiano cibo, nee de erastino curans. — Vides in
me Christi beatitudines illas, vides pauperem. And a little after: Christus dixit:
Beati pauperes; et, diviti quacrenti vitam aeternam, Vade, vende omnia quae
habes, et sequere me. We may here remark that the Manichoeans, in order to
prove that Christ required this absolute penury of all things, read the language
of tiie Saviour, Matt. v. 3. simply, MAx-dpioi oi 7n-w;:^oi, (Blessed are the poor;)
omitting the words rw TrvtvfxArty (in spirit.) And Tyrbo, (in the Acta Archelai,
\ 9. p. 16.) says: Si quis dives est in hoc raundo, cum exierit de corpore suo,
necesse est, eum in corpus pauperis injici. - - - Qui aedificaverit sibi domum,
dispergetur in omnia corpora. I am aware, that this Tyrho erred in some
things; but in reporting the precepts of the Manichseans, he did not mistake.
Augustine, (de moribus ecclesiae et Manich. L. i. c. 35. p. 531.) says: Quid ca-
lumniamini, quod fideles jam baptismate renovati procreare filios, et agros ac
domos, peeuniamque ullam possidere non debeant. - - Dicitis catechuinenis
licere habere pecuniam, fidelibus non licere. — Thirdly, The perfect Maniehaean
should refrain from all labor, and from all business whatever; and should spend
his life in uninterrupted repose and contemplation. He should therefore not
build up, nor pull down; not bake bread, nor grind in the mill; not till the
ground, nor reap the grain, nor engage in any manual labor whatever. Tyrho,
(in the Acta Archelai, \ 9. p. 16, 17.) having said, that it is not lawful for i\Iani-
[p. 855.] chaeans, (he means, the Elect,) to plant, build, reap, put grain into tiie
mill, or bake bread, adds: Aia roZro dTnipnTai duroli ipyov 7roi»a-xi. Propter hoc
illicitum est apud eos opus quoddara facere. And hence Augustine, (de utilitate
credendi, c. 1. p. 34.) says, that he refused to pass from the class of Auditors to
that of the Elect among the Manichaeans, Ne hujus mundi spem atque negotia
dimitteret. And a little after, he says that he, while a Maniehaean, Spera
gessisse de pulchritudine uxoris, de pompa divitiarum, de inanitate honorum,
ceterisque voluptatibus. Haec omnia, (he says,) cum studiose illos audirem,
cupere et sperare non desistebam. Sed fateor, illos sedulo monere, ut ista cave-
antur. The reason of the precept is obvious. All manual labors proceed from
solicitude, and are subservient to the desires of men; but all solicitudes are
evil ; and therefore, a holy man should neither obey them nor harbor them. —
Fourthly, In particular, it was not lawful for a true and perfect Maniehaean, to
pluck the fruit from trees, to strip trees of leaves, to pull up plants, shrubs, and
herbs, or to do violence to any part of nature. Of this obligation, Augustine
treats in many places, and formally, in his work de moribus Manicliaeorum,
(L. ii. c. 17 &c.) where, among other things, he says: Poma ipsi non decerpitis,
herbamque non vellitis, sed tamen ab Auditoribus vestris decerpi et evelli atque
afferri vobis jubetis. He had just before said: Si quis non imprudentia, sed
sciens pomum, foliumve de arbore decerpat, signaculi corruptor sine ulla dubi-
tatione damnabitur, sed omnino (damnabitur) si arborem radicitus eruat. And
Christ as a Savioi/r. 3(53
(de Haercs. c. 46. p. 12.): Agnim spinis piirfj;iro, iiefas habent. — Elocti nihil in
agris operantes, noc poma c;irpentes, nee saltim folia ulla vellentes, oxpoctant
haee arterri usibus suia ab Auditoribus suis. And, (contra Faustuni, L. xvi. c.
28. p. 214.): A vobis quisquis vulserit spicas,ex traditione jManieiiat-i hoiiiicida
deputatur. This puerile precept will not appear very strange to one wl-II ac-
quainted with the principles of their system. Tlie Maniehaeans supposed all
nature to be animated, or that, in all its parts, there was a commixture of tiie
celestial elements with matter. Thus Manes himself, (Epist. ad filium Mi-noch,
apud AugusL Opus imperf. L. iii. in a passage already quoted,) says: Aiiimain
cunfusam esse omnibus corporibus et saporibus, et spcciebus variis cohaerere.
And, as quoted by Alexander of Lycopolis, (contra Maiiichaeos, p. 19.) he says:
Uavra vouj la-tX. Omnia sunt anima. AugusLine, (de Haeres. c. 46. p. 11, 12.)
says: Herbas atque arbores sic putant vivere, ut vitam, quae iilis inest, et sen-
tire credant, et dolere, cum laeduntur, nee aliquid inde sine cruciatu corura
quemquam posse vellere aut carpere. Therefore, in the opinion of this sect,
whoever plucked off or pulled up herbs, apples, leaves, or any fruits, not only
offered violence and gave pain to some soul, but also dislodged it from its place
or habitation. There was also another and a graver reason. The Maniehaeans
were persunded, that rational human souls, portions of the divine light, [p. 856.]
if not sufticiently purgated, migrated into other bodies, and also into trees, herbs,
and plants : of this we shall treat hereafter. Augustine, (de Haeres. c. 46. p. 12.)
Kays : Animas et in pecora redire putant et in omnia, quae radicibus fixa sunt,
et aluntur in terra. Hence it might be, that he who plucked leaves, or an ap-
ple, or a fig, or pulled up an herb, might be equally culpable with one who slew
a man. And, as I have before shown, it was common for Maniehaeans to com-
pare the laceration of shrubs, and violence done to trees and ears of corn, with
the crime of homicide. — Fifthly, Manes had the same reasons for strictly forbid-
ding his more ferfect disciples, from pursuing agriculture, or anything auxiliary
to it; although he allowed the Auditors a liberty to cultivate the ground. Says
Augustine, (de Haeres. e. 46. p. 12.): Agriculturam, quae omnium artium est
innocentissima, tanquam plurium homicidiorura ream dementer accusant. And
Tyrho, (in the Acta Archelai, \ 9. p. 16.) tells us, that they held agriculture in
Buch abhorrence, that they said of usurers, those bloodsuckers of the unfortu-
nate, that they sin less than husbandmen. And Augustine, (de moribus IMani-
chaeor. L. ii. c. 17. p. 550.) after saying, that the founder of the sect allowed the
Auditors to pursue agriculture, proceeds thus: Quanquam saepe etiam dicere au-
deatisf(Eneratoreminnocentioremesse,quamrusticum. Ma/?essupposed the whole
earth to be full of souls; so that whoever disturbs their repose, commits an of-
fence, as it were, against God himself, the parent of those souls. — Sixthly, But
it was a much greater violation of the signaculum manuum, to slay animals of
any species whatever. This was not allowable even for the Auditors; although
they might eat the flesh of animals killed by others. See Augustine, (de Hae-
res. c. 46. p. 12. and, de moribus Manichaeor. L. ii. c. 17. p. 549. and many other
places.) For this prohibition, Maries himself gave a .special reason. Animals camo
into this world from the kingdom of darknes.s, or, as was shown in a proper place,
they fell down from the stars where the demons reside. Tiierelbre the princes
Century III. — Section 48.
of darkness are attached to these animals, and inflict punishments on such as
kill them. Augustine, (de moribus Manichaeor. L. ii. c. 17. p. 549.) : Non
deest homini callido (Maneli) adversus indoctos in naturce obscuritate per-
fugium. Ca3lestes enim, ait, principes, qui de gente tenebrarum capti atque
vincti, a conditore mundi in illis ordinati sunt locis, sua quisque possidet in
terra animalia, de suo scilicet genere ac stirpe venientia: qui peremptores
eorum reos tenent, nee de hoc mundo exire permittunt, pcenisque illos quibus
possunt et cruciatibus adterunt. But from this prohibition of killing, they ex-
cepted the insects which annoy men's bodies, fleas, &c. ; for they denied that
these animals came from the skies, and accounted them the filth of our bodies.
Augustine, (1. citato, p. 550.) : Quid quod a nece animalium nee vos ipsi in pe-
[p. 857.] diculis, in pulicibus et cimicibus temperatis. Magnamque hujus rei
defensionem putatis, quod has esse sordes nostrorum corporum dicitis. Against
this opinion, Augustine argues with shrewdness. — Lastly; strange as it may
appear in men professing to be strict imitators of Christ, they forbid the giving
of bread and other things, to the poor, who were not Manichaeans. But, for
this inhumanity, if so it may be called, they had their reasons, derived from the
internal principles of their religion. Augustine, (de moribus Manichaeor. L. ii.
c. 15. p. 543.) : Hinc est, quod mendicant! l]/)raini, qui Manichaus non sit, pa-
nem, vel aliquid frugum, vel aquam ipsam, quae omnibus vilis est, dari prohibe-
tis, ne membrum Dei (i. e. good and celestial matter,) quod his rebus admixtuin
est, suis peccatis sordidatum a reditu (ad terram lucis) impediat. But to free
themselves in some measure from the odium they incurred by this custom, they
allowed money, instead of bread, to be given to the needy. Augustine, (1. cit.
c. 16. p. 547.): Quae cum ita sint, etiam panem mendicanti dare prohibetis:
^ensetis tamen propter misericordiam, vel potius propter invidiam, numraos dari.
Quid hie prius arguam, crudelitatem an vecordiam ? Beausohre, (vol. ii. p. 786,
&c.) as he is always oflicious in behalf of the Manichaeans, so he labors hard
to wipe from them this stain, which he erroneously thinks to be worse {flus sur-
prenante) than all others. But this excellent man, in the explication of this mat-
ter, commits mistakes which show that even great men may err ; and he adduces
no proof, on which even a suspicion can be raised, that Augustine, whohad lived
nine years among the Manichaeans, voluntarily misstated and calumniated them.
Nor is Augustine the only writer, as this learned man supposes, that accuses
the Manichajans of this crime. To pass over others, Tbeodoret, (Haeret. Fabul.
L. i. C. 26. tom. iv. p. 213.) says: T«v i't In ncvitrcK yivo/ucvHV J^t^fidX'S.ova-i fiKctv-
b-fu-nrUvy T«f uKiii iivcti xtyovm B-tpATrtiAv. Benignitatem quae exercetur erga
pauperes reprehendunt, dicentes, earn esse cultum materise. By vkh or materia,
aa has been shown, and as Theodoret had just before stated, the Manichaeans
were accustomed to designate the Lord of matter, or the Prince of darkness
himself. They therefore supposed, that to give food to a poor man, not a Ma-
nichaean, (this limitation is omitted by Theodoret,) would be to render some
honor or service to the demon. This reason appears to differ from that assign-
ed by Augustine; but both may be made to harmonize. Those who were not
Manichaeans, were the servants and subjects of the Prince of darkness: but he
who aids and assists the servants of God's enemy, in a sense serves that enemy.
Christ as a Saviour. 3(^5
Moreover, in every part of nnture, duririfr Umt first eonHict between the n-ood
and the evil Principles, some portion of celestial matter became intorinixcd ;
and it must be j^radually separated and restored to its original state. Such a
Reparation is happily eifected in the bodies of Manichivans, whose souls, mind-
ful of their duty, withdraw the celestial in their food from pollution, [p. 858.]
Says Augysline, (1. cit. p. 643.) : Cibi, qui de frunribus et pomis parantur, (for
flesh is altogether evil, and contains nothing divine,) si ad sancto.s, id est, ad
Manichaios veniant, per eorum castitatem, et orationem, et psalmos, quicquid in
eis est luculentum et divinum purgatur, id est, ex omni parte perfieitur, ut ad
Tcgna propria sine ulla sordium difficultate referatur. But in the bodies of ser-
vants of the Prince of darkness, in which the evil soul has the ascendancy, such
a separation is hindered. For the evil soul appropiates to itself all the food
they take, and retains the particles of celestial matter in bondage. And hence,
a holy man cannot give food to such men. Says Aihandsins, (Historia Arianor.
ad Monachos, 0pp. torn. i. p. 381.): Uct^a Mavixh-Ui; i\ioc Ivk la-rlvy dXXa x.al
iX^P^v £3Ti TTup' duTcli TO i\iih TTivitra.. Apud Manichseos nulla est commi-
seratio, resque illis odiosa est pauperem (He should add : non Manichaeum)
miserari. This was apparently very criminal in them : but it was less so, than
it appeared to be ; and it was rather superstitious, than criminal, if duly consi-
dered. For first, the Manichoeans were kind and liberal to the poor of their
sect. They wholly maintained the Elect among them, as will be shown here-
after ; and they undoubtedly succoured those of the Auditors who were needy.
But, secondly, their Auditors were forbidden to give to the indigent of other
eects, bread, water, and those aliments which spring from the earth, with which
ihey supposed some portion of celestial matter to be mixed. Yet, tliirdly, they
might, to such baggars givefiesh. For, as flesh belonged wholly to the world of
darkness, and w\as intirely destitute of celestial matter, after the soul left it at the
death of the animals, there was nothing to hinder their giving it to them. 'Move-
over, fourthly, it was lawful to give such persons money, with which they could
buy food if they wished. As I have said, there was superstition in this regula-
tion ; and I will add, foolish and ridiculous superstition : but as for that great
sin, which their enemies found here, and also learned men of this age, I do not
see it. For it is substantially the same, to give a person money with which ho
can buy food, as to give the food itself. — I have placed this prohibition among
the rules of the severe discipline of the Manichasans, but in reality it was only"
a part of the laxer discipline, or a rule of duty for those called Auditors. For
the Elect or more perfect, were absolute paupers, and lived entirely on the gra-
tuities of the Auditors. They had neither money, nor bread, nor houses, nor
barns, nor fields, nor anything superfluous ; and therefore, they could not give
either bread, or flesh, or money to mendicant.s.
The signaculum of the bosom required perfect chastity, and forbid all lust,
unchastity, and even marriage. For the distinction of sexes and the procreation
of children, as it is well known, the Manichreans believed to be a cunning de-
vice of the Prince of darkness, by which souls are bound up in bodies, [p. 859.]
the empire of darkness in this world extended, and the return of the light, or
the celestial matter, to God, impeded. And, therefore, they enjoined upon al\
3GG Centunj III.— Section 48.
their disciples all possible continence and virginity, and upon the FiUct they
imposed perfect celibacy. According to their views, whoever procreates a body,
begets a prison for a celestial soul ; and, by the gratification of lust, he serves
the Prince of all evil. Hence, married persons, wishing to be admitted to the
rank of the Elect., were reqilired forthwith to put away their wives and hus-
bands. Fauslus, (apud August. L. v. c. 1. p. 140.) says: Omnia mea dimisi,
patrem, matrera, uxorem, liberos. This point does not need elaborate proof,
being so perfectly well known, that no one doubts it. In place of all, see the
passage in Faustus, (L. xxx. c. 4. p. 316.) Some one objecting to him, that
the Manichaeans were the persons prophetically foretold by St. Paul, 1 Timo.
iv. i : Discedunt a fide, intendentes doctrinis dajmoniorum, prohibentes nubere ;
Faustus discusses the subject largely, and denies that his sect prohibited mar-
riage ; because, so strong is the force of nature, that to attempt to suppress it,
would border on madness. He says : Demens profecto ille, non tantum stul-
tus putandus est, qui id existimet lege privata prohiberi posse, quod sit publica
concessum ; dico autem hoc ipsum nubere. Yet he confesses, that they exhorted
the people to avoid matrimony: Nos hortamur quidem volentes, ut permaneant
(coelibes,) non tamen cogimus invitos, ut accedant. Novimus enim, quantum
voluntas, quantum et natural ipsius vis etiam contra legem publicam valeat, ne-
dum adversus privatam, cui respondere sit liberum: Nolo. Nor does he deny,
that absolute chastity was required of the Elect. And this regulation he de-
fends, by the words of Christ, Matth, xix. 12, at the same time calling Christ,
Professionis puellarum coelibem sponsum. He says : Q,uid de magistro ipso
dicemus ac sanctimonii totius auctore Jesu, qui tria genera taxans spadonum,
eis palmam attribuit, qui se ipsos spadones fecerunt propter regnum coelorum,
significans virgines et pueros, qui nubendi ipsa a cordibus suis exsectu cupidi-
tate, spadonum vice in ejus ecclesia semper, tanquam in domo regia conversen-
tur. Et hoc vobis doctrina videtur daemoniorum ? From this difRcult part of
his discipline, Manes exempted the common people, who were called Auditors.
Respecting the milder discipline appointed for the Auditors, we shall speak
when we come to treat of that order of persons. Some parts of it, however,
have already been cursorily noticed.
§ XLIX. The Return of holy Souls to the World of Light. So
many souls as receive Jesus Christ for the Son of God and Savior,
and, forsalving the worship of the Prince of darlvness and his as-
sociates, serve only the Father of Light, and obey with all their
[p. 860.] might the perfectly holy law enacted by Christ, and
constantly resist the desires of the evil soul ; are becoming gra-
dually purged from the pollutions of vicious matter. This pro-
cess, indeed, the Prince of darkness, both personally and by his
ministers and satellites, strives with all his power to retard : But
the Holy Spirit, resident in the ether, aids the struggling souls,
that they may more easily escape his snares and overcome the
Jicturn of Souls to Heaven. 307
perpetual tcmptations.(') And to tliosc souls which occasiouaViy
succumb and give the reins to the evil soul, as is not nneomnion,
the gate of sorrow and repentance is open, by which the pardon
of their offences may be obtained from God.('') Yet the entire
purgation of souls cannot be effected in the body. Therefore,
these souls, Avhen released from the body, must undergo a two-
fold lustration after deatli ; the first by pure water, and the second
by fire. That is, they are first elevated by the sun's rays, and
pass into the moon, which is composed of good water : in that
they are purified during fifteen days, and then they proceed to
the sun, the good fire of which entirely takes away what defile-
ment remains ; and thence they go perfectly clean and bright to
their native country.(^) And the body, wliich they left on the
earth, being composed of evil matter, returns to its original state,
and will never be resuscitated. (^)
(1) That the Manichceans believed the Holy Spirit, resident in the air, and
God in general, to aid and assist souls conflicting with the Prince of darkness,
the body and the evil soul, in order to their victory, there can be no doubt.
Fauslus, (L. XX. c. 1. p. 237.) mentions: Vires ac spiritalem profusioncm Spiri-
tus Snncti, quam (dicit) tertiara Majestatem. And Manes himself, in the be-
ginning of his EpistolaFundamenti, (apud August. Disput. i. cum Felice, p. 341.)
says : Pietas Spiritus Sancti intima vestri pectoris adaperiat, ut ipsis oculis vi-
deatis animas vestras. And Secundinus, a Manicha3an, (in his Epist. ad Au-
gust. § 1. p. 260.) says much about the aid, which all the throe divine Persons
afford to good souls, against the efforts and the machinations of the Prince of
evil. After giving thanks to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, for af-
fording him an opportunity for a discussion with Augustine, he proceeds thus :
Nee mirum : Sunt enim (Pater, Filius, Spiritus Sanctus) ad omnia bona praes-
tanda et ad omnia mala arcenda satis aptissimi, quique tuam benevolentiam suis
defendant propugnaculis, eripiantque ab illo malo — quod paratum est, ut ve-
niat. - - Nam dignus es, qui ab iisdem talia munera consequaris, iidemque veri-
tatis tuse nutritores ef!iciantur, vere lucerna, quam in cordis tui can- [p. 861.]
delabro dextra posuit veritatis, ne furis adventii thesauri tui dilapidetur patri-
monium, - - illumquc a nobis repellant atrocem spiritum, qui hominibus timo-
rem immittit et perfidiam, ut animas avertat ab angusto tramite Salvatoris :
cujus omnis impetus per illos principes funditur, contra quos se Apostolus, in
Ephesiorum Epistola (Ephes. vi. 12.) certamen subiisse fatctur. - - Hoc Paul us,
hoc ipse teslatur Manichccus. Non ergo armorum pugna est, sed spirituum, qui
iisdem utuntur. Pugnant autem animarum gratia. Horum in medio posifa est
anima, cui a principio natura sua dedit victoiiam. Hacc si una cum Spiritn vir-
tutem feceret ( — The Manichtcans, therefore, did not suppose the saints alono
and unaided, repressed the instincts of nature and the motions of the evil soul,
but they had the Holy Spirit assisting them—) habcbit cum co vitam pcrpctuam,
368 Century IIL—Scction 49.
jlludque possidebit regnum, ad quod Dominus noster invitat. Nor does A\u
gusline deny, that the Manichjeans had no doubts of the grace afforded to men
in conflict with the evil Principle, strengthening, assisting, and confirming them.
For, in repelling the calumny of the Pelnginns, who charged catholic Christians
with having the same views of human nature with the Manicha3ans, (contra
duas Epi.'^tolas Pelagianor. L. ii. c. 2. 0pp. torn. x. p. 286.) he says ; Manichaei
mentis natura; bona), Pclagiani autem meritis voluntatis bonae, perhibent divi-
nitus subveniri ; Illi dicunt : Debet hoc Deus laboribus mcmbrorum suorum ;
isti dicunt : Debet hoc Deus virtutibus servoruni suorum. Augustine appre-
hended the sentiments of the Mauichaeans correctly. For, as they supposed
that the good soul did not come voluntarily into this world and into these
bodies, but involuntarily, and by a sad misfortune ; and as they moreover be-
lieved the rational soul to be a portion of the divine nature, or of eternal light,
and therefore ever remaining entire, and neither vitiated nor capable of viti-
ation ; consistency required them to maintain, that God was compelled by
justice, to aid these holy souls toiling in bodies and combatting with vile mat-
ter. It is therefore certain, that the Manichaeans promised divine grace and the
assistance of the Holy Spirit to their people. But in what w\ay and manner
the Holy Spirit aids souls, or with what energy he illumines them, and by what
means he moves them, I do not find anywhere explained ; and perhaps, the Ma-
nichaeans gave no explanations. They were ignorant of spiritual substances,
and supposed both the human soul and the Holy Spirit to consist of a subtile
kind of matter or of light. And therefore, in a manner very different from what
we believe, they must have supposed the Holy Spirit operates on minds, or
moves and guides them.
(2) The Manichaeans ascribed great efficacy to repentance, in restoring
souls accidentally lapsing, and in averting the retributions of the divine
Judge. This has been already demonstrated from some passages in Avgus-
tine. I will now explain the subject more fully, and confirm it by a splendid
passage from a celebrated and ingenious Manichaan. — Manes made repentance
[p. 862.] to consist in sorrow for sins unintentionally committed. For, as
we have showed, the soul, which is a portion of eternal light, or of the di-
vine nature, and absolutely unchangeable, — cannot sin in the proper and true
sense. But it is said to sin, w'hen it suffers the evil soul to follow and obey its
lusts and instincts : and whenever it does so, it increases and confirms its own
filthiness and servitude. And this negligence is regarded by God, just as if it
had consented to the criminal deeds of the evil soul ; which, however, was im-
possible from its nature. Moreover, what is said of the soul's sinning, must be
understood especially of enlightened souls; that is, of such as have attained a
knowledge of the truth, or, as the Manichaeans speak, such as have a knowledge
of ihemsehes ; such as have learned, either from the instruction and books of
Manes, or in some other way, the origin of this world, the distinctness of good
and evil, the source of evil, their own divine nature, &:c. For, souls remaining
in darkness, and in ignorance of these things, go astray, indeed, and have no
prospect of salvation after death ; yet they do not properly commit sin, because
no one can transgress a law» of which he has no knowledge. Therefore peni.
Return of Souls to Heaven. 3(59
tence, with Manicliaeans, was the sorrow of an enli^hleyied soul, arishifr from a
co7isciousness of negligence in repressing the desires of the evil soul. The effect
of this sorrow is, that it exempts from those punishments in hell, which souls
merit, by consenting- to the desires of the evil soul, after they have received a
knowledge of the truth. Repentance, therefore, does not purgate the soul, and
open the way for its salvation or return to heaven ; nor does it free the soui
from the discomfort of a migration into another body : but it removes the feai
of hell, or induces God to remit the penalty of hell-fire to the sinner. Says
Secundimis, (in his Epist. ad AvgusL § 2. p. 369.) : Si anima a spiritu vitiorum
(so he called the evil soul,m which all the desires and appetites reside,) incipial
trahi et eonseiitiat, ac post consensum i)(]cnitudinem gerat, habebit harum sordi-
um indulgentiie fontem. Carnis enim connuixtione ducitur, non propria volun-
tate. At si cum seipsam cognoverit, consentiat malo, et non se armet contra
inimicum, voluntate sua peccavit. Quam si iterum pudeat errasse, paratum in-
veniet misericordiarum Auctorem. Non enim punitur, quia peccavit, sed quia
de peccato non doluit. At si cum eodera peccato sine venia reccdat, tunc ex-
cludetur - - tunc ibit cum diabolo ad ignem originis ipsius.
(3) Of the return of the souls purgated in the body, to the world of light,
Augustine nnd the other adversaries of the Manichssans, treat only briefly nnd
generally. Avgustiiie, for instance, (de Heeres. c. 46. p. 11.) says: Quidquid
undique purgatur luminis per quasdam naves, quas esse lunam et solera volunt,
regno Dei, tanquara propriis sedibus, reddi putant. Quas itidem naves de sub-
stantia Dei pura perhibent fabricatas. - - Naves autem illas, id est, duo coeli
luminaria, ita distinguunt, ut lunam dicant fjictam ex aqua bona, solem vero ex
igne bono. And very nearly the same statement is given, not only by [p. 863.]
Augustine in several other places, but also by the other writers, both histori-
ans and disputants. The Manichaeans, therefore, supposed the sun and moon
to be two ships, in which souls purgated from their filth, were transported to
their country: the sun they called the greater ship, and the moon the lesser.
But in both ships, the disembodied souls had to undergo a severe lustration,
before they were restored to their former happy state, or were borne to their
desired haven. For, although the soul while in the body should spare no efforta
or diligence in expelling and ejecting the filth of depraved matter, it will never
depart pure and luminous out of this dark and filthy bod}^ Its grosser filth is
therefore washed off in the good water, of which the moon is composed. But ita
interior filth, or the minuter particles of malignant matter, which have penetrat-
ed deeper into the soul and have vitiated, so to speak, its very marrow, requires
a severer lustration by the good fire, of which the sun is composed : and this fire,
being kindred with that light of which the soul consists, permeates and pervades
it perfectly, and consumes what there is remaining of the evil elements within.
And thus the mind, being first washed, and then roasted, becomes bright and
shining, and therefore worthy to return to its pristine glory. And as Christ
dwells in the sun and in the moon, as we have before showed, hence it is mani-
fest that He, since his departure out of our world, is a Saviour of souls ; He
perfects their purgation begun in this life, after they leave the body.
What the ancient writers state generally, in regard to the return of souls to
VOL. II. 25
370 Century IIL—Sedion 49.
the world of light, Txjrbo describes more pnrticuhirly and minutely, in the Acta
Disputationis Art-helai cum Manete. But tliese Acta, as published in Latin by
Laur. Alex. Zaccagni, and by Jo. Alb. Fabricius, (in the 0pp. Hipjiolyii, torn, ii.)
are much corrupted, and greatly deformed by numerous blemishes. And hence,
Efiplianius, who had access to earlier and purer Greek copies of these Acts,
should be consulted and compared, in order to a better understanding of thi.**
amusingfable o{ Manes, or rather of the Magi, his master. Tyrho, (§ 8. p. 12.
&c.) thus begins : Cum venisset Filius Dei, machinam quandam concinnavit ad
fcalutem animarum, id est, rotam statuit habentem duodecim urceos, quae rota
per liaiic sphairam verlilur hauriens animas morientium, quasque luminare ma-
jus, id est, sol radiis suis adimcns (in the Greek of Epiphanhia, "Xa/iuyv, sumejis,
allrahens,) purgat et lunae tradit, et ita adimpletur lante disous. Naves enim
vel translatorias cymbas esse dicit (Manes) duo ista luminaria. Tyrho tells
wonders ! For, what, pray, is that wheel, furnished with twelve water-pots, and
"whirled and turned about by a sphere, which the Son of God constructed?
liut Epiphanius, (Hseres. Ixvi. ^ 10. p. 626.) partially explains the enigma, and
corrects the errors of Tyrho, or perhaps, of his translator and transcribers. I
[p. 864,] will give only Petavius' Latin version of Epiphanius, which is sullici-
ently faithful: Sapientia ilia sidera in coelo collocavit - - et illam duodecim de-
mentis, ut Graecis placet, constantem machinam produxit. (,««;^flv«v ^la twv J'uS'mai
cToi)(Uct^^ Quibus ab dementis affirmat mortuorum hominum et aliorum ani-
malium animas in altum splendidas et collucentes evehi, unde in scapham feran-
tur. Solem quippe et lunam navigia quandam esse existimat. We here remark : —
Eirsl, The erection of the machine in question, is not here ascribed to the Son of
God, as it is by Tijrbo, but to the wisdom of the Being who placed the stars in the
sky, or the Being called the Living Spirit by the Manichaeans; a very dilTerent
personage from the Son of God. — Secondly, There is no mention of a wheelj
nor of twelve water-pots, but only of a machine composed of twelve elements.
The words rota and urceus were metaphorical terras, here used by the Manichae-
ans in the manner of the Persians. In place of them Epiphanius gives the
proper terms. — Thirdly, The machine is the same that the Greeks mention.
This leads us to believe it to be the heavens; which the Manichaeans compared
to a wheel, because the heavens rotate or turn around like a wheel. And this
being admitted, it is at once evident, that the twelve elements {a-Toi^iia) must be
the twelve celestial signs, which the Manichaeans compared to water-pots. This
conjecture was before made by Beausobre, (vol. ii. p. 503.) but upon other
grounds: for he did not call in Epiphanius to aid him, who, as I suppose, e*.
tablishes the point. If there were room for it, and my plan would allow it, I
could show from the Greek writers, that the celestial signs were by them called
crci^tia or elements. — Fourthly, These twelve elements take up the purified
eouls, as they leave the body, and bear them to the moon, there to be purgat-
cd. This then was the opinion of the Manichaeans: That the better souls,
which had carefully attended to their purgation while in the body, were borne
by the orb of signs, the Zodiac, as the Greeks named it, up to the moon : and,
to enable them more easily and expeditiously to perform the journey, they were
aided by the light and influence of the stars. Nor was Manes alone in this be-
Return of Souls to Heaven. 871
lief: For some pliilosopliors, and some sects of Gnostics, bclii-vod lliat souls
returned to God, or to their teleslinl country, along tlie oib of si(rna. Soe Clc-
viens Alexand. (Stroniat. L. v. p. 538.) who thinks Plalo \v;is of this opinion :
and Macrubius, (in Suniniuui Scipionis, L. i. c. 12. p. GO. 61.) — Let us now foU
low tile souls escaping froni the body. Their {irst station was in tlie moon :
wliich, being a sea of celestial water, was admirably fitted to wa!>li of!" the exter-
nal filth of souls. Fifteen days the souls swam in this celestial oce.m : and
when these days terminated, the moon emptied itself, by transferring the well
washed souls to the sun, to be more perfectly lustrated. On this subject, Tyrho
IB not sufiiciently explicit; but Epiphamus,{\. cit. \ 10. p. 62G.) iiappily explains
it, thus: Navigium minus pro lunae cresccntis spatio onus quiiidecim diebns ve-
hit, idque demum, confecto post xv. diem cursu, majus in navigium, [p. 8G5.]
solem videlicet, exponit. — This puerile fable was invented by the Magi, or by
Manes, to explain the cause of the waxing and waning of the moon. These
subtle philosophers, observing that the moon was sometimes luminous and
sometimes dark, that it increased and decreased ; and, from their consummate
ignorance of astronomy, being unable to ascertain the cause of these changes
in the moon's appearance, — explained this great mystery to their disciples,
by ascribing it to the return of souls to the world of light. The moon in
creases and becomes luminous, according to these acute men, when souls, those
particles of light, are congregated there in great numbers; and it decreases and
loses its light, when it transfers to the sun these shining souls, which illumia-
ed its waves. Says Tyrho, (1. cit. p. 13.) : Cum repleta fuerit Luna, transfretare
animas ad sub>iolanam partem, et ita Apocrysin detrimentum (luna) patitur, cum
onere fuerit relevata, et iterum repleri cymbam et rursus exonerari, dum liauri-
untur per urceos animae. The moon was said, by the Greek Astronomers, to
make its Apocrysin, when it became old or waned. Epiphanius states the same
thing, (1. cit. c. 22, p. G39.) : Plena est alias luna, alias luce privatur, quod cam
animae repleant. Also Alexander of Lycopolis, (contra Manichaeos, p. 15.) and
8ivrpUcius, (comment, in Epictet. p. 1G7.) and many others. — Were these per-
sons worthy of high commendation from learned men, for their knowledge of
philosophy and their acumen, and to be placed above the ancient Christians in
intelligence'? — After fifteen days spent in the moon, the moon approached the
Bun ; and then the souls passed from the lesser ship into the greater, the sun,
where they sustained a new and more thorough purgation. How long a timo
was required for this second lustration, I do not find any where stated. The
tediousness of it was relieved by the agreeable society which they enjoyed in
the sun. For Christ himself, the Saviour of souls, was present in the sun ; and
besides him, many celestial beings, eminent for their virtues. I shall hereafter cite
a splendid passage from the seventh Book of Manes' Thesaurus, which will con-
firm a large part of these statements. The allotted time having pas.sed, the sun
transferred the souls to their native country, the world of light. Says Tyrbo
(in the Acta Archelai, p. 13,): Cum igitur luna (here is an error of Trjrho or
the transcriber: it should read: Sol, the sun,) onus quod gerit, animnrum .saecu-
lis (tc7j 'Aiu<ri, the JEons, as the Gnostics called them, agreeing in many thinga
with Manei,) tradiderit Patris, permanent ilkc in columnu gloria) {iy t^ o-tJa»
372 Century III.— Section 49.
ri^s <fc^«s,; quod vocatur aer perfectus. Hie autcm aer ( — The Latin translator,
wlio often blunders, here incorrectly rend : av\\f. and therefore translated it; Yir
ferfeclus ; which makes no sense. In Epiphanius, the reading is di,p — ) est co-
lumna lucis, repleta est enim mundarum animarum. By this air, in whicli the
happy souls dwell, undoubtedly, must be understood, that which Pholius, (Bibli-
othcca Cod. clxxix. p. 405. 406.) from Agaphis a ]\[anichaean, thus describes:
[p. 86G.] QtoXoyu tfg kui tup ai?u. Kiova livTov Khi av^pwTroV i^vuvwv. AerfcUl ve-
ro {Agaphis) tanquam Deum praedicat, columnam eum et liominera cum laude
vocans. Epiphanius expresses the views of Tyrbo, or rather of Manes, more con-
cisely and more exactly, thus : Solem vero sive majorem illam navim in aeter-
nam vitam ( — In the Greek it is : In rdv T^g fa)«ff dtwi/a. that is ; in aeonem vitae.
For the Gnostics and the Manichaeans apply the name of JEons, not only to
the eternal and unchangeable Beings descended from God, but sometimes also
to their residence or habitation. This JEon vilae, therefore, is the region where
is true and never ending life — ) ct terram beatorum animas transmittere putant.
In another passage, Q 22. p. 640.) Epiphanius neatly and vivaciously expresses
the thing thus: A luna tanquam minori navigio animas exonerari putat et intra
solem recipi atque in aevum beatorum ( — So Petavius translates the Greek :
in Tov Twv /uaKapcev duova,) expoui. What is here called aeon vilae and aevum
heatorujn, we have found Tyrbo calling a-rvxcv, columna gloria et lucis, and aerem
perfecium. Beausobre supposes this pillar to be the millnj way: in which, as we
learn from the Somnium Scipionis of Cicero, and its expositor Macrobius, many
of the ancients supposed the happy souls to reside. But I do not attribute
much weight to this conjecture. Manes himself, (in the seventh Book of his
Thesaurus, from which Augustine gives a long extract, in his treatise de natura
boni, c. 44. p. 366. 367.) describes the sun and moon: Naves esse lucidas, qute
ad evectationem animarum atque ad sua:, patriae transfretationem sunt prsepara/-
tfe. Therefore, according to the founder of the sect, souls return to their native
country. But that is the world of light, from which they came down, by com-
mand of God, to combat with the Prince of darkness ; and it is not the milky
way, to which the description of the world of light is altogether inapplicable.
(4) That God will resuscitate human bodies, the Manichaeans could not
possibly believe. For bodies are works of the Prince of darkness, composed of
depraved base matter, and the prison-houses of good souls; and if God should
restore them to the purgated and liberated souls, he w-ould strengthen the em-
pire of his enemy, and involve good minds in new perils, calamities and toils.
Says Theodoret, (Haeret. Fabul. L. i. c. 26. p. 214.) : T»v twp aw/udrcov avda-nta-tv
(Of juuB-ov lK^d\\ov<nv. Mortuorum vero corporum resurrectionem tanquam fa-
bulam rejiciunt. And Augustine, (de Ilaeres. c. 46. p. 13.) : Christum novissi-
mis temporibus venisse dicunt ad animas, non ad corpora liberanda. The same
testimony is given by all writers concerning the Manichaeans and their affairs.
And to avoid the force of the declarations of holy Scripture respecting the re-
surrection of the body, they either pronounced those declarations interpolations
by imposters, or explained them mystically, of the renovation of souls by means
of divine truth. Augustine, (contra Faustum, L. iv. c. 2. p. 140.) : Dicitis,
[p. 867.] nunc esse resurrectionem tantummodor.nimarum perpraedicationem veri-
Fate of iiu pur gated Souls. 373
tatis, corporum autom, quam praedieaverunt Apostoli, futuram nepfalis. (Com-
pare L. X. c. 3. p. 157.) Sec also the extract from Agapius a Maiiicliaean, in
Pholiuii, Bibliotlieea Cod. elxxix. p. 404.)
§ L. Condition of unpnrsratod Souls after Death. The Souls that
were ignorant of the saving truth, or tliat neglected tlieir purgation
while in the body, or that committed certain great crimes, would,
after their exit from their former bodies, pass into other bodies,
either of animals, or trees, or plants, or of something else ; until
they shall fully expiate their guilt, and become prepared to enter
on their celestial journey. In this matter, divine justice will re-
gard the difterent merits of individuals, and will assign purer and
better bodies to the more innocent, and more uncomfortable and
filthy habitations to the more polluted and deformed. (') Heavier
punishments Avill fall on the souls which either contemptuously
rejected the truth when presented to them, or persecuted its
friends and professors, or defiled themselves with crimes of the
higher order. For, on leaving the body, such souls will be de-
livered over to the princes of darkness dwelling in the stars, to
be tortured and punished by them, in proportion to their offences,
in the bad fire situated beyond our earth. And yet these pun-
ishments of hell are to have an end. For, after a certain time,
determined by God, has been spent in hell, these souls will be
sent again into this our world, and be put into other bodies, to
commence as it were a new course, and to resume with more fer-
vor the purgation which they neglected in their former life.('^)
(1) The migration of souls into other bodies, ia one of the principal dog-mag
of Manes : and it is a doctrine indispensable to his system. For as God is ex-
tremely desirous that all the particles of light, or all the souls, which by a sad
misfortune have become connected with material bodies, may be restored to
their original state ; and as the greatest part of these souls neglect the purga-
tion prescribed by Christ, and give way to the lusts of the body and of the evil
soul ; it is necessary that divine goodness should afibrd them opportunity to
awake and become vigilant, and should in various wnys attempt to refurm t.hem.
This doctrine, moreover, as well ns many others. Manes received from the IMagi,
his instructors ; for they all, as Porphyry informs us, (de abstinentia a car- [p. 86"8.]
nibus, L. iv. \ 16. p. 165, from Euhuli Historia Mithrae,) held the doctrine of the
transmigration of souls as most sacred : Ai>,«* iravroiv ia-ri twv Trftuirwv rir
^£T«(u4y';^a)3-;p t/vat. Omnibus Magis (though divided into various classes,) pri-
mum hoc et maxime ratum dogma est, dari animarum transmigrationem. But
from this brief statement, it cannot be determined whether Manrs agreed in all
respects, or only in part, wiUi the views of the Magi. As we h.avc seen, Manes
374 Century IIL—Section 50.
exempted a large portion of human souls from the discomforts of a migration
into new bodies. Whether the Magi did the same, or whether they doomed
all souls without exception, to this process, is not sufficiently known. — The
different state of souls on leaving the body, according to the views of Manes, as
likewise his whole religious system, was professedly expounded by Agapius, a
shrewd and crafty Manichaean, who, for the sake of concealment, used tiie com-
mon words and phrases of Christians, but affixed to them meanings accordant
with the opinions of his master. His work was sulliciently extended and co-
pious, for it consisted of xxiii. Books, and 102 Chapters. From it Pholius has
given us some extracts, (in his Bibliotheca, Cod. clxxix. p. 402.) which are not
indeed useless, and may be serviceable to help us understand the subtilty of
the later Manichaeans in concealing their doctrines ; and yet they are more
brief than could be wished. Among them, however, is the following neat
epitome of the doctrine of the Manicha^ans, respecting the state of souls when
released from the body : Kpa-rvut i't nat ras ^eT£^4t;;^w3-eK, tc^c f^h iis anfof
dpnii^ iXnXVKOTai, eti QtOY dvaXua'v. Tcus cTs cts uKpov KOJiiai Trvpl J'lS'cvi Kai
(TKira). Tct)j S'i juia-et); ttws 7ro\triua-u/nivoiis, naXiv ctf (TcojUUTd. KcLTayav. Probat
praeterea animarum migrationes : alios quidem, qui summum virtutis gradum
attigerunt, ad Deum facit reverti : alios vero, qui ad fastigium malitiae pervener-
unt, igni tradit et tenebris : inter hos vero, qui medio quodam modo hie vixerunt,
eos in corpora iterum detrudit. Manes, therefore, distributed departing souls
into three classes, the pure, the impure, and the parliaUy pure. The pure, which
had kept the whole law of Christ, went directly to God, and regained their
primeval seats : Such were the souls of the perfect Maniehseans, whom they
called the Elect. The impure, which had wholly disregarded the law of Christ,
were delivered over to the princes of darkness, to suffer the just penalty of their
wickedness. The partially pure, who had fulfilled their duty in part, were
obliged to migrate into other bodies ; Such were the souls of those called Au-
ditors, who in many things obeyed the body and the instincts of nature. Of the
return of purer souls to God, by means of the moon and the sun, we have al-
ready spoken ; so that it now remains only to speak of the impure and the par-
tially pure.
Such souls as are partially pure, pass into other bodies, until they shall
have completed their purgation ; and they pass not only into the bodies of men
[p. 869.] and animals, but also into those of trees, plants, herbs, &,c. For the
whole world of nature, as Manes most expressly asserts, is full of souls. 1
will cite only a single passage from Augustine, (de Hseres. c. 46. p. 12.) : Ani-
mas Auditorum suorum ( — he means, such of them as live up to their duty,) in
Electos revolvi arbitrantur, aut feliciore compendio in escas Electorum, (melons,
cucumbers, herbs, fruits,) ut jam inde purgatse in nulla corpora revertantur.
Ceteras autem animas et in pecora redire putant et in omnia, quoe radicibus fixa
sunt, atque aluntur in terra. But from the animals into w'hose bodies souls
may migrate, the Manichajans excepted the very small animals, and particularly
fleas, lice, gnats, and other insects ; which, they said, were not animals, but the
filth of human bodies; and the reason, I suppose, was, that their bodies were
thought too small to contain human souls. Says Augustine, (contra Adiman-
Faie of unpurgated Souls. 375
turn, c. 12. torn. viii. p. 90.) : Nej^nnt (Manichoei) usque ad i<^ta minuliasiina
animnntiii rovolvi aniiuas hunianas posse. Hoc negaiit, iic tani miiltaruin iiiter-
fec'tioiuun rei teneaiitur, aut cogatitur parcere pediculis et pulicibus et ciinii-l-
bus, et tantas ab eis nioU'stiis sine ulla caddis eorum licontia siisliiu'rc. Nam
velienieiiter urgent ur, cur in vnlpeculam revolvi anitna huniana possit, et non
in inustelam, cum catulus vulpt-eulac fortasse etiam niiiior sit, quam nuifrna
inustda. Deindc si in mustelam potest, cur in murem non j»otest ? Et si in
istuni potest, (The Manichaeans certainly did admit, that a soul might migrate
into a mouse; as will be sliown.) cur in stellionem non potest? Et si in euin
potest, cur in locustani non pote^t ? Deinde in apcm, deindc in muscam, deindc
in cimicem, atque inde usque in pulieem, et si quid est aliud multo miiuitins-
pervenire. Ubi enim terminum constituant, non inveniunt. On tliia subject
Augustine reasons in the same manner, (de moribus I\Ianichaeor, L. ii. c. 17.
tom. i. p. 550.) where, among other things, he says: Hue accedit ilia gradatio,
quae, cum vos audirem, nos saepe turbavit. Nulla enim caussa est, cur propter
parvum corporis modulum pulex necandus sit (because, not containing a soul.
For this was the reason why a flea might be killed.) non etiam musca, quae in
faba gignitur. Et si haec, cur non etiam ista paullo aniplior, cujus certe fetus
minor est, quam ilia, - - Ne lonqum faciam, nonne videtis his gradibus ad ele-
phantum perveniri ? I know not whether the Manichaeans also excepted from
among animals into which souls migrate any of those that are noxious and
troublesome to mankind. But I think it quite probable ; because we learn from
Augustine (de moribus Manichaeor, L. ii. c. 17. p. 550.) that they thought
some of tliese animals are not genuine animals, but originated from the dead
bodies of men : Tmpunius ergo occiditur vel anguis, vel sorex, vel scorpio, quos
de humanis cadaveribus nasci, a vobis potissimum solemus audire. Perhaps,
also, there were some species of trees, plants, and herbs, which they sup-
posed incapable of receiving human souls. But I find nothing written [p. 870.]
on the subject.
These transmigrations of the imperfectly purgated souls, are ordered of God
in perfect equity, according to the merits of individuals. For as each, while in
the body, conducted himself well, or ill, or inditferently, .so his new habitation
will be either noble or ignoble, either \y retched or tolerable. Tyrbo, in the
Disputation of Archelaus, has said much respecting this doctrine, but very con-
fusedly; and he is apparently not free from errors. I will attempt to systema-
tize the subject. In itself, it is indeed of little importance; yet it may be of use
for elucidating some passages in the ancient writers, and for explaining the in-
ternal principles of this sect. — First, the souls of the Auditors, which came the
nearest to the virtue practised by the Elect, who neither cultivated the ground,
nor slew animals, nor begat children, nor busied themselves wilh building
houses or accumulating wealth, although they pursued other kinds of worldly
bu^iness, married wives, and ate flesh; — these souls, I say, being purer than
others, passed either into the bodies of the Elect, or into t e kinds of food most
used by the EIrct, such as melons, cucumbers, olives, potherbs, &n'. PVom such
bodies there is direct access to heaven. For, as the Elect live in celibacy, they
caiuiot again infuse souls into new bodies, as others do, by cohabitation, More-
376 Century Ill.—Section 50.
over, the food eaten by the Elect, is so purified by their prayers and sanctity,
that the souls hitent in it, can freely ascend to the world of light. A passage
\vhich substantiates this, has just been cited from Augustine. I will now add
two others of similar import. The iirst is, (contra Faustum, L. v. c. 10. p. 144.):
Fallitis Auditores vestros, qui cum suis uxoribus, et filiis et familiis et domibua
et agris vobis serviunt. — Nam eis non resurrectionem, sed revolutionem ad istara
mortalitntem promittitis, ut rursus naseantur et vita Eleetorum vestrorum vi-
vant — aut si melioris meriti sunt, in melones et cucumeres, vel in alios aliquos
cibos veniant, quos vos mauducaturi estis, ut vestris ructatibus cito purgentur.
The other passage is, (de Ilaeres. c. 46. p. 11.): Ipsam boni a malo purgationem
non solum virtutes Dei facere dicunt, vcrura etiam Electos suos per alimenta,
qu£B sumunt. Eis quippe aliraentis Dei substantiam p^erhibent esse commixtam,
quani purgari putant in Electis suis eo genere vita3, quo vivunt Electi. A harder
lot awaited those (Auditors) who pursued agriculture, and especially reapers.
Plowmen were promised impunity; if Augustine has correctly stated the views
of the sect, (de Hares, c. 46. p. 12.): Auditoribus suis ideo agriculturam (by
which, however, many homicides were committed,) arbitrantur ignosci, quia prse-
bent inde alimenta Electis suis, ut divina ilia substantia in eorum ventre purgata
impetret eis veniam, quorum traditur oblatione purganda. But those who cut
down wheat, herbs, potherbs, grass, &c. w^ould, after death, pass into stalks of
[p. 871.] grain, grass, or herbs, that they might suffer the same pangs which
they had inflicted on grass and herbs. Tyrlo, (in Acta Archelai, § 9. p. 15.) says:
Messores necesse est transfundi in foenum, aut in faseolum, aut in hordeum, aut
in olera, ut et ipsi desecentur et demetantur. Tyrlo adds: Qui mandueant pa-
nem, necesse est, ut et ipsi manducentur, panem effecti. Yet this cannot be en-
tirely true; for the Elect themselves, whose souls go immediately to God at tlie
death of their bodies, ate bread. I therefore suppose, that this is to be under-
Btood of such as ate bread, without obtaining a license from the Elect. For, the
Auditors who consulted the interests of their souls, went before the Elect, and
commended themselves to their prayers, that so they might fearlessly eat their
food, and especially bread. Such Auditors as slew animals, which was a thing
absolutely forbidden, migrated into the bodies of such animals as they had slain.
Tyrho, (1. cit. p. 16.): Qui occiderit pullum, et ipse puUus erit, qui murem, mys
etiam ipse erit. A heavier punishment was to be endured by those, who had
labored to accumulate riches, or had built for themselves convenient houses:
Si quis vero est dives in hoc mundo, cum exierit de corpore suo, necesse est
eura in corpus pauperis injici, ita, ut ambulet et mendicet. - - Qui autera sedifi-
caverit sibi domum, dispergetur per omnia corpora; that is, he will wonder
through various bodies. For, as he wished to prepare himself a permanent seat
or constant home in this life, his just punishment will be, when released from
the body, to have no fixed residence, but to dwell sometimes in one body, and
sometimes in another. It was allowed to i\Ianicha3an Auditors, (but not to the
Elect, of whom absolute poverty was required,) to hold property of all kinds
descending to them from their ancestors; and there were examples of wealthy
men among them: such was that Constantius of Rome, mentioned a few times
by Augustine, who was very wealthy and prosperous. But it was criminal to
Fate of Uitpurc/atcd Souls. ^77
eagerly Iieap up riches, or to build liouses; for all such as indulged their desires
and lusts, serve the evil soul and the Prince of evil. Those who conmiitted any
great crime, would be punished by divine justice, in proportion to the magnitude
and atrocity of their offences. A homicide, for instance, as Tyrbo says: in ele-
phantiacoruni corpora transferetur: that is, will pass into human bodies infected
with some species of leprosy, the most loathsome and filthy of diseases. And
he who shall have planted a persea, (a tree, but of what species I know not * It
was held in the greatest abhorrence by the Manichajans, probably, because its
fruit was thought to excite lascivious desires,) necesse est eum transire per
multa corpora, usque quo persea ilia, quam plantaverat, concidat. Otlier crimes,
doubtless, had also their specific penalties. The Elect, as already remarked, if
they should swerve from duty, could w\ash out the stain thus contracted, by re-
pentance. Souls not belonging to the Manichcean community, and destitute of
a knowledge of what they called the truth, when life ended, roamed through the
bodies of five animals; and, if they became somewhat purgated in these, [p- 872.]
they passed into the bodies of Manichaeans; but if they wholly neglected their
purgation in the five bodies, they were sent to hell. Says Tyrbo, (^ 9. p. 15.) :
Animee (doubtless, meaning the souls destitute of the light of truth.) in alia quin(iuc
( — In the Gr. of Epiphanius, -/rcvn. The Latin translator erroneously says, quo-
que. — ) corpora transfunduntur. In horum primo purgatur aliquid ex ea parum,
deinde transfunditur in canem, aut in camelum, aut in alterins animalis corpus.
(2) The transmigration of souls into other bodies, was rather a paternal
chastisement, or a salutary admonition, than a judicial penalty ; or, if you
please, it was the penalty for negligence. But there were souls, which either
sinned enormously, or contemned God's gentle and wise coercion of the erring,
and in a degree added malignitv to neglifjence ; and to these divine iustice al-
lotted a heavier punishment, and they were therefore sent to hell to be tor-
mented by the demons. For the Manichaeans had their hell, though very dif-
ferent from ours. When the Living Spij'il arranged the material substances, so
as to frame our world, he found a mass of evil fire, with no mixture of good
fire in it, which the vanquished and flying princes of darkness had left behind.
And that mass he cast out of this world, shutting it up in a place without our
world, I know not where, but probably in the air, lest it should injure this ter-
restrial globe; and this is the Manicluoan hell. Over this noxious fire, which is
a portion of the world of darkness, the princes of darkness and their king pre-
side: and as they are stationed in the stars or the regions above us, that fire must
be situated in their vicinity. Such souls, therefore, as are distinguished for the
magnitude of their crimes, are delivered over to the enemies of God, not indeed
to perish, for this the divine goodness cannot permit; but that they may be
roasted, as it were, in that fierce and terrible fire, and thus become freed in good
measure from the depraved matter which they have absorbed. Some of these
souls are sent, immediately on leaving the body, into this fire; but others, after
a fruitless peregrination in certain bodies. Of the former of these two classes,
besides some perhaps not mentioned by the ancient writers, are: — Ist. Those
* Du Cangc, (Gloasar. mcd. et inf. Latinitatis, torn. iii. p. 277.) supposes it waa a peach tree, the
TTtfi
378 Century Ill.—Section 50.
which spurn divine truth, or the religion of Manes, and wilfully persevere in
their errors. Tyrho, (in the Acta Archehii, ^ 10. p. 18.) says: Si exicrit :inima,
quse non cognoverit veritatein, traditur da^monibus, ut earn donieiit in geheinia
ignis. And, a little after; Si qnis sequitur verba ipsorura (Mosos and the .levv-
jsli prophets,) morietur in sa3cula (u? roui dtwi/of, in longum aevutn,) devinctus
intra massam (in t»v ^bokov, namely, of evil f re,) quoniam non didicit seientiam
Paraditi, (that is, of Manes.) Beware of understanding this, of the souls un-
avoidably ignorant of the truth; these pass into the bodies of various animals,
as we have before shown. The souls here intended, were undoubtedly such as
[p. 873.] rejected the light of divine truth, and obstinately preferred darkness to
liglit. — 2dly. The souls which :ipostatize from the Manichaian religion, after
having embraced it. The ]\Ianicha3ans called deserters from their sect, men
destitute of light, or men wholly forsaken by the light. Says Augustine, (de
utilitate credendi, e. 1. torn. i. p. 35.): Desinant dicere illud, quod in ore habent
tanquam necessarium, cum eos quisque deseruerit, qui diutius audisset: Lumen
per ilium transitura fecit; that is, as Augustine himself immediately explains it:
A lumiue plane desertus est. For those who have cast away the truth, have
lost all claim to divine fjivors, and deserve to be delivered over to the rulers of
darkness for chastisement. — 3dly. Still more worthy of such punishment, were
the souls which obstructed the progress of the religion of Manes, and reviled
and abused its professors. Manes himself, in his Epistola Fundamenti, (apud
Euodium, de fide, c. 1. in Append. 0pp. August, tom. i. p. 25.) says: Quae ini-
micaj lumini sancto extiterunt, aperteque in perniciem sanctorum elementorum
se armarunt, et igneo spiritui (the Demon) obsequutae sunt, infesta etiam per-
secutione sua sanctam ecclesiam, atque Electos in eadem constitutes coelostiura
praeceptorum observatores afflixerunt, a beatitudine et gloria terrae sanctae
arcentur — et configentur in praedicto horribili globo. — 4thly. Into the evil fire
will be sent, the souls which left the body without penitence and sorrow for the
sins they may have committed. Says Secundinus, (Epistola ad August. § 2.
p. 369.): Si cum eodem peccato (anima) sine venia reeedat, tunc excludetur,
tunc virgini stultae comparabitur, tunc heres erit sinistrae manus, tunc a Do.
mino pelletur ex convivio nuptiarum, nigrarum caussa vestium, ubi fletus erit et
stridor dentium, ibitque cum diabolo ad ignem originis ipsius. Non punitur,
quia peccavit, sed quia de peccato non doluit.— 5thly. The souls which would
not supply the Elect with food. The Elect, as before shown, spent their lives
in leisure amid prayer and meditations, and could neither engage in or perform
any worldly business whatever; they were also absolute paupers, and wholly
destitute of either money or goods. Hence the Auditors were required to afford
them support. Nor was this any great burden, or an onerous duty, because the
Elect lived upon bread, water, fruit, herbs, and melons; and also macerated their
bodies with frequent fasts. Therefore, such Auditors as refused sustenance to these
very holy persons, involved themselves in an atrocious sin. Says Tijrbo, (in the
Acta Archelai, J 9. p. 16.): Qui non pra^stiterit Electis ejus alimenta, pcenis sub-
detur gehennaj, et transformatur (after enduring this punishment,) in catechu-
menorum corpora, usque quo faciat misericordias multas. Consequently, these
hard and inhumane Auditors, before they passed into other bodies, were sub-
The Passive Jesus Liberated. 379
jected to severe punishments in hell. — Of the olher ehisa of souls, (on whkh
transmigration was first tried, and then hell-fire,) were: — (a) Sueh as retained
their di'sires for wealth and riehes, even in the bodies of paupers and mendi-
cants, into which they had been sent. Says Tyrbo, (m the Acta Arthelai,
p. 16.): Dives in hoc mnndo cum exicrit de corpure sno, nceesse est [p. 874.]
eum in corpus pauperis injiei, ita ut ambulet et mendicet, et post hoce (^namely,
if in this body he did not overcome his thirst for wealth,) eat in pocnas aeternas.
(i. e. in the style of the Manichaeans, in poenas diuturnas.) — (b) The souls
which, after migrating through the five bodies, retained all their vitiosily. The
Manichaeans supposed, that in general souls pass through five bodies of animals
in each of which tiicy ougiit to drop some portion of their filth ; but if tht!y diJ
not, they deserved the punishment of hell. For more forceable and energetic
medicines are necessary when moderate and g'entle ones fail.
But these punishments in hell, to wliieh God sends the more perverse souls
have their termination, doubtless, according to the otfences of the individuals-,
and they are salutary to souls. For by that fierce fire a large part of the filthi-
ness which hindered their purgation in the former life, is consumed ; and, this
being as it were roasted out of them, they are again sent into other bodies, for
a new probation, in which they are to conflict again with the body and the evil
soul. Says Tyrbo^ (in the Acta Arehelai, p. 18.): Si exierit anima, quae non
cognoverit veritatem, traditur daemonibus, ut earn doment in gehenna ignis, et
posteaquam correcta fuerit, {lutra. Tjiv ^aihva-tv. See here, the salutary influence
of these punishments.) transfunditur in alia corpora, ut domctur, (to be purgat-
ed,) et ita injicitur in magnum ilium ignem usque ad consuramationem. He
here expresses himself concisely, as he usually does ; but it is manifest, that he
intended to say : If a soul, after punishment by fire, is sent into otiier bodies,
and still perseveres in its negligence, and follows its lusts, just as in the forme/
life, it loses all hope of salvation, and is again cast into the bad fire, over whiCh
the princes of darkness have control ; and it will remain in tliat fire until tiie
end of the world. What will become of it at the end of the world, we i.hall
soon show — The Manichaeans therefore believed, as other Christians did,
though for diflferent reasons, and in a different way, that many souls of sinful
men are now in hell, and are tormented by evil demons. What Tyrbo states
on this subject, is also stated by Epiphanius, and by other more modern wi iters,
whose testimonies I need not cite.
§ LI. The Liberation of the Passive Jesus. Besides the ration-
al and intelligent souls, those particles of the divine light, there
are portions of the celestial elements scattered throughout the na-
tural world, and mixed up with base matter ; and these, in va-
rious wa3^s, but especially b}^ the heat and influence of the sun,
are detached from base matter, and drawn upwards ; and, being
purgated in the moon and sun, they return to the world of li[;ht.(')
But the son of the First Man, the Passive Jesus, wliom fp. 875.]
the Prince of darkness and his warriors devoured during the first
380 Century IIL—Sedion 51.
Avar, and still hold in durance, is gradually liberated by a singu-
lar artifice of God. For at certain times God presents to the
view of the demon some of the celestial Beings resident in the
sun and moon, clothed in the form of very beautiful boys and
girls ; and on seeing them, the lusts of the demons are so in-
flamed that they sweat most profusely, and the celestial matter
oozing out with the sweat from their huge bodies, falls upon our
earth. This celestial matter, thus expressed from the princes of
darkness and falling upon the earth, fecundates it and causes it
to produce or send forth trees, fruits, plants, salads, potherbs, &c. ;
and when these are eaten, that which is divine in them, the sen-
tient soul, is detached from depraved matter and escapes, and,
being purgated in the moon and sun, ascends to the world of
light. And this accounts for the clouds, the rains, the storms,
the showers, the lightnings and the thunder. For the Prince of
darkness and his associates, becoming enraged and agitated when
God frustrates their lustful desires, disturb both heaven and
earth, and frequently produce terrible commotions in nature ;
■which, however, are in some respects useful and salutary.(^)
(1) These statements will be easily understood, from what has been said
and repeated more than once. Souls pertain to the element light; and conse-
quently, they are nearly allied to the nature of God, or rather, they are his off-
spring. But besides this light, there are four other elements; and innumerable
particles of all these elements, in the war of the First Man with the Prince of
darkness, became mixed up and joined with the depraved elements. And there-
fore, previously to the destruction of this world, it is necessary that so much of
the celestial elements as adheres to the vicious elements, should be disengaged,
and be restored to the kingdom of God. And this God effects in various ways,
but especially by means of the heat and rays of the sun. For instance, the
sun, by its influences, gradually extracts the particles of good water joined with
the bad water in our world, and transmits them when purgated to their native
country. And so of all the elements. Our fire is principally evil fire ; yet it
contains many particles of good fire, and these gradually escape, being elicited
by the air which agitates the fire. Augustine, (de natura boni, c. 44. p. 365.) :
Ipsam partem naturae Dei dicunt, ubique permixtam in coelis, in terris, sub ter-
ris - - solvi vero, liberari, purgariqne non solum per discursum solis et lunae,
et virtutes lucis (Beings living in the sun and moon,) verum etiam per Electos
suos.
[p. 876.] (2) We now come to that portion of the Manichasan system which,
although not destitute of ingenuity, exceeds all the rest in senselessness and folly,
according to our apprehensions : I say, according to our apprehensions, for to the
people of the East, especially to the Persians, who philosophized more grossly
I
The Passive Jesus libera fed. 381
than we do, it was undoubtedly less insipid, and perh.ips appeared wise. By
tiie coniniixture of good \\\[h evil, Mnnei> would acconiit for all oci-nrrenccs in
the physical world and in human nature. And in many particuhirs. his plati
seemed to succeed pretty well. But in the midst of his course, a great dillieulty
met him ; namely, whence originated the clouds, tlie showers, the tempests, the
soaking rains, the thunders, &.c ? From God thoy undoubtedly do not come;
for he is perfectly and exclusively good. Although the rains are of some uso
in fertilizing the earth and causing it to produce fruits and plants and trees, the
food of the Elect; yet they also cause many evils and inconveniences to men.
~But the storms, tempests, thunders, and fogs, appear simply evil and hurtful.
Therefore, the Princes of darkness residing in the air or the upper regions, un-
doubtedly, are the cause of these occurrences in nature. But the rain, though
often hurtful, is yet beneficial both to the earth and to its inhabitants : and no-
thing useful or good can come from the rulers of darkness, who are evil by
nature. This difficulty compelled Manes again to resort to his commixture of
good and evil, and to suppose that a considerable portion of celestial matter
still remained in the bodies of the evil demons, notwithstanding the principal
part of it, the Uglit, had been forced out of them. Still the difficulty was not
wholly removed; for it might be asked, What induces the Prince of darkness
and his associates to give up the celestial matter contained in their bodies, and
to sulfer it to descend upon this our earth ? That they would do it spontane-
ously, cannot be believed. It must then be that they are compelled, unwilling-
ly, to relax their hold on the celestial matter. But who can, either by force or
by artifice, bring them to relinquish so great a treasure? To free himself from
this difficulty, the fertile genius of Manes invented a fable, in itself monstrous
and void of all reason, yet coinciding very well with his other opinions. lie
supposed, 1st, That during the first conflict between the good and evil Princi-
ples the general of the army of light produced a son : — 2dl3% That the Prince of
darkness and his warriors devoured that son : — 3dly, That God, in order to ex-
tract gradually from the bodies of the demons and liberate this son of the First
Man, (who is a mass of celestial matter, endowed with a sentient soul.) excites
the natural lusts of those demons; — 4thly, And then suddenly withdraws tho
spectacle, by which he had inflamed their lustful desires; — 5th]y, And then tho
demons, being much agitated, are thrown into violent perspiration, and pour
out with their sweat the vital matter contained in ther members. — 6thly, This
sweat is our rain : — 7thly, And the thunders, high winds, tempests [p. 877.]
and tornadoes, which often accompany rain, are indications of the rage of the
demons when deluded by God with fictitious images. — For the sun and moon,
those two divine ships, are full of celestial Beings, or, as Manes him.self calls
them, Angels. And God, as often as he sees fit, transforms some ofthe.se An.
gels into very beautiful boys and girls, and bids them exhibit themselves to the
princes of darkness. The boys show themselves to the female demons, and the
girls to the male demons. And those extremely libidinous giants, on seeing
these very beautiful images, rush to embrace them, eager for coition. But the
beautiful Angels flee; and by their flight elude the hopes of their lovers: and
hence the amazing heats and violent commotions in their bodies. Their lust
882 Century III— Section 51.
first raisL's .1 very copious perspiration ; and with their sweat, as God intended,
they let out the vital and celestial matter: a part ot'Mliich, mixed with the rain,
falls upon our earth, and makes it productive of plants and trees; and a part
becomes mixed with the air, and flows into the sun and moon, where it is pur-
gated, and then is transmitted into the realm of light. The sweating princes of
darkness meanwhile exhibit terrific evidence of their rage and fury, on account
of the flight of the beautiful young men and maidens. Their Lord manifests
liis rage by terrific roaring, and by darting the malignant fire, of which he has
abundance: and these are the thunders and lightning which frighten mortals.
He and his associates violently agitate the air, ar.d })roduce whirlwinds, hale,
tornadoes and tempests, and emit dense vapors, which form clouds, ob.'?cure the
sky, and intercept the rays of the sun; and thus they often put all nature into
commotion. Tyrbo, (in the Acta Archelai,) relates this absurd fable, though
not very accurately or perspicuously, from the oral teaching of Manes himself:
and Cyrill of Jerusalem, (Cateches. vi. § 34. p. 110.) tells us, he had read it in
the books of Manichaeans. Avgusline and others often mention it, and reproach
the Manichaeans with it. (See Augustine, contra Faust. L. xx. c. 6. p. 238. and,
de Ilccres. c. 46. p. 18. and elsewhere.) Felix, the Manichaean, tacitly admits
and acknowledges it, (in his second Dispute with i4ugust. c. 7. 8. p. 348.) Says
Augustine to him : Dicitis, Deum virtutes suas convertere in masculos ad irri-
tandum concupiscentias dsemonum foeminarum, et eosdem rursus convertere in
foeminas ad irritandum concupiscentias dsemonum maseulorum, ut cum daemo-
niis injiciunt libidinem, accensis in formas confictas a Deo, relaxentur membra
eorum et sic evadat pars Dei,qua3 ibi fuerat colligata. Hoc tantum opprobrium,
hoc lantum sacrilegium credere ausi estis et prajdicare non dubitatis. And what
reply does Felix make? Does he deny the facts ? Or assert that the whole is
a calumny of their adversaries? Or does he strive to extenuate and explain
[p. 878.] away the turpitude of the thing? Nothing of these. He is silent.
Silent, did I say ? He acknowledges that this fable was taught by his master ;
and maintains, that Christ taught what equally grates on human ears, respect-
ing the punishments of the wicked in hell: Crudelem asseritis Manichccum hoc
dicentem? de Christo quid dicimus, qui dixit : Ite in ignem a3tcrnum!— But these
many and credible witnesses have not induced the very learned Beausohre, to
believe that so foolish and absurd a fable could come from Manes, whom he re-
gards as no contemptible philosopher: (Histoire critique du Manichee, vol. ii.
p. 388 &-C.) Manichee n'a jamais porte I'egarement jusque-Ki. He does not in-
deed venture to deny, that Manes considered the rain to be the sweat of the
Prince of darkness, and thunder to be his angry voice : but the rest of the fable
lie boldly denies, placing it among the false criminations maliciou.sly invented,
to bring dishonor upon a man who erred indeed, yet was not wholly infiituated.
Manes, he supposes, taught his followers that God, whenever he thinks rain to
be needed by mankind, exhibits to the princes of darkness a species of virgin
light, i. e. the purest kind of light, perfectly chaste and spotless; and that they
are so charmed and captivated with this delightful spectacle that the sweat flowa
from them ; and when they are deprived of it, they manifest their strong indig-
nation by lightning, clouds, and thunder. The other things were idle whims,
The Passive Jesvs Uherated. 383
origlnatinfT in the brains of oncniios to the «]foo(l Porsinn ; and wlio, from i^jnor-
anoe of Ihe highly figuralivo Oriental style, transformed xirfr'm U^rhl, or tlio
most perfect light, into a heantiful virgin. — Bnt Manes himf-elf rejects this eru-
dite patron ; and demands liberty to retain and assert the opinion, which this
worthy man wonld abstract from him. Brauanbre, a man of immense re:i(rmg,
and at other times of an excellent memory, was so c.irried away by his strange
eagerness to exculpate and make respectable the ancient herciic^, that he could
not recollect a long and noted passage, still extant, from the seventh I'ook of
the Thesaurus of Manes, in which he not only states but expounds, in a copi-
ous and eloquent discourse, that whole fable, concerning which Beau^ohre nnyn,
Nothing could be more stupid. The passage is not only in Avgustine, (de na-
tura boni, c. 44. p. 364, 365.) but likewise, in the same words, in Evndius, (dc
fide, c. 16, p. 26, 27.) That there may be no ground for a suspicion of any
misrepresentation, I will cite the passage entire. It will conduce much to a just
estimate of the genius of Manes ; and it will show that the Christians of those
times did not deceive posterity by declaring his system folly, and the man him-
self absurdly ingenious. It reads thus : Tunc beatus ille Pater (God, the
Lord of the world of Light,) qui lucidas naves (the sun and the moon,) habet
diversoria et habitacula seu magnitudines, (i. e. who has placed in the sun and
moon, as their homes, many Angels and celestial Beings,) pro insita sihi clc-
mcntiri fert opem, qua exuitur et liberatur ab impiis retinaculis et angustiis at-
que angoribus (from the bodies of the princes of darkness,) sua vita- [p. 879.]
lis substantia : (the son of the First Man, the Jesus passib His, of whom wc have
already spoken.) Itaque invisiiiili suo nutu illas suas virtutes, quae in clarissi-
ma hac navi (the sun) habentur, transfigurat, (for the Angels, like God himself,
are mere lucid matter without form,) easque parere (i. e. apparere) facit adversia
potestatibus (to the demons,) qua3 in singulis ccelorum tractibus ordinate^ sunt.
Qua? quoniam ex utroquc sexu, masculorum et focminarum, consistunt, ideo
praedictas virtutes partim specie puerorum iwvestium (beardless.) parere jnbet
generi adverso foeminarum, partim virginum lucidarum formfi gcneri confrario
masculorum ; sciens eas omnes hostllcs potestatcs propter ingenitam sihi letha-
lem et spurcissimam concupiscentiam focillime capi, atque iisdem speciebua
pulcherrimis, quae apparent, mancipari, hocque mode dissolvi. Sciatis autem,
hunc eundem nostrum beatum Patrem hoc idem esse, quod etiam suae virtutes
(that is, these Beings or Angels are of the same nature with God, and were begot-
ten of him.) quas ob necessariam caussam transformat in puerorum et virginum
intemeratam simiiitudinem, Utiturautcm histanquam propriisarmis atque jx-reas
suam complet voluntatem. (Behold, the moral character of this stupid fahlel)
Harum vero virtutum divinarum,quaead instar conjugii contra inferna genera sta-
tuuntLir,quaeque alacriaate ac falicitate id, quod cogitaverint, memento eodem efll-
ciant, plaenae sunt lucidae naves : (the sun and moon.) Itaque cum ratio po^ccrct,
ut masculis (daemonibus) appareant eaedem sanctae virtutes, illico etiani suam
effigiem virginum pulcherrimarum habitu dcmonstrant. Rursns cum ad foeminas
ventum fuerit,postponentes species virginum, puerorum invcstium spcciem osten-
dunt. Hoc autem visu decoro illaruin ardor et concnpiscentia crescit, atque hoc mo-
do vinculum pessimarum earum cogitationum sjlvitur, (For the princes of darkness
384 Century III— Section 51.
have resolved, never to part with that celestial matlcr which they have devour-
ed : it doubtless tetnperates and alleviates their misery. But God so beguiles
Ihem witii imagesof youlhs and virgins, that they forget themselves, and disregard
their pernicious plans and purposes;) vivaque aninia, (not endowed with reason,
but only with life and sensation,) quae eorundem membris tenebatur, hac ocea-
sione laxata evadit, et suo purissinio aeri miseetur, ubi penitus ablutae animae
ad lucidas naves, (the sun and moon,) quae sibi ad evectationem atque ad suae
patriae transfretationem sunt praeparatae. Id vero quod adhuc adversi generis
rnaculas portat, per aestus atque ealores particulatim descendit, (namely, by the
rain,) atque arboribus, ceterisque plantationibus ac satis omnibus miseetur et
caloribus diversis inficitur. Et quo pacto ex ista magna et elarissama nave,(tho
sun.) ligui-aj puerorum ac virginum apparent contrariis potestatibus, qute in
[p. 880.] coelis degunt, quwque igneani habent naturam atque ex isto aspectu
decoro vitae pars, quae in earumdem membris habetur, laxata dedueitur per
calores in terram : eodem modo etiam ilia altissima virtus, quae in navi vitali-
um aquarum habitat, (Christ is here intended, whom the Manichaeans made
resident in the moon.) in similitudine puerorum ac virginum sanctarum per suoa
angelos apparet his potestatibus, quarum natura frigida est atque humida, quae
que in coelis ordinatae sunt. Et quidem his quae foeminae sunt, in ipsis forma
puerorum apparet, masculis vero virginum. Hac vero mutatione et diversitate
divinarum personarum ac pulcherrimarum, humidae frigidaeque stirpis principes
masculi sive foeminae solvuntur, atque id, quod in ipsis est vitale, fugit; quod
vero resederit, laxatum dedueitur in terram per frigora et cunctis terrae generi-
bus admiscetur. After reading these declarations attentively, can we say, that
the ancient Christians did injustice to Manes ? — The demons or princes of
darkness dispersed about in the upper regions and resident in the stars, are not
all of the same nature, nor of the .same sex, Some are of a fiery nature, and
others of a cold and humid nature : And some are males, and others females.
But they all carry in their bodies no small quantity of celestial matter, or of
vital soul, as Manes calls it. They are all full of unbridled lust ; and this they
have most unfortunately propagated among mankind through their bodies. And
God very sagaciously employs this their innate vitiosity, to extort from them
the vital soul. The princes of a fiery nature, God excites to let out the celestial
matter, by the igneous Beings resident in the sun, clothed in the forms of
young men and virgins. The princes of a cold and humid nature, Christ, resi-
ding in the moon, moves by means of the lunar Beings. The celestial matter
or vital soul, elicited by such deceptions from the huge giants of both sexes in
sweat and otherwise, is in part pure and uncontaminated, and in part defiled
with the stains contracted in those foul bodies. That which is pure, mino-les at
once with the virgin air, and mounts aloft to the world of light. But that
which has stains, descends with the rains, frosts nnd show-ers, to the earth, be-
comes connected with plants and trees, and causes the passive Jesus to shoot
forth, which, as Faustus says, hangs on all the trees. A ludicrous and amusing
philosophy truly, and not unworthy of Persian ingenuity !— This fiible, which
Manes himself announces rhetorically and pompously, others explaim more
briefly, in accordance with the oral teaching of Manes, and with the books of
The Passive Jcsvs lihcrated, 386
Manlchasans. Among these, are Tyrho, (in the Acta An-liohii, p. 13, 14.) nnd
Cyrill of Jerusalem. Tyrbo says : Virgo qucedam decora et exornata, I'h'gans
valde, furto appetit Principes (masculos,) qui sunt in fu-mamento a vlvente
Spiritu educti et crucifixi, quoe, cum apparuerit, maribus Ibemina decora apparet:
foeminis vei-o adoleseentem speciosum ct concupiscibilem demonstrat. Sod
principes quidem (masculi) cum earn vidcrint exornatam, amore ejus in Ul)i(ii.
nem moventur: (All tiiis, we have heard Manes himself say: what [p. 881.]
follows, is not so clearly stated by him.) et quia earn apprchendere non pos-
sunt, vohementer instigantur amoris incendiis excitati : rapti sunt enim libidinis
calore ; cum enim currentibus post earn anxii effecli fuissent, virgo subito nus-
quam comparuit. Tunc princeps ilie magnus produeit nebulas ex semetipso,
uti obscuret in ira sua omnem mundum, qui cum tribulatus fuerit plurimum,
sicut homo sudat post laborem, ita et hie Princeps sudat ex tribulatione sua,
cujus sudor pluviac sunt: (which are often preceded by thunders and light-
nings.) Cyrill also, (Cateches. vi. §34. p. 110.) more concisely: Imbres ex
amatorio oestu oriri statuunt, audentque dicerc, esse quamdam in coelo specio-
sam virginem cum juvene formoso - - illam (virginem) fugere aiunt, istum per-
sequi, atque inde sudorem emittere, (^uo ex sudore imbrem exsistere. Hsec in
Manicheeorum libris scripta sunt. Ea nos leglmus, dum narrantibus nolumus
fidem habere. These absurd notions of the origin of rain, lightning and thun-
der, induced the ]\ranichKans, when it thundered and lightened, not like other
Christians to implore the divine clemency by prayers, but to curse the Prince
of darkness, whose voice they supposed they heard. This we learn from Cyrill^
(1. cit. p. 110.) : Tonat Deus ct contremiscimus omnes: isti autem in blasphe-
mas voces erumpunt : (That is, they curse the author of the thunder.) Ful-
gurat Deus, omnesque nos in terram procumbimus: illi autem de coelis con
vicia jactant : Trtfl ovpavdv ra; S'va-pifAas i^ovs-t yXuiTTas.
§ LIL Destrnction of the World and Consummation of all things.
When the greatest part of souls shall have been recalled to the
world of light, and of course the human race be reduced to a few
persons, when the celestial matter dispersed through our world
shall in various ways have been extracted, and no souls remain
on earth, except such as can in no way be purgated and reformed ;
then will God remove the walls and ramparts by which the evil
fire is inclosed ; and that fire, bursting from its caverns, will burn
up and destroy the fabric of the world. At the same time
Omophorus will withdraw his shoulders from it, and will suffer
this dirty, depraved mass, now divested of all life, to be con-
sumed. After this, the Princes of darkness, being deprived of
all celestial matter or light, will be compelled to return to their
own wretched country : and in that dreary world they will for-
ever remain.(') And to prevent their again invading the world
of light, God will guard the orb of darkness with a very strong
26
386 Century III.— Section 52.
[p. 882.] force : for those souls, whose reformation and salvation
are despaired of, like a cordon of soldiers, will surround the world
of darkness and guard its frontiers, lest its wretched inhabitants
should again issue forth and invade the realm of light.Q
(1) Our world was created of God, only th.it the good matter mixed with
evil might be gradually detached; and especially, that the souls, those daugh-
ters of eternal light, which by the crafty Prince of Darkness had been inclosed
in bodies, might be liberated from their prison. This arduous business being
completed, and the greatest part of the good matter being restored to its origi-
nal state, nothing will remain but a deformed mass, filthy, vile and sterile, which
ought to be thrown back whence it came. Therefore, when God shall have
accomplished his object and recovered his treasures plundered by the evil Prin-
ciple, a conflagration of this world will ensue. That immensely great Angel,
Omophorus, who sustains the world on his shoulders, being notified by God that
the consummation of all things is at hand, will cast down his burden, the evil
fire will burst its barriers, and will consume the whole fabric ; and all things
will return to their original state. God, with the Beings begotten of him, will
lead a life of blessedness in the world of light: and the Prince of darkness,
with his associates and friends, will lead a life of wret^jliedness in the world of
darkness. Says Tyrbo, (in the Acta Disput. Archelai, ^ 11. p. 21): Post hsec
omnia, ad ultimura Senior cum manifestam fecerit ejus imaginem, tunc ipse
Omophorus extra se terram derelinquit, et ita dimittitur magnus ille ignis (that
evil fire, which the Living Spirit east out of this world, when he formed the
earth, and inclosed within strong ramparts or mounds, and in which the very
wicked souls that would not be reformed have been for a time tormented,) qui
mundum consumat universum. - - Tunc autem hasc fient, cum statuta venerit
dies. What is here said of an Elder's exhibiting his image, is very obscure.
But this much is obvious, that by this Elder, whoever he may be, God will sig-
nify to the world-bearing Atlas, called OmophoruSj that the end of the world
has come. And on learning this, the huge giant will quit his position, and
throw down his load, as he had long and ardently wished to do. Tyrbo, soon
after, proceeds : Post hsec restitutio erit duarum naturarum, (the Latin vers^ioa
has : duorum luminarium, i. e. of the sun and moon : Extremely erroneous. la
the Greek of Epiphanius, we correctly read : 'ATrcKardcrrao-ti tuv /yo <p6<riccv
The sun and the moon need no restoration. The ducc nalurcc, in the style of
Manichseans, are the hvo first principles of all things, good and evil. The im-
port of the passage therefore is : Those two natures (or substances) will then
return to their original state, or that in which they were before the war between
the good and evil Principles :) et Principes habitabunt in inferioribus partibus
suis : (in the world of darkness, where they dwelt before the war :) Pater au-
tem (God) in superioribus, (in the world of light,) qua? sua sunt recipiens :
[p. 883.] (i. e. after all the celestial matter which the princes of darkness had
seized, shall have returned to him.) — The burning of our world will be slow
and of long continuance. For Tyrbo says, that all those celestial Beings, who
were concerned in the government of our world, and also the Living Spirit, the
Consummation of all things. 387
framer of the world, will reside in the sun and moon, until the whole fabric is
consumed. And he adds, that he had not learned from Manes, how many years
the burnintr would continue. Mnjori in navi (the sun,) vivens Spiritus (the
world-builder,) adhibetur, et Murus illius ignis magni (the Angel, the 'niardian
of hell tire, who keeps watch lest this evil fire should burst from its caverns
before the appointed time,) et Murus venti (the Angel, who guards the winds)
et aeris, et aquae, et interioris ignis vivi (i. e. boni. Each of tlie elements had
its superintending Angel, or keeper and governor. — ) qua? omnia in lunu habita-
bunt, usque quo totum niundum ignis absumat ; in quot autem annis, numerura
non didici. And I suppose, Manes himself did not know the number of these
years. — This whole statement of Tyrbo is confirmed by nearly all the ancient
writers. Alexander of Lycopolis, (contra Manichaeos, p. 5.) adds moreover, that
this fire which is to consume the world, will also consume itself; which it is
difficult to conceive : 'Ava^a^pia-B-iia-Hs ths d-iias S'vvafAicci TO l^co Tr-jp, (pari, <rufx-
TTiTov iavrd Kal aKKo (rvfATravy o tI cTe av hiiTrirai tmj uA.«?, (Tuyx.ara'PKt'riiv. Se-
gregata vero a materia omni virtute coelesti, crumpet ignis externus, et seme-
tipsum una cum omni, qua) restat, materia, eonsumet. The same thing appears
to be stated, though less distinctly, by Titus of Bostra, (Contra Manicheeos, L.
ii.) But I omit this passage, to avoid needless prolixity. — The time or day of
this conflagration of the world and restoration of all things, none of the ancient
writers has indicated. But a modern writer, Hebed Jesu, an Armenian, (apud
Assemanum, Biblioth. Orient. Clement. Vatic. Tom. iii. P. ii. p. 361.) affirms,
that the Manicha^ans believed : Fore, ut in die Dominico hoc sccculum habeat
interitum, dissolutionemque omnem post circulum novera mille annorum. But
as this statement is neither confirmed nor contradicted by any other writer, it
must be held doubtful.
(2) The God of the Manichaeans was cautious and provident, but imbecile,
or of moderate power. And he had reason to fear, lest the Prince of darkness,
although once vanquished, would again venture to invade the world of light; and
if h€ should do so, the same tragedy as in the former war, would undoubtedly
recur. To prevent this great and terrible evil, he enrolled a powerful army of
guards, from among the souls which would not be purgated, and therefore could
not return to the world of light, and yet could not be given over to the kingdom
of darkness because possessed of a divine nature, — of these souls, I say, he
formed an army, which should valiantly resist the counsels and machinations
of the inhabitants of the world of darkness, and prevent their passing beyond
their frontiers. As before shown, the souls which have twice passed through five
successive bodies without being reclaimed, are sent to hell, to be tor- [p. 884.]
mented in the evil fire until the end of the world. When the world is about to
be destroyed, they will be drawn forth from hell, and be made garrison soldiers
for the supreme God, or guards of the world of darkness. To these will bo
added the souls, which the last day will find still resident in the bodies of men,
animals, and other things; for these also are such, that their salvation is hope-
less. Says Manes, in the second Book of his Thesaurus, and in his Epistoia
Fundamenti, (apud Euodium, de fide contra Maniciiaeos, c. 4. p. 25.) •' Animao
quae negligentia sua a labe praedictorum (malorum) spirituum purgari se minime
Century III. — Section 52.
pormiserint, mandatisque divinis ex intergo parum obtemperaverint, legemque
sibi a 8U0 liberatore (Christ,) datam servare plenius noluerint, neque ut docebat
sese gubernaverint, quae mundi amore errarc se a oriori sua lucida natura passae
sunt, atque iiiimicae liimini sancto extiterunt - - a beatitudine atque gloria ter-
rae sanctae arceiitur. Et quia a malo se superari passae sunt, in cadem mail
stirpe perseverabunt, pacifica ilia terra et regionibus immortalibus sibimet inter-
dictis. Quod ideo illis eveniet, quia ita iniquis operibus se obstrinxerunt, ut a
vita et libertate sanctae lucis alieniantur. Non igitur poterunt recipi in regna
ilia pacifica, sed configentur in praedicto horribili globo, cui etiam necesse est
custodiam adhiberi. Unde adhaerebunt his rebus animae eaedem, quas dilexerunt,
relictae in eodcm tenebrarum globo, suis raeritis id sibi aequirentes. When
Augustine, in. his second Dispute with Felix the Manichaean, (c. 15. p. 351.) had
said, that according to the opinion of Manes, many portions of the divine nature
would be damned; his antagonist denied the lact, and replied in these words:
Hoc, quod dixit sanctitas tua, quia pars, quae se non mundavit ab coinquinatione
gentis tenebrarum : et sic dicit Manichaeus, quia non sunt missi in regnum Dei.
Hoc enim asseris tu, quia damnati sunt: Sed Manichaeus non hoc dicit, quia
damnati sunt, sed ad custodiam positi sunt illius gentis tenebrarum. Yet
Auo-ustine did correctly apprehend the sentiment of Manes; as appears from
several passages, but especially from this very lucid one, (de Haeres. c. 46.
p. 13.): The Manichaeans say, In nobis sanatum hoc vitium (of lust) nunquam
futurum; sed a nobis sejunctam atque seclusam substantiam istam mali, et finite
isto saeculo post conflagrationem mundi in globo quodam, tanquam in carcere
sempiterno, esse victuram. Cui globo affirmant accessurum semper et adhaesu-
rum quasi coopertorium atque tectorium ex animabus, natura quidem bonis,
sed quae tamen non potuerint a naturae malae cogitatione mundari. If we es-
timate the doctrine of Manes by these passages, the souls whose filthiness pre-
vents their being received into the world of light, will be stationed within the
sphere of darkness, or on its exterior, and will cover the whole sphere like a
[p. 885.] garment or outer covering, so as to leave no crevice through which the
inhabitants can escape. But Tyrho, (in the Acta Archelai, p. 21.) seems to in-
dicate, that those impure and slothful souls will have their station or camp, not
within the world of darkness, but on the intervening space between the world
of bliss and the world of misery. He says: Deinde (in the end of the world,)
iterum (dsemones) dimittunt animam, (or rather animas, which were detained in
the evil fire,) quae objicitur (is opposed to the demons,) inter medium novi sao-
culi (the world of light,) ut omnes jinimse peccatorum vinciantur in reternnm.
But the two opinions are not so different, as to be utterly irreconcilable.
I have bestowed much labor on the explanation of the Manichaean system,
for more reasons than one. None of all the sects that arose among Christians,
was more difficult to be suppressed than this ; and it still exists, notwithstand-
ing it is regarded as vile and hateful by the Mohammedans as well as Christians.
Perhaps also the books of Manes are preserved to the present day, and read by
his many followers in the eastern countries. There have also been, and still are
numerous discussions among learned men, respecting this singular form of re-
ligion. Some regard it as not altogether nonsense and folly, but as very dex-
Manichcean Public Worship. 389
terously solving all difficulties respecting the origin of evil; while othcis look
Upon it as perfectly absurd, and more worthy of brute animals than of men.
The candid man will acknowk'dge, tliat the system as a whole, and in a general
view, displays ingenuity, that it deduces all its doctrines from a very few prin-
ciples, which have a great appearance of plausibility, and that all the parts of the
system are harmoniously consistent. But if we examine it minutely, we shall
find in it much that is silly, trifling, and fabulous. For Manes^ finding that he
could not well explain all the changes and operations in nature from the few
principles he had admitted, was compelled to tax his ingenuity to invent and de-
vise fables, in order to solve by means of the imagination, what could not be
solved by reason. Moreover, the most discerning and ingenious of the Mani-
chaeans themselves have admitted, that some of their master's dogmas could not
be explained and demonstrated sati.slactorily. And among these dogmas, they
name in particular, that of two first 'principles of all things, or, as they call
them, two natures; and the doctrine of the new age or world, (de novo saeculo,)
and some others. Yet they contended, that these dogmas, although above hu-
man reason, were to be simply believed, because revealed to us by God. Thus
Secundinus writes to Augustine, (p. 371.): lllud tamen notum fiicio tuae saga-
cissimae bonitati, quia sunt qnredam res, quce sic exponi non possnnt, ut intel-
ligantur: exeedit enim divina ratio mortalium pectora: ut puta hoc ipsum, quo-
modo sint duae nature, aut quare pugnaverit (Deus) qui nihil poterat pati, nee
non etiam de saeculo novo, quod idem memorat. What Manes taught respect-
ing a new age or world, like several other things pertaining to his system, is at
this day almost wholly unknown.
§ LIII. Public Worship among Manichaeans. The mode [p. 886.]
of public worship among the Manich{:cans was very simple.
They had no temples or houses dedicated to God, no altars, no
images, no love^feasts, nor any of the ceremonies usually prac-
tised by other Christians* When assembled they prayed to God
with becoming devoutness, but with their faces turned towards
the sun. They sung hymns in praise of God, of the sun and
moon, and of the principal ^ons; read the books of Ifanes,
especially his Epistola Fundamenti ; and heard exhortations from
their teachers, enjoining the renunciation and subjugation of sin-
fal desires. They observed Sunday as a sacred day, but abstained
wholly from food on that day. Among their annual holy days,
the most noted was the Bema, the day on which they honored
with great solemnity the memory of their master, who was cruelly
slain by the king of Persia. The Christian festivals cornmemo-
rative of the birth and baptism of the Saviour, they did not ob-
serve ; because they denied that Christ was cither born or bap-
tized. Easter they observed with other Christians, but with
890 Century IIL—Section 53.
little, or rather with no ceremony. For, believing that Christ
only feigned death and a return to life, they supposed that short
services were all that the day required. (')
(1) Of the simple m:inner iti which the Manichaeans worshipped God,
Fausius the Manichaean discourses exultingly, (apnd Avgustinuw, L. xx. c. 1.
torn. viii. p. 238 &.c.); and as AngiisLvie in his reply charges him with no mis-
representation, his statements are undoubtedly correct. Some one had objected,
that the M anichaeans were a sect of Pagans and Gentiles. This charge Faustus
first answers, by showing that there was a very wide difference between Mani-
chaeans and the Gentiles. He says ; Mea opinio et eultus longe alia sunt, quara
paganorum. - - Pagani aris, delubris, simulacris, victimis atque incenso Deum
colendum putant. Ego ab his multum diversus incedo, qui ipsum me, si mode
sum dignus, rationabile Dei templum puto: vivum vivae majestatis simulacrnm
Christum filium ejus accipio: aram, mentem bonis artibus et disciplinis imbutam,
honores quoque divinos ac sacrificia in solis orationibus, et ipsis puris et simpli-
cibus, pono. The Manichaeans, therefore, had no temples or houses consecrated
to God; and no images either of God or saints: Christ to them was in place of
all visible representations. Neither had they altars. And lastly, the principal
[p. 887.] part of their worship consisted in prayers to God, and those prayers
pwe and simple. If this last clause is true, — and that it is so I will presently
show by other testimony, — then it is manifest, that all rites and ceremonies
w^ere excluded from their worshipping assemblies, except only the custom of
turning the face towards the sun in prayer. In this matter, as in many others,
Manes followed the example of his countrymen the Persians. For it appears
from the testimonies of Herodotus and others, collected by Barnabas Brissonius,
(de regio principatu Persarum, L. ii. ^ 28. p. 360 &,c.) that the Persians deemed
it next to insanity, to dedicate temples, images, and altars to the gods. — Having
vindicated his sect from this calumny, he turns his artillery in another direction,
and endeavors to prove that the Christians were more truly a sect of Pagans.
In doing this, he again testifies that the Manichaeans disregarded and despised
the ceremonies usual among otiier Christians in that age, and were studious of
simplicity in the W'orship of God. He says: Vos sacrificia (gentium) mutastis
in agapas: (The Manichaeans therefore omitted altogether those feasts of love,
which the other Christians celebrated.) Vos vertistis idola in martyres, quos
votis similibus colitis: (The Manichaeans therefore paid no honors or worship
to martyrs, they kept no images of them, and they did not observe their
Nalalitia, or the days consecrated to their memory.) Vos defunctorum umbras
vino placatis et dapibus : (This cuts the Christians of those times, who carried
wine and food on certain days to the sepulchres of the martyrs, and there held
feasts.) Vos solennes gentium dies cum ipsis celebratis, ut kalendas et solstitia :
(Therefore the Manichaeans abhorred the practice of the Christians, after the
time of Constantino the Great, of annexing the Christian rites, and in a sense
giving consecration, to the festal days of the Pagans.) De vita certe mutastis
nihil. All these things Augustine endeavors to excuse ; but he denies nothing. —
As the Manichaean worship consisted chiefly in prayers, they called their wor-
Arcane Worship of the Fleet. 301
flliippinof nssemblies the prayer. This we learn from Forlunat.us, a !Manichacan
(in Ills first Dispute willi Avqnsline, p. 69.) who inquired of Augustine: Inler-
fuisti (nostrae) orationi? And Augustine replied: Interfui. The subsequent
remarks plainly show, tiuit IManiehaean assemblies for public worsliip were in-
tended. And it is worthy of special notice, that Augustine confesses that
nothing reprehensible occurr<'d in their worshipping assemblies. He disapproves
of only one thing, namely, their turning their faces to the sun in prayer. He
savs: Quanivis orationi vestrae interfuerim, utrum separatim vobiscum habeatis
aliam orationem, (They certainly had other worship, as Augustine himself in-
forms us soon after; nor does Foriunatus deny it,) Deus solus potest nosse et
vos. Ego tamen in oratione, in qua interfui, nihil turpe fieri vidi, sed solum
contra fideni animadverti, - - quod contra solera facitis orationem. Praeter hoc
in ilia oratione vestra nihil novi comperi. On other points here stated, we have
heretofore treated, so that we need not again remark upon them.
§ LIY. The exclusive Worship of the Elect. Baptism and [p. 888.]
the sacred Supper. Besides the public assemblies, in which the Elect
or perfect and the Auditors or imperfect met together, other and
more private conventions for religious objects were held exclu-
sively bj the little band of the Meet. AVhat was done in these
private conventions, or in what manner God was there worshipped,
is not known at the present day ; the books of the sect being lost,
or at least not being known .(') To the arcane or private worship
of the Manicha^ans, pertained baptism and the sacred Sup2m\
Baptism, the Manichseans held to be a mere ceremony, which
conveyed no benefit whatever to the soul. They did not admit
that Christ was baptized ; and their fundamental principles for-
bid their believing that any efficacy existed in water for purify-
ing the divine soul, the offspring of God. Hence they did not
require their people to receive baptism : but if any of the Elect
desired a lustration by water, the leaders of the sect did not op-
pose their wishes.C^) Of the sacred Supper of the Elect, nothing
scarcely is known at the present day : for the horrid and obscene
rites of it, reported by many of the ancients, lack authority, cre-
dibility, and probability ; and the genuine followers of Manes
cannot be taxed with them, without extreme injustice.(^)
(1) Says Augustine^ (Disput. I. cum Fortunato, Opp. tom. viii. p. 68.) : De
moribus vestris plene scire possunt, qui Electi vestri sunt. Nosti autem, mc
non Electum vestrum, sed Auditorem fuisse. - - Quisquis autem vobis oj)ponit
quaestionem aliquam de moribus, Electis vestris opponit. Quid autem inter
vos agatis, qui Electi estis, ego scire non possum. Nam et Eucharisliam audivi
a vobis saepe, quod accipiatis : (It is manifest from this language lh.it tlio Eu
392 Century III.— Section 54.
charist pertained to the arcane mysteries of the BlecU and that the Audifors
were not admitted to it,) tempus autem accipiendi cum me lateret, quid aecipi-
atis, unde nosse potui ? All these remarks Fortunatus passes by, and there-
fore approves, or tacitly acknowledges them to be true. Moreover, there is
other evidence which puts it beyond controversy, that the Elect hold secret
meetings, from which the Auditors were excluded.
(2) Respecting 6ap/ism among Manichaeans, learned men have disngreed;
some affirm that they practised it, others deny it, and others combine the
two opinions in some way. The cause of this disagreement is in Augustine;
who seems in some places to teach, that the Manichaeans despised baptism,
while other passages are extant, and some of tliem in Augustine, which bid us
believe the contrary. Tillemonte, (in his Memoires pour servir a I'Histoire de
[p. 889.] FEglise, tom. iv. p. 948.) thinks the difficulty cannot be surmounted,
except by supposing that the Manichaeans, sometimes, and inconsiderately, {far
fantaisie) when the bishops happened to take it into their heads, practised bap-
tism ; but at other times, when their leaders deemed it expedient, they neglected
baptism. But it is wholly incredible, that a thing of this nature should be
regulated by no rules among them, and should be left altogether to the caprice
of the bishops. Beausohrc, (in his Histoire du Manichee, tom. ii. p. 715, &c.) —
if I do not mistake, — inconsiderately cuts the knot, which he would gently un-
tie. For he tells us, that Augustine has deceived us : and he contends, that
the Manichaeans not only baptized, but attributed to baptism a purifying influ-
ence on the soul, and for that reason they also bnptized infants. This extraor-
dinary man would have judged differently, I apprehend, if he had more care-
fully considered the passages of Augustine and others on the subject, and had
compared them with each other. — Augustine no where says, what learned men
consider him as saying. — I will try, if I can disentangle this subject, and lay
open the true character of Manicha3an baptism.
First : Baptism was undoubtedly practised among the Manicha3ans. The
first witness to this fact is Cyrill of Jerusalem, (Cateches. VI. ^ 33. p. 109.) He
says : 'Ov toXuc^ iirl dvS'poiv Xat yvvaiKuiv to Xvrpov dvrcov ^iny^(racr^-ai. Liavac-
rum eorum coram viris et mulieribus enarrare non audeo. Seeing that the com-
mon bathing was prohibited among the Manichaeans, as we have already shewed,
the wordKvTpdv must here necessarily mean baptism. Besides, Cyrill connects
this WTpov with the siicred Sapper. He therefore here criminates the Mani-
cha3ans for immersing males and females entirely naked, in the presence of both
men and women. If this were the fact, which for many reasons I doubt, they
certainly offended against the laws of decency and modesty. — The second wit-
ness is Felix the Manichaean, who, in his first Dispute with Augustine, (c. 19.
p. 344.) derives an argument from baptism, in proof of the existence of an evil
Principle opposed to a good one : Si adversarius nullus contra Deum est, ut
quid (perhaps it should read : ad quid) baptizati sumus ? Ut quid Eueharistia,
ut quid Christianitas, si nihil contra Deum est. — The third witness is Augustine,
(de moribus eccles. et Manicha?or. L. i. c. 35.) The passage will be cited here-
after.— The fourth witness is Jerome, who bitterly inveighs against Hilary, a
Roman deacon, because he had received into the church persons baptized by
JBapiisfns among Manicliaans. 393
Manicliaeans ; (Dialogo contra Luciferianos, Opp, torn. iv. p. 305.) : Diacomis
eras, O Hilari, et a Maniehajis baptizatos recipiebas 1 — To these are to bo added
the testimonies, which will be cited to prove, that baptized Manichaians when
received into the Romish and other churches, were not re-baptized.
Secondly: Yet tlie IManichaeans attributed to baptism no salutary influence
on the soul; and, for that reason, they did not require any of their people to
receive baptism. With this, Augustine sometimes reproaches them ; [p. 890.]
and whoever understands the opinions of the sect, will readily admit his charge.
He says: (de Haeres. c. 46. tom. viii. p. 13.): Baptismum in aqua nihil cuiquam
perhibent salutis afferre: nee quemquam eorum, quos decipiunt, baptizandum
putant. And (contra duas Epistt. Pelagianor. L. ii. c. 2. tom. x. p. 286.): Ma-
nichaei lavacrum regenerationis, id est, aquam ipsam dicunt esse supcrfluam, nee
prodesse aliquid profano corde contendunt. And, (same work, L. iv. c. 4. p. 310.) :
Quid eis (Pelagianis) prodest Baptismum omnibus aetatibus necessarium conO-
teri, quod Manichaei dicunt in omni aetate superfluum. And, (contra litteras
Petiliani, L. iii. c. 17. tom. ix. p. 208, 209.) Petelian having supposed, that bap-
tism was conferred on the Manichaean Auditors, Augustine confutes him thus :
Petilianus, quod ei placet de illorum (Manichaeorum) baptisrao dicat et siribat,
nesciens, aut nescire se fingens, non illic ita appellari catechumenos, tanquam
eis baptismus quandoque debeatur. Those learned men, who infer from these
and some similar passages, that the Manichaeans held all baptism in abhorrence,
see in the passages more than they really contain. Augustine merely says, that
the Manichaeans did not baptize those who came over to their church, and that
they accounted baptism to be a mere ceremony. And this may be substantiated,
not only from Augustine, but from the language of Manes himself, (in the Acta
Disput. Archelai, \ 50. p. 94.) In a discussion respecting the baptism of Christ,
Archelaus uses this language to Manes: Baptisma si non est, ncc erit remissio
peccatorum, sed in suis peccatis unusquisque morietur. Manes, on hearing this, is
surprised, and asks with astonishment: Ergo baptisma propter remissionem pec-
catorum datur? This was as much as to say: You tell me something new and
unheard of; that sins are forgiven through the medium of baptism. He there-
fore disbelieved the saving influence of baptism. Archelaus replied to his
question ; Etiam : this is my opinion. And Manes craftily uses this answer, to
disprove the baptism of Christ, and says: Ergo peccavit Christus, si baptizatus
est? — Fe//a: the Manichaean, in the passage recently quoted, seems, indeed, to
admit, that there is some virtue in baptism against the Prince of evil. But
learned men have long since remarked, that Felix was not perfectly acquainted
with the religion he professed : and the testimony of the master is doubtless of
more weight than that of the disciple.
Thirdly : But if any of the Elect wished to be baptized, it was conceded to
them. But no Auditor could receive baptism. These propositions will he clear
and beyond all controversy, if it can be shown, — I. that, among iManichaians, in-
fants were not received into the church by baptism; — II. that the Auditors were
not admitted to baptism : — and III. that all tlie Elect were not baptized, l)ut it
was left optional with each of them, to receive baptism or not. — I. Beau- [p. 891.]
sobre, among others, (vol. ii. p. 718 &.c.) maintains, that all Manichajans, indis-
394 Century III. — Section 54.
criminately, and infants in particular, were baptized with water. In proof of this
opinion, a certain passage of Augustine is adduced, and then the language of
Manes himself is appealed to. Augustine, in his work opposed to two Epistles
of Pelagius, (L. iv. c. 3. 0pp. torn. x. p. 309.) seems to say, that Manes believed
infixnts to need a Saviour. He says: Quapropter utrosque (the Pelagians and
Manichseans) damnat atque devitat, quisquis secundum regulam catholica; fidei
sic in hominibus nascentibus, de bona creaturii carnis et animse glorificat Crea-
torem, quod non vult Manichteus: ut tamen propter vilium, quod in eos per
peccatum prinii hominis pertransiit, fateatur et parvulis necessarium Salvatorem,
quod non vult Pelagius. In the last clause of this passage, some of the learned
think, Augustine expounds the opinion of the Manieha3ans. But this is much
to be doubted. For, from what Pelagius denied, that inflints need a Saviour,
it never can be inferred that the Manichaeans believed the contrary. But, sup-
pose it was as learned men think, and that Manes, according to the testimony
of Augustine, believed that infants need a Saviour, (which, however, for several
reasons, is not credible,) what inference can be drawn from it ? Can we reason
thus: Manes believed infants to need a Saviour, and therefore Manes required
infants to be baptized? 1 think not. For the first proposition may be true, and
yet the second be false. — A stronger argument for their purpose, seems to be
found in the language of Manes in his Epistle to his daughter Henoch, (apud
Augustinum, Opere imperf. contra Julianum, L. iii. ^ 187. torn. ii. p. 833.) : Qui
(the Catholic Christians) his verbis mihi interrogandi sunt: Si omne malum
actuale est ; ante quam malum quispiara agat, quare accipit purificationem aquae,
cum nullum malum egerit per se? Aut si necdum egit et purificandus
est, licet eos naturaliter raalae stirpis pullulationem ostendere, illos ipsos quos
amentia non sinit intelligere neque quae dicunt, neque de quibus affirmant. A
person, on reading this passage cursorily, might easily f^ill into the belief, that
Manes here supposes {'purificationem aqucc) baptism, to be needful and salutary
to infants ; but on a closer inspection, he will change his opinion. Manes here
argues ad hominem, xar' afS-paTov, as logicians say, from the belief of his adver-
saries, and not from his own belief; and his argument is this : You Catholics
unwillingly establish what I teach, namely, that evil is not, as you say, a nega-
tive thing, or nothing, (nihil; as Secundinus, in his Epistle to Augustine, p. 369.
explains his opinion of original sin,) but something actually existing and present
in mankind. For, you baptize infants, before they have done anything evil, in
order, as you say, to purify them. And thereby, you admit that evil really ex-
[p. 892.] ists in infants, before they have acted any evil, and that they are
(malcc stirpis pullulatio) the sprout of an evil root, or in a certain sense belong
to the Prince of darkness, and are the work of his hands. And in this manner
Julian, a Pelagian, who was opposing Augustine, understood this passage of
Manes. He says: Audis (Augustine,) quomodo convinciatur nobis (Manes) ?
Amentes vocat, nee intelligentes vel quas dicamus, vel quaj affirmemus, qui malae
stirpis pullulationem negemus, cum baptizemus etiam eos purificante aqua, qui
nullum malum egerint, id est, parvulos. Manes, therefore, was laboring to con-
fute the Catholics on their own principles, and not on his ! — II. That the Audi-
tors^ or the imperfect among the Manichaeans, were not admitted to baptism, is
Ba2Jtism among Manichccans. 395
clearly taught by Augustine; who was one of their Auditors nine years, and
therefore, a most competent witness. In his work, contra Epistolum Petiiiani
(c. 17. toni. i.v. p. 208, 209.) he most explicitly tenches, that Auditors among the
Manichiieans were not admissible to baptism, or that it was not their cu.stoni to
baptize them. And the same thing is manifest from the very ancient work en-
titled, Commonitorium, quomodo ngendum sit cum Manichseis qui convertuntur
usually ascribed to Augustine, and printed with his works, (torn. viii. Appendi.x,
p. 34.) For we clearly lenrn from it. that Maniciiaaan Auditors, when they went
over to the Orthodox Christians, were admitted to the rank of Catechumens, th:it
is, such as had not yet been baptized; but if any of their Elect, who hud received
baptism among the Manichajans, were converted, they were enrolled among the
Penitents, or such as did not need baptism. Unusquisque (of the converted
Manichaeans,) det (to the bishop) libellum confessionis et pcrnitentiaj sua atque
anathematis, petens in ecclesia vel Catechumini, (that is, if he had been an Au-
dilor among the Manichaeans ; as appears incontrovertibly by what follows :)
vel Pceniteniis, (that is, if he had been one of the baptized Elect; which also will
be put beyond all doubt, by what I shall presently quote,) locum. - - - Nee
facile admittantur ad baptismum, si Catechumeni sunt, (Therefore the Auditors
were unbaptized persons, whose place among Christians was that of Catechu-
mens,) nee ad reconciliationem, si poenitentiae locum acceperint, (For to the Elect
who had been baptized among the Manichceans, the church did not deem baptism
to be necessary, but only reconciliation or admission to fellowship,) nisi periculo
mortis, urgent vel si eosaliquanto tempore probatos esse, cognoverit episcopus. — III.
All the Elect among Manichaeans did not receive baptism, but only such as re-
quested it. This also is demonstrated by the same Commonitorium, which ma-
nifestly discriminates between the bnptized and the unbaptized Elect: Electis
vero eorum, qui se converti dicunt ad Catholicam (idem, etiamsi et ipsi luTresim
anathemaverint, non facile dandae sunt littera3, sed cum Dei servis esse debebunt,
sive Clericis, sive Laicis in monasterio, donee appareant penitus ipsa supersti-
tione caruisse : et tunc vel baptizentur, si non fuerint baptizati (Therefore, all
the Elect were not baptized,) vel reconcilientur, si (being already baptized)
poenitentiae locum acceperint.
Fourthly: Such of the Elect as chose to be baptized, must remain in [p. 893.]
the class of the Elect, and might not change their manner of life. The mode of
life prescribed to the Elect, was, as we have seen, exceedingly severe and dis-
agreeable ; and those who found by experience, that they could not endure its
rigors, might pass over to the class of Auditors, who were subjected to a much
milder law. But those who received baptism, deprived themselves of this privi-
lege, and might in no case recede from their adopted rule of life. This, if I do
not wholly misapprehend, is confirmed by Augustine, (de moribus ecclesias et
Manichaeor. L. i. c. 35. tom. i. p. 631, 532.) : Quid calumniamini (vos Mani-
cha3i), quod fideles jam baptismate renovati procreare filios, et agros ac doaios,
pecuniamque uUam posidere non debeant? Permittit hoc Paulus. According
to the Manichaean principles, baptized persons were perpetually bound exclu-
Bively to the rigorous rules of the Elect, which forbid their i)rocreatiiig chihiren,
or possessing any property whatever. But we have shown, tiiat all the Elect
896 Century Ill.—Seciion 54.
did not receive, baptism : we must therefore conclude, that such ones might re-
linquish that rule of life. And this, doubtless, was the reason why all the
Elect did not desire baptism.
With what forms and rites the Manichaeans baptized their Elect, who were
doubtless esteemed holier and better than other people, no one of the ancients
has informed us : for this was a part of the sacred arcana of the sect. But
learned men very justly suppose, they baptized with water, and in the name of
the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We have already seen, from the Commoni-
torium ascribed to Augustine, that the baptized Elect were admitted, by the
Latin church, among- Penitents, and were not to be again baptized. And this is
confirmed by an Epistle of Leo the Great, (Epist. viii. ad episcopos per Italiam,
torn. i. p. 215.) in which he writes that he, de voragine impietatis suae confessos,
pcenitentiam concedendo, levasse certain Manichaean doctors, whom he found
at Rome : and he makes no mention whatever of a renewed baptism. It is
also confirmed more distinctly, by the prayers of Augustine, at the close of his
book de natura boni, (c. 28. p. 368.) where he says : Dona nobis, Deus, ut per
nostrum ministerium, sicut jam muiti (Manichaeorum) iiberati .sunt, et alii libe-
rcntur, et sive per sacramentum sancii baptismi tui, sive per sacrificium contribu-
lati .spiritus et cordis contriti et humiliati in dolore pcenilentioe, remissionem
peccatorum accipere mereantur. These sentiments accord exactly with the
Commonilorinm. Some Manichaeans were received into the ciiurch, by bap-
tism ; and others, without baptism, by mere penitence, Novv, if this was the
fact, the two following things were undoubtedly true -.first, that not all, but only
some Manichaeans had been baptized : and secondly, that the Manichaeans who
had received Manichaean baptism, were not again baptized, but were merely
I p. 894.] purified by penitence. The Latin church accounted Manichaean baptism
legitimate and valid. But how could th'^y so esteem it, if the Manichaeans bap-
tized in a way and manner different fiora that prescribed by Christ to his fol-
lowers 1 For the Latins accounted all baptisms vain and useless, in which any
other substance than water was employed, or in which the names of the Father,
Son and Holy Spirit were not used. I therefore suppose, Turibius, (a Spanish
bishop of Astorga.) must have been misled by rumor or misapprehension, when,
in an Epistle published among the Epistles of Leo the Great, (tom. i. p. 232.")
he states that the Manichaeans baptized with oil.
(3) The passages from Felix the Manichaean, and Augustine, which I re-
cently quoted, when treating of baptism and the sacred rites of tiie Elect, de-
monstrate that the Elect, and they only, among the Manichgeans, celebrated the
holy supper. Augustine, who had been only an Auditor, did not know, what
the Elect might receive in the holy supper, or in what manner the supper was
administered. This portion of the secret worship of the Manichaeans, therefore,
lies wholly in the dark. Some learned men have conjectured, that they used
water instead of wine ; because it was not lawful for the Elect to drink wine :
but they might also use oil, in wuieh they supposed much celestial matter to be
latent. Among the ancients there were men of high authority, such as Cyrill
of Jerusalem, Augustine, and Leo the Great, not to mention several of less
character and fame, who report that, in the sacred supper, flour or figs sprinkled
Tlie Lord's Supper among them. 397
witli human semen was presented to the Elect to be swallowed. Says Ani^ux.
iine, (de hteres. c. 46. p. 11.): Qua oecasione vel potius excerabilis cujusdara
superstitionis necessitate, coguntur Electi eorum velut EucharisMain (the flour:
which Cyrill calls 11 fig, or a dried fg, Cateches. vi. p. 110.) conspersain cum
semine humano sumere, ut etiam inde, sicut de aliis cibis, quos accipiunt, sub-
stantia ilia divina puroetur. There are other passages of Avgnstine, in which
he states this grave charge more fully : but they need not be cited. The very
learned patron of the Manicha:^ans, Deausobre, (in the close of the second vol-
ume of his History of the Manicha3ans,) inquires very fully, and with much zeal
and ingenuit}^ into the truth of this accusation; and, after weighing with (M-cat
care all the arguments and testimonies, he pronounces it to be a fabricated
falsehood. I think the business may be accomplished in a more summary man-
ner. In the first place, the Manichccans do not deny, that tliere was an infa-
mous and filthy set of people, who defiled themselves with such a ceremony ;
but they most strenuously repel the base charge from their sect. Augustine
(loco cit.) says : Sed hoc se facere negant, et alios nescio quos sub nomine Ma-
nichaeorum flicere affirmant. And a little after, he says, that a certain Mani-
chaean, named Viator, declared before a judicial court, that they ivho did those
things, were called Catharista:. ; that they originated from the Manichasans, and
used Manichasan books, yet were a distinct people from the genuine [p. 895.]
Manichffians. In another place, (de natura boni, c. 47. p. 367.) he says : Isti
autem cum hoc eis objicitur, solent respondere, nescio quem inimicum suum de
numero suo, hoc est, Electorum suorum, descivisse et schisma fecisse, atque
hujusmodi spurcissimamliEeresininfecisse. In my judgment, confidence in this
matter is to be reposed in the Manichaeans, who best understood their own af-
fairs. Some one may say : What the Manichseans admit, namely, that some
among them, bearing the name of Manichaeans, were guilty of that obscene
conduct, may be believed ; because no reason can be assigned, why they should
fabricate such a story. But the other part, that true Manichaeans abhorred such
conduct, cannot with equal safety be believed. I, however, maintain, that the
latter also may be received as true ; and this, on the authority of Augustine
himself. For he, although he labors in several passages to make it appear, by
arguments and testimony, that the Manichaeans were not so innocent in this
matter, as they wished to be accounted, yet in other places, he hesitates, fluctu-
ates, and shows plainly, that he had nothing certain to guide him. And this,
in my judgment, is sufficient to establish the testimony of the Manichaeans
respecting themselves. Fortiinatus the Manichaean, publicly demanded of i4M-
gustine, either to prove the truth of the stories in circulation respecting the
sacred supper of the Manichaeans, or to admit their falsehood. He says, (torn,
viii. p. 68.) : Falsis criminibus pulsamur. Ex te ergo praesentes audiant boni
viri, utrum sint vera, super quibus criminamur et appetimin-, an sint fals.i.
Etenim ex tua doctrina, et ex tua cxpositione et ostensione poterunt vcrius
scire nostram conversationem, si a te fuerit prodita. Augustine showed fore-
sight and caution by declining the task assigned him by the Manichaean ; and
his first reply is, that the question before them did not relate to the morals of
the Manichaeans, but to their faith. But Fortunatus still pcrsiHts, and bays,
3y3 Century III. — Section 55.
that it is necessary, before discussing the creed of the Manichacans, to investi-
gate their moral character, which appeared to many to be most base. When
driven to extremity, Avgusline acknowledges, that he has no certain knowledge
of the morals of the Manichaeau Elect. He knew, indeed, that the Elect at-
tended the sacred supper; but what they received there, he did not know: Eu-
charistiam audivi quod accipiatis : quid vero accipiatis, unde nosse potui? This
ingenuous acknowledgment of his ignorance, destroys all the force of those
passages, in which he boldly and confidently charges the Manichaeans with the
shameful conduct above mentioned. In another place, where he is professedly
inquiring what there is reprehensible in the morals and usages of the Manichae-
ans, (de moribus Manichaeorum, L. ii. c. 19. torn. 1. p. 551.) he again very
timidly and cautiously touches this subject : Quia non possunt ab Auditoribus
vestris talia semina (hominum et animalium) vobis purganda offerri, quis non
suspicelur^ (So the whole thing rests on suspicion!) secretam de vobis ipsis
[p. 896.J inter vos fieri talera purgationem, et ideo illis ne vos deserant, occul-
tari ? Quae si non tacitis, quod uti nam ita sit. (Who can suppose the man
who so speaks, is stating well ascertained facts?) Videtis tamen quantae sus-
picioni vestra superstitio pateat, et quam non sit hominibus succensendum id
opinantibus, quod de vestra professione colligitur, cum vos aniraam per escam
et potum de corporibus et sensibus liberare praedicatis. Nolo hie diutius im-
morari : et videtis, quantus sit invectionis locus. Sed res talis est, ut eam po-
tius reformidet quam insectetur, oratio. Thus wrote Augustine^ in a calm and
tranquil state of mind. When warmed by passion, he speaks more confidently.
But the utterance of the sober mind, refutes the declarations of the impassioned
mind.
§ LY. Constitution of the Manichaean Church. Tlie organization
of the community established by Manes, was peculiar. Over the
whole community an individual presided, who represented Jesus
Christ. Next to him were twelve Magistri, representing the
twelve Apostles. After them came seventy-two Bishops, corres-
ponding with the seventy-two disciples of Christ. To the several
Bishops were subject the Presbyters and Deacons. All these be-
longed to the class of the Elect, and were the head men of the
sect.(') The members of the community were divided into two
classes, the Elect or Perfect, and the Auditors, who were also called
Catechumens. The Elect were subjected to a severe and uncom-
fortable rule of life, and consequently were held in very high
veneration. They were of two descriptions, the haptized and the
unhaptized. The baptized could never change their condition ; but
the unbaptized, if they found themselves utterly unable to en-
dure the rigorous discipline of the Elect, might descend to the
rank of Auditors^ who were allowed to live and act with greater
freedom.(*)
Constitution of the Minichccan Church. 399
(1) On the constitution of the Manichsean church, there is only one passage
to be cited from Augustine^ (de Hierts. c. 46. p. 13.): Ipse Manichajua duode-
cim discipulos habuit, ad instar Apoatolici numeri, quern numerum Manicliail
hodicque custodiunt. Nam ex Eleetis suis habent duodecim, quos appi-lhint
Magistrus et tertiuni decimum principem ipsorum: episcopos auteui sepiuaijinta
duos, qui ordinantur a Magistris: Et preshyteros, qui ordinantur ab epi.scopis.
Habent etiam episcopi diaconos. I could wish Augusliue had described wilh
more particularity the constitution of the Manichaean community, had named
the place wiiere the head of the sect and the Magistri resided, and had informed
us what were the powers and duties of the several orders of the clergy, [p. 897.]
how they were inducted into office, «fcc. But I suppose that, being only an
Auditor, he did not himself know these things, as they pertained to the sacred
arcana of the sect, and to the interior discipline of the Elect. It is probable,
that the head of the sect and the college of the Magisiri resided in some city
of Persia; for the sect originated in Persia, and its founder was a Persian. But
in the times of Augustine, the severe laws of the emperors, which are now ex-
tant in the Codex Theodosianus, were in force against the Manichaeans; and
therefore, undoubtedly, they concealed the residence of their chief, and the other
things from which the internal state of the sect might be known. — The Mani-
chaeans, then, had a supreme Pontiff; though by what title he was designated,
is not known ; for the term Princeps used by Augustine, was not probably his
true title. I conjecture that, as Manes himself assumed tlie appellation of
Apostle of Jesus Christ, the same appellation was transmitted to his successors.
With the Pontiff was associated a college of twelve Magistri: but whether they
were dispersed in various places, or all resided near the Pontiff, does not appear.
The PontifT, I suppose, was elected and consecrated by the Magistri; and he,
in return, appointed and consecrated the Magisiri. In what way the Bishops
were created, does not appear: but they could be installed only by the Magisiri;
and afterwards they installed the Presbyters. The Bishops seem to have se-
lected the Deacons, and to have inducted them into office. Diverse from all
these, yet doubtless belonging to the sacred order, were the Evangelists, as we
may call them, or those whose office it was to extend and propagate the sect;
but what title the Manichaeans gave to them, I do not know. They were the
more distinguished among the Elect for talents, ability, and zeal. Says Augus-
tine, (loc. cit. p. 13.): Mittuntur etiam ipsi, qui videntur idonei ad hunc errorem,
vel ubi est, sustentandum et augendum, vel ubi non est, etiam seminandiun.
The electing and commissioning of them, undoubtedly belonged to the head of
the sect.
(2) That Manes divided the members of his community into two classes,
the Elect and the Auditors, is a fact well known. Says Augustine, (de Haeres.
c. 46. p. 11.): Electi Manichaeorum sanctius vivunt et excellentius Auditoribus
suis. Nam his duabus professionibus, hoc est, Electorum et Auditorum, cccle-
siam suam constare voluerunt. Some suppose, that Manes borrowed this classi-
fication from the Pythagorean school; which was composed of the Mathnnatici
and the Acusmatici (dxouo-^artjtot), the former corresponding with the Elect, and
the latter with the Auditors. I am persuaded that this Persian, who was doubU
400 Century III. — Section 55,
less ignorant of Pythagoras, followed in this matter his instrueters, the MagL
Eubulus, in his history of Mithra, (apud Porphyrium de abstinentia a carnibus,
L. iv. 5 16. p. 165.) besides others, testifies that the Magi were distributed into
[p. 898.] three chisses: Primi et doctissimi neque edebant animalia, neque neca-
bant: These were very similar to the Elect among the Maniehaeans. Seeundi
ordinis Magi animantes interficiebant quidem, sed nullas cicures : That is, they
slew the noxious animals, or such as were injurious to mankind, but spared the
useful animals. Nor was it wholly unlawful for the Manichaean Auditors to
slay those animals which endanger the lives of men, such as serpents, field-mice,
and scorpions: these, however, according to the testimony of Augustine, (de
moribus Manichaeor. L. ii. c. 18. tom. i. p. 550.) they supposed not to be real
animals, but to originate from the dead bodies of men. Tertii generis Manichcci
(Magi?) quaedam quidem animalia edebant, sed non omnia. There are several
things which go to show, that the Manichaean Auditors were also forbidden to
eat certain animals.
The Elect, as Theodoret testifies, (Haeret. Fabul. L. i. c. 26.) were likewise
called TtKuoh the Perfect; because they appeared to obey the whole of the law
which was considered ics enjoined by Christ. And, althougli they were not all
priests, yet they were all compared to the Jewish priests, and were generally
called priests, and the priestly order. Thus Faustiis, (L. xxx. c. 1. p. 316.):
Nos quidem solum in plebe sacerdotale hominum genus censemus a carnibus
abstinere debere. Perhaps Faustus likewise used the word Fidelium; for Au-
gustine often calls them fideles : e. g. (de morib. ecclesiae cathol. L. i. c. 35.
p. 632.): Nolite dicere catechumenis uti licere conjugibus, jidelihus autem non
licere: catechumenis licere habere pecuniam,7it/<^ZiJws autem non licere. — Tyrho,
(in the Acta Archelai, \ 9. p. 16.) is the first that gives the appellation Catechu-
mens to the Auditors. After him, Epiphanius several times designates them by
this appellation. But some learned men disapprove the term : they think that
the term Catechumens, which was appropriate to Catholic Christians, is indis-
creetly applied to a class of persons very different from Catechumens. But
Tyrho, and those who followed him, committed no mistake. For Augustine,
once himself an Auditor, and therefore a very competent witness, informs us
that the title of Catechwnens was applied, even among the Maniehaeans, to the
Auditors. I have just cited from him a passage which proves it. But I will
add one still clearer and more irrefragable, (contra litteras Petiliani, L. iii. c. 17.
p. 208, 209.): Nescit (Petilianus,) non illic, (among Maniehaeans,) ita appelhui
Catechumenos, tanquam eis baptismus quandoque debeatur, (for Petilian had
supposed, that the Manichaean Catechumens, like those of other Christians,
were to be baptized,) sed eos hoc vocari, qui etiam Auditores vocantur, quod vi-
delicet tanquam meliora et majora praecepta observare non possint, quae obser-
vantur ab eis, quos Electorum nomine discernendos et honorandos putant. —
They were also called Seculars; because they might engage in secular business.
[p. 899.] Faustus, (L. xvi. c. 6. p. 204.): Judaci Christo credere non poterant,
indiflferentiam docenti ciborum, et a suis quidem discipulis (the Elect,) omnia
penitus removenti, ssecularibus vero (to the Auditors,) vulgo concedenti omnia
quae possent edi.
Constitution of the Manichccan Church. 401
The number of the Elect was smcall. It would ;\ppo:ir from tlio Ada Arche-
lai^ Q 10. p. 19.) that DIanes was attended by only seven: Praecipit Eloctis suis
8olis, qui non sunt amplius, quam septem numcro. But I must coiilesH, this tes-
timony appears to me doubtful. For in the same Acla^ a little after, (J 12. p. 23.)
Manes is said to have arrived, adducens sccum juvenes ct virgiucs electos ad
viginti duo simul. Besides, it is beyond all controversy that Manes, after the
exanipio of Christ, had twelve disciples of the highest order, or twelve Apostles-
and these were undoubtedly of the class of the Elect. I suspect that the seven
whom Ty?-bo calls Elect, were Magistri; and that Manes, iii that time, could
find no more of the Elect worthy of being thus promoted. The smallness of
the number of the Elect will not appear strange, to one who considers what we
have frequently shown, that the Elect were obliged to lead a very uncomfortable
and cheerless life. For as they must live in perfect inactivity, and must so re-
frain from all labor and business as not even to pull up an herb or pluck an
apple, without sinning; this very inactivity was more painful and disngreoable
than the most busy and active life. They were prohibited from everything that
can delight the senses, exhilarate the mind, or give pleasure to the body, except
only music. In part, these disagreeables were relieved by the high veneration
in which they were held. For they were addressed, as Deities are, on bended
knees. Thus Augustine, (Epist. ccxxxvii. ad Deuterium, torn. ii. p. 643.) : Au-
ditores qui appellantur apud eos et carnibes vescuntur, et agros colunt, et, si
voluerint, uxores habent, quorum nihil faciunt qui vocantur Electi. Scd ipsi
Auditores ante Electos genua figunt, ut eis manus supplicibus imponantur, non
a soils presbyteris, vel episcopis aut diaconibus eorum, sed a quibuslibet Electis.
Therefore, although the bishops, presbyters, and deacons, were higher in rank
or dignity, yet all the Elect were supposed to possess equal sanctity, and the
power of conferring celestial gifts on the Auditors. As they were entirely
penniless, and could neither possess anything nor supply their wants by labor,
it was necessary that the Auditors should furnish them with salads, potherbs,
fruits, melons, bread, &c. for their sustenance; and whoever neglected this duty,
was deemed guilty of atrocious sin, and deserving the flames of hell. And
hence the Auditors were always ready and willing to present to the Elect what-
ever they needed ; and frequently they brought to them more than they wanted.
Says Tyrho, (in the Acta Archelai, p. 16.): Si quid optimum est in escis (those,
namely, which the Elect might lawfully eat,) offerunt illud Electis. But this
very liberality of the Auditors frequently became onerous to the Elect : for,
whatever the Auditors presented to them, was considered as consecrated, [p. 900.]
And therefore could neither be eaten by any other persons, nor be thrown away.
And hence the Elect had to load their stomachs immoderately, whenever a large
quantity of food was offered them ; or the boys whom they had under instruc-
tion, were compelled to eat what their masters were unable to consume. Au.
gustine, (de moribus eccles. et Manichaeor. L. ii. c. 16. p. 527.): Quae vobis
quasi purganda afferuntur, (Manes supposed some portion of the divine and
celestial substance was combined with all natural objects ; and that the conti-
nence, the chastity, and the sanctity of the Elect, caused all that was celestial
and divine in the things they ate, to be at once separated from sordid matter,
VOL. ir. 27
402 Century Ill—Section 55.
and so to return to tlie world of light. Therefore Augustine says:) Quod ea,
qua3 vobis quasi purg-anda atferuntur ad epulas, nefas putatis, si quis alius, prai-
ter Electos, ad cibandiim tetiorerit, quantae turpitudinis et aliquando sceleria
plenum est ? Si quidem sacpe tam multa dantur, ut consumi facile a paueis non
possint. Et quoniam sacrilegium putatur, vel aliis dare quod redundat, vel
certe abjieere, in magnas contrudimini cruditates, totum quod datum est quasi
purg;ire cupiontes. Jam vero distenti et prope crepantes, eos, qui sub vestra
disciplina sunt, pueros ad devorandum reliqua crudeli dominatione compellitis:
ita, ut euidam sit Romae objectum, quod miseros parvulos cogendo ad vescendum
tali superstitione necaverit. Quod non crederem, nisi scirem. quantum ncfaa
esse arbitremini, vel aliis haec dare, qui Electi non sunt, vel eerta projicienda
curare. Unde ilia vescendi necessitas restat, quae ad turpissimam cruditatem
paene quotidie, aliquando tamen potest et usque ad homicidium pervenire. This
is a memorable passage on several accounts, and particularly as teaching us,
what we nowhere else Jearn, that the Elect occupied themselves to some extent
in teaching and training up boys. These boys, undoubtedly, were devoted by
their parents to the mode of life prescribed to the Elect. For the sanctity of the
Elect being held in the highest estimation, and their souls being supposed to go
directly to the celestial world on leaving the body, it was a common thing for
parents, influenced by affection and superstition, to commit their children to the
training of ,the Electa so that they might become habituated to their harsh and
cheerless mode of life, and be imbued with sound religious knowledge. And if
any one ask, how we know that these boys were consecrated to tlie life of the
Elect ; I answer, we may infer it from the nature of the case. These boys were
compelled to eat the surplus food of the Elect: but no one of the profane or
the Auditors might touch the food that had been presented to the Elect: there-
fore these boys must have been of the class of the Electa or were destined to
belong to that order. The instruction and education of boys not aspiring to
the highest degree of sanctity, was deemed beneath the dignity of such very
great men, and was therefore intrusted to the Auditors. — Before the Elect ate
the bread presented to them, (and, I suppose, it was the same if other food was
offered them,) they called both God and men to witness, that they had no con-
cern with the sins committed in the production of that bread. For the Mani-
[p. 901.] chaeans believed, that those who till the ground, reap the corn, grind
it, or bake the bread, commit a sin not unlike homicide ; because, as they sup-
posed, this whole material universe is full of celestial and animated matter.
The Elect also added prayers for the Auditors who presented the bread, that
God would pardon the sin committed in making the bread. This custom is
mentioned by Cyrill of Jerusalem, (Cateches. vi. \ 32. p. 108. edit. Bened.) But
he speaks in too invidious a manner: for he tells us, the Elect imprecated curses
instead of blessings, on the Auditors who presented to them the bread ; nay
that they blasphemed God himself. Now this is in itself incredible, and it is at
variance with the fundamental precepts of the Manichaean religion. I choose,
therefore, to explain the subject by the language of Tyrho, (in the Acta Arche-
lai, \ 9. p. 16.) with whom Epiphanius and Titus of Bostra agree: Cum volue-
rint manducare panem, orant primo, ista dicentes ad panem: Neque ego te
Constitution of the Manichccan Church. 403
messui, neqiie molui, noque tribulavi, noc in clibanuin te niisi, alius tc fecit ct
detulit te mihi, ego innocenter te inanduco. Et cum intra setnetipsum haec
dixerit, respondit ad eum, qui ei detulit: Onivi pro te, et ille discedit ita. Tiieso
things were superstitious; but they will be readily credited, by one acquainted
with the Manichaean system. After eating, the Elect again prayed; and then
anointed their head with consecrated oil, for the purpose, 1 suppo^^e, of cxpellinfr
or enervating the virus of the evil matter combined with the celestial in the
food. Says Tijvbo, (loc. cit, p. 19.): Praecipit autem (Manes) Electis suis so-
lis, ut cum desinerint manducantes, orarent, et mitterent oleum super caput ex-
orcidiatum, invocatis nominibus plurimis (either of iEons, the good spirits, or of
the bad ones,) ad confirmationem fidei hujus. But all this pertained to the
arcane discipline: hence, Tyrho adds: Nomina tamcn mihi non manifcstavit,
{Tyrho being only an Auditor^) soli enim Electi his utuntur nominibus.
The AiuUtors had little that was peculiar in their mode of living. Says Au'
gustine, (contra Faust. L. xx. c. 23. p. 248.): Cum Auditorcs vestri ct uxores
habeant, et filios, quamvis inviti, suscipiant, eisque patrimonia congerant vel
custodiant, carne vescantur, vinum bibant, lavent, metant, vindemient, negoti-
entur, honores publicos administrent, vobiscum tamen eos, non cum gentibus,
computatis. But this liberty was circumscribed by some limitations ; neither
was everything lawful for Manichaean Auditors, which was permitted by other
Christians. — First : Although they might possess houses and lands, which they
received by inheritance or by gift; yet, to build houses, or to labor for the ac-
quisition or increase of property, was accounted a great iniquity. This has
been already shown. The poorer a person was, and the less he cared about
wealth, the more happy was he considered. — Secondly: It was lawful for them
to eat the flesh of animals, though doubtless, with moderation: but to kill or
slaughter animals, was criminal. The reason has been already stated. — [p. 902.]
Thirdly : They were not forbidden to marry : but they were instructed by their
teachers, to avoid as far as possible the begetting of children. Nearly all wri-
ters on their affairs, tax them with this. Tlius Titus of Bostra, EpiphaniuSy
Theodoret, and others ; but no one more frequently, or more expressly and ve-
hemently, than Augustine. T will cite some of his most noticeable passages ;
and they will show us, what precepts they gave for avoiding the procreation of
children. The first is, (de Haeres. c. 46. p. 12, 13.) : Monent Auditores suos,
si utuntur conjugibus, conceptum tamen generationemque devitent, ne divina
substantia vinculis carneis ligetur in prole. Another is, (contra Faustum, L.
XXX. c. 6. p. 318.) : Vos eum praecipue concubitum detestamini, qui solus hones-
tus et conjugalis est, et quern matrimoniales quoque tabulae prac se gerunt, li-
berorum procreandorum caussa : unde vere non tam concumbere, quam nubere
prohibetis. Concumbitur enim etiam caussa libidinum, nubitur autem non nisi fili-
orum. A third passage is, (contra Faust. L. xxii. c. 30. p. 270.) : Perversa lex
Manichaeorum, ne Deus eorum, quem ligatum in omnibus seminibus plangunt
(that is, souls, those particles of the divine light or nature,) in conceptu feniinae
arctius colligetur, prolem ante omnia devitari a concumbentibus jubet, ut Deus
eorum turpi lapsu potius effundatur, quam crudeli nexu vinciatur. There is a
passage still more full and explicit, (de moribus Manichacor. L. ii. c. 18. p. bbl.):
404 Century Ill.—Section 56.
Noniie vos estis, (Manichaei,) qui filios gignere, eo quod animae ligentur in
carne, gravius putatis esse pcccatum, quam ipsum concubitum ? Nonne vos es-
tis, qui nos (Auditores) solebatis nionere, ut, quantum fieri posset, observarenius
tempus, quo ad eonceptuni mulier post genitalium viscerum purgationeni apta
esset; eoque tempore a eoncubitu temperaremus, ne carni anima implicaretur ?
Ex quo illud sequitur, ut non liberorum procreandorum causs^, sed satiandae
libidinis habere conjugem censeatis. Whatever some learned men, the advocates
of the Manichaeans, may say on this subject, 1 can never persuade myself that
Augustine has fabriatcd all these charges unjustly ; and especially, as he is sup-
ported by other writers, and by the primary doctrines of the sect. Yet Augus-
tine himself acknowledges, that the procreation of children was tolerated among
the Manichaeans, and that no penalties were inflicted on the fathers and mo-
thers : but still he maintains, that it was necessity that directed this lenity, and
that their doctrines condemned it. He says, (contra Faust. L. xxx. c.6. p. 318.) :
Nee ideo vos dicatis prohibere {legitimate marriage; which Augustine had
charged upon them,) quia multos vestros Auditores in hoc (in avoiding the pro-
creation of children,) obedire nolentes vel non valentes salva amicitia toleratis.
Illud enim habetis in doctrina vestri erroris, hoc in necessitate socictatis. — >
Fourthly : The Auditors were not required to observe so many fasts and vigils
as the Elect : only on Sundays or Lord's Days, all food and drink were strictly
forbidden, to them as well as to the Elect. I have already cited a passage from
[p. 903.] Augustine on this subject : and I will now add another, which has not
been noticed, (Epistle xxxv. c. 12. torn. ii. p. 60.) From this we learn, first,
the severity of this fast : Toto (enim) die Dominico usque ad medium noctis,
vel etiam usque ad diluculum, reficere corpora non curabant : and then also the
sanctity of this fost: Impiissimi Manichaei jejunia diei Uominicae non aliqua
necessitate occurrente peragere, sed quasi sacra solennitate statuta dogmatizare
coeperunt, et innotuerunt populis Christianis. — None of the ancients has ac-
quainted us with any other rules obligatory on the Auditors, except those of
kneeling before the Elect, feeding them, and paying them reverence.
§ LVI. The Sect of the Hieracites. The Manichaeans were
early divided into several sects : which is bj no means strange,
considering how many of their doctrines were vaguely stated.
Among these sects, many esteem that to be one, which was suc-
cessfully founded in Egypt by Hierax or Hieracas, an Egyptian
of Leonto, a learned man and a great writer, near the close of
the century. But this opinion is not supported by competent
testimony, nor by valid arguments. For although Hierax,
equally with Manes, opposed marriages, and enjoined on his fol-
lowers a severe code of morals, and perhaps also believed that
the source of all evil propensities and sins is to be found in mat
ter or the body ; yet in other respects he differed widely from
Manes : nor is there any testimony that he approved the funda-
i
The Sect of the Ilieracites. 405
mental principles which arc the basis of the Manichacan re-
ligion. {')
(1) Hierax^ or as some call him Hieracas, was not the least amoiifr those
who, in this century, disquieted the church with new opinions. For, near tho
close of the century, he founded a very considerable sect in Ejrypt, which con-
tinued after his death ; yet, as Epiplianius expressly states, (^ 3. p. 714.) it gra-
dually receded, as is common, from the severity prescribed by the founder.
Nearly all we know, at this day, respecting the man or his opinions, is derived
from Epiphanius ; whose Haercsis LX VII. is that of the Ilieracifes. From
him, Aiigusiitte and the other historians of the sects, derive all that they recount
to us respecting the Ilieracites. What we can learn from others, adds very lit-
tle to our knowledge, and perhaps does not all relate to this Ilierax. The man
was a native Egyptian of the town of Leonto : he was well versed in the Gre-
cian sciences, especially in medicine, and was well acquainted with the polite
learning and literature of both the Greeks aud the Egyptians: and his life and
habits, as Epiphanius, his adversary, testifies, (^ 1. p. 710.) v,'a» plane [p. 904.1
adniirabilis : dviip i^uttk^ktos tS dricyiTu. The sanctity of his life so captivated
the Egyptian Monks, that many of them joined his sect. By occupation, he was
a book maker ; that is, he wrote elegantly in both the Grecian and the Egyptian
characters, and obtained his living by transcribing books. Says Epiphanius^
(loc. cit. ^ 3. p. 712.) : 'Ewf tJij ^/^ifas, «? irtKivra inaWiypapti. KaWiypa^oi yap ^r.
Ad obitum usque libros descripsit ; calligraphus enim sen librarius erat. He
lived to a great age, and was vigorous when over ninety years old. Jle wrote
many books, especially commentaries on the books of the Bible, and in parti-
cular a History of the Creation of the World, or of the si.\ day's work of God-
He also composed and published some hymns.
Venerable as he was for his mode of life, his temperance, his chastity, and
his piety, he nevertheless deviated in many things from other christians, as
Epiphanius expressly states. Yet Epiphanius mentions and refutes only a few
of his opinions; and he is wholly silent as to the sources from which those
very base doctrines, as he terms them, flowed. Yet that the errors assailed by
Epiphanius, were only consequences from other and more general notions or
principles, is manifest. It is very embarrassing, that the early writers on the
affairs of christians, state only some portion of the doctrines advanced by the re-
ligious innovaters ; and that they give no account of the coherency of those
doctrines, and of the sources from which they originated. And hence the true
import of the errors mentioned, cannot be accurately determined or estimated ;
and learned men may, with no little plausibility, either censure or excuse the
authors of those errors. And hence the writers who treat of the Ilieracites are,
one and all, sterile and dry. IMost of them merely state, that Ilierax condemn-
ed marriages, and denied the resurrection of our bodies. And as Manes also
held these errors, some confidentially affirm, that Ilierax was one of the early
disciples of Manes. But I apprehend, something more may be said, and that
the alledged Manichaeism of the Hieracites may be completely disproved.
I. Those books of the Old and New Testament, which Christians regarded
406 Century Ill.—Section 5G.
divine, Hierax also received; and on some of tticm he wrote expositions. This
is expressly stated by iiis adversary, Epiphanius ; who adds, that he was well
acquainted with both Testaments. But his regard for the sacred books was
tarnished by two errors. For, Jirst, in addition to the sacred volume which all
Christians revere, he appears to have regarded some other books also as divine,
and books written by fallible men. For this we have the testimony of Epi-
phanius, a competent \Aitness in the case. He not only tells us that Hierax, in
support of his error concerning the Holy Spirit, (of which we shall speak here-
after.) placed special reliance on a passage from a book called the Ascension of
[p. 905.] Isaiah; but also quotes the passnge of that book, (§ 3. p. 712.) which
is evidence, among other facts, that Epiphanius actually saw and read the
books of Hierax. Of this book, the Ascension of Isaiah, Jo. Alb. Fahricius
treats, (in his Codex Pseudepigraphus Vet. Test. tom. I. p. 1086, &c.) — Se-
condly, abandoning the literal sense of the holy scriptures, and following the
example of Origcn, Hierax converted the historical narrations into moral fables
and allegories. See Epiphanius, (loc. cit. \ 3. p. 712.) This method of inter-
preting or rather perverting the sacred books, doubtless afforded him a very
convenient refuge against all the texts and arguments from the scriptures, in
opposition to his views : and perhaps also, it gave rise to some of his errors.
He may have been a disciple of Origen. — As Hierax held the Old Testament
to be equally inspired with the New, it is evident that he had nothing in com-
mon with Manes ;\vho maintained that the entire Old Testament was the work
of the Prince of darkness, and Moses a legate of the evil demon ; while Hierax
venerated Moses as a prophet of the most high God, according to Epiphanius,
(loe. cit. \ 1. p. 710.) Manes also taught that the New Testament is either false-
ly ascribed to the Apostles of Jesus Christ, or is entirely corrupted and vitiat-
ed. But here some learned men bring forward Alhanasius, who wrote, they
say, (in his Sermo contra omnes hsereses, \. 9. 0pp. tom. ii. p. 233. Edit. Bened.)
that Hierax, equally with Manes, discarded the Old Testament. For, disput-
ing with Hierax respecting marriage, he introduces Hierax as saying: 'AXXa n
>£>«/? i '*Ti ov J'i^ofAai T«v TtaXaiav (J'la^Hityiv). Quid vero dicis? Vetus testamen-
tum non admitto. But these learned men here err, through ignorance of the
system of Hierax. The sense of the passage is ; I do not admit the arguments
or dicta of the Old Testament, in this debate about marriage. Athanasius had
proved the divine origin of marriage from the Old Testament, and particularly
from the history of Adam and Eve. But Hierax conceded, as we shall soon
learn, that under the Old Testament, marriage was allowed to all ; but he con-
tended, that Jesus Christ, the giver of a more perfect law, had abolished this
liberty of marriage. He therefore replied to his antagonist : Your arguments
from the Old Testament, in this matter, prove nothing. But there are other
proofs, besides those already stated, from wliich it appears that Hierax detract-
ed nothing from the divinity of the Old Testament. He wrote expositions of
some of the books of the Old Testament, and in particular, a very copious ex-
planation of the history of the creation, or of the six day's work. And who will
believe, that a man would voluntarily expend so much labor in explaining a
book which he despised and rejected '? Moreover he taught, that Melchizedek
The Jllerac'ites. 407
wa« the Holy Spirit. lie therefore did not deny the divine inspiration of tiiat
book of Moses which contains the history of Melchizedc'lv.
II. Respecting God, and the three persons in one God, IHcrax was sound
and orthodox ; as Epiphaniiis clearly teaciies, Q 2. p. 1-21.) : l)c Patre, [p. yutJ.]
Filio et Spiritu sancto non eadem, quaj Origenes, sentit : quin potius et u Patre
Filiiini revere genitiiin, et Spiritiiin sanctum credit a Patre procedere. — IJut
liere again some learned men think to detract from his fame. For they find,
(npnd Epiphayiium, Uteres. l.\i.\. Arianor. § 7. p. 733: and, apud Alhanasiurn de
duabus Synodis, 5 15, Opp. torn, i. P. ii. p. 728 : and, apud Hilariinn de Trinitate
L. vi. § 5. Opp. p. 881.) an Epistle o^ Arms to Alexander the bishop of Alexan-
dria, in which he says that Hierax maintained, that the Son of God is, as it were,
lucernam e lucerna: kv^vov d-xd \6;^vov. aut lampadem in duas partes divisani :
wf \afx7rai'a tts iTyo. And he adds, that this idea of the generation of Christ was
publicly refuted and condemned by Alexander. And hence these learned men
do not hesitate, to place Hierax among those who debased the doctrine of the
eternal generation of the Son from the Father, by unsuitable and improper
comparisons. But, as no other one of the ancients has accused Hierax of any
error, in regard to the doctrine of three persons in one God; and, on the
contrary, as Epiplianius declares his opinions concerning God to have been
sound; it appears to me doubtful, whether it was our Hierax, or another of the
same name, that believed as Arius states, respecting the generation of the Son
of God. The name Hierax or Hieracas was very common in Egypt, as might
be shown from A//ianasius and others; and therefore, it might be, that some
presbyter at Alexandria bearing this name, used the above comparison.
III. However this may be, it appears, that Hierax deviated somewhat from
the common opinions of Christians respecting the Holy Spirit. Epiphanius,
(loc. cit. \ 3. p. 711,) says, that Hierax, de Spiritu sancto fusissimam disputatio-
nem instituere, multasque nugas proferre : toXXu ipwa^wv Tttpi toZ ayicv KviujuaTos.
From this it may be inferred that he erred in more than one respect, in regard
to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. And yet Epiphaniiis, (both here, and Hajres.
Iv. Melchisedecianor. ^ 5. p. 472.) mentions only one of his false notions ; name-
ly, that Melcliizedek the king of Salem, who blessed Abraham, was the Holy
Spirit. This opinion Hierax proved, or rather, stupidly attempted to prove,
from Rom. viii. 26. Hebr. vii. 3. and from the Ai^cension of Isaiah. It was easy
for Epiplianius to refute these arguments: and yet the chief proof he employs,
in regard to both passages, appears to me not entirely unexceptionable. If, says
he, Melchizedek was the Holy Spirit, then the Holy Spirit undoubtedly assum-
ed human nature; for Melchizedek was a man. But how absurd is such a sup-
position : for where was the mother of the Holy Spirit ? It is therefore false,
that Melchizedek was the Holy Spirit. In reasoning in this manner, Epiplia-
nius forgets what he had before told us, that Hierax, after the examjile of Ori-
gen, disregarding the literal sense, changed the sacred history into an allegory.
Undoubtedly, therefore, he maintained that the history of Melchizedek, [p. 907.]
is not an account of actual occurrences, but only a sort of j)ieture (»f liie bless-
ings with which the Holy Spirit enriches men ; and that Abraham rej)resents all
saints and devout persons.
408 Century III.— Section 56.
IV. The office of Christ, he placed especially in the promulgation of a new
law, more strict and more perfect than that of Moses. This, perhaps, was the
greatest of all his errors. Eyiphanius, (loc. cit. ^^ 1. p. 710.) clearly shows us,
that he so thought; as we shall soon demonstrate. Nor will it be unreasonable
to suppose, especially if we consider his doctrine respecting the siilvation of in-
fants, which will soon be brought forward, that he wholly denied the expi.-itio-n
of our sins by the death and obedience of the Saviour; and tluit he made the
endeavors of men to repress the evil instincts of nature, the ground of eternal
salvation. How widely such opinions differ from those taHght in the New Tes-
tament, is manifest. And yet no one either of the ancients or tlie moderns haa
noticed this the worst of all the errors of Hierax.
V. Regarding this opinion as true and undeniable, he concluded that Jesus
Christ interdicted to his followers marriages, flesh and wine, and enjoined a life
void of all pleasures. According to Epiphanius, (J 1. p. 710.) he thus reason-
ed : Jesus Christ introduced a new and more perfect law. But, if we except
c('ntinence only, every thing that Christ commands, was also required in the
Old Testament. Therefore, unless we would believe that Christ introduced
nothing new, we must believe that he prohibited marriage, &,c. : Quid verbum
novi prwdicare, aut quod egregium facinus moliri voluit (Christus)? Si Dei
timorem dixeris, hoc jam lex ipsa continebat. Si invidiam, avaritiam, injustitiam
damnasse dicas ; haec omnia Veteri Testamento comprehensa sunt. Superest
ergo, id ut unum efficere voluerit, ut continentiam prsedicaret in raundo, ac sibi
ipsi castimoniam deligeret. — Here again, we perceive a wide difference between
Manes and Hierax. For the latter conceded, that the law of Moses was divine
and full of good precepts, although in a few things less perfect than the law of
Christ ; but the former declared the law of Moses to have been ordained by the
Prince of darkness. Moreover, it was for very far different reasons that Manes
prohibited marriage, and the use of flesh and wine.
VI. So then, Hierax taught, that marriage was abolished by Jesus Christ.
He admitted, that marriages were lawful under the Old Testament; as Epipha-
nius expressly states repeatedly, (§ 1 and 6. p. 710. 714.) But he tells us, that
Jesus Christ, the author of a holier and better law, has abrogated the liberty to
marry. And hence, as Epiphanivs says, (J 2. p. 711.): Neminera in gregem
suum admittebat, nisi virgo esset, aut Monachus, aut continens (£>x/)aT»y,) aut
vidua. But his followers, whether by his permission and authority, or from
their own choice, I know not; Mulieres contubernales (a-vvus-aicTovs ywatKag)
[p. 908.] secum habebant, quas ad quotidianum duntaxat ministerium se adhibere
gloriabantur. See Epiphanius, (loc. cit. \ 8. p. 716.) — Did Hierax then teach,
tliat our Saviour absolutely forbid marriage? And did he therefore believe, that
no married person can attain eternal salvation ? Thus all, I perceive, explain his
views. And it must be confessed, that the ancient writers, especially Ejiipha-
nius and Athanasius, speak as if this were true. Says Alhanasius, (Oratio con-
tra Omnes haereses, § 9. tom. ii. p. 255.): Tdv duinrov xai dru^j^^cc-rarov 'lipaKuv
d^iTtlv Tov ya/uoy. Insanum et infelicissimum Hieracam virginitatem extoUere,
nuptiasque aapernari. And Epiplianius, (loc. cit. \ 1. p. 710.) says, that Hierax
denied: Hominem conjugio vinctum coeleste regnum consequi posse. — But I
The Hicracites. 409
*
suppose, that no one of tho ancient heretics, wlio were hostile to niarriafres wjim
so infatuated as to maintain, that marriages are absolutely prohibited: 1 ima'nuo
rather, that they all merely recommended celibacy, as a state more perfect and
more pleasing to God. No one ever entertained a worse or a more degrading
opinion of matrimony than Manes ; for he pronouncod it a device of the Prince
of darkness, for detaining wretched souls in the prison of bodies. And yet ho
could see, that nature is more powerful than regulations and comminations ; and
therefore he permitted the common people to marry. And that our Ilierax did
the same thing, and that the reports of his abhorrence of matrimony must net
be understood strictly, I am led to believe, by the very Epiphayiius whom those
follow, who tell us that liierax excluded all married persons from the kingdom
of heaven. For Epiphanius tells us, (^ 2. p. 710, 711.) that when some persons
quoted the language of Paul, 1 Cor. vii. 2. (To avoid fornication, let every man
have his own wife,) in opposition to the opinion of Hierax respecting marriage,
/Zierao; replied : 'Oux. iTraivoiv (fma-l yd/uov fAira r»y Traf>ou(riaVi d>Xa (TV^/gatirruf wr,
iV* fA» CIS TTifiTTov oXid-pov ifxTTcs-aertv. Non laudat Paulus post adventum Do-
mini coiijugium, sed tollerandum putat, ne majus in exitium praecipites ruant
homines. Now what can be plainer? Hierax did not condemn matrimony ab-
solutely; but, on the authority of Paul, he supposed it should be tolerated, on
account of the infirmity of nature. His company therefore was, perhaps, in
this respect, like the Manicha3an community. Those who aimed at the highest
degree of sanctity, and wished their souls to go to heaven immediately on leaving
the body, lived in celibacy ; while others, whom the fear of purgation after
death did not so much terrify, were allowed to obey the instincts of nature.
Perhaps also, — and this is the more probable supposition, — Hierax did not so
much aim to found a sect, as to establish a religious association or order, like
those of our Monks, into which he received none but unmarried persons.
Other Christians he accounted, indeed, as brethren, and allowed to live
in their own way; but he considered them farther removed from eternal
felicity. Yet, whatever may have been his institution, it appears that [p. 909.]
those err, who suppose he absolutely cut off from everlasting bliss, all married
persons.
VII. This error of Hierax, respecting marriage, if I do not mistake, produced
that opinion respecting Paradise, which Epiphanuis thus censures in him,
0) 2, p. 711.): 'Of TTKTTiuii Si ouTos napdS'iKrc.v iivai di^B-HTov. Paradisum porro
sensibilem esse non putat. This is obscure; but as he adds, that Origen held
the same opinion, the meaning must be, that Hierax considered as mystical, or
turned into a sacred allegorical fable, the narrative of Moses respecting our hrst
parents, Paradise, and the state of innocence. From the reasoning of Athana-
sius against him, (contra omnes Christianos, \ 9. p. 235.) I perceive, that his op-
posers urged the history of our first parents, in refutation of his error respecting
the excellence and sanctity of celibacy. Hierax believed, that marriage was al-
lowed, indiscriminately, under the Old Testament; but that it was otherwise
under the New Testament, that Jesus Christ did not sanction marriage, but only
tolerated it in the more imbecile; that he forbid it to such as wished to be ad-
admitted to the inheritance of the life to come, immediately after death. To
410 Century IIL—Section 56.
confute this opinion of Hierax, the Christians of more correct views derived an
argument from the history of our tirst parents in Paradise. God himself joined
the first human beings in the bonds of marriage in Paradise. And can you then
suppose, that Christ has prohibited, what God himself approved and instituted?
To parry this argument, Hierax denied tliat the account given of Paradise was
truly a history. And as, like Origen, he was very fond of allegories, and there-
fore obscured the history of the creation, or of the six days work, with very
Jiimsy allegories (vanissimis allegoj'iis,) as Epiphanius expressly states, Q 3.
p. 712.) can any think it strange, that he should treat the history of Paradise in
the same manner?
VIII. lie not only exhibited a severe mode of life, abstaining from all ani-
mal food and from wine, but he also directed his followers to live in the same
austere manner. See Epiphanius, (loc. cit. § 3. p. 712.) — But that this mode
of life, like his rule respecting marriage, was not imposed on all his disciples,
but only on the more perfect, I think we may learn from Epiphanius, who
says: *E("4'^/t.*'' '"^ foXXoi t^ dvnov ou /utT£^ova-l twv d\yi^tiwv durdv tov
^oyf/.aTos Multi eorum, qui sectam illius vere et ex animo profitentur, ab ani-
matis abstinent. If only many of his true disciples lived on herbs, fruits, and
pulse; the inference is, that the rigid abstinence from all flesh and wine, was
prescribed only for those who could endure it.
IX. He denied the resurrection of the bodies of the dead : and to elude the
force of the passages of Holy Scripture, which promise a renewed life to
deceased bodies, he maintained that those texts referred to the soul. Says
[p. 910.] Epiphanius, {\ 2. p. 711.) he affirmed; Solas animas resurgere, et
spiritualem nescio quam fabulam contexit : 'AvaTraa-iy viKfxJJv xiyii dvao-raa-tv -i
Tuv -^v^iovi Kai TTVivfxariKiiv Tiva (pdimcev fxv^-oxoyiav. He, therefore, undoubt-
edly, supposed the resurrection to be the illumination and renovation of souls;
which the sacred writers often compare with a restoration to life. Nor is such
un opinion surprising, in a man inflamed with the love of allegories, and
disregarding the proper import of scripture language. — How Hierax was
lead into this error, Epiphanius has not told us. Perhaps his fondness for
allegories produced it: but more probably, he believed, with Manes and
others, that matter is in itself evil, and that the fountain of all depravity is
situated in the body ; whence it would follow, that the body is the prison of
the soul.
X. Hierax excluded from the kingdom of heaven, all infants dying before
they came to the use of reason, on the ground that rewards are due only to
those who have combatted legitimately against their bodies and the force of
their lusts. See Epiphanius, Q 2. p. 711. and § 4. p. 713.)— This dogma of
Hierax, and the ground of it, afford strong and just suspicion, that he
embraced corrupt opinions respecting the redemption and satisfaction for
sin by Jesus Christ; and that he supposed, eternal life is to be obtained,
not so much by fiiith in Jesus Christ, as by one's own efforts to overcome
the depravity of nature, or the commotions of the body and the senses. For,
if children, dying before the use of reason, fail of salvation, because they
have not conflicted, or have not, by reason, overcome the incitements to sin ;
The Hlcracitcs. 411
it follows, that those who attain to salvation, are crowned solely bocauso
they resisted strenuously their natural propensities. But the sterility and
indiscretion of Epiphanius^ who expatiates largely upon doctrines imper-
fectly and cloudily explained, prevent our forming a just estimate of this
opinion of Hierax.
END OF THE THIRD CENTURY.
THE
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY
OF TilE
FOURTH CENTURY.
§ I. Attempts of the Pagan Priests to get up a new persecution.
At the commencement of the fourth century after the birth of
the Savior of mankind, the Eoman empire was under the govern-
ment of four sovereigns ; of whom the two highest in rank,
Diocletian and Maximianus Herculius^ were called Augusti^ and the
two lower in rank, Constantius Ghlorus and Maximianus Galenus^
were called Cesars ; but each of them had supreme poAver over
the province allotted to him. Under these four Emperors, the
state of the christian community, as well as that of the common-
wealth, was quite flourishing. For the chief of the Augusti,
Diocletian^ although superstitious and an assiduous worshipper of
the Gods, yet harbored no ill will against the Christians ; and the
first of the Cesars, Constantius Chlorus^ was averse to the pagan
religion, followed reason as his religious guide, was friendly to
the Christians, and preferred them before the idolaters. Nor did
the future portend any worse condition of the church : but ra-
ther, it was to be expected, that Christianity Avould soon gain the
ascendancy in the Koman empire, or at least obtain as much in-
fluence and reputation as the old superstition. The friends of
paganism, particularly the priests, perceiving the danger, exerted
themselves to the utmost to raise a new persecution against the
Christians, who then felt themselves too secure : and, by fictitious
oracles and other frauds, they labored especially to excite Diocle-
tian^ whom they knew to be timid and credulous, to enact laws
against the Christians. (')
(1) Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. L. viii. c. 1. p. 291.) eloquently describes the
flourishing state of the christian community, at the beginning of this century
Maddnations of the Pagan Priests. 413
before the rise of the Dioclelian persecution; and also the security felt fp. 912.]
by the christians in consequence of their prosperity, and tlieir vices and conten-
tions. The pahices of the Emperors were full of Christians, and no one hincU'red
their freely professing and worshippinir Christ without any fear. Some of them
were selected for confidential friends of the Emperors, the «rnvernors of pro-
>inces, magistrates, and military commnnders. And tlie bishops and ministers
of religion were treated with great respect, even by those who preferred the
ancient religion before that of Christ. A vast multitude of people, continualJv,
every where, abandoning the Gods, made profession of Christianity. And
hence, in all the cities, large and spacious buildings were erected, in which the
people publicly assembled for religious worship. So that there remained but
one thing to be desired by the Christians, namely, that one or more of the ?^m-
perors might embrace their religion; of which the consequence would un-
doubtedly be, that the worship of the Gods would become prostrate, in a great
part of the Roman empire, and the Christian religion might contest wi'.h the
pagan for the preeminence. And the state of the empire at that time, afforded
the observing not a little hope, that the desires of Christians would not be dis-
appointed. Diocletian, although timid and immoderately addicted to supersti-
tion, was yet averse from blood and slaughter; and he had Christians among
his familiar friends, who, understanding well the genius and chnracter of the
man, might perhaps, if no obstacle was raised, withdraw the manageable man
from his idolatry. Besides, Prisca the Emperor's wife, had renounced the wor-
ship of the Gods, and privately joined the Christian church. And Constantins
Chlorus, his colleague, who ruled over Spain, Gaul and Britain, was a seuii-
Christian, and favored the Christians to the utmost of his power. And his sou
Constantine, who afterwards obtained the appellation of the Great, a youth en-
dowed with extraordinary powers of mind and genius, and admired equally by
the people and the soldiers, was living very honorably in the court of Diocletian,
with the highest and most certain prospect of attaining to the rank of an Em-
peror. Being the child of a ftither, who was the worshipper of the one God,
and the friend of Christians, and of a Christian mother, Helena, he had un-
doubtedly received from his parents a hatred of superstition, and kind feelings
towards Christians aiM Christian worship; and although he did not publicly
profess Christ, he doubtless showed by his conduct, what would take i)lace if
he obtained supreme power. I have pronounced Helena, the mother of Con-
stantine the Great, a Christian : for I do not hesitate to admit as true, what
Tiieodoret states, (Hist. Eccles. L. i. c. 17.) that she instilled into her son the
elements of piety. From this opinion I am not induced to recede, by a passage
in Eusebius, (de vita Constantini, L. iii. c. 47. p. 50G.) from which learned men
would prove, that he converted her from the worship of the Gods to the Chris-
tian religion. For that passage may very suitably be understood of his insi)ir-
ing her with a desire to manifest, by actions and various works, her piety to-
wards God. Maximianus Galerius, the last of the Emperors, was indeed un-
friendly to the Christians; but, being the son-in-law o^ Diocletian, he [p. 913.]
had a wife, Valeria, who followed the pious example of her mother Prisca, and
was averse from the worship of imaginary Deities. The state of the Roman
414 Century IV.—Sectlon 1.
commonwealth, at the commencement of this century, was theiefore such, as to
indicate a great religious change, and vast accessions to the Christian cause, aa
near at hand. Situated as the three imperial courts then were, a slight unfore-
seen occurrence might divest the priests and worshippers of the Gods of a large
part of their honors and emoluments, and place the Christian religion on the
throne. As this danger was much better understood by the pontiffs of the
Gods and the friends of the ancient religion, than it can be by us with the few
and dubious monuments before us, who can wonder, that they exerted all their
diligence and cunning to avert that danger '^ But, for their own preservation
and that of their Deities, it was necessary, that a persecution more violent than
any of the preceding and more pernicious to the Christians, should be got up
by the authority not merely of one but of all the Emperors, and should extend
through all the Roman provinces: for the persecutions under the former Empe-
rors were only partial tempests, of short continuance or limited extent ; or they
were so obstructed in various ways, that, though not a little afflictive to the
Christian cause, they did not destroy its vital ^nergies. Yet it was a very diffi-
cult business, which necessity compelled the patrons of the Gods to undertake.
For they had to act upon a man sluggish, timid, encompassed by Christians,
and of a disposition by no means cruel, averse from shedding blood, and fond
of peace and quietude : for, that such was Diocletian, both his actions and the
testimony of the ancients show. But as he was both credulous and supersti-
tious, they concluded to terrify him with fictitious oracles, omens, and other ar-
tifices ; and thus to obtain from him hy fear ^ what they could not accomplish by
arguments. History acquaints us with two of their artifices ; which demonstrate
the fears of the priests as well as their malice and cunning. One of them is
stated by a very distinguished and trust-worthy witness, the Emperor Consian-
tine the Great, in his public letter to the provincials of the East, (apud Eusehi-
urn de vita Constantini L. ii. c. 50, 51. p. 467.) It was reported to the Empe-
ror, that Apollo had complained, — not through the priest by whom he usually
gave forth his oracles, but personally, by a mournful voice issuing from a
cavern, Obstare sibi justos viros in terra degentes, quo minus vera praediceret,
atque idcirco falsa ex tripode oracula reddi. Diocletian, when informed of this
oracle, at once anxiously enquired of the courtiers about him, who were those
Just persons, whom Apollo accused. And some of the sacrificers or priests of
the Gods, being present, instantl}'- replied, that they were the Christians. On
hearing this, the Emperor was in a rage, and forthwith decided, that severe laws
should be issued against the Christians, and that their religion should be cxtir-
[p. 914.] pated. But soon after, being an unstable man, and perhaps being pa-
cified by his wife and christian friends, he abandoned his designs and returned
again to a state of tranquillity. — Of the reality of the occurrence, there can be
no doubt ; for Constantine was himself present at the time, and he affirms on
oath, or calls God to witness, that he speaks the truth : Te testem appello,
Deus altisime. — This oracle, it is manifest, was a fabrication of the priests of
Apollo : and it obviously had a twofold object. In the first place, the Chris-
tians, in order to convert the idol worshippers to wisdom, demonstrated the
falsehood and equivocation of the oracles uttered by the Gods ; and thence they
Machinations of the Pagan Priests. 415
inferred, that the Deities worshipped by Hie pagans, were nnreal beinf^s. And
it is well known, that the priests defended the truth and Hanetity of the patran
religion by divination; and therefore, if this argument were overthrown the
chief prop and support of the popular religion was removed. And perhaps iho
Christians who were the ministers and friends of the Emperor, had asaaili-d the
superstition of Diocletian himself by arguments from the vanity and falsity of
divination and oracles. The faet alleged, the priests could not deny : for they
were daily confounded by examples of the llexible, false, and dubious oracles.
And hence they only attempted to account for the fact, that the Cods no longer
relieved, as formerly, the anxieties of those who consulted them, with clear and
certain responses. And honest Apollo himself acknowledged, that being hard
pressed by the Christians, his oracles had failed of late : but he charged the
blame on ihejust or the Christians, who withstood his power of divination.
But whatever construction we put upon it, the response was not only a stn{)id
but a hazardous one : for the Emperor might infer from it, that the Christians'
God, and Christians themselves, were more powerful than Apollo. Yet with
Buch a man as Diocletian, imbecile, sluggish, and superstitious, this was a grave
and important matter. — The epithet ^us/, given by Apollo to Christians in the
oracle, was not a commendation, as some learned men have supposed. For
who ever praises his enemies? It was rather a reproach. And Apollo denomi-
nates those the just, who vainly and folsely boast of their justice, who without
any reason pretend to be more just than others, and who maintained that the
whole worship of God is summed up in righteousness, and therefore contemned
the sacrifices, the ceremonies of their ancestors, and the public religious rites. —
With this first object of the oracle under consideration, another was very closely
connected. By this oracle, the priests wished to stimulate the Emperor to put
an end to the peace of the Christians, and to induce him to enact severe laws
against them. — This event occurred, undoubtedly, in the year 302, or the year
before the persecution.
A little afterward, another plot of the same character, occurred in the East.
Cf this we have an account in Lactanlius, (Institut. divinar. L. iv. c. 27. p. 393.
edit. Heumann.) and in the work generally ascribed to Lactanlius,(d(i mortibus
persequutor. c. 10. p. 943.) In the year 302, while Diocletian was in the [p. 915.]
East, as his fears led him to inquire into future events, he sacrificed sheep, and
searched in their livers for indications of coming events, according to the rules
of haruspicy. The haruspices, cunning and crafty men, pretended not to find
the usual signs in the entrails, and frequently repeated their sacrifices. After
several fruitless researches, the master of the haruspices said : Idcirco non res-
pondere sacra, (that is, the reason why future events could not be divined by
the entrails of the sheep, was) quod rpbus divinis profani homines (thus the im-
postor designated the christians.) interessent. For among the ministers and
friends of the Emperor, who, according to the rules of their station, followed
him into the temple, and attended him while sacrificing, there were many Chris-
tians. Lactantius believed, that here was a miracle; for the Christians who at-
tended on the sacrificing Emperor, he says : Immortale signum (the sign of tho
cross,) frontibus suis imposuisse : hoc facto, daemones fugatos ct sacra turbata
416 Cenhmj IV. — Section 2.
esse. Many of the moderns follow the judgment of Lactantius. And thai lie
should attribute to the cross the power of chasing away demons, and should
consider haruspiey an invention of the Devil for deluding mortals, I do not much
wonder : but when I see men of our own age, and not destitute of learning,
agreeing with him, and entertaining no doubts that the haruspices did foretell fu-
ture occurrences by the entrails of sacriticed animals, and that the sign of the
cross could frustrate this sort of divination, I am at a loss what to say. It is
very manifest, that the haruspices wished to terrify the timid and superstitious
Emperor, who was continually surrounded by Christians; and they pretended,
that the business of divination failed of success, as Apollo had already declared,
because Christians were present; and their aim was, to stimulate the Emperor,
who was eager to know future events, to drive Christians from his court, and
subject them to persecution. Besides, the soothsayers, the diviners, the augurs
and the haruspices^ as appears from many examples, could not easily practice
their futile arts in the presence of Christians, who, as they were aware, could
see through their tricks, and were ready to expose them. — This new fraud of
the priests was more successful than the former : for Diocletian^ boiling with
indignation, as LaLantiiis states : Non eos (tantum,) qui sacris ministrabant, sed
(etiam) universes, qui in palatio erant, sacriticare jubebat, etin eos, si detrectas-
sent, verberibus animadverti, etiam milites cogi ad sacrificia, datis adpraepositos
litteris, praecipiebnt, ut qui non paruissent, militia solverentur. But, as the Empe-
ror was unstable, and not of a cruel character, this fit of rage also soon cooled down.
S II. Maximianus Galcrias moves Diocletian to commence Per-
secution, A, D, 303. As tliese artifices produced little effect, the
priests used Maximianus Galenus^ a man naturally cruel, pround,
superstitious, barbarous, and hostile to the Christians, for inflam-
ing the mind of his father-in-laAV against the Christians. And
[p. 916.] this high patron of the sinking cause of the Gods, seems
to have been found ready at hand, rather than sought for, by
the anxious ministers of the Gods. For his own rough and furi-
ous temperament, which delighted in nothing but war, and his
mother's extravagant devotion to the Gods and to the priests,
and that lust of power with which he burned, sufficiently
prompted him to extirpate a class of people opposed to his de-
sires and purposes. He therefore did not cease to urge and im-
portune Diocletian^ then residing at Kicomedia, till he finally ob-
tained from him, in the year 303, an edict, by which the temples
of the Christians throughout the lloman empire were to be de-
molished, their sacred books to be burned, and Christians them-
selves to be deprived of all their civil privileges and honors.(')
This first edict, although it spared the lives of the Christians, yet
caused the destruction of many, who refused to deliver up to the
Persecution begun A. 1). 303. 417
magistrates the sacred books, tlic furniture of the temples and the
treasures (of the churches,) as the imperial law demanded. And
yet many, even among the bisliops and clergy, to save their lives
obeyed the commands of the Emj^eror, and gave up the books in
their hands and the sacred utensils ; and these persons, who sup-
posed themselves guilty of only a slight fault, were considered
by the more resolute Christians as having committed sacrilege,
and were therefore reproachfully denominated Tradiiors.i^)
(1) This most bloody of all the persecutions against the Christians, a per-
eecution of ten years continuance, has been called the persecution of DukIc-
tian ; but it might more properly be called the persecution of Maximian. For
although Diocletian, being deceived by the frauds of the priests, inflicted some
injuries on the Christians resident at court, or attached to tiie camps, and also
subsequently enacted laws adverse to them ; yet it is certain, that tlie principal
author of this calamity was his son-in-law, Maximianus Gakrius, — a man of
low birth, agrestic, distinguished for nothing but military bravery, and friend)}'
to none but soldiers, — who extorted from his unwilling and reluctating father-
in-law the edicts destructive to the Christians. It is true that Diocletian, on
occasion of two conflagrations in the palace at Nicomedia, came down upon tho
Christians of that city, in his first law against Christians. But those who at-
tentively inspect this furious attack upon them by the personal direction of the
Emperor, will perceive that the Christians were arraigned before a court and
punished as incendiaries^ or not on reh'gious grounds, but as perpetrators of an
alledged crime. And hence this calamity, though interwoven with the great tra-
gedy, should be considered as a distinct and separate act. I may add, that in
less than two years from the commencement of the persecution, Diocletian
relinquished the imperial power, and retired to private life ; whence it [p. 917.]
is clear that the greatest part of the persecution, or that decreed and inflicted
on Christians during the eight following years, is not attributable to him. And
lastly^ Maximian himself, in the edict by which, a little before his death, he ro-
stored peace to the Christians, confesses that he himself moved the persecution.
See Eusebius, (Histor. Ecclcs. L. viii.c. 17. p. 315.) and Lactantius, (de morlibus
persequutor. c. 34. p. 984. edit Ileumann.)
There can be no doubt that the pagan priests, who had in vain attempted to
stimulate Diocletian to attack the Christians, were the principal authors and in-
fitigators of this bloody persecution by Maximian, a barbarous man, and igno-
rant of everything except military aflfairs, and of course both superstitious and
cruel. And men like him, attached to nothing but lust and war, usually care
little about religion and sacred things. Yet such persons, chiefly occupied with
lust and war, if their passions are roused by cunning men, can readily eng.-ige
in the most unjust and cruel projects; and can persevere in prosecuting tlKnn,
if there are causes which confirm and strengthen their unrighteous plans and
purposes. Maximian himself, in his edict in favor of the Christians just men-
tioned, states, that attachment to the religion handed down from the nncicnta,
VOL. n. 28
418 Century IV.—Section 2.
was a reason why he assailed the Christians, the followers of a new religion.
Ho says: Volueramus antehac juxta leges veteres et publicam disciplinam Ro-
manorum cuncta corrigerc, atque id providere, ut etiam Christiani, qui parentum
suorum reliquerant sectam, ad bonaa meiites redirent. I have no doubt, that ho
wrote this in sincerity : but undoubtedly, this zeal for the Romish superstition,
in a man caring only for the body and disregarding the soul, would have been
sluggish and inefficient, if it had not been excited and inflamed by the priests.
— But the priests were aided by the querulousness of his mother, Ronmlia,
whose influence with her son was very great. She was, mulier admodum super-
stitiosa, as Lactanlias says, (de mortibus persequutor. c. 11. p. 944.) and when
she had conceived hatred against the Christians, Filium non minus superstitio-
sum querelis muliebribus ad tollendos homines incitabat. The cause of her
hatred to the Christians, Lactantius tells us, was this : She offered sacrifices al-
most every day, and then held feasts upon the meats sacrificed and presented to
the Gods. But the Christians would not attend those feasts ; nor could they
do it, consistently with their principles. It is presumeable, that this undoubt-
edly proud woman regarded this conduct as disrespectful to herself. But be-
sides this reason, I apprehend, another may be gathered out of Lac(a7itiu.%
although it is not expressly stated. He tells us that Roniulia, Deorum nionti-
um cultricem fuisse; i. e. that she worshipped the Deities supposed by the Ro-
mans to preside over mountains. Now the Christians of that age, as much as
possible, chose to erect their sacred edifices on mountains and elevated places,
[p. 918.] The Christian temple at Nicomedia,on which the persecution first com-
menced and which was destroyed by command of the Emperor before it was com-
pleted, was situated on a mountain : In alto constituta ecclesia, ex palatio (Inipe-
ratoris) videbatur ; says Lactantius, (loc. cit. c. 12. p. 947.) And at Carthage also,
as we have seen in another place, there was a christian church built on a moun-
tain. I therefore suspect, that this woman regarded the christian temple on tho
mountain as highly injurious to those Gods whom she honored ; and on this
account, she besought her son with tears and entreaties to suppress this re-
proach to the Gods. This conjecture is strengthened by the consideration, that
she and her son were undoubtedly then living at Nieomedia, in the imperial
palace, and of course had the Christians' temple continually before their eyes.
— This ground for persecuting the Christians, is dishonorable to Maximian ;
but in the edict already twice mentioned, he states another reason rather more ho-
norable and not improbable ; which it is strange that no one has mentioned when
treating on this subject. For he says, that he assailed the Christians because
they had departed from the religion of their ancestors, and had become split
into various sects and parties, differing in opinion and practice. Siquidem qua-
dam ratione tanta eosdem Christianos voluntas invasisset, et tanta stultitia oc-
cupasset, ut non ilia veterum instituta sequerentur, qure forsitan primi parentes
eorundem constituerant, sed pro arbitrio suo, atque ut hisdem erat libitum, ita
sibimet leges facerent, quas observarent, et per diversa (loca) varios populos
congregarent: (i. e. and formed various sects and churches in divers places. Eu-
sebius correctly apprehended the meaning of the Emperor, and expressed it in
his Greek version of the edict ; (Hist. Eccles. L. viii. c. 17.) Maximian there-
Persecution begun A. D. 303. 419
fore distinctly charired upon the Christians : — I. That the roli<rion of Christians
in that ixga differed essentially frum the first or primitive Christianity, establish-
ed by their progenitors.— II. That in tlie primitive reliirion of Christians, the
institutions of the Romans and other nations were undoubtedly retained and
approved; that is, that the worship of inferior Deities or Gods, to whom the su-
preme Deity committed the government of the world, was not rejected or dis.
approved by the author and head of this religion. — III. IJut that the later
Christians had abandoned that first law of their religion, and had substituted in
place of it new regulations. — IV. And hence various sects, holding very rtiHl'-
rent opinions, had arisen among them, in the several provinces of the Roman
empire. This reason for the persecution was unquestionably suggested to the
Emperor, who was wholly ignorant of such matters, by those Platonic philoso-
phers, hostile to the Christians, some of whom were called to that council at
the court of Nicomedia, which deliberated on the subject of crushing and des-
troying the Christians. For these philosophers, as appears from credible tcsti-
mony elsewhere adduced, wished to make out, that the later Christians had
corrupted the religion taught by Christ, and had swerved from the injunctions
of their master: That Jesus Christ sought indeed to correct certain faults [p. 919.]
and imperfections in the ancient religions, to restore the knowledge and worship
of the supreme Deity, which had been obscured and almost extinguished by the
worship of the Gods, and to abrogate some useless and superstitious ceremonies;
but he by no means wished to subvert the most ancient religion, or the worship
and honors of the ministers of divine providence, that i.s, of the inferior Deities who
presided over nations and departments of nature: for nature itself and right reason
taught us, that some honor or worship, though much less than to the supreme
Deity, ought to be paid to those exalted Beings whom God employed in the
government of human affairs : And although the priests and the people went
too far in this matter, and transferred the ministers of God into Gods, yet the
thing itself, if restored to its primitive integrity, could by no means be con-
demned or disapproved : And that the Christians, as they had departed from the
intentions and precepts of their master in this as well as other things, so they
sought wholly to subvert all the institutions of the ancients and the worship or
the Gods, and even wished to have Christ worshipped as a God, although ho
never arrogated to himself divine honors : That having thus changed the origi-
nal laws of Christ, it followed as a necessary consequence, that the Christians
became divided into various mutually hostile sects. Such were the common
sentiments of Ammonius and most of his followers : and they undoubtedly
brought them forward, to fix the fluctuating and hesitating mind of Diocletian,
and to induce him to enact laws against the Christians. And they said it waa
right, that the Christians, who, as Maximanian says, Parentum suoruin sectam
reliquerant, should be compelled — not indeed by capital punishments, yet hy
severe laws, — to return back to their ancient religion : which if they should Jo,
all disputes respecting the Gods and religious subjects would be at an end. —
Lastly, it can scarcely be doubted, if we consider the conduct of Maximian and
the state of the republic at that time, that political reasons also conduced to re-
commend the war upon the Christians: and these, perhaps, had more influence
420 Century IV.—Section 2.
on the mind of Maximian, than the exhortations of the priests, the entreaties of
his mother, or the reasonings of the philosophers. Being inflated with pride
and the lust of dominion, — for he ridiculously wished to be thought procreated
by the God Mars ; (Sec LaclaiUius, loc. cit. c. 9. p. 942: Victor, Epitome c. 35.)
— he could brook neither a superior nor an equal, but wished to dethrone the
other Emperors, and to rule the Roman empire alone. It is well known that
two years after the persecution commenced, he deprived both his ftither-in-law
and Maximianus Herculeus of the imperial dignity. But the Christians appear-
ed to stand in the way of his ambition. For they were completely devoted to
Constantius Chlorus and his very promising son Conslantine, both of whom
greatly favored tlie Christian worship and cared little lor the Gods; and under
their government, the Christians hoped to enjoy happy times. And hence it
was easily foreseen, that the Christians would take arms, and would vigorously
[p. 920.] defend their protectors if any attempt were made either to exclude them
from the throne or to crush them by war. But Maximian, the youngest of the
Emperors, could not hope to become lord of the whole empire, except by the
extermination of Constantius and his son. And, therefore, to prevent the occur-
rence of a dubious civil war, in which the Christians would combat for Constati-
tins and his son, and the worshippers of the Gods for Maximian, it seemed
necessary to weaken the very considerable power and resources of the Chris-
tians, and, if possible, to exterminate their religion, before the contest for supre-
macy in the republic was commenced.
Moved by such considerations, in the year 303, Maximian proceeded to
Nicomedia, the capitol of Bithynia, whither Diocletian had retired on coming
from the East, for the purpose of persuading his father-in-law to enter into a
public and formal war against the Christians. On this subject, there was, be-
tween the father-in-law and the son-in-law, strong opposition both of feelings
and opinions. Diocletian, indeed, conceded to his son-in-law, that Christians
might be excluded from the palace and the army, and that all the attendants on
the palace and the soldiers should be compelled to sacrifice to the Gods; but he
refused to issue public laws against the Christians, and especially to inflict on
them capital punishments. Says Lactantius, (loc. cit. c. 11. p. 945.): Ostendebat
quam perniciosum esset, inquietari orbem terrae, fundi sanguinem multorum.
Satis esse, si palatinos tantum et milites ab ea religione prohiberet. But this
moderation w^ould not comport at all with the designs of Maximian. He wished
to reign sole Emperor; and of this he could have no hopes, if the Christians
were spared. He therefore urged, that public laws should be enacted against all
Christians throughout the Roman empire ; and that they, who — sacrificio re-
pugnassent, vivos cremandos esse. The sooner to accomplish his designs, and
wholly overthrow the Christian community at once, he was disposed to proceed,
not as in the former persecutions, which sought gradually to overcome the
minds of Christians by exhortations, menaces, imprisonments, tortures, confis-
cations of goods, banishments, &lc. but to adopt a more summary process, and
decree that those who refused to offer sacrifices, should forthwith be put to
death Avith all manner of tortures. If this cruel counsel had prevailed, a very
grievous wound would unquestionably have been inflicted on the Christian
Persecution begun A. D. 303. 421
cause. But Diocletian could not be induced to assent to it. After various dis-
cussions, it was determined to refer tlie very important matter to the advice of
friends, or to a few prudent men of approved fidelity. A few persons, tlicrclbre
were selected, partly from the jurists and partly from the military otlicers, who
were to judge which mode of proceeding would be best and most salutary to
the republic. Maximiaii, being exceedingly attached to soldiers and military
affairs, undoubtedly thought military officers would be the best counsellors; but
Diocletian had more confidence in jurists, on a subject relating to the interests
of the republic. Says Lactaniius, (loc. cit. p. 945.) : Admissi ergo judi- [p. 921.]
ces pauci, et pauci militares, ut dignitate antecedebant, interrogabantur. But
LactatUius, who often does injustice, if I can judge, to the Emperors that per-
secuted the Christians, misrepresents the design of Diocletian in referring this
question to the judgment of men of experience and intelligence. For he says,
it was Diocletian's custom, Cum malum facere vellet, multos in consilium advo-
care, ut aliorum culpa3 adscriberetur,quiequidipsc deliquerat. But Laclantius^
own statements show, that this censure is unjust. For it is clear, from the facts
recorded, that Diocletian was averse from doing the evil, and he wished to hear
the opinion of eminent men, in order to avert from the Christians much of the
evil which his son-in-law was plotting. The Emperor's intentions are also vin-
dicated by the fact, that when the more rigorous course was approved by the
arbiters mutually chosen, he was utterly unwilling to follow it. In this council
of friends or wise men, the harsh plan of Maximian received the preference.
For some, from personal hatred of the Christians, others from fear of offending
Maximian, and others to gain his favor, Inimicos Deorum et hostes religionum
publicarum toUendos esse censebant. Among the jurists or judges called to de-
cide this question, was Hierocles, the vicar-governor of Bithynia; whom Lactan-
tius, (loc. cit. p. 952.) pronounces, Auctorem et consiliarium ad faciendam per.
seeutionem fuisse: and he says, (Instit. divinar. L. v. c. 2. p. 417.): Auctor in
primis faciendse persecutionis fuit. This man, afterwards in the niidst of the
persecution, addressed two short treatises to the Christians, whom he called
(ptXaX»3-s7f) lovers of truth. And in these treatises, he loads with much abu.-e
and injustice the Christian Scriptures, which he shows himself to have read at-
tentively; and Jesus Christ, whom he has the audacity to compare with Apol-
lonius Tyanaeus, yet without denying his miracles; and especially Peter and
Paul, the Apostles of Christ. Lactantius, in the latter of the passages just
quoted, states pretty fully the argument of this treatise against the Christians.
This Hierocles, as learned men have long agreed, was a different person from the
Platonic philosopher of the same name, whose respectable Commentary on the
Golden Verses of Pythagoras, has been often published. Yet, from the extracts
which Lactantius makes from his book, it is apparent, that he also was a fol-
lower of Ammonius Saccas, or one of those philosophers called the younger
Platonists. For, although he would have the gods to be worshipped, yet he
makes them to be not gods, but merely the ministers of the one supreme God.
Says I/ac/a?2ims, addressing him: Ademisti Jovi tuo regnum, eumque summa
potestate depulsum in ministrorum (Dei) numerum redegisti. - - Allirma.s Deos
esse, et illos tamen subjicis et mancipas ei Deo, cujus religioncni conaris ever-
422 Century IV.— Section 2.
tere. He had just before said ; Assertor Deorum, eos ipsoa ad ultimum prodi-
disti. For Hierocles, at the end of his book, composed a splendid eulo^jfy on the
[p. 922.J supreme God, in order to show, that he was far from approving the
superstition of the people and the priests, and that he would have the ancestral
Deities so honored, that God should still be exalted greatly above them all, and
should receive the supreme homage. Says Lactanlius: Prosecutus es summi
Dei laudcs, quem Regem, quem maximum, quem opificem rerum, quern fontem
bonorum, quem parentem omnium, quem faetorem, altoremque viventium con-
fessus es. — Epilogus itaque te tuus arguit stuhitiae, vanitatis;, erroris. — When
contemplating this subject, it appears to me exceedingly probable, that from this
Hierocles especially, originated the charge against the Christians in the edict of
Maximian, that they had changed the religion taught by their fathers ; and also
the project of burning the sacred books of the Christians, against which he in-
veighs so violently in his work, taxing them with many errors.
Although the opinion of Maximian, that the Christians should be extirpat-
ed, was approved by the arbiters chosen by the two Emperors, yet Diocletian
still refused his consent. Men, he said, were follible: and therefore, that no-
thing might be done preposterously and imprudently, he would have the matter
referred to the Gods, and particularly to the Miletian Apollo. And, as Lacian-
tins says, Apollo when consulted, answered, ut divinae religionis inimicus ; that
is, he took sides with Maximian, and ordered the Christians to be exterminated.
Therefore, to satisfy his son-in.law and friends, and likewise Apollo, and yet
follow his own timid disposition and aversion to blood, he adopted a sort of mid-
dle course ; viz. he would allow public laws to be enacted against the Christians,
which he had before refused ; but he would have the business accomplished with-
out bloodshed : (rem sine sanguine transigi volebat.) — From the facts now
faithfully stated, is it not evident that Diocletian was reluctantly, and most un-
willingly, brought to disturb and persecute the Christians? and that the cause
of the many evils endured by the Christians for ten years, was rather in Maxi-
mian, who was inflamed with superstition and lust for power, and was instigat-
ed by the priests and his mother? And hence, in my judgment, large deduc-
tions should be made from the reproaches and complaints, which both the an-
cients and the moderns have heaped upon Diocletian. I acknowledge thnt he
was in fault, from his instability, superstition, and timidity; but he was much
less in fault, than is commonly supposed.
This long and cruel persecution commenced in the month of February or
April, A. D. 303 as lias been shown by learned men, Tillemonte, Noris, (Histor.
Donatistar. P. 1. c. 2. Opp. tom. iv. p. 9, 14, 15.) and many others: and it was
introduced by the destruction of the spacious Christian temple at Nicomedia,
and the burning of the books found in it. See Lactantius, (de mortibus per-
sequutor. c. 12. p. 946, 947.) The Emperor's edict was published the day fol-
lowing. Strange as it may appear, its specific injunctions are not stated, col-
lectively and methodically, by any of the ancients : and therefore we collect
them from diverse sources. — I. The Emperor's edict required all the sacred edi-
[p. 923.1 fices of the Christians to be levelled with the ground. See Eusebius^
(Hist. Eccles. L. viil c. 2. p. 293, 294 : and Oratio in laudem Constant, c. 9.
Persecutions Icgun A. D. 303. 423
p. 629.) It added, that the thrones of the bishops in tliose edifices, nnd the
doors, should be publicly burned. See the Gesta purgationis Felicis Aptun<nu
ni, (apud Steph. Baluzium, Miscellan. L. ii. p. 84.) : Galatius perrexit ad lo-
cum, ubi orationes celebrare (Christiani) consueti fuerant. Inde cathredram tu-
limus et epistolas s;ilutatorias. et ostia omnia combusta sunt, secundum sacrum
firaeceptum. Whatever was of stone, was to be pulled down ; and what wan
of wood was to be burned. — II. The decree commanded that the sacred houVs
should be delivered up, by the Christians, and especially by the bi>hoj)S and
clergy, to the magistrates. See the Passio S. Felicis, (apud Baluz. Miscell.
torn. ii. p. 77, 78.) : Magnilianus curator dixit: Libros deificos habetis? Janua-
rius presbyter respondit : Habemus, Magnilianus dixit: Date illos igni aduri.
The same Magnilianus thus addressed Felix the bishop : Da libros vel membra-
nas qualescunque penes te habes. Felix episcopus dixit: Ilabeo, sed non tra-
do legem Domini mei. Magnilianus dixit : Primum est quod Imperalures jusse.r-
wn/, quia nihil est quod loqueris. Other examples may be seen in the citations
hereafter made. — And the penalty of death was decreed, both against the m;i-
gistrates who should be negligent in executing the decree, and against the
Christians who should refuse to give up the sacred books. Of the penalty in-
curred by the Christians refusing to surrender their religious books, when de-
manded by the governors or their officials, we shall soon speak ; at present, we
speak only of the magistrates who were remiss or lenient in the requisition of
the Christian books. Tiiat they were to be punished with deaths appears from
two passages in Augustine, (Breviculum collationis cum Donatistis, c. 15. et 17.
0pp. torn. ix. p. 387. et 390.) One Sccundus had boasted, that when ordered
by the magistrate to deliver up the books, he declared he would not. It was
replied, This is incredible. For a magistrate would endanger his life, if he
should let such a man go unpunished. Secundus Centurioniet Beneficiario res-
pondit, se omnino non tradere Scripturas. Quod illi auditum quoraodo illo di-
misso renuntiare potuerint sine suo exitio non apparet. Death (exitium) was
therefore the penalty incurred by a magistrate, who should hesitate to obey the
decree of the Emperor. The second passage expresses the same thing more
clearly: Ordo et Curator et Centurio et Beneficiarius ad discrimen capitis per-
venissent, qui Secundum tradere nolentem impunituni dimisisse prudebantur.
Hence the more cautious magistrates did not send their centurions or other
subordinates, to bring the sacred books from the temples and bishops' houses,
but contrary to custom, they went themselves to the churches and clergymen's
houses ; and whatever books or other articles they found there, they caused to
be carefully collected, inventoried, and taken away. A striking example of tliis,
we find in the Gesta purgationisCaeciliani,(apud Baluzium, Mi^cell. tom.;^p. 9i2l.]
il p. 92 &LC.) For Munatius Felix, a flanien, and the chief mngistrate and ciira.
tor of the colony of the Cirtensians, went in person, first to the Christian tem-
ple, and then to the dwellings of the bishop, the lectors, the subdeacons and
even of the private Christians, and every where demanded the books and pa^
pers: Proferte scripturas legis, et si quid aliud hie habetis (in the temple, the
vestments, the chalices, the lamps, the candlesticks,) ut praecepto et ju.ssioni
parere possitis. III. The imperial edict decreed, that all the Christian books
424 Century IV.— Section 2.
given up or found, should be publicly humed in the forum. Eusehius, (Hist
Eccles. L. viii. c. 2. p. 293, 294. See also p. 318.) Here should be read th©
Acta passionit? Philippi, episcopi Adrianopolitani, (apud Mabilloniiim, Analec-
tor. torn. iv. p. 189 (Sec. of the new edit.) Bassus the governor, there addressea
Philip thus : Legem Imperatoris audistis, jubentis nusquam colligere Christia-
nos. - - Vasa ergo quaccunque vobiscum sunt aurea, vel argentea: Seripturas
etiam, per quas vel legitis, vel docetis, obtutibus nostrae potestatis ingerite.
This Bassus, as I have said was usual with the more cautious magistrates, went
in person to the temple of the Christians : and the bishop with his assistants
standing at the doors, immediately gave up the vessels. Vasa, quae postulas,
mox accipe. Ista contemnimus. Non pretioso metallo Deum colimus, sed ti-
more. But the books he refused to give up. Bassus therefore snatched them
from the place where they were kept, carried them into the forum, and, accord-
ing to the Emperor's command, burned them all. Igne subposito, adstantibus
etiam peregrinis, civibusque eollectis, seripturas omnes divinas in medium misit
incendium. — By the Christian books ordered to be burned, the Emperor seema
to have understood merely their divine books, or the holy scripture, libros dei-
ficos, seripturas legis, as it is expressed in the passages just quoted from Balvze^
or ypapai, as Eusebius calls them. But as he knew not what books the Chris-
tians accounted divine, and what human, he used general terms ; and as those
who were entrusted with the execution of the law were equally ignorant, and
supposed that the Christians accounted all as divine, that were religiously kept
either in the churches or in the dwellings of the bishops and presbyters ; there-
fore all papers, letters, documents, and Acts of martyrs were indiscriminately
drawn from their repositories and cast into the flames. Bassus of Heraclea, as
we have before seen, demanded of Philip all the seripturas, -per quas vel legcrenty
vel docerent ; and whatever he found in the temple, he ordered to be burned.
From the Acta purgationis Felicis, (apud Baluz. Miscel. tom. ii. p. 84.) it ap-
pears that even the Epistolae Salutatoriae, which the bishops wrote to one an-
other on various occasions, were burned. For these were commonly deposited
in the churches. And hence the history of Christianity suffered an immense
loss in this Diocletian persecution. For all that had come down from the ear-
[p. 925.] lier ages of the Church, the documents, the papers, the epistles, the
laws, the Acts of the martyrs and of councils, — from which the early history of
tbe Christian community might be happily illustrated, — aZ', or at least very many
of them, perished in these commotions. — And I have little doubt, that the
Hiereoles already mentioned, and such other philosophers of the Platonic school
as may have sitten among the arbiters chosen by the two Emperors, instilled
iiito those Emperors this malignant purpose of destroying by fire the sacred
books of the Christians. This project certainly could not have originated from
uninformed men, who had no knowledge of Christianity, or such men as Max-
imian and his father-in-law; but it must have come from men of learning, men
acquainted with the sacred volume, men who had themselves seen what is there
inculcated, and knew from their own perusal, what influence the scriptures
have to fortify the mind of Christians against pagan worship and superstition.
And just such a man, was Hierocles ; who, in his work against the Christians,
Persecution begun A. J). 303. 425
as Lactaniius says, (Instit. divinar. L. v. c. 12. p. 417, 418.) : Adco rnulla, adoo
intima (ex sacro codicc) cnumcrabat, ut aliiiuundo Clnistianua fuissc vidcrolur.
— IV. Tlie imperial edict decreed, that such as resolved to remain Chris-
tians, and refused to sacrifice to the Gods, should forfeit all their honors,
offices, rank, and all civil rights and privileges, and if servants they should
be incapable of manumission. Euscbius has briefly and imperfectly des-
cribed this part of the law, (Hist. Eecles. L. viii. c. 2. p. 294.) He says:
Ut honorali quidem (r«|U«s iTrtiKnufAcvoi. He doubtless means those in
public stations, or holding some office or post of honor,) infaynia nolarenlur
(uTi/Jiovi. which, I think, Valesius here translates in language too strong. I
should suppose the sense to be, Thai they shall be divested of all their honors and
distinctions:) Tods i'i tv oiKirian e'Kiv^ipias.^'ripuj-d-ai. As to the meaning of
these words, learned men are not agreed. Henry Valesius, with whom many
agree, renders them : Plebeii vero libertaie spoliarentur. This very learned man
supposes the Emperor decreed, that if men holding posts of honor ad distiuc-
tion, would not return to the religion of their ancestors, they should be reduced
to the rank of plebeians, and be deprived of all honor and distinction ; but if
they were plebeians, they should lose their freedom, and become servants or
slaves. But, in the first place, the natural import of the phrase, oi iv oixirtaif,
is inconsistent with this interpretation : for it almost invariably denotes servants
and not plebeians. Again, history is opposed to it; for no example can be pro-
duced of plebeian Christians being made slaves; while many examples occur of
persons retaining their liberty who merely gave up the sacred books. Hence,
very many, and I go with them, prefer the Latin translation of the passage in
Euscbius by Rujinus, a very competent authority in this case. Rujinus renders
it: Si quis servoruyn •permansisset Christ ia7ius, liber latem consrqui \_non'] posset.
Some punishment, undoubtedly, was to be inHicted on servants who refused to
sacrifice to the Gods: yet the Emperor wished no blood to be shed in this
transaction : and therefore servants could not be punished, except by the loss of
all prospect of obtaining freedom ; and no more grievous punishment [p. 026.]
could be inflicted on servants sighing for liberty. Eitsebius therefore speaks
only of the penalties decreed by the Emperor against men of distinction and
slaves ; of plebeians he says nothing. — Lactantius, (de mortibus perse(iuutor.
c. 13. p. 947.) states more at large, and yet not very distinctly, the penalties of
the Diocletian edict, thus: Postridie prospositum est edictum, quo cavebatur, ut
religionis illius homines cararent omni honore et dignitate, (this manifestly re-
fers exclusively to the men holding offices and honors;) tormentis subjecti
essent, ex quocunque gradu et ordine venirent, (this reaches all classes, or both
gentlemen and plebeians ; yet the former rather than the latter ;) adversus cos
omnis actio valeret, ipsi non de injuria, non de adulterio, non de rebus ablatis
agere possent, (this, I suppose, was intended for the plebeians. They might be
accused by any body, but could accuse no one ;) libertatem denique ac vocem
non haberent. This last clause I refer, with Baluze, to servants : and I assign
it this meaning. Such servants as refuse to abandon the Christian religion shall
forfeit all hopes of becoming free, and they shall not be allowed rorr;«, or have
a right to petition or pray for liberty.— V. Moreover, the decree of the Emperor
u
426 Century IV. — Section 2.
severely prohibited all religious assemblages. This ^^ e learn from the edict of
the Emperor Maximin in favor of the Christians, extant in Eusebius, (Hist.
Eccles. L. ix. c. 10. p. 364.) which says: Compertum nobis fuit, occasione legis
a Diocletiano et Maximiano parentibus nostris latae, ut Christianorum convenius
penitus abol erentur, (ras o-uvoiTouj rwi' ;^p/jrjaj/w;' t^x^Ho-5-at,) multas con-
cussioncs factas. These words of Maximin likewise informs us, that the edict
was promulgated, not in the name of Diocletian only, but in the name of both
Diocletian and Maximian. It appears also, that dealh was the penalty for hold-
ing religious meetings. There are extant, in Baluze^s Miscellanea, (tom. ii. p.
66, &LC.) the Acta martyrura Saturnini Presbyter!, Felicis, Dativi, and others,
who were put to death for holding meetings (collectas,) or, in the words of the
Acta, Quia ex more dominica sacramenta celebraverant. This was their chief,
nay, their only crime : Cum Proconsuli otTerrentur, suggerereturque, quod trans-
missi essent Christian!, qui contra interdictum Imperatorum et Csesarum coUcc-
tam dominicam celebrassent, primum Proconsul Dativum interrogat, utrum col-
lectam fecisset: qui se Christianum in collecta fuisse profitebatur. — VI. Finally,
it appears from the edict of Maximin just quoted, (apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles.
L. ix. c. 10. p. 364.) that, (i« nif KiXiua-iax,) by the decree of the Emperors,
the houses and grounds, which had belonged to the Christians, were confiscat-
ed, seized upon by the cities, and either sold or given away.
(2) That many of the Christians were put to death, immediately after the
promulgation of the imperial edict, is placed beyond all controversy by Euseb
[p. 927.] us, Lactanlius, and others of the ancients. And yet Diocletian had
ordered the business to be conducted without bloodshed, and he would not al-
low persons to be punished capitally, who should refuse to sacrifice to the gods.
I have therefore no doubt, that the persons slain, were put to death because
they would not surrender the sacred books. By the edict of the Emperor, this
was a capital offence. In the Passio Felicis Tubizacensis, published by Baluze,
(Miscellanea, tom. ii. p. 77 &c.) the judge thus addresses Felix : Si Scripturaa
deificas (I suppose the word deijicas, so often repeated in these and other Acta^
was used in the very edict of the Emperors,) tradere nolueris, capite plecteris.
Felix episcopus dixit: Plus paratus sum plecti capite, quam libros dominicos sa-
crilegio tradere. The Cogniior, on hearing this reply, and before pronouncing
sentence, ordered the imperial edict to be read: Tunc memoratus Cognitor jus-
sit, ut sacra Imperatorum (edicta) recitarentur. Cumque a Vincentio scrlba quae
constituta fuerant legerentur, Cognitor dixit: Quoniara iste homo tantum in
eadem confessione duravit, secundum praceptum hunc eundem Felicem epi?co-
pum gladio animadvert! constituo. In the imperial decree, therefore, it was ex-
plicitly stated and ordered, that those who persisted in refusing to give up the
sacred books, should be capitally punished. The fact is confirmed by numerous
examples on record, of persons of various classes being tortured and slain, for
no other cause, than that they deemed it sinful to surrender the sacred books,
when they knew they were to be burned. Augustine (Breviculum collationis
cum Donatistis, L. iii. c. 13. p. 386. et c. 15. p. 387.) tells us, that Secundus Ti-
gisitanus, in an Epistle to Mensurius; Commemorasse multos martyres, qui
cum tradere noluissent, excruciati et occisi sint : and that Secundus added : Non
Persecution begun A. D. 303. 427
quoslibet infimos, scd etiatn patrcsfamilhis, eum persocutoribus rcspondlsscnt,
habere se quidom sacros codices, sed omiiino tradere nolle, crudcJisHiniis tiiorti-
bus occisos esse. — And hence, as Augustine reports, from an Epistle of Mensu-
rius to SecunduH, (loe. cit. c. 13. torn. ix. p. 386.) some Christians, either from
weariness of life, or from the hope that their sins would be expiated by u glo-
rious death, voluntarily went before the magistrates, and declared that they had
sacred books, but would not surrender them : Quidam in eadem eplstola (Mon-
surii) arguebantur et fisci debitores, qui occasione persecutionis vel carere vel-
lent onerosa multis debitis vita, vel purgare se putarent et quasi abluere facinora
sua. For it was supposed, that shedding one's blood for Christ, took away all
Bins. To these may be added the full testimony of Optalns Milevilanus, who
explicitly says, that the Traditnrs wished to escape death, (de schismate Dona-
tistarum, L. i. \ 13. p. 13, 14. edit, du Pin.): Quid commemorem laicos, — quid
ministros plurimos, quid diaconos, — quid presbyteros? Ipsi apices et principes
omnium, aliqui episcopi, illis temporibus, ut damno seternaj vita3, istius in-
cert(C lucis moras brevissimas cojnpararent, instrumenta divinte legis [p. 928.]
impie tradiderunt. The Emperors, therefore, ordered a severer procedure
against those who should refuse to bring forth and surrender the sacred books,
than against those who should refuse to sacrifice to the gods. The latter would
only forfeit their civil rights and privileges, but the former would forfeit their
lives. And, consequently, it is not strictly true, as Lactantius affirms, that Dio-
cletian commanded the business to be done without bloodshed. Yet, undoubt-
edly, the philosophers summoned to the council, and especially Hierocles, as-
sured the Emperor that if the sacred books of Christians were burned, the
whole Ciiristian religion would fall to the ground; and they added, that the
Christians, if made liable to capital punishment, would all surrender their
books: for they had such a horror of sacrifices, that they would rather die than
make an oblation to the gods ; but to deliver up their sacred books, was not
prohibited by their law, and therefore, undoubtedly, they would all redeem their
lives by surrendering their books. Influenced by these arguments, Diocletian,
who would otherwise have commanded the sparing of blood, permitted the
penalty of death to be decreed against refusers to surrender the books. But
the result was not as the Emperor anticipated: for multitudes, as we have seen,
would sooner die than surrender the divine books. And yet many prized life
more than the books; and they were regarded as apostates, and were branded
with the opprobrious name of Traditors. See Augustine, de baptismo contra
Donatistas, (L. vii. c. 2. tom. ix. p. 126.) The term, however, is ambiguous,
for it may denote simply one who delivers up something; or it may, in a more
restricted sense, denote a flagitious betraijer. Of the vast number of these
Traditors in Africa, we shall have occasion to speak hereafter. Out of Africa,
there arose no controversy respecting Traditors, although there can be no doubt,
that in all the provinces, there were persons who deemed life more precious than
their books. And hence it is highly probable, that the oflfence of the Traditors
was esteemed a lighter matter in most parts of the Christian world, than among
the Africans, who were naturally ardent.
428 Century IV. —Section 3.
§ III. First Year of the Persecution. Occurrences at Nicomedia.
New Edicts. The liatrecl of Diodctian against Christians became
more violent a little after the promulgation of his first decree,
when two fires occurred in the palace at Nicomedia ; for the ene-
mies of Christianity persuaded the credulous and timid old man
that the Christians were the authors of those fires. Therefore
the Emperor commanded that the Christians of Nicomedia, of all
classes and descriptions, should be jDut to torture ; and many were
burned at the stake as incendiaries. (') About the same time, se-
[p. 929.] ditions occurred in Armenia and Syria ; and as the
enemies of Christianity charged the blame of these also upon the
Christian pastors and teachers, the emperor issued a new edict^ re-
quiring all bishops and clergymen to be thrown into prison.
This decree was soon afterwards followed by a third^ in which the
Emperor ordered that all the imprisoned clergymen, who refused
to worship the Gods^ should be compelled to offer sacrifices by
tortures and extreme penalties. For the timid Emperor, terrified
by the priests and their friends, had come to believe that neither
he nor the republic could be safe so long as the Christians re-
mained; and he hoped, that if the bishops and teachers were
subdued, their flocks would follow their example. And thus a
great multitude of holy and excellent persons, in all the provin-
ces of the Koman empire, Avere put to death by various kinds of
the most cruel executions : and others, mutilated and deprived
of their bodil}^ members, Avere condemned to the mines.Q Gaul
alone escaped this calamity; for there Oonstantius Chloriis, al-
though he did not prevent the Christian temples from being
demolished, forbid the infliction of personal injuries on the
Christians.^
(1) Laciantius, (de mortibus persequutor. c. 14. p. 948.) mentions two con-
flngrations in the pnlace at Nicomedia soon after the first edict against the
Christians: Eusebius, (Hist. Eccles. L. viii. c. 6. p. 297.) mentions only one;
and Conslantine the Great, who tells us he was in Nicomedia at the time,
(Oratio ad sanctor. coetum, c. 25. p. 601.) also mentions but one. But the second
fire, which was fifteen days after the first, was early discovered, and therefore,
doubtless, promptly extinguished. And this, I suppose, is the reason why Eu-
sebius and Constantine take no notice of it. — But respecting the first fire, or
rather, respecting its cause, there is ground for no little dubitation. For the
three witnesses to the occurrence, entirely disagree. Constantine, an eye-
witness, being then resident at the court of Diocletian, declares that the palace
Occurrences at Nicomedia. 4or)
was struck by lightning and tlint the celestial fire destroyed the Emperor's bed.
chamber: and he adds, that the Emperor was so terrified by this thunderclap,
that he was all his lite after afraid lest he should be struck with H;Ljhiiiin<r. As
to any accusation against the Christians, as authors of the fire, he is siK-nf. Ihit
Eusebius, who published this very Oration of Constantine, anncxin"- it to his
history, although he tells us this conflagration was attributed to the Chris-
tians, and describes minutely their sutferings in consequence of the [p. 930.J
charge, yet declares (ii^t oti-' okus) that he did riot know the cause of the fire. And
lastly, LactanLius says, that Maximian himself, in order to obtain severer edicts
against the Christians from his father-in-law, Occultis ministris palatio s;ubje-
cissc incendium; and afterwards caused a rumor among the vulgar, that, Chris-
tianos, consilio cum eunuchis habito, de extinguendls principibus cogitasse, et
duos Imperatores domi sua3 paene vivos esse combustos. And he states that the
second tire, fifteen days after, was contrived by the same Maximian. — Now,
which of these authors shall we follow? Those learned men, who have written
since Baluze published the tract of Laclanlius, one and all place reliance on
Laclantius: but whether, with due consideration, is a question. Whence did
the honest Laclantius learn, that Maximian^ by his servants, fired the palace, in
order to excite odium against the Christians ? Certainly not from Maximian
himself, nor from the servants he employed in the business. All who have any
knowledge of human affairs, are aware how studiously powerful men and princes,
who resort to such crimes, conceal their own agency in them. And Laclantius
himself acknowledges, that the authors of the fire were (occulli) concealed, and
never (apparuisse) became known. He therefore undoubtedly derived his state-
ment from the belief, or rather from the suspicion of certain Christians ; who,
knowing that Maximian was very malignant against the Christians, suspected
that this tragedy was artfully contrived by him ; and what they thus suspected,
they reported to their brethren as a foct. But that this suspicion was not uni-
versal, or was only of some few Christians, the silence of Eusebius and Con-
stantine, I think, places beyond all controversy. For if it had been the common
opinion of the Nicomedian Christians, it would certainly have been known by
Constantine and his friend Eusebius ; and they, being exceedingly incensed
against Maximian, would certainly not have omitted a matter so reproachful to
the man they hated. Besides, as on the authority of Constantine, who cannot
possibly be discredited, the palace of Nicomedia was set on fire by lightnintr^ I
do not see how Maximian could have been the author of the conflagration.
And lastly, in Lactantius himself, there is something which tends to absolve
Maximian, if not altogether, yet at least in part. For it appears from his
statement, that the Christians were not supposed by Diocletian, to have been
the authors of the first fire; this we shall soon show more clearly. But if
Maximian had fired the palace by his servants, in order to enkindle the rage of
his father-in-law against the Christians, he would undoubtedly, immediately
after the first fire, have accused the Christians of it, either himself or by others.
It appears, therefore, that Constantine the Great, the spectator of this sad event,
is the most worthy to be credited; and he tells us, that lightnijig struck tho
palace, and even the bed-chamber of tho Emperor; and that he considered tho
430 Century IV.—Sectlon 3.
[p. 931.] fire, as evidence of the divine wrath ngainst Diocletian, for his perse-
cuting edict against the Ciiristians. And yet Eusehius and Lactaniius exhibit
objections to an exclusive adherence to the statement of Constantine. For ihey
inform us at much length, thnt severe inquisition, attended by tortures, was in-
stituted against the authors of the conflagration; and that afterwards, immense
sufferings were brought upon the Christians, in consequence of that fire. How,
I would ask, could the authors of this occurrence be sought after, with so much
eagerness ? or how could the Christians be suspected of firing the palace, if it
were, as Constantine states, not by the fault of men, but by a flash of lightning,
that the palace took fire ? What tyrant is so senseless and cruel, that when he
knows some evil came upon him, accidentally, or from natural causes, yet tor-
tures and torments innocent men, to find out the author of it? Neither the testi-
mony of Constantine, confirmed, as it is, by that strong proof, the mental disease
of Diocletian, produced by the sudden thunder-clap, can be rejected; nor can
the statements of Lactaniius and Eusehius, also resting on many fact proofs, bo
denied. What then are we to understand? I, indeed, after long considering the
subject, find no other way of reconciling the disagreement of these witnesses of
the highest credibility, than by supposing that two fires broke out in the palace
on the same occasion, the one caused by lightning, and the other by the villany
or fault of persons unknown. Nor is this supposition incredible. For it might
easily occur, that while one part of the palace was burning in consequence of
the lightning, and all were rushing forward to extinguish that fire, some evil
disposed persons might at the same time set fire to another part of it, in order
to have a safer and better opportunity for plundering. Who does not know,
that such villanies at all times have occurred among mankind ?
The first fire being subdued, the affrighted Emperor commanded the most
vigorous inquisition to be made respecting the authors of so great a crime'
Says Lactaniius, (de mortibus persequutor. c. 14. p. 949.) : Ira inflammatus ex-
carnificari omnes suos protinus praecepit. Sedebat ipse atque innocentes igne
torrebat : item judices universi, omnes denique qui erant in palatio magistrl, da-
ta potestate torquebant. (viz. to find out the author of the fire.) Erant certan-
tes, quis prior aliquid inveniret. Nihil usquam reperiebatur : quippe quum fa-
miliam Caesaris (i. e. of Maximian,) nemo torqueret. For Lactantiiis supposed,
the author of the fire was in the family or among the servants of Maximian.
Ffom this statement, I think, three things appear. First : The Christians were
not supposed to be the authors of the first fire. For Diocletian ordered (omnes
suos) all his own servants, (the greatest part of whom, it is manifest, were pa-
gans,) to be subjected to torture. But if the false rumour, that the Christians
sought to burn up the Emperors in the palace, had been then current, manifest-
ly not all the waiters and servants of the palace, but solely the Christians>
would have been subjected to the rack. — Secondly: The author of the fire
[p. 932.] was sought for among the inmates of the palace and the Emperor's
own servants ; and no one out of the palace was suspected of the high crime.
— Thirdly: In this first onset, no one was put to death ; and as nothing could be
ascertained by means of torture, the inquisition after a short time was discon-
tinued. To these conclusions, we may add, with great probability, that only
Occurrences at Nicomedia. 431
persons of inferior rank, and especially servants, were subjected to this inquiai-
tion : this is easily interred from the language of Laclanlius.
But another fire broke out fifteen days afterwards. And although it was
soon extinguished, yet Maxlmian fied away, contestans, fugore se, ne vivus ar-
deret. And then it was, the fatal calumny was spread abroad, Christianos, con-
silio cum eunuchis (the eunuchs who were Christians, and lived in the palace,) ha-
bito, de extinguendis principibus cogitasse. And as the weak and credulous
Diocletian gave full credit to this calumny, he vented his rage against the
Christians only, yet both against those in the palace and those out of it : The
worshippers of the Gods were unmolested. Believing fully, that the Christiana
had set fire to the palace, he first commanded all persons residing in it, to olfcr
sacrifice to the Gods; intending in this way, to rid his house of those noxious
people. And first of all, he required his daughter Valeria, and his wife Prisca,
sacrijicio se polluere. This mandate shows, that those women abhorred the wor-
ship of the Gods, and had secretly professed the Christian religion. They
however obeyed the command of their father and husband. But when the
eunuchs and officers of the bed-chamber, who were also Christians, were ad-
dressed, a different scene arose. For they most resolutely declared, that the
religion which they professed, would not allow them to pay honors to the Gods.
And therefore the chief of them, after long and exquisite tortures, were put to
death. Laclantius says : Potentissimi quondam eunuchi necati, per quos pala-
tium et ipse ante constabat. Eusebius, (Hist. Eecles. L. viii. c. 6. p. 296.) more
fully describes their glorious deaths. — Having destroyed those whom he regard-
ed as his household enemies, the Emperor next attacked the Christians of the
city ; very many of whom, especially the clergy, he ordered to be put to denth
with the most cruel tortures, without any regard to legal forms of proceeding.
This he did, not so much on religious grounds, (for he had not yet decreed ca-
pital punishment against such as refused to worship the Gods,) as because he
fully believed, what certain impious men had told him, that the Christians living
without the palace had conspired with the eunuchs in the palace, and had pro-
duced both the fires. Says Laclanlius : comprehensi presbyteri ac ministri (or
the deacons,) et sine ulla probatione ad confessionem damnati, cum omnibus suis
deducebantur (ad supplicium.) Some learned men, not comprehending the
meaning of the words ad confessionem damnati, have supposed the passage cor-
rupted, and have attempted to amend it. But the passage is correct, and needs
no amendment. The sense is, that these Christian priests, when liable to no
just suspicion, were nevertheless subjected to torture to make them confess,
that either they or their brethren and friends were the authors of the [p. 933.]
fire ; and when they would not so confess, and nothing could be drawn from
them by torture, they were still accounted guilty, and were put to death in the
usual manner. The most distinguished of those who were so unjustly slain in
this storm, was Anthimus, the bishop of Nicomedia. This, Euscbius attests,
(loc. cit. p. 297.) agreeing perfectly with Lactnntius, yet amplifying and illus-
trating his more concise account. Laclantius thus proceeds: Omnis sexus ft
aetatis homines ad exustionem rapti (as incendiaries) : nee singuli (quoniam
tanta erat mult,Hudo) sed gregatim circumdato igni ambiebantur. Eusebius
43^ Century IV.— Section 3.
adds, that many men and women, under strong excitement, leaped into the burn-
ing fire. The punishment of the servants was lighter: Domestici alligatis ad
collum molaribus mergebantur.
This terrible inqui^ition, although interwoven with the persecution raised
by Diocletian, should nevertheless be regarded as a separate transaction. For
it was not properly decreed on account of religion, but on account of the con-
flagration : neither did it extend to the whole Christian community, but only to
the people of Nicomedia, and to the Emperor's domestics. And hence, after a
short period, it ceased altogether: nor did the Emperor take occasion from it, to
issue other and more severe edicts against the Christians; as will appear further
on, Lactantius indeed, after describing the sufferings and calamities of the
Christians occasioned by the conflagration, subjoins: Et jam literae ad Maximi-
anum atque Constantium commeavcrant, ut eadem facercnt. From which it
seems to follow, that Diocletian wished the other Emperors to harrass and afflict
the Christians of their provinces, in the same manner that he had the Nicome-
dians. But here, as also in some other particulars, Lactantius is not perfectly
correct. It is demonstrable, from the order of events in this persecution, and
from the authority of Eusebius, that during this first year of these troubles, be-
sides the bishops and clergy, none but those who refused to surrender the sa-
cred books, were exposed to penalties and tortures. And the subsequent edicts,
of which we shall soon speak, place this beyond all controversy. And there-
fore the words of Lactantius above quoted, should be referred, not to the storm
at Nicomedia produced by the burning of the palace, but to things more remote,
namely, the edicts first issued by Diocletian and his son-in-law; which edicts
were undoubtedly sent also to the other Emperors. It is evident, that Lactan-
tius is rather unjust towards all the enemies of the Christians, and of course to-
wards Diocletian and Maximian; whom he assails with bitter reproaches, in a
manner not very christian.
(2) Like other weak and timorous men fond of ease, Diocletian was easily
thrown into a violent passion ; but he could not long retain anger. Hence, as
his fright at the conflagration subdued, iiis rage ceased. But soon afterwards, a
new cause of fear arose. Some persons, I know not who, disturbed the peace in
[p.934.] Syria and Armenia, by attempted insurrections: and the enemies of Chris-
tianity easily persuaded the Emperor, that the Christians had excited these civil
commotions. He therefore, this same year, A. D. 303, published a new edict,
not against the Christians, but against their presiding officers and teachers.
For, as he supposed the Christian people to be guided entirely by their authori-
ty, views, and example, he ordered all their teachers of every grade to be thrown
into prison ; anticipating, that the irksomeness and discomforts of imprisonment
would induce them to abandon Christianity. Says Eusebius, (Hist. Eccles. L.
riii. c. 7. p. 298.) : Cum alii in Melitina, Armeniae rigione, alii in Syria imperi-
am arripere conati essent, promulgatum est Imperatoris edictum, ut omnes
abique ecclesiarum antislites in carcerem truderentur. And therefore, in a short
time, as Eusebius adds : Omnes carceres Episcopis, Presbyteris, Diaconis, Lecto-
ribus, et Exorcistis pleni erant, I may here remark in passing, that it appears
from this representation, that in the beginning of the fourth century, the whole
New Edicts against Christians. 4:)3
Christian clergfy were distributed into /re classes :it least in the East ; or, that
to the three ancient orders of bishops, presbyters and deacons, two others, l,cc-
tors and Exorcists, had been added in the preceding eenlnry.— There coiiUI bo
no clearer and stronger proof than this new decree presents, that Diocletian
long perseverwl in his purpose of accomplishing- the business without blood or
slautrhter; and that the inquisition which he ordered at NicomcJia, in consc,
quence of the (ire, did not extend to all Christians. The cause of this edict
which assailed only the Christian clergy, was the rise of the civil coininotinns in
Armenia and Syria ; as is manifest from the de\-laration of Euselntis. 'I'lu-se
commotions, the enemies of the Christians undoubtedly, persuaded the Empe-
ror to believe, originated from the secret machinations of the Christian clergy.
But he found his expectation, that bonds and imprisonment would overcumo
the resolution of the clergy, to be fallacious: for the majority of them re-
mained immovable in tlieir religion. And therefore, near the close of the year
as 1 suppose, a third edict was issued ; according to which, the impiisoneil cler-
gy, if they would olfer sacrifices, were to be released : but if they refused to sa-
crifice, they were to be compelled by tortures to worship the Gods. Seo
Eiisebiiis, (loc. cit. p. 298.) From this edict, began the blovdij persecution. For
an innumerable multitude of clergymen, through all the provinces of the Ron)an
Empire, were subjected to the most cruel tortures and suirerings, and many of
them most painfully and heroically expired amidst those tortures. In recount-
ing these events, Eusebius is much more full and exnct than Laclantius. In his
Eccles. History, (L. viii. c. 7. &c.) he describes the cruel sufferings of the
Christians in Egypt, in Tiiebais, in Phcnicia, and in Phrygia. On the Martyrs
q/*Pafes/me he has left us a separate treatise, annexed to the Eighth Book of
his Eccles. History, which is full of examples of a cruelty almost exceeding be-
lief. Yet in his Eccles. History, Eusebius seems not to have followed the due
order of events in his narrative, but to have intermingled events consecpjent on
the fourth edict, with those which befell only the clergy, in consequence [p. 935.]
of the third edict. For the second and third edicts did not embrace the j>eoj>k, but
only the f.asturs of the people. And Eusebius himself, (de martyribus Paloes-
tinae, c. ii.. p. 320.) expressly say.s, that in the first year of the persecution, the
cruelty of the enemies of the Christians spent itself upon — movsv tiZv tm? Uxxxriat
Tf 6 iS'fu) r — only the rfficers of the Church. And yet, in his history, he relates miwiy
instances of both men and women among the common people, who, af^er the
third edict, were in several provinces put to death by different modes of lorturo
and execution. And therefore, either her confounds dates in his narrative,
which is the most probable supposition ; or, what might also occur, the gover-
nors and judges in many places, went beyond the limits prescribed in the edict,
and tortured the people, either from superstition, or cruelty, or avarice. This
indeed is indubitable, that the governors and magistrates did not confine their
proceedings within the limits of the imperial edicts; but either from their sav-
age dispositions, or from a desire to please Maximian, who, they well knew,
wished the Christians exterminated, or from some other causes, they proceeded
against the Christians in most of the provinces, more rigorously than they were
commanded to do. Although Diocletian, in his first edict, sanctioned the c.ipi-
VOL. n. 29
4S4: Century IV.— Section 3.
tal punishment of such as refused to surrender the sacred books, and afterwards
sliowed himself incensed against the Nicomedian Christians, on account of the
fire of which they were accused ; yet in no edict (of this year,) did he eou3-
mand those to be put to death who would not renounce the Christian religion.
I will prove this by Eusebius, when we came to tiie fourth edict. And there-
fore, the very considerable number of Christians, who were put to death by the
magistrates during the two first years of the persecution, perished contrary to
the will of the Emperor. And I wonder, that so many learned men, and men
well read in ancient history, should write, that Diocletian condemned to death,
the Christians who would not worship the Gods.
(3) Maximianus HercuUus, the other Emperor, who ruled in Ilaly, readily
obeyed the commands of Diocletian and Maximian (Galerius.) But the other
Cesar, Constanliiis Chlorus, being a man of a mild disposition, and a foUowei
of the religion of nature and reason, was friendly to the Christians in the pro-
vinces under his control, and aided their cause so far as he could. He governed
Gaul, Spain, and Britain. But he could not effect all he wished, lest he should
seem to despise the authority of the First Emperor, and violate the terms of as-
sociation in the government. In Spain many Christians were exposed to vio-
lence, and even death, under his dominion ; as appears from many testimonies ;
and Eusebius, (de martyr. Palasstinae c. Id. p. 345.) clearly states the ftict.
What occurred in Britain, we are not informed. But in Gaul, where Constan-
tins was present in person, he caused the Christians to be exempt from any
great evils, and even to live quietly and comfortably. If he had been able, he
would also have spared their temples and property : but something was to be
conceded to the authority of the Emperor, to the wishes of the superstitious
populace, and to the official vStation of the magistrates and governors. He
[p. 936.] therefore did not command the Christian temples in Gaul to be demo-
lished; yet he did not prohibit the magistrates and the people from either de-
molishing them or shutting them up. Says Lactaniius, (de mortibus perseq.
c. 15. p. 951.): Constantius, ne dissentire a majorum (Augustorum) praeceptis
videretur, conventicula, id est, parietes, qui restitui poterant, dirui passus est, ve-
rum autem Dei templum. quod est in hominibus, incolume servavit, Euse-
bius states the same, (Hist. Eccles. L. viii. c. 13. p. 309. and c. 18. p. 317.) I
omit other passages in which Eusebius praises the clemency ai^d justice of C(m-
stantius. towards the Christians. But I suspect, and not groundlessly, that
Eusebius and Lactaniius do not tell us all, that Constantius permitted to take
place in Gaul lest he should seem to despise the edict of Diocletian ; but they
extenuate, as much as possible, the injuries which he suffered to light upon the
Christians of his provinces, in order to please his son, the Emperor Constantine.
First, Eusebius himself, (de martyr. Pala&st. c. 13. p. 345.) expressly places, not
only Spain, but also Gaul, among those provinces which, in the two first years
of the persecution, belli furorem expertae sunt, but afterwards obtained peace:
which certainly would be false, if only the sacred edifices were demolished in
tlie life time of Constantius. Again, the same Eusebius, (de vita Constant. Lo
1. c. 17. p. 416.) states, that the Christians living in the palace of Constantius^
could freely worship God; and that among them also there were ^itrovpycv^
Fourth Edict of Diocletian, A. D. 304. 485
0»5u — ilie ministers of God,, i. e. priests or presbyters : but lie adds, beyond the
palace, (j^a^a roli noWoii — among the common people,) it was not allowed even
to ulter the name of Christians. Now, if these things were so, — and no one can
well doubt them, then, certainly, the edicts of Diocletian were proclaimed in
Gaul ; and there was a severe prohibition of all public profession of Christiani-
ty, and of assemblies for Christian worship. And it was to remedy this evil in
a measure, that Constaniius took some Christian priests into his own palace, so
that there, and under these priests, the Christians might enjoy religious worship
which ihey could not have elsewhere. And lastly, the same edict which ordered
the temples to be demolished, also commanded the sacred books of Christians
to be given up and burned. And therefore I have no doubt, that the sacred
books were taken by the magistrates from the Christian temples in Gaul, and
perhaps they were here and there burned. Yet this one commendation is due
to Constaniius, that he forbid the publication and execution of those later edicts
of the Emperor, which commanded all clergymen to be imprisoned and then
compelled to ofler sacrifices. In this, Constaniius followed not only his own
mild disposition, but also the dictates of his religion. For he was averse from
the pagan worship, and therefore could not, without feelings of repugnance and
self-condemnation, permit any person to be driven by fear or penalties, to wor-
ship the Gods. — Yet the Gauls speak of some martyrs slain under Conslantius :
but the accounts we have of them, are of doubtful authority.
§ IV. Fourth Edict of Diocletian.— Maximian Emperor Q). 937.]
of the East. Wlicu the enemies of Christianity found these laws
against the Christian pastors and ministers less effective than
they anticipated, they induced Diocletian, in the second year of
the persecution, A. D. 804, to issue ti fourth edict,, more cruel than
the preceding, in which he required all Christians, without ex-
ception, to be compelled to worship the gods, by all the methods
of torture and punishment which ingenuity could devise. Yet,
even this edict, sanguinary and most iniquitous as it was, did not
command the capital punishment of the Christians refusing to
sacrifice. But those governors and magistrates, who were either
the slaves of superstition, or naturally propense to cruelty, or
solicitous to please Maximian,, now marching with rapid strides
to supreme power, took occasion from this edict to destroy, either
by protracted tortures, or by sentences of death, a great multitude
of Christians in most of the provinces.(') The Christian commu-
nity being thus debilitated and down-trodden, Maximian openly
disclosed the designs he had been secretly revolving. He com-
pelled his flither-in-law Diocletian^ and the colleague Emperor
Maximianus Ilerculiiis^ to abdicate their power, and assumed to
436 Century IV.— Section 4.
himself the rank of Emperor of the East, leaving the West under
Constantius Chlorus. At the same time he appointed two col-
leagues in the government, or two Cesars, of his own choice, and
entirely devoted to himself, namely, Ilaximin, his sister's son, and
Severus, excluding altogether Constantine, the son of Constantius,
This revolution in the government was advantageous to the
Christians of the western provinces, and in a measure restored
their peace ; but the Christians of the East were persecuted with
increased violence and cruelty, by Maximian Galerius and Maxi-
min. Ilence, the number of Martyrs and Confessors in those
regions was great. Q
(1) The principal authority for this new or fourth edict, issued in the second
year of the persecution, is Euseltius, (de martyribus Palaest. c. 3. p. 321.) who
says: Secundo anno, Urbano tunc provinciam regente, Imperatoris missss sunt
litterae, quibus generali pracepto (koS-ox/xw TrfioTTay/uaTi) jubebatur, ut omnes
ubique locorum et gentium publice idol is sacrificia et libationes offerrent. Euse-
bins here mentions only one Emperor; whence it appears, that this edict waa
[p. 938.] sanctioned by the authority of Diocletian only; and this is confirmed
by a passage soon to be adduced from Constanline the Great. The same decree
that was sent to Urbanus, the governor of Syria, was unquestionably sent to all
the other provincial governors. For Eusebius expressly says, it was a x.a^o\ix6r
Trpoa-rdyiuia — mandatum generaU ; and that it embraced all the provinces of the
empire, or required omnes ubique locorum et gentium to sacrifice to the Gods.
Neither will the numerous examples of martyrdom in the Roman provinces,
which are recounted by Eusebius, (Hist. Eccles. L. viii.) and by the moderns,
TillemonL especially, (Meraoires, (fce. tome v.) admit of any doubt on this ^nh-
ject— Eusebius does not tell us, what punishment the Emperor decreed for
those whom no tortures could induce to offer sacrifices. But learned men, who
treat of the sufferings inflicted on the Christians prior to the reign of Conslan-
tine the Great, would have us believe, that Diocletian ordered those who refused
to honor the Gods, to be put to death. And they probably so judge, because
they see that a great multitude of Christians of every class, were everywhere
cruelly slain with various tortures, after this fourth edict was issued. And Eu^
sebius himself may have led them to believe so, as he, immediately after men-
tioning the imperial edict, proceeds to state examples of Christians either con-
demned to be devoured by wild beasts, or to be decapitated, as if he would
thereby exhibit the force and cruelty of the imperial mandate. But I hare con-
cluded, after attentively considering the whole subject, that the edict prescribed
no punishment, and much less that of death, as the penalty of refusing to offer
sacrifices; and that the governors were only commanded, in general, to compel
the Christians to worship the Roman deities in every way they could, and by
Buch inflictions and tortures as they might choose. Constantine the Great, in
his edict preserved by Eusebius^ (de vita Constant. L. ii. c. 61. p. 467.) after
Fourth Edict of Diocletian, A. D. 304. 437
mentioning these later edicts of Diocletian, and saying that these edicts, as it
were cruentis mucronibus scripta esse, describes their import thus: Toij /«
i'lKJt.mtii T«» dy^i V 0 I av iii luptrtv KO\aTT»piuiv (PnvcTcpci'V cKTiivity nai>:t>ctKiui to
Judicibus praecipit, ut iiigenii solertiam ad acerbiores cruciatus excogitandos in-
tendercnt. That this description cannot refer to new modes of capital punish-
ment, or new ways of putting men to death, which the governors were to de-
vise, must be manifest. Neither did Diocletian wish the Christians to be slain^
but to have them brought back to the religion of their ancestors by coercion
and force. The passage must therefore be understood of new modes of torture
and suffering: and the Emperor would remind the m.igistrates, that as experi-
ence had shown that the Christians were not moved by the usual methods of
torture, they must exert their ingenuily to devise new modes of torture, and
new forms of suffering, by which the minds of these obstinate persons might be
subdued, and they be induced to honor the gods. And that this was the import of
the edict, is put beyond all dispute, by the .manner of its execution, ns described
by Lactanlius, a spectator of it, (Instit. divinar. L. v. c. 11. p. 449.) He [p. 939.]
represents most of the judges as being careful not to kill any of the Christians;
but, as the Emperor had directed the invention of new modes of torture, they,
as it were, vied with each other in the ingenuity of their modes of compelling
Christians to apostatize: Dici non potest, hujusmodi judices quanta et quam
gravia tormentorum genera excogitaverint, ut ad effectum propositi sui pervene-
rint. Hoc autem non tantum ideo faciunt, ut gloriari possint, nullum se inno-
centium peremisse, - - sed et invidiae caussa, ne aut ipsi vincantur, (namely, by
other judges. That judge, therefore, who could not overcome his Christians by
his modes of torture, was considered as outdone by others.) aut illi (Christiani)
virtutis sure gloriam consequantur. Itaque in exeogitandis poonarum generibus
nihil aliud, quam victoriam, cogitant. Sciunt enim certamen esse illud et pug-
nam. - - Contendunt igitur, ut vincant, et exquisitos dolores corporibus im-
mittunt, et nihil aliud devitant, quam ut ne torti moriantur. - - Illi pertinaci
8tultitic\ jubent curam tortis diligenter adhibcri, ut ad alios cruciatus membra
renoventur, et reparetur novus sanguis ad poenam. Could there be any stronger
proof, than this testimony of the very eloquent man narrating what fell under
his own observation, that Diocletian did not wish the Christians put to death,
but or\\y worried ouMvith tortures, until they should apostatize! Whence it
follows, that he by no means decreed the capital punishment of such as would
not sacrifice. But there are other arguments to the same point. In the Eccles.
History of Eusebiiis, (L. ix. c. 9. p. 360.) there is an edict of Maximin in favor
of the Christians, which is of great weight in this matter. For, first, Maximin
states the substance of the edict of Diocletian and Maximlan Galerius against
the Christians, precisely in accordance with our views: Domitii ac parentes nos-
tri, Diocletianus et Maximianus, recte atquc ordinc constituerunt, ut quicunque
a Deorum suorum religione descivissent, publica anijnadiersione ac supplicio ad
eorundem cultum revocarentur. Therefore, they ordered no man to be put to
death. And next, he tells us, how the judges in the East obeyed the decree:
Ego ven) cum in Orientis provincias venissem, comperi quamplurimos homines,
qui reipublicEb usui esse possent, ob earn quam dixiraus caussam a judicibus in
438 Century IV.— Section 4.
certa loca relegari. Therefore, in the East, the judges merely sent into exile
those Christians whom they could not bring to apostasy by tortures. Who
does not see from this, that the Emperors did not decree the capital punislnnent
of the unyielding Christians'? For if the persisting Christians were willing to
die, the judges who should only order them into exile, would act contrary to
the mandate of their sovereigns, and would incur their displeasure. But a fine
passage in Eusebius, (Hist. Eccles. L. viii. c. 12. p. 306, 307.) entirely s^ettles
the point. Having stated many examples of Christians most cruelly slain, in
[p. 940.] Egypt, Pontus, Syria, and other countries, he adds, that the judges,
desparing of effecting anything by inhumanity and cruelty; ad clemenliam et
humanitatem se converlisse. Neque enim fas esse aiebant, ut urbes civium
sanguine contaminarentur, - - sed potius decere, ut humanitas et beneficentia
Imperitoriae majestatis in universos diffunderetur, nee posthac nostri capitali sup-
plicio plecterentur : Quippe hujusmodi poena per Imperitorum indulgentiam
{i'la T«y tQv HparovvToiv fitxav^-poTriav) nos liberatos esse. Yet it was a sorrowful
clemency, which the judges chose to substitute for severity. For, omitting ca-
pital punishment, they ordered that the Christians whom they could in no way
induce to worship the Gods, should have their eijes dug out, or one of their
legs disabled; and the innocent and holy men, thus mutilated, were condemned
to the mines. Yet, even this inhuman humanity, proves that the Emperors for-
bid, tacitly at least, the slaughter of the Christians; and the judges themselve-s
acknowledged it. — This nevv and horrid edict of Diocletian, therefore, in general
terms, directed the magistrates to command all citizens whatever, within their
several jurisdictions, to offer sacrifices to the Gods; and such as should resist
and refuse to offer sacrifices in the manner of their ancestors, they were to tor-
ture with every species of suffering and pain, until they would do as the Em-
perors required. Neither the measure nor the duration of these tortures w^as
prescribed, nor the method of proceeding with those who resisted these tortures
with a determined and invincible resolution. And hence each of the judges, ac-
cording to his personal character and disposition, put a more severe or a more
mild interpretation upon the Emperor's edict: some, as we have seen from, the
decree of Maximin in Eiisebius, only exiled those they could not subdue; others,
as we also learn from Eusebius, deprived those they could not overcome, of a
leg or an eye; others, influenced by furious passion, condemned them eitlier to
the wild beasts, or to decapitation, or to other horrid modes of execution : and
the most cruel persisted in torturing the Christians variously, until they died
from exhaustion. Many, also, for different reasons, proceeded contrary to the
will of the Emperor, and at once put to death the Christians whom they had
seized. I will cite a noticeable passage from Laclantius, (Instit. divinar. L. v.
c. 11. p. 448.) which admirably illustrates this subject, and clearly supports our
views of the import of Diocletian's edict. Quic per totum orbera singuli
(judices) gesserint, enarrare impossibile est. Qnis enim voluminum numerus
capiet tarn infinita, tam varia genera crudelitatis? Accepta enim potestate
(which was not well defined,) pro suis moribus quisque sccvit. Alii pras nimia
timiditate plus ausi sunt, quam jubebantur; (thus did the judges, who con-
demned the captives to die, which was not commanded :) alii suo proprio adver-
Fourth Edict of Diocletian^ A. D. 804. 431)
8US justos odio ; quid:itn naturali mentis ferltate; nonnulli, ut plaoerent, et hoc
officio viam sibi ad ultiora inunirent: aliqui ad occidendiitn pioocipiU's [p. 941.]
extiterunt; siciit unus in Pliryg-ia, qui univorsum populuin cum ij)so parilcr
coiuentii'ulo coiicromavit. - - Illud vero pessimuui genus est. cui clenieuliic
species falsa blanditur: ille gravior, ille saevior est earnit'ex, ([ui neniiiiern sta-
tuit occiderc.
But wliile it is certain, that the governors and judges most unjustly put :i
great many Christians to death in various ways, contrary to the Emperors man-
date, it must also be ndraitted, that among those put to death, there were not a
few, who, by their own fault, drew upon themselves capital punishment. I say
nothingofLhose who attended religious meetings, which, from the commencement
of the persecution, was severely forbidden : for these had some excuse for their
conduct. But there were otiiers, who voluntarily presented themselves before
the judges, professed that they v»-ere Christians, and most indiscreetly demanded
death. Says Sulpitius Seierus, (Historia sacra, L. ii. c. 32. p. 247. edit. Clerici.)
Certatim gloriosa in certamina ruebatur, multoque avidius turn martyria glcrio-
sis mortibus quaerehantur, quam nunc episcopatus pravis ambitionibus adpetun-
tur. Sulpitius speaks rhetorically. For it is equally wrong and contrary to
Christian morality, unnecessarily to seek martyrdom, and to aspire after a bishojt-
rick from motives of ambition. That there were persons influenced by such in-
considerate zeal as actually to seek death, appears from many examples in
Eusebius and others. I will mention one. After the fourth ediet of the Em-
peror was brought into Palestine, six young men of Gaza, hearing that some
Christians were to fight with wild beasts, all went to Urban the governor, with
their hands tied, confessed that they were Christians, and boasted, that they
were not afraid of the wild beasts. They were all put in prison, and after a
few days decapitated. And this rash conduct, Eusebius commends, (de mar-
tyribus Falsest, c. 3. p. 321.) but I do not ; nor did the laws of the Church favor
this class of people. Is it at all strange, that those who thus insulted the Em-
peror, the public laws, and the governors, and audaciously provoked those
whom Christianity required them to respect, should be punished for their indis-
cretion, by proud men, high in power, and ignorant of true religion ?
(2) I have before stated, that Maximian Galerius was induced to persecute
and oppress the Christians, not merely by his superstition, but also by his lust
of power. He coveted supremacy in the republic, or wished to secure to him-
self and friends the entire Roman Empire, to the exclusion of the family of
Constantius Chlorus. And as he despaired of attaining his object without a
civil war and great movements of dubious result, so long as the Christians, who
were all devoted to Constantius and his son, remained secure and powerful, he
concluded that they must first of all be oppressed, and deprived of their re-
sources. That I am correct in these views, is clearly shown, if I do not mis-
take, by what this very ambitious man contrived and executed, while the perse-
cution was everywhere raging against the Christians. He dissembled [p. 942.]
his purpose of subjecting everything to himself and friends, so long as the edicts
against the Christians were moderate, and did not extinguish all hope of their
return to prosperity. But after he had ])revailed, doubtless by various artitieesji
440 Century IV.—Seciion 4.
on his ftither-in-law, in tlie year 304, to issue the very distressing edict already
described, and there seemed to be no salvation possible for the Christians, he
dropped the mask, and openly avowed what before he had kept concealed in bis
own breast. In the hitter part of the year 304, the condition of the Christians
had been made such, by the fourth edict of Diocletian, that they could attempt
nothing important, and could not raise a civil war in behalf of Constantius and
his son. For, all the provinces of the Roman Empire were drenched in Chris-
tian blood, except only Gaul, and even there the Christians could hold meetings
only within the palace. The temples dedicated to Christ were every where pros-
trated. Meetings for worship or other purposes, eould no longer be held by
Christians. JMost of them had fled the Roman soil, and taken refuge among the
barbarians, who received them kindly. See the edict of Constantine the great:
(apud Eusebium de vita Constantini L. ii, c. 53. p. 468.) Those unable or un-
willing to flee the country, hid themselves, and could not appear in public with,
out imminent peril of their lives and estates. Their principal men, including
the bishops and ministers of religion, were either slain, or maimed and sent to
the mines, or mulcted with exile ; so that the professors of Christianity were
every where without leaders and guides. Their property both public and pri-
vate had, for the most part, been seized by the greedy magistrates and judges.
From a dread of torture and protracted sufferings, many had procured their own
death : and others, including not a few presiding officers and men of note or of
rank and standing, had apostatized from Christ. The Christians, who had in
great numbers been connected with the court of Diocletian or with the army,
were all either put to death as culprits, or sent into exile, or detained in prisons.
The needy residue, weak and obscure, and consisting of persons of inferior
rank or standing, could not possibly disturb the republic, and take arms in be-
half of Constantius. Therefore, all causes of fear being removed, Maximian
Galerius freely disclosed his designs, and made manifest that he wished to rula
the Roman Empire alone. In the first place, he constrained, partly by threats,
and partly by » rgument, his father-in-law Diocletian, to whom he was under the
greatest obligations, and also the other Augustus, Maximian Herculius, on the
Kalends of May A. D. 305, to divest themselves of the purple and the imperial
dignity, the former at Nicomedia, and the latter at Milan, and to retire to private
life. By what method he eflTected this momentous change, no one has told us
more distinctly and accurately than Laclantius ; (de mortibus persequutor. e.
17 &c. p. 954 &c.) This being accomplished, he assumed to himself the title
of Emperor of the East, and left to Constantius Chlorus the rank of Emperor
[p. 943.] ff the West. He hated Constantius exceedingly, and would therefore
have gladly deprived him of both life and official powder: but Constantius stood
strong in the affections both of the citizens and the soldiers, and he was guard-
ed by the powerful protection of the army. And therefore, perceiving that he
had not forces adequate, either to destroy a man of such vast power, or to de-
pose him, Maximian thought best not only to bear with him, but even to elevate
him : and he was the more willing to do so, because he supposed the mildness of
Constantius left nothing to fear from him ; and moreover, as Constantius was
in bad health, he hoped he would soon be removed by death. Says I^actantius,
Maximian Emperor of the East, A. D. 305. 441
(de mortibus perseq. c, 20. p. 361.) : Mnximianus, postiiuam sonibiis o.\pulsi^,
quod voluit, ct fecit, sc j:iin solus toliiis orbis dominuni esse iVrcbat. Naui Con-
stantium, quamvis piioreni noniinari cssut nccesse, contemnebat, quod ct iiatura
mitis esset, ct valctudinc corporis impcditus. Hunc sporabat brcvi obituruin, ut
si non obisset, vel invitum cxuerc facile videbatur. Quid euim faceret, si a tii-
bus cogcretur imperiurn deponere. From Constantius' son Conslanline, afier-
wards styled the Great, he felt that more was to be feared, he being a young
man, and very highly esteemed by the people and the soldiers. But as he re-
sided at the Court of Nicomedia, Maximian thought he had him in his power,
and that he could easily procure his dealh, either by assassinalion or by other
means. He indeed actually attempted this repeatedly, and especially in the fol-
lowing year, 306: and from this may most manifestly be learned the gi-neral
designs of Maximian, and his reason for persecuting the Ciiristians. Says
Lactaniius, (loc. cit. c. 24. p. 968.) : Insidiis saepe juvenem appeliverat, quia
palam nihil audebat, ne contra se arma civilia, et, quod maxinie verebatur, odia
militum concitaret ; et sub obtentu e.\ercitii ct lusus feris ilium objccerat. But
Constanline, perceiving the perfidy and plots of the tyrant, sought safety by
flight, and went to his father in Britain. And this wise step of the young man
alone, frustrated all the plans of Maximian, and procured for the Christian re-
ligion which the tyrant sought to exterminate, the victory over superstition, and
astonishing progress through the whole world. The only benefit, therefore,
which Diocletian received from the edicts which he issued at the instigation of
his son-in-law against the Christians, was the loss of his empire. For Maximi-
an would never have dared to assail him and deprive him of the purple, if ho
had seen him encompassed with Christian friends and ministers, of whom Maxi-
mian stood in the greatest fear, and the armies full of Christian soldiers. — After
gaining the supreme power, which he had long coveted, Maximian took for
himself and Constantius, without consulting Constantius, and against the will
of Diocletian, itvo Cesars, men entirely devoted to him ; the one was Scverus,
an lUyrian, and distinguished for nothing but his vices ; the other was his sis-
ter's son, Daia, to whom lie gave the name of Maximin. The former, under
Constantius, governed Italy, Sicily, and AlViea : to the latter, his uncle [p. 944.]
committed the government of Syria and P^gypt.
This great change in the civil government, brought some relief to the aflhct-
ed Church. Eusebius (de martyr. Pahest. c. 13. p. 345.) expressly says, that
the western provinces, namely, Italy, Sicily, Gaul, Spain, Mauritania and Africa,
obtained peace, when the persecution had scarcely continued two years. Nor
will this appear strange, if we consider that Gaul, Spain, and Britain were go-
verned by Cons!antius Chlorus, the friend of Christians, and a despiser of the
Gods; and that Severiis, to whom the other western provinces, Italy, Sicily,
Mauritania and Africa, were subject, although he was a Cesar, was obliged to
respect the majesty and authority of the Emperor of the West. Neither was
Seierus himself cruel ; though he was a drunkard, and immoderately addicted
to voluptuousness. And yet, what Eusebius states respecting the peace of iho
western provinces, must not lead us to suppose, that they all enjoyed equal
tranquility and happiness. The Christians inhabiting the provinces under the
442 Century IV.—Section 4.
immediate government of Constantius, namely, Spain, Gaul, and Britain, were
undoubtedly, either by his command or with his consent, not only freed from
tiie peril of their lives and estates, but also allowed to hold religious meetings,
and to rebuild their prostrate temples. That it was so in Gaul, is certain. For,
as it has been well ascertained that in Gaul no violence had been done to their
persons, but only to their sacred edifices, the peace which Eusehius tells us was
restored to the Gauls, can be understood only as affording them full liberty
from the Emperor, of resuming their suspended meetings, and rebiiiUliiig their
eacred edifices. In Spain, where the edicts of Diocletian had been more effec-
tive than in Gaul, and where many Christians had been tortured and !^lain, the
same happy state was not produced except in part; as will soon be shown.
Yet there can be no doubt, that here also, after Constantius attained the rank of
Augustus and Emperor of the West, no Christian was molested on accout of
his religion; and the bishops and others who had been imprisoned were set at
liberty. The Spaniards, though too eager for swelling the number of their
martyrs, yet acknowledge that, in the third and following years of the persecu-
tion, no person in their country suffered death for Christ. And this is put
beyond controversy, by the list of Spanish martyrs compiled by John de
Ferreras, (Histoire generale d'Espagne, tom. 1. p. 303, &c.) for the list termi-
nates in the second year of the persecution. — In the provinces governed by
Severus the Cesar, the state of the Christians was less happy. Penalties, tor-
tures and capital executions had indeed ceased, and private meetings were tole-
rated, and likewise bishops; but Christian temples, and the liberty of meeting
[p. 945.] publicly for worship, were by no means allowed. I suppose, this may
be inferred from the example of Africa: for undoubtedly, the same state of
things existed in the other provinces governed by Severus, as in this. Opiatus
Milevilanus, (de schismate Donatistar. L. 1. c. 14. p. 14.) states, that a sort of
council of bishops was held, apud Cirtam civitatem, in domo Urbani Carisi, post
persecutionem : and, that the meeting of this council was early in the Spring of
the year 305, is proved by unquestionable documents, and has long been de-
monstrated by learned men. And therefore, at the time of this council, near
the beginning of the third year of the persecution, the war upon Christians had
terminated in the province of Africa. But, that perfect peace was not yet re-
stored there, Opiatus shows in the same passage. For he says, that the bishops
met in a private dwelling, quia basilicae necdum fuerant restitutae. And a little
after, (c. 16. p, 17.) he expressly states, that it was Maocentius, who at last gave
perfect tranquility to the African church ; and this could not have occurred be-
fore the year 307: Tempestas persecutionis peracta et detinita est. Jubente
Deo, indulgentiam mittente Maxentio, Christianis libertas est restituta. The
persecution therefore, in a measure ceased, in the province of Africa, after the
political changes we have described : The refugees returned to their country ;
the bishops could meet and deliberate on religious matters, without danger of
imprisonment or any punishment ; the offering of sacrifices was no longer re-
quired ; and those who would not worship the Gods, were not prosecuted as
culprits. And yet, it was after this, that, Indulgentiam mittente Maxentioy
Christianis libertas est restituta ; that is, they might not rebuild their lemples»
Max'imlan Emperor of the East, A. D. 305. 443
and they could not optMiIy meet toorether in public edifices for the worship of
God. Ju short, Severus truckled, lest he should .-ippoar to disregard tlie will of
Conslanlius, by whose authority he reigned : and he did not order the Christiana
to be molested, and yet he did not revoke the previous laws against them, nor
suffer them openly to profess their religion.
But in the eastern provinces, where Maximian Galerius with Maximin^
reigned, the calamities of the Christians became more grievous. For Maximian
enacted far more atrocious laws against the Christians than the former edicts,
and commanded that all, who could not be forced by repeated tortures to olVer
sacrifices, should be burned to death in slow fires. LactaiUius speaks of these
iaw.--,(de mortibus persequutor. c. 21. p. 964.) : Dignitatem non habentibus, pa}na
ignis fuit. Id e.xitii primo adversus Christianos permiserat, dalis legibus, ut post
tormenta damnali (that is, that such as could not be constrained by tortures to
forsake Christ, should be condemned, and) hntis ignibus exurerenlur. This ter-
rible punishment is eloquently described in this passage, by Lactantius. And
he closes his account of it by saying, that the bodies when roasted by the slow
fires, were again burned, and: Ossa lecta et in pulverem comminuta, in flumina
et mare jactata fuisse. The testimony of Lactantius is confirmed by [p. 946.]
Grtgory of Nyssa, (Orat. de S. Theodoro martyre, tom. iii. p. 581.) lie expli-
citly says, that a decree was issued by Maximian and Maxentius, that such as
would not renounce Christ, should be put to death: 'Ex S'iyim.aTOi Qioya^ov^
irdj X/J/iTTtaj/of wXav'/STO Tea S'u(r<j-i&i'i yfaUfxari Kai Trpdi ^avarov tiyira. Impio
decreto sancitum erat, ut quicunque Christianua esset irapio script6 exagitare-
tur et ad mortem duceretur. What Gregory calls J'ua-a-t/kU ypdjufjia, as appears
from that which is added, was a slip of paper fastened to the forehead of the
condemned Christians, on which was written the cause of their execution,
doubtless in ignominious terms. Gregory does not state the kind of death
inflicted : but the Theodorus, whose history he recites, after long continued and
extreme tortures, was cast into a fire: which goes to show, that the law of
Maximian mentioned by Lactantius, was enforced also in Pontus. And yet,
that the procedure against the Christians was not in accordance with this Jaw,
in all the provinces, appears from the examples in Eusebius and other.**, of
martyrs who perished by various modes of execution. Perhaps, tlierefore, iu
certain provinces, for instance, Asia Minor, Pontus, &lc. the persevering Chris-
tians, by order of the Emperor, were consumed in a slow fire ; but in general,
only death was decreed against the unyielding Christians, while the kind oi
death was left to the choice of the magistrates. This conjecture, however, I fina
to be unnecessary, on reviewing the statement of Lactantius. For he docs not
say, that execution by burning, was prescribed, but only permitted by the Empe-
ror. The law therefore, only in general, ordered recusant Christians to be put
to death, but left the judges free to burn them, or to execute them in some other
manner.
Maximin, who held Syria and Egypf,nt first professed great lenity towards
the Christians. For, perceiving that many of those who refused to .s.icrifice to
the Gods in the East, had been exiled by the magistrates, he commanded the
judges not to punish any of the Christian.s, nor to send them i:ito exih', but ru-
444 Century IV. — Section 5.
ther to endeavor to gain tho.m over to the worship of the Gods by blandish,
nients and exhortations, without violence or terror. This, he himself states in
his edict preserved by Eusehius, (Hist. Eccles. L. ix. c. 9. p. 360.) And I sup-
pose w'i may believe him, although some learned men think he speaks falsely.
For Eusebius, after reciting the edict containing these declaraticms, adds, that
the Christians would not avail themselves of the advantages offered them in the
edict ; Quod jam antea post pacera Christianis similiter indultam, versutiam ac
perfidiam suam ostendisset. Thus Eusebius admits, that Maximin for a time
showed himself mild and placable towards the Christians, and allowed them to
live in peace ; yet he adds, that this kind treatment was not permanent. The
insidious or perfidious peace here referred to, was undoubtedly that peace which
is mentioned in the edict. But, not long afterwards, either from his own super-
[p. 947.] stition which was very great, or excited by the authority and influence
of his uncle, or lastly, from discovering the little success of the lenity he had
shown, Maximin assailed the Christians everywhere, with such fury, that he
seemed to exceed all their other persecutors in cruelty. Eusebius, (de martyr.
Pala^st. c. 4. p. 323, 324.) tells us, that this new or second assault upon the
Christians by this Cesar, commenced in the third year of the Diocletian perse-
cution. He sent forth edicts, through all the provinces under him, commanding
the magistrates to compel all the citizens, without exception, to offer sacrifices.
And thereupon, the judges, dispatching criers throughout the cities, summoned
all heads of families to come to the temples, and obey the impeiatorial mandate:
and those who refused were stretched upon the rack, and at last, if they would
not yield, were put to death by various modes of execution. The most sicken-
ing examples are described by Eusebius. See his Eccles. Hist. (L. viii. c. 14.
p. 31 1, 312. L. ix. c. 2. 3. 4. p. 349, &c.) and his tract on the Martyrs of Pales-
tine, (c. 4. p. 322.) also Laclantius, (de mortibus persequutor. c. 36. p. 987. and
c. 38. p. 990.)
§ V. Civil wars, and state of Christians, from A. D. 30G to
A. D. 311. While Maximian Galerius^ by the slaughter and des-
truction of the Christians and other tyrannical arts, was seeking
to obtain for himself and son-in-law the supreme power over the
whole empire, divine Providence suddenly disturbed all his co-
gitations and all his concealed plans. For in the year 306 Con-
stantius Chlorus, his colleague Emperor, whose death he had long
anticipated, died in Britain, having by his will appointed, as the
heir to his empire, Constaniine^ his son ; the very man of whom
Maximian stood most in fear : and the soldiers, immediately on
the death of the father, proclaimed the son Augustus and Empe-
ror. To this adverse occurrence Maximian found it necessary to
submit ; but he craftily sought to modify it somewhat, that it
might produce the less harm. He unwillingly conceded to Con-
stantine the lowest place among the Sovereigns of the Empire,
Events, A. D. 30G-311. 445
wiili tlic title of Cesar: and at the same time lie raised Severus,
previously a Cesar, to the rank of an Augustus or Knipcror, tlius
curtailing the power of Constantine. lUit the obstruction which
human sagacity opposed to the rising power of Comtantinc^ tho
current of events soon prostrated. Maxcntius^ the son-in-law of
Maximian Galcrius, and the son oi Maximian Ilercul'Lus, indignant
that /Sevcrus should be preferred before him, assumed to himself
the rank of Kmperor, and took for a colleague his own father,
•whom Maximian Gakrius had deprived of empire. And [p. 948.]
hence arose, in the Roman world, very great commotions and
most destructive civil wars; in which, fortune so favored Con-
sianUne^ that he obtained, contrary to the calculations and tho
will of his enemy Maximian, the rank of Augustus and hmpe-
ror. Amidst these civil commotions, the Christians experienced
various fortune, especially in the countries of the East : for the
servants of Christ in the western provinces, if we except those of
Africa and Italy, felt none of the troubles of those tempestuous
times. For those who contended for political power, according
as they supposed the Christians might aid or thwart their wishes
and interests, showed themselves either friendly or hostile to
them.(') This dubious and fluctuating state of things, Maximian
Galeiius, the author of so great evils and sufferings to the Chris-
tians, himself at length terminated. For while laboring under a
long continued and distressing disease, previous to his death, in
the year 811, he issued a public edict, restoring the Christians to
their ancient tranquillity.(^)
(1) The events, both prosperous and adverse to the church, wliith occurred
from the year 300, when Constanlius Clilorus died in Britain, to the year 311,
when the dying Maximian Galerius gave petLce to the Christians, cannot bo
correctly understood and appreciated without a knowledge of the great jioliti-
cal changes during that period. Fur these changes, if I do not wholly misjudge,
exhibit the causes both of the good and the ill fortune of the christian com-
munity : for so great was the multitude of Christians, who increased even
amid the calamities they endured, that it would be readily perceived thnt tho
party, to which they should adhere and afford aid and assistnnce, would hnvo
the superiority. And hence, those who were eager to reign, either oppressed
and persecuted the (Christians, whom they feared, or courted, sincerely or feign-
edly, their favor. Maximian Galerius, who very manifestly wished to engross
to himself and friends the whole Roman empire, to tiie exclusion of the family
of Constanlius Chlorus, endeavored to oppress the Ciiristinns, who were devot-
ed to Constantine and iiis son, lest they sliould thwart his designs. And h«
446 Century IV. — Section 5.
would doubtless have attained his wishes, if Constantine had not eluded his
repeated attempts on his life, by flying to his father in Britain. Maximian had
to dissemble his chagrin at this unexpected flight ; but being sovereign of the
greatest part of the Roman empire, he hoped he should be able, without much
difficulty, to conquer the young man when bereft of his father, if, without his
consent, he should arrogate to iiimself sovereign power. He undoubtedly rea-
soned at that time, as Lnclantius says he did when he granted the imperial pur-**^
[p. 949.] pie to Constanlius Chlorus, (de mortibus persequutor. c. 20. p. 962.) :
Quid faciei, si a tribus cogelur imperium deponere 1 And yet he did not so
rely on this expectation, as to neglect other methods of removing the impending
danger. For he tried, with blandishments, to entice Constantine out of Britain,
and allure him to his court. Says Lactantius, (loc. cit. c.24. p. 9G8.) : Qui (Constan-
tius Chlorus) cum graviter (morbo) laboraret, miserat (Maximianus) litteras, ut
filium suum Constantinum remitteret sibi videndum, quem jamdudum repetie-
rat. But he could not persuade either the father or the son, to comply with his
request. And the death of Constantius, which occurred soon after, in the year
306, frustrated all his efforts. For, as we are told by very credible writers,
(Libanius, Eusebius, Julian, and others,) Constanlius, by his last will and tes-
tament, transferred to his son, as his patrimony, all the provinces which he had
governed while living : and the soldiers, having a knowledge of this will, imme-
diately after the death of Constantius, proclaimed Constantine both Emperor
and Augustus. Nothing could have occurred more disagreeable to Maximian.
But, as he could foresee that a tedious and hazardous civil war would arise, if
he should altogether set aside the decision of the soldiers, he concluded to yield
to necessity, and to correct the evils which time might bring forth, by iiis pru-
dence. He, therefore, took a sort of middle course, which had some show of
equity. He assigned to Constantine his father's provinces, Gaul, Spain and
Britain, with the rank of the fourth among the Sovereigns, and the title of Ce-
sar. And Constantine, a sagacious young man, and equally afraid of a civil
war, contented himself with the constrained liberality of his enemy. But, that
Constantine might not be equal to his father in power and resources, Maximian
assumed to himself for colleague, the man who was entirely under his control,
Severus, hitherto the administrator in Italy and Africa with the title of Cesar,
and made him Emperor and Augustus, in place of the deceased Constantius.
Severus had previously governed Italy and Africa, not independently, but in
subordination to Constanlius : which had been very advantageous to the Chris-
ti in>^ living under his jurisdiction. For he did not dare to disquiet those, to
whom the Emperor of the West, Constantius, gave his protection. He now
received, with the honor of Emperor, the suj^reme power over Italy and Africa:
and from these provinces, if Maximian should so order, war might easily be
earied into Spain and Gaul, where Constantine ruled. The new arrangement of
the Roman government was, therefore, wisely contrived to hold Constantine in
check, and if necessary, to subdue him by war. But, contrary to all expecta-
tion, Maximian himself was caught by those very snares, which he had laid for
Constantine. There was then living as a private citizen, on a farm in the vici-
nity of Rome, Maxentius, the son-in-law of Maximian Galei'lus, and the son of
PoUtkal Events, A. D. 800-341. 447
tliat Maximian Herculius, who had unwillingly jibdicated the empire, at the
same time wiih Diocletian. This Maxenliiis, a very proud man, was indignant
that Constanlinc and Sevcrus should be preferred before him ; and [p. 950.1
therefore, raising a sedition at Rome and in Italy, lie not only assumed to him-
self the rank of Emperor and Augustus, but likewise persuaded his father,
Maximius Herculius, again to seize the helm of government. There were,
therefore, at the close of the year 306, /owr Avgusli, three in Italy and one in
the East; and two Ccsars, the one in Gaul, Constanline, the other in the East,
Maxhnin. The next yenr, 307, Maximian Galerius sent Severus, at the head
of a numerous and powerful army, against the new Emperors in Italy. But
Serei-us was unsuccessful, and, being captured by Maximian Herculius, wiXH in-
duced to destroy his own life. Maximian Galerius was enraged, but not dis-
couraged, by this victory. Herculius therefore, foreseeing that Galerius would
•soon appear in Italy, at the head of a fresh army, to avenge the death of his
friend Severus, went hastily into Gaul to Constanline the Cesar, and offered him
his daughter Fausta, and the rank of Emperor and Augustus, if he would enter
into alliance with him. Constanline consented, married Fausta, and exchanged
the title of Cesar for that of Emperor. Again, therefore, there were four Em-
perors presiding over the Roman commonwealth, three in the West, and one in
the East: and but one Cesar, namely Maximin, While Herculius was in Gaul,
Maximian Ga'erius arrived in Italy with his army ; but he could neither take
Rome, nor induce his son-in-law Maxentius, to receive the purple and the impe-
rial dignity from his hand. He therefore returned to the East, with ignominy,
and not without great peril to his life and fortune. After the departure of Max-
imian Galerius, Herculius returned to Rome: and, as his son would not be obe-
dient to him, he attempted to expel him from the throne. But he was unsuc-
cessful, for the soldiers fought in defence of Maxenlius : and therefore, leaving
Italy, Herculius fled first to his son-in-law Constanline in Gaul, and soon after-
wards to his enemy Maximian Galerius, at that time in Dalmatia, In this very
difficult posture of public affairs, Maximian Galerius, who was very corpulent,
and of course sluggish, perceiving his need of the aid of some active and ener-
getic man, beloved by the soldiers, and competent to meet Maxculius in the
field and restore the republic to tranquillity ; created his intimate friend Licinius,
a man not distinguished for birth or virtue, but a good soldier, and in great
favor with the soldiers, Emperor and Augustus. But tiiis remedy, which the
Emperor devised for existing evils, most unfortunately only produced new evils.
For, Maximin, his sister's son, who had hitherto governed the East wit>. the
title of Cesar, when informed that Licinius was promoted to the rank of Em-
peror, was indignant, and the next year, 308, with the consent of his soldiers,
he assumed the same rank : and to prevent the rise of a new war, Maximian
Galerius deemed it necessary to sanction this rash act of Maximin. [p. 951.]
Therefore, in the year 308, the Roman empire had six Sovereigns; and a seventh
appeared the same year in Africa, in the person o^ Alexander ; but his reign was
not long. During all these changes and commotions, Constanline in Gaul, cau-
tious and provident, was a quiet spectator, his only aims being, to render the
provinces he governed tranquil and secure against the incursions of the adjacent
448 Century IV. — Section 5.
barbarians, and to strengthen his power by tlie attachment of his people to him.
In the meantime, his falher-in-hiw /lerculius, returned from the East to Gaul,
and hiying aside the purple and the title of Empeor, pretended to be resolved
to spend the remainder of his life in quietude. Conslanline put confidence in
the perfidious man, who all the while was plotting another nefarious project.
Though an old man, he was inflamed beyond measure with the lust of domini-
on; and as he saw every avenue to the supreme power closed against him, ho
contemplated the dethronement of his son-in-law, that he might reign in his
place. He therefore made war upon Conslantine, was vanquished, and for a time
feigned penitence and great moderation; but in the year 310, he returned to his
old habils, and attempted to murder Conslanline in his bed-chamber; and being
convicted of this crime, by order of his son-in-law, he hung himself in prison.
While these events were passing in Gaul, Maximian Galerius in the East, was
preparing for w'ar against Maxentius ; and, to raise funds, he imposed very hea-
vy burdens upon the citizens. But in the midst of his great enterprises, and
while every where oppressing the Christians, whom he considered as the princi.
pal obstacle to his success, he was attiicked by a dreadful disease in the year
310, and tiie next year, 311, cxiiausted by intolerable pains and sufferings, he
ended his days.
What befell the Christians, amidst these various and memorable revolutions
in the Roman government, we will now state, so far as we can learn the facts
from the WM-iters of those times; who are not indeed contemptible, yet are not
very accurate, nor diligent, nor free from partiality, nor well versed in public
affairs and the policy of courts. If historians of this period, like Liry, Tacitus
and Pulibius, had come down to us, we could much better trace the course of
events, and mark the steps by which Christianity rose to dominion over the Ro-
man world. The writers, not Christian, such as Zosimus and Aurelius Victor^
only give us dry summaries of events. The Christian w^riters are more full,
especially Laclantius, (in his tract de mnrtibus persequutor.) and Eusehius.
But they are excessive in their praise of the virtues and probity of Consiantine,
and continually heap reproaches on Maximian and his friends as well as ene-
mies; and they ascribe everything to God, who, they tell us, avenged the cru-
elties of Maximian, rewarded the piety and wisdom of Conslanline, and, in a
wonderful manner, exalted the Christian religion over the worship of the Gods.
[p. 952.] This is pious, and commendable; and the facts stated are true: and yet
it is manifest, that human passions and worldly policy, had no small influence in
these transactions.
I begin with the West. — Conslanline, a?, soon as he had obtained power and
the title of Cesar, gave to the Christians of his provinces, full liberty to profess
their religion, and to worship God according to the divine prescription. His fa-
ther, as we have already seen, had forbidden the Christians to be molested: but
he had not confirmed this by a public law; nor had he given them the liberty,
beyond the limits of Gaul, of assembling publicly for worship, of holding coun-
cils, of rebuilding their prostrate temples, or of creating bishops. But Conslan-
tine freely bestowed on them all these privileges, and this not in a private way,
but by issuing a public edict. That edict is the oldest of all his religious sta-
Character of Constantino. 449
tates. Saj's Lactantius, (de inorlibus porscMjoutor. c. 24. p. 969.) Sii«!cc'pto
imperio, Const.intiiiiis nn<,M.stus nihil cgit priiis, quam Cliristimos culliii nc Deo
Buo reddere. IJaec fuit prima ejus sanctio sanetae reli;;ioni.s restilutae. Nearly
the same things are stated in his divine Institutes, (L. 1, e, I. p. 6.) where ho
says to Constanline : Sahitarem — prineipatuin praeclaro initio auspicatus es, cum
cvorsani subiatamquc jnstiti;un reducens, teleniaium alioruin f.icinus c.\j)iaHti.
The first of these passages manifestly describes the nature of the benefit, con-
ferred by Constanline on the Christians at the commencement of his reign. For
Laclanthis says, that he — Ckrislianos cullid ac Deo sua reddidisse. They had
already been freed from the fear of death and of punishment, by his father;
but it was Conslanline, who cuUui cos et Deo suo itddebal ; that is, who restored
their Ic-^t power of publiciy worsliipping God, and of course also of consecrat-
ing edifices to this worship. Conslaniius Chlarus, therefore, althougli friendly
to the Christians, had not conceded to his Spanish subjects, and perhaps not to
his British, the liberty of holding religious meetings, and of public worship; as
we have before attempted to prove. — This remarkable kindness of Conslanline
to tlie Christians, which was the prominent trait in his character, most c?rtainly,
did not proceed from any love for the religion professed by the Christians ; fur at
that time he was quite ignorant of this religion. Neither did it proceed from any
magnanimity, justice, equity, or any similar characteristics of his mind ; for thcso
virtues were very imperfect in him, before he embraced Christianity. I can dis-
cover and appreciate, in ConsLantine, before he became a Christian, prudence, for-
titude^ and skill in governing; but I also discover in him many things very un-
becoming in a„ good, wise, magnanimous and just prince, and indicative of a
proud, ambitious, cruel mind, destitute of true virtue. These declarations it
may be proper to confirm, by some examples, lest I should appear to assail,
without reason, a prince renowned on so many accounts. — I. In the war be-
tween him and the Franks and Alemanni, in the beginning of his reign, as
Eutropius tells us, (Breviar. Histor. Rom. L. x. c. 3. p. 457.) the captured kings
of these nations, Bcstiis ohjecit, cum magnificum spcctaculum muneris parasseL
A little after, passing the Rhine, he invaded the Bructeri, a people of the Fran-
cic race, slew a great number, and again condemned the captives to [p. 953.]
the wild beasts. See the Panegyrici veleres, published at Antwerp by Livi-
neius, (Orat, ix. p. 197, 198.) These kings and people had broken their cove-
nanis; but such punishments arc not indicative of a just and good, but of a bar-
barous and cruel prince : temperate severity becomes a wise and humane gene-
ral, even in the most just wars. — II. Herculius, when the civil war with his son
arose in Italy, went to Constanline in Gaul, and offered him his daughter Fau.s.
ta, with the title of Emperor and Augustus; and Constanline very eagerly re-
ceived both ; an act unworthy of a magnanimous prince, and manifestly indica-
tive of a mind swelling with priile and ambition. Herculius, whom he knew to
be perfidious and tyrannical, had no power of conferring dominion and rank and
titles of honor: and Constanline must have been greedy of honor, and exceed-
ingly vain, to suppose that he could be elevated and honored by such a man,
and to actually receive honors at his hands. And yet, to this man, his father-
in-law, patron, friend, and confederate, he would afterwards afford no aid, either
VOL. II. 30
450 Century IV.— Section 5.
against Maximian Galerius, or his son Maxenlius. Herculius fled from Italy,
and arriving in Gaul implored the good faith of the aon-in-law : but the son-in-
law could not be moved. — III. A ftir worse and a blacker crime, undoubtedly,
was, his compelling this very Herculius^ from whom he had received both the
purple and a wife, to be his own executioner. Says Lactantius, (de mortibua
pers. c. 30. p. 977.) : Datur ei (there was given to Herculius, by his son-in law
Constantine,) potestas liberae mortis : in the use of which he hung himself with
a rope. How cruel a favor for a son-in-law towards his father-in-law ! I ad-
mit, that Herculius had been guilty of a great crime ; for he had sought to take
the life of his son-in-law ; if we believe what Lactantius and some other histo-
rians relate. But this will not efface the mark of cruelty and inhumanity on
Constantine. If Herculius deserved that punishment, it was certainly most un-
suitable for Conslantine to pass the sentence on his father-in-law, then venera-
ble for his hoary head, — IV. As to his religion, I suppose, that before he
became a Christian, Constantine was of no religion. His father had worshipped
the one God, despising the Gods of the nations: and Eusehius expressly tells
us, (de vita Constant. L. 1. c. 17. p. 416.) that all his children, he (Uni omnium
Regi Deo consecraverat ; that is,) had taught them to worship the one God,
and to hold the Gods of the Romans and the other nations in contempt. Con-
stantine, therefore, in obedience to the commands of his father, as he himself ad-
mits, in his edict preserved by Eusehius, (de vita Constant. L. ii. c. 49. p. 466.)
Vvished to be accounted a worshipper of the one God. And yet, when occasion
seemed to require it, and lest he should alienate the minds of the people and
soldiers from him, he supplicated the Gods, gave thanks to them, and offered
them sacrifices and gifts. For example, the insun'ection of the Franks, in the
year 308, being quelled sooner than was expected, he repaired immediately to the
[p. 954.] temple of Apollo — of that Apollo, whose oracles he had ridiculed and
detested, when he was a young man in the court of Diocletian, as he himself re-
lates, (apud Eusehium de vita Constant. L. ii. c. 50. p. 467.) — he went, I say,
into the temple of Apollo, and by most splendid gifts, and by prayers to that
God, he manifested his gratitude for the peace bestowed by him on the empire.
See the Panegyrici veteres, by Livineius, (Orat. ix. p. 204, 205.) — Such being
the character of Constantine, before his conversion to Christianity, I fully believe,
that the favors he conferred on the Christians, from the very commencement of
his reign, did not proceed either from his humanity and justice, or from any love
for the Christian religion, but were owing solely to his desire to establish his
own authority in the empire. Fearing the power and snares of Maximian Ga-
lerius, whom he knew to be his enemy, he wished to secure to himself firm pro-
tection in the Christians, against all adverse occurrences and the machinatiouH
of the tyrant.
His kinsman or wife's brother, Maxentius, on assuming the imperatorial dig-
nity, followed the example of Constantine, and for the same reason. In the
provinces which Severus had governed, namely Italy and Africa, after the death
of Constantius Chlorus, and when Severus became an Emperor, the persecutions
against the Christians waxed a little more severe. But Maxe?itius, equaWy wiHi
Constantine, as soon as he assumed imperatorial power, prudently, and to se»
State of Christians, ^. D. 301-311. 451
cure the good will of the Christians, put nn end to those movements, and forhid
the Christians to be molested. As to Africa, we have a substantial witness in
Opiatus MileiitanuSjWho says, (de sehisinate Donatist, L. 1. e. 16. p. 17.) : Max-
entium indulgentiam misisse, ntque libertatem Christianis reatituis.se. By tho
word indiilgentiam, we may understand permission to meet publicly for tho
worship of God, and to create bishops, and build temples. By the word liber-
tatem, we may understand/a/Z liberty, such as they enjoyed before the persecu-
tion of Diocletian. For the liberty of worshipping God privately, without fear,
they had previously enjoyed under Severus. — As to Italy and the other parts of
the Roman empire subject to Maxentius, Eiisehius, (Hist. Eecles. L. viii. c. 14.
p. 310.) gives such an account, as confirms our statement of the cause of Max.
enlius' kindness to the Christians. It was feigned or political benevolence. For
be says that Maxentius went so far, Ut religionis Christianse professionera
sijiiularet, fictam pietatis speciem pree se talisse, civibus praecepisse, ut a perse-
cutione Christianorum desisterent. And he adds, that his motive was, Ut in eo
morem gereret, blandireturque populo Romano. 'Et' dpio-KiU kui Ko\a)iiU rod
i'riucu Voi\uaioiv. A great part, therefore, perhaps the greatest part of the Romish
people, was Christian, or at least friendly to Christianity : and to secure their
aid and attachment, against Maximian Galerius, who was meditating war upon
him, he not only annulled all the edicts against the Christians, but even pretend-
ed to be ready to quit the religion of his ancestors, and to embrace Christianity.
He therefore appeared to exceed Constantine, in good will towards [p. 955.]
Christians : for Constantine, though he showed himself friendly to the Chris-
tians, manifested no disposition to embrace their religion, but continued to serve
the Gods of the Romans.
The state of the Christians was therefore tolerably prosperous in the West.
But in the eastern provinces, governed by Maximian Galerius and Maximin, the
storm against them raged with the greater violence. This we learn from several
writers, and especially Eusebius, (Historia Eecles. and de martyr. Palaestina).)
Yet the monuments of this period that have reached us, though few, leave no
room for doubt, that in those provinces, likewise, the state of the Christians was
affected by that of the commonwealth ; and that Maximin especially, was some-
times more indulgent and sometimes more severe, towards the Christians in hi3
provinces, as circumstances seemed to him to demand. In the sixth year of the
persecution, A. D. 308, according to Eusebius, (de martyr. PaloBst. c. 9. p. 332.)
the war upon the Christians in Syria and Palestine, seemed to cease ; and even
tliose condemned to the mines, were restored to freedom : but, after a short
time, the persecution raged with more violence than before. For new edicts
against the Christians, were issued by Maximin, which required that the de-
caying temples of the Gods should be repaired, and that all the people, children
and slaves not excepted, should be forced by penalties to eat the flesh sacrificed
to the Gods. Eusebius confesses, that he does not know the causes of these
suspensions and renewals of the persecution. But it will be manifest, to a per-
son consulting the civil history, that in this year, (308,) Maximin assumed the
title and rank of Emperor in Syria, contrary to the will of Maximian : and
Maximian appeared disposed to avenge this rash act by a war. Now, so long
45?y Century IV. — Section 5.
as Maximian's wrath continued, Maximin spared the Christians in his provinces,
in order to conciliate their good will. But when Maximian was appeased, the
new Emperor Maximin issued fresh edicts against the Ci)ristians; in order to
show, that he would employ the power conceded to him, agreeably to the plea-
sure of the chief Emperor, whom he knew to be hostile to the Christians, and in
order to insinuate liimself the more effectually into his good graces. This new
fury, after a little time, abated: for Maximin concluded, he had fulfilled his ob-
ligations by his edicts; and he thought it not best to exasperate the feelings of
Christians too much, lest they should turn against him, on the demise of Maxi-
mian, whose declining and very bad health indicated that his death was ap-
proaching. And therefore, in the latter part of the seventh year of the perse-
cution, (309,) and in the beginning of the eighth, (310,) the Christians, (ac-
cording to Eusebius, de martyr. Palaest. c. 13. p. 343.) enjoyed the highest
peace, and surprising liberty; so that even those who had been condemned to
the mines, now built temples. But this peace was interrupted, in the course of
the year 310, by the governor of the province, who informed the Emperor, that
the Christians abused their liberty. And hence new calamities occurred, and
[p. 956,] many Christians were put to death ; of whom thirty-nine were beheaded
on one and the same day, by order of Maximin. This tempest, however, was
Bhort, and soon clemency was thought to be safer policy than severity. For in
this year. Maximian was attacked by that terrible disease, which the next year
put an end to his life : and, as all could see, that the disease must terminate
fatally, and as it was feared that, after his death, great commotions and contests
for the supremacy would arise, prudence induced Maximin to desist from per-
secuting the Christians. And Maximian Galerius himself, the author of the
persecution, writhing under a horrible disease, gradually laid aside his cruelty,
as his strength and life wasted away. And hence, on tlie one side the fear of
war, and on the other, the fear of death, restored peace and security everywhere
to the Christians. See Eusebius, (Historia p]ccles. L. viii. c. 16. p. 314.)
(2) The disease of Maximian Galerius is described particularly, by Eusebius,
(Hist. Eccles. L. viii. c. 16. p. 314.) and by Lactantius, (de morlibus persequutor.
c. 33 &c. p. 981 <Sic.) Nothing can be conceived more distressing. For, a can-
cer attacked his immoderately fat body, and by eating gradually, amid horrible
Bufferings, converted it into a living corpse. When various remedies had been
tried in vain, and no hope of recovery remained, a little before his death, in the
month of April, A. D. 31 1, by a public edict, in the name of all the Emperors, he
abolished the laws enacted against the Christians. This edict is extant in u
Greek version from the Latin, in Eusebius, (Plist. Eccles. L. viii. c. 17. p. 415.)
and the Latin in Laclanlius, (de mort. perseq. c. 34. p. 984.) In this edict, ho
permits, Ul denuo sint Chrisiiani, el conventicula sua (their sacred edifices or
temples) component (erect or build). But upon this condition, Ul nequid contra
disciplinam agant. By the disciplinam^ he means the Roman religion ; as ap-
pears from the preamble to the edict, in which he says, that he, Antehac voluisse
cuncta juxta disciplinam publicam Romanorura corrigere. Therefore, in re-
storing peace to the Christians, the Eraperor required of them, that they should
form no projects agamst the public religion of the Romans, and should not pre-
State of Christians, A. D. 30G-811. 453
6ume to assail the Gods, eitlier by words or actions. Indeed, the condition
seems to extend still farther, and to require of Christians, that they should not
attempt to convert any one from the reli<,non of his ancestors to Christianity. —
Eiisebius and Laclantius tell us, that Maximian, before he issued this edict,
Deo errorem suum confessnm esse, atque exclamasse inter dolores, se pro sce-
lere salisfacturum. And if this was the f;ict, then he confessed, that the Chris-
tians' God wns justly punishing him for his cruelty to the Christians, and that
he was conscious of this divine retribution. But the very edict of the Emperor,
wiiich these writers exhibit, militates against the credibility of their statement.
For Maximian is so far from there confessing that he had done wickedly and
unjustly, that he maintains, on the contrary, thnt every thing he liad done ngainst
the Christians, had been done wisely and well. And he tells us, that he had
aimed to et!ect, by his laws, Ut Christian!, qui parentum suorum reli- [p. 957.]
quorant sectam, ad honas mentcs rcdirent. And therefore, in this liist act of his
life, he represents the Christians as being senseless ; and he entertained no doubt,
that the religion of the Romans was better and more sound than that of Chris-
tians. A little after, he explicitly charges the Christians with stuUitia; and not
a syllable does he utter, from which it can be inferred, that any penitence for
his conduct had entered his heart, or that he regarded Christianity as the only
true and divine religion. He states tivo reasons for changing his policy towards
the Christians. Fiist, he had noticed that the Christians, while urged by vio-
lence and peril to offer sacrifices, lived destitute of all religion, and neither wor-
shipped Christ nor the Gods: Cum plurimi in proposito perseverarent, ac vide-
remus, nee Diis eosdem cultum ac religionem debitara exhibcre, nee Christiano-
rura Deum observare. And therefore, considering any religion, even a corrupt
one, to be better than none, he would rather have the Christians follow their
own religion, than have no religion at all. And secondly, to this he adds ano-
ther reason, namely, his cZ^;n(?7?cy ; Contemplationem mitissimaj clemenlicc no.s-
tr<e intuentes et consuetudinem sempiternam, qua solemus cunctis hominibus
veniam indulgere, promtissimam in his quoque indulgentiam nostram credidimus
porrigendam, ut denuo sint Christiani. Maximian therefore would not have it
thought, that he followed right and justice, but rather clemency; and that he
was indulgent to persons whom he pronounced /ooZs, and destitute of sense, and
not that he showed himself /us^ to the innocent and the good. I can readily
suppose, that the friends who were his counsellers, suggested these reasons to
him. Yet the concluding words of the edict, undoubtedly, disclose the cause
which drew this edict from him, and also manifest his views of the Christian re-
ligion: Undejuxta banc indulgentiam nostram debebunt (Christiani) Deuyn suum
orare pro salute nostra et reipubliccc ac sud, ut undique versum respublica restet
incolurais, et securi vivere in sedibus suis possint. From these words, it is ma-
nifest,— I. That Maximian believed, the Christians had some sort of a God. —
II. That this God w'as not the supreme Creator of all things, whom all men
ought to worship, but merely the God of Christians, or the God of a particular
race, such as many other of the Gods. For the Romans, the Greek.s, and all
the nations, in that age, believed that each race of people had its appropriate
and peculiar God. — III. That this God of a particular race, possessed great
454 Century IV. — Section 6.
power, so that he could bestow health, and avert dangers from the state. — IV.
But that this God did not confer such benefits, except at the request of his own
worshippers. There can be no doubt, that some one of the attendants on the
diseased Emperor, suggested to him, tliat the God of the Christians, while resi-
dent in this our world, restored life to the dead, and health to the sick; and that
[p. 958.] these benefits had not yet ceased; for there were many examples of
sick persons miraculously iiealed by the prayers of Christians. And therefore,
possibly the Emperor also, by the aid of this God, might survive the dreadful
disease which was consuming him, if he should grant peace to the Christians,
and ask their prayers for him. The Emperor, being extremely anxious to live,
listened to the suggestion ; and therefore, when his case was desperate, when
the Gods of the Romans had in vain been importuned with prayers and sacri-
fices, he at last took refuge in the Christians' God ; whom, nevertheless, he
would not worship. Hence., it was the /ear of death, and the influence of su-
perstition, and not the goadings of conscience for crimes committed, that pro-
duced this edict. — On the publication of the edict, the war upon the Christians
every where ceased; the prisoners were released, the exiles were recalled, and
meetings were everywhere held without opposition. Maximin, indeed, would
not publicly proclaim the edict, in the provinces which he governed, (as Eusebius
states, Hist. Eecles. L. ix. c. 1. p. 347.) yet he gave verbal instructions to the
rulers under him, no longer to inflict any evils on the Christians ; and this, ac-
cording to Eusebius, was as advantageous to the Christians, as if the edict had
been published. Eusebius tells us, that it was hatred of Christians that pre-
vented Maximin from publishing an edict so salutary to them. But I can
hardly persuade myself that this was the fact. For Maximin did the thing
which the edict required, although he would not publish it. It is more probable,
therefore, that Maximin, knowing the death o^ Maximian to be very near, laid
up the edict of the Emperor — who might even then be dead, — intending to wait
and see what would occur after his death.
§ VI. Constantine's Edicts in favor of the Christians, A. D. 312,
313. On the death of Maximian Galerius in the year 311, the
provinces which he had governed were divided between Maxi-
min and Licinius. The fornier had the Asiatic provinces, and
the latter the European. But Maxentius^ the Emperor of Italy
and Africa, meditated war against Coiistaniine^ that he might ren-
der himself Emperor of the entire West. The ostensible cause,
however, of the war, was the death of his father Maximian Her-
culiiis, whom Constantine had compelled to destroy his own life.
Constantine, therefore, prudently anticipating the counsels of his
enemy, marched his army from Gaul into Italy, and after weaken-
ing Maxentius in several conflicts, entirely routed him in the vear
312, in a fierce battle, at the Milvian Bridge, not far from Eome :
and Maxentius in the flight, by the breaking down of the bridge,
Constantlne^s Edicts. 455
fell into the Tiber and perished. The victorious Constaniine en-
tered the cit}^, and not long after, with Licinius his col- [p. 959.]
league, issued an edict which gave the Christians the fullest li-
berty of living according to their own principles, institutions and
usages. And the next year A. D. 313, he confirmed and defined
this liberty more precisely, in an edict drawn up at Milan. Maxi-
miii^ indeed, who governed the East, was menacing the Chris-
tians with new calamities, and also preparing for war with the
Emperors of the West. But fortune forsook his enterprises. For
Licinius^ encountering him at Adrianople, obtained a complete
victor}^ And Mccximin escaping by flight, drank poison, and
died a miserable death at Tarsus, in the year 311. (')
(1) These occurrences in civil history, I shall not here amplify and illus-
trate : for they are well known ; and, being supported by the testimony both of
Christians and Not-Christians, they are doubted by no one. The justice of the
wars, — first against Maxentius and then against Maximin, even the enemies of
Constant'me do not question ; but they equally recount the, flagitious acts, the
vices and the crimes of both Maxentius and Maximin. I shall therefore speak
only of things relating to the christian community. — Constaniine with Licinius,
immediately after the victory over Maxentius, by an edict addressed to the Prc-
torian Prefect, granted to the Christians and to all other sects, perfect liberty to
worship God in their own way, to profess their religion, to hold religious meet-
ings, and to erect temples. See Ensebius, (Hist. Eccles. L. ix. c. 9. p. 360. 363.)
As Maxentius was vanquished in the month of October, A. D. 312, and the
edict was issued directly after the victory, I think it certain, that the edict was
written near the close of the same year. This Jirst edict in favor of llie Chris-
tians and other sects, is lost : but from the second edict, which was drawn up at
Milan the next year, 313, (of which we shall speak hereafter,) it appears, that
the first edict contained some defect, which might deter persons from embrac-
ing Christianity. Yet what that defect was, the second edict does not definitely
state. The words of the second edict, emendatory of the firf-t, are given to us
by Eusehius, (Hist. Eccles. I^, x. c. 5. p. 388.) Lactantius also gives us this
edict, in Latin, the language in which it was written, (de mort. Persequut.
e. 48. p. 1007.) but he omits the Preface, as not being pertinent to his object.
The words in Eusehius are these : Sed quoniam in eo rescripto, quo hsec facul-
tas illis concessa fuerat, (in which this liberty of retaining and practising their
religion, was conceded to Christians,) multa3 ac diversae sectae nominatim ac
diserte additae videbantar, {ttoWuX Kal J'laji'.pot aipca-iig iS'iKcvv TTBaa-Tfd-uo-d-ai
o-apwff,) quidam eorum, ob banc fortassis caussam, paulo post ab hnjus- [p. 960.]
modi observantia destiterunt, (<i«-o tJ?? raiavrm irapapvKa^ian dviKf'.vovra ) That
is — if I do not mistake, they forsook the christian religion, and went over to the
other sects. From this statement of Eusehius, it appears, — I. 'i'hut this edict
gave absolute freedom of professing their religion, not only to Christians, but
456 Century IV. — Section G.
likewise to all other sects ; e. g. Jews, Samaritans, Manicbaeans, and all others. —
II. TliAt these other sects besides Christians, were expressly named and desig-
nated in the deeiee. — III. Hence, some Christians took occasion to forsake the
christian religion, or to neglect the observances of it. This is very obscure : for
who can easily understand how some Christians should forsake their religion,
because other sects besides the christians were expressly named in the Imperato-
rial edict? And hence learned men disagree as to the meaniyig of the passage.
Some, as Tillemont^ Basnage and others, frankly confess their ignorance of its
import: and they charge the edict with obscurity: but perhaps, they might
better charge Eusebius' Greek translator^ with carelessness in translating. I
think the meaning of the Emperors will be sufficiently clear, if we compare
what precedes and what follows, with the words which contain this apparent
enigma. In the Preface to the edict, the Emperors say, that they, in the first
edict, Sanxisse, ut ceteri omnes, turn Christian!, sectae suae ac religionis lidem
et observantiam retinerent, (t«j anfiaiui tavruv TJiv ttiVt/v ^yXuTTtiv.) Now this
liberty, granted to the Christians and to the other sects expressly named, some
persons explained thus : That it was the pleasure of the Emperors, that every
person should adhere to the sect or religion, in which he had been horn and
educated, and should not go over to another religion. And therefore, some who
had recently embraced Christianity, — Jews, for instance, returned to the reli-
gion of their fathers, that they might not appear to disobey the mandate of
the Emperors : and other persons of other sects, w-ho had not long before em-
braced Christianity, did the same. This false interpretation of their first edict,
the Emperors corrected by a second edict, (preserved by Eusebius and Lactan-
tius,) the following year, 313, published at Milan, after the defeat of Maximin
and the establishment of the government of the empire. For in this edict, they
corrected the ambiguity of the first : and this they do, in terms which show, that
we have rightly apprehended the defect in the first edict. For they thus ex-
press themselves : Itaque hoc consilio salubri ac rectissima ratione ineundura
esse credimus, ut nulli omnino facultatem abnegandam putareraus, qui vel obser-
vationi Christianorum, vel ei religioni mentem suam dederet, quam ipse sibi ap-
tissimam sentiret. They had just before written : Credidimus ordinanda, ut dare-
mus et Christians et omnibus liheram postestatem sequendi religionem, quam quis-
[p. 961.] que xoluisset. Therefore many had before supposed, that it vi\as not the
pleasure of the Emperors, that every one should follow the religion which he
preferred; but that, on the contrary, they wished every one to adhere to the
religion transmitted to him from his ancestors. — In the same edict, moreover,
the Emperors expand and amplify the privileges conferred on the Christians by
the first edict. They first removed all the conditions, with which the liberty
granted to Christians in the former edict was circumscribed : Scire dignationen
tuam convenit, placuisse nobis, ut, amotis omnibus omnino conditionibus, quae
prius scriptis — super Christianorum nomine videbantur, nunc caveres, ut simpli-
citer unusquisque eorum - - citra ullam inquietudinem ac molestiam sni id ip-
8um observare contendat. What these conditions were, which the Emperors
now removed, it is impossible at this day to determine satisfactorily. — The
Emperors add explicitly, that what they conceded to the Christians, they con-
Constantlne's Edicts. 457
ceded also to the otlicr sects, Ut in colendo, quod qnisque delonrcrit, habeat libe-
ram facultatem. — Afterwards they revert again to the Christians and, with
great particuhirity, ordain, that their pUices of worship should be restored to
them, without pay ; and also the lands, which, before the persecution, Ad ju.s
corporis eorum, id est, ccelesiarum, non hominum singulorum, pertinuerint: for
in tlie first edict, tfiis matter was not stated and explained with perfect clearness.
This last part of the edict is drawn up with great accuracy, and shows that it
was dictated by one very friendly to the Christians.
As in the West there were two edicts issued in favor of the Christians, the
fisst not very perspicuous, and the second more clear; so in the East, the same
thing occurred, though in a different manner. Maximin, the Sovereign of the
East, notwithstanding he hated the Christians, dared not oppose the edict of
Maximian Galcrius favorable to them ; yet, after a little time, he assailed
them again by concealed artifices. For, as Laciantius says, (de mort. perseq.
c. 36. p. 986.) : Subornabat legationes civitatum, quae peterent, ne intra civita-
tes suas Christianis conventicula extruere llceret. Quibus ille adnuebat. This
Eusehius confirms, and more fully explains ; (Hist. Eccles. L. ix. c. 2. p. 349.)
for he says, that Maximin first induced the Antiochians, by means of one Theo-
tecnus, Curator of that city, a wicked and violent man, to request of him, as a
very great favor, that no Christian should be permitted to reside in Antioch.
And as Maxiviin granted their request, other cities readily followed the exam-
ple of the Antiochians, and Maximin most cheerfully assented to their wishes ;
and thus a new and violent persecution arose in the East against the Christians.
Moreover, the Emperor aided those impious enemies of the christian name, by
edicts engraven on plates of brass; one of which, presented to the Tyrians,
Eusehius has preserved ; (Hit. Eccles. L. ix. c. 7. p. 352.) As to these [p. 962.]
legations from cities, there can be no doubt; for Maximin himself declares, in
his rescript to Sabinus, (apud Eusehium, Hist. Eccles. L. ix. c. 9. p. 361.) that
the Nicomedians, and other cities, did send such legations to him. But whether
it was true, as Lactaniius and Eusehius would have us believe, that Maximin
suhorned those legations of the cities, or, as Eusehius says, (loc. cit. c. 2. p.
349.) : ipsum ad se legationem misisse adversus Christianos ; I confess, I do
not know. Undoubtedly, the Christians suspected it was so : but whether their
suspicion was well or ill founded is, I think, very uncertain. For they had no
other evidence for their suspicion, than the ill-will of Maximin towards Chris-
tians. It certainly might be, that the Antiochians, either spontaneously, or at
the instigation of Theotecnus, went to the Emperor, requesting the banishment
of the Christians; and that after he had gratified their wishes, other cities, as
Eusehius himself states, followed the example of the Antiochians. That the
Emperor sliould grant the petitions of the cities, I do not at all wonder. For
the supremacy in the empire which he sought, and the war against Conslantine
and Licimius which he meditated, made the good will of the cities and citizens
exceedingly necessary to him. The narrative of Eusehius throws light on the
subject. He acknowledges, — notwithstanding Laciantius makes Maximin the
author of all the legations, — that only one legation, the Antiochian, was sub-
orned by him; and that the others proceeded from the free choice of the cities,
458 Century IV.— Section 6.
following the example of the Antiochians. He also says, that Theotecnus,
the Curator of Antioch, by a crafty trick, induced the Anliochian people
to send the legation for the expulsion of the Christians from that city: for
he had himself consecrated a statue of Jupiter Philius, and he pretended
that this God, by his statue, had directed that all Christians, his ene-
mies, should be expelled from the city, and from the fields around An-
tioch. Now if tlie facts were so, we must believe, that if Maximin sub-
orned the Antiochian legation, which was an example for the others,
then Theotecnus acted the part he did, by the command of Maximin. And per-
haps this was the fact. But how did Eusebius and Lactantius get their knowledge
of it? — From Theotecnus? — He certainly never disclosed to the Christians this
state secret of his master. Whence, therefore, did tliey learn, that Theotecnus
was only the tool of the Emperor? Who does not see, that this charge against
the Emperor, turns out to be a mere suspicion; and that the Christians had no
authority for it? As already remarked, Maximin himself, in the rescript in
which he mentions these legations, (apud Eusehiiim, Hist. Eccles. L. ix. c. 9.
p. 360, 361.) states, that it was with reluctance and sorrow, he conceded to the
Nicomedians and to others the power of expelling the Christians: for their pe-
titions seemed to him contrary to equity: but that he was compelled to answer
them kindly ; for all the Emperors before him had done the same thing : and it
[p. 963.jwas a thing pleasing to the immortal Gods. In this language there is
reference, undoubtedly, to that oracle of Jupiter Philius at Antioch, and to the
responses of other Gods, requiring the expulsion of Christians from the cities.
And I can almost believe, that Maximin does not misrepresent the truth ; and
that, not he, but the pagan priests, who undoubtedly dictated those oracles,
were the real authors of those legations against the Christians. Whoever at-
tentively considers the state of the empire at that time, and the political designs
of Maximin, will readily perceive, that it was not for his interest, either to irri-
tate the Christians, or to oppose the friends of the Gods : on the contrary, pru-
dence demanded, that he should temporise, and as far as possible, conciliate the
good will of both parties. And therefore, as he admits in the rescript referred
to, he forbid on the one hand the forcing of Christians by violence and punish-
ments, to worship the Gods ; and on the other hand he gratified the cities, which
would not endure Christians among them. It is the common practice of the
Christian writers, to load the memory of the enemies of Christianity with many
and great suspicions and accusations ; some of which, indeed, are not to be
treated with contempt ; but others, if carefully examined, will appear weak and
futile.
But let us pass over these transactions, and consider what results followed,
in the East, from the edicts of Consiantine and Licinius in the favor of the
Christians, — When the edict of A. D. 312, was first brought to Maximin, he
would not publish it in the provinces under his jurisdiction. This, I would at-
tribute, not so much to his hatred of the Christians, — the cause assigned by
Eusebius, as to his pride and arrogance. For he wished to be accounted the
chief of the Emperors, and superior in rank to Consiantine and Licinius : and
therefore, he thought it degrading to his majesty, to publish a law enacted by
Constantines Conversion. 459
persons v.liom he deemed his inferiors. But he addressed an epistle to the go-
vernors in iiis dominions, which is preserved by Eusclnus, (Hist. Eccles. L. ix.
e. 9. p. 360.) ditlering indeed, in many particulars, from the edict of the West-
ern Emperors, and yet favorable to the Christians. And this epistle shows very
clearly, that Maximin did not wish to alienate the minds of Christians from
him, but rather to conciliate their good will. For he proclaims his humanity and
clemency towards them, and declares, that from the commencement of his reign,
he had inculcated on the magistrates under him, not to compel any person to
worship the Gods by penal inflictions. He says : Saepe devotioni tuae partim
per litems scripsi, partim coram in mandatis dedi, ut adversus Christianos pro-
vinciarum rectores nihil acerbe statuant, sed potius clementer et moderate in-
dulgeant, seque illis accommodent. He had indeed given kind answers to the
delegations from cities that were unwilling to tolerate Christians within their
walls: but this he did, unwillingly, and partly from respect to the laws of for-
mer Emperors, and partly in obedience to the oracles of the Gods: but, now,
he adds in conclusion, it is his pleasure, that the Christians should be treated
humanely and kindly. — The Christians did not put confidence in this edict,
knowing Maximin to be unstable minded, and at one time to oppose, [p. 964.]
and at another to favor them, according to the changing state of his aflairs, and
the condition of the republic. And as the edict did not explicitly give them li-
berty to erect temples and hold religious meetings, they dared not assume
such liberty, and profess openly their religion. — But after he had been van-
quished by Licinius, in the year 313, he issued a new and more ample edict in
liivor of the Christians ; which also is preserved by Eusebius, (Hist. Eccles. L.
ix. c. 10. p. 363.) In this edict, he complains, (whether truly or falsely, is un-
certain,) that the judges and magistrates did not correctly understand his former
edict; and then, he explicitly gives the Christians liberty to rebuild their sacred
edifices ; and he commands, that the lands taken from them should be restored.
— Shortly after issuing this decree, he died at Tarsus. And thus, in the year
313, the Christians of both the East and West were released from all peril and
fear, after enduring infinite evils, especially in the Eastern countries, from the
year 303, or during ten years.
§ VII. Constanline's Conversion to Christianity. About tlie
same time, and after the victory over Maxentius at the Milvian
bridge, Constaniine the Great is said to have embraced the Chris-
tian rehgion : and it is the common and ancient opinion, that the
sign of a cross seen by him in the heavens, produced and con-
firmed this resolution of the Emperor. If that man is a Chris-
tian who thinks the Christian's manner of worshipping God is
a good and holy one, then I have no doubt that Constantine was,
at that time, a Christian. But if no man should be called a
Christian, unless he believes that Christianity is the only true re-
ligion, and that all other religions arc false, then I suppose Con-
400 Century IV.— Section 7.
stantine became a Christian at a later period, and some years af-
ter the victory over Maxenliiis. For, if any reliance can be
placed on public records, it is certain that Constaniine at first
considered all religions to be good, and he supposed Christ to be
like the rest of the national Gods ; but after some time he ac-
quired purer and better knowledge on religious subjects, and he
concluded that God ought to be worshipped in no other than
the Christian manner.(') But what is reported of the sign of a
cross, or rather, of a IMonogramm of the name of Chrid, seen in
the clouds by him and his army, is more difficult to be explained
than many imagine ; and the inquiring and truth-seeking mind
is so perplexed, that it can hardly determine what to deny, or
what to believe.(^)
[p. 965.] (1) That Conslantine the Great suieerely and truly embraced the
Cliristian religion, is put beyond all question, b}' his deeds, his legislation, his poli-
cy and his institutions: nor is there any event in history, except those only of sacred
history, which, in my opinion, rests on stronger evidence both of testimony and of
facts. If the man, who makes it his chief object through a great part of life to es-
tablish and propagate the Christian religion; who resists and depresses the reli-
gions opposed to it ; who changes nearly his whole system of jurisprudence for its
benefit ; who, to his last breath, praises and extols and solemnly professes Christ ;
who commands his children to be instructed and trained up in that religion ; who
exhorts and excites all his citizens and people to embrace it ; who honors and dis-
tinguishes its priests and ministers with various benefits, and does many other
things of like nature, whereby the Christian religion is sustained and strength-
ened,— if, I say, that man does not deserve the name of a Christian, to whom
can that name belong? But that the truth may be obscured and rendered pow-
erless, by the biasses of the mind, is seen in this case. For there are very
learned and perspicacious men, who either deny that Constaniine the Great was
a Christian, or maintain that he hypocritically professed Christianity, in order to
secure his supremacy in the commonwealth. Some of these are led to such
conclusions by their zeal for new religious opinions, some by hostility to the
clergy, whom it pains them to see Conslantine invest with so many privileges and
favors ; and some by the evils which, they are grieved to see, crept into the
church through ConsLanline. Yet they would be thought to indulge no ground-
less suspicion, and therefore they assign reasons for their opinion. — First :
Many direct our attention to the life and conduct of Constantine; in which
there are doubtless many things altogether unworthy of a Christian man. He
slew Crispus his son, and Fausta his wife, on mere suspicion : He destroyed
Licinius his kinsman, together with his innocent son, contrary to his plighted
faith: He was immoderately addicted to pride, to vanity, and to voluptuous-
ness : He tolerated superstitions, that are inconsistent with Christianity. But
the excellent men who resort to such reasoning, e, g. Christian Thomasius
Constantines Conversion. 401
Godfrey Arnold, and many others, — to speak |)laiiily, Irilic with thcsultjcct, and
niisus(5 the ambiguous term Christian to deceive the incautious. That man i»
p'opcrlij denominated a Christian, who not only believes in Chri.st, but also re-
gulates his life by the precepts of the religion which Christ taught: but those
also are called Christi.ins, who entertain no doubts of the truth and divinity of
the Christian religion, although they deviate in conduct from its rules. That
Conslanlinc was not a Christian in the former sense, is demonstrated by the
vices and crimes laid to his charge: but that he was a Christian in this sense of
the word, no fair-minded man, who is free from superstition, maintains. Those
who call ConstanLine the first Christian Emperor, mean no more thiin, that ho
was the first of the Emperors who regarded Christianity as the only true and
divine religion. This, Constantine might do, and yet act very dilVe- [p. 9G6.]
rently from what a Ciiristian ought to do.
Secondly : Learned men who doubt of the religion of Constantine, remark,
that it was only at the close of life, and when laboring under a fatal disease,
(according to Eusebius, de vita Constant. L. iv. c. 61, 62.) that he not only re-
ceived baptism, but likewise was received among the Catechumens by the im-
position of hands: from which they conclude, that through life he was a man of
no religion, but at last, in the near prospect of death, that he might not appeal
to die destitute of all religion, he requested to be enrolled among Christians.
Very many spurn at this reasoning ; but in my view, it deserves serious consi-
deration. For it is well known, that the whole Christian community consisted
of the Calechumens and the Faithful. If then Constantine, during his whole
life, was neither a Catechumen, nor one of the Faithful, and only a little before
his death wa^ admitted a Catechumen, and subsequently by baptism receiTcd
among the faithful, it would seem to follow, that he lived out of the church
until the end of life, and of course that he should not be classed among Chris-
tians. As to his deferring his baptism till near the end of his life, the fact is
certain, not only from the testimony of Eusehius, but also of other writers of
the highest character and authority, Jerome, Ambrose, Socrates Sozomen, and
others. There are indeed some learned writers of the Romish community, e. g.
Baronius, Ciampinus, Schelstj-atus, and mnny others, to whom IMathew Fur-
wiann joined himself a few years since (in his Ilistoria sacra de baptismo Con-
stantini, published at Rome, 1742, 4to.) — who, relying on more recent and
doubtful authorities, believe, that Constantine was initiated with sacred rites, at
Rome, by Sylvester, then bishop of Rome, in the year 324. But these writers
meet with little credence now, even in their own church ; and they are solidly
confuted by various writers, among whom are the Romish Cardinal, Henry
Noris, (in his Ilistoria Donatistar. 0pp. torn. iv. p. 650 &c.) Tillemont, and
others. To these add, one who has neatly and carefully summed up the argu-
ments on both sides, and who pretty clearly shows that he follows those that
account the story of Constantine' s baptism at Rome as a mere fable, namely,
Thomas Maria Mamachius, (in his Origines et Antiq. Christiaiu-e, torn. ii. p. 232
&,c. Rom. 1750, 4to.) That Constantine was admitted a Ca/ec/juwc/z at Helen-
opolis, a little before his baptism, is learnedly and copiously maintained by
Henry Valesius^ in his notes on Eusobius^ (de vita Constant. L. iv. c. 61
462 Centurij IV.— Section 7.
p. 551.) He observes, that Eusebius expressly says : Constantinura tune primum
manuum impositionem cum solemni praecatione in templo Helenopolitano sus-
cepisse. And from this he infers, that Constantine was thenars/ made a Cate-
chumen. For, as appears from many passages in the early writers, the
bishops created Catechumens by the imposition of hands. In confirmation of
this opinion, Valesius iiM>i, that no where in the life of Constantine written by
[p. 967.] Eusebius, is it said, thai he prayed with the Catechumens, in the church,
or that he received the Sacrament of Catechumens. Yet there is much less force
in this argument, than in the former. If the postponement of baptism till near
death was the only difliculty, it might easily be surmounted. For those ac-
quainted with the customs and opinions of the early ages, well know, that
many, in that age, purposely deferred baptism till near the close of life, in order
to go perfectly pure and immaculate to eternal life : for they supposed, that
baptism purified the whole man, and entirely washed away all stains and defile-
ment from the soul. And that Constantine had some such idea in his mind, is
evident from Eusebius, (de vita Constant. L. iv. c. 61. p. 557.) where he says:
Firmissime credidisse Imperatorem, quaecunque humanitus peccavisset, arcano-
rum verborum efRcaci^ et salutari lavacro penitus esse delenda. And hence we
find numerous instances in that age, of great men who deferred baptism a long
time, and even till their dying hour. See the examples collected by the bro-
there Ballerini, (Notes to Noris, Hist. Donatist. 0pp. tom. iv. p. 651.) by Gian-
none, (Historia civili Neapolitano, tom. i. p. 128.) and by others. In addition to
this opinion, there was another, which had equal influence to cause baptism to
be delayed. Most of the doctors taught, that a protracted, painful and difiiicult
penance was necessary, for those who, after baptism, became defiled with new
transgressions and sins : and that it was not easy to obtain the forgiveness of
God, if when once purged and washed, they returned to their old pollutions.
Moreover, Constantine himself, in his address to the bishops just before his bap-
tism, (apud Euscbium loc. cit. c. 62. p. 557.) says, that he had formerly intend-
ed to be baptized in the Jordan, in which Christ was baptized by John. And
this would accord with the superstition of those times, and can easily be believ-
ed.— It remains, therefore, only to inquire whether, in fact, Constantine first be-
came a Catechumen a little before his death. Valesius and those who follow
him, think this to be manifest from what Eusebius relates, that the bishops laid
hands on the Emperor with prayer, at Nicomedia, just before he was initiated
into Christian worship by the sacrament of baptism. And it is true, that the
Catechumens were made such by prayer and the imposition of hands. But it in
no less certain, and is taught in many passages by the ancients, that persons
who had long been Catechumens, received at certain times, the episcopal impo-
sition of hands. And especially, and most pertinently to our inquiry, the
bishops were accustomed to lay hands on the Catechumens, just before baptism,
either when they confessed their sins, or when they solemnly execrated the
Prince of Hell, or renounced the Devil. I shall pass by this latter imposition of
hands, and speak only of the former. It was a very ancient custom of the
Church, that such as were about to be baptized, should previously confess their
sins; and upon this, the bishop laid his hands on them accompanied by
Constantino'' s Conversion. 4G3
prayer, and in set words lie imparted to them God's forgiveness of all [p. 9G8.]
their former sins. Thus Terlullian, (de bnptismo, e. 20.) : Ii)gressuros baptis-
mum orationibus crebris, jejuniis, et genicuUitionibus et pervigiliis orare oportet,
et cum eonfcs.sione omnium retro delictorum, ut exponant eliam baptismum Jo-
hannis. The testimonies of Avgnsline, Socrates^ Gregory Nazianzcn, and
others, who mention this ancient custom, might easily be adduced. Now this
alone overthrows the whole argument of Valesius from the imposition of hands,
viz. : That the bishops laid hands on Constaniine, before he received baptism ;
and therefore, he then first became a Catechumen. For persons, who had been
Catechumens many years, when the time of their baptism drew near, were cus-
tomarily consecrated by a renewed imposition of hands, after confessing their
sins. And that Eusebius, when treating of the baptism of Constant'nie, speaks
of that imposition of hands which followed a confession of sins, and not of that
by which persons were made Catechumens, is so manifest from his language,
that nothing could be more clear. He says : Genu flexo humi procumbens
(Imperator) veniam a Deo supplex poposcit, peccata sua confitens, in Martyrio,
(in seeking baptism, therefore, Constaniine followed the ancient custom of the
Church, and publicly confessed his sins : and this act of piety was pertinently
followed by the imposition of hands,) quo in loco manuum impositioncm cum
solemn! precatione primum meruit accipere. But this passage, I perceive, will
not satisfy the more difficult : for they will say, that Eusehius distinctly tells
us, that Constaniine then first {Tpurov) received imposition of hands. And aa
it may thence be inferred, that Constaniine had never before received imposition
of hands, they will contend, that he had never been admitted to the class of
Catechumens : because, as before stated. Catechumens were created by the im-
position of hands. Not to protract the discussion needlessly, I will grant, that
the word TrpcJTov in this passage of Eusehius, is to be taken in so strict a sense
as to place it beyond controversy, that Conslanline had never before received
imposition of hands. But, on the other hand, I will demand of these learned
men to prove, that this practice of the ancient Christians of creating Catechu-
mens by the imposition of hands, was not only received throughout the Chris-
tian Church, but also that it was every where regarded as so sacred and so ne-
cessary, that no one could be accounted a Catechumen, unless he had been as it
were consecrated by that ceremony. Most of the testimonies to this practice,
come to us from the Latin writers ; while the Greeks who notice it, are very
few, and quite recent authors. Therefore, it might be that the Latin Church
consecrated Catechumens in this manner, but not likewise the Greek and Orien-
tal Church. But suppose, that the Greek and Oriental Christians did also use
this rite ; who does not know, that practices of this kind, which depend [p. 969.]
on custom rather than on established law, are not observed invariably, but are
frequently neglected or omitted for various reasons? — But I will settle the point
at issue in a shorter way. The things stated by Eusehius, relative to the life
and conduct of Conslanline, put it beyond all controversy, that he had previ-
ously been a Calechumen. For he constantly performed all the duties of a
Christian man not yet baptized, or of a Catechumen ; he attended on the reli-
gious worship; he gave himself to fasting and prayer; he celebrated the Lord's
464 Century IV.—Section 7.
Days, and the days consecrated to the memory of the martyrs : and he watched
througli the night on the vigils of Easter. I omit some other things. And on
the other hand, he allowed himself to be excluded from those things, to which
Catechumens were not admitted. For in his speech before his baptism, (apud
Eiisebium, de vita Constant. L. iv. c. 62. p. 557.) he testifies, that he had beer,
partaker in the common prayers; but, of course, not in the sacred supper.
And therefore, nothing more can be inferred from the language of Eusebius,
than that he had not been admitted into the class of Catechumens, by that
solemn rile, the imposition of hands with prayer. And who can deem it strange,
that such a man as Comlantine, was not treated in the common manner"? And
as he faithfully performed all the duties of a Catechumen, what need was there
of subjecting him to all the rules and regulations for plebeians ? The very
learned Valesius admits the zeal of Constaniine in performing all the duties in-
cumbent on iinbaptized Christians : and he says, we may hence infer, that the
Kmperor was a Chrislian, but not that he was a Catechumen. How do excel-
lent men, sometimes, deceive both themselves and others ! Could any man in
that age be a Christian, yet not be a Catechumen? All the members of the
Church, were either the Faithful, or the Catechumens : and the Christians knew
of no intermediate or third class. That Constantine was not one of the Faith-
ful until near the close of life, is most certain : if therefore he was not a Cate-
chumen, how could he be a Christian ?
Lastly: The learned men who impugn the personal religion of Constantine^
endeavor to show, from the history of those times, that it was his lust for
reigning that induced him to feign himself a Christian ; or, that he sought to
open his way to supreme power by a feigned profession of Christianity. But
this is preferring conjectures, and those too of little plausibility, before reliable
records of facts and testimony. If 1 may be allowed to speak of myself, I have
read and pondered the history of those times, with all the diligence I could, and
yet I never could discover that the Christian religion ever did, or could aid and
further his desire to reign without an associate, which desire I admit was very
ardent. He had reigned prosperously and with glory, before he became a Chris-
tian, or while he adhered to no religion ; and he might have attained the su-
[p. 970.] preme authority, and have performed great achievements, if he had
continued in the religion of his ancestors, or persevered in the worship of the
Gods. In the first place, nothing can be inferred from his wars against Maxen-
tius and Maximin, to prove him a dissembler in this grave matter of religion.
If Constantine had unjustly commenced aggressive wars against Maxentius and
Maximin, and had chiefly used the assistance of the Christians to oppress his
colleagues, there might arise a strong suspicion that he dissembled, as to Chris-
tianity, from motives of ambition. But the justice of his wars against both
Maxentius and Maximin, is not denied even by his enemies; and it is placed
beyond all dispute, by the whole history of those times. Moreover, the army
which he conducted from Gaul into Italy against Maxentius, as we shall soon
Bhow from Zosimus, was not composed of Christians, but principally of barba-
rians and worshippers of the Gods. And of a similar character was the army
with which Licinius encountered Maximin. These wars, therefore, cannot bo
Constantlnc^ s Conversion. 4C5
adduced to prove his ambition; .ind much less .ire thoy evidence of 1h.it im-
pious tricivcry w ith wliii-ii lie is cliarged. And if nny one sIuiU niaiiitaiii, that
afier the concjucst of Maxertliits, Constantine showed himself so just and kind
to the Christians, for tlic sake (»f aceompIishin<j, hy their aid and friendship,
those proud designs which he meditated, he will bring i'orward a suspit-ion,
which is unsupported by testimony or by any other proof, and a suspicion easily
confuted. The man who liarbors such a suspicion, does not consider that Con-
stanline, after his victory over Maxenlius, did not exalt the Christian religion
above all others, and decide tiiat it is the only true religion; but he merely
gave the Christians the power of publicly professing iheir religion; and thd
6«me liberty he gave to all sects and all rcl'gioiis, with no c.\cc[)tions. Neithe:
does the man consider, that the woi-sliippers of the Gods were, at that lime, far
more numerous than the Christians, allhongh there were Christians everywhere.
There would be some ground for this ill opinion of Coiislanline, if he had com<
manded all his subjects to follow the Chri-itian religion, and had endeavored to
extirpate the ancient religion, or even if the number of Christians in the Roman
empire I'.ad preponderated over others. My conclusion, after carefully con-
sidering all the facts, is, that if the Emperor had wished to attain to supremo
power, by the aid of anj/ religion, he could more readily and more easily havo
accomplished his wishes, l)y pretending to adhere to the old siiperslilion, which
was favored by the nmjority of the citizens, than by a feigned adoption of the
new religion, which was odious to a majority both of the soldiers and the
citizens. So, likewise, the contests between Constanline and Licinius, which
cccurred after the subjugation of Maxenlius and Maximin, did not originate
from religion, nor werc they carried on, and successfully terminated bv the aid
of religion. And I confidently affirm, that religion was serviceable to Comtatu
tine, in no one of liis political enterprises. And finally, I for one believe, that
the judgments of the cotemporary writers are to be preferred before the divina-
tions, however ingenious, of all the moderns. Zosimus and Julian, [p. 971.]
both shrewd men, and well acquainted with all the counsels and acts of Constan-
tine, and both, also his enemies, had no doubts that he, in good faith, passed over
from the religion of his ancestors to Christianity: indeed, they assign causes,
though futile ones, for this defection. These men, certainly, did not lack the
means of discerning the truth in this matter, nor the disposition to publish it:
and shall we account ourselves more discerning and perspicacious than thoy,
when, after so many centuries, and by means of a few documents, wo sec, us it
were, through clouds, a small part of the history of that period?
Although I suppose that Constantine was a Christian, that is, that he believed
the Christian religion to be the only true religion, during a great part of liis
life, yet, as to the time when he thus embraced Christianity, I disagree with tho
common opinion. On this point, nearly all follow Eusehius, (de vita Constant.
L. i. c, 27. p. 421.) who tells us, that until the war with Maxenlius, Coiislanline
was a man of dubious, or rather, of no religion. And this I can easily believe,
for it accords very well with his conduct. But when he was about to march
against Maxenlius, prompted, undoubtedly, by a sense of impending peril, he
pondered in iiis mind, to which of the Gods he should entrust himself and hia
VOL. ir. 31
466 Century IV.— Section 7.
fortunes. Eusebius says : Cogitare apud se coepit, quoranam si"bi Dertm adscJs»
ceret. In this, I suppose, he acted sincerely, and not hypocritically. The result
of his deliberations was, that lie determined to worship the one God whom his
liither had wor.shipped, and to neglect the Romish Deities. The grounds of this
resolution, in addition to the example of his father, who worshipped the one
God, were the adversities and the sad end of Diocletian, Maximian, and the other
Emperors, who had sedulously followed the religions of the Gods. These rea-
sons are not forcible, nor creditable to Conslaniine. For he did not abandon
the Roman Gods, and betake himself to the worship of the one God, guided by
reason, or from conviclion, founded on the numerous arguments which the light
of nature suggests; but he merely followed tlie recommendation of his father,
and his hope of vanquishing his enemies and obtaining a prosperous and
splendid reign. For, as Eusebius reports from his own mouth, he reasoned in the
following manner: My father worshipped the one God, and he was uniformly
prosperous through life. On the contrary, tliose Emperors who worshipped
many Gods, after u series of calamities, came to miserable deaths. Therefore,
that I may live happily, and be always prosperous in this world, I will imitate
my father, cind connect myself with the worship of the one God. The man who,
by such reasoning, is induced to embrace any religion whatever, appears to me
to show a very moderate degree of religious knowledge, and to be more solicit-
ous about the present life than the future. And besides this, there is another
thing, which seems to me to detract more from the reputation of Constan-
[p. 972.] tine, than his contempt for the Gods can add to it. Conslantine did
not know the character of the one God, whom his flither had worshipped, and
by whose aid he had lived prosperously and happily. And this his ignorance,
Eusebius does not conceal. For he says, (de vita Const. L, i. c. 28. p. 410.)
that the Emperor: Obsecrasse Deum ilium, ut se ipsi noscendum prpeberet. He
therefore did not know, how fir the power and influence of his father's God ex-
tended, or with what attributes he was invested. It is manifest, both from
other sources and from the citations soon to be made from his edicts, that Con-
stantine did not regard this God of his father as being that supreme and only
author and creator of all things, whom the Christians adored as a God of infinite
majesty and power, but only as a God of finite or limited powers; yet, as more
benignant, efficient, and pow^erful, than all the Roman and Grecian Gods. For a
considerable time, therefore, Conslaniine was (in modern phrase) a Deist ; and
one of the lowest and most ignoble class, worshipping a single God, of whom
he had no determinate conceptions. But not long after this, if we believe Eu-
sebius, he obtained more light. For, as he was marching with his army against
Maxentius, at mid-day, he and his whole array saw in the clouds, that celebrated
Monogramm of the name Christ, or the sign of the cross, with the inscription :
Tovrct vix-a. Hac vince. See Eusebius, (de vita Const. L. i. e, 28. p. 422.) Of
this celebrated vision, we shall treat formally hereafter. But this divinely ex-
hibited image did not remove all clouds from his mind, or explain to him that
God of his father, whom he was desirous to know. Says Eusebius, (de vita
Const. L. i. c. 29. p. 422.): Addubitare ccepit, quidnam hoc spectrum sibi vellet.
This celestial vision, therefore, — and I would have it particularly noticed, did
Constantine's Conversion. 4G7
not profit him at all. The prodii^y needed an interpreter; and this function
Christ liimself assumed. For on the fbliowinir ni<j;'ht, he npj)eared to him in a
dream, with the sign which had been shown him in the heavens, and directed
him to make a military standard, in the form of that sign, and to use it in his
battles. (Ibid. c. 29. p. 422.) The Emperor obeyed this command, and forth-
with caused a standard to be made, resembling the sign which he had seen both
waking and sleeping; and he afterwards had it carried before his armv in all his
battles. Constantine, therefore, noiv knew wliat God he ought to worship. And
yet, what is very strange, although he had long been well acquainted with Chris-
tian atriu'rs, and been conversant with Christians so many years, he did not know
what a God, the being called Christ was; nay, he did not understand the im-
port of the vision. Says Eusehius, (de vita Const. L. i. c. 32. p. 423.): Kai t\s
tin Qtdi yipcjTa, rif rt o thj op3-eiV»ff o-^ius tow (rn/uiiou xoyos. Interrogabat, quis-
nam ille Deus esset, quidve signi illius visio sibi vellet. And yet, as Eusehius
had just before said distinctly, Christ himself had conversed with Consiantine in
his sleep, and had taught him the meaning of the vision. Therefore Consiantine
sent for priests of the Christian religion ; and when he had learned [p. 973.]
from them the character of the God whom he had seen, and the power of that
sign, he betook himself to reading the sacred books of the Christians, with the
assistance of the priests: and he now firmly decided, that Christ alone was
worthy of worship and adoration. (Ibid. c. 32. p. 423 &c.) The series of the
narration in Eusehius, puts it beyond controversy, that all this occurred in
Gaul, before Constimtine had passed the Alps with his army, to encounter Max-
entius. And Eusehius expressly says, (loc. cit. c. 32. p. 424.) : Post hccc (after
all ahoxe staled,) munitus spe bona, quam in illo (Christo) collocaverat, tyran-
nici furoris {Maxentii) incendium restinguere aggressus est. Therefore, ac-
cording to this author, Constajitine wcis already a Christian, when he determined
on the war against Maxentius; as a Christian, he marched into Italy; relying
on the aid of Christ, he fought with Maxentius; and to Christ he attributed his
victory; and lastly, after his triumph, he manifested his gratitude to his Pre-
server, by enacting laws in favor of the Christians. That a large part of this is
true, I do not doubt. For, as Consiantine issued his liberal edicts in favor of
the Christians, immediately after his victory over Maxentius, he, doubtless, was
then more favorably disposed towards the Christians than previously; and he
must be supposed to have attributed his victory to Christ. And yet these very
edicts, which evince his good will to the Christians and his reverence for Christ,
at the same time prove, that all the things stated by Eusehius could not he true,
and they show, that Consiantine was not, at that time, a Christian, except in the
lowest sense. For while he believed Christ to be a God, he did not believe him
to be the supreme God who controls all things; nor did he consider the
Christian religion to be the only way of attaining salvation, but only a good and
useful one, and more safe than the other religions. That I may not be thought
to speak unadvisedly, I will cite the Emperor's own language, in his second
edict in favor of the Christians, preserved by Lactantius, (de mort. perseq. c. 48.)
Eusehius, (Hist. Eccles. L. x. c. 5.) and others: Hajc ordinanda esse credidimus,
ut daremus et Christianis et omnibus liberam potestatem sequcndi religioncm,
4G8 Century IV.— Section 7.
quain qnisque voluisset: quo, quicquid divlnitatis in sede coelcsti, (o, riitori Irrt
3-«;oT«TefK«/ot//>ai'toyT/)u).;Maros,) nobis atquc omnibus, qui sub potestate nostra
sunt constitiiti, plae;itum ae propltium posslt existere. Tiic reason why the Em-
peror eont-lnded to allow all the cilizen^, and among them the Christians, liberty
to fnllow what religion they chose, was, that he and all the citizens might have
all the Gods resident in the celestial 77iansion, propitious aiid friendly to them.
And therefore, at the time Constanline issued this edict, he believed, — I. That
there are many Gods, in the celestial mansion. — II. Among the Gods dwelling^
in the celestial mansion, Christ is one. — III. His own safety, and that of the
citizens and of the whole republic, required, that all these Gods, and Chri.st
among the rest, should be propitious and friendly to the Romans. — IV. Among
these Gods, were the Gods then worshipped by the nations of the earth, and
[p. 974.] particularly by the Romans. — V. And therefore all these Gods, as well
ns Christ, ought to be honored and worshipped, lest they should be offended and
become hostile to the republic. — From all which, it clearly follows, — VI. Tiiat
the form of religion approved by Christians, was a useful and good one: — yet
VII. The religions of ;ill the Gods, also, had their value: and therefore, — VIII,
All the religions of all the Gods, were to be tolerated and treated with respect,
notwithstanding they were perhaps not all of equal excellence and dignity. A
little after, in the same edict, a sentence occurs, in which the same views are ex-
pressed in terms a little varied: Credidimus, ut nuUi omnino fjicultatem abne-
gandam putaremus, qui vel observationi Christianorura, vel ei religioni mentcm
Buam dederet, quam ipse sibi aptissimam esse sentiret, ut possit nobis summa
divinitas, (rd ^-tlov,) cujus religioni liberis mentibus obseqnimur, in omnibus so-
litum sunm favorem atque benevolentiam prtestare. The summa divinitas,
(to d-tlovf) whose favor the Emperor here deems necessary to him, is not the
one supreme God ; but the phrase must be explained in accordance with what
precedes it: and hence, the summa divinitas is, what Constantine had denomi-
nated, Quiequid diiinitatis in sede ccelesii est. What he subjoins, viz. that he and
his colleague, Hujus divlnitatis religioni liberis mentibus obsequi, deserves special
attention. What does the declaration mean ? As the summa divinitas is ex-
plained by Constantine to include all the Gods in the celestial mansion, or quic'
quid divinitatis in sede coelesti est, it must be evident, that these words can have
no other meaning than the following: We. the Emperors, serve all the God»
liberis mentibus, both the ancient Gods, and him whom the Christians worship;
that is, we confine ourselves exclusively to no one religion, but we favor them
all: but to our citizens, we give the liberty of selecting from among those re-
ligions, that which they think to be the best. — How far are these views from
those of a true and perfect Christian? And, if the religious character of Con-
stantine is to be learned from his public edicts, how greatly do the?/ mistake, who
suppose that after vanquishing Maxentius, he forsook the Gentile religions, and
embraced the Christian as being the only true religion ? There is not one of all
the laws enacted by Constanline, during the first years after the victory over
Maxentius, which is not easily explained in accordance with the views we have
attributed to him. He conferred precious privileges and favors on the Christians
and their priests, he spoke respectfully of the Christian religion, and he denomi-
Cons tan tineas Conversion. 4G9
na(ed the church very holy nnd Catholic. But jvll this n man might do, who ap-
proved of the Christian religion, esteeming it holy and good, and yet did not
consider the other religions as false, and to bo abandoned. And there is no ono
of liis laws, for several years, from which it may be clearly inferred, that Con-
stantini held Christ to be the Saviour of mankind, and his Saviour, and that ho
disapproved altogetiier the religions of the Gods. With his edicts, which [p. 975.]
»how his mind to be fluctuating among various religions, his conduct is coinci-
dent; and some of his acts could not have proceeded from a truly Christian
man. His laws tolerating soothsayers, provided they practised their arts openly,
enacted in the seventh and ninth years after his victory over Maxentins, are well
known. (See the Codex Theodosianns, L. ix. Tit. xvi. Leg. 1, 2. and L. xvi.
Tit. X. Log. 1.) Although Gothofred, Tillemonl, and others, labor to extenuate
the bnseness of these laws, yet they do not prevent its appearing, that Constan-
tine had not then wholly abandoned the old Romish religion, and settled down
in the profession of Christianity alone. Neither do I see, why Zosimus should
be charged with falsehood, when he states, (Lib. ii. p. 103. edit.Oxon. 1679. 8vo.)
that Conslantine, long after his dominion was established, listened to soothsay-
ers, and put confidence in them. And I suppose, the same Zusi7niis does not
impose on the succeeding :iges, when in the same place he says, that the Em-
peror, even after Licinius was shiin, Patriis (the Roman) sacris usum esse, non
honoris quidcm, sed necessitatis caussa; L e. lest the Roman people should take
offence. For just so ought an Emperor to do, who had publicly declared, that
he, Liherd, mente, omnis divinitatis in coelesii sede versantis religione obseqid; or,
was not exclusively devoted to any one of the religions then known in the Ro-
man empire. — I pass over other acts of ConsLanline, unsuitable for a man, who
believes no religion to be true but the Christian.
How long Constantine retained these vague and undecided views of religion
and religious worsliip, regarding the christian religion as excellent, and salutary
to the Roman sl:ate, yet not esteeming the other religions or those of inferior
Gods, as vain, pernicious and odious to God ; — it is difficult to determine.
Zosimus, as is well known, reports, (Historia, L. ii, p. 104, &:c.) that Constan-
tine did not publicly profess Christianity, r.nd show himself hostile to the Ro-
mish sacred rites, until after the slaughter of his son Crispus and his wife
Fausta; which truly detestable crimes were perpetrated in the year 326. The
falsehood of this statement, as well as of the cause assigned by Zosimus for
the Emperor's change of religion, I shall not stop here to prove ; for it has
long since been demonstrated by many persons, and may be easily substanti-
ated from the laws which Constantine, before that time, enacted for the benefit
of the christian religion. And yet, in my opinion, Zosimus has not herein err-
ed so grossly as learned men have supposed. For, not to mention that the error
is of only a few years, who can wonder that a man who understood that Constan-
tine practised the Roman worship for many years, and did not hesitate to sacri-
fice to the Gods, notwithstanding he venerated Christ and was benignant to his
worshipers, — should thence infer, that the Emperor went over to the Christiana
at a later period than was commonly supposed ? After well consider- [p. 976.]
ing the subject, I have come to the conclusion, that subsequently to the death of
470 Century IV.— Section 7.
Licimius in the year 323, when Constantine found himself sole Emperor, he he-
came an absolute Christian, or one who believes no religion but the christian to
be acceptable to God. He had previously considered the religion of one God as
more excellent than the other religions, and believed that Christ ought especi-
ally to be worshipped: yet he supposed there were also inferior Deities; and
that to these some worship might be paid, in the mannei of the fathers, without
fault or sin. And who does not know, that in those times, many others also
combined the worship of Christ with that of the ancient Gods, whom they re-
garded as the ministers of the supreme God in the government of human and
earthly affairs] From the year above named, commence those laws and actions
of Constantine, from which most clearly appear, his abhorrence of the ancient
superstitions, and his wish to abolish them and to establish every where the
christian religion. Previously, he had enacted no such laws, except the single
one for the observance of the Lord's day, in the year 321, which partially dis-
closed the designs he was tnen contemplating. It was not till this year, (323,)
that all persons who, on account of Christianity, had in preceding times been
exiled or condemned to the mines and the public works, or been stripped of
their property, were restored to their homes, their liberty, their reputable stand-
ing, and their estates. See Eusebius, (de vita Constant. L. ii. c. 20. p. 453, occ.)
And it was at the same time he prohibited the sacrificing to the Gods, which
had before been lawful ; (Euseb. loc. cit. c. 44. p. 464.) and commanded chris-
tian temples to be erected, and the decayed churches to be repaired and enlarg-
ed ; (Ibid. c. 46. p. 465.) But the strongest and most certain evidence, that his
mind was entirely alienated from all worship of the Gods and exclusively de-
voted to Christ, is the Address he sent to all the citizens, on the falsity and
baseness of the ancient superstitions; in which he exhorted all people to re-
nounce the Gods, and to worship none but Christ. This very pious Address,
worthy of a christian Emperor, is found in Eusebius, (de vita Constat. L. ii. c.
48, &c. p. 466, &c.) These edicts were followed up, in the last years of his life,
by actions and institutions expressive of Constantine's purpose of extirpating
the ancient religions, and of supporting only christiany. For he commanded
the temples of the Gods to be every where demolished, the images to be bro-
ken, the treasures and goods of the temples (to be confiscated,) and the sacri-
fices to be discontinued. See Jac. Golhofred. ad Codicera Theodosianum, (torn.
vi. P. 1. p. 290.)
As I suppose it to be certain from what has been stated, that Constantine
attained gradually to a correct knowledge of religious truth, that at first, and
for a long time, he was only a semi-Christian, but afterwards banished all su-
perstition from his mind, and sincerely embraced Christianity ; I tlierefore con-
clude, that the statement of Zosimus, (Histor. L. ii. p. 104.) is not to be wholly
disregarded. He says, that after the death of Licinius, a certain Egvptian came
to Rome from Spain, and persuaded the Emperor of the truth of the Christian
[p. 977.] religion. Zosimus, undoubtedly, did not fabricate this story; for
what possible motive could induce him ? He must have learned it from those
acquainted with the events of those times. But that Egyptian did not first
bring Constantine to entertain high and honorable views of the christian reli-
Constaiit'uie s Conversion, 471
gion, for such views he had long entertained ; but he purified and perfected the
Emperor's ideas of Christ and of the christian religion, which liad before been
somewhat corrupt and superstitious, and he demonstrated to him, that the wor-
ship of the Gods was utterly inadmissible. On apprc^hendiiifr and embracing
these views, the Emperor took on him the patronage of the christian religion
only. I venture still farther, and maintiiin, that there is not a total destitution
of truth in the statement by Zosimus of the manner in which Constantino was
led to desert the Romish religion and attach himself to the christian, notwith-
standing learned men have pronounced it a compound of calumnies and lies.
Zii.simus tells us, that Constantino demanded of the flamens of the Gods a lus-
tration from his gross crimes in regard to Licinius and his own wife and son ;
and that they told him there was no lustration possible for so great ofTenceft;
But that the Egyptian Christian before mentioned, told the Emperor, that the
Christian religion had power to blot out all sins, and to free those who embraced
it from all guilt. And therefore he willingly embraced so convenient and useful
a religion. I admit, that in this narrative there is not a little of ignorance, of
envv, and of malignity: and yet I can believe, that there is some truth at the
bottom of the fable; and that Constantine, ni'ter the death of Licinius, first learn-
ed, either from this Egyptian or from some others, that Christ has made expiation
for the sins of all 7nen, by his death and blood, and that the pardon of all their
sins may be contidently promised to all those, who by faith become partakers of
his merits. In the first years after his victory over Maxentius, his views of re-
ligion generally, and of the Christian religion in particular, were not altogether
sound, and they differed not greatly from those of the Greeks and Romans. For,
being ignorant of the nature of the salvation and blessings, which Christ has
purchased for mankind, he supposed Christ to be a God, who rewarded the
fidelity and assiduity of his worshippers with happiness and prosperity, in the
present life, and inflicted evils of all kinds on his contemners and enemi.^s. Con-
stantino himself advances such ideas, not obscurely, in his Rescript to Anulinus,
(apud Eusebium, Hist. Eccles. L. x. c. 7. p. 394.) where he writes, that he had
noticed, that despising and depressing the worship of one God, had brought im-
mense evils upon the republic and the citizens; but the reception and observance
of it, had conferred great glory on the Roman name, and the highest hnppiness on
the citizens. At that time, tiierefore, he measured the excellence and worth of differ-
ent religions by the temporal benefits they conferred, and he signified his appro-
bation of Christianity, because it promised most advantages to the Romans.
Nor does Eusebius, as before remarked, deny that such were at first [p. 978.]
Constantine's opinions. But the Christian teachers with whom he conversed,
gradually removed from his mind this great error, so repugnant to the nature oi
Christianity; and they demonstrated to him, that Christ had not purchased
worldly glory, honors, and pleasures for his followers, but had obtained of God
for them, the pardon of all their sins, and the expectation of eternal salvation.
And thu'^, having learned at last the true nature of the Ciiristian religion, by the
aid of this Egyptian or some others, he was able to perceive more dearly the
folly and deformity of the ancient superstitions; and therefore sincerely gave
his name to Christ alone. And hence, if I mistake not, arose that fable of Zosimus.
472 Century IV.—Section 7.
(2) The story of Conslanline's seeing a cross in the heavens, before his bat-
tle with Maxentius, is familiar even to the children of all sects of Christians
and yet it lias exercised exceedingly, very distinguished men, who had the full-
est belief in the divine origin of the Christian religion. And first, there is dis-
pute as to tiie time and place, in which the Emperor saw this wonderful sign.
On this point, there are two opinions among the learned. Some say, he saw the
vision while he was in Gaul, and was contemplating a war against Maxentius.
These follow the high authority of Eusebius, (de vita Constant. L. ii. c. 28.
p. 410.) who certainly so relates the story, as to leave the impression, tiiat Con-
stanline determined to wage war with Maxentius, after he had seen this cross,
and after he had formed a military standard in imitation of it. For he says,
(c. 30.) that the Emperor having placed the sign of the cross before the soldiers,
advanced with his army, (and it was from Gaul, he marched,) to restore liberty
to the Romans. And he presently adds, that in all his battles with Maxentius,
this sign of the cross was borne in the front. And he closes his narrative of the
subject, with these words, (e. 32. p. 424.) : Fod hcec, (after all that had been said
of the vision of the cross, and the formation of the Labarum in the likeness of
it,) munitus spebona — tyrannici furoris incendium restinguere aggressus est. He
therefore determined on the war with Maxentius, after he had seen the cross;
and that determination, all the learned admit, was formed in Gaul. What has
been adduced from Prudeniius and others, in confirmation of this opinion, has
much less weight, and may easily be confuted. — But others, relying on the tes-
timony of Lactantius, (de mort. persequut. c. 44. p. 999.) maintain, that this
cross appeared to Constantine, at the siege of Rome, A. D. 312. on the 7th of
the Kalends of November. This opinion was first advanced by Steph. Baluze,
in his notes on this passage of Lactantius: and he was followed by Anton. Pagi^
Fabricius, and many others. And it is difficult to say, which of the two, Euse-
lius or Lactantius, is most to be credited. The brothers Ballerini, (in their Ob-
[p. 979.] servations on Noris, Histor. Donatistar. 0pp. tom. iv. p. 662.) have as-
suraed the office of arbiters in the controversy ; and, in order to reconcile Lac-
tantius and Eusebius, they would persuade us, that Constantine twice saw the
cross in his sleep, ^frs/ in Gaul, and then in Italy, just before the decisive battle
with ]\Iaxentius. But these learned men will not meet ready credence, since it
may be inferred from the language of Lactantius, that Constantine had seen no
cross, until the dream which he describes. I will dismiss this question, which
is of no great moment, and not easily decided; and will proceed to consider the
tision itself.
Those learned and sagacious men who have disputed concerning this cele-
brated cross of Constantine, may be divided into two classes. For, since no one
can deny, that the Emperor wished to be regarded as having actually seen that
celestial sign called his cross, and moreover, studiously sought, by various
means, such as institutions, medals, declarations, &c. to persuade both citizens
ond soldiers of the reality of the vision ; yet there are some, who think his
honesty in this matter, may be called in question, and, indeed, ought to be.
Hence, Some regard the story as a fable ; and they conjecture various reasons
for the Emperor's fabrication of it. But others^ and tliey are the majority, have
Coiistantinc' s Vision, 473
no doubts, that ComLantine actually saw what he states: yet those who consti-
tute this party, entertain ditfercnt views, as we siiall see hereat'fer.
The first who raiilced Constuntine's story of the cross among fables, were
the Irionds and worshipers of the Gods living in the century in wiiich the vision
is said to have occurred, Gclasius Cijzicenus, (in his Acta Concilii Nicaeiii, L.
i. e. 4. in Harduin's Concilia toin. I. p. 351.) says, that they boldly a-scrted, that
this vision was to be placed among the fabrications intended to benefit the
Christians: Touro to SiYiy>i/ua to?j /uiv dTiVTC/f fA yd-Of Xtvai S'oau Kal vXaTUa,
Hajo. tota narratio infidehbus/a^wZa ct commentum esse videtur. Against these
enemies of the cross, Gelasius disputes earnestly ; but not as he ought to do,
by adducing testimonies, but solely by citing examples of similar visions; which,
if true, would only prove that this vision was possible, not that it was actual.
Among the moderns, so far as I knovv, the first wlio formally denied the reality
of Constantine's vision, was John Hornbcck, (in his comment, on the bull of
Urban VIII. de imnginibus, p. 182.) But he docs not employ historical argu-
ments, nor those derived from the natnre of things, but merely theological ob-
jections. He was combatted by Henry Noris, (Append, ad Histor. Donatist.
Opp. tom. IV. p. 662.) After Hornbeck, very learned men in great numbers,
embraced his views. See Jac. Oiselius, (Thesaurus numismat. antiquorum,
p. 463.) Jac. ToUius, (in LacLanlium de mort. persequut. p. 267. ed. Bauldrii.)
Chris. Thomasius, (Observat. Hallens. tom. i. p. 380.) Godfr. Arnold, and
many others : all of whom pronounce the story incredible, and tiierefore deny
the validity of the testimony in support of it. But while they rank the prodigy
among frauds, they disngree as to the kind of frauds to which it should [p. 980.]
be assigned. Some suppose it was a pious fraud or a religious wile, devised for
recommending and confirming the Christian religion: while others prefer to
call it a military wile or sLratagem, by which Constantino sought to inspire his
soldiers with confidence of victory and heroic valor in the w;ir before them.
Of these two opinions, the first has, I think, no probability whatever ; for, at
the time the cross is said to have appeared to him, Constantine's great solicitude,
most certainly, was, not to establish and extend the christian religion, but to
vanquish Maxentius. Besides, Constantine was not then himself a Christian ;
and he used this vision, not to aid the Christians, but to animate the soldiers.
The other opinion has more plausibility; and it receives some countenance from
the example of a similar artifice employed by Licinins. For soon afterwards,
when Licinius was about to engage in battle with Maximin, he pretended, that
an angel appeared to him by night, and taught him a form of prayer, which if
the soldiers should repeat, they would certainly gain the victory. See Lactan-
tius, (de mort. persequut. c. 46. p. 1003.) This artifice of Licinius, (for what
liberal minded man will presume to say, it was a true vision ?) produced a
wonderful effect on the soldiers. Saysi Lactantius: Crevit animus universis,
victoriam sibi credentibus de coelo nuntiatam. Who that compares tho
two prodigies, — the cross of Constantine and the prayer dictated to Licinius
by an angel, — does not at once suspect, that Licinius copied the example of his
coUe.igue with some variation? But those who maintain the common opmion,
oppose to this conjecture, the fact that Cons/an/ine confirmed his testimony by an
474 Century IV.—Section 7.
oath. For Eusehius says, (de vita Constant. L. i. c. 28. p. 410.) that Ccinstan-
line not only declared most solemnly, that he actually saw the cross, but he
also contirmed his assertion by an oath : "O px. o ts re Tria-'raxra/ueviu tov Koyoy.
Who can hesitate to believe the Emperor, a Christian, and an old man, calling
God to witness the truth of his declaration? To meet this argument, the op-
posite side quote Zosimus, who has recorded, (Histor. L. ii. p. 102.) that Con-
stanline ofLen 'perjured himself: Constantinum saepe pejerasse. But this charge
of an enemy, in this case, is of little weight. And yet I could wish, Eusebius
had given us the form of the oath used by the Emperor. For it is well known,
the word opxof was also used for a mere asseveration ; and those well informed
in ancient customs, are aware, that the ancients had no very distinct and clear
ideas about swearing, and at times placed naked assertions among oaths. But
besides this argument from the oath of the Emperor, I have another, which
seems to free him from the suspicion of a military artifice, and to support the
opinion of those who think Constantine really saw something resembling a
cross. ZosimuSj who is certainly good authority in the case, tells us, (Histor.
L. II. p. 86.) that the army, which Constantine led against Maxentius, was col-
[p. 981.] lected among the barbarous nations, the Germans, the Celts &:c. who
at that time, undoubtedly, were ignorant of Christianity, and worshipped the Gods
of their ancestors : Collectis copiis e.\' redactis in potestatem barbaris, et Ger-
manis, et aliis Celticis nationibus, itemque de Britannia coactis militibus - - ex
Alpibus in Italiam movebat. Now to stimulate such soldiers and fire them with
contidence of victory, a very different artifice was necessary. If he had told
his troops, that Mars, or some other among the Gods with which they were ac-
quainted, had appeared to him sword in hand, and had assured him of a triumph,
he would undoubtedly have awakened their courage. But what influence, I
pray, upon barbarian men, ignorant of Christ, would a speech like the follow-
ing, possess: Take courage, fellow soldiers! We shall be victorious; fori
have seen the sign of a cross in the clouds ; and Christ appeared to me in my
sleep, saying that under the guidance of this sign, I shall be able to triumph
over the enemy! If we would not make Constantine a great simpleton, we
must believe that he would adapt the fraud, by which he sought to animate
them, to their genius, their customs, their capacities, and their opinions. But
this vision, which learned men suppose he invented, was totally opposite to the
feelings, the habits, and the sentiments of the troops which he was leiiding to
battle ; and it was suited to impose on none but Christians.
Those who acquit Constantine of all fraud, and suppose his vision to
have been a reality, differ as to the nature of that vision. The majority suppose
that he saw it while awake; but others say, it was in his sleep. Both adduce in
support of their opinions high and very respectable authorities. Those who
maintain the ^r.s/ opinion, rely especially on Eusebius, who says, that he receiv-
ed his account from the mouth of the Emperor. Yet there are other and later
writers, (the principal of whom are Philostorgius and Socrates,) who likewise
state, that the vision was addressed to the bodily eyes, and not to the imagina-
tion or mind; they say, that Constantine beheld in the clouds at mid- day, a
column of light in the form of a cross. These testimonies are carefully collect
1
Consiant'uics Vision. 475
ed by Jo. Alb. Fahricius, (Diss, do cruce Constant. J G. Biblioth. Gniecae vol. vi.
p. 13, &c.) But all these writers appear to have derived their information from
Eusebius: and therefure to him, or rather to Constantine, whose statements he
records, the whole narrative is to be traced. Eusebius says, (do vita Constant.
L. i. c. 28, 29. p. 410 &lc.) tliat he heard Conslanline not only declare, but con-
firm with an o;ith : Horis diei meridianis, sole in occasum vergente, sc crucis
tropaeum in coelo ex luce conflatum, soli superposituni, ipsis oculis vidisse, cum
hujusmodi inscriptione : Hac Vince : Illud visum militos eliam animadvertisse,
quibus einctus erat : Nescivisse vero se, quid hoc spectrum sibi vellet : At se-
quenti nocte, Christum dormienti apparuisse cum signo illo, quod in coelo os-
tensuni fuerat, praecepisseque, ut militari signo ad similitudinem ejus, quod in
coelo vidisset, fabricato, eo tanquam salutari praesidio in praeliis uteretur. If
this narrative is true, Constantine h:id two divine visions ; the one in [p. 982.]
broad day light, and when he was aicalce ; the other the night following, and
when he was asleep. The first he did not comprehend at the time ; but the lat-
ter dispelled his ignorance and doubts. For Christ himself interpreted to him
the mysterious vision. As all the other writers lived after Eusebius, and, as
appears from their language, transcribed almost their whole account from him,
the whole story rests solely on the fidelify of Constantine and Eusebius. For
though Constantine says, that his soldiers saw what he saw, yet Eusebius deriv-
ed his information solely from the Emperor, and he names no other witness.
And here I cannot but remark, that the learned men who confidently aflirm, that
the whole army, as well as Constantine, saw this wonderful sign, cannot prove
what they affirm, from the language of Eusebius. For he does not say, that
Constantino's army saw that cross, but merely says : Milites omnes, qui ipsum
nescio quo iter facientem sequebantur, miraculi spectatores fnisse. This lan-
guage, I think, is better and more correctly explained of the/ew men who were
his body guards, or the praetorian soldiers, that accompanied him on some ex-
cursion, than of his whole army. As for Eusebius, there is no reason at all to
suspect him of any wish to deceive his readers, or that lie stated any thing dif-
ferent from what was told to him. He certainly had no reason for misrepresent-
ing or fabricating any thing of the kind. Indeed there are some things, which
seem to place his fidelity in this narration beyond dispute. First; In his Eccles.
History, which afforded the fairest opportunity for introducing so important a
matter, there is no mention of it whatever. This shows, that when he wrote
his History, that is, prior to the year 324, he was ignorant on the subject ; and
that it was not then generally a subject of conversation. Again; In his life of
Constantine, (L. ii. c. 28.) he frankly acknowledges, that this prodigy seems al-
mcst incredible ; but that it would be wrong to question the Emperor's veraci-
ty : which is as much as saying : " I believe the facts were as I have stated, be-
cause my most gracious lord bids me believe them : but if another person had
told them to me, I would not believe them." A man wishing to deceive or me-
ditating a pious fraud, would not so speak. We are therefure brought back to
Constantine only. Shall we give credence to this august witness, or shall we
disbelieve him ? It seems almost sacrilege, to charge so great a Prince with
guile and filschood when under oath. And yet he was but a man; and mo-
47G Century IV. — Section 7.
tives for his using deception can be nnincd. Constanline was a ram man, and
greedy of pn)ise and glory, as his conduct shows; nor do his friends wholly
deny it. I therefore think, that it will not be temerity to suppose, he added
somewiiat to the truth ; and perhaps, he changed a mental and nocturnal vision
into a daij vision wiih the bodily eyes, for the sake of appearing (rreat and
favored of God, in the estimation of the citizens and particularly the bi-
[p. 983. J shops. Nor is this a mere naked suspicion: it has some support. For,
coteinporary writers of high reputation, — to say nothing of more recent writers,
— knew nothing of that day vision of which Constantine speaks, but they re-
present the whole as passing in a dream. Thus Lactantius, (if, aa I suppose,
he was the author of the book de morlibus persequutorum,) the preceptor of
Crispus, Constantine's son, and no less intimate and in confidence with the Em-
peror than Eusebius, tells us, (c. 44.) that the Emperor was admonished in his
sleep, to mark the shields of his soldiers with crosses : commonitus est in quiete
Constantinus, ut coeleste signum Dei notaret in scutis, atque ita proelium commit-
teret. Fecit ut jussus est, et transversa littera X, summo capite circumflexo,
Christum in scutis notat, quo signo armatus exercitus capit ferrum. This man,
therefore, living at court and in the focus of light, had heard nothing about a
luminous column seen in broad day, and bearing the inscription, Hac Vince.
Neither had Rujinus heard any thing of it; for he likewise, (Hist. Eccles. L. ix.
c. 9.) speaks only of such a dream. If the vision of Constantine had been pub-
licly known, and if the Emperor had stated to others what he stated to Eusebius^
how, I ask, could these men be ignorant of a thing of such magnitude, and sub-
stitute a mere dream in place of a true vision ? Whatever conjectures or ex-
ceptions we may form, it is manifest, from this disagreement of writers of the
same age and authorit}", that common fame reported nothing definitely respect-
ing this vision, and what some supposed was a day vision, others considered to
be a dream. What inferences may be drawn from all this, I need not explain
at length. Consider also the inscription, Hac Vince, which, it is said, appeared
in the air with the cross. This inscription creates so much difficulty in the af-
fair, that the more it is considered, the more certain it seems, that the whoU
was a dream.
Those who think this vision was actually seen by the Emperor with his wak-
ing eyes, are again divided in opinion. The majority, following the example of
Eusebius and the ancients, place the vision among real miracles ; and they sup-
pose God intended it as a persuasive to the Emperor to embrace the Christian
religion. But some, with the late Jo. All. Fabricius at their head, place this
cross of Constantine among natural phenomena. They suppose that the Em-
peror saw a solar halo encompassing the sun, and not being well acquainted
with the science of nature, he mistook it for a divine prodigy. The deceased
Fabricius published a Dissertation, (in his Biblioth. Graeca, vol. vi. p. 11, &c.)
in which he displayed this ingenious theory with great fulness and erudition. If
all that Eusebius has reported from the mouth of Constantine, is strictly true,
no one can doubt at all, but that this cross is to be ascribed to the mighty
power of God, or to be set down as a miracle. For, whence could come those
two words, Hac Vince, except from the boundless power of God ? But if we
Constantlne^s Vision. 477
apiironch this intcrprctnlion, we encounter so many and so great flifTii'uUics, that
\\c st.irt b;ick instinctively. First : AIiIioul,^!) no mortal cm pri'.si'ribo limits to
the divine wisdom, as to the ways in which God shall deal wiili the men [p. 9S4.]
whom lie would bless and reclaim IVom snj)erslition ; yet it i^eL'rtain, that he al-
ways selects the more sure-, the more suitable, and the more manifest ways, in
preference to the duOiuiis^ the obscure, and tiie difficult. Now I eau clearly per-
ceive, (and all who will reflect, must agree with me,) that it' God intended to
produce a religious reformation in Constantino by a miracle, he could have done
it in a far clearer nnd more certain manner, than by placing the form of a cross
bafore Ids eyes, tiie meaning of which, on his own showing, he did not compre-
hend. .Seco7?c?/y; It must appear strange, nay increc/Z/'/e, to all men of sound
winds, that God should make the victory over his foes, to depend on the sign
of a cross painted upon the shields of the soldiers. This surely was calculated
to beget superstition in the minds of the ignorant people, and to establish them
in the worship and veneration of a cross, which has no power whatever to pro-
duce, or to preserve and augment true religion. More holy counsel, undoubt-
edly, and more accordant with both reason and Chrisli.mity, (I speak confident-
ly : and I think all good and Christian men will agree with me,) I say, God
would have given more holy counsel to Constantine, if he had directed both
him and his soldiers, to forsake their superstition and impiely,to worship Chri-t
and with devout supplications to implore his aid; nnd on such eondi;ions, had
assured him of victory. But from such a direction as Ihe following : Inscribe
the form of a cross on the soldiers^ shields, and bid them carry it before thejn, and
you will be victorious, what could result, except the corrupt opinion, that there is
a supernatural jyower in the sign of a cross, and therefore, that whoever goes into
battle protected by it, will be victorious, whether he is a good man or a bad one,
a man of sound views or superstitiou-j. I need not say, that if God had wished
to prostrate Maxentius by a miracle, he could very easily have effected his ob-
ject, not only without a cross, but also without any battle and slaughter. More-
over, no one will deny, that the miracles and visions of God are always uspful;
neither can he needlessly and uselessly change the laws of nature. But this
mid-day vision, which Eusebius reports from the mouth of the Emperor, was aU
together rain and useless. For, as the Emj)eror expressly says, neither he nor bin
soldiers understood what it meant. It was therefore necessary, that a divine ex-
positor, the Son of God, should explain the obscure, and consequently, uselesi
prodigy, and should inform the Emperor, in his sleep, the night following, that
by this sign God intended, to lead him to fabricate a military standard after the
form of that celestial sign. Undoubtedly God foresaw, that Constantine
would not understand the import of the miracle : why then, did he not show
him a more intelligible and certain sign ? Was it, perhaps, that Christ n)ight
have some reason for appearing to the Emperor in his sleep ? The dream also,
in which Christ appeared to Constantine, I can never believe was divine. For
the Son of God would have addressed the Emperor, in a very different manner.
What, I ask, did he say ? Did he exhort Constantino to belicvo and to strive
after holiness? Did he bid him eschew and oj-pose superstition and im-
piety, rule the State with justice and wisdom, repent of his past trans- [p. 985.]
478 Century IV.— Section 7.
gressions, and prefer the salvation of the citizens before all things else? Not
one of all these. What then did he say"^ He pointed out the way to obtain
a victory ; he showed Constantine what sort of a military standard he must use
in his battles. Was such an address worthy of the Savior of the human race,
of him who expiated the sins of men by his death ? Was it worthy of the
Author of peace to mortals, who would have his followers forgive their ene-
mies? But why enlarge ? This was the natural dream of a soldier and gene-
ral on the eve of battle, who fell asleep while ruminating on the best method
for obtaining the victory. Let us beware, lest by too eager defence of the mi-
racles told us by the ancients in their age, we should do injustice to the majesty
of God, and to that most holy religion which teaciies us to subdue ourselves,
not our enemies.
The opinion of the very learned man, who ingeniously maintains that the
cross of Constantine was a natural 'phenomenon, has also its difficulties, which I
have not sagacity enough to remove. First, this remarkable man himself ad-
mits, that he had much difficulty with those Latin words, Hac Vince, which
Constantine said, appeared to him in the air along with the cross. For who, I
pray you, can attribute such a writing to mere natural causes? To surmount
this difficulty, the very accomplislied Greek scholar attempts a new interpreta-
tion of the language of Eusehius ; who tells us that Constantine stated, that
he saw the the trophy of a cross, >-/Ja9» v r« avTcf o-wv»?3-at, \tyova-av' tov tw
V ix.a. These words Valesius renders : Cu7n livjusmodi inscriptione : Hac
Vince. But the learned jPaJncms would have us translate them thus: Eique
adjiinctum fuisse picturam, indicantem, in hoc ipsi esse vincendum. He therefore
supposes, that the word >/>ap«» in the passage, does not mean an inscription or
writing, but a picture or figure. And he supposes Xeynv to be equivalent with
to signify or indicate. And iho. figure indicative of victory, he supposes, was a
crown, such as every solar halo is. And it is well known, that a croivn was the
sign of victory among the ancients. And hence, the idea of this distinguished
man and his followers, is, that the words Hac Vince, were not written on the
sky, but were enigmatically or symbolically expressed by the figure of a croivn.
That I may not appear punctilious, I will admit that the words of Eusehius or
rather of Constantine, will bear this interpretation. But 1st, how obscurely and
poetically, would the Emperor have expressed himself in this familiar conversa-
tion, if he had used such terras to convey his meaning to Eusehius ? Suppose
any man, wishing to tell his friend, that in a dream he saw a crown, should say, he
saw a figure, which signified : conquer by this ; what should we think of such
a man? Certainly, we should conclude that he talked in enigmas, and did not
wish to be understood ; for he would violate all the laws of familiar discourse.
2dly, It is certain, that Constantine did not v/ish to have his words so understood.
For, on the Laharums, on medals, and on the other monuments, he would have
[p. 986.] the very icords Hac Vince, {tohtco vUa,) distinctly written : which is
evidence, that he wished every body to believe, those words appeared before his
eyes in the air. — 3dly, All the ancient writers so understood both him and
Eusebius : for their language puts it beyond controversy, that they all believed
Constantine to say, that, not a croivn, the sign of victory, but the very words
Constantinc's Vision. 479
Hac Vince, appeared to the Emperor. Besides, another difficulty of no lesa
magnitude occurs. Among all the crosses hitherto observed by astronomers
in solar halos, there has not been one similar to that wiiich Constantine says
he saw : so that an example of such a natural phenomenon is a desideratum.
From Euscbius and from the medals, it is most manifest, that Constantine did
not see the figure of a true cros^, but the firsl Greek Idler in the name Christy
ss. X, through the middle of which, the second Icller of that name, ss. P, was
drawn perpendicularly, thus : A. Now such a figure as this, has never been
seen by any astronomer. I may add, that those who make the day vision a na-
tural occurrence, cannot suppose the nociurnal vision or dream which followed
it, to be supernatural or divine. For, as natural phenomena have no signilican-
cy, who can believe thaf God undertook to instruct Constantine as to the sense
and meaning of such a phenomena? Those, therefore, who believe the dream
of Constantine was sent of God, must necessarily believe that the preceding
mid-day vision was also divine or miraculous.
Finally, to give frankly ray own opinion on this subject, I think, if there is
any measure of truth in this famous vision, (which I will not take upon me to
deny,) it all pertains to the dream. But Constantine, a long time afterwards, to
procure for himself greater influence with the bishops, and to gain flie reputa-
tion of being in high f:ivor with God, added from his own invention all the rest ;
and Eusehius recorded the whole just as he stated. Such frauds, in that age,
were common among Christians ; nor were they deemed unlawful. Constan-
tine, while ruminating on the perilous war with Maxentius in which he was
about to embark, fell asleep. And while he slept, he seemed to himself to be-
hold Christ, having in his hand that Monogram of his name, of which Constan-
tine retained a distinct recollection, and promising him victory under the guid-
ance of that sign. When he awoke, he supposed he had been divinely taught
the way to obtain the victory, and that he ought to obey the vision. Yet, if
any one prefer the supposition, that Eusehius either did not correctly understand
the Emperor, and mistook what he said of his dream to refer to an ocular vision^
or, purposely added several things to the Emperor's statement, I shall not ob-
ject to his retaining such a supposition.
§ YIII. A Short Persecution by Licinius. The Roman republic
appeared tranquil and liappy, after the subjugation of Maxentius
and Maximin ; but soon after a new war for dominion, [p. 987.]
arose between Constantine the Great and his colleague Liciniiis^
to whom Constantine had given his sister in marriage. But this
war was of short duration. For in the year 314, Licinius being
defeated in two battles, at Cibala3 in Pannonia, and in Thrace,
was compelled to sue for peace with his kinsman. But, nine
years after his defeats, this turbulent man, who wished to have
no associate in the government, both from his own choice and at
the instigation of the Pagan priests, assailed Constantine with
480 Century IV.— Section 8.
larger and more powerful forces, in the year S2i. To attach
those priests the more to himself, Licinius not only inflicted very
great wrongs upon the Christians of the provinces under his
government, but also cruelly put to death not a few of their
bishops.(') But fortune was again adverse to him. After being
defeated in several battles, he had no resource but to cast himself
on the clemency of his conqueror; and Ae, in the year 325, for
reasons not known, ordered him to be strang^.ed. After this vic-
tory over Licinius, Constantine reigned sole Emperor all his life;
and he strove to the utmost, by his counsels, Jiis laws and regu-
lations, and by rewards, to extend the Christian religion over all
the nations he governed, and to depress and gradually destroy
the religion of the Gods and the ancient superstitions.
(1) Of this renewed persecution of the Christians in the East, by Licinius, —
rot to mention others who touch upon it cursorily, Emebius treats professedly;
(Hist. Eccles. L. x. c. 8 &c. p. 396 &c. and de vita Constant. L. ii. c. 3 «fcc.
p. 444 &c.) Among those who touch upon the subject incidentinlly, I think we
are to place Aurellus Victor, a Roman, in whose work de Ccrsaribus, (c. 41.
p. 435.) these words occur: Licinio ne insontium quidem et nobilinm philoso-
phorum servili more cruciatus adhibid modum fecerunt. Licinius had nothing
to do with the Philosophers ; nor can ingenuity devise a reason why he should
put them to death. Victor must therefore refer to the Christian bishops; who
imitated the Greek Philosophers in their dress, mode of life, &:c. nay, as is well
known, often assumed the name of Philosophers. For, many of these, as Euse'
hius testifies, (ubi supra,) Licinius cruelly and in a servile way put to death,
both personally and by his governors. At first, he showed favor to the Chris-
tians; as appears from the edicts in their behalf, issued jointly by him and Con-
stantine, and also from some other things. But when he resolved on a second
war against Constantine, he became hostile to them; and this, I apprehend, not
fio much from hatred of Christianity, or from the love of superstition, as from
the lust of power, and the hope of subduing Constantine. For, he doubtless, ex-
pected, that the vast niuititude of the friends and patrons of the ancient religion,
[p. 988.] who were exceedingly mortified to see their interests continually de-
cline, and those of the Christians flourish and enlarge from day to day, — would
foin his party, take up arms, and rush heartily into an intestine war against
Constantine, the patron of Christians, if they should see him to be inclined to
oppress the Christians, and to restore the ancient religion to its pristine dignity.
To this motive, suggested by policy, we may add the exhortations and promises
of the Pagan priests. For the3% as Eusebius tells us, (de vita Const. L ii. c. 4.
p. 445.) when he consulted them : Respondcbant eum victorem hostium et superi-
orem in bello fore. And hence, in his oration to his soldiers, (preserved by Eu-
sebius, ibid. c. 5. p. 445, 446) in order to animate them, he crafiily insinuates,
that he had undertaken the war to avenge and vindicate the ancient religion ;
Licinius Fersccutcs. 481
and he promises, after gaining the victory, to wholly exterminate all despiaera
of the Gods. For hitherto he had spared the common Christians, although he
had, before the war began, put to cruel deaths the more grave, venerable, and
excellent of the bishops in his provinces. See Eusehius, (loc. cit, c. 2. p. 444.)
But this cruelty, likewise, did not so much proceed from a hatred of the religion
taught by these bishops, as from policy, and the desire of conquest. For he
feared that these bishops, whom he knew to be much attached to Constantino,
and to have vast influence with the people, if he spared them, would prove
traitors and enemies, would communicate information to Constantino, and would
'.'xcite sedition and rebellion among the plebeians whom they controlled. Sozo-
men perceived this motive in the crafty man ; for he says, (Hist. Eccles. L. i.
c. 7. p. 409.): Licinius existimabat, ecclesias Christianorura (and especially the
presidents or bishops of the churches,) id unum optare ct studere, ut ilium
{Conslantinum) solum Imperatorem haberent. Therefore Licinius first expelled
all Christians from his palace; and then, proceeding farther, he ordered all mili-
tary men on duty in the cities, if they refused to sacrifice to the Gods, to be de-
prived of their military honors. {Eusehius, Hist. Eccles. L. x. c. 8. p. 396.)
Other enactments, altogether unjust and cruel, followed. Through his provin-
cial governors, he raised calumnies against the bishops most distinguished for
probity of life and for influence, and then put them to death in new and most
cruel ways. Some of the temples he demolished ; others he ordered to be closed.
These were the precursors of heavier calamities and sufferings, with which he
threatened the Christians when he should have conquered Constantine. There-
fore many of them, to save their lives from peril, fled, and took refuge in the
fields and deserts. But divine Providence, by the victories of Constantine, dis-
sipated all his atrocious projects. And this war of Licinius, became beneficial
rather than injurious to the Christians. For, Licinius being slain, and Constaru
tine, ruling the empire without a colleague, more zealously than ever, protected
the Christian cause, and defended it against the assaults and machinations of
the old s-uoerstition.
END OF THE SECOND VOLUME.
VOL. n. 32
TABLE OF COINCIDENCES.
The paging of the original Latin is noted in brackets at the outer endings of the
lines in this translation. But as the figures do not stand out very prominentlyy
: and as the paging of the original is most commonly referred to by writers, the
following table of the coincidences of the two pagings is subjoined.
Orig.
Transl.
Orig.
Transl.
Orig.
Transl.
Orfg.
Transl.
Orig.
TransL
p. 1 vol
I. p. 8
p. 57 vol.
I. p. 76
p. 113 vol. I
p. 145
p. 169 vol. I
.p. 216
p. 225 vol I
.p. 283
284
2
9
58
77
114
147
170
217
226
3
9
59
79
115
148
171
218
227
285
4
11
60
80
116
149
172
219
228
286
5
12
61
81
117
150
173
221
229
287
6
13
62
83
118
151
174
222
230
289
7
15
63
84
119
153
175
223
831
290
8
16
64
85
120
154
176
224
232
291
9
17
65
86
121
155
177
225
233
292
10
19
66
88
122
156
178
226
234
293
11
20
67
89
123
157
179
227
235
294
12
21
68
90
124
159
180
229
236
295
13
22
69
91
125
160
181
230
237
297
14
24
70
92
126
161
182
231
238
298
15
25
71
93
127
162
183
233
239
299
16
26
72
94
128
163
184
234
240
300
17
28
73
9&
129
165
185
235
241
302
18
29
74
97
130
166
186
237
242
303
19
30
75
98
131
167
187
238
243
304
20
31
76
100
132
168
188
239
244
305
21
32
77
lOl
133
170
189
241
245
307
22
34
78
102
134
171
190
242
246
308
23
35
79
103
135
172
191
243
247
309
24
36
80
104
136
173
192
244
248
310
25
37
81
106
137
175
193
245
249
312
26
39
82
107
138
176
194
247
250
313
27
40
83
108
139
177
195
248
251
314
28
41
84
109
140
179
196
249
252
315
29
42
85
110
141
180
197
250
253
316
30
43
86
111
142
181
198
252
254
318
31
44
87
113
143
183
199
253
255
319
32
46
88
114
144
184
200
254
256
320
33
47
89
115
145
186
201
256
257
321
34
48
90
116
146
187
202
257
258
322
35
49
91
117
147
188
203
259
259
324
36
50
92
119
148
190
204
260
260
325
37
51
93
120
149
191
205
261
261
326
38
52
94
121
150
192
206
262
262
327
39
54
95
122
151
194
207
263
263
328
40
55
96
123
152
195
208
264
264
329
41
56
97
124
153
196
209
265
265
330
42
58
98
126
154
197
210
266
266
3:31
43
59
99
127
155
199
211
267
267
332
44
60
100
128
156
200
212
268
268
333
45
61
101
129
157
201
213
269
269
334
46
62
102
130
158
202
214
270
270
336
47
64
103
131
159
204
215
271
271
337
48
65
104
133
160
205
216
27:i
272
338
49
66
105
]34
161
206
217
274
2r\
339
50
67
106
136
162
207
218
275
274 •
340
51
69
107
138
163
208
219
276
275
342
52
70
108
139
164
210
220
277
276
343
53
71
109
140
165
211
221
27rf
277
344
54
72
110
142
166
212
222
279
278
345
55
74
111
143
167
2i;i
223
281
279
:j.16
56
75
112
144
168
214
224
282
280
347
484 Coincidences of the pages in the Original and in the Translatic
Orig.
Tr.nsl.
Orig.
Transl.
Orig.
Tran«l.
Orig.
Trans].
Orig.
Tninsl.
p.281vol.I.p.348
p. 357 vol.]
.p. 432
p.433\
'ol.I.p.521
p.509i
•Ol.ll.p.56
p. 585\
ol.II.p. 125
282
349
358
434
434
522
510
^57
586
^ 126
283
350
359
435
435
523
511
58
587
]27
284
352
360
436
436
524
512
58
588
128
285
353
361
437
437
525
513
59
589
129
286
354
362
438
4.38
526
514
60
590
L30
287
355
363
439
439
527
515
61
591
131
288
356
364
440
440
528
516
62
592
132
289
357
365
441
441
529
517
63
593
1.33
290
358
366
443
442
530
518
64
594
134
291
359
367
444
443
531
519
65
595
i:]4
292
360
368
445
444
532
520
66
596
135
293
362
369
446
445
533
521
67
597
136
294
3(53
370
447
44G
535
522
68
598
137
295
364
371
448
447
536
523
69
599
138
296
365
372
450
44S ^
•ol.II.p. 1
524
69
600
139
297
3G6
373
451
449
525
70
601
140
298
3G7
374
452
450
3
526
71
602
141
299
368
375
453
451
3
527
72
603
14i
300
369
376
454
452
4
528
73
604
143
301
370
377
456
453
5
529
74
605
143
302
371
378
457
454
6
530
75
606
144
303
372
379
458
455
7
531
76
607
145
304
373
380
459
456
8
532
77
608
146
305
374
381
461
457
t)
533
77
609
147
306
375
382
462
458
10
534
78
610
14H
307
376
383
463
459
11
535
79
611
149
308
377
384
464
460
11
536
80
612
149
309
379
385
465
461
12
537
81
613
150
310
380
386
467
462
13
538
82
614
151
311
381
387
468
463
14
539
83
615
152
312
382
388
469
464
15
540
84
616
15:3
313
383
389
470
465
16
541
sr^
617
154
314
384
390
472
466
17
542
86
618
155
3] 5
385
391
473
467
18
54.3
87
619
156
316
386
392
474
468
19
544
88
620
156
317
387
393
475
469
19
545
88
621
157
318
388
394
477
470
20
546
89
622
1.58
319
389
395
478
471
21
547
90
623
159
320
390
396
479
472
548
91
624
IflO
321
392
397
480
47.3
2.3
549
92
625
161
322
393
398
482
474
24
550
93
626
162
323
394
399
483
475
25
551
94
627
163
324
395
400
484
476
26
552
95
628
163
325
396
401
485
477
26
553
90
629
161
326
397
402
487
478
27
5,54
96
630
165
327
399
403
488
479
28
555
97
6.31
166
328
400
404
489
480
29
556
98
632
lf?7
329
401
405
490
481
30
557
99
633
168
330
402
406
491
482
31
558
]00
634
169
331
403
407
492
483
32
559
lOl
635
170
332
404
408
494
484
33
560
102
636
171
333
405
409
495
485
34
561
103
637
171
a34
407
410
496
486
35
562
104
638
172
335
408
411
497
487
36
563
105
639
17.3
336
409
412
498
488
37
564
106
640
174
337
410
413
500
489
38
565
107
641
]7.-.
338
411
414
501
490
39
566
108
612
I';!;
339
412
415
502
491
40
567
109
613
I'.h
340
413
416
503
492
40
568
110
644
377
341
414
417
504
493
41
569
110
645
r,H
342
416
418
505
494
42
570
111
646
179
343
417
419
506
495
43
571
112
647
180
344
418
420
507
496
44
572
113
648
181
345
419
421
508
497
45
573
114
649
181
346
420
422
509
498
46
574
115
650
182
347
421
423
510
499
47
575
116
651
183
348
422
424
511
500
48
576
117
652
184
349
423
425
513
501
48
577
118
653
185
350
42;-)
426
514
502
49
578
119
654
186
351
426
427
515
503
50
579
120
655
187
352
427
428
516
504
51
580
121
656
187
353
428
429
517
505
52
581
122
657
188
354
429
430
518
506
63
582
122
658
189
355
430
431
519
507
54
583
123
6.-)9
190
356
431
432
520
508
55
584
124
660
191
Coincidences of the pages in the Original and in the Translation. 485
Ori§.
Transl.
— V
Orig.
Trnnsl.
1 Orig.
TninRl.
Oris.
Transl.
Orig.
Trinal
p.6Glvol.II.p.l92
p. 727vol. II
p.250
p. 793vol. 11
1).308
p.85;tvol.lI
p.365
n.924vol.II
p.423
^ 6iV2
193
728
251
794
309
860
:i66
' 925
*^424
6G3
194
729
252
795
310
86)
367
.^26
425
661
194
730
253
796
311
862
368
927
426
6(55
195
731
253
797
311
863
36!)
928
427
66t)
196
732
254
798
312
864
370
929
428
6(i7
197
733
255
799
313
865
371
930
429
G6S
198
734
256
800
314
ma
37-J
931
430
6G9
199
735
257
801
315
867
37''
9.32
4.30
670
200
736
258
802
316
868 •
37.^
933
43]
671
200
737
259
803
317
869
374
934
432
672
201
738
260
804
318
870
375
935
433
673
202
739
261
805
318
871
376
936
434
674
203
740
261
806
319
872
377
937
435
675
204
741
262
807
320
873
378
938
436
676
205
742
2(i3
808
321
874
379
939
437
677
206
743
264
809
322
875
379
940
438
678
206
744
2G5
810
323
876
380
941
439
679
207
745
266
811
324
877
381
942
439
680
208
746
266
812
325
878
382
943
440
681
209
747
267
813
325
879
383
944
441
682
210
748
268
814
326
880
384
945
442
683
211
749
269
815
327
881
385
946
443
684
212
750
270
816
328
882
386
947
444
685
213
751
271
817
329
883
386
948
445
686
213
752
272
818
330
884
387
949
446
687
214
753
273
819
331
885
388
950
447
688
215
754
273
820
331
886
389
951
447
689
216
755
274
821
332
887
390
952
448
690
217
756
275
822
333
888
391
953
449
691
218
757
276
823
334
889
392
954
4.50
692
219
758
277
824
335
890
393
955
451
693
220
759
278
825
336
891
393
956
452
694
221
760
279
826
337
892
394
957
4.53
695
221
761
280
827
338
893
395
9,18
454
696
222
762
280
828
338
894
396
959
455
697
223
763
281
829
339
895
397
960
455
698
224
764
282
830
340
896
398
961
4.56
699
225
765
283
831
341
897
399
962
4.57
700
226
766
284
832
342
898
400
963
458
701
227
767
285
833
343
899
400
964
459
702
228
768
286
834
344
900
401
965
460
703
229
769
287
835
345
901
402
966
461
704
229
770
287
836
346
902
403
967
462
705
230
771
288
837
346
903
404
968
463
706
231
772
289
838
347
904
405
969
463
707
232
773
290
839
348
905
406
970
464
708
233
774
291
840
349
906
407
971
465
709
234
775
292
841
350
907
407
972
466
710
235
776
293
842
351
908
408
973
467
711
236
777
294
843
352
909
409
974
468
712
236
778
295
844
353
910
410
975
469
713
237
779
295
845
353
911
412
976
469
714
238
780
296
846
354
912
413
977
470
715
239
781
297
847
355
913
413
978
471
716
240
782
298
848
356
914
414
979
472
717
241
783
299
849
357
915
415
980
473
718
242
784
300
850
358
916
416
981
474
719
243
785
301
851
359
017
417
982
475
720
244
786
302
852
359
918
418
983
476
721
245
787
303
853
360
919
419
984
477
722
246
788
303
854
361
920
420
985
477
723
246
789
304
8.55
362
921
421
986
478
724
247
790
305
856
363
922
422
987
479
725
248
791
306
857
364
923
422
988
480
726
249
792
307
858
365
GENERAL INDEX TO THE WORK.
A.
Abeliies, heretics, II. Cent. I. 485. n. (1.)
Abgarus, his correspondence with Christ. I. 95.
Abraxas, with BasUides, the king of heaven. I. 417. — Import of the Word.
I. 421. — Was it applied to Jesus Christ? I. 423. — Inscribed on gems. I. 424.
Abstinence, as taught by Mystics, II. Cent. I. 380. — by Salurninus. I. 414.
Academic Philosophers, their doctrines. I. 34, 35.
Accusers of Christians, under Trojan. I. 293. — under Hadrian. I. 296.— under
Antoninus Pius. I. 300.
Achamotlu, an Aeon, of Valentinus. 1. 459.
Actions of men, morality of, subverted by Carpocrates. I. 446.
Acts of the Apostles, disapproved by the Manichaeans. II. 272.
Adam, how viewed by Manes. II. 317.
Adamites, heretics, II. Cent. I. 485.
Adultery, esteemed lawful by Carpocrates. I. 445. — a ground for excommunU
cation. II. 68.
Advent of Christ, according to Manes. II. 349.
Aelia Capitolina, built by Hadrian. I. 398.
Aelians, Christians. II. Cent. I. 399.
JEon 0^ Valentinus; see "Aieeva.
African churcli, disputes on heretical baptisms. II. 78. 89.
Agapae, in the early church. I. 194.
Agapelae, or synisactae mulieres. II. 138. n. (2.)
Aganensian Martyrs. II. 107.
Ages, (Saecula,) associated with the good God of Manes. II. 289.
Agriculture, disapproved by Manichaeans. II. 363.
"Aietrti, of the Orient. Philosophers. I. 43.— of Simon Magus. I. 246.— of
Cerintlius. I. 251.— of Barsilides. I. 416, 419. n. (3.)— Christ the highest
Aeon of Carpocrates. I. 440. — Their number and names, according to
Valentinus. I. 452. — Manes associated them with the good God. II. 289.
Alexander, a heretic of the Apostolic age. I. 222. — an Impostor, II. Cent. I. 277.
Alexander Severus, Emp. state of Christians under him. II. 13.— Was he a
Christian? II. 14. n. (2.)
Alexander, a martyr of Jerusalem. II. 27.
Alexandria, church of, very influential. I. 323.— Its school cultivated allegorio
interpretations. II. 166.
Allegoric Interpretation, its origin and abuse. I. 368.— of Origeriy fully stated.
II. 165, &c.
488 GENERAL INDEX.
Alms, the almoners of the prim, church. I. 152. — Alms of Christians. I. 331.—
at Carthage. II. 52.— of Manicha3ans. II. 3G4.
Ambition, a source of heresies ; c. g. of Valentinus. nl. 449. — of Mareion. 1.
486.— of Paul of Samosata. II. 229.
Ammoniiis Saccas, a Philosopher. I. 38. — his school. II. 348.
Amulets. II, 94.
Anahapiism of heretics. II. 78.
Ananias and Sapphira. I. 147.
Angels, called jEons by the fathers. I. 44, 55. — Bishops, so called. I. 171. —
Doctrine of Saturninus of them. I. 410. — Basilides made 375 Orders of.
I. 417. 420. — held the angels presiding over nations, to be the authors of
many evils. I. 429.
Anthony, the father of Eremites. II. 198.
Antichrist, of the Jews. I. 55, &c. — supposed to be at hand, in III. Cent. II. 7.
Antioch, church of, its rank and influence. I. 323.
Antipas, son of Herod the Gr. 1. 50, 51.
A7itoninus Pius,s{site of Christianity under. I. 300. — under Mar. Avrel. I. 302.
Apelles, a heretic. I. 487.
Apocalypse of John, its authority. II. 245.
Apollo, Oi'ac]e of: see Oracles. II. 414.
Appollonius, a Martyr. I. 317. — Tyanaeus, compared to Christ. II. 104.
Apologies, they aided Christianity. I. 282. — Authors of, in II. Cent. I. 282. —
Estimate of them. I. 287, 297.— of Justin Martyr. I. 300, 303.— pre-
sented to the Emp. Marcus. I. 308.— of Tertullian. I. 317, 318.— of
Eusebius for Origen. II. 201.
Apostles, chosen by Christ. I. 90. — Import of the word 'Attzs-tokos. I. 91. —
Messengers of the High Priest. I. 91. — A new one, how chosen. I. 102. —
Their labors, travels, miracles, and death. I. 106. — Proof that they wrought
miracles. I. 115. — Gnostics arose after the decease of the Apostles. I.
406. — The Apostles of the Gauls. II. 2. — Manes styled himself an Apostle
of Jesus Christ. II. 256, 263. — He impiously created Apostles of himself.
II. 401.
Aposiolici, heretics, II. Cent. I. 485.
Apostolical churches, greatly respected. I. 324.
Apotactics, heretics, II. Cen. I. 482.
Apuleius, his book ag. Christians, entitled The Golden Ass. II. 105.
Arabia Feli.x, christianized. I. 263.
Arabian Heretics. II. 242.
Arabians converted. II. 1.
Arcane Discipline, among Christians, origin of. I. 373, n. (2.)
Archelaus, king of Judea. I. 50, 51.
Aristotle, some of his opinions, I. 35.
Arius, his Epistle concerning Sabellius. II. 223.
Arlemas, or Artemon, denied the divinity of Christ. I. 518.
Artemas, his heresy. II. 233.
Ascension of Isaiah. II. 406.
GEN^ERAL INDEX. 489
Ascetics, origin of, among Christinns. I. 381. — wore cloaks. I. 38S. II. 199.
Asiatic Christians, time of celebrating Easter. I. 523. — Controversy with the
Romish church. 11. 78.
Asseniblies, religious, form of, in the prim, church. I. 146. — The parts of wor-
ship in them. I. 185.— proliibited by the rulers. II. 94, 99. — by Dioclnian.
II. 26.
Atheists, were the ancient Philosophers a^/ie?s/s .? 1.28, n. (1.) — Christians called
Atheists. ' I. 300.
Athenaguras, his writings. I. 394.
Auditors, who so called, among Manichceans? II. 399.
Augustine, a principal writer on IManichajism. II. 253.
Augustus, Emp. state of the empire under him. I. 9, &c.
Aurelian, Emp. referred a dispute among Christians to a council of bishops.
11. 241.
Aurelian, Emp. persecuted the Christians, II. 100, &c.
Avarice, a cause of persecution. II. 6. — an excommunicable offence. II. 68.
Bahylas, a martyr. II. 478.
Baptism, deferred long, by Constantine, and by many others. II. 462. — Rites
of {ibid.) — Christian, explained. I. 89. — confirmed by a bishop. II. 62,
79.— Its eflicacy. II. 72.— Heretical, validity of. II. 78, &c.— of the Ma-
nichaeans. II. 392.
Barchochba, an enemy of Christians. I. 299.
Bardesanes, his sect. I. 477.
Barnabas, Epistle of I. 207.
Bartholomew, converted the Indians. I. 262.
Basilides, his Gnostic philosophy and dogmas. I. 416.
Basilidian gems, what ? I. 424.
Bema, a festival of Manichseans. 11. 389.
Beryllus of Bostra, his error. II. 225.
Bishops, their origin. I. 168, &c. — consulted in all cases. I. 225. — in 11. Cent.
I. 322. — extent of their power. I. 331. — persecuted, especially. II. 19, 94.
27, 74. — their independence of each other. II. 89. — their authority in III.
Cent. 11. 116. — all equal. 11. 122. — their prerogatives in III. Cent, en-
larged. II. 128. — Cijprian thought them created by God. II. 129. — Paul
of Samosata, both a bishop and a magistrate. II. 230.
Blasphemy, what so accounted by Manichaeans. II. 357.
Blastes, a heretic. 1. 486.
Body, severity to, learned from Platonism. I. 380.— resurrection of, denied by
Simonides. I. 429. — etherial and celestial, assigned to Christ by the Bar-
desanists. I. 479. — Origen's opinion of the body. II. 152. — the sourco
of all evil, and therefore to be mortified, according to the Mystics. II. 190
— state of, in the future life. II. 249.
Boehmer, J. H. refuted. I. 156.
490 GENERAL INDEX.
Books, of the N. Test, pronounced by heretics, corrupted. 11. 267. — sacred,
commanded by Diocletian, to be burned. II. 423. — spurious, forged by
Gnostics. I. 236.— by Christians. I. 202— in II. Cent. I. 288.— ascribed
to Christ. I. 364. — the Gospel of the Nazaraeans. I. 400. — of Alanes.
IF. 257.
Bread, breaking of, what in the N. Test. ? I. 149.
Britons, converted. I. 261. — Origin and doctors of their church. I. 269.
Brothers, a common appelhition among early Christians. I. 180. /
Burning the Palace of Nieoraedia, charged on Christians. II. 428.
Bi/'S-of, in the Orient, philosophy. I. 43. — an iEon of Valentinus, I. 459.
Cabbala, did Valentinus draw from it 1 I. 454.
Ca:sar, C. Jul, his opinion of the immortality of the soul. I. 25, n. (3.)
Caesariani, who ? in the edict of Valerian. II. 97.
Cainians, heretics. I. 485.
Calamities, public, attributed to the Christians. I. 134. II. 76.
Calumnies on the Christiana. I. 133. 138. — repelled by the Apologists, i. 297.
300. — in II. Cent. I. 305. — Christians taxed with the public calamities.
II. 76.— with seditions, (929). II. 428.
Candidates for the ministry, education of, in the early church. I. 166.
Canon of the N. Test, when and by whom made. I. 113.
Canons, Apostolic, their character. I. 202. — Ecclesiastical, their origin. I. 329.
Captives propagated Christianity among Barbarians. II. 1, &c.
Caracalla, Emp. persecuted the Christians. II. 8. 11.
Carpocrates, his system of Gnosticism. I. 438. — a very corrupt man. I. 445.
Cassianus, a heretic. I. 485.
Catechumens, in the early church. I. 180. — not taught all Christian doctrines.
I. 374, &c. 391.— Was Constantino the Gr. a Catechumen? 11. 462.
Cathari, a name assumed by the Novatians. IF. 67.
Celibacy, origin of, among Christians. I. 380. — introduced in III. Cent. II. 138.
Celsus, assailed the Christians. I. 319, &c.
Cemetaries, Christians met in them for worship. II. 95. 99.
Cccnobites, origin of, among Christians. I. 380, &-c.
Cerdo, his heresy. I. 486, «fcc.
Ceremonies, Mosaic, venerated. I. 215. — repudiated by most Christians in II.
Cent. 1.397. — Nazareans' opinion. 1.400. — how to be explained. 11.185.
—Christian, in I. Cent. I. 185.— in II. Cent. I. 390.
Cerinthus, a heretic. I. 250, &:c.
Chants, sacred, of early Christians. I. 191. — abrogated by Paul of Samosata.
II. 229.
Children, professors of Christ. II. 95.
Chiliasts, history of. II. 244.— Most of the early Christians Chiliasts. II. 246.
Chor-episcopi, their origin, rights, &c. I. 175.
/
OENERALINDEX. 491
Christ, he only could reform mankind. I. 48. — his history at large. I. 83-100.
— Was lie a carpenter? 1.85. n. (1.) — His connection with the Jewish
church. I, 88. — Ilis fame in other countries. I. 95. — He died voluntarily for
our redemption. I. 98. n. (1.) — Why he appeared to many beside his disciple.**
after his resurrection. I. 99. — How he was regarded by the Gentiles. I.
119. — Impious opinions of him by the Gnostics, I. 232. — by Simon Ma-
gus. I. 247. — Cerinlhus distinguished Christ from Jesus, and perverted
the account of his humiliation and exaltation. I. 251. — Veneration of Am-
monius for Christ and God. I. 362. — He held that Christ wrote books on
theurgy. I. 364. — Pagan Oracles, said to laud Christ. I. 364. — The inter-
nal Christy of the Mystics. I. 386. — What the Nazaraeans held, respecting
his divine nature. I. 400. 402. — Low opinion of him by tiie Ebonites. I.
403. — and by Saturninus. I. 413. — Was he the Abraxas of Dasilides!
I. 423. — Basilides' idea of the object of his advent. I. 427. — His other
doctrines concerning the Saviour. I. 428. — denied his crucifixion. I. 428.
— did he deny Christ's freedom from sin? I. 431. — he distinguished Christ
from Jesus. 1.431. — Carpocrates held the most degrading opinions of
Christ. I. 439. — distinguished three things in Christ. I. 442. — Valentinus
accounted him the chief jEon. I. 453. 465, &c. — Marcion's views of
Christ. I. 492, &c. — Mojitanus deemed Christ's law of holiness imperfect.
I. 504, &c. — Praxeas denied the personality of Christ. I. 513. — Theodotus
denied his divinity. I. 518.
Christ, his images worshipped by Emperors. I. 119; II. 16. — He was forsaken
by many professed Christians, in the Decian persecution. H. 31. 38. — Ho
had many true followers in the court of Valerian. II. 97. — and in that of
Diocletian. II. 113. — also in the army. II. 113. — Good and bad men
among his followers. II. 137. — Origen's opinions concerning Christ.
II. 159.
Christ, Doctrine of his personality, corrupted by Noetus. II. 210, &c. — by Sa-
belius. II. 215. — by Beryllus. II, 225. — His millennial reign believed. II.
244.— iVfaTies greatly dishonored Christ. II. 256. 292, &c. — disliked the
name of Christ. II. 295.— supposed Christ dwelt partially in the Moon,
and fully in the Sun. II. 296. See also the article Jesus.
Christianity, the Emp. Decius aimed to extirpate it utterly. II. 27.
CAm^ians, the primitive, mostly plebeians; yet some of them learned. I. 117. —
Causes of their persecution. I. 129. — Their number, in II Cent. I. 274. —
and more fully. I. 275. — Confounded with Atheists and Epicureans. I.
277. n. — Some eagerly sought martyrdom. I. 295. — Christians were
deemed crazy. I. 303. — esteemed of no importance by the Emp. Marcus.
I. 307. — Some in II Cent, expected a restoration of Judaism. I. 397. —
They migrate from Pella to Jerusalem. I. 399.— Were the Emp. Severus
and Philip Christians? II. 14, &c. 22. — They became corrupt, when freed
from persecution. II. 115. n. (3).— Many of the earlier were Chiliasts. II.
245. — Was Constandne a Christian? II. 460. — Was he a true Christian?
IL 465.
Christians of St. John. I. 60.
492 GENERAL INDEX.
Church, Origen's idea of it. IT. 177. — Manichacan form of the. IT. 398. —
The first churches all independent. I. 196. — Apostolic churches highly re-
spected. I. 197. n. 323. — Were the early churches confederated? I. 198.
71.(2.) — Churches founded in the different provinces. 1.260. Church go-
vernment in II Cent. I. 322. — in III Cent. II. 115. — All churches equal
and free in the III Cent. II. 120. — Primacy of the Romish church. I.
326. — Independence of churches gradually subverted. I. 329. — Who pro-
perly members of the church ? I. 391. — Novatian held, none but holy men
are members. II. ^Q.
Church Edifice., contest respecting one. II. 241.
Cicero., was an Academic Philosopher. I. 35.
Clemens Alexandrinus, recommended philosophy. I. 341. — injured biblical in-
terpretation. I. 369. — Mystical opinions germinated in him. I. 388. Hi3
writings. I. 393.
Clemens, Flavins, a consul and martyr. I. 143.
Clemens Romanus, his writings. I. 201. — Spurious works attributed to him.
I. 202.
Clemens, an apostle of the Gauls. II. 2.
Clergij, in the prim, church. I. 184. — Import of the word, and rights of the
persons. II. 116. — Their morals, in III Cent. II. 137.
Climate, its influence on religion. I. 387.
Clinic Baptism. II. 62.
Colarhasus, a Valentinian heretic. I. 473.
Collins, Anthony, his opinion refuted. I. 79. n. (2.)
Cologne, the church there. I. 269.
Community of Asia, an Edict addressed to. I. 301.
Community of goods, in prim, church, the author's opinion of. I. 152.
of women, contended for Carpocraies. I. 446.
Concilahula, what ? II. 94.
Concupiscence, prohibition of, ridiculed by Carpocraies. I. 445. — How to be
overcome, according to the Mystics. II. 194.
Confessors, who so called in the church. I. 135. — Veneration of, (ibid, n.) —
were elected ministers of churches. II. 118.
Confirmation of baptism, by a bishop. II. 62. 79.
Confiscation of goods, a penalty on Confessors. II. 97.
Constantine the Gr. in what sense the first Christian Emp. 11. 25. — his Histo-
ry. II. 446. — greatly favored Christians. II. 448. — his morals and reli-
gion. II. 449. — gave full peace to the Christians. II. 454.
Constantius Chlorus, how disposed towards Christians? II. 412.
Constitutions, Apostolic, the author of not known. I. 202.
Contemplation, mystical, I. 384. II. 196.
Continence, accounted more holy than marriage, in II Cent. I. 382.
Controversies, origin of, in prim, church. I. 214. — on necessity of observing the
Mosaic law, (ibid.) — on the mode of justification. I. 220. — Appeals in, to
the Apostolic churches. I. 324. — Conduced to the primacy of the Romish
church. I. 326. — respecting philosophy. I. 343. — among the Gnostics. 1.407.
GENERAL INDEX. 493
Controversies on ihe time of Easter. I. 423. — ModernscMT by not considerinfr tho
ancient use of the word 7ru(r;^at. I. 525. — concerning the lapsed. II. 38. —
between Novatus and Cyprian. II. 45. — with Novatian. II. 59. — on here-
tical baptisms. II. 78. — on Trinity and person of Christ. II. 209.
Conventions for worship, form of in prim, church. I. 1 17. — Parts of worship
described. I. 1S5. — prohibited by civil rulers. II. 94. 99. — by Diocletian.
II. 426.
Coracion, a Chlllast. II. 250.
Cornelius, bp. of Rome. II. 58, &c. — was a Confessor. II. 74.
Councils, had the early church any ? I. 196. — Tliat at Jerusalem. I. 199. — can
it be called a Council? I. 216. n. — Councils originated in II Cent, among
the Greeks, and from the civil connection in provinces. I. 329. — Tertul-
lian's account of them. I. 332.— Councils held at Carthage. II. 45. 56.
84. — Council of Antioch ag. Paul of Samosata. II. 228. — Aurelian, Emp.
respected them. II. 241.
Creation of man, according to Orient. Philosophers. I. 44, &c. — of the worl i
I. 410. 420. 425. — See Gnostics. — Valentinian's opinion. I. 452. — Ilermo-
genes denied creation from nothing. I. 520. — Views of Manes. II. 330.
Creator of this world, Basalides had better views of him than the other Gnos-
tics. 1. 425.— Opinion of Marcion. I. 489.
Creed, the Apostles-, when and by whom composed. I. 114. — Conjecture as to
the origin of the name. I. 392. n. (1.)
Crescens, an enemy of Christians. I. 320.
Cross, was Christ really or only apparently crucified, according to Basilides ? I.
432. — Sign of, on the forehead, and its use. II. 113. — seen by Constantine,
was it a real vis-ion, discussed. II. 472.
Cubricus, the original name of Manes. II. 257.
Cyprian, how he treated the lapsed. II. 39. — his contest with Novatus. TI. 45.
— demanded for the lions. 11.74,75. — his life. II. 117. — his martyrdom.
n. 91.
D.
DarJmess, a symbol of evil among Orientals. T. 478. 489. 387. — Manichajan opi-
nions of it and of its wars. II. 274. 280, &.c.
David, his posterity sought after by the Emp. Domitian. I. 143.
Day, the Lord's, observed by Christians. I. 145. Asiatics did not confine Eas-
ter to it. I. 530.
Deacons, in prim, church. I. 152, «&c. 155.' — Deaconesses. I. 176. — in II Cent.
I. 322. — high authority of in African church. II. 53. — Cyprian's opinion o£
II. 131.
Decius, Emp. cruelly persecuted Christians. 11. 26.
Deists contend, the Christians were few in I and II Centuries. I. 275.
Demas, was he a heretic ? I. 222.
Demetrianus, mentioned in the history of Cyprian. II. 75.
Demetrius, bp. of Alexandria. I. 262. II. 200.
494 GENERAL INDEX.
Demiurge of the Orient. Philosophers. I. 45.— His genealogy given by Va-
lentinua. I. 461.— The Valentinian Creator. I. 462.— The Manichaean.
ir. 331.
Demon of Manes, a biped. II. 285.
Demons, doctrine of, by Ammonius Saccas. I. 355. — repelled by Christians. II.
93. — by the sign of the cross. II. 113.
Descent of Christ to Hell, according to Marcion. I. 495, n. (4.)
Dioceses. I. 175.
Diocletian, his persecution. 11. 106, &c.— had Christians about him. II. 413. —
naturally benevolent, but prompted by the pagan priests. II. 414.
Diomjsius, the Arcopagite, Apostle of the Gauls. II. 3, n. (1.)
, bp. of Alexandria. II. 99, 215, 228.
Diotrephes, was he a heretic ? I. 223.
Disciples, the seventy of Christ, who and what ? I. 94.
Disciplina Arcani, preposterously introduced. I. 377. — Ecclesiastical. II. 22.
Divinity of Jesus Christ, enemies of. I. 518. — Paul of Samosata. II. 233.
Dogmatic Theology, corrupted by philosophy. I. 372. — twofold, sublime and
popular. I. 373. — of Basilides, respecting redemption. I. 427. — of Carpo-
crates. I. 439.— of Valentinus. I. 458, 462.
Domitian, he persecuted. I. 142. — enquired after David's posterity. I. 143.
Domitilla, Flavia. I. 143.
Door of Christ, what? I. 121.
Dreams, divine, in III. Cent. II, 4.
Dositheus, was he a heretic, or delirious ? I. Cent. I. 240. n.
Ducenarius, Paul of Samosata one : what this rank 1 II. 230.
Dynamis, an iEon of Basilides. I. 417.
IS.
Earthquakes, pernicious to Christians. I. 301. II. 20.
East, Manichaeans turned towards, in prayer. II. 298.
Easter, controversy as to time of. 1.523. — TraT^a. denoted the day of Christ^s
death. I. 526.
Ebionites, not of the I. Cent. I. 220, n. (2.)— treated of in II. Cent. I. 400.
Eclectic Philosophers, their opinions. I. 38. — their founder (ibid.)
Edicts ag. Christians. I. 140.— of Trajan. I. 292, 294.— of Hadrian. I. 297. —
of Antoninus Pius to the Commons of Asia. I. 301. — of Marcus Aure-
lius. I. 303. — Edicts not repealed, occasioned vexations. I. 317. — Edicts
of Severus. II. 7. — collected by Ulplan. II. 13. — of Decius. 11. 26. — of
Valerian. II. 96. — of Gallienus, II. 100. — of Diocletian to the soldiers.
II. 113.— ag. all Christians. II. 416.— The new Edicts. 11. 428, 435.
Egyptiams, their sacred wars. I. 14, 72. (1.) — their general and provincial re-
ligions. I. 21. — from Egypt came most of the evils in the church. I. 369,
n. (2.)— the birthplace of mystical Christians in II. Cent. I. 380. II. 198.
Elcesaites, a sect, their discipline. I. 408.
Elect, the, among Manichaeans, revered. II. 299. — their worship. II. 391, 396.
GENERAL INDEX. 495
£Zec/jonof ministers. bclonj^cd to the churches. 1.103. — as hite ns TIT. Cent. 11.117.
Elements, the material, of Manichaeans. II. 280. — in the world of darkness. II.
280.— in the world of lifrht. II. 282.— ^iL'C in each world {ibid.)
Eleutlierus sent Christian teachers to England. I. 273.
Elxai, head of the Elcesaites. I. 408.
Emperors, Rom. Some of them respected Christ. I. 119. IT. 15. — Their edicts ag.
Christians. I. 140, n. (1.) — see Edicts. — Some of them patronized Chris-
tians. I. 298, 77. (3,) 317. II. 91.— especially in the IV. Cent. II. 412,414.—
Who was the first Christian Emp. ? II. 14, 23.
Encratites. I. 482. •**
Epicurean Philosophers, their pestiferous doctrines. I. 83.
Epiphanes, son of Carporates, was he deified? I. 444, 447, n. (2.)
•E;ri<rT«>«, of Paul of Samosata, what? IT. 237.
Eremites, their origin. I. 68. — from Egyptian and Platonic philosophy. 1. 380. —
Paul of Thebais their patriarch. II. 190, 198.
Essenes, why not mentioned in N. Test. I. 50, n. (1.) — two kinds of, theoretical
and practical. I. 68. — Porphyry, concerning them. I. 70. — They sacrificed
in the night, and burned the whole offering. I. 71.
Eucharist, what, among the Manichaeans. II. 396.
Eucharius, Apostle of Germany. I. 269. IT. 2.
Europeans, blindly imitated the austere Oriental Mystics. I. 386, 390.
Eve, history of, by Manes. II. 316. — her generation. II. 322.
Evil, whence came it ? I. 44. — according to the Gnostics. I. 230, 255. — Physi-
cal evils attributed to the Christians. I. 301. II. 20. 73. — Thus the confla-
gration of the palace at Nicomedia. II. 428. — Natural and moral, origin
of. I. 410, 489.— Whence all the evils men suffer. II. 192.
Excommunication. I. 143, n. (5.) — Its severity as inflicted on Valentinus. I.
449. — and on Montanus. I. 498. — who allowed no absolution from it. I.
506. — Excom. of theAsiatlcs. I. 534. — Its true nature, in the early church.
I. 536.— of the lapsed in TIT. Cent. II. 38.— of schismatics. II. 54.— rigo-
rous, of Novatian. II. 66.
Exegetic Theology. See Scripture.
Exile, a punishment inflicted on Christians. 11. 75, 94.
Exorcists, in IV. Cent. II. 415.
Fabian, a martyr. IT. 27.
Faith, the, of Constantine, discussed. II. 460. — corrupted by Corpocrates. I. 442.
Faithful, the, in the prim, church. I. 180.
Fall of man, how explained by Basilides. I. 427. — and by Manes. IT. 323.
Fanatics, Montanus one. I. 497.
Fasts, excessive, among Chirstians. I. 381. — among Montanists. I. 506. — The
Quadragessimal. I. 530. — Fasting of Manichaeans. II. 360.
Fnustus, the Maniehaean. IT. 267.
Felicissi7nus, his controversy and schism. IT. 46, 50.
Felicitas, a martyr. II. 7.
496 GENERAL INDEX.
Felix, a disciple of Manes. II. 268.
Festal days, among Pagans, devoted to licentiousness. I. 17. — Dispute as to
the day for celebrating Easter. I. 523.
Fire, martyrs punished by. II. 431. — Slow fire a terrible punishment. II. 443.
Firmilian. II. 83.
Flesh, abstinence from, when and how introduced among Christians. I. 380.
Flight, many Christians resorted to it, in the Decian persecution. II. 30. —
among them, Cyprian. II. 54, 56.
Food, Manichaean notions of. II. 357. — different species of 11. 358.
Fortunaius, a schismatical bishop. II. 52, 58.
Fraud, an excommunicable offence. II. 69. — pious frauds. I. 212, n. (2.) — re-
sorted to in II. Cent, to propagate Christianity. I. 288. — Manes fraudu-
lently corrupted the Scriptures. II. 256.
Fronto, an enemy of Christians. I. 320.
Galerius, Emp. persecuted the Christians. II. 416.
Gallienus, Emp. favored Christians. II. 100.
Gallus, Emp. persecuted Christians. II. 73.
Garments, what to be used according to the Manichaeans. II. 360.
Gatian, Apostle of the Gauls. II. 2.
Gauls, when and by whom converted. I. 111. — the Bazadois. I. 112. — Origin
of the Gallic churches discussed. I. 264. II. 2. — The Apostles of the
Gaul^. II. 2.
Gems of Basilides, with Abraxas engraved on them. I. 424.
Generation of the Son of God, what, according to Sabellius. II. 222.
Genulphus, Apostle of the Gauls. II. 3.
Geometry, study of, discouraged. I. 345. — over-valued by Theodotus and Arte-
mon. I. 518.
Germans, converted. I. 264. — by whom. I. 268. II. 2, &c.
Giants, male and female, of the Manichaeans. II. 285.
Glaucia, Basilides said, he received the Gospel from her. I. 433, n. (3.)
Glory, ridiculous pursuit of, by Paul of Samosata. II. 230.
Gnosis, Ti/wcrt?, what? I. 30, 228. — It is the disciplina arcani. I. 375.
Gnostics, greatly disturbed the Apostolic assemblies. I. 228. — When they
arose. I. 229, n. (3.) — Their discipline. I. 230. — They upset the Cliristian
doctrines. I. 231. — How fur were they Platonists? I. 233, Ji. (1.) — Their
frauds for supporting their tenets. I. 236. — Parties among them. I. 237. —
Their morals injured Christians. I. 296. — especially after the decease of
the Apostles. 1. 406. — Sects of them enumerated. I. 407. — In what re-
spects they all agreed. I. 496.
God^ various opinions of him by the Philosophers. I. 27, 42. — by Jews. I. 54. —
by Aramonius. I. 354. — by Praxeas, his views of the Trinity. I. 516. —
by Manes, viz- that God is the purest light. II. 282. — Did he admit two
Gods? 11. 283.— Attributes of his evil God. II. 284.— iiis good God de-
scribed at large. II. 287. — his perfections or members. II. 288.
GENERAL INDEX, 497
Gods, fictitious, of the Pagans. I. 12. — Immense diversity of them, (ibid.) —
How tliey dilierod in sex, power, &-e. I. 15. — Gods of the En^yplians. I.
21.— of the Persians. J. 22.
Gospels, tlie IV. What Manes thought of them. II. 269.— Go<^pol of the N.-u
zareans and Ebionites. I. 400. — of Basihdes. I. 429. — The Carpocratians
gave the preference to the Gospel of Matthew. I. 444.
Golhs, converted. II. 1.
Governmenl of the church, in II. Cent. I. 322.— in III. Cent. II. 115.
Tpduua S'va-a-i^i;, wliaf II. 443.
Greek, the Christian loriters of the II. Cent. I. 393. — Letters full of mysteries
I. 473. — Philosophers, too much followed by the early Christian doctors. I.
341. — Churches, in them were the earliest combinations of church. I. 329. —
Religion. I. 20. — Its impiety. I. 25.
Gregory of Tours. I. 267.
Hadrian, Emp. state of Christians under him. I. 295. — He favored Christians.
1. 297. — under him, many Jews were converted. I. 396.
Hands imposition of by bps. II. 79. — Signaculum of, among Manichaeans. II. 361.
Happiness of God and men, in what it consists, according to the Orientals. I. 387.
Haired to mankind, why charged on Christians by Tacitus? I. 131.
Heaven, Basilides made 365 heavens. I. 417. — Carpocrates opened heaven to
all abandoned characters. I. 447.
Hehraizers, sect of, in II. Cent. I. 396.
Helena, the paramour of Simon Magus. I. 240.
, the mother of Constantine, favored Christians. II. 413.
Helenists, who 'i 1.152.
Heliogabalus, Emp. stale of the church under him. II. 11.
Hell, souls punished there, according to Manes. II. 377.
Hemerobaptisls, a Jewish sect. I. 60.
Heraclas, a Platonic Philosopher. I. 348.
Heracleon, a Valentinian heretic. I. 472.
Herculius, Maximianus, Emp. II. 447.
Heretics, who and what, in the golden age of the church. I. 221. — The Gnostics,
see Gnostics. — Simon Magus and Manander, not Heretics, because never
Christians. I. 239, 248.— in II. Cent. I. 396.— Controversy on heretical
baptisms. II. 78. — Burial sometimes denied to heretics. II. 211. — Heretics
in the III. Cent, respecting Trinity and personality. II. 209. — Pride, ava-
rice, and levity, chief causes of heresies: see under the names of the prin-
cipal heretics.
Hernias, author of the Shepard. I. 208. — was he Hermes the brother of Pius?
I. 209.
Hermeneutics, false. I. 369. — corrupted by Origen. II. 1G5. — Rules of. II. 181.
Hermes Trisniegistas, his Pcemafider spurious. I. 288.
Hermogenes, his heresy. I. 420.
Herod the Gr. his character. I. 49. — his sons. I. 50.
33
498
GENERAL INDEX
Herodians, sect of. I. 58.
Hieraciies, a Manichsean sect. JI, 404.
Hierax, his history. (903, &c.) II. 404.
Hierarchy, ecclesiastical. I. 336.— what, in III. Cent. II. 119.
History, Sacred, how to be interpreted, according to Origen. II. 188.
Hormisdas, K. of Persia, greatly favored Manes. II. 2G1.
Horus, an ^on of Valentinus. I. 459.
Human Nature of Ciirist, Paul of Samosata's opinion of it. II. 238.
Hydroparastalcc, or Aydroparastntee. I. 482.
Hyle, one of the first principles of all things, with Manichseans. II. 275.
Hymns in praise of Christ, suppressed by Paul of Samosata. 11. 230.
Hyposlnsies, Sabellius denied three Hypostasies in God. II. 222.— So did Paul
of Samosata. II. 228, 235.
IMatry, punished by excommunication. II. 68.
Ignatius, his Epistles. I. 204.— Bp. of Antioch, and a martyr. I. 294.
Illumination of the H. Sp. necessary to a right interpretation of Scripture, said
Origen. II. 157. — What he conceived this to be. II. 197.
Impassible God, II. 214. — Christ, Manicha3an, what? II. 295.
Impiety of the Pagans. I. 25. — of the Gnostics, especially Carpocrates. I.
440. — his pernicious dogmas. I. 445.
Imposition of hands, its great efficacy. II. 79.
Independence of all the early churches. I. 196. — gradually subverted. I. 329. —
contrary to the wishes of Christians {ibid.) — Independence of bps. II. 89.
Indians, converted. I. 262.
Indifference of all actions asserted by Carpocrates. I. 378.
Interpretation of Scripture, in II. Cent. I. 367.— perverse. I. 368. — the arcane
and philosophic. I. 376. — Origen's system of hermeneutics. II. 156.
Irenaeus, on the primacy of the Romish church. I. 325. — his Works. I. 393.
Isidorus, the son of Basilides. I. 418, 426.
Italians, when and by whom converted. I. 111.
Jaldahoth of the Ophites. I. 484.
James the Apostle, how put to death. I. 121. — his Gate of Jesus, what? I. 121.—
was he the first bp. of Jerusalem? I. 172.
Jerusalem, the first centre of Christianity. I. 102. n. — Destruction of. I. 124.
Form of the church there. I. 145. — its rank and high estimation. ], 197,
n. (1.) — Some Christians expected the city lobe rebuilt. I. 397. — Christians
migrate thither from Pella, in times of Hadrian. I. 399. — Did the Ebion-
ilcs worship it? I. 405. — Why Irenaeus placed the churcii of Rome before
that of Jerusalem. I. 325.
GENERAL INDEX. 499
Jestis. distinguished from Christ by Ccrinthiis. T. 251. — and by Basilides. I.
431. — called t//oTuT&7» by Sabellius. II. 223. — Krror.s of Paul of Saniosata
respectinf^ him. II. 228. — The passive Jesus of Planes, what? II. 302. —
Mission and ofliccs of, according to Manes. II. 340.
Jt-wishy Church, relation of Christ and the Apostles to it. I. 88. — Republic, over-
thrown. 1. 124. — Priesthood, iha claimed resemblance of Christian ministers
to it. I. 337. — Opinions, many received by Christians. II. 24 I.
Jews, their state when Christ came. I. 49. — Their worship corrupted. I. 52. —
Their false opinions of God, angels, &c. 1.54. — Divided into various sects.
I. 58. — Jews out of Palestine. I. 80. — These first addressed by the Apos-
tle.s. I. 101.— They the first to harrass Christians. I. 120.— Their hatred
to the Christians. I. 123. — They accused the Christians. I. 294. — Slaughter
of Jews under Hadrian. I. 299. — Jews excluded from Jerusalem. I. 397.
Johru the precursor of Christ. I. 86.
, the Apostle. I. 143.— Christians of St. John. I. 59.
Joseph, of Arimathea, did he preach in Britain? I. 269.
Jude, the brother of Christ, his descendants sought for by Domitian. I, 144.
Judgment, the last, in what sense near, according to Tertulllan. I. 511, n. (4.)
Julia Mammcca. II. 13.
Justin, Martyr, his Apology. I. 300, 303. — his martyrdom. I. 309. — his lifo
assailed by the Philosophers. 1. 320. — He held some mystic notions. I.
386.— His writinors. I. 393.
Kahhala, or Cabbala, did Valentinns draw from it? T. 454, 7i. (1.)
Kingdom, the Neiv, of Jesus Christ. II. 246. — A kingdom of light and a king-
dom of darkness, accordinfj to Manes. II. 275.
Labor, some viewed all worldly business an obstacle to piety. I. 317.
Lapsed, numerous in the Decian persecution. II. 31. — Controversy respecting
them. II. 38. — denied restoration by the Novatians. II. 66.
Latin veusions of the Bible in II. Cent. I. 282, n. (1.) — Latin Writers in the
II. Cent. I. 394.
Laurentius, a martyr. II. 91.
Law, the Mosaic, contest respecting its obligation. I. 215. — rejected by many,
in times of Hadrian. I. 397. — how interpreted by Origen. II. 185. — of
God, spurned by Carpocrates. I. 445. — ]\Iarcion's opinion of it. I. 490. —
Montanus' views of it. I. 504.
Law, Ecclesiastical, or Canon, origin of. I. 335. — To whom belonged the su-
preme power in ecclesiastical affairs in III. Cent. II. 116.
Learned Men, few among the first Christian teachers. I. 200.
Learning, human, its utility disputed. I. 344. — prohibited. II. 141.
Lectors, in the early church. II. 117.— in IV. Cent. II. 433.
500 GENERAL INDEX.
Legion^ Thundering^ it? miracle examined. I. 311. — Thebccan decimated for
martyrdom. II. 107.
LeonidaSf a martyr. II. 7.
LibellaUci, who ? II. 32.
Libellus Pads, controversy about such. II. 39.
LV)crty of the churches: see Independence.
Licinius, Emp. his liistory, persecution, and death. II. 479.
Liege, church of. I. 269.
Light, by the Orientals, accounted the seat of goodness and bliss. I. 478, 489,
387.— God is light; also the Saviour. II. 287.— Manes dreamed of a
kingdom of light. II. 275. — supposed God to be intelligent Light. II. 287. —
and to have twelve members. II. 288.
Literal Sense of Scripture, despised by Origen. II. 167.
Logic, propriety of a Christian's studying it. I. 344.
Logos, (Aoyoi) of Plato, Pliilo, and the Mystics. I. 385.— of Origen. II. 193.—
of Paul of Samosata. II. 237.
Lord's Day, observed by Christians. I. 145. — Asiatics did not limit Easter to
it. I. 531.
Lot, an Apostle elected by lot. I. 102.
Lucan, a heretic. I. 486.
Lucius king of England, did he invite Christian teachers to England? I. 270. —
He was a fictitious character, or never existed. I. 272.
Lucius, a martyr. II. 75.
Lyons and Vienne, church of. I. 264. — persecuted. I. 305, n. (3.) 309.
M.
Macrianus, an enemy to Christians. II. 91.
Magians, was Manes a Magian ? II. 259.
Magic. I. 55.— Did Christ write books on it? I. 364.— of Marcus. I. 476.
Magistrates, Roman, equitable to Christians. I. 318, n. (3.) II. 29.
Magistri of the Manichseans, what? II. 401.
Malchion, a rhetorician who confuted Paul of Samosata. II. 228.
Man, his destiny, according to Oriental philosophy. I. 45. — according to Sa-
turniiius. 1.410. — according to Basilides. 1.417. — Creation of, ridiculously
described. I. 462. — How man came to be a hiped. II. 285. — The first
Man of Manes. II. 305.
Manes, was an Oriental Philosopher. I. 42. — His doctrines explained at full
length, in more than a hundred and fifty pages. II. 251-404.
Manichccans, their evil deeds stated. II. 251.
Marcion, an Oriental Philosopher. I. 42. — his system explained. I. 486, 489.
Marcosians, heretics, I. 473.
Marcus, Emp. I. 302. — Was he as great as generally supposed? I. 306, n. (4.)
, a bishop. I. 396. — a Valentinian heretic. I. 473.
Marriage, when and why disapproved by Christians. I. 380. — accounted a Sa-
tanic institution by Saturninus. I. 416, n.
G K N K U A L I N D K X . 501
Martial, an Apostle of the Gauls. II. 2.
Martyrs, were all the Apostles martyrs? I. 106, 7J. (1.) — Extravarrant venera-
tion for martyrs. I. 135. — Their number, how f^reat. I. 137. — Manv raf^hly
sougiit martyrdom. II. 439. I. 236. — Did such die magiianiinously ? I.
307. — ]\Iartyrs under IMareus. I. 309. — Their cruel tortures. I. 319, ». —
Basilides supposed, martyrdom purged away all sins. I. 427, n. — He thought
ill of the martyrs. I. 435, n. (3.)— Many escaped it by paying money. II.
6. — Martyrs under Decius. II. 27. — They give Libellos Pads ; whence, a
new controversy. II. 39 — under Valerian. II. 91. — Martyrs of every ago
and sex. II. 95, 97. — under Diocletian. II. 106, 426. — Aganensian mar-
tyrs. II. 107. — Martyrs supposed to ascend immediately to glory. II. 118.
Maturnus, Apostle of the Germans. I. 269. — Apostle of the Gauls. II. 2.
Matter, coeternal with God, said Hermogenes. I. 621. — and the Manichaoans.
II. 276.
Matthias, the new Apostle. I. 102.
Mauritius, a general and Martyr. II. 107.
Maximian, Emp. persecutor. II. 416.
Maximilla, a fanatical woman. I. 497.
Maximinus Tlirax, Emp. a persecutor. II. 18.
Maximus, bp. competitor with Cyprian. II. 68.
Melancholy, a source of heresy. I. 499.
Melito, his apology. I. 303.
Menander, a Gnostic heretic. 1. 248. — Was Saturninus his disciple ? 1. 41 1. n. (3.)
Messiah, Jewish opinion of the. I. 65. — All Jews expected him. I. 56, &lc. n,
(1.) — Did the Sadducees? I. 57. — Mareion said, Christ only feigned him-
self the Messiah. I. 492.— Kingdom of the Messiah. II. 245.
Metempsychosis, of Basilides. I. 418. — of Manichaoans. II. 373.
Metropolitan Bishops, whence their authority. I. 335.
Metus, (Fear,) an ^on of Valentinus. I. 463.
Millenarian reign of Christ : see Chilliasts. II. 444, 446.
Mines, Christians condemned to the. II. 95.
Ministers of the Church, elected by the church. I. 103.— in III. Cent. II. 116.—
not always learned, but always sincere believers. II. 119.
Miracles, not wrought by the Apostles, but by Christ at their supplication. I.
100, 72. (1.) — in II. Cent. I. 278. — Testimonies of the ancients cited. I.
279, n. (2.) — Middleton's opinion examined, (ibid.) — Miracle of the Thun-
dering Legion. I. 311. — Those of Marcus, what to be thought of. I. 476.^
Miracles in III. Cent. II. 4, 93.
Misery human, whence, according to Origen. II. 191.
Milhra of the Persians and Manichaoans. II. 303.
Mohammed resembled Manes in several respects. II. 265, 268.
Monarchians, heretics. I. 513.
Monks, their origin. I. 68. — from Egypt and the Platonic philosophy. I. 380.
MoTitanists, the first disturbers of Christian liberty. I. 330, tl — were Chiliasts?
II. 246.
MontanuSj his heresy explained. I. 497.
502 GENERAL INDEX.
Moon, dreams of IManes about it. 11. 296. — did he place Christ in it? If. 296.—
did M;mic'h;t)ans worship it? II. 298.
Moral Sense of Scripture. II. 173.
Moral Discipline, before Christ. I. 24. — of the Oriental Philosopliers. I. 46. —
of liie Jews. I. 56. — of the Pharisees and Sadducees. I. 76. — of Ammo-
nius Saccas and the new Platonists. I. 357. — of Satnrninus. I. 414.
Moral Theology, twofold, for the perfect and for common people, introduced in
11. Cent. I. 380.— of Basilides. I. 433.— of Carpocrates. I. 444.— of Va-
lenlinus. I. 465. — of Marcion. I. 492. — of Montanus, very severe. I.
601. — He corrupted the discipline of Christ. I. 504.
Morals of Christians in III. Cent. II. 137.
Moses, excessive veneration of, produced schism. I. 219. — and a sect of Hebra-
izers in II. Cent. I. 396. — Opinion of the Nazareans respecting the law
of Moses. I. 400.— Opinion of Origcn of it. II. 185.
Mysteries, among the Pagans. I. 18. — little known, (ibid.) — what done in thetn.
(ibid.) — introduced among the Romans by Hadrian. I. 19, n. (].) — The
Ciiristians imitated them. I. 373, n. (2.) — falsely explained by Christian
Philosophers. I. 378. — Various dogmas concerning them discussed. I.
373, 390.
Mystic Theology, its origin. I. 372. — from Egyptian and the Platonic philo-
sophy. I. 380. — Mystic union of the soul with God. I. 383. — according
to Saturninus. I. 413. — Growth of mystic theology under Origen. II. 190.
Mystical Interpretation of Scripture, its origin and Nature. II. 165.
Narcissus, an Eremite. II. 199.
A^a^ure, what ? according to the Manichieans. 11.275.
Nazardcans, were of the II. Cent, and not the first. I. 222, n. (2.) — Their dis-
cipline. I. 400.— Their Gospel. I. 400, «Sic. n. (1.)
JSepos, refuted the Allegorists and revived Chiliasm. II. 244.
Nero, Emp. — Did he favor Christians? I. 120, n. — his persecution. I. 97.
Nicolaitans, the earliest Gnostic heretics. I. 249,
Niglii, accounted more sacred than day, by the Essenes. I. 71. — Why tho
Orientals regarded the night so highly. I. 73, n.
Noclus, his doctrine fully explained. II. 210.
Novatian, his schism. II. 59.
Novatus, his disagreement with Cyprian. 11. 45. — Was he a schismatic Pres-
byter? II. 55.
N«vs (Nus) the Son of God, why sent into the world, according to Basilides]
I. 418. — according to Valentinus. I. 380.
Nuptials, second, regarded as very criminal. I. 380, 382. II. 68.
Oblations of the early Christians. I. 147, 179.
OJice, sacerdatal of Christ : see Satisfaction of Christ.
Omophorus, in the Manichaean system of the world, what? U. 330, 385.
GENERAL INDEX. 503
Ophites^ their Iiistory and doctrines. I. 483.
Grades^ the Pagan, said to have hiiided Christ as God. I. 364. — impeded by
the presence of Christians, II. 93. — in the times of Diocletian. II. 414.
Orb, of the Manichajans, what? I. 370.
Ordination of ministers, in whom the power of. IL 117. — in the Apostolical
chnrehes. I. 179.
Oriental Pkiiosophy^ held two Deities. I. 40. — its doctrine of the world, (ibid.)
— divided into various sects and opinions. I. 41. — Many Jews embraced
it. L 78,
Origen^ refuted Celsus, I, 320. — was devoted to the philosophy of Ammonias
Saccas. I. 348. — instructed the Arabs. II. 1. — highly esteemed by Julia
Mamma;a. II. 13. — Plots against his life. II. 20, — His corresi)ondeiice
with Emperors. II. 23, — tortured under Decius. II. 29. — applied philoso-
phy to theology, perniciously. II. 143. — Estimate of his writings. II.
147. — His piety. II. 148. — His genius. II. 149, — His allegories fully consid-
ered. II. 165.— His death, II. 202. — Controversies respecting him. U. 200.
Pagans, state of, when Christ came. I, 11. — were superstitious. I. 12. — Na-
tions in which Christianity existed in II. Cent. I. 260. — Pagans excited by
their priests, persecuted Christians, I. 319. — See also Persecution.
Painter, Manes was a distinguished painter. II. 259.
Palace of Diocletian, Christians in it. II. 113.
Pallium philosophicum, retained by Christian Philosophers. I. 340, n. (1.)— Did
the Ascetics wear it as a mark of distinction? I. 383. II. 198.
Pantccnus, converted several nations. I. 261.— was the first to recommend phi.
losophy to Christians, I. 339.— perverted the true interpretation of Scrip-
ture I. 369,
Papias, a Chiliast IL 245.
Parishes, in the primitive church. I. 150, r?. (3.)
Paschal Supper, observed by the ancient Christians. I. 627.
Passion of Christ, held to be only apparent not real, by many Gnostics, and
particularly by Basilides. I. 428, 432. — Opinion of Valentinian. I. 465.—
of Bardcsaues. I. 479. — of Marcion. I. 493. — Did Sabellius ascribe tli»
passion to the Father? 11.223.
Passive Jesus of the Manichseans. II. 302.— his liberation, II. 379.
Paires Apostolici I. 200.
Patriarchs, origin of. I. 336.
Pairipassians. I. 513. — their errors. II. 212.
Patronage, right of. I. 165, n. (2.)
Pauk his conversion. I. 105.— martyrdom. I. 138.— Did he convert the Britons?
I. 270.— The Ebionites reviled him. I. 404.— His Epistles, how regarded
by the Manichc-eans? 11.273.
Paul, an Apostle of the Gauls. II. 2.
, of Thebais, the choriphaius of Eremites, his history, II. 190, 198,
. , of Samosata, his history and heresy. II. 228.
504 GENERAL INDEX.
PauUans or Paiilimiists. 11. 229.
Paupers, were all the Christians in the I. Cent, poor people? I. 116. — Care of
the poor, by Cyprian. II. 52. — How treated by the Manichaeans. II. 365.
Peace was not universal in the Rom. Empire, under Augustus. I. 11. — External
peace of the church, led Christians to self-indulgence. 11. 31, 115.
Pella, a refuge of Christians. I. 398.— Their return to Jerusalem. I. 399.
Penitence of the Lapsed. II. 43.— was it discarded by Novatian? II. 70.
Penitents in the early church. II. 22. — Discipline of. II. 38.
People the common, had great power in the church in III. Cent. II. 117. — in
the Apostolic churches. I. 179.
Peregrinus, an Apostle of the Gauls. II. 3.
Perfections of God, according to Manes, what? II. 288.
Peripatetic Pliilosopliers. I. 35.
Perpetua, a martyr. II. 7.
Persecutions, in I. Cent. I. 120. — Were there just ten? I. 125. — Causes of.
I. 129. — The Neronian. I. 138. — under Domitian. I. 142. — under Tnijan.
I. 292. — under Hadrian. I. 296. — under Antoninus. I. 300. — under Mar-
cus Aurelius. I. 302, 308. — under Sept. Severus. I. 317. II. 5. — Many
Christians saved themselves from it, by paying money. II. 6. — under Max-
imin. II. 18. — under Decius. II. 26. — It led mnny to apostatize. II. 33. —
under Gallus. 11. 73. — under Valerian. II. 91. — under Aurelian. II. 100.
— under Diocletian, Maximian, &c. in IV. Cent. II. 416.
Persians, their religion different in the different sects. I. 22.
Person of Christ: see Christ and Jesus. — Did Sabellius admit distinct Persona
in the Trinity? II. 218.— What Noetus thought. II. 210.— Beryllus de-
nied tripersonality. 11. 225. — The Patripassians. I. 513. — Paul of Samo-
Bata. II. 228.
Peter, his martyrdom. I. 138. — Did he cause Simon M. to fall down? I. 242.
—Was he Prince of the Apostles? II. 126.
Pharisees, their origin and opinions. I. 62.
Philetus, a heretic. I. 222.
Philip the Apostle, did he send Joseph a missionary to Britain ? I. 269.
■ ■ the Emperor, was he a Christian? II. 22.
Philo Judseus, an eclectic Philosopher. I. 39. — his mystical precepts. I. 384. —
his views of the Scriptures. II. 166, 168.
Philosophers, they censured but did not correct the popular superstitions. I. 27.
— Many of them propagated pestiferous errors. I. 28. — Were tliey all Athe-
ists? {ibid.) — Various of their sects and dogmas injurious to religion. I.
S3. — Christian Philosophers did some service to our holy religion. I. 282
—but the Pagan Philosophers were its enemies. I. 303. II. 103. — especiall3%
I. 219. — Opinion of the Oriental Philosophers respecting Christ and Chris-
tians. I. 365.
Philosophy, the Grecian and the Oriental. I. 30. — The Stoic philosophy of
the Emp. Marcus, how far injurious to Christianity. I. 306, n. (4.) —
Study of philosophy unsettled Christians and corrupted discipline. I.
339. — Early teachers prized and lauded it extravagantly. I. 339.—.
GENERAL INDEX. 505
PhilosopTiy, Controversy among^ Chiatians on its iiae. I. 343. — Ammonius Saccus
attempted to combine all sects of Philosophers. J. 351. — New Platoniam
corrupted the exposition of the Bible greatl3^ I. 369. — Christian doctrines
were explained away and perverted by philosophy. I. 372. — Basilides. I.
416. — Carpocrates, a striking example. I. 439. — Brief Summary of Ori-
ental and Gnostic philosophy. I. 468, n. (4.) — Theodotus and Artemon
prized philosophy too highly. I. 518. — Philosophy was applied to theology
with bad effects. II. 143. — Origen's philosophy. II. 150. — his opinion of
philosophy. II. 154.
PhygcUus, was he a heretic? I. 222.
Piety, a show of, led many to follow the heretics. I. 406.
Platonic philosophy gave rise to Mystics. I. 385.
Platonists, their doctrines of God and the human soul. I. 37. — how far ap-
proved by the Gnostics. I. 233.— The New Platonists. I. 348.— Their
doctrines led Christians to extreme austerity in religion. I. 380. — and to
impiety towards Christ. I. 439. — They were enemies to the Christians.
II. 103.
Pleasures of the life to come, in what to consist, according to Chiliasts?
II. 249.
nx««a)^a of the Oriental philosophy. I. 43. — of Simon Magus. I. 246. — of
Cerinthus. I. 251.— of Basilides. I. 419, n. (3.)— of Valentinus. I. 459.
Pliny, his account of the worship of the prim. Christians. I. 186, 7i. (1.) — and
of the number of Christians. I. 276.— His favor to Christians. I. 291, n. (3.)
Plotinus, many of his disciples became Christians. II. 104.
Polanders, when and by whom said to be converted, I. 111.
Polemic Theology, unavoidable, in II. Cent. I. 406.
Polycarfs Epistle. I. 207. — his martyrdom. I. 309.
Pomp, the episcopal, of Paul of Samosata. II. 230.
Pontifs of the Jews. I. 51. — Romish, owe much of their power to controver-
sies. I. 326. — their power very limited in III. Cent. II. 80. — No bishops
then subject to them. II. 89, 121.
Poor : see Paupers.
Populace, when excited by pagan priests, harrassed Christians. 1.319: — see
also under Persecutions. — They outraged holy men when dead. I. 319, n.
Porphyry, his respect for Christ. I. 365. — was hostile to Christians. II. 103.
Potamon of Alexandria, was he the author of the eclectic philosophy ? I. 38.
Pothinus. I. 269.- He died for the glory of Christ. I. 309.
Prayer, mystical. I. 389. — The Pagan prayers absurd and impious. I. 17. —
Prayer the chief part of the Manicheean worship. II. 390.
Praxeas, an adversary of Montanus. I. 513, n. (1.)
Predictions of IMontanus and the Montanists, did not come to pass. I. 511, n.
(4.)_of Cyprian. II. 75.
Presentation, right of, whence derived. I. 165. n. (2.)
Presidents, the Roman, reluctantly persecuted the Christians. I. 318, n. (3. 1
n. 29.
Presbytership of Origen, a cause of contention. II. 203.
506 GENERAL INDEX.
Presiy/ero, were the vii. Deacons, (Acts iv.) Presbyters? 1. 156. — Their ofTico
in the earl}- church. I. 161. — Ruling and Teaching Elders, laboring, &c.
I. 162, n. (2.)— Their election and stipends. I. 164.— in II. Cent. I. 322.—
of Carthage, disagree with Cyprian. II. 5-1. — Rights and authority in iii.
Cent. II. 117 &L 131.
Pride produced heresies, e. g. Paul of Samosata. II. 228. — also persecutions.
II. 416.
Priesthood, Origin was divested of. II. 205, &c. — imparted from God. II. 134.
Pricsls, Pagan, their character. I. 17. — very hostile to Christians. I. 291,
296. — excite persecution in IV. Cent. II. 412, 414. See Teachers.
Primacy of any church. II. 124. — of the Romisli church, according to Irenaua,
I. 328. II. 125.
Principle of all things, the first; is it iivofold, good and bad? I. 478, 489. —
The two of Manichasans. II. 275. — their different attributes. II. 284. — •
The good one of Manes, fully described. II. 287. — and his Attributes.
(ibid, n.)
Prisca, wife of Diocletian, favored Christians. II. 413.
Priscilla, a fanatical woman. I. 497.
Procurators, the Roman, vexed the Jews. I. 51. — A bishop and Ducenarius.
II. 230.
Propagation of Christianity, why so rapid] I. 115. — in II. Cent. I. 259. — Causes
of it. I. 277. — in III. Cent. II. 1. — and causes. II. 4.
Prophetic Oracles, how to be explained, according to Origen. II. 188.
Prophets, in the prim, church. I. 165. — Judges of them. I. 166. — Their func-
tions not limited to predicting. I. 166 n. (1.) — Prophets of Basilides, what?
I. 418. — Montanus and his women fanatical. I. 497.
n^oc-wjra of Sabellias, in the Trinity. II. 220.— of Paul of Samosata. II. 236.
Psalms of David substituted for Hymns, by Paul of Samosata. 11. 230.
Phtjchology of Origen. II. 151.
Ptolomy, a Valentinian heretic. I. 471.
Ptolomaites, a Valentian sect. I. 471.
Publicans, they vexed the Jews. I. 51.
Purgation of souls : see Soul, Mystics, Gnostics, and I. 420, n. (7.) — accord-
ing to Origen. II. 199.
Purgatcd Souls, state of after death. II. 367 &c. 369, &c.— state of the half-
purgated, II. 373.
Pythagoras, compared with Christ. II. 104.
Q.
Quartndecimani, christians who kept Easter with the Jews. I. 528.
Quietists, discipline for, by the Mystics. I. 388.
Quietudcy predicated of God. I. 387.
Uain, ridiculous opinions of the Manichaeans about. II. 382.
Reason, made the interpreter of Scripture by Origen. II. 157.
GENEKAL INDEX. 507
Itecogmtinns of Clement, eslim.itc of them. I. 203.
RtconcillaUim^ denied to the Lnpsed by the Novati.ms. 11. 6G.
Redemption of mankind, how Christ himself exphiincd it. I. 427.
Reign of the ^Messiah, opinion of the Jew??. II. 245.
Relics of Martyrs, venerated. T. 136, n (2.)
RcligioJis, the Pagan, why they did not persecute each other. 1. 14. — Thev led
to impiety. I. 17, 24. — Religions of the Greeks and Romans, I. 20. — of
the Indians, Persians, &c. I. 21. — of the Egyptian.s. I. 21. — of the Per-
sians. I. 22. — All framed for state purposes. I. 23. — and therefore, cither
civil or military, (ibid.) — Arguments of their priests in support of them.
I. 27. — Ammonius Saccas. I. 361. — Religion of the Jews in time of
Christ, corrupted. I. 61.
Religion, the Christian, where planted in I. Cent. I. 109. — Learning and elo-
quence not the instruments of its propagation. I. 278. — Its simplicity cor«
rupted by philosophy. I. 344. — Its doctrines perverted, I. 372.
Representatives of churches, namely, the Bishops assembled in councils. I. 332.
Resurrection of the body, denied by Basilides. I. 429. — Origen's opinion of it
II. 164.
Rhetoricians, they were opposers of Christianity. I. 320.
Riches of God, according to Manes. II. 288.
Rigor, of the Gnostics : see Gnostics. — of Montanua. I. 506.
Roman Empire, its state when Christ came. I, 9, — Its fticilities and obstacles.
I. 9. — Its religion. I. 20. — corrupted by other Pagan systems. I. 20. —
Impiety of the Romans. I. 25. — Why they disturbed Christians. I. 129.
Romish Chirch, had great influence in II. Cent. I. 323. — Tertullian and Irenacua
respecting it. I. 325. — Yet its powers were limited. II. 80, 125.
Russiaiis, when and by whom said to be converted. I. 111.
S.
Sabcllius and Sahellians, their history and errors. II. 215.
Sabiin, what sect of Christians'? I, 60.
Sacrijicers, a class of the Lapsed. II. 32.
Sacrijices, formerly offered to the Gods. L 17. — of the Essenes, nocturnal and
wholly burned. I, 71.
Sadducees, did they expect a Messiah. L 56, n. (1.) — their doctrines. I. 62. —
Josephus represents them as bad men. I. 65.
Salaries or stipends of Presbyters, in the primitive church. I. 184.
Saltation religious, of the Essenes. I. 74.
Samaritans. I. 79. — Apostles endeavored to convert them, I. 101.
Sanctity austere, among Christians, derived from Platonism. I. 380, II. 66.—
Perverse ideas of by the Mystics, L 386,— in III. Cent. 11, 137, 195.
Sanhedrim of the Jews. I, 52, — Its powers indicated as merged in Christ, I. 94.
Sapor, a Christian king of Persia. II. 260.
Satan, according to Saturninns. I. 412.
Satisfaction of Christ, denied Ly the Gnostics, especial, y Carpojrates. I. 440.
— by Valentinus. I. 468, n. (3.) — Origen's opinion of it. II. 1G2.
SOS GENERAL INDEX.
Sa/u>-nrnz«, liis philosophy. I. 409.— His system explained by himself. 1.411.
Sulurninus, an Apostle of tht; Gauls. II. 2.
Sc'iisfn respecting the obligation of the Mosaic law. I. Cent. I. 219.— of Feliciasi-
mus. II. 50.
Schools, episcopal, oiigin of I. 163, n. — the cateciietic at Alexandria, cultivated
philosophy, I. 339. II. 206.— of Ammonius Saceas. I. 348.
Scots conversion of II. 2.
Scriptures, translations of, various in II. Cent. I. 282, n. — The reading of, re-
commended to all. (ihid.) — Interpretation of, in 11. Cent. I. 367. — Ori-
gen's mode of interpreting. II. 156. — The allegorical sense of II. 165. —
How far inscrutable, according to Origen. II. 180. — Copies of, burned by
order of Diocletian. II. 423.
Scythianus, was he the originator of Manichceism ? II. 257.
SeciSj Christian, their origin in II. Cent. I. 396. — of the Hebraizers. I. 396. —
the offspring of the Oriental philosophy prevailing after the Apostles were
gone. I. 405. — How they could seduce such multitudes, {ibid.) — The
Valentinian sects. I. 471.
Secundus, a Valentinian heretic. I. 472.
Senses of Scripture, the four (literal, allegorical, tropological, anagogical.) I. 368.
— The allegorical, as uniformly followed by Origen. II. 165.
Sepulture, denied to Noetus and his brother. II. 211.
Serenus Granianus, Proconsul of Asia, a patron of Christians. I. 297.
Serpent of Paradise, worshiped by the Ophites. I. 485.
Severus, Emp. state of the church under him. I. 317. II. 5, 10.
, a heretic. I. 486.
Sibylline Verses, forged by Christians. I. 288.
Sign of the Cross, seen by Constantine. II. 472.
Signum or Signaculum, among Manichaeans, what? II. 356.
Simeon, bp. of Jerusalem, and martyr. I. 294.
Simon Magus, an Oriental philosopher. I. 42. — The first of the Gnostics. I.
239. 241, 72. (2.)— his history. I. 242.— Did the Romans deify him? I.
243.— His doctrines. I. 246.
Simon of Cyrene, whose form (says Basilides) Christ assumed, and caused him
to be crucified in his pluce. I. 428.
Simonians, heretics. I. 241, n. (3.)
Simplicity, Christian, corrupted by philosophy. I. 344. — and especially in the
Alexandrian school. II. 165.
Sins, Carpocrates opened a door for all sins. I. 444 : — see Moral. — What sins,
the Novatians would not absolve from. II. 67. — Did they exclude the trans-
gressor from all hope of salvation? II. 70.— Manes' opinion of the na-
ture and origin of sin. II. 349.
Sisters, so the first Christians called the female believers. I. 180.
Sixtus, a martyr. (548.) II. 91.
Skeptic Philosophers. I. 34.
Soldiers, were there Christians in the army of Marcus? I. 313. — and of Dio-
cletian? II. 112, 113.
GENERAL INDEX. 509
Solitude, courted by Christians, on the principles of tlic Mystics, f. 380. II. 198.
Son of God, did Sabellius distinirnish liim from the Father. II, i220. Did
Manes identify him with ihe sun? II. 296.
Sophia, an ^Eon of Basilides. I. 417. — and of Valentinus. I. 459.
Soul, there are two souls, a rational and a sentient, in man, said the Gnostics.
I. 426, 71. (7.) — The Carpocratians claimed to have souls equal to Cliriat's
soul. I. 442. — Origen's opinion of the soul. II. 151. — Beryllus said,
Christ had no human soul. II. 226. — The world has a soul (animani
mundi, vel Demiurgi,) said Valentinus. I. 401. — The soul of Jesus Clirist
II. 191. — to which our souls should be conformed, (ibid.) — Return of souU
to the world of light, according to Manes. II. 191. — State of both purgate^
and unpurgated souls after death, in the system of Manes. II. 373. Mi
gration of souls into other bodies, a Manichccan doctrine. II. 374.
Soul of man, opinions of it by the Philosophers. I. 33, 45. — by the Essenea,
I. 69. — by Simon Magus. I. 246. — by Cerinthus. I. 251. — Its union witU
God, the doctrine of the Mystics. I. 381- — Its destiny according to Basilidea.
I. 417. — What offences it committed in the upper world, according to Ba-
silides. I. 427, n. (7.)— and Carpocrates. I. 438.— Of what material Gort
formed it, according to Hermogenes. I. 522, n. (3.) — Mystic opinions
of the soul. II. 190. — Souls die and rise with their bodies, said the Arabians.
II. 242.
Spaniards, when and by whom said to be converted. I. 110, n. (3.)
Spirit, the Holy, gifts of to the Apostles. I. 100. — Valentinus' doctrine of
the Holy Spirit. I. 459. — Montanus' pretensions to. I. 497.— Cyprian. II
75. — His offices, according to the Mystics. II. 196. — Sabollius held him
to be a part of the Father. II. 215, 218. — Did Manes profess himself tho
H. Sp. 'i II. 263.— His doctrine of the H. S. IT. 293.
Spirit ual sense of Scripture, according to Origen. II. 173.
Statue inscribed Semoni Sanco. I. 244.
Statues of the Gods, supposed to be animated by th^m. I, 16.
Stephen, bp, of Rome, his contest with Cyprian, respecting heretical baptism.i.
II. 79, 121.
Stoics, their doctrines. I. 36.
Strangers, opposed to tjTj i^iXpolu in St. John's Epist. who? I. 224.
Stremonius, Apostle of die Gauls. II. 2.
Study of human leariiing by Christians, its propriety debated. I. 344.
Substance, according to Valentinus, is animal, material, spiritual. I. 461.—
Manes' ideas of substance. II. 275.
fifM^en;7g-s of the martyrs. I. 319. n. — under Decius. 11.27. — under Gallus. 11.75.
Sun, Sabellius explained the mystery of the Trinity by the sun. II. 220. — Did
Manes suppose the sun to be the Son of God? II. 296. — and did he p.ay
divine honors to it? II. 298.
Superstition of the nations when Christ appeared. I. 12. — of the Jews. I. 53.
— Why Suetonius called Christianity malpfica superstitio. I. 131. — Why
Pliny called it immodica superstitio. I. 187. — Superstition a cause of per
secutions. II. 102, 414, 415
610 GENERAL INDEX.
Synagogues of the Jews. I. 54.
Syncretism, philosophical, of Ammonius Saecas. I. 351.
%7ij.sacte muliort's. II. 138.
Synods, originated in II. Cent, from a desire of ecclesiastical unity. I. 329.
Syria, the native country of many Alystics and Gnostics, and why? I. 387,
416. II. 199.
Tatian, his Oration. I. 394.
Talian, a Valentinian heretic, his dreams. I. 481.
Tatianists, sect. I. 482.
Teachers, Christian, in III. Cent, especially persecuted. II. 19, 27, 28, 74, 94, 96.
Teaching in public, was it free to all in the prim, church ? I. 194, &c. n. (2.)
Temples of the Gods. I. 16. — Emp. Alex. Severus would build a temple for
Christ. II. 16. — He permitted Christians to erect temples. II. 17. — The
Mnnichreans had none. II. 389. — Domitian ordered the Christian temples
destroyed. II. 417, 422.— Christian, built on mountains. II. (418.)
Ten Persecutions, were there precisely this number? I. 126, n. (1.)
TerluUian, on the excellence of the Apostolic churches. I. 325. — on the power
of Bishops and the rights of Christians. I. 330. — His writings. I. 394. —
His Montanistic heresy. I. 498, 501, n. (5.)
Testamenl the New, its canon, when and by whom made up. I. 113. — Heretics
declared the N. Test, to be corrupted. II. 267.— The Old Test, usually
rejected by the Gnostics, especially by Saturninus, and why. I. 414. —
Manes wholly discarded the Old Test. II. 269.
Thehccan Legion, what to be believed of its martyrdom. II. 117.
Theodotus, extracts from. I. 31. — the tanner, denied the Divinity of Christ.
I. 518.
Theology : sec Moral, Dogmatic, &.C. — Philosophical, in III. Cent. II. 143. — of
Origen. II. 155.
Thcophilus, his writings. I. 394.
Therapeuta:, Essenes. I. 73. — of Philo. I. 74, n. (1.) — were they Christians?
1.75.
Theurgy, Ammonius said, Christ wrote books on it. I. 364.
Thitrijicati, a class of the Lapsed. II. 32.
Tiberius, Emp. venerated Christ. I. 119.
Toleration of foreign reliiiions by the Romans. I. 14. — Constantino the Gr.
made all religions free. II. 455, 456.
To^«, what, with Sabellius? II. 222.
Tongres, (Tungrensis,) church of I. 269.
Tradition of the Apostles in the Romish church what Irerucus held on this
matter. I. 328. — Some Fathers sny, Christ committed >vw(T/c, i. e. an arcane
discipline, to the Apostles. I. 375. — Carpocratians pretended to arcane
doctrines handed down from Christ. I. 444.
TraditorSt those who gave up the sacred books to Diocletian to be burned. II. 423.
GENERALINDEX. 511
Trajan, Emp. Pliny's Letter to liim expounded. I. 18G, n. (1.)— Slate of the
church under him. I. 290.
Treves, church of. I. 269.
TYinily, distinction of the Persons, denied by Praxeas. I. 513. — Orifren's
opinions on tlie Trinity. II. 159.— Noetus'. II. 210.— Sabellius'. II. 215.—
By what similitudes Sabellius explained the Trinity. II. 220. — Beryllus'
opinion. II. 225.— Paul of Samosuta's. II. 228.— The Trinity of Manea.
II. 292.
T'ropldmus, an Apostle of the Gauls. II. 2.
u.
Ulpian, the Jurisconsult, hostile to Christians. 11. 13.
Unigeniius, an JEon of Valentinus. I. 459.
Union with God, many Christians of the II. Cent, sought it by Platonic austeri-
ties. I. 381.
Union with Christ, (xo^m) mystical. II. 195.
Unity of God, how understood by Noetus. II. 210. — by Sabellius. II. 217.—
by Paul of Samosata. II. 228.
Urceus, metaphorically what, with Maniehasans? II. 371.
Valentinus, the prince of Gnostics, his history, doctrines, &e. in full. I. 449.
Valeria Augusta, a worshiper of the true God, favored Christians. II. 413.
Valerian, Emp. gave peace to the Christians. II. 73. — Afterwards persecuted
them. II. 91.
Valerius, Apostle of the Germans. I. 269. — of the Gauls. II. 2.
Veneration for Christ, out of Judea. I. 95. — by Pagans. I. 119. — by Rom:ui
Emperors: see Emperors. — by Philosophers. I. 362. — by Oracles. I. 364.
Versions of the Scriptures existing in II. Cent, what and by whom. I. 282. —
The author of the Ilala, largely discussed. I. 283.
Vicar of Christ, the Roman Pontit is not. II. 89.— Origin of the title. II. 136.
Victor, a Rom. bp. excluded Asiatic Christians from his communion. I. 534.
Vienne and Lyons, church of I. 264. — persecuted under Emp. Marcus. I. 309.
Virginity, spontaneous, for Christ's sake. I. 380. ^
Virgins became Confessors. II. 95. — of the Manichaeans. II. 383.
Virtues, Basilides accounted the Virtues ^ons. I. 419.
w.
Wars, religious, why none among Pagans. I. 14.
Waler, of vvliat kind, in the kingdom of darkness, according to Manes. II. 281.
Widows, i. e. Deaconesses, in the prim, church. I. 177, n. (1.)
Wine, when and why Ciiristians began to abstain from it in II. Cent. I. 381. —
Manes reprobated it. II. 359.
Word, the internal, or Christ m us, of the Mystics. I. 306. — Origen's opiuioD
concerning it. II. 193.
512 GENERAL INDEX.
World, creation of, opinion of Suturninus. 1.410. — of Basilides. I. 417.— of
Valentinus. I. 462.— of Origen. II. 150.— of Manes, fully stated. II. 330.
— The cause of it. (ibid.) — Destruction of it. II. 385. — The iwo worlds of
Manes. II. 275.— The spiritual world of Origen. II. 175.
Women, the subinlroductcc of the priests. II. 132, n. (2.)
Worship, Mosaic, observed by Christ with limitations. I. 88. — Christian, in I.
Cent. I. 185.— described by Pliny. I. 186.— in II. Cent. I. 390.—Mani.
chccan. II. 389.
Writers, Christian, in I. Cent. I. 200.— in II. Cent. I. 393.— in III. II. 140.
Writings of the Apostles. I. 113.
Y^o<rra7 liy Sabellius denied three Hypostasies in God. II. 222.
Z.
Zenohia, queen of Palmyra, favored Paul of Samosata. II. 228.
Wo. of pages, 51i
No. of pages of Contents, «fec 12
Total pages in Vol. 2, 524
No. ot pages in Vol, 1 561
Total No. of pages in Vols. 1 & 2. ... 1,085
Date Due
A
1
i
1
1
f)
Hlfli
BW935.M913 1853V2
"ary-Speer Library
eologica/Semi
1 ^0^2 00073 4097