Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Particular innovations.

eulogy. But it was an error (for to Fleury we would not willingly ascribe the intention of deceiving) to confound the three earliest with the three following centuries; as if the same had been the government, discipline, spirit of the Catholic Church from the age of St. Clement to that of St. Gregory. Even the first of those periods was somewhat removed from apostolical perfection; but in the second the distance was incalculably multiplied, and that, not only according to the customary progress of unreformed abuse, but also through a change of principles in the administration of the Church, which proceeded from other causes. At present, before we enter on any general review of the outward form and position of the Church, or even of its internal administration, we shall mention, as in continuation of the subject which has been most lately treated, some particular innovations in belief and discipline which either began or were established during the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries. The first, and by far the most important of these, was the institution of the monastic system, of which it cannot be properly said that there existed any vestige before the beginning of the fourth age, and which, before its termination, had fixed its roots deeply, and struck them with pernicious vitality into the very heart of Christendom. Its origin and progress will be the object of future inquiry; at present we shall confine our notice to a subject very closely connected with it-the celibacy of the Clergy. In the first ages the Church writers advocated the universal lawfulness of marriage against the heretical rigour of the Encratites, of Saturninus and Basilides, of the Montanists, and even the Novatians; so that any undue respect for celibacy which may have prevailed during the three first ages cannot justly be attributed to the Church: it was also very partial and vague in its nature, and wholly unsupported by canonical regulations. Afterwards, there can be no question that the cause which first gave impulse to the principle, and carried it into practice, and subjected it to repeated legislation, was the growing prevalence of Monachism, and the popular veneration which was found to attach to excessive austerities. Already at the Council of Nice* it was proposed to forbid the marriage of the Clergy; but through the opposition of an Egyptian Bishop, named Paphnutius, it was only enacted, that all Clerks who had been married before they took orders should be allowed to retain their wives, according to the ancient tradition of the Church, but that they should not marry a second timet. Such continued both the rule and practice of the Eastern Church; it was confirmed by the Council in Trullo in the year 692, with their ecclesiastical letters to the Clergy only. So, when the ancients speak of observing the canons, imagine not that they speak of written canons; they speak of all that was practised through a constant tradition. For we must believe, according to the maxim of St. Augustine, that that which the Church has observed at every time, and in every place, is apostolical tradition. In fact, from what other source could have come those universal practices, such as the veneration of relics, the prayer for the dead, the observance of Lent? Fleury, Discours sur l'Hist. des Six Premiers Siécles, &c. &c.—Of the three practices here instanced, two at least were much posterior to the times of the Apostles.

* Eleven years earlier it was enacted, by the tenth canon of the Council of Ancyra, that when a Deacon declared his intention to marry, at the time of his ordination, he might be allowed to do so, but not otherwise. Dupin. Nouv. Bibl. tome ii. p. 312. Bingham, Church Antiq. b. iv. ch. v.—Dupin, Nouv. Biblioth., tome i. (Abrégé de la Discipline) mentions, as the rule of the early (ante-Nicene) Church, that it was permitted to a Priest to keep his wife, but not to marry again: on a Deacon there was no such restraint. It is impossible to trace that, which is mentioned as being imposed upon the Priest, to the first ages; but in the beginning of the fourth century, perhaps somewhat earlier, it was undoubtedly established, that no man who was ordained Priest could marry.

Socrates, lib. i., c. 11. Sozomen, lib, i., c. 23.

an exception against Bishops, who were obliged, on their promotion, to separate from their wives; and this law was never afterwards altered. But in the West, where the spirit of sacerdotal domination more strongly prevailed, many attempts were made in those days to enforce perfect celibacy on all the orders of the ministry, and their constant repetition proves their inefficacy. Siricius, who held the See of Rome from 385 to 398, published some letters or decretals, which have acquired the weight of canons in the Roman Church. One of his great objects was to discourage the marriage of the Clergy, but it does not appear* that his regulations much exceeded the severity of those of Nice. However, it must be admitted, that the perseverance of his successors was not fruitless, at least so far as their immediate influence extended; and we are assured that at the end of the fifth century, the rule of celibacy was very commonly observed by the Clergy of Rome †. But a hundred years afterwards, Gregory, as we have seen, was still engaged in the same struggle against the natural affections and the common reason of man, and he transmitted it, still unfinished, to his distant posterity. His object was clerical celibacy in the strictest sense; but we should remark that no ordinance going to that extent had yet been enacted by any general Council, even of the Western Church, and that the common practice was still in opposition to it; a great number, probably far the larger proportion, of the German, French, English, and Spanish Clergy continued to avail themselves at least of that portion of their scriptural right, which the Council of Nice had left them.

The penitential discipline of the ante-Nicene Church was exceedingly severe, even in the season of persecution, and it was by rigour rather than indulgence that it sought to secure the fidelity and increase the number of its members. For the space of fifteen, or sometimes of twenty years, it might be for his whole life, the repentant sinner was excluded from the precincts of the Church, and exposed to the contempt or compassion of every beholder. After this long endurance, when the gates of the sanctuary were at length unclosed to him, it was only, perhaps, that he might worship there for some additional years in the attitude of prostration, muffled and unshaven, fasting and covered with ashes§. A discipline which, in some ages, would be deemed barbarous if it were not impracticable, was found very effectual in those early times, both in preserving individual morality, and in upholding the external show and dignity of the Church. It seems to have been maintained in its original spirit throughout the fourth century, and its rigour was still further aggravated by the

* Dupin, Nouv. Bibl., Vie de Sirice.

A distinction in this respect was observed a century earlier between the Catholic and the Arian Clergy; the laxity of the latter, who were almost universally married, was made matter of reproach by their more rigid adversaries.

In the ninth century (about the year 860) we observe Hulderic, Bishop of Augsburg, vigorously resisting the edicts of Pope Nicholas; and two hundred and twenty years afterwards, when Gregory VII. at length achieved the object which had foiled his predecessors for above six centuries, he encountered an opposition which could scarcely have been surmounted by a less extraordinary character.

Fleury, Discours sur les Six Premiers Siècles, &c. et passim. Cyprian is the most ancient Father who is mentioned as having laid down rules of penance. But some derive such rules from the discipline imposed in the Pagan system previous to initiation in the great mysteries.

See Dupin, Nouv. Bibl. tome ii. p. 247, Vie de S. Ambroise. 1. Sinners were expected to request that they might be admitted to penance. 2. The circumstance of their doing penance separated them from the Communion. 3. They did penance publicly. 4. They practised a number of fastings, austerities, and humiliations during the whole

necessity of public confession. The measure of Pope Leo, which substituted private confession, may have been made necessary by the universal profession of Christianity, and the degeneracy of many who professed it. But not only was it attended by an immediate relaxation in the penitential discipline of the Church (for secret penance very speedily followed secret confession), but it became, in process of time, one of the most abundant sources of sacerdotal influence.

During the four first centuries there was no mention or thought of Purgatory-neither St. Ambrose, nor even St. Jerome, had any belief in such an intermediate state. But St. Augustin * expresses himself somewhat more ambiguously; for if, in some passages, he rejects the supposition as vain and improbable, in others he admits that the truth cannot be certainly ascertained, but may deserve investigation. During the two following ages, the plausible scheme gained some little credit among the Clergy of the West, and most especially among the monastic orders; but the credit of establishing it among the unquestionable truths of the Church is due to the superstition or the craft of Gregory the Great. In the Fourth Book of his Dialogues he maintains the existence of a purgatory for the expiation of the more venial offences of persons, whose general excellence may have deserved such indulgence. He then takes occasion to remark, that many discoveries had lately been made respecting the condition of souls after death, which had not been penetrated by antiquity, and for this reason that as this world was approaching to its end, men saw more closely into the secrets of the next t. A theory which had been tolerated by St. Augustin, and defended, however absurdly, by St. Gregory, found easy acceptance in the Western Church; it was eagerly seized by the Benedictine Monks, and was presently perceived to be so profitable in its operation on the people, that it soon became one of the dearest and most necessary tenets of the Roman Communion.

The general influence of Paganism on the Christian ceremonies was already discoverable in the second and third ages; and the particular practice which, in its abuse, was especially destined to assimilate two forms of worship essentially dissociable, and to bring them together, too, on that very point where their difference had been the widest, may be traced, perhaps, to the early but innocent reverence which was paid to martyrs. During the progress of the fourth and fifth centuries many new concessions were made, on various and important points, to the popular genius of the old superstition. Expiatory processions and supplications were framed and conducted after the ancient models. The sanctity which had been inherent in the Temples of the Gods was now transferred to the Christian Churches, which began to rival the splendour and magnitude, if they failed to emulate the elegance, of their profane competitors. If any inspiration had been communicated to the devout Pagan by sleeping within the holy precincts, the same descended upon the Convert when he

time of penance. 5. They could be admitted to that penance once only. Of course the penance here mentioned was the severest which the Church ever inflicted for the most enormous sins.

* Mosheim (cent. v. p. ii. c. iii.) remarks that the famous Pagan doctrine concerning the purification of departed souls by means of a certain kind of fire was more amply explained and confirmed now than it had hitherto been,' and he refers to St. Augustin, De viii. Questionibus ad Dulcitium N. xiii. tome vi. De Fide et Operibus, cap. xvi. p. 182. De Fide, Spe et Charitate, sect. 118, p. 222. Enarrat. Psalm xxxv. s. 3. + See Dupin, Nouv. Bibl., Vie de St. Grégoire 1.

The ancient privilege of sanctuary was conferred upon Christian Churches by Constantine, and afterwards extended by Theodosius II. to the consecr..ted precincts.

REE

reposed upon a martyr's tomb. If any purity had been conferred by customary lustration, it was compensated by the frequent use of holy water. Other such compromises might be mentioned; and so completely was the spirit of the rejected worship transfused into the system which succeeded it, that the very miracles which the Christian writers of those days credulously retailed concerning their saints and martyrs were, in many instances, only ungraceful copies of the long-exploded fables of heathenism: so poisonous was the expiring breath of that base superstition, and so fatal the garment which it cast, even during its latest struggles, over its heavenly destroyer. But in no respect was its malice so lastingly pernicious as when it fastened upon Christianity the badge of his own character by the communication of idolatrous worship. It is true that in the ante-Nicene Church martyrs were reverenced, and even relics held in some estimation; but no description of image, whether carved or painted, was tolerated in the Churches of Christ, and it was through that distinction chiefly that they claimed exclusive sanctity. In the fourth and fifth centuries the previous veneration for the saints was exalted into actual worship, their lives and their miracles were recited and devoured with ardent credulity, astonishing prodigies were performed by fragments of their bones or garments, distant and dangerous pilgrimages were undertaken to obtain their ashes, or only to pray at their tombs; and this rage was encouraged by the unanimous acclamation of the ecclesiastical directors. Yet does it not appear that any one, even the least considerate among those writers, warmly advocated the worship, or even the use, of imagest; the opinions and practice of some of them were certainly opposed to it. Among the Emperors, both Valens and Theodosius enacted laws against the painting or graving the likeness of Christ. Nevertheless we perceive (from passages in Gregory of Nyssa, St. Cyril, St. Basil, and others) that representations of the combats of the martyrs, and of some scriptural scenes, had already obtained place in some of the Churches, though they were not yet in general honour. Thus the seeds were sown, and as they were watered by the enthusiasm of the vulgar, ever prone to some sort of sensible worship, and fondly nourished by the headstrong prejudice of the heathen converts; and as the fathers of the Church did not interpose to root them out, they spread with rapid, though, perhaps, silent growth, and before the end of the sixth century the use of images was very generally permitted throughout the Christian world. During the pontificate of Gregory the Great, Severus, Bishop of Marseilles, observing that the people worshipped the images which were placed in his Church, tore them down and destroyed them: on this occasion the Pope addressed to him two epistles, in which, while he praised the zeal that

* See Jortin, Eccl. Hist. vol. iv. p. 73, 124, 220, 238, &c. &c.; and Middleton's Letter from Rome, passim.

+St. Epiphanius, in his letter to John of Jerusalem, translated by St. Jerome, and written towards the end of the fourth century, writes as follows:- Having entered into a church in a village in Palestine, named Anablatha, I found there a veil which was sus rended at the door, and painted with a representation, whether of Jesus Christ or of some Saint, for I do not well recollect whose image it was, but seeing that, in opposition to the authority of Scripture, there was a human image in the Church of Jesus Christ, I tore it in pieces, and gave order to those who had care of that Church to bury a corpse with the veil. And as they grumbled out some answer, that "since he has chosen to tear the veil he might as well find another," I promised them one, and I now discharge that promise.' Baronius, Bellarmine, and some others, have disputed the genuineness of this passage by arguments, which have been very easily and candidly confuted by Dupin, Nouv. Bibl. Vie de S. Epiphane. St. Augustin somewhere praises the religious severity of the ancient Romans, who worshipped God without images.

combated any show of idolatry, he maintained the propriety of filling the Churches with idols; for there is a great difference,' he says, between worshipping an image, and learning, from the history represented by that image, what it is that we ought to worship; for that which writing teaches to those who can read, painting makes intelligible to all who have eyes to see. It is in such representation that the ignorant perceive what they ought to follow; it is the book of the illiterate. On this account it is of great service to the barbarians, to which circumstance you, who are placed in the midst of barbarians, should be peculiarly attentive, so as to cause them no scandal by an indiscreet zeal.' This passage probably discloses the principal motive of that attachment to the cause of the images which was afterwards so warmly manifested by the Church of Rome; at least, it teaches us, that the places, which they had gradually usurped during the three preceding ages in the Christian Churches, were at length confirmed to them, and secured by the highest authority. We may pause once more to condemn the sophistry which distinguished between the use and the worship, and coldly forbade the ignorant barbarian to adore an object which could not seriously be placed in his hands with any other prospect. From the above review of the principal abuses in doctrine and discipline which took root in the Church during the three centuries following its establishment, let us proceed to consider that body; first, in regard to its connexion with the state; secondly, in respect to its own internal administration. As the Pagan system was merely an engine of State, so its entire regulation, even to the performance of its most sacred rights and offices, was consistently and properly intrusted to the control and exercise of the civil magistrate. The power which directed it, the power which its ministers possessed to enforce their decrees, was not distinguished from that with which they were invested for any other purpose,-it was strictly and exclusively temporal. Christianity rose from a very different foundation; it claimed to be a direct revelation from Heaven; its truth, not its utility, was the fact which its professors unbendingly asserted by their arguments and their sufferings; they believed that it was the work of God which they were forwarding, and that their souls were placed for ever in his retributive hands. From this lofty ground they were enabled to discern that there was a limit to all human authority, and that there was a Power above, which was greater than the might of Emperors. That heavenly power they considered to be, in some degree, communicated to Christ's ministers on earth, and associated with their spiritual office.

The Church in connexion with the State.

During the period preceding the accession of Constantine, the exercise of this power was confined to preserving the purity of the apostolical doctrine, to augmenting the number, enforcing the morality, and preventing the apostacy of the converts. It was working silently among the faithful, and had already established a solemn and indissoluble connexion between the clergy and the lower orders; but it had not hitherto, on any occasion, been brought into open communication with the temporal power, either to co-operate or to contend with it, nor, indeed, was its existence yet acknow

Dupin has collected from the works of Athanasius a sort of summary of the discipline of that age. Among the particulars we observe, that there were Priests, and even Bishops, who were married, though in small number; that the people and Clergy continued to choose their Bishops; that there were no translations; that Lent was observed as a fast; Easter as a solemn festival; that the Gospel was read in the vulgar tongue. It is St. Jerome who has somewhere declared, that fasting is not so truly called a virtue as the foundation of every virtue.

« AnteriorContinuar »