Back to History Reports
Back to the Way of Life Home Page
Way of Life Literature Online Catalog

THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, from the birth of Christ to the 18th Century: including the very interesting account of the Waldenses and Albigenses
By William Jones

First Edition 1812
Fourth Edition 1819
Fifth Edition 1826
London: Printed for the Author by W. Myers, 7, Took’s Court, Castle Street, Holborn

[Note from the publisher. This valuable out-of-print book was carefully formatted for electronic publication by Way of Life Literature. For a catalog of other books, both current and old, in print and electronic format, contact us at P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061-0368, fbns@wayoflife.org (e-mail), http://www.wayoflife.org (web site).]

[Table of Contents for "A History of the Christian Church" by William Jones]

FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE FIFTH CENTURY TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DOMINION OF THE POPES

A.D. 401-606

The fall of Paganism, which may be considered as having begun to take place in the reign of Constantine, and as nearly consummated in that of Theodosius, is probably one of the most extraordinary revolutions that ever took place on the theater of this world. Their own writers have described it as "a dreadful and amazing prodigy, which covered the earth with darkness, and restored the ancient dominion of chaos and of night." [See Gibbon’s Rome, vol. 5, ch. 28.]

But the pen of inspiration has depicted the awful catastrophe in strains of much higher sublimity and grandeur, and, doubtless, upon very different principles "I beheld," says the writer of the Apocalypse, "when he had opened the sixth seal, and lo, there was a great earthquake, and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; and the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig-tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. And the heaven departed as a scroll, when it is rolled together: and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every freeman, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains, and said to the mountains and rocks, fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the lamb, for the great day of his wrath is come, and who shall be able to stand?" (Revelation 6:12-17).

[Note from D.W. Cloud, Director, Way of Life Literature: Pastor William Jones was sadly afflicted with the tendency of his time to spiritualize the prophecies of Revelation rather than to interpret them literally. Revelation chapter 6 will be fulfilled literally during the Great Tribulation which will immediately precede the return of Jesus Christ.]

The same thing seems to be intended, when the writer says, "There was war in heaven; Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not, neither was their place found any more in heaven; and the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world; he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him" (Revelation 12:7-9).

In this highly-wrought figurative language we are taught to conceive of the dreadful conflict which subsisted between the Christian and heathen professions, the persecutions which for three centuries had been inflicted upon the former, with the issue of the whole, in the ultimate overthrow of the Pagan persecuting powers, and the subversion of that idolatrous system in the empire.

From the time of the establishment of Christianity under Constantine to the end of the fourth century, a period of more than seventy years, the disciples of Jesus were highly privileged. They were in general permitted to sit under their own vine and fig-tree, exempt from the dread of molestation. The Clergy of the Catholic church, indeed, persisted in waging a sanguinary and disgraceful contest with each other, about church preferments, and similar objects of human ambition; but, notwithstanding the squabbles of those men of corrupt minds, it must have been a season of precious repose and tranquillity to the real churches of Christ, which stood aloof from such scandalous proceedings, and kept their garments unspotted from the world.

There are few things more gratifying to the friend of TRUTH, than to have an opportunity of recording the disinterested labors of such as, under circumstances of discouragement, and frequently at the expense of all that men in general account valuable, have stood forth the champions of her noble cause, against a prevailing torrent of error. We have already adverted to the rise of the Novatianist churches, which stood firmly attached to the simple doctrine and order of the first Christian churches, and maintained a public testimony against the corrupt state of the Catholic party. Towards the close of the fourth century arose Lucifer, bishop of Cagliari, in the island of Sardinia, a man remarkable for his prudence, the austerity of his character, and the firmness of his mind in all his resolutions. Though he wrote in defense of the doctrine of the Trinity against the Arians, he refused all religious fellowship with both parties, on account of the corruption of their doctrine and the laxity of their discipline; while he and his followers were content to suffer the persecution of either party. [Mosheim, vol. 1, p. 386.]

About the same time rose up AERIUS, the founder of a new sect, who propagated opinions different from those that were commonly received, and collected various societies throughout Armenia, Pontus, and Cappadocia. We are indebted to Epiphanius, bishop of Cyprus, who died early in the fifth century, for recording the discriminating tenets of this denomination of Christians. AErius was an elder of the church of Sebastia in Pontus; and, as Epiphanius, who undertook to confute him and all other heretics, informs us, obstinately defended four great errors. These were,

1. That bishops were not distinguished from presbyters or elders, by any divine right; for that, according to the New Testament, their office and authority were absolutely the same.

2. That it was wrong to offer up any prayers for the dead, which it seems was become customary in those days.

3. That there was no authority in the word of God for the celebration of Easter, as a religious solemnity; and

4. That fasts ought not to be prefixed to the annual return of days, as the time of Lent and the week preceding Easter.

Such seems to have been the heresy of AErius, and his writings in defense of which, we are told, met with the most cordial reception from his contemporaries. "We know with the utmost certainty," says Mosheim, "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." The reader, it is hoped, will excuse a remark or two upon this subject before we proceed. The learned historian, whom I have just quoted, informs us that -- "The great purpose of AErius seems to have been that of reducing Christianity to its primitive simplicity;" he then adds, "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 of censure, and may have been so in the case of this reformer." [Mosheim, vol. 1, cent. 4, part 2, ch. 3.]

I cannot forbear subjoining the comment of his erudite translator, Dr. Maclaine, upon the text of this historian. "The desire," says he, "of reducing religious worship to the greatest possible simplicity, however rational it may appear in itself, and, abstractedly considered, will be considerably moderated in such as bestow a moment’s attention upon the imperfection and infirmities of human nature in its present state. Mankind, generally speaking, have too little elevation of mind to be much affected by those forms and methods of worship in which there is nothing striking to the outward senses. The great difficulty here lies in determining the lengths which it is prudent to go in the accommodation of religious ceremonies to human infirmity; and the grand point is to fix a medium, in which a due regard may be shown to the senses and imagination, without violating the dictates of right reason, or tarnishing the purity of true religion. It has been said, that the church of Rome has gone too far in its condescension to the infirmities of mankind -- and this is what the ablest defenders of its motley worship have alleged in its behalf. But this observation is not just; the church of Rome has not so much accommodated itself to human weakness, as it has abused that weakness, by taking occasion from it to establish an endless variety of ridiculous ceremonies, destructive of true religion, and only adapted to promote the riches and despotism of the clergy, and to keep the multitude still hoodwinked in their ignorance and superstition." [Ubi Supra, p. 388.]

Now according to Dr. Mosheim’s manner of expressing himself on this subject, the reader will readily perceive, that, however much some of the friends of truth might labor to stem the torrent of corruption, and restore Christianity to its original simplicity, such attempts were almost certain to be condemned by both this eminent historian and his translator. With them nothing is more common than to extol the simplicity of gospel worship during the apostolic age, and in a few pages afterwards to censure the efforts of those who have labored to retrieve it from the corruptions to which the folly and wickedness of men have subjected it. Hence, we invariably find persons of this description ranked in the class of "heretics," and reprobated as troublers of "the church!" The design of AErius, it is admitted, was laudable and noble in itself, nor is it affirmed that the means which he made use of were actually worthy of censure; but they may have been so. But, surely, a cordial attachment to the simplicity of primitive Christianity would have prompted the historian to evince some few grains of allowance for the conduct of AErius, even though in the prosecution of a "laudable and noble design," he had been betrayed into some little indiscretion in regard to the means of effecting it, which, after all, in the present instance, is not pretended. This is only what might have been reasonably expected; since to impute, without evidence, the worst motives that can be assigned to the actions of men, is not the immediate operation of that charity which thinketh no evil. The learned translator, however, takes up the subject in a somewhat different point of view; for, upon his principle, the simplicity of gospel-worship, as established in the apostolic churches, must be considered as altogether unsuitable to the exigencies of human nature; for, that the constitution and worship of the first churches were remarkable for a divine simplicity, none will deny. Now if it be lawful for men to depart from this simplicity, and to accommodate the forms of Christian worship to the ignorance, infirmities, or prejudices of men, according as these may happen to prevail in different ages, then, indeed, a power to decree rites and ceremonies in matters of religion, is quite necessary to adapt the Christian profession to the incessant fluctuations of the state of this world; though it will not be very easy, when this right is once admitted, to show, on what principle the church of Rome can be condemned for going to an extreme in this matter; since, in that case, it is no divine rule that is to regulate our conduct, but the different fancies of men, as these respect human infirmities.

It is happy for simple Christians that their rule of duty is plain, though, unfortunately, not sanctioned by either the catholic or the reformed church. It is "not to admit into the worship of God, any thing which is either not expressly commanded, or plainly exemplified in the New Testament." This was evidently the principle upon which AErius proceeded in opposing the superstitions of his time, and for which he deserves to be held in perpetual remembrance -- it is the only principle which evinces a becoming deference to the wisdom and authority of God in the institution of his worship -- and, it may be added, which secures the uniform regard of his people to the institutions of his kingdom, to the end of time.

The distinction between bishop and presbyter or elder, which AErius so strongly opposed, seems to have prevailed early in the Christian church; yet it is demonstrably without any solid foundation in the New Testament. "That the terms, bishop and elder are sometimes used promiscuously in the New Testament," says Dr. Campbell, "there is no critic of any name who now pretends to dispute. The passage, Acts 20:17, etc. is well known. Paul, from Miletus sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church, saying, "Take heed to yourselves, and to all the church over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers (literally episkopos bishops.) Similar to this is a passage in Titus, chap. 1:5. "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders (opresbuteros) in every city. Ver. 7, "For a bishop (episkopon) must be blameless." In like manner the apostle Peter, 1 Epistle 5:1. "The elders (opresbuteros) which are among you, I exhort," etc. Ver. 2. "Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, (eoisxopones) discharging the office of bishops." [Campbell’s Lectures on Ecclesiastical History, vol. 1, p. 125, 126.] So much for the heresy of AErius as it respected the denial of any distinction between the office of bishop and presbyter. On the other three particulars of his heresy, it is, at this time of day, quite unnecessary for us to bestow a word in the way of apology.

Amongst the innumerable corruptions of Christianity which have prevailed in the Catholic church, there is none that makes a more conspicuous figure than the institution of monachism or monkery; and if traced to its origin, it will be found strikingly to exemplify the truth of the maxim that, as some of the largest and loftiest trees spring from very small seeds, so the most extensive and wonderful effects sometimes arise from very inconsiderable causes. In times of persecution, during the first ages of the church, whilst "the heathen raged, and the rulers took counsel together, against the Lord and against his anointed," many pious Christians, male and female, married and unmarried, justly accounting that no human felicity ought to come in competition with their fidelity to Christ, and diffident of their own ability to persevere in resisting the temptations wherewith they were incessantly harassed by their persecutors, took the resolution to abandon their possessions and worldly prospects, and, whilst the storm lasted, to retire to unfrequented places, far from the haunts of men, the married with, or without, their wives, as agreed between them, that they might enjoy in quietness their faith and hope, and, exempt from temptations to apostasy, employ themselves principally in the worship and service of their Maker. The cause was reasonable, and the motive praise-worthy; but the reasonableness arose solely from the circumstances. When the latter were changed the former vanished, and the motive could no longer be the same. When there was not the same danger in society, there was not the same occasion to seek security in solitude. Accordingly, when persecution ceased, and the profession of Christianity rendered perfectly safe, many returned without blame from their retirement, and resumed their stations in society. Some, indeed, familiarized by time to a solitary life, at length preferred through habit, what they had originally adopted through necessity. They did not, however, waste their time in idleness; they supported themselves by their labor, and gave the surplus in alms. But they never thought of fettering themselves by vows and engagements; because, by so doing, they must have exposed their souls to new temptations, and, perhaps, greater dangers. It was, therefore, a very different thing from that system of monkery which afterwards became so prevalent, though, in all probability it suggested the idea of it, and may be considered as the first step towards it. [Essay on Christian Temperance and Self-denial, by Dr. George Campbell.]

Such signal sacrifices, not only of property, but of all secular pursuits, have a lustre in them, which dazzles the eyes of the weak, and powerfully engages imitation. Blind imitators, regardless of the circumstances which alone can render the conduct laudable, are often, by a strong perversion of intellect, led to consider it as the more meritorious the less it is rational, and the more eligible the less it is useful. The spirit of the measure comes in time to be reversed. What at first, through humble diffidence, appeared necessary for avoiding the most imminent danger, is, through presumption, voluntarily adopted, though in itself a source of perpetual peril. Such was the operation of the principle in the case referred to. Multitudes came in process of time to impose upon themselves vows of abstinence, poverty, celibacy, and virginity, solemnly engaging in an uninterrupted observance of those virtues, as they accounted them, to the end of their lives. Every attentive reader of the Scriptures must see that they are far from countenancing this piece of superstition. Both Christ and his apostles kept up a free and open intercourse with the world; and their writings abound with instructions to Christians, not to withdraw themselves from society, and shut themselves up in cloistered cells in a state of seclusion, but to fill up their respective stations usefully in civil society, performing all the social and relative duties of life in the most exemplary manner. Man was made for action; powers were given him for exertion, and various talents have been conferred upon him by Providence, as instruments not of doing nothing, but of doing good, by promoting the happiness both of the individual and of society.

EGYPT, the fruitful parent of superstition, afforded the first example, strictly speaking, of the MONASTIC LIFE. Anthony, an illiterate youth of that country, in the times of Athanasius, distributed his patrimony, deserted his family and house, took up his residence among the tombs and in a ruined tower, and after a long and painful noviciate, at length advanced three days journey into the desert, to the eastward of the Nile, where discovering a lonely spot which possessed the advantages of shade and water, he fixed his last abode. His example and his lessons infected others, whose curiosity pursued him to the desert; and before he quitted life, which was prolonged to the term of a hundred and five years, he beheld a numerous progeny imitating his original. The prolific colonies of monks multiplied with rapid increase on the sands of Lybia, upon the Rocks of Thebais, and the cities of the Nile. Ever to the present day the traveler may explore the ruins of fifty monasteries, which were planted to the south of Alexandria, by the disciples of Anthony.

Inflamed by the example of Anthony, a Syrian youth, whose name was Hilarion, fixed his dreary abode on a sandy beach between the sea and a morass, about seven miles from Gaza. The austere penance in which he persisted forty-eight years, diffused a similar enthusiasm, and innumerable monasteries were soon distributed over all Palestine. In the west, Martin of Tours, "a soldier, a hermit, a bishop, and a saint," founded a monastery near Poictiers, and thus introduced monastic institutions into France. His monks were mostly of noble families, and submitted to the greatest austerities both in food and raiment; and, such was the rapidity of their increase, that two thousand of them attended his funeral! In other countries, they appear to have increased in a similar proportion, and the progress of monkery is said not to have been less rapid or less universal than that of Christianity itself. Every province, and, at last, every city of the empire, was filled with their increasing multitudes. The disciples of Anthony spread themselves beyond the tropic, over the Christian empire of Ethiopia. The monastery of Bangor, in Flintshire, a few miles south of Wrexham, contained above two thousand monks, and from thence a numerous colony was dispersed among the Barbarians of Ireland; and Iona, one of the western isles of Scotland, which was planted by the Irish Monks, diffused over the northern regions a ray of science and superstition.

The monastic institution was not confined to the male sex. Females began about the same time to retire from the world, and dedicate themselves to solitude and devotion. The practice is alluded to in the earlier councils; but it is expressly ordained by the council of Carthage, A.D. 397, that orphan virgins shall be placed in a nunnery -- and that the superior of the nunnery shall be approved by the bishop of the diocese. Widows, and children above six years of age, were admitted after a year’s probation. They were strictly shut up in the monastery, and secluded from all worldly intercourse. They were neither allowed to go out, nor was any person permitted to come in unto them, nor even to enter the church whither they went to worship, except the clergy of approved reputation, who were necessary to conduct the religious services. None was allowed to possess property, for among them all things were common. They served themselves or helped one another. They made their own clothes, which were white and plain woolen -- the height of the cap or head-dress was restricted to an inch and two lines -- they were tasked daily, but forbidden to work embroidery, or to bleach their garments, assume any ornaments, or accommodate themselves to any fashion which they might happen to see or hear of in the world. The means of correction and discipline were reproof and excommunication; but the latter consisted only in separation from public prayers, and from the common table at meals, and if these failed to reclaim the delinquent, recourse was had to flagellation. [Fleury’s Eccles. Hist. tom. 7.]

These unhappy exiles from social life where impelled by the dark genius of superstition, to persuade themselves that every proselyte who entered the gates of a monastery, trod the steep and thorny path of eternal happiness. The popular monks, whose reputation was connected with the fame and success of the order, assiduously labored to multiply the number of their fellow captives. They insinuated themselves into noble and opulent families, and the specious arts of flattery and seduction were employed to secure those proselytes, who might bestow wealth or dignity on the monastic profession. The lives of the monks were consumed in penance and solitude, undisturbed by the various occupations which fill the time and exercise the faculties of reasonable, active, and social beings. They passed their lives without personal attachments, among a crowd which had been formed by accident, and was detained in the same prison by force or prejudice. Their days were professedly employed in vocal or mental prayer: they assembled in the evening, and were awakened in the night for the public worship of the monastery; and to such a pitch was absurdity at length carried, that one class of them came ultimately to sink under the painful weight of crosses and chains, and their emaciated limbs were confined by collars, bracelets, gauntlets, and greaves of massy iron. [Gibbon’s Rome, vol. 6, ch. 27.]

The times of martyrdom were now passed, and of course that sort of courage and constancy could not be exerted; a method was therefore contrived of voluntary martyrdom, and persons of fanatical dispositions inflicted upon themselves as many pains and penalties as Pagan cruelty had invented. They left parents, wives, children, friends, families, and fortunes; they retired from the world, obliged themselves to a single and solitary life, and allowed themselves no more food, raiment, and sleep, than would barely support life.

The ethics of monks is a mere caricature of virtue, in which every feature is exaggerated, distorted, or out of place; and, as hath often happened in other matters, though the likeness is preserved, what is beautiful in the original is hideous in the copy. The doctrines of Christianity are divinely adapted to the state of man in this world, considered as a fallen and corrupted being. They exhibit a remedy for his moral depravity in the grand and interesting truths which the gospel proclaims as the objects of his faith, the ground of his hope, and the motives of his love and joy. But he is called to the exercise of self-denial, the mortification of his fleshly appetites, disconformity to the course of this world, patience under sufferings of various kinds, and in the way of well-doing to seek for glory, honor, and immortality in the world to come. In the system of monkery all these Christian virtues are carried to the most ridiculous extreme. About the middle of the fourth century, Gregory Nazianzen wrote an eulogy in praise of the monastic life, wherein he describes the manner in which it was practiced at Nazianzum. "There are some," says he, "who loaded themselves with iron chains in order to bear down their bodies -- who shut themselves up in cabins, and appeared to nobody -- who continued twenty days and twenty nights without eating, practicing often the half of Jesus Christ’s fast -- another abstained entirely from speaking, not praising God except in thought -- another passed whole years in a church, his hands extended, without sleeping, like an animated statue." [Fleury’s Eccles. Hist. b. 16, ch. 51.]

Now, admitting the possibility of these things, how grossly must men’s notions of truth and rectitude be perverted, who can think that the all-wise Creator gave hands to any man to be kept in a position which unfitted them for being of use to himself or others -- that he gave the faculty of speech, but not to be employed in communicating knowledge? Yet these things are the subject of panegyric even from the pen of Gregory Nazianzen, a person of unquestionable talents and virtue. "To go into a convent," said Dr. Johnson, "for fear of being immoral, is, as if a man should cut off his hands for fear he should steal" [Boswell’s Life Johnson, vol. 2]. To suffer with patience and fortitude, when called to it, for the cause of truth, is both virtuous and heroical; but the self-inflicted penances of the miserable hermit serve as a testimony of nothing so much as the idiocy or insanity of the sufferer; for with regard to God, they are derogatory from his perfections -- they exhibit him as an object rather of terror than of love, as a tyrant rather than the parent of the universe.

One of the most renowned examples of monkish penance that is upon record, is that of ST. SYMEON, a Syrian monk, who lived about the middle of the fifth century, and who is thought to have outstripped all those that preceded him. He is said to have lived thirty-six years on a pillar erected on the summit of a high mountain in Syria, whence he got the name of "Symeon Stylites." From his pillar, it is said, he never descended, unless to take possession of another; which he did four times, having in all occupied five of them. On his last pillar, which was loftier than any of the former, being sixty feet high and only three broad, he remained, according to report, fifteen years without intermission, summer and winter, day and night, exposed to all the inclemencies of the seasons, in a climate liable to great and sudden changes, from the most sultry heat to the most piercing cold. We are informed, that he always stood -- the breadth of his pillar not permitting him to lie down. He spent the day till three in the afternoon in meditation and prayer; from that time till sun-set, he harangued the people, who flocked to him from all countries -- they were then dismissed with his benediction. He would on no account permit females to come within his precincts, not even his own mother, who is said, through grief and mortification, in being refused admittance, to have died the third day after her arrival. In order to show how indefatigable he was in every thing that conduced to the glory of God and the good of mankind, he spent much time daily in the exemplary exercise of bowing so low as to make his forehead strike his toes, and so frequently, that one who went with Theodoret to see him, counted no fewer than twelve hundred and forty-four times, when being more wearied in numbering than the saint was in performing, he gave over counting. He is said to have taken no food except on Sundays, and that all the last year of his life he stood upon one leg only, the other having been rendered useless by an ulcer. [The reader whose curiosity may prompt him to look further into the history of this champion of monkish austerity, may consult Dr. Middleton’s Free Inquiry, 4to. p. 164-168. It may justly excite one’s astonishment, that only half a century ago there were to be found learned doctors of the established Church of England, defending the fame of this wretched fanatic, and advocating, with all their might, the truth and reality of the miracles reported to have been wrought by him! See Middleton, ut supra.]

Instances of similar fanaticism abound in the pages of ecclesiastical history. Baradatus, in the same century, and, in all probability from similar motives, betook himself to a wooden coffer, or rather cage, in which he was so confined by its dimensions and form, that he was always bowed down in it, and could not stand upright. This mansion was placed on the top of a rock, where he was exposed to the sun, the rain, and all kinds of weather. Theodatus, the bishop of the diocese, unable to comprehend either the dignity or the utility of such sublimated virtue, cruelly obliged him to quit his cage, that he might live like other men. He complied; but to make compensation for one restraint that was taken off, he made choice of another, and devoutly abjured the use of his hands, in any way in which they could be serviceable either to himself or others. This he did by devoting them to remain always in one posture, extended towards heaven, probably in commemoration of the crucifixion. In this situation, it is said, that he lived in the open air disdaining to take shelter in any house, or building, from the inclemencies of the weather.

Extravagances the most marvelous, and the most frantic, such as dishonored the name of religion, and rendered men worse than useless, were considered as the most sublime attainments in the Christian life. And thus the demon of superstition, under the mask of superior piety, led men to counteract the designs of providence in the application of their natural powers. The Christian religion is disgraced by such fooleries, which assimilate it to the very worst of heathen superstitions.

Yet all the principal fathers of the Catholic Church, both Greek and Latin, employed their authority and eloquence in extolling the perfection of monkery, and recommending its practice. This they did by writing the lives of particular monks, celebrating their wonderful sanctity and miraculous gifts, and founding monasteries wherever they traveled. "There was a certain shadow of it," says Bellarmine, its great advocate, "in the law of nature before the flood; a plainer expression of it under the Mosaic dispensation; but in the time of the apostles it came to perfection." Athanasius was one of the first, who, from the pattern of the Egyptian monasteries, introduced them into Italy and Rome where they had previously been held in utter contempt. It is amazing to read the flights of fancy in which the great oracles of the Catholic church, at that time, indulged, when recommending this stupid practice. Basil terms it "an angelical institution; a blessed and evangelic life, leading to the mansions of the Lord." Jerome declares the societies of monks and nuns to be "the very flower and most precious stone among all the ornaments of the church." Chrysostom calls it, "a way of life worthy of heaven; not at all inferior to that of angels." And Augustine styles them upon every occasion "the servants of God." By the influence of these renowned fathers, all of whom flourished in the fourth and following century; and by the many lies and forged miracles which they diligently propagated in honor of the monks, innumerable monasteries, as they themselves tell us, were founded over the western world, but especially in Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, whose deserts were covered with them; and some of them in the fifth century, are said to have contained each five thousand monks at a time.

We find Chrysostom frequently haranguing also on the great blessings which the church reaped from the relics of the martyrs, and the daily miracles which were wrought by them; and he concludes one of his homilies on two female martyrs in the following manner: "With this ardor, therefore, let us fall down before their relics: let us embrace their coffins, for these may have some power, since their bones have so great an one; and not only on the day of their festival, but on other days also, let us fix ourselves as it were to them, and entreat them to be our patrons"--and on other occasions he exhorts his hearers "to dwell in their sepulchers, to fix themselves to their coffins; that not only their bones, but their tombs and their urns also over-flowed with blessings." Basil informs us, that "all who were pressed with any difficulty or distress, were wont to fly for relief to the tombs of the martyrs; and whosoever did but touch their relics acquired some share of their sanctity." [Introductory Discourse to Dr. Middleton’s Free Inquiry, p. 52-56. where the reader will find the authorities quoted. Of these, and a thousand other legendary tales, with which the writings of the fathers of this period are prolific, we may say, as Voltaire has said upon a similar occasion; "They have been related by many historians, and cannot be denied without overturning the very foundation of history; but it is certain we cannot give credit to them without overturning the very foundation of reason!"]

In the beginning of the fifth century, VIGILANTIUS, a learned and eminent presbyter of a Christian church, took up his pen to oppose these growing superstitions. His book, which unfortunately is now lost, was directed against the institution of monks -- the celibacy of the clergy, -- praying for the dead and to the martyrs -- adoring their relics -- celebrating their vigils -- and lighting up candles to them after the manner of the Pagans. Jerome, esteemed a great luminary of the Catholic church, who was a most zealous advocate for all these superstitious rites, undertook the task of refuting Vigilantius, whom he politely styles "a most blasphemous heretic," comparing him to the Hydra, to Cerberus, the Centaurs, etc. and considers him only as the organ of the demon. He, however, furnishes us with all the particular articles of his heresy, in the words of Vigilantius himself, which are as follows:

"That the honors paid to the rotten bones and dust of the saints and martyrs, by adoring, kissing, wrapping them up in silk and vessels of gold, 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 to the dead, or to desire the prayers of the dead, was superstitious; for 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 sepulchers 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 sepulchers, 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 utmost grief, and for which he declares Vigilantius to be a detestable heretic, venting his foul-mouthed blasphemies against the relics of the martyrs, which were working daily signs and wonders. He tells him to 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, or a Bacchus, or some other of their gods among the heathen."

Such is the wild rate, as Dr. Middleton well observes, at which this renowned father raves on through several pages. [Postscript to Free Inquiry, p. 131-134.]

It may probably gratify the reader to see how Jerome refutes the arguments of Vigilantius; and he may take as a specimen the following passage. "If it were such a sacrilege or impiety," says he, "to pay those honors to the relics of the saints, as Vigilantius contends, then the emperor Constantius must needs be a sacrilegious person, who translated the holy relics of Andrew, Luke, and Timothy to Constantinople; then Arcadius Augustus also must be held sacrilegious, who translated the bones of the blessed Samuel from Judea, where they had lain so many ages, into Thrace; then all the bishops were not only sacrilegious but stupid too, who submitted to carry a thing the most contemptible, and nothing but mere dust, in silk and vessels of gold; and lastly, then the people of all the churches must needs be fools, who went out to meet those holy relics, and received them with as much joy, as if they had seen the prophet himself, living and present among them, for the procession was attended by swarms of people from Palestine even unto Chalcedon, singing with one voice the praises of Christ, who were yet adoring Samuel, perhaps, and not Christ, whose prophet and Levite Samuel was. [Ubi Supra, p. 137.]"

[I subjoin Mr. Gibbon’s account of this singular matter;--even as a specimen of the splendid magnificence of that writer’s style, it deserves regard. "The grateful respect of the Christians for the martyrs of the faith, was exalted, by time and victory, into religious adoration; and the most illustrious of the saints and prophets were deservedly associated to the honors of the martyrs. One hundred and fifty years after the glorious deaths of St. Peter and St. Paul, the Vatican and the Ostian road were distinguished by the tombs, or rather by the trophies of those spiritual heroes. In the age which followed the conversion of Constantine, the emperors, the consuls, and the generals of armies, devoutly visited the sepulchers of a tent-maker and a fisherman; and their venerable bones were deposited under the altars of Christ, on which the bishops of the royal city continually offered the unbloody sacrifice. The new capital of the eastern world, unable to produce any ancient and domestic trophies, was enriched by the spoils of dependant provinces. The bodies of St. Andrew, St. Luke, and St. Timothy, had reposed, near three hundred years, in the obscure graves, from whence they were transported, in solemn pomp, to the church of the apostles, which the magnificence of Constantine had founded on the banks of the Thracian Bosphorus. About fifty years afterwards, the same banks were honored by the presence of Samuel, the judge and prophet of the people of Israel. His ashes, deposited in a golden vase, and covered with a silken veil, were delivered by the bishops into each other’s hands. The relics of Samuel were received by the people, with the same joy and reverence which they would have shown to the living prophet; the highways, from Palestine to the gates of Constantinople, were filled with an uninterrupted procession; and the emperor Arcadius himself, at the head of the most illustrious members of the clergy and senate, advanced to meet his extraordinary guest, who had always deserved and claimed the homage of kings. The example of Rome and Constantinople confirmed the faith and discipline of the Catholic world. The honors of the saints and martyrs, after a feeble and ineffectual murmur of profane reason, were universally established; and in the age of Ambrose and Jerome, something was still deemed wanting to the sanctity of a Christian church, till it had been consecrated by some portion of holy relics, which fixed and inflamed the devotion of the faithful. In the long period of twelve hundred years, which elapsed between the reign of Constantine and the reformation of Luther, the worship of saints and relics corrupted the pure and perfect simplicity of the Christian model; and some symptoms of degeneracy may be observed even in the first generations which adopted and cherished this pernicious innovation."]

Some readers may think the reasoning of Jerome not very conclusive on the question of relics; it is nevertheless certain that his voice prevailed over that of Vigilantius, and that this superstitious practice not only continued, but became more and more prevalent and popular. When the tombs of the Holy Land were exhausted, other tombs and countries supplied the increasing demand. Saints and martyrs were invented for the sake of their bones, and dreams and miracles were employed in the discovery of obscure names and of sacred graves till then unknown to some. To write the life of a saint, to make a pilgrimage to his tomb, to bring home fragments of his bones, of his coffin or of his clothes, or to erect a church to his memory, were acts not only honorable and meritorious, but frequently extremely lucrative. Scarcely any one deemed himself safe, especially on a journey or in times of danger, without some scrap of a relic in his possession. It was necessary to the security of every habitation, and to the comfort of every family, and neither church nor monastery was considered as duly consecrated, till it became the repository of the relics of some reputed saint; and, if his name were renowned, the church was crowded with supplicants for health, children, or prosperity: his priests were loaded with presents, and his treasury stored with donations of money and land.

Towards the close of the sixth century, the Greek empress made a pressing application to Pope Gregory I, for the body of the apostle Paul, to be placed in the church at Constantinople which had then recently been erected in honor of that apostle. Gregory wrote to her in reply, that she had solicited what he durst not grant; for, said he, "the bodies of the apostles Paul and Peter are so terrible by their miracles, that there is reason to apprehend danger, even in approaching to pray to them. My predecessor wanted to make some alteration on a silver ornament on the body of St. Peter, at the distance of fifteen feet, when an awful vision appeared to him, which was followed by his death. I myself wished to repair somewhat about the body of St. Paul, and with a view to that had occasion to dig a little near his sepulcher; when, in digging, the superior of the place raising some bones apparently unconnected with the sacred tomb, had a dismal vision after it, and suddenly died. In like manner, the workmen and the monks, not knowing precisely the grave of St. Lawrence, accidentally opened it; and having seen the body, though they did not touch it, died in ten days. Wherefore, Madam, the Romans in granting relics, do not touch the saints’ bodies: they only put a little linen in a box, which they place near them; after some time they withdraw it, and deposit the box and linen solemnly in the church which they mean to dedicate. This linen performs as many miracles, as if they had transported the real body! In the time of pope Leo, some Greeks, doubting the virtue of such relics, he took a pair of scissors, as we are assured, and cutting the linen, forthwith the blood flowed from it. He, however, tells the empress, that he would endeavor to send her a few grains of the chain which had been on Paul’s neck and hands, and which had been found peculiarly efficacious, provided they succeeded, which was not always the case, in filing them off." [Fleury’s Eccles. Hist. tom. 8, p. 91-93.]

This may suffice for giving the reader some idea of the deplorable state to which the "Holy Catholic Church" was reduced in the fifth and sixth centuries of the Christian era; and I therefore quit the subject to pass on to affairs of a different description.