Skip to main content

Full text of "The theological and miscellaneous works of Joseph Priestley"

See other formats 


fr^Miv- 


mm 


li-. 


? 


BX  9815  .P68  1817  v. 5 
Priestley,  Joseph,  1733' 

180A. 

The  theological  and 

miscellaneous  works  of 


THE 

WORKS, 

y 

JOSEPH  PRIESTLEY,  LL.D.  F.R.S.  &c. 

WITH 

NOTES, 
BY    THE     EDITOR. 

■»  ♦  » — 

VOLUME  V. 

Containing 

THE    HISTORY 

OF   THE 

CORRUPTIONS  OF  CHRISTIANITY. 


OBORGB  SMALLFIELU,  PRINTEtt,  HACKNEY. 


PREFACE 

B  Y  THE   EDITOR. 


Dr.  Priestley,  as  he  has  mentioned  in  his  own  Preface, 
designed  to  have  added  this  History^  as  a  fourth  Volume  to 
the  Institutes,  on  their  first  publication  in  1771.  But,  other 
occupations  intervened,  till  his  materials  became  sufficient 
for  a  larger  Work,  and  he  had  an  increasing  conviction  of 
its  utility  and  importance.  His  metaphysical  discussions 
had  led  him  still  farther  to  consider  the  questions  concerning 
the  nature  of  Christ ;  nor  during  his  excursion  to  the  Con- 
tinent in  1774,  could  he  have  failed  to  perceive  the  corrupt 
forms  of  religion  under  papal  establishments,  and  their  in- 
fluence to  foster  the  prejudices,  and  to  increase  the  number 
of  unbelievers. 

Yet  Dr.  Priestley  was  not  one  of  those  credulous  Pro- 
testants who  satisfy  themselves  that  the  Reformers  in  the 
sixteenth  century  had  left  no  corruptions  of  Christianity 
unreformed,  in  churches  which,  under  their  influence,  were 
established  by  the  civil  power.  Such  establishments  them- 
selves, he  justly  regarded  as  no  trifling  corruptions  ;  and  as  to 
some  of  the  most  censured  representations  in  this  Volume, 
their  Author  is  justified  by  the  published  opinions  of  not  a 
few  dignified  churchmen.  For  what  are  the  special  pleadings 
of  Bishop  Burnet  in  his  Exposition — Bishop  lioadley's  Plain 
Account  and  his  Kingdom  of  Christ  not  of  this  World — 
Dr.  Clarke's  Scripture  Doctrine  —  Bishop  Law's  Theory 
'*  purged  of  ancient  prejudices"— Dr.  Jortin's  Remarks, 
where  he  explodes  "  metaphysical  and  scholastic  divinity 
from  the  Christian  system;" — what  are  all  these  but  forcible 
though  indirect  attacks  on  the  Creeds  and  Ritual  of  their 
own  Church? 

a  2 


IV  PREFACE. 

It  was  not,  however,  to  the  consideration  of  a  Churchman, 
formed  in  the  liberal,  though  inconsistent  school  of  Hoadley, 
that  Dr.  Priestley  recommended  the  following  pages.  Bishop 
Hurd  was  of  another  school.  A  highly  accomplished  clas- 
sical scholar,  and  in  his  earlier  writings,  no  illiberal  politician ; 
he  appears  to  have  been  content  as  a  Theologian  to  dicell  in 
decencies.  Thus,  as  a  Warburtonian  Lecturer,  in  1772,  he 
could  only  discover  a/)apa/ Man  of  Sin,  though  Mr.  Evanson, 
whose  inquiries  were  more  extended,  could  assure  the  bishop 
that  there  were  many  Antichrists.  Indeed,  by  a  prelate 
who  had  congratulated  the  English  Reformation  because  it 
advanced  or  was  retarded  as  the  superior  judgment  of  the 
Civil  Magistrate  determined.  Dr.  Priestley's  appeal  would 
not  be  much  regarded.  It  is  to  be  regretted  that  it  was 
received  with  a  discourtesy  too  nearly  bordering  on  War- 
burtonian arrogance. 

The  appeal  to  Mr.  Gibbon  was  equally  unsuccessful,  had 
Dr.  Priestley  expected  his  approbation.  But  the  spirit 
which  the  celebrated  Historian  discovered,  on  this  occasion, 
I  may  find  another  opportunity  to  describe.  Yet  I  form 
expectations,  at  this  moment,  with  peculiar  diffidence  ;  from 
the  impression  of  a  very  recent  event  of  which  the  painful 
information  has  reached  me,  while  concluding  this  Preface. 
I  refer  to  the  lamented  death  of  Dr.  Thomson,  an  encourager 
of  this  undertaking,  on  whose  approbation  of  its  progress  I 
should  have  set  no  common  value.  May  his  family  receive 
all  the  consolation  which  religion  can  bestow,  when  a  Chris- 
tian is  called  from  the  labours  of  life  to  the  recompense  of 
eternity,  and  may  those  who  survive,  especially  in  the  same 
religious  connexion,  be  taught  and  encouraged  by  his  fair 
example. 

J.  T.  RUTT. 

Clapton,  Mai/ ^26,   1818. 


CONTENTS 

OF    THE    FIFTH    VOLUME. 


AN  HISTORY  OF  THE  CORRUPTIONS  OF 
CHRISTIANITY. 

Page 

The  Dedication   ------    __3 

The  Preface    -    -    -    --    -    -    --7 

PART  I. 
The  History  of  Opinions  relating  to  Jesus  Christ. 
The  Introduction         ------  _  -13 

Sect. 

I.  Of    the   Opinion   of  the   ancient  Jewish    and   Gentile 

Churches  -  -  -  -  -         -     16 

II.  Of  the  first  Step  that  was  made  towards  the  Deification 

of  Christ,  b^  the  Personification  of  the  Logos     -       -     23 

III.  The  Supremacy  was  always  ascribed  to  the  Father  before 

the  Council  of  Nice  -  -  -  -     36 

IV.  Of  the  Dilficulty  with  which  the  Doctrine  of  the  Divinity 

of  Chr.st  was  established  -  -  -     40 

V.  xAn  Account  of  the  Unitarians  before  the  Council  of  Nice     48 

VI.  Of  the  A  rian  Controversy  -  -  -  -     52 

VII.  Of  the  Doctrine  concerning  the  Holy  Spirit         -  -     57 

VIII.  The  History  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  from  the 
Councils  of  Nice  and  Constantinople,  till  after  the 
Eutychian  Controversy  -  -  -  -     64 

IX.  The  Stale  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity  in  the  Latin 

Church  -  -  -  -  -  -     71 

X.  The  History  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity  after  the 

Eutychian  Controversy  -  -  -  -     77 

XI.  A  general  View  of  the  Recovery  of  the  genuine  Doctrine 

of  Christianity  concerning  the  Nature  of  Christ  -     SI 

PART  II. 

The  History  of  Opinions  relating  to  the  Doctrine  of 
Atonement. 
The  Introduction  -  -  -  -  -  -    91 

Sect. 

I.  That  Christ  did  not  die  to  make  Satisfaction  for  the  Sins 

of  Men  -  -  -  -  -  -     92 

II.  Of  the  true  End  and  Design  of  the  Death  of  Christ      -  100 
HI.  Of  the  Sense  in  which  the  Death  of  Christ  is  represented 
as  a  Sacrifice,  and  other  figurative  Representations 
of  it  -  -  -  -  -  -     103 


VI  THE    CONTENTS. 

Sect.  Page 

IV.  Of  the  Opinions  of  the  Apostolical  Fathers         -  -  122 

V.  Of  the  Opinionsof  the  Fathers  till  after  theTime  of  Austin  125 
VI.  Of  the  State  of  Opinions  concerning  the  Doctrine  of 

Atonement,  from  theTime  of  Austin  to  the  Reformation  139 
VII.  Of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Reformers  on  the  Subject  of 

Atonement  -  -  .  .  .  144 

PART  III. 
The  History  of  Opinions  concerning  Grace,  Original  Sin 

and  Predestination. 
The  Introduction         -  -  -  -  -  -15(i 

Sect. 

I.  Of  the  Doctrines  of  Grace,  &c,  before  the  Pelagian  Con^ 

troversy         -_.__.     iqq 
II.  Of  the  Pelagian  Controversy  and  the  State  of  Opinions 

in  consequence  of  it  -  -  -  -     163 

III.  Of  the  Doctrine  of  Grace,  &c.  in  the  Middle  Ages,  and 

till  the  Reformation  -  -  -  _     iQg 

IV.  Of  the  Doctrines  of  Grace,  Original  Sin,  and  Predesti- 

nation, since  the  Reformation  -  -  -     173 

PART  IV. 
The  History  of  Opinions  relating  to  Saints  and  Angels. 
The  Introduction         -._._.     isq 

Sect. 

I.  Part  1. — Of  the  Respect  paid  to  Saints  in  general,  till 

the  Fall  of  the  Western  Empire          -         -  181 

Part  2. — Of  Pictures  and  Images  in  Churches               -  184 

Part  3. — Of  the  Veneration  for  Relics               -             -  isd 

Part  4. — Of  Worship  paid  to  Saints  and  Angels             -  188 
Part  5. — Of  the  Respect  paid  to  the  Virgin  Mary,  in  this 

Period          -            -             -             -             -  194 
II.  Part  1. — Of  the  Worship  of  Saints,  in  the  middle  i\ges, 

and  till  the  Reformation               -                 -  197 

Part  2. — Of  the  Worship  of  the  Virgin  Mary       -         -  204 

Part  3. — Of  the  Worship  of  Images  in  this  Period       -  208 

Part  4. — Of  the  Respect  paid  to  Relics  in  this  Period  214 

PART  V. 
The  History  of  Opinions  concerning  the  State  of  the  Dead. 
The  Introduction         ----__     ojy 

Sect. 

I.  Of  the  Opinions  concerning  the  Dead  till  the  Time  of 

Austin  -----_     220 

II.  Of  the  Opinions  concerning  the  State  of  the  Dead,  from 

theTime  of  Austin  till  the  Reformation  -  -     224 

III.  Of  the  Revival  of  the  genuine  Doctrine  of  Revelation 

concerning  the  State  of  the  Dead        -         -  -     228 

PART  VI. 

The  History  of  Opinions  relating  to  the  Lord's  Supper. 

The  Introduction         -  -  -  -  -  -    231 


THE    CONTENTS.  vij 

Sect.  Page 

I.  The  History  of  the  Eucharist  till  after  the  Time  of  Austin    232 
II.  The  History  of  the  Eucharist  from  theTime  of  Austin 

to  that  of  Paschasius  -  -  _  _     243 

III.  The  History  of  the  Eucharist,  from  the  Time  of  Pas- 

chasius to  the  Reformation  -  -  -     250 

IV .  Of  the  Recovery  of  the  genuine  Christian  Doctrine  con- 

cerning the  Lord's  Supper  -  -  _     §62 

PART  vn. 

The  History  of  Opinions  relating  to  Baptism. 
The  Introduction         ---.__     268 

Sect. 

I.  Of  the  Opinions  and  Practices  of  the  Christians  relating 

to  Baptism,  till  the  Reformation  _  _  _     yyg 

If.  The  State  of  Opinions  concerning  Baptism,  since  the 

Reformation  _  _  _  _  _     2g2 

APPENDIX  TO   PARTS   VI.   AND    VII. 

Containing  the  History  of  the  other  Sacraments  besides  Bap- 
tism and  the  Lord's  Supper  -  -  -  -     2S6 

PART  VIII. 
An  Histoi-jf  of  the  Changes  that  have  been  made  in  the 

Method  of  conducting  Public  Worship. 
The  Introduction  ----__     093 

Sect. 

I.  Of  Churches,  and  some  Things  belonging  to  them       -  ib. 
II.  Of  Ceremonies  in  general,  and  other  Things  belonging 

to  Public  Worship             >             _              _                 .  298 

III.  Of  the  proper  Parts  of  Public  Worship             -             -  301 

IV.  Of  Festivals,  &c.  in  the  Christian  Church         -           -  306 

PART  IX. 

The  History  of  Church  Discipline. 
The  Introduction  -  -  -  -  -312 

Sect. 

J.  The  History  of  Church  Discipline,  in  the  Time  of  the 

Christian  Fathers  -  -  -  -      ib. 

II.  Of  the  State  of  Church  Discipline  in  the  dark  Ages, 

and  till  the  Reformation         -         -         -         -  -     317 

III.  Of  the  Method  of  enforcing  Church  Censures,  or  the 

Histoiy  of  Persecution,  till  the  Time  of  Austin         -     327 

IV.  Of  the  Methods  of  enforcing  Ecclesiastical  Censures, 

from  the  Time  of  Austin  to  the  Reformation  and 

afterwards,  by  the  Catholics        -        .  .  _  333 

V.  Of  Persecution  by  Protestants          -          _           .        _  341 
VI.  The  History  of  Mistakes  concerning  Moral  Virtue      -  344 

PART    X. 
The  History  of  Ministers  in  the  Christian  Churchy  and 

especially  of  Bishops. 
The  Introduction        -  -  -  -  -  -    Sdl 


Vlll  THE    CONTENTS. 

Sect.  Page 

I.  The  History  of  Christian  Ministers  till  the  Fall  of  the 

Western  Empire  _  _  _  _     s6l 

II.  The  History  of  the  Clergy,  from  the  Fall  of  the  Roman 

Empire  in  the  West,  to  the  Reformation  -         -     372 

PART  XL 

The  Histori/  of  (he  Papal  Power. 
The  Introduction         ------    390 

Sect. 

I.  Of  the  State  of  the  Papal  Power  till  the  Time  of  Charle- 
magne __----     392 
II.  The  History  of  the  Papal  Power  from  the  Time  of 

Charlemagne  to  the  Reformation  _  -  -     400 

APPENDIX    I.   TO   PARTS   X.    AND    XI. 

The  History  of  Councils  -  -  -  -  -  -     421 

APPENDIX    II.   TO   PARTS   X.   AND    XI. 

Of  the  Authority  of  the  Secular  Powers,or  the  Civil  Magistrate, 
in  Matters  of  Religion  _  -  _  .  -     42G 

APPENDIX   III.  TO  PARTS  X.  AND   XI. 
Of  the  Authority  of  Tradition,  and  of  the  Scriptures,  &c.     -     437 

PART  XII. 

The  History  of  the  Monastic  Life. 
The  Introduction  -  _  -  _  -        -     446 

Sect. 

I.  Of  the  Monastic  Life,  till  the  Fall  of  the  Western  Empire     449 
11.  The  History  of  the  Monks  after  the  Fall  of  the  Western 

Empire  ------     452 

PART  XIIL 

The  History  of  Church  Revenues. 
The  Introduction         ------     467 

Sect. 

I.  The  History  of  Church  Revenues,  till  the  Fall  of  the 

Western  Empire  -  -  -  -     4()S 

II.  The  History  of  Church  Revenues  after  the  Fall  of  the 

Western  Empire  -  -  -  -     471 

THE  GENERAL  CONCLUSION. 

Part  I. — Containing  Considerations  addressed  to  Unbelievers, 

and  especially  to  Mr.  Gibbon  -  -  -     480 

Part  II. — Containing  Considerations  addressed  to  the  Advo- 
cates for  the  present  Civil  Establishments  of  Chris- 
tianity, and  especially  Bishop  Hurd  -  -     495 

APPENDIX. — Containing  a  summary  View  of  the  Evidence 
for  the  primitive  Christians  holding  the  Doctrine 
of  the  simple  Humanity  of  Christ  -  -    305 

N.  B.  The  Reply  mentioned  p.  12,  NoU',  is  leservcd  to  a  future  Volume. 


AN 

HISTORY 

or   THE 

CORRUPTIONS  OF  CHRISTIANITY. 

[Published  in  Two  Volumes,  8wo.  1782.] 


«  Didst  thou  not  sow  good  seed  in  thy  field  ?    Whence  then  hath  it  tares  ?" 

Matt.  xiii.  S7. 


VOL.  V.  B 


TO  THE  REVEREND 

THEOPHILUS  LINDSEY,*  A.M. 


Dear  Friend, 
Wishing,  as  I  do,  that  my  name  may  ever  be  connected 
as  closely  with  yours  after  death,  as  we  have  been  con- 
nected by  friendship  in  life,  it  is  with  peculiar  satisfaction 
that  I  dedicate  this  work  (which  1  am  willing  to  hope  will 
be  one  of  the  most  useful  of  my  publications)  to  you. 

To  your  example,  of  a  pure  love  of  truth,  and  of  the  most 
fearless  integrity  in  asserting  it,  evidenced  by  the  sacrifices 
you  have  made  to  it,  I  owe  much  of  my  own  wishes  to 
imbibe  the  same  spirit ;  though  a  more  favourable  educa- 
tion and  situation  in  life,  by  not  giving  me  an  opportunity 
of  distinguishing  myself  as  you  have  done,  has,  likewise,  not 
exposed  me  to  the  temptation  of  acting  otherwise  ;  and 
for  this  1  wish  to  be  truly  thankful.  For,  since  so  very  few 
of  those  who  profess  the  same  sentiments  with  you,  have 
had  the  courage  to  act  consistently  with  them,  no  person, 
whatever  he  may  imagine  he  might  have  been  equal  to,  can 
have  a  right  to  presume,  that  he  would  have  been  one  of  so 
small  a  number. 

No  person  can  see  in  a  stronger  light  than  you  do  the 
mischievous  consequences  of  the  corruptions  of  that  religion, 
which  you  justly  prize,  as  the  most  valuable  of  the  gifts  of 
God  to  man  ;  and,  therefore,  I  flatter  myself,  it  will  give  you 
some  pleasure  to  accompany  me  in  my  researches  into  the 
origin  and  progress  of  them,  as  this  will  tend  to  give  all  the 
friends  of  pure  Christianity  the  fullest  satisfaction  that  they 

•  This  excellent  man  died  Nov.  3,  1808,  in  the  86th  year  of  his  age,  liaving 
exemplified,  both  in  active  and  declining  life,  the  benign  and  cheering  influence  of 
Christian  truth,  while  he  laboured  with  the  purest  zeal  to  expose  the  corruptions 
by  vvhich  it  has  been  obscured.  Dr.  Priestley's  first  interview  with  Mr.  Lindsey 
was  in  1769,  "at  the  house  of  Archdeacon  Blackburne,  at  Richmond,  where,"  says 
Mr.  Beisliam,  "  they  passed  some  days  together  in  that  unreserved  and  delightful 
interchange  of  sentiments,  and  in  those  free  and  amicable  discussions  which  would 
naturally  take  place  among  persons  of  high  intellectual  attainments,  in  whose  esli- 
mation  the  discoveries  of  divine  revelation  held  the  most  honourable  place,  and  who 
were  all  equally  animated  with  the  same  ardent  love  of  truth,  and  wi(h  the  same 

fenerous  zeal  for  civil  and  religious  liberty."     Mem.  of  LimUeij,  p.  S4.     Sec  also 
>r.  Priestley's  own  Memoirs. 

b2 


DEDICATION 


reflect  no  discredit  on  the  revelation  itself;  since  it  will  be 
seen  that  they  all  came  in  from  a  foreign  and  hostile  quarter. 
It  will  likewise  afford  a  pleasing  presage,  that  our  religion 
will,  in  due  time,  purge  itself  of  every  thing  that  debases  it, 
and  that  for  the  present  prevents  its  reception  by  those 
who  are  ignorant  of  its  nature,  whether  living  in  Christian 
countries,  or  among  Mahometans  and  Heathens. 

The  gross  darkness  of  that  night  which  has  for  many  cen- 
turies obscured  our  holy  religion,  we  may  clearly  see,  is 
past;  the  morning  is  opening  upon  us;  and  we  cannot 
doubt  but  that  the  light  will  increase,  and  extend  itself 
more  and  more  unto  the  perfect  day.  Happy  are  they  who 
contribute  to  diffuse  the  pure  light  of  this  everlasting  gospel. 
The  time  is  coming  when  the  detection  of  one  error  or  pre- 
judice, relating  to  this  most  important  subject,  and  the 
success  we  have  in  opening  and  enlarging  the  minds  of  men 
with  respect  to  it,  will  be  far  more  honourable  than  any  dis- 
covery we  can  make  in  other  branches  of  knowledge,  or  our 
success  in  propagating  them. 

In  looking  back  upon  the  dismal  scenewhich  the  shocking 
^corruptions  of  Christianity  exhibit,  we  may  well  exclaim 
w  ith  the  prophet.  How  is  the  gold  become  dim  !  hovo  is  the  most 
Jine  gold  changed  !  But  the  thorough  examination  of  every 
thing  relating  to  Christianity,  which  has  been  produced  by 
the  corrupt  state  of  it,  and  which  nothing  else  would  pro- 
bably have  led  to,  has  been  as  the  refiner  s  fire  with  respect 
to  it ;  and  when  it  shall  have  stood  this  test,  it  may  be  pre- 
sumed that  the  truth  and  excellency  of  it  will  never  more 
be  called  in  question. 

This  corrupt  state  of  Christianity  has,  no  doubt,  been 
permitted  by  the  Supreme  Governor  of  the  world  for  the 
best  of  purposes,  and  it  is  the  same  great  Being  who  is  also 
now,  in  the  course  of  his  providence,  employing  these 
means  to  purge  his  floor.  The  civil  powers  of  this  world, 
which  were  formerly  the  chief  supports  of  the  anti-christian 
systems,  who  had  given  "  their  power  and  strength  unto 
the  beast,"  Rev.  xvii.  13,  now  begin  to  hate  her,  and  are 
ready  to  "  make  her  desolate  and  naked,"  ver.  l6.  Toanswer 
their  own  political  purposes,  they  are  now  promoting  various 
reformations  in  the  church  ;  *  and  it  can  hardly  be  doubted, 
but  that  the  difficulties  in  which   many  of  the  European 

*  Jnseph,  Emperor  of  (Jinniany,  liad  suppressed  the  religious  orders,  in  his 
doniiiiions,  and  otherwise  controuled  the  power  of  tlie  church.  Pope  Pius  VI, 
paid  a  visit  to  Vienna,  in  March  1782,  from  "a  desire  to  put  some  stop  to  the 
heretical  iunovations  of  the  Emperor."     See  N.  Ann.  Reg.  III.  pp.  64^-66. 


DEDICATION.  ,5 

nations   are    now   involving    themselves,   will   make   other 
measures  of  reformation  highly  expedient  and  necessary. 

Also,  while  the  attention  of  men  in  power  is  engrossed 
by  the  difficulties  that  more  immediately  press  upon  them, 
the  endeavours  of  the  friends  of  reformation  in  points  of 
doctrine  pass  with  less  notice,  and  operate  without  obstruc- 
tion. Let  us  rejoice  in  the  good  that  results  from  this  evil^ 
and  omit  no  opportunity  that  is  furnished  us,  voluntarily  to 
co-operate  with  the  gracious  intention  of  Divine  Providence; 
and  let  us  make  that  our  primary  object,  which  others  are 
doing  to  promote  their  own  sinister  ends.  All  those  who 
labour  in  the  discovery  and  communication  of  truth,  if  they 
be  actuated  by  a  pure  love  of  it,  and  a  sense  of  its  impor- 
tance to  the  happiness  of  mankind,  may  consider  themselves 
as  workers  together  with  God.,  and  may  proceed  with  con- 
fidence, assured  that  their  labour  in  this  cause  shall  not  be  in 
vain,  whether  they  themselves  see  the  fruit  of  it  or  not. 

The  more  opposition  we  meet  with  in  these  labours,  the 
more  honourable  it  will  be  to  us,  provided  we  meet  that 
opposition  with  the  true  spirit  of  Christianity.  And  to 
assist  us  in  this,  we  should  frequently  reflect  that  many  of 
our  opponents  are  probably  men  who  wish  as  well  to  the 
gospel  as  we  do  ourselves,  and  really  think  they  do  God 
servicehy  opposing  us.  Even  prejudice  and  bigotry,  arising 
from  such  a  principle,  are  respectable  things,  and  entitled  to 
the  greatest  candour.  If  our  religion  teaches  us  to  love  our 
enemies,  certainly  we  should  love,  and,  from  a  principle  of 
love,  should  endeavour  to  convince  those,  who,  if  they  were 
only  better  informed,  would  embrace  us  as  friends. 

The  time  will  come  when  the  cloud,  which  for  the  present 
prevents  our  distinguishing  our  friends  and  our  foes,  will  be 
dispersed,  even  that  day  in  which  the  secrets  of  all  hearts  will 
be  disclosed  to  the  view  of  all.  In  the  mean  time,  let  us 
think  as  favourably  as  possible  of  all  men,  our  particular 
opponents  not  excepted  ;  and  therefore  be  careful  to  con- 
duct all  hostility,  with  the  pleasing  prospect  that  one  day 
it  will  give  place  to  the  most  perfect  amity. 

You,  my  friend,  peculiarly  happy  in  a  most  placid,  as 
well  as  a  most  determined  mind,  have  nothing  to  blame 
yourself  for  in  this  respect.  If,  on  any  occasion,  I  have 
indulged  too  much  asperity,  I  hope  I  shall,  by  your  ex- 
ample, learn  to  correct  myself,  and  without  abating  my  zeal 
in  the  common  cause. 

As  we  are  now  both  of  us  past  the  meridian  of  life,  I  hope 
we  shall  be  looking  more  and  more  beyond  it,  and  be  pre- 


5  DEDICATION. 

paring  for  that  world,  where  we  shall  have  no  errors  to 
combat,  and  consequently,  where  a  talent  for  disputation 
will  be  of  no  use  ;  but  where  the  spirit  of  love  will  find 
abundant  exercise  ;  where  all  our  labours  will  be  of  the 
most  friendly  and  benevolent  nature,  and  where  our  em- 
ployment will  be  its  own  reward. 

Let  these  views  brighten  the  evening  of  our  lives,  that 
evenino;  which  will  be  enjoyed  with  more  satisfaction,  m 
proportion  as  the  dai/  shall  have  been  laboriously  and  well 
spent  Let  us,  then,  without  reluctance,  submit  to  that 
temporary  rest  in  the  grave,  which  our  wise  Creator  has 
thought  proper  to  appoint  for  all  the  human  race,  our 
SaviSur  himself  not  wholly  excepted  ;  anticipating  with 
ioy  the  glorious  morning  of  the  resurrection,  when  we  shall 
meet  that  Saviour,  whose  precepts  we  have  obeyed,  whose 
spirit  we  have  breathed,  whose  religion  we  have  defended, 
whose  cup  also  we  may,  in  some  measure,  have  drank  of, 
and  whose  honours  we  have  asserted,  without  making  them 
to  interfere  with  those  of  his  Father  and  our  Father,  of  hts 
God  and  our  God,  that  supreme,  that  great  and  awful  Being, 
to  whose  will  he  was  always  most  perfectly  submissive,  and 
for  whose  unrivalled  prerogative  he  always  shewed  the  most 
ardent  zeal. 

With  the  truest  affection, 
I  am, 

Dear  friend, 

Your  brother, 
In  the  faith  and  hope  of  the  gospel, 

J,  PRIESTLEY. 

Birmingham^  Nov,  1782. 


THE 

PREFACE. 


After  examining  the  foundation  of  our  Christian  faith, 
and  having  seen  how  much  valuable  information  we  receive 
from  it,  in  my  Institutes  of  Natural  and  Revealed  Religion^ 
it  is  with  a  kind  of  reluctance,  that,  according  to  my  pro- 
posal, I  must  now  proceed  to  exhibit  a  view  of  the  dreadful 
corruptions  which  have  debased  its  spirit,  and  almost  an- 
nihilated all  the  happy  effects  which  it  was  eminently 
calculated  to  produce.  It  is  some  satisfaction  to  us,  how- 
ever, and  is  more  than  sufficient  to  answer  any  objection 
that  may  be  made  to  Christianity  itself  from  the  considera- 
tion of  these  corruptions,  that  they  appear  to  have  been 
clearly  foreseen  by  Christ,  and  by  several  of  the  apostles. 
And  we  have  at  this  day  the  still  greater  satisfaction  to 
perceive  that,  according  to  the  predictions  contained  in  the 
books  of  Scripture,  Christianity  has  begun  to  recover  itself 
from  this  corrupted  state,  and  that  the  reformation  advances 
apace.  And  though  some  of  the  most  shocking  abuses  still 
continue  in  many  places,  their  virulence  is  very  generally 
abated  ;  and  the  number  is  greatly  increased  of  those  who 
are  most  zealous  in  the  profession  of  Christianity,  whose 
lives  are  the  greatest  ornament  to  it,  and  who  hold  it  in  so 
much  purity,  that,  if  it  was  fairly  exhibited,  and  universally 
understood,  it  could  hardly  fail  to  recommend  itself  to  the 
acceptance  of  the  whole  world  of  Jews  and  Gentiles. 

The  clear  and  full  exhibition  of  truly  reformed  Christianity 
seems  now  to  be  almost  the  only  thing  that  is  wantiiig  to  the 
universal  prevalence  of  it.  But  so  long  as  all  the  Christia- 
nity that  is  known  to  Heathens,  Mahometans  and  Jews,  is 
of  a  corrupted  and  debased  kind  ;  and  particularly  while  the 
profession  of  it  is  so  much  connected  with  worldly  interest^ 
it  is  no  wonder  that  mankind  in  general  refuse  to  admit  it, 
and  that  they  can  even  hardly  be  prevailed  upon  to  give  any 
attention  to  the  evidence  that  is  alleged  in  its  favour. 
Whereas,  when  the  system  itself  shall  appear  to  be  less 
liable  to  objection,  it  is  to  be  hoped,  that  they  may  be 


8  PREFACE. 

brought  to  give  proper  attention  to  it,  and  to  the  evidence 
on  which  it  rests. 

Disagreeable  as  must  be  the  view  of  these  corruptions  of 
Christianity  to  those  who  love  and  value  it,  it  may  not  be 
without  its  use,  even  with  respect  to  themselves.  For  the 
more  their  abhorrence  and  indignation  are  excited  by  the 
consideration  of  what  has  so  long  passed  for  Christianity, 
the  more  highly  will  they  esteem  what  is  truly  so,  the  con- 
trast will  be  so  striking,  and  so  greatly  in  its  favour.  Both 
these  valuable  ends,  1  hope,  will  be,  in  some  measure,  an- 
swered by  this  attempt  to  exhibit,  what  appear  to  me  to 
have  been,  the  great  deviations  from  the  genuine  system  and 
spirit  of  Christianity,  and. the  causes  that  produced  them. 

The  following  work  has  been  so  long  promised  to  the 
public,  that  1  cannot  help  being  apprehensive  lest  my  friends, 
and  others,  should  not  find  their  expectations  from  it  fully 
answered.  But  they  should  recollect,  that  it  was  originally 
promised  on  a  much  smaller  scale,  viz.  as  the  concluding 
part  of  my  Institutes  of  Natural  and  Revealed  Religion,  which 
were  drawn  up  for  the  use  of  young  persons  only. 

I  have  since  seen  reason  to  extend  my  views,  and  to  make 
this  a  separate  work,  larger  than  the  whole  o^  the  Institutes ; 
and  perhaps  I  may  not  have  succeeded  sufficiently  well  in 
the  uniform  extension  of  the  m  hole  design.  If,  therefore,  in 
any  respect,  either  the  composition,  or  the  citation  of  autho- 
rities, should  appear  to  be  more  adapted  to  my  first  design, 
I  hope  the  candid  reader  will  make  proper  allowance  for  it. 

If  my  proper  and  ultimate  object  be  considered,  I  flatter 
myself  it  will  be  thought  that  I  have  given  reasonable  satis- 
faction with  respect  to  it  ;  having  shewn  that  every  thing, 
which  I  deem  to  be  a  corruption  of  Christiamtt/  has  been  a 
departure  from  the  original  scheme,  or  an  innovation.  It  will 
also  be  seen,  that  I  have  generally  been  able  to  trace  every 
such  corruption  to  its  proper  source,  and  to  shew  what  cir- 
cumstances in  the  state  of  things,  and  especially  of  other 
prevailing  opinions  and  prejudices,  made  the  alteration,  in 
doctrine  or  practice,  sufficiently  natural,  and  the  introduc- 
tion and  establishment  of  it  easy.  And  if  I  have  succeeded 
in  this  investigation,  this  historical  nictliod  will  be  found  to 
be  one  of  the  most  satisfactory  modes  of  argumentation,  in 
order  to  prove  that  what  I  object  to  is  really  a  corruption  of 
genuine  Christianity,  and  no  part  of  the  original  scheme. 
For  after  the  clearest  refutation  of  any  particular  doctrine, 
that  has  been  long  established  in  christian  churches,  it  will 


PREFACE.  9 

Still  be  asked,  how,  if  it  be  no  part  of  the  scheme,  it  ever 
came  to  be  thought  so,  and  to  be  so  generally  acquiesced  in  ; 
and  in  many  cases  the  mind  will  not  be  perfectly  satisfied 
till  such  questions  be  answered. 

Besides  this,  1  have  generally  given  a  short  account  of 
the  recovery  of  the  genuine  doctrines  of  Christianity  in  the 
last  age,  though  this  was  not  my  professed  object ;  and  a  full 
history  of  the  reformation,  in  all  its  articles,  might  be  the 
subject  of  another  large  and  very  instructive  work,  though  I 
apprehend  not  quite  so  useful  as  I  flatter  myself  this  will  be. 

I  have  not,  however,  taken  notice  of  every  departure  from 
the  original  standard  of  christian  faith  or  practice,  but  only, 
or  at  least  chiefly,  such  as  subsist  at  this  day,  in  some  con- 
siderable part  of  the  christian  world ;  or  such  as,  though 
they  may  not  properly  subsist  themselves,  have  left  consi- 
derable vestiges  in  some  christian  churches.  I  have  not 
omitted,  at  the  same  time,  to  recite,  as  far  as  I  was  able, 
both  the  several  steps  by  which  each  corruption  has  advanced, 
and  also  whatever  has  been  urged  with  the  greatest  plausibi- 
lity in  favour  of  it ;  though  1  have  made  a  point  of  being  as 
succinct  as  possible  in  the  detail  o^  arguments,  for  or  against 
any  particular  article  of  faith  or  practice. 

In  one  article,  however,  I  have  considerably  extended  the 
argumentative  part,  viz.  in  my  account  of  the  doctrine  of 
atonement.  To  this  subject  I  had  given  particular  attention 
many  years  ago;  and  Dr.  Lardner  and  Dr.  Fleming  having 
seen  what  I  then  wrote,  prevailed  upon  me  to  allow  them 
to  publish  what  they  thought  proper  of  it.  This  they  did, 
under  the  title  oi  The  Scripture  Doctrine  of  Remission,  in  the 
year  1761.  When  I  published  the  Theological  Repository^ 
1  corrected  and  enlaro:ed  that  tract,  and  intended  to  write  a 
still  larger  treatise  on  the  subject,  with  the  history  of  the 
doctrine  annexed  to  it.  I  shall  now,  however,  drop  that 
design,  contenting  myself  with  giving  the  substance  of  the 
arguments  in  this  work. 

In  the  Conclusion  of  this  work,  I  have  taken  the  liberty, 
which  I  hope  will  not  be  thought  improper,  to  endeavour  to 
call  the  attention  of  unbelievers  to  the  subject  of  the  corrup- 
tions  of  Christianity  (being  sensible  that  this  is  one  of  the 
principal  causes  of  infidelity),  and  also  that  of  those  who 
have  influence  with  respect  to  the  present  establishments  of 
Christianity,  the  reformation  of  many  of  the  abuses  I  have 
described  being  very  much  in  their  power. 

There  is  nothing,  1  hope,  in  thenianner  of  these  addresses 
that  will  give  offence,  as  none  was  intended.     I  trust,  that 


10  PREFACE. 

from  a  sense  of  its  infinite  importance,  I  am  deeply  con- 
cerned for  the  honour  of  the  religion  I  profess.  I  would, 
therefore,  willingly  do  any  thing  that  may  be  in  my  power 
(and  I  hope  with  a  temper  not  unbecoming  the  gospel)  to 
make  it  both  properly  understood,  and  also  completely 
reformed,  in  order  to  its  more  general  propagation,  and  to 
its  producing  its  proper  effects  on  the  hearts  and  lives  of 
men  ;  and,  consequently,  to  its  more  speedily  becoming, 
what  it  is  destined  to  be,  the  greatest  blessing  to  all  the 
nations  of  the  world. 

As  this  work  was  originally  intended  to  be  nothing  more 
than  a  Fourth  Part  of  my  Institutes,  as  mentioned  above,  1  had 
contented  myself  with  taking  authorities  from  respectable 
modern  writers,  such  as  Dr.  Clarke,  Lardner,  Jortin,  Basnage, ' 
Beausobre,  Le  Clerc,  Grotius,  Du  Pin,  Fleury,  Mosheim, 
Le  Sueur,  Giannone,  &c.  As  my  views  extended,  and  I 
was  led  to  imagine  my  work  might  be  of  some  use  to  a  higher 
class  of  readers,  I  found  it  necessary  to  have  recourse  to  the 
original  authorities  in  every  thing  of  consequence,  especially 
for  such  articles  as  might  be  liable  to  be  controverted  in  this 
country. 

Accordingly,  I  have  taken  a  good  deal  of  pains  to  read, 
or  at  least  look  carefully  through,  many  of  the  most  capital 
works  of  the  ancient  christian  writers,  in  order  to  form  a  just 
idea  of  their  general  principles  and  turn  of  thinking,  and  to 
collect  such  passages  as  might  occur  for  my  purpose.  Still, 
however,  some  things  remain  as  I  first  wrote  them,  and  some- 
times from  not  having  been  able  to  purchase  or  conveniently 
procure  the  original  writers. 

But  my  object  is  not  to  give  my  readers  a  high  idea  of  the 
extent  of  my  reading,  but  simply  a  credible  account  of  such 
facts  as  I  shall  lay  before  them  ;  and  I  doubt  not  they  will 
be  as  well  satisfied  of  the  fidelity  of  such  writers  as  I  have 
quoted,  as  they  would  have  been  of  my  own.  I  can  truly 
say  that  I  have  omitted  nothing,  the  authority  for  which  I 
think  to  be  at  all  suspicious  ;  and  it  will  be  seen  that  I  have 
generally  made  use  of  such  as,  from  the  nature  of  the  subject, 
are  the  least  liable  to  exception.  Where  no  writer  is  quoted, 
I  suppose  the  fact  to  be  well  known  to  all  who  are  conversant 
in  these  inquiries,  and  for  which  the  common  ecclesiastical 
historians  are  a  sufficient  authority. 

To  have  compiled  such  a  work  as  this  from  original  au- 
thorities only,  without  making  use  of  any  modern  writers, 
would  have  been  more  than  any  one  man  could  have  exe- 
cuted in  the  course  of  a  long  life.     And  what  advantage  do 


PREFACE.  11 

we  derive  from  the  labours  of  others,  if  we  can  never  confide 
in  them,  and  occasionally  save  ourselves  some  trouble  by 
their  means  ? 

It  will  also  be  proper  to  observe,  that  I  have  sometimes 
made  use  of  my  own  former  publications,  especially  those 
in  the  Theological  Repository,  which,  indeed,  were  originally 
intended  for" farther  use.  Thus  I  have  partly  copied,  and 
partly  abridged,  what  I  had  there  written  on  the  subject  of 
Atonement,  as  mentioned  before,  and  also  on  that  o^  Baptism. 
Some  things  too  will  be  found  in  this  work  copied,  or 
abridged,  from  other  works  that  bear  my  name,  as  the  Essay 
on  the  Lord's  Supper,  on  Church  Discipline,  and  the  Disqui- 
sitions relating  to  Matter  and  Spirit.  But  the  whole  of  such 
extracts  will  not  much  exceed  a  single  sheet ;  and  I  did  not 
think  it  right  to  leave  any  of  the  pieces  imperfect,  merely 
to  avoid  a  repetition  of  so  small  a  magnitude,  especially 
considering  that  the  several  publications  may  fall  into  dif- 
ferent hands. 

Since,  however,  I  have  written  so  largely  on  the  subject 
of  the  soul,  and  the  history  of  opinions  relating  to  it,  in  the 
Disquisitions,  I  have  omitted  it  altogether  in  this  vt^ork,  though 
it  would  have  been  a  very  proper  part  of  it,  I  have  only 
taken  from  that  work  a  few  particulars  relating  to  the  state 
of  the  dead,  and  a  few  other  articles,  without  which  this 
work  would  have  been  strikingly  defective. 

The  whole  of  what  I  have  called  the  Sequel  to  the  Disqui- 
sitions  (or  The  History  of  the  Philosophical  Doctrine  concerning 
the  Origin  of  the  Soul,  and  the  Nature  of  Matter,  with  its  In- 
fluence on  Christianity,  especially  with  respect  to  the  Doctrine 
of  the  Pre-existence  of  Christ,  Vol.  III.  pp.  .'384 — 446)  I  wish 
to  have  considered  as  coming  properly  within  the  plan  of  this 
work,  and  essential  to  the  principal  object  of  it.  Indeed, 
when  I  published  the  Disquisitions,  I  hesitated  whether  I 
should  publish  that  part  then,  or  reserve  it  for  this  History. 
But  the  rest  of  this  work  was  not  then  ready,  and  it  was  of 
too  much  use  for  the  purpose  of  the  other,  not  to  go  along 
with  it.  I  wish  the  general  arguments  against  the  pre-exist' 
ence  of  Christ,  contained  in  Sect.  VI.  of  that  Sequel  (pp.  421 
— 439)  lo  be  particularly  attended  to. 

In  a  subject  so  copious  as  this,  I  am  far  from  supposing  it 
probable  that  I  have  made  no  mistakes,  notwithstanding  I 
have  used  all  the  care  and  precaution  that  I  could,  if  any 
such  be  pointed  out  to  me,  whether  it  be  by  a  friend  or  an 
enemy,  I  shall  be  glad  to  avail  myself  of  the  intimation,  in 


12  PREFACE. 


case  there  should  be  a  demand  for  a  second  edition.*  A» 
some  of  my  materials  bear  an  equal  relation  to  several  of  the 
subjects  into  which  the  work  is  divided,  the  reader  will  find 
a  repetition  of  some  things,  but  they  are  so  few,  and  so  useful 
in  their  respective  places,  that  it  hardly  requires  an  apology. 
As  to  the  repetition  in  the  Appendix,  the  importance  of  the 
subject  must  apologize  for  it. 

Though  I  have  made  no  formal  division  of  this  work,  ex- 
cept into  separate  Parts  and  Sections^  the  reader  will  perceive 
that  I  have,  in  the  first  place,  considered  the  most  important 
articles  of  christian  doctrine^  and  then  those  that  relate  to 
discipline  and  the  government  of  the  church. 


*  At  the  end  of  the  Reply,  which  will  follow  this  Histori/,  is  a  page  containing 
a  few  corrections,  &c.  of  which  I  have  availed  myself  for  this  edition.  The  author 
says,  "  Having  given  the  best  attention  that  I  can  to  the  several  remarks  which  have 
been  made  on  this  work,  1  have  not  yet  seen  any  reason  to  make  more  than  the  fol- 
lowing corrections  and  additions.  It  will  be  easily  perceived  that  they  are  rather 
favourable  than  unfavourable  to  my  principal  object.  Had  I  been  convinced  of  any 
other  oversight,  I  should  with  the  same  readiness  have  made  the  necessary  altera- 
tions." 


13 


THE 

HISTORY 

OF   THB 

€^orruptiott0  of  ^firiiaitiattitg** 

— •^^^ — 

PART  I. 

The  History  of  Opinions  relati^igto  Jesus  Christy 

THE 

INTRODUCTION. 


The  unity  of  God  is  a  doctrine  on  which  the  greatest  stress 
is  laid  in  the  whole  system  of  revelation.  To  guard  this 
most  important  article  was  the  principal  object  of  the  Jewish 
religion  ;  and,  notwithstanding  the  proneness  of  the  Jews  to 
idolatry,  at  length  it  fully  answered  its  purpose  in  reclaiming 
them,  and  in  impressing  the  minds  of  many  persons  of  other 
nations  in  favour  of  the  same  fundamental  truth. 

*  The  followinjj;  anecdote  respecting  the  History,  will  shew  that  the  spirit  of  the 
Si/nod  of  Dor t,  had  survived  two  centuries.  "  This  book  was  burnt  by  the  hands 
of  tlie  common  hans;man  in  the  city  of  Dort,  province  of  Holland,  anno  1785: — A 
piece  of  intelligence  communicated  by  me  to  Dr.  Priestley  in  the  hotel  where  I 
lodged  in  Birmingham,  in  a  conversation  1  had  the  pleasure  of  having  with  that 
extDordinary  mm,  a  few  weeks  after  that  event.  Having  asked  me  with  much 
earnestness,  how  he  wftuld  be  received  in  Holland,  were  he  to  appear  there,  I 
told  him  I  did  not  exactly  know  how  they  might  treat  the  originid,  but  that  lie 
himself  might  be  able  to  determine  that  point  when  I  had  told  him  that  he  had 
been  burnt  in  effigy  at  Dort,  a  few  weeks  before  1  left  Holland — a  person's  writings 
being  often  viewed  as  a  picture  of  his  mind,  the  burning  of  his  Cori-iiptions  might 
be  easily  considered  as  buniing  himself  in  effigi/.  He  deplored  our  ignorance  and 
blindness.  A  greater  philanthropist  1  never  met  with."  Note  by  the  Rev.  Thomas 
Peirson,  D.  1^.  senior  minister  of  the  established  English  church  in  the  city  of 
Amsterdam.     JUbliotheca  Peirsoniana,  p.  211. 

This  was  not  the  first  attempt  to  confute  the  author's  opinions  by  the  argument  of 
fire.  "  In  ITS'a,  previous  to  the  sale  by  auction  of  the  Abbe  Needham's  library 

at  Bnixelles,  the  licensers,  as  usual,  went  to  burn  the  prohibited  books.  They  de- 
stroyed •  Cudworth's  Intellectual  System,'  Pricstlefs  Hartley,  a  New  Testament, 
and  many  others ;  but '  Christianity  us  old  as  the  Creation,' escaped  the  flames." 
Mon.  Mag.  xxxiv.  p.  621. 


14  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST. 

The  Jews  were  taught  by  their  prophets  to  expect  a  Mes- 
siah, who  was  to  be  descended  from  the  tribe  of  Judah,  and 
the  family  of  David,  a  person  in  whom  themselves  and  all 
the  nations  of  the  earth  should  be  blessed  ;  but  none  of  their 
prophets  gave  them  an  idea  of  any  other  than  a  man  like 
themselves  in  that  illustrious  character,  and  no  other  did 
they  ever  expect,  or  do  they  expect  to  this  day. 

Jesus  Christ,  whose  history  answers  to  the  description 
given  of  the  Messiah  by  the  prophets,  made  no  other  preten- 
sions; referring  all  his  extraordinary  power  to  God,  his  Father, 
Tvho,  he  expressly  says,  spake  and  acted  by  him,  and  who 
raised  him  from  the  dead  :  and  it  is  most  evident  that  the 
apostles,  and  all  those  who  conversed  with  our  Lord  before 
and  after  his  resurrection,  considered  him  in  no  other  light 
than  simply  as  "  a  man  approved  of  God,  by  wonders  and 
signs  which  God  did  by  him."     Acts  ii.  22. 

Not  only  do  we  find  no  trace  of  so  prodigious  a  change  in 
the  ideas  which  the  apostles  entertained  concerning  Christ, 
as  from  that  of  a  man  like  themselves^  (which  it  must  be  ac- 
knowledged wei:e  the  first  that  they  entertained,)  to  that  of 
the  mosl  high  God,  or  one  who  was  in  any  sense  their  maker 
or  preserver,  that  when  their  minds  were  most  fully  enlight- 
ened, after  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  to  the  latest 
period  of  their  ministry,  they  continued  to  speak  of  him  in 
the  same  style;  even  when  it  is  evident  they  must  have 
intended  to  speak  of  him  in  a  manner  suited  to  his  state  of 
greatest  exaltation  and  glory.  Peter  uses  the  simple  lan- 
guage above  quoted,  of  a  man  approved  of  God,  immediately 
after  the  descent  of  the  Spirit :  and  the  apostle  Paul,  giving 
what  may  be  called  the  christian  creed,  says,  1  Tim.  ii.  5, 
"  There  is  one  God,  and  one  mediator  between  God  and 
xnen,  the  man  Christ  Jesus."  He  does  riot  say  the  God, 
the  God-man,  or  the  super-angelic  being,  but  simply  the  man 
Christ  Jesus  ;  and  nothing  can  be  alleged  from  the  New 
Testament  in  favour  of  any  higher  nature  of  Christ,  except 
a  few  passages  interpreted  without  any  regard  to  the  con- 
text, or  the  modes  of  speech  and  opinions  of  the  times 
in  which  the  books  were  written,  and  in  such  a  manner,  in 
other  respects,  as  would  authorize  our  proving  any  doctrine 
whatever  from  them. 

From  this  plain  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures,  a  doctrine  so 
consonant  to  reason  and  the  ancient  prophecies,  Christians 
have  at  length  come  to  believe  what  they  do  not  pretend  to 
have  any  conception  oti,  and  than  which  it  is  not  possible  to 
frame  a  more  express  contradiction.     For,  while  tlicy  con- 


HISTORY  OP  OPINIONS  CONCEENING  CHRIST.  \5 

sider  Christ  as  the  supreme,  eternal  God,  the  maker  of 
heaven  and  earth,  and  of  all  things  visible  and  invisible,  they 
moreover  acknowledge  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Spirit  to 
be  equally  God  in  the  same  exalted  sense,  all  three  equal  in 
power  and  glory,  and  yet  all  three  constituting  no  more  than 
one  God. 

To  a  person  the  least  interested  in  the  inquiry,  it  must  ap- 
pear an  object  of  curiosity  to  trace  by  what  means,  and  by 
what  steps,  so  great  a  change  has  taken  place,  and  what  cir- 
cumstances in  the  historyof  other  opinions,  and  of  the  world, 
proved  favourable  to  the  successive  changes.  An  opinion, 
and  especially  an  opinion  adopted  bv  great  numbers  of  man- 
kind, is  to  be  considered  as  any  otner  fact  in  history^  for  it 
cannot  be  produced  without  an  adequate  cause,  and  is  there- 
fore a  proper  object  of  philosophical  inquiry.  In  this  case  I 
think  it  not  difficult  to  find  causes  abundantly  adequate  to 
the  purpose,  and  it  is  happily  in  our  power  to  trace  almost 
every  step  by  which  the  changes  have  been  successively 
brought  about. 

If  the  interest  that  mankind  have  generally  taken  in  any 
thing,  will  at  all  contribute  to  interest  us  in  the  inquiry  con- 
cerning it,  this  history  cannot  fail  to  be  highly  interesting. 
For,  perhaps,  in  no  business  whatever  have  the  minds  of 
men  been  more  agitated,  and,  speculative  as  the  nature  of  the 
thing  is,  in  few  cases  has  the  peace  of  society  been  so  much 
disturbed.  To  this  very  day,  of  such  importance  is  the  sub- 
ject considered  by  thousands  and  tens  of  thousands,  that  they 
cannot  write  or  speak  of  it  without  the  greatest  zeal,  and 
without  treating  their  opponents  with  the  greatest  rancour.  If 
good  sense  and  humanity  did  not  interpose  to  mitigate  the 
rigour  of  law,  thousands  would  be  sacrificed  to  the  cause  of 
orthodoxy  in  this  single  article ;  and  the  greatest  number 
of  sufferers  would  probably  be  in  this  very  country,  on  ac- 
count of  the  greater  freedom  of  inquiry  which  prevails  here, 
in  consequence  of  which  we  entertain  and  profess  the 
greatest  diversity  of  opinions. 

The  various  steps  in  this  interesting  history  it  is  now  mv 
business  to  point  out,  and  1  wish  that  all  my  readers  may 
attend  me  with  as  much  coolness  and  impartiality  as  I 
trust  I  shall  myself  preserve  through  the  whole  of  this 
investigation. 


16         HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST. 


SECTION  I. 

Of  the  Opinion  of  the  ancient  Jewish  and  Getitile  Churches. 

That  the  ancient  Jewish  church  must  have  held  the 
opinion  that  Christ  was  simply  a  man,  and  not  either  God 
Almighty,  or  a  super-angelic  being,  may  be  concluded  from 
its  being^  the  clear  doctrine  of  the  Scripture,  and  from  the 
apostles  having  taught  no  other  ;  but  there  is  sufficient  evi- 
dence of  the  same  thing  from  ecclesiastical  history.  It  is 
unfortunate,  indeed,  that  there  are  now  extant  so  few  remains 
of  any  of  the  writers  who.  immediately  succeeded  the  apos- 
tles, and  especially  that  we  have  only  a  few  inconsiderable 
fragments  of  Hegesippus,  a  Jewish  Christian,  who  wrote 
the  history  of  the  church  in  continuation  of  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  and  who  travelled  to  Rome  about  the  year  160;  but 
it  is  not  difficult  to  collect  evidence  enough  in  support  of  my 
assertion- 

The  members  of  the  Jewish  church  were,  in  general,  in 
very  low  circumstances,  which  may  account  for  their  having 
few  persons  of  learning  among  them  ;  on  which  account  they 
were  much  despised  by  the  richer  and  more  learned  gentile 
Christians,  especially  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  be- 
fore which  event  all  the  Christians  in  Judea,  (warned  by  our 
Saviour's  prophecies  concerning  the  desolation  of  that  coun- 
try,) had  retired  to  the  north-east  of  the  sea  of  Galilee.  They 
w^ere  likewise  despised  by  the  Gentiles  for  their  bigotted 
adherence  to  the  law  of  Mose«,  to  the  rite  of  circumcision, 
and  other  ceremonies  of  their  ancient  religion.  And  on  all 
these  accounts  they  probably  got  the  name  of  EbioniteSy 
which  signifies  jooor  and  mean,  in  the  same  manner  as  many  of 
the  early  reformers  from  Popery  got  the  name  of  Beghards, 
and  other  appellations  of  a  similar  nature.  The  fate  of  these 
ancient  Jewish  Christians  was,  indeed,  peculiarly  hard.  For, 
besides  the  neglect  of  the  gentile  Christians,  they  were,  as 
Epiphanius  informs  us,  held  in  the  greatest  abhorrence  by  the 
Jews  from  whom  they  had  separated,  and  who  cursed  them  in 
a  solemn  manner  three  times,  whenever  they  met  for  public 
worship.* 

In  general,  these  ancient  Jewish  Christians  retained  the 
appellation  of  Nazarenes,    and   it    may  be   inferred   from 

*  Epiphanii  Opera,  1682.     (User.  29.)    I.    p.  124.  (P.J 


HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS   CONCERNING  CHRIST.  1/ 

Origen,  Epiphanius  and  Eusebius,  that  the  Nazarenes  and 
Ebionites  were  the  same  people,  and  held  the  same  tenets, 
though  some  of  them  supposed  that  Christ  was  the  son  of 
Joseph  as  well  as  of  Mary,  while  others  of  them  held  that 
he  had  no  natural  father,  but  had  a  miraculous  birth.*  Epi- 
phanius in  his  account  of  the  Nazarenes,  (and  the  Jewish 
Christians  never  went  by  any  other  name,)  makes  no  men- 
tion of  any  of  them  believing  the  divinity  of  Christ,  in  any 
sense  of  the  word. 

It  is  particularly  remarkable  that  Hegesippus,  in  giving  an 
account  of  the  heresies  of  his  time,  though  he  mentions  the 
Carpocratians,  Valentinians,  and  others  who  were  generally 
termed  Gnostics,  (and  who  held  that  Christ  had  a  pre-exis- 
tence,  and  was  man  only  in  appearance,)  not  only  makes  no 
mention  of  this  supposed  heresy  of  the  Nazarenes  or  Ebio- 
nites, but  says  that,  in  his  travels  to  Rome,  where  he  spent 
some  time  with  Anicetus,  and  visited  the  bishops  of  other 
sees,  he  found  that  they  all  held  the  same  doctrine  that  was 
taught  in  the  law,  by  the  prophets,  and  by  our  Lord.-j* 
What  could  this  be  but  the  proper  Unitarian  doctrine  held 
by  the  Jews,  and  which  he  himself  had  been  taught } 

That  Eusebius  doth  not  expressly  say  what  this  faith 
was,  is  no  wonder,  considering  his  prejudice  against  the 
Unitarians  of  his  own  time.  He  speaks  of  the  Ebionites,  as 
persons  whom  a  malignant  demon  had  brought  into  his 
power  ;  J  and  though  he  speaks  of  them  as  holding  that  Jesus 
was  the  son  of  Joseph  as  vvell  as  of  Mary,  he  speaks  with 
no  less  virulence  of  the  opinion  of  those  of  his  time,  who 
believed  the  miraculous  conception,  calling  their  heresy 
madness.  Valesius,  the  translator  of  Eusebius,  was  of 
opinion  that  the  history  of  Hegesippus  was  neglected  and 
lost  by  the  ancients,  on  account  of  the  errors  it  contained, 
and  these  errors  could  be  no  other  than  the  Unitarian 
doctrine.  It  is  possible  also,  that  it  might  be  less  esteemed 
on  account  of  the  very  plain,  unadorned  style,  in  which  all 
the  ancients  say  it  was  written. 

Almost  all  the  ancient  writers  who  speak  of  what  they  call 
the  heresies  of  the  two  first  centuries,  say,  that  they  were  of 
two  kinds ;  the  first  were  those  that  thought  that  Christ  "  was 
man  in  appearance  only,**  and  the  other  that  he  was  "  no 
more  than  a  man."|j  TertuUian  calls  the  {oYxnev  Docetw.,  and 
the   latter  Ebionites.      Austin,    speaking  of  the   same   two 

•  Ibid.  p.  125.  (P.)        t  Eusebii  Hist.  1720,  L.  iv.  C.  xxii.  pp.  181,  182.  (P.) 
X  Ibid.  L.  iii.  C.  xxvii.  p.  121.     (P.) 

II  Lardner's  Hibt.  of  Heretics,  p.  17.    (P.)     Works,  IX.  pp.  2S4,  2S5. 
VOL.  V.  C 


18  HISTORY  OF    OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST. 

sects,  says,  that  the  former  believed  Christ  to  be  God,  but 
denied  that  he  was  man,  whereas  the  latter  believed  him  to 
be  man,  but  denied  that  he  was  God.  Of  this  latter  opinion 
Austin  owns  that  he  himself  was,  till  he  became  acquainted 
with  the  writings  of  Plato,  which  in  his  time  were  translated 
into  Latin,  and  in  which  he  learned  the  doctrine  of  the 
Logos. 

Now  that  this  second  heresy,  as  the  later  writers  called  it, 
was  really  no  heresy  at  all,  but  the  plain  simple  truth  of  the 
gospel,  may  be  clearly  inferred  from  the  apostle  John  taking 
no  notice  at  all  of  it,  though  he  censures  the  former,  who 
believed  Christ  to  be  man  only  in  appearance,  in  the  severest 
manner.  And  that  this  was  the  only  heresy  that  gave  him 
any  alarm,  is  evident  from  his  first  epistle,  chap.  iv.  ver.  2,  3, 
where  he  says  that  "  every  spirit  that  confesseth  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh  (by  which  he  must  have  meant 
is  truly  a  man),  is  of  God."  On  the  other  hand,  he  says, 
"  every  spirit  that  confesseth  not  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come 
in  the  flesh  is  not  of  God,  and  this  is  that  spirit  of  Antichrist, 
whereof  you  have  heard  that  it  should  come,  and  even  now 
already  is  it  in  the  world."  For  this  was  the  first  corruption 
of  the  Christian  religion  by  the  maxims  of  Heathen  philo- 
sophy, and  which  proceeded  afterwards,  till  Christianity  was 
brought  to  a  state  little  better  than  Paganism. 

That  Christian  writers  afterwards  should  imagine  that  this 
apostle  alluded  to  the  Unitarian  heresy,  or  that  of  the  Ebio- 
nites,  in  the  introduction  to  his  gospel,  is  not  to  be  wondered 
at ;  as  nothing  is  more  common  than  for  men  to  interpret  the 
writings  of  others  according  to  their  own  previous  ideas  and 
conceptions  of  things.  On  the  contrary,  it  seems  very 
evident  that,  in  that  introduction,  the  apostle  alludes  to  the 
very  same  system  of  opinions,  which  he  had  censured  in  his 
epistle,  the  fundamental  principle  of  which  was  that,  not  the 
Supreme  Being  himself,  but  an  emanation  from  him,  to 
which  they  gave  the  nameof  Xo^os,  and  which  they  supposed 
to  be  the  Christ,  inhabited  the  body  of  Jesus,  and  was  the 
maker  of  all  things  ;  whereas  he  there  affirms,  that  the  Logos 
by  which  all  things  were  made,  was  not  a  being  distinct  from 
God,  but  God  himself,  that  is,  an  attribute  of  God,  or  the 
divine  power  and  wisdom.  We  shall  see  that  the  Unitarians 
of  the  third  century,  charged  the  orthodox  with  introducing 
a  new  and  strange  interpretation  of  the  word  Logos* 

*  See  Beansohre  "Hisfoire  Critique  de  Mniiiclire  et  du  Manich^isme,"  I. 
p.  540.  (P.)  «'  Les  Noeticns  roproclioicnt  aux  (^rtliodoxes,  d'lHtrodMjVeun  langage 
etrange  et  nouvcau,  en  appcllaiit  Ic  Vcrbe,  Fils  dc  Difu."     L.  iii.  Ch.  vi.  Sect.  xi. 


HISTORY   OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST.  19 

That  very  system,  indeed,  which  made  Christ  to  have  been 
the  eternal  reason^  or  logos  of  the  Father,  did  not,  probably, 
exist  in  the  time  of  the  apostle  John,  but  was  introduced 
from  the  principles  of  Flatonism  afterwards.  But  the  Valen- 
tinians,  who  were  only  a  branch  of  the  Gnostics,  made  great 
use  of  the  same  term,  not  only  denominating  by  it  one  of  the 
aeons  in  the  system  described  by  Irenaeus,  but  also  one  of 
them  that  was  endowed  by  all  the  other  aeons  with  some 
extraordinary  gift,  to  which  person  they  gave  the  name  of 
Jesus,  Saviour^  Christ  and  Logos,* 

The  word  logos  was  also  frequently  used  by  them  as 
synonymous  to  «ow,  in  general,  or  an  intelligence  that  sprung, 
mediately  or  immediately,  from  the  divine  essence.  +  It  is, 
therefore,  almost  certain,  that  the  apostle  John  had  frequently 
heard  this  term  made  use  of,  in  some  erroneous  representa- 
tions of  the  system  of  Christianity  that  were  current  in  his 
time,  and  therefore  he  might  choose  to  introduce  the  same 
term  in  its  proper  sense,  as  an  attribute  of  the  Deity,  or  God 
hirnself,  and  not  a  distinct  being  that  sprung  from  him.  And 
this  writer  is  not  to  be  blamed  if,  afterwards,  that  very  attri- 
bute was  personified  in  a  different  manner,  and  not  as  a 
figure  of  speech,  and  consequently  his  language  was  made  to 
convey  a  very  different  meaning  from  that  which  he  affixed 
to  it. 

Athanasius  himself  a^s  so  far  from  denying  that  the 
primitive  Jewish  church  was  properly  Unitarian,  maintaining 
the  simple  humanity  and  not  the  divinity  of  Christ,  that  he 
endeavours  to  account  for  it  by  saying,  that  "  all  the  Jews 
were  so  firmly  persuaded  that  their  Messiah  was  to  be 
nothing  more  than  a  man  like  themselves,  that  the  apostles 
were  obliged  to  use  great  caution  in  divulging  the  doctrine 
of  the  proper  divinity  of  Christ."^:  But  what  the  apostles 
did  not  teach,  I  think  we  should  be  cautious  how  we  believe. 
The  apostles  were  never  backward  to  combat  other  Jewish 
prejudices,  and  certainly  would  have  opposed  this  opinion 
of  theirs,  if  it  had  been  an  error.  For  if  it  had  been  an  error 
at  all,  it  must  be  allowed  to  have  been  an  error  of  the  greatest 
consequence. 

Could  it  rouse  the  indignation  of  the  apostle  John  so  much 
as  to  call  those  Antichrist,  who  held  that  Christ  was  not  come 
in  the  flesh,  or  was  not  truly  man  ;  and  would  he  have  passed 

•  Irenaei  Opera,  1702.     L.  i.   Sect.  iv.   p.  14.     (P.) 

t  Beausobre,  I.  p.  571.     (P.)     L.  iii.  Ch.  ix.  Sect.  iii. 

X  Lfe  Sentejitia  Dioni/sii,  At\idin?ksii  Opera.     l630.     I.  p.  053.     (P.) 

c  2 


20        HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING   CHRIST. 

uncensured  those  who  denied  the  divinity  of  his  Lord  and 
Master,  if  lie  himself  had  thought  him  to  be  true  and  very 
God,  his  Maker  as  well  as  his  Redeemer?  We  may  there- 
fore sufely  conclude  that  an  opinion  allowed  to  have  prevailed 
in  his  time,  and  maintained  by  all  the  Jewish  Christians 
afterwards,  was  what  he  himself  and  the  other  apostles  had 
taught  them,  and  therefore  that  it  is  t^ie  very  truth  ;  and 
consequently  that  the  doctrine  of  the  divinity  of  Christ,  or 
of  his  being  any  more  than  a  man,  is  an  innovation,  in 
whatever  manner  it  may  have  been  introduced. 

Had  the  apostles  explained  themselves  distinctly  and 
fully,  as  its  importance,  if  it  had  been  true,  required,  on 
the  subject  of  the  proper  diuinity  of  Christ,  as  a  person  equal 
to  the  Father,  it  can  never  be  imagined  that  the  whole 
Jewish  church,  or  any  considerable  part  of  it,  should  so 
very  soon  have  adopted  the  opinion  of  his  being  a  mere  man. 
To  add  to  the  dignity  of  their  Master,  was  natural,  but  to 
take  from  it,  and  especially  to  degrade  him  from  being  God^ 
to  being  man,  must  have  been  very  unnatural.  To  make 
the  Jews  abandon  the  opinion  of  the  divinity  of  Christ  in 
the  most  qualified  sense  of  the  word,  must  at  least  have  been 
as  difficult  as  we  find  it  to  be  to  induce  others  to  give  up 
the  same  opinion  at  this  day  ;  and  there  can  be  no  question 
of  their  having,  for  some  time,  believed  what  the  apostles 
taught  on  that,  as  well  as  on  other  subjects. 

Of  the  same  opinion  with  the  Nazarenes,  or  Ebionitcs 
among  the  Jews,  were  those  among  the  Gentiles  whom  Epi- 
phanius  called  Alogi,  from  their  not  receiving,  as  he  says,  the 
account  that  John  gives  of  the  Logos,  and  the  writings  of 
that  apostle  in  general.  But  Lardner,  with  great  probability, 
supposes,  "  there  never  was  any  such  heresy'**  as  that  of 
the  Alogi,  or  rather  that  those  to  Avhom  Epiphanius  gave 
that  name,  were  unjustly  charged  by  him  with  rejecting  the 
writings  of  the  apostle  John,  since  no  other  person  before 
him  makes  any  mention  of  such  a  thing,  and  he  produces 
nothing  but  mere  hearsay  in  suj)port  of  it.  It  is  very  pos- 
sible, however,  that  he  might  give  such  an  account  of  them, 
in  consequence  of  their  ex|)laining  the  Logos  in  the  intro- 
duction of  John's  gospel  in  a  manner  different  from  him 
and  others,  who  in  that  age  had  appropriated  to  themselves 
the  name  of  orthodox. 

Equally  absurd  is  the  conjecture  of  Epiphanius,  tha^  those 

•  Hist,  of  Heretics,  p.  1 16.     {P.)     Works,  IX.  p.  516. 


HISTORY  OP  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST.        21 

persons  and  others  like  them,  were  those  that  the  apostle 
John  meant  by  Antichrist.*  It  is  a  much  more  natural 
inference  that,  since  this  writer  allows  these  Unitarians  to 
have  been  contemporary  with  the  apostles,  and  that  they 
had  no  peculiar  appellation  till  he  himself  gave  them  this  of 
Alogi  (and  which  he  is  very  desirous  that  other  writers  would 
adopt  after  him|),  that  they  had  not  been  deemed  heretical 
in  early  times,  but  held  the  opinion  of  the  ancient  Gentile 
church,  as  the  Nazarenes  did  that  of  the  Jewish  church  ;  and 
that,  notwithstanding  the  introduction,  and  gradual  pre- 
valence of  the  opposite  doctrine,  they  were  sutJerod  to  pass 
uncensured  and  consequently  without  a  name,  till  the  small- 
ness  of  their  numbers  made  them  particularly  noticed. 

It  is  remarkable,  however,  that  those  who  held  the  simple 
doctrine  of  the  humanitv  of  Christ,  without  asserting:  that 
Joseph  was  his  natural  father,  were  not  reckoned  heretics 
by  Irenaeus,  who  wrote  a  large  work  on  the  subject  of 
heresies  ;  and  even  those  who  held  tluit  opinion  are  men- 
tioned with  respect  by  J  ustin  Martyr,  who  wrote  some  years 
before  him,  and  who,  indeed,  is  the  first  writer  extant,  of 
the  Gentile  Christians,  after  the  age  of  the  apostles.  And 
it  cannot  be  supposed  that  he  would  have  treated  them  with 
so  much  respect,  if  their  doctrine  had  not  been  very  generally 
received,  and  on  that  account  less  obnoxious  than  it  grew 
to  be  afterwards.  He  expresses  their  opinion  concerning 
Christ,  by  saying  that  they  made  him  to  be  a  mere  man, 
(\|/<Xo^  av9hpa>CTo^,)  and  by  this  term  Irenaeus,  and  all  the 
ancients,  even  later  than  Eusebius,  meant  a  man  descended 
from  man,  and  this  phraseology  is  frequently  opposed  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  miraculous  conception  of  Jesus,  and  not  to 
that  of  his  divinity.  It  is  not  therefore  to  be  inferred  that 
because  some  of  the  ancient  writers  condemn  the  one,  they 
meant  to  pass  any  censure  upon  the  other. 

The  manner  in  which  Justin  Martyr  speaks  of  those 
Unitarians  who  believed  Christ  to  be  the  son  of  Joseph,  is 
very  remarkable,  and  shews  that  though  they  even  denied 
the  miraculous  conception,  they  were  far  from  being  reckoned 
heretics  in  his  time,  as  they  were  by  Irenaeus  afterwards. 
He  says,  "  there  are  some  of  our  profession  who  acknowledge 
him"  (Jesus)  "  to  be  the  Christ,  yet  maintain  that  he  was  a 
man  born  of  man.  1  do  not  agree  with  them,  nor  should  I 
be  prevailed  upon  by  ever  so  many  who  hold  that  opinion  ; 
because  we  are  taught  by  Christ  himsell  not  to  receive  our 

•  H«r.  51,Sect,  iii.     Opera,  I.  p.  424.     (P.)  f  Ibid.  p.  423.    (P.) 


29         HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST. 

doctrine  from  men,  but  from  what  was  taught  by  the  holy 
prophets  and  by  himself."* 

This  language  has  all  the  appearance  of  an  apology  for  an 
opinion  contrary  to  the  general  and  prevailing  one,  as  that 
of  the  humanity  of  Christ  (at  least  with  the  belief  of  the 
miraculous  conception)  probably  was  in  his  time.  This 
writer  even  speaks  of  his  own  opinion  of  the  pre-existence 
of  Christ,  (and  he  is  the  first  that  we  certainly  know  to  have 
maintained  it,  on  the  principles  on  which  it  was  generally 
received  afterwards,)  as  a  doubtful  one,  and  by  no  means  a 
necessary  article  of  Christian  faith.  "  Jesus,"  says  he, 
*'  may  still  be  the  Christ  of  God,  though  1  should  not  be 
able  to  prove  his  pre-existence,  as  the  Son  of  God  who  made 
all  things.  For  though  1  should  not  prove  that  he  had  pre- 
existed, it  will  be  right  to  say  that,  in  this  respect  only,  I 
have  been  deceived,  and  not  to  deny  that  he  is  the  Christ,  if 
he  appears  to  be  a  man  born  of  men,  and  to  have  become 
Christ  by  election ."f  This  is  not  the  language  of  a  man 
very  confident  of  his  opinion,  and  who  had  the  sanction  of 
the  majority  along  with  him. 

The  reply  of  Trypho  the  Jew,  with  whom  the  dialogue  he 
is  writing  is  supposed  to  be  held,  is  also  remarkable,  shewing 
in  what  light  the  Jews  will  always  consider  any  doctrine 
which  makes  Christ  to  be  more  than  a  man.  He  says, 
"  They  who  think  that  Jesus  was  a  man,  and,  being  chosen 
of  God,  was  anointed  Christ,  appear  to  me  to  advance  a 
more  probable  opinion  than  yours.  For  all  of  us  expect 
that  Christ  will  be  born  a  man  from  man,  [av^pcoTrog  s^ 
av^pa>7r«,)  and  that  Elias  will  come  to  anoint  him.  If  he 
therefore  be  Christ,  he  must  by  all  means  be  a  man  born 
of  man.":{: 

It  is  well  known,  and  mentioned  by  Eusebius,  that  the 
Unitarians  in  the  primitive  church,  always  pretended  to  be 
the  oldest  Christians,  that  the  apostles  themselves  had 
taught  their  doctrine,  and  that  it  generally  prevailed  till 
the  time  of  Zephyrinus,  bishop  of  Rome,  but  that  from  that 
time  it  was  corrupted  ;§  and  as  these  Unitarians  are  called 
Idiol<JB  (common  and  ignorant  people)  by  Tertullian,  it  is 
more  natural  to  look  for  ancient  opinions  among  them,  than 
among  the  learned  who  are  more  apt  to  innovate.  With 
such  manifest  unfairness  does  Eusebius,  or  a  more  ancient 
writer,  whose  sentiments  he  adopts,  treat  the  Unitarians,  as 

*  Dirt/.  E(lit  Thirlbv,  p.  235.     (P.)  t  Ibid- pp.  233,  234.     {P.) 

X  Ibki.  p.  235.     {V.)  §  Hist.  L.  v.  C.  xxviii.  p.  252.     {P.) 


HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST.        23 

to  say  that  Theodotus,  who  appeared  about  the  year  190, 
and  who  was  condemned  by  Victor  the  predecessor  of 
Zephyrinus,  was  the  first  who  held  that  our  Saviour  was  a 
mere  man  ;*  when  in  refuting  their  pretensions  to  antiquity, 
he  goes  no  farther  back  than  to  Irenaeus,  Justin  Martyr  and 
Clemens  ;  in  whose  second  and  spurious  epistle  only  it  is  to 
be  found,  and  the  ancient  /u/m?is,  not  now  extant,  but  in 
which,  being  poetical  compositions,  divinity  was  probably 
ascribed  to  him,  in  some  figurative  and  qualified  sense; 
though  Eusebius  in  his  own  writings  alone  might  have  found  a 
refutation  of  his  assertion.  Epiphanius,  speaking  of  the  same 
Theodotus,  says,  that  his  heresy  was  a  branch  (aTroo-Trao-jaa) 
of  that  of  the  Alogi,  which  sufficiently  implies  that  they 
existed  before  him.f 

The  Alogi,  therefore,  appear  to  have  been  the  earliest 
Gentile  Christians,  and  Dr.  Berriman  supposes  them  to  have 
been  a  branch  of  the  Ebionites.ij:  In  fact,  they  must  have 
been  the  same  among  the  Gentiles,  that  the  Ebionites  were 
among  the  Jews.  And  it  is  remarkable  that,  as  the  children 
of  Israel  retained  the  worship  of  the  one  true  God  all  the 
time  of  Joshua,  and  of  those  of  his  contemporaries  who 
outlived  him  ;  so  the  generality  of  Christians  retained  the 
same  faith,  believing  the  strict  unity  of  God,  and  the  proper 
humanity  of  Christ,  all  the  time  of  the  apostles  and  of  those 
who  conversed  with  them,  but  began  to  depart  from  that 
doctrine  presently  afterwards ;  and  the  defection  advanced 
so  fast,  that  in  about  one  century  more,  the  original  doctrine 
was  generally  reprobated  and  deemed  heretical.  The  manner 
in  which  this  corruption  of  the  ancient  doctrine  was  intro- 
duced, I  must  now  proceed  to  explain. 


SECTION  II. 

Of  thejlrst  Step  that  was  made  towards  the  Deification  of 
Christ,  hy  the  Personijication  of  the  Logos. 

As  the  greatest  things  often  take  their  rise  from  the 
smallest  beginnings,  so  the  worst  things  sometimes  proceed 
from  good  intentions.  This  was  certainly  the  case  with 
respect  to  the  origin  of  Christian  idolatry.  All  the  early 
heresies  arose  from  men  who  wished  well  to  the  gospel,  and 
who  meant  to  recommend  it  to  the  Heathens,  and  especially 

•  Hint.  L,  V.  C.  xxviii.  p.  252.     (P.)  f  H^^r.  54,  Opera,  I.  p.  462.     (P.) 

X  "  An  Historical  Account  of  the  Trinitarian  Controversy,"   1725,  p.  82.     (P.) 


24.        HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST. 

to  philoso])hcrs  among  them,  whose  prejudices  they  found 
great  ditticuity   in   conquering.      Now   we   learn   from  the 
writings  of  the  apostles   themselves,  as    well   as   from   the 
testimony  of  later  writers,  that  the  circumstance  at  which 
mani^ind  in  general,   and   especially  the  more  philosophical 
part  of  them    stunjbled   the   most,   was   the  doctrine   of  a 
crncijied  Swioiir.      Thev  could    not  submit  to  become   the 
discipK-s  of  a  man  wlio  iiad  been  exposed  upon  a  cross,   like 
the  vilest  malefactor.     Of  this  objection  to  Christianity  we 
find  tr<iei\s  in  all  the  early  writers,  who  wrote  in  defence  of 
the  gospel  against  the  unbelievers  of  their  age,  to  the  time  of 
Lactantius ;     and  probably  it   may  be   found   much    later. 
He  says,  "  I  know  that  many  fly  from  the  truth  out  of  their 
abhorrence  of  the  cross."*     We,  who  only  learn  from  history 
that  crucifixion  was  a  kind  of  death  to  which  slaves  and  the 
vilest  of  malefactors  were  exposed,  can  but  very  imperfectly 
enter  into  their  prejudices,  so  as  to  feel  what  they  must  have 
done  with   respect  to  it.      The  idea  of  a  man  executed  at 
Tyburn,   without  any  thing  to  distinguish   him  from  other 
malefactors,   is  but  an  approach  to  the  case  of  our  Saviour. 

The  apostle  Paul  speaks  ol'the  crucifixion  of  Christ  as  the 
great  obstacle  to  the  reception  of  the  gospel  in  his  time  ;  and 
yet,  with  true  magnaniixiity,  he  does  not  go  about  to  palliate 
the  matter,  but  says  to  the  Corinthians  (some  of  the  politest 
people  among  the  Greeks,  and  fond  of  their  philosophy), 
that  he  was  determined  to  know  nothing  among'  them  but 
"  Jesus  Christ  and  him  crucified  :"  for  though  this  circum- 
stance was  "  unto  the  Jews  a  stumbling-block,  and  unto  the 
Greeks  foolishness,"  it  was  to  others  "  the  power  of  God 
and  the  wisdom  of  God."  1  Cor.  i.  23,  24.  For  this 
circumstance  at  which  they  cavilled,  was  that  in  which  the 
wisdom  of  God  was  most  conspicuous  ;  the  death  and 
resurrection  of  a  man,  in  all  respects  like  themselves,  being 
better  calculated  to  give  other  men  an  assurance  of  their 
own  resurrection,  than  that  of  any  super-angelic  being,  the 
laws  of  whose  nature  they  might  think  to  be  very  different 
from  those  of  their  own.  But  "  since  by  man  came  death, 
so  by  man  came  also  the  resurrection  of  the  dead."  1  Cor. 
XV.  21. 

Later  Christians,  however,  and  especially  those  who  were 
themselves  attached  to  the  principles  of  cither  the  Oriental  or 
the  Greek  philosophy,  unhappily  took  another  method  of 

♦  Lactaiitii  iE;;,7(,»if,  1718.     C.  li.  p.  143.     (/'.)      "  Scio  equulem  inultos,  dum 
abhorrent  uouien  cnais,  refiigcre  a  veritate."    Opera,  1748,  II.  p.  38. 


HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST.         25 

removing  this  obstacle ;  and  instead  of  explaining  the  wisdom 
of  the  divine  dispensations  in  the  appointment  of  a  man,  a 
person  in  all  respects  like  unto  his  brethren,  for  the  redemption 
of  men,  and  of  his  dying  in  the  most  public  and  indisputable 
manner,  as  a  foundation  for  the  clearest  proof  of  a  real 
resurrection,  and  also  of  a  painful  and  ignominious  death, 
as  an  exaniple  to  his  followers  who  might  be  exposed  to  the 
same,  &c.  &c.,  they  began  to  raise  the  dignity  of  the  person 
of  Christ,  that  it  might  appear  less  disgraceful  to  be  ranked 
amongst  his  disciples.  To  make  this  the  easier  to  them, 
two  things  chiefly  contributed  ;  the  first  was  the  received 
method  of  interpreting  the  Scriptures  among  the  learned 
Jews,  and  the  second  was  the  philosophical  opinions  of  the 
heathen  world,  which  had  then  begun  to  infect  the  Jews 
themselves. 

It  has  been  observed  that  after  the  translation  of  the  Old 
Testament  into  Greek,  which  was  done  probably  in  the 
time  of  Ptolemy  Philadelphus,  King  of  Egypt,  in  conse- 
quence of  which  the  Jewish  religion  became  better  known 
to  the  Greeks,  and  especially  to  the  philosophers  of  Alexan- 
dria, the  more  learned  of  the  Jews  had  recourse  to  an  alle- 
gorical method  of  interpreting  what  they  found  to  be  most 
objected  to  in  their  sacred  writings ;  and  by  this  means 
pretended  to  find  in  the  books  of  Moses,  and  the  prophets, 
all  the  great  principles  of  the  Greek  philosophy,  and  espe- 
cially that  of  Plato,  which  at  that  time  was  most  in  vogue. 
In  this  method  of  interpreting  Scripture,  Philo,  a  learned 
Jew  of  Alexandria,  far  excelled  all  who  had  gone  before 
him  ;  but  the  Christians  of  that  city,  who  were  themselves 
deeply  tinctured  with  the  principles  of  the  same  philosophy, 
especially  Clemens  Alexandrinus  and  Origen,  who  both  be- 
lieved the  pre-existence  of  souls,  and  the  other  distinguishing 
tenets  of  Platonism,  soon  followed  his  steps  in  the  interpre- 
tation of  both  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament.* 

One  method  of  allegorizing,  which  took  its  rise  in  the 
East,  was  the  personification  of  things  without  life,  of  which 
we  have  many  beautiful  examples  in  the  books  of  Scripture, 
as  oi'wisclojn  by  Solomon,  of  the  dead  by  Ezekiel,  and  of  sin 
and  death  by  the  apostle  Paul.  Another  method  of  allego- 
rizing was  finding  out  resemblances  in  things  that  bore  some 
relation  \fi  each  other,  and  then  representing  them  as  ti/pes 
and  antitypes  to  each,  other.     The  apostle  Paul,  especially  if 

"  Le  Platoiiisme  devoilfe,  ou  Es-sai  touchatit  le  veibe  PlatonJcien."      1700, 
p-  145.     (P.) 


26         HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST. 

he  be  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  has  strained 
very  mucii,  by  the  force  of  imagination,  to  reconcile  the 
Jews  to  the  Christian  religion,  by  pointing  out  the  analogies 
whicli  he  imagined  the  rites  and  ceremonies  of  the  Jewish 
religion  bore  to  something  in  Christianity.  Clemens  Ro- 
manus,  bnt  more  especially  Barnabas,  pushed  this  method 
of  allegorizing  still  farther.  But  the  fathers  who  followed 
them,  bv  employing  both  the  methods,  and  mixing  their 
own  philosophy  with  Christianity,  at  length  converted  an 
innocent  allegory  into  what  was  little  better  than  Pagan 
idolatry. 

It  had  long  been  the  received  doctrine  of  the  East,  and 
had  gradually  spread  into  the  western  parts  of  the  world, 
that  besides  the  supreme  divine  mind,  which  had  existed 
without  cause  from  all  eternity,  there  were  other  intelli- 
gences, of  a  less  perfect  nature,  which  had  been  produced 
by  way  oi emanation  from  the  great  original  mind,  and  that 
Other  intelligences,  less  and  less  perfect,  had,  in  like  man- 
ner, proceeded  from  them  :  in  short,  that  all  spirits,  whether 
demons,  or  the  souls  of  men,  were  of  this  divine  origin. 
It  was  supposed  by  some  of  them  that  even  matter  itself, 
which  they  considered  as  the  source  of  all  evil,  had,  in  this 
intermediate  manner,  derived  its  existence  from  the  Deity, 
though  others  supposed  matter  to  have  been  eternal  and  self- 
existent.  For  it  was  a  maxim  with  them  all,  that  "  nothing 
could  be  created  out  of  nothing."  In  this  manner  they 
thought  they  could  best  account  for  the  origin  of  evil,  with- 
out supposing  it  to  be  the  immediate  production  of  a  good 
being,  which  the  original  divine  mind  was  always  supposed 
by  them  to  be. 

In  order  to  exalt  their  idea  of  Jesus  Christ,  it  being  then 
a  received  opinion  among  the  philosophers  that  all  souls 
had  pre-existed,  they  conceived  his  soul  not  to  have  been 
that  of  a  common  man  (which  was  generally  supposed  to 
have  been  the  production  of  inferior  beings),  but  a  principal 
emanation  from  the  divine  mind  itself,  and  that  an  intelli- 
gence of  so  high  a  rank  either  animated  the  body  of  Jesus 
from  the  beginning,  or  entered  into  him  at  his  baptism. 
There  was,  however,  a  great  diversity  of  opinion  on  this 
subject ;  and,  indeed,  there  was  room  enough  for  it,  in  a 
system  which  was  not  founded  on  any  observation,  but  was 
the  mere  creature  of  fancy.  But  all  these  philosophizing 
Christians  had  the  same  general  object,  which  Avas  to  make 
the  religion  of  Christ  more  reputable,  by  adding  to  the 
dignity  of  our  Lord's  person. 


HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST.         27 

Thus,  according  to  Lardner,  Cerinthus,  one  of  the  first  of 
these  philosophizing  Christians,  "  taught  one  Supreme  God, 
but  that  the  world  was  not  made  by  him,  but  by  angels  ;" 
that  Jesus  "  was  a  man  born  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  and  that  at 
his  baptism,  the  Holy  Ghost,  or  the  Christ,  descended  upon 
him  ;"  that  Jesus  "  died  and  rose  again,  but  that  the  Christ 
was  impassible."*  On  the  other  hand,  Marcion  held  that 
Christ  was  not  born  at  all,  but  that  "  the  son  of  God  took  the 
exterior  form  of  a  man,  and  appeared  as  a  man  ;  and  without 
being  born,  or  gradually  growing  up  to  the  full  stature  of  a 
man,  he  shewed  himself  at  once  in  Galilee,  as  a  man  grown. "•]• 
All  the  heretics,  however,  of  this  class,  whose  philosophy 
was  njore  properly  that  of  the  East,  thought  it  was  unworthy 
of  so  exalted  a  person  as  the  proper  Christ  to  be  truly  a  man, 
and  most  of  them  thought  he  had  no  real  flesh,  but  only  the 
appearance  of  it,  and  what  was  incapable  of  feeling  pain,  &c. 

These  opinions  the  apostles,  and  especially  John,  had 
heard  of,  and  he  rejected  them,  as  we  have  seen,  with  the 
greatest  indignation.  However,  this  did  not  put  a  stop  to  the 
evil,  those  philosophizing  Christians  either  having  ingenuity 
enough  to  evade  those  censures,  by  pretending  these  were 
not  their  opinions,  but  others  somewhat  difi^erent  from  theirs, 
that  properly  fell  under  them,  or  new  opinions  really  dif- 
ferent from  them,  (but  derived  in  fact  from  the  same  source, 
and  having  the  same  evil  tendency,)  rising  up  in  the  place  of 
them  ;  for  they  were  all  calculated  to  give  more  dignity,  as 
they  imagined,  to  the  person  of  their  master.  The  most 
remarkable  change  in  these  opinions  was  that,  whereas  the 
earliest  of  these  philosophizing  Christians  supposed,  in  ge- 
neral, that  the  world  was  made  b}^  some  superior  intelligence 
of  no  benevolent  nature,  and  that  the  Jewish  religion  was 
prescribed  by  the  same  being,  or  one  very  much  resembling 
him,  and  that  Christ  was  sent  to  rectify  the  imperfections  of 
both  systems  ;  those  who  succeeded  them,  and  whose  suc- 
cess at  length  gave  them  the  title  of  orthodox,  corrupted  the 
genuine  christian  principle  no  less,  by  supposing  that  Christ 
was  the  being  who,  under  God,  was  himself  the  maker  of  the 
world,  and  the  medium  of  all  the  divine  communications  to 
man,  and  therefore  the  author  of  the  Jewish  religion. 

As  Plato  had  travelled  into  the  East,  it  is  probable  that  he 
there  learned  the  doctrine  of  divine  emanations,  and  got  his 
ideas  of  the  origin  of  this  visible  system.     But  he  sometimes 

*  Hist,  of  Heretics,  p.  150.     rP.)     Works,  IX.  p.  S2,5. 
t  Ibid.  p.  227.     (PJ    Works,  IX.  pp.  378,  379. 


28         HISTORY  OF  OPIXIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST. 

expresses  himself  so  tcmpenitely  on  the  subject,  that  he 
seems  to  have  only  allegorized  what  is  true  with  respect  to 
it  ;  speaking  of  the  divine  mind  as  having  existed  from  eter- 
nity, liLit  having  within  itself /V/e^s  or  a rr/ie(^y;>es' of  whatever 
was  to  exist  without  it,  and  saying  that  the  immediate  seat 
of  these  ideas,  or  the  intelligence  which  he  styled  Logos,  was 
that  from  which  the  visible  creation  immediately  sprung. 
However,  it  was  to  this  principle  in  the  divine  mind,  or  this 
being,  derived  from  it,  that  Plato,  according  to  Lactantius, 
gave  the  name  of  a  second  God,  saying,  "  the  Lord  and 
maker  of  the  universe,  whom  we  justly  call  God,  made  a 
second  God,  visible  and  sensible.''  * 

By  this  means,  however,  it  was,  that  this  Logos,  originally 
an  attribute  of  the  divine  mind  itself,  came  to  be  repre- 
sented, first  by  the  philosophers,  and  then  by  philosophizing 
Christians,  as  an  intelligent  principle  or  being,  distinct  from 
God,  though  an  emanation  from  him.  This  doctrine  was 
but  too  convenient  for  those  who  wished  to  recommend  the 
religion  of  Christ.  Accordingly,  they  immediately  fixed 
upon  this  Logos  as  the  intelligence  which  either  animated 
the  body  of  Christ,  or  which  was  in  some  inexplicable 
manner  united  to  his  soul;  and  by  the  help  of  the  allegorical 
method  of  interpreting  the  Scriptures,  to  which  they  had 
been  sufficiently  accustomed,  they  easily  found  authorities 
there  for  their  opinions. 

Thus,  since  we  read  in  the  book  of  Psalms,  that  bt/  the 
word  of  the  Lord  (which,  in  the  translation  of  the  Seventy, 
is  the  Logos)  the  heavens  were  made,  d)'c.  they  concluded  that 
this  Logos  was  Christ,  and  therefore,  that,  under  God,  he 
was  the  maker  of  the  world.  They  also  applied  to  him  what 
Solomon  says  of  wisdom,  as  having  been  m  the  beginning 
with  God,  and  employed  by  him  in  making  the  world,  in  the 
book  of  Proverbs.  But  there  is  one  particular  passage  in 
the  book  of  Psalms  in  which  they  imagined  that  the  origin 
of  the  Logos,  by  way  of  emanation  from  the  divine  mind,  is 
most  clearly  expressed,  which  is  what  we  render.  Mi/  heart 
is  inditing  a  good  matter.  Psalm  xlv.  1,  this  matter  being 
Logos  in  the  Seventy,  and  the  verb  epeuyo/xevoj  throwing  out. 
Nothing  can  appear  to  us  more  ungrounded  than  this  suppo- 
sition, and  yet  we  find  it  in  all  the  writers  who  treat  of  the 
divinity  of    Christ   for  several  centuries,    in  ecclesiastical 


•  Epitome,  C.  xlii.  p.  106.  (P.)  "  Dominus  et  factor  universorum,  quem 
Deum  vocari  existimavimus,  secundum  fecit  Deum,  visibilcm  et  seusibilcm." 
Opera,  II.  p.  SO. 


HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST.         29 

history.     After  this  we  cannot  wonder  at  their  being  at  no 
loss  for  proofs  of  their  doctrine  in  any  part  of  Scripture. 

But  Philo,  the  Jew,  went  before  the  Christians  in  the 
personification  of  the  Logos,  and  in  this  mode  of  interpretincr 
what  is  said  of  it  in  the  Old  Testament.  For  he  calls  this 
divine  word  a  second  God,  and  sometimes  attributes  the 
creation  of  the  world  to  this  second  God,  thinking  it  bt^Iow 
the  majesty  of  the  great  God  himself.  He  also  calls  this 
personified  attribute  of  God  his  Trporoyuvo^,  or  his  Jirst-horn^ 
and  the  imaoe  of  God.  He  also  says,  that  he  is  neither 
unbegotten,  like  God,  nor  begotten,  as  we  are,  but  the  middle 
between  the  two  extremes.*  We  also  find  that  the  Chaidee 
paraphrasts  of  the  Old  Testament,  often  render  the  word  of 
God,  as  if  it  was  a  being,  distinct  from  God,  or  some  aiigel 
who  bore  the  name  of  God,  and  acted  by  deputation  from 
him.  So,  however,  it  has  been  interpreted,  though  with 
them  it  might  be  no  more  than  an  idiom  of  speech. 

The  Christian  philosophers  having  once  got  the  idea  that 
the  Logos  might  be  interpreted  of  Christ,  proceeded  to  ex- 
plain what  John  says  of  the  Logos,  in  the  introduction  of  his 
gospel,  to  mean  the  same  person,  in  direct  opposition  to 
what  he  really  meant,  which  was  that  the  Logos,  by  which 
all  things  were  made,  was  not  a  being,  distinct  from  God, 
but  God  himself,  being  his  attribute,  his  wisdom  and  power, 
dwelling  in  Christ,  speaking  and  acting  by  him.  Accordujgly 
we  find  some  of  the  earlier  Unitarians  charging  those  who 
were  called  orthodox  with  an  innovation  in  their  interpre- 
tation of  the  term  Logos.  "  But  thou  wilt  tell  me  some- 
thing strange,  in  saying  that  the  Logos  is  the  Son."  Hip- 
poli/tus  contra  Noetmn,  quoted  by  Beausobre.'l' 

We  find  nothing  like  divinity  ascribed  to  Christ  before 
Justin  Martyr,  who,  from  being  a  philosopher,  became  a 
Christian,  but  always  retained  the  peculiar  habit  of  his 
former  profession.  As  to  Clemens  Romanus,  who  was 
contemporary  with  the  apostles,  when  he  is  speaking  in  the 
highest  terms  concerning  Christ,  he  only  calls  him  the 
sceptre  of  the  majesty  of  God.%  Whether  Justin  Martyr 
was  the  very  first  who  started  the  notion  of  the  pre-existence 
of  Christ,  and  of  his  superangelic  or  divine  nature,  is  not 
certain,  but  we  are  not  able  to  trace  it  any  higher.  We  find 
it,  indeed,  briefly  mentioned  in  the  Shepherd  of  Hernias,  but 
though  this  is  supposed  by  some  to  be  the  Hermas  mentioned 

See  "  Le  Plutonisme  devoile,"  Ch,  x.  pp.  98 — 107}  and  LeCIerc's  Comment 
OD  the  Introduction  to  the  First  Chapter  of  John.     (P.) 

t  Histoire,  I.  p.  540.    (P.)    L.  iii.  Ch.  vi.  Sect.  xi.      $  Epistle,  Sect.  xvi.   (P.J 


30  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST. 

by  Paul,  and  to  have  written  towards  the  end  of  the  first 
century,  others  suppose  this  to  be  the  work  of  one  Hermes, 
brother  of  Pius,  Bishop  of  Home,  and  to  have  been  written 
about  the  year  141,  or  })erhaps  later;  and  as  this  work  con- 
tains such  a  pretension  to  visions  and  revelations,  as  I  cannot 
but  think  unworthy  of  the  Plermas  mentioned  by  Paul,  I 
cannot  help  being  of  this  opinion.  He  says,  "  having  seen 
an  old  rock  and  a  new  gate,  they  represent  the  son  of  God, 
who  was  more  ancient  than  any  creature,  so  as  to  be  present 
with  the  Father  at  the  creation,  ad  condendam  crealuram."  * 
The  book  was  written  in  Greek,  but  we  have  only  a  Latin 
version  of  it. 

Justin  Martyr  being  a  philosopher,  and  writing  an  apo- 
logy for  Christianity  to  a  philosophical  Roman  emperor, 
would  naturally  wish  to  represent  it  in  what  would  appear 
to  him  and  other  philosophers,  the  most  favourable  light; 
and  this  disposition  appears  by  several  circumstances.  Thus 
he  represents  virtuous  men,  in  all  preceding  ages,  as  being 
in  a  certain  sense.  Christians;  and  apologizing  for  calling- 
Christ  the  son  of  God,  he  says,  that  "  this  cannot  be  new  to 
them  who  speak  of  Jupiter  as  having  sons,  and  especially  of 
Mercury,  as  his  interpreter,  and  the  instructor  of  all  men, 
{T^oyov  spjar^veoTixov  xa<  -rravTwv  8<8acrxaXov)."-|*  On  the  same 
subject  he  says,  "  If  Christ  be  a  mere  man,  yet  he  deserves 
to  be  called  the  Son  of  God,  on  account  of  his  wisdom,  and 
the  Heathens  called  God  (i.  e.  Jupiter),  the  father  of  gods 
and  men  ;  and  if,  in  an  extraordinary  manner,  he  be  the 
Zoo-o.v  of  God,  this  is  common  with  those  who  call  Mercury 
the  Logos  that  declares  the  will  of  God,  ["koyov  tov  rra^a  06« 
ayyeXrixov)."  J 

\\  ith  this  disposition  to  make  his  religion  appear  in  the 
most  respectable  light  to  the  Heathens,  and  having  himself 
professed  the  doctrine  of  Plato,  can  it  be  thought  extraordi- 
nary, that  he  eagerly  caught  at  the  doctrine  of  the  Logos, 
which  he  found  ready  formed  to  his  hands  in  the  works  of 
Philo,  and  that  he  introduced  it  into  the  Christian  system; 
that  Irenaeus,  who  was  also  educated  among  the  philoso- 
phers, about  the  same  time,  did  the  same  thing  ;  or  that 
others,  who  were  themselves  sufficiently  pre-disposed  to  act 
tlie  same  part,  should  follow  their  example  ? 

That  the  doctrine  of  the  separate  divinity  of  Christ  was  at 
first  nothing  more  than  a  personification  of  a  divine  attri- 

'  Henn(c  Pastor,  L.  iii.  Sim.  ix.  Sect.  xii.  p,  1 15.    (P.J     Wake's  Gen.  Epist. 
Ld.  4,  p.  320.  t  Apol.  1.  Ed.Thirlby,  p.  SI.  (P.)         J  Ibid.  p.  S3.     (P.J 


HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST.         31 

bute,  or  of  that  wisdom  and  power  by  which  God  made  the 
world,  is  evident  from  the  manner  in  which  the  earhest 
writers  who  treat  of  the  subject  mention  it.  Justin  Martyr, 
who  was  the  first  who  undertook  to  prove  that  Christ  was 
the  medium  of  the  divine  dispensations  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, as  that  "  he  was  the  person  sometimes  called  an 
Angela  and  sometimes  God  and  Lord^  and  that  he  was  the 
man  who  sometimes  appeared  to  Abraham  and  Jacob,  and 
he  that  spake  to  Moses  from  the  fiery  bush,"*  does  it,  as  we 
have  seen  above,  with  a  considerable  degree  of  diffidence ; 
saying,  that  "  if  he  should  not  be  able  to  prove  his  pre- 
existence,  it  would  not  therefore  follow  that  he  was  not 
the  Christ."  And  as  new  opinions  do  not  readily  lay  firm 
hold  on  the  mind,  forms  of  expression  adapted  to  preceding 
opinions,  will  now  and  then  occur;  and  as  good  sense  will, 
in  all  cases,  often  get  the  better  of  imagination,  we  some- 
times find  these  early  writers  drop  the  personification  of  the 
Logos,  and  speak  of  it  as  the  mere  attribute  of  God. 

Thus  Theophilus,  who  was  contemporary  with  Justin, 
though  a  later  writer,  says,  that  when  God  said  let  us  make 
man,  he  spake  to  nothing  but  his  own  logos,  or  wisdom  ;'|' 
and,  according  to  Origen,  Christ  was  the  eternal  reason,  or 
wisdom  of  God.  He  says,  that,  "  by  the  second  God,  we 
mean  only  a  virtue*'  (or  perhaps  power)  "  which  compre- 
hends all  other  virtues,  or  a  reason  which  comprehends  all 
other  reasons,  and  that  this  reason  (Xoyoj)  is  particularly 
attached  to  the  soul  of  Christ. "J  Also,  explaining  John  i.  3, 
he  says,  "  God  can  do  nothing  without  reason  {jrapa  T^oyov), 
i.  e.  without  himself"  (Trap  saurov).§ 

Athenagoras,  who  wrote  in  the  second  century,  calls  Christ 
the  first  production  (yevvrjjaa)  of  the  Father  ;  but  says  he  was 
not  always  actually  produced  (yevojttsvov),  for  that  from  the 
beginning,  God,  being  an  eternal  mind,  had  reason  (Xoyo^) 
in  himself,  being  from  eternity  rational  {7^(iyi7tog).\\ 

Tatian,  who  was  also  his  contemporary,  gives  us  a  fuller 
account  of  this  matter.  He  says,  "when  he  (that  is,  God) 
pleased,  the  word  (logos)  flowed  from  his  simple  essence  ; 
and  this  word  not  being  produced  in  vain,  became  the  first- 
begotten  work  of  his  spirit.  This  we  know  to  be  the  origin 
of  the  word :  but  it  was  produced  by  division,  not  by  sepa- 
ration, for  that  which  is  divided  (/xsp/o-^sv)  does  not  diminish 
that  from  which  it  derives  its  power.     For,  as  many  torches 

♦  Dial.  Edit.Thirlby,  p.  263.  (P.)     f  MAutoh/cnm,  l684,  L.ii.  p.  114.  (P.) 
X  Origeri  contra  Celsuin,  1677,  L.  v.  p.  259.  (P.)  §  Ibiil.  p.  247.  (P.) 

1)  Atheuagorse  Opera,  1685,  Apol.  p.  83.  (P.) 


32  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST. 

may  be  lighted  from  one,  and  yet  the  light  of  the  first  torch 
is  not  diminished,  so  the  word  [logos]  proceeding  from  the 
power  of  the  Father,  docs  not  leave  the  Father  void  ol"  logos. 
Also,  if  1  speak  and  yon  hear  me,  1  am  not  void  oi  speech 
(logos)  on  account  of  my  speech  [logos)  going  to  you."* 

W  Ircnaeus  had  this  idea  of  the  generation  of  the  Logos^ 
as  no  doubt  he  had,  it  is  no  wonder  that  he  speaks  ol  it  as 
a  thing  of  so  wonde^rful  a  nature.  "  If  any  one,"  Siiys  he, 
"  asks  us,  how  is  the  Son  produced  from  the  Father,  we  tell 
him  that  whether  it  be  called  genenUion,  lumcupution,  or 
adapertion,  or  by  whatever  other  name  this  ineffable  genera- 
tion be  called,  no  one  knows  it;  neither  Valentinus,  nor 
Marcion,  nor  Saturninus,  nor  Basilides,  nor  Angels,  nor 
Archangels,  nor  Principalities,  nor  Powers;  but  only  the 
Father  who  begat,  and  the  Son  who  is  begotten." -j- 

Tertullian,  whose  orthodoxy  in  this  respect  was  never 
questioned,  does  not  seem,  however,  to  have  any  difficulty 
in  conceiving  how  this  business  was,  but  writes  in  such  a 
manner,  as  if  he  had  been  let  into  the  whole  secret ;  and  we 
see  in  him  the  wretched  expedients  to  which  the  orthodox 
of  that  age  had  recourse,  in  order  to  convert  a  mere  attribute 
into  a  real  person.  For  it  must  be  understood  that  when  the 
doctrine  of  the  divinity  of  Christ  was  first  started,  it  was 
not  pretended,  except  by  Irenaeus  in  the  passage  above  quoted 
(who  was  writing  against  persons  who  pretended  to  more 
knowledge  of  this  mysterious  business  than  himself^,  that 
there  was  any  thing  unintelligible  in  it,  or  that  could  not  be 
explained.  Every  thing,  indeed,  in  that  age,  was  called  a 
mystery  that  was  reputed  sacred^  and  the  knowledge  of  which 
was  confined  to  a  few  ;  but  the  idea  oi  unintelligible.,  or  inex- 
plicable., was  not  then  affixed  to  the  word  mystery.  The 
heathen  mysteries,  from  Mhicli  the  Christians  borrowed  the 
tferm,  v/ere  things  perfectly  well  known  and  understood  by 
those  who  were  initiated.,  though  concealed  from  the  vulgar. 

"  Before  all  things,"  says  this  writer,  "  God  was  alone; 
but  not  absolutely  alone,  for  he  had  with  him  his  own  reason., 
since  God  is  a  rational  being.  This  reason  the  Greeks  called 
Logos,  which  word  we  now  render  Sernio.  And  that  you 
may  more  easily  understand  this  iVom  yourself,  consider  that 
you,  who  are  made  in  the  image  of  God,  and  are  a  reasonable 
being,  have  reason  within  3^ourself.  When  you  silently  con- 
sider with  yourself,  it  is  by  means  of  reason  that  you  do  it.":{: 

•  Oratio  contra  Graecos,  at  tlie  end  of  Jnstin's  Works,   1686,  p.  145.    (P.) 
t   I^.  ii.  C.xlviii.  p.  176.  (7^.) 

X  "  Ante  omnia,  Deus  crat  solus.     Ceteruin  ne  tunc  quidcni  solus;  liabebat,  enim, 
secum,  ratioiicm  buam.     Rationalis  enim  Dcus      Ilauc  Graeci  Aiyoy  dicuot,  quo 


HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST.         33 

Upon  this  stating  of  the  case,  it  was  natural  to  object, 
that  the  reason  of  a  man  can  never  be  converted  into  a  sub- 
stance, so  as  to  constitute  a  thinking  being,  distinct  from  the 
man  himself.  But,  he  says,  that  though  this  is  the  case 
with  respect  to  man,  yet  nothing  can  proceed  from  God  but 
what  is  substantial.  "  You  will  say,"  says  he,  "  but  what 
is  speech  besides  a  word  or  sound,  something  unsubstantial 
and  incorporeal  ?  But  I  say  that  nothing  unsubstantial  and 
incorporeal  can  proceed  from  God,  because  it  does  not  pro- 
ceed from  what  is  itself  unsubstantial ;  nor  can  that  want 
substance,  which  proceeds  from  so  great  a  substance."* 

Having  in  this  manner  (lame  enough  to  be  sure)  got  over 
the  great  difficulty  of  the  conversion  of  a  mere  attribute  into 
a  substance,  and  a  thinking  substance  too,  this  writer  pro- 
ceeds to  ascertain  the  time  when  this  conversion  took  place; 
and  he,  together  with  all  the  early  Fathers,  says  that  it  was 
at  the  very  instant  of  the  creation.  "  Then,"  says  he,  "  did 
this  speech  assume  its ybrm  and  dress,  its  sound  and  voice, 
when  God  said.  Let  there  be  light.  This  is  the  perfect  nati- 
vity of  the  word,  when  it  proceeded  from  God.  From  this 
time  making  him  equal  to  himself"  (by  which  phrase,  how- 
ever, we  are  only  to  understand  like  himself)  "  from  which 
procession  he  became  his  son,  his  first-born,  and  only  be- 
gotten, begotten  before  all  things."*]' 

This  method  of  explaining  the  origin  of  the  personality  of 
the  Logos  continued  to  the  council  of  Nice,  and  even  after- 
wards. For  Lactantius,  who  was  tutor  to  the  son  of  Con- 
stantine,  gives  us  the  same  account  of  this  business,  with 
some  little  variation,  teaching  us  to  distinguish  the  Son  of 
God  from  the  angels,  whom  he  likewise  conceived  to  be 
emanations  from  the  divine  mind.  "  How,"  says  he,  "  did 
he  beget  him  ?  (that  is  Christ).  The  Sacred  Scriptures  in- 
form us  that  the  Son  of  God  is  the  sermo  or  ratio  (the  speech 
or  reason)  of  God,  also  that  the  other  angels  are  the  breath 
of  God,  spiritus  Dei.    But  sermo  (speech)  is  breath  emitted, 

vocabulo  etiam /Sermonem  appellamus,  Idque,  quo  faciliiis  intelligas  ex  teipso  ante 
recognosce  et  ex  imagine  et  similitudine  Dei,  quum  habeas  et  tu  in  temetipso  ratio- 
iiem,  qui  es  animal  rationale. — Vide  quum  tacitus  tecum  ipse  congrederis,  ratioiie 
hoc  ipsum  agi  intra  te,  &c.  Ad Praxeam,  C.  v.  p.  605.  Tertulliani  Opera,  1675.  (P.) 

*  Quid  est  enim  dices  sermo  nisi  vox,  et  sonus  oris  ?  Vacuum  nescio  quid,  et  inane, 
et  incorporale.  At  ego  nihil  dico  de  Deo  inane  et  vacuum  prodire  potuisse,  ut  non 
de  inani  et  vacuo  prolatum,  nee  carere  substantia,  quod  de  tantA  substantia  pro- 
cessit,  &c.     Ibid.  C.  vii.  p.  503.    (P.) 

t  Tunc  ipse  sermo  speciem  et  ornatum  suum  sumit,  sonum  et  vocem,  quum  dicit 
Delis /«f  lux.  Haec  est  nativitas  perfecta  sernionis,  dum  ex  Deo  procedit.  Exinde 
eum  parem  sibi  faciens,  de  quo  procedendo  filius  factus  est  pvimoyenitus,  et  ante 
omnia  genitus,  et  unigenitus,  et  solus  Deo  genitus.     Ibid.     {P.) 

VOL.  V.  J? 


34         HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST. 

together  with  a  voice,  expressive  of  something  ;  and  because 
speech  and  breathing  proceed  from  ditferent  parts,  there  is  a 
great  difference  between  the  Son  of  God  and  the  other  ansrels. 
For  they  are  mere  silent  breathings  (spiritus  taciti),  because 
they  were  created  not  to  teach  the  knowledge  of  God,  but 
for  service  (ad  ministrandum).  But  he  being  also  a  breathing 
(spiritus),  yet  proceeding  from  the  mouth  of  God  with  a 
voice  and  sound,  is  the  word ;  for  this  reason,  because  he  was 
to  be  a  teacher  of  the  knowledge  of  God,"  &c.*  He  there- 
fore calls  him  spiritus  rocalis.  Then,  in  order  to  account  for 
our  breathings  not  producing  similar  spirits,  he  says  that 
*'  our  breathings  are  dissoluble,  because  we  are  mortal,  but 
the  breathings  of  God  are  permanent;  tliey  live  and  feel, 
because  he  is  immortal,  the  giver  of  sense  and  life."-]" 

All  the  early  Fathers  speak  of  Christ  as  not  having  existed 
always,  except  as  reason  exists  in  man,  viz.  an  attribute  of 
the  Deity  ;  and  for  this  reason  they  speak  of  the  Father  as 
not  having  been  a  Father  always,  but  only  from  the  time 
that  he  made  the  world.  ''  Before  any  thing  was  made," 
says  Theophilus,  "  God  had  the  logos  for  his  council;  be- 
ing his  vovg  or  ^povria-ig  (reason  or  understanding);  but  when 
he  proceeded  to  produce  what  he  had  determined  upon,  he 
then  emitted  the  logos,  the  first-born  of  every  creature,  not 
emptying  himself  of  logos  (reason),  but  T^oyov  ysvw^a-ag  (be^ 
getting  reason),  and  always  conversing  with  his  own  logos"X 
(reason). 

Justin  Martyr  also  gives  the  same  explanation  of  the  emis- 
sion of  the  logos  from  God,  without  depriving  himself  of 
reason,  aud  he  illustrates  it  by  what  we  observe  in  ourselves. 
For,  "  in  uttering  any  word,"  he  says,  "  we  beget  a  word' 
{logos),  not  taking  any  thing  from  ourselves,  so  as  to  be 
lessened  by  it,  but  as  \ve  see  one  fire  produced  from  another."§ 

*  Lactaiitii  Opera,  lC60.  Tiist.  L.  iv.  Sect.  viii.  p.  371.  (P.)  "  Primum  nee 
sciri  ;\  quoquaui  possiint,  iiec  enarrari,  opera  diviiia:  sed  tamen  sanctae  literse  do- 
ceiit,  in  quibus  cautiim  est,  ilium  Dei  flliuni,  Dei  esse  sermonem,  sive  etiam  ratio- 
nem  ;  itcmque  ca-teros  angelos  Dei  spiritus  esse.  Nam  sermo  est  spiritus  cum  vocs 
aJiquid  significante  prolatiis.  Sed  tamen  quoniam  spiritus  et  sermo  diversis  parti- 
bus  proferuntur,  siquideni  spiritus  naribus,  ore  sermo  procedit,  magna  inter  fiunc 
Dei  filium  et  caeteros  a.igelos  differentia  est.  ]lli  enim  ex  Deo  taciti  spiritus  exie- 
runt;  quia  non  ad  doctrinani  Dei  tradendani,  sed  ad  ministerium  creabantnr.  lUe 
vero  cum  sit  et  ipse  spiritus,  tanien  cum  voce  ac  sono  ex  Dei  ore  proccssit,  sicut 
yerbum,  e^  scilicet  ratione,  quia  voce  ejus  ad  populum  fuerat  usurus;  id  est,  quM 
il!e  magister  futurus  csset  doctrinae  Dei  et  ccelestis  arcani  ad  hominem  proferendi ; 
quod  ipsum  prim^  locutus  est,  ut  per  eum  ad  nos  loqueretur,  et  ille  vocem  Dei  ac 
voluntatem  nobis  rcvelaret."     Opera,  I.  p.  289. 

+  Ibid.  (P).  "  Nostri  spiritus  dissolubiles  sunt,  quia  mortales  sumus-  Dei 
.intern  spiritus  et  vivunt  et  manent  ct  sentiunt ;  quia  ipse  imraortalis  est  et  sensus  et 
vita'  dator.    Ibid.  p.  «90. 

X  Ad  Autolycum,  L.  ii.  p  1^9.  (P).      §  Dial.  Edit.Thlvlby,  pp.  966,  S67.   (P- 


HiSrORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST.  36 

Clemens  Alexandrinus  calls  the  Father  alone  without 
beginning  (avapp^o^)  and  immediately  after  he  characterizes 
the  Son,  as  the  beginning,  and  the  Jirst-fruits  of  things 
{otpX^i^  '*"*  otTra^^rjv  rcov  ovtmv)  from  whom  we  must  learn  the 
Father  of  all,  the  most  ancient  and  beneficent  of  beings.* 
Tertullian  expressly  says  that  God  was  not  always  a  father 
or  a  judge,  since  he  could  not  be  a  father  before  he  had  a 
son,  nor  a  judge  before  sin  ;  and  there  was  a  time  when  both 
sin  and  the  son  (which  made  God  to  be  a  judge  and  a  father) 
were  not.*|* 

This  language  was  held  at  the  time  of  the  council  of  Nice, 
for  Lactantius  says,  "  God,  before  he  undertook  the  making 
of  the  world,  produced  a  holy  and  incorruptible  spirit,  which 
he  might  call  his.So?*;  and  afterwards  he  by  him  created 
innumerable  other  spirits,  whom  he  calls  angels."'^  The 
church,  says  Hilary,  "  knows  one  unbegotten  God,  and  one 
only  begotten  Son  of  God.  It  acknowledges  the  Father  to 
be  without  origin,  and  it  acknowledges  the  origin  of  the  Son 
from  eternity,  not  himself  without  beginning,  but  from  him 
who  is  without  beginning  fab  iniiiabilij.'*  §  It  is  not  im- 
possible that  Hilary  might  have  an  idea  of  the  eternal  ge- 
neration of  the  Son,  though  the  fathers  before  the  council 
of  Nice  had  no  such  idea.  For  the  Platonists  in  general 
thought  that  the  creation  was  from  eternity,  there  never 
having  been  any  time  in  which  the  Divine  Being  did  not 
act.  But,  in  general,  by  the  phrase  from  eternittj,  and  before 
all  time,  &c.  the  ancient  christian  writers  seem  to  have 
meant  any  period  before  the  creation  of  the  world. 

Consistently  with  this  representation,  but  very  incon- 
sistently with  the  modern  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  the  fathers 
supposed  the  Son  of  God  to  have  been  begotten  voluntarily, 
so  that  it  depended  upon  the  Father  himself  whether  he 
would  have  a  son  or  not.  "  I  will  produce  you  another 
testimony  from  the  Scriptures,"  says  Justin  Martyr,  "  that 
in  the  beginning,  before  all  the  creatures,  God  begat  from 
himself  a  certain  reasonable  power  (Suvajajv  7\,oyixrjv)  who  by 
the  spirit  is  sometimes  called  the  glory  of  God,  sometimes 
God,  sometimes  the  Lord  and  Logos,  because  he  is  sub- 
servient to  his  Father's  will,  and  was  begotten  at  his  Father's 
pleasure."  II  : 

•  Strom.  L.  vii.  Opera,  p.  700.  (P.)      t  Ad  Ilermogeneni,  C.  iii.  P-  234,   (P.) 

X  Inst.   L.  iv.   C.  vi.    p.  364.     (P.)      "  Deus  igitur  machinator  coiistitutorqiie 

rerum,— antequam  prfeclarum  hoc  opus  mundi  adoiiretur,  sanctiun  et  incorrupfi- 

bilem  spirituin  geiiuit,  quern  Filium   nuncuparet.     Et  quamvis  alios  postea  iiinu- 

merabiles  per  ipsum  creavisset,  quos  angelos  dicimus,"  &c.     Opera,  I.  p.  284. 

k  De  Trinitate,  L.  iv.     (P.)  ||  Dial.  Ed.  Tlurlbv,  p.  aG6.    (P.) 

D  2 


36         HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST. 

Novatian  says,  "  God  the  Father  is  therefore  the  maker 
and  creator  of  all  things,  who  alone  hath  no  origin,  invisible, 
immense,  immortal  and  eternal,  the  one  God,  to  whose 
greatness  and  majesty  nothing  can  be  compared,  from  whom, 
when  he  himself  pleased,  the  word  fsermoj  was  born/** 
Eusebius,  quoted  by  Dr.  Clarke,  says,  "  The  light  does  not 
shine  forth  by  the  will  of  the  luminous  body,  but  by  a  neces- 
sary property  of  its  nature.  But  the  Son,  by  the  intention 
and  will  of  the  Father,  received  the  subsistence  so  as  to  be 
the  image  of  the  Father.  For  by  his  will  did  God  become 
:(^«X7]^eij)  the  Father  of  his  Son."! 

The  Fathers  of  the  council  of  Sirmium  say,  "  If  any  one 
says  that  the  Son  was  begotten  not  ])y  the  will  of  the  Father, 
let  him  be  anathema.  For  the  Father  did  not  beget  the  Son 
by  a  physical  necessity  of  nature,  without  the  operation  of 
his  will,  but  he  at  once  willed,  and  begat  the  Son,  and  pro- 
duced him  from  himself,  without  time,  and  without  suffering 
any  diminution  himself.";):  Hilary  mentions  his  approba- 
:tion  of  this  sentiment,  but  we  shall  see  that  Austin  corrects 
him  for  it.  A  strong  passage  in  favour  of  the  voluntary 
production  of  the  Son  of  God  may  also  be  seen  quoted  from 
Gregory  Nyssen,  by  Dr.  Clarke,  in  the  place  above  re- 
ferred to. 

SECTION   III. 

The  Supremaci/  was  always  ascribed  to  the  Father  before  the 

Council  of  Nice. 

We  find  upon  all  occasions,  the  early  christian  writers 
speak  of  the  Father  as  superior  to  the  Son,  and  in  general 
they  give  him  the  title  of  God^  as  distinguished  from  the 
Son  ;  and  sometimes  they -expressly  call  him,  exclusively  of 
the  Son,  the  only  true  God ;  a  phraseology  which  does  not 
at  all  accord  with  the  idea  of  the  perfect  equality  of  all  the 
persons  in  the  Trinity.  But  it  might  well  be  expected,  that 
the  advances  to  the  present  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  should  be 
gradual  and  slow.  It  was,  indeed,  some  centuries  before  it 
was  completely  formed. 

It  is  not  a  little  amusing  to  observe  how  the  Fathers  of  the 
second,  third  and  fourth  centuries  were  embarrassed  with 
the  Heathens  on  the  one  hand,  to  whom  they  wished  to 
recommend  their  religion,  by  exalting  the  person  of  its 
founder,  and  with  the  ancient  Jewish  and  Gentile  converts 

•  De  Triiiitatc,  C.  x.  p.  31.     (P.) 

t  iJcripture  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  Ed.  3,    p.  281.  t  Ibid. 


HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST.         37" 

(whose  prejudices  against  Polytheism,  they  also  wished  to 
guard  against)  on  the  other.  Willing  to  conciliate  the  one, 
and  yet  not  to  offend  the  other,  they  are  particularly  careful, 
at  the  same  time  that  they  give  the  appellation  of  God  to 
Jesus  Christ,  to  distinguish  between  him  and  the  Father 
giving  a  decided  superiority  to  the  latter.  Of  this  I  think  it 
maybe  worth  while  to  produce  a  number  of  examples,  from 
the  time  that  the  doctrine  of  the  divinity  of  Christ  was  first 
started,  to  the  time  of  the  council  of  Nice  ;  for  till  that  time,, 
and  even  something  later,  did  this  language  continue  to  be 
used.  Clemens  Romanus  never  calls  Christ,  God.  He 
says,  "  Have  we  not  all  one  God,  and  one  Christ,  and  one 
spirit  of  grace  poured  upon  us  all  ?"*  which  is  exactly  the 
language  of  the  apostle  Paul,  with  whom  he  was  in  part 
contemporary. 

Justin  Martyr,  who  is  the  first  that  we  can  find  to  have 
advanced  the  doctrine  of  the  divinity  of  Christ,  says,  "  He 
who  appeared  to  Abraham,  and  to  Isaac,  and  to  Jacob,  was 
subordinate  to  the  Father,  and  minister  to  his  will."  •]•  He 
even  says,  that  "  the  Father  is  the  author  to  him  both  of 
his  existence,  and  of  his  being  powerful,  and  of  his  being 
Lord  and  God."  J 

"  All  the  evangelists,"  says  Irenseus,  "  have  delivered  to  us 
'*  the  doctrine  of  one  God, — and  one  Christ  the  Son  of  God  ;"§ 
and  invoking  the  Father  he  calls  him  the  only  God  (solus 
et  vertis  DeiisJ ;\\  and  according  to  several  of  the  most  con- 
siderable of  the  early  christian  writers,  a  common  epithet  by 
which  the  Father  is  distinguished  from  the  Son,  is,  that  he 
alone  is  (auro^soj)  or  God  of  himself  . 

Origen,  quoted  by  Dr.  Clarke,  says,  "  Hence  we  may 
solve  the  scruple  of  many  pious  persons,  who,  through  fear 
lest  they  should  make  two  Gods,  fall  into  false  and  wicked 
notions. — We  must  tell  them  that  he  who  is  of  himself  God, 
(awto^eof)  is  that  God  (o  Qsog),  as  our  Saviour,  in  his  prayer 
to  his  Father  says,  that  they  may  know  thee^  the  only  true 
God.  But  that  whatever  is  God  besides  that  self-existent 
person,  being  so  only  by  communication  of  his  divinity, 
cannot  so  properly  be  styled  (o  @sog)  that  God,  but  rather 
{&sog)  a  divine  person."^  The  same  observation  had  before 
been  made  by  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  who  also  calls  the 
Son  3,  creature,  and  the  work  of  God.**     Origen  also  says, 

*Sect.  xlvi.    (P.)        t  Ed.  Thirlby,  p.  264.     (P.)        J  Ibid.  p.  281.     (P.) 

I^L.iii.  C.  i.  p.  199.     (P.)  II  L.  iii.  C.  vi.  p.  209-     (P.) 

f  Scrip.  Doc.  p.  338.  *♦  Sandii  Nucleus  Hist.  Eccl.  p.  94.    (P.) 


S8         HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST, 

"  According  to  our  doctrine,  the  God  and  Father  of  all  is 
not  alone  great;  for  he  has  communicated  of  his  greatness 
to  the  first-begotten  of  all  the  creation,"  [Tr^iororoxa.  Trao-rjg 
xTKTetog).* 

Novatian  says  that  "  the  Sabellians  make  too  much  of  the 
divinity,  of  the  Son,  when  they  say  it  is  that  of  the  Father, 
extendinsf  his  honour  beyond  bounds.  They  dare  to  make 
him,  not  the  Son,  but  God  the  Father  himself.  And  again, 
that  they  acknowledge  the  divinity  of  Christ  in  too  boundless 
and  unrestrained  a  manner,"  ( ejj'renatius  et  effusius  in  Christo 
divinitatcm  conJiteriJ.-\  The  same  writer  also  says,  "  The 
Son  to  whom  divinity  is  communicated  is,  indeed,  God; 
but  God  the  Father  of  all  is  deservedly  God  of  all,  and  the 
origin  fprincipiumj  of  his  Son,  whom  he  begat  Lord.";^ 

Arnobius  says,  "  Christ,  a  God,  under  the  form  of  a  man, 
speaking  by  the  order  of  the  principal  God."  Again,  "then, 
at  length,  did  God  Almighty,  the  only  God,  send  Christ. "§ 

Such  language  as  this  was  held  till  the  time  of  the  council 
of  Nice.  Alexander,  who  is  very  severe  upon  Eusebius, 
bishop  of  Nicomedia,  who  was  an  Arian,  says,  in  his  circular 
letter  to  the  bishops,  "  the  Son  is  of  a  middle  nature  between 
the  first  cause  of  all  things,  and  the  creatures,  which  were 
created  out  of  nothing."  [|  Athanasius  himself,  as  (juoted  by 
Dr.  Clarke,  says,  "  the  nature  of  God  is  the  cause  both  of 
the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  of  all  creatures. "<|j  He 
also  says,  "  there  is  but  one  God,  because  the  Father  is  but 
one,  yet  is  the  Son  also  God,  having  such  a  sameness  as  that 
of  a  Son  to  a  Father."** 

Lactantius  says,  "  Christ  taught  that  there  is  one  God, 
and  that  he  alone  ought  to  be  worshipped  ;  neither  did  he  ever 
call  himself  God,  because  he  would  not  have  been  true  to  his 
trust,  if,  being  sent  to  take  away  gods  (that  is,  a  multiplicity 
of  gods)  and  to  assert  one,  he  had  introduced  another  besides 
that  One. — Because  he  assumed  nothing  at  all  to  himself,  he 
received  the  dignity  of  perpetual  priest,  the  honour  of 
sovereign  king,  the  power  of  a  jud<;e,  and  the  name  of 
God."tt 

•  Contra  Cehinn,  L.  vi.  p.  323.     (P.) 

t  Novatiaiii'Opera,  1724.     C.  xxiii.     (P.)  J   Ibid.  C.  xxxi.     (P.) 

^  Arnohiiis  advfirsus  Geutes,  l6lO.     L.  ii.   pp.  50,  67.     (P.) 
II  Tlieotlorit.  L.  i.   Civ.  p.  17.   (P.)         f  P.  276.    (P.)  **  P.  222.     (P.) 

\\  Institiitwiiuni,  h.  iv  C.  xiv.  (P.)  "  Dociiit  eiiim  quod  uinis  Deus  sit, 
eumque  solum  coli  oportcre-,  uec  unquam  se  j[)se  Deum  dixit,  quia  non  servasset 
Hdcni,  si  missus  ut  deos  toUerct,  et  uiiuin  assereret,  iuduceretalium,  praeter  Uiium. — 
Proptorciquia  tarn  fidelis  cxtitit,  quia  sibi  nihil  prorsus  assumpsit,  ut  mandata  init- 
tcritis  implerol,  et  sacerdotis  perpetui  dignitatem,  et  regis  surami  Lonorein,  et  judicis 
potestatcm,  et  Dei  nomen  accepit."  .  Opera,  I.  p.  309. 


HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST.         3^ 

Hilary,  who  wrote  twelve  books  on  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  after  the  council  of  Nice,  to  prove  that  the  Father 
himself  is  the  only  self-existing  God,  and  in  a  proper  sense 
the  only  true  God  f  quod  solus  innascibilis  cf  quod  solus  verus 
sit  J  after  alleging  a  passage  from  the  prophet  Isaiah,  quotes 
in  support  of  it  the  saying  of  our  Saviour,  "  This  is  life 
eternal,  that  they  might  know  thee  the  only  true  God,  and 
Jesus  Christ  whom  thou  hast  sent."*  Much  more  might  be 
alleged  from  this  writer,  to  the  same  purpose. 

Lastly,  Epiphanius  says,  "  Who  is  there  that  does  not 
assert  that  there  is  only  one  God,  the  Father  Almighty,  from 
whom  his  only  begotten  Son  truly  proceeded  .^"-f- 

Indeed,  that  the  Fathers  of  the  council  of  Nice  could  not 
mean  that  the  Son  was  strictly  speaking  equal  to  the  Father, 
is  evident  from  their  calling  him  God  of  God,  which  in  that 
age  was  always  opposed  to  God  of  himself  {auro^sos)  that  is, 
self-existent  ox:  independent. ;  which  was  always  understood  to 
be  the  prerogative  of  the  Father.  It  is  remarkable  that 
when  the  writers  of  that  age  speak  of  Christ  as  existing  from 
eternity,  they  did  not  therefore  suppose  that  he  was  properly 
self -existent.  Thus  Alexander,  bishop  of  Alexandria,  says, 
"  We  believe  that  the  Son  was  always  from  the  Father;  but 
let  no  one  by  the  word  always  be  led  to  imagine  him  self- 
existent  (aysvyv)Toj)  for  neither  the  term  was,  nor  always,  nor 
before  all  ages,  mean  the  same  thing  as  self  existent  [oiytv- 

On  these  principles  the  primitive  fathers  had  no  difficulty 
in  the  interpretation  of  that  saying  of  our  Lord,  "  my  Father 
is  greater  than  I."  They  never  thought  of  saying,  that  he 
was  equal  to  the  Father  with  respect  to  his  divinity,  though 
inferior  with  respect  to  his  humanity ;  which  is  the  only  sense 
of  the  passage  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  in  its  present 
state  admits  of.  For  they  thought  that  the  Son  was  in  all 
respects,  and  in  his  whole  person,  inferior  to  his  Father,  as 
having  derived  his  being  from  him. 

Tertullian  had  this  idea  of  the  passage  when  he  says,  '*  the 
Father  is  all  substance,  but  the  Son  is  a  derivation  from  him, 
and  a  part,  as  he  himself  declares,  '  the  Father  is  greater 
than  !.*'*§  It  is  also  remarkable,  as  Mr.  Whiston  observes, 
that  the  ancient  fathers,  both  Greek  and  Latin,  never  inter- 
pret Phil.  ii.7,  to  mean  anequalityof  the  Son  to  the  Father,  jj 

*  De  Trinitate,  L.  iv.  p.  66.     (P.)  f  Heer.  57.     Opera,  I.  p.  483.     (P.) 

t  Theodorit.  L.  i.  C.  iv.  p.  19.  (P.) 
h  Ad  PraxcoTH,  Sect.  ix.  p.  504.  (P.) 
II  Collections,  p.  109.    (P.) 


40        HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST. 

Novatian  says,  "  He  therefore,  though  he  was  in  the  form  of 
God,  did  not  make  himself  equal  to  God  fnon  est  rapinam 
arhitratus  cqualem  sc  Deo  esse),  for  though  he  remembered 
he  was  God  of  God  the  Father,  he  never  compared  himself 
to  God  the  Father,  being  mindful  that  he  was  of  his  Father, 
and  that  he  had  this,  because  his  Father  gave  it  him."* 

It  also  deserves  to  be  noticed,  that  notwithstanding  the 
supposed  derivation  of  the  Son  from  the  Father,  and  there- 
fore their  being  of  Me  some  substance,  most  of  the  early 
christian  writers  thought  the  text  "  1  and  my  Father  are  one,'* 
was  to  be  understood  of  an  unity  or  harmony  of  disposition 
only.  Thus  Tcrtullian  observes,  that  the  expression  is  imiim^ 
one  thin<r,  not  one  person ;  and  he  explains  it  to  mean  unity y 
likeness,  conjunction,  and  of  the  love  that  the  Father  bore  to 
the  Son.  •\  Origen  says,  "let  him  consider  that  text,  '  all 
that  believed  were  of  one  heart  and  of  one  soul,'  and  then  he 
will  understand  this,  '  1  and  my  Father  are  one.'":|:  Nova- 
tian says,  one  thing  fumunj  being  in  the  neuter  gender, 
signifies  an  agreement  of  society,  not  an  unity  of  person, 
and  he  explains  it  by  this  passage  in  Paul,  "  he  that  planteth 
and  he  that  watereth  are  both  one."§  But  the  fathers  of  the 
council  of  Sardica,  held  A.D.  347,  reprobated  the  opinion 
that  the  union  of  the  Father  and  Son  consists  in  consent  and 
concord  only,  apprehending  it  to  be  a  strict  unity  of  sub- 
stance ;\\  so  much  farther  was  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
advanced  at  that  time. 


SECTION  IV. 

Of  the  Difficulty  with  which  the  Doctrine  of  the  Divinity  of 
Christ  was  established. 

It  is  sufficiently  evident  from  many  circumstances,  that 
the  doctrine  of  the  divinity  of  Christ  did  not  establish  itself 
without  much  opposition,  especially  from  the  unlearned 
among  the  Christians,  who  thought  that  it  savoured  oiPoly- 
theism,  that  it  was  introduced  by  those  who  had  had  a 
philosophical  education,  and  was  by  degrees  adopted  by 
others,  on  account  of  its  covering  the  great  offence  of  the 
cross^  by  exalting  the  personal  dignity  of  our  Saviour. 

To  make  the  new  doctrine  less  exceptionable,  the  advocates 
for  it  invented  a  new  term,  viz.  economy  or  distribution,  as  it 

•  Opera,  C.  xvii.  p.  84.     (P.)  f  Ad  Praxeam,  C.  xxii.  p.  513.    {P.) 

X  <  ontra  Cf'/«H7n,  L.  viii.  p.  S86.     (P.)  ^  C.  xxvii.  p.  09-    (P. 

II  Theodorit.  L,  ii.  C.  viii.  p.  82.     (P.) 


HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST.  41 

may  be  rendered ;  saying  they  M^ere  far  from  denying  the 
unity  of  God,  but  that  there  was  a  certain  economy,  or 
distribution  respecting  the  divine  nature  and  attributes, 
which  did  not  interfere  with  it ;  for  that,  according  to  this 
economy  the  Son  might  be  God,  without  detracting  from  the 
supreme  divinity  of  the  Father.  But  this  new  term,  it 
appears,  was  not  well  understood  or  easily  relished,  by  those 
who  called  themselves  the  advocates  for  the  monarchy  of  the 
Father,  a  term  much  used  in  those  days,  to  denote  the 
supremacy  and  sole  divinity  of  the  Father,  in  opposition  to 
that  of  the  Son.  All  this  is  very  clear  from  the  following 
passage  in  TertuUian: 

"  The  simple,  the  ignorant,  and  the  unlearned,  who  are 
always  the  greater  part  *  of  the  body  of  Christians,  since  the 
rule  of  faith  itself,"  (meaning  perhaps  the  apostles'  creed,  or 
as  much  of  it  as  was  in  use  in  his  time,)  "  transfers  their 
worship  of  many  gods  to  the  one  true  God,  not  under- 
standing that  the  unity  of  God  is  to  be  maintained,  but 
with  the  economy,  dread  this  economy,  imagining  that  this 
number  and  disposition  of  a  trinity  is  a  division  of  the  unity. 
They  therefore  will  have  it,  that  we  are  worshippers  of  two, 
and  even  of  three  Gods  ;  but  that  they  are  the  worshippers 
of  one  God  only.  We,  they  say,  hold  the  fuonarchy.  Even 
the  Latins  have  learned  to  bawl  out  for  monarchy,  and  the 
Greeks  themselves  will  not  understand  the  economy  ;"•(• 
monarchy  being  a  Greek  term  and  yet  adopted  by  the 
Latins,  and  economy,  though  a  Greek  term,  not  being 
relished  even  by  the  Greek  Christians. 

Upon  another  occasion  we  see  by  this  writer  how  offen- 
sive the  word  Trinity  was  to  the  generality  of  Christians. 
"  Does  the  number  of  Trinity  still  shock  you  ?"  says  he. J 
For  this  reason,  no  doubt,  Origen  says,  "  that  to  the  carnal 
they  taught  the  gospel  in  a  literal  way,  preaching  Jesus 
Christ,  and  him  crucified,  but  to  persons  farther  advanced, 
and  burning  with  love  for  divine  celestial  wisdom,"  (by 

*  This  shews  that  the  greater  part  of  Christians,  in  the  time  of  TertuUian,  were 
Unitarians,  and  exceedingly  averse  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.     (P) 

t  "  Simphces  enim,  nee  dixerim  imprudentes  et  idiotae,  quae  major  semper 
credentium  pars  est,  quoniam  et  ipsa  regula  fidei  a  pluribus  diis  secuh  ad  uiiicum 
Deum  verum  transfert,  non  intelligentes  unicuni  quideni,  sed  cum  su^  economic, 
esse,  credendum,  expavescunt  ad  economiam.  Numerum  et  dispositionem  trini- 
tatis  divisionem  praesumunt  unitatis.  Itaque  duos  et  tres  jam  jactitant,  a  nobis 
praedicari,  se  vero  unius  Dei  cultores  praesumunt.  Monarchiam  inquiunt  tenemus. 
Monarchiam  sonare  student  Latini,  economiam  intelhgere  nolunt  etiam  Graeci." 
Ad  Praxeam,  Sect.  iii.  p.  502.   (P.J 

X  "  Sic  te  adhuc  mimerus  scandalizat  trinitatis  ?"  Ad  Praxeam,  Sect.  xii.  p.  506. 
(P) 


42  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST. 

which  he  must  mean  the  philosophical  part  of  their  au- 
dience) "  they  communicated  the  Logos."  * 

Origen  candidly  calls  these  adherents  to  the  doctrine  of 
tlie  strict  unity  to  God,  pious  persons  (c^iXo^sev).  "  Hence/* 
says  he,  "  we  may  solve  the  scruple  of  many  pious  persons, 
who,  through  fear  lest  they  should  make  two  gods,  fall  into 
false  and  wicked  notions."  He  endeavours  to  relieve  them 
in  this  manner.  "  This  scruple  of  many  pious  persons  may 
thus  be  solved.  We  must  tell  them,  that  he  who  is  of 
himself  God,  (auro^so^)  is  that  God,  (God  with  the  article) 
(o  0eo$), — but  that  whatsoever  besides  that  self-existent  per- 
son," is  "  rather  a  divine  person,  is  God  without  the  article, 
(0£oj)"  as  was  observed  before. -j*  How  far  this  solution  of 
the  difficulty  was  satisfactory  to  these  pious,  unlearned 
Christians  does  not  appear.  It  does  not  seem  calculated  to 
remove  a  difficulty  of  any  great  magnitude. 

That  these  ancient  Unitarians,  under  all  the  names  by 
which  their  adversaries  thought  proper  to  distinguish  them, 
have  been  greatly  misrepresented,  is  acknowledged  by  all 
who  are  candid  among  the  moderns.  The  learned  Beau- 
sobre,  himself  a  Trinitarian,  is  satisfied  that  it  was  a  zeal  for 
the  unity  of  God  that  actuated  the  Sabellians  +  (who  were 
no  more  than  Unitarians  under  a  particular  denorni-nation). 
Epiphanius  says,  that  when  a  Sabellian  met  the  orthodox, 
they  would  say,  "  My  friends,  do  we  believe  one  God 
or  three  ?"§ 

Eusebius  speaking  with  great  wrath  against  Marcellus 
of  Ancyra,  allows  that  he  did  not  deny  the  personality  of 
the  Son,  but  for  fear  of  establishing  two  Gods.  j|  This  also 
appears  from  the  manner  in  which  Eusebius  expresses  him- 
self when  he  answers  to  the  charge  of  introducing  two  Gods. 
"  But  you  are  afraid,  ((po^Tj)  perhaps,  lest  acknowledging  two 
distinct  suhsistances,  you  should  introduce  two  original  prin- 
ciples, and  so  destroy  the  monarchy  of  God/*<[[ 

Basil  complains  of  the  popularity  of  the  followers  of  Mar- 
cellus. whose  disciple,  Photinus  is  said  to  have  been,  at  the 
same  tiine  that  the  name  of  Arius  was  execrated.     '*  Unto 

•   Preface  to  his  romnieiit  on  John,  Opera,  II.  p.  255,    (P.) 

t  Clnrke's  Scrio    Doc.  p.  338.     See  p.  37. 

X  "  l,oisqnp  jVn  rpclwrrh*'  la  source,  ( L'Heresie  Sabellienne)  je  n'eii  trouve 
point  (I'nutif  que  la  (  raintr  fie  niiiltiphrr  la  Oivinite,  en  mulfipliant  les  Personnes 
Divine>,  et  «lf  rammer  dans  ri;<;lise  le  PoI\theisnie,  qui  ren verse  le  premier  prin- 
cipe  (le  la  Hrli^ioii.  (  "est  re  que  temotgnent  assez  uhiinimement  les  aiictens  pcres." 
L.  iii.  <  h.  vi    Sect,  viii.  I.  p.  535. 

^  //ar.^a,  Opora,  l.p.6l4.    (P.)  \\  Ibid.  p.  536.  (P.) 

^  Clarke'i  Scnp.  Doc.  p.  345.   (P). 


HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST.         43 

this  very  time,"  says  he,  in  his  letter  to  Athanasius,  "  in 
all  their  letters  they  fail  not  to  anathematize  the  hated  name 
of  Arius;  but  with  Marcellus,  who  has  profanely  taken 
away  the  very  existence  of  the  divinity  of  the  only  begotten 
Son,  and  abused  the  signification  of  the  word  Logos,  with 
this  man  they  seem  to  find  no  fault  at  all."* 

It  was  impossible  not  to  perceive  that  this  economy,  and 
the  style  and  rank  oi  God,  given  to  Christ,  made  a  system, 
entirely  different  from  that  of  the  Jews,  as  laid  down  in  the 
Old  Testament.  For  Christians  either  had  not  at  that  time 
laid  much  stress  on  any  argument  for  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  drawn  from  the  books  of  Moses,  or  at  least  had  not 
been  able  to  satisfy  the  Jews,  or  the  Jewish  Christians,  with 
any  representations  of  that  kind.  Tertullian,  therefore, 
makes  another,  and,  indeed,  a  very  bold  attempt  for  the  same 
purpose,  saying,  that  it  was  peculiar  to  the  Jewish  faith  so 
to  maintain  the  unity  of  God,  as  not  to  admit  the  Son  or 
Spirit  to  any  participation  of  the  divinity  with  him;  but 
that  it  was  the  characteristic  of  the  gospel,  to  introduce  the 
Son  and  Spirit,  as  making  one  God  with  the  Father.  He 
says,  that  God  was  determined  to  renew  his  covenant  in 
this  new  form.  I  shall  give  his  own  words,  which  are  much 
more  copious  on  the  subject,  in  a  note,  j* 

When  the  philosophizing  Christians  went  beyond  the 
mere  personification  of  a  divine  attribute,  and  proceeded 
to  speak  of  the  real  substance,  as  I  may  say,  of  the  divine 
Logos,  they  were  evidently  in  danger  of  making  a  diversity, 
or  a  separation  in  the  divine  nature.  That  the  common 
people  did  make  this  very  objection  to  the  new  doctrine  is 
clearly  intimated  by  Tertullian.  "  When  I  say  that  the 
Father  is  one,  the  Son  another,  and  the  Spirit  a  third,  an 
unlearned  or  perverse  person  understands  me  as  if  I  meant 
a  diversiti/,  and  in  this  diversity  he  pretends  that  there  must 
be  a  separation  of  the  Father,  Son  and  Spirit."  ^ 

The  objection   is   certainly  not  ill  stated.     Let  us  now 

*  Opera,  III.  p.  80.     (P.) 

I  "  Judaicae  fides  ista  res  sic  ununi  Deum  credere,  ut  Filiiimadnumerareei  nolis, 
et  post  Filium,  Spiritual.  Quid  cnim  inter  iios  et  illos,  nisi  differentia  ista.  Quid  opus 
evangelii  si  non  exinde  Pater  etFilius  etSpiritus  unum  deum  sistunt.  Sic  Deus  voluit 
novare  sacramentuni,  ut  nove  unus  crederetur  per  Filium  et  Spiritum,  ot  coram 
jam  Deus  in  suis  propriis  nominibus  et  personis  cognosceretur,  qui  et  retro  per 
Filium  et  Spiritum  predicatus  non  intelligebatur."  Ad  Praxeam,  Sect.  xxx. 
t>.  518.    (P.) 

X  "  Ecce  enim  dico  alium  esse  Patrem,  et  alium  Filium,  et  a'ium  Spiritum.  Maje 
accipit  idiotes  quisque  aut  perversus  hoc  dictum,  quasi  diversitatem  sonet,  ct  ex 
diversitate  separationem  pretendat Patris,  Filii  etSpiritus."  Ad  Praxeaniy  Sect.  viii. 
p.  604.     (P.) 


44         HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST. 

consider  how  this  writer  answers  it:  for  at  this  time  it  was 
not  pretended  that  the  subject  was  above  human  compre- 
hension, or  that  it  could  not  be  exphiined  by  proper  com- 
parisons. In  order,  therefore,  to  sheAv  that  the  Son  and 
Spirit  might  be  produced  from  the  Father,  and  yet  not  be 
separated  from  him,  he  says  that  God  produced  the  Logos 
fScrmonemJ  as  the  root  of  a  tree  produces  tlie  branch,  as  a 
fountain  produces  the  river,  or  the  sun  a  beam  of  light.* 
The  last  of  these  comparisons  is  also  adopted  by  Athena- 
o-oras,  in  his  Apology,  in  which  he  describes  abeam  of  light 
as  a  thing  not  detached  from  the  sun,  but  as  flowing  out  of 
it,  and  baek  to  it  again. f  For  one  Ilierarchas  had  been  cen- 
sured for  comparing  the  production  of  the  Son  from  the 
Father  to  the  lighting  of  one  candle  at  another,  because  the- 
second  candle  was  a  thing  subsisting  of  itself,  and  entirely 
separated  from  the  former,  so  as  to  be  incompatible  with 
unity.:}: 

Justin  Martyr,  however,  as  we  have  seen,  made  use  of 
the  same  comparison,  and  as  far  as  appears,  without  cen- 
sure.    But    after    his    time,    the    ideas    of   philosophizing 
Christians  had  undergone  a  change.     He  and  his  contem- 
poraries were  only  solicitous  to  make  out  something  like 
divinity  in  the  Son,  without  considering  him  as  united  in 
one  substance  with  the  Father,  the  unity  of  God  being  then 
defended  on  no  other  principle  than  that  of  the  supremacy 
of  the  Father ;  so  that,  though  Christ  might  be  called  God 
in  a  lower  sense  of  the  word,  the  Father  was  God  in  a  sense 
so  much  higher  than  that,  that  strictly  speaking,  it  was  still 
true  that  there  was  but  one  God,  and  the  Father  only  was 
that  God.     But,  by  the  time  of  Hilary,  the  philosophizing 
Christians,  finding  perhaps  that  this  account  of  the  unity  of 
God  did  not  give  entire  satisfaction,  were  willing  to  repre- 
sent the  Son,  not  only  as  deriving  his  being  and  his  divinity 
fiom  the  Father,  but  as  still  inseparably  united  to  him,  and 
never   properly   detached   from   him ;     and,    therefore,    the 
former  comparison  of  one  torch  lighted  by  another  would 
no  longer  answer  the  purpose.     But  this  could  not  be  ob- 
jected to  the  comparison  of  the  root  and  the  branch,  the 
fountain  and  the  stream,  or  the  sun  and  the  beam  of  light, 
according  to  the  philosophy  of  those   times.     For,   in  all 
these  cases,   things  were  produced  from  the   substance  of 
their  respective  origins,  and  yet  were  not  separated  from 
them. 

•  Ac]  Praxeam,  C.  viii.  p.  504.     (P.)  t  P-  «6.      {P.) 

X  See  Hilary  dc  Trinitate,  L.  iv.  Opera,  p.  69-    (P.) 


HISTORY  OP  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST.  45 

These  explanations  suited  very  well  with  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity  as  held  by  the  council  of  Nice;  when  it  was 
not  pretended,  as  it  is  now,  that  each  person  in  the  Trinity 
is  equally  eternal  and  uncaused.  But  they  certainly  did 
not  sufficiently  provide  for  the  distinct  personality  of  the 
Father,  Son  and  Spirit;  which,  however,  especially  with 
respect  to  the  two  former,  they  asserted.  With  respect  to 
the  latter,  it  is  not  easy  to  collect  their  opinions;  for,  in 
general,  they  expressed  themselves  as  if  the  Spirit  was  only 
a  divine  power. 

In  order  to  satisfy  the  advocates  of  the  proper  unity  of 
God,  those  who  then  maintained  the  divinity  of  Christ 
make,  upon  all  occasions,  the  most  solemn  protestations 
against  the  introduction  of  two  Gods,  for  the  deification  of 
the  Spirit  was  then  not  much  objected  to  them.  But  they 
thought  that  they  guarded  sufficiently  against  the  worship 
of  two  Gods,  by  strongly  asserting  the  inferiority  and  subor- 
dination of  the  Son  to  the  Father ;  some  of  them  alleoing- 
one  circumstance  of  this  inferiority,  and  others  another. 

Tertullian  cautions  us  not  to  destroy  the  monarchy  when 
we  admit  a  Trinity,  since  it  is  to  be  restored  from  the  Son 
to  the  Father.*  Novatian  lays  the  stress  on  Christ's  being- 
begotten  and  the  Father  not  begotten.  "  If,"  says  he,  "  the 
Son  had  not  been  begotten,  he  and  the  Father  being  upon  a 
level,  they  would  both  be  unbegotten,  and  therefore  there 
w^ould  be  two  Gods,'*  &c.-|*  Again,  he  says,  "  when  it  is 
said  that  Moses  was  appointed  a  God  to  Pharoah,  shall  it 
be  denied  to  Christ,  who  is  a  God,  not  to  Pharoah  but  to 
the  whole  universe  ?"  ij:  But  this  kind  of  divinity  would 
not  satisfy  the  moderns. 

Eusebius's  apology  for  this  qualified  divinity  of  Christ 
(for  the  manner  in  which  he  writes  is  that  of  an  apology^ 
and  shews  that  this  new  doctrine  was  very  offensive  to 
many  in  his  time)  turns  upon  the  same  hinge  with  the 
former  of  these  illustrations  of  Novatian.  "  If,"  says  he 
"  this  makes  them  apprehensive  lest  we  should  seem  to 
introduce  two  Gods,  let  them  know  that,  though  we  indeed 
acknowledge  the  Son  to  be  God,  yet  there  is  absolutely  but 
one  God,  even  he  who  alone  is  without  original  and  unbe- 
gotten, who  has  his  divinity  properly  of  himself,  and  is  the 
cause  even  to  the  Son  himself  both  of  his  being,  and  of  his 
being  such  as  he  is ;  by  whom  the  Son  himself  confesses 
that  he  lives,  (declaring  expressly,  /  live  hy  the  Father,) 

•  Ad  Praxeamf  C.  iv.  p.  502.  (P.)     f  C.  xxxi.  p.  122.  (P.)    J  C.  xx.  p.  77.  (P.) 


46  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST. 

and  declares  to  be  greater  than  himself/*  and  "  to  be  even 
his  God."*  This,  indeed,  is  written  by  an  Arian,  but  it  is 
the  language  of  all  the  Trinitarians  of  his  time:  for  then  it 
had  not  occurred  to  any  person  to  say  that  the  one  God  was 
the  Trinity,  or  the  Father,  Son  and  Spirit  in  conjunction, 
but  always  the  Father  only.  The  distinction  between 
person  and  beings  which  is  the  salvo  at  present,  was  not 
then  known.  Some  persons  in  opposing  Sabellius,  having 
made  three  hypostases^  which  we  now  render  persons^  sepa- 
rate from  each  other,  Dionysius,  Bishop  of  Rome,  quoted 
with  approbation  by  Athanasius  himself,  said  that  it  was 
making  three  Gods."|" 

1  have  observed  before,  and  may  have  occasion  to  repeat 
the  observation  hereafter,  that,  in  many  cases,  the  phraseo- 
logy remains  when  the  ideas  which  originally  suggested  it 
have  disappeared  ;  but  that  the  phraseology  is  an  argument 
for  the  pre-existence  of  the  corresporxling  ideas.  Thus  it 
had  been  the  constant  language  of  the  church,  from  the  time 
of  the  apostles,  and  is  found  upon  all  occasions  in  their 
writings,  that  Christ  suffered;  meaning,  no  doubt,  in  his  whole 
person^  in  every  thing  which  really  entered  into  his  constitu- 
tion. This,  however,  was  not  easily  reconcileable  with  the 
opinion  of  any  portion  of  the  divinity  being  a  proper  part  of 
Christ;  and  therefore  the  Docetae,  who  first  asserted  the 
divine  origin  of  the  Son  of  God,  made  no  scruple  to  deny, 
in  express  words,  that  Christ  suffered.  For  they  said,  that 
Jesus  was  one  thing,  and  the  Christy  or  the  heavenly  inha- 
bitant of  Jesus,  another  ;  and  that  when  Jesus  was  going  to 
be  crucified,  Christ  left  him. 

Ireneeus,  writing  against  this  heresy,  quotes  the  uniform 
language  of  the  Scriptures  as  a  sufficient  refutation  of  it; 
maintaining  that  Christ  himself,  in  his  whole  nature,  suf- 
fered. '' \t  was  no  impassible  Christ,"  he  says,  "  but  Jesus 
Christ  himself,  who  suffered  for  us."  J  It  is  evident,  how- 
ever, that  this  writer,  who  was  one  of  the  first  that  adopted 
the  idea  of  the  divinity  of  Christ  (but  on  a  principle  dif- 
ferent from  that  of  the  Docetse,  viz.  the  personification  of 
the  Logos  of  the  (''athrr)  could  not  himself  strictly  maintain 
the  passibility  of  his  whole  nature  ;  for  then  he  must  have 
held  that  something,  which  was  a  proper  part  of  the  Deity 
himself,  was  capable  of  suffering.  He,  therefore,  but  in  a 
very  awkward  and  ineffectual  manner,  endeavours  to  make 

*  Clarke's  Strip.  Doc,  p.  S43.  (P.)       t  De  Synodo  Nicccna,  Opera,  p.  275.  (P.) 
X  L.  iii.  C.  XX.  p.  246.     {P.) 


HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST.  47 

a  case  different  from  that  of  the  Docetae,  by  supposing  a 
mirture  of  the  two  natures  in  Christ. 

"  For  this  reason,"  he  says,  "  The  word  of  God  became 
man,  and  the  Son  of  God  became  the  Son  of  man,  being 
mixed  with  the  word  of  God,  that  receiving  the  adoption, 
he  might  become  the  Son  of  God.  For  we  could  not  receive 
immortality,  unless  we  were  united  to  immortaUty,"  &c.* 
Origen  also,  in  his  third  book  against  Celsus,  speaks  of  the 
mixture  of  the  humanity  with  the  divinity  of  Christ.  He 
even  speaks  of  the  mortal  quality  of  the  very  body  of  Christ, 
as  changed  into  a  divine  quality.  '\ 

This  confusion  of  ideas,  and  inconsistency,  appears  to 
have  been  soon  perceived.  For  we  presently  find  that  all 
those  who  are  called  orthodox,  ran  into  the  very  error  of  the 
Docetae,  maintaining  that  it  only  was  the  A/zmaw  nature  of^ 
Christ  that  suffered,  while  another  part  of  his  nature,  which 
was  no  less  essential  to  his  being  Christ,  was  incapable  of 
suffering;  and  to  this  day  all  who  maintain  the  proper 
divinity  of  Christ,  are  in  the  same  dilemma.  They  must 
either  flatly  contradict  the  Scriptures,  and  say,  with  the 
Docetae,  that  Christ  did  not  suffer,  or  that  the  divine  nature 
itself  may  feel  pain.  This  being  deemed  manifest  impiety, 
they  generally  adopted  the  former  opinion,  viz.  that  the 
human  nature  of  Christ  only  suffered,  and  contented  them- 
selves with  asserting  some  inexplicable  mixture  of  the  two 
natures  ;  notwithstanding  the  idea  of  one  part  of  the  same 
person  (and  of  the  intellectual  part  too)  not  feeling  pvain, 
while  the  other  did,  is  evidently  inconsistent  with  any  idea 
of  proper  imioti  or  mixture. 

The  very  next  writer  we  meet  with  after  Irenaeus,  viz.  Ter- 
tullian,  asserts,  contrary  to  him,  that  it  was  not  Christ,  but 
only  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  that  suffered.  "This 
voice,"  says  he,  "  '  My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou  for- 
saken me  ?'  was  from  the  flesh  and  soul,  that  is,  the  man,  and 
not  the  word  or  spirit,  that  is,  it  was  not  of  the  God,  who  is 
impassible,  and  who  left  the  Son  while  he  gave  up  his  man  to 
death."j    What  could  any  of  the  Docetae  have  said  more  ? 

Arnobius  expresses  himself  to  the  same  purpose.  Speak- 
ing of  the  death  of  Christ,  with  which  the  Christians  were 
continually  reproached,   "  That  death/'  says   he,  "  which 

♦  Ibid.  C.  xxi.  Opera,  p.  249.  (P.)  f  Ibid.  p.  136.  (P.) 

X  "  Haec  vox  carnis  et  animae,  id  est  hominis,  non  sermonis,  non  spiritils,  id  est 
non  dei,  proptere4  emissa  est,  ut  impassibilcm  deum  osteiideret  qui  sic  filiutn  deie- 
liqiiit  dum  honrinem  ejus  tradidit  in  mortem."    Ad  Praxeam,  C.  xxx.  p.  518.  (P.) 


48  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST. 

you  speak  of,  was  the  death  oi  the  man  that  he  had  put  on, 
not  of  himself,  of  the  burden,  not  of  the  bearer."* 

Hil;)rv,  who  wrote  after  the  council  of  Nice,  went  even 
farther  than  this,  and  maintained  at  large,  that  the  body  of 
Christ  was  at  all  times  incapable  of  feeling  pain,  that  it  had 
no  need  of  refreshment  by  meat  and  drink,  and  that  he  ate 
and  drank  only  to  shew  that  he  had  a  body.  "  Could  that 
hand,"  says  he,  "  which  gave  an  ear  to  the  man  that  Peter 
smote,  feel  the  nail  that  was  driven  through  it  ?  And  could 
that  flesh  feel  a  wound  which  removed  the  pain  of  a  wound 
from  another  V''\ 

Later  writers,  indeed,  did  not  follow  Hilary  in  this  extra- 
vagance, but  Epiphanius  says,  that  Christ  in  his  death 
upon  the  cross,  suffered  nothing  in  his  divinity. :|:  This  too  is 
the  language  of  those  who  are  called  orthodox  at  this  day  , 
but  how  this  is  consistent  with  their  doctrine  of  atonement^ 
which  supposes  an  injiiiite  satisfaction  to  have  been  made  to 
the  justice  of  God  by  the  death  of  Christ,  does  not  easily 
appear. 


SECTION  V. 
An  Accoimt  of  the  Unitarians  before  the  Council  of  Nice. 

Before  I  proceed  to  the  Arian  controversy,  I  must  take 
notice  of  those  who  distinguished  themselves  by  maintain- 
ing the  proper  humanity  of  Christ  in  this  early  period. 
That  the  christian  church  in  general  held  this  doctrine  till 
the  time  of  Victor,  was  the  constant  assertion  of  those  who 
professed  it  about  this  time,  and  I  think  1  have  shewn  that 
this  was  true. 

One  of  the  first  who  distinguished  himself  by  asserting  the 
simple  humanity  of  Christ,  was  Theodotus  of  Byzantium, 
who,  though  a  tanner,  is  acknowledged  to  have  been  a  man 
of  ability,  and  even  of  learning.  He  is  said  to  have  been  well 
received  at  Home,  and  at  first  even  by  Victor,  the  bishop  of 
that  city,  who  afterwards  excommunicated  him. 

About  the  same  time  appeared  Artemon,  from  whom 
those  who  maintained  this  opinion  were  by  some  called 
Artemonites  ;  but  it  appears  from  the  writings  of  Tertullian, 
that  they  were  more  generally  called  Monarchists,  from  their 

*  "  Mors  ilia  quam  dicitis  assumpti  hominis  fuit,  non  ipsius,  gcstamiiiis,  non 
gestanlis."     Adversus  Gentes,  L.  i.  p.  22.  (P.) 

t  L.  X.  p.  2  H.  (P.)  X  Hair.  20,  Opera,  I.  p.  -IQ.  (P.) 


HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST.  49 

asserting  the  properunity  of  the  divine  nature,  and  the  supre- 
macy of  God  the  Father  with  respect  to  Christ.  By  their 
enemies  they  were  called  Patripassians,  because  they  were 
charged  with  asserting  that  the  Father  was  so  united  to  the 
person  of  Christ,  as  even  to  have  suffered  witli  him.  But 
Lardner  treats  this  as  a  calumny.^^  It  should  seem,  however, 
that  some  of  them  went  so  far  (since  Tertullian  so  particularly 
quotes  it  as  their  own  language)  as  to  say  that  the  Father  felt 
compassion  for  his  suffering  Son. j*  But  this  language  might 
be  used  by  them  in  a  figurative  sense,  in  which  sense  various 
passions  are  in  the  Scriptures  ascribed  to  God. 

Beausobre  J  thinks  them  to  have  been  entirely  free  from 
this  imputation,  and  imagines  it  to  have  arisen  from  their 
adversaries,  designedly  or  undesignedly,  mixing  their  own 
ideas  with  theirs,  and  especially  confounding  the  two  terms 
Logos  and  Son  of  God.  In  consequence  of  this,  when  the 
Unitarians  asserted  that  the  Father  and  the  Logos  were  one 
person,  they  would  of  course  charge  them  with  maintaining 
that  the  Father  suffered  in  the  Son.  Indeed  Tertullian,  as 
Beausobre  observes,  contradicts  himself  when  he  charges  the 
Unitarians  with  this  opinion,  because  in  other  parts  of  his 
writings,  he  expressly  says  that  they  believed  the  Father  to 
be  inipassible.^ 

Praxeas  the  Montanist,  and  a  man  of  genius  and  learning, 
against  whom  Tertullian  writes,  was  an  Unitarian,  and  so 
probably  were  many  others  of  that  sect.||  For  their  peculiar 
opinions  and  practices,  as  Montanists,  had  no  relation  to 
any  particular  opinion  concerning  the  nature  of  Christ. 

It  is  very  evident  that  about  this  time  the  Unitarians  were 
very  numerous  in  all  j)arts  of  the  christian  world  ;  and  as 
they  were  not  distinguished  by  having  assemblies  separate 
from  those  of  other  Christians,  which  Mosheim  allows,^  their 
opinion  certainly  could  not  be  deemed  heretical.  It  is  even 
acknowledged  that  many  of  these  Unitarians  (though  none 
of  their  writings  are  now  come  down  to  us)  were  men  of 
science.  They  are  particularly  said  to  have  been  addicted 
to  geometry,  and  are  also  said  to  have  treated  questions  in 
theology  in  a  geometrical  method  ;  but  no  particulars  of  this 


•  Hist,  of  Heretics,  p.  413.  (P.)  Works,  IX.  p.  497- 
t  Ad  Praxeam,  Sect.  xxix.  p.  518.  (P.) 
X  Vol.  I.  p.  538.  (P.)  L.  ill.  C.  vi.  Sect.  x. 
§  Vol.  I.  p.  534.   (P.)  L.  iii.  C.  vi.  Sect.  vii. 

II  Lardner's  Hist,  of  Heretics,  pp.  S98,  411.   (P.)  Works,  IX.  pp-  488,  496. 
f  Ecclesiastical  History,  2d.  Edit.  1758,  I.  p.  191-  (P)   Cent.  ii.  Pt.ii.  Cli.  V. 
Sect.  XX. 

VOL.  V.  E 


50         HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST. 

kind  are  known  to  us.  Tt  is  very  possible  that  this  circum- 
stance (which  is  mentioned  by  their  adversaries  by  way  of 
reproach)  might  have  arisen  from  their  endeavouring  to  shew, 
that  if  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  (if  this  last 
was  then  considered  as  a  distinct  person,)  were  each  of 
them  God,  in  any  proper  sense  of  the  word,  there  must  be 
more  gods  than  one.  Such  geometry  as  this,  I  doubt  not, 
gave  great  offence. 

In  the  following  century,  viz.  the  third,  we  find  Noetus, 
Sabellius,  and  Paul,  bishop  of  Samosata,  the  most  distin- 
guished among  the  Unitarians.  Noetus  was  of  Smyrna,  and 
is  said  to  have  been  a  disciple  of  Artemon.  Sabellius  was 
bishop  or  priest  of  Cyrene  in  Africa,  in  which  country  the 
Unitarian  opinion,  as  taught  by  Noetus,  is  said  to  have  been 
generally  adopted.  It  is,  indeed,  said  by  ecclesiastical  his- 
torians, that  many  bishops  in  this  country  were  brought  over 
to  this  opinion  by  Sabellius.  But  it  is  much  more  probable 
that  they  held  the  same  opinion  before.  In  that  age  the 
prevailing  bias  was  to  magnify  the  personal  dignity  of  Christ, 
and  not  to  lessen  it ;  so  that  we  find  few  or  no  clear  instances 
of  any  who,  having  once  maintained  that  Christ  was  either 
God,  or  a  super-angelic  being,  and  the  maker  of  this  world 
under  God,  came  afterwards  to  believe  that  he  was  merely  a 
man.  Both  Noetus  and  Sabellius  were  charged  by  their 
adversaries  with  being  Patripassians  :  but  the  Unitarians  of 
that  age  asserting,  as  the  Socinians  now  do,  that  all  the 
divinity  of  the  Son,  was  that  of  the  Father  residing  in  him, 
and  acting  by  him,  was  sufficient  to  give  a  handle  for  that 
injurious  representation  of  theiropinion. 

There  was  nothing  peculiar  in  the  doctrine  of  Sabellius, 
though  he  is  generally  charged  with  maintaining  that  there 
were  three  persons  in  the  Trinity,  but  that  these  three 
persons  or  rather  characters,  {7rpo<ra>7ra)  were  only  different 
names,  or  attributes  of  the  same  person  or  being.  If  this 
was  a  fair  representation,  Sabellius  and  his  followers  must 
have  meant  to  disguise  their  Unitarian  sentiments  in  terms 
appropriated  to  the  orthodoxy  of  their  age.  But  though 
many  persons  are  said  to  do  this  at  present,  Sabellius  himself 
is  not  charged  with  it  by  any  of  his  opponents.  On  the 
contrary,  he  is  generally  said  to  have  been  a  disciple  of 
Noetus.  It  is,  therefore,  probable,  as  Beausobre  conjectures, 
that  this  representation  arose  from  his  adversaries  misappre- 
hending what  he  said  concerning  the  Father  and  the  Son 
being  owe,  and  concerning  the  Father  being  in  him,  and  doing 
the  works,  as  our  Saviour  expresses  himself.     At  the  same 


HISTORY   OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST.         61 

time  Sabellius  might  mean   nothing    more  than  the  most 
avowed  Socinians  mean  by  such  language  at  this  day. 

Paul,  bishop  of  Samosata,  a  man  of  genius  and  learning, 
but  said  to  have  been  of  a  profligate  life,   and  charged  with 
the  arrogance  and  ambition  of  other  bishops  of  great  sees  in 
those  times,   made  himself  obnoxious    by  maintaining  the 
Unitarian  principles,  and  was  condemned  for  them  in  several 
councils  held  at  Antioch,  as  well  as  on  other  accounts.    His 
opinions  are  acknowledged  to  have  spread  much,  and  to  have 
alarmed  the  orthodox  greatly.*      But  when  we  read  of  such 
persons  as  this  bishop  making  many  converts  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  humanity  of  Christ,  I  cannot  help  suspecting,  for  the 
reason  mentioned  above,  that  it  is  to  be  understood  of  the 
numbers  who  were  before  of  that  opinion,  being  encouraged 
by  men  of  their  learning,  ability  and  influence,  to  declare 
themselves  more  openly  than  they  had  done  before;   having 
been  overborne  by  the  philosophizing  Christians  of  that  age, 
the  current  of  men's  opinions  having  for  some  time  set  that 
way.     This  Paul  of  Samosata  is  represented  by  Epiphanius 
as  alleging,  in  defence  of  his  doctrine,  the  words  of  Moses, 
the  Lord  thy  God  is  one  Lord ;  and  he  is  not  charged  by  him, 
as  others  were,  with  maintaining  that  the  Father  suffered  ;•]• 
and  indeed  from  this  time  we  hear  no  more  of  that  accusa- 
tion, though  the  tenets  of  the  Unitarians  most  probably  con- 
tinued the  same. 

To  these  we  might  add,  as  falling  within  the  same  century, 
Beryllus,  Bishop  of  Bostra,  in  Arabia,  said  to  have  been  a 
man  of  learning  and  modesty,  and  to  have  maintained  that 
Christ  had  no  being  before  he  was  born  of  the  Virgin 
Mary,  and  had  no  divinity  besides  that  of  the  Father  resid- 
ing in  him.:{:  But  he  is  said  to  have  been  converted  to  the 
orthodox  faith  by  Origen,  It  is  to  be  regretted  that  we 
have  no  farther  information  concerning  this  bishop  and  other 
Christians  in  Arabia.  Many  of  them,  we  are  told,  main- 
tained, contrary  to  the  philosophy  of  their  times,  that  the 
soul  died  with  the  body,  and  that  all  men  would  be  in  a 
state  of  insensibility  from  the  time  of  their  death  to  that  of 
the  general  resurrection. § 

I  shall  close  this  account  of  the  ancient  Unitarians  with 
just  mentioning  Photinus,  bishop  of  Sirmium,  though  he 
flourished  after  the  council  of  Nice  ;  because  he  is  the  last 
of  the  Unitarians  we  read  of  till  the  revival  of  the  doctrine  in 

*  Sweur,  A.  D.  265.     (P.)  \  Hcer.  65,  Opera,  I.  p.  608.  (P.) 

X  Eusebii  Hist.  L.  vi.  C.  xxxiii.  p.  297-  (P.)    §  Ibid.  C.  xxxvii.  p.  !299.  (P.) 

e9 


52  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST. 

the  last  age.  For  though  it  can  hardly  be  supposed  that  the 
opinion  of  the  simple  humanity  of  Christ  was  wholly  extinct, 
those  who  maintained  it  were  overborne  and  silenced  by  the 
Trinitarians  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  Arians  on  the  other. 
And  of  the  two,  the  latter  were  full  as  hostile  to  them  as 
the  former.  This  IMiotinus  is  said  to  have  been  a  man  of 
great  eloquence.  He  continued  in  his  bishopric,  notwith- 
standing his  being  condemned  in  three  several  synods  or 
councils,  especially  in  one  held  at  Milan,  A.  D.  345,  being 
extremely  popular  in  his  see  ;  but  at  length  he  was  expelled 
by  a  council  held  at  Sirmium  itself,  in  351.  This  last  council 
was  called  by  order  of  the  emperor  Constantius,  and  con- 
sisted chiefly  of  Ariari  bishops. 

Here  1  reluctantly  bid  adieu  to  what  1  apprehend  to  be 
the  genuine  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures  concerning  the  nature 
of  Christ,  but  we  shall  see  it  re-appear  with  growing  lustre 
in  a  later  period. 


SECTION  VI. 
Of  the  Avian  Controversy/. 

There  were  several  things  relating  to  the  divinity  of 
Christ,  which  had  not  been  determined  by  the  christian 
fathers,  before  the  time  of  Constantine.  Thus,  though  the 
term  begotten  had  been  generally  used  in  speaking  of  the 
origin  of  the  Son,  by  way  of  emanation  from  the  Father,  the 
term  created^  and  others  of  a  similar  meaning,  had  been  used 
occasionally,  and  as  far  as  appears  without  giving  oflence  ; 
nor  indeed  could  it  well  have  done  so  in  an  age  in  which  all 
creation  was  considered  as  of  the  same  kind,  every  substance 
(at  least  all  intelligent  substances  or  spirits)  being  supposed 
to  have  been  derived  ultimately  from  the  same  divineessence. 
This  language  we  find  used  by  Lactantius  and  Hilary,  after 
it  had  begun  to  be  disliked  and  reprobated,  and  therefore  it 
was  probably  used  by  them  through  inadvertence. 

Lactantius,  however,  speaking  of  the  origin  of  the  Son, 
says,  "  As  when  he  was  created  in  his  first  spiritual  birth,  he 
was,  from  God  alone,  made  a  holy  spirit ;  so  in  his  second 
carnal  birth,  from  his  mother  alone,  he  became  holy  flesh."* 
Hilary  says,  "  God  the  Father  is  the  cause  of  all,  without 
beginning,  and  solitary;  but  the  Son  was  produced  by  the 

*  Epitome,  C,  xliii.  p.  114.  [(P).  "  Qucmailinodum  in  prinK\  nativitate  spi- 
ritali  creatiis,  et  ex  solo  Deo  snuctus  spiritus  factus  est,  sic  in  secunda  cariKtli  ex 
sol^  matrc  genitus,  caro  sancta  fleret."    Opera,  11.  p.  32. 


HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST.         53 

Father  without  time,  and  was  created  and  founded  before 
the  ages.  He  was  not  before  he  was  born,  but  he  was  born 
without  time.  Before  all  time  he  alone  subsists  from  the 
Father  alone."  As  it  is  not  easy  to  give  an  exact  translation 
of  this  passage,  on  account  of  its  extreme  obscurity,  I  shall 
give  it  at  length  in  the  note.*  This  writer  seems  to  have 
thought,  as  the  generality  of  the  Anti-Nicene  Fathers  did, 
that  there  was  a  time  when  Christ  was  not:  but  we  shall 
find  that  after  the  Arian  controversy  this  opinion  was  con- 
demned. 

It  was  in  consequence  of  the  controversy  occasioned  by 
Sabellius,  in  Africa,  that  the  peculiar  opinions  of  Arius  were 
started.  Sabellius  having  asserted  that  there  was  no  dif- 
ference between  the  divinity  of  the  Father  and  that  of  the 
Son,  Dionysius,  bishop  of  Alexandria,  was  thought  to  have 
advanced,  in  opposition  to  him,  something  derogatory  to  our 
Saviour,  as  that  his  divinity  was  so  far  difierent  from  that  of 
the  Father,  that  he  was  not  even  of  the  same  substance  with 
the  Father;  which,  as  we  have  seen,  was  contrary  to  the 
opinion  of  those  who  were  deemed  orthodox  in  that  age. 
However,  he  justified  himself  in  such  a  manner  as  gave 
satisfaction. 

But  not  long  after  this,  Alexander,  another  bishop  of 
Alexandria,  being  led  by  the  same  controversy  to  discourse 
concerning  Christ,  in  the  presence  of  Arius,  a  presbyter  of 
the  same  church  (with  whom  he  seems  to  have  had  some 
previous  difference),  among  other  things,  in  favour  of  the  dig- 
nity of  Christ,  advanced  that  the  Father  did  not  precede  the 
Son  a  single  moment,  and  that  he  had  issued  from  all  eter- 
nity out  of  the  substance  of  the  Father  himself.  This,  being 
in  some  respects  an  advance  upon  the  generally  received 
doctrine,  provoked  Arius  to  reply.  He  allowed  that  Christ 
existed  before  all  time,  and  before  the  ages,  as  the  only  be- 
gotten Son  of  God,  but  he  said  that  he  had  no  being  before 
he  was  begotten.  He  also  asserted,  in  the  course  of  the 
debate,  that  Christ  was  neither  of  the  substance  of  the  Father, 
nor  formed  out  of  pre-existing  matter,  but,  like  other  things,- 
was  created  out  of  nothing.  It  seems  also  to  have  been  the 
opinion  of  Arius  and  his  followers,  but  was  not  perhaps 
advanced  at  that  time,  that  this  pre-existent  spirit  was  the 

*  "  Deus  Pater  est  causa  omnium,  omnino  sine  initio,  solitarius ;  I'ilius  autem 
sine  tempore  editus  est  a  Patre,  et  ante  secula  crcalun  et  fundatns.  Non  erat  anfe- 
quam  nasceretur,  sed  sine  tempore  ante  omnia  natus,  solos  a  solo  Patre  subsistit." 

L.  iv.  p.  59.   (P.)  ,1  n''"i  <f 


54  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST. 

only  intelligent  principle  belonging  to  Christ,  being  in  him 
what  the  soul  was  supposed  to  be  in  other  men. 

The  prejudices  of  the  Christians  of  that  age  against  the 
doctrine  of  the  proper  divinity  of  Christ  must  have  been 
very  general,  and  very  strong,  to  have  made  this  doctrine  of 
Arius  so  popular  as  we  find  it  presently  was.  It  was  a  doc- 
trine that  does  not  appear  to  have  been  publicly  maintained 
before.  But,  possibly,  the  difficulty  of  conceiving  how  a 
mere  attribute  of  the  divine  nature  could  become  a  real  person, 
w^iich  had  been  the  orthodox  opinion,  might  have  gradually 
led  men  to  think  that  Christ  had  been  produced  by  way  of 
simple  emanation  from  God,  like  other  intelligences  or 
spirits.  And  when  the  scripture  doctrine  of  the  creation  of 
ail  things  out  of  nothing  began  to  take  place  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  philosophers,  who  asserted  the  impossibility  of  any 
such  creation,  the  opinion  of  Arius  that  Christ  was  made 
out  of  nothing  would  naturally  succeed  to  that  of  his  ema- 
nation from  the  Father ;  so  that  it  is  possible  that  the  minds 
of  the  more  learned  Christians  might  have  been  fully  pre- 
pared to  receive  that  doctrine  before  it  was  openly  published 
by  him. 

Indeed,  the  appeal  of  Arius  to  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia, 
and  other  learned  and  eminent  bishops  of  that  age,  proves 
that  he  did  not  imagine  that  he  had  advanced  an  opinion 
that  was  altogether  peculiar  to  himself;  and  their  ready 
reception  of  his  doctrine,  and  the  countenance  which  they 
gave  him,  who  was  only  a  presbyter,  and  had  nothing  extra, 
ordinary  to  recommend  him,  is  a  stronger  proof  of  the  same 
thing.  The  Arian  doctrine,  however,  was  a  kind  of  medium 
between  that  of  the  simple  humanity  of  Christ,  which  was 
far  from  being  entirely  extinguished,  though  it  was  less  and 
less  relished,  and  that  of  his  proper  divinity,  which  made 
him  to  be  of  the  same  substance  with  the  Father,  and  a  kind 
of  rival  of  his  dignity,  at  which  it  is  no  wonder  that  the 
minds  of  many  revolted.  This  circumstance,  therefore,  of 
the  Arian  doctrine  being  the  medium  between  two  great 
extremes,  was  alone  sufficient  to  recommend  it  to  many. 

It  is  acknowledged  that  Arius,  in  the  course  of  the  contro- 
versy, had  many  abettors  in  Egypt,  where  the  difference  first 
arose  ;  and  among  them  were  many  persons  distinguished  by 
their  genius  and  learning,  as  well  as  by  their  rank  and  station 
in  the  world.  Notwithstanding  those  advantages  on  the  side 
ot  Anus,  Alexander  prevailed  so  far,  that,  in  two  councils, 
which  he  summoned  on  the  occasion,  Arius  was  deprived  of 


HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST.        55 

his  office,  and  excommunicated.  Upon  this  he  retired  into 
Palestine,  where  he  was  countenanced  by  a  great  number  of 
bishops,  but  more  especially  by  Eusebius,  bisop  of  Nico- 
media,  one  of  the  most  distinguished  of  any  in  that  age, 
both  for  his  learning  and  moderation. 

The  emperor  Constantine,  having  endeavoured  in  vain  to 
compose  these  differences  in  the  religion  which  he  had  lately 
professed,  and  especially  to  reconcile  Arius  and  Alexander, 
at  length  called  a  general  council  of  bishops  at  Nice,  the  first 
which  had  obtained  that  appellation,  and  in  this  council, 
after  much  indecent  wrangling  and  violent  debate,  Arius  was 
condemned,  and  banished  to  Illyricum,  a  part  of  the  Roman 
empire  very  remote  from  Alexandria,  where  the  controversy 
originated.  But,  notwithstanding  this  condemnation,  so  far 
were  the  Christians  of  that  age  from  having  any  opinion  of 
the  infallibility  of  councils,  that  the  doctrine  of  Arius  tri- 
umphed both  over  the  decrees  of  this  celebrated  assembly, 
and  the  authority  of  the  emperor,  who  was  afterwards  induced 
to  think  better  of  Arius.  He,  therefore,  recalled  him  from 
banishment,  and  ordered  Alexander  his  bishop  to  admit  him 
to  communion.  But  Arius  died  before  the  order  could  be 
executed. 

Constantius,  the  successor  of  Constantine,  and  also  some 
others  of  the  emperors,  favoured  the  Arians,  and  in  those 
reigns  their  doctrine  was  by  far  the  most  generally  received 
throughout  the  Roman  empire.  The  bishops  of  that  profes- 
sion held  many  councils,  and  they  are  acknowledged  to  have 
been  very  full.  But  at  length  Arianism  was  in  a  great  mea- 
sure banished  from  the  Roman  empire  by  the  persecutions  of 
the  emperor  Theodosius,  who  interested  himself  greatly  in 
favour  of  the  Trinitarian  doctrine.  The  Arians  took  refuge 
in  great  numbers  among  the  Burgundians,  Goths,  Vandals, 
and  other  unconquered  barbarous  nations,  whom  they  were 
a  great  means  of  bringing  over  to  the  Christian  faith  ;  and 
all  of  them,  without  exception,  professed  the  Arian  doctrine, 
till  it  was  overpowered  by  the  influence  and  authority  of  the 
bishops  of  Rome.  The  Vandals  were  long  the  support  of 
Arianism  in  Africa,  but  it  never  recovered  its  credit  after 
their  extirpation  from  that  province  by  the  arms  of  the 
emperor  Justinian. 

So  far  was  the  council  of  Nice  from  giving  general  satis- 
faction, that  Hilary,  presently  afterwards,  complains  of  the 
Arians  as  being  in  all  the  provinces  of  the  Roman  empire  ;* 

*•  De  Trmitate,  L.  vi.  p.  99-    {P-) 


56  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST. 

and,  in  the  next  reign,  Arianism  was  very  near  becoming 
the  universal  doctrine  of  the  Christian  church,  and  of"  course 
would  have  been  deemed  orthodox. 

The  debates  occasioned  by  this  famous  council  made  a 
o^reat  revolution  both  in  the  language  and  in  the  opinions  of 
those  who  were  deemed  orthodox.  It  is  the  natural  effect 
of  controversy  to  push  men  as  far  as  possible  from  that  ex- 
treme which  they  wish  to  avoid,  so  as  often  to  drive  them 
into  the  opposite  extreme.  This  was  remarkably  the  case 
on  this  occasion  ;  and  no  controversy  ever  interested  so 
many  persons,  and  those  so  deeply,  as  this  did,  and  indeed 
continues  to  do  to  this  day. 

In  order  to  keep  quite  clear  of  Arianism,  which  made 
Christ  to  be  a  mere  creature,  those  who  approved  of  the  de- 
crees of  the  council  began  to  express  themselves,  as  Mosheim 
acknowledges,  in  such  a  manner  as  that  they  appeared  to 
"  substitute  three  Gods  in  the  place  of  one/'*  And  many 
of  them  seemed  to  imngine  that  they  sufficiently  maintained 
the  unity  of  the  Godhead,  by  asserting  that  the  Father,  Son 
and  Holy  Spirit  were  each  of  them  of  the  same  divine  nature, 
as  three  or  more  men  have  each  of  them  the  same  human 
nature. 

This  was  certainly  giving  up  the  unity  of  the  divine 
nature  ;  and  yet,  being  obliged  by  the  whole  terjor  of  reve- 
lation to  maintain  the  doctrine  of  only  one  God,  m  conjunc- 
tion with  this  new  doctrine  of  three  separate  Gods,  such  a 
manifest  inconsistency  was  introduced,  as  nothing  could  cover 
but  the  pretence  that  this  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  was  inex- 
plicable by  human  reason.  And  then  the  word  vif/steri/, 
which  had  before  been  applied  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
in  common  with  other  things  which  were  simply  deemed 
sacred,  began  to  be  used  in  a  new  sense,  and  to  signify,  not 
as  before,  a  thing  that  was  secret,  and  required  to  be  explained, 
but  something  absolutely  incapable  of  being  explained, 
something  that  must  be  believed,  though  it  could  not  be 
understood.  But  the  whole  doctrine,  as  it  was  afterwards 
generally  professed,  and  as  it  now  stands  in  every  esta- 
blished Christian  church,  was  not  finally  settled  before  the 
composition  of  what  is  called  \he  Athatiasian  creed,  and  its 
reception  into  the  offices  of  public  worship. 

When  this  creed  was  made,  and  by  whom,  is  uncertain. 
It  appeared  about  the  end  of  the  fifth  century,  and  is  by 

•  Vol.  I.  p.  296.    (P).     Cent.  iv.  Ft.  ii.  Ch.  iii.  Sect.  i. 


HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS   CONCERNING  CHRIST.         SJ 

some  ascribed  to  Vigilius  Tapsensis.*  Though  this  creed 
contains  a  number  of  as  direct  contradictions  as  any  person, 
the  most  skilled  in  logic,  can  draw  up,  it  still  keeps  its 
ground,  guarded  from  all  human  inspection,  like  the  doctrine 
of  transubstantiation,  by  this  new  but  thin  veil  c^i  mystery.^ 
But  before  I  proceed  to  give  a  more  particular  account  of 
this  farther  change  in  the  doctrine,  I  must  note  by  what  steps 
the  Holy  Spirit  came  to  be  reckoned  a  distinct  person  in  this 
Trinity  .fe. 

SECTION  VII. 

Of  the  Doctrine  concerning  the  Holy  Spirit. 

There  is  very  little  in  the  Scriptures  that  could  giv^e  any 
idea  of  the  distinct  personality  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  besides 
the  figurative  language  in  which  our  Lord  speaks  of  the 
advocate.,  or  comforter.^  as  we  render  it  (Tra^axX^jTo^),  that  was 
to  succeed  him  with  the  apostles  after  his  ascension.  But 
our  Lord's  language  is,  upon  many  occasions,  highly  figura- 
tive ;  and  it  is  the  less  extraordinary  that  the  figure  called 
personification  should  be  made  use  of  by  him  here,  as  the 
peculiar  presence  of  the  spirit  of  God,  which  was  to  be  evi- 
denced by  the  power  of  working  miracles,  was  to  succeed  in 
the  place  of  a  real  person,  viz.  himself,  and  to  be  to  them 
what  he  himself  had  been,  viz.  their  advocate,  comforter  and 
guide. 

That  the  apostles  did  not  understand  our  Lord  as  speaking 
of  a  real  person,  at  least  afterwards,  when  they  reflected  upon 
his  meaning,  and  saw  the  fulfilment  of  his  promise,  is  evi- 
dent from  their  never  adopting  the  same  language,  but 
speaking  of  the  spirit  as  of  a  divine  power  only.  The  apostle 
Paul  expressly  speaks  of  the  spirit  of  God  as  bearing  the 
same  relation  to  God  that  the  spirit  of  a  man  bears  to  man, 
1  Cor.  ii.  11  :  "  What  man  knoweth  the  things  of  a  man, 
save  the  spirit  of  man,  which  is  in  him  ?  Even  so  the  things 
of  God  knoweth  no  man,  but  the  spirit  of  God." 

Besides,  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  always  speak 

*  Jortin's  Remarks,  IV.  p.  313.  (P.)  "  A.  481.  Vigilius  Tapsensis  liath  been 
supposed,  by  many,  to  have  been  the  maker  of  the  Athanasian  Creed,  about  this 
time.  Others  are  of  a  different  opinion.  But  it  matters  little  by  whom,  or  where, 
or  when  it  was  composed."     Jortin,  Ecclcs.  Hist.   1805,  III.  p.  131. 

t  This  Creed,  of  which  scarcely  any  thing  is  intelligible  but  the  damnatory 
clauses,  has  very  lately  been  worthih/,  though  unsuccessfully,  employed  to  serve  the 
purposes  of  political  retaliation,  under  the  tJmi  veil  of  zeal  for  the  established  religion 
and  the  public  morals.  See  the  Trial  of  W.  Hone,  for  a  Parodi/  of  the  Creed  of 
St.  Athanasius.    1818. 


58  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST. 

of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  the  same  spirit  by  which  the  ancient 
prophets  were  inspired,  which  was  certainly  never  understood 
by  them  to  be  any  other  than  the  Divine  Being  himself, 
enabling  them,  by  his  supernatural  communications,  to  fore- 
tell future  events. 

Also,  the  figurative  language  in  which  the  Holy  Spirit 
and  his  operations  are  sometimes  described  by  them,  is  in- 
consistent with  the  idea  of  his  being  a  separate  person  ;  as 
being  baptized  with  the  spirit,  hemg  Jilled  with  the  spirit, 
quenching  the  spirit,  &c.,  in  all  which  the  idea  is  evidently 
that  of  ?i  power,  and  not  that  of  o.  person. 

For  these  reasons  I  think  it  possible,  that  we  should  never 
have  heard  of  the  opinion  of  the  real  distinct  personality  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  if  it  had  riot  been  for  the  form  of  baptism 
supposed,  but  without  reason,  to  be  given  in  the  gospel  of 
Matthew,  where  the  apostles  are  directed  to  baptize  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  For  though 
the  meaning  of  these  words,  as  explained  by  pretty  early 
writers  in  the  primitive  church,  is  nothing  more  than  "  bap- 
tizing into  that  religion  which  was  given  by  the  Father,  by 
means  of  the  Son,  and  confirmed  by  miraculous  power,"  and 
this  particular  form  of  words  does  not  appear  to  have  been 
used  in  the  age  of  the  apostles,  who  seem  to  have  baptized 
in  the  name  of  Jesus  only ;  yet  since  this  form  did  come  into 
universal  use,  after  forms  began  to  be  thought  of  importance, 
and  in  it  the  Father  and  Son  were  known  to  be  real  persons, 
it  was  not  unnatural  to  suppose  that  the  Spirit,  being  men- 
tioned along  with  them,  was  a  real  person  also. 

It  was  a  long  time,  however,  before  this  came  to  be  a 
fixed  opinion,  and  especially  an  article  of  faith,  the  christian 
writers  before  and  after  the  council  of  Nice  generally  speak- 
ing of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  a  manner  that  may  be  interpreted 
either  of  a  person  or  of  a  power.  But  it  is  evident,  that 
when  they  seem  to  speak  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  of  a  person, 
they  suppose  that  person  to  be  much  inferior  to  God,  and 
even  to  Christ.  Some  of  them  might  possibly  suppose  that 
the  Holy  Spirit  was  an  emanation  from  the  Divine  Essence, 
and  similar  to  the  Logos  itself;  but  others  of  them  speak  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  as  a  creature  made  by  Christ,  by  whom  they 
supposed  all  other  creatures  to  have  l^^en  made. 

With  respect  to  the  apostolical  fathers,  their  language  on 
this  subject  is  so  much  that  of  the  Scriptures,  that  we  are  not 
able  to  collect  from  it  any  peculiar  or  precise  ideas.  It  i® 
probable,  therefore,  that  they  considered  the  Holy  Spirit  as 
a  power,  and  not  a  person. 


HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST.  69 

Justin  Martyr,  who  was  one  of  the  first  that  supposed  the 
Locos  to  be  Christ,  never  says,  in  express  words,  that  the 
Spirit  is  God,  in  any  sense  ;  and  when  he  mentions  worship 
as  due  to  the  Spirit,  it  is  in  the  same  sentence  in  which  he 
speaks  of  it  as  due  to  angels.  '*  Him,"  says  he,  meaning 
God.  '^  and  the  Son  that  came  from  him,  and  the  host  of 
other  £iood  A  novels,  who  accompany  and  resemble  him, 
together  with  the  prophetic  Spirit,  we  adore  and  venerate ; 
in  word  and  truth  honouring  them."*  In  another  place  he 
says,  '•  we  place  the  Son  in  the  second  place,  and  the  pro- 
phetic Spirit  in  the  third. "f  Again,  he  places  '•  the  Logos 
in  the  second  place,  and  the  Spirit  which  moved  on  the 
water,  in  the  third. "J  It  is  not  improbable  but  that  this 
writer  might  consider  the  Holy  Spirit  as  a  person,  but  as 
much  inferior  to  the  Son,  as  he  made  the  Son  inferior  to  the 
Father. 

TertuUian  in  one  place  evidently  confounds  the  Hoit/ 
Spirit  with  the  Logos,  and  therefore  it  is  plain  that  he 
had  no  idea  of  a  proper  third  person  in  the  Trinity.  Speaking 
of  the  Spirit  of  God  w^hich  over-shadowed  the  Virgin  Mar}% 
he  said,  •'  It  is  that  Spirit  which  we  call  the  word.  For  the 
Spirit  is  the  substance  of  the  word,  and  the  "  word  the  opera- 
tion of  the  spirit,  and  those  two  are  one."§  But  in  another 
place  he  says.  "  the  Spirit  is  a  third  after  God  and  the  Son  ; 
as  the  fruit,  proceeding  from  the  branch,  is  the  third  from 
the  root."  II 

Orio-en  speaks  of  it  as  a  doubt  whether  the  Holy  Spirit  be 
not  a  creature  of  the  Son,  since  all  thinijs  are  said  to  have 
been  made  by  him.^ 

Novatian  says,  "  that  Christ  is  greater  than  the  Paraclete  : 
for  the  Paraclete  would  not  receive  from  Christ,  unless  he 
was  less  than  Christ."** 

The  author  of  the  Recogyiition^,  a  spurious  but  an  ancient 
work,  and  never  charged  with  heresy,  says,  "  that  the  Holy 
Spirit,  the  Paraclete,  is  neither  God,  nor  the  Son.  but  was 
made  by  him  that  was  made,  or  begotten,  (fact us  per  factum) 
viz.  bv  the  Son,  the  Father  onlv  beins^  not  begotten  nor 
made."  ft 

One  reason  why  those  fathers  who  had  modified  their 
theological  tenets  by  the  principles  of  the  heathen  philosophy 
did  not  readily  fall  into  the  notion  of  the  personality,  or  at 

•  Apol.  I.  27.     (P.)          t  Ibid.  p.  19-  {P.)           X  Ibid-  pp.  87,88.     (/».) 

§  Ad  Proj-eana,  C.xxTi.  p.  515.    (P.)  ||  Ibid.  C  viii.    Opera,  p.  504.    {P.) 

f  In  Joanrurm,  Opera,  II.  p.  276.    (P.)  **  C  xxiv.    (P.) 
tt  L.  iii.  C.  viii.     (P.) 


60         HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST. 

least  the  divinity,  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  might  be  that  there 
was  iiotiiiny  like  it  in  the  philosophy  of  Plato,  which  had 
assisted  tiiein  so  much  in  the  deification  of  Christ.  A  third 
principle  was  indeed  sometimes  mentioned  by  the  Flatonists, 
but  this  was  either  the  soul  of  the  world,  or  the  material 
creation  itself;  for  there  are  different  representations  of  the 
Platonic  doctrine  on  this  subject. 

At  length,  however,  the  constant  usage  of  the  form  of 
baptism  mentioned  l)y  Matthew,  together  with  the  literal 
interpretation  of  our  Saviour's  description  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
probably,  gave  most  of  the  primitive  Christians  an  idea  of  its 
being  a  y>6';-.w?/ ;  and  the  rest  of  the  language  of  Scripture 
would  naturally  enough  lead  thorn  to  conclude  that  he  must 
be  a  divine  person.  But  it  was  a  long  time  before  these 
things  coalesced  into  a  regular  system. 

The  fathers  of  the  council  of  Nice  said  nothing  about  the 
divinity,  or  the  personality  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  nor  was  it 
customary  in  tlie  time  of  Basil  to  call  the  Holy  Spirit  God. 
Hilary  interprets  baptizing  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  the 
Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  the  equivalent  expressions  of 
the  author^  the  only  begotten^  and  the  gift.* 

That  little  is  said  concerning  the  separate  divinity  of  the 
Spirit  of  God  in  the  Scripture  is  evident  to  every  body  ;  but 
the  reason  that  Epiphanius  gives  for  it  will  not  be  easily 
imagined.  In  order  to  account  for  the  apostles  saying  so 
little  concerning  the  divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  omiting 
the  mention  of  him  after  that  of  the  Father  and  the  Son  ; 
(as  when  Paul  says,  "  there  is  one  God  and  Father  of  all, 
of  whom  are  all  things,  and  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by  whom 
are  all  things,")  he  says,  that  "  the  apostles  writing  by  the 
inspiration  of  the  Spirit,  he  did  not  choose  to  introduce  much 
commendation  of  himself,  lest  it  should  give  us  an  example 
of  commending  ourselves."  f 

What  is  most  particularly  remarkable  is,  that  the  fathers 
of  tlie  council  ofSardica,  held  in  347,  a  council  called  by  the 
authority  of  the  emperors  Constance  and  Constantius,  a 
hundred  and  sixty  bishops  being  present,  of  whom  Atha- 
nasius  himself  was  one,  and  two  hundred  more  approving 
of  the  decrees  after  they  had  been  sent  to  them,  (a  council 
in  which, it  was  decreed  that  the  Father,  Son  and  Spirit,  was 
one  hypostasis^  which  they  say  the  heretics  call  Hor/a,  and 
that  the  Father  never  was  without  the  Son,  nor  the  Son 
without  the  Father,)  did  not  distinguish  between  the  Holy 

*  De  Trinitate,  L.  ii.  Opera,  p.  22.  (P.^         t  Hter.  bl^  Opera,  I.  p.  485,    (P.) 


HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST.  6l 

Spirit  and  the  Logos,  any  more  than  TertuUian  did  in  the 
passage  quoted  above.  They  say,  "  We  believe  in  the  Para- 
clete, the  Holy  Spirit,  whom  the  Lord  himself  promised  and 
sent.  He  did  not  suffer,  but  the  man  which  he  put  on, 
and  which  Christ  took  from  the  Virgin  Mary,  which  could 
suffer:  for  man  is  liable  to  death,  but  God  is  immortal."* 

Basil  says  that  "  the  Spirit  is  superior  to  a  created  being, 
but  the  title  unbegotten  (ayevvryroj)  is  what  no  man  can  be  so 
absurd  as  to  presume  to  give  to  any  other  than  to  the  supreme 
God."  Then  speaking  of  his  not  being  begotten,  like  the 
Son,  but  proceeding  from  the  Father,  he  says,  "  neither 
let  any  man  think  that  our  refusing  to  call  the  Spirit  a 
creature  is  denying  his  personality,"  (yTrog-ao-jj). -j* 

The  subject  might  have  longer  remained  in  this  unsettled 
state,  if  Macedonius,  an  eminenfSemi-Arian,  who  had  been 
expelled  from  the  church  of  Constantinople,  had  not  ex- 
pressly denied  the  divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  maintaining, 
as  some  say,  that  it  was  only  the  Spirit  or  power  of  God  ;  or, 
according  to  others,  that  he  was  a  creature  like  the  angels, 
but  superior  to  them.  This  opinion  being  much  talked  of, 
had  many  abettors,  especially  in  Egypt.  But  Athanasius,  who 
was  then  concealed  in  the  deserts  of  that  country,  hearing  of 
it,  wrote  against  it,  and  he  is  said  to  have  been  the  first  who 
applied  the  word  consubstantial  to  the  Spirit,  it  having  before 
been  applied  to  the  Son  only. 

It  was  some  time,  however,  before  any  public  notice  was 
taken  of  this  opinion  of  Macedonius  ;  and  in  a  council  held 
at  Lampsacum,  in  365,  a  council  demanded  by  the  Catholic 
bishops,  though  the  greater  number  of  those  who  actually 
met  were  Arians,  the  opinion  of  Macedonius,  as  Socrates 
the  historian  observes,  appeared  to  have  gained  more  ground 
than  ever,  and  would  probably  have  been  the  received 
opinion,  had  it  not  been  for  the  interference  of  an  orthodox 
emperor  in  the  business. 

At  length,  in  what  is  called  the  second  general  council, 
which  was  held  at  Constantinople  in  381,  under  Theodosius 
the  Great,  the  opinion  of  Macedonius  was  condemned, 
though  thirty-six  of  the  bishops  present  were  in  favour  of  it. 
In  the  creed  drawn  up  by  this  council,  it  is  said,  "  We 
believe  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  Lord  and  Giver  of  life,  who 
proceeded  from  the  Father,  and  who  ought  to  be  adored  and 
glorified  with  the  Father  and  the  Son,  and  who  spake  by  the 


*  Theodorit.  L.  ii.  C.  viii.  p.  82.    (P.) 

t  Adv.  Eunomium,  L.  iii.  Opera,  I.  p.  758.     (PJ 


62        HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST. 

prophets."  This  clause  is  now  generally  annexed  to  the 
Nicene  creed,  though  no  such  thing  had  been  determined  at 
the  time  of  that  council. 

Thus,  at  length,  the  great  outline  of  the  present  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  was  completed,  though  many  points  of  less 
consequence  still  remained  to  be  adjusted,  as  we  shall  see  in 
the  prosecution  of  this  subject ;  and  the  doctrine  of  the  con- 
substantiahiliti/  of  the  Spirit  with  the  Father  and  the  Son, 
though  implied,  is  not  directly  expressed  in  the  decrees  of 
this  council. 

As  the  doctrine  of  the  divinity  of  Christ  was  very  unpopular 
at  first,  so  that  of  the  divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit  appears  to 
have  been  so  too,  as  we  may  clearly  infer  from  the  writings  of 
Basil.  He  speaks*  of  all  people  being  interested  in  the 
debate  on  the  subject,  and  even  of  his  own  disciples,  as 
presuming  to  act  the  part  of  judges  in  the  case  ;  asking- 
questions  not  to  learn,  but  to  puzzle  and  confound  their 
teachers.  The  argument  by  which  he  represents  himself 
and  his  orthodox  brethren  as  most  frequently  urged  was  the 
following  : — Every  thing  must  necessarily  be  either  iinbe- 
gotten^  begotten  or  created.  If  the  Holy  Spirit  be  unbegotten, 
he  must  be  the  same  with  the  Father,  and  if  he  be  begotten, 
he  must  be  the  Son :  if  therefore,  he  be  a  person  distinct 
from  both,  he  must  be  a  creature.  For  the  good  father's 
answer  to  this  objection,  I  must  refer  my  reader  to  his 
twenty-seventh  homily  which  is  against  the  Sabellians. 

I  shall  close  this  article  with  a  short  account  of  the  word 
Trinity^  and  of  the  advantage  which  this  doctrine  gave  the 
Heathens.  The  first  appearance  of  the  word  Trinity  is  in 
the  writings  of  Theophilus,  bishop  of  Antioch,  but  it  is  not 
clear  that  by  it  he  meant  a  Trinity  consisting  of  the  same 
persons  that  it  was  afterwards  made  to  consist  of,  and  cer- 
tainly not  a  Trinity  of  persons  in  the  Godhead.  He  says,"]* 
that  the  three  days  which  preceded  the  creation  of  the 
heavenly  bodies  on  the  fourth  day,  in  the  first  chapter  of 
Genesis,  represent  the  sacred  mystery  of  the  Trinity,  viz. 
"  Gofl?,  the  word  and  wisdom."  He  adds,  "  the  fourth  day 
is  the  type  of  man,  who  needs  light,  that  there  may  be 
God,  the  word,  wisdom,  man."  This  passage  is  certainly 
obscure  enough,  and  it  could  hardly  have  been  imagined 
from  it  that  by  loisdom  he  meant  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  third 
person  in  the  modern  Trinity,  had  not  the  same  term  been 

*  Horn,  xxvii.   Contra  Sabellianos,  T.  p.  523.     (P.) 
t  Ad  Autolycum,  L.  ii.  p.  106.    (P.) 


HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST.  63 

used  by  other  writers,  and  especially  by  Tatian,  who  was 
contemporary  with  Theophilus.  For  he  also  makes  a 
Trinity,  of  God,  his  word,  and  his  wisdom.  About  the  same 
time  Irenaeus  mentions  the  same  three  members,  though  he 
has  not  the  word  Trinity.  "  There  is  always,"  says  he, 
"  with  God,  his  word  and  wisdom,  his  Son  and  Spirit,  by 
whom  and  in  whom  he  made  every  thing  freely."*  After 
this  we  find  the  word  Trinity  in  common  use,  but  long 
before  it  was  imagined  that  the  three  persons  which  con- 
stituted it,  were  consubstantial,  coeternal,  and  equal  in 
power  and  glory. 

Both  the  term  and  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  occur  in  a 
piece  entitled  Expositio  Fidei,  ascribed  to  Justin  Martyr ; 
but  this  is  evidently  spurious,  and  of  a  date  much  later  than 
the  time  of  Justin.  It  is  remarkable  too,  that  Clemens 
Alexandrinus,  who  was  in  the  very  centre  of  the  Platonism 
of  those  days,  and  who  did  not  write  till  after  Theophilus, 
never  uses  the  term  but  once,  and  then  it  is  to  denote  the 
bond  of  christian  graces, /«?Y/i,  hope  and  charity.  "^ 

We  cannot  wonder  that  this  introduction  of  new  objects 
of  worship  by  Christians,  should  not  pass  unnoticed  by  the 
Heathens  ;  and  as  it  was  chiefly  a  wish  to  recommend  their 
religion  to  others,  that  gave  them  their  original  bias  towards 
exalting  the  person  of  Christ,  they  were  very  properly 
punished  by  the  advantage  which  the  Heathens  took  of  this 
very  circumstance. 

The  incarnation  of  the  eternal  word,  appears  to  have  been 
a  subject  of  ridicule  to  Celsus,  who  compares  it  to  the  fable 
of  the  transformations  of  Jupiter,  in  the  history  of  Danae,  &c. 
He  also  justifies  the  Polytheism  of  the  Heathens  by  the 
example  of  the  Christians  in  this  respect.  "  If  Christians,*' 
says  he,  "  worshipped  only  one  God,  they  might  have  some 
pretence  for  despising  all  others  ;  whereas  they  render  these 
immense  honours  to  a  mere  upstart."  +  To  this,  Origen 
answers,  by  alleging  the  text,  "  I  and  my  Father  are  one,'* 
explaining  it  by  all  the  disciples  being  of  one  heart  and  one 
mind.     But  so  might  the  heathen  gods  have  been  one. 

The  emperor  Julian  did  not  overlook  this  obvious  topic  of 
reproach  to  Christians.  He  particularly  upbraided  them 
with  calling  Mary  the  mother  of  God,  and  charges  them  with 
contradicting  Moses,  who  taught  that  there  is  but  one  God. 

*  Ad  AutolycHin,  L.  iv.  C.  xxxvii.  p.  330.  (P.)        t  Strom.  L.  iv.  p.  495.  (P.) 
X  Contra  Celsum,  L.  viii.  p.  385. 


64         HISTORY   OF  OPINIONS   CONCERNING  CHRIST. 


SECTION  viir. 

Tlie  History  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Tri nit ij  from  the  CoKnciis 
of  Nice  and  Constantinople,  till  after  the  Rutychiein  Con- 
troversy. 

Before  I  relate  what  was  peculiar  to  those  who  obtained 
the  name  of  orthodox  in  this  controversy,  I  shall  just  mention 
the  divisions  of  the  Arians,  which  contributed  much  to  the 
prejudice  of  their  cause,  as  they  often  proceeded  to  great 
violence  against  each  other. 

The  original  and  proper  Arians  held  simply,  that  the  Son 
was  created  out  of  nothings  some  time  before  the  creation  of 
the  world,  which  they  said  was  made  by  him.  But  presently 
after,  there  arose  amons;  them  a  sect  that  were  called  Semi- 
Arians,  the  chief  of  whom  were  George,  of  Laodicea,  and 
Basilius,  of  Ancyra,  who  held  that,  though  Christ  w^as  a 
creature,  yet  he  was,  by  special  privilege,  made  of  the  same 
nature  with  the  Father,  whereas  the  proper  Arians  main- 
tained that  he  was  wholly  of  a  different  nature. 

In  391  we  find  mention  of  another  division  among  the 
Arians,  viz.  whether  the  Father  could  be  properly  so  called 
from  all  eternity,  before  he  had  a  Son.  On  this  frivolous 
question,  of  mere  words,  the  Arians  are  said  to  have  divided 
with  great  bitterness,  so  as  to  have  formed  separate  assem- 
blies. But  it  must  be  considered  that  the  history  of  these 
divisions  is  only  given  by  their  enemies.  Before  1  give  any 
account  of  more  modern  Arianism,  I  shall  proceed  w^ith  the 
state  qf  Trinitarianism  after  the  council  of  Nice. 

No  sooner  was  the  general  outline  of  the  doctrine  of  three 
persons  in  one  God  settled,  but  the  orthodox  began  to  divide 
upon  questions  of  great  nicety  ;  and  human  passions  and 
interests  always  mixing  with  these  debates,  the  different 
parties  anathematized  each  other  with  great  violence. 

The  first  dispute  was  about  the  use  of  the  word  hypostasis, 
which  we  now  render  person,  but  which  had  generally  been 
considered  as  very  nearly  synonymous  with  essence,  (sa-ia). 
In  general,  the  Greeks  understood  it  in  a  different  sense; 
and  having  in  view  the  Sabellians,  who  were  said  to  assert 
the  identity  of  the  Father,  Son  and  Spirit,  said  that  there 
were  three  hypostases  in  the  divine  nature.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  Latins,  willing  to  oppose  the  Arians,  who  made 
the  Son  to  be  of  a  different  nature  from  the  Father,  usually 


HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST.        65 

said  that  there  was  but  one  hypostasis  in  the  Trinity  ;  and  we 
have  seen  that  the  fathers  of  the  council  of  Sardica  had 
decided  in  the  same  manner. 

This  dispute  terminated  more  happily  than  almost  any 
other  in  the  whole  compass  of  church  history.  For  a  council 
being  held  on  the  subject,  at  Alexandria,  in  372,  the  fathers 
found  that  they  had  been  disputing-  about  words,  and  there- 
fore they  exhorted  Christians  not  to  quarrel  upon  the  subject. 
Ever  after,  however,  the  phraseology  of  the  Greeks  prevailed, 
and  the  orthodox  always  say  that  there  are  three  hypostases, 
or  persons,  in  the  unity  of  the  divine  essence.* 

By  this  happy  device,  and  that  of  declaring  the  doctrine 
to  be  incomprehensible^  the  Trinitarians  imagine  that  they 
sufficiently  screen  themselves  from  the  charge  of  Polytheism 
and  Idolatry.  Whereas,  if  they  did  but  pretend  to  affix  any 
ideas  to  their  words,  they  must  see  that  the  device  can  avail 
them  nothing.  Yihj  person^  or  any  other  term  which  they 
apply  to  each  of  the  three  members  of  the  Trinity,  they  mean 
an  intelligent  principle^  having  a  real  consciousness,  they 
must,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  admit  tliree  Gods.  This 
was  thought  to  be  unavoidable  by  the  council  of  Sardica, 
which  therefore  asserted  one  hypostasis,  in  agreement  with 
the  orioinal  idea  of  the  Son  beins^  an  emanation  from  the 
Father,  but  not  separated  from  his  essence.  Whereas,  now, 
the  original  idea,  on  which  the  doctrine  of  the  divinity  of 
Christ  was  formed,  is  entirely  abandoned,  and  in  reality 
another  doctrine  is  received  ;  a  doctrine  which  all  the  Ante- 
Nicene  fathers,  who  had  no  idea  of  any  distinction  between 
hypostasis  and  essence^  would  have  reprobated,  as  downright 
Polytheism.  The  Arians,  in  a  council  held  at  Constantinople 
in  360,  rejected  the  use  of  the  word  hypostasis,  as  applied  to 
the  Divine  Being. 

There  seems  to  have  been  no  reason  why  Christ  should 
have  been  supposed  to  have  had  any  more  than  one  intelli- 
gent principle,  and  yet  we  have  seen  that  some  of  the  Ante- 
Nicene  fathers  thought  there  was  in  Christ  a  proper  human 
soul,  besides  the  logos,  which  constituted  his  divinity.  But 
perhaps  they  might  have  been  reconciled  to  this  opinion  by 
the  popular  notion  of  demons  possessing  men,  who  yet  had 
souls  of  their  own.  Or  by  anima,  which  is  the  word  that 
TertuUian  uses,  they  might  mean  the  sensitive  principle  in 
man,  as  distinct  from  the  animus,  or  rational  principle,  a 
distinction  which  we  find  made  by  Cicero  and  others. 

•  See  Suicer's  Thesaurus,  under  the  word  hypostasis.   (P.) 
VOL.  V.  F 


66         HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST. 

However,  after  the  council  of  Nice,  and  about  the  year 
370,  Apollinaris  the  younger,  bishop  of  Laodicea,  who  had 
distinguished  himself  by  taking  an  active  part  against  the 
Arians,  being  attached  to  the  principles  of  the  Platonic  phi- 
losophy, (according  to  which  there  are  three  principles  in 
man,  viz.  his  bodi/,  together  with  the  rational  and  sensitive 
soul,  but  not  more  than  these  three,)  thought  that  the  bod^, 
the  sensitive  principle,  and  the /o^o5,  were  sufficient  to  con- 
stitute Christ,  and  therefore  he  asserted  that  Christ  had  no 
proper  human  soul.  In  consequence  of  this,  he  was  charged 
with  maintaining  that  the  Deity  suffered  on  the  cross,  but 
whether  he  himself  avowed  this  opinion,  does  not  appear. 
This  doctrine,  which  was  so  far  analogous  to  that  of  the 
Arians,  that  it  supposed  only  one  intelligent  principle  in 
Christ,  was  well  received  by  great  numbers  of  Christians  in 
all  the  eastern  provinces  of  the  Roman  empire  ;  but  it  was 
condemned  in  a  synod  at  Rome,  and  being  likewise  borne 
<lown  by  imperial  authority,  at  length  it  became  extinct. 

Whiston,  who  was  certainly  well  read  in  Christian  an- 
tiquity, asserts,  that  Athanasius  seems  never  to  have  heard 
of  the  opinion  of  Christ  having  any  other  soul  than  his 
divinity,  and  that  the  idea  of  a  humart  and  rational  soul  in 
Christ  was  one  of  the  last  branches  of  this  heresy.*  This 
writer  also  asserts,  that  there  does  not  appear  in  Athana- 
sius's  Treatise  on  the  Incarnation,  the  least  sign  of  the 
hypostatical  union,  or  communication  of  properties,  which 
he  says  the  orthodox  have  been  since  forced  to  devise  in 
support  of  their  notions. f 

This  business,  however,  was  finally  settled  on  the  occa- 
sion of  what  is  called  the  heresy  of  Nestorius,  bishop  of 
Constantinople,  which,  though  small  in  its  origin,  has  had 
great  consequences,  the  effects  of  it  remaining  to  this  day. 

This  being  an  age  in  which  great  compliments  were  paid 
to  the  Virgin  Mary,  among  other  appellations,  it  becarae 
customary  to  call  her  the  mother  of  God,  and  this  was  a 
favourite  term  with  the  followers  of  Apollinaris.  This 
phraseology  Nestorius,  who  had  distinguished  himself  by 
his  opposition  to  the  Apollinarians,  declared  to  be  improper, 
and  said  it  was  sufficient  to  call  her  the  mother  of  Christ.  To 
justify  this,  he  was  led  to  assert  that  there  are  two  distinct 
natures  in  Christ,  the  divine  and  the  human,  and  that  Mary 
was  the  mother  of  the  latter  only. 

This  doctrine  had  many  followers,  and  even  the  monks 

•  Collection  o(  Records,  p.  74.    (P.)  t  Ibid.  p.  75.  (P.) 


HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST.  6? 

of  Egypt  were  induced,  in  consequence  of  it,  to  discontinue 
their  custom  of  calling-  Mary  the  mother  of  God.  Cyril, 
then  bishop  of  Alexandria,  a  man  of  a  haughty  and  impe- 
rious temper,  was  highly  offended  at  this ;  and  having 
engaged  in  his  interest  Celestine,  bishop  of  Rome,  he 
assembled  a  council  at  Alexandria,  in  430,  and  in  this 
council  the  opinion  of  Nestorius  was  condemned,  and  n 
severe  anathema  was  pronounced  against  him. 

Nestorius,  not  being  moved  by  this,  excommunicated 
Cyril  in  his  turn.  But  at  length  Theodosius  the  younger 
called  a  general  council  at  Ephesus,  in  431,  in  which  Cyril, 
though  a  party  concerned,  presided  ;  and  without  hearing 
Nestorius,  and  during  the  absence  of  many  bishops  who 
had  a  right  to  sit  in  that  council,  he  was  condemned,  and 
sent  into  banishment,  where  he  ended  his  days. 

In  this  factious  manner  was  the  great  doctrine  of  the 
hypostatical  union  of  the  two  natures  in  Christ  (which  has 
ever  since  been  the  doctrine  of  what  is  called  the  catholic 
church)  established.  The  opinion  of  Nestorius,  however, 
was  zealously  maintained  by  Barsumas,  bishop  of  Nisibis  ; 
and  from  this  place  it  was  spread  over  the  East,  where  it 
continues  to  be  the  prevailing  doctrine  to  this  day.  The 
opinion  of  Nestorius  was  also  received  in  the  famous 
school  of  Edessa,  which  contributed  greatly  to  the  same 
event. 

This  controversy  was,  in  fact,  of  considerable  conse- 
quence, there  being  some  analogy  between  the  doctrine  of 
Nestorius  and  that  of  the  ancient  Unitarians,  or  modern 
Socinians  ;  as  they  both  maintained  that  Christ  was  a  mere 
man.  But,  whereas  the  Socinians  say  that  the  divinity  of 
the  Father  resided  in  Christ,  the  Nestorians  say  that  it  was 
the  Logos,  or  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity,  that  resided 
in  him. 

But  "  the  union  between  the  Son  of  God  and  the  &on  of 
man"  they  said,  "  was  not  an  union  o{  nature,  or  of  person, 
but  only  of  will  and  affection;  that  Christ  was  therefore  to 
be  carefully  di^stinguished  from  God,  who  dwelt  in  him,  as 
in  his  temple.**  In  this  manner  did  the  Nestorians,  who 
had  had  several  disputes  among  themselves,  settle  the 
matter,  *'  in  several  councils,  held  at  Seleucia."^ 

The  opposition  that  was  made  to  the  heresy  of  Nestorius 
produced  another,  formed  by  Eutyches,  abbot  of  a  convent 

*  Mosheim,  I.  p.  412.     (P.)    Cent.  v.  Pt.  ii.  Sett,  xii. 
F  2 


68         HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST. 

of  monks  at  Constantinople,  who  had  had  a  great  hand  in 
the  condemnation  of  Nestorius.  Eutyches  was  so  far  from 
being  of  the  opinion  of  Nestorius,  that  he  asserted  that 
there  was  but  one  nature  in  Christ,  and  that  was  the  divine, 
or  the  incarnate  word.  Hence  he  was  thought  to  deny  the 
human  nature  of  Christ;  but  he  was  generally  supposed 
to  mean  that  the  human  nature  was  absorbed  in  the  divine, 
as  a  drop  of  honey  would  be  absorbed,  and  no  more  distin- 
guished, if  it  should  fall  into  the  sea.  There  were  other 
explanations  and  distinctions  occasioned  by  this  doctrine, 
which  1  think  it  not  worth  while  to  recite. 

It  may  be  proper,  however,  to  observe,  that  the  minds  of 
many  persons,  especially  in  Egypt,  were  prepared  for  this 
opinion  by  another  which  had  obtained  there,  and  which  I 
have  observed  to  have  been  maintained  by  Hilary,  viz.  that 
the  body  of  Christ  was  incorruptible,  and  not  subject  to 
any  natural  infirmity.  Theodosius  the  Great  fell  into  this 
opinion  in  his  old  age.  According  to  this  doctrine,  the 
human  nature  of  Christ,  being  of  so  exalted  a  kind,  might 
easily  be  supposed  to  have  become  so  in  consequence  of  its 
being  absorbed,  as  it  were,  in  the  divine,  so  as  to  partake 
of  its  properties.  It  was,  therefore,  no  wonder  that  they 
should  express  themselves  as  if  they  considered  Christ  to 
have,  in  fact,  but  one  nature.* 

Eutyches  was  condemned  by  a  council  held  at  Constanti- 
nople, probably  in  448,  and  in  consequence  of  it  was  ex- 
communicated and  deposed.  But  he  was  acquitted  by 
another  council  held  at  Ephesus,  in  449.  However,  in  a 
general  council,  called  the  fourth,  held  atChalcedon,  in  451, 
he  was  condemned  finally,  and  from  that  time  it  has  been 
the  doctrine  of  what  is  called  the  catholic  church,  that,  "  in 
Christ  there  are  two  distinct  natures,  united  in  one  person, 
but  without  any  change,  mixture,  or  confusion." 

The  doctrine  of  Eutyches  continued  to  be  professed  by 
many,  notwithstanding  the  decrees  of  the  council.  It  was 
almost  universally  received  in  the  patriarchates  of  Antioch 
and  Alexandria,  and  it  is  found  in  the  East  to  this  day. 
In  53.5  the  Eutychians  divided,  some  of  them  maintaining 
that  there  were  some  things  which  Christ  did  not  know, 
while  others  asserted  that  he  knew  every  thing,  even  the 
time  of  the  day  of  judgment,  f 

By  the  decision  of  the  council  of  Chalcedon,  the  modern 

*  Sueur,  A.  D.  56J.    (P.J  \  Sec  Vol.  II.  p.  397.    Note. 


HISTORY   OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST.         69 

doctrine  of  the  Trinity  was  nearly  completed,  the  union  of 
the  two  natures  in  Christ  corresponding  to  that  of  the  three 
persons  in  the  Deity  ;  and  it  was  thought  to  answer  many 
objections  to  the  divinity  of  Christ  from  the  language  of  the 
Scriptures,  in  a  better  manner  than  the  Ante-Nicene  fathers 
had  been  able  to  do.  These  frankly  acknowledged  a  real 
superiority  in  the  Father  with  respect  to  the  whole  nature  of 
Christ  ;  but  the  later  Trinitarians,  by  means  of  this  con- 
venient distinction  of  two  natures  in  one  person,  could 
suppose  Christ  to  be  fully  equal  to  the  Father  as  God.,  at 
the  same  time  that  he  was  inferior  to  him  as  man ;  to  know 
the  day  of  judgment  as  God,  no  less  than  the  Father  him- 
self, though,  at  the  same  time,  he  was  entirely  ignorant  of  it 
considered  as  man. 

It  mi2:ht  seem,  however,  to  be  some  objection  to  this 
scheme,  that,  according  to  it,  the  evangelists  must  have 
intended  to  speak  of  one  jjart  of  Christ  only,  and  to  affirm 
concerning  that,  what  was  by  no  means  true  of  his  whole 
person,  at  the  same  time  that  their  language  cannot  be 
interpreted  but  so  as  to  include  his  whole  person.  For, 
certainly,  it  is  not  natural  to  suppose  that  by  the  word 
Christ  they  meant  any  thing  less  than  his  whole  person  : 
much  less  can  we  suppose  that  our  Saviour,  speaking  con- 
cerning himself,  could  mean  only  a  part  of  himself.  By 
means  of  this  distinction,  modern  Trinitarians  are  able  to 
say  that  the  humau  nature  of  Christ  only  suffered  ;  and-  yet 
its  union  with  the  divine  nature  (though  it  was  so  imper- 
fect an  union  as  to  communicate  no  sensation  to  it)  was 
sufficient  to  give  it  the  same  merit  and  efficacy  as  if  it  had 
been  divine.  To  such  wretched  expedients,  which  do  not 
deserve  a  serious  consideration,  are  the  advocates  for  thi& 
Christian  polytheism  reduced. 

Thu&,  to  bring  the  whole  into  a  short  compass,  the  first 
general  council  gave  the  Son  the  same  nature  with  the 
Father,  the  second  admitted  the  Holy  Spirit  into  the  Tri- 
nity, the  third  assigned  to  Christ  a  human  soul  in  con- 
junction with  the  eternal  Logos,  the  fourth  settled  the 
hypostatical  union  of  the  divine  and  human  nature  of 
Christ,  and  the  fifth  affirmed,  that,  in  consequence  of  this 
union,  the  two  natures  constituted  only  one  person.  It 
requires  a  pretty  good  memory  to  retain  these  distinctions, 
it  being  a  business  of  words  only,  and  ideas  not  concerned 
in  it. 

Before  I  proceed  any  farther,  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  give 


70  HISTORY  OF    OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST. 

a  brief  account  of  some  other  particulars  relating  to  the 
Eutychian  doctrine,  though  they  were  hardly  heard  of  in 
this  part  of  the  world ;  and  the  opinions  that  were  then 
entertained  in  the  East  are  not  worth  reciting,  except  to 
shew  into  what  absurdities  men  may  fall,  when  they  get  out 
of  the  road  of  plain  truth  and  common  sense. 

The  decisions  of  the  council  of  Chalcedon  were  con- 
demned by  those  who  called  themselves  Monophysites^  a 
sect  which  sprung  from  the  Eutychians.  They  maintained 
that  the  divinity  and  humanity  of  Christ  were  so  united, 
as  to  constitute  only  one  nature^  yet,  without  any  change, 
confusion,  or  mixture  of  the  two  natures  ;  saying,  that  in 
Christ  there  is  one  nature,  but  that  nature  is  twofold  and 
compounded. 

In  the  sixth  century,  the  Monophysitcs  acquired  new 
vigour  by  the  labours  of  a  monk,  whose  name  was  Jacob, 
surnamed  Baradeus,  or  Zanzales,  and  who  died  bishop  of 
Edessa.  From  him  the  sect  of  Monophysitcs  now  go  by 
the  name  of  Jacobites  in  the  East.  Monophysitcs  were 
afterwards  divided  into  a  variety  of  other  sects  ;  and  the 
Armenians,  who  are  of  that  denomination,  are  governed  by 
a  bishop  of  their  own,  and  are  distinguished  by  various  rites 
and  opinions  from  the  other  Monophysitcs. 

It  was  long  debated  among  the  Monophysitcs  whether 
the  body  of  Christ  was  created  or  uncreated,  and  whether 
it  was  corruptible  or  not ;  and  some  of  them  maintained 
that  though  it  was  corruptible,  it  was  never  actually  cor- 
rupted, but  was  preserved  from  corruption  by  the  energy  of 
the  divine  nature.  The  Monophysitcs  had  also  many  con- 
troversies concerning  the  sufferings  of  Christ;  and  among 
them  Xenias  of  Hierapolis  maintained  that  Christ  suffered 
pain  not  in  his  nature,  but  by  a  submissive  act  of  his  will. 
Some  of  them  also  affirmed,  that  all  things  were  known  to 
the  divine  nature  of  Christ,  but  not  to  his  human  nature. 

"  From  the  controversies  with  the  Monophysitcs,  arose 
the  sect  of  the  Tritheists,  whose  chief  was  John  Ascusnage, 
a  Syrian  philosopher,"  who,  "  imagined  in  the  Deity  three 
natures  or  substances,  joined  together  by  no  common 
essence."  The  great  defender  of  this  opinion  was  "  John 
Philoponus,  an  Alexandrian  philosopher."  A  third  sect 
was  "  that  or  the  Damianists,  who  were  so  called  from 
Damian,  bishop  of  Alexandria. — They  distinguished  the 
divine  essence  from  the  three  persons"  and  "  denied  that 
each  person  was  God,  when  considered  in  itself,  and  ab- 


HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST.         71 

stractedly  from  the  other  two.  But  they  affirmed, — that 
there  was  a  common  diviniti/,  by  the  joint  participation  of 
which  each  person  was  God/** 

Had  these  subtle  distinctions  occurred  while  the  Roman 
empire  was  united  under  one  head,  councils  would  probably 
have  been  called  to  decide  concerning  them,  solemn  decrees, 
with  the  usual  tremendous  anathemas  annexed  to  them, 
would  have  been  made,  and  the  Athanasian  creed  would 
not  then,  perhaps,  have  been  the  most  perplexed  and  absurd 
thing  imposed  upon  the  consciences  of  Christians. 


SECTION  IX. 
The  State  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity  in  the  Latin  Churchy 

From  the  time  of  the  complete  separation  of  the  eastern 
and  western  empires,  the  Greek  and  Latin  churches  had  but 
little  connexion,  and  their  writings  being  in  different  lan- 
guages, were  very  little  known  to  each  other  ;  few  of  the 
Latins  being  able  to  read  Greek,  or  the  Greeks  Latin.. 
Though,  therefore,  the  members  of  both  churches  were 
much  addicted  to  theological  discussions,  they  took  a  quite 
different  turn,  and  except  upon  very  particular  occasions, 
did  not  interfere  with  each  other. 

With  respect  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity^  there  was  this 
difference  between  the  eastern  and  western  churches,  that  as^ 
the  eastern  empire  was  under  one  head,  and  the  emperor 
resided  at  Constantinople,  which  was  the  centre  of  all  the 
Grecian  literature,  he  frequently  interfered  with  the  dis- 
putes of  the  ecclesiastics;  in  consequence  of  which  councils 
were  called,  decrees  were  made,  and  the  orthodox  articles  of 
faith  immediately  enforced  by  imperial  authority.  Whereas 
the  western  empire  being  broken  into  many  parts,  and  the 
studious  theologians  dispersed  in  different  convents  all  over 
Europe,  their  speculations  were  more  free  ;  and  though  the 
authority  of  the  Pope  preserved  a  kind  of  union  among 
them,  yet  the  popes  of  the  middle  ages  being  sovereign 
princes,  seldom  interfered  with  religious  tenets,  unless  they 
had  some  apparent  influence  with  respect  to  their  spiritual 
or  temporal  power.  This  was  perhaps  the  reason  why  no 
new  councils  were  called,  and  no  new  decrees  were  made 
respecting  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 

Since,  however,  what  had  been  determined  by  the  first 

•  Mosheim,  I.  p.  47S.   (P.)     Cent.  vi.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  v.  Sect.  x. 


72         HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST. 

general  councils  was  received  in  the  West,  as  well  as  in  the 
East,  the  liberty  of  speculating  on  this  subject  was  very  much 
confinecl  ;  so  that  instead  of  inventing  doctrines  materially 
new,  divines  rather  confined  themselves  to  devising  new 
modifications,  and  new  modes  of  explaining  the  old  ones. 
In  this  field  the  human  faculties  have  perhaps  appeared  to 
as  great  advantage  as  in  any  other,  within  the  whole  com- 
pass of  speculation.  We  are  only  apt  to  regret  that  such 
wonderful  abilities,  and  so  much  time,  should  have  been 
employed  on  no  better  objects.  But  when,  in  some  future 
period,  all  the  labours  of  the  mind  of  man  shall  be  com- 
pared, it  will,  1  doubt  not,  appear,  that  the  studies  of  the 
schoolmen,  to  whom  1  am  now  alluding,  were  not  without 
their  use. 

Frivolous,  however,  as  1  think  the  objects  of  their  in- 
quiries were,  I  do  not  think  that  the  world  could  ever  boast 
of  greater  men,  with  respect  to  acuteness  of  speculation, 
than  Peter  Lombard  *  and  Thomas  Aquinas,  especially 
the  latter.  When  1  only  look  over  the  contents  of  his 
Summa,  and  see  the  manner  in  which  a  few  articles  are 
executed,  (for  no  Protestant,  1  imagine,  will  ever  think  it 
worth  his  while  to  read  many  sections  in  that  work,)  and 
consider  the  time  in  which  he  lived,  how  much  he  wrote 
besides,  and  the  age  at  which  he  died,  viz.  forty-seven,  I 
am  filled  with  astonishment. f  He  seems  to  have  exhausted 
every  subject  that  his  own  wonderful  ingenuity  could  start, 
and  among  the  rest  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  has  by  no 
means  been  overlooked  by  him. 

But  the  first  who  seems  to  have  led  the  way,  though  in  a 
remote  preceding  period,  to  the  refinements  of  the  school- 
men in  later  ages,  and  whose  authority  established  the 
principal  articles  of  orthodoxy,  so  that  his  opinions  were 
generally  received  as  the  standard  of  faith,  was  Austin, 
who  flourished  after  the  great  outline  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  was  drawn  in  the  general  councils  of  Nice  and 
Constantinople. 

In  this  writer  we  find  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  treated 
in  a  manner  considerably  difli'erent  from  that  of  preceding 
writers.       For,  in  his  time  the  doctrine  established  by  the 

*  Master  of  the  Sentences,  named  from  his  native  country  of  Lomhardy.  He  was 
bishop  of  Paris  in  1 159,  and  died  in  11 64. — Nouv.  Diet.  Hist.  IV.  p.  1052. 

t  He  died  in  1274.  His  Summa  is  thus  described  by  a  writer  of  his  own  church  : 
"  Solide  dans  I'etablissement  des  principes,  exact  dans  Ics  raisonnemeiis,  clair  daus 
I'expression,  il  pourroit  fetre  le  nieilleur  inodelc  des  Theologiens,  s'il  avoit  traite 
moins  de  questions  inutiles,  s'il  avoit  eu  plus  de  soiu  d'ecarter  quelques  preuvcs  pen 
solides."    Ibid.  V.  p.  552. 


HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST.         73 

general  councils  had  affected  the  language  commonly  used 
in  treating  the  subject ;  so  that  words  had  begun  to  be  used 
in  senses  unknown  to  the  ancients.  Thus,  before  the 
council  of  Nice,  whenever  the  word  God  occurred  in  the 
Scriptures,  and  the  Supreme  God  was  meant  by  it,  it  had 
always  been  understood  as  referring  to  the  Father  only; 
and  in  this  manner  all  the  ancient  fathers  explained  every 
passage  in  which  the  word  God,  as  distinguished  from 
Christ,  occurred  ;  and  they  had  recourse  to  such  expedients 
as  have  been  mentioned  in  the  early  period  of  this  history, 
to  account  for  the  divinity  of  Christ,  without  supposing  that 
he  had  any  title  to  be  comprehended  under  that  general 
expression. 

But  in  the  writings  of  Austin  we  often  find  the  words  God 
and  Trinity  to  be  synonymous.  For  he  maintained  that  all 
the  three  persons  are  to  be  understood,  though  they  are  not 
expressly  mentioned,  and  he  allowed  no  real  prerogative 
whatever  to  the  Father  ;  an  idea  which  would  have  staggered 
all  the  Nicene  fathers.  So  far  was  he  from  supposing  that 
the  Father  was  truly  greater  than  the  Son,  that  he  says, 
"  two  or  three  of  the  persons  are  not  greater  than  any  one  of 
them.''  This,  says  he,  "  the  carnal  mind  does  not  compre- 
hend, because  it  can  perceive  nothing  to  be  true,  but  with 
respect  to  things  that  are  created^  and  cannot  perceive  the 
truth  itself.,  by  which  they  are  created."*  He  condemns 
those  who  had  said  that  the  Father  alone  is  immortal  and 
invisible, f  and  he  blames  Hilary  for  ascribing  eternity  to  the 
Father  only.  J  He  so  far,  however,  adheres  to  the  language 
of  his  predecessors,  as  to  say  that  the  Father  alone  is  God  of 
God  fex  DeoJ.^  But  by  this  he  could  not  mean  what  the 
Nicene  fathers  meant  by  it. 

Austin  is  also  bolder,  and  more  copious,  in  his  illustra- 
tions of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  by  comparisons  with 
other  things;  though  the  doctrine  being  farther  removed 
from  human  comprehension,  it  was  then  become  much  less 
capable  of  being  explained  in  that  way.  Among  other  things, 
he  finds  a  resemblance  of  the  Trinity  in  the  memori/y  under- 
standing  and  tvill  of  man.||  But  then  none  of  these  powers, 
separately  taken,  constitute  a  man  ;  and  his  other  compari- 
sons are,  by  his  own  confession,  still  more  lame  and  inade- 
quate than  this. 

As  my  readers  will  probably  wish  to  see  in  what  manner 

*  De  Trinitate,  L.  viii.  C.  i.  Aug^istini  Opera,   1569,  HI.  P-  346.    (P.) 
t  Ibid.  L.  ii.  C.  viii.  p.  267.    (P.)  %  Ibid.  L.  vi.  C  x.  p.  332.    (P.) 

§  Ibid.  L.  XV.  C.  xvii.  p.  463.    (P.)        11  Ibid.  L.  x.  C.  xi.  p.  376.    (P.) 


74  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST. 

some  of  those  texts  of  Scripture,  which  are  usually  alleged 
in  support  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  were  understood 
by  this  writer,  I  shall  recite  his  interpretation  of  a  few  on 
which  they  have  seen  the  comments  of  the  earlier  fathers, 
that  they  may  see  how  the  doctrine  itself  had  changed  in  his 
time.  He  explains  John  xiv.  28,  Mi/  Father  is  greater  than 
/,  by  saying,  that  "  Christ  having  emptied  himself  of  his 
former  glory,  and  being  in  the  form  of  a  servant,  was  then 
less,  not  only  than  his  Father,  but  even  than  himself,  even 
at  the  very  time  in  which  he  was  speaking  ;  for  he  did  not  so 
take  the  form  of  a  servant,  as  to  lose  the  form  of  God."* 
He  explains  Christ  giving  up  the  kingdom  to  God^  even  the 
Father^  by  saying  that  the  whole  Trinity  is  intended  in  that 
expression,  himself  and  the  Holy  Spirit  not  excluded.-j"  His 
manner  of  explaining  Mark  xiii.  32,  in  which  it  is  said  that 
the  Son  knows  not  the  time  of  the  day  of  judgment,  is  still 
more  extraordinary.  For  he  says,  that  by  not  knowing,  is 
to  be  understood  his  not  making  others  to  know."^  He  seems 
to  understand  Philip,  ii.  6,  of  a  perfect  equality  with  God. 
And,  lastly,  he  says,  that  by  the  Father  and  Son  being  one, 
we  are  to  understand  the  consubstantial  imity  of  the  Son  with 
the  Father.  §  Most  of  these  interpretations  were  then  quite 
new  ;  but  now  these,  or  such  as  these,  are  in  the  mouths  of 
all  Trinitarians. 

After  Austin  we  find  a  long  period  of  great  darkness  in  the 
western  church,  and  in  this  period  his  credit  was  firmly  esta- 
blished ;  so  that  we  find  him  quoted  as  an  authority,  almost 
equal  to  that  of  the  councils,  and  even  the  Scriptures  them- 
selves. But  the  age  of  great  refinement  in  speculation  began 
about  the  time  of  Berenger  and  Anselm,  two  of  the  greatest 
scholars  of  their  time  ;  and  had  not  the  former  of  them  been 
unfortunately  heterodox  in  the  doctrine  of  the  eucharist,  |[  he 
would  have  been  the  most  celebrated  for  his  learning  and 
abilities  of  all  his  contemporaries. 

Anselm,  though  he  writes  with  wonderful  acuteness,  is 
not  systematical.  He  does  not  professedly  treat  of  the  Tri- 
nity, and  indeed  we  find  little  in  him  that  is  particularly 

*  De  Trinitate,  L.  i.  C.  vii.  pp.  246, 260.  (P.)       f  Ibid.  L. i.  C. x.  p. 250.  (P.) 
J  Ibid.  C.  xii.  p.  253.    (P.)  §  Ibid.  L.  iv.  C.  ix.  p.  303.    (P.) 

II  Berenffarim,  archdeacon  of  Angers,  was  condemned  in  a  council  at  Rome,  in 
1050,  for  maintaining  tlie  errors  of  John  Scotus  Erigena,  which  were  afterwards 
revived  by  the  Saci-amentarians.  See  Nouv.  Diet.  Hist.  1.  p.  382.  "  Berengarius 
was  for  almost  thirty  years  together  baited  in  one  council  after  another,  and  died 
about  flip  year  1088."  See  ♦'  liertrani,  concerning  the  Body  and  Blood  of  the  Lord," 
l688,  p.  37.  From  Bertram,  Ridley  and  his  brethren  learned  their  qualified  notion 
of  Christ's  presence  in  the  Sacrament,  of  which  rite  scarcely  any  churchman  before 
Hoadley  reutured  to  give  a  plain  account. 


HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST.        75 

remarkable  on  this  subject,  besides  an  obscure  intimation  that 
the  doctrine  might  have  been  known  by  natural  reason.*  In 
proving  the  eternity  of  Christ,  he  says,  "  Christ  is  the  wisdom 
of  God ^  and  the  power  of  God;  if,  therefore,  God  had  ever 
been  without  Christ,  he  must  have  been  without  wisdom 
and  without  power/'f  And  he  says,  that  "  Christ  by  his 
own  power  rose  from  the  dead. "J  Lastly,  in  answer  to  the 
question  why  we  may  not  as  well  say  that  there  are  two  per- 
sons  in  Christ,  as  two  natures^  he  says,  "  as  in  God,  the  Fa- 
ther, Son,  and  Spirit,  are  three  persons,  and  but  one  God  ; 
so  in  Christ,  the  Godhead  is  one  person,  and  the  manhood 
another  person  ;  and  yet  these  are  not  two  persons,  but  one 
person. "'§  My  reader,  I  hope,  will  not  be  disappointed 
in  finding  no  great  light  on  this  subject  from  this  learned 
archbishop  ;  nor  must  he  form  much  higher  expectations 
either  from  Peter  Lombard  or  Thomas  Aquinas. 

Peter  Lombard  has  many  new  distinctions  on  the  subject 
of  the  Trinity ;  and,  as  an  article  of  some  curiosity,  I  shall 
recite  a  few  things  from  him,  as  well  as  from  Thomas 
Aquinas,  who  wrote  in  the  century  following,  and  who  is 
abundantly  more  copious,  as  well  as  more  systematical. 

Peter  Lombard  illustrates  Austin's  comparison  of  the 
three  persons  in  the  Trinity,  by  the  memory,  understanditig 
and  will  of  man,  observing,  that  they  all  comprehend  one 
another.  "  Thus  we  can  say,  1  remember  that  1  remember, 
that  I  understand,  and  that  I  will ;  I  can  also  say  I  under- 
stand that  1  understand,  that  I  remember,  and  that  I  will ; 
and,  lastly,  I  can  say  I  will  that  I  will,  understand,  and 
remember.*' II  He  decides  the  question  whether  the  Father 
begat  the  Son  willingly  or  unwillingly,  by  saying,  that  he 
begat  him  hi/nature,  and  not  hjieill  (natura  non  voluntate^), 
so  that  he  retained  the  idea,  without  adopting  the  oflensive 
expression  nolens.  It  is  something  extraordinary  that  he 
owns  that  he  cannot  distinguish  between  the  generation  of 
the  Son  and  the  procession  of  the  Spirit.** 

After  asserting,  after  Austin,  that  no  one  person  in  the 
Trinity  is  less  than  the  other  two,  or  than  all  the  three,  he 
says,  "  he  that  can  receive  this,  let  him  receive  it ;  he  that 
cannot,  let  him,  however,  believe  it ;  and  let  him  pray  that 

*  Ad  Romanos,  C.  i.  Anselnii  Opera,  l6l2,  II.  p.  11.  (P.)  Anselm,  archbishop 
of  Canterbury,  died  in  1109,  aged  75.  See  Biog.  Brit.  I.  pp.  205 — 215.  There 
is  a  list  of  his  works,  p.  213,  note. 

t  Ad  Cor.  C.  i.  II.  p.  102.    (P.)  X  Ad  Rom.  C.  x.  II.  p.  67.    (P.) 

§  He  tnearnatione,  C.  v.  HI.  p.  39.  (P.) 

n  Petri  Lombardi  Sentetiticc,  L.  i.  Dist.  iii.  p.  21.    (P-) 

%  Ibid.  L.  i.  Dist.  vi.  p.  42.    (P.)  •*  Ibid.  Dist.  xiii.  p.  73.    (P.) 


76         HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST. 

what  he  believes  he  may  understand/'*  In  this,  which  is 
certainly  not  a  little  curious,  this  subtle  writer  seems  to 
have  been  tollowed  by  some  moderns;  and  the  last  article  I 
shall  quote  from  him  is  not  less  curious,  though  1  believe 
none  of  the  moderns  will  choose  to  adopt  his  language; 
which,  however,  is  very  honest.  After  asking  wh}^,  as  we 
say  that  the  Father  is  God,  the  Son  God,  and  the  Holy  Spirit 
God,  we  may  not  say  there  are  three  Gods;  "  Is  it,"  says  he, 
"  beciuisc  the  Scripture  does  not  say  so?  But  neither  does 
the  Scripture  say  that  there  are  three  persons  in  the  Trinity. 
But  this  does  not  contradict  the  Scripture,  which  says  nothing- 
about  it;  whereas  it  would  be  a  contradiction  to  the  Scrip- 
ture to  say  there  are  three  Gods,  because  Moses  says.  Hear, 
O  Israel,  the  Lord  thy  God  is  one  Lord.'*-|-  As  to  a  contra- 
diction with  respect  to  reason  and  common  sense,  this  writer 
seems  to  have  made  no  difficulty  of  it,  not  having  thought 
it  worth  his  while  to  take  it  into  consideration. 

I  must  mention  another  peculiarity  of  Peter  Lombard, 
because  it  was  the  occasion  of  some  controversy.  He,  like 
the  Damianists  in  the  East,  made  some  distinction  "  between 
the  divine  essence,  and  the  three  persons  in  the  Godhead,'* 
But  on  this  he  was  attacked  in  a  large  work  by  Joachim, 
abbot  of  Flora,  who  ••'  denied  that  there  was  any  thing,  or 
any  essence,  that  belonged  in  common  to  the  three  persons, 
— by  which  doctrine  the  substantial  union  between  the  three 
persons  was  taken  away,"  and  nothing  but  a  numerical  or 
moral  union  was  left.  This  explication  was,  therefore,  con- 
demned by  Innocent  the  Third,  in  12 16. J 

Though  Thomas  Aquinas  writes  very  largely  on  the  sub- 
ject of  the  Trinity,  he  has  not  much  that  is  peculiar  to  him- 
self. He  defines  a  jierson  to  "  be  an  individual  substance  of 
a  rational  nature, "§  and  pretends  to  demonstrate,  a  priori, 
that  there  must  be  more  persons  than  one  in  the  divine 
essence,!]  but  not  more  than  three.^  And,  lastly,  after  as- 
serting that  the  Holy  Spirit  proceeds  from  the  Son  as  well  as. 
from  the  Father,  he  says,  that  the  Father  and  Son  are  but 
one  origin  (unum  principium)  of  the  Holy  Spirit.** 

*  Petri  Lombard!  5'e«fcntj«.  L.  i.  Dist.  xix.  p.  115.    {P.) 

t  Ibid.  Dist.  xxiii.  p.  136.    (P.) 

X  Mosheim,  III.  p.  134.  (P.)  The '*  sentence,  however,"  adds  Mosheim,  "  did 
not  extend  to  the  person  or  fame  of  the  abbot  himself.  Joachim  has  at  this  day  a 
considerable  number  of  adherents  and  defenders,  more  especially  among  those  of  the 
Franciscans,  who  are  called  Observants."  Eccl.  Hist.  Cent.  xiii.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  v.  Sect.xv» 

§  ThoniSD  Aquinatis  5'/tw}7Hff,  lG31,  Pt.  i.  Qu.  xxix.  Art.  i.  p.  70.    (P.) 

II  Ibid.  Qu.  XXX.  p.  72.    (P.)  ^  Ibid.  Qu.  xxxiii.  p.  80.    (P.) 

"  **  Ibid.  Qu.  xxxvi.  p.  85.     (P.) 


HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST.         77 


SECTION  X. 

The  History  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity  after  the 
Eutychian  Controversy . 

The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  as  it  was  ever  held  in  the 
western  part  of  the  world,  had  now  received  its  last  improve- 
ments ;  and  indeed  continued  with  little  alteration  liom  the 
time  of  Austin.  A  few  more  subtleties,  however,  were  started 
upon  the  subject,  especially  in  the  East,  which  require  to 
be  noticed. 

In  519,  some  monks  of  Scythia,  at  the  head  of  whom  was 
P.  FuUo,  having  a  dispute  with  one  Victor,  a  deacon  in 
Constantinople,  whom  they  accused  of  being  a  Nestorian, 
insisted  upon  his  saying  that  one  of  the  persons  in  the  Trinity 
was  crucified  for  us,  an  expression  which  no  Nestorian  would 
use.  They  both  appealed  to  the  Pope's  legates,  who  were 
then  at  Constantinople.  But  though  these  thought  the 
words  capable  of  a  good  sense,  yet,  since  they  might  be 
suspected  of  the  Eutychian  heresy,  they  thought  it  was  better 
not  to  use  them.  The  monks,  not  satisfied  with  this  decision, 
appealed  to  Pope  Hormisdas,  who  condemned  the  expression, 
but  his  successor  John  approved  of  it.  Then,  finding  that 
the  expression  was  not  generally  relished,  they  proposed  to 
change  it,  and  to  say  that  the  Logos,  or  the  Word,  had  suffered 
for  us ;  but  this  was  also  thought  to  savour  too  much  of 
Eutychianism.*  Happily  this  controversy  ended  without 
any  serious  consequences. 

It  has  been  observed,  that  all  the  ancient,  orthodox  fathers 
supposed  that  there  was  a  time  when  the  Son  of  God  was  not, 
and  that  the  Logos  became  a  person  immediately  before  the 
creation,  having  been  originally  nothing  but  an  attribute  of 
the  divine  nature.  This  opinion,  it  seems,  was  not  quite 
extinct  in  the  year  529.  For  we  then  find  a  decree  of  a 
synod  of  Vaison  in  France,  condemning  it,  and  the  preamble 
shews  that  the  opinion  was  pretty  general :  "  Because,"  say 
they,  "  not  only  in  the  apostolical  see,  but  also  in  the  East, 
and  in  all  Africa  and  Italy,  heretics  blasphemed,  saying 
that  the  Son  of  God  was  not  always  with  the  Father,  but 
had  a  beginning  in  time,  they  ordered  it  to  be  chanted  in  the 
common  service,  Glory  to  the  Father,  and  to  the  Son,  and 
to  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  it  was  in  the  beginning."  A  form  which 
has  continued  to  be  in  use  ever  since. f 

*  Sueur,  A.D.  619.    {P.)  f  Ibid.  A.D.  520.    (P.) 


78  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST. 

The  next  controversy  of  which  I  shall  give  an  account, 
shews,  at  the  same  time,  the  subtlety  of  the  mind  of  man  in 
devising  distinctions,  and  the  impotence  of  power  to  restrain 
or  guide  it.  In  the  seventh  century,  the  emperor  Heraclius, 
considering  the  detriment  which  his  empire  received  from 
the  migration  of  the  persecuted  Nestorians,  and  their  settle- 
ment in  Persia,  was  very  desirous  of  uniting  the  Monophy- 
sites,  and  thought  to  prevent  the  diversity  of  opinions  among 
them  by  inducing  them  to  accede  to  the  following  proposi- 
tion (suggested  to  him,  it  is  said,  by  Anastasius,  the  chief 
of  the  Jacobites,  and  who  pretended  to  renounce  Euty- 
chianism,  in  order  to  be  made  bishop  of  Antioch),  *' There 
was  in  Jesus  Christ,  after  the  union  of  the  two  natures,  but 
one  will  and  one  operation."  Accordingly  he  published  an 
edict  in  favour  of  this  doctrine,  which  was  called  that  of  the 
Mo7iothelites,  in  630. 

It  was  afterwards  confirmed  in  a  council,  and  for  some 
time  seemed  to  have  the  intended  effect.  But  soon  after  it 
was  the  occasion  of  new  and  violent  animosities,  in  con- 
sequence of  the  opposition  made  to  it  by  Sophronius,  a  monk 
of  Palestine.  He,  being  raised  to  the  see  of  Jerusalem,  was 
the  occasion  of  a  council  being  held  at  Constantinople  in 
680,  which  was  called  the  sixth  general  council,  in  which 
the  doctrine  of  the  Monothelites  was  condemned.  Not- 
withstanding this  condemnation,  this  doctrine  was  embraced 
by  the  Mardiates,  a  people  who  inhabited  Mount  Libanus, 
and  were  afterwards  called  Maronites,  from  Maro,  their  first 
bishop;  but  in  the  twelfth  century  they  joined  the  church 
of  Rome.* 

In  the  condemnation  of  this  doctrine,  it  is  remarkable  that 
it  was  not  stated,  nor  any  thing  opposite  to  it  asserted  ;  the 
writings  only  which  contained  it  being  condemned,  as  con- 
taining propositions  "  impious  and  hurtful  to  the  soul  ;**  and 
they  were  therefore  ordered  to  be  exterminated  and  burned. 
It  is,  indeed,  no  wonder  that  those  who  are  called  orthodox 
with  respect  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  should  be  em- 
barrassed with  two  intelligent  principles  in  one  person,  in 
what  manner  soever  they  may  imagine  them  to  be  united. 
If  there  be  but  one  intelligent  principle,  or  nature,  there  can 
be  but  one  will,  but  if  there  be  two  intelligent  principles,  it 
is  natural  to  expect  two  wills.  But  then  what  certainty  can 
there  be  that  these  two  wills  will  always  coincide,  and  what 
inconvenience  would  there  not  arise  from  their  difference  ? 

*  Sueur,  A,  D.  629  and  680.    Mosheim,  p.  37.  (P.)    Eccl.  Hist.  Cent.  vii.  Pt.  ii. 
Cli.  V.  Sect.  xi. 


HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST.         79 

The  Christian  fathers  who  first  imagined  that  Christ  was 
the  Logos  of  the  Father,  had  no  dispute  about  the  sense  in 
which  he  was  the  Son  of  God.  That  he  was  so  by  adoption, 
and  not  in  his  own  nature,  as  immediately  derived  from  God, 
had  been  peculiar  to  those  who  held  his  proper  humanity. 
But  in  the  eighth  century,  Felix,  bishop  of  Urgella,  in  Spain, 
would  have  introduced  a  distinction  in  this  case,  in  fact 
uniting  the  two  opinions.  For  he  held  "  that  Christ,  con- 
sidered in  his  divine  nature,  was  truli/  and  essentially  the 
Son  of  God,  but  that  considered  as  a  man,  he  was  only  so, 
nominally  and  by  adoption."  But  this  opinion  was  con- 
demned by  several  councils,  and  especially  in  one  held  by 
Charlemagne,  at  Ratisbon,  in  792.* 

But  the  most  ridiculous  of  all  opinions  that  was,  perhaps, 
every  seriously  maintained,  and  which  yet  proceeded  from 
an  unfeigned  respect  to  Christ,  (and  which  I  mention  only 
to  relieve  my  readers  from  their  attention  to  things  that  were 
either  of  a  more  serious  nature,  or  that  had  more  serious 
consequences,)  was  ^ne  that  was  started  in  the  ninth  century, 
about  the  manner  in  which  Christ  was  born  of  the  Virgin. 
For,  Paschasius  Radbert,  the  same  who  was  so  much  con- 
cerned in  establishing  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation, 
composed  in  this  century  "  an  elaborate  treatise,  to  prove 
that  Christ  was  born  without  his  mother's  womb  being 
opened,  in  the  same  manner  as  he  came  into  the  chamber 
where  his  disciples  were  assembled,  after  his  resurrection, 
though  the  door  was  shut.*'^ 

A  controversy  much  more  serious  in  its  consequences,  as 
it  ended  in  the  final  separation  of  the  Greek  and  Latin 
churches,  was  started  in  the  same  century,  about  the  proces- 
sion  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  the  Nicene  creed,  with  the 
addition  which  was  afterwards  made  to  it,  it  is  said,  I  believe 
in  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  proceeds  from  the  Father ;  and  by 
this  it  was  probably  meant  that  the  Holy  Spirit,  asadistinct 
person,  bore  a  similar  relation  to  the  Father,  as  the  source  of 
divinity,  to  that  which  the  Son,  or  the  Logos  bore  to  him. 
But  the  Scriptures  expressly  asserting  that  the  Spirit  was 
sent  by  the  Son,  or  proceeded  from  the  Son,  it  probably  came 
by  degrees  to  be  imagined,  that  his  nature  was  derived  from 
that  of  the  Son,  as  well  as  from  that  of  the  Father ;  but  we 
hear  no  consequence  of  this,  till  the  year  447,  when  the 
words  Filioquey  were  added  to  the  creed,  by  the  order  of  a 

*  Mosheim,!!.  p.  100.   (P.)  Eccl.  Hist.  Cent.  viii.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.v.  Sect.  iii. 
t  Ibid.  p.  162.    (P.)    Cent.  ix.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  iii.  Sect.  xxvi. 


BO  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST. 

synod  in  Spain,  whence  it  passed  into  Gaul.  In  this  state 
things  continued  till  the  eighth  century,  when  the  question 
was  a  good  deal  agitated,  as  appears  by  a  council  of  Gentilli 
held  in  766  ;  and  in  809  Charlemagne  ordered  a  council  to 
be  held  at  Aix-la-Chapelle,  in  which  the  question  concerning 
the  Holy  Spirit  was  discussed. 

In  consequence  of  this,  the  Latins,  in  general  at  least, 
held  that  the  Spirit  proceeded  from  the  Father  and  the  Son, 
and  in  the  churches  of  France  and  Spain,  the  creed  was 
usually  read  in  this  manner :  "  I  believe  in  the  Holy  Spirit, 
which  from  all  eternity  proceeded  from  the  Father  and  the 
Son."  This,  however,  was  not  the  practice  at  Rome,  and  Leo 
the  Third,  at  least  for  some  time,  ordered  the  creed  to  be  read 
as  formerly.  At  length  the  Greeks  took  offence  at  this  addi- 
tion, and  Photius,  bishop  of  Constantinople,  wrote  against  it, 
as  an  innovation  ;  and  after  much  debating  on  the  subject, 
in  the  year  1054,  the  two  churches  finally  separated,  and 
excommunicated  one  another  on  account  of  this  difference. 

When  an  attempt  was  made  to  reunite  the  two  churches, 
at  the  council  of  Ferrara,  in  1439,  this  procession  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  was  thus  explained,  viz.  "  The  Holy  Spirit  is  eter- 
nally from  the  Father  and  the  Son,  and  he  proceeds  from 
them  both  eternally,  as  from  a  single  principle,  and  by  one 
single  procession."*  If  my  readers  have  any  ideas  from 
these  words,  it  is  more  than  I  can  pretend  to. 

No  people  in  the  world  were  so  much  addicted  to  religious 
controversy  as  the  Greeks.  In  the  later  period  of  that 
empire,  notwithstanding  the  declining  state  of  their  affairs, 
and  the  perpetual  inroads  first  of  the  Saracens,  and  then  of 
the  Turks,  it  continued  to  be  one  of  their  most  serious  occu- 
pations ;  and  some  of  the  emperors  themselves  entered  into 
these  debates,  with  as  much  eagerness  as  any  mere  divines. 
One  of  the  most  extraordinary  instances  of  this  occurs  in 
the  twelfth  century,  when  a  warm  contest  arose  at  Constan- 
tinople about  the  sense  of  these  words  of  Christ,  "  My 
Father  is  greater  than  I."  The  emperor  Emanuel  Comnenus 
held  a  council  upon  it,  in  which  he  obtruded  his  own  sense 
of  them,  which  was,  that  they  "  related  to  the  flesh  that  was 
hidin  Christy  and  that  was  passible,  i.  e.  subject  to  suffering  ; 
and  not  only  ordered  this  decision  to  be  engraven  on  tables 
of  stone,  in  the  principal  church  of  Constantinople,  but  also 
published   an    edict    in    which   capital   punishments  were 

♦  *'  Histoirc  de  Papcs,"  IV.  p.  124.    (P.) 


HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST.         81 

denounced  against  all  such  as  should  presume  to  oppose  this 
explication,  or  teach  any  doctrine  repugnant  to  it.'**  How- 
ever, the  following  emperor,  Andronicus,  cancelled  theedict, 
and  did  every  thing  in  his  power  to  put  an  end  to  the  contest. 
But  whether  the  severe  penalties  which  he  enacted  against 
those  vi^ho  engaged  in  them  had  the  eflect  he  intended,  we 
are  not  told.  His  measures  do  not  seem  to  have  been  better 
adapted  to  gain  his  end  tlian  those  of  his  predecessor. 

I  shall  close  the  account  of  these  idle  disputes,  with  men- 
tioning one  that  was  started  in  Barcelona,  in  1351,  "  con- 
cerning the  kind  of  worship  that  was  to  be  ])aid  to  the  blood 
of  Christ"  and  which  was  revived  "  at  Brixen  in  1462," 
when  "  Jacobus  d  Marchia^  a  celebrated  Franciscan,  main- 
tained publicly  in  one  of  his  sermons,  that  the  blood  which 
Christ  shed  upon  the  cross  did  not  belong  to  the  divine 
nature^  and,  of  consequence,  was  not  to  be  considered  as 
the  object  of  divine  and  immediate  worship."  But  the  Do- 
minicans opposed  this  doctrine,  and  appealed  to  Pius  H., 
who  contrived  to  put  off  the  decision,  so  that  the  question 
remains  undetermined  in  the  church  of  Rome  to  this  day.-j* 

Lastly,  to  conclude  this  Section,  I  must  observe,  that 
about  the  tenth  century,  a  festival  began  to  be  held  in 
honour  of  the  Holy  Trinity^  in  some  cathedrals,  and  in 
monasteries,  and  that  John  XXH.,  who  distinguished  himself 
so  much  by  his  opinion  concerning  the  beatific  vision,  fixed 
the  office  for  it  in  13,34,  and  appointed  the  celebration  of  it 
to  be  on  the  first  Sunday  after  Pentecost ;  and  accordingly 
on  this  day  it  has  been  kept  by  the  church  of  Rome,  and  the 
church  of  England,  ever  since. 


SECTION   XI. 

A  general  View  of  the  Recovery  of  the  genuine  Doctrine  of 
Christianity  concerning  the  Nature  of  Christ. 

We  are  not  able  to  trace  the  doctrine  of  the  proper  hu- 
manity of  Christ  much  later  than  the  council  of  Nice ;  the 
Arian  doctrine  having  been  much  more  prevalent  for  a 
considerable  time  afterwards,  especially  by  the  influence  of 

♦  Mosheim,  II.  435.  (P.)  This  Emperor  "  frpm  an  indifferent  Prince  was 
become  a  wretched  Divine."     Eccles.  Hist.  Cent.  xii.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  iii.  Sect.  xvi. 

t  Ibid.  III.  p.  270.  (P.)  The  Pope  decreed  "  that  both  sides  of  the  question 
might  be  lawfully  held,  until  Christ's  Vicar  upon  earth  should  find  leisure  and 
opportunity  for  examining  the  matter,  and  determining  on  what  side  the  truth  lay," 
Cent.  XV.  Pt.  ii,  Ch.  iii.  Sect.  xiv. 

VOL.  V.  G 


82        HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST. 

the  emperors  Constaiitius  and  Valens  ;  and  the  Arians  were 
no  less  hostile  to  this  primitive  doctrine  than  the  Trinita- 
rians themselves.  At  length,  though  all  the  northern 
nations  that  embraced  Christianity  were  at  first  otthe  Arian 
persuasion,  yet,  chiefly  by  the  influence  of  the  Popes,  they 
became  gradually  Trinitarians,  and  continued  so  till  near  the 
reformation. 

The  first  traces  that  we  perceive  of  the  revival  of  the 
ancient  doctrine,  are  among  the  Albigenses.  For  I  cannot 
say  that  I  perceive  any  among  the  proper  A¥aldenses,  and 
the  Albigenses  were  probably  rather  Arians  than  w^hat  we 
now  call  Socinians.  Jt  would  seem,  however,  that  if  the 
Waldenses  (the  first  reformers  from  Popery,  and  who  may 
be  traced  as  far  as  the  time. of  Claudius,  bishop  of  Turin) 
were  Trinitarians,  they  did  not  originally  lay  much  stress  on 
that  doctrine.  For,  in  their  confession  of  faith,  composed  la 
1120,  which  was  sixty  or  seventy  years  before  Valdo  of 
Lyons,  there  is  nothing  under  the  article  oi^  Jesus  concerning 
his  divinity,  nor  yet  in  that  of  1544,  which  was  presented 
to  the  king  of  France.*  In  the  first  of  these  it  was  only 
said,  that  "  Christ  was  promised  to  the  fathers,  and  was  to 
make  satisfaction  for  sin."  But  after  the  time  of  the  refor- 
mation by  Luther,  the  Waldenses,  in  a  confession  of  faith, 
presented  to  the  king  of  Bohemia,  in  1535,  acknowledge 
expressly,  "one  essence  of  divinity  in  three  persons,  accord- 
ing to  the  Nicene  creed  and  that  of  Athanasius,"  both  of 
which  they  mention. -j" 

But  no  sooner  were  the  minds  of  men  at  full  liberty  to 
speculate  concerning  the  doctrines  of  Christianity,  and 
circumstances  excited  them  to  it,  but,  while  Luther  and 
Calvin  retained  the  commonly  received  opinion  with  re- 
spect to  Christ,  there  were  many  others  of  that  age  who 
revived  the  primitive  doctrine,  though  there  were  Arians 
among  them.  The  grea|;er  number,  however,  were  of  those 
who  were  afterwards  called  Socinians,  from  Faustus  Socinus, 

•  Francis  I.  The  first  article,  on  the  object  of  worsliip,  is  strictly  Unitarian, 
and  as  different  from  the  first  article  of  the  Church  of  England  as  possible.  The 
second  article  describes  Je*'/*  Christ  entirely  in  scripture  language.  Jortin  quotes 
the  Confession  at  length,  in  the  Latin  version  of  Snndius,  (Hist  Eccl.  p.  4.2">,)  and 
thinks  that  Erasmus  "  would  probably  have  approved  it."  Life  of  Erasmus,  A.  D, 
1036.  4to.  p.  611. 

t  Jean  Leger's  "  Ilistoire  des  Egliscs  Evangcli(iiios  des  Vallees  du  Piemont,  ou 
Vaudoises,"  1669,  pp.  94,  97  and  109.  (P.)  In  the  Confession,  ]  120,  Art.  If.  is  in 
these  words,  "  We  believe  that  there  is  one  God,  I'ather,  Son  and  Holy  Spirit." 
Through  the  whole  fourteen  articles  there  is  no  other  reference  to  a  Triuiti/.  Of 
Christ,  it  is  said.  Art.  VI.  that  "he  was  born  at  the  time  a^ipointed  by  God  bis. 
Father."  See  "A  True  Copy  of  an  Ancient  Confessiion,"  &c.  from  Moreland's. 
History,  p.  57,  ia  "the  History  of  Popery,"  1736,  I.  pp.  423^  484. 


HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS   CONCERNING  CHRIST.         83 

who  distinguished  himself  by  his  writings  among  those  of 
them  who  settled  in  Poland,  where  they  had  many  churches, 
and  continued  in  a  flourishing  state  till  the  year  1658,  when 
they  were,  with  great  cruelty  and  injustice,  banished  from 
that  country.*  This  event,  however,  like  others  of  a  similar 
nature,  contributed  to  the  spreading  of  their  doctrine  in  other 
countries. 

In  England  this  doctrine  appears  to  have  had  many  advo- 
cates about  the  time  of  the  civil  war, f  the  most  distinguished 

*  See  Toulmin  s  Socinus,  p.  274.  The  king,  who  banished  them,  was  John 
Cazimir,  a  Cardinal,  who  had  been  a  Jesuit.  In  1668,  he  abdicated,  and  became 
Abbot  of  St.  Germain  des  Prez,  at  Paris,  where  he  died  in  1672.  In  a  chapel  dedi- 
cated to  this  St.  Cazimir,  is  a  tomb  with  a  long  inscription,  EterncB  Memorice  Regis 
Orthodoxi.  Among  his  exploits  are  "  Sociniani  regno  pulsi,  ne  Casimirum,  haberent 
regem,  qui  Christum,  Deum  uon  haberent."  See  "  A  New  Description  of  Paris," 
1687,  Pt.  ii.  p.97 

t  One  of  these  was  Paul  Best,  of  whose  life  and  writings  I  know  nothing,  but 
whose  sufferings,  from  the  Long  Parliament,  will  sufficiently  appear,  by  the  follow- 
ing passages,  in  Whitelocke's  Memorials : 

"  1646,  January  28.  The  day  of  the  monthly  fast.  In  the  evening  the  House 
met,  and  heard  a  report  from  the  Committee  of  Plundered  Ministers,  of  the  blasphes* 
mies  of  one  Paul  Best,  who  denied  the  Triniti/  of  the  Godhead,  and  the  Deiti/  of 
Christ,  and  the  Hob/  Ghost.  The  House  ordered  him  to  be  kept  close  prisoner, 
and  an  ordinance  to  be  brought  in  to  i-unish  him  with  death."  This  committee 
was  named  from  the  design  of  its  first  appointment  in  l642,  to  reimburse  ministers 
who  had  suflfered  from  the  Royalists. 

"  February  l6.  The  Committee  of  Plundered  Ministers  ordered  to  draw  up  an 
Ordinance  for  punishing  Paul  Best  for  his  blasphemies 

"  March  28.  Debate  of  the  blasphemies  of  Paul  Best.  Divines  ordered  to  confer 
with  him  to  convince  him  of  his  sin,  and  that  a  charge  be  prepared  against  him. 

"  April  3.  Paul  Best  brought  to  the  bar,  heard  his  charge,  and  by  his  answer 
confessed  the  Trinity,  and  that  he  hoped  to  be  saved  thereby;  but  denied  the  three 
persotif,  as  a  Jesuitical  tenet." 

It  is  well  known  what  Unitarians  of  that  age  understood,  wlw'n  they  confessed  the 
Triniti/,  though  it  was  too  much  like  an  unworthy  subterfuge,  to  employ  the  term. 
What"  became  of  Paul  Best  I  cannot  find.  Whitelocke  records,  "  April  29,  An 
ordinance  to  be  brought  in,  for  punishment  of  heresies  and  such  as  divulge  them," 
and  •'  1647,  July  24,  Order  to  burn  a  pamphlet  of  Paul  Best's,  and  the  printers  to 
be  punished." 

That  virulent  foe  of  Toleration,  Thomas  Edwards,  the  sltalloiv  Edwards  in 
Milton's  Sonnet,  speaks  of  "  Paul  BesVs  damnable  doctrines  against  the  Trinity," 
and  denounces  two  Independent  Ministers  in  the  city.  One  of  them  had  declared 
that  Paul  Best's  "  imprisonment  would  do  no  good;"  that  he  should  be  made  "to 
sweat  with  arguments,"  but  that  the  magistrate  had  "no  authoritative  power  under 
the  gospel  to  remedy  it."  Tiie  other  said,  "  that  the  magistrate  might  not  punish 
such,"  and  "had  nothing  to  do  in  matters  of  religion,  but  in  civil  things  only." 
Edwards  adds,  on  the  authority  of  "a  conmion  councilman  of  good  worth, — that  an 
Independent  Minister,  within  a  few  miles  of  London,  one  Mr.  L.,  had  said  to  him, 
'that  men  ought  not  to  be  troubled  for  their  consciences,  but  Papists  siiould  be 
suffered  ;  and  for  his  part,  if  he  knew  any  Papists,  who  were  at  their  devotions  of 
beads,  images,  &c.  he  would  not  have  them  hindered  or  disturbed.' "  It  is  to  be 
regretted  tljat  we  have  not  the  names  of  these  three  ministers  who  wevelights  shining 
in  a  dark  place.     See  Gangrcena,  Ed.  3iS,  1646,  p.  46. 

Another  Anti-Trinitarian  of  this  period,  whose  name  has  been  preserved,  was 
JohnFrge,  a  member  of  the  Long  Parliament,  to  which  he  was  chosen  for  Shaftes- 
bury, first  in  1640,  when  his  election  on  some  account  was  made  void,  and  again  in 
1646.     He  was  "  suspended  for  writing  a  book  against  the  Trinity ;   but  upon 

G  2 


84  HISTORY  OF   OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST. 

of  whom  were  the  truly  learned  and  pious  Mr.  Biddle,*  and 
his  patron  the  most  excellent  Mr.  Firmin  ;  and  it  does  not 
appear  that  there  were  many,  if  any,  Arians  among  them, 
the  term  Unitarian  being  then  synonymous  to  what  is  now 
called  Socinian.  Afterwards,  however,  chiefly  by  the  in- 
declaring  that  he  abominated  thi-  opinions  charged  upon  him,  re-admitted  February 
3,  1648  9,  but  disabled  Fobruiry  2t,  1650-1,  for  tlie  same  kind  of  offence." 
Mr.  F.  was  one  "of  the  commissioners  appointed  for  the  trial  of  the  king,  who  occa- 
sionally attended,  but  did  not  sign  the  warrant  for  beheading  liim. "  Pari.  Hist.  Ed. 
2d,  IX  p  27.     Of  these  tran.sactions,  Whitelocke  has  the  following  account: 

'•  1650-1,  February  'Zi.  Mr.  Fry,  a  Member  of  Parliament,  being  accused  by 
C  Downes,  another  Slember  in  Parliament,  for  a  book  w  ritten  by  Mr.  Fry,  and 
Mr.  Frif  having  printed  another  book  with  all  this  matter  in  it;  the  House  voted 
this  to  be  a  breach  of  the  privilc(/e  of  Parliament.  They  voted  other  matters  ia 
the  book  to  be  erroneonc,  profane  and  hiijldji  scavdaloiis.  That  tlie  book  be  burnt, 
and  Mr.  Fry  disabled  to  sit  in  Parliament  as  a  member  thereof." 

The  accuser  was  "Colonel  .John  Downes,  one  of  the  Regicides,  and  a  Member  of 
the  Council  of  State."  One  of  Mr.  Fry's  pieces  was  entitled  "  A  Brief  V'entilation 
of  that  Chaftlc  and  Absurd  Opinion  of  Three  Persons,  or  Substances  in  the  God- 
liead."  On  this  the  Parliament  nat  "  from  morning  to  night  in  debate."  See  Wood, 
Art.  Chei/netl,  in  Athen.  Oxon.  iGQQ,  II.  pp.  246,  ^  17. 

•  SeeTonlmiu'siS'oc//iH.s  p.  27S,  and  his  Review  of  Biddle's  Life,  I791t  passim. 
Also  Dr.  Towers,  in  Brit.  Biog.  1770,  VI.  p.  79-  Mr.  John  Farington,  of  the  Inner 
Temple,  appears  to  have  been  Biddle  s  earliest  biographer.  W  ood  has  given  a  full 
and  remarkably  fair  account  of  him,  perhaps  recollecting  that  Biddle's  bitterest 
persecutors  were  also  the  foes  of  tlie  crown  and  the  mitre.  He  thus  writes  at  the 
conclusion  of  his  article: 

*'  By  the  filth  of  a  prison,  in  hot  weather,  contracting  a  disease,  he  died  thereof, 
in  the  month  of  September  (one  tells  me  the  2d,  and  another  the  22d  day),  about 
five  of  the  clock  in  the  morning,  to  the  great  grief  of  his  disciples,  in  l662.  Where- 
upon his  body  being  conveyed  to  the  burial-place  joining  to  Old  Bedlam,  in  Moor- 
fields,  near  London,  was  there  deposited  by  the  brethren,  who  soon  after  took  care 
that  an  altar  monument  of  stone  should  be  erected  over  his  grave,  with  an  inscrip- 
tion thereon,  shewing  that  he  was  Master  of  Arts  of  the  Universitif  of  O. von,  and  that 
he  had  yiven  to  the  world  great  specimens  of  his  learning  and  piet?/.  He  had  in  him 
a  shari)  and  quick  judgment,  and  a  prodigious  memory;  and  being  very  industrious 
withal,  was  in  a  capacity  of  devouring  all  he  read.  He  was  wonderfully  well  versed 
in  the  Scri|)tures,  and  could  not  only  repeat  all  St.  Paul's  Epistles  in  English,  but 
also  in  the  Greek  tongue,  which  made  him  a  ready  disputant.  He  was  accounted, 
by  those  of  his  persuasion,  a  sober  man  in  his  discourse,  and  to  have  nothing  of 
impiety,  folly  or  scurrility  to  proceed  from  him.  Also,  so  devout,  that  he  seldom 
or  never  prayed,  without  being  prostrate,  or  flat  on  the  ground." 

Wood  thus  mentions  that  extraordinary  youth  who  translated  Biddle's  Catechism 
into  Latin:  "  Nathanael  Stuckcy,  who  had  been  partly  bred  up  in  grammar  and 
logic  by  Biddle,  or,  at  least,  by  his  care,  died  27th  Sept.  1665,  aged  l6  years, 
and  was  buried  clotse  to  the  grave  of  Biddh',  as  it  appears  by  an  inscription  engraven 
for  him  on  one  side  at  the  bottom  of  Biddle's  monument."  A  then.  O.von.  II.  p.  202. 

The  "  burial  plate"  of  Bitldie  was  "  the  New  Churchyard  in  Pettit  France,  given 
by  the  Citv,  and  consecrated  , I une  4,  l6l7,"  for  the  burial  of  strangers,  especially 
of  the  French,  who  were  numerous  there.  That  ground  is  now  part  of  the  site  of 
New  Broad-street,  and  it  is,  probably,  vain  to  inquire  after  Biddle's  tomb. 

Yet,  though  his  tondi  cannot  be  discovered,  his  scripturaldoctrineof  the  divine  unity, 
for  which  he  endured  a  great  fif/ht  of  ajflictions,  has  not  been  lost ;  but  taught,  in  the 
very  neigiibourhood  which  contains  his  ashes,  with  a  zeal,  ability,  and  the  recommen- 
dation of  an  exemplary  life  like  his  own,  and  in  connexion  with  those  ideas  of  the 
divine  influence,  and  the  divine  character,  to  which  Biddle  had  but  partially  attained- 
I  refer  to  the  exertions  of  my  valued  friend,  the  late  Mr.  Vidler,  lost  to  his  family 
and  his  Christian  associates,  too  near  the  age  at  which  Biddle  rested  from  his  laboitrs: 
but  whose  enlightened  views  of  truth,  with  his  energy  and  success  in  recommending 
them,  happily  survive,  in  the  same  connexion.     Prima  aviUso  Hon  deficit  alter. 


HISTORY  OP  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST.         S5 

fluence  of  Mr.  Whiston  and  Dr.  Clarke  in  the  Established 
Church,  and  of  Mr.  Emlyn  and  Mr.  Peirce  among  the  Dis- 
senters, the  Arians  became  so  much  the  more  numerous  body, 
that  the  old  Unitarians  were  in  a  manner  extinct.  But  of  late 
years,  Dr.  Lardner*  and  others  having  written  in  favour  of 
the  simple  humanity  of  Christ,  this  doctrine  has  spread  very 
much,  and  seems  now  to  be  the  prevailing  opinion  amon? 
those  who  have  distinguished  themselves  by  their  freedom  of 
thinking  in  matters  of  religion.  This  has  been  more  espe- 
cially the  case  since  the  application  made  to  parliament  by 
some  members  of  the  church  of  England  for  relief  in  the 
business  of  subscription,!  and  more  particularly  so  since  the 
erection  of  the  Unitarian  Chapel  by  Mr.  Lindsey,  (who,  from 
a  principle  of  conscience,  on  this  ground  only,  voluntarily 
resigned  his  preferment  in  the  church  of  England,)  and  the 
publication  of  \\\s  Apology,  with  \ts  Sequel,  and  other  excel- 
lent works,  in  vindication  of  his  conduct  and  opinion. + 

It  is  something  extraordinary,  that  the  Socinians  in  Poland 
thought  it  their  duty,  as  Christians,  and  indeed  essential  to 
Christianity,  to  pray  to  Jesus  Christ,  notwithstanding  they 
believed  him  to  be  a  mere  man,  whose  presence  with  them, 
and  whose  knowledge  of  their  situation,  they  could  not 
therefore  be  assured  of;  and  though  they  had  no  authority 
whatever  in  the  Scriptures  for  so  doing,  nor  indeed  in  the 
practice  of  the  primitive  church  till  near  the  time  of  the  coun- 
cil of  Nice.  Socinus  himself  was  of  this  opinion,  and  is 
thought  to  have  given  too  much  of  his  countenance  to  the 
imprisonment  and  other  hardships  which  Francis  Davides  suf- 
fered for  opposing  it.§  However,  the  famous  Simon  Budnreus 
was   also  of  those  who  denied  that  any  kind  of  worship 

*  "  In  1759,  Dr  Lardner  published,  but  without  his  name,  'A  Letter  written 
in  the  year  1730,  concerning  the  Question  whether  the  Logos  supplied  the  Place  of 
a  human  Soul  in  the  Person  of  Jesus  Christ.'  To  this  letter,  which  is  supposed  to 
have  been  originally  addressed  to  Lord  Barrington,  were  now  added  «  Two  Post- 
scripts.' It  is  observable,  that  Dr.  Lardner  did  not  derive  his  opinions  from  the 
study  of  the  Socinian  authors."  Dr.  L.  also,  about  the  same  time,  revised  for  pub- 
lication Mr.  Cardale's  "  True  Doctrine  of  the  New  Testament  concerning  Jesus 
Christ."     Dr.Kippis,  Life  of  Dr.  Lardner,  1788,  pp.  Iviii.  lix.  Ixvii. 

t  See  "  List  of  the  Petitioning  Clergy,  1772,"  Mon.  Repos.  XIII.  pp.  15—17. 
There  are  interesting  particulars  on  this  subject  in  Mr.Belsham's  Mem.  of  Lindsey, 
pp.  46 — 62. 

X  Mr.  Lindsey's  temporary  chapel  was  opened  by  him  on  Sunday,  April  17, 1774, 
and  the  present  chapel,  March  29,  1778.  ^ec  Mem.  of  L.  pp.  llO  and  138.  The 
Apology  was  published  in  Jan.  1774,  a  4th  Ed.  1782,  and  this  >ear  (1818)  it  has 
been  reprinted  by  the  Unitarian  Society.  The  Sequel  was  published  in  1776.  Dr. 
Priestley  published  a  pamphlet,  entitled,  "A  Letter  to  a  Layman,  on  the  Subject 
of  Mr.  Lindsey's  Proposal  for  a  Reformed  English  Church,  on  the  Plan  of  Dr.  Clarke. 
1774." 

^  See  this  question  examined  by  Dr.Toulmin.    Socinus,  pp.  8%—^, 


86         HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST. 

ouo-ht  to  be  paid  to  Jesus  Christ,  contrary  to  the  opinion  of 
Socinus.* 

Many  of  those  who  went  by  the  name  of  Anabaptists  at  the 
beoinningof  the  Reformation,  held  the  doctrine  of  the  simple 
humanity  of  Christ;  insomuch  that,  before  the  time  of 
Socinus,  they  generally  went  by  that  name.  Among  these 
one  of  the  first  was  Lewis  Hetzer,  who  appeared  in  1524, 
and  who  "  about  three  years  afterwards  was  put  to  death  at 
Constance, ""I" 

Several  of  the  Socinians  of  that  age  held  the  doctrine  of 
the  personality  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  considering  him  as  a  being 
of  a  super-an2,elic  order.    Of  this  opinion  was  Mr.  Biddle.:}: 

The  first  Arians  in  England  were  of  the  opinion  of  the 
original  Arians,  viz.  that  Christ  was  the  first  of  all  creatures, 
and  even  existed  from  eternity,  by  an  eternal  derivation  from 
his  eternal  Father,  that  he  was  the  immediate  maker  of  the 
world,  and  of  all  things,  visible  and  invisible,  and  appeared 
in  a  divine  character  to  the  patriarchs  and  prophets  before  he 
was  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary.  But,  besides  that  this  doctrine 
savours  of  that  of  the  pre-existence  of  all  human  souls,  a 
doctrine  which  has  no  countenance  in  reason  or  revelation 
(though  it  was  generally  held  by  philosophers  at  the  time 
that  the  Trinitarian  and  Arian  doctrines  were  broached,  and 
indeed  served  as  a  necessary  foundation  for  them),  it  has 
staggered  many,  when  they  reflect  coolly  upon  the  subject, 
to  think  that  so  exalted  a  being  as  this,  an  unique  in  the 
creation,  a  being  next  in  dignity  and  intelligence  to  God 
himself,  possessed  of  powers  absolutely  incomprehensible 
by  us,  should  inhabit  this  particular  spot  in  the  universe, 
in  preference  to  any  other  in  the  whole  extent  of  perhaps  a 
boundless  creation. 

It  cannot,  also,  but  be  thought  a  little  extraordinary,  that 
there  should  be  no  trace  of  the  apostles  having  ever  regarded 

•  Mosheim,  IV.  p.  199-  {P-)  <^ent.  xvi.  Pt.  ii.  Sect.iii.  Ch.  iv.  xxii.  xxiii.  Ac- 
cording to  Sandius,  Budnaeus  recanted.  "  Delapsus  est  in  opinionem  de  Christo 
Domino,  divino  cultu  non  honorando, — postea  tamen  opinioncs  suas  retractasse, 
atque  cum  fratribiis  in  gratiam  rediisse  perliibetur."  B'lhl.Anti-Trin.  1684,  p.  54. 

t  Ibid.  IV.  p.  169.  iP)  Ibid.  III.  Mosheim  describes  Hetzer  as  "  one  of  the 
wandering  ami  i-AmixcsA  Anahnptists,"  bnt  this  name  seems  generally  to  provoke  that 
historian's  ill-will ;  and  Hetzer,  according  to  Sandius,  to  whom  Mosheim  refers, 
must  have  deserved  more  respectable  epithets.  Sandius  attributes  to  him,  among 
other  pieces,  one  against  the  deity  of  Christ,  which  Zuinglius  suppressed.  Hetzer 
was  beheaded,  Feb.  4,  1529.     Bill  Anti-Trin.  p.  17. 

X  He  believed  that  "there  is  one  principal  minister  of  God  and  Christ,  peculiarly 
sent  from  heaven  to  sanctify  the  church,  who,  by  reason  of  his  eminency  and  inti- 
macy with  God,  is  singled  out  of  the  number  of  the  other  lieavenly  ministers  or 
angels — and  that  this  minister  of  God  and  Christ  is  the  Holy  Spirit."  See  Biddle's 
Confession,  Art.  vi.  p.  18,  and  his  Twelve  Arguments.  Unit.  Tracts,  4to.  I691,  Vol.  I. 
See  also  Toulmni's  Review,  p.  20. 


HISTORY  OP  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST.         87 

their  Master  in  this  high  light.  For,  being  Jews,  they  would 
certainly  consider  him  at  Jirst  as  a  mun  like  themselves, 
since  no  Jew  ever  expected  any  other  for  their  Messiah. 
Indeed,  it  can  never  be  thought  that  Peter  and  others  would 
have  made  so  tree  with  our  Lord,  as  they  sometimes  did,  if 
they  had  considered  him  as  their  maker^  and  the  being  who 
supported  the  whole  universe  ;  and  therefore  must  have  been 
present  in  every  part  of  the  creation,  giving  his  attention  to 
every  thing,  and  exerting  his  power  upon  every  thing,  at  the 
same  time  as  he  vi^as  familiarly  conversing  with  them. 
Moreover,  the  history  of  the  temptation.,  whether  it  be  sup- 
posed to  be  a  reality,  or  a  vision,  must  be  altogether  impro- 
bable on  such  a  supposition.  For  what  could  be  the  offer 
of  the  kingdoms  of  this  world,  supposing^  all  of  them,  with- 
out exception,  to  have  been  intended,  to  him  who  made  the 
world,  and  was  already  in  possession  of  it  ?  And  there  is  no 
trace  of  the  apostles,  after  their  supernatural  illumination, 
dicovering  the  great  mistake  they  had  been  under  with  respect 
to  this  subject.  On  the  contrary,  they  continued  to  speak 
as  if  their  former  ideas  of  him  had  been  just,  never  giving 
him  any  higher  title  than  that  of  «  maii  approved  of  God,  &c. 

If  it  be  supposed  that  while  Christ  was  on  earth  he  ceased 
to  discharge  the  high  office  he  held  before,  viz.  supporting 
all  things  bi/  the  i€ord  of  his  power,  there  will  be  some  diffi- 
culty in  supposing  how,  and  by  whom,  it  was  performed  in 
that  interval.  For  certainly  it  would  not  have  been  dele- 
gated to  Christ,  or  any  other  created  being,  if  there  had  not 
been  some  impropriety  in  its  being  done  immediately  by 
God  himself.  That  our  Lord  had  a  knowledge  of  the  rank 
he  held  before  he  came  into  the  world,  must,  I  think,  be 
allowed  by  all  Arians,  if  they  give  any  attention  to  many 
circumstances  in  the  gospel  histor}^  especially  to  our  Lord's 
praying  for  the  glorfj  which  he  had  with  the  Father  before  the 
foundation  of  the  world,  which  ail  Arians  suppose  to  refer  to 
his  pre-existent  state. 

For  these,  I  suppose,  and  other  reasons  which  might  be 
alleged,  a  middle  opinion  has  been  adopted  by  some  Arians, 
For  they  consider  Christ  merely  as  a  pre-existent  Spirit,  but 
one  who  never  had  any  business  out  of  this  world,  and  had 
no  concern  in  making  it;  nor  do  all  of  them  suppose  that 
Christ  was  even  the  medium  of  divine  communications  to 
the  patriarchs,  &c.  But  then  they  do  not  seem  to  consider 
that  many  of  the  texts  which,  when  interpreted  literally, 
refer  to  the  pre-existence  of  Christ,  refer  also,  by  the  same 
mode  of  interpretation,  to  his  being  the  maker  of  the  world, 


88         HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS   CONCERNING  CHRIST. 

&c.  &c.,  SO  that  if  these  texts  do  not  prove  both  these  par- 
ticulars, they  prove  neither  of  them.  If  those  texts  which 
seem  to  sptak  of  both  these  circumstances,  viz.  the  pre- 
existcnce  of  Christ,  and  his  making  of  the  world,  wih  admit 
of  some  other  construction,  much  more  may  those  which 
seem  to  refer  to  his  pre-existencc  only. 

Besides,  if  we  once  give  up  the  idea  of  Christ  having  been 
the  maker  of  the  world,  and  content  ourselves  with  supposing 
him  to  have  been  a  being  of  a  much  more  limited  capacity, 
why  may  we  not  be  satisfied  with  supposing  him  to  have 
been  o.  mere  man P  The  purposes  of  his  mission  certainly 
could  not  require  more.  For  it  cannot  be  said  that  any  thing 
is  ascribed  to  him  that  a  mere  man  (aided,  as  he  himself  says  he 
was,  by  the  power  of  God,  his  Father)  was  not  equal  to.  And 
in  other  respects  there  seems  to  be  a  peculiar  propriety  in  a 
man  like  ourselves  being  employed  on  such  a  commission  as 
that  of  Christ,  with  respect  to  man ;  as  his  being  an  example 
to  us,  and  especially  in  his  resurrection  being  the  resurrec- 
tion of  a  man  like  ourselves,  and  therefore  a  more  proper 
pattern  of  our  own,  and  consequently  a  greater  encourage- 
ment to  us  to  look  for  the  same.  So  that  all  the  advantages 
of  the  Socinian  hypothesis  (and  it  cannot  be  denied  to  have 
some)  are  abandoned,  and  yet  the  peculiar  ones  of  the 
original  Arian  hypothesis  are  not  preserved,  in  the  more 
qualified  one,  while  no  new  advantage  can  be  claimed  by  it. 
For  all  that  can  be  said  in  its  favour  is,  that  the  mind  does 
not  revolt  at  it  quite  so  much  as  at  the  original  hypothesis. 

With  respect  to  the  Trinitarians  of  the  present  age,  and 
especially  with  us  in  England,  those  who  have  written  on 
the  subject  are  far  from  being  agreed  in  their  opinions,  and 
therefore  ought  to  be  classed  very  differently  from  one 
another.  But  as  they  can  agree  in  using  the  same  phraseo- 
logy, and  mankind  in  general  look  no  farther,  they  pass 
uncensured,  and  the  emoluments  of  the  establishment  are 
equally  accessible  to  them  all.  They  are  all,  however, 
reducible  to  two  classes,  viz.  that  of  those  who,  if  they  were 
ingenuous,  would  rank  with  Socinians,  believing  that  there 
is  no  proper  divinity  in  Christ,  besides  that  of  the  Father; 
or  else  with  Tritheists,  holding  three  equal  and  distinct 
Gods.  For,  it  cannot  be  [)retended  that  the  words  being 
and  persons^  have  any  definable  dillerence  in  their  corres- 
ponding ideas,  when  applied  to  this  subject. 

Dr.  Waterland,  and  the  generality  of  the  more  strict  Tri- 
nitarians, make  three  proper  distinct  persons  in  the  Trinity, 
independent  of   each   other,   which   is  nothing  less   than 


HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST.  89 

makino^  three  distinct  Gods.  Mr.  Howe  would  have  helped 
out  this  hypothesis  by  supposing  a  mutual  self- consciousness 
among  them.  But  this  is  equally  arbitrary  and  ineffectual; 
since  three  perfectly  distinct  intelligent  beings  still  remain. 
For,  supposing  a  proper  self-consciousness  to  be  commu- 
nicated to  three  men,  this  circumstance  could  never  be 
imagined  to  make  them  one  man. 

Bishops  Pearson  and  Bull  were  of  opinion,  "  that  though 
God  the  Father  is  the  fountain  of  the  Deity,  the  whole  divine 
nature  is  communicated  from  the  Father  to  the  Son,  and 
from  both  to  the  Spirit  ;  yet,  so  as  that  the  Father  and  Son 
are  not  separate,  nor  separable  from  the  divinity,  but  do  still 
exist  in  it."  *  But  this  u7iion  is  a  mere  hypothetical  thing, 
of  which  we  can  neither  have  evidence  nor  ideas.  If  the 
Father  be  the  sole  fountain  of  Deity,  he  only  is  God,  in  the 
proper  sense  of  the  word,  and  the  two  others  can  be  nothing 
but  creatures,  whether  they  exist  in  the  Deity  (of  which  also 
we  have  no  idea)  or  out  of  him. 

"  Dr.  Wallis,"  says  Dr.  Doddridge,  "  thought  the  distinc- 
tion between  the  three  persons  was  only  modal;  which 
seems  also  to  have  been  Archbishop  Tillotson's  opinion.'* 
If  so,  they  were  both  of  them  nothing  more  than  Sabellians, 
whom  all  the  ancients  classed  with  Unitarians.  In  the  same 
class  also,  ought  to  be  ranked  Dr.  Thomas  Burnet,  who 
"  maintains  one  self-existent  and  two  dependent  beings  ; 
but  asserts,  that  the  two  latter  are  so  united  to,  and  in- 
habited by  the  former,  that,  by  virtue  of  that  union,  divine 
perfections  may  be  ascribed,  and  divine  worship  paid  to 
them."  f  This  too  was  evidently  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Dod- 
dridge himself,  and  probably  that  of  a  great  number  of 
those  who  were  educated  under  him,  and  perhaps  also  that 
of  Dr.  Watts.;}:  But,  in  fact,  this  scheme  only  enables  per- 
sons to  use  the  language,  and  to  enjoy  the  reputation  of 
orthodoxy,  when  they  have  no  just  title  to  either.  For  the 
divinity  of  the  Father  dwelling  in,  or  ever  so  intimately 
united  to,  what  is  confessed  to  be  a  creature,  is  still  no  other 
than  the  divinity  of  the  Father  in  that  creature,  and  by  i^o 
means  any  proper  divinity  of  its  own. 

•  Doddridge's  Lectures,  p.  103.  (P.)    Prop,  cxxxii.         f  ^bid.  p.  402.    (P.) 
X  He  wa.s  certainly  su>>pected  by  the  strict  Trinitarians,  as  appears  by  a  pamphlet 

entitled  "  The  Scripture  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity  vindicated,  in  opposition  to  Mr. 

Watt.s's  Scheme  of  one  divine  Person  and  two  divine  Powers,  bv  Abnliani  Taylor. 

Ed.  2d,  172R."  The  author  was  Tntor  of  an  Independent  .Acadptn\  at  Deptford. 
vjt  would,  I  believe,  be  found,  on  an  examination  of  Watts's  later  pnblicalions,  that 

his  faith  in  a  Trinihj  never  recovered  the  shock  it  must  have  received  from  Mr. 

Tomkinss  *■  Appeal — concerning  the  plain  Sense  of  Scripture,"  1722,  in  answer  to 

his  "  Christian  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  or  Father,  Son  and  Spirit,  Three  Persona 

and  One  God." 


90  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  CONCERNING  CHRIST. 

Besides,  whatever  we  may  fancy  we  can  do  by  wordsy 
which  are  arbitrary  things,  and  which  we  can  twist  and  vary 
as  we  please,  the  properties  and  prerogatives  of  divinity 
cannot  be  communicated.  The  Divine  Being  cannot  give 
his  own  supremacy  ;  and  whatever  he  can  give,  he  must  have 
a  power  of  VHf/ui rawing;  so  that  if  he  should  communicate 
any  extraordinarv  powers  to  Christ  or  to  the  Holi/  Spirit, 
(supposing  this  to  have  been  a  distinct  being,)  he  can,  when- 
ever he  pleases,  withdraw  tliose  powers  ;  and  for  the  same 
reason,  as  he  voluntarily  gave  them  their  being,  he  must 
have  a  power  of  taking  away  that  also.  How  then  can  they 
make  two  parts  of  a  proper  Trinity  in  the  divine  nature,  and 
be  said  to  be  equal  in  power  and  g  lor  if  with  the  Father  ? 

Christians  should  be  ashamed  of  such  unworthy  subter- 
fuges as  these.  The  most  fearless  integrity,  and  the  truest 
simplicity  of  language,  become  Christians,  who  wish  to 
know,  and  to  propagate  truth.  Certainly,  if  men  be  deceived, 
they  are  not  instructed.  All  that  we  can  gain  by  ambiguous 
language  is,  to  make  our  readers  or  hearers  imagine  that  we 
think  as  they  do.  But  this  is  so  far  from  disposing  them  to 
change  their  opinions,  or  to  lay  aside  their  prejudices,  that 
it  can  only  tend  to  confirm  them.  As  to  any  inconveni- 
ences we  may  bring  upon  ourselves  by  an  undisguised 
avowal  of  whatever  we  apprehend  to  be  the  truth,  we  may 
assure  ourselves,  that  the  God  of  truth,  whom  we  honour 
by  our  conduct,  will  reward  us,  at  least,  with  that  imcard 
peace  of  mind,  which  can  never  be  enjoyed  by  those  who  so 
miserably  prevaricate  in  a  business  of  such  moment  as  this. 
And  what  are  all  the  honours  and  emoluments  of  this  world, 
without  that  satisfaction  of  mind  ? 

Light  having  thus,  at  length,  sprung  up  in  the  Christian 
world,  after  so  long  a  season  of  darkness,  it  will,  I  doubt  not, 
increase  to  the  perfect  day.  The  great  article  of  the  unity  of 
God  will,  in  time,  be  uniformly  professed  by  all  that  bear 
the  Christian  name ;  and  then,  but  not  before,  may  we  hope 
and  expect,  that,  being  also  freed  from  other  corruptions 
and  embarrassments,  it  will  recommend  itself  to  the  accept- 
ance of  Jews  and  Mahometans,  and  become  the  religion  of 
the  whole  world.  But  so  long  as  Christians  in  general  are 
chargeable  with  this  fundamental  error,  of  worshipping  more 
Gods  than  one,  .lews  and  Mahometans  will  always  hold  their 
religion  in  abhorrence.  As,  therefore,  we  wish  to  see  the 
general  spread  of  the  gospel,  we  should  exert  ourselves  to 
restore  it  to  its  pristine  purity  in  this  respect. 


91 

THE 

HISTORY 


CTorruptiottg  of  Qtf)ti^timit^. 


PART  11. 


T/ie  History  of  Opinions  relating  to  the  Doctrine  of 
Atonement. 


■»  ♦» 


THE 

INTRODUCTION. 


As  the  doctrine  of  the  divine  unity  was  infringed  by  the 
introduction  of  that  of  the  divinity  of  Christ,  and  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  (as  a  person  distinct  from  the  Father),  so  the 
doctrine  of  the  natural  placability  of  the  Divine  Being,  and 
our  ideas  of  the  equity  of  his  government,  have  been  greatly 
debased  by  the  gradual  introduction  of  the  modern  doctrine 
of  atonement,  which  represents  the  Divine  Being  as  with- 
holding his  mercy  from  the  truly  penitent,  till  a  full  satis- 
faction be  made  to  his  justice;  and  for  that  purpose,  as 
substituting  his  own  innocent  Son  in  the  place  of  sinful 
men. 

This  corruption  of  the  genuine  doctrine  of  revelation  is 
connected  with  the  doctrine  of  the  divinity  of  Christ; 
because  it  is  said  that  sin,  as  an  offence  against  an  infinite 
Being,  requires  an  infinite  satisfaction,  which  can  only  be 
made  by  an  infinite  person,  that  is,  one  who  is  no  less  than 
God  himself.  Christ,  therefore,  in  order  to  make  this 
infinite  satisfaction  for  the  sins  of  men,  must  himself  be 
God,  equal  to  the  Father.  The  justice  of  God  being  now 
fully  satisfied  by  the  death  of  Christ,  the  sinner  is  acquitted. 
Moreover,  as  the  sins  of  men  have  been  thus  imputed  to 
Christ,  his  righteousness  is,  on  the  other  hand,  imputed  to 


92  HISTORY   OF   THE   DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

them  ;  and  thus  they  are  accepted  of  God,  not  on  account 
of  what  they  have  done  themselves,  but  for  what  Christ  had 
done  for  them. 

As  1  conceive  this  doctrine  to  be  a  gross  misrepresenta- 
tion of  the  character  and  moral  government  of  God,  and  to 
affect  many  other  articles  in  the  scheme  of  Christianity, 
greatly  disfiguring  and  depraving  it ;  1  shall  shew,  in  a 
fuller  manner  than  1  mean  to  do  with  respect  to  any  other 
corruption  of  Christianity,  that  it  has  no  countenance  what- 
ever in  reason,  or  the  Scriptures ;  and,  therefore,  that  the 
whole  doctrine  of  atonement^  with  every  modification  of  it, 
has  been  a  departure  from  the  primitive  and  genuine  doc- 
trine of  Christianity. 


SECTION  I. 

That  Christ  did  not  die  to  make  Satisfaction  for  the  Sins 

of  Men. 

It  is  hardly  possible  not  to  suspect  the  truth  of  this 
doctrine  of  atonement,  when  we  consider  that  the  general 
maxims  to  which  it  may  be  reduced,  are  no  where  laid 
down,  or  asserted,  in  the  Scriptures,  but  others  quite  con- 
trary to  them. 

It  is  usual  with  the  sacred  writers,  both  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testament,  to  assign  the  reasons  of  such  of  the  divine 
proceedings  respecting  the  human  race,  as  are  more  difficult 
to  be  comprehended,  and  the  necessity  and  propriety  of 
which  are  not  very  obvious,  and  might  be  liable  to  be  called 
in  question.  Such  is  the  divine  condescension,  to  the  weak- 
ness, short-sightedness,  and  even  the  perverseness  of  men. 
He  is  willing  that  we  should  be  satisfied  that  all  his  ways  are 
equal,  that  they  are  all  just,  reasonable  and  expedient,  even 
in  cases  where  our  concern  in  them  is  not  very  apparent. 
Much  more,  then,  might  we  expect  an  explanation  of  the 
divine  measures,  when  the  very  end  which  is  answered  by 
them  is  lost  if  we  do  not  enter  into' the  reasons  of  them,  as 
is  evidently  the  case  with  respect  to  the  doctrine  of  atone- 
ment ;  since  the  proper  end  of  the  measures  which  this 
opinion  represents  the  Divine  Being  to  have  taken  was  the 
display  of  his  justice,  and  of  his  al)horrence  of  sin,  to  the 
subjects  of  his  government. 

Is  it  not  surprising,  then,  that,  in  all  the  books  of  scrip- 
ture, we  no  where  find  the  principle  on  which  the  doctrine 
of  atonement  is  founded  ?    For  though  the  sacred  writers 


HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT.  93 

often  speak  of  the  malignant  nature  of  sin,  they  never  go 
a  single  step  farther,  and  assert  that,  "  it  is  of  so  heinous 
a  nature,  that  God  cannot  pardon  it  without  an  adequate 
satisfaction  being  made  to  his  justice,  and  the  honour  of 
his  laws  and  government."  Nay,  the  contrary  sentiment 
occurs  every  where,  viz.  that  repentance  and  a  good  life 
are,  of  themselves,  sufficient  to  recommend  us  to  the  divine 
favour.  Notwithstanding  so  many  notorious  sinners,  par- 
ticular persons,  and  whole  nations,  are  addressed  by  in- 
spired persons,  and  their  conduct  strongly  remonstrated 
against  in  the  course  of  the  sacred  history,  none  of  them 
are  ever  directed  to  any  thing  farther  than  their  own  hearts 
and  lives.  Return  unto  me^  and  I  will  return  unto  you,  is 
the  substance  of  all  they  say  on  these  occasions. 

Certainly,  then,  we  ought  to  suspend  our  assent  to  a 
doctrine  of  this  important  nature,  which  no  person  can  pre- 
tend to  deduce  except  by  way  of  inference  from  particular 
expressions,  which  have  much  the  air  of  figure  and  allusion. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  seems  natural  to  explain  a  few  ob- 
scure expressions  and  passages,  by  other  numerous,  plain 
and  striking  texts,  relating  to  the  same  subject ;  and  these 
uniformly  represent  God  as  our  universal  parent,  pardoning 
sinners /ree/y,  that  is,  from  his  natural  goodness  and  mercy, 
'whenever  they  truly  repent  and  reform  their  lives. 

All  the  declarations  of  divine  mercy  are  made  without 
reserve  or  limitation  to  the  truly  penitent,  through  all  the 
books  of  Scripture,  without  the  most  distant  hint  of  any 
regard  being  had  to  the  sufferings  or  merit  of  any  being 
whatever.  It  is  needless  to  quote  many  examples  of  this. 
One  only,  and  that  almost  the  first  that  occurs,  may  suffice. 
It  is  the  declaration  that  God  made  of  his  character  to 
Moses,  presently  after  the  Israelites  had  sinned  in  making  the 
golden  calf.  Exod.'  xxxiv.  6,7  '•  "  And  the  Lord  passed  by 
before  him,  and  proclaimed,  the  Lord,  the  Lord  God,  merciful 
and  gracious,  long-suffering,  and  abundant  in  goodness  and 
truth,  keeping  mercy  for  thousands,  forgiving  iniquity,  and 
transgression  and  sin."  In  the  New  Testament  also  we  are 
said  to  be  "justified  freely  by  thegrace  of  God."  Rom.  iii. 
24.  Tit.  iii.  7.  Now,  certainly,  if  the  favour  had  been 
procured  by  the  suffering  of  another  person,  it  could  not 
have  been  said  to  be  bestowed  freely . 

Agreeably  to  this,  David,  and  other  pious  persons  in  the 
Old  Testament,  in  their  penitential  addresses  to  the  Divine 
Being,  never  plead  any  thing  more  than  their  own  repen- 
tance, and  the  free  mercy  of  God.     Thus  David,  Ps.  xxv. 


94         HISTORY  OF  THE   DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

6,  7  :  "  Remember,  O  Lord,  thy  tender  mercies,  and  thy 
loving-kindnesses,  for  they  have  been  ever  of  old.  Re- 
member not  the  sins  of  my  youth  nor  my  transgressions  ; 
according  to  thy  mercy  remember  thou  me,  for  thy  good- 
ness' sake,  O  Lord." 

If  the  doctrine  of  atonement  be  true,  it  cannot,  however, 
be  pretended  that  David,  or  any  other  pious  person  in  the 
Old  Testament,  was  at  all  acquainted  with  it;  and  there- 
fore the  belief  of  it  cannot  be  necessary  to  salvation,  or 
indeed  of  much  consequence.  Had  this  doctrine,  on 
which  so  much  stress  is  now  laid,  been  true,  we  should 
have  expected  that  Job,  David,  Hezekiah,  Nehemiah  and 
Daniel  should  have  been  reproved  whenever  they  presumed 
to  mention  their  integrity  before  God,  and  took  refuge  in 
his  mercy  only,  without  interposing  the  sufferings  or  merits 
of  the  Messiah  to  mediate  for  them.  Also,  some  strong 
clauses  should  have  been  annexed  to  the  absolute  and  un- 
limited declarations  of  the  divine  mercy  that  are  so  frequent 
in  the  Old  Testament,  which  would  have  restrained  and 
fixed  their  meaning,  in  order  to  prevent  the  dangerous  con- 
structions to  which  they  are  now  too  much  open. 

Indeed,  admitting  the  popular  doctrine  of  atonement,  the 
whole  of  the  Old  Testament  is,  throughout,  a  most  unac- 
countable book,  and  the  religion  it  exhibits  is  defective  in 
the  most  essential  article.  Also  the  Jews  in  our  Saviour's 
time  had  certainly  no  idea  of  this  doctrine.  If  they  had, 
they  would  have  expected  a  suffering,  and  not  a  trium- 
phant Messiah. 

With  respect  to  forgiveness  of  injuries,  the  Divine  Being 
always  proposes  his  own  conduct  to  our  imitation  ;  and  in 
the  Lord's  Prayer  we  are  required  "  to  forgive  others,  as  we 
hope  to  be  forgiven  ourselves."  Now  it  is  certainly  re- 
quired of  us,  that  ifour  brother  only  re/>^M^,  we  should  forgive 
him,  even  though  he  should  repeat  his  offence  seven  times 
a  day.  Luke  xvii.  4.  Upon  the  same  generous  maxim, 
therefore,  we  cannot  but  conclude  that  the  Divine  Being 
acts  towards  us. 

The  parables,  by  which  our  Lord  represents  the  forgiving 
mercy  of  God,  arc  the  farthest  possible  from  being  calcu- 
lated to  give  us  an  idea  of  his  requiring  any  thing  more 
than  merely  repentance  on  the  part  of  the  ofll'ender.  What 
else  can  we  infer  from  the  parable  of  the  prodigal  son,  or  the 
master  whose  servant  owed  him  a  thousand  talents,  &c.  ? 

If  our  Lord  had  considered  the  Jews  as  having  lost  sight 
of  the  fundamental  principle  of  their  religion,  he  would 


HISTORY  OF  THE   DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT.        95 

certainly  have  pointed  it  out  to  them,  and  have  drawn  their 
attention  to  it.  If,  therefore,  the  proper  end  of  his  coming 
into  the  world  had  been  to  make  satisfaction  to  the  justice 
of  God  by  his  death,  (which  certainly  they  who  did  not  ex- 
pect a  suffering  Messiah  could  have  no  idea  of,)  he  would 
have  taken  some  opportunity  of  explaining  it  to  them.  But 
nothing  of  this  kind  occurs  in  the  whole  course  of  his 
preaching  ;  and  though  he  frequently  speaks  of  his  death,  it 
is  never  as  having  had  such  an  end. 

Our  Lord  speaks  of  repentance,  of  good  works,  and  of  the 
mercy  of  God,  in  the  very  same  strain  with  that  of  Moses 
and  the  prophets,  and  without  giving  any  intimation  that 
their  doctrine  was  defective  on  those  heads.  In  his  ac- 
count of  the  proceedings  of  the  day  of  judgment,  the 
righteous  are  represented  as  thinking  humbly  of  themselves, 
but  they  never  refer  themselves  to  the  sufferings  or  merit  of 
their  judge,  as  the  ground  of  their  hopes;  though  nothing 
can  be  conceived  to  have  been  more  natural,  and  pertinent 
on  the  occasion. 

Whenever  our  Lord  speaks  of  the  object  of  his  mission 
and  death,  as  he  often  does,  it  is  either  in  a  more  general 
way,  as  for  the  salvation  of  the  world,  to  do  the  will  of  God, 
to  fulfil  the  scripture  prophecies,  &c.,  or  more  particularly, 
to  give  the  fullest  proof  of  his  mission  by  his  resurrection 
from  the  dead,  and  an  assurance  of  a  similar  resurrection  of 
all  his  followers.  He  also  compares  his  being  raised  upon 
the  cross  to  the  elevation  of  the  serpent  in  the  wilderness, 
and  to  seed  buried  in  the  ground,  as  necessary  to  its  future 
increase.  But  all  these  representations  are  quite  foreign  to 
any  thing  in  the  doctrine  of  atonement. 

When  our  Lord  takes  so  much  pains  to  reconcile  the 
apostles  to  his  death,  in  several  discourses,  of  which  we 
have  a  particular  account  in  the  gospel  of  John,  he  never 
tells  them  that  he  must  die  in  order  to  procure  the  pardon 
of  their  sins  ;  nor  do  we  find  the  least  hint  of  it  in  his 
solemn  intercessory  prayer  before  his  death.  On  the  con- 
trary, he  speaks  of  their  sufferings  and  death  in  the  same 
light  as  his  own.  To  James  and  John  he  says,  Mark  x. 
39,  "  Ye  shall,  indeed,  drink  of  the  cup  which  I  drink  of, 
and  with  the  baptism  that  I  am  baptized  with,  shall  ye  be 
baptized."  And  he  recommends  his  own  example  to  them, 
in  laying  down  his  life  for  them,  John  xv,  12,  13. 

After  he  is  risen  from  the  dead,  he  keeps  the  same  pro- 
found silence  on  the  subject  of  the  supposed  true  and  only 
great  cause  of  his  death;  and  as  httle  do  we  find  of  it  in 


96  HISTORY  OF  THE   DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

the  history  of  the  book  of  Acts,  after  the  minds  of  the 
apostles  were  fully  illuminated  with  the  knowledge  of  the 
gospel.  They  only  call  upon  all  men  every  where  to  repent 
and  believe  the  gospel,  for  the  remission  of  their  sins. 

The  apostle  Peter,  in  his  discourse  to  the  Jews,  imme- 
diately after  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  again  in 
the  temple,  upon  the  cure  of  the  impotent  man,  paints  in 
the  blackest  colours  the  sin  of  the  Jews  in  crucifying  our 
Lord  ;  but  though  he  exhorts  them  to  repentance,  he  says 
not  one  word  ot  satisfaction,  expiation,  or  atonement,  to 
allay  any  apprehension  they  might  have  of  the  divine  jus- 
tice. And  a  fairer  opportunity  he  could  not  have  wished 
to  introduce  the  subject.  How  fine  a  turn  might  he  have 
then  given  to  the  popular  cry  of  the  same  nation,  at  the 
lime  of  our  Lord's  crucifixion.  His  blood  be  on  ns,  and  on 
our  children !  Instead  of  this,  he  only  exhorts  them  to 
repent,  and  to  believe  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  for  the 
remission  of  their  sins.  What  he  says  concerning  the 
death  of  Christ,  is  only,  that  "  he  was  delivered  to  them 
by  the  determinate  council  and  fore-knowledge  of  God,  and 
that  with  wicked  hands  they  had  put  him  to  death."  Acts 
ii.  23,  iii.  17,  IS. 

Stephen,  in  his  long  speech  at  his  trial,  makes  frequent 
mention  of  the  death  of  Christ,  but  he  says  not  one  word 
of  his  being  a  propitiation  for  sin,  to  lead  his  hearers  to 
consider  it  in  that  light. 

What  could  have  been  a  fairer  opportunity  for  intro- 
ducing the  doctrine  of  satisfaction  for  sin  by  the  death  of 
Christ,  than  the  evangelist  Philip  had,  when  he  was  ex- 
plaining to  the  Eunuch  the  only  prophecy  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament which  can  be  construed  to  represent  it  in  that  light  .^ 
And  yet  in  the  whole  story,  which  is  not  a  very  concise  one, 
there  is  no  mention  of  it.  And  when  the  Eunuch  declares 
his  faith,  which  gave  him  a  right  to  christian  baptism,  it  is 
simply  this,  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God. 

The  apostle  Peter,  preaching  to  Cornelius,  the  first  of  the 
proper  gentile  converts,  is  still  silent  about  this  funda- 
mental article  of  the  christian  faith.  Much  he  says  of 
Jesus  Christ,  that  God  anointed  him  with  the  Holy  Spirit, 
and  with  power,  that  he  went  about  doing  good,  &c.  He  also 
speaks  of  his  death  and  resurrection,  but  nothing  at  all  of 
our  good  works  being  accepted  through  his  sufferings  or 
merit.  On  the  contrary,  whrat  he  says  upon  the  occasion, 
may,  without  any  forced  construction,  be  turned  against  this 
favourite  opinion.     Acts  x.  34:  "  Of  a  truth  I  perceive  that 


HISTORY  OF  THE   DOCTRINE   OP  ATONEMENT.        97 

God  is  no  respecter  of  persons,  but,  in  every  nation,  he  that 
feareth  him,  and  worketh  righteousness,  is  accepted  with 
him." 

The  apostle  Paul  before  the  Jews  at  Antioch,  Acts  xiii. 
28,  at  Thessaionica,  ch.  xvii.  before  Agrippa,  ch.  xxvi.  and 
at  Rome,  ch.  xxviii.  on  all  these  occasions,  treats,  and 
sometimes  pretty  largely,  concerning  the  death  of  Christ  ; 
but  never  with  any  other  view  than  as  an  event  that  was 
foretold  by  the  prophets.  He  shews  the  Jews  the  aggra- 
vation of  their  sins,  and  exhorts  them  to  repentance  and  to 
faith  in  Christ,  but  nothing  farther.  In  his  preaching  to 
Heathens  at  Lystra,  Acts  xiv.  and  at  Athens,  ch.  xvii.  he 
discourses  concerning  the  supremacy  and  goodness  of  the 
one  living  and  true  God,  and  exhorts  them  to  turn  from 
their  lying  vanities;  for  (xvii.  30,  31),  "  the  times  of  this 
ignorance  God  winked  at ;  but  now  commandeth  all  men 
every  where  to  repent,  because  he  hath  appointed  a  day  in 
the  which  he  will  judge  the  world  in  righteousness,  by  that 
man  whom  he  hath  ordained,  whereof  he  hath  given  as- 
surance unto  all  men  in  that  he  hath  raised  him  from  the 
dead."  Now  in  all  this,  there  is  not  one  word  of  the  true 
gospel  scheme  of  salvation  by  Jesus  Christ,  according 
to  some.  There  is  nothing  evangelical  ;  all  is  legal  and 
carnal. 

When  we  find  the  apostles  to  be  absolutely  silent,  where 
we  cannot  but  think  there  was  the  greatest  occasion  to  open 
themselves  freely  concerning  the  doctrine  of  atonement ; 
when,  in  their  most  serious  discourses,  they  make  use  of 
language  that  really  sets  it  aside  ;  when  they  never  once 
directly  assert  the  necessity  of  any  satisfaction  for  sin,  or 
the  insufficiency  of  our  good  works  alone  to  entitle  us  to 
the  favour  of  God  and  future  happiness,  must  we  build  so 
important  an  article  of  faith  on  mere  hints  and  inferences 
from  their  writings?  The  doctrine  is  of  too  much  im- 
portance to  stand  on  such  a  foundation. 

It  has  been  pretended,  that  the  apprehension  of  some 
farther  satisfaction  being  made  to  divine  justice,  besides 
repentance  and  reformation,  is  necessary  to  allay  the  fears 
of  sincere  penitents.  They  would  else,  it  is  said,  be  sub- 
ject to  perpetual  alarms,  lest  all  they  could  do  would  be 
ineffectual  to  restore  them  to  the  divine  favour.  But  till 
clear  instances  be  produced  of  persons  actually  distressed 
with  these  fears  and  doubts,  I  can  treat  this  case  as  no  other 
than  an  imaginary  one. 

In    fact,  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  any  of  the 

VOL.  V.  H 


98    HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

human  race,  if  they  be  left  to  their  own  natural  unperverted 
apprehension  of  things,  will  ever  fall  into  such  doubts  and 
uncertainties  as  all  mankind  are  sometimes  represented  to 
be  involved  in.  On  the  contrary,  that  God  is  a  merciful 
being  seems  to  have  been  a  favourite  opinion  of  all  mankind 
in  all  ages  ;  except  in  some  religious  systems  in  which  the 
object  of  worship  was  not  the  true  God,  but  some  being  of 
a  low  and  revengeful  nature,  like  the  most  capricious  and 
depraved  of  mankind. 

We  have  seen  in  the  Old  Testament,  that  the  Jews  had 
never  any  other  idea  than  that  God  was  placable  on  repen- 
tance. We  find  no  other  sentiment  in  Job,  or  his  friends, 
and  certainly  no  other  among  the  Ninevites,  or  among  the 
Jews  of  later  ages,  as  the  books  of  Apocrypha,  Philo,  Jo- 
seph us,  and  all  their  later  writings,  testify.  We  also  see 
nothing  of  any  other  opinion  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Hindoos, 
or  other  oriental  nations. 

It  is  remarkable  that  Dr.  Clarke,  when,  like  others  before 
him,  he  represents  all  mankind  as  absolutely  at  a  loss  on 
what  terms  God  would  receive  offenders  into  his  favour, 
produces  not  so  much  as  a  single  fact  or  quotation^  in  sup- 
port of  what  he  asserts,  though  he  is  known  to  be  peculiarly 
happy  in  his  choice  of  the  most  pertinent  ones  on  all  other 
occasions.  He  gives  us,  indeed,  a  general  reference  to 
Plato's  Alcihiades  the  Second*  but  1  do  not  find,  in  all  the 
conversation  between  Socrates  and  Alcibiades  in  that  dia- 
logue, that  either  of  them  drops  the  least  hint  of  their 
uncertainty  about  the  divine  favour  in  case  of  sincerity, 
or  the  least  doubt  that  human  virtue  is  not,  of  itself  a  suffi- 
cient recommendation  to  his  acceptance.  All  that  they 
appear  to  be  at  a  loss  about  is  for  some  one  to  teach  them 
what  to  pray  for,  lest,  through  their  ignorance,  they  should 
ask  of  the  gods  things  hurtful  to  themselves.  They  express 
no  want  of  any  person  to  intercede  with  God  for  them,  or 
one  whose  sufferings  or  merit,  might  avail  with  God  for 
their  acceptance. 

Besides,  if  men  should  have  any  doubt  concerning  the 
divine  placability,  1  do  not  see  that  they  must  therefore 
imagine  that  he  would  accept  the  sufferings  of  another  in- 
stead of  theirs;  but  rather,  that  he  would  be  absolutely 
inexorable,  and  rigorous,  in  exacting  of  themselves  the 
punishment  of  their  crimes.  Fears  of  this  kind  it  is  very 
possible  that  men  may  have  entertained,  but  then  there  is 

•  See  Clarke's  Discourse,  Pt.  ii.  Prop,  vi.  Ed.  8,  pp.  294—296.  See  also  a  pas- 
sage from  Second  Alcihiades,  II.  p.  105,  Note  *. 


HISTORY  OP  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT.         99 

nothing  in  the  doctrine  of  atonement  that  is  calculated  to 
allay  such  fears.  But  the  divine  declarations  concerning 
his  own  placability,  which  abound  in  the  Scriptures,  must  be 
sufficient  to  answer  every  purpose  of  that  kind. 

It  is  urged,  however,  in  favour  of  the  doctrine  of  atone- 
ment, that  the  scheme  is  absolutely  necessary  in  the  moral 
government  of  God,  because  that,  upon  different  principles, 
no    satisfaction    is  made  to  his    offended    justice.     But  I 
answer,  it  becomes  us  ever  to  bear  in  mind  that  the  divine 
justice  is  not  a  blind  principle,  which,  upon  provocation, 
craves  satisfaction  indiscriminately,  of  all  that  come  within 
its   reach,  or  that   throw  themselves  in  its  way.     In   the 
Deity,  justice  can   be  nothing  more  than  a  modification  of 
goodness,  or  benevolence,  which  is  his  sole  governing  prin- 
ciple, the  object  and  end  of  which  is  the  supreme  happiness 
of  his  creatures  and  subjects.     This  happiness  being  of  a 
moral   nature,   must  be  chiefly  promoted   by   such  a  con- 
stitution of  the  moral  government  we  are  under,  as  shall 
afford  the  most  effectual  motives  to  induce  men  to  regulate 
their  lives  well.     Every  degree  of  severity  therefore,  that  is 
so   circumstanced   as  not  to    have  this  tendency,   viz.    to 
promote  repentance   and  the  practice  of  virtue,   must   be 
inconsistent  with  the  fundamental  principle  of  the  moral 
government  of  God,  and  even  with  justice  itself,  if  it  have 
the  same  end  with  divine  goodness,  the  happiness  of  God's 
creatures. 

Now,  that  any  severity  is  necessary  to  be  exercised  on 
such  offenders  as  are  truly  penitent,  even  in  human  govern- 
ments, is  owing  to  the  imperfection  of  government  when 
administered  by  men.  For  were  magistrates  judges  of  the 
hearts  of  men,  there  would  result  no  manner  of  incon- 
venience from  pardoning  all  offenders  who  were  become 
truly  penitent  and  reformed  ;  since  hereby  the  offenders 
themselves  would  become  useful  members  of  society,  and 
the  penetration  of  the  magistrates  would  effectually  pre- 
vent any  persons  from  taking  advantage  of  such  lenity. 

This  is  exactly  the  case  in  the  moral  government  of  an 
all-seeing  God.  Here,  therefore,  measures  formed  upon 
the  justest  principles  of  equity  may  be  taken,  without 
hazarding  the  ends  of  government,  measures  which  might  be 
pernicious  in  any  human  administration.  In  the  all-perfect 
government  of  God,  therefore,  there  is  no  occasion  tO 
exercise  any  severity,  even  on  penitents  themselves.  How 
absurd  then  it  would  be  to  exercise  it  on  others,  which  yet  thfe 
doctrine  of  atonement  requires  !     Certainly,  then,  it  must 

H  2 


100      HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

give  the  jnind  unfavourable  impressions  of  the  divine 
government,  which,  if  not  corrected  by  something  else, 
must  have  an  unfriendly  aspect  upon  their  virtue.  Yet, 
notwithstanding  this,  the  influence  which  the  doctrine 
of  atonement  has  upon  practice,  is  strongly  urged  in  its 
favour. 

Admitting,  however,  that  the  popular  doctrine  of  atone- 
ment should  raise  our  ideas  of  the  justice,  or  rather  the 
severity  of  God,  it  must,  in  the  same  proportion,  sink  our 
ideas  of  his  mercy ;  ^o  that  what  the  doctrine  may  have 
seemed  to  gain  on  the  one  hand,  it  loses  on  the  other. 
And,  moreover,  though  in  order  to  the  forgiveness  of  sin, 
some  farther  severity  on  the  part  of  God  be  supposed  ne- 
cessary, yet,  according  to  the  doctrine  of  atonement,  this 
severity  is  so  circumstanced,  as  entirely  to  lose  its  effect. 
For,  if  the  severity  be  to  work  upon  men,  the  offenders 
themselves  should  feel  it.  It  will  be  the  same  thing  with 
the  bulk  of  mankind,  who  are  the  persons  to  be  wrought 
upon,  whether  the  Divine  Being  animadvert  upon  the  vices 
that  are  repented  of,  or  not,  if  the  offenders  know  that  they 
themselves  shall  never  feel  it.  This  disinterested  generosity 
might,  indeed,  induce  some  offenders  to  spare  the  lives  of 
their  substitutes  ;  but  if  the  sufferings  had  been  endured 
already  by  some  person  of  sufficient  dignity,  on  the  behalf 
of  all  future  transgressors,  it  is  impossible  to  conceive  how 
the  consideration  of  it  should  be  any  restraint  at  all  ;  since 
nothing  that  any  man  could  then  do  would  expose  any 
other  to  farther  suffering. 


SECTION  II. 

Of  the  true  End  and  Design  of  the  Death  of  Christ. 

Having  shewai  that  the  death  of  Christ  is  not  to  be  con- 
sidered as  having  made  atonement,  or  satisfaction,  to  God 
for  the  sins  of  men,  I  shall  now  endeavour  to  shew  what 
the  end  and  use  of  it  really  were.  Now  the  principal 
design  of  the  life,  as  well  as  the  death  of  Christ,  seems  to 
be  not  so  much  what  we  may  expect  to  find  in  any  par- 
ticular texts,  or  single  passages  of  the  evangelists,  or  other 
writers  of  the  New  Testament,  as  what  is  suggested  by  a 
view  of  the  history  itself,  what  may  be  called  the  language 
o/]^ie  naked  facts,  and  what  cannot  but  be  understood 
wnerever  they  are  known.  What  has  been  written  by 
Christians   may  assist    us    to    conceive    more    accurately 


HISTORY  OF  THE   DOCTRINE   OF  ATONEMENT.        101 

concerning  some  particulars  relating  to  Christianity,  but  that 
must  be  of  more  importance,  which  does  not  require  to  be 
written,  what  the  facts  themselves  necessarily  speak,  with- 
out any  interpretation.  Let  us,  therefore,  examine  what  it 
is  that  may  be  clearly  deduced  from  the  history,  and  how 
much  of  Christianity  could  not  but  have  been  known,  if 
nothing  had  been  written,  provided  a  general  idea  of  the 
life  and  death  of  Christ  could  have  been  transmitted  to  us 
in  any  other  way. 

If,  then,  we  attend  to  the  general  facts  recorded  by  the 
evangelists,  we  cannot  but  find  that  they  afford  the  most 
satisfactory  evidence  of  a  resurrection  and  a  future  life. 
The  history  of  Jesus  contains  (what  cannot  be  said  of  any 
other  history  in  the  world)  an  authentic  account  of  a  man  like 
ourselves,  invested  by  Almighty  God  with  most  extraordinary 
powers,  not  only  teaching,  without  the  least  ambiguity  or 
hesitation,  the  doctrine  of  a  future  life  of  retribution  for  all 
mankind,  and  directing  the  views  of  his  disciples  to  it,  in 
preference  to  any  thing  in  this  world  ;  but  passing  his  own 
life  in  a  voluntary  exclusion  from  all  that  men  call  great, 
and  that  others  pursue  with  so  much  assiduity;  and,  in 
obedience  to  the  will  of  God,  calmly  giving  up  his  life,  in 
circumstances  of  public  ignominy  and  torture,  in  the  fullest 
persuasion,  that  he  should  receive  it  again  with  advantage. 
And  in  the  accomplishment  of  his  own  prediction,  he 
actually  arose  from  the  dead  the  third  day.  After  this,  he 
was  seen  by  all  those  persons  who  had  the  most  intimate 
knowledge  of  him  before,  and  he  did  not  leave  them  till  after 
having  conversed  with  them,  at  intervals,  for  a  considerable 
time,  in  order  to  give  them  the  most  satisfactory  evidence  of 
the  identity  of  his  person. 

Since,  then,  the  great  object  of  our  Lord's  mission  was  to 
teach  the  doctrine  of  a  resurrection  to  a  future  immortal  life, 
we  see  the  necessity  of  his  own  death  and  resurrection  as 
a  proof  of  his  doctr'me.  For  whatever  he  might  have  said, 
or  done  while  he  lived,  he  could  not  have  given  the  most 
satisfactory  proof  even  of  his  own  belief  of  a  resurrection, 
unless  he  had  actually  died  in  the  full  expectation  of  it. 
Hence  it  is  that  the  apostles  glory  in  the  consideration  both 
of  the  death,  and  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ ;  as,  1  Cor. 
i.  22 — 24,  "  The  Jews  require  a  sign,  and  the  Greeks  seek 
after  wisdom  ;  but  we  preach  Christ  crucified,  unto  the  Jews 
a  stumbling-block,  and  unto  the  Greeks  foolishness ;  but  unto 
them  which  are  called,  both  Jews  and  Greeks,  Christ  the 
power  of  God,  and  the  wisdom  of  God  ;  "  also    1  Cor.  xv. 


102       HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

14  and  20,  "  If  Christ  be  not  risen,  then  is  our  preaching 
v^in,  and  your  faith  is  also  vain. — But  now  is  Christ  risen 
from  the  dead,  and  become  the  first-fruits  of  them  that  slept." 

There  is  another  manner  in  which  we  may  be  assisted  in 
forming  an  idea  of  what  is  most  essential  to  Christianity. 
Suppose  a  number  of  persons,  educated  in  the  Christian 
faith,  to  be  cast  upon  a  remote  island,  without  any  Bible.  It 
is  probable  they  would  first  of  all  lose  all  distinct  remem- 
brance of  the  apostolical  epistles,  which  may  shew  that  these 
are  a  part  of  the  New  Testament,  the  least  necessary  to  be 
attended  to.  After  this,  they  would  be  apt  to  forget,  the 
particular  discourses  of  our  Lord;  but  the  last  thing  they 
would  retain  would  be  the  idea  of  a  man,  who  had  the  most 
extraordinary  power,  spending  his  time  in  performing  bene- 
volent miracles,  voluntarily  submitting  to  many  incon- 
veniencies,  and  last  of  all  to  a  painful  death,  in  a  certain 
expectation  of  being  presently  raised  to  an  immortal  life, 
and  to  great  happiness,  honour  and  power  after  death  ;  and 
that  these  his  expectations  were  actually  fulfilled.  They 
would  also  remember  that  this  person  always  recommended 
the  practice  of  virtue,  and  assured  his  followers  that  they 
would  also  be  raised  again  to  immortal  life  and  happiness,  if 
hey  persevered  in  well-doing,  as  he  had  done. 

Now,  allowing  that  those  persons,  thus  cut  off  from  all 
communication  with  other  Christians,  should  retain  only 
these  general  ideas  of  Christianity,  (and  it  is  hardly  to  be 
conceived  that  they  could  retain  less,)  yet,  would  anybody 
say  that  they  were  not  Christians,  or  that  they  were  not 
possessed  of  the  most  important  and  practical  truths  of 
Christianity,  those  truths  which  are  most  instrumental  in 
purifying  the  heart  and  reforming  the  life  ? 

Though  there  is  no  occasion  to  cite  particular  texts  for 
what  is  clearly  suggested  by  the  history  itself,  and  what 
could  not  but  be  known  of  it,  if  all  that  has  been  written  con- 
cerning it  were  lost,  yet  express  texts  are  by  no  means  wanting 
to  shew  that  the  true  and  proper  design  of  the  gospel,  and 
consequently  of  the  preaching  and  of  the  death  of  Christ, 
was  to  ascertain  and  exemplify  the  great  doctrines  of  a 
resurrection  and  of  a  future  state.  I  shall  content  myself 
with  reciting  only  a  few  of  them.  John  vi.  40:  "  This  is 
the  will  of  him  that  sent  me,  that  every  one  which  seeth  the 
Son,  and  believeth  on  him,  may  have  everlasting  life,  and  I 
will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day."  xi.  25,  26  :  "I  am  the 
resurrection  and  the  life.  He  that  believeth  in  me,  though 
he  were  dead,  yet  shall  he  live  ;  and  whosoever  liveth  and 


HISTORV  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT.       103 

believeth  in  me  shall  never  die."  x.  10 :  "  I  am  come  that 
they  might  have  life,  and  that  they  might  have  it  more 
abundantly/*  Rev.  i.  18:  *' I  am  he  that  liveth  and  was 
dead,  and  behold  I  am  alive  for  evermore ;  and  have  the 
keys  of  the  grave,  and  of  death.** 

The  apostles,  in  all  their  writings,  seem  clearly  to  have 
understood  this  to  have  been  the  principal  object  of  the 
mission  of  Christ.  Thus  Paul  says  concerning  Christ, 
2  Tim.  i.  10,  he  "  hath  abolished  death,  and  hath  brought 
life  and  immortality  to  light  through  the  gospel." 

This  doctrine  of  a  resurrection  to  immortal  life,  and  the 
making  an  express  regard  to  it  the  principal  sanction  of  the 
laws  of  virtue,  is  not  only  essential  in  the  Christian  scheme, 
but  is  an  advantage  peculiar  to  Christianity.  The  discourses 
of  our  Saviour  relating  to  this  subject  appear,  at  first  sight, 
to  be  in  a  strain  quite  different  from  that  of  any  other  teacher 
of  virtue  before  him,  inspired  or  uninspired.  And  what  is 
above  all,  the  example  of  a  man,  either  living  or  dying,  in 
the  certain  prospect  of  a  speedy  resurrection  to  an  immortal 
life,  was  never  before  exhibited  on  the  face  of  the  earth. 
The  object  of  the  missions  of  other  prophets  was  always 
something  inferior  and  introductory  to  this. 

It;  is  allowed  that  the  argument  for  our  having  an  interest 
in  a  future  life,  drawn  from  the  consideration  of  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Christ,  is  weakened  by  any  opinion  that  represents 
him  as  of  a  nature  superior  to  our  own.  But  if,  with  the 
author  of  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  we  conceive  him  to 
be  in  all  respects  as  we  are,  his  resurrection  cannot  but  be 
considered  as  a  pattern  and  a  pledge  of  ours.  Hence  the 
peculiar  propriety  of  the  divine  appointment,  explained  by 
Paul,  1  Cor.  XV.  21,  that  "  since  by  man  came  death,  by 
man  should  also  come  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  ;'*  and 
that,  as  in  consequence  of  our  relation  to  Adam  all  should 
die,  so  in  consequence  of  our  relation  to  Christ,  who  is  called 
the  second  Adam,  we  should  all  be  tnade  alive.  The  same 
argument  is  also  more  fully  illustrated  by  the  same  apostle, 
in  the  5th  chapter  of  his  epistle  to  the  Romans,  in  which, 
what  we  suffer  by  one  man  is  contrasted  by  what  we  gain  by 
another  man. 

The  great  object  of  the  mission  and  death  of  Christ  being 
to  give  the  fullest  proof  of  a  future  life  of  retribution,  in 
order  to  supply  the  strongest  motives  to  virtue,  we  see  the 
greatest  propriety  in  those  texts,  in  which  this  ultimate  end 
of  his  sufferings  is  immediately  connected  with  them ;  as 
Titus  ii.    14,    *'  Who  gave  himself  for  us,  that  he  might 


104       HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

redeem  us  from  all  iniquity,  and  purify  unto  himself  a 
peculiar  people  zealous  of  good  works  \*  Eph.  v.  25,  26, 
"  Christ  loved  the  church  and  gave  himself  for  it,  that  he 
might  sanctify  and  cleanse  it,"  &c.  ;  Rev.  i.  5,  "  Unto  him 
that  loved  us,  and  washed  us  from  our  sins  in  his  own 
blood,"  &c. 

Also,  true  religion  being  by  means  of  Christianity  extended 
to  the  Gentile  world,  as  well  as  the  Jews,  this  ultimate  end, 
viz.  the  abolition  of  the  Jewish  ritual,  at  least  with  respect 
to  the  Gentiles,  is  sometimes  immediately  connected  with 
the  mention  of  his  death  ;  as  Eph.  ii.  13,  "  But  now  in 
Christ  Jesus,  ye  who  sometimes  were  far  off  are  made  nigh, 
by  the  blood  of  Christ;"  Col.  ii.  14,  "  Blotting  out  the 
hand-writing  of  ordinances,  that  was  against  us,  which  was 
contrary  to  us,  and  took  it  out  of  the  way,  nailing  it  to  the 
cross." 

Besides  the  principal  object  of  the  death  of  Christ,  other 
uses  of  it  are  occasionally  mentioned,  but  they  are  such  as 
are  perfectly  consistent  with  this.  For  instance,  Christ 
having  submitted  to  all  these  sufferings  for  so  great  and 
benevolent  a  purpose,  it  was  highly  proper  that  he  should 
he  rewarded  for  it  ;  and  the  Divine  J3eing  has,  therefore,  in 
this  case,  exhibited  an  illustrious  example  of  the  manner  in 
which  he  will  always  crown  obedience  to  his  will.  Moreover, 
Christ,  being  a  man  like  ourselves,  and  therefore  influenced 
by  hopes  and  fears,  it  was  reasonable  that  he  should  have  a 
view  to  this  glorious  reward,  in  order  to  support  him  under 
his  sufferings,  as  is  particularly  expressed  in  the  following 
passages.  Rom.  xiv.  9:  ''  For,  to  this  end,  Christ  both 
died  and  rose,  and  revived,  that  he  might  be  Lord  both  of 
the  dead  and  living."  Heb.  xii.  2  :  "  Who  for  the  joy  that 
was  set  before  him,  endured  the  cross,  despising  the  shame, 
and  is  set  down  at  the  right  hand  of  the  throne  of  God." 

As  Christ  was  intended  to  be  our  example  and  pattern,  in 
his  life,  death,  and  resurrection  from  the  dead,  his  sufferings 
were  absolutely  necessary  to  qualify  him  for  the  work  on 
which  he  was  sent.  This  is  expressed  in  the  following- 
passages,  M'hich  also  clearly  shew  the  necessity  of  his  being 
a  man  like  ourselves,  in  order  to  undergo  sufferings  like 
ours.  Heb.  ii.  10,  11  :  "  For  it  became  him  for  whom  are 
all  things,  and  by  whom  are  all  things,  in  bringing  many 
sons  unto  glory,  to  make  the  captain  of  their  salvation 
perfect,  through  sufferings ;  for,  both  he  that  sanctifieth, 
and  they  who  are  sanctified,  are  all  of  one  (that  is,  of  one 
nature  and  rank),  for  which  cause  he  is  not  ashamed  to  call 


HISTORY  OF  THE   DOCTRINE   OF  ATONEMENT.        105 

them  brethren."  Ver.  14:  "  For  as  much  then  as  the 
children  are  partakers  of  flesh  and  blood,  (that  is,  are  men,) 
he  also  himself  likewise  took  part  of  the  same,"  (that  is,  was 
a  man  also).  Ver.  17,  18:  "  Wherefore,  in  all  things,  it 
behoved  him  to  be  made  like  unto  his  brethren. — For  in  that 
he  himself  has  suffered,  being  tempted,  he  is  able  to  succour 
them  that  are  tempted."  Yer.  8  :  "  Though  he  were  a 
Son,  yet  learned  he  obedience  by  the  things  which  he 
suffered,  and  being  made  perfect,  he  became  the  author  of 
eternal  salvation  unto  all  them  that  obey  him." 

As  Christ  was  the  person  foretold  by  the  ancient  Jewish 
prophets,  and  he  carried  the  proper  and  ultimate  object  of 
the  law  of  Moses  into  execution,  in  a  more  extensive  manner 
than  it  had  ever  been  done  before,  giving  a  proper  extent  and 
force  to  its  moral  precepts,  Christ  is  properly  said  to  have 
come  to  fulfil  the  late,  and  for  the  accomplishment  of  ancient 
prophecies.  Matt.  v.  17  :  "  Think  not  that  1  am  come  to 
destroy  the  law,  or  the  prophets  ;  I  am  not  come  to  destroy 
but  to  fulfil."  Acts  iii.  18:  "  But  those  things  which 
God  before  had  shewed  by  the  mouth  of  all  his  prophets, 
that  Christ  should  suffer,  he  hath  so  fulfilled." 

Lastly,  as  the  end  of  Christ*s  mission  necessarily  required 
him  to  undergo  a  great  variety  of  sufferings,  he  is,  with 
propriety,  said  to  come  in  order  to  exhibit  to  mankind  a 
most  perfect  example  of  voluntary  obedience  to  the  will  of 
God,  under  the  severest  trial  of  it ;  and  his  example  is  justly 
proposed  to  us  under  our  trials  and  sufferings.  1  Pet.  ii.  21 : 
"  Christ  also  hath  suffered  for  us,  leaving  us  an  example, 
that  ye  should  follow  his  steps."  1  John  iii.  16  :  "  Hereby 
,  perceive  we  the  love  of  God,  because  he,  (that  is,  Christ,) 
laid  down  his  life  for  us  ;  and  we  ought  to  lay  down  our  lives 
for  the  brethren." 


SECTION   III. 

Of  the  Sense  in  which  the  Death  of  Christ  is  represented  as  a 
Sacrifice,  and  other  figurative  Representations  of  it. 

Having  explained  the  one  great  and  primary  end  of  the 
life  and  death  of  Christ,  and  also  pointed  out  the  other 
secondary  and  subordinate  ends  which  were  likewise  really 
answered  by  it,  I  shall  now  attempt  to  illustrate  the^gura- 
tive  representations  that  are  made  of  it  by  the  sacred  writers. 
These  have  unfortunately  misled  many  Christians,  and  have 
been  the  occasion  of  their  entertaining  opinions  concerning 


106       HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

the  end  of  Christ's  coming  into  the  world,  quite  different 
from  those  which  appear  upon  the  very  face  of  the  history  ; 
opinions  which  are  contradicted  by  the  whole  tenor  of 
revelation,  and  which  are  extremely  injurious  to  the  character 
of  the  ever-blessed  God. 

The  most  remarkable  of  these  figurative  representations  of 
the  death  of  Christ,  is  that  in  which  he  is  compared  to  a 
sacrifice ;  and  as  a  figure,  it  is  just  and  beautiful.  In  every 
sacrifice  the  victim  is  slain  for  the  benefit  of  the  person  on 
whose  account  it  is  offered ;  so  Christ,  dying  to  procure  the 
greatest  possible  benefit  to  the  human  race,  is  said  to  have 
given  his  life  a  sacrifice  for  us ;  and  moreover  as  the  end  of 
the  gospel  is  to  promote  the  reformation  of  sinners,  in  order 
to  procure  the  pardon  of  sin,  the  death  of  Christ  is  more 
expressly  compared  to  a  sin-offering. 

These  points  of  resemblance  between  the  death  of  Christ 
and  the  Jewish  sacrifices,  sufficiently  justify  and  explain 
the  language  of  the  Scriptures  relating  to  it.  From  this 
circumstance,  however,  has  arisen  a  notion,  that  the  sacrifices 
prescribed  in  the  Jewish  law  were  types  of  this  great,  com- 
plete and  expiatory  sacrifice  of  the  death  of  Christ,  which 
now  supersedes  and  abrogates  them.  On  account,  therefore, 
of  the  great  stress  which  has  been  laid  on  this  view  of  the 
death  of  Christ,  I  shall  consider  it  more  fully  than  it  would 
otherwise  deserve. 

All  the  texts  in  which  Christ  is  indisputably  represented 
as  a  sacrifice,  are  the  following.  Eph.  v.  2  :  "  Christ  also 
hath  loved  us,  and  hath  given  himself  for  us,  an  offering 
and  a  sacrifice  to  God,  for  a  sweet-smelling  savour/* 
Heb.  vii.  27  :  "  Who  needeth  not  daily, — to  offer  up 
sacrifices,  first  for  his  own  sins,  and  then  for  the  people's ; 
for  this  he  did  once  when  he  offered  up  himself.'*  The 
same  allusion  is  also  frequent  in  this  epistle.  We  find  it 
also,  I  Pet.  i.  2,  19,  Rev.  v.  6,  and  1  John  ii.  2  ;  "  and  he 
is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins."  The  same  expression  occurs, 
ch.  iv.  10.  But  these  two  are  the  only  places  in  which  the 
word  propitiation  (<Xa(r/x,oj)  occurs  in  the  New  Testament. 

With  respect  to  these  texts,  it  is  obvious  to  remark,  that 
the  far  greater  part  of  them  are  from  one  epistle  of  an  unknown 
writer,  (for  it  is  not  certain,  at  least,  that  the  epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  was  written  by  Paul,)  which  is  allowed,  in  other 
respects,  to  abound  with  the  strongest  figures,  metaphors 
and  allegories  ;  and  the  rest  are  too  few  to  bear  the  very  great 
stress  that  has  been  laid  upon  them.  Besides,  the  manner 
in  which  this  idea  is  introduced  in  these  texts,  which  is  only 


HISTORY  OF  THE   DOCTRINE  OP  ATONEMENT.       107 

indirectly,  intimates  plainly  enough,  that  a  few  circumstances 
of  resemblance  are  sufficient  to  justify  the  allusion.  Had 
the  writers  really  considered  the  death  of  Christ  as  the 
intended  antitype  of  the  sacrifices  under  the  law ;  had  this 
been  the  great  and  principal  end  of  his  death,  it  would  have 
been  asserted  in  the  fullest  and  plainest  manner,  and  refer- 
ences to  it  would  certainly  have  been  much  more  direct  and 
frequent  than  they  are. 

It  is  something  similar  to  this  view  of  the  death  of  Christ, 
as  a  sacrifice,  that  he  is  also  called  2i  priest,  and  a  high  priest, 
especially  by  the  author  of  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  But 
this  very  circumstance  might  have  given  us  to  understand, 
that  both  the  representations  are  merely  figurative,  because 
both  taken  together  are  hardly  consistent,  at  least  they  make 
a  very  harsh  figure,  and  introduce  confusion  into  our  ideas. 

That  the  death  of  Christ  is  no  proper  sacrifice  for  sin,  or 
the  intended  antitype  of  the  Jewish  sacrifices,  may  be  inferred 
from  the  following  considerations. 

1 .  Though  the  death  of  Christ  is  frequently  mentioned,  or 
alluded  to,  by  the  ancient  prophets,  it  is  never  spoken  of  as 
a  sin-offering.  For  the  propriety  of  our  translation  of  Isaiah 
liii.  10,  may  be  doubted  ;*  or  if  it  be  retained,  it  cannot  be 
proved  to  exhibit  any  thing  more  than  a  figurative  allusion. 
Now  that  this  great  event  of  the  death  of  Christ  should  be 
foretold,  with  so  many  particular  circumstances,  and  yet  that 
the  proper,  the  ultimate,  and  the  great  end  of  it  should  not 
be  pointed  out,  is  unaccountable. 

2.  Great  weight  is  given  to  this  observation  by  the  converse 
of  it,  viz.  that  the  Jewish  sacrifices  are  no  where  said,  in  the 
Old  Testament,  to  have  any  reference  to  another  more  perfect 
sacrifice,  as  might  have  been  expected  if  they  really  had  had 
any  such  reference.  On  the  contrary,  whenever  the  legal 
sacrifices  are  declared  by  the  prophets  to  be  insufficient  to 
procure  the  favour  of  God,  as  they  often  are,  the  only  thing 
that  is  ever  opposed  to  them,  as  of  more  value  in  the  sight 
of  God,  is  good  works  or  moral  virtue;  as  Ps.  li.  16,  17, 
"  Thou  desirest  not  sacrifice,  else  would  I  give  it.  Thou 
delightest  not  in  burnt-offering.  The  sacrifices  of  God  are  a 
broken  spirit;  a  broken  and  a  contrite  heart,  O  God,  thou 
wilt  not  despise.'*  To  the  same  purpose  see  Isaiah  i.  1 1,  &c., 
Hos.  vi.  6,  Amos  v.  22,  Mic.  vi.  6. 

•  Mr.  Dodson  thus  translates  the  verse :  **  Yet  it  pleased  Jehovah  to  crush  him 
with  affliction.  Since  he  is  made  an  offering  for  sin,  he  shall  see  a  seed,  and  shall 
prolong  bis  days,  and  the  gracious  purpose  of  Jehovah  shall  prosper  in  his  hand." 
Mr.  D.  also  proposes  to  transpose  a  passage  from  ch.  57.  See  Isaiah,  1790, 
pp.  115— 119,  and  334— 336. 


108       HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

The  wisest  of  the  Jev/s  in  our  Saviour's  time  speak  exactly 
in  the  same  strain,  and  in  the  presence  of  our  Lord  himself; 
who  is  so  far  from  disapproving  of  it,  that  he  gives  his  own 
sanction  to  the  sentiment  in  the  most  open  manner.  A 
scribe  says,  Mark  xii.  32 — 34,  "  There  is  one  God,  and 
there  is  none  other  but  he  ;  and  to  love  him  with  all  the 
heart,  &c.  is  more  than  all  whole  burnt-offerings  and  sacri- 
fices. And  when  Jesus  saw  that  he  answered  discreetly,  he 
said  unto  him,  Thou  art  not  far  from  the  kingdom  of  God." 
Having  a  perfect  knowledge  of  the  law^  he  was  prepared  for 
embracing  the  gospel. 

The  general  strain  of  the  passages,  quoted  and  referred  to 
above,  cannot  but  appear  very  extraordinary,  if  the  Jewish 
sacrifices  had  in  reality,  any  reference  to  the  death  of  Christ, 
and  were  intended  to  prefigure  it,  as  types  to  an  antitype. 

3.  Many  other  things,  besides  the  death  of  Christ,  are 
expressly  called  sacrifices  by  the  sacred  writers  ;  and  if  it  be 
universally  allowed  to  be  in  a  figurative  sense  only,  why  niay 
not  this  be  the  case  with  the  death  of  Christ  also  ?  Isa.  Ixvi. 
20  :  "  They  shall  bring  all  your  brethren  for  an  offering  unto 
the  Lord."  Rom.  xii.  1  :  "  That  ye  present  your  bodies  a 
living  sacrifice,  holy,  acceptable  unto  God,  which  is  your 
reasonable  service." 

4.  Christians  in  general  are  frequently  called  priests,  as 
well  as  Christ  himself.  1  Pet.  ii.  6 :  "  Ye  are  an  holy 
priesthood,  to  offer  up  spiritual  sacrifices." 

5.  The  death  of  Christ  cannot  be  considered  as  a  proper 
sacrifice  for  sin,  because  many  things  essential  to  such  a 
sacrifice  were  wanting  in  it,  especially  its  not  being  provided 
and  presented  by  the  sinner. 

6.  We  meet  with  many  figures  in  the  writings  of  the 
apostles  no  less  bold  than  this.  Thus  the  body  of  Christ  is 
the  veil  through  which  we  pass  to  the  holy  of  holies.  We 
are  said  to  be  circumcised  in  his  circumcision,  and  to  be 
buried  with  him  by  baptism.  Our  sins  are  crucijied  with 
him,  and  we  rise  again  with  him  to  newness  of  life.  After 
meeting  with  figures  like  these  (and  many  more  might  be 
mentioned  quite  as  harsh  as  these),  can  we  be  surprised  that 
Christ,  who  died  to  promote  the  reformation  of  the  world, 
should  be  called  a  sacrijice  for  the  sins  of  men  ? 

Still  less  shall  we  wonder  at  this,  if  we  consider  how 
familiar  all  the  rites  of  the  Jewish  religion  were  to  the  minds 
of  the  apostles,  so  that  whatever  they  were  writing  about,  if 
it  bore  any  resemblance  to  that  ritual,  it  was  sure  to  obtrude 
itself.     It  must  also  be  considered,  that  the  death  of  Christ 


HISTORY   OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT.        109 

was  the  greatest  objection  to  Christianity  both  with  Jews 
and  Gentiles;  and  what  could  tend  more  to  remove  this 
prejudice,  with  both  of  them,  and  especially  the  Jews,  than 
taking  every  opportunity  of  describing  it  in  language  which 
to  them  was  so  familiar  and  respectable  ? 

7.  It  has  been  said  by  some,  that  sacrifices  were  originally 
intended  to  prefigure  the  death  of  Christ ;  and  that,  in  them"- 
selves  considered,  they  were  of  such  a  nature,  that  they 
would  never  have  been  thought  of  by  man,  without  an 
express  command  from  God. 

But  whether  sacrifices  were  originally  appointed  by  God, 
or  a  method  which  men  themselves  thought  of,  (which  I 
think  not  improbable,)  of  expressing  their  gratitude  to  God, 
for  his  favours  to  them,  when  we  consider  the  circumstances 
in  which  they  were  used,  they  appear  easily  to  fall  under 
either  the  general  notion  of  gifts,  or  the  more  particular  one 
of  entertainments^  furnished  at  the  expense  of  the  person 
who  w^as  dependent  and  obliged.  They  were  therefore 
always  considered  as  acknowledgments  for  favours  received 
from,  or  of  homage  due  to  God  or  man.  In  like  manner, 
they  might  be  used  to  deprecate  the  anger  of  God  or  man, 
or  to  procure  favours  of  any  other  kind,  by  begetting  in 
the  mind  of  our  patron  an  opinion  of  our  respect  and  esteem 
for  him. 

To  all  these  purposes  served  sacrifices  before  and  under 
the  law  of  Moses.  Without  a  sacrifice  or  some  other  gift, 
the  Jews  were  not  allowed  to  approach  the  tabernacle  or  the 
temple,  that  is,  the  house  of  God.  They  were  expressly 
commanded  never  to  appear  before  God  empty,  lest  wrath 
should  he  upon  them,  which  was  agreeable  to  a  custom  that 
is  still  universal  in  the  East,  never  to  appear  in  the  presence 
of  any  prince,  or  great  man,  without  a  present. 

That  the  offering  of  an  animal  upon  the  altar,  was  con- 
sidered, in  the  law  of  Moses,  in  the  same  light  as  any  other 
offering  or  gift,  and  a  sacrifice  for  sin,  as  any  other  sacrifice, 
is  evident  from  several  facts  in  the  Jewish  history,  and  from 
several  circumstances  in  their  ritual.  In  many  cases,  where 
a  person  was  not  able  to  provide  an  animal  for  a  sacrifice,  an 
offering  of  flour  was  accepted.  The  Philistines  also,  when 
they  were  convinced  of  their  fault  in  taking  captive  the  ark 
of  God,  returned  it  with  a  present  of  golden  mice  and 
emrods,  to  make  atonement  for  them,  evidently  in  the  place 
of  a  sacrifice  ;  and  from  the  Grecian  history  it  appears  that 
(ava^Tj/xara,)  or  presents  of  gold,  silver,  statues,  &c.  were 


110       HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

considered  by  them  as  equivalent  to  expensive  sacrifices  for 
any  purpose  whatever. 

In  the  Jewish  ritual,  the  ceremonies  attending  a  sacrifice 
for  sin  did  not  differ  in  any  thing  material,  from  those  that 
were  used  in  any  other  sacrifice.  Whatever  was  the  occa- 
sion of  the  sacrifice,  the  person  who  offered  it  laid  his  hand, 
in  a  solemn  manner,  on  the  head  of  the  victim,  which  was 
the  for mal  presentation  of  it,  the  animal  was  slain,  and  the 
blood  sprinkled.  Part  of  the  victim  was  always  burnt  on 
the  altar,  a  part  was  the  portion  of  the  priest,  and  in  some 
cases  the  remainder  was  eaten  by  the  offerer.  When,  there- 
fore, the  Jews  sacrificed  an  animal  as  a  sin-offering,  the  use 
and  signification  of  the  sacrifice  itself,  were  the  same  as  if  it 
had  been  intended  to  procure  any  other  favour ;  and  there 
was  no  more  bearing  of  sin,  or  any  thing  properly  vicarious 
in  the  offering  of  the  animal  that  was  made  a  sin-offering, 
than  if  it  had  been  sacrificed  on  an  occasion  of  thanksgiving, 
or  on  any  other  account. 

From  all  that  has  been  said  concerning  sacrifices  under  the 
law,  and  the  history  of  their  uses,  they  appear  to  have  been 
considered  as  circumstances  attending  an  address  to  the  Deity, 
and  not  as  things  that  were  of  any  avail  in  themselves.  It 
was  not  the  sacrifice,  but  the  priest  that  was  said  to  make 
atonement ;  nor  was  a  sacrifice  universally  necessary  for  that 
purpose.  For,  upon  several  occasions,  we  read  of  atonement 
being  made  when  there  was  no  sacrifice.  Phineas  is  said  to 
have  made  atonement  for  the  children  of  Israel  by  slaying  the 
transgressors.  Num.  xxv.  13.  Moses  made  atonement  by 
prayer  only,  Exod.  xxxii.  30.  And  Aaron  made  atonement 
with  incense. 

Whenever  the  writers  of  the  Old  Testament  treat  largely 
concerning  sacrifices,  it  is  evident  the  idea  they  had  of  them 
was  the  same  with  that  which  they  had  concerning  gifts,  or 
presents  of  any  other  nature.  Thus  the  Divine  Being  is  repre- 
sented as  saying,  Ps.  1.  9,  14,  **  I  will  take  no  bullock  out 
of  thy  house,  nor  he-goat  out  of  thy  folds.  For  every  beast 
of  the  forest  is  mine,  and  the  cattle  upon  a  thousand  hills. 
I  know  all  the  fowls  of  the  mountains  ;  and  the  wild  beasts 
of  the  field  are  mine.  If  I  were  hungry,  I  would  not  tell 
thee  ;  for  the  world  is  mine,  and  the  fulness  thereof.  Will 
I  eat  the  flesh  of  bulls,  or  drink  the  blood  of  goats  ?  Offer 
unto  God  thanksgiving,  and  pay  thy  vows  unto  the  Most 
High,"  &c. 

Lastly,  if  the  death  of  Christ  had  been  a  proper  sacrifice, 


HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OP  ATONEMENT.       HI 

and  the  forgiveness  of  sins  had  depended  upon  it  only,  we 
should  hardly  have  found  the  resurrection  of  Christ  repre- 
sented as  having  had  the  same  use ;  as  R6m.  iv.  25,  He 
"  was  raised  again  for  our  justification."  As  figures  of 
speech,  these  things  are  consistent  enough,  but  not  other- 
wise. 

8.  Had  the  death  of  Christ  been  simply  and  properly  a 
sacrifice^  we  should  not  expect  to  find  it  denominated  in  any 
manner  that  was  inconsistent  with  this  representation,  which, 
however,  is  very  common  in  the  Scriptures.  If  there  be  a 
resemblance  to  the  death  of  Christ  in  those  things  to  which 
they  compare  it,  the  writers  are  sufficiently  justified,  as  such 
figures  of  speech  are  adapted  to  give  a  strong  view  of  what 
they  wish  to  describe;  but  if  no  figure  be  intended,  they 
are  chargeable  with  real  inconsistency,  in  calling  the  same 
thing  by  different  names.  If  one  of  the  representations  be 
real,  and  the  rest  figurative,  how  are  we  to  distinguish 
among  them,  when  the  writers  themselves  give  us  no  inti- 
mation of  any  such  difference  ?  This  circumstance  alone 
seems  to  prove  that  they  made  use  of  all  these  representations 
in  the  same  view,  which,  therefore,  could  be  no  other  than 
as  comparisons  in  certain  respects. 

Because  the  word  atonement  frequently  occurs  in  the  Old 
Testament,  and  in  some  cases  atonements  are  said  to  have 
been  made  for  sin  by  sacrifices,  this  whole  business  has,  on 
this  account  more  particularly,  been  thought  to  refer  to  the 
death  of  Christ,  as  the  only  atoning  sacrifice.  But  this 
notion  must  be  given  up  if  we  consider  the  meaning  oi atone- 
ment under  the  Jewish  dispensation. 

From  comparing  all  the  passages  in  which  atonement  is 
mentioned,  it  is  evident  that  it  signifies  the  making  of  any 
thing  clean  or  holy,  so  as  to  be  fit  to  be  used  in  the  service  of 
God,  or,  when  applied  to  a  person,  fit  to  come  into  the  pre- 
sence of  God ;  God  being  considered  as,  in  a  peculiar 
manner,  the  king  and  sovereign  of  the  Israelitish  nation,  and 
as  it  were,  keeping  a  court  among  them.  Thus  atonement 
was  said  to  be  made  for  the  altar,  Exod.  xxix.  ^6,  and  for 
a  house  after'having  been  infected  with  leprosy,  Lev.  xiv.  53. 
Aaron  made  atonement  for  the  Levites,  Num.  viii.  19,  when 
they  were  dedicated  to  their  office  and  ministry,  when  no 
sin,  or  offence,  is  said  to  have  been  done  away  by  it.  Atone- 
ment was  also  made  at  the  purification  of  a  leper,  Lev.  xiv. 
18.  Burnt-offerings  that  were  wholly  voluntary  are  said  to 
be  accepted  to  make  atonement  for  the  oflferer,  Lev.  i.  3,  4. 
Atonements  were  also  appointed  after  involuntary  unclean- 


112       HISTORY  OF  THE   DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

ness  and  sins  of  ignorance,  as  well  as  in  some  cases  of  wilful 
transgression,  upon  repentance  and  restitution  ;  but  in  this 
case  it  had  no  relation  to  the  pardon  of  sin  in  the  sight  of 
God,  but  only  to  the  decency  and  propriety  of  public  worship, 
for  which,  a  man  who  had  so  offended  was  considered  as 
disqualified.  Guilt,  in  a  moral  sense,  is  never  said  to  be 
atoned  for  by  any  sacrifice,  but  the  contrary  is  strongly 
expressed  by  David  and  others. 

The  English  word  atonement  occurs  but  once  in  the  New 
Testament,  and  in  other  places  the  same  word  in  the  original 
(xaraXXayT))  is  rendered  reconciliatioti ;  and  this  word  is 
never  used  by  the  Seventy  in  any  passage  relating  to  legal 
atonements. 

Had  the  death  of  Christ  been  the  proper  atoning  sacrifice 
for  the  sins  of  men,  and  as  such,  been  prefigured  by  the 
atonements  in  the  Jewish  dispensation,  we  might  have 
expected  not  only  to  have  been  expressly  told  so,  (if  not  from 
the  first,  at  least  after  the  fulfilment  of  the  prophetic  type,) 
but  also  that  the  time,  and  other  circumstances  of  the  death 
of  Christ,  should  have  corresponded  to  those  of  the  types  of 
it.  Christ  being  put  to  death  at  the  feast  of  passover,  might 
lead  us  to  imagine  that  his  death  had  some  reference  to 
that  business  ;  but  if  he  had  died  as  a  proper  expiatory 
sacrifice^  it  might  have  been  expected  that  he  would  have 
died  on  the  day  of  expiation,  and  at  the  time  when  the 
high  priest  was  entering  into  the  holy  of  holies.  Had  this 
been  the  case,  I  much  doubt  whether  it  would  have  been  in 
the  power  of  any  reasons,  though  ever  so  solid,  to  have 
prevented  men  from  considering  the  one  as  a  proper  type  of 
the  other.  Now  the  want  of  this  coincidence  should  lead 
our  minds  off  from  making  such  a  comparison. 

In  one  passage  of  the  New  Testament,  Christ  is  said  tohave 
died  as  a  cwrse  for  us.  Gal.  iii.  13:  "  Christ  hath  redeemed 
us  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  being  made  a  curse  for  us."* 

Mention  is  made  of  several  kinds  of  things  accursed  under 
the  Jewish  constitution,  but  in  general  they  were  things 
devoted  to  destruction.  Christ,  therefore,  may,  in  a  figura- 
tive way  of  speaking,  be  considered  as  a  curse  for  us,  in 
consequence  of  his  devoting  himself  to  death  for  us.  But 
that  this  can  be  nothing  more  than  a  figure,  is  evident 
because  this  idea  of  a  curse  is  inconsistent  with  that  of  a 
sacrifice,  and  therefore  shews  that  both  these  representations 
are  to  be  considered  as  mere  figures  of  speech.     Though  in 

*  See  Lardner  on  this  text.     Post,  Serm.  Works,  X.  p.  506. 


HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT.       113 

some  of  the  Heathen  sacrifices  the  victim  ivas  an  animal 
abhorred  by  the  God  to  which  it  was  ofliered,  as  the  goat 
sacrificed  to  Bacchus  ;  yet  in  the  Jewish  sacrifices  the  victim 
was  always  a  clean  and  useful  animal,  and  perfect  in  its 
kind.  And  nothing  accursed  was  ever  sutiered  to  be  brouo"ht 
to  the  altar  of  God.  Cities  and  cattle  accursed  were  in  the 
law  devoted  to  utter  destruction.  Not  one  sheep  or  ox  of  all 
the  cattle  of  Jericho,  or  of  the  Amalekites,  was  permitted  to 
be  sacrificed. 

Christ  is  also  compared  to  the  paschal  lamb  among  the 
Jews.  I  Cor.  v.  7 :  "  Christ  our  passover  is  sacrificed  for 
us."  Also  when  the  legs  of  Jesus  were  not  broken  upon 
the  cross,  it  is  said,  John  xix.  36,  "  These  things  were 
done,  that  the  Scripture  should  be  fulfilled,  a  bone  of  him 
shall  not  be  broken,*'  evidently  referring  to  the  same  words 
in  Exod.  xii.  46,  which  relate  to  the  paschal  lamb. 

There  are,  moreover,  several  other  circumstances  in  the 
evangelical  history  which  lead  us  to  this  view  of  the  death 
of  Christ,  especially  that  of  his  being  crucified  at  the  feast 
of  passover,  and  of  his  institution  of  the  Lord's  supper  at 
that  time,  and  seemingly  in  resemblance  of  it,  as  if  it  was 
to  be  considered  in  the  same  light.  However,  the  paschal 
lamb  was  far  from  being  a  proper  sacrifice.  It  is  never  so 
denominated  in  the  Old  Testament,  except  once,  Exod.  xii. 
27,  where  it  is  called  "  the  sacrifice  of  the  Lord's  passover." 
But  this  could  be  only  in  some  secondary  or  partial  sense, 
and  not  in  the  proper  and  primary  sense  of  the  word.  For 
there  was  no  priest  employed  upon  the  occasion,  no  part  was 
burned  or  offered  unto  the  Lord.  And  certainly  no  propi- 
tiation or  atonement  is  said  to  have  been  made  by  it,  and 
therefore  it  was  very  far  from  being  a  sin-offering, 

Christ,  with  respect  to  his  death,  is  by  himself  compared 
to  the  serpent  which  was  exposed  by  Moses  in  the  wilderness, 
that  th(jse  of  the  people  who  looked  upon  it  might  be  cured 
of  the  bite  of  such  serpents.  Here  the  analogy  is  obvious. 
The  distempers  of  which  they  were  cured  were  of  the  body, 
but  those  of  which  we  are  cured  by  the  gospel  are  of  the 
mind.  John  iii.  14:  "  And  as  Moses  lifted  up  the  serpent 
in  the  wilderness,  even  so  must  the  Son  of  Man  be  litied  up." 
Ch.  xii.  :32  :  "And  I,  if  I  be  lifted  up, — will  draw  nil  men 
unto  me."  In  this  latter  text  the  allusion  is  perhaps  different 
from  that  above-mentioned;  for  here  Christ,  being  raised 
above  the  earth  by  means  of  the  cross,  is  represented  as 
drawing  men  from  earth  towards  heaven. 

VOL.  V.  1 


114       HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

I  shall  close  this  account  of  the  figurative  representations 
of  the  death  of  Christ  that  occur  in  the  New  Testament, 
with  a  view  of  the  principal  uses  that  the  sacred  writers  make 
of  it  in  illustrating  other  things.  They  shew  that  the  apostles 
were  glad  to  take  every  opportunity  of  considering  the  death 
of  Christ  in  a  moral  view,  as  aftbrding  the  strongest  motives 
to  a  holy  life.  They  also  shew  a  fondness  for  very  strong 
figures  of  speech.  For  the  greater  part  of  the  metaphors  in 
the  following  verses  are  much  bolder,  and  more  far-fetched 
than  comparing  the  death  of  Christ  to  a  sacrifice.  Rom.  vi. 
3,  4:  "  Know  ye  not,  that  so  many  of  you  as  were  baptized 
into  Jesus  Christ,  were  baptized  into  his  death  ?  Therefore 
we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death  ;  that,  like 
as  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the 
Father,  even  so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life,"  &c. 
Gal.  ii.  20:  "  I  am  crucified  with  Christ,  nevertheless  I 
live,  yet  not  I,  but  Christ  liveth  in  me."  vi.  14:  *'  God 
forbid  that  I  should  glory,  save  in  the  cross  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  by  whom  the  world  is  crucified  unto  me,  and  I  unto 
the  world."     See  also  Eph.  ii.  5,  6. 

Besides  the  death  of  Christ  being  expressly  called  a 
sacrifice^  and  various  sacrificial  expressions  being  applied  to 
it,  the  language  of  Scripture  is  thought  to  favour  the  doctrine 
of  atonement  in  various  other  respects,  perfectly  correspond- 
ing with  the  idea  of  its  being  a  proper  sacrifice,  and  irrecon- 
-cilable  with  other  views  of  it.  I  shall,  therefore,  briefly 
•consider  every  representation  which  I  can  find  of  this  nature. 

1.  Christ  is  frequently  said  to  have  died  for  us.  But,  in 
general,  this  may  be  interpreted  of  his  dying  on  our  account, 
or  for  our  benefit.  Or  if,  when  rigorously  interpreted,  it 
should  be  found  that  if  Christ  had  not  died,  we  must  have 
died,  it  is  still,  however,  only  consequentially  so,  and  by  no 
means  properly  and  directly  so,  as  a  substitute  for  us.  For  if, 
in  consequence  of  Christ  not  having  been  sent  to  instruct  and 
reform  the  world,  mankind  had  continued  unreformed,  and 
the  necessary  consequence  of  Christ's  coming  was  his  death  ; 
by  whatever  means,  and  in  whatever  manner  it  was  brought 
about,  it  is  plain  that  there  was,  in  fact,  no  other  alternative, 
but  his  death  or  ours.  How  natural  then  was  it,  especially 
to  writers  accustomed  to  the  strong  figurative  expression  of 
the  East,  to  say  that  he  died  in  our  stead,  without  meaning 
it  in  a  strict  and  proper  sense,  as  if  God  had  absolutely 
required  the  death  of  Christ,  in  order  to  satisfy  his  justice  for 
our  sins,  and  as  a  necessary  means  of  his  forgiving  us! 


HISTORY  OF  THE   DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT.        115 

Nothing  but  declarations  much  more  definite  and  express, 
contained  at  least  in  some  part  of  Scripture,  could  authorize 
us  to  interpret  in  this  manner  such  general  expressions  as  the 
following.  John  X.  11  :  "  1  am  the  good  shepherd;  the 
good  shepherd  giveth  his  life  for  the  sheep."  xv.  13 : 
"  Greater  lov^e  hath  no  man  than  this,  that  a  man  lay 
down  his  life  for  his  friends."  1  Pet.  iii.  18:  "  Christ  hath 
once  suffered  for  sins,  the  just  for  the  unjust,  that  he  might 
bring  us  to  God."  John  xi.  50:  "  It  is  expedient  for  us 
that  one  man  should  die  for  the  people,  and  that  the  whole 
nation  perish  not." 

A  shepherd,  in  risking  his  life  for  his  sheep,  evidently 
gives  his  life  for  theirs,  in  a  sufficiently  proper  sense ;  because 
if  he  had  not  thrown  himself  in  the  way  of  the  wild  beasts 
that  were  rushing  upon  his  sheep,  they  must  have  died.  But 
here  was  no  compact  between  the  beasts  and  the  shepherd  ; 
the  blood  of  the  sheep  was  not  due  to  them,  nor  did  they 
accept  of  that  of  the  shepherd  in  its  stead.  This  case  is, 
therefore,  no  proper  parallel  to  the  death  of  Christ,  on  the 
principle  of  the  doctrine  of  atonement. 

2.  Christ  is  said  to  have  given  his  life  as  a  ransom  (Xor|?ov) 
for  us,  but  it  is  only  in  two  passages  that  this  view  of  it 
occurs,  viz.  Matt.  xx.  28,  and  Mark  x.  45,  both  of  which 
contain  the  same  expressions,  as  delivered  by  our  Saviour 
on  the  same  occasion  :  "  The  Son  of  man  came  not  to  be 
ministered  unto,  but  to  minister,  and  to  give  his  life  a 
ransom  for  many."  1  Tim.  ii.  6:  "  Who  gave  himself  a 
ransom  [oLvny^urpov)  for  all."  We  meet,  however,  with  other 
expressions  similar  to  these,  as  Tit.  ii.  14:  "  Who  gave 
himself  for  us,  that  he  might  redeem  us  from  all  iniquity, 
and  purify  unto  himself  a  peculiar  people,  zealous  of  good 
works." 

In  all  these  cases,  the  price  of  redemption  is  said  to  have 
been  given  by  Christ ;  but  had  we  been  authorized  to 
interpret  these  expressions  as  if  we  had  been  doomed  to  die, 
and  Christ  had  interposed,  and  offered  his  life  to  the  Father 
in  the  place  of  ours,  the  representation  might  have  been 
expected  to  be  uniform  ;  whereas,  we  find,  in  general,  that 
the  price  of  our  redemption  is  given  by  God  ;  as  John  iii.  16: 
"  God  so  loved  the  world,  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten 
Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  on  him  should  not  perish,  but 
have  everlasting  life."  Rom.viii.  32  :  "  He  that  spared  not 
his  own  Son,  but  delivered  him  up  for  us  all,  how  shall  he 
tiot  with  him  also  freely  give  us  all  things  ?" 

This  language,  on  the  part  of  God,  or  of  Christ,  is  very 

I   2 


116       HISTORY   OF  THE   DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

proper,  considered  as  figurative.  For,  if  nothing  but  the 
mission  of  Christ  could  have  saved  the  world,  and  his  death 
was  the  necessary  consequence  of  his  undertaking  it,  God 
is  very  properly  said  to  have  given  him  up  for  us  ;  or,  since 
he  undertook  the  work  voluntarily,  and  from  the  love  that 
he  bore  to  man,  he  also  may  be  said  to  have  given  his  life 
as  a  ransom  for  ours  ;  and  thus  these  texts  come  under  the 
same  general  idea  with  those  explained  above.  In  a  figu- 
rative sense  the  gospel  may  be  said  to  be  the  most  expensive 
provision  that  God  has  made  for  recovering  men  from  the 
power  of  sin,  in  order  to  purchase  them,  as  it  were,  for 
himself, 

3.  Christ  is  said  to  bear  the  sins  of  men  in  the  foUowino^ 
texts.  Isaiah  liii.  11  :  "  He  shall  bear  their  iniquities.** 
Ver.  IS:  "  He  bare  the  sins  of  many."  1  Pet.ii.  24:  "Who 
his  ownself  bare  our  sins,  in  his  own  body,  on  the  tree." 
Heb.  ix.  28  :  "  So  Christ  was  once  offered  to  bear  the  sins 
of  many."  But  the  idea  we  ought  to  annex  to  the  term 
bearing  sin,  is  that  of  bearing  if  away,  or  removing  it,  an 
effect  which  is  produced  b}^  the  power  of  the  gospel.  These 
texts  are,  therefore,  similar  to  1  John  iii.  5:  "  And  ye  know 
that  he  was  manifested  to  take  away  our  sins ;  and  in  him 
is  no  sin."  The  phrase,  bearing  sin,  is  never  applied,  under 
the  law,  but  to  the  scape-goat,  on  the  day  of  expiation, 
which  was  not  sacrificed,  but  as  the  name  expresses,  was 
turned  out  into  the  wilderness. 

We  see  clearly  in  what  sense  the  evangelist  Matthew 
•understood  the  passage  above  quoted  from  Isaiah  ;  when, 
speaking  of  some  of  our  Saviour's  miraculous  cures,  he  says, 
ch.  viii.  17,  "  That  it  might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken 
by  Esaias  the  prophet,  saying,  Himself  took  our  infirmities, 
and  bare  our  sicknesses."  Now  how  did  Christ  bear  the 
diseases  of  men  ?  Not  by  taking  them  on  himself,  and  be- 
coming diseased  as  they  had  been,  but  by  radically  curing 
them.  So  also  Christ  bears,  that  is,  bears  away,  or  removes, 
the  sins  of  men,  by  healing  their  distempered  minds,  and 
restoring  them  to  a  sound  and  virtuous  state,  by  the  power 
of  his  gospel. 

4.  Some  who  are  willing  to  give  up  the  idea  of  Christ 
dying  as  a  proper  sacrifice  for  us,  or  in  our  stead,  say  never- 
theless, that  God  forgives  the  sins  of  men  for  the  sake  of  the 
tnerits,  or  at  the  intercession  of  Christ,  and  that  this  appears 
to  be  analogous  to  the  divine  conduct  in  other  respects; 
as  God  is  often  said  to  shew  favour  to  some  on  the  account 
of  others,    and  especially   to   have  favoured  the  Israelites 


HISTORY  OP  THE   DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT.       117 

on  account  of  their  relation  to  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob  ; 
and  for  this  reason  they  say  we  are  required  to  ask  in  the 
name  of  Christ.  The  texts,  however,  which  bear  this 
aspect,  are  very  few,  perhaps  none  besides  the  followino-. 
1  John  ii.  1  :  "If  any  man  sin,  we  have  an  advocate  with 
the  Father,  Jesus  Christ  the  righteous. "^ 

It  is  not  denied,  that  it  may  be  consistent  with  the 
maxims  of  divine  government,  to  shew  favour  to  some  persons 
on  the  account  of  others,  to  whom  they  bear  a  near  relation. 
It  is  a  wise  maxim  in  human  government,  because  we  are, 
in  many  cases,  as  much  concerned  for  others,  as  for  our- 
selves ;  and  therefore  a  favour  to  a  man's  children,  and 
posterity,  may  be  the  proper  reward  of  his  own  merit,  and 
also  answer  other  ends  of  a  reward.,  by  being  a  motive  to 
other  persons  to  behave  well.  But  in  general,  favours  dis- 
tributed in  this  manner,  are  such  as  it  is  perfectly  consistent 
with  divine  rectitude  to  grant  to  men  without  any  regard  to 
others,  as  giving  the  land  of  Canaan  to  the  posterity  of 
Abraham,  &c.  When  the  Jews  incurred  actual  guilt,  they 
were  always  punished  like  any  other  people,  and  by  no 
means  spared  on  account  of  their  relation  to  Abraham.  "  On 
the  contrary,  they  are  often  said  to  have  been  more  severely 
punished  for  not  improving  their  privileges,  as  his  de- 
scendants, &c. 

Admitting,  however,  that  God  may  be  represented  as 
forgiving  sin,  in  particular  cases,  on  this  principle;  if  all 
sin  be  forgiven  for  the  sake  of  Christ  only,  we  ought,  at 
least,  to  have  been  expressly  told  so.  Our  Saviour  never 
says  that  forgiveness  of  sin  was  procured  by  him,  but  he 
always  speaks  of  the  free  mercy  of  God  in  the  same  manner 
as  the  prophets  who  preceded  him  ;  and  it  is  particularly 
remarkable  that  in  his  last  pmyer,  which  is  properly  inter- 
cessory,  we  find  nothing  on  the  subject. 

If  any  stress  be  laid  on  Christ  being  said  to  be  our 
advocate^  the  Holy  Spirit  is  much  more  frequently  and 
properly  called  so,  and  by  our  Lord  himself;  and  he  is 
represented  by  Paul  as  acting  the  part  of  an  advocate  and 
intercessor.  Rom.  viii.  26  :  "  The  Spirit  itself  maketh  in- 
tercession for  us.^' 

*'  Repentance  and  remission  of  sins"  are  said  to  be 
*'  preached  in  the  name  of  Christ,"  Luke  xxiv.  47  ;  and 
"through  him,"  Acts  xiii.  38;  and  all  who  believe  in 
him  are  said  to  have  "  remission  of  sin, — through  his 
name,"  ch.  x.  43.  But  this  phraseology  is  easily  explained 
on   the  idea  that  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  reforms  the 


118       HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

world,  and  that  the  remission  of  sin  is  consequent  on  refor- 
mation. In  one  passage,  indeed,  according  to  our  trans- 
lation, God  is  said  to  forgive  sin  for  the  sake  of  Christ. 
Eph.  iv.  32:  "  Be  ye  kind  one  to  another,  tender-hearted, 
forgiving  one  another,  even  as  God,  for  Christ's  sake,  hath 
forgiven  you/'*  But  in  the  original  it  is  in  Christy  and 
may  be  understood  of  the  gospel  of  Christ.  Had  sin  been 
forgiven,  in  a  proper  and  strict  sense,  for  the  sake  oi  Christ, 
the  word  freeli/  would  hardly  have  been  used,  as  it  often  is, 
with  relation  to  it,  as  in  Rom.  iii.  24;  for  this  implies  that 
forgiveness  is  the  free  gift  of  God,  and  proceeds  from  his 
essential  goodness  and  mercy,  without  regard  to  any  foreign 
consideration  whatever. 

The  very  great  variety  of  manners  in  which  the  sacred 
writers  speak  of  the  method  in  which  the  pardon  of  sin  is 
dispensed,  is  a  proof  that  we  are  to  allow  something  to  the 
use  of  figures  in  their  language  upon  this  subject ;  for  some 
of  these  phrases  must  be  accommodated  to  the  others.  In 
general,  the  pardon  of  sin  is  represented  as  the  act  of  God 
himself,  but  in  some  particular  cases  it  is  said  to  be  the  act 
of  Christ.  Matt.  ix.  6  :  "  But  that  ye  may  know  that  the 
Son  of  Man  hath  power  on  earth  to  forgive  sins.''  Col.  iii. 
13:  "  Even  as  Christ  forgave  you,  so  also  do  ye."  But 
upon  a  careful  examination  of  such  texts  as  these,  and  the 
comparison  of  them  with  those  in  v^^hich  the  pardon  of  sin 
seems  to  be  represented  as  dispensed  in  consideration  of  the 
sufferings,  the  merit,  the  resurrection,  the  life,  or  the  obedi- 
ence of  Christ,  (for  all  these  views  of  it  occur,)  we  cannot 
but  conclude  that  they  are  partial  representations,  which,  at 
proper  distances,  are  allowed  to  be  inconsistent,  without 
any  charge  of  impropriety  ;  and  that,  according  to  the  plain 
general  tenor  of  scripture,  the  pardon  of  sin  is,  in  reality, 
always  dispensed  by  the  free  mercy  of  God,  on  account  of 
men's  personal  virtue,  a  penitent  upright  heart,  and  a  re- 
formed exemplary  life,  without  regard  to  the  sufferings,  or 
merit,  of  any  being  whatever. 

On  this  subject  I  would  refer  my  readers  to  a  very  valua- 
ble essay  on  the  doctrine  of  Atonement,  in  the  Theological 
Repository ,-\  in  which  the  writer  (who  is  the  Rev.  Mr.  Turner 
of  Wakefield)  shews,  that  in  the  Old  Testament,  to  make 

*  On  this  mis-translation,  see  Vol.  TI.  p.  996.     Note. 

t  Vol.  111.  pp.  S85 — 433.  (P.)  In  \\\s  Mcmoin,  Dr.  Prieaticy  ascribes  the  origin 
of  the  Theol.  Repos.  to  a  sight  of  some  critical  notes  by  Mr.  Turner,  whose  contri- 
butions to  that  publication  were  numerous  and  highly  important.  Mr.  T.,  (in  whose 
intercourse  Dr.  P.  expresses  liimself  particularly  happy  whiJe  he  resided  at  Leeds,) 


HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT.        119 

atonement  for  any  thing  ox  person,  signifies,  as  I  have  men- 
tioned above,  making  it,  or  him,  clean,  or  proper  for  the 
divine  service;  and  that  in  the  New  Testament,  similar 
expressions,  which  are  there  used  by  way  of  figure  or 
allusion,  "  relate  only  to  the  estabhshment  and  confirmation 
of  those  advantages  we  at  present  enjoy  by  the  gospel,  and 
particularly  of  a  free  and  uninterrupted  liberty  of  worship- 
ping God  according  to  the  institutions  of  Christ,  granted  to 
us  in  the  gospel;^  just  as  the  legal  atonements  served  (though 
far  more  imperfectly)  similar  purposes  under  that  dispensa- 
tion/* But  he  says  he  doth  not  recollect  any  texts  in 
which  the  death  of  Christ  is  represented  as  the  cause,  reason, 
or  motive,  why  God  has  conferred  these  blessings  on  man. 

The  advocates  for  the  doctrine  of  atonement  must  be 
embarrassed,  when  they  consider,  that,  the  godhead  of 
Christ  being  incapable  of  suffering,  his  manhood  alone  was 
left  to  endure  all  the  wrath  of  God  that  was  due  for  every 
sin  which  he  forgives  ;  and  surely  one  man  (and  that  which 
actually  suffered  of  Christ,  on  their  own  principles,  was  no 
more)  could  never:  make  a  sufficient  atonement  for  the  sins 
of  the  whole  world,  or  even  of  the  elect  only,  especially  con- 
sidering, as  they  do,  that  the  sufferings  of  Christ  were  but 
temporary,  and  the  punishment  due  to  sin  eternal. 

There  is  a  considerable  difference  in  opinion,  also,  with 
respect  to  the  place,  or  scene  of  this  expiatory  suffering. 
In  general  it  is  thought  to  have  been,  in  part,  at  the  time  of 
the  agony  in  the  garden,  and  in  part  on  the  cross.  But  to 
account  for  this  extraordinary  suffering,  they  are  obliged  to 
suppose  something  uncommon,  and  undescribable  in  it,  to 
which  nothing  in  the  common  feelings  of  human  nature 
ever  corresponded,  though  at  the  same  time,  it  was  only 
human  nature  that  suffered. 

Bishop  Burnet  was  aware  of  this  difficulty,  and  he  ex- 
presses his  ideas  of  it  in  a  very  natural  manner,  so  as  to 
shew  clearly  how  his  scheme  was  pressed  with  it.  In  his 
Exposition  of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  be  says,  "  It  is  not 
easy  for  us  to  apprehend  in  what  that  agony  consisted.  For 
we  understand  only  the  agonies  of  pain,  or  of  conscience, 
which  last  arise  out  of  the  horror  of  guilt,  or  the  apprehen- 
sion of  the  wrath  of  God.    It  is,  indeed,  certain  that  he  who 

was  of  the  party,  at  Richmond,  mfntiooed  in  the  Note,  p.  3.     He  afterwardu,  in 
concert  with  Mr.  Cappe,  defended  Mr.  L.  against  a  rude  attack  by  a  clergyman, 
and  was  his  frequent  correspondent.     See  Mem.  of  Lindsey,  pp.  35,  91.     Notes. 
•  "  In  consequence  of  his  death."     Orig.  Theol.  Repos.  III.  p.  431. 


120       HISTORY  OF  THE   DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

had  no  sin  could  have  no  such  horror  in  him  ;  and  yet  it  is 
as  certain  that  he  could  not  be  put  into  such  an  agony  only 
through  the  apprehension  and  fear  of  that  vioK-nt  death 
which  he  was  to  suffer  the  next  day.  Therefore  we  ought 
to  conclude  that  there  was  an  inward  suffering  in  his  mind, 
as  well  as  an  outward  visible  one  in  his  body.  VV  e  cannot 
distinctly  apprehend  what  that  was,  since  he  was  sure  both 
ot  his  own  spotless  innocence,  and  of  his  Father's  un- 
changeable love  to  him.  We  can  only  imagine  a  vast  sense 
of  the  heinousness  of  sin,  and  a  deep  indignation  at  the 
dishonour  done  to  God  by  it,  a  melting  apprehension  of  the 
corruption  and  miseries  of  mankind  by  reason  of  sin,  together 
with  a  never-bcfore-felt  withdrawing  of  those  consolations 
that  had  always  filled  his  soul.  But  what  might  be  farther 
in  his  agony  and  in  his  last  dereliction,  we  cannot  distinctly 
apprehend.  Only  this  we  perceive,  that  our  minds  are 
capable  of  great  pain,  as  well  as  our  bodies  are.  Deep 
horror,  with  an  inconsolable  sharpness  of  thought,  is  a  very 
intolerable  thing.  Notwithstanding  the  bodily  or  substan- 
tial indwelling  of  the  fulness  of  the  godhead  in  him,  yet  he 
was  capable  of  feeling  vast  pain  in  his  body,  so  that  he 
might  become  a  complete  sacrifice,  and  that  we  might  have 
from  his  sufferings,  a  very  full  and  amazing  apprehension  of 
the  guilt  of  sin.  All  those  emanations  of  joy  with  which 
the  indwelling  of  the  eternal  word  had  ever  till  then  filled 
his  soul,  might  then,  when  he  needed  them  most,  be  quite 
withdrawn,  and  he  be  left  merely  to  the  firmness  of  his  faith, 
to  his  patient  resignation  to  the  will  of  his  heavenly  Father, 
and  to  his  willing  readiness  of  drinking  up  that  cup  which 
his  Father  had  put  in  his  hand  to  drink?** 

All  this  only  shews  how  miserably  men  may  involve 
themselves  in  systems  unsupported  by  facts.  Our  Saviour, 
as  an  innocent  man,  could  have  no  terrors  of  a  guilty  con- 
science, and  therefore  he  could  feel  nothing  but  the  dread  of 
his  approaching  painlul  and  ignominious  death.  But  having 
a  clearer  idea  of  this,  as  we  perceive  in  the  history,  and 
consequently  of  the  agony  of  it,  than  other  men  generally 
have  of  approaching  sufferings,  the  apprehension  which  he 
was  under,  no  doubt,  affected  his  mind  more  than  we  can 
well  conceive.  Those  who  consider  Christ  as  something 
more  than  a  man,  cannot  imagine  how  he  should  be  so 
much  affected  in  those  circumstances  ;  but  there  is  no  dif- 

•  Burnet's  Expos.  Art.  II.  ad.  Jin.     Ed.  4,  pp.  64,  65.     See  Mon.  Jlopos.  II. 
p.  317,  &c. 


HISTORY  OF  THE   DOCTRINE  OF   ATONEMENT.        121 

ficulty  in  the  case  with  those  who  consider  him  as  a  being 
made  exactly  like  themselves^  and  perhaps  of  a  delicate, 
tender  habit. 

As  to  the  sins  of  others,  it  is  natural  to  suppose  that  his 
mind  would  be  less  at  leisure  to  attend  to  them  then,  than 
at  any  other  time,  his  mind  being  necessarily  occupied  with 
the  sense  of  his  own  sufferings  ;  and  accordingly  we  find 
that  all  he  says  upon  that  occasion  respects  himself  only. 
"  Father,  if  it  be  possible,  let  this  cup  pass  from  me. 
Nevertheless,  not  as  1  will,  but  as  thou  wilt.'*  That  the 
presence  of  God  tbrsook  him,  whatever  be  meant  by  it,  is 
not  at  all  supported  by  fact;  and  when  he  was  much  op- 
pressed with  sorrow,  an  angel  was  sent  on  purpose  to  com- 
fort and  strengthen  him. 

He  went  through  the  scene  of  his  trial  and  crucifixion 
with  wonderful  composure,  and  without  the  least  appear- 
ance of  any  thing  like  agony  of  mind.  His  saying,  "  My 
God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me?"  was  probably 
nothing  more  than  his  reciting  the  first  verse  of  the  twenty- 
second  Psalm,  to  which  he  might  wish  to  direct  the  atten- 
tion of  those  who  were  present,  as  it  contained  many  things 
peculiarly  applicable  to  his  case.  There  is  nothing  in  this 
scene,  any  more  than  in  his  agony  in  the  garden,  but  vi'hat 
is  easily  explicable,  on  the  supposition  of  Christ  being  a 
man  ;  and  to  suppose  that  he  was  then  under  any  agony  of 
mind,  impressed  upom  him,  in  any  inexplicable  manner,  by 
the  immediate  hand  of  God,  in  order  to  aggravate  what  he 
would  naturally  suffer,  and  thereby  make  his  sufferings  an 
adequate  expiation  for  the  sins  of  the  world,  is  a  mere  arbi- 
trary supposition,  not  countenanced  by  any  one  circum- 
stance in  the  narration. 

Calvin,  as  we  shall  see,  supposed  the  great  scene  of  our 
Saviour's  sufferings  to  have  been  in  hell^  in  the  interval 
between  his  death  and  the  resurrection.*  But  this  is  an 
hypothesis  no  less  arbitrary  and  unsupported  than  any 
other. 

Having  now  seen  what  the  Scriptures  contain  concerning 
the  doctrine  of  atonement,  let  us  see  what  Christians  in 
after  ages  have  built  upon  it.  The  foundation,  we  shall 
find,  very  inadequate  to  the  superstructure. 

*  See  Institut.  L.  ii.  C.  xvi.  Sect.  viii. — x. 


132       HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT. 


SECTION  IV. 
Of  the  Opinions  of  the  Apostolical  Fathers. 

When  any  mode  of  speech  may  be  understood  either  in 
a  literal  or  in  a  figuratire  sense,  there  must  be  some  diffi- 
culty in  ascertaining  the  real  meaning  of  the  person  who 
makes  use  of  it.  For  it  is  the  same  thing  as  if  the  word 
was  properly  ambiguous.  Thus,  a  Papist  and  a  Protestant 
equally  make  use  of  the  words  of  our  Saviour,  this  is  my 
bodi/,  but  it  does  not  therefore  follow  that  they  think  alike 
with  respect  to  the  Lord's  supper.  For  one  of  them  uses 
the  expression  as  a  mere  figure  of  speech,  meaning  that  the 
bread  and  wine  are  representations,  or  memorials,  of  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ ;  whereas  the  other  takes  them  to 
be  the  body  and  blood  itself,  without  any  figure. 

In  like  manner,  it  cannot  be  determined  from  the  primi- 
tive Christians  calling  the  death  of  Christ  a  sacrifice  for  sin, 
a  rafisom,  &c.  or  from  their  saying,  in  a  general  way,  that 
Christ  died  in  our  stead,  and  that  he  bore  our  sins,  or  even 
if  they  carried  this  figurative  language  a  little  farther,  that 
they  really  held  what  is  now  called  the  doctrine  of  atonement, 
viz.  that  it  would  have  been  inconsistent  with  the  maxims 
of  God's  moral  government  to  pardon  any  sin  whatever, 
unless  Christ  had  died  to  make  satisfaction  to  divine  justice 
for  it :  because  the  language  above-mentioned  may  be  made 
use  of  by  persons  who  only  believe  that  the  death  of  Christ 
was  a  necessary  circumstance  in  the  scheme  of  the  gospel, 
and  that  this  scheme  was  necessary  to  reform  the  world. 

According  to  the  modern  system,  there  is  nothing  in  any 
of  the  good  works  of  men  that  can  at  all  recommend  them  to 
the  favour  of  God  ;  that  their  repentance  and  reformation  is 
no  reason  or  motive  with  him  to  forgive  their  sins,  and  that 
all  the  mercy  which  he  ever  shews  them,  is  on  the  account 
of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  imputed  to  them.  But  it 
will  appear  that  this  language  was  altogether  unknown  in 
the  early  ages  of  Christianity  ;  and,  accordingly,  Basnage 
ingenuously  acknowledges,  that  the  ancients  speak  meagrely 
(maigrementj  of  the  satisfaction  of  Christ,  and  give  much  to 
good  works;*  a  sufficient  indication,  1  should  think,  that 
they  had  no  such  ideas  as  he  had,  concerning  the  satisfaction 
of  Christ,  and  that  they  considered  the  good  works  of  men 


•  Histoire  de  la  Religion  des  Eglises  Reformees,  4to.  1725,  I.  p.  75.     (P.) 


HISTORY  OF  THE   DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT.       123 

as  m  themselves  acceptable  to  God,  in  the  same  manner  as 
the  virtue  or  merit  of  Christ  was  acceptable  to  him.  I 
shall,  however,  quote  from  the  early  christian  writers  as 
much  as  may  enable  us  to  perceive  how  they  thought  with 
respect  to  this  subject. 

In  the  epistle  of  Clemens  Romanus  are  some  expressions 
which,  taken  singly,  might  seem  to  favour  the  doctrine  of 
atonement.  But  the  general  strain  of  his  writings  shews  that 
he  had  no  proper  idea  of  it.  Exhorting  the  Corinthians  to 
repentance,  and  to  virtue  in  general,  he  mentions  the  ex- 
ample ol  Christ  in  the  following  manner  :  "  Let  us  consider 
what  is  good  and  acceptable,  and  well  pleasing  in  the  sight 
of  him  that  made  us.  Let  us  look  stedfastly  to  the  blood 
of  Christ,  and  see  how  precious  his  blood  is  in  the  sight  of 
God,  which,  being  shed  for  our  salvation,  has  obtained  the 
grace  of  repentance  for  all  the  world."  *  This  seems  to  be 
little  more  than  a  repetition  of  what  is  said  in  the  book  of 
Acts,  of  Christ  being  "  exalted  as  a  prince  and  a  saviour,  to 
give  repentance  and  remission  of  sins.** 

He  farther  says,  "  Let  us  search  into  all  the  ages  that 
have  gone  before,  and  let  us  learn  that  our  Lord  has,  in 
every  one  of  them,  still  given  place  for  repentance  to  all 
suqh  as  would  turn  to  him."  He  then  mentions  the  preach- 
ing of  Noah  to  the  old  world,  and  of  Jonah  to  theNinevites, 
of  whom  he  says,  "  Howbeit,  they,  repenting  of  their  sins, 
appeased  God  by  their  prayer,  and  were  saved  though  they 
were  strangers  to  the  covenant  of  God."  After  this  he 
recites  what  Isaiah,  Ezekiel,  and  other  prophets  have  said 
to  this  purpose;  and  in  all  his  subsequent  exhortations  he 
seems  to  have  no  idea  of  any  thing  but  repentance  and  the 
mercy  of  God,  and  the  immediate  consequence  of  it,  without 
the  interposition  of  any  thing  else.  "  Wherefore,"  says  he, 
"  let  us  obey  his  excellent  and  glorious  will,  and,  imploring 
his  mercy  and  goodness,  let  us  fall  down  upon  our  faces 
before  him,  and  cast  ourselves  upon  his  mercy."  "|* 

This  writer  also  speaks  of  virtue  alone  as  having  imme- 
diately great  power  with  God.  "  And  especially,  let  them 
learn  how  great  a  power  humility  has  with  God,  how  much 
a  pure  and  holy  charity  avails  with  him,  how  excellent  and 
great  his  fear  is,  and  how  it  will  save  all  such  as  turn  to  hitn 
"with  holiness  in  a  pure  mind."  %     He  speaks  of  the  efficacy 

*  Sect.  vii.  Cotilerii,  Ed.  I.  p.  150.  (P.)     Wake's  Gen.  Ep.  p.  6. 
t  Sect.  vii.  and  ix.     (P.)     Gen.  Ep.  pp.  7,  8. 
X  Sectxxi.    (P.)    Gen.  Ep.  p.  IQ. 


194       HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

of  faith  in  the  same  language  with  the  apostle  Paul.  "  The 
Jews,"  he  says  "  were  all  greatly  glorified,  not  for  their  own 
sakes,  or  tor  their  own  works,  or  for  the  righteousness  which 
they  themselves  had  wrought,  but  through  his  will"  (in  con- 
sequence of  the  blessing  promised  to  Abraham).  "  And  we 
also,  being  called  by  the  same  will  in  Christ  Jesus,  are  not 
justified  by  ourselves,  either  by  our  own  wisdom,  or  know- 
ledge, or  piety,  or  the  works  which  we  have  done,  in  the 
holiness  of  our  hearts,  but  by  that  faith  by  which  God 
Almighty  has  justified  all  men  from  the  beginning."  *  But 
by  faith  this  writer  only  means  another  virtue  of  the  mind, 
viz.  that  regard  to  God,  belief  in  his  promises,  and  submis- 
sion to  his  will,  which  supports  the  mind  of  man  in  great 
difficulties  and  trials.  This  was  plainly  his  idea  of  the  jus- 
tification of  Abraham  himself.  "  For  what  was  our  Father 
Abraham  blessed  ;  was  it  not  that  through  faith  he  wrought 
righteousness  and  truth  ?"  j* 

It  is  possible  that  persons  not  acquainted  with  the  writings 
of  the  apostolical  fathers  would  imagine  that,  when  they 
used  such  phrases  as,  being  justified  by  the  blood  of  Christ, 
they  must  mean,  as  some  now  do,  that  without  the  death  of 
Christ  our  repentance  would  have  been  of  no  avail  :  but 
when  we  consider  all  that  they  have  written,  and  the  lan- 
guage of  those  who  followed  them,  who  treat  more  fully  on 
the  subject,  and  who  appear  not  to  have  been  sensible  that 
they  thought  differently  from  them  with  respect  to  it,  we 
shall  be  satisfied  that  those  phrases  conveyed  no  such  ideas 
to  them  as  they  now  do  to  us, 

Barnabas,  speaking  of  the  Jewish  sacrifices,  says,  "  These 
things,  therefore,  has  God  abolished,  that  the  new  law  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  which  is  without  the  yoke  of  any  such 
necessity,  might  have  the  spiritual  offerings  of  men  them- 
selves. For  so  the  Lord  saith  again,  to  those  heretofore. 
Did  I  at  all  command  your  fathers,  when  they  came  out  of 
the  land  of  Egypt,  concerning  burnt-offerrngs  or  sacrifices  ? 
But  this  I  commanded  them,  saying,  Let  none  of  you  imagine 
evil  in  your  hearts  against  his  neighbour,  and  love  no  false 
oath.  For  as  much  then  as  we  are  not  without  understand- 
ing, we  ought  to  apprehend  the  design  of  our  merciful 
Father.  For  he  speaks  to  us,  being  willing  that  we,  who 
have  been  in  the  same  error  about  the  sacrifices,  should  seek 
and  find  how  to  approach  unto  him  ;  and  therefore  he  thus 

•  Sect,  xxxii.  (P.)     Geo.  Ep.  p.  25.         j  Sect.  xxxi.  (P.)     Gen.  Ep.  p.  24. 


HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OP  ATONEMENT.       123 

bespeaks  us:  The  sacrifice  of  God  is  a  broken  spirit.  A 
broken  and  a  contrite  heart  God  will  not  despise."*  This 
is  not  substituting  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  in  the  place  of  the 
sacrifices  under  the  law,  but  moral  virtue  only. 

In  the  Shepherd  of  St.  Hermas  (if  this  should  be  thought 
to  be  the  work  of  the  Hermas  mentioned  by  Paul)  we  find 
nothing  of  the  doctrine  of  atonement,  but  strong  expressions 
denoting  the  acceptableness  of  repentance  and  good  works 
only.  "  Then,"  says  he,  "  shall  their  sins  be  forgiven, 
which  they  have  heretofore  committed,  and  the  sins  of  all 
the  saints,  who  have  sinned  even  unto  this  day,  if  they  will 
repent  with  all  their  hearts,  and  remove  all  doubt  out  of 
their  hearts."  f  He  farther  says,  "  Whosoever  have  suf- 
fered for  the  name  of  the  Lord  are  esteemed  honourable  by 
the  Lord,  and  all  their  offences  are  blotted  out,  because  they 
have  suffered  death  for  the  name  of  the  Son  of  God."  J 

It  seems  pretty  evident  that  so  far  we  find  no  real  change 
of  opinion  with  respect  to  the  efficacy  of  the  death  of  Christ. 
These  writers  adopt  the  language  of  the  apostles,  using 
the  term  sacrifice  in  a  figurative  sense,  and  represent  the 
value  of  good  works,  without  the  least  hint  or  caution  lest 
we  should  thereby  detract  from  the  merits  of  Christ,  and 
the  doctrine  of  salvation  by  his  imputed  righteousness. 


SECTION  V. 

Of  the  Opinion  of  the  Fathers  till  after  the  Time  of  Austin. 

That  it  was  not  the  received  doctrine  of  the  Christian 
church  within  this  period,  that  Christ  did,  in  any  proper 
sense,  make  the  Divine  Being  placable  to  men,  but  that 
the  pardon  of  sin  proceeded  from  the  free  mercy  of  God, 
independently  of  his  sufferings  and  merit,  may,  I  think,  be 
clearly  inferred  from  several  considerations. 

1.  This  doctrine,  on  which  so  much  stress  has  been  laid 
by  some  moderns,  is  never  enumerated  as  an  article  of 
Christian  faith,  in  any  ancient  summary  of  Christian  doc- 
trine;  and  the  early  Christian  writers,  especially  those  who 
made  apologies  for  Christianity,  had  frequent  occasion  to 
do  it;  and  we  have  several  summaries  of  this  kind. 

To  say  nothing  of  the  apologies  of  Justin  Martyr,  Athe- 
nagoras  and  Tertullian,  who  give  accounts  of  the  principal 

•  Sect.  ii.  Cotilerii,  Ed.  p.  57-  (P.)     Gen.  Ep.  pp.  I6l,  l62. 

t  Vis.  ii.  Sect.  ii.  (P.)     Gen.  Ep.  p.  2o6. 

X  Sim.  ix.  Sect,  xxviii.  (P.)     Gen.  Ep.  p.  336. 


J26       HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

articles  of  Christian  faith,  but  may  be  thought  to  do  it  too 
concisely  for  us  to  expect  that  they  should  take  notice  of 
such  a  doctrine  as  this,  (though  the  great  importance  of  it, 
in  the  opinion  of  those  who  hold  this  doctrine,  is  such,  as 
ought  to  have  given  it  the  preference  of  any  other,)  I  cannot 
help  laying  particular  stress  on  the  omission  of  it  by  Lac- 
tantius,  who  treats  professedly  of  the  system  of  Christianity, 
as  it  was  gent-rally  received  in  his  days.  Yet,  in  his  Ditine 
Institutions^  there  is  so  far  from  being  any  mention  of  the 
necessity  of  the  death  of  Christ  to  atone  for  the  sins  of  men, 
that  he  treats  of  the  nature  of  sin,  of  the  mercy  of  God,  and 
of  the  efficacy  of  repentance,  as  if  he  had  never  heard  of  any 
such  doctrine. 

We  see  his  sentiments  on  these  subjects  very  fully  in  his 
treatise  De  Jra  Dei.*  And  when  he  professedly  considers 
the  reasons  of  the  incarnation  and  death  of  Christ,  he  only 
says,  that,  "  example  was  necessary  to  be  exhibited  to  men 
as  well  as  precepts,  and  therefore  it  was  necessary  that  God 
should  be  clothed  with  a  mortal  body,  be  tempted,  suffer 
and  die."  -j"  He  gives  no  other  reason  whatever.  Again, 
he  says,  "  Christ  was  made  flesh,  because  he  was  not  only 
to  teach,  but  also  to  c?o,  and  to  be  an  example,  that  none 
might  allege  in  their  excuse  the  weakness  of  the  flesh,":}: 

Cyprian,  an  early  writer,  often  mentions  the  humiliation 
and  sufferings  of  Christ,  but  always  either  as  an  example,  or 
simply  as  foretold  by  the  prophets. 

Arnobius  says,  that  "  Christ  permitted  his  man,  that  is, 
the  man  to  whom  he  was  united,  to  be  killed,  that,  in  con- 
sequence of  it,  (viz.  his  resurrection  afterwards,)  it  might 
appear  that  what  they  had  been  taught  concerning  the  safety 
of  their  souls  was  safe,  or  to  be  depended  upon,  and  that 
death  was  not  to  be  defeate/:!  any  other  way."  § 

Austin,  in  several  places,  speaks  of  the  end  of  Christ's 
life  and  death,  but  never  as  designed  to  make  satisfaction 
for  the  sins  of  men,  but  generally  as  an  example.  "  In  his 
passion  he  shewed  what  we  ought  to  endure;  in  his  resur- 

♦  C.  xix.  XX.  (P.)     Lactant.  Op.  11.  pp.  37,  38. 

t  Epitome,  C.  I.  p.  142.  (P.)  "  Siiyjcrest  respondere  etiam  iis,  qui  putant 
inconvenieiis  fuisse,  nee  liabere  ralioiieni,  ut  Deiis  mortali  corpore  inducretur,  ut 
honiinibus  subjectu8  cusft,  ut  contiinjelias  sustineret,  criuiatiis  etiam  mortemque 
pateretur. — Si  uon  fecerit,  pra-ceptis  ^uis  fidem  dcrogal)it.  Exeiiiplis  igitiir  opus 
est,  ut  ea,  quae  praecipiuntiir,  linbeaut  firmitatem,  et  si  quis  coiitumax  extilerit,  ac 
dixcrit  non  possn  fieri,  praceptor  ilium  praesenti  opercconvlncat."  Op.  1[.  pp.  37,  S8. 

X  Ibid.  p.  143.  (P-)  Erj^fo  idto  corporatus  est,  ut  cum  viiicenda  esse  carnis 
desideria  doceret,  ipse  faceret  prior,  ue  quiu  excusationem  de  carnis  fragilitate 
praetenderet."     Op.  II.  p.  38. 

§  Adversus  Gentes,  L.  i.  p.  24.  (P.) 


HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OP  ATONEMENT.       127 

rectioii,  what  we  are  to  hope  for."  Speaking  of  the  incar, 
nation  in  general,  he  says,  "  Christ  assumed  a  human  body! 
and  lived  among  men,  that  he  might  set  us  an  example  of 
living  and  dying  and  rising  again."  When  he  speaks  figu- 
ratively, it  is  plain  he  did  not  carry  his  ideas  so  far  as  the 
orthodox  now  do.  "  In  his  death,*'  he  says,  "  he  made  a 
gainful  traffic,  he  purchased  faithful  men  and  martyrs.  He 
bought  us  with  his  blood.  He  laid  down  the  price  of  our 
redemption."  But  he  likewise  says,  "  Martyrs  have  returned 
what  was  laid  out  for  them,  that  is,  have  given  what  was 
purchased,  even  their  hves."* 

Some  orthodox  writers  complain  of  the  imperfect  know- 
ledge which  the  primitive  Christian  writers  had  of  the  Chris- 
tian system  in  this  respect.  "  Gallaeus  observes,"  according 
to  Lardner,  that  Lactantius  says  little  or  nothing  of  Christ's 
priestly  office."  Lardner  himself  adds,  "  I  do  not  remember 
that  Jerome  has  any  where  taken  notice  of  this,  but  it  is 
likely  enough  to  be  true ;  and  that  Lactantius  did  not  con- 
sider Christ's  death,  in  the  modern  way,  as  a  propitiatory 
sacrifice  for  sin,  or  a  satisfaction  made  to  divine  justice  for 
the  sins  of  the  human  race.  This  may  be  argued  from  his 
passages  before  transcribed  concerning  the  value  of  repent- 
ance,  and  the  ends  of  Christ's  death."  He  adds  that  "  many 
other  ancient  Christians  will  come  in  for  their  share  in  this 
charge.  For,"  according  to  Matthias  Flacius  Illyricus,  "  the 
Christian  writers  who  lived  soon  after  Christ  and  his  apostles, 
discoursed,  like  philosophers,  of  the  law  and  its  moral  pre- 
cepts, and  of  the  nature  of  virtue  and  vice :  but  they  were 
totally  ignorant  of  men's  natural  corruption,  and  the  myste- 
ries of  the  gospel,  and  Christ's  benefits.  His  countryman, 
Jerome,"  he  says,  *'  was  well  skilled  in  the  languages,  and 
endeavoured  to  explain  the  Scriptures  by  versions  and  com- 
mentaries. But,  after  all,  he  was  able  to  do  very  little, 
being  Ignorant  of  the  human  disease,  and  of  Christ  the  phy- 
sician, and  wanting  both  the  key  of  Scripture,  and  the  Lamb 
ot  Cxod,  to  open  to  him."f 

The  same  Flacius,  or  some  other  learned  writer  of  his 
time,  observes  concerning  Eusebius,  bishop  of  C^sarea,  that 
V  '?,?  Y^^y  ^^^  ^"^  imperfect  description  which  he  gives 
ot  a  Christian,  making  him  only  a  man,  who,  by  the  know- 
ledge of  Christ  and  his  doctrine,  is  brought  to  the  worship 
ot  the  one  true  God,  and  the  practice  of  sobriety,  righteous- 

I  n"^^"iMr^''^'^'^-  ^    PP-  ^^'  300.    (P.)     Works.  V.  pp.  121,  122. 
t  Ibid.  VII.  pp.  14.5,  146.    (P.)     Works,  IV.  p.  6l.  ^ 


128       HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

ness,  patience  and  other  virtues.     But  he  has  not  a  word 
about  regeneration,  or  imputed  righteousness."* 

i  cannot  forbear  adding  what  Dr.  Lardner  very  pertinently 
subjoins  to  this  quotation:  "  Poor,  ignorant,  primitive  Chris- 
tians, I  wonder  how  they  could  find  the  way  to  heaven  ! 
They  lived  near  the  times  of  Christ  and  his  apostles.  They 
highly  valued,  and  dihgently  read,  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and 
some  of  them  wrote  commentaries  upon  them;  but  yet,  it 
seems,  they  knew  little  or  nothing  of  their  religion,  though 
they  embraced  and  professed  it  with  the  manifest  hazard  of 
all  earthly  good  things;  and  many  of  them  laid  down  their 
lives  rather  than  renounce  it.  Truly  we  of  these  times  are 
very  happy  in  our  orthodoxy;  but  I  wish  that  we  did  more 
excel  in  those  virtues  which  they,  and  the  Scriptures  like- 
w^ise,  I  think,  recommend,  as  the  distinguishing  properties 
of  a  Christian.  And  I  am  not  a  little  apprehensive,  that 
many  things  which  now  make  a  fair  show  among  us,  and  in 
which  we  mightily  pride  ourselves,  will  in  the  end  prove 
weeds  only,  on  which  the  owner  of  the  ground  sets  no  value." f 

2.  Some  controversies  were  started  in  the  primitive  times 
which  could  not  have  failed  to  draw  forth  the  sentiments  of 
the  orthodox  defenders  of  the  faith,  on  this  subject,  if  they 
had  really  believed  the  death  of  Christ  to  be  a  proper  sacrifice 
for  sin  ;  and  that,  without  it,  God  either  could  not,  or  would 
not,  pardon  any  sin. 

All  the  Docetae,  and  the  Gnostics  in  general,  who  believed 
that  Christ  was  man  only  in  appearance,  and  did  not  really 
suffer,  could  have  no  idea  of  the  meritorious  nature  of  his 
death,  as  such  ;  and  yet  this  is  never  objected  to  any  of 
them  by  Irenaeus,  or  others,  who  write  the  most  largely 
against  them. 

The  Manicheans  also  did  not  believe  that  Christ  died, 
and  consequentially,  as  Beausobre,  who  writes  their  history, 
observes,  they  must  necessarily  have  ascribed  the  salvation 
of  the  soul  to  the  doctrine  and  the  example  of  Christ ;  and 
yet  none  of  the  primitive  fathers  who  write  against  them 
observe,  that  the  great  end  of  Christ's  coming  into  the  world 
would  then  be  defeated,  in  that  the  sins  of  men  would  not 
be  satisfied  for.:|:  Austin,  who  writes  against  the  Manicheans, 
and  from  whom,  on  account  of  his  doctrine  of  grace  and 
original  sin,  we  might  expect  a  complete  system  of  atone- 

♦  Lardner's  Ciedib.  VII.  pp.  145,  146.   (P.)     Works,  IV.  p.  61. 
'    t  Ibid.  p.  62. 

X  Ibid.  VI.  p.  294.    (P.)     Works,  pp.  488,  489. 


HISTORY  OF  THE   DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT.       129 

ment,  never  objects  to  them  their  want  of  such  a  doctrine, 
but  combHts  them  on  other  principles. 

3.  Had  the  ancient  christian  writers  had  the  ideas  which 
som-^  of  the  moderns  have  concerning  the  all-sufficient  sacri- 
fice -M  Christ,  and  the  insufficiency  of  good  works,  they 
could  ijot  have  expressed  themselves  as  they  generally  do 
with  rtspect  to  the  value  of  repentance  and  good  works  in 
the  siijht  of  God. 

Cyprian  says,  "  What  sinners  ought  to  do,  the  divine 
precepts  inform  us,  viz.  that  satisfaction  is  made  to  (jod  by 
good  works,  and  that  sins  are  done  away  by  the  merit  of 
compassion.  Operationibus  justis  Deo  satis/ieri,  misericor- 
dicB  mentis  Deo  placuri.'** 

Lact antiiis  says,  "  Let  no  one  who  has  been  led  into  sin 
by  the  impulse  of  passion  despair  of  himself,  for  he  may  be 
restored  if  he  repent  of  his  sins,  and  by  good  works  make 
satisfaction  to  God  (satisfaciat  Deo) :  for  if  we  think  our 
children  to  be  corrected  when  they  repent  of  their  faults, 
why  should  we  despair  of  the  clemency  of  God  being  paci- 
fied by  repentance  (penitendo  posse  placari  ?")•!•  Again, 
*'  Whoever,  therefore,  obeys  the  divine  precepts,  is  a  wor- 
shipper of  the  true  God,  whose  sacrifices  are  gentleness  of 
mind,  an  innocent  life  and  good  works."  J 

The  manner  in  which  Austin  speaks  of  the  merit  of  good 
works,  shews  that  he  could  not  have  had  any  proper  idea  of 
the  satisfaction  of  Christ.  "  By  these  alone,"  says  he,  "  we 
secure  happiness.  In  this  way  we  recover  ourselves.  In 
this  way  we  come  to  God,  and  are  reconciled  to  him,  whom 
we  have  greatly  provoked.  We  shall  be  brought  before  his 
presence,  let  our  good  works  there  speak  for  us,  and  let  them 
so  speak  that  they  may  prevail  over  our  offences.  For  which- 
soever is  most,  will  prevail,  either  for  punishment  or  for 
mercy."  § 

4.  The  merit  o^ martyrdom  vi^as  held  in  the  highest  esteerft 
by  all  the  primitive  Christians.     If,  therefore,  good  works 

*  De  Operibus  et  Eleemosynis,  Opera  T.  p.  199. 

t  Tnst.  L.  vi.  C.  xxiv.  p.  631.  (P.)  "  Nee  tamen  deficiat  aliquis,  aut  c!e  se  ipse 
desperet,  si  aut  cupiditate  victus,  aut  libidine  impulsus,  aut  errore  decepfus  ;  aut  vi 
coactus,  ad  iiijustitise  viam  lapsus  est.  Potest  enim  reduci,  acliberari,  si  eum  pce- 
niteat  artorum,  et  ad  tneliora  conversus,  satisfaciat  Deo. — Nam  si  liberos  nostros, 
ciim  delictoruni  suorum  cerniinus  pcenitere,  correctos  esse  arbitramur,  et  abdicates, 
abjectosqiip  nirsus  tamen  suscipimus,  fovemus  amplectimur:  cur  desperemus  cle- 
inentiHiii  Oei  Patris  pcenitendo  |>osse  placari  ?"     Op.  I.  pp.  502,  503. 

X  Ibid  p.  636  iP.)  "  Quisquis  igitur  his  omnibus  prseceptis  ccelestibus  obtem- 
peraverit,  hie  cultor  est  verus  Dei,  cujus  sacrificia  sunt,  mansuetudo  aninii,  et 
vita  innocens  et  actus  boni."     Op.  I.  p.  606. 

§  Lardner's  Credib.  X.  p.  302.    (P.)     Works,  IV.  p.  123. 

VOL.  V.  .  K 


130       HISTORY  OF  THE   DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

in  general  were  thought  by  them  to  have  merit  with  God, 
much  more  may  we  expect  to  find  that  they  had  this  idea  of 
what  they  considered  as  the  most  heroic  act  of  virtue.  And 
indeed  the  language  of  the  primitive  Christians  on  the 
subject  of  martyrdom  is  exceedingly  inconsistent  with  any 
notion  of  atonement  for  sin  by  the  death  of  Christ  alone, 
without  regard  to  any  thing  that  man  can  do  for  himself. 

Ignatius,  in  a  fragment  of  an  epistle  preserved  by  Chry- 
sostom,  speaking  of  certain  crimes,  says,  that  they  could 
not  be  wiped  out  even  by  the  blood  of  martyrdom.  He 
also  wishes  that  his  own  sufferings  might  be  accepted  as  a 
purification  and  price  of  redemption  for  them   (TreptxJ/Tjjtxa  xa* 

Origen  says,  "  Christ  has  laid  down  his  lif<^  for  us.  Let 
us  also  lay  down  our  lives,  1  will  not  say  for  him,  but  for 
ourselves,  and  for  those  who  may  be  edified  by  our  martyr- 
dom.— And  perhaps,  as  we  are  redeemed  by  the  blood  of 
Christ,  Jesus  having  received  a  name  above  every  name,  so 
some  will  be  redeemed  by  the  blood  of  martyrs." f  And 
yet  this  writer  says,  "  Christ  offered  his  own  life  not  unlike 
those  who  of  their  own  accord  devoted  themselves  to  death, 
to  deliver  their  country  from  some  pestilence,"  &c.:J:  As 
this  language  could  only  be  "figurative  in  this  writer,  we  may 
conclude,  that  it  is  no  otherwise  to  be  interpreted  when  we 
meet  with  it  in  other  writers  of  those  times. 

5.  The  great  virtue  which  the  ancient  fathers  ascribed  to 
baptism,  and  the  Lord's  supper^  with  respect  to  the  forgive- 
ness of  sins,  shews  plainly,  that  they  did  not  consider  the 
wrath  of  God  as  pacified  by  the  death  of  Christ  once  for  all. 
And  though  the  Lord's  supper  was  a  commemoration  of  the 
death  of  Christ,  it  is  plain  that  they  did  not  consider  the 
administration  of  it  merely  as  an  application  of  his  merits 
or  sufferings  to  themselves  ;  but  as  having  a  virtue  indepen- 
dent of  that,  a  virtue  originating  from  the  time  of  the  cele- 
bration. This  will  be  abundantly  evident  when  I  come,  in 
the  course  of  this  work,  to  shew  the  abuses  of  those  institu- 
tions. However,  what  they  say  concerning  baptism  will  not 
admit  of  such  an  interpretation  as  some  persons,  not  well 
acquainted  with  their  w-ritings,  might  be  disposed  to  put  on 
similar  expressions  relating  to  the  eucharist. 

Among  others,  Tcrtullian  frequently  speaks  of  baptism  as 
washing  away  the  guilt  of  sin.      In  several  of  the  ancient 

•  LeClerc's  Hisforia  Eccl.  A.D.  UO.    (P.) 

t  Laiilucr's  Credib.  Ilf.  p.  226.    (P.)     Works,  II.  p.  462. 

X  Contra Celsum,  L.  i.  pp.  24, 25.  {P.)   AmAoyoj'  rois  <x,TtoQ<x,V(i<rtv  C(,itlp  itoclpiim* 


HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT.        131 

liturgies,  particularly  that  of  Chrysostom,  the  priest  prays 
that  the  eucharist  may  serve  for  the  remission  of  sins  and 
the  communication  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  well  known, 
that  at  length  the  church  of  Rome,  in  pursuance  of  the 
same  train  of  thinking,  came  to  consider  the  eucharist  to  be 
as  .proper  a  sacrifice  as  the  death  of  Christ  itself,  and  as 
having  the  same  original  independent  virtue. 

6.  Many  of  the  ancient  writers,  in  imitation  of  the  author 
of  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  call  the  death  of  Christ  a 
sacrifice,  and  also  say  that  it  was  prefigured  by  the  sacrifices 
under  the  law.  But  that  this  was  no  fixed  determinate  view 
of  the  subject  with  them,  is  evident  from  their  language 
upon  other  occasions  ;  especially  when,  like  the  prophets  of 
old,  they  oppose  good  works,  and  not  the  death  of  Christ,  to 
the  sacrifices  under  the  law,  as  being  of  more  value  than 
they  were. 

Lactantius,  in  his  Epitome  of  Divine  Institutions,  speak- 
ing of  sacrifices,  says,  "  the  true  sacrifice  is  that  which  is 
brought  from  the  heart,"  meaning  good  works.*  With 
respect  to  the  same,  he  also  says,  "  These  are  victims,  this 
is  a  piacular  sacrifice,  which  a  man  brings  to  the  altar  of 
God,  as  a  pledge  of  the  disposition  of  his  mind."*!* 

Though,  therefore,  in  the  Clementine  liturgy,  contained 
in  the  Apostolical  Constitutions,  Christ  is  called  a  high  priest 
and  is  said  to  be  himself  the  sacrifice,  the  shepherd,  and  also 
the  sheep,  "  to  appease  his  God  and  Father,  to  reconcile  him 
to  the  world,  and  to  deliver  all  men  from  the  impending 
wrath,  J  we  must  not  infer  (notwithstanding  in  these  general 
terms,  this  writer  seems  to  express  even  the  proper  principle 
of  the  doctrine  of  atonement,)  that,  if  he  had  dwelt  longer  on 
the  subject,  he  would  have  been  uniform  in  his  representa- 
tions. If  this  was  the  opinion  of  the  author  of  that  liturgy, 
and  those  who  made  use  of  it,  it  did  not  generally  prevail. 
For  the  principles  of  that  doctrine  will  very  clearly  appear  to 
have  been  altogether  unknown  to  the  most  eminent  writers 
of  that  age. 

One  might  have  imagined  that  when  Justin  Martyr  says 
that  "  Christ  took  (s»X>]<^s)  the  sins  of  men,"§  his  idea  had 

*  C.  Iviii.  p  173.  (P.)  "  Hoc  est  sacrificium  verum,  non  quod  ax  arcA,  sed 
quod  ex  corde  profertur,  non  quod  manu,  sed  quod  mente  libatur."    Op.  II.  p.  47. 

t  C.lxvii.  p.  215.  (P.)  "  Haec,  sunt  quae  dcbeat  cultor  Dei  exhiberej  liae  sunt 
victimae,  hoi  sacrificium  pJacabile:  hie  verus  est  cultus,  quum  liomo  mentis  su?e 
pignora  in  aram  Dei  confeit."     Op.  II,  p.  60. 

\  Apost.  Con.  Brett's  Ed.  p.  8.     (P.J 

§  Apol.  I.  Ed.  Thirlby,  p.  73.  (P.)  Aurof  oii^a§rtxs  KohK'jJV  H^tps,  from 
Isaiah,  liii.  12. 

K  2 


132       HISTORY  OF  THE   DOCTRINE   OF  ATONEMENT. 

been  that  he  made  himself  responsible  for  them.  But  the 
tenor  of  all  his  writings  shews  that  he  was  very  far  from 
having  any  such  idea.  He  will  not  even  admit  that,  in  any- 
proper  sense,  Christ  can  be  considered  as  having  been  made 
a  curse  for  us.  He  says  that,  "  when  in  the  law  they  are 
said  to  be  accursed  who  were  crucified,  we  are  not  to  suppose 
that  the  curse  of  God  lies  against  Christ,  by  whom  he  saves 
those  who  have  done  things  worthy  of  a  curse."  Again  he 
says,  "  if  the  Father  of  all  chose  that  his  Christ  should 
receive  [avoCka^t^at]  the  curses  of  all  men,  (that  is,  be  cursed 
or  hated  by  all  men,)  knowing  that  he  would  raise  him  again 
after  he  was  crucified  and  dead,  will  you  consider  him  who 
endured  these  things,  according  to  his  Father's  will,  as  ac- 
cursed?"* 

Austin  says,  *'  Christ  took  their  punishment  but  not  their 
guilt."  And  again,  "  by  taking  their  punishment  and  not 
their  guilt,  he  abolished  both  the  guilt  and  the  punishment. "f 
But  it  is  to  be  considered,  as  was  observed  above,  that  Austin 
was  certainly  ignorant  of  the  principle  of  the  doctrine  of 
atonement ;  so  that  we  can  only  suppose  him  to  have  meant 
that  Christ  suffered  upon  our  account,  and  for  our  benefit ; 
and  though  if  he  had  not  suffered,  we  must,  it  would  have 
been  not  directly^  but  by  remote  consequence.  His  saying 
that  Christ  did  not  take  the  guilt  of  our  sins,  shews  clearly 
that  he  had  no  idea  of  his  bearing  our  sins  in  the  common 
acceptation  of  the  word,  so  as  to  make  himself  answerable 
for  them  ;  and  therefore  he  could  not,  in  a  proper  sense,  be 
said  to  take  the  punishment  of  them. 

7.  When  the  ancient  christian  writers  do  speak  of  the 
mission  and  death  of  Christ,  as  reversing  the  effects  of  sin, 
and  restoring  things  to  the  same  state  in  which  they  were 
before  the  fall,  so  as  to  make  man  once  more  immortal,  their 
idea  was  not  that  this  was  effected  by  procuring  the  pardon 
even  of  that  sin  of  Adam,  by  which  death  was  entailed  upon 
his  posterity  ;  i)ut  by  means  of  Christ  doing  (which  indeed 
they  did  not  clearly  explain)  what  Adam  was  not  able  to 
do.  "  For  this  reason,"  says  Irenaeus,  "  was  the  word  of 
God  made  man,  and  he  who  was  the  Son  of  God,  became 
the  son  of  man,  that  man,  being  mixed  with  the  word  of  God, 
he  might,  by  receiving  the  adoption,  become  the  Son  of  God. 
For  we  could  not  otherwise  receive  incorruptibility  and 
immortality,  unless  we  were  united  to  incorruptibility  and 


•  Dial  Ed.  Thirlby,   pp.  3i5,  346.    (P.) 

t  Grotius  de  Satisfact.  Test.  Vet.  Op.  IV.  p.  345.    (P.) 


HISTORY  OF  THE   DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT.       1.^3 

immortality.  But  how  could  we  be  united  to  incorruptibility 
and  immortality,  unless  that  which  we  are  had  became 
incorruptible  and  immortal  ;  that  so,  what  was  corruptible 
might  be  absorbed  by  what  was  incorruptible,  and  what  was 
mortal  by  immortality,  that  we  might  receive  the  adoption 
of  sons?"* 

I  am  far  from  pretending  to  explain,  and  much  less  to 
defend  this  passage  of  Irengeus.  But  it  is  evident,  that  it  is 
not  capable  of  receiving  any  light  from  the  principle  of  the 
doctrine  of  atonement.  If  this  writer  had  had  the  same 
idea  that  many  now  have  of  it,  he  could  not  have  been  so 
embarrassed  on  the  subject. 

The  same  general  object  of  the  death  of  Christ  is  expressed 
by  Lactantius,  but  without  annexing  to  it  any  particular 
explanation,  in  the  following  passage  of  his  Epitome: 
"  Therefore  the  Supreme  Father  ordered  him  to  descend 
upon  earth,  and  put  on  a  human  body,  that,  being  subject 
to  the  passions  of  the  flesh,  he  might  teach  virtue  and  pati- 
ence, not  by  words  only,  but  also  by  actions.  Wherefore 
he  was  born  again  of  a  virgin,  without  a  father,  as  a  man, 
that,  as  when  he  was  created  by  God  alone,  in  his  first 
spiritual  nativity,  he  was  made  a  holy  spirit,  so  being  born 
of  his  mother  alone,  in  his  second  carnal  nativity,  he  might 
become  holy  flesh  ;  that  by  his  means  the  flesh  which  had 
been  subject  to  sin,  might  be  deliv^ered  from  death. '*f 

Athanasius  did  plainly  consider  Christ  as  dying  in  the 
place  of  men  who  were  subject  to  death.  But  he  does  not 
say  that  it  was  to  satisfy  the  justice  of  God  for  their  sins,  but 
to  procure  the  resurrection  of  mankind  in  general,  the  wicked 
as  well  as  the  righteous,  to  a  future  life  ;  which  is  by  no 
means  the  idea  of  those  who  now  maintain  the  doctrine  of 
atonement,  though  it  may  be  said  to  be  an  approach  to- 
wards it. 

*'  It  was,"  says  he,  "  an  instance  of  his  love  to  mankind, 
that  both  instead  of  the  death  of  all  men  before,  the  law  which 
related  to  that  mortality,  might  be  disannulled,  as  having  its 
power  entirely  satisfied  in  the  Lord's  body,  and  so  had  no 
more  place  against  the  rest  of  mankind  ;  and  also,  that  he 
might  recover  and  revive  those  men  that  were  returning  to 

*  Har.  L.  iii.  C.  xxi.  p.  249-     {P.) 

t  C.  xliii.  p.  1  IS.  (P.)  "  Jussit  igitur  eum  Sumnius  Pater  descendere  in 
terrain,  et  humanum  corpus  induerr,  ut  subjectus  passionibus  carnis,  virtutem  ac 
patientiam  non  solum  verbis,  sed  etiam  factis  doceret.  Rinatus  est  er^o  ex  virgine 
sine  patre,  tanquam  homo;  ut  quemadmodum  in  primk  nativitate  spiritali  creatus 
est,  et  ex  solo  Deo  sanctus  spiritus  factus  est,  sic  in  secunda  carnali  ex  s6\k  niatre 
genitus,  caro  sancta  fieret,  ut  per  eum  caro  quae  subjecta  peccato  fuerat,  ab  interita 
Jiberaretur,"    Op.  II.  p.  32. 


134      HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

corruption  from  death,  by  making  their  bodies  his  own,  and 
by  the  grace  oi"  the  resurrection  ;  and  so  might  extinguish 
the  powerof  death  with  respect  to  them,  as  stubble  is  plucked 
out  of  the  fire.  For  the  Word  being  conscious  that  the  morta- 
lity of  all  men  could  not  otherwise  be  put  an  end  to  than  by 
the  dying  of  all  men,  and  it  being  impossible  that  the  Word, 
which  was  immortal,  and  the  Son  of  the  Father,  should  die  ; 
for  this  cause  he  took  to  himself  a  body  that  could  die,  that 
the  same  body,  by  partaking  of  that  Word,  which  was  over 
all,  might  be  an  equivalent  for  the  death  of  all,  and  yet  might 
afterwards  continue  incorruptible,  on  account  of  the  Word 
that  was  the  inhabitant,  and  so  corruption  might  afterwards 
cease  from  all  men  by  the  grace  of  the  resurrection."*  Also 
in  the  liturgy  ascribed  to  Nestorius,  Christ  is  said  to  have 
*'  undergone  for  men  the  punishment  due  to  their  sins,  giving 
himself  to  die  for  all  whom  death  had  dominion  over."-]* 

It  is  evident,  from  all  these  passages,  that  these  writers 
had  no  idea  of  Christ's  so  suffering  for  men,  as  to  endure  for 
them  any  part  of  the  punishment  that  was  to  be  inflicted  in 
a  future  world,  but  only  to  procure  the  reversion  of  the 
sentence  passed  upon  man  in  consequence  of  the  fall  of 
Adam  ;  so  far,  that,  though  all  men  should  actually  die, 
they  should  not  continue  subject  to  death,  but  have  the 
benefit  of  a  resurrection. 

8.  It  appears,  that  by  some  means  or  other,  probably  the 
too  literal  interpretation  of  the  figurative  language  of  Scrip- 
ture, such  an  advance  was  made  towards  the  doctrine  of 
atonement,  in  the  period  of  which  l  am  now  treating,  that 
it  was  generally  supposed  that  the  death  of  Christ  was  a 
price  paid  for  our  redemption  from  the  power  of  death,  and 
that  without  it  there  would  have  been  no  resurrection  from 
the  dead.  But  this  system  was  so  far  from  being  completed, 
that  these  writers  could  not  determine  to  whom  this  price 
was  paid;  and  in  general  it  was  agreed  that  it  was. paid  to 
the  devil^  to  whom  mankind  had  been  given  over,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  sin  of  Adam. 

Origen  was  clearly  of  this  opinion.  "If,"  says  he,  "we 
are  bought  with  a  price,  as  Paul  affirms,  we  must  have  been 
bought  from  some  person  whose  slaves  we  were,  who  also 
demanded  what  ])ricc  he  pleased,  that  he  might  dismiss  from 
his  power  those  which  he  held.  But  it  was  the  devil  that 
held  us.  For  to  him  wc  had  been  given  over  for  our  sins. 
Wherefore,  he  demanded  the  blood  of  Christ,  as  the  price 

♦  Athan.  Opera,  I.  p.  6l.    (P.)  t  ^post.  Con.  Brett,  p.  94.    (P.) 


HISTORY  OF  THE   DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT.        135 

of  our  redemption."  He  goes  on  to  observe,  that  "  till  the 
blood  of  Christ  was  given,  which  was  so  precious  that  it 
alone  could  suffice  for  the  redemption  of  all,  it  was  necessary 
for  all  those  who  were  under  the  law  to  give  each  his  own 
blood,  in  a  kind  of  imitation  of  a  future  redemption  ;  and 
therefore  that  we,  for  whom  the  price  of  Christ^s  blood  is 
paid,  have  no  occasion  to  offer  a  price  for  ourselves,  that  is, 
the  blood  of  circumcision.*'*  In  this  place,  therefore,  he 
supposes  that  the  rite  of  circumcision,  and  not  the  sacrifice 
of  animals,  was  intended  to  prefigure  the  death  of  Christ, 
and  to  serve  as  a  kind  of  temporary  substitute  for  it. 

This  writer  also  compares  the  death  of  Christ  to  that  of 
those  in  the  heathen  world  who  devoted  themselves  to 
death,  to  avert  public  calamities  from  their  country.  "  It 
is  requisite,  for  some  secret  and  incomprehensible  reasons 
in  nature,  that  the  voluntary  death  of  a  righteous  man 
should  disarm  the  power  of  evil  demons,  who  do  mischief 
by  means  of  plagues,  dearths,  tempests,  &c.  Is  it  not  pro- 
bable, therefore,"  he  says,  "  that  Christ  died  to  break  the 
power  of  the  great  demon,  the  prince  of  the  other  demons, 
who  has  in  his  power  the  souls  of  all  the  men  that  ever  lived 
in  the  world  ?"f 

This  opinion,  however,  of  the  price  of  our  redemption 
being  paid  to  the  devil,  appears  not  to  have  been  universally 
acquiesced  in  ;  and  Gr.  Nazianzen  takes  it  up  as  a  question 
that  had  not  been  discussed  before  ;  and  after  proposing 
several  schemes,  and  not  appearing  to  be  satisfied  with  any 
of  them,  he  give^  his  own  opinion  with  considerable  diffi- 
dence. "  We  may  inquire,"  he  says,  "  into  a  fact,  and 
an  opinion,  which  had  been  overlooked  by  many,  but  which 
I  have  diligently  considered,  viz.  to  whom,  and  for  what, 
was  the  blood  of  Christ  shed.  We  were  in  the  possession 
of  the  devil,  being  sold  to  him  for  sin,  we  having  received 
the  pleasures  of  sin  in  return.  But  ifthe  price  of  redemption 
could  only  be  received  by  him  who  had  possession  of  us,  I 
ask  to  whom  was  this  blood  paid,  and  for  what  cause  ?  For 
if  it  was  paid  to  that  wicked  one,  it  was  shameful  indeed  ; 
and  if  he  not  only  received  a  price  from  God,  but  God  him- 
self was  that  price,  for  such  a  price  it  was  certainly  just  that 
he  should  spare  us.  Was  the  price  paid  to  the  Father  ?  B«t 
how,  for  we  were  not  held  by  him,  and  how  could  the 
Father  be  dehghted  with  the  blood  of  his  only  begotten  Son, 

•  Oriff,  Opera,  11.  p.  486.     CP.) 

t  Oriff.  ConUa  Celsanj,  L.  i.  p.  25.     (P.)     See  the  Quotation,  p.  ISO. 


136       HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

when  he  would  not  receive  Isaac  who  was  offered  to  him  by 
Abraham  ?  Or  rather,  did  the  Father  receive  tlie  price,  not 
because  he  desired,  or  wanted  it,  but  because  it  was  con- 
venient that  man  should  be  sanctified  by  what  was  human 
in  God,  that  he,  by  conquering  the  tyrant,  might  deliver 
us,  and  brino:  us  to  him  ?"* 

The  opinion  which  this  writer  mentions  in  the  last  place, 
and  that  to  which  we  may,  therefore,  suppose  he  was  most 
inclined,  is,  that  the  death  of  Christ  is,  m  some  manner, 
instrumental  to  our  sanctijication,  that  is,  to  our  being  made 
fit  to  be  offered  to  God,  and  to  be  made  his  property,  after 
having  been  in  the  power  of  the  devil,  but  he  does  not  say 
that  it  was  for  our  just  ijication.  He,  therefore,  had  no  proper 
idea  of  what  is  now  called  the  doctrine  of  atonement.  Indeed, 
he  expresses  himself  with  so  much  uncertainty,  tlmt  some 
may  still  think  he  was,  upon  the  whole,  of  the  opinion  of 
Origen,  viz.  that  the  price  of  our  redemption  was  paid  to  the 
devil,   but  that  it  was  more  than  he  was  fairly  entitled  to. 

That  the  devil  was  the  person  to  whom  the  price  of  our 
redemption  was  due,  seems  to  have  been  the  general  opinion 
of  speculative  writers  till  the  age  of  the  schoolmen.  Ambrose 
says,  "  we  were  pledged  to  a  bad  creditor,  for  sin. — Christ 
came,  and  offered  his  blood  for  us."*!*  This  writer  has  a 
distinction  with  respect  to  our  redemption  by  Christ,  which 
is  something  curious.  For  he  says,  "  the  flesh  of  Christ  was 
given  for  the  salvation  of  the  body,  and  his  blood  for  the 
salvation  of  the  soul."  I  do  not  know  that  any  of  the  moderns 
follow  him  in  this.  Optatus  Milevitanus  also  speaks  of  the 
devil  being  in  possession  of  men's  souls,  before  they  were 
redeemed  by  the  blood  of  Christ.^ 

Austin  writes  so  fully  on  this  subject,  and  his  opinions  in 
general  acquired  such  an  ascendancy  in  the  western  church, 
for  many  centuries  after  his  death,  that  I  shall  give  a  larger 
extract  from  his  writings.  "  What,"  says  he,  "  is  the  power 
of  that  blood,  in  which,  if  we  believe,  we  shall  be  saved  ;  and 
what  is  the  meaning  of  being  reconciled  by  the  death  of  his 
Son  ?  Was  God  the  Father  so  angry  with  us,  that  he  could 
not  be  pacified  without  the  death  of  his  Son  ?  By  the  justice 
of  God  the  race  of  man  was  delivered  to  the  devil ;  the  sin 
of  the  first  man  being  transferred  to  all  his  posterity,  the  debt 
of  their  first  parents  binding  them  :  not  that  God  did  it,  or 
ordered  it,  but  he  permitted  them  to  be  so  delivered.     But 

♦  Greg.  Nazian.    Opera,  1630.    Omf.  xlii.  p.  691.    (P.) 

t  Grotii  Op.  Test.  Vet.  IV.  p.  S44.    (P.)  %  Opera,  p.  80.    (P.) 


HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT.        137 

the  goodness  of  God  did  not  forsake  them,  though  in  the 
devil's  power,  nor  even  the  devil  himself,  for  he  lives  by 
him.  if,  therefore,  the  commission  of  sin,  through  the  just 
anger  of  God,  subjects  man  to  the  power  of  the  devil,  the 
remission  of  sins,  by  the  gracious  forgiveness  of  God,  delivers 
man  from  the  devil.  But  the  devil  was  not  to  be  overcome 
by  the  power,  but  by  the  justice  of  God;  and  it  pleased 
God,  that  in  order  to  deliver  man  from  the  power  of  the 
devil,  the  devil  should  be  overcome  not  by  power,  but  by 
justice.  What  then  is  the  justice  [or  rAther  righteousness,) 
by  which  the  devil  was  conquered  ;  what  but  the  righte- 
ousness of  Jesus  Christ?  And  how  is  he  conquered?  Because, 
though  there  was  in  him  nothing  worthy  of  death,  he  (that 
is,  the  devil)  killed  him.  Was  not  then  the  devil  to  have 
been  fairly  conquered,  though  Christ  had  acted  by  power, 
and  not  by  righteousness  ?  But  he  postponed  what  he  could 
do,  in  order  to  do  what  ought  to  be  done.  Wherefore  it  was 
necessary  for  him  to  be  both  God  and  man  ;  man  that  he 
might  be  capable  of  being  killed,  and  God  to  shew  that  it 
was  voluntary  in  him.  What  could  shew  more  power  than 
to  rise  again,  with  the  very  flesh  in  which  he  had  been  killed  ? 
He,  therefore,  conquered  the  devil  twice,  first  by  righteous- 
ness, and  then  by  power."  He  also  says,  "  the  blood  of 
Christ  is  given  as  a  price,  and  yet  the  devil  having  received 
it,  is  not  enriched,  but  bound  by  it,  that  we  might  be  deh- 
vered  from  his  bonds."* 

This  last  quotation  contains  an  antithesis  of  which  all  the 
writers  of  that  age  were  too  fond,  and  to  which  they  some- 
times sacrificed  more  than  they  ought  to  have  done.  From 
the  same  fondness  for  antithesis,  without  perhaps  intending 
to  be  understood  in  the  m.anner  in  which  his  expressions 
will  now  be  naturally  understood  by  many,  he  says,  "  Christ 
alone  suffered  punishment  without  bad  deserts,  that  by  him 
we  might  obtain  favour  without  good  deserts." f 

Proclus  of  Constantinople  also,  a  writer  of  the  same  age, 
but  somewhat  later  than  Austin,  considered  the  price  of  our 
redemption  as  paid  to  the  devil.  "  The  devil,"  he  says, 
"  held  us  in  a  state  of  servitude,  boasting  that  he  had  bought 
us. — It  was  necessary,  therefore,  that  all  being  condemned, 
cither  they  should  be  dragged  to  death,  or  a  sufficient  price 
be  paid  ;  and  because  no  angel  had  wherewithal  to  pay  it,  it 
remained  that  God  should  die  for  us."  J 

*  Augustin  de  Trin.   L.  xiii.  C.  ii.  Op.  III.  pp.  414  and  417.     (P.) 

t  Contra  duas  Pdagianorum  Epistolas,  L.  iv.  Op.  VII.  p.  91-^.     (P.) 

X  Grotii  Op.  Test.  Vet.  IV.  p.  S46.    (P.)    Milton,  the  ortliodoxi/  of  whose  Para- 


138      HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTBINE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

9.  Lastly,  nothing,  perhaps,  can  shew  more  clearly  how 
fiar  the  primitive  Cliristians  were  from  entertaining  the  idea 
that  many  now  do  concerning  the  efficacy  of  the  death  of 
Christ,  as  instrumental  to  the  pardon  of  all  sin,  than  their 
interpretation  of  some  of  those  texts  in  which  the  doctrine 
of  atonement  is  now  supposed  to  be  contained. 

Clemens  Alexandrinus  explains  Rom.  iv.  25,  he  wa» 
delv)ered  for  our  offences,  by  saying  that  Christ  was  the 
corrector  and  director  of  sinners,  so  that  he  alone  can  forgive 
sins,  being  appointed  a  pedagogue  by  the  universal  Father. 
He  explains  Matt.  xxvi.  28,  in  which  our  Lord  calls  the 
wine,  his  blood  which  is  shed  for  many,  "  by  his  word  or 
(ioctrine,  which  was  poured  out  for  niany,/or  the  remission  of 
sins,*'  and  interprets  what  Our  Lord  says  in  the  6th  chapter 
of  John's  igospel,  about  eating  his  flesh  and  drinking  his 
blood,  of  faith  and  hope,  which  supports  the  soul;*  and  to 
prove  that  blood  may  represent  word  or  doctrine,  he  alleges 
Gen.  iv.  10,  in  which  it  is  said,  the  blood  of  Abel  cried  unto 
God. 

Upon  the  whole,  I  think  it  must  appear  sufficiently 
evident,  that  the  proper  doctrine  of  atonement  was  far  from 
being  settled  in  the  third  or  fourth  centuries,  though  some 
little  approach  was  made  towards  it,  in  consequence  of 
supposing  that  what  is  called  a  ransom  in  a  figurative  sense, 
in  the  New  Testament,  was  something  more  than  a  figure  ; 
and  therefore  that  the  death  of  Christ  was  truly  a  price  paid 
for  our  redemption,  not  indeed  directly  from  sin,  but  rather 
from  death,  though  it  was  not  settled  to  whom  this  price  was 
paid.  In  general  the  writers  of  those  times  rather  seem  to 
have  considered  God  as  the  person  who  paid  the  price,  than 
he  that  received  it.  For,  man  being  delivered  into  the  povi'er 
of  the  devil,  they  considered  the  price  of  redemption  as  paid 
to  him.  As  to  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  it  was  represented  by 
all  the  fathers,  and  even  by  Austin  himself,  as  proceeding 
from  the  free  grace  of  God,  from  which  free  grace  he  was 
farther  induced  to  give  up  his  Son,  as  the  price  of  our  re- 
demption from  the  power  of  the  devil.  We  must,  therefore, 
proceed  farther,  before  we  come  to  any  regular  system  of 
atonement,  founded  on  fixed  principles,  such  as  are  now 
alleged  in  support  of  it. 

disc  Lost  has,  probably,  been  overrated,  seems  to  have  supposed  that  an  angel  might 
have  made  the  Atonement,  had  anyone  of  them  possessed  sufficient  c/ianf^  and 
resolution.     See  B.  iii.  line  213 — 221. 
♦  Pad.  L,  i.  Opera,  pp.  110,  158.     (P.) 


HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT.       139 


SECTION  VI. 

Of  the  State  of  Opinions  concerning  the  Doctrine  of  Atonement  j 
from  the  Time  of  Austin  to  the  Reformation. 

After  Austin,  vve  find  but  few  writers  of  eminence  for 
several  centuries,  owing  to  the  great  confusion  of  the  times; 
so  that  he  being  the  last  very  considerable  writer  in  the 
western  church,  his  works  went  down  to  posterity  with 
peculiar  advantage,  having  no  rival  of  any  note.  He  was, 
therefore,  considered  as  an  authority,  and  his  opinions  were 
seldom  disputed.  But  having  himself  formed  no  fixed 
opinion  with  respect  to  the  doctrine  of  atonement,  his 
doctrines  of  grace,  original  sin  and  predestination,  were  not 
connected  with  it,  as  they  now  are.  We  shall  find,  how- 
ever, that  though  not  immediately,  yet  by  degrees,  something 
more  like  the  present  doctrine  of  atonement  got  established 
before  the  aera  of  the  Reformation. 

About  two  centuries  and  a  half  after  Austin,  we  find 
Gregory  the  Great,  who  was  the  most  considerable  writer  in 
his  time.  But  he  also  was  far  from  having  any  consistent 
notions  on  this  subject.  For,  at  the  same  time  that 
he  insists  upon  the  necessity  of  some  expiation,  he 
says,  that  our  redemption  might  have  been  effected  by 
Christ  in  some  other  way  than  by  his  death.  He  says, 
"The  rust  of  sin  could  not  be  purged  without  the  fire 
of  torment ;  Christ  therefore  came  without  fault,  that  he 
might  subject  himself  to  voluntary  torment,  and  that  he 
might  bear  the  punishment  due  to  our  sins."  But  he  says, 
"  Christ  might  have  assisted  us  without  suffering,  for  that 
he  who  made  us  could  deliver  us  from  suffering  without  his 
own  death.  But  he  chose  this  method,  because  by  it  he 
shewed  more  love  to  us."* 

In  Theodorus  Abucara,  a  Greek  writer  of  the  ninth  cen- 
tury, we  find  something  more  like  the  doctrine  of  atonement, 
than  in  any  writer  in  the  Latin  church.  Indeed,  as  far  as 
the  extract  given  us  by  Grotius  goes,  it  is  very  express  to 
the  purpose.  But  how  he  would  have  explained  himself  if 
he  had  written  more  largely  on  the  subject,  1  cannot  tell. 
He  says,  "  God,  by  his  just  judgments  demanded  of  us,  all 
the  things  that  are  written  in  the  law  ;  which,  when  we 
could  not  pay,  the  Lord  paid  for  us,  taking  upon  himself  the 

*  In  Jobii.  Cap.  12;  xxx.  Cap.  26,     Op.  fo].  13,  {23.    (P.) 


140       HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF   ATONEMENT. 

curse  and  condemnation  to  which  we  were  obnoxious.*' 
Again,  he  says,  "  Christ,  the  mediator,  reconciled  us  to 
God."* 

In  the  Latin  church,  however,  the  doctrine  of  atonement 
does  not  appear  to  have  been  fixed,  in  the  eleventh  century  ; 
at  least  it  we  may  judge  of  it  hy  the  writings  of  Anselm,  who 
was  one  of  the  greatest  theologians  of  that  age,  and  one  of 
the  first  who  distinguished  himself  by  that  peculiar  kind  of 
acuteness  of  speculation,  which  was  carried  much  farther 
some  time  afterwards,  in  what  is  called  the  age  of  the  school- 
men. This,  however,  we  may  say,  that  all  the  ideas  of 
Anselm  on  this  subject,  would  not  be  adopted  by  those  who 
are  advocates  for  the  doctrine  of  atonement  at  present.  He 
says,  "  that  of  innumerable  other  methods,  by  which  God, 
being  omnipotent,  might  have  saved  men,  he  chose  the 
death  of  Christ,  that  by  it  he  might,  at  the  same  time,  mani- 
fest his  love  to  men."  "  Was  the  Father,"  says  he,  "  so 
angry  with  men,  that  unless  the  Son  had  died  for  us,  he 
would  not  be  appeased  ?  No  :  for  the  Father  had  love  for 
us  even  when  we  were  in  our  sins.^-j-  Yet  he  says,  "  Hu- 
man nature  could  not  be  restored  unless  man  paid  what  for 
sin  he  owed  to  God  ;  and  that  which  Christ  ought  not  to  pay 
but  as  man,  he  was  not  able  to  pay  but  as  God ;  so  that 
there  was  a  necessity  that  God  should  be  united  to  man."t 

This  seems,  indeed,  to  be  the  proper  language  of  the 
doctrine  of  atonement.  But  he  afterwards  expresses  himself 
in  a  manner  not  quite  so  favourable  to  that  scheme,  for  he 
says,  "  As  Christ  died  without  any  sin  of  his  own,  a  reward 
was  due  to  him  ;  and  because  he,  being  God,  could  not 
receive  any  addition  of  happiness,  the  reward  was  bestowed 
on  those  on  whom  he  chose  that  it  should  be  conferred; 
and  on  whom  could  he  more  justly  choose  to  have  it  be- 
stowed, than  upon  his  relations  and  brethren,  whom  he  saw 
in  so  miserable  a  state  ;  that  that  might  be  remitted  to  them 
which  they  owed  for  their  sins,  and  that  might  be  given  to 
them,  which  on  account  of  their  sins  they  wanted  ?" 

Something  more  like  the  doctrine  of  atonement  occurs  in 
Theophilus,  a  Greek  writer  of  the  age  of  Anselm.  But  the 
quotation  from  him  in  Grotius,  is  so  short,  that,  as  in  the 
case  of  Abucara,  1  cannot  tell  how  he  would  have  explained 
himself  if  he  had  written  more  largely  upon  the  subject.  It 
may  be  observed,  however,  that  as  Grotius  was  professedly 

*  Grotii  Op.  Test.  Vet.  TV.  pp.  347,  S48.     {P.) 

t  Ad  Rom.  C.  V.  Op.  II.  p.  .51.     (P.) 

X  Cur  Dexu  Homo,  L.  ii.  C.  xviii.  Op.  III.  p.  63.     (P.) 


HISTORY  OF  THE   DOCTRINE  OF   ATONEMENT.        HI 

collecting  authorities  in  support  of  the  doctrine  of  atone- 
ment, he  would  not  have  omitted  any  thing  that  he  had 
found  more  to  his  purpose.  "  The  Father,"  says  this  writer, 
"  was  angry  ;  wherefore  Christ  being  made  a  mediator  recon- 
ciled him  to  us.  How  ?  By  bearing  what  we  ought  to  have 
borne,  viz,  death."*  By  this,  however,  he  might  not  mean 
the  wrath  of  God  in  a  future  state.,  but  simply  death.,  n  spect- 
ing  the  whole  human  race,  which  we  have  seen  to  be  the 
opinion  of  the  primitive  fathers.  And  this,  indeed,  might 
be  all  that  Abucara  intended  to  express  in  the  passage  above 
quoted. 

In  the  following  century  we  meet  with  Peter  Lombard, 
the  greatest  authority  in  the  school  of  theology  before  the 
appearance  of  Thomas  Aquinas  ;  but  in  him  we  find  nothing 
more  settled  about  the  doctrine  of  atonement  than  in  the  time 
of  Austin.  This  writer,  in  his  book  o{  Sentences.,  in  which 
he  meant  to  comprise  the  sum  of  universal  theology,  treat- 
ing of  the  manner  in  which  we  are  delivered  from  sin  and 
the  devil  by  the  death  of  Christ,  says,  that  "  in  the  death 
of  Christ  the  love  of  God  towards  us  is  made  conspicuous, 
and  by  means  of  it  we  are  moved  and  excited  to  love  God, 
who  hath  done  so  much  for  us,  and  thus  we  become  justified, 
that  is,  being  free  from  sin,  w^e  become  righteous.  The  death 
of  Christ,  therefore,  justifies  us,  because  by  means  of  it  love 
is  excited  in  our  hearts." f 

He  adds,  but  more  obscurely,  that,  "  in  another  manner 
also,  we  are  justified  by  the  death  of  Christ,  viz.  because  by 
faith  in  it  we  are  freed  from  sin,  looking  to  it  as  the  children 
of  Israel  looked  to  the  brazen  serpent ;  so  that  though  after 
the  death  of  Christ  the  devil  may  tempt  us,  as  he  did  before, 
he  cannot  conquer  us  as  he  did  before.  Thus  Peter  was 
overcome  by  temptation  before  the  death  of  his  Master,  but 
afterwards  behaved  with  the  greatest  boldness  before  the 
Jewish  rulers."  Again,  treating  of  the  manner  in  which  we 
are  delivered  from  punishment  by  the  death  of  Christ,  he 
says,  that  "  the  penance  enjoined  by  the  church  would  not 
suffice  without  the  sutFerings  of  Christ,  co-operating  with  it; 
so  that  the  sins  of  good  men  before  the  death  of  Christ  were 
borne  with  by  God  until  that  event."  He  says,  however, 
*'  we  are  not  to  suppose  that  the  death  of  Christ  so  recon- 
ciles us  to  God,  as  that  he  then  begins  to  love  those  whom 
he  before  had  hated  :  for,  that  God  always  loved  men,  and 

•  Grotii  Op.  Test.  Vet.  IV.  p.  348.     (P.) 
t  L.  iii.  Dist.  19,  20,  p.  596.    (P.) 


142       HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCtRINE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

that  he  might  have  chosen  any  other  method  to  redeem  us 
from  siij  tiian  by  the  death  of  Christ,  if  he  had  pleased  ;  but 
that  he  cnose  this  method  because  in  this  manner  the  devil 
is  overcome  not  by  poiver,  of  which  he  was  a  lover,  but  bv 
righteousness^  which  he  hated.  For  we  being  the  captives  of" 
the  devil,  God  might  have  released  us  by  his  authority  only." 
This  is  the  same  view  of  this  subject  that  was  before  given 
by  Austin. 

In  this  last  quotation  from  Peter  Lombard,  we  find  some 
remains  of  the  old  doctrine  of  redemption  from  the  power  of  the 
devil ;  but  in  Bernard,  who  was  Lombard's  contemporary,  we 
find  more  of  the  proi»er  doctrine  of  satisfaction,  but  not  very 
fully  stated,  and  mixed  with  some  principles  not  very  con- 
sonant to  it.  Upon  the  whole,  however,  his  doctrine  on  this 
subject  is  nearer  to  that  of  the  moderns  than  any  thing  we 
meet  with  before  the  Reformation.  He  also  speaks  of  im- 
puted sin  and  imputed  righteousness  more  expressly,  I  believe, 
than  any  who  had  gone  before  him.  He  says,  that,  "  since 
man,  by  sin,  became  obnoxious  to  two  kinds  of  death,  the 
one  spiritual  and  voluntary,  the  other  corporeal  and  necessary, 
God  by  his  corporeal  and  voluntary  death  obviated  both. 
Had  he  not  suffered  corporeally,  he  had  not  paid  our  debts ; 
had  he  not  suffered  voluntarily,  there  would  not  have  been 
any  merit  in  it."  "  God-man,"  says  he,  "  taking  the  punish- 
ment, and  being  free  from  the  guilt,  dying  of  his  own  accord, 
merits  life  and  righteousness  for  us."  Death,  he  says,  "  is 
driven  away  by  the  death  of  Christ,  and  his  righteousness  is 
imputed  to  us.  Shall  the  sin  of  Adam  be  imputed  to  me  ? 
And  shall  not  the  righteousness  of  Christ  belong  to  me  also  ? 
We  are  much  more  truly  born  of  God  according  to  the  spirit, 
than  we  are  born  of  Adam  according  to  the  flesh."*  "  A 
foreign  righteousness,"  says  he,  "  is  given  to  man  who 
wanted  his  own.  It  was  man  that  owed,  and  it  was  man 
that  paid.  The  satisfaction  of  one  is  imputed  to  all."-f  But 
in  all  this  he  is  speaking  of  natural  death  only,  and  there- 
fore he  did  not  in  fact  go  beyond  the  ideas  of  Austin. 

Notwithstanding  this  language,  so  exceedingly  favourable 
to  the  doctrine  of  atonement,  he  speaks  of  the  power  that 
God  and  every  person  has,  to  forgive  sins  committed  against 
himself.  "  Can  I,"  says  he,  "  forgive  an  ofll'ence  against 
myself?  The  Omnipotent  certainly  can.  We  know,  there- 
fore, that  Christ  can  forgive  sin  by  the  power  of  his  divinity, 
and  we  cannot  doubt  of  his  willingness."  J 

*  Beruardi.  Op.  Picard,  IC09.     Ad  Milites  Templi,  C.  xi.  p.  837.     (P.) 

t  Ibid.  Epist.  cxc.  p.  1556.    (P.)  t  Ibid.  Ad  Milit.  C.  xi.  p.  857.    (P.) 


HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT.       143 

The  great  oracle  of  the  Latin  church  was  Thomas  Aquinas  ; 
and  his  doctrine,  we  may  presume,  was  that  which  was  most 
o-eneraliy  received  in  that  church,  and  retained  till  the  time 
of  the  Reformation.     The    following    quotations   from    his 
Summa,  shew,  that  his  doctrine  of  satisfaction  was  a  mixed 
one.     He  says,   that  "  in  consequence  of  sin  man  was  a 
debtor  to  God  as  a  judge,  and  to  the  devil  as  a  tormentor. 
And  with  respect  to  God,  justice  required  that  man  should 
be  redeemed,  but  not  with  respect  to  the  devil  ;    so  that 
Christ   paid   his  blood  to  God,  and  not  to  the   devil.      It 
was  not   naturally  impossible   for  God,*'   he  says,  "  to  be 
reconciled  to  man  without  the  death  of  Christ,  but  this  was 
more  convenient,  as  by  this  means  he  obtained  more  and 
better  gifts  than  by  the  mere  will  of  God."*     He  says,  that 
"  God  might  have  remitted  the  sins  of  men  by  his  mere  will, 
but  that  it  is  more  convenient  to  do  it  by  the  death  of  Christ, 
on  account  of  the  various   uses  which  it  answered  at  tile 
same  time,  especially  moral  ones  ;"    and  among  others  he 
mentions  our  being  thereby  the  more  excited  to  love  God, 
and  that  Christ  thereby  gave  an  example  of  obedience,  hu- 
mility and  fortitude.     He  says,   that  "  the  guilt  of  sin  is 
taken   away   by   the   renovating  power  of  grace,   and   the 
punishment  by   Christ,   as  a  man,  making  satisfaction   to 
God."f     He  illustrates  the  merits  of  Christ  with  respect  to 
Christians,  by  the  idea  of  his  being  the  head,  and  they  the 
body,  as  if,  says  he,  a  man  by  means  of  his  hands  should 
redeem  himself  from  a  punishment  due  for  a  sin  committed 
by  his  feet.     Lastly,  he  maintained  that  baptism,  penance, 
and  the  other  sacraments,  derived  their  virtue  from  the  death 
of  Christ.  + 

It  appears  from  these  extracts,  that  the  Latin  church  was 
far  from  having  any  consistent  doctrine  of  atonement,  though 
a  great  deal  was  ascribed  to  the  death  of  Christ.  We  shall 
find,  in  another  part  of  this  work,  that  though  the  writers  of 
this  age  admitted  the  doctrine  of  Austin  concerning  ^mce, 
they  were  not  without  expedients  to  make  room  for  the 
doctrine  of  the  merit  of  good  works,  and  even  to  provide  a 
fund  of  merit,  transferable  to  those  who  had  it  not,  of  which 
the  court  of  Rome  made  a  most  intemperate  use.  This 
doctrine  o{  merit,  would  naturally  check  the  tendency  which 
the  divines  of  that  church  might  otherwise  have  had,  to  perfect 
their  doctrine  of  satisfaction  for  sin  by  the  death  of  Christ ; 

*  Summa,  Pt.  iii.  Ques.  xlviii.  Ait,  vi.  p.  120.     (P.) 

t  Ibid.  Ques.  xlvi.  Art.  iii.  p.  111.     (P.) 

t  Ibid.  Ques.  xxii.  xlviii.  Art.  vi.  pp.  d7,  120.    (P.) 


144       HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

and  it  was  in  opposition  to  this  doctrine  of  human  merit, 
that  Luther,  and  some  others  of  the  reformers,  laid  the  great 
stress  which  we  find  they  did  upon  the  doctrine  of  the  merit 
of  Christ,  and  the  satisfaction  made  for  our  sins  by  his  death. 
With  them,  therefore,  and  with  them  only,  shall  we  find 
the  doctrine  of  atonement  completed  in  all  its  parts.  How 
this  business  stood  in  the  Greek  church,  I  have  had  no 
opportunity  of  tracing;  but,  from  the  few  specimens  I  have 
given  of  it,  it  should  seem,  that  their  opinions  were  nearer 
to  those  of  our  reformers  than  those  of  the  church  of  Rome. 
It  is  very  remarkable,  that  we  find  nothing  like  a  contro^ 
versy  on  the  subject  of  this  doctrine  in  all  the  western  church, 
quite  down  to  the  Reformation  ;  nor  do  we  find  any  thing  of 
this  kind  in  the  Greek  church,  except  that,  in  the  twelfth 
century,  the  emperor  Emanuel  Comnenus  exercised  him- 
self and  his  divines  with  this  question,  "  In  what  sense  it 
was,  or  might  be  affirmed,  that  an  incarnate  God  was  at  the 
same  time  the  offerer  and  the  oblation P"*  But  nothing  of 
any  consequence  resulted  from  it. 

SECTION  VII. 

Of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Reformers  on  the  Subject  of 
Atonement. 

The  first  who  separated  from  the  church  of  Rome  were 
the  Waldenses,  of  Piedmont,  in  the  Alps.  They  seem  to 
have  had  their  origin  from  the  time  of  Claudius,  bishop  of 
Turin,  who  distinguished  himself  by  his  opposition  to  the 
worship  of  images,  and  other  innovations  of  the  church  of 
Rome,  in  the  tenth  century.  With  them  we  find  a  general 
outline  of  the  doctrine  of  atonement,  in  the  confession  of 
faith  which  they  presented  to  the  king  of  France  in  1544; 
in  which  they  say,  that  "  the  fathers,  to  whom  Christ  was 
promised,  notwithstanding  their  sin,  and  their  impotence  by 
the  law,  desired  the  coming  of  Christ  to  satisfy  for  their  sins, 
and  to  fulfil  the  law  by  himself." -j-  But  we  find  nothing  of 
this  subject  in  their  older  confessions.  In  general,  however, 
it  cannot  but  appear  probable,  that  as  the  advocates  of  the 
church  of  Rome  were  inclined  to  explain  away  the  doctrine 
of  grace,  and  to  introduce  that  of  merit,  those  who  wished 
for  a  reformation  of  the  abuses  of  penance,  purgatory  and 
indulgences,  which  were  founded  on  the  doctrine  of  merit, 

*  Mosheim,  II.  p.  435.    (P.)     Cent.  xii.  Ft.  ii.  Cli.  iii.  Sect.  xv. 
■\  Leger,  Histoire,  p.  94.    {P.) 


HISTORY  OF  THE   DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT.        14o 

would  lean  to  the  other  extreme,  and  lay  great  stress  on  the 
satisfaction  made  for  sin  by  the  death  of  Christ  alone. 

Wickliffe  seems  to  have  been  a  firm  believer  of  the  doc- 
trine of  predestination,  and  also  of  the  absolute  necessity  of 
the  death  of  Christ,  in  order  to  the  forgiveness  of  sin,  if  his 
sentiments  be  faithfully  represented  by  Du  Pin,  who  censures 
him  for  maintaining  that  God  could  not  pardon  sin  without 
the  satisfaction  of  Jesus  Christ;  that  he  can  save  none  but 
those  who  are  actually  saved  ;  and  that  he  wills  sin  in  order 
to  bring  good  out  of  it.*  And  Mr.  Gilpin  represents  him 
as  maintaining  that  "  all  men,  as  far  as  the  merit  of  another 
can  avail,  are  partakers  of  the  merits  of  Christ." f  This, 
however,  is  not  very  consistent  with  the  doctrine  of  pre- 
destination, J 

But  after  the  reformation  by  Luther,  we  find  the  doctrine 
of  satisfaction,  or  atonement  for  sin  by  the  death  of  Christ, 
reduced  to  a  regular  system,  grounded  on  certain  principles, 
and  pursued  to  its  proper  extent.  It  cannot  be  said  of  the 
divines  since  that  period,  as  it  may  perhaps  be  said  of  some 
before  it,  that  what  we  meet  with  in  them  on  this  subject 
were  only  casual  expressions  or  hasty  and  unsettled  thoughts, 
and  that  if  they  had  WTitten  more  fully  and  professedly  on 
the  subject,  they  might,  perhaps,  have  advanced  what  would 
have  been  inconsistent  with  it.  There  can  be  no  doubt  but 
that  the  principles  of  this  doctrine  were  the  real  persuasion 
of  many  of  the  first  reformers  ;  that  they  considered  it  as  an 
article  of  the  utmost  consecjuence,  and  that  even  the  doctrine 
of  the  divinity  of  Christ  was  only  a  secondary  consideration 
with  respect  to  it.  Since  the  reason  of  the  incarnation  of 
Christ,  they  say,  was  the  giving  merit  to  his  sufferings  and 
death,  and  to  enable  him  to  make  an  infinite  satisfaction  for 
sin,  which  was  of  infinite  magnitude,  and  which  required 
nothing  less  to  expiate  it  at  the  hands  of  a  righteous  and 
just  God. 

That  the  first  reformers  should  so  eagerly  catch  at  this 
doctrine,  and  lay  the  stress  they  did  upon  it,  may  be  accounted 
for  upon  two  considerations.  The  first  is,  that  the  contro- 
versy began  on  the  suhiect  of  indulgences,  which  were  built 
on  the  doctrine  of  merit,  and  this  was  most  effectually  op- 
posed by  disclaiming  merit  altogether,  undervaluing  all  good 

*  Hist.  XIII.  p.  117.    (P.)  t  Life  of  WicklifFe,  p.  66.    (P.) 

X  See  Toplady's  JffwAonc  Proo/,  I.  pp.191 — 196.  Dr.  Towers  says  of  VVickliffe, 
that  "  in  some  part  of  his  writings  he  speaks  so  strongly  of  fate,  that  he  appears  an 
absolute  predestinarian.  In  other  parts  he  expresses  himself  in  so  cautious  a  man- 
ner, that  it  seems  as  if  his  principles  were  not  fixed  upon  the  subject."  Brit.Biog. 
I.  p.  49. 

VOL.    V.  L 


146       HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

works,  and  building  all  hopes  of  future  happiness  on  the 
perfect  satisfaction  that  Christ  has  made  to  the  justice  of 
God  for  us,  and  his  righteousness  imputed  to  us. 

Another  circumstance  which  contributed  to  give  them 
this  turn,  was,  that  Luther  had  been  a  friar  of  the  order  which 
bore  the  name  of  Austin.  He  was  much  conversant  in  his 
writings,  and  therefore  would  have  a  leaning  not  only  to  his 
doctrines  of  grace,  original  sin,  and  predestination,  but  also 
to  this  of  satisfaction,  which,  though  it  was  not  properly 
advanced  by  Austin  himself,  had  been  gradually  established 
on  his  general  principles. 

The  doctrine  of  Luther  and  his  followers  on  this  subject, 
we  see  in  the  Confession  of  Faith  presented  to  the  emperor 
Charles  the  Fifth,  at  Augsburg,  in  1530,  where  we  find  it 
asserted,  that  "  Christ  died  to  reconcile  the  Father  to  us, 
and  that  he  might  be  a  true  sacrifice  for  the  guilt  not  only  of 
original  sin,  but  also  for  all  the  actual  sins  of  men.*'* 

This  doctrine  is  more  fully  expressed  in  the  Helvetic  Con- 
fession of  the  year  1.336,  and  which  was  approved  by  all 
the  Protestant  churches  in  Europe  at  that  time.  It  is  there 
declared,  that  "  Christ  took  upon  him,  and  bore  the  sins  of 
the  world,  and  satisfied  divine  justice.  God  therefore,  on 
account  of  the  passion  and  resurrection  of  Christ  only,  is 
propitious  to  our  sins,  nor  does  he  impute  them  to  us,  but 
he  imputes  the  righteousness  of  Christ  for  ours  ;  so  that  we 
are  not  only  cleansed  from  our  sins,  but  also  presented  with 
the  righteousness  of  Christ,  and  being  absolved  from  sin, 
we  become  righteous,  and  heirs  of  eternal  life.  Therefore, 
properly  speaking,  God  alone  justifies  us,  and  only  for  the 
sake  of  Christ,  not  imputing  to  us  our  sins,  but  imputing  to 
us  his  righteousness."  •!• 

But  the  proper  principle  of  this  doctrine,  as  providing  an 
infinite  satisfaction  for  offences  of  infinite  magnitude,  is  most 
fully  expressed  in  the  synod  of  Dort,  held  in  1618.  "  God,** 
say  they,  "  is  not  only  supremely  merciful,  but  supremely 
just.  But  his  justice  requires  that  our  sins,  being  com- 
mitted against  his  infinite  Majesty,  must  be  punished  not 
only  with  temporal,  but  with  eternal  pains,  both  of  body 
and  mind  ;  which  pains  we  cannot  escape  till  the  justice  of 
God  be  satisfied.  But  when  we  could  not  make  satisfaction, 
God  gave  his  only-begotten  Son  to  satisfy  for  us  ;  and  he 
was  made  sin  and  a  curse  upon  the  cross  in  our  stead.*' J 

•  Syntagma  Coiifessiouum  Fidei,  1654,  p.  10.   (P.)  f  Ibid.  p.  fi6.  {P.) 

t  Canoa  i.  ii.    (P.) 


HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT.       147 

Notwithstanding  the  satisfaction,  thus  supposed  to  be  made 
to  the  justice  of  God,  by  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  it  is  evi- 
dent that  there  must  be  some  method  of  appropriating  the 
benefit  of  these  sufterings  to  individuals  ;  for  otherwise  all 
mankind  would  have  an  equal  claim  to  it.  And  since  it 
would  favour  the  doctrine  of  human  merit  too  much,  to 
suppose  that  the  merit  of  Christ's  suffering  was  always 
applied  to  persons  of  a  certain  character  and  conduct,  advan- 
tage was  taken  of  an  expression  of  the  apostle  Paul,  that 
we  are  saved  by  faith  alone;  interpreting  it,  as  if  it  was 
something  altogether  independent  of  good  works,  or  even  of 
a  good  disposition  of  mind,  which  always  precedes  good 
works,  and  constitutes  whatever  merit  they  have.  This 
application  of  the  merits  of  Christ  was,  therefore,  said  to  be 
made  by  something  to  which  they  gave  the  name  oi  faith, 
but  at  the  same  time  they  disclaimed  its  being  either  of  the 
nature  of  a  work,  or  of  faith,  in  the  usual  sense  of  the  word, 
viz.  the  belief  of  a  truth.  They  therefore  contented  them- 
selves with  defining  it  by  its  effects;  and  this  has  been  done, 
as  might  be  supposed,  very  differently,  and  generally  in 
figurative  language,  which  conveys  no  determinate  ideas, 
and  therefore  leaves  the  mind  in  great  uncertainty,  whether 
it  be  possessed  of  it  or  not. 

In  the  Saxon  Confession,  faith  is  defined  to  be  "  not  the 
knowledge  of  any  historical  fact,  but  the  embracing  of  all 
the  articles  of  faith,  and  especially  this,  /  believe  the  remis- 
sion of  sins,  not  to  others  only,  but  to  myself  also."  *  It  is 
also  there  called,  "  an  acquiescing  confidence  in  the  media- 
tor.'* In  the  Synod  of  Dort,  it  is  called,  "  an  instrument 
by  which  we  lay  hold  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ;"  and 
it  is  always  supposed  to  be  something  that  is  imparted  by 
God,  and  nothing  which  can  be  acquired  by  man  himself. 
So,  also,  that  repentance  on  which  salvation  is  promised,  is 
said,  in  the  Augustan  Confession,  to  be  "  the  free  gift  of 
God,  and  to  be  given  not  on  account  of  any  works  that  we 
have  done,  or  may  do."  f 

It  is  evident,  that  the  more  careful  divines  have  been  to 
explain  faith,  as  something  that  is  neither  of  the  nature  of  a 
work,  nor  yet  the  proper  belief  of  any  thing,  the  more  inex- 
plicable and  uncertain  they  have  left  it.  In  consequence  of 
this,  persons  of  a  warm  imagination  more  readily  fancy  that 
they  have  experienced  this  kind  of  inward  operation,  or 
feeling ;  while  persons  of  more  sober  minds  have  often  great 

•  Syntagma,  p.  67.    (P.)  t  Art  iv.    {P.) 

L    2 


148       HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

doubts  and  distress  on  this  account.  This  act  offaith^  as  it 
is  sometimes  called,  is  also  represented  either  as  coincident, 
or  the  same  thing  with  the  new  birth,  without  which  no 
man  can  be  called  a  child  of  God,  or  an  heir  of  eternal  life. 
But  when  the  phraseology  of  scripture,  and  the  reason  of 
the  thing,  are  considered,  we  cannot  but  be  satisfied,  that 
faith  is  the  belief  of  the  gospel,  or  of  those  historical  facts 
which  are  contained  in  the  writings  of  the  evangelists  ;  and, 
that  the  new  birth  is  that  change  of  character  and  conduct 
which  is  produced  by  that  belief. 

This  improved  doctrine  of  satisfaction  being  held  up  by 
the  reformers  in  opposition  to  the  popish  doctrine  of  merit, 
did  not  a  little  embarrass  the  divines  of  the  Church  of 
Rome,  among  whom  that  doctrine  had  never  been  brought 
.to  any  certain  standard,  so  that  there  has  always  been  room 
for  great  diversity  of  opinion  on  the  subject. 

In  the  debate  about  imputed  righteousness  in  the  Council 
of  Trent,  it  was  agreed  by  all  the  divines,  that  Jesus  Christ 
had  merited  for  us,  and  that  his  merit  is  imputed  to  us  ;  but 
Dominicus  a  Soto,  maintained  that  the  term  ought  to  be 
exploded,  because  neither  the  Fathers  nor  the  Scriptures 
ever  used  it,  and  especially  because  the  Lutherans  had 
abused  it,  affirming  that  imputed  righteousness  is  the  sole 
justification  of  man.  He  added,  that  it  cut  off  all  the 
necessity  of  satisfaction,  and  equalled  the  meanest  of  all 
saints  to  the  blessed  virgin.* 

At  length  the  council  condemned  certain  assertions  of 
Luther,  especially  that  God  converts  those  whom  he  will, 
even  though  they  resist ;  and  some  in  the  writings  of  Zuin- 
glius,  viz,  that  in  predestination  and  reprobation  men  have 
no  power,  but  only  the  will  and  pleasure  of  God  ;  that  the 
justified  cannot  fall  from  grace,  &c.f  After  much  debating 
on  the  subject,  the  decrees  of  this  council  were  so  framed, 
that  it  was  hoped  they  might  have  satisfied  all  parties.  But 
in  consequence  of  this,  there  was  so  much  ambiguity  in 
them,  that  they  decided  nothing  ;  :|:  and  the  controversy 
among  the  Catholics  themselves  went  on  just  as  before; 
persons  of  the  most  opposite  sentiments  appealing  to  the 
same  decrees  of  this  council. 

Among  other  things  it  was  determined  by  them,  that  the 
grace  by  which  men  are  justified  is  merited  by  Christ.§ 
And  upon  the  whole,  it  is  evident,  that  their  decrees  are  in 

*  Hist,  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  abridged  by  Juricu,  p.  122.   f^P.j 

f  Ibid.  p.  130.     (P.)  X  ^^^  Scssio  Sexta,  13  Jan.  1547,  C.  i. — x. 

^  Du  Pin'g  History  of  the  l6th  Century,  p.  50.   (P.) 


HISTORY  OF  THE   DOCTRINE   OF  ATONEMENT.      149 

favour  of  that  set  of  opinions  which  is  termed  orthodox^  in 
all  the  established  churches  among  the  reformed. 

We  are  not  to  conclude  that  because  this  doctrine  of 
satisfaction  for  sin  by  the  death  of  Christ,  was  held  up  by 
almost  all  the  reformers,  as  an  article  of  so  great  magnitude 
and  importance,  that,  therefore,  it  was  soon  so  reduced  to  a 
system,  as  that  there  was  no  diversity  of  opinion  about  it. 
Nay,  it  appears  that  some  very  essential  points  belonging  to 
it  were  then,  and  indeed  still  are,  undetermined  ;  and  they 
are  things  of  such  a  nature,  as,  in  fact,  leave  great  doubts 
with  respect  to  the  very  foundation  of  the  doctrine  itself. 

Calvin  makes  it  essential  to  the  satisfaction  of  Christ,  that 
his  death  should  be  both  voluntary  (which,  indeed,  others 
had  said  before  him),  and  also  that  he  should  be  condemned 
in  a  court  of  justice.  "  Had  Christ  been  killed,"  said  he, 
"  by  robbers,  or  in  a  sedition,  his  death  would  have  been 
no  kind  of  satisfaction  ;  but  by  being  condemned  before  a 
judge,  it  is  plain  that  he  assumed  the  character  of  a  guilty 
person.'*  *  I  should  imagine,  however,  that  many  very  ortho- 
dox persons  of  this  day  would  think,  that  there  might  have 
been  the  same  merit  in  the  death  of  Christ,  with  respect  to 
his  making  satisfaction  for  the  sins  of  men,  if  the  malice  of 
his  enemies  had  brought  him  to  any  kind  of  violent  death, 
though  there  had  been  no  sentence  of  an  iniquitous  court  of 
justice  for  the  purpose. 

It  is  now  generally  thought  that  the  scene  of  Christ's 
meritorious  sufferings,  when  he  actually  bore  the  sins  of 
men,  and  suffered  the  punishment  due  to  them,  was  either 
in  his  agony  in  the  garden,  or  in  his  death  upon  the  cross  ; 
but  Calvin  says,  "  nothing  would  have  been  done  by  the 
mere  death  of  Christ,  if  he  had  not  also  afterwards  de- 
scended into  hell,  where  he  sustained  that  death  which  is 
inflicted  by  an  angry  God  on  the  wicked."  j"  To  this  he 
applies  what  the  author  of  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  says 
of  Christ's  praying  with  strong  cries  and  tears,  which  he 
says  was,  lest  lie  should  be  swallowed  up  by  the  wrath  of 
God  as  a  sinner.^     In  another  place,  however,  he  says,  that 

•  Institutiones,  L.  ii.  C.  xvi.  Sect.  v.  (P.)  "  Si  k  latronibus  jni^ulatus  fuisset 
vel  tumultuarie  caesus  per  seditioiiem  vulgi,  in  ejusraodi  morte  miHa  satisfacdonis 
species  extitisset.  Veium  iibi  reus  ad  tribunal  sistitur,  testijnoniis  arsjuitur,  et 
premitur,  ipsius  judicis  ore,  morte  addicitur:  his  documeutis  inteliigimus  ipsum 
personam  sontis  et  malefici  sustiiiere."     Ed.  l602,  fol  172. 

t  Ibid.  Sect.  x.  (P.)  "  Niliil  actum  erat  si  corporea  Iniitum  morte  defunctus 
fuisset  ChrJstus :  sed  opera  simul  pretiiim  erat  ut  divinae  uliionis  severi.atcm  sen- 
tiret:  quo  et  irde  ipsius  intercederct  et  satisfaccret  justo  judicio."     Ibid.  fol.  174. 

X  Ibid.  Sect.  xi.  (P.)  "  Christus  ergo  cum  lacrymis  et  clamoie  vaJido  orans,  a 
metu  suo  exauditur :  non  ut  a  morte  iit  immuuis,  sed  nc  absorbeatur  ut  peccator." 
Ibid.  fol.  175. 


150       HISTORY  OF  THE   DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENTv 

in  general  Christ  takes  our  sins  and  purchases  righteousness 
for  us  by  the  whole  course  of  his  obedience.*  But  this  is  a 
thing  about  which  those  who  now  believe  the  doctrine  of 
atonement  are  not  agreed. f 

It  is  evident,  however,  that  Calvin  believed  the  real 
descent  of  Christ  into  hell,  not  for  the  sake  of  preaching 
to  the  spirits  in  prison,  or,  as  the  primitive  fathers  under- 
stood it,  to  those  who  died  under  the  old  dispensation,  but 
that  he  might  there  suffer  the  proper  torments  of  the 
damned,  and  bear  the  wrath  of  God  that  had  been  merited 
by  the  sins  of  men.  Yet  he  says,  that  "  God  was  not  really 
angry  with  Christ,  though  he  made  him  bear  all  the  effects 
of  his  anger." if  He  would  certainly,  however,  have  been 
the  proper  object  of  God's  anger,  if,  as  he  maintains,  "  the 
stain  (that  is  the  guilt)  as  well  as  the  punishment  of  sin, 
was  laid  upon  him,  so  that  it  ceased  to  be  imputed  to  men."§ 
If  God  was  neither  displeased  with  men  because  their  guilt 
was  transferred  to  Christ,  nor  with  Christ  to  whom  it  was 
transferred,  what  was  the  object  of  his  anger,  and  how  was 
his  justice  really  satisfied  ? 

A  more  difficult  question,  and  to  which  it  is  impossible 
that  any  satisfactory  answer  should  be  given,  is,  how  the 
sufferings  of  Christ  can  be  deemed  injinite,  so  as  to  make 
atonement  for  sins  of  infinite  magnitude,  when  the  divine 
nature  of  Christ,  to  which  alone  infinity  belongs,  is  impas- 
sible, and  his  human  nature  could  bear  no  more  than  that  of 
any  other  man?  It  must  be  exceedingly  difficult  to  con- 
ceive how  any  supposed  union  of  the  two  natures  can  be  of 
any  avail  in  this  case,  unless,  in  consequence  of  that  union, 
the  divine  nature  had  borne  some  share  of  the  sufferings, 
which  the  scheme  requires  to  be  infinite,,  and  this  idea  is 
justly  disclaimed  as  impious.  Osiander  the  Lutheran, 
maintained  that  Christ,  as  man,  was  obliged  to  obey  the 
law  of  God  himself,  and  therefore  that  he  made  expiation 
for  sin,  as  God  ;  but  Stancarus,  another  Lutheran  divine,  in 
opposition  to  him,  maintained,  that  the  office  of  mediator 
belonged  to  Christ  as  man  only.     Both  these  opinions,  this 

*  Institutiones,  L.  ii.  C.  xvi.  Sect.  v.  (P.)  "  Jam  ubi  (|U£eritiir  quomodo  abo- 
litis  peccatis  dissidiiim  Christiis  inter  nos  et  Dciini  sustulerif,  et  justitiam  ac(juisierit 
quae  eum  nobis  faventcm  ac  benevolentem  redderet :  geiicraliter  respoiideii  potest, 
toto  obedientiae  suae  cursu  hoc  nobis  praestitisse."     Ed.  l602,  fol.  172. 

f  See  Ooddridge's  Lectures,  p.  421.     (P.)     Prop.  clxx. 

X  Institutiones,  L.  ii.  C.  xvii.  Sect.  xi.  (P.)  "  Neque  tanien  innuinius  Deum 
fuisse  unquam  illi  vel  adversarinm  vel  iratum."     Ed.  1602,  fol.  175- 

§  Ibid.  Sect.  vi.  (P.)  "  Filius  Dei,  omui  vitio  purissimus,  iuiquitatum  tamen 
nostrarum  probrum  ac  ignotniniam  induit,  ac  su^  vicissim  puritate  nos  operuit." 
Ibid.  fol.  173. 


HISTORY  OP  THE  DOCTNINE  OF  ATONEMENT.      151 

writer  says,  are  dangerous.*  This  is  not  the  only  case  in 
which  we  see  men  bewildering  themselves,  and  puzzling 
others,  by  departing  from  the  plain  path  of  truth  and  com- 
mon sense. 

Such,  however,  is  the  constitution  of  things,  that  we  are 
not  authorized  to  expect  any  great  good  without  a  propor- 
tionable mixture  of  evil.  The  case  of  Luther,  and  of  Calvin 
too,  was  such,  that  the  reformation  of  the  errors  and  abuses 
of  Popery  could  not  have  been  expected  of  them,  or  of  their 
followers,  but  on  principles  equally  erroneous.  Happily, 
however,  other  persons,  unconnected  with  them,  were  able, 
even  at  that  time,  to  hit  the  happy  medium  between  the 
popish  doctrine  of  merit,  as  a  foundation  for  the  abuses  of 
penance,  indulgences,  &c.  and  that  of  the  total  wsigni/icance 
of  good  works  to  procure  the  favour  of  God.  If  by  our 
good  works  we  procure  the  favour  of  God  to  ourselves, 
which  is  the  uniform  language  of  the  Scripture,  and  yet  no 
portion  of  one  person's  merit  be  considered  as  capable  of 
being  transferred  to  another  (which,  indeed,  is  in  the  nature 
of  things  impossible),  the  very  foundation  of  the  popish 
doctrine  of  supererogation,  and  consequently  of  indulgences, 
is  overturned  ;  and  yet  no  one  false  or  dangerous  principle 
is  introduced  in  its  place. 

Faustus  Socinus,  who  distinguished  himself  so  much  in 
recovering  the  original  doctrine  of  the  proper  humanity  of 
Christ,  as  to  give  occasion  to  all  who  now  hold  that  doctrine 
to  be  called  by  his  name,  saw  clearly  the  absurdity  of  what 
was  advanced  by  the  other  reformers  concerning  satisfaction 
being  made  to  the  justice  of  God  by  the  death  of  Christ. 
Indeed,  it  immediately  follows  from  his  principles,  that 
Christ  being  only  a  man,  though  ever  so  innocent,  his  death 
could  not,  in  any  proper  sense  of  the  word,  atone  for  the 
sins  of  other  men.  He  was,  however,  far  from  abandoning 
the  doctrine  of  redemption  in  the  scripture  sense  of  the 
word,  that  is,  of  our  deliverance  from  the  guilt  of  sin  by  his 
gospel,  as  promoting  repentance  and  reformation,  and  from 
the  punishment  due  to  sin,  by  his  power  of  giving  eternal 
life  to  all  that  obey  him.  But,  indeed,  if  God  himself  freely 
forgives  the  sins  of  men  upon  their  repentance,  there  could 
be  no  occasion,  properly  speaking,  for  any  thing  farther 
being  done  to  avert  the  punishment  with  which  they  had 
been  threatened.  What  he  says  on  the  subject  is  as  fol- 
lows ; — 

*  Mosheim,  IV.  p.  47.     {P.)     Cent.  xvi.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  i.  Sect,  xxxvi. 


132       HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

"  We  are  thus  saved  from  the  punishment  of  our  sins  by 
Christ,  because,  by  his  great  power  in  heaven  and  earth,  he 
brings  it  about,  that  no  proper  punishment  can  reach  us; 
and  l)y  the  same  power  he  will  accomplish  our  entire  and 
perpetual  freedom  from  death,  which  is  the  wages  of  sin, 
and  its  principal  and  peculiar  punishment.  But  this  method 
of  rescuing  us  from  the  punishment  of  our  sins  is  very  dif- 
ferent from  that  which  implies  a  satisfaction  for  them. — 
Nothing  can  be  more  repugnant  to  each  other  than  a  free 
jjcirdon  and  satisfaction. — Indeed,  no  man  of  judgment  and 
piety  ought  to  entertain  the  idea  of  a  satisfaction  for  sin  ; — 
since  it  plainly  does  very  much  derogate  from  the  power  and 
authority,  or  goodness  and  mercy  of  God."* 

He  farther  observes,  that  "although  John  the  Baptist, 
when  he  ascribes  to  Christ  the  taking  away  sin,  hath  called 
him  a  lamb,  and  in  that  mode  of  expression,  without  doubt, 
alluded  to  the  expiatory  sacrifices"  in  the  law,  yet  he  ap- 
prehends that  in  this  the  Baptist  alluded  "  to  Christ  in  his 
whole  character,  who,  in  many  ways,  takes  away  the  sins  of 
the  world."  In  support  of  this  he  alleges,  "that  in  the 
expiatory  sacrifices  of  the  law,  which  were  expressly  offered 
for  sin,  no  lamb  was  sacrificed."  f 

Grotius,  having  written  a  treatise  in  defence  of  the  doc- 
trine of  satisfaction,  against  Socinus,  gave  occasion  to  a 
most  excellent  answer  by  Crellius,  in  defence  of  the  Soci- 
nian  doctrine  on  this  subject ;  and  to  this,  Grotius  did  not 
think  proper  to  make  any  reply. 

In  England,  this  doctrine  of  atonement  seems  to  have  got 
as  firm  possession  of  the  minds  of  men,  as  that  of  the  divinity 
of  Christ.     It  is  the  doctrine  of  the  established  churches  of 

*  Toiilmin's  Socinus,  pp.  185,  186.  (P.)  "  A  pceiiis  siquidem  peccatoruni  nos- 
trorum  iflen  per  Clirislum  libeiaiiiur,  quia  Christus  sunima  ilia  sua  in  ccelo  et  in  terra 
poteslale  <  ffi<  it,  iic  ulke  proprioc  peccatoruni  poenae  nos  attingaiit,  et  tandem  eadem 
pote.state  <  fticiet  Phil.  iii.  21,  ut  a  niorte  quae  stipendiuni  peccati  est  Rum  vi.  '23,  et 
ejus  quaiii  niaxime  propria  paiia,  prorsus  atque  in  porpetuum  liberi  simus.  Haec 
certe  ratio  libt  randi  a  pnenis  peccatoruni  diversissima  est  ab  eft,  quae  satisfactione 
pro  ipsis  continetiir. — Nihil  auteni  inviceni  magis  pu{i;nare  potest,  quam  Jiratuita 
reniissio  sen  (ondonatio,  et  balisfactio ;  quippe  quod  vel  potcntia'  et  auctoritati,  vcl 
certe  bouilati  <t  miscricordiie  ipsius  Dei  aperle  ac  plurinuini  deroget."  Christ. 
Relif/.  Iiistit.  F.  Socini  Opera,  i6'j6,  p.  665,  (^ol.  i.  Sec  also  The  Racorian  Cate- 
chism,   ect.  V.  Ch.  viii.  in  the  Translation  of  the  Rev.  T.  Rees,  18  IS,  pp.  SOS — 320. 

t  Ibid  p.  194.  {P.)  ("iijus  rei  etiam  arf^umentuin  esse  potest,  quod  in  expia- 
toriis  illis  legis  sacrificiis,  qua- nominatim  |)ro  peccalo  oflferebaiiliir,  nullus  agnus 
immolabatnr.  Ijx  ((lU)  appartt,  (inn  l^aptisla  (^liristinn  agnuni  apjiellavit,  ailcrins 
etiam  cnjuspiani  rei,  prater  sacrdicia  ilia,  rationem  habuisse,  et  ad  puritateni,  inno- 
centiam  ac  niansnetndinem  illius  re^pexissr,  totnmrpie  Christiun  eft  (ransiatione 
quodamniodo  cxprimere  volnisse;  j)r<escrtinj  cum,  ut  dictum  est,  Christus  iion  ips4 
sui  immolationc  tantum,  sed  pluribus  aliis  niodis  peccata  tollat."  Pralcct.  Theol. 
Op.  I.  p.  591.  Col.  2. 


HISTORY  OP  THE   DOCTRINE   OF    ATONEMENT.       153 

England  and  Scotland,  and  is  retained,  at  least  in  some 
qualified  sense,  even  by  many  who  do  not  hold  the  divinity 
of  Christ,  at  least,  those  who  are  styled  Arians.*  For,  that 
a  Socinian  should  hold  this  doctrine,  in  any  sense,  is  hardly 
possible.  W^e  are  not,  however,  to  expect  a  sudden  and 
effectual  reformation  in  this  or  in  any  other  capital  article  of 
the  corruption  of  Christianity. 

To  establish  this  article  was  a  work,  as  we  have  seen,  of 
long  time,  and  therefore  we  must  be  content  if  the  over- 
throw of  it  be  gradual  also.  Great  buildings  do  not  often 
fall  at  once,  but  some  apartments  will  still  be  thought  habi- 
table, after  the  rest  are  seen  to  be  in  ruins.  It  is  the  same 
with  great  systems  of  doctrine^  the  parts  of  which  have  long 
gone  together.  The  force  of  evidence  obliges  us  at  first  to 
abandon  some  one  part  of  them  only,  and  we  do  not  imme- 
diately see  that,  in  consequence  of  this,  we  ought  to  abandon 
others,  and  at  length  the  whole.  And,  indeed,  could  this 
have  been  seen  from  the  beginning,  it  would  have  been  with 
much  more  difficulty  that  we  should  have  been  prevailed 
upon  to  abandon  any  part.  The  very  proposal  might  have 
staggered  us ;  and  any  doubt  with  respect  to  the  whole, 
might  have  been  followed  by  universal  scepticism.  It  hath 
pleased  Divine  Providence,  therefore,  to  open  the  minds  of 
men  by  easy  degrees,  and  the  detection  of  one  falsehood 
prepares  us  for  the  detection  of  another,  till,  before  we  are 
aware  of  it,  we  find  no  trace  left  of  the  immense  and  seem- 
ingly well-compacted  system.  Thus,  by  degrees  we  can 
reconcile  ourselves  to  abandon  all  the  parts,  when  we  could 
never  have  thought  of  giving  up  the  whole. 

There  are  many  who  can  by  no  means  think  that  God  has, 
in  a  proper  sense,  accepted  of  the  death  of  Christ  in  lieu  of 
that  of  all  men,  (having  no  idea  of  the  possibility  of  transfer- 
ring guilty  and  consequently  of  transferring  punishment,) 
who  yet  think  that  the  death  of  Christ  serves  to  shew  the 
divine  displeasure  at  sin,  in  such  a  manner,  as  that  it  would 
nothave  been  expedient  to  pardon  any  sin  without  it ;  and 
they  think  that  the  sacrifices  under  the  law  had  a  real  refer- 
ence to  the  death  of  Christ  in  the  scheme  of  the  gospel ; 

*  Among  these  Mr.  Martin  Tomkins,  of  whom  see  p.  89,  Note,  and  Dr.  John 
Taylor  were  distinguished.  The  former  pubhsiied,  ia  1732,  "Jesus  Christ,  the 
Mediator  between  God  and  Men;  an  Advocate  for  us  with  the  Father;  and  a 
Propitiation  for  the  Sins  of  the  World."  Dr.  Priestley  says  in  his  Mcmoiis,  that  he 
"  left  the  academy,  with  a  qnalitipd  belief  of  the  doctrine  of  Atonement,  such  as  is 
found  iu  that  book."  Dr.  John  Taylor  published,  in  1751,  "The  Scripture  Doc- 
trine^ of  Atonement  examined ;  first,  in  relation  to  Jewish  Sacrifices;  and  then  to 
the  Sacrifice  of  our  blessed  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ."  Of  this  piece  there 
was  a  second  enlarged  edition. 


154      HISTORY  OP  THE  DOCTRINE  OP  ATONEMENT. 

while  others  think  the  death  of  Christ  was  necessary  to  the 
pardon  of  sin,  and  our  restoration  to  eternal  life,  in  some 
method  of  which  we  have  no  clear  knowledge,  being  only 
obscurely  intimated  in  the  Scriptures,  and  therefore  could 
not  be  intended  to  produce  its  effect  by  any  operation  on 
our  minds. 

In  time,  however,  I  make  no  doubt,  but  that  an  attention 
to  what  seems  now  to  be  ascertained  with  respect  to  the 
moral  character  and  government  of  God,  viz.  that  he  is  a 
being  purely  500c?,  that  in  him,  justice  is  only  a  modifica- 
tion of  benevolence,  that  he  simply  wishes  the  happiness  of 
all  his  creatures,  and  that  virtue  is  a  necessary  means  of 
that  happiness;  that  he  is  incapable  of  introducing  any 
unnecessary  evil,  and  that  his  displeasure  at  sin  is  sufficiently 
shewn  by  the  methods  which  he  takes  to  promote  the  re- 
formation of  sinners,  and  by  the  punishment  of  those  who 
continue  unreformed:  these,  I  say,  together  with  other 
considerations,  suggested  in  the  argumentative  part  of  this 
division  of  my  work,  will  in  time  eradicate  whatever  yet 
remains  of  the  doctrine  of  atonement ;  a  doctrine  which  has 
no  foundation  in  reason,  or  in  the  Scriptures,  and  is  indeed 
a  modern  thing. 

In  fact,  the  only  hold  it  has  on  the  minds  of  many  Pro- 
testants, is  by  means  of  such  a  literal  interpretation  of  single 
texts  of  Scripture,  as  gives  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation 
a  like  hold  on  the  minds  of  Papists.  Besides,  it  must,  I  am 
persuaded,  lead  many  persons  to  think  rationally  on  this 
subject,  and  especially  to  abandon  all  middle  opinions  with 
respect  to  it,  to  observe,  as  they  must  do  if  they  give  due 
attention  to  the  language  of  Scripture,  that  those  particular 
texts  on  which  they  are  disposed  to  lay  so  much  stress,  give 
no  countenance  to  any  middle  doctrine.  For  they  must 
either  be  interpreted  literally,  according  to  the  plain  and 
obvious  sense  of  the  words,  which  will  enforce  the  belief  of 
proper  vicarious  punishments,  or  they  must  be  interpreted 
Jigurativcly  ;  and  then  they  will  not  oblige  us  to  believe  the 
doctrine  of  atonement  in  any  sense,  or  that  Christ  died  a 
sacrifice  in  any  other  manner,  than  as  any  person  might  be 
said  to  be  a  sacrifice  to  the  cause  in  which  he  dies. 

It  is  now,  certainly,  time  to  lay  less  stress  on  the  inter- 
pretation of  particular  texts,  and  to  allow  more  weight  to 
general  considerations,  derived  from  the  whole  tenor  of 
Scripture  and  the  dictates  of  reason  ;  and  if  there  should  be 
found  any  difficulty  in  accommodating  the  one  to  the  other, 
(and  I  think  there  is  even  less  of  this  than  might  have  been 


HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OP  ATONEMENT.       155 

expected,)  the  former,  and  not  the  latter,  should  remain 
unaccounted  tor.  Time  may  clear  up  obscurities  in  particular 
texts,  by  discovering  various  readings,  by  the  clearer  know- 
ledge of  ancient  customs  and  opinions,  &c.  But  arguments 
drawn  from  such  considerations  as  those  of  the  moral  govern- 
ment of  God,  the  nature  of  things,  and  the  general  plan  of 
revelation,  will  not  be  put  off  to  a  future  time.  The  whole 
compass  and  force  of  them  is  within  our  present  reach,  and 
if  the  mind  be  unbiassed,  they  must,  I  think,  determine  our 
assent. 

It  is  certainly  a  great  satisfaction  to  entertain  such  an  idea 
of  the  Author  of  the  universe,  and  of  his  moral  government, 
as  is  consonant  to  the  dictates  of  reason  and  the  tenor  of 
revelation  in  general,  and  also  to  leave  as  little  obscurity  in 
the  principles  of  it  as  possible  ;  that  the  articles  of  our  creed 
on  this  great  subject  may  be  few,  clear  and  simple.  Now  it 
is  certainly  the  doctrine  of  reason,  as  well  as  of  the  Old 
Testament,  that  God  is  merciful  to  the  penitent,  and  that 
nothing  is  requisite  to  make  men,  in  all  situations,  the 
objects  of  his  favour,  but  such  moral  conduct  as  he  has  made 
them  capable  of.  This  is  a  simple  and  a  pleasing  view  of 
God  and  his  moral  government,  and  the  consideration  of  it 
cannot  but  have  the  best  effect  on  the  temper  of  our  minds 
and  conduct  in  life.  The  general  tenor  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment is  likewise  plainly  agreeable  to  this  view  of  things,  and 
none  of  the  facts  recorded  in  it  require  to  be  illustrated  by 
any  other  principles.  In  this,  then,  let  us  acquiesce,  not 
doubting  but  that,  though  perhaps  not  at  present,  we  shall 
in  time  be  able,  without  any  effort  or  straining,  to  explain 
all  particular  expressions  in  the  apostolical  epistles,  &c.  in  a 
manner  perfectly  consistent  with  the  general  strain  of  their 
own  writings,  and  the  rest  of  the  Scriptures. 


136 

THE 

HISTORY 

OF    THE 


PART  III. 

The  History  of  Opinions  concerning  Grace^  Original  Sin 
and  Predestination. 


"»♦» 


THE 

INTRODUCTION. 


Next  to  the  opinions  concerning  the  person  of  Christy  none 
have  agitated  the  minds  of  men  more,  or  produced  more 
serious  consequences,  than  those  relating  to  the  doctrines  of 
grace,  original  sin  and  predestination,  which  have  so  many 
connexions,  that  I  think  it  proper  to  treat  of  them  all 
together. 

That  it  must  be  naturally  in  the  power  of  man  to  do  the 
will  of  God,  must  be  taken  for  granted,  if  we  suppose  the 
moral  government  of  God  to  be  at  all  an  equitable  one.  He 
that  made  man,  certainly  knew  what  he  was  capable  of, 
and  would  never  command  him  to  do  what  he  had  not 
enabled  him  to  perform ;  so  as  to  propose  to  him  a  reward 
which  he  knew  he  could  never  attain,  and  a  punishment 
which  he  knew  he  had  no  power  of  avoiding.  If  it  be  worth 
our  while  to  inquire  at  all  into  the  government  under  which 
we  live,  we  must  begin  with  assuming  these  first  principles. 
For,  otherwise,  we  have  nothing  to  do  but  to  await  whatever 
he  who  made  us  hath  pleased  to  determine  concerning  us, 
nothing  that  we  can  do  in  the  case  being  able  to  alter  it. 

Supposing,  therefore,  that  God  did  not  mean  to  tantahze 
his  creatures,  in  the  most  cruel  and  insulting  manner,  every 
moral  precept  in  the  Scriptures  is   a   proof  that  mart  has 


HISTORY  OF  THE   DOCTRINE  OF  GRACE.  1.57 

naturally  a  power  of  obeying  it,  and  of  insuring  the  reward 
annexed  to  the  observance  of  it.  Now  moral  precepts,  with 
express  sanctions  of  rewards  and  punishments,  abound  in 
the  Scriptures;  and  men  are  even  expostulated  with,  in  the 
most  earnest  manner,  and  persuaded  to  the  practice  of  their 
duty,  by  the  most  solemn  assurances,  that  God  is  not  willing 
that  any  should  perish,  and  by  repeated  warnings,  that  their 
destruction  will  lie  at  their  own  door ;  the  general  tenor  of 
the  preaching  of  the  old  prophets  being.  Turn  i/e,  turn  ye^frcm 
your  evil  way.  Why  will  ye  die,  O  house  of  Israeli  Also,  every 
thing  that  is  of  a  moral  nature  in  the  New  Testament  is 
uniformly  delivered  in  the  same  strain. 

Notwithstanding  this,  it  hath  been  imagined  that  all  these 
representations  are  to  be  accommodated  to  a  system,  accord- 
ing to  which,  the  whole  race  of  mankind  received  so  great 
an  injury  by  the  fall  of  Adam,  that  from  that  time  none  of 
his  posterity  have  been  capable  even  of  forming  a  good 
thought,  and  much  less  of  doing  all  that  God  requires  of 
them ;  and,  moreover,  that  they  are  all  so  far  involved  in 
the  consequences  of  his  fall,  and  his  sin  is  considered  as  so 
much  their  own,  (he  being  their  representative,  standing  in 
their  place,  and  acting  for  them,)  that  they  are  even  properly 
punishable  for  it,  and  liable  on  that  account  to  everlasting 
torment,  though  they  had  never  sinned  themselves.  It  is 
believed,  however,  that  God  hath  been  pleased  to  save  certain 
individuals  of  mankind  from  this  general  ruin,  but  that  it 
was  not  from  any  respect  to  the  better  character  or  conduct 
of  such  individuals,  but  of  his  mere  free  and  arbitrary  grace. 
It  is  also  part  of  the  same  system,  that  every  good  thought  and 
purpose,  in  the  hearts  even  of  those  who  are  thus  elected,  is 
immediately  inspired  by  God,  and  that  without  this  continual 
assistance,  to  which  they  give  the  name  of^ grace,  no  man  has 
any  choice  but  of  evil,  from  the  moment  of  his  birth  to  his 
death. 

It  is  not  easy  to  imagine,  d  priori,  what  could  have  led 
men  into  such  a  train  of  thinking,  so  evidently  contrary  to  the 
plain  dictates  of  reason,  and  the  most  natural  interpretation 
of  Scripture.  There  is,  indeed,  an  appearance  oUiumility  in 
ascribing  every  thing  that  is  good  to  God  ;  but  to  ascribe  to 
him,  as  all  men  must  do,  those  powers  by  which  we  are 
enabled  to  perform  good  works,  comes,  in  fact,  to  the  same 
thing.  What  have  we,  as  the  apostle  says,  that  we  have  not 
received  P  How  then  are  we  the  less  indebted  to  God, 
whether  he  works  all  our  works  in  us  and  for  us,  by  his  own 
immediate  agency,  or,  he  does  it  mediately,  that  is,  by  means 


158  HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OP  GRACE. 

of  those  powers  which  he  has  given  us  for  that  purpose  ? 
With  respect  to  the  character  of  the  Divine  Being,  it  certainly 
loses  more  by  the  idea  of  the  predestination  of  the  greatest 
part  of  mankind  to  inevitable  destruction,  than  it  can  gain 
by  the  belief  of  an  arbitrary  interference  in  favour  of  a  few. 
The  whole  scheme,  therefore,  certainly  tends  to  make  the 
divine  character  and  government  appear  less  respectable, 
indeed  execrable. 

In  fact,  it  is  probable  that  such  a  scheme  as  this,  would 
never  have  entered  into  the  mind  of  any  man,  who  had  been 
left  to  his  own  speculations  on  the  subject,  or  to  his  study 
of  the  Scriptures.  Accordingly,  we  find  that  the  principal 
parts  of  this  system  were  first  suggested  in  the  heat  of  con- 
troversy ;  and  when  the  mind  was  once  prepossessed  in 
favour  of  some  of  the  maxims  of  it,  the  rest  were  gradually 
introduced  to  complete  the  scheme;  and  the  Scriptures,  as 
in  all  other  cases,  were  afterwards  easily  imagined  to  favour 
the  pre-conceived  hypothesis. 

Indeed,  the  more  amiable  part  of  the  system,  or  that  which 
ascribes  everything  that  is  good  immediately  to  God,  without 
respect  to  second  causes,  has  considerable  countenance  from 
the  piety  of  the  sacred  writers ;  but  their  language  on  this 
subject,  will  appear  to  be  as  just  as  it  is  pious,  when  it  is 
rightly  interpreted.  Many  persons,  no  doubt,  will  be  more 
easily  reconciled  to  the  doctrine  of  election  by  previously 
imagining  that  they  themselves  are  in  the  number  of  the 
elect ;  and  while  they  can  thus  fancy  themselves  to  be  the 
peculiar  favourites  of  heaven,  they  can  better  bear  to  consider 
the  rest  of  mankind,  as  abandoned  by  the  same  Being  to  a 
severer  fate.  Also,  in  general,  all  men  are  sufficiently 
inclined  to  look  off  from  the  dark  and  most  objectionable 
side  of  any  scheme  of  principles  which  they  adopt. 

With  respect  to  the  fall  of  Adam,  all  that  we  can  learn 
from  the  Scriptures,  interpreted  literally,  is,  that  the  laborious 
cultivation  of  the  earth,  and  the  mortality  of  his  race,  were 
the  consequence  of  it.  This  is  all  that  is  said  by  Moses,  and 
likewise  all  that  is  alluded  to  by  the  apostle  Paul,  who  says, 
that  hi/  one  tuan  sin  entered  into  the  world.  For  what  he 
adds,  all  liavc  sinned,  can  only  mean  that  all  are  involved  in 
that  death  which  was  the  consequence  of  his  sin.  If, 
indeed,  this  be  interpreted  literally,  it  will  imply  that  all 
are  involved  in  his  gmilt  -as  well  as  in  his  suflTeriiigs.  But 
this  is  so  unnatural  an  interpretation,  and  so  evidently  con- 
trary to  sense  and  reason,  (sin  being  in  its  own  nature  a 
personal  thing,    and   not  transferable,)  that  the   text  was 


HISTORY  OP  THE   DOCTRINE  OF  GRACE.  1^9 

never  understood  in  this  sense  till  the  system,  the  history  of 
which  I  am  writing,  was  so  far  advanced  as  to  require  it, 
and  to  have  prepared  the  minds  of  men  for  it.  In  like  manner, 
the  words  of  our  Saviour,  this  is  my  hody^  were  always  under- 
stood to  mean  a  memorial  of  his  body,  till  the  minds  of  men 
were  gradually  prepared  to  bear  a  literal  interpretation  of 
them ;  and  then  that  interpretation  was  made  use  of  to 
support  the  doctrine  which  suggested  it. 

In  Uke  manner,  there  is  7i  predestination  spoken  of  by  the 
apostle  Paul ;  but,  in  general,  it  means  the  good-will  and 
pleasure  of  God,  in  giving  certain  people  peculiar  privileges, 
and  especially  the  knowledge  of  the  gospel,  for  the  improve- 
ment of  which  they  were  answerable.  If  he  does  speak  of 
future  glory,  as  the  consequence  of  this  predestination,  it 
was  upon  the  presumption,  that  they  improved  those  advan- 
tages, and  by  that  means  made  themselves  the  proper  subjects 
of  future  happiness.  Or,  possibly,  in  some  cases,  the  apostle, 
considering  God  as  the  ultimate  and  proper  author  of  every 
thing  that  is  good,  and  of  all  happiness,  might  overlook  the 
immediate  means  and  steps,  and  with  this  sense  of  piety  and 
comprehension  of  mind,  might  speak  of  future  glory  itself, 
as  the  gift  of  God,  and  therefore  might  make  no  difference 
in  his  mind,  at  that  time,  between  predestination  and  fore- 
knowledge. But  the  tenor  of  all  his  writings  shews,  that  it 
was  far  from  being  his  intention  to  represent  future  glory  as 
given  by  an  arbitrary  decree  of  God,  without  any  respect  to 
the  good  works  which  alone  can  fit  men  for  it ;  which  good 
works  are  as  much  in  a  man's  power,  as  any  other  action  of 
which  he  is  capable. 

Having  premised  these  general  observations,  I  now  proceed 
to  shew  by  what  steps  these  principles  of  the  utter  inability 
of  man  to  do  the  will  of  God,  as  derived  from  the  fall  of 
Adam,  the  imputation  of  his  sin  to  all  his  posterity,  and  the 
arbitrary  predestination  of  some  to  eternal  life,  and  the  con- 
sequent rejection,  or  reprobation,  of  the  rest  of  mankind,  by 
which  they  are  devoted  to  certain  and  everlasting  destruction, 
were  first  introduced,  and  at  length  got  the  firm  establish- 
ment they  now  have  in  the  creeds  of  almost  all  christian 
churches. 


160  HISTORY   OF  THE   DOCTRINE  OF  GRACE. 


SECTION  I. 

Of  the  Doctrines  of  Grace,  S^c.  before  the  Pelagian  Con- 
trover  si/. 

It  is  remarkable  that  we  find  hardly  any  trace  of  what  are 
now  called  the  doctrines  of  grace,  original  sin,  or  predestina' 
tion  before  the  Pelagian  controversy,  which  was  near  the  end 
of  the  fourth  century.  1  believe  all  the  moderns  are  agreed, 
that  it  was  clearly  the  opinion  of  all  the  ancient  fathers,  that 
God  has  left  it  entirely  in  the  power  of  every  man  to  act  well 
or  ill.  Basnage,  who  was  himself  sufficiently  orthodox  in 
the  modern  sense  of  the  word,  acknowledges,  that  though 
the  fathers  in  general  thought  that  we  are  indebted  to  the 
grace  of  God  for  all  our  virtues,  yet  they  say  that  the  begin- 
ning of  salvation  is  from  man,  and  that  it  depends  entirely 
upon  himself.*  It  is  not  denied,  however,  but  that  they 
might  believe  an  internal  influence  upon  the  mind  on  extra- 
ordinary occasions  ;  but,  as  Vossius  observes,  none  before 
Austin  supposed  that  there  was  an  immediate  concurrence 
of  divine  grace,  necessary  to  every  good  thought  or  action. "j* 

"  God,"  says  Justin  Martyr,  "  has  not  made  man  like 
trees  and  quadrupeds,  (SsvSpsa  xa<  rerpctTroSa,)  who  can  do 
nothing  from  choice  and  judgment ;  for  he  would  not  be 
■worthy  of  reward  or  praise,  if  he  did  not  of  himself  choose 
what  was  good,  but  was  made  good  ;  nor,  if  he  was  wicked, 
could  he  be  justly  punished,  as  not  having  been  such  of 
himself,  but  only  what  he  had  been  made."  J  In  support  of 
this  he  quotes  Isa.  i.  16  :  "  Wash  ye,  make  ye  clean,"  &c. 
Basnage  says, §  that  the  ancients  maintained  free-will  with 
much  warmth,  granting  men  an  entire  power  to  be  converted 
or  not.  Clemens  Alexandrinus  and  Origen,  he  says,  were 
at  the  head  of  this  party. 

It  is  remarkable  that  Austin  himself,  before  he  engaged  in 
the  controversy  with  Pelagius,  held  the  same  opinion  con- 
cerning free-will  with  the  rest  of  the  fathers  who  had  preceded 
him,  and  he  was  far  from  denying  this.  In  particular,  he 
acknowledges,  that  before  this  time  he  had  been  of  opinion, 
that  faith,  or  at  least  the  beginning  of  faith,  and  a  desire  of 
conversion,  was  in  the  power  of  man.||  It  was  a  saying  of 
his,  "  If  there  be  not  grace,  how  should  God  save  the  world, 

•  Hist,  des  Eglises  Reform.  I.  p.  I69.  (P.)     t  Histcria  Pelagianismi,  p.  291.  (P.) 

X  Apol.  I.  Ed.  Thirlby,  p.  65.    (PJ        §  Hist,  des  Eglises  Reform,  p.  76.    (P.) 

II  De  Predesttnatione,  L.  i.  C.  iii.  Op.  VII.  p.  1235.     (P) 


HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  GRACE.  l6l 

and  if  there  be  not  free-will,  how  can  he  judge  the  world  ?^«f 
No  man,"  says  he,  "  can  be  justly  condemned  for  doino  that 
which  he  was  not  able  to  resist."  j"  Citing  a  passage  in  the 
son  of  Sirach,  (Eccles.  xv.  14,  17,)  "  God  left  man  in  the 
hands  of  his  counsel,  he  placed  life  and  death  before  him, 
that  that  which  he  pleased  should  be  given  him,"  he  says, 
"  Behold  here  is  a  very  plain  proof  of  the  liberty  of  the 
human  will  ;  for  how  does  God  cominand,  if  man  has  not 
free-will,  or  power  to  obey  ?":{:  He  also  proves,  that  it  is  in 
our  power  to  change  the  will,  from  these  words  of  our  Saviour, 
"  Make  the  tree  good  and  the  fruit  good,"  &c.§ 

We  have  almost  the  same  unanimous  opinion  of  the 
ancients,  concerning  the  effects  of  the  sin  of  Adam,  as  con- 
cerning the  natural  capacity  of  man  with  respect  to  virtue 
and  vice  ;  and  they  had  occasion  to  speak  to  this  subject 
very  early,  in  consequence  of  the  opinion  of  the  Gnostics  in 
general,  and  the  Manicheans  in  particular ;  who  held  that 
the  souls  of  men  were  originally  of  different  ranks,  and  sprung 
from  different  principles,  good  beings  having  produced  some 
of  them,  and  bad  beings  the  rest;  on  which  account  they 
said  some  were  naturally  carnal  and  others  spiritual.  Ac- 
cordingly, they  had  taught  that  sin  arose  not  from  the  free- 
will of  man,  but  from  the  substance  of  matter,  which  they 
held  to  be  the  only  source  of  evil ;  so  that  some  souls  were 
wicked  not  by  choice,  but  by  nature. 

In  opposition  to  this,  Origen  maintained,  that  all  souls 
were  by  nature  equally  capable  of  virtue  or  vice,  and  that 
the  differences  among  men  arose  merely  from  the  freedom  of 
the  will,  and  the  various  uses  of  that  freedom  ;  that  God 
left  man  to  his  liberty,  and  rewarded  or  punished  him  ac- 
cording to  the  use  he  made  of  it.  || 

It  is  evident,  however,  that  Origen  must  have  maintained, 
according  to  his  known  philosophical  principles,  that  perfect 
freedom  with  respect  to  virtue  and  vice  was  only  enjoyed  by 
man  in  his  pre-existent  state.  For  he,  with  other  Platonists, 
maintained  that  the  souls  of  men  had  sinned  in  heaven,  and 
therefore  were  united  to  such  bodies  as  were  a  clog  and  a 
prison  to  the  soul,  and  that  the  Jlesh  laid  upon  it  a  kind  of 
necessity  of  sinning.  Chrysostom  also  says,  that  with  an 
infirm  body  we  derive  from  Adam  a  proneness  to  inordinate 

♦  ^pist.  xlvi.  Op.  II.  p.  160.     (P.) 
t  De  Diutbus  Animabusy  C.  x.  Op.  VI.  p.  153.     (P.) 
t  De  Gratia,  C.  ii.  Op.  VII.  p.  1299-     (P) 
S  Contra  Adimantum,  C.  xxvi.  Op.  V.  p.  210.    (P.) 
II  See  his  Phihcalia,  p.  50,  &c.    (P.) 
VOL.  V.  M 


162  HISTORY  OF  THE   DOCTRINE  OF  GRACE. 

affections.*  But  he  was  far  from  supposing  that  men  were 
in  any  other  manner  sufferers  by  the  fall  of  Adam  ;  and  least 
of  all  that  they  were  personally  responsible  for  his  conduct  of 
himself.  Le  Sueur  laments  tiiat  this  writer  was  not  quite 
orthodox  with  respect  to  original  sin,  grace  and  free-will ; 
but  he  apologizes  for  him,  as  having  written  before  the  heresy 
of  Pelagius  broke  out.f 

The  fathers  who,  in  general,  held  that  the  punishment  of 
Adam's  sin  "  was  only  mortality, — declare,  that  God  sub- 
jected men  to  this  mortahty  not  out  of  anger,  but  out  of 
wisdom  and  clemency,  to  beget  in  them  a  hatred  of  sin,  and 
that  sin  might  not  be  eternal  in  them.**;):  But  Titus,  bishop 
of  Bostra,  who  was  before  Pelagius,  taught  that  death  was 
natural,  and  not  the  effect  of  sin.§ 

Vossius  acknowledges,  that  Clemens  Alexandrinus  had 
no  knowledge  of  original  sin  ;||  and  Epiphanius  truly  blames 
Origen,  and  John  of  Jerusalem,  for  saying  that  the  image 
and  similitude  of  God  was  lost  in  man  after  the  expulsion  of 
Adam  out  of  paradise."^ 

Austin  himself,  in  his  controversy  with  the  Manicheans, 
declared  that  it  is  impossible  that  souls  should  be  evil  by 
nature.**  So  far  was  he  from  supposing  that  men  were 
responsible  for  Adam's  conduct,  that  he  said,  "  no  man  is 
wise,  valiant  or  temperate,  with  the  wisdom,  valour  or  tem- 
perance of  another,  or  righteous  with  the  righteousness  of 
another,  -j-l- 

The  testimony  of  the  fathers  in  this  period  is  no  less  clear 
against  the  doctrine  oi predestination  to  eternal  life,  without 
respect  to  good  works.  All  the  fathers  before  Austin,  says 
Whitby,  interpreted  what  the  apostle  Paul  says  of  predes- 
tination, in  the  8th  and  9th  chapters  of  his  epistle  to  the 
Romans,  of  those  whom  God  fore-knew  to  have  good  pur- 
poses ;  and  in  a  similar  manner  they  explain  all  the  other 
texts  from  which  the  doctrine  of  election  and  reprobation  is 
now  deduced  :  and  Austin  himself,  in  his  controversy  with 
the  Manicheans,  interpreted  them  in  the  same  manner. 
Melancthon  says,  that  all  the  ancients, except  Austin,  asserted 
that  there  was  some  cause  of  election  in  ourselves  ;  and 

•  Opera,  IX.  p.  1. so.    {P.)  t  A.  D.  407.    (P.) 

J  Wliitby  on  llic  Five  I'oints,  1710.     Prefaco,  p.  ix.    (P.) 

\  Basnaop,  Hist,  ilcs  Egliscs  Keforni.  I.  p.  167.    (P.) 

II   Mist.  IVlag  p.  ir.O.    (P.)  If  Whitby,  Ibid.  p.  391.    (P.) 

**   Y)c  Duabiis  AnimahnStC.  \'\\.   Op.  VI.   p.  15,5,  &c.     (P.) 

it  De  Libero  Arbitrio,  L.  ii.  C.  xix.  Op.  I.  p.  663.    {P.) 


HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  GRACE.  1  63 

Prosper,  who  took  the  part  of  Austin,  acknowledged  that 
the  Pelagians  treated  his  doctrine  as  a  novelt}^  '^ 

Justin  Martyr  could  have  no  knowledge  of  arbitrary  pre- 
destination, when  he  said,  "  if  every  thing  come  to  pass  by 
fate,  it  is  plain  that  nothing  will  be  in  our  power.  If  it  be 
fate  that  this  man  shall  be  good,  and  the  other  bad,  the  one 
is  not  to  be  praised,  nor  the  other  blamed/'  -f 

Didymus,  who  taught  theology  at  Alexandria,  (afterwards 
condemned  for  his  adherence  to  Origen,  but  on  no  other 
account,)  says,  that  predestination  depends  upon  God's  fore- 
knowledge of  those  who  would  believe  the  gospel,  and  live 
according  to  it ;  ^  and  Jerome  was  so  far  from  believing  the 
modern  doctrine  of  election  and  reprobation,  that  he  thought 
that  no  Christian  would  finally  perish. 

It  is  sufficiently  evident  from  these  testimonies,  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  utter  inability  of  man  to  do  the  will  of  God, 
of  the  corruption  of  our  nature  by  the  fall  of  Adam,  and 
of  our  responsibility  for  it,  together  with  the  doctrine  of 
absolute,  unconditional  election  of  some  to  eternal  life,  and 
of  the  reprobation  of  the  rest  of  mankind,  were  altogether 
unknown  in  the  primitive  church.  We  must  now  consider 
the  Pelagian  controversy^  and  the  remarkable  change  which 
it  occasioned  with  respect  to  these  doctrines. 


SECTION  II. 

Of  the.  Pelagian  Controversy  and  the  State  of  Opinions  in 
consequence  of  it. 

Pelagius  was  a  British  monk,  allowed  by  Austin  him- 
self to  have  been  a  man  of  irreproachable  morals,  who 
travelled  in  company  with  Celcstius,  another  monk  and  a 
native  of  Ireland,  and  with  him  resided  some  time  at  Rome, 
a  little  after  the  year  400.  As  far  as  appears,  these  two  men 
had  no  opinions  different  from  those  which  we  have  seen  to 
have  been  generally  held  by  the  christian  writers  of  that 
age;  but  being  men  of  sense  and  virtue,  they  opposed  with 
warmth  some  growing  abuses  and  superstitions,  especially 
with  respect  to  the  efficacy  of  baptism. 

This  rite,  we  shall  find,  was  very  soon  imagined  to  have 
a  power  of  washing  away  sin ;  and  a  notion  of  a  similar 
nature  had  also  prevailed    respecting   the    Lord's   supper. 

•  /"jrePomt*,   pp.  101— 103.     (P.)'         f  ^i'«^-  J- Edit.  Thirlby,  p.  64.     (P) 
X  Baanage  Hist,  des  Eglises  Reform.  I.  p.  168.    (P.) 

M  2 


164  HISTORY  OF  THE   DOCTRINE  OF   GRACE. 

But  it  was  tlie  former  of  these  superstitions  tliat  happened  to 
come  in  the  way  of  Pelaoius  to  oppose.  As  an  argument 
that  baptism  could  not  of  itself  be  of  any  avail  to  the  pardon 
of  sins,  he  urged  the  application  of  it  to  infants,  who  had  no 
sin  :  he  maintained  that  nothing  but  good  works  are  of  any 
avail  in  the  sight  of  God  ;  and  that  to  these  alone,  which 
it  is  in  every  man's  power  to  perform,  the  pardon  of  sin  is 
annexed. 

It  does  not  appear  that  these  doctrines,  which  were  the 
outlines  of  what  has  since  been  called  the  Pelagian  heresy, 
met  with  any  opposition  at  Rome.  But  retiring  from  that 
city  on  the  approach  of  the  Goths,  these  monks  went  to 
Africa,  and  Celestius  remaining  there,  Pelagius  proceeded 
to  Palestine,  where  he  enjoyed  the  protection  of  John, 
bishop  of  Jerusalem,  while  his  friend,  and  his  opinions,  met 
with  a  very  different  reception  from  Austin,  bishop  of 
Hippo,  who,  in  his  account  of  what  followed,  says  he  was 
first  staggered  at  hearing  it  asserted,  that  "  infants  were  not 
baptized  for  the  remission  of  sins,  but  only  that  they  might 
be  sanctified  in  Christ;"^  by  which  was  probably  meant, 
that  they  were  dedicated  to  God,  and  destined  to  be  in- 
structed in  the  principles  of  the  Christian  religion. 

Upon  this,  Celestius  and  his  friend  were  gradually  engaged 
in  a  warm  contest,  in  the  course  of  which  (as  was  certainly 
the  case  with  respect  to  Austin,  their  principal  opponent) 
they  were  probably  led  to  advance  more  than  had  originally 
occurred  to  them,  in  order  to  make  their  system  more  com- 
plete. Among  other  things,  they  are  said  to  have  asserted 
that  mankind  derives  no  injury  whatever  from  the  fall  of 
Adam  ;  that  we  are  now  as  capable  of  obeying  the  will  of 
God  as  he  was;  that  otherwise  it  would  have  been  absurd 
and  cruel  to  propose  laws  to  men,  with  the  sanction  of 
rewards  and  punishments;  and  that  men  are  born  as  well 
without  vice  as  without  virtue.  Pelagius  is  also  said  to 
have  maintained  that  it  is  even  possible  for  men,  if  they  will 
use  their  best  endeavours,  to  live  entirely  without  sin. 
This,  Jerome  says,  he  borrowed  from  Origen,  from  whom  it 
passed  to  Rufinus,  Evagrius,  Ponticus  and  Jovinian,  whom 
he  calls  the  patriarchs  of  the  Pelagian  heresy. 

Pelagius  did  not  deny  what  may  be  called  external  grace, 
or  that  the  doctrines  and  motives  of  the  gospel  are  necessary, 
but  he  admitted  nothing  of  internal  grace.  He  acknow- 
ledged, indeed,  that  the  poieer  we  have  to  obey  the  will  of 

•  DePcccafw,  &c.  L.  iii.  C.  vi.  Op.VII.  p.  725.     (P.) 


HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  GRACE.  165 

God,  is  the  gift  of  God  to  us  ;  but  he  said  that  the  direction 
of  this  power  depends  upon  ourselves.  He  is  even  said  to 
have  advanced,  after  Titus  of  Bostra  above-mentioned  that 
we  do  not  die  in  consequence  of  the  sin  of  Adam,  but  by 
the  necessity  of  nature,  and  that  Adam  himself  would  have 
died  if  he  had  not  sinned."^  Much  farther  was  he  from 
supposing  that  the  second  death,  or  the  punishment  of  the 
wicked  in  a  future  world,  was  any  consequence  of  the  sin 
of  Adam. 

In  several  of  these  positions,  Pelagius  appears  to  have 
gone  farther  than  the  generality  of  Christians  in  his  time, 
even  of  those  in  the  East,  where  he  met  with  the  most 
favourable  reception.  He  was  particularly  censured  by 
Chrysostom  and  Isidore,  for  asserting  that  man  had  no  need 
of  any  inward  assistance,  which  was  generally  believed  to  be 
afforded,  especially  on  extraordinary  occasions,  and  that 
man  had  received  no  injury  whatever  from  the  sin  of  Adam. 

Austin,  in  his  controversy  with  the  Pelagians,  made  no 
difficulty  of  renouncing  many  of  the  things  which  he  had 
advanced  against  the  Manicheans.  "  Yet,"  says  Whitby, 
"  he  hath  been  able  to  say  nothing  in  answer  to  some  of  the 
arguments  produced  by  him  in  their  confutation  ;"  and  "  the 
exceptions  which  he  makes  to  some  of  his  own  rules,  and 
the  answers  he  attempts  to  make  to  some  of  his  own  argu- 
ments are  vain,  false  and  absurd."  Thus  he  had  before 
defined  sin  to  be  "  the  will  to  do  that  from  which  we  have 
the  power  to  abstain ;"  but  afterwards  he  said,  he  had  then 
"  defined  that  which  was  only  sin,  and  not  that  which  is 
also,  poena  peccati,  the  punishment  of  sin."  -f 

In  opposition  to  the  doctrine  of  human  merit,  he  asserted 
that  divine  grace  is  necessary  to  bend  the  will,  for,  that 
without  this  we  are  free  only  to  do  evil,  but  have  no  power 
to  do  good. 

As  the  Heathens  could  not  be  said  to  have  had  that  grace 
of  God,  spoken  of  in  the  gospel,  by  the  help  of  which  alone 
Austin  supposed  that  good  works  were  performed  ;  to  be 
consistent  with  himself  he  maintained  that  none  of  the 
works  of  the  Heathens  were  properly  good,  and  that  even 
the  good  works  of  Cornelius  would  have  availed  nothing 
without  faith  in  Christ. ;{:  Sometimes,  indeed,  he  would 
allow  that  the  good  works  of  the  Heathens  would  entitle 

*  Austin  De  Hceresibus,  Sect.  Lxxxviii.  Op.  VI.  p.  33.     (P.) 

t  Five  Points,  p.  392.     (P.) 

X  De  Jiaptismo,  C.  viii.  Op.  VII.  p.  379-     (P.) 


166  HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE   OF  GRACE. 

them  to  a  temporal  reward,  and  lessen  their  future  torments.* 
But  he  likewise  distinguished  himself  by  saying  that  such 
good  works  were  only  a  kind  of  shining  sins.  In  support  of 
this  doctrine,  he  said  that  Christ  would  have  died  in  vain,  if, 
in  any  other  manner  than  by  faith  in  him,  men  could  have 
attained  to  true  faith,  virtue,  righteousness  and  wisdom. f 
But  in  this  he  did  not  attend  to  the  doctrine  of  Paul,  who 
says,  that  thei/  wJio  have  not  the  law  are  judged  leitho at  law ; 
they  being  a  law  to  themselves ;  their  own  consciences  accusing 
or  else  excusing  them. 

With  respect  to  original  sin,  Austin  strenuously  main- 
tained that  infants  derive  sin  from  Adam,  and  that  his  guilt 
was,  in  some  way,  entailed  upon  them,  so  that  they  are 
obnoxious  to  punishment  on  account  of  it  ;  though  he 
acknowledges  it  was  no  proper  guilt  of  theirs,  but  only  that 
of  their  ancestor,  the  sifi  being  an  act  of  his  will  only. J 
Afterwards,  an  improvement  was  made  upon  this  doctrine 
by  the  disciples  of  Austin,  who  asserted,  that  a  covenant 
was  made  with  all  mankind  in  Adam,  as  their  first  parent, 
and  that  he  was  made  to  represent  them  all  ;  so  that,  had  he 
obeyed,  all  his  posterity  would  have  been  happy  through 
his  obedience  ;  but  that  in  his  disobedience  they  are  all 
sinners,  his  act  being  imputed  and  transferred  to  them  all. 

Austin  maintains  that  baptism  is  necessary  to  recover 
men  from  that  state  of  perdition  into  which  the  fall  of  Adam 
had  brought  them,  and  therefore  that  all  who  were  not  bap- 
tized were  in  a  state  of  damnation.  To  prove  that  infants 
had  sinned  in  Adam,  he  urged,  that  otherwise  Christ  could 
not  be  their  Saviour. §  He  appears,  however,  to  have  been 
shocked  at  the  thoughts  of  exposing  infants  to  the  torments 
of  hell  on  account  of  the  sin  of  Adam  only;  and  therefore 
he  maintained  that,  though  they  were  in  hell,  their  punish- 
ment was  so  little,  that  they  would  rather  choose  to  exist 
under  it,  than  not  to  exist  at  all.  ||  This  was  afterwards 
dressed  up  as  a  division,  or  partition  in  hell,  and  was  called 
Limbus  Infayitum.  Before  the  Pelagian  controversy,  Austin 
had  said  that  the  souls  of  intants,  dying  unbaptized,  went 
neither  to  heaven  nor  to  hell,  but  went  to  a  place  where 
they  neither  enjoyed  the  vision  of  God,  nor  suffered  the 
pains  of  the  damned.  ^ 

*  Epist.  V.  Op.  II.  p.  25,  contra  Jidiayium,  L.  iv.  C.  iii.  Op.  VII.  p.  1033.     (P.) 

t  Ibid,  contra  Jul.  p.  1020-     (P.)  X  Opera,  I.  p.  22.     (P.) 

§  Contra  dnas  Pelayianornm  Ispistolas,  L.  i.  C.  xxiii.  Op.  VII.  p.  879.     (P-) 

II  Contra  Julianum,  L.  v.  C.  viii.   Op.  VII.   p.  1085.     (P.) 

%  De  Libera  Arhitrio,  L.  iii.  C.  xxiii.  Op.  1.  p.  6j).1.     (P.) 


HISTORY  OF  THE   DOCTRINE  OF  GRACE.  IG7 

Since,  according  to  the  preceding  doctrine,  the  very  first 
motion  towards  any  good  work,  such  as  faith  and  repentance, 
is  immediately  from  God,  and  it  is  not  in  the  power  of  man 
to  contribute  any  thing  towards  it,   Austin  was  obliged,  in 
pursuance  of  his  doctrine,  to  maintain  that  (iod  had,  of  his 
own  arbitrary  will,  predestinated  to  eternal  life  all  that  were 
actually  saved,  while  the  rest  of  mankind  were  left  exposed 
to  a  punishment  which  they  had  no  power  of  avoiding.     At 
the  same  time,  however,  maintaining,  according  to  the  uni- 
versal opinion  of  that  age,  that  baptism  was   the  christian 
regeneration^  and  washed  away  all  sin,  original  and  actual, 
he  was  under  a  necessity  of  distinguishing  between  regene- 
ration  and  salvation;  maintaining  that  justifying  faith,  and 
regenerating   grace  might   be  lost,    or    that  the   regenerate 
might  have  all  grace,  but  not  that  of  perseverance,  since  it 
depended  upon  the  decree  and  good  pleasure  of  God,  whe- 
ther they  would   persevere  to   the  end   or  not.*^^'      In   this 
respect  those  who  now  maintain  the  doctrine  of  predestina- 
tion differ  very  considerably  from  Austin,  maintaining  that 
none  are  truly  regenerated  except  the  elect,  and  that  all  these 
will  certainly  persevere  to  the  end,  and  be  saved.     In  the 
Church  of  Rome,  however,  and  also  in   that  of  England, 
regeneration  and  baptisfn  are  confounded,  and  the  terms  are 
used  as  expressing  the  same  thing,  j* 

Austin,  whose  influence  in  the  churches  of  Africa  was 
uncontrouled,  procured  the  opinions  of  his  adversary  to  be 
condemned  in  a  synod  held  at  Carthage  in  412  ;  but  they 
prevailed  notwithstanding.  The  Pelagian  doctrine  was 
received  with  great  applause  even  at  Rome.  There  the 
conduct  of  the  bishops  of  Africa,  who  had  stigmatized  it  as 
heretical,  was  condemned,  and  Pope  Zozimus  was  at  the 
head  of  those  who  favoured  Pelagius.  Austin's  doctrine  of 
predestination,  in  particular,  was  not  confirmed  by  any 
council  within  a  century  after  his  death  ;  and  though  it  was 
defended  by  the  most  celebrated  divines  in  the  West,  it  was 
never  generally  received  in  the  East,  and  was  controverted 
by  many  in  Gaul,  and  the  favourers  of  it  explained  it  with 
more  or  less  latitude.  This  controversy,  which  began  with 
the  doctrine  of  grace,  and  was  extended  to  original  sin  and 
predestination,  rent  the  church  into  the  most  deplorable 
divisions  in  all  succeeding  ages,  and  they  have  been  con- 
tinued, with  little  intermission,  to  the  present  time. 

*  Vossii  Historia  Pelagianismi,  p.  565.     (P.) 

t  The  question  whether  baptism  be  regencratinn  lias,  very  latels,  been  started, 
and  is  still  warmly  agitated  amoug  the  clergy  of  the  Church  of  England. 


168  HISTORY  OF  THE   DOCTRINE  OF  GRACE. 

This  controversy  was,  however,  ahuost  wholly  confined 
to  the  western  church,  while  the  Greeks  continued  in  the 
state  in  which  the  christian  church  in  general  has  been 
represented  to  have  been  before  the  Pelagian  controversy ; 
supposing  that  election  or  predestination  was  always  made 
with  a  view  to  men's  good  works.  Chrysostom,  as  well  as 
John  of  Jerusalem,  continued  to  hold  opinions  very  dif- 
ferent from  those  of  Austin,  though  these  were  very  soon 
generally  received  in  the  western  church  ;  and  just  in  the 
heat  of  this  controversy,  Cassian,  a  disciple  of  Chrysostom, 
con)ing  to  Marseilles,  taught  a  middle  doctrine,  which  was, 
that  "  the  first  conversion  of  the  soul  to  God  was  the  effect 
of  its  free  choice,"  so  that  a\\  preventmg,  as  it  was  called,  or 
predisposing  grace,  was  denied  by  him  ;  and  this  came  to  be 
the  distinguishing  doctrine  of  those  who  were  afterwards 
called  Semi-Pelagians.  Prosper  and  Hilary,  who  were 
bishops  in  Gaul,  gave  an  account  of  this  doctrine  to  Austin, 
but  it  was  so  popular,  that  he  did  not  venture  to  condemn  it 
altogether,  or  to  call  it  an  impious  and  pernicious  heresy.'^ 
This  controversy  also  interested  many  persons,  and  much 
was  written  on  both  sides  of  the  question. 

The  peculiar  opinion  of  the  Semi-Pelagians  is  expressed  in 
a  different  manner  by  different  writers,  but  all  the  accounts 
sufficiently  agree.  Thus  some  represent  them  as  maintaining 
that  inward  grace  is  not  necessary  to  the  first  beginning  of 
repentance,  but  only  to  our  progress  in  virtue.  Others  say 
that  they  acknowledged  the  power  of  grace,  but  said  that 
faith  depends  upon  ourselves,  and  good  works  upon  God ; 
and  it  is  agreed  upon  all  hands,  that  these  Semi-Pelagians 
held  that  predestination  is  made  upon  the  foresight  of  good 
works,  which  also  continued  to  be  the  tenet  of  the  Greek 
church. 

The  Semi-Pelagian  doctrine  is  acknowledged  by  all  writers 
to  have  been  well  received  in  the  monasteries  of  Gaul,  and 
especially  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Marseilles;  owing  in  a 
great  measure  to  the  popularity  of  Cassian,  which  counter- 
acted the  authority  of  Austin,  and  to  the  irreproachable 
lives  of  those  who  stood  forth  in  defence  of  it.  Prosper, 
writing  to  Austin  about  these  Semi-Pelagians,  says,  "  they 
surpass  us  in  the  merit  of  their  lives,  and  are  in  high  stations 
in  the  church,  "j- 

The  assistance  of  Austin,  though  he  was  then  far  advanced 

*  Bi»snage,  Hist,  des  EgliscsKeform.  I.  i».  192.     Mosheim,  I.  p.  427.  {P-)    Cent. 
V.  Pt.  ii.   Ch.  V.    Sect,  xxvii. 
t  Sueur,  A.  D.  429.    (P.) 


HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  GRACE.  l69 

in  life,  was  called  in  to  combat  these  Semi-Pelagians,  and  it 
was  the  occasion  of  his  writing  more  treatises  on  these  sub- 
jects. In  these  he  still  strenuously  maintained,  that  the 
predestination  of  the  elect  was  independent  of  any  foresight 
of  their  good  works,  but  was  according  to  the  good  pleasure 
of  God  only,  and  that  perseverance  comes  from  God,  and 
not  from  man. 

Notwithstanding  the  popularity  of  the  Semi-Pelagian  doc- 
trine, and  its  being  patronized  by  some  persons  of  considerable 
rank  and  influence,  the  majority  of  such  persons  must  have 
been  against  it ;  for  we  find  that  it  was  generally  condemned 
whenever  any  synod  was  called  upon  the  subject.  But 
there  were  some  exceptions.  Thus  one  which  was  assembled 
at  Aries,  about  A.D.  47-5,  pronounced  an  anathema  against 
those  who  denied  that  God  would  have  all  men  to  be  saved, 
or  that  Christ  died  for  all,  or  that  the  Heathens  might  have 
been  saved  by  the  law  of  nature*  Upon  the  whole,  it  can- 
not be  said  that  the  doctrine  of  Austin  was  completely  esta- 
bhshed  for  some  centuries  ;  nor  indeed  was  it  ever  generally 
avowed  in  all  its  proper  consequences,  and  without  any  qua- 
lifications, till  after  the  Reformation,  when  the  Protestants 
espoused  it,  in  opposition  to  the  Popish  doctrine  of  merit. 


SECTION  III. 

Of  the  Doctrine  of  Grace,  ^c.  in  the  Middle  Ages,  and  till 

the  Reformation. 

It  is  pretty  evident  that,  notwithstanding  the  great  nominal 
authority  of  Austin,  whom  it  was  seldom  reckoned  safe 
expressly  to  contradict  upon  the  whole,  the  Semi-Pelagian 
doctrine  may  be  said  to  have  been  most  prevalent  in  England 
and  in  France,  especially  during  the  6th  and  7th  centuries. 
All  the  grace  that  was  generally  contended  for  in  this  period, 
was  that  which  they  supposed  to  be  imparted  at  baptism,  or 
a  kind  of  supernatural  influence  which  did  not  fail  to  accom- 
pany or  to  follow  men's  own  endeavours.  Consequently, 
the  operation  of  it  in  practice  did  not  materially  differ  from 
that  of  Semi-Pelagianism  itself.  All  the  difference  in  specu- 
lation was,  that,  whereas  Pelagius  supposed  the  power  of 
man  to  do  the  will  of  God  was  given  him  in  his  formation, 
and  was  therefore  properly  inherent  in  him,  as  much  as  his 
bodily  strength,  that  which  was  asserted  by  his  opponents 

♦  Vossius,  p.  696.     Basnage,  Hist,  des  Eglises  Reform.  I.  p.  699-    (P-) 


170  HISTORY  OP  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  GRACE. 

in  these  ages  was  something  foreign  indeed  to  a  man's  self, 
and  imparted  at  another  time,  or  occasionally,  but  still,  in 
feet,  at  his  command^  and  the  doctrine  of  reprobation  was 
never  much  relished. 

In  a  council  held  at  Orange,  in  529,  against  the  Pelagians 
and  Semi-Pelagians,  it  was  determined,  that  "  all  those  who 
have  been  baptized,  and  have  received  grace  by  baptism, 
can  and  ought  to  accomplish  the  things  which  belong  to  their 
salvation;  Jesus  Christ  enabling  them,  provided  they  will 
labour  faithfully."  And  not  only  do  the  fathers  assembled 
upon  this  occasion  profess  not  to  believe  that  there  are 
men  destined  to  evil  or  sin  by  the  will  of  God,  but  they  say 
that,  "  if  there  be  any  who  will  believe  so  great  an  evil, 
they  denounce  a  hundred  anathemas  upon  them  with  all 
detestation."* 

In  this  state  things  continued,  the  Pelagian  or  Semi-Pela- 
gian doctrine  being  generally  received,  till  about  the  middle 
of  the  ninth  century.  For,  notwithstanding  the  credit  of 
Austin's  name,  and  the  authority  of  his  writings,  yet  no 
books  were  more  generally  read  in  those  ages  than  Cassian's 
Collections^  which  was  thought  to  be  the  best  book  of  insti- 
tutions for  a  monk  to  form  his  mind  upon,  and  which  gave 
a  strong  impression  in  favour  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Greek 
church.  This  was  very  apparent  in  the  ninth  century,  when 
Godeschalchus  was  severely  reproved  by  Hincmar  for  assert- 
ing some  of  Austin's  doctrines,  and  laying  particular  stress 
upon  them. 

This  Godeschalchus  was  a  monk  of  Orbais,  in  the  diocese 
of  Rheims,  who,  being  fond  of  Austin's  doctrines,  carried 
them  rather  farther  than  Austin  himself  had  done ;  teaching, 
among  other  things,  that  baptism  did  not  save  men,  that 
God  had  predestinated  the  greatest  part  of  mankind  to  dam- 
nation, and  that  none  would  be  saved  but  the  elect,  for 
whom  only  Christ  had  shed  his  blood.  In  this  he  was 
opposed  by  Rabanus  Maurus ;  and  a  council  being  held  on 
the  subject,  atMayence,  and  also  at  Creci,  he  was  condemned, 
and  at  length  died  in  prison.  Remi,  archbishop  of  Lyons, 
wrote  in  his  favour,  and  maintained  that  Godeschalchus  had 
not  said  that  God  predestinated  the  reprobate  to  sin  and 
wickedness,  but  only  that  he  abandoned  them  to  their  own 
free-will,  to  be  punished  because  they  would  not  believe ; 
and  in  a  council  held  at  Valence  in  Daupliiny,  in  which 
Remi   himself  presided,  the  decrees  of  the  former  council 

•  Sueur,  A.  D.  629.    {P.)    See  Vol.  III.  p.  535.     Note  f. 


HISTORY  OP  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  GRACE.  171 

were  annulled.  But  still  the  members  of  this  council  founded 
the  doctrine  of  divine  decrees  on  God's  prescience  that  the 
wicked  would  destroy  themselves.  We  find  no  other  de- 
cisions of  any  synod  or  council  after  this,  and  different 
opinions  continued  to  be  held  on  the  subject.* 

When  we  come  to  the  age  of  the  proper  schoolmen^  it  is 
somewhat  difficult,  notwithstanding  they  write  professedly 
and  at  large  on  all  these  subjects,  to  state  their  opinions 
with  precision,  as  they  seem  to  confound  themselves  and 
their  readers  with  such  nice  distinctions.  In  general,  Austin 
being  the  oracle  of  the  schools,  his  doctrine  was  professed 
by  them  all,  even  by  the  Franciscans,  as  well  as  the  Domi- 
nicans. They  only  pretended  to  dispute  about  the  true 
sense  of  his  writings.  ?Iis  general  doctrine  with  respect  to 
grace  and  predestination  was  so  well  established,  that  we 
only  find  some  subtle  distinctions  upon  the  subject,  and 
some  evasions  of  his  doctrine  by  those  who  did  not  alto- 
gether relish  it. 

It  was  agreed  among  the  theologians  of  this  age,  that 
infants  are  properly  chargeable  with  the  sin  of  Adam,  and 
liable  to  damnation  on  that  account,  because  the  will  of 
Adam  was  in  some  sort  the  will  of  the  infant.  Thomas 
Aquinas  endeavours  to  prove  that  it  was  only  the  first  sin  of 
Adam  that  could  be  transferred  to  his  posterity,  and  that 
vitiated  all  his  offspring,  his  subsequent  offences  affecting 
himself  only.  He  farther  maintains  that  original  sin,  being- 
communicated  in  the  act  of  generation,  a  person  born  mira- 
culously cannot  have  it.f 

According  to  some  of  the  schoolmen,  the  power  of  man 
was  but  inconsiderable,  even  before  the  fall.  Peter  Lombard 
says,  that  "  by  the  grace  of  God  given  to  man,  he  could  resist 
evil,  but  could  not  do  good.  Free  choice,"  he  says,  "  is 
the  faculty  of  reason  and  will,  by  which,  with  the  help  of 
grace,  we  can  choose  good,  or  without  it,  evil."  J 

"  Thomas  Aquinas — not  only  asserted  all  St.  Austin's  doc- 
trine (especially  that  of  predestination),  but  added  this  to  it, 
that,  whereas  formerly  it  was,  in  general,  held  that  the  pro- 
vidence of  God  did  extend  to  all  things  whatsoever,  he 
thought  this  was  done  by  God's  concurring  immediately  to 
the  production  of  every  thought,  action,  motion  or  mode." 
And,  not  to  make  "  God  the  author  of  sin,  a  distinction  was 
made  between  ihe  positive  act  of  sin,  which  was  said  not  to 

*  Vossii  Mistovia  Pelaj^ianismi,  p.  734.    (P.) 

t  Summa,  II.  pp.  i66,  l68.    (P.) 

X  Sentcntiae,  L.  ii.  Dist.  iv,  pp.  391,  S92.    (P) 


172  HISTORY  OF  THE   DOCTRINE  OF  GRACE. 

be  evil,  and  the  want  of  its  conformity  to  the  law  of  God, 
which,  being  a  negation,  was  no  positive  being/'* 

There  is  no  small  difficulty  in  settling  the  opinion  of 
Thomas  Aquinas  about  grace,  though  he  writes  so  largely 
on  the  subject.  He  says,  that  a  man  cannot  even  prepare 
himself  for  the  grace  of  God  without  prior  grace.  Yet  he 
says,  in  general,  that  a  man  must  prepare  himself  for  receiv- 
ing grace,  and  that  then  the  infusion  of  grace  necessarily 
follows.  He  also  says,  that  a  man's  free  will  is  necessary 
to  receive  the  grace  by  which  he  is  justified.  And  yet  he 
says,  that  it  cannot  be  known  to  any  person,  except  by  reve- 
lation, whether  he  has  grace. f  No  modern  fanatic  can  say 
any  thing  more  favourable  to  the  doctrine  of  instantaneous 
conversion  than  this  writer  does.  "  The  justification  of  a 
sinner,"  he  says,  "  is  in  an  instant ;"  and,  again,  that  "  it  is 
the  greatest  work  of  God,  and  altogether  miraculous." ij: 

The  manner  in  which  this  writer  and  other  catholics 
make  room  for  the  doctrine  of  merit,  together  with  these 
high  notions  concerning  grace,  which  they  never  professedly 
abandoned,  is  not  a  little  curious.  "  A  man  may  merit  of 
God,"  says  Thomas  Aquinas,  "  not  absolutely,  indeed,  but 
as  receiving  a  reward  for  doing  that  which  God  enables  him 
to  do."  Yet  he  still  acknowledges,  that  a  man  cannot  merit 
the^r^^  grace,  either  for  himself  or  for  another,  and  that 
Christ  alone  can  do  this.§ 

If  Thomas  Aquinas  could  find  room  for  the  doctrine  of 
merit  in  his  system,  which  was  professedly  built  on  that  of 
Austin,  it  may  well  be  presumed,  that  the  disciples  of  Duns 
Scotus  (the  head  of  the  Franciscan  order,  as  Aquinas  was 
the  chief  of  the  Dominicans),  and  who  opposed  the  doctrine 
of  Aquinas  as  much  as  he  could,  were  not  less  favourable  to 
the  doctrine  of  merit.  Burnet  says,  that  "  Scotus,  who  was 
a  Franciscan,  denied  the  pre-determination  and  asserted  the 
freedom  of  the  will,"  and  that  Durandus  denied  that  imme- 
diate concourse  of  God  with  the  human  will,  which  had 
been  asserted  by  Aquinas,  but  that  in  this  "  he  has  not  had 
many  followers,  except  Adola  and  some  few  others." || 

At  length,  the  members  of  the  church  of  Rome  not  only 
attained  to  a  firm  persuasion  concerning  the  doctrine  of 
merit,  notwithstanding  the  slender  ground  on  which  it  was 
built,  but  imagined  that  not  only  Christ,  but  also  sonie  men-, 

*  Burnet  on  the  Articles,  p.  194.    (P.)  Art.  xvii.     Ed.  4.  p.  147. 
t  Sumnia,  IT.  pp.  243— 2^2.    (P.)  %  Ibid.  pp.  254,  255.     (P.) 

^  Ibid.  II.  pp.  257,  258.    (P.)  II  Exposition,  p.  194.     (P)     Art.  Xvii. 
p.  147. 


HISTORY  OF  THE   DOCTRINE  OF  GRACE.  173 

and  especially  martyrs,  and  those  who  lived  a  life  of  great 
austerity,  had  even  more  merit  than  themselves  had  occasion 
for;  so  that  there  remained  some  good  works  in  the  balance 
of  their  account  more  than  they  wanted  for  their  own  justi- 
fication. These  they  termed  works  of  supererogation,  and 
imagined  that  they  might  be  transferred  to  the  account  of  other 
persons.  The  whole  accumulated  stock  of  this  merit  was 
called  the  treasure  of  the  church,  and  was  thought  to  be  at 
the  disposal  of  the  Popes.  Clement  VI.,  in  his  bull  for  the 
celebration  of  the  jubilee  in  1350,  speaks  of  this  treasure  as 
composed  of  "  the  blood  of  Christ,  the  virtue  of  which  is 
infinite,  of  the  merit  of  the  virgin  mother  of  God,  and  of  all 
the  saints."*  This  doctrine  was  the  foundation  for  those 
indulgences,  of  which  an  account  will  be  given  in  another 
place,  and  the  monstrous  abuse  of  which  brought  about  the 
Reformation  by  Luther. 

SECTION  IV. 

Of  the  Doctrines  of  Grace,  Original  Sin,  and  Predestination, 
since  the  Reformation. 

As  good  generally  comes  out  of  evil,  so  sometimes,  and 
for  a  season  at  least,  evil  arises  out  of  good.  This,  however, 
was  remarkably  the  case  with  respect  to  these  doctrines,  in 
consequence  of  the  reformation  by  Luther.  For  the  zeal  of 
this  great  man  against  the  doctrine  oi indulgences,  and  that  of 
merit,  as  the  foundation  of  it,  unhappily  led  him  and  others 
so  far  into  the  opposite  extreme,  that  from  bis  time  the  doc- 
trines of  grace,  original  sin,  and  predestination,  have  been 
generally  termed  the  doctrines  of  the  Reformation,  and  every 
thing  that  does  not  agree  with  them  has  been  termed  popish, 
and  branded  with  other  opprobrious  epithets. 

These  doctrines,  I  observed,  originated  with  Austin,  and 
though  they  never  made  much  progress  in  the  Greek  church, 
they  infected  almost  all  the  Latin  churches.  We  see  plain 
traces  of  them  among  the  Waldenses,  who  were  the  earliest 
reformers  from  Popery.  For,  in  the  Confession  of  their  Faith 
bearing  the  date  of  1 120,  they  say,  "  We  are  sinners  in  Adam 
and  by  Adam,"  and  in  another  Confession,  dated  1532,  they 
say,  that  "  all  who  are  or  shall  be  saved,  God  has  elected 
from  the  foundation  of  the  world  ;  and  that  whoever  main- 
tains free-will,  denies  predestination,  and  the  grace  of  God."f 
Wickliffe  also  "  asserted  the  necessity  of  being  assisted  by 

•  Memoircs  pour  la  Vie  de  Petrarch,  III.  p.  75.    (P.) 
t  Leger,  Histoire,  pp.  87,  95.    (P.) 


174  HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  GRACE. 

divine  grace.  Without  this,  he  saw  not  how  a  human  being 
could  make  himself  acceptable  to  God."* 

But  if  vve  were  sufficiently  acquainted  with  all  the  opi- 
nions of  the  Waldenses,  and  other  early  reformers,  we  niioht, 
perhaps,  meet  with  many  things  that  would  qualify  the 
seeming  rigour  of  these  articles.  It  is  certain,  however,  that 
neither  among  the  ancient  reformers,  nor  among  the  Domi- 
nicans, or  any  others  who  leaned  the  most  to  the  doctrine 
of  Austin  in  the  church  of  Rome,  was  the  scheme  so  con- 
nected in  all  its  parts,  and  rendered  so  systematical  and 
uniform,  as  it  was  by  Luther  and  the  reformers  who  followed 
him.  Besides  that  Luther  was  led  to  lay  the  stress  that  he 
did  upon  the  doctrine  of  grace,  in  consequence  of  the  abuse 
of  that  of  the  doctrine  of  merit  in  the  church  of  Rome,  he 
had  himself  been,  as  was  observed  before,  a  monk  of  the 
order  of  Austin,  and  had  always  been  a  great  admirer  of  his 
writings.  Also  most  of  those  of  the  church  of  Rome  who 
first  opposed  him  were  of  a  different  persuasion  ;  the  doc- 
trines of  Austin  having  been  either  abandoned,  or  nearly 
explained  away,  by  the  generality  of  the  divines  of  that  age. 
Upon  the  whole,  therefore,  it  was  not  to  be  expected,  that 
such  a  person  as  Luther  was,  should  begin  a  reformation 
upon  any  more  liberal  principles.  The  fact,  however,  is 
notorious. 

"  Luther,"  says  the  translator  of  Mosheim,  "  carried  the 
doctrine  of  justijicaiion  by  faith  to  such  an  excessive  length, 
as  seemed,  though  perhaps  contrary  to  his  intention,  to  dero- 
gate not  only  from  the  necessity  of  good  works,  but  even 
from  their  obligation  and  importance.  He  would  not  allow 
them  to  be  considered  either  as  the  conditions  or  means 
of  salvation,  nor  even  as  a  preparation  for  receiving  it.'* 
He  adds,  that  "  the  doctrines  of  absolute  predestination^  irre- 
sistible  grace,  and  human  impotence,  were  never  carried  to  a 
more  excessive  length — by  any  divine  than  they  were  by 
Luther. "-j-  Amsdorf,  a  Lutheran  divine,  maintained,  Mosheim 
says,  "  that  good  works  were  an  impediment  to  salvation." 
Flacius,  another  Lutheran,  held,  that  original  sin  was  not 
an  accident,  but  of  "  the  very  substance  of  human  nature." :j: 

In  some  of  the  first  Confessions  of  Faith  published  by  the 
Lutherans,  and  others  of  the  first  reformers,  the  doctrines  of 
grace,  original  sin,  and  predestination,  are  laid  down  with 
remarkable  rigour,  and  a  studied  exactpess  of  expression. 

♦  Gilpin's  Life  of  him,  1765,  p.  75.    (P.) 

t  Eccl.  Hist.  IV.  pp.  36,  40.  (P.)    Cent.  xvi.  Sect.  hi.  Pt.ii.  xvii.  xxx.  Notes. 

j  Ibid.  pp.  39,  43.    (P.)    Ibid.  xxix.  xxxiii. 


HISTORY  OF   THE   DOCTRINE  OP  GRACE.  \75 

The  Augustan  Confession  says,  "  On  the  account  of  Adam's 
sin  we  are  liable  to  the  wrath  of  God,  and  eternal  death, 
and  the  corruption  of  human  nature  is  propagated  from  him; 
This  vice  of  our  origin  (vitium  originis)  is  truly  a  damning 
sin,  and  causing  eternal  death  to  all  who  are  not  born  again 
by  baptism  and  the  spirit."*  We  find,  however,  some  ex- 
pressions rather  stronger  than  even  these  in  the  Gallic  Con- 
fession :  "  We  believe  that  this  vice,"  (vitiuin,)  meaning 
original  sin,  "  is  truly  a  sin,  which  makes  all  and  every  man, 
not  even  excepting  infants  in  the  womb,  liable,  in  the  sight 
of  God,  to  eternal  death. "f  If  any  doctrine  can  make  a 
man  shudder,  it  must  be  this.  Believing  this,  could  any 
man  (unless  he  had  a  firmer  persuasion  than  most  men  can, 
by  the  force  of  any  imagination,  attain  to,  of  himself  being 
among  the  number  of  the  elect)  bless  God  that  he  is  a 
descendant  of  Adam  ? 

Calvin  held  these  doctrines  with  no  less  rigour;  and  as 
the  Lutherans  afterwards  abandoned  them,  they  are  now 
generally  known  by  the  name  of  Calvinistic  doctrines.  As 
to  *'  the  most  ancient  Helvetic  Doctors,"  says  Mosheim, 
"  their  sentiments  seemed  to  differ  but  very  little  from  those 
of  the  Pelagians;  nor  did  they  hesitate  in  declaring,  after 
the  example  of  Zuingle,  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven  was 
open  to  all  who  lived  according  to  the  dictates  of  right 
reason  ;"  but  Calvin,  when  he  came  among  them,  "  main- 
tained that  the  everlasting  condition  of  mankind  in  a  future 
world  was  determined,  from  all  eternity,  by  the  unchangeable 
order  of  the  Deity,"  arising  from  "  no  other  motive  than 
his  own  good  pleasure  and  free  imll."'^ 

Luther's  rigid  doctrine  of  election  was  opposed  by  Eras- 
mus, who  wished  well  to  the  Reformation,  but  was  concerned 
as  well  for  the  violence  with  which  it  was  carried  on,  as  for 
the  unjustifiable  length  to  which  Luther  carried  his  opposi- 
tion, especially  with  respect  to  the  doctrine  of  predestination. 
Luther  never  answered  the  last  piece  of  Erasmus  on  the 
subject  of  free-will ;  and  Melancthon,  the  great  friend  of 
Luther,  and  the  support  of  his  cause,  being  convinced  by 
the  reasoning  of  Erasmus,  came  over  to  his  opinion  on  that 
subject.  And  it  is  very  remarkable,  that  by  degrees,  and 
indeed  pretty  soon  afterwards,  the  Lutherans  in  general 
changed  also  ;  and  some  time  after  the  death  of  Luther  and 
Melancthon,  the  divines  who  were  deputed  by  the  elector  of 
Saxony,  to  compose  the  famous  book  entitled  The  Concord, 

*  Eccl.  Hist.  IV.  p.  9.    (P.)  t  Ibid.  p.  80.    (P.) 

X  Ibid.  pp.  72,  78,  80.    (P.)    Cent.  xvi.  Sect.  iii.  Pt.  ii.  C,  ii.  yii.  xli. 


176  HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  GRACE. 

abandoned  the  doctrine  of  their  master,  and  taught  that  thd 
decree  of  election  was  not  absolute,  that  God  saves  all  who 
will  believe,  that  he  gives  all  men  sufficient  means  of  salva- 
tion,  and  that  grace  may  be  resisted,* 

The  principles  of  all  the  other  reformed  churches  are, 
howe¥er,  still  Calvinistic,  and  among  them  those  of  the 
churches  of  England  and  of  Scotland,  notwithstanding  the 
generality  of  divines  of  the  former  establishment  are  ac- 
knowledged to  be  no  great  admirers  of  that  system. 

In  Holland,  there  was  no  obligation  on  the  ministers  to 
maintain  what  are  called  the  Calvinistic  doctrines,  till  the 
synod  of  Dort ;  when,  by  the  help  of  faction  in  the  state,  the 
Calvinistic  party  in  that  country  prevailed,  and  those  who 
opposed  them,  and  in  consequence  of  remows^ra^/w^- against 
their  proceedings,  got  the  name  of  Remonstrants,  were  cruelly 
persecuted  and  banished.  It  is  remarkable,  however,  as 
Mosheim  observes,  that  since  the  time  of  that  synod,  "  the 
doctrine  of  absolute  decrees  lost  ground  from  day  to  day.'*-)* 

With  respect  to  the  church  of  Rome,  it  cannot  be  denied, 
that  the  cause  of  sound  morality  had  suffered  much  by  means 
of  many  sophistical  distinctions,  introduced  by  their  divines 
and  casuists  about  the  time  of  the  Reformation,  as  by  the 
distinction  of  sins  into  venial  and  mortal ;  the  latter  of  which 
only,  they  say,  deserve  the  pains  of  hell,  whereas  the  former 
may  be  atoned  for  by  penances,  liberality  to  the  church,  &c. 
It  was  another  of  their  tenets,  that  if  men  do  not  put  a  bar 
to  the  efficacy  of  the  sacraments,  particularly  that  of  penance ; 
if  there  had  been  but  "  imperfect  acts  of  sorrow  accompany- 
ing them,*'  (such  as  sorrow  for  the  difficulties  a  man  brings 
himself  into  by  his  vices,)  "  the  use  of  the  sacraments  does 
so  far  complete  those  weak  acts,  as  to  justify  us.":}:  The 
Jesuits  introduced  several  other  exceedingly  dangerous 
maxims  with  respect  to  morals  ;  but  they  were  never  re- 
ceived by  the  Catholics  in  general,  and  were  sufficiently 
exposed  by  their  enemies  the  Jansenists,  within  the  pale  of 
that  church. 

The  fathers  of  the  Council  of  Trent  found  much  difficulty 
in  settling  the  doctrines  of  grace  and  predestination,  many  of 
the  members,  particularly  the  Dominicans,  being  attached  to 
the  doctrine  of  Austin.  At  length  their  sole  object  was  to 
make  such  a  decree  as  should  give  the  least  offence,  though 
it  should  decide  nothing.     Among  other  things,  it  was  deter- 

•  Basiiage,  Histoire,  III.  p.  205.    (P.)     See  Toplady,  Hist.  Proof,  I.  p.  318. 
t  Eccl.  Hist.  IV.  p.  499-    (P.)    Cent.  xvii.  Sect.  ii.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  ii.  xii. 
X  Burnet  on  the  Articles,  p.  l6l.    (P.)    Art,  xi.  E\  4.  p.  125. 


HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  GRACE.  177 

mined  that  "  good  works  are,  of  their  own  nature,  meritorious 
of  eternal  life  ;"  but  it  is  added,  by  way  of  softening,  that  it 
is  through  the  goodness  of  God  "  that  he  makes  his  own  gifts 
to  us  to  be  merits  in  us."*  It  is, says  Burnet,  "  the  doctrine 
of  a  great  many  in  the  church  of  Rome,  and  which  seerns  to 
be  that  established  at  Trent, — that  the  remission  of  sins  is  to 
be  considered  as  a  thing  previous  to  justification,  and — 
freely  given  in  Christ  Jesus  ;  and  that  in  consequence  of  this 
there  is  such  a  grace  infused,  that  thereupon  the  person 
becomes  truly  just,  and  is  considered  as  such  by  God  ;"  but 
this,  he  adds,  "  is  but  a  question  about  words. "f 

At  the  council  of  Trent,  Catarin  revived  an  opinion  which 
was  said  to  have  been  invented  by  Occam,  and  supported  by 
some  of  the  schoolmen,  viz.  that  God  has  chosen  a  small 
number  of  persons,  as  the  blessed  virgin,  and  the  apostles,  &c. 
whom  he  was  determined  to  save  without  any  foresight  of 
their  good  works,  and  that  he  also  wills  that  all  the  rest 
should  be  saved,  providing  for  them  all  necessary  means  for 
that  purpose,  but,  that  they  are  at  liberty  to  use  or  refuse 
them.  J  This  opinion  was  that  of  Mr.  Baxter  in  England, 
from  whom  it  is  frequently  with  us,  and  especially  the  Dis- 
senters, called  the  Baxterian  scheme.^  Upon  the  whole,  the 
council  of  Trent  made  a  decree  in  favour  of  the  Semi-Pelagian 
doctrine.  II 

At  first  Bellarmine,  Suarez,  and  the  Jesuits  in  general, 
were  predestinarians,  but  afterwards  the  fathers  of  that  order 
abandoned  that  doctrine,  and  differed  from  the  Semi-Pelagians 
only  in  this,  that  they  allowed  a  preventing  grace^  but  such 
as  is  subject  to  the  freedom  of  the  will. 

The  author  of  this  which  is  commonly  called  the  middle 
scheme,  or  the  doctrine  of  sufficient  grace  for  all  men,  was 
Molina,  a  Jesuit ;  ^  from  whom  the  favourers  of  that  doctri  ne 
were  called  Molinists,  and  the  controversy  between  them  and 

*  Buraet  on  the  Articles,  p.  136.  (P.)  Art.  xii.  Ed.  4,  p.  128.  See  Sessio  vi.  De 
Justificatione,  "  Coticil.  Trident.  Canones  et  Dccreta."  Rothomayi,  1781,  l8mo. 
pp.  3.5,  36,  40. 

t  Ibid.  p.  160.    (P.)    Art.  xi.  Ed.  4,  p.  124. 

X  B»snsige,  Histoire,  III.  p.  612.    rP.J 

\  Dr.  Kippis  says,  that  "  Baxterianism  strikes  into  a  middle  path  between 
Calvinism  and  Arminianism,  endeavouring  in  some  degree,  thougli  perhaps  not 
Tcry  consistently,  to  unite  both  schemes,  and  to  avoid  the  supposed  errors  of  each." 
Biog.  Brit.  II.  p.  22.   Milton  has  immortalized  this  scheme,  P.  L.  III.  line  183—202. 

II  See  Canon  xxxii.  p.  40. 

H  A  native  of  Spain,  who  entered  the  Society  at  the  age  of  18.  He  died  at 
Madrid  in  1600,  aged  65.  Ilis  work,  which  produced  the  sect  of  the  Molinists,  was 
printed  at  Lisbon  in  1588,  and  entitled  De  Cwicordid  Gratice  et  Libert  Arbitrii.  See 
Nouv.  Diet.  Hist.  IV.  p.  551. 

VOL.   V.  N 


178  HISTORY  OF  THE   DOCTRINE  OF  GRACE, 

the  Jcmscjiists,  (so  called  from  Jansenius,*  a  great  advocate 
for  the  doctrines  of  Austin,)  has  been  as  vehement  as  any 
controversy  among  Protestants  on  the  same  subject.  And 
though  besides  the  council  of  Frent,  whose  decrees  are 
copious  enough,  appeals  were  frequently  made  to  the  Popes, 
and  their  decisions  were  also  procured,  the  controversy  still 
continues.  Of  so  little  effect  is  the  authority  of  men  to 
prevent  different  opinions  in  articles  of  faith.  Different 
Popes  have  themselves  been  differently  disposed  with  respect 
to  these  doctrines  ;  and  on  some  occasions  a  respect  for  the 
Jesuits,  who  were  peculiarly  devoted  to  the  Popes,  was  the 
means  of  procuring  more  favour  to  the  tenets  which  they 
espoused,  than  they  would  otherwise  have  met  with. 

Among  Protestants,  there  are  great  numbers  who  still  hold 
the  doctrines  which  are  termed  Calvinistic  in  their  greatest 
rigour  ;  and  some  time  ago  they  were  usually  distinguished 
into  two  kinds,  viz.  the  Supralapsarians,  who  maintained 
that  God  had  originally  and  expressly  decreed  the  fall  of 
Adam,  as  a  foundation  for  the  display  of  his  justice  and 
mercy  ;  while  those  who  maintained  that  God  only  permitted 
the  fall  of  Adam,  were  called  Sublupsarians,  their  system  of 
decrees  concerning  election  and  reprobation  being,  as  it  were, 
subsequent  to  that  event.  But  if  we  admit  the  divine  pre- 
science, there  is  not,  in  fact,  any  difference  between  the  two 
schemes  ;  and  accordingly  that  distinction  is  now  seldom 
mentioned. 

It  is  evident  that,  at  present,  the  advocates  for  the  doctrine 
of  absolute  and  unconditional  election,  with  the  rest  that  are 
called  Calvinistic,  consist  chiefly  of  persons  of  little  learning 
or  education  ;  and  were  the  creeds  of  the  established  Pro- 
testant churches  to  be  revised,  the  articles  in  favour  of  those 
doctrines  would,  no  doubt,  be  omitted.  But  while  they 
continue  there,  and  while  the  spirit  of  them  is  diffused 
through  all  the  public  offices  of  religion,  the  belief  of  them 

*  lie  was  born  in  Holland,  iii  1585,  and  in  l604  removed  to  Paris,  where  he  took 
liis  degrees.  He  was  afterwards  deputed  by  the  University  of  Louvain  to  the  King 
of  Spain,  whom  he  gratified  by  writing  a  book  against  the  French.  Philip  IV. 
made  him  bishop  of  Yprcs,  where  he  died  in  1638,  of  tlie  plague,  in  the  midst  of  his 
charitable  attentions  to  the  people  of  his  diocese.  IJis  book  which  gave  occasion  to 
the  sect  of  the  J«M5t'»mt.«,  is  entitled  "  Augustinus  CorHelii  Jansenii  Episcopi,  seu 
Doctr'ina.  Sancti  Aiigiistini,  (\e  humanse  Natune  Sanitate,  yEgritudine,  MedicinS, 
adversus  Pelagianos  et  Massilienses  tribns  tomis  comprensa;"  first  printed  at  Lou- 
vain in  1640.  On  this  work,  wliich  Leibnitz  extolled  as  nn  ouvrage  profond,  the 
author  was  employed  twenty  years,  during  which  he  had  read  ^H<7M*<m  throughout, 
ten  times,  and  thirty  times,  that  father's  treatise  against  the  Pelagiaas,  See  Nouv. 
Diet.  Hist.  HI.  pp.  432,  433. 


HISTORY  OF  THE   DOCTRINE  OF  GRACE.  179 

will  be  kept  up  among  the  vulgar,  and  there  will  always  be 
men  enow  ready  to  accept  of  church  preferment  on  the  con- 
dition of  subscribing  to  what  they  do  not  believe,  and  of 
reciting  day  after  day  such  offices  as  they  totally  disapprove. 

Things  have  been  so  long  in  this  situation,  especially  in 
England,  where  the  minds  of  the  clergy  are  more  enlightened, 
and  where  few  of  them,  in  comparison,  will  even  pretend 
that  they  really  believe  the  articles  of  foith  to  which  they 
have  subscribed,  according  to  the  plain  and  obvious  sense  of 
them  ;  *  and  the  legislature  has  been  so  often  applied  to  in 
vain  to  relieve  them  in  this  matter,  by  removing  those  sub- 
scriptions, that  we  cannot  now  reasonably  expect  any  refor- 
mation of  this  great  evil,  till  it  shall  please  Divine  Providence 
to  overturn  all  these  corrupt  establishments  of  what  is  called 
Christianity,  but  which  have  long  been  the  secure  retreat  of 
doctrines  disgraceful  to  Christianity.  For  they  only  serve 
to  make  hypocrites  of  those  who  live  by  them,  and  infidels  of 
those  who,  without  looking  farther,  either  mistake  these 
corruptions  of  Christianity  for  the  genuine  doctrines  of  it, 
or,  being  apprized  of  the  insincerity  of  the  clergy  in  sub- 
scribing them,  think  that  all  rehgion  is  a  farce,  and  has  no 
hold  on  the  consciences  of  those  who  make  the  greatest 
profession  of  it.  With  all  this  within  ourselves,  how 
unfavourable  is  the  aspect  that  these  doctrines  exhibit  to 
the  world  at  large,  and  what  an  obstruction  must  they  be  to 
the  general  propagation  of  Christianity  in  the  world  ! 

I  cannot  help  making  this  general  reflection  at  the  close  of 
these  three  parts  of  my  work,  which  relate  to  those  gross 
corruptions  of  Christianity,  which  exist  in  their  full  force  in 
all  established  Protestant  churches.  In  what  follows,  the 
Catholics,  as  they  are  called,  are  more  particularly  concerned ; 
though,  it  will  be  seen,  that,  even  with  respect  to  them, 
many  Protestant  churches  are  far  from  being  blameless. 

*  Dr.  Paley,  who  was  generally  better  employed,  has  provided  for  these  unbe- 
lieving subscribers  some  convenient  excuses.  See  what  Mr.  Wakefield  justly  called 
"  a  shuffling  chapter  on  subscription  to  articles  of  religion"  in  Paley 's  Moral 
Philosophif. 


n2 


180 

THE 

HISTORY 

OF    THE 

CTorruptiottjEf  of  ^firiisstfattits. 


PART  IV. 

The  History  of  Opinions  relating  to  Saints  and  Angels. 

— •-♦-•^ — 

THE 

INTRODUCTION. 


The  idolatry  of  the  Christian  church  began  with  the  deifi- 
cation and  proper  worship  of  Jesus  Christ,  but  it  was  far 
from  ending  with  it.  For,  from  similar  causes.  Christians 
were  soon  led  to  pay  an  undue  respect  to  men  of  eminent 
worth  and  sanctity,  which  at  length  terminated  in  as  proper 
a  worship  of  them,  as  that  which  the  Heathens  had  paid  to 
their  heroes  and  demigods,  addressing  prayer  to  them,  in  the 
same  manner  as  to  the  Supreme  Being  himself.  The  same 
undue  veneration  led  them  also  to  a  superstitious  respect  for 
their  relics^  the  places  where  they  had  lived,  their  pictures  and 
images,  and  indeed  every  thing  that  had  borne  a  near  relation 
to  them  ;  so  that  at  length,  not  only  were  those  persons  whom 
they  termed  saints,  the  objects  of  their  worship,  but  also 
their  relics  and  images  ;  and  neither  with  respect  to  the 
external  forms,  nor,  as  far  as  we  can  perceive,  their  internal 
sentiments,  were  Christians  to  be  at  all  distinguished  from 
those  who  bowed  down  to  wood  and  stone,  in  the  times  of 
Paganism. 

That  this  is  a  most  horrid  corruption  of  genuine  Christianity 
I  shall  take  for  granted,  there  being  no  trace  of  any  such 
practice,  or  of  any  principle  that  could  lead  to  it,  in  the 
Scriptures ;  but  it  may  be  useful  to  trace  the  causes  and  the 


OPINIONS  RELATING  TO  SAINTS   AND   ANGELS.       181 

progress  of  it,  from  the  earliest  ages  of  the  christian  church 
to  the  present  time.  And  in  order  to  do  it  as  distinctly  as 
possible,  I  shall  divide  the  history  of  all  the  time  preceding 
the  Reformation  into  two  periods  ;  the  former  extending  to 
the  fall  of  the  western  empire,  or  a  little  beyond  the  time  of 
Austin,  and  the  latter  to  the  Reformation  itself;  and  I  shall 
also  consider  separately  what  relates  to  saints  in  general,  (^ 
to  the  Virgin  Mary  in  particular,  to  relics^  and  to  images. 


SECTION  I.         Part  I. 

Of  the  Respect  paid  to  Saints  in  general,  till  the  Fall  of  the 
Western  Empire. 

The  foundation  of  all  the  superstitious  respect  that  was 
paid  to  dead  men  by  Christians,  is  to  be  looked  for  in  the 
principles  of  the  heathen  philosophy,  and  the  customs  of  the 
pagan  religion.  It  was  from  the  principles  of  philosophy, 
and  especially  that  of  Plato,  that  Christians  learned  that  the 
soul  was  a  thing  distinct  from  the  body,  and  capable  of 
existing  in  a  separate  conscious  state  when  the  body  was  laid 
in  the  grave.*  They  also  thought  that  it  frequently  hovered 
about  the  place  where  the  body  had  been  interred,  and  was 
sensible  of  any  attention  that  was  paid  to  it. 

Christians,  entertaining  these  notions,  began  to  consider 
their  dead  as  still  present  with  them,  and  members  of  their 
society,  and  consequently  the  objects  of  their  prayers,  as 
they  had  been  before.  We  therefore  soon  find  that  they 
prayed  for  the  dead,  as  well  as  for  the  living,  and  that  they 
made  oblations  in  their  name,  as  if  they  had  been  alive,  and 
had  been  capable  of  doing  it  themselves.  And  afterwards, 
looking  upon  some  of  them,  and  especially  their  martyrs,  as 
having  no  want  of  their  prayers,  but  as  being  in  a  state  of 
peculiarly  high  favour  with  God,  and  having  more  immediate 
access  to  him,  it  was  natural  for  them  to  pass  in  time,  from 
prayingybr  Mem,  to  praying  to  them^  first  as  intercessors  to 
God  for  them,  and  at  length  as  capable  of  doing  them  im- 
portant services,  without  any  application  to  the  Divine  Being 
at  all.  The  idolatrous  respect  paid  to  their  remains,  and  to 
their  images,  was  a  thing  that  followed  of  course. 

*  To  give  my  readers  full  satisfaction  on  this  subject,  I  must  refer  them  to  my 
Disqaisitiom  relating  to  Matter  and  Spirit,  in  which  the  doctrine  of  a  mm/  is  traced 
from  the  Oriental  to  the  Grecian  philosophy,  and  is  shewn  to  have  been  a  principle 
most  hostile  to  the  system  of  revelation  in  every  stage  of  its  progress.  (P.)  See 
Vol.  III.  pp.384— 421. 


182  HISTORY  OF   OPINIONS 

The  first  step  in  this  business  was  a  custom  which  cannot 
be  said  to  have  been  unnatural,  but  it  shews  how  much 
attention  ought  to  be  given  to  the  beginnings  of  things.  It 
was  to  meet  at  the  tombs  of  the  martyrs,  not  by  way  of 
devotion  to  them,  but  because  they  thought  that  their  devo- 
tion to  God  was  more  sensibly  excited  in  those  places ;  and 
few  persons,  perhaps,  would  have  been  aware  of  any  ill-con- 
sequence that  could  have  followed  from  it.  Indeed,  had  it 
not  been  for  the  philosophical  opinions  above-mentioned, 
which  were  brought  into  Christianity  b^"  those  who  before 
held  them  as  philosophers,  and  which  gradually  insinuated 
themselves  into  the  body  of  Christians  in  general,  it  might 
have  continued  not  only  a  harmless,  but  an  useful  custom. 

Christians  meeting  for  the  purpose  of  devotion  at  those 
places,  they  would  naturally  bless  God  for  such  examples  of 
piety  and  fortitude  as  the  martyrs  had  exhibited,  and  excite 
one  another  to  follow  their  examples.  Indeed,  their  very 
meeting  together  at  those  places  for  that  purpose,  was  doing 
them  so  much  honour,  as  could  not  fail,  of  itself,  to  make 
other  persons  ambitious  of  being  distinguished  in  the  same 
manner  after  their  deaths. 

It  was  also  an  early  custom  among  Christians  to  make 
offerings  annually  in  the  name  of  the  deceased,  especially 
the  martyrs,  as  an  acknowledgment,  that  though  they  were 
dead,  they  considered  them  as  still  living,  and  members  of 
their  respective  churches.  These -offerings  were  usually 
made  on  the  anniversary  of  their  death.  Cyprian  says,  that 
*'  if  any  person  appointed  one  of  the  clergy  to  be  a  tutor  or 
curator  of  his  will,  these  offerings  should  not  be  made  for 
him."^  So  that,  as  they  considered  the  dead  as  still  belong- 
ing to  their  communion,  they  had,  as  we  here  find,  a  method 
of  excommunicating  them  even  after  death. 

The  beginning  of  this  superstitious  respect  for  the  martyrs, 
seems  to  have  been  at  the  death  of  Polycarp,  and  in  forty  years 
afterwards  it  had  degenerated  into  this  gross  superstition. 
For  TertuUian  says,  "  We  make  oblations  for  the  dead,  and 
for  their  martyrdom,  on  certain  days  yearly." -j* 

Afterwards,  this  respect  paid  to  martyrs  and  confessors,  or 
those  who,  having  been  doomed  to  death,  happened  to  be 
released,  exceeded  all  bounds,  and  in  many  respects  did 
unspeakable  mischief  to  the  church.  Nothing  was  esteemed 
more  glorious  than  what  they  called  the  crown  of  martyrdom  ; 
and  on  the  anniversary  festivals,  instituted  to  the  honour  of 

*  Opera,  £))i>.  p.  3.    (P.)  t  Pierce's  Vindication,  1718,  p.  515.    (P.) 


RELATING  TO  SAINTS  AND   ANGELS.  1^3 

each  martyr,  their  memories  were  celebrated  with  panegyrical 
orations.  In  their  prisons  they  were  visited  by  Christians 
of  all  ranks,  proud  to  minister  to  them  in  the  very  lowest 
offices,  and  to  kiss  their  chains;  and  if  they  happened  to 
escape  with  life  from  their  torture,  their  authority  was  ever 
after  most  highly  respected  in  the  decision  of  all  controversies, 
in  absolving  persons  from  the  ordinarydiscipline  of  the  church, 
and  restoring  them  to  communion  on  whatever  terms  they 
thought  fit. 

As  it  happened  that  some  of  these  confessors  were  not  men 
of  the  best  moral  character,  at  least  became  corrupted,  in 
consequence,  perhaps,  of  the  superstitious  respect  with  which 
they  were  every  where  received,  Cyprian  makes  heavy  com- 
plaints of  the  relaxation  of  church  discipline  by  this  means. 
They  were  often  exceedingly  dissolute  themselves,  and 
screened  the  vices  of  others. 

The  respect  paid  to  martyrs  was  gradually  extended,  in 
some  degree,  to  others,  who  also  were  considered  after  their 
deaths  as  those  who  had  triumphed  over  the  world,  and  were 
gone  to  receive  the  prize  for  which  they  had  contended.  In 
imitation  of  carrying  in  triumph  those  who  won  the  prizes 
in  the  Grecian  games.  Christians  interred  their  dead  with 
singing  of  psalms  and  lighted  tapers.  "  Tell  me,"  says 
Chrysostom,  "  what  mean  the  lamps  lighted  at  funerals .? 
Is  it  not  because  we  accompany  the  dead,  as  so  many  mag- 
nanimous champions  ?  What  mean  the  hymns  }  Is  it  not 
because  we  glorify  God,  and  render  thanks  to  him,  that  he 
has  already  crowned  the  deceased,  deliv^ering  him  from  all 
his  toil  and  labour  ?"* 

As  these  festivals  on  the  anniversaries  of  the  martyrs 
were  not  in  general  use  till  long  after  the  death  of  the  most 
eminent  of  them,  and  particularly  of  all  the  apostles  and  their 
contemporaries,  it  was  impossible  to  fix  the  dates  of  them 
except  by  conjecture  ;  and  we  presently  find  that  advantage 
was  taken  of  this  circumstance  to  appoint  their  celebration 
on  those  days  which  had  been  appropriated  to  pagan  festi- 
vals. And  as  the  Christians  of  that  age  introduced  every 
mark  of  festivity  on  these  occasions,  that  the  Heathens  had 
been  accustomed  to  in  their  former  worship,  there  was  no 
change  but  in  the  object  of  it ;  so  that  the  common  people, 
finding  the  same  entertainment  at  the  usual  times  and 
places,  they  were  more  easily  induced  to  forsake  their  old 
religion,  and  to  adopt   the  new  one,  which   so  much   re- 

*  In  Heh.  C.  ii.  Hmn.  iv.  Opera,  X.  p.  1784.  {P.) 


184  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS 

sembled  it,  and  especially  in  the  very  things  which  had 
kept  them  attached  to  the  old  one.  This  circumstance 
would  have  growing  weight  in  the  time  of  the  Christian 
emperors,  when  the  Christian  festivals  becoming  more  popu- 
lar, would  be  attended  by  greater  numbers,  which  would  add 
considerably  to  the  entertainment.  This  was,  indeed,  the 
avowed  design  of  placing  the  festivals  as  they  did  ;  and  Gre- 
gory Thaumaturgus,  who  lived  in  the  third  century,  is  parti- 
cularly commended  by  Gregory  Nyssenus  for  thus  changing 
the  Pagan  festivals  into  Christian  holidays,  allowing  the 
same  carnal  indulgences,  with  a  view  to  draw  the  Heathens 
to  the  religion  of  Christ,  that  the  new^  religion  might  appear 
the  less  strange  to  them.* 

As  the  Christians  had  been  used  to  meet,  for  the  purpose 
of  public  worship,  at  the  tombs  of  the  martyrs;  when  the 
empire  became  Christian  they  sometimes  erected  magnificent 
buildings  on  those  places,  and  such  churches  were  said  to  be 
built  to  their  honour^  and  were  distinguished  by  their  names, 
as  they  continue  to  be  to  this  day  ;  and  when  they  had  not 
the  martyrs  themselves  to  bury  there,  at  least  they  got  some 
of  their  relics.  And  when  most  of  the  churches  were  distin- 
guished in  this  manner,  it  was  the  custom  to  give  names 
to  others  rherely  in  honour  of  particular  saints,  angels, 
&c.  Thus  we  have  churches  dedicated  to  St.  Michael,  to 
Christ,  and  the  Trinity.  In  this  manner,  by  degrees,  each 
remarkable  saint  had  his  proper  temple,  just  as  the  heathen 
gods  and  heroes  had  theirs.  This  practice  was  approved  by 
the  greatest  men  of  that  age.  Eusebius,  in  effect,  says, 
"  Why  should  we  not  pay  the  same  regard  to  our  saints  and 
martyrs  that  the  Pagans  paid  to  their  heroes }"  ^ 


SECTION  I.         Part  II. 

Of  Pictures  and  Images  in  Churches. 

Temples  being  now  built  in  honour  of  particular  saints, 
and  especially  the  martyrs,  it  was  natural  to  ornament  them 
with  paintings  and  sculptures,  representing  the  great  exploits 
of  such  saints  and  martyrs;  and  this  was  a  circumstance 
that  made  the  christian  churches  still  more  like  the  heathen 
temples,  which  were  also  adorned  with  statues  and  pictures ; 
and  this  also  would  tend  to  draw  the  ignorant  multitude  to 
the  new  worship,  making  the  transition  the  easier. 

*  Opera,  II.  p.  1006.     (P.)  t  Jortin,  HI.  p.  14.     (P.) 


RELATING  TO  SAINTS   AND   ANGELS.  185 

"  Paulinas,  a  convert  from  Paganism,  of  senatorial  rank, 
celebrated  for  his  parts  and  learning,  and  who  died  after- 
wards bishop  of  Nola,'*  in  Italy,  distinguished  himself  in  this 
way.  He  "  rebuilt,  in  a  splendid  manner,  his  episcopal 
church,  dedicated  to  Felix  the  Martyr ;  on  whose  porticoes 
were  painted  the  miracles  of  Moses  and  of  Christ,  together 
with  the  acts  of  Felix  and  the  other  martyrs,  whose  relics 
were  there  deposited.'*  This,  he  says,  "  in  one  of  his  poems, 
— was  done  with  a  design  to  draw  the  rude  multitude,  habi- 
tuated to  the  profane  rites  of  Paganism,  to  a  knowledge 
and  good  ojSinion  of  the  Christian  doctrine  ;  by  learning  from 
these  pictures  what  they  were  not  capable  of  learning  from 
books,  the  lives  and  acts  of  Christian  saints."* 

The  custom  of  having  pictures  in  churches  being  once 
begun,  (which  was  about  the  end  of  the  fourth  or  the  begin- 
ning of  the  fifth  century,  and  generally  by  converts  from 
Paganism),  the  more  wealthy  among  the  Christians  seem  to 
have  vied  with  each  other,  who  should  build  and  ornament 
their  churches  in  the  most  expensive  manner,  and  nothing 
perhaps  contributed  more  to  it  than  the  example  of  this 
Paulinus. 

It  appears  from  Chrysostom,  that  pictures  and  images 
were  to  be  seen  in  the  principal  churches  of  his  time,  but 
this  was  in  the  East.  In  Italy,  they  were  but  rare  in  the 
beginning  of  the  fifth  century  ;  and  a  bishop  of  that  country, 
who  had  got  his  church  painted,  thought  proper  to  make  an 
apology  for  it,  by  saying,  that  the  people  being  amused  with 
the  pictures  would  have  less  time  for  regaling  themselves. f 
The  origin  of  this  custom  was  probably  in  Cappadocia, 
where  Gregory  Nyssenus  was  bishop,  the  same  who  com- 
mended Gregory  Thaumaturgus  for  contriving  to  make  the 
Christian  festivals  resemble  the  Pagan  ones. 

Though  many  churches  in  this  age  were  adorned  with  the 
images  of  saints  and  martyrs,  there  do  not  appear  to  have 
been  many  of  Christ.  These  are  said  to  have  been  intro- 
duced by  the  Cappadocians  ;  and  the  first  of  these  were 
only  symbolical  ones,  being  made  in  the  form  of  a  lamb. 
One  of  this  kind  Epiphanius  found  in  the  year  389,  and  he 
was  so  provoked  at  it,  that  he  tore  it.  It  was  not  till  the 
council  of  Constantinople,  called  In  Trullo,  held  so  late  as 
the  year  707,  that  pictures  of  Christ  were  ordered  to  be 
drawn  in  the  form  of  men. J 

*  Middleton's  Letter  from  Rome, -p.  2t2.     (P."^     Works,  4to.  III.  pp.  128,  129. 
+  Sueur,  A.  D.  p.  401.     (P.)  %  Ibid.  A.  D.  p.  707.     (P). 


186  HISTORY  OF  OPINIOKS 

SECTION  1.         Part  III. 
Of  the  Veneration  for  Relics. 

Considering  the  great  veneration  which  Christians  in 
very  early  ages  entertained  for  martyrs,  we  are  not  surprised 
that  they  should  pay  a  superstitious  respect  to  their  relics; 
but  we  do  not  find  any  account  of  their  collecting  things  of 
this  kind  in  the  first  or  second  century.  Neither  Trypho, 
Celsus,  nor  any  of  those  who  wrote  against  Christianity  at 
first,  make  this  objiction  to  it  ;  but  Julian  and  Eunapius 
reproached  the  Christians  with  it  very  severely.  It  was, 
indeed,  about  the  time  that  the  empire  became  Christian, 
that  the  respect  for  relics  began  to  make  much  progress. 
When  Palestine  was  purged  from  idols,  many  persons  visited 
it,  and  especially  the  tomb  of  our  Saviour,  out  of  pious 
curiosity  ;  and  holy  earthy  as  it  was  called,  from  Jerusalem, 
was  much  valued  in  the  time  of  Austin. 

This  respect  for  relics  was  much  forwarded  by  the  elo- 
quence of  preachers,  and  by  no  person  more  than  Chrysos- 
tom.  "  I  esteem  the  city  of  Rome,*'  says  he,  "  not  because 
of  the  pillars  of  marble,  but  because  of  the  pillars  of  the 
church  therein,  the  bodies  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul.  Who 
can  now  afford  me  the  favour  of  being  stretched  out  on  the 
body  of  St.  Paul,  of  being  nailed  to  his  sepulchre,  of  behold- 
ing the  dust  of  that  body  which  bore  the  marks  of  the  Lord 
Jesus,  and  that  mouth  by  wHich  Christ  himself  spake  ?  I 
long  to  see  the  sepulchre  wherein  is  inclosed  that  armour  of 
righteousness,  that  armour  of  light,  those  members  which 
still  live,  and  which  were  dead  whilst  living.  I  long  to  see 
those  chains,  those  bonds,"  &c.* 

.  It  appears  that  about  the  year  3S6,  the  piety  of  many 
persons  consisted  chiefly  in  carrying  and  keeping  bones  and 
relics,  and  that  many  persons,  who  traded  in  them,  abused 
the  credulity  of  the  people.  A  law  was  made  by  Theodo- 
sius  to  prevent  this,  but  it  had  little  effect.  Among  other 
methods  by  which  they  gained  credit  for  their  relics,  it  was 
usual  in  this  age  to  pretend  that  revelations  were  made  to 
persons,  to  inform  them  where  they  should  discover  the 
bones  of  particular  martyrs. 

The  bodies  of  many  of  the  martyrs  having  been  buried  in 

•  In  Eph.  Horn.  viii.  Opera,  X.  p.  1078.     (P.) 


RELATING  TO  SAINTS  AND   ANGELS.  187 

obscure  places,  and  exposed,  when  the  persecution  ceased 
they  were  brought  to  light,  and  decently  interred.  Thus 
began  the  translation  of  relics^  which  was  afterwards  per- 
formed with  great  ceremony  and  devotion  ;  the  possession 
of  them  being  esteemed  the  most  valuable  of  treasures,  not 
less  than  the  bones  of  some  of  the  heroes  of  antiquity,  or 
particular  images  of  some  of  tlieir  gods,  which  had  likewise 
been  carried  from  place  to  place  with  great  solemnity,  and 
probably  afforded  a  pattern  for  this  translation  of  christian 
relics.  In  359,  Constantius  caused  the  bodies  of  St.  Andrew 
and  St.  Luke  to  be  taken  out  of  their  sepulchres,  and  carried 
with  great  pomp  to  Constantinople,  to  the  temple  of  the 
twelve  apostles,  which  was  a  church  that  had  been  built  to 
their  honour  by  Constantine.  This  is  the  first  example  of 
the  translation  of  the  bodies  of  saints  into  churches  ;  and  the 
custom  being  once  begun,  was  afterwards  carried  to  the 
greatest  excess.* 

But  the  translation  of  the  relics  of  the  martyr  Stephen,  in 
the  time  of  Austin,  was  one  of  the  most  remarkable  things 
of  this  kind  in  that  age,  and  the  account  of  it  is  given  by 
Austin  himself.  These  bones  of  St.  Stephen,  after  they  had 
lain  buried  and  unknown  for  near  four  centuries,  were  said 
to  have  been  discovered  by  Gamaliel,  under  whom  St.  Paul 
had  studied,  to  one  Lucianus,  a  priest ;  and  being  found  by 
his  direction,  they  were  removed  with  great  solemnity,  and, 
as  was  pretended,  with  many  miracles,  into  Jerusalem.  The 
fame  of  these  relics  was  soon  spread  through  the  Christian 
world,  and  many  little  portions  of  them  were  brought  away 
by  pilgrims,  to  enrich  the  churches  of  their  own  countries. 
And  wherever  any  relics  were  deposited,  an  oratory  or  chapel 
was  always  built  over  them,  and  this  was  called  a  memorial 
of  that  martyr  whose  relics  it  contained.  Several  relics  of 
St.  Stephen  having  been  brought  by  different  persons  into 
Africa,  as  many  memorials  of  him  were  erected  in  different 
places,  of  which  three  were  particularly  famous,  and  one  of 
them  was  at  Hippo,  where  Austin  himself  was  bishop.  In 
all  these  places,  illustrious  miracles  were  said  to  be  wrought 
continually.  For,  long  before  this  time,  miracles  had  been 
said  to  be  wrought  by  saints,  living  and  dead. 

These  abuses  did  not  advance  to  this  height  without  op- 
position, though  the  only  person  that  distinguished  himself 
greatly  by  his  remonstrances  on  this  subject,  in  this  age,  was 
Vigilantius,  a  priest  of  Barcelona.     He  saw  that  this  super- 

*  Sueur,  A.  D.  359-    (P.) 


188  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS 

stitious  respect  for  the  saints,  as  they  were  called,  their 
images  and  their  relics,  was  introducing  Paganism  into  the 
Christian  church,  and  he  wrote  against  it  with  great  earnest- 
ness. "  We  see,"  says  he,  "  in  effect,  a  Pagan  rite  introduced 
into  our  churches  under  the  pretext  of  religion,  when  heaps 
of  wax  candles  are  lighted  up  in  clear  sunshine,  and  people 
every  where  kissing  and  adoring,  I  know  not  what,  con- 
temptible dust,  preserved  in  a  little  vessel,  and  wrapt  up  in 
precious  linen.  These  men  do  great  honour  truly  to  the 
blessed  martyrs,  by  lighting  up  paltry  candles  to  those  whom 
the  Lamb,  in  the  midst  of  the  throne,  illuminates  with  all 
the  lustre  of  his  majesty."  St.  Jerome,  who  answers  him, 
does  not  deny  the  practice,  nor  its  being  borrowed  from  the 
Pagans,  but  defends  it.  "  That,"  says  he,  "  was  once  done 
to  idols,  and  was  then  to  be  detested,  but  this  is  done  to  the 
martyrs,  and  is  therefore  to  be  received."  * 


SECTION  I.         Part  IV. 
Of  Worship  paid  to  Saints  and  Angels. 

Having  shewn  the  general  progress  of  the  respect  paid 
by  Christians  to  their  saints  and  martyrs,  and  also  to  their 
images  and  relics,  I  shall  shew  by  what  steps  these  saints 
and  martyrs  became  the  objects  of  their  proper  devotion. 
But  before  Christians  prayed  to  their  dead  saints,  they  used 
to  pray /or  them ;  and  the  foundation  of  both  these  practices 
was  the  doctrine  of  a  soul,  as  a  substance  distinct  from  the 
body,  and  capable  of  thinking  and  acting  without  it,  which 
was  borrowed  from  Pagan  philosophy. 

Most  of  the  fathers  were  particularly  addicted  to  the  doc- 
trine of  Plato,  who  taught  that  the  souls  of  the  dead,  after 
quitting  their  bodies,  have  influence  in  the  affairs  of  men, 
and  take  care  of  them.  Eusebius  approved  of  the  opinion, 
and  endeavoured  to  confirm  it.  Theodoret  also,  in  his  sermon 
on  the  martyrs,  tells  the  Pagans,  that  it  was  the  opinion  of 
Plato,  in  order  to  shew  that  Christians  have  reason  to  think 
the  same  thing  of  their  martyrs. j- 

Till  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century  it  was  the  general 
belief  that  the  abode  of  the  souls  of  the  faithful  was  in  sub- 
terraneous places,  or  at  least  here  below,  near  the  earth  ;  but 

towards  the  end  of  this  century  they  were  supposed  by  some 

< 

•  Middietoti's  Letter  from  Rome,  p.  240.  {P.)     Works,  pp.  127,  128. 
t  Sueur,  A.  D.  407.  (P.) 


RELATING  TO   SAINTS  AND   ANGELS.  189 

to  be  above,  but  not  in  the  place  where  they  could  enjoy  the 
beatific  vision  of  God.  From  the  former  opinion  came  the 
custom  of  praying  for  the  dead,  which  began  so  early  as  the 
begiiming  of  the  third  century;  the  objects  of  these  prayers 
being  their  quiet  repose  in  their  present  situation,  and  a 
speedy  and  happy  resurrection.  They  even  prayed  for  the 
Virgin  Mary  ;  and  there  are  also  instances  of  their  praying 
for  the  damned,  in  order  to  lessen  their  torments. 

It  was  not  very  soon  a  general  or  fixed  opinion,  that  the 
souls  of  the  dead  were  in  places  where  they  could  hear  and 
attend  to  what  was  passing  among  the  living.  But  thinking 
more  highly  of  martyrs  than  of  other  persons,  it  was  soon 
imagined  that  their  state  after  death  might  be  better  than 
that  of  others.  For,  while  the  rest  of  the  dead  were  sup- 
posed to  be  confined  in  Hades,  which  was  a  subterraneous 
place,  waiting  for  the  resurrection  of  their  bodies,  they 
thought  that  the  martyrs  were  admitted  to  the  immediate 
presence  of  God,  and  to  a  state  of  favour  and  power  with  him. 
Indeed,  so  early  as  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  when 
many  went  to  solicit  the  prayers  of  those  who  were  prisoners 
doomed  to  death,  they  would  request  that,  after  their  death, 
they  would  be  mindful  of  the  living  ;  and  some  are  even  said 
to  have  agreed  with  one  another,  that  whichever  of  them 
should  die  first,  he  should  use  his  interest  in  favour  of  the 
survivor.* 

So  far,  however,  was  it  from  being  usual  to  pray  to  saints 
in  the  third  century,  that  Origen  says,  they  were  not  to  pray 
to  any  derived  being  [iihv I  rmv  yavfircov)^  not  even  to  Christ 
himself,  but  to  God  the  Father  of  all.f 

Prayer  to  the  dead  began  with  the  martyrs,  as  well  as  prayers 
for  the  dead,  but  not  till  near  the  end  of  the  fourth  century, 
when  it  was  imagined  that  they  might  hear  those  who  in- 
voked them  near  the  place  of  their  interment.  But  it  appears 
by  the  Constitutions,  and  several  of  the  writings  of  that  time, 
that  the  public  offices  were  yet  preserved  pure.  In  the  fifth 
century  they  prayed  to  God  to  hear  the  intercessions  of  the 
saints  and  martyrs  in  their  behalf;  but  there  is  a  great  dif- 
ference between  this  and  praying  to  the  saints  themselves, 
as  if  they  could  hear  and  help  the  living;  and  when  the 
custom  of  invoking  them  was  introduced,  many  had  doubts 
on  the  subject,  and  therefore  to  their  invocations  of  them, 

*  History  of  Ancient  Ceremonies,  p.  26.     (P.) 
t  Whitby  on  John  xvii.  2.     (P.) 


190  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS 

added,  "  if  they  were  present,   and  had  any  influence   in 
things  below,*'  &c. 

Austin  himself  was  much  perplexed  about  this;  and  in 
one  place  says,  "It  is  true  the  saints  do  not  themselves 
hear  what  passes  below,  but  they  hear  of  it  by  others,  who 
die  and  go  to  them."  *  In  another  place  he  supposes  that 
the  martyrs  may  assist  the  living,  because  they  attend  where 
their  monuments  arc.  Basil,  however,  in  his  homily  on  the 
forty  martyrs,  supposes  that  they  were  present  in  the  temples 
and  joined  in  the  prayers  of  the  faithful,  but  he  does  not  say 
that  the  faithful  should  pray  to  them.f 

One  of  the  first  instances  of  direct  invocation  of  the  dead, 
is  that  of  Theodosius  the  Younger,  who,  casting  his  eyes 
upon  the  coffin  of  Chrysostom,  asked  pardon  of  him  for 
Arcadius  his  father,  and  Eudoxia  his  mother,  because  he 
considered  that  saint  as  more  particularly  present  there  than 
elsewhere.  But  at  that  time  they  did  not  invoke  the  saints 
in  general,  as  the  apostles,  &c.  but  only  those  at  whose  tombs 
they  attended  ;  and  there  are  but  few  examples  of  invoking 
the  Virgin  Mary  till  far  in  the  fifth  century. 

Austin  is  the  first  who  takes  notice  that  praying  for  the 
martyrs,  which  had  long  been  the  custom  of  Christians,  did 
not  agree  with  the  invocation  of  them,  which  began  to  gain 
ground  in  his  time.  He  says,  that  it  injures  the  martyrs  to 
pray  to  God  for  them,  and  that  when  the  church  mentions 
them  in  her  prayers,  it  is  not  to  pray  for  them,  but  to  be 
helped  by  their  prayers.  Yet,  in  all  the  genuine  writings  of 
Austin,  it  does  not  appear  that  he  ever  directly  invoked  the 
saints,  except  by  way  of  apostrophe,  as  an  orator,  or  in  a 
simple  wish  that  the  saint  would  pray  for  him.  Also  pray- 
ing for  tbe  dead  in  general,  and  even  for  the  apostles  and 
martyrs,  continued,  and  was  not  abolished  but  by  the  full 
establishment  of  the  invocation  of  them.  Gregory  the  Fir^t, 
who  contributed  most  to  it,  in  the  beginning  of  the  seventh 
century,  supposed  some  of  the  saints  to  enjoy  the  beatific 
vision  of  God,  though  most  persons  still  believed  that  not 
even  the  martyrs  would  be  admitted  to  that  vision  before  the 
resurrection  ;  and  Hugh  de  Victor,  so  late  as  1 130,  says,  that 
many  still  doubt  whether  the  saints  hear  the  prayers  of 
those  who  invoke  them,  and  that  it  is  a  question  difficult  to 
decide. J 

♦  De  Cur&  pro  Mortuis,  C  xiv.  Opera,  IV.  p.  890.     (P.> 

t  Opera,  1.  p.  959.    (P.)  X    Sueur,  A.  D.  407.    (P.) 


RELATING  TO  SAINTS   AND   ANGELS.  I9I 

It  appears  that  Austin  was  very  sensible  of  the  growing 
superstition  of  his  time,  and  said,  vvith  apparent  disapproba- 
tion, "  I  know  there  are  some  who  adore  sepulchres  and 
paintings."  *  But  this  does  not  imply  a  direct  invocatioa 
of  them.  Paulinus  of  Nola,  his  contemporary,  went  every 
year  to  Rome,  to  shew  his  respect  to  the  tombs  of  the  mar- 
tyrs, because,  as  he  said,  he  had  great  confidence  in  their 
intercession  ;  and  about  the  year  337,  Constantine  built  a 
magnificent  church  in  honour  of  the  twelve  apostles,  in- 
tending to  be  buried  there,  that  after  his  death  he  might 
partake  of  the  prayers  that  would  be  made  there  in  their 
honour. -f  But  neither  does  this  imply  a  direct  invocation 
of  them.  In  the  ancient  litanies  all  the  invocations  of  our 
Saviour  ended  with  these  words,  Lord  have  mercy  upon  us 
(Ku/5<e  sAs/o-ov)  repeated  many  times;  but  the  litanies  of  the 
saints  consisted  of  nothing  more  than  an  enumeration  of 
their  titles,  to  which,  but  in  later  times,  they  added  the 
words  ora  pro  nobis.  Examples  of  the  former  may  be  seen 
in  Basil  and  Chrysostom.J 

In  the  fifth  century  no  opposition  was  made  to  the  invo- 
cation of  saints.  The  common  opinion  then  was,  that  their 
souls  were  not  so  entirely  confined  to  the  celestial  mansions, 
but  that  they  visited  mortals,  and  travelled  through  various 
countries ;  though  it  was  still  thought  that  they  more  espe- 
cially frequented  the  places  where  their  bodies  were  interred. 
Also,  the  images  of  the  saints  were  by  this  time  honoured 
with  particular  worship  in  several  places,  and  it  was  ima- 
gined by  many,  that  this  worship,  or  the  forms  of  consecra- 
tion, which  were  soon  introduced,  drew  into  the  image  the 
propitious  presence  of  the  saint,  or  celestial  being,  whom  it 
represented  ;  the  very  notion  which  had  prevailed  with 
respect  to  the  statues  of  Jupiter  and  Mercury,  &c. 

This  excessive  veneration  for  the  dead",  and  for  their 
relics,  was  greatly  promoted  by  the  eloquent  preachers  or 
declaimers  of  those  times.  Athanasius,  Gregory  Nazianzen, 
and  Chrysostom,  distinguished  themselves  in  this  way. 
The  last  of  these  writers,  celebrating  the  acts  of  the  martyr 
Babylas,  bishop  of  Antioch,  says,  "  The  Gentiles  will 
laugh  to  hear  me  talk  of  the  acts  of  persons  dead  and  buried, 
and  consumed  to  dust ;  but  they  are  not  to  imagine  that 
the  bodies  of  martyrs,  like  to  those  of  common  men,  are  left 
destitute  of  all  active  force  and  energy ;    since  a  greater 

*  De  Morihis  Ecdesice,  L.  i.  C  xxxiv.  Opera,  T.  >).  774.     (P.) 

t  Sueur,  A.D.3Sr.     (P.)  t  Ibid.  A.  D.  463.     (P.) 


192  HISTORY    OF    OPINIONS 

power  than  that  of  the  human  soul  is  superadded  to  them, 
the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  which  by  working  miracles 
in  them,  demonstrates  the  truth  of  the  resurrection."  * 

To  see  to  what  excess  this  superstitious  worship  of  the 
dead  was  carried,  in  the  period  of  which  I  am  now  treating, 
I  shall  recite  at  length,  from  Dr.  Middleton,  a  passage  of 
Theodoret,  one  of  tlie  Greek  fathers,  which  shews  us,  as  he 
says,  the  state  of  Christianity  in  the  fifth  century:  "  The 
temples  of  our  martyrs,"  says  this  father,  "  are  shining 
and  conspicuous,  eminent  for  their  grandeur  and  the  variety 
of  their  ornaments,  and  displaying  far  and  wide  the  splen- 
dour of  their  beauty.  These  we  visit,  not  once,  or  twice,  or 
five  times  in  the  year,  but  frequently  offer  up  hymns,  each 
day,  to  the  Lord  of  them.  In  health  we  beg  the  continuance 
of  it :  in  sickness  the  removal  of  it.  The  childless  beg 
children  ; — and  when  these  blessings  are  obtained,  we  beg 
the  secure  enjoyment  of  them.  When  we  undertake  any 
journey,  we  beg  them  to  be  our  companions  and  guides  in 
it ;  and  when  we  return  safe,  we  pay  them  our  thanks. 
And  that  those  who  pray  with  faith  and  sincerity  obtain 
what  they  ask,  is  manifestly  testified  by  the  number  of 
offerings  which  are  made  to  them,  in  consequence  of  the 
benefits  received.  For  some  offer  the  figures  of  eyes,  some 
of  feet,  some  of  hands,  made  either  of  gold  or  of  silver,  which 
the  Lord  accepts,  though  but  of  little  value,  measuring  the 
gift  by  the  faculties  of  the  giver.  But  all  these  are  the  evi- 
dent proofs  of  the  cures  of  as  many  distempers  ;  being  placed 
there  as  monuments  of  the  fact,  by  those  who  have  been 
made  whole.  The  same  monuments  likewise  proclaim  the 
power  of  the  dead  ;  whose  power  also  demonstrates  their 
God  to  be  the  true  God."  f 

But  we  shall  perhaps  form  a  still  clearer  idea  of  the  firm 
possession  that  these  superstitions  had  obtained  in  the  minds 
of  the  generality  of  Christians,  when  w^e  consider  what  little 
respect  the  manly  sense  of  Vigilantius,  who  set  himself  to 
Oppose  the  progress  of  these  corrupt  practices,  procured  him 
from  Jerome,  the  most  learned  writer  of  his  age.  Unhappily 
we  have  nothing  from  Vigilantius,  but  what  his  opponent 
himself  has  given  us  from  him,  in  his  answer.  But  even 
this  is  abundantly  sufficient  to  satisfy  us  with  respect  to 
the  good  sense  of  the  one,  and  the  bigotted  violence  of  the 
other,  together  with  the  character  of  the  age  in  which  they 
lived. 

*   Middleton's  Inquiry,  p.  152.     (P.)     ^rks,  I.  p.  123. 

t  Introductory  Discourse,  p.  69-    (P)   Works,  I.  pp.  xlvii.  xlviii. 


RELATING    TO    SAINTS    AND    ANGELS.  19S 

Vigilantius  maintained,  as  the  articles  are  enumerated  by 
Middleton,  "  that  the  honours  paid  to  the  rotten  bones  and 
dust  of  the  saints  and  martyrs,  by — lodging  them  in  their 
churches,  and  lighting  up  wax  candles  before  them,  after 
the  manner  of  the  Heathens,  were  the  ensigns  of  idolatry. 
That  the  celibacy  of  the  clergy  was  a  heresy,  and  their 
vows  of  chastity,  the  seminary  of  lewdness.  That  to  pray 
for  the  dead,  or  to  desire  the  prayers  of  the  dead,  was  super- 
stitious ;  and  that  the  souls  of  the  departed  saints  and 
martyrs  were  at  rest  in  some  particular  place,  whence  they 
could  not  remove  themselves  at  pleasure,  so  as  to  be  present 
every  where  to  the  prayers  of  their  votaries.  That  the 
sepulchres  of  the  martyrs  ought  not  to  be  worshipped,  nor 
their  fasts  and  vigils  to  be  observed."  And  lastly,  "  that 
the  signs  and  wonders  said  to  be  wrought  by  their  relics, 
and  at  their  sepulchres,  served  to  no  good  end  or  purpose  of 
religion. 

"  These  were  the  sacrilegious  tenets,  as  Jerome  calls  them, 
which  he  could  not  hear  with  patience,  or  without  the  ut- 
most grief,  and  for  which  he  declared  Vigilantius  to  be  'a 
most  detestable  heretic,  venting  his  foul-mouthed  blas- 
phemies against  the  relics  of  the  martyrs,  which  were  daily 
working  signs  and  wonders.*  He  bids  him  *  go  into  the 
churches  of  those  martyrs,  and  he  would  be  cleansed  from 
the  evil  spirit  which  possessed  him,  and  feel  himself  burnt, 
not  by  those  wax  candles,  which  so  much  offended  him, 
but  by  invisible  flames,  which  would  force  that  demon  who 
talked  within  him,  to  confess  himself  to  be  the  same  who 
had  personated  a  Mercury,  perhaps  a  Bacchus,  or  some 
other  of  their  gods  among  the  Heathens.*  At  which  wild 
rate,'*  says  Dr.  Middleton,  "  this  good  father  raves  on, 
through  several  pages,  in  a  strain  much  more  furious  than 
the  most  bigotted  Papist  would  use  at  this  day  in  defence  of 
the  same  rites.***  All  the  modern  ecclesiastical  historians 
give  the  same  account  of  this  Vigilantius.  -j* 

I  must  not  conclude  the  history  of  this  period  without 
observing  that  some  undue  respect  was  paid  to  angels,  who 
were  believed  to  transact  much  of  the  business  of  this  world, 
by  commission  from  God.  This  arose  from  the  opinions  of 
the  Gnostics,  and  is  alluded  to  by  the  apostle  Paul,  who 
says,  that  some  through  a  voluntary  humilitt/  worshipped 
angels,  being  vainly  pi^ed  up  in  their  Jleshly  minds.  Col. 
ii.  18. 

•  Introductory  Discourse,  p.  131,  &c.     (P.)     Works,  I.  pp.  Ixxxix.  xc. 
t  See  Mosheim,  \.^.  393.     (P.)     Cent.  v.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  iii.  Sect.  xiv. 
VOL.  V.  O 


194  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS 

It  seems  probable  that  some  undue  respect  was  paid  to 
angels,  as  well  as  to  Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  the  time 
of  Justin  Martyr,  for  he  says,  "  him  (God)  and  the  Son 
that  came  from  him,  and  the  host  of  other  good  angels,  who 
accompany  and  resemble  him,  together  with  the  prophetic 
spirit,  we  adore  and  worship,  in  w^ord  and  truth  honouring 
them."*  With  this  writer,  however,  and  the  Christians  of 
his  time,  it  is  not  probable  that  this  respect  for  angels 
amounted  to  praying  to  them.  For  we  find  that  praying  to 
angels,  which  had  been  practised  in  Phrygia  and  Pisidia, 
was  forbidden  as  idolatrous  by  the  council  of  Laodicea, 
in  364. 


SECTION  I.         Part  V. 
Of  the  Respect  paid  to  the  Virgin  Mary^  in  this  Period, 

As  our  Saviour  became  the  object  of  worship  before  any  * 
other  man,  so  his  mother  soon  began  to  be  considered  with 
a  singular  respect,  and  at  length  she  engrossed  so  much  of 
the  devotion  of  the  Christian  world,  that  I  shall  make  a 
separate  article  of  it,  in  each  period  of  this  part  of  my 
work. 

It  is  remarkable  that,  excepting  what  was  said  to  Mary 
by  the  angel,  henceforth  all  generations  shall  call  thee  blessed, 
no  particular  compliment  is  paid  to  her  in  all  the  history  of 
the  evangelists.  She  is  only  mentioned  as  a  pious  woman, 
among  several  others,  and  was  committed  to  the  care  of 
John  by  our  Lord,  as  he  hung  upon  the  cross.  Nay,  several 
expressions  of  our  Lord,  though  not  really  disrespectful, 
yet  shew  that,  in  his  character  of  a  teacher  sent  from  God, 
he  considered  her  only  as  any  other  person  or  disciple. 

When  she  applied  to  him  about  the  failure  of  wine,  at  the 
marriage  feast  in  Cana,  he  replied,  Woman  what  hast  thou  to 
do  with  me  ?  and  gave  her  no  satisfaction  with  respect  to 
what  he  intended  to  do.  And  again,  when  she  and  some 
others  of  his  relations  were  endeavouring  to  make  their  way 
through  a  crowd,  in  order  to  speak  to  him,  and  he  was  told 
of  it,  he  replied.  Who  is  my  mother,  ami  who  are  my  brethren  ? 
He  that  does  the  icill  of  God,  the  same  is  my  brother,  and  sister, 
and  mother.  In  the  book  of  Acts  her  name  is  but  once 
mentioned,  as  one  of  those  who  were  assembled  with  the 
apostles  after  the  ascension  of  Jesus,  Acts  i.   14,  so  that 

•  i4/)oM.  EditThirlby,  p.  11.    (f^  ' 


RELATING  TO  SAINTS  AND   ANGELS.  195 

where,  or  how  she  lived,  or  died,  we  have  no  knowledge  at 
all.  On  how  narrow  a  foundation  does  the  excessive  vene- 
ration that  was  afterwards  paid  to  the  blessed  Viroin,  as  she 
is  now  called,  rest  ! 

The  fust  mention  that  we  find  of  any  particular  respect 
paid  to  the  Virgin  Mary,  was  in  the  time  of  Epiphanius, 
when  some  women  used  to  offer  to  her  cakes  called  col/t/rides] 
from  which  they  got  the  name  of  Collyridians  ;  and  as  men 
had  no  concern  in  it,  except  by  permitting  their  wives  to 
do  it,  it  is  called  by  this  writer  a  heresy  of  the  women.  He 
himself  greatly  disapproved  of  it,  and  wrote  against  it.  This 
may  be  thought  extraordinary,  since  oblations  at  the  tombs 
of  the  dead  were  very  common  in  this  age.  But  as  it  was 
not  known  where  the  Virgin  Mary  was  interred,  the  offering 
of  cakes  to  her  was  a  new  step  in  the  worship  of  the  dead, 
and  was  therefore  more  particularly  noticed.  It  is  plain, 
however,  from  his  account  of  this  affair,  that  prayers  were 
then  offered  to  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  by  some  of  the  orthodox, 
as  they  were  called,  though  he  himself  rejected  the  thought 
of  it  with  indignation. 

In  a  piece  of  Athanasius,  entitled  De  Sanctissima  Deipara^ 
we  find  a  long  address  to  the  Virgin,  but  it  seems  to  have 
been  a  piece  of  oratory,  and  we  can  hardly  infer  from  it  that 
it  was  his  custom  to  address  his  devotions  to  her.  In  it  he 
says,  "  Hear,  O  daughter  of  David,  and  of  Abraham  ;  incline 
thine  ear  to  our  prayers,  and  forget  not  thy  people  ;*'  and 
again,  "  Intercede  for  us,  lady,  mistress,  queen,  and  mother 
of  God."* 

The   first  who  was  particularly   noticed,   as   introducing 
this  worship  of  the  Virgin,  is  Peter  Gnapheus,  Bishop  of 
Antioch,  in  the  fifth  century,  who  appointed  her  name  to 
be  called  upon  in  the  prayers  of  the  church.    This  devotion, 
however,  seems  to  have  taken  its  rise  towards  the  end  of  the 
fourth  century,  and  in  Arabia,  where  we  read  of  a  contro- 
versy respecting  her;  some  maintaining,  that,  afl:er  she  was 
delivered  of  Jesus,  she  lived  with  her  husband  Joseph  as  his 
wife.     This  was  violently  opposed  by  others,  who,  running 
into  the  other  extreme,  worshipped  her  "  as  a  goddess,  and 
judged  it  necessary  to  appease  her  anger,  and  seek  her  favour, 
by  libations,  sacrifices,  the  oblations  of  cakes  (collyridcB), 
and  such  like  services,'"  as  Epiphanius  censured,  f 

To  persons  much  acquainted  with  ecclesiastical  history, 

•  Opera,  I.  p.  io4l.     (P.) 

t  Hares.  Ixxx.  p.  1067.     Mosheim,  I.  p.  331.     (P.)     Cent.  iv.  Pt.  ii.    Ch.  v. 
Sect.  XXV. 

o  2 


196  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS 

nothing  of  this  kind  will  appear  extraordinary.  Otherwise 
we  might  be  surprised  how  it  should  ever  have  been  consi- 
dered as  a  thing  of  any  consequence,  whether  the  mother  of 
Christ  had  any  commerce  with  her  husband  or  not.  The 
presumption  is,  that,  as  they  lived  together,  at  least  after  the 
birth  of  Jesus,  she  had.  However,  the  respect  paid  to  vir- 
ginitif  in  that  age  was  so  great,  that  it  was  thought  to 
derogate  from  her  virtue  and  honour,  to  suppose  that  she 
ever  had  any  commerce  with  man  ;  and  therefore,  without 
any  proper  evidence  in  the  case,  it  was  presumed  that  she 
must  have  continued  a  virgin  ;  and  to  maintain  the  contrary 
was  even  deemed  heretical.  In  the  council  of  Capua,  in 
389,  Bonosus,  a  bishop  in  Macedonia,  was  condemned  for 
maintaining  that  Mary,  the  mother  of  Jesus,  was  not  always 
a  virgin  ;  following,  it  is  said,  the  heresy  of  Paulinus. 

When  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  was  started,  the  vene- 
ration for  the  Virgin  Mary  was  so  great,  that  doubts  were 
entertained  whether  she  might  not  have  been  exempt  from 
it,  as  well  as  her  Son.  Austin  maintained  that  no  person 
ever  lived  without  sin  except  the  Virgin  Mary,  concerning 
whom  he,  however,  only  says  he  will  not  hold  any  contro- 
versy, for  the  honour  that  we  owe  to  our  Saviour.  * 

After  the  deification  and  worship  of  Christ,  it  was  natural 
that  the  rank  of  his  mother  should  rise  in  some  proportion 
to  it.  Accordingly  we  find,  that  after  Christ  was  considered 
as  God,  it  became  customary  to  give  Mary  the  title  oi mother 
of  God  (^£o]ox(^).  This,  however,  was  not  done,  at  least 
generally,  till  after  the  council  of  Chalcedon  in  451.  This 
title  of  mother  of  God  happened  to  be  a  favourite  term  with 
Apollinaris  and  his  followers,  and  in  consequence  of  this, 
perhaps,  it  was,  that  Nestorius  violently  opposed  this  inno- 
vation, thinking  it  sufficient  that  Mary  should  be  called  the 
mother  of  Christ. 

This  opposition,  however,  operated  as  in  many  other 
cases,  viz.  to  increase  the  evil ;  and  in  the  third  council  of 
Ephesus,  in  which  Nestorius  was  condemned,  it  was  decreed 
that  Mary  should  be  called  the  mother  of  God.  From  this 
time  she  was  honoured  more  than  ever  ;  but  still  she  had 
not  the  titles  that  were  given  her  afterwards  of  queen  of 
heaven^  m,istress  of  the  world,  goddess,  m.ediatrix,  gate  of 
paradise,  Sfc. 

•  Dt  Natiira  et  Gratia,  C.xxxvi.   Op.  VII.  p.  747.     (P.) 


RELATING  TO  SAINTS  AND  ANGELS.  197 


SECTION   II.         Part   I. 

Of  the  Worship  of  Saints^  in  the  middle  Ages,  and  till  the 

Reformation. 

Till  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century  prayers  to  saints 
were  only  occasional,  as  at  the  place  of  their  interment,  or 
on  the  anniversary  of  their  death,  &c.,  because  at  that  time 
it  was  generally  supposed  that  their  souls  were  hovering 
about  that  place,  and  there,  also,  was  the  scene  of  all  the 
miracles  that  were  originally  ascribed  to  them.  But  when 
it  came  to  be  a  general  persuasion,  that  the  souls  of  the 
martyrs,  and  other  persons  of  eminent  sanctity,  were  ad- 
mitted to  the  immediate  presence  of  God,  and  were  capable 
of  a  general  inspection  of  the  affairs  of  the  world,  prayers 
to  them  were  no  longer  confined  to  the  place  of  their 
interment,  or  to  the  chapels  and  churches  erected  over 
them. 

It  was  now  imagined  that  the  souls  of  these  illustrious 
dead  could  hear  the  prayers  that  were  addressed  to  them  in 
all  places,  and  at  all  times.  For,  as  for  the  great  difficulty 
of  a  human  being  (whose  faculties  are  of  course  limited) 
being  capable  of  knowing  what  passes  in  more  than  one  place 
at  a  time,  they  seem  not  to  have  considered  it.  Or  they 
might  suppose  the  power  of  an  unembodied  spirit,  not  now 
confined  to  any  particular  corporeal  system,  to  be  incapable 
of  any  limitation.  Or  they  might  suppose  that  God  had 
endued  them  with  faculties  of  which  they  were  not  naturally 
capable  before.  Certain,  however,  it  is,  that  in  the  middle 
ages,  the  common  people  addressed  their  prayers  to  dead 
men  with  as  little  apprehension  of  their  not  being  heard  by 
them,  as  if  they  had  been  praying  to  the  Divine  Being 
himself. 

In  fact,  the  christian  saints  succeeded,  in  all  respects,  to 
the  honours  which  had  been  paid  to  the  pagan  deities  ; 
almost  all  of  whom  had  been  supposed  to  have  been  men, 
whose  extraordinary  merit  had  exalted  them  to  the  rank 
and  power  of  gods,  after  their  death.  This  analogy  between 
the  two  religions  made  the  transition  very  easy  to  the  bulk 
of  the  common  people  ;  and  the  leading  men  among  the 
Christians  perceiving  this,  and  being  themselves  not  averse 
to  the  ceremonies  and  pomp  of  the  ancient  idolatry,  con- 
trived to  make  the  transition  still  easier,  by  preserving  every 


198  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS 

thing  that    they  possibly   could   in    the   ancient   forms  of 
worship,  changing  only  the  objects  of  them. 

About  the  eleventh  century  this  was  done  without  dis- 
guise, and  though  images  were  not  common,  and  we  read  of 
no  statues  in  christian  churches  at  that  time,  yet,  in  other 
respects,  the  worship  of  the  saints  was  modelled  according 
to  the  religious  services  which  had  been  paid  to  the  heathen 
gods.  Some  time  afterwards  we  find  that  Christians  had 
the  same  temples,  the  same  altars,  and  often  the  same 
images  with  the  Pagans,  only  giving  them  new  names. 
Dr.  Middleton  was  shewn  "  an  antique  statue  of  a  3'oung 
Bacchus,*'  which  was  "worshipped  under  the  title  of  a 
female  saint."  * 

"  The  noblest  heathen  temple  now  remaining  in  the 
world  is  the  Pantheon  or  Rotunda"  at  Rome,  "  which,  as 
the  inscription  over  the  portico  "I*  informs  us,  having  been  im- 
piously dedicated  of  old  by  Agrippa  to  Jove,  and  all  the  gods, 
was  piously  re-consecrated  by  pope  Boniface  IV.  (A.D.  607) 
to  the  blessed  Virgin  and  all  the  saints.  With  this  single 
alteration,"  says  Dr.  Middleton,  "  it  serves  as  exactly  for 
all  the  purposes  of  the  popish,  as  it  did  for  the  pagan  wor- 
ship, for  which  it  was  built.  For  as  in  the  old  temple  every 
one  might  find  the  god  of  his  country,  and  address  himself 
to  that  deity,  whose  religion  he  was  most  devoted  to,  so  it  is 
the  same  thing  now.  Every  one  chooses  the  patron  whom 
he  likes  best  ;  and  one  may  see  here  different  services  going 
on  at  the  same  time  at  different  altars,  with  distinct  congre- 
gations around  them,  just  as  the  inclinations  of  the  people 
lead  them  to  the  worship  of  this  or  that  particular  saint."  + 

As  men  are  greatly  influenced  by  namds,  it  was  even  con- 
trived that  the  name  of  the  new  divinity  should  as  much  as 
possible  resemble  the  old  one.  Thus  the  saint  Apollinaris 
was  made  to  succeed  the  god  Apollo,  and  St.  Martina  the 
god  Mars.  It  was  farther  contrived  that,  in  some  cases,  the 
same  business  should  continue  to  be  done  in  the  same  place, 
by  substituting  for  the  heathen  god,  a  christian  saint  of  a 
similar  character,  and  distinguished  for  the  same  virtues. 
Thus,  there  being  a  temple  at  Rome  in  which  sickly  infants 
had  been  usually  presented  for  the  cure  of  their  disorders, 
they  found  a  christian  saint  who  had  been  famous  for  the 

*  Letter  from  Rome,  p.  160.     (P.J     Works,  III.  p.  84. 

t  "  Pantheon,  &c.  Ab  Agrippa  Augusti  Genero  Impi^  Jovi,  Caeterisque 
Mendacibus  Diis  k  Bonifacio  ifll.  Pontifice  Deiparse  et  S.  S.  Christi  Martyribus 
Pie  Dicatum,"  &c.  Ibid.  See  also  Les  Conformitez,  &c.  I667,  p.  lG7. 

J  Middleton'sLetter,  p.  161.     (P.)     Works,  Til.  pp.  84,  85. 


RELATING  TO  SAINTS  AND  ANGELS.  199 

same  attention  to  children  ;  and  consecrating  the  same  tem- 
ple to  him,  the  very  same  practices  are  now  continued  as  in 
the  times  of  Heathenism.  * 

Farther,  as  it  had  been  customary  to  hang  up  in  the 
heathen  temples,  particularly  those  of -/Esculapius,  pictures 
of  scenes  in  which  persons  had  supposed  they  had  been  re- 
lieved by  the  interposition  of  their  gods,  and  especially  of 
limbs  that  had  been  diseased,  and  were  afterwards  cured,  &c. 
the  same  custom,  as  I  have  hinted  already,  was  very  early 
introduced  into  the  christian  churches;  and  in  later  ages,  I 
doubt  not,  these  exhibitions  were  more  numerous  than  they 
had  ever  been  in  the  times  of  Heathenism. 

Dr.  Middleton,  who  observed  the  present  popish  worship 
with  this  view,  mentions  other  points  of  resemblance,  so 
numerous,  and  so  little  varied,  that  he  says  he  could  have 
imagined  himself  present  in  the  ancient  heathen  temples; 
and  he  is  confident  that  a  considerable  knowledoe  of  the 
ancient  heathen  ritual  might  be  learned  from  them,  f  Can- 
dles are  continually  burning  in  the  present  churches  as  in 
the  former  temples,  incense  is  always  smoking,  many  of  the 
images  are  daubed  with  red  ochre,  as  those  of  the  heathen  gods 
often  were,  their  faces  are  black  with  the  smoke  of  candles 
and  incense,  people  are  continually  on  their  knees,  or  pros- 
trate before  them  ;  and,  according  to  the  accounts  of  all 
travellers,  the  prayers  that  are  addressed  to  them  are  of  the 
same  nature,  and  urged  with  the  same  indecent  importunity. 
They  are  also  followed  by  the  same  marks  of  resentment,  if 
their  requests  be  not  granted,  as  if  they  hoped  to  get  by  foul 
means  what  they  could  not  obtain  by  fair.  Mr.  Byron 
informs  us  that,  being  in  danger  of  shipwreck,  a  Jesuit  who 
was  on  board  brought  out  an  image  of  some  saint,  which  he 
desired  might  be  hung  up  in  the  mizen  shrouds  ;  and  this 
being  done,  he  kept  threatening  it,  that  if  they  had  not  a 

♦  Middleton's  Letter,  p.  167.  (P.)  Works,  ITT.  pp.  88,  89- 
t  "  Nolhiiig,  1  found,  concurred  so  much  with  my  original  intention  of  con- 
versing with  the  ancients,  or  so  much  helped  my  imagination,  to  fancy  myself 
wandering  about  in  old  heathen  Rome,  as  to  observe  and  attend  to  their  reUgious 
worship;  all  whose  ceremonies  appeared  plainly  to  have  been  copied  from  the 
rituals  of  primitive  Paganism;  as  if  handed  down,  by  an  uninterrupted  suc(  ession , 
from  the  priests  of  old,  to  the  priests  of  mw  Rome  ;  whilst  each  of  them  readily 
explained  and  called  to  my  mind  some  passage  of  a  classic  author,  where  the  same 
ceremony  was  described,  as  transacted  in  the  same  form  and  manner,  and  in  the 
same  place,  where  I  now  saw  it  executed  before  my  eyes:  so  thiit  as  oft  as  I  was 
present  at  any  religious  exercise  in  their  churches,  it  was  more  natural  to  fancy 
myself  looking  on,  at  some  solemn  act  of  idolatry  in  old  Rome,  than  assist  nig  at  a 
worship,  instituted  on  the  principles  and  formed  upon  the  plan  of  (  hristianity. 
Middleton's  Letter.  Works,  IIL  pp.  68,  69-  See  also  the  Strictures  of  Warburton, 
Div  Leg.  Pt.  i.  (Works,  8vo.  IV.  p.  126),  and  Middleton's  PosUeript,  Works, 
III.    p.  120. 


200  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS 

breeze  of  wind  soon  he  would  throw  it  into  the  sea.  A 
breeze  springing  up,  he  carried  back  the  image  with  an  air 
of  great  tri  u  m  ph .  * 

As  the  Heathens  had  gods  of  particular  countries,  so  the 
Christians  of  these  ages  imagined  that  one  saint  gave  parti- 
cular attention  to  the  affairs  of  one  country,  and  another 
saint  to  those  of  another.  Thus,  St.  George  was  considered 
as  the  patron  of  England,  St.  Dennis  of  France,  St.  Janu- 
arius  of  Naples,  &c. 

In  all  countries  different  saints  were  supposed  to  attend 
to  different  things,  each  having  his  proper  province.  Thus, 
St.  George  is  invoked  in  battle,  St.  Margaret  in  child- 
bearing,  St.  Genevieve  for  rain,  and  St.  Nicholas,  or  St. 
Anthony,  by  seamen,  &c. 

Also,  as  with  the  Heathens,  the  same  god  was  thought 
to  be  worshipped  to  more  advantage  in  one  place  than  ano- 
ther, this  was  imagined  to  be  the  case  with  respect  to  the 
new  divinities.  For,  as  there  was  a  Jupiter  Ammon,  a 
Jupiter  Olympius,  and  a  Jupiter  Capitolinus,  so  the  Papists 
have  one  Virgin  Mary  of  Loretto,  another  of  Montserrat,  &c. 
And  though  there  be  a  church  dedicated  to  the  Virgin  in  a 
town  where  a  person  lives,  yet  he  will  often  think  it  worth 
his  while  to  make  a  pilgrimage  of  some  hundreds  of  miles, 
to  worship  the  same  virgin  in  some  other  place,  which  she  is 
supposed  to  honour  with  more  particular  attention,  and  to 
have  distinguished  by  more  miracles,  &c. 

So  many  persons  had  acquired  the  reputation  of  saints  in 
the  ninth  century,  that  the  ecclesiastical  councils  found  it 
necessary  to  decree  that  no  person  should  be  considered  as  a 
saint,  till  a  bishop  in  the  province  had  pronounced  him 
worthy  of  that  honour ;  and  the  consent  of  the  Pope  was 
hkewise  generally  thought  expedient,  if  not  necessary.  No 
saint,  however,  was  created  by  the  authority  of  any  pope 
before  Udalric,  bishop  of  Augsburgh,  received  that  honour 
from  John  XV.  in  the  tenth  century  ;  though  others  say 
it  was  Savibert  who  was  first  canonized  by  Leo  HI.  after 
his  life  and  pretensions  had  been  regularly  examined,  j*  At 
length,  Alexander  HI.  in  the  twelfth  century,  asserted 
the  sole  right  of  canonization,  to  the  Pope. 

This  business  of  canonization  was  also  copied  from  Pa- 
ganism, the  senateofRome  having  taken  upon  it  to  pronounce 
what  persons  should  be   deijied,  and  having  decreed  that 

•  Voyage,  p.  207-     (P.) 

t  Mosheim,  II.  p.  219.  (P.)  Cent.  x.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  iii.  Sect.  iv.  Basijage,  ffistoire, 
III.  p.  691. 


RELATING  TO  SAINTS  AND  ANGELS.  gQl 

honour  to  several  of  their  emperors,  to  whom  temples  were 
consequently  erected,  and  worship  regularly  paid.  Also  the 
title  of  Divas,  which  had  been  given  by  the  decree  of  the 
senate  to  deified  men,  was  now  adopted  by  the  Christians, 
and  given  to  their  canonized  saints.  The  consequence  of  a 
regular  canonization  was,  that  the  name  of  the  saint  was 
inserted  in  the  calendar  in  red  letters  ;  he  might  then  be 
publicly  invoked  and  prayed  to,  churches  and  altars  might  be 
dedicated  to  him,  masses  might  be  said  in  his  honour,  holidays 
might  be  kept  in  his  name,  his  image  also  might  be  set  up 
and  prayed  to,  and  his  relics  might  be  reverently  laid  up  and 
worshipped. 

Considering  who  they  were  that  directed  this  business  of 
canonization,  and  what  kind  of  merit  weighed  most  with 
them,  it  is  no  wonder  that  many  of  these  canonized  persons 
were  such  as  had  little  title  to  the  appellation  of  saints.  They 
were  generally  miserable  enthusiasts,  some  of  them  martyrs 
to  their  own  austerities,  and  sometimes  men  who  had  dis- 
tinguished themselves  by  nothing  but  their  zeal  for  what  was 
imagined  to  be  the  rights  of  the  church,  and  their  opposition 
to  the  temporal  princes  of  their  times  ;  such  as  Thomas  a 
Becket  of  this  country. 

As  many  of  the  persons  to  whom  divine  honours  are  paid 
in  catholic  countries,  began  to  be  distinguished  in  this  manner 
before  there  were  any  regular  canonizations,  and  in  times  of 
great  ignorance,  we  are  not  surprised,  though  we  cannot  help 
being  amused,  at  the  gross  mistakes  that  were  sometimes 
made  in  this  serious  business  ;  several  of  the  names,  the  most 
distinguished  by  the  honours  that  are  paid  to  them,  being 
those  of  persons  altogether  imaginary,  so  that  the  object  of 
their  worship  never  had  any  existence.  Such  is  St.  Ursula 
and  the  eleven  thousand  virgins.  This  woman  is  said  to 
have  been  a  native  of  Cornwall,  who,  with  her  virgins  tra- 
velled to  Rome,  and  in  their  return  through  Germany, 
accompanied  by  Pope  Cyriacus,  suffered  martyrdom  at 
Cologn.  Baronius  himself  says,  there  never  was  any  pope  of 
that  name. 

In  this  class  also  we  must  put  the  seven  sleepers,  who  are 
said  to  have  slept  in  a  cave  from  the  time  of  Decius,  to  that  of 
Theodosius,  or  as  they  reckon  it  162  years  ;  and  who,  to  the 
confutation  of  some  who  denied  the  resurrection,  awakened 
after  that  interval,  and  looked  as  fresh  as  ever.  No  better 
claim  has  St.  George,  the  patron  of  this  country,  or  St.  Chris- 
topher,who  is  said  to  have  been  twelve  feet,  or  twelve  cubits 


309  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS 

high,  and  to  have  carried  our  Saviour  over  an  arm  of  the  sea 
upon  his  back.  From  the  words  Vera  Jcon^  or  the  true  image, 
meaning  that  of  our  Saviour,  impressed  upon  a  handkerchief, 
they  have  made  saint  Veronica,  and  supposed  this  handker- 
chief to  have  been  given  to  her  by  our  Saviour  himself. 

Several  mistakes  have  been  made  by  supposing  that  words 
beginning  with  an  S,  were  intended  to  express  the  name  of 
some  saint,  and  from  the  remainder  of  the  word  they  have 
accordingly  composed  the  name  of  an  imaginary  person. 
Thus,  in  all  probability,  from  Soracte,  the  name  of  a  moun- 
tain, they  have  got  the  name  of  .S"^.  Oresfe,  softening  the  sound 
after  the  Italian  manner ;  and  what  is  more  extraordinary,  from 
a  fragment  of  an  inscription,  which,  in  all  probability  was 
ongimUy  prtsfectus  viarum,  the  S  only  remaining  of  the  word 
preefectus^  and  viar  of  the  word  following,  they  have  made 
St.  Viar;  and  the  Spaniards,  in  whose  country  this  inscrip- 
tion was  found,  fancying  that  this  new  saint  had  distinguished 
himself  by  many  illustrious  miracles,  solicited  Pope  Urban 
to  do  something  to  his  honour.  In  England  particular  honour 
was  paid  to  St.  Amphibolus,  which  appears  to  have  been 
nothing  but  a  cloke  that  had  belonged  to  St.  Alban.* 

Besides  particular  festivals  for  particular  saints,  the  Papists 
have  a  festival  for  the  commemoration  oi all-saints  in  general, 
lest,  as  we  may  suppose,  any  should  have  been  omitted  in 
their  calendar.     This  was  introduced  by  Gregory  IV. 

These  new  objects  of  worship  presently  engrossed  almost 
all  the  devotion  of  the  vulgar,  who  think  they  may  make 
more  free  with  these  inferior  divinities  than  they  can  with 
the  Supreme  Being;  so  that  the  name  of  the  true  God  the 
Father,  is  seldom  made  use  of  by  them.-j"  And  those  persons 
who  have  attached  themselves  to  any  particular  saint  have 
become  most  passionately  fond  of  them,  and  have  been  led 
to  magnify  their  power  to  a  degree  which  excites  both  our 
pity  and  indignation. :|:     There  is  a  book  entitled  T/<e  Cow- 

*  Middleton's  LeWer,  pp.  173,  174.  (P.)  On  Soracte,  Addison  says,  "  In  my 
way  to  Rome,  seeing  a  higli  hill  standing  by  itself  in  the  Campania,  1  did  not  ques- 
tion but  it  had  a  classic  name,  and  upon  inquiry,  found  it  to  be  Mount  Soracte. 
(Hor.  Carm.  L.  i.  9.)  The  Italians,  at  present  call  it,  because  its  name  begins  with 
an  S,  St.  Oreste."  Remarks  on  Italy,  1706,  p.  l64.  On  St.  Viar,  see  Mabill. 
Iter.  Ital.  p.  145,  quoted  in  Middleton's  Works,  III.  p.  91. 

t  Mr.  Brydone  says,  he  "  remarked  with  how  little  respect  the  people  of  Sicily 
passed  the  chapels  that  were  dedicated  to  God.  They  hardly  deigned  to  give  a 
little  inclination  of  the  head ;  but  when  they  came  near  those  of  tlicir  favourite  saints, 
they  bowed  down  to  the  very  ground,"     Travels,  II.  p.  127.     {P-) 

X  Mr.  Swinburne  says,  that  from  what  he  sfiw,  he  is  "  apt  to  suspect,  that  the 
people  in  Spain  trouble  themselves  with  few  serious  thoughts  on  the  subject  of 
i-eligion  j  and  that,  provided  they  can  bring  themselves  to  believe  that  their  favourite 


RELATING  TO*  SAINTS  AND  ANGELS.  ^O'S 

formiiy  of  St.  Francis^  intended  to  shew  how  nearly  he 
apipToached  to  Christ,  in  his  birth,  miracles,  and  all  the 
particulars  of  his  lite.  But  nothing  was  ever  so  extraordinary 
as  the  accounts  of  Ignatius,  by  his  followers  the  Jesuits  ;  and 
it  is  the  more  so,  as  he  lived  in  modern  times. 

Some  of  the  Jesuits  have  said,  it  was  no  wonder  that 
Moses  worked  so  many  miracles,  since  he  had  the  name  of 
God  written  upon  his  rod  ;  or  that  the  apostles  worked 
miracles,  since  they  spake  in  the  name  of  Christ :  whereas, 
St.  Ignatius  had  performed  as  many  miracles  as  the  apostles, 
and  more  than  Moses,  in  his  own  name.  Others  of  them 
have  said  that  only  Christ,  the  apostle  Peter,  the  blessed 
Virgin  and  God,  could  even  contemplate  the  sanctity  of  St. 
Ignatius.  They  also  applied  to  him  this  passage  of  Scrip- 
ture, God  has  in  these  last  times  spoke7i  unto  ns  by  his  Son.  * 

Though  the  state  of  the  Catholic  church  has  been  im- 
proved in  several  respects  by  means  of  the  Reformation,  in 
consequence  of  which  several  abuses  were  so  fully  exposed 
that  little  has  since  been  said  in  defence  of  them  ;  yet,  it 
was  a  long  time  before  any  thing  was  done  by  authority  to 
remed}'^  this  shocking  abuse.  The  Council  of  Trent  connived 
at  all  these  things.  They  did  nothing  to  check  the  invoca- 
tion of  saints,  and  indeed  by  their  decrees,  the  applying  to 
them  directly  for  help  and  assistance  is  encouraged,  f  But 
not  long  ago  a  very  considerable  reformation  of  the  calendar, 
in  this  respect,  was  made  by  Pope  Benedict  XIV.:}: 

saint  looks  upon  them  with  an  eye  of  attention,  they  take  it  for  granted  that,  under 
his  influence,  they  are  freed  from  all  apprehension  of  damnation  in  a  fnture  state,  and 
indeed,"  he  adds,  "  from  any  great  concern  about  the  moral  duties  of  this  life." 
Travels,  p.  174.     (P.) 

♦  Basnage,  Histdire,  HI.  p.  693.    (P.) 

t  "  Et  quamvis  in  honorem  et  memoriam  sanctorum  nonnullas  interdum  missad 
eCclesia  celebrare  consueverit ;  non  tamen  illis  sacrificium  offerri  docet,  sed  Deo 
soli,  qui  illos  coronavit.  Unde  nee  sacerdos  dicere  solet,  offero  tibi  sacrificium, 
Petre,  vel  Paule,  sed  Deo,  de  illorum  victoria  gratias  agens,  eorum  patrocinia  im- 
plorat  J  ut  ipsi  pro  nobis  intercedere  dignentur  in  coelis,  quorum  memoriam  facimus 
in  terris."  Sess.  xxii.  C.  iii.  De  Mcssis  in  Honorem  Sanctorum.  Con.  Trid.  Can. 
etDecret.  pp.  151,152.  The  authorities  adduced  for  thus  honouring  the  saints  are 
Augustin  and  Cyril. 

X  Prosper  Lambertini,  who  was  Pope  from  1740  to  his  death  in  1758,  af  the  age 
of  83.  His  biographer  thus  records  his  merits  as  a  reformer.  "  Cli  ique  annee  de 
son  Pontificat  a  ete  marquee  par  quelque  Bulle,  pour  reformer  des  abus,  ou  pour 
introduire  des  usages  utiles."  Of  his  works,  in  twelve  volumes  folio,  the  eight  first 
were  on  the  beatification  and  canonization  of  saints.  This  r<n>e  received  an  extra- 
ordinary compliment  from  Mr.  Horace  Walpole,  (Lord  Orford,^  on  his  return  from 
Italy,  by  an  inscription  in  Italian,  of  which  the  following  is  the  sense  according  to 
the  French  version: 

Prosper  Lambertini,  bishop  of  Rome,  surnamed  Benedict  XlV.  who,  though  an 
absolute  prince,  reigns  with  as  much  equity  as  a  Doge  of  Venice.  To  restore  the 
lustre  of  the  Tiara,  he  employs  only  his  virtues;  the  means  by  which  he  acquired 
it.    Loved  by  Papists,  esteemed  by  Protestants;  a  priest,  humble  and  disinterested  ; 


904!  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS 

Together  with  the  worship  of  saints,  that  of  angels  also 
gained  much  ground  in  this  period.  Pope  Gregory  IV. 
appointed  a  festival  in  honour  of  St.  Michael,  which,  indeed, 
had  long  been  observed  both  in  the  East  and  in  Italy,  and 
was  then  almost  universal  in  the  Latin  church.  So  proper 
objects  of  worship  are  angels  considered  to  be  by  the  Papists, 
that  they  pray  to  them  directly,  for  the  pardon  of  sin  and 
eternal  life.*  Of  all  the  saints,  it  is  only  the  Virgin  Mary 
that  is  addressed  in  such  a  high  style  of  devotion  as  this. 


SECTION  II.         Part  II. 
Of  the  Worship  of  the  Virgin  Mary. 

With  such  an  astonishing  increase  of  the  veneration  of 
saints  and  martyrs,  (Christians  having  first  prayed/or  them, 
then  hoped  and  prayed  for  their  intercession  with  God,  till 
at  last  they  made  direct  addresses  to  them,)  it  will  naturally 
be  expected  that  their  devotion  to  the  Virgin  Mary  would 
advance  no  less  rapidly.  Accordingly  we  find  such  parti- 
cular attention  paid  to  her,  that  both  the  Son  and  the  Father 
are  with  many  persons  almost  entirely  overlooked.  In 
words,  indeed,  they  pretend  that  the  devotion  addressed  to 
her  falls  short  of  that  which  is  paid  to  God,  as  it  exceeds 
that  which  is  paid  to  other  saints,  calling  the  devotion 
that  is  paid  to  God  by  the  name  oi  Latria,  that  to  the  saints 
Dulia^  and  that  to  the  blessed  virgin  Hyperdulia ;  but 
these  distinctions  are  only  nominal,  and,  in  fact,  if  there 
be  any  difference,  it  seems  to  be  rather  in  favour  of  the 
Virgin,  as  appears  by  their  using  ten  Aves,  ox  salutations 
of  the  Virgin,  for  one  Pater,  or  the  Lord's  Prayer,  and 
by  that  humble  prostration  with  which  they  continually 
pay  their  devotion  to  her. 

The  prayers  that  are  constantly  addressed  to  her,  are  such 
as  these  :  "  Mary,  the  mother  of  grace,  the  mother  of  mercy, 
do  thou  defend  us  from  our  enemies  and  receive  us  in  the 
hour  of  death  :  pardon  the  guilty  :  give  light  to  the  blind." 

a  prince  without  a  favourite;  a  Pope  witliout  a  nephew ;  (sans  n^potisme,)  an  author 
without  vanity  ;  in  one  word,  a  man  whom  neither  power  nor  persuasion  can  draw 
aside.  The  son  of  a  favourite  minister,  wlio  never  made  his  court  to  any  prince,  nor 
did  homage  to  any  ecclesiastic,  i>resents,  in  a  free  Protestant  country  this  merited 
offering  to  the  best  of  the  Roman  Pontiffs.  See  Nouv.  Diet.  Hist.  I.  p.  376.  Dr. 
John  de  Ijiunoy,  in  the  seventeentli  century  attained,  by  his  critical  examination 
of  their  pretensions,  the  title  of  unrooster  of  saints,  (le  Dlniclieur  des  Saints).  Ibid. 
IV.  p-  58.  See  also  Bayle,  Art.  Launoy,  in  Middleton's  Works,  III.  p.  33. 
•  Basnage,  I.  p.  308.     (P.) 


RELATING  TO   SAINTS  AND  ANGELS.  205 

Also  "  by  the  right  of  a  mother  command  our  Redeemer,  is 
an  allowed  address  to  her/'*  The  psalms  which  contain  an 
address  to  God  are  applied  to  the  Virgin  Mary,  by  Cardinal 
Bonaventure,  in  his  Psalter  of  the  blessed  Virgin  ;'\  and  one 
of  their  greatest  doctors  declared,  that  "  all  things  that  are 
God's  are  the  Virgin  Mary's  ;  because  she  is  both  the  spouse 
and  the  mother  of  God."  J 

Let  us  now  see  by  what  steps  this  progress  was  made ; 
for,  strong  as  was  the  propensity  to  this  kind  of  idolatry, 
times  and  proper  circumstances  were  requisite  to  bring  it  to 
this  height.  It  is  said  that  Peter  Fullo,  a  monk  of  Constan- 
tinople, introduced  the  name  of  the  Virgin  Mary  into  the 
public  prayers  about  the  year  480  ;  but  it  is  certain  she  was 
not  generally  invoked  in  public  till  a  long  time  after  that,§ 
Justinian,  in  giving  thanks  for  his  victories,  and  praying,  only 
says,  "  we  ask  this  also  by  the  prayers  of  the  holy  and  glorified 
Mary,  mother  of  God  and  always  a  virgin  ;"  it  being  the 
custom  at  that  time  to  make  use  of  the  intercession  of  the 
Virgin,  but  not  to  invoke  her  directly. 

When  it  was  thought  proper  to  keep  up  the  festivals  and 
ceremonies  of  the  Pagan  religion,  and  only  to  change  the 
objects  of  them,  the  Virgin  Mary  was  sure  to  come  in  for  her 
share  of  these  new  honours,  together  with  other  saints.  Ac- 
cordingly we  find  that,  whereas  the  Pagans  had  used,  in  the 
beginning  of  February,  to  celebrate  the  feast  of  Proserpine 
with  burning  tapers ;  to  divert  them  from  this  impiety, 
Christians  instituted  on  the  same  day,  the  feast  oi Purijicd- 
tion,  in  honour  of  the  Virs^in  Mary,  and  called  it  Candlemas, 
from  the  lights  that  were  used  on  the  occasion. ||  This 
institution  is  ascribed  to  Pope  Vigilius,  about  the  year  536, 
though  others  fix  it  to  the  year  543.  But  before  this  time 
there  had  been  a  feast  on  that  day  called  uTraTravTT),  or  the 

•  Burnet  on  the  Articles,  p.  308.  (P.J  "  Maria,  Mater  graliae.  Mater  miseri- 
cordiae,  tu  nos  ab  hoste  protege,  et  hor^  mortis  suscipe. — Solve  vincla  reis,  profer 
lumen  caecis.— Jure  matris  impera  Redemptori."     Art.  xxii.  Ed.  4.  pp.  226,  227. 

t  "  Ps.  vii.  'O  thou  my  good  Lady,  in  thee  have  I  put  my  trust.'  ix.  *  I  will 
praise  thee,  O  Lady,  with  all  my  heart.*  xvi.  '  Preserve  me,  O  Lady.  Rejoice  in 
our  Lady,  O  ye  righteous,  1  will  always  give  thanks  unto  our  Lady,  her  praise  shall 
be  in  my  mouth  continually.'  And  so  on,  throughout  the  whole  book."  Hist,  of 
Popery,  1735,  L  p.  87. 

X  Hist,  of  Popery,  L  p.  l64.  (P.)  "  Omnia  quae  Dei  sunt,  Maria  sunt,  quia 
Mater  et  Sporisa  Dei  ilia  est.  Chrysost.  a  Visit.  I.  De  Verb.  Doni.  I>.  iv.  C.  viii. 
And  Bernard  de  Busti,  in  Mariali,  Pt.  xii.  avers.  Tot  Creaturte  serviunt  gloriosa 
Maria  Viryini,  quot  serviunt  Trinitati.  As  many  creatures  honour  the  Virgin,  as 
do  the  Trinity."     Hist.  1735,  I.  p.  87. 

§  Sueur,  A.  D.  483.     (P.)  , 

II  "  On  a  remedie  par  ce  changement  a  I'obstination  du  Paganism  que  Ton  eut 
plut6t  irritfc  si  on  eut  enterpris  d'6ter  enti^rement  la  chose."  Rhenanus  on  Tertul- 
lian,  in  "  Les  Conformilez  des  Ceremonies,"  1667,  p.  US. 


f06  HISTOfiY  OF  OPINIONS 

meetings  in  commemoration  of  Simeon  meeting  Mary  on  the 
day  of  her  purification,  and  taking  Jesus  in  his  arms,  when 
he  was  presented  in  the  temple.  But  there  was  not  then 
any  invoking  of  the  Virgin,  no  crying  Ave  Maria  siella,  nor 
lighting  wax  candles  in  her  honour.*  The  feast  of  the  im- 
maculate  conception  was  also  added  about  the  same  time.f 

Though  we  know  few  particulars  of  the  life  of  the  Virgin 
Mary,  and  nothing  at  all  concerning  her  death;  yet,  it  was 
so  much  taken  for  granted^  that  she  went  immediately  into 
heaven  (though  other  saints  were  obliged  to  wait  for  the 
beatific  vision,  till  the  resurrection,)  that  about  the  ninth 
century  a  festival  was  instituted  in  commemoration  of  her 
assumption. 

"  The  worship  of  the  Virgin  Mary"  also  "  received  new 
accessions  of  solemnity  and  superstition"  in  the  tenth  cen- 
tury. Towards  the  conclusion  of  it,  "  the  custom  of  cele- 
brating masses  and  abstaining  from  flesh  in  her  honour  every 
Sabbath-day  was  introduced  ;"  and  after  this,  what  was 
called  the  lesser  office  of  the  Virgin  was  confirmed  by  Urban 
in  the  following  century.  In  this  tenth  century  also,  the 
rosary  and  crown  of  the  blessed  Virgin  were  first  used.  "  The 
rosary  consists  of  fifteen  repetitions  of  the  Lord's  Prayer, 
and  a  hundred  and  fifty  salutations  of  the  blessed  Virgin  ; 
while  the  crown,  according  to  the  different  opinions  of  the 
learned  concerning  the  age  of  the  Virgin,  consists  of  six  or 
seven  repetitions  of  the  Lord's  Prayer,  and  six  or  seven  times 
ten  salutations  o^  Ave  Maria's."-^  Peter  Damiani  speaks  of 
the  lesser  office  of  the  Virgin  as  a  new  form  of  devotion,  insti- 
tuted in  his  time,  as  also  of  Saturday  being  consecrated  to 
her  honour  ;  as  Monday  was  to  that  of  the  angels.  § 

We  have  seen  that  some  persons,  in  the  former  period, 
entertained  a  suspicion  that  the  Virgin  Mary  might  perhaps 
be  born  without  original  sin.  In  the  progress  of  things, 
which  I  have  been  describing,  these  suspicions  were  not  likely 
to  lose  ground.  However,  it  was  far  from  being  the  uni- 
versal opinion,  that  she  was  born  in  any  more  favourable 
circumstances  than  other  persons.  The  first  controversy  on 
this  subject  was  about  the  year  1136,  when  the  canons  of 
Lyons  started  the  opinion  of  the  immaculate  conception,  as  it 
now  began  to  be  called,  and  would  have  established  an 
office  for  celebrating  it,  but  Bernard  opposed  it.     The  Tho- 

•  Sueur,  A.D.  543.     (P.) 

t  MosheJm,  I.  p.  466.    (P.)     Cent.  vi.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  iv.  ad  fin. 
X  Ibid.  II.  p.  225.    (P.)    .Cent.  x.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  iv.  adf.n. 
S  Fleury,  A.P.  1260.     (P.) 


RELATING  TO  SAINTS   AND   ANGELS.  907 

mists,  or  the  followers  of  Thomas  Aquinas  opposed  that 
opinion  till  the  year  1300,  when  Scotus,  a  Dominican  or 
Cordelier,  first  made  it  a  probable  opinion,  and  his  followers 
afterwards  made  it  an  article  of  faith,  whilst  the  Franciscans 
or  Jacobines  held  a  contrary  opinion  ;  and  the  controversy 
l)etween  them  continued  three  hundred  years,  and  indeed 
has  not  regularly  been  decided  to  this  day. 

The  University  of  Paris  declared  for  the  immaculate  con- 
ception, and  there  were  several  Popes  on  both  sides  of  the 
question.  John  XXII.  favoured  the  Jacobines  on  account 
of  the  hatred  he  bore  to  the  Cordeliers,  who  took  the  part  of 
the  emperor  Lewis,  of  Bavaria,  whom  he  had  excommuni- 
cated. Sixtus  IV.  who  was  a  Cordelier,  favoured  the  opinion 
which  had  always  been  maintained  by  his  order ;  and  in  the 
year  1474,  he  published  a  bull,  in  which  he  prohibited  any 
censure  of  the  opinion  of  the  immaculate  conception  as  here- 
tical, and  confirmed  the  new  service  that  had  been  made  for 
the  festival  of  that  conception. 

This  controversy  continued  till  the  Council  of  Trent,  which 
confirmed  the  constitution  of  Sixtus  IV.  but  without  con- 
demning the  opinions  of  the  Jacobines.*  This  did  not 
lessen  the  controversy ;  the  Dominicans  still  maintaining 
the  immaculate  conception,  and  the  Franciscans  opposing 
it.  Spain  was  perfectly  in  a  flame  about  it,  of  which  the  very 
sign-posts  of  this  day  bear  witness.  For  travellers  say,  that, 
in  going  from  Barcelona  to  Granada,  to  the  name  of  the 
Virgin  Mary,  is  always  added  "  Sin  peccado  concebida," 
conceived  without  sin. "^  At  length  Alexander  V.  unable  to 
settle  the  controversy  in  any  other  manner,  in  1667  ordered 
that  there  should  be  no  more  preaching  on  the  subject.:): 

The  devotion  paid  to  the  Virgin  is  very  little,  if  at  all, 
lessened  since  the  Reformation.  At  Einsilden,  or  Notre 
Dame  des  Eremites,  in  Switzerland,  says  Mr.  Coxe,  crowds 
of  pilgrims  from  all  quarters  resort  to  adore  the  Virgin,  and 

*  Hist,  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  p.  103.  (P.)  "  Declarat  tamen  haec  ipsa  sancta 
Synodus,  non  esse  suae  intentionis  comprehendere  in  hoc  decreto,  ubi  de  peccato 
originali  agitur,  beatam  et  immacuJatam  Viigiiiem  Mariam  Dei  genetricem,  sed 
observandas  esse  ii  constifutiones  felicis  recoroationis  Sixti  Papae  IV.  sub  poenis 
in  eis  constitutioriibus  contentis,  qnas  innovat."  Sess.  v.  Decretum  de  Peccato  ori- 
ginali, ad  fin.  (^on.  Trid.  Can.  et  Dccret.  p.  14, 

t  Mr.  Swinburne  says,  "  I  believe  there  is  scarcely  a  house  in  Granada  that  has 
not  over  its  door  in  large  red  characters,  '  Ave  Maiia  pnrissima,  sin  peccado  conce- 
bida.'  A  military  order  in  that  country  swear  to  defend  by  word  and  deed  the 
doctrine  of  the  immaculate  conception.  The  peasants  near  Alicant,  instead  of 
saluting  strangers  in  any  other  way,  bawl  out  <  Ave  Maria  purissima,' to  which  they 
expect  to  be  answered,  ♦  Sin  peccado  concebida,'  or  *  Deo  gratias.'"  Travels,  pp.  IQO, 
109.     (P.) 

X  Histoire  des  Papes,  V.  p.  342.     (P.) 


208  HISTORY   OF  OPINIONS 

to  present  their  offerings  ;  and  it  is  computed  that,  upon  a 
moderate  calculation,  their  number  amounts  yearly  to  a 
hundred  thousand.* 

The  last  circumstance  that  I  shall  relate,  concerning  the 
Virgin  Mary,  is,  that  in  1566,  some  Flemings  began  to  wear 
medals  in  their  hats  in  her  honour,  representing  what  was 
supposed  to  be  a  miraculous  image  ot  her  at  Hale,  in  Hainault, 
and  which  they  wore,  to  distinguish  them  from  the  Protestants 
of  that  country.  The  Pope  blessed  and  consecrated  these 
medals,  granting  a  remission  of  the  punishment  of  sin  to 
those  that  wore  them  ;  and  this  gave  a  beginning  to  the 
consecration  of  medals.  ■)• 


SECTION  II.        Part  III. 
Of  the  Worship  of  Images  in  this  Period. 

We  have  seen  how,  in  the  preceding  period,  a  fondness 
for  pictures  and  images  had  made  some  progress  among 
Christians,  in  consequence  of  an  undue  veneration  for  the 
persons  whom  they  represented.  In  the  natural  progress  of 
things,  images  were  treated  with  more  and  more  respect,  till 
it  was  imagined  that  the  homage  paid  to  the  saint  required 
the  same  to  be  paid  to  his  image.  It  was  even  imagined, 
that  he  was  so  far  present  to  the  image,  as  to  communicate 
to  it  the  powers  of  which  he  himself  was  possessed  ;  the 
image  being  a  kind  oibody  to  the  soul  of  the  saint. 

This  was  the  very  state  of  things  among  the  Heathens. 
For  they  imagined  that,  after  the  forms  of  consecration,  the 
invisible  power  of  the  god,  to  whom  any  image  was  dedicated, 
was  brought  to  reside  in  it,  and  to  entitle  it  to  the  same 
respect  as  if  it  had  been  the  god  himself  in  person.  At 
length,  therefore.  Christians  came  to  be  idolaters  in  the  same 
gross  sense,  in  which  the  Heathens  had  ever  been  so  ;  being 
equally  worshippers  both  of  dead  men,  and  of  their  images. 
But  no  great  progress  had  been  made  in  this  business  at  the 
close  of  the  last  period. 

At  that  time  pictures  and  images  in  churches  were  chiefly 
used  for  the  purpose  of  ornament,  for  the  commemoration  of 
the  saints  to  which  they  were  dedicated,  and  the  instruction 
of  the  ignorant.  Gregory  the  Great  encouraged  the  use  of 
them,  so  that  the  honour  paid  to  them  was  much  increased 
towards  the  end  of  the  sixth  century,  and  more  in  the  follow- 

*  Travels,  p.  ,57.    (P.)  t  Histoire  des  Papcs,  V.  p.  10, 


RELATING  TO  SAINTS  AND  ANGELS.  209 

mg.     And  when  Serenus,  bishop  of  Marseilles,  seeing  the 

bad  consequence  of  introducing  these  images,  not  only  ordered 

that  no  person  should  fall  down  before  them,  or  pay  them 

any   homage,   but  that  they  should  be  removed  from   the 

churches  of  his  diocese,  Gregory  disapproved  of  his  conduct 

praising  his  zeal,  but  blaming  him  for  breaking  the  imao-es! 

He,  therefore,  only  desired  that  they  might  not  be  worshipped,' 

but  would  have  them  preserved  in  the  churches,  on  the  prini 

ciple,  that  those  who  could  not  read,  might  be  instructed  by 

them.*      But  in  little  more  than  a  century,  the  see  of  Rome 

changed  its  doctrine    on   the    subject,    Gregory  II.   being 

strenuous  for  the  worship  of  images. 

The  first  who  openly  espoused  the  doctrine  of  images  in 
the  West,  was  Pope  Constantine,  the  predecessor  of  Gregory 
II.  ;    and    there    seems   to   have  been   as    much    of  policu 
as  of  religion^  in  the  measures  which  he  took  with  respect 
to  it.     The  emperor  Philippicus  had  taken  an  active  part  in 
opposition  to  images,  and  had  ordered  them  to  be  removed 
from  churches,  in  order  to  put  a  stop  to  the  idolatrous  vene- 
ration that  was  beginning  to  be  paid  to  them.    This,  the  Pope, 
who  wished  for  an  occasion  of  quarrelling  with  the  emperor' 
in  order  to  make  himself  independent  of  him,  resented  so 
highly,  that,  in  a  synod,  held  on  the  occasion,  he  not  only 
condemned  his  conduct  in  that  respect,  but  excommunicated 
him    as  a    heretic,    and   pronounced   him   unworthy  of  the 
empire,  authorizing  and  exhorting  his  subjects  to  revolt  from 
him.     This  new  heresy  was  called  that  of  the  Iconoclasts, 
or  the  breakers  of  images.     By  picking  this  quarrel  with  the 
emperor,  this   Pope  and  his  successors,   asserted    not  only 
their  independence  of  the  emperors  of  Constantinople,  but 
their  superiority  to  them. 

Gregory  II.  who  succeeded  Constantine,  and  the  em- 
peror Leo  Isauricus,  were  at  continual  variance  on  this 
subject  of  images  ;  the  latter  pulling  them  down  from  the 
churches,  and  the  former  excommunicating  him  for  it,  and 
also  pronouncing  his  subjects  absolved  of  their  allegiance  to 
him,  and  forbidding  them  to  pay  him  tribute. 

Something  farther  was  done  in  favour  of  images  by 
Stephen  III.  or  rather  IV.  in  opposition  to  Constantine 
II.  whom  he  had  deposed,  and  who  had  called  a  synod 
in  which  the  worship  of  images  had  been  condemned. 
I  his  Stephen  called  another  synod,  in  which,  another  inno- 
vation in  christian  worship  was  made,  or  at  least  authorized, 

*  Sueur,  A.D.  599.    (P.) 
VOL.  V.  p 


210  HISTORY  OF   OPINIONS 

viz.  the  worshipping  of  God  himself  by  an  image.  For  they 
condemn  the  execrable  and  pernicious  decree  of  the  former 
synod,  by  which  the  condition  of  the  immortal  God  was 
made  worse  than  that  of  men.  "  Is  it  lawful,'*  say  they, 
"  to  set  up  statues  of  mortal  men,  both  that  we  may  not  be 
ungrateful,  and  that  we  may  be  excited  to  imitate  their  vir- 
tuous actions  ;  and  shall  it  not  then  be  lawful  to  set  up  the 
image  of  God,  whom  we  ought  always,  if  it  were  possible, 
to  have  before  our  eyes  ?"* 

On  this  poor  pretence  was  the  authority  of  the  second 
commandment,  which  expressly  forbids  the  worshippingof  the 
true  God  by  images,  entirely  set  aside.  This  is  so  palpable 
a  contradiction  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures,  that  the 
second  commandment  is  entirely  left  out  in  several  of  the 
copies  of  the  ten  commandments  among  the  Papists,  and  one 
6f  the  others  is  split  into  two,  for  the  sake  of  preserving  the 
number  ten^  and  to  hide  this  falsification  from  tlie  common 
people. 

'"^The  incensing  of  statues,  which  had  been  a  constant 
heathen  practice,  is  said  to  have  been  introduced  into  the 
christian  worhip  of  images  by  Leo  III. 
'  '  The  worship  of  images  had  many  fluctuations  in  the  East, 
sorhe  of  the  emperors  favouring  it  and  others  discouraging  it; 
but  at  length  the  proper  adoration  of  them  was  fully  esta- 
blished in  the  second  council  of  Nice,  held  in  the  year  787, 
under  the  emperor  Constantine  Porphyrogenita,  or  rather  his 
mother  Irene,  a  most  ambitious  and  violent  woman.  This, 
which  was  denominated  the  second  Nicene  Council^  decreed 
that  images  should  be  made  according  to  the  form  of  the 
venerable  cross  ;  meaning  what  we  call  crucifixes^  or  images 
of  our  Saviour  upon  the  cross  ;  that  they  might  be  made  of 
any  materials,  that  they  should  be  dedicated,  and  put  into 
churches,  as  well  as  upon  walls,  in  private  houses,  and  upon 
the  public  roads.  It  was  appointed  in  this  council,  that, 
in  the  first  place,  images  should  be  made  of  our  Saviour,  in  the 
next  place  of  the  Virgin  Mary  (called  by  them  the  immaculate 
mother  of  God),  then  of  the  venerable  angels,  and  lastly  of 
all  saints,  that  the  honour  of  adoration  may  be  rendered  to 
them  ;  not,  however,  that  oi' Latria,  which  they  say  belongs 
only  to  the  divine  nature,  but,  "  as  we  approach  with  reve- 
rence the  type  of  the  venerable  and  vivifying  cross,  and  the 
holy  evangelists,  with  oblations,  perfumes  and  lights.  For 
the  honour  that  is  done  to  the  image  is  rjeflijected  upon  the 

•  Platina  de  VM  Stephani  III. 


RELATING  TO  SAINTS  AND   ANGELS.  211 

prototype,  and  he  who  adores  the  image,  adores  the  subject 
of  it."  They  add,  as  usual,  "  Let  all  who  think  otherwise 
beexcommunicated."  It  is  to  be  observed,  that  no  statues^ 
or  even  bass  reliefs,  were  permitted  by  this  council.  These 
were  not  yet  admitted  into  churches,  as  they  were  after- 
wards.* So  passionately  fond  were  the  Greeks  of  this  species 
of  w^orshfp,  that  they  esteemed  this  second  Council  of  Nice 
*'  as  a  most  signal  blessing  derived  to  them  from  the  imme- 
diate interposition  of  heaven  ;  and  accordingly  instituted,  in 
commemoration  thereof,  an  anniversary  festival,  which  was 
called  the  feast  of  orthodoxi/."^ 

The  fathers  of  this  council  "  expressed  a  detestation  of  an 
image  made  to  represent  the  Deity.  Though  they  had  the 
sanction  of  Pope  Stephen's  synod  in  the  Latin  church,  and 
though  this  practice  was  not  soon  general,  even  in  the  West, 
at  length  pictures  and  images,  even  of  God  the  Father  and  of 
the  Trinity,  became  common.  The  Council  of  Trent  favours 
them,  "  provided  they  be  decently  made:  directions  are  also 
givisn  concerning  the  use  of  the  image  of  the  Trinity  in 
public  offices  ; — and  such  as  have  held  it  unlawful  to  make 
such  images  were  especially  condemned  at  Rome  in  1690"% 

In  the  West,  notwithstanding  the  favour  shewn  to  images 
by  the  Popes,  the  worship  of  them  did  not  go  down  so  well 
as  it  did  in  the  East,  owing  to  the  opposition  that  was  made 
to  it  by  Charlemagne.  He  called  a  council  at  Frankfort  in 
794,  in  vt'hich  the  second  Council  of  Nice  was  condemned. 
Images,  however,  were  allowed  to  be  kept  in  churches,  for 
the  purpose  of  ornament  and  instruction,  but  worship  was 
forbidden  to  be  paid  to  them.  The  same  disposition,  so 
hostile  to  image  worship,  continued  to  influence  the  succes- 
sors of  Charlemagne.  For  we  find  that,  in  a  synod  held  at 
Paris,  by  order  of  Lothaire,  in  825,  on  the  subject  of  images, 
it  was  ordered,  as  before,  to  keep  them,  but  not  to  worship 
them.  Another  council  was  held  at  Paris  by  Louis  the  Meek, 
in  844,  in  which  the  same  decrees  were  repeated. 

*  Sueiir,  A.D.  787.    (P.) 

t  Mosheim,  If.  p.  150.    (P.)     Cent.  ix.  Pt.  ii.  Gh.  iii.  Sect.  xv. 

t  Burnet  on  the  Articles,  p.  293.  (P.)  Art.  xxii.  Ed,  4,  p.  216.  On  the  authority 
of  Roman  Catholic  writers,  Burnet  has  described  the  Council  of  Trent  as  allowing 
images  of  "  the  Deity  and  the  Trinity,"  but  nothing  appears  of  such  allowance  in 
the  decree  "  De  invocatione,  veneratione,  et  reliquiis  sanctorum,  et  .sacris  imagini- 
bus."  The  images  to  be  set  up  and  retained  in  churches  are  three:  "  Christi,  Dei- 
parge  Virginis  et  ahorum  Sanctorum."  The  use  of  them  is  thu.s  described:  "  Per 
imagines,  quais  osculamur  et  coram  quibus  caput  aperimus  et  procumbimus,  Christum 
adoremus,  et  sahctos  quorum  ilia  similitudinem  gerunt  veneiemur."  This  use  of 
them  is  then  described  as  sanctioned  by  the  second  Council  of  Nice.  Sess.  xxv.  Con. 
Trid.  Can.  et  Decret.  p.  2S4. 

P  2 


212  HISTORY  OF   OPINIONS 

But  th<^  greatest  opposition  to  the  worship  of  images  in 
this  age,  was  made  by  Claudius,  bishop  of  Turin,  a  man  of 
distinguished  abilities  and  zeal,  and  from  whom  the  Wal- 
denses,  who  continued  to  oppose  this  and  almost  every  other 
corruption  of  the  church  of  Rome,  seem  to  have  had  their 
origin.  This  eminent  bishop  not  only  wrote  with  great 
earnestness  and  force  upon  the  subject,  but  perceiving  how 
violently  the  common  people  went  into  the  worship  of 
images,  and  that  he  could  not  by  any  other  means  check 
the  proo-ress  of  it,  he  ordered  all  the  images  and  crosses  in 
his  diocese  to  be  demolished.  For  this  conduct  he  was 
generally  blamed,  even  in  France  and  Germany,  but  not  for 
opposing  the  worship  which  was  then  paid  to  images.  About 
the  same  time,  Agobard,  bishop  of  Lyons,  wrote  excellently 
against  the  worship  of  images,  and  also  against  dedicating 
churches  to  any  but  God.* 

The  worship  of  images  did  not  continue,  without  some 
interruption,  after  the  second  Council  of  Nice,  even  in  the 
East.  But  as  one  woman,  Irene,  had  procured  their  worship 
to  be  ordered  at  that  time;  so  another  woman,  Theodora, 
governing  her  son  Michael  III.  procured  their  final  esta- 
blishment in  842.  But  the  Greeks  never  had  any  images 
besides  those  on  plain  surfaces,  or  pictures :  they  never  ap- 
proved of  statues. -f  Notwithstanding  the  opposition  to  the 
worship  of  imas^es  by  the  emperors  of  the  West,  yet  at  length, 
through  the  influence  of  the  Roman  pontiffs,  even  "  the 
Gallican  clergy  began  to  pay  a  certain  kind  of  religious 
homage  to  the  saintly  images,"  towards  the  end  of  the  ninth 
century  ;  and  in  this  "  their  example  was  followed  by  the 
Germans  and  other  nations."  J 

•  Sueur,  A.D.  827.    (P.) 

t  The  following  relations  are  by  an  intelligent  observer,  who  was  Chaplain  to  the 
British  Embassy  at  Constantinople  in  l669:  "  Before  you  enter  the  church,  is  a 
covered  porch,  usually  arched,  running  out  at  each  side  the  portal,  with  seats 
against  the  walls,  upon  which  are  painted  several  images,  as  of  our  blessed  Saviour, 
the  Virgin  Mary,  St.  John,  St.  George  and  the  like,  and  of  that  saint  particutarly 
to  whose  memory  the  church  is  consecrated ;  but  very  wretchedly,  and  without 
beauty  or  proportion."    Account  of  the  Greek  Church,  hyTho.  Smith,   1680,  p.  63. 

"  The  Greeks  have  so  great  prejudice  to  all  engraven  images,  and  especially  if 
they  are  embossed  and  prominent,  that  they  inveigh  severely  and  fiercely  against 
the  Latins,  as  little  less  than  idolaters,  and  symbolizing  with  the  very  heathen, — 
But  as  for  the  pictures,  whether  in  colours  or  painted,  of  our  Saviour  and  of  the 
saints,  they  account  them  sacred  and  venerable.  These  they  reverence  and  honour 
by  bowing,  and  kissing  them,  and  .saying  their  prayers  before  them.  With  these 
the  partition  that  separates  the  Bcma  or  chancel,  from  the  body  of  the  church,  is 
adorned.  At  set  times,  the  priest,  before  he  enters  into  it,  makes  three  low  reve- 
rences {ifpocryiuvYiiTsii,  i/.eroivoia.{)  before  the  image  of  Christ,  and  as  many  before 
that  of  the  Virgin  Mary :  and  he  does  the  like  in  the  time  of  celebration,  and  often- 
times perfumes  them  with  his  incense  pot."     Ibid.  pp.  211,212. 

X  Moshcim,  II.  p.  151-    (P-)    Cent  ix.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  iii.  Sect.  xvi. 


RELATING  TO  SAINTS  AND   ANGELS.  213 

It  has  been  asserted  that,  properly  speaking,  worhsip  never 
was  paid  to  images  by  Christians,  but  that  when  they  bowed 
before  them,  they  only  addressed  themselves  to  the  saints 
whom  they  represent.  But  that  their  regards  do  terminate 
in  the  image  itself,  as  much  as  they  do  in  any  living  man, 
whom  they  should  address,  is  evident,  not  only  from  a  variety 
of  considerations,  suggested  by  the  history  of  image  worship, 
but  from  the  acknowledgment  of  those  who  practise  it ; 
which  puts  it  beyond  all  doubt,  that  they  suppose  a  real 
power  to  reside  in  the  image  itself,  just  as  they  suppose  the 
spirit  of  a  man  to  be  in  a  man. 

In  the  eleventh  century  it  was  debated  in  the  Greek  church, 
whether  there  was  an  inherent  sanctity  "  in  the  images  of 
Jesus  Christ  and  of  the  saints;"  and  though  it  was  deter- 
mined in  a  council,  "  that  the  images  of  Christ  and  of  the 
saints — did  in  no  sense  partake  of  the  nature  of  the  divine 
Saviour,  or  of  these  holy  men,"  yet  it  was  maintained  that 
"  they  were  enriched  with  a  certain  communication  of  divine 

_     if  at 

grace.   * 

The  Latin  church  has  by  no  means  been  behind  that  of 
the  Greeks  in  this  respect.  For,  if  we  judge  by  the  practice 
of  the  church  of  Rome,  and  even  by  some  of  their  acknow- 
ledgments, it  will  be  evident  that  a  proper  Latvia^  or  such 
worship  as  they  themselves  think  is  due  to  God,  is  also  to 
be  given  to  images.  Those  who  write  in  favour  of  it  "  fre- 
quently cite  this  hymn.  Crux  av6^  spes  unica,  auge  piis  jus- 
titiam,  reisque  dona  veniatn ;  that  is,  Hail  cross,  our  only 
hope,  increase  righteousness  in  the  godly,  and  pardon  the 
guilty."  "  It  is  expressly  said  in  the  Pontifical,  Cruet  debetur 
Latria"  that  Latria  is  due  to  the  cross.  This  favours  the 
opinions  of  those  who  say  that  Latria  is  "  to  be  given  to  all 
those  images,  to  the  originals  of  which  it  is  due,"  as  to 
Christ;  as  the  Dulia  is  to  be  given  to  the  images  of  the 
saints,  and  the  Hyper-dulia  to  those  of  the  Virgin  Mary.j* 
The  Council  of  Trent  only  decreed  that  due  worship  should 
be  given  to  images,  but  did  not  define  what  that  due  wor- 
ship is. 

Among  acts  of  worship,  they  reckon  the  oblation  of  in- 
cense and  lights ;  and  the  reason  given  by  them  for  all  this 
is,  because  the  honour  of  the  image  or  type  passes  to  the 
original  or  prototype  ;  so  that  direct  worship  was  to  termi- 
nate in  the  image  itself.  And  Durandus  passed  for  little  less 
than  a  heretic,  because  he  thought  that  images  were  wor- 

*  Mosheim,  II.  p.  329.    {P.)     Cent.  xi.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  iii.  Sect.  xiii. 
t  Burnet  on  the  Articles,  p.  295.    (P.)     Art.  xxii.  Ed.  4,  p.  217. 


214  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS 

shipped  only  improperly  ;  because  at  their  presence  we  call 
to  mind  the  object  represented  by  them,  which  we  worship 
by  means  of  tlie  image,  as  if  the  object  itself  was  before  us. 

Thomas  A(juinas,  and  many  others  after  him,  expressly 
teach  "  that  the  same  acts  and  degrees  of  worship  which 
are  due  to  the  original,  are  also  due  to  the  image.  They 
think  an  image  has  such  a  relation  to  the  original,  that  both 
ouo^ht  to  be  worshipped  by  the  same  act ;  and  that  to  wor- 
ship the  image  with  any  other  sort  of  acts,  is  to  worship  it 
on  its  own  account,  which  they  think  is  idolatry."  On  the 
other  hand,  those  who  adhere  "  to  the  Nicene  doctrine  think 
that  the  image  is  to  be  worshipped  with  an  inferior  degree" 
of  homage  ;  and  "  that  otherwise  idolatry  must  follow  ;  so 
that,  whichever  of  the  two  schemes  be  adopted,  idolatry 
must  be  the  consequence,  with  some  or  other  of  the  advo- 
cates for  this  worship."* 


SECTION  TI.         Part  IV. 

Of  the  Respect  paid  to  Relics  in  this  Period. 

If  so  much  respect  was  paid  to  the  images  of  saints^  w^ 
shall  not  wonder  that  even  more  account  was  made  of  their 
relics,  which  bear  a  still  nearer  relation  to  them  ;  and  if  an 
invisible  virtue,  viz.  all  the  power  of  the  saint,  could  be 
supposed  to  accompany  every  separate  image  of  any  parti.- 
cular  saint,  they  could  not  hesitate  to  ascribe  the  same  to 
every  relic  of  him,  even  the  cloth  or  rags  that  had  belonged,! 
to  him,  and  the  very  earth  on  which  he  had  trod. 

A  superstitious  respect  for  relics,  and  especially  for  the . 
true  cross  of  Christ,  is  observed  to  have  advanced  much  \i\, 
the  sixth  century  ;  and  many  persons  then  boasted  of  having 
in  their  possession  the  real  wood  of  that  cross.     And  when 
image-worship  began,  that  of  relics  followed,  as  an  accessary. 
The  enshrining  of  relics  (in  his  zeal  for  which,  Julian  IV., 
about  the  year  620,  distinguished  himself)   made  the  most 
excellent  sort  of  images,  and  they  were  thought  to  be  the 
best  preservative  possible,  both  for  soul  and  body.     No  pre- 
sents were  considered  as  of  more  value  than  relics;  and  it 
was  an  easy  thing  for  the  popes  to  furnish  the  worjd  plenti- 
fully with  them,  especially  after  the  discovery  of  the  cata-^ 
combs,  which  was  a  subterraneous  place  where  many  ofth^,, 
Romans  deposited  their  dead. 

•  Burnet  on  the  Articles,  p.  294.    (P.)    Art.  xxii.  Ed.  4,  p.  2^6. 


RiSLATINiG  TO  SAINTS  AND   ANGELS.  215 

It  ii'observed  by  historians,  that  the  demand  for  relics 
was  exceedingly  great  in  the  ninth  century,  and  that  the 
clergy' employed  great  dexterity  in  satisfying  that  demand. 
In  general,  some  persons  pretended  to  have  been  informed 
in  a  dream,  where  such  and  such  relics  were  to  be  found,  ^ 
and  the  next  day  they  never  failed  to  find  them.     As  the 
most  valued  relics  came  from  the  East,  the  Greeks  made  a 
gainful  traffic  with  the  Latms  for  legs,  arms,  skulls,  jaw- 
bones, &c.  many  of  them  certainly  of  Pagans,  and  some  of 
them  not  human  ;  and  recourse  was  sometimes  had  to  vio- , 
lence  and  theft,  in  order  to  get  possession  of  such  valuable 
treasure.*  .      _  ,,..,    ,,,,     ^  ^. 

We  may  form  some  idea  of  the  value  that  was  put  upon 
some  relics  in  that  superstitious  and  ignorant  age,  from  the  , 
following  circumstance,  and  this  is  only  one  instance  pf 
great  numbers  that  might  be  collected  from  history.   Boleslas, 
a  king  of  Poland,  willing  to  shew  his  gratitude  to  Otho,  th^  , 
third  emperor  of  Germany,  who  had  erected  his  duchy  into.^ 
a  kingdom,  made  him  a  present  of  an  arm  of  St.  Adalbert^ ' 
in  a  silver  case.     The  emperor  was  far  from  slighting  the 
present,  but  placed  it  in  a  new  church  which  he  had  built 
at  Rome  in  honour  of  this  Adalbert.    He  also  built  a  monu- 
mient  in  honour  of  the  same  saint. •]•  ^ 

The  greatest  traffic  for  relics  was  during  the  Crusades  j^ • 
and  that  many  impositions  were  practised  in  this  business, 
was  evident  from  the  very  pretensions  theniselves  ;  the  same 
thing,  for  example,  the  skull  of  the  same  per,son,  being  ^tq 
be  seen  in  different  places,  and  more  wood  of  the  true  crosa 
of  Christ  than,  they  say,  would  make  a  ship.  In  this  th^ 
Greeks  had  the  same  advantage  that  the  Romans  had  by 
means  of  the  catacombs,  which  contained  a  sufficient  quan- 
tity of  bones,  to  which  it  was  easy  to  give  the  names  of 
celebrated  Christian  martyrs;  and,  at  a  distance  from  Rome, 
no  inquiry  could  be  made  concerning  them.        ,  . 

Besides  all  this,  a  happy  method  was  thought  of  by  Gre- 
gory I.  or  some  other  person  of  that  age,  to  multiply 
the  virtue  of  relics,  without  multiplying  the  relics  them- 
selves: for,  instead  of  giving  the  relic  of  any  saint,  he  con- 
tented himself  with  putting  into  a  box  a  piece  of  cloth,  which 
was  called  brandeum,  which  had  only  touched  the  relics.  It 
is  said,  that,  in  the  time  of  Pope  Leo,  some  Greeks  having 
doubted  whether  such  relics  as  these  were  of  any  use,   the 

•  Mosheim,  IT.  p.  Ul.    (P.)     Cent.  ix.  Pt.  ii.  Cli.  iii.  Sect.  vi. 
■j-  Sueur,  A.D.  looo.    (P.) 


216       HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS  RELATING  TO  ANGELS- 

Pope,  in  order  to  convince  them,  took  a  pair  of  scissors,  and 
that  on  cutting  one  of  these  cloths,  blood  came  out  of  it.* 

We  cannot  wonder  at  the  great  demand  for  relics,  when 
we  consider  the  virtues  that  were  ascribed  to  them  by  the 
priests  and  friars  who  were  the  venders  of  them  in  that  igno- 
rant age.  They  pretended  that  they  had  power  to  fortify 
against  temptations,  to  increase  grace  and  merit,  to  fright 
away  devils,  to  still  winds  and  tempests,  to  secure  from 
thunder,  lightning,  blasting,  and  all  sudden  casualties  and 
misfortunes  ;  to  stop  all  infectious  disorders,  and  to  cure  as 
many  others  as  any  mountebank  ever  pretended  to  do. 
Who  that  had  money  would  choose  to  be  without  such 
powerful  preservatives? 

The  fathers  of  the  Council  of  Trent  appointed  relics  to  be 
venerated,  but,  with  their  usual  caution,  they  did  not  deter- 
mine the  degree  of  it.  This  great  abuse  was  effectually 
removed  in  all  Protestant  churches  at  the  Reformation, 
though  many  other  things  equally  near  to  the  first  principles 
of  Christianity  were  left  to  the  sagacity  and  zeal  of  a  later 
period. 

Among  the  Catholics  the  respect  for  relics  still  continues, 
though,  with  the  general  decrease  of  superstition,  this  must 
have  abated  in  some  measure.  The  Holy  Land  is  still  a 
great  mart  for  these  commodities.  Haselquist  says,  that 
the  inhabitants  of  Bethlehem  chiefly  live  by  them,  making 
models  of  the  holy  sepulchre,  crosses,  &c.  Of  these  there 
was  so  large  a  stock  in  Jerusalem,  that  the  procurator  told 
him  he  had  to  the  amount  of  fifteen  thousand  piastres  in  the 
magazine  of  the  convent.  An  incredible  quantity  of  them, 
he  says,  goes  yearly  to  the  Roman  Catholic  countries  in 
Europe,  but  most  to  Spain  and  Portugal.  Many  are  bought 
by  the  Turks,  who  come  yearly  for  these  com  modi  ties,  f 


Basriage,  Histoire,  1.  p.  305.    (P.)  t  Travels,  p.  149. 


217 

THE 

HISTORY 

OP    TUB 

Corruptions!  of  ©Sriieftiattitg. 


PART  V. 

The  History  of  Opinions  concerning  the  State  of  the  Dead. 

— «-♦-• — 

THE 

INTRODUCTION. 


I  THINK  that  I  have  sufficiently  proved,  in  my  Disquisitions 
relating  to  Matter  and  Spirit^  that,  in  the  Scriptures,  the  state 
of  death  is  represented  as  a  state  of  absolute  insensibility, 
being-  opposed  to  life.  The  doctrine  of  the  distinction  be- 
tween soul  and  body^  as  two  different  substances,  the  one 
material  and  the  other  immaterial,  and  so  independent  of 
one  another,  that  the  latter  may  even  die  and  perish,  and  the 
former,  instead  of  losing  any  thing,  be  rather  a  gainer  by  the 
catastrophe,  was  originally  a  doctrine  of  the  oriental  philo- 
sophy, which  afterwards  spread  into  the  western  part  of  the 
world.  But  it  does  not  appear  that  it  was  ever  adopted  by 
the  generality  of  the  Jews,  and  perhaps  not  even  by  the 
more  learned  and  philosophical  of  them,  such  as  Josephus, 
till  after  the  time  of  our  Saviour ;  though  Philo,  and  some 
others,  who  resided  in  Egypt,  might  have  adopted  that  tenet 
in  an  earlier  period. 

Though  a  distinction  is  made  in  the  Scriptures,  between 
the  principle,  or  seat,  of  thought  in  man,  and  the  parts  which 
are  destined  to  other  functions  ;  and  in  the  New  Testament 
that  principle  may  sometimes  be  signified  by  the  term  soul ; 
yet  there  is  no  instance,  either  in  the  Old  or  New  Testament, 
of  this  soul  being  supposed  to  be  in  one  place  and  the  body 


218  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS 

in  another.  They  are  always  conceived  to  go  together,  so 
that  the  perceptive  and  thinking  power  could  not,  in  fact,  be 
considered  by  the  sacred  writers  as  any  other  than  a  property 
of  a  living  man,  and  therefore  as  what  ceased  of  course  when 
the  man  was  dead,  and  could  not  be  revived  but  with  the 
revival  of  the  body. 

Accordingly,  we  have  no  promise  of  any  reward,  or  any 
threatening  of  punishment,  after  death,  but  that  which  is 
represented  as  taking  place  at  the  general  resurrection.  And 
it  is  obseiTable  that  this  is  never,  in  the  Scriptures,  called, 
as  with  us,  the  resurrection  of  the  body  (as  if  the  soul,  in  the 
mean  time,  was  in  some  other  place),  but  always  the  resur- 
rection of  the  dead.,  that  is,  of  the  man.  If,  therefore,  there 
be  any  intermediate  state^  in  which  the  soul  alone  exists, 
conscious  of  any  thing,  there  is  an  absolute  silence  concern- 
ing it  in  the  Scriptures  ;  death  being  always  spoken  of  there 
as  a  state  of  rest,  of  silence,  and  of  darknesss,  a  place  where 
the  wicked  cease  from  troubling^  but  where  the  righteous  caU' 
not  praise  God.* 

This  is  the  sum  of  the  argument  from  the  Scriptures,  and 
comes  in  aid  of  the  arguments  from  reason  and  the  nature  of 
things,  which  shew  the  utter  incapacity  of  any  connexion 
between  substances  so  totally  foreign  to  each  other,  as  the 
material  and  immaterial  principles  are  always  described  to 
be  ;  things  that  have  no  common  property  whate"^e)*,  and  ' 
therefore  must  be  incapable  of  all  mutual  action.     I  ththK  I 
have  shewn  that,  let  the  immaterial  principle  be  defined  ^n" 
w^hatever  manner  it  is  possible  to  define  it,  th^' supposition  ' 
of  it  explains  no  one  phenomenon  in  nature  ;  there  being  no  ' 
more  conceivable  connexion  between  the  powers  of  thought, 
cind  this  immaterial,  than  between  the  same  powers  and  a 
material  principle;  and  for  any  thing  that  appears,  our'ig'no- 
rance  concerning  the  nature  of  this  principle  should  lead  \i^ 
to  suppose  that  it  may,  just  as  well  as  that   \t  may  not,   be 
compatible  with  matter. 

All  that  can  be  said,  is^  that  we  can  ^ee  no  relation  be- 
tween the  principle  of  sensation  and  thought,  and  any  systeih 
of  matter ;  but  neither  do'  we  perceive  any  i-elatron  which 
matter  bears  to  gravity,  and  various  other  properties,  with 
which  we  see  that  it  is,  in  fact,  endued.'  The  saniie  gr*eat 
Being,  therefore;,  that  has  endued  matter  with  a  Vari'^ty' of 
powers,  with  which  it  seems  to  have  no  natural  corinexiori,'' 
may  have  endued  the  living  human  brain  with  this  poWe'r  6f 

*  See  Volll.  pp.  60;  354— S6^;* 


CONCERNING  THE  STATE  OF  THE   DEAD.  2Jft 

s^isation  SLfid  thought,  though  we  are  not  able  to  perceive /tow 
this,  power  should   result  from  matter  so  modified.     And 
siiM^e,  judging  by  experience,  these  powers  always  do  accom-. 
fiSif^y  a  certain  state  of  the  brain,  and  are  never  found  except 
accompanying  that  state;  there  is  just  the  same  reason  why, 
we  should"  say  that  they  necessarily  inhere  in,  and  belong  to. 
thie  l)rain  in  that  state,  as  that  electricity  is  the  necessary, 
property  of  glass,  and  magnetism  of  tlie  load-stone.     It  is: 
constant  concoinitancy,  and  nothing  elscs,  that  is  the  founda* 
tion  of  our  conclusions  in  both  cases,  aUke. 

Tiiere  is  not^  intact,  any  one  phenomenon  in  ftivourof  the 
opinion  of  the  soul  being  a  separate  substance  from  the  body. 
During  life  and  health,  the  sentient  powers  always  accom- 
pany thje  body,  and  in  a  temporary  cessation  of  thought,  as 
i^,  a, sw.oon^  apparent  drowning,  &c.  there  never  was  an 
instance  in  which, it  was  pretended,  that  the  soul  had  been 
in  another  place,  and  came  back  again  when  the  body  was 
revived.  In  all  these  cases,  the  powers  of  sensation  andtj 
thought  are,  to  all  appearance,  as  much  suspended,  as  those* 
oi  brmthing  and  moving ;  and  we  might  just  as  well  inquire 
where  th^  latter  had  been  in  the  interval  of  apparent  death, 
as  where  the  former  had  been  at  the  same  time. 

There  is,  indeed,  an  imperfect  mental  process  going  on 
during  sleep  ;  but  this  seems  to  be  in  proportion  to  the  im- 
perfection of  the, sleep  ;  for  when  it  is  perfectly  sound,  and«> 
the  brain  probably  completely  at  rest,  there  is  no  more  sen4, 
sation  or  thought  than  during  a  swoon  or  apparent  drownings 
Or,;  if  there  had  been  sufficient  evidence  of  uninterrupted  i 
thought  during  the  soundest  sleep,  still  it  might  be  supposed 
to  depend  upon  the  powers  of  life,  which  were  still  in  the 
body,  and  might  keep  up  some  motion  in  the  brain. 

The  only  proof  of  the  power  of  thought  not  depending 
upon  the  body,  in  this  case,  would  be  the  soul  being  after- 
wards conscious  to  itself,  that  it  had  been  in  one  place,  while 
the  body  had  been  in  another.  Whereas,  in  dreams  we  never 
have  any  idea  but  that  of  our  whole-selves  having  been  in 
some  different  place,  and  in  some  very  different  state,  from 
that. in  which  we  really  are.  Upon  the  whole,  therefore,  there 
caa  be  no  more  reason  to  think  that  the  principle  of  thought 
belongs  to  a  substance  distinct  from  the  body,  than  that  the 
principle  o^  breathing  and  of  moving  belongs  to  another  dis- 
tinct substance,  or  than  that  the  principle  of  sound  in  a  bell 
belongs  to  a  substance  distinct  from  the  bell  itself,  and  that 
it  is  not  a  power  or  property^  depending  upon  the  state  into 
which  the  parts  of  it  are  occasionally  put. 


220  HISTORY  OP  OPINIONS 

How  men  came  to  imagine  that  the  case  was  otherwise,  is 
not  easy  to  say,  any  more  than  how  they  came  to  imagine 
that  the  sun,  moon  and  stars  were  animated,  and  the  proper 
objects  of  adoration.  But  when  once,  in  consequence  of  any 
train  of  thinking,  they  could  suppose  that  the  effects  of  the 
heavenly  bodies,  and  of  the  other  inanimate  parts  of  nature, 
were  owing  to  invisible  powers  residing  in  them,  or  to  some- 
thing that  was  not  the  object  of  their  external  senses,  they 
might  easily  imagine  man  to  have  a  principle  of  a  similar 
kind  ;  and  then  it  was  easy  enough  to  advance  one  step 
farther,  and  to  suppose  that  this  invisible  principle  was  a 
thing  independent  of  the  body,  and  might  subsist  when  that 
was  laid  in  the  grave. 

It  was  a  long  time,  however,  before  men  got  quite  clear  of 
the  idea  of  the  necessary  connexion  between  the  corporeal 
and  the  spiritual  part  of  man.  For  it  was  long  imagined 
that  this  invisible  part  of  man  accompanied  the  body  in  the 
place  of  its  interment,  whence  came  the  idea  of  the  descent 
of  the  soul,  shade,  or  ghost,  into  some  subterraneous  place ; 
though  afterwards,  by  attending  to  the  subject,  and  refining 
upon  it,  philosophers  began  to  think  that  this  invisible  part 
of  man,  having  nothing  gross  or  heavy  in  its  composition, 
might  ascend  rather  than  descend,  and  so  hover  in  some  higher 
region  of  the  atmosphere.  And  Christians,  having  an  idea 
of  a  local  heaven,  somewhere  above  the  clouds,  and  of  God 
and  Christ  residing  there,  they  came  in  time  to  think  that 
the  souls  of  good  men,  and  especially  of  martyrs,  might  be 
taken  up  thither,  or  into  some  place  adjoining  to  it,  and 
where  they  might  remain  till  the  resurrection. 


SECTION  I. 

Of  the  Opinions  concerning  the  Dead  till  the  Time  of  Austin. 

In  the  second  and  third  centuries,  those  who  believed  that 
there  was  a  soul  distinct  from  the  body,  supposed  that  after 
death  it  went  to  some  place  under  ground;  but  as  this  is  not 
the  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures,  it  could  not  have  been  the 
general  opinion  of  Christians  at  the  first ;  and  how  long  they 
kept  to  ihe  genuine  doctrine  of  revelation,  and  the  dictates 
of  reason  and  common  sense,  in  this  respect,  cannot  be  de- 
termined. It  appears,  however,  that  there  were  some  Chris- 
tians who  did  so,  and  that  in  Arabia  this  doctrine  was  held 
by  some  so  late  as  the  third  century.  For  we  are  informed 
that  they  maintained  that  the  soul  perishes  with  the  body, 


CONCERNING  THE  STATE  OF  THE   DEAD.  221 

but  that  it  will  be  raised  to  life  again,  by  the  power  of  God, 
at  the  resurrection.  It  is  said,  however,  that  they  were  in- 
duced to  abandon  this  opinion  by  the  arguments  and  influ- 
ence of  Origen.* 

It  was  in  Arabia  also,  that  we  find  the  opinion  of  Christ 
having  no  proper  divinity  of  his  own,  but  only  that  of  the 
Father  residing  in  him,  and  that  he  had  no  existence  at  all 
before  his  appearance  in  this  world.  This  opinion  is  like- 
wise said  to  have  been  confuted  by  Origen. f  Du  Pin  says, 
that  Tatian  also  held  the  opinion  of  the  Arabians  with  respect 
to  the  soul.if 

It  is  to  be  regretted  that  we  have  no  farther  accounts  con- 
cerning these  Christians.  Ecclesiastical  historians  call  them 
philosophers;  but  the  system  which  they  held  was  funda- 
mentally different  from  that  of  any  other  philosophy  in  those 
times.  It  cannot,  however,  be  supposed  that  this  opinion 
was  peculiar  to  these  people.  The  Jewish  Christians,  at 
least,  must  have  retained  it,  and  probably  as  long  as  they 
continued  to  subsist.  But  we  have  no  distinct  account  of 
their  opinions,  or  of  any  thing  relating  to  them.  They  were 
not  writers  themselves,  and  those  that  were,  had  little  inter- 
course with  them,  or  value  for  them. 

Whenever  the  Jews  received  the  opinion  of  the  separate 
existence  of  the  soul,  it  was  in  the  imperfect  state  above- 
mentioned.  For  they  held  that  there  was  a  place  below  the 
earth,  which  they  called  paradise^  where  the  souls  of  good 
men  remained  ;  and  they  distinguished  this  from  the  upper 
paradise^  where  they  were  to  be  after  the  resurrection.  The 
Christians  borrowed  their  opinion  from  the  Jews,  and  sup- 
posed  that  Hades,  or  the  place  of  souls,  was  "  divided  into  two 
mansions,  in  one  whereof  the  souls  of  the  wicked  remained 
in  grief  and  torment,  and  in  the  other  those  of  the  godly,  in 
joy  and  happiness  ;  both  of  them  expecting  the  general  re- 
surrection-day." § 

Into  this  general  receptacle  of  souls,  it  was  the  opinion 
of  the  early  fathers,  that  Christ  descended,  to  preach  ;  they 
supposing  these  to  be  the  spirits  in  prisoii  mentioned  by  the 
apostle  Peter,  1  Pet.  iii.  19.  And  as  it  is  said  in  the  gospel 
that  he  came  not  to  call  the  lighteousy  but  sinners  to  repent- 
ance, some  of  them  supposed  either  that  he  did  not  give 
much  attention  to  the  good,  or  that  they  did  not  attend  to 
him ;  for  they  say  that,  whereas  he  brought  away  many  of 

•  Euseb.  Hist.  L.  vi.  C.  xxxvii.  1.  p.  299-     (P.)     See  Vol.  II.  p.  375. 

+  Ibid.  L.vi.  C.  xxxiii.  p.  297.  (P.)        %  Bibliotheca  Patruni,  I.  p.  55.  (P.) 

§  History  of  the  Apostles'  Creed,  p.  198,  &c.     (P.)     Ed.  5,  pp.  190-.,19«. 


322  HTSTORY  OF   OPINIONS 

th«  wicked,  he  left  those  of  the  good  where  they  were.  But 
perhaps  the  original  tradition  was,  that  in  consequence  of 
converting  them,  he  removed  them  from  the  place  where  the 
wicked  were  confined,  to  this  subterraneous  paradise,  where 
tthe  souls  of  the  righteous  remain,  in  joyful  expectation  of  a 
happy  resurrection.  Others,  however,  thought  that  our 
Saviour  preached  so  effectually,  as  to  empty  the  whole  of 
this  limbus  patrum  (for  so  also  they  called  the  precincts 
within  which  these  ancient  patriarchs  were  confined)  and 
carried  all  the  souls  with  him  into  heaven.*  But  this  mu'st 
have  been  a  late  opinion,  because  it  was  not  supposed  in 
the  time  of  the  fathers,  that  the  souls  of  good  men  in  general 
-would  be  with  Christ,  and  enjoy  what  was  then  called  the 
■beatific  vision  of  God ^  till  the  resurrection. 

This  opinion  is  clearly  stated  by  Novatian,  for  he  says, 
"  Nor  are  the  regions  below  the  earth  void  of  powers  fpotes- 
toii^z^yl regularly  disposed  and  arranged;  for  there  is  a  place 
whither  the  souls  of  the  righteous  and  of  the  wicked  are  led, 
expecting  the  sentence  of  a  future  judgment."  j-  This  was 
evidently  the  uniform  opinion  of  Christian  writers  for  many 
centuries  after  this  time. 

The  article  concerning  the  descent  of  Christ  into  hell^  in 
what  we  call  the  apostles*  creeds  is  not  mentioned  by  any 
writer  before  Rufinus,  who  found  it  in  his  own  church  at 
Aquileia;  but  it  was  not  then  known  at  Rome,  or  in  the 
East.  At  first  also,  the  expression  was  ytaroL-^odvio.,  but 
"  in  the  creed  that  carries  Athanasius's  name,  though  made 
in  the  sixth  or  seventh  century,  the  word  was  changed  into 
d^es  or  hell.  But  yet  it  seems  to  have  been  understood  to 
signify  Christ's  burial,  there  being  no  other  word  put  for  it 
in  that  creed."  :}:  But  in  the  declension  of  the  Greek,  and 
chiefly  in  the  Latin  tongue,  the  term  hades,  or  hell,  began  to 
be  applied  to  the  mansion  of  wicked  souls  ;  some  Of  the 
fathers  imagining  hades  to  be  in  the  centre  of  the  earth, 
others  under  the  earth,  and  some  being  uncertain  about  its 
situation. 

The  high  opinion  that  soon  began  to  be  entertained  of  the 
heroism  and  merits  of  the  martyrs,  led  Christians  to  suppose 
that  a  preference  would  be  given  to  their  souls  after  death. 
For  while  the  souls  of  ordinary  Christians  were  to  wait  their 
doom  in  some  intermediate  state,  or  to  pass  to  their  final 
bliss  through  a  purgation  of  fire,  it  came  to  be  the  general 

*  Burnet  on  the  Articles,  p.  71.  (P.)    Art.  iil.  Ed.  4,  p,  S7. 

t  I>e  Trinitate,  C.  i.  p.  5.     (P.) 

X  Burnet  on  the  Articles,  p.  69.  (P.)    Art.  iii.  Ed.  4,  p.  56. 


CONCERNING  THE  STATE  OF  THE   DEAD.  223 

belief  that  martyrs  were  admitted  to  the  immediate  presence 
of  God  and  of  Christ,  the  fire  of  martyrdom  having  purged 
away  all  their  sins  at  once. 

It  was  the  opinion  of  most  of  the  early  fathers  that  the 
world  was  to  be  destroyed  by  fire,  and  also  that  all  men  were 
to  pass  through  this  fire,  that  the  good  would  be  purified  by 
it,  and  the  wicked  consumed.  The  former  part  of  this  doc- 
trine they  might  learn  from  the  apostle  Peter  ;  but  it  does 
not  clearly  appear  whence  they  derived  the  latter  part  of  it. 
It  is  evident,  however,  that  they  had  no  proper  idea  of  the 
eternity  of  hell  torments.  And  it  was  the  opinion  of  Origen, 
and  after  him  of  Gregory  Nazianzen,  and  probably  of  others 
of  the  fathers,  that  the  wicked,  after  being  thus  punished 
according  to  their  deserts,  would  come  out  purified,  and 
obtain  mercy.*  Ambrose  thought  that  the  wicked  would 
remain  in  this  fire,  which  was  to  consume  the  world,  but 
how  long  does  not  appear. f  Hilary  maintained,  that  after 
the  day  of  judgment  all  must  pass  through  the  fire,  even  the 
Virgin  Mary  herself,  in  order  to  purify  them  from  their  sins. 
This  opinion  was  the  first  idea  of  a  doctrine  of  Purgatory^ 
>vhich  wa?  so  great  a  source  of  gain  to  the  monks  and  priests 
in  after-ages. 

Austin  speaks  very  doubtfully  with  respect  to  the  dead. 
He  sometimes  seems  very  positive  for  two  states  only  ;  but 
as  he  asserted  the  last  probatory  fire,  so  he  seems  to  have 
thought  that  good  souls  might  suffer  some  grief  in  their 
sequestered  state,  before  the  last  day,  on  account  of  some  of 
their  past  sins,  and  that  they  might  rise  to  their  proper  con- 
summation by  degrees.  See  his  sentiments  on  this  subject 
pretty  much  at  large  in  his  ^rs^  question  to  Dulcidius;'^ 
where  he  inclines  to  think  that  they  who  have  faith  in  Christ, 
but  love  the  world  too  much,  will  be  saved  but  so  as  hif  Jire; 
whereas,  they  who,  though  they  profess  faith  in  Christ,  yet 
neglect  good  works,  will  suffer  eternally.  In  his  treatise  De 
Civitate  Dei,§  he  does  not  seem  disposed  to  controvert 
the  opinion  of  those  who  say  that  all  will  be  saved  at  last, 
through  the  intercession  of  the  saints. 

The  Gnostics  are  said  to  have  maintained  that  the  greatest 
part  of  mankind  would  he  amiihilated  at  the  day  of  judgment, 
which  was  probably  the  same  thing  that  was  meant  by  those 
who  said  that  they  would  be  consumed  in  the  fire  that  was  to 
destroy  the  world. 

I*.  Su§«»r,  A.  D.  389.    (P.)  f  Ibii  A.  D.  397.    (^O 

X  Op.  IV.  p.  qa^,    (P.)  §  Lib.  7;,Tf^  C.  J^viiu    (P.) 


224  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS 


SECTION  II. 

Of  the  Opinions  concerning  the  State  of  the  Dead,  from  the 
Time  of  Austin  till  the  Reformatio?!. 

In  the  last  period  we  have  seen  something  like  the  doc- 
trine of  Purgatori/,  but  it  is  so  exceedingly  unlike  the  present 
doctrine  of  the  church  of  Rome  on  that  subject,  that  we  can 
hardly  imagine  that  it  could  even  serve  as  a  foundation  for 
it.  The  ancient  fathers  only  thought  that  when  this  world 
would  be  destroyed  by  fire,  that  fire  would  purify  the  good, 
and  destroy  the  wicked.  Whereas,  this  purgatory  is  some- 
thing that  is  supposed  to  take  place  immediately  after  death, 
to  affect  the  soul  only,  and  to  terminate  sooner  or  later,  ac- 
cording to  circumstances,  especially  the  pains  that  are  taken 
in  favour  of  the  dead,  by  the  masses  and  other  good  offices 
of  the  living,  as  well  as  by  their  own  benefactions  and  be- 
quests for  religious  uses  before  their  death. 

On  the  whole,  therefore,  it  looks  as  if  this  doctrine  of 
purgatory  had  been  built  upon  some  other  ground ;  and 
nothing  is  so  likely  to  furnish  a  ground- work  for  it,  as  the 
notions  of  the  Heathens  concerning  the  state  of  souls  in  the 
regions  below,  which  were  always  supposed  capable  of  being 
brought  back  again.  Also  the  popular  opinions  of  the  nor- 
thern nations  concerning  the  state  of  souls  after  death  were, 
in  many  cases,  similar  to  those  of  the  Greeks  and  Romans ; 
and  such  opinions  as  these  would  not  easily  quit  their  hold  of 
the  common  people  on  their  conversion  to  Christianity;  and 
being  held,  together  with  the  opinion  of  the  fathers  above- 
mentioned,  the  present  doctrine  of  purgatory  might,  in  time, 
be  the  produce  of  both. 

It  is  generally  said  that  the  foundation  of  the  present  doc- 
trine was  laid  by  Gregory  the  Great,  who  lived  in  the  sixth 
century,  about  160  years  after  Austin.  But  his  opinions  on 
the  subject  w^ere  very  little  different  from  those  of  Austin 
himself,  and  of  others  before  him,  of  which  an  account  has 
been  given  in  the  former  period  ;  Gregory,  however,  did 
suppose  that  there  was  a  purgatory  to  expiate  the  slight 
offences  of  which  very  good  men  might  be  guilty  :  but  he 
does  not  say  that  this  punishment  would  always  be  by  means 
of  fire,  nor  did  he  suppose  this  expiation  to  be  made  in  the 
same  place,  but  sometimes  in  the  air,  and  sometimes  in 
sinks,  &c.,  or  places  full  of  filth  and  nastiness.  He  also 
speaks  of  some  good  men  whose  souls  went  immediately  to 


CONCERNING  THE  STATE  OF  THE  DEAD.  225 

heaven.  But  in  one  way  he  certainly  did  orreatly  promote 
tlie  doctrine,  viz.  by  the  many  idle  stories  which  he  propa- 
gated about  what  happened  to  particular  souls  after  they  had 
left  their  bodies,  as  concerning  the  soul  of  kiiitr  Theodoric, 
which  was  boiled  in  the  pot  of  V^ulcan.* 

Narrow,  however,  as  these  foundations  were,  the  monks 
were  very  industrious  in  building-  upon  them,  fmdino-  it  the 
most  profitable  business  they  were  ever  engaged  in  ;  and 
about  the  tenth  century  the  present  system  seems  to  have 
been  pretty  well  completed.  For,  then,  not  even  the  best 
of  men  were  supposed  to  be  exempted  from  the  fire  of  pur- 
gatory ;  and  it  was  generally  represented  as  not  less  severe 
than  that  of  hell  itself.  But  then  souls  might  always  be 
delivered  from  it  by  the  prayers  and  masses  of  the  living, 
which  prayers  and  masses  might  always  be  had  upon  certain 
pecuniary  considerations;  and  the  fables  and  fictitious 
miracles  that  were  propagated  to  secure  the  belief  of  this 
new  kind  of  future  state,  were  innumerable. 

Thomas  Aquinas  says,  that  the  place  of  purgatory  is 
near  to  that  in  which  the  damned  are  punished;  that  the 
pains  of  purgatory  exceed  all  the  pains  of  this  life  ;  that  souls 
are  not  punished  by  demons,  but  by  divine  justice  only, 
though  angels  or  demons  might  conduct  them  to  the  place. 
By  the  pains  of  purgatory,  he  says,  venial  sins  are  expiated 
even  quod  cidpam,  or  from  the  guilt  of  them,  and  that  some 
are  delivered  sooner  than  others. f 

The  present  doctrine  of  the  church  of  Rome  on  the  sub- 
ject of  purgatory,  is,  "  that  every  man  is  liable  both  to 
temporal  and  eternal  punishment  for  his  sins  ;  that  God, 
upon  the  account  of  the  death  and  intercession  of  Christ, 
does,  indeed,  pardon  sin  as  to  its  eternal  punishment ;  but 
the  sinner  is  still  liable  to  temporal  punishment,  which  he 
must  expiate  by  acts  of  penance  and  sorrow  in  this  world, 
together  with  such  other  sufferings  as  God  shall  think  fit 
to  lay  upon  him.ij:  But  if  he  does  not  expiate  these  in  this 
life,  there  is  a  state  of  suffering  and  misery  in  the  next 
world,  where  the  soul  is  to  bear  the  temporal  punishment  of 
its  sins,  which  may  continue  longer  or  shorter  till  the  day  of 
judgment;  and  in  order  to  the  shortening  this,  the  prayers 
and  supererogations  of  men,  here  on  earth,  or  the  interces- 
sions of  the  saints  in  iieaven,  but  above  all  things,  the  sacri- 

•  Sueur,  A.D.  594.     (P.)  t  Somma,  IH.  p.  44C,  &c.     (P.)  ' 

X  PelrarcU  says,  "  1  pray  God  every  tlay  to  make  ray  purgatory  in  this  world." 
Memoires  pour  la  Vie  de  Petrarch,  III.  p.  277.     (P  ) 
VOL.  VI.  Q 


226  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS 

fice  of  the  mass,  are  of  great  efficacy.  This  is  the  doctrine 
of  the  church  of  Rome,  as  asserted  in  the  councils  of 
Florence  and  Trent."  * 

Before  this  time,  the  opinions  concerning  purgatory  were 
exceedingly  various,  with  respect  to  the  place  of  purgatory, 
the  nature  of  the  pains  of  it,  and  indeed  every  thing  belong- 
ing to  it.     Eckius  maintained  that  it  was  in  the  bottom  of 
the  sea.     Others  would  have  it  to  be  in  mount  Etna,  Vesu- 
vius, or  some  other  burning  mountain.     Sir  Thomas  More 
says,  that  the  punishvnent  will  be  only  by  fire,  but  Fisher, 
his  fellow-sufferer,  by  fire  and  by  water.     Lorichius  says, 
neither  by  fire  nor  water,  but  by  the  violent  convulsions  of 
hope  and  fear.      Fisher  maintained  that  the  executioners 
would   be  the  holy  angels,    but  Sir  Thomas  More  thought 
they  would  be  the  devils.     Some  again  thought  that  only 
venial  sins  are  expiated  in  purgatory,  but  others  that  mortal 
sins  are  expiated  there  likewise.     Dennis  the  Carthusian, 
thought  that  the  pains  of  purgatory  would  continue  to  the 
end  of  the  world  ;  but  Dominions  a  Soto,  limited  it  to  ten 
years,  and  others  made  the  time  to  depend  on  the  number  of 
masses,  &c.  that  should  be  said  on  their  behalf,  or  on  the 
will  of  the  Pope,    Thomas  Aquinas,  as  has  been  seen  above, 
makes  the  pains  of  purgatory  to  be  as  violent  as  those  of 
hell ;  whereas,  the  Rhemists  say   that   souls    are  not   in  a 
bad  condition  there;  and  Durandus,  holding  a  middle  opi- 
nion, gives   them  some   intermission  from    their  pains  on 
Sundays  and  holidays.     Bede  tells  a  long  story  of  a  Nor- 
thumberland man,  who  after  he  died,  returned  to  life  again, 
and  said  that  he  had  passed  through  the  middle  of  a  long 
and  large  valley,  which  had  two  lakes  in  it,  in  one  of  which 
souls  were  tormented  with  heat,  and  in  the  other  with  cold; 
and  that  when  a  soul  had  been  so  long  in  the  hot  lake  that 
it  could  endure  no  longer,  it  would  leap  into  the  cold  one ; 
and  when  that  became  intolerable,  it  would  leap  back  again. 
This  uncertainty  was  so  great,  that  the  whole  doctrine  must 
have  been  discredited,  if  it  had  not  been  for  the   profits 
which  the  popes,  the  priests,  and  the  friars,  made  of  it.-j* 

The  living,  being,  by  means  of  this  doctrine  of  purgatory, 
deeply  interested  in  the  fate  of  the  dead,  and  having  them  very 
much  at  their  mercy,  the  mistaken  compassion  and  piety  of 
many  persons  could  not  fail  to  be  excited  in  their  favour. 

*  Burnet  on  the  Articles,  p.  269-    (P.)     Art.  xxii.  Ed.  4,  p.  197.     SeeSess.  xxv. 
Decretum  de  Piirgatorio.     Con.  Trid.  Can.  et  Decret.  p.  233. 
t  Staveley's  Romish  Horseleach,  p.  205.     (P.) 


CONCERNING  THE   STATE  OF  THE  DEAD.  227 

Before  the  tenth  century,  it  had  been  customary  in  many 
places,  to  put  up  prayers  on  certain  days  for  the  souls  that 
were  confined  in  purgatory,  but  these  were  made  by  each 
religious  society  for  its  own  members  and  friends;  but  in 
this  century  "  a  yearly  festival — in  remeinl)rance  of  all 
departed  souls,  was  instituted  by  Odilo,  abbot  of  Cluui,  and 
added  to  the  Latin  calendar  towards  the  conclusion  of  the 
century."  * 

The  Greeks,  though  in  most  respects  they  had  supersti- 
tions similar  to  those  of  the  Latins,  yet  the}^  never  adopted 
their  notions  concerning  purgatory.  At  the  time  that  this 
opinion  was  formed  in  the  West,  the  two  churches  had  very 
little  intercourse  with  each  other ;  and  besides,  the  Greeks 
were  so  alienated  from  the  Latins,  that  the  reception  of 
it  by  the  latter  would  have  rendered  the  former  more  averse 
to  it. 

According  to  the  doctrine  of  purgatory,  the  moment  that 
any  soul  is  released  from  that  place,  it  is  admitted  into 
heaven,  to  the  presence  of  God  and  of  Christ,  and  made  as 
happy  as  it  can  be  in  an  unembodied  state,  which  was  con- 
trary  to  the  opinion  of  the  early  fathers,  viz.  that  all  souls 
continued  in  hades  until  the  resurrection,  or  at  most,  that  an 
exception  was  made  in  favour  of  the  martyrs.  However, 
this  doctrine  of  purgatory,  and  the  opinion  of  the  efficacy  of 
prayers,  and  of  masses,  to  procure  complete  happiness  for 
those  who  were  exposed  to  it,  at  length  obliterated  the 
ancient  doctrine,  as  appeared  when  an  attempt  was  made  to 
revive  something  like  it  by  Pope  John  XXII. 

Towards  the  conclusion  of  his  life,  this  pope  incurred  the 
disapprobation  of  the  whole  Catholic  church,  by  asserting, 
'•  in  some  public  discourses,  that  the  souls  of  the  faithful,  in 
their  intermediate  state,  were  permitted  to  behold  Christ,  as 
man,  but  not  the  face  of  God  or  the  divine  nature.  This 
doctrine  highly  offended  Philip  VL  king  of  France,"  who 
caused  it  to  be  examined  and  "  condemned  by  the  divines 
of  Paris,  in  1333.'*  The  pope  being  alarmed  at  this  oppo- 
sition, softened  his  opinion  in  the  year  following,  by  saying, 
"  that  the  unembodied  souls  of  the  righteous  beheld  the 
divine  essence  as  far  as  their  separate  state  and  condition 
would  permit;"  and  for  fear  of  any  ill-consequences,  from 
dying  under  the  imputation  of  heresy,  when  he  "  lay  upon 
his  death-bed,  he  submitted  his  opinion  to  the  judgment  of 
the  church."     His  successor,  Benedict  XH.,  after  much 

*  Moeheim,  II.  p.  223.     (P.)     Ceut.  x.  Pt  ii.  Cli.  iv.  Sect,  ii. 
q2 


5?8  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS 

controversy,  established  the  present  doctrine,  viz.  "  that  the 
souls  of  the  blessed,  during  their  intermediate  state,  do  fully 
and  perfectly  contemplate  the  divine  nature."* 

It  may  just  deserve  to  be  mentioned,  at  the  close  of  this 
period,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  same 
body,  was  questioned  by  Conon,  bishop  of  Tarsus,  in  the 
sixth  century;  M'ho,  in  opposition  to  Philoponus,  a  philo- 
sopher of  Alexandria,  (who  had  asserted  that  both  the  form 
and  the  matter  of  the  body  would  be  restored  at  the  resur- 
rection,) maintained  that  the  form  would  remain,  but  that 
the  matter  would  be  changed. f 


SECTION  III. 

Of  the  Revival  of  the  genuine  Doctrine  of  Revelation 
concerning  the  State  of  the  Dead. 

So  general  was  the  belief  of  a  purgatory  in  this  western 
part  of  the  world,  that  Wickliffe  could  not  entirely  shake  it 
off.  But  though  he  believed  in  a  purgator3%  "  he  saw  the 
absurdity  of  supposing  that  God  intrusted  any  man  with  a 
power  to  release  sinners  from  such  a  state :  but  whether  the 
souls  of  the  dead  might  be  profited  by  the  prayers  of  the 
living,  he  seems  to  have  been  in  doubt."  :|: 

The  ancient  Waldenses,  however,  who  separated  from 
the  church  of  Rome  before  the  doctrine  of  purgatory  had 
got  established,  never  admitted  it ;  and  presently  after  the 
Reformation  by  Luther,  we  find  it  abandoned  by  all  who  left 
the  church  of  Rome,  without  exception,  so  that  this  doctrine 
is  now  peculiar  to  that  church. 

The  doctrine  of  «  soul^  however,  and  of  its  existence  in  a 
separate  conscious  state,  from  the  time  of  death  to  that  of 
the  resurrection,  which  was  the  foundation  of  the  doctrine 
of  purgatory,  and  of  many  other  abuses  of  Popery,  was  still 
retained  by  most.  But  Mosheim  mentions  some  Anabap^ 
tists  who  held  that  the  soul  sleeps  till  the  resurrection  ;  § 

•  Mosheim,  III.  pp.  1.57,  158.  (P.)  Cent.  xiv.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  ii.  Sect.  ix.  See 
Vol.  III.  p.  376.  Dr.  Maclaine,  the  translator  of  Mosheim,  remarks,  that  "all  this 
Pope's  heretical  fancies,  about  the  beatific  vision,  were  nothing,  in  compari.son  with 
a  vile  and  most  enormous  practical  heresy  thai  was  found  iu  his  coffers  after  his 
death,  viz.  twenty-five  millions  of  florins,  of  which  there  were  eighteen  in  specie, 
and  the  rest  in  plate,  &c.  squeezed  out  of  the  people  and  the  inferior  clergy  during 
his  pontificate."     Ibid.  Note. 

t  Ibid.  I.  p.  473.     (P.)     Cent.  vi.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  v.  Sect,  x, 

:j:  Gilpin's  Life  of  him,  p.  70.     (P.)     See  also  Brit.  Biog.  I.  p.  48. 

S  Vol.  IV.  p.  163.     (P.)    Cent.  xvi.  Sect.  iii.  Pt.  ii.  C.  iii.  xxiii. 


CONCERNING  THE  STATE  OF  THE   DEAD.  229 

and  the  Helvetic  confession  condemns  all  those  who  be- 
lieved the  sleep  of  the  soul,*  which  shews  that  a  consider- 
able number  must  have  maintained  it.  Luther  himself  was 
of  this  opinion;  though  whether  he  died  in  it  has  been 
doubted. f  It  was,  however,  the  tirm  belief  of  so  many  of 
the  reformers  of  that  age,  that  had  it  not  been  for  "the 
authority  of  Calvin,  who  wrote  expressly  against  it,  the 
doctrine  of  an  intermediate  conscious  state  would,  in  all  pro- 
bability, have  been  as  effectually  exploded  as  the  doctrine 
of  purgatory  itself. 

Several  persons  in  this  country  have,  in  every  period  since 
the  Reformation,  appeared  in  favour  o^  the  sleep  of  the  soul ^ 
and  it  always  had  a  considerable  number  of  followers.  Of 
late  this  opinion  has  gained  ground  very  much,  especially 
since  the  writings  of  the  present  excellent  bishop  of  Carlisle, 
and  of  archdeacon  Blackburne  on  the  subject.  But  I  think 
the  doctrine  of  an  intermediate  state  can  never  be  effectually 
extirpated,  so  long  as  the  belief  of  a  separate  soul  is  retainedf. 
For  while  that  is  supposed  to  exist  independently  of  the 
body,  it  will  not  be  easily  imagined  to  sleep  along  with  it, 
but  will  be  thought  to  enjoy  more  or  less  of  a  consciousness 
of  its  existence.:}: 

But  when,  agreeably  to  the  dictates  of  reason,  as  well  as 
the  testimony  of  Scripture  rightly  understood,  we  shall  ac- 
quiesce in  the  opinion  that  man  is  an  homogeneous  being, 
and  that  the  powers  of  sensation  and  thought  belong  to  the 
brain,  as  much  as  gravity  and  magnetism  belong  to  other 
arrangements  of  matter,  the  whole  fabric  of  superstition, 
which  had  been  built  upon  the  doctrine  of  a  soul  and  of  its 
separate  conscious  state,  must  fall  at  once.  And  this  per- 
suasion will  give  a  value  to  the  gospel,  which  it  could  not 
have  before,  as  it  will  be  found  to  supply  the  only  satisfac- 
tory evidence  of  a  future  life.  For  though  a  future  state  of 
retribution  might  appear  sufficiently  consonant  to  some 
appearances  in  nature,  yet  when  the  means  of  it,  or  the 
only  method  by  which  it  could  be  hrouoht  about,  (viz,  that 
of  the  resurrection  of  the  very  bo'ly  that  had  putrifii-d  in  the 
grave,  or  hod  been  reduced  to  ashes,)  were  so  little  visible, 
(since,  to  all  appearance,  men  die  exactly  like  plants  and 
brute  animals,  and  no  analogy  drawn  from  them  can  lead  us 
to  expect  a  revival,)  we  must  eagerly  eml)r-'e«'  that  gospi-j,  in 
which  alone  this  important  truth  is  clearly  brought  to  light. 

•  Synt:igm:i.  p.  lo.     i  P.) 

t  See  Blackhuriie'h  Hist.  View,  Apprndix,  F.d.  2,  p.  344. 

t  See  Tht  State  of  the  Dead,  in  Vol.  III.  pp.  374—379. 


230    OPINIONS  CONCERNING  THE  STATE  OF  THE  DEAD. 

It  is  in  the  gospel  alone  that  we  have  an  express  assurance 
of  a  future  life,  by  a  person  fully  authorized  to  give  it, 
exemplified  also  in  his  own  person ;  he  having  been  actually 
put  to  death,  and  raised  to  life  again,  for  the  purpose  of 
giving  us  that  assurance. 

To  give  this  value  to  revelation,  by  proving  the  proper 
and  complete  mortality  of  man,  on  the  principles  of  reason 
and  scripture,  is  the  object  of  my  Disquisitions  relating  to 
Matter  and  Spirit,  to  which,  and  also  to  what  1  have  added 
in  support  of  it,  in  my  discussion  of  the  subject  with 
Dr.  Price,*  I  beg  leave  to  refer  my  readers. 

*  See  Vol.  IV.  pp.  18— 121 5  also  Vol.  II.  pp.  354— 364  j  and  Vol.  III.  pp.  18T, 
1 82,  242—258. 


231 

THE 

HISTORY 

OF    TnB 

(S^orruption!5  of  (Etti^timii^,  * 


PART  VI. 

T7i£  History  of  Opinions  relating  to  the  Lord's  Supper. 

— •-♦-•^ — 

THE 

INTRODUCTION. 


There  is  nothing  in  the  whole  history  that  I  have  under- 
taken to  write,  so  extraordinary  as  the  abuses  that  have  been 
introduced  into  the  rite  of  the  Lords  supper.  Nothing 
can  be  imagined  more  simple  in  its  original  institution, 
or  less  liable  to  misapprehension  or  abuse ;  and  yet,  in  no 
instance  whatever,  has  the  depravation  of  the  original 
doctrine  and  custom,  proceeded  to  a  greater  height,  or  had 
more  serious  consequences. 

In  allusion,  perhaps,  to  the  festival  of  the  passover,  our 
Lord  appointed  his  disciples  to  eat  bread  and  drink  wine  in 
remembrance  of  him  ;  informing  them  that  the  bread  repre- 
sented his  body,  which  was  going  to  be  broken,  and  the  wine 
his  blood,  which  was  about  to  be  shed  for  them  ;  and  we 
are  informed  by  the  apostle  Paul,  that  this  rite  is  to  con- 
tinue in  the  christian  church  till  our  Lord's  second  coming. 
Farther  than  this  we  are  not  informed  in  the  New  Testament. 
We  only  find  that  the  custom  was  certainly  kept  up,  and 
that  the  Christians  of  the  primitive  times  probably  con- 
cluded the  public  worship  of  every  Lord's  day  with  the 
celebration  of  it.  As  the  rite  wrs  peculinr  to  Christians, 
the  celebration  of  it  was,  of  course,  in  common  with  joining 

•   Vol.  II.  Ed.  1783. 


232  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS 

habitually  in  the  public  worship  of  Christians,  an  open 
declaration  of  a  man's  being  a  Christian,  and  more  so,  indeed, 
than  any  other  visible  circumstance;  because  other  persons 
might  occasionally  attend  the  public  worship  of  Christians, 
without  bearing  any  proper  part  in  it  themselves. 

Let  us  now  see  what  additions  have  been  made  to  this 
simple  institution,  in  several  periods,  from  the  primitive 
times  to  our  own.  And  for  this  purpose  it  will  be  most 
convenient  to  divide  the  whole  history  into  four  parts  ;  the 
first  from  the  age  of  the  apostles  to  that  of  Austin,  including 
his  time,  and  that  of  the  great  men  who  were  his  contempo- 
raries ;  the  second  extending  from  that  period  to  the  time  of 
Paschasius  ;  the  third,  from  him  to  the  Reformation  ;  and 
the  fourth,  from  that  time  to  the  present. 

In  writing  the  history  of  this  subject,  in  each  of  the 
periods,  I  shall  first  note  the  changes  of  opinion  with  respect 
to  the  Lord's  supper  itself,  together  with  the  change  of 
language  which  took  place  in  consequence  of  it.  I  shall 
then  give  an  account  of  the  superstitious  practices  that 
were  grounded  on  those  opinions;  and  lastly,  I  shall  relate 
what  particulars  I  have  met  with  relating  to  the  manner  of 
Celebration. 


SECTION   L 

The  History  of  the  Eucharist  till  after  the  Time  of  Austin. 

The  first  new  idea  which  was  superadded  to  the  original 
notion  of  the  Lord's  supper,  was  that  of  its  being  a  sacrament, 
or  an  oatli  to  be  true  to  a  leader.  For  the  word  sacrament 
is  not  to  be  found  in  the  Scriptures,  but  was  afterwards  bor- 
rowed from  the  Latin  tongue,  in  which  it  signified  the  oath 
which  a  Roman  soldier  took  to  his  general.  Thus,  in  the 
first  century,  Pliny  reports,  that  the  Christians  were  wont 
to  meet  together  before  it  was  light,  and  to  bind  themselves 
by  a  sacrament.-*  This,  I  would  observe,  is  but  a  small 
deviation  from  the  original  idea  of  the  Lord's  supper  ;  and 
though  it  be  not  the  same  with  the  true  idea  of  it,  as  before 
explained,  yet  it  cannot  be  said  to  be  contrary  to  it.  After- 
wards the  word  sacrament  came  to  be  used  by  christian 
writers  in  a  very  loose  manner,  for  every  thing  that  was 
looked  upon  to  be  solemn  or  mysterious,  and,  indeed,  as 

*  "  Essent  soliti  ante  lucem  convenire  ;  seque  sacraincnto  abstringere."  L.  x. 
Ep.  xcvii. 


RELATING  TO  THE   F.ORd's  SUPPER.  233 

Bishop  Hoadly  observes,  for  almost  every  thing  relating  to 
religion.  * 

The  next  idea  which  was  added  to  the  primitive  notion 
of  the  Lord's  supper,  was  of  a  mucli  more  ahirniing  nature, 
and  had  a  long  train  of  the  worst  consequences.  This  was 
the  considering  of  this  institution  as  a  tni/stcn/.  And,  in- 
deed, the  Christians  affected  very  early  to  call  this  rite  one 
of  the  uiffstcrics  of  our  hoUj  religion.  By  the  term  mystery 
was  meant,  originally,  the  more  secret  parts  of  the  heathen 
worship,  to  which  select  persons  only  were  admitted,  and 
those  under  an  oath  of  secrecy.  Those  mysteries  were  also 
called  ittitiations :  those  who  were  initiated  were  supposed 
to  be  pure  and  holy,  while  those  who  were  not  initiated 
were  considered  as  impure  and  profane  ;  and  by  these  mys- 
teries the  Heathens  were  more  attached  to  their  religion 
than  by  any  other  circumstance  whatever.  This  made  the 
first  Christians  (many  of  whom  were  first  converted  from 
Heathenism,  and  who  could  not  all  at  once  divest  themselves 
of  their  fondness  for  pomp  and  mystery)  wish  to  have  some- 
thing of  this  nature,  which  was  so  striking  and  captivating, 
in  the  christian  religion  ;  and  the  rite  of  the  Lord's  supper 
soon  struck  them,  as  what  might  easily  answer  this  pur- 
pose. 

When  this  new  idea  was  introduced,  they,  in  consequence 
of  it,  began  to  exclude  all  who  did  not  partake  of  the  ordi- 
nance, from  being  present  at  the  celebration  of  it.  Those 
who  did  not  communicate,  were  not  even  allowed  to  know 
the  method  and  manner  in  which  it  was  administered. 
Tertullian,  who  w^ote  at  the  end  of  the  second  century, 
seems  to  allude  to  this  practice.  "  Pious  initiations,"  he 
says,  "  drive  away  the  profane,  and  it  is  of  the  very  nature 
of  mysteries  to  be  concealed,  as  those  of  Ceres  in  Samo- 
thrace  ;"f  but  as  he  is  there  defending  the  Christians  from 
the  charge  of  practising  abominable  rites  in  secret,  he  may 
only  mean  that,  on  the  supposition  of  such  practices,  no 
person  could  reveal  them,  their  enemies  not  being  present, 
and  they  would  hardly  do  it  themselves.  Indeed,  it  is  most 
probable  that  this  custom  of  concealing  the  mysteries  did 
not  take  place  till  the  middle  of  the  third  century.  %  After 
this  time,  the  council  of  Alexandria  reproached  the  Arians 
with  displaying  the  holy  mysteries  before  the  Catechumens, 
and  even  the  Pagans  ;  whereas  "  that  which  is  holy,"  they 

*  "  Cyprian  speaks  of  the  lu'uiy  and  great  sacraments  of  the  Lord's  Prayer," 
Plain  Account,  App.   Ed.  6,  p.  178. 

t  Apol.  C.  vii.  Opera,  p.  8,   (P.)  %  Larroche,  p.  125.     (P.) 


234  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS 

say,  "  should  not  be  cast  to  the  dogs,  nor  pearls  before 
swine."*  In  the  fourth  century  it  was  usual  to  call  the 
eucharist  a  most  tremendous  mystery,  a  dreadful  solemnity, 
and  terrible  to  angels,  f 

Another  new  idea  annexed  to  the  eucharist  was  that  of 
its  being  ?i  sacrifice ;  and  this  too  was  in  compliance  with 
the  prejudices  of  the  Jews  and  Heathens,  who,  in  the  early 
ages,  used  to  reproach  the  Christians  with  having  no  sacri- 
fices or  oblations  in  their  religion.  We  soon  find,  however, 
that  this  language  was  adopted  by  them,  and  applied  to  the 
Lord's  supper.  This  language  is  particularly  used  by 
Cyprian,  and  in  general  the  Lord's  supper  was  called  an 
eucharistical  sacrifice^  though,  in  fact,  they  only  considered 
it  as  a  memorial  of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  or  of  his  death 
upon  the  cross. 

It  is  evident,  from  the  nature  of  the  thing,  that  neither 
baptism  nor  the  Lord's  supper  operates  as  a  charm,  or  pro- 
duces any  immediate  effect  upon  the  mind,  besides  im- 
pressing it  with  proper  sentiments  and  affections,  such  as 
become  Christians,  and  such  as  are  naturally  excited  by  the 
use  of  these  symbols.  But  we  find,  in  very  early  ages,  that 
both  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper  were  imagined  to  ope- 
rate in  a  different  and  more  direct  method,  so  that  the  use 
of  them  was  supposed  to  depend  upon  the  mere  act  of 
administration.  Both  Justin  Martyr  and  Irenaeus  thought 
that  there  was  such  a  sanctification  of  the  elements,  that 
there  was  a  divine  virtue  in  them. 

This  idea  of  there  being  a  real  virtue  in  the  elements  of 
bread  and  wine,  after  they  were  consecrated,  or  set  apart 
for  this  particular  purpose,  opened  a  door  to  endless  super- 
stitions, and  some  of  a  very  dangerous  kind  ;  as  Christians 
were  led  by  it  to  put  these  merely  external  rites  in  the  place 
of  moral  virtue,  which  alone  has  the  power  of  sanctifying 
the  heart,  and  making  men  acceptable  in  the  sight  of  God. 
After  this  we  are  not  surprised  to  find  (and  it  appears  as 
early  as  the  second  century)  that  both  baptism  and  the  Lord's 
supper  were  thought  to  be  necessary  to  salvation. 

It  is  too  early  to  look  for  the  notion  of  the  transmutation 
of  the  bread  and  wine  into  the  real  body  and  blood  of  Christ; 
but  we  find  even  in  this  early  age  language  so  highly  figu- 
rative (calling  the  symbols  b}-^  the  name  of  the  things  repre- 
sented by  them)  as  very  much  contributed  to  produce  this 
opinion  in  after  ages.     It  was  the  custom  with  the  early 

•  Sueur,  A.  D.  SS3.    (P.) 

t  See  Middleton,  Introd.  Dis.   Works,   I.  p.  xli. 


RELATING  TO  THE  LORD's  SUPPER.  235 

fathers  to  say  that  the  bread  and  wine  passed  into  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ,  and  even  that  they  are  transilemented 
into  them.  They  also  use  other  expressions  to  the  same 
purpose  ;  meaning-,  however,  by  them,  nothing-  more  than 
that  a  divine  virtue  was  communicated  to  tliem.* 

"  We  do  not  consider,"  says  Justin  jNIartyr,  "  this  bread 
and  wine  as  common  broad  and  wine.  For,  as  Jesus  Christ 
was  made  tlesh,  and  had  flesh  and  blood  to  procure  our 
salvation,  so  we  learn  that  this  aliment,  over  which  prayers 
have  been  made,  is  changed,  and  that  by  which  our  flesh 
and  blood  are  nourished  is  the  body  and  blood  of  Jesus 
Christ.  For  the  evangelists  teach  us  that  Jesus  Christ 
took  bread,  and  said  this  is  my  body :  he  also  took  the  wine, 
and  said  this  is  my  blood."  -^  Tertullian,  however,  says,  that 
by  the  words  this  is  my  body,  we  are  to  understand  the 
figure  of  my  body.  X 

The  language  of  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  on  this  subject,  is 
peculiarly  strong,  and  might  very  well  mislead  his  hearers, 
whatever  ideas  he  himself  might  annex  to  it.  He  says  to 
the  young  communicants,  "  Since  Christ  has  said,  this  is 
my  body,  who  can  deny  it?  Since  he  has  said,  this  is  my 
blood,  who  can  say  it  is  not  so?  He  formerly  changed 
water  into  wine,  and  is  he  not  worthy  to  be  believed,  when 
he  says  that  he  has  changed  the  wine  into  his  blood  ? 
Wherefore  let  us,  with  full  assurance  of  faith,  take  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ.  For  under  the  form  of  bread,  the  body 
is  given  to  them,  and  under  the  form  of  wine,  his  blood." 
He  then  tells  his  pupils  they  must  not  judge  of  this  by  their 
senses,  but  by  faith.  § 

This  writer  carried  his  idea  of  the  sanctity  of  the  conse- 
crated elements  so  far,  as  not  to  allow  that  they  ever  went 
into  the  excrements  of  the  body  ;  maintaining  that  they  en- 
tered wholly  into  the  substance  of  the  communicants  ;  and 
Chrysostom  supported  this  opinion,  by  the  comparison  of 
wax,  which  is  consumed  in  the  fire,  without  leaving  ashes 
or  soot.  II  This  was  going  very  far  indeed  for  so  early  an 
age. 

About  two  hundred  years  after  Christ,  Christians  applied 
their  thoughts  very  much  to  the  giving  of  mystical  signifi- 
cations to  the  sacraments,  as  they  were  also  fond  of  mystical 
interpretations  of  scripture.  Among  other  allusions,  a 
happy  one  enough  was  this,    that   the  sacramental   bread, 

*  Larroche,  p.  921.     (P.)  t  Edit.  Thirlbv,  p.  96.     (P-) 

X  Opera,  p.  40».     (P.)  (  Cat.  4ta.  Op.  p.  202.     (P.) 

II  Bamage,  Hittoire,  I.  p.  135.     (P.) 


236  History  of  opinions 

being  composed  of  many  grains  of  wheat,  and  the  wine  being 
made  of  many  grapes,  represented  the  body  of  the  christian 
chinch,  which  was  composed  of  many  believers,  imited  into 
one  society.  Cyprian  was  the  first  who  advanced  that  by 
the  wine  was  meant  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  by  the  water 
(which  they  always  at  that  time  used  to  mix  with  the  wine) 
the  christian  people;  and  that  by  the  mixture  of  them  the 
union  between  Christ  and  his  people  was  represented.  This 
idea  continued  a  long  time  in  the  church.  But  some  sup- 
posed that  this  water  and  wine  were  a  memorial  of  the  water 
and  blood,  which  issued  from  the  side  of  Christ,  when  he 
was  pierced  with  the  spear,  as  he  hung  on  the  cross.  * 

It  was  a  natural  consequence  of  this  superstitious  respect 
for  the  eucharistical  elements,  that  many  persons  began  to 
be  afraid  of  communicating.  Accordingly  we  find  that, 
whereas  originally,  all  Christians  who  were  baptized,  and 
not  under  sentence  of  excommunication,  received  the  Lord's 
supper,  yet  in  the  time  of  Chrysostom,  so  many  abstained 
from  this  part  of  the  service,  that  he  was  obliged  to  reprove 
them  for  it  with  great  severity  ;  and  various  methods  were 
taken  to  engage  them  to  attend  it. 

When  the  bread  was  called  the  body  of  Christ,  the  cloth 
which  covered  it  was  usually  called  the  cloth  of  the  body,  and 
was  considered  as  entitled  to  some  particular  respect.  And 
we  find  that  Optatus  reproached  the  Donatists,  that  they 
had  taken  away  these  body-cloths,  and  that  they  had  washed 
them  as  if  they  had  been  dirty.  Also,  Victor  of  Vita 
complained  that  Proculus  (the  executioner  of  the  cruelties 
of  Genseric,  king  of  the  Vandals,  against  the  Catholics)  had 
made  shirts  and  drawers  of  them.  This  body-cloth  was  to 
be  of  very  fine  linen,  and  not  of  silk,  or  of  purple,  nor  of  any 
coloured  stuff,  agreeable  to  an  order  made  by  pope  Silvester, 
or,  as  some  say,  pope  Eusebius.  In  this  age  the  table  on 
which  the  eucharist  was  celebrated  was  called  the  "  mystic 
table  ;"  and  Theophilus,  to  whom  Jerome  (if  the  epistle  be 
genuine)  writes,  says,  that  the  "  very  utensils  and  sacred 
coverings  were  not  to  be  considered,  like  things  inanimate, 
and  void  of  sense,  to  have  no  sanctity,  but  to  be  worshipped 
with  the  same  majesty  as  the  body  and  blood  of  our 
Lord."  t 

*  Lanoche,  p.  5.     (P.) 

t  Middletoii's  fntrod.  Dis.  p.  57.  (P.)  Dr.  Priestley,  in  his  edition  of  the  Cor- 
niptions,  had  attributed  this  representation  to  Jerome,  on  the  authority  of  the 
Latin  original,  given  in  a  note  by  Dr.  Middleton.  But  in  his  corrections,  men- 
tioned p.  12,  lie  proposed  the  alteration  of  his  text  (which  1  have  made)  on  thp 
authority  of  "  the  writer  of  the  Critical  Review"  who  says  that  Dr.  Middleton 


RELATING  TO  THE  LORD  S  SUPPER.         937 

111  tlie  fourth  century,  the  Lord's  supper  was  celebrated 
sometimes  at  the  tombs  of  the  martyrs,  and  at  funerals, 
which  custom  gave  rise  to  the  masses  which  were  afterwards 
performed  in  honour  of  the  saints,  and  for  the  dead.  Also, 
in  many  places,  about  the  same  time,  the  bread  and  wine 
were  held  up  to  the  view  of  the  people,  before  they  were  dis- 
tributed, that  they  might  be  seen  and  contemplated  with 
religious  respect ;  from  which  the  adoration  of  the  symbols 
was  afterwards  derived. 

Towards  the  end  of  the  fourth  century,  it  was  thought 
wrong  to  commit  the  blood  of  Christ  to  so  frail  a  thing  as 
glass.  Jerome  reproaches  a  bishop  of  Toulouse  with  this  ; 
he  being  a  rich  man,  and  able  to  afford  a  better  vessel,  and 
more  proper  for  the  purpose.* 

As  the  primitive  Christians  considered  their  joint- par- 
taking of  the  Lord's  supper  as  a  bond  of  union  among 
themselves,  it  was  natural  to  send  part  of  the  elements  to 
those  persons  whose  infirm  state  of  health,  or  necessary 
avocations,  would  not  allow  them  to  be  present.  For  the 
same  reason  consecrated  bread  was  also  sent  to  the  neigh- 
bouring, and  often  to  distant  parishes,  as  a  token  of  brotherly 
communion.  This  they  did,  particularly  at  the  feast  of 
Easter;  and,  provided  no  superstitious  use  had  been  made 
of  it,  there  seems  to  have  been  little  to  complain  of  in  the 
custom.  However,  the  council  of  Laodicea  thought  proper 
to  forbid  this  sending  out  of  the  elements,  as  a  custom  bor- 
rowed from  the  Jews  and  the  heretics.  But  pope  Innocent, 
who  lived  a  century  after,  still  continued  to  send  the  conse- 
crated bread  to  the  neighbouring  parishes,  f 

But  the  greatest  abuse  that  was  made  of  this  custom  was 
in  consequence  of  the  consecrated  elements  being  thought 
to  be  of  use  to  the  sick,  in  a  medicinal  way,  and  to  be  a 
means  of  preserving  persons  in  journeys,  and  upon  voyages  ; 
and  as  persons  might  not  always  have  carried  home  with 
them  enough  for  these  uses,  it  was  the  custom  for  the  priests 
to  keep  a  quantity  of  the  consecrated  bread  to  distribute 
occasionally,  as  it  might  be  wanted.  Austin  says,  "  If  any 
one  fall  sick,  let  him  receive  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ, 
and  let  him  keep  a  part  of  this  little  body,  that  he  may  find 
the  accomplishment  of  what  St.  James  says,  Let  those  who 

quoted  the  e<lilion  of  Jerome's  works  in  1706,  while,  in  the  Basil  edition  of  1563, 
which  he  describes  as  most  authentic,  the  opinion  is  attributed  by  Jerome  to 
Theophilus.  The  reviewer  adds,  that  the  whole  passage  is  probably  spurions. 
See  Middleton's  Works,  I.  p.  xlii.  Note,  and  Crit.  Rev.  IV.  p.  193. 

•  Larroche,  p.  53.     (P.)  t  B&smfre,  Histoire,  I.  p.  111.     (P-) 


338  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS 

are  sick  go  to  the  church  to  receive  strength  of  body.'*  *  This 
same  father  also  mentions  a  woman  who  had  made  a  plaister 
of  the  sacramental  bread  for  a  sore  eye.  j* 

Some  of  the  ancient  Christians  used  to  bury  the  sacra- 
mental bread  together  with  the  dead,  thinking,  no  doubt, 
that  it  would  be  of  as  much  use  to  them  in  that  long  journey 
as  it  had  been  in  other  shorter  ones.  However,  in  a  council 
held  at  Carthage  in  419,  this  practice  was  condemned  ;  but 
it  appears  that  the  custom  was  not  wholly  laid  aside  at  the 
end  of  the  eighth  century,  though  it  had  been  prohibited 
again  by  the  sixth  general  council  in  691.  The  reason  was, 
that  to  bury  these  sacred  elements  was  now  thought  to  be  a 
profanation  of  them  ;  so  that  a  custom  which  took  its  rise 
from  one  degree  of  superstition,  was  abolished  by  a  greater 
degree  of  it ;  and  of  this  we  shall  have  other  instances  in  the 
course  of  this  history. 

Having  thus  noted  the  changes  in  the  doctrine  of  the 
eucharist,  and  the  superstitious  practices  which  in  these 
early  times  were  derived  from  the  erroneous  opinions  of 
Christians  on  the  subject,  I  shall  now  relate  what  I  have 
been  able  to  collect  concerning  the  manner  in  which  it  was 
administered. 

In  the  first  place  it  cannot  be  denied  that,  in  the  primitive 
times,  all  those  who  were  classed  among  the  faithfuL  received 
the  eucharist  every  Lord's  day.  After  reading  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  the  exposition  of  them,  or  the  sermon,  at  which 
others  might  attend,  they  proceeded  to  the  public  prayer,  in 
which  the  audience  bore  their  part,  at  least  by  saying  occa- 
sionally Amen,  and  the  service  constantly  closed  with  the 
celebration  of  the  eucharist.  We  even  find  that  young 
children,  and  indeed  infants,  communicated.  This  was 
clearly  the  case  in  the  time  of  Cyprian.  -^  The  custom  con- 
tinued in  the  western  church  till  near  the  time  of  the 
Reformation,  and  it  is  still  the  practice  of  the  eastern 
churches,  and  of  every  other  part  of  the  christian  world  that 
was  never  subject  to  the  see  of  Rome.  § 

*  Basnage,  Hisloire,  I.  p.  l6l.     (P.)  f  Larroche,  p.  6.     (P.) 

X  On  whose  authority  (de  lapsis,  p.  175)  Middleton  says,  "  this  sacrament  was 
administered,  in  all  their  public  communions,  to  infants,  even  of  the  tenderest  age, 
before  they  were  able  to  speak."     Works,  I.  p.  xli. 

§  See  Vol.  II.  pp.  337,  338,  and  the  Notes.  1  find  on  a  farther  examination  of 
Smith's  Account,  that  the  catcchmneni  were  only  debarred  from  witiiessina:  "  tlie 
second  or  great  procession,"  previous  to  the  consecration.  He  says  that  "  Ihey  give 
the  eucharist,  in  both  kinds,  to  little  children  of  one  ov  two  years  of  age,  sometimes 
to  new-born  infants,  after  they  liave  been  christened,  in  case  of  imminent  danger 
of  death  ;  grounding  their  belief  of  an  absolute  necessity  of  this  sacrament  upon 
John  vi.  53."     Smith's  Greek  Church  in  \QQQ,  p.  l6l. 


RELATING  TO  THE  LORD*S  SUPPER.  939 

The  different  classes  of  Christians  in  the  primitive  times, 
as  they  respected  the  Lord's  supper,  were  as  follows.  There 
were  four  orders  of  the  Catechumens.  The  first  were  in- 
structed at  their  own  houses  ;  the  second  heard  the  expo- 
sition in  the  church  ;  the  third  attended  the  public  prayer; 
and  the  fourth  were  those  who  were  completely  ready  for 
baptism  ;  for  till  that  time  they  did  not  attend  the  celebration 
of  the  eucharist,  but  were  formally  dismissed  at  what  is  called 
missa  ca lech ume nor iwi,  as  the  final  dismission  of  the  as- 
sembly was  called  missa Jtdelium.* 

The  primitive  Christians  communicated  after  supper,  but 
the  custom  of  celebrating  it  in  the  morning  was  frequent  in 
the  church  in  the  time  of  TertuUian,  in  consequence,  no 
doubt,  of  a  superstitious  reverence  for  the  elements,  which 
led  them  to  think  that  it  was  wrong  to  eat  any  thing  before 
they  partook  of  them  ;  but  it  was  still  usual  to  communicate 
in  the  evening,  on  Holy  Thursday.  Chrysostom  being 
charged  with  giving  the  eucharist  to  some  persons  after  a 
repast,  said,  "  If  1  have  done  it,  let  my  name  be  blotted 
from  the  catalogue  of  bishops,  and  let  me  not  be  reckoned 
among  the  orthodox."  -j- 

It  having  been  customary  with  the  Jews,  whenever  they 
made  a  solemn  appearance  before  God,  to  bring  some  obla- 
tions, these  Christians,  whenever  they  assembled  for  public 
worship,  (which  they  also  considered  as  an  appearing  before 
God,  and  especially  in  the  more  solemn  part  of  the  service, 
the  administration  of  the  eucharist,)  brought  with  them  a 
quantity  of  bread  and  wine,^  and  especially  the  first-fruits 
of  their  corn  and  grapes.  Of  these  offerings,  or  oblations,  as 
they  then  affected  to  call  them,  a  part  was  reserved  for  the 
eucharist,  and  part  also  was  eaten  afterwards  in  common,  in 
what  they  called  their  agapes,  or  love-feasts,  but  the  re- 
mainder was  appropriated  to  the  maintenance  of  the  ministers 
and  of  the  poor.  Besides  bread  and  wine,  it  was  the  custom 
to  offer  many  other  things  of  value  at  the  same  time.  But 
at  length  they  limited  the  oblations  which  were  made  on 
this  particular  occasion  to  bread  and  wine  only  ;  and  after- 
wards they  usually  made  for  this  purpose  one  great  loaf,  or 

•  Sueur,  A.D.  216.     (P-J    ' 

t  Basnage,  Histoire,  I.  p.  132.  (P).  «'  The  Greeks  communitMte  fastiiij?, 
lookitifj  upon  it  as  a  thing  very  unlawful  and  scandalous  to  taste  a  drop  of  wine, 
or  eat  the  least  bit  of  bread,  for  several  hours  before  they  receive."  Smith's 
Account,  p.  158. 

X  To  prepare  for  "  the  sacrament  of  the  holy  eucharist, — the  priests  and  dearons 
— carry  the  gifts  of  bread  and  wine,  presented  by  the  people,  (o  the  altar  of  the 
Prothesis;  by  this  oblation,  separating  them  from  profane  and  common  use." 
Ibid.  p.  125. 


240  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS 

cake,  which  they  said  represented  the  unity  of  the  church, 
and  which  was  broken  in  pubhc,  and  distributed  to  as  many 
as  communicated.  In  the  fourth  century  some  churches 
substituted  what  they  called  eulogies,  or  lioly  bread,  for  the 
bread  of  the  Lord's  supper.* 

The  ancients  in  general  believed  that  the  water  was  mixed 
with  the  wine,  in  our  Saviour's  own  administration  of  the 
eucharist,  and  therefore  they  did  the  same.  This  mixture 
of  water  with  the  wine  is  mentioned  by  Tertullian,  and 
Cyprian  pretends  that  it  was  of  singular  use.  We  fmd  that 
some  Christians  communicated  with  water  only,  from  which 
they  were  called  Aquarians. •]•  These  were  not  only  Mani- 
cheans,  who  abhorred  wine,  but  also  others  who  were  in  the 
scheme  of  mortifying  the  flesh  by  abstaining  from  marriage, 
and  the  use  of  flesh  meat,  as  well  as  of  wine. 

When  the  elements  began  to  be  considered  in  a  super- 
jStitious  light,  as  something  more  than  mere  bread  and  wine, 
there  must  have  been  a  time  when  they  imagined  that  this 
change  took  place  ;  and  in  the  early  ages  it  was  supposed  to 
be  made  by  the  prayer  which  preceded  the  administration, 
and  not  by  any  particular  form  of  words  ;  and  this  is  the 
idea  that  the  Greek  Church  still  retains  concerning  conse- 
cration. But  afterwards,  though  it  is  not  easy  to  determine 
when,  the  change  was  supposed  to  take  place  as  the  priest 
was  pronouncing  the  words,  This  is  my  body,  in  Latin,  hoc 
est  corpus  meum ;  as  if  there  had  been  some  peculiar  virtue 
in  the  sound  of  those  words,  when  pronounced  by  a  person 
duly  qualified  to  use  them.  Thus  also  the  Heathens  ima- 
gined that  the  presence  of  the  invisible  Divinity  was  made 
to  dwell  in  an  image,  by  the  priest  pronouncing  some  form  of 
words,  which  was  termed  consecrating  thern. 

The  eucharistical  elements  being  now  considered  as  some- 
thing holy,  it  was  natural  to  suppose  that  a  degree  of  holiness 
belonged  also  to  the  table  on  which  the  service  was  per- 
formed, and  therefore  that  it  ought  to  be  prepared  by  some 
ceremony,  for  this  holy  purpose.  Gregory  Nyssen,  the 
same  whose  eloquence  on  the  subject  of  the  eucharist  has 
been  recited  already,  is  said  to  have  been  the  first  who  per- 
formed any  ceremony  of  this  kind.  It  was  about  the  fourth 
century,  as  is  generally  agreed,  that  places  of  worship  began 
to  be  consecrated,  though  in  some  very  simple  manner,  and 
it  was  then  forbidden  to  celebrate  the  Lord's  supper  except 
in  consecrated  places.     When  churches  were  built  with  more 

*  Basnage,  Histoire,  I.  p.  1 12.     (P.) 

t  Also  called  Eneratites.    See  Mosheiin,  Cent.  ii.  P.  ii.  Ch.  v.  S.  ix. 


RELATING  TO  THE  LORD  S  SUPPER.         241 

magnificence,   under   Constantino,    there   was  a  particular 
place  called  the  mncliiari/,  where  the  table  or  altar  stood. 

Lights  in  the  day-time  were  usual  in  many  ceremonies  in 

the  heathen  religion,  whence  an  idea  oicluirfiilneas,  and  of 

sacred ness  ^\'s,o,  was  annexed  to  them  ;  and  t!u>  Cliristians  of 

those  ages  were  but  too  ready  to  adopt  the  relii^ious  customs 

of  the  Heathens,  partly  from  their  own  attachment  to  them, 

and  also  with  a  view  to  make  their  religion  mor(?  invitino  to 

the  Pagans.     The  custom  of  using  wax -lights  at  the  encha- 

rist,  in  particular,  probably  began  in  the  time  of  Austin,  in 

the  fifth   century.      For,   in    the   time   of  Gregory  I.    they 

were  used  at   baptism  ;    and    Isidore  of  Seville,    who    was 

contemporary  with  Gregory,  speaks  of  itas  a  thing  established. 

"  Those,"  says  he,  "  who  in  Greek  are  called  Acoli/tes,  are 

in  Latin  called  link-hearers^  because  they  carry  lights  when 

the  gospel  is  read  ;  or,  when  the  sacrifice  is  oflered,  not  to 

dissipate  darkness,  but  to  express  joy,  to  declare,  under  the 

type  of  corporeal  light,  the  light  spoken  of  in  the  gospel." 

In  blessing  these  torches  and  flambeaux,  they  said,  "  O  Jesus 

Christ,  bless  this  wax,  we  beseech  thee,  that  it  may  receive 

of  thee  such  a  power  and  benediction,  that,  in  all   places 

where  it  shall  be  lighted  and  set,  the  devil  may  tremble  and 

fly  for  fear,  and  may  no  more  attempt  to  molest  or  seduce 

those   who  serve  thee."*      It  must  be  observed  that  this 

custom  of  using  lights  at  the  celebration  of  the  eucharist 

began  in  the   East,  a  little  after  the  time  of  Gregory  Na- 

zianzen. 

The  blessing  of  the  bread  and  wine  used  by  our  Saviour 
himself  was  probably  nothing  more  than  a  very  short  prayer, 
such  as  we  commonly  use  before  meat.  But  when  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  eucharist  came  to  be  a  principal  part  of 
solemn  religious  worship,  it  is  probable  that  the  prayer 
which  preceded  it,  and  from  which  the  whole  service  got  the 
name  of  eucharist^  was  of  some  length,  especially  as  we  do 
not  find  that  prayer  was  used  in  any  other  part  of  the  service. 
In  the  third  century  it  is  particularly  observed,  that  the 
prayers  which  preceded  the  celebration  of  the  eucharist  were 
considerably  lengthened,  as  well  as  that  the  solemnity  and 
pomp  with  which  it  was  administered  were  increased  ;  and 
that  at  this  time  persons  in  a  state  of  penitence,  and 
others,  were  excluded  from  it,  in  imitation  of  the  heathen 
mysteries. 

It  was  the  custom  within  this  period  to  ask  forgiveness  of 

*  Larrochc,  p.  537.     (P.) 
VOL.  V.  R 


242  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS 

one  another,  as  well  as  to  give  the  kiss  of  peace,  or  charity, 
before  communion,  the  men  kissing  the  men,  and  the  women 
the  women.  They  also  used  to  kiss  the  hand  of  the  priest. 
This  custom  of  Asking  pardon  before  communicating,  was 
used  in  France  in  the  eleventh  century.* 

At  first  the  deacons  generally  administered  the  elements, 
but  in  the  fourth  council  of  Carthage,  they  were  only  suffered 
to  administer  in  cases  of  necessity.  Afterwards  they  admi- 
nistered the  cup  only,  while  the  priest  who  celebrated  gave 
the  bread.  Sometimes  women  served  on  this  occasion,  and 
though  it  was  forbidden  by  Pope  Gelasius,  the  practice 
continued  in  many  places  till  the  tenth  century.-f 

Cyril,  of  Jerusalem,  at  the  end  of  the  fourth  century, 
exhorted  his  communicants  to  receive  the  bread  by  support- 
ino-  the  right  hand  with  the  left,  also  to  receive  it  in  the 
hollow  of  the  hand,  and  to  take  care  that  no  crumb  of  it  fell 
to  the  ground  ;  and  that  in  receiving  the  wine,  they  should 
approach  it  with,  the  body  a  little  bowed,  in  token  of  vene- 
ration. The  sixth  general  council  ordered  that  the  hand 
should  be  held  in  the  form  of  a  cross.  It  was  the  custom 
in  the  time  of  Jerome,  to  kiss  the  bread  ;  and  in  the  liturgy 
of  Chrysostom,  used  by  the  Greeks,  it  is  directed  that  he 
who  receives  the  elements  should  kiss  the  hand  of  the  deacon 
from  whom  he  receives  them.  J  It  is  needless  to  note  the 
progress  of  superstition  in  all  these  observances. 

When  the  service  was  ended,  the  congregation  was  dis- 
missed by  the  priest,  saying  Ite,  Missa  est ;  which  Polidore 
Virgil  acknowledges  was  also  the  form  of  dismissing  the 
idolatrous  services  of  the  Pagans.  §  There  was  likewise,  as 
was  observed  before,  a  formal  dismission  of  the  catechumens, 
before  they  proceeded  to  the  celebration  of  the  eucharist,  in 
the  same  M^ords,  and  from  this  term  missa,  the  whole  service 
came  afterwards  to  be  called  by  that  name,  which  by  corrup- 
tion is  in  the  English  language  mass. 

The  primitive  Christians  did  frequently  eat  in  common, 
before  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  supper.  To  this  kind 
of  entertainment,  to  which  every  person  brought  what  he 
thought  proper,  they  gave  the  name  of  agape  or  love-feast; 
and  it  is  thought  to  be  alluded  to  in  the  epistles  of  Peter  and 
Jude,  2  Pet.  ii.  13  ;  Jude  12.  This  custom,  however,  of 
eating  in  common  having  been  abused,  it  was  forbidden  by 
the  council  of  Laodicea  in  360.     But  before  this  time,  when 


•  Larroche,  p.  120.     (P.)  t  Ibid.  p.  123.    (P.) 

X  Ibid.  p.  119.    (P.)  §  Sueur,  A.D.  398.    (P.) 


RELATING  TO  THE  LORD's  SUPPER.  243 

it  bet^an  to  be  thought  improper  to  eat  any  thing  before,  the 
eucharist,  this  feast  was  omitted  till  after  the  celebration.* 

Such  was  the  progress  of  superstition  in  this  age  of  the 
church,  which  abounded  with  men  of  learning,  and  writers. 
We  are  not  to  expect  a  reformation  of  these  abuses,  in  the  next 
period  of  gross  darkness,  and  while  the  same  causes  of  cor- 
ruption, and  especially  a  fondness  for  pagan  customs,  and  a 
willingness  to  gain  over  the  Pagans  by  adopting  them,  con- 
tinued and  increased.  We  have  now  seen  how  the  pagan 
notion  of  mysteries,  together  with  that  o(  a  sanctifying  power 
in  the  elements  themselves,  contributed  to  introduce  a  train 
of  superstitious  practices  into  the  christian  church;  but  we 
must  go  much  deeper  into  this  superstition  in  the  two  fol- 
lowing periods,  with  less  pleasing  prospects  than  in  the  last. 
We  have  seen  the  shades  of  the  evening  close  upon  us  ;  we 
must  now  prepare  to  pass  through  the  darkness  of  the  night, 
but  with  the  hope  that,  as  we  come  nearer  to  our  own  times, 
the  daylight  will  visit  us  again. 


SECTION  II. 

The  History  of  the  Eucharist  from  the  Time  of  Austin  to  that 

of  Paschasius. 

In  this  period  we  find  a  very  considerable  advance  towards 
the  doctrine  of  transubstantiatioji,  which  was  afterwards  esta- 
blished in  the  western  church  ;  but  the  first  great  step  towards 
it,  as  well  as  almost  all  the  abuses  of  which  an  account  is 
given  iu  the  last  Section,  was  made  in  the  East,  where  Anas- 
tasius,  a  monk  of  Mount  Sinai,  (in  a  treatise  against  some 
heretics  who  asserted  that  the  body  of  Christ  was  impassible,) 
said,  that  the  elements  of  the  Lord's  supper  were  the  true 
body  and  blood  of  Christ ;  for  that  when  Christ  instituted 
the  eucharist,  he  did  not  say,  this  is  the  type  or  antitype  of 
my  body,  but  7ny  body.  This  is  evidently  a  language 
unknown  to  all  the  ancients,  when  they  spoke  not  rhetori- 
cally but  gravel}^  on  the  subject;  and  yet,  on  the  whole,  it 
is  certain  that  he  did  not  mean  so  much  as  was  afterwards 
understood  by  that  mode  of  speaking.  •)• 

But  John  Damascenus,  another  monk,  and  a  celebrated 
writer  in  theEast,not  only  followed  Anastasiusinhis  language, 
but  made  a  real  change  in  the  ideas  annexed  to  it;  saying 

•  Mosheim,  1.  p.  104.     (P.)     Cent.  i.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  iv.  Sect.  vii. 
t  Sueur,  A.D.  637.     (JP.) 

R   2 


244  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS 

that,  "  when  some  have  called  the  bread  and  wine Jigures  or 
signs  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  as  Basil,  they  spake 
of  them  not  after  consecration,  but  before  the  oblation  was 
consecrated."  "  Jesus,"  he  says,  "  has  joined  to  the  bread 
and  wine  his  own  divinity,  and  made  them  to  be  his  body 
and  blood."  He  illustrates  this  in  the  following  manner: — 
"  Isaiah  saw  a  lighted  coal;  now  a  lighted  coal  is  not  mere 
wood,  but  wood  joined  to  fire  ;  so  the  bread  of  the  sacra- 
ment is  not  mere  bread,  but  bread  joined  to  the  divinity  ;  and 
the  body  united  to  the  divinity  is  not  one  and  the  same 
nature,  but  the  nature  of  the  body  is  one,  and  that  of  the 
divinity  united  to  it,  another.*  In  the  second  Council  of 
Nice,  when  it  was  urged  on  one  side  that  Christ  had  no 
other  image  than  the  sacrament,  it  was  argued  by  the  council, 
that  the  sacrament  after  consecration  was  no  image,  but  pro- 
perly his  body  and  blood,  j"  This  has  been  the  faith  of  the 
Greek  church  ever  since  the  time  of  this  Damascenus,  who 
wrote  in  the  beginning  of  the  eighth  century  ;  and  his  name 
is  as  great  an  authority  in  the  eastern  church,  as  that  of 
Thomas  Aquinas  was  afterwards  in  the  western. 

In  reality,  the  Greeks  must  consider  the  eucharistical 
elements  as  another  body  of  Christ,  to  which  his  soul,  or  his 
divinity,  bears  the  same  relation  that  it  did  to  the  body 
which  he  had  when  on  earth,  and  with  which  he  ascended 
to  heaven.  They  must  suppose  that  there  is,  as  it  were,  a 
multiplication  of  bodies  to  the  same  soul.  No  real  change, 
however,  is  by  them  supposed  to  be  made  in  the  substance 
of  thebread  and  wine  ;  only  from  being  mere  bread  and  wine, 
it  becomes  a  new  body  and  blood  to  Christ. 

Whether  this  new  opinion  spread  into  the  West,  does  not 
distinctly  appear,  and  the  two  churches  had  not,  at  that 
time,  much  communication  with  each  other.  But  from  the 
same  general  causes  the  idea  of  something  mystical  and 
sacred  in  the  eucharistical  elements  kept  advancing  in  the 
West,  as  well  as  in  the  East ;  and  they  were  considered  as 
bearing  some  peculiar  relation  to  Christ;  who  was,  there- 
fore, thought  to  be,  in  some  extraordinary  manner,  present 
with  them,  but  in  ichat  manner^  they  had  not  perhaps  any 
distinct  idea. 

When  the  eucharistical  elements  were  considered  as  so 
peculiarly  sacred,  we  are  not  surprised  to  find  that  many 
methods  were  used  to  prevent  the  loss  or  waste  of  them. 
Among   other  methods,    they  began,  pretty  early  in   this 

*  Larroche,  p.  367.     {P.)  t  Taylor,  Grand  Apostaaj,  p.  160.     (P.) 


RELATING  TO  THE  LORD  S  SUPPER.         245 

period,  to  take  the  bread  dipped  in  tlie  consecrated  wine. 
This  was  particuhirly  noticed  in  the  eleventh  Council  of 
Toledo  in  67«5,  and  in  another  at  Braga  in  Ciallicia,  in  which 
a  decree  was  made  to  put  a  stop  to  this  practice  ;  luit  still  it 
was  allowed  that  the  eucharist  might  be  administered  to  sick 
persons  and  young  children  in  this  manner.  The  Armenians 
still  receive  the  eucharist  in  this  way,  and  the  Moscovites 
take  the  bread  and  wine  together  in  a  spoon.* 

I  have  observed  that,  in  the  former  period,  it  was  usual 
for  the  communicants  to  carry  some  of  the  consecrated  bread 
home  with  them,  and  to  take  it  with  them  when  they  went 
on  a  journey  ;  but  in  the  council  of  Saragossa,  within  the 
present  period,  they  who  did  not  eat  the  bread  at  the  time 
of  communicating  were  anathematized.  Thus  a  greater 
degree  of  superstition  put  an  end  to  a  practice  which  had 
been  introduced  by  a  less  degree  of  it.  However,  the  prac- 
tice of  consecrating  a  great  quantity  of  bread  was  kept  up ; 
and  in  the  time  of  Charlemagne,  express  directions  were 
given  for  keeping  it,  in  order  to  communicate  the  sick.f 
This  consecrated  bread,  it  had  been  the  custom  to  keep  in  a 
close  chest  in  the  church  ;  but  at  a  council  of  Tours,  in  567-> 
it  was  ordered  that  the  host,  (as  it  was  then  called,)  should 
be  kept  not  in  a  chest,  but  under  the  title  of  the  cross,  to 
excite  the  devotion  of  the  people.  J 

Among  other  superstitious  customs  within  this  period,  we 
find  that  sometimes  the  consecrated  wine  was  mixed  with 
ink,  in  order  to  sign  writino^s  of  a  peculiarly  solemn  nature. 
Thus  Pope  Theodore,  in  the  seventh  century,  signed  the 
condemnation  and  deposition  of  Pyrrhus,  the  Monothelite  ; 
it  was  used  at  the  condemnation  of  Photius  by  the  fathers  of 
the  council  of  Constantinople  in  869  ;  and  Charles  the  Bald, 
and  Bernard,  count  of  Barcelona,  also  signed  a  treaty  with  the 
sacramental  wine,  in  844.  It  is  evident,  however,  from  this 
very  abuse  of  the  eucharistical  elements,  that  they  were  not 
at  that  time  supposed  to  be  the  real  body  and  blood  of  Christ; 
for,  since  they  have  been  thought  to  be  so,  it  would  be 
deemed  a  great  profanation  to  make  any  such  use  of  them. 

•  Larroche,  p.  146.  (P.)  "  The  priest  takes  a  spoon,  fills  itfulJ  of  red  wine, 
puts  into  it  a  small  piece  of  bread,  and  tempereth  them  both  together,  so  delivers 
the  spoon  to  the  communicants. — After  thi.s,  he  delivereth  them  bread  by  il^lf,  and 
then  wine  mixed  with  a  little  warm  water,  to  represent  the  blood  and  w.iter  which 
flowed  from  our  Saviour's  side."  The  Kussian  Catechism — Ceremonux  of  the  Mus- 
coitites,  1725,   LOd.  2,  pp.  65,  66- 

t  Larroche,  |.  167.  (P.)  .'-mith  found  this  custom  in  the  Greek  church  at 
Constantinople,  in  1669.     See  his  Account,  p.  I62. 

t  Sueur,  A.  D.  567.    (P.) 


246  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS 

It  is  not  denied  that,  originally,  the  celebration  of  the 
Lord's  supper  was  a  part  of  the  public  worship,  in  which  all 
the  congregation  of  the  faithful  joined  ;  but  in  the  church  of 
Rome  at  present  the  priest  alone  communicates  in  general, 
while  the  congregation  are  mere  spectators  of  what  he  is 
doing,  and  only  join  in  the  prayers.  This  was  occasioned 
by  the  superstitious  veneration  for  the  elements,  from  which 
was  naturally  derived  an  idea  of  some  particular  preparation 
being  necessary  for  the  receiving  of  them.  The  first  notice 
that  we  find  of  this  kind  of  mass  was  about  the  year  700 ; 
but  we  have  seen  that,  even  in  the  time  of  Chrysostom,  the 
people  in  general  began  to  decline  communion  ;  but  in  the 
time  of  Charlemagne,  the  priests  were  forbidden  to  celebrate 
mass  alone  ;  and  Pope  Soter  ordained  that  no  person  should 
celebrate  mass,  unless  the  priest  made  a  third.*  Among 
other  accusations  of  John  XII.  he  was  charged  with  cele- 
brating mass  without  communion. f 

No  laws,  however,  could  long  check  the  torrent  of  this 
abuse.  It  being  imagined  that  the  celebration  of  the  mass 
was  offering  the  most  acceptable  sacrifice  to  God,  which 
would  avail  for  the  pardon  of  sin,  and  for  redeeming  souls 
out  of  purgatory,  large  sums  of  money  were  given  and  be- 
queathed to  the  priests  for  this  purpose,  which  proved  a 
source  of  immense  wealth  to  them.  But  this  abuse  was 
much  increased  when  monks  were  allowed,  by  Pope  Gre- 
gory, to  do  the  office  of  priests.  This  order  of  men  had 
much  leisure  for  the  purpose,  and  an  idea  of  peculiar  sanc- 
tity was  annexed  to  their  character  in  the  minds  of  the 
common  people. 

To  the  monks  maybe  attributed  the  origin  o^ private  chapels^ 
and  the  multiplication  of  altars  in  churches  for  celebrating 
several  masses  at  the  same  time.  For,  according  to  ancient 
custom,  it  was  not  lawful  to  say  more  than  one  mass,  at 
which  all  assisted  ;  and  it  was  a  thing  unheard  of  that  any 
person  should  celebrate  mass  on  the  same  day,  upon  the 
same  altar,  a  custom  which  is  still  observed  in  the  eastern 
churches.  For  the  Greeks  have  but  one  altar  in  one  church, 
nor  do  we  find  the  mention  of  any  more  in  the  western 
church  till  the  eight  century.  But  in  the  time  of  Adrian  I. 
who  lived  towards  the  end  of  the  eighth  century,  there  is 
mention  made  of  the  great  altar  to  distinguish  it  from  others 
in  the  same  church.  Whenever  the  phrase  occurs  in  any 
period  prior  to  this,  by  altars  we  are  to  understand  the  tombs 

*  Larroche,  p.  126.    (P.)  t  Sueur,  A,  D.  963.    (P.) 


RELATING  TO  THE  LORD  S  SUPPER.  24? 

of  the  itiartyrs^  which  are  often  so  called.*  The  first  men- 
tion that  we  have  of  the  eucharist  being  celebrated  more  than 
once  in  the  course  of  the  same  day  in  any  church,  is  in  the 
fifth  century,  when  Leo  I.  ordered  it  on  great  festival  days, 
when  the  crowds  were  so  great  that  the  churches  could  not 
contain  those  that  resorted  to  them. 

To  induce  the  common  people  to  continue  their  offerings 
after  they  ceased  to  communicate,  they  were  given  to  under- 
stand, that  provided  they  kept  up  that  custom,  the  service 
would  still  be  useful  to  them  ;  and  instead  of  a  real  commu- 
nion with  bread  and  wine  duly  consecrated,  the  priests  gave 
them  a  kind  of  substitute  for  it,  and  a  thing  of  a  much  less 
awful  nature,  viz.  bread,  over  which  they  prayed,  and  to 
which  they  gave  the  name  of  hallowed  bread.  This  was 
about  the  year  700.  f 

It  was  in  consequence  of  few  persons  offering  themselves 
to  communion,  that  the  priests  got  a  habit  of  speaking  in  a 
very  low  voice,  a  custom  which  was  afterwards  continued 
through  superstition.  This  is  said  to  have  begun  about  the 
end  of  the  tenth  century ;  and  some  say  that  it  proceeded  from 
a  report  that  God  had  punished  with  sudden  death  some 
shepherds,  who  sung  the  words  of  consecration  in  the  fields.  J 

Having  noted  these  general  abuses,  respecting  the  eucha- 
rist, I  shall  now  consider  the  method  in  which  it  was 
administered,  going  over  the  different  parts  of  the  service 
for  that  purpose  ;  and  we  shall  find  traces  enow  of  supersti- 
tion, every  step  that  we  take. 

As  there  is  nothing  prescribed  in  the  New  Testament 
concerning  the  order  of  public  worship,  or  the  mode  of  cele- 
brating the  Lord's  supper,  different  churches  fell  naturally 
into  different  methods  with  respect  to  them,  as  we  see  in 
what  remains  of  several  of  the  ancient  liturgies-.  That  of 
most  churches  had  probably  been  gradually  altered,  especially 
as  men's  ideas  with  respect  to  the  nature  of  the  service  itself 
had  changed.  The  present  canon  of  the  mass,  as  it  is  now 
used  in  the  church  of  Rome,  was,  for  the  most  part,  com- 
posed by  Gregory  the  Great,  who  made  more  alterations  in 
it  than  any  of  his  predecessors.  He  introduced  into  it  many 
pompous  ceremonies,  but  it  was  several  centuries  before  this 
canon  was  adopted  by  all  the  members  of  the  Latin  church. 
In  699,  Pope  Sergius  added  to  the  canon  of  the  mass,  that 
while  the  priest  is  breaking  the  bread,  he  should  sing  three 

•  Larrochf,  p.  47.    (P.)  t  Hist,  of  Ancient  Ceremooie*,  p.  88.     (P.) 

t  Larroche,  p.  79.    (P.) 


248  HISTORY    OF    OPINIONS 

times  Lamb  of  God  who  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world,  have 
mercy  upon  us ;  but  that  the  third  time,  instead  of  the  words 
have  mercy  upon  us,  he  should  say,  grant  us  peace.* 

Since  the  celebration  of  the  eucharist  was  now  considered 
as  a  proper  sacrljice,  the  table  on  which  it  was  offered  came 
of  course  to  be  an  altar ;  and  as  altars  in  the  Jewish  church, 
and  among  the  Pagans,  were  consecrated,  the  Christian  altars 
must  be  so  too.  The  first  mention  that  is  made  of  the  con- 
secration of  altars,  (more  than  was  observed  to  have  been 
done  by  Gregory  Nyssenus,)  is  in  the  council  of  Agde,  in  ^06, 
when  they  were  ordered  to  be  consecrated  both  by  chrism 
and  by  the  benediction  of  the  priest.  In  the  ninth  century 
Ihey  added  water  to  the  chrism,  and  incense,  and  other  things. 
They  also  consecrated  three  table-cloths  of  several  fashions, 
and  a  kind  of  veil  of  several  colours,  according  to  the  dif- 
ferent days,  &c.  j- 

In  order  to  be  better  entitled  to  the  name  of  altars,  and 
to  correspond  to  the  altars  in  the  Jewish  and  Pagan  religions, 
all  the  wooden  tables  were  removed,  and  all  altars  were 
ordered  to  be  m;ide  of  stone.  And  it  was  farther  alleged  in 
favour  of  this  custom,  that  Jesus  Christ  is  called  the  corner- 
stone and  foundation  of  the  church.  This  institution  is 
ascribed  to  Silvester;  but  the  decree  is  not  found.  It  was 
a  council  of  Epaone,  in  517,  that  forbade  the  consecration  of 
altars,  unless  they  were  made  of  stone,  ij: 

To  the  due  consecration  of  altars  it  is  now  requisite  that 
there  should  be  relics  in  them  ;  but  this  was  far  from  being 
the  case  originall}^  For  a  council  in  the  seventh  century 
ordered,  that  altars  should  not  be  consecrated  in  any  place 
where  a  body  had  been  interred. §  The  last  thing  which  I 
shall  observe  in  respect  to  altars  is,  that  Bede  is  the  first  who 
makes  any  mention  of  portable  ones. 

It  was  the  custom  in  all  this  period  not  only  to  make  use 
of  lights,  though  in  the  day-time,  during  the  celebration  of 
the  eucharist,  but  of  incense  also  ;  and  both  these  appendages 
were  borrowed  from  the  heathen  sacrifices,  and  were  first 
adopted  by  the  Greeks,  and  so  earl}^  as  the  middle  of  the 
fifth  century  ;  mention  being  then  made  of  assembling  the 
church  by  flambeaux  and  perfumes.  But  it  is  not  said  that 
this  was  for  the  celebration  of  the  eucharist  in  particular.  || 

Originally,  the  bread  that  was  used  for  the  celebration  of 
the  Lord's  supper,  was  such  as  was  presented  among  other 

*  Sueur,  A.  D.  699-    (P.)  t  Larroche,  p.  49.     (P.) 

%  Basnage,  I.  p.  47.     (P.)  §  Ibid.  p.  48.     (P.) 

II  Larroche,  p.  526.     (P.) 


RELATING  TO  THE  LORD  S  SUPPER.        ^49 

otferings  on  the  occasion.  Afterwards  it  was  the  custom  to 
make  one  threat  loaf  or  cake,  to  supply  all  the  communicants  ; 
and  this  was  broken  at  the  time  of  the  celebration,  and  distri- 
buted m  small  pieces  to  the  communicants.  Jkit  this  custom 
being-  attended  with  some  loss,  some  priests  in  Spain  began 
about  the  seventh  century,  to  prepare  the  eucharistical  bread 
in  a  ditlerent  manner,  baking  small  round  pieces  on  purpose, 
that  there  might  not  be  occasion  to  break  it  at  all.  But  this 
innovation  was  not  generally  approved,  and  it  was  expressly 
forbidden  by  the  Council  of  Toleilo,  in  693.  *  In  time,  how- 
ever, the  increasing  superstition  of  the  age  got  the  better  of 
this  regulation,  and  the  custom  of  making  small  round  wafers 
for  the  purpose  of  communion,  at  length  became  universal  in 
the  church. 

It  was  the  custom  in  the  primitive  church,  as  I  have 
alreadv  observed,  to  give  what  is  called  the  kiss  of  peace,  or 
of  charity,  immediately  before  communion.  This,  in  time, 
was  thought  to  be  an  indecent  practice,  and  therefore  ought 
to  have  been  laid  aside  altogether.  However,  Leo  III.  at 
the  end  of  the  ninth  century,  changed  this  custom  for  that 
of  kissing  a  plate  of  silver  or  copper,  with  the  figure  of  a 
cross  upon  it,  or  the  relic  of  ^ome  saint  after  the  consecration 
of  the  elements,  f 

In  the  fifth  century  it  was  the  custom  for  men  to  receive 
the  bread  with  their  naked  hands,  and  the  women  (who 
perhaps  did  not  expose  their  hands  naked)  in  a  clean  cloth, 
which  obtained  the  name  of  dominica.  Afterwards,  in  the- 
farther  progress  of  superstition,  it  came  to  be  the  custom  to 
receive  it  in  vessels  of  gold,  &c.  ;  but  this  was  forbidden  in 
the  sixth  general  council  in  680,  and  they  were  again 
ordered  to  receive  it  with  the  hand. ;]:  It  has  been  already 
observed,  that  (rlass  was  thought  to  be  too  brittle  a  thing  to 
receive  the  holy  elements.  Glass  vessels,  however,  con- 
tinued to  be  made  use  of,  so  that  it  was  thought  necessary  to 
forbid  the  use  of  them  in  a  council  held  at  Rheims  under 
Charlemagne  ;  and  in  another  council,  held  in  the  year  89.5, 
wooden  vessels  were  forbidden  to  be  used  for  that  purpose ; 
and  at  present  the  Latin  church  does  not  suffer  the  conse- 
cration to  be  made  in  any  thing  but  in  a  chalice  of  gold  or 
silver,  or  at  least  of  pewter  ;  and  a  council  held  at  AIbi,  in 
1954,  commands  all  churches,  the  yearly  rent  of  which 
amounts  to  fifteen  French  livres,  to  have  a  silver  chalice. § 

*  Larroche,  p.  36.    (P.)  t  Ancient  Ceremonies,  p.  90.   (P.) 

X  Larroche,  p.  555.     (P.)  §  Ibid.  p.  53.    {P.) 


250  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS 

In  the  primitive  times  we  find  no  mention  of  any  particular 
position  of  the  body,  as  more  proper  than  any  other  for  receiving 
the  Lord's  supper ;  but  as  superstition  kept  gaining  ground, 
the  East  began  to  be  held  peculiarly  sacred,  as  it  always  had 
been  held  by  the  Heathens,  who  worshipped  with  their  faces 
turned  that  way;  and  about  the  year  536,  Pope  Vigilius 
ordered  that  those  who  celebrated  mass  should  always  direct 
their  faces  towards  the  East.* 

We  see  the  effects  of  superstition  as  well  in  the  method  of 
disposing  of  what  remained  of  the  consecrated  elements,  as 
in  the  use  of  them.  Some  churches  used  to  burn  all  that 
remained  after  communion.  This  was  the  custom  at  Jeru- 
salem, and  it  is  so  with  the  Greeks  at  present ;  at  least,  says 
Fleury,"f  they  are  reproached  with  it.  At  Constantinople 
it  was  formerly  eaten  by  young  scholars,  sent  from  the  school 
for  that  purpose,  as  is  related  by  Evagrius,  who  wrote  at  the 
end  of  the  sixth  century.  The  Council  of  Toledo,  in  693^ 
left  it  to  the  liberty  of  each  particular  church,  either  to  keep 
what  remained  of  the  consecrated  elements,  or  to  eat  it ;  but, 
in  the  latter  case,  it  was  ordained  that  the  quantity  conse- 
crated should  be  moderate,  that  it  might  not  oppress  the 
stomachs  of  those  who  were  appointed  to  take  it.  But,  in 
whatever  manner  they  disposed  of  these  sacred  elements,  it 
was  the  custom  not  to  leave  any  of  them  till  the  next  day.:}: 

One  would  imagine  that  we  had  seen  superstition  enough 
in  this  one  article  of  Christian  faith  and  practice,  within  this 
period  ;  but  we  shall  find  much  greater  abuses  in  the  next : 
and  notwithstanding  the  greater  light  of  the  present  age,  they 
continue  iinreformed  in  the  church  of  Rome  to  this  day. 


SECTION   III. 

TJie  History  of  the  Eucharist,  from  the  Time  of  Paschasius  to 
the  Reformation. 

We  are  now  arrived  at  the  most  distinguished  aera  in  the 
history  of  the  eucharist ;  after  having  seen  how  much  the 
eucharistical  elements  in  this  age  of  darkness  had  gained  in 
point  oi sacredness  and  solemnity,  and  how  awful  a  thing  the 
act  of  communicating  was  generally  apprehended  to  be  ;  so 
that  commonly  the  priest  alone  communicated,  and  the 
people  very  seldom,  except  at  the  time  of  the  greater  festivals, 
and  especially  at  Easter. 

*  Ancient  Ceremonies,  p.  76.    (P.)  t  A.D.  1054.    (P.) 

t  Larroche,  p.  171.    (P.) 


RELATING  TO  THE  LORD  S  SUPPER.        251 

This  was  in  consequence  of  the  people  in  general  being 
impressed  with  a  confused  notion  that  the  eucharistical 
elements  were,  in  some  sense  or  other,  tin  body  and  blood 
of  Christ,  and  therefore  that  Christ  himself  was  present  in 
them.  But  in  what  manner  he  was  present  they  seem  to 
have  had  no  clear  idea.  This  general  notion,  however, 
paved  the  way  for  the  capital  addition  that  was  made  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  eucharist  by  Paschasius  liadbert,  a  monk  of 
Corbie,  in  France,  who  undertook  to  explain  the  manner  in 
which  the  body  of  Christ  is  present  in  the  eucharist. 

This  he  did  in  a  treatise*  published  in  the  year  818,  in 
which  he  maintained  that  not  only  the  bread  and  wine  were 
changed,  by  consecration,  into  the  real  body  and  blood  of 
Christ;  but  that  it  was  the  same  body  that  had  been  born 
of  the  V^irgin  Mary,  and  that  had  been  crucified  and  raised 
from  the  dead.  It  was  in  support  of  this  opinion  that  he 
wrote  the  two  books  On  the  Delivery  of  the  Virgin  Mary, 
which  I  had  occasion  to  mention  before  ;  in  which  he  main- 
tained, that  it  was  performed  in  a  miraculous  manner, 
without  any  opening  of  the  womb.f 

This  opinion  Paschasius  himself  seems  to  have  been 
sensible  was  bold  and  novel.  For  the  first  time  that  he 
mentions  it,  after  calling  the  eucharistical  elements  the  body 
of  Christ  in  general,  he  adds,  "  and  to  say  something  more 
surprising  and  wonderful,  (ut  mirabilius  loquar^J  it  is  no 
other  flesh  than  that  which  M'as  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary, 
which  suffered  upon  the  cross,  and  which  was  raised  from 
the  grave."  J    - 

Not  depending  entirely  upon  the  reasons  which  he  was 
able  to  allege  in  favour  of  so  extraordinary  an  opinion,  he 
likewise  produced  in  support  of  it,  what  was  no  uncommon 
thing  with  the  monks,  and  what  had  no  small  weight  with 
the  common  people,  in  that  ignorant  age,  namely  an  appari- 
tion., which  for  its  sinsjular  curiosity,  and  as  a  specimen  of 
the  impositions  of  those  times,  1  shall  relate. 

A  priest  whose  name  was  Plecgills,  officiating  at  the  tomb 
of  St.  Ninus,  wished,  out  of  love,  and  not  infidelity,  to  see  the 
body  of  Jesus  Christ ;  and  falling  upon  his  knees,  he  asked  of 
Grod  t.he  favour  to  see  the  nature  of  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ, 
in  this  mystery,  and  to  hold  in  his  hands  the  form  of  that 
little  child  which  the  Virgin  had  borne  in  her  lap  ;  when  an 

*  "  Of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Jcsiis  Christ  in  the  Eucharist."     Radbert  became 
abbot  of  Corbie,  where  he  died  in  865.     Nouv.  Diet.  Hist.  IV.  pp.  879»  880. 
t  Sueur,  A.  D.  818.     (P.)     See  p.  79,  supra. 
X  Ibid.  A.  D.  818.     (P.) 


252  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS 

angel  cried  to  him,  "  Get  up,  quickly,  and  look  at  the  infant, 
which  that  holy  woman  hath  carried,  for  he  is  clothed  in 
his  corporeal  habit."  The  priest  declared,  that  being  quite 
terrified  he  looked  up,  and  saw  upon  the  altar  the  child  that 
Simeon  had  held  in  his  arms,  that  the  angel  told  him  he 
might  not  only  see  but  touch  the  child,  and  that  accordingly 
he  took  him  and  pressed  the  breast  of  the  child  to  his  own, 
and  after  embracing  him  frequently,  he  kissed  the  God, 
joining  his  lips  to  the  lips  of  Jesus  Christ.  After  this  he 
replaced  the  beautiful  limbs  of  the  god  upon  the  altar,  praying 
to  God  that  he  might  resume  his  former  figure,  and  that  he 
had  scarcely  finished  his  prayer,  when  rising  from  the  ground, 
he  found  that  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ  was  restored  to  its 
former  figure,  as  he  had  requested.* 

Notwithstanding  this  miracle,  and  every  thing  else  that 
Paschasius  could  allege  in  favour  of  his  doctrine,  it  excited 
great  astonishment,  and  was  opposed  by  many  persons  of 
learning  and  eminence.  Among  others,  the  emperor  Charles 
the  Bald  was  much  offended  at  it,  and  by  his  particular 
order,  the  famous  Bertram  or  Rattram,  wrote  against  the 
new  opinion  of  Paschasius,  j*  and  at  the  same  time  against 
his  peculiar  notion  concerning  the  delivery  of  the  Virgin. 

In  consequence  of  this,  the  doctrine  of  Paschasius,  though 
published  in  the  ninth  century,  does  not  appear  to  have 
gained  many  advocates  till  the  eleventh,  when  it  was  opposed 
by  Berenger,  archdeacon  of  the  church  of  Angers,  in  France, 
(whom  I  mentioned  before  as  one  of  the  most  eminent 
scholars  of  his  age,)  and  his  writings  on  this  subject  made  a 
great  impression  on  the  minds  of  many  ;  so  that  though  no 
less  than  ten  or  twelve  councils  were  held  on  this  subject, 
in  all  of  which  the  doctrine  of  Berenger  was  condemned, 
Matthew  of  Westminster  says,  that  it  had  infected  almost 
all  France,  Italy  and  England ;  and  though,  when  he  was 
threatened,  he  was  weak  enough  to  sign  a  recantation  of  his 
opinion,  he  certainly  died  in  the  belief  of  it.  Berenger  was 
followed  by  Peter  and  Henry  de  Bruis,  whose  disciples  were 
called  Petrohrussians,  and  by  the  Albigenses  in  general ;  who 
in  the  twelfth  century  separated  from  the  church  of  Rome. 
Arnold  of  Bressia  also  taught  the  same  doctrine  in  Italy,  and 


*  Sueur,  A.  D.  818.     (P.) 

-]-  See  p.  74,  supra.  Bertram's  book  was  first  translated  into  English  in  1548, 
by  Wm.  Hugh,  under  this  title,  "  A  Boke  of  Bertram  the  Priest  intreatingof  the 
Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  written  to  Charles  the  Great  [Bald]  700  years  ago."  ft 
was  translated  again  by  Sir  H.  Lynde,  in  1636.  Of  this  there  was  a  2d  Edition  in 
1688.     See  Wood,  Athen.  Oxon.  I.  pp.  62,  513. 


RELATING  TO  THE  LORD  S  SUPPER.        253 

for  this  and  his  declaiming  against  the  church  of  Rome  in 
general,  he  was  burned  at  Rome,   in  1155.* 

It  is  remarkable  tliat  for  two  centuries  the  popes  did  not 
interfere  in  the  controversy  about  Paschasius.  Most  pro- 
bably they  thought  with  his  adversaries;  and  as  very  few 
joined  him  at  lirst,  and  he  was  openly  opposed  by  the  learned 
men  of  the  age,  it  seemed  as  if  his  opinion  would  have  died 
away  of  itself  As  soon,  however,  as  it  was  perceived  that 
the  doctrine  went  down  with  the  common  people,  and  that 
it  promised  to  give  a  high  idea  of  the  dignity  and  power  of 
the  priesthood,  the  popes  were  ready  enough  to  enforce  it 
by  their  decrees,  as  we  have  seen  in  the  case  of  Berenger. 
It  was  not,  however,  till  the  beginning  of  the  thirteenth 
century  that  this  doctrine  was  made  an  article  of  faith,  viz. 
by  a  decree  of  Innocent  111.  at  the  Council  of  Lateran,  in 
121  J,  the  term  transuhstantiation  having  been  first  used  by 
Stephen,  bishop  of  Autun,  in  the  beginning  of  the  twelfth 
century. 

Even  notwithstanding  this  decree,  several  divines  openly 
maintained  a  different  opinion,  thinking  it  sufficient  to 
acknowledge  the  real  presence,  though  they  explained  the 
manner  of  it  differently  from  Innocent  and  the  followers  of 
Paschasius  ;  and  "  John,  surnamed  PungensAsinus,  a  subtile 
doctor  of  the  university  of  Paris, — substituted  consubstan- 
tiation  in  the  place  o'i  transuhstantiation,  towards  the  conclu- 
sion of  this  century. "f  Others  say  that  he  maintained  the 
assumption  of  the  consecrated  bread  by  the  divinity.  How- 
ever, he  did  not  den}^  that  the  substance  of  the  bread  and 
wine  remained  in  the  elements  ;  and  yet  the  faculty  at  Paris 
did  not  condemn  his  opinion,  but  declared  that  both  this, 
and  the  common  doctrine  of  transuhstantiation,  were  probable 
ways  of  making  the  body  of  Christ  exist  in  the  sacrament. 

As  the  monks  had  contributed  greatly  to  the  establishment 
of  almost  every  other  corruption  of  Christianity,  they  were 
no  less  active  in  promoting  this.  Among  others,  the  name 
ofOdo,  bishop  of  Clugni,  in  France,  in  the  tenth  century, 
is  mentioned  as  having  been  of  eminent  use  on  this  occasion. 
Indeed,  another  Odo,  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  of  that  age, 
is  likewise  said  to  have  been  a  great  promoter  of  it.  But  there 
does  not  appear  to  have  been  any  public  act  in  favour  of  the 

'  Larroche,  p.  473.  (P.)  Arnold,  a  disciple  of  Abelard,  wdt%  crucified,  burut, 
and  his  ashes  thrown  into  the  Tiber,  lest  his  followers  should  convert  them  into 
relics,  says  a  French  biographer.  See  Nom.  Diet.  Hist.  I.  p.  212.  Arnold  suffered 
under  Adrian  IV.  the  only  Pope  who  was  an  Englishman. 

t  Mosheim,  III.  p.  106.     (P.)     Cent.  xiii.  Pt.  ii.    Ch.  ill.  ad  fin. 


254  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS 

doctrine  of  transubstantiation  in  England,  before  the  Council 
of  Oxford  which  condemned  Wickliffe.  * 

We  cannot  be  surprised,  that  the  circumstance  of  all  the 
known  properties  of  bread  and  wine  remaining  in  the  eucha- 
ristical   elements    after  consecration,    should    not   a   little 
embarrass  the  advocates  for  the  change  of  them  into  real 
flesh  and  blood.     On  this  account,  Innocent  III.  acknow- 
ledged  that,  after   consecration,    there  did  remain   in  the 
elements  a  certain  paneity  and  vineity^  as  he  called  them, 
which  satisfied  hunger  and  thirst.     But  afterwards  they  who 
maintained  that  the  consecrated  host  retained  the  nature  of 
bread,  and  nourished  the  body,  and  especially  that  any  part 
of  it  was  turned  into  excrement^  were,   in  derision,   called 
Stercorarists.     This  term  of  reproach  shews  in  what  abhor- 
rence all  those  who  did  not  assent  to  this  new  doctrine  were 
then  held.     If  ridicule  and  contempt  were  a  proper  test  of 
truth,  I  doubt  not  but  that  those  who  defended  the  absurd 
doctrine  of  transubstantiation  would  have  had  the  advantage 
of  the   argument.     Protestants  would   now  only   laugh   at 
being  called  Stercorarists,  but  at  that  time  the  laugh  would 
probably  not  have  been  with  us,  but  against  us.     That  was 
not  an  age  of  experiment,  or  it   might  have  been   easily 
decided,  viz.  by  giving  a  man  nothing  but  consecrated  bread, 
whether  it  turned  to  nourishment  and  excrement  or  not ;  but 
the  very  proposal  would  have  been  deemed  impious,  and 
might  have  been  very  hazardous  to  the  proposer. 

Considering  the  great  difficulty  of  forming  any  conception 
concerning  this  conversion  of  thebread  and  wine  into  real  flesh 
and  blood,  it  is  no  wonder  that  many  doubts  should  have  been 
started,  and  diflerent  opinions  should  have  been  held  concern- 
ing it ;  and,  that  they  should  even  continue  to  be  held,  notwith- 
standing the  most  authoritative  decisions  respecting  it.  Peter 
Lombard,  contemporary  with  Stephen  of  Autun  above-men- 
tioned, approved  of  this  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  but 
could  not  determine  of  what  kind  the  change  was  ;  whether 
it  was  oxi\y  formal,  or  substantial,  that  is,  whether  it  affected 
the  sensible  properties  of  the  elements,  or  the  real  substance 
of  them.-j* 

It  was  also  a  questiori  whether  the  water  (which  it  wa§ 
always  the  custom  to  mix  with  the  wine  before  consecration) 
was  changed  immediately  into  the  blood  of  Christ,  or  whe- 
ther it  was  changed  into  wine  first.  Paschasius  himself  had 
asserted  the  former,  but  after  long  debates  it  was  determined 

*  In  1385.   -See  Brit.  Biog,  1.  pp.38-*4l.  t  Larroche,  p.  183.    (P.) 


RELATING  TO  THE  LORD  S  SUPPER.        ^65 

by  Innocent  III.  and  the  schoolmcMi  supported  him  in  it, 
that  the  water  is  changed  into  wine  before  it  is  changed  into 
the  blood  of  Christ.* 

In  this,  and  several  other  respects,  a  considerable  latitude 
of  opinion  was  formerly  allowed  in  the  church  of  Rome  ; 
and  indeed  the  doctrine  ot  transiibstantiation  (Wd  not  properly 
become  an  article  of  faith  before  it  was  made  to  be  so  by 
the  Council  of  Trent.  The  cardinal  D'Ailli,  at  the  Council 
of  Constance,  spoke  of  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  as 
an  opinion  only,  and  said  that  it  could  not  be  clearly  inferred 
from  the  Scriptures,  that  the  substance  of  bread  did  not 
remain  in  the  sacrament. -j* 

At  the  Council  of  Trent,  the  Franciscans  maintained  that 
the  body  of  Christ  descended  from  heaven,  in  order  to  be 
changed  into  the  form  of  bread  and  wine,  though  it  did  not 
quit  its  former  place;  whereas,  the  Dominicans  said,  that 
Jesus  Christ  did  not  come  from  any  other  place,  but  that  he 
was  formed  in  the  host,  the  substance  of  the  bread  being 
changed  into  that  of  his  body.  The  council  did  not  decide 
this  question,  but  in  their  decrees  made  use  of  such  terms 
as  both  parties  might  adopt. J 

When  the  great  difficulty  of  one  single  conversion  of  any 
particular  quantity  of  bread  and  wine  into  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ  was  got  over,  one  would  imagine  that  another 
difficulty,  no  less  insuperable,  would  have  occurred,  with 
respect  to  the  multitude  of  consecrations  performed  in  dif- 
ferent places  at  the  same  time.  But  Guimond,  who  wrote 
against  Berenger,  in  107o,  made  nothing  of  these,  or  of  still 
greater  difficulties.  "  Every  separate  part,"  says  he,  "  of 
the  eucharist  is  the  whole  body  of  Christ.  It  is  given  entire 
to  all  the  faithful.  They  all  receive  it  equally.  Though  it 
should  be  celebrated  a  thousand  times  at  once,  it  is  the  same 
indivisible  body  of  Christ.  It  is  only  to  sense  that  a  single 
part  of  the  host  appears  less  than  the  whole,  but  our  senses 
often  deceive  us.  It  is  acknowledged  that  there  is  a  difficulty 
in  comprehending  this,  but  there  is  no  difficulty  in  believing 
it.  The  only  question  is,  whether  God  has  been  willing  to 
make  this  change.?    It  is  like  the  voice  of  a  single  man, 

•  See  ^asnage'a  Histoire  des  Eglises  R^formies,  III.  p.  681,  where  this  and  other 
difficulties  on  the  same  subject  are  particularly  considered.  It  is  sufficient  for  my 
purpose  to  give  a  specimen  of  them.    (P.) 

t  Larroche,  p.  492.    {P.) 

X  Basnage,  III.  p.  669.  (P.)  Canon  T.  is  in  these  words :  "  Si  quis  negaverit,  in 
sanctissimae  eucharistise  sacramento  contineri  vere,  realiter  et  substantialiter  corpus 
et  sanguinem  una  cum  anima  et  divinitate  Domini  nostri  Jesu  Christi,  ac  proinde 
totura  Christum,  sed  dixerit  tant»>mmod6  esse  in  eo  ut  in  signo,  vel  fignra,  aut  vir- 
tutej  anathema  sit."    Sess.  xiii.  C.  viii.  S.  Con.  Trid.  Can.  tt  Deeret.  p.  7*. 


'266  HISTORY  OF   OPINIONS 

which  all  the  audience  hears  entire/'  He  exhorts  heretics 
to  yield  to  the  truth,  because,  says  he,  "  we  are  not  now 
contending  for  victory,  as  in  the  schools,  or  for  any  temporal 
interest,  as  in  the  secular  courts.  In  this  dispute  nothing 
less  is  depending  than  eternal  life.* 

When  it  was  objected  to  Guimond,  that  the  rats  some- 
times eat  the  consecrated  bread,  he  replied,  that  either  the 
senses  were  deceived,  or  the  body  of  Christ  did  not  suffer 
any  more  in  the  rat,  than  in  the  sepulchre,  or  that  the  devil 
put  real  bread  into  it,  on  which  men  and  rats  might  feed.-j* 

The  language  in  which  some  of  the  Popish  priests  have 
boasted  of  the  power  which  this  doctrine  of  transubstantia- 
tion  gives  them,  would  excite  the  greatest  ridicule,  if  there 
was  not  a  mixture  of  impiety  with  the  absurdity  of  it. 
"  On  our  altars,"  say  some  of  them,  "  Jesus  Christ  obeys 
all  the  world.  He  obeys  the  priest,  let  him  be  where  he 
will,  at  every  hour,  at  his  simple  word.  They  carry  hirn 
whither  they  please.  He  goes  into  the  mouth  of  the  wicked 
as  well  as  of  the  righteous.  He  makes  no  resistance,  he 
does  not  hesitate  one  moment.''^  Some  priests  boasted  that 
they  had  even  more  power  than  the  Blessed  A^irgin,  because 
they  could  create  their  Creator  whenever  they  pleased ; 
whereas  she  had  conceived  him  but  once.§ 

So  much  is  made  to  depend  on  the  power  and  leill  of  the 
priest,  with  respect  to  the  eucharist,  and  the  sacraments  in 
general,  in  the  church  of  Rome,  as,  I  should  think,  must 
occasion  a  good  deal  of  anxiety  on  the  part  of  those  who 
receive  them.  For  they  believe  that  the  efficacy  of  all  the 
sacraments  depends  upon  the  intention  of  him  that  admini- 
sters them.  This  is  expressly  determined  in  a  decree  of 
Pope  Eugenius  ;  and  at  the  Council  of  Trent  an  anathema 
was  pronounced  on  those  who  denied  it/  This  is  even 
"  carried  so  far,  that,  in  one  of  the  rubrics  of  the  Missal,  it 
is  given  as  a  rule,  that  if  a  priest  who  goes  to  consecrate 
twelve  hosties,  should  have  a  general  intention  to  leave  out 
one  of  them,"  it  will  affect  them  all.||  Luther  mentions 
some  priests  at  Rome,  who  acknowledged  that,  instead  of 
pronouncing  the  proper  words  of  consecration,  only  said  to 
themselves,  Bread  thou  art,  and  bread  thou  shalt  remain.^ 

All  the  disputes  about  the  nature  of  the  eucharistical  ele- 
ments were  not  confined  to  the  western  church,  in  this 
period ;  for  at  the  beginning  of  the  thirteenth  century  the 

*  Fleury.    (P.)  t  Rasnage,  II.  p.  120.    (P.)  J  Ibid.  I.  p.  26.    (P.) 

§  Ibid.  II.  p.  423.    (P.)  II  Burnet  on  the  Articles,  p.  370.    (P.) 

Art.  xxvi.  Ed.  4,  p.  272.  H  Basnage,  III.  p.  687.    (P.) 


RELATING  TO  THE   lord's  SUPPER.  257 

Greeks  were  mucli  agitated  about  this  subject ;  some  affirm- 
ing that  the  mi/sttries,  as  they  called  them,  were  incorruptible, 
while  others  maintained  that  they  were  not:  when  Zonaras, 
a  Greek  friar,  happily  found  out  a  middle  way,  which  shewed 
no  less  ingenuity  than  had  been  displayed  on  the  same 
subject  by  many  of  the  monks  or  schoolmen  in  the  West. 
The  consecrated  bread,  he  said,  was  the  flesh  of  Christ,  as 
dead,  and  therefore  corruptible  ;  but  that  after  it  was  eaten, 
and  thereby  gone,  as  it  were,  into  the  sepulchre,  it  became 
incorruptible  ;  because  the  body  of  our  Lord  did  not  remain 
long  dead  and  buried,  but  rose  again.* 

The  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  was  the  cause  of  a  great 
variety  of  new  ceremonies  and  institutions  in  the  church  of 
Rome.  Hence,  among  other  things,  those  rich  and  splendid 
receptacles  which  were  formed  for  the  residence  of  God, 
under  this  new  shape,  and  the  lamps  and  other  precious 
ornaments  that  were  designed  to  beautify  this  habitation  of 
the  Deity ;  and  hence  the  custom  of  carrying  about  this 
divine  bread  in  solemn  pomp,  through  the  public  streets, 
when  it  is  to  be  administered  to  sick  and  dying  persons, 
with  many  other  ceremonies  of  a  like  nature.  But  what 
crowns  the  whole  was  the  festival  of  the  holt/  sacrament. 

This  was  an  institution  of  Urban  IV".,  in  1264,  on  tiie 
pretended  revelation  of  one  Juliana,  a  woman  of  Liege,  who 
said  that  it  was  shewed  her  from  heaven,  that  this  par- 
ticular festival  day  of  the  holy  eucharist  had  always  been 
in  the  councils  of  the  sovereign  Trinity;  but  that  now  the 
time  of  revealing  it  to  men  was  come.  In  the  decree  of 
Urban  it  is  said,  "  this  festival  day  properly  belongs  to  the 
sacrament,  because  there  is  no  saint  but  what  has  his  proper 
festival ;  that  this  is  intended  to  confound  the  unbelief  and 
extravagance  of  heretics,  and  to  repair  all  the  faults  that 
men  might  be  guilty  of  in  other  masses." -j-  This  festival  is 
attended  with  a  procession,  in  which  the  host  is  carried 
in  great  pomp  and  magnificence.  No  less  a  person  than 
Thomas  Aquinas  composed  the  office  for  this  great  solemnity. 

Notwithstanding  all  this  pomp  and  splendour,  which  sel- 
dom fail  to  have  charms  for  the  bulk  of  mankind,  this  decree 
of  Urban  was  not  universally  observed  ;  and  therefore  it 
was  confirmed  by  another  bull  of  Clement  V.  But  when 
the  minds  of  men  were  a  little  enlightened  after  the  lleforms- 
tion  by  Luther,  this  solemnity  became  the  topic  of  much 
ridicule.     On  this  account  Catharine  of  Medicis  wrote  to 

•  Larroclie,  p.  494.   <P.)  t  Ibid.  p.  581.    (P.) 

VOL.  V.  S 


95S  HISTORY  OF   OPINIONS 

the  Pope  in  1561,  as  Thuanus  informs  us,  to  request  the 
abolition  of  this  festival,  because  it  was  the  occasion  of  much 
scandal,  and  was  not  at  all  necessary.  It  may  not  be  amiss 
to  give  a  more  particular  account  of  some  of  the  other  new 
superstitions  mentioned  above. 

it  was  towards  the  end  of  the  sixth  century  that  the  ele- 
vation of  the  host  was  first  practised  in  the  eastern  church  ; 
but  then  it  was  intended  to  represent  the  elevation  of  Christ 
upon  the  cross,  and  was  made  immediately  before  the  com- 
munion ;  and  there  is  no  mention  of  this  ceremony  in  the 
western  church  before  the  eleventh  century.  But  then  it 
immediately  followed  the  consecration,  though  no  adoration 
is  said  to  have  been  intended  by  this  ceremony  till  the 
thirteenth  century,  when  it  was  expressly  appointed  in  the 
constitutions  of  Honorius  III.  and  Gregory  IX. ;  the 
latter  of  whom,  in  1227,  ordered  the  ringing  of  a  bell,  to 
warn  the  people  to  fall  down  on  their  knees  and  adore 
the  consecrated  host.*  This,  however,  seems  to  have  been 
done  before  by  Guy  Pare,  the  Pope's  legate,  in  Germany  ; 
who,  when  he  was  at  Cologne,  in  1201,  ordered,  that  when 
the  host  was  elevated  in  the  celebration  of  the  mass,  the 
people  should  prostrate  themselves  in  the  church  at  the  sound 
of  a  bell. I 

The  ceremony  of  carrying  the  host  in  procession  to  com- 
municate the  sick  seems  to  have  been  first  used  in  this 
country.  For,  at  the  end  of  the  twelfth  century,  Hubert, 
archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and  legate  of  Pope  Celestine, 
held  a  synod  at  York,  in  which,  among  other  things,  he 
commanded  that  when  any  sick  persons  were  to  receive  the 
communion,  the  priest  himself  should  carry  the  host,  clothed 
with  his  proper  habits,  and  with  lights  borne  before  it,  suit- 
able to  so  great  a  sacrament. J  We  are  also  informed  that^ 
in  the  beginning  of  the  thirtejenth  century,  Odo,  bishop  of 
Paris,  in  one  of  his  synods,  made  several  constitutions 
relating  to  the  sacrament ;  as,  about  the  manner  of  carrying 
it  to  the  sick,  of  the  adoration  of  the  persons  who  should 
meet  it,  of  keeping  it  in  the  best  part  of  the  altar,  of  lock- 
ing it  up  safe  ;  with  several  precautions  in  case  it  should 
happen  that  any  part  of  the  consecrated  elements  should  fall 
to  the  ground,  or  any  fly  or  spider  should  fall  into  the  wine.§ 

Considering  how  solemn  a  thing  the  business  of  commu' 
nicating  was  made,  in  consequence  of  the  doctrine  of  tran- 
substantiation,  we  do  not  wonder  that  it  was  ordered  by  the 

♦  Larroche,  p.  102.    (P.)  t  Histoire  des  Papes,  III.  p.  131.    (P.) 

X  Larroche,  p.  48S.    (P.)  §  Ibid.  p.  484.    (P.) 


RELATING  TO  THE  LORD's  SUPPER.  259 

Council  of  Trent,  that,  how  contrite  soever  a  sinner  should 
feel  himself,  he  should  not  approach  the  holy  eucharist 
without  having  made  his  sacramental  confession,  nor  at  the 
solemnity  which  the  receiving  of  the  communion  c^ave  to  an 
oath.  This  appeared,  when  pope  Gregory  VU.  proposed  to 
the  emperor  Henry,  who  was  charged  with  many  crimes,  to 
exculpate  himself,  by  taking  one  part  of  a  consecrated  host, 
while  he  himself  should  take  the  other.  This  proposal  stag- 
gered the  emperor  so  much,  that  he  desired  the  aifair  to  be 
referred  to  a  general  council.*  But  we  are  more  surprised 
that,  upon  any  occasion  whatever,  any  person  should  be 
permitted  to  eat  before  he  received  the  communion  ;  and 
yet,  application  being  made  to  the  Pope  on  the  part  of  the 
king  of  France,  in  1722,  that  he  might  take  some  nourish- 
ment before  he  received  the  communion,  on  the  day  of  his 
consecration,  as  it  was  thought  that  he  would  not  be  able  to 
go  through  the  fatigue  of  the  ceremony  without  it,  the  request 
was  granted.  It  must  be  presumed,  however,  that  no  other 
than  the  Pope  himself  could  have  given  so  great  a  dispen- 
sation, f 

It  was  owing  to  the  great  awfulness  of  the  real  masses, 
and  the  many  ceremonies  that  were  necessary  to  be  observed 
in  the  celebration  of  them,  that,  for  four  or  five  hundred 
years,  what  are  called  drj/  masses  (or  the  ceremonies  of  the 
mass  without  the  consecration  of  the  elements)  were  much 
used  in  the  church  of  Rome.  They  were  more  especially 
used  by  gentlemen  who  went  a  hunting  early  in  the  morning, 
or  returned  late,  or  when  a  new  married  couple  wanted  to 
receive  benediction,  &c.  St.  Louis  often  used  this  ceremony 
on  board  his  vessel,  and  it  served  for  a  consolation  to  pil- 
grims, when  they  had  no  opportunity  of  having  real  masses 
in  their  return  from  the  Holy  Land.  These  dry  masses  were 
so  common  at  one  time,  that  there  vi'as  a  rubric  in  the 
Romish  ritual  prepared  for  them.  But  the  Reformation 
opening  men^s  eyes  upon  the  subject,  Eckius  confessed  that 
what  had  been  practised  so  long  was,  in  truth,  an  impiety 
and  blasphemy  against  God.  The  Council  of  Trent  did 
not,  however,  correct  the  abuse  ;  but  the  bishops  since  that 
time  have  abolished  it  by  degrees,  and  now  it  is  only  used 
on  Good  Fridays,  and  during  storms  at  sea.:|: 

We  see  the  farther  progress  of  superstition  in  the  various 
methods  that  were  devised  in  order  to  prevent  the  waste  or 
abuse  of  the  consecrated  elements,  which  increased  after  the 

•  Fleury,  A.  D.  1077.    (P.)  t  Hist.  desPapcs,  V.  p.  499.  (P.) 

t  Basnage,  III.  p.  686.    (P.) 

S    2 


260  HISTORY  OF   OPINIONS 

doctrine  of  transubstantiation.  In  the  tenth  century  the 
priests  began  to  put  the  bread  into  the  mouths  of  the  com- 
municants, and  in  the  eleventh  they  began,  in  some  churches, 
to  use  little  hosts,  like  wafers,  made  round,  white  and  very 
thin ;  but  this  was  not  till  after  the  condemnation  of  Berenger, 
and  was  disliked  by  many  at  that  time ;  and  the  former 
custom  of  breaking  the  bread  into  little  pieces,  and  also  that 
of  giving  the  bread  steeped  in  the  wine,  were  still  used  in 
many  places,  till  near  the  end  of  the  twelfth  century,  after 
which  the  use  of  thin  wafers  became  universal. 

At  length,  in  order  to  leave  the  least  room  for  waste  or 
abuse  possible,  the  custom  of  communicating  the  laity  with 
the  bread  only  was  introduced  ;  and  the  doctrine  of  transub- 
stantiation made  this  practice  much  easier  than  it  could 
other,wise  have  been.  For  it  being  now  agreed  that  the  con- 
secrated bread  was  the  whole  body  of  Christ,  it  contained 
the  blood  of  course  ;  and  consequently  the  wine,  which  was 
the  blood  only,  became  superfluous. 

Thomas  Aquinas  defended  the  custom  of  communicating 
with  the  bread  only,  but  he  says  that  it  was  not  observed  in 
all  churches  ;  and  the  laity,  in  many  places,  in  order  to  pre- 
vent the  spilling  of  the  wine,  or,  as  they  called  it,  the  blood 
of  Christ  (against  which  th«y  were  always  most  particularly 
cautioned)  sucked  it  through  quills,  or  silver  pipes,  which 
were  fastened  to  their  chalices  for  that  purpose.  But  at 
length,  and  especially  from  the  custom  of  giving  the  bread 
steeped  in  the  wine,  came,  by  degrees,  the  custom  of  com- 
munion  in  one  kind  only,  without  any  express  authority  for 
the  purpose,  in  almost  all  the  western  churches,  till  it  was 
established  by  the  Cou^ncii  of  Constance,  in  1415.*  But 
the  custom  of  communicating  in  both  kinds  was  still  prac- 
tised in  several  places,  and  the  Pope  himself  is  said  at  one 
time  to  have  administered  the  wine  to  the  deacons  and 
ministers  of  the  altar,  and  to  other  persons  of  eminent  piety, 
whom  he  thought  worthy  of  so  great  a  gift. 

The  Council  of  Trent  confirmed  that  of  Constance,  but 
left  it  to  the  Pope  to  grant  the  use  of  the  cup  to  those  whom 
he  should  think  proper.  Accordingly  Pius  IV.  granted  the 
communion  in  both  kinds  to  those  who  should  demand  it, 
provided  they  professed  to  believe  as  the  church  did  in 
other  respects. •]•  The  Bohemians  also  were  allowed,  with 
the  Pope's  consent,  to  make  use  of  the  cup.  ,  : 

*  See  L' Enfant,  "  Histoire  du  Concile,"  1714,  L.  iii.  Sect.  xxx.  p.  233.  By 
the  same  decree,  the  sacrament  was  to  be  received,  fasting,  instead  of  after  supper, 
unless  in  cases  of  necessity  allowed  by  the  church. 

t  Histoire  dcsPapes,  IV.  p.  670.    (P.) 


RELATING  TO  THE  LORD's  SUPPER.  26l 

The  high  reverence  for  the  eucharist,  which  was  produced 
by  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  made  a  change  in  the 
posture  of  receiving  it.  For,  till  the  thirteentii  century,  all 
persons  had  communicated  standing,  but  about  that  time 
the  custom  of  receiving  it  kneeling  came  into  use,  and  this 
is  continued  ever  since  in  the  church  of  Home,  and  from 
that  in  the  church  of  England.  Frequent  communion  also 
was  now  no  more  to  be  expected  ;  and,  indeed,  so  early  as 
the  tenth  century,  Ratherius,  bishop  of  Verona,  was  obliged 
to  order  his  priests  to  warn  believers  to  come  four  times  a 
year  to  the  communion;*  and  now  the  Catholics  are  not 
required  to  communicate  more  than  once  a  year,  and  this  is 
generally  at  Easter. 

There  are  various  other  superstitious  practices  respecting 
the  eucharist,  in  the  church  of  Rome,  the  origin  of  which 
it  is  not  easy  to  trace.  There  are  six  several  sorts  of  vest- 
ments belonging  to  the  officiating  priest,  and  eight  or  nine 
to  the  bishop,  and  there  is  not  one  of  them  but  has  some 
mysterious  signification,  and  a  corresponding  separate  con- 
secration ;  not  to  mention  the  different  colours  of  them,  and 
the  different  occasions  on  which  they  are  used  ;  and  they 
are  all  so  necessary,  that  the  smallest  variation  in  the  ritual 
makes  the  masses  be  deemed  imperfect. 

As  I  observed  before,  that  two  masses  must  not  be  cele- 
brated on  the  same  altar  in  the  course  of  one  day,  and  evert 
a  priest  cannot  officiate  at  any  altar  when  a  bishop  has  done 
it  before  him,  they  are  now  multiplied  exceedingly.  The 
masses  also  are  reckoned  defective,  unless  the  altar  be  covered 
with  three  cloths,  consecrated  by  the  bishop,  the  last  of 
which  must  be  longer  than  the  other  ;  and  it  must,  after  all, 
be  covered  with  d^  stuff  oi  some  particular  colour,  according 
to  the  festival  on  which  it  is  used.  But  the  altar  must  be 
stripped  of  all  its  ornaments  on  Good  Friday,  for  reasons 
which  may  be  seen  in  Basnage  (I.  p.  48),  together  with  many 
other  superstitious  observances  relating  to  the  eucharist, 
which  I  do  not  think  it  worth  while  to  recite. 

In  the  eleventh  century  there  arose  violent  debates  be- 
tween the  Greek  and  Latin  churches  on  account  of  the 
former  usingr  unleavened  bread  in  the  celebration  of  the 
eucharist.  Such,  however,  it  is  very  evident,  must  have 
been  the  bread  that  our  Saviour  himself  made  use  of  in  the 
institution,  as  there  was  no  leaven  to  be  had  during  the 

+  Larroche,  p.  137.  (P.)  In  the  Greek  church  "the  laics  are  obliged  to  receive 
the  blesied  lacraineDt  foar  times  a  year."     SxniiKn  Atcount,  p.  157. 


269  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS 

whole  season  of  Passover ;  and  at  length  the  Latin  church 
conformed  to  this  custom. 

Considering  the  many  gross  abuses  which  prevailed  with 
respect  to  the  Lord's  supper,  after  the  time  of  Paschasius,  it 
is  no  wonder  that  we  meet  with  some  persons  who  laid  it 
aside  altogether.  This  was  the  case  with  the  Paulicians  in 
the  ninth  century,  who  considered  both  baptism  and  the 
Lord's  supper  as  something  figurative  and  parabolical.* 
This  was  also  the  case  with  some  persons  in  France,  in 
the  beginning  of  the  eleventh  century,  and  they  were  con- 
demned at  the  synods  of  Orleans,  and  again  at  Arras,  in 
102o.f  Also,  in  the  twelfth  century,  one  Tanchelin  :|:  per- 
suaded the  people  of  Antwerp,  and  other  persons  in  Flanders, 
that  receiving  the  Lord's  supper  was  not  necessary  to  salva- 
tion. But,  indeed,  this  he  might  do,  without  wishing  them 
to  omit  the  celebration  of  it  altogether. 

As  little  can  we  wonder  that  unbelievers  should  take 
advantage  of  such  a  doctrine  as  this,  to  treat  the  Christian 
religion  with  contempt.  Averroes,  the  great  free-thinker  of 
his  age,  said  that  Judaism  was  the  religion  of  children,  and 
Mahometanism  that  of  hogs  ;  but  he  knew  no  sect  so  foolish 
and  absurd  as  that  of  the  Christians,  who  adored  what  they 
ate.  § 


SECTION  IV. 

Of  the  Recovery  of  the  genuine  Christian  Doctrine  concerning 
the  Lord's  Supper. 

As  the  corruption  of  this  doctrine  took  place  very  early 
in  the  christian  church,  and  proceeded  farther  than  any 
other,  so  it  was  with  great  difficulty  rectified  ;  and,  indeed, 
it  is  in  general  but  very  imperfectly  done  to  this  day,  espe- 
cially in  the  established  reformed  churches.  The  minds  of 
the  reformers,  in  general,  were  impressed  with  an  idea  of 
something  peculiarly  mysterious  and  awful  in  the  nature  of 
the  eucharist,  as  well  as  with  a  firm  persuasion  concerning 
the  divinity  of  Christ. 

Wickliffe  was  late  in  settling  his  notion  about  the  Lord's 

*  Mosheim,  II.  p.  178.  (P.)     Cent.  ix.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  v.  Sect.  v.  t  Fleury.  (P.) 

X  Or  Tanquelinus.    If  llie  accounts  of  his  enormities  are  true,  he  must  have  been 

insane.    He  was  assassinated  in  1125.     See  Nouv.  Diet.  Hist.  V.  p.  497.    Mosheim 

says  he  was  a  mystic,  but  that  probably  "  blasphemies  were  falsely  charged  upon 

him  by  a  vindictive  priesthpod."    Cent.  xii.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  v.  Sect.  ix. 

§  Memoires  pour  la  Vie  de  Petrarch,  III.  p.  760.  (P.J     Averroes  was  s  native  of 
Cordova  in  Spain,  where  he  died  in  12^6.     See  Nouv.  Diet.  Hist.  I.  p.  S5J>. 


RELATING  TO  THE   LORD's  SUPPER.  263 

supper;  so  that,  in  different  parts  of  his  writings,  he  contra- 
dicts himself  on  this  subject.*  John  lluss  believed  the 
doctrine  of  transubstantiation  and  the  real  presence  ;  but  in 
answer  to  a  person  who  had  said  that  a  priest,  after  his  con- 
secration, was  the  Father  of  God,  and  the  creator  of  God's 
body,  he  wrote  a  treatise  to  prove  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the 
author  of  the  transubstantiation,  and  the  priest  only  the 
minister  of  it.f 

It  is  remarkable,  that  with  respect  to  most  of  the  reformers 
from  Poper\'  in  the  sixteenth  century,  the  article  of  the 
eucharist  was  the  last  in  which  they  gained  any  clear  light, 
the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  being  that  which  they 
parted  with,  with  peculiar  reluctance,  and  in  all  public  dis- 
putations their  popish  adversaries  had  more  advantage  with 
respect  to  this  than  to  any  other  subject.  They  advanced 
to  the  conferences  with  the  utmost  boldness  when  this  was 
to  be  the  subject  of  their  disputation,  having  the  prejudices 
of  their  audience,  and  in  a  great  measure,  those  that  were 
their  adversaries  too,  on  their  side. 

Tiiough  Luther  rejected  transubstantiation,  he  neverthe- 
less retained  the  doctrine  of  the  real  presence  of  the  body 
of  Christ  in  the  eucharist ;  believing  that  even  the  body  of 
Christ  might  be  omnipresent,  as  well  as  his  divinity;  and 
in  the  Lutheran  Form  of  Concord,  which  they  made  the  terms 
of  communion  with  them,  this  article  was  inserted.  Luther, 
in  his  attempts  to  explain  his  doctrine  on  the  subject  of  the 
eucharist,  (which,  to  distinguish  it  from  that  of  the  Papists, 
he  called  consuhstantiation,)  said,  that  "  as  in  a  red-hot  iron, 
two  distinct  substances,  iron  2iV\d  fire  are  united,  so  is  the 
body  of  Christ  joined  with  the  bread  in  the  eucharist.'' + 
Some  Lutherans  maintained,  "  that  all  the  properties  of  the 
divine  nature,  and  consequently  its  omnipresence,  were 
communicated  to  the  human  nature  of  Christ  by  the  hypos- 
tatical  union"  between  them.§  But  these  were  more  rigid 
than  Luther  himself,  and  it  is  supposed  that  being  convinced 
by  the  reasons  of  Melancthon,  he  would  have  entertained 

•  Gilpin's  Life  of  him,  p.  6.5.  (P.)     Brit.  Biog.  I.  pp.  38,  46. 

t  L'Enfant's  History  of  the  Council  of  Constance,  I.  p.  432.  (P.)  "  Un  certain 
pr^dicateiir  de  Boh^me  avoit  avance,  q'nn  pretre  avant  sa  premiere  messe  n'^roit 
qu'enfant  de  Dieu,  mais  qn'apres  avoir  otTicie  il  etoit  Pere  de  Dieii  et  Createiir  du 
corps  de  Dieu.  Jean  Hus  fit  un  Traite  pour  refuter  une  proposition  si  tt range, 
quoiquVlle  ne  fut  pas  nouvelle,  et  d  soutint  que  c'est  J.  C  qui  est  lAutfurdela 
Transubstantiation,  et  que  le  pretre  n'en  est  que  le  mini.streen  vertu  des  paroJes 
sacramentales."  Histoire,  L.  iii.  Sect.  liii.  See  also  Sect  v.  and  L.  ii.  Sect.  Ixxiii. 
Anut.  1714,  pp.  169,  201,280. 

X  Mosheim,  III.  p.  331.  (P.)     Cent.  xvi.  Sect.  i.  Ch.  ii.  xxi. 

§  Ibid.  IV.  p.  75.  (P.)     Cent.  xvi.  Sect.  iii.  Ft  ii.  Ch.  ii.  x. 


264  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS 

the  opinion  of  the  other  reformers  on  this  subject,  if  death 
had  not  prevented  him.*  CarolstaJt,  Luther's  colleague, 
maintained  "  that  the  bread  and  wine  v/ere  no  more  than 
external  signs  or  s(/mbols,  designed  to  excite  in  the  minds  of 
Christians  the  remembrance  of  the  sufferings  and  death  of 
Christ,  and  of  the  benefits  which  arise  from  them/'-j- 

It  is  remarkable  that  Zuinglius  was  much  more  rational 
than  Luther  on  this  subject.  For  he,  like  Carolstadt,  con- 
sidered the  bread  and  wine  as  no  more  than  signs  and  symbols 
of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  and  that  we  derive  no  benefit 
from  the  eucharist,  except  what  arises  from  the  recollection 
of  the  merits  of  Christ.^  He  "  would  not  allow  to  the  mi- 
nisters of  the  church  the  power  of  excluding  flagitious  offen- 
ders from  its  communion,"  but  left  all  punishment  to  the 
civil  magistrate. §  Upon  the  whole,  Zuinglius  seems  to  have 
thought  as  rationally  on  the  subject  of  the  eucharist  as  Soci- 
nus,  who  also  considered  it  merely  as  a  commemoration  of 
the  death  of  Christ.  || 

Calvin  was  much  less  rational.  For  he  supposed  that  a 
certain  divine  virtue  or  efficacy  was  communicated  by  Christ, 
together  with  the  bread  and  wine.^  And  he  not  only  ex- 
cluded vicious  persons  from  communion,  but  likewise  pro- 
cured their  banishment  from  the  city.*^ 

We  have  a  remarkable  example  of  the  confidence  of  the 
Catholics  on  the  subject  of  the  eucharist,  in  the  famous 
conference  of  Poissy,  in  K56l,  held  in  the  presence  of 
Charles  IX.  and  Catharine  of  Medicis,  in  the  court  of 
France,  between  a  number  of  Popish  and  Protestant  divines, 
of  whom  the  cardinal  of  Lorraine  was  the  principal  on  the 

*  Basnage,  III.  p.  331.  (P.) 

t  Mosheim,  111.  p.  331.  (P.)     Cent.  xvi.  Sect.  i.  Ch.  ii.xxi. 

X  Ibid.  IV.  p.  76.  (P.)  Nil  esse  in  Can&,  quam  memoriam  Christi.  Cent.  xvi. 
Sect.  iii.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  ii.  x. 

§  Ibid.  IV.  p.  115.     (P.)     Cent.  xvi.  Sect.  iii.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  ii.  xxxiii. 

II  Dr.  Maclaine  says,  in  a  note  to  Mosheim,  that  "  the  sentiments  of  Zuingle  were 
the  same  witlj  tho,se  maintained  by  bishop  Hoadly,  in  his  Plain  Account."  Cent.  xvi. 
Sect.  i.  Ch.  ii.  xxi.  Yet  Zuinglius,  according  to  the  writer  of  Ridley's  Life,  held  the 
same  opinion  with  that  bishop,  who  "  always  believed  and  maintained  a  real  presence 
by  grace  to  faith,  and  not  a  mere  figure  only."  (See  supra,  p.  74,  Note  ||.)  He  adds, 
"there  were  some  English  fanatics,  such  as  John  Webb,  George  Roper,  and  Gregory 
Paske,  who  believed  that  the  sacrament  was  only  a  bare  sign  of  Christ's  body,  and 
nothing  more  than  a  remembrance  of  it."  These  three  fanatics,  who  were  burned 
at  Canterbury,  at  the  same  time,  in  Mary's  reign,  appear  to  have  been  better  serip- 
turists  than  Ridley,  and  to  have  anticipated  Hoadly's  Plain  Account.  The  opposit* 
■views  of  these  prelates  of  the  same  church,  discover  how  little  the  state  can  do  to 
secure  uniformity,  when  it  quits  its  proper  province  and  affects  to  establish  religion- 
See  the  Life  of  bishop  Ridley,  by  Glocester  Ridley,  1763,  pp.  664, 66.5,  andCIarke's 
Martyrologie,  1652,  p.  159. 

f  Mosheim,  p.  79-     (P.)    Cent.  xvi.  Sect.  iii.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  ii.  xii. 
*•  Ibid.  p.  1 15.     (P.)    Ibid,  xxxiii. 


RELATING  TO  THE   LORd's    SUPPER.  ^65 

side  of  the  Catholics,  and  Beza  on  that  of  the  Protestants. 
The  cardiiiid,  in  his  speech  on  this  subject,  says,  "  We  must 
al WHY'S  oppose  these  words,  This  is  mi/  hodt/,  to  all  ar^umen- 
tatioij,  judjjjnients,  and  speculation  of  understanding,  or 
huni'tn  spirit.  I  hey  will  be  fire  and  thunder  to  all  consci- 
ences.—  Let  us  believe  the  Lord,  and  obey  him  in  all  thini^s 
and  places;  let  us  not  contradict  him,  becimse  what  he  tetls 
us  seems  absurd,  improper,  and  contrary  to  our  senses  and 
thous^hts.  Lit  his  word  overcome  every  thing,  and  be  unto 
us,  as  it  is,  the  most  precious  thing.  That  it  befits  us  to  do 
every  where,  but  especially  in  the  holy  mysteries.  Let  us 
not  look  only  to  the  things  we  see,  but  let  us  observe  his 
word  ;  for  his  word  is  infallible,  and  cannot  be  false  nor 
deceive  us.  On  the  contrary,  our  senses  are  easily  imposed 
upon,  and  deceive  us  often.  Since  he  said  then,  this  is  mu 
bodi/,  let  us  not  doubt  of  it,  but  believe,  obey,  and  look  upon 
him  with  the  eyes  of  our  understanding,"  &c.* 

On  most  other  subjects  the  Popish  advocates  rather  de- 
clined the  contest,  but  in  this  they  thought  they  could 
triumph.  This  conference  ended  as  all  others  in  those  days 
did,  without  giving  any  satisfaction  to  either  party.  The 
cardinal  himself  would  have  consented  to  an  article  on  this 
subject  sufficiently  agreeable  to  the  Lutheran  doctrine,  viz. 
That  the  substance  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  is  in  the 
eucharist;  but  his  brethren  would  not  admit  of  it,  thinking 
it  captious  and  heretical. f 

It  is  the  doctrine  both  of  the  church  of  England,  and  of 
the  establishment  in  Scotland,  that  some  peculiar  divi?ie 
virtue  is  communicated  with  the  eucharistical  elements, 
when  they  are  properly  received,  and  therefore  more  pre- 
paration is  enjoined  for  receiving  this  ordinance,  than  for 
attending  public  worship  in  general.  In  the  twenty-fifth 
article  of  the  church  of  England,  it  is  said,  that  "  sacraments 
ordained  of  Christ,  be  not  only  badges  or  tokens  of  Christian 
men's  professions,  but  rather  they  be  certain  sure  witnesses, 
and  effectual  signs  of  grace  and  God's  will  towards  us,  by 
the  which  he  doth  vvork  invisibly  in  us,  and  doth  not  only 
quicken,  but  also  strengthen  and  confirm  our  faith  in  him.'* 

In  the  Assembly's  Shorter  Catechism,  "  a  sacrament"  is 
defined  to  be  "an  holy  ordinance,  instituted  by  Christ; 
wherein,  by  sensible  signs,  Christ  and  the  benefit  of  the  new 
covenant,  are  represented,  sealed,  and  applied  to  believers, 

*  Laval's  History  of  the  Reformation  in  France,  I.  p.  5SQ.    (P.) 
t  Ibid.  p.  585.     (P.) 


^66  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS 

The  Lord's  supper"  in  particular  is  said  to  be  "  a  sacramfent, 
wherein,  by  giving-  and  receiving  bread  and  wine,  according 
to  Christ's  appointment,  his  death  is  shewed  forth,  and  tlie 
worthy  receivers  are,  not  after  a  corporal  and  carnal  manner, 
but  by  faith,  made  partakers  of  his  body  and  blood,  with  all 
its  benefits,  to  their  spiritual  nourishment,  and  growth  in 
grace/'  Agreeably  to  these  ideas,  it  is  there  said  that,  "  it 
is  required  of  them  that  would  worthily  partake  of  the 
Lord's  supper,  that  they  examine  themselves,  of  their  know- 
ledge to  discern  the  Lord's  body,  of  their  faith  to  feed  upon 
him,  of  their  repentance,  love  and  new  obedience,  lest, 
coming  unworthily,  they  eat  and  drink  judgment  to  them^ 
selves." 

This  article  of  superstition  has  great  hold  on  the  minds  of 
Dissenters  in  general,  the  Independents  requiring  before 
admission  to  communion,  an  account  of  what  they  call  an 
experience  in  religion,  or  the  evidence  of  a  man's  having  had 
what  they  deem  to  be  a  miraculous  work  of  grace  upon  his 
soul ;  so  that  they  can  have  reason  to  think  that  he  is  one  of 
the  elect,  and  that  he  will  not  fall  away.  And  on  this  ac- 
count many  Dissenters  have  days  of  preparation  for  receiving 
the  Lord's  supper,*  and  they  do  not  consider  any  person  to 
be  properly  qualified  to  administer  either  this  ordinance,  or 
baptism,  till  he  has  been  regularly  ordained,  though  they 
have  no  objection  to  his  preaching  all  his  life,  if  he  pleases, 
without  that  ceremony,  or  to  attending  upon  his  ministry  in 
all  other  respects. 

It  can  also  be  from  nothing  but  the  remains  of  superstition, 
that  the  number  of  communicants,  even  among  the  most 
liberal  of  the  Dissenters,  is  very  small,  seldom  exceeding 
one  in  ten  of  the  congregation  ;  and  very  few  as  yet  bring: 
their  children  to  communion.  On  this  subject  Mr.  Pierce 
wrote  a  very  valuable  tract,  which  has  led  many  persons  to 
think  favourably  of  the  practice,  as  the  only  effectual  method 
of  securing  the  attendance  of  Christians  in  general,  when 
they  are  grown  up.-j* 

1  would  only  advise  the  deferring  of  communion  till  the 
children  be  of  a  proper  age  to  be  brought  to  attend  other 
parts  of  public  worship,  and  till  they  can  be  made  to  join 
in  the  celebration  with  decency,  so  as  to  give  no  offence  to 
others.  This  being  a  part  of  public  worship,  there  cannot, 
I  think,  be  any  reason  for  making  them  communicate  at  an 
earlier  age  ;  and  to  make  them  do  it  at  any  period  before  it 

*  See  Vol.  II.  p.  so.  f  Ibid.  p.  337,  and  Notes,  and  p.  338. 


RELATING  TO  THE   LORD's  SUPPER.  267 

be  properly  an  act  of  their  own,  will  equally  secure  their 
attendance  afterwards,  which  is  the  object  to  be  aimed  at. 
It  is  having  had  no  particular  fixed  time  for  beginning  to 
communicate,  that  has  been  the  reason  of  its  being  so  gene- 
rally neglected  as  it  has  been  with  us.  1  flatter  myself, 
however,  that  in  due  time,  we  shall  think  rationally  on  this, 
as  well  as  on  other  subjects  relating  to  Christianity,  and  that 
our  practice  will  correspond  with  our  sentiments.* 

•  III  the  "  Address,  on  the  subject  of  giving  the  Lord's  Supper  to  Children," 
published  in  1773,  l)r  Priestley,  adopting  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Pierce,  declares  him- 
self "  fully  satisfied  that  infant-communion,  as  well  as  infant-baptism,  was  the  most 
ancient  custom  in  the  christian  church.  "  He  admits,  however,  that  tliere  is  no 
reference  to  such  cominniiion,  in  any  writer  before  Cyprian.  To  that  communion, 
accordini?  to  Cyprian,  infants,  in  the  strictest  sense  of  the  term,  were  brought  to 
partake,  w  ithotit  waiting  till  they  could  be  supposed  "  to  join  in  the  celebration." 
{Sec  supra,  p.  238,  Notes.) 

I  know  not  of  any  christian  society  who  practise  infant- communion,  even  with 
Dr.  Priestley's  qualifications,  nor  of  any  who  now  advocate  his  opinion,  which 
seems,  however,  very  just,  that  infant-baptism  and  infant-communion,  depend  for 
their  authority,  on  the  same  arguments  from  christian  antiquity.  The  late  Rev. 
Mr.  Newton,  an  Independent  Minister  of  Norwich,  with  whom  I  had  the  pleasure 
of  an  acquaintance,  held  the  same  opinion  of  infant- communion  with  Mr.  Pierce  and 
Dr.  Priestley  ;  but  1  am  not  aware  that  he  ever  wrote  on  the  subject,  or  that  his 
opinion  was  entertained  by  any  individual  or  society,  in  his  religious  connexion. 
Mr.  N-  would,  of  course.  Jay  no  stress  on  the  Calvinistie  custom  of  requiring  an 
I'xjierience, 


268 

THE 

HISTORY 

OF   THE 

(Eoxxuptiom  of  ©SriisitfanitB* 


PART  VII. 

lYie  His  tori/  of  Opinions  relating  to  Baptism. 

— »♦» 

THE 

INTRODUCTION. 

The  rite  of  baptism  was  perhaps  first  practised  by  John^ 
whose  commission  from  God,  was  to  baptize  unto  repentance 
all  who  should  profess  themselves  to  be  his  disciples.  Our 
Saviour  himself  was  baptized,  and  probably  all  the  apostles, 
who,  by  his  directions,  baptized  others,  even  in  his  life  time; 
and  in  his  giving  his  commission  to  them,  he  commanded 
them  to  baptize^  as  well  as  disciple  all  nations.  Accordingly 
we  find,  in  the  book  of  Acts,  that  all  who  were  converted  to 
Christianity,  Jews  as  well  as  Gentiles,  were  received  into 
the  Christian  church  by  baptism  ;  and  at  that  time  this  rite 
appears  to  have  been  generally,  though  probably  not  always 
performed,  by  dipping  the  whole  body  in  the  water. 

As  this  rite  is  usually  called  the  baptism  of  repentance^  it 
was  probably  intended  to  represent  the  purity  of  heart  and 
life  which  was  required  of  all  who  professed  themselves  to 
be  Christians  ;  and  therefore  a  declaration  of  faith  in  Christ, 
and  also  of  repentance,  was  always  made  by  those  who  pre- 
sented themselves  to  be  baptized,  at  least,  if  it  was  required 
of  them.  Nothing  more,  therefore,  seems  to  have  been 
meant  by  baptism  originally,  than  a  solemn  declaration  of  a 
man*s  being  a  Christian,  and  of  his  resolution  to  ive  as 
becomes  one;  and  very  far  was  it  from  being  imagined,  that 
there  was  any  peculiar  virtue  in  the  rite  itself.     It  was  con- 


OPINIONS  RELATING  TO  INFANT  BAPTISM.         2G9 

sidered  as  laying  a  man  under  obligation  to  a  virtuous  and 
holy  lite,  as  the  profession  of  Christianity  necessarily  does, 
but  not  as  of  itself  making  any  person  holy. 

It  is  certain,  that  in  very  early  times,  there  is  no  particii- 
lar  mention  made  of  any  person  being  baptized  by  sprin/t'iin<^ 
only,  or  a  partial  application  of  water  to  the  body  ;  but,  as 
on  the  other  hand,  the  dipping  of  the  whole  body  is  not 
expressly  prescribed,*  and  the  moral  emblem  is  the  same, 
viz.  that  of  cleanness  or  purity,  produced  by  the  use  of  water, 
we  seem  to  be  at  liberty  to  apply  the  water  either  to  the 
whole  body,  or  to  part  of  it,  as  circumstances  shall  make  it 
convenient. f  The  Greek  word  ^aTrri^o)  certainly  does  not 
always  imply  a  dipping  of  the  whole  body  in  water.  For  it 
is  applied  to  that  kind  of  washing  which  the  Pharisees  re- 
cjuired  before  eating.  See  Luke  xi.  38;  Mark  vii.  4.:{: 
We  read  in  the  same  evangelist  of  the  baptism  not  only  ot 
cups,  pots  and  brazen  vessels,  but  also  of  couches.  Also,  as 
in  the  Old  Testament  we  often  read  of  sprinkling  with  water, 
as  Num.  xix.  13,  18  ;  Ezek.  xxxvi.  25  ;  and  it  is  referred  to 
in  the  New,  Heb.  ix.  19,  where  we  read,  "  And  Moses 
sprinkled  both  the  book  of  the  law,  and  all  the  people ;"  I 
think  it  most  probable,  that  when  great  numbers  were 
baptized  at  the  same  time,  the  water  was  applied  in  this 
manner,  the    practice  being  sufficiently  familiar  to   Jews. 

In  the  three  first  centuries,  it  was  not  uncommon  to 
baptize  persons  at  the  hour  of  death,  and  in  this  case  they 
certainly  did  not  dip  the  whole  body.  Epiphanius  speaks 
of  a  Jewish  patriarch  being  baptized  by  a  Christian,  who 

•  Doddridge  inquires,  in  Lect  ceil,  whether  immersion  "  be  an  essential  circum- 
slance  in  baptism?"  and  resolves,  that,  •'  on  the  whole,  that  mode  of  baptism  is 
evidently  favoured  by  scripture  examples,  though  not  required  by  express  precept." 
Yet,  how  can  we  better  understand  a  precept  of  the  scripture  than  by  observing 
the  "  scripture  examples"  ?  Selden  approves  "  the  baptizing  of  children"  as  a  rite 
which  "  succeeds  circumcision  -,"  yet,  referring  to  the  disuse  of  immersion,  he  says, 
"  In  England,  of  late  years,  I  ever  thought  the  parson  baptized  his  own  fingers 
rather  th^in  the  child."     Table  Talk,  Baptism. 

t  May  not  such  a  liberty  be  pleaded  for  several  practices  among  Christians, 
which  my  author,  in  the  preceding  and  following  pages,  has  justly  exposed ;  though 
they  have  not  wanted  very  specious  excuses  of  utility  or  convenience? 

X  See  a  Note  in  Inc.  added  to  the  4th  edition  of  the  Improved  Version.  Yet  Ham- 
mond "  Annot.  in  Mark  vii.  4,"  says,  as  quoted  by  Gale,  that  "  the  word  signifies 
the  washing  of  any  part,  as  the  hands,  here,  by  way  of  immersion  in  water,  as  that 
is  opposed  to  atfusion,  or  pouring  water  upon  them ;"  and  that  "  the  baptism  of 
cups,  is  putting  into  water,  all  over,  rinsing  them."  Reflections  on  Wall,  1711, 
pp.  159,  162.  See  also  Wall's  Defence,  pp.  109—1 13.  Le  Clerc's  version  is,  "  Us 
ne  mangent  point  non  plus  qu'ils  n'aient  plonge  leurs  mains  dans  I'eau."  Nouv. 
Test.  1703.  Mr.  Wakefield  says,  "the  Greek  word  ^xirrii^u,  which  occurs  not 
uufrequently  in  classic  authors,  universally  signifies,  as  far  as  my  observation  has 
extended,  to  dip  entirely  under  water."  Plain  and  Short  Account,  p.  10.  See  a 
large  enumeration  of  passages  from  the  ancients,  by  Gale.  Rfflections,  pp.  95 — 129. 


270  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS 

was  introduced  in  the  disguise  of  a  physician,  on  account  of 
his  being  unwilling  that  his  relations  should  know  it;  and 
the  water  was  brought  by  a  servant,  as  if  it  had  been  for 
some  other  purpose.*  Whether  the  story  be  true  or  false, 
it  equally  shews  that  the  minds  of  Christians  in  that  age, 
were  not  shocked  at  the  idea  of  baptizing  in  a  manner  which 
must  have  been  nearly  as  it  is  now  used,  and  that  such  was 
deemed  a  sufficient  baptism.  It  is  said,  indeed,  by  some, 
that  the  Eunomians  made  this  change  in  the  rite  of  baptism  ; 
thinking  it  indecent  to  plunge  persons  over-head  in  water, 
and  especially  naked  ;  and  that  "  they  therefore  only  un- 
covered them  to  the  breast,  and  then  poured  water  upon  their 
heads."  f  But  as  the  Eunomians  were  a  branch  of  the  Arians, 
it  is  not  probable  that  the  Catholics,  as  they  were  called, 
would  adopt  the  custom  from  them.  Besides,  if  the  practice 
of  immersion  had  always  been  thought  absolutely  necessary 
to  baptism,  it  is  not  probable  that  the  Christians  of  that  age 
would  have  ever  departed  from  it.  As  superstition  increased, 
we  shall  have  evidence  enough,  that  they  were  more  ready  to 
add  than  to  diminish,  with  respect  to  every  thing  that  was  of 
a  ceremonial  nature. 

It  has  been  much  debated  whether  infants  were  considered 
as  proper  subjects  for  baptism  in  the  primitive  church. :{: 
Now,  besides,  that  we  are  not  able  to  trace  the  origin  of  in- 
fant baptism,  and  therefore  are  necessarily  carried  back  into 
the  age  of  the  apostles  for  it,  a  controversy  arose  pretty  early 
in  the  Christian  church,  which  would  naturally  have  led 
some  persons  to  deny  the  antiquity  of  the  practice,  if  they 
could  ;  and  considering  the  state  of  opinions  and  practices 
with  respect  to  things  of  a  similar  nature,  it  is  natural  to 
suppose  that  the  primitive  Christians  would  baptize  infants 
as  well  as  adult  persons.§ 

*  HtBT.  XXX.  Opei^a,  I.  p.  128.     (P.) 

t  See  Jortin's  Remarks,  1752,  IT.  p.  282.     (P.)    Ed.  1805,  II.  p.  128. 

X  See  a  "View  of  the  Chief  Arguments  for  and  against  Infant  Baptism."  Dod- 
dridge, Lect.  cciii. — ccv.  Also  bishop  Taylor's  "  Liberty  of  Prophesying,"  Sect,  xviii. 
He  there  quotes  the  very  extraordinary  "  testimony  of  a  learned  Paedo- baptist, 
Lvdovicus  Vires,  who,  in  his  annotations  upon  St.  Austin,  Z)e  Civit.  Dei,  L.  i.  C.  xxvii. 
affirms  Neminem  nisi  adultnm  antiquitiis  sMere  baptizari,"  No.  xxv.  ad  Jin.  Ed.  2. 
p.  S21.  "  Wall's  History  of  Infant  Baptism,"  (Ed.  3,  1720.)  Gale's  Refections  on 
Wall,  1711,  and  W&lYs  Defence,  1720,  appear  to  contain  all  that  can  now  be  dis- 
covered as  to  themodc  &ndsnbject  of  apostolic  baptism.  The  reader  will  find  much 
information  respecting  the  arguments  and  authorities  for  the  immersion  o(  Adults,  as 
the  only  Christian  baptism,  in  Wisowatins's  Note  to  the  Racovian  Catechism,  in  Mr. 
Kees's  translation,  pp.263 — 257.  Mr.  Belsham,  in  \\\s  Plea  for  Infant  Baptism,  has 
given  the  argument  from  tradition  all  the  force  of  which  it  is  capable. 

§  The  author's  early  and  latest  opinion  upon  this  subject  appears  to  have  bee», 
that  **  the  baptism  of  children  is  to  be  considered  as  one  part  of  a  man's  own  pro- 
fession of  Christianity."    See  Vol.  U.  p.  335,  and  Note. 


RELATING  TO  BAPTISM.  271 

With  respect,  to  this  subject,  I  cannot  think  that  writers 
liave  attended  so  much  as  they  ought  to  liavc  done  to  the 
jK>wer  of  a  master  of  a  family  (the  patria  potestas)  in  the  East, 
and  particularly  have  not  considered  how  lar  his  own  cha- 
racter and  profession  usually  affected  his  wife,  liis  children, 
and  his  servants,  and  indeed  every  thing-  that  belonged  to 
him.  When  the  Ninevites  repented,  they  made  even  their 
cattle  to  fast,  and  wear  sackcloth,  as  well  as  themselves  ;  not 
that  they  could  consider  their  cattle  as  having  any  occasion 
to  repent,  but  they  did  it  in  order  to  express,  in  a  stronger 
manner,  their  own  humiliation  and  contrition.     Jonah  iii. 

Agreeably  to  these  prevailing  ideas,  though  circumcision 
was  a  religious  rite,  instituted  as  a  symbol  of  the  covenant 
between  God  and  the  descendants  of  Abraham  by  Isaac  and 
Jacob,  yet,  not  only  was  Ishmael  circumcised,  but  also  all 
the  slaves  of  Abraham,  who  had  no  interest  whatever  in  the 
promises  made  to  him.  The  application  of  this  rite,  there- 
fore, to  Ishmael,  and  to  the  slaves  of  Abraham,  was  no  more 
than  a  necessary  appendage  to  the  circumcision  of  Abraham 
himself,  as  master  of  the  family.  It  was  his  own  act  only, 
and  therefore  the  consent  of  Ishmael  or  of  the  slaves  cannot 
be  supposed  to  have  been  in  the  least  degree  necessary. 
From  the  same  fact  we  must  also  conclude  that  circumci- 
sion, as  such,  could  not  express  any  interest  that  the  subjects 
of  it  had  in  the  things  signified  by  it;  for  then  Ishmael  and 
the  slaves  of  Abraham  would  have  had  an  equal  interest  in 
them. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  but  that  when  the  Jews  in  future 
ages  made  converts  to  their  religion,  they  obliged  every 
master  of  a  family  both  to  submit  to  this  rite  himself,  and 
likewise  to  see  that  all  his  household,  or  all  that  depended 
upon  him,  did  the  same.  For  the  same  reason,  whatever 
other  rite  had  been  enjoined  them,  and  whatever  it  had  ex- 
pressed, the  same  people  would,  no  doubt,  have  applied  it  in 
the  same  indiscriminate  manner,  to  the  master  of  the  family, 
and  to  all  his  household.  It  was  natural,  therefore,  for  the 
apostles,  and  other  Jews,  on  the  institution  of  baptism,  to 
apply  it  to  infants,  as  well  as  to  adults,  as  a  token  of  the 
profession  of  Christianity  by  the  master  of  the  family  only  ; 
and  this  they  would  do  without  considering  it  as  a  substi- 
tute for  circumcision,  and  succeeding  in  the  place  of  it, 
which  it  is  never  said  to  do  in  the  Scriptures,  though  some 
have  been  led  by  some  circumstances  of  resemblance  in  the 


272  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS 

two  rites  to  imagine  that  this  was  the  case.  According  to 
the  general  ideas,  and  the  established  custom  of  the  Jews 
and  other  Asiatics,  in  similar  cnses,  they  would  not  have 
thought  of  adopting  any  other  practice  than  that  of  infant 
baptism,  without  particular  directions. 

Accordingly,  we  find  in  the  Scriptures,  that  the  jailor,  on 
professing  his  faith  in  Christ,  was  baptized,  ^e  awrf  a// A?*, 
Acts  xvi.  33  ;  and  that  Lydia  was  baptized  and  ail  her 
household,  ver.  16.^^  Now  it  is  certain  that  to  a  Jew  these 
phrases  would  convey  the  idea  of  the  children,  at  least,  if 
not  of  the  domestic  slaves,  having  been  baptized,  as  well  as 
the  head  of  the  family.  A  Roman  also  could  not  have  un- 
derstood them  to  imply  less  than  all  who  were  subject  to 
what  was  called  the  patria  potestas. 

It  also  appears  to  me  to  be  very  evident  from  ecclesiastical 
history,  and  the  writings  of  the  Christian  fathers,  that  infant 
baptism  was  the  uniform  practice  of  the  primitive  Christians, 
and  continued  to  be  so  till,  along  with  other  superstitious 
notions,  they  got  the  idea  of  the  efficacy  of  baptism  as  such 
to  wash  away  sins,  and  consequently  of  the  peculiar  safety 
of  dying  presently  after  they  were  baptized,  before  any  fresh 
guilt  could  be  contracted.  Now,  an  argument  derived  from 
the  uniform  practice  of  the  primitive  Christians  cannot  but 
be  allowed  to  have  considerable  weight,  as  an  evidence  of 
its  having  been  a  practice  of  the  apostolical  times,  and 
having  the  sanction  of  apostolical  authority.  It  is  from  the 
evidence  of  tradition  only,  deduced  from  the  uninterrupted 
practice  of  the  Christian  churches,  that  we  now  set  apart 
not  the  seventh  but  the  first  day  of  the  week,  for  the  purpose 
of  public  worship.  There  is  no  express  authority  for  this  in 
the  New  Testament. 

Tertullian,  indeed,  advises  to  defer  baptism  till  persons  be 
of  age  to  be  Christians,  lest  it  should  bring  their  sponsors 

*  See  Vol.  II.  p.^34.  Yet  it  is  thus  argued,  on  the  other  side.  "  By  whole  families, 
m  scripture,  is  meant  all  persons  of  reason  and  age  within  the  family  ;  for  it  is  said  of 
the  Ruler  at  Capernaum,  (John  iv.1  that  he  believed  and  all  his  hoiuie"  Lib.  of  Proph. 
Sect,  xviii.  No.  xxiv.  p.  319-  "  It  is  certain  the  word  house  or  household  is  often  used 
where  none  are  meant  but  such  as  are  come  to  years  of  understanding.  For  example, 
John  iv.  53,  Himself  believed  and  his  whole  house ;  Acts  xviii.  8,  Crispus — believed  oil 
the  Lord  with  all  his  house.  Of  the  three  examples  of  households  baptized,  it  is  ex- 
pressly said  of  the  one  (the  jailor's),  that  Paul  and  Silas  •  spake  the  word  of  the  Lord 
to  him,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  house.'  If  all  the  families  in  (ireat  Britain  were 
obliged  to  take  an  oath  of  allegiance,  any  man  who  should  hereafter  read  our  history, 
would  make  a  very  wrong  inference  if  he  should,  merelv  from  the  word  families  or 
households,  conclude  this  oath  was  administered  to  children."  Plain  Accouyit  of  Bap- 
tism, in  Letters  to  bishop  Hoadly,  1758,  Ed.  2,  1766,  pp.  99,  100.  See  also  Wake- 
field's "  Plain  and  Short  Account,"  p.  24. 


RELATING  TO   BAPTISM.  $73 

into  danger;  alleging  also,  that  their  innocent  age  had  no 
need  to  hasten  to  the  remission  of  sins.*  But  he  no  where 
insinuates  that  infant  baptism  was  not  even  the  universal 
custom  of  his  time,  or  that  it  had  been  an  innovation;  which, 
in  pleading  against  it,  he  might  naturally  have  been  expected 
to  insist  upon.  He  was  only  offended  at  the  too  o^reat  readi- 
ness with  which  all  persons  were  admitted  to  baptism,  when 
some  of  them  were  afterwards  a  disgrace  to  their  profession. 
He  therefore  advises  to  defer  it  in  all  cases ^  and  in  that  of 
infants  also. 

If  we  trace  the  progress  of  this  affair  a  little  farther,  we 
shall  find  that  when,  by  the  prevalence  of  the  liberal  sen- 
timents of  Christianity,  more  account  was  made  of  slaves, 
as  being  of  the  same  species  with  their  masters,  and  equally 
interested  with  them  in  the  privileges  and  promises  of  the 
gospel,  and  especially  when,  in  consequence  of  this,  they 
acquired  more  civil  rights,  and  were  allowed  to  act  for  them- 
selves more  than  they  had  done,  they  were  considered  as 
having  religious  interests  of  their  own.  f  Indeed,  in  the 
time  of  the  Romans,  slaves,  being  of  different  nations,  were 
allowed  (agreeably  to  the  genius  of  the  pagan  system)  to 
practise  some  of  their  peculiar  religious  rites  ;  and  a  great 
many  of  the  first  christian  converts  were  slaves  ;  their  mas- 
ters, at  that  time,  not  finding  themselves  or  their  interest 
affected  by  it,  and  therefore  not  taking  any  umbrage  at  it. 

It  happened,  also,  that  the  power  of  a  father  over  his 
children  was  much  less  in  these  northern  nations  of  Europe, 
than  it  was  in  the  East,  or  among  the  Romans,  with  whom, 
likewise,  it  sensibly  declined.  On  this  account,  and  also 
because,  from  the  very  first  promulgation  of  Christianity, 
it  could  not  but  be  manifest,  that  persons  were  interested 
in  it,  as  individuals^  and  not  as  members  of  families,  or  so- 
cieties, I  make  no  doubt  but  that,  in  general,  if  there  were 
adult  children  or  slaves  in  a  family,  at  the  time  that  the 
master  professed  himself  a  Christian,  they  were  not  baptized 
without  their  own  consent ;  but  no  consideration,  that  can 
be  supposed  to  have  occurred  either  to  Jews  or  Romans, 
could  have  led  them  to  make  the  same  exception  in  favour 
of  infants. 

Considering  how  very  different  are  the  ideas  and  customs 
of  these  times,  and  these  parts  of  the  world,  from  those  which 
prevailed  among  the  Jews,  when  baptism  was  instituted, 
the  peculiar  reasons  for  applying  it  to  infants  have,  in  a 

•  De  Baptismo,  Sect,  xviii.     Opera,  p.  231.     (P.) 
See  Vol.  11.  p.  334,  and  Note. 
VOL.  V.  T 


274  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS 

great  measure,  ceased.  But  still,  as  the  practice  is  of  apos- 
tolical authority,  *  it  appears  to  me  that  no  innovation  ought 
to  be  made  in  it  by  any  power  whatever  ;  but  that  we  ought 
rather  to  preserve  those  ideas  which  originally  gave  a  pro- 
priety to  it,  especially  when  there  is  nothing  unnatural  in 
them.  For  my  own  part,  I  endeavour  to  adhere  to  the 
primitive  ideas  above-mentioned,  and  therefore  I  consider 
the  baptizing  of  my  children,  not  as  directly  implying  that 
they  have  any  interest  in  it,  or  in  the  things  signified  by  it, 
but  as  a  part  of  my  own  profession  of  Christianity,  and  con- 
sequently as  an  obligation  which,  as  such,  I  am  under,  to 
educate  my  children,  and  also  to  instruct  my  servants,  in 
the  principles  of  the  christian  religion.  In  this  view  of  the 
ordinance  of  baptism,  infants  are  indirectly  interested  in  it, 
whether  they  adhere  to  the  profession  of  Christianity,  and 
thereby  secure  the  blessings  of  it  when  they  become  adults, 
so  as  to  think  and  act  for  themselves,  or  not. 

It  is  possible  that,  at  this  time,  and  in  these  parts  of  the 
world,  we  may  not  see  so  much  reason  for  any  positive  insti- 
tutions;  but  with  the  Jews,  and  indeed  throughout  all  the 
East,  nothing  is  more  common  than  to  express  sentiments 
and  purposes  by  appropriated  actions.  Now,  washing  with 
water  so  naturally  expresses  purity  of  heart,  and  is  a  thing 
so  agreeable  in  itself,  especially  in  hot  countries,  that  we 
cannot  wonder  it  should  be  made  choice  of  to  denote  the 
profession  of  a  religion  which  brings  men  under  the  strictest 
obligations  to  repent  and  reform  their  lives  ;  and  particularly 
that  John  the  Baptist,  whose  immediate  business  it  was  to 
preach  repentance,  should  be  directed  to  enjoin  it. 

Whether  baptism  be  of  earlier  antiquity  than  John  the 
Baptist,  I  have  not  been  able  to  satisfy  myself.  Maimonides 
and  the  earliest  Jewish  writers  speak  of  solemn  baptism  as 
a  necessary  attendant  on  circumcision,  whenever  any  new 
converts  were  made  to  their  religion,  and  also  as  a  practice 
that  was  immemorial  among  them.  But  whether  it  wa« 
tacitly  implied  in  the  original  institution  of  circumcision,  or 
whether  it  had  been  adopted  afterwards,  as  naturally  ex- 
pressive of  the  new  converts  cleansing  themselves  from  the 
impurities  of  their  former  state  of  Heathenism,  it  was  pro- 
bably the  custom  of  the  Jews  in  the  time  of  our  Saviour. 

If  this  was  the  case,  and  the  Jews  did  both  circumcise 
and  baptize  all  that  were  capable  of  it,  when  families  were 
converted  to  their  religion,  there  was  both  the  less  reason 

*  This  question  must,  at  least,  be  regnrded  as  still,  9uh  judkt. 


RELATING  TO  BAPTISM.  2/5 

for  explaining  the  nature  and  the  use  ot"  the  rite  on  the  first 
mention  of  it,  or  for  describing  more  particularly  than  has 
been  done,  who  were  the  proper  subjects  of  baptism.  And 
we  may  rather  suppose  that  our  Lord  would  hav(»  expressly 
restricted  the  application  of  it  to  adult  persons,  if  he  had 
intended  that  the  prevailing  custom  should  be  altered. 
Consequently,  when  a  master  of  a  family  was  converted  to 
Christianity,  he  would,  of  course,  be  required  to  baptize  all 
his  household,  and  consider  himself  as  bound  to  instruct 
them  in  the  principles  of  the  religion  that  he  professed. 

If  any  controversy  was  ever  calculated  to  bring  a  fact  of 
this  nature  to  light,  it  was  that  of  Pelagius  and  Austin 
about  original  sin,  in  which  the  latter  maintained,  that  bap- 
tism was  necessary  to  wash  it  away,  the  second  spiritual 
birth  counteracting  the  effects  of  the  first  carnal  birth.  Now 
the  utmost  that  Pelagius  appears  to  have  replied  on  this 
subject  was,  that  infant  baptism  was  not  necessary.  But  he 
did  not  pretend  to  say  that  the  practice  was  not  then  uni- 
versal, or  that  it  had  not  always  been  so.  Nay,  Austin  says 
that  it  was  agreed  between  him  and  his  opponent,  that 
infants  ought  to  be  baptized,  and  that  they  differed  only 
about  the  reason  why  they  were  to  be  baptized.  * 

We  also  find  no  trace  of  its  being  thought  that  the  bap- 
tism of  either  the  master  of  a  family,  or  of  his  household, 
on  their  first  profession  of  Christianity,  might  suffice  for 
their  descendants;  and  though  the  Jews  did  not  repeat  that 
baptism  which  accompanied  circumcision,  yet  the  circum- 
cision itself  was  repeated  on  every  male,  so  that  if  the 
Christians  in  the  primitive  times  had  been  influenced  by 
any  analogies  between  the  Jewish  religion  and  their  own, 
they  would  rather  have  been  led  to  repeat  the  rite  of  baptism 
with  respect  to  their  children,  than  to  discontinue  it. 

Lastly,  I  am  not  able  to  interpret  1  Cor.  vii.  14,  "  The 
unbelieving  husband  is  sanctified  by  the  wife, — else  were 
your  children  unclean,  but  now  are  they  holy,"  more  natu- 
rally than  by  supposing  that,  as  by  holi/  the  Jews  meant 
devoted  to  Gody  so  by  a  child  being  holt^i,  they  meant  that  it 
had  a  right  to  the  ceremonies  of  their  holy  religion.  As 
therefore  a  child  born  of  one  Jewish  parent  had  a  right  to 
circumcision,  so  a  child  born  of  one  Christian  parent  had  a 
<%ht  to  baptism.  Indeed,  I  do  not  see  what  other  rational 
meaning  can  be  assigned  to  the  holiness  of  a  child,  j- 

*  I>*  Vtr^  Apostoli  Sermo,  xtii.     Opera,  X.  p.  Si 8.     (P.) 
t  After  *  large  exposition  of  this  passagre,  Mr.  Wakefield  says,  "  If  baptism 
made  childr«ft  kih^f  toe  fcan  of  the  Cttrinthians  were  oecdless^because  then,  who- 

t2 


^76  HISTORY    OF    OPINIONS 

It  is  remarkable  that  the  Christians  in  Abyssinia  repeat 
their  baptism  annually,  on  the  festival  of  Epiphany.* 

SECTION   I. 

•O/"  the  Opinions  and  Practices  of  the  Christians  relating  io 
Baptism^  till  the  Reformation. 

There  is  this  di^erence  with  respect  to  the  corruption^ 
of  the  rite  of  baptism,  and  those  of  the  Lord's  supper,  that 
though  they  both  began  about  the  same  time,  and  those 
relating  to  baptism  were  perhaps  the  earlier  of  the  two,  and 
the  progress  of  superstition,  in  consequence  of  this  cor- 
ruption, was  rather  more  rapid  in  the  first  century  of  Chris- 
tianity, it  was  by  no  means  so  afterwards.  For  after  the 
time  of  those  who  are  more  properly  called  fathers,  we  find 
no  material  alteration  in  the  rite  of  baptism  itself  (though 
the  business  oi  confirmation  grew  out  of  it)  whereas,  we  have 
seen  that  the  most  material  additions  were  made  to  the  doc- 
trine of  the  eucharist,  so  late  as  the  ninth  century. 

In  the  age  immediately  following  that  of  the  apostles,  we 
find  that  baptism  and  regeneration  were  used  as  synonymous 
terms ;  and  whereas,  originally,  the  pardon  of  sin  was  sup- 
posed to  be  the  consequence  of  that  reformation  of  life  which 
was  only  promised  at  baptism,  it  was  now  imagined  that 
there  was  something  in  the  rite  itself  to  which  that  grace 
was  annexed  ;  and  in  general  it  seems  to  have  been  imagined 
that  this  sanctifying  virtue  was  in  the  water,  and  in  no  other 
part  of  the  ordinance  as  administered  by  the  priest. 

TertuUian  says,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  was  always  given  in 

ever  their  parents  might  be,  they  would  soon  become  holy  through  baptism :  so 
that  we  must  not  conclude  the  holiness  of  such  children  to  be  the  consequence  of 
baptism,  but  of  something  else,  and  that  is,  if  we  may  take  St.  Paul's  word  for  it, 
the  being  born  of  Christian  parents."     Plain  and  Short  Account,  pp.  54 — 64. 

Le  Clerc  says  on  the  passage,  "  Ces  expressions  sont  tirees  de  V  usage  des  Juifs, 
qui  nommoient  ceux  de  leur  religion  saints;  c'est-a-dire  consacrez  a  Dieu ;  et  lea 
autres  impurs  et  soxcillez.  Ceux  qui  etoient  nez  d'un  Juif  et  d'une  Greque, 
passoient  pour  Juifs  d'extraction,  comme  -se  leur  pere  et  leur  mere  avoient  fet^ 
Juifs ;  et  il  en  etoit  de  meme  de  ceux  qui  etoient  d'un  pdre  Grec  et  d'une  femme 
Ju'ive,  comme  Timothte ;  pourvA  neanmoins  que  ces  enfans  embrassassent  la 
religion  Judaique."  Nouv.  Test.  p.  143.  See  also  Gale's  Rffiections,  pp, 
513,  540. 

♦  Geddes's  Church  History  of  Ethiopia,  1696,  p.  S3.  (P.)  "  They  are  said  to 
have  divers  forms  of  baptism,  viz.  I  baptize  thee  in  the  Holy  Spirit ;  I  baptize 
thee  in  the  water  of  Jordan  ;  Let  God  baptize  thee  ;  Come  thou  to  baptism- 
They  circumcise  both  males  and  females,  and  all  are  baptized  every  year,  on  the 
feast  of  Epiphany.  They  hold  that  men  derive  their  souls,  no  less  than  their  bodies, . 
from  their  parents;  and  that  the  children  of  Christian  parents,  and  especially  of  » 
Christian  mother,  are  saved,  ootwithstauding  they  die  without  baptism," 


RELATING  TO  BAPTISM.  ^TT" 

baptismi ;  and  yet  he  expressly  denied  that  it  was  bestowed- 
by  the  laying  on  of  hands.  This  writer  says  farther,  that 
the  Spirit  of  God  descends  upon  the  water  of  baptism,  like 
a  dove.  Cyprian  adds,  that  the  adorable  Trinity  is  inetiably 
in  baptism.  Paulinus  says,  that  the  water  conceives  and 
contains  God  ;  Chrysostom,  that  the  water  ceases  to  be  what 
it  was  before,  and  is  not  fit  for  drinking,  but  is  proper  for 
sanctifying.  He  says,  that  the  christian  baptism  is  superior 
to  that  of  John,  in  that  his  was  the  baptism  of  repentance^ 
but  had  not  the  power  oi  forgiving  sin.  *  And  Austin  adds, 
that  it  touches  the  body  and  purifies  the  heart,  f 

Christians  having  now  got  the  idea  that  baptism  washed 
away  sin,  a  field  was  opened  for  much  seducing  eloquence  on 
the  subject,  which  could  not  fail  to  confirm  and  increase  the 
prevailing  superstition.  Chrysostom,  speaking  of  baptism, 
says,  "  When  you  are  come  to  the  bed  of  the  Holy  Spirit^ 
to  the  portico  of  graco,  to  the  dreadful  and  desirable  bath, 
throw  yourselves  upon  the  ground,  as  prisoners   before  a 

king."t 

Superstitious  practices,  similar  to  those  which  followed 
the  corruption  of  the  doctrine  of  the  eucharist,  did  not  fail 
to  accompany  this  undue  reverence  for  the  water  of  baptism. 
We  find  that  in  the  third  century  the  noviciates  returned 
from  baptism  adorned  with  crowns,  and  clothed  with  white 
garments,  in  token  of  their  victory  over  sin  and  the  world. 
If  they  scrupled  eating  before  they  received  the  eucharist, 
they  made  a  greater  scruple  of  washing  after  baptism.  They 
would  not  do  it  till  the  end  of  the  week  ;  and  immediately 
after  baptism  they  wiped  the  bodies  of  the  catechumens 
lest  a  drop  of  the  sacramental-  water  should  fall  to  the 
ground.  They  went  to  church  on  the  Sunday  to  put  off 
their  white  garments,  and  to  receive  what  was  called  the 
ablution. 

It  was  even  believed  that  a  miracle  was  wrought  on  the 
water  that  was  drawn  on  the  day  of  Epiphany,  because 
Jesus  Christ  had  been  baptized  at  that  time.  They  carried 
it  with  respect,  to  their  houses,  after  it  had  been  consecrated  ; 
it  was  kept  with  care,  and  Chrysostom  said  that  it  would 
keep  sweet  many  years.  §  This  water  was  even  given 
instead  of  the  eucharist,  to  penitents  who  were  not  entirely 
reconciled  to  the  church  ;  and  Austin  says,  the  catechumens 
among  other  means  are  sanctified  by  it.  "  The  water," 
he  says,  "  is  holy,  though  it  be  not  the  body  of  Christ.     It 

•  Horn.  xxiv.  Opera,  I.  p.  312.  (P.)         f  Basnage,  Histoire,  I.  p.  138.     (P.)    • 
t  Ibid.  p.  139.     (P.)  ^  /font.  xxiv.  Opera,  I.  p.  311.     (P.) 


278  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS 

is  more  holy  than  the  other  aliments,  because  it  is  a  sacra- 
ment." He  says,  at  the  same  time,  that  the  catechumens 
are  sanctified  by  the  sign  of  the  cross,  and  by  the  imposition 
of  hands,  which  had  also  been  made  appendages  of  baptism 
at  that  time.*  It  appears  by  a  passage  in  Austin,  that  the 
African  Christians  usually  called  baptism  salvation.,  and  the 
eucharist  life,  preferring  the  former  to  the  latter. 

When  once  it  was  imagined  that  a  person  newly  baptized 
was  cleansed  from  all  sin,  it  is  no  wonder  that  many  persons 
deferred  this  sanctifying  rite  as  long  as  possible,  even  till 
they  apprehended  that  they  were  at  the  point  of  death.  We 
find  cases  of  this  kind  at  the  beginning  of  the  third  century. 
Constantine  the  Great  was  not  baptized  till  he  was  at  the 
last  gasp,  and  in  this  he  was  followed  by  his  son  Constantius; 
and  two  of  his  other  sons,  Constantine  and  Constans,  were 
killed  before  they  were  baptized. 

When  baptism  was  administered  to  .persons  near  the  point 
of  death,  the  patient  must  generally  have  been  in  bed,  and 
consequently  the  ceremony  could  not  have  been  performed 
by  immersion;  and  it  appears  in  the  history  of  Novatian, 
that  this  was  actually  the  case.  On  these  occasions,  the 
unction^  and  other  ceremonies  which  had  been  added  to  the 
simple  rite  of  baptism,  were  omitted;  but  they  were  per- 
formed afterwards,  if  the  sick  person  recovered.  We  even 
find  that,  rather  than  omit  baptism  entirely,  it  was  usual 
to  baptize  persons  who  were  actually  dead.  Epiphanius, 
Chrysostom,  and  Theodoret,  observe,  that  this  custom  pre- 
vailed in  some  places  in  their  time,  f 

After  the  age  of  Justin  Martyr,  we  find  many  additions 
made  to  the  rite  of  baptism.  It  was  then  the  custom  to 
give  the  person  baptized  milk  and  honey,  and  to  abstain 
from  washing,  all  the  remainder  of  the  day ,_  for  which  Ter- 
tnllian  says  they  had  no  authority  from  the  Scripture,  but 
only  from  tradition.  They  also  added  unction  and  the 
imposition  of  hands ;  the  unction,  probably,  referring,  in  a 
symbolical  manner,  to  their  preparation  for  a  spiritual  com- 
bat ;  and  in  applying  the  oil  the  priest  touched  the  head  or 
the  forehead  in  the  form  of  a  cross.  TertuUian  is  the  first 
who  mentions  the  signing  with  the  sign  of  the  cross,  but  only 
as  used  in  private,  and  not  in  public  worship  ;  and  he  parti- 
cularly describes  the  custom  of  baptizing,  without  mentioning 
it.  Indeed,  it  does  not  appear  to  have  been  used  in  baptisitt 
till  the  latter  end  of  the  fourth  or  fifth  century;  but  then  we 

*  De  Peccatoriim  Mentis,  L.  iv.  C.  xxvi.  Opera,  VII.  p.  711.     (P.) 
t  Basnage,  Histoire,  1.  p.  137.     (P.) 


RELATING  TO  BAPTISftT.  $75 

find  great  virtue  ascribed  to  it.  Lactantius,  who  lived  in  the 
beginning  of  the  fourth  century,  says,  the  devil  cannot 
approach  those  who  have  the  heavenly  mark  of  the  cross 
upon  them,  as  an  impregnable  fortress  to  defend  them  ;*  but 
be  does  not  say  it  was  used  in  baptism. 

After  the  Council  of  Nice,  Christians  added  to  baptism 
the  ceremonies  of  exorcism,  and  adjurations,  to  make  evil 
spirits  depart  from  the  persons  to  be  baptized.  They  made 
several  signings  with  the  cross,  they  used  to  light  candles, 
they  gave  salt  to  the  baptized  pei-son  to  taste,  and  the  priest 
touched  his  mouth  and  ears  with  spittle,  and  also  blew  and 
spit  upon  his  face.  "I"  At  that  time  also  baptized  persons  were 
made  to  wear  white  garments  till  the  Sunday  following,  as 
was  mentioned  above.  They  had  also  various  other  cere- 
monies, some  of  which  are  now  abolished,  though  others  of 
them  remain  in  the  church  of  Rome  to  this  day.  Blowing 
in  the  face,  putting  salt  in  the  mouth,  giving  milk  and  honey, 
and  also  kissing  the  baptized  persons,  and  making  them  ab- 
stain for  some  time  from  wine,  are  now  no  longer  in  use. 
The  reason  of  these  ceremonies  may  be  pretty  easily  con- 
ceived. I  shall,  therefore,  only  observe,  that  the  salt  was 
used  as  a  symbol  of  purity  and  wisdom  ;  and  that  exorcism 
took  its  rise  from  the  Platonic  notion  that  evil  demons 
hovered  over  human  souls,  seducing  them  to  sin. 

In  a  decree  of  the  Council  of  Laodicea,  held  in  the  year 
S64,  mention  is  made  of  (wo  anointings,  one  with  simple  oil 
before  baptism,  and  the  other  with  ointment  (ju.y§«>)  after 
baptism  ;  and  it  is  there  expressed  that  the  first  unction  was 
for  the  participation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  the  water  was  a 
symbol  of  death,  and  that  the  ointment,  which  was  applied 
with  the  sign  of  the  cross,  was  for  the  seal  of  the  covenant.  J 
This  latter  unction  we  shall  find  was  afterwards  reserved  for 
the  bishops,  and  became  the  subject  of  a  distinct  sacrament 
in  the  church  of  Rome,  called  conjirmation. 

Originally  the  bishop  only,  or  the  priests  by  his  per- 
mission, administered  baptism,  as,  with  his  leave,  they  also 
performed  any  other  of  his  functions ;  but  it  appears  from 
TertuUian  that,  in  his  time,  laymen  had,  in  some  cases,  the 
power  of  baptizing.  This  baptism,  however,  we  may  be 
assured,  required  the  confirmation  of  the  bishop,  and  would 
not  be  allowed  but  in  case  of  necessity,  as  at  the  seeming 

•  Inst.  L.  iv.  C.  xxvii.  p,  4S9.  (P.)  "  Quaiito  terrori  sit  daemoiiibus  hoc 
signum  sciet,  qui  viderit  quateiiiis  adjurati  ptr  Chrwtum  de  corporibus,  quae  obse- 
derint,  fugiant."  De  Mirandia  per  Crucis  Virhttem  effectis,  ac  de  Dammibut. 
Op.    I.   345. 

t  Sec  Hist,  of  Pop.  1735,  I.  p.  114.  X  Sueur,  j\.D.  S64.     (P.) 


280  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS 

approach  of  death,  &c.  At  a  synod  at  Elvira,  in  306,  it 
was  allowed  that  a  layman,  provided  he  had  not  been  mar- 
ried a  second  time,  might  baptize  catechumens  in  case  of 
necessity  ;  but  it  was  ordered  that,  if  they  survived,  they 
should  be  brought  to  the  bishop  for  the  imposition  of  hands. 
Afterwards,  when  the  bounds  of  the  church  were  much 
enlarged,  the  business  of  baptizing  was  left  almost  entirely 
to  the  priests,  or  the  country  bishops,  and  the  bishops  of 
great  sees  only  confirmed  afterwards. 

Great  doubts  were  raised  in  early  times  about  the  validity 
of  baptism  as  administered  by  heretics.  Tertullian,  before 
he  became  a  Montanist,  wrote  a  treatise  to  prove  that 
heretics,  not  having  the  same  God,  or  the  same  Christ,  with 
the  orthodox,  their  baptism  was  not  valid.  Cyprian  called 
a  synod  at  Carthage,  in  which  it  was  determined,  that  no 
baptism  was  valid  out  of  the  Catholic  church,  and  therefore, 
that  those  who  had  been  heretics  should  be  re-baptized. 
But  Stephen,  the  bishop  of  Rome,  did  not  approve  of  this 
decision,  and  by  degrees  his  opinion,  which  continued  to  be 
that  of  the  church  of  Rome,  became  every  where  prevalent. 
Indeed,  when  so  much  stress  was  laid  on  baptism  itself,  it 
would  have  introduced  endless  anxiety  if  much  doubt  had 
remained  about  the  power  of  administering  it. 

Having  given  this  account  of  the  corruption  of  the  doc- 
trine of  baptism,  and  the  principal  abuses  and  superstitions 
with  respect  to  the  practice  of  it,  I  shall  go  over  what 
farther  relates  to  the  subject,  according  to  the  order  of  ad- 
ministration. 

When  Christians,  from  a  fondness  for  the  rites  and  cere- 
monies of  Paganism,  and  a  desire  to  engage  the  respect  of 
their  heathen  acquaintance  for  the  religion  which  they  had 
embraced,  began  to  adopt  some  of  the  maxims  and  rites  of 
their  old  religion,  they  seem  to  have  been  more  particularly 
struck  with  what  related  to  the  mysteries^  or  the  more  secret 
rites  of  the  pagan  religion,  to  which  only  few  persons  were 
admitted,  and  those  under  a  solemn  oath  of  secrecy.  In 
consequence  of  this  disposition,  both  the  positive  institutions 
of  Christianity,  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper^  were  con- 
verted into  mysteries.  Christians  affecting  great  secrecy  with 
respect  to  the  mode  of  administering  them,  and  no  person 
could  then  be  admitted  to  attend  the  whole  of  the  public 
worship  before  he  was  baptized  ;  but  all  who  were  classed 
with  the  catechumens  were  dismissed  before  the  celebration 
of  the  eucharist,  which  closed  the  service. 

Farther,  those  who  were  admitted  to  the  heather!  mys- 


RELATING  TO  BAPTISM.  28t 

teries  had  certain  signs  or  si/mbols  delivered  to  them,  by 
which  they  might  know  each  other,  so  that  by  declaring 
them  they  might  be  admitted  into  any  temple,  and  to  the 
secret  worsiiip  and  rites  of  that  god  whose  symbols  they 
had  received.  In  imitation  of  this,  it  occurred  to  the  Chris- 
tians to  make  a  similar  use  of  the  Apostles'  Creed,  or  that 
short  declaration  of  faith  which  it  had  been  usual  to  require 
of  persons  before  they  were  baptized.  This  creed,  therefore, 
(which  does  not  appear  to  have  been  published,  and  indeed 
was  altered  from  time  to  time,  as  particular  heresies  arose  in 
the  church,)  they  now  began  to  call  a  spnbol,  affecting  to 
conceal  it  from  the  Pagans,  and  not  revealing  it  even  to  the 
catechumens  themselves,  except  just  before  they  were  bap- 
tized ;  and  then  it  was  delivered  to  them  as  a  symbol  by 
which  they  were  to  know  one  another. 

Cyprian  says,  "  that  the  sacrament  of  faith,  that  is  the 
creed,  was  not  to  be  profaned  or  divulged,'*  for  which  he 
cites  two  texts  of  scripture,  the  one.  Proverbs  xxiii.  9, 
"  Speak  not  in  the  ears  of  a  fool,  for  he  will  despise  the 
wisdom  of  thy  words ;"  and  the  other,  Matt.  vii.  6,  "  Give 
not  that  which  is  holy  unto  the  dogs,  neither  cast  ye  your 
pearls  before  swine,"  &c.  Ambrose  most  pathetically  ex- 
horts to  the  utmost  vigilancy,  to  conceal  the  christian 
mysteries,  and  in  particular  to  be  very  "  careful  not  by 
incautiousness  to  reveal  the  secrets  of  the  creed,  or  the 
Lord's  prayer.*'*  This  last  appears  very  extraordinary,  as 
the  Lord's  prayer  is  contained  in  the  gospels,  where  it  might 
be  seen  by  any  person. 

In  the  second  century,  baptism  was  performed  publicly 
only  twice  in  the  year,  viz.  on  Easter  and  Whit-sunday.  In 
the  same  age  sponsors  or  godfathers  were  introduced  to 
answer  for  adult  persons,  "  though  they  were  afterwards 
admitted  also  in  the  baptism  of  infants.**  •!•  This,  Mr. 
Daille  says,  was  not  done  till  the  fourth  century. 

It  should  seem,  from  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  that  it  was 
sufficient  to  the  ceremony  of  baptism  to  say,  J  baptize  into 
the  name  of  Jesus  Christ.  But  we  soon  find  that  the  form  of 
words  used,  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  was  strictly  adhered  to,  at 
least  in  the  third  century,  viz.  /  baptize  thee  in  the  name  of 
the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost.  It  appears,  how- 
ever, that  at  the  time  of  Justin  Martyr,  they  did  not  always 
confine  themselves  to  these  particular  words,  but  sometimes 
added  others  by  way  of  explanation.      For  though   these 

*  History  of  the  Apostles'  Creed,  Ed.  5,  p.  20.     (P.) 

t  Mosheiin,  I.  p.  172.     (P.)     Cent.  ii.  Pt.  ii.  Cli.  iv.  ad  fin. 


282  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS 

precise  words  occur  in  one  account  of  baptism  by  this 
writer,  in  another  he  speaks  of  baptism,  *'  Into  the  name  of 
Jesus  Christ,  who  was  crucified  by  Pontius  Pilate,  and 
into  the  name  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  foretold  by  the  holy 
prophets  every  thing  relating  to  Christ.***  But  perhaps 
this  explanation  might  be  only  intended  for  the  use  of  his 
readers,  and  not  given  by  him  as  a  form  of  words  that  was 
used  in  the  administration  of  baptism  itself. 

We  find  very  little  mention  made  of  baptism,  from  the 
time  of  those  who  were  generally  called  fathers^  that  is, 
from  the  age  of  Austin  to  the  Reformation.  Indeed  I  have 
hardly  met  with  any  thing  on  the  subject  worth  reciting. 

It  soon  became  a  maxim,  that  as  baptism  was  a  sacrament 
that  was  to  be  used  only  once^  it  was  exceedingly  wrong  to 
re-baptize  any  person  ;  and  it  is  pleasant  to  observe  the 
precaution  that  pope  Boniface  hit  upon  to  prevent  this  in 
dubious  cases.  In  his  statutes  or  instructions  he  says, 
"  They  whose  baptism  is  dubious,  ought  without  scrOple  to 
be  baptized,  with  this  protestation,  I  do  not  re-baptize  thee, 
hut  if  thou  art  not  baptized,  I  baptize  thee"  &c.  This  is  the 
first  example  that  I  have  found  oi conditional  baptism,^ 

From  the  earliest  account  of  the  ordinance,  we  find  that 
children  received  the  Lord*s  supper,  and  that  baptism  aiwaj^s 
preceded  communion.  In  a  book  of  divine  offices,  written 
as  some  think,  in  the  eleventh  century,  it  is  ordained  that 
care  be  taken  that  young  children  receive  no  food  after 
baptism,  and  that  they  do  not  even  give  them  suck  without 
necessity,  till  after  they  have  participated  of  the  body  of 
Christ.  J 


SECTION  II. 

The  State  of  Opinions  concerning  Baptism,  since  the 
Reformation. 

It  is  remarkable  that,  though  the  Waldenses  always  pracv 
tised  infant  baptism,  §  many  of  the  Albigenses,  if  not  all  of 
them,  held  that  baptism  ought  to  be  confined  to  adults.  |( 

*  Edit.  Thirlby,  pp.  89,  9 1-     (P) 

t  Jortin's  Remarks,  IV.  p.  462.     (P.) 

X  Larrocbe,  p.  129.     (P.)     Smith  says  that  in  the  Greek  Church  "  they  giv« 

the  eucharist to  new-born  infants,  after  they  have  been  christened,  in  case  of 

imminent  danger  of  death."     Account,  p.  l6l. 

§  Leger,  Hutoire,  p  65.    (P.) 

11  They  said,  according  to  Limborch,  "  that  the  baptism  of  water,  made  by  the 
church,  was  of  no  avail  to  children ;  because  they  were  so  far  from  consenting  to  i^ 


RELATING  TO  BAPTISM.  28S 

This  was  the  opinion  of  the  Petrobrussians,*  and  also  of 
Bercnger.  f 

Wicklift'e  thought  baptism  to  be  necessary  to  salvation, 
"  The  priest,"  he  says,  "  in  baptism  administers  only  the 
token  or  sign  ;  but  God,  who  is  the  priest  and  bishop  of 
our  souls,  administers  the  spiritual  grace."  J  And  Luther 
not  only  retained  the  rite  of  baptism,  but  even  the  ceremony 
of  exorcism.  At  least,  this  was  retained  in  the  greatest  part 
of  the  Lutheran  churches.  § 

It  appeared,  however,  presently  after  the  Reformation  by 
Luther,  that  great  numbers  had  been  well  prepared  to  tollow 
him,  and  even  to  go  farther  than  he  did.  Very  many  had 
been  so  much  scandalized  with  the  abuses  of  baptism,  and 
the  Lord's  supper  especially,  as  to  reject  them,  either  in 
whole,  or  in  part.  The  baptism  of  infants  was  very  generally 
thought  to  be  irrational,  and  therefore  it  was  administered 
only  to  adults.  Most  of  those  who  rejected  the  doctrine  of" 
the  divinity  of  Christ  were  of  this  persuasion,  as  was  Socinus 
himself.  Indeed,  he  and  some  others  thought  that  the  rite 
of  baptism  was  only  to  be  used  when  persons  were  converted 
to  Christianity  from  some  other  religion,  and  was  not  to  be 
applied  to  any  who  were  born  of  Christian  parents. ||  It 
does  not  appear,  however,  that  those  who  held  this  opinion 
ever  formed  a  separate  sect,  or  that  their  numbers  were  con- 
siderable;^ but  those  who  rejected  infant  baptism  were 
then,  and  still  are,  very  numerous. 

that  they  wept."  Hist,  of  Inquis.  I.  p.  44.  Mr.  Wall  says  of  the  Albigenses,  that 
"  as  France  was  the  nrst  country  in  Christendom  where  dipping  of  children  in  bap- 
tism was  left  off,  so  there,  first  anti-psedobaptism  began."  Hist  of  Inf.  Bap.  Ed.  S, 
11.  p.  220. 

•  Ba&nage,  Histoire,  TI.  p  140.  (P.)  The  Petrobnissians  were  named  from  Peter 
AcBruf^s,  a  native  of  Dauphiny,  who  was  burnt  in  1147.  Nouv.  Diet.  Hist.  \.  p.  .^24- 
According  to  Mr.  Wall,  he  held  that  the  Lord's  supper  "  is  no  more  to  be  admi- 
nistered since  Christ's  time."    Hist.  II.  p.  235. 

t  Fleury,  A.  D.  1050.    (P.) 

X  Gilpin's  Life  of  him,  p.  64.  (P.)  "  He  opposed  the  superstition  of  three  im- 
mersions; and,  in  case  of  necessity,  he  thought  any  one  present  might  baptize." 
Brit.  Bioff.  I.  p.  46. 

^  Mosheim,  IV.  p.  58.   (P.)     Cent.  xvi.  Sect,  iiu  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  i.  xliii. 

II  "  De  aquse  baptismo  ego  ita  sentio,  eum  ecclesiae  in  perpetuum  prescripturo 
non  fnisse,  nee  unquam,  ut  ilium  acciperent,  lis  praeceptum  nequc  a  Christo,  neque 
ab  Apoatolis  fuisse,  qui  jam  ip»i  Christo  alia  quaounque  ratioiie  piiblice  nonien  de- 
dissent,  vel  k  primis  annis  in  Christiana  di.sciplina  educati  atque  institnti  essent." 
DeEcvlesia,  Socini  Opera,  I.  pp.  350,  351.  "^ee  also  De  Baptismo  A  once  Dis/nitatio, 
ibid.  p.  709,  and  Toulmin's  Socintis,  pp.  251,  325.  Emlyn  and  Wakefield  have 
adopted  the  same  opinion.     See  Vol.  II.  p.  335,  Note  ad  fin. 

%  There  is,  probably,  an  increasing  number,  at  least  among  Unitarians,  who  con- 
sider baptism  as  having  no  place  among  professing  ("hrisfians,  sucli  as  have  already 
made  the  profession  for  which  alone  the  rite  of  baptism  appears  to  have  been  insti- 
tuted. Of  the  different  opinions  on  baptixm  now  maintained  by  Unitarians  in 
Great  Britain,  Mr.  Rees  has  given  a  succinct  and  accurate  account,  in  Ra<:ov.  Cat> 
p.  257,  Note. 


284  HISTORY  OF    OPINIONS 

It  happened  that  many  of  those  who  held  this  opinion 
entertained  some  very  wild  notions,  especially  that  of  the 
reign  of  Christ,  or  of  the  saints,  upon  earth,  independent 
of  any  secular  power;  and  they  made  an  attempt  to  set  up 
a  monarchy  of  this  kind  at  Munster  in  Westphalia,  which 
they  seized  upon  for  that  purpose,  in  the  year  1534.  But 
an  end  was  soon  put  to  this  delusion,  and  an  odium  very 
unjustly  remained  upon  all  those  who  retained  nothing  but 
their  doctrine  concerning  baptism.  At  present,  those  who 
are  called  Baptists  are  as  peaceable  as  any  other  Christians. 
In  Holland  they  are  called  Mennonites,  from  Menno,  a  very 
considerable  person  among  them  ;  and  these  have  adopted 
the  pacific  principles  of  the  Quakers  in  England.  In  this 
country  the  Baptists  are  very  numerous.  The  greatest  part 
of  thcni  are  called  Particular  Baptists,  from  their  holding  the 
doctrine  of  particular  election  ;  but  there  are  a  few  societies 
of  them  who  are  called  General  Baptists,  from  their  holding 
the  doctrine  of  general  redemption. 

The  church  of  England  retains  the  baptism  of  infants, 
and  also  the  use  of  the  sign  of  the  cross,  and  of  godfathers. 
It  also  admits  of  baptism  by  women,  a  practice  derived 
"  from  the  opinion  of  the  indispensable  necessity  of  baptism 
to  salvation.  We  have  that  regard  to  such  a  common  prac- 
tice,*' says  bishop  Burnet,  "  as  not  to  annul  it,  though  we 
condemn  it."*  And  indeed  it  is  the  language  of  the  public 
forms  of  the  church  of  England,  that  baptism  is  necessary 
to  salvation.  In  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  we  find  the  doctrine 
of  an  invisible  work  of  God  accompanying  baptism,  as  well 
as  the  Lord's  supper  ;f  and  in  the  church  catechism  it  is 
said,  that  by  baptism  a  person  becomes  a  child  of  God,  and 
an  inheritor  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

The  doctrine  of  the  church  of  Scotland  is  of  a  piece  with 
this.  For  baptism  is  said,  in  their  Confession  of  Faith, 
(Cxxviii.)  to  be  "a  sign  and  seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace," 
of  a  person's  "  ingrafting  into  Christ,  of  regeneration,  of 
remission  of  sins,"  &c.  But  "  the  efficacy  of  baptism"  is 
there  said  not  to  be  "  tied  to  that  moment  of  time  wherein 
it  is  administered  ;  yet  notwithstanding,  by  the  right  use  of 
this  ordinance,  the  grace  promised  is  not  only  offered,  but 
really  exhibited  and  conferred,  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  such, 
whether  of  age  or  infants,  as  that  grace  belongeth  unto, 
according  to  the  counsel  of  God's  own  will,  in  his  appointed 
time." 

*  Expos.  Art.  xxiii.  ad  Jin.  Ed.  4,  p  238. 

t  "  Sacraments — be  certain  sure  witnesses  and  effectual  signs  of  grace  and  God's 
will  towards  us,  by  the  which  he  doth  work  invisibly  in  us."    Art.  xxv. 


RELATING  TO   BAPTISM.  9S5 

The  Dissenters  of  the  Calvinistic  persuasion  in  England 
may  possibly  retain  the  opinion  of  some  spiritual  frrace 
accompanying  baptism,  though  I  rather  think  it  is  not  at 
present  held  by  them.  Nothing,  howt^ver,  of  it  is  retained 
by  those  who  are  called  rational  Dissenters.  They  consider 
the  baptism  of  adult  persons  as  the  mode  of  taking  upon 
them  the  Christian  profession  ;  and  that  vvhen  it  is  applied 
to  infants,  an  obligation  is  acknowledged  by  the  parents  to 
educate  their  children  in  the  principles  of  the  Christian  reli- 
gion. Many  of  them  lay  so  little  stress  upon  it,  that  I 
imagine  they  would  make  no  great  difficulty  of  deferring  it 
to  adult  age,  or  indeed  of  omitting  it  entirely  in  Christian 
families ;  but  they  do  not  think  it  of  importance  enough  to 
make  any  new  sect  in  the  Christian  church  on  account  of  it, 
or  to  act  otherwise  than  their  ancestors  have  done  before 
them,  in  a  matter  of  so  great  indifference.*  The  Quakers 
make  no  use  either  of  this  rite,  or  of  the  Lord's  supper. -j- 

•  Such  indifferents,  following  the  practice  of  their  ancestors  without  their  con- 
victions of  duty,  deserved  my  author's  censure,  which  no  Christian  had  a  better 
right  to  inflict. 

t  See  Barclay's  Apology,  Prop.  xii.  xiii. 


HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS 
AN 

APPENDIX 

TO 

PARTS  VI.  AND  VII. 

CONTAININ€r 

The  History  of  the  other  Sacraments  besides  Baptism  and 
the  Lord's  Supper. 

ArtER  it  was  imagined  that  there  was  some  divine  virtue 
accompanying  the  administration  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's 
supper,  and  these  two  rites  had  obtained  the  name  of  sacra- 
ments,  which  only  priests  regularly  ordained  had  the  power 
of  administering  with  effect;  other  things,  by  degrees,  ob- 
tained the  same  name,  some  spiritual  grace  being  supposed 
to  accompany  them ;  and  this  contributed  to  extend  the 
power  and  enlarge  the  province  of  the  priesthood.  At  length 
j^ve  other  ceremonies,  besides  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper, 
came  to  be  ranked  in  the  same  class  with  them. 

Peter  Lombard,  in  the  twelfth  century,  is  the  first  who 
mentions  seven  sacraments.  It  is  supposed  that,  from  the 
expression  of  the  seven  spirits  of  God^  in  the  book  of  the 
Revelations,  there  came  to  be  a  notion  of  the  seven-fold 
operation  of  the  Spirit.  But  whether  this  was  the  true  origin 
of  seven  sacraments,  in  preference  to  any  other  number,  or 
whether  it  was  used  as  an  arg^ument  in  support  of  an  opinion 
already  formed,  I  have  not  found  ;  nor  indeed  is  the  matter . 
of  importance  enough  to  make  much  inquiry  about  it. 
Eugenius  is  the  first  pope  who  mentions  these  seven  sacra- 
ments, in  his  Instructions  to  the  Armenians,  which  is  published 
along  with  the  decrees  of  the  Council  of  Florence  ;  and  the 
whole  doctrine  concerning  them  was  finally  settled  by  the 
Council  of  Trent.* 

•  Burnet  on  the  Articles,  p.  3S5.  (P.)  Art.  xxv.  Ed.  4,  p.  246.  The  following 
is  the  decision  given  at  Trent  in  1647 :  "  Si  quis  dixerit  sacrainenta  novse  legis  nou 
fuisse  omnia  k  Jesu  Christo,  Domino  nostro  instituta,  aut  esse  plura  vel  pauciora 
quam  septem,  videlicet,  Baptisnium,  Confirmationem,  Eucharistiani,  Pcenitentiam, 
Extremam  Unctionero,  Ordinem  et  Matrimonium,  aut  etiam  aliquod  horum  septem 
non  esse  verd  et  propria  sacramentum ;  anathema  ait."  Sess.  vii.  De  Sacramentis. 
Can.  i.  Con.  Ttid.  Can.  et  Deeret.  p.  46. 


RELATING  TO  OTHER   SACRAMENTS.  287 

The  five  additional  sacraments  are,  confirmation^  penance, 
holi/  orders,  malrimomj,  and  extreme  unction.  It  is,  however, 
with  great  difficulty  that  the  Papists  bring  all  these  things 
within  the  description  of  a  sacrament ;  as  they  say  that,  in 
order  to  constitute  one,  tliere  must  be  some  matter,  corre- 
sponding to  water  in  baptism,  and  bread  and  wine  in  the 
Lord's  supper  (which  were  a  pattern  tor  the  rest),  and  also 
a  set  form  of  words,  corresponding  to  /  baptize  thee  in  the 
•name  of  the  Father,  &c.  for  baptism,  and  to  the  words,  This 
is  my  hod  I/,  for  the  Lord's  supper.  The  inward  and  spiritual 
grace  was  some  divine  influence  which  they  supposed  tp 
"tbllow  the  due  application  of  this  matter  of  the  sacraments, 
and  the  proper  words  accompanying  the  administration  of 
them. 

I  shall  give  a  general  account  of  all  these  different  sacra- 
ments, though  the  subjects  of  some  of  them  will  be  treated 
more  fully  in  other  places  of  this  work. 

From  the  second  unction,  which  was  originally  an  append- 
age to  the  rite  of  baptism,  another  distinct  sacrament  was 
made,   and  called  confirmation. 

The  church  of  Rome,  in  the  time  of  pope  Sylvester,  had 
two  unctions  oi  chrism  (a  composition  of  olive  oil  and  balm, 
opobalsamum),  one  on  the  breast,  by  the  priest,  and  the  other 
on  the  forehead,  by  the  bishop.  But,  from  the  time  of 
Gregory  IIL  the  priests  had  been  allowed  to  anoint  on  the 
forehead  ;  and  Honor^,  of  Autun,  a  writer  of  the  twelfth 
century,  informs  us,  that  after  the  priest  had  anointed  the 
head,  it  was  covered  with  a  mitre,  which  was  worn  eight  days, 
at  the  end  of  which  it  was  taken  off,  and  then  the  bishop 
anointed  the  forehead  with  the  chrism.  From  this  time 
the  church  of  Rome,  seeing  that  the  unction  of  the  bishop 
was  different  from  that  of  the  priest,  and  performed  at  a  dif- 
ferent time,  made  of  it  a  sacrament  distinct  from  baptism, 
and  called  it  confirmation,  which  can  only  be  administered 
by  the  bishop.  The  first  express  institution  of  this  sacra- 
ment is  in  the  decree  of  pope  Eugenius,  in  1439,  in  which 
he  says,  "  the  second  sacrament  is  confirmation,  the  matter 
of  which  is  chrism  blessed  by  the  bishop ;  and  though  the 
priest  may  give  the  other  unction,  the  bishop  only  can  confer 
this."* 

In  administering  confirmation  in  the  church  of  Rome, 
the  bisliop  applies  the  chrism  to  the  forehead,  pronouncing 
these  words :  "  I  sign  thee  with  the  sign  of  the  cross,  and 

•  Sueur,  A.  D.  416.    (/*.) 


S88  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS 

confirm  thee  with  the  chrism  of  salvation,  in  the  name  of 
the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost/'* 

In  the  church  of  England  the  rite  of  confirmation  is  pre- 
served, though  it  is  not  held  to  be  a  sacrament.  Also  the 
use  of  chrism  is  omitted,  but  the  ceremony  can  only  be 
performed  by  the  bishop,  who  puts  his  hand  upon  the  head 
of  the  persons  to  be  confirmed,  and  prays  for  the  influence 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  them,  saying,  "  We  have  now  laid 
on  our  hands  to  certify  them,  by  this  sign,  of  thy  favour  and 
gracious  goodness." 

This  is  evidently  a  remainder  of  the  popish  sacrament  of 
confirmation.  But  there  is  no  more  authority  for  this  re- 
mainder, than  for  any  thing  that  is  omitted  in  the  ceremony. 
Bishop  Burnet,  and  other  advocates  for  the  doctrine  and 
discipline  of  the  church  of  England,  allege  in  favour  of  it 
the  conduct  of  the  apostles,  who  put  their  hands  upon  the 
heads  of  those  who  had  been  converted  and  baptized,  and 
thereby  imparted  to  them  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  a 
power  of  working  miracles.  But,  besides  that  no  such  power 
is  now  pretended  to  be  conferred,  this  imposition  of  hands 
was  the  province  of  the  apostles  only,  and  not  that  of  a 
bishop.  This  custom  of  reserving  the  imposition  of  hands, 
after  baptism,  to  be  performed  by  the  bishop  alone,  seems  to 
have  been  begun  in  the  time  of  Jerome,  but  he  himself  did 
not  think  that  the  Holy  Spirit  was  given  by  the  imposition  of 
the  hands  of  the  bishop  only  ;  and  he  says,  they  are  not  to 
be  lamented,  who,  being  baptized  by  presbyters  or  deacons, 
in  little  villages  and  castles,  have  died  before  they  were  visited 
by  bishops.  Hilary  says  that  "  presbyters  confirmed  in 
Egypt,  if  the  bishop  was  not  present."  The  same  also  was 
determined  by  the  Council  of  Orange.f 

The  origin  of  penance^  which  is  a  second  additional  sacra- 
ment now  enjoined  by  the  church  of  Rome,  will  be  examined 
in  its  proper  place.  It  is  now  considered  as  a  sacrament,  in 
consequence  of  the  confession  and  the  penance  that  is  enjoined, 
being  together  the  matter  of  the  sacrament ;  and  the  words 
of  the  priest,  I  absolve  thee  from  thy  sins,  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holif  Ghost,  is  the  form  of 
it.  After  this,  the  spiritual  grace,  or  the  remission  of  sins, 
is  held  to  be  conferred.  The  mention  of  these  things,  at  this 
day,  is  a  sufficient  exposing  of  them. 

The  church  of  England  retains  something  of  this  sacra- 

*  Burnet  on  the  Articles,  p.  336.    (P.)    "  Signo  te  signo  crucis,  et  confirmo  te 
chrismate  salutis,  in  nomine  Patris,  Filii  et  Spiritus  Sancti."  Art.  xxv.  Ed.  4,  p.  247. 
f  Pierce's  Vindication,  p.  474.    (P.) 


RELATING  TO  OTHER   SACRAMENTS.  289 

ment  also,  though  without  the  name  of  one.  For,  in  the 
rules  of  confessing  the  sick,  the  priest  is  directed  in  certviin 
cases  to  pronounce  an  absolution  ;  and  in  the  daily  prayers 
of  the  church,  after  the  confession,  which  bt-gins  th(^  service, 
something  like  absolution  is  pronounced,  hi  this  tlic  com- 
pilers of  the  English  liturgy  followed  the  method  of  the 
Popish  service  ;  and  at  the  time  of  the  Keformation  it  might 
serve  to  makt.'  the  more  ignorant  of  the  people  believe  that, 
notwithstanding  a  change  in  other  respects,  the  same  things 
in  substance  were  to  be  had  in  both  the  communions.* 

The  next  sacrament  is  lioly  orders^  the  matter  of  which  is 
the  delivery  of  the  vessels,  used  in  the  celebration  of  the 
eucharist,  from  the  bishop  to  the  priest,  giving  him  a  power 
*'  to  offer  sacrifices  to  God,  and  to  celebrate  masses  for  the 
living  and  the  dead,"  adding,  as  in  all  the  sacraments,  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
This  ceremony  was  not  used  till  after  the  twelfth  century, 
but  then  this  sacrament  of  orders  was  held  to  be  a  thing 
distinct  from  the  office  of  priesthood  in  general,  which  is 
said  to  be  conferred  by  the  bishop  pronouncing  these  words, 
Receive  the  Holy  Ghost.  Whose  sins  ye  remit,  they  are  remitted^ 
and  whose  sins  ye  retain,  they  are  retained.  The  imposition 
of  hands  by  the  bishops  and  presbyters  is  also  kept  up  among 

•  Such  was  the  representation  made,  on  the  part  of  Edward  VI.,  in  1549,  to  the 
Devonshire  rebels :  "  As  for  the  service  in  the  English  tongue,  it  perchance  seems  to 
you  a  new  service;  and  yet  indeed  it  is  no  other  but  the  old,  the  selfsame  words  in 
English,"  &c.     Vox  s  Acts  and  Mon.  U.  p.  1 189,  in  Delau  tie's  Plea,  1720,  Pt.i.  p.47. 

The  following  pasKagefrom  "  The  Lifeof  Archbishop  Whifgift,"  will  serve  to  shew 
how  the  highest  stifle  of  Protestant  and  Papal  establishments  liave  been  found  to 
assimilate: — "  At  his  first  journey  into  Kent  (July,  1389),  he  rode  to  Dover,  being 
attended  witli  a  hundred  of  liis  own  servants,  at  least,  in  livery,  whereof  there  were 
forty  gentlemen  in  chains  of  gold.  The  train  of  clergy  and  genth-nien  in  the  coun- 
try, and  their  followers,  was  above  five  hundred  horse.  At  his  entrance  into  the 
town,  there  happily  landed  an  intelligencer  from  Rome,  of  good  parts  and  account, 
who  wondered  to  see  an  archbishop,  or  clergyman,  in  England,  so  reverenced  and 
attended  :  but  seeing  him  u[)on  the  next  sabbath-day  after,  in  the  cathedral  church 
of  Canterbury,  attended  upon  by  his  gentlemen  and  servants  (as  is  aforesaid),  also  by 
the  dean,  prebendaries  and  preachers,  in  their  surplices  and  scarlet  hoods,  and  heard 
the  solemn  music,  with  the  voices  and  organs,  cornets  and  sackbuts,  he  was  overr 
taken  with  adtniration,  and  told  an  English  gentleman  of  very  good  quality  (Sir 
Edward  Hobby),  who  then  accompanied  him,  that  '  they  were  led  in  great  blind- 
ness at  Rome  by  our  own  nation,  who  made  the  people  there  believe,  that  there  was 
not  in  England  either  archbishop  or  bishop,  or  cathedral,  or  any  church  or  eccle- 
siastical government;  but  that  all  was  pulled  down  to  the  ground,  and  that  the 
people  heard  their  ministers  in  woods  and  fields,  amongst  trees  and  brute  beasts: 
but,  for  his  own  part,  he  protested,  that  (unless  it  were  in  the  Pope's  chapel)  he 
never  saw  a  more  solemn  sight,  or  heard  a  more  heavenly  sound.'  '  Well,'  said  the 
English  gentleman,  «  I  am  glad  of  this  your  so  lucky  and  first  sight;  ere  l«jug  you 
will  be  of  another  mind,  and,  i  hope,  work  miracles  when  you  return  to  Rome,  in 
making  those  that  are  led  in  this  blindness  to  see  and  understand  tlie  truth.'  " — "  The 
Life  of  John  Whitgift,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury.  Written  by  Sir  George  Paulo, 
Comptroller  of  his  Grace's  Household,"   1699,  pp.  105,  106. 

VOL.    V.  U 


290  HISTORY  OF   OPINIONS 

the  Catholics  ;  but  it  is  not  performed,  as  formerly,  during 
the  pronouncing  of  any  prayer,  so  that  it  is  become  a  mere 
dumb  show.  The  prayer  which  accompanied  the  ceremony 
of  imposition  of  hands,  is,  indeed,  still  used,  but  not  during 
the  imposition. 

In  consequence  of  this  new  sacrament,  the  Catholics  now 
say,  "  that  a  priest  has  two  powers,  of  consecrating  and  of 
absolving ;  and  that  he  is  ordained  to  the  one  by  the  delivery 
of  the  vessels,  and  to  the  other  by  the  bishop's  laying  on 
of  hands,  with  the  words.  Receive  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  they 
make  the  bishop's  and  the  priest's  laying  on  hands  jointly,  to 
be  only  their  declaring,  as  by  a  suffrage,  that  such  a  person 
ought  to  be  ordained."* 

The  third  sacrament  peculiar  to  the  church  of  Rome,  is 
matrimony^  the  inward  consent  of  the  parlies  being  supposed 
to  be  the  matter  of  it,  and  the /orm  is,  the  priest  solemnly 
declaring  them  to  be  man  and  wife,  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
Son  and  Holy  Ghost.  But  if  the  inward  consent  of  the 
parties  be  necessary  to  marriage,  as  a  sacrament,  there  must 
be  great  uncertainty  in  it.  One  considerable  inconvenience 
that  resulted  from  making  marriage  a  sacrament  was,  that 
the  bond  was  held  to  be  indissoluble.  In  consequence  of 
this,  a  sentence  of  divorce  in  the  ecclesiastical  court,  is  only 
what  is  called  with  us,  a  divorce  a  mensa  et  thoro^  but  does 
not  empower  the  parties  to  marry  again,  which  is  a  kind  of 
divorce  unknown  in  any  age  or  country  before.  The  inno- 
cent person,  however,  was  allowed  to  marry  again  by  the 
popes  Gregory  and  Zachary,  and  even  "  in  a  synod  held  at 
Rome  in  the  tenth  century. — This  doctrine  of  the  absolute 
indissolubleness  of  marriage,  even  for  adultery,  was  never 
finally  settled  in  any  council  before  that  of  Trent.^'f 

The  last  additional  sacrament  of  the  church  of  Rome,  is 
extreme  unction,^  so  called  from  its  being  used  only  on  the 
near  approach  of  death.  The  form  of  this  sacrament,  they 
say,  is  the  application  of  olive  oil,  blessed  by  the  bishop,  to 
all  the  five  senses,  using  these  words,  "  By  this  sacred  unction 
may  God  grant  thee  his  mercy,  in  whatsoever  thou  hast 
offended,  by  sight,  hearing,  smelling,  tasting  and  touching ;"§ 
the  priest  applying  the  oil  to  each  of  the  senses,  as  he  pro- 
nounces the  name  of  it. 

•  Burnet  on  the  Articles,  p,  354,  &c.     fP.)    Art.  xxv.  Ed.  4,  p.  26 J. 

t  Ibid.  p.  360.     (P.J    Art.  xxv.  Ed.  4,  p.  26.5. 

X  See  Doctrina  de Sacramento  extrenKe  uHctionis.  Sess.xiv.  Con.  Trid.  pp.  98 — ]©7. 

4  "  Per  hanc  sacrain  unctionem,  et  suam  piissimam  misericordiam  indulgeat  tibi 
Deus  quicquid  peccksti,  per  visum,  audituni,  olfactum,  gustum  et  tactum."  RihiaJe 
Rom.  Con.  Trid.  Sess.  xiv.     Burnet,  Exp.  Art.  xxv.  Ed.  4,  p.  267. 


RELATING   TO  OTHER  SACRAMENTS.  291 

The  first  mention  that  is  made  of  this  ceremony  is  by  pope 
Innocent.  Sacred  oil,  indeed,  was  held  in  great  veneration 
so  early  as  the  fourth  century,  and  esteemed  as  an  universal 
remedy;  for  which  purpose  it  was  either  prrp;irtd  and  dis- 
pensed by  priests  and  monks,  or  was  takeii  troni  the  lamps 
which  vvere  kept  burning  before  the  relics  of  tlie  martyrs. 
But  "  in  none  of  the  lives  of  the  saints  before  the  ninth 
century,  is  there  any  mention  made  of  their  having  extreme 
unction,  though  their  deaths  are  sometimes  very  particularly 
related,  and  their  receiving  theeucharist  is  often  mentioned.'* 
But  "  from  the  seventh  century,  on  to  the  twelfth,  they 
began  to  use  an  anointing  of  the  sick, — and  a  peculiar  office 
was  made  for  it;  but  the  prayers  that  were  used  in  it  shew 
plainly  that  it  was  all  intended  only  in  order  to  their  recovery, 
and  so — it  is  still  used  in  the  Greek  church;"*  and  "  oo 
doubt  they  support  the  credit  of  this  with  many  reports,  of 
which  some  might  be  true,  of  persons  that  had  been  recovered 
upon  using  it."-|- 

"  But  because  that  failed  so  often,  that  the  credit  of  this 
rite  might  suffer  much  in  the  esteem  of  the  world,  they  began, 
in  the  tenth  century,  to  say  that  it  did  good  to  the  soul,  even 
when  the  body  was  not  healed  by  it,  and  they  applied  it  to 
the  several  parts  of  the  body,"  after  having  originally  applied 
it  '*  to  the  diseased  parts"  only.  In  this  manner  was  the 
rite  performed  "  in  the  eleventh  century.  In  the  twelfth 
those  prayers  that  had  been  formerly  made  for  the  souls  of 
the  sick,  though  only  as  a  part  of  the  office  (the  pardon  of 
sin  being  considered  as  preparatory  to  their  recovery)  came 
to  be  considered  as  the  main  and  most  essential  part  of  it. 
Then  the  schoolmen  brought  it  into  shape,  and  so  it  was 

*  "  Theoffice  requires,  that  they  be  CO  less  than  seven,  andasf^isjns  to  every  one  of 
them  their  particuhir  employment  at  that  time.  But  this  number  is  not  rigidly  ex- 
acted, and  tliree  oftentimes  serve.  They  only  anoint  the  forelioad,  ears  and  hands  of 
sick  persons.  Several  prayers  are  used  at  the  time  of  unction,  and  this  particularly 
among  the  rest:  '  O  Holy  Father,  physician  of  soul  and  body,  who  hast  sent  thy 
only  begotten  Son,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  to  cure  all  diseases,  and  to  redeem  from 
death  ;  heal  thy  servant  of  his  infirmity  both  of  body  and  soul,  and  quicken  him  by 
the  grace  of  thy  Christ,  for  the  intercession  of  our  Lady  the  Mother  of  (iod,  the 
ever  Virgin  Mary,'  &c.  a^d  here  they  recite  the  names  of  several  saints — ♦  for  Thou, 
O  Christ,  our  God,  art  the  fountain  of  all  healing;  and  we  give  the  glory  of  it  to 
thee  and  to  the  Father,  and  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  now  and  for  ever.'  After  ihis  they 
give  the  sick  person  the  holy  sacrament,  as  the  last  viatic  inn.  The  houses  of  the 
Kick  persons  are  also  anointed  with  thes^me  oil,  the  figure  of  a  cross  being  made 
with  it  upon  the  walls  and  posts,  at  which  ceremony  the  [(riest  sings  the  91st 
Psalm.  This  oil  is  not  only  used  U|)on  persons  ]\'u\)r  in  exttfmis :  for  the  people, 
believing  that  there  is  great  virtue  in  it  to  heal  the  distempers  ol  the  body,  in  ca.se 
of  any  sickness  or  indisposition,  that  does  not  bring  in  danger  of  death,  use  it  almost 
in  the  nature  of  a  remedy  or  medicine."     Smith's  Account,  pp.  193 — 195. 

t  Burnet,  Art  xxv.  Ed.  4,  pp.  268,  269. 

U    2 


292  HISTORY  OF  OPINIONS,   &C. 

decreed  to  be  a  sacrament  by  pope  Eugenius,  and  finally 
established  at  Trent/'* 

Notwithstanding  the  novelty  and  apparent  absurdity  of 
these  five  additional  sacraments,  Wickliffe  acknowledged  all 
the  seven  ;  defining  a  sacrament  to  be  a  visible  token  of  some- 
thing invisible.  He  even  saw  nothing  unscriptural  in  extreme 
unction,  f 

It  is  much  to  be  wished,  that  as  these  five  additional 
sacraments  are  now  universally  abandoned  in  all  thereformed 
churches,  Christians  would  rectify  their  notions  concerning 
the  remaining  two,  and  not  consider  them,  as  they  did  in 
the  times  of  popish  darkness,  to  be  outward  and  risible  signs 
of  inward  and  spiritual  grace.  For  that  will  always  encourage 
the  laying  an  improper  stress  upon  them,  to  the  undervaluing 
of  that  good  disposition  of  mind,  and  those  good  works, 
which  alone  can  recommend  us  to  the  favour  of  God,  and 
to  which  only  his  especial  grace  and  favour  is  annexed. 

•  Burnet  on  the  Articles,  p.  S65,     (P.)     Art.  xxv.  Ed.  4,  p.  269. 

+  Gilpin's  Life  of  him,  p.  Q&.  (P.)  He  "  only  blamed  the  exorbitant  fees 
which  the  avarice  of  the  priests  of  those  times  exacted  for  the  performance  of  it." 
Brit.  Biog.  I.  pp.  46,  47. 


295 

THE 

HISTORY 

OP    THS 

^ovruptionie;  of  ^ftriiaitianiti). 


PART  VIII. 

A  History  of  the  Changes  that  have  been  made  in  the  Method 
of  conducting  Public  Worship. 


-♦-^ 


THE 

INTRODUCTION. 


The  subject  of  this  part  of  my  work  is  no  very  important 
article  in  the  history  of  the  Corruptions  of  Christianity, 
because  meve  forms  are  but  of  little  consequence  in  religion, 
except  when  they  are  put  in  \\\e  place  of  something  more 
substantial ;  and  indeed  too  much  of  this  will  be  found  to 
have  been  the  case  in  this  business.  It  will,  however,  be  a 
matter  of  curiosity  to  many  persons,  to  ':ee  what  changes 
have  been  made  from  time  to  time  in  the  forms  of  Christian 
worship  ;  and  therefore  I  did  not  omit  to  note  such  parti- 
culars concerning  it,  as  happened  to  fall  in  my  way,  but 
without  giving  myself  much  trouble  to  look  for  them.  It 
will  seem,  that  in  general,  the  same  spirit  dictated  these 
variations,  that  led  to  other  things  of  more  importance  to 
the  essentials  of  religion.  I  shall  begin  with  a  few  obser- 
vations on  the  buildings  in  which  Christian  assemblies  were 
held,  their  appurtenances,  &c. 


SECTION   T. 

Of  Churches^  and  some  Things  belongiiig  to  them. 

At  first,  Christians  could  have  no  places  to  assemble  in 
but  large  rooms  in  private  houses ;  and  when  they  began  to 


294  HISTORY  OF  THE  CHANGES  IN  THE 

erect  buildings  for  the  purpose,  it  is  most  probable  they  were 
such  as  the  Jews  made  use  of  for  their  synagogues  ;  their 
manner  of  conducting  public  worship,  as  well  as  their  regu- 
lations for  the  government  of  churches,  being  copied  from 
the  Jews  ;  and,  as  far  as  appears,  nothing  more  simple  or 
more  proper  could  have  been  adopted  for  that  purpose. 

Of  the  buildings  themselves  we  know  but  little.     The 
names  that  were  originally  given  to  these  places  of  assembly, 
were   the  same  as    those   of  the  Jewish  synagogues,   viz. 
EuxTTjpia  or  npoo-eu;)^a<  that  is,    houses  of  prayer;    but  after- 
wards  they   were  called  Kupjaxa,  and  in   Latin  Dominica^ 
whence  came  the  German  word  Thorn,  and  the  Flemish  and 
English  words  Church  aiid  Kirk.     These  buildings  were  not 
called  temples  till  the  time  of  Constantine.     But  about  that 
time,  in  imitation  of  the  Pagans,  they  called  the  magnificent 
buildings  which  were  then  erected  for  the  purpose  of  public 
worship  by  that  name.     And  these  being  generally  made  to 
enclose  the  tombs  of  martyrs,  these  tombs  were  called  altars, 
on  account  of  their  bearing  some  resemblance  to  the  altars  of 
the  heathen  temples.     And  from  this  camp  the  custom,  at  the 
end  of  the  fourth  century,  of  putting  bones  and  other  relics  of 
martyrs  in  all  those  places  which  were  used  for  the  celebration 
of  the  Lord's  supper,  instead  of  the  icooden  tables,  which  were 
at  first  used  for  that  purpose.* 

When  Constantine  ordered  the  christian  churches  to  be 
rebuilt,  it  was  done  with  gi-eat  pomp  ;  and  before  they  were 
used  for  the  purpose  of  public  worship,  some  ceremony  of 
consecrdtio?i  began  to  be  used.  But  at  first  nothing  more 
was  done  for  that  purpose,  besides  singing  of  psalms,  preach- 
ing and  receiving  the  Lord's  supper,  that  is,  nothing  more, 
in  fact,  than  going  through  the  usual  forms  of  public 
worship,  but  probably  with  greater  solemnity  and  devotion, 
followed  by  feasting  "and  other  marks  of  festivity;  and  it 
soon  became  the  custom  to  repeat  this  festivity  on  the  same 
day  annually. 

In  538,  it  appears,  that  the  dedications  of  churches  were 
sometimes  made  by  sprinkling  of  holy  water.  For  in  that 
year  pope  Vigilius  says  that  this  ceremony  was  not  necessar}'  ; 
it  being  sufficient  for  ihe  consecration  of  churches,  to  cele- 
brate the  eucharist,  and  deposit  relics  in  them.  But  in  601, 
pope  Gregory  expressly  ordered  that  holy  water  should  be 
added.  In  8 1 6,  a  synod  was  held  at  Canterbury,  in  which, 
besides  these  things,  it  was  ordered,  that  the  images  of  the 

*  Sueur,  A.D.  211.    {P.) 


METHOD  or  CONDUCTING  PUBLIC  WORSHIP.  29^ 

saints    whose  names  the  churches  bore,  should  be  painted 
upon  the  wall.      From  the  year  11 50  they  added  the  signa- 
ture of  the  cross,   and  other  figures,  on   the  pavement  and 
walls ;    and    afterwards    they   traced    on    the   pavement   the 
Greek  and  Latin  alphabet,  in  the  form  of  a  eross  ;   and  lastly, 
th«y  added  the  litany  of  the  Virgin  Mary  and  other  saints.* 
That  some  ceremony,  or  some  peculiar  solemnity,  should 
be  used  on  the  first  making  use  of  any  buildmg  destined  for 
the  purpose  of  public  worship,   is  natural,  and  certainly  not 
improper,   provided  nothing   more  be  implied  in  it,  besides 
solemnly  setting  it  apart  for    that   particular  and  valuable 
purpose";   and  we  find  that  solemn  consecrations  were  made 
of  the  temple  of  Jerusalem,  and  of  every  thing  belonging  to 
the  Jewish  religion.      But  the  ceremonies  above-mentioned, 
shew  that  some  peculiar  virtue  was  ascribed  to  them,  and 
that  it  was  supposed  they  imparted  a  character  of  peculiar 
sanctity  to  the  building  itself.     And  that  the  hells  in  them 
(which  served  no  other  purpose  originally,   besides   that  of 
calling  the  people  together,)  should  have  any  form  of  conse- 
cration in  churches,  is  a  little  extraordinary.     This,  however, 
was  done  with  much  solemnity  by  John  XIII.  in  968. 

There  having  been  cast  at  that  time  a  larger  bell  than  had 
ever  been  made  before,  for  the  church  of  Lateran,  at  Rome, 
this  pope  sprinkled  it  with  holy  water,  "  blessed  it,  and 
consecrated  it  to  God  with  holy  ceremonies,"  from  which  is 
come  the  custom  of  consecrating  all  bells  used  in  churches, 
and  which  the  common  people  call  baptizing  them.  Upon 
this  occasion  they  pray  that  when  the  bell  shall  sound  they 
may  be  delivered  from  the  ambushes  of  their  enemies,  from 
apparitions,  tempests,  thunder,  wounds  and  every  evil  spirit. 
During  the  service,  which  is  a  very  long  one,  they  make 
many  aspersions  of  holy  water,  and  several  unctions  on  the 
bells",  both  within  and  without;  and  at  each  unction  they 
pray  that  the  bell  may  be  "-  sanctified  and  consecrated,  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
to  the  honour  of  Emanuel,  and  under  the  patronage  of  such 
or  such  a  saint."  f 

The  idea  of  this  ceremony,  as  ahr>ost  of  every  other  that 
was  used  by  Christians,  was  adopted  from  the  pagan  ritual, 
in  which  there  was  a  solemn  consecration  of  every  instrument 
used  in  their  worship.  And  indeed  there  were  consecrations 
for  the  same  purpose  of  every  thing  that  was  made  use  of  in 
the  worship  of  the  Jews.     But  nothing  in  the  heathen  ritual 

•  Sueur,  A.  D.  335.    (P.)  t  Ibid.  A.  D.  06R.     (P.> 


296  HISTORY  OF  THE  CHANGES  IN  THE 

can  equal  the  absurdity  of  this  consecration  of  bells.  For  be- 
sides what  is  observed  before,  in  order  to  make  this  ceremony 
a  more  proper  baptism^  (a  name  that  was  first  most  probably 
given  to  it  by  the  vulgar,  from  the  sprinkling  of  the  bell  with 
holy  water,)  godfathers  and  godmothers  were  appointed  on 
this  occasion,  to  answer  questions  instead  of  the  bell ;  and 
they  pray  that  God  would  give  the  bell  his  holy  spirit,  that 
it,  may  be  sanctified  for  the  purposes  above-mentioned,  and 
especially  for  driving  away  witches  and  evil  spirits,  and 
preventing  tempests  in  the  air,  which  were  supposed  to  be 
caused  by  those  spirits.  The  bell  had  also  a  name  given  to 
it,  as  in  baptism.^  I  shall  proceed  to  mention  other  things 
which  superstition  has  introduced  into  christian  churches, 
and  especially  such  as  were  borrowed  from  the  pagan  wor- 
ship. 

In  popish  churches  the  first  thing  that  we  are  struck  with 
is  a  vessel  of  what  is  called  Jioly  water ^  into  which  those  who 
enter  dip  their  finger,  and  then  mark  their  foreheads  with 
the  sign  of  the  cross.  This  holy  water,  there  can  be  no 
doubt,  came  from  the  Instral  water  of  the  Pagans,  as  indeed 
learned  Catholics  allow.  This  water  was  also  placed  at  the 
entrance  of  the  heathen  temples,  and  those  who  entered  were 
sprinkled  with  it.  The  first  express  mention  made  of  holy 
water  among  Christians,  is  an  epistle  of  Vigilius,  bishop  of 
Rome,  written  in  538,  in  speaking  of  the  consecration  of 
churches,  as  was  mentioned  above ;  though  some  have 
thought  that  to  have  been  holy  water  which  Synesius 
mentions,  as  placed  at  the  entrance  of  the  churches,  for  the 
purpose  of  washing  their  hands  before  prayer. -j*  Middleton 
farther  observes,  that  the  composition  of  this  holy  water  is 
the  same  with  that  of  the  Heathens,  viz.  "a  mixture  of  salt 
with  common  water ;  and  the  form  of  the  sprinkling-brush, 
called  by  the  ancients  aspcrsorinm  or  aspergillum,  is  much 
the  same  with  what  the  priests  now  make  use  of.:}: 

A  fondness  for  the  sigti  of  the  cross  was  one  of  the  first 
superstitions  of  Christians.  It  was  probably  first  used  by 
way  of  distinguishing  themselves  from  the  Heathens,  or  to 
shew  the  Heathens  that  they  were  not  ashamed  of  that  with 

*  Mosheim,  11.  p.  3.^0.  (P.)  "  So  real  a  baptism  they  make  of  it,  that  they  have 
ffodfathets  am}  godmothers,  forsooth,  which  hold  the  rope  of  the  bell  in  their  hands, 
who  give  the  bell  a  name,  and  are  to  answer  on  the  bell's  behalf,  to  such  questions 
as  the  bishop  or  sutfragans  shall  demand  of  it."  See  Caldarinus  m  Tract,  de  Inter- 
dict. I.  par.  No.  79,  and  Albericus  de  Rosatis,  in  Dictionar.  in  the  word  Campana. 
Hist,  of  Poperv,  1733,  11.  pp.  22,  23. 

t  Sueur,  A.  D.  457.     (P.) 

X  Letter  from  Rome,  p.  138.     (P.)     Works,  III.  p.  71. 


METHOD  OF  CONDUCTING  PUBLIC  WORSHIP.  297 

which  they  were  most  reproached,  viz.  the  crucifixion  of 
their  Master.  From  this  constant  use  of  it  they  be^an  to 
imagine  that  there  was  some  peculiar  virtue  in  the  thing 
itself.  They  also  imagined  it  to  be  alluded  to  in  many 
passages  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  various  rites  of  the 
Jewish  religion,  and  they  were  also  pleased  to  find  tiie  traces 
of  it  every  where  else.  Hence  came  the  custom  of  marking 
themselves  with  it,  which  is  said  to  have  been  first  done  by 
the  V'akiitinians,  and  then  by  the  Montanists,  of  whom  was 
Tertullian,  who  makes  great  boast  of  it.  But  it  does  not 
appear  to  have  been  used  in  the  public  offices  of  religion  in 
the  three  first  centuries,  or  that  crosses,  made  of  wood  or 
metal,  were  ever  used  till  it  was  imagined  that  Helena,  the 
mother  of  Constantine,  had  discov^ered  the  true  cross  in  326.* 

Burning  wax  lights  in  the  day-time,  was  used  in  many 
heathen  ceremonies,  for  which  they  are  ridiculed  by  Lac- 
tantius.  "  The  Heathens,"  says  he,  "  light  up  candles  to 
God,  as  if  he  lived  in  the  dark  ;  and  do  not  they  deserve  to 
pass  for  madmen,  who  ofier  lamps  to  the  author  and  giver 
of  light?"  But  not  long  after  this,  these  very  wax  lights 
were  introduced  into  christian  worship. f 

Another  thing  that  was  noted  by  the  early  Christians,  as 
peculiar  to  the  Pagans,  was  incense.  But  so  early  as  the 
third  century,  we  find  this  also  made  use  of  in  cliristian 
churches.  And  Middleton  says,  that  "  we  find  not  oidy  the 
incense  sellers,  but  the  incense  itself,  and  the  thuribulum, 
taken  into  the  service  of  the  christian  altars,  and  mentioned  by 
St.  Ambrose  and  St.  Chri/sostom,  as  of  common  use,  both  in 
the  eastern  and  western  empire. |  But  both  wax  lights  and 
incense  were  first  introduced  into  the  eastern  churches,  and 
from  them  were  adopted  in  the  West. 

Lastly,  processions^  which  are  conducted  with  great  solem- 
nity by  the  Papists,  were  also  copied  from  the  heathen 
worship.     Among   the    Romans   they    were    instituted   by 

*  Larroche,  p.  538.   (P.)    Hist,  of  Popery,  I.  pp.  31,  32.    M.  Repos.  III.  p.  483. 

t  "  En  I'Eglise  Roniaine,  on  allumc  dfs  lampes  et  des  cierges  devant  les  images  j 
et  quand  les  Devots  se  trouvent  en  quelque  peril  ils  vouent  une  chandelle  a  un  tel 
Saint,  si  par  son  nioien  ils  en  peuvent  echapper:  temoin  cet  Irlandois  dont  parle 
Pogge  Florentin,  (in  FacttUs,)  qui  ttant  sur  nier  dnrant  la  tcnipeste  voua  a  la 
Vierge  Marie  une  cliandeile  de  la  grosseur  du  mast  du  navire,  mais  quelcun  lui  aiant 
dit,  Qu'il  promettoif  plus  qu'il  ne  pourroit  effectuer,  I' Irlandois  lui  rtpondit  tout 
bas,  Ne  ten  mets  pas  en  peine,  si  je  puis  echapper,  la  bonne  Vierge  se  contentera 
bion  d'une  bougie  dun  Ii»rd."  Les  Confoimitez  des  Cen-monies,  p.  195.  Erasmus, 
Colloq.  Naiifrar/.  tells  su<li  a  story  of  a  Zealander. 

X  Middleton's  I.etter,  Postscnjit,  p.  237.  (P.)  Middleton  introduces  this  ac- 
count with  the  remark,  that  these  ceremonies  occurred  "  after  the  establishment  of 
Christianity,  when  the  church,  as  St.  Jerome  says,  •  declined  as  much  in  its  virtue, 
as  it  increased  in  its  power.'"     Works,  III.  p,  !26. 


298  HISTORY  OF  THE  CHANGES  IN  THE 

Numa,  and  both  in  the  pagan  and  popish  processions,  the 
chief  magistrates  often  assisted.'* 


SECTION  II. 

Of  Ceremonies  in  general,  and  other  Things  relating  to 
public  Worship. 

Having  made  the  preceding  observations  on  the  places 
in  which  the  public  worship  of  Christians  was  performed, 
and  some  other  things  and  circumstances  belonging  to  them  ; 
i  proceed  to  give  an  account  of  what  was  transacted  within 
the  place  ;  but  first  I  shall  make  a  few  general  remarks  on 
modes  and  forms  in  Christian  worship. 

We  may  take  it  for  granted,  that  originally  Christians  had 
no  proper  ceremonies  in  their  worship.  But  after  the  sign  of 
the  cross,  wax  lights,  and  incense  were  introduced,  the  cere- 
monial of  christian  worship  came  to  be  as  complex  as  that  of 
the  pagan  worship  had  been.  So  much  progress  had  been 
made  in  these  things  in  the  time  of  Austin,  that  he  com- 
plained of  it,  saying  that  the  church  was  so  full  of  ceremonial 
observances,  that  the  condition  of  the  Jews  under  the  law 
was  much  more  supportable.  But  the  church,  he  says, 
amidst  much  straw  and  tares  bears  many  things.  I  But  so 
much  were  ceremonies  multiplied  before  the  ninth  century, 
that  large  treatises  were  then  written  to  explain  them. 

There  not  being  in  the  early  ages  of  the  church  any  power 
that  could  enforce  uniformity  in  the  methods  of  worship,  it 
happened  unavoidably,  that  different  customs  got  established 
in  different  places.  Hence  every  church  of  note  had  its 
peculiar  ritual^  which  was  adopted  by  all  the  churches  that 
depended  upon  it ;  and  those  of  the  East  differed  very  con- 
siderably from  those  of  the  West. 

The  western  church  was  loaded  with  ceremonies  chiefly 
by  Gregory  the  Great,  in  the  sixth  century.  He  had  great 
fertility  of  invention  in  this  respect,  and  eloquence  to  recom- 
mend his  inventions;  but  he  did  not  impose  them  upon 

*  Middleton's  Letter,  p.  189.  (P-)  Works,  IIT.  pp.  99,  100.  "  La  pro- 
cession du  sacrament,  est  line  des  plus  solemnelles  ceremonies  de  I'Eglise  Romaine 
et  qui  se  fait  toutes  les  annees  avec  une  potnpe  extraordinaire.  Elle  a  ete  intro- 
dnite  parmi  les  Chretiens  a  Timitation  du  Pasfanisme,  comme  GuilJaume  Du 
Choul  (De  la  Reliflion  des  Anciens  Komains)  I'a  reconnu  disant,  que  '  quand  les 
sacriticateurs  de  la  Mere  des  Dieux  faisoient  leurs  supplications  parmi  les  rues,  ils 
portoient  le  simuiacre  de  Jupiter;  et  que  par  les  carrefours  etoient  dressezd  es 
reposoirs  pour  y  mcttre  son  simuiacre,  ce  que  Ton  fait  encore  en  rrance,'  dit-il,  '  a  la 
solemnite  de  la  F^te  Dieu.'"    Les  Conformitez,  pp.  86,  87. 

t  Epist.  cxix.  C.  xix.  Opera,  IL  p.  577.    (P.) 


METHOD  OF  CONDUCTING  PUBLIC  WORSHIP.         299 

Others,  though  perhaps  for  want  of  power.  Almost  every 
poj>e  in  the  next  century  added  something  n«'w  to  the  ancient 
rites  and  institutions;  and  in  the  time  oi"  Charlemagne,  they 
were  propagated  through  all  the  Latin  churches. 

No  person  urged  this  business  so  much  as  Gregory  VII. 
especially  with  respect  to  Spain,  where  he  met  with  the 
greatest  opposition  from  the  attachment  of  the  people  to 
their  ancient  Gothic  or  Mosarabic  liturgy.  But  the  Pope 
carried  his  point  at  last,  notwithstanding  two  very  remarkable 
decisions  in  favour  of  the  Gothic  liturgy,  at  the  appointment 
of  the  nobles  at  Castile.  They  first  ordered  two  champions 
to  fight,  one  for  each  of  them,  when  he  that  was  for  the 
Gothic  ritual  proved  to  be  victorious.  They  then  threw 
both  the  missals  into  the  fire,  when  the  Roman  was  con- 
sumed, and  the  Gothic,  they  say,  was  taken  out  unhurt.* 
Such  was  the  method  of  determining  most  disputes  in  those 
days,  viz.  by  an  appeal,  as  they  thought,  to  God,  either  by 
the  sword,  or  some  kind  o^  ordeal,  depending  upon  a  divine 
interposition  in  the  result  of  it. 

At  length,  however,  the  Roman  ritual  was  universally 
used  in  the  western  church.  And  the  English  Reformers, 
instead  of  framing  a  new  liturgy,  had  recourse  to  the  offices 
of  the  church  of  Rome,  leaving  out  what  was  most  offensive. 

There  can  be  no  doubt,  but  that  originally,  all  the  parts  of 
public  worship  were  performed  in  the  language  that  was  best 
understood  by  the  assembly  ;  and  as  the  Latin  tongue  was 
best  understood  by  the  generality  of  Christians  in  the  West, 
this,  of  course,  was  generally,  if  not  universally  used.  But 
after  the  irruption  of  the  northern  nations,  the  knowledge  of 
this  language  was  much  less  general,  and  in  the  tenth  or 
eleventh  century  it  was  hardly  understood  at  all.  But  from 
this  time  the  use  of  the  Latin  tongue  was  continued  for  other 
reasons. 

In  those  dark  ages  the  clergy  affected  to  keep  the  people 
in  ignorance,  and  in  a  state  of  dependence  upon  themselves, 

•  The  Danish.  Missionaries  at  Tranqnelar,  in  1706,  relate  the  following  circum- 
stances concerning  the  Malabar  Heathens  :  *'  Some  had  the  confidence  to  desire  lu 
to-day,  that  we  would  thrust  a  book,  containing  tlie  principles  of  oor  religion,  into 
the  fire;  and  they  would  do  the  same  with  another,  containing  the  rites  of  their 
worship.  If  theirs  should  happen  to  be  consumed  by  the  fire,  they  would  ail  turn 
Christians  ;  but  if  ours  should  undergo  that  fate,  and  theirs  remain  unhurt,  we 
fihould  then  all  come  over  to  them,  and  entertain  the  snnic  belief  and  fancies  which 
they  did.  But  in  case  the  fire  should  destroy  both  the  books,  then  neither  of  the 
contending  parties  should  be  in  the  right.  We  rcnlir  ',  that  we  ought  not  to  put 
the  Great  God  to  such  trifling  trials,  contrived  by  the  itch  of  a  vain  and  wanton 
curiosity,  and  no  ways  grounded  on  any  revelation  of  God's  will."  Propagation  of 
the  Gospel  in  the  East,  Pt.  i.  1718,  Ed.  3,  p.  34. 


300  HISTORY  OF  THE  CHANGES  IN  THE 

and  wished  to  make  them  think  that  the  whole  business  of 
reconciling  men  to  God  was  in  their  hands.  The  Scriptures 
were  likewise  kept  from  the  people,  and  the  whole  service 
was  so  loaded  with  ceremonies,  that  it  had  the  appeafdnce  of 
a  charm ^  the  whole  secret  and  virtue  of  which  was  in  the 
breast  of  the  priest;  and  to  continue  the  service  in  an 
unknown  tongue,  contributed  greatly  to  the  impression 
which  they  wished  to  make.  The  Latin  tongue  still  con- 
tinues to  be  used  in  all  the  Roman  Catholic  churches, 
notwithstandijig  several  attempts  have  been  made  to  remedy 
this  great  and  glaring  evil. 

It  is  not,  however,  peculiar  to  the  church  of  Rome.  For 
it  is  said  that  a  veneration  for  antiquity  induces  the  Egyptian 
Christians  to  use  the  Coptic  language  in  their  churches. 
Also  the  Jacobites  and  Nestorians  use  the  Syriac  language, 
and  the  Abyssinians  "  the  old  Ethiopic,  though  all  these 
lans^uages  have  been  long  since  obsolete,  and  unintelligible 
to  the  multitude."*  The  Greeks  also  celebrate  the  Lord^s 
supper  in  ancient  Greek  ;  but  this  is  sufficiently  understood 
by  the  common  people,  the  modern  Greek  not  being  very 
different  from  it. 

The  habits  of  the  clergy  could  not,  originally,  have  been 
any  thing  but  the  usual  dress  of  their  respective  countries. 
But  it  not  being  thought  decent  for  persons  of  such  grave 
characters  as  the  clergy,  to  follow  new  customs  and  fashions, 
they  retained  their  old  flowing  garments,  after  the  northern 
nations  had  introduced  the  use  of  short  ones.  But  besides 
this,  the  habits  of  the  pagan  priests,  which  had  always  been 
different  from  those  of  other  persons,  at  the  time  of  their 
officiating,  were  probably  imitated  by  the  christian  clergy, 
though  \  cannot  say  that  I  have  met  with  any  particular 
account  of  it. 

Wefind.ho\vever,thatthe  clergy  were  distinguished  by  their 
habits,  while  they  were  officiating,  in  the  time  of  Sylvester, 
when  mention  is  made  of  dalmatics  for  the  deacons,  and  of 
a  certain  cloth  with  which  their  left  hand  was  to  be  covered. 
The  fourth  canon  of  the  Council  of  Carthage  prescribed  the 
use  of  the  cope  in  reading  the  gospel,  and  at  the  time  of  the 
oblation  only.  And  Greg•or^^  the  Great  invented  new- 
fashioned  habits,  like  those  described  in  the  ceremonial  law 
of  the  Jews.f 

*  Mosheim,  II.  p.  34S.     (P.)     Cent.  xi.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  iv.  Sect.  iii. 
T  Larroche,  p.  539.     History  of  Ancient  Ceremonies,  p.  82.     (P.) 


METHOD  OF  CONDUCTING   PUBLIC   WORSHIP.  30\ 

SECTION    III. 
Of  the  proper  Parts  of  public  Worship. 

Originally  Christians  met  to  read  the  Scriptures,  to 
explain  them,  or  to  preach,  to  sing  psalms,  to  pray,  and  to 
administer  the  Lord's  supper.  The  crc'c^/ vvas  made  use  of 
only  at  haprism,  when  it  was  taught  to  all  the  catechumens, 
who  were  probably  made  to  recite  it  after  the  person  who 
administered  the  ordinance.  Afterwards,  when  articles  of 
faith  were  more  attended  to,  and  it  behoved  all  the  bishops 
to  take  care  to  prevent  the  growth  of  heresy,  creeds  began  to 
be  recited  by  the  whole  assembly.  That  this  was  the  true 
reason  of  the  present  practice,  is  evident  from  its  being  the 
Nicenc  Creeds  and  not  that  o^  the  Apostles,  as  it  is  called,  that 
was  first  used  for  this  purpose.  It  was  also  first  introduced 
by  Timothy,  bishop  of  Constantinople,  who  did  it  in  order 
to  make  Macedonius,  who  rejected  that  creed,  more  odious 
to  the  people.  This  was  in  the  reign  of  the  emperor  Anas- 
tasius,  who  died  in  o21.  About  this  time  this  creed  was 
also  repeated  in  the  church  of  Antioch  every  time  the  Lord's 
supper  was  administered. 

Before  this  time  it  had  been  the  custom  to  repeat  the  creed 
only  the  day  preceding  Good  Friday,  when  catechizing  was 
more  solemnly  performed,  in  order  to  the  celebration  j&i 
baptism  on  the  Easter  Sunday  following.  The  repetition  of 
it  on  that  day  was  first  appointed  by  the  Council  of  Laodicea. 
But  the  constant  reading  of  the  creed  did  not  take  place  in 
the  West  till  about  590,  when  it  was  ordered  by  the  Council 
of  Toledo,  in  imitation  of  the  eastern  churches.  At  this 
time  it  was  the  Nicene  Creed  only  that  was  made  use  of, 
and  for  some  time  it  seemed  to  eclipse  that  of  the  Apostles  ; 
but  afterwards  this  latter  creed  recovered  its  credit.* 

It  will  be  just  worth  while  to  mention  a  few  particulars 
concerning  xhe  posture  of  the  priest  and  people,  during  the 
celebration  of  the  particular  parts  of  public  worship. 

The  usual  posture  of  praying  had  been  standing-  or  kneel- 
ing, or,  to  express  great  self-abasement  and  humility,  pros- 
tration ;  but  a  canon  had  been  made  (for  what  reason  I  have 
not  inquired)  to  forbid  the  practice  of  kneeling  on  Sundays 
from  Easter  to  Whitsuntide,  which  oave  rise  to  the  term 
stations.     This,  however,  was  not  approved  by  the  church 

*  History  of  the  Apostles' Creed,  p.  44,  &c.     (P.) 


fllSTOHY  OF  THE  CHANGES  IN  THE 

of  Rome.  *  When  the  Scriptures  were  read,  it  is  probable 
that  the  people  sat ;  but  in  time  it  became  a  custom  for  the 
people  to  stand  while  the  gospel  was  reading.  And  it  is 
said  that  Anastasius,  bishop  of  Rome,  who  died  in  402, 
ordered  the  priests  to  stand  up,  and  incline  their  heads  a 
little,  while  they  read  the  gospel,  f 

All  the  Heathens  contrived  their  temples  so  that  they 
should  pray  with  their  faces  towards  the  East.  This  was 
introduced  into  christian  worship  about  the  time  of  Jerome, 
though  it  was  not  then  generally  approved  of.  Pope  Leo 
the  Great  condemned  this  custom,  because  it  was  much 
used  by  the  Manicheans.  J  By  degrees,  however,  the  cus- 
tom of  looking  towards  the  East,  during  the  repetition  of  the 
CTeed,  became  universal,  and  likewise  the  bowing  at  the  name 
of  Jesus^  in  the  repetition  of  it.  This  practice  was  coun- 
tenanced by  the  literal  interpretation  of  Phil.  ii.  10:  At  the 
name  of  Jesus  every  knee  shall  how.  This,  however,  was 
thought  to  be  so  very  idle  a  superstition,  that  it  was  almost 
universally  laid  aside  at  the  Reformation.  But  it  is  generally 
practised  in  the  church  of  England ;  and  bishop  Laud 
severely  punished  those  who  did  not  conform  to  this  cere- 
mony in  his  time. 

Singing  seems  always  to  have  been  a  part  of  the  public 
worship  of  Christians,  and  followed  the  reading  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. They  sung  either  the  psalms  of  David,  or  hymns  of 
their  own  composing.  But  the  former,  Mosheim  says,  were 
only  received  among  christian  hymns  in  the  fourth  century. 
The  singing  of  these  psalms  or  hymns  was  also  very  common 
with  them  in  their  own  houses,  in  the  course  of  the  week. 
But  the  method  of  singing  by  antiphony  or  anthem^  that  is, 
one  part  of  the  congregation,  as  the  clergy,  singing  one  verse, 
and  the  rest,  or  the  people,  singing  another,  is  said  to  have 
been  introduced  about  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century, 
into  the  church  of  Antioch,  by  Flavianus  and  Diodorus,  and 
into  the  church  of  Constantinople  by  Chrysostom.  § 

This  method  of  singing  was  introduced  into  the  church 
of  Rome  by  Celestine  in  41 S.  Afterwards,  Gregory  the 
Great  composed  an  antiphoniary  for  the  whole  year,  with 
versicles,  or  responses  for  every  day  of  it.  He  then  appointed 
the  college  or  choir  of  singing  men,  to  chant  the  office.  || 
In  the  fifth  century  it  was  the  custom  in  some  places  to 

♦  History  of  Ancient  Ceremonies,  p.  17.     (P.)        t  Sueur,  A.D.  40S.     (P.) 

X  Ibid.  A. D.  443.     (P.) 

Mbid.  A.D.  398.     Pierce's  Vindication,  p.  390.     (P.) 

II  History  of  Ancient  Ceremonies,  p.  81.     (P.) 


METHOD  OF  CONDUCTING  PUBLIC    WORSHIP.  303 

keep  uj)  the  exercises  of  sinp^ing-  both  day  and  night,  different 
sets  of  persons  eoiitinually  relieving  t^ich  other,  * 

Musical  instruments  were  not  introduced  into  churches 
tiJl  tlu-  thirteenth  or  fourteenth  century.  Thomas  Aquinas 
says,  "  the  church  does  not  use  musical  instruments  to 
praise  (Jod,  lest  she  should  seem  to  judaize."  •]•  Bnl  in  \:il^^ 
Marinus  Sanutus  introduced  organs  into  churches;:}:  and 
they  have  been  much  used  ever  since,  though  there  have 
always  been  persons  in  all  establishments,  as  well  as  in  par- 
ticular sects,  who  preferred  a  more  simple  mode  of  worship; 
and  even,  admitting  that  music  might  assist  in  exciting- 
devotional  feelings,  did  not  choose  that,  in  general,  they 
should  depend  upon  that  mechanical  assistance. 

In  the  primitive  churches  preaching  was  nothing  more 
than  the  exposition  of  the  Scriptures,  a  portion  of  which 
was  always  read  in  the  course  of  the  service.  Origen  is 
said  to  have  been  the  first  who  did  this  in  a  more  copious 
and  diffusive  manner,  explaining  the  Scripture  in  an  allego- 
rical way  ;  and  by  this  means  introduced  longer  sermons 
than  had  been  usual.  § 

When  heathen  philosophers  and  rhetoricians  were  con- 
verted to  Christianity,  they  introduced  their  custom  of 
haranguing  on  particular  subjects,  and  particular  occasions, 
and  carefully  premeditated  or  precomposed  their  sermons; 
sometimes  prefixing  to  their  discourses  short  texts  of  scrip- 
ture, probably  that  they  might  not  pass  too  suddenly  from 
the  old  method  of  interpreting  the  sacred  writings,  and 
sometimes  omitting  them.  In  this  style  are  the  sermons  of 
Chrysostom,  consisting  of  such  kind  of  eloquence  as  the 
Greeks  and  Romans  were  fond  of  displaying,  when  they 
harangued  the  populace,  or  pleaded  at  the  bar. 

So  far  did  christian  preachers  in  those  times  depart  from 
the  simplicity  of  the  gospel,  and  so  little  were  they  influ- 
enced by  the  spirit  of  Christianity,  that,  in  imitation  of  the 
Grecian  orators,  some  of  them  even  hired  persons  to  clap 
their  hands,  and  express  their  applause  by  other  gestures 
and  vociferations  at  proper  intervals,  on  signals  previously 
concerted  between  them  and  the  preacher,  or  his  particular 
friends. 

These  set  harangues  were  only  occasional,  and  were  by 
no  means  delivered   every  Lord's  day,   in   every  christian 

•  Moshfim,  I.  |).  397.     (P.)     Out.  v.  Pt.  ii.  Cli.  iv.  Sect.  ii. 

t  Pierce's  Vindic.ition,  pp.  3R5,  395.     (P.) 

I  Jortin's  Remarks,  V,  p.  569-     (P-) 

^  Moshcim,  I.  p.  233.     (P.)     Cent.  iii.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  iv.  Sect.  ii. 


304  HISTORY   OF  THE  CHANGES   IN  THE 

church  ;  and  in  the  dark  ages,  few  persons  being  qualified 
to  preach,  sermons  became  very  scarce.  At  this  day  the 
Roman  Catholics  meet  only,  in  general,  to  hear  prayers, 
and  to  celebrate  mass.  They  have  no  sermons,  except  in 
Lent,  on  certain  festivals,  and  on  some  other  particular 
occasions.  It  is  more  particularly  observed,  that  it  was  in 
the  ninth  century  that  the  bishops  and  priests  ceased  to 
instruct  the  people  by  sermons  as  they  had  done  before.* 

Charlemagne,  finding  the  clergy  absolutely  incapable  of 
instructing  the  people  by  sermons  of  their  own,  or  "  of 
explaining,  with  perspicuity  and  judgment,  the  portions  of 
scripture  which  are  distinguished  in  the  ritual  by  the  name 
of  epistle  and  gospel^  ordered  Paulus  Diaconus  and  Alcuin 
to  compile,  from  the  ancient  doctors  of  the  church,  homilies, 
or  discourses  upon  the  epistles  and  gospels,  which  a  stupid 
and  ignorant  set  of  priests  were  to  commit  to  memory, 
and  recite  to  the  people.  This  gave  rise  to  that  famous 
collection,  which  went  by  the  title  of  the  Flomiliarium  of 
Charlemagne,  and  which,  being  followed  as  a  model  by 
many  productions  of  the  same  kind,  composed  by  private 
persons, — contributed  much  to  nourish  the  indolence,"  says 
Mosheim,  "  and  to  perpetuate  the  ignorance  of  a  worthless 
clergy."  j*  In  this,  however,  as  well  as  in  his  other  regu- 
lations respecting  the  church,  he  certainly  had  the  best 
intentions  ;  and  in  those  times  it  is  probable  that  nothing 
better  could  have  been  done.  A  scheme  of  this  kind  was 
adopted  in  England  when  the  present  6ooA.-  of  homilies  was 
compiled,  and  appointed  to  be  read  in  churches. 

"  Before  the  Reformation,  after  the  preacher  had  named 
and  opened  his  text,  he  called  on  the  people  to  go  to  their 
prayers,  telling  them  what  they  were  to  pray  for.  '  Ye  shall 
pray,*  says  he,  '  for  thie  king,  for  the  pope,  for  the  holy 
catholic  church,'  &c.  ;  after  which  all  the  people  said  their 
beads  in  a  general  silence,"  and  the  minister,  kneeling 
down,  did  the  same.  They  would  besides  say  a  Pater  fioste?; 
Ave  Alaria,  Deiis  misereatiir  nostril  Domine  salvunifac  regem, 
Gloria Patri,  Sfc,  "  and  then  the  sermon  proceeded.":]:  The 
manner  in  which  most  of  the  English  clergy  pray  in  the 
pulpit  before  sermon  is  still  the  same,  and  is  what  they  call 
bidding  prayers,  or  an  exhortation  to  pray  for  such  and  such 
things.  But  then  no  time  is  allowed  for  the  prayers  that 
are  so  ordered. 

*  Sueur,  A.  D.  853.    (P.) 

t  Eccl.  Hist.  II.  p.  84.    {P.)    Cent.  viii.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  Hi.  Seel.  v. 

X  Neal's  Hist.  I.  p.  SS.    (P.)     Toulmiu's  Ed,  I.  p.  44. 


METHOD   OF  CONDUCTING  PUBLIC  WORSHIP.  305 

In  the  primitive  church  the  public  prayers  followed  the 
sermon,  and  preceded  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  supper; 
and  it  is  evident,  from  many  circumstances,  that  at  first  all 
these  prayers  were  delivered  without  book,  and  were  such 
as  the  bishop,  or  the  priest  who  officiated,  could  prepare, 
himself.  Justin  Martyr  says,  that  the  president  of  the  as- 
sembly offered  prayers  and  thanksgivings,  as  he  icas  ahle^ 
(o<r>)  Suvajotij  ay/a>).  Origen  also  says,  "We  pray  according 
to  our  abilities;"  and  Tertullian,  "  We  pray  to  God  without 
a  monitor,  because  our  prayers  flow  from  our  own  minds." 
Basil  gives  an  instance  of  a  variation  in  his  prayer,  for 
which  he  was  blamed  by  some,  as  being  inconsistent  with 
himself.  * 

In  time,  however,  partly  in  order  to  avoid  diversity  of 
opinions,  and  in  part,  also,  that  the  congregation  might  not 
be  offended  by  prayers  prepared  by  persons  who  were  not 
capable  of  doing  it  with  propriety,  it  came  to  be  the  custom 
to  compose  the  prayers  before-hand,  and  to  submit  them 
to  the  approbation  of  the  principal  persons  in  the  church. 
This  was  particularly  ordered  at  the  third  Council  of  Car- 
thage, f 

At  the  Council  of  Laodicea,  held  in  364,  the  same  prayers 
were  ordered  to  be  used  morning  and  evening ;  but,  in 
general,  every  bishop  ordered  what  prayers  he  thought  pro- 
per, till  about  the  time  of  Austin,  when  it  was  ordered  that, 
to  prevent  heresy,  no  prayers  should  be  used  but  by  common 
advice.  Thus  in  time  a  great  variety  of  liturgies,  or  forms  of 
celebrating  public  worship,  were  in  use  in  different  pro- 
vinces and  different  sees.  The  first  mention  we  find  of  these 
liturgies  is  towards  the  end  of  the  fourth  century.  J 

In  early  times,  though  the  officiating  minister  delivered 
the  prayers,  the  people  were  not  entirely  silent ;  for  they 
made  small  interlocutions  or  responses,  as  Lift  up  your  hearts. 
IVe  lift  them  up  unto  the  Lord,  mentioned  by  Cyprian  :  The 
Lord  he  tcith  you,  and  with  thy  spirit,  in  the  time  of  Chry- 
sostom.  § 

The  last  circumstance  that  I  shall  notice,  relating  to  the 
forms  of  public  worship,  is,  that  in  the  primitive  church, 
where  the  service  always  ended  with  communion,  there  was 
recited  a  roll,  in  which  the  names  of  the  more  eminent 
saints  of  the  catholic  church,  and  of  the  holy  bishops, 
martyrs,  or  confessors,  of  every  particular  church,  were 
registered.     This  was  an  honourable  remembrance  of  such 

•  Pierce's  Vindication,  pp.  420,  ISO.     (P.)  f  Sueur,  A.  D.  fi^.     (P.) 

X  Neale's  Hist.  I.  p.  37.  (P.)    1793,  P-  40.       ^  Pierce's  Vindication,  p.  ■\-20,  (P.) 
VOL.    v.  X 


306  HISTORY  OF  THE  CHANGES  IN  THE 

as  had  died  in  the  christian  faith.  But  when  the  soundness 
of  any  person's  faith  was  questioned,  his  name  was  not  read 
till  that  difficulty  was  ren^oved.  Chrysostom  having  been 
expelled  from  the  church  of  Constantinople,  it  was  a  long 
time  before  his  name  was  inserted  in  this  roll.  This  was 
the  custom  by  which,  as  I  have  observed  before,  provision 
was  made  for  excommunicating  persons  even  after  their 
death. 


SECTION    IV. 

Of  Festivals^  dfc.  in  the  Christian  Church, 

The  primitive  Christians  had  no  festivals  besides  Sunday, 
on  which  they  always  met  for  public  worship,  as  may  be 
inferred  from  Justin  Martyr.  This  day  Constantine  ordered 
to  be  observed  as  a  day  of  rest  from  labour ;  but  husband- 
men were  allowed  to  cultivate  the  earth  on  that  day.  *  By 
degrees,  however,  in  imitation  of  the  Jews  or  Heathens,  but 
chiefly  the  latter,  Christians  came  to  have  as  many  annual 
festivals  as  the  Heathens  themselves.  Of  the  principal  of 
these  I  shall  give  a  general  account. 

The  first  that  was  observed  by  Christians  was  Easter,  on 
the  time  of  the  Jewish  passover,  being  the  anniversary  of 
our  Saviour's  sufl'erings,  death  and  resurrection.  Originallj^ 
however,  this  was  probably  a  festival,  and  respected  the 
resurrection  of  our  Saviour  only;  but  afterwards  they  began 
to  keep  difast,  on  the  anniversary  of  the  crucifixion ;  but  it 
was  a  long  time  before  this  fast  was  extended,  as  it  now  is, 
to  the  whole  season  of  Lent,  or  forty  days  before  Easter. 

The  primitive  Christians  used,  indeed,  to  join  fasting  to 
prayer  upon  extraordinary  occasions  ;  but  this  was  always 
voluntary,  and  those  who  entirely  omitted  it  were  not  cen- 
sured. The  first  person  who  is  said  to  have  laid  down  any 
express  rules  for  fasting  was  Montanus,  who  was  remarkable 
for  his  rigour  in  other  respects.  However,  a  fast  on  the 
anniversary  of  Christ's  crucifixion,  or  what  we  call  Good 
Friday,  is  of  very  great  antiquit}^;  but  both  the  time,  and 
the  degree  of  fasting,  was  originally  very  various,  depending 
upon  each  person's  particular  fancy.  Irenaeus  says,  that 
some  persons  fasted  before  Easter  one  day,  some  two,  and 
some  more ;  but  that  the  unity  of  the  faith  was  maintained 
notwithstanding  that  variety. 

♦  Sueur,  A.  D.  320.     {P.) 


METHOD  OP  CONDUCTING  PUBLIC  WORSHIP.  30? 

By  fasting-,  the  ancients  always  meant  abstaining  Irom 
meat  and  drink,  from  morning  till  evening;  and  vvliat  Ter- 
tullian  and  others  call  stations,  or  half  fasts,  were  those  days 
on  which  they  assembled  for  prayer  in  the  morning,  and 
continued  that  exercise  till  three  in  the  afternoon,  when 
they  received  the  Lord's  supper.  They  never  fasted  on  a 
Saturday  or  Sunday,  and  even  thought  it  a  crime  to  do  so, 
except  on  the  Saturday  before  Easter-day,  on  which  they 
celebrated  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  because,  during  that 
time,  they  said,  the  bridegroom  was  taken  from  them. 

Because  the  time  that  our  Saviour  lay  in  the  grave  was 
about  forty  hours,  this  fast  was  called  Quarantana  or  Qua- 
dragessima,  and  by  contraction  Quaresme,  and  Carcsme  or 
Careme,  which  is  the  French  term  for  Lent.  Another  reason 
for  fasting  at  this  particular  time  was,  that  many  persons 
were  then  preparing  for  baptism,  and  others  for  couimunion, 
which,  as  superstition  prevailed,  was  frequented  more  gene- 
rally, and  attended  upon  with  more  solemnity,  on  that  day. 

Even  the  Montanists  only  fasted  two  weeks  in  the  year, 
and  in  these  they  excepted  Saturdays  and  Sundays.  *  Lent 
was  first  confined  to  a  certain  number  of  days  in  the  fourth 
century.  At  this  time,  however,  "  abstinence,  from  flesh 
and  wine  was  by  many  judged  sufficient  for  the  purposes 
of  fasting,  and  this  opinion  prevailed  from  this  time"  in  the 
western  church,  f  Soon  after  the  time  of  TertuUian,  Chris- 
tians began  to  observe  Wednesdays  and  Fridays  for  the 
purpose  of  fasting  ;  and  they  kept  these  fasts  all  the  year, 
except  between  Easte.r  and  Pentecost,  in  which  time  they 
neither  fasted  nor  kneeled  in  churches.  In  416,  Innocent  I. 
ordered  that  the  people  should  fast  on  Saturdays  ;  but  the 
Greeks  and  all  the  East  paid  no  regard  to  this  ordinance.  + 

At  the  time  of  the  Council  of  Nice,  the  week  before 
Easter  was  called  Quarantcma,  or  Lent;  though  some  ob- 
served more  days,  and  some  fewer  at  pleasure  ;  but  within 
forty  years  after  this  council,  Lent  was  extended  to  three 
weeks.  § 

*'  Durandus — tells  us  Lent  was  counted  to  begin  on  that 
which  is  now  the  first  Sunday  in  Lent,  and  to  end  on  Easter 
eve,  which  time,  containing  forty-two  days,  if  you  take  out 
of  them  the  six  Sundays  on  which  it  was  counted  not  lawful 
at  any  time  of  the  year  to  fast,  then  there  will  remain  only 

•  Sueur,  A.  D.  206.     (P.) 

t  Mosheim,  1.  p.  324.     (P.)    Cent.  iv.   Pt.  ii.   Cli.  iv.   Sect.  vi. 
t  Sueur,  A.  D.  391.     (P.)  §  Ibid.  A.  D.  325,  3o4      ;P.; 

X   9 


508  HISTORY   OF  THE  CHANGES   IN  THE 

thirty-six  days  ;  and  therefore,  that  the  number  of  forty 
days  which  Christ  fasted  might  be  perfected,  pope  Gregory 
(the  Great)  added  to  Lent  four  days  of  the  week  before-going, 
viz.  that  which  we  now  call  Ash  Wednesday^  and  the  three 
days  following  it;"*  so  that  our  present  Lent  is  a  super- 
stitious imitation  of  our  Saviour's  fast  of  forty  days. 

Before  the  Council  of  Nice,  there  had  been  a  great  dif- 
ference between  the  eastern  and  western  churches  about  the 
time  of  keeping  Easter,  the  Christians  in  the  East  following 
the  custom  of  the  Jews,  with  whom  the  day  on  which  the 
paschal  Lamb  was  killed  was  always  the  fourteenth  of  their 
month  Nisan,  on  whatever  day  of  the  week  it  happened  to 
fall ;  but  with  the  Latins,  Easter-day  had  always  been  the 
Sunday  following,  being  the  anniversary  of  our  Saviour's 
resurrection.  At  the  Council  of  Nice,  the  custom  of  the 
Latin  church  was  established  ;  and  as  astronomy  was  more 
oultivated  in  Egypt,  it  was  given  in  charge  to  the  bishop  of 
Alexandria,  to  publish  to  the  other  churches  the  proper 
time  of  keeping  Easter,  by  what  were  called  paschal  epistles. 
For  the  same  purpose  afterwards  the  golden  number  was 
in  vented. f 

Pentecost  was  a  Jewish  festival,  celebrated  fifty  days 
after  the  passover  ;  and  being  likewise  distinguished  in  the 
Christian  history  by  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  it  was 
observed  next  after  Easter,  and,  as  far  as  appears,  about  the 
time  of  Tertullian.  We  call  it  Whitsuntide.  These  are  the 
only  great  festivals  that  Christians  were  not  at  liberty  to 
fix  where  they  pleased.  All  the  other  festivals  they  fixed 
at  those  times  of  the  year  which  the  Pagans  used  to  observe 
with  the  greatest  solemnity,  with  a  view  to  facilitate  their 
conversion  to  Christianity. 

The  feast  of  Christmas,  in  commemoration  of  the  nativity 
of  Christ,  is  mentioned  by  Chrysostom  as  unknown  at  An- 
lioch  till  within  ten  years  of  the  time  of  his  writing  ;  and 
therefore  he  concluded  that  it  had  lately  been  introduced 
from  Home,;]:  It  was  thought  to  be  first  observed  by  the 
followers  of  Basilides,  and  from  them  to  have  been  adopted 
by  the  orthodox,  in  the  fourth  century,  when  the  festival  of 
Christ's  baptism  was  introduced  ;  in  consequence  of  which 
this  feast  of  the  nativity  was  removed  from  the  sixth  of 
January,  to  the  twenty-fifth  of  December  :    the  former  re- 

*   History  of  Popery,  I.  p.  186.     (P.)     1735,  I.  p.  104. 
t   Hist,  of  Ancient  Ceremonies,  p.  44.     (P.) 
I  Basnage,  Histoirr,  I.  p.  280.     (P.) 


METHOD  OF  CONDUCTING  PUBLIC  WORSHIP.  .309 

taining  the  name  of  the  Epiphany,   wliicli  feast  only,  and 
not  that  of  the  nativity,  is  observed  in  the  East.  * 

Festivals  in  honour  of  the  apostles  and  niintyrs  are  all  of 
late  date,  none  of  them  earlier  than  the  time  of  Constantine, 
when  magnificent  temples  were  built  round  the  tombs  of 
some  of  their  martyrs  ;  and  then  the  festivals  were  only 
held  at  the  places  where  they  were  supposed  to  have  suf- 
fered. 

Vigils  were  the  assemblies  of  the  ancient  Christians  by 
night,  in  the  time  of  persecution,  when  they  durst  not  meet 
in  the  day-time.  Afterwards  they  were  observed  before 
Easter,  but  they  were  kept  not  as  feasts,  which  was  done 
afterwards,  but  ns  fasts,  as  appears  from  Tertullian. 

The  feast  of  Ascension  was  observed  about  the  time  of 
Austin.  The  feast  of  Circumcision  is  first  mentioned  by 
Maximus  Taurinensis,  who  flourished  in  450;  and  the  feast 
oi  Parijication  was  perhaps  instituted  in  the  ninth  century,  f 
The  feast  of  Advent  is  of  no  earlier  authority  than  that  of 
Innocent  III.  in  the  thirteenth  century;  and  the  Vigils  o{ 
the  great  festivals  are  all  later  than  the  tenth  century.  :|: 

It  was  Mamert,  bishop  of  Vienne  in  Gaul,  who,  about 
'^63,  first  instituted  the  fast  of  Rogation,  that  is,  the  pra3'ers 
that  are  made  three  days  before  the  feast  of  Ascension,  that 
is,  the  Monday,  Tuesday,  and  Wednesday  before  Holy 
Thursday  ;  which  was  expressly  contrary  to  the  order  esta- 
blished in  the  ancient  church,  forbidding  ail  fasting  between 
Easter  and  Pentecost.  This  fast  of  Rogation  was  generally 
received  in  the  West  presently  after  the  time  of  this  Ma- 
mert. §  The  bishop  of  Venice  added  the  processions  to 
them,  in  imitation  of  the  Lustrationes  Amhervales  of  the 
Heathens,  which  were  made  round  their  fields,  in  order  to 
render  them  fruitful ;  and  these  were  attended  with  much 
intemperance  and  disorder,  being  made,  no  doubt,  in  all 
respects,  after  the  pagan  manner.  |j 

Alcinus  Avitus,  who  succeeded  Hesychius,  the  immediate 
successor  of  Mamert,  in  the  church  of  Vienne,  describes 
the  occasion  of  instituting  this  fast  in   his  homily  on  the 

•  Pierce's  Vindication,  pp.  509,510.  (P.)  See  "  Christ's  Birtli  mis-timed  ;— 
proving  that  Jesus  Clirist  was  not  born  in  December."  Phcenix,  1707»  I-  p-  114. 

t  Pierce's  Vindication,  pp.  512,  513.     (P.) 

t  Sueur,  A.  D.  392.    (P.)  §  ibid.    (P.) 

||.See  nbuHus,  L.  ii.  El.  ii.  Virgil,  Eel.  line  74,  75.  "II  y  avoit  parmi  les 
anciens  Remains  un  jour  dedie  pour  faire  ces  processions,  assavoir  le  25  d'Avril, 
qu'ils  nomnioient  Rnbif/alia,  c'est  a  dire,  la  fete  ties  nielles,  parce  ijuils  faisoient 
des  sacrifices  et  des  pri^res  aux  Dienx,  y  afin  quils  conscrvassent  Its  bleds  de  cet 
accident  la.  Dans  I'EgUse  Roinaine  on  fait  la  mtme  ceremouie  le  meme  jour  qui 
est  la  Fete  de  S  Marc."    Les  Conformitez  des  Circmonies,  pp-  95,  96, 


310  HISTORY  OF  THE   CHANGES  IN  THE 

Rogation.  He  there  says  that  the  city  of  Vienne  had  suf- 
fered much  by  fire,  thunder-storms,  earthquakes,  extraor- 
dinary noises  in  the  night,  prodigies,  signs  in  the  heavens, 
wild  beasts,  and  other  calamities  ;  that  on  this  the  bishop 
of  the  city  ordered  the  people  to  fast  three  days  with  prayer 
and  repentance,  that,  by  the  example  of  the  Ninevites,  they 
might  avert  the  judgments  of  God.  He  says  that  thereupon 
the  anger  of  God  was  appeased,  and  that  in  commemoration 
of  it,  Mamert  ordered  this  fast  to  be  observed  every  year. 
His  example  vvas  soon  followed,  first  by  the  church  of 
Clermont  in  Auvergne,  then  by  all  their  neighbours,  and 
afterwards  throughout  all  Gaul.  In  801,  Leo  IH.  confirmed 
this  fast,  and  made  it  universal.  * 

The  fast  of  Ember  Weeks,  or  Jejunia  quatuor  temporum, 
was  probably  instituted  a  little  before  Leo  the  Great,  in  the 
middle  of  the  fifth  centiuy.-j'  But  others  think  that  it  is 
not  quite  certain  that  he  speaks  of  it.  J  Some  say  that 
pope  Gelasius  having  ordered  that  the  ordination  of  priests 
and  deacons  should  be  on  the  four  weeks  of  Ember,  or 
ember  days,  viz.  the  Wednesday,  Friday,  and  Saturday  after 
the  first  Sunday  in  Lent,  after  Whit-sunday,  after  the  four- 
teenth of  September,  and  the  thirteenth  of  December,  and 
this  ceremony  being  always  conducted  with  fasting  and 
prayer,  it  came  to  be  a  custom  to  fast  at  that  time.§ 

It  was  upon  the  idea  of  the  spiritual  benefit  that  would 
arise  from  visiting  the  church  of  St.  Peter  at  Rome,  and  also 
in  imitation  of  the  Jewish  jubilee,  and  the  secular  games 
among  the  Romans,  that  the  popish  jubilee  is  founded. 
This  festival,  which  is  celebrated  with  the  utmost  pomp  and 
magnificence,  was  instituted  by  Boniface  VIH.  in  the  year 
1300,  in  consequence,  as  it  is  said,  of  a  rumour,  the  origin 
of  which  is  not  known,  which  was  spread  among  the  inha- 
bitants of  Rome,  in  1299,  that  all  who  within  the  limits  of 
the  following  year,  should  visit  the  church  of  St.  Peter, 
would  receive  the  remission  of  all  their  sins  ;  and  that  this 
privilege  would  be  annexed  to  the  same  observance  every 
hundredth  year.  || 

♦  Sueur,  A.  D.  462,  463.     (P.)  t  Pierce's  Vindication,  p.  529.   (P) 

J  Sueur,  A.  D.  392.     (P.)  §  Hist,  of  Ancient  Ceremonies,  p.  67.     (P.) 

II  **  La  plus  solemnelle  F^te  des   anciens  Remains  etoit  celle  des  jeux  qu'ils 

appelloient  seculiers,  qui  ne  se  devoit  celebrer  q'nue  fois  about  d'nn   siecle. — A 

cela  a  succede  en  I'Eglise  Romaine  le  grand  Jubile  qui  fut  instilue  par  Boniface 

VIII. On  invita  tous  les  Chretiens  de  venir  k  Rome  et  afin  de  les  y  attirer  on 

promit  k  ceux  qui  dans  Vannee  viendroient  visiter  les  Temples  des  Ap6tres, 
I'entiere  remission  de  leurs  pfechez  non  seulement  quant  k  la  coulpe,  niais  aussi 
quant  a  la  peine."  Les  Conformitez,  pp.  109,  1 10. 


METHOD  OF  CONDUCTING   PUBLIC  WORSHIP.  311 

The  successors  of  Boniface  added  a  number  of  new  rites 
and  inventions  to  this  superstitious  institution,  and  finding 
by  experience  that  it  added  lustre  to  the  church  of  Home, 
and  increased  its  revenue,  they  made  its  return  more  fre- 
quent. In  1350,  Clement  VI.  ordered  thiit  the  juhilce 
should  be  celebrated  every  fifty  years,  on  pretence  that  the 
Jews  did  the  like,  and  Paul  ll.,  in  the  fifteenth  century, 
reduced  the  term  to  twenty-five  years.*  This  year  of 
jubilee  is  called  a  holi/  year  ;  but,  as  the  author  of  the  His- 
loii-e  (its  Papcs  observes*,  it  should  rather  be  called  the  year 
of  sacrilege,  impiety,  debauch  and  superstition. -j- 

Many  of  these  festivals  have  been  retained  by  the  re- 
formers, especially  those  of  Easter,  Whitsuntide  and  Christ- 
mas, and,  like  the  Papists,  they  observe  them  with  more 
strictness  than  they  do  the  Sundays. 

Our  established  church  has  by  no  means  thrown  ofT  the 
popish  superstition  with  respect  to  fasting.  The  fast  days 
in  the  church  of  England,  are  all  the  Fridays  in  the  year, 
except  Christmas  day,  all  the  days  in  Lent,  which,  besides 
Fridays,  are  thirty-three,  six  more  in  the  Ember  weeks, 
three 'Rogation  days,  and  the  thirtieth  of  January.  The 
sum  of  all  the  festival  days  is  thirty-one.  And  if  to  these 
we  add  the  ninety-five  fast  days,  fifty-two  Sundays,  and 
twenty-nine  saints*  days,  all  the  days  in  a  year  appropriated 
to  religious  exercises,  besides  vigils,  will  be  one  hundred 
and  seventy-eight;  and  making  allowance  for  some  of  them 
interfering  with  others,  they  will  be  about  one  hundred  and 
seventy.  \ 

In  so  little  esteem,  however,  are  these  observances  held 
by  the  more  enlightened  members  of  the  established  church, 
that  there  can  be  no  doubt  but  that  when  any  reformation 
takes  place,  a  great  retrenchment  will  be  made  in  this 
article.  § 

•  Hist  of  Ancient  Ceremonies,  p.  67.     (P.)  t  Vol.  V.  p.  409-     (P.) 

J  Pierce's  Vindication,  p.  508.     (P.) 

§  The  Ecclesiastical  Commissioners,  in  l6ft9,  proposed  lo  the  Convocntion  "  a 
new  calendar,"  in  which  were  "  omittctl  all  the  Lepeiidart/  Saints  Dai/s,  ;md  others 
not  directly  referred  to  in  the  sor\i«-e  hook,"  "and  "that  a  inbru  le  made, 
declaring  the  intention  of  the  Lnit  Fasts,  to  consist  only  in  extraordinnr^  acts  of 
devotion,  not  in  distinction  of  meats. "  Calami/,  Abridgment  of  Baxter,  6.v.  Ld.  2, 
I.   p.  453.  ,  ...  , 

•'  Our  Calender,  every  man  of  judsrment  will  allow,  does  greatly  need  revismgand 
reforming.  The  observations  uponlhe  subject  are  so  well  known,  that  they  need 
not  be  here  repeated."     Free  and  Cand.  Disqais.  1750,  Ed.  2,  p.  15  J. 


312 

THE 

HISTORY 

OF    THE 


PART  IX. 

The  His  tori/  of  Church  Discipline. 

— ♦-♦-• — 

THE 

INTRODUCTION. 


The  changes  which  the  discipline  of  the  christian  church 
underwent  from  the  time  of  the  apostles  to  the  Reformation, 
were  as  great,  and  of  as  much  importance  in  practice,  as  the 
changes  in  any  other  article  relating  to  Christianity.  From 
being  highly  favourable  to  good  conduct,  the  established 
maxims  of  it  came  at  length  to  be  a  cover  for  every  kind  of 
immorality,  to  those  who  chose  to  avail  themselves  of  them. 
On  this  account  I  have  given  a  good  deal  of  attention  to  the 
subject. 

To  many  persons,  I  doubt  not,  this  will  be  as  interesting 
an  object  as  any  thing  in  the  history  of  Christianity,  and  to 
introduce  it  in  this  place  will  make  the  easiest  connexion 
between  the  two  great  divisions  of  my  work,  I  mean  the 
corrupt'ious  of  doctrine,  and  the  abuses  of  power  in  the  chris- 
tian church.  It  will  also  serve  to  shew  in  what  manner  these 
departures  from  the  christian  system  promoted  each  other. 

SECTION   I. 

The  History  of  Church  Discipline,   in  the  Time  of  the 
Christian  Fathers. 

In  the  purer  ages  of  the  church,  the  offences  which  gave 
pubHc  scandal  were  few ;  but  when  they  did  happen,  they 
were  animadverted  upon  with  great  rigour.  For,  as  many 
enormities  were  laid  to  the  charge  of  Christians,  they  were 


HISTORY  OF  CHURCH    DISCIPLINE.  313 

exceedingly  solicitous  to  give  no  just  cause  of  obloquy.  It 
is,  indeed,  probable,  tliat  some  time  after  the  apostolic  age, 
the  morals  of  the  Christians  in  general  were  more  strict,  than 
we  find,  by  the  writings  of  the  apostles,  they  were  in  their 
own  times.  Nor  is  it  to  be  wondered  at,  when  we  consider 
that  the  whole  body  of  the  Gentile  Christians,  being  then 
newly  converted  from  Heathenism,  must  have  retained  many 
of  their  former  habits,  or  have  easily  relapsed  into  them. 

Afterwards,  most  of  the  cases  of  scandal  we  meet  with 
relate  to  the  behaviour  of  Christians  in  the  time  of  persecu- 
tion, from  which  many  shrunk  or  fled,  in  a  manner  that  was 
exceedingly  and  justly  disapproved  by  the  more  severe. 
Consequently,  after  a  persecution,  there  was  much  to  do 
about  the  re-admission  to  the  privileges  of  church  com- 
munion, of  those  who  repented  of  their  weakness;  and  it 
was  a  great  part  of  the  business  of  the  councils  in  the  fourth 
and  fifth  centuries  (which  was  after  the  establishment  of 
Christianity)  to  settle  rules  concerning  the  degrees  of  pe- 
nance, and  the  method  of  receiving  penitents  into  the 
church.  Indeed,  besides  the  cases  of  those  who  had  shrunk 
from  persecution,  the  governors  of  christian  churches  at  that 
time  must  have  had  many  offences  of  other  kinds  to  ani- 
madvert upon  ;  considering  that  Christianity  had  then  the 
countenance  of  the  civil  powers,  and,  therefore,  that  people 
of  all  ranks,  and  of  all  characters,  would  naturally  crowd 
into  it.  On  these  accounts  they  found  it  necessary  to  have 
a  very  regular  system  of  discipline. 

In  general,  we  find  that,  about  the  third  and  fourth  cen- 
turies, Christians  distinguished  four  orders  of  penitents. 
The  first  stood  at  the  entrance  of  the  church,  begging  in  the 
most  earnest  manner  the  prayers  of  all  that  went  in.  The 
second  were  admitted  to  enter,  and  to  hear  the  lectures  that 
were  given  to  the  catechumens,  and  the  exposition  of  the 
Scriptures,  but  they  were  dismissed,  together  with  the  cate- 
chumens, before  the  celebration  of  the  eucharist.  The  third 
lay  prostrate  in  a  certain  place  in  the  church,  covered  with 
sackcloth,  and  after  receiving  the  benediction  of  the  bishop, 
and  the  imposition  of  hands,  were  also  dismissed  before  the 
celebration  of  the  eucharist.  The  fourth  order  attended  that 
celebration,  but  did  not  partake  of  it.  Penitents  having 
passed  through  all  these  orders,  were  admitted  to  commu- 
nion by  the  imposition  of  the  hands  of  the  bishop,  or  of  a 
priest,  in  the  presence  of  the  whole  congregation.* 


♦  'I 


ueur,  A.  D.  213.     (P.) 


314  HISTORY  OF  CHURCH  DISCIPLINE. 

If  any  persons  relapsed  into  the  same  fault  for  which  they 
had  been  excommunicated,  or  excluded  from  the  congrega- 
tion of  the  faithful,  they  were  not  re-admitted  to  communion, 
except  in  the  article  of  death  ;  but  towards  the  end  of  the 
seventh  century  the  ancient  discipline  began  to  be  relaxed 
in  this  respect,  and  they  admitted  persons  to  communion 
after  a  second  offence.  In  all  times  there  were  some  crimes 
for  which  no  repentance  could  make  atonement,  so  that  per- 
sons who  had  been  once  guilty  of  them  could  never  be  ad- 
mitted to  the  peace  and  communion  of  the  church.  These 
were  murder,  adultery,  and  apostacy.  In  this  manner,  at 
least,  were  these' crimes  stigmatized,  in  many  churches. 

But  about  the  third  century,  pope  Zephyrinus  began  to 
relax  a  little  of  this  discipline,  admitting  adulterers  to  com- 
inunion  after  some  years  of  penance,  in  which  he  was  vehe- 
mently opposed  by  TertuUian.  However,  in  the  time  of 
Cyprian,  the  penalties  imposed  by  the  bishop,  which  were 
always  a  public  appearance  for  a  certain  time  in  the  charac- 
ter of  penitents,  were  often  relaxed,  or  abridged,  at  the  in- 
treaty  of  the  confessors,  or  those  who  had  been  destined  to 
martyrdom  ;  and  this  was  called  indulgence,  of  the  abuse  of 
which  we  shall  see  enough  in  a  later  period.  But  at  this 
time  there  was  not  much  to  complain  of  in  this  business, 
except  the  improper  interference  of  these  confessors,  and  the 
too  great  influence  which  they  were  allowed  to  have  in  such 
cases. 

Equally  innocent  was  the  business  oi confession,  as  it  was 
first  begun  ;  but  we  see  in  the  course  of  this  history,  that  it 
is  no  uncommon  thing  for  an  innocent  beginning  to  lead  to 
a  fatal  catastrophe.  The  apostle  Paul  exhorts  Christians  to 
confess  their  sins  one  to  another;  and  our  Saviour  assures  us 
that  we  must  forgive,  as  we  hope  to  be  forgiven.  Upon 
this  was  grounded  the  custom  of  the  primitive  churches,  to 
require  every  person  who  was  excommunicated,  to  make  a 
public  confession  of  his  guilt  before  he  was  re-admitted  to 
christian  communion.  In  some  cases,  also,  a  public  con- 
fession prevented  excommunication.  It  was,  likewise,  the 
custom  for  many  conscientious  persons  to  confess  their  pri- 
vate sins  to  some  of  the  priests  in  whom  they  could  put  the 
greatest  confidence,  and  whose  advice  and  prayers  they 
wished  to  have;  and  what  was  at  first  a  voluntary  thing, 
was  afterwards,  but  indeed  long  afterwards,  imposed  as  a 
positive  duty. 

Confession  was  also  much  encouraged  by  another  circum- 
stance.    Many  canons  made  a  difference  in  the  degree  and 


HISTORY  OF  CHURCH    DISCIPLINE.  31^ 

time  of  penance,  between  those  who  haci  accused  themselves, 
and  those  against  whom  their  crimes  were  proved.  iMany 
persons,  therefore,  to  prevent  the  severer  penalty,  came  of 
their  own  accord  to  confess  their  sins;  and  this  was  uuich 
encouraged,  and  the  virtue  of  it  magiiifuMl  by  the  writers  of 
those  times.  This  confession  was,  originally,  always  made 
in  public,  but  some  inconveniences  being  found  to  attend 
this  (especially  when  the  crimes  affected  other  persons,  or 
the  state)  a  private  confession  was  appointed  instead  of  it. 
In  this  case  the  bishop  either  attended  himself,  or  appointed 
some  particular  priest,  who  from  this  oihce  got  the  title  of 
penilenliarif  priest,  to  receive  these  confessions. 

The  difficulty  of  re-admission  to  the  privileges  of  church 
communion  was,  in  general,  very  great,  and  the  penances 
imposed  were  exceedingly  rigorous,  and  this,  in  the  end, 
was  one  great  cause  of  the  total  relaxation  of  all  discipline. 

Novatian  particularly  distinguished  himself  by  refusing  to 
admit  to  communion  any  who  had  been  guilty  of  the  greater 
crimes,  especially  that  of  apostacy,  leaving  them  to  the  judg^ 
ment  of  God  only.  This  arose  from  the  rigour  of  Tertullian 
and  the  Montanists  ;  and  it  is  observable  that  the  church  of 
Rome  still  keeps  up  this  rigorous  discipline  in  cases  o{  heresy, 
the  relapsed  being  delivered  to  the  secular  arm,  without  being 
admitted  to  penance. 

It  was  ordained  by  the  Council  of  Nice,  that  those  who 
apostatized  before  baptism  should  not  be  admitted  to  the 
communion  of  the  church  till  after  three  years  of  penance, 
but  if  they  had  been  of  the  faithfuU  the  penance  was  to 
continue  seven  years.*  Basil  decided,  that  for  the  crime  of 
fornication,  a  man  ought  to  do  penance  four  years.  Others 
for  the  same  offence  imposed  a  penance  of  nine  years,  and 
for  adultery  eighteen  years.-f 

Hitherto  we  have  seen  nothing  but  rigour;  and  the  relaxa- 
tion did  not  begin  by  lessening  the  time  of  penance  (except 
in  those  cases  in  which  the  confessors  had  improperly  inter- 
fered), but  first  in  the  manner  of  making  the  confession, 
then  in  the  place  of  penance,  and  lastly,  in  the  commutation 
of  it. 

After  the  persecution  under  the  emperor  Decius,  the  or- 
thodox bishops,  Socrates  says,  appointed  that  the  penitents 
should  make  their  confessions  to  one  particular  pri<st,  and 
that  they  should  make  a  public  corjfession  of  such  tilings 
only  as  should  be  thought  proper  for  public  hearing.     This 

•  Sueur,  A.  D.  825.     (P.)  t  Basnage,  Histoire,  1.  p.  180-  (P.) 


316  HISTORY  OF  CHURCH   DISCIPLINE. 

custom  continued  in  the  eastern  church  till  the  year  390, 
when  Nectarius,  the  bishop  of  Constantinople,  abolished  the 
office  of  penitentiary  priests,  on  account  of  a  woman  having 
been  enticed  to  commit  adultery  with  a  deacon  of  th^  church, 
whilst  she  stayed  to  perform  the  duties  of  fasting  and  prayer, 
which  had  been  enjoined  her.*  From  this  time  all  confes- 
sions, public  and  private,  seem  to  have  been  discontinued  in 
the  Greek  church  ;  and  at  this  day,  it  is  said,  that  the  Greeks 
make  confession  to  God  only. 

In  the  western  church  public  confession  continued  till  the 
fifth  century,  but  at  that  time  those  offenders  who  had  been 
used  to  make  public  confession  of  their  crimes,  were  allowed 
by  Leo  the  Great  to  confess  them  privately,  to  a  priest  ap- 
pointed for  that  purpose.  By  this  means  a  great  restraint 
upon  vice  was  taken  away,  and  the  change  was  as  pleasing 
to  the  sinner,  as  it  was  advantageous  to  the  priests  in  several 
respects.  Of  this,  many  persons  at  that  time  were  suffici- 
ently aware  ;  and  we  find  that  in  590,  a  council  held  at 
Toledo,  forbade  confession  to  be  made  privately  to  a  priest, 
and  ordered  that  it  should  be  made  according  to  the  ancient 
canons. 

To  confession  in  private  soon  succeeded  the  doing  penance 
in  private,  which  was  another  great  step  towards  the  ruin  of 
the  ancient  discipline,  which  required,  indeed,  to  be  mode- 
rated, but  in  a  different  manner.  In  the  fifth  century,  how- 
ever, penitents  were  suffered  to  do  penance  secretly  in  some 
monastery,  or  other  private  place,  in  the  presence  of  a  few 
persons,  at  the  discretion  of  the  bishop,  or  of  the  confessors, 
after  which  absolution  also  was  given  in  private.  This  was 
the  only  method  which  they  ventured  to  take  with  those  who 
would  not  submit  to  the  established  rules  of  the  church. 
"  But  in  the  seventh  century,  all  public  penance  for  secret 
sins  was  taken  quite  away.  Theodore,  archbishop  of  Can- 
terbury, is  reckoned  the  first  of  all  the  bishops  of  the  western 
church**  who  established  this  rule.'f' 

Had  Christians  contented  themselves  with  admonishing 
and  finally  excommunicating  those  who  were  guilty  of  no- 
torious crimes,  and  with  requiring  public  confession,  with 
restitution  in  case  of  injustice,  and  left  all  private  offences 
to  every  man's  own  conscience,  no  inconvenience  would 
have  arisen  from  their  discipline.  But,  by  urging  too  much 
the  importance  of  confession,  and  by  introducing  corporeal 
austerities,  as  fasting,  &c.  as  a  proper  mode  of  penance,  and 

*  See  Burnet,  Art.  xxv.  Ed.  4,  pp.  253,  234. 

t  Burnet,  p.  346.     (P.)     Art.  xxv.  Ed.  4,  p.  254. 


HISTORY   OF  CHURCH   DISCIPLINE.  31/ 

then  changing  these  for  alms,  and,  in  tact,  for  money,  in  a 
future  period,  paved  the  way  for  tlie  utter  ruin  of  all  good 
discipline,  and  at  length  brought  it  to  be  much  worse  than 
a  state  of  no  discipline  at  all.  However,  we  have  yet  seen 
but  the  fust  steps  in  this  fatal  progress. 


SECTION  II. 

Of  the  State  of  Church  Discipline  in  the  dark  Ages.,  and  till 
the  Reformation. 

We  have  seen  several  symptoms  of  the  change  and  decay 
of  discipline  in  the  last  period  ;  but  in  this  we  shall  see  the 
total  ruin  of  it,  in  consequence  of  the  increased  operation  of 
the  same  causes,  and  the  introduction  of  several  new  ones. 

After  the  introduction  oi private  confession.,  it  was  com- 
plained by  a  council  held  at  Challons,  in  813,  that  persons 
did  not  confess  their  offences  fully,  but  only  in  part ;  and, 
therefore,  they  ordered,  that  the  priest  should  make  particular 
inquiry,  under  such  heads  as  were  thought  to  include  the 
principal  vices  that  men  were  addicted  to.  At  this  time, 
however,  confession  was  not  reckoned  necessary  to  salvation, 
and  was  not  made  in  order  to  obtain  absolution  of  the  priest, 
but  to  inform  persons  how  they  ought  to  conduct  themselves 
with  respect  to  God,  in  order  to  obtain  pardon  of  him  ;  and 
therefore  the  fathers  of  this  council  say  that  confession  to 
God  purges  sin,  but  confession  to  the  priest  teaches  how 
sins  are  purged.* 

This  business  of  confession  to  priests,  before  it  was  held 
to  be  of  universal  obligation,  gave  rise  to  a  new  kind  of 
casuistry,  which  consisted  in  ascertaining  the  nature  of  all 
kinds  of  crimes,  and  in  proportioning  the  penalties  to  each. 
This  improvement  is  ascribed  to  Theodore,  archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  above-mentioned,  who,  in  a  work  entitled  Ttie 
Penitential.,  regulated  the  whole  business  of  penance,  distin- 
guishing the  different  kinds  of  crimes,  and  prescribing  forms 
of  consolation,  exhortation  and  absolution,  adapted  to  each 
particular  case.  From  Britain  these  regulations  were  soon 
introduced  into  all  the  western  provinces,  and  the  Penitential 
of  Theodore  became  a  pattern  for  other  works  of  the  same 
nature.  But  in  the  next  century  this  discipline  greatly 
declined,  and  gave  way  to  the  doctrine  of  indulgences. j- 

However,  what  is  now  properly  called  auricular  confession 

*  Sueur,  A.D.  813.     (P.) 

t  Mosheiiu,  II.  p.  26.   (P.)     Cent,  vii.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  iii.  S?ect.  v. 


318  HISTORY  OF   CHURCH   DISCIPLINE. 

was  not  fully  established,  and  made  of  universal  obligation, 
before  the  thirteenth  century,  when  Innocent  III.  appointed 
it  by  his  own  authority,  in  a  Lateran  Council.  This  doc- 
trine, as  it  is  now  received  in  the  church  of  Rome,  requires 
not  only  a  general  acknowledgement,  but  a  particular  enu- 
meration of  sins  and  of  follies,  and  is  appointed  to  be  made 
to  a  proper  priest  once  at  least  every  year,  by  all  persons  who 
are  arrived  at  years  of  discretion.  Before  this  law  of  Inno- 
cent, several  doctors  had  considered  confession  as  a  duty  of 
divine  authority,  but  it  was  not  publicly  received  as  a 
doctrine  of  the  church.  This  law  occasioned  the  introduc- 
tion of  a  number  of  new  injunctions  and  rites.* 

It  being  notorious  to  all  persons,  that  all  useful  church 
disciphne  was  lost  at  the  time  of  the  Reformation,  it  was 
thought  proper  at  the  Council  of  Trent  to  do,  or  at  least  to 
seem  to  do  something  in  the  business  ;  and  therefore  it  was 
ordered  that  scandalous  offenders  should  do  public  penance, 
according  to  the  ancient  canons,  and  that  the  bishops  should 
be  judges  of  it.j-  But  things  had  gone  on  so  long  in  a  dif- 
ferent train,  that  it  does  not  appear  that  any  thing  was  done 
in  consequence  of  it. 

Together  with  this  change  in  the  business  of  confession, 
other  causes  were  at  the  same  time  operating  to  the  corrup- 
tion of  church  discipline,  but  nothing  contributed  to  it  more 
than  the  stress  which  was  then  laid  upon  many  things  foreign 
to  real  virtue,  and  which  were  made  to  take  the  place  of  it. 
Of  this  nature  w^ere  the  customary  devotions  of  those  days, 
consisting  in  the  frequent  repetition  of  certain  prayers,  in 
bodily  austerities,  in  pilgrimages,  in  alms  to  the  poor,  and 
donations  to  the  church,  &c.  These  were  things  that  could 
be  ascertained,  so  that  it  might  be  known  with  certainty 
whether  the  party  had  conformed  with  the  penalty  or  not ; 
whereas  a  change  of  heart  and  of  character  was  a  thing  of  a 
less  obvious  nature,  and  indeed  not  much  attended  to  by  the 
generality  of  confessors  at  that  time. 

"  About  the  end  of  the  eighth  centurv  the  coinmidation  of 
penance  began,  and  instead  of  the  ancient  seventies,  vocal 
prayers  came  to  be  all  that  was  enjoined.  So  many  Paters 
(or  repetitions  of  the  Lord's  prayer)  stood  for  so  many  days 
of  fasting;  and  the  rich  were  admitted  to  buy  oflf  their 
penance  under  the  decenter  name  of  giving  alms.  The  get- 
ting many  masses  to  be  said,  was   thought  a  devotion  by 

♦  Mosheim,  III.  pp.  93,94.  (P.  i     Cent.  xiii.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  iii.  Sect.  ii. 
t  Sess.  xxiv.  Cap.  viii.    "  Publice  peccantes  publice  poeniteaiit,  ni  Episcopo 
aliter  videatur."     S".  Con.  Trid.  p.  2U. 


HISTORY  OF  CHURCH    DISCIPLINE.  ."319 

wliich  God  was  so  nuich  honourcLl,  tliat  the  commuting- 
penance  for  masses  was  much  practised.  Pilgrimages  and 
wars  came  on  afterwards."  * 

The  immediate  cause  of  this  commutation  of  penances 
was  the  impossibihty  of  performing  them,  according  to  the 
canons  of  the  church  ;  since,  in  many  cases,  it  required 
more  time  than  the  term  of  human  life.  For  instance,  a 
ten  years'  penance  being  enjoined  for  a  murder,  a  man  who 
had  committed  twenty  murders,  must  have  done  penance 
two  hundred  years;  and  therefore  some  other  kind  of  penance 
was  judged  absolutely  necessary;  and  the  person  who  was 
chiefly  instrumental  in  settling  the  commutations  of  penance 
was  one  Dominic,  who  communicated  them  to  the  celebrated 
Peter  Damiani,  whose  authority  in  the  age  in  which  he  lived 
was  very  great. 

By  them  it  w^as  determined  that  a  hundred  years  of  penance 
might  be  compensated  by  twenty  repetitions  of  the  psalter, 
accompanied  with  discipline,  that  is,  the  use  of  the  whip  on 
the  naked  skin.  The  computation  w^as  made  in  the  follow- 
ing manner.  Three  thousand  strokes  with  the  whip  were 
judged  to  be  equivalent  to  a  year  of  penance,  and  a  thousand 
blows  were  to  be  given  in  the  course  of  repeating  ten  psalms. 
Consequently,  all  the  psalms,  which  are  one  hundred  and 
fifty,  were  equivalent  to  five  years  of  penance,  and  therefore 
twenty  psalters  to  one  hundred  years.  It  is  amusing  enough 
at  this  day,  and  in  a  protestant  country,  to  read  that  Dominic 
easily  dispatched  this  task  in  six  days,  and  thus  discharged 
some  offenders  for  whom  he  had  undertaken  to  do  it.  Once, 
at  the  beginning  of  Lent,  he  desired  Damiani  to  impose  upon 
him  a  thousand  years  of  penance,  and  he  very  nearly  finished 
it  before  the  end  of  the  same  Lent.  Damiani  also  imposed 
upon  the  archbishop  of  Milan  a  penance  of  a  hundred  years, 
which  he  redeemed  by  a  sum  of  money  to  be  paid  annually. •!• 
Though  Peter  Damiani  was  the  great  advocate  for  this 
system  of  penance,  he  did  not  deny  the  novelty  of  it.:{: 

Fleury  acknowledges  that  when  the  penances  were  made 
impossible,  on  account  of  the  multitude  of  them,  they  were 
obliged  to  have  recourse  to  compensations  and  estimations, 
such  as  these  repetitions  of  psalms,  bowings,  scourgings, 
alms,  pilgrimages,  &c.  things,  as  he  observes,  that  might  be 
performed  without  conversion.  However,  in  a  national 
council   in  England,  held  in  7^7,   penances  performed  by 

*  Burnet,  p.  346..    (P.)     Art.  xxv.  Ed.  4,  p.  25-t. 

t  Fleury,  A.  D.  1059-    (P.)  J  Ibid.  XIII.  p.  100.     (P.) 


320  HISTORY  OF   CHURCH   DISCIPLINE. 

Others  were  forbidden.*  This  enormity  was  too  great  to  be 
admitted  even  in  these  ignorant  and  licentious  ages  ;  but  it 
must  have  gained  some  considerable  ground  before  it  was 
checked  by  public  authority. 

The  monks  becoming  confessors  contributed  greatly  to  the 
ruin  of  ecclesiastical  discipline.  The}^  knowing  nothing  oi 
the  ancient  canons,  introduced  a  certain  casuistry  by  which 
many  crimes  were  excused,  and  absolution  was  made  easy 
in  all  cases  ;  no  persons  being  ever  refused,  or  put  off,  after 
ever  so  many  relapses.  This  relaxed  casuistry  is  the  most 
prevalent  in  those  countries  in  which  the  inquisition  is  esta- 
blished ;  where,  if  a  person  does  not  make  his  confession, 
and  consequently  receive  his  absolution,  regularly,  he  is 
excommunicated,  and  at  length  declared  suspected  of  heresy, 
and  prosecuted  according  to  law.j- 

Another  thing  that  greatly  promoted  the  ruin  of  discipline, 
and  the  encouragement  of  licentiousness,  in  the  middle  ages, 
was  the  protection  given  to  criminals  who  took  refuge  in 
churches,  which  was  a  custom  borrowed  from  Paganism  ; 
this  right  of  asylum  being  transferred  from  the  heathen  tem- 
ples to  christian  churches  by  the  first  christian  emperors. 
In  the  barbarous  times  of  antiquity,  the  rights  of  hospitality 
were  held  so  sacred,  that  it  was  even  deemed  wrong  to  give 
up  to  public  justice  a  criminal  who  had  thrown  himself 
under  the  protection  of  any  person  who  was  capable  of 
screening  him.  This  privilege  was,  of  course,  extended  to 
the  temples,  which  were  considered  as  the  houses  of  their 
gods;  and  so  sacred  was  it  esteemed,  that,  in  cases  of  the 
greatest  criminality,  all  that  it  was  thought  lawful  to  do,  was 
to  take  off  the  roof  of  the  temple,  and  leave  the  wretch  who 
had  taken  refuge  in  it  to  perish  with  hunger  and  the  incle- 
mency of  the  weather. 

The  abuse  of  this  rite  of  asylum,  when  it  was  transferred 
to  christian  churches,  was  complained  of  by  Chrysostom, 
who  persuaded  the  emperor  to  revoke  the  privileges  which 
had  been  granted  by  his  predecessors.  But  they  were 
restored,   extended,   and   established   afterwards,    especially 

*  Fleury,  p.  43.  (P.)  This  council  was  held  at  CT/f,  in  Kent.  A  rich  lajman,  . 
who  had  been  excommunicated,  employed  several  persons  to  fast,  on  liis  account, 
^nd  these  were  so  numerous,  that  he  computed  their  austerities  as  equal  to  a  penance 
of  three  hundred  years,  endured  by  himself.  Against  this  penitence,  by  proxy,  a  canon 
was  issued,  "  lest  salvation  should  become  more  easy  to  the  rich  than  to  the  poor, 
contrary  to  tlie  express  declaration  of  Jesus  Christ."  At  the  same  council,  the 
priests  were  ordered  to  teach  the  people  the  Apostles'  Creed  and  the  Lord's  Prayer 
in  English.    See  Rapin,  Histoire,  L.  iii.    Conciles,  Ed.  1724,  4to.  I.  pp.  '266,  267. 

t  Fleury's  Eighth  Discourse,  p.  42.     (P.) 


HISTORY  OF  CHURCH    DISCIPTIXE.  31?] 

by  Boniface  V.  in  the  seventh  century,*  and  were  the 
subject  of  great  complaints  in  many  coun'iries,  especially  in 
England,  where  the  churches  and  church-yards  were  \i\  a 
manner  crowded  with  debtors  and  criminals,  of  ail  kinds. 
Complaint  being  made  on  this  subject  in  the  time  of  Henry 
V'll.,  the  Pope  ordered,  that  if  any  person  who  had  taken 
refuge  in  an  asylum  should  leave  it,  and  commit  a  new 
crime,  or  repeat  his  old  one,  he  shoidd  be  deprived  of  the 
privilege. f  It  must  be  observed,  that  crosses  on  the  i)ublic 
road,  and  various  other  things  and  places,  which  had  the 
reputation  of  hc\ng  sacred,  had,  by  degrees,  got  this  privilege 
of  asylum,  as  well  as  churches,  Jn  later  times,  any  criminal 
was  safe  from  the  pursuit  of  justice  within  the  precincts  of 
the  palace  of  any  cardinal ;  but  Urban  V.  reformed  that 
abuse. J 

Among  the  Jews  the  privilege  of  asylum  was  a  wise  insti- 
tution, and  came  in  aid  of  the  principle  of  justice  ;  as  it  only 
protected  a  person  who  pleaded  that  he  had  killed  another 
inadvertently,  so  that  the  relations  of  the  deceased  could  not 
hurt  him,  till  a  regular  inquiry  had  been  made  into  the  fact; 
but  he  was  delivered  up  to  justice  if  it  appeared  that  the 
murder  was  a  wilful  one.  Besides,  this  asylum  was  not 
granted  to  the  temple  in  particular,  but  to  certain  towns, 
most  conveniently  situated  for  that  purpose,  in  different 
parts  of  the  country. 

Another  source  of  great  corruption  in  discipline  was  the 
abuse  of  pilgrimages.  These  were  undertaken  at  first  out  of 
curiosity,  or  a  natural  reverence  for  any  place  that  had  been 
distinguished  by  important  transactions.  They  began  to  be 
common  about  the  fourth  century,  and  it  appears  by  the 
writers  of  that  time,  that  some  weak  people  then  valued 
themselves  on  having  seen  such  places,  and  imagined  that 
their  prayers  would  be  more  favourably  heard  there  than 
elsewhere.  But  in  later  times  much  more  stress  was  laid 
upon  these  things,  and  in  the  eighth  century  pilgrimages 
began  to  be  enjoined  by  way  of  penance,  and  at  length  the 
pilgrimage  was  often  a  warhke  expedition  into  the  holy  land, 
or  service  in  some  other  of  the  wars  in  which  the  ambition 
of  the  popes  was  interested.  By  this  means  all  the  use  even 
of  the  pilgrimage  itself,  as  a  penance,  was  v/holly  lost.  For, 
as  Mr.  Fleury  observes,  a  penitent  marching  alone  was  much 
more  free  from  temptation  to  sin  than  one  who  went  to  the 

•  Mosheim,  II.  p.  28.  (P.)     Cent  vii;  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  iv.  fiiu 
t  Histoire  des  Papes,  IV.  p.  273.     (P.) 
X  Memoires  pour  la  Vic  de  Petrarch,  III.  p.  676.     (P.) 
VOL,  V,  Y 


322  HISTORY  OF  CllURCH   DISCIPLINE. 

wars  in  company;  and  some  of  these  penitents  even  took 
dogs  and  horses  along  with  them,  that  they  might  take  the 
diversion  of  hunting  in  these  expeditions.'*'^ 

Solitary  pilgrimages  were,  however,  much  in  fashion,  and 
we  find  some  very  rigorous  ones  submitted  to  by  persons  of 
great  eminence  in  those  superstitious  times  ;  v^'hen  it  was  a 
maxim,  that  nothing  contributed  so  much  to  the  health  of 
the  soul  as  the  mortification  of  the  body.  In  997,  an  em- 
peror of  Germany,  by  the  advice  of  the  monks,  went  bare- 
foot to  mount  Garganus,  famous  for  the  supposed  presence 
of  the  archangel  Michael,  as  a  penance. 

Before  the  eighth  century  it  had  been  the  custom  to  con- 
fine penitents  near  the  churches,  where  they  had  no  op- 
portunity of  relapsing  into  their  offences  ;  but  in  this  century 
pilgrimages,  and  especially  distant  ones,  began  to  be  enjoined 
under  the  idea  that  penitents  should  lead  a  vagabond  life, 
like  Cain.  This,  however,  was  soon  abused  ;  as,  under  this 
pretence,  penitents  wandered  about  naked,  and  loaded  with 
irons,  and  therefore  it  was  forbidden  in  the  time  of  Charle- 
magne. But  still  it  was  the  custom  to  impose  upon  peni- 
tents pilgrimages  of  established  reputation,  especially  those  to 
the  holy  land,  to  which  there  was  a  constant  resort  from  all 
parts  of  Europe.     This  was  the  foundation  of  the  Crusades.-f 

Of  all  the  consequences  of  the  Crusades,  the  most  im- 
portant to  religion  was  the  discontinuance  which  they 
occasioned  of  the  ancient  canonical  penance.  For  a  man 
who  was  not  able  to  serve  in  the  Crusades  was  allowed  to 
have  the  same  benefit  by  contributing  to  the  expenses  of 
those  who  did.  Though  the  Crusades  are  over,  the  canonical 
penances  are  not  returned. J 

Fleury  also  observes,  that  plenart/  indulgences  had  their 
origin  with  the  Crusades;  for  till  then  it  had  never  been 
known  that,  by  any  single  work,  the  sinner  was  held  to  be 
discharged  from  all  the  temporal  punishments  that  might  be 
due  from  the  justice  of  God.  Commutations  of  penance  for 
pilgrimages  to  Rome,  Compostella,  or  Jerusalem,  had  been 
in  use  before,  and  to  them,  he  says,  the  Crusades  added  the 
dangers  of  war.§  Besides  the  wars  against  the  Mahometans, 
the  Crusaders,  in  the  course  of  their  expeditions,  had  fre- 
quent differences  with  the  Greek  emperor;  and  then  the 
preservation  of  the  Roman  empire  against  the  schismatical 
Greeks  was  held  to  be  as  meritorious  as  fighting  against  the 
Turks  themselves;  and  this  merit  was  soon  applied  to  all 

*  Fleury's  Sixth  Discourse,  p.  27.  (P.)  t  Ibid.  XIII.  p.  ««.  (P.)' 

*lbid.  p.  2a.     (P.)  §  Ibid.  Sixth  Discourse,  p.  6.     (P.) 


iiTSTOuv  OF  ciiriic  li   nicciiM.i  m:.  3?:3 

wars  which  the  popes  esteemed  to  he  of  importance  to  reh- 
g-ioii,  especially  tliose  against  heretics,  as  the  Albigenses  in 
France.* 

As  it  was  the  abuse  of  induli^ences  that  was  tlie  immediate 
cause  of  the  Keformation  by  Luther,  it  may  be  worth  wliile 
to  go  a  httle  back  to  consider  the  rise  and  progress  of  them. 
It  has  been  observed  in  a  former  period,  that  iill  that  was 
meant  by  indulgences  in  the  primitive  times,  was  the  rehixa- 
tion  of  penance  in  particular  cases,  especially  at  the  inter- 
cession of  the  confessors.  From  this  small  beginning,  the 
nature  of  it  being  at  length  quite  changed,  the  abuse  grew  to 
be  so  enormous,  that  it  could  no  longer  be  supported;  and 
the  tall  of  it  occasioned  the  downfal  of  a  great  part  of  the 
Papal  power. 

As  an  expression  of  penitence  and  humiliation,  a  variety 
of  penances,  and  some  of  them  of  a  painful  and  whimsical 
nature,  had  been  introduced  into  the  discipline  of  the  church. 
At  first  they  were  voluntary,  but  afterwards  they  were  im- 
posed, and  could  not  be  dispensed  with  but  by  the  leave  of 
the  bishop,  who  often  sold  dispensations  or  indulgences,  and 
thereby  raised  great  sums  of  money.  In  the  twelfth  century 
the  popes,  observing  what  a  source  of  gain  this  was  to  the 
bishops,  limited  their  power,  and  by  degrees  drew  the  whole 
business  of  indulgences  to  Rome.  And  after  remitting  the 
temporal  pains  and  penalties  to  which  sinners  had  been  sub- 
jected, they  went  at  length  so  far  as  to  pretend  to  abolish  the 
punishment  due  to  wickedness  in  a  future  state. 

To  complete  this  business,  a  hook  of  rates  was  published, 
in  which  the  sums  that  were  to  be  paid  into  the  apostolical 
chamber  for  absolution  for  particular  crimes  were  precisely 
stated.  This  practice  entirely  set  aside  the  use  of  the  books 
called  Penitentials,  in  which  the  penances  annexed  to  each 
crime  were  registered. 

So  long  as  nothing  was  pretended  to  be  remitted  but  the 
temporal  penances  which  it  had  been  usual  to  enjoin  for 
certain  offences,  no  great  alarm  was  given,  and  no  particular 
reason  was  thought  necessary  for  the  change  ;  the  payment 
of  a  sum  of  money  being  a  temporal  evil^  as  well  as  bearing  a 
number  of  lashes,  or  walking  bare-foot,  &c. ;  and  this  com- 
mutation was  admitted  with  more  ease,  as  it  was  pretended, 
that  all  the  treasure  raised  by  this  means  was  applied  to 
sacred  uses,  and  the  benefit  of  the  church.  But  when  the 
popes  pretended  to  remit  the  future   punishment   of  sin, 

•   I'lcury's  Sixth  Discourse,  p,  16.     {P.) 
Y  2 


324  HISTORY  OF  CHURCH   DISCIPLINE. 

and  to  absolve  from  the  guilt  of  it,  some  other  foundation 
was  necessary ;  and  this  they  pretended  to  find  in  the  vast 
stock  of  merit  which  had  accrued  to  the  church  from  the 
good  works  of  saints  and  m.artyrs,  besides  what  were  neces- 
sary  to  insure  their  own  salvation.  These  pretended  merits 
still  belonged  to  the  church,  and  formed  a  treasure,  which 
the  popes  had  the  power  of  dispensing.  This  doctrine  was 
greatly  improved  and  reduced  into  a  system  by  Thomas 
Aquinas.  And  afterwards,  to  the  merits  of  the  saints  and 
martyrs  were  added,  those  of  Christ,  as  increasing  the  trea- 
sure of  the  church. 

Among  other  things  advanced  by  cardinal  Cajetan  in 
support  of  the  doctrine  of  indulgences,  in  his  controversy 
with  Luther  on  the  subject,  he  said,  that  "  one  drop  of 
Christ's  blood  being  sufficient  to  redeem  the  whole  human 
race,  the  remaining  quantity  that  was  shed  in  the  garden, 
and  upon  the  cross,  was  left  as  a  legacy  to  the  church,  to  be 
a  treasure,  from  whence  indulgences  were  to  be  drawn,  and 
administered  by  the  Roman  pontiffs.-* 

Though  in  this  something  may  be  allowed  to  the  heat  of 
controversy,  the  doctrine  itself  had  a  sanction  of  a  much 
higher  authority.  For,  Leo  X.  in  1518,  decreed,  that  the 
popes  had  the  power  of  remitting  both  the  crime  and  the 
punishment  of  sin,  the  crime  by  the  sacrament  of  penance, 
and  the  temporal  punishment  by  indulgences,  the  benefit  of 
which  extended  to  the  dead  as  well  as  to  the  living ;  and 
that  these  indulgences  are  drawn  from  the  superabundance 
of  the  merits  of  Jesus  Christ  and  the  saints,  of  which  trea- 
sure the  Pope  is  the  dispenser. f 

This  Leo  X.,  whose  extravagance  and  expenses  had  no 
bounds,  had  recourse  to  these  indulgences,  among  other 
methods  of  recruiting  his  exhausted  finances  ;  and  in  the 
publication  of  them  he  promised  the  forgiveness  of  all  sins, 
past,  present,  or  to  come  ;  and  however  enormous  was  their 
nature.  These  he  sold  by  wholesale  to  those  who  endea- 
voured to  make  the  most  of  them;  so  that  passing,  like 
other  commodities,  from  one  hand  to  another,  they  were 
even  hawked  about  in  the  streets  by  the  common  pedlars, 
who  used  the  same  artifices  to  raise  the  price  of  these  com- 
modities, as  of  any  other  in  which  they  dealt. 

One  Tetzel,  a  Dominican  friar,  particularly  distinguished 
himself  in  pushing  the  sale  of  these  indulgences.  Among 
other  things,  in  the  sermons  and  speeches  which  he  made  on 

•  Mosheim,  III.  p.  SI  I.     (P.)    Cent.  xvi.  Sect.  i.  Ch.  ii.  ix. 
Hiatoire  des  Papes,  IV,  p.  407.    (P.) 


HISTORY   OF  CHURCH    DISCIPLINK.  325 

this  occasion,  he  used  to  say,  that,  if  a  man  had  even  lain 
with  the  mother  of  God,  he  was  able,  \\'ith  the  Pope's  power, 
to  pardon  the  crime  ;  and  he  boasted  "  tliat  he  had  saved 
more  souls  from  hell  by  these  indulgences,  than  St,  Peter 
had  converted  to  Christianity  by  his  preaching."^  There 
would  be  no  end  of  reciting  the  blasphemous  pretensions  of 
the  venders  of  these  indulgences,  with  respect  to  the  enor- 
mity of  crimes,  the  number  of  persons  benefited  by  them,  or 
the  time  to  which  they  extended.  Bishop  Burnet  had  seen 
an  indulgence  which  extended  "  to  ten  hundred  thousand 
years."  Sometimes  indulgences  were  "  affixed  to  particular 
churches  and  altars,  to  particular  times  or  days,  chiefly  to 
the  year  of  jubilee.  They  are  also  affixed  to  such  things  as 
may  be  carried  about,**  with  a  person,  to  '■'•  Agnus  Dei' s,  to 
medals,  to  rosaries  and  scapularies.  They  are  also  affixed 
to  some  prayers,  the  devout  saying  of  them  being  a  means 
to  procure  great  indulgences.  The  granting  these  is  left  to 
the  Pope's  discretion."  f 

Such  scandalous  excesses  as  these  excited  the  indignation 
of  Luther,  who  first  preached  against  the  abuse  of  indul- 
gences only,  then,  in  consequence  of  meeting  with  opposi- 
tion, against  indulgences  themselves,  and  at  length  against 
the  papal  power  which  granted  them. 

Before  this  time  the  Council  of  Constance  had,  in  some 
measure,  restrained  the  abuse  of  indulgences,  and  particu- 
larly had  made  void  all  those  that  had  been  granted  during 
the  schism. I  But  it  appears,  that,  notwithstanding  these 
restraints,  the  abuses  were  greater  than  ever,  in  the  time  of 
Leo  X. 

The  Council  of  Trent  allowed  of  indulgences  in  general 
terms,  but  forbade  the  selling  of  them,  and  referred  the  whole 
to  the  discretion  of  the  Pope;  so  that,  upon  the  whole,  the 
abuse  was  established  by  this  council. §  But  though  the 
Reformation  may  not  have  produced  any  formal  decisions  in 
the  church  of  Rome  against  the  abuse  of  indulgences,  so  as 
to  affect  the  doctrine  of  them,  the  practice  has  been  much 
moderated  ;  and  at  present  it  does  not  appear  that  much 
more  stress  is  laid  upon  such  things  by  Catholics  in  general, 
than  by  Protestants  themselves. 

Some  remains  of  the  doctrine  of  indulgences  are  retained 
in  the  church  of  England,  in  which  the  bishops  have  a  power 

•  Mosheim,  III.  p.  304.     (P.)     Cent.  xvi.  Sect.  i.  C\\.  ii.  iii. 
t  Burnet  on  the  Articles,  p.  282.    (P.)     Art.  xxii.  Ed.  4,  p.  207. 
X  L'Enfant,  I.  p.  438.    (P.)     L.  vi.  Sect  xxiii.  Histoire,  p.  bGe>. 
§  See  Sew.  xxr.    •*  Decretum  de  Indulgentiis."    S.  Con.  Trid.  p.  «18. 


326  HISTORY  or   CHURCH   DISCIPLINE. 

of  dispensing  with  the  marriage  of  persons  more  near  a-kin 
than  the  law  allows ;  which  is,  in  fact,  to  excuse  what  they 
themselves  call  the  crime  of  incest.  But  there  is  something 
much  more  unjustifiable  in  the  power  o^  absolution,  or  an 
authoritative  declaration  of  the  forgiveness  of  sin,  which  is 
also  retained  from  the  church  of  Rome.  For  after  confession,  ■ 
the  priest  is  directed  to  absolve  a  sick  person  in  this  form  of 
words  :  "  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  has  left  power  to  his 
church  to  absolve  all  sinners  who  truly  repent  and  believe  in 
him,  of  his  great  mercy  forgive  thee  thine  ofl^ences;  and  by 
his  authority  committed  to  me,  1  absolve  thee  from  all  thy 
sin,  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost."  This  is  exactly  a  popish  absolution,  and  is 
therefore  liable  to  all  the  objections  to  which  popish  absolu- 
tions and  indulgences  are  liable.*  One  that  is  not  in  priests' 
orders  cannot  pronounce  this  absolution. 

Whatever  was  meant  by  the  power  of  absolution  commu- 
nicated by  Christ  to  the  apostles,  there  is  nothing  said  in 
the  New  Testament  of  its  being  committed  to  the  ordinary 
ministers  of  the  church,  so  that  it  must  have  been  confined 
to  the  apostles  only  ;  and  we  have  no  example  even  of  their 
exercising  any  such  authority  as  the  church  of  Rome,  or  that 
of  England  pretends  to.  It  is  in  vain  to  apologize  for  this 
form  of  absolution,  by  saying  that  the  pardon  of  sin  is  only 
promised  to  the  penitent,  for  then  what  occasion  was  there 
for  mentioning  any  power  committed  to  the  clergyman  with 
respect  to  the  absolution,  unless  he  be  at  least  supposed  to 
know  the  heart,  and  thereby  be  enabled  to  judge  with  cer- 
tainty whether  any  person  he  a  true  penitent,  and  a  proper 
object  of  mercy,  or  not  ?  If  the  form  has  any  meaning  at  all, 
it  must  imply  that  it  is  in  the  power  of  the  priest  to  absolve, 
or  not  to  absolve,  as  he  shall  think  proper,  which  is  certainly 
great  presumption  and  impiety. 

In  many  other  respects  the  discipline  of  the  church  of 
England  is  very  imperfect,  and  the  wisest  members  of  her 
communion,  as  well  as  those  among  the  Papists,  lament  the 
evil  without  seeing  any  prospect  of  a  remedy.  The  business 
of  auricular  confession,  and  also  that  of  private  penance,  is 
entirely  abolished  ;  but  the  bishops'  courts  remain,  which  by 
mixing  things  of  a  civil  with  those  of  an  ecclesiastical  nature, 
are  of  great  disservice  to  both.  And  whereas,  by  the  rules  of 
these  courts,  public  penances  are  enjoined  for  certain  offences, 
persons  are  allowed  to  commute  them  for  sums  of  money. 

*  See  Free  aAd  Gand.  Disquis.  pp.  124^  320,  330. 


HISTORY    OF  CIIUKCII    DISCIPLINE.  39/ 


SECTION  III. 

Of  the  Mil  hod  of  enforcing  Church  Censures,  or  the  History 
of  Persecution,  till  the  Time  of  Austin. 

IIavin(;  traced  the  general  course  of" church  discipline,  in 
all  its  changes.  tVoni  the  time  of  the  apostles,  to  the  Reforma- 
tion, il  may  not  be  amiss  to  go  over  the  same  ground  once 
more,  with  a  view  to  consider  the  methods  that  have  been 
trom  time  to  time  taken,  in  order  to  enforce  the  censures  of 
the  church  ;  and  in  this  we  shall  have  occasion  to  lament, 
among  other  things,  the  most  horrid  abuse  of  both  eccle- 
siastical and  civil  power;  while  men  were  continually 
attempting  to  do  by  force  what  it  is  not  in  the  power  of 
force  to  do,  viz.  to  guide  the  conscience,  or  even  to  compel 
an  outward  conformity,  in  large  bodies  of  people,  to  the 
same  religious  profession.  Of  this  interference  of  the  civil 
power  in  tiie  business  of  religion,  we  shall  see  the  first  steps 
in  this  period,  in  which  a  great  deviation  was  made  from  the 
admirable  simplicity  of  the  rules  laid  down  by  our  Saviour. 

In  order  to  prevent  the  progress  of  vice,  and  in  any  case 
to  preserve  the  reputation  of  christian  societies,  our  Lord 
laid  down  a  most  excellent  rule,  as  a  general  instruction  for 
the  conduct  of  his  disciples;  namely,  first  to  admonish  an 
offending  brother  in  the  most  private  and  prudent  manner. 
If  that  was  not  effectual,  one  or  two  more  were  to  give  their 
sanciion  to  the  reproof;  if  that  failed,  the  case  was  to  come 
under  the  cognizance  of  the  whole  congregation  ;  and  if  the 
offender  proved  obstinate  and  refractory  in  this  last  instance, 
he  was  to  be  expelled  from  the  society,  in  consequence  of 
which  the  church  was  discharged  from  all  farther  attention 
to  his  conduct,  and  he  was  considered  in  the  same  light  as  if 
he  had  never  belonged  to  it.  Such,  and  so  admirably  simple, 
and  well  adapted  to  its  end,  was  the  system  of  discipline  in 
the  constitution  of  the  christian  church  ;  and  for  some  time 
it  was  strictly  adhered  to,  and  the  eflfects  of  it  were  great 
and  happy.  By  this  means  Christians  effectually  icatched 
over  ane  another  in  lore,  exhorting  one  another  dur/t/,  and 
not  siiff'erijig  sin  in  each  other.  Thus  also,  by  forming  regular 
bodies,  they  becam*-  more  firmly  united  and  attached  to  one 
another,  and  their  zeal  for  the  common  cause  was  greatly 
increased. 

Besides  admonition  and  reproof,  private  and  public,  the 
primitive  Christians   had  no   method   of  enforcing  the  o])- 


328  HISTORY  OF  CHURCH   DISCIPLINE. 

servance  of  christian  duties.  If  this  failed,  nothing  remained 
but  excommunication^  or  cutting  off  the  vicious  or  refractory 
member  from  any  visible  relation  to  them,  or  connexion  with 
them.  And,  indeed,  considering  the  valuable  advantages 
resulting  to  every  particular  member  from  the  rest  of  the 
body,  a  formal  exclusion,  and,  as  it  necessarily  must  have 
been,  an  ignominious  exclusion,  from  a  christian  society, 
could  not  but  have  been  regarded,  even  without  any  super- 
stition,  as  a  very  awful  thing. 

It  was  generally  concluded,  that  the  censures  of  the  church, 
passed  in  a  solemn  and  unanimous  manner,  would  be  ratified 
at  the  triburial  of  Christ  at  the  last  day  ;  so  that  a  person 
cut  off  from  the  communion  of  the  church  here,  would  be 
excluded  from  heaven  hereafter.  And,  indeed,  if  a  man's 
conduct  were  such  as  exposed  him  to  this  censure  of  his 
fellow-christians,  of  whose  kindness  and  affection  he  had 
abundant  experience,  and  when  they  were  under  no  bias  or 
prejudice  in  giving  their  judgment,  it  is  probable  that  it 
would  be  just,  and  therefore  be  ratified  in  heaven ;  and  we  may 
presume  that,  in  the  primitive  times,  this  was  generally  the 
case ;  though  it  must  be  acknowledged  that  even  a  whole 
church  may  judge  uncharitably  and  rashly,  and  in  this  case 
their  censures  certainly  will  not  be  ratified  at  the  righteous 
tribunal  of  God. 

Excommunications  became  much  more  dreadful,  when,  in 
the  progress  of  superstition,  the  participation  of  religious 
rites,  and  especially  that  of  the  Lord's  supper,  came  to  be 
considered  as  a  necessary  qualification  for  the  favour  of  God 
and  the  happiness  of  heaven,  an  opinion  which  prevailed  in 
very  early  times. 

Whatever  was  the  cause^  the  effect  of  church  censures  in 
those  times  was  very  extraordinary.  It  was  customary,  as 
we  have  seen,  for  persons  under  sentence  of  excommunica- 
tion to  attend  at  the  doors  of  the  church  with  all  the  marks 
of  the  deepest  dejection  and  contrition,  intreating  the  minis- 
ters and  people,  with  tears  in  their  eyes ;  and  earnestly 
begging  their  prayers,  and  restoration  to  the  peace  of  the 
church. 

Persons  the  most  distinguished  for  their  w^ealth  and  power 
were  indiscriminately  subject  to  these  church  censures,  and 
had  no  other  method  of  being  restored  to  communion,  but 
by  the  same  humiliation  and  contrition  that  was  expected 
from  the  meanest  person  in  the  society.  When  Philip,  the 
governor  of  Egypt,  would  have  entered  a  christian  church, 
after  the  commission  of  some  crime,  the  bishop  forbade  him 


HISTORY  OF  CHURCH    DISCIPLINE.  399 

till  he  first  made  contessioii  of  liis  sin,  and  passed  througii 
the  order  of  penitents,  a  sentence  which,  we  arc  told,  he 
willingly  submitted  lo.  Even  the  emperor  Theodosi us  the 
Great  was  excommunicated  by  Ambrose,  the  bishop  of  Milan, 
for  a  barbarous  slaughter  of  the  Thessalonians  ;  and  that  great 
prince  submitted  to  a  penance  of  eight  months,  and  was  not 
received  into  the  church  till  alter  the  most  humble  confes- 
sion of  his  offence,  and  giving  the  most  undeniable  proof  of 
his  sincerity. 

I  must  add,  that  whenever  a  person  was  excommunicated 
in  any  particular  church,  it  was  generally  deemed  wrong  to 
admit  him  to  communion  in  any  other.  Sometimes,  how- 
ever, neighbouring  churches,  being  well  acquainted  with  the 
cause  of  excommunication,  and  not  approving  of  it,  received 
into  their  communion  the  persons  so  stigmatized.  And 
when  the  regular  subordination  of  one  church  to  another 
was  established,  it  was  customary  for  the  excommunicated 
person  to  appeal  from  the  sentence  of  his  particular  church 
to  a  higher  tribunal.  Many  of  these  appeals  were  made  to 
the  church  of  Rome,  from  other  churches  not  regularly- 
subordinate  to  it,  which  laid  the  first  foundation  of  the 
exorbitant  power  of  that  church. 

When  Christians  began  to  debate  about  opinions^  and  to 
divide  and  subdivide  themselves  on  that  account,  it  is  to  be 
lamented,  but  not  to  be  wondered  at,  that  they  laid  an 
undue  stress  on  what  they  deemed  to  be  the  right  faith,  and 
that  they  should  apply  church  censures  in  order  to  prevent 
the  spreading  of  heretical  opinions;  without  waiting  till  they 
could  judge  by  observation  what  effect  such  opinions  had  on 
the  temper  and  general  conduct  of  men,  and  indeed  without 
considering  that  influence  at  all.  The  first  remarkable  abuse 
of  the  power  of  excommunication  in  this  way  is  by  no  means 
such  as  recommends  it,  being  such  as  would  now  be  deemed 
the  most  frivolous  and  unjustifiable  that  can  well  be  imagined. 
For,  on  the  account  of  nothing  more  than  a  difJerence  of 
opinion  and  practice  with  respect  to  the  time  of  celebrating 
Easter,  Victor,  bishop  of  Rome,  excommunicated  at  once. 
all  the  eastern  churches.  But  this  was  reckoned  a  most 
daring  piece  of  insolence  and  arrogance,  for  which  he  was 
severely  reproved  by  other  bishops  ;  nor,  indeed,  whs  any 
regard  paid  to  the  censure.  It  must  be  oljserved  that,  in 
consequence  of  appeals  being  made  from  interior  churches 
to  the  patriarchal  ones,  these  took  upon  them  to  extend  their 
excommunications  beyond  the  limits  of  their  acknowledged 
jurisdiction,  viz,  to  all  who   held  any  obnoxious  opinion 


330  HISTORY   OF   CHURCH   DISCIPLINE. 

or  practice.  Persons  thus  censured  often  forncied  separate 
churches,  and  in  return  excommunicated  those  who  had 
excommunicated  them. 

In  this  state  of  mutual  hostility  thiii2:s  often  continued  a 
long  time,  till  the  influence  of  an  emperor,  or  some  otherforeign 
circumstance,  determined  the  dispute  in  favour  of  one  of 
them,  which  was  thenceforth  deemed  the  orthodox  side  of 
the  question,  whilst  the  other  was  condemned  as  heretical. 
It  is  well  known  that  the  Arians  and  Athanasians  were  in 
this  manner  reputed  orthodox  by  turns,  as  both  had  the 
sanction  of  councils  and  emperors  in  their  favour;  till,  incon- 
sequence of  mere  faction,  and  the  authority  of  the  emperors, 
the  party  of  Athanasius  prevailed  at  last. 

The  first  instance  that  we  meet  with  of  the  use  of  actual 
force,  or  rather  of  a  desire  to  make  use  of  it,  by  a  christian 
church,  was  in  the  proceedings  against  Paul,  bishop  of 
Samosata ;  when,  at  the  request  of  a  christian  synod,  the 
heathen  emperor  Aurelian  expelled  him  from  the  episcopal 
house.*  Indeed,  having  been  deposed  from  his  office,  if 
that  had  been  done  by  competent  authority,  namely,  that  of 
his  own  diocese,  he  could  not  be  said  to  have  any  right  to 
the  emoluments  of  it,  and  therefore  his  keeping  possession 
of  the  episcopal  house  was  an  act  of  violence  on  his  side. 

But  as  soon  as  the  empire  became  what  is  called  Christian, 
we  have  examples  enow  of  the  interference  of  civil  power  in 
matters  of  religion  ;  and  we  soon  find  instances  of  the  abuse 
of  excommunication,  and  the  addition  of  civil  incapacities 
annexed  to  that  ecclesiastical  censure.  In  a  council  held  at 
Ptolemais,  in  Cyrene,  Andronicus  the  prefect  was  excom- 
municated, and  it  was  expressed  in  the  sentence,  that  no 
temple  of  God  should  be  open  unto  him,  that  no  one  should 
salute  him  during  his  life,  and  that  he  should  not  be  buried 
after  his  death.f 

The  emperor  Constantine,  besides  banishing  Arius  him- 
selt,  ordering  his  writings  to  be  burnt,  and  forbidding  any 
persons  to  conceal  him,  under  pain  of  death,  deprived  many 
of  those  who  were  declared  heretics  of  the  privileges  which 
he  had  granted  to  Christians  in  general,  and  besides  imposing 
fines  upon  them,  forbade  their  assemblies,  and  demolished 
their  places  of  worship.  On  the  other  hand,  the  emperor 
Constantius  banished  the  orthodox  bishops  because  they 
would  not  condemn  Athanasius.  Nestorius  was  banished 
by  Theodosius,  in  whose  reign  persecution  for  the  sake  of 

*  FlieuryV  Seventh  Discourse,  p.  7.    (P.)  f  Sueur,  A.  D.  411.    (P.) 


HISTORY   OF   CHURCH    DISCIPLINE.  331 

religion  made  greater  advances  than  in  any  other  within  this 
period,  lie  certainly  imagined  he  miuU-  a  right  use  of  the 
power  with  which  (Jod  had  entrusted  hini,  hy  employing  it 
in  establishing  what  he  thought  to  be  the  orthodox  faith, 
without  ever  reflecting-  on  the  impropriety  of  such  a  means 
with  rt'spect  to  such  an  end. 

Immediately  upon  his  baptism,  which,  according  to  the 
superstitious  notions  which  influenced  many  persons  of  that 
age,  he  had  deferred  till  his  life  was  in  danger  by  sickness, 
he  published  a  decree  commanding  that,  "  in  order  that 
all  his  subjects  should  make  profession  of  the  same  religion 
which  the  divine  apostle  Peter  taught  the  Romans,  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity  should  be  embraced  by  those  who  would 
be  called  cuf/iolics)  that  all  others,"  whom  he  says  he  judged 
to  be  mac/,  "  should  bear  the  infamous  name  oi  heretics,  and 
that  their  assemblies  should  not  be  called  churches,  reserving 
their  farther  punishment  in  the  first  place  to  the  vengeance 
of  heaven,  and  afterwards  to  the  movements  with  which 
God  should  inspire  him."*  In  consequence,  I  suppose,  of 
one  of  these  movements,  three  years  after  this  edict,  he  pub- 
lished another,  forbidding  the  Arians  to  bold  their  assennblies 
in  cities.  He,  however,  was  not  the  person  who  was  inspired 
with  the  glorious  thought  of  sentencing  all  heretics  to  be 
burned  aUve.  This  was  reserved  for  a  more  advanced  state 
of  the  christian  church. 

It  was  of  a  son  of  Theodosius,  viz.  the  eastern  emperor 
Honorius,  that  the  authority  of  persecution  to  death  was 
obtained,  by  four  bishops  sent  from  Carthage  for  that  pur- 
pose in  410  ;  and  the  edict  extended  to  all  who  differed  ever 
so  little  from  the  catholic  faith.-j-  But  it  does  not  appear 
that  this  sanguinary  decree  was  carried  into  execution. 

Nothwithstanding  all  the  hardships  which  the  Christians 
had  lately  suffered  from  the  Pagans,  and  the  just  remon- 
strances they  had  made  on  the  subject,  no  sooner  were  they 
in  possession  of  the  same  power,  than  they  were  too  reach' 
to  make  a  similar  use  of  it;  and  instead  of  shewing  the 
wdrld  the  contrast  of  a  truly  christian  spirit,  they  wei-e  f-nger 
to  retaliate  upon  their  enemies,  whom  they  had  now  at  their 
mercy.  But' at  first  the  number  of  the  Pagans  was  too  great 
to  make  very  violent  proceedings  at  tdl  prudent.  As  tlif^ 
Christians  increased  in  number,  the  Pagans  were  soon  lard 
under  apfat  restrictions. 

Ju  the  ytar  346,  it  was  decreed  tKat  all  the  heathen  tem- 

•   Sueur,  A.D.  378.    (P.)  t   Tnslyir  on  the  Grand  Aposl'dcy,  p   ISl.     (P.) 


332  HISTORY  OF  CHURCH    DISCIPLINE. 

pies  in  cities  should  be  shut  up,  but  that  those  in  the  villages 
should  not  be  meddled  with  ;  the  Christians  having  increased 
more  in  the  cities,  and  superstition,  as  might  be  expected, 
retaining  its  hold  of  the  minds  of  men  much  longer  in  the 
villages,  where  they  had  less  intercourse  with  strangers,  and 
consequently  less  opportunity  of  receiving  information.  It 
was  in  this  state  of  things  that  the  Heathens  began  to  be 
distinguished  by  the  name  of  Pagans  [Pagani),  that  is,  inha- 
bitants of  villages.  In  the  year  382,  these  Pagans  were  laid 
under  farther  restrictions :  for  though  they  were  allowed  to 
frequent  their  temples  as  usual,  they  were  not  suffered  to 
make  any  sacrifices  there.  At  the  same  time,  however,  the 
clandestine  assemblies  of  the  Manicheans  were  absolutely 
forbidden. 

Even  the  more  learned  Christians,  who  might  have  been 
expected,  by  reflections  upon  the  past,  to  have  seen  things 
in  a  juster  light,  and  to  have  entertained  more  liberal  senti- 
ments, soon  became  the  advocates  for  the  interference  of 
civil  power  in  matters  of  religion.  Austin,  the  oracle  of  the 
church  in  his  own  time,  and  still  more  so  after  his  death, 
confessed  that  he  had  formerly  been  of  opinion  that  heretics 
should  not  be  harassed  by  catholics,  but  rather  allured  by 
all  kinds  of  gentle  methods ;  yet  afterwards  he  changed  his 
opinion,  having  learned  by  experience,  that  the  laws  made 
by  the  emperors  against  heretics  had  proved  the  happy  occa- 
sion of  their  conversion.*  His  whole  Epistle  to  Vincentius, 
where  we  learn  this,  is  well  worth  reading,  as  being  perhaps 
the  first  piece  in  which  the  use  of  force  in  matters  of  religion 
is  pleaded  for.     He  certainly  meant  well  by  it. 

As  one  great  source  of  information  is  by  means  of  books, 
all  those  whose  wish  it  has  been  to  prevent  the  spreading  of 
any  particular  opinion,  have  generally  done  every  thing  in 
their  power  to  suppress  the  books  that  recommend  it.  The 
Heathens  made  frequent  attempts  to  compel  the  Christians 
to  give  up  their  sacred  books  ;  but  the  first  example  of  any 
thing  of  this  kind  by  Christians  (except  what  is  mentioned 
above  concerning  the  writings  of  Arius)  was  exhibited  by 
Theodosius,  who  in  448  made  a  law,  by  which  it  was  ordered, 
that  all  the  books,  the  doctrine  of  which  was  not  conformable 
to  the  Councils  of  Nice  and  Ephesus,  and  also  to  the  deci- 
sions of  Cyril,  should  be  destroyed,  and  the  concealers  of 
them  put  to  death.  Afterwards  pope  Gelasius,  in  a  council 
held  at  Rome  in  494,  specified  the  books  which  the  church 

*  Opera,  II.  p.  174.    (P.) 


HISTORY  OF  CHURCH   DISCIPLINE.  333 

of  Rome  rejected,  but  without  laying  any  penalty  on  those 
who  should  read  them.* 

So  far  those  who  were  in  possession  of  power,  and  who 
were  instigated  by  bigotry,  went  in  these  early  times.  We 
shall  see  a  much  greater  extension  of  this,  as  well  as  of 
every  other  method  of  preventing  and  extirpating  lieresv, 
in  the  following  period. 


SECTION  IV. 

0/  the  Methods  of  enforcing  Ecclesiastical  C ensures ^  from  the 
Time  of  Austin  to  the  Reformation  and  afterwards^  hy 
the  Catholics. 

We  are  now  launching  into  what  has  been  properly  enough 
called  the  dark  age  of  this  western  part  of  the  world  ;  and 
we  shall  not  be  surprised  to  find  bigotry  B.nd  violence  keep 
pace  with  ignorance,  and  that  they  should  not  be  lessened 
but  by  the  increase  of  knowledge,  and  but  very  slowly  even 
then. 

As,  upon  the  conversion  of  the  barbarous  nations  to 
Christianity,  the  bishops  became  some  of  the  most  consi- 
derable land-owners,  in  consequence  of  which  they  had  a 
right  to  sit  in  their  parliaments,  to  hold  courts,  and  even  to 
serve  in  the  wars,  there  necessarily  arose  an  unnatural  mix- 
ture of  civil  and  ecclesiastical  power,  the  same  person  serving 
in  both  capacities.  Since  all  public  concerns,  of  a  spiritual 
as  well  as  of  a  temporal  nature,  were  frequently  discussed  in 
these  parliaments,  or  assemblies  of  the  states,  regulations  of 
all  kinds,  ecclesiastical  as  well  as  others,  were  enforced  by 
civil  penalties. 

By  this  means  compulsory  penances  were  introduced  in  the 
seventh  century,  when  we  find  proofs  of  their  being  in  Spain. 
There  the  bishops,  finding  offenders  refusing  to  submit  to 
penance,  complained  to  their  parliament,  and  requested  their 
princes  to  interpose  their  temporal  power.  The  punishments 
that  were  enjoined  in  this  manner,  were  prohibitions  to  eat 
flesh,  to  wear  linen,  to  mount  ?.  horse,  fecf  It  would  have 
been  happy  if  civil  power  had  proceeded  no  farther  than  this 
in  matters  of  religion,  and  had  extended  to  no  other  cases. 

In  this  period  the  sentence  of  excommunication  became 
a  much  more  dreadful  thing  than  it  had  been  before,  and  a 
proportionably  greater  solemnity  was  added  to  the  forms  of  it. 

•  Fleury'a  Seventh  Discourse,  p.  «4.    (P.)  t  Ibid.  XIII.  p.  44.    (PO 


334;  HISTORY  OF  CHURCH   DISCIPLIKE. 

The  most  solemn  part  of  the  new  ceremonial  was  the  extinc- 
tion of  lamps  or  candies,  by  throwing  them  on  the  ground, 
with  a  solemn  imprecation,  that  the  person  against  whom 
the  excommunication  was  pronounced,  might  in  like  manner 
be  extinguished  or  destroyed  by  the  judgment  of  God.  And 
because  the  people  were  summoned  to  attend  this  ceremony 
by  the  sound  of  a  bell,  and  the  curses  accompanying  the 
excommunication  were  recited  out  of  a  book,  while  the  per- 
son who  pronounced  them  stood  on  some  balcony  or  stage, 
from  which  he  would  throw  down  his  lights,  we  have  the 
phrase  of  cursing  by  bell^  book  and  candle  *  The  first  ex- 
ample of  excommunication  by  throwing  down  lighted  lamps 
was  at  Rheims,  about  the  year  900,  when  the  bishops  ex- 
communicated some  murderers  in  this  manner. "f 

When  heresies  sprung  upin  thechurch,andtherewere  many 
other  offenders  who  were  out  of  the  reach  of  church  power, 
it  came  to  be  the  custom  to  pronounce  these  curses  against 
them  on  certain  days  of  the  year,  and  we  find  Thursday 
before  Easter  made  choice  of  for  this  purpose.  Thus  we 
read  that  John  XXII.,  according  to  the  custom  of  the  church 
of  Rome,  on  the  Thursday  before  Easter,  published  a  bull, 
by  which  he  excommunicated  the  poor  of  Lyons  (or  the 
Albigenses),  the  Arnoldists  and  all  heretics  in  general,  the 
Corsairs,  the  falsifiers  of  apostolical  bulls,  and  all  who 
usurped  the  city  of  Rome  or  the  patrimony  of  St.  Peter.  J 

At  length,  sentences  of  general  excommunication  be- 
coming frequent,  (every  decretal,  though  the  subject  of  it 
was  ever  so  trifling,  denouncing  this  sentence  against  ail 
who  should  disobey  it,)  and  consequently  whole  classes  of 
men,  and  sometimes  whole  communities,  falhng  under  those 
censures,  they  came  to  be  despised  and  lost  their  effect. § 

Leonardo  Aretino,  who  wrote  before  the  Reformation, 
observes,  in  his  History  of  Florence,  that  when  the  citizens 
had  been  used  to  the  papal  censures,  they  did  not  much 
regard  the  interdicts  they  were  laid  under ;  especially  as  they 
observed  that  they  were  not  decreed  for  any  good  reasou, 
but  depended  on  the  will  of  those  who  had  most  influence 
with  the  popes.  And  in  the  year  1377,  when  the  city  was 
laid  under  an  interdict,  public  orders  were  given  to  the 
clergy  to  pay  no  regard  to  it.  !| 

When  the  passions  of  ecclesiastics  were  much  interested, 
they  were  not  content  with  mere  church  censures  ;  but, 

*  See  these  forms.  Hist,  of  Popery,  1735,  II.  pp.  388,  389- 

t  Jortin's  Remarks,  IV.  p.  518.    (P.)  X  Hist,  des  Papes,  IV.  p.  12.   (P.). 

^  Fleury'3  Tenth  Discourse,  p.  65.    .'P.)  ij  B.  iv.  pp.  77,  17«.    (P.) 


HISTORY  OF   CnURCU    DISCIPLINE.       *  :)35 

having-  the  sanction  of  the  civil  power,  tliey  annexed  the 
most  dreadful  civil  penalties  to  their  excommunications. 
These  were  easily  introduced  after  the  Kt)inaii  ernpirt'  hicanie 
Christian  ;  and  in  many  of  tlie  imperial  coiistitutioiis  made 
after  that  event,  we  find  various  civil  disqualifications,  some 
of  which  were  mentioned  in  the  former  period,  added  to  the 
censures  of  tiic  church.  IJut  the  whole  system  of  tins  mixed 
ecclesiastical  and  civil  polity  received  fresh  and  stronger 
sanctions  upon  the  conversion  of  the  Germans,  Goths,  Celts, 
and  other  northern  nations.  These  people  had  been  used  to 
excommunication  in  their  own  Pagan  religions ;  and  the 
consequence  of  it  had  always  been,  the  most  dreadful  civil 
penalties  and  disabilities.  Among-  the  Gauls,  excommuni- 
cated persons  had  been  looked  upon  as  wicked  and  scan- 
dalous wretches  ;  all  people  avoided  their  company,  they 
were  not  allowed  the  benefits  of  the  courts  of  justice,  nor 
were  they  admitted  to  any  post  of  honour  or  profit  in  the 
community. 

Of  this  prejudice  of  the  people  the  christian  priests  wil- 
lingly took  advantage,  as  by  this  means  they  could  overawe 
those  who  despised  mere  church  censures.  Civil  penalties 
for  offences  against  the  church  were  increased  by  degrees, 
till  heresy  came  to  be  considered  as  a  crime  of  so  heinous  a 
nature,  that  burning  alive  was  decreed  to  be,  of  all  others, 
the  most  proper  punishment  of  it.  We  do  not,  indeed, 
wonder  to  find  that,  of  all  crimes,  the  church,  which  had  so 
much  at  stake,  should  be  most  alarmed  at  that  of  heresy, 
and  therefore  should  apply  what  might  be  thought  to  be  the 
most  effectual  remedy,  and  the  most  likely  to  terrify  those 
who  should  be  exposed  to  it. 

It  is,  however,  curious  enough  to  observe  that,  as  there 
could  be  no  pretence  for  ecclesiastics,  as  such,  having  recourse 
to  civil  penalties,  or,  according  to  the  usual  phrase,  making 
use  of  the  temporal  sword ;  whenever  it  was  thought  neces- 
sary that  any  criminal  against  the  church  should  be  punished 
with  death,  they  were  solemnly  delivered  over  to  the  civil 
power.  In  the  Council  of  Lateran,  in  1179>  which  was 
before  any  heretics  were  punished  with  death,  it  is  said  that, 
**  though  the  church  rejects  bloody  executions,  it  may  never- 
theless be  aided  by  the  laws  of  christian  princes,  and  that 
the  fear  of  corporeal  punishments  often  makes  persons  have 
recourse  to  spiritual  remedies."*  And  to  this  day  the  court 
of  Inquisition  not  only  solemnly  delivers  over  to  the  civil 

•  Histoire  des  Papes,  III.  p,  00.    (P.) 


336  HISTORY  OF  CHURCH  DISCIPLINE. 

power  all  those  who  are  destined  to  suffer  death,  but  even 
torinally  recommends  them  to  mercy,*  where  it  is  certainly 
not  the  wish  of  those  who  express  this  concern  tor  them, 
that  they  should  find  any.f 

Among  other  methods  of  trying  whether  a  person  was  a 
heretic,  we  find,  in  these  dark  ages,  one  of  the  ordeals  of  the 
northern  nations, andthesame  thattillof  late  years  was  thought 
to  be  the  proper  test  of  witchcraft  in  this  country. +  For,  in 
the  persecution  of  the  Albigenses,  in  order  to  know  whether 
a  person  was  a  heretic,  those  who  suspected  him  threw  him 
into  water,  on  the  supposition  that,  if  he  was  a  heretic,  the 
devil  within  him  being  lighter  than  the  water,  would  prevent 
his  sinking. §  But,  as  1  have  observed  before,  the  punish- 
ment that  was  thought  to  be  the  most  proper  for  heresy,  was 
burning  alive  ;  and  indeed  this  was  the  first  capital  punish- 
ment that  was  decreed  for  it.  There  was  not,  however,  any 
proper  capital  punishment  for  heresy  till  the  year  1215,  when 
it  was  appointed,  by  the  fourth  Council  of  Lateran,  that  all 
heretics  should  be  delivered  over  to  the  civil  magistrates  to 
be  burned. 

Why  this  peculiarly  dreadful  punishment,  of  all  others, 
should  have  been  thought  the  most  proper  for  heresy,  it  is 
not  easy  to  say.     Possibly  the  crime  was  thought  to  be  so 

*  "  Relinquimus — Curiae  seculari,  eandem  afFectuose  rogantes,  prout  suadent 
canonicse  sanctiones,  ut  illis  vitam  et  membra  illibata  conservet."  Hol^  Inquisittoitf 
London,  1681,  p.  l6l. 

•f  "  We,  tlie  Inquisitors  of  heretical  pravity,  having  called  on  the  name  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  of  his  glorious  mother  the  Virgin  Marj",  and  sitting  on  our 
tribunal,  and  judging,  with  the  holy  gospels  lying  before  us,  by  this  our  sentence 
put  in  writing,  define,  pronounce,  declare,  and  sentence  thee,  to  be  a  '  convicted, 
'  confessing,  affirmative  and  professed  heretic,  and  to  be  delivered,  and  left  by  us  as 

*  such,  to  the  secular  arm;  and  we  by  tliis  our  sentence  do  cast  thee  out  of  the 
'  ecclesiastical  court,  as  a  convicted,  confessing,  affirmative  and  professed  heretic, 

*  and  we  do  leave  and  deHver  thee  to  the  secular  arm,  and  to  the  power  of  the 
'  secular  court ;  but  at  the  same  time  do  most  earnestly  beseech  that  court  so  to 
«  moderate  its  sentence,  as  not  to  touch  thy  blood,  or  to  put  tliy  life  in  any  danger.' 
Is  there  in  all  history  an  instance  of  so  gross  and  confident  mockery  of  God  and  the 
world?" — Geddes's  Inquisition  m  Portugal,  1730,  Ed.  3,  pp.408,  409.  See  al89 
Limhorch,  Hist.  Inquis.  C.xl.  II.  pp.  288 — 292. 

X  This  Ordeal  "  about  the  middle  ages"  was  applied  to  "  persons  accused  or 
suspected"  of  any  crime.  After  the  appointment  of  various  adjurations,  prayers  and 
benedictions,  it  is  added,  "  When  the  water  has  been  thus  exorcised,  let  those  who 
are  to  go  into  it  put  off  their  clothes,  and  kiss  the  gospel  and  the  cross,  and  let  holy 
water  be  sprinkled  over  them.  All  that  are  present  ought  to  be  fasting;  and  so  let 
them  be  thrown  into  the  water.  If  they  sink,  they  shall  be  reputed  innocent ;  but 
if  they  swim  on  the  surface,  they  shall  be  adjudged  guilty."  Of  Ordeal.  "  History 
of  Remarkable  Tryals,"  1715,  pp.  8 — 16. 

Versiegan,  in  l605,  describing  the  Cold-water  Ordeal^  adds,  "  This  kind  of  trial 
is  used  for  such  as  are  accused  to  be  witches,  who  being  cast  into  the  water,  with  a 
cord  fastened  unto  them,  are  said,  if  they  be  witches  indeed,  to  fleet  upon  tlie  same» 
and  in  no  wise  to  be  able  to  sink  into  it."  Restitution  of  decayed  Intelligence), 
pp.  52,  53. 

^  Basnage.  Histoire  dcs  Egli»€s  Reformeea^  II.  p^  9S9.    {P.) 


HISTORY  OF  CHURCH    DISCIPLINE.  337 

dreadtul  and  contagious,  that  it  was  determined,  as  far  as 
possible,  to  destroy  and  annihilate  even  the  body  of  the 
heretic,  lest  it  should  taint  the  eartli,  tlu-  sea,  or  the  air.* 
The  church  of  Home,  having-  once  employed  this  horrid 
engine,  found  it  so  well  adapted  to  the  rest  of  her  system, 
and  so  necessary  to  enforce  a  resi^ard  to  decrees  not  recom- 
mended by  reason  or  argument,  that  she  had  frequent  recourse 
to  it;  and  though  this  was  the  greatest  of  all  abuses  of 
ecclesiastical  authority,  it  was  retained,  along  with  other 
corruptions  of  Christianity,  by  most  of  the  first  reformers. 

The  burning  of  heretics  was  not,  however,  the  first  kind 
of  persecution  which  the  church  of  Rome  employed  to 
subdue  her  enemies;  and  recourse  was  not  had  to  this,  till 
other  methods,  and  even  several  of  a  very  violent  kind,  had 
been  tried  without  effect.  The  first  object  that  roused  the 
sanguinary  disposition  of  the  court  of  Kome,  was  the  heresies, 
as  they  were  called,  of  the  Waldenses,  and  of  the  Albigenses, 
the  former  of  whom  inhabited  some  of  the  mountainous 
parts  of  the  Alps,  and  the  latter  the  southern  provinces  of 
France. 

These  people  were  dreadfully  persecuted  by  Innocent  III. 
who  first  prohibited  all  manner  of  intercourse  or  communi- 
cation with  them,  confiscated  their  goods,  disinherited  their 
children,  destroyed  their  houses,  denied  them  the  rite  of 
sepulture,  and  gave  their  accusers  one  third  of  their  effects. 
But  in  1198  he  erected  the  court  of  Inquisition,  the  object 
of  which  was  the  utter  extirpation  of  them,  in  which  Dominic 
was  the  chief  actor. f  Afterwards  he  published  crusades 
against  them,  promising  all  who  would  engage  in  that  war 
the  same  indulgences  that  had  been  granted  to  those  who 
engaged  in  the  expeditions  for  the  recovery  of  the  Holy 
Land. J  In  consequence  of  this,  great  multitudes  of  them 
were  destroyed  with  all  manner  of  cruelties. 

*  I  have  met  with  a  passajjc  in  a  bull  of  pope  John  XXUi.  at^aiiist  the  WukliflStes, 
quoted  by  L'Enfaiit  iti  hh  Histori/  of  the  Council  of  Pisa,  II.  p.  9H,  whirh  suffi- 
ciently explains  whence  the  idea  of  burninr/  heretics,  rather  th.in  putting  them  to 
any  other  k  nd  of  death,  was  borrowed.  He  says,  '•  We  ordain  that  they  be  pub- 
licly burncfl,  in  execution  of  the  sentence  of  our  Saviour,  John  xv.  6:  If  nni/  man 
abide  vet  in  me,  he  is  cast  forth  as  a  branch,  and  is  withered;  and  men  f/ather  them, 
and  cast  them  into  the  fire,  and  they  are  burned."  (P.)  Note  at  the  end  of  the  edi- 
tion 17K2. 

t  "  The  true  origin  of  the  Inquisition,  by  delegation  from  the  Pope,  as  it  is  now 
imnaged,  was  about  12 16,  when  Innocent  III.  appointed  St.  Dominic  to  be  the  first 
inquisitor,  to  suppress  the  growing  heresie  of  the  Albigenses."  Holy  Inquis.  p.  51. 
See  also  Liniborch,  C.  x.  1.  p.  6o. 

+  "  Catholici,  qui  crucis  assumpto  charactere  ad  Tlaercticorum  cxterminium  se 
accinxerint,  ilia  gaudcant  indulgentia,  illoqne  saucto  privilegio  sint  muniti,  quae  ac- 
cedentibus  in  Sanctae  Terrse  snbsidium  conceduntiir."     Hoh/  Inquis.  pp.  54,  '5.5. 

VOL.  V.  Z 


3^  HISTORY  OF  .CHURCH  DISCIPLINE. 

Tliis  war,  or  rather  massacre,  continued  near  forty  years, 
and  a  million  of  men  are  supposed  to  have  lost  their  lives  in 
it.  And  of  these,  it  is  said,  there  were  three  hundred  thou- 
sand of  the  Crusaders  themselves.*  However,  the  conse- 
quence of  this  persecution  was  the  same  with  that  of  most 
others;  the  reprobated  opinion  being  farther  disseminated 
by  this  means.  Particularly,  the  kings  of  England,  and  the 
earls  of  Toulouse  (who  had  been  the  heads  of  the  Albi- 
genses),  being  related,  many  of  them  came  over  into  England* 
where  great  numbers  embraced  their  opinions.  They  were 
afterwards  imbibed  by  Wickliffe,  and  from  him  they  passed 
into  Bohemia. 

Perhvips  the  most  horrible  and  perfidious  of  any  single  act 
of  barbarity,  committed  by  the  Papists,  was  the  massacre  of 
the  Protestants  in  Paris,  on  the  eve  of  St.  Bartholomew,  in 
1572  ;  when  the  Hugonots  (as  the  Protestants  in  France  are 
called)  were  lulled  asleep  by  all  the  forms  of  pacification, 
^nd  an  attempt  was  made  to  rise  upon  them,  and  destroy 
them  all  in  one  night.  In  Paris,  and  some  other  towns,  it 
took  effect,  and  great  numbers  were  massacred  when  they 
were  altogether  unapprehensive  of  danger.  Had  this  hap- 
pened in  a  popular  tumult,  it  would  have  been  more 
excusable ;  but  it  was  not  only  a  most  deliberate  act  of 
perfidy,  concerted  long  before  the  time  of  execution,  but  the 
king  himself,  Charles  IX.,  bore  a  part  in  it,  firing  upon  his 
own  subjects  from  his  window  ;  and  Pope  Gregory  XIII. 
gave  solemn  thanks  to  God  for  this  massacre  in  the  church 
of  St.  Louis,  whither  he  himself  went  in  procession. -j*  The 
guns  of  St.  Angelo  were  also  fired,  and  bonfires  were  made 
in  the  streets  of  Rome  upon  the  occasion.  J 

The  court  of  Rome  has  even  employed  the  same  bloody 
methods  to  extirpate  heresies  that  arose  among  the  Catholics 
themselves,  those  who  maintained  them  adhering  to  the 
Popish  system  in  general.  This  was  the  case  with  respect 
to  some  Franciscans  in  the  fourteenth  century,  who  main- 

*  Histoire  des  Papes,  III.  p.  16.    (P.) 

f  "  Certain  it  is  that  the  massacres  of  St.  Bartholomew's  day,  are  painted  at 
Rome,  in  the  royal  hall  of  the  Vatican,  with  these  words  under  the  picture,  Pontifex 
Coliynii  necem  probat."  See  the  account  of  the  massacre  in  "  An  Essay  upon  the 
Civil  Wins  of  France,  by  Mr.  de  Voltaire,  author  of  the  Henriade,"  Ed.  2,  1728, 
pp.  12 — 17.  This  Essay  was  written  by  Voltaire  in  English,  while  resident  in  this 
country.     See  Mon.  Repos.  X.  p.  38. 

In  "  Histoire  du  Parlement  de  Paris,"  par  M.  I'Abb^  Big...,  but  which  has  been 
attributed  to  Voltaire,  the  author  says,  "  Les  details  de  ces  massacres  que  je  dois 
omettre  ici  seront  presens  a.  tons  les  esprits  jusqu'a  la  derniere  posterite."  Histoire, 
Amst.  1769,  p.  180. 

X  Histoire  des  Papes,  V.  p.  25.     (P.) 


HISTORY  OF  CHURCH    DISCIPLINE.  S39 

tainetl,  that  neither  Christ  nor  the  apostles  had  any  personal 
property.  This  most  innocent  opinion  was  most  vehemently 
opposed  by  the  Dominicans;  and  John  XXII.  in  1:324, 
pronounced  it  to  be  "  a  pestilential,  erronc^ons,  damnable  and 
blasphemous  doctrine,  subversive  of  the  Catholie  faith  ;  and 
declared  all  sueh  as  adhered  to  it,  obstinate  heretics  and 
rebels  against  the  church.  In  consequence  of  this  merciless 
decree,  great  numbers"  of  those  poor  Franciscans  "  were 
apprehended  l)y  the  Dominican  inquisitors, — and  committed 
to  the  flames."* 

It  would  be  unjust,  however,  to  suppose  that  all  the 
members  of  the  Catholic  Churchy  as  it  is  caUed,  have  been 
equally  bent  on  the  extirpation  of  heretics  by  these  violent 
methods.  At  all  times  there  have  been  advocates  for  mode- 
ration among"  very  zealous  Papists.  Thomas  Aquinas,  who 
for  many  centuries  was  esteemed  the  bulwark  of  the  Popish 
cause,  maintained,  that  religion  ought  not  to  be  extended  by 
force  ;  alleging  that  no  person  can  believe  as  he  would,  and 
that  the  will  should  not  be  forced.  •]*  There  were  also  those 
who  remonstrated  very  strongly  against  all  the  persecutions 
of  the  Protestants  by  the  Papists,  especially  those  of  Philip 
II.  of  Spain,  as  well  as  those  of  Louis  XIV.  of  France. 
And  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  the  minds  of  the  Catholics 
in  general  are  now  so  much  enlightened,  partly  by  reflection, 
but  chiefly  by  experience,  that  they  would  no  more  act  the 
same  things  over  again,  than  the  Protestants  would,  who,  as 
will  be  seen  in  the  next  Section,  were  guilty  of  almost  as 
great  excesses,  in  proportion  to  the  extent  of  their  power. 

As  we  are  naturally  more  interested  in  our  own  history,  I 
shall  mention  a  few  more  particulars  concerning  the  progress 
of  persecution  in  this  country.  There  were  no  penal  statute's 
against  heresy,  enacted  by  the  authority  of  an  English  Par- 
liament, before  the  fifth  year  of  Richard  II.  in  1382  ;  when 
it  was  appointed,  that  heretics  should  be  kept  in  prison  "  till 
they  justified  themselves  according  to  law,  and  the  reason  of 
holy  church."  The  commitment  was  to  be  the  rule  for  the 
chancellor,  after  the  bishop  had  presented  the  name  of  the 
offender.  + 

Afterwards  Flenry  IV.  in  order  to  gain  the  good  will  of 

*  Mosheim,  III.  p.  178.     (P.)     Cent.  xiv.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  ii.  Sect.  xxix. 

t  Fleiiry's  SjxtSi  Discourse,  p.  32.    (P.) 

X  Rapiii  represents  as  the  more  probahle  opiiiron  upon  this  suF)jcct,  that  the 
Commons  refused  to  pass  the  act,  but  that  the  bishops  were  empowered  solely  by 
the  kins-  "  l-es  Communes  r.fuserent  rlc  donuer  ieur  consentcmout  au  hill  qui 
Jeur  fut  presente  sur  ce  sujet,  et  qiu-  ce  ne  fut  que  dn  Roi  seulemeut,  que  Icjt 
Eveques  obtinrent  cette  permission."    Histoire,  L.  x.  III.  p.  286. 

z  2 


340  HISTORY   OF   CHURCH   DISCIPLINE. 

tlie  clergy,  procured  an  act,  in  the  second  year  of  his  reign, 
1400,  by  which  convicted  heretics  might  be  imprisoned  and 
confined  nt  the  discretion  of  the  diocesan  or  of  his  commis- 
sary, and  those  who  refused  to  abjure,  or  who  relapsed,  were 
to  be  burnt  to  death  in  some  conspicuous  place  before  the 
j)eople.  By  this  law  all  heretics  were  left  to  the  mercy  of 
the  bishops  in  the  spiritual  courts,  who  might  imprison  them 
or  put  them  to  death,  without  presentment  or  trial  by  a  jury, 
as  was  the  practice  in  all  other  criminal  cases. 

The  reign  of  his  son  Henry  V.  whose  interest  it  was  to 
keep  things  quiet  at  home,  by  obliging  the  clergy,  while  he 
was  carrying  on  his  wars  abroad,  was  very  unfavourable  to  free 
inquiry.  In  the  beginning  of  his  reign  1414,  an  act  was 
made  against  the  Lollards  or  Wickliffites,*  by  which  it  was 
decreed  that  they  should  forfeit  all  their  lands  and  goods  to 
the  king.  In  this  reign,  however,  it  was  that  the  writ  de 
hceretico  comburtndo  was  issued  from  the  chancery  ;  by  which 
it  seems  that  the  heretics  were  taken  again  into  the  king's 
protection.  But  this  does  not  appear  to  have  been  necessary, 
or  at  least  to  have  been  practised,  for  no  such  writs  are  to  be 
found  upon  the  rolls  before  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.  "  By 
virtue  of  these  statutes,  the  clergy — exercised  numberless 
cruelties  upon  the  people,  there  being  '  some  hundreds  of 
examples'  of  persons  imprisoned,  and  probably  put  to  death 
by  them."j- 

The  prohibition  of  books  was  an  evil  that  was  greatly 
increased  after  the  Reformation,  though  it  began  before. 
There  were  rigorous  edicts  against  the  writings  of  Wickliffe 
and  John  Huss.  But  Leo  X.  renewed  them  in  condemning 
the  propositions  of  Luther,  and  all  the  books  that  bore  his 
name.  He  made  a  decree  that  no  book  should  be  published 
in  Rome,  or  in  any  other  city  or  diocese,  before  it  had  been 
approved  by  an  officer  appointed  for  that  purpose ;  and  he 
was  the  first  who  made  any  decree  of  this  nature.^  The 
popes  that  succeeded  him,  forbade,  under  pain  of  excommuni- 
cation, the  reading  of  all  the  books  of  heretics  ;  and  in  order 
to  distinguish  them,  Philip  II.  ordered  the  Spanish  Inquisi- 
tion to  print  a  catalogue  of  them,  which  Paul  IV.  also  did 
at  Rome  ;  at  the  same  time  ordering  them  to  be  burnt. §  In 
1597,  Clement  VIII.  published  another  catalogue  of  books 
prohibited,  and  among  thern  was  Junius's  translation  of  the 

*  See  Rapin,  Histoire,  L.  xi.  III.  p.  433. 

t  Neale's  History  of  the  Puritans,  1.  p.  5.     (P.)     Toulrain's  Ed.  1793,  I.   p.  7- 

t  Histoire  des  Papes,  IV.  p.  889-     (P.) 

i  Bxistiage,  III.  p.  465.     Histoire  des  Papes,  IV.  p.  634.    (P.) 


HISTORY  OF   CHURCH    DISCIPLINE.  341 

Old  Testament,  and  Beza's  of  the  New,  though  the  former 
might,  at  the  discretion  of  the  bishop,  be  granted  to  learned 
men. 

SECTION    V. 
Of  Persecution  hij  Protestants. 

I  HAVE  already  observed,  that  this  sanguinary  method  of 
propagating  and  establishing  religion  was  adopted,  topi;cther 
with  other  popish  maxims,  by  the  Reformers  ;  and,  alas,  the 
historv  of  all  reformed  countries  bears  too  strong  evidence 
of  it.  *^ 

In  the  wars  of  Bohemia,  both  the  Protestants  and  Papists 
"  agreed —that  it  was  innocent  and  lawful  to  extirpate  with 
fire  and  sword,  the  enemies  of  the  true  rfJioion."  The  Pro- 
testants acknowledged  "  that  heretics  were  worthy  of  capital 
punishment,  but  they  denied  obstinatel}'  that  John  lluss 
was  a  heretic."  Ziska,  the  general  of  the  Hussites,  fell  upon 
the  sect  of  the  Beghards  in  1421,  and  "  put  some  to  the 
sword,  and  condemned  the  rest  to  the  flames,  which  dreadful 
punishment  they  sustained  with  the  most  cheerful  fortitude."* 

Luther  had  no  idea  of  the  impropriety  of  civil  penalties  to 
enforce  the  true  religion.  He  only  objected  to  the  putting 
heretics  to  death,  but  approved  of  their  being  confined,  as 
madmen.  "  He  persuaded  the  electors  of  Saxony  not  to 
tolerate — the  followers  of  Zuinglius,"  merely  because  he  did 
not  believe  the  real  presence  of  Christ  in  the  eucharist ;  and 
"  the  Lutheran  lawyers — condemned  to  death  Peter  Pestelius 
for  being  a  Zuinglian."  They  also  put  to  death  several 
Anabaptists,  j-  It  was  not  till  towards  the  end  of  the  seven- 
teenth century  that  "  the  Lutheran  churches  adopted  that 
leading  maxim  of  the  Arminians,"  that  no  good  subject  was 
justly  punishable  "  by  the  magistrates  for  his  erroneous 
opinions.":}: 

Mosheim  also  says,  that  Zuinglius  is  "  said  to  have  attri- 
buted to  the  civil  magistrate  such  an  extensive  power  in 
ecclesiastical  affairs,  as  is  quite  inconsistent  with  the  essence 
and  genius  of  religion. "§  He  condemned  an  Anabaptist  to 
be  drowned,  with  this  cruel  insult,  Qui  iterum  mergit  mer- 
gatur  ;   He  that  dips  a  second  time,  let  him  be  dipped.  [| 

•  Mosheim,  III.  pp.  261,274.     (P.)    Cent.  xv.   Pt.  ii.  Ch.  iii.   Sect.  iv.  Ch.  v. 
Sect.  ii. 

t  Chandler's  "  History  of  Persecution,"  1736,  pp.  310,311.     (P.) 
X  Mosheim,  IV.  p.  440.     (P.)     Cent.  xvii.  Sect.  ii.   Pt.  ii.  Ch.  i.  xvi. 
§  Ibid.  III.  p.  .320.     (P.)     Cent,  xvi.  Sect.  i.  Ch.  ii.  xii. 
I!  Chandler's  ••  History  of  Persecution,"  p.  328.     (P.) 


r 


342  HISTORY   OF   CHURCH   DISCIRLIKB. 

Calvin  went  upon  the  same  plan,  persecuting  many  worthy 
persons,  and  even  procuring  Servetus  to  be  burned  alive  for 
writing  against  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  He  also  wrote 
a  treatise  in  order  to  prove  the  lawfulness  of  putting  heretics 
to  death  ;  and  in  one  of  his  letters  he  says,  "  Since  the  Papists, 
in  order  to  vindicate  their  own  superstitions,  cruelly  shed 
innocent  blood,  it  is  a  shame  that  Christian  magistrates  should 
have  no  courage  at  all  in  the  defence  of  certain  truth."  Even 
Melancthon,  though  esteemed  to  be  of  a  mild  and  moderate 
temper,  approved  of  the  death  of  Servetus.* 

After  the  Retormation  in  England,  the  laws  against  heretics 
were  not  relaxed,  but  the. proceedings  were  appointed  to  be 
regular,  as  in  other  criminal  cases.  Thus  it  was  enacted  in 
1534,  "  that  heretics  should  be  proceeded  against  upon  pre- 
sentments" by  a  jury,  or  on  the  oath  of  "  two  witnesses  at 
least."  t 

When  the  new  liturgy  was  confirmed  by  act  of  parliament 
in  the  reign  of  Edward  VI.  in  1548,  it  was  ordered  that 
"  such  of  the  clergy  as  refused"  to  conform  to  it,  "  should, 
upon  the  first  conviction,  suffer  six  months*  imprisonmentj 
and  forfeit  a  year's  profits  of  his  benefice  ;  for  the  second 
offence  forfeit  all  his  church  preferments,  and  suffer  a  year's 
imprisonment ;  and  for  the  third  ofl'ence  imprisonment  for  life. 
Such  as  writ  or  printed  against  the  book  were  to  be  fined  ten 
pounds  for  the  first  offence,  twenty  pounds  for  the  second^ 
and  to  forfeit  all  their  goods  ;  and  be  imprisoned  for  life,  for 
the  third."  + 

Cranmer,  whilst  he  was  a  Lutheran,  consented  to  the 
burning  of  John  Lambert  and  Ann  Askew,  for  those  very 
doctrines  for  which  he  himself  suffered  afterwards  ;  and  when 
he  was  a  sacramentarian,  he  was  the  cause  of  the  death  of 
Joan  Bocher,  an  Arian,  importuning  the  young  king  Edward 
VL  to  sign  the  death-warrant;  and  he  is  said  to  have  done* 
it  with  great  reluctance,  saying,  with  tears  in  his  eyes,  that- 
if  he  did  wrong,  it  was  in  submission  to  his  authority 
(Cranmer's),  and  that  he  should  answer  to  God  for  it.§ 

Many  were  the  severities  under  which  the  Puritans 
laboured  in  the  reign  of  queen  Elizabeth,  and  the  princes  of 
the  Stuart  family  ;  and  the  Presbyterians  were  but  too  ready 
to  act  with  a  high  hand  in  their  turn,  in  the  short  time  that 
they  were  in  power  ;  but  they  were  soon  repaid  with  interest, 

*  Chandler's  Hist.  pp.  321,323,     (P.) 

t  Neale's  Hist.  I.  p.  10.     (P*)     Ed..l793,  p^  14. 

t  Ibid.  p.  .39.    (P.)    Ibid.  p.  51. 

§  See  Burnet's  Reform.  12mo.  Ed.  6,  II.  p.  81.     M.  Repos^VII.  p.  363;  &*i; 


HISTORY  OF   CHURCH    DISCIPLINE.  343 

on  the  Restoration.  At  the  Revolution  they  obtained  pretty 
good  terms,  but  still  all  those  who  could  not  subscribe  th6 
doctrinal  articles  of  the  church  of  England  remained  subject 
to  the  same  penalties  as  before,  and  a  new  and  severe  law 
was  made  against  the  Anti-trinitarians.  This  law,  which 
subjects  the  offender  to  confiscation  of  goods  and  imprison- 
ment tor  life,  if  he  persists  in  acting  contrary  to  the  law, 
still  remains  in  force,*  though  many  other  hardships  under 
which  Dissenters  formerly  laboured  have  lately  been  removed. 

The  pcrsocntion  of  the  Remonstrants  by  the  Calvinistic 
party  in  Holland,  was  as  rancorous  in  the  mode  of  carrying 
it  on,  as  any  of  the  Popish  persecutions,  though  the  penalties 
did  not  extend  beyond  banishment. 

All  the  Protestaiit  churches  have  been  too  ready  to  impose 
their  own  faith  upon  others,  and  to  bind  all  their  posterity  to 
believe  as  they  did.  But  the  most  remarkable  public  act  of 
this  kind  occurs  in  the  history  of  the  Protestant  church  in 
France.  At  a  synod  held  in  1 6 12,  it  was  decreed,  that  they 
who  take  holy  orders  should  take  this  oath  :  "  I  whose  nanie 
is  here  underwritten,  do  receive  and  approve  the  confession 
of  faith  of  the  reformed  churches  in  this  kingdom,  and  also 
piromise  to  persevere  in  it  until  death,  and  to  believe  and  teach 
agreeably  there  unto. "-j-  In  another  decree,  passed  in  1620, 
they  adopt  the  decrees  of  the  Synod  of  Dort,  promising  to 
persevere  in  that  faith  all  their  lives,  and  to  defend  it  to  the 
utmost  of  their  power. :{:  Is  it  to  be  regretted  that  a  church, 
the  principles  of  which  were  so  narrow  and  intolerant,  should, 
in  the  course  of  Divine  Providence,  be  suppressed  }  It  is  to 
be  hoped  that  when  it  shall  seem  fit  to  the  sattie  wise  Pro- 
vidence to  revive  the  Protestant  interest  in  that  country,  it 
will  be  more  liberal,  and  more  deserving  of  the  name  of  a 
reformed  christian  church. 

There  is  too  great  a  mixture  of  civil  penalties  in  the  ordi- 
nary discipline  of  the  church  of  England  to  this  day. 
According  to  her  canons,  every  person  who  maintains  any 
thing  contrary  to  the  doctrine  or  rites  of  the  church,  of  to  the 
authority  by  which  they  are  enforced,  is  declared  to  be  ipso 
facto  excommunicated.  Many  other  offences,  which  are 
properly  civil,  are  deemed  to  be  of  a  spiritual  nature,  and  are 
punished  by  excommunication;  which  is  two-fold,  thegreater 
arid  the  less.  The  latter  Only  excludes  a  man  from  the  sacra- 
ment, arid  corrimunion  in  the  divine  offices  ;  but  the  greater 

•  Npw  repealed,  with  the  exceptions  in  the  Toleration  Acjt. 

t  CWick's'Sytiodlcibh,  I.  p.  348.     (F.)  t  >^'fl-  '1-  P- ■''8.     (A) 


344  HISTORY  OF  CHURCH   DISCIPLINE. 

excommunication  cuts  a  man  off  from  all  commerce  with 
Christians  in  temporal  affairs;  so  that,  if  the  orders  of  the 
church  were  universally  and  strictly  observed,  the  poor  wretch 
must  necessarily  perish  ;  since  no  person  in  the  nation  might 
sell  him  food,  raiment,  or  any  convenience  whatever. 


SECTION  VI. 

The  History  of  Mistakes  concerning  Moral  Virtue. 

Not  only  did  the  christian  church  adopt  very  wrong  and 
pernicious  maxims  of  church  discipline,  but  Christians  have 
also  adopted  very  false  and  hurtful  notions  concerning  moral 
virtue  itself,  which  is  the  end  of  all  discipline  ;  and  it  may 
be  useful  to  take  a  general  view  of  these  corruptions,  as  well 
as  of  others. 

According  to  thegenuinedoctrineof  reason  and  revelation, 
nothing  is  of  any  avail  to  recommend  a  man  to  the  favour  of 
God,  and  to  insure  his  future  happiness,  besides  good  dis- 
positions of  mind,  and  a  habit  and  conduct  of  life  agreeable 
to  them.  This  is  the  religion  of  nature,  and  likewise  that  of 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments.  But  the  religion  of  the 
heathen  world,  and  that  of  many  of  the  Jews,  in  the  time  of 
our  Saviour,  was  of  a  quite  different  stamp.  The  Heathens, 
having  none  but  low  notions  of  their  gods,  had  no  idea  of 
recommending  themselves  to  their  favour,  but  by  the  punctual 
observance  of  certain  rites,  ceremonies  and  modes  of  worship, 
which  at  best  had  no  relation  to  moral  virtue,  and  often  con- 
sisted in  the  most  horrid  and  shameful  violation  of  the  plainest 
natural  duties. 

The  Pharisaical  Jews,  also,  overlooking  the  excellent 
nature  of  the  moral  precepts  of  their  law,  and  the  perfect 
character  of  the  great  Being  whom  they  were  taught  to  wor- 
ship, and  directed  to  resemble,  attached  themselves  wholly  to 
ritual  observances.  Upon  these,  and  on  their  relation  to 
their  ancestor  Abraham,  they  chiefly  depended  for  insuring 
to  themselves  the  favour  of  God,  to  the  utter  exclusion  of 
all  the  gentile  world,  whatever  might  be  their  characters  in 
a  moral  respect. 

Our  Lord  and  his  apostles  took  every  opportunity  of 
opposing  this  fundamental  corruption  of  genuine  religion, 
and  recalled  men's  attention  to  their  hearts  and  lives.  And 
one  would  have  thought  that,  by  the  abolition  of  all  the 
peculiar  rites  of  the  Jewish  law,  and  appointing  none  in  their 
place,  (besides  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper,  which  are 


HISTORY  OF  CHURCH   DISCIPLINE.  345 

exceedingly  simple,  and  have  obvious  moral  uses,)  an  effectual 
bar  would  have  been  put  in  the  way  of  the  old  superstitions. 
But  human  nature  being  the  same,  and  men's  dishke  to  moral 
virtue  operating^  as  before,  and  making  them  ready  to 
adopt  superstitious  observances  as  a  compensation  for  it 
pretences  and  modes  were  not  long  wanting  ;  and  at  leno-tli 
proper  moral  virtue  was  as  effectually  excluded  in  the  Chris- 
tian religion,  as  ever  it  had  been  in  corrupt  Judaism  or 
Heathenism  itself;  and  as  great  stress  was  laid  upon  things 
that  bore  no  relation  to  morul  virtue,  but  were,  in  fact,  in- 
consistent with  it,  and  subversive  of  it,  as  had  ever  been  done 
by  the  most  superstitious  and  misinformed  of  mankind. 

Did  not  both  the  most  authentic  history,  and  even  the 
present  state  of  religion  in  the  church  of  Rome,  furnish 
sufficient  vouchers  of  this,  it  would  not,  in  the  present 
enlightened  age,  be  even  credible,  that  such  practices  as  I 
shall  be  obliged  to  mention,  could  ever  have  been  used  by 
Christians,  as  methods  of  recommending  themselves  to  God. 

We  find  that  in  early  times  an  undue  stress  was  laid  upon 
the  ordinances  oi  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper,  as  if  these 
rites  themselves,  when  duly  administered  (to  which  their 
being  administered  by  a  person  regularly  ordained  for  the 
purpose  was  considered  as  necessary)  imparted  some  spiritual 
grace.  Thus  baptism  was  supposed  to  wash  away  all  past 
sins,  and  the  act  of  communion  to  impart  some  other  secret 
virtue,  by  which  a  title  to  the  blessings  of  the  gospel  was 
secured  to  the  communicant.  On  this  account,  many  persons 
who  professed  themselves  to  be  Christians,  deferred  baptism 
till  late  in  life,  or  even  to  the  hour  of  death,  that  they  might 
leave  the  world  with  the  greater  certainty  of  all  their  sins 
being  lorgiven,  and  before  any  new  guilt  could  be  contr-acted. 

Those  of  the  early  fathers  who  ascribed  the  h^ast  to  the  rite 
of  baptism,  supposed  that  by  it  was  done  away  whatever 
inconvenience  mankind  had  been  subjected  to  in  consequence 
of  the  fall  of  Adam  ;  so  that  they  made  a  great  difference 
between  the  case  of  those  children  who  died  baptized,  and 
those  who  died  unbaptized  ;  and  the  virtue  that  was  ascribed 
to  the  Lord^s  supper  was  the  foundation  of  all  the  supersti- 
tions respecting  that  ordinance,  of  which  an  account  has 
already  been  given. 

When  moral  virtue  had  been  once  ascribed  to  any  corporeal 
action,  instituted  by  divine  appointment,  Christians  were 
led  by  degrees  to  imagine  that  a  similar  virtue  might  be 
communicated  by  other  actions  or  signs,  not  of  divine 
appointment,  but  bearing  some  relation  to  religion.     This 


346  HISTORY  OF  CHURCH   DISCIPEri«^&. 

superstitious  use  was  first  made  of  the  sign  of  the  cross,  which, 
as  has  been  observed,  was  used  originally  with  great  inno^ 
cence,  perhaps  as  a  private  mark  of  distinction  between  the 
Christians  and  Heathens,  in  the  time  of  persecution  ;  or,  itt 
peaceable  times,  to  shew  the  Heathens  that  they  were  not 
ashamed  of  that  very  circumstance  with  which  they  re- 
proached them  the  most,  viz.  the  crucifixion  of  their  Master. 

We  first  hear  of  this  ceremony  among  the  Montanists  ; 
and  Fertulhan,  who  became  a  Montanist,  makes  great  boast 
of  it.  In  the  beginning  of  any  business,  says  he,  going  out, 
coming  in,  dressing,  washing,  eating,  lighting  candles,  going 
to  bed,  sitting  down,  or  whatever  we  do,  we  sign  our  forehead 
with  the  sign  of  the  cross.* 

In  the  third  century  we  find  the  sign  of  the  cross  in  still 
more  general  use,  it  being  thought  to  be  a  defence  against 
enchantments  and  evil  spirits ;  and  no  Christian  undertook 
any  thing  of  moment  without  it.  The  use  of  this  sign  was 
brought  more  into  fashion  by  the  emperor  Constantine,  who, 
it  is  said,  made  use  of  it  as  his  imperial  banner,  or  standard. 
And  so  high  did  this  sign  of  the  cross  rise  in  estimation,  in 
later  ages,  that  the  Papists  maintain  that  the  crOss,  and  even 
the  sign  of  the  cross,  is  to  be  adored  with  the  worship  which 
they  call  Latria,  or  that  of  the  highest  kind.-j- 

After  the  sign  of  the  cross,  a  sanctifying  virtue  Was 
ascribed  to  holi/  water,  or  salt  and  water,  such  as  the  Heathens 
had  used  in  their  purifications,  consecrated  by  a  bishop.  An 
extraordinary  power  was  also  ascribed  to  lights  burningiri 
the  day-time,  to  the  use  of  incense,  to  the  relics  of  the  saints, 
and  to  their  images  ;  and  as  the  superstitious  veneration  for 
the  real  eucharist,  produced  a  mock  one,,  sO  it  probably 
occasioned  another  superstition,  something  similar  to  it,  viz. 
the  making  of  little  waxen  images  of  a  lamb,'  which  were 
either  invented  or  much  improved  by  pope  Urban  V I.  The 
Pope  alone  has  the  power  of  consecrating  them,  atid  thiifin 
the  first  year  only  of  his  popedom,  and  in  every  seventh  year 
afterwards.  In  the  service  on  this  occas^ion,  \thioh'may  be? 
seen  in  the  Flistorij  ofPoperi/,  these  AgmtsDeis^  aS  they  are' 
called,  are  said  to'he  blessed  Mid  sanctified,  so  as  "  by  honour- 
ing and  worshipping  them,  WQ  thy  servants  •  may^  have  our 
crimes  washed  off',  the  spots  of  our  sins  wiped  away,  pardons- 
may  be  procured,  graces  bestowed,  that  at  last,  vt^ith  thy 
saints  and  elect,  we  may  merit  to  receive  eternal  liffe.":}; 

DeCorowrt,  C.  iv.  Opera,  p.  102.     (P.) 


*  DeCoroMrt,  C.  iv.  Opera.p.  102.     [P.] 

t  Mosheira,  I.  p.  238.     (P.)     CVut.  iii.  Pt,  ii,  (^h.  iv.  fin. 

X   Hist.m.\^.bS\.     (P.)  1736,  11.  pprioD— 111.' 


HISTORY   OF  CHURCH   DISCIPLINE-  3^7 

Still  g-reater  virtue  was  ascribed  to  pilgrimages  to  visit  parti- 
cular churchesaiKl  places,  which  were  reputed  holy, on  account 
of  their  liaving  been  the  resort  otholy  persons,  or  the  theatre 
of  hoi  V  actions,  &c.,  and  a  similar  virtue  has  been  ascribed 
to  the  attendance  on  particular  ceremonies,  in  107  1,  the 
Pope  promised  indulgence  for  all  sin  confessed  by  those  who 
should  assist  at  the  dedication  of  a  church  at  mount  Cassin, 
or  who  should  come  to  the  new  church  during  the  octave  ; 
which,  Fleury  says,  brought  an  astonishing  eoneourse  of 
people,  so  that  not  only  the  monastery  and  the  town,  but  even 
the  neighbouring  country  was  filled  with  them.  Sixtus  IV. 
in  147(),  granted  indulgences,  by  an  express  and  particular 
acl,  to  those  who  should  devoutly  celebrate  an  annual  festival 
in  honour  of  the  immaculate  conception  of  the  Virgin  Mary.* 
This  superstitious  use  of  pilgrimages  was  likewise  the  foun- 
dation of  all  the^/zZ/i/^^e*  which  have  been  celebrated  at  Rome, 
of  which  an  account  has  been  given  among  the  festivals  that 
have  been  introduced  into  the  christian  church. 

All  the  popish  sacraments  are  likewise  certain  ceremonies, 
to  the  use  of  which  the  members  of  the  catholic  church 
ascribe  a  supernatural  and  sanctifying  effect  upon  the  mind; 
and  they  suppose  them  to  have  that  weight  and  influence 
with  the  Divine  Being,  which  nothing  but  real  virtue  or 
good  dispositions  of  mind  can  ever  have. 

If  thuigs  quite  foreign  to  virtue  have  nevertheless  been 
put  in  the  place  of  it,  we  shall  not  wonder  that  actions  of 
real  value  in  themselves,  and  which,  when  proceeding  from 
a  right  disposition  of  mind,  are  real  virtues,  should  have 
been  much  magnified,  and  that  the  actions  themselves  should 
have  been  imagined  to  be  meritorious,  even  independently 
of  the  proper  state  of  mind. 

Thus,  since  giving  to  the  needy,  or  being  liberal  for  any 
useful  purpose,  is  generally  a  test  of  virtue,  it  is  no  wonder 
that,  in  all  ages,  it  has,  by  many  persons,  been  substituted 
in  the  place  of  it.  And,  notwithstanding  the  strong  cautions 
on  this  head  in  the  New  Testament,  especially  the  apostle 
Paul's  saying  that  he  might  gire  all  his  goodft  lo  feed  the. 
poor,  and  yet  be  destitute  of  c/nirift/,  or  brotherly  love,  this 
spurious  kind  of  virtue  was  never  made  more  account  of, 
than  in  the  corrupt  ages  of  the  christian  church,  when  an 
open  traffic,  as  it  were,  was  kept  up  between  earth  and 
heaven  ;  there  being  nothing  of  a  spiritual  nature  that  they 
did  not  imagine  might  be  boughtwith  money. 

*  Mosheim,  III.  p.  271.     (P-)     Cent.  xv.  Pt.  ii.  Cli.  iv.  Sect.  ii. 


348  HISTORY  OF  CHURCH   DISCIPLINE. 

In  the  eighth  century,  Mosheim  says,  a  notion  prevailed, 
that  future  punishment  might  be  prevented  by  donations  to 
religious  uses  ;  *  and  therefore  few  wills  were  made  in  which 
something  was  not  bequeathed  to  the  church,  j-  For,  of  all 
pious  uses,  in  the  disposal  of  wealth,  the  church  (which  as 
it  was  then  always  understood,  meant  the  clergy  or  the 
monks)  was  universall}'  deemed  a  better  object  than  the 
poor.  Hence  that  amazing  accumulation  of  wealth,  which 
nearly  threatened  the  utter  extinction  of  all  merely  civil 
property. 

Obvious  as  we  now  think  the  nature  of  virtue  to  be,  and 
fully  satisfied  as  we  are,  that  the  nature  and  excellency  of 
it  consists  in  its  tendency  to  make  men  happy,  in  the  pos- 
session of  their  own  minds,  and  in  all  their  relations  ;  so 
grossly  has  its  nature  been  mistaken,  that  not  only  have 
things  entirely  foreign  to  it  been  substituted  in  its  place,  as 
those  above-mentioned,  but  even  things  that  have  no  other 
effect  than  to  give  pain  and  make  men  miserable.  This 
most  absurd  and  spurious  kind  of  virtue  began  very  early  in 
the  christian  church  ;  and  in  process  of  time  the  austerities 
to  which  Christians  voluntarily  subjected  themselves,  in 
order  to  make  their  peace  with  God,  and  secure  their  future 
happiness,  almost  exceed  belief. 

It  has  been  observed  before,  that  the  first  corruptions  of 
Christianity  were  derived  from  Heathenism,  and  especially 
from  the  principles  of  the  oriental  philosophy;  and  there 
are  similar  austerities  at  this  very  day  among  the  Hindoos. 
Their  notion  that  the  soul  is  a  distinct  substance  from  the 
body,  and  that  the  latter  is  only  a  prison  and  clog  to  the 
former,  naturally  leads  them  to  extenuate  and  mortify  the 
body,  in  order  to  exalt  and  purify  the  soul.^  Hence  came 
the  idea  of  the  great  use  and  value  of  fasting,  of  abstinence 
from  marriage,  and  of  voluntary  pain  and  torture ;  till  at 
length  it  became  a  maxim,  that  the  man  who  could  contrive 
to  make  himself  the  most  miserable  here,  secures  to  himself 
the  greatest  share  of  happiness  hereafter.  As  the  principle 
which  led  to  all  this  system  came  from  the  East,  we  are  not 
surprised   to  find    the   first    traces  of  it   in   those   sects  of 

*  Vol.  II.  p.  60.     (P.)     Pt.  ii.  Ch.  ii.  Sect.iii. 

t  One  of  the  regulations  of  Code  Napoleon  was  wisely  designed  to  counteract 
this  tendency.  After  forbidding  medical  attendants  to  profit  by  testamentary 
grants  from  a  patient  on  liis  deathbed,  beyond  a  fair  remuneration,  for  their  at- 
tendance, the  prohibition  is  thus  extended  to  the  clergy:  "  Les  memes  regies 
seroiit  ohservces  a  I'egard  du  ministre  du  culte."  Code  Napoleon,  L.  iii.  (.'h.  ii. 
Donations  et  Testament,  QQQ.     Paris,  1808,  p.  226. 

t  See  Vol.  III.  pp.  391— 398. 


HISTORY   OF  CHURCH   DISCIPLINE.  349 

christian  heretics  who  borrowed  their  leading  sentiments 
more  immediately  from  the  principles  of  the  oriental  phi- 
losophy. 

The  Gnostics,  considering  matter  and  material  bodies  as 
the  source  of  all  evil,  were  no  friends  to  marriage,  because 
it  was  a  means  of  multiplying  corporeal  beings;  and  upon 
the  same  principle  they  also  objected  to  "the  doctrine  of 
the  resurrection  of  the  body,  and  its  future  re-union  with 
the  immortal  spirit."*  Marcion  also,  adopting  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  oriental  philosophy,  prohibited  marriage,  "  the 
use  of  wine,  flesh,  and  of  all  the  external  comforts  of  life," 
in  order  to  mortify  the  body,  and  call  off  the  mind  from  the 
allurements  of  sense.  Of  the  same  nature  was  the  doctrine 
of  Bardcsanes,  Tvitian,  and  many  others.  •\ 

Some  of  the  heathen  philosophers  in  the  western  world 
had  been  uSed,  from  the  same  principle,  to  exercise  "  strange 
severities  upon  themselves  and  upon  their  disciples,  from 
the  days  of  Pythagoras  down  to  the  time  of  Lucian,  who 
introduces  the  philosopher  Nigrinus  as  condemning  such 
practices,  and  observing  that  the}^  had  occasioned  the  death 
of  several  persons." ;{:  "  The  Greek  philosophers  had  a  par- 
ticular dress,  and  affected  to  appear  rough,  mean  and  dirty. 
— The  christian  monks  imitated  the  old  philosophers  in  their 
garb  and  appearance,"  and  they  were  also  often  censured 
for  the  same  "  pride  and  contentious  spirit." § 

To  vindicate  the  doctrine  of  corporeal  austerity,  it  was 
pretended,  in  the  second  century,  that  Christ  established  a 
double  rule  of  Christianity  and  virtue,  the  one  more  sublime 
than  the  other,  for  those  who  wished  to  attain  to  greater 
perfection.  These  thought  that  it  was  incumbent  on  them 
to  extenuate  and  humble  the  body,  by  fasting,  watching 
and  labour,  and  to  refrain  from  "  wine,  flesh,  matrimony 
and  commerce."  || 

Great  stress  was  also  laid,  both  by  the  eastern  and  vi^estern 
philosophers,  on  contemplation,  to  which  solitude  was  fa- 
vourable. By  thus  excluding  themselves  from  the  world, 
and  meditating  intensely  on  sublime  subjects,  they  thought 
they  could  raise  the  soul  above  all  external  objects,  and 
advance  its  preparation  for  a  better  and  more  spiritual  state 
hereafter.     Many  Christians,  therefore,  and  especially  those 

•  Mosheim,  I.  p.  109.     (P.)     Cent.  i.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  v.  Sect.  v. 

t  Ibid.  pp.  178,  180,     (P.)     Sect.  vii. — ix. 

X  Jortins  Remarks,  III.  p.  23.     (P.)     Ed.  1805,  II.  p.  168. 

k  Ibi.l.  p.  26.    (P.)    Pp   169,  170. 

I!  Mosheim,  I.  p.  157.     (P.)     Cent.  ii.  Pt.  ii.  Cli.  iii.  Sect.  xii. 


350  HISTORY  OF  CHURCH    DISCIPLINE. 

who  had  been  addicted  to  the  Platonic  philosophy,  before 
their  conversion,  were  exceedingly  fond  of  these  exercises. 
And  this  notion,  though  more  liberal  than  the  former,  which 
led  them  to  torment  and  mortify  the  body,  naturally  led 
them  to  be  very  inattentive  to  it,  seeking  the  cultivation  of 
the  tnind,  and  the  knowledge  of  truth,  in  a  fancied  abstrac- 
tion from  all  sensible  objects.  In  this  state  of  contemplation, 
joined  to  solitude  and  abstinence,  it  is  no  wonder  that  the3^ 
were  open  to  many  illusions  ;  fancying  themselves  to  be 
inspired  in  the  same  manner  as  the  heathen  prophets  and 
prophetesses  had  fancied  themselves  to  be,  and  as  madmen 
are  still  generally  imagined  to  be  in  the  East.  These 
pretensions  to  inspiration  were  most  common  among  the 
Montanists,  who  were  also  most  remarkable  for  their  aus- 
terities. 

In  the  third  century,  in  which  the  doctrine  of  Plato 
prevailed  much,  we  find  that  marriage,  though  permitted  to 
all  priests,  as  well  as  other  persons,  was  thought  to  be  unfit 
for  those  who  aspired  after  great  degrees  of  sanctity  and 
purity  ;  it  being  supposed  to  subject  them  to  the  power  of 
evil  demons,  and  on  this  account  many  people  wished  to 
have  their  clergy  unmarried.'^  Origen,  who  M^as  much 
addicted  to  Platonism,  gave  into  the  mystic  theology,  and 
recommended  the  peculiar  practices  of  the  heathen  mystics, 
founded  on  the  notion  that  silence,  tranquillity  and  solitude, 
accompanied  with  acts  of  mortification,  which  exhaust  the 
body,  were  the  means  of  exalting  the  soul. 

The  perversions  of  the  sense  of  scripture,  by  which  these 
unnatural  practices  were  supported,  are  astonishing.  Jerome, 
writing  against  marriage,  calls  those  who  are  in  that  state 
vessels  of  dishonour ;  and  to  them  he  applies  the  saying  of 
Paul,  They  that  are  in  the  flesh  cannot  please  God. 

The  laws  also  of  christian  emperors  soon  began  to  favour 
these  maxims.  Constantine  revoked  all  the  laws  that  made 
celibacy  infamous  among  the  ancient  Romans,  and  made  it 
to  be  considered  as  honourable.  '\ 

I  must  now  proceed  to  mention  various  other  austerities, 
which  poor  deluded  mortals,  whom  I  am  ashamed  to  call 
Christians,  inflicted  upon  themselves,  vainly  imagining  to 
merit  heaven  by  them,  for  themselves  and  others.  In  this 
I  shall,  in  general,  observe  the  order  of  time  in  which  I  find 
an  account  of  them  in  ecclesiastical  history  ;  observing  that 

*  Mosheim,   I.  p.  218.    (P.)    Pt.  ii.  Cli.  ii.  Sect.  vi.    From  Porphyriut;  L.  iv. 
p.  417. 

t  Sueur,  A.  D.  320.     (P.) 


JlISTOJttY  OF  CHURCH    DISCIPLINE.  341 

the  f^c.ts  I  mention  are  but  a  small  specimen  of  the  kind, 
but  they  may  serve  to  give  us  an  idea  of  the  general  sen- 
timents and  spirit  that  prevailed  in  the  dark  ages  of  the 
church. 

Some  of  the  Mystics  of  the  fifth  century  "  not  only  lived 
among  the  wild  beasts,  but  also  after  their  manner.  They 
ran  naked  through  the  lonely  deserts  with  a  furious  as[)ect." 
They  fed  on  "  grass  and  wild  herbs,  avoided  the  sight  and 
conversation  of  men,  remained  motionless  in  certain  places 
for  several  years,  exposed  to  the  rigour  and  inclemency  of 
the  seasons  ;  and  towards  the  conclusion  of  their  lives,  shut 
themselves  up  in  narrow  and  miserable  huts  ;  and  all  this 
was  considered  as  true  piety,  the  only  acceptable  method  of 
worshipping  the  Deity  and  rendering  him  propitious;"  and 
bv  this  means  they  attracted  the  highest  veneration  of  the 
deluded  multitude.  One  "  Simeon,  a  Syrian, — in  order  to 
climb  as  near  heaven  as  he  could,  passed  thirty-seven  years 
of  his  wretched  life  upon  five  pillars,  of  six,  twelve,  twenty- 
two,  thirty-six,  and  forty  cubits  high."  Others  followed 
his  example,  being  "  called  Stifl'ites  by  the  Greeks,  and 
Sancti  Columnarcs,  or  Pillar  Saints,  by  the  Latins  ;"  and, 
of  all  the  instances  of  superstitious  frenzy,  none  were  held 
in  higher  veneration  than  this,  and  the  practice  continued  in 
the  East  till  the  twelfth  century.* 

Among  the  popish  pilgrims  there  is  a  species  called 
Palmers,  from  a  bough  of  palm  which  they  carry  with  them. 
These  have  no  home,  or  place  of  residence,  but  travel  and 
beg  their  bread  till  they  obtain  what  they  call  the  palm,  or  a 
complete  victory  over  their  sins  by  death,  f 

Many  of  the  rules  to  which  the  monastic  orders  are 
subject  are  extremely  rigorous.  Stephen,  a  nobleman  of 
Auvergne,  who  instituted  the  order  of  Grande-monfagne,  with 
the  permission  of  Gregory  VII.,  forbade  his  monks,  "  even 
the  sick  and  infirm,  the  use  of  flesh,"  and  imposed  upon 
them  "  the  solemn  observance  of  a  profound  and  uninter- 
rupted silence.":}: 

The  hermits  of  Luceola  in  Umbria  were  not  allowed  any 
thing  of  fat  in  the  preparation  of  their  vegetables.  They  ate 
only  raw  herbs,  except  on  Sundays  and  Thursdays,  On 
other  days  they  ate  nothing  but  bread  and  water,  and  were 
continually  employed  in  prayer  or  labour.  They  kept  a 
strict  silence  all  the  week,  and  on  Sundays  only  spake  to 

•  Mosheim,  I.  pp.  390, 391.     (P.)      Pt.  ii.  Ch.  iii.  Sect.  xi.  xii. 

t  History  of  Popery,  T.  p.  212.     (P.)     Ed.  1735,  I.  p.  113. 

I  Moslieim,  II.  p.  308.     (P.)     Cent.  xi.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  ii.  Sect.  xxvi. 


S52  HISTORY   OF  CHURCH   DISCIPLINE. 

one  another  between  vespers  and  complines;  and  in  their 
cells  they  had  no  covering  for  their  feet  or  legs. 

The  persons  the  most  distinguished  in  ecclesiastical  his- 
tory for  their  bodily  austerities  aud  religious  exercises,  were 
Dominic,  who  was  one  of  these  hermits,  and  Peter  Damiani, 
who  was  his  spiritual  guide,  both  of  whom  were  mentioned 
above.  This  Dominic  tor  many  years  had  next  to  his  skin 
an  iron  coat  of  mail,  which  he  never  put  off  but  for  the  sake 
of  flagellation.  He  seldom  passed  a  day  without  chanting 
two  psalters,  at  the  same  time  whipping  himself  with  both 
his  hands  ;  and  yet  this  was  his  time  of  greatest  relaxation. 
For  in  Lent,  and  while  he  was  performing  penance  for  other 
persons,  he  would  repeat  at  least  three  psalters  a  day,  whip- 
ping himself  at  the  same  time.  He  would  often  repeat  two 
psalters  without  any  interval  between  them,  without  even 
sitting  down,  or  ceasing  for  one  moment  to  whip  himself. 

Peter  Damiani  asking  him  one  day  if  he  could  kneel 
with  his  coat  of  mail,  he  said,  "  When  I  am  well  I  make  a 
hundred  genuflections  every  fifteenth  psalm,  which  is  a 
thousand  in  the  whole  psalter ;"  and  one  time  he  told  his 
master  that  he  had  gone  through  the  psalter  eight  times  in 
one  day  and  night;  and  at  another  time,  trying  his  utmost, 
he  repeated  it  twelve  times,  and  as  far  as  the  psalm  which 
begins  with  Bcati  Quorum  of  the  thirteenth.  And  in  re- 
peating the  psalter  he  did  not  stop  at  the  hundred  and  fifty 
psalms,  but  added  to  them  the  canticles,  the  hymns,  the 
creed  of  St.  Athanasius,  and  the  litanies,  which  are  to  be 
found  at  the  end  of  the  old  psalters.  His  fasting  and  his 
coat  of  mail  made  his  skin  as  black  as  a  ne2;roe,  and  besides 
this  he  wore  four  iron  rings,  two  on  his  thighs  and  two  on 
his  legs,  to  which  he  afterwards  added  four  others  ;  and 
besides  this  iron  shirt,  he  had  another  under  him  to  sleep 
upon.  Notwithstanding  these  severities,  he  died  very  old 
on  the  fourteenth  of  October,  1062,  which  day  is  dedicated 
to  his  honour  in  the  calendar  of  the  church  of  Rome."*  The 
austerities  of  Peter  Damiani  were  similar  to  these,  and  an 
account  of  them  may  be  seen  in  the  same  historian,  -j* 

In  the  thirteenth  century  there  arose  in  Italy  a  sect  that 
was  called  the  Flagellantes,  or  Whippers^  and  it  was  propa- 
gated from  thence  over  all  the  countries  of  Europe.  They 
ran  about  in  promiscuous  multitudes,  "  of  both  sexes  and  of 
all  ranks  and  ages,"  both  in  public  places  and  in  deserts, 

*  FJeury,  XIII.  p.  99-  (P.)  See  "  St.  Dominique  YEncuirasae"  Nouv.  Diet. 
Hist.  II.  p.  463. 

t  Fleury,  p.  205,  &c.    (P.) 


HISTORY  OF  CHURCH    DISCIPLINE.  353 

"  with  whips  in  their  hands,  lashing  their  naked  bodies  with 
the  most  astonishing  severity,"  shrieking  dreadfully,  and 
looking  up  to  heaven  '*  with  an  air  of  distraction,  ferocity 
and  horror;  and  all  this  with  a  view  to  obtain  the  divine 
mercy  for  themselves  and  others."  For  they  maintained 
"  that  flagellation  was  of  equal  virtue  with  baptism,  and  the 
other  sacraments;"  and  "  that  the  forgiveness  of  all  sins 
was  to  be  obtained  by  it  from  God,  without  the  merits  of 
Jesus  Christ."  These  people  "  attracted  the  esteem  and 
veneration  not  only  of  the  populace,  but  also  of  their 
rulers,"  but  being  afterwards  joined  "  by  a  turbulent  and 
furious  rabble,"  they  fell  into  discredit.  * 

The  Jansenists  carried  their  austerities  so  far,  that  they 
called  those  persons  vvho  put  an  end  to  their  own  lives  by 
their  "  excessive  abstinence  or  labour,  the  sacred  victims  of 
repentance,''  and  said  that  they  had  "  been  consumed  by  the 
Jire  of  divine  love."  By  these  sufferings  they  tliought  to 
"  appease  the  anger  of  the  Deity,  and  not  only  contribute 
to  their  own  felicity,  but  draw  down  abundant  blessings 
upon  their  friends  and  upon  the  church. — The  famous  Abb6 
de  Paris — put  himself  to  a  most  painful  death,"  depriving 
himself  of  almost  all  the  blessings  of  life,  "  in  order  to 
satisfy,"  as  he  thought,  "  the  justice  of  an  incensed  God/'-j* 

So  famous  was  the  devout  nunnery  of  Port  Royal  in  the 
Fields,  "  that  multitudes  of  pious  persons  were  ambitious  to 
dvvell  in  its  neighbourhood,"  and  to  imitate  the  manners  of 
those  nuns  ;  and  this  in  so  late  a  period  as  the  seventeenth 
century.  "  The  end  which  these  penitents  had  in  view 
was,  by  silence,  hunger,  thirst,  prayer,  bodily  labour,  watch- 
ings,  and  other  voluntary  acts  of  self-denial,  to  efface  the 
guilt  and  remove  the  pollution  the  soul  had  derived  from 
natural  corruptions  or  evil  habits."  Many  persons,  "  illus- 
trious both  by  their  birth  and  stations,"  chose  this  mode  of 
life.+ 

Dr.  iMiddleton  mentions  a  practice  still  kept  up  cit  Rome, 
which  is  equally  shocking  on  account  of  its  cruelty  and 
absurdity.  "  In  one  of  these  processions,  made  lately  to  St. 
Peter's,  in  the  time  of  Lent,  1  saw,"  says  he,  "  that  ridi- 
culous penance  of  the  Flagellantes,  or  self-whippers,  who 
march  with  whips  in  their  hands,  and  lash  themselves  as 
they  go  along,  on  the  bare  back,  till  it  is  all  covered  with 

•  Mosheim,  III.  pp.  94,  95,  206.  (P.)  Cent.  xiii.  I't.  ii.  Ch.  iii.  Sett.  iii. 
Cent.  xiv.  Pt  ii.  Ch.  v.  Sect.  vii. 

t   Ibid.  !V.  p.  382.     (P.)     Cent.  xvii.  Sect.  ii.  Pt.  i.  Ch.  i.  xlvl. 
t  Ibid.  pp.  S84,  SS-i.    (P.)    xlvii. 
VOL.   V.  9  A 


364f  HISTORY  OF  CHURCH   DISCIPLINfi. 

blood  ;  in  the  same  manner  as  the  fanatical  priests  of 
Bellona,  or  the  Syrian  goddess,  as  well  as  the  votaries  of 
/m,  used  to  slash  and  cut  themselves  of  old  ; — which  mad 
piece  of  discipline  we  find  frequently  mentioned,  and  as  oft 
ridiculed,  by  the  ancient  writers." 

"  But,"  says  he,  *'  they  have  another  exercise  of  the  same 
kind,  and  in  the  same  season  of  Lent,  which,  under  the 
notion  of  penance,  is  still  a  more  absurd  mockery  of  all 
religion  :    when  on  a   certain  day,  appointed   annually  for 
this  discipline,  men  of  all  conditions  assemble  themselves 
towards  the  evening  in  one  of  the  churches  of  the  city, 
where  whips,  or  lashes  made  of  cords,  are  provided,  and  dis- 
tributed  to  every  person   present ;   and  after  they  are  all 
served,  and  a  short  office  of  devotion  performed,  the  candles 
being  put  out,  upon  the  warning  of  a  little  bell,  the  whole 
company  begin  presently  to  strip,  and  try  the  force  of  these 
whips  on  their  own  backs,  for  the  space  of  near  an  hour ; 
during  all  which  time  the  church  becomes,  as  it  were,  the 
proper  image  of  hell,  where  nothing  is  heard  but  the  noise 
of  lashes  and  chains,  mixed  with  the  groans  of  these  self- 
tormentors ;    till,  satiated  with  their  exercise,  they  are  con- 
tent to  put  on  their  clothes,  and  the  candles  being  lighted 
again  upon  the  tinkling  of  a  second  bell,  they  all  appear  in 
their  proper  dress."  * 

Besides  the  idea  of  tormenting  the  body  for  the  good  of 
the  soul,  the  Platonists  especially,  as  I  have  observed  above, 
had  a  notion  of  exalting  the  soul  by  contemplation,  fancying 
that  the  mind  contained  within  itself  the  elements  of  all 
knowledge,  and  that  they  were  best  drawn  forth  by  looking 
within  ;  and  also  that  communion  with  God  was  best  kept 
up  by  an  abstraction  of  the  mind  from  all  corporeal  things. 
These  notions  chiefly  gave  rise  to  what  is  generally  called 
mysticism,  with  which  the  minds  of  the  early  monks  were 
much  tinctured,  and  which,  more  or  less,  affected  most  of 
those  who  had  recourse  to  bodily  austerities.  But  others, 
without  taking  any  particular  pains  to  torment  the  body, 
gave  themselves  almost  wholly  to  contemplation. 

This  turn  of  mind,  giving  great  scope  for  the  flights  of 
fancy,  produced  very  different  effects  on  different  persons, 
and  in  some  it  operated  as  an  antidote  to  the  vulgar  super- 
stition of  the  church  of  Rome,  in  which  hardly  any  thing 
was  attended  to  for  many  ages  besides  mere  bodily  exercises. 
For  though  the  ideas  of  the  Mystics  were  very  confused, 

*  Letter  from  Rome,  p.  190,  &c.    (P.)    Works,  III.  pp.  100,  101. 


HISTORY  OF  CHURCH    DISCIPLINE.  355 

they  had  a  notion  of  the  necessity  of  aiming  at  something  of 
inicard  purity^  distinct  from  all  ritual  observances.  Nay, 
these  notions  led  son)e  of  them  (seeing  the  abuse  that  had 
been  made  of  positive  rites)  to  renounce  them  all  together, 
even  those  of  divine  appointment,  as  baptism  and  the  Lord's 
supper. 

Mosheim  says  that,  ••'  if  any  sparks  of  real  piety  subsisted" 
during  the  reign  of  papal  superstition,  it  was  "  among  the 
Mystics,"  w^ho,  "  renouncing  the  subtilty  of  the  schools,  the 
vain  contentions  of  the  learned,  with  all  the  acts  and  cere- 
monies of  external  worship,  exhorted  their  followers  to  aim 
at  nothino^  but  internal  sanctity  of  heart  and  communion 
with  God,  the  centre  and  source  of  holiness  and  perfection. 
Hence  the  Mystics  were  loved  and  respected  by  many  per- 
sons who  had  a  serious  sense  of  religion  ;"  but,  he  adds,  they 
joined  much  superstition  with  their  reveries.  * 

On  some  persons  these  notions  had  a  very  unfavourable 
effect.  In  the  thirteenth  century  there  w^as  formed  a  society 
called  '■■  the  Brethren  and  Sisters  of  the  free  spirit, — called 
by  the  Germans  and  Flemish,  Beghards  and  Begutti  s, — a 
name  usually  given  to  those  who  made  an  extraordinary 
profession  of  piety  and  devotion. — In  France  they  were 
known  by  the  appellation  of  Beghins  and  Beghines. — They 
ran  from  place  to  place,  clothed  in  the  most  singular  and 
fantastic  apparel,  and  begged  their  bread  with  wild  shouts 
and  clamours,  rejecting  with  horror  every  kind  of  industry 
and  labour,  as  an  obstacle  to  divine  contemplation."  They 
maintained  "  that  every  man,  by  the  power  of  contempla- 
tion, and  by  calling  off  his  mind  from  sensible  and  terrestrial 
objects,  might  be  united  to  the  Deity  in  an  ineffable  man- 
ner," so  as  to  become  "  a  part  of  the  sjodhead, — in  the  same 
sense  and  manner  that  Christ  was,"  and  thereby'  become 
"  freed  from  the  obligation  of  all  laws  human  and  divine." 
In  consequence  of  this,  "  they  treated  with  contempt  the 
ordinances  of  the  gospel — as  of  no  sort  of  use  to  the  perfect 
man."  Some  of  these  poor  wretches  were  burnt  in  the 
Inquisition,  and  endured  various  other  persecutions,  f 

We  even  find  some  who  carried  their  notion  of  the  ab- 
straction of  the  mind  from  the  body  to  such  a  degree,  that 
they  fancied  that  when  the  mind  had  attained  to  a  certain 
pitch  of  perfection  by  means  of  contemplation,  no  act  in 
which  the  body  only  was  concerned  could  affect  it ;   so  that 

•  Mosheim,  111.  pp.  301,  302.     (P.)     Cent.  xv.  Sect.  i.  Ch.  i.  fin. 
t  Ibid.  pp.  122 — 1?4.     (P.)    Cent.  xiii.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  v.  Sect.  ix.  x.     Four  friars 
were  burnt  sls  Begui-m  in  131 S.     See  jAmborrh,  C  xix.  1.  p.  10r>. 

'2  A  2 


356  HISTORY   OF   CHURCH  DISCIPLINE* 

they  might  indulge  themselves  in  any  sensual  pleasure 
without  contracting  the  least  defilement  of  soul.  The  con- 
sequences of  this  opinion  could  not  but  be  exceedingly 
pernicious. 

Some  of  the  spiritual  brethren  in  Flanders  (and  who,  as 
Mosheim  says,  were  patronized  by  several  of  the  reformed 
churches)  maintained,  that  the  Deit}'  was  the  sole  operating- 
cause  in  the  mind  of  man,  and  the  immediate  author  of  all 
human  actions  ;  and  consequently  that  the  distinction  of 
good  and  evil  was  groundless,  that  religion  consisted  in  the 
union  of  the  soul  with  God,  attained  by  contemplation  and 
elevation  of  mind,  and  that  when  this  was  gained,  all  indul- 
gence of  the  appetites  and  passions  was  perfectly  innocent.  * 
"  Margaret  Poretta,  who  made  such  a  shining  figure"amongst 
the  Beghards,  and  who  "  was  burnt  at  Paris  in  1310,"  wrote 
"  an  elaborate  treatise,"  to  prove  "  that  the  soul,  when 
absorbed  in  the  love  of  God,  is  free  from  the  restraint  of 
every  law,  and  may  freely  gratify  all  its  natural  appetites 
without  contracting  any  guilt."  j- 

These  licentious  maxims  were  ascribed  by  the  Jesuits, 
but  probably  without  reason,  to  the  Quietists  in  general,  a 
sect  which  arose  in  1686,  and  gave  great  disturbance  to  the 
court  of  Rome.  The  Inquisition  put  many  of  these  sectaries 
in  prison,  and,  among  others,  Molinos,  who  was  one  of  the 
chief  of  them,  and  they  put  him  to  the  torture  in  order  to 
discover  his  accomplices.  Letters  were  also  written  to  all 
the  bishops  of  Italy  to  exhort  them  not  to  suffer  Quietism 
to  take  root  in  their  dioceses.  But,  notwithstanding  this, 
the  sect  made  such  progress  in  a  short  time,  by  the  external 
marks  of  mortification,  devotion,  contemplation,  abstraction 
of  mind,  and  a  pretended  intimate  union  with  God,  that 
many  persons  of  condition  adopted  their  sentiments;  and 
even  some  cardinals  were  infected  by  them.  On  this  the 
Popes  and  the  Jesuits  exerted  themselves  so  much,  that  in  a 
general  congregation  of  the  Inquisition,  Molinos  was  con- 
demned to  perpetual  imprisonment,  and  to  renounce  his 
opinions.  ^ 

This  sect  made  great  progress  in  Italy  in  1696,  and  in- 
creased notwithstanding  all  the  opposition  which  was  made 
to  it.  The  pious  Fenelon,  archbishop  of  Cambray,  gave 
into  this  visionary  system,  and  his  humility  and  excellent 

*  Mosheim,  III.  p.  127.     (P.)     Cent.  xiii.   Pt.  ii.  Ch.  v.    Sect.  xi. 
t  Ibid.  Ill,  p.  202.     (P.)     Cent.  xiv.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  v. 

X  Histoire  des  Papes,  V.  p.  381.  (P.)  See  "  A  Letter  writ  from  Rome, — 
concerning  the  Quietibts."     Sect.  iv.     Suppt.  to  Burnet's  Letters,  1688,  pp.  I — 93. 


HISTORY  OF  CHURCH   DISCIPLINE.  357 

disposition  appeared,  together  with  his  weakness  of  mind, 
and  bigotted  attachment  to  the  church  of  Rome,  in  his  readi- 
ness to  recant,  and  condemn  his  own  writings  vvlien  they 
were  censured  by  the  Pope.* 

Madame  Bourignon  was  a  woman  who  distinguished  her- 
self much  by  an  attachment  to  the  same  system.  She  main- 
tained "  that  the  Christian  rehgion  neither  consists  in  know- 
ledge nor  in  practice,  but  in  a  certain  internal  feeling  and 
divine  impulse,  that  arises  immediately  from  communion 
with  the  Deity." t 

Something  similar  to  the  principles  of  the  Quietists  are 
those  of  the  Quakers  in  England  ;  who,  though  they  are  far 
from  substituting  any  thing  in  the  place  of  virtue,  yet  expect 
supernatural  illumination  and  assistance,  to  enlighten  the 
mind  and  to  form  it  to  virtue.  They  maintain,  that  there  is 
concealed  in  the  minds  of  all  men,  a  certain  portion  of  the 
same  light  or  wisdom  that  exists  in  the  Supreme  Being, 
which  is  drawn  forth  by  self-converse  and  contemplation. 
This  divine  light  they  usually  call  the  internal  icord,  or  CInist 
within.  But  many  of  the  modern  Quakers  make  this  hidden 
principle  to  be  nothing  more  than  that  of  natural  conscience, 
or  reason  ;  though  in  this  they  certainly  depart  from  the  ge- 
nuine principles  of  their  ancestors,  on  which  their  sect  was 
founded.  The  primitive  Quakers  (even  as  the  more  rigid 
among  them  at  present  do)  certainly  pretended  to  speak  and 
act  by  the  same  kind  of  inspiration  by  vvhich  the  apostles 
themselves  acted,  and  therefore  they  made  no  greater  account 
of  the  apostolical  writings,  or  of  the  Scriptures  in  general, 
than  of  their  own  suggestions. |' 

As  the  last  effort  of  human  ingenuity  and  depravit}^  I 
shall  give  a  short  account  of  the  sophistical  casuistry  of  the 
Jesuits;  a  religious  order  which  arose  after  the  Reformation, 
and  which  was  for  some  time  esteemed  to  be  the  great 
bulwark  of  the  papal  power,  but  is  now,  in  consequence  of 
their  becoming  suspected  by  the  civil  powers,  happily  abo- 
lished.§ 

They  employed  all  the  force  of  their  subtle  distinctions  to 
sap  the  foundations  of  morality,  in  order  to  accommodate 
themselves  to  princes,  and   great  men,  who  generally  chose 

*  "  Si  le  Tape  condamne  mon  livre,  je  serai,  s'il  plait  a  Dieii,  le  premier  a  le  con- 
damner,  et  a  faire  un  mandement  pour  en  defendre  la  lecture."  Letter  from  Paris 
to  the  Duke  of  Beauvilliers,  l697.  Life  of  Fenelon,  1723,  p.  97.  Examen.,  &c. 
1747,  p.  112. 

t   Mosheim,  V.  p.  65.    (P.)     Cent.  xvii.  Sect.  ii.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  vii.  iv. 

X  See  Barclay  Prop.  ii.  iii.  on  Immediate  Revelation  and  the  Scriptures. 

fj  There  ban  been,  lately,  a  feeble  attempt  to  restore  this  Order. 


35S  HISTORY  OF  CHURCH   DISCIPLINE. 

their  confessors  from  their  body ;  and  in  process  of  time  they 
opened  a  door  to  all  sorts  ck  licentiousness.  Among  other 
things,  they  represented  it  &i;  a  matter  of  indifference  what 
motives  determined  the  actions  of  inen  :  and  taught  that  there 
is  no  sin  in  transgressing  a  divine  law  that  is  not  fully  known 
to  a  person,  or  the  true  meaning  of  which  is  not  perfectly 
understood  by  him,  or  that  is  not  even  present  to  his  mind 
at  the  time  of  action.  They  also  maintained  "  that  an 
opinion  or  precept  may  be  followed  with  a  good  conscience, 
when  it  is  inculcated  by  four,  or  three,  or  two,  nay,  even  by 
one  doctor  of  any  considerable  reputation,  even  though  it  be 
contrary  to  the  judgment  of  him  that  follows  it,  and  even  of 
him  that  recommends  it."  This  they  call  the  doctrine  of 
probability . 

They  also  held  what  they  called  the  doctnne  of  philosophical 
sin,  according  to  w^iich  "  an  action,  or  course  of  actions,  that 
is  repugnant  to  the  dictates  of  reason,"  might  not  be  "  offen- 
sive to  the  Deity."  They  held  that  wicked  actions  might 
"  be  innocently  performed,"  if  persons  could,  in  their  own 
mind,  connect  "  a  good  end"  with  them,  or  as  they  expressed 
it,  be  "  capable  of  directing  their  intention  aright."  Thus,  a 
man  who  kills  his  neighbour  in  a  duel  w^ould  be  acquitted  hj 
them,  if,  at  the  time,  he  "  turn  his  thoughts  from  the  prin- 
ciple of  vengeance  to  the  more  decent  principle  of  honour." 
Agreeably  to  this,  they  even  held  that  an  oath  might  be  taken 
with  "  mental  additions  and  tacit  reservations."  This,  how- 
ever, does  not  agree  with  their  being  charged  with  paying  no 
attention  to  the  motives  wnth  which  actions  are  performed  ;, 
but  it  agrees  very  well  with  their  maintaining  that  the  sacra- 
ments produced  their  effect  by  their  own  virtue,  and  imme- 
diate operation,  or  what  they  called  opus  operatam.  But  it 
cannot  be  supposed  that  all  these  maxims  were  held  with 
perfect  uniformity  by  them  all.* 

The  folly  and  wickedness  of  these  maxims  were  admirably 
exposed  by  the  famous  Paschal,  in  his  Provincial  Letters, 
which,  for  their  excellent  composition  and  good  sense,  were 
read  with  the  utmost  avidity,  and  the  highest  approbation, 
through  all  Europe;  in  consequence  of  which  their  doctrines 
were  universally  exploded,  and  held  in  the  greatest  abhor- 
rence by  all  men.  Indeed  the  extreme  odiousness  of  them 
contributed  not  a  little  to  the  downfal  of  the  order. 

It  is  a  dangerous  maxim,  not  of  the  Jesuits  only,  but  of 

♦  Mosheim,  III.  pp.  467,  468.  IV.  p.  353,  &c.  (P.)  Cent.  xvi.  Sect  iii.  Pt.  i. 
Ch.  i.  XXXV.    Cent.  xvii.  Sect.  ii.  Pt.  i.  Ch.  L  xxxv. 


HISTORY   OF  CHURCH   DISCIPLINE.  3i9 

the  divines  of  the  church  of  Rome  in  general,  to  distinguish 
between  coutrilion  dnd  attrition ;  allowing  great  merit  even 
to  the  latter,  though  it  consist  of  any  kind  of  sorrow  on  the 
account  of  sin,  even  for  the  loss  or  disgrace  that  it  brings 
upon  a  man,  "  without  a  resolution  to  sin  no  more.  Such  a 
sorrow  as  this  is,  they  teach,  does  make  the  sacrament  (of 
penance)  effectual.  This  was  settled  by  the  Council  of 
Trent,"  though  the  Protestants  thought  that  it  struck  *'  at 
the  root  of  all  religion  and  virtue."  * 

But  the  most  flagrant  instance  of  immorality  with  which 
the  church  of  Rome  is  charged,  is  the  holding  that  no  faith 
is  to  be  kept  with  heretics;  and  upon  this  principle  the 
Council  of  Constance  acted,  when  the  safe  conduct  which 
the  emperor  Sigismund  had  given  to  John  Huss,  the  Bohe- 
mian reformer,  was  declared  to  be  invalid,  as  given  to  an 
heretic,  on  which  lie  was  arrested  and  condemned  to  the 
flames.  From  this  time  it  was  the  opinion  of  many  in  the 
church  of  Rome,  that  no  promise  made  to  an  heretic  is 
binding. 

Pope  Eugenius  authorized  Uladislaus,  king  of  Hungary, 
to  break  a  solemn  treaty  with  Amurath,  emperor  of  the 
Turks,  which  ended  as  it  might  be  wished  that  such  horrible 
prevarication  might  always  end.  The  Turk  carried  a  copy 
of  the  treaty  into  the  field  of  battle,  and  displaying  it  in  the 
beginning  of  the  engagement,  pronounced  aloud,  "  Behold, 
O  Jesus,  these  are  the  covenants  which  thy  Christians,  swear- 
ing by  thy  name,  made  with  me.  Now,  therefore,  if  thou  art 
a  God,  revenge  these  injuries  tome,  and  to  th3'self,  upon  their 
perfidious  heads."  The  consequence  was,  that  the  Turks 
being  exceedingly  exasperated,  and  the  Christians  dispi- 
rited, the  latter  were  put  to  flight ;  and  both  the  king,  and 
tlie  cardinal,  who  had  urged  him  to  break  the  peace,  and 
who  was  along  with  him,  were  killed  upon  the  spot. 

I  have  not  found  any  public  or  general  declaration  on  the 
subject  of  keeping  no  faith  with  heretics,  but  that  of  Cle- 
ment IX.,  who,  in  his  j^cts,  printed  at  Rome,  in  1724, 
expressly  declares  that  all  promises  or  stipulations  made  in 
favour  of  Protestants,  are  entirely  null  and  void,  whenever 
they  are  prejudicial  to  the  Catholic  faith,  the  salvation  of 
souls,  or  to  any  rights  of  the  church  ;  even  though  such 
engagements  have  been  often  ratified  and  confirmed  by  oath. 

I  have  no  doubt,  however,  but  that  the  Catholics  of  this 
day  would  reject  this  doctrine  with  as  much  abhorrence  as 

•  Burnet,  p.  348.  (P.)  Art.  xx v.  Ed.  4,  p.  256.  Con.Trid.  5'm5.  xiv.  Ch.  iv.  p.  89 


360  HISTORY  OF  CHURCH  DISCIPLINE. 

Protestants  themselves :  *  and,  indeed,  if  it  had  not  been  a 
general  opinion  with  them,  that  oaths  and  subscriptions  pre- 
scribed by  Protestants  were  binding,  no  reason  can  be  given 
why  they  should  not  have  taken  the  oaths  which  have  been 
employed  in  this  country  to  prevent  them  from  enjoying  the 
advantages  of  other  subjects  ;  and  yet,  in  all  the  time  since 
the  government  of  this  country  has  been  Protestant,  no  such 
instance  has  been  produced.  The  Catholics  have  univer- 
sally submitted  to  their  exclusion  from  all  places  of  honour 
and  profit,  the  payment  of  double  taxes,  &c.  &c.  without 
ever  endeavouring  to  relieve  themselves  by  a  declaration  or 
oath,  which  the  Protestants  say  they  would  not  consider  as 
binding,  and  for  the  violation  of  which  they  might,  it  is  said, 
beat  least  sure  of  obtaining  an  absolution  at  Rome.-j"  But 
even  there,  it  is  very  probable,  that  no  such  absolution 
would  now  be  given. 

It  is  to  be  hoped,  that  in  many  other  respects.  Catholics 
do  not  lay  the  stress  they  have  been  formerly  taught  to  do  on 
things  foreign  to  real  virtue,  that  is,  to  good  dispositions  of 
mind,  and  a  good  conduct  in  life;  as  it  is  to  be  lamented, 
that  many  Protestants  are  far  from  being  free  from  all  super- 
stition in  these  respects.  But  now  that  the  minds  of  men 
seem  to  be  so  well  opened  to  the  admission  of  religious  truth 
in  general,  errors  so  fundamental  as  these  which  relate  to 
inoralitif  will  hardly  remain  long  without  redress.  It  will 
be  happy  if  the  reformation  of  Christians  in  doctrine  and 
discipline  be  followed  by  a  suitable  reformation  in  practice. 

*  See  the  References,  Vol.  II.  p.  52.     Note. 

t  "  If  there  be  any  Protestant  of  common  understanding  and  candour,  who  may 
still  suspect  that  a  snake  lurks  in  the  grass,  I  would  ask  hiin  this  plain  question  : 
If  the  English  Catholics  imagined  that  the  Pope  could  dispense  with  their  oaths, 
why  have  they  so  long, persevered  in  refusing  to  take  the  oaths  of  Suyremacy,  and 
the  Test,  and  so  re-enter,  all  at  once,  into  their  British  birth-rights  ?  This  consi- 
deration, alone,  one  might  think,  should  stop  the  luouth  of  c'aptiousness  itself." 
Geddes's  Apol-  pp.  134,  135. 


3G[ 

THE 

HISTORY 

OF    TUB 

C^orvuptioniS  of  ©j^riiattiaiuti). 


PART  X. 


T/u-  History   of  Ministers   in  the  Christian  Churchy  and 
especially  of  Bishops. 


■♦  ■»  » 


THE 

INTRODUCTION. 


The  Christian  church  was  served  originally  (exclusive  of 
the  apostles  and  other  temporary  officers)  by  Elders  and 
Deacons  only,  the  former  being  appointed  for  spiritual  mat- 
ters, and  the  latter  for  civil  affairs.  They  were  all  chosen 
by  the  people,  and  were  ordained  to  their  office  by  prayer, 
which,  when  it  was  made  on  the  behalf  of  any  particular 
person,  was  in  early  times  always  accompanied  with  the 
imposition  of  hands.  For  the  sake  of  order  in  conducting 
any  business  that  concerned  the  whole  society,  one  of  the 
elders  was  made  president  or  moderator  in  their  assemblies, 
but  without  any  more  power  than  that  of  having  a  single 
vote  with  the  rest  of  his  brethren.  From  this  simple  con- 
stitution, it  is  certainly  astonishing  to  consider  how  these 
servants  of  the  church  came  in  time  to  be  the  lords  of  it,  and 
of  the  world  ;  and  it  is  curious  to  observe  the  various  steps 
by  which  this  change  was  made. 

SECTION   I. 

The  History  of  Christian  Ministers  till  the  Fall  of  the 
Western  Empire. 

The   first  change   in   the    constitution   of  the  primitive 
churches  was  making  the  most  distinguished  of  the  elders 


362  HISTORY  OF  MINISTERS 

to  be  constant  president,  or  moderator,  in  their  assemblies, 
and  appropriating  to  him  the  title  of  (eTTiorxoTroj),  or  bishop, 
which  had  before  been  common  to  all  the  presbyters  or 
elders,  but  without  giving  him  any  peculiar  power  or 
authority. 

Since  the  first  Christian  converts  were  almost  wholly  from 
the  common  ranks  of  life,  there  could  be  no  great  difference 
in  their  qualifications  for  any  office,  except  what  natural  good 
sense,  or  age  and  experience,  might  give  to  some  more  than 
to  others.  In  this  state  of  things,  it  is  evident,  that  none  of 
them  could  have  been  educated  with  a  view  to  any  employ- 
ment of  this  kind.  But  it  was  soon  found  expedient,  and 
especially  on  account  of  the  controversies  which  they  had 
with  Jews  and  Heathens,  as  well  as  among  themselves,  that 
their  public  instructors,  and  especially  these  bishops,  should 
be  men  of  some  learning ;  and  accordingly  schools  were 
erected,  in  very  early  times,  in  which  young  men  were  in- 
structed in  such  branches  of  knowledge,  as  were  found  to  be 
most  useful  to  them  in  the  discharge  of  their  ministerial 
duties.  Ancient  writers  say,  that  the  apostle  John  esta- 
blished a  school,  or  academy  of  this  kind,  at  Ephesus. 
However,  that  which  was  afterwards  established  at  Alex- 
andria, in  Egypt,  called  the  Catechetic  School,  formed  upon 
the  plan  of  those  of  the  Greek  philosophers,  was  particularly 
famous. 

A  better  education  and  superior  fitness  for  the  more  con- 
spicuous duties  of  Christian  societies,  in  expounding  the 
Scriptures,  giving  various  instruction,  public  prayer,  &c. 
would  naturally  create  a  greater  difference  than  had  been 
known  before  between  Christian  ministers  and  the  people, 
and  for  the  same  reason  between  the  bishops  and  the  elders; 
and  power  and  influence  never  fail  to  accompany  superior 
qualifications.  But  it  was  several  centuries  before  the  com- 
mon people  ceased  to  have  votes  in  every  thing  that  related 
to  the  whole  society. 

The  first  great  change  in  the  constitution  of  the  Christian 
church  was  the  exaltation  of  the  presbyters  into  the  rank  of 
bishops  in  churches  ;  which  was,  in  fact,  an  annihilation  of 
that  important  order  of  men,  and  threw  the  government  of  a 
church  into  the  hands  of  one  person. 

The  manner  in  which  this  change  took  place  was  gradual 
and  easy.  Whenever  the  number  of  converts  in  any  place 
became  too  great  for  them  to  assemble  with  convenience  in 
ODe  building,  they  erected  other  places  of  public  worship  ; 
but  considering  these  not  as  new  and  distinct  churches,  b«t 


IN  THE  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH.  $6$ 

as  branches  of  the  old  one,  in  order  to  preserve  the  connexion 
with  the  mother  church,  they  did  not  ordain  a  new  bishop, 
but  had  ail  the  ministerial  duty  done  either  by  some  of  the 
former  presbyters,  or  by  new  ones  ordained  for  that  purpose. 

In  this  train  things  went  on,  till  at  length  the  mother 
church,  or  some  of  the  depemlent  churches,  sending  out 
more  colonies,  and  to  greater  distances,  the  bishop  of  the 
mother  church  (being  the  only  person  in  the  district  who 
bore  that  name)  came  to  be  a  diocesan  bishop,  whose  elders 
and  deacons  presided  in  all  the  separate  and  dependent 
churclies.  Very  few  elders  also  remained  in  the  mother 
church,  because  none  were  now  ordained  to  that  office,  ex- 
cept such  as  lived  by  the  ministry.  The  church  of  Rome 
must  have  been  in  this  state  at  the  beginning  of  the  fourth 
century,  when  MaruUus  divided  it  (that  is,  all  the  Christians 
in  Rome)  into  twenty-five  parishes,  appointing  one  priest 
for  each  of  them,  to  instruct  the  people,  and  to  administer 
the  sacraments.  It  was  the  custom  for  the  bishop  to  send  a 
part  of  the  consecrated  bread,  after  the  administration  of  the 
eucharist,  to  each  of  these  dependent  churches.* 

Sometimes,  however,  when  new  churches  were  erected  in 
places  at  a  distance  from  any  capital  town,  they  were  go- 
verned by  new-made  bishops,  presbyters  and  deacons,  like 
the  original  churches.  Beausobre  says,  that  he  believes  one 
cannot  find  an  instance  so  early  as  the  middle  of  the  third 
century  of  a  church  governed  by  a  single  presbyter. 'j*  These 
country  bishops,  called  choroepiscopi,  made  but  a  poor  figure 
in  comparison  with  the  opulence  and  splendour  of  the  city 
bishops.  But  before  they  were  generally  abolished,  which 
was  in  the  fourth  century,  their  rank  and  power  were  very 
much  diminished.  In  a  council  held  at  Antioch,  in  ;341, 
these  country  bishops  were  forbidden  to  ordain  priests  or 
deacons,  and  had  only  the  power  of  appointing  persons 
to  inferior  offices  in  the  church.  By  degrees  the  country 
bishops  were  entirely  abolished  (though  not  in  all  places  till 
so  late  as  the  tenth  century),  when  rural  deans  and  arch-priests 
were  instituted  in  their  place. ;{:  After  this  the  system  of 
diocesan  episcopacy  was  fully  established.  There  were 
bishops  in  capital  towns  only,  and  all  the  churches  within 
their  districts  were  governed  by  presbyters,  or  deacons  under 
them. 

As  the  distinction  between  bishops  and  presbyters  has 

•  Sueur,  A.  D.  307,  313.  (P.)  t  Hist,  of  Manicbeisin,  I.  p.  113.  'P.) 

X  Sueur,  A.D.  341,439.    (P-) 


364  HISTORY  OF  MINISTERS 

been  the  subject  of  much  controversy  between  the  advocates 
for  the  church  of  England  and  the  Dissenters,  I  shall  produce 
a  few  more  authorities  to  prove  that  originally  they  were  the 
same  order  of  men. 

At  first  the  oldest  of  the  presbyters  succeeded  of  course  to 
the  place  of  president  among  them.  But  this  ceased  to  be 
the  case  even  in  the  age  of  the  apostles,  when  the  president 
was  chosen  by  the  plurality  of  votes,  and  then  the  title  of 
bishop,  which  before  had  been  common  to  all  the  presbyters, 
was  appropriated  to  him.  This,  says  Sueur,  was  in  the  time 
ofHyginus.* 

In  the  age  of  Cyprian,  when  distinctions  were  made  among 
the  bishops  themselves,  and  when  he  himself  was  the  metro- 
politan of  the  whole  province,  and  one  who  was  a  strenuous 
advocate  for  the  power  and  dignity  of  the  clergy,  it  appears 
that  even  this  metropolitan  bishop  had  no  more  authority 
than  to  assemble,  the  clergy  of  his  province,  to  preside  in 
their  councils,  and  to  admonish  his  brethren.  There  was  no 
act  of  a  spiritual  nature  that  was  peculiar  to  himself;  and, 
in  his  absence  from  the  church,  during  his  persecution,  every 
part  of  his  office  was  discharged  by  his  presbyters. 

Chrysostom  says,  that  when  the  apostle  Paul  gives  orders 
to  Titus  to  ordain  elders  in  every  city,  "  he  means  bishops. 
For,"  says  he,  "  he  would  not  have  the  whole  island  (of 
Crete)  committed  to  one  man,  but  that  every  one  should 
have  and  mind  his  own  proper  cure  ;  for  so  the  labour  would 
be  easier  to  him,  and  the  people  to  be  governed  would  have 
more  care  taken  of  them  ;  since  their  teacher  would  not  run 
about  to  govern  many  churches,  but  would  attend  to  the 
ruling  one  only,  and  so  keep  it  in  good  order."-|-  Theophy- 
lact  also  interprets  the  passage  in  the  same  manner,  saying, 
"  that  every  city  should  have  its  own  pastor,"  and  that  by 
presbyters  in  this  place  the  apostle  "  means  bishops."  %  Oc- 
cumenius  and  Theodoret  likewise  say,  "  that  the  apostle 
would  not  commit"  the  charge  of"  so  large  an  island  to  one 
man,"§  and  yet  it  is  not  so  large  as  some  of  our  dioceses. 

Jerome,  on  the  Epistle  to  Titus,  says,  that  among  the 
ancients,  priests  and  bishops  were  the  same  ;  but  that  by 
degrees  the  care  of  a  church  Avas  given  to  one  person,  in 
order  to  prevent  dissension.  This  he  proves  at  large  from 
many  passages  in  the  New  Testament.  Let  the  bishops 
know,  says  he,  that  they  are  above  the  priests  more  by  custom 

•  Sueur,  A.  D.  142.     (P.) 

t  In  Titum,  L.  v.  Op.  X.  p.  1700.     (P.)    Pierce's  Vindication,  p.  375.      , 

X  Pierce's  Vindication,  p.  37.5.    (P.)  ^     Ibid.  p.  348.     (P.) 


IN  THE  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH.  365 

than  by  the  appointment  of  Clirist.*  The  same  learned  father 
also  says  that,  at  the  beginning,  churches  were  governed  by 
the  common  council  of  presbyters,  like  an  aristocracy  ;  but 
afterwards  the  superintendency  was  given  to  one  of  the  pres- 
byters, who  was  then  called  the  bishop,  and  who  governed 
the  church,  but  still  with  the  council  of  the  presbyters.f 

At  first  bishops  were  appointed  by  the  wiiole  congregation, 
consisting  oi  clergy  and  laity^  as  they  were  afterwards  called, 
nor  did  any  church  apply  to  the  neighbouring  bishops  to 
assist  at  the  ordination.  Irenaeus  was  ordained  by  priests 
only,  and  such  was  the  general  custom  of  the  church  of 
Alexandria  till  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century. ;{:  Cy- 
prian also  says,  that  it  belonged  to  the  people  chiefly  to 
choose  worthy  pastors,  and  to  refuse  the  unworthy. 

Afterwards,  when  a  new  bishop  was  chosen  in  any  church, 
it  came  to  be  the  custom  to  invite  the  neighbouring  bishops 
to  attend,  and  assist  on  the  occasion  ;  and  while  this  was 
voluntary  on  both  sides,  there  was  a  decency  and  propriety 
in  it ;  as  it  shewed  the  readiness  of  the  neighbouring  bishops 
to  receive  the  new  one  as  a  friend  and  brother.  But  this 
innocent  custom  had  bad  consequences,  as  the  attendance  of 
the  neighbouring  bishops  on  the  occasion,  from  being  custo- 
7i\ary^  came  to  be  considered  2i^ necessary ;  and  as  a  considerable 
number  had  usually  attended,  it  came  to  be  a  rule,  that  it  could 
not  be  done  without  the  concurrence  oi  three ^  one  of  whom 
laid  his  hand  on  the  head  of  the  new  bishop,  when  he  was 
recommended  to  the  blessing  of  God  by  prayer.  In  the  third 
century  this  was  always  done  by  the  metropolitan  bishop  ; 
at  least  it  was  never  done  without  his  consent  or  order.  The 
second  Council  of  Nice  ordered  that  bishops  should  be 
chosen  by  other  bishops.  But  in  the  West  the  people  pre- 
served their  right  of  choosing  their  bishops  till  after  the  reign 
of  Charlemagne  and  his  sons;  and  it  was  not  taken  from 
them  till  the  Council  of  Avignon,  in  10jO.§ 

The  usual  ceremony  in  appointing  a  bishop  was  the  im- 
position of  hands,  which,  as  I  have  observed,  was  originally 
nothing  more  than  a  gesture  which  was  always  made  use  of 
when  pra3'er  was  made  for  any  particular  person.  What  is 
imposition  of  hands,  says  Austin,  but  the  prayer  that  is  made 
over  the  person  }\\  Accordingly  we  find  that  this  ceremony 
was  not  always  thought  necessary.     For,  instead  of  imposiitg 

*  Opera,  VI.  p.  198.     (P.)  t   .Anecdotes,  pp.  24,  .54.    CP.) 

X  Basiiage,  Histoire,  III.  p.  25.     (P.)  §  Ibid.  p.  24.    (P.) 

li  De  Baptismo,  contra  Donatistas,  L.  iii.  C.  xvi.     Opera,  VII.  p.  410.   (P.) 


366  HISTORY  OF  MINISTERS 

hands  on  the  bishops  of  Alexandria,  they  only  placed  them 
on  their  chair,  a  custom  which  continued  many  centuries.* 

Though  bishops  were  originally  no  other  than  presbyters, 
the  manner  of  their  ordination  being  the  same,  and  the  pres- 
byters discharging  every  part  of  the  office  of  bishop  ;  no 
sooner  was  the  distinction  between  them  established,  than 
the  bishops  began  to  appropriate  certain  functions  to  them- 
selves, it  appears  by  the  act  of  the  third  Council  of  Car- 
thage, that  whereas  before,  priests  had  the  power  of  assigning 
the  time  of  public  penance,  and  of  giving  absolution,  as  also 
of  consecrating  virgins,  and  of  making  the  chrism  (or  that 
mixture  oi'  oil  and  balm  with  which  one  of  the  unctions  at 
baptism  was  made)  without  the  advice  of  the  bishop,  all 
these  things  were  forbidden  by  these  canons,  and  given  to 
the  bishops. f  But  the  principal  thing  by  which  the  bishops 
were  distinguished  afterwards  was  the  power  of  confirming 
the  baptized,  when  that  chrism  was  applied. 

After  the  reign  of  Adrian,  when  Jerusalem  was  utterly 
destroyed,  and  the  Jews  dispersed,  an  opinion  began  to  pre- 
vail among  Christians,  that  their  ministers  succeeded  to  the 
characters,  rights  and  privileges  of  the  Jewish  priesthood; 
and  this  was  another  source  of  honour  and  profit  to  the 
clergy.  Upon  this  the  presbyters  assumed  the  style  and 
rank  of  priests,  bishops  that  of  high  priests,  and  deacons 
that  of  Levites.;]: 

The  principal  occasion  of  the  great  distinction  that  was 
made  between  the  clergy  and  the  people,  between  the  bishops 
and  the  presbyters,  and  also  among  the  bishops  themselves, 
was  their  assembling  in  synods,  to  deliberate  about  affairs 
of  common  concern,  a  custom  which  began  about  the  middle 
of  the  second  century;  for  it  cannot  be  traced  any  higher. 
By  this  means  the  power  of  the  clergy  was  considerably  aug- 
mented, and  the  privileges  of  the  people  diminished.  For 
though  at  first  these  bishops,  assembled  in  convocation, 
acknowledged  themselves  to  be  no  more  than  the  deputies 
of  the  people,  they  soon  dropped  that  style  and  made  decrees 
by  their  own  authority,  and  at  lenjs^th  claimed  a  power  of 
prescribing  both  in  matters  of  faith  and  of  discipline. 

For  the  more  orderly  holding  of  these  assemblies,  some 
one  bishop  in  a  large  district  was  employed  by  common 
consent  to  summon  them,  and  to  preside  in  them  ;  and  this 
being  generally  the  bishop  of  the  metropolis,  or  the  city  in 

*  Basnage,  III.  p.  29.    (P.)  t  Sueur,  A.  D.  397-    (P.) 

X  Moshcim,  L  p.  146.    (P.)     Cent.  ii.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  ii.  Sect.  iv. 


IN  THE  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH.  367 

which  the  civil  governor  resided,  he  was  called  the  Metro- 
politan or  Archbishop.  The  term  archbishop  was  first  used 
by  Athanasius,  afterwards  by  Epiphanius,  and  from  the  year 
4:^0  it  was  common  in  the  church.* 

'  When  the  clergy  of  several  provinces  assembled,  they 
appointed  officers  with  a  more  extensive  jurisdiction,  and 
called  them  patriarchs,  or  primates.  This  last  term  was  not 
used  before  the  time  of  Leo  1.  That  of  patriarch  was  first 
used  by  the  Montanists,  and  in  time  came  to  be  applied  to 
the  five  principal  sees  of  Rome,  Constantinople,  Alexandria, 
Antioch  and  Jerusalem. -j*  "  The  patriarchs  were  distin- 
guished by  considerable  and  extensive  rights  and  privileges. 
They  alone  consecrated  the  bishops"  of  their  respective 
provinces.  "  They  assembled  yearly  in  council  the  clergy 
of  their  respective  districts,"  and  all  important  controversies 
were  referred  to  their  decision,  especially  where  the  bishops 
were  concerned  ;  and  "  they  appointed  vicars,  or  deputies," 
to  act  for  them  "  in  the  remoter  provinces."  Several  places, 
however,  in  the  fifth  century,  maintained  their  independence 
on  these  patriarchs,  and  both  the  emperors  and  the  general 
councils  were  obstacles  in  the  way  of  their  ambition.:}: 

Many  of  these  abuses  were  promoted  by  the  constitutions 
of  Constantine,  who  was  the  first  person  that  assembled  a 
general  council,  to  which  all  the  bishops  of  the  Christian 
world  were  invited.  Having  made  a  new  division  of  the 
empire  for  civil  purposes,  he  adapted  the  external  govern- 
ment of  the  church  to  it.  When  this  division  was  com- 
pleted, those  who  make  the  correspondence  between  the 
civil  and  ecclesiastical  governments  the  most  exact,  say  that 
the  bishops  corresponded  to  those  magistrates  who  presided 
over  single  cities  ;  the  metropolitan,  or  archbishop,  to  the 
proconsuls  or  presidents  of  provinces,  comprehending  several 
cities;  the/?riwa^^.sto  the  emperors' vicars,  orlicutenants,  each 
of  whom  governed  in  one  of  the  thirteen  great  dioceses,  into 
which  the  whole  empire  was  divided  ;  and  the  patriarchs  to 
the  prefecti  praetorii,  each  of  whom  had  several  dioceses 
under  them.  But  it  is  not  prob-'.'ole  that  this  subdivision 
was  ever  exactly  observed.  However,  the  government  of 
the  church  answered  much  more  exactly  to  the  government 
of  the  state  in  the  East  than  in  the  West ;  and  in  the  western 
parts  of  Africa  there  was  little  or  no  correspondence  between 
them.§ 

•  Sueur,  A.D.  281.    (P.)  t  Ibid.  (P.) 

X  Mosheim,  I.  pp.  371,  S7a.    (P-)     Cent.  v.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  ii.  Sect.  H. 

§  Anecdotes,  p.  75.    (P.) 


368  '  HISTORY  OF  MINISTERS 

In  consequence  of  this  arrangement,  a  bishop  in  a  metro- 
politan city  acquired  the  power  of  ordaining  and  deposing 
the  bishops  of  the  cities  dependent  upon  his  metropolis,  and 
also  of  terminating  their  differences  and  providing  for  their 
wants  in  general.  But  this  power  was  not  absolute,  since 
the  metropolitan  could  do  nothing  without  the  consent  of 
the  bishops  of  the  province.  There  were  also  some  bishops 
who  had  only  the  title  of  metropolitan,  without  any  power 
annexed  to  it.* 

As  the  metropolitans  followed  the  rank  of  their  metropolis, 
so  the  patriarchs,  or  exarchs^  as  they  were  sometimes  called, 
followed  the  condition  of  the  capital  cities  of  their  diocese. 
Thus,  as  Antioch  was  the  capital  city  of  the  East,  containing 
fifteen  provinces,  the  bishop  of  that  city  exercised  a  juris- 
diction over  all  the  metropolitans,  having  a  power  of 
assembling  the  councils  of  the  dioceses,  &c.  Constantinople 
being  made  the  seat  of  the  empire,  the  bishop  of  it,  not  con- 
tent with  the  title  of  metropolitan,  or  even  of  exarch,  was 
first  honoured  with  that  of  PairmrcA,  as  more  expressive  of 
dignity  and  pre-eminence;  and  thence  he  took  occasion  to 
give  a  greater  extent  to  his  patriarchate,  so  as  to  encroach 
upon  the  province  of  the  partriarch  of  Rome.f 

As  the  higher  clergy  rose  above  the  inferior,  so  these  were 
not  wanting  to  themselves,  but  magnified  their  respective 
offices  in  proportion.  In  the  fourth  century,  those  presbyters 
and  deacons  who  filled  the  first  stations  of  those  orders, 
obtained  the  name  of  arch-presbyters  and  arch-deacons,  and 
also  obtained  more  power  than  the  rest  of  their  brethren.  J 
It  was  a  considerable  time,  however,  before  the  offices  of 
priests  and  deacons  came  to  be  confounded  as  they  now  are 
in  many  respects.  But  when  there  was  peculiar  profit  or 
honour  in  any  of  the  functions  of  deacons  or  arch-deacons, 
they  were  occasionally  bestowed  upon  the  priests  who 
retained  the  mame  of  the  lower  office.  An  instance  of  this 
we  have  not  only  in  the  present  office  of  arch-deacon  in  the 
church  of  England,  but  in  the  deans  and  chapters  of  cathe- 
dral churches. 

In  consequence  of  all  these  changes,  there  did  not  remain, 
at  the  conclusion  of  the  fourth  century,  so  much  as  a  shadow 
of  the  ancient  constitution  of  the  christian  church  ;  the  pri- 
vileges of  the  presbyters  and  people  having  been  usurped  by 
the  bishops,  who  did  not  fail  to  assume  the  state  and  dignity 
suited  to  their  new  distinctions.     Indeed,  long  before  this 

*  Anecdotes,  p.  6S.    (P.)  t  Ibid.  pp.  66,  73.    (P.) 

X  Moshelm,  I.  p.  290.    (P).    Cent.  iv.  Pt.  ii-  Ch.  ii.  Sect.viii. 


IN  THE  CHRISTIAN   CHURCH.  369 

time,  and  even  before  the  empire  became  Christian,  a  spirit 
of  pride  and  ambition,  that  very  spirit  against  wiiich  our 
Saviour  so  frequently  and  earnestly  cautioiud  his  disciples, 
had  got  fast  hold  of  many  of  the  christian  bishops.  Wv  imd 
in  the  writings  of  Cyprian,  that  in  his  time  many  bishops 
assumed  great  state,  with  splendid  ensigns  of  power,  as  a 
princely  throne,  surrounded  with  officers,  ike.  The' pres- 
byters and  deacons  also  imitated  them  in  some  measure; 
and  this  last  order,  being  above  the  offices  to  which  they 
were  originally  appointed,  had  them  done  by  inferior  officers 
created  on  purpose,  as  door-keepers,  readers, grave-d iggers,  &c. 

The  pride  of  the  bishops  was  so  great  in  the  fourth  cen- 
tury, and  they  set  themselves  so  much  higher  than  the  priests, 
that  JErius,  a  Senti-Arian,  and  a  great  reformer,  thought  it 
necessary  to  urge,  among  "  his  principal  tenets,  that  bishops 
were  not  distinguished  from  presbyters  by  any  divine  right; 
but  that,  jfccording  to  the  institution  of  the  New  Testament^ 
their  offices  and  authority  were  absolutely  the  same."  His 
doctrine  in  general,  by  which  he  endeavoured  to  bring  the 
discipline  of  the  church  to  its  pristine  state,  excited  much 
disturbance  in  several  provinces  of  Asia  Minor.* 

The  wealth  and  power  of  the  bishops  of  the  greater  sees 
were  soon  very  considerable,  so  as  to  make  them  resemble 
princes.  Pretextatus,  designed  consul,  being  pressed  to  em- 
brace Christianity,  said,  according  to  Marcellinus,  "  Make 
me  bishop  of  Rome,  and  I  will  become  a  Christian."  And 
yet  the  propriety  of  the  clergy  in  general  having  no  inde- 
pendent fortunes,  as  well  as  their  not  enriching  their  families 
out  of  the  revenues  of  the  church,  was  very  evident  in  those 
times.  Constantine  prohibited  by  an  edict  any  rich  man  to 
enter  into  the  church.  Jerome  was  of  opinion  that  none  of 
the  clergy  should  have  any  property  of  their  own  ;  and  Austin 
admitted  none  into  his  church  who  did  not  first  dispose  of 
all  their  goods.  He  did  not,  however,  think  this  absolutely 
necessary,   but  only  for  their  greater  perfection. f 

Sometimes  the  revenues  of  a  church  were  not  sufficient 
for  the  maintenance  of  the  clergy;  and  in  that  case  it  was 
not  thought  improper  that  they^hould  contribute  to  their 
own  maintenance  by  their  labour.  In  some  cases  this  was 
expressly  enjoined.  Thus  the  fourth  Council  of  Carthage, 
held  in  389,  ordered  the  clergy  and  monks  to  gain  their  live- 
lihood by  some  trade,  provided  it  did  not  divert  them  from 
the  duties  of  their  office.:}: 

•  Mosheim,  I.  p.  314.   (P.)     Cent.  iv.  Pf.  ii.  Ch.  Hi.  Sett.  xxi. 
t  Simon  on  Church  Revenues,  p.  24.    (P.)  %  Sueur,  A.  D.  3^.    (P.) 

VOL.    V.  2   B 


370  HISTORY  OF  MINISTERS 

It  was  very  early  thought  to  be  of  great  importance  that 
the  clergy  should  have  no  secular  care  that  would  engage 
much  of  their  thoughts  and  attention.  The  apostolical 
canons,  which,  though  spurious,  were  written  in  the  fourth 
century,  order  that  bishops  should  not  meddle  with  the 
administration  of  pubhc  affairs  ;  and  that  if  they  did,  they 
should  be  deposed.  The  same  orders  were  given  by  the 
Councils  of  Chalcedon,  Carthage,  Mentz,  &c.  Nay,  it 
appears  by  the  letters  of  Cyprian,  that  a  clergyman  could 
not  even  be  a  guardian  or  trustee  to  a  child.  With  this  view 
Constantine  exempted  the  clergy  from  all  pubhc  and  civil 
employments.  But  for  the  sake  of  gain,  the  clergy  of  those 
times  were  too  ready  to  undertake  any  office  or  employment 
whatever.  Chrysostom  laments  that  ecclesiastics,  abandon- 
ing the  care  of  souls,  became  stewards,  and  farmers  of  taxes, 
employments  unbecoming  their  holy  ministry.  Bishops,  he 
said,  should  have  nothing  but  food  and  raiment,  that  they 
may  not  have  their  desires  drawn  after  worldly  things.* 

But  at  the  same  time  that  Constantine  and  other  emperors 
released  the  clergy  from  all  obligation  to  duties  of  a  civil 
nature,  they  gave  them  secular  business  in  another  way,  viz. 
by  enforcing  the  rules  of  church  discipline,  and  by  giving 
the  bishops  the  cognizance  of  all  ecclesiastical  affairs  and 
ecclesiastical  persons,  such  as  had  before  been  brought  to  the 
secular  judges,t  and  Justinian  greatly  enlarged  this  kind  of 
authority. J  The  clergy  having  thus  tasted  of  civil  power,  soon 
got  a  fondness  for  it,  which  required  to  be  restrained.  So  early 
as  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century,  it  was  complained  that  the 
bishops  wished  to  extend  their  jurisdiction  ;  and  in  452, 
Valentinian  III.  made  a  law,  declaring  that  a  bishop  had  no 
power  to  judge  even  the  clergy,  but  with  their  own  consent. § 

In  this  age,  and  indeed  much  later,  it  was  far  from  being 
thought  improper  that  the  general  regulation  of  ecclesiastical 
matters  should  be  in  the  hands  of  the  supreme  civil  power. 
Constantine  made  many  laws  in  ecclesiastical  matters,  as 
concerning  the  age,  the  qualification  and  duties  of  the  clergy; 
and  Justinian  added  many  more.  Appeals  were  made  to 
the  emperors  against  the  injustice  of  the  synods.  They 
received  them,  and  appointed  such  bishops  to  hear  and  try 
the  causes,  as  happened  to  be  about  the  court.  The  em- 
perors called  several  councils,  they  even  sat  in  them,  and 
confirmed  their  decrees.  This  was  the  constant  practice  of 
the  Roman  emperors,  both  in  the  East  and  in  the  West ;  and 

*  In  1  Tim.  v.  17-     Op.  X.  p.  l603.    (P.)  f  Sucur,  A.D.  356.    (P.) 

X  Anecdotes,  p.  125.    (P.)  §  Fleury's  Seventh  Discourse,  p.  Q.    (P.) 


IN  THE  CHRISTIAN  CHURCJI.  :37  1 

when  the  empire  was  divided  into  many  lesser  sovereignties, 
those  petty  princes  continued  to  act  the  same  part. 

Though  the  regulations  established  hv  the  clcroy  were 
numerous  in  the  time  of  Constantiin  ,,  they  contained  nothing 
that  could  justly  excite  the  jealousy  of  the  emperors;  be- 
cause it  was  then  universally  agreed,  that  tho  t'mperors  ou^ht 
to  regulate  the  ecclesiastical  discipline.  One  book  of  the 
Theodosian  code  is  wholly  employed  on  regulations  respect- 
ing the  persons  and  goods  of  ecclesiastics.* 

A  kind  of  ecclesiastical  power  was  also  allowed  to  many 
rich  laymen,  as,  in  many  cases,  they  had  the  appointment 
of  the  bishops  ;  at  least  they  could  not  be  appointed  without 
their  consent.  This  right  oi  patronage  was  introduced  in 
the  fourth  century,  to  encourage  the  opulent  to  erect  a  num- 
ber of  churches  ;  which  they  were  the  more  induced  to  do, 
by  having  the  power  of  appointing  the  ministers  who  were 
to  officiate  in  them.  And  it  was  an  old  heathen  opinion, 
"  that  nations  and  provinces  were  happy,  and  free  from  danger, 
in  proportion  to  the  number  of  fanes  and  temples"  they  con- 
tained.-j- 

As  it  was  deemed  inconsistent  with  the  clerical  character 
to  have  any  secular  concerns,  so  in  this  age,  this  idea,  toge- 
ther with  that  of  the  greater  purity  of  the  unmarried  state, 
made  it  to  be  thought  not  quite  proper  for  the  clergy  to 
have  wives  and  families,  lest  their  thoughts  should  be  dis- 
tracted by  the  cares  of  this  life  ;  though  marriage  was  not 
absolutely  prohibited  to  the  priests.  This  rigour  was  intro- 
duced by  the  Montanists.  These  condemned  all  second 
marriages,  and  this  opinion  of  theirs  generally  prevailed 
among  Christians  afterwards  ;  and  not  only  did  they  refuse 
to  admit  to  the  priesthood  those  who  had  been  married  twice, 
but  even  those  who  were  married  at  all. 

So  much  were  the  minds  of  Christians  in  general  impressed 
with  these  sentiments,  at  the  time  that  the  empire  became 
Christian,  that  it  was  proposed  at  the  Council  of  Nice,  that 
the  bishops,  priests  and  deacons  should  cease  to  cohabit  with 
the  wives  which  they  had  married  while  they  were  laymen. 
But  at  the  instance  of  Paphnutius,  a  venerable  old  confessor, 
this  did  not  pass  into  a  decree  ;  and  therefore  these  fathers 
contented  themselves  with  ordering,  that  priests  who  were 
not  already  married  should  abstain  from  it.  But  even  before 
this,  viz.  at  a  synod  held  at  Elvira,  in  Spain,  in  the  year  306, 
celibacy  was  absolutely  enjoined  to  priests,  deacons  and  sub- 

•  Anecdotes,  p.  99.    (P.) 

t  Mosheim,  I.  p.  321.    (P.)     Cent.  iv.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.iv.  Sect.  ii. 

2  B  *2 


372  HISTORY   OF  MINISTERS 

deacons.*  However,  notwithstanding  these  regulations,  and 
every  provision  that  was  made  afterwards  to  secure  the  ceh- 
bacy  of  the  clergy,  supported  by  the  general  opinion  of 
Christians,  the  marriage  of  priests  was  not  uncommon  in 
many  parts  of  the  christian  world,  quite  down  to  the  Re- 
formation. 

When  learning  became  less  common  among  the  laity  in 
the  western  parts  of  the  world,  even  the  clergy  were  often 
found  to  be  very  ignorant ;  though  it  was  remarkable  that 
there  was  more  literature  at  this  time  in  Britain,  which  had 
then  suffered  less  by  the  invasion  of  barbarous  nations,  than 
in  other  parts  of  the  empire.  When  Constantine  had 
appointed  a  council  at  Constantinople,  Agathon,  bishop  of 
Rome,  made  an  apology  for  the  two  bishops  whom  he  sent 
thither,  as  his  legates,  on  account  of  their  want  of  learning  ; 
saying  that,  to  have  had  a  theologian,  he  must  have  sent  to 
England. f  Even  in  the  East,  several  bishops,  at  the  Coun- 
cils of  Ephesus  and  Chalcedon,  could  not  write,  so  that 
other  persons  signed  the  decrees  for  them.  J 

It  was  in  part  to  provide  for  the  better  instruction  of  the 
clergy,  and  in  part  also  as  an  imitation  of  the  monastic  life, 
which  rose  in  its  credit  as  the  clergy  sunk  in  the  public 
esteem,  that  first  Eusebius,  bishop  of  Verceil,  and  after  him 
Austin,  formed  in  his  house  a  society  of  ecclesiastics,  who 
lived  in  common,  having  him,  the  bishop,  for  their  father 
and  master  ;  and  in  time  this  institution  gave  rise  to  the 
canons  and  prebends  of  cathedral  churches. § 


SECTION  II. 

The  History  of  the  Clergy  from,  the  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire 
in  the  West,  to  the  Reformation. 

In  the  former  period  we  have  seen  a  very  considerable 
departure  from  the  proper  character  of  presbyters  or  bishops, 
in  those  who  bore  that  title  in  the  christian  church.  But  in 
this  we  shall  see  a  much  greater  departure,  and  through  the 
increasing  ignorance  and  superstition  in  the  laity,  we  shall 
find  such  a  degree  of  power  assumed  by  the  clergy,  as  was 
nearly  terminating  in  the  entire  subjection  of  every  thing  to 

*  Sueur,  A.D.  306.    (P.)  t  Ibid.  A.D.  380.    (P.) 

t  Jortin's  Remarks,  IV.  p.  277.    (P.)     "  Some  of  these  prelates,"  says  Fleury, 
«*  subscribed  by  the  hand  of  a  presbyter ;  one  because  he  had  a  lame  wrist ;  another 
because  he  was  sick ;  others,  I  suppose,  because  they  had  bones  and  joints  in  all 
their  fingers."     Jortin,  Ed.  1805,  III.  p.  120. 
§  Sueur,  A.  D.  395.    (P.) 


IN   THE   CHRISTIAN    CHURCH.  373 

their  will.  But  in  the  mean  time  the  different  orders  of 
those  who  sustained  a  religious  character  were  a  check  upon 
each  other. 

In  the  first  place  I  shall  repeat  what  was  obsen'ed  with 
another  view  in  a  former  part  of  this  work,  viz.  that  a  con- 
siderable change  took  place  in  the  idea  of  the  powers  supposed 
to  be  given  to  priests  by  their  ordination,  and  consequently 
in  the  form  of  ordination.  Originally  nothing  was  necessary 
to  the  conferring  of  holy  orders  but  prater.,  and  the  im/>o- 
sition  of  hands.  But  in  the  tenth  and  eleventh  centuries, 
after  tlie  introduction  of  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation, 
a  new  t'oviu  was  observed,  viz.  the  delivery  to  the  priest  of 
the  vessels  in  which  the  eucharist  was  celebrated,  with  a  form 
of  words,  expressing  the  communication  of  a  power  oi offer- 
ing sacrifices  to  God,  and  of  celebrating  masses.  Also  a  new 
benediction  was  added,  which  respected  the  new  doctrine  of 
penance  and  absolution.  For  the  bishop,  in  laying  on 
his  hands,  says,  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost.  Whose  sins  ye 
remit  they  are  remitted,  and  whose  sins  ye  retain,  they  are 
retained.  According  to  the  system  now  received  in  the 
church  of  Rome,  the  priests  have  two  distinct  powers,  viz. 
that  o{ consecrating  and  that  of  absolving.  They  are  ordained 
to  the  former  by  the  delivery  of  the  vessels,  and  to  the  latter 
by  the  bishop  alone  laying  on  his  hands,  and  saying.  Receive 
ye  the  Holy  Ghost,  &c.  And  it  is  said  that  "•  the  bishop  and 
priests  laying  on  \\2Lnds  jointly,"  which  from  ancient  custom 
is  still  retained  among  them,  and  which  was  the  only  proper 
ceremony  of  ordination,  is  nothing  more  than  "  their  de- 
claring, as  by  a  suffrage,  that  such  a  person  ought  to  be 
ordained.*'* 

In  the  former  period  we  saw  that  the  bishops  began  to 
reserve  to  themselves  the  power  of  confirming  after  baptism. 
This  was  fully  asserted  in  this  period.  When  the  Bulgarians 
were  converted  to  Christianity,  which  was  in  the  ninth  cen- 
tury, and  their  priests  had  both  baptized  and  confirmed  the 
new  converts,  "  pope  Nicholas  sent  bishops  among  them, 
with  orders  to  confirm  even  those  who  had  already  been 
confirmed  by  the  priests.*'-]*  However,  when  the  doctrine  of 
transubstantiation  was  established,  it  was  not  possible  that 
the  bishops,  with  respect  to  their  spiritual  power,  should  stand 
higher  than  the  priests;  for  what  power  can  be  superior  to 
that  of  making  a  God  ?  And  yet  we  find  that  the  schoolmen 

•   Burnet  on  the  Articles,  p.  355.    (P.)     Art.  xxv.   Ed.  1,  p  26l. 
t  Ibid.  p.  338.    (P.)     Art.  xxv.  Ed.  4,  p.  218. 


374/  HISTORY  OF  MINISTERS 

endeavoured  to  make  the  episcopate  to  be  a  higher  degree 
and  extension  of  the  priesthood. 

In  this  period  the  priests  assumed  several  new  badges,  or 
signs  of  their  character,  and  these  were  generally  borrowed 
from  the  heathen  ritual.  Thus  the  shaven  head  and  surplices 
were  borrowed  from  the  Egyptian  priests  ;  and  the  crosier,  or 
pastoral  staff,  was  the  lituus  of  the  Roman  augurs.* 

Now  also  we  find  what  seems  to  be  a  quite  new  order  in 
the  church,  but  in  fact  it  was  only  an  extension  of  power  in 
the  orders  that  existed  before,  without  any  addition  to  the 
spiritual  character.  This  is  the  rank  of  cardinal  in  the 
church  of  Rome.  These  cardinals,  though  they  were  not 
heard  of  in  former  times,  now  have  the  rank  of  princes  in 
the  church,  with  the  sole  power  of  choosing  the  Pope.  It  is 
about  the  end  of  the  sixth  century,  and  especially  in  the 
letters  of  pope  Gregory,  that  we  first  meet  with  the  term 
cardinal  priests  and  cardinal  deacons,  but  they  were  then  in 
many  other  churches  besides  that  of  Rome.-]' 

As  the  term  cardinal  signifies  chief,  or  the  principal,  the 
cardinal  priests  in  the  church  of  Rome  are  supposed 
by  some  to  have  been  those  priests  whom  Marullus,  men- 
tioned above,  set  over  the  twenty-five  parishes  into  which 
he  divided  the  church  of  Rome,  with  priests  and  deacons 
under  them,  so  that  being  next  in  rank  to  the  pope  they  rose 
in  power  and  wealth  as  he  did.  But  till  the  eleventh  century 
these  cardinal  priests  held  no  considerable  rank,  and  they 
were  not  admitted  into  their  councils  till  the  year  9b4.  Or, 
though  they  might  assist  at  them,  and  likewise  at  the  nomi- 
nation of  the  popes,  as  part  of  the  body  of  the  clergy,  they 
were  always  named  after  the  bishop  ;  but  from  this  time  it 
became  the  interest  of  the  popes  to  advance  their  dignity. 
Still,  however,  there  remain  traces  of  their  former  rank. 
For  the  popes  never  call  themselves  cardinals,  but  bishops. 
They  also  call  bishops  their  brothers,  but  the  cardinals  their 
beloved  children. 

It  was  only  in  the  year  1059,  that  the  cardinals  appear  to 
be  necessarily  joined  with  the  clergy  in  the  election  of  a 
pope,  but  about  a  hundred  years  after  this  they  obtained  of 
Alexander  III.  that  they  should  have  the  sole  nomination  ; 
and  since  that  time  they  have  been  continually  gaining  new 

*  Mist,  of  Popery,  IIF.  pp.  340,  355.  (P.)  Ed.  1735,  II.  pp.  17.  25.  See  also 
JJvy,  L.  i.  C.  xxviii.  "  On  voit  aux  marbres  ct  medailles  antiques  la  forme  de  cc 
lituus,  ou  baton  recourbe,  toutes  serablables  a  la  crosse  cpiscopale."  Les  Con/or-, 
niitez,  p.  35. 

t  Anecdotes,  p.  222.    (P.) 


IN  THE  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH.  375 

privileges  and  dignities.  They  are  now  considered  as  "  the 
Pope's  great  council/*  and  "  no  oath  of  fidelity"  is  required 
of  them.  "  Innocent  IV.  anno  1244,  ordained  that  car- 
dinals should,  when  they  rode  abroad,  always  wear  a  red  hat, 
to  shew  that  they  would  venture  their  heads  and  expose  their 
blood  for  the  interest  of  the  church;  and — Paul  II.  about 
the  year  1171,  ordered  them  to  wear  robes  of  scarlet. — 
Whereas  all  others,  be  they  emperors  or  kings,  must  be  glad 
to  kiss  the  Pope's  foot,  cardinals  are  admitted  to  kiss  his 
hand  and  mouth.  If  a  cardinal  accidentally  meets  a  criminal 
going  to  execution  he  has  a  power  of  saving  his  life;  and  it 
is  said  that  "  No  cardinal  can  be  condemned  for  any  crime, 
unless  he  be  first  convicted  by  seventy-two  witnesses,  if  he  is 
a  cardinal-bishop,  sixty-two  if  a  presbyter,  and  twenty-seven 
if  he  be  a  deacon."* 

In  very  early  times  we  find  a  number  of  inferior  offices  in 
the  churches,  with  names  suited  to  their  business,  3.s  readers, 
sub-deacons,  See.  None  of  these,  however,  were  considered 
as  distinct  orders  of  clergy,  but  the  last  is  enumerated  as 
such  by  pope  Eugenius. 

Another  order  of  clergy  took  its  rise  in  these  dark  ages,  and 
was  suggested  by  the  great  corruption  both  of  the  clergy  and 
the  monks  in  the  seventh  century  ;  when  many  of  the  clergy 
belonging  to  great  cathedrals  formed  themselves  into  regular 
communities,  and  were  called  canonici  or  canons,  from  ob- 
serving certain  canons  or  rules^  which  were  given  them  by 
Chrodogang,  bishop  of  Mentz,  towards  the  middle  of  the 
seventh  century,  in  imitation  of  what  had  before  been  done 
by  Eusebius  of  Verceil,  and  Austin  above-mentioned.  The 
rule  of  Chrodogang  was  observed  by  all  the  canons,  as  that 
of  Benedict  by  all  the  monks. -j- 

A  regulation  was  made  respecting  this  subject  in  10^9, 
when,  at  a  council  in  Rome,  it  was  ordered  that  those  priests 
who  kept  no  concubines  should  eat  and  sleep  together,  near 
the  church  to  which  they  belonged,  and  have  in  common 
whatever  revenues  they  had  from  the  church,  studying,  and 
living  an  apostolical  life.  This,  says  Fleury,  was  the  origin 
of  the  canons  regular.  A  similar  order  was  made  by  Nicholas 
II.  in  1063. 

The  bishops  were  generally  at  the  head  of  these  societies 
of  clergy,  and  they  were  considered  as  his  standing  council, 
and  during  the  vacancy  had  the  jurisdiction  of  the  diocese. 
But  afterwards  abbots,  deans  and  provosts,  &c.  were  preferred 

•   Fjist.  of  Popery,  111.  p.  5S.     (PJ     Ed.  1735,  I.  p.  36*». 
t  Flpury's  Eighth  Discourse,  p.  9-     CP-) 


376  HISTORY  OF  MINISTERS 

to  that  distinction,  and  several  of  them  procured  exemptions 
from  any  subjection  to  the  bishop.  Our  English  deans  and 
chapters  are  entirely  independent  of  the  bishop,  and  had  their 
exemption  from  the  bishop's  authority  secured  to  them  by  a 
proviso  in  the  statute  of  the  twenty-fifth  of  Henry  VIII.* 
With  us  those  canons  who  have  no  duty  whatever  are  called 
prebends. 

Originally,  bishops  were  always  chosen  by  the  people, f 
though  they  would  be  naturally  much  influenced  in  their 
choice  by  the  recommendation  of  their  presbyters.  But 
afterwards  these  presbyters  set  aside  the  vote  of  the  people 
altogether ;  and  when  these  chapters  were  formed,  it  grew 
into  a  custom  in  England,  that  the  priests  who  constituted 
them,  being  always  at  hand,  and  easy  to  be  assembled  on 
the  decease  of  a  bishop,  should  choose  him  themselves, 
without  consulting  the  rest  of  the  priests.  They  still  have 
the  same  power  nominally,  but  their  choice  of  a  bishop  is 
always  directed  by  the  king. 

When  the  bishops,  in  consequence  of  their  becoming 
landholders,  came  to  be  of  great  weight  in  the  state,  it  could 
not  be  a  matter  of  indifference  to  the  prince  who  should  be 
bishops.  He  would  naturally,  therefore,  interest  himself  in 
the  elections.  Accordingly,  we  soon  find  that  the  bishops 
of  Rome,  though  they  were  chosen  by  the  people,  could  not 
be  confirmed  in  their  office  without  the  approbation  of  the 
emperor;  and  this  right  in  the  prince  continued  undisputed 
for  many  centuries.  The  great  authority  that  Charlemagne 
exercised  respected  chiefly  the  election  of  bishops,  of  which 
he  made  himself  master,  with  the  knowledge  and  consent  of 
the  popes.  He  did  not  choose  them  himself,  but  he  retained 
the  right  of  approving,  which  he  signified  by  delivering  to 
them  the  pastoral  staff  and  ring  which  was  called  Xhe^  investi- 
ture^ after  which  they  were  consecrated  by  the  neighbouring 
bishops.  Thus  began  the  rights  of  investiture.,  which  was  a 
source  of  so  much  contention  "afterwards. ;{: 

In  the  eighth  general  council,  in  869,  the  emperor  and  all 
secular  princes  were  forbidden  to  meddle  with  the  election 
of  any  patriarch,  metropolitan,  or  bishop  whatever.  And  at 
the  Council  of  Bonaventure,  in  1087,  it  was  decreed,  that  if 
any  emperor,  king  or  other  secular  person,  should  presume 
to  give  the  investiture  of  a  bishopric,  or  any  other  eccle- 
siastical dignity,  he  should  be  excommunicated. §     But  by 

*  Bnrnet.    Pierce's  Vindication,  pp.  381,  384.  (P.) 

t  See  Vol.  II.  p.  339-     Notef.  t:  Anecdotes,  p.  335.     (P.) 

§  Histoire  des  Papes,  II.  p.  501.    fP.) 


IN  THE  CHRISTIAN   CHURCH.  377 

this  time  the  popes  had  not  only  emancipated  themselves 
tVom  the  power  of  the  emperor,  but  liad  arrogated  to  tlicm- 
selves  all  power  in  matters  temporal  as  well  as  sj)iritual  ;  and 
on  the  subject  of  investiture,  as  well  as  many  others,  the 
emperors  of  Germany,  after  a  struggle  of  many  years,  were 
obliged  to  yield.  In  France,  however,  the  nomination  of 
the  bishops  was  always,  in  fact,  in  the  hands  of  the  prince. 

When  the  bishops  were  little  more  than  secular  persons, 
it  is  no  wonder,  how  contrary  soever  it  was  to  all  the  notions 
of  the  ancients,  that  bishoprics  should  be  considered  as  other 
estates,  and  in  some  cases  be  given,  or  descend,  to  minors. 
In  9''25  the  Pope  approved  of  the  appointment  of  an  infant  to 
be  bishop  of  Rheims,  another  person  having  the  administra- 
tion of  it ;  an  example  soon  followed  by  princes,  and  an  evil 
much  complained  of  by  Baronius.  In  1478,  Sixtus  IV. 
obliged  the  king  of  Arragon,  by  giving  the  bishopric  of 
Saragossa  to  a  child  of  six  years  of  age;  a  pernicious  ex- 
ample, and  unheard  of  till  then,  says  the  author  o^  Histoire 
des  Papes.*     In  this  however  this  writer  was  mistaken. 

This  example,  pernicious  as  it  is  here  said  to  have  been, 
has  been  followed,  in  one  instance,  by  Protestants.  For 
the  bishopric  of  Osnaburgh,  having,  like  other  German 
bishoprics,  become  a  principality,  it  was  agreed  after  the 
Reformation,  that  it  should  be  held  alternately  by  Papists 
and  Protestants.  At  present  it  is  held  by  the  second  son  of 
the  king  of  England,  who  was  appointed  to  it  when  he  was 
quite  an  infant. 

In  the  eight  century,  not  only  were  private  possessions 
made  over  to  ecclesiastics  and  to  monasteries,  but  royal 
domains,  such  as  used  to  be  held  by  princes;  by  which 
means  they  came  into  the  possession  of  whole  provinces, 
cities,  castles  and  fortresses,  with  all  the  rights  and  preroga- 
tives of  sovereignty  ;  and  thus  churchmen  became  dukes, 
counts  and  marquises,  and  even  commanded  armies.  The 
prince  thought  that  churchmen  would  be  more  faithful  to 
him  than  secular  persons,  and  expected  that  they  would 
have  more  influence  over  their  other  vassals,  and  keep  them 
better  in  subjection,  f  This  aggrandisement  of  the  German 
bishops  took  place  chiefly  upon  the  death  of  Charles  le  Gros, 
when  many  of  the  great  subjects  of  the  empire  made  them- 
selves independent.  J 


•  IV.  p.  254.     (P.) 

t  Mosheim,  II.  pp.  6l,  62.     (P.)     Pt.  ii.  Ch.  ii.  Sect.  iv. 

t  Sueur,  A.  D.  889-     (P.) 


378  HISTORY  OF  MINISTERS 

By  these  steps  the  greater  clergy  came  to  be  entirely 
secular  men,  and  to  have  as  much  to  do  in  civil  business  of 
all  kinds,  as  any  other  members  of  the  community.  Thus 
in  England  it  was  far  from  exciting  any  wonder,  in  the  days 
of  popish  darkness  (whatever  would  have  been  thought  of  it 
in  the  time  of  the  apostles)  to  see  bishops  and  mitred  abbots 
called  to  the  great  council  of  the  nation,  along  with  the 
barons ;  because,  though  churchmen,  they  actually  were 
barons.  The  parliaments  of  France  also,  about  the  middle 
of  the  eighth  century,  w^ere  constituted  in  the  same  manner, 
the  bishops  attending  along  with  the  other  grandees. 

This  great  absurdity  in  politics,  as  w^ell  as  in  religion, 
remains  as  a  blot  in  the  English  constitution  to  this  day, 
the  bishops  being  admitted  to  have  a  seat  in  the  House  of 
Lords,  and  this  evil  is  the  greater  in  a  constitution  which 
pretends  to  freedom.  For  certainly  these  bishops,  receiving 
their  preferment  from  the  court,  and  having  farther  expecta- 
tions from  it,  will,  in  general,  be  in  the  interest  of  the  court, 
and  consequently  enemies  to  the  rights  of  the  people.* 
Useful  as  this  order  of  men  is  to  the  court,  the  time  has 
been,  when  the  presence  of  the  bishops  in  the  great  council 
of  the  nation  gave  umbrage  not  only  to  the  temporal  lords, 
but  to  the  sovereign.  Queen  Elizabeth  more  than  once 
expressed  her  dislike  of  the  close  attendance  of  the  bishops 
at  court  and  in  parliament,  and  she  even  threatened  to  send 
them  into  the  country,  to  mind  their  proper  business. 

It  is  not  possible  that  any  thing  should  be  more  foreign  to 
the  office  of  a  bishop  than  to  serve  in  the  wars  ;  and  yet  even 
this  gross  abuse  naturally  arose  from  clergymen  being  in 
possession  of  the  great  fiefs  which  were  held  by  military 
service.  And  the  habits  of  those  who  were  made  bishops 
in  those  times  were  such,  as  to  make  them  not  wish  to  be 
exempted  from  that  obligation.  In  the  seventh  century, 
says  Fleury,  barbarians,  being  admitted  into  the  clergy, 
introduced  their  habits  of  hunting  and  fighting  ;  and  from 
that  time  the  bishops  possessing  large  estates  were  under 
obligation  to  furnish  men  for  the  defence  of  it.  C  harlemagne 
excused  the  bishops  from  serving  in  person,   but  required 

•  Lord  Falkland  said  of  the  Eiijaflish  bishops  in  1641,  that  "  they,  whose  an- 
cestors, in  the  darkest  times  exrommunicated  the  breakers  of  Magna  Charta,  did 
now,  by  themselves  and  their  adherents,  both  write,  preach,  plot  and  act  agaitjst 
it."  Speeches  and  Passac/es  of  this  r/reat  and  happy  Parliament,  1641,  p.  191'  During 
the  present  reign,  the  minoriti/,  against  any  measure  of  the  court,  among  twenty-six 
Lords  Spiritual,  has  seldom  exceeded  two. 


IN  THE  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH.  .'379 

tliem  to  send  their  vassals.*  But  before  his  time  some 
bishops  distinguished  themselves  in  the  wars  in  Italy,  and 
so  early  as  the  year  57 5.  \ 

The  impropriety  of  this  practice  was,  however,  soon  per- 
ceived, and  afterwards  express  laws  were  made  to  prevent 
bishops  from  appearing  in  the  field  in  person.  Mezerai  says, 
that,  at  the  beginning  of  the  tenth  century,  bishops  and 
abbots,  notwithstanding  the  prohibition  of  councils,  still  bore 
arms,  and  went  to  the  wars;  and  the  custom  continued  far 
into  the  third  race  of  the  French  kings. ;{: 

The  utter  incompetency  of  the  bishops  for  the  duties  of 
their  office,  and  the  turn  of  the  age  in  general,  contributed 
to  give  them  the  same  fondness  for  war  that  other  persons  of 
rank  in  the  state  had.  And  when  they  could  not  act  con- 
trarv  to  the  letter  of  the  law,  they  sometimes  had  recourse 
to  methods  of  evading  it,  which  are  ridiculous  enough.  In 
the  thirteenth  century,  says  Jortin,  "  it  was  an  axiom,  that 
the  church  abhors  the  shedding  of  blood.  Therefore  bishops 
and  archbishops  used  to  go  to  battle,  armed  with  clubs ;  and 
made  no  scruple  to  knock  down  an  enemy,  and  to  beat  and 
bruise  him  to  death,  though  they  held  it  unlawful  to  run  him 
through  with  a  sW'Ord."§ 

At  length  the  laws  got  the  better  of  this  custom,  and  the 
clerical  character  being  deemed  an  indelible  one,  in  con- 
sequence of  the  spiritual  powers  supposed  to  have  been 
imparted  by  the  sacrament  of  orders,  it  was  ordained,  in  a 
council  of  Rouen,  in  1174,  that  clergymen  who  had  been 
deposed  should  not,  however,  bear  arms,  as  if  they  were 
laymen.  II 

Originally,  bishops  were  not  only  carefully  excluded  from 
all  business  of  a  secular  nature,  but  in  the  exercise  of  their 
spiritual  power,  they  were  much  restrained  by  the  civil 
magistrates,  even  after  they  became  Christians,  Justinian, 
who  had  a  great  zeal  for  the  church,  forbade  the  bishops  to 
excommunicate  any  person  before  the  cause  of  it  had  been 
proved  in  form  ;  and  this  was  so  far  from  giving  otFence, 
that  pope  John  II.  thanked  the  emperor  for  his  zeal  in  these 
respects.^ 

But  in  this  period  we  find  the  bishops  not  only  exercising 
their  spiritual  power  without  the  least  controul,  but  encroach- 
ing greatly  on  the  civil  power,  and  controul ing  princes  them- 
selves in   the  exercise  of  their  proper  authority.     To  this, 

•  Fleur>,  Xlll.  p.  28.     (P.)  f  Sueur.     (P.)         +  Ibid.  A.  D.  989.     (P.) 

§  Remarks,  V.  p.  388.     (P.)     Ed.  1805,  III.  p.  382.  ||  Fleury.     (P.) 

^  Anecdotes,  p.  171.     (P.) 


3S0  HISTORY   OF  MINISTERS 

many  circumstances  contributed,  but  nothing  more  than  the 
admission  of  the  great  clergy  to  seats  in  the  assemblies  of  the 
state.  The  ignorance  of  the  laity  also  gave  great  power  to 
the  clergy.  As  these  were  the  only  people  who  could  read  or 
write,  they  were  universally  secretaries,  stewards,  treasurers, 
&c.  Hence  the  word  clerk^  which  originally  signified  a 
clergyman  (clericus)  came  to  denote  an  ofticer  in  the  law.* 

Owing  to  these  causes  and  to  the  negligence  of  the  princes, 
who  were  much  weakened  by  their  divisions  in  the  ninth 
century,  the  bishops  were  almost  masters  of  the  kingdoms 
of  France  and  Germany,  disposing  of  every  thing  at  their 
pleasure.  Though  Arnoul,  archbishop  of  Rheims,  was  a 
traitor,  and  deserving  of  the  greatest  punishment,  two  kings 
of  France,  Hugh  and  Robert,  did  not  pretend  to  have  him 
judged  except  by  the  clergy,  in  consequence  of  which  he 
ran  no  risk  with  respect  to  his  life^  and  could  only  have 
been  deposed  ;  and  by  means  of  the  popes  he  was  confirmed 
in  his  see,  and  continued  in  it  to  his  death. -f 

The  crusades  contributed  much  to  the  advancement  of 
the  clergy  ;  the  crusaders  leaving  their  estates  to  their 
management,  and  sometimes  selling  them,  in  order  to  equip 
themselves  for  those  distant  expeditions.:]: 

The  ceremony  of  consecration^  which  was  introduced  in  tiie 
middle  of  the  eighth  century,  afforded  the  priests  a  pretence 
to  intermeddle  with  the  rights  of  princes.  For  in  putting  on 
the  crown  they  seemed  to  give  the  kingdom  on  the  part  of 
God  ;§  and  this  ceremony  was  soon  deemed  so  necessary  by 
the  superstitious  people,  that  no  coronation  was  deemed 
valid  without  it.  in  consequence  of  which  the  priests  had  a 
real  negative  on  the  claims  of  kings,  and  in  case  of  a  contest 
the  party  favoured  by  the  clergy  was  sure  to  prevail. 

Also  the  consequence  of  the  excommunications  of  those 
times,  which  was  a  cutting  off  of  all  intercourse  between 
the  excommunicated  persons  and  the  rest  of  the  world, 
affected  the  prince  as  well  as  the  people.  For  the  man  who 
was  not  deemed  worthy  to  transact  any  civil  business,  was 
certainly  unfit  to  be  a  king.  After  the  death  of  Louis  V. 
Charles  of  Lorrain  was  the  presumptive  heir  to  the  crown 
of  France  ;  but  the  clergy,  who  were  then  the  most  powerful 
order  in  the  state,  having  excommunicated  him,  he  was 
reckoned  disqualified  to  wear  the  crown. 

But  the  first  remarkable  attempt  upon  the  rights  of  royalty 


*  Fleury's  Seventh  Discourse,  pp.  12,  19.     (P-)  t  Sueur,  A.D.  991-     (^' 

J  HistoiredesPapes,  11.  p.  527.    (P.)  §  Fleury,  XIU.  p.  SO.     (P.) 


IN  THE  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH.  381 

Jby  priests,  was  the  deposition  of  Vamba,  king-  of  the 
Visigoths,  in  Spain,  at  the  twelfth  Council  of  Toledo,  in 
681.  On  the  pretence  of  his  being  a  pc/tiUut,  he  had  been 
clothed  with  the  monastic  habit,  though  it  was  unknown  to 
himself,  his  disorder  having  made  him  insensible.  For  the 
two  characters  of  tnonic  and  king  were  deemed  to  be  incom- 
patible. The  second  example  was  that  of  Louis  le  Debonaire, 
who  had  likewise  been  in  a  state  of  penitence,  after  which 
the  bishops  who  imposed  the  penance,  pretended  that  he 
could  not  resume  the  royal  dignity.*  The  opinion  that 
bishops  had  a  power  of  deposing  kings,  made  such  progress 
in  the  eighth  and  ninth  centuries,  that  the  kings  themselves 
acquiesced  in  it.f 

The  primary  cause  of  the  temporal  power  of  the  clergy  was 
the  wealth  which  they  acquired  by  the  liberality  of  the  laity  ; 
which,  in  those  superstitious  times,  knew  no  bounds.  Do- 
nations for  pious  uses  were  so  profuse,  as  to  threaten  the  utter 
extinction  of  all  merely  civil  property;  so  that  no  effectual 
check  could  be  put  to  it,  but  by  laymen  assuming  eccle- 
siastical titles,  and  by  degrees  resuming  their  property,  in 
the  character  of  lay-impropriations,  which  has  been  a  subject 
of  great  complaint  to  the  clergy.  This  was  certainly  an 
abuse  and  an  irregularity  ;  but  one  evil  is  often  made  use  of, 
in  the  course  of  Divine  Providence,  to  correct  another. 

The  notion  that  temporal  and  spiritual  goods  had  such  an 
affinity,  that  the  one  might  be  procured  by  means  of  the 
other,  could  not  fail  to  operate  in  favour  of  the  wealth,  and 
consequently  of  the  temporal  power  of  the  clergy.  These 
were  the  venders  of  a  valuable  commodity,  and  the  rich 
laity  were  the  purchasers.  And  were  not  many  ancient 
writings  and  charters,  &c.  still  extant,  we  should  not  believe 
how  nearly  the  grant  of  money  and  lands  to  the  church,  for 
the  good  of  men's  souls,  approached  to  the  form  of  a  bargain 
and  sale  in  other  cases.  The  grants  by  which  estates,  &c. 
were  made  to  the  church,  were  often  express  stipulations  for 
the  good  of  their  own  souls,  and  those  of  others. 

Thus,  when  Ethelwolf  tythed;}:  the  kingdom  of  England, 
he  said,  "It  was  for  the  good  of  his  own  soul,  and  those  of 
his  ancestors."  An  act  of  king  Stephen  says,  "  I,  Stephen, 
by  the  grace  of  God,  king,  being  desirous  of  sharing  with 
those  who  barter  earthly  things  for  heavenly  felicity,  and 
moved  thereto  by  the  love  of  God,  and  for  the  good  of  my 

•  Fleury,  XIII.  p.  30.   (P.)  t  Ibid.  Seventh  Discourse,  p.  IS.     (P.) 

\  See  Milton,  HisU  of  England,  B.  v.  p.  228.     Rapiii,  L.  iv.  I.  p.  «90- 


382  HISTORY  OF  MINISTERS 

own  soul,  and  of  my  father  and  mother,  and  the  souls  of  all 
my  relations,  and  my  royal  ancestors  ;  to  wit,  of  king  William 
my  grandfather,  king  Henry  my  uncle,  &c.  do,  by  the  advice 
of  my  barons,  give  to  God  and  the  holy  church  of  St.  Peter, 
and  the  monks  thereof,  the  tythes  of  all  lands,  &c."* 

Wealth  and  power  generally  go  hand  in  hand,  and  the  one 
will  never  fail  to  introduce  the  other.  With  the  clergy  it 
was  their  spiritual  power  that  was  the  cause  of  their  wealth, 
and  their  wealth  contributed  to  create  their  temporal  power. 
But  before  the  clergy  assumed  any  proper  power  over  the 
laity,  they  exempted  themselves  from  their  jurisdiction,  which 
they  began  to  do  very  early,  and  with  the  consent  of  the 
Christian  emperors,  who  did  not  wish  to  see  persons  of  an 
order  which  they  so  much  respected  brought  into  the  ordinary 
civil  courts.  It  was  therefore  only  in  extreme  cases  that 
any  of  the  clergy  were  brought  before  them.  Athalaric,  the 
Gothic  king  of  Italy,  approved  of  this  custom. •!• 

Moreover,  as  the  Christian  emperors  had  a  respect  for  the 
clergy,  and  a  confidence  in  them,  they  chose  to  extend  the 
effects  of  church  censures  ;  whereby  it  was  in  the  power  of 
the  clergy  to  prevent  or  punish  many  offences  of  a  civil 
nature,  so  that  in  time  all  the  bishops  had  courts  of  their 
own  ;  and  when  the  popes  got  power,  it  was  necessary  that 
the  power  of  the  bishops  should  rise  in  some  proportion  to  it. 
Boniface  VIII.  made  a  decree  by  which  the  bishops  might 
at  all  times  have  their  auditories,  and  consequently  put  the 
accused  in  prison.  But  this  was  not  much  regarded,  nor 
had  the  ecclesiastics  a  prison  before  the  pontificate  of 
Eugenius  I.J 

By  degrees  the  dignity  of  the  priests  rose  so  much  higher 
than  that  of  the  temporal  powers,  that  it  was  deemed  a  thing 
absolutely  intolerable,  that  a  clergyman  should  be  subject 
to  any  temporal  tribunal ;  and  as  the  canon  law  did  not 
punish  with  death,  the  clergy  enjoyed  almost  an  abso- 
lute impunity  for  the  commission  of  any  crime  whatever. 
And  in  those  dark  and  ignorant  ages,  the  disposition  of  the 
clergy  to  violence,  and  crimes  of  every  kind,  was  little,  if  at 
all,  less  than  that  of  the  laity.  It  appears  in  the  reign  of 
Henry  II.  of  England,  that  more  than  a  hundred  murders 
had  been  committed  by  clergymen,  whom  the  civil  powers 
could  not  bring  to  justice. §  As  to  the  higher  ranks  of  the 
clergy,  it  was  hardly  possible  that  they  should  be  punished 

*  Fleury,\).SQ.     {P.)  t  Anecdotes,  p.  188.   (P.)  $  Ibid.  p.  119.   (P.) 

§  Hist.  ofPopel-y,  III.  p.  130.     (P.)     Ed.  1735,  I.  p.  391-     See  Rapin,  L.  vii. 
11.  p.  187. 


IN  THE  CHRISTIAN   CHURCH.  383 

for  any  crime,  on  account  of  their  right  of  appeal  to  Rome, 
and  the  certainty  of  their  finding  protection  there,  especially 
if  they  had  any  ditference  with  their  sovereign.  Besides, 
in  those  times  no  clergyman  could  be  punished  capitally 
without  previous  deoradation,  and  a  priest  could  not  be 
degraded  but  by  eight  bishops,  to  assemble  whom  was  a 
great  expense. 

In  that  reign  of  superstition,  the  clergy  could  be  in  no 
want  of  plausible  pretences  to  interpose  in  civil  affiiirs. 
Among  others,  they  pretended  to  have  jurisdiction  in  all 
cases  of  sin^  in  consequence  of  which,  says  Fleury,  the 
bishops  made  themselves  judges  in  all  law-suits,  and  even  in 
all  wars  among  sovereigns,  and  in  fact  made  themselves  to 
be  the  only  sovereigns  in  the  world.*  In  a  council  of 
Narbonne,  in  1054,  persons  who  refused  to  pay  their  debts 
were  excommunicated. f  Had  church  censures  extended 
to  no  other  cases  than  these,  the  abuse  would  not  have  been 
much  complained  of. 

The  case  in  which  the  clergy  interfered  the  most  was  in 
things  relating  to  marriage.  For  as  incest  is  a  sin,  they 
made  themselves  judges  of  the  degrees  of  relationship  within 
which  it  was  lawful  to  contract  marriage.  And  as  dispen- 
sations for  marriage  within  those  degrees  was  very  gainful, 
it  was  their  interest  to  extend  those  degrees,  that  dispensa- 
tions might  be  more  frequently  wanted. 

Before  the  time  of  Justin  II.  ecclesiastical  canons  began 
to  encroach  upon  the  province  of  the  secular  power  in  this 
respect,  forbidding  the  marriage  of  cousins,  and  of  the  children 
of  cousins,  and  introducing  a  different  method  of  counting 
the  degrees  of  relationship,  which  is  not  more  ancient  than 
pope  Gregory  or  Zachary.  According  to  Fleury,  the  dif- 
ference between  the  canon  and  civil  law  on  this  subject 
arose  about  the  year  106^,  when  two  degrees  in  the  civil  law 
were  made  one  by  the  canon  law,  the  former  counting 
upwards  to  the  common  ancestor,  and  then  down  again  to 
the  persons  whose  degree  of  relationship  was  to  be  deter- 
mined. Whereas  the  custom  was  now  to  begin  with  the 
common  ancestors,  and  count  to  the  more  remote  of  the  two 
parties.  Brothers,  therefore,  who,  according  to  the  civil  law, 
were  in  the  second  degree  of  relationship,  according  to  the 
canon  law  were  in  the  first ;  and  cousins-german,  which 
were  in  the  fourth  degree,  were  by  the  canons  brought  to  the 
second,  &c.+ 

•  Seventh  Discourse,  p.  20.     (P.) 

t  Fleury.  A.  D.  1054.     (P.)  X  Ibid.  XUI.  p,  147.    (P.) 


384  HISTORY  OF  MINISTERS 

Besides  this  advantageous  method  of  counting  the  degrees, 
the  clergy  likewise  added  to  the  number  of  degrees  within 
which  it  was  not  lawful  to  contract  marriage.  Mezerai  says, 
that  about  the  end  of  the  tenth  century,  the  degrees  of 
relationship  within  which  marriage  was  prohibited  were 
extended  to  seven,  which  very  much  embarrassed  sovereign 
princts,  who  were  generally  related  to  one  another  within 
those  degrees. 

Another  method  of  extending  the  degrees  of  relationship 
was  by  considering  the  relations  of  one  party,  as  those  of  the 
other.  In  557,  a  council  at  Paris  forbade  the  marriage  of  a 
wife's  sister;  many  persons  having  then  done  it,  after  the 
example  of  king  Clotnire,  who  had  married  the  sister  of  his 
deceased  wife.*  Relation  by  adoption  was  also  made  to 
have  the  same  effect  as  that  by  nature.  In  734,  the  Pope 
not  only  advised  to  dissolve  the  marriage  of  a  man  with  a 
woman  whose  child  he  had  before  adopted,  but  to  punish 
him  wfth  death. -j*  And  what  will  be  thought  perhaps  more 
extraordinary,  the  spiritual  relationship,  as  it  was  called,  or 
that  of  godfather  or  godmother,  was  made  to  have  the  same 
effect  as  a  natural  relation  of  the  same  name.  J 

The  number  of  lawful  marriages  were  also  reduced. 
Second  marriages  were  soon  reckoned  improper,  and  with 
respect  to  the  clergy,  absolutely  unlawful,  it  being  soon 
imagined  to  be  forbidden  by  Paul,  who  says,  a  bishop  must 
be  the  husband  of  one  wife.  Epiphanius  mentions  a  person 
who  being  a  widower  mtirried  a  second  wife,  that  he  might 
not  be  made  a  priest.  Jerome  says,  we  do  not  desire,  but 
we  allow  of  second  marriages. §  In  901,  the  patriarch  of 
Constantinople,  refused  to  marry  the  emperor  Leo,  a  fourth 
time,  alleging  a  law  which  he  himself  had  made,  that  no 
person  should  marry  more  than  twice.  After  much  alterca- 
tion on  the  subject,  it  was  agreed  in  902,  that  third  marriages 
should  be  lawful,  but  not  fourth.  || 

It  was  thought  proper  in  very  early  times,  that  a  new- 
married  couple  should  have  the  benediction  of  the  bishop 
or  a  priest.  Thus,  in  the  fourth  Council  of  Carthage,  in 
398,  it  was  ordered  that  the  bride  and  bridegroom  should  be 
presented  to  a  priest  for  his  benediction,  and  that,  out  of 
respect  to  it,  they  should  abstain  from  commerce  the  first 
night.  ^  This  custom  of  giving  the  benediction  prepared  the 
way  for  the  clergy  being  considered  as   the  only  persons 

♦  Sueur.     (P.)  t  Ibid.     (P.)  J  Ibid.  A.  D.  995.    ^P.) 

\  Le  Cleic's  Hist.  Eccl.  A.D.  158.  (P.)  ||  Sueur.     (P.)        ^  Ibid.    (P.) 


IN  THE   CIIRISTIAX   CHURCH.  38.5 

betbro  whom  mnrringx'  could  be  legally  coiitractod,  aiul  the 
laity  were  etic'ctualjy  excluded  when  niatiimony  was  made 
one  of  the  seven  sacraments.  Marriage  also  came  under  the 
cognizance  of  the  clergy  by  means  of  the  oafh  which  the 
l)artics  took  to  be  faithful  to  each  other.  For  l"l(;ury  s'ays, 
the  clergy  included  within  their  jurisdiction  every  thing  in 
which  oaths  were  concerned,  as  well  as  where  the  causes  had 
any  connexion  with  things  spiritual.  Thus  on  account  of 
the  sacrament  of  marriage,  they  took  cognizance  oi"  marriage- 
portions,  cases  of  dowry,  of  adultery,  of  legitimacy,  and  also 
of  wills  ;  because  it  was  supposed  that  the  church  ought  not 
to  be  without  some  pious  legacy.* 

The  clergy  also  claimed  entire  jurisdiction  in  eases  of 
heresif  and  schism,  and  in  matters  whtMc  the  civil  law  had  not 
interfered,  as  in  respect  to  usury  and  concul)inage.  And 
because  the  crime  of  heresy  dnnv  after  it  the  loss  of  estates, 
and  of  all  civil  rights,  even  with  respect  to  the  sovereign,  the 
clergy  could  always  accuse  of  this  crime  any  person  whom 
they  ujeant  to  destroy  ;  and  if  the  [)rincc  would  not  submit 
to  their  sentence,  he  was  accused  of  not  believing  the  power 
of  the  /,ri/s,  and  accused  of  heresy.  "|* 

The  ordinary  jurisdiction  of  the  bishops  was  much  re- 
strained by  the  pope's  leoa/es,  especially  from  the  eleventh 
century  ;  and  the  bishops,  thus  restrained,  endeavoured  to 
extend  their  jurisdiction  at  the  expense  of  the  lay-judges,  by 
three  methods,  viz.  the  quality  of  the  persons,  the  nature  of 
the  causes,  and  the  multiplication  of  the  judges.  Boniface 
ATI  I.  ordained  that  laymen  should  have  no  power  over 
ecclesiastical  persons  or  goods,  and  the  bishops  made  as 
many  clergy  as  they  pleased,  by  which  means  they  drew 
great  numbers  from  the  temporal  jurisdiction,  an  abuse 
which  was  cariied  to  an  enormous  extent.  Because  widows 
and  orphans  had  been  protected  by  the  bishops  in  early  ages, 
they  now  undertook  all  their  causes,  even  those  of  the  widows 
of  kings,  and  those  of  kings  themselves  in  their  minority. 
They  also  took  cognizance  in  all  cases  in  which  lepers  were 
concerned.  Lastly,  the  bishops  multiplied  judges,  and 
thereby  extended  their  jurisdiction,  establishing  their  officials 
in  various  places  besides  the  episcopal  city.  Ihe  arch- 
deacons and  chapters  also  did  the  same,  and  all  these  had 
their  delegates,  sub-delegates,  and  other  conimiss.iries.+ 
However,   in  all  great  causes,  the  authority  of  the  bishops 

'-*  Fleury's  Seventh  Discourse,  p.  17-     (P.)  t  ^^^^    P-  !'•     (P-^ 

I   Ibid.  p.  18.     (P.) 

VOL.  V.  2  c 


386  HISTORY  OF  MINISTERS 

was  much  lessened  by  the  number  of  appeals  to  the  court  of 
Rome  ;  and  afterwards  the  Inquisition  also  encroached  upon 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  bishops,  as  well  as  on  that  of  the 
ordinary  judges."* 

A  circumstance  which  contributed  not  a  little  to  make 
the  clergy  intent  upon  extending  their  authority  in  the  state, 
and  to  make  them  formidable  in  it,  was  their  not  being- 
allowed  to  marry.  In  consequence  of  this,  great  numbers 
of  them  became  less  attached  to  their  respective  countries, 
and  made  the  hierarchy  alone  their  great  object.  This  point, 
however,  was  not  established  without  much  opposition,  A 
council  held  at  Constantinople  under  Justinian  II.  gave  the 
priests  leave  to  marry,  though  the  popes  had  enjoined  the 
contrary.  Many  priests  had  wives  even  in  the  West  about 
the  year  1000;  but,  in  1074,  Gregory  VII.  decreed  in 
council,  not  only  that  priests  "  should  abstain  from  mar- 
riage," but  that  they  who  had  wives  should  either  dismiss 
them,  or  quit  their  office.  But  even  this  law  was  often 
disregardec|.  •\ 

That  the  true  motive  to  this,  in  later  ages,  was  not  a 
regard  to  purity,  is  evident,  from  its  being  no  objection  to 
priests  to  keep  many  concubines,  even  publicly,  John 
Cremensis,  who  came  to  England  to  hold  a  synod  for  the 
purpose  of  prohibiting  the  marriage  of  priests,  was  the  very 
night  after  the  council  found  in  bed  with  a  common  pros- 
titute,t  Father  Simon  says,  that  the  priests  being  prohibited 
from  marriage,  made  no  scruple  of  keeping  concubines.  § 
It  was  in  970  that  a  synod  was  held  at  Canterbury,  in  which 
it  was  decreed  that  the  clergy  in  England  should  either  part 
with  their  wives  or  their  livings  ;  a  law  which  Dunstan 
enforced  with  great  rigour.  The  priests,  however,  were 
muph  averse  to  this  law,  and  therefore  it  was  found  neces- 
sary to  hold  another  synod  on  this  subject  at  Calne,  four 
years  afterwards,  in  which  it  was  finally  decided.  |j 

'With  the  high   rank   and   the  wealth  which   the  clergy 

*  Fleury's  Seventh  Discourse,  p.  23.     (P.) 

t  Mosheim,  II.  p.  284.     (P.)     Pt.  ii.  Ch.  ii.  Sect,  xii. 

X  History  of  Popery,  III.  p.  45.  (P.)  It  is  creditable  to  a  priest  of  the  same 
church,  "  John  Brompton,  Abbot  of  Jourval  in  Richmondshire,  who  lived  in  the 
reign  of  Edward  III.,"  that  he  thus  acknowledges  and  censures  the  fact:  "  Res 
asperrima  negari  non  potiiit,  celari  non  decuitj  et  sic  qui  summo  honore  ubique 
habebatur,  ingloriosus  et  Dei  judicio  confusns  cum  summo  dedecore  in  sua  repe- 
davit.  Hoc  si  cuiquam  displiceat,  taceat,  ne  Johannem  sequi  videatur."  Hist,  of 
Poperi/,  1735,  I.  pp.  363,  364. 

§  On  Church  Revenues,  p.  78.     (P.) 

II  At  this  council  the  king  and  nobles  were  present  with  the  prelates  and  abbots. 
See  Rapin,  L.  iv.  1.  p.  367. 


IN  THE  CHRISTIAN   CHURCH.  387 

acquired,  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  that  they  should  not 
improve  in  virtue,  hcavenly-mindedness,  and  a  careJul  at- 
tention to  the  duties  of  their  office.  Complaints  of  their 
arrogance,  avarice  and  voluptuousness,  are  without  end; 
and  yet,  vicious  as  the  clergy  in  general  were,  they  were 
reverenced  almost  to  adoration  by  the  ienorant  vulgar  of 
those  ages.  This  arose,  in  a  great  measure,  from  thi;  sen- 
timents and  customs  of  the  northern  nations  before  their 
conversion  to  Christianity;  which  in  those  days  consisted 
in  nothing  more  than  their  being  taught  to  say  by  rote  some 
general  principles  of  the  Christian  religion,  being  baptized, 
and  changing  the  objects  of  their  superstitious  customs. 
For  these  were  suffered  to  continue  the  same  as  before, 
only,  instead  of  being  acts  of  homage  to  their  heathen 
deities,  they  were  now  taught  to  consider  them  as  directed 
to  the  popish  saints. 

Now  these  people  having  been  before  their  conversion 
absolutely  enslaved  by~  their  priests,  having  never  been  used 
to  undertake  any  thing,  even  in  civil  or  military  affairs, 
without  their  counsel;  when  they  became  Christians,  they 
transferred  the  same  superstitious  deference,  to  their  christian 
priests,  who,  we  may  be  sure,  did  nothing  to  check  it.* 
In  the  dark  ages,  the  profligacy  of  the  clergy  perhaps  ex- 
ceeded that  of  the  laity,  as  the  sacredness  of  their  character 
gave  them  a  kind  of  impunity.  One  Fabricius  complains 
of  the  luxury  of  the  clergy  in  his  time,  towards  the  end  of 
the  tenth  century,  in  the  following  terms  : — They  no  longer 
saluted  one  another  with  the  title  of  brother^  but  that  of 
master;  they  won  Id  not  learn  any  thing  belonging  to  their 
ministry,  but  committed  the  whole  to  their  vicars.  Their 
study  was  to  have  horses,  cooks,  maitres  d'hotel,  concu- 
bines, buffoons  and  mountebanks  ;  and  they  applied  to  the 
emperor  for  leave  to  hunt  all  sorts  of  wild  beasts. -j" 

Nothing,  perhaps,  can  shew  the  pride  of  the  clergy  in  a 
stronger  light,  than  the  decrees  of  the  eighth  general  council, 
held  at  Constantinople,  in  869,  in  vvhich  it  was  ordered  that 
bishops  should  not  go  before  princes,  that  they  should  not 
alight  from  their  mules  or  horses,  but  that  they  should  be 
considered  as  of  equal  rank  with  princes  and  emperors  ; 
that  if  any  bishop  should  live  in  a  low  manner,  according  to 
the  ancient  and  rustic  custom,  he  should  be  deposed  for  a 
year;  and  that  if  the  prince  was  the  cause  of  it,  that  prince 

♦  Mosheim,  II.  p,  59.     (P.)     Cent.  viii.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  ii.  Sect  ii. 
t  Sueur,  \.  D.  989.     (P) 

2  c  2 


388  HISTORY  OF  MINISTERS 

should  be  excommunicated  for  two  years.  In  the  same 
council  it  was  decreed  that  bishops  only  should  be  present 
at  councils,  and  not  secidar  princes  ;  for  that  they  ought 
not  to  be  even  spectators  of  such  things  as  sometimes 
happen  to  priests.*  All  writers  agree  in  giving  the  most 
shocking  picture  of  the  depravity  of  all  ranks  of  men  in  the 
tenth  century. j* 

When  the  occupation  of  churchmen  and  temporal  lords 
differed  so  very  little,  it  is  natural  to  expect  that  there 
would  be  no  great  difference  in  their  accomplishments.  In 
the  ninth  century  the  ignorance  of  the  clergy  was  so  great, 
that  few  of  them  could  either  write  or  read.  But  one  reason 
of  this  was,  that  many  noblemen  and  others,  wanting  suffi- 
cient talents  to  appear  to  advantage  in  the  field,  retired  into 
the  church,  the  great  endowments  of  which  were  temptations 
to  them.  The  estates  of  the  church  were  also  often  openly 
invaded,  and  the  ignorant  spoilers  got  possession  of  the 
benefices. J 

Britain,  being  removed  from  the  seat  of  the  greatest  rapine 
and  'profligacy,  had  a  greater  proportion  of  learned  clergy 
than  the  rest  of  Europe,  in  the  greatest  part  of  the  dark  ages  ; 
and  Ireland  had  perhaps  a  greater  proportion  than  Britain, 
as  they  had  suffered  still  less  by  the  ravages  of  the  bar- 
barians. 

The  very  corrupt  state  of  the  clergy  made  the  monks,  and 
their  monasteries,  of  great  value  to  the  Christian  world. 
With  them  almost  all  the  learning  and  piety  of  those  ages 
had  an  asylum,  till  the  approach  of  better  times.  § 

In  the  church  of  England  there  is  a  three-fold  order  of 
ministers,  viz.  bisho}>s,  priests  and  deacons.  The  deacons 
may  baptize  and  preach,  but  not  administer  the  Lord's 
supper;  the  priests  may  administer  the  Lord's  supper,  and 
pronounce  absolution  ;  and  only  the  bishops  confirm  bap- 
tized persons,  ordain  ministers,  and  govern  the  church.  The 
bishop's  diocese  is  considered  as  the  lowest  kind  of  a  church, 
and  the  presbyters  are  considered  as  his  delegates  or  curates. 
But   the   first    English    reformers    considered    bishops    and 

♦  Sueur,  A.  D.  869      (^0  t  Among  others,  see  Sueur,  A.  D.  909.  (P.) 

t  Moslieim,  II.  p.  119.  (P-)  Cent.  ix.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  ii.  Sect.  ii. 
§  "  Where,  inileed,  could  the  precious  remains  of  classical  leaniinjij,  and  the 
divine  monuments  of  ancient  taste,  have  been  safely  lodged,  amidst  the  ravages  of 
that  age  of  ferocity  and  rapine — except  in  sanctuaries  like  these? — There  Homer 
and  Aristotle  were  obliged  to  shroud  their  heads  from  the  rage  of  Gothic  ignorance; 
and  there  tljc  sacred  records  of  divine  truth  were  preserved  like  treasure,  hid  in  the 
earth  in  troublesome  times,  safe  but  unf  njoyed."  On  Monastic  Institutions.  Miscel. 
Pieces,  by  J.  and  A.  L.  Aikiii,  1775,  Ed.  2,  pp.91,  92. 


IN   THE   CHRISTIAN  CHURCH.  389 

priosts  ns  of  the  same  order,  and  therefore  did  not  re(|uire 
that  tliose  nlio  liad  heen  ordained  hy  i)riests  should  he  or- 
dained again  by  a  bishop.  Wicklitte,  who  hiLian  the  refor- 
mation in  I'^nojand,  admitted  no  more  than  two  decrees  in 
the  ministerial  oftiee,  viz.  deacons  and  presbyters  or  bishops. 
These  two,  says  he,  were  known  in  Paul's  time,  and  others 
arc  the  invention  of  impious  pride. 

There  is  also  another  deviation  from  the  primitiv<,'  state 
of  things  in  the  church  of  England,  as  the  people  have  not 
in  general  the  choice  of  their  minister,'^^'  and  the  i)ishops  are 
all  nominated  by  the  court.  For  though  the  dean  and 
chapter  have  the  nominal  choice,  the  king  sends  them  an 
express  order  to  choose  such  as  he  shall  direct. f  In  the 
reign  of  Edward  iV.  this  absurd  custom  was  set  aside, 
and  the  king  himself  immediately  appointed  the  bishops  ; 
but  the  old  custom  was  renewed  in  the  reign  of  Queen 
Elizabeth. 

Almost  all  the  inferic)r  ministers  are  chosen  by  the  bishops, 
the  chancellor,  or  some  lay  patrons.  AVhen  a  new  rector  is 
to  be  placed  in  a  parish,  the  patron  of  the  living  recommends 
whom  he  pleases  to  the  bishop,  and  the  bishop  has  no  power 
to  refuse.  The  rights  of  patronage  to  livings  are  openly 
bought  and  sold  ;  and  it  is  not  reckoned  simony  to  buy  the 
next  right  of  presentation,  provided  the  living  be  not  void 
at  the  time. 

*  In  some  parishes,  the  inliabitants  have,  alternately,  a  choice;  the  chancellor 
nominating  to  the  intermediate  vacancy. 

t  "  The  Queen  [Anne]  grants  a  license  to  the  detoi  and  chapter,  nnder  the  great 
seal,  to  elect  the  person  whom,  by  her  letters  missive,  slic  hath  appointed  ;  and 
thev  are  to  choose  no  other."  Rights  of  the  Clirtij/,  I7<i9,  p.  90.  See  Vol.  II. 
p.  .S39,  Note  T.  To  which  add  the  following  testimonies:  "  This  order  of  ad- 
mitting none  to  any  ecclesiastical  function,  but  by  election  of  all  the  faithful,  in  a 
general  assembly,  was  inviolably  observed,  and  so  continued  for  about  two  hundred 
years."     Father  Paul,  on  Ecdes.  Bene/.  Ch.  iii.  Ed.  3,  p.  6. 

"  That  the  people  had  votes  iti  the  choice  of  bishops  all  must  grant ;  and  it  can 
be  only  ignorance  and  foUi/  that  pleads  the  contrary."  Lowth  on  Chujch-power, 
Towgood,  Let.  ii.  Ed.  5,  p.  96. 


390 

THE 

HISTORY 

OF    THE 


PART  XL 

The  History  of  the  Papal  Power. 

— •-♦-•^ — 

THE 

INTRODUCTION. 


When  we  consider  that,  originally,  the  bishops  of  Rome 
were  nothing  more  than  any  other  bishops,  that  is,  the 
ministers  or  pastors  of  a  society  of  Christians,  without  any 
power,  even  within  their  own  church,  besides  that  of  exhor- 
tation and  admonition,  it  is  truly  astonishing  that  ihe  popes ^ 
who  are  no  other  than  the  successors  of  those  bishops,  should 
have  obtained  the  rank  and  authority  that  they  have  done  ; 
and  it  is  hardly  possible  to  conceive  how  the  one  should 
have  arisen  from  the  other.  There  is  not,  indeed,  in  the 
whole  history  of  human  aftairs,  another  example  of  so  great 
a  change  in  the  condition  of  any  order  of  men  whatever, 
civil  or  ecclesiastical. 

From  being  in  the  lowest  state  of  persecution,  in  common 
with  other  Christians,  and  having  nothing  to  do  with  things 
of  a  temporal  nature,  they  came  to  be  the  greatest  of  all 
persecutors  themselves,  and  rose  to  a  greater  height  of  tem- 
poral power  (and  a  power  established  on  the  voluntary 
subjection  of  the  mind)  than  almost  any  sovereign,  the  most 
despotic  by  law  or  constitution,  ever  attained.  And  from 
being  mere  subjects,  they  came  to  be  not  only  princes,  but 
the  most  imperious  lords  of  their  former  masters  ;  and  their 
ecclesiastical  power  was  still  more  absolute  and  extensive 
than  their  civil  power.  I  shall  endeavour  to  point  out  the 
several  steps  by  which  this  great  change  was  made. 


HISTORY  OF  THE   PAPAL  POWER.  391 

The  ground  of  the  papal  pretensions  to  power,  in  later 
ages,  was  the  popes  being  the  succissors  of  the  a{)0stle 
Peter,  to  whom  was  deUverecl  l)y  Christ  llic  kci/s  of  the  king- 
dom of  heaven.  But  whatever  was  meant  by  that  expression, 
Peter  himself  assumed  no  pre-eminence  over  the  rest  of  the 
apostles.  Paul  opj)osed  him  to  his  face,  and  says  that  he 
himself  was  not  inferior  to  the  very  chief'est  ajwalks.  Also, 
though  it  be  probable  that  Peter  was  at  Home,  and  suffered 
martyrdom  th(>re.  it  is  not  probable  that  he  was  ever  the 
proper  bishop  of  Rome,  or  of  any  particular  place  ;  the 
apostles  having  a  general  jurisdiction  over  the  church  at 
large,  appointing  and  directing  the  conduct  of  all  the  bishops; 
an  oitice  to  which  they  appointed  no  successors  at  all. 

The  title  ot' pope  (papa),  which  signifies  father,  was  not 
originally  peculiar  to  the  bishop  of  Rome,  but  in  early  times 
was  commonly  applied  to  other  bishops,  especially  in  tlie 
greater  sees.  Thus  Cornelius,  bishop  of  Rome,  called 
Cyprian  the  pope  of  Carthage  ;  and  it  was  not  till  about  the 
beginning  of  the  seventh  century,  that  the  bishops  of  Rome 
appropriated  that  title  to  themselves. 

One  of  the  most  extraordinary  circumstances  relating  to 
the  papal  power  is,  that,  though  the  foundations  on  which  it 
rested  were  entirely  changed,  and  those  pretences  on  which 
the  greatest  stress  was  laid,  had  not  been  heard  of,  or  hinted 
at,  for  many  centuries  ;  yet  being  continually  urged,  in  dark 
ages,  they  came  at  length  to  be  imiversally  acknowledged, 
and  acquiesced  in,  even  by  those  princes  whose  interest  it 
was  to  oppose  them.  And  in  time  the  business  transacted 
at  the  court  of  Rome  was  so  great  and  peculiar,  that  nothing 
was  more  sensibly  felt  than  the  want  of  unity  in  it,  during 
the  great  schism  in  the  papacy.*  All  Europe  was  in  the 
deepest  affliction  on  the  occasion  ;  and  instead  of  rejoicing 
in  the  division  of  this  enormous  controuling  power,  it  was 
the  great  object  of  princes  and  people  to  unite  the  church, 
under  its  one  proper  head.  Had  the  sun  been  divided,  and 
its  light  been  in  danger  of  being  extinguished,  the  Christian 
world  would  hardly  have  been  more  alarmed  than  it  was  ; 
so  necessary  was  the  subjection  of  all  Christians  to  one 
supreme  head  of  the  church,  at  that  time,  deemed  to  be.  The 
rise  and  progress  of  such  an  amazing  power,  rtom  so  very 
low  a  beginning,  is  indeed  a  great  object,  and  well  deserves 
to  be  considered  with  attention. 

•  On  the  death  of  Gregory  XI.   in    1378,  when  there  were  rival  popes,  one  at 
Rome,  and  the  other  at  Avignon. 


392  HISTORY  OF   THE  PAPAL  POWER. 


SECTION   I. 

Of  the  State  of  the  Papal  Power  till  the  Time  of  Charlemagne. 

The  first  cause  of  the  increase  of  power  to  the  popes  was 
the  same  that  enlarged  the  power  of  the  bishops  of  all  the 
great  cities  of  the  empire;  in  consequence  of  which  they 
had  the  power  of  calling,  and  presiding  in,  the  assemblies  of 
bishops  within  the  provinces  to  which  the  civil  jurisdiction 
of  their  respective  cities  extended  :  and,  by  degrees,  as  has 
been  observed  before,  they  had  the  power  of  ordaining  the 
bishops  in  their  provinces,  and  a  negative  on  the  choice  of 
the  people. 

The  bishops  of  the  most  important  sees  were  at  length 
distinguished  by  the  title  of  patriarchs,  who  had  all  equal 
power,  and  differed  only  with  respect  to  rank  and  prece- 
dency ;  and  in  general  the  bishop  of  Rome  was  considered 
as  the  hrst  in  rank,  out  of  respect  to  the  city  in  which  he 
presided.  After  the  see  of  Rome,  the  preference  was  given 
to  the  other  great  sees,  in  the  following  order,  viz.  those  of 
Constantinople,  Alexandria,  Antioch  and  Jerusalem.  The 
churches  of  Africa  do  not  appear  to  have  been  subject  to 
any  of  these  patriarchs  ;  and  Cyprian,  who  was  bishop  of 
Carthage,  in  the  third  century,  had  the  same  power  that  the 
bishops  of  Rome  had,  viz..  to  assemble  the  bishops  of  his 
province,  to  preside  in  their  councils,  and  to  admonish  his 
brethren.  * 

The  proper  authority  of  the  bishop  of  Rome,  though  he 
was  the  only  person  in  Italy  distinguishecf  by  the  title  of 
7netropolitan,  did  not  extend  over  the  whole  of  Italy,  but 
only  the  southern  parts  of  it,  or  those  provinces  which  were 
called  snbarhican,  because  they  were  subject  to  the  imperial 
vicar,  who  resided  at  Rome,  while  all  the  northern  parts 
were  subject  to  the  vicar  of  I  tali/,  as  he  was  called,  in  tem- 
poral matters;  and  to  the  archbishop  of  Mihui  in  spirituals; 
the  vicar  of  Italy  residing  in  Milan. -f 

But  though  the  power  of  the  bishops  of  Rome  had  no 
legal  extension  beyond  that  of  other  patriarchs,  they  had 
much  more  authority  and  influence  than  other  bishops,  on 
account  of  the  dignity  of  their  city,  which  was  the  capital  of 
the  Roman  empire,  and  likewise  on  account  of  the  great 
wealth  and  large  revenues  of  that  see.     Moreover,  as  it  had 

*  Mosheim,  I.  p.  215.  {P.)  Pt.  ii.  Cli.  ii.  Sect.  ii.        t  Anecdotes,  p.  78.  (P.) 


HISTORY   OV  THE   I'Al'AL    I'OWKR.  .'393 

been  the  custom  fo  appc^al  to  Home  in  all  great  civil  cases, 
so  if  the  bishops  of  Home  were  only  e(|uai  to  other  bishops 
of  the  o-rcat  patriarchal  sees,  (aiul  in  early  times  they  were 
probably  superior  to  them  in  knowledge  and  character,)  it 
would  be  natural,  when  ditFerences  of  <)|)iiii()ii  aros(%  for 
each  party  to  wish  to  have  the  sanction  of  tlu;  sec  of  Koine. 
On  these  accounts  appeals  were  more  frt'f|uently  made  to 
Rome  than  to  any  other  place  ;  and  this  voluntary  deference 
was  afterwards  e.ipecfed,  and  then  insisted  upon,  Chiistians 
in  oencral  having  been  by  habit  disposed  to  yield  to  its 
authority. 

The  Arian  controversy  afforded  the  bishops  of  Home 
several  opportunities  of  extending  their  power.  Athanasius 
himself  engaged  the  protection  of  poj)e  Julius  ;  and  it  was 
chiefly  by  the  influence  of  the  see  of  Home  that  the  Trini- 
tarian doctrine  came  to  be  established.  Hut  before  this 
time,  Victor,  bishop  of  Home,  interposed  his  authority,  but 
without  eflect,  in  the  controversy  about  the  time  of  keeping- 
Easter,  proceeding-  so  far  as  to  excommunicate  all  the  eastern 
churches,  because  they  did  not  conform  to  the  custom  of 
the  western  church  in  this  respect.  But  no  regard  was  paid 
to  his  decision,  though  afterwards  the  council  of  Nicedeter- 
mintxl  the  question  as  he  had  done. 

On  this,  and  on  other  occasions,  the  papal  pretensions 
did  not  pass  unnoticed,  or  without  opposition.  Some  stand, 
though  an  ineflectual  one,  was  always  made  to  every  en- 
croachment; and  the  early  popes  themselves,  who  began  to 
usurp  a  little,  and  to  convert  that  into  a  matter  of  rio/u 
which  had  originally  been  mere  conrt<s//,  would  have  been 
shocked  at  the  idea  of  a  small  part  ol  what  was  done  b>'  their 
successors.  A  number  oi'  decretal  epistles  have,  indeed,  been 
alleged,  as  proofs  that  the  earliest  popes  always  held  and 
exercised  a  sovereign  power  in  the  church.  Hut  these  were 
manifestly  forged,  as  the  Papists  themselves  now^  acknow- 
ledge ;  and  many  facts  in  the  early  history  of  the  church, 
and  of  the  papacy,  prove,  incontestably,  that  the  bishops 
of  Home  had  no  more  real  power  than  other  metropolitan 
bishops. 

In  the  sixth  Council  of  Carthage  (426)  it  was  concluded 
by  the  bishops  who  composed  it,  that  they  would  not  give 
way  to  the  encroachments  of  the  bishops  of  Home  on  their 
rights  and  liberties,  and  they  gave  immediate  nofice  to  pope 
Celestine,  to  forbear  sending  his  officers  among  them,  "  lest 
he  should  seem  to  introduce  the  vain  insolence  of  the  world 
into  the  church  of  Christ.''      Various  other  councils  also 


394?  HISTORY  OF  THE   PAPAL  POWER. 

made  decrees  to  the  same  purpose.  But  when  the  patriarchs 
of  Alexandria  and  Antioch  were  oppressed  by  that  of  Con- 
stantinople, they  had  recourse  to  the  church  of  Rome  ;  and 
by  their  example  inferior  bishops  appealed  thither  also,  when 
they  were  oppressed  by  the  bishops  of  Alexandria  and 
Antioch.^  By  this  means  the  bishops  of  Rome  acquired  a 
considerable  degree  of  influence  even  in  the  East. 

After  the  prevalence  of  the  Mahometan  powers  in  Asia 
and  Africa,  as  there  remained  only  two  rival  metropolitans, 
viz.  those  of  Rome  and  Constantinople,  they  were  conti- 
nually at  variance ;  and  at  first  the  bishops  of  Constantinople, 
where  the  emperor  resided,  had  the  advantage.  These  had 
extended  their  jurisdiction  so  much  before  the  reign  of 
Justin,  that  it  comprehended  lllyricum,  Epirus,  Macedonia 
and  Achaia.  Afterwards  it  extended  to  Sicily,  and  many 
places  in  the  southern  parts  of  Italy,  and  they  contended 
with  the  bishops  of  Rome  for  the  superintendence  of 
Bulgaria  and  other  countries,  f 

The  three  other  eastern  patriarchates  having  been  either 
abolished  or  much  reduced,  the  bishops  of  Constantinople 
took  occasion*from  it  to  carry  their  pretensions  to  an  autho- 
rity so  much  higher  than  before,  that  John,  who  was  chosen 
patriarch  of  Constantinople  in  685,  assumed  the  title  of 
cecumenical  or  universal  bishop.  This  title  was  severely 
condemned  by  Gregory  the  Great,  who  was  then  bishop  of 
Rome,  as  tending  to  diminish  the  authority  of  other  bishops. 
He  even  called  it  blasphemy,  and  a  name  invented  by  the 
devil ;  adding,  that  whoever  called  himself,  or  wished  to  be 
called  universal  bishop,  was  the  forerunner  of  anti-christ.  % 
Nay,  upon  this  occasion,  by  way  of  contrast,  he  took  the 
title  of  Servus  Servorum  Dei,  or  Servant  of  the  Servants  of 
God,  and  he  was  the  first  pope  who  used  that  style  in  his 
letters. § 

But  not  more  than  eighteen  years  after  the  death  of  this 
Gregory,  viz.  in  606,  Boniface  III.  obtained  of  the  emperor 
Phocas,  that  the  bishops  of  Rome  alone  should,  from  that 
time,  have  this  very  title  of  universal  bishop.  The  circum- 
stance which  made  the  assumption  of  this  title  the  more 
odious,  besides  its  having  been  rejected  with  so  much  indig- 
nation by  the  predecessors  of  Boniface,  was  its  being  granted 
by  one  who  had  risen  to  the  empire  by  the  murder  of  the 
preceding  emperor  Mauritius,  his  wife,  and  all  his  children  ; 

*  Mosheim,  I.  p.  374.     (P.)     Cent.  v.  Ft.  ii.  Ch.  ii.  Sect.  vi. 

t  Anecdotes,  p.  1.58.     (P.)  J  Sueur,  A.  D.  595.     (P.)    ' 

^  Anecdotes,  p.  206.     (P.) 


HISTORY  OF  THE  PAPAL  POWER.  39«5 

and  who  in  this  manner  courted  the  friendship  of  the  bishop 
of  Rome,  whose  power  in  the  western  part  of  the  empire 
was  then  very  considerable.  For  the  popes  accpiired  a  i;ieat 
accession  of  power,  and  had  much  more  influence  in  all 
civil  affairs,  in  consequence  of  the  removal  of  the  seat  of 
empire  from  Rome  to  Constantinople.  Rut  they  were  of 
much  more  consequence  after  the  Lombards  settled  in 
Italy.  For  by  taking  part  sometimes  with  them,  and  some- 
times with  the  em})eror,  they  made  themselves  formidable 
to  both,  and  by  this  means  their  usurpations  passed  without 
censure. 

That  the  authority  of  the  sees  both  of  Constantinople  and 
of  Rome  arose  from  the  dignity  of  the  cities,  is  evident 
from  this  circumstance,  viz.  that  before  the  year  381,  the 
see  of  Constantinople  had  depended  upon  that  of  Heraclea, 
which  had  been  the  former  metropolis  of  the  province  ;  but 
from  that  time  the  council  ordained,  according  to  the  wishes 
of  Theodosius,  that  the  bishops  of  Constantinople  should 
hold  the  principal  dignity  after  that  of  the  bishops  of  Rome.* 
But  afterwards,  viz.  in  a  council  held  at  Constantinople, 
under  Justinian  II.,  it  was  ordained  that  the  patriarchs  of 
Constantinople  should  be  equal  to  those  of  Rome. 

It  was  in  the  reign  of  Valentinian  III.  that,  by  the  influ- 
ence of  Leo,  the  popes  gained  the  greatest  accession  of 
power  in  the  West,  within  the  period  of  which  I  am  now 
treating.  Before  this  time  the  popes  had  no  proper  authority 
beyond  the  suburbican  provinces. j*  But  this  emperor  ex- 
tended their  authority  to  all  the  bounds  of  his  empire,  even 
into  Gaul,  and  ordered  that  whatever  should  be  done  in 
that  country  without  the  authority  of  the  Pope,  should 
have  no  force.  ^  The  bishops  assembled  at  Rome  in  378, 
approved  of  this  augmentation  of  the  power  of  the  popes.  § 

An  opportunity  soon  offered  of  making  use  of  this  power. 
For  in  the  year  440,  Chclidonius,  being  deposed  in  Gaul, 
appealed  to  the  Pope,  who  received  him  into  communion, 
and  by  the  authority  of  Valentinian  reinstated  him.  This 
was  the  first  encroachment  that  was  made  by  the  popes  on 
the  liberties  of  the  Gallican  church.  ||  It  was  not,  however, 
till  a  long  time  after  this,  that  any  direct  application  was 
made  to  the  popes  for  preferment  in  France.     Auxanius, 

♦  Sueur,  A.  D.  381.     (P.)  t  Anecdotes,  p.  81.     {P.) 

X  Basiiage,  I.  p.  243.     (P.) 

§  Moshcim,  I.  p.  287.     (P.)     Pt.  ii.  Ch,  ii.  Sect.  vi. 

II  Basnage,  I.  p.  243.     (P.) 


396  HISTORY   OF  THE  PAPAL  POWER. 

bishop  of  Aries,  was  the  first  bishop  in  France  \yho,  in  the 
year  o43,  sent  to  ask  for  the  palliiun,  or  the  archiepiscopal 
cloal^,  from  Jlome.  His  i)redecessor  had  it  without  asking 
for  ;  and  in  this  case  the  Pope  answered,  that  he  must  first 
have  the  consent  of  the  king-  of  France.  * 

After  the  reign  of  Valentinian  111.  the  bishops  of  Rome, 
finding  their  powers  cnhirged,  and  that  they  had  the  super- 
intendence of  all  the  churches  of  the  West,  sent  their  vicars 
regularly  into  the  jH'ovinces,  whenever  there  was  the  leagt 
pretence  for  it,  and  thus  watched  every  opportunity  of 
extending  their  jurisdiction.  The  first  vicars  which  they 
established  were  those  of  lllyricum  and  of  Thessaly.  And 
the  Pope  was  the  more  readily  acknowledged  to  be  patriarch 
of  all  the  West  by  the  Greeks,  as  well  as  by  the  Latins,  as 
the  former  wished  to  have  the  bishop  of  Constantinople  to 
be  considered  as  patriarch  of  all  the  East,  j* 

In  517,  pope  Hormisdas  appointed  bishops  of  Gaul,  Spain 
and  Portugal,  his  vicars  in  the  respective  countries.  They 
were  glad  to  be  so  honoured,  as  it  gave  them  a  rank  above 
their  brethren  ;  and  by  this  means  the  popes  greatly  extended 
their  authority  in  those  countries.  %  But  before  this  time, 
viz.  in  453,  "  the  popes  began  to  keep  spies  and  informers 
at  Constantinople.  St.  Leo  recommends  to  the  emperor 
INIarcian,  one  Julian,  whom  he  declares  to  be  his  legate, 
established  by  him  to  solicit  at  the  emperor's  court  all  things 
relating  to  the  faith  and  peace  of  the  church,  against  the 
heretics  of  the  age.  This  is  the  beginning  of  the  Pope's 
legates  residing  at  Constantinople,  who  were  afterwards 
called  Apocrisiarii."  § 

The  popes  were  also  very  attentive  to  send  legates  into 
nations  newly  converted,  and  thereby  subjected  them  to 
their  patriarchate.  Thus  the  Bulgarians  being  converted, 
the  Pope  immediately  sent  an  archbishop  thither,  which 
was  the  beginning  of  the  contest  between  the  patriarchs  of 
Rome  and  those  of  Constantinople.  j| 

After  the  fall  of  the  western  empire  the  popes  found 
themselves  in  a  peculiarly  favourable  situation  for  the  in- 
crease of  their  power,  the  emperor  being  then  at  a  distance, 
and  therefore  obliged  to  take  some  pains  to  keep  on  good 
terms  with  them,   in  order  to  keep  up  his  interest  in  the 

*  Sueur,  A.  D.  543.     (P.)  f  Anecdotes,  p.  144.     (P.) 

I  Sueur.      (P.) 

§  Jortin's  Remarks,  IV,  p.  2()8.     (P.)     Ed.    1805,  III.  p.  la.-). 

II  Anecdotes,  p.  145.     (P.) 


HISTORY    OF  TIIF.   PAPAL    POWF.R.  397 

coiuitrv.  Tims  Justinian  paid  tlic  l*o|)(>  many  com|)limonts, 
and  called  the  S(>e  of  Ivome  the  c\uv\'  of  all  the  chmehes, 
hoping  by  this  means  to  drive  the  Goths  out  of  Italy.* 

Also  the  |)eo])lo  of  Rome,  and  of  the  ncinhhouring-  dis~ 
tricts,  dislikiuLi-  both  the  Greeks  and  tlu-  northern  invaders, 
and  having  no  other  head,  looked  up  to  the  popes  for  pro- 
tection, and  at  lenoth  took  an  oath  of  allegiance  to  Gre|2:ory  II. 
])Ut  they  considered  him  as  their  chief,  not  as  their  master, 
meaning  to  form  a  republic,  governed  by  its  own  laws.f 

As  the  popes  exttMided  their  power,  they  began  to  provide 
a  broader  basis  for  it.  Leo  was  the  first  who  claimed  juris- 
diction over  other  churches,  as  successor  to  St.  Peter; 
and  when  it  was  decreed  at  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  that 
the  see  of  Constantinople  should  be  second  to  that  of  Rome 
with  respect  to  rank,  assigning  as  a  reason  for  it  the  pre- 
eminence of  the  city,  this  pope  was  much  dissatisfied,  be- 
cause his  pre-eminence  was  not  founded  on  something  more 
stable  than  the  dignity  of  the  city,  and  wished  to  have  it  rest 
on  the  authority  of  St.  Peter,  as  the  founder  of  the  see. J 
From  this  time  we  find  this  foundation  for  the  authority  of 
the  see  of  Home  urged  with  the  greatest  confidence  ;  and 
what  is  most  extraordinary,  it  seems  never  to  have  been 
disputed.  In  a  synod  held  at  Rome,  in  494,  Gelasius  said 
that  the  church  of  Rome  ought  to  be  preferred  to  all  others, 
not  on  account  of  the  decrees  of  councils,  but  for  the  words 
of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  when  he  said,  "  Thou  art  Peter, 
and  ui)on  this  rock  will  I  build  my  church."  §  But  there 
has  been  nmch  dispute  about  this  decree,  and  the  meaning 
of  it. 

It  was  sometime,  however,  before  the  popes  thought  of 
claiming  absolute  mfai/ibilit//,  as  the  successors  of  an  infal- 
lible apostle.  The  first  pope  who  seems  to  have  made  this 
claim  was  Agatho,  who,  "  in  an  epistle  to  the  sixth  general 
council,  hokien  at  Constantinople,"  in  680,  said,  "  that  the 
chair  of  Rome — never  erred,  nor  can  err  in  any  point ;"  and 
that  "  all  the  constitutions  of  the  Roman  church  are  to  be 
received  as  if  they  had  been  delivered  by  the  divine  voice  ot 
St.  Peter."  |j  But  before  this  time  there  had  not  been 
wanting  persons  who  flattered  the  pride  of  the  i)opes  by  very 
extravagant  encomiums.  Thus,  in  the  fifth  century,  Enno- 
dius,  a  flatterer  of  pope  Symmachus,  maintained  that  the 


•   Sueur,  A.  D.  53 1.  (P.)  t  Anecdotes,  pp.  ^240,  246,  (P.) 

t  Sueur,  A.D.  451.  (P.)  ^   Ibid.  (P.) 

X  Hist,  of  Poi)erv,  II.  p.  5.  (P.)     Ed.  17.35,  I.  pp.  135,  136. 


398  HISTORY  OF  THE  PAPAL  POWER. 

Roman  pontiff  was  "  constituted  judge  in  the  place  of  God, 
which  he  filled  as  the  vicegerent  of  the  Most  High."* 

With  this  increase  of  real  power  and  consequence,  we 
may  naturally  expect  additional  higher  titles,  and  more 
splendour;  and  in  this  the  popes  were  by  no  means  defici- 
ent ;  and  as  they  approached  to  the  rank  of  sovereign  princes, 
they  omitted  none  of  the  usual  forms,  or  symbols  of  royalty. 
But  in  this  period,  as  they  had  not  attained  to  the  power,  so 
they  did  not  assume  all  the  pomp  that  they  afterwards  ap- 
peared in. 

As  the  Christians  affected  the  ceremonies  of  the  heathen 
worship,  the  popes  were  ready  enough  to  avail  themselves  of 
it,  when  it  might  add  to  their  personal  dignity.  Accord- 
ingly, ^s  the  o^iCG  o{  Pontif ex  Ma, vimus  had  been  of  great 
dignity  in  Rome,  and  had  generally  been  assumed  by  the 
emperors  ;  from  the  end  of  the  fourth  century,  the  bishops 
of  Rome  were  often  called  Pontiff's,  and  their  office  the  Pon- 
tijicate.  They  were  also  sometimes  called  sovereign  prelates, 
or  sovereign  priests.-^  But  the  title  of  bishop  of  bishops  was 
not  given  to  the  Pope  seriously  in  the  five  first  centuries. 

The  ceremony,  by  which  respect  is  generally  shewn  to 
the  Pope,  is  kissing  his  foot,  which  was  also  done  to  the 
Pontifex  Maximus  of  heathen  Rome,  and  was  demanded  by 
Domitian,  Dioclesian,  and  some  others  of  the  emperors,;}: 
who  were  likewise  chief  pontiffs.  This  civility  was  first 
shewn  to  pope  Constantine  I.  by  the  emperor  Justinian  II., 
at  Nicomedia.  He  did  it  out  of  voluntary  respect,  but  it 
was  afterwards  claimed  "  as  due  to  them  of  right  from  the 
greatest  crowned  heads."  § 

The  custom  of  carrying  the  Pope  on  men's  shoulders  after 
his  election,  which  seems  to  have  been  borrowed  from  the 
custom  of  some  of  the  northern  nations,  in  the  choice  of 
their  chiefs  or  princes,  was  first  used  by  Stephen  II.  He 
also  had  all  his  bulls,  or  edicts,  sealed  with  lead.  ||  Like 
other  sovereigns,  the  popes  even  in  this  period,  made  use  of 
the  plural  number  in  speaking  of  themselves.  This  is  said 
to  have  been  begun  by  Boniface  III.  about  the  year  606  ; 
who,  in  approving  the  choice  of  a  bishop,  used  the  words 
Volumus  et  jubemus,  we  will  and,  command.^     Afterwards 

*  Mosheini,  I,  p.  443.    (P.) 

t  Sueur,  A.  D.  214.  (P.)     Les  Conformitez,  Ch.  ii.  p.  12. 

X  Caligula  and  Heliogabnlns.  See  Les  Conform.  Ch.  ii.  p.  27,  Whitelocke's 
Ess.  p.  181. 

k  Hist,  of  Popery,  II.  p.  10.  (P.)  1735, 1,  p.  1S8.         ll  Sueur,  A.D.  752.  (P.) 
II  Sueur.    (P.) 


HISTORY   OF  THK    PAPAL   POWER.  399 

the  popes  proceeded  to  assume  other  titles  and  forms,  not 
only  of  royalty,  but  even  of  divinity;  whieh  having  been  first 
assumed  by  the  j)rinces  of  the  Ivast,  were  from  them  adopted 
by  the  Roman  emperors,  and  from  them  by  the  popes.* 

So  early  as  the  fourth  century,  the  bishops  of  Rome  sur- 
passed all  their  brethren  in  riches  and  splendour,  which  ex- 
ceedingly dazzled  the  common  people  ;  and  so  great  a  prize 
being  contended  for,  there  were  often  great  tumults  in  Rome 
on  the  election  of  a  pope,  attended  sometimes  with  murder, 
and  violence  of  all  kinds.  Many  were  killed  on  both  sides, 
in  368,  during  the  contest  between  Damasus  and  Ursicinus. 
Notwithstanding  the  power  assumed  by  the  popes,  and 
though  in  many  things  they  acted  independently  of  the 
emperor,  and  even  opposed  him,  they  were  still  his  subjects, 
and  upon  some  occasions  he  treated  them  as  such.  The 
election  of  the  bishop  of  Rome  was  not  deemed  valid  with- 
out the  consent  of  the  emperor,  and  Justinian  deposed  two 
popes.  Rut  when  the  seat  of  empire  was  removed  to  Con- 
stantinople, little  account  was  made  of  the  consent  of  the 
emperor  ;  though  the  popes  kept  up  a  formal  submission  to 
the  emperors  o^  the  East  against  the  Lombard  princes  till  the 
time  of  Leo  Isauricus.-j-  And  though  Constantine  Fogonatus 
released  the  popes  from,  their  usual  payments  for  their  con- 
firmation, he  expressly  retained  the  right  of  confirmation.  + 

The  Gothic  kings  of  Italy  also  considered  the  popes  as 
their  subjects.  And  it  appeared  in  the  dispute  between 
Symmachus  and  Laurentius,  in  .501,  when  Theodoric  was 
king  of  Italy,  that  the  popes  then  acknowledged  the  autho- 
rity of  the  kings,  though  they  were  heretics  ;  that  they  re- 
quested of  them  ))ermission  to  hold  national  councils,  and 
that  they  appealed  to  them  when  they  were  charged  with 
crimes,  and  submitted  to  their  judgment.  Athalaric,  to 
.  prevent  such  mischiefs  as  had  been  occasioned  by  former 
schisms  at  Rome,  made  a  rigorous  edict,  prescribing  the 
manner  in  which  the  election  of  bishops  and  metropolitans 
should  hereafter  be  made.  This  edict  was  drawn  up  by 
Cassiodorus,  and  nobody  considered  this  as  any  attack  upon 
the  authority  of  the  church. § 

The  temporal  princes,  under  whom  the  popes  lived,  sen^ 
for  them,  as  well  as  other  bishops,  and  employed  them  in 
embassies,  whenever  they  thought  proper  to  make  use  of 
them.     Pope  John  I.  was  sent  by  Theodoric  to  Constanti- 

•  A  particular  Account  of  them  may  be  seen  in  Sueur,  A.  D.  "iiO-     (PJ 
t  Anecdotes,  p.  209-    (P.)  X  Walsh's  Hist,  of  the  Popes,  p.  97.  (P.) 

S  Anecdotes,  p.  i63.   (P.) 


400  HISTORY  OF  THE  PAPAL  POWER. 

nople,  to  obtain  of  the  emperor  Justinian  I.  the  revocation 
of  an  edict,  which  ordained  that  the  churches  of  the  Arians 
should  be  put  into  the  hands  of  the  Catholics.* 

When  the  empire  of  the  Lombards  was  entirely  put  an 
end  to  in  Italy,  the  nomination  of  the  popes,  at  least  the 
right  of  confirming  them,  was  still  in  the  hands  of  the  tem- 
poral princes.  Adrian,  with  his  whole  synod,  acknowledged 
this  power  in  Charlemagne,  and  Gregory  VII.  was  himself 
confirmed  in  the  papacy  by  that  very  emperor  whom  he 
afterwards  deposed.  Symmachus  had  the  effrontery  to 
maintain  to  the  emperor  Anastasius,  that  the  dignity  of  the 
Pope  was  superior  to  that  of  the  emperor,  as  much  as  the 
administration  of  the  things  of  heaven  is  above  that  of  the 
things  of  the  earth,  and  that  even  a  common  priest  was 
superior  to  him.  But  he  was  far  from  alleging  this  as  a 
reason  why  the  popes  should  not  be  subject  to  the  emperor 
in  things  of  a  temporal  nature. 

One  of  the  prerogatives  to  which  the  popes  now  pretend, 
is  the  power  of  summoning  general  councils,  and  of  presiding 
in  them.  But  all  the  generalcouncils  within  the  five  first  cen- 
turies were  summoned  by  the  emperors.  Leo  I.  joined  with 
many  other  bishops  in  requesting  the  emperor  Theodosius  to 
summon  a  council  in  Italy,  but  he  refused,  because  he  had 
before  appointed  one  in  Ephesus.  Nor  did  the  popes,  or 
their  legates,  preside  in  general  councils  in  early  times  ;  bnt 
various  other  bishops  presided  in  them  ;  and  in  the  first  ge- 
neral council,  viz.  that  of  Nice,  Constantine  himself  was  the 
principal  moderator  or  director.  Speaking  to  the  bishops 
upon  that  occasion,  he  said,  "Ye  are  bishops  of  things  within 
the  church,  but  I  am  a  bishop  as  to  externals." 


SECTION  II. 

The  History  of  the  Papal  Power  fro7n  the  Time  of  Charlemagne 
to  the  Reformxition. 

The  first  thing  that  I  shall  notice  in  this  period,  is  the 
changes  that  were  made  from  time  to  time  with  respect  to 
the  election  of  the  popes,  and  the  confirmation  of  them  in 
their  office.  It  is  certain  that  for  many  centuries  the  popes 
could  not  be  consecrated  till  their  election  had  been  approved 
of  by  the  emperors ;  and  in  general  a  sum  of  money  had  been 
o-iven  at  the  same  time,  till  it  was  remitted,  as  I  have  ob- 

♦  Anecdotes,  p.  187.     (P.) 


HISTORY  OF  THE   PAPAL  POWER.  401 

served,  by  Constantine  Pogonatus.  The  same  right  of 
confirming  the  popes  was  exercised  by  tlie  Goths,  by  Charle- 
magne, and  his  successors  the  emperors  of  Germany.  But, 
in  8+7,  Leo  IV.  was  chosen  pope  without  the  consent  of  the 
emperor,  the  Romans  being  then  pressed  by  the  Saracens, 
and  finding  a  necessity  of  having  a  head.  However,  they 
deferred  the  consecration  from  April  to  June,  waiting  for 
the  consent  of  the  emperor,  and  they  made  an  apology  tor  it 
afterwards. 

At  length  Charles  the  Bald,  having  obtained  the  imperial 
dignity  by  the  good  offices  of  the  popes,  discharged  them 
"from  the  obligation  of  waiting  for  the  consent  of  the  em- 
perors" to  their  election.  "  And  thus — from  the  time  of 
Eugenius  III.,  who  was  raised  to  the  pontificate,  A.D.  884, 
the  election  of  the  bishops  of  Rome  was  carried  on  without 
the  least  regard  to  law,  order,  or  even  decency,  and  was  ge- 
nerally attended  with  civil  tumults  and  dissensions,  till  the 
reign  of  Otho  the  Great,  who  put  a  stop  to  those  disorderly 
proceedings,"  and  prohibited  "  the  election  of  any  pontiff 
without  the  previous  knowledge  and  consent  of  the  em- 
peror;" and  this  order  was  enforced  to  the  conclusion  of 
the  ninth  century.  Gregory  VII.,  however,  taking  advan- 
tage of  the  divisions  of  the  empire,  emancipated  the  see  of 
Rome  from  this  mark  of  its  subjection  to  the  empire.* 

In  early  times,  the  bishops  of  Rome,  like  those  of  other 
cities,  were  chosen  by  the  people,  as  well  as  the  clergy.  The 
first  considerable  innovation  that  was  made  in  this  respect 
at  Rome,  was  at  a  council  held  in  10o9,  under  Nicholas  II.; 
when  it  was  odered  that,  upon  the  decease  of  a  pope,  the 
cardinal  bishops  should  first  consider  of  a  proper  person  to 
succeed  ;  that  they  should  then  consult  with  their  cardinal 
clergy,  and  then,  that  the  rest  of  the  cleray,  and  also  the 
people,  should  give  their  consent. f  But  Alexander  III., 
in  the  middle  of  the  twelfth  century,  established  the  sole 
right  of  election  in  the  college  of  cardinals. 

After  this  time  the  term  cardinal  was  confined  to  the 
seven  bishops  within  the  territory  and  city  cf  Rome,  who 
had  been  used  to  consecrate  the  Roman  pontiff,  and  to  the 
presbyters  of  the  twenty-eight  Roman  pnrishes,  or  principal 
churches.  To  appease  the  tumults  that  were  made  by  oaiers 
of  the  clergy,  who  were  by  this  regulation  excluded  from  the 
privilege  of  voting,  this  Alexander  III.  conferred  the  dignity 

•  Mosheini,  II.  pp.  120, 121, 207,  208,  280-   (P.)     Cent.  ix.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  ii.  Sect.  iii. 
Cent.  X.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  ii.  Sect.  viii.     Cent.  xi.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  ii.  Sect.  t. 
t   Fleury,     (P.) 
VOL.   V.  5  D 


402  HISTORY  OF  THE  PAPAL   POWER. 

of  cardinals  upon  several  more  of  the  superior  clergy;  and  to 
pacify  the  inferior  clergy,  he,  or  some  of  his  successors,  for  it 
is  uncertain,  made  the  chief  of  them  cardinal  deacons,  giving 
them  also  votes  in  the  election.  Lucius  III.  was  the  first 
pope  that  was  chosen  "  by  the  college  oi  cardinals,  alone."  ^ 

1  shall  just  add  to  this  article,  that  the  almost  universal 
custom  of  the  popes'  changing  their  names  upon  their  elec- 
tion, began  with  Bocco  di  Porco,  in  844,  who  changed  his 
name  to  Sergius  II.,  his  original  name,  signifying  Hog's 
snout,  being  thought  unsuitable  to  his  dignity. 

It  is  not  easy  to  say  whether  the  spiritual  or  the  temporal 
power  of  the  popes  was  the  more  extravagant,  but  the  tem- 
poral power  preceded  the  spiritual,  and  no  doubt  laid  the 
foundation  for  it,  though  other  pretences  were  alleged.  But 
there  is  no  great  difficulty  in  making  merely  ostensible  pre- 
tences to  be  received,  when  there  is  sufficient  power  to 
enforce  them  ;  and  it  was  presently  after  the  commencement 
of  this  period  that  the  popes  acquired  that  amazing  acces- 
sion of  property  and  power,  which  placed  them  on  a  level 
with  other  princes  of  Europe. 

The  first  large  accession  was  made  from  the  spoils  of  the 
Lombards  in  Italy,  with  whom  Stephen  II.  had  quarrelled, 
and  against  whom  he  undertook  a  journey  to  France,  to 
solicit  the  aid  of  Fepin,  king  of  France,  who  promised  that 
if  he  should  drive  out  the  Lombards,  he  would  give  the 
popes  the  exarchate  of  Ravenna  and  the  Pentapolis.  From 
their  acquisition  of  the  latter,  which  was  made  in  774,  the 
popes  ceased  to  date  their  letters  by  the  reigns  of  the  em- 
perors.•]*  This  acquisition  was  evidently  made  by  such 
policy  as  is  employed  by  secular  princes  to  increase  their 
dominions.  But  Stephen,  like  other  artful  princes,  was  not 
at  a  loss  for  some  colour  of  right,  for  he  pretended  that  this 
territory  belonged  to  him,  as  being  the  spoil  of  an  heretical 
prince.  For  the  Lombards,  as  well  as  the  Goths,  were 
Arians. 

When  Charlemagne  afterwards  put  an  entire  end  to  the 
empire  of  the  Lombards  in  Italy,  the  whole  of  the  exarchate, 
the  capital  of  which  was  Ravenna,  was  given  to  the  popes. 
He  was  probably  induced  to  make  this  large  grant  of  land 
to  the  church  of  Rome  by  a  pretence,  which  was  about  this 
time  made,  that  Constantine  the  Great  had  made  a  similar 

*  Mosheim,  II.  p.  271.  [Cent.  xi.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  ii.  Sect,  vi.]  The  particular 
rules  that  are  now  observed  in  the  election  of  a  pope  were  settled  in  1178,  and  may 
be  seen  in  the  Histoire  des  Papes,  III.  p.  88.     (P.) 

t  Anecdotes,  pp.  255,  267.  (P.) 


HISTORY  OF  THE   PAPAL   POWER.  403 

gmnt  of  territory  to  the  same  church  ;  though  it  is  now 
universally  agreed  that  this  donation  of  Constantine  was  a 
forgery.  Notwithstanding  these  large  grants,  both  Pepin 
and  Charlemagne  reserved  to  themselves  tlie  sovereignty  of 
all  these  lands  in  Italy.  But  this  was  afterwards  surrendered 
to  the  popes  by  Lothair  L* 

The  last  acquisition  the  popes  made  was  that  of  the  so- 
vereignty of  Rome,  the  inhabitants  of  which  had  always 
acknowledged  the  emperor  as  their  sovereign.  But,  in  1 198, 
the  prefect  of  Rome  received  his  office  from  the  Pope,  and 
not  from  the  emperor. f  From  this  time  the  popes  have 
been  as  properly  independent  as  any  sovereign  princes  in 
Europe. 

From  the  ninth  to  the  thirteenth  century,  "  the  wealth 
and  revenues  of  the  pontififs  had  not  received  any  consider- 
able argumentation  ;  but  at  this  time  they  were  vastly  in- 
creased under  Innocent  III.  and  Nicholas  111.,  partly  by  the 
events  of  war,  and  partly  by  the  munificence  of  kings  and 
emperors.  Innocent  was  no  sooner  seated  in  the  papal 
chair,  than  he  reduced  under  his  jurisdiction  the  prefect  of 
Rome,"  as  mentioned  above  ;  "  he  also  seized  upon  Ancona, 
Spoletto,  Assisi,  and  several  cities  and  fortresses  which  had, 
according  to  him,  been  unjustly  alienated  from  the  patrimony 
of  St.  Peter. —Nicholas  IV,  followed  his  example, — and  in 
1278,"  he  refused  "  to  crown  the  emperor,  Rodolphus  I. 
before  he  had  acknowledged  and  confirmed,  by  a  solemn 
treaty,  all  the  pretensions  of  the  Roman  see  ;"  and  imme- 
diately upon  that  he  seized  "  several  cities  and  territories  in 
Italy,  that  had  formerly  been  annexed  to  the  imperial  crown, 
particularly  Romagna  and  Bologna.  It  was  under  these  two 
pontiffs  that  the  see  of  Rome  arrived — at  its  highest  degree 
of  grandeur  and  opulence."  :J: 

Like  other  politic  princes,  the  popes  gained  these  advan- 
tages chiefly  in  consequence  of  divisions  in  the  families  of 
the  temporal  powers.  The  divisions  between  the  kings  of 
France  of  the  second  race  were  more  particularly  the  means 
of  advancing  the  power  of  the  papes  to  its  greatest  height. 
Those  who  were  condemned  in  France  had  recourse  to  the 
holy  see,  and  always  found  protection  there,  in  like  man- 
ner, the  popes  availed  themselves  of  the  contest  between  the 
emperors  Lewis  and  Charles,  about  the  middle  of  the  four- 
teenth century  ;  in  consequence  of  which  the  imperial  power 

•  Anecdotes,  pp.  320,  S3S.   (P.)  t  Histoiredes  Tapes,  III.  p.  120.  (P.) 

*  Moslieim,  HI.  pp.  32,  33.    (P.)     Pt.  ii.  Ch.  ii.  Sect.  v. 

9  D'2 


404  HISTORY  OF  THE  PAPAL  POWER. 

was  quite  lost  in  Italy,  the  popes  seizing  upon  some  of  the 
towns,  and  others  setting  up  for  themselves. 

The  Crusades  contributed  very  much  to  complete  the 
power  of  the  popes,  as  temporal  princes,  and  brought  busi- 
ness enough  of  a  civil  nature  upon  their  hands.  For,  they 
had  not  only  many  dispensations  to  grant  to  those  who  could 
not  go  to  those  wars,  but  they  made  themselves  judges  of  all 
the  differences  among  those  princes  that  went  thither.* 

But  the  ambition  of  the  popes  was  far  from  being  satisfied 
with  the  acquisition  of  an  independent  sovereignty.  They 
soon  began  to  extend  their  claims  to  other  territories,  and 
even  to  the  empire  itself.  For  having  been  accustomed  to 
crown  the  emperors,  they  took  advantage  from  that  circum- 
stance, together  with  that  of  the  divisions  in  the  empire,  to 
arrogate  to  themselves  the  power  of  deciding  who  should  be 
the  emperor ;  and  one  or  other  of  the  candidates  was  but  too 
ready  to  yield  to  the  demands  of  the  Pope,  in  order  to  secure 
his  interest.  In  these  circumstances  John  Ylll.  proclaimed 
Charles  the  Bald  emperor  in  876,  in  an  assembly  of  the  Italian 
princes  at  Pavia;  and  in  the  same  manner  were  his  two  suc- 
cessors chosen.  From  this  nomination  of  Charles  the  Bald, 
Sigonius  says,  that  the  empire  has  been  a  fief  of  the  holy  see.f 

After  this,  viz.  in  the  eleventh  century,  the  popes  assumed 
the  character  of  lords  of  the  universe,  and  arbiters  of  king- 
doms and  empires.  "  Before  Leo  IX.  no  pope"  claimed 
"  this  unbounded  authority — of  transferring  territories  and 
provinces  from  their  lawful  possessors."  But  this  pontiff 
granted  "  to  the  Normans,  who  had  settled  in  Italy,  the 
lands  and  territories  which  they  had  already  usurped,"  or 
which  they  should  be  able  to  conquer  from  the  Greeks  or 
Saracens.  J 

Gregory  VII.  followed  the  new  maxims,  and  carried  them 
farther,  openly  pretending  that,  as  Pope,  he  had  a  right  to 
depose  sovereigns  who  rebelled  against  the  church.  This 
he  founded  principally  upon  the  power  of  excommunication. 
An  excommunicated  person,  he  said,  must,  according  to  the 
rules  of  the  apostles,  be  avoided  by  every  body.  A  prince, 
therefore,  who  is  excommunicated,  must  be  abandoned  by 
all  the  world,  even  by  his  own  subjects.  This  pope  never 
made  any  formal  decision  of  this  kind,  nor  had  he  the  coun- 
tenance of  any  council,  but  he  acted  upon  the  maxim. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  defenders  of  the  princes  took  it  so 


*  Fleury's  Sixth  Discourse,  p.  20.     (P.)  f  Sueur,  A.  D.  p.  S?").     (P.) 

X  Mosheim,  II.  p.  260.     (P.)     Pt.  ii.  Ch.  ii.  Sect.  ii. 


HISTORY   OF  THE  PAPAL   POWER.  40.5 

much  for  granted,  that  an  excommunicated  person  was 
subject  to  all  the  above-mentioned  inconveniences,  that 
they  contented  themselves  with  saying,  that  a  j)rince  ought 
not  to  be  excommunicated  ;  which,  says  Fleury,  was  giving 
the  popes  a  great  advantage  in  the  argument.  This  pope 
likewise  urged  that,  since  the  clergy  have  a  right  to  decide 
concerning  things  spiritual,  they  have,  a  fortiori^  a  right  to 
decide  concerning  things  temporal.  The  least  exorcist,  he 
said,  is  above  an  emperor,  since  he  commands  demons; 
royalty  is  the  work  of  the  devil,  being  the  effect  of  human 
pride  ;   whereas  the  priesthood  is  the  work  of  God.* 

Some  of  the  pretensions  of  this  great  pontiff  were  so  very 
absurd,  that  one  would  think  they  must  have  refuted  them- 
selves by  the  events.  In  his  difference  with  the  emperor  of 
Germany,  he  says,  '*  We  bind  him  by  an  apostolical  authority, 
not  only  with  respect  to  the  soul,  but  to  the  body.  We 
take  from  him  all  prosperity  in  this  life,  and  victory  from  his 
arms."-!- 

Later  popes  continued  the  same  arrogant  claims,  and  the 
necessity  of  the  times  too  often  induced  princes  to  submit  to 
them,  though  they  had  sometimes  the  spirit  to  resist.     In 
122^,    Honorius   III.    applied  to   the   popes    the    words  of 
Jeremiah  i.  10:    "I  have — set   thee   over  the  nations,   and 
over  the  kingdoms,  to  root  out,  and  to  pull  down  and  to 
destroy,"  hc.%     In  the  fourteenth  century,  Boniface  VIII., 
in  a  quarrel  with  Philip  the  Fair,  king  of  France,  "  asserted 
that    Jesus   Christ   had  granted    a  two-fold    power    to    his 
church, — the  spiritual  and    temporal  sword  ;    that  he  had 
subjected  the   whole  human   race  to   the  authority  of  the 
Roman   pontiff,    and   that  whoever    dared   to  disbelieve  it 
were  to  be  deemed  heretics,  and  stood  excluded  from  all 
possibility  of  salvation."     The  king  being  still  refractory, 
the  Pope  excommunicated  him,   but  he  "  appealed  to   a 
general  council,'*  and  sent  a  party  of  men  to  bring  the  Pope 
by  force  before  him.     In  consequence  of  this  he  was  appre- 
hended at  Anagni,  but  the  inhabitants  rescued  him.     He 
died,   however,  presently  afterwards,  of  rage  and  anguish. 
His  successor  Benedict  XI.,  of  his  own  accord,  withdrew  the 
excommunication  ;  but  by  this  time  the  papal  power  had 
begun  to  decline. § 

When  we  consider  the  effects   of  excommunication   in 
those  dark  ages,  and  the  acknowledged  power  of  the  popes 

'  Fleury,  XIII.  p.  48.     (P.)  f  Ibid.  A. D.  1078.     {F.) 

t  Histoire  des  Papes,  III.  p.  l64.     (P.) 

§  Mosheim,  III.  pp.  J50 — 152.     (P.)     Pt.  ii.  Ch.  ii.    Sect.  ii.  iii. 


406  HISTORY  OF  THE  PAPAL  POWER. 

to  direct  that  dreadful  weapon,  and  also  to  suspend  the 
exercise  of  all  ecclesiastical  functions,  than  which  nothing 
could  impress  the  minds  of  men  in  those  times  with  more 
terror  and  consternation,  (as  they  imagined  their  everlasting 
happiness  depended  on  those  functions,)  we  cannot  wonder 
either  at  the  arrogance,  or  the  success  of  the  popes.  Robert, 
king  of  France,  not  complying  with  the  Pope's  decree 
respecting  the  dissolution  of  his  marriage,  the  Pope,  for  the 
first  time,  laid  the  whole  kingdom  under  this  interdict,  for- 
bidding all  divine  service,  the  use  of  the  sacraments  to  the 
living,  and  of  burial  to  the  dead.  The  people,  terrified  by 
this  order,  yielded  such  implicit  obedience,  that  even  the 
king's  ovvn  domestics  abandoned  him,  except  two  or  three, 
and  these  threw  to  the  dogs  every  thing  that  came  from  his 
table,  ^o  person  even  dared  to  eat  out  of  any  vessel  which 
he  had  touched.  The  king  being  reduced  to  this  dismal 
state,  was  forced  to  yield,  and  cancel  his  marriage.* 

The  degree  to  which  the  popes  sometimes  carried  their 
rage  was  truly  dreadful.  John  XXIII.  not  onlj  excommu- 
nicated Ladislas,  king  of  Bohemia,  but  published  a  crusade 
against  him  ;  inviting  all  christian  princes  to  make  war  upon 
him,  and  seize  his  dominions.  His  bull  upon  this  occasion 
contained  an  order  to  all  patriarchs,  bishops,  archbishops  and 
prelates,  to  publish  every  Sunday  and  festival-day,  by  the 
sound  of  a  bell,  and  with  candles  lighted,  and  then  extin- 
guished by  throwing  them  upon  the  ground,  that  king 
Ladislas  was  "  excommunicated,  perjured,  a  schismatic,  a 
blasphemer,  a  heretic,  a  relapse,  a  favourer  of  heretics,  a 
traitor,  and  an  enemy  of  the  Pope  and  of  the  church."  He 
also  excommunicated  all  his  adherents  and  favourers,  till  by 
a  return  to  their  duty  they  should  receive  absolution  ;  and 
ordered  that  whosoever  should  undertake  to  bury  Ladislas, 
or  any  of  his  partisans,  should  be  excommunicated,  and  not 
be  absolved  but  by  digging  up  the  body  with  their  own 
hands,  and  carrying  it  out  of  the  place  of  christian  burial ; 
and  that  the  places  on  which  they  should  lie  should  be  pro- 
fane for  ever,  f 

So  fully  was  this  temporal  power  of  the  popes  established, 
that  they  alone  were  thought  to  have  the  right  of  disposing 
of  kingdoms  ;  and  they  were  as  regularly  applied  to  for  that 
purpose,  as  the  temporal  courts  for  titles  of  nobility,  &c. 
In  1179,  Alexander  HL  "  conferred  the  title  of  king^  with 
the  ensigns  of  royalty,  upon  Alphonso  duke  of  Portugal, 

♦  Sueur,  A.  D.  998.    (P-)  t  Histoire  des  Papfes,  IV.  p,  151.    (P.) 


HISTORY   OF  THE  PAPAL  POWER.  407 

wlio,  under  the  pontificate  of  Lucius  II.  had  rendered  his 
province  tributary  to  the  Roman  see."*  Innocent  III.  gave 
a  king  to  the  Armenians  in  Asia,  and  in  120t  he  made 
Primislas,  duke  of  Bohemia,  king  of  that  country,  and  Peter 
II.  king  of  Arragon.  The  title  of  king  of  Ireland  was  also 
a  grant  of  the  Pope  to  our  king  Henry  11.  ;  and  when  the 
Portuguese  and  the  Spaniards  were  pursuing  their  discoveries 
and  conquests,  the  one  to  the  East  and  the  other  to  the  West, 
the  popes  drew  the  line  that  was  to  regulate  all  their  future 
claims  to  dominion.f  These  acts  of  universal  despotism 
were  beheld  with  astonishment,  but  with  silent  and  passive 
obedience,  by  all  the  temporal  powers  of  Europe. 

It  was  in  the  eleventh  century  that  the  power  of  the  popes 
may  be  said  to  have  been  at  its  height.  "  Then  they  received 
the  pompous  titles  of  masters  of  the  world,  and — universal 
fathers.  They  presided  also  every  where  in  the  councils  by 
their  legates."  They  decided  "  in  all  controversies — con- 
cerning religion,  or  church  discipline  ;  and  maintained  the 
pretended  rights  of  the  church  against  the  usurpations  of 
kings  and  princes."  But  this  was  not  done  without  oppo- 
sition both  from  the  bishops,  and  from  the  temporal  powers. ;{: 

In  order  to  preserve  this  amazing  power,  it  was  necessary 
to  keep  the  clergy  as  dependent  as  possible  upon  themselves, 
and  as  little  attached  to  their  temporal  sovereigns.  Gregory 
VII.  never  forbade  the  clergy  to  take  an  oath  of  allegiance 
to  their  respective  sovereigns;  but  this  was  done  by  Urban 
II.  who  made  an  order  for  that  purpose  at  the  Council  of 
Clermont.  To  complete  the  temporal  character  of  the  popes, 
1  shall  in  the  last  place  observe,  that  it  was  common  in  the 
twelfth  century  to  see  them  at  the  head  of  armies. 

The  insolence  with  which  the  popes  have  acted  in  the 
height  of  their  power  is  hardly  credible.  Gregory  VII. 
obliged  the  emperor  Henry  IV^.,  whom  he  had  excommuni- 
cated, and  who  applied  for  absolution,  to  wait  three  days 
before  he  would  admit  him  ;  though  both  the  emperor,  the 
empress,  and  their  child  waited  barefoot,  in  the  depth  of 
winter.  On  the  fourth  day  he  was  admitted,  and  as  a  token 
of  his  repentance,  he  resigned  his  crown  into  the  hands  of 
the  Pope,  and  confessed  himself  unworthy  of  the  empire,  if 

•  Mosheim.  II.  p.  40S.     {P.)     Pt.  ii.  Ch.  ii.  Sect,  xiii, 

t  "  Kin^  Henry  obtained,  at  the  liands  of  the  Pope,  (Martin  V.)  the  perpetual 
donation  to  the  rrown  of  Portnsjai,  of  whatsoever  should  he  discovered  from  Cape 
Bajadore  to  the  Rast  Indies,  inclusively  :  together  with  an  indulgence,  in  full,  for  all 
those  devout  souls,  whose  bodies  should  chance  to  be  dropped  in  the  undertaking." 
Harris,  Vot/nges,  1705,  I.  p.  S. 

X  Mosheim,  II.  p.  369-     (P.J     Pt.  ii.  Ch.  ii.  Sect.  ii. 


408  HISTORY  OF  THE  PAPAL  POWER. 

ev^er  he  should  oppose  his  will  for  the  future  ;  and  he  was 
not  absolved  without  very  mortifying  conditions.* 

Adrian  IV.  insulted  the  emperor  Barbnrossa,  about  the 
middle  of  the  twelfth  century,  for  holding  him  the  left  stirrup 
instead  of  the  right,  and  at  length  the  emperor  was  compelled 
to  hold  the  other  stirrup.  The  next  Pope,  Alexander  III. 
trod  upon  the  neck  of  the  same  emperor,  using  at  the  same 
time  this  expression  of  the  psalmist,  "  Thou  shalt  tread  upon 
the  lion  and  adder ;  the  young  lion  and  the  dragon  shalt  thou 
trample  under  feet.*'     Psa.  xci.  13. 

When  Henry  VI.  the  next  emperor,  was  crowned  by 
Celestine  III.  he  kneeled  before  him  as  he  sat  in  his  ponti- 
fical chair,  and  was  obliged  to  take  the  crown  from  his  feet; 
and  when  the  Pope  had  kicked  it  off  again,  to  shew  his 
power  to  depose  him,  the  cardinals  were,  at  length,  per- 
mitted to  crown  the  emperor  once  more.  This  was  done  to 
shew  that  the  imperial  crown  depended  entirely  upon  the 
Pope.f 

Our  own  country  has  not  been  less  disgraced  by  papal 
insolence.  One  of  the  bravest  of  our  haughty  Norman 
princes,  Henry  It.  could  not  satisfy  the  Pope  with  respect 
to  the  murder  of  the  factious  and  turbulent  prelate  Thomas  a 
Becket,  (of  which,  however,  he  was  not  guilty,)  till  he 
walked  barefoot  to  his  tomb,  and  was  whipped  by  the  monks 
at  Canterbury.  King  John  was  excommunicated,  deposed, 
and  made  to  receive  his  crown  again,  at  the  hands  of  the 
Pope's  legate,  and  to  acknowledge  himself  a  vassal  of  the  see 
of  Rome. 

In  order  to  evade  the  tyranny  of  the  popes,  it  was  cus- 
tomary, when  the  times  would  bear  it,  not  to  dispute  their 
power  directly,  but  to  prevent  the  publication  of  their  bulls. 
Thus  when  Paul  V.  laid  the  state  of  Venice  under  an  inter- 
dict, they  banished  those  of  the  clergy  who  complied  with 
the  order,  and  at  length  the  popes  were  glad  to  get  Henry  IV. 
of  France,  to  make  their  peace  with  the  Venetians,  who 
threatened  to  break  off  from  their  communion. ;{: 

The  temporal  power  of  the  popes,  as  I  have  observed 
before,  was  more  ancient  than  the  notion  of  their  infalli- 
hility.  This  was  not  knowm  in  the  times  of  Pepin  or 
Charlemagne  ;  and  though  councils  were  not  then  deemed 
infallible,  the  authority  of  the  Pope  was  held  to  be  sub- 
ordinate  to   that.      That    councils   are    infalhble  was  not 


•  Fleury,  A.  D.  1077.    (P.)  t  Histoire  desPapes,  III.  p.  112.    (P.) 

I  Mosheim,  IV.  pp.  319,  320.  (P.)    Cent.  xviL  Sect.  ii.  Ft.  ii.  Ch.  i.  xix. 


HISTORY  OF  THE   PAPAL   POWER.  409 

pretended  till  the  popes  had  been  deemed  to  be  so;  the 
councils  fittributing  to  themselves  what  they  had  taken  from 
the  popes.* 

With  respect  to  spiritual  power  in  general,  the  popes 
derived  much  advantage  from  the  ideas  ofthe  northern  nations 
in  their  state  of  Paganism.  For  they  considered  the  bishop 
of  Rome  in  the  same  light  in  which  they  had  before  done 
their  arch-druid,  and  transfiMred  to  him  that  boundless 
reverence  with  which  they  had  been  used  to  regard  the 
other.  Hence  the  force  of  the  papal  excommunications, 
which,  as  under  the  druids,  deprived  a  person  of  all  the 
common  rights  of  humanity. f 

However,  besides  the  constant  opposition  of  the  Greek 
church,  the  ov^erbearing  authority  of  the  see  of  Rome  was 
not  always  submitted  to,  even  in  the  West.  It  was  parti- 
cularly opposed  by  the  church  of  Milan,  which  in  the  former 
period  had  been  a  metropolitan  church,  with  a  jurisdiction 
independent  of  that  of  Rome.  In  848,  Angilbert,  arch- 
bishop of  Milan,  separated  entirely  from  the  church  of  Rome, 
and  continued  so,  nearly  two  hundred  years.  At  length, 
however,  the  popes  got  the  better  of  this,  as  of  every  other 
opposition. 

It  is  in  the  ninth  century  that  we  find  the  first  seeds  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Pope's  infallibility.  Then,  at  least,  the  popes 
began  to  talk  in  a  higher  strain  than  usual  on  this  subject; 
maintaining  that  they  could  not  be  judged  by  any  person, 
and  that  their  decrees,  respecting  manners,  faith,  or  discipline, 
ought  to  be  preferred  even  to  those  ofthe  councils  themselves, 
if  possible.  J  The  argument  on  which  this  claim  was  rested 
was  the  declaration  of  our  Saviour  to  Peter,  that  he  would 
give  to  him  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ;  and  because 
he  likewise  said  that  he  had  prayed  for  him,  that  his  faith 
should  not  fail,  it  was  concluded  that  all  the  successors  of 
Peter  at  Rome  would  always  maintain  theris^ht  faith.  Weak 
as  this  argument  is,  it  was  universally  acquiesced  in,  in  those 
dark  ages ;  and  the  popes  acted  upon  it  as  upon  a  maxim 
that  could  not  be  disputed.  When  the  bishoo  of  Constan- 
tinople was  deposed  in  861,  the  Pope  who  had  been  written 
to  on  the  occasion,  but  not  by  way  of  appeal,  said  in  answer, 
*'  If  they  ought  to  be  heard  who  sit  in  the  chair  of  Moses, 
how  much  more  they  who  sit  in  the  chair  of  St.  Peter  !"  and 

•  Basnage,  Hhtoire,  III.  p.  597-     (P) 

t  Mosheira,  II.  p.  63.     (P.)     Cent.  viii.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  ii.  Sect.  vi. 

\  Basnage,  III.  p.  547.     (P.) 


410  HISTORY  OF  THE  PAPAL  POWER. 

he  maintained  that  no  bishop  of  Constantinople  ought  to  be 
deposed  without  the  consent  of  the  Pope.* 

The  authority  of  the  popes  having  gained  ground,  in  the 
manner  that  has  been  described  above,  the  opinion  of  their 
infaJlibihty  began  to  appear  undisguised  and  undisputed, 
about  the  middle  of  the  eleventh  century;  Leo  IX.  de- 
claring that  the  councils,  and  all  the  fathers,  had  considered 
the  church  of  Rome  as  the  sovereign  mistress,  to  which  the 
judgment  of  all  other  churches  belonged,  and  which  could  be 
judged  by  none;  and  that  all  difficult  questions  ought  to  be 
decided  by  the  successors  of  St.  Peter,  because  that  church 
had  never  erred  from  the  faith,  and  would  not,  to  the  end. 
This  is  the  first  Pope  who  held  this  language  with  such  firm- 
ness. Gregory  VII.  who  succeeded  him,  with  more  solem- 
nity decreed  in  a  council,  that  the  church  of  Rome  never 
had  erred,  and  never  will  err,  according  to  the  testimony  of 
the  Scriptures,  on  the  ground  above-mentioned.  Bernard 
and  Thomas  Aquinas  gave  this  doctrine  the  great  weight  of 
their  authority,  and  they  were  followed  by  all  the  school- 
men.-j- 

Afterwards,  however,  several  of  the  popes  themselves, 
when  they  had  any  particular  point  to  gain,  and  when  the 
decrees  of  former  popes  were  quoted  against  them,  made  no 
difficulty  of  departing  from  this  doctrine.  Thus  John  XXII. 
in  his  quarrel  with  the  Fratricelli,  who  represented  to  him 
that  three  of  his  predecessors  had  been  of  their  opinion, 
answered,  that  "  what  had  been  ill-determined  by  one  Pope 
and  one  council,  might  be  corrected  by  another,  better 
informed  concerning  the  truth."  But,  except  in  these 
occasional  deviations,  the  popes  asserted  their  infallibility, 
and  it  was  generally  acquiesced  in  till  the  time  of  the  great 
schism  (1378)  ;  when  almost  all  the  Christian  world,  seeing 
the  popes  sacrifice  every  thing  to  their  own  ambition,  dropped 
the  high  opinion  which  they  had  before  entertained  of  them. 
Nor  was  it  possible  to  put  an  end  to  the  schism,  without 
setting  up  a  council  above  the  popes. 

During  the  time  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Pope's  infallibi- 
lity was  generally  received,  the  popes  frequently  spoke  as  if 
their  decrees  had  been  dictated  by  immediate  inspiration. 
Thus  pope  John  VIII.  says,  that  he  had  found  that  such  a 
thing  was  the  council  of  God,  because  that  of  a  long  time 

'  Sueur,  A.D.  86l.     (P.) 

t  On  ••  the  opinion  of  those — vvho  lodge  infallibility  in  th«  bishop  of  Rome." 
See  Geddes,  Mod.  Apol.  1 800,  pp.  58—62. 


HISTORY  OF  THE  PAPAL  POWER.  411 

it  had  been  revealed,  by  celestial  inspiration,  to  his  prede- 
cessor Nicholas.* 

Such  firm  hold  had  the  notion  of  the  infallibility  of  the 
popes  on  the  minds  of  men,  that  some  of  the  greatest  men 
in  the  Christian  world,  and  even  since  the  Reformation  were 
not  able  to  shake  it  ofl*.  leather  Paul,  the  great  advocate  ot 
the  state  of  Venice  against  the  usurpation  of  the  popes, 
admitted  that  they  ought  to  be  obeyed  in  all  matters  of 
doctrine,  and  what  related  to  the  administration  of  the  sacra- 
ments.•!•  It  is  possible,  however,  that  he  might  make  this 
concession  by  way  of  argument,  while  he  was  dispnting 
against  their  power  in  things  of  a  temporal  nature.  But  this 
was  not  the  case  with  the  famous  Fenelon,  archbishop  of 
Cambray,  who,  when  his  book  w^as  condemned  by  the  Pope, 
*'  declared  publicly  his  entire  acquiescence  in  the  sentence." 
He  even  read  it  himself  "  in  the  pulpit  at  Cambray,"  and 
exhorted  the  people  '-'  to  respect  and  obey  it.":{: 

Originally,  as  I  have  frequentl}^  observed,  all  bishops,  and 
the  popes  themselves,  were  chosen  by  the  people.  After- 
wards the  metropolitans  interfered,  and  then  the  princes 
reserved  to  themselves  the  right  of  approbation,  and  thus  all 
abbots  and  bishops  were  chosen  till  the  time  of  Henry  HI. 
of  Germany. §  But  afterwards  the  popes  claimed  the  right 
of  nomination  to  all  the  greater  livings;  having  made  the 
first  attempts  of  this  kind  in  France,  where  they  took  advan- 
tage of  the  weakness  of  that  monarchy.  They  then  began  to 
give  out,  tliat  the  bishops  of  Home  were  appointed  by  Jesus 
Christ  to  be  the  supreme  legislators  of  the  universal  church, 
and  that  all  other  bishops  derived  their  authority  from  them. 
Opposition  was  made  to  these  claims,  but  it  was  ineffectual; 
and  from  the  time  of  I^ewis  the  Meek,  European  princes  in 
general  suffered  themselves  to  be  divested  of  all  authority  in 
religious  matters. 

To  gain  this  point,  many  memorials,  and  acts  of  formei 
times,  were  forged  in  this  age,  and  especially  *'  the  famous 
decretal  e pint les"  said  to  have  been  written  by  the  primitive 
bishops  of  Home.  They  are  generally  fathered  upon  "  Isidore, 
bishop  of  Seville,"  who  lived  in  the  sixth  century. J( 

The  popes  made  so  artful  a  use  of  the  weakness  of  the 
French  monarchy,  that  a  council  held  at  Rheinis,  in  991,  in 
which  the  authority  of  the  Pope  had  been  disputed,  is  called 

•  Sueur,  A.  D.  875.     (P.;  t  I^asnnjie,  III.  p.  5i9.     (P.) 

X  Mosheim,  IV.  p.  393.  (P.)  Cenf.  xvii.  Sect.  ii.  ?\.  i.  Ch.  i.  li.  .Seep.357,5/*prtf. 
^  Simon  on  Church  Revenues,  p.  6l.     (P.) 
11  Mosiieim,  11.  p.  126.    (P.)     Cent.  ix.   Pt.  ii.  Ch.  ii.  Sect.  viii. 


412  HISTORY  OF  THE  PAPAL  POWER. 

the  last  sighs  of  the  liberties  of  the  Gallic  churchy  the  bishops 
of  France  after  this  allowing  the  popes  a  right  to  depose 
them.  All  the  world,  says  M.  de  Marca,  was  obliged  to 
submit  to  this  new  opinion,  and  France  was  at  length  forced 
to  yield  at  the  beginning  of  the  third  race  of  their  kings. 
The  popes  laid  all  the  bishops  who  had  assisted  at  this  council 
under  an  interdict,  and  would  not  take  it  off  till  every  thing 
was  restored  as  before  the  council.* 

But  it  was  in  the  eleventh  century  that  the  great  dispute 
arose  between  the  popes  and  the  emperors  of  Germany, 
about  the  right  o^  Investiture.  This  consisted,  originally,  in 
the  prince,  or  chief,  putting  a  clergyman  into  the  possession 
of  any  estate  or  fief,  and  was  done  by  the  delivery  of  a  bough, 
or  in  such  other  manner  as  that  in  which  laymen  had  been 
usually  invested  by  the  same  persons.  But  because,  upon 
the  death  of  any  incumbent,  the  priests  used  to  deliver  the 
ring  and  the  crosier  of  the  deceased  bishop  (by  which  the 
election  of  a  new  bishop  had  been  used  to  be  irrevocably 
confirmed)  to  some  person  of  their  own  choosing,  before  the 
vacancy  was  notified  to  the  prince,  an  order  was  given  that 
those  ensigns  of  spiritual  power  should  be  transmitted  to  the 
prince  immediately  upon  the  death  of  any  bishop,  and  then 
he  delivered  them  to  whom  he  pleased  ;  after  which  the  same 
ensigns  were  again  solemnly  delivered  by  the  metropolitan 
bishop.  After  much  contention,  and  much  war  and  blood- 
shed upon  the  occasion,  it  was  compromised,  by  the  Pope's 
consenting  that  the  emperor  should  invest  by  the  delivery  of 
a  sceptre,  and  not  of  a  ring  or  crosier,  which  were  ensigns 
of  a  spiritual  authority. -f  The  principal  actor  in  this  great 
scene  was  Gregory  VII.,  who,  in  a  council  at  Lateran,  de- 
cided that  if  any  bishop  received  investiture  from  a  layman, 
both  he  and  the  layman  should  be  excommunicated. 

In  11 99  the  popes  pretended  to  have  a  right  over  all  bene- 
fices, and  that  all  translations  from  one  see  to  another  were 
the  especial  privilege  of  the  see  of  Romc.+  This  right,  how- 
ever, was  not  fully  asserted  before  it  was  done  by  Innocent 
III.  in  the  thirteenth  century,  who  assumed  to  himself,  as 
pope,  the  power  of  disposing  of  all  offices  in  the  church, 
whether  higher  or  lower,  and  of  creating  bishops,  abbots 
and  canons  at  pleasure.  And  though  the  popes  had  formerly 
been  strenuous  advocates  for  the  free  choice  of  bishops, 
against  the  encroachments  of  the  emperors,  this  pope,  and 

*  Sueur,  A  D.  991-    (?•)  „      .    ^.    ••    o     .      • 

^.  Mosheim,  11.  pp.  2S9— 291-    (P-)     Pt-  »•  Ch.  ii.  Sect.  xiv. 
}  Histoire  des  Papes,  III.  p.  126.    (P.) 


HISTORY   OF  THE   PAPAL  POWER.  413 

many  of  his  successors,  overturned  all  those  laws  of  election, 
reserving  to  themselves  the  revenues  of  the  richest  benc-fices, 
conferring  vacant  places  upon  their  clients  and  creatures, 
and  often  deposing  bishops  who  had  been  duly  elected,  and 
substituting  others  with  a  high  hand  in  their  room.  The 
bishops,  however,  opposed  these  encroachments,  but  gene- 
rally to  little  purpose. 

Lewis  IX.  of  France  "  secured  the  rights  of  the  Gallican 
church"  in  this  respect  "  by  that  famous  edict,  known — by 
the  name  of  the  Pragmatic  Sanction"  This,  however,  did 
not  make  the  popes  renounce  their  pretensions,  and  their 
legates  acted  with  all  the  insolence  and  tyranny  of  their 
masters  in  the  countries  into  which  they  were  sent ;  inso- 
much that  Alexander  IV.  made,  "  in  I2d6,  a  severe  law 
against  the  avarice  and  frauds  of  these  corrupt  ministers, 
which,  however,  they  easily  evaded  by  their  friends  and  their 
credit  at  the  court  of  Rome."  At  last,  "  Leo  X.  engaged 
Francis  L  to  abrogate  the  Pragmatic  Sanction^  and  to  sub- 
stitute in  its  place  another  body  of  laws,  more  advantageous 
to  the  papacy,  called  the  Concordate ;"  but  this  was  "  received 
with  the  utmost  indignation  and  reluctance."* 

Another  part  of  the  spiritual  power  claimed  by  the  popes 
is  that  of  granting  dispensations  to  do  what  would  otherwise 
be  unlawful ;  and  from  merely  relaxing  the  severity  of  disci- 
pline, or  remitting  the  penances  that  had  been  enjoined  for 
sin  (which,  in  time,  made  it  to  be  imagined  that  they  had 
the  power  of  forgiving  sin  itself  after  the  commission),  they 
easily  passed  to  the  idea  of  their  having  a  power  to  tbrgive 
it,  and,  which  was  the  same  thing,  of  their  making  it  to  be 
no  sin,  before  the  cornmission. 

It  was  the  wants  and  the  avarice  of  the  popes  that  first  led 
them  to  grant  these  indulgences.  The  popes,  when  they 
were  settled  at  Avignon,  not  being  able  to  draw  so  much  as 
they  had  used  to  do  from  Italy,  had  recourse  to  new  methods  of 
getting  wealth.  They  not  only  sold  indulgences  more  fre- 
quently than  formerly,  but  disposed  publicly  of  scandalous 
licences  of  all  sorts,  at  an  excessive  price.  John  XXII. 
was  particularly  active  in  promoting  this  abominable  traffic. 
He  enlarged  the  taxes  and  rules  of  the  apostolical  chamber, 
and  made  them  more  profitable,  though  he  was  not  the 
inventor  of  them. 

The  height  to  which  the  popes,  and  their  advocates,  car- 
ried their  pretensions  in   this   way  is  indeed   astonishing. 

•  Mosheim,  III.  pp.  31,  32,  289,  290.    (P.)     Cent.  xvi.  Sect.  i.  Cli.  i.  vii. 


414  HISTORY  OF  THE   PAPAL  POWER. 

Innocent  III.,  about  1 198,  decreed  that  out  of  the  plenitude 
of  the  papal  power,  the  Pope  could  "  of  right,  dispense  be- 
yond right ;"  and  according  to  other  decrees  the  popes  claimed 
the  power  of  dispensing  even  against  the  apostles,  and  the 
apostolical  canons.  Gratian,  the  famous  canon  lawyer,  as- 
serted that  all  men  are  to  be  judged  by  the  Pope,  but  the 
Pope  himself  by  no  man.  And  "  Cardinal  Zabar,  speaking 
of  the  popes,  affirms  that  they  might  do  all  things  that  they 
will,  even  things  unlawful,  and  so  could  do  more  than  God 
himself."* 

There  are  too  many  instances  in  history  of  the  popes 
reducing  these  pretensions  into  practice,  by  actually  granting 
dispensations  to  do  things  morally  evil,  especially  to  release 
persons  from  the  obligation  of  oaths.  In  1042,  Casimir,  king 
of  Poland,  having  retired  to  a  monastery,  deputies  were  sent 
to  the  Pope,  and  he  absolved  him  from  his  vows,  and  per- 
mitted him  to  resume  the  government  of  his  kingdom. •]■ 
Celestine  II.  having  required  Henry,  king  of  England,  to 
re-establish  Dunstan  in  the  archbishopric  of  York,  and  he 
saying  that  he  had  swore  he  never  would  do  it  as  long  as  he 
lived,  the  Pope  answered,  "  I  am  Pope,  if  you  will  do  what 
I  require,  1  will  absolve  you  of  that  oath."  The  king,  how- 
ever, declined  it.  J  Plenry  II.  of  England,  having  sworn 
to  fulfil  his  father's  will,  obtained  an  absolution  from  the 
Pope,  and  thereupon  deprived  his  brother  of  his  estates,  and 
reduced  him  to  a  pension.  At  the  Council  of  Constance, 
John  XXIII.  drew  from  many  cardinals  what  he  wanted  to 
know  of  them,  by  releasing  them  from  the  oath  of  secrecy 
which  they  had  taken. §  The  popes  have  always  granted 
dispensations  to  marry  within  the  prohibited, degrees  of  con- 
sanguinity. Martin  V.  is  said  to  have  given  leave  to  a  man 
to  marry  his  own  sister. 

Another  power  in  spiritual  matters,  which  has  been  claimed 
by  the  popes,  is  that  of  canonization,  or  the  declaring  what 
persons  should  be  deemed  saints,  and  the  objects  of  worship. 
In  the  Council  at  Lateran,  in  1179,  under  Alexander  III. 
"  canonization  was  ranked  among  the  greater  and  more  im- 
portant causes,  the  cognizance  of  which  belonged  to  the 
pontiff  alone."  II 

Another  prerogative  claimed  and  long  exercised  by  the 

*  History  of  Popery,  I.  p.  10.  (P.)  "  Quod  omnia  possint,  quicquid  liberet. 
etiam  illicita,  et  sit  plus  quam  Deus."  De  Schism.  Int.  Gerim  script,  p.  703.  Hist, 
of  Popery,  1735,  I.  p.  6. 

t  FJeury.  (P.)      j  Histoiredes  Papes,  II.  p.  609.  (P.)      §  Ibid.  W.  p.  40.  {P., 

II  Mosheim,  II.  p.  403.    (P.)    Pt.  ii.  Cli.  ii.  Sect.  xiii. 


HISTORY  OF  THE   PAl'AL  FOWER.  415 

popes,  and  yet  most  clearly  against  all  ancient  custom,  was 
that  of  calling  and  presiding  in  all  councils;  whereas  origi- 
nally, as  I  have  observed,  it  was  the  husiiuss  of  thr  metro- 
politan of  each  district,  and  afterwards  they  were  called  by 
the  temporal  princes,  first  the  emperor  of  Constantinople, 
and  then  other  princes  in  their  several  states.  Ii'>  Germany 
it  had  always  been  the  custom  for  the  metropolitans  to 
preside  in  their  councils;  but  in  the  year  10+7  the  Pope 
claimed  a  right  of  sendiui^  his  legates  to  preside  in  them.* 
And,  in  time,  this  claim,  though  the  novelty  of  it  whs  easily 
proved,  came  to  be  universally  acquiesced  in,  and  nothing 
but  the  factions  of  the  popes  themselves  could  ever  have  led 
the  world  to  think  or  act  otherwise.  But  after  the  great 
schism  in  the  popedom,  in  which  there  were  a  long  time  two 
popes,  and  sometimes  three,  there  was  an  absolute  necessity 
of  calling  a  council,  and  giving  it  a  power  of  censuring,  de- 
grading, and  making  popes. 

A  new  power  now  being  established  in  the  world,  viz. 
that  of  the  popes  and  the  bishops,  a  power  governed  by 
maxims  unknown  to  the  world  before,  a  new  .yj.sfem  of  laws 
was  of  course  introduced  by  it.  i'his  obtained  the  name  of 
canon  law^  consisting  originally  of  the  decrees  of  general 
councils  and  synods,  and  then  of  the  constitutions  of  popes, 
and  decisions  made  by  the  court  of  Home.  In  time  these 
laws  were  collected,  and  reduced  to  a  system,  and  became 
the  object  of  study  and  practice  to  a  new  set  of  lawyers,  as 
the  Roman  civil  law  had  been  before. 

The  first  collection  of  ecclesiastical  canons  was  published 
towards  the  end  of  the  fourth  century,  by  Stephen  of  Ephesus, 
and  it  was  received  with  universal  applause.  Flie  church  of 
Rome  made  use  of  this  collection  till  that  of  Dionysius 
Exiguus  appeared,  in  the"  sixth  century.  These  canons  had 
no  sanctions  of  a  temporal  nature,  and  therefore  the  councils 
generally  applied  to  the  emperors  who  had  assembled  them, 
to  compel  the  observance  of  their  decrees. "j" 

In  the  seventh  century  the  collection  of  canons  by  Isidore 
of  Seville  was  published,  composed  of  the  councils  held  in 
Greece,  Africa,  France  and  Spain,  and  also  of  the  decretal 
letters  of  the  popes,  to  the  time  of  Zacharias,  who  died  in 
7^^-X  This  being  a  dark  and  ignorant  age,  all  the  letters  of 
the  popes  for  the  first  four  centuries  were  forged,  and  yet  the 
forgery  was  for  many  centuries  undiscovered.  These  decretal 
letters  had  no  other  object  than  to  extend  the  power  of  the 

•  Fleury.    (P.)        t  Anecdotes,  pp.  105,  107.   (P.)        I  Ibid.  p.99S,   (P.) 


416  HISTORY  OF  THE  PAPAL  POWER. 

popes,  and  the  dignity  of  the  bishops.*  The  difficulty  of 
judging  bishops,  Fleury  says,  was  increased  by  these  decretals ; 
the  power  of  judging  them  being  thereby  given  to  the  popes, 
so  that  appeals  to  Rome  became  very  frequent. f 

Gratian,  who  made  a  collection  of  canons  in  the  twelfth 
century,  went  beyond  the  forged  decretals  in  two  important 
articles,  viz.  the  authority  of  the  popes,  and  the  immunities 
of  the  clergy.  For  he  maintained  that  the  popes  are  not 
bound  by  the  canons,  and  that  the  clergy  cannot  be  tried  by 
the  laily  in  any  cases.  The  constitutions  of  the  popes,  after 
this  compilation  of  Gratian,  turned  upon  the  maxims  con- 
tained in  it;  and  yet,  as  the  power  of  the  popes  increased, 
they  kicked  away  the  scaffold  by  which  they  had  been  assisted 
in  climbing  to  this  height  of  power.  For  Father  Simon  says 
that  the  decrees  of  Gratian  are  not  valued  at  Rome,  nor  the 
books  of  decretals,  but  so  far  as  they  suit  their  purpose,  the 
great  principle  of  the  court  of  Rome  being,  that  the  Pope  is 
above  all  law,  which  was  indeed  the  great  object  of  Gratian. ;{: 

In  this  country  the  bishops  were  allowed  to  have  a  separate 
jurisdiction,  according  to  the  canon  law,  after  the  Norman 
conquest,  and  this  continued  till  it  was  abridged  under  Henry 
VIII. §  Indeed  the  canon  law  has  never  been  directly  abo- 
lished in  England,  and  though  a  correction  was  proposed  to 
be  made  of  it,  the  scheme  was  never  carried  into  execution. 
But  it  was  provided,  in  1534,  "  that  till  such  correction  of 
the  canons  was  made,  all  those  which  were  then  received 
should  remain  in  force,  except  such  as  were  contrary  to  the 
laws  and  customs  of  the  realm,  or  were  to  the  damage  or  hurt 
of  the  king's  prerogative."  ||  And  it  is  perhaps  better  that 
the  canon  law  should  remain  subject  to  this  restraint,  than 
that  any  new  system  of  the  same  kind  should  be  enacted 
without  any  controul.  These  remains,  however,  of  the  canon 
law  have  been  gradually  going  into  disuse,  and  the  whole 
practice  of  the  spiritual  courts^  in  which  it  is  continued,  is 
now  held  in  universal  abhorrence  and  contempt. 

*  Sueur,  A.D.  8S8.    (P.)  f  Seventh  Discourse,  p.  13.    (P.) 

X  On  Church  Revenues,  p.  88.    (P.) 

§  History  of  Popery,  III.  p.  70.  (P.)  "  This  composition  [the  canon  law]  thus 
made  beyond  the  seas,  Austin,  the  monk,  slily  wafts  it  over  (though  in  itself  a 
kind  of  contraband  commodity)  into  England,  where  it  remained  many  years,  but 
in  a  weak,  ricketty  condition,  till,  at  last,  well  suckled  by  several  haughty  prelates, 
as  Thomas  Becket  and  others,  it  grew  rampant  and  unruly.  And  though  often  the 
civil  authority  gave  it  daisy-roots  to  hinder  its  growth;  as  the  statutes  of  provisors, 
of  mortmain,  of  prcEmunire,  &c.  yet  nothing  could  effectually  repress  the  monster, 
till  our  English  Hercules,  King  Henry  VIII.  gave  it  a  mortal  wound."  Hist,  of 
Popery,  Ed.  17S.5,  I.  p.  377- 

II  Neal'a  History,  I.  p.  11.    (P.)    Toulmin's  Ed.  I.  p.  15. 


HISTORY  OF  THE  PAPAL   POWER.  417 

The  pride  and  exterior  marks  of  splendour  assumed  by 
the  popes  have  sufticiently  corresponded  to  the  power  uhicli 
they  acquired  ;  and  tiie  flatteries  wiiich  they  have  received 
from  their  partizans  have  sometimes  been  in  the  hiuliest  de- 
gree abominable  and  blasphemous. 

While  the  imperial  power  continued,  no  mark  ot"  respect 
was  paid  to  the  popes  that  was  not  paid  to  other  bishops, 
archbishops  or  patriarchs.  But  after  they  obtained  sovereign 
power,  they  obtained  likewise  the  same  titles,  and  the  same 
marks  of  reverence  and  respect,  which  had  been  claimed 
by  other  princes;  and  several  of  these  ought  to  have  been 
appropriated  to  divinity.  The  title  oi' hoiincss  was  often  given 
by  one  bishop  to  another,  but  it  was  appropriated  to  the 
bishop  of  Home  about  the  year  1000.*  The  ceremony  of  the 
adoration  of  the  Pope,  after  his  election,  was  borrowed  from 
Paganism. f  This  was  always  done  to  the  Roman  Pontifex 
Maximus,  and  it  is  done  by  the  cardinals  to  the  Pope,  seated 
upon  the  altar  for  that  purpose.  The  customs  of  kissing 
the  feet,  and  being  carried  on  men's  shoulders,  were  also 
borrowed  from  the  Romans  or  the  northern  nations.  "  Dio- 
clesian  ordained,  by  a  public  edict,  that  all  sorts  of  persons 
should  prostrate  themselves  before  him,  and  kiss  his  feet  ;'* 
and  for  this  purpose  he  had  a  '■'■  panfojle,  or  slipper,  enriched 
with  gold,  pearls  and  precious  stones. ";{:  It  was  Gregory 
VII.  who  ordered  in  council  that  even  princes  should  kiss 
the  feet  of  the  Pope  only.§  But  Valentine  is  said  to  have 
been  the  first  pope  whose  feet  were  kissed  after  consecration 
by  the  cardinals  and  other  persons  present,   in  827. 

The  popes,  to  shew  their  superiority  to  other  sovereigns, 
have  assumed  a  triple  crown.  At  fust  they  wore  only  a 
bonnet,  a  little  higher  than  usual,  very  much  like  the  Phry- 
gian mitres,  which  were  used  by  the  priests  of  Cybele  ;  but 
Clovis,  king  of  Prance,  having  sent  to  the  church  of  St.  John 
of  Lateran  a  crown  of  gold,  with  which  he  had  been  pre- 
sented by  Anastasius,  the  emperor  of  Constantinople,  pope 

•  Sueur.  A.  D.  3C^6.    (P.) 

i  See  Lett  Conformitez,  Ch.  ii.  p.  2H,  aud  "  Ess;iys  ecclcsinsfical  aipd  civil,  by  the 
late  learned  ^n  Bulstiode  Wftitlorhe,'"  170G,  p.  181.  Yet,  accordins  to  Sir 'I'homas 
Smith,  a.kin<;  or  queen  of  l^nglaud  is  as  profoundly  worshipped  as  a  |:ope.  "  No 
man  s',!e:ikctii  to  the  prince,  nor  serveth  at  the  table,  but  in  adortition  and  kneelint;-. 
All  persons  of  the  realnie  be  bare  headed  before  him  ;  insomuch  that  in  the  chamber 
of  presence,  where  the  cloalh  of  Estate  is  set,  no  man  dare  vvaike,  yea,  though  the 
prince  be  not  there,  no  man  dare  tarry  there,  but  b;  re-headed.  "  The  Common- 
wealth of  Eiif/lnnd,  B.  ii.  Ch.  iv.  fin.  1633,  pp.  103,  lOi.  See  this  passage  applied 
to  another  subject,   M.  Repos.  VI.  p.  226. 

X   Hist,  of  Poperv,  HI.  p.  3iO,  &.c.    (P.)     Ed.  irSf),  11.  p.  17. 

§  Sueur,  A.D.  711.    (P.) 

VOL.    V.  2    K 


418  HISTORY  OF  ItlE  PAPAL  POWIR. 

Hormisdas  put  it  on  his  tiara.  Afterwards  Boniface  VIII., 
in  his  quarrels  with  Philip  .the  Fair,  to  shew  that  things 
temporal  ought  to  be  subject  to  things  spiritual,  as  a  mark 
of  this  double  authority,  used  two  crowns  instead  of  one, 
and  to  them  John  XX 11.  added  a  third,  but  with  what  par- 
ticular view  is  not  said.* 

The  style  that  has  sometimes  been  assumed  by  the  popes, 
and  made  use  of  in  addresses  to  some  of  them,  without  their 
declining  it,  is  truly  blasphemous.  Martin  IV.,  1621,  "having 
excommunicated  the  people  of  Sicily,  would  not  be  per- 
suaded to  absolve  them  till,  by  their  ambassadors,  prostrate 
on  the  earth,'*  they  entreated  it,  saying,  "  0  lamb  of  God, 
that  takest  away  the  sins  of  the  world,  grant  us  thy  peace. *^'\' 
The  fathers  of  the  Council  of  Lateran  said  to  pope  Leo  X. 
*'  We  respect  your  divine  majesty,  you  are  the  husband  of 
the  church,  the  prince  of  the  apostles,  the  prince  and  king 
of  all  the  universe."  They  entreated  also  that  he  would  not 
let  them  lose  the  salvation,  and  the  life,  which  he  had  given 
them.  Adding,  "  Thou  art  the  pastor,  and  the  physician, 
thou  art  a  God  ;"  and  declared  that  he  had  all  power  in  heaven 
and  in  earth.  "^  The  canonists  often  gave  the  popes  the  title 
of  Dominus  Dens  noster,  which,  indeed,  had  been  assumed 
by  Domitian.  "  Paul  V. — caused  his  picture  to  be  put  in 
the  first  page  of  divers  books  dedicated  unto  him,  with  this 
inscription,  Paulo  V.  Vice  Deo;  and  Sixtus  IV.  suffered 
to  be  inscribed  on  a  triumphal  arch  erected  to  him,  anno 
1484, 

"  Ordclo  vocis  mundi  moderaris  habenas, 
Et  merito  in  terris  diceris  esse  Deus."^ 

A  circumstance  which  shews  the  spirit  of  the  papacy  in 
a  particularly  strong  light,  is,  that  Gregory  VII.,  the  most 
ambitious  of  all  the  popes,  and  who  contributed  more  than 
any  other  to  increase  the  power  and  pride  of  the  popedom, 
was  canonized,  and  a  particular  office,  or  form  of  prayer,  was 
composed  to  his  honour.  This  was  introduced  by  Alexander 
VII,  and  was  read  in  the  churches  of  Rome  and  other  parts 
of  Europe;  and  whatever  in  his  life  ought  to  make  his 
memory  odious,  is  recited  in  this  office  as  an  heroic  action. 
It  was  also  authorized  by  Benedict  XIII.  But  all  Europe 
were  offended  at  it.  jl 

•  Histoire  des  Papes,  HI.  p.  425.    (P.) 

t  Hist,  of  Popery,  HI.  p.  441.    (P.)     "  Agnus  Dei,  qoi  tollis  pcccata  tnundi, 
dona  nobis  paceni."     Hist.  i736,  II.  p.  66. 
X  Basnage,  III.  p.  556.    (P.) 

^  History  of  Popery,  I.  p.  94.   (P.)    17S5,  1.  p.  51. 
II  Histoire  des  Papes,  11.  p.  491,  V.  p.  697.    (P.) 


HISTORY  OF  THE  PAPAL  POWER.  419 

There  is  no  giving  one  character  of  a  set  of  men  so 
numerous  and  so  various  as  the  popes  have  been,  but,  in 
general,  since  they  have  become  sovereign  princes,  they  have 
had  all  the  follies  and  vices  of  other  sovereign  princes,  and 
have  spent  their  revenues  in  the  same  manner;  more  espe- 
cially (iis  their  power  was  short,  and  the  ofiice  not  hereditary) 
in  enriching  their  families  and  dependents.  At  one  period 
they  were,  for  many  successions,  monsters  of  wickedness; 
using  every  art,  and  making  no  scruple  even  of  murder,  to 
gain  their  ends.  A  man  more  abandoned  to  vice,  of  the 
most  atrocious  kinds,  than  Alexander  VI.  was  perhaps  never 
known  ;  and  Leo  X.,  the  great  patron  of  learning,  was  ex- 
ceedingly debauched,  and  probably  an  atheist.* 

It  must  be  acknowledged,  however,  that  many  of  the 
popes  have  been  men  who  would  have  adorned  any  station 
in  life;  being,  in  the  worst  times,  patterns  of  virtue,  and 
actuated  by  the  best  intentions  in  the  world.  But  they 
never  had  power  to  reform  their  own  courts,  or  to  accom- 
plish the  other  reformations  they  projected.  However,  time, 
and  the  diminution  of  their  power,  has  at  length  done  a  great 
deal  towards  it ;  and  as  the  bishops  of  Rome  sink  to  the  level 
of  other  bishops  in  the  christian  church,  they  will  probably 
acquire  the  virtues  of  their  primitive  ancestors  ;  but  then 
they  will  be  no  longer  what  we  now  caW  popes. 

It  may  excite  our  gratitude  for  the  blessings  of  the  Refor- 
mation, to  look  back  upon  the  state  of  this  country  while  it 
was  subject  to  the  papal  power.  The  popes  seem  to  have 
held  this  country  in  a  state  of  greater  dependence  than  any 
other  in  Europe.  To  this  the  obligations  that  William  the 
Conqueror  and  others  of  our  princes  were  under  to  them, 
contributed  not  a  little.  All  the  rights  and  privileges  of  the 
English  clergy  were,  in  fact,  in  the  hands  of  the  Pope,  who 
taxed  them  at  his  pleasure,  and  who  had  the  absolute  nomi- 
nation to  all  the  richest  benefices  in  the  country.  These 
were  in  general  filled  with  foreigners,  especially  Italians, 
who  never  so  much  as  saw  their  dioceses,  or  the  country, 
but  had  their  revenues  remitted  to  them  abroad  ;  by  which 
means  the  country  was  drained  of  immense  sums.  The 
popes  also  disposed  even  of  the  reversions  of  the  most  lucra- 
tive places  ;  so  that  neither  the  king,  nor  any  other  person 
in  England,   had  any  thing  to  dispose  of  in  the  cSiurch. 

•  "  Raphael  Vrhin,  the  famous  painter, — being  taxed  by  the  tlien  Pope  for  layinrr 
too  much  colour  on  the  faces  of  Peter  and  Paul,  replied,  he  did  it  on  purpose  to 
represent  them  blushing  in  heaven,  to  see  what  successors  thev  had  pot  on  earth." 
Hist,  of  Popery,   1 735,  I.  p.  9. 

2  £9 


420  HISTORY  OF  THE  PAPAL  POWER. 

This  was  ill  brooked  by  several  of  our  Norman  princes 
and  lords;  but  no  redress  was  found  for  this  evil  till  the 
reign  of  that  spirited  prince  Edward  III.  who  passed  an  act 
called  the  statute  of  prouisors,  by  which  all  presentations  to 
livings  within  the  kingdom  were  taken  from  the  Pope,  and 
appointed  to  be  in  the  king,  or  his  subjects.  But  still  the 
popes  had  considerable  power,  as  in  the  trials  of  titles  to 
advovvsons,  and  appeals  to  the  court  of  Rome.  And  though, 
by  the  seventh  of  Richard  II.,  the  power  of  nomination  to 
benefices  without  the  king's  licence  was  taken  from  the 
popes,  they  still  claimed  the  benefit  of  confirmation,  of  the 
translation  of  bishops,  and  of  excommunication.* 

The  interference  of  the  papal  power  received  another  check 
in  the  reign  of  Richard  II,  For,  whereas,  before  that  time 
the  archbishops  of  Canterbury  and  York  might,  "  by  virtue 
of  bulls  from  Rome,  assemble  the  clergy  of  their  several 
provinces,  at  what  time  and  place  they  thought  fit,  without 
leave  obtained  from  the  crown,  and  all  the  canons  and 
constitutions  concluded  upon  in  those  synods  were  binding 
without  any  farther  ratification  from  the  king  ;"  an  act  passed 
in  the  sixteenth  year  of  this  reign,  "  caWed  premunii'e^  by 
which  it  was  enacted,  that  if  any  did  purchase  translations 
to  benefices,  processes,  sentences  of  excommunication,  bulls, 
or  any  other  instruments,  from  the  court  of  Rome,  against 
the  king  or  his  crown,  or  whoever  brought  them  into  England, 
or  did  receive  or  execute  them,  they  were  declared  to  be 
out  of  the  king's  protection,  and  should  forfeit  their  goods 
and  chattels  to  the  king,  and  should  be  attached  by  their 
bodies,  if  they  may  be  found." 

From  this  time  no  convocation  of  the  clergy  could  be 
called  without  the  king's  writ,  and  they  could  consult  on 
such  matters  only  as  he  should  think  proper  to  lay  before 
them  ;  but  still  their  canons  were  binding  without  the  king's 
assent,  till  the  act  of  supremacy  under  Henry  VllT.  This 
prince  assumed  the  sole  right  to  the  nomination  and  con- 
firmation of  bishops  ;  and  to  the  great  mortification  of  the 
clergy,  he  also  took  to  himself  the  first-fruits  of  all  the 
benefices. •]• 

♦  Neal's  History,  I.  p.  2.   (P.)         f  Ibid.  II.  pp.  2,  10,  &c.    (P.")    1703,  p.  1.5. 


421 


APPENDIX      I. 

TO 

PARTS  X.  AND   XI. 


The  History  of  Councils. 

To  the  preceding  history  of  the  clergy  in  general,  and  of 
the  bishops  and  popes  in  particular,  it  may  not  be  amiss  to 
add  a  separate  account  of  the  councils  or  assemblies  of  the 
bishops  and  clergy,  which  make  a  great  figure  in  the  history 
of  the  christian  church.  These  assumed  a,  most  undue 
authority,  and  have  been  one  of  the  principal  supports  of  the 
greatest  corruptions  of  christian  doctrine  and  discipline. 

We  find  in  the  book  of  Acts,  that  when  matters  of  con- 
siderable consequence  occurred,  all  the  apostles,  or  as  many 
of  them  as  conveniently  could,  assembled,  to  consult  about 
it,  and  their  decrees  were  universally  received  in  the  chris- 
tian church.  It  does  not  appear,  however,  that  what  they 
resolved  on  these  occasions  was  directed  by  any  immediate 
inspiration,  for  that  would  have  superseded  all  reasoning  and 
debates  upon  the  subject,  and  consequently  all  difference  of 
opinion.  Whereas  they  appear  to  have  debated  among  them- 
selves, on  some  of  these  occasions,  with  a  considerable 
degree  of  warmth.  And  though  they  conclude  their  advice 
to  the  Gentile  Christians  about  the  observance  of  the  Jewish 
ceremonies,  with  saying  that  it  seemed  good  to  the  Holy  Ghost 
and  to  us,  they  probably  only  meant,  that  they  were  fully 
persuaded  that  the  regulations  which  they  prescribed  were 
proper  in  themselves,  and  therefore  agreeable  to  the  mind 
and  will  of  God  ;  being  conscious  to  themselves  that  they 
were  under  no  improper  bias.  If  they  had  been  conscious 
of  any  particular  illumination  at  that  time,  they  would  pro- 
bably have  mentioned  it.  Such,  however,  was  the  respect 
in  which  the  apostles  were  held,  that  even  their  advices  had 
the  force  of  decrees,  and  in  general  were  implicitly  con- 
formed to. 


422  HISTORY   OF  COUNCILS. 

When   the  apostles  were  dead,    it  was   natural  for  the 
bishops  of  particular  churches  to  assemble  on  similar  occa- 
sions ;   and   though   they  could   not   have    the  authority  of 
the   apostles,   that  office  becoming  extinct  with  those  who 
were  first  appointed  to  it;   yet,  as  there  was  no  higher  au- 
thority in  the  church,  had  they  contented  themselves  with 
merely  giving  advice,  and  confined  their  decisions  to  matters 
of  discipline,  they  would  hardly  have  been  disputed.     But 
it   has   been  pretended   that  general  councils,  consisting   of 
bishops  assembled  from  all  parts  of  the  Christian  world,  suc- 
ceed to  all  the  power  of  the  apostles,  and  have  even  absolute 
authority  in  matters  of  faith.     But  an  assembly  of  ever  so 
many  bishops,  being  only  an  assembly  of  fallible  men,  can 
have  no  just  claim  to  infallibility  ;    nor  indeed  was  this  a 
thing  that  was  pretended  to  in  early  times.     Our  Lord  did, 
indeed,  promise,  that  when  two  or  three  of  his  disciples  were 
gathered  together  in  his  name,  he  would  be  in  the  midst  of 
them ;  but  this  promise,  whatever  might  be  meant  by  it,  was 
not  made  to  bishops  in  particular,  and  might  be  claimed  by 
two  or  three  individuals,  as  well  as  by  two  or  three  hundred. 

Besides,  those  general  councils,  the  decrees  of  which  have 
been  urged  as  of  the  greatest  authority,  were  in  fact  assem- 
blies of  factious  men  ;  in  whose  proceedings  there  was  not 
even  the  appearance  of  their  being  influenced  by  the  love  of 
truth.  For  they  determined  just  as  the  emperors,  or  the  popes, 
who  summoned  them,  were  pleased  to  direct.  Accordingly, 
there  are,  as  might  be  expected,  many  instances  of  the  de- 
crees of  some  councils  being  contrary  to  those  of  others ; 
which  could  not  have  been  the  case,  if  they  had  been  all 
guided  by  the  spirit  of  truth. 

Though  Arianism  was  condemned  by  the  Council  of  Nice, 
it  was  established  at  the  Council  of  Ariminum,  which  was  as 
much  a  general  council  as  the  other,  and  also  in  the  Councils 
of  Seleucia  and  Sirmium.  There  is  also  a  remarkable  in- 
stance of  the  decrees  of  councils,  in  which  the  popes  them- 
selves have  presided,  contradicting  one  another,  as  those  of 
Chalcedon  and  Constantinople,  in  554.  For  the  former  ab- 
solved and  justified  Theodorit  of  Cyr,  and  Ibas  of  Edessa, 
and  received  them  into  their  body,  as  orthodox  bishops ; 
whereas,  the  Council  of  Constantinople,  which  is  styled  the 
fifth  general  council,  and  was  approved  by  the  Pope,  con- 
demned them  as  damnable  heretics.* 

The  Council  of  Constantinople  also  decreed,  that  images 

•  Sueur,  A.  D.  524.     (P.) 


HISTORY  OF  C0^JNqiL5.  423 

were  not  to  be  endured  in  Christian  churches,  whereas  the 
second  Council  of  Nice  not  only  allowed  them  to  be  erected, 
but  even  to  be  worshipped.  In  later  times,  the  Lateran 
council  of  Julius  II.  was  called  for  no  other  purpose  but  to 
rescind  the  decrees  of  the  Council  of  Pisa  ;  and  w  hereas  tiie 
Council  of  Basil  had  decreed,  that  a  conncil  of  bishops  is 
above  the  popes,  the  Lateran  council,  under  pope  Leo, 
decreed  that  a  pope    i$  above  a  council. 

Besides,   there  never  has  been  in  fact  any  such  thing  as  a 
general  council.     Even  the  four  first,  which  are  the  most 
boasted  of,  had  no  bishops  from  several  whole  provinces  in 
the  Christian  world.     And  the  Council  of  Trent,  the  au- 
thority of  which  the  Papists  make  so  much  account  of,  was 
perhaps  the  least  respectable  of  all  the  councils.     The  chief 
intention  of  the  crowned  heads,  who  promoted  this  council, 
was  to  reform  the  abuses  in  the  court  of  Rome.     But  the 
Pope  himself,  by  his  legates,  presiding  in  it,  pronounced  the 
Protestants,  who  appealed  to  it,  heretics  before  they  were 
condemned  by  that  council,  and  none  were  allowed  to  vote 
in  it  but  such  as  had  taken  an  oath  to  the  Pope  and  the 
church  of  Rome.     There  were  hardly  fifty  bishops  present 
in  it,   none  being  sent  from  several  countries.     Some  that 
were  there  were  only  titular  bishops,  created  by  the  Pope 
for  that  purpose  ;  and  some  had  Grecian  titles,  to  make  an 
appearance  of  the  Greek  church  consenting  to  it.     It  is  also 
well  known  that  nothing  was  decided  in  the  council  without 
the  previous  consent  of  the  court  of  Rome,  and  the  decrees 
concluded  with  an  express  salvo  of  all  the  authority  of  the 
apostolical  see. 

In  fact,  the  Papists  themselves  have  found  a  variety  of 
methods  of  evading  the  force  of  general  councils,  whenever 
it  has  been  convenient  for  them  so  to  do  ;  as  if  their  deci- 
sions depended  upon  a  matter  of  fact,  concerning  which  they 
were  never  pretended  to  be  infallible  ;  also,  if  their  proceed- 
ings were  not  in  all  respects  regular,  and  if  their  decrees  were 
not  universally  received,  as  well  as  if  they  had  not  been  ap- 
proved by  the  popes.  If  we  may  judge  concerning  councils 
by  the  things  that  have  been  decreed  in  them,  we  shall  be  faf 
from  being  prejudiced  in  their  favour ;  their  sanction  having 
been  pleaded  for  things  the  mo«t  repugnant  to  reason  and  the 
plainest  sense  of  Scripture,  as  has  been  sufficiently  mani- 
fefsted  in  the  course  of  this  work. 

Councils  were  most  frequent  in  the  times  of  the  Christian 
emperors  at  Constantinople,  and  of  the  Christian  princes  of 
Europe,  from  the  fall  of  the  Roman  empire  till  towards  the 


^94f  HISTORY  OF  COUNCILS. 

end  of  the  eighth  century.  But  the  publication  of  the  forged 
decretals  of  Isidore  at  that  period  made  a  great  change  with 
respect  to  councils,  the  jurisdiction  of  bisiiops,  and  appeals. 
For,  councils  became  less  frequent  when  they  could  not 
be  held  without  the  Pope's  leave;  and  the  interruption  of 
provincial  councils  was  a  great  wound,  says  Fleury,  to  ec- 
clesiastical jurisdiction.* 

The  fust  who  seems  to  have  maintained  the  infallii)ility 
of  councils  is  Barlaam,  who  exhorts  one  of  his  friends  to 
return  to  the  communion  of  the  church  of  Rome,  because  a 
council  at  Lyons,  being  lawfully  assembled,  and  having 
condemned  the  errors  of  the  Greeks,  he  must  then  be  con- 
sidered as  an  heretic,  cut  off  from  the  church,  if  he  did  not 
submit  to  it.  But  Occam,  who  lived  at  the  same  time,  viz. 
in  the  fourteenth  century,  speaks  of  it  as  the  opinion  of  some 
doctors  only,  while  others  say  this  infallibility  was  a  privilege 
of  the  college  of  cardinals,  and  others,  of  the  Pope  himself. 
It  was  a  question,  however,  that  did  not  begin  to  be  agitated 
till  that  time,  and  it  was  then  disputed  very  calmly.  It  was 
more  openly  debated  during  the  differences  between  the 
popes  and  the  councils;  when  the  councils  setting  them- 
selves up  above  the  popes,  determined  that  themselves,  and 
not  the  popes,  were  appointed  by  God  to  judge  in  the  last 
resort  concerning  articles  of  faith.  The  Council  of  Con- 
stance made  no  decision  on  this  subject,  but  that  of  Basil 
did  ;  saying  that  it  was  blasphemy  to  doubt  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  dictated  their  resolutions,  decrees  and  canons;  while 
the  Pope  and  his  Council  at  Florence,  declared  the  contrary, 
and  it  is  not  yet  determined  which  of  these  was  a  lawful 
council. j- 

The  most  eminent  of  the  Catholic  writers  themselves  have 
maintained  difi'erent  opinions  on  this  subject,  and  have  been 
much  influenced  by  the  circumstances  in  which  they  wrote. 
But  this  was  most  remarkably  the  case  with  ^Eneas  Sylvius, 
who  had  with  great  boldness  maintained  the  authority  of  the 
Council  of  Basil  against  Eugenius  IV.;  but  being  made 
Pope  (by  the  name  of  Pius  II.)  "  he  published  a  solemn 
retractation  of  all  that  he  had  written"  upon  that  subject; 
declaring,  "  without  shame  or  hesitation,  that  as  vEneas 
Sylvius  he  was  a  damnable  heretic,  but  as  Pius  II.  he  was 
an  orthodox  pontiftV*  +  At  present  the  opinion  of  the 
infallibility  of  the  Pope  being  generally  given  up  by  the 

♦  Seventh  Discourse,  p.  13.  (P.)  f  Basnage,  Histoire,  III.  p.  518.  (P.) 

J  Mosheitn, III.  p.  247.     (P)     Cent.  xv.  Ft.  ii.  Ch.  ii.  Sect.  xvi. 


HISTORY   OF   COUNCILS.  42.5 

Catholics,  they  suppose  the  seat  of  infallibility  (for  it  is  an 
incontrovertible  maxim  with  them  that  there  must  be  such 
a  seat)  to  be  in  the  councils. 

The  l^rotestants  themselves  had  originally  no  dispute 
about  the  authority  of  truly  general  councils.  Luther  ap- 
pealed to  a  general  council  regularly  ass.'mbUd,  and  engaged 
to  abide  by  its  decision.*  Calvin  maintained  in  express 
terms,  that  the  universal  church  is  infallible,  and  that  (Jod 
must  annul  his  solemn  proaiises  if  it  be  otherwise. f 

At  present,  however,  it  is  not,  L  believe,  the  opinion  of 
any  Protestant,  that  any  assembly  of  men  is  infallible.  But 
it  is  thought  by  some  to  be  lawful  and  convenient  to  call 
such  an  assembly  of  divines,  to  determine  what  should  be 
the  articles  of  faith  in  particular  established  churches,  or 
such  as  should  have  the  countenance  of  particular  states. 
The  synod  of  Dort,  in  nolland,  made  decrees  concerning 
articles  of  faith,  and  proceeded  in  as  rigorous  a  manner 
against  those  who  did  not  conform  to  them,  as  any  popish 
synod  cir  council  could  have  done.ij:  The  time  is  not  yet 
come,  though  we  may  hope  that  it  is  approaching,  when  the 
absurdity  of  all  interference  of  power^  civil  or  ecclesiastical, 
in  matters  of  religion,  shall  be  generally  understood  and 
acknowledged. 

•  Moslidm,  111.  p.  321.     (P.)     Cent.  xvi.  Sect.  i.  Ch.  ii.  xiv. 

t  Ba.snniTP,  III.  p.  499-     (P.) 

X  The  Fif'iKlt  ProtestMiit  tliurcli  ulso  exncted  of  every  minister  tlie  following 
oath: — "  I  do  swear  and  protest,  before  (5od  and  this  holy  assembly,  tliat  I  do 
receive,  approve  and  embrace  all  the  doctrines,  tani>ht  md  decided  by  the  -.ynod  of 
Dort,  Hs  perfectly  agreeing  with  llic  word  of  (iod  and  confeijbions  of  our  churches. 
I  swear  and  promise  \h  persevere  in  the  profession  of  this  doctrine  dnrin;^  niv  whole 
life,  and  to  defend  it  with  the  utmost  of  my  power;  .T'-I,  that  I  will  never,  neither 
by  pre.Kliing,  tmr  teaching  in  the  schools,  nor  by  writing,  dej^art  from  it."  Oath 
prescribed  by  a  National  Si/}wd  of  the  reformed  churches  in  France,  held  at  Alez, 
1620.  Quick's  Synod.  See  "  The  Case  of  Mr.  Martin  Tomkins,"  1719,  pp.  70,71. 
Note      Also,  p.  3 13,  supra. 


426       OF  THE  POWER  OF  THE  CIVIAL  MAGISTRATE 


APPENDIX     II. 


TO 


PARTS  X.  AND  XI. 


Of  the  Authority  of  the  Secular  Powers^  or  the  Civil 
Magistrate,  in  Matters  of  Religion. 

We  have  seen  the  daring  attempts  to  introduce  an  arbitrary 
authority,  so  as  to  decide  concerning  articles  of  faith,  as  well 
as  concerning  matters  of  discipline,  made  first  by  the  popes, 
who  were  nothing  more,  originally,  than  bishops  of  the  single 
church  of  ^lome,  and  afterwards,  by  councils,  or  a  number  of 
bishops  and  other  ecclesiastical  persons.    This  usurpation  led 
the  way  to  another,  not  indeed  so  excessive  in  the  extent  to 
which  it  has  been  carried,  but  much  more  absurd  in  its  nature. 
The  former  usurpations  were  of  the  clergy^  who  might  be 
supposed  to  have  studied,  and  therefore  to  have  understood, 
the  Christian  system  ;  but  the  latter  is  by  mere  laymen,  who 
cannot  be  supposed  to  have  given  much  attention   to  the 
subject  of  religion,   and  consequently  must  be  very  ill-pre- 
pared to  decide  authoritatively  concerning  its  doctrines  or 
rites.     Of  this  nature  is  the  ecclesiastical  authority  which, 
upon  the  Reformation,  was  transferred  from  the  popes  to  the 
secular  powers  of  the  different  states  of  Europe,  and  more 
especially  that  which  was  assumed  by  the  kings  and  parlia- 
ments of  England. 

The  Roman  emperors,  when  they  became  Christians,  did, 
indeed,  interfere  in  the  business  of  religion;  but  it  was  either 
to  confirm  the  election  of  bishops,  (which  was  soon  perceived 
to  be  of  considerable  importance  to  them  in  civil  matters,) 
or  to  convoke  synods,  or  general  assemblies  ;  when,  as  they 
apprehended,  the  peace  of  the  state  was  in  danger  of  being 
disturbed  by  heresies  and  factions  in  the  church.  But  though 
they  sometimes  signed  the  decrees  of  the  synods,  it  was  never 
supposed  that  their  vote  was  necessary  to  the  validity  of 
them  ;  and  though  they  regulated  the  revenues,  and  other 
things  of  an  external  nature  respecting  the  church,  they  never 


IN  MATTERS  OF   RELIGION.  42? 

presumed  to  pronounce  either  by  their  own  single  authority, 
or  that  of  the  senate  in  conjunction  with  them,  what  was 
truth  or  what  was  falsehood,  what  ceremonies  ought  to  be 
admitted,  and  what  ought  to  be  rejected,  as  has  been  done 
by  the  civil  governors  of  Europe  since  the  Reformation. 

Constantine,  who  was  himself  president,  or  moderator  in 
the  Council  of  Nice,  speaking  to  the  bishops  on  that  occa- 
sion, said,  as  was  mentioned  before,  "  Ye  are  bisliops  of 
things  within  the  church,  but  1  am  bishop  as  to  externals." 
And  long  afterwards,  when  the  civil  and  ecclesiastical  powers 
were  much  more  intermixed,  Charlemagne,  in  a  letter  to  the 
churches  of  Spain,  says,  concerning  the  council  which  he  had 
held  at  Frankfort,  "  I  have  taken  place  among  the  bishops, 
both  as  an  auditor  and  arbitrator.  We  have  seen,  and  by  the 
grace  of  God,  we  have  decreed  that  which  ought  firmly  to  be 
believed."  *  But  though  this  great  prince  says  IVe  have 
decreed^  it  is  not  probable  that  he  himself  had  so  much  as  a 
proper  vote  in  the  resolutions.  If  he  had,  he  would  hardly 
have  called  himself  an  auditor,  or  an  arbitrator,  though  this 
seems  to  imply  his  having  more  power  than  that  of  giving  a 
vote.  Though  it  is  not  questioned  that  the  emperors  gene- 
rally carried  their  point  with  the  bishops,  and  got  them  to 
make  what  decrees  they  pleased,  it  was  by  their  interest  with 
them,  and  influence  over  them,  and  not  by  a  proper  authority. 
And  during  the  prevalence  of  the  papal  power,  the  state  was 
so  far  from  encroaching  upon  the  church,  that  ecclesiastics 
usurped  upon  the  secular  power,  so  as  even  to  make  and 
depose  kings. 

A  series  of  facts,  relating  to  the  ecclesiastical  history  of 
England,  will  abundantly  confirm  what  I  have  here  advanced 
concerning  the  usurpation  of  the  rights  of  Christ  and  of  God, 
by  the  civil  magistracy  of  this  kingdom. 

When  Henry  VIII.  shook  off  his  dependence  upon  the 
Pope,  in  1531,  he  was  far  from  abolishing  their  usurped  and 
anti-christian  power.  He  only  transferred  it  from  the  Pope 
to  himself,  claiming  the  title  of  sole  and  supreme  head  of  the 
church  of  England.  The  absurdity  of  acknowledging  a  lay- 
man as  supreme  head  of  an  ecclesiastical  body,  was  a  thing 
so  new  and  strange,  that  the  clergy  would  not  admit  it  at  first 
without  this  clause,  As  fur  as  it  is  agreeable  to  the  laws  of 
Christ.  But  after  a  year  or  two,  viz.  in  16S3,  the  act  of 
supremacy,  as  it  was  called,  passed  the  parliament,  and  the 
convocation  also,  vi'ithout  that  clause. 

•  Milot's  Hist,  of  France,  p.  62.     ;P.) 


428         OF  THE   POWER  OF  THE   CIVIL  MAGISTRATE 

By  this  celebrated  act  the  whole  power  of  reforming  here- 
sies and  errors,  in  doctrine  and  worship,  was  transferred  from 
the  Pope  to  the  king,  witiiout  any  regard  to  the  rights  of 
synods,  or  councils  of  clergy  ;  and  without  giving  any  liberty 
to  those  who  could  not  comply  with  the  public  standard. 
This  act  expresses  that  "  the  king, — his  heirs  and  succes- 
sors,— kings  of  this  realm,  shall  have  full  power  and  authority 
to  visit,  repress,  redress,  reform,  order,  correct,  restrain  and 
amend,  all  errors,  heresies,  abuses,  contempts  and  enormities 
whatsoever  they  be."  *  It  was  also  ordered  in  this  reign, 
that  "  all  appeals  which  before  had  been  made  to  Rome,'* 
were  "  to  be  made  to  his.  majesty's  chancery,  to  be  ended 
and  determined  as  the  manner  now  is,  by  delegates.*' •]• 

This  king,  indeed,  in  his  letter  to  the  convocation  at  York, 
assured  them  that  he  claimed  nothing  more  by  the  supremacy/ 
than  wha  tC  hristian  pri  nces  i  n  primitive  times  assumed  to  them- 
selves in  their  own  dominions.  But  the  contrary  of  this  may 
easily  be  demonstrated r  For,  by  an  act  passed  in  the  thirty- 
first  year  of  this  reign,  it  was  enacted,  that  whatsoever  his 
majesty  should  enjoin  in  matters  of  religion,  should  be  obeyed 
by  all  his  subjects.  Such  language  as  this  was  never  held  by 
any  of  the  Christian  emperors. 

The  words  of  Mr.  Hooker,  who  is  generally  allowed  to  be 
one  of  the  ablest  advocates  of  the  church  of  England,  are 
very  express  to  this  purpose.  He  says,  "  If  the  whole 
ecclesiastical  state  stand  in  need  of  being  visited  and  re- 
formed ;  or  when  any  part  of  the  church  is  infested  with 
errors,  schisms,  heresies,  &c.,  whatsoever  spiritual  powers  the 
legates  had  from  the  see  of  Rome,  and  exercised  in  right  of 
the  Pope,  for  remedying  of  evils,  without  violating  the  laws 
of  God  or  nature;  as  much,  in  every  degree  have  our  laws 
fully  granted  to  the  king  for  ever,  whether  he  thinks  fit  to 
do  it  bv  ecclesiastical  synods,  or  otherwise,  accordins;-  to 
law.''^"^ 

Henry  VHI.,  Edward  VI.,  queen  Mary,  queen  Elizabeth, 
and  Charles  I.,  all  published  instructions  or  injunctions, 
concerning  matters  of  faith,  without  the  consent  of  the 
clergy  in  convocation  assembled,  and  enforced  them  upon 
the  clergy,  under  the  penalty  of  premunire.  So  jealous  was 
queen  Elizabeth  of  this  branch  of  her  prerogative,  that  she 
would  notsufferthe  parliamentto  pass  anybill  for  the  amend- 
ment or  alteration  of  any  of  the  ceremonies  of  the  church  ; 

•  NeaKs  History,  1.  p.  8.     (P.)     1793,  p.  H- 

tibid.  p.  88.     (P.)     1793,  p.  124.  i  Ibid.  p.  86.     (P.)     1793,  p.  122. 


IN'  MATTERS  OF   RELIGION.  429 

it  being,  as  she  said,  an  invasion  of  her  prerogative.  By  one 
clause  in  the  act  of  uniforniity  the  (juecn  was  "  empowered, 
with  the  advice  of  her  commissioners  or  metropolit  in,  to 
ordain  and  publish  farther  ceremonies  and  rites  ;t— and  had 
it  not  bt'cn  for  this  chiuse  of  a  reserve  of  power  to  make 
what  alterations  her  majesty  thought  fit,  she  told  archbishop 
Parker,  that  she  would  not  have  j)assed  the  act."* 

It  is  not  easy  to  reconcile  these  claims  of  Henry  VIII. 
and  queen  Elizabeth  with  that  article  of  the  church  of 
England,  (XX.)  which  asserts  tliat  the  "  Church  hath — 
authority  in  controversies  of  faith,"  if  by  Chunk  be  meant 
the  clergy.  For  the  English  clergy,  as  a  body,  were  so  far 
from  having  any  hand  in  the  business  of  reformation,  that 
they  opposed  it  as  far  as  ever  lay  in  their  power.  Besides, 
if  it  be  granted  that  this  absolute  power  is  in  the  church,  the 
Ueformation  itself  was  unlawful,  and  all  that  Henry  VIII. 
and  our  other  princes  have  done  in  this  business  is,  by  their 
own  confession,  unjustifiable. 

After  the  act  of  supremacy,  there  could  be  no  absolute 
necessity  for  our  kings  to  consult  even  the  parliament  upon 
this  subject.  Henry,  however,  generally  chose  to  do  it,  in 
order  to  give  the  stronger  sanction  to  his  own  decisions. 
Thus  the  famous  law  of  the  six  articles^  commonly  called  the 
bloody  statute,  and  which  was  entitled  An  Act  for  abolishing 
Diversity  of  Opinions  in  certain  Articles  concerning  the  Christian 
Religion,  was  an  act  of  parliament,  passed  in  the  year  1538.  f 
In  this  act  was  a  ratification  of  several  of  the  most  important 
doctrines  or  articles  of  Popery,  and  it  continued  in  force  to 
the  end  of  this  king's  reign.  In  a  very  short  time  five  hun- 
dred persons  were  imprisoned  in  consequence  of  it,  among 
whom  was  the  famous  bishop  Latimer. 

This  king  seems  even  to  have  claimed  an  infallibility, 
equal  to  that  which  had  been  arrogated  by  the  popes,  and 
to  have  acted  in  all  respects  as  if  he  had  the  consciences 
and  the  faith  of  all  his  people  at  his  absolute  disposal.  For 
in  the  thirty-second  year  of  his  reign,  it  was  enacted  "  that 
all  decrees  and  ordinances,  which  shall  be  made  and  ordained 
by  the  archbishops,  bishops  and  doctors,  and  shall  be  pub- 
lished with  the  king's  advice  and  confirmation,  by  his  letters 
patent,  in  and  upon  the  matters  of  christian  faith,  and  lawful 
rites  and  ceremonies,  shall  be,  in  every  point  thereof,  be- 
lieved, obeyed,  and  performed,  to  all  intents  and  purposes, 

•  Ncal's  Hist.  I.  p.  93.     {P.)     1793,  p.  130.  t  Ibid.  1793,  I-  p.  27. 


430  OF  THE  POWER  OF  THE   CIVIL   MAGISTRATE 

upon  the  pains  therein  comprised,  provided  nothing  be 
ordained  contrary  to  the  laws  of  the  realm."*  And  after- 
wards, when  the  articles  of  the  church  of  England  were  first 
compiled,  which  was  under  Edward  VI,  in  \65\,  they  were 
drawn  up  by  Cranmer  and  others,  and  received  the  sanction 
of  the  royal  authority  in  council  only,  without  being  brought 
to  parliament  or  convocations,  though  the  title  expresses  as 
much,  f 

In  the  first  year  of  queen  Elizabeth  the  parliament  alone, 
established  the  queen's  supremacy  and  the  common  prayer, 
in  spite  of  orreat  opposition  by  the  bishops  in  the  house  o: 
lords  ;  and  the  convocation  then  sitting,  was  so  far  from 
having  any  hand  in  those  acts  of  reformation,  that  the  mem- 
bers of  it  presented  to  the  parliament  several  propositions  in 
favour  of  the  tenets  of  Popery,  directly  contrary  to  the  pro- 
ceedings of  parliament.  ^ 

In  the  life  of  Mr.  Whiston  we  have  a  remarkable  instance 
of  the  very  little  consequence  which  the  church  of  England, 
as  it  is  generally  understood,  is  of  in  deciding  religious 
controversies.  For  when  a  convocation  had  sat  upon  his 
writings  concerning  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  pro- 
nounced them  to  be  heretical  and  dangerous,  queen  Anne 
interposed,  and  not  choosing  to  ratify  their  sentence,  all  the 


*  Neals  Hist.  1793,  I.  pp.  SS,  34.  t  Ibid.  p.  50.    ,P.)    1793,  p.  68. 

t  It  was  in  the  second  year  of  Elizabeth,  that  a  Protestant  religion  was  settled 
for  the  Ckirrch.  of  England.  Of  tlii.s  princess,  whose  decision  that  church  seems  to 
regard  as  final,  the  Protestantism  is  as  equivocal  ys  her  personal  virtue.  According 
to  her  annalist  Camden,  Elizabeth  appeared  diiring  the  reign  of  Mary  to  sail  by  a 
trade-utnd.  He  thus  describes  her  policy :  "  Quum  tamen  ilia,  ut  navigium 
ingrueiite  tempestate,  sese  moderafls,  ad  Romanae  religionis  Hormam  sacra  audiret, 
et'sfepius  confiterttur,  imo  Cardinale  Folo  asperius  iuterpellante,  so  Romano- 
Catholicam  prae  terrore  mortis  profiteretur."'    Hist.  I.  p.  21. 

In  her  Jirst  year  (l.")58  Elizabeth  permitted  "  the  epistles,  gospels,  and  fen 
commandmenti  to  he  read  to  the  people,  in  the  English  tongue,  howbeit  without 
any  exposition  :  also  the  Lord's  Prayer,  the  Apostles"  Creed  and  the  Litany,  she 
suffered  to  be  used  in  the  vulgar  tongue.  But  in  all  other  things  they  were  to  use 
the  Romish  rites  and  ceremonies,  till  a  perfect  form  of  religion  should  be  concluded 
on  by  the  authority  of  parliament.  In  the  mean  time  she  performed  the  obsequies 
of  her  sister  queen  Mary,  with  solemn  and  sumptuous  preparations  in  the  church 
»f  Westminster. " 

In  the  second  year  of  Elizabeth  i|1559;  "were  enacted  and  established — the 
Liturgy,  and  Administration  of  the  Sacraments,  which  was  in  useunder  Edward  VI., 
some  few  things  being  changed,  and  a  penalty  inflicted  upon  the  depravers  thereof, 
or  such  as  should  use  any  other  whatsoever.  Of  going  to  church  upon  Sundajs 
and  holidays,  a  mulct  of  twelve  pence  for  every  day's  absence,  being  imposed  upon 
those  that  should  absent  themsehes,  and  the  same  bestowed  upon  the  poor.' 
Thus  was  •'  the  Protestant  religion  now  established  by  authority  of  Parliament," 
with  the  dissent  of  nine  out  of  fourteen  bishops  and  two  nobles,  nor  did  the  Queen 
"  ever  suffer  the  least  innovation  therein."  See  Caradeu's  Uistoni,  \^lb,  Ed.  3, 
PP-O.  17,  19,  27,31. 


IX  MATTERS  OF  RELIGION.  451 

proceedings  came  to  nothing.  Thus,  as  was  observed  on 
the  occasion,  the  voice  of  a  woman,  which  the  apostle  Paul 
does  not  allow  to  be  even  heard  in  the  church,  had  more 
weight  than  that  of  all  the  churchmen  in  a  body.*  Can 
these  things  be  agreeable  to  the  constitution  of  the  gospel  ? 
Both  the  clergy  and  the  Queen  were  interfering  in  a  business 
in  which  they  had  no  right  to  meddle  ;  and  it  is  sometimes 
pleasant  to  see  one  usurper  checking  the  violence  of  an- 
other. 

It  is  remarkable  that  this  clause  in  the  articles,  by  which 
it  is  ordained  that  the  church,  and  not  the  king  (who, 
however,  is  acknowledged  to  be  the  supreme  head  of  the 
church)  should  have  authority  in  controversies  of  faith,  was 
not  in  the  first  articles  compiled  by  Cranmer,  and  which 
were  forty-two  in  number,  but  was  introduced  into  them 
when  they  were  revised  and  new-modelled,  in  the  reign  of 
queen  Elizabeth.  But  nobody  can  tell  why  or  wherefore  that 
clause  came  to  be  inserted,  it  beins^  manifestly  inconsistent 
with  other  acts  of  the  legislature,  and  with  the  conduct  of 
our  princes  according  to  those  acts,  t 

To  these  remarks  I  shall  add,  that  several  of  the  most  im- 
portant acts  of  spiritual  jurisdiction,  relating  to  the  revenues 
and  discipline  of  the  church  of  England,  are  performed 
by  laymen.  For  the  chancellors,  officials  and  surrogates, 
who  pass  censures  and  excommunicate,  frequently  are,  and 
by  express  law  always  may  be,  laymen  ;  and  the  bishops 
have  no  power  to  controul  the  proceedings  of  the  courts 
•which  2:0  by  their  name. 

The  House  of  Commons,  which  took  up  arms  against 
Charles  I.,  assumed  the  same  authority  in  matters  of  religion 
that  had  been  usurped  by  the  preceding  kings.  And  the 
Presbyterians,  of  which  sect  they  chiefly  consisted,  would 
have  enacted  some  persecuting  and  sanguinary  laws,  if  they 
had  not  been  restrained  by  Oliver  Cromwell,  at  the  head  of 
the  Independents.^    These  being  the  smaller  number,  would 

•  Burnet,  spyeaking  of  "  the  censure  that  v,?l%  passed  on  Whiston's  book,"  says, 
"  all  further  proceedings  aarainst  him  were  stopped,  since  the  Queen  did  not  confirm 
the  step  that  we  had  made."  It  would  be  unjust  to  Burnet's  memory  to  omit 
what  immcdiatelv  follows: — "  This  was  not  unacceptable  to  some  of  us,  and  to 
myself  in  particular.  I  was  gone  into  my  diocese  when  that  censure  was  passed; 
and  I  have  ever  thought  that  the  true  interest  of  the  Christian  religion  was  be«t 
consulted,  when  uice  disputing  about  mvsteries  was  laid  aside  and  forgotten." 
B^imet,  O.  T.  An,  1712,  Fol.  ft.  6o5.  See  ako  Whistons  Mem.  Ed.  2,  pp.  156, 
iS8,  189-     Towsood's  L*«fr»,  No.  1,  1779,  p- 27. 

T  NeaKs  HistTl.  p.  50.  P.  1793,  p.  69.  See  "  An  Historical  and  Critical 
Es>ay  on  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,"  by  Anthony  Collins,  1724,  f^aswn. 

^  ^ee  pp.  83,  94,  tupra.     The  Protectorate  commenced  wit^  the  following  pro- 


432  OF  THE  POWER   OF  THE  CIVIL  MAGISTRATE 

certainly  have  been  suppressed  by  any  act  of  uniformity  ; 
and  it  is  not  improbable  that,  in  consequence  of  being  in 
this  situation,  they  might  sooner  than  any  other  sect  in  this 
country,  hit  upon  the  true  christian  principle  of  religious 
liberty,  which  entirely  excludes  the  civil  magistrate  from 
interfering  with  it.  At  the  Restoration,  the  same  church 
establishment,  with  the  same  powers  in  the  king  and  in  the 
parliament,  was  resumed  ;  and  every  thing  reverted  into 
the  same  channel,  or  nearly  the  same,  in  which  they  had 
been  in  the  reign  of  queen  Elizabeth. 

It  is  something  renmrkable,  that  this  glaring  impropriety, 
of  merely  civil  magistrates  deciding  concerning  articles  of 
christian  faith,  which  must  necessarily  be  undertaken  by  all 
civil  governors  who  presume  to  make  any  establishment  of 
Christianity  (that  is,  of  what  they  take  to  be  Christianity) 
in  any  country,  should  not  strike  more  than  it  generally 
does;  and  that  on  this  ground  only  all  civil  establishments 
of  Christianity  should  not  be  exploded,  since  all  Christians 
profess  to  acknowledge  no  Father,  besides  God,  and  no 
Master  besides  Christ,  and  to  stand  fast  in  the  liberty  with 
which  he  has  made  us  free.  If  there  be  any  meaning  in 
this,  it  must  be  that  no  human  authority  should  be  per- 
mitted to  make  that  necessar}'  to  christian  communion  which 
Christ  has  not  made  necessary,  but  left  undetermined,  and 
consequently  indifferent.  There  are  instances,  however,  of 
this  absurdity  having  been  noticed  in  several  periods  of  our 
history,  besides  that  which  I  have  mentioned,  when  the 
claim  of  Henry  Vlil.  to  be  the  supreme  head  of  the  church 
was  first  started. 

When  the  act  of  Uniformitt/  was  passed,,  in  the  beginning 
of  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  in  1.559,   "  Heath,  archbishop  of 


visions  against  tlie  persecution  of  any  professing  Christians,  except  papists  and 
prelates : — 

"  XXXV.  That  the  Christian  rehgion,  contained  in  the  Scriptures,  be  held  forth 
and  recommended  as  the  pubhque  profession  of  tfiese  nations 

"  XXXVI.  That  to  the  publique  profession  held  forth,  none  shall  be  compelled 
by  penalties  or  otherwise,  but  that  endeavours  be  used  to  win  them  by  sound! 
doctrine,  and  the  example  of  a  good  conversation. 

•'  XXXVII.  That  such  as  profess  faith  in  God  by  Jesus  Christ  (though  differing 
in  judgment  from  the  doctrine,  worship  or  discipline  publiquely  held  forth),  shali 
not  be  restrained  from,  but  shall  be  protected  in  the  profession  of  the  faith  and 
exercise  of  their  religion-,  so  that  they  abuse  not  this  liberty,  to  the  civil  injury  of 
others,  and  to  the  actual  disturbance  of  the  publique  peace  on  their  parts  Pro- 
vided this  liberty  be  not  extended  to  Popery  or  Prelacy,  nor  to  such  as,  under  the 
profession  of  Christ,  hold  forth  and  practise  licentiousness."  The  Goveriwient  of 
the  Commonwealth,  &c.  "As  it  was  publickly  declared  at  Westminster,  the  ifith 
day  of  December,  1653 — Published  by  his  Highness  the  Lord  Protector's  special 
commandment."     M  DC  LIII.  pp.  42,  43. 


IX  MATTERS  OF   RELIGION.  433 

York,  made  an  eleuant  speech  against  it;"  observing  that 
it  "  ought  to  liave  had  the  consent  of  the  clergy  in  convo- 
cation, before  it  passed  into  a  law.  '  Not  only  the  orthodox 
but  even  the  Arian  emperors,'  snys  he,  '  ordv-red  that  points 
of  faith  should  be  examined  in  councils  ;  and  Gallio^  bv  the 
light  of  nature,  knew  that  a  civil  judge  ought  not  to  meddle 
with  matters  of  religion.'  But  he  was  over-ruled,  the  act  of 
supremacy  which  passed  the  house  the  very  next  dav,  having 
vested  this  power  in  the  crown,"* 

When  that  law  was  made,  in  the  reign  of  William  and 
Mary,  which  makes  it  blasphemy,  punishable  with  confis- 
cation of  goods  anti  imprisonment  for  lift%  if  persisted  in,  to 
deny  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  Lord  Fevcrsham,  who  had 
no  objection  to  the  doctrine  which  was  to  be  guarded  by 
that  law,  expressed  his  dislike  of  the  civil  magistrate  inter- 
fering to  guard  it,  in  very  strong  terms.  He  said  that  he 
acknowledged  the  houses  of  parliament  might  lay  upon  the 
subject  what  taxes  they  pleased,  and  might  even  make  a 
king  ;  but  he  did  not  like  the  idea  of  a  parliamentarij  religion 
?ind  d  par liamcn fan/  God.f  wSuch,  however,  in  fact,  is  the 
established  religion  of  this  country.  It  is  such  a  religion 
as  the  king,  lords  and  commons  of  this  realm  have  thought 
proper  to  make  for  themselves,  and  to  impose  upon  the 
people;  who  certainly  ought  to  judge  for  themselves,  in  a 
matter  which  so  nearly  concerns  them  as  individuals,  and 
of  which  they  are  as  competent  judges  as  their  superiors. 
Such  an  usurped  authority  as  this  ought  to  be  opposed, 
especially  when  it  is  considered  that  the  power  by  which 
this  mode  of  religion  is  enforced,  is  precisely  the  same  with 
that  of  the  popes  ;  having  been  transferred  from  them  to 
our  princes. 

Exclusive  of  every  thing  contained  in  the  religion  of  the 
church  of  England,  it  is  chiefly  the  authoritt/  by  which  it  is 
enjoined  that  Dissenters  object  to  in  it.  Things  in  their 
own  nature  ever  so  indifferent,  are  no  longer  so,  when  the 
authority  by  which  they  are  enforced  is  improper  and  bound- 
less. It  is  upon  the  same  just  maxim  that  we  always 
profess  to  act  in  things  of  a  civil  nature.     A  tax  of  a  penny 

•  Strype,  Ayvi.  Kef.  I.  p.  73.  Ap.  No.  G.  D'Ew's  Journal,  p.  29,  in  Neale's 
Hist.  Ed.  179S,  p.  130. 

t  Sec  tliis  expression,  assij^ned  to  the  Earl  of  Peterboroiit,'h,  Vol.  11.  p.  xvii. 
note  *.  The  Earl  added,  "  that  if  the  House  were  for  such  an  one,  he  would  go  to 
Rome  and  endeavour  to  be  chosen  cardinal;  for  he  had  rather  sit  in  the  Conclave, 
than  with  tlieir  lordships,  upon  those  terms."  TindaVs  Hist.  ]\\  p.  047,  in 
Towgood's  Letters,  III.  Sect.  xiii. 

VOL.  V.  ^  F 


434  OF  THE  POAVER  OF  THE   CIVIL   MAGISTRATE 

is  what  no  man  would  value,  of  itself;  but  it  would  be  a 
justifiable  cause  of  a  civil  war,  if  our  kings  only,  without 
the  concurrence  of  parliament,  should  presume  to  enforce 
that  tax  :  because  a  tax  that  begins  with  a  penny  might 
end  in  a  pound,  or  extend  to  a  man's  whole  property.  In 
like  manner,  a  power  that  alters  a  single  article  of  faith,  or 
imposes  one  rite,  might  change  the  wljole  system.  It  was, 
therefore,  so  far  from  being  the  mark  of  a  weak  mind,  that  it 
was  an  evidence  of  great,  just  and  enlarged  views,  in  the 
Puritans,  to  resist,  as  they  did,  the  imposition  of  things  in 
their  own  nature  indifferent.  To  have  submitted,  would 
have  been  to  acknowledge  another  supreme  power  in  the 
church  besides  that  of  Christ. 

This  is  the  true  and  solid  ground  of  a  dissent  from  the 
church  of  England,  It  is  declaring,  (and  it  is  the  only 
proper  and  effectual  mode  of  declaring,)  that  we  will  ac- 
knowledge no  human  authority  in  matters  of  religion  ;  but 
that  we  will  judge  for  ourselves  in  a  business,  which  so 
nearly  concerns  us,  and  not  suffer  others  to  judge  for  us  ; 
and  that,  in  the  worship  of  God,  and  what  respects  our 
happiness  in  a  future  world,  we  will  only  obey  him  whose 
power  extends  to  that  world,  that  is,  God,  and  not  man. 

It  is,  moreover,  evidently  agreeable  to  the  maxims  of  the 
gospel,  that  ever}^  Christian  make  an  open  declaration,  both 
by  his  words  and  by  his  conduct,  of  what  he  believes  con- 
cerning it.  This  is  most  expressly  declared  to  be  obligatory 
upon  us  with  respect  to  Christianity  in  general.  And  for 
the  same  reason  it  ought  to  be  extended  to  every  important 
distinction  in  the  profession  of  Christianity,  and  especially 
what  relates  to  the  seat  of  power,  or  authority  in  the  church 
of  Christ.  Our  Lord  hath  said,  Whosoever  shall  be  ashamed 
of  me,  and  of  my  words,  of  him  shall  the  Son  of  Man  be 
ashamed,  when  he  cometh  in  his  own  glory,  and  the  glory  of 
his  Father. 

Had  Christianity  been  a  system  of  speculative  opinions 
only,  and  had  not  required  a  conformity  in  our  practice,  and 
such  as  is  visible  to  the  world,  every  degree  of  persecution 
might  be  avoided.  But  this  we  know  was  not  the  case  in 
the  primitive  times.  All  true  Christians  then  thought 
themselves  obliged  not  to  make  the  least  concealment  of 
their  opinions,  whatever  they  might  suffer  in  consequence 
of  their  profession.  In  like  manner,  every  Protestant  ought 
to  be  a  declared  Protestant,  and  not  deny  his  principles  by 
communicating  with  the  idolatrous  church  of  Rome.     And 


IN  MATTERS  OF  RELIGION.  435 

for  the  very  same  reason  every  man  who  thinks  that  the 
church  of  England  usurps  an  undue  authority  over  the  con- 
sciences of  men,  similar  to  that  of  the  church  of  Rome, 
ought  to  be  a  declared  Dissenter^  and  separate  from  the 
established  church,  whatever  ridicule  or  persecution  of  any 
kind  he  may  expose  himself  to  on  that  account. 

If  the  primitive  Christians,  or  the  first  reformers  from 
Popery,  could  have  been  contented  with  keeping  their  opi- 
nions to  themselves,  wliile  they  conformed  to  the  reliajion 
of  their  country,  they  might  have  avoided  all  the  inconve- 
niences to  which  the  public  profession  of  their  principles 
exposed  them;  and  in  this  they  would  have  followed  the 
example  of  all  the  heathen  philosophers,  whose  maxim  it 
was,  to  think  icith  the  wise  and  act  with  the  vulgar,  and  who 
ridiculed  the  Christians  for  not  doing  the  same.  For  all 
the  philosophers  held  the  popular  superstitions  in  the  same 
contempt  with  the  Christians  themselves.  But  no  true 
Christian  or  Protestant  will  venture  to  sacrifice  so  much  to 
his  worldly  ease  and  safety.  And  were  not  many  of  the 
present  members  of  the  church  of  England  either  grossly 
ignorant  of  the  nature  of  religion,  inattentive  to  what  be- 
longs to  it,  or  governed  by  the  heathenish  maxim  above- 
mentioned,  they  would  not  dare  to  countenance  by  their 
concurrence,  what  they  may  easily  know  to  be  gross  corrup- 
tions of  Christianity,  and  especially  an  usurpation  of  the 
rights  of  God  and  of  Christ. 

There  is  another  state  in  Europe,  in  which  the  prince 
assumes  an  ecclesiastical  power  independent  of  the  Pope. 
For  the  kings  of  Sicily  pretend  to  be  by  birth  legates  a 
latere  to  the  holy  see,  and  to  have  a  power  of  absolving, 
punishing,  and  excommunicating  all  persons,  even  cardinals 
themselves,  who  reside  in  their  kingdom.  They  also  preside 
in  provincial  councils,  and  act  in  all  respects  independently 
of  the  court  of  Rome.  Their  style  is,  heatisimo  et  santisimo 
padre,  and  they  attribute  to  themselves  in  Sicily  the  same 
power  that  the  po|)es  have  with  respect  to  the  rest  of  the 
church.  The  Sicilians  claim  this  right  from  a  bull  of  Urban 
II.,  granted  in  1097  to  Roger,  the  Norman  king  of  Sicily, 
and  to  his  successors.  But  the  advocates  for  the  court  of 
Rome  say  that  this  bull  was  forged,  during  the  long  time 
that  the  island  had  no  communication  with  the  holy  see: 
for  it  continued  ninety  years  under  an  interdict,  beginning 
in  1282.  Hence,  however,  have  arisen  violent  disputes 
between  the  kings  of  Sicily  and  the  popes.     But  to  this  day 

2  F  2 


436       OF   THE  POWER  OF  THE  CIVIL  MAGISTRATE,  &C. 

the  kings  of  Sicily  exercise  that  jurisdiction,  and  are  in  fact 
popes  within  their  own  territories.  On  this  account  F. 
Sinaon  says  there  are  three  popes  in  Christendom,  viz.  at 
Rome,  in  Sicily,  and  in  England  ;  the  two  last,  however, 
deriving  their  power  from  the  first,  the  kings  of  Sicily  by 
voluntary  concession,  and  the  kings  of  England  by  force.* 

*  Simon  on  Church  Revenues,  p.  116.  Mosheim,  II.  p.  231.  (P.)  Cent.  xi. 
Pt.  i.  Ch.i.  Sect.iii. 

"  Henry's  reformation  altered  the  form,  of  Popery,  but  did  not  remove  the  grand 
principle  of  it,  human  authority  in  matters  of  religion;  the  act  of  supremacy  lodged 
the  same  power  in  the  crown,  that  had  been  vested  in  the  Pope.  In  virtue  of  this 
power  the  king  exercised  ecclesiastical  legislation  and  jurisdiction,  appointed  by 
commission  articles  of  religious  doctrine  and  practice  for  the  nation,  and  supported 
them  by  penal  sanctions. 

"  The  reformers  in  the  reign  of  Edward  VI.  retained  the  doctrine  of  royal  supre- 
macy; they  availed  themselves  of  his  minority  and  youth,  put  out  two  service-books, 
intended  a  third,  and  might  have  put  out  a  thousand  on  the  same  principles;  they 
sacrificed  the  rights  of  all  the  nation  to  a  fancied  prerogative  of  a  boy. 

"  Queen  Elizabeth's  reigning  passion  was  love  of  despotism ;  her  means  of 
taining  it  were  full  of  duplicity,  treachery  and  cruelty :  she  made  religion  an 
engine  of  government,  and  framed  the  English  episcopal  corporation  so  as  to  serve 
her  arbitrary  plan  of  governing.  She  obtained  an  absolute  supremacy  ;  her  bishops 
acted  under  it ;  she  imposed  articles,  ceremonies,  oaths,  penalties,  &c."  R.  Robin- 
son's "  Plan  of  Lectures  on  the  Principles  of  Nonconformity,"  17S1,  pp.  5,  6. 

Camden  having  quoted  the  conciliatory  letter  from  Pius  IV.  to  Elizabeth,  dated 
15  May,  156o,  adds:  "  The  report  goeth,  that  the  Pope  gave  his  faith,  '  that  he 
would  disannul  the  sentence  against  her  mother's  marriage,  as  unjust,  confirm  the 
English  liturgy  by  his  authority,  and  grant  the  use  of  the  sacraments  to  the  English, 
under  both  kinds,  so  as  she  would  join  herself  to  the  Romish  church,  and  acknow- 
ledge the  primacy  of  the  chair  of  Rome ;  yea,  and  that  certain  thousand  crowns 
were  promised  to  those  that  should  procure  the  same."  Elizabeth,  though  little 
solicitous  about  the  Protestant  faith,  was  too  fond  of  her  supremacy  to  become  a 
Papist.  Her  annalist  adds,  that  she  "  still  persisted,  like  herself,  semper  eadem.'" 
See  Camden,  Hist.  p.  47-     Also  supra,  p.  490,  Note. 


OF  THE  AUTHORITY  OF  TRADITION,  &C.  437 


APPENDIX    III. 

TO 

PARTS  X.  AND  XI. 


'     Of  the  Authority  of  Tradition.,  and  of  the  Scriptures^  S(C. 

We  have  seen  the"  pretensions  of  the  popes,  of  councils,  and 
also  of  civil  magistrates,  to  decide  controversies  of  faith.  It 
may  not  be  improper,  in  the  conclusion  of  this  subject,  to 
consider  two  other  authorities,  viz.  those  of  tradition  and  of 
the  Scriptures.  As  the  Jewish  and  Christian  religions  are 
of  divine  origin,  it  behoves  us  to  examine  as  carefully  as  we 
can,  the  channels  by  which  these  divine  communications 
have  been  conveyed  to  us  ;  and  these  can  be  no  other  than 
oral  tradition  or  writing  ;  and  of  these  the  latter  is  certainly 
preferable,  whenever  it  can  be  had,  provided  we  have  suffi- 
cient evidence  that  we  have  the  genuine  writings  of  the 
inspired  prophets  themselves.  But  in  many  cases,  even 
tradition  ouoht  not  to  be  sliohted. 

O  o 

Those  Christians  who  were  not  converted  by  the  apostles 
themselves,  and  who  lived  before  the  publication  of  any  of 
the  canonical  books  of  the  New  Testament,  could  not  have 
had   any  other  foundation  for   their   faith.      We   ourselves 
admit  these  books  to  be  canonical  on  no  other  foundation  ;  and 
by  calling  them  canonical.,  we  mean  no  more  than  that  they 
are  the  genuine  productions  of  those  persons  whose  names 
they  bear,  or  of  the  times  to  which  they  are  usually  ascribed  ; 
and  therefore  they  are  of  themselves  of  no  authoFity,   but  as 
the  most  indisputable  evidence  of  what  it  was  that  Christ 
and  the  apostles  did  teach  and  practise  as  from  God ;  and  it 
cannot  be  made  to  appear  that  the  same  thing  may  not  be 
sufficiently  proved  by  other  means.     We  observe  the  first, 
and  not  the  seventh  day  of  the  week,  as  a  day  of  rest,  con- 
trary to  the  known  custom  of  the  Jews,  which  we  believe  to 
have  been  of  divine  appointment,   upon  no  other  authority'- 
than  that  of  tradition  ;  it  being  supposed  to  have  been  the 
invariable  custom  of  the  church  from  the  time  of  the  apostles, 


438  OF  THE  AUTHORITY  OF  TRADITION, 

and  it  being  impossible  to  account  for  the  origin  of  the 
present  custom,  and  of  its  being  observed  without  the  least 
variation  in  churches  that  differ  in  almost  every  thing  else, 
but  upon  that  supposition.  For  we  do  not  find  in  the  New 
Testament,  any  express  order  of  Christ,  or  of  the  apostles, 
that  such  a  change  should  be  made.  * 

When,  therefore,  we  speak  of  tradition  as  an  improper 
foundation  for  faith  or  practice,  we  must  mean  only  pre- 
tended, or  ill-founded  traditions  ;  such  as  w^ere  alleged  by 
several  of  those  who  were  called  heretics  in  very  early  times, 
or  by  the  church  of  Rome  at  present.  But,  in  this  case,  we 
object  to  the  opinions  and  practices,  not  merely  because  we 
find  no  trace  of  them  in  the  Scriptures,  but  because  we  find 
no  sufficient  authority  for  them  at  all. 

Some  of  the  ancient  heretics  are  said,  by  Austin  and  others, 
to  have  availed  themselves  of  this  source  of  credit ;  laying  great 
stress  on  our  Lord's  saying  to  his  disciples,  that  he  had  many 
things  to  say  to  them  which  they  were  not  able  to  bear  at  the 
time  that  he  was  with  them,  and  pretending  that  the  apostles 
themselves,  besides  preaching  to  all  persons  indiscriminately, 
made  a  reserve  of  some  things  to  be  taught  more  privately,  and 
only  to  a  few.  But  there  does  not  appear  to  have  been  any  suf- 
ficient foundation  for  that  pretence  ;  all  their  teaching  having 
been  public,  and  nothing  concealed  from  any  persons  who 
were  desirous  of  being  instructed.  Much  less  was  there  any 
reason  to  think  that  the  particular  things  which  they  wished 
to  support  by  this  pretence  were  among  the  things  revealed 
to  those  few.  Besides,  our  Lord  himself  seems  to  have 
precluded  every  pretence  of  this  kind,  by  telling  his  apostles, 
that  whatever  they  had  heard  of  him  in  private,  they  should 
proclaim  in  public.     Matt.  x.  27. 

The  church  of  Rome  has  adopted  a  variety  of  customs, 
and  founded  many  claims,  upon  this  authority  of  tradition. 
But  in  what  was  called  the  Catholic  churchy  no  recourse  was 
had  to  tradition,  before  the  second  Council  of  Nice,  in  787, 
in  which  the  worship  of  images  was  established  ;  when  many 
things  had  generally  been  assented  to,  and  practised  before 
that  time,  which  had  no  foundation  in  the  Scriptures,  or  in 
the  reason  of  thinejs.  This  council,  therefore,  expressly- 
anathematized  all  those  who  did  not  receive  ecclesiastical 
traditions,  written  or  unwritten.  But  the  things  which  the 
members  of  this  council  alleged  as  proper  to  be  received  on 
such  authority,  are  exceedingly  foolish  and  absurd. 

*  See,  on  the  observance  of  Srmdai/,  Vol.  II.  pp.  322 — 324,  and  Notes. 


AND   OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.  439 

The  authority  of  the  books  of  the.  New  Testament,  sup- 
posing them  to  be  genuine,  is  the  very  same  with  that  of  the 
apostles  themselves.  But  in  very  early  times,  this  docs  not 
appear  to  have  been  so  great  as  it  came  to  be  afterwards. 
Though  it  was  never  doubted  that  Paul  was  an  inspired 
apostle,  and  received  the  knowledge  he  had  of  the  gospel 
from  Jesus  Christ  himself,  yet  we  find  by  his  own  writings, 
that  there  were  violent  factions  against  him  all  his  life,  and 
that  his  opinions  were  by  no  means  implicitly  received.  He 
himself  is  far  from  insisting  that  every  thing  he  asserted  was 
to  be  received  without  examination.  On  the  contrary,  the 
various  arguments  he  produces  in  support  of  his  assertions, 
without  alleging  any  other  authority  for  them,  shews  that  his 
conclusions  were  drawn  from  the  premises  which  he  alleged, 
and  which  he  submitted  to  the  examination  of  his  readers. 
He  must,  therefore,  have  supposed  that  they  would  think 
themselves  at  liberty  to  judge  for  themselves  ;  and  that,  as  he 
submitted  his  reasoning  to  their  examination,  they  would 
decide  for  or  against  him,  according  as  his  arguments  should 
appear  to  them  conclusive  or  inconclusive. 

When  this  apostle  does  not  reason  at  all,  but  merely  de- 
clares that  he  had  his  information  from  Christ,  we  receive  it 
on  the  credit  of  a  man  whom  we  suppose  to  have  been  neither 
imposed  upon  himself,  nor  to  have  had  any  interest  in  im- 
posing upon  others  ;  and  likewise  of  his  being  a  person  whose 
authority  in  general  was  supported  by  his  power  of  working 
miracles.  Of  this  kind  is  the  account  which  he  gives  us  of 
the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  the  change  that  will  pass 
upon  the  living  subsequent  to  it;  and  also  his  account  of 
the  institution  of  the  Lord's  supper,  &c. 

Nor  was  this  the  case  of  Paul  only,  who  was  j)eculiarly 
obnoxious  to  the  Jews,  on  account  of  his  zeal  in  preachmg 
the  gospel  to  the  Gentiles.  For  Peter  himself,  who  is  called 
the  apostle  of  the  circumcision,  and  who  was  considered  as  the 
very  chief  of  the  apostles,  was  not  more  respected,  whenever 
he  said  or  did  any  thing  that  was  thought  to  be  improper. 
This  appeared  very  clearly  in  the  case  of  Cornelius,  and  in 
the  altercation  that  Paul  had  with  him  at  Antioch. 

On  the  former  of  these  occasions,  when  the  conduct  of 
Peter  was  arraigned,  he  vindicated  himself,  not  by  asserting 
tjiat  what  he  did  was  by  the  express  direction  from  heaven, 
(though  he  was  led  to  what  he  did  by  express  revelations 
made  both  to  himself,  and  also  to  Cornelius,)  but  by  a  simple 
narrative  of  facts,  from  which  they  might  themselves  judge, 
that  what  he  had  done  was  not  without  sufficient  authority. 


440  OF  THE  AUTHORITY  OF  TRADITION, 

And  even  when  all  the  apostles  were  met,  to  consider  of 
what  was  to  be  done  with  respect  to  the  supposed  obligation 
of  the  Gentile  converts  to  observe  the  Jewish  ceremonies, 
they  :^eem  not  to  have  had  any  immediate  inspiration.  For 
they  reasoned  and  deliberated  upon  the  subject ;  which  seems 
to  imply  that  there  was  for  some  time  a  difference  of  opinion 
among  them,  though  they  afterwards  concurred  in  giving  the 
advice  that  they  did,  and  in  which  they  concluded  that  they 
had  the  concurrence  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

But  even  this  decree,  as  it  is  now  generally  called,  which 
had  the  authority,  as  we  may  say,  of  the  whole  college  of 
apostles,  does  not  seem  to  have  been  relished  by  all  Chris- 
tians ;  as  we  may  infer  from  the  enmity  which  the  Jewish 
converts  in  general  bore  to  Paul,  and  from  the  Nazarenes  or 
Jewish  Christians,  never  making  use  of  his  writings.  For 
though  they  were  not  written  in  a  language  which  they 
understood,  it  would  not  have  been  more  difficult  to  procure 
a  translation  of  them,  than  of  the  gospel  of  Matthew,  which 
was  also  probably  written  in  Greek. 

Indeed,  what  is  universally  acknowledged  to  have  been 
the  state  of  the  Jewish  Christians  could  not  have  been  true, 
if  they  had  had  the  same  ideas  that  were  afterwards  enter- 
tained, of  the  constant  inspiration  of  the  apostles  and  evan- 
gelists. A  great  part  of  them  rejected  the  account  of  our 
Lord's  miraculous  conception,  and  though  they  made  use  of 
the  gospel  of  Matthew  in  Hebrew,  they  omitted  the  two  first 
chapters,  in  which  it  is  asserted  ;  not,  as  far  as  appears, 
questioning  their  being  written  by  Matthew,  but  not  think- 
ing the  contents  of  them  sufficiently  well-founded  ;  and  yet 
they  did  not,  on  account  of  this  difference  of  opinion,  cease 
to  communicate  with  one  another.  Nor  does  Justin  Martyr, 
who  mentions  their  opinion  long  afterwards,  pass  any  censure 
upon  them  on  account  of  it.  He  only  says  that  he  cannot 
think  as  they  did  ;  and  what  is  more  remarkable,  he  does  not 
mention  the  authority  of  Matthew  and  Luke,  as  what  was 
decisive  against  them.  These  Jewish  Christians  would  cer- 
tainly have  treated  the  gospel  of  Luke  in  the  same  manner 
as  they  did  that  of  Matthew,  if  they  had  been  acquainted 
with  it,  and  had  thought  proper  to  make  use  of  it  at  all. 

When  the  Jewish  church  was  first  formed,  and  indeed  so 
late  as  the  publication  of  the  gospel,  many  of  the  disciples 
would  think  themselves  as  good  judges  of  the  history  of 
Christ,  as  the  evangelists  themselves.  They  did  not  want 
those  books  for  their  own  use,  and  would  judge  concerning 
the  contents  of  them,  as  they  would  concerning  other  books 


AND  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.  4'H 

which  implied  an  appeal  to  living  witnesses.  That  the  books 
were  generally  received,  and  not  immediately  rejected  by 
those  to  whom  they  were  addressed,  is  a  proof  that  the 
history  which  they  contained  is  in  tiie  main  authentic,  but 
by  no  means  proves  that  every  minute  circumstance  in  them 
is  true.  Indeed,  the  evangelists,  varying  from  one  another 
in  many  particuhirs,  (which  may  be  seen  in  the  Observations 
prefixed  to  my  Harmony  of  the  Gospels,)*  proves  that  they 
wrote  partly  from  tlieir  recollection,  which  might  be  imperfect 
in  things  of  little  consequence,  and  partly  from  the  best 
information  which  they  could  collect  from  other  persons. 

Like  other  credible  historians,  all  the  evangelists  agree  in 
the  main  things,  but  they  ditler  exceedingly  in  the  order  of 
their  narrative,  and  with  respect  to  incidents  of  little  conse- 
quence ;  and  to  contend  for  any  thing  more  than  this  is  in 
effect  to  injure  their  credibility.  If  the  agreement  among 
them  had  been  as  exact  as  some  pretend,  it  would  have 
been  natural  for  the  enemies  of  Christianity  to  have  said, 
that  they  must  have  been  wTitten  by  combination,  and 
therefore  that  the  history  has  not  the  concurrent  testimony  of 
independent  witnesses;  and  if  the  exactness  contended  for 
cannot  be  proved,  the  authority  of  the  whole  must  be 
given  up. 

Besides,  what  would  have  been  the  use  of  appointinec 
twelve  apostles,  or  witnesses  of  the  life  and  resurrection  of 
Christ,  if  their  testimony  was  not  naturally  sufficient  to 
establish  the  credibility  of  the  facts;  and  what  would  have 
signified  even  the  original  inspiration,  unless  all  error  in 
transcribing,  and  translating,  &c.  had  been  prevented,  by 
the  same  miraculous  interposition,  in  all  ages,  and  in  all 
nations  afterwards  ?  Having  written  more  largely  on  this 
subject  in  my  Institutes  of  Natural  and  Revealed  Religion, •|' 
and  also  in  the  Preface  to  my  Harmony  of  the  Gospels,  to 
those  works  I  beg  leave  to  refer  any  readers  with  respect  to 
this  subject.  1  would  also  refer  them  to  what  I  have  written 
under  the  signature  o{ PauUnus^  in  the  Theological Repositori/^ 
in  which  I  think  I  have  shewn,  that  the  apostle  Paul  often  rea- 
sons inconclusively,  and,  therefore,  that  he  wrote  as  any  other 
person,  of  his  turn  of  mind  and  thinking,  and  in  his  situa- 
tion, would  have  written,  without  any  particular  inspiration. 
Facts,  such  as  I  think  I  have  there  alleged,  are  stubborn 
things,  and  all  hypotheses  must  be  accommodated  to  them. 

Not  only  the  Nazarenes.,  but  Christians  of  other  denomi- 

*  Sect.  xi. — xvi.,  also  the  Essavs  in  Theol.  Repos.  Vol.  I[. 
t  See  Vol.  II.  pp.  123—130,  208—21 1. 


442  OF  THE  AUTHORITY  OF  TRADITION, 

nations  also,  rejected  several  of  the  books  of  our  New 
Testament,  and  without  denying  the  authenticity  of  them, 
(for  with  this  they  are  not,  in  general,  chara^ed,)  but  because 
they  did  not  approve  of  their  contents.  Thus  the  Gnostics 
in  general  made  but  little  use  of  the  canonical  books,  and 
pleaded  the  authority  of  tradition,  and  the  Elcesaites^  in  the 
time  of  the  emperor  Philip,*  are  said  to  have  rejected  all  the 
epistles  of  Paul,  though  the  authenticity  of  them  was  never 
questioned. 

When  the  apostles  were  dead,  the  authority  of  their 
writings  would  naturally  rise,  and  appeals  would  be  made 
to  them  when  controversies  arose  in  the  church.  And  this 
natural  and  universal  deference  to  the  opinion  of  the  apostles 
produced,  I  doubt  not,  at  length,  the  opinion  of  their  infal- 
libility. Their  authority  was  also  justly  opposed  to  the 
many  idle  traditions  that  were  pretended  to  by  some  of  the 
early  heretics,  and  to  the  spurious  gospels  that  were  written 
after  the/owr  had  acquired  credit.  Till  that  time  there  could 
be  no  inducement  to  write  others  ;  and  notwithstanding  the 
reception  that  some  of  the  forged  gospels  met  with  in  certain 
places,  they  never  operated  to  the  discredit  of  the  four 
genuine  ones,  (and  indeed  they  were  only  written  as  sup- 
plemental to  them,)  it  appears  that  they  were  easily  distin- 
guished from  the  genuine  gospels,  and  did  not  retain  any 
credit  long.  And  what  we  are  able  to  collect  of  them  at 
this  day  is  enough  to  satisfy  us,  that  they  were  not  rejected 
without  sufficient  reason. 

The  Jews,  in  forming  their  canon  of  sacred  books,  seem 
in  general  to  have  made  it  a  rule  to  comprise  within  their 
code  all  books  written  by  prophets ;  and  therefore  though 
they  had  other  books,  which  they  valued,  and  might  think 
very  useful  in  the  conduct  of  life,  they  never  read  them  in 
their  synagogues.  These  books  were  afterwards  called 
apochryphal,  consisting  of  pieces  of  very  different  character, 
partly  historical  and  partly  moral. 

These  apochryphal  books  were  not  much  used  by  Christians, 
till  they  were  found  to  favour  some  superstitious  opinions 
and  practices,  the  rise  of  which  1  have  already  traced,  and 
especially  the  worship  of  saints.  For  at  the  Council  of 
Laodicea,  in  364,  the  Hebrew  canon  was  adopted.  But  in 
the  third  Council  of  Carthage,  in  397,  the  apochryphal  books 
were  admitted,  as  canonical  and  divine,  and  were  therefore 
allowed   to   be   read  in    public,    especially   Ecclesiasticus, 

*  247.  According  to  Epiphanius,  "  they  received  neither  the  writuigs  ofthe 
prophets  nor  apostles."     Lnrdner,  IX.  p.  513. 


♦AND  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.  443 

Wisdom,  Tobit,  Judith,  and  the  two  books  of  Maccabees. 
The  popes  Innocent,  (xelasius,  and  Horniisdas  confirmed  the 
decrees  of  this  council.* 

The  churcli  having  afterwards  adopted  the  version  of 
Jerome,  which  followed  the  Hebrew  canon,  the  apochryphal 
books  began  to  lose  the  authority  which  they  had  acquired  ; 
and  it  was  never  fully  re-established,  till  the  Council  of 
Florence,  in  14-4-!2  ;  and  it  was  then  done  i)rincipally  to  give 
credit  to  the  doctrine  of  purgatory.  It  was  for  a  similar 
reason  that  the  Council  of  Trent  made  a  decree  to  the  same 
purpose. •]■  Also,  though  before  the  second  Council  of  Nice 
the  Sctiptures  alone  were  considered  as  the  standard  of  faith, 
it  was  then  decreed,  for  the  first  time,  that  they  who  despised 
traditions  should  be  excommunicated.:): 

Notwithstanding  the  apparently  little  foundation  which 
many  of  the  popish  doctrines  have  in  the  Scriptures,  it  was 
very  late  before  any  measures  were  taken  to  prevent  the 
common  people  from  using  them.  Indeed,  in  the  dark  ages, 
there  was  no  occasion  for  any  such  precaution,  few  persons, 
even  among  the  great  and  the  best  educated,  being  able  to 
read  at  all.  The  Sclavonians,  who  were  converted  to  Chris- 
tianity at  the  end  of  the  ninth  century,  petitioned  to  have 
the  service  in  their  own  language,  and  it  was  granted  to 
them.  Pope  John  VIII.  to  vvhom  the  request  was  made, 
thanked  God  that  theSclavonian  character  had  been  invented, 
because  God  would  be  praised  in  that  language.  He  ordered, 
however,  that  the  gospels  should  be  read  in  Latin,  but  that 
afterwards  they  should  be  interpreted  to  the  people,  that 
they  might  understand  them,  as  was  done,  he  says,  in  some 
churches.  § 

But  afterwards,  Wratislas,  king  of  Bohemia,  applying  to 
Gregory  VII.  for  leave  to  celebrate  divine  service  in  the 
same  Sclavonian  tongue,  it  was  absolutely  refused.  For, 
said  this  Pope,  after  considering  of  it,  "  it  appeared  that  God 
chose  that  the  Scripture  should  be  obscure  in  some  places, 
lest  if  it  was  clear  to  all  the  world,  it  should  be  despised, 
and  also  lead  people  into  errors,  being  ill-understood  by  their 

•  Sufur,  A.D.  397.    Basnage,  IIT.  p.  460.     (P.) 

t  Basiiage,  III.  pp.  463,  465.  (P.)  •*  Synodus — statuit  et  decJarat,  iit  hfec  ipsa 
vetiis  el  vulgata  editio — iti  publicis  lectioiiibiis,  disputationibiis,  prsedicationibus,  et 
expositionibus  pro  authentica  habeatur,  et  ut  nemo  illam  rtjicere  quovis  praetextu 
audeat  vol  prjesumat."  Decretum  de  editione  et  iisii  sacrornm  lihrornm.  Sess.  iv. 
1 546-  Con.  Trid.  Can.  et  Decret.  p.  8.  On  Jerome's  Vulf/ate,  see  Geddes's  Prospectus, 
1786,  pp.  44 — 51,  and  Middleton's  Works,  II.  p.  3iJ4. 

t  Basnage,  III.  p.  488.    (P.)  §  Ibid.  p.  471-    (P-) 


444  OF  THE   AUTHORITY  OF  TRADITION, 

ignorance."  This,  says  Fleury,  was  the  beginning  of  such 
prohibitions.* 

The  practice  of  the  church  of  Rome  at  present  is  very 
various.  In  Portugal,  Spain,  Italy,  and  in  general  in  all 
those  countries  in  which  the  Inquisition  is  established,  the 
reading  of  the  Scriptures  is  forbidden.  France  was  divided 
on  this  subject,  the  Jansenists  allowing  it,  and  the  Jesuits 
refusing  it.  For  the  Council  of  Trent  having  declared  the 
vulgate  version  of  the  Bible  to  be  authentic,  the  Jesuits 
maintained,  that  this  was  meant  to  be  a  prohibition  of  any 
other  version. •]* 

After  the  Council  of  Trent,  this  evil  was  much  increased. 
For  the  bishops  assembled  at  Bologna,  by  order  of  Julius  III. 
advised  that  the  reading  of  the  Scriptures  should  be  per- 
mitted as  little  as  possible,  because  the  power  of  the  popes  had 
always  been  the  greatest  when  they  were  least  read ;  alleging 
that  it  was  the  Scriptures  which  had  raised  the  dreadful 
tempest  with  which  the  church  was  almost  sunk,  and  that 
no  person  ought  to  be  permitted  to  know  more  of  them  than 
is  contained  in  the  mass.  His  successor  profited  by  this 
advice,  and  put  the  Bible  into  the  catalogue  oi  prohibited 
books.  X 

The  cardinal  Cusa,  in  order  to  justify  the  condemnation 
of  Wickliffe,  in  the  Council  of  Constance,  said  that  the 
Scriptures  must  be  explained  according  to  the  present  doc- 
trine of  the  church  ;  and  that  when  the  institutions  of  the 
church  change,  the  explication  ofthe  Scripture  should  change 
also;  and  the  Council  of  Trent  has  decided  that  traditions 
ought  to  be  received  with  the  same  respect  as  the  Scriptures, 
because  they  have  the  same  authority.  § 

So  much  were  the  Roman  Catholics  chao-rined  at  the 
advantage  which  Luther,  and  the  other  Reformers,  derived 
from  the  Scriptures,  that,  on  some  occasions,  they  spoke  of 
them  with  so  much  indignation  and  disrespect,  as  is  incon- 
sistent with  the  belief  of  their  authority,  and  of  Christianity 
itself.  Prieras,  master  of  the  sacred  palace,  writing  against 
Luther,  advances  these  two  propositions,  viz.  that  the  Scrip- 
tures derive  all  their  authority  from  the  church  and  the  Pope, 
and  that  indulgences,  being  established  by  the  church  and 
by  the  Pope,  have  a  greater  authority  than  the  Scriptures. 

*  A.D.  1080.    (P.) 

t  Basnage,  III.  p.  468.  (P.)  On  Catholic  Versioiis.  See  Geddes,  pp.  101 — 
lis. 

+   Basnage,  III,  p.  475.    (P.)    See  supra,  p.  \S,  fin.       .   §  Ibid.  p.  489-     (P.) 


AND   OF  THE   SCRI1>TI'RKS.  445 

"  How  (Jo  we  know,"  say  some  of  these  writers,  "  that  the 
books  which  bear  the  name  of  Moses  are  his,  since  we  have 
not  the  originals,  and  if  we  iiad  them,  tlirro  is  no  person  who 
knows  the  hand-writing  of  Moses  ?  Besides,  how  do  we 
know  that  all  that  Moses  has  said  is  trne  ?  Were  the  evan- 
gelists witnesses  of  all  that  they  write  ?  And  if  they  were, 
might  they  not  be  defective  in  memory,  or  even  impose 
upon  us?  Every  man  is  capable  of  deceiving,  and  being 
deceived."* 

All  the  popes,  however,  have  not  shewn  the  same  dread 
of  the  Scriptures.  For  Sixtus  V.  caused  an  Italian  transla- 
tion of  the  Bible  to  be  published,  though  the  zealous^Catholics 
were  much  offended  at  it.f 

So  much  were  the  minds  of  all  men  oppressed  with  a 
reverence  for  antiquity,  and  the  traditions  of  the  church,  at 
the  time  of  the  Reformation,  that  the  Protestants  were  not 
a  little  embarrassed  by  it  in  their  controversy  with  the 
Catholics  ;  many  of  the  errors  and  abuses  of  Popery  being 
discovered  in  the  elarliest  Christian  writers,  after  the  apos- 
tolical age.  But  at  present  all  Protestants  seem  to  entertain 
a  just  opinion  of  such  authority,  and  to  think  with  Chilling- 
worth,  that  the  Bible  alone  is  the  religion  of  Protestants.  We 
may,  however,  be  very  much  embarrassed  by  entertaining 
even  this  opinion  in  its  greatest  rigour,  as  I  have  shewn  in 
the  introduction  to  this  Appendix. 

•  Basnage,  III.  p.  455,  &c.     (P.)  t  Histoire  des  Papes,  V.  p.  80.     (P.) 


446 

THE 

HISTORY 

OF    THE 

©omiptiott^  of  (Eijxi^timit^, 


PART  XII. 

The  History  of  the  Monastic  Life. 

THE 

INTRODUCTION. 


Besides  those  ministers  of  the  Christian  church  whose 
titles  we  meet  with  in  the  New  Testament,  but  whose 
powers  and  prerogatives  have  been  prodigiously  increased 
from  that  time  to  the  present,  we  find  that,  excepting  the 
popes  alone,  no  less  conspicuous  a  figure  was  made  by  other 
orders  of  men,  of  whom  there  is  not  so  much  as  the  least 
mention  in  the  books  of  Scripture,  or  the  writings  of  the 
apostolical  age  ;  I  mean  the  tnonks,  and  religious  orders  of  a 
similar  constitution,  which  have  more  or  less  of  a  religious 
character. 

The  set  of  opinions  which  laid  the  foundation  for  the  whole 
business  of  monkery,  came  originally  from  the  East,  and  had 
been  adopted  by  some  of  the  Greek  philosophers,  especially 
Plato,  viz.  that  the  soul  of  man  is  a  spiritual  substance,  and 
that  its  powers  are  clogged,  and  its  virtues  impeded,  by  its 
connexion  with  the  body.  Hence  they  inferred  that  the 
greatest  perfection  of  mind  is  attained  by  the  extenuation  and 
mortification  of  its  corporeal  incumbrance.  This  notion 
operating  with  the  indolent  and  melancholy  turn  of  many 
persons  in  the  southern  hot  climates  of  Asia,  and  especiall}^ 
of  Egypt,  led  them  to  affect  an  austere  solitary  life,  as 
destitute  as  possible  of  every  thing  that  might  pamper  the 
body,  or  that  is  adapted  to  gratify  those  appetites  and  passions 
which  were  supposed  to  have  their  seat  in  the  flesh.     Hence 


HISTORY   Ol    THE   MONASTIC    LIFE.  447 

arose  the  notion  of  the  greater  purity  and  excellency  of 
celibacy,  as  well  as  a  fondness  for  a  retired  and  unsocial 
life,  which  has  driven  so  many  persons  in  all  ao:es,  from  the 
society  of  tiieir  brethren,  to  live  either  in  absolute  solitude, 
or  with  persons  of  the  same  gloomy  turn  with  themselves. 
It  is  the  same  principle  that  made  Essenes  among  the  Jews, 
monks  among  Christians,  diTviscs  among  Mahometans,  and 
fakirs  among  Hindoos. 

How  apt  Christians  were  to  be  struck  with  the  example 
of  the  Heathens  in  this  respect,  we  see  in  Jerome.,  who 
''  takes  notice  that  '  Paganism  had  many  observances  which, 
to  the  reproach  even  of  Christians,  implied  a  great  strictness 
of  manners  and  discipline.  Juno,*  says  he,  '  has  her 
priestesses,  devoted  to  one  husband,  Vesta  her  perpetual 
virgins,  and  other  idols  their  priests  also,  under  vows  of 
chastity.'"* 

The  persecution  of  Christians  by  the  Heathen  emperors, 
and  consequently  the  more  imminent  hazard  that  attended 
living  in  cities,  especially  with  the  incumbrance  of  families, 
was  another  circumstance  tlvat  contributed  to  drive  many  of 
the  primitive  Christians  into  deserts  and  unfrequented  places. 
The  irruptions  of  the  northern  nations  into  the  Roman  em- 
pire had  an  effect  of  the  same  kind,  making  all  cities  less  safe 
and  comfortable.  Moreover,  when  the  great  persecutions 
were  over,  and  consequently  the  boasted  croicii  of  martt/rdom 
could  not  be  obtained  in  a  regular  way,  many  persons  inflicted 
upon  themselves  a  kind  of  voluntary  martyrdom,  in  aban- 
doning the  world  and  all  the  enjoyments  of  life.  "  Gregory 
Nazianzen,  celebrating  the  absurd  austerities  and  mortifica- 
tions of  the  monks  of  Naziaufsmn,  tells  us  that  some  of  them, 
through  an  excess  of  zeal,  killed  themselves,  to  be  released 
from  the  wicked  world." f  It  is  possible,  however,  that 
they  might  not  directly  kill  themselves,  or  intend  to  do  it, 
but  only  died  in  consequence  of  depriving  themselves  of  the 
usual  comforts  of  life.  It  was  these  austerities,  joined  with 
such  imaginary  revelations^  and  intimate  communications 
with  heaven,  as  have  usually  accompanied  them,  that  was 
the  great  recommendation  of  Montanism.  The  Montanists, 
Tertullian  says,  had  the  same  rule  of  faith,  but  more  fasting 
and  less  marrying,  than  others.  J 

•  Middleton's  Letter,  p.  238.  (P.)  "  Quid  nos  oportet  facere,  in  quorum  con- 
demnationem  habet,  et  Juno  Univiras,  et  Vesta  Virgines,  et  alia  Idola  continentes." 
Hieron.  T.  ix.  Par.  i.  p.  314.  It  Par.  ii.  pp.  15 1  &i.7U.  Middleton,  Works,  III. 
p.  127. 

t  Jortin  s  Remarks,  IIP.  p.  22.     (P.)     Ed.  1305,  II.  p.  l68. 

X  Ue  Jcjuuiis,  C.  i.  Op.   p.  544.     (P.) 


448  HISTORY  OF  THE  MONASTIC  LIFE. 

These  notions  and  these  circumstances  concurring,  parti- 
cular texts  of  Scripture  were  easily  found  that  seemed  to 
countenance  austerities  in  general,  and  celibacy  in  parti- 
cular ;  as  that  saying  of  our  Saviour,  Matt.  xix.  12  :  "There 
are  some — which  have  made  themselves  eunuchs  for  the 
kingd  m  of  heaven's  sake.  He  that  is  able  to  receive  it, 
let  him  receive  it;"  and  Paul's  saying,  1  Cor.  vii.  38  :  "  He 
that  giveth  in  marriage  doeth  vs^ell,  but  he  that  giveth  not  in 
marriage  doeth  better."  Both  these  passages,  however,  pro- 
bably relate  to  the  times  of  persecution,  in  which  it  is  either 
absolutely  necessary  to  abandon  the  satisfaction  of  family 
relations  and  domestic  society,  or  at  least  in  which  it  is  most 
convenient  to  be  free  from  every  attachment  of  that  kind; 
that  when  men  were  persecuted  in  one  city,  they  might, 
with  more  ease,  and  less  distress  of  mind,  flee  to  another. 

But  on  every  other  occasion  marriage  is  spoken  of  in  the 
most  honourable  terms  in  the  Scriptures,  and  is,  indeed, 
necessary  for  the  propagation  of  the  human  species.  Besides, 
Paul  makes  it  a  mark  of  that  man  of  sin,  or  anti christian 
power^  which  was  to  arise  in  the  latter  times,  that  it  was  to 
forbid  to  marry,  as  well  as  to  make  use  of  "  meats,  which  God 
hath  created  to  be  received  with  thanksgiving."  1  Tim.  iv.  3. 
In  fact,  these  two  circumstances  greatly  contribute  to  point 
out  the  church  of  Rome  as  the  principal  scat  of  that  anti- 
christian  corruption,  of  which  so  much  is  said,  and  against 
which  we  are  so  earnestly  cautioned,  in  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament. 

Besides,  men's  passions  are  far  from  being  improved  by 
the  long  continuance  of  this  miserable  and  solitary  state. 
Instead  of  approaching  by  this  means,  as  they  vainly  pre- 
tended, to  the  life  of  angels,  they  rather  sink  themselves  to 
the  condition  of  brutes,  and  some  of  the  most  worthless  or 
savage  kinds.  Also,  living  without  labour  themselves,  (as 
in  time  the  monks  came  to  do)  and  upon  the  labour  of  others, 
and  without  adding  to  the  number  or  strength  of  the  com- 
munity, they  certainly  defeat  the  great  purposes  of  their 
creation,  as  social  beings  ;  and  are  not  only  a  dead  weight 
upon  the  community,  but,  in  many  cases,  a  real  evil  and 
nuisance,  in  those  states  in  which  they  are  established.* 

*  "  Esteeming  it  to  be  evangelical  poverty,  to  feed  upon  the  labours  of  other  men, 
in  beggary  and  idleness;  these  are  they  who,  clad  in  mean  and  vile  habits, — profess 
themselves  to  wear  these  emblems  of  poverty  and  contempt  for  the  sake  of  Christ 
and  religion;  yet  swelling  inwardly  with  amlsition,  and  giving  to  the  chiefs  of  their 

orders  the  most  arrogant  titles I  will  not  deny,  but  there  are  some  pious  and 

devout  men  among  them,  but  the  generality  of  them — deform  and  deface  religion." 
Agrippa  de  Incertitudine,  &c.  1530.  "  Vanity  of  Arts  and  Sciences,"  Ch.  Ixii,  Ou 
Monks,  fin.   1634,  p.  186. 


HISTORY   OF  THE  MONASTIC   LIFE.  449 


SECTION   I. 

Of  the  Monastic  Life^  till  the  Fall  of  the  Western  Empire. 

There  is  always  something  uncertain  and  fabulous  in 
the  antiquities  of  all  societies,  and  it  is  so  in  those  of  the 
monks.  The  monks  themselves  acknowledge  the  first  of 
their  order  to  have  been  one  Faul^  an  Egyptian,  who  in  the 
seventh  persecution,  or  about  the  year  260,  retired  into  a 
private  cave,  where  he  is  said  to  have  lived  m<my  years, 
unseen  by  any  person,  till  one  Anthony  found  him  just 
before  his  death,  put  him  into  his  grave,  and  followed  his 
example. 

This  Anthony,  finding  many  others  disposed  to  adopt  the 
same  mode  of  life,  reduced  them  into  some  kind  of  order; 
and  the  regulations  which  he  made  for  the  monks  of  Egypt 
were  soon  introduced  into  Palestine  and  Syria  by  his  disciple 
Hilarion,  into  Mesopotamia  by  Aones  and  Eugenius,  and 
into  Armenia  by  Eustachius  bishop  of  Sebastia.  "  From 
the  East  this  gloomy  institution  passed  into  the  West ;" 
Basil  carrying  it  into  Greece,  and  Ambrose  into  Italy.  "  St. 
Martin,  the  celebrated  bishop  of  Tours,  erected  the  first 
monasteries  in  Gaul,  and — his  funeral  is  said  to  have  been 
attended  by  no  less  than  two  thousand  monks."  But  the 
western  monks  never  attained  the  severity  of  the  eastern.'* 

The  number  of  these  monks  in  very  early  times  was  so 
great,  as  almost  to  exceed  belief.  Fleury  says,  that  in  Egypt 
alone  they  were  computed,  at  the  end  of  the  fourth  century, 
to  exceed  seventy  thousand,  f  With  this  increasing  number 
many  disorders  were  necessarily  introduced  among  them. 
At  the  end  of  the  fourth  century  the  monks  were  observed 
to  be  very  insolent  and  licentious  ;  and  having  power  with 
the  people,  they  would  sometimes  even  force  criminals  from 
the  hands  of  justice,  as  they  were  going  to  execution.^  In 
the  time  of  Austin  many  real  or  pretended  monks  went 
strolling  about,  as  hawkers  and  pedlars,  selling  bones  and 
relics  of  martyrs. 

The  increase  of  monks  was  much  favoured  by  the  laws 
of  Christian  princes,  and  the  encouraa^emcnt  of  the  popes, 
as  well  as  by  the  strong  recommendation  of  the  most  dis- 
tinguished writers  of  those  times.     "  Justinian  made  a  law 


•  Mosheim,  I.    pp.  306 — 308.     (P.)     Cent.  iv.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  iii.  Sect.  xiii.  \'\v. 
t  Eighth  Discourse,  p.  8.     (P.)  X  Sueiir,  A.  D.  309.     (P.) 

VOL.   v.  2  G 


4iO  HISTORY  OF  THE  MONASTIC   LIFE. 

that  a  son  should  not  be  disinherited  for  entering  into  a  state 
of  monkery  against  his  father's  will ;"  and  Jovian  appointed 
"  that  whosoever  courted  a  nun,  and  enticed  her  to  marriage, 
should  be  put  to  death."  But  this  law,  being  thought  too 
severe,  was  afterwards  mitigated.*  Syricius,  bishop  of 
Rome,  ordered  that  monks  and  virgins  who  married  after 
their  consecration  to  God  should  be  banished  from  their 
monasteries,  and  con6ned  in  private  cells  ;  that  by  their  con- 
tinual tears  they  might  efface  their  crime,  and  become  worthy 
of  communion  before  they  died.  The  same  pope  ordered  that 
bishops  and  priests  who  were  married,  and  had  any  commerce 
with  their  wives,  should  be  degraded  from  their  office,  j- 

The  language  in  which  the  writers  of  those  times  recom- 
mended a  monkish  life  was  sometimes  shocking  and  blas- 
phemous, especially  that  of  Jerome,  who  was  the  greatest 
advocate  for  it  in  his  time.  Writing  to  Eustochium  the  nun, 
he  calls  her  his  ladij,  because  she  was  the  spouse  of  Christ ; 
and  he  reminds  her  mother,  that  she  had  the  honour  to  be 
God's  mother-in-law.  ^ 

Many  women  were  ambitious  of  distinguishing  themselves 
by  some  of  the  peculiarities  of  the  monkish  life  in  these  early 
times,  devoting  themselves,  as  they  imagined,  to  God,  and 
living  in  virginity,  but  at  first  without  forming  themselves 
into  regular  communities.  Jerome  prevailed  upon 'many 
women  in  Rome  to  embrace  this  kind  of  life  ;  but  they  con- 
tinued in  their  own  houses,  from  which  they  even  made 
visits  ;  and  it  appears  by  an  epitaph  which  he  wrote  for 
Marulla^  that  before  her  there  was  no  woman  of  condition  in 
Rome  who  lived  in  this  manner,  the  common  people  of  that 
city  considering  it  as  disreputable,  on  account  of  the  novelty 
of  the  thing.  §  These  early  nuns  were  only  distinguished  by 
wearing  a  veil,  that  was  given  them  by  the  bishop  of  the 
place.  It  was  not  till  the  year  567  that  queen  Radigonda 
founded  the  first  monastery  for  women,  in  France,  which  w  as 
confirmed  by  the  Council  of  Tours.  j| 

No  perfect  uniformity  can  be  expected  in  the  customs  and 
modes  of  living  among  men,  and  least  of  all,  men  whose 
imaginations  were  so  eccentric  as  those  of  the  monks.  Ac- 
cordingly we  find  almost  endless  distinctions  among  them, 
some  choosing  to  live  in  one  manner,  and  some  in  another. 
And  in  later  times  when  they  formed  themselves  into  regular 

*  Jortin's  Remarks,  IV.  pp.  27,38.     (P.)     Ed.    1805,  III.  pp.  12,  l6. 

t  Sueur,  A.  D.  385.     (P.) 

j  Ad  Emtochium,  Ep.  xxii.     Op.  I.  pp.  140,  144.     (P.) 

^  Sueur,  A. -D.  382.     (P.)  ||  Ibid.  A.D.  567-     (PJ 


HISTORY  OF  THE   MONASTIC   LIFE.  451 

societies,  and  laid  themselves  under  an  absolute  engagement 
to  live  according  to  certain  rules,  we  find  above  a  hundred 
kinds  of  them,  who  assumed  ditferent  nanies,  generally  from 
their  respective  founders.  But  these  divisions  and  sub-divi- 
sions were  the  ofl'spring  of  late  ages. 

The  most  early  distinction  among  them  was  only  that  of 
those  who  lived  quite  single  and  independent,  rUKJ  ihose  who 
lived  in  companies.  The  latter  were  called  Ccenobitcs  in  Cireek, 
in  Latin  Monks,  (though  that  term  originally  denoted  an  abso- 
lutely solitary  life,)  and  sometimes  Friars  i'rom  frafres,  freres, 
brethren,  on  account  of  their  living  together  as  brothers,  in 
one  family.  These  had  a  president  called  abbot,  ov  father, 
and  the  place  where  they  lived  was  called  a  monasteri/. 

On  the  other  hand,  those  who  lived  single  were  often 
called  eremites  or  hermits,  and  commonly  freqnented  caves 
and  deserts.  And  some  make  a  farther  distinction  of  these 
into  Anachorites,  whose  manner  of  life  was  still  more  savage, 
living  without  tents  or  clothing,  and  only  upon  roots,  or 
other  spontaneous  productions  of  the  earth.  In  Egypt  some 
were  called  Sarabaites.  These  led  a  wandering  life,  and 
maintained  themselves  chiefly  by  selling  relics,  and  very 
ot\en  by  various  kinds  of  fraud."* 

In  early  times  it  was  not  uncommon  for  persons  to  pass 
from  one  of  these  modes  of  life  to  the  other;  and  in  later 
ages  it  was  sometimes  found  to  be  very  advantageous  to  the 
revenues  of  the  society,  for  the  monks  to  become  hermits  for 
a  time,  retiring  from  the  monastery  with  the  leave  of  the 
abbot.  These  being  much  revered  by  the  people,  often  got 
rich  by  their  alms,  and  then  deposited  their  treasures  in  their 
monasteries,  f 

Persons  who  live  in  Protestant  countries,  or  indeed  in 
Roman  Catholic  countries  at  present,  can  form  no  idea  of 
the  high  respect  and  reverence  with  which  mooks  were 
treated  in  early  times.  They  were  universally  considered  as 
beings  of  a  higher  rank  and  order  than  the  rest  of  mankind, 
and  even  superior  to  the  priests ;  and  wherever  they  went, 
or  could  be  found,  the  people  crowded  to  them,  loading 
them  with  alms,  and  begging  an  interest  in  their  prayers. 
In  this  light,  however,  they  were  regarded  in  general.  For 
some  persons  may  be  found  who  thought  sensibly  in  every 
age,    and  consequently  looked   with   contempt   upon  this 

•  Mosheim,  I.  p.  309-    (P.)     Cent.  iv.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  iii.    Sect  xv. 
t  Simon  on  Church  Revenues,  p.  55.     (P.) 

2  G  -2 


459  HISTORY  OF  THE  MONASTIC   LIFE. 

spurious  kind  of  religion,  and  affectation  of  extraordinary 
sanctity. 

In  the  fourth  century,  wlien  all  christian  countries  swarmed 
with  monks,  we  find  one  who,  though  he  chose  that  mode 
of  life,  was  sensible  of  the  superstitious  notions  that  were 
very  prevalent  with  respect  to  it,  and  strenuously  remon- 
strated against  them.  This  was  Jovinian,  who,  towards  the 
conclusion  of  that  century,  taught,  first  at  Rome,  and  after- 
wards at  Milan,  that  all  who  lived  according  to  the  gospel, 
have  an  equal  title  to  the  rewards  of  heaven  ;  and,  conse- 
quently, that  they  who  passed  their  days  in  unsocial  celibacy, 
and  severe  mortifications,  were  in  no  respect  more  acceptable 
in  the  sight  of  God  than  those  who  lived  virtuously  in  the 
state  of  marriage.  But  these  sensible  opinions  were  con- 
demned, first  by  the  church  of  Rome,  and  afterwards  by 
Ambrose,  bishop  of  Milan,  in  a  council  held  in  the  year  390. 
The  emperor  Honorius  seconded  the  proceedings  of  the 
council,  and  banished  Jovinian  as  a  heretic.  The  famous 
Jerome,  also,  wrote  in  a  very  abusive  manner  against  the 
treatise  of  Jovinian,  in  which  he  maintained  the  above- 
mentioned  opinions. 


SECTION  II. 

The  History  of  the  Monks  after  the  Fall  of  the 
Western  Empire. 

Having  given  the  preceding  account  of  the  origin  and 
nature  of  the  monkish  establishments,  I  proceed,  in  launch- 
ing out  into  the  dark  ages,  to  point  out  the  steps  by  which 
these  monks  attained  that  amazing  power  and  influence  which 
they  acquired  in  the  later  ages,  and  to  note  other  remarkable 
facts  in  their  history,  shewing  both  the  good  and  the  evil 
that  arose  from  their  institution. 

The  primitive  monks,  courting  solitude,  were  equally  ab- 
stracted from  the  affairs  of  the  world  and  those  of  the  church ; 
and  yet,  by  degrees,  a  very  considerable  part  of  the  business 
in  both  departments  came  to  be  done  by  them.  The  prin- 
cipal circumstance  that  favoured  their  advancement,  and 
made  their  introduction  into  public  life  in  a  manner  neces- 
sary, was  the  great  ignorance  of  the  secular  clergy.  For  by 
this  term  the  common  clergy  began  to  be  distinguished,  on 
account  of  their  hving  more  after  the  manner  of  the  world  ; 
while  the  monks,  on  account  of  their  living  according  to  an 


HISTORY  OF  THE  MONASTIC   LIFE.  4.'53 

exact  rule,  got  the  name  of  regulars,  and  religious.  The 
monks  spending  a  great  part  of  their  time  in  contemplation, 
many  of  them  were  induced  to  give  some  attention  to  letters, 
and  soon  attained  a  manifest  superiority  over  the  clergy  in 
that  respect  ;  and  the  christian  church  was  never  without 
great  occasion  for  learned  men. 

Several  heresies,  in  particular,  springing  up  in  the  church, 
and  some  learned  monks  very  ably  opposing  them,  it  was 
found  convenient  to  draw  them  from  their  solitude,  and  to 
settle  them  in  the  suburbs  of  cities,  and  sometimes  in  the 
cities  themselves,  that  they  might  be  useful  to  the  people. 
In  consequence  of  tliis,  many  of  them,  applying  to  study, 
got  into  holy  orders.  This  was  much  complained  of  for 
some  time  ;  but  being  found  useful  to  the  bishops  themselves, 
both  in  spiritual  and  temporal  affairs,  those  bishops  who 
were  fond  of  a  numerous  clergy,  and  wanted  fit  men  to  carry 
on  their  schemes,  gave  them  considerable  offices  ;  not  ima- 
gining that  they  were  encouraging  a  set  of  men  who  would 
afterwards  supplant  them  in  their  dignities  and  revenues.* 

Originally  the  monks,  being  subject  to  the  bishops,  could 
do  nothing  without  their  consent.  They  could  not  even 
choose  their  own  abbot.  Hut  the  election  of  an  abbot  being 
sometimes  appointed  by  their  institutions  to  be  made  by  the 
monks  of  the  community,  they  first  obtained  from  the 
bishops  the  power  of  choosing  their  abbot,  according  to  the 
tenor  of  their  constitutions.  Afterwards  they  sometimes  got 
from  the  bishops  exemptions  from  episcopal  jurisdiction. 
But  when  the  popes  got  the  power  of  granting  such  exemp- 
tions, they  commonly  gave,  or  sold,  to  the  monks  as  many 
of  them  as  they  pleased,  so  that  their  power  grew  with  that 
of  the  popes. f 

In  the  seventh  century,  pope  Zacharias  granted  to  the 
monastery  of  Mount  Cassin  an  exemption  from  all  episcopal 
jurisdiction,  so  that  it  was  subject  to  the  Pope  only.  Similar 
exemptions  had  been  obtained  in  the  preceding  century, 
but  they  were  very  rare.  In  time  they  came  to  be  universal, 
and  were  even  extended  to  the  chapters  of  regular  cathedrals. 
In  return  for  those  privileges,  the  monks  were  distinguished 
by  a  boundless  devotion  to  the  see  of  Kome.  These  abuseg 
were  checked,  but  not  effectually,  by  the  Councils  of  Con- 
stance and  Trent. J 

The  first  introduction  of  monks  into  holy  orders,  was  by 
the  permission  wliich  they  obtained  to  have  priests  of  their 

•  Simon  on  Church  Revenues,  p.  35.    (P.)  t  Ibid.  p.  66.    (P.) 

X  Anfcdotcs,  pp.  «98,  303.     (P.) 


4o4  HISTORY  OF  THE  MONASTIC  LIFE. 

own  body,  for  the  purpose  of  officiating  in  their  monasteries, 
to  which  there  could  be  no  great  objection  ;  it  being  for  the 
convenience  of  the  secular  priests  themselves,  as  well  as  of 
the  monastery  ;  and  especially  as,  with  respect  to  qualifica- 
tion for  the  ottice,  they  were  superior  to  the  priests  themselves. 
The  first  privilege  they  obtained  of  this  kind  was  from 
Boniface  111.;  but  their  ecclesiastical  power  was  completed, 
and  made  equal  to  that  of  the  other  clergy,  by  i3oniface  IV. 
in  606.  They  could  then  preach,  baptize,  hear  confessions, 
absolve,  and  do  every  thing  that  any  priest  could  do.  Upon 
this  the  monks  began  to  be,  in  a  great  measure,  independent 
of  the  bishops,  refusing  to  submit  to  their  orders,  on  the 
pretence  that  they  were  contrary  to  their  rules  of  discipline, 
and  always  appealing  to  the  popes,  who  were  sure  to  decide 
in  their  favour. 

The  monks,  besides  theology,  studied  likewise  the  canon 
and  civil  lavvs,  and  also  medicine  ;  studies  which  they  began 
through  charity,  but  which  they  continued  for  interest. 
They  were  therefore  forbidden  by  Innocent  II.,  in  1131,  to 
study  either  civil  law  or  medicine.  But  in  the  beginning  of 
the  following  century  they  were  allowed  to  be  advocates  for 
the  regulars.  These  things,  says  Fleury,  brought  them  too 
much  into  the  world.* 

The  clerg}'^  were  soon  aware  of  the  encroachments  of  the 
monks,  borh  upon  their  spiritual  power  and  upon  their  reve- 
nues. But  the  tide  of  popularity  was  so  strongly  in  their 
favour,  that  all  attempts  to  withstand  it  were  in  vain.  At 
the  Council  of  Chalcedon  it  was  ordered  that  the  monks 
should  be  wholly  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  bishops,  and 
meddle  with  no  affairs,  civil  or  ecclesiastical,  without  their 
permission.  But  this,  and  all  other  regulations  for  the  same 
purpose,  availed  nothing,  both  the  popes  and  the  rich  laity 
favouring  the  monks.  When  Gregory  VII.  made  a  law  to 
compel  laymen  to  restore  whatever  had  been  in  the  posses- 
sion of  the  church,  such  restitutions  were  generally  made 
either  to  the  cathedral  churches,  where  the  clergy  conformed 
to  a  regular  monastic  life,  or  to  the  monasteries,  and  seldom 
to  those  parish  churches  to  which  the  estates  had  originally 
belonged. f 

In  later  times  the  endowments  of  monasteries  were  equal, 
if  not  superior,  to  those  of  the  churches  ;  and  the  influence 
of  the  monks  with  the  popes  and  the  temporal  princes  being 
generally  superior  to,  that  of  the  clergy,  they  used,  in  many 

*  Eighth  Discourse,  p.  17-   (P.)        f  Simon  on  Church  Revenues,  p.  67.  (P.) 


HISTORY  OF  THE  MONASTIC    LIFE.  ^55 

places,  to  claim  the  tilhes  and  other  church  dues.  When 
churches  depended  u|)on  monasteries,  they  appointed  monks 
to  offici;ite  in  them,  and  appropriated  the  tithes  to  the  use  of 
the  monastery.  Also  bishops  were  often  gained  by  the  monks 
to  suffer  them  to  put  vicars  or  curates  into  churches,  which 
they  i)retende(l  to  depend  upon  monasteiies  ;  *  and  in  other 
respects,  also,  they  encroached  upon  the  rights  of  the  clergy. 

The  monks  having  taken  advantage  of  the  ignorance  of 
the  secular  priests,  and  having  got  the  government  of  many 
churches  committed  to  them,  it  was  not  easy  to  turn  them 
out  and  re-establish  the  secular  clergy  in  their  places  ;  and 
on  this  account  there  happened  the  greatest  contests  between 
the  canons  and  the  monks,  especially  in  England,  where  the 
monks  had  deprived  the  canons  of  their  canonships,  and 
even  obliged  the  secular  priests  to  turn  monks,  if  they  would 
enjoy  their  benefices.  All  the  archbishops  of  Canterburv 
had  been  monks  from  the  time  of  that  Austin  whom  Gregory 
sent  into  England,  to  the  reign  of  Henry  I.  But,  at  length, 
all  the  bishops  in  England  declared,  that  they  would  have 
no  monk  for  their  primate  ;  and  by  degrees  they  began  to  take 
the  government  of  the  church  into  their  own  hands. f 

In  the  ninth  century  many  monks  were  taken  from  the 
monasteries,  and  even  placed  at  the  head  of  armies  ;  and 
monks  and  abbots  frequently  discharged  the  functions  of 
ambassadors  and  ministers  of  state.  For,  upon  the  very 
same  account  that  the  clergy  in  general  were  better  qualified 
for  these  offices  than  laymen,  viz.  in  point  of  learn in<T  and 
address,  the  regular  clergy  had  the  advantage  of  the  secular. 

The  monks,  and  especially  the  mendicant  orders,  assumed 
so  much,  and  got  so  much  power,  both  spiritual  and  tem- 
poral, into  their  hands,  some  time  before  the  Reformation, 
that  all  the  bishops,  clergy,  and  universities  in  Europe,  were 
engaged  in  a  violent  opposition  to  them.  And  it  was  in  this 
quarrel  that  the  famous  Wickliffe  first  distinguished  himself, 
in  1360  ;  and  from  thence  he  proceeded  to  attack  the  ponti- 
fical power  itself. 

Before  the  sixth  century  there  was  no  distinction  of  orders 
among  monks,  but  a  monk  in  one  place  was  received  as  a 
monk  in  any  other.  But  afterwards  they  subdivided  them- 
selves into  societies,  altogether  distinct  from  one  another; 
and  so  far  were  they  from  considering  all  monks  as  friends 
and  brothers,  that  they  often  entertained  the  most  violent 
enmity  against  each  other;   especially  those   who  formed 

•  Simoo  on  Church  Revenues,  p.  67.    (P.)  t  lb>«l.  p.  74.    (P.) 


456  HISTORY  OF  THE  MONASTIC   LIFE. 

themselves  on  the  same  general  plan,  and  afterwards  divided 
from  them  on  some  trifling  difference  in  customs  or  habits. 

This  distinction  of  orders  began  with  Benedict  of  Nursia, 
who  in  6-29  instituted  a  new  order  of  monks,  which  presently 
made  a  most  rapid  progress  in  the  West;  being  particularly- 
favoured  by  the  church  of  Rome,  to  the  interest  of  which  it 
was  greatly  devoted.  In  the  ninth  century  this  order  had 
swallowed  up  all  the  other  denominations  of  monks.* 

Notwithstanding  the  extreme  profligacy  of  the  fnanners 
of  many  of  these  monks,  their  number  and  reputation  would 
hardly  be  credible,  but  that  the  most  authentic  history  bears 
testimony  to  it.  What  the  number  of  them  was  in  Egypt, 
at  a  very  early  period,  has  been  mentioned  already.  Pre- 
sently afterwards,  viz.  in  the  fifth  century,  the  monks  are 
said  to  have  been  so  numerous,  that  large  armies  might  have 
been  raised  out  of  them,  without  any  sensible  diminution  of 
their  body.  And  yet  this  was  not  to  be  compared  to  their 
numbers  in  later  ages;  and  almost  every  century  produced 
new  species  of  them,  and  no  age  abounded  more  with  them 
than  that  which  immediately  preceded  the  Reformation. •]• 

In  the  seventh  century  the  heads  of  rich  families  were 
fond  of  devoting  their  children  to  this  mode  of  life;  and 
those  who  had  lived  profligate  lives  generally  made  this  their 
last  refuge,  and  then  left  their  estates  to  the  monasteries. 
This  was  deemed  sufficient  to  cancel  all  sorts  of  crimes, 
and  therefore  the  embracing  of  this  way  of  life  was  sometimes 
termed  a  second  baptism. 

In  the  eighth  and  ninth  centuries,  counts,  dukes,  and 
even  kings,  abandoned  their  honours,  and  shut  themselves 
up  in  monasteries,  under  the  notion  of  devoting  themselves 
entirely  to  God.  Several  examples  of  this  fanatical  extra- 
vagance were  exhibited  in  Italy,  France,  Germany,  Spain 
and  England.  And  others,  repenting  that  they  had  not  done 
this  in  time,  put  on  the  monastic  habit  on  the  approach  of 
death,  and  chose  to  be  buried  in  it,  that  they  might  be  con- 
sidered as  of  the  fraternity,  and  consequently  have  the 
benefit  of  the  prayers  of  that  order. 

This  most  abject  superstition  continued  to  the  fifteenth 
century.  For  even  then  we  find  "  many  made  it  an  essential 
part  of  their  last  wills,  that  their  carcasses,  after  death,  should 
be  wrapped  in  old  ragged  Dominican  or  Franciscan  habits, 
and  interred  among  the  Mendicants.":}: 

♦  Mosheim,  I.  pp.  446—449-    (P)     Cent.  vi.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  ii.  Sect,  v — vii. 
t  Ibid.  III.  pp.  446,  447.    (P.)     Cent.  xvi.  Sect.  iii.  Pt.  i.  Ch.  i.  xviii. 
X  Ibid.  III.  p.  164.    {P.)    Cent  xiv.  Pt,  ii.  Ch.  ii.  Sect.  xvii. 


HISTORY  OF  THE   MONASTIC   LIFE.  457 

It  is  said,  that  in  all  the  centuries  of  Christianity  together, 
there  were  not  so  nmany  foundations  of  monasteries,  both  for 
men  and  women,  or  so  rich  and  famous,  as  those  of  the 
seventii  and  eighth  centuries,  especially  in  France.*  And 
when  monasteries  were  so  much  increased,  we  are  not  sur- 
prised to  find  complaints  of  the  want  of  good  discipline 
among  them.  Accordingly,  in  the  ninth  century,  the  morals 
of  the  monks  were  so  bad,  that  some  reformation  was  abso- 
lutely necessary;  and  this  was  attempted  by  Benedict,  abbot 
ofAfiianc,  at  the  instance  of  Lewis  the  Meek.  He  first 
reformed  the  monasteries  oi/]quitaine,  and  then  those  of  all 
France,  reducing  "  all  the  monks,  without  exception,  to  the 
rule  of  the  famous  Benedict,  abbot  of  Mount  Cassin."  This 
discipline  continued  in  force  a  certain  time,  but  the  effect 
of  it  was  extinct  in  less  than  a  century.  The  same  emperor 
also  favoured  "  the  order  of  Canons,"  and  "  distributed  them 
through  all  the  provinces  of  his  empire."  He  "  instituted 
also  an  order  of  Canonesses,  which,"  Mosheim  says,  "  was 
the  first  female  convent  known  in  the  Christian  world. "f 

In  the  tenth  century  the  monkish  discipline,  which  had 
been  greatly  decayed,  was  again  revived  in  some  measure 
by  the  authority  of  Odo,  bishop  of  Clugny,  whose  rules  were 
adopted  by  all  the  western  kingdoms  in  Christendom.  Thus 
we  find  successive  periods  of  reformation  in  the  discipline  of 
monasteries.  But  no  sooner  were  the  new  and  more  austere 
kinds  of  monks  established,  and  got  rich,  than  they  became 
as  dissolute  as  their  predecessors,  which  called  for  another 
revolution  in  their  affiirs  ;  and  these  successive  periods  of 
rigour  and  of  dissoluteness  continued  quite  down  to  the 
Reformation. 

One  of  the  first  great  causes  of  this  relaxation  of  discipline 
in  the  monasteries,  was  the  invasion  of  the  Normans,  whose 
ravages  fell  chiefly  upon  the  monasteries.  For  upon  this, 
the  monks  being  dispersed,  and  assembling  where  and  how 
they  could,  the  observance  of  their  rules  was  impossible, 
and  many  irregularities  were  introduced.  Somethino:  of  the 
same  kind  was  theconsequenceof  the  great  plague  in  Europe, 
in  1348,  when  many  of  the  monks  died,  and  the  remainder 
dispersed;  and  having  lived  for  some  time  without  any  regard 
to  their  rules,  they  could  not  without  difficulty  be  brought 
to  them  again. 

A  more  general  cause  of  the  relaxation  of  discipline  among 

•  Sueur,  A.D.  720,    (P.) 

t  Mosheim,  II.  pp.  129,  130.    (P.)     Cent.  ix.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  ii.  Sect.  xi.  .\ii. 


458  HISTORY  OF  THE  MONASTIC   LIFE. 

all  the  orders  of  the  monks,  as  Bernard  observed,  was  their 
exemption  from  episcopal  jurisdiction.* 

Another  cause  of  the  relaxation  of  their  discipline,  was 
the  multiplication  of  prayers  and  singing  of  psalms;  for 
they  had  added  many  to  those  prescribed  by  Benedict. 
This,  says  1^'leury,  left  them  no  time  for  labour,  of  which 
Benedict  h;id  ordered  seven  hours  every  day.  This  con- 
tempt of  bodily  labour  was  introduced  by  the  northern  na- 
tions, who  were  addicted  to  hunting  and  war,  but  despised 
agriculture  and  the  arts.f  Mental  prayer,  he  adds,  has  been 
much  boasted  of  by  the  monks  for  the  last  five  hundred  years. 
It  is,  says  he,  an  idle  and  equivocal  exercise,  and  produced 
at  length  the  error  of  the  Beghards  and  Beguines,  which  was 
condemned  at  the  Councils  ol  Vienna.^  I  he  original  monks, 
he  says,  were  a  very  different  kind  of  men,  and  their  disci- 
pline much  more  proper  to  produce  a  real  mortification  to 
the  world,  and  to  suppress  inordinate  affections.  Theirs 
was  a  life  of  contemplation  and  labour,  by  which  they 
chiefly  supported  themselves.  The  ancient  monks  had  no 
hair  cloths,  or  chains,  and  there  was  no  mention  of  discipline 
or  fliia:ellation  among  them.§ 

Bodily  labour,  this  writer  observes,  was  likewise  excluded 
by  the  introduction  oi lay-brothers  into  monasteries,  and  this 
was  another  means  of  the  corruption  of  their  manners,  the 
monks  being  the  masters,  and  the  lay-brothers  being  consi- 
dered as  slaves,  and  an  order  of  persons  much  below  them, 
and  subservient  to  them.  John  Gualbert  was  the  first  who 
instituted  lay-brothers,  in  his  monastery  of  Valombrose, 
founded  about  1040.  To  those  lay-brothers  were  prescribed 
a  certain  number  of  pater  nosters,  at  each  of  their  canonical 
hours  ;  and  that  they  might  acquit  themselves  of  this  duty 
without  any  omission  or  mistake,  they  carried  grains  of 
cbm,  or  strings,  whence  came  the  use  of  chaplets.  The 
same  distinction,  he  says,  was  afterwards  carried  into  nun- 
neries, though  there  was  no  pretence  for  it.  \\ 

The  monastic  orders  being  almost  all  wealthy  and  disso- 
lute in  the  thirteenth  century,  the  mendicant  or  begging 
friars,  who  absolutely  disclaimed  all  property,  were  then 
established  by  Innocent  III.  and  patronized  by  succeeding 
pontiffs.  These  increased  so  amazingly,  that  they  became 
a  burthen  both  to  the  people  and  to  the  church  itself;  and 

•  Fleury's  Eighth  Discourse,  p.  37.    (P)  t  Ibid,  p.  13.    (P.) 

t  Ibid.  pp.  44,  45.    (P.)  §  Ibid.  p.  6.    (P.)  ||  Ibid.  p.  16.    (P). 


HISTORY   OF  THE  MONASTIC   LIFE.  459 

ai  length  they  were  the  occasion  of  much  greater  disorders 
than  those  whicli  they  were  introduced  to  redress. 

There  is  a  remarkable  resemblance,  as  Middleton  observes, 
between  these  mendicant  friars,  and  the  mendicant  priests 
among  the  PiJgans.  "  'I  he  lazy  mendicant  priests  among  the 
Heathens,"  he  says,  "  who  used  to  travel  from  house  to  house 
with  sacks  on  their  backs,  and,  from  an  opinion  of  their 
sanctity,  raise  large  contributions  of  money,  &c.  for  the  sup- 
port of  their  fruterniti/"  were  "  the  very  pictures  of  the 
begging  friars,  who  are  always  about  the  street  in  the  same 
habit,  and  on  the  same  errand,  and  never  fail  to  carry  home 
with  them  a  good  sack  full  of  provisions  for  the  use  of  their 
convent."* 

Notwithstanding  these  disorders,  it  must  be  acknowledged 
that  the  mendicant  friars  were  instituted  with  the  very  best 
intention,  and  that  they  had  for  a  considerable  time  a  very 
good  effect.  St.  Francis,  the  founder  of  this  order,  thought 
his  institute,  by  which  he  forbade  his  monks  the  use  of  gold, 
silver,  or  any  kind  of  property,  the  pure  gospel  ;  and  it  was 
of  use,  as  Fleury  observes,  in  a  very  corrupt  age,  to  recall 
the  idea  of  chaiity  and  simple  Christianity,  and  to  supply 
the  defect  of  ordinary  pastors,  the  greater  part  of  whom  were 
then  ignorant  or  negligent,  and  many  corrupt  and  scanda- 
lous.f 

The  monks  of  the  ancient  religious  orders  fell  into  great 
contempt  after  the  introduction  of  the  Mendicants,  who 
filled  the  chairs  in  schools  and  churches,  and  by  their  labours 
supplied  the  negligence  and  incapacity  of  the  priests  and 
other  pastors.  But  this  contempt  excited  the  emulation  of 
the  other  orders,  and  made  them  apply  to  matters  of  litera- 
ture.:{: 

Afterwards,  the  mendicant  friars,  on  the  pretence  o^ charity, 
meddled  with  all  affairs,  public  and  private.  They  under- 
took the  execution  of  wills,  and  they  even  accepted  of 
deputations  to  negociate  peace  between  cities  and  princes. 
The  popes  fre()uently  employed  them,  as  persons  entirely 
devoted  to  them,  and  who  travelled  at  a  small  expense ;  and 
sometimes  they  made  use  of  them  in  raising  money.  But 
what  diverted  them  the  most  from  their  proper  profession 
was  the   business  of  the   Inquisition.      By  undertaking  to 

•  Middleton's  Letter,  p.  220.  (P.)  Works,  III.  pp.  1  l6,  1 17-  "  Dp  ( es  moines 
d'entre  les  Payens,  Icsr  uns  etoient  rentez — les  autres  etoimt  niandians  comme  les 
religieux  rle  la  grande-mere  des  dieux,  qui  '  allaiis  par  les  carrefours  et  par  Its  ruc«,' 
comme  dit  S.  A  ugxistin, '  exigeoient  du  peuple  ce  dequoi  ils  vivoieiit  tionteusement.' " 
Les  Conform,  p.  41. 

t  Fleury's  Eighth  Dttcourse,  p.  21.    (P.)  J  Ibid.  p.  S«.    (P.) 


460  HISTORY  OF  THE  MONASTIC   LIFE. 

manage  this  court,  they  were  transformed  into  magistrates, 
with  guards  and  treasures  at  their  disposal,  and  became 
terrible  to  every  body.  * 

During  three  centuries  the  two  fraternities  of  Mendicants, 
the  Dominicans  and  the  Franciscans,  governed,  with  an 
almost  universal  and  absolute  sway,  both  church  and  state, 
and  maintained  the  prerogative  of  the  Roman  pontiff,  against 
kings,  bishops  and  heretics,  with  incredible  ardour  and 
success.  They  were  in  those  times  what  the  Jesuits  were 
afterwards,  the  life  and  soul  of  the  whole  hierarchy.  Among 
other  prerogatives,  the  popes  empowered  them  to  preach, 
to  hear  confessions,  and  to  pronounce  absolutions,  without 
any  licence  from  the  bishops,  and  even  without  consulting 
them.  The  Franciscans  had  the  chief  management  of  the 
sale  of  indulgences,  and  the  Dominicans  directed  the 
Inquisition. 

The  amazing  credit  of  religious  orders  in  general,  and  the 
reputation  of  their  founders,  made  many  persons  ambitious 
of  distinguishing  themselves  in  the  same  way;  and  though 
the  Council  of  Lateran,  in  1215,  forbade  the  introduction  of 
any  more  new  religions,  as  they  were  called,  the  decree,  as 
Fleury  says,  was  ill  observed:  for  more  were  established 
in  the  two  centuries  following,  than  in  all  the  preceding,  f 

Besides  the  monks  and  regulars,  there  is  another  sort  of 
religious  persons  who,  according  to  their  institution,  bear 
the  name  of  St.  John  of  Jerusalem,  from  whom  are  de- 
scended the  knights  of  Malta  ;  and  similar  to  them  were 
the  knights  Templars,  and  the  knights  of  the  Teutonic 
order.  These  orders  had  their  origin  in  the  time  of  the 
crusades,  and  their  first  object  was  to  take  care  of  the  sick 
and  wounded,  and  afterwards  to  defend  ttiem.  But  they 
distinguished  themselves  so  much  in  their  military  capacity, 
that  the  order  was  soon  filled  with  men  of  a  military  turn, 
and  at  length  they  were  most  depended  upon  for  any  mili- 
tary service.  Thus,  from  their  undertaking  the  defence  of 
their  hospital,  they  undertook  the  defence  of  the  Holy 
Land,  and  by  degrees  that  of  other  Christian  countries 
against  all  Mahometan  powers.  The  knights  of  St.  John 
were  established  in  1090,  and  being  driven  from  the  Holy 
Land,  they  retired  to  Cyprus,  then  to  Rhodes,  and  they 
are  now  settled  at  Malta. 

The  knights  templars  were  established  in  1118,  taking  their 
name  from  their  first  house,  which  stood  near  the  temple 

•  Fleury's  Eighth  Discourse,  p.  27-    (-P-)  t  Ibid.  p.  20.   (P.) 


HISTORY   OF  THE  MONASTIC   LIFE.  461 

in  Jerusalem.  Tliis  order  s^revv  very  rich  and  powerful, 
but  withal  so  exceedingly  vicious,  and  it  is  said  atlieistical, 
that,  becoming  obnoxious  in  Franco,  Italy  and  Spain,  the 
Pope  was  compelled  to  abolish  the  order  in  Id  12. 

Other  orders  of  knighthood,  u'nch  had  something  of 
religion  in  their  institution,  were  formed  in  several  parts  of 
Europe,  whence  arose  what  are  called  Commanderies^  which 
were  originally  the  office  of  taking  care  of  the  revenues 
belonging  to  the  military  orders,  in  distant  places.  The 
members  of  some  of  these  orders  may  marry,  and  yet  enjoy, 
under  the  title  of  Commanders^  the  church  lands  that  are 
appropriated  to  their  order.  Philip  II.  of  Spain  was,  in  this 
sense,  the  greatest  prelate  in  the  church,  next  to  the  Pope; 
because  he  was  the  great  master  of  the  three  military  orders 
of  Spain,  and  enjoyed  a  good  part  of  the  tithe  of  the  church 
within  his  territories.  The  king  of  Spain,  F.  Simon  says, 
may  always  be  the  richest  beneficiary  in  his  kingdom  ;  and 
by  appropriating  to  his  own  use  the  revenues  of  his  com- 
manderies  alone,  may  have  enough  to  live  like  a  king.* 

It  may  not  be  improper  to  add,  in  this  place,  that  after 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  many  of  the  Latins  remained 
still  in  Syria,  and  retreating  into  the  recesses  of  mount 
Libanus,  lived  in  a  savage  manner,  and  by  degrees  lost  all 
sense  both  of  religion  and  humanity,  f 

The  last  order  of  a  religious  kind,  of  which  I  think  it  of 
any  consequence  to  give  an  account,  is  that  of  the  Jesuits, 
which  was  instituted  by  Ignatius  Loyola,  and  confirmed  by 
the  Pope,  with  a  view  to  heal  the  wounds  which  the  church 
of  Rome  had  received  by  the  Reformation,  and  to  supply 
the  place  of  the  monks,  and  especially  that  of  the  men- 
dicants, who  were  then  sunk  into  contempt.  The  Jesuits 
held  a  middle  rank  between  the  monks  and  the  secular 
clergy,  and  approached  pretty  nearly  to  the  regular  canons. 
They  all  took  an  oath,  by  which  they  bound  themselves  to 
go,  without  deliberation  or  delay,  wherever  the  Pope  should 
think  fit  to  send  them.  The  secrets  of  this  society  were  not 
known  to  all  the  Jesuits,  nor  even  to  all  those  wiio  were 
C2\\ed.professed  members,  and  were  distinguished  from  those 
who  were  called  scholars,  but  only  to  a  few  o(  the  oldest  of 
them,  and  those  who  were  approved  by  long  experience. 
The  court  and  church  of  Rome  derived  more  assistance 
from  this  single  order,  than  from  all  their  other  emissaries 
and  ministers,  by  their  application  to  learning,  engaging  in 

•  On  Church  Revenues,  p.  234.     [P")  t  Mosheim.     {P.) 


462  HISTORY  OF  THE  MONASTIC  LIFE. 

controversy,  and  preaching  in  distant  countries,  but  more 
especially  by  their  consummate  skill  in  civil  transactions, 
and  getting  to  themselves  almost  the  whole  business  of  the 
Confessors  to  crowned  heads,  and  persons  of  eminence  in  the 
state;  a  business  which  had  before  been  engrossed  by  the 
Dominicans. 

The  moral  maxims  of  this  society  were  so  dangerous,  and 
so  obnoxious  to  the  temporal  princes,  (added  to  the  temp- 
tation of  the  wealth  of  which  they  were  possessed,)  that 
being  charged  with  many  intrigues  and  crimes  of  state,  they 
were  banished,  and  had  their  effects  confiscated,  first  in 
Portugal,  then  in  Spain,  and  afterwards  in  France;  and  at 
length  the  Pope  was  obliged  to  abolish  the  whole  order.* 

I  shall  conclude  this  article  with  some  particulars  that 
lead  us  to  think  unfavourably,  and  others  that  may  incline 
us  to  think  more  favourably  of  monks  in  general. 

The  religious  orders  in  general  have  been  the  great  sup- 
port of  the  papal  power,  and  of  all  the  superstitions  of  the 
church  of  Rome,  in  all  ages.  The  worship  of  saints,  and 
the  superstitious  veneration  for  relics,  were  chiefly  promoted 
by  their  assiduity,  in  proclaiming  their  virtues  every  where, 
and  publishing  accounts  of  miracles  wrought  by  them,  and 
of  revelations  in  their  favour.  They  were  also  the  great 
venders  of  indulgences,  the  founders  of  the  Inquisition,  and 
the  great  instrument  of  the  Papal  persecutions.  The  licen- 
tiousness of  the  monks  was  become  proverbial  so  early  as 
the  fifth  century,  and  they  are  said,  in  those  times,  to  have 
excited  tumults  and  seditions  in  various  places. 

In  some  periods  the  monks,  having  an  unlimited  licence 

•  See  "An  Account  of  the  Destruction  ofthe  Jesuits  in  France,  by  M.D'AJembert." 
1766.  The  following  character  of  the  o>der,  and  remarkable  anticipation  of  their 
fall,  is  in  a  sermon  by  Browne,  Archbishop  of  Dublin,  preached  in  1551  : — "  There 
are  a  new  fraternity  of  late  sprung  up,  who  call  themselves  Jesuits,  which  will 
deceive  many,  who  are  much  after  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees'  manner  amongst  thte 
Jeics.  They  shall  strive  to  abolish  the  truth,  and  shall  come  very  near  to  do  it ; 
for  these  sorts  will  turn  themselves  into  several  forms;  with  the  Heathen,  an 
Heathenist;  with  Atheists,  an  Atheist;  with  the  Jews,  a  Jew;  and  with  the 
Reformers,  a  Reformade,  purposely  to  know  your  intentions,  your  minds,  your 
hearts,  and  your  inclinations ;  and  thereby  bring  you  at  last  to  be  like  the  fool, 
that  said  in  his  heart,  there  was  no  God. 

"  These  shall  spread  over  the  whole  world,  shall  be  admitted  into  the  conncii 
of  princes,  and  they  never  the  wiser;  charming  of  them,  yea,  making  your  princes 
reveal  their  hearts,  and  the  secrets  therein  unto  them,  and  yet  they  not  perceive  it : 
which  will  happen  from  falling  from  the  law  of  God,  by  neglect  of  fulfilling  of  the 
law  of  God,  and  by  winking  at  their  sins.  Yet  in  the  end  God,  to  justify  his  law, 
shall  suddenly  cut  off  this  society,  even  by  the  hands  of  those  who  have  most 
succoured  them,  and  made  use  of  them ;  so  that  at  the  end  they  shall  become 
odious  to  all  nations:  they  shall  be  worse  than  Jews,  having  no  resting-place  upon 
the  earth,  and  then  shall  a  Jew  have  more  favour  than  a  Jesuit."  Phenix,  1707, 
I.  p.  136.    On  this  Order,  see  An  Essay,  by  C.  Villers,  1805,  pp.  ^,  ISote,  and  271. 


HISTORY   OF  THE   MONASTIC   LIFE.  463 

to  buy  and  sell,  exercised  their  permission  with  so  little 
scruple,  that  it  encouraged  many  great  men  to  usurp  the 
estates  of  their  nei'^hhours,  being  sure  to  find  purchasers 
among  the  monks.  F.  Simon  relates  an  instance  in  the 
abbey  o{  Mire  in  Switzerland,  in  which  the  monk,  who  com- 
piled the  aets  of  the  monastery,  gives  a  list  of  things  which 
were  acquired  by  unjust  means,  without  the  least  hint  of 
any  obligation  to  make  restitution.* 

Nothing  could  exceed  the  insolence  and  arrogance  of  the 
Dominicans  and  Franciscans.  They  even  declared  "  pub- 
licly, that  they  had  a  divine  impulse  and  commi'ision  to 
illustrate  and  maintain  the  religion  of  Jesus, — that  the  true 
method  of  obtaining  salvation  was  revealed  to  them  alone;" 
and  they  boasted  of  "  their  familiar  connexions  with  the 
Supreme  Being,  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  the  saints  in  glory." 
By  these  means  they  gained  such  an  ascendancy  over  the 
common  people,  that  these  would  trust  no  others  "  but  the 
Mendicants  with  the  care  of  their  souls."  f 

St.  Francis  imprinted  upon  himself  five  wounds,  similar 
to  those  of  our  Saviour,  which  his  followers  asserted  were 
given  him  by  Christ  himself;  and  in  this  they  were  encou- 
raged by  the  mandates  of  the  popes,  and  by  several  bulls 
enjoining  the  belief  of  it.  They  even  approved  and  recom- 
mended an  impious  treatise  entitled,  "  The  Book  of  the 
Conformities  of  St.  Francis  with  Jesus  Christ,"  composed 
in  1383,  by  a  Franciscan  of  Pisa,  in  which  this  saint  is  put 
on  a  level  with  Christ.  J 

The  Carmelites  imposed  upon  the  credulous,  by  asserting 
that  the  Virgin  Mary  appeared  to  the  general  of  their  order, 
and  gave  him  a  solemn  promise,  that  the  souls  of  all  those 
who  left  the  world  with  the  Carmelite  cloke  or  scapulary 
upon  their  shoulders,  should  be  infallibly  preserved  from 
eternal  damnation  ;  and  this  impudent  fiction  found  patrons 
and  defenders  among  the  pontiffs.  Even  the  late  pope 
Benedict  XIV.,  who  is  orenerally  esteemed  the  most  candid 
and  sensible  of  all  the  popes,  is  an  advocate  for  this  gross 
imposition.  § 

It  must,  however,  be  acknowledged,  that  notwithstanding 
the  great  mischief  that  has  been  done  to  the  Christian  world 
by  the  religious  orders,  they  have,  both  directly  and  indi- 
rectly, been  the  occasion  of  some  good  ;  and  though  thf\ 

•  On  Church  Revenues,  p.  56.     {P.; 

t  Mosheim,  III.  p.  6l.      P.;     Cent  xiiL  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  ii.  Sect.  xzxx. 

X  IbkL  p.  169.     (P.)    C«dL  xiv.  Pt  ii.  Cb.  ii.  Sect.  xxi. 

^  Ibid.  p.  61.     (P.;     Cent  xui.  Pt  ii.  Ch.  ii.  Sect  xxix.     Note. 


464  HISTORY  OF  THE  MONASTIC   LIFE. 

were  the  chief  support  of  the  papal  power,  they  nevertheless 
contributed  something  to  the  diminution  of  it,  and  to  the 
Reformation. 

Such  places  as  monasteries  originally  were,  though  they 
were  abused  by  many,  must  have  been  a  very  desirable 
retreat  to  many  others,  in  times  of  war  and  confusion.  And 
the  opportunity  of  leisure  and  meditation,  with  a  total  ex- 
clusion from  the  world,  must  have  been  of  great  use  to  those 
who  had  been  too  much  immersed  in  the  bustle  and  the 
vices  of  it.  For  notwithstanding  the  irregularities  with  which 
monks  in  general  were  perhaps  justly  charged,  there  must 
have  been,  in  all  ages,  great  numbers  who  conscientiously 
conformed  to  the  rules  of  them. 

There  is  no  period,  perhaps,  in  which  the  state  of  Chris- 
tianity, and  of  Europe  in  general,  wore  a  more  unfavourable 
aspect  than  in  the  fourteenth  century,  during  the  residence 
of  the  popes  at  Avignon  ;  and  yet  Petrarch,  who  lived  in 
that  age,  and  who  makes  heavy  and  repeated  complaints  of 
the  vices  of  it,  and  especially  of  the  extreme  profligacy  of 
the  court  of  Rome,  appears  to  have  had  a  good  opinion  of 
the  state  of  many  of  the  monasteries  ;  and  his  own  brother, 
who  had  been  rather  dissolute  in  his  youth,  retired  to  one 
of  them  in  the  very  flower  of  his  age,  and  became  truly 
exemplary  for  his  piety,  humanity  and  other  virtues,  which 
were  especially  conspicuous  during  the  great  plague.  Indeed, 
the  general  credit  of  the  order  in  all  ages  cannot  be  accounted 
for  on  any  other  supposition,  than  that,  as  things  then  stood, 
they  were,  upon  the  whole,  really  useful. 

Another  capital  advantage  which  the  Christian  world 
always  derived  from  the  monks,  and  which  we  enjoy  to  this 
day,  is  the  use  they  were  of  to  literature  in  general,  both  on 
account  of  the  monasteries  being  the  principal  repositories 
of  books,  and  the  monks  the  copiers  of  them,  and  because, 
almost  from  their  first  institution,  the  monks  had  a  greater 
shave  of  knowledge  than  the  secular  clergy.  In  the  seventh 
century,  the  little  learning  there  was  in  Europe  was,  in  a 
manner,  confined  to  the  monasteries,  many  of  the  monks 
being  obliged  by  their  rules  to  devote  certain  hours  every 
day  to  study,  when  the  schools  which  had  been  committed 
to  the  care  of  the  bishops  were  gone  to  ruin.  * 

A  very  respectable  religious  fraternity  was  founded  in  the 
fourteenth  century,  confirmed  by  the  Council  of  Constance, 

*  Mosbeim,  II,  p.  12.      (P.)      Pt.  ii.  Ch.  i.  ad  init.     See  the  reference,  supra, 
p.  .388,  and  Villers's  Essai/,  p.  51. 


HISTORY   OF  THE   MONASTIC   LIFE.  465 

called  the  brethren  and  clerks  of  common  life*  The  schools 
erected  by  this  fraternity  acquired  great  reputation.  From 
them  issued  Erasmus  of  Rotterdam,  and  other  eminent 
persons,  f 

The  cause  of  literature  has  also  been  much  indebted  to 
the  Jesuits,  and  more  lately  to  the  Benedictines  ;  the  mem- 
bers of  both  these  orders  having  produced  many  works  of 
great  erudition  and  labour,  and  having  employed  the  reve- 
nues of  their  societies  to  defray  the  expense  of  printino^ 
them. 

As  a  proof  of  the  monastic  orders  having  contributed 
something  to  the  Reformation,  it  may  be  sufficient  to  ad- 
duce the  following  facts.  The  Dominicans  and  Franciscans 
soon  quarrelled  about  pre-eminence,  and  they  differed  ex- 
ceedingly amongst  themselves  ;  and  these  differences  among 
the  mendicant  orders,  as  well  as  the  division  of  the  popedom, 
and  the  mutual  excommunication  of  the  popes  and  anti- 
popes,  "  gave  several  mortal  blows  to  the  authority  of  the 
church  of  Rome,  and  excited  in  the  minds  of  the  people 
most  ardent  desires  of  a  reformation  in  the  church."  J 

The  Frairicelli,  or  Fratres  Minores^  were  monks  who,  in 
the  same  thirteenth  century,  "  separated  themselves  from 
the  grand  community  of  St.  Francis,"  with  a  view  to  observe 
his  rule  more  strictly.  "  They  went  about  clothed  with 
sordid  garments,  or  rather  with  loathsome  rags,"  declaiming 
in  all  places  "  against  the  corruption  of  the  church  of  Rome, 
and  the  vices  of  the  pontiffs  and  bishops."  These  were 
persecuted  with  the  utmost  virulence  by  the  other  Fran- 
ciscans, who  were  countenanced  by  the  popes,  and  thev 
continued  in  this  violent  state  of  war  with  the  church  of 
Rome  till  the  Reformation,  multitudes  of  them  perishing  in 
the  flames  of  the  Inquisition.  §  These  rebellious  Fran- 
ciscans, therefore,  deserve  an  eminent  rank  among  those 
who  prepared  the  way  for  the  Reformation,  exciting  in  the 
minds  of  the  people  a  just  aversion  to  the  church  of  Rome 
in  its  then  very  corrupt  state.  |[ 

The  original  difference  of  these  monks  with  the  Pope 

*  '*  Les  fr^res  de  la  vie  commune,  on  dcs  personnes  distingu^es  par  Icur  savoir, 
et  par  leur  piete,  vivoient  en  commun  de  ce  qu'elles  niettoient  ensemble  pour  pas 
vivre  dan^s  la  faineantiise.  On  attribue  cet  etablissement  a  Gtrard  (jroot,  ou,  le 
Grand,  de  Deventer,  Docteur  de  Paris,  et  Chanoine  d'Uticclit."  Hist,  du  Coiicil. 
Const.  An.  1418,11.  p.  601. 

t  Mosheim,  III.  p.  254.     (P.)     Cent.  xv.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  ii.  Sect.  xxii. 

I  Ibid.  p.  62.     (P.)     Cent.  xiii.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  ii.  Sect.  xxx. 

^  By  "  a  bloody  decree,  beginning  *  Gloriosam  Kcclesiam.' "  Limborch,  Hist. 
I,  p.  104. 

0  Mosheim,  III.  p.  76.     (P.)     Cent  xiii.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  ii.  Sect,  xxxix. 
VOL.  V.  2  H 


4i66  HISTORY  OF  THE  MONASTIC  LIFE. 

was  perhaps  the  most  trifling  and  absurd  that  can  well  be 
imagined,  viz.  the  property  of  the  things  that  were  consumed 
by  them,  as  bread  and  other  provisions ;  they  maintaining 
that  they  had  not  the  property,  but  only  the  use  of  them. 
This  dispute  was  at  first  confined  to  the  monks  themselves, 
but  at  length  the  popes  interposed,  and  John  XXII.  de- 
claring that  obedience  is  the  principal  virtue  of  monks,  and 
preferable  to  poverty,  they  asserted  the  contrary,  maintaining 
that  they  ought  not  to  obey  their  superiors  when  they  com- 
manded any  thing  contrary  to  perfection.  John  condemning 
these  refractory  monks,  they  declared  him  a  heretic  by  his 
own  authority.  They  even  went  so  far  as  to  call  him  a7iti' 
christ,  and  to  appeal  from  his  constitution  to  a  future 
council.  At  length  the  revolt  went  so  far,  thai  the  monks, 
supported  by  the  emperor  Lewis  of  Bavaria,  pronounced 
sentence  of  deposition  against  the  Pope,  and  set  up  another 
in  his  place.  * 

Since  the  fifteenth  century,  in  the  beginning  of  which  the 
discipline  of  the  monks  was  exceedingly  relaxed,  various 
reformations  have  been  made,  which,  Mr.  Fleury  says,  has 
raised  the  credit  of  most  of  the  orders,  t  But  notwith- 
standing these  reforms,  and  though  nothing  is  now  objected 
to  them  with  respect  to  the  observance  of  their  rules,  they 
are  found  to  be  of  so  little  use  in  the  present  state  of  society, 
that  it  seems  to  be  the  determination  of  most  of  the  catholic 
powers  to  abolish  them  by  degrees  ;  as  appears  by  the 
regulations  that  have  been  made  respecting  the  time  of 
admission,  making  it  so  late  in  life,  that  very  few  will  not 
be  so  far  engaged  in  other  pursuits,  as  to  have  no  induce- 
ment to  become  monks  or  nuns  ;  and  the  authority  of 
parents,  who  often  found  it  convenient  to  dispose  of  their 
younger  children  in  this  way,  is  now  generally  set  aside. 
In  consequence  of  this,  and  other  causes,  which  have  been 
operating  more  silently  ever  since  the  Reformation,  the  reli- 
gious houses  are  in  general  but  thinly  inhabited.  Some  of 
their  revenues  have  already  been  diverted  to  other  uses,  and 
such  is  the  aspect  of  things  at  present,  and  the  wants  of  the 
several  potentates  of  Europe,  that  it  is  justly  to  be  appre- 
hended, that  all  the  rest  will  soon  share  the  same  fate. 

*  Fleury's  Eighth  Discourse,  p.  30.      Mosheim,  III.  p.  74.     CP.J     Cent.  xiii. 
Pt.  ii.  Ch.  ii.  Sect,  xxxix.    Note. 
t  Eighth  Discourse,  p.  47.    (P.) 


467 

THE 

HISTORY 

OP    TUB 


PART  XIII. 

The  History  of  Church  Revenues, 
— •-♦"•^ — 

THE 

INTRODUCTION. 


In  the  preceding  parts  of  this  work  we  have  taken  a  view 
of  the  changes  which,  in  the  course  of  time,  have  taken 
place  with  respect  to   the  rank  and  character  of  christian 
ministers;  by  what  steps  it  came  to  pass,  that,  from  having 
no  authority  whatever,  besides  what  their  greater  virtue  or 
ability  gave  them,  and  especially  from  having  no  dominion 
over  the  faith  of  their    fellow-christians,  the   authority  of 
the  bishops,   with  respect  to   articles  of  faith,  as  well  as 
matters  of  discipline  and  worship,  came  to  be  absolute  and 
despotic  ;  and  how,  from  living  in  a  state  of  the  most  sub- 
missive subjection  to  all  the  temporal  powers  of  the  world, 
and  keeping  as  far  as  possible  from  interfering  in  all  civil 
affairs,  they  came   to  be  temporal   princes  and  sovereigns 
themselves,   and  to   controul   all   the   temporal   princes   of 
Europe,  even  in  the  exercise  of  their  civil  power.     In  this 
part  I  shall  exhibit  a  similar  view  of  the  changes  which 
have  taken  place  with  respect  to  the  revenues  of  the  church; 
and  shall  shew  by  what  steps  ministers  of  the  gospel,  from 
living  on  the  alms  of  christian  societies,  together  with  the 
poor  that  belonged  to  them,  came  to  have  independent  and 
even  princely  incomes,  and  to  engross  to  themselves  a  very 
considerable  part  of  the   wealth  and  even  of  the   landed 
property  of  Europe. 

2  H  2 


468  HISTORY  OF  CHURCH  REVENUES. 


SECTION   I. 

The  History  of  Church  Revenues^   till  the  Fall  of  the 
Western  Empire. 

In  the  constitution  of  the  primitive  church,  the  apostles 
followed  the  custom  of  the  Jewish  synagogues,  the  members 
of  which  contributed  every  week  what  they  could  spare,  and 
entrusted  it  with  those  who  distributed  alms.  Like  the 
Jews,  also,  the  Christians  sent  alms  to  distant  places,  and 
gave  to  those  who  came  from  a  distance  with  proper  recom- 
mendations. They  were  so  liberal  upon  these  occasions, 
that  Lucian  says,  that,  to  become  rich  in  a  short  time,  a 
man  had  nothing  to  do  but  to  pretend  to  be  a  Christian. 
In  those  times  both  alms  and  stipends  were  often  called 
honoraries.  Thus  when  Paul  bid  Timothy  honour  widows 
that  are  widows  indeed^  he  means  rewarding  them  for  dis- 
charging particular  offices,  which  in  those  days  widows 
held  in  churches.  So  also  the  phrase  worthy  of  double 
honour^  signifies  worthy  of  a  double  or  a  larger  reward. 

The  church  had  no  other  revenues  besides  these  volun- 
tary alms  till  the  time  of  Constantine.     Indeed  before  that 
time  the  Christian  churches  were  considered  as   unlawful 
assemblies,  and  therefore  could  no  more  acquire  property, 
than   the   Jewish    synagogues,   or    other   communities    not 
authorized  by  the  state  ;    though   in   the  reign   of  Marcus 
Aurelius,  the  senate  permitting  any  person  to  give  whatever 
he  pleased  to  communities  already  formed,  the  church  be- 
gan, in  the  third  century,  by  toleration  or  connivance,  to 
possess  estates.    But  under  Constantine,  Christian  churches 
were  considered  as  respectable  societies,  and  from  that  time 
they  began  to  grow  rich.     In  321   this  emperor  made  an 
edict,  addressed  to  the  people  of  Rome,  by  which  he  gave 
all  persons  the  liberty  of  leaving  by  will  to  the  churches, 
and  especially  that  of  Rome,  whatever  they  pleased.     He 
also  ordained  that  what  had  been  taken  from  the  churches 
in  the  persecution  of  Dioclesian  should  be  restored  to  them, 
and  that  the  estates  of  the  martyrs  who  had  no  heirs  should 
be  given  to  the  churches.  * 

By  this  means,  in  time,  all  churches  had  what  was  called 
i\\^\v  patrimony.,  and  that  of  Rome  in  the  sixth  century  had 
a  very  great  one,  not  only  in  Italy,  but  in  other  countries ; 

*  Anecdotes,  pp.  129,  131.    (P.) 


HISTORY  OF  CHURCH    REVENUES.  4()y 

and  to  inspire  a  greater  respect  for  these  patrimonies,  they 
were  denominated  by  the  saints  that  were  most  respected  in 
eacli  particuhir  church.  Thus  the  territories  behjngnig  to 
the  church  of  Rome  were  called  the  patrimony  of  St.  Peter. 
But  these  patrimonies  were,  like  other  estates,  subject  to  the 
laws  of  the  countries  in  which  they  were.* 

Though  the  bishops  and  priests  had  originally  no  property 
of  their  own,  but  lived  upon  the  stock  of  the  church,  Cyprian 
complains  that  some  of  them,  in  his  time,  not  content  with 
a  subsistence  in  common,  began  to  live  in  separate  houses  of 
their  own,  and  to  have  each  their  allowance  paid  in  money, 
daily,  monthly,  or  for  a  longer  time,  and  this  was  soon 
tolerated.  And,  whereas  part  of  the  church  stock  had 
always  been  given  to  the  poor,  the  clergy  began  to  encroach 
upon  this  part,  and  to  appropriate  it  almost  wholly  to  them- 
selves. That  part  also  which  used  to  be  employed  in  the 
repairs  of  churches,  &c.  was  intercepted  in  the  same 
manner. 

All  the  civil  aftairs  of  christian  societies  were  at  first 
managed  by  deacons,  but  the  disposal  of  money,  as  well  as 
of  every  thing  else,  was  in  the  power  of  the  presbyters,  by 
whose  oreneral  directions  the  deacons  acted  ;  and  the  bishops 
having  encroached  upon  the  presbyters  in  other  things,  did 
not  neglect  to  avail  themselves  of  their  authority  with  respect 
to  the  temporalities  of  the  church.  And  so  great  was  the 
confidence  which  the  primitive  Christians  reposed  in  their 
bishops,  (and  with  reason,  no  doubt,  at  first,)  that  they  alone 
were  allowed  to  superintend  the  distribution  of  the  common 
church  stock  to  the  inferior  clergy,  as  well  as  to  the  poor, 
according  to  the  merits  or  occasions  of  each  individual.  But, 
in  consequence,  probably,  of  some  abuse  of  this  discretionary 
power,  we  find  afterwards,  that  not  the  bishop  alone,  but  the 
whole  body  of  the  presbyters  made  that  distribution.  Still, 
however,  it  cannot  but  be  supposed  that,  the  bishops  having 
superior  influence,  more  would  be  in  their  power  in  this 
respect,  than  in  that  of  the  presbyters ;  and  these,  being 
subject  to  the  bishops  in  other  things,  would  not  choose  to 
disoblige  them  in  this. 

We  do  find,  however,  that  when  churches  grew  very  rich, 
the  bishops  often  embezzled  the  estates  belonging  to  them. 
This  evil  grew  to  so  great  a  height,  that  at  the  Council  of 
Gangres,  in  Paphlagonia,  held  in  324,  they  were  allowed  to 
give  some  of  the  church  stock  to  their  relations,  if  they  were 

*  Anecdotes,  p.  231.     (P.) 


ll-t_ML.^Hi 


470  HISTORY  OF  CHURCH  REVENUES. 

poor,  but  were  prohibited  selling  the  estates  belonging  to 
their  churches,  and  were  ordered  to  give  an  account  of  their 
administration  of  these  temporalities.  And  that  the  goods 
which  properly  belonged  to  the  bishops  might  not  be  con- 
founded with  those  that  belonged  to  the  church,  every  bishop, 
upon  his  election,  was  ordered  to  give  an  account  of  his 
possessions,  that  he  might  bequeath  them,  and  nothing  else, 
by  will.  But  still  the  bishops  abusing  the  power  that  was 
left  them,  stewards  were  afterwards  appointed  to  take  care 
of  the  temporalities  of  the  church,  and  the  bishops  were 
confined  to  the  cure  of  souls.  These  stewards,  however, 
being  at  first  chosen  by  the  bishops,  the  same  abases  were 
resumed  ;  and  therefore,  at  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  in 
4ol,  the  stewards  were  appointed  to  be  chosen  by  the  body 
of  the  clergy.* 

These  offices  of  stewards  became  so  considerable  in  the 
church  of  Constantinople,  that  the  emperors  themselves  took 
the  nomination  of  them,  till  Isaac  Comnenus  gave  it  to  the 
patriarch.  The  power  of  the  steward  was  not  so  great  in  the 
western  churches,  but  abuses  in  them  being  very  flagrant,  a 
custom  was  at  length  adopted,  of  dividing  the  church  revenues 
into  four  parts,  of  which  one  was  for  the  bishop,  another  for 
the  rest  of  the  clergy,  the  third  for  the  poor,  and  the  fourth 
for  repairs,  or  probably  a  kind  o{ church  stocky  to  defray  any 
contingent  expenses. f 

This  distribution  of  the  church  stock  was  the  cause  of  great 
animosities  and  contentions  between  the  bishops  and  the 
inferior  clergy,  in  which  the  popes  were  often  obliged  to 
interpose  with  their  advice  and  authority  ;  and  Father  Simon 
ascribes  to  it  most  of  the  disorders  which  arose  in  the  western 
church ;  the  eastern,  where  that  partition  was  never  made, 
being  free  from  them.  For  while  no  division  was  made,  the 
idea  of  the  property  being  in  the  whole  society  continued, 
and  consequently  the  clergy  were  considered  as  the  servants 
and  beneficiaries  of  the  society  at  large.  But  that  partition 
made  them  absolute  masters  of  their  respective  shares,  and 
gave  them  independent  property  ;  and  riches  and  indepen- 
dence have  never  been  favourable  to  virtue  with  the  bulk  of 
mankind,  or  the  bulk  of  any  order  of  men  whatever. 

But  those  corruptions  of  the  clergy  which  arose  from  the 
riches  of  the  church  began  to  be  peculiarly  conspicuous, 
when,  after  the  time  of  Constantine,  the  church  came  to  be 
possessed  of  fixed  and  large  revenues.     Jerome  says,  that 

*  Simon  on  Church  Revenues,  p.  18.    (P.)  t  Ibid.  pp.  20,  21.     (P.) 


HISTORY   OF  CHURCH   REVENUES.  471 

the  church  had  indeed  become  more  rich  and  powerful  under 
the  christian  emperors,  but  less  virtuous;  and  Chrysostom 
says  that  the  bishoj)S  forsook  their  employments  to  sell  their 
corn  and  wine,  and  to  look  after  tlieir  glebes  and  farms, 
besides  spendini]^  much  time  in  law-suits.  yVustin  was  very 
sensible  of  this,  and  often  refused  inheritances  left  to  his 
church,  giving  them  to  the  lawful  heir,  and  he  would  never 
make  any  purchases  for  the  use  of  his  church.*  Jerome 
says  that  the  priests  of  his  time  spared  no  tricks  or  artifices 
to  get  the  estates  of  private  persons  ;  and  he  mentions  many 
low  and  sordid  offices,  to  which  priests  and  monks  stooped, 
in  order  to  get  the  favour  and  the  estates  of  old  men  and 
women,  who  had  no  children. f 

The  disorders  of  the  clergy  must  have  been  very  great  in 
the  time  of  Jerome,  since  the  emperors  were  then  obliged  to 
make  many  laws  to  restrain  them.  In  370,  Valentinian 
made  a  law  to  put  a  stop  to  the  avarice  of  the  clergy,  for- 
bidding priests  and  monks  to  receive  any  thing,  either  by 
gift  or  will,  from  widows,  virgins,  or  any  women.  Twenty 
years  after,  he  made  another  law,  to  forbid  deaconesses  to 
give  or  bequeath  their  efTects  to  the  clergy,  or  the  monks, 
or  to  make  the  churches  their  heirs  ;  but  Theodosius  revoked 
that  edict. :{:  We  may  form  some  idea  of  the  riches  of  the 
church  of  Rome  towards  the  middle  of  the  third  century, 
from  this  circumstance,  that  in  that  time,  according  to 
Eusebius,  it  maintained  one  thousand  five  hundred  persons, 
widows,  orphans  and  poor;  and  it  had  then  forty-six  priests, 
besides  the  bishop  and  .other  officers.  § 


SECTION  II. 

The  History  of  Church  Reoenues  after  the  Fall  of  the  Western 

Empire. 

Upon  the  invasion  of  the  Roman  empire  by  the  Norman 
nations,  both  the  ecclesiastical  laws  and  revenues  underwent  a 
great  alteration,  and  upon  the  whole  very  favourable  to  the 
church,  as  a  political  system,  though  for  some  time,  and  in 
some  cases,  it  was  unfavourable  to  the  clergy.  For  these 
savage  conquerors  made  little  distinction  between  the  goods 
of  the  church  and  other  property,  but  distributed  both  as 
they  thought  proper,  even  to  laymen  ;  and  children  often 

•  Simon  on  Church  Revenues,  p.  17.    (P.)  t  Ibid.  pp.  27,  28.    (P.) 

X  Anecdotes,  p.  133,  &c.     (P.;  k  Hist.  L.  vi.   C.  xliii.  p.  312.     (P.) 


472  HISTORY  OF  CHURCH  REVENUES. 

succeeded  to  their  fathers  in  church  livings,  as  well  as  m 
other  estates.  Also  many  estates  belonging  to  churches 
were  transferred  to  monasteries. 

About  this  time,  however,  began  the  custom  of  granting 
estates  to  ecclesiastical  persons  in  the  same  manner,  and  upon 
the  same  terms,  as  they  had  been  granted  to  laymen,  viz. 
for  the  lives  of  particular  bishops  or  abbots,  as  we  find  about 
the  year  500,  under  pope  Symmachus,  but  afterwards  to  the 
churches  and  monasteries  in  general ;  the  ecclesiastics  swear- 
ing fealty  and  allegiance  for  them,  and  rendering  the  same 
services  that  the  lay-lords  rendered  for  their  estates.  Hence 
the  term  benefice  came  to  be  applied  to  church  livings.  For 
that  term  was  originally  applied  to  estates  granted  to  laymen 
upon  condition  of  military  service. 

In  no  part  of  the  world  were  the  clergy  so  great  gainers  by 
this  system  as  in  Germany,  where  whole  principalities  were 
given  to  churches  and  monasteries ;  whereby  bishops  became, 
in  all  respects,  independent  sovereign  princes,  as  they  are  at 
this  day.  This  was  chiefly  the  effect  of  the  liberality  of  the 
emperors  of  the  name  of  Otho.  Churchmen,  both  bishops 
and  abbots,  being  at  this  time  principally  employed  in  all 
the  great  affairs  of  state,  it  was  not  difficult  for  them  to 
obtain  whatever  they  desired  of  princes. 

In  those  times  of  confusion,  when  property  in  land,  and 
every  thing  else,  was  very  precarious,  many  persons  chose 
to  make  over  the  property  of  their  estates  to  churches  and 
monasteries,  obtaining  from  them  a  lease  for  several  lives. 
The  property  being  in  the  church,  it  was  held  more  sacred, 
especially  after  the  entire  settlement  of  the  northern  nations 
in  the  western  part  of  the  Roman  empire,  and  when  the  rage 
of  conquest  was  over.  In  these  circumstances  a  lease  for  a 
few  lives,  on  an  easy  rent,  was  of  more  value  to  individuals 
than  the  absolute  property. 

The  possession  of  benefices  was  attended,  however,  with 
one  incumbrance,  from  which  the  church  did  not  very  soon 
free  itself.  According  to  the  ancient  feudal  laws,  when  a 
tenant  died,  the  lord  enjoyed  the  revenues  till  his  successor 
was  invested,  and  had  sworn  fealty  ;  and  it  was  natural  that 
this  law  should  affect  churchmen  as  well  as  laymen.  This, 
however,  interfered  with  the  ancient  custom  of  the  church.' 
For  during  the  vacancy  of  a  bishopric,  the  profits  were 
usually  managed  by  the  clergy  and  archdeacons,  for  the  use 
of  the  future  bishop.  But  after  the  general  collation  of 
benefices,  the  princes  first  demanded  the  revenues  of  those 
estates  which  they  had  granted  to  the  church,  and  afterwards 


HISTOIJY  OF  CHURCH   REVENUES.  473 

ot'all  church  livings  without  distinction  ;  and  this  was  called 
regale.  This  right  of  regale  was  not  settled  in  France  in  the 
third  race  of  their  kings,*  and  was  probably  first  established 
upon  the  agreement  between  pope  Calixtus  and  the  emperor 
Henry,  t 

Lewis  the  Young  is  the  first  king  of  iMance  who  mentions 
the  right  of  regale,  in  the  year  ll6l.  And  we  find  in  the 
History  of  England,  that  this  right  of  regale,  was  established 
in  this  kingdom  at  the  same  time  that  it  was  in  France,  and 
that  it  occasioned  many  troubles  here.:}: 

By  degrees,  however,  the  estates  which  had  been  long  in 
the  possession  of  the  clergy  began  to  be  considered  as  so 
much  theirs,  and  the  temper  of  the  times  was  so  favourable 
to  the  claims  of  the  church,  that  it  was  thought  wrong  for 
laymen  to  meddle  with  any  part  of  it ;  and  many  princes 
were  induced  to  relinquish  the  right  of  regale.  The  emperor 
Frederic  H.  remitted  this  right  to  the  church,  as  if  it  had 
been  an  usurpation  ;  and  several  councils  prohibited  princes 
and  other  laymen  from  invading  the  goods  and  revenues  of 
churchmen  after  tlieir  death. § 

Afterwards,   however,  when  the  popes  usurped  the  nomi- 
nation to  ecclesiastical  benefices,   they  thought  proper  to 
claim  what  had  been  the  regale^  or  the  value  of  one  year's 
income,  (for  to  that  it   had  been  reduced,  as  a  medium  of 
what  had  been  due  to  the  lord  during  a  vacancy,)  and  then 
this  perquisite  was  called  annates.     This  claim  is  said   to 
have  been   first  made  by  pope   Urban   VI., ||  and  was  paid 
"  not  only  in  England  but  throughout  the  western  parts  of 
Christendom.^     In  this  country  the  annates  were  transferred 
to  the  crown  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.,  and  so  they  con- 
tinue to  this  day,  except  that  small   livings  were  re^leased 
from  this  burthen  in  the  reign  of  queen  Anne. 

On  account  of  the  benefit  accruing  to  the  popes  from  these 
annates,  they  encouraged  resignations  and  the  changing  of 
livings  among;'  the  clergy.  For  upon  every  event  of  this 
nature  this  tax  to  themselves  became  due.  Originally  resig- 
nations were  made  absolutely,  into  the  hands  of  those  who 
had  a  right  to  dispose  of  the  benefice  ;  and  when  it  appeared 
that  there  was  no  lawful  reason  for  the  resignation,   it  was 

•  Simon  on  Church  Revenues,  p.  94.     (P.)  +  Ibid.  p.  98.     (P.) 

t  Ibid.  p.  98.    (P.)  Wbid.  p.  100.     (P.) 

II  "  Of  this  godly  gentleman's  invention,  a.s  some  authors  report,  were  the  pay- 
ments to  tlie  Pope  called  annato,  which  are  no  other  than  ;j>-j»u7j«',  the  first-fruits  01 
profits  of  every  spiritual  living  for  one  year,  to  be  paid  by  the  parson  that  is  invested 
in  it,  at  his  first  entrance  thereupon."     Hist.  ofPopen/,  1736,  II.  p.  177. 
^  Hist,  of  Popery,  IV.  p.  37.    (P.)     1736,  H.  p.  178. 


474  HISTORY  OF  CHURCH  REVENUES. 

not  admitted.  But  afterwards  resignations  were  made  in 
favorem,  or  upon  condition  that  the  benefice  should  go  to 
some  person  in  whose  favour  it  was  made,  and  with  whom  a, 
contract  had  been  made  for  that  purpose.  This  custom  is  so 
new,  that  no  mention  is  made  of  it  in  the  canon  law,  the 
Decretals,  or  the  Sext.  The  new  canonists  called  the  con- 
tract a  simoniacal  one,  and  therefore  there  is  a  necessity  for 
the  Pope  to  grant  a  dispensation  for  it,  he  being  above  all 
cafnon  and  positive  law.  Nothing  derogated  more  from  the 
right  of  ordinaries  and  patrons  than  these  resignations  in  fa- 
vorem;  for  by  this  means  they  who  possessed  benefices 
disposed  of  them  as  of  their  own  inheritance.  By  this  means 
they  even  descended  in  families.* 

Another  deduction  from  the  value  of  livings  the  clergy 
suffered  by  the  popes  claiming  the  tenth  of  their  value,  which 
was  done  about  the  same  time  that  annates  were  demanded. 
This  they  did  upon  the  pretence  that  the  high-priest  among 
the  Jews  had  a  tenth  of  the  tythes  which  were  paid  to  the 
Other  priests. f  Another  pretence  for  making  this  exaction 
arose  from  the  crusades.  The  contributions  of  those  who 
did  not  serve  in  person  being  casual,  the  popes  imposed  a 
tax  upon  all  ecclesiastical  revenues,  and  the  first  of  the  kind 
was  on  the  occasion  of  the  loss  of  Jerusalem.  Afterwards 
the  popes  pretended  to  a  right  of  disposing  of  all  ecclesiastical 
goods,  and  sometimes  demanded  a  twentienth,  and  even  a 
tenth  of  their  revenues,  for  other  purposes  besides  the 
crusades.  They  also  made  them  over  to  the  kings,  who  by 
this  means  shared  with  the  popes  in  the  plunder  of  the 
people. :{:  This  tenth  the  popes  obtained  occasionally  in 
England,  from  the  time  of  Edward  I.,  when  the  demand  was 
first  made.  In  the  twenty-sixth  of  Henry  VIII.  an  act  was 
made  to  annex  these  tenths  to  the  crown  for  ever  :  but  they 
were  given  to  the  poor  clergy  towards  an  augmentation  of 
their  maintenance  by  queen  Anne,  and  at  the  same  time  all 
small  livings  were  discharged  from  paying  them. 

The  holy  wars  in  the  eleventh  century  were  the  cause  of 
great  accessions  of  wealth  to  the  church.  Most  of  the  knights 
made  their  wills  before  their  departure,  and  never  failed  to 
leave  a  considerable  share  of  their  possessions  to  the  church  ; 
and  they  built  churches  and  monasteries  with  ample  endow- 
ments at  their  return,   by  way  of  thanksgiving  for  their 

*  Simon  on  Church  Rerenues,  p,  2S9.    (P.) 

t  "  Tlie  Pope  as  pastor  pastonim,  claimed  decimas  decimarum, — by  example  of 
the  Jewish  High-Priest."    Hist,  of  Popery,  1736,  II.  p.  178. 
X  Fleury's  Sixth  Discourse,  p.  19.    {P-) 


HISTORY  OF  CHURCH   REVENUES.  475 

preservation  :  so  tli;it  whether  tliey  returned  or  not,  the 
church  generally  received  some  permanent  advantage  from 
the  expedition. 

One  of  the  most  valuable  acquisitions  to  the  revenues  of 
the  church,  but  from  the  nature  of  it  the  most  impolitic  in 
various  respects,  and  the  most  burthensome  to  the  state,  is 
that  oi' ti/thes.  It  is  a  great  discouragement  to  the  improve- 
ment of  land,  that  a  tenth  part  of  the  clear  produce,  without 
any  deduction  for  the  advanced  expense  of  raising  that 
produce,  should  go  from  the  cultivator  of  the  land  to  any 
other  person  whatever.  It  would  be  far  better  to  lay  an 
equivalent  tax  upon  all  estates,  cultivated  or  not  cultivated. 
For  then  it  would  operate  as  a  motive  to  industry  ;  whereas 
the  present  mode  of  taxation  is  a  discouragement  to  it. 
Besides,  this  method  of  paying  the  minister  is  a  continual 
source  of  dispute  between  the  clergy  and  the  parishioners, 
which  is  of  a  most  pernicious  nature  ;  making  the  people 
consider  as  enemies  those  whom  they  ought  to  respect  as 
their  best  friends,  and  in  whom  they  ought  to  repose  the 
greatest  confidence. 

The  original  reason  for  the  payment  of  tythes  was  the 
most  groundless  imaginable,  as  it  arose  from  considering 
Christian  ministers  as  an  order  of  men  who  succeeded  to 
the  rights  of  the  priests  under  the  Jewish  law.  This  idea 
was  observed  to  prevail  very  much  about  the  time  of  the 
utter  desolation  of  Judea  under  Adrian.  But  it  was  a  long 
time  before  there  was  any  idea  of  claiming  those  tythes  as  a 
right.  Even  the  Jews  acknowledge  that  no  tythes  were  paid 
b}'^  themselves  after  the  destruction  of  the  temple.  But 
about  the  fifth  century  laws  being  made  by  the  emperor,  by 
which  the  tenth  part  of  the  mines  and  quarries  were  paid  to 
themselves,  and  the  lords  of  the  soil ;  there  arose  a  custom, 
as  some  say,  of  paying  tythes  to  the  church,  which  in  time 
became  general ;  till  from  the  force  of  example,  the  omission 
of  it  was  deemed  reproachful,  and  the  clergy  began  to  claim 
them  as  due  to  themselves  by  the  law  of  Moses. 

For  some  centuries,  however,  it  was  usual  to  give  tythes 
to  the  poor,  and  for  other  charitable  purposes.  Thus,  at  a 
council  of  Macron,  in  5S6,  it  was  ordered  that  a  tenth  part 
of  the  fruits  of  the  earth  should  be  brought  into  sacred  places, 
to  be  employed  for  the  relief  of  the  poor,  and  the  redemption 
of  captives.*  By  degrees,  however,  the  clergy  excluded  the 
poor,   and   appropriated   the  tythes   to   themselves.      And 

•  Sueur.    (P.) 


476  HISTORY   OF  CHURCH   REVENUES. 

about  the  year  600,  tythes,  from  being  established  as  a 
custom,  became  in  some  instances  legal  rights;  because 
many  estates  were  bequeathed  with  an  obligation  to  pay 
tythes  to  particular  churches.  When  these  tythes  were  left 
to  distant  churches,  the  priests  of  the  parish  in  which  the 
estate  lay  used  to  complain  ;  and  at  length,  in  the  reign  of 
king  John,  the  Pope  made  a  law,  ordering  that  all  tythes 
should  be  paid  to  the  parish  priest,  and  after  some  time  they 
were  levied  by  law  in  all  parishes  without  exception.  At 
the  Reformation,  though  those  who  took  the  lead  in  it  were 
sincerely  disposed  to  abolish  tythes,  they  found  themselves 
obliged  to  continue,  and  to.  secure  them  by  act  of  parliament, 
in  order  to  conciliate  the  minds  of  the  popish  clergy.  Thus 
this  most  intolerable  evil  continues  to  this  day,  whereas  in 
other  Protestant  countries,  and  especially  in  Holland,  the 
civil  magistrates  have  adopted  a  wiser  plan,  by  allowing  their 
ministers  a  fixed  stipend,  paid  out  of  the  public  funds. 

The  progress  of  superstition  in  the  dark  ages  supplied 
many  resources  for  the  augmentation  of  the  wealth  of  the 
clergy.  In  those  times  "  the  world  was  made  to  believe  that 
by  the  virtue  of  so  many  masses,"  the  recitation  of  which  might 
be  purchased  with  money,  and  especially  with  permanent  en- 
dowments tochurchesandmonasteries,"souls  were  redeemed 
out  of  purgatory ;  and  scenes  of  visions  and  apparitions,  some- 
times of  the  tormented,  and  sometimes  of  the  delivered  souls, 
were  published  in  all  places.  Which  had  so  wonderful  an 
effect,  that  in  two  or  three  centuries  endowments  increased  to 
so  vast  a  degree,  that  if  the  scandals  of  the  clergy  on  the  one 
hand,  and  the  statutes  of  morhnain  on  the  other,  had  not 
restrained  the  profuseness  that  the  world  was  wrought  up  to, 
upon  this  account,  it  is  not  easy  to  imagine  how  far  this 
might  have  gone,  perhaps  to  an  entire  subjecting  of  the 
temporality  to  the  spirituality."*  And  it  was  carefully 
inculcated  by  the  priests,  that  rights  acquired  to  the  church 
belonged  to  God,  and  therefore  could  not  be  taken  away 
without  sacrilege. 

It  was  the  fate  of  this  country  to  suffer  more  from  papal 
usurpations  than  almost  any  other  part  of  Christendom. 
One  tax  to  the  church  of  Rome  was  peculiar  to  this  country, 
which  was  Peter  pence,-\  or  a  tax  of  a  penny  a  year  for  every 

*  Burnet,  Exposition,  p.  280.     (P.J     Art.  xxii.  Ed.  4,  p.  206. 

f  "  Denarii  sancti  Petri — in  the  Saxon  tongue  Romefeoh  ;  the  fee  (or  rent)  of 
Rome — tube  paid  yearly  on  Lammas-day,  celebrated  as  a  festival  by  the  title  of 
Sancti  Petri  vincula,  Peter's  bonds."  Hist,  of  Popery,  1735,  I.  pp.  l68,  I69. 
See  also  Romescot,  Rapin,  Hist.  L.  iii.  I.  p.  182. 


HISTORY  OF   CHURCH   REVENUES.  477 

house  in  which  there  were  eighty  pennyworth  of  goods. 
This  was  "first  granted,  in  the  year  7i2<5,  by  Ina,  kingofthe 
West  Saxons,  for  the  estabhshment  and  support  of  an 
EngUsh  college  at  Rome."  It  was  "  afterwards  extended, 
hi  the  year  794,  by  Olia,  over  all  Mercia  and  East  Anglia  ,*' 
and  in  the  days  of  Athelwolf,  though  the  popes  appropriated 
the  profits  of  this  tax  to  themselves,  it  was  extended  over  all 
England.  "  It  was  confirmed  by  the  laws  of  Canute, 
Edward  the  Confessor,  William  the  Conqueror,"  and  of 
several  succeeding  princes,  though  it  was  long  considered  as 
a  free  alms  on  the  part  of  the  nation,  and  was  often  refused 
to  be  paid,  especially  by  Edward  III.  However,  it  "  was 
never  totally  abolished  till  the  reign  of  Henry  VHI."* 

So  far  did  the  popish  exactions  in  this  country,  on  one 
account  or  other,  go,  that,  in  the  reign  of  Henry  HI.,  the 
popes  received  from  England  more  than  the  king's  revenue, 
or  one  hundred  and  twenty  thousand  pounds.  In  1366,  the 
lord  chancellor  assured  the  parliament,  that  the  taxes  paid  to 
the  Pope  were  five  times  as  much  as  the  king's  revenue; 
and  at  length  the  church  is  said  to  have  got  possession  of 
one  third  of  all  the  landed  property  in  England. f 

Notwithstanding  the  ample  revenues  of  many  churches, 
numbers  of  the  clergy  contrived  to  make  large  additions  to 
them,  by  appropriating  to  themselves  the  emoluments  of 
several  church  livings  ;  though  they  could  not  reside,  and 
do  duty  at  them  all,  and  nothing  could  be  more  contrary  to 
the  natural  reason  of  things,  or  the  original  constitution  of 
the  Christian  church.  Indeed,  the  maxim  that,  where  no 
duty  is  done,  no  reward  is  due,  was  so  obvious,  that  this  was 
one  of  the  last  abuses  that  crept  into  the  church.  But  it 
grew,  under  various  pretences,  to  a  most  enormous  height ; 
though  several  attempts  were  made,  at  different  times,  to 
lessen  the  evil. 

About  the  year  ^00,  when  what  we  now  call  benefices 
came  into  use,  it  became  customary  to  ordain  without  any 
title,  or  designation  to  a  particular  cure;  and  many  persons 
got  themselves  ordained  priests,  for  secular  purposes.  Also 
many  prelates  wanted  to  increase  their  authority  by  attach- 
ing to  themselves  a  number  of  dependents,  and  many  of  the 
people  wanted  spiritual  privileges,  in  order  to  exempt  them 
from  the  jurisdiction  of  princes.  Even  bishops  (though  this 
was  done  with  more  caution)  were  ordained  without  any 

•  Mosheini,  ir.  p.  278.  fP.)  Cent.  xi.  Pt.  ii.  Ch.  ii.  Sect  x.  ATote  (e).  Sec  also 
Rapin's  Hist.  An.  794,  L.  iii.  I.  pp.  182,  183. 

t   Hist,  of  Popery,  III.  pp.60,  570.  V.p.266.  (P.)    1736,  II.  pp.33, 130,397,413. 


478  HISTORY  OF  CHURCH  REVENUES. 

diocese,  except  in  infidel  countries,  which  they  never  visited; 
and  these  acted  as  substitutes  for  those  bishops  who  were  too 
lazy,  or  too  much  employed  in  secular  affairs,  to  do  duty 
themselves.  This  corruption  had  arisen  to  a  most  enormous 
height  before  the  Council  of  Trent. 

The  consequence  of  titular  ordination  was  non-residence. 
and  where  curates  were  employed  the  principal  could  follow 
his  other  business.  Accordingly  the  bishops  in  France,  and 
even  the  parish  priests,  substituting  some  poor  priests  in  their 
room,  passed  much  of  their  time  at  court.  And  if  a  bishop 
could  hold  one  living  without  residing  upon  it,  it  was  plain 
that  he  might  hold  two  or  more,  and  get  them  supplied  in 
the  same  manner. 

Titular  ordinations,  however,  which  first  introduced  non- 
residence,  were  not  the  only  cause  of  pluralities,  which  are 
said  to  have  had  their  origin  about  the  sixth  century.  Among 
benefices  bestowed  upon  the  churches,  some,  as  prebends, 
&c.  had  no  cure  of  souls  annexed  to  them.  These  were 
judged  capable  of  being  held  by  priests  who  had  other  livings 
with  cure  of  souls.  Also  parishes  which  were  not  able  to 
maintain  a  minister  were  allowed  to  be  served  by  another 
minister  in  the  neighbourhood,  but  a  dispensation  from  the 
Pope  was  necessary  for  this  purpose.  By  this  means,  how- 
ever, the  greatest  scandal  in  pluralities  was  practised.  This 
abuse  gave  very  great  offence,  but  dispensations  of  this  kind 
were  so  necessary  to  support  the  dignity  of  cardinals,  that 
they  were  made  perpetual  in  the  court  of  Rome.  The 
cardinal  of  Lorrain,  who  held  some  of  the  best  benefices  in 
France,  and  some  in  Scotland  too,  was  particularly  vehe- 
ment in  his  declamation  against  pluralities  in  general,  at  the 
Council  of  Trent,  without  imagining  that  his  own  were  liable 
to  any  objection. 

The  first  account  of  any  flagrant  abuse  of  pluralities  occurs 
in  the  year  936,  when  Manasseh,  bishop  of  Aries,  obtained 
of  his  relation,  Hugh,  king  of  Italy,  several  other  bishoprics, 
so  that  in  all  he  had  four  or  fiv^e  at  the  same  time.  Baronius 
says,  that  this  was  a  new  and  great  evil,  which  began  to  stain 
the  church  of  God,  and  by  which  it  has  been  wonderfully 
afflicted.* 

A  person  is  said  to  hold  a  church  in  commendam,  when 
he  is  empowered  to  have  the  care  and  the  profits  of  it  till 
the  appointment  of  another  incumbent.  This  practice  was 
of  great  antiquity,  in  order  to  prevent  churches  receiving  any 

*  Sueur,  A.  D.  936.     (P.) 


HISTORY   OF  CHURCH   REVENUES.  479 

detriment  during  a  vacancy.  But  on  this  pretence  livintjs 
were  afterwards  granted  tor  a  certain  time,  which  was  made 
longer  and  longer,  or  till  an  event  which  it  was  known  could 
not  take  place,  and  at  length  for  life.  This  was  done  by  the 
plenary  power  of  the  Pope.  In  this  manner  Clement  VII. 
brought  pluralities  to  perfection,  by  making  his  nephew,  the 
cardinal  de  Medicis,  commendatori/  universal ;  granting  him 
all  the  vacant  benefices  in  the  world,  whether  secular  or 
regular,  dignities,  parsonages,  simple,  or  with  cure  of  souls, 
for  six  months,  and  appointing  him  usufructuary  from  the 
first  day  of  his  possession.  In  England,  in  which  every  abuse 
and  imposition  in  ecclesiastical  matters  were  carried  to  their 
greatest  extent,  the  richest  and  best  benefices  were  engrossed 
by  the  Pope,  and  given  in  commendam  to  Italians,  who 
never  visited  the  country,  but  employed  questors  to  collect 
their  revenues. 

Other  methods  of  making  pluralities,  and  disposing  of 
church  revenues,  were  contrived  by  the  court  of  Rome,  such 
as  provisions  and  exemptions^  which  are  hardly  worth  describ- 
ing, and  selling  the  reversion  of  livings,  called  expectatives^  as 
well  as  livings  actually  vacant. 

The  first  attempt  that  we  meet  with  to  check  these  evils, 
of  pluralities  and  non-residence,  was  made  by  Charlemagne, 
who  made  several  regulations  for  thiat  purpose  ;  but  they 
were  soon  neglected.  Several  popes  also,  as  John  XXII. 
and  Clement  V.,  pretended  to  reform  the  same  abuses,  but 
without  any  real  eflfect;  and  by  the  evasion  of  them  even  illi- 
terate persons  and  children,  who  were  never  intended  to  take 
orders,  might  enjoy  benefices.* 

The  Council  of  Trent  pretended  to  remedy  the  evil  of 
pluralities,  but  they  made  it  worse  by  admitting  of 
pensions^  as  an  equivalent  for  the  change  of  benefices  and 
other  purposes.  For  these  came  to  be  granted  by  the  court 
of  Rome  without  any  consideration,  and  even  to  children. 
They  were  also  more  convenient,  and  made  church  prefer- 
ment a  more  easy  traffic  in  many  respects.  For  instance, 
resignations  were  not  deemed  valid,  unless  the  person  who 
resigned  lived  twenty  days  afterwards;  whereas  a  pension 
might  be  transferred  at  the  point  of  death.  Besides  it  might 
be  turned  into  ready  money,  whereas  a  benefice  could  not 
without  simony. f 

It  is  to  be  lamented  that  these  abuses  were  not  corrected 
at  the  reformation  of  the  church  of  England.     Ou  the  con- 

*   Pennington  on  PluraJilies,  p.  58.     (P.) 

t  F.  Paul  on  Ecclesiaslical  Benefices,  1736,  Ed.  3,  pp.  2«3,  224.    (F.) 


480  GENERAL   CONCLUSION. 

trary,  it  is  apprehended  tiiat  many  of  them  are  increased  since 
that  period,  so  as  to  exceed  what  is  generally  to  be  found  of 
that  nature  in  some  Roman  Catholic  countries.  In  conse- 
quence of  this,  though  the  funds  for  the  maintenance  of  the 
clergy  are  sufficiently  ample,  the  inequality  in  the  distribu- 
tion of  them  is  shameful,  and  they  bear  no  proportion  to  the 
services  or  merit  of  those  who  receive  them.  This  is  an  evil 
that  calls  loudly  for  redress,  and  strikes  many  persons  who 
give  no  attention  to  articles  of  faith,  or  of  discipline  in  other 
respects.  Probably,  however,  this  evil  will  be  tolerated,  till 
the  whole  system  be  reformed,  or  destroyed.  But  without 
the  serious  reformation  of  this  and  other  crying  abuses,  the 
utter  destruction  of  the  present  hierarchy  must,  in  the  natural 
course  of  things,  be  expected. 


-»♦♦ 


THE  GENERAL  CONCLUSION. 


PART    L 

CONTAINING 

Cofisiderations  addressed  to  Unbelievers,  and  especially  to 
Mr.  Gibbon. 

"To  consider  the  system  (if  it  may  be  called  a  system)  of 
Christianity  a  priori^  one  would  think  it  very  little  liable 
to  corruption,  or  abuse.  The  great  outline  of  it  is,  that  the 
Universal  Parent  of  mankind  commissioned  Jesus  Christ  to 
invite  men  to  the  practice  of  virtue,  by  the  assurance  of  his 
mercy  to  the  penitent,  and  of  his  purpose  to  raise  to  im- 
mortal life  and  happiness  all  the  virtuous  and  the  good,  but 
to  inflict  an  adequate  punishment  on  the  wicked.  In  proof 
of  this  he  wrought  many  miracles,  and  after  a  public  execu- 
tion he  rose  again  from  the  dead.  He  also  directed  that 
proselytes  to  his  religion  should  be  admitted  by  baptism^  and 
that  his  disciples  should  eat  bread  and  drink  wine  in  com- 
memoration of  his  death. 

Here  is  nothing  that  any  person  could  imagine  would 
lead  to  much  subtle  speculation,  at  least  such  as  could  excite 
much  animosity.  The  doctrine  itself  is  so  plain,  that  one 
would  think  the  learned  and  the  unlearned  were  upon  a  level 


GENERAL  CONCLUSION.  481 

with  respect  to  it.  And  a  person  unacquaintLcl  with  the 
state  of  things  at  the  time  ot  its  promulgation  would  look,  in 
vain  for  any  probable  source  ot"  the  monstrous  corruptions 
and  abuses  which  crept  into  tlie  system  afterwards.  Our 
Lord,  however,  and  his  apostles,  foretold,  that  there  would 
be  a  great  departure  from  the  truth,  and  that  something  would 
arise  in  the  church  altogether  unlike  the  doctrine  w  hich  they 
taught,  and  even  subversive  of  it. 

In  reality,  however,  the  causes  of  the  succeeding  corrup- 
tions did  then  exist;  and  accordingly,  without  any  thing 
more  than  their  natural  operation,  all  the  abuses  rose  to  their 
full  height ;  and  what  is  more  wonderful  still,  by  the  opera- 
tion of  natural  causes  also,  without  any  miraculous  interpo- 
sition of  Providence,  we  see  the  abuses  gradually  corrected, 
and  Christianity  recovering  its  primitive  beauty  and  glory. 

The  causes  of  the  corruptions  were  almost  wholly  con- 
tained in  the  established  opinions  of  the  heathen  world,  and 
especially  the  philosophical  part  of  it;  so  that  when  those 
Heathens  embraced  Christianity,  they  mixed  their  former 
tenets  and  prejudices  with  it.  Also,  both  Jews  and  Heathens 
were  so  much  scandalized  at  the  idea  of  being  the  disciples 
of  a  man  who  had  been  crucified  as  a  common  malefactor, 
that  Christians  in  general  were  sutficiently  disposed  to  adopt 
any  opinion  that  would  most  eftectually  wipe  away  this 
reproach. 

The  opinion  of  the  mental  faculties  of  man  belonging  to 
a  substance  distinct  from  his  body,  or  brain,  and  of  this  in- 
visible spiritual  part,  or  soul,  being  capable  of  subsisting 
before  and  after  its  union  to  the  body,  which  had  taken  the 
deepest  root  in  all  the  schools  of  philosophy,  was  wonder- 
fully calculated  to  answer  this  purpose.  For  by  this  means 
Christians  were  enabled  to  give  to  the  soul  of  Christ  what 
rank  thev  pleased  in  the  heavenly  regions  before  his  incar- 
nation. On  this  principle  went  the  Gnostics,  deriving  their 
doctrine  from  the  received  oriental  philosophy.  Afterwards 
the  philosophizing  Christians  went  upon  another  principle, 
personifying  the  wisdom  or  Xoyoj  of  God  the  Father.  But 
this  was  mere  Platonism,  and  therefore  cannot  be  said  to 
have  been  unnatural  in  their  circumstances,  though  at  length 
they  came,  in  the  natural  progress  of  things,  to  believe  that 
Christ  was,  in  power  and  glory,  equal  to  God  the  Father 
himself. 

From  the  same  opinion  of  a  soul  distinct  from  the  body 
came  the  practice  of  [jraying,  first  /or  the  dead,  and  then  to 

VOL.   V.  2  I 


489  GENERAL  CONCLUSION. 

them,  with  a  long  train  of  other  absurd  opinions  and  super^- 
stitious  practices. 

The  abuses  of  the  positive  institutions  of  Christianity, 
monstrous  as  they  were,  naturally  arose  from  the  opinion  of 
the  purifying  and  sanctifying  virtue  of  rites  and  ceremonies, 
which  was  the  very  basis  of  all  the  worship  of  the  Heathens ; 
and  they  were  also  similar  to  the  abuses  of  the  Jewish  re- 
ligion. We  likewise  see  the  rudiments  of  all  the  monkish 
austerities  in  the  opinions  and  practices  of  the  Heathens,  who 
thought  to  purify  and  exalt  the  soul  by  macerating  and 
mortifying  the  body. 

As  to  the  abuses  in  the  government  of  the  church,  they 
are  as  easily  accounted  for  as  abuses  in  civil  government; 
worldly-minded  men  being  always  ready  to  lay  hold  of  every 
opportunity  of  increasing  their  power ;  and  in  the  dark  ages 
too  many  circumstances  concurred  to  give  the  Christian 
clergy  peculiar  advantages  over  the  laity  in  this  respect. 

Upon  the  whole,  1  flatter  myself  that,  to  an  attentive  reader 
of  this  work,  it  will  appear,  that  the  corruption  of  Christia- 
nity, in  every  article  of  faith  or  practice,  was  the  natural 
consequence  of  the  circumstances  in  which  it  was  promul- 
gated ;  and  also  that  its  recovery  from  these  corruptions  is 
the  natural  consequence  of  different  circumstances.  Let 
unbelievers^  if  they  can^  account  as  well  for  the  first  rise  and 
establishment  of  Christianiti/  itself.  This  is  a  problem  which 
historians  and  philosophers  (bound  to  believe  that  no  effect 
is  produced  without  an  adequate  cause)  will  find  to  be  of 
more  difficult  solution  the  more  closely  it  is  attended  to. 

The  circumstances  that  Mr.  Gibbon  enumerates  as  the 
immediate  causes  of  the  spread  of  Christianity  were  them- 
selves effects,  and  necessarily  required  such  causes  as,  1 
imagine,  he  would  be  unwilling  to  allow.  The  revolution 
produced  by  Christianity  in  the  opinions  and  conduct  of  men, 
as  he  himself  describes  it,  was  truly  astonishing;  and  this, 
he  cannot  deny,  was  produced  without  the  concurrence,  nay, 
notwithstanding  the  opposition,  of  all  the  civil  powers  of  the 
world;  and  what  is  perhaps  more,  it  was  opposed  by  all  the 
learning,  genius,  and  wit  of  the  age  too.  For  Christianity 
was  assailed  as  much  by  ridicule  and  reproach  as  it  was  by 
open  persecution;  and,  be  the  spread  of  it  what  Mr.  Gibbon 
pleases,  he  cannot  deny  that  it  kept  uniformly  gaining  ground, 
taking  in  all  descriptions  of  men  without  distinction,  before 
it  had  any  foreign  aid ;  and  what  then  remained  of  the  old 
religions  was  not  sufficient  to  occasion  any  sensible  obstruc- 


GENERAL  CONCLUSION.  483 

tion  to  the  full  establishment  of  it.  Tlie  Jewish  relii^ion 
alone  was  an  exception  ;  and  this  circumstance,  together 
with  the  rise  of  Christianity  among  the  Jews,  are  f^cts  lliat 
deserve  Mr.  Gibbon's  particular  attention. 

Of  all  mankind,  the  Jews  were  the  most  unlikely  to  set  up 
any  religion,  so  diflercnt  from  their  own  ;  and  as  unlikely 
was  it  that  other  nations,  and  especially  the  polite  and  learned 
among  them,  should  receive  a  religion  from  Jews,  and  those 
some  of  the  most  ignorant  of  that  despised  nation. 

Let  Mr.  Gibbon  recollect  his  own  idea  of  the  Jews,  which 
seems  to  be  much  the  same  with  that  of  Voltaire,  and  think 
whether  it  be  at  all  probable,  that  they  should  have  originally 
invented  a  religion  so  essentially  different  from  any  other  in 
the  world,  as  that  which  is  described  in  the  books  of  Moses; 
that  the  whole  nation  should  then  have  adopted  without 
objection,  what  they  were  afterwards  so  prone  to  abandon 
for  the  rites  of  any  of  their  neighbours ;  or,  that  when,  by 
severe  discipline,  they  had  acquired  the  attachment  to  it 
which  they  are  afterwards  known  to  have  done,  and  which 
continues  to  this  day,  it  be  probable  they  would  have  invented 
or  have  adopted  another,  which  they  conceived  to  be  so  dif- 
ferent from,  and  subversive  of  their  own.  If  they  had  been 
so  fertile  of  invention,  it  might  have  been  expected  that  they 
would  have  struck  out  some  other  since  the  time  of  Christ, 
a  period  of  near  two  thousand  years. 

On  this  subject  Mr.  Gibbon  says,  that  "  in  contradiction 
to  every  known  principle  of  the  human  mind,  that  singular 
people  seems  to  have  yielded  a  stronger  and  more  ready 
assent  to  the  traditions  of  their  remote  ancestors,  than  to  the 
evidence  of  their  own  senses."  *  A  singular  people,  indeed, 
if  this  was  the  case;  for  then  they  must  not  have  been  men^ 
but  beings  in  the  shape  of  men  only,  though  internally  con- 
stituted in  some  very  different  manner.  But  what  facts  in 
history  may  not  be  represented  as  probable  or  improbable, 
on  such  loose  suppositions  as  these  ?  Such  liberties  as  these 
I  shall  neither  take  nor  grant.  Jews  are  mew,  and  men  are 
beings,  whose  affections  and  actions  are  subject  to  as  strict 
rules  as  those  of  the  animate  or  inanimate  parts  of  nature. 
Their  conduct,  therefore,  must  be  accounted  for  on  such 
principles  as  always  have  influenced  the  conduct  of  men, 
and  such  as  we  observe  still  to  influence  men. 

I  wish  Mr.  Gibbon  would  consider  whether  he  does  not, 
in  the  passage  above  quoted,  use  the  word  tradition  in  an 

•  History,  Ch.  xv.  I.  p.  539-    (F  ) 
2  I  2 


484  GENERAL  CONCLUSION. 

improper  manner.  By  tradition  we  generally  mean  some- 
thing for  which  we  have  not  the  evidence  of  histories  written 
at  the  time  of  the  events.  We  never  talk  of  the  tradition 
of  the  wars  of  Julius  Caesar,  or  of  his  death  in  the  senate 
house,  nor  even  of  the  tradition  of  the  conquests  of  Alex- 
ander the  Great ;  because  there  were  histories  of  those 
events  written  at  the  time,  or  so  near  to  the  time,  as  to  be 
fully  within  the  memory  of  those  who  were  witnesses  of 
them. 

Now  Moses,  and  the  other  writers  of  the  Old  Testament, 
were  as  much  present  at  the  time  of  the  transactions  they 
relate,  as  the  historians  of  Julius  Csesar  or  Alexander.  An 
incautious  reader  (and  there  are  too  many  such)  would  be 
apt  to  imagine  from  Mr.  Gibbon's  manner  of  expressing 
himself,  that  the  Jews  did  not  even  pretend  to  have  written 
histories  of  the  same  age  with  the  origin  of  their  religion,  but 
that  it  was  in  the  same  predicament  with  what  he  calls  "  the 
elegant  mythology  of  Greece  and  Rome  ;"  whereas,  the  fact 
is,  that  every  tittle  of  it  was  committed  to  writing  at  the 
time.  It  is  generally  in  such  an  indirect  manner  as  this,  and 
not  by  a  fair  and  candid  representation  of  facts,  that  unbe- 
lievers endeavour  to  discredit  the  system  of  revelation. 

Let  Mr.  Gibbon,  as  an  historian,  compare  the  rise  and 
progress  of  Mahometanism  with  that  of  Judaism  or  of 
Christianity,  and  attend  to  the  difference.  Besides  the 
influence  o^  thesword^  which  Christianity  certainly  had  not, 
Mahometanism  stood  on  the  basis  of  the  Jewish  and  Chris- 
tian revelations.  If  these  had  not  been  firmly  believed  in 
the  time  of  Mahomet,  what  credit  would  his  religion  have 
gained  ?      In   these  circumstances   he   must  have  invented 

o  ... 

some  other  system,  which  would  have  required  visible 
miracks  of  its  own,  which  he  might  have  found  some  diffi- 
culty in  passing  upon  his  followers  ;  though  they  were  in 
circumstances  far  more  easy  to  be  imposed  upon  than  the 
Jews  or  the  Heathens,  in  the  time  of  our  Saviour.  This 
was  an  age  of  lig^ht  and  of  suspicion  ;  the  other,  if  any,  of 
darkness  and  credulity.  That  Christianity  grew  up  in  silence 
and  obscuritf/,  as  Mr.  Gibbon  says,  *  is  the  very  reverse  of 
the  truth.  He  could  not  himself  imagine  circumstances  in 
which  the  principal  facts  on  which  Christianity  is  founded 
should  be  subject  to  a  more  rigid  scrutiny.  These  things, 
as  Paul  said  to  king  Agrippa,  tvere  not  done  in  a  corner. 
Acts  xxvi.  26. 

*  History,  CIl  xv.  I.  p.  535.     (P.) 


o 


GENERAL  CONCLUSION.  48^ 

It  appears  to  me  that,  admitting-  all  the  miraculous  events 
which  the  evangelical  history  asserts,  it  was  not  probable 
that  Christianity  should  have  been  received  with  less  diffi- 
culty than  it  was  ;  but  without  that  assistance,  absolutely 
impossible  for  it  to  have  been  received  at  all. 

^Ir.  Gibbon  represents  the  discredit  into  which  the  old 
religions  were  fallen,  as  having  made  way  for  the  new  one. 
"  So  urgent,"  says  he,  "  on  the  vulgar  is  the  necessity  of 
believing,  that  the  fall  of  any  system  of  mythology  will 
most  prol)al)ly  be  succeeded  by  the  introduction  of  some 
other  mode  of  superstition."* 

But  are  not  the  vulgar,  mcn^  as  well  as  the  learned,  their 
understandings  being  naturally  as  good  and  as  various,  and 
certainly  subject  to  the  same  laws  ;  and  necessiti/  of  believing 
or  pronmcss  to  belief  is  not  greater  in  the  one  than  in  the 
other;  but  the  expression  is  loose  and  inaccurate,  and  cal- 
culated to  impose  on  superficial  readers.  Besides,  if  any 
set  of  men  had  this  property  of  proncness  to  belicoi,  they 
must,  to  be  all  of  a  piece,  have  a  proportionable  unwilling- 
ness to  quit  their  belief,  at  least  without  very  sufficient 
evidence  ;  and  yet  those  vulgar  of  all  nations  are  supposed 
by  Mr.  Gibbon  to  have  abandoned  the  belief  of  their  own 
mythology,  some  time  before  Christianity  came,  to  supply 
the  vacancy.  Such  vulgar  as  those  I  should  think  entitled 
to  the  more  respectable  appellation  o\  free-thinkers,  which 
WMth  many  is  synonymous  to  philosophers.  And,  in  fact,  it 
was  not  with  tho  vulgar,  but  with  the  philosophers,  that  the 
religions  of  Greece  and  Rome  were  fallen  into  discredit. 
;.We  ought,  therefore,  to  judge  of  their  case  by  that  of  the 
philosophical  part  of  the  world  at  present. 

With  many  of  them  Christianity  is  now  rejected  ;  but  do 
they,  on  that  account,  seem  disposed  to  adopt  any  other 
mode  of  religion,  or  any  other  s^^stern  of  mythology  in  its 
place  ?  And  would  not  such  men  as  Mr.  Hume  or  Hel- 
vetius  among  the  dead,  and  Mr.  Gibbon  himself  among  the 
living,  examine  with  scrupulous  exactness  the  pretensions 
of  any  system  of  divine  revelation,  especially  before  he 
would  regulate  his  life  by  it,  and  go  to  the  stake  for  it  ?  And 
yet  philosophers  of  antiquity,  men  of  as  good  understanding 
as  Mr.  Gibbon,  and  who,  no  doubt,  loved  life,  and  the 
pleasures  and  advantages  of  it,  as  much  as  he  does,  embraced 
Christianity,  and  died  for  it. 

But   besides    the   urgency  of  this  necessity   of  believing, 

•  History,  Ch.  xv.  I.  p.  602.     (P.) 


486  GENDRA'L  COKCfLr^ION. 

another  cause  of  the  rapid  spread  of  Christianity  was,  that 
it  held  out  to  mankind  something  worth  beUeving.  "  When 
the  promise  of  eternal  happiness,"  he  says,  "  was  proposed 
•to  mankind,  on  condition  of  adopting  the  faith,  and  ob- 
serving the  precepts  of  the  gospel,  it  is  no  wonder  that  so 
advantageous  an  offer  should  have  been  accepted  by  great 
numbers  of  every  religion,  of  every  rank,  and  of  every 
province  in  the  Roman  empire."* 

Now  it  is  certainly  no  discredit  to  Christianity,  that  the 
views  it  exhibits  of  a  future  state  appeared  more  rational 
and  more  inviting,  than  the  accounts  of  Tartarus  and  the 
Elysian  shades.  But  besides  appearing  more  inviting^  ^hey 
must  also  have  appeared  more  credible^  from  the  general 
external  evidence  of  the  truth  of  Christianity.  And  here 
also  Mr.  Gibbon  seems  to  have  been  inattentive  to  the 
principles  of  human  nature. 

In  general,  the  more  extraordinary  any  event  appears  to 
be,  the  more  evidence  we  require  of  it.  It  is  this  conside- 
ration that  makes  more  definite  evidence  necessary  for  a 
miracle,  than  for  an  ordinary  fact;  though  it  is  acknow- 
ledged that  the  desirableness  of  any  particular  event,  by 
interesting  our  wishes,  will  tend  to  make  us  admit  it  on 
somewhat  less  evidence.  The  great  advantages,  therefore, 
proposed  to  men  from  any  scheme,  especially  one  in  which 
they  were  to  run  some  risk,  and  in  which  they  were  to 
make  great  sacrifices,  would  not  dispose  them  to  receive  it 
w^ithout  evidence.  It  is  too  good  news  to  be  true,  is  a  remark 
perpetually  made  by  the  very  vulgar  of  whom  Mr.  Gibbon 
is  speaking.  When  the  disciples  of  our  Lord  saw  him  for 
the  first  time  after  his  resurrection,  it  is  said  (Luke  xx'iv. 
41),  that  they  believed  not  through  Joy ;  arid  when,  before 
this,  they  were  told  by  three  or  four  women  of  charact-er, 
and  for  whom  they  had  the  highest  respect,  that  they  bad 
themselves  seen  him  alive,  and  had  a  message  from  him  to 
them,  Their  words  seemed  to  them  as  idle  tales,  and  they 
believed  them  not.  Ibid.  ver.  11.  This  was  perfectly  na- 
tural ;  and  such  circumstances  as  these  are  strong  internal 
evidence  of  the  historian's  describing  real  facts,  and  r€al 
feelings  of  the  human  heart  corresponding  to  those  fact«. 

Besides,  how  can  any  man,  to  use  Mr,  Gibbon's  own 
language,  adopt  the  faith  of  the  gospel,  whatever  promises 
might  be  made  to  him  for  so  doing,  unless  its  tenets  appeared 
to  him  to  be  reasonable  ?     What  wotild  Mr.  Gibbon  take  to 

•  History,  Ch.  xy.  I.  p.  561.    (P.) 


GENERAL   CONCLUSION.  467 

believe  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  or  what  would  he 
socrrfice  in  this  life  for  the  most  magnificent  promise  in  a 
future  one,  made  by  a  person  whose  ability  to  make  good 
that  promise  he  at  all  suspected  ?  Plato's  doctrine  of  the 
immorfality  of  thn  soul  w^s  sufficiently  flattering  ;  but  whom 
was  it  ever  known  to  influence,  like  the  Christian  doctrine 
o{  a  resurrection  .^  The  plain  reason  was,  that  the  latter 
was  proposed  with  sufficient  evidence,  whereas  the  former 
was  altogether  destitute  of  it. 

It  is  amusing  enough  to  observe  how  very  differently  Mr. 
Gibbon  represents  the  state  of  the  heathen  world  with 
respect  to  Christianity,  when  he  would  insinuate  an  apology 
for  the  persecution  of  the  Christians.  "  It  might  be  ex- 
pected," he  says,  "  that  they  would  unite  with  indignation 
against  any  sect  or  people,  which  should  separate  itself  from 
the  communion  of  mankind,  and,  claiming  the  exclusive 
possession  of  divine  knowledge,  should  disdain  every  form 
of  worship  except  its  own,  as  impious  and  idolatrous."* 

Mr.  Gibbon,  I  suppose,  never  asked  himself  whether  it 
was  natural  for  the  same  kind  of  people  to  be  so  very  dit- 
ferently  affected  towards  the  same  thin^.  But,  unfortunately, 
his  purpose  required  that,  to  account  for  the  ready  reception 
of  Christianity  upon  insufficient  evidence,  some  of  those 
Heathens  must  be  furnished  with  an  urgent  necessity  of 
believing  any  new  religion  that  was  proposed  to  them,  espe- 
cially one  that  promised  such  great  and  glorious  things  as 
Christianitv  did  ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  to  account  also 
for  the  very  ill  reception  that  the  preachers  of  Christianity 
met  with,  (which  he  cannot  deny.)  others  of  them  must  be 
furnished  with  a  disposition  to  hate  and  detest  those  who 
pretended  to  so  much. 

I  do  not  know  any  thing  that  can  help  Mr.  Gibbon  in 
this  case  better  than  the  known  principles  of  his  favourite 
mythology.  As  the  present  race  of  mankind  are  derived 
from  the  stones  which  Deucalion  and  Pyrrha  threw  over 
their  heads,  (when  perhaps  they  were  in  too  much  haste  to 
re-people  the  vacant  world,)  they  might  not  be  sufficiently 
attentive  to  the  nature  of  those  materials  of  the  future  race 
of  mortals,  but  take  stones  of  different  degrees  of  hardness. 
In  consequence  of  this,  some  of  them  may  have  been  of  a 
softer  disposition,  and  more  easy  of  belief  than  others. 
Being,  therefore,  so  differently  constituted,  the  descendants 
of  some  of  them  might  be  instinctive  believers,  and  others 

•  Hwtory,  Ch.  xv.  I,  p.  622.    (P.) 


488  GENERAL  CONCLUSION. 

instinctive  persecutors  of  those  believers.  They  would  then 
be,  of  course,  as  hostile  to  each  other  as  those  men  who 
sprung  out  of  the  earth,  from  the  sowing  of  the  serpent's 
teeth,  in  the  elegant  mythology  of  Greece,  as  the  story  is 
most  elegantly  related  by  Ovid.  * 

Besides  these  considerations,  Mr.  Gibbon  mentions  the 
zeal  of  the  primitive  Christians,  and  the  strictness  of  their 
discipline^  as  causes  of  the  spread  of  the  new  religion.  But 
he  should  have  told  us  whence  came  that  zeal,  and  that 
strictness  of  discipline.  If  no  sufficient  cause  of  it  had 
appeared,  their  zeal  would  have  exposed  them  to  contempt ; 
and  their  discipline  would  have  discouraged,  rather  than 
have  invited  proselytes. 

Any  person  may  hold  himself  excused  from  investigating 
the  causes  that  gave  birth  to  the  opinions  of  individuals  of 
mankind,  on  account  of  the  difficulty  and  uncertainty  of 
such  an  investigation.  The  ^ame  may,  in  some  degree,  be 
said  of  particular  classes  of  men.  But  Christianity  recom- 
mended itself  to  every  description  of  men  then  existing, 
and  influenced  them  not  for  a  short  time  only,  which  might 
be  accounted  for  from  temporary  and  local  circumstances, 
but  permanently ;  so  as  to  leave  no  reasonable  doubt,  but 
that  it  would  have  gone  on  to  establish  itself  in  the  world, 
and  to  extirpate  idolatry,  if  the  civil  powers  had  continued 
to  oppose  its  progress  three  thousand,  as  they  did  three 
hundred  years ;  and  what  is  more,  notwithstanding  the 
gross  corruptions  and  abuses  which  soon  crept  into  it. 

A  fact  of  this  kind  requires  to  be  accounted  for  from  the 
most  obvious  principles  of  human  nature,  principles  common 
to  all  men,  and  all  classes  of  men  ;  and  therefore  none  but 
the  plainest  and  most  cogent  causes  of  assent^  deserve  to  be 
attended  to.  This  assent  to  the  truth  of  Christianity  could 
only  be  produced  by  such  evidence  as  always  will,  and 
always  ought  to  determine  the  assent  of  the  human  mind. 

It  is  acknowledged  that,  to  be  a  Christian,  a  man  must 
believe  some  facts  that  are  of  an  extraordinary  nature,  such 
as  we  have  no  opportunity  of  observing  at  present.  But 
those  facts  were  so  circumstanced,  that  persons  who  cannot 
be  denied  to  have  had  the  best  opportunity  of  examining 
the  evidence  of  them,  and  who,  if  they  had  not  been  true, 

♦  I  have  heard  of  a  young  gentleman  of  a  sceplical  and  jocular  turn,  taking  off 
his  hat  to  a  statue  of  Jupiter,  (who  makes  the  most  respectable  figure  in  this 
svsteni  of  mythology,)  and  saying,  "  If  ever  yon  come  into  power  again,  please  to 
remember  that  I  shewed  you  respect  when  nobody  else  did."  Mr.  Gibbon,  I  hope, 
has  no  serious  views  in  coniplimealiiig  the  religion  of  Greece  and  Rome,  meaning 
to  pay  his  court  to  the  powers  thatmatf  be,  as  others  do  to  those  that  are.    (P.) 


I 


GENERAL  CONCLUSION.  489 

had  no  motive  to  pay  any  regard  to  them,  could  not  refuse 
their  assent  to  them  ;  that  is,  it  was  sucli  evidence  as  we 
ourselves  must  have  been  determined  by,  it"  we  liad  been  in 
tlieir  place  ;  and  therefore,  if  not  fully  equivalent  to  the 
evidence  of  our  own  senses  at  present,  is,  at  least,  all  the 
evidence  that,  at  this  distance  of  time,  we  can  have  in  the 
case.  It  goes  upon  the  principle  that  human  nature  was 
the  same  thing  then  that  it  is  now  ;  and  certainly  in  all 
other  respects  it  appears  to  be  so. 

That  miracles  are  things  in  themselves  possible,  must  be 
allowed,  so  long  as  it  is  evident  that  there  is  in  nature  a 
power  equal  to  the  working  of  them.  And  certainly  the 
power,  principle,  or  bci/ig;  by  whatever  name  it  be  denomi- 
nated, which  produced  the  universe,  and  established  the 
laws  of  it,  is  fully  equal  to  any  occasional  departures  from 
them.  The  object  and  use  of  those  miracles  on  which  the 
Christian  religion  is  founded,  is  also  maintained  to  be  con- 
sonant to  the  object  and  use  of  the  general  system  of  nature, 
viz.  the  production  of  happiness.  We  have  nothing,  there- 
fore, to  do  but  to  examine,  by  the  known  rules  of  estimating 
the  value  of  testimoni/,  whether  there  be  reason  to  think  that 
such  miracles  have  been  wrought,  or  whether  the  evidence 
of  Christianity,  or  of  the  Christian  history,  does  not  stand 
upon  as  good  ground  as  that  of  any  other  history  whatever. 

Now,  though  I  am  far  from  holding  myself  out  as  the 
champion  of  Christianity,  against  all  the  world,  I  own  1 
shall  have  no  objection  to  discuss  this  subject  with  Mr. 
Gibbon,  as  an  historian  and  a  philosopher.  We  are  only 
two  individuals,  and  no  other  persons  can  be  bound  by  the 
result  of  our  discussion.  But  those  who  have  given  less 
attention  to  the  subject  than  we  have  done,  may  be  in- 
structed by  it,  and  be  assisted  in  forming  their  own  judg- 
ment, according  to  the  evidence  that  shall  be  laid  before 
them.  At  least,  it  may  be  a  means  of  drawing  some  degree 
of  attention  to  a  subject,  which  cannot  be  denied  to  be,  in 
the  highest  degree,  interesting. 

Indeed,  if  any  man  can  say  that  it  is  not  an  interesting 
question,  whether  his  existence  terminate  at  death,  or  is  to 
be  resumed  at  a  future  period,  and  then  to  continue  for  ever, 
he  must  be  of  a  low  and  abject  mind.  To  a  rational  being, 
capable  of  contemplating  the  wonders  of  nature,  and  of 
investigating  the  laws  of  it,  and  to  a  being  of  a  social  dis- 
position, his  existence,  and  the  continuance  of  his  rational 
faculties,  must  be  an  object  of  unspeakable  value  to  him  ; 
and  consequently  he  must  ardently  wish  that  Christianity 


490  GENERA!,  CONCLUSION. 

(which  alone  hrings  life  and  immortality  to  light)  may  be 
true.  For  to  a  philosopher,  who  forms  his  judgment  by 
what  he  actually  observes,  the  doctrine  of  a  soul^  capable  of 
subsisting  and  acting  when  the  body  is  in  the  grave,  will 
never  give  any  satisfaction.  To  every  person,  therefore, 
who  is  capable  of  enjoying  his  existence,  the  christian  doc- 
trine of  a  resurrection,  opens  a  glorious  and  transporting 
|)rospect. 

Voluntarily  to  shut  ones  eyes  on  such  a  prospect,  and 
really  to  wish  to  see  no  more  of  the  wonders  of  nature,  and 
of  the  progress  of  being,  and  especially  of  the  human  race, 
towards  perfection,  but  to  hide  one's  head  in  everlasting 
obscurity,  must  be  to  have  a  disposition  as  groveling,  base 
and  abject,  as  that  of  the  lowest  of  the  brute  creation.  A 
man  of  the  least  elevation  of  mind,  and  of  a  cultivated  and 
improved  understanding,  must,  surely,  lament  such  a  catas- 
trophe. 

The  fear  might  be,  that  every  truly  sensible  and  virtuous 
man  would  be  too  strongly  biassed  in  favour  of  Christianity, 
and  (if  Mr.  Gibbon's  observation  above-mentioned  be  true) 
give  his  assent  long  before  he  had  waited  to  weigh  the 
evidence  as  he  ought  to  do.  I  do  not,  however,  wish  Mr. 
Gibbon  to  shew  this  disposition.  On  the  contrary,  I  wish  him 
to  examine  every  thing  with  the  greatest  rigour,  and  I  will 
not  contend  with  him  for  trifles.  With  respect  to  some 
points  which  he  has  laboured,  though  I  am  satisfied  his 
representations  are  partial  and  unfair,  I  have  no  objection 
to  concede  almost  all  that  he  contends  for,  because,  though 
he  has  taken,  very  liberally,  he  has  left  me  enough. 

When  the  circumstances  of  the  Jews  and  Heathens,  at 
the  time  of  the  promulgation  of  Christianity,  shall  be  suffi- 
ciently considered,  (but  to  which  it  is  evident  Mr.  Gibbon 
has  given  but  a  slight  attention,)  the  reception  that  this  new 
religion  met  with  among  them,  and  the  total  subversion  #f 
tiie  several  systems  of  Paganism  by  it,  will  be  found  to  be  a 
more  extraordinary  thing,  on  the  supposition  of  the  gospel 
history  not  being  true,  more  contrary  to  the  present  course 
of  nature,  and  consequently  more  improbable,  than  the 
history  of  Christ  and  the  apostles,  as  contained  in  the  New 
Testament,  which  makes  the  whole  of  the  subsequent  his- 
tory perfectly  easy  and  natural.  In  short,  the  question  is, 
whether  Mr.  Gibbon,  or  myself,  believe  in  more  numerous, 
more  extraordinary,  or  more  useless  miracles.  Qn  this  fair, 
unexceptionable  ground  I  am  willing  to  meet  him. 

I  also  shall  not  contend  with  him  for  quite  ao  much  as 


GENERAL  €ONCLUSION.  4'Pl 

his  late  antagonists,  members  of  the  church  of  England, 
must  include  in  the  system  of  Christianity.  But  by  aban- 
doning their  out-works,  1  may  perhaps  be  better  able  to 
make  an  effectual  defence. 

My  religion  does  not  suppose,  with  bishop  Hurd,  "  that 
the  offices  in  >vhich  the  Godhead  was  employed  are  either 
degrading,  or  such  as  imply  an  immoderate  and  inconceivable 
condescension."*  1  shall  not  urge  Mr.  Gibbon  to  admit, 
(as  "  the  great  things  of  which  Christ  spake)  that  a  divine 
person,  divine  in  the  highest  sense  of  the  word,  should 
descend  from  heaven, — and  suffer  death," "f  or  that  "  the 
divine  nature  condescended  to  leave  the  mansions  of  glory, 
was  made  man,  dwelled  among  us,  and  died  for  us.":{: 

1  shall  not  pretend,  with  the  same  learned  bishop,  that  "  a 
third  divine  person  ministered — in  giving"  this  second  divine 
person  "  the  power  to  cast  out  devils,"  and  "  in  raising  him 
from  the  dead."§  Neither  shall  I  urge  him  with  "  a  pur- 
pose—to save  and  sanctify  mankind  by  such  means  as"  he 
himself  can  think  "  fanciful  and  delusive," ||  or  maintain 
that  Christ,  "  in  virtue  of  his  all-atoning  death,"  did  *'  open 
the  gates  of  eternal  life  to  the  whole  race  of  mortal  man,"^ 
which  the  bishop  enumerates  among  "  the  great  things  of 
which  Christ  spake,"  and  "  the  amazing  topics  with  which 
he  filled  his  discourses."** 


*•  See  Bishop  Hurd's  Sermons,  III.  p.  33.  {P.)  Strictly  speaking,  this  reprc- 
lentation  is  not  the  supposal  of  Bishop  H.,  but  wlirtt  he  attributes,  p.  SQ,  to  "  the 
pride  of  reason ;"  though  it  may  be  more  justly  charged  to  the  absurdity  o( syttentatie 
theology. 

t  Ibid.  p.  63.     (P.) 

X  That  the  divine  nature  of  Christ  should  die,  is,  surely,  more  than  Dr.  Hurd'« 
Christian  creed  obliges  him  to  assert,  unless  he  may  think  that  without  this,  his 
doctrine  of  atonement  could  not  be  completed.  (P.)  Dr.  Priestley  has  not  given 
his  authority  for  the  passage  here  noticed;  nor  can  I  find  the  words  in  Bishop 
Hard's  Sermons,  though  the  substance  of  them  frequently  occurs. 

^  Bishop  Hurd's  Sermons,  II.  p.  S37.   (P.)  1|  Ibid.  III.  p.  .S3.  (P.) 

5:  Ibid.  p.  63.    (P.) 

••  Ibid.  pp.  63,  64.  A  common  reader  might  peruse  our  Lord's  discourrses 
many  times  before  he  found  any  such  topics  as  these,  with  which  they  are  here 
i;iid  to  he  filled.  But  I  the  less  wonder  at  this  when  I  find  this  writer  atfemptiog 
to  prove  at  large,  that  by  washing  the  disciples'  feet,  our  Lord  meant  to  teach  the 
great  doctrine  of  atonement  bi/ his  blood,  and  wondering  (p.  188,  note),  that  Grotius 
and  other  commentators  should  not  see  it  in  the  same  light.  Sermons,  I.  pp.  177,  &c. 

But  I  own  I  am  surprised  that  he  should  maintarn,  III.  p-  67,  that  Christ 
"  Bpake  by  virtue  of  his  own  essential  right,  from  himself,  and  in  bis  own  name," 
as  well  as  "  by  the  special  appointment  of  God  the  Father,"  when  he  himself,  io 
the  nwst  unequivocal  language,  repeatedly  asserts  the  contrary;  as  John  v.  30: 
"  I  can  of  mine  own  self  do  nothing."  vii.  16:  "  My  doctrine  is  not  mine,  but  bis 
that  sent  me."  xiv.  10:  "  The  words  that  I  speak  unto  you,  I  speak  not  of  myself, 
but  the  Father  that  dwelleth  in  me,  he  doeth  the  works."  It  must  be  strong  bias 
in  favour  of  a  system  that  can  make  a  person  overlook  such  te-xts  as  theae.  But 
even  the  greatest  and  best  of  men  have  been  misled  in  the  Aame  way.    (P.) 


492  GENERAL  CONCLUSION. 

I  am  sensible  that  it  would  be  in  vain  to  urge  any  external 
historical  evidence  of  a  revelation,  of  which  such  doctrines  as 
these  should  make  a  part.  They  are  things  that  no  miracles 
can  prove.  i\s  soon  should  I  propose  to  him  the  belief  of 
Mahomet's  journey  to  the  third  heavens,  and  all  his  conver- 
sations with  God  while  a  pitcher  of  water  was  falling,  or  the 
doctrine  of  transubstautiation,  neither  of  which  are  more 
absurd,   and  both  of  them  are  much  more  innocent. 

I  am  sorry,  however,  to  have  occasion  to  admonish  Mr. 
Gibbon,  that  he  should  have  distinguished  better  than  he 
has  done  between  Christianity  itself,  and  the  corruptions  of 
it.  A  serious  Christian,  strongly  attached  to  some  particular 
tenets,  may  be  excused  if,  in  reading  ecclesiastical  history, 
he  should  not  make  the  proper  distinctions  ;  but  this  allow- 
ance cannot  be  made  for  so  cool  and  philosophical  a  spectator 
as  Mr.  Gibbon. 

He  should  not  have  taken  it  for  granted,  that  the  doctrine 
of  three  persons  in  one  God,  or  the  doctrine  of  atonement 
for  the  sins  of  all  mankind,  by  the  death  of  one  man,  were 
any  parts  of  the  Christian  system  ;  when,  if  he  had  read  the 
New  Testament  for  himself,  he  must  have  seen  the  doctrine 
of  the  proper  unity  of  God,  and  also  that  of  hisfree  mercy  to 
the  penitent,  in  almost  every  page  of  it.  As  he  does  speak 
of  the  corruptioyis  of  Christianity^  he  should  have  examined 
farther,  both  as  an  historian  and  as  a  man.  For  as  an  indi- 
vidual, he  is  as  much  interested  in  the  inquiry  as  any  other 
person  ;  and  no  inquiry  whatever  is  so  interesting  to  any  man 
as  this  is. 

As  to  what  Mr.  Gibbon,  with  a  sneer  of  triumph,  says,  of 
Plato  having  "  360  years  before  Christ"  "  ventured  to 
explore  the  mysterious  nature  of  the  Deity ,^*  and  of  "  the 
theology  of  Plato"  having  been  "  confirmed  by  the  celestial 
pen  of  the  last  and  most  sublime  of  the  evangelists,"* 
ninety-seven  years  after  that  aera  ;  like  all  his  other  sarcasms 
against  Christianity,  it  is  founded  on  ignorance.  But  he  is 
more  excusable  in  this  than  in  other  cases,  as  too  many 
Christians  have  been  chargeable  with  the  same  ;  confounding 
the  Losos  of  Plato  with  that  of  John,  and  making:  of  it  a 
second  person  in  the  Trinity,  than  which  no  two  things  can 
be  more  different,  as  has  been  clearly  explained  by  my 
excellent  and  judicious  friend  Mr.  Lindsey,  especially  in 
his  Catechist,  in  the  preface  to  which  he  has  very  properly 
animadverted  upon  this  passage  of  Mr.  Gibbon. f 

*  History,  Ch.  xxi.  IT.  pp.  287,  240.     (P.) 
t  See  Pref.  Ed.  1818,  pp.  xix. — xxiv. 


GENERAL   CONCLUSION.  +93 

,  Mr.  Gibbon  has  much  to  learn  concerning  the  gospel  before 
he  can  be  properly  qualified  to  write  against  it.  liitlnrto 
he  seems  to  have  been  acquainted  vvitii  nothing  but  the 
corrupt  establishments  of  what  is  very  improperly  called 
Christianity  ;  whereas  it  is  incumbent  upon  him  to  read  and 
study  the  New  Testament  for  himself.  There  he  will  find 
nothing  like  Platonism,  but  doctrines  in  every  respect  the 
reverse  ot  that  system  of  philosophy,  which  weak  and 
undistinguishing-  Christians  afterwards  incorporated  with  it. 

Had  Mr.  Gibbon  lived  in  France,  Spain  or  Italy,  he  might, 
with  the  same  reason,  have  ranked  the  doctrine  of  transub- 
stantiation,  and  the  worship  of  saints  and  angels,  among 
the  essentials  of  Christianity,  as  the  doctrines  of  the  Trinity 
and  of  atonement. 

The  friends  of  genuine,  and  I  will  add  of  rational  Chris- 
tianity, have  not,  however,  on  the  whole,  much  reason  to 
regret  that  their  enemies  have  not  made  these  distinctions  ; 
since,  by  this  means,  we  have  been  taught  to  make  them 
ourselves  ;  so  that  Christianity  is  perhaps  as  much  indebted 
to  its  enemies,  as  to  its  friends,  for  this  important  service. 
In  their  indiscriminate  attacks,  whatever  has  been  found  to 
be  untenable  has  been  gradually  abandoned,  and  I  hope  the 
attack  will  be  continued  till  nothing  of  the  wretched  out- 
works be  left ;  and  then,  I  doubt  not,  a  safe  and  impregnable 
fortress  will  be  found  in  the  centre,  a  fortress  built  upon  a 
rock,  against  which  the  gates  of  death  will  not  prevail. 

When  the  present  crisis  is  ov'er,  (and  I  think  we  may  see 
that  the  period  is  not  far  distant,)  that  by  means  of  the  objec- 
tions of  unbelievers,  and  the  attention  which,  in  consequence 
of  it,  will  be  given  to  the  subject,  by  believers,  Christianity 
shall  be  restored  to  its  primitive  purity,  the  cool  and  truly 
sensible  part  of  mankind  will,  in  this  very  circumstance, 
perceive  an  argument  for  its  truth  ;  and  thus  even  the  cor- 
ruptions of  Christianity  will  have  answered  a  very  valuable 
purpose  ;  as  having  been  the  means  of  supplying  such  an 
evidence  of  its  truth,  as  could  not  have  been  derived  from 
any  other  circumstance.  Let  any  other  religion  be  named 
that  ever  was  so  much  corrupted,  and  that  recovered  itself 
from  such  corruption,  and  continued  to  be  professed  with 
unquestionable  zeal  by  men  of  reflection  and  understanding, 
and  I  shall  look  upon  it  with  respect,  and  not  reject  it  without 
a  very  particular  examination.  The  revival  of  a  zeal  for  the 
religion  of  Greece  and  Rome  under  Julian,  is  not  to  be 
compared  with  the  attachment  to  Christianity  by  inquisitive 
and   learned   men  in  the  present  age.     Let  literature  and 


GENERAL  CONCLUSION. 

science  flourish  but  one  century  in  Asia,  and  what  would  be 
the  state  of  Mahometanism,  the  rehgion  of  the  Hindoos,  or 
that  of  the  Tartars,  subject  to  the  Grand  Lama?  I  should 
rejoice  to  hear  of  such  a  challenge  as  I  give  Mr.  Gibbon, 
being  sent  from  a  Mahometan  Mufti  to  the  C  hristian  world.  *? 

Should  what  I  call  pure  Christianity,  (the  most  essential 
articles  of  which  I  consider  to  be  the  proper  unity  of  God ^ 
and  the  proper  humanity  of  Christ,)  continue  to  spread  as  it 
now  does,  and  as,  from  the  operation  of  the  same  causes,  I 
have  no  doubt  but  that,  in  spite  of  all  opposition,  it  will  do, 
and  literature  revive  among  the  Jews  and  Mahometans,  (who, 
it  is  remarkable,  were  never  learned  and  inquisitive,  but  in 
an  age  in  which  all  the  Christianity  they  could  see  must 
have  struck  them  with  horror,  as  a  system  of  abominable 
and  gross  idolatry,  to  which  their  own  systems  are  totally 
repugnant) :  should  learning  and  inquiry,  I  say,  once  more 
revive  among  the  Jews  and  Mahometans,  at  the  same  time 
that  a  great  part  of  the  Christian  world  should  be  free  from 
that  idolatry  which  has  given  them  such  just  offence,  they 
would  be  much  more  favourably  impressed  with  the  idea  of 
Christianity  than  they  were  in  former  times. 

It,  also,  can  hardly  be  supposed,  but  that  the  general  con- 
version of  the  Jews,  after  a  state  of  such  long  and  violent 
opposition,  (which  will  in  all  future  time  exclude  the  idea 
of  their  having  acted  in  concert  with  the  Christians,)  will 
be  followed  by  the  conversion  of  all  the  thinking  part  of  the 
world.  And  if,  before  or  after  thi?  time,  the  Jews  should 
return  to  their  own  country,  the  whole  will  be  such  a  mani- 
fest fulfilment. of  the  prophecies  of  Scripture,  as  will  leave 
no  reasonable  colour  for  infidelity. 

In  the  prospect  of  this  great  and  glorious  event  I  rejoice  ; 
and  I  wish  to  contribute  a  little  towards  hastening  its  approach, 
both  by  unfolding  the  history  of  Christianity,  with  all  the 
corruptions  of  it,  and  submitting  to  the  most  rigid  examina- 
tion whatever  I  think  to  be  really  a  part  of  it.  To  this,  all 
the  friends  of  genuine  Christianity  will  cheerfully  say, 
Amen. 

*  This  passage  was  earcastically  noticed  by  Mr.  Gibbon,  in  the  Correspondence, 
which  Dr.  Priestley  publislied  in  1794,  at  the  end  of  his  Discourses.  It  is  also 
imong  the  Letters  in  Mr.  Gibbon's  Miscellaneous  Works.  See  on  the  temper 
discovered  by  the  Historian,  Mon.  Repos.  X.  p.  8,  Note. 


CIF.NERAL  CONCLUSION.  49i 


THE  GENERAL  CONCLUSION. 


PART  II. 

CQ.1TAININQ 

Considerations  addressed   to   the  Advocates  for   the  present 
Civil  Establishments  of  Christianity^  and  especially  Bishop 

HuRD. 

After  relating,  with  so  mucli  freedom,  the  rise,  progress, 
and  present  state,  of  what  1  deem  to  be  Corruptions  of 
Christianity^  and  especially  in  the  established  systems  of  it, 
all  of  which  I  consider  as  antichristian^  being  both  exceed- 
ingly corrupt  in  X.\\Q\x  principles^  and  supported  by  3.  power 
totally  foreign  to  that  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ ;  I  cannot 
help  expressing  my  earnest  wishes,  that  something  may  be 
done  by  those  who  have  influence,  to  remove  these  evils,  or 
at  least  to  palliate  them.  And  I  cannot  help  considering 
those  prelates  who  really  have  influence  in  these  matters,  as 
highly  criminal,  in  this  enlightened  age,  if  they  are  not  ap. 
prised  of  the  abuses,  and  if  they  do  not  use  their  endeavours 
to  rectify  them. 

ft  will  not  be  imagined  that  I  have  the  least  prospect  of 
being  benefited  myself  by  any  alteration  that  can  take  place 
in  the  ecclesiastical  system  of  my  own  country.  All  1  wish, 
as  a  Christian,  from  the  powers  of  this  world,  is,  that  they 
would  not  intermeddle  at  all  in  the  business  of  religion,  and 
that  they  would  give  no  countenance  whatever  to  any  mode 
of  it,  my  own,  or  that  of  others,  but  shew  so  much  confidence 
in  the  principles  of  what  they  themselves  deem  to  be  true 
rehgion,  as  to  think  it  able  to  guard  itself. 

But  though  I  have  nothing  to  ask  for  myself,  much  may, 
and  ought  to  be  done  for  those  who  do  not  look  quite  so  far 
as  I  do.  Many  excellent  men  among  the  clergy  of  the 
church  of  England  are  exceedingly  distressed  with  the  obli- 
gation to  subscribe  what  they  cannot  believe,  and  to  recite 
what  they  utterly  condemn  ;  and  yet  their  circumstances  are 
such,  as  too  strongly  tempt  them  to  make  the  best  of  their 
situation,  rather  than  absolutely  starve;  and  many  others 
are  continually  prevented  from  entering  the  church  by  the 
same  state  of  things  in  it.     Even  the  guilt  of  those  men  who 


496  GENERAL  CONCLUSION. 

are  induced  to  comply,  to  the  disquiet  of  their  consciences, 
will  lie,  in  a  great  measure,  at  the  door  of  those  who  could 
relieve  them,  if  they  were  in  earnest  to  do  it. 

Those  who  have  any  principle  themselves  must  feel  some- 
thing for  those  who  find  themselves  obliged  by  a  principle  of 
conscience  absolutely  to  abandon  their  preferment  in  the 
church.  Many  and  painful  must  have  been  their  struggles, 
before  they  could  bring  themselves  to  execute  a  resolution, 
which  is  viewed  with  wonder  and  regret  by  many  of  their  best 
friends,  and  with  indifference  or  contempt  by  the  world  at 
large.  But  they  have  respect  to  other  spectators^  at  present 
invisible,  but  whose  approbation  will  hereafter  be  of  more 
value  than  all  things  else  ;  and  while  they  are  conscious  that 
what  Xhey  forsake  in  this  world  is  for  the  sake  of  Christ,  and 
the  gospel.  Matt.  xix.  29,  they  cannot  be  unhappy  even  now. 
Few  of  these  cases,  it  is  probable,  come  to  the  hearing  of 
those  whom  no  such  scruples  disturb.*  But  while  such  is 
the  state  of  things  in  this  country,  and  the  cry  for  reformation 
grows  louder  every  day,  "  Woe  to  them  that  are  thus  at  ease 
inowrZion.*'     Amos  vi.  1. 

If  I  could  for  a  moment  wish  myself  in  the  situation  of 
those  prelates  who  have  influence  in  the  present  state  of 
things  in  this  country,  (but,  indeed,  I  am  far  from  consider- 
ing their  situation  as  an  enviable  one,  thinking  my  own,  as  a 
Dissenting  minister,  despicable  as  I  am  sensible  it  must 
appear  to  them,  to  be  in  reality  more  useful,  more  honour- 
able, and  more  happy,)  it  would  be  to  acquire  that  immortal 
renown  which  it  is  in  their  power  to  secure  by  promoting 
such  a  Reformation.  But  the  same  situation  would  pro- 
bably lead  me  to  see  things  in  the  same  light  in  which  they 
see  them  ;  and  being  easy  myself,  I  might  feel  as  little  as 
they  do  for  those  who  were  ill  at  ease  under  me. 

It  is,  I  am  sensible,  extremely  difficult  to  put  one's  self 
exactly  in  the  place  of  another  person,  and  therefore  it  is 
equally  difficult  to  make  proper  allowance  for  the  sentiments 
and  conduct  of  other  persons.  But  if  it  be  a  situation  that 
necessarily  leads  any  set  of  men  to  judge  and  act  wrong,  it 
should  be  a  reason  with  those  who  see  the  influence  of  that 
situation,  to  remove  the  cause  of  offence.  This  work,  we 
may  assure  ourselves,  will  be  done;  and  if  those  in  whose 
power  it  now  is,  be  not  the  proper  instruments  for  it,  others 

*  In  the  course  of  the  last  six  months  only  I  have  heard  of  five  fresh  instances  of 
clergymen  who,  on  account  of  becoming  Unitarians,  have  abandoned  either  actual 
preferment,  or  considerable  prospects  in  the  church.  It  is  probable  there  are  others 
that  1  have  not  heard  of.     {P.) 


GENERAL  CONCLUSION.  497 

will  be  found,  in  God's  own  time,  both  in  Roman  Catholic 
countries,  and  in  this. 

The  work  of  reformation  is  advancing  apace  in  several 
Roman  Catholic  countries,*  and  this  will  make  it  doubly  re- 
proachful to  us,  at  least,  not  to  keep  the  lead  we  have  hitherto 
plumed  ourselves  upon  taking,  in  what  relates  to  religious 
liberty,  and  to  which  we  must  be  sensible  that  we  owe  much 
of  the  honour,  and  even  the  flourishing  state  of  our  country. 

One  of  the  worst  symptoms  of  the  present  time  is,  that 
men  of  the  greatest  eminence  in  the  church,  and  of  the  most 
unquestionable  ability,  appear  to  be  either  wholly  indifferent 
to  the  subject,  or  instead  of  promoting  a  farther  reformation, 
employ  all  their  ingenuity  to  make  men  acquiesce  in  the 
present  system  ;  when  all  they  can  urge  is  so  palpably  weak, 
that  it  is  barely  possible  they  should  be  in  earnest;  not 
indeed  in  their  wishes  to  keep  things  as  they  are,  but  in 
thinking  their  arguments  have  that  weight  in  themselves 
which  they  wish  them  to  have  with  others.  To  sec  such 
men  as  bishop  Hurd  in  this  class  of  writers,  a  class  so  little 
respectable,  when  he  is  qualified  to  class  with  Tillotson, 
Hoadley  and  Clarke,  equally  excites  one's  pity  and  indig- 
nation. 

This  truly  able  writer  has  all  the  ap|>earance  of  being 
really  serious,  in  alleging  that  the  Reformers  of  the  church 
of  England  were  as  well  qualified  to  judge  concerning  the 
system  of  Christianit}'^  as  we  now  are.  "  They  had  only," 
he  says,  "  to  copy,  or  rather  to  inspect — the  Sacred  Scriptures^ 
which  lay  open  to  them  as  they  do  to  us  ;"-j*  as  if  it  required 
nothing  more  than  eyes,  capable  of  distinguishing  the  words 
of  Scripture,  to  enter  into  their  real  meaning.  But  iiad  not 
the  Papists,  the  Lutherans,  the  Calvinists,  the  Anabaptists, 
and  the  Socinians,  of  the  same  age,  eyes,  as  well  as  the 
Reformers  of  the  church  of  England  ?  And,  I  may  add, 
were  they  not  men  of  as  good  understanding  ? 

But  he  adds,  ^'' The  Sacred  Scriptures — being  taken  by 
them — for  their  sole  rule  of  faith,  what  should  hinder  them, 
when  they  read  those  Scriptures,  from  seeing  as  distinctly  as 
we  do  at  this  day  ?"J  I  answer,  the  same  thing,  whatever 
it  is,  that  makes  men  interpret  the  Scriptures  so  differently 
from  the  truth,  at  this  day.  Was  that  an  age  exempt  from 
prejudice;  or  were  the  Refonners  in  England  the  only  per- 
sons so  privileged  ?  All  the  classes  o^  Reformers  above 
enumerated,  appealed  to  the  Scriptures  alike. 

•  See  lupra,  p.  4,  and  Note. 

t  Sermons,!,  p.  235.     (P.)  %  Ibid.  pp.  '.i35,  236.      P.) 

YOL.   V.  2  K 


498  GENERAL  CONCLUSION. 

However,  it  is  far  from  beings  true  that  the  English 
Reformers,  M-hatever  they  might  pretend,  were  determined 
by  the  authority  of  Scripture  only.  It  is  evident  to  most 
persons,  though  it  may  not  be  so  to  bishop  Hurd,  that  they 
were  much  influenced  by  the  doctrines  of  the  second,  the 
third,  and  even  later  centuries.  What  else  could  have  led 
them  to  adopt  the  Nicene,  and  especially  the  Athanasian 
Creed  ?  This  was  going  far  beyond  the  canon  of  the 
Scriptures.  Or  should  the  English  Reformers  have  seriously 
proposed  to  themselves  to  make  the  Scriptures  their  only 
rule,  how  was  it  possible  for  them,  educated  as  they  were, 
in  the  complicated  system  of  Popery,  to  read  Uiem  with 
unprejudiced  eyes? 

But  "  the  Reformation,"  he  says,  "  was  not  carried  on 
with  us  in  a  precipitate,  tumultuary  manner,  as  it  was,  for 
the  most  part,  on  the  Continent.  On  the  other  hand,  it 
advanced,  under  the  eye  of  the  magistrate,  by  slow  degrees. 
Nay,  it  was  more  than  once  checked  and  kept  back  by  him. 
Hence  it  came  to  pass,  that  there  was  time  allowed  for  taking 
the  full  benefit  of  all  discoveries  made  abroad  ;"  and  "  for 
studying  the  chief  points  of  controversy  with  care.  In 
short, — between  the  first  contentions  in  Germany  on  the 
account  of  religion,  and  the  final  establishment  of  it  in  the 
church  of  England  under  Elizabeth,  there  was  a  space  of 
near  half  a  century. '** 

it  is  obvious  to  remark,  that  the  very  same  encomium 
might  have  been  bestowed  upon  the  church  of  England,  if  it 
had  been  fixed  in  any  of  the  different  periods,  in  which  it  was 
fixed  (and  which  is  here  called  being  checked  and  kept  hack^ 
by  one  prince,  or  advanced  by  another,  as  well  as  where  it 
was  checked  and  kept  back  (for  this,  bishop  Hurd  cannot  deny 
to  have  been  the  case)  by  queen  Elizabeth.  It  would  also 
have  been  equally  applicable  to  any  different  establishment 
that  should  have  been  made  after  the  Reformation  had  been 
moving  on  a  complete  half  century^  as  well  as  nearly  07ie,  or 
if  it  had  gone  on  afterwards  (still  under  the  controuling  eye 
of  the  magistrate,)  to  this  day.  For  why  should  not  our 
present  civil  governors  be  as  good  judges  in  matters  of  reli- 
gion, as  any  persons  in  the  same  situations  could  have  been 
two  hmidred  years  ago  ?  Just  so  much  more  time  has  elapsed 
since  "  the  first  contentions  in  Germany  on  the  account  of 
religion,'*  and  consequently  more  time  would  have  been 
allowed  for  taking  the  full  benefit  of  all  the  discoveries  that 

*  Sermons,  I.  pp.  259,  240.    (P.) 


GENERAL  C O  N  C  MT S I O X .  499 

have  been  miide  both  at  home  and  abroad,  &c.  And  it  can- 
not be  doubted  but  that  if  a  new  establishment  sliould  be 
made  at  this  day,  it  would  be,  in  many  respects,  considerably 
different  from  the  present. 

On  the  other  iiand,  liad  all  our  sovereigns  after  queen 
Mary  been  Papists,  and  the  Reformation  never  been  resumed, 
a  present  bishop  of  Worcester  might  have  said  that  the  ex- 
periment had  been  tried,  and  had  not  answered,  and  that  what 
had  been  established  by  the  wisdom  of  ages,  in  all  the  coun- 
tries of  Europe,  it  could  not  be  safe  to  alter.  Besides,  what 
can  a  Christian,  jealous  for  the  purity  of  his  religion,  expect 
from  the  controuling  eye  of  the  magistrate^  but  such  a  modifi- 
cation of  it,  or  something  bearing  its  name,  as  should  be 
thought  to  be  most  subservient  to  his  own  interest  ?  It  does 
not  require  the  understanding  of  bishop  Hurd  to  see  the  full 
force  of  this  reply  ;  but  it  may  require  a  mind  less  fascinated 
by  prejudice  in  favour  of  long-established  forms. 

In  one  respect  this  learned  prelate  acknowledges  that  the 
English  Reformers  were  not  "  sufficiently  enlightened,  and 
that  was  with  respect  to  the  doctrine  o^  toleration.''  But  he 
says,  "  no  peculiar  charge  of  ignorance  can  be  brought  against 
the  Reformers  for  misapprehending  a  subject  not  only  diffi- 
cult in  itself,  but  perplexed  with  endless  prejudices."*  But 
surely  bishop  Hurd  himself  will  not  say,  that  the  doctrine  of 
toleration  is  more  difficult  in  itself,  or  more  perplexed  with 
prejudices,  than  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinitij. 

In  another  case,  also,  if  he  be  at  all  ingenuous,  he  must 
acknowledge  that  the  English  Reformers  did  not  see  quite  so 
clearly  as  he  himself  now  does.  He  says,  "  the  Christian 
system  has — been  reviled  by  such  as  have  seen  or  would  only- 
see  it  through  the  false  medium  of  Popish,  or  Calvinistical 
ideas. "f  Calvinism,  therefore,  according  to  him,  is  not  true 
Christianity.  But  let  any  competent  judge  of  the  subject 
read  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  of  the  church  of  England,  and 
say  whether  they  have  not  a  strong  tinge  of  Calvinism.  J 

k  is  not  merely  from  such  a  general  expression  as  that 
above  quoted,  that  1  conclude  bishop  Hurd  is  no  friend  of 

•  Sermons,  I.  pp.  210,241.     (P.)  f  Ibid.  p.  37.     (P.) 

X  Hence  the  first  Lord  Chatham  is  said  to  have  described  the  church  of  England 
as  possessing  "  a  Calvinistic  Creed,  a  I'opish  Liturj^y,  and  an  Arminian  Clergy." 
Burnet,  who  was  too  honest  to  deny  what  it  ill-suited  him  to  admit,  says  on  Art.  xvii. 
that  "  it  is  very  probable  that  those  wiio  penned  if.  meant  that  the  Decree  was 
absolute."  Yet  "  since  they  have  not  said  it,"  he  provides  a  convenient  sense  for  the 
Remonstrants,  though  he  confesses,  that  "  the  C'atvinists  have  less  occasion  for 
scruple,  since  the  article  does  seem  more  plainly  to  favour  them."  Expos.  Ed.  4, 
p.  165.     See  also  The  Confessional,  Ed.  3,  pp.  331—335. 


^00  GENERAL  CONCLUSION. 

Calvinism.  He  directly  contradicts  the  fundamental  article 
of  that  system  when  he  says,  that  "  a  divine  persdn,  &c. 
in  virtue  of  his  all-atoning  death,"  has  opened  "  the  gates  of 
eternal  life  to  the  whole  race  of  mortal  man/'  * 

According  to  the  plainest  sense  of  the  articles  of  the  church 
of  England,  the  gates  of  eternal  life  are  not  opened  to  the 
whole  race  of  mortal  man ;  but  only  to  those  who  "  by  the 
everlasting  purpose  of  God, — before  the  foundations  of  the 
world  Avere  laid,"  being  "  chosen  in  Christ  out  of  mankind," 
are  "  decreed  by  his  counsel,  secret  to  us,"  and  are  delivered 
"  from  curse  and  damnation." f  It  must  be  a  strange  lati- 
tude of  interpretation^  (for  which  his  Lordship  is  an  advocate,) 
that  can  reconcile  these  two  contrary  positions  ;  and  yet  in 
the  preface  to  these  articles  it  is  said,  "  that  they  were  agreed 
upon  for  avoiding  diversity  of  opinions,  and  establishing 
consent  touching  true  religion."  Let  Mr.  Madan,;};  Dr. 
Hurd,  and  the  excellent  bishop  of  Carlisle,  together  with 
some  unbelievers  among  the  clergy,  all  subscribers  to  the 
same  articles,  confer  together,  and  tell  us  what  this  consent 
touching  true  religion  is. 

What  reformation  can  we  expect  in  any  important  doc- 
trinal articles  of  religion,  when  bishop  Hurd  expresses  him- 
self so  strongly,  as  we  have  seen,  in  favour  of  the  divinity  of 
Christ,  in  the  highest  sense  of  the  word  P  By  which  he  must 
mean  that  he  is  fully  equal,  in  power  and  glory,  to  the  Father, 
whom  Christ  himself  styles  his  Father  and  our  Father,  his  God 
and  our  God.  It  was  a  long  time,  as  I  have  shewn,  before  any 
Christians,after  they  contended  that  Christ  was  God,  had  any 
idea  of  his  being  so,  except  in  some  qualified  sense.  I  will 
venture  to  say  that  no  person  before,  or  at  the  Council'  of 
Nice,  would  have  used  such  language  as  this  of  bishop  Hurd. 

With  respect  to  the  doctrine  of  atonement,  which  I  think 
I  have  proved  to  be  quite  a  modern  thing,  and  hardly  to  have 
been  known  before  the  Reformation,  bishop  Hurd  says, 
"  The  Scriptures  are  unintelligible,  and  language  itself  has 
no  meaning,  if  the  blood  of  the  Lamb  slain  had  not  a  true, 
direct  and  proper  efficacy  (considered  in  the  literal  sense  of 
blood),  in  freeing  us  from  the  guilt  of  sin,  or  in  other  words 
from  the  punishment  of  it."§ 

It  is  impossible,  however,  not  to  observe,  that  the  Papists 
use  the  same  language  in  defence  of  the  doctrine  o^  transub- 


•  Sermons,  III.  p.  63.     (P.)  t  ^rt- xvii.     (P.) 

J  A  rector  in  Birmingham,  who  gave  occasion  to  the  Familiar  Letters,     1750- 

^  Sermons,  I.  p.  IQS.     (P.) 


GENERAL  CONCLUSION.  501 

'^tant'iation,  appealing  also  to  the  literal  sense  of  more  texts 
of  Scripture  than  one.  Besides,  how  is  it  possible  that  the 
blood  of  any  man  (and  the  divinity  of  Christ  certainly  had 
no  b/ood),  considered  in  a  literal  sense,  should  cleanse  from 
sin  ?  Surely  there  must  be  something  figurative  in  such  lan- 
guage as  this  ;  and  why  should  the  figurative  sense  end  just 
where  bishop  Hurd  would  fix  it,  rather  than  where  Socinus 
would  choose  } 

Nay,  it  should  seem  that,  according  to  bishop  Hurd,  our 
salvation  depends  upon  the  belief  of  this  novel  doctrine  of 
atonement.  For  I  can  see  no  other  natural  interpretation  of 
what  he  says  :  "  They  must  place  their  entire  hope  and  con- 
fidence in  the  blood  of  the  covenant,  who  would  share  in  the 
blessings  of  it."*  if  this  is  to  be  understood  according  to 
the  literal  sense  of  the  words,  all  the  heathen  world  are 
excluded  from  salvation,  as  well  as  Socinians. 

To  me  it  appears  extraordinary,  that  a  man  of  bishop 
Kurd's  good  sense  should  not  be  more  staggered  than  he 
appears  to  have  been,  at  the  very  manner  in  which  he  him- 
self describes  the  doctrines  of  the  divinity  of  Christ,  and  of 
atonement  for  sin  by  his  death,  every  sentence,  and  every 
clause  of  a  sentence,  being  calculated  to  excite  astonishment; 
but  1  shall  only  transcribe  a  part  of  it.  After  describing  the 
gradual  unfolding  of  the  scheme  under  the  Jewish  dispensa- 
tion, he  says, 

"  At  length  Jesus  Christ  came  into  the  world,  to  fulfil 
and  to  declare  the  whole  will  of  God  on  this  interesting 
subject;  and  from  him,  and  from  those  commissioned  by 
him,  we  learn  what  the  wisest  men,  and  even  angels  had 
desired  to  look  into,  and  could  at  most  discern  but  imper- 
fectly, through  the  t^'pes  and  shadows  of  the  patriarchal  and 
Mosaic  dispensations.  The  great  mystery,  now  unveiled, 
■was  briefly  this,  that  God — would  only  confer  this  mighty 
privilege  at  the  instance,  as  it  were,  and  for  the  sake,  of  a 
transcendently  divine  person,  his  only-begotten  son,  the  second 
person  in  the  glorious  trinity,  as  we  now  style  him  ;  that  this 
divine  person — should  descend  from  heaven,  should  become 
incarnate, — should  even  pour  out  his  blood  unto  death,  and 
by  that  blood  should  wash  away  the  stain  of  guilt. — In  this 
awfully  stupendous  manner  (at  which  reason  stands  aghast, 
and  faith  herself  is  half  confounded)  was  the  grace  of  God 
to  man  at  length  manifested. "-j- 

The  natural  effect  of  such  a  pause  of  astonishment  as  this, 

•  Sermons,  I.  p.  194.    (P.)  t  Ibid.  II.  pp.  285—287.    (P.) 


502  GENERAL  CONCLUSION. 

should  be  a  close  examination,  whether  a  thing  that  even 
supernatural  evidence  can  barely  make  credible,  did  ever  take 
place  ;  for  in  all  cases,  the  more  extraordinary  any  thing,  any 
event,  or  any  proposition,  is,  the  more  evidence  it  requires. 
And  when  we  consider  the  true  meaning  of  the  figurative 
language  of  Scripture,  it  will  be  found  to  assert  nothing  on 
this  subject  at  which  even  reason  can  stand  aghast. 

Our  author  himself,  after  enumerating  the  strongest  figura- 
tive expressions  of  the  Scriptures  on  this  subject,  as  those  in 
which  the  terms  redemption,  ransom,  propitiation,  sacrifice, 
&c.  occur,  closes  the  whole  with  this  observation  :  "  Now 
let  men  use  whafart  they  will  in  torturing  such  expressions 
as  these,  they  will  hardly  prevent  our  seeing  what  the  plain 
doctrine  of  Scripture  is,  viz.  That  it  pleased  God  to  give  us 
eternal  life  only  in  his  Son,  and  in  his  Son  onli/  as  suffering 
and  dying  for  us."*  All  this  I  readily  admit,  believing  as 
firmly  as  bishop  Hurd  can  do,  that  it  was  expedient  and 
necessary  that  such  a  person  as  Jesus  Christ  should  preach 
as  he  did,  and  that  he  should  die  and  rise  again,  or  the  end 
of  the  gospel,  in  forming  men  to  a  happy  immortality,  could 
not  have  been  gained.  This  is  certainly  the  doctrine  of  the 
New  Testament,  but  then  it  is  far  from  being  the  doctrine 
of  atonement;  which  I  think  I  have  shewn  to  be  a  very 
different  thing  from  that  which  was  taught  by  Christ  and 
the  apostles,  and  indeed  to  have  been  unknown  for  several 
centuries  after  Christ. 

It  is  no  wonder  that  this  writer  shpuld  say,  that  "  no 
Christian  is  bound  to  make  this  solicitous  inquiry  into  the 
doctrinal — part  of  the  gospel ;"  and  that  very  ''  possibly  his 
conduct  is  then  most  acceptable,  when  he  looks  no  farther 
than  to  the  authority  of  the  gospel,  agreeably  to  that  well- 
known  decision  of  our  Lord  himself,  Blessed  is  he  who  hath 
not  seen,  and  yet  hath  believed  J' -\  For  certainly  such  tenets 
as  those  above-cited,  can  never  be  believed  on  any  other 
terms.  Faith  in  them  must  be  implicit,  and  without  inquiry. 
It  is  rather  extraordinary,  however,  that  this  writer  did  not 
perceive  that  the  saying  which  he  quotes  of  our  Saviour 
relates  only  to  a  matter  of  fact,  of  which  it  was  not  possible 
that  more  than  a  very  few  persons  could  be  eye-witnesses  ; 
whereas  the  things  that  he  is  contending  for  are  doctrines,  of 
which  all  persons  at  this  day  are  competent  judges,  provided 
they  make  use  of  their  reason,  and  examine  the  Scriptures 
for  themselves.     But  even  the  looking  no  farther  than  to  the 

*  Sermons,  il.  pp.  288,  289-   (P-)  t  Ibid.  III.  p.  52,    (P.) 


GENERAL  CONCLUSION.  503 

authoriti/  of  the  gospel  for  articles  of  faith,  may  make  a  very 
solicitous  inquiry  absolutely  necessary,  considering  how  much, 
and  how  long,  some  articles  of  faith  have  been  misrepre- 
sented. 

In  fact,  if  the  learned  prelate  could  fiincy  himself  out  of 
the  fetters  of  his  church's  creed,  he  might  find  the  very  arti- 
cles which  he  so  zealously  contends  for  among  the  "  quibbles 
and  metaphysics  which"  (with  a  strain  of  pleasantry  not 
usual  to  him,  and  indeed  rather  uncommon  in  a  sermon) 
he  says  the  Pagan  philosophers,  when  they  "  pressed  into 
the  church,  in  their  haste,  forgot  to  leave  behind  them."* 

But  however  these  doctrines  came  in,  to  repeat  the  bishop's 
own  words,  "  the  presumptuous  positions  of  particular  men, 
or  churches,  are  forwardly  taken  for  the  genuine  doctrines  of 
Christianity ;  and  tliese  positions  being  not  unfrequently 
either  wholly  unintelligible,  or  even  contrary  to  the  plainest 
reason,  the  charge  of  nonsense,  or  of  falsehood,  is  thus  dex- 
terously transferred  on  the  gospel  itself."f  This  very  just 
and  well-expressed  observation  1  cannot  help  thinking  to  be 
peculiarly  applicable  to  several  articles  of  the  creed  of  bishop 
Hurd  himself,  as  I  think  must  be  sufficiently  evident  from 
the  preceding  history. 

This  writer,  not  content  with  what  he  himself  had  advanced 
against  all  improvements,  or  alterations,  in  the  church  in 
which  he  presides,  quotes  with  the  highest  approbation  what 
Mr.  Burgh,  in  his  reply  to  Mr.  Lindsey,  says  against  the 
idea  of  2t.  progressive  religion^  viz.  that  "All  that  the  Bible 
contains  was  as  perspicuous  to  those  who  first  perused  it, 
after  the  rejection  of  the  papal  yoke,  as  it  can  be  to  us  now, 
or  as  it  can  be  to  our  posterity  in  the  fiftieth  generation. ";]: 

This  is  evidently  a  mis-stating  of  the  case ;  because  it  is 
not  a  progressive  religion^  but  a  progressive  reformation  of  a 
corrupted  religion,  that  is  pleaded  for.  And  as  it  cannot  be 
denied  that  the  corruption  of  Christianity  was  a  gradual  and 
progressive  thing,  can  it  be  so  very  unnatural  to  expect  that 
the  restoration  of  it  to  its  primitive  purity  should  be  gradual 
and  progressive  also  ?  If  the  Reformation  was  not  progressive, 
why  does  not  this  bishop  prefer  the  state  of  it  under  John 
Huss  and  Jerome  of  Prague  to  that  of  Luther  and  Cranmer  ? 
He  may  say  that  they  had  not  then  completely  rejected  the 
papal  yoke.  But  if  by  papal  yoke  he  meant  all  the  corrup- 
tions of  Christianity  contained  in  the  system  of  l^opery, 
and  which  had  been  enforced  by  the  authority  of  the  see  ol' 

•  Sermons,  III.  p.  205.  (P.)        t  Ibid.  p.  209.  (P.)        1  Ibid.  I.  p  241.  (P.) 


504  GENERAL  CONCLUSION. 

Rome,  I  say,  that  neither  Luther  nor  Cranmer  rejected  the 
papal  yoke,  because  their  reformations  were  partial. 

Besides,  if  we  make  the  sentiments  of  the  divines  of  that 
particular  age,  which  Mr.  Burgh  and  bishop  Hurd  may  call 
the  proper  cera  of  the  Reformation^  to  be  our  standard,  why 
should  we  adopt  those  of  Luther  or  Cranmer,  in  preference 
to  those  of  Socinus,  or  even  those  of  the  Anabaptists  of 
Munster,  who  were  all  of  the  same  age  }  I  know  of  no  reason 
but  that  the  opinions  of  Luther  and  Cranmer  had  the  sanc- 
tion of  the  civil  powers,  which  those  of  Socinus,  and  others 
of  the  same  age,  and  who  were  equally  well  qualified  to  judge 
for  themselves,  had  not. 

It  is  nothing  but  the  alliance  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ 
with  the  kingdoms  of  this  world  (an  allliance  which  our 
Lord  himself  expressly  disclaimed)  that  supports  the  grossest 
corruptions  of  Christianity  ;  and  perhaps  we  must  wait  for 
the  fall  of  the  civil  powers  before  this  most  unnatural  alhance 
be  broken.  Calamitous,  no  doubt,  will  that  time  be.  But 
what  convulsion  in  the  political  world  ought  to  be  a  subject 
of  lamentation,  if  it  be  attended  with  so  desirable  an  event  ? 
May  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  of  Christ  (that  which  I  con- 
ceive to  be  intended  in  the  Lord's  prayer),  truly  and  fully 
qomcy  though  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  world  be  removed,  in 
order  to  make  way  for  it ! 


506 


APPENDIX, 


CONTAtNlNG 


A  Summary  Vieto  of  the  Evidence  for  the  Primitive  Christians 
holding  the  Doctrine  of  the  simple  Humanity  of  Christ. 

As  the  doctrine  held  by  the  primitive  church,  and  especially 
by  the  Jewish  Christians,  is  of  particular  consequence,  it 
may  give  satisfaction  to  some  of  my  readers,  to  see  the  evi- 
dence for  their  holding-  the  doctrine  of  the  simple  humanity 
of  Christ  stated  in  a  more  concise  and  distinct  manner  than 
it  is  done  in  the  body  of  this  work.  1  shall,  therefore, 
attempt  it  in  this  place,  and  take  the  opportunity  of  intro- 
ducing a  few  more  circumstances  relating  to  it. 

1.  It  is  acknowledged  by  early  writers  of  the  orthodox 
persuasion,  that  two  kinds  of  heresy  existed  in  the  times  of 
the  apostles,  viz.  that  of  those  who  held  that  Christ  was 
simply  a  man^  and  the  other  that  he  was  man  only  in  appear- 
ance. Now  the  apostle  John  animadverts  with  the  greatest 
severity  upon  the  latter;  and  can  it  be  thought  probable 
that  he  should  pass  over  the  former  without  censure,  if  he 
had  thought  it  to  be  an  error  ? 

2.  Athanasius  is  so  far  from  denying  this,  that  he  endea- 
vours to  account  for  Christ  being  spoken  of  as  a  man  only, 
in  several  parts  of  the  New  Testament,  and  especially  in  the 
book  of  Acts,  from  the  apostles  not  being  willing  to  offend 
the  Jews  (meaning  the  Jewish  Christians)  of  those  times, 
and  that  they  might  bring  them  to  the  belief  of  the  divinity 
of  Christ  by  degrees.  He  adds,  that  the  Jews  being  in  this 
error  (which  he  states  as  their  believing  Christ  to  be  \f/<Ao^ 
avSowTTos)  drew  the  Gentiles  into  it  also. 

3.  It  is  acknowledged  by  Eusebius  and  others,  that  the 
ancient  Unitarians  themselves,  constantly  asserted  that  their 
doctrine  was  the  universal  opinion  of  the  Christian  church 
till  the  time  of  Victor. 

4.  Hegesippus,  the  first  Christian  historian,  himself  a 
Jew,  enumerating  the  heresies  of  his  time,  mentions  several 
of  the  Gnostic  kind,  but  not  that  of  Christ  being  a  mere 
man.    He  moreover  says,  that,  in  travelling  to  Rome,  where 

VOL.  V.  2    L 


606  GENERAL  CONCLUSION. 

he  arrived  in  the  time  of  Anicetiis,  he  found  all  the  churches 
that  he  visited  held  the  faith  which  had  been  taught  by 
Christ  and  the  apostles. 

5.  Justin  Martyr,  who  maintains  the  pre-existence  of 
Christ,  is  so  far  from  calling  the  contrary  opinion  a  heresi/^ 
that  what  he  says  on  the  subject  is  evidently  an  apology  for 
his  own.  As  Hegesippus  was  contemporary  with  Justin,  he 
must  have  heard  at  least  of  the  doctrine  of  the  simple  hu- 
manity of  Christ ;  but  he  might  not  have  heard  much  about 
the  opinion  of  Justin,  which  was  diflPerent  from  that  of  the 
Gnostics,  though-  the  pre-existence  of  Christ  was  a  part  of 
both. 

6.  Irenaeus,  who  wrote  after  Justin,  only  calls  the  opinion 
of  those  who  held  that  Christ  was  the  son  of  Joseph  as  well 
as  of  Mary  a  heresy.  He  says  nothing  of  those  who,  be- 
lieving him  to  be  a  mere  man,  allowed  that  he  had  no  human 
father. 

7.  Those  whom  Epiphanius  calls  Alogi,  among  the  Gen- 
tiles, held  that  Christ  was  merely  a  man  ;  and  as  they  had 
no  peculiar  appellation  before  his  time,  and  had  no  separate 
assemblies,  it  is  evident  they  could  not  have  been  distin- 
guished as  heretics  in  early  times. 

8.  The  first  who  held,  and  discussed,  the  doctrine  of  the 
divinity  of  Christ,  acknowledged  that  their  opinion  was  ex- 
ceedingly unpopular  with  the  unlearned  Christians,  and  that 
these  latter  were  pious  persons,  who  dreaded  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity,  as  thinking  that  it  infringed  upon  that  of  the 
supremacy  of  God  the  Father. 

9.  The  divinity  of  Christ  was  first  advanced  and  urged 
by  those  who  had  been  heathen  philosophers,  and  especially 
those  who  were  admirers  of  the  doctrine  of  Plato,  who  held 
the  opinion  of  a  second  God.  Austin  says,  that  he  consi- 
dered Christ  as  no  other  than  a  most  excellent  man,  and  had 
no  suspicion  of  the  word  of  God  being  incarnate  in  him,  or 
how  "  the  catholic  faith  differed  from  the  error  of  Photinus,** 
(the  last  of  the  proper  Unitarians  whose  name  is  come  down 
to  us,)  till  he  read  the  books  of  Plato  ;  and  that  he  was  after- 
wards confirmed  in  his  opinion  by  reading  the  Scriptures.* 
Constantine,  in  his  oration  to  the  fathers  of  the  Council  of 
Nice,  speaks  with  commendation  of  Plato,  as  having  taught 
the  doctrine  of  "  a  second  God,  derived  from  the  supreme 
God,  and  subservient  to  his  will."f 

10.  There  is  a  pretty  easy  gradation  in  the  progress  of  the 

•  Confessiones,  L.  vii.  C.  19,  &c.   (P.)  t  C.  ix.  p.  684.    (P.) 


(iKNERAL   CONCLUSION.  .50/ 

doctrine  of  the  divinity  of  Christ;  as  he  was  fust  thouj^ht 
to  be  a  God  in  some  quahficd  sense  of  the  word,  a  distin- 
guished emanation  from  the  supreme  mind,  and  th«ii  the 
logos  or  wisdom  of  God  personified  ;  and  it  was  not  till  near 
four  hundred  years  after  Christ  that  he  was  thought  to  he 
properly  equal  to  the  Father.  Whereas,  on  ihe  other  hand, 
it  is  now  pretended,  tliat  the  apostles  taught  the  doctrine  of 
the  proper  divinity  of  Christ;  and  yet  it  cannot  Int  denied 
that,  in  the  very  times  of  the  apostles,  the  Jt.\vis<i  church, 
and  many  of  the  Gentiles,  held  the  opinion  of  his  bein;^^  a 
7nere  maw.  Here  the  transition  is  quite  sudden,  without  any 
gradation  at  all.  This  must  naturally  have  given  the  greatest 
alarm,  such  as  is  now  given  to  those  who  are  called  orthodox 
by  the  present  Socinians;  and  yet  nothing  of  this  kind  can 
be  perceived.  Besides,  it  was  certaiidy  more  probable  that 
the  Christians  of  those  times,  urged  as  they  were  with  the 
meanness  of  their  Master,  should  incline  to  add  to,  rather 
than  take  from,  his  natural  rank  and  dignity. 


END    OF    VOLUME   V. 


C.  SMAM.flEI.X),    PHINTKn,  JIACKKEV, 


Piilinceton  Theological  Seminary  Libraries 


1    1012  0 


196  2372 


DATE  DUE 

•i*,*****^*'^  ^ 

-^i^^i;jr(lj'h'lf''^? 

•»■ 

**:^ka»i.^^ 

"■^^--^........^ 

0mmm>^; 

GAYLORD 

PRINTED  IN  U    S    A. 

ft  ^ 


■(-i 


1^ 


5^"''  '^^ 


'>:^ 
".^J-'' 


A? 


if  j*./v. 


tF 


iff^