Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub

and established by the authority of Augustin, and CENT. thus transmitted to the following ages.

IV. PART II.

of Chris

XVII. When we cast an eye towards the lives and morals of Christians at this time, we find, as The lives formerly, a mixture of good and evil; some emi- and morals nent for their piety, others infamous for their tians. crimes. The number, however, of immoral and unworthy Christians began so to increase, that the examples of real piety and virtue became extremely rare. When the terrors of persecution were totally dispelled; when the church, secured from the efforts of its enemies, enjoyed the sweets of prosperity and peace; when the most of the bishops exhibited to their flock the contagious examples of arrogance, luxury, effeminacy, animosity, and strife, with other vices too numerous to mention; when the inferior rulers and doctors of the church fell into a slothful and opprobrious negligence of the duties of their respective stations, and employed, in vain wranglings, and idle disputes, that zeal and attention that were due to the culture of piety and to the instruction of their people; and when (to complete the enormity of this horrid detail) multitudes were drawn into the profession of Christianity, not by the power of conviction and argument, but by the prospect of gain and the fear of punishment; then it was, indeed, no wonder that the church was contaminated with shoals of profligate Christians. and that the virtuous few were, in a manner, oppressed and overwhelmed with the superior numbers of the wicked and licentious. It is true, that the same rigorous penitence, which had taken place before Constantine the Great, continued now in full force againt flagrant transgressors; but when the reign of corruption becomes universal, the vigour of the laws yields to its sway, and a weak execution defeats the purposes of the most salutary discipline. Such was

now

CENT. now unhappily the case; the age was sinking IV. daily from one period of corruption to another; PART II the great and the powerful sinned with impunity; and the obscure and the indigent felt alone the severity of the laws.

The Mele

versy.

XVIII. Religious controversies among Christian contro- tians were frequent in this century; and, as it often happens in the course of civil affairs, external peace gave occasion and leisure for the fomenting intestine troubles and dissensions. We shall mention some of the principal of these controversies, which produced violent and obstinate schisms; not so much, indeed, by their natural tendency, as by incidental occurrences.

In the beginning of this century, about the year 306, arose the famous Meletian controversy, so called from its author, and which, for a long time, divided the church. Peter, bishop of Alexandria, had deposed, from the episcopal office, Meletius, bishop of Lycopolus, in the Upper Egypt. The reasons that occasioned this violent act of authority, have not been sufficiently exposed.

The partisans of Peter allege, that Meletius had sacrificed to the gods, and charge him also with various crimes [x]; while others affirm, that his only failing was an excessive severity against the lapsed [y]. Be that as it will, Me

letius treated the sentence of Peter with the utmost contempt, and did not only continue to perform all the duties of the episcopal function, but even assumed the right of consecrating presbyters; a privilege which, by the laws of Egypt, belonged only to the bishop of Alexandria. The venerable

[x] Athanasius, Apologia secunda, tom. i. opp. p. 777. [y] Epiphanius, Hæres. lxviii. tom. i. opp. p. 716. see also Dion. Petavius, Not. in Epiphanium, tom. ii. p. 274. Sam. Basnagii Exercitat. de rebus sacris contra Baronium.

venerable gravity and eloquence of Meletius drew CENT. many to his party, and among others, a consider- PART II.

able number of monks adhered to his cause. The council of Nice made several ineffectual attempts to heal this breach; the Melitans, on the other hand, whose chief aim was to oppose the authority of the bishop of Alexandria, joined themselves to the Arians, who were his irreconcileable enemies. Hence it happened, that a dispute, which had for its first object the authority and jurisdiction of the bishop of Alexandria, degenerated gradually into a religious controversy. The Meletian party was yet subsisting in the fifth century [*].

bles.

IV.

XIX. Some time after this, a certain person The Eusta named Eustathius, was the occasion of great dis- thian trouorders and divisions in Armenia, Pontus, and the neighbouring countries; and was condemned. and excommunicated, in consequence thereof, by the council of Gangra, which was held not long after that of Nice. Whether this was the same. Eustathius, who was bishop of Sebastia, in Armenia, and the chief of the Semi-arians; or whether the ancient historians have confounded together two different persons of the same name, is a matter extremely difficult to determine [a]. However that be, the leader of the Eustathian sect does not seem so much chargeable with a corruption of any religious doctrine, as with having set up a fanatical form of sanctity; an extravagant system of practical discipline, destructive of the order and happiness of society. For he prohibited marriage, the use of wine and flesh, feasts of charity, and other things of that nature. He prescribed immediate divorce to those

VOL. I.

C C

[z] Socrates, Hist. Eccles. lib. i. c. vi. p. 14. Theodoret. Hist. Eccles. lib. i. cap. viii. p. 548.

[a] See Sam. Basnag. Annal. Polit. Eccles. tom. ii. p.

PART II.

CENT. those who were joined in wedlock, and is said to IV. have granted to children and servants the liberty of violating the commands of their parents and masters upon pretexts of a religious nature [b].

Luciferian divisions.

XX. Lucifer, bishop of Cagliari in Sardinia, a man remarkable for his prudence, the austerity of his character, and the steadiness of his resolution and courage, was banished by the emperor Constantius, for having defended the Nicene doctrine, concerning the three persons in the Godhead. He broke the bonds of fraternal communion with Eusebius, bishop of Verceil, in the year 363, because the latter had consecrated Paulinus, bishop of Antioch; and he afterwards separated himself from the whole church, on account of the act of absolution it had passed in favour of those, who, under Constantius, had deserted to the Arians [c]. It is, at least, certain, that the small tribe that followed this prelate, under the title of Luciferians, avoided scrupulously and obstinately all commerce and fellowship, both with those bishops who had declared themselves in favour with the Arians, and with those also who consented to an absolution for such as returned from this desertion, and acknowledged their error; and thus of consequence they dissolved the bonds of their communion with the church in general [d]. The Luciferians are

also

[b] Socrates, Hist. Eccles. lib. i. cap. xliii. p. 156. Sozowenus, Hist. Eccles. lib. iii. cap. xiv. p. 520. lib. iv. cap. xxiv. p. 581. Epiphan. Hæres. lxvi. p. 910. Philosturgius, Hist. Eccles. lib. iii. cap. xvi. p. 53. 59. Wolfg. Gundling. Not. ad Concilium Gangrense, p. 9.

[c] Rufin. Hist. Eccles. lib. i. cap. xxx. p. 174. Socrates, Hist. Eccles. lib. iii. cap. ix. p. 181, &c. See also Tillemont, Memoires pour servir à l'Histoire de l'Eglise, tom. vii. p. 521. edit. Paris.

[d] See in the works of Sirmond, tom. ii. p. 229, &c. A book of Prayers, addressed to Theodosius by Marcellinus and Faustinus, who were Luciferians.

IV.

also said to have entertained erroneous notions CENT. concerning the human soul, whose generation they considered as of a carnal nature, and maintained, that it was transfused from the parents into the children [e].

PART II.

sy.

+

XXI. About this time Erius, a presbyter The Arian monk, and Semi-arian, erected a new sect, and controver excited divisions throughout Armenia, Pontus, and Cappadocia, by propagating opinions different from those that were commonly received. (One of his principal tenets was, that bishops were not distinguished from presbyters by any divine right; but that, according to the institution of the New Testament, their offices and authority were absolutely the same.) How far Erius pursued this opinion, through its natural consequences, is not certainly known; but we know, with the utmost certainty, that it was highly agreeable to many good Christians, who were no longer able to bear the tyranny and arrogance of the bishops of this century.

There were other things in which Erius differed from the common notions of the time; he condemned prayers for the dead, stated fasts, the celebration of Easter, and other rites of that nature, in which the multitude erroneously imagine that the life and soul of religion consists [f]. His great purpose seems to have been that of reducing Christianity to its primitive simplicity; a purpose, indeed, laudable and noble when considered in itself; though the principles from whence it springs, and the means by which it is executed, are generally, in many respects, worthy

CC 2

of

[e] Augustin. De Hæres. cap. lxxxi. with the observations of Lamb. Danmæus, p. 346.

[f] Epiphanius, Hæres. lxxv. p. 905. Augustin. De Hæres. cap. liii.

« PredošláPokračovať »