And as there were many important reasons, which induced him to suit the administration of the church to these changes in the civil constitution, this necessarily introduced, among the bishops new degrees of eminence and rank. Three prelates had, before this, enjoyed a certain degree of pre-eminence over the rest of the episcopal order, viz. the bishops of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria; and to these the bishop of Constantinople, was added, when the imperial residence was transferred to that city. These four prelates answered to the four prætorian prefects created by Constantine; and it is possible that, in this very century, they were distinguished by the Jewish title of Patriarchs. After these, followed the exarchs, who had the inspection over several provinces, and answered to the appointment of certain civil officers who bore the same title. In a lower class, were the Metropolitans, who had only the government of one province, under whom were the archbishops, whose inspection was confined to certain districts. In this gradation, the bishops brought up the rear; the sphere of their authority was not, in all places, equally extensive; being in some considerably ample, and in others confined within narrow limits. To these various ecclesiastical orders, we might add that of the chorepiscopi, or superintendants of the country churches; but this order was, in most places, suppressed by the bishops, with a design to extend their own authority, and enlarge the sphere of their power and jurisdiction. of accuracy and precision; so that both in this and the following centuries, we find many transactions that seem absolutely inconsistent with it. We find the emperors, for example, frequently determining matters purely ecclesias tical, and that belonged to the internal jurisdic tion of the church; and, on the other hand, nothing is more frequent than the decisions of bishops and councils concerning things that relate merely to the external form and government of the church. 4 V. In the episcopal order, the bishop of Rome was the first in rank, and was distinguished by a sort of pre-eminence over all other prelates. Prejudices arising from a great variety of causes, contributed to establish this superiority; but it was chiefly owing to certain circumstances of grandeur and opulence, by which mortals, for the most part, form their ideas of pre-eminence and dignity, and which they generally confound with the reasons of a just and legal authority. The bishop of Rome surpassed all his brethren in the magnificence and splendour of the church over which he presided; in the riches of his revenues and possessions; in the number and variety of his ministers; in his credit with the people; and in his sumptuous and splendid manner of living. These dazzling marks of human power, these ambiguous proofs of true greatness and felicity, had such a mighty influence upon the minds of the multitude, that the see of Rome became, in this century, a most seducing object of sacerdotal ambition. Hence it happened, that when a new pontiff was to be elected by the suffrages of the presbyters and the people, the city of Rome was generally agitated with dissensions, tumults, and cabals, whose consequences were often deplorable and fatal. The intrigues and disturbances that prevailed in that city in the year 366, when, upon the death of Liberius, another pontiff was to be chosen in his place, are a sufficient proof of what we have now advanced. Upon this occasion, one faction elected Damasus to that high dignity, while the opposite party chose Ursicinus, a deacon of the vacant church, to succeed Liberius. This double election gave rise to a dangerous schism, and to a sort of civil war within the city of Rome, which was carried on with the utmost barbarity and fury, and produced the most cruel massacres and desolations. This inhuman contest ended in the victory of Damasus; but whether his cause was more just than that of Ursicinus, is a question not so easy to determine. Neither of the two, indeed, seem to have been possessed of such principles as constitute a good Christian, much less of that exemplary virtue that should distinguish a Christian bishop. IV. The administration of the church was divided by Constantine himself, into an external and an internal inspection. The latter, which was committed to bishops and councils, related to religious controversies; the forms of divine worship; the offices of the priests; the vices of the ecclesiastical orders, &c. The external administration of the church, the emperor assumed to himself. This comprehended all those things that relate to the outward state and discipline of the church; it likewise extended to all contests and debates that should arise between the ministers of the church, superior as well as inferior, concerning their possessions, their reputation, their rights and privileges, their offences against the laws, and things of a like nature; but no controversies that related to matters purely religious were cognizable by this external inspection. In consequence of this artful division of the ecclesiastical government, Constantine and his successors called councils, presided in them, appointed the judges of religious controversies, terminated the differences which arose between the bishops and the people, fixed the limits of the ecclesiastical provinces, took cognizance of the civil causes that VI. Notwithstanding the pomp and splendour subsisted between the ministers of the church, that surrounded the Roman see, it is, however, and punished the crimes committed against the certain, that the bishops of that city had not laws by the ordinary judges appointed for that acquired, in this century, that pre-eminence of purpose; giving over all causes purely ecclesias-power and jurisdiction in the church which they tical to the cognizance of bishops and councils. But this famous division of the administration of the church was never explained with perspicuity, nor determined with a sufficient degree I This appears from several passages in the useful work of Lud. Thomassinus, entitled Disciplina Ecclesiæ vet. et novæ circa beneficia, tom. i. 2 Euseb. De vita Constantini, lib. iv. cap. xxiv. p. 536. 3 See the imperial laws both in Justinian's Code, and in the Theodosian; as also Godofred. ad Codic. Theodos. tom. vi. 55. 58, 333, &c. afterwards enjoyed. In the ecclesiastical commonwealth, they were, indeed, the most eminent order of citizens; but still they were citizens, as well as their brethren, and subject, like them, to the edicts and laws of the emperors. All religious causes of extraordinary importance were examined and determined, either by judges ap 4 Ammianus Marcellinus gives a striking description of the luxury in which the Bishops of Rome lived, Ħist. lib. xxvii. cap. iii. p. 337. 5 Among the other writers of the papal history, see Bower's History of the Popes, vol. i. p. 180 181, 182 pointed by the emperors, or in councils assembled for that purpose; while those of inferior moment were decided, in each district, by its respective bishop. The ecclesiastical laws were enacted, either by the emperor, or by councils. None of the bishops acknowledged that they derived their authority from the permission and appointment of the bishop of Rome, or that they were created bishops by the favour of the apostolic see. On the contrary, they all maintained that they were the ambassadors and ministers of Jesus Christ, and that their authority was derived from above. It must, however, be observed, that even in this century, several of those steps were laid, by which the bishops of Rome mounted afterwards to the summit of ecclesiastical power and despotism. These steps were partly laid by the imprudence of the emperors, partly by the dexterity of the Roman prelates themselves, and partly by the inconsiderate zeal and precipitate judgment of certain bishops.' The fourth canon of the council, held at Sardis, in the year 347, is considered by the votaries of the Roman pontiff, as the principal step to his sovereignty in the church; but, in my opinion it ought by no means to be looked upon in this point of view. For, not to insist upon the reasons that prove the authority of this council to be extremely dubious, nor upon those which have induced some to regard its laws as grossly corrupted, and others to consider them as entirely fictitious and spurious, it will be sufficient to observe the impossibility of proving by the canon in question, that the bishops of Sardis were of opinion, that, in all cases, an appeal might be made to the bishop of Rome, in quality of supreme judge." But supposing, for a moment, that this was their opinion, what would follow? Surely that pretext for assuming a supreme authority, must be very slender, which arises only from the decree of one obscure council. VII. Constantine the Great, by removing the 6 Those who desire an ampler account of this matter, may consult Petr. de Marca, De concordia Sacerdotii et imperii. Du Pin, De antiqua Ecclesiae disciplina; and the very learned and judicious work of Blondel, De la Primauté dans l'Eglise. 37 The imprudence of the emperor, and the precipitation of the bishops were singularly discovered in the following event, which favoured extremely the rise and the ambition of the Roman pontiff: About the year 372, Valentinian enacted a law, empowering the bishop of Rome to examine and judge other bishops, that religious disputes might not be decided by profane or secular judges. The bishops assembled in council at Rome, in 378, not considering the fatal consequences that must arise, from this imprudent law, both to themselves and to the church, declared their approbation of it in the strongest terms, and recommended the execution of it in an address to the emperor Gratian.-Some think, indeed, that this law empowered the Roman bishop to judge only the bishops within the limits of his jurisdiction, i. e. those of the suburbicarian provinces. Others are of opinion, that this power was given only for a time, and extended to those bishops alone, who were concerned in the present schism. This last notion seems probable: but still this privilege was an excellent instrument in the hands of sacerdotal ambition. 8 See Mich. Geddes, Diss. de canonibus Sardicensibus, which is to be found in his Miscellaneous Tracts, tom. ii. p. 415. 9 The fourth canon of the council of Sardis, supposing it genuine and authentic, related only to the particular case of a bishop's being deposed by the neighbouring prelates, and demanding a permission to make his defence. In that case, this canon prohibited the election of a successor to the deposed bishop, before that the bishop of Rome had examined the cause, and pronounced sentence thereupon. seat of the empire to Byzantium, and building the city of Constantinople, raised up, in the bishop of this new metropolis, a formidable rival to the Roman pontiff, and a bulwark which menaced a vigorous opposition to his growing authority. For, as the emperor, in order to render Constantinople a second Rome, enriched it with all the rights and privileges, honours, and ornaments, of the ancient capital of the world; so its bishop, measuring his own dignity and rank by the magnificence of the new city, and its eminence, as the august residence of the emperor, assumed an equal degree of dignity with the bishop of Rome, and claimed a superiority over all the rest of the episcopal order. Nor did the emperors disapprove of these high pretensions, since they considered their own dignity as connected, in a certain measure, with that of the bishop of their imperial city. Accordingly, in a council held at Constantinople in the year 381, by the authority of Theodosius the Great, the bishop of that city was, during the absence of the bishop of Alexandria, and against the consent of the Roman prelate, placed, by the third canon of that council, in the first rank after the bishop of Rome, and consequently, above those of Alexandria and Antioch. Nectarius was the first bishop who enjoyed these new honours accumulated upon the see of Constantinople. His successor, the celebrated John Chrysostom, extended still further the privileges of that see, and subjected to its jurisdiction all Thrace, Asia, and Pontus;10 nor were the succeeding bishops of that imperial city destitute of a fervent zeal to augment their privileges, and to extend their dominion. This sudden revolution in the ecclesiastical government, and this unexpected promotion of the bishop of Byzantium to a higher rank, to the detriment of other prelates of the first eminence in the church, were productive of the most disagreeable effects. For this promotion not only filled the bishops of Alexandria with the bitterest aversion to those of Constantinople, but also excited those deplorable contentions and disputes between these latter and the Roman pontiffs, which were carried on, for many ages, with such various success, and concluded, at length, in the entire separation of the Latin and Greek churches. VIII. The additions made by the emperors and others to the wealth, honours, and advantages of the clergy, were followed with a proportionable augmentation of vices and luxury, particularly among those of that sacred order, who lived in great and opulent cities; and that many such additions were made to that order after the time of Constantine, is a matter that admits of no dispute. The bishops, on the one hand, contended with each other, in the most scandalous manner, concerning the extent of their respective jurisdictions, while, on the other, they trampled upon the rights of the people, violated the privileges of the inferior ministers, and imitated, in their conduct, and in their manner o. living, the arrogance, voluptuousness, and lux 10 See Petr. de Marca, Diss. de Constantinop. Patriar chatus institutione, which is subjoined to his book, De con. cordia Sacerdotü et Imperii. Mich. Lequien. Oriens Chris. tianus, tom. i. p. 15. See also An Account of the Govern ment of the Christian Church for the first six hundred years by Dr. Parker, bishop of Oxford, p. 245. ury of magistrates and princes. This pernicious example was soon followed by the several ecclesiastical orders. The presbyters, in many places, assumed an equality with the bishops in point of rank and authority. We find also many complaints made, at this time, of the vanity and effeminacy of the deacons. Those more particularly of the presbyters and deacons, who filled the first stations of these orders, carried their pretensions to an extravagant length, and were offended at the notion of being placed upon an equal footing with their colleagues. For this reason, they not only assumed the titles of Archpresbyters and Archdeacons, but also claimed a degree of authority and power much superior to that which was vested in the other members of their respective orders. IX. Several writers of great reputation lived in this century, and were shining ornaments to the countries to which they belonged. Among those that flourished in Greece, and in the eastern provinces, the following seem to deserve the first rank: Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, who has left some catechetical discourses, which he delivered in that city; he has been accused by many of intimate connections with the Semi-Arians. John, surnamed Chrysostom, on account of his extraordinary eloquence, a man of a noble genius, governed successively the churches of Antioch and Constantinople, and left behind him several monuments of his profound and extensive erudition; as also discourses which he had preached with vast applause, and which are yet extant. Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis, in the isle of Cyprus, who wrote a book against all the heresies that had sprung up in the church until his time. This work has little or no reputation, as it is full of inaccuracies and errors, and discovers almost in every page the levity and ignorance of its author." Gregory Nazianzen and Gregory of Nyssa, who have obtained a very honourable place among the celebrated theological and polemic writers of this century, and not without founEusebius Pamphilius, bishop of Cæsarea in dation, as their works sufficiently testify. 10 Their Palestine, a man of immense reading, justly reputation, indeed, would have been more confamous for his profound knowledge of ecclesias-firmed, had they been less attached to the writtical history, and singularly versed in otherings of Origen, and less infected with the false branches of literature, more especially in all the and vicious eloquence of the sophists. different parts of sacred erudition. These emirent talents and acquisitions were, however, accompanied with errors and defects, and he is said to have inclined towards the sentiments of those who looked upon the three persons in the Godhead as different from each other in rank and dignity. Some have represented this learned prelate as a thorough Arian, but without foundation; if by an Arian be meant, one who embraces the doctrines taught by Arius, presbyter of Alexandria. Peter of Alexandria, who is mentioned by Eusebius with the highest encomiums." Athanasius, patriarch of Alexandria, celebrated on account of his learning and pious labours, and particularly famous for his warm and vigorous opposition to the Arians.1 Basil, surnamed the Great, bishop of Cæsarea, who, in point of genius, controversial skill, and a rich and flowing eloquence, was surpassed by very few in this century.5 1 See Sulpit. Sever. Hist. Sacr. lib. i. cap. xxiii. p. 74. lib. ii. cap. xxxiii. p. 248. cap. li. p. 292. Dialog, i. cap. 21. p. 426. Add to this the account given by Clarkson, in his Discourse upon Liturgies, p. 228. of the corrupt and profligate manners of the clergy, and particularly, of the unbounded ambition of the bishops, to enlarge the sphere of their influence and authority. 2 No writer has accused Eusebius of Arianism, with more bitterness and erudition, than Le Clerc, in the second of his Epistole Eccles. et Critica, which are subjoined to his Ars Critica and Natalis Alexander, Hist. Eccles. Nov. T. Sec. iv. Dis. xvii. p. 205. All, however, that these writers prove is, that Eusebius maintained, that there was a certain disparity and subordination between the persons of the Godhead. And suppose this to have been his opinion, it will not follow from thence that he was an Arian, unless that word be taken in a very extensive and improper sense. Nothing is more common than the abusive application of this term to persons, who have held opinions quite opposite to those of Arius, though perhaps they may have erred in other respects. 3 Hist. Eccles. lib. ix. cap. vi. 4 Eusebius Renaudotus, in his History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria, p. 83. has collected all the accounts which the Oriental writers give of Athanasius, of whose works the learned and justly celebrated Benedictine Bernard Montfaucon, has given a splendid edition in three volumes in folio. 5 The works of Basil were published at Paris, in three volumes folio, by Julian Garnier, a learned Benedictine. Ephraim the Syrian, who has acquired an immortal name by the sanctity of his conversation and manners, and by the multitude of those excellent writings in which he has combated the sectaries, explained the sacred writings, and unfolded the moral duties and obligations of Christians.12 Besides the learned men now mentioned, there are several others, of whose writings but a small number have survived the ruins of time; such as Pamphilus, a martyr, and an intimate friend of Eusebius; Diodorus, bishop of Tarsus; Hosius, of Cordova; Didymus, of Alexandria; Eustathius, bishop of Antioch; Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium; Palladius, the writer of the Lausiac History;' .13 Macarius, 6 The later editions of the works of this prelate, are those published by Mr. Milles and by Augustus Touttee, a Benedictine monk. 7 It must not be understood by this, that Chrysostom was bishop of both these churches; he was preacher at Antioch, (a function, indeed, which before him was always attached to the episcopal dignity,) and afterwards patriarch of Constantinople. 8 The best edition of the works of Chrysostom, is that published by Montfaucon, in eleven volumes folio. 9 The works of Epiphanius have been translated into Latin, and published with notes, by the learned Petau. His life written by Gervas, appeared at Paris in 1738, in 4to. 10 There are some good editions of these two writers, which we owe to the care and industry of two learned French editors of the last century. Viz. the Abbot Billy, who published the works of Gregory Nazienzen at Paris, in two volumes, folio, in the year 1609, with a Latin translation, and learned notes; und Father Fronton du Duc, who published those of Gregory of Nyssa in 1605. 11 The charge of Origenism seems to have been brought by the ancient writers only against Gregory of Nyssa. 12 There is a large and accurate account of this excellent writer in the Biblioth. Oriental. Vaticana of Joseph Simon Asseman, tom. i. p. 24. Several works of Ephraim have been published in Greek, at Oxford, of which Gerard Vossius has given a Latin edition. An edition in Syriac, of the same works, was published at Rome, not long ago, by Steph. Euod. Asseman. 13 This is the history of the solitaries, or hermits, which derived the name of Lausiac history from Lausus, governor of Cappadocia, at whose request it was com posed, and to whom it was dedicated by Palladius. the elder and the younger; Apollinarius the elder; and some others, who are frequently made mention of on account of their erudition, and the remarkable events in which they were concerned. X. The Latins also were not without writers of considerable note, the principal of whom we shall point out here. Hilary, bishop of Poictiers, acquired a name by twelve books concerning the Trinity, which he wrote against the Arians, and several other productions. He was a man of penetration and genius; notwithstanding which, he has, for the most part, rather copied in his writings Tertullian and Origen, than given us the fruits of his own study and invention, 11 Lactantius, 15 the most eloquent of the Latin writers in this century, exposed the absurdity of the Pagan superstitions in his Divine Institutions, which are written with uncommon purity and elegance. He wrote also upon other subjects, but was much more successful in refuting the errors of others, than careful in observing and correcting his own.16 Ambrose, prefect, and afterwards bishop of Milan, was not destitute of a certain degree of elegance both of genius and style; his sentiments of things were, by no means, absurd; but he did not escape the prevailing defect of that age, a want of solidity, accuracy, and order. 17 Jerome, a monk of Palestine, rendered, by his learned and zealous labours, such eminent services to the Christian cause, as will hand down his name with honour to the latest posterity. But this superior and illustrious merit was accompanied, and, in some measure, obscured, by very great defects. His complexion was excessively warm and choleric; his bitterness against those who differed from him, extremely keen; He was so and his thirst of glory insatiable. prone to censure, that several persons, whose lives were not only irreproachable, but even exemplary, became the objects of his unjust accusations. All this joined to his superstitious turn of mind, and the enthusiastic encomiums which he lavished upon a false and degenerate sort of piety which prevailed in his time, sunk his reputation greatly, and that even in the esteem of the candid and the wise. His writings are voluminous, but not all equally adapted to instruct and edify. His interpretations of the holy scriptures, and his epistles, are those of his productions which seem the most proper to be read with profit." 18 The fame of Augustin, bishop of Hippo, in 14 There is a very accurate and ample account of Hilary, In the Histoire Litteraire de la France, tom. i. Siecle iv. p. 139-193. The best edition we have of his works is that published by the French Benedictines. 15 See a complete account of Lactantius, Histoire Litteaire de la France, tom. i. Siecle iv. p. 65. 16 Lactantius considers Christ's mission as having no other end, than that of leading mankind to virtue by the most sublime precepts, and the most perfect example The charge of Manicheism brought against this eminent writer, is refuted in the most evident and satisfactory manner by Dr. Lardner, in the seventh volume of his Credibility of the Gospel History, where the reader may find an ample and interesting account of his character and his writings. Among those who have been editors of the works of Lactantius, the most reputed are Bunemann, Heumann, Walchius, and Languet de Fresnoy. 17 The works of St. Ambrose have been published, by the Benedictines, in two volumes in folio. 18 The defects of Jerome are exposed by Le Clerc, in his Questiones Hieronymiane, published at Amsterdam in 12mo, in the year 1700. The Benedictine monks have given an edition of the works of this father in five volumes, I Africa, filled the whole Christian world; and not without reason, as a variety of great and shining qualities were united in the character o that illustrious man. A sublime genius, an uninterrupted and zealous pursuit of truth, and indefatigable application, and invincible patience, a sincere piety, and a subtle and lively wit, conspired to establish his fame upon the most lasting foundations. It is, however, certain, that the accuracy and solidity of his judgment were, by no means, proportionable to the eminent talents now mentioned; and that upon many occasions, he was more guided by the violent impulse of a warm imagination, than by the cool dictates of reason and prudence. Hence that ambiguity which appears in his writings, and which has sometimes rendered the most attentive readers uncertain with respect to his real sentiments; and hence also the just complaints which many have made of the contradictions that are so frequent in his works, and of the levity and precipitation with which he set himself to write upon a variety of subjects, before he had examined them with a sufficient degree of attention and diligence." 19 Optatus, bishop of Milevi, in Numidia, acquired no small degree of reputation, by a work which he wrote in six books against the Schism of the Donatists.20 Paulinus, bishop of Nola, left behind him some poems and epistles, which are still extant; but are not remarkable either for their excellence or their meanness.21 Rufinus, presbyter of Aquileia, is famous on account of his Latin translations of Origen, and other Greek writers, his commentaries on several passages of the holy scriptures, and his bitter contest with Jerome. He would have obtained a very honourable place among the Latin writers of this century, had it not been his misfortune to have had the powerful and foul-mouthed Jerome for his adversary. 2 As to Philastrius, Damasus, Juvencus, and other writers of that obscure class, we refer the reader, for an account of them, to those authors whose principal design is to give an exact enumeration of the Christian writers. We shall add, nevertheless, to the list already given, Sulpitius Severus, by birth a Gaul, and the most eminent historical writer of this century; as also Prudentius, a Spaniard, a poet of a happy and elegant genius. 23 which was republished, at Verona, by Vallarsius, with considerable additions. 19 An accurate and splendid edition of the works of St Augustin, has been given by the Benedictines, since that of the divines of Louvain. This elegant edition bears the title of Antwerp, where it was published, with some augmentations, by Le Clerc, under the fictitious name of Ja The Jesuits, however, pretend to have Phereponus. found many defects in this edition. 20 Since the edition of Optatus, published by Albaspinæus, another has appeared, which we owe to the care and industry of Du Pin, doctor of the Sorbonne. 21 The best edition of Paulinus, is that which was pub lished at Paris, in the year 1685, by Le Brun. 22 Rufinus and Jerome had lived, for many years, in the most intimate and tender friendship, which ended in a violent rupture, on occasion of a translation which the former made of some of the works of Origen, particularly his Book of principles. For an account of Rufinus, see Rich. Simon, Critique de la Bibliotheque des Auteurs Eccles. par M. Du Pin. tom. i. p. 124, &c. An ample account of the same writer is given by Justus Fontaninus Hist. Literar. Aquileiensis, lib. v. p. 149. 23 See Histoire Litteraire de la France, tom. ii. p. 95; as, also Hieron. a Prato, who has written, with great ac u racy, the life of this historian. CHAP. III. statues of their gods and heroes, were now attributed to Christian churches, to water consecrated by certain forms of prayer, and to the images of CONCERNING THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHRISTIAN holy men. And the same privileges, that the CHURCH IN THIS CENTURY. !. THE fundamental principles of the Christian doctrine were preserved hitherto uncorrupted and entire in most churches, though, it must be confessed, that they were often explained and defended in a manner that discovered the greatest ignorance, and an utter confusion of ideas. The disputes carried on in the council of Nice, concerning the three persons in the Godhead, afford a remarkable example of this, particularly in the language and explanations of those who approved of the decisions of that council. So little light, precision, and order, reigned in their discourses, that they appeared to substitute three gods in the place of one. Nor did the evil end here; for those vain fictions, which an attachment to the Platonic philosophy, and to popular opinions, had engaged the greatest part of the Christian doctors to adopt before the time of Constantine, were now confirmed, enlarged, and embellished, in various ways. From hence arose that extravagant veneration for departed saints, and those absurd notions of a certain fire destined to purify separate souls, that now prevailed, and of which the public marks were every where to be seen. Hence also the celibacy of priests, the worship of images and relics, which, in process of time, almost utterly destroyed the Christian religion, or at least eclipsed its lustre, and corrupted its very essence in the most deplorable manner. II. An enormous train of different superstitions were gradually substituted in the place of true religion and genuine piety. This odious revolution was owing to a variety of causes. A ridiculous precipitation in receiving new opinions, a preposterous desire of imitating the Pagan rites, and of blending them with the Christian worship, and that idle propensity, which the generality of mankind have towards a gaudy and ostentatious religion, all contributed to establish the reign of superstition upon the ruins of Christianity. Accordingly, frequent pilgrimages were undertaken to Palestine, and to the tombs of the martyrs, as if there alone the sacred principles of virtue, and the certain hope of salvation were to be acquired. The reins being once let loose to superstition, which knows no bounds, absurd notions, and idle ceremonies multiplied every day. Quantities of dust and earth brought from Palestine, and other places remarkable for their supposed sanctity, were Landed about as the most powerful remedies against the violence of the wicked spirits, and were sold and bought every where at enormous prices. The public processions and supplications, by which the Pagans endeavoured to appease their gods, were now adopted into the Christian worship, and celebrated with great pomp and magnificence in several places. The virtues that had formerly been ascribed to the heathen temples, to their lustrations, to the 1 See Gregor. Nysseni, Orat. ad eos qui Hierosolymam adeunt, tom. iii. opp. p. 568. Hieronymus, Epist. xiii. ad Paulinum de instituto Monachi, tom. i. p. 66. Jac. Godofred. ad Codicem Theodosian. tom. vi. p. 65. Petri Wesselingii, Dissertat, de causis peregrinat. Hierosolymit. quam Itinerario Burdigalensi præmisit, inter vetera Romanor. Itineraria, p. 537. 2 Augustinus, De civitate Dei, lib. xxii. cap. viii. sect. 6. former enjoyed under the darkness of Paganism, were conferred upon the latter under the light of the gospel, or, rather, under that cloud of superstition that was obscuring its glory. It is true, that, as yet, images were not very common; nor were there any statues at all. But it is, at the same time, as undoubtedly certain, as it is extravagant and monstrous, that the worship of the martyrs was modelled, by degrees, according to the religious services that were paid to the gods before the coming of Christ.3 From these facts, which are but small specimens of the state of Christianity at this time, the discerning reader will easily perceive what detriment the church received from the peace and prosperity procured by Constantine, and from the imprudent methods employed to allure the different nations to embrace the gospel. The brevity we have proposed to observe in this history, prevents our entering into an ample detail of the dismal effects which arose from the progress and the baneful influence of superstition, now become universal. III. This, indeed, among other unhappy effects, opened a wide door to the endless frauds of those odious impostors, who were so far destitute of all principles, as to enrich themselves by the ignorance and errors of the people. Rumours were artfully spread abroad of prodigies and miracles to be seen in certain places (a trick often practised by the heathen priests,) and the design of these reports was to draw the populace, in multitudes, to these places, and to impose upon their credulity. These stratagems were generally successful; for the ignorance and slowness of apprehension of the people, to whom every thing that is new and singular appears miraculous, rendered them easily the dupes of this abominable artifice. Nor was this all; certain tombs were falsely given out for the sepulchres of saints and confessors; the list of the saints was augmented with fictitious names, and even robbers were converted into martyrs." Some buried the bones of dead men in certain retired places, and then affirmed, that they were divinely admonished, by a dream, that the body of some friend of God lay there.' Many, especially of the monks, travelled through the different provinces; and not only sold, with the most frontless impudence, their fictitious relics, but also deceived the eyes of the multitude with ludicrous combats with evil spirits or genii. A whole volume would be requisite to contain an enumeration of the various frauds which artful knaves practised, with success, to delude the ignorant, when true religion was almost entirely superseded by horrid superstition. IV. Many of the learned, in this century, undertook translations of the holy scriptures, but few succeeded in this arduous enterprise. Among 3 For a full account of this matter, see Beausobre, Hist du Manicheism, tom. ii. p. 642. 4 Henry Dodwell, Dissert. ii. in Irenæum, sect. 56. p. 195. Le Clerc, in his Appendix Augustinian. p. 492, 550, 575. 5 Concil. Carthag. v. Canon, xiv. tom. i. Conciliorum, p 988. edit. Harduini. 6 Sulpitius Severus, De vita S. Martini, cap. viii. 7 Augustin. Sermone cccxviii. sect. i. tom. v. opp. p. 886. edit. Antwerp. 8 See Godofred ad cod. Theod. tom. iii. p. 172. Augustin, De opere Monachor. cap. xxviii. sect. 36. p. 364. tom. vi opp. Hieronym. Epist. ad Rusticum, tom. i. opp. p. 45 |