Chapter XXI: Persecution Of Heresy, State Of The Church.—Part I

Persecution Of Heresy.—The Schism Of The Donatists.—The Arian
Controversy.—Athanasius.—Distracted State Of The Church And Empire
Under Constantine And His Sons.— Toleration Of Paganism.

The grateful applause of the clergy has consecrated the memory of
a prince who indulged their passions and promoted their interest.
Constantine gave them security, wealth, honors, and revenge; and
the support of the orthodox faith was considered as the most
sacred and important duty of the civil magistrate. The edict of
Milan, the great charter of toleration, had confirmed to each
individual of the Roman world the privilege of choosing and
professing his own religion. But this inestimable privilege was
soon violated; with the knowledge of truth, the emperor imbibed
the maxims of persecution; and the sects which dissented from the
Catholic church were afflicted and oppressed by the triumph of
Christianity. Constantine easily believed that the Heretics, who
presumed to dispute _his_ opinions, or to oppose _his_ commands,
were guilty of the most absurd and criminal obstinacy; and that a
seasonable application of moderate severities might save those
unhappy men from the danger of an everlasting condemnation. Not a
moment was lost in excluding the ministers and teachers of the
separated congregations from any share of the rewards and
immunities which the emperor had so liberally bestowed on the
orthodox clergy. But as the sectaries might still exist under the
cloud of royal disgrace, the conquest of the East was immediately
followed by an edict which announced their total destruction. 1
After a preamble filled with passion and reproach, Constantine
absolutely prohibits the assemblies of the Heretics, and
confiscates their public property to the use either of the
revenue or of the Catholic church. The sects against whom the
Imperial severity was directed, appear to have been the adherents
of Paul of Samosata; the Montanists of Phrygia, who maintained an
enthusiastic succession of prophecy; the Novatians, who sternly
rejected the temporal efficacy of repentance; the Marcionites and
Valentinians, under whose leading banners the various Gnostics of
Asia and Egypt had insensibly rallied; and perhaps the
Manichæans, who had recently imported from Persia a more artful
composition of Oriental and Christian theology. 2 The design of
extirpating the name, or at least of restraining the progress, of
these odious Heretics, was prosecuted with vigor and effect. Some
of the penal regulations were copied from the edicts of
Diocletian; and this method of conversion was applauded by the
same bishops who had felt the hand of oppression, and pleaded for
the rights of humanity. Two immaterial circumstances may serve,
however, to prove that the mind of Constantine was not entirely
corrupted by the spirit of zeal and bigotry. Before he condemned
the Manichæans and their kindred sects, he resolved to make an
accurate inquiry into the nature of their religious principles.
As if he distrusted the impartiality of his ecclesiastical
counsellors, this delicate commission was intrusted to a civil
magistrate, whose learning and moderation he justly esteemed, and
of whose venal character he was probably ignorant. 3 The emperor
was soon convinced, that he had too hastily proscribed the
orthodox faith and the exemplary morals of the Novatians, who had
dissented from the church in some articles of discipline which
were not perhaps essential to salvation. By a particular edict,
he exempted them from the general penalties of the law; 4 allowed
them to build a church at Constantinople, respected the miracles
of their saints, invited their bishop Acesius to the council of
Nice; and gently ridiculed the narrow tenets of his sect by a
familiar jest; which, from the mouth of a sovereign, must have
been received with applause and gratitude. 5

1 (return) [ Eusebius in Vit. Constantin. l. iii. c. 63, 64, 65,
66.]

2 (return) [ After some examination of the various opinions of
Tillemont, Beausobre, Lardner, &c., I am convinced that Manes did
not propagate his sect, even in Persia, before the year 270. It
is strange, that a philosophic and foreign heresy should have
penetrated so rapidly into the African provinces; yet I cannot
easily reject the edict of Diocletian against the Manichæans,
which may be found in Baronius. (Annal Eccl. A. D. 287.)]

3 (return) [ Constantinus enim, cum limatius superstitionum
quæroret sectas, Manichæorum et similium, &c. Ammian. xv. 15.
Strategius, who from this commission obtained the surname of
_Musonianus_, was a Christian of the Arian sect. He acted as one
of the counts at the council of Sardica. Libanius praises his
mildness and prudence. Vales. ad locum Ammian.]

4 (return) [ Cod. Theod. l. xvi. tit. 5, leg. 2. As the general
law is not inserted in the Theodosian Code, it probable that, in
the year 438, the sects which it had condemned were already
extinct.]

5 (return) [ Sozomen, l. i. c. 22. Socrates, l. i. c. 10. These
historians have been suspected, but I think without reason, of an
attachment to the Novatian doctrine. The emperor said to the
bishop, “Acesius, take a ladder, and get up to heaven by
yourself.” Most of the Christian sects have, by turns, borrowed
the ladder of Acesius.]

The complaints and mutual accusations which assailed the throne
of Constantine, as soon as the death of Maxentius had submitted
Africa to his victorious arms, were ill adapted to edify an
imperfect proselyte. He learned, with surprise, that the
provinces of that great country, from the confines of Cyrene to
the columns of Hercules, were distracted with religious discord.
6 The source of the division was derived from a double election
in the church of Carthage; the second, in rank and opulence, of
the ecclesiastical thrones of the West. Cæcilian and Majorinus
were the two rival prelates of Africa; and the death of the
latter soon made room for Donatus, who, by his superior abilities
and apparent virtues, was the firmest support of his party. The
advantage which Cæcilian might claim from the priority of his
ordination, was destroyed by the illegal, or at least indecent,
haste, with which it had been performed, without expecting the
arrival of the bishops of Numidia. The authority of these
bishops, who, to the number of seventy, condemned Cæcilian, and
consecrated Majorinus, is again weakened by the infamy of some of
their personal characters; and by the female intrigues,
sacrilegious bargains, and tumultuous proceedings, which are
imputed to this Numidian council. 7 The bishops of the contending
factions maintained, with equal ardor and obstinacy, that their
adversaries were degraded, or at least dishonored, by the odious
crime of delivering the Holy Scriptures to the officers of
Diocletian. From their mutual reproaches, as well as from the
story of this dark transaction, it may justly be inferred, that
the late persecution had imbittered the zeal, without reforming
the manners, of the African Christians. That divided church was
incapable of affording an impartial judicature; the controversy
was solemnly tried in five successive tribunals, which were
appointed by the emperor; and the whole proceeding, from the
first appeal to the final sentence, lasted above three years. A
severe inquisition, which was taken by the Prætorian vicar, and
the proconsul of Africa, the report of two episcopal visitors who
had been sent to Carthage, the decrees of the councils of Rome
and of Arles, and the supreme judgment of Constantine himself in
his sacred consistory, were all favorable to the cause of
Cæcilian; and he was unanimously acknowledged by the civil and
ecclesiastical powers, as the true and lawful primate of Africa.
The honors and estates of the church were attributed to _his_
suffragan bishops, and it was not without difficulty, that
Constantine was satisfied with inflicting the punishment of exile
on the principal leaders of the Donatist faction. As their cause
was examined with attention, perhaps it was determined with
justice. Perhaps their complaint was not without foundation, that
the credulity of the emperor had been abused by the insidious
arts of his favorite Osius. The influence of falsehood and
corruption might procure the condemnation of the innocent, or
aggravate the sentence of the guilty. Such an act, however, of
injustice, if it concluded an importunate dispute, might be
numbered among the transient evils of a despotic administration,
which are neither felt nor remembered by posterity.

6 (return) [ The best materials for this part of ecclesiastical
history may be found in the edition of Optatus Milevitanus,
published (Paris, 1700) by M. Dupin, who has enriched it with
critical notes, geographical discussions, original records, and
an accurate abridgment of the whole controversy. M. de Tillemont
has bestowed on the Donatists the greatest part of a volume,
(tom. vi. part i.;) and I am indebted to him for an ample
collection of all the passages of his favorite St. Augustin,
which relate to those heretics.]

7 (return) [ Schisma igitur illo tempore confusæ mulieris
iracundia peperit; ambitus nutrivit; avaritia roboravit. Optatus,
l. i. c. 19. The language of Purpurius is that of a furious
madman. Dicitur te necasse lilios sororis tuæ duos. Purpurius
respondit: Putas me terreri a te.. occidi; et occido eos qui
contra me faciunt. Acta Concil. Cirtenais, ad calc. Optat. p.
274. When Cæcilian was invited to an assembly of bishops,
Purpurius said to his brethren, or rather to his accomplices,
“Let him come hither to receive our imposition of hands, and we
will break his head by way of penance.” Optat. l. i. c. 19.]

But this incident, so inconsiderable that it scarcely deserves a
place in history, was productive of a memorable schism which
afflicted the provinces of Africa above three hundred years, and
was extinguished only with Christianity itself. The inflexible
zeal of freedom and fanaticism animated the Donatists to refuse
obedience to the usurpers, whose election they disputed, and
whose spiritual powers they denied. Excluded from the civil and
religious communion of mankind, they boldly excommunicated the
rest of mankind, who had embraced the impious party of Cæcilian,
and of the Traditors, from which he derived his pretended
ordination. They asserted with confidence, and almost with
exultation, that the Apostolical succession was interrupted; that
_all_ the bishops of Europe and Asia were infected by the
contagion of guilt and schism; and that the prerogatives of the
Catholic church were confined to the chosen portion of the
African believers, who alone had preserved inviolate the
integrity of their faith and discipline. This rigid theory was
supported by the most uncharitable conduct. Whenever they
acquired a proselyte, even from the distant provinces of the
East, they carefully repeated the sacred rites of baptism 8 and
ordination; as they rejected the validity of those which he had
already received from the hands of heretics or schismatics.
Bishops, virgins, and even spotless infants, were subjected to
the disgrace of a public penance, before they could be admitted
to the communion of the Donatists. If they obtained possession of
a church which had been used by their Catholic adversaries, they
purified the unhallowed building with the same zealous care which
a temple of idols might have required. They washed the pavement,
scraped the walls, burnt the altar, which was commonly of wood,
melted the consecrated plate, and cast the Holy Eucharist to the
dogs, with every circumstance of ignominy which could provoke and
perpetuate the animosity of religious factions. 9 Notwithstanding
this irreconcilable aversion, the two parties, who were mixed and
separated in all the cities of Africa, had the same language and
manners, the same zeal and learning, the same faith and worship.
Proscribed by the civil and ecclesiastical powers of the empire,
the Donatists still maintained in some provinces, particularly in
Numidia, their superior numbers; and four hundred bishops
acknowledged the jurisdiction of their primate. But the
invincible spirit of the sect sometimes preyed on its own vitals:
and the bosom of their schismatical church was torn by intestine
divisions. A fourth part of the Donatist bishops followed the
independent standard of the Maximianists. The narrow and solitary
path which their first leaders had marked out, continued to
deviate from the great society of mankind. Even the imperceptible
sect of the Rogatians could affirm, without a blush, that when
Christ should descend to judge the earth, he would find his true
religion preserved only in a few nameless villages of the
Cæsarean Mauritania. 10

8 (return) [ The councils of Arles, of Nice, and of Trent,
confirmed the wise and moderate practice of the church of Rome.
The Donatists, however, had the advantage of maintaining the
sentiment of Cyprian, and of a considerable part of the primitive
church. Vincentius Lirinesis (p. 532, ap. Tillemont, Mém. Eccles.
tom. vi. p. 138) has explained why the Donatists are eternally
burning with the Devil, while St. Cyprian reigns in heaven with
Jesus Christ.]

9 (return) [ See the sixth book of Optatus Milevitanus, p.
91-100.]

10 (return) [ Tillemont, Mém. Ecclésiastiques, tom. vi. part i.
p. 253. He laughs at their partial credulity. He revered
Augustin, the great doctor of the system of predestination.]

The schism of the Donatists was confined to Africa: the more
diffusive mischief of the Trinitarian controversy successively
penetrated into every part of the Christian world. The former was
an accidental quarrel, occasioned by the abuse of freedom; the
latter was a high and mysterious argument, derived from the abuse
of philosophy. From the age of Constantine to that of Clovis and
Theodoric, the temporal interests both of the Romans and
Barbarians were deeply involved in the theological disputes of
Arianism. The historian may therefore be permitted respectfully
to withdraw the veil of the sanctuary; and to deduce the progress
of reason and faith, of error and passion from the school of
Plato, to the decline and fall of the empire.

The genius of Plato, informed by his own meditation, or by the
traditional knowledge of the priests of Egypt, 11 had ventured to
explore the mysterious nature of the Deity. When he had elevated
his mind to the sublime contemplation of the first self-existent,
necessary cause of the universe, the Athenian sage was incapable
of conceiving _how_ the simple unity of his essence could admit
the infinite variety of distinct and successive ideas which
compose the model of the intellectual world; _how_ a Being purely
incorporeal could execute that perfect model, and mould with a
plastic hand the rude and independent chaos. The vain hope of
extricating himself from these difficulties, which must ever
oppress the feeble powers of the human mind, might induce Plato
to consider the divine nature under the threefold modification—of
the first cause, the reason, or _Logos_, and the soul or spirit
of the universe. His poetical imagination sometimes fixed and
animated these metaphysical abstractions; the three _archical_ on
original principles were represented in the Platonic system as
three Gods, united with each other by a mysterious and ineffable
generation; and the Logos was particularly considered under the
more accessible character of the Son of an Eternal Father, and
the Creator and Governor of the world. Such appear to have been
the secret doctrines which were cautiously whispered in the
gardens of the academy; and which, according to the more recent
disciples of Plato, 1111 could not be perfectly understood, till
after an assiduous study of thirty years. 12

11 (return) [ Plato Ægyptum peragravit ut a sacerdotibus Barbaris
numeros et _cælestia_ acciperet. Cicero de Finibus, v. 25. The
Egyptians might still preserve the traditional creed of the
Patriarchs. Josephus has persuaded many of the Christian fathers,
that Plato derived a part of his knowledge from the Jews; but
this vain opinion cannot be reconciled with the obscure state and
unsocial manners of the Jewish people, whose scriptures were not
accessible to Greek curiosity till more than one hundred years
after the death of Plato. See Marsham Canon. Chron. p. 144 Le
Clerc, Epistol. Critic. vii. p. 177-194.]

1111 (return) [ This exposition of the doctrine of Plato appears
to me contrary to the true sense of that philosopher’s writings.
The brilliant imagination which he carried into metaphysical
inquiries, his style, full of allegories and figures, have misled
those interpreters who did not seek, from the whole tenor of his
works and beyond the images which the writer employs, the system
of this philosopher. In my opinion, there is no Trinity in Plato;
he has established no mysterious generation between the three
pretended principles which he is made to distinguish. Finally, he
conceives only as _attributes_ of the Deity, or of matter, those
ideas, of which it is supposed that he made _substances_, real
beings.
According to Plato, God and matter existed from all eternity.
Before the creation of the world, matter had in itself a
principle of motion, but without end or laws: it is this
principle which Plato calls the irrational soul of the world,
because, according to his doctrine, every spontaneous and
original principle of motion is called soul. God wished to
impress _form_ upon matter, that is to say, 1. To mould
matter, and make it into a body; 2. To regulate its motion,
and subject it to some end and to certain laws. The Deity, in
this operation, could not act but according to the ideas
existing in his intelligence: their union filled this, and
formed the ideal type of the world. It is this ideal world,
this divine intelligence, existing with God from all
eternity, and called by Plato which he is supposed to
personify, to substantialize; while an attentive examination
is sufficient to convince us that he has never assigned it an
existence external to the Deity, (hors de la Divinité,) and
that he considered the as the aggregate of the ideas of God,
the divine understanding in its relation to the world. The
contrary opinion is irreconcilable with all his philosophy:
thus he says (Timæus, p. 348, edit. Bip.) that to the idea of
the Deity is essentially united that of intelligence, of a
_logos_. He would thus have admitted a double _logos;_ one
inherent in the Deity as an attribute, the other
independently existing as a substance. He affirms that the
intelligence, the principle of order cannot exist but as an
attribute of a soul, the principle of motion and of life, of
which the nature is unknown to us. How, then, according to
this, could he consider the _logos_ as a substance endowed
with an independent existence? In other places, he explains
it by these two words, knowledge, science, and intelligence
which signify the attributes of the Deity. When Plato
separates God, the ideal archetype of the world and matter,
it is to explain how, according to his system, God has
proceeded, at the creation, to unite the principle of order
which he had within himself, his proper intelligence, the
principle of motion, to the principle of motion, the
irrational soul which was in matter. When he speaks of the
place occupied by the ideal world, it is to designate the
divine intelligence, which is its cause. Finally, in no part
of his writings do we find a true personification of the
pretended beings of which he is said to have formed a
trinity: and if this personification existed, it would
equally apply to many other notions, of which might be formed
many different trinities.
This error, into which many ancient as well as modern
interpreters of Plato have fallen, was very natural. Besides
the snares which were concealed in his figurative style;
besides the necessity of comprehending as a whole the system
of his ideas, and not to explain isolated passages, the
nature of his doctrine itself would conduce to this error.
When Plato appeared, the uncertainty of human knowledge, and
the continual illusions of the senses, were acknowledged, and
had given rise to a general scepticism. Socrates had aimed at
raising morality above the influence of this scepticism:
Plato endeavored to save metaphysics, by seeking in the human
intellect a source of certainty which the senses could not
furnish. He invented the system of innate ideas, of which the
aggregate formed, according to him, the ideal world, and
affirmed that these ideas were real attributes, not only
attached to our conceptions of objects, but to the nature of
the objects themselves; a nature of which from them we might
obtain a knowledge. He gave, then, to these ideas a positive
existence as attributes; his commentators could easily give
them a real existence as substances; especially as the terms
which he used to designate them, essential beauty, essential
goodness, lent themselves to this substantialization,
(hypostasis.)—G.
We have retained this view of the original philosophy of
Plato, in which there is probably much truth. The genius of
Plato was rather metaphysical than impersonative: his poetry
was in his language, rather than, like that of the Orientals,
in his conceptions.—M.]

12 (return) [ The modern guides who lead me to the knowledge of
the Platonic system are Cudworth, Basnage, Le Clerc, and Brucker.
As the learning of these writers was equal, and their intention
different, an inquisitive observer may derive instruction from
their disputes, and certainty from their agreement.]

The arms of the Macedonians diffused over Asia and Egypt the
language and learning of Greece; and the theological system of
Plato was taught, with less reserve, and perhaps with some
improvements, in the celebrated school of Alexandria. 13 A
numerous colony of Jews had been invited, by the favor of the
Ptolemies, to settle in their new capital. 14 While the bulk of
the nation practised the legal ceremonies, and pursued the
lucrative occupations of commerce, a few Hebrews, of a more
liberal spirit, devoted their lives to religious and
philosophical contemplation. 15 They cultivated with diligence,
and embraced with ardor, the theological system of the Athenian
sage. But their national pride would have been mortified by a
fair confession of their former poverty: and they boldly marked,
as the sacred inheritance of their ancestors, the gold and jewels
which they had so lately stolen from their Egyptian masters. One
hundred years before the birth of Christ, a philosophical
treatise, which manifestly betrays the style and sentiments of
the school of Plato, was produced by the Alexandrian Jews, and
unanimously received as a genuine and valuable relic of the
inspired Wisdom of Solomon. 16 A similar union of the Mosaic
faith and the Grecian philosophy, distinguishes the works of
Philo, which were composed, for the most part, under the reign of
Augustus. 17 The material soul of the universe 18 might offend
the piety of the Hebrews: but they applied the character of the
Logos to the Jehovah of Moses and the patriarchs; and the Son of
God was introduced upon earth under a visible, and even human
appearance, to perform those familiar offices which seem
incompatible with the nature and attributes of the Universal
Cause. 19

13 (return) [ Brucker, Hist. Philosoph. tom. i. p. 1349-1357. The
Alexandrian school is celebrated by Strabo (l. xvii.) and
Ammianus, (xxii. 6.) Note: The philosophy of Plato was not the
only source of that professed in the school of Alexandria. That
city, in which Greek, Jewish, and Egyptian men of letters were
assembled, was the scene of a strange fusion of the system of
these three people. The Greeks brought a Platonism, already much
changed; the Jews, who had acquired at Babylon a great number of
Oriental notions, and whose theological opinions had undergone
great changes by this intercourse, endeavored to reconcile
Platonism with their new doctrine, and disfigured it entirely:
lastly, the Egyptians, who were not willing to abandon notions
for which the Greeks themselves entertained respect, endeavored
on their side to reconcile their own with those of their
neighbors. It is in Ecclesiasticus and the Wisdom of Solomon that
we trace the influence of Oriental philosophy rather than that of
Platonism. We find in these books, and in those of the later
prophets, as in Ezekiel, notions unknown to the Jews before the
Babylonian captivity, of which we do not discover the germ in
Plato, but which are manifestly derived from the Orientals. Thus
God represented under the image of light, and the principle of
evil under that of darkness; the history of the good and bad
angels; paradise and hell, &c., are doctrines of which the
origin, or at least the positive determination, can only be
referred to the Oriental philosophy. Plato supposed matter
eternal; the Orientals and the Jews considered it as a creation
of God, who alone was eternal. It is impossible to explain the
philosophy of the Alexandrian school solely by the blending of
the Jewish theology with the Greek philosophy. The Oriental
philosophy, however little it may be known, is recognized at
every instant. Thus, according to the Zend Avesta, it is by the
Word (honover) more ancient than the world, that Ormuzd created
the universe. This word is the logos of Philo, consequently very
different from that of Plato. I have shown that Plato never
personified the logos as the ideal archetype of the world: Philo
ventured this personification. The Deity, according to him, has a
double logos; the first is the ideal archetype of the world, the
ideal world, the _first-born_ of the Deity; the second is the
word itself of God, personified under the image of a being acting
to create the sensible world, and to make it like to the ideal
world: it is the second-born of God. Following out his
imaginations, Philo went so far as to personify anew the ideal
world, under the image of a celestial man, the primitive type of
man, and the sensible world under the image of another man less
perfect than the celestial man. Certain notions of the Oriental
philosophy may have given rise to this strange abuse of allegory,
which it is sufficient to relate, to show what alterations
Platonism had already undergone, and what was their source.
Philo, moreover, of all the Jews of Alexandria, is the one whose
Platonism is the most pure. It is from this mixture of
Orientalism, Platonism, and Judaism, that Gnosticism arose, which
had produced so many theological and philosophical
extravagancies, and in which Oriental notions evidently
predominate.—G.]

14 (return) [ Joseph. Antiquitat, l. xii. c. 1, 3. Basnage, Hist.
des Juifs, l. vii. c. 7.]

15 (return) [ For the origin of the Jewish philosophy, see
Eusebius, Præparat. Evangel. viii. 9, 10. According to Philo, the
Therapeutæ studied philosophy; and Brucker has proved (Hist.
Philosoph. tom. ii. p. 787) that they gave the preference to that
of Plato.]

16 (return) [ See Calmet, Dissertations sur la Bible, tom. ii. p.
277. The book of the Wisdom of Solomon was received by many of
the fathers as the work of that monarch: and although rejected by
the Protestants for want of a Hebrew original, it has obtained,
with the rest of the Vulgate, the sanction of the council of
Trent.]

17 (return) [ The Platonism of Philo, which was famous to a
proverb, is proved beyond a doubt by Le Clerc, (Epist. Crit.
viii. p. 211-228.) Basnage (Hist. des Juifs, l. iv. c. 5) has
clearly ascertained, that the theological works of Philo were
composed before the death, and most probably before the birth, of
Christ. In such a time of darkness, the knowledge of Philo is
more astonishing than his errors. Bull, Defens. Fid. Nicen. s. i.
c. i. p. 12.]

18 (return) [ Mens agitat molem, et magno se corpore _miscet_.
Besides this material soul, Cudworth has discovered (p. 562) in
Amelius, Porphyry, Plotinus, and, as he thinks, in Plato himself,
a superior, spiritual _upercosmian_ soul of the universe. But
this double soul is exploded by Brucker, Basnage, and Le Clerc,
as an idle fancy of the latter Platonists.]

19 (return) [ Petav. Dogmata Theologica, tom. ii. l. viii. c. 2,
p. 791. Bull, Defens. Fid. Nicen. s. i. c. l. p. 8, 13. This
notion, till it was abused by the Arians, was freely adopted in
the Christian theology. Tertullian (adv. Praxeam, c. 16) has a
remarkable and dangerous passage. After contrasting, with
indiscreet wit, the nature of God, and the actions of Jehovah, he
concludes: Scilicet ut hæc de filio Dei non credenda fuisse, si
non scripta essent; fortasse non credenda de l’atre licet
scripta. * Note: Tertullian is here arguing against the
Patripassians; those who asserted that the Father was born of the
Virgin, died and was buried.—M.]